0 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Punit Purohit

- FEM Intro.pdf
- rr311403-finite-element-method
- r05322105 - Finite Element and Modelling Methods
- Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Structures With Bolted Joi
- CH06 Finite Element Method-2D
- Handout_1.3_FEA_BigIdeas_WithoutNotes.pdf
- Featools Intro Webinar Scripted for Intergraph
- Ansys Apdl Tutorial
- SA 2 unit 3_NoRestriction.pdf
- The Fem for the Analysis of NL&Dynamic Systems
- [FEA] ANSYS Tutorial Eng
- A critical review of mine subsidence prediction methods.pdf
- Q1
- Pipeline Modeling
- An Introduction to Use of Finite Element Procedures
- Bits
- Lecture 1
- FinElem EvalHwk2 Martínez (1)
- Philips 1
- VVB_-_I

Anda di halaman 1dari 10

cn

Wan X. Zhong

Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116023, P.R. China

e-mail: wxzhong@gingko.dlut.edu.cn

Abstract

An analytical criterion of patch test is proposed, which is proved to be equivalent

to the engineering version, and also proved to be the necessary and sufficient

condition of FEM convergence, the weak variational crime condition is also

explained.

Patch test is an effective criterion for finite element convergence. The original statement was proposed

1, 2

as an engineering version , which wants a numerical computation to check. However, from

3

mathematical point of view a purely analytical version of patch test is pursued . The special term,

variational crime, is used for incompatible element, but the condition of discontinuity has not been

3

given explicitly. Based on the mathematical definition of patch test given in , some counter

4 , 5, 6

examples

were shown that passing the patch test is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for

the incompatible element convergence, which denied the meaning of patch test mathematically.

2

However, the book declared again that patch test is really necessary and sufficient for FEM

4

convergence, that the counter example by Stummel should be refused. Such confliction should be

7

resolved from checking the discontinuity condition of variational crime in mathematical definition of

patch test.

Usually the patch test is described with plane elasticity problem. The engineering version can be

expressed with a polygonal element Fig.1, supported with minimum elastic springs, the other points are

treated as natural (given force) boundary conditions. The forces acted on these points making uniform

stress to the element. If for any mesh subdivision in e the FEM solution still keeps the same

uniform stress, then the patch test is considered passed.

This engineering version depends on numerical verification, so it is considered not so precise on

mathematics. Based on that version of patch test, a new criterion is proposed in this paper, which is

proved to be the necessary and sufficient condition for engineering version of patch test. Furthermore,

-1-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

the present criterion can also be proved to be the necessary and sufficient condition for FEM

convergence, i.e.

Engineering patch test Proposed criterion Eqs.(15,16) FEM convergence.

(1)

An element contributes its stiffness matrix R to the structure. The element strain energy is given as

U e = d T Rd / 2

(2)

d = {u1 , v1 , u 2 , v 2 ,...., u ne , v ne }T

(3)

Selecting appropriate interpolation functions to generate the element stiffness matrix is the main task of

element computation. Such that the solution of the assembled structure under arbitrary mesh

subdivision converges to the exact solution of the original problem when the mesh becomes denser.

The engineering patch test was proposed under that background.

The computation of FEM naturally subdivided into two phases, namely the element computation phase

and the structural computation phase. Patch test is the criterion to the element stiffness matrices, which

is a crux to the convergence of FEM solution. For a plane elasticity element with n e 3 connecting

points, there are m = 2n e external displacements and m interpolation functions, which are

certainly analytic (such as polynomials) within the element domain and continuous up to the nodal

points, so that the incompatibility can happen only at element edges where the displacement

2

discontinuity can be only of the order of O( h ) , h is the maximum diameter of the mesh. From

FEM convergence consideration, the interpolation functions must can compose the constant and linear

terms of displacements, i.e. the three rigid body motion and three simple stress states. However there

are another ( m 6) linearly independent combinations, under proper selection these (m 6)

combinations will be second order or higher functions, i.e.

u j = O( h 2 ),

v j = O(h 2 )

( m j 7)

(4)

u = a1 + 0 + a 3 y + a 4 x a5 x + a 6 y/2 + a 7 f 7 u + .... + a m f mu

(5)

v = 0 + a 2 a 3 x a 4 y + a5 y + a 6 x / 2 + a 7 f 7 v +....+ a m f mv

where a1 , a 2 are rigid body shifting, a 3 is rotation, a 4 , a 5 are x and y simple tension

respectively, and a 6 is pure shearing; the a 7 and up are higher order combination displacements,

see Eq. (4).

