Locking and Robustness in The Finite Element

Method for Circular Arch Problem

Zhimin Zhang
Department of Mathematics
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
E-mail address: zhang@ttmath.ttu.edu

Abstract
In this paper we discuss locking and robustness of the nite element method for a
model circular arch problem. It is shown that in the primal variable (i.e., the standard
displacement formulation), the p-version is free from locking and uniformly robust with
order p k and hence exhibits optimal rate of convergence. On the other hand, the h-
version shows locking of order h 2 , and is uniformly robust with order hp 2 for p > 2
which explains the fact that the quadratic element for some circular arch problems
suers from locking for thin arches in computational experience. If mixed method is
used, both the h-version and the p-version are free from locking. Furthermore, the
mixed method even converges uniformly with an optimal rate for the stress.
1991 AMS Subject Classications: 65N30, 73K05, 73V05.

1 Introduction
The development of robust nite element methods for the circular arch problem is of interest
in many practical applications. For the standard nite element method, namely the h-
version method, locking occurs in the thin arch limit [2]. Many eorts have been focused
on overcoming the locking eects, for example, mixed methods which use mixed variational
principles (see [8], [12], [15], and [20] - [22]), the Petrov-Galerkin method [11] in which the
test function space diers from the trial function space, and reduced integration methods
(see [12], [14], [16], and [18]-[22]). In [20], the equivalence of a mixed method with the
 This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation grant DMS-90-23063.

1
selective reduced integration method was established for a family of circular arch models
and a uniform optimal convergence rate was obtained for the mixed method.
Another remedy for the locking eects is the p-version method, that is, using higher order
polynomials. Although satisfactory computational results were observed in the engineering
literature [6], there is at present no theoretical analysis in the literature regarding the p-
version of the nite element method for circular arch problems. Also, the locking eect
has not been characterized mathematically. These are the topics of the current paper. At
this point we should mention that for a closely related problem, the Timoshenko beam, the
investigation is quite complete (see [1], [9] and [10]).
Recently, Babuska and Suri set up a general mathematical framework on locking eects
and robustness in the nite element method for a certain class of parameter dependent
problems [3], [4]. In the spirit of this framework, we are able to characterize locking and
robustness in nite element methods for circular arch models. The major step is to verify
that the so-called \condition ()" of [3] is satised by a particular circular arch model.
This is achieved in Section 2. With the help of results in [3], in Section 3, we establish an
optimal rate of convergence uniformly with respect to the arch thickness for the p-version
and characterize the locking eect for the h-version for the circular arch model considered.
We shall also discuss mixed method and the combination of the h-p version with the mixed
method.
Concluding this introduction, we list notation used in the paper. Let I = (0; 1) and L2 (I )
be the space of square integrable functions on I . Denote as usual
H k (I ) = fv 2 L2 (I )j v0;


; v(k) 2 L2 (I )g; H01(I ) = fv 2 H 1(I ); v(0) = v(1) = 0g;
and denote H 1(I ) as the dual space of H01(I ). Dene
Z1 X
kvk0 = ( v(x)2dx)1=2 ; jvjk = kv(k)k0 ; kvkk = ( jvj2i )1=2 :
0 ik
We consider vector spaces
W = L2(I )2 ; V = H01(I )3; V 0 = H 1(I )3;
where H (I )3 = H (I )  H (I )  H (I ). We dene on W the inner product
Z1
(w; z) = w(x)
z(x)dx;
0
which induces the norm
kwk0 = kwkW = (w; w)1=2 ;
2
and dene on V the inner product
Z1
(u; v)1 = u0 (x)
v 0 (x)dx;
0
which induces the norm
kukV = (u; u)11=2 :
From the Poincare inequality, k
kV is equivalent to the Sobolev norm k
k1 on V which is
dened by
kuk1 = ((u; u)1 + (u; u))1=2:
The Sobolev norms jujk kukk on H k (I )n, n = 2; 3, are dened similarly. Throughout the
paper C is used to denote a generic constant which is not necessarily same at each occurrence.

