• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.60 no.1
• /
• pp.149-162
• /
• 2016

Structure-dependent integration methods seem promising for structural dynamics applications since they can integrate unconditional stability and explicit formulation together, which can enable the integration methods to save many computational efforts when compared to an implicit method. A newly developed structure-dependent integration method can inherit such numerical properties. However, an unusual overshooting behavior might be experienced as it is used to compute a forced vibration response. The root cause of this inaccuracy is thoroughly explored herein. In addition, a scheme is proposed to modify this family method to overcome this unusual overshooting behavior. In fact, two improved formulations are proposed by adjusting the difference equations. As a result, it is verified that the two improved formulations of the integration methods can effectively overcome the difficulty arising from the inaccurate integration of the steady-state response of a high frequency mode.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.55 no.4
• /
• pp.815-837
• /
• 2015

A new family of structure-dependent integration methods is developed to enhance with desired numerical damping. This family method preserves the most important advantage of the structure-dependent integration method, which can integrate unconditional stability and explicit formulation together, and thus it is very computationally efficient. In addition, its numerical damping can be continuously controlled with a parameter. Consequently, it is best suited to solving an inertia-type problem, where the unimportant high frequency responses can be suppressed or even eliminated by the favorable numerical damping while the low frequency modes can be very accurately integrated.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.75 no.5
• /
• pp.541-557
• /
• 2020

A novel family of controllable, dissipative structure-dependent integration methods is derived from an eigen-based theory, where the concept of the eigenmode can give a solid theoretical basis for the feasibility of this type of integration methods. In fact, the concepts of eigen-decomposition and modal superposition are involved in solving a multiple degree of freedom system. The total solution of a coupled equation of motion consists of each modal solution of the uncoupled equation of motion. Hence, an eigen-dependent integration method is proposed to solve each modal equation of motion and an approximate solution can be yielded via modal superposition with only the first few modes of interest for inertial problems. All the eigen-dependent integration methods combine to form a structure-dependent integration method. Some key assumptions and new techniques are combined to successfully develop this family of integration methods. In addition, this family of integration methods can be either explicitly or implicitly implemented. Except for stability property, both explicit and implicit implementations have almost the same numerical properties. An explicit implementation is more computationally efficient than for an implicit implementation since it can combine unconditional stability and explicit formulation simultaneously. As a result, an explicit implementation is preferred over an implicit implementation. This family of integration methods can have the same numerical properties as those of the WBZ-α method for linear elastic systems. Besides, its stability and accuracy performance for solving nonlinear systems is also almost the same as those of the WBZ-α method. It is evident from numerical experiments that an explicit implementation of this family of integration methods can save many computational efforts when compared to conventional implicit methods, such as the WBZ-α method.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.65 no.1
• /
• pp.91-98
• /
• 2018

Three structure-dependent integration methods with no numerical dissipation have been successfully developed for time integration. Although these three integration methods generally have the same numerical properties, such as unconditional stability, second-order accuracy, explicit formulation, no overshoot and no numerical damping, there still exist some different numerical properties. It is found that TLM can only have unconditional stability for linear elastic and stiffness softening systems for zero viscous damping while for nonzero viscous damping it only has unconditional stability for linear elastic systems. Whereas, both CEM and CRM can have unconditional stability for linear elastic and stiffness softening systems for both zero and nonzero viscous damping. However, the most significantly different property among the three integration methods is a weak instability. In fact, both CRM and TLM have a weak instability, which will lead to an adverse overshoot or even a numerical instability in the high frequency responses to nonzero initial conditions. Whereas, CEM possesses no such an adverse weak instability. As a result, the performance of CEM is much better than for CRM and TLM. Notice that a weak instability property of CRM and TLM might severely limit its practical applications.

• Earthquakes and Structures
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.45-53
• /
• 2018

A family of the structure-dependent methods seems very promising for time integration since it can simultaneously have desired numerical properties, such as unconditional stability, second-order accuracy, explicit formulation and numerical dissipation. However, an unusual overshoot, which is essentially different from that found by Goudreau and Taylor in the transient response, has been experienced in the steady-state response of a high frequency mode. The root cause of this unusual overshoot is analytically explored and then a remedy is successfully developed to eliminate it. As a result, an improved formulation of this family method can be achieved.

