28

Templates
and Morphing

28–1
Chapter 28: TEMPLATES AND MORPHING 28–2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
§28.1. FINITE ELEMENT TEMPLATES 28–3
§28.1.1. The Fundamental Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . 28–3
§28.1.2. Constructing the Component Stiffness Matrices . . . . . 28–4
§28.1.3. Basic Stiffness Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–4
§28.1.4. Constructing Optimal Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 28–5
§28.2. FROM 4-NODE RECTANGLE TO BEAM 28–6
§28.2.1. The Basic Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–6
§28.2.2. The Higher Order Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . 28–8
§28.2.3. Constructing the Higher Order Stiffness . . . . . . . . 28–11
§28.3. MORPHING TO BEAM 28–12

28–2
28–3 §28.1 FINITE ELEMENT TEMPLATES

This Chapter provides an introduction to two new concepts in the development of high-performance
finite elements: templates and morphing.
A finite element template, or template is an algebraic form for element matrices, which contains free
parameters. Setting those parameters to specific values produces element instances. The template
is constructed by the process of direct fabrication described in Chapter 23.
The transformation of a finite element or macroelement into a simpler model through constraints
will be called element morphing. The technique has received cyclic attention in the FEM literature.
Historically the construction of thick shell elements by the degenerate 3D solid approach represents
one of the most important examples, and one that produced significant theretical advances during
the 1970s. In fact the majority of the applications of this technique involves the construction of
bending elements from elasticity elements. In the present Chapter the technique is illustrated by
the example of morphing plane stress elements to beams.

§28.1. FINITE ELEMENT TEMPLATES

A finite element template, or simply template, is an algebraic form that represents element-level
stiffness equations, and which fulfills the following conditions:
(C) Consistency: the Individual Element Test (IET) form of the patch test, introduced by Bergan
and Hanssen is passed for any element geometry.
(S) Stability: the stiffness matrix satisfies correct rank and nonnegativity conditions.
(P) Parametrization: the element stiffness equations contain free parameters.
(I) Invariance: the element equations are observer invariant. In particular, they are independent of
node numbering and choice of reference systems.
The first two conditions: (C) and (S), are imposed to ensure convergence. Property (P) permits per-
formance optimization as well as tuning elements to specific needs. Property (I) helps predictability
and benchmark testing.
Setting the free parameters to numeric values yields specific element instances.

§28.1.1. The Fundamental Decomposition

A stiffness matrix derived through the template approach has the fundamental decomposition

K = Kb (αi ) + Kh (β j ) (28.1)

Here Kb and Kh are the basic and higher-order stiffness matrices, respectively. The basic stiffness
matrix Kb is constructed for consistency and mixability, whereas the higher order stiffness Kh is
constructed for stability (meaning rank sufficiency and nonnegativity) and accuracy. As further
discussed below, the higher order stiffness Kh must be orthogonal to all rigid-body and constant-
strain (curvature) modes.
In general both matrices contain free parameters. The number of parameters αi in the basic stiffness
is typically small for simple elements. For example, in the 3-node, 9-DOF KPT elements considered
here there is only one basic parameter, called α. This number must be the same for all elements in
a mesh to insure satisfaction of the IET.

28–3
Chapter 28: TEMPLATES AND MORPHING 28–4
w1 z,w
EI = constant
w2
θ1

L
θ2 x
One free parameter
0
0 0 0   4 −2L −4 −2L 
EI  
 0 1 0 −1  + β E I −2L L2 2L L2 
K = Kb + K h =   −4 
L 0 0 0 0  L3 2L 4 2L
0 −1 0 1 −2L L2 2L L2

Figure 28.1. Template for Bernoulli-Euler prismatic plane beam.

On the other hand, the number of higher order parameters β j can be in principle infinite if certain
components of Kh can be represented as a polynomial series of element geometrical invariants. In
practice, however, such series are truncated, leading to a finite number of β j parameters. Although
the β j may vary from element to element without impairing convergence, often the same parameters
are retained for all elements.
As an illustration Figure 28.1 displays the template of a simple one-dimensional element: a 2-node,
4-DOF plane Bernoulli-Euler prismatic beam. This has only one free parameter: β, which scales
the higher order stiffness. A simple calculation shows that its optimal value is β = 3, which yields
the well-known Hermitian beam stiffness. This is known as a universal template since it include
all possible beam elements that satisfy the foregoing conditions.

