F

locking phenomena is the main subject of the

Finite Elements for Plates and scientific field of finite element technology, an
Shells important research area within the broader field
of computational mechanics.
Manfred Bischoff
Institute for Structural Mechanics, University of
Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Introduction

This chapter deals with finite element formu-

Synonyms lations for plate and shell models. It provides
the most important technical details of standard
Discretization methods; Thin-walled structures
finite element formulations, highlights the issue
of locking phenomena, and explains methods to
avoid them. Simple numerical benchmark tests
Definitions
are described that help to assess finite element
performance. Details about mechanical model-
The finite element method (FEM) is a discretiza-
ing of thin-walled structures as well as the cor-
tion method to compute approximate solutions
responding mathematical formulations are not
for problems described by partial differential
treated here (see the section on “Cross-Refer-
equations. It is based on weak forms, which can
ences” at the end of this chapter for a list of
either be derived from the underlying differential
related material). However, the most important
equations via the Galerkin method or, in special
equations are provided in order to allow for a self-
cases, from variational principles. For plate
contained reading of this chapter.
and shell theories, one frequently has to deal
The governing equations of plate and shell
with stiff differential equations, posing specific
theories can be constructed directly based on
challenges onto the discretization schemes. In
kinematics of two-dimensional surfaces in space,
particular, an effect known as locking may result
using elements of analytical differential geom-
in severe underestimation of the displacements,
etry and postulating the constitutive equations.
i.e., the finite elements are too stiff. Typically,
Alternatively, they can be derived from the gov-
reduced convergence rates in the pre-asymptotic
erning equations of three-dimensional elasticity
regime (for coarse meshes), oscillations of
via dimensional reduction. The second option
stress resultants, and a strong dependence of
is pursued in the following, with the focus on
the errors on the plate or shell slenderness are
materially linear problems, that is, elastic plates
observed. Analyzing and avoiding the pertinent
and shells.
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018
H. Altenbach, A. Öchsner (eds.), Encyclopedia of Continuum Mechanics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53605-6_14-1
2 Finite Elements for Plates and Shells

Kirchhoff-Love Type Plate and Shell The remaining governing equations, namely, the
Models equilibrium equations as well as the essential and
natural boundary conditions, are not explicitly
Kirchhoff Plate Model needed in the following, and therefore they are
not reproduced herein.
Governing Equations and Weak Form Kirchhoff plate theory (Kirchhoff 1850) pro-
In the context of flat plates, only the geometri- vides an approximation of the three-dimensional
cally linear case is treated herein. For plates un- theory of elasticity for thin, flat plates subject to
dergoing large deformations, membrane effects loading in transverse direction. It is asymptoti-
become important, requiring a shell theory. We cally correct, that, is one can show that in the
start with briefly repeating the most important thin limit h ! 0, h being the plate thickness,
equations from three-dimensional continuum me- the result of the model equations converges to-
chanics. ward the three-dimensional solution. The main
Using the short notation @i .ı/ WD @.ı/ @xi
, the assumptions are:
kinematic equations define the Cartesian com-
ponents of the linearized strain tensor 1. Kinematic assumptions:
(a) Cross-sectional material fibers remain
1  straight during deformation. Thus, in-plane
"ij D @j ui C @i uj : (1)
2 displacements u˛ are linear functions of
the thickness coordinate x3 .
For the case of linearized elasticity, the material (b) Cross-sectional material fibers remain nor-
equations (constitutive law) define the compo- mal to the mid-surface throughout defor-
nents of the Cauchy stress tensor mation. Thus, their rotations are coupled
with the gradients of the transverse dis-
ij D Cij kl "kl : (2) placement, ˛ D @˛ U3 ; see also Fig. 1.
2. Static (kinetic) assumption: Transverse nor-
Here, and in the following, repeated indices im- mal stress is zero, 33 D 0.
ply summation, where Latin indices run from 1 to
3, while Greek indices take on values 1 or 2. For A key ingredient of derivation of plate and shell
isotropic materials, the components Cij kl of the models from three-dimensional elasticity is di-
fourth-order material tensor (also called elasticity mensional reduction, expressing all involved me-
tensor) are implicitly defined by chanical quantities as functions of two (instead of
three) spatial coordinates. For the displacements
E
11 D of the Kirchhoff plate model, this reduction is
.1 C /.1  2/
defined as
Œ.1  /"11  ."22 C "33 / ; (3)
E u˛ .x1 ; x2 ; x3 / D x3 @˛ U3 .x1 ; x2 / ; (7)
22 D
.1 C /.1  2/ u3 .x1 ; x2 ; x3 / D U3 .x1 ; x2 / : (8)
Œ.1  /"22  ."11 C "33 / ; (4)
E that is, the displacements ui .x1 ; x2 ; x3 / of
33 D any point in the three-dimensional continuum
.1 C /.1  2/
are expressed as functions of one single
Œ.1  /"33  ."11 C "22 / ; (5) variable, namely, the mid-surface displacement
E E U3 .x1 ; x2 /, which is a function of the mid-
12 D "12 ; 13 D "13 ;
1C 1C surface coordinates only. Equation (7) effectively
E puts into place the kinematic assumptions 1a
23 D "23 : (6) and 1b.
1C
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells 3

Finite Elements for

Plates and Shells, Fig. 1 u2 u1
u3
Flat plate, definition of f2
displacements and f1
rotations U3

x1
x3
x2
h
F

The static assumption (also called kinetic as- It can be seen that vanishing transverse shear
sumption if inertia effects are taken into account) strains "˛3 are a natural result of the specific
is enforced via modification of the material law. displacement parametrization given in Eqs. (7)
The condition 33 D 0 is introduced into Eq. (5), and (8).
which is then solved for "33 , The linear part of "˛ˇ in x3 is the curvature of
the mid-surface of the plate

"33 D ."11 C "22 / : (9)
1 K˛ˇ D @2˛ˇ U3 : (15)
Equations (3) and (4) are thus transformed into
It will be seen later, when dealing with Mindlin’s
E shear deformable plate model, that the material
11 D ."11 C "22 / ; (10) curvature ˛ˇ , being energetically conjugate to
.1   2 /
the moments M˛ˇ , in general differs from this
E
22 D ."22 C "11 / : (11) geometric curvature K˛ˇ . In the Kirchhoff model
.1   2 / they are identical.
With Eqs. (7) and (8), dimensional reduction Stress resultants are defined as resultant forces
of the kinematic Eq. (1) is achieved, resulting or moments of the transverse shear stress and in-
in separate expressions for in-plane, transverse plane normal stress, respectively,
shear, and transverse normal strains, h h
Z2 Z2
1  Q˛ D ˛3 dx3 ; M˛ˇ D x3 ˛ˇ dx3 :
"˛ˇ D @ˇ .x3 @˛ U3 / C @˛ .x3 @ˇ U3 /
2
h
2 h
2
D x3 @2˛ˇ U3 ; (12) (16)
1 Due to symmetry of the stress tensor, both twist-
"˛3 D .@˛ U3 C @˛ U3 / D 0 ; (13) ing moments are equal, M12 D M21 . Introducing
2
the material, Eqs. (10), (11), and (6)1 as well as
"33 D @3 U3 D 0 : (14) the kinematic Eq. (12) into (16)2 yield
4 Finite Elements for Plates and Shells

h
Z2
E    
M11 D x3 @1 U1  x3 @211 U3 C  @2 U2  x3 @222 U3 dx3
.1   2 /
h
2

h
Z2
E  2   
D x32 @11 U3 C  @222 U3 dx3
.1   2 /
h
2

Eh3 Eh3
D K 11 C K22 ; (17)
12.1   2 / 12.1   2 /
Eh3 Eh3
M22 D K 22 C K11 ; (18)
12.1   2 / 12.1   2 /
Eh3
M12 D K12 : (19)
12.1 C /

 4  q
In the last step in Eq. (17), the definition of @1111 C 2@41122 C @42222 U3 D ; (24)
D
the curvature from Eq. (15) has been used. This
defines the material equations of Kirchhoff plate where the abbreviation
theory, combining stress resultants and kinematic
variables. There is no such expression for the Eh3
D WD (25)
transverse shear forces Q˛ , because kinematic 12.1   2 /
assumption 1b is equivalent to assuming an in-
finite transverse shear stiffness along with zero for the plate bending stiffness has been used.
transverse shear strain, cf. Eq. (13). The virtual work principle (principle of virtual
The equilibrium equations for the case of later- displacements) can be written as
ally loaded plates (no distributed moments) read Z
ıK˛ˇ M˛ˇ d˝
@1 M11 C @2 M12  Q1 D 0 ; (20) ˝
„ ƒ‚ …
@2 M22 C @1 M12  Q2 D 0 ; (21) ıWint
Z Z
@1 Q1 C @2 Q2 C q D 0 : (22)
D ıU3 q d˝ C ıU3 Qn d@˝ ; (26)
˝ @˝
Eliminating Q1 and Q2 from the system of „ ƒ‚ …
Eqs. (20), (21), and (22) yields ıWext

