Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 7 (1990) 89-101

89

Elsevier

Original formulation of the finite element method

R a y W. Clough
Nishkian Professor of Structural Engineering, Emeritus University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.

Abstract. Following a brief summary of the 1952 state of the art of structural analysis, the paper describes the
circumstances that led to the formulation of the finite element method by members of the Structural Dynamics
Unit at the Boeing Airplane Company. It is noted that the central feature of the procedure that was developed is
the evaluation of the stiffness properties of structural elements based on assumed sets of displacement
interpolation functions. As originally applied, the method used direct stiffness assembly to establish the
structure stiffness; then the analysis was performed by the displacement method.

Introduction

Since the introduction of the finite element m e t h o d over thirty-five years ago, applications of
this analytical procedure to problems of engineering practice have u n d e r g o n e p h e n o m e n a l
growth. Both the diversification in areas of application and the increasing complexity of the
problems to which it has been applied could not have been imagined at the time when its basic
concepts were first promulgated. One consequence of this rapid growth is that no single unique
definition of the finite element m e t h o d can be stated. In fact, it is evident that the n a m e n o w
means different things to different people, and it m a y be useful to mention two differing points
of view.
One group of practitioners considers the finite element m e t h o d to be merely an extension of
standard methods of structural analysis [4] in which the structure is treated as an assemblage of
discrete structural elements. F r o m this point of view the finite element extension permits the
use of two- and three-dimensional elements in addition to the structural b e a m and truss
elements that had been used previously, as shown in Fig. 1 [4]. The alternative opinion, held by
m a n y other engineers and scientists, is that the finite element m e t h o d is a procedure for

IDEALIZATION
(b)
Fig. 1. Modeling of structures as assemblages of discrete elements. (a) One-dimensional elements. (b) Two-dimensional
plane stress dements.
A C T U A L FRAME

(a)

IDEALIZATION

0168-874X/90/$03.50 1990 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

ACTUALDAM

90

R. W. Clough / Original formulation of the finite element method

m _ _

__j_l

(a)

(b)

up
o~

/
x~T

250

Fig. 2. Modeling of plane stress continuum by regional discretization. (a) Mesh of discrete regions. (b) Calculated
uniform normal stresses in discrete regions.
obtaining approximate solutions of problems in continuum mechanics based on applying
assumed strain patterns independently in discrete regions of the system [16]. Figure 2 [3] shows
a cross-section of a gravity dam, a classical problem of plane stress analysis that had been
solved in the past by the finite difference method; this was one of the first practical problems
of continuum mechanics that was solved using finite elements. As a matter of fact, the concept
of regional discretization, which is a central feature of the finite element method, had been
proposed many years earlier by Courant [8] and by Prager and Synge [14] for solving such
plane stress problems. However, these early suggestions were not followed up, mainly because
computers were not available to carry out the extensive numerical operations, and references to
these ideas were only rediscovered long after the finite element method had been accepted as a
practical engineering tool.
Both of these contrasting points of view are valid, and each presently has a group of staunch
advocates. However, it is important to note in this description of the original formulation of the
finite element method that the first of these concepts guided the development; that is, the new
method was considered merely as an extension of standard analysis procedures that was
introduced to solve a difficult problem. Admittedly this is only a subjective impression of the
events that led to the development, and possibly others who were involved would remember it
differently. However, this presentation has some validity because the author not only was a
participant in developing the basic concept but also was responsible for coining the name of the
method. For convenience, this description is presented in five parts: (a) prior state of the art of
structural analysis; (b) the 1952 Boeing Summer Faculty Program; (c) the 1953 breakthrough;
(d) matrix formulation of structural analysis theory; and (e) naming the finite element method.