§28.1.2. Constructing the Component Stiffness Matrices

The basic stiffness that satisfies condition (C) is the same for any formulation. It is simply a constant
stress hybrid element. For a specific element and freedom configuration, Kb can be constructed
once and for all.
The formulation of the higher order stiffness Kh is not so clear-cut, as can be expected because
of the larger number of free parameters. It can be done by a variety of techniques, which are
summarized in a article by Felippa, Haugen and Militello cited in Chapter 23. Of these, one has
proven exceedingly useful for the construction of templates: the ANDES formulation. ANDES
stands for Assumed Natural DEviatoric Strains. It is based on assuming natural strains for the high
order stiffness. For plate bending (as well as beams and shells) natural curvatures take the place of
strains.
Second in usefulness is the Assumed Natural DEviatoric STRESSes or ANDESTRESS formulation,
which for bending elements reduces to assuming deviatoric moments. This technique, which leads
to stiffness templates that contain inverses of natural flexibilities, is not considered here.

28–4
28–5 §28.1 FINITE ELEMENT TEMPLATES

§28.1.3. Basic Stiffness Properties

The following properties of the template stiffness equations are collected here for further use. They
are discussed in more detail in the article by Felippa, Haugen and Militello cited in Chapter 23.
Consider a test displacement field, which for thin plate bending will be a continuous transverse
displacement mode w(x, y). [In practical computations this will be a polynomial in x and y.]
Evaluate this at the nodes to form the element node displacements u. These can be decomposed
into
u = ub + uh = ur + uc + uh , (28.2)
where ur , uc and uh are rigid body, constant strain and higher order components, respectively, of
u. The first two are collectively identified as the basic component ub . The matrices (28.1) must
satisfy the stiffness orthogonality conditions

Kb ur = 0, Kh ur = 0, K h uc = 0 (28.3)

while Kb represents exactly the response to uc .

The strain energy taken up by the element under application of u is U = 12 uT Ku. Decomposing K
and u as per (28.1) and (28.2), respectively, and enforcing (28.3) yields

U = 12 (ub + uh )T Kb (ub + uh ) + 12 uhT Kh uh = Ub + Uh (28.4)

Ub and Uh are called the basic and higher order energy, respectively. Let Uex be the exact energy
taken up by the element as a continuum body subjected to the test displacement field. The element
energy ratios are defined as

U Ub Uh
ρ= = ρb + ρh , ρb = , ρh = . (28.5)
Uex Uex Uex

Here ρb and ρh are called the basic and higher order energy ratios, respectively. If uh = 0,
ρ = ρb = 1 because the element must respond exactly to any basic mode by construction. For a
general displacement mode in which uh does not vanish, ρb is a function of the αi whereas ρh is a
function of the β j .

§28.1.4. Constructing Optimal Elements

By making a template sufficiently general all published finite elements for a specific configura-
tion can be generated. This includes those derivable by orthodox techniques (for example, shape
functions) and those that are not. Furthermore, an infinite number of new elements arise. The
same question previously posed for PVPs arises: Can one select the free parameters to produce an
optimal element?
The answer is not yet known for general elements. The main unresolved difficulty is: which
optimality conditions must be imposed at the local (element) level? While some of them are obvious,
for example those requiring observer invariance, most of the others are not. The problem is that a
detailed connection between local and global optimality is not fully resolved by conventional FEM
error analysis. Such analysis can only provide convergence rates expressed as C h m in some error

28–5
Chapter 28: TEMPLATES AND MORPHING 28–6

norm, where h is a characteristic mesh dimension and m is usually the same for all template instances.
The key to high performance is the coefficient C, but this is problem dependent. Consequently,
verification benchmarks are still inevitable.
As noted, conventional error analysis is of limited value because it only provides the exponent
m, which is typically the same for all elements in a template. It follows that several template
optimization constraints discussed later are heuristic. But even if the local-to-global connection
were fully resolved, a second technical difficulty arises: the actual construction and optimization
of templates poses formidable problems in symbolic matrix manipulation, because one has to carry
along arbitrary geometries, materials and free parameters.
Until recently those manipulations were beyond the scope of computer algebra systems (CAS) for
all but the simplest elements. As personal computers and workstations gain in CPU speed and
storage, it is gradually becoming possible to process two-dimensional elements for plane stress and
plate bending. Most three-dimensional and curved-shell elements, however, still lie beyond the
power of present systems.
Practitioners of optimization are familiar with the dangers of excessive perfection. A system tuned
to operate optimally for a narrow set of conditions often degrades rapidly under deviation from such
conditions.