For incompatible elements, the existance of composite parameters a1 ~ a 6 is only the necessary

condition, further condition is required for the convergence under arbitrary mesh . The transformation

from composite vector a = {a1 , a 2 ,..., a m } to nodal displacement vector d can be given as

a = T 1d

d = Ta,

where T is a

m m transformation matrix.

(6)

The element strain energy can also be expressed with the vector a

U e = a T Ra a / 2

(7)

a1 ~ a 6 , and proper selection of other composite parameters a 7 ~ a m , it gives

-2-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

Ra = 0

0

0

Rl

Rcl = 0

0

3

Rcl = 0

3 ;

Rc m 6

EA

EA 0

Rl = EA

EA

0

0

GA

0

(8)

(9)

Ra = T T RT ,

R = T -T RaT 1

Usually, only R is computed but not Ra . The structure of Ra determines if the element can pass

the patch test and also if the FEM solution converges to the exact solution. The computation of R is

extremely versatile in FEM, such as isoparametric technique, Gauss integration, the integration points,

reduced integration or constant Jacobi matrix, etc. Therefore the analysis of general element behaviour

such as convergence, patch test, etc. should be independent to these details, but only depends on the

characteristics of R or the characteristics of matrices Ra and T .

2. 1 T h e c o n d i t i o n o f p a t c h t e s t

The element stiffness matrix determines the nodal force vector

(10)

f e = Rd

For simple stress states such as x = 1, (or a 4 = 1 / E , a 5 = a 6 = 0 ), the corresponding nodal

force vector should be determined. The method can be as follows, first for the CST element Fig.2a, the

force vector can easily be derived as

f 5 = {0, x c x b ,0, x a x c ,0, x b x a } T / 2,

for a 4 = 1 / E

for a5 = 1 / E

f 6 = {x c x b , y b y c , x a x c , y c y a , x b x a , y a y b } T / 2,

(11)

for a 6 = 1 / G

Then for arbitrary polygonal element the nodal force of simple stress state can be derived such as for

5-node element in Fig.2b, by adding two assistant lines to subdivide it into three CST elements

125, 245, 234 , and compute their nodal force vectors respectively, then assemble them

together. It gives a m = 10 dimension nodal force vector as

a4 = 1 / E

(12a)

f 4e = { y 2 y5 ,0, y 3 y1 ,0, y 4 y 2 ,0, y5 y 3 ,0, y1 y 4 ,0} T / 2,

a5 = 1 / E

(12b)

f = {x5 x 2 , y 2 y5 , x1 x 3 , y 3 y1 , x 2 x 4 , y 4 y 2 ,

e

6

a6 = 1 / G

(12c)

x 3 x5 , y5 y 3 , x 4 x1 , y1 y 4 } T / 2,

e

The above method for generation of element nodal force f under simple stress state is independent

(a)

elements

Figure 2:

-3-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

Eq. (12) means that the stiffness matrix R has been imposed on some conditions, i.e. when the vector

d is composed from the displacement field ( u = x / E , v = y / E ) of x = 1, see Eq.(5),

e

then the nodal force computed from Eq.(10) must be the f 4 of Eq.(12a). Let us compose the matrix

T of Eq.(6)

T = [ d 1 , d 2 , d 3 , d 4 , d 5 , d 6 ,..., d m ]

(13)

where d 1 , d 2 , d 3 are the nodal displacement vectors of rigid body motion, and d 4 , d 5 , d 6 are the

nodal displacement vectors of simple stresses x = E , y = E and xy = G respectively.

d1

d2

d3

d4

d5

d6

={

1

0

1

0

={

0

1

0

1

y1

y2

={

x1

x2

x1

x2

={

y1

y 2

y1

y2

= { x1

x 2

= { y 1 / 2 x1 / 2 y 2 / 2 x 2 / 2

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

1

0

...

0

1

y ne

...

x ne

x ne

...

y ne

y ne

... x ne

... y ne / 2 x ne / 2

The Eqs. (12) and (10) are transformed as the patch test criterion

Rd 1 = 0 ,

R( d 4 / E ) = f 4e ,

Rd 2 = 0 ,

R( d 5 / E ) = f5e ,

}T

}T

}T

}T

}T

}T

(14a~f)

Rd 3 = 0

R( d 6 / G ) = f6e

(15)

(16)

These equations are the necessary and sufficient conditions for engineering patch test, its proof is given

below.

