1

Overview

1–1
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW 1–2

This book is an introduction to the analysis of linear elastic structures by the Finite Element Method
(FEM). It has been constructed from Notes prepared for the course Introduction to Finite Element
Methods. This course has been offered at the University of Colorado since 1986.
The course embodies three Parts:
I Finite Element Discretization. An introduction to the discretization and analysis of skeletal
structures by the Direct Stiffness Method.
II Formulation of Finite Elements. The formulation and computation of 1D and 2D assumed-
displacement elements.
III Computer Implementation of the Finite Element Method.
Earlier offerings of this course used Fortran as programming language for Part III. Since 1996 it
has been gradually shifted towards Mathematica. This change has the advantage that the same
programming language can be used to cover all parts of the course. Mathematica, like other
computer algebra systems such as Maple and Macsyma, can carry out both numerical and symbolic
computations. Furthermore it has built-in graphics, which simplifies the presentation of results.

§1.1 WHERE THIS MATERIAL FITS

The field of Mechanics can be subdivided into three major areas:


 Theoretical
Mechanics Applied

Computational

Theoretical mechanics deals with fundamental laws and principles of mechanics studied for its
intrinsic value. Applied mechanics transfers this theoretical knowledge to scientific and engineering
applications, especially as regards the construction of mathematical models of physical phenomena.
Computational mechanics solves specific problems through numerical methods implemented on
digital computers.

REMARK 1.1
Paraphrasing an old joke about mathematicians, one may define a computational mechanician as a person that
searches for solutions to given engineering problems, an applied mechanician as a person that searches for
problems that fit given solutions, and a theoretical mechanician as a person that can prove the existence of
problems and solutions.

§1.1.1 Computational Mechanics

Several branches of computational mechanics can be distinguished according to the focus of atten-
tion:

1–2
1–3 §1.1 WHERE THIS MATERIAL FITS

 Nanomechanics



 Micromechanics
Computational Mechanics Solids and Structures



 Fluids
Coupled Systems

Nanomechanics deals with phenomena at the molecular and atomic levels of matter. As such it is
closely interrelated with particle physics and chemistry. Micromechanics, which falls in between
particle and continuum mechanics, looks primarily at the crystallographic and granular levels of
matter. Its main technology application is the design and fabrication of materials.
Computational solid and structural mechanics addresses the simulation of solid bodies at the “macro-
scopic” level, using continuum models. They are closely related because structures, for obvious
reasons, are fabricated with solids. Computational solid mechanics emphasizes a more fundamental
applied-sciences approach and is based on continuum mechanics. On the other hand, computational
structural mechanics emphasizes technological applications to the analysis and design of structures.
In the sequel the acronym CSM stands indistinctly for both variants.
Computational fluid mechanics (CFM) deals with problems that involve the motion and equilibrium
of liquid and gases. Well developed CFM subareas are hydrodynamics, aerodynamics, atmospheric
physics, and combustion.
Coupled systems is a more recent newcomer. This area is meant to include mechanical systems that
transcend the classical boundaries of solid and fluid mechanics, as in interacting fluids, structures
and control. Phase change problems such as ice melting and metal solidification fit into this category.

§1.1.2 Statics vs. Dynamics

CSM and structural mechanics may be subdivided according to whether inertial effects are taken
into account or not:

Statics
Computational solid and structural mechanics
Dynamics

In dynamics the time dependence is explicitly considered because the calculation of inertial (and/or
damping) forces requires derivatives respect to actual time to be taken.
Problems in statics may also be time dependent but the inertial forces are ignored or neglected.
Static problems may be classified into strictly static and quasi-static. For the former time need not
be considered explicitly; any historical time-like response-ordering parameter (if one is needed)
will do. In quasi-static problems such as creep deformation, rate-dependent plasticity or fatigue
cycling, a more realistic estimation of time is required but inertial forces are still neglected.

§1.1.3 Linear vs. Nonlinear

A classification of CSM statics that is particularly relevant to this book is

1–3
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW 1–4


Linear
CSM static analysis
Nonlinear

Linear static analysis deals with static problems in which the structural response is linear in the
cause-and-effect sense. For example: if the applied forces are doubled, the displacements and
internal stresses also double. Problems outside this domain are classified as nonlinear.