2 Circular Arch Problems and Their Properties

Let us consider a uniform linear elastic circular arch with thickness d. Its center-line has
radius R and length L. See Figure 1.

The arch has Young's modulus E , shear modulus G, cross-sectional area A and moment
R
of inertia I = A y2dA = O(Ad2), and is subjected to a distributed load (per unit length)
f = (f1 ; f2 ; f3 ) and clamped at both ends. We assume the Mindlin-Reissner hypotheses, so
the deformation of the arch is described by the rotation of the cross-section , the radial
displacement w and the tangential displacement u of its center-line. We consider the following

3
circular arch model which is expressed by its potential energy:
ZL 
 u) = 21 [EI ( dds + Rw2 R1 ddus )2 + kGA( ddws
 (; w; u )2 + EA( w
R R
du )2
ds
0
2f1  2f2w 2f3u]ds; (1)
where s is the arch length coordinate, and k is the shear correction factor. This model was
discussed in [20] where it was treated by a mixed nite element method. In the expression
for the strain energy, the term with coecient EI is the bending energy; the term with
coecient kGA is the shear energy; and the term with coecient EA is the membrane
energy. Indeed, the above model is the degenerate form of the Naghdi's shell model, see
[16] for the physical background of this model. Because of this reason, the investigation of
the circular arch model can give us some insights for more general and more complicated
mechanical structure - the shell model.
If we let R ! 1 and impose the Mindlin's hypotheses u = 0 on the center-line, we then
recover the potential energy for the Timoshenko beam:
ZL 
0 (; w) = 12 [EI ( dds )2 + kGA( ddws )2 2f1 2f2w]ds; (2)
0
which contains no membrane energy term. For the relationship of this circular arch model
with other models, the reader is referred to [20].
We introduce the change of variables:
s = Ls; (R(s); w(s); u(s)) = ((s); w(s); u(s));
(f1(s); f2(s); f3(s)) = LEI
2 R2 (Rf1 (s); f2 (s); f3 (s)):
Multiplying (1) throughout by LR2 =(EI ) yields the nondimensional form of the potential
energy as
Z1
(; w; u) = 12 [(0 + w u0)2 + mt ( w0 u)2 + 1t (w u0)2
0
2f1  2f2w 2f3u]ds; (3)
where  = L=R, t 1 = AR2 =I , m = kG=E , and v0 = dv=ds. Clearly, t = O(d2), and  is the
nondimensional measure of the arch depth which varies from 0 to 2.
The corresponding variational problem is:
(P t) Given f = (f1; f2 ; f3) 2 V 0, nd ut = (t; wt; ut) 2 V such that
B t (ut ; v) = (f ; v); 8v = ( ; z; v) 2 V;
4
where B t is a bilinear form dened on V  V as,
B t (u; v) = a(u; v) + mt (S u; S v) + 1t (Du; Dv); (4)
with
a(u; v) = (0 + w u0; 0 + z v0); (5)
S v =  z0 v; (6)
Dv = z v0: (7)
Problem (P t) is equivalent to the following mixed variational problem:
(M t ) Given f 2 V 0 and g 2 W 0, nd (ut ;  t ) = (t; wt; ut; t; t ) 2 V  W such that
a(ut ; v) + b(v;  t) = (f ; v) 8v 2 V; (8)
b(ut ; y) t( t ; y) = (g; y) 8y 2 W; (9)
where
p
b(v ; y) = m(S v; y1) + (Dv; y2); g = (0; 0):
Let us consider a slightly more general case when g 6= (0; 0).
Theorem 2.1 Let f 2 H k 1(I )3, g 2 H k (I )2. Then there exists a unique sequence of
solutions fut ;  t g 2 V  W to problem (M t ) for t 2 [0; 1] such that
kutkk+1 + k tkk  C (kf kk 1 + kgkk ); (10)
where C is a constant independent of f , g and t.
Proof: The following three properties have been proved in [20].
1) a(
;
) is symmetric and positive semidenite.
2) There exists  > 0 such that for any z 2 N (bi) = fv 2 V j bi (v; y) = 0 8y 2 W g
ai(z; z )  kzk2V :
3) There exists > 0 such that for any w 2 W , there is a v 2 V with
bi (v; w)  kvkV kwkW :
Since V and W are Hilbert spaces, by Theorem 5.1 of [1] (See also [7]), we conclude from
1), 2) and 3) that for each pair (f ; g) 2 V 0  W 0 , there exists a unique pair (ut ;  t ) 2 V  W
that solves Problem (M t ), moreover,
kut kV + k t kW  C (kf kV + kgkW );
0 0 (11)
5
or equivalently
kutk1 + k t k0  C (kf k 1 + kgk0): (12)
After performing integration by parts, we may obtain the strong form of (M t ),
8
>  00 + pmt (Dut )0 = f1 ;
>
>
t
0 p 0
t +p mt + t + Dut = f2 ;
>
< 00 0 + (Dut )0 = f3 ;
(S t ) > pmS u t = pt m(mwt +0 +tu
> t t t t t ) tt = g1 ;
> Du t = w u0 t = g ;
: t(0) = wt (0) = ut(0) =t t(1)t = wtt(1) =t ut(1)t = 02:
>

