Incompressible Mixed (u/p) Elements for the CAS

FEM Code
Cory Rupp, Micah Howard, and Gary Weickum
Center for Aerospace Structures
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, CO 80309, USA
This project involves the development and testing of incompressible mixed elements
have displacement and pressures as primary unknowns. The purpose of this project was to
develop the elements in MATLAB and prove their worthiness for eventual implementation
in the Center for Aerospace Structures FEM code. The elements developed and tested are
two-dimensional triangle and quadrilaterals for plane strain analysis.
Current research uses a displacement based finite element formulation with a Poisson
ratio of 0.49 to model nearly incompressible materials. A mixed finite element is desired to
hopefully yield more accurate displacement solutions for the true incompressible condition
with Poissons ratio of 0.50 and to check accuracy with the existing displacement based
finite element.

I.

Introduction

The elements developed and tested here are mixed formulation triangular and quadrilateral elements
for plane strain conditions. The mixed formulation used takes displacements and hydrostatic pressures as
primary unknowns. Elements of this type are often used for modeling nearly incompressible (Poissons ratio
is above 0.49) or completely incompressible material behavior (Poissons ratio is equal to 0.50).
Standard displacement based elements are known to experience locking for incompressible conditions.
Locking occurs when the element formulation is not sufficient for capturing the appropriate displacements.
In the case of incompressible conditions, where the volumetric strain is nearly zero, displacement based
elements are not formulated to deal with this condition and generally results in 0 displacement solutions.
Since stresses are calculated from these the stresses are under predicted as well. When low order displacement
interpolations are used, such as the bilinear interpolation, this problem becomes quite severe. Higher order
interpolations, such as the biquadratic interpolation, suffer less from this problem but the displacement
solution is generally still not accurate. Mesh refinement also aids in alleviating incompressible effects. While
using a higher order displacement interpolation and/or a very fine mesh will improve the analysis, these
changes still do not fix the fundamental problem.
The solution to element locking in the case of incompressibility is to break the strain field down to
its fundamental pieces. In the case of any deformation, there are deviatoric and volumetric strain components. Deviatoric strains determine the shape change of the body and volumetric strains determine the
volume change (dilatation) of the body. The volume change occurs due to a hydrostatic pressure. Thus,
a mixed displacement/pressure (u/p) element determines the shape change from the deviatoric strains and
the pressures from the volumetric strains.
The elements developed here will assist in research efforts involving the modeling of photoelastic strains as
incompressible eigenstrains. Photoelastic polymers covert light energy into mechanical energy which in turn
can produce radical shape changes in the polymer. Photoelastic polymers by their nature are incompressible
materials. This research investigates treating these photoelastic strains or any other induced strain as
an eigenstrain. As such, we can model the macroscopic photoelastic deformations caused by molecular
transformations by a strain that is more suitable for FEM implementation (in this case we use thermal

1 of 10

strains). Topology optimization is used to distribute material properties and thus thermal strains so that
the resulting deformation matches that of the photoelastic deformation, as demonstrated in figure 1.

Figure 1. Use of topology optimization to model eigenstrains

II.

Mixed Formulation

The formulation of incompressible elements starts out with the mixed Hellinger-Reissener formulation as
a basis. From there the formulation is specialized to support separation of the deviatoric ()d and volumetric
()v parts of the stress and strain.
1
uij = (ud )ij + uv ij
3
(1)
ij = ( pd )ij pij
where p is the pressure field. This is necessary so that pressure can be treated as a master field and the
bulk modulus can take on its own value without affecting how deformation occurs. This formulation has
the corresponding (most sensical) Tonti diagram seen in Figure 2. The functional for the incompressible
formulation looks as follows:
Z
Z
Z
1 T
1 p2
(u, p) =
pv dV
d Cd d dV
dV
V 2
V 2
V
Z
Z
(2)
uTSf f Sf dS
uT f B dV
V

Sf

where Cd is the deviatoric stiffness matrix, is the bulk modulus, f B is the set of body forces acting in
volume V , and f Sf is the set of traction forces acting on surface Sf . The functional reduces to the system
of equations 3.
!
!
#
"
f
u
Kuu Kup
(3)
=
0
p
Kpu Kpp
where

BTd Cd Bd dV
Z
T
BTv Hp dV
= Kpu =
V
Z
1
HTp Hp dV
=

Kuu =

d = Bd u

Kup
Kpp

2 of 10

v = Bv u
p = Hp p

(4)