@211 M11 C 2@212 M12 C @222 M22 C q D 0 : (23)
Along with the material law and the kinematic
equations, this finally provides the biharmonic
differential equation (strong form) of the Kirch-
hoff plate model,
where Qn denotes prescribed transverse shear
forces at the Neumann part of the boundary @˝ .
Along with the kinematic and material equations
of the Kirchhoff plate model, the virtual work
principle can be written in terms of the primal
variable U3 only,
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
Z
 2
@11 ıU3 D@211 U3 C 2@212 ıU3 D.1  /@212 U3 C @222 ıU3 D@222 U3 d˝
˝
Z Z
D ıU3 q d˝ C
˝ @˝
The requirement of this equation to hold for
arbitrary virtual displacements ıU3 is mathemat-
ically equivalent to the equilibrium equations and
the force boundary conditions. An approximation
error comes into play as soon as the function
spaces for U3 and ıU3 are restricted, as it is done
in finite element formulations.
Finite Element Formulation
Here, and in the following, it is assumed that
the reader has some basic knowledge of the
finite element method (FEM). The focus of this
chapter is on specific aspects of finite element
formulations for plates and shells. Within FEM,
the domain ˝ is divided into subdomains ˝e ,
S
the finite elements, such that ˝ D ˝e . Each
element has a set of nodes K, where the ones on
the element edges are shared with neighboring el-
ements and carry the same degrees of freedom. In
a standard Galerkin finite element approach (also
often called standard displacement formulation),
the primary variable, namely, the displacement
U3 in Kirchhoff plate theory, is approximated
by a local ansatz, consisting of shape functions
expressed in terms of local element coordinates
; . The virtual displacements are treated simi-
larly. The shape functions cannot be freely chosen
but are subject to a number of conditions in
order to obtain a consistent formulation. These
conditions crucially depend on the underlying
weak form, in particular the variational index
nv . It is defined as the highest derivative of the
primal variable showing up in the virtual work
principle (27).
The most important conditions are as fol-
lows:
1. The shape functions have to be complete up to
polynomial order nv .
5

ıU3 Qn d@˝ 8ıU3 : (27)
2. The shape functions have to be C nv - F
continuous inside the elements.
3. The shape functions have to be C nv 1 -
continuous across element boundaries,
where a C n -continuous function is defined
as a function for which the nth derivative is
continuous. For mixed and hybrid-mixed finite
element formulations, based on multi-field
variational principles, different conditions apply.
For displacement-based elements, conditions 1
and 2 are necessary for consistency (and thus,
along with stability, for convergence), whereas
condition 3 is only a sufficient condition. Thus,
incompatible formulations may or may not be
convergent, which has to be checked individually,
for instance, via the patch test.
The variational index for Kirchhoff plate
theory is nv D 2, as second derivatives
show up in the definition of the curvature and
twist. Therefore, according to condition 1, at
least completely quadratic shape functions are
required. Condition 2 is easily satisfied, but the
third condition, asking for C 1 -continuity across
element edges, poses severe challenges. The
difficulties in formulating corresponding shape
functions are one of the major reasons for the
popularity of Reissner-Mindlin-type plate and
shell finite elements, for which C 0 -continuity is
sufficient (see below).
In analogy to C 1 -continuous Bernoulli beam
finite elements, which use cubic Hermite poly-
nomials to interpolate the transverse deflection
from nodal displacements and their derivatives, it
is natural to introduce displacements U3 as well
as their directional derivatives @˛ U3 (or, equiv-
alently, rotations ˛ ) as nodal unknowns. Adini
and Clough (1961) proposed a corresponding
formulation for rectangular four-node elements
using 12 degrees of freedom. The element is
6 Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
known as Adini-Clough-Melosh (ACM) element
today, as Melosh (1961) independently developed
an identical formulation. The ACM element sat-
isfies C 1 -continuity at the nodes but not along
the edges and is thus incompatible. Moreover, it
does not pass the patch test for quadratic displace-
ments (constant moments).
In order to overcome this problem, Bogner
et al. (1965) introduced an additional twisting
degree of freedom @212 U3 . The resulting BFS
element is C 1 -continuous along the edges for
the special case of rectangular element shapes. A
similar construction for arbitrary quadrilaterals,
however, is not possible. As the aforementioned
continuity condition is sufficient, but not neces-
sary for convergence, the BFS element can still
be used for arbitrarily shaped elements.
Figure 2 shows the function spaces of the
ACM and BFS element, respectively. The
quadratic pattern of the BFS element on the
right illustrates the fact that the shape functions
can be obtained in the form of a tensor product of
the one-dimensional cubic Hermite polynomials
used for Bernoulli beam elements.
One of the first fully conforming elements is
the HCT element by Clough and Tocher (1965).
It relies on subdivision of a triangular element
into subtriangles. Its limited popularity today is
probably due to the cumbersome formulation and
implementation and the fact that it is relatively
stiff.
An alternative strategy is to circumvent the
C 1 -requirement using the discrete Kirchhoff con-
cept, pioneered by Stricklin et al. (1969) and
Dhatt (1970). It relies on the idea of using a
shear deformable plate model as basis, for which
C 0 -continuous shape functions are sufficient (see
the section on “Reissner-Mindlin-Type Plate and
Shell Models” below). The Kirchhoff constraint
of normals remaining normal is then discretely
satisfied along the edges of the element, such
that convergence to the Kirchhoff plate solution
is guaranteed with mesh refinement. More pre-
cisely, the deflection along the edges is linked
to the nodal rotations like in Bernoulli beam
elements. The idea did not receive a lot of at-
tention until (Batoz 1980) (see also Batoz 1982)
presented an in-depth study of its theoretical
background, performance, and practical imple-
mentation. Until today, the DKT (discrete Kirch-
hoff triangle) element is one of the most popular
Kirchhoff plate finite elements.
Since approximately three decades, most of
the literature focuses on general shell elements,
including plates as a special case, instead of
distinctively presenting plate finite element for-
mulations. More recent developments in finite
element formulations with relevance for plates
are therefore treated below in the section on
“Kirchhoff-Love Shell Finite Elements”.
Remarks on Modeling and Discretization
In this section, some qualities of linear Kirchhoff
plate theory that are of particular interest in the
context of finite element analysis are briefly de-
scribed.
The normality assumption is equivalent to as-
suming infinite transverse shear stiffness. As a re-
sult, transverse shear strains vanish, see Eq. (13),
and the material law cannot be used to com-
pute transverse shear forces. Instead, they are
computed from derivatives of the moments via
equilibrium Eqs. (20) and (21)
Q1 D @1 M11 C @2 M12 ; (28)
Q2 D @2 M22 C @1 M12 : (29)
The moments M˛ˇ are obtained from the cur-
vatures K˛ˇ via constitutive Eqs. (17), (18), and
(19). The curvatures are the second derivatives
of the deflection U3 according to Eq. (15). Thus,
Eqs. (28) and (29) involve 3rd derivatives of the
shape functions. In most C 1 -continuous Kirch-
hoff plate finite elements, the shape functions are
3rd order or higher. However, formulations with
quadratic shape functions are also possible, for
instance, when using splines (see the section on
Kirchhoff-Love Shell Elements below). In this
case, the 3rd derivatives are identically zero, and
the transverse shear forces cannot be obtained
directly from (28) and (29). An alternative is
to use finite differences on patches of adjacent
elements.
One of the peculiarities of Kirchhoff plate
theory is the mismatch between the order of the
differential equation (4th order) and the num-
ber of degrees of freedom available (only one,
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
Finite Elements for
Plates and Shells, Fig. 2
Function spaces of
rectangular Kirchhoff plate
finite elements by Adini
and Clough (1961) (left)
and Bogner et al. (1965)
(right)
viz., U3 ) to define boundary conditions. If, for
example, the transverse deflection U3 is fixed
along an edge parallel to the x1 -coordinate line,
then the rotation 1 D @1 U3 vanishes as well,
resulting in a twisting moment M21 as support
reaction. A Neumann-type boundary condition
M21 D 0 cannot be directly realized. At simply
supported edges, these twisting moments artifi-
cially contribute to equilibrium, and as a result,
the transverse shear forces and the actual support
reactions are underestimated.
The problem is resolved by introducing effec-
tive transverse shear forces that include a contri-
bution from derivatives of the artificial twisting
moments at the boundary:
Q1eff D Q1 C @2 M12 ; Q2eff D Q2 C @1 M21 :
(30)
An illustrative way to explain this idea is to
picture the twisting moments as pairs of forces
on infinitesimal line elements along the edge of
the plate. Adding the forces at the interfaces
of adjacent elements directly leads to the above
definition. It also gives rise to point forces at
corners of plates. In a finite element implemen-
tation, computation of the effective shear forces
has to be implemented in addition to the afore-
mentioned computation of shear forces from the
equilibrium equations. Note that Q˛eff are really
the physical forces and support reactions, not
just the artificial result of a mathematical trick.
In Mindlin’s shear deformable plate theory, the
point forces appear as strong concentrations of
transverse shear forces, which become singular
with vanishing plate thickness h ! 0. This
7
ingenious idea of Gustav Kirchhoff to resolve the
edge problem is the reason that thin plate theory
is associated with his name until today.
Kirchhoff plate theory does not involve any
boundary layer effects nor are there any locking
problems, such that no further remarks on dis-
cretization are necessary at this point. The most
important issue, namely, dealing with the C 1 -
continuity requirement, has already been treated
in the previous section.
Benchmarking
When assessing the performance of finite ele-
ments, it is first necessary to verify convergence.
This can be done by applying Iron’s patch test,
which demands exact representation of the pri-
mal variables up to a polynomial order equal to
the variational index. For Kirchhoff plates, this
means that quadratic displacement distributions,
and thus constant moments, have to be repre-
sented exactly for arbitrary meshes. This can be
tested by analyzing:
• A rectangular cantilever plate subject to a con-
stant bending moment along the edge opposite
to the clamped edge
• A rectangular plate that is simply supported at
two adjacent edges und subject to a point force
P at the free corner
If Poisson’s ratio is set to zero, the first scenario
produces a state of uniaxial bending with the ex-
act solution being identical to the corresponding
Bernoulli beam solution. In the second example,
a constant twisting moment M12 D  P2 occurs in
the case of a rectangular plate, independent of its
8 Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells, Fig. 3 Undeformed and deformed configuration of shell body
size. The point force corresponds to the effective
shear force at the edge, emanating from the non-
zero twisting moments along the free edge. Both
tests ought to be performed with regular and
irregular meshes.
Point forces in the interior of plates, some-
times used in benchmark problems in the lit-
erature, give rise to singularities in all stress
resultants, i.e., transverse shear forces, bending
moments, and the twisting moment become infi-
nite. The displacements under the load, however,
remain finite.
Kirchhoff-Love Shell Model
Kinematic Equations
This section focuses on the kinematic equations
of thin shell theory, because those are the most
important ones when discussing finite element
formulations. Shell formulations based on the
normality assumption, neglecting transverse
shear strains, can be traced back to the landmark
contribution of Love (1888). In contrast to plate
theory, there are numerous different possibilities
to formulate shell models, in particular regarding
simplifying assumptions concerning geometry
and curvature. A corresponding overview, with
an emphasis on shell modeling in the context of
finite element formulations, is given in Bischoff
et al. (2004).
In the following, the governing equations for
the geometrically nonlinear case are briefly sum-
marized. Convective, curvilinear coordinates  i
are used, where the mid-surface of the shell
is parametrized by  ˛ and  3 2 Œ h2 ; h2  is
the thickness coordinate; see Fig. 3. The nota-
tion to express partial derivatives is redefined as
@i .ı/ WD @.ı/
@ i
. Capital letters refer to quantities in
the undeformed configuration; lowercase letters
are used for the deformed configuration.
Dimensional reduction of the three-dimensional
equation is realized by expressing the position
vector X to a point in the undeformed shell body
by the position vector R to its projection on the
mid-surface and the shell normal (the so-called
director) A3 ,
X. 1 ;  2 ;  3 / D R. 1 ;  2 / C  3 A3 . 1 ;  2 / :
(31)
A similar expression applies for the deformed
configuration
x. 1 ;  2 ;  3 / D r. 1 ;  2 / C  3 a3 . 1 ;  2 / ; (32)
where r is related to R via the mid-surface dis-
placement v,
r D R C v: (33)
The displacement u of a point in the shell body is
given by
u D v C  3 .a3  A3 / : (34)
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells 9

