UP

PDF (letter size)

PDF (legal size)

On verification of FEM solution to Poisson equation by comparing it to the analytical solution shown in Timoshenko
MAE 207, Computational methods. UCI
Spring 2006

Nasser M. Abbasi

May 28, 2006   Compiled on September 4, 2021 at 7:59pm

Contents

 1 Introduction
 2 Conclusion
 3 Appendix
  3.1 Modified Qing Wang matlab function
  3.2 Code used for plotting

1 Introduction

A Matlab function was written which plots the analytical solution given by Timoshenko/Goodier on pages 310-311 in the Theory of Elasticity. The analytical solution was compared to the solution generated from the FEM solution. See this page for more information and background on the problem and the analytical solution.

The absolute and percentage differences between the solutions was obtained and compared.

The matlab code used was provided thanks to Qing Wang which solves the problem by FEM. It was called to obtain the FEM solution. Minor changes made in the code to allow one to call it as a function and to use the same contour levels. The appendix contains the Matlab code.

2 Conclusion

The solution by FEM agrees to a very good approximation with the analytical solution.

\(21\) by \(41\) nodes were used for FEM, we see that, in absolute value, the maximum difference was \(0.00009481788675562430\) At nodes \((11,10)\) with symmetry at the other half of the cross section as shown in the plot below (The plot is here on a separate page)

pict
Figure 1:Solution curves

By making the grid smaller, better approximation can be obtained. This analysis was done using \(21\) by \(41\) nodes nodes for the rectangular cross section. More elements should result in better approximation.

In terms of percentage differences, the maximum percentage difference occurred at the 4 corners.

Given the above grid size, we see from the plots that there is a maximum of \(1\%\) difference between the analytical solution and the FEM solution. This occurred near the 4 corners of the cross section and was smallest in the middle. We need to better investigate why this is.

This below is a plot showing the percentage difference between both solutions.

pict
Figure 2:difference in percentage

Below shows a listing of the nodal values for the first 4 columns in the solution matrix.

pict
Figure 3:numerical difference

The plot below shows the absolute difference between the analytical and the FEM solutions in 3D mesh.

pict
Figure 4:3D mesh plot of the difference

The plot below is the analytical solution (The wrapping function, i.e. the solution function \(\Phi (x,y)\) shown using larger number of contours)

pict
Figure 5:analytical solution

The plot below is a contour plot of the analytic solution.

pict
Figure 6:contour plot of the analytic solution

The plot below is a contour plot of the FEM solution to compare with the above.

pict
Figure 7:FEM contour plot

The plot below is the above 2 contour plots side-by-side.

pict
Figure 8:contour plots side by side

This below is a mesh plot of the analytical solution and FEM solution side by side.

pict
Figure 9:mesh plot side by side

3 Appendix

3.1 Modified Qing Wang matlab function


3.2 Code used for plotting

Here is the Matlab function used to plot the analytical solution. This function makes a call to the above FEM function.