Figure 2. Tonti diagram for the mixed u-p formulation

and Bd and Bv are the deviatoric and volumetric strain-displacement matrices relating the nodal displacements u to the deviatoric and volumetric strains, respectively. Hp is the matrix of shape functions relating
the vector of pressure degrees of freedom p to the pressure field p. For a purely incompressible case where
, Kpp = 0 and the set of equations can be solved for u and p. If the material is only nearly incompressible and the pressure variables are considered on the elemental level only then the pressure terms can be
statically condensed out 5 and solved for displacements only thereby reducing the size of the problem. This
is only an option in what is considered the u/p formulation of incompressible elements. Since pressure is not
continuous between elements the u/p formulation requires a much more dense mesh to properly resolve the
pressure field.
K = Kuu Kup K1
(5)
pp Kpu
An alternate formulation called the u/p-c formulation requires pressure degrees of freedom at nodes to enforce
inter elemental continuity. Because of the nodal degrees of freedom the pressure terms cannot be statically
condensed out and therefore these problems require more computation than u/p problems, however, the
large increase in accuracy in the pressure field makes them worth the extra cost, especially because the mesh
doesnt need to be as fine either.

III.

Elements

We developed and tested a total of 8 plane strain elements (3 triangles and 5 quadrilaterals) with the
incompressible formulation. In order for these elements to converge and be usable, they must pass the infsup condition as stated in Bathe.1 Of the three triangles, two used the u/p formulation and one the u/p-c
formulation. These can be seen in Figure 3. The T2P0 (u/p formulation) and T2P1 (u/p-c formulation)
elements each have 12 displacement degrees of freedom but the former only has one elemental pressure
degree of freedom which gets statically condensed out while the later has three nodal pressure degrees of
freedom which enable it to have inter elemental pressure continuity. Both of these elements satisfy the inf-sup
condition and are therefore satisfactory to use. The T1P0 element with six displacement and one elemental
pressure degrees of freedom, however, does not satisfy the inf-sup condition and is therefore not guaranteed
to converge. If this element is needed, it can be usable if a stabilization technique is used.2, 3 This applies
as well to the unstable quadrilateral elements explained next.
Five quadrilaterals (see Figure 4) were also developed, all in the u/p formulation so all pressure interpolations are element-wise and statically condensed out of the problem. The Q1P0, Q2rP0, and Q2P0 elements

3 of 10

Figure 3. Incompressible triangular elements

all have constant pressure interpolations through the use of a single elemental pressure degree of freedom.
The Q1P0 has a bilinear displacement interpolation, the Q2rP0 a reduced biquadratic, and the Q2P0 a full
biquadratic. The other two quad elements, the Q1P1 and Q2P1, have linear elemental pressure interpolations through the use of three internal pressure degrees of freedom which are again statically condensed
out. Similarly, the Q1P1 has a bilinear displacement interpolation, while the Q2P1 has a biquadratic. The
inf-sup condition is known (see1 ) to be satisfied by the Q2rP0 and Q2P1 elements. It is also known that the
Q1P0 fails the condition and is subject to pressure fluctuations on the global level, but as mentioned earlier
it can be stabilized. Interestingly, a nine-node element with a bilinear pressure interpolation fails the inf-sup
condition.

Figure 4. Incompressible quad elements

4 of 10

IV.

Cooks Membrane

The elements developed have been tested with Cooks membrane4 benchmark problem as shown in figure
5. Cooks membrane was introduced to test non rectangular quadrilateral elements, but is used here for both
quadrilateral and triangular elements. The accepted optimal displacement for the middle of the right edge
(point C) is given as of 23.95m for plane stress analysis. Since we wrote the u/p elements for the plain
strain case, we estimated a best case displacement at point C with a 32 32 mesh of 9 node isoparametric
quadrilateral elements to be 21.18m. The properties for the model are a Youngs modulus of 1P a, thickness
of 1m and a distributed load (P ) of 1N along the right edge. The Poisson ratio will retain two values of
= 1/3 and = 0.499999. Cooks membrane posses the same displacement for a Poisson ratio of = 1/3
and = 0.499999, therefore the elements developed can be tested for the incompressible case = 0.499999,
to see if they are able to converge to the correct solution.

