INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING, VOL.

23,863-869 (1 986)

CONTROL OF ZERO-ENERGY MODES IN

9-NODE PLANE ELEMENT

BENEDICT VERHEGGHE+
Laboratorium voor Modelonderzoek, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium

GRAHAM H. POWELL'
University of Califi,rnia, Berkeley, California, U S A .

SUMMARY
For plane stress/plane strain analysis, the 9-node quadrilateral element performs better than the
corresponding 8-node element, especially for non-rectangular shapes. For improved element flexibility and
lower computer cost. 2 x 2 quadrature is generally preferable to 3 x 3 quadrature. Unfortunately
the 9-node element contains spurious zero-energy modes when under-integrated. A method is proposed to
restrain these modes without significant loss of accuracy or added cost.

INTRODUCTION
It has been reported by several investigators that the 8-node 'serendipity' element is significantly
less accurate than the corresponding Lagrangian element with 9 In particular, as the
corners depart from 90 degrees or the sides become curved, the performance of the 8-node
element declines rapidly. The 9-node element, on the other hand, is less sensitive to shape
distortion.
It is well known that use of 3 x 3 Gauss quadrature for 8- and 9-node elements tends
to make the element too stiff, and that this problem can be overcome by using reduced
. ~ of 2 x 2 quadrature is thus preferable, but has the disadvantage of
i n t e g r a t i ~ n . ~Use
introducing three zero-energy modes into the 9-node element (see Figure 1). The first of these
modes (the 'hourglass' mode) exists for 2 x 2 quadrature in both the 8- and 9-node elements.
It causes no problems because it can not exist in two adjacent elements. The other two modes,
however, can lead to a singular structure stiffness matrix if they are not restrained by displacement
boundary conditions.
Several methods have been proposed for controlling the zero-energy modes. Among these are:
selective combining 8- and 9-node shape f ~ n c t i o n s overlaying
;~ fully integrated
elements;" stiffening the 'bubble-function' mode of the 9-node element;' combining the 8- and
9-node stiffness matrices;' and introducing additional shape functions combined (in effect) with
a fictitious constitutive matrix.12,13This last approach is the most general and elegant, and has
been applied to a number of different elements. In this paper we present a method which is very
similar in its result to that described in References 12 and 13. The present method. however, is

'Assistant.
Professor of Civil Engineering.

0029-598 1 /86/080863-07$05.00 Received 1 February 1985

0 1986 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 30 September I985
864 B. VERHEGGHE AND G. H. POWELL

2 5 1 2 5 1

3 7 4 3 7 4 9- NODE
8- NODE 9- NODE 8- NODE 9- NODE 9 - NODE

(a 1 (b)
Figure 1 Zero-energy modes
I

simpler conceptually and rather more direct computationally, and hence we believe that it
warrants presentation as a distinct method.

ZERO-ENERGY MODES
Figure 2 shows a 9-node element. If we impose nodal displacements u, = 1 at the four corner
nodes, ui= - € at the four mid-side nodes, ui= 0 at the central node and ZI, = 0 at all nodes,
then, using the well-known shape functions, the displacements at a point (g,q ) become
u =: 352$ - 5 2 - y2
u=o
The derivatives with respect to the natural co-ordinates are thus

All four derivatives are zero at the points 5 = k 1/J3 and q = i.l/J3, which are precisely the
quadrature points for 2 x 2 integration. It follows that all strains are zero at these points, and
no strain energy is detected for deformations in this mode. The same applies for displacements
in the y-direction. Zero-energy modes are thus defined, for an element of any shape, by the
column vectors
+,,=El 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] ~
=f+, 0lT

