JuliaFEM.jl/docs/book/benchmarks/shape_function_derivatives_ad_vs_manual.md

title, subtitle, description, date, author, categories, keywords, audience, level, type, series, chapter, experiment_date, tools, status, context

title	subtitle	description	date	author	categories	keywords	audience	level	type	series	chapter	experiment_date	tools	status	context
Shape Function Derivatives: Hand-Calculated vs Automatic Differentiation	Performance benchmark for Tet10 element derivatives	Comprehensive benchmark showing 30× performance difference between manual and AD derivatives	2025-11-09	Jukka Aho	benchmarks performance research	automatic differentiation performance shape functions derivatives tensors.jl tet10	developers and researchers	advanced	benchmark	The JuliaFEM Book	Part IV: Research	2025-11-09	BenchmarkTools.jl Tensors.jl	completed	Major zero-allocation refactoring (immutable Element, tuple-based APIs)

Shape Function Derivatives: Hand-Calculated vs Automatic Differentiation

Date: November 9, 2025
Author: JuliaFEM Development Team
Context: Major zero-allocation refactoring (immutable Element, tuple-based APIs)

The Question

Is it worth calculating shape function derivatives by hand, or should we just use Automatic Differentiation (AD)?

This is a fundamental design decision for JuliaFEM. Traditionally, FEM codes pre-calculate derivatives analytically and hard-code them. But with modern Julia AD tools (ForwardDiff.jl, built into Tensors.jl), we might get comparable performance with zero maintenance burden.

We benchmark Tet10 (10-node tetrahedral element) - one of the most important 3D elements.

Background

Traditional Approach (Hand-Calculated)

# Shape functions for Tet10
N1(u,v,w) = (1-u-v-w)*(1-2*u-2*v-2*w)
N2(u,v,w) = u*(2*u-1)
# ... 8 more functions

# Derivatives (calculated by hand, error-prone)
dN1_du(u,v,w) = 4*u + 4*v + 4*w - 3
dN1_dv(u,v,w) = 4*u + 4*v + 4*w - 3
# ... many more derivatives

Pros: Potentially fastest (pre-computed)
Cons: Error-prone, maintenance burden, inflexible

AD Approach (Tensors.jl / ForwardDiff.jl)

# Just shape functions
N1(ξ) = (1-ξ[1]-ξ[2]-ξ[3])*(1-2*ξ[1]-2*ξ[2]-2*ξ[3])
# ... 9 more functions

# Derivatives computed automatically
using ForwardDiff
dN = ForwardDiff.gradient(N1, ξ)

Pros: Zero maintenance, no human errors, flexible
Cons: Runtime overhead?

Implementation Strategy

We'll implement three versions of Tet10 basis evaluation:

1. Manual: Hand-calculated derivatives (current JuliaFEM approach)
2. AD-Naive: Compute gradients with ForwardDiff at each call
3. AD-Optimized: Use dual numbers efficiently with Tensors.jl

Then we benchmark the hottest operation: evaluating all shape functions and derivatives at an integration point.

Benchmark Setup

using BenchmarkTools
using ForwardDiff
using Tensors
using StaticArrays

# Integration point (ξ, η, ζ) in reference element
const ξ_test = Vec(0.25, 0.25, 0.25)

# Allocate output buffers for fair comparison
const N_buffer = zeros(10)
const dN_buffer = [zero(Vec{3}) for _ in 1:10]

Results

Benchmarks run on: AMD Ryzen 9 / Julia 1.12.1 / November 9, 2025

Method	Time (ns)	Allocations	Relative Speed
Manual	8.7	0	1.0× (baseline)
AD (Tensors.jl)	268.1	0	30.7× slower

Key Findings

1. Both methods achieve zero allocations ✅

   • Tensors.jl gradient() is allocation-free
   • No performance penalty from GC pressure

2. AD has 30× compute overhead ❌

   • Manual: 8.7 nanoseconds
   • AD: 268 nanoseconds
   • This is significant in assembly loops (millions of evaluations)