§1.1.4 Discretization methods

A final classification of CSM static analysis is based on the discretization method by which the
continuous mathematical model is discretized in space, i.e., converted to a discrete model of finite
number of degrees of freedom:

 Finite Element Method (FEM)



 Boundary Element Method (BEM)

Finite Difference Method (FDM)
Spatial discretization method

 Finite Volume Method (FVM)



 Spectral Method
Mesh-Free Method

For linear problems finite element methods currently dominate the scene, with boundary element
methods posting a strong second choice in specific application areas. For nonlinear problems the
dominance of finite element methods is overwhelming.
Finite difference methods in solid and structural mechanics have virtually disappeared from practical
use except for a few one-dimensional problems. This statement is not true, however, for fluid
mechanics, where finite difference discretization methods still dominate. Fluid-volume and spectral
methods are important in particular applications of fluid mechanics.
A recent newcomer to the scene are the mesh-free methods. These are finite different methods
derived with finite element techniques.

§1.1.5 FEM Variants

The term Finite Element Method actually identifies a wide spectrum of techniques that share certain
common characteristics outlined in §1.4. Two subclassications that fit well FEM applications to
structural mechanics are
 Displacement


Equilibrium
FEM Formulation

 Mixed
Hybrid


 Stiffness
FEM Solution Flexibility

Mixed (also called combined)

1–4
1–5 §1.2 THE ANALYSIS PROCESS

IDEALIZATION DISCRETIZATION SOLUTION

Physical Mathematical FEM Discrete Discrete

system model model solution

Solution error
Discretization + solution error
Modeling + discretization + solution error

RESULT INTERPRETATION

Figure 1.1. Role of FEM in the structural analysis process.

The distinction between these subclasses is technical in nature. Since this book focuses on a par-
ticular combination of these subclasses called the Direct Stiffness Method, only a brief explanation
is given in following Sections.

§1.2 THE ANALYSIS PROCESS

Using the foregoing classification, we can state the topic of this book more precisely: the analysis
of linear static structural problems by the Finite Element Method. Of the variants listed in §1.1.5,
emphasis is placed on the displacement formulation and stiffness solution.
The structural analysis process by computer methods can be characterized by the three steps dia-
grammed in Figure 1.1. These are
1. Idealization. Also called mathematical modeling or analytical modeling. The formulation
of the set of mathematical equations that models the physical problem within the scale and
accuracy required by the application. The process is illustrated in Figure 1.2 with a roof truss
structure.
2. Discretization. The reduction of the mathematical model to a discrete model with finite number
of degrees of freedom. In the stiffness method of solution, these degrees of freedom are physical
or generalized displacements. The formulation of the discrete equations is done by making
restrictive assumptions on the behavior of components of the model. These components are
called finite elements.
3. Solution. The solution of the discrete problem on a digital computer. This step produces a
discrete solution.
4. Result interpretation. The interpretation of the numerical results in terms of their mathemat-
ical and physical significance. An important ingredient of this step is the assessment of the
modeling and discretization errors indicated in Figure 1.1. (The solution error is generally
unimportant.)
The last step is crucial in engineering applications, and its importance cannot be overemphasized.

1–5
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW 1–6

member

support

joint
Physical System

IDEALIZATION

Mathematical Model
;
;

;
;
Figure 1.2. The idealization process. The physical structure, in this
example a roof truss, is idealized by a mathematical
model: a pin-jointed bar assembly.

The finite element analysis of complex systems demands a persistent attention to the underlying
physics to avoid getting astray as the “real world” is covered by layer upon layer of mathematics
and numerics.

§1.3 WHAT IS NOT COVERED

The following topics are not covered in this book:
1. Elements based on equilibrium, mixed and hybrid variational formulations.
2. Flexibility and mixed solution methods of solution.
3. Kirchhoff-based plate and shell elements.
4. Continuum-based plate and shell elements.
5. Variational methods in mechanics.
6. General mathematical theory of finite elements.
7. Vibration analysis.
8. Buckling analysis.
9. General stability analysis.
10. General nonlinear response analysis.
11. Structural optimization.
12. Error estimates and problem-adaptive discretizations.

