COMMUNICATIONS IN NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING

Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385393 (DOI: 10.1002/cnm.413)

Analysis of shear locking in Timoshenko beam elements

using the function space approach

Somenath Mukherjee1; ; and Gangan Prathap2;

1 Structures Division; National Aerospace Laboratories; Bangalore 560 017; India
2 Center for Mathematical Modeling and Computer Simulation; Bangalore 560 037; India

SUMMARY
Elements based purely on completeness and continuity requirements perform erroneously in a certain
class of problems. These are called the locking situations, and a variety of phenomena like shear locking,
membrane locking, volumetric locking, etc., have been identi9ed. Locking has been eliminated by many
techniques, e.g. reduced integration, addition of bubble functions, use of assumed strain approaches,
mixed and hybrid approaches, etc. In this paper, we review the 9eld consistency paradigm using a
function space model, and propose a method to identify 9eld-inconsistent spaces for projections that
show locking behaviour. The case of the Timoshenko beam serves as an illustrative example. Copyright
? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: 9eld-consistency; function spaces; projection theorems; locking; Timoshenko beam

1. INTRODUCTION

Locking is a pathological problem encountered in formulating a certain class of elements for

structural analysis, although these elements satisfy completeness and continuity requirements.
The problem occurs as shear locking in Timoshenko beams and Mindlin plates, as parasitic
shear in two-dimensional elasticity elements, and as membrane locking in arch elements [1].
Various explanations have been proposed for locking. Tessler and Hughes [2] have ar-
gued that locking is caused by ill conditioning of the stiDness matrix due to the very large
magnitude of the shear stiDness terms as compared to those of bending stiDness. Carpenter
et al. [3] have shown that locking occurs due to coupling between the shear deformation
and bending deformation, and that it can be eliminated by adopting strain 9elds such that
these are appropriately decoupled. Using the 9eld consistency paradigm, Prathap [4; 5] has
shown that elements lock because they inadvertently enforce spurious constraints that arise
from inconsistencies in the strains developed from the assumed displacement functions.

Correspondence to: S. Mukherjee, Structures
E-mail: somu@css.cmmacs.ernet.in
E-mail: gp@css.cmmacs.ernet.in
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Division, National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore 560 017, India
Received 27 April 2000
Accepted 29 January 2001
386 S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

Figure 1. The two-noded Timoshenko beam element.

In this paper, we address the locking phenomena using a simple but mathematically rigorous
function space approach. This uni9es the arguments forwarded by Carpenter et al. [3] with
the 9eld consistency paradigm of Prathap [4; 5]. The simple Timoshenko beam element is
used to illustrate these concepts.
The displacement 9eld for this beam element (Figure 1) is given by
For transverse displacement


2
w= Ni wi (1a)
i=1

For rotation of planes originally normal to the neutral axis

2
= Ni i (1b)
i=1

where the linear Lagrangian shape functions are given by N1 = (1 )=2 and N2 = (1 + )=2.
The non-dimensional co-ordinate  is given by  = 2x=L, where x is measured with element
centre as origin, and L is the element length. The element strain vector is given by
   
d = d x 0 1=L 0 1=L
(L
) = = {e } = [B]{e } (2)
 d w= d x 1=L (1 )=2 1=L (1 + )=2

where {e } is the nodal displacement vector, given by {e } = [w1 ; 1 ; w2 ; 2 ]T . The shear strain
in the element is

 d w= d x =  +  (3)

where

 = (2 + 1 )=2 (w2 w1 )=L and  = (2 1 )=2

A thin beam requires that shear strain energy term vanishes, leading to two constraints

 0; 0 (4)

Of these, the 9rst is physically meaningful in terms of the equivalent Euler beam model,
but the second constraint is a spurious one [4; 5]. The spurious term  eDectively enhances
the elements bending stiDness to EI = EI + kGAL2 =12, where EI and kGA are the bending
and shear rigidities, respectively, of the actual beam, leading to locking. Here E is Youngs
modulus, I is the sectional moment of inertia about the neutral axis, G is the shear modulus,
A is the area of section and k is the shear correction factor. It can thus be shown, using the

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385393
 FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 387

9eld consistency paradigm [5], that if wLF and wL are the lock-free and locked values of the
transverse displacement, respectively, then
wLF =wL = I =I = 1 + kGAL2 =(12EI ) = 1 + e (5)
with e = kGAL2 =(12EI ) = K=n2 , where K = kGAl2 =(12EI ), (l is the total beam length and n
the total number of elements). The parameter e becomes smaller for thicker beams, and 9ner
discretization, which can be prohibitively uneconomical for reasonably accurate results.
A reduced integration scheme uses a one-point rule, instead of the two-point rule necessary
for accurate integration in the shear strain energy, thereby eliminating shear locking by ig-
noring the spurious term , eDectively making the element lock-free. We shall now rederive
this using the projection theorems and function space concepts.

2. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS AS PROJECTION

Finite element analysis involves equations of the form [1]

 
T e
[B] [D][B] d x{ } = [B]T [D]{
} d x (6)
D D

where [D] is the symmetric, positive-de9nite rigidity matrix and {

} is the true (analytical)
strain vector. The best-9t 9nite element strain vector,
{
L } = [B]{e }

is the orthogonal projection [6] of the true (analytical) strain vector {

} onto a function
subspace B.
The inner product of two vectors, {a} and {b}, each of r rows, is given by

a; b = {a}T [D]{b} d x (7)
D

where the rigidity matrix [D] is essentially symmetric and positive de9nite and is of size
r r. The norm of a vector {a} is given by

a = a; a (8)
If {q} is the error in the strain vector having r components, {q} = {
} {
L } then the error
norm squared, also interpreted as the energy of the error, is given by

2
q = q; q = {q}T [D]{q} d x (9)
D

From the normal Equation (6) we have the projection theorem

q2 = 
2 
L2 (10a)
i.e. The error in the strain energy = strain energy of the error. It is also evident that

L2 = 
L;
 (10b)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385393
388 S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

The m-dimensional function subspace B is one in which the vectors {bi }, that are the columns
of the matrix [B] lie, and is the space on which the true strain vector is orthogonally projected.
[B] = [{b1 }; {b2 }; : : : ; {bN }] (11)
Here m = total number of element degrees of freedomtotal number of element rigid body mo-
tion. This B space is a subspace of the (r n)-dimensional space Pnr () of ordered r-tuples
of polynomials in , denoted here by Pnr () upto degree n 1, bounded within the closed
domain (1; 1). The space Pnr () is represented by


n
Pnr = {p} : {p} = {ai }i1 ; 1661; {ai } Rr (12)
i=1

The m-dimensional B subspace (B Pnr ()) can be spanned by m linearly independent vec-
tors. These can be chosen as orthogonal basis vectors, denoted by {ui }, (i.e. ui ; uj  = 0 for
i = j). The vectors {ui } can be determined by the GramSchmidt procedure [6] applied to
the column vectors of the matrix [B]. The initial basis vector can be taken as any of column
vectors of [B]
{u1 } = {b1 } (13a)
The other (m 1) basis vectors can be obtained from the formula

k u ; b
j k+1 
{uk+1 } = {bk+1 } {uj } (13b)
j=1 uj ; uj 

These basis vectors can be arbitrarily normalized.

The 9nite element strain vector can be obtained as the orthogonal projection of the true
strain vector onto the subspace B,

m u ;

j
{
L } = {uj } (14)
j=1 uj ; uj 

3. LOCKED AND LOCK-FREE SOLUTIONS OF THE TIMOSHENKO BEAM

3.1. Locked projections

The function space approach will now be used to explain shear locking in the two-noded
Timoshenko beam (Figure 1). The approximate, 9nite element strain vector for the element
is given in Equation (2). The rigidity matrix for the Timoshenko beam is given by
 
EI 0
[D] = (15)
0 kGA

Employing the GramSchmidt orthogonalization process on the column vectors of [B], we get
the normalized orthogonal basis vectors {ui } for the subspace B as
{u1 } = [0; 1]T and {u2 } = [2=L; ]T (16)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385393
 FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 389

Figure 2. Cantilever beam analysis with single element for two loads: (a) end moment; (b) end transverse
load; () analytical; () locked; () lock-free; e = kGAL2 =(12EI ).

The space B is evidently a subspace of the space P22 (linear in ). The 9nite element strain
vector can thus be expressed as
  
0 2=L (2 + 1 )=2 (w2 w1 )=L
{
L } = (17)
1  (2 1 )=2
As an example, the cantilever beam can be analysed with a single-element discretization for
two diDerent loads. The 9nite element strain vector for locked case can be obtained as locked
projection of the true strain vector {
} onto the 9eld-inconsistent B subspace, using the basis
vectors of Equation (16) in Equation (14). These are presented graphically in Figure 2 and
their algebraic expressions are given in Table I. Interestingly, even for a locked solution, that
shows spurious shear oscillations and bending stiDening, the rule
energy of the error = error of the energy
that follows from Equations (10a) and (10b), is satis9ed, showing that a 9eld-inconsistent
solution is variationally correct. The energy of the error, or the error norm squared values are
presented in Table II.