The vectors d j , ( j = 7,..., m ) are selected such that the matrix Ra has the form of Eq.(8),

multiplying Eq.(16) from left by

d Tj in turn gives

d Tj fi e = 0 ;

j = 7,..., m;

for

i = 4,5,6

(17)

2.2 Proof of necessity for engineering patch test

e

It is to prove the statement, that under the action of an external nodal force f the element e

realizes simple stress, if the element e is further subdivided into more elements, all these elements

still keep the same simple stress, then the Eqs. (15,16) must hold for the element e .

Proof: Further subdivide the element e into several CST elements, just as shown in Fig.2b. These

CST elements keep the same simple stress according to the assumption.

Assembling the nodal forces of these CST element according to the Eq.(11) gives still the vector as in

Eq. (12). When the simple stress is a 4 = 1 / E or a 5 = 1 / E or a 6 = 1 / G , then the

displacement vector d must be (rigid body motion)+( d 4 or d 5 or d 6 ). Now selecting different

support spring constants k 1 , k 2 , k 3 (Fig.1), the supporting forces are independent on the spring

constants, thus d 4 , d 5 , d 6 and the nodal forces do not change, only the rigid body motion changes.

So that the Eq. (15) must hold.

To prove the Eq. (16), let a 4 = 1 / E and further divide the element e into CSTs, the simple stress

x = 1 and the vector d = ( d 4 / E ) + (rigid body motion) keep unchanged. Assembling the

e

nodal forces of the CSTs, f 4 is obtained for the nodal force vector f . Substituting f 4 and d

into Eq.(10) and using the proved Eq.(15), the first equation of (16) is obtained. The other two

equations of (16) can be proved similarly, which follows the necessity of Eqs. (15,16).

-4-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

It is to prove the following statement: A polygonal element e with minimum supports realizes a

simple stress state with the external nodal force vector, i.e. Eq.(12) is satisfied; if further subdivide the

element e , Fig.3, into a number of elements (can be of different types), which individually satisfy the

corresponding Eqs. (15,16), then all the subdivided element must have the same simple stress solution.

Below is the proof.

Firstly, the rule for the components in Eq.(12) is, travelling round the edges of element e

anti-clockwisely, say 1-2-3-4-5-1(Fig.2b), the subscripts of subtractive terms are the forward and

backward points. The arrows given in Fig.3 for each subdivided element are the anti-clockwise

travelling. The net effect is, for each internal edge it travels once positively and once reversely,

whereas for the edges of the original element e , it travels only once anti-clockwisely.

The finite element solution of the subdivided mesh has unique solution. When assembling the nodal

forces of each subdivided element with the same simple stress, the effect of travelling the internal

edges cancelled out, and remains only one round along the boundary edges of the original element e ,

which just corresponds to the original nodal force vector of the element e , i.e. all the equilibrium

equations satisfied. The displacements of all the nodes corresponding to the same simple stress

obviously satisfy the compatibility condition. Therefore the simple stress state is a solution, and the

solution is unique. It proves that if the subdivided elements fulfill the Eqs. (15,16) then the FEM

solution of the subdivided mesh still keep the same simple stress solution, i.e. the engineering patch test

fulfilled. The sufficiency of Eqs. (15,16) is thus proved.

The physical meaning of Eq.(15) is that the element stiffness matrix R acting on the rigid body

motion has no effect; the meaning of Eq.(16) is that R acting on the displacement of simple stress

gives the corresponding nodal force vector, which is as shown in Eq.(12).

The Eqs.(15,16), with very clear physical meaning, are the necessary and sufficient conditions of the

engineering patch test, i.e. they are equivalent. Therefore, Eqs.(15,16) can be regarded as the patch test

criterion. The benefit is that the criterion is analytical and can be verified directly, but not based on

numerical computation.

Based on the criterion for patch test, if an element cannot ensure to pass the patch test, one can make

8

some change to force it passing the patch test .

2.4 The weak variational crime

In treating the convergence of FEM, the interpolation function and element strain energy should be

considered. The generation of element stiffness matrix is highly versatile, that its integration,

differentiation, interpolation etc. all induce approximations, which imply some kind of incompatibility.

