Finite element method

Finite element method

The finite element method (FEM) (its practical application often known as finite element analysis (FEA)) is a numerical technique for finding approximate solutions to partial differential equations (PDE) and their systems, as well as (less often) integral equations. In simple terms, FEM is a method for dividing up a very complicated problem into small elements that can be solved in relation to each other. FEM is a special case of the more general Galerkin method with polynomial approximation functions. The solution approach is based on eliminating the spatial derivatives from the PDE. This approximates the PDE with a system of algebraic equations for steady state problems, a system of ordinary differential equations for transient problems. These equation systems are linear if the underlying PDE is linear, and vice versa. Algebraic equation systems are solved using numerical linear algebra methods. Ordinary differential equations that arise in transient problems are then numerically integrated using standard techniques such as Euler's method or the Runge-Kutta method. In solving partial differential equations, the primary challenge is to create an equation that approximates the equation to be studied, but is numerically stable, meaning that errors in the input and intermediate calculations do not accumulate and cause the resulting output to be meaningless. There are many ways of doing this, all with advantages and disadvantages. The finite element method is a good choice for solving partial differential equations over complicated domains (like cars and oil pipelines), when the domain changes (as during a solid state reaction with a moving boundary), when the desired precision varies over the entire domain, or when the solution lacks smoothness. For instance, in a frontal crash simulation it is possible to increase prediction accuracy in "important" areas like the front of the car and reduce it in its rear (thus reducing cost of the simulation). Another example would be in Numerical weather prediction, where it is more important to have accurate predictions over developing highly nonlinear phenomena (such as tropical cyclones in the atmosphere, or eddies in the ocean) rather than relatively calm areas.

FEM mesh created by an analyst prior to finding a solution to a magnetic problem using FEM software. Colours indicate that the analyst has set material properties for each zone, in this case a conducting wire coil in orange; a ferromagnetic component (perhaps iron) in light blue; and air in grey. Although the geometry may seem simple, it would be very challenging to calculate the magnetic field for this setup without FEM software, using equations alone.

FEM solution to the problem at left, involving a cylindrically shaped magnetic shield. The ferromagnetic cylindrical part is shielding the area inside the cylinder by diverting the magnetic field created by the coil (rectangular area on the right). The color represents the amplitude of the magnetic flux density, as indicated by the scale in the inset legend, red being high amplitude. The area inside the cylinder is low amplitude (dark blue, with widely spaced lines of magnetic flux), which suggests that the shield is performing as it was designed to.

Finite element method

History
The finite element method originated from the need for solving complex elasticity and structural analysis problems in civil and aeronautical engineering. Its development can be traced back to the work by Alexander Hrennikoff (1941) and Richard Courant[1] (1942). While the approaches used by these pioneers are different, they share one essential characteristic: mesh discretization of a continuous domain into a set of discrete sub-domains, usually called elements. Starting in 1947, Olgierd Zienkiewicz from Swansea University gathered those methods together into what would be called the Finite Element Method, building the pioneering mathematical formalism of the method.[2] Hrennikoff's work discretizes the domain by using a lattice analogy, while Courant's approach divides the domain into finite triangular subregions to solve second order elliptic partial differential equations (PDEs) that arise from the problem of torsion of a cylinder. Courant's contribution was evolutionary, drawing on a large body of earlier results for PDEs developed by Rayleigh, Ritz, and Galerkin. Development of the finite element method began in earnest in the middle to late 1950s for airframe and structural analysis[3] and gathered momentum at the University of Stuttgart through the work of John Argyris and at Berkeley through the work of Ray W. Clough in the 1960s for use in civil engineering. By late 1950s, the key concepts of stiffness matrix and element assembly existed essentially in the form used today. NASA issued a request for proposals for the development of the finite element software NASTRAN in 1965. The method was again provided with a rigorous mathematical foundation in 1973 with the publication of Strang and Fix's An Analysis of The Finite Element Method,[4] and has since been generalized into a branch of applied mathematics for numerical modeling of physical systems in a wide variety of engineering disciplines, e.g., electromagnetism[5][5] and fluid dynamics.

