E N D
1. Penalty-Based Solution for the Interval Finite Element Methods Rafi L. MuhannaGeorgia Institute of Technology
2. Outline Interval Finite Elements
Element-By-Element
Penalty Approach
Examples
Conclusions
3. Center for Reliable Engineering Computing (REC)
4. Interval Calculator
5. Outline Interval Finite Elements
Element-by-Element
Penalty Approach
Examples
Conclusions
6. Follows conventional FEM
Loads, nodal geometry and element materials are expressed as interval quantities
Element-by-element method to avoid element stiffness coupling
Lagrange Multiplier and Penalty function to impose compatibility
Iterative approach to get enclosure
Non-iterative approach to get exact hull for statically determinate structure Interval Finite Elements
7. Interval Finite Elements
8.
= Interval element stiffness matrix
B = Interval strain-displacement matrix
C = Interval elasticity matrix
F = [F1, ... Fi, ... Fn] = Interval element load vector (traction)
Interval Finite Elements
9. Finite Element Load Dependency
Stiffness Dependency
10. Load Dependency
The global load vector Pb can be written as
Pb = M q
where q is the vector of interval coefficients of the load approximating polynomial
Finite Element Load Dependency
11. Sharp solution for the interval displacement can be written as:
U = (K -1 M) q
Finite Element Load Dependency
12. Outline Interval Finite Elements
Element-by-Element
Penalty Approach
Examples
Conclusions
13. Stiffness Dependency
Finite Element Element-by-Element Approach
14. Finite Element Element-by-Element Approach
15. Finite Element Element-by-Element Approach Element by Element to construct global stiffness
16. K: block-diagonal matrix
Finite Element Element-by-Element Approach
17. Element-by-Element
Finite Element Element-by-Element Approach
18. Outline Interval Finite Elements
Element-by-Element
Penalty Approach
Examples
Conclusions
19. Finite Element Present Formulation In steady-state analysis-variational formulation
With the constraints
20. Finite Element Present Formulation Invoking the stationarity of ?*, that is ??* = 0
21. The physical meaning of Q is an addition of a large spring stiffness
Finite Element Penalty Approach
22. Interval system of equations
where
and
Finite Element Penalty Approach
23. Finite Element Penalty Approach
24. Finite Element Penalty Approach
25. Finite Element Penalty Approach
26. Outline Interval Finite Elements
Element-by-Element
Penalty Approach
Examples
Conclusions
27. Statically indeterminate (general case)
Two-bay truss
Three-bay truss
Four-bay truss
Statically indeterminate beam
Statically determinate
Three-step bar
Examples
28. Two-bay truss
Three-bay truss
A = 0.01 m2
E (nominal) = 200 GPa
Examples Stiffness Uncertainty
29. Four-bay truss
Examples Stiffness Uncertainty
30. Examples Stiffness Uncertainty 1% Two-bay truss
31. Examples Stiffness Uncertainty 1% Three-bay truss
32. Examples Stiffness Uncertainty 1% Four-bay truss
33. Examples Stiffness Uncertainty 5% Two-bay truss
34. Examples Stiffness Uncertainty 5% Three-bay truss
35. Examples Stiffness Uncertainty 10% Two-bay truss
36. Examples Stiffness Uncertainty 10% Three-bay truss
37. Examples Stiffness and Load Uncertainty Statically indeterminate beam
38. Examples Stiffness and Load Uncertainty Statically indeterminate beam
39. Examples Stiffness and Load Uncertainty Statically indeterminate beam
40. Examples Stiffness and Load Uncertainty Statically indeterminate beam
41. Examples Stiffness and Load Uncertainty Three-bay truss
42. Examples Stiffness and Load Uncertainty Three-bay truss
43. Examples Stiffness and Load Uncertainty Three-bay truss
44. Three-step bar
E1 = [18.5, 21.5]MPa (15% uncertainty)
E2 = [21.875,28.125]MPa (25% uncertainty)
E3 = [24, 36]MPa (40% uncertainty)
P1 = [? 9, 9]kN P2 = [? 15,15]kN P3 = [2, 18]kN Examples Statically determinate
45. Examples Statically determinate Statically determinate 3-step bar
46. Conclusions Formulation of interval finite element methods (IFEM) is introduced
EBE approach was used to avoid overestimation
Penalty approach for IFEM
Enclosure was obtained with few iterations
Problem size does not affect results accuracy
For small stiffness uncertainty, the accuracy does not deteriorate with the increase of load uncertainty
In statically determinate case, exact hull was obtained by non-iterative approach