The displacement incompatibility along the element boundary is also such kind of error. All these

intricate approximations are different for different elements. The convergence should only relate to the

general characteristics of elements, such as passing the patch test, but not to the formulation details of

individual element. The criterion Eqs. (15,16) is such general characteristics. Some general factors for

the element convergence should be mentioned.

The interpolation functions in the element formulation are always the analytical functions such as

polynomials. The criterion (15,16) implies that the rigid body motion and simple stress solutions are

precisely satisfied, which are the complete set of solutions of the order of O( h) with no

incompatibility. Hence the displacement incompatibility along the element boundary must be of the

2

order of O( h ) or even higher. The displacement incompatibility with that limitation is considered

-5-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

weak variational crime. Only weak variational crime element can fulfill the criterion (15,16), and

converge to the exact solution when h 0.

Analytical interpolation functions has the following characteristics: If the stress is known as O( h)

2

then the nodal displacement, except rigid body motion, must be O( h ) ; on the contrary, if the nodal

2

displacements are known as O( h ) , then the element stress must be O( h) . On the other hand, if the

2

element nodal forces are known as O( h ) , then its stress is O( h) ; and if the element stress is

2

The convergence proof below requires only the patch test criterion (15,16), and that the interpolation

functions are all analytical functions. The weak variational crime requirement can be considered

involved in the criterion (15,16).

3. Patch test criterion is the necessary and sufficient condition for element

convergence

The solution of the original problem is assumed analytical and has no singularity. Patch test is

represented by the Eqs. (15,16). Convergence means that the difference between FEM solution and the

exact one must tend to zero as the mesh size very dense, h 0 .

For compatible element, the convergence proof becomes the problem of minimization in a Sobolev

space and was solved before. The CST element is compatible, so its solution converges to the exact

solution, Fig.4.

whereas CST mesh converges to original problem

For a mesh with various polygonal elements, such as CST, quadrilateral and polygonal elements, one

can change the mesh into all CST elements by adding assistant lines with the same nodal points Fig.2b,

termed the corresponding CST mesh. The convergence of CST mesh solution implies, it is only

necessary to show that the polygonal element mesh solution converges to the corresponding CST mesh

solution, which will follow the convergence of the polygonal mesh, see Fig.4.

The polygonal mesh is composed of finite structural nodes and finite number of elements, so that it is a

structural analysis problem of an elastic system. A structural system concerns only the element stiffness

matrix, with no regard to the stiffness matrix generated from compatible or incompatible element. To

prove the polygonal element mesh converges to the CST mesh, the theorems of minimum potential and

minimum complementary energy are applied, recalled as: An approximate solution of a structural

system, if the continuity condition is fulfilled beforehand, then its negative potential energy must always

be less than the exact value; on the other hand, if the equilibrium condition is fulfilled beforehand, then

its complementary energy must be too large; if the continuity and equilibrium conditions are all

fulfilled (the real solution), the complementary energy equals the negative potential energy, the real

energy simply. If a negative potential energy of continuity approximate solution equals the

complementary energy of an equilibrium approximate solution, then both solutions are real solutions of

the structural system.

The problem is now reduced to find two approximate solutions, one of which satisfies the continuity

-6-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

condition beforehand, and the other satisfies the equilibrium conditions beforehand, and the negative

potential energy and complementary energy of these approximate solutions respectively will converge

to the corresponding CST mesh real energy when h 0 . These two approximate solutions are given

in the next two sections.

Before finding the two solutions one statement should be mentioned, that if the element displacement

2

interpolation has only O( h ) discontinuity to the structural system nodal displacement, then the

2

3.1 The continuity approximate solution

For the FEM solution of the corresponding CST mesh, its nodal displacement is the continuity as well

as equilibrium solution (real solution) in sense of the corresponding CST mesh, however it is also the

continuity approximate solution of the original polygonal mesh. In fact, structural mechanics concerns

only the finite structural nodal points, and the element stiffness matrices connecting to these structural

nodes. Generation of element stiffness matrices is the matter of element analysis, which will relates to

the convergence of polygonal mesh FEM solution.

The stresses of CSTs obtained from a polygonal element e by additional lines, such as Fig.2b,

computed with the nodal displacements should be close each other, i.e.

max( x , y , xy ) Mh ,

= O (h )

or

(18)

where means the difference, and M is a constant unrelated to mesh size h . The stresses of

polygonal element can be computed from the composite displacement a

a = T 1 d

(19)

where d is the nodal displacement of polygonal element extracted from the solution of

corresponding CST mesh, and T is a revised transformation matrix. If the nodal displacement d

makes the polygonal e subdivided CSTs having same stresses, then the composite displacement a

from eq.(19) will have a j = 0( j = 7 to m ) , and a 4 ~ a 6 corresponding to the same stresses

as the CSTs.