Technical discussion
We will illustrate the finite element method using two sample problems from which the general method can be extrapolated. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with calculus and linear algebra.

Illustrative problems P1 and P2

P1 is a one-dimensional problem

where

is given,

is an unknown function of

, and

is the second derivative of

with respect to

P2 is a two-dimensional problem (Dirichlet problem)

where

is a connected open region in the

plane whose boundary

is "nice" (e.g., a smooth manifold or

a polygon), and and denote the second derivatives with respect to and , respectively. The problem P1 can be solved "directly" by computing antiderivatives. However, this method of solving the boundary value problem works only when there is one spatial dimension and does not generalize to higher-dimensional problems or to problems like . For this reason, we will develop the finite element method for P1 and outline its generalization to P2. Our explanation will proceed in two steps, which mirror two essential steps one must take to solve a boundary value problem (BVP) using the FEM. In the first step, one rephrases the original BVP in its weak form. Little to no computation is usually required for this step. The transformation is done by hand on paper. The second step is the discretization, where the weak form is discretized in a finite dimensional space.

Finite element method After this second step, we have concrete formulae for a large but finite dimensional linear problem whose solution will approximately solve the original BVP. This finite dimensional problem is then implemented on a computer.

Weak formulation
The first step is to convert P1 and P2 into their equivalent weak formulations. The weak form of P1 If solves P1, then for any smooth function and (1) Conversely, if with satisfies (1) for every smooth function then one may show that , we have that satisfies the displacement boundary conditions, i.e. at

this will solve P1. The proof is easier for twice continuously differentiable proved in a distributional sense as well. By using integration by parts on the right-hand-side of (1), we obtain

(mean value theorem), but may be

(2)

where we have used the assumption that The weak form of P2

If we integrate by parts using a form of Green's identities, we see that if

solves P2, then for any

where

denotes the gradient and denotes the dot product in the two-dimensional plane. Once more of "once differentiable" functions of

can be

turned into an inner product on a suitable space . We have also assumed that also be shown.

that are zero on

(see Sobolev spaces). Existence and uniqueness of the solution can

A proof outline of existence and uniqueness of the solution We can loosely think of bilinear map to be the absolutely continuous functions of that are at and

(see Sobolev spaces). Such functions are (weakly) "once differentiable" and it turns out that the symmetric then defines an inner product which turns into a Hilbert space (a detailed proof is is also an inner product, this time on the Lp

nontrivial). On the other hand, the left-hand-side space

. An application of the Riesz representation theorem for Hilbert spaces shows that there is a unique , but using elliptic regularity,

solving (2) and therefore P1. This solution is a-priori only a member of will be smooth if is.

Finite element method

Discretization
P1 and P2 are ready to be discretized which leads to a common sub-problem (3). The basic idea is to replace the infinite dimensional linear problem: Find such that

with a finite dimensional version: (3) Find such that

A function in with zero values at the

endpoints (blue), and a piecewise linear approximation (red).

where take

is a finite dimensional subspace of

. There are many

possible choices for

(one possibility leads to the spectral method). However, for the finite element method we

to be a space of piecewise polynomial functions.

For problem P1
We take the interval by: where we define and . Observe that functions in are not differentiable according to the , and one can use this derivative for the , choose values of with and we define

elementary definition of calculus. Indeed, if purpose of integration by parts.

then the derivative is typically not defined at any

. However, the derivative exists at every other value of

For problem P2
We need to be a set of functions of . In the figure on the right, in we have illustrated a triangulation of a 15 sided polygonal region

the plane (below), and a piecewise linear function (above, in color) of this polygon which is linear on each triangle of the triangulation; the space would consist of functions that are linear on each triangle of the chosen triangulation. One often reads instead of in the literature. The reason is that

one hopes that as the underlying triangular grid becomes finer and finer, the solution of the discrete problem (3) will in some sense converge to the solution of the original boundary value problem P2. The triangulation is then indexed by a real valued parameter which one takes to be very small. This parameter will be related to the

A piecewise linear function in two dimensions.

size of the largest or average triangle in the triangulation. As we refine the triangulation, the space of piecewise linear functions must also change with , hence the notation . Since we do not perform such an analysis, we will not use this notation.