Therefore we can express higher derivatives by lower derivatives by reorganizing the terms
in (S t) as 8
>  00 = pmt f1 (tt + g2 )0 ;
>
> pmt0 = f  (0 +  + t + g );
< t 2 t t t 2
(S t)a > p t0 = p f1 + f3 ;
>
> mwt0 = m (t + ut) tt g1;
: u0t = wt tt g2:
Applying mathematical induction, the regularity of (10) is obtained by the \bootstrapping"
method from (12) and successive dierentiation of (S t)a .

Corollary 2.1 Let f 2 H k 1(I )3. Then there exists a unique sequence of solutions fut g 2 V
to problem (P t ) for t 2 [0; 1] such that
kut kk+1  C kf kk 1; (13)
where C is a constant independent of f and t.

Now we go back to our special case where g = (0; 0) and we have

(
(M t ) a(ut ; v) + b(v ;  t ) = (f ; v) 8v 2 V;
b(ut ; y) t( t ; y) = 0 8y 2 W;
when t > 0, and (
(M 0 ) a(u0; v) + b(v;  0) = (f ; v) 8v 2 V;
b(u0; y) = 0 8y 2 W;
for t = 0. Let us have a further discussion on the problem (M 0 ). From b(u0; y) = 0, we have
S u0 = 0 w00 u0 = 0; Du0 = w0 u00 = 0:

6
Observe that b(u0;  0) = 0, and we have
a(u0; u0) = (f ; u0):
Applying S u0 = 0 and Du0 = 0 yields
Z1 Z1
a(u0; u0) = (00 + Du0 )ds = (00)2 ds
Z01 1 Z0 1 1
= (  w000 + u00)2ds = (  w000 + w0)2ds;
0 0

which is the strain energy for the circular ring. We see that, as the limit case, (M 0 ) is
the variational formulation for the circular ring model. Next theorem tells the relationship
between solutions of the circular arch and the circular ring models.
Theorem 2.2 Let f 2 H k 1(I )3 and let (ut;  t ), (u0 ;  0 ) be solutions of (M t ) and (M 0 ),
respectively. Then
kut u0 kk+1 + k t  0 kk  C 2tkf kk 1;
where C , independent of t, is the same constant as in Theorem 2.1.
Proof: First, we apply Theorem 2.1 with g = (0; 0) to Problem (M 0 ), and we have
ku0kk+1 + k 0kk  C kf kk 1: (14)
Subtraction of (M 0 ) from (M t ) yields
(
a(ut u0 ; v) + b(v ;  t  0) = 0 8v 2 V;
b(ut u0; y) t( t  0; y) = t( 0; y) 8y 2 W;
Applying Theorem 2.1 with f = (0; 0; 0) and g = t 0 yields
kut u0 kk+1 + k t  0 kk  Ctk 0kk  C 2tkf kk 1:
The last step is from (14).