The shell directors in the undeformed and de-

1 
formed configuration are obtained from the co- Eij D gij  Gij
2
variant base vectors A˛ D @˛ R and a˛ D @˛ r,
respectively, as 1 
D @i u  Gj C @j u  Gi C @i u  @j u ;
2
A1  A2 a1  a2 (38)
A3 D ; a3 D : (35)
jA1  A2 j ja1  a2 j
with gij D gi  gj and Gij D Gi  Gj , can
With the covariant base vectors in the shell body be expressed in terms of mid-surface quantities
F
only. Neglecting the parts that are quadratic in the
G˛ D @˛ X D @˛ R C  3 @˛ A3 D A˛ C  3 @˛ A3 ; thickness coordinate  3 , the kinematic equations
0
are separated into a membrane part E˛ˇ and
G3 D @3 X D A3 ; (36) curvatures K˛ˇ
3
g˛ D a˛ C  @˛ a3 ; g3 D a3 ; (37)
0
E˛ˇ D E˛ˇ C  3 K˛ˇ ; (39)
the components of the Green-Lagrange strain
tensor E D Eij Gi ˝ Gj , with

0 1  1 
E˛ˇ D @˛ v  Aˇ C @ˇ v  A˛ C @˛ v  @ˇ v D a˛ˇ  A˛ˇ ; (40)
2 2
1 
K˛ˇ D @˛ a3  aˇ C @ˇ a3  a˛  @˛ A3  Aˇ  @ˇ A3  A˛ ; (41)
2

where a˛ˇ D a˛  aˇ and A˛ˇ D A˛  Aˇ . The @ˇ a˛  a3 D @ˇ @˛ r  a3 D @˛ @ˇ r  a3

out-of-plane components Ei3 are zero.
From the orthogonality of A˛ and A3 (a˛ and
a3 , respectively) in the undeformed and deformed
configuration, it follows
@ˇ .A˛  A3 / D 0 D @ˇ A˛  A3 C A˛  @ˇ A3
) A˛  @ˇ A3 D @ˇ A˛  A3 ;
analogously: a˛  @ˇ a3 D @ˇ a˛  a3 : (44)
For a practical implementation, expressions of
the form @ˇ a˛  a3 are preferable to the equiva-
lent a˛ @ˇ a3 , because they are easier to linearize.
Furthermore, because derivatives commute,
we have
D @˛ aˇ  a3 DW b˛ˇ : (46)
B˛ˇ and b˛ˇ are the second fundamental forms
of the undeformed and the deformed mid-
surface, respectively. The curvatures can thus
be expressed as
(42)
K˛ˇ D b˛ˇ C B˛ˇ : (47)
(43)
For thin shells, the metric can be assumed to
be constant through the thickness (G˛  A˛ )
in the constitutive equations. This is also known
as Love’s first approximation. The contravariant
components of the membrane forces N ˛ˇ and
moments M ˛ˇ are thus given by

@ˇ A˛  A3 D @ˇ @˛ R  A3 D @˛ @ˇ R  A3
D @˛ Aˇ  A3 DW B˛ˇ ; (45)
10
 0   0
N 11 D Eh E11 0
C E22 ; N 22 D Eh E22
Eh
N 12 D E0 ;
2.1 C / 12
Eh3
M 11 D .K11 C K22 / ;
12.1   2 /
Eh3
M 12 D K12 :
12.1 C /
Finite Element Formulation
Like in the case of Kirchhoff plate elements,
the main challenge in the formulation of finite
elements for Kirchhoff-Love shell theory is
the requirement of C 1 -continuity. Essentially,
Kirchhoff-Love shell finite elements can be
formulated as a combination of concepts for
Kirchhoff plates for the bending part and two-
dimensional solid elements for the membrane
part. For the latter, C 0 -continuity of the
displacement approximation is sufficient. Until
today, classical concepts developed in the early
days of finite element analysis, like the SHEBA
family of shell finite elements (Argyris and
Scharpf 1968), belong to the most popular
formulations. A relatively simple, yet very
successful, thin shell element can be obtained
from the combination of the DKT element,
described above, with the CST element (constant
strain triangle) for the membrane part; see Bathe
and Ho (1981). Also the BFS and ACM element
technologies, described above, can be extended
to shells.
Fully conforming Kirchhoff-Love shell finite
elements based on the technology of subdivi-
sion surfaces have been proposed by Cirak et al.
(2000). C 1 -continuous function spaces may also
be constructed using splines. Although spline-
based finite elements are known since the 1970s,
(Höllig 2003), corresponding formulations, had
their breakthrough only after Hughes et al. (2005)
proposed the technology of isogeometric analy-
sis (IGA). Using B-splines or NURBS (nonuni-
form rational B-splines) allows construction of
fully C 1 -continuous function spaces already with
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells

0
C E11 ; (48)
(49)
Eh3
M 22 D .K22 C K11 / ; (50)
12.1   2 /
(51)
quadratic basis functions. The group around Kai-
Uwe Bletzinger in Munich was the first to present
a corresponding Kirchhoff-Love shell element in
Kiendl et al. (2009).
Kirchhoff-Love shell finite elements do not
play a dominant role today in commercial finite
element codes. However, the introduction of IGA
has triggered a renaissance of the Kirchhoff-Love
shell model, and discussion of corresponding
formulations has reentered the focus of research
in computational mechanics.
Membrane Locking and Methods to Avoid It
Besides the C 1 -continuity requirement, the
main challenge in finite element technology for
Kirchhoff-Love shell theory is the problem of
membrane locking. Generally, the term locking
describes the phenomenon that finite elements
behave too stiff in certain situations. Locking can
be defined phenomenologically by the following
symptoms:
1. Displacements are severely underestimated
for coarse meshes. In the pre-asymptotic
range, the order of convergence is below the
optimal one.
2. For a given mesh, the error depends on a cer-
tain model parameter, and also the size of the
pre-asymptotic range with suboptimal conver-
gence depends on this parameter. In the case
of thin-walled structures, this parameter is the
slenderness; for general elasticity problems, it
is the bulk modulus (volumetric locking, also
called Poisson locking, not treated herein).
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
3. Nonphysical stresses occur mostly in an oscil-
lating manner.
Membrane locking results from the inability
to represent pure bending deformations, also
called inextensional deformations in the context
of shells, if the elements are curved. Due to
the complexity of the differential equations for
curved beams and shells, the origin of membrane
locking is not as easily explained as transverse
shear locking, which occurs in the Mindlin plate
model (see below). One way to shed some light
on this phenomenon is to consider a finite element
formulation based on degrees of freedom aligned
with the curvilinear coordinate system. This is
not typically done in FEM, but it can be done
and serves as a vehicle to explain the origin of
membrane locking in the following.
We consider a circular arch with radius R,
fixed at one end and modeled by geometrically
linear Bernoulli beam theory. Defining u and w as
the tangential and outward radial displacement,
respectively, and  as the axial coordinate of the
curved beam, the kinematic equations are
w u
" D @1 u C ; D @1  @211 w ; (52)
R R
where " is the normal strain (corresponding to
the membrane strain in the context of shells) and
is the curvature. A pure bending deformation
requires the membrane strain to vanish, " D 0,
such that
w w
@1 u D  ) D  @211 w : (53)
R R2
If polynomials or splines are used as shape func-
tions, as typical for FEM and IGA, a constant
curvature D 0 (constant bending moment)
together with (53)2 implies the condition that w is
constant. Due to the applied boundary condition,
this constant must be zero and consequently w D
0 in the entire beam. From Eq. (53)2 , it then
follows that also D 0. Therefore, the condition
of vanishing membrane strains D 0 implies
zero curvature and thus zero bending moments,
effectively excluding inextensional deformations.
11
The phenomenon can also be explained via
the unbalance of derivatives in the kinematic
equations. Assume that equal order interpolation
with polynomials of order p is used for both u
and w. Then, " D 0 can only be fulfilled if the
order of w is p  1, because @1 u is of order p  1.
Furthermore, with Eq. (52)2 , a constant requires
the balance of @1 u and @211 w. From the previous
condition, @211 w is of order p 3, so u would have F
to be of order p  2. Reintroducing this into (52)
for " D 0 now imposes w to be of order p  3 and
so on. No matter how high the polynomial order
of the involved finite element approximation is,
eventually the entire approximation power is lost.
Standard displacement-based Kirchhoff-Love
shell elements with equal order interpolation of
all variables therefore suffer from membrane
locking, regardless of the type of shape functions
used, e.g., Lagrange polynomials, B-splines,
or NURBS. However, as already mentioned,
membrane locking shows up only for curved
elements. Thus, linear triangles are always free
from membrane locking. Bilinear quadrilaterals
exhibit locking only for warped geometry. In
many practical situations, the elements are
flat or almost flat, if the structure is meshed
accordingly. For instance, a structured mesh of
a cylindrical shell consists of flat elements only.
Therefore, removing membrane locking for low-
order elements is not extensively treated in the
literature.
One way to avoid membrane locking is selec-
tive reduced integration of the membrane part.
The drawback of this simple method is that zero
energy modes (hourglass modes) can spoil the
solution. Another option is to enrich the function
space of the membrane strains by the enhanced
assumed strain (EAS) method by Simo and Rifai
(1990) or, equivalently, by the method of incom-
patible modes (Taylor et al. 1976). This does
not completely remove membrane locking in the
case of distorted meshes, but it alleviates it to an
amount that satisfies practical needs.
Benchmarking
As plates are a subset of shells, the same bench-
marks proposed for Kirchhoff plate elements
should also be passed by Kirchhoff-Love shell
12
Finite Elements for
Plates and Shells, Fig. 4
Cylindrical shell strip,
problem setup
finite elements. In addition, benchmarks to check
whether a given element is free from membrane
locking are needed. A simple, yet meaningful,
test is to compute a cylindrical shell strip subject
to uniaxial bending, as shown in Fig. 4; see also
Echter et al. (2013). If Poisson’s ratio is set to
zero, a purely uniaxial state of bending occurs
and the Bernoulli beam solution can be taken as
reference. Two load cases are considered, and in
both cases, the magnitude of the load is scaled
with h3 such that the displacement is independent
of the thickness in the thin limit.
In load case 1, a bending moment is applied at
the tip of the cantilever. It gives rise to a constant
bending moment M 11 in the entire structure,
while all other stress resultants are identically
zero. The radial displacement is w D 1:2, in-
dependent of the thickness. For a given finite
element mesh, the error will be zero or at least
independent of h if the element formulation is
locking-free. If the error increases with h, this is
a hint toward membrane locking. In load case 2,
a force is applied at the free end, resulting in
sinusoidally varying bending moments M 11 and
membrane forces N 11 . The exact  3 solution forthe
2 1
radial displacement is w D 10
C h 4000

0:9425C0:0007854h2 . Besides the displacement,
the membrane force N 11 should be checked. The
exact result can be easily computed from equi-
librium. An element that suffers from membrane
locking will show oscillations in N 11 . This test is
particularly important for elements with higher-
order shape functions, which often provide excel-
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
lent results for displacements, while at the same
time, the stress resultants exhibit huge errors.
The benchmark test ought to be performed
also with an irregular mesh. If, for instance, four-
node elements are used, the element edges must
not be aligned with the yaxis, such that inside
the domain, the elements have a warped paral-
lelogram shape. For regular meshes, four-node
elements usually perform well without special
treatment of the membrane part, but for deformed
meshes, locking may occur. This issue has been
studied in some detail in the doctoral thesis of the
author, (Bischoff 1999).
Numerous benchmarks for Kirchhoff-Love
shell elements may be found in the literature.
However, according to the author’s experience,
an element that passes the aforementioned simple
locking test will also perform well in other
benchmarks.
Reissner-Mindlin-Type Plate and
Shell Models
Mindlin Plate Model
Governing Equations and Weak Form
Shear deformable plate theory is frequently re-
lated to the contribution of Mindlin (1951), who
established a shear deformable plate model with
the aim to study the influence of rotatory iner-
tia on the bending vibration of plates, although
there have been earlier works, like the one of
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells 13

Reissner (1945). The differences are subtle, and As in this section, Cartesian coordinates are used;
this chapter mostly follows Mindlin’s derivation the symbol for the partial derivative is redefined
as it is simple and straightforward. accordingly, @i .ı/ WD @.ı/
@xi
. The linear part of the
Like in the case of the Kirchhoff plate model, in-plane strain is called the material curvature
there are kinematic assumptions and static as-
sumptions. However, the normality condition is 1 
˛ˇ D @ˇ ˛ C @˛ ˇ ; (59)
dropped, leaving: 2

as it is the energetically conjugate quantity to the

1. Kinematic assumption: Cross-sectional ma-
terial fibers remain straight during deforma-
tion. Thus, in-plane displacements u˛ are lin-
ear functions of the thickness coordinate x3 .
2. Static (kinetic) assumption: Transverse nor-
mal stress is zero, 33 D 0.
In the Mindlin plate model, the displacements are
given as
u˛ .x1 ; x2 ; x3 / D x3 ˛ .x1 ; x2 / ; (54)
u3 .x1 ; x2 ; x3 / D U3 .x1 ; x2 / : (55)
that is, the displacements ui .x1 ; x2 ; x3 / of
any point in the three-dimensional continuum
are expressed as functions of three variables
(as opposed to only one in the Kirchhoff
model), namely, the mid-surface displacement
U3 .x1 ; x2 / and the rotations of cross-sectional
fibers ˛ .x1 ; x2 /. Equation (54) realizes the
kinematic assumption. The decisive difference
to the Kirchhoff model, Eq. (7), is that rotations
are independent of the displacements. In order
to enforce the static assumption, the same
modification of the material law as in Kirchhoff
plate theory is carried out, cf. Eq. (9).
From Eqs. (54) and (55), the strain compo-
nents are obtained as
1   The equilibrium conditions in terms of the
"˛ˇ D x3 @ˇ ˛ C @˛ ˇ ; (56)
2
1
"˛3 D .˛ C @˛ U3 / D 0 ; (57)
2 (64) and kinematic Eqs. (59) and (60) provide a
"33 D @3 U3 D 0 : (58)
F
moment M˛ˇ and shows up in the corresponding
material equation. It differs from the geometric
curvature K˛ˇ D @2˛ˇ U3 but converges toward
it with decreasing thickness, lim ˛ˇ D K˛ˇ .
h!0
Transverse shear strain is non-zero in the
Mindlin plate model. The definition of the shear
angle
˛ D ˛ C @˛ U3 D 2"˛3 (60)
completes the kinematic equations. With the ab-
breviation D for the bending stiffness, introduced
in Eq. (25), the material equations can be writ-
ten as
M11 D D11 C D22 ; (61)
M22 D D22 C D11 ; (62)
M12 D D.1  /12 ; (63)
Q˛ D ˛s Gh ˛ ; (64)
where the first three equations are similar to
those used in Kirchhoff plate theory, for which
K˛ˇ D ˛ˇ . The parameter ˛s is the shear
correction factor that takes into account that the
through-the-thickness distribution of "˛3 is not
constant, as implied by the kinematic equations,
but approximately quadratic. It is usually set to
˛s D 56 .
stress resultants are identical to those of the
Kirchhoff model, Eqs. (20), (21), and (22). Intro-
ducing the material law, Eqs. (61), (62), (63), and
set of three second-order differential equations
14 Finite Elements for Plates and Shells