Finite element method

Choosing a basis
To complete the discretization, we must select a basis of . In the one-dimensional case, for each control point we will choose the piecewise linear function in whose value is at and zero at every , i.e.,

Basis functions vk (blue) and a linear combination of them, which is piecewise linear (red).

for function of

; this basis is a shifted and scaled tent function. For the two-dimensional case, we choose again per vertex at of the triangulation of the planar region and zero at every . . The function is the unique whose value is

one basis function

Depending on the author, the word "element" in "finite element method" refers either to the triangles in the domain, the piecewise linear basis function, or both. So for instance, an author interested in curved domains might replace the triangles with curved primitives, and so might describe the elements as being curvilinear. On the other hand, some authors replace "piecewise linear" by "piecewise quadratic" or even "piecewise polynomial". The author might then say "higher order element" instead of "higher degree polynomial". Finite element method is not restricted to triangles (or tetrahedra in 3-d, or higher order simplexes in multidimensional spaces), but can be defined on quadrilateral subdomains (hexahedra, prisms, or pyramids in 3-d, and so on). Higher order shapes (curvilinear elements) can be defined with polynomial and even non-polynomial shapes (e.g. ellipse or circle). Examples of methods that use higher degree piecewise polynomial basis functions are the hp-FEM and spectral FEM. More advanced implementations (adaptive finite element methods) utilize a method to assess the quality of the results (based on error estimation theory) and modify the mesh during the solution aiming to achieve approximate solution within some bounds from the 'exact' solution of the continuum problem. Mesh adaptivity may utilize various techniques, the most popular are: moving nodes (r-adaptivity) refining (and unrefining) elements (h-adaptivity) changing order of base functions (p-adaptivity) combinations of the above (hp-adaptivity).

Finite element method

Small support of the basis

The primary advantage of this choice of basis is that the inner products

and

will be zero for almost all the

. (The matrix containing

in

location is known as the Gramian matrix.) In the one is the interval and and . are identically zero do not share an edge of the
Solving the two-dimensional problem in the disk centered at the origin and radius 1, with zero boundary conditions. (a) The triangulation.

dimensional case, the support of Hence, the integrands of whenever . Similarly, in the planar case, if triangulation, then the integrals

and

are both zero.

Matrix form of the problem

If we write problem (3), taking and for for (4) If we denote by and the column vectors and , and if we let and , becomes .
(b) The sparse matrix L of the discretized linear system.

then

be matrices whose entries are

and

then we may rephrase (4) as . (5) It is not, in fact, necessary to assume for

(c) The computed solution,

. For a general function is used,

, problem (3) with

becomes actually simpler, since no matrix

Finite element method , (6) where and for and . are zero because the basis functions have small ,

As we have discussed before, most of the entries of which we need to invert, are zero.

support. So we now have to solve a linear system in the unknown

where most of the entries of the matrix

Such matrices are known as sparse matrices, and there are efficient solvers for such problems (much more efficient than actually inverting the matrix.) In addition, is symmetric and positive definite, so a technique such as the conjugate gradient method is favored. For problems that are not too large, sparse LU decompositions and Cholesky decompositions still work well. For instance, Matlab's backslash operator (which uses sparse LU, sparse Cholesky, and other factorization methods) can be sufficient for meshes with a hundred thousand vertices. The matrix is usually referred to as the stiffness matrix, while the matrix is dubbed the mass matrix.