Figure 2. Nine-node element

 CONTROL OE ZERO-ENERGY NODES 865

and
+,,=CO +,IT
Since the zero-energy mode shapes are thus known, it is a simple matter to restrain them by
augmenting the basic element stiffness matrix with the stiffness matrices g+,,+z, and g+,,+z,,
where g is some generalized (scalar) stiffness. These matrices are both of rank 1, having nonzero
eigenvalues (stiffnesses) associated only with the eigenvectors +,,and +,,. Adding these matrices
to the basic element stiffness matrix thus stiffens the rigid body modes. For small values of 9 ,
the zero-energy modes are converted to low energy modes, whereas for large values they are
effectively eliminated. Unfortunately, numerical tests will quickly show that if g is small the low
energy modes can still persist, leading to excessively flexible results, whereas if g is large certain
other modes of deformation are also restrained, leading to excessively stiff results. This second
type of behaviour occurs because the modes defined by Cp, and +zu are in general not orthogonal
to the modes corresponding to the rigid body motions and the constant and higher order strain
states. Some adjustments to the procedure are thus essential.
The remedy is to orthogonalize +,,
and +, with respect to the rigid body and constant strain
modes of the element. Fortunately this can be done with little additional computation. The
procedure is described in the following section.

ORTHOGONALIZATION
For an element of any shape, the rigid body and constant strain modes are defined by the column
vectors

in which 1 and O=vectors of unit and zero values, x=vector of nodal x co-ordinates and
y=vector of nodal y co-ordinates. By combining vectors we get the following equivalent
orthogonal base:

Remembering that the two zero-energy modes are defind by

where
Cp,=[l 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 O]',
we see that it suffices to orthogonalize vector +, with respect to vectors 1, x and y, and to use
the resulting vector, +,, to calculate stiffness matrices for use in place of g+,,+T, and yCp,,+~,.
This means simply computing the 9 x 9 matrix g+,,+zn, and adding its terms at appropriate
locations in the element stiffness matrix (each term added at two locations). The orthogonaliLation
is performed by the standard Gram-Schmidt procedure.
Up to this point, little has been said about the value of the scalar y, which is a generalized
stiffness for the deformation modes [4,,0] and [O+,,] '. This stiffness must be large enough to
restrain the zero-energy modes, but not so large as to muse numerical problems in solving the
equilibrium equations. We have found that the spurious modes are effectively restrained if y is
866 B. VERHEGGHE AND G. H. POWELL

of the same order of magnitude as the largest diagona1 element in the original stiffness matrix.
We have thus used this largest element as the value of g (although larger values did not lead to
substantial changes in the results).
The above procedure eliminates the two troubling zero-energy modes and ensures that the
element satisfies the patch test in all cases, even when it becomes distorted or when the ‘midside’
nodes are not at the true midpoints of the sides.
It is possible to improve the element further, by orthogonalizing @z with respect to vectors
containing x2, y2 and xy. Exact results could then be obtained for cases involving linear strain
variations, but only for elements which have straight edges, with the ‘midside’ and interior nodes
at the true midpoints. We have not explored this aspect.

EXAMPLES
The three element patches shown in Figure 3 were subjected to the load conditions shown in
Figure 4. Three degrees-of-freedom were restrained to prevent rigid body motions. For the first
two load conditions (constant strain), exact displacements and stresses were obtained at all
points. The third load condition (constant bending) was modelled exactly only by the first mesh,
the other two giving approximate results. For the fourth load condition (linear bending) all three

(b)
Figure 3. Element patches

(b) (C)

Figure 4. Loads on element patches

(a 1 fb)
Figure 5. Example with sensitivity to low energy modes
 CONTROL OF ZERO-ENERGY NODES 867