Prior state of the art of structural analysis

In order to explain the development of the finite element method, it is useful to outline the
state of the art of structural analysis that had been attained in the aircraft industry by the early

R.W. Clough / Originalformulation of the finite element method

91

1950s. Generally speaking, at the end of World War II, the concepts of structural theory used
in aircraft design were the same as those used by civil engineers in the analysis of buildings and
bridges. In both fields, a structure was defined as an assemblage of discrete structural elements,
and the analysis consisted of evaluating the joint displacements and element forces due to a
specified applied load system. During the analysis the assemblage was required to satisfy three
basic conditions: (a) equilibrium of the element forces with the external loads, (b) compatibility
of the deformed elements so that continuity is maintained at the joints, and (c) force-deformation relationships in the elements that depend on the element properties.
It was recognized that the structural analysis might be done in either of two ways: the force
method wherein the element forces were determined so that joint compatibility was achieved, or
the displacement method in which joint displacements were calculated to satisfy equilibrium
requirements. In the analysis of flexural frameworks, a special version of the displacement
method, called moment distribution, usually was used in which the equilibrium conditions were
satisfied by iterative adjustment. However, in the analysis of more general types of structures,
the force method usually was preferred because it required the solution of a smaller set of
simultaneous equations.
In the years immediately following World War II, the aircraft structural engineering
profession began to move ahead of the civil engineers in the theory of structural analysis due to
pressures resulting from the increasing complexity of airplane configurations and the compelling need to eliminate excess weight. An important advance initiated almost exclusively by
aeronautical engineers was the introduction of matrix notation in formulating the analysis. A
factor contributing to this step was that the major airplane design companies had access to the
best computers available at that time, and the matrix formulation greatly facilitated the use of
computers as well as the standardization and simplification of the calculations. One outcome of
the matrix formulation of structural analysis was that it became apparent that either the force
or the displacement method could be recognized as a coordinate transformation in which the
element properties expressed in local coordinates were transformed to express the properties of
the assembled structure in global coordinates. Among the first to recognize that structural
analysis is essentially a coordinate transformation procedure were Falkenheimer [9] and
Langefors [12]. In summary, by 1952 aircraft structural analysis had advanced to the point
where a complex structure idealized as an assemblage of simple truss beam or shear panel
elements could be analyzed by either the force or displacement method formulated as a series
of matrix operations and using an automatic digital computer to carry out the calculations.

The 1952 Boeing Summer Faculty Program

My participation in the work that led to the development of the finite element method began
in 1952 when I joined the Boeing Summer Faculty Program; this was a program in which
young engineering professors were hired from all over the country to work on various special
research projects. I was attracted to the program because it offered an opportunity to work in
the field of structural dynamics, and I was particularly fortunate to be assigned to work directly
under the head of the Structural Dynamics Unit, Mr. M.J. Turner.
The specific problem that Jon Turner asked me to work on in 1952 was the calculation of
flexibility influence coefficients for low aspect ratio wing structures having either straight or
swept-back configurations. Such influence coefficients were needed to predict flutter and other
aeroelastic effects that might influence flight stability and control, and it was evident that
ordinary beam theory was not suitable for such calculations on low aspect ratio wings, even if
torsion bending and shear lag effects were considered. Accordingly I was first asked to review
the recent literature on the subject, and it was during this time that I became familiar with the

R. W. Clough ./Original formulation of the finite element method

92

(a)

(b)
V

///

2so#
NA(~A-I

(Simple Bending)

14[7#
,/

NACA-2

1447#

Fig. 3. Swept-back box wing used in laboratory tests. (a) Structural idealization. (b) Load cases.

work of Falkenheimer and Langefors on matrix transformation concepts applied to structural