General form of the finite element method

In general, the finite element method is characterized by the following process. One chooses a grid for . In the preceding treatment, the grid consisted of triangles, but one can also use squares or curvilinear polygons. Then, one chooses basis functions. In our discussion, we used piecewise linear basis functions, but it is also common to use piecewise polynomial basis functions. A separate consideration is the smoothness of the basis functions. For second order elliptic boundary value problems, piecewise polynomial basis function that are merely continuous suffice (i.e., the derivatives are discontinuous.) For higher order partial differential equations, one must use smoother basis functions. For instance, for a fourth order problem such as , one may use piecewise quadratic basis functions that are . Another consideration is the relation of the finite dimensional space examples above to its infinite dimensional counterpart, in the is a subspace of the element space . A conforming element method is one in which the space

for the continuous problem. The example above is such a method. If this condition is not satisfied, we obtain a nonconforming element method, an example of which is the space of piecewise linear functions over the mesh which are continuous at each edge midpoint. Since these functions are in general discontinuous along the edges, this finite dimensional space is not a subspace of the original . Typically, one has an algorithm for taking a given mesh and subdividing it. If the main method for increasing precision is to subdivide the mesh, one has an h-method (h is customarily the diameter of the largest element in the mesh.) In this manner, if one shows that the error with a grid is bounded above by , for some and , then one has an order p method. Under certain hypotheses (for instance, if the domain is convex), a piecewise polynomial of order method will have an error of order . If instead of making h smaller, one increases the degree of the polynomials used in the basis function, one has a p-method. If one combines these two refinement types, one obtains an hp-method (hp-FEM). In the hp-FEM, the polynomial degrees can vary from element to element. High order methods with large uniform p are called spectral finite element methods (SFEM). These are not to be confused with spectral methods. For vector partial differential equations, the basis functions may take values in .

Finite element method

Various types of finite element methods

AEM
The Applied Element Method, or AEM combines features of both FEM and Discrete element method, or (DEM).

Generalized finite element method

The Generalized Finite Element Method (GFEM) uses local spaces consisting of functions, not necessarily polynomials, that reflect the available information on the unknown solution and thus ensure good local approximation. Then a partition of unity is used to bond these spaces together to form the approximating subspace. The effectiveness of GFEM has been shown when applied to problems with domains having complicated boundaries, problems with micro-scales, and problems with boundary layers.[6]

hp-FEM
The hp-FEM combines adaptively, elements with variable size h and polynomial degree p in order to achieve exceptionally fast, exponential convergence rates.[7]

hpk-FEM
The hpk-FEM combines adaptively, elements with variable size h, polynomial degree of the local approximations p and global differentiability of the local approximations (k-1) in order to achieve best convergence rates.

Comparison to the finite difference method

The finite difference method (FDM) is an alternative way of approximating solutions of PDEs. The differences between FEM and FDM are: The most attractive feature of the FEM is its ability to handle complicated geometries (and boundaries) with relative ease. While FDM in its basic form is restricted to handle rectangular shapes and simple alterations thereof, the handling of geometries in FEM is theoretically straightforward. The most attractive feature of finite differences is that it can be very easy to implement. There are several ways one could consider the FDM a special case of the FEM approach. E.g., first order FEM is identical to FDM for Poisson's equation, if the problem is discretized by a regular rectangular mesh with each rectangle divided into two triangles. There are reasons to consider the mathematical foundation of the finite element approximation more sound, for instance, because the quality of the approximation between grid points is poor in FDM. The quality of a FEM approximation is often higher than in the corresponding FDM approach, but this is extremely problem-dependent and several examples to the contrary can be provided. Generally, FEM is the method of choice in all types of analysis in structural mechanics (i.e. solving for deformation and stresses in solid bodies or dynamics of structures) while computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tends to use FDM or other methods like finite volume method (FVM). CFD problems usually require discretization of the problem into a large number of cells/gridpoints (millions and more), therefore cost of the solution favors simpler, lower order approximation within each cell. This is especially true for 'external flow' problems, like air flow around the car or airplane, or weather simulation.