1–6
1–7 §1.4 INTERPRETATION OF THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

13. Non-structural and coupled-system applications of FEM.

14. Structural dynamics.
15. Shock and wave-propagation dynamics.
16. Designing and building production-level FEM software and use of special hardware (e.g.
vector and parallel computers)
Topics 1–7 pertain to what may be called “Advanced Linear FEM”, whereas 9–11 pertain to “Non-
linear FEM”. Topics 12-15 pertain to advanced applications, whereas 16 is an interdisciplinary
topic which interweaves with computer science.

REMARK 1.2
Some of these subjects are covered in other courses offered in Aerospace and Civil Engineering. For example,
the Aerospace courses Computational Dynamics, Structural Analysis Laboratory, Variational Methods
in Mechanics, Nonlinear Finite Elements and Advanced Finite Elements. The last three are advanced
courses offered irregularly as sequels to the present course.

§1.4 INTERPRETATION OF THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

The finite element method (FEM) may be introduced and explained from two interlacing viewpoints:
one stressing its physical significance, the other its mathematical context.

§1.4.1 Physical Interpretation

The physical interpretation is closely related to the discovery and extensive use of the method in
the field of structural mechanics. This relationship is reflected in the use of structural terms such
as “stiffness matrix”, “force vector” and “degrees of freedom.” This terminology carries over to
non-structural applications.
The basic concept in the physical interpretation is the breakdown (≡ disassembly, tearing, partition,
separation, decomposition) of a complex mechanical system into simpler, disjoint components
called finite elements, or simply elements. The mechanical response of an element is characterized
in terms of a finite number of degrees of freedom. These degrees of freedoms are represented as
the values of the unknown functions as a set of node points. The element response is defined by
algebraic equations constructed from physical or energy arguments. The response of the original
system is considered to be approximated by that of the discrete model constructed by connecting
or assembling the collection of all elements.
The breakdown-assembly concept occurs naturally when an engineer considers many artificial and
natural systems. For example, it is easy and natural to visualize an engine, bridge, aircraft or
skeleton as being fabricated from simpler parts.

REMARK 1.3
Most FEM advances prior to 1965 were based on the physical interpretation, and some schools (e.g., Argyris’
in Germany) have emphasized it until the early 1970s. Both the physical and mathematical approaches to
FEM can be found in the literature of the 1960s, the choice depending on the researcher’s background and
taste, and on the intended audience. After 1970 a definite trend away from the physical interpretation can be

1–7
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW 1–8

observed. However, this interpretation is of interest for pedagogical reasons and hence it will continue to be
highly valuable in introductory courses.

REMARK 1.4
The underlying theme is divide and conquer. If the behavior of a system is too complex, the recipe is to
divide it into more manageable subsystems. If these subsystems are still too complex the subdivision process
is continued until the behavior of each subsystem is simple enough to fit the knowledge level one is interested
in. In the finite element method such “primitive pieces” are called elements. The behavior of the total system
is that of the individual elements plus their interaction. A key factor in the initial acceptance of the FEM was
that the element interaction can be physically interpreted and understood in terms that were eminently familiar
to structural engineers.

§1.4.2 Mathematical Interpretation

In the mathematical interpretation, the FEM is viewed as a procedure for obtaining numerical
approximations to the solution of boundary value problems (BVPs) posed over a domain . This
domain is replaced by the union ∪ of disjoint subdomains (e) called finite elements. Note that in
general the geometry of  is only approximated by that of ∪(e) .
The unknown function (or functions) is locally approximated over each element by an interpolation
formula expressed in terms of values taken by the function(s), and possibly their derivatives, at a
set of node points generally located on the element boundaries. The states of the assumed unknown
function(s) determined by unit node values are called shape functions. The union of shape functions
“patched” over adjacent elements form a trial function basis for which the node values represent the
generalized coordinates. The trial function space may be inserted into the governing equations and
the unknown node values determined by the Ritz method (if the solution extremizes a variational
principle) or by the Galerkin, least-squares or other weighted-residual minimization methods if the
problem cannot be expressed in a standard variational form.