analysis [9,12].
Making use of such matrix procedures, I attempted to calculate the flexibility influence
coefficients for a 45 o swept-back box beam that had been tested in the laboratory so that
experimental values of the coefficients were available. Figure 3 is a sketch of the test structure,
which was modeled as an assemblage of rectangular and triangular skin shear elements together
with axial force elements (spar caps and stringers). In addition, a portion of the wing skin was
combined with the spar caps to account for its contribution to the flexural rigidity.
Results of the analysis for the simple bending load condition (Case 1) showed that the
calculated deflections exceeded the measured values by 13-65%. The results for the twist
loading (Case 2) were somewhat better, especially for the structure with the refined model of
the root region (NACA-2), but still were not of acceptable quality. These generally poor results
were not surprising, but they clearly demonstrated that improvements were needed in the
modeling concepts; it was believed that the stiffness contributions due to the wing skin were
the probable cause of most of the discrepancy and an effort was made to formulate an
improved model of the wing skin using the "lattice analogy" as developed by Hrennikoff [10]
and McHenry [13]. For simple rectangular panels, it is easy to define a lattice arrangement of
truss bars that will represent exactly the deformations of the panel induced by simple patterns
of applied normal and shear stresses. However, no lattice analogy procedure could be
developed to model the stiffness of panels of arbitrary quadrilateral or triangular shape. Hence,

R. 144.Clough / Original formulation of the finite element method

93

at the end of the 1952 Summer Faculty Program, it was concluded that the essential features of
the flexibility influence coefficient problem had been identified, but that little progress had
been made toward the proper representation of the wing skin in the mathematical modeling of
low aspect ratio wing structures.

The 1953 Breakthrough

Because of the unfinished state of my work at the termination of the 1952 Summer Faculty
Program, I was pleased to be employed again with M.J. Turner's Structural Dynamics Unit in
1953. During the 1952-53 winter, Jon Turner had conceived a better way to model the skin
panels of a low aspect ratio wing. Rather than representing the skin as shear panels which also
made axial stiffness contributions to the spar and rib caps, he proposed that the skin should
contribute its full normal and shear stress resistance in response to any applied loads.
The essential idea in the proposed Turner procedure was that the deformations of any plane
stress element be approximated by assuming a combination of simple strain fields acting within
the element. The idea is applicable to both rectangular and triangular elements, but the use of
triangular elements was given greater emphasis because an assemblage of triangular elements
could serve to approximate plates of any shape. In modeling a triangular plate, the deformations were approximated by three constant strain fields: uniform normal strains in the x and
the y directions combined with a uniform x - y shear strain. Based on these strain patterns, the
force-displacement relationships for the corner nodal points could be calculated using Castigliano's theorem, or the equivalent principle of virtual displacements. An important feature of
the assumed constant strain condition within the triangle was that each side of the element
would remain straight during deformation; thus full continuity between elements of an
assemblage was assured if continuity were maintained at the corner nodes.
During the summer of 1953, procedures for calculating the plane stress stiffness of triangular
(as well as rectangular) plates using the Turner concept were formulated, and the effectiveness
of the concept was evaluated by analysis of the deflections of various plate systems subjected to
load. In these analyses, the direct stiffiless method was used to obtain the stiffness of the
assemblage rather than the matrix transformation approach; the direct stiffness procedure was

100"

>
>
140"

> o (UNIFORM)

>

>
y,v

t = 0 . 0 5 0 IN
E = 10.5 X 10 6PSI
v

1/3

TOTAL LOAD = 2 LBS

Fig. 4. Clamped rectangular plate subjected to uniform tensile stress [15].

94

R. W. Clough / Originalformulation of the finite element method

)1
70

II

) ..........

III

-(
!

IV

i
1

(o)
<:

(b)

65

56.1

II

76.2

..
"'-.

......e ......
III

",,

IV

0
k

......

"-"3

75

(~)

(4

Fig. 5. Mesh arrangements for clamped rectangularplate [15].

more efficient because it involved only the appropriate summation of the individual plate
stiffness. One study case was a rectangular plate clamped at one edge and subjected to uniform
tensile stress applied at the opposite edge, as shown in Fig. 4. This structure was first modeled
as a single quadrilateral plate element and then as assemblages of various shapes and numbers
of quadrilateral elements, as shown in Fig. 5. The stiffness of each quadrilateral element was
obtained by assembling four triangular dements, as shown in Fig. 6(c), and then eliminating
the central node by static condensation. The alternative methods of assembling triangles to
form a quadrilateral, shown in Figs. 6(a, b), also were studied, but they led to results that were
less accurate and consistent. The number of triangular dements used in modeling the various

3
(4

3
(b)

3
(c)

Fig, 6. Triangularplates assembled to form quadrilateral [15].