meshes gave only approximate results, the accuracy being much better for the first mesh. In all
cases where approximate values were obtained, the stresses at the quadrature points were close
to the exact values, while at other points there were significant deviations (see Table I). These
deviations became larger for progressively higher values of the generalized stiffness 9. It should
be emphasized that the 9-node element with 2 x 2 quadrature and no restraining measures (i.e.
g = 0) gives totally incorrect results for all of these examples.
Figure 5 shows an example which is likely to develop spurious deformation nodes and has
previously been studied by Stricklin et aE.,2 Cook and Zhao-Hua," and Bicanic and
H i n t ~ n . For
' ~ overall stability it is suflicient to restrain the vertical displacement at only one
of the three nodes at the built-in end, as shown. If this is done, however, the two zero-energy
nodes defined by t$zu and are not restrained. Fixing all three nodes at the end restrains the
zero-energy modes in elements close to the end, but still leaves low energy modes in the elements
away from the end, allowing substantial deformations of the form shown in Figure 5(b).
In Table I1 we compare the computed horizontal displacement at the application point of the
load for different elements and integration schemes. In particular, we compare the results using
the restraining method proposed by Cook and Zhao-Hua' (restraining Method 'C-Z) and the
method proposed in the present paper (Method 'V-P). It can be seen that Method 'C-Z' still
allows substantial low energy mode deformations even with three fixed nodes, whereas Method
'V-P does not. With no control over the zero energy modes, the displacements are very large.

Table I. Ratio of calculated to theoretical bending stress for plate in Figures 3 and 4 (A =quadrature
point and B = corner point, as shown in Figure 3)

Element Constant bending moment (Figure 4c) Linear bending moment (Figure 4d)
mesh A B A B

Figure 3(a) 1.Ooo 1~Ooo 1.157 0555

Figure 3(b) 0.952 1.115 0.929 0-566
Figure 3(c) 1.033 2.270 1.070 1.231

Table 11. Displacement at the load application point for structure in Figure 5.
P = 480AE v = 0.2;displacement = (tabulated coefficient) x (10- 3,
Number of Integration Restraining Number of nodes fixed vertically
nodes order method 3 1

3x3 16.797
2x2 17028 17.056
3x3 17.789 17.819
2x2 497.4
2x2 c-z 96.13
2x2 V-P 17.192 17.219

Table 111. Displacement of structure in Figure 5(a) for different restrained elements

Restrained elements 1 1, 2 1, 3 1, 4 All

Displacement 21.061 17.264 19.070 18.686 17.219

868 B. VERHEGGHE AND G. H. POWELL

It has been noted by Milford and Schrobrichlo that it is sufficient to restrain the zero-energy
modes in only one element. This will indeed make the global stiffness matrix nonsingular. It can
still, however, allow low energy modes to develop. Table 111shows the computed displacements
for the structure of Figure 5 when zero-energy modes are restrained (using the ‘V-P’ method)
in only one or two elements. Although the results do not change greatly, it is apparent that low
energy modes still exist.

(a 1 (b) (C 1
Figure 6. Meshes for cantilever analysis

Table IV. Comparison of results for cantilevers in Figure 6. Displacements are multiples of 10-3PL3/3EI
and stresses are multiples of 10-3PL2/121. Poisson’s ratio = 0-3

3 fixed nodes 1 fixed node

AA *B AA *B

Beam theory 40 209.8

8 node 3 x 3 37.2 236-9

8 node2x2 38.7 209.8
9 node 3 x 3 38.2 239.4 38.6 234.5
9 node 2 x 2 40.2 209.8
9 node 2 x 2, C-Z 402 2098
9 node 2 x 2, V-P 39.0 209.8 403 209.8

Beam theory 40 259.8

8 node 3 x 3 6-4 12.3

8 node 2 x 2 14.5 13.2
9 node 3 x 3 31.7 171.2 31.9 173.7
9 node 2 x 2 43.0 264.3
9 node 2 x 2, C-Z 37.9 211.9
9 node 2 x 2, V-P 39.5 22 1 5 42.0 222.7

Beam theory 40 218.9

8 node 3x 3 8.8 10.9

8 node 2x2 17.2 - 10.4
9 node 3x 3 295 154.4 29.8 158.0
9 node 2x2 38.2 2 10-9
9 node 2 x 2, C-Z 37.8 202.3
9 node 2 x 2, V-P 36.8 195.9 38.2 199.9
 CONTROL OF ZERO-ENERGY NODES 869