E and h constant
y
4 3

x
H

1 2
L

Figure 28.2. The example element: a 4-node, 8-dof

rectangular plate in plane stress.

§28.2. FROM 4-NODE RECTANGLE TO BEAM

The morphing technique can be illustrated in the morphing of a 4-node plane stress rectangular
element to a beam element. We begin by constructing the plane stiffness matrix using the Free
Formulation or FF. The element geometry is depicted in Figure 28.2. It has lengths L and H in
the x and y directions, respectively, uniform thickness h and material properties. The latter are
represented by the 3 × 3 matrix E of elastic moduli that relate stresses to strains: σ = Ee.
Using the FF the rectangle stiffness is decomposed into two parts:

K = Kb + K h (28.6)

where Kb is the basic stiffness, which takes care of consistency, and Kh is the higher order stiffness,
which takes care of accuracy and stability.

28–6
28–7 §28.2 FROM 4-NODE RECTANGLE TO BEAM

tx = t y = 0
− 12 σ̄x x H h
1
σ̄ H h
2 xx

4 3
σ̄x x
tx = −σ̄x x , t y = 0 tx = σ̄x x , t y = 0

1 2

− 12 σ̄x x H h
1
σ̄ H h
2 xx
tx = t y = 0

1
σ̄ Lh
2 yy tx = 0, t y = σ̄ yy
1
σ̄ Lh
2 yy

4 σ̄ yy
3 tx = t y = 0

tx = t y = 0 node forces

1 2 surface tractions

stresses

tx = 0, t y = −σ̄ yy
− 12 σ̄ yy Lh − 12 σ̄ yy Lh

− 12 τ̄x y H h 1
τ̄ H h
2 xy

1
τ̄ Lh tx = 0, t y = τ̄x y 1
τ̄ Lh
2 xy 2 xy

4 3
τ̄x y
tx = 0, t y = −τ̄x y tx = 0, t y = τ̄x y

1 2
− 12 τ̄x y Lh tx = −τ̄x y , t y = 0 − 12 τ̄x y Lh

− 12 τ̄x y H h 1
τ̄ H h
2 xy

Figure 28.3. “Lumping” of constant stress components into node forces

through the surface tractions on element sides.

§28.2.1. The Basic Stiffness

The basic stiffness is derived as that of a equilibrium-stress-assumed hybrid element, in which the
assumed stresses are constant over the element. Note that an constant-stress field automatically
satisfies the stress equilibrium equations if the body forces vanish. There is no need, however, to
go explicitly through the flexibility matrix F and its inverse as in the general derivation of hybrid
elements covered in Chapter 16, as long as the material properties are constant over the element.

28–7
Chapter 28: TEMPLATES AND MORPHING 28–8

For the plane stress element we therefore chose the following stress assumption within the element:
 
σx x σ̄x x
σ yy = σ̄ yy (28.7)
σx y σ̄x y

where σ̄x x , σ̄ yy and σ̄x y are constant stress values.

On the element boundaries those stresses produce constant tractions that will be denoted by t¯x
and t¯y . It is convenient for visualization purposes to separate the individual effects of each stress
component, as illustrated in Figure 28.3. These surface tractions are then “lumped” at the corner
nodes into node forces, as illustrated in that Figure.
The result of the force-lumping process can be expressed in matrix form as follows:
 ¯   
f x1 −H 0 −L
¯
 y1 
f  0 −L −H 
 ¯   
 f x2   H 0 −L  
 ¯    σ̄x x
 f y2  1  0 −L H 
 ¯  2 = h  σ̄ yy (28.8)
 f x3   H 0 L 
 ¯    σ̄x y
 f y3   0 L H 
 ¯   
f x4 −H 0 L
¯
f y4 0 L −H

or
f̄ = Lσ̄. (28.9)

Matrix L is called the force-lumping matrix. Since the constitutive matrix is constant over the
element, σ̄ = Eē. It may be shown (using the Principle of Virtual Work) that

ē = B̄u, where B̄ = LT /(Ah) (28.10)

Therefore f̄ = (1/Ah)LELT u = Kb u, from which the basic stiffness follows as

1
Kb = LELT . (28.11)
Ah

Equation (28.11) is the general expression of the basic stiffness for any element if Ah is replaced by
the element volume V . It is seen that it requires only the construction of the force-lumping matrix
L, because E is data. The process of constructing L is analogous to that of lumping a distributed
force to nodes, hence its name. For more complex elements the lumping cannot be done by statics
alone, and assumptions on boundary motions come into play.
For the present element, Kb has rank of at most 3, since that is the maximum rank of E. Consequently
Kb is rank deficient and cannot provide a stable element by itself. The addition of the higher order
stiffness is needed to attain the proper rank of 5 = 8 − 3.

