Solution method

Chapter 4
Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

4.1

INTRODUCTION

In traditional design of structures, linear analysis is commonly used and therefore the calculated stresses and displacements are always linearly proportional to the applied loads. If a structure is designed to behave linearly for all worst loading cases, this design may be over-estimated and uneconomical. In reality, especially for high-rise buildings under severe loads, nonlinearities due to geometrical instability or material yielding can be significant. In such a case, the relationship between the structural deformation and the applied load is no longer in a linear proportion. To trace the nonlinear load-deflection curve of a structure, a numerical solution technique should be adopted. Generally speaking, nonlinear analysis is characterized by the non-proportional nature of the load-deformation behaviour, which means that the structural response against an incremental loading is affected by the instantaneous loading level and the deformed geometry of the structure. In other words, the stiffness matrix of the structure is a function of element force as well as the deflection of the structure and, therefore, for medium to huge size problems, the instantaneous stiffness equation can 131

only be solved numerically by an incremental and iterative procedure allowing for the geometrical change of the structure. Based on the Newton-Raphson scheme, the applied load is first divided into many small increments, and the displacement increment within each increment is computed by using the tangent stiffness matrix. The resistant force can be calculated by the accumulated displacement and the unbalanced force can be determined as the difference between the applied and the resistant forces. When both the errors, measured as the Euclidean norms of the unbalanced forces and of the residual displacements, fall within a specified tolerance, convergence is assumed to be satisfied and the member forces and displacements are taken as the correct solution at the load level. Subsequent solution points at higher load levels are determined by the procedure of applying a series of incremental loads and hence the complete equilibrium path can be traced. The numerical problem that may be encountered when tracing the nonlinear load-deflection curve is the ill-conditioning of the tangent stiffness matrix near the critical point. This may lead to numerical over-flow and divergence in the computer analysis. In case of divergence, it is difficult to figure out whether the system is failed structurally or numerically. This uncertainty consequently affects the reliability of a computer analysis and therefore the success of a nonlinear analysis relies on the robustness of the nonlinear algorithm underlying the computer program. Several solution schemes have been proposed and none of them is remarkably superior to others in all cases. Although the approach of the pure incremental method suppressing iteration can traverse the limit point without difficulty, the drift-off error is accumulated from each load increment and it is difficult to assess the accuracy of the final result. Adoption of smaller load increments can, of course, reduce the drift-off error, but its incremental size is difficult to be determined. Two independent analyses with different load size may be required to check the drift-off error by comparing the discrepancy of these two curves. Effort for trial and error may be required. On the other hand, the load control Newton-Raphson numerical method or its modified form is aimed to eliminate the drift-off error within each load step. However, this iterative procedure diverges when the tangent stiffness is ill-conditioned which occurs near a limit point.

4.2 Objectives of this chapter In this Chapter, the characteristics and procedures of several commonly used nonlinear numerical schemes are discussed. Several numerical examples are re-analysed by this study and the results are compared with those obtained by other researchers. Conclusions on the merits and limitations of these methods are drawn at the end of this Chapter, which are important reference for the analyst in selecting an appropriate method of analysis. After reading this chapter, we should be able to use various solution schemes for nonlinear analysis in Nida. 132