Finally we consider a cantilever with tip shear loading, using the three different meshes shown
in Figure 6. In Table IV we compare the tip-displacement (AA) at point A and the bending stress
(gB)at the quadrature point B. Again we make a distinction between configurations with 1 or
3 nodes fixed vertically at the built-in end. It is important to note that if all three nodes are
fixed vertically, the boundary conditions along provide enough restraint to eliminate the
zero-energy modes. Consequentlythis case does not necessarily provide evidencethat a restraining
method works effectively. Previous results have been reported only for this case.’,’’ Beam theory
values are given in Table IV only for the case with one node restrained vertically, since only
that case is strictly in accordance with simple beam theory (i.e. no restraint of Poisson’s effect
at the fixed end). In the case with three nodes fixed vertically, there is some stiffening due to
restraint of Poisson’s effect. As can be seen from Table IV, the differences are small, but only if
the zero-energy modes are sufficiently restrained.

CONCLUSIONS
The method presented herein eliminates spurious zero-energy modes in the 9-node Lagrangian
plane element. The resulting element models exactly the rigid body and constant strain modes
for all element shapes. The results obtained appear to be better than those reported for other
comparable elements, especially when the boundary conditions are not sufficient to restrain the
zero-energy nodes. The computational cost for restraining the spurious modes is not a major
disadvantage if the. orthogonalization is programmed efficiently.
The method has the promise of being applicable to other elements, such as 27-node
isoparametric solid element and an 18-node isoparametric element for shell analysis. This
extension is being explored.

REFERENCES

1. J. P. Hollings and E. L. Wilson, ‘3-9 node isoparametric planar or axisymmetric finite element’, Report N o 78-3,Div. of
Struct. Engr. and Struct. Mech., Univ. of California, Berkeley (1977).
2. J. A. Stricklin, W. S. Ho, E. Q. Richardson and W. E. Haisler, ‘On isoparametric vs. linear strain triangular elements’,
Int. j . numer. methods. eng., 11, 1041-1043 (1977).
3. J. Backlund, ‘On isoparametric elements’, Int. j. numer. methods eng., 12, 731-732 (1970).
4. W. A. Cook, ‘The effect of geometric shape on two-dimensional finite elements’, C A F E M 6, Proc. 6th Int. Seminar on
Computational Aspects of the FEM, Paris, 1981.
5. S. E. Pawsey and R. W. Clough, ‘Improved numerical integration of thick finite elements’, Int. j . numer. methods eng., 3,
545-586 (1971).
6. 0:C. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor and J. M.Too, ‘Reduced integration techniques in general analysis of plates and shells’,
Int. j . numer. methods eng., 3, 275-290 (1971).
7. T. J. R. Hughes, M. Cowen and M. Haroun, ‘Reduced and selective integration in the finite element analysis of plates’,
Nucl. Eng. Design, 46, 203-222 (1978).
8. H. H. Dovey, ‘Extension of three-dimensional analysis to shell structures using the finite element idealization’, Report
N o . 74-2 Div. of Struct. Engr. and Struct. Mech., Univ. of California, Berkeley (1974).
9. T. K. Heller, ‘Effectivequadrature rules for quadratic solid isoparametric elements’, Int. j. numer. methods eng., 4,597-
599 (1972).
10. R. V. Milford and W. C. Schnobrich, ‘Nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete cooling towers’, Civil Engineering
Studies, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, ill. (1984).
11. R. D. Cook and F. Zhao-Hua,‘Control of spurious modes in the nine-node quadrilateral element’, Int. j . numer. methods
eng., 18, 1576-1580 (1982).
12. T. Belytschko, W. K. Liu and J. S.-J. Ong, ‘A consistent control of spurious singular modes in the 9-node Lagrange
element for the Laplace and Mindlin plate equations’, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 44, 269-295 (1984).
13. T. Belytschko, J. S.-J.Ong, W. K. Liu and J. M. Kennedy, ‘Hourglass control in linear and nonlinear problems’, Comp.
Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 43, 251-276 (1984).
14. N. Bicanic and E. Hinton, ‘Spurious modes in two dimensional isoparametric elements’, Int. j . numer. methods eng., 14,
1545-1557 (1979).