Corollary 2.2 Assume that f 2 H k 1(I )3 . Let ut , (u0 ;  0 ) be solutions of (P t) and (M 0 ),

respectively. Then
kut u0 kk+1  C 2 tkf kk 1;
where C , independent of t, is the same constant as in Theorem 2.1.

7
 For the bilinear form B t, we have
B t (v; v)  Ct 1=2 kv k
V; 8v 2 V; (15)
B t (v; v)  C 1kvkV ; 8v 2 V; (16)
where constant C depends only on  and m. The inequality (15) is obvious from the
denition. The proof of (16) may be found in [20]. From the Lax-Milgram Lemma [5], the
existence and uniqueness of (P t) is guaranteed by (16). Dene
kvk2E;t = B t (v; v);
then k
kE;t is a norm (called energy norm) on V which is equivalent to the norm k
kV for
any xed t.
Now we dene for k  0, 0  t  1, the spaces
Ht;k = fu 2 H k+1(I )3 ; u is the solution of (P t) for some f 2 H k 1(I )3g;
HkB = fu 2 H k+1(I )3; kukk+1 + k kk + kkk  B g;
B = H \ HB:
Ht;k t;k k
Following [3], we introduce condition (): For any ut 2 Ht;k
B , there is a u0 2 H B such that,
0;k

kut u0 kk+1  Ct1=2 B:

Then Theorem 2.2 simply says that: For the problems considered, Condition () is satised
with power t (instead of just t1=2 , as needed).
Note that Ht;k = H k+1(I )3 for t > 0. Also, using Corollary 2.2, for any u0 2 H0B;k , there
exists a sequence ut 2 Ht;k such that
kut kE;t  C ku0kk+1; kutkk+1  C ku0 kk+1;
and kut u0kV ! 0 as t ! 0. This shows that H0;k is precisely the limit set of Ht;k as
t ! 0, in the sense of [3].

3 Locking and Robustness of Finite Element Methods

Now we are going to approximate problem (P t). Partition the interval I = [0; 1] into subin-
tervals Ij = [sj 1; sj ] with 0 = s0 < s1 <


< sn = 1. Let h = maxj (sj sj 1). Denote by
8
V p1(
), the space of piecewise polynomials of order p which are not necessarily continuous
at nodal points sj . Dene
V p(
) = V p1(
) \ C 0(I ); V0p(
) = V p(
) \ H01(I ); VN = V0p(
)3 ; WN = V p1(
)2 ;
where N is the dimension. Obviously, VN  V . The standard nite element solution of (P t)
is dened as following:
(V t) Find uNt 2 VN such that
B t (uNt ; v) = (f ; v); 8v 2 VN :
The sequence fVN g denes a rule that decreases the error by increasing N . We now dene
locking and robustness following [3]. We assume that fVN g is F0-admissible, i.e., it leads to
a certain xed rate F0(N ) of convergence when functions in H k+1(I )3 are approximated, in
the following sense
C 1 F0(N )  sup vinf
2V
ku v kV  CF0 (N ): (17)
u2H B
k
N

Here F0(N ) ! 0 as N ! 1 and C depends on B but is independent of N . Note that since

for t > 0, Ht;k = H k+1(I )3, we may show by using (17), that for 1  t  t0 > 0, t0 xed,
C 1 F0(N )  sup Et(ut t )  CF0 (N );
uN (18)
u2H B
t;k

where C is independent of t (but depends on t0 ) and is not necessarily same as in (17). Here
we choose measure Et as k
kV or the energy norm. Hence, F0 (N ) measures the rate of
convergence without locking (i.e., when t  t0 ). To see if there is locking, we compare the
observed rate of convergence as t ! 0 with F0(N ).
For t 2 (0; 1] and N , we dene by
L(t; N ) = sup Et (ut uN 1
t )F0 (N ) ;
u2H B
t;k

the locking ratio with respect to the space Ht;k and error measure Et for the problem (Pit).
Then if (18) holds, we have the following denitions.
Denition 3.1. The nite element method (V t) is free from locking for the family of
problems (P t), t 2 (0; 1] with respect to the solution sets Ht;k and error measures Et i
lim sup[ sup L(t; N )] = M < 1:
N !1 t2(0;1]