R. ~E. C/ough / Original formulation of the finite element method

12

II

95

I0

IO'

Fig. 7. Discrete element modeling of typical low aspect ratio wing structures.

cases (a) through (d) of Fig. 5 ranged from 4 to 64. The results of the analyses showed that the
deflections calculated at the corners of the plate converged toward those obtained from a
refined finite difference analysis, and that the values obtained using the finest mesh of
quadrilateral plates gave excellent agreement with the finite difference solution.
When the feasibility of evaluating the behavior of plane stress plates had been demonstrated
in this way, it became possible to model a complete wing structure using assemblages of
two-dimensional elements to represent the wing skin and the spar and rib webs, combined with
one-dimensional spar and rib flange elements. This type of modelling of a low aspect ratio wing
is illustrated in Fig. 7. The modeling concept was applied to the simple box cantilever shown in
Fig. 8 to provide a numerical demonstration of the procedure. The convergence with increasing
mesh refinement was studied by varying the number of rectangular plates used to model the top
wing skin; between 1 and 18 elements were used in the wing skin (Fig. 9) together with a
corresponding mesh of plate and flange elements in the other surfaces of the box beam. The

,hi__
,,;

.,=

,L

o05

2b,2 4 6"-----4
A F 6.365

SQ.IN.

Fig. 8. Cantilevered box beam used for

analytical tests [15].

R. W. Clough / Originalformulation of the finite element method

96

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 9. Top skin finite element meshes

used in analytical tests [15].

deflections produced by various loads applied at the tip of the box were observed to converge
consistently as the number of elements increased, thus demonstrating that the finer dement
meshes provided better approximations of shear lag and other secondary distortion affects.
To describe the excellent performance achieved by the Turner plane stress triangles in these
and other analytical studies done during the 1953 Summer Faculty Program, a paper was
prepared that was presented by Jon Turner at the January 1954 meeting of the Institute of
Aeronautical Sciences in New York. For reasons I never understood, the paper was not
submitted for publication until June 1955, and due to normal publication delays it did not
appear in print until September 1956 [15]. However, it is important to note that this 1956
paper, which generally is recognized to have introduced the finite element method as a tool for
structural analysis, describes the work done during the 1953 Boeing Summer Faculty Program.
Also, it should be recognized that the principal credit for conceiving the procedure should go to
M.J. Turner, who not only led the developmental effort for the two critical years of 1952-53,
but who also provided the inspiration to use assumed strain patterns in defining the stiffness of
triangular plane stress elements.

Matrix formulation of structural analysis theory

For various reasons, I was not able to schedule another summer work period at Boeing after
1953; however, I kept in touch with Jon Turner and others involved in the project while the
paper [15] was being prepared and for the next several years. Also, I retained a strong interest
in matrix methods of structural analysis, and my sabbatical leave in Trondheim, Norway,
during 1956-57 gave me time to think further about the analytical work we had done at Boeing
in 1953. During the stay in Norway, my attention at first was directed toward the matrix
analysis of structures, because great advances had been made in that subject since 1953. By far
the most significant contribution was the classic work by Dr. J.H. Argyris and his coworkers
first published as a series of articles in Aircraft Engineering [1], which completely stated the
matrix formulation of structural theory and clearly outlined the parallel transformation
procedures involved in the force and the displacement methods. It was this work that
demonstrated that the concepts of classical structural analysis can be generalized for application to assemblages of any types of structural elements, not only to the traditional beams,
struts, etc.; however, the Argyris presentation did not discuss the finite element concept for
plane stress analysis. A closely related development that also originated in England was a
computer program specifically intended to deal with the sequences of matrix operations that
performed the structural analysis expressed in matrix form. This pioneering matrix interpretive
code by Hunt [11] was of great interest to me, but unfortunately no computer facilities were
available in Trondheim in 1956-57 so I was not able to pursue such research at that time.
Instead I turned my attention back to the finite element method, and in particular to the
stress analysis of plane stress systems using discrete triangular plate elements because the work
at Boeing had been concerned only with deflections and displacement influence coefficients. It

