Solving the Finite Element Method Matrix with Rao - Engineering

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific example from Rao's book on the finite element method (FEM) in engineering, focusing on a singular matrix encountered in the context of solving a system of equations related to FEM. Participants explore the implications of having a singular matrix, the treatment of boundary conditions, and the simplification of the system.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a singular symmetric matrix and questions how to handle it when one of the nodes is known to be zero.
  • Another participant points out the lack of clarity in the problem statement and requests more context or a reference to the book.
  • A third participant discusses the general form of the algebraic system in FEM and explains how to modify the matrix and vector when applying Dirichlet boundary conditions, suggesting that the unknown vector remains unchanged.
  • This participant also illustrates how to simplify the system to a 2x2 matrix when one variable is known, providing a method for adjusting the right-hand side vector accordingly.
  • A later reply expresses gratitude for the clarification, indicating that the explanation was helpful.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no clear consensus on the initial problem presented, as one participant requests more information while others provide different perspectives on handling the singular matrix and boundary conditions. The discussion remains somewhat unresolved regarding the specific application of the concepts to the original matrix.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the interpretation of the problem and the specific details from Rao's book, which may affect the understanding of the matrix and boundary conditions involved.

Chacabucogod
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
I was reading the finite element method in engineering by Rao and in the first example he ends up with a matrix that is singular.

The matrix is the following:

[tex] \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 2 &-2 & 0\\<br /> -2 & 3&-1\\<br /> 0&-1& 1<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

Which is a symmetric matrix as far as I can remember. Now you have 3 Nodes that will be the vector that will multiply this matrix the first node you already know is zero
so:

[tex] \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 0\\<br /> f1\\<br /> f2<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

The solution vector is

[tex] \begin{pmatrix}<br /> P1\\<br /> 0\\<br /> 1<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

Now he says that you can eliminate row 1 and column 1, but if you multiply the matrix by the first element of the vector only column one disappears. I tried solving this with the transpose method, but it seems there's no way to solve this matrix. Since there are only 2 unknowns can I completely forget ably the 3*3 matrix and do a 2*2 or do I have to take into account the third equation (the one that comes out of row 1)

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Chacabucogod said:
The solution vector is

[tex] \begin{pmatrix}<br /> P1\\<br /> 0\\<br /> 1<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

You haven't stated a mathematical problem, so it isn't clear what you mean by "the solution".

I suggest you describe the problem completely or at least give a link to the passage in the book if Google books has the text.
 
I not familiar with this particular book and I'm not sure where the book ends and where your interpretation begins.
But something is wrong.

That being said, in FE methods we often have an algebraic system of the form:

[itex]A\vec x = \vec b[/itex]

For a simple system with 3 degrees of freedom we can write
[itex] A=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13}\\<br /> a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23}\\<br /> a_{31}&a_{32}& a_{33}<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex],

[itex] \vec x=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> x_1\\<br /> x_2\\<br /> x_3<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex]

and
[itex] \vec b=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> b_1\\<br /> b_2\\<br /> b_3<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex]

Now if we want to insert a Dirichlet boundary condition we have to modify the matrix A and the vector b, but the vector x is unchanged. (This is our unknown that we are solving for.) For instance if we want the displacement at [itex]x_1=2[/itex] then the matrix becomes


[itex] A=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> 1 & 0 & 0\\<br /> a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23}\\<br /> a_{31}&a_{32}& a_{33}<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex]

and the RHS vector becomes
[itex] \vec b=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> 2\\<br /> b_2\\<br /> b_3<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex].

Note that if you multiple the first row of A with x you get the equation [itex]x_1=2[/itex].

Since we know [itex]x_1[/itex] we can use this information to simplify the equation. In this case we'd get a simplier 2x2 system with


[itex] A=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> a_{22} & a_{23}\\<br /> a_{32}& a_{33}<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex],

[itex] \vec x=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> x_2\\<br /> x_3<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex]

and
[itex] \vec b=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> b_2-2a_{21}\\<br /> b_3-2a_{31}<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/itex].
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thank you. I guess That is what I was looking for
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K