The case of d makes the element e subdivided CSTs having different stresses should be

considered. Based on estimation (18), the summation of strain energy of the subdivided CSTs is

e

U CST

=

1

[ E ( a 42 + a52 2a 4 a5 ) + Ga62 + O ( h )] ACST ,

2

e

CST

= Ae

(20)

where ACST are the area of CST elements, the sum of which is the polygonal element area Ae , and

a 4 ~ a 6 are the average value of the corresponding CSTs.

The strain energy of polygonal element e should be computed again directly from the interpolation

function of e directly. Because of estimation (18), the stresses of e can be written as 0 + ,

varies in

the polygonal e . The nodal displacement of e can be written as d = d 0 + d , where d 0

2

corresponding to rigid body motion and simple stress, therefore d must be of the order of O( h )

and is O ( h) . From d 0 + d the composite vector a can be computed, where a1 ~ a 3

T

has no strain energy, a 4 ~ a 6 are constant stress related components, and ac = {a 7 ,..., a m } is

varied stress related components. From the above order analysis, all the components of vector a are

of the order O(1) . The polygonal element strain energy can be computed as

where

Ue =

1 T

1

1

a R a a = [a lT R l a l + a cT R c a c ] = [ EAe (a 42 + a52 2a 4 a5 ) + GAe a 62 + a cT R c a c ] (21)

2

2

2

-7-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

4

e

U e U CST

= Ae O (h )

(22)

This estimation hold for all the elements in the mesh, therefore for whole the mesh, the difference

between the strain energy of the continuity approximate solution of the polygonal mesh and the strain

energy of the real solution of corresponding CST mesh tends to zero with h 0 .

Further, because of the same nodal displacements are used for both polygonal mesh and its

corresponding CST mesh, the external force potential energies are the same for both meshes. It is

asserted that the difference between the negative potential energies of both meshes equals the

difference between the strain energies of both meshes, and thus tends to zero with h 0 .

3.2 The equilibrium approximate solution

The polygonal element mesh is still further subdivided into corresponding CST mesh with the same

nodal points as the original mesh. The solution of corresponding CST mesh satisfies equilibrium

condition, so that for every polygonal element e assembling the nodal forces of its respective CSTs

e

together give its nodal force vector f . Evidently, such force system satisfies the equilibrium

condition for the polygonal mesh, so that the minimum complementary energy variational principle

applies.

Note f

e

e

is the average stress induced nodal force and is of the order of

= f AV

+ f e , where f AV

e

The strain energy is required to compute under the nodal force f . Firstly, the case of corresponding

CSTs having same stresses is considered, such as a 4 = 1 / E , a 5 = a 6 = 0 . Assembling the nodal

forces of these CSTs together gives the nodal force f AV = f 4 of the polygonal element

equation has been given in Eq.(12a). The strain energy can be computed via the composite force

or

fa = T T f e ,

f e = T T fa

e

substituting f ( = f

e

4

e

AV

e , its

(23)

(24)

displacements respectively. The orthogonality condition (17) of patch test zeros the vector f ac .

where

f al ,

1 T 1

1

(25)

fa Ra fa = [ falT Rl1 fal + facT Rc1 fac ]

2

2

the patch test condition f ac = 0 determines that the strain energy of polygonal element is the same as

Ue =

Now the case of corresponding CSTs having different stresses should be considered. The f a obtained

from eq.(23)

e

(26)

f a = T T f e = T T ( f AV

+ f e ) = {03T ; f alT ;0 T }T + {03T ;03T ; f acT }T

where the constant stress part f al is induced from the average stress, and f ac induced from

2

f e

Ue =

1 T 1

1

1

f a Ra f a = [ f alT Rl1 f al + f acT Rc1 f ac ] = Ae [ E ( a 24 + a52 2a 4 a5 ) + Ga 62 ] + O ( h 4 )

2

2

2

-8-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

(27)

where a 4 , a 5 , a 6 are from f al , the average stress parameters. On the other hand, the strain energy

computed from the corresponding CSTs gives

1

ACST {E[(a4 + a4 ) 2 + (a5 + a5 ) 2 2 (a4 + a4 )(a5 + a5 )] + G(a6 + a6 ) 2 }

2 e

1

= ACST [ E ( a 42 + a52 2a 4 a5 ) + Ga62 + O ( h )]