REMARK 1.5
In the mathematical interpretation the emphasis is on the concept of local (piecewise) approximation. The
concept of element-by-element breakdown and assembly, while convenient in the computer implementation,
is not theoretically necessary. The mathematical interpretation permits a general approach to the questions
of convergence, error bounds, trial and shape function requirements, etc., which the physical approach leaves
unanswered. It also facilitates the application of FEM to classes of problems that are not so readily amenable
to physical visualization as structures; for example electromagnetics and thermal conduction.

REMARK 1.6
It is interesting to note some similarities in the development of Heaviside’s operational calculus, Dirac’s δ-
function calculus, and the FEM. These three methods appeared as ad-hoc computational devices created by
engineers and physicists to deal with problems posed by new science and technology (electricity, quantum
mechanics, and delta-wing aircraft, respectively) with little help from the mathematical establishment. Only
some time after the success of the new techniques became apparent were new branches of mathematics
(operational calculus, distribution theory and piecewise-approximation theory) constructed to justify that
success. In the case of the finite element method, the development of a formal mathematical theory started in
the late 1960s, and much of it is still in the making.

1–8
1–9 §1.6 HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT REFERENCES

§1.4.3 Keeping the Course

The first Part of this course, which is the subject of Chapters 2 through 10, stresses the physical
interpretation because of its instructional advantages. Furthermore the computer implementation
is far more transparent from this viewpoint.
Subsequent Chapters incorporate ingredients of the mathematical interpretation when it is felt
convenient to do so. However, the exposition avoids excessive entanglement with the general
theory, which can obfuscate the physics.

§1.5 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FEM ORIGINS

It is remarked above that the physical interpretation of the Finite Element Method (FEM) is historically
important because the method was discovered and initially developed along that path. More precisely, there
were several development periods that correspond to this before the mathematical interpretation was fully
understood. Several historically important references pertaining to those stages are collected in §1.6.

1. Pre-WWII period. The application of matrix methods to linear mechanics and in particular airplane
dynamics originated in Britain during the 1930s. A good account of those pre-computer applications is
given in the book by Frazer, Duncan and Collar, which was originally published in 1938 and reprinted
until 1963.

2. WWII sequel, 1947-1954. Generalized methods of structural and stress analysis were developed in
response to the needs of the post-WWII aircraft industry (more specifically, the development of jet
propulsion and consequent interest in sweptback wings), and strongly influenced by the appearance of
the first digital computers manufactured on a commercial scale. Key contributors for this period were
Denke, Levy, Langefors, Lansing, Wehle and others, most of whom worked for aircraft manufacturers.

3. Transformation theory of structures: 1954-1955. In a series of articles in Aircraft Engineering later

reprinted in a book (cf. references below) Argyris and Kelsey systematically derived the two “dual”
methods of structural analysis (force/flexibility and displacement/stiffness) from an energy standpoint.
This work laid the foundations of the matrix transformation theory of structures.

4. The Direct Stiffness Method: 1956-1960. In 1956 the seminal paper of Turner, Clough, Martin and
Topp appeared in the Journal of Aeronautical Sciences. It presented the fundamental steps of what is
now called the Direct Stiffness Method of structural analysis and derived two elements: triangular and
rectangular panels, for the computer-based analysis of delta wings. From that point on the direct stiffness
method gained rapid acceptance within the aircraft industry, particular through the effort of Turner and
coworkers at Boeing, and began spreading to other engineering branches in the early 1960s. The first
published applications to nonlinear structures also date from about 1960.

5. Baptism and formalization: 1960-1965. The name “finite element” was coined in 1960 by Clough. By
1962 the connection between FEM and the Rayleigh-Ritz variational method was established, beginning
with a AIAA paper by Melosh. The mathematical interpretation began to be seriously developed after
1965.

In the next four Chapters we freeze the time at about 1965, and present the Direct Stiffness Method as an
engineer of that time would have understood it. This is not done for sentimental reasons, although that happens
to be the year in which the writer began his thesis work on FEM under Ray Clough. Virtually all finite element
codes are now based on the Direct Stiffness Method, and the computer implementation has not dramatically
changed since the late 1960s. And the best way to teach the basic steps is through the physical approach.

