Skip to main content
Log in

A new model-dependent time integration scheme with effective numerical damping for dynamic analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a new semi-explicit dissipative model-dependent time integration algorithm for solving structural dynamics problems. Motivated by the superior properties of the composite time-stepping scheme, the proposed method is designed, so that it fully inherits the numerical characteristics of its parent algorithm, namely the Bathe method. The algorithm design procedure is carried out by assuming unknown integration parameters for the proposed method. Afterwards, by time discretization of an SDOF model equation, the unknown parameters can be obtained explicitly by solving nonlinear system of equations. Some numerical examples are analyzed by the presented technique and comparisons are also made with two other dissipative model-dependent time integration algorithms as well as the Bathe method. Results demonstrate that the suggested technique can effectively damp out the spurious oscillations of the high-frequency modes, while the other schemes exhibit significant overshoot in the calculated responses. Furthermore, it is also observed that numerical results of the presented method totally coincide with the parent algorithm. While the Bathe method subdivides each time increment into two sub-steps, the proposed algorithm is single-step, non-iterative and does not involve any time-step subdividing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bathe K-J (2006) Finite element procedures. Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Inc.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Hughes TJ (1983) Analysis of transient algorithms with particular reference to stability behavior. In: Computational methods for transient analysis. North-Holland Comput Methods in Mech., Amsterdam, pp 67–155

  3. Namadchi AH, Alamatian J (2016) Explicit dynamic analysis using dynamic relaxation method. Comput Struct 175:91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dokainish M, Subbaraj K (1989) A survey of direct time-integration methods in computational structural dynamics—I. Explicit methods. Comput Struct 32(6):1371–1386

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Subbaraj K, Dokainish M (1989) A survey of direct time-integration methods in computational structural dynamics—II. Implicit methods. Comput Struct 32(6):1387–1401

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Bathe KJ, Wilson E (1972) Stability and accuracy analysis of direct integration methods. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1(3):283–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kolay C, Ricles JM (2016) Assessment of explicit and semi-explicit classes of model-based algorithms for direct integration in structural dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 107(1):49–73

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang S-Y (2010) A new family of explicit methods for linear structural dynamics. Comput Struct 88(11–12):755–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang S-Y (2002) Explicit pseudodynamic algorithm with unconditional stability. J Eng Mech 128(9):935–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Namadchi AH, Fattahi F, Alamatian J (2017) Semiexplicit unconditionally stable time integration for dynamic analysis based on composite scheme. J Eng Mech 143(10):04017119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chang SY (2014) A family of noniterative integration methods with desired numerical dissipation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 100(1):62–86

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen C, Ricles JM (2008) Development of direct integration algorithms for structural dynamics using discrete control theory. J Eng Mech 134(8):676–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chung J, Hulbert G (1993) A time integration algorithm for structural dynamics with improved numerical dissipation: the generalized-α method. J Appl Mech 60(2):371–375

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Bathe K-J, Noh G (2012) Insight into an implicit time integration scheme for structural dynamics. Comput Struct 98:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kolay C, Ricles JM (2014) Development of a family of unconditionally stable explicit direct integration algorithms with controllable numerical energy dissipation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(9):1361–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hilber HM, Hughes TJ, Taylor RL (1977) Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 5(3):283–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chang S-Y (2015) Dissipative, noniterative integration algorithms with unconditional stability for mildly nonlinear structural dynamic problems. Nonlinear Dyn 79(2):1625–1649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wood W, Bossak M, Zienkiewicz O (1980) An alpha modification of Newmark’s method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 15(10):1562–1566

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Bathe K-J (2007) Conserving energy and momentum in nonlinear dynamics: a simple implicit time integration scheme. Comput Struct 85(7–8):437–445

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Bathe K-J, Baig MMI (2005) On a composite implicit time integration procedure for nonlinear dynamics. Comput Struct 83(31–32):2513–2524

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu T et al (2012) An efficient backward Euler time-integration method for nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures. Comput Struct 106:20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Noh G, Ham S, Bathe K-J (2013) Performance of an implicit time integration scheme in the analysis of wave propagations. Comput Struct 123:93–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wen W et al (2017) A comparative study of three composite implicit schemes on structural dynamic and wave propagation analysis. Comput Struct 190:126–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liang X, Mosalam KM, Günay S (2016) Direct integration algorithms for efficient nonlinear seismic response of reinforced concrete highway bridges. J Bridge Eng 21(7):04016041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang J, Liu Y, Liu D (2017) Accuracy of a composite implicit time integration scheme for structural dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 109(3):368–406

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Hughes TJ (2012) The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Courier Corporation, Chelmsford