9
It shows locking of order f (N ) i
0 < Nlim
!1
sup[ sup L(t; N )f (N ) 1 ] = C < 1
t2(0;1]
where f (N ) ! 1 as N ! 1. It shows locking of at least (respectively at most) order f (N )
if C > 0 (respectively C < 1).
Denition 3.2. The nite element method (V t ) is robust for the family of problems
(P t), t 2 (0; 1] with respect to the solution sets Ht;k and error measures Et i
lim sup sup Et(ut uN
t ) = 0:
N !1 t u 2H t
B
t;k

It is robust with uniform order g(N ) i

sup sup Et (ut
t u 2H B
t )  g (N )
uN
t t;k

where g(N ) ! 0 as N ! 1.
We quote the following theorems from [3].
Theorem 3.1 (V t ) is free from locking i it is robust with uniform order F0 (N ). Moreover,
let f (N ) be such that f (N )F0(N ) = g(N ) ! 0 as N ! 1. Then (V t ) shows locking of
order f (N ) i it is robust with uniform order g(N ).
Theorem 3.2 Let fVN g be F0 -admissible and condition () be satised. Assume that Et (v) =
kvkV . Then (V t ) is free from locking i
g(N ) = sup inf ku v kV  CF0 (N ):
u2H0 v 2V ;S v =Dv =0
B
;k
N

It shows locking of order f (N ) i

C 1F0 (N )f (N )  g(N )  CF0(N )f (N ):
In this paper we consider following classes of nite element methods.
The h-version of the nite element method. Let the polynomial degree p be xed,
and let the partition
be varied in a quasi-uniform manner, which means that there exists
a constant  > 0 such that  min (s sj 1) > h holds uniformly for all partitions
. The
j j

10
convergence is expected when we let h ! 0. In this case we write VN = Vh and we have
N = O(h 1).
The p-version of the nite element method. Let the partition
be xed, and let
the polynomial degree p be varied. The convergence is expected when p ! 1. In this case
we write VN = Vp and we have N = O(p).
The h-p version of the nite element method. This is a combination of the above
two methods. Both h and p are varied, and convergence is expected when N ! 1 where
N = O(p=h).
We rst investigate the p-version method. Instead of quoting Theorem 3.2, we pursue a
direct error estimate. As in [3], we have the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1 Let ut, u0 and uNt be solutions of (P t), (M 0 ) and (V t), respectively, and let
et = ut u0 . Then
kut t kE;t
uN  v 2V ;Sinf
1
ku
v =Dv =0 0
N 1 1
v 1 kE;t + Ct 1=2 inf ket
v 2 2V N
v 2 kV : (19)
where C is a constant which depends only on  and m.
Proof : Since uNt is determined by projection in a Hilbert space,
kut t kE;t
uN  vinf
2V
kut vkE;t
N

 v inf
2V1
ku0 v1 kE;t + v inf
N 2V
ket v2 kE;t2 N

 v 2V ;Sinf
1 N
ku v1 kE;t + Ct 1=2 v inf
v =Dv =0 0 1 1 2V
ket 2 N
v 2 kV :

The last step is from (15), where C depends only on  and m.

Theorem 3.3 Let ut 2 V and upt 2 Vp be solutions of (P t) and (V t ), respectively. Then

kut upt kE;t  Cp k kf kk 1[1 + O(t1=2 )];
where C is a constant independent of t.
Proof : We estimate the right hand side of (19). We know that
S u0 = Du0 = S v1 = Dv1 = 0;

