A physical interpretation of conventional finite element formulations of conduction‐type problems
- 20 August 1991
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
- Vol. 32 (3) , 559-569
- https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.1620320307
Abstract
An essentially physical approach is utilized to derive a finite element formulation of conduction‐type problems. The same systems of algebraic equations, which are usually yielded by Galerkin or variational methods, are obtained here on the basis of energy balances which lead to conservative numerical models, both at element and at node levels. As a result, it is shown that, in conventional implementations of the finite element method for conduction‐type problems, there is no artificial creation or destruction of a conserved variable. Therefore, for such formulations, inaccuracies that arise with finite sizes of elements do not depend on non‐conservation but are due solely to approximation erros. In the paper, a clear physical interpretation is also given for all the matrices and vectors which are commonly defined in most finite element formulations of conduction‐type problems.Keywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- COMPARISON OF CONTROL VOLUME AND GALERKIN FINITE ELEMENT METHODS FOR DIFFUSION-TYPE PROBLEMSNumerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals, 1990
- CONTROL VOLUME FINITE-ELEMENT METHOD FOR HEAT TRANSFER AND FLUID FLOW USING COLOCATED VARIABLES— 1. COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURENumerical Heat Transfer, 1987
- A CONTROL VOLUME FINITE-ELEMENT METHOD FOR TWO-DIMENSIONAL FLUID FLOW AND HEAT TRANSFERNumerical Heat Transfer, 1983
- Techniques of Finite ElementsJournal of Applied Mechanics, 1980
- Transient field problems: Two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional analysis by isoparametric finite elementsInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1970