    Google Scholar 

  27. Noh G, Bathe K-J (2019) The Bathe time integration method with controllable spectral radius: the ρ∞-Bathe method. Comput Struct 212:299–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Noh G, Bathe K-J (2018) Further insights into an implicit time integration scheme for structural dynamics. Comput Struct 202:15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huang C, Fu M (2018) A composite collocation method with low-period elongation for structural dynamics problems. Comput Struct 195:74–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wen W et al (2017) A novel sub-step composite implicit time integration scheme for structural dynamics. Comput Struct 182:176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Malakiyeh MM, Shojaee S, Javaran SH (2018) Development of a direct time integration method based on Bezier curve and 5th-order Bernstein basis function. Comput Struct 194:15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kadapa C, Dettmer W, Perić D (2017) On the advantages of using the first-order generalised-alpha scheme for structural dynamic problems. Comput Struct 193:226–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shojaee S, Rostami S, Abbasi A (2015) An unconditionally stable implicit time integration algorithm: modified quartic B-spline method. Comput Struct 153:98–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Crisfield MA (1997) Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures: advanced topics. Wiley, New York, p 508

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cook RD (2007) Concepts and applications of finite element analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chang S-Y (2018) An unusual amplitude growth property and its remedy for structure-dependent integration methods. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 330:498–521

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Koohestani K, Kaveh A (2010) Efficient buckling and free vibration analysis of cyclically repeated space truss structures. Finite Elem Anal Des 46(10):943–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bathe K-J, Bolourchi S (1980) A geometric and material nonlinear plate and shell element. Comput Struct 11(1–2):23–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Namadchi AH, Alamatian J (2017) Dynamic relaxation method based on Lanczos algorithm. Int J Numer Methods Eng 112(10):1473–1492

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Pica A, Wood R, Hinton E (1980) Finite element analysis of geometrically nonlinear plate behaviour using a Mindlin formulation. Comput Struct 11(3):203–215

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Goudreau GL, Taylor RL (1973) Evaluation of numerical integration methods in elastodynamics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2(1):69–97

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javad Alamatian.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

$$\begin{aligned} g_{0} & = \left( {\gamma - 2} \right)^{2} , \, g_{1} = 2\left( {\gamma - 2} \right)\left( {\gamma^{2} - 2} \right), \, g_{2} = 2\gamma \left( {\gamma - 2} \right)\left( {\gamma - 1} \right) \\ g_{3} & = \gamma^{2} - 2\gamma + 2, \, g_{4} = \gamma \left( {\gamma - 1} \right)\left( {\gamma^{2} - 2} \right), \, g_{5} = \gamma \left( {\gamma - 1} \right),g_{6} = \left( {\gamma - 2} \right)\left( {\gamma - 1} \right) \\ g_{7} & = \left( {\gamma - 1} \right)^{2} , \, g_{8} = 4 - \gamma^{2} \left( {6 + \gamma \left( {\gamma - 4} \right)} \right),g_{9} = \gamma \left( {1 - \gamma } \right)\left( {\gamma^{2} - 2\gamma + 2} \right) \\ g_{10} & = 2\left( {\gamma - 2} \right)\left( {\gamma^{2} - 2\gamma + 2} \right), \, g_{11} = \gamma \left( {4 + \gamma } \right) - 6,g_{12} = \gamma^{2} - 2. \\ \end{aligned}$$
(45)

Appendix 2

Table 2 summarizes the necessary steps for conducting time integration through the MDED technique. In this table, N represents the numerator of the integration parameters in MDOF space. Moreover, \(\left[ {\mathbf{I}} \right]\) is the identity matrix of size q, where q is the number of degrees of freedom.

Table 2 Pseudocode for the proposed MDED method

Appendix 3

The ‘N’ notation is an operator which returns the numerator of a rational function. Similarly, operator ‘D’ could be defined which give the denominator of a rational function. For instance, considering αi (integration parameter) as a rational function:

$$\alpha_{i} = \frac{1 + 2\zeta \varOmega }{{1 + 2\zeta \varOmega + \varOmega^{2} }} \to \left\{ \begin{aligned} N_{{\left( {\alpha_{i} } \right)}} = 1 + 2\zeta \varOmega \hfill \\ D_{{\left( {\alpha_{i} } \right)}} = 1 + 2\zeta \varOmega + \varOmega^{2} \hfill \\ \end{aligned} \right..$$
(46)

Thus

$$\alpha_{i} = \frac{{N_{{\left( {\alpha_{i} } \right)}} }}{{D_{{\left( {\alpha_{i} } \right)}} }} = \left( {D_{{\left( {\alpha_{i} } \right)}} } \right)^{ - 1} N_{{\left( {\alpha_{i} } \right)}} .$$
(47)

Regarding the generalization of this concept to MDOF systems (Matrix form), a simple example is introduced to clarify the matter. Let us suppose one wants to generalize αi for a system with three degrees of freedom. Since every mode of vibration has a unique natural frequency, there are three integration parameters (with different \(\varOmega\) and ζ). Thus, one could write

$$\alpha_{i1} = \frac{{1 + 2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} }}{{1 + 2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} + \varOmega_{1}^{2} }},\quad \alpha_{i2} = \frac{{1 + 2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} }}{{1 + 2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} + \varOmega_{2}^{2} }},\quad \alpha_{i3} = \frac{{1 + 2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} }}{{1 + 2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} + \varOmega_{3}^{2} }}.$$
(48)