97

R. W. Clough / Original formulation of the finite element method

was evident that the strain patterns used in defining the in-plane plate stiffness also could be
related to the state of stress developed in the plate, and I studied this stress analysis problem in
principle while I was at Trondheim. However, the lack of automatic computer facilities made it
impossible for me to do any significant analyses of this type while I was there.

Naming the finite element method

When I returned to Berkeley in September 1957, I found that a new I B M 701 computer had
been installed in the College of Engineering, and I immediately began to develop a Matrix
Algebra Program [2] for that facility similar to the one described by Hunt. This program would
carry out any specified sequence of matrix operations, thus it made it possible for me to study
the use of the Turner triangular plate elements in solving practical plane stress problems. After
a few trial analyses I became convinced that this was a tool capable of solving any plane stress
problem to any desired degree of accuracy. However, when I commented to this effect to my

(a)

2P

(b)

f
d

"

+-

.,c-ANALYSIS OF
THIS QUARTER

d~

7-

d
I
H=3d-- -2P

H= 3d---~

H = 3d

(c) I 0

"l

p
SECTION A"--)". . . . .

1~"

-5
O've 4

...~SECTION A

__-L

3
FINITE ELEMENTSOLUTION
12 TERM. SERIES SOLUTION
8 TERM. SERIES SOLUTION

2
I
" '~

-I
-2

iV

'/4

---''-

','2

3,'4

x/H

Fig. 10. Demonstration of validity of finite element stress results [3]. (a) Example plane stress system. (b) Finite element
mesh. (c) Comparison of finite element stress results with series solution stresses [3].

R. W. Clough / Originalformulation of the finite element method

98

(a)
T YPIC..AL SEGMENT

C)

TANGENTIALSTRESSES

FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION

r,

ro

RADIAL STRESSES

Fig. 11. Analysis of thick-walled cylinder under internal pressure [4]. (a) 2-D structure and loading. (b) Finite element
mesh for narrow arc model. (c) Comparison of finite element stresses with 1-D analysis.

(a)

i
I

',,,,,,-~,~
I

C ) MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL STRESS

MINIMUM PRINCIPAL

STRESS

~ " -125

(b)

/--~,,

%',

rE

+25

% ~+50 d

]
I
I
I

I
I
I

S~A TOO (r.EOa*)

NORMAL STRESS
NORMAL STRESS
SECTION A-A
t
FINITE ELEMENT SOLUTION
"INFINITE

PLATE THEORY

Fig. 12. Analysis of plate with elliptic hole under unifrom tension [4]. (a) Plate and load system. (b) Finite element
idealization. (c) Comparison of finite element stresses with mathematical theory.