1 1 ˛s Gh
@211 1 C .1  /@222 1 C .1 C /@212 2  .1 C @1 U3 / D 0 ; (65)
2 2 D
1 1 ˛s Gh
@222 2 C .1  /@211 2 C .1 C /@212 1  .2 C @2 U3 / D 0 ; (66)
2 2 D
q
@211 U3 C @222 U3 D  : (67)
˛s Gh

It requires definition of three essential boundary
conditions at each edge, which matches the num-
ber of degrees of freedom (U3 , 1 , and 2 ). Thus,
in contrast to Kirchhoff plate theory, no extra
treatment is needed at the boundaries.
The coefficient of the last term in the first two
equilibrium Eqs. (65) and (66) ˛sDGh D 6˛s h.1/2
tends to infinity with decreasing thickness, while
the other coefficents are independent of h. There-
fore, for thin plates we are dealing with a set
of stiff differential equations, which is one of
the reasons for the problem of transverse shear
locking, described below.
Z h
@1 ı1 D@1 1 C @1 ı1 D@2 2 C @2 ı2 D@1 1 C @2 ı2 D@2 2
˝
The virtual work principle, which can serve as
a weak form for formulation of finite elements,
can be written as
Z Z
 
ı˛ˇ M˛ˇ C ı ˛ Q˛ d˝ D ıU3 q d˝ :
˝ ˝
(68)
The boundary terms, introducing prescribed mo-
ments and transverse shear forces at the edges,
are omitted for the sake of brevity. Introducing
the kinematic and material equations yields
(69)

1
C .@1 ı2 C @2 ı1 / D.1  / .@1 2 C @2 1 / (70)
2
i Z
C .ı˛ C @˛ ıU3 / ˛s Gh .˛ C @˛ U3 / d˝ D ıU3 q d˝ : (71)
˝

As only first derivatives of all primal variables quadrilateral finite elements with equal order
show up, the variational index of this weak form interpolation of U3 and ˛ ,
is nv D 1, and thus bilinear, C 0 -continuous shape 2 3 2 K3
functions are sufficient for consistency. This dra- U3 n
Xnode U3
matically simplifies finite element formulation in 4 1 5  NK 4 1K 5 (72)
comparison to Kirchhoff elements. According to 2 KD1 2K
the “no free lunch theorem,” this comes along
with trouble, namely, transverse shear locking, defining three degrees of freedom .ı/K at each
which is described below. node. If bilinear shape functions

Finite Element Formulation 1

NK D .1 C K / .1 C K / (73)
The simplest option to formulate finite elements 4
for the Mindlin plate model is to use Lagrange
are used, this results in a four-node element
shape functions NK for the formulation of
(nnode D 4) with a total of 12 degrees of freedom.
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells 15

In Eq. (73),  and  are the coordinates in the number of Gauss points is equal to the number
parametric space of the element, with 1  of nodes. Their performance, however, is strongly
f; g  1 and K ; K denote the nodal coordi- deteriorated by the problem of transverse shear
nates in this local coordinate system. locking, described below, particularly when low-
The discretized kinematic equations in Voigt order polynomials are used. In the context of
notation IGA, B-splines or NURBS are often used as
shape functions. The overall structure of the finite
2 3K 2 3
11 0 @1 NK 0 element formulation, however, is the same.
2 3K
6 22 7 6 0 0 @2 NK 7 F
6 7 n
Xnode
6 7 U3
6212 7 D 6 0 @2 NK @1 NK 74 1 5 Remarks on Modeling and Discretization
6 7 6 7
4 1 5 KD1 4@1 NK NK 0 5 2 In contrast to Kirchhoff plate theory, applying
2 @2 NK 0 NK proper boundary conditions does not involve par-
„ ƒ‚ … ticular challenges from a mathematical point of
BK
(74) view in shear deformable plate models, because
defines the nodal strain displacement matrix BK . the order of the governing differential equations
The element strain displacement matrix, refer- matches the number of degrees of freedom. How-
ring to all degrees of freedom, is defined as ever, boundary layers occurring in certain sit-
B D ŒB1 B2 B3 : : : Bnnode . Along with the ma- uations require special attention. In a nutshell,
terial matrix C in Voigt notation and the Jacobian boundary layers have to be expected at simply
matrix J, mapping element coordinates to the supported and free edges but not at clamped
global Cartesian coordinate system edges. Arnold and Falk (1989) provide an in-
depth study of this issue.
2 3
D D 0 0 0 For example, for a simply supported edge par-
6D D 0 0 0 7 allel to the x1 -direction, the essential and natural
6 7
CD6
6 0 0 D.1  / 0 0 7;
7
boundary conditions are U3 D 0, M22 D 0,
4 0 0 0 ˛s Gh 0 5 and M12 D 0. Both rotations ˛ are free (non-
0 0 0 0 ˛s Gh zero). In the Kirchhoff model, 1 D @1 U3 is
  zero, because U3 D 0, and thus M12 is non-zero.
@ x @ x
JD  1  1 ; (75) Within the domain, the Kirchhoff solution and the
@ x2 @ x2 Mindlin solution are approximately equal, with
the difference diminishing with thickness h going
the element stiffness matrix can be computed as to zero. At the boundary, however, there is a sig-
nificant difference: while in the Kirchhoff model,
Z1
large twisting moments M12 occur, those have
kD BT CB jJj dd : (76)
to be zero in the Mindlin model. Therefore, M12
1 varies from large values near the boundary to zero
The strain displacement matrix B contains deriva- at the boundary in a very narrow region, the so-
tives of the shape functions with respect to Carte- called boundary layer. Due to equilibrium, in the
sian coordinates, which have to be computed via same region, transverse shear forces build up. In
the chain rule fact, these are equivalent to the extra contribution
in the effective shear forces introduced in Eq. (30)
@˛ NK D @ NK @˛  C @ NK @˛  ; (77) for the Kirchhoff model to solve the edge prob-
lem. The point forces in the corner, showing up in
where @˛  and @˛  are the components of the the Kirchhoff theory, comply with concentrated
inverse of the Jacobian. transverse shear forces in the Mindlin model. For
For the Lagrangian family, Gauss integration h ! 0, these become singular.
provides a stable and consistent element if the In order to resolve the high gradient of the
solution, it is practical to introduce a small layer
16
of narrow elements along edges with boundary
layers. The high aspect ratios of the elements
usually do not introduce problems, although com-
mercial finite element codes might issue “shape
warnings” in such cases. The size of the boundary
layer is proportional to the thickness, such that for
very thin plates, it is extremely small.
Boundary layers can be avoided by introduc-
ing the artificial boundary condition ˛ D 0
at an edge parallel to x˛ , that is, fixing the
rotation normal to the edge. This is called hard
support in the literature, whereas the original,
physically more realistic version is denoted as
soft support. The hard support option is of mostly
academic interest. First of all, it mimics the artifi-
cial Kirchhoff constraint at the edge and allows a
direct comparison of solutions, either analytical
or numerical. Moreover, closed-form solutions
can be easily found for some special cases with
hard support, whereas exact analytical solutions
for problems with soft support are rare.
Another important issue in shear deformable
plate models is the singularity with respect to
point forces. In contrast to Kirchhoff theory, the
exact solution for the displacement under a point
force is infinity. For the same reason, the stiffness
of a point support is zero. For example, a uni-
formly loaded plate supported by single bearings
at the corners has infinite displacements in the
entire domain. The singularity is rather weak,
such that fine meshes are required to approxi-
mately resolve it. However, quantifying displace-
ments in such situations is pointless, because
any finite value is wrong. This is an issue also
when combining beam elements and plate (or
shell) elements in industrial applications. A plate
supported by columns that are modeled with
beam elements shows the same singularities as
described above, and the computational results
have to be interpreted with care.
Transverse Shear Locking and Methods to
Avoid It
The most important issue in the context of FEM
for shear deformable plates (and shells) is the
phenomenon of transverse shear locking. Along
the lines of the three typical symptoms of locking
outlined above in the section about membrane
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
locking in Kirchhoff-Love shell elements, the
following can be observed:
1. Displacements and rotations are underes-
timated, and the pre-asymptotic order of
convergence is below the optimal one. As a
result, also the bending and twisting moments
are underestimated.
2. The error depends on the thickness and in-
creases with decreasing thickness. More pre-
cisely, the length-to-thickness ratio of the indi-
vidual finite elements is the crucial parameter.
As a rule of thumb, it can be said that for
the standard displacement elements described
above, reasonable results cannot be expected
unless the element size is smaller than the
thickness. For plates with high aspect ratios,
extremely fine meshes are required, resulting
in prohibitive numerical expense.
3. Transverse shear forces show strong oscilla-
tions, with the maximum and minimum values
being much larger than the exact ones.
Like in the case of membrane locking, the ori-
gin of transverse shear locking can be explained
from the kinematic equations, exemplified here
for elements with bilinear shape functions. For
a case of pure bending, transverse shear forces
are zero, and thus also the shear angles have
to vanish, ˛ D 0. This condition also applies
for arbitrary load cases in the thin limit (the
“Kirchhoff limit”). From kinematic Eq. (60), it
follows
˛ D ˛ C@˛ U3 D 0 ) ˛ D @˛ U3 ;
(78)
which is identical to the normality constraint
from the Kirchhoff model. If linear shape func-
tions are used, @˛ U3 is constant, and thus ˛
also has to be constant in order to comply with the
constraint. From the definition of the curvature
in (59), it then follows
1
˛ˇ D @ˇ ˛ C@˛ ˇ D 0; (79)
2 „ƒ‚… „ƒ‚…
Dconst: Dconst:
meaning that the curvature is identically zero,
effectively excluding bending and twisting. Zero
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells 17