Here, subscripts 1, 2 and 3 represent the mode number. Equation (48) could be written, alternatively, in matrix form:

$$\left[ {\bar{\rm A}_{i} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\alpha_{i1} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {\alpha_{i2} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {\alpha_{i3} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\frac{{1 + 2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} }}{{1 + 2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} + \varOmega_{1}^{2} }}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {\frac{{1 + 2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} }}{{1 + 2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} + \varOmega_{2}^{2} }}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {\frac{{1 + 2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} }}{{1 + 2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} + \varOmega_{3}^{2} }}} \\ \end{array} } \right].$$
(49)

Owing to diagonality of (49), simple matrix decomposition can be performed as follows:

$$\left[ {{\mathbf{\bar{\rm A}}}_{i} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\frac{1}{{1 + 2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} + \varOmega_{1}^{2} }}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {\frac{1}{{1 + 2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} + \varOmega_{2}^{2} }}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {\frac{1}{{1 + 2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} + \varOmega_{3}^{2} }}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {1 + 2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {1 + 2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {1 + 2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} } \\ \end{array} } \right].$$
(50)

Or

$$\left[ {{\mathbf{\bar{\rm A}}}_{i} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {1 + 2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} + \varOmega_{1}^{2} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {1 + 2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} + \varOmega_{2}^{2} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {1 + 2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} + \varOmega_{3}^{2} } \\ \end{array} } \right]^{ - 1} \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {1 + 2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {1 + 2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {1 + 2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} } \\ \end{array} } \right]$$
(51)
$$\left[ {{\mathbf{\bar{\rm A}}}_{i} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {D_{{\left( {\alpha_{i1} } \right)}} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {D_{{\left( {\alpha_{i2} } \right)}} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {D_{{\left( {\alpha_{i3} } \right)}} } \\ \end{array} } \right]^{ - 1} \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {N_{{\left( {\alpha_{i1} } \right)}} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {N_{{\left( {\alpha_{i2} } \right)}} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {N_{{\left( {\alpha_{i3} } \right)}} } \\ \end{array} } \right] \to \left[ {{\mathbf{\bar{\rm A}}}_{i} } \right] = \left[ {D_{{\left( {{\mathbf{\bar{\rm A}}}_{i} } \right)}} } \right]^{ - 1} \left[ {N_{{\left( {{\mathbf{\bar{\rm A}}}_{i} } \right)}} } \right].$$
(52)

However, Eq. (52) involves modal parameters and in practice, it should be transformed to standard finite-element coordinates. This can be done by employing the transformations introduced in this paper [Eqs. (32) and (33)]. For example, \(\left[ {N_{{\left( {{\mathbf{\bar{\rm A}}}_{i} } \right)}} } \right]\) could be written as

$$\begin{aligned} \left[ {N_{{\left( {{\mathbf{\bar{\rm A}}}_{i} } \right)}} } \right] & = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {1 + 2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {1 + 2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {1 + 2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{array} } \right] + \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {2\zeta_{1} \varOmega_{1} } & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {2\zeta_{2} \varOmega_{2} } & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {2\zeta_{3} \varOmega_{3} } \\ \end{array} } \right] \\ & = \left[ {\mathbf{I}} \right] + 2\left[ {{\bar{\mathbf{\zeta }}}} \right]\left[ {{\bar{\mathbf{\varOmega }}}} \right] = \left[ {\varvec{\Phi}} \right]^{\text{T}} \left[ {\varvec{\Phi}} \right]^{{ - {\text{T}}}} + \Delta t\left[ {\varvec{\Phi}} \right]^{\text{T}} \left( {\left[ {\mathbf{C}} \right]\left[ {\mathbf{M}} \right]^{ - 1} } \right)\left[ {\varvec{\Phi}} \right]^{{ - {\text{T}}}} \to \left[ {N_{{\left( {{\mathbf{\bar{\rm A}}}_{i} } \right)}} } \right] \\ & = \left[ {\varvec{\Phi}} \right]^{\text{T}} \left( {\left[ {\mathbf{I}} \right] + \Delta t\left[ {\mathbf{C}} \right]\left[ {\mathbf{M}} \right]^{ - 1} } \right)\left[ {\varvec{\Phi}} \right]^{{ - {\text{T}}}} . \\ \end{aligned}$$
(53)

The above procedure could be performed for all of the integration parameters. Thus, they can be described only in terms of original system matrices and in the form of \(\left[ {\varvec{\Phi}} \right]^{T} \left( \ldots \right)\left[ {\varvec{\Phi}} \right]^{{ - {\text{T}}}}\).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Namadchi, A.H., Jandaghi, E. & Alamatian, J. A new model-dependent time integration scheme with effective numerical damping for dynamic analysis. Engineering with Computers 37, 2543–2558 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-00960-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-00960-w

Keywords

Navigation