99

R. W. Clough / Original formulation of the finite element method

Berkeley colleague (now Dean) K.S. Pister, he was very skeptical and challenged me to solve
some of the classical problems of plane stress analysis by this method. Much to his surprise and
to my satisfaction, excellent results were obtained, as shown by Fig. 10, which depicts one of
the earliest test cases. Of course the stress accuracy obtained in this case and in the dam section
analysis of Fig. 2 (which was done at the same time) was limited by the large size of the
elements used. Particularly in the Fig. 2 analysis of an assemblage of triangular elements, the
assumed constant state of stress in each element leads to significant stress discontinuities, as
shown in the figure. However, by using small elements in regions of steep stress gradients, and
by drawing smooth curves to depict the stress distribution resulting from the analysis, it was
possible to get excellent agreement with theory. More refined analyses that were done a short
time later further demonstrated this fact, as shown in Figs. 11 and 12 [4].
Because the results of these studies were so encouraging, I thought it was important to
prepare a paper for the structural engineering profession on the use of Turner triangular
elements in stress analysis. Probably the potential for such analyses was recognized by Jon
Turner and his group, but their mission was concerned with stiffness and deflection as required
in structural dynamics, rather than with stress analysis. The forthcoming 2nd ASCE Conference
on Electronic Computation, to be held in Pittsburgh in September 1960, offered the ideal
occasion to present the paper because the triangular element concept had been discussed only
in the aeronautical industry up to that time. In writing the paper, the principal problem turned
out to be the selection of a suitable name for the method. At Boeing, the term "direct stiffness
method" tended to be associated with the solution of structural problems using assemblages of
plane stress elements. However, in my opinion this name merely described the element
assembly procedure, and did not relate to the essential problem of evaluating the stiffness of
the plane stress elements. Noting the analogy to the finite difference procedure for solving
plane stress problems, but recognizing that in the new method the equations of elasticity were
applied independently in discrete regions, it seemed to me that those building blocks of the
structural model should be called finite elements. Consequently, the 1960 paper was called
" T h e Finite Element Method in Plane Stress Analysis" [3].
When the paper was presented, it had essentially no impact on the civil engineering
profession, mainly because the method could be applied effectively only by means of an

(b)

(a) ~AX_.

WATER

ELEV ~ 4

E L . 5114.0

a-

fl

'/~

C O A R S E MESH

y
I

200!

-t

b_FINE MESH

oTEMPERATURE

Fig. 13. Gravity dam section with thermally induced crack [6]. (a) Basic geometry.(b) Finite elementidealizations.

100

R. IV. Clough / Original formulation of the finite element method

(a)

(b)

VERTICAL

STRESSES-O r

VERTICAL

- 500-

- -400!

"'1

.~I - 2 0 0 !
~O0

,: +1oooI ~,

STRESSES-

-500,
-400

A
~ [ ,

:][I
!

.... 1 ,,

+200 L

It II~

......

o_

, .............
i i

-3oo

, -200
-iO0

llll,lllllllll I, I , I, IIIIII i~

~~

+Ioo
+200

Fig. 14. Distribution of vertical normal stresses in cracked d a m section [6]. (a) Isotropic foundation ( E c / E f = 2/5). (b)
Orthotropic foundation ( E f y / E f x = 1/5).

automatic digital computer, and these were not readily available to typical structural engineers.
However, we had a suitable computer at Berkeley, and we were fortunate to obtain a research
contract from the U.S. Corps of Engineers at this time which enabled us to make a significant
advance in the application of the finite element method to practical civil engineering problems.
The objective of this research was to evaluate the safety of a concrete gravity dam that had
developed a major interior crack as a result of temperature changes during construction, as
depicted by Fig. 13(a). This plane stress problem was an ideal example for study by the finite
element method, and provided an opportunity for my doctoral student (now colleague) E.L.
Wilson to write the first computer program for finite element plane stress analysis. The
program calculated the stiffness properties for any specified mesh of triangular elements, and
then used Gauss-Seidel iteration to solve the equilibrium equations so that very large equation
sets could be considered. The finite element meshes used in this study are shown in Fig. 13(b)
and some of the stress results are shown in Fig. 14. The results of the research effort were very
satisfactory to the sponsors and were presented at the Symposium on the Use of Computers in
Civil Engineering that was held in Lisbon, Portugal, in 1962; this was the second time that the
finite element name appeared in the title of a paper [6].
In my opinion, that paper and the computer program used in its calculations marked the end
of the "Original Formulation" period in the history of the finite element method. The rapid
world-wide acceptance of the method was very evident at the 1965 Conference on Matrix
Methods in Structural Mechanics held at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base [7], at which many
papers were presented involving a wide range of applications of the finite element method.