2 e

e

U CST

=

(28)

Therefore U U CST = Ae O( h), it follows that for whole the mesh its strain energy (i.e. the

complementary strain energy) difference between the equilibrium approximate solution of polygonal

mesh and the real solution of corresponding CST mesh tends to zero with h 0 .

e

The equilibrium approximate solution of the polygonal mesh has the same nodal force to the real

solution of the corresponding CST mesh, thus the support given displacement complementary energy is

the same to both meshes, therefore it is asserted that the total complementary energies for both the

meshes tend to be the same with h 0 .

The upper and lower bounds of the polygonal mesh real energy converge to the corresponding CST

mesh real energy with h 0 ; however the CST solution was proved converging to the exact

solution, therefore the convergence of polygonal mesh solution is proved. Note that the above proof is

based on that patch test criterion is fulfilled for all the polygonal elements, thus the sufficiency of patch

test criterion to convergence is proved.

3

The present patch test criterion is different from the mathematical definition , which was shown not

4 , 5, 6

being the sufficient condition for FEM convergence

.

3.3 The necessity of patch criterion for convergence

To prove the convergence of FEM under arbitrary mesh subdivision requires all the elements fulfill the

patch test criterion. With the mesh size h 0 , given an arbitrary polygonal element e with a

simple stress, changing the e with corresponding CSTs, which must have the same simple stress as

e . The nodal forces of these CSTs must be assembled to be the froce of the simple stress of e , which

implies that the equations (16) satisfied. The equation (15) is also easily shown. The necessity of patch

test criterion is thus proved.

4 ONCLUDING REMARKS

Patch test is of primary importance to FEM, but the engineering version is quite different to the

3

mathematical definition , which failed to give the limitation of displacement discontinuity along the

2

boundary of incompatible element. For the mathematical definition , mathematicians proposed

counter examples to show that passing the patch test is neither the necessary nor the sufficient

4 , 5, 6

conditions for convergence

, which is quite contrary to FEM practice. This paper gives the patch

test criterion, which is proven to be equivalent to the engineering version of patch test, and is also

necessary and sufficient for convergence. It clarifies the contradiction from the mathematical definition

of patch test.

The patch test criterion (15,16) has strong physical background, so it can be extended to other

problems.

References

[1]

B.M. Irons. Numerical integration applied to finite element methods, Conf. on use of digital computers in

-9-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

structural engineering, Univ. of Newcastle, (1966).

[2]

O.C. Zienkiewicz, and R.L. Taylor. The finite element method, 4th ed. Ch.11, McGraw-Hill, (1989).

[3]

G. Strang, and G.J. Fix. An analysis of the finite element method. Prentice-Hall, (1973).

[4]

E. Stummel. The limitation of patch test, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 15, 177-188 (1980).

[5]

1233-1244 (1984).

[6]

Z.C. Shi.

[7]

W.X. Zhong. FEM patch test and its convergence. Report 97-3001, Res. Inst. Eng. Mech., Dalian Univ.

Tech.,(1997) (in Chinese).

[8]

Dalian Univ. Tech (1997) (in Chinese).