28–8
28–9 §28.2 FROM 4-NODE RECTANGLE TO BEAM

u x = q1 , uy = 0 u x = 0, u y = q2 u x = −y q3 , u y = xq3

u x = x q4 , uy = 0
u x = 0, u y = y q5 u x = 12 y q6 , u y = 12 x q6

Figure 28.4. The r c modes (rigid-body and constant-strain modes)

for the FF of the 4-node plane stress rectangle.

§28.2.2. The Higher Order Stiffness

The higher order stiffness Kh can be constructed by different methods. Some are based on displace-
ments, some on strains, some on stresses, some on a combination of these. The FF is entirely based
on displacement modes. Unlike shape functions, modes are patterns of clear physical meaning
that do not have to satisfy interelement compatibility. This results in increased freedom for the
“element designer,” hence the name of the formulation. For the standard FF one must assume as
many displacement modes as the number of element degrees of freedom (DOF). That is, 8 modes
for the example element. These modes must also be linearly independent.
Figures 28.4 and 28.5 show the assumed modes for the present development. These are broken
down into three sets:
Rigid body modes, or r -modes. For plane stress elements there are three independent modes of this
type. There can be conveniently selected as the translation along x, translation along y, and rotation
about the x, y origin. The three modes can be mathematically expressed as shown in Figure 28.3.
The mode amplitudes are characterized by the generalized coordinates coefficients q1 , q2 , q3 .
Constant strain modes, or c-modes. For plane stress there are three independent modes of this type.
As their name suggests, they are the displacement patterns that produce constant strain states ex x ,
e yy and ex y = 12 γx y over the element. They are expressed as illustrated in Figure 28.3.
The higher order modes, or h-modes. In the FF, the number of displacement modes must be equal
to the number of nodal-displacement degrees of freedom of the element. The deficit of 2 = 8 − 6
is filled with 2 higher order modes (h-modes). For a rectangular plane stress element, the simplest
choice of h-modes are shown in Figure 28.5. The nonconforming or incompatible modes correspond
to pure bending whereas the conforming or compatible modes is associated with a antiplane shear
motion. Rather than committing to a particular set, one can parametrize the choice as

Mode 7: u x = x yq7 , u y = − 12 x 2 q7 χ,
(28.12)
Mode 8: u x = − 12 y 2 q8 χ, u y = x yq8 ,

28–9
Chapter 28: TEMPLATES AND MORPHING 28–10

Conforming (compatible) set Nonconforming (incompatible) set

u x = x y q7 , uy = 0 u x = x y q7 , u y = − 12 x 2 q7

u x = 0, u y = x y q8 u x = − 12 y 2 q8 , u y = x y q8

Figure 28.5. The h modes (higher order modes) for the FF

of the 4-node plane stress rectangle.

where χ is a scalar parameter. If χ = 0 one obtains the conforming set, whereas if χ = 1 one gets
the nonconforming set.
Combining the foregoing mode assumptions into a single matrix equation gives


q1
 q2 
 

  q 
2  3
ux 1 0 −y x 0 1
2
y xy −2χy  q 
1
u= =  4  = Nq q. (28.13)
uy 0 1 x 0 y 1
x − 12 χ x 2 xy  q5 
2  
 q6 
 
q7
q8

Each column of Nq correspond to an individual mode. The first three columns pertain to r modes,
the next three to c modes and the last two to h modes. The x y strain components derived from this
displacement assumption may be written

 
∂u x /∂ x 0 0 0 1 0 0 y 0
e= ∂u y /∂ y = 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 x q = Bq q. (28.14)
∂u x /∂ y + ∂u y /∂ x 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1 − χ)x (1 − χ)y

From (28.14) one can explicitly separate the contribution or r , c and h modes as follows

e = Br qr + Bc qc + Bh qh = Iqc + Bh qh , (28.15)

Here Br is 3 × 3 (take columns 1 through 3), Bc is 3 × 3 (take columns 4 through 6) and Bh is

3 × 2 (take the last two columns, 7 and 8). Note that Br = 0 because rigid body modes produce