11
where u0 = (0; w0; u0) and v1 = ( ; z; v). By virtue of (6) and (7),
0 w00 u0 =  z0 v = 0; (20)
w0 u00 = z v0 = 0: (21)
From (20), (21), and the boundary condition, we have
w00 (0) = w00 (1) = u00(0) = u00(1) = u000 (0) = u000 (1) = 0; (22)
z0 (0) = z0 (1) = v0(0) = v0(1) = v00(0) = v00(1) = 0; (23)
0 = 1 (w0 z)0 + u0 v = 12 (u0 v)00 + u0 v: (24)
Then
ku0 v1 kE;t = k(0 )0 k0  (1 + 12 )k(u0 v)000k0; (25)
since k(u0 v)0k0  k(u0 v)00k0  k(u0 v)000k0 under condition (22) and (23). By the
standard approximation theory of the p-version [],
inf k 1
u0 v 1 kE;t  (1 + 2 ) inf ju0 v j3  Cp (k+3 3) ju j = Cp k ju0jk+3:
0 k+3
v 1 2V ;S v1 =Dv 1 =0
p  v2V0 p

(26)
Note that
ju0jk+3 =  jw0jk+2 =  2j0 u0jk+1;
thus by the regularity result (Corollary 2.1), we have,
ju0jk+3  C kf kk 1: (27)
For the second term in (19), we apply the standard approximation theory and Corollary 2.2
to get
inf ket v2 kV  Cp k ketkk+1  Ctp k kf kk 1:
v 2 2V p
(28)
The conclusion follows by substituting (26), (27) and (28) into (19).

Corollary 3.1 Under the same conditions of Theorem 3.3, we have

kut uptkV  Cp k kf kk 1[1 + O(t1=2)];

12
 Proof: Observe that kut upt kV  kut upt kE;t.

From the proof of Theorem 3.3 we see that when t is small enough, the dominant error
appears due to the approximation of the limiting problem. In other words, the ability of the
nite element space to approximate the limiting problem decides the quality of the method.
The interesting fact is that the limiting problem gives extra regularity: w0 has one more
order of smoothness and u0 has two more orders of smoothness. The p-version of the nite
element method takes advantage of this phenomenon and achieves the optimal rate of the
convergence uniformly with respect to t. By standard p-version approximation theory we
have,
F0(N ) = sup vinf2V
ku vkV  O(p k )jujk+1  O(p k )kf kk 1;
u2H B
k
N

when B = kf kk 1. Comparing this with Theorem 3.3 and Corollary 3.1, according to
denition 3.1 and 3.2, we say that the p-version method is free of locking and robust with
order p k uniformly with respect to t in both the V -norm and the energy norm.
Next, we consider the h-version of the nite element method. We have the following
theorem.
Theorem 3.4 Consider problem (P t). Assume that Et (v) = kvkV . Then the h-version
method shows locking of order h 2 . It is robust with order hp 2 for k  p > 2.
Proof: By the standard approximation theory, we have,
F0 (N ) = sup vinf
2V
ku v kV  O(hp); (29)
u2H B
k
h

since k  p.
Next we estimate g(N ). For u = (; w; u) 2 H0B;k , we know that S u = Du = 0. By the
samilar argument as in the proof of Theorem 3.3, for v = ( ; z; v) 2 Vh, S v = Dv = 0, we
have
ku vk2V = k 12 (u v)000 + (u v)k20 + 12 k(u v)00 k20 + k(u v)0k20
= k 12 (u v)000k20 + k(u v)k20 + 12 k(u v)00 k20 + k(u v)0k20:
Here we have used the fact that (u v)000 and u v are orthogonal. This can be veried
by integration by parts and boundary conditions (u v)(0) = (u v)(1) = (u v)0(0) =
13
(u v)0(1) = 0 as following:
((u v)000; u v) = ((u v)00; (u v)0) = ((u v)0; (u v)00) = (u v; (u v)000);
Therefore,
cku vk23  ku v k2V  C ku vk23: (30)
But by the standard spline theory [17],
inf ku vk3  juj3; for p = 1; 2; k  0; juj3 6= 0;
v2V0 (
)
p
(31)

inf ku vk3  O(hp 2)jujp+1; for p  3; k  p 2; jujp+1 6= 0:

v2V0 (
)
p
(32)
Note here, as u 2 H0B;k , u 2 H k+3(I ). Combining (30) with (31) and (32), we have
(
sup v2V ;Sinf v =D v =0
ku vkV = OC;(hp 2) pp = 13;; 2; k k p 0;2: (33)
u2H0 B
;k
N