Concluding remarks
In closing this paper, I will reiterate some concerns that I expressed in a paper written ever
ten years ago [5], in which I deplored the excessive confidence that some engineers had in the

R. IV.. Clough / Original formulation of the finite element method

101

results of computer analyses of complex structures. The major point of those comments was
that the results of a finite element analysis cannot be better than the data and the judgment
used in formulating the mathematical model, regardless of the refinement of the computer
program that performs the analysis. The main purpose of that word of caution was to
emphasize the continuing need for experimental observations of structural behavior; it is only
with such experimental evidence that computer analysis procedures can be validated, and there
is no question that the need for such validation is as great now as it was ten years ago.
However, during the past several years I have noticed an even more troublesome tendency
among many engineers: to accept as gospel the stress values produced by a finite element
computer program--without realizing the limitations of the approximation procedure being
applied. Clearly, the assumption of specified strain patterns used in formulating the element
stiffness makes it impossible for stress equilibrium to be satisfied locally at arbitrary points
within the elements. Equilibrium actually is considered only at the nodal points of the
assemblage, and even at those points it is satisfied only in an integrated virtual work sense.
Therefore, the engineers who make use of a finite element analysis must apply good engineering
judgment in interpreting the results of the analysis, based on a thorough knowledge of the finite
element stiffness formulation.

References
[1] ARGYRIS, J., "Energy theorems and structural analysis", Aircraft Engineering, 1954 and 1955, re-printed by
Butterworth's Scientific Publications, London, 1960.
[2] CLOUGH, R.W., "Structural analysis by means of a matrix algebra program", Proc. A.S.C.E. Conf. on Electronic
Computation, Kansas City, pp. 109-132, 1958.
[3] CLOUGH, R.W., "The finite element method in plane stress analysis", Proc. 2nd A.S.C.E. Conf. on Electronic
Computation, Pittsburg, Pa., Sept. 1960.
[4] CLOUGH, R., "The finite element method in structural mechanics", in: Stress Analysis, Chapter 7, edited by O.C.
ZIENKIEWmZ and G.S. HOLISTER,Johil Wiley and Sons, Ltd., pp. 85-87, 1965.
[5] CLOUGH, R., "The finite element method after twenty-five years: A personal view", Int. Conf. on Engineering
Application of the Finite Element Method, Computas, Veritas Center, Hovik, Norway, p. 1.1, May 1979.
[6] CLOUGH, R.W. and E.L. WILSON, "Stress analysis of a gravity dam by the finite element method", Proc.
Symposium on the Use of Computers in Civil Engineering, Laboratorio Nacional de Engenliaria Civil, Lisbon,
Portugal, 1962.
[7] Conference on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics, Air Force Institute of Technology and Flight Dynamics
Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, October 1965.
[8] COURANT,R., "Variational methods for the solution of problems of equilibrium and vibration", Bull. Am. Math.
Soc. 49, pp. 1-43, 1943.
[9] FALKENHEIMER,"Systematic calculation of the elastic characteristics of hyperstatic systems", La Recherche
Aeronautique, No. 17 (Sept.-Oct. 1950), No. 23 (Sept.-Oct. 1951).
[10] HRENNIKOFF,A., "Solution of problems in elasticity by the framework method", J. Appl. Mech. 8, pp. A169-175,
1941.
[11] H, C.P., "The electronic digital computer in aircraft structural analysis", Aircraft Engineering 28, March (p. 40),
April (p. 11) and May (p. 155) 1956.
[12] LANGEFORS,B., "Analysis of elastic structures by matrix transformation, with special regard to semi-monocoque
structures", J. Aeronaut. Sci. 19 (7), 1952.
[13] MCHENRY, D., "A lattice analogy for the solution of plane stress problems", J. Inst. Civil Eng. 21 (2), 1943-44.
[14] PRAGER,W. and J.L. SYNGE,"Approximation in elasticity based on the concept of function space", Quart. J. Appl.
Math, 5, pp. 214-269, 1947.
[15] TURNER, M., R.W. CLOUGH, H.C. MARTIN and L.J. ToPp, "Stiffness and deflection analysis of complex
structures", Jr. Aeronaut. ScL 23 (9), pp. 805-823, Sept. 1956.
[16] ZIENKIEWICZ,O.C., The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, p. vi,
1971.