transverse shear strains thus imply zero moments which the parasitic part is zero. For the four-node
in the thin limit. Differential Eq. (65) and (66) elements, these are the centers of the element
illustrate why the problem gets worse with de- edges, such that
creasing thickness. The coefficient of the last
term ˛sDGh tends to infinity with h ! 0, and thus A
 D B .0; 1/d ; B
 D B .0; 1/d ; (81)
the parasitic, oscillating part of the transverse C D
shear strain dominates the entire solution.  D B .1; 0/d ;  D B .1; 0/d : (82)
For elements with higher-order shape func-
tions, this constraint is relaxed. Mindlin plate Here, d is the element displacement vector, and F
elements with quadratic shape functions are able B .; / and B .; / are the row vectors within
to exactly represent constant bending and twist- the strain displacement matrix B related to the
ing moments. However, transverse shear force transverse shear part, transformed into the ele-
oscillations still occur in general applications, ment coordinate system according to Eq. (80).
and the quality of the results also depends on the Modified transverse shear strains are then ob-
slenderness. This means that also these elements tained from linear interpolation of the strain com-
are not free from locking. Selective reduced in- ponents at the sampling points within the element
tegration of transverse shear is a simple option to 1 1
ANS A B
remove locking, but it needs stabilization to avoid  D .1  /  C .1 C /  ;
2 2
zero energy modes.
The literature on methods to avoid transverse ANS 1 C 1 D
 D .1  /  C .1 C /  : (83)
shear locking in plate and shell finite elements 2 2
is extremely rich and cannot be reviewed here.
Thus, ANS is constant in  by construction and
The focus is put onto the assumed natural strain
the parasitic part is removed. The same applies
(ANS) method, which is one of the most suc-
analogously for ANS . Introducing (81) and (82)
cessful and popular remedies. Inspired by the
into (83) defines modified entries
QUAD4 element of MacNeal (1978), it has been
proposed by Hughes and Tezduyar (1981). The 1 1
successful MITC (mixed interpolation of tenso- BN  D .1/B .0; 1/ C .1C/B .0; 1/ ;
2 2
rial components) family of finite elements (see
(84)
Bathe 2006 for a comprehensive overview) fol-
lows a similar concept. It is presented here in a 1
BN  D .1  /B .1; 0/
simplified and digested form that allows straight- 2
forward implementation. 1
C .1 C /B .1; 0/ ; (85)
In order to ensure optimal performance for 2
arbitrary finite element meshes, involving non-
rectangular element shapes, transverse shear for the strain displacement matrix. The modified
strains are expressed in the natural element strain displacement matrix BN contains BN  and
coordinate system, BN  , transformed back into the Cartesian coordi-
nate system, as well as the unmodified entries for
D the curvatures. The stiffness matrix can then be
 1 @ x1 C 2 @ x2 ;
computed in the usual way via Eq. (76).
 D 1 @ x1 C 2 @ x2 : (80) It is one of the elegant features of the ANS
method that relies on the standard nodal displace-
Transverse shear locking can be avoided by re- ment and rotation degrees of freedom and does
moving the parasitic linear parts of the trans- not introduce any additional unknowns. Defini-
verse shear strains that are responsible for the tions of boundary conditions, consistent nodal
oscillations. The idea is to collocate the natural forces for the loads, as well as the assembly
strain components at specific sampling points, at
18
procedure are the same as in the standard dis-
placement finite element formulation.
Benchmarking
The uniaxial bending test described as patch test
for Kirchhoff plate theory above is also useful
for Mindlin plate finite elements. However, pro-
viding the exact result is not a requirement for
consistency. Thus, strictly speaking this is not a
“patch test” for Mindlin plate finite elements. The
patch test as a numerical consistency test requires
exact representation of the primal variables up
to the order of the variational index nv . This
means that problems in which U3 and/or ˛ are
linear have to be represented exactly to ensure
consistency. These are the rigid body modes and
constant shear modes. Pure bending modes in-
volve quadratic displacement distributions, and
their exact representation is thus not needed for
consistency. Patch tests for pure shear defor-
mation with zero moments can be realized by
applying distributed moments. Both the standard
displacement element and the ANS element, de-
scribed above, pass these tests.
More important, however, are bending tests to
assess element performance in view of transverse
shear locking. A Mindlin plate finite element that
fails the uniaxial bending test may well be con-
vergent, but it will not provide satisfactory perfor-
mance. The ANS element provides exact results
in this case even for distorted meshes, but the
standard displacement element fails already for
regular meshes with rectangular element shapes,
because of transverse shear locking.
Analytical solutions for the academic case of
rectangular plates with hard support and also
for circular plates can be found, for instance, in
Reddy (1999). They can be used to assess the
performance of Mindlin plate elements. While
doing so, the following questions can be used as
a guideline to compare different finite element
formulations:
• Which element size is required to obtain a
predefined accuracy?
• Is the correct order of convergence, which
depends on the error norm used and the order
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
of the element shape functions, obtained with
mesh refinement?
• (How) does the solution deteriorate when us-
ing non-rectangular element shapes (distorted
meshes)?
• (How) does accuracy for a given mesh depend
on the slenderness?
It is important to take into account not only dis-
placements but also bending moments and shear
forces in the above considerations. While exam-
ining the sensitivity to mesh distortions, trape-
zoidal element shapes turn out to be particularly
demanding according to the author’s experience,
(Bischoff 1999). A popular benchmark for plate
elements that naturally involves non-rectangular
elements is a skew plate under uniform load,
often referred to as the Morley plate problem
(Morley 1962).
Particularly for finite elements relying on re-
duced integration, it is important to check for
artificial zero energy modes. This can be ac-
complished by verifying the correct rank of the
system stiffness matrix by an eigenvalue analysis.
If the finite element program does not include
this feature, a plate on point supports, subject to
a point force, which triggers the corresponding
modes, can be computed. Otherwise, benchmarks
with point loads and point supports are not rec-
ommended, because of the related singularities.
The exact solution for the displacement under a
point force is infinity in the Mindlin plate model.
For the same reason, the stiffness of a point
support is zero.
Reissner-Mindlin Shell Model
Kinematic Equations
Like in the section on the Kirchhoff-Love shell
model, also here the focus is on the kinematic
equations, which are the most important ones
for discussing finite element formulations and
locking. There is no such thing as “the” Reissner-
Mindlin shell theory, but numerous different
formulations exist, mostly distinguished by the
particular kinematic assumptions and other
approximations. They are also sometimes
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
denoted as first-order shear deformation theories
(FOSDT). For finite element formulations,
however, these differences are only of secondary
importance. It is thus sufficient here to regard
shear deformable shell theories as an extension
of shear deformable plate theory to curved
structures, augmented by a membrane part.
The governing equations of a shear de-
formable, Reissner-Mindlin-type shell formu-
lation can be derived from the ones of Kirchhoff-
Love shell theory by introducing rotations of
the director as independent variables. With the
definition of a rotation tensor ˚ , the director in
the deformed configuration is obtained as
a3 D ˚  A3 : (86)
This replaces the construction of a3 from the nor-
mality assumption (35)2 in the Kirchhoff-Love
model. The nontrivial parametrization of ˚ in the
presence of large rotations, for instance, using
Euler angles, Rodrigues parameters, or quater-
nions, is not further discussed here.
Like in the Kirchhoff-Love model, the strains
are split into a membrane part and a bending part,
cf. Eq. (39). The expression for the membrane
strain components
0 1  in (89) reveals the same source of transverse
E˛ˇ D @˛ v  Aˇ C @ˇ v  A˛ C @˛ v  @ˇ v
2 shear locking that could already be identified
1  in Eq. (60) in the Mindlin plate model. While
D a˛ˇ  A˛ˇ (87)
2 the displacement is subject to a derivative, the
is identical to the ones from Kirchhoff-Love shell
theory, Eq. (40). The curvatures
˛ˇ D @˛ aˇ  a3 C B˛ˇ (88)
can formally also be obtained from the expression
derived in the context of Kirchhoff-Love shell
theory, Eq. (41), but they are not identical. The
first expression is not equal to the first fundamen-
tal form, @˛ aˇ a3 ¤ b˛ˇ because a3 is not normal
to the deformed surface. As a consequence, the
material curvature differs from the geometric
curvature ˛ˇ ¤ K˛ˇ , cf. Eq. (47). Finally, the
transverse shear strain components are given as
19
1
E˛3 D .a˛  a3  A˛  A3 /
2 „ ƒ‚ …
D0
1
D .A˛  a3 C @˛ v  a3 /
2
1
D .A˛  ˚  A3 C @˛ v  a3 / : (89)
2
The linear part in  3 of the transverse shear strain F
is zero.
Assuming a constant metric through the thick-
ness (Love’s first approximation) is no longer
valid for moderately thick shells. One way to deal
with this problem is to define so-called effective
stress resultants, referring to the metric of the
mid-surface (see Simo and Fox (1989), Bischoff
et al. (2004) for details).