P=1

1/3
E=1 v = 0.49 h = 1

Figure 5. Cooks membrane example

Testing of each element was performed by first using a Poisson ratio of = 1/3 to obtain the tip
displacement versus the mesh density. The mesh densities used were a 2 2, 4 4, 8 8, and 32 32
mesh. Higher order elements were not run for a mesh density of 32 32 because of limitations on system
memory. Figure 6 shows the results of triangular element convergence on the left, and quadrilateral element
convergence on the right.

Quad Cook membrane: = 0.3

22

20

20

Tip displacement [m]

Tip displacement [m]

Cook membrane: = 0.3

22

18
16
14
12

CALplante
T1P0
T2P0
T2P1

10
8
6

10

15

20

25

30

18

14
12
10
8
6

35

Mesh density [n x n]

CAL4
Q1P0
Q1P1
CAl8
Q2rP0
CAL9
Q2P0
Q2P1

16

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mesh density [n x n]

Figure 6. Convergence plot of tip displacement as a function of mesh density using triangular elements, = 1/3

For a Poisson ratio of = 1/3, each of the elements were able to converge to the correct tip displacements.
5 of 10

Higher order elements were able to converge quicker than lower order elements. Elements denoted by
CALFEM are elements used from the CALFEM5 toolbox for MATLAB. plante is a three node triangular
element. plani4e, plani8e and plani9e are four, eight and nine node quadrilateral isoparametric elements,
respectively.
Using a Poisson ratio of = 0.499999 some elements experience locking and thus do not converge to
the correct displacements for any mesh density, as shown in figure 7. The CALFEM elements plante
and plani4e lock, which is an expected result for these low order, displacement based isoparametric elements. Surprisingly, two of the elements designed for incompressibility, T1P0 and Q1P1, also lock. For
these elements, locking occurs because the order of the pressure interpolation is too high compared to the
displacement interpolation. This is related to the inf-sup condition described earlier. In the case of the Q1P1
element, both displacement and pressure are interpolated linearly. For equal order displacement/pressure
interpolations, such a Q1P1 or T1P1 elements, this instability that occurs in the displacement and pressure
solution can be alleviated by using a stabilization technique such as the ones given by.2, 3, 6

Tri Cook membrane: = 0.4999999

Quad Cook membrane: = 0.4999999

20

CALplante
T1P0
T2P0
T2P1

15

Tip displacement [m]

Tip displacement [m]

20

10

10

15

20

25

30

15

10

35

CAL4
Q1P0
Q1P1
CAl8
Q2rP0
CAL9
Q2P0
Q2P1
0

Mesh density [n x n]

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mesh density [n x n]

Figure 7. Convergence plot of tip displacement as a function of mesh density using triangular elements,
= 0.4999999

Stabilization has been shown to effectively eliminate displacement locking and remove any oscillations
in the pressure field. The orthogonal sub-grid scale stabilization2, 3 is an approach used that splits the
continuous displacements in to two components, coarse and fine. The course scaling is solved through
the standard finite element approach. The finer scale can not be solved using the standard finite element
approach, but can be included locally.
Using the triangular elements, meshing was done either using right or left handed triangles, figure 8.
For lower order elements, orientation of the triangular elements makes a difference in the displacements and
pressure field. Using left handed triangles, better results are achieved. Right handed triangles make this
specific structure more stiff and the pressure field becomes checkerboarded. Using higher order elements,
figure 9, this problem does not occur. Table 1 shows the difference in the displacements using a right and left
handed triangle for an 8 8 mesh. Introducing stabilization for the T1P0 element will make the elements
more stable and produce more accurate results in both the displacement and pressure fields.
Figure 10 shows the comparison of the lower order quad elements. The plot on the left shows the
comparison of the four node CALFEM quad element (plani4e) and Q1P0 element. The CALFEM element
exhibits locking, while Q1P0, does not lock. The plot on the right, the Q1P1 element, also produced locking
of the elements. The Q1P1 formulation can be fixed, as mentioned before, through stabilization so the
element does not lock. Using higher order u/p elements, there is no locking, figure 11, and the pressure field
produces accurate results.

V.

Cotter Problem

The last example is the Cotter problem,7 figure 12. The Youngs modulus is 2 101 1P a, thickness of
1mm, force of 5 106N applied at a 45 degree angle on the top right and a Poisson ratio of 0.4999999. This

6 of 10

Table 1. Influence on a 8 8 mesh of right and left handed triangles on the tip displacement

Element
T 1P 0
right
left
T 2P 0
right
left

= 1/3

0.5

13.36m
17.60m

4.63m
8.85m

20.36m
20.48m

17.51m
17.67m

= 1/3

0.5

Right

Left

Figure 8. Cooks membrane for a 8 8 mesh using the T1P0 element. Poisson ratio of 1/3 on the left and 0.5
on the right. Left handed and right handed triangles on top and bottom respectively.