3.2. Lock-free projections

We can de9ne another function space B subspace as a subspace of the space P21 which is
actually the space R2 , and is also the subset of the space P22 . The normalized orthogonal
basis vectors for subspace B are given by
{u1 } = [0; 1]T and {u2 } = [2=L; 0]T (18)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385393
390 S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

Table I. Analytical strains and their locked and lock-free projections as

9nite element strains. e = kGAL2 =(12EI ).

Cantilever with tip moment M0 Cantilever with tip load P

(Figure 2(a)) (Figure 2(b))



Analytical M0 =EI PL(1 + )=(2EI )
{
} = {
} =
strain vector 0 P=kGA

(M0 =EI )=(1 + e) (PL=2EI )=(1 + e)

Locked  
{L
} = 6e M0  {L
} = P 3e
strain vector
1+

(1 + e) LkGA kGA 1+e



Lock-free
M0 =EI
PL=(2EI )
{L
} = {L
} =
strain vector 0 P=kGA

Table II. Error norm square for strain projections with the linear two-noded Timoshenko
beam element. e = kGAL2 =(12EI ).
 1
q2 = (L=2) {q}T [D]{q} d
1

Case Locked solution Lock-free solution

2M02
Cantilever with tip moment, (L=2) e=(1 + e) 0
EI
M0 (Figure 2(a))
Cantilever with tip transverse
load P (Figure 2(b)) (L=2)[(PL)2 =2EI ](e=(1 + e) + 2=3) (L=2)(PL)2 =3EI

The vector {u2 } diDers from {u2 } in that it lacks the  component and it can be normalized
to the form {u2 } = [1; 0]T . Using these new basis vectors in Equation (18), and employing
Equation (14), we have the 9nite element strain vectors {
L } for the cantilever (Figure 2,
Table I) that are the lock-free projections of the true strain vectors onto the new 9eld-consistent
space B . Note that the spurious shear oscillations of the locked solutions are eliminated in
the lock-free solutions. Again, by virtue of the projection theorem, the condition, that follows
from Equation (10), is satis9ed, also for the lock-free solution. The error norm squared for
the lock-free solution is always less than that of the locked solution (Table II).

4. LOCK-FREE ANISOPARAMETRIC FORMULATION

A three-noded beam element (Figure 3) can be formulated in an anisoparametric fashion

such that linear Lagrangian interpolation functions are used for rotations  but quadratic

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385393
 FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 391

Figure 3. The anisoparametric Timoshenko beam element.

interpolation functions are used for the transverse displacement

3
w= NLi wi (19)
i=1

where the quadratic Lagrangian shape functions are given as

NL1 = (1 )=2; NL2 = (1 + )=2; NL3 = (1 2 )

The element strain vector can be expressed as

 
d = d x
{
L } =
 d w= d x
 
0 1=L 0 1=L 0
= {e } (20)
(2 1)=L (1 )=2 (2 + 1)=L (1 + )=2 4=L

where {e } = [w1 ; 1 ; w2 ; 2 ; w3 ]T . Using the GramSchmidt orthogonalization procedure, the

normalized orthogonal basis vectors for the B-subspace can be derived as

{u1 } = [0; ]T ; {u2 } = [1; 0]T and {u3 } = [0; 1]T (21)

The problem of the cantilever beam with a tip moment M0 can be solved by projecting
the true strain vector onto the B-subspace. It is observed that the element does not lock, and
does not show any spurious shear oscillations. Using Equation (14), the orthogonal projection
of the true strain vector onto the B-subspace is


M0 =EI
{
L } = (22)
0

which is the same as the true strain vector {

} for this problem.