28–10
28–11 §28.2 FROM 4-NODE RECTANGLE TO BEAM

no strains whereas Bc = I is the identity matrix, because the generalized coordinates q4 , q5 , q6 are
identified with the strain components.
It is seen that the strain decomposes naturally into

e = ec + e h (28.16)

where ec are constant over the element and eh are called the higher order strains. It is easy to show
that for this particular element and modal assumptions
   
h e d A = ec Ah = ec V, h eh d A = hBh qh d A = 0, because Bh d A = 0.
A A A A
(28.17)
Consequently ec is effectively the mean strain over the element, while the mean value of eh is zero.
If these conditions are verified for an element, ec is called the mean strain ē. The vanishing of Bh
over the element area receives the name energy orthogonality condition.

§28.2.3. Constructing the Higher Order Stiffness

The FF higher order stiffness for a general element is


Kh = HhT Sh Hh , Sh = BhT EBh d V, (28.18)
V

where Hh is the matrix that relates qh = Hh u, and Sb is a generalized stiffness in terms of the qh
coordinates. For the example problem, array qh has length 2 because it contains components q7
and q8 . Therefore Sh is 2 × 2 and Hh is 2 × 8. The expression of Sh with d V = f d:

  H/2  L/2
  y 0

y 0 (1 − χ)x
Sh = hBhT EBh d x d y = h E 0 x d x d y.
 −L/2 0 x (1 − χ)y
H/2 (1 − χ)x (1 − χ)y
(28.19)
For isotropic material characterized by elastic modulus E and Poisson’s ratio ν the generalized h
stiffness is diagonal:


Eh H L H 2 + 12 (1 − χ)(1 − ν)L 2 0
Sh = . (28.20)
12(1 − ν 2 ) 0 L 2 + 12 (1 − χ)(1 − ν)H 2

in which Sh retains the free parameter χ introduced in the definition of h modes.

The derivation of the Hh matrix for general FF elements involves the construction of the transfor-
matiuon matrix u = Gq by evaluating the FF modes at the node points. Matrix G must be square
and nonsingular. Invertion gives q = Hu, where H = G−1 . Finally Hh is extracted by partitioning
H appropriately by columns so that qh = Hh u.
This process may entail heavy algebra and is thus best done with symbolic-algebra manipulation
programs. It can be bypassed, however, for this particular element because of its simple geometry.

28–11
Chapter 28: TEMPLATES AND MORPHING 28–12

Plane beam morphing

h

H
L

Figure 6. Morphing a rectangular plate mesh unit to beam.

From geometric inspection of Figure 28.5 one obtains q7 = (u x1 − u x2 + u x3 − u x4 )/(H L) and

q8 = (u y1 − u y2 + u y3 − u y4 )/(H L). Consequently


1 1 0 −1 0 1 0 −1 0
Hh = , (28.21)
HL 0 1 0 −1 0 1 0 −1

and the derivation of Kh is complete. This matrix may be scaled by an arbitrary positive scalar,
which will be called β = 1 − γ :

Kh = β HhT Sh Hh , with β > 0. (28.22)

Note that this scaled Kh is function of two free parameters: β = 1 − γ and χ .

Combining the basic and higher-order stiffness matrices we arrive at the two-parameter template:

1
K = Kb + Kh (β, χ) = LELT + βHhT Sh (χ)Hh . (28.23)
Ah

If β = 1 and χ = 0 one recovers the well known isoparametric element. On the other hand, if
β = χ = 1 one obtains an element that is free from parasitic shear.

§28.3. MORPHING TO BEAM

Next we study the mapping of the rectangular element to a beam-column with the six degrees of
freedom defined in Figure 28.6. The degrees of freedom of the quad and the beam-column are

28–12
28–13 §28.3 MORPHING TO BEAM

collected in array ub . From inspection, the appropriate transformation equations are

   1 
u x1 1 0 H 0 0 0
2  
 u y1   0 1 0 0 0 0  u1
   
 u x2   0 0 0 1 0 1
H   w1 
   2  
 u y2   0 0 0 0 1 0   θ1 
uq =  =    = Tub . (28.24)
 u x3   0 0 0 1 0 − 12 H   u 1 
    
 u y3   0 0 0 0 1 0  w2
   
u x4 1 0 − 12 H 0 0 0 θ2
u y4 0 1 0 0 0 0

The morphed stiffness is Kb = TT Kq T.

To be completed in a paper under preparation.

28–13