Finite Element Formulation
Formulation of Reissner-Mindlin shell elements
is technically much simpler than formulation
of Kirchhoff-Love shell elements. Kinematic
Eqs. (87), (88), and (89) contain only first
derivatives of displacements and rotations, and
thus the variational index is nv D 1, allowing for
C 0 -continuous shape functions. This simplicity,
however, comes along with the problem of
transverse shear locking. The last expression
rotation is not, resulting in an unbalance of the
function spaces in the representation of E˛3 .
In addition, the problem of membrane locking,
already discussed in the context of Kirchhoff-
Love shell finite elements, also exists in shear
deformable shell elements.
Historically, there are two apparently com-
peting strategies to obtain shell finite elements
including transverse shear effects:
1. Directly discretizing the weak form obtained
from a given shell theory
2. Applying the shell assumptions and dimen-
sional reduction to a given three-dimensional
discretization of the shell continuum, using
linear shape functions through the thickness
20
While the first option seems straightforward, it
is frequently regarded as more complicated and
mathematically more demanding than the second
one. This second possibility has first been pro-
posed by Ahmad et al. (1968). The idea is known
as concept of degeneration or – somewhat less
discriminating – continuum-based approach (not
to be confused with continuum shell elements,
see below). Although the technical derivation
significantly differs between both cases, the re-
sulting finite elements are identical, if identical
assumptions are made and the same finite ele-
ment technology is applied, (Büchter and Ramm
1992b).
Reissner-Mindlin-type shell elements can be
formulated as an extension of Mindlin plate el-
ements to curved geometry, supplemented by
a membrane part. Concepts to avoid transverse
shear locking, described above in the context of
Mindlin plates, can be combined with concepts
to avoid membrane locking, already addressed in
the context of Kirchhoff-Love shell elements. A
popular combination, realized in many scientific
and commercial finite element codes, is to use the
ANS (or MITC) method to avoid transverse shear
locking and the EAS method to alleviate mem-
brane locking, (Andelfinger and Ramm 1993).
The ANS method can also be used to remove
membrane locking. However, in the case of four-
node elements, these do not pass the patch test
in the membrane part. Another popular method
that can be used to avoid both transverse shear
locking and membrane locking is the discrete
strain gap (DSG) method, (Bletzinger et al. 2000;
Koschnick et al. 2005), which exhibits compara-
ble performance to the MITC family of elements.
A very successful shear deformable shell ele-
ment based on reduced integration and stabiliza-
tion has been proposed by Belytschko and Tsay
(1981). Its coarse mesh accuracy is not very good,
but due to the technology of reduced integration
and its specific algorithmic setup, it is extremely
efficient and fast. The Belytschko-Tsay element
(and modified versions of it) is the work horse in
explicit dynamic analyses, for instance, for crash
simulations in automotive industry.
Although C 1 -continuous discretization is not
required for the case of shear deformable shell
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
theories, it can help to avoid locking already
on the level of their mathematical formulation.
Corresponding formulations hierarchically add
the transverse shear contribution to the Kirchhoff-
Love equations. The resulting elements are then
intrinsically free from transverse shear locking
(see Long et al. (2012) for a formulation using
subdivision surfaces, as well as Echter et al.
(2013), and Oesterle et al. (2016) in the context
of IGA). An equally elegant method to remove
membrane locking is still unknown.
Remarks on Modeling and Discretization
For Reissner-Mindlin shell elements, the same
remarks apply as for Mindlin plate elements,
particularly regarding boundary layers and the
singularities associated with point forces and
point supports. Moreover, the curved geometry
introduces an additional issue. C 0 -continuous
discretization naturally involves non-smooth
representation of the shell geometry. Conse-
quently, the normal direction and thus definition
of the director A3 are not unique at the nodes.
The rotation tensor ˚ used for the update of
the normal in Eq. (86) contains two independent
rotations about axes lying in the tangent plane
to the shell’s mid-surface. As the normal is not
unique, there is also no distinct tangent plane
at the nodes. Coupling of rotational degrees of
freedom between adjacent elements is therefore
not well defined.
One option to resolve this problem is to use
the average of the element normals as director
and to define the tangent plane as the normal
plane to this vector. However, in practical ap-
plications, also modeling of folded plates, shells
with discrete kinks, and shells with intersections
is required. Therefore, in commercial finite ele-
ment codes, tailored for industrial applications,
an additional, third rotation is introduced, which
resolves the problem. For C 1 -continuous dis-
cretizations or the special case of flat plates,
this rotation complies with a rotation of the di-
rector about its axes, which is not associated
with any deformation. Consequently, no physi-
cal stiffness can be assigned to this “drilling”
rotation. Assigning zero stiffness to this non-
physical rotational degree of freedom may result
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
in artificial zero energy modes. A small penalty
stiffness is often applied to remove this problem.
Alternatively, so-called Allman rotations, (All-
man 1984), see also Bergan and Felippa (1985),
Hughes and Brezzi (1989), can be used. They
link the rotations to in-plane displacements via
particular shape functions.
It is important to realize that, regardless of
the specific technology used to introduce drilling
rotations, the associated stiffness is essentially
nonphysical. With mesh refinement, it tends to
zero. If, as an example, rotational degrees of free-
dom of a beam element, connected with the shell
element, are coupled with this drilling rotation,
the associated connecting stiffness is wrong.
Benchmarking
The benchmark problems proposed above for
Mindlin plate elements and Kirchhoff-Love shell
elements are also sensible for Reissner-Mindlin
shell elements. Analyzing bending of flat plates
effectively isolates the effect of transverse shear
locking and allows to study the corresponding
element performance separately from membrane
locking. The cylindrical shell strip (Fig. 4) can
be used as a test for membrane locking. Three-
node triangles are free from membrane locking,
because they are always flat. Ironically, six-node
triangles with quadratic shape functions therefore
often perform much worse in this case than linear
elements, provided these are free from transverse
shear locking. Four-node elements will perform
well for a regular mesh, because in this case they
are also flat. Therefore, a distorted mesh with
warped element geometry must be used to assess
the tendency of an element to membrane locking.
Out of the multitude of benchmark problems
proposed in the literature, the Scordelis-Lo roof
problem, (Scordelis and Lo 1964), ought to be
mentioned here for two reasons. First, reference
solutions can be found in many papers, and sec-
ond, it is a well-suited problem not only for
investigating shear and membrane locking but
also to test the ability of a given finite element to
represent complex states of membrane strain and
stress. Many popular benchmark problems, such
as the pinched cylinder and pinched hemisphere
problem, involve point forces. Like in the case
21
of Mindlin plates, this is not recommendable
because of the involved singularities.
Three-Dimensional and Solid Shell
Finite Elements
Since the beginning of the 1990s, three-
dimensional shell formulations, including F
transverse normal strain and stress, entered the
stage, (Simo et al. 1990; Büchter and Ramm
1992a; Sansour 1996). The corresponding
elements typically involve linearly varying
transverse normal strains and thus allow for
implementation of arbitrary three-dimensional
constitutive laws without any modifications,
needed in classical shell formulations to enforce
the zero transverse normal stress condition,
cf. Eq. (9). Still, they rely on the concept
of dimensional reduction, i.e., all degrees of
freedom are located on the mid-surface.
This steps back into three dimensions giving
rise to an additional locking phenomenon, associ-
ated with parasitic transverse normal stress in the
case of pure bending of curved structures. It has
been first described in Ramm et al. (1994); later
the term curvature thickness locking has been
coined in Bischoff and Ramm (1997). It is closely
related to the phenomenon of trapezoidal locking
in the context of two-dimensional and three-
dimensional solid elements. A method to avoid
this locking effect, based on the ANS concept,
has been proposed in parallel by Betsch et al.
(1996) and Bischoff and Ramm (1997). It can
also be removed using the DSG method, which is
a general method to avoid all geometric locking
effects, (Bischoff 1999).
As an alternative, three-dimensional finite
elements can be formulated in a way that makes
them suitable for the analysis of both thick
and thin shells, (Parisch 1995; Hauptmann and
Schweizerhof 1998). Already earlier, Schoop
(1986) had described a corresponding surface-
oriented shell theory, anticipating this idea.
Formulation of these solid shell finite elements
(also sometimes denoted as continuum shell
elements or surface-oriented shell elements)
requires in particular the implementation of
22
suitable methods to remove transverse shear
locking, membrane locking, and curvature