Relating (29) with (33), the conclusion follows from Theorem 3.2.
By virtue of (16), the conclusion in Theorem 3.4 is also true for the energy norm. Com-
paring with the result in [1] and [3] for the Timoshenko beam which says that the h-version
method shows locking of order h 1 and is uniformly robust with order hp 1 for p > 1, we
see that for the circular arch problem considered, the locking is more serious. This can be
seen from comparing the potential energy of the circular arch model (1) and that of the
Timoshenko beam model (2). We see that the interplay between w and u disappears for
the Timoshenko beam which relaxes one constraint of the circular arch model in the limit
t = 0. Hence, the locking is less serious for the Timoshenko beam model. In general, the
method which works well for the circular arch model also works well for the Timoshenko
beam model. This is dierent from the cylindrical shell model considered in [13] and its
R ! 1 counterpart, the Reissner-Mindlin plate model. Namely, There are schemes that
converge asymptotically when applied to a shell problem but lock when applied to a plate
problem. See [13] for details.
We consider now the following modied scheme of the problem (V t ):
(Vt) Find uNt 2 VN such that,
Bt (ut; v) = (f ; v); 8v 2 VN ;

14
with
Bt (u; v) = a(u; v) + mt (S u; S v) + 1t (Du; Dv) ; (34)
where (; ) indicates reduced integration scheme, i.e., applying the p-point Gauss quadrature
rule (Note that the (p + 1)-point rule is the exact integration for the problem considered).
Dene, by , the L2 -projection into WN . It has been proved in [20] that
(S u; S v) = (S u; S v); (Du; Dv) = (Du; Dv);
and (Vt ) is equivalent to the following mixed method,
(Mht ) Find (uNt ;  Nt ) = (Nt ; wtN ; uNt ; tN ; tN ) 2 VN  WN such that
a(uNt ; v) + b(v ;  Nt ) = (f ; v) 8v 2 VN ; (35)
b(uNt ; y) t( Nt ; y) = 0 8y 2 WN ; (36)
with
tN = mt (Nt (wtN )0 uNt ); tN = 1t (wtN (uNt )0): (37)
Furthermore,
kut t kV
uN + k t t k0
N  v 2V inf
N ;2W
(kut
N
v kV + k t k0 ): (38)
For more information regarding mixed methods, the reader is referred to [7] and the reference
therein.
By virtue of (38), the standard approximation theory, and the regularity result in Theo-
rem 2.1, we have
kut uNt kV + k t  Nt k0  Chmin(p;k)kf kk 1:
We see that the mixed method exhibits optimal convergence uniformly with respect to t not
only for the rotation t and the displacements wt; ut, but also for the shear stress and the
membrane stress,
t = mt (t wt0 ut); t = 1t (wt u0t):
Motivated by this fact and the result of Theorem 3.3, we now consider a combined scheme
- mixed h-p version in which we let both h and p vary in the variational formulation (Mht )
(or (Vt)). We need the following approximation properties of spaces VN and WN .
Lemma 3.2 If w 2 H k (I ), k  0, there exists z 2 WN such that
kw zk0  C (k)p k hmin(k;p+1)jwjk :
15
If u 2 H k+1(I ) \ V , there exists v 2 VN such that
ku vk1  C (k)p k hmin(k;p)kukk+1:
Based on this lemma, (38), and Theorem 2.1, we have the following:
Theorem 3.5 Let (ut ;  t ) 2 V  W and (uNt ;  Nt ) 2 VN  WN be solutions of (M t ) and
(Mht ), respectively. Then
kut upt kV + k t t k0
N  C (k)p k hmin(k;p)kf kk 1;
where C (k) is a constant depending only on k.