4.3

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the early 60's, the incremental technique in tracing the load-deflection curve of trusses and frames was developed by Turner et al. (1964) and Argyris (1964). In their approaches, the applied loads were divided into a number of small increments. After each load increment, the geometrical configuration and the stiffness matrix of the structure were updated to account for the geometrically nonlinear effect. However, a drift-off error is accumulated along the tracing of the equilibrium path. To eliminate the drift-off error, the Newton-Raphson method with equilibrium check within each load increment can be used. This method is effective and efficient and therefore has been widely used. In the original Newton-Raphson method, the tangent stiffness matrix is reformed every iteration and hence the computer time required for each iteration is extensive. On the other hand, in the modified Newton-Raphson method used by Oden (1969) for structural problems, the tangent stiffness is only formed in the first iteration of each load increment and this stiffness matrix is kept constant in the subsequent iterations. Comparing the original to the modified Newton-Raphson method, the former requires more time in the stiffness reformation within each iteration but needs only less iterations for convergence. On the contrary, the latter does not reform the tangent stiffness every iteration but needs more iterations to achieve convergence. The main weakness of these Newton-Raphson methods is the numerical divergence when a solution path approaches the limit point of the load-deformation curve. This is due to the ill-conditioning of the tangent stiffness matrix or the solution being unattainable when the applied load is larger than the limit load (see Fig. 4.1). To overcome this divergence problem, several schemes for controlling the size of the load or the displacement increment have been suggested. Instead of using load as the parameter to trace the portion of load-deformation curve near the limit point, Argyris (1965) proposed the use of the characteristic displacement increment as the control parameter to prevent the applied load being larger than the limit load. The symmetrical property of the matrix, however, is destroyed in his method. His concept was later modified by others researchers (Pian and Tong, 1971; Zienkiewicz, 1971; Yamada et al., 1974) to improve the efficiency of the solution scheme. Unfortunately, these modified approaches usually involved complicated procedures which become inconvenient for general use. Batoz and Dhatt (1979) proposed a simpler procedure of introducing the constant displacement constraint, which retains the symmetrical character of the tangent stiffness matrix and hence their method is convenient and efficient for computer programming. An appropriate displacement degree of freedom, on which the constant displacement increment is enforced, has to be selected as the steering displacement, but the selection of this displacement may not be obvious in large structures. In addition, the constant displacement method is only capable of handling the snap-through but not the snap-back problems.

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves In the 70's, the concept of the arc-length control to handle the snap-through and the snap-back problems was independently introduced by Wempner (1971) and Riks (1979). The main disadvantage of their original approach is that the symmetrical nature of the tangent stiffness matrix is destroyed by the imposed additional constraint equation for displacement control. To overcome this problem, Crisfield (1981) and Ramm (1981) independently suggested an iterative process which separates the constraint equation from the set of equilibrium equation so as to retain the symmetrical and banded nature of the tangent stiffness matrix which is a common feature for finite element method of analysis. The constant external work method to keep the work done in each load increment constant was proposed by Bathe and Dvorkin (1983). They claimed that it is more reliable than the arc-length method near a critical point. Later, Yang (1984) employed the constant work method for large deflection analysis of frames. However, Chan and Ho (1990) proved mathematically that this method is equivalent to the displacement control method with the steering displacements being the same as all the displacement degrees of freedom. For some simple cases, the constant work method is reverted to the displacement control method and therefore when snap-back occurs, the numerical scheme fails.
Load, F

Divergence Load

F0

F1

Equilibrium Path K T = Variable for every iteration

K O T

u0 u 1

Displacement, u Figure 5.1 Conventional Newton-Raphson Method Load, F

Divergence Load

F0

F1

Equilibrium Path K T= Constant within a load cycle

K O T

u0 u 1
Displacement, u

Figure 5.1b Modified Newton-Raphson Method Figure 5.1 The Newton-Raphson Method

Convergence Criteria

135

In late 80's, Chan (1988) proposed the minimum residual displacement method for geometrical and material non-linear analysis of frames. The imposed constraint condition is the minimization of the residual displacement in each iteration and it was found to be effective in handling various geometrical and material nonlinear problems. His concept follows the objective of iteration which is to minimize the equilibrium error and therefore provides an attractive alternative to the above methods. Furthermore, the constraint condition can be expressed in a much more simpler form and does not involve the possibility of imaginary number of the load factor.