• Earthquakes and Structures
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.297-313
• /
• 2016

A virtual parameter is introduced into the formulation of the previously published integration method to improve its stability properties. It seems that the numerical properties of this integration method are almost unaffected by this parameter except for the stability property. As a result, it can have second order accuracy, explicit formulation and controllable numerical dissipation in addition to the enhanced stability property. In fact, it can have unconditional stability for the system with the instantaneous degree of nonlinearity less than or equal to the specified value of the virtual parameter for the modes of interest for each time step.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.62 no.2
• /
• pp.151-162
• /
• 2017

Two $Chang-{\alpha}$ dissipative family methods and two $KR-{\alpha}$ family methods were developed for time integration recently. Although the four family methods are in the category of the dissipative structure-dependent integration methods, their performances may be drastically different due to the detrimental property of weak instability or overshoot for the two $KR-{\alpha}$ family methods. This weak instability or overshoot will result in an adverse overshooting behavior or even numerical instability. In general, the four family methods can possess very similar numerical properties, such as unconditional stability, second-order accuracy, explicit formulation and controllable numerical damping. However, the two $KR-{\alpha}$ family methods are found to possess a weak instability property or overshoot in the high frequency responses to any nonzero initial conditions and thus this property will hinder them from practical applications. Whereas, the two $Chang-{\alpha}$ dissipative family methods have no such an adverse property. As a result, the performances of the two $Chang-{\alpha}$ dissipative family methods are much better than for the two $KR-{\alpha}$ family methods. Analytical assessments of all the four family methods are conducted in this work and numerical examples are used to confirm the analytical predictions.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.65 no.1
• /
• pp.121-128
• /
• 2018

Three structure-dependent integration methods with no numerical dissipation have been successfully developed for time integration. Although these three integration methods generally have the same numerical properties, such as unconditional stability, second-order accuracy, explicit formulation, no overshoot and no numerical damping, there still exist some different numerical properties. It is found that TLM can only have unconditional stability for linear elastic and stiffness softening systems for zero viscous damping while for nonzero viscous damping it only has unconditional stability for linear elastic systems. Whereas, both CEM and CRM can have unconditional stability for linear elastic and stiffness softening systems for both zero and nonzero viscous damping. However, the most significantly different property among the three integration methods is a weak instability. In fact, both CRM and TLM have a weak instability, which will lead to an adverse overshoot or even a numerical instability in the high frequency responses to nonzero initial conditions. Whereas, CEM possesses no such an adverse weak instability. As a result, the performance of CEM is much better than for CRM and TLM. Notice that a weak instability property of CRM and TLM might severely limit its practical applications.

• Structural Engineering and Mechanics
• /
• v.87 no.4
• /
• pp.363-373
• /
• 2023

Since the first family of structure-dependent methods can simultaneously integrate unconditional stability and explicit formulation in addition to second order accuracy, it is very computationally efficient for solving inertial problems except for adopting auto time-stepping techniques due to no nonlinear iterations. However, an unusual stability property is first found herein since its unconditional stability interval is drastically different for zero and nonzero damping. In fact, instability might occur for solving a damped stiffness hardening system while an accurate result can be obtained for the corresponding undamped stiffness hardening system. A technique of using a stability factor is applied to overcome this difficulty. It can be applied to magnify an unconditional stability interval. After introducing this stability factor, the formulation of this family of structure-dependent methods is changed accordingly and thus its numerical properties must be re-evaluated. In summary, a large stability factor can result in a large unconditional stability interval but also lead to a large relative period error. As a consequence, a stability factor must be appropriately chosen to have a desired unconditional stability interval in addition to an acceptable period distortion.

• Earthquakes and Structures
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.159-178
• /
• 2014

Although the family methods with unconditional stability and numerical dissipation have been developed for structural dynamics they all are implicit methods and thus an iterative procedure is generally involved for each time step. In this work, a new family method is proposed. It involves no nonlinear iterations in addition to unconditional stability and favorable numerical dissipation, which can be continuously controlled. In particular, it can have a zero damping ratio. The most important improvement of this family method is that it involves no nonlinear iterations for each time step and thus it can save many computationally efforts when compared to the currently available dissipative implicit integration methods.