We summarize our results. For the model circular arch problem, the standard nite ele-
ment method, i.e., the h-version method to (V t ) suers locking; the p-version can be applied
directly to the standard variational formulation (V t ) and has optimal rate of convergence
uniformly with respect to the thickness of the arch; mixed method has further advantage,
it converges in an optimal rate uniformly with respect to the arch thickness even for the
stresses. Hence, the mixed h-p method is recommended. From a practical point of view
(reducing the computational cost), we suggest reduced integration scheme (Vt ) with the
stresses calculated by (37).
Finally, we would like to point out that all results in this paper hold for most of the arch
models discussed in [20].

Acknowledgment The author would like to thank Professor Ivo Babuska for his en-
couragement on this area of investigation and helpful discussions about the literature. The
author is very grateful to Professor Manil Suri and an anonymous referee for many valuable
comments and suggestions which considerably improve the paper.

References
[1] Arnold, D.N. (1981): Discretization by nite elements of a model parameter dependent
problem. Numer. Math. 37, 405-421
[2] Ashwell, D.G., Sabir, A.B. (1971): Limitations of certain curved nite elements to
arches. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 13, 133-139
16
 [3] Babuska I., Suri, M. (1992): On locking and robustness in the nite element method.
SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 29, 1261-1293
[4] Babuska, I., Suri, M. (1992): Locking eects in the nite element approximation of
elasticity problems. Numer. Math. 62, 439-463
[5] Ciarlet, P.G. (1978): The nite element method for elliptic problems. North-Holland,
Amsterdam
[6] Dawe, D.J. (1974): Numerical studies using circular arch nite element. Comput. &
Structures 4, 729-740
[7] Fortin, M., Brezzi, F (1991): Mixed and Hybrid Finite Element Methods, Springer-
Verlag.
[8] Kikuchi, F. (1982): Accuracy of some nite element models for arch problems. Comput.
Meths. Appl. Mech. Engrg. 35, 315-345
[9] Li, L. (1990): Discretization of the Timoshenko beam problem by the p and the h-p
versions of the nite element method. Numer. Math. 57, 413-420
[10] Loula, A.F.D., Hughes, T.J.R., Franca, L.P., and Miranda, I. (1987): Mixed Petrov-
Galerkin method for the Timoshenko beam. Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engng. 63,
133-154
[11] Loula, A.F.D., Franca, L.P., Hughes, T.J.R., and Miranda, I. (1987): Stability, con-
vergence and accuracy of a new nite element method for the circular arch problem.
Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engng. 63, 281-303
[12] Noor, A.K., Peters, J.M. (1981): Mixed models and reduced/selective integration dis-
placement models for non-linear analysis of curved beams. Internat. J. Numer. Meths.
Engrg. 17, 615-631
[13] Pitkaranta, J. (1992): The problem of membrane locking in nite element analysis of
cylindrical shells. Numer. Math. 61, 523-542
[14] Prathap, G. (1985): The curved beam/deep arch/nite ring element revisited. Internat.
J. Numer. Meths. Engrg. 21, 389-407

17
[15] Reddy, B.D., Volpi, M.B. (1992): Mixed nite element methods for the circular arch
problem. Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engng. 97, 125-145
[16] Saleeb, A.F., Chang, T.Y. (1987): On the hybrid-mixed formulation of C 0 curved beam
elements. Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engng. 60, 95-121
[17] Schumaker, K.L. (1981): Spline Functions: Basic Theory. John Wiley, New York
[18] Stolarski, H., Belytschko, T. (1982): Membrane locking and reduced integration of
curved elements. J. Appl. Mech. 49 172-176
[19] Stolarski, H., Belytschko, T. (1983): Shear and membrane locking in curved C 0 ele-
ments. Comp. Meths. Appl. Mech. Engng. 41 279-296
[20] Zhang, Z. (1992): Arch beam models: Finite element analysis and superconvergence.
Numer. Math. 61, 117-143
[21] Zhang, Z. (1992): A note on the hybrid-mixed C 0 curved beam elements. Comp. Meths.
Appl. Mech. Engng. 95, 243-252
[22] Zienkiewicz, O.C., Taylor, R.L., Too, J.M. (1971): Reduced integration techniques in
general analysis of plate and shells. Int. J. Numer. Meths. Engng. 275-290

18