3. Why is AD so much slower?

   • Dual number arithmetic: Every operation becomes a tuple of (value, gradient)
   • Chain rule evaluation: Must track derivatives through all operations
   • 10 basis functions × 3 gradient components = 30 derivative evaluations
   • Cannot fully optimize away the dual number overhead

4. Assembly loop impact:

   • Typical problem: 100K elements × 4 integration points × 100 Newton iterations
   • Extra cost: (268 - 8.7) ns × 40M calls = 10 seconds per solve
   • For large problems, this adds up quickly

Analysis

Performance Factors

1. Compiler Optimization: Both approaches are fully inlined and optimized
2. Dual Number Overhead: ~30× cost - every arithmetic operation becomes dual number arithmetic
3. SIMD: Manual derivatives can be better vectorized by LLVM
4. Constant Propagation: Both benefit equally

Memory Considerations

✅ Both achieve zero allocations - Tensors.jl gradient() is very well optimized for memory

Decision Tree

For assembly loops (hot path):

• ❌ Do NOT use AD - 30× overhead is unacceptable
• ✅ Use hand-coded derivatives - keep them for Tet10, Hex8, Quad4, Tri3
• ✅ Verify with AD in unit tests - catch human errors

For prototyping/research:

• ✅ Use AD freely - development velocity matters more
• ✅ Profile before optimizing - maybe it's not the bottleneck

For rare elements:

• ⚠️ Consider symbolic generation - SymPy/Symbolics.jl once, use forever
• ✅ Unit test against AD - verify correctness

For exotic bases (NURBS, splines):

• ✅ Must use AD - hand derivatives are intractable
• ⚠️ Accept performance cost - no alternative

Recommendations

Short Term (Current JuliaFEM)

Keep manual derivatives for common elements:

• Tet4, Tet10 (3D volume)
• Hex8, Hex20, Hex27 (3D volume)
• Quad4, Quad8, Quad9 (2D, shells)
• Tri3, Tri6 (2D, shells)
• Seg2, Seg3 (1D, beams)

These elements cover >95% of real-world usage. The 30× speedup justifies maintenance.

Use AD for everything else:

• Pyramid elements (rare)
• Wedge elements (rare)
• Research elements
• NURBS-based isogeometric analysis

Long Term (v2.0+)

Symbolic derivative generation:

using Symbolics

# Define basis symbolically once
@variables ξ η ζ
N1_sym = (1 - ξ - η - ζ) * (2*(1 - ξ - η - ζ) - 1)

# Generate Julia code for derivatives
dN1_dξ = Symbolics.derivative(N1_sym, ξ)
code = Symbolics.build_function(dN1_dξ, [ξ, η, ζ])

# Store in basis/generated/Tet10.jl
# Zero human error, zero AD overhead!

Benefits:

• Hand-level performance
• Zero human errors (symbolic math is exact)
• Easy to add new elements (just define basis symbolically)
• Unit test against AD to verify symbolic engine

Conclusion

The data is clear: For JuliaFEM's performance-critical code (element assembly), manual derivatives are 30× faster than AD.

Recommended strategy:

1. ✅ Keep hand-coded derivatives for common elements (Tet10, Hex8, Quad4, etc.)
2. ✅ Use AD for prototyping and rare elements
3. ✅ Add unit tests comparing manual vs AD (catch human errors)
4. 🎯 Future: Generate derivatives symbolically (best of both worlds)

Why not AD everywhere?

• Assembly loops: millions of evaluations per solve
• 30× overhead = 10+ seconds per solve on realistic problems
• Users will notice the performance difference

Why not abandon AD?

• Excellent for prototyping
• Required for exotic bases (NURBS)
• Perfect for unit testing manual derivatives
• Zero allocations makes it usable in inner loops (if needed)

The zero-allocation achievement is impressive, but compute overhead dominates. Performance-critical code still needs hand-tuned derivatives.

---

References

1. ForwardDiff.jl documentation
2. Tensors.jl gradient() implementation
3. "Automatic Differentiation in FEM" - various papers
4. JuliaFEM Issue #XXX: Zero-allocation refactoring

Appendix: Code Listings

See benchmarks/tet10_derivatives_benchmark.jl for full implementations.