- 10 -

- FEM Intro.pdfDiunggah olehGio Reyes
- rr311403-finite-element-methodDiunggah olehSRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- r05322105 - Finite Element and Modelling MethodsDiunggah olehSRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Structures With Bolted JoiDiunggah olehashish38799
- CH06 Finite Element Method-2DDiunggah olehRanjit Koshy Alexander
- Handout_1.3_FEA_BigIdeas_WithoutNotes.pdfDiunggah olehultraspeed
- Featools Intro Webinar Scripted for IntergraphDiunggah olehJimmy Alexander Avila
- Ansys Apdl TutorialDiunggah olehrsimoes
- SA 2 unit 3_NoRestriction.pdfDiunggah olehmdaashu
- The Fem for the Analysis of NL&Dynamic SystemsDiunggah olehshakirhamid6687
- [FEA] ANSYS Tutorial EngDiunggah olehhaun82
- A critical review of mine subsidence prediction methods.pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous KilsV3D
- Q1Diunggah olehArya AtUl
- Pipeline ModelingDiunggah olehsacharya2011
- An Introduction to Use of Finite Element ProceduresDiunggah olehMitul
- BitsDiunggah olehsimalaravi
- Lecture 1Diunggah olehmaverick_raj20
- FinElem EvalHwk2 Martínez (1)Diunggah olehJosua Martinez
- Philips 1Diunggah olehshbaraye2
- VVB_-_IDiunggah olehGirish Deshmukh
- Lecture 03Diunggah olehNANUARJUN
- Composites 2Diunggah olehom_prakash1986
- o1662Diunggah olehRatulKumarMajumdar
- Krysl San Diego ASA Meeting October 2011Diunggah olehpkrysl2384
- IsoDiunggah olehJunk Jettison
- FEM2Diunggah olehRao Mehran
- IJCE v6n3p198 EnDiunggah olehDiego Canales Aguilera
- EACH AVERAGING TECHNIQUE YIELDS RELIABLE A POSTERIORI ERROR CONTROL IN FEM ON UNSTRUCTURED GRIDS. PART I: LOW ORDER CONFORMING, NONCONFORMING, AND MIXED FEMDiunggah olehCarmine Russo
- 2009-CC HJ-Hanging Nodes in a Posteriori Error ControlDiunggah olehMii Ica
- nayroles1992.pdfDiunggah olehCesar de la Luz

- wedmk_16312_7Diunggah olehPunit Purohit
- Road Skills Test Study Guide 05-02-21935 7Diunggah olehVincent
- HyperWorks_Desktop_Help13.0_Install_10_25_2016_17_14_58Diunggah olehPunit Purohit
- very Inmportant content.pdfDiunggah olehPunit Purohit
- 51382_Application_English.pdfDiunggah olehPunit Purohit
- Hibbler content.pdfDiunggah olehPunit Purohit
- Hibbler ContentDiunggah olehPunit Purohit
- Fracture mechanics problemsDiunggah olehPunit Purohit
- Constructive AnatomyDiunggah olehgazorninplotz
- III ME _SY_260711061542Diunggah olehPunit Purohit

- Die Hard ScriptDiunggah olehvj03e
- Oracle ScmDiunggah olehMindMajix
- MALC_chapter_1.pdfDiunggah olehC Saha
- Advanced Applications of Rapid Prototyping Technology in Modern EngineeringDiunggah olehALVARO LUIS SAAVEDRA RIVEROS
- Analysis of Vodafone Group PLC Sustainability ReportDiunggah olehvinayarun
- PHP interview questoins.docDiunggah olehSandeepPonugupati
- MyITLab Access Grader Real Estate Case SolutionDiunggah olehShivaani Aggarwal
- Humanoid RoboticsDiunggah olehmlwececehod
- CNC Milling (HAAS) Lab Tutorial (1)Diunggah olehalexander
- Introduction to Microsoft BiDiunggah olehKurniawan Setyo Nugroho
- PRKR v QCOM - Motion to Supplement Infringement Contentions (2012!08!27)Diunggah olehDan Ravicher
- 6Steady State CharacteristicsDiunggah olehWai-Yen Chan
- Fuzzy MathDiunggah olehPierce Presley
- Web TypographyDiunggah olehLeisy Vidal
- ijnsa040606Diunggah olehAIRCC - IJNSA
- Thesis It PansitDiunggah olehArvie Antenor
- fan speedDiunggah olehRendy Pratama
- Simulation of an Oxidation−ReductionDiunggah olehdharan123
- IJSER Analysis of Effect of Noise Removal Filters on Noisy Remote Sensing ImagesDiunggah olehSachin Varadhan
- Simple Linear Regression and CorrelationDiunggah olehMajmaah_Univ_Public
- Ecdis PresentationDiunggah olehDiana Morales
- V-machine Quick StartDiunggah olehMKR MEDIA
- ADM019Diunggah olehKamel Haamdi
- NPC Circular 16-03 Personal Data Breach ManagementDiunggah olehLibertas Kennel
- AWAmag2_2Diunggah olehMichael Brako
- DeLanda Philosophy, Emergence, And Simulation PDFDiunggah olehJohannes Tinctoris
- Business SimulationDiunggah olehjzaragoza
- Extrem ADiunggah olehNaj Retxed Dargup
- ReviewKeys.com APPSC GROUP 4 RESULTS 2012 - Krishna District Group 4 Merit ListDiunggah olehReviewKeys.com
- HGM180-180HCDiunggah olehThao Nguyen Xuan