Finite element method

Application
A variety of specializations under the umbrella of the mechanical engineering discipline (such as aeronautical, biomechanical, and automotive industries) commonly use integrated FEM in design and development of their products. Several modern FEM packages include specific components such as thermal, electromagnetic, fluid, and structural working environments. In a structural simulation, FEM helps tremendously in producing stiffness and strength visualizations and also in minimizing weight, materials, and costs. FEM allows detailed visualization of where structures Visualization of how a car deforms in an asymmetrical crash using bend or twist, and indicates the distribution of stresses finite element analysis.[8] and displacements. FEM software provides a wide range of simulation options for controlling the complexity of both modeling and analysis of a system. Similarly, the desired level of accuracy required and associated computational time requirements can be managed simultaneously to address most engineering applications. FEM allows entire designs to be constructed, refined, and optimized before the design is manufactured. This powerful design tool has significantly improved both the standard of engineering designs and the methodology of the design process in many industrial applications.[9] The introduction of FEM has substantially decreased the time to take products from concept to the production line.[9] It is primarily through improved initial prototype designs using FEM that testing and development have been accelerated.[10] In summary, benefits of FEM include increased accuracy, enhanced design and better insight into critical design parameters, virtual prototyping, fewer hardware prototypes, a faster and less expensive design cycle, increased productivity, and increased revenue.[9] FEA has also been proposed to use in stochastic modelling, for numerically solving probability models. See the references list.[11][12]

References
[1] Giuseppe Pelosi (2007). "The finite-element method, Part I: R. L. Courant: Historical Corner". doi:10.1109/MAP.2007.376627. [2] E. Stein (2009), Olgierd C. Zienkiewicz, a pioneer in the development of the finite element method in engineering science. Steel Construction, 2 (4), 264-272. [3] Matrix Analysis Of Framed Structures, 3rd Edition by Jr. William Weaver, James M. Gere, 3rd Edition, Springer-Verlag New York, LLC, ISBN 978-0-412-07861-3, First edition 1966 [4] Strang, Gilbert; Fix, George (1973). An Analysis of The Finite Element Method. Prentice Hall. ISBN0-13-032946-0. [5] Roberto Coccioli, Tatsuo Itoh, Giuseppe Pelosi, Peter P. Silvester (1996). "Finite-element methods in microwaves: a selected bibliography". doi:10.1109/74.556518. [6] Babuka, Ivo; Banerjee, Uday; Osborn, John E. (June 2004). "Generalized Finite Element Methods: Main Ideas, Results, and Perspective". International Journal of Computational Methods 1 (1): 67103. doi:10.1142/S0219876204000083. [7] P. Solin, K. Segeth, I. Dolezel: Higher-Order Finite Element Methods, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 2003 [8] http:/ / impact. sourceforge. net [9] Hastings, J. K., Juds, M. A., Brauer, J. R., Accuracy and Economy of Finite Element Magnetic Analysis, 33rd Annual National Relay Conference, April 1985. [10] McLaren-Mercedes (2006). "Vodafone McLaren-Mercedes: Feature - Stress to impress" (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20061030200423/ http:/ / www. mclaren. com/ features/ technical/ stress_to_impress. php). Archived from the original (http:/ / www. mclaren. com/ features/ technical/ stress_to_impress. php) on 2006-10-30. . Retrieved 2006-10-03. [11] "Methods with high accuracy for finite element probability computing" by Peng Long, Wang Jinliang and Zhu Qiding, in Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 59 (1995) 181-189 [12] Achintya Haldar and Sankaran mahadan: "Reliability Assessment Using Stochastic Finite Element Analysis", John Wiley & sons.

Finite element method

10

External links
IFER (http://homepage.usask.ca/~ijm451/finite/fe_resources/) Internet Finite Element Resources - Describes and provides access to finite element analysis software via the Internet. NAFEMS (http://www.nafems.org)The International Association for the Engineering Analysis Community Finite Element Analysis Resources (http://www.feadomain.com)- Finite Element news, articles and tips Finite-element Methods for Electromagnetics (http://www.fieldp.com/femethods.html) - free 320-page text Finite Element Books (http://www.solid.ikp.liu.se/fe/index.html)- books bibliography Mathematics of the Finite Element Method (http://math.nist.gov/mcsd/savg/tutorial/ansys/FEM/) Finite Element Methods for Partial Differential Equations (http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/suli/fem.pdf) Lecture notes by Endre Sli Electromagnetic Modeling web site at Clemson University (http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/modeling/) (includes list of currently available software)