5. PREDICTION AND ELIMINATION OF LOCKING

Standard orthogonal basis vectors, called the Legendre orthogonals span the (r n)-
dimensional space Pnr for a given degree (n 1) of the polynomial in .
For the space P22 (linear in ), the Legendre orthogonals are

{L1 } = [0; 1]T ; {L2 } = [1; 0]T ; {L3 } = [0; ]T ; {L4 } = [; 0]T (23)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385393
392 S. MUKHERJEE AND G. PRATHAP

For the space P32 (quadratic in ), the Legendre orthogonals are
{L1 } = [0; 1]T ; {L2 } = [1; 0]T ; {L3 } = [0; ]T ; {L4 } = [; 0]T ;

{L5 } = [0; (32 1)]T ; {L6 } = [(32 1); 0]T (24)

It is now evident that the subspace B originating from the straindisplacement operators is
9eld-consistent, and will yield lock-free strain projections, provided it can be spanned by the
corresponding Legendre orthogonals for the parent space Pnr . This function space interpretation
of locking agrees closely with the explanation of Carpenter et al. [3]. If shear and bending
strains are completely decoupled, they contribute independently to shear and bending strain
energies, respectively, without the incorporation of the spurious terms as de9ned in the 9eld
consistency paradigm of Prathap [4; 5] and therefore no locking is encountered.
The anisoparametric element (Figure 3) is lock-free, because the subspace B can be spanned
by the Legendre orthogonals as the basis vectors, as given by Equation (21).
The isoparametric two-noded element locks since the set of the orthogonal basis vectors
for B does not form a subset of the set of the Legendre orthogonals for the parent space
P22 . This space B is therefore 9eld-inconsistent, and a strain projection onto it shows locking.
The strain vector can also be expressed as

  
0 1 0
{
L } = $ (25)
1 0 

where  = (2 + 1 )=2 (w2 w1 )=L, $ = (2 1 )=L and  = (2 1 )=2.
The Legendre orthogonals now form the basis vectors of this new space B# of dimension 3
which is higher than that of the original space B of dimension 2. However, since $ = 2=L,
i.e. the parameters $ and  are not linearly independent, the strain vector {
L } still lies on the
9eld-inconsistent subspace B; (B B# ). To eliminate this problem two alternative methods
are suggested here.
Method I. Projection on the .eld consistent B subspace (B B# ). This can be achieved
either by constraining the parameter  ( = 0) or ignoring the Legendre orthogonal {L3 } =
[0; ]T . This technique is eDectively implemented through reduced integration.
Method II. Projection on the .eld consistent B# subspace. We may make the parame-
ters ;  and $ completely independent of each other by making the provision that we use
independent rotations for bending and shear strains, so that they can now be expressed as
 = (2 + 1 )=2 (w2 w1 )=L; $ = (2 1 )=L and  = (2 1 )=2 (26)

Here the parameters  and  represent, respectively, independent rotations, each expressed
by linear Lagrangian shape functions, so that they independently contribute to the shear strain
( d w= d x) and the bending strain (d = d x). This element is lock-free.
Systems, like the axially loaded uniform bar element and the classical Euler beam element,
in which the strain 9elds involve only one component, do not lock, since the strains can be
always expressed as a linear combination of the Legendre polynomials.
For uniform elements (constant section properties) and rectilinear geometry (constant
Jacobian over the element), the standard basis vectors are the Legendre orthogonals, which
are mutually orthogonal with any constant as the kernel function included in the integrand

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385393
 FUNCTION SPACE APPROACH FOR LOCKING PHENOMENA 393

de9ning the inner product. For non-uniform elements with complicated geometry, the char-
acteristic standard basis vectors associated with the corresponding polynomial function space
need not be equal to the Legendre orthogonals, for the associated kernel function is not nec-
essarily constant over the element. In practice, determination of the basis vectors for such
cases can be tedious. However, the principle behind locking discussed here remains the same.
Locking occurs if the subspace originating from the straindisplacement relationship cannot
be spanned by the corresponding standard basis vectors.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The projection theorems have been invoked to derive both locked and lock-free solutions of
the Timoshenko beam element. A method based on the function space approach is employed
to identify 9eld-consistent and 9eld-inconsistent spaces for projections. It can be employed
to predict the possibility of locking for given formulations. The principle behind locking has
been revealed. Here we have succeeded in deriving a priori error estimates for shear locking
using a function space approach.

REFERENCES
1. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1991.
2. Tessler A, Hughes TJR. An improved treatment of transverse shear in the Mindlin type four node quadrilateral
element. Computational Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1983; 39:311335.
3. Carpenter N, Belytschko T, Stolarski H. Locking and shear scaling factors in C 0 bending elements. Computers
and Structures 1986; 22:3952.
4. Prathap G. Field-consistency and violent stress oscillations in the 9nite element method. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1987; 24:20172033.
5. Prathap G. Reduced integration and the shear Qexible beam element. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 1982; 18:195210.
6. Edwards LH, Penny DE. Elementary Linear Algebra. Prentice-Hall: Englewood CliDs, NJ, 1988.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Commun. Numer. Meth. Engng 2001; 17:385393