7 of 10

Figure 9. Cooks membrane for a 8 8 mesh for T2P0 (left) and T2P1 (right). Poisson ratio of 0.4999999.

plani4e

Figure 10. Cooks membrane for a 8 8 mesh for Q1P0 and isoparametric four node quad (left) and Q1P1
(right). Poisson ratio of 0.4999999.

8 of 10

Figure 11.
0.4999999.

Cooks membrane for a 16 16 mesh for Q2rP0 and (left) and Q2P1 (right). Poisson ratio of

example also tests the accuracy of the elements.

Figure 12. Cooks problem

Four different elements were tested: CALFEM eight node isoparametric quad (plani8e), Q1P1, Q2rP1
and Q2P1 shown in figure 13. The CALFEM element is show in the top left of the figure. This element
is able to handle incompressibility, where a four node CALFEM quad element would lock up. The Q1P1
element locks up (top right), but can be corrected through stabilization. Both the higher order incompressible
elements produce good results. The Q2P1 element, bottom right, produced the best results.

VI.

Conclusions

A mixed formulation for incompressible elements was introduced. Different interpolations for the displacement and pressure fields were implemented and tested using the mixed formulation. The best quad
element tested for incompressibility was the u/p biquadratic displacement and linear pressure interpolation
(Q2P1) element. The best triangular element tested was the u/p-c reduced biquadratic (6 node triangle)
displacement and linear nodal pressure interpolation (T2P1) element. Both of these elements have quadratic
9 of 10

Figure 13. Cotter solution for isoparametric 8 node quad (top left), Q1P1 (top right), Q2rP1 (bottom left)
and Q2P1 (bottom right). Poisson ratio of 0.4999999.

pressure convergence. The elements with quadratic displacement and linear pressure interpolations generally produce more accurate results. If the pressure interpolation is too high compared to the displacement
interpolation (i.e. they are equal) then the element may behave like a displacement based element and lock.
This was observed for the Q1P1 element. While Q1P0 element does not lock, the pressures are not always
stable. Nonetheless, this element is used often in practice because its implementation is very simple. The
T1P1 and Q1P1 elements are useful because mesh generation is easier than for higher order elements, and
with the use of a stabilization technique these elements can even be superior to Q2P1 and T2P1 elements.
Future work includes implementing stabilization of T1P1 and Q1P1 elements and the extension to solid
and possibly three node thick shell elements. Implementation of these elements, currently done in Matlab,
will be integrated into the Center of Aerospace Structures (CAS) finite element code.

References
1 Bathe, K., Finite Element Procedures, chap. Incompatible and Mixed Finite Element Models and The Inf-Sup Condition
for Analysis of Incompressible Media and Structrual Problems, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1996, pp. 261337.
2 M. Cervera, M. Chiumenti, Q. V. and de Saracibar, C. A., Mixed Linear/Linear Simplicial Elements for Incompressible
Elasticity and Plasticity, Computational Methods and Applied Mechanical Engineering, 2003, pp. 52495263.
3 M. Chiumenti, Q. Valverde, C. A. d. S. and Cervera, M., A Stabilized Formulation for Incompressible Elasticity Using Linear Displacement and Pressure Interpolations, Computational Methods and Applied Mechanical Engineering, 2002,
pp. 52535264.
4 Felippa, C., ASEN5367: Advance Finite Element Methods, chap. Chapter 27: Optimial Membrane Triangles with Drilling
Freedomes, 2006, pp. 3536.
5 CALFEM: A finite element toolbox to MATLAB Version 3.3, http://www.byggmek.lth.se/Calfem/index.htm, Structural
Mechanics, LTH, Sweden, 1999.
6 Zienkiewicz, O. and Taylor, R., The Finite Element Method, Volume 1, The Basis, chap. Incompressible Material, Mixed
Methods and Other Procedures of Solution, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001, pp. 307345.
7 Felippa, D., A Mixed Finite Element Formulation For Incompressility Using Linear Displacement and Pressure Interpolations, chap. Masters thesis: Ruhr-University Bochum, 2003, pp. 3536.

10 of 10