Article Sources and Contributors

11

Article Sources and Contributors

Finite element method Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=534026918 Contributors: 15.253, 198.144.199.xxx, 6.27, Ae-a, Alansohn, Alec1887, Andre Engels, Andres Agudelo, Annom, Apapte, Arnero, ArnoldReinhold, Art187, Avb, Behshour, Ben pcc, BenFrantzDale, Bfg, Billlion, Boemmels, C quest000, C.Fred, CLW, Caco de vidro, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Ccchambers, Charles Matthews, CharlesC, Charvest, Chetvorno, Ciphers, Cj67, Ckatz, Coco, Cometstyles, Conversion script, Corpx, Czenek, DG Curl, Daa89563, Darko Faba, Davidmack, Diegotorquemada, Dr eng x, Drbreznjev, Drdavidhill, Drorata, E v popov, ED-tech, EconoPhysicist, Eijkhout, EndingPop, Epbr123, F=q(E+v^B), FCooper8472, Fama Clamosa, Favonian, Francis Ocoma, Fredrik, GTBacchus, Gbruin, Georg Muntingh, Giftlite, Hellisess, Hghyux, Hongooi, Hu12, Igny, Inwind, Ipapasa, IvanLanin, J-Wiki, Jackfork, Jackzhp, JasSC, Jdolbow, Jim1138, Jitse Niesen, Jmath666, Jvierine, Kallog, Kandasa, Kenyob, Kevinmon, Kjetil1001, Kkmurray, Klochkov.ivan, Kmcallenberg, Knepley, Knockrc, Kri, Krishnavedala, Kusma, Laesod, Langmore, Ldemasi, Liberatus, Liugr, Loisel, LokiClock, M karzarj, MaNeMeBasat, Mackant1, Magioladitis, Marc omorain, MarcosAlvarez, Martinthoegersen, Martynas Patasius, Mat cross, Mattblack82, Matusz, Michael Hardy, Mlekomat, Momo san, MrOllie, NTox, Naddy, Nickj, Nicoguaro, Olaftn, Oleg Alexandrov, Olegalexandrov, PEHowland, Paisa, PascalDeVincenzo, Pauli133, PavelSolin, Pentti71, Perth3, Pfortuny, Pjrm, Pjvbra, Pownuk, Publichealthguru, RPHv, Ravi Teja Gude, Retaggio, Rjwilmsi, Rklawton, Saeed.Veradi, Salgueiro, Salih, Sdrakos, Sigmund, Silly rabbit, Simulation38, Singleheart, Skunkboy74, Snegtrail, Soni007, Soundray, Spinningspark, Stephenkirkup, StevePny, Stone-Gu, Sun Creator, Sveinns, TVBZ28, The Anome, Thubing, Thumperward, Tobias Hoevekamp, Tom.sartor, Tomeasy, UpstateNYer, User A1, Vadimbern, Waldir, Wavelength, Wdl1961, Wegesrand, Wholmestu, Wikipelli, WojciechSwiderski, Woodstone, WorlwideLeader, XJamRastafire, Xonqnopp, YuriyMikhaylovskiy, Zureks, Zzuuzz, , 344 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Image:Example of 2D mesh.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Example_of_2D_mesh.png License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: Zureks Image:FEM_example_of_2D_solution.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:FEM_example_of_2D_solution.png License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: Zureks File:Finite element method 1D illustration1.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Finite_element_method_1D_illustration1.png License: Public Domain Contributors: Adam majewski, Christian1985, Jahobr, Joelholdsworth, Krishnavedala, Maksim, WikipediaMaster File:Piecewise linear function2D.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Piecewise_linear_function2D.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Oleg Alexandrov File:Finite element method 1D illustration2.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Finite_element_method_1D_illustration2.svg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: User:Krishnavedala File:Finite element triangulation.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Finite_element_triangulation.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Oleg Alexandrov File:Finite element sparse matrix.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Finite_element_sparse_matrix.png License: Public Domain Contributors: Oleg Alexandrov File:Finite element solution.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Finite_element_solution.svg License: Public Domain Contributors: Oleg Alexandrov File:FAE visualization.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:FAE_visualization.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Assassingr, Christian1985, Inductiveload, MB-one, Maksim, Morio, 3 anonymous edits

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/