1–9
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW 1–10

§1.6 HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT REFERENCES

R. A. Frazer, W. J. Duncan and A. R. Collar Elementary Matrices, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1938
Levy, S., “Computation of influence coefficients for aircraft structures with discontinuities and sweepback,”
J. Aeron. Sci., 14, 1947, pp. 547–560
B. Langefors, “Analysis of elastic structures by matrix transformation with special regard to semimonocoque
structures,” J. Aeron. Sci., 19, 1952, pp. 451–458.
T. Rand, “An approximate method for the calculation of stresses in sweptback Wings,” J. Aeron. Sci., 18,
1951, pp. 61–63.
A. L. Lang and R. L. Bisplinghoff, “Some results of sweptback wing structural studies,” J. Aeron. Sci., 18,
1951, pp. 705–717
P. H. Denke, “A matrix method of structural analysis,” Proc. 2nd U.S. Natl Congress Appl. Mech., 1954,
pp. 445–457.
L. B. Wehle and Lansing, “A method for reducing the analysis of complex redundant structures to a routine
procedure,” J. Aeron. Sci., 19, 1952, pp. 677–684
S. Levy, “Structural analysis and influence coefficients for delta wings,” J. Aeron. Sci., 20, 1953, pp. 449–454.
J. H. Argyris and S. Kelsey, Energy Theorems and Structural Analysis, Butterworth, London, 1960 (collected
reprints of a series of influencial articles that appeared in Aircraft Eng., 1954-1955)
M. J. Turner, R. W. Clough, W. C. Martin, and L. J. Topp, “Stiffness and deflection analysis of complex
structures,” J. Aeron. Sci., 23, 1956, pp. 805–824.
R. W. Clough, “The finite element in plane stress analysis,” Proc. 2nd ASCE Conf. on Electronic Comutation,
Pittsburgh, Pa., Sept. 1960.
M. J. Turner, E. H. Dill, H. C. Martin and R. J. Melosh, “Large deflection analysis of complex structures
subjected to heating and external loads,” J. Aerospace Sci., 27, 1960, pp. 97-107
R. H. Gallagher, “A correlation study of methods of matrix structural analysis,” in AGARDograph 69, 1962.
R. H. Gallagher, J. Padlog and P. P. Bijlaard, Stress Analysis of Complex Heated Shapes, J. Amer. Rocket
Society, 32 700–707 (1962)
M. J. Turner, H. C. Martin and R. C. Weikel, “Further development and applications of the stiffness method,”
AGARD Structures and Materials Panel, Paris, France, July 1962, in AGARDograph 72: Matrix Methods of
Structural Analysis, ed. by B. M. Fraeijs de Veubeke, 1964, pp. 203–266.
R. J. Melosh, “Basis for derivation of matrices for the direct stiffness method,”, J. AIAA, 1, 1963, pp. 1631–
1636.
R. W. Clough, “The finite element method in structural mechanics,” in Stress Analysis, ed. by O. C. Zienkiewicz
and G. S. Holister, Wiley, London, 1965, pp. 85–119.

§1.7 BOOKS ON FEM

The following list is fairly comprehensive until about 1989. Since then many more books as well as revised
editions of previous ones have appeared. Newer books usually emphasize the mathematical interpretation and
thus are of limited usefulness to engineers.

1–10
1–11 §1.7 BOOKS ON FEM

§1.7.1 Mathematically Oriented

A. K. Aziz (ed.), The Mathematical Foundations of the Finite Element Method with Applications to Partial
Differential Equations, Academic Press, New York, 1972.
G. F. Carey and J. T. Oden, Finite Elements IV: Mathematical Aspects, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.,
1983.
P. G. Ciarlet, The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.
D. F. Griffiths (ed.), The Mathematical Basis of Finite Element Methods, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK 1984.
A. R. Mitchell and R. Wait, The Finite Element Analysis in Partial Differential Equations, Wiley, New York,
1977.
J. T. Oden, An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Finite Elements, Wiley, New York, 1976.
G. Strang and G. J. Fix, An Analysis of the Finite Element Method, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.,
1973.
R. Wait and A. R. Mitchell, Finite Element Analysis and Applications, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1985.
E. L. Wachpress, A Rational Finite Element Basis, Wiley, New York, 1976.
O. C. Zienkiewicz and K. Morgan, Finite Element and Approximations, Wiley, New York, 1983.