thickness locking and to ensure convergence
to the shell solution in the thin limit. These
technologies are applied in an anisotropic
manner, specifically assigning in-plane and
transverse directions to the solid finite element.
Solid shell elements can therefore be regarded
as three-dimensional shell elements with the
nodes located at the upper and lower surface
of the shell instead of its mid-surface. They are
available in many commercial finite element
codes today. There are several advantages over
three-dimensional shell elements relying on a
mid-surface description. Solid shells do not
involve rotational degrees of freedom, and
they provide flexibility in modeling of complex
structures involving both thin and thick regions.
Transition to standard solid elements for bulk
regions is straightforward. In the context of
explicit dynamics, the large transverse normal
stiffness has a negative effect on the critical time
step. This problem can, for instance, be tackled
by appropriate mass scaling, Confalonieri et al.
(2015).
Cross-References
 3D Derivations of Static Plate Theories
 Classical Plate Problems
 Direct Derivation of Plate Theories
 Elastic Shells, Linear Shear-Deformable
Theory
 Elastic Shells, Resultant Non-linear Theory
 Finite Element Methods
 Isogeometric Finite Element Analysis
 Laminated Composite Elastic Shells, Non-lin-
ear Theory
 Limit Analysis of Plates
 Mathematical Justifications of Plate Models
 On Treatment of Finite Rotations in FEM Anal-
yses of Irregular Shell Structures
 Thin Elastic Shells, Lagrangian Geometrically
Non-linear Theory
 Thin Elastic Shells, Linear Theory
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
References
Adini A, Clough RW (1961) Analysis of plate bending
by the finite element method. Report to the National
Science Foundation, USA, G7337
Ahmad D, Irons B, Zienkiewicz O (1968) Curved thick
shell and membrane elements with particular reference
to axi-symmetric problems. In: Berke L, Bader RM,
Mykytow WJ, Przemieniecki JS, Shirk MH (eds) Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd conference on matrix methods in
structural mechanics
Allman DJ (1984) A compatible triangular element in-
cluding vertex rotations for plane elasticity analyses.
Comput Struct 19:1–8
Andelfinger U, Ramm E (1993) EAS-elements for two-
dimensional, three-dimensional, plate and shell struc-
tures and their equivalence to HR-elements. Int J Nu-
mer Methods Eng 36:1311–1337
Argyris JH, Scharpf DW (1968) The SHEBA family of
shell elements for the matrix displacement method.
Aeronaut J 72:873–883
Arnold D, Falk R (1989) Edge effects in the Reissner-
Mindlin plate theory. In: Noor A, Belytschko T, Simo
J (eds) Analytical and computational models for shells.
ASME, New York, pp 71–90
Bathe K (2006) Finite element procedures. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs
Bathe KJ, Ho LW (1981) A simple and effective element
for analysis of general shell structures. Comput Struct
13:673–681
Batoz JL (1980) A study of three-node triangular plate
bending elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng 15:1771–
1812
Batoz JL (1982) An explicit formulation for an efficient
triangular plate bending element. Int J Numer Methods
Eng 18:1077–1089
Belytschko TB, Tsay CS (1981) Explicit algorithms for
nonlinear dynamics of shells. In: Hughes TJR, Pifko A,
Jay A (eds) Nonlinear finite element analysis of plates
and shells, AMD-48. ASME, pp 209–231
Bergan PG, Felippa CA (1985) A triangular membrane
element with rotational degrees of freedom. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 50:25–69
Betsch P, Gruttmann F, Stein E (1996) A 4-node finite
shell element for the implementation of general hyper-
elastic 3D-elasticity at finite strains. Comput Methods
Appl Mech Eng 130:57–79
Bischoff M (1999) Theorie und Numerik einer dreidimen-
sionalen Schalenformulierung. Ph.D. thesis, Institut für
Baustatik, Universität Stuttgart
Bischoff M, Ramm R (1997) Shear deformable shell
elements for large strains and rotations. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 40:4427–4449
Bischoff M, Bletzinger KU, Wall WA, Ramm E (2004)
Models and finite elements for thin-walled structures.
In: Encyclopedia of computational mechanics. Wiley,
Chichester, pp 59–137
Bletzinger KU, Bischoff M, Ramm E (2000) A unified
approach for shear-locking-free triangular and rect-
Finite Elements for Plates and Shells
angular shell finite elements. Comput Struct 75(3):
321–334
Bogner FK, Fox RL, Schmit LA Jr (1965) The generation
of interelement compatible stiffness and mass matrices
by the use of interpolation formulas. In: Bader R et al
(ed) Proceeding of 1st conference on matrix methods in
structural mechanics, Airforce Institute of Technology,
Dayton, pp 397–444
Büchter N, Ramm E (1992a) 3D-extension of nonlinear
shell equations based on the enhanced assumed strain
concept. In: Hirsch C (ed) Computational methods
in applied sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam/New York,
pp 39–59
Büchter N, Ramm E (1992b) Shell theory versus degen-
eration – a comparison in large rotation finite element
analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 37:55–62
Cirak F, Ortiz M, Schröder P (2000) Subdivision surfaces:
a new paradigm for thin-shell finite-element analysis.
Int J Numer Methods Eng 47:2039–2072
Clough RW, Tocher JL (1965) Finite element stiffness
matrices for analysis of plate bending. In: Proceedings
of the conference on matrix methods in structural
mechanics, WPAFB, Ohio, pp 515–545
Confalonieri F, Ghisi A, Perego U (2015) 8-node solid
shell elements selective mass scaling for explicit dy-
namic analysis of layered thin-walled structures. Com-
put Mech 56:585–599
Dhatt G (1970) An efficient triangular shell element.
AIAA J 8:2100–2102
Echter R, Oesterle B, Bischoff M (2013) A hierarchic
family of isogeometric shell finite elements. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng 254:170–180
Hauptmann R, Schweizerhof K (1998) A systematic de-
velopment of ‘solid-shell’ element formulations for
linear and non-linear analyses employing only dis-
placement degrees of freedom. Int J Numer Methods
Eng 42:49–69
Höllig K (2003) Finite element methods with B-splines.
Frontiers in Applied Mathematics, vol 26. SIAM,
Philadelphia
Hughes TJR, Brezzi F (1989) On drilling degrees
of freedom. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 72:
105–121
Hughes TJR, Tezduyar TE (1981) Finite elements based
upon Mindlin plate theory with particular reference to
the four-node bilinear isoparametric element. J Appl
Mech 48:587–596
Hughes TJR, Cottrel JA, Bazilevs Y (2005) Isogeometric
analysis: CAD, finite elements, NURBS, exact geome-
try and mesh refinement. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 194:4135–4195
Kiendl J, Bletzinger KU, Linhard J, Wüchner R (2009)
Isogeometric shell analysis with Kirchhoff-Love el-
ements. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198:
3902–3914
Kirchhoff G (1850) Über das Gleichgewicht und die
Bewegung einer elastischen Scheibe. J für die reine und
angewandte Mathematik 40:51–88
Koschnick F, Bischoff M, Camprubí N, Bletzinger KU
(2005) The discrete strain gap method and mem-
23
brane locking. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194:
2444–2463
Long Q, Bornemann B, Cirak F (2012) Shear-flexible
subdivision shells. Int J Numer Methods Eng 90:
1549–1577
Love AEH (1888) On the small vibrations and deforma-
tions of thin elastic shells. Philos Trans R Soc 179:
491–546
MacNeal R (1978) A simple quadrilateral shell element.
Comput Struct 8:175–183
Melosh RJ (1961) A stiffness matrix for the analysis of F
thin plates in bending. J Aerosp Sci 28:34–40
Mindlin RD (1951) Influence of rotatory inertia and shear
on flexural motions of isotropic elastic plates. J Appl
Mech 18:31–38
Morley LSD (1962) Bending of a simply supported rhom-
bic plate under uniform normal loading. Q J Mech Appl
Math 15:413–426
Oesterle B, Ramm E, Bischoff M (2016) A shear de-
formable, rotation-free isogeometric shell formulation.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 307:235–255
Parisch H (1995) A continuum-based shell theory for
non-linear applications. Int J Numer Methods Eng 38:
1855–1883
Ramm E, Bischoff M, Braun M (1994) Higher order
nonlinear shell formulation – a step back into three
dimensions. In: Bell K (ed) From finite elements
to the Ttroll platform. Ivar Holand 70th Anniver-
sary, Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim,
pp 65–88
Reddy JN (1999) Theory and analysis of elastic plates.
Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton
Reissner E (1945) The effect of transverse shear defor-
mation on the bending of elastic plates. J Appl Mech
12:69–77
Sansour C (1996) A theory and finite element formulation
of shells at finite deformations involving thickness
change. Arch Appl Mech 65:194–216
Schoop H (1986) Oberflächenorientierte Schalentheo-
rien endlicher Verschiebungen. Ingenieur-Archiv 56:
427–437
Scordelis AC, Lo KS (1964) Computer analysis of cylin-
drical shells. J Am Concr Inst 61:539–562
Simo JC, Fox DD (1989) On a stress resultant geo-
metrically exact shell model. Part I: formulation and
optimal parametrization. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng 72:267–304
Simo JC, Rifai MS (1990) A class of mixed assumed strain
methods and the method of incompatible modes. Int J
Numer Methods Eng 29:1595–1638
Simo JC, Rifai S, Fox D (1990) On a stress resultant
geometrically exact shell model. Part IV: variable
thickness shells with through-the-thickness stretching.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 81:91–126
Stricklin JA, Haisler W, Tisdale P, Gunderson R (1969)
A rapidly converging triangular plate element. AIAA J
7:180–181
Taylor RL, Beresford PJ, Wilson EL (1976) A non-
conforming element for stress analysis. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 10:1211–1219