0

Main reference @ Mathematics Stack Exchange:

Quadrilateral Interpolation

Quoted from this question:

Why a quadrilateral with bilinear interpolation?

Little else is possible with polynomial terms like $\;1,\xi,\eta,\xi\eta\,$ , if four nodal points are needed (one degree of freedom each) for obtaining four equations with four unknowns. There still remain some issues, though, such as not self-intersecting and being convex.

That's precisely the content of this question. Exact answers, please; no hand waving as is common in some engineering contexts :-(

Han de Bruijn
  • 17,070
  • Bounty (+50) expired: The current answers do not contain enough detail. No hand waving, I said. I've seen too many "approximate" answers to this question in literature. – Han de Bruijn Sep 15 '17 at 15:03
  • Han: I'm curious what you consider 'hand-wavey' about my answer? 1:1-ness of the map seems like a very clear requirement that one would want any meaningful map to satisfy. – Steven Stadnicki Sep 16 '17 at 16:47
  • @StevenStadnicki: Further study reveals that the mapping is always 1:1, as long as you stay inside the non-convex (or self-intersecting) quadrilateral. It turns out that the "multiple" points in $(\xi,\eta)$ (or as you say $uv$) space are restricted to the edges adjacent to the obtuse angle. All other multiple points are outside the quadrilateral and do not count. Here is the further study that reveals some details that I want: Jacobian determinant for bi-linear Quadrilaterals . – Han de Bruijn Sep 16 '17 at 18:12
  • If it is demanded that the Jacobian determinant must be positive over the whole element, then this can only be the case if all its values at the vertices are positive. Let's take vertex $(1)$ as an example. Here: $$\Delta_1 = |\vec{12}|.|\vec{13}|.\sin(\phi)$$ with $\vec{12}$ the vector pointing from $(1)$ to $(2)$ , $\vec{13}$ the vector pointing from $(1)$ to $(3)$; $\phi$ is the angle between the vectors $\vec{12}$ and $\vec{12}$ . This means that $\sin(\phi) > 0$ or $0 < \phi < \pi$ . Thus obtuse angles are forbidden. Quadrilateral elements must be convex. – Han de Bruijn Sep 23 '17 at 11:01

2 Answers2

2

It's not a strict requirement, from a mathematical perspective. Instead, it's a semantic requirement: the conditions on convexity (and non-self-intersection, which is just a special-case) are required to guarantee that the mapping from $[0,1]\times[0,1]$ to the quadrilateral is 1:1. Otherwise, one can have multiple points in $uv$ parameter space mapping to the same 'physical' point, and then a sensible interpretation has to be defined for the correct value of whatever function one is modeling at that point.

0

Related questions & answers @ Mathematics Stack Exchange, actually the studies preceding this answer:

Please take notice, because I'm not going to repeat everything that is already in these references.
Then take a look at the picture below.
The shape in local coordinates $(\xi,\eta)$ , on the left, is a $\left[-\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2}\right] \times \left[-\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2}\right]$ square. But the element in global coordinates $(x,y)$ can have a quite different shape, like the one on the right:
enter image description here
The accompanying algebra - an isoparametric mapping with bi-linear interpolation - should be well known by now: $$ \begin{cases} x(\xi,\eta) = N_1 x_1 + N_2 x_2 + N_3 x_3 + N_4 x_4 \\ y(\xi,\eta) = N_1 y_1 + N_2 y_2 + N_3 y_3 + N_4 y_4 \end{cases} $$ Where: $$ \begin{cases} N_1 = (\frac{1}{2}-\xi)(\frac{1}{2}-\eta)\\ N_2 = (\frac{1}{2}+\xi)(\frac{1}{2}-\eta)\\ N_3 = (\frac{1}{2}-\xi)(\frac{1}{2}+\eta)\\ N_4 = (\frac{1}{2}+\xi)(\frac{1}{2}+\eta)\\ \end{cases} $$ The mapping of $\color{red}{\mbox{diagonals and midpoint}}$ has been displayed as well. The meaning of the $\color{green}{\mbox{green}}$ dot at vertex $(4)$ and the rightmost $\color{blue}{\mbox{blue}}$ dot will be explained soon.
It turns out that determining the inverse transformation $\,\xi(x,y),\eta(x,y)$ , in general, is difficult, as has been exemplified in an answer by Nominal Animal.
Better a special case than no case at all. So what we shall do is simplify the problem dramatically. First assume that we are only interested in function behaviour along the diagonal $(1)-(4)$ , where $\,\xi=\eta$ . Then the isoparametric mapping simplifies to: $$ \begin{cases} x = (\frac{1}{2}-\xi)^2 x_1 + (\frac{1}{4}-\xi^2) (x_2 + x_3) + (\frac{1}{2}+\xi)^2 x_4 \\ y = (\frac{1}{2}-\xi)^2 y_1 + (\frac{1}{4}-\xi^2) (y_2 + y_3) + (\frac{1}{2}+\xi)^2 y_4 \end{cases} $$ Now arrange the position of the vertices of the non-convex quadrilateral (see above picture) such that: $$ \left[ \quad y_1 = 0 \quad \wedge \quad y_2=-y_3 \quad \wedge \quad y_4 = 0 \quad \right] \quad \Longrightarrow \quad y = 0 $$ Meaning that the problem is restricted at the $x$-axis only: it has become one-dimensional; it has become the study of a parabola $x(\xi)$ . The same expression for $x$ can also be written as: $$ x = \frac{1}{4}(x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4) + (x_4-x_1)\,\xi + (x_1-x_2-x_3+x_4)\,\xi^2\\ \mbox{or} \qquad x = a\,\xi^2+b\,\xi + c \quad \mbox{with} \; \begin{cases} a = x_1-x_2-x_3+x_4 \\ b = x_4-x_1 \\ c = (x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4)/4 \end{cases} $$ The $\color{red}{\mbox{red spot}}$ is at $\,\xi=0$ . Hence : $x_{red} = (x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4)/4$ . Besides $y = 0$ , another red line is the mapping of the diagonal $\xi = -\eta$ . It can be proved that this mapping is a parabola.
The $\color{blue}{\mbox{blue spot}}$ is at the maximum of the parabola $\,x = a\,\xi^2+b\,\xi + c$ . Assuming that $\,a<0$ , it's a matter of routine: $$ x = a\left(\xi - \frac{b}{2a}\right)^2 + c - \frac{b^2}{4a} \quad \Longrightarrow \quad (\xi_{ blue},x_{ blue}) = \left(\frac{b}{2a},c - \frac{b^2}{4a}\right) $$ The $\color{green}{\mbox{green spot}}$ is at one of the roots of the equation: $$ (x_1-x_2-x_3+x_4)\,\xi^2 + (x_4-x_1)\,\xi + \frac{1}{4}(x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4) = x_4 $$ Because $x_4$ is a vertex, we know that the other root is always at $\,\xi = 1/2$ . Taking advantage of this fact we find: $$ \left[\xi-\frac{1}{2}\right]\left[(x_1-x_2-x_3+x_4)\xi - \frac{1}{2}(x_1+x_2+x_3-3x_4)\right] = 0 $$ Time to introduce our final simplifications: $$ (x_1,y_1) = (-\frac{1}{2},0) \quad ; \quad (x_2,y_2) = (+\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}) \quad ; \quad (x_3,y_3) = (+\frac{1}{2},+\frac{1}{2}) \\ (x_4,y_4) = (H>0,0) = \mbox{variable} $$ Then the $\color{green}{\mbox{green}}$ root of the equation for vertex (4) becomes: $$ \left(-\frac{3}{2}+H\right)\xi - \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}-3H\right) = 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \xi_{ green} = \frac{1-6H}{4H-6} $$ It turns out that the denominator being zero corresponds with a parallelogram and a linear instead of quadratic interpolation. Our current study doesn't cover that case.
Below is an animation of the shape of the quadrilateral, together with the parabola corresponding to the mapping $\,\xi \rightarrow x$ , for values of $H$ starting at $0$ with step size $1/8$ .
enter image description here
The $\color{green}{\mbox{green}}$ dot on the left corresponds with the $\color{green}{\mbox{green}}$ lines on the right: the position $(0,H)$ of vertex $(4)$. It is seen that there are two values of $\xi$ with one value of $x$ for all $0 < H < 1/2$ , simply correponding with the two roots of our quadratic equation. So the mapping at that vertex is not unique. The rightmost $\color{blue}{\mbox{blue}}$ dot on the left corresponds with the maximum of the parabola on the right. It is trivial that this $\color{blue}{\mbox{blue}}$ dot must be at the boundary delimiting the $\color{gray}{\mbox{gray}}$ area, which is the mapping $(-1/2 < \xi < +1/2,-1/2 < \eta < + 1/2) \to (x,y)$ .

Free software source accompanying all this is found at my website .

Han de Bruijn
  • 17,070