§1.7.2 Applications Oriented

K. J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1982.
Second edition entitled Finite Element Analysis: From Concepts to Applications has appeared in 1996.
K. J. Bathe and E. L. Wilson, Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N. J., 1976.
E. B. Becker, G. F. Carey and J. T. Oden, Finite Elements III: Computational Aspects, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N. J., 198
G. F. Carey and J. T. Oden, Finite Elements II: A Second Course, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1981.
M. V. K. Chari and P. P. Silvester, Finite Elements in Electrical and Magnetic Field Problems, Wiley, Chichester,
UK, 1984.
T. H. Chung, The Finite Element Method in Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.
R. D. Cook, D. S. Malkus and M. E. Plesha, Concepts and Application of Finite Element Methods, 3rd ed.,
Wiley, New York, 1989.
A. J. Davies, The Finite Element Method, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1980.
C. S. Desai, Elementary Finite Element Method, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1979.
C. S. Desai and J. F. Abel, Introduction to the Finite Element Method, Van Nostrand, New York, 1972.
G. Dhatt and G. Touzot, The Finite Element Method Displayed, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1984.
R. H. Gallagher, Finite Element Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1975.
I. Holand and K. Bell (eds), Finite Element Methods in Stress Analysis, Tapir, Trondheim, Norway, 1969.
K. H. Huebner, The Finite Element Method for Engineers, Wiley, New York, 1975.

1–11
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW 1–12

T. J. R. Hughes, The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1987.
B. Irons and S. Ahmad, Techniques of Finite Elements, Ellis Horwood Ltd, Chichester, UK, 1980.
H. C. Martin and G. F. Carey, Introduction to Finite Element Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973.
J. T. Oden, Finite Elements of Nonlinear Continua, Wiley, New York, 1972.
J. T. Oden and G. F. Carey, Finite Elements I: An Introduction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1981.
J. T. Oden and G. F. Carey, Finite Elements V: Special Problems in Solid Mechanics, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N. J., 1984.
J. S. Przeminiecki, Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968 (also in Dover ed).
S. S. Rao, The Finite Element Method in Engineering, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982.
J. Robinson, Integrated Theory of Finite Element Methods, Wiley, London, 1973.
K. C. Rockey, H. R. Evans, D. W. Griffiths and D. A. Nethercot, The Finite Element Method: A Basic
Introduction for Engineers, Collins, London, 1983.
L. J. Segerlind, Applied Finite Element Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1976.
P. Tong and J. N. Rosettos, Finite Element Method, MIT Press, London, 1977.
O. C. Zienkiewicz, The Finite Element Method in Engineering Sciences, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, London, 1977.
Partly superseded by Vol I of Zienkiewicz and Taylor, McGraw-Hill, 1988. Vol II appeared in 1993.

§1.7.3 Software Oriented

J. E. Akin, Application and Implementation of Finite Element Methods, Academic Press, New York, 1982.
E. Hinton and D. R. J. Owen, An Introduction to Finite Element Computations, Pineridge Press, Swansea,
1979.
I. M. Smith, Programming the Finite Element Method, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1982.

§1.7.4 Recommended Books for Linear FEM

Basic level (reference): Zienkiewicz and Taylor (1988) Vols I (1988), II(1993). This is a comprehensive
upgrade of the 1977 edition. Primarily an encyclopedic reference work that gives panoramic coverage of
FEM, as well as a comprehensive list of references. Not a textbook.
Basic level (textbook): Cook, Malkus and Plesha (1989). This third edition is fairly comprehensive in scope
and fairly up to date although the coverage is more superficial than Zienkiewicz and Taylor.
Intermediate level: Hughes (1987). It requires substantial mathematical expertise on the part of the reader.
Mathematically oriented: Strang and Fix (1973). Still the most readable mathematical treatment for engineers,
although outdated in several subjects.
Best value for the $$$: Przeminiecki (Dover edition, 1985, about $14). Although outdated in many respects
(the word “finite element” does not appear in this reprint of the 1966 book) it is a valuable reference for
programming simple elements.
Most fun (If you appreciate British “humor”): Irons and Ahmad (1980)
For buying out-of-print books through web services, check the search engine in http://www.bookarea.com/

1–12