4.4

FORMULATIONS METHODS

FOR

NONLINEAR

NUMERICAL

Every nonlinear numerical method has its own merits and limitations. None of them is remarkably superior to others in all cases. Their selection for a particular problem depends heavily on the type and constraint of the problem and the objective of study. For example, to determine the displacement of a structure under specified applied loads as required in most practical design, a load-control scheme should be chosen. If a prescribed displacement is imposed, a displacement-control scheme should be adopted. However, these two methods may not achieve convergence in tracing the snap-through curve or the snap-back curve. To select an appropriate nonlinear numerical method, the user should therefore have a general understanding on the characteristics of these methods. The properties and formulations of some commonly used schemes are briefly described in this section. At the end of this Chapter, a comparison among the schemes is made. In general, the incremental-iterative equilibrium equation of a system, which is not necessarily controlled by the load, can be written as,
{ F} + ik { F} = [K ]T ( { u} + ik { u} )

(4.1)

in { F} and { u} are respectively the out-of-balance forces and the corresponding displacement increments in the system; { F} and { u} are respectively the reference load vector and the resulting displacements; and ik is a control parameter to be determined according to various imposed constrained conditions. The superscript k refers to the number of load cycle while the subscript i represents the number of equilibrium iteration within a load cycle. By selecting a suitable numerical scheme for a particular problem considered, the above incremental-iterative equation can used to trace the nonlinear load-deformation curve of the structure. If the selected numerical scheme is successful, the load limit or load-carrying capacity of the structure can be determined from the curve. Further, the structural response for the post-buckling range can also be obtained.

136

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

4.4.1

The Pure Incremental Method

Load, F

The pure incremental method for nonlinear analysis is simple and is the earliest nonlinear solution method. Its basic procedure is to divide the total load into a number of small load increments. In each load step, the stiffness of a structure is determined first from the last known structure geometry and the loading state. It is then used to predict the next displacement increment. The sign of the determinant of the updated stiffness matrix will govern the direction of subsequent load step. The linearized displacement increment is calculated by solving the tangent stiffness matrix and the load increment. Once the displacement increment is obtained, the coordinates of structure are updated and then the process is repeated until the desired load level is reached. In general, this approach is capable of handling both the snap-through and the snap-back problems because it does not require any iteration and thus does not have divergence problem. However, as no equilibrium check or iteration is carried out, unavoidable drift-off error is accumulated in each increment and the error after a number of load steps may make the solution greatly deviated from the true equilibrium path. This drift-off error cannot be estimated and thus the accuracy of the resulting load-deflection curve cannot be assessed. The method to minimize this error is to employ a smaller load step of which the magnitude is, unfortunately, quite difficult to assess. Indeed, there is no guideline suggested for each load step. More importantly, as illustrated in Fig. 4.2, the pure incremental method usually over-estimates the ultimate capacity or the limit load of a structure. This is unsafe and undesirable in practical design. Nevertheless, this simple method is still widely used for nonlinear analysis, especially in commercial packages for nonlinear anal yses. Drift-off Error
in Displacement

Linearized Path

True Equilibrium Path

Drift-off Error in Force

Displacement, u Figure 5.2 Pure Incremental Method with Constant Load Increments

Convergence Criteria

137

4.4.2

The Newton-Raphson Method

In the Newton-Raphson method, iteration is activated to obtain the equilibrium condition between the applied forces and the internal structural resistance within a load step. Unlike the pure incremental method in which no equilibrium check is performed, the unbalanced force is dissipated via the iterative procedure and can therefore be eliminated by this method. Being free from the drift-off error, the solution is more accurate and the computational time is reduced when compared to the pure incremental method. The general procedure can be summarized by the following recurrent equations. The quantities in the following can be referred to Figs. 4.3 and 4.4. The load increment at the k-th cycle and the i-th iteration, { Fik} 1, can be obtained from the external load vector {F} 2 as,

{ Fik} = k {F}
in which k is an load factor at the k-th load
Load, F

(4.2) incremental cycle.

Divergence Load

F1

Equilibrium Path K T= Variable for every iteration

K O T

u0 u 1

Displacement, u Figure 5.3 Conventional Newton-Raphson Method Load, F

Divergence Load

F0

F1

Equilibrium Path K T= Constant within a load cycle

KT

u0 u 1
Displacement, u

Figure 5.4 Modified Newton-Raphson Method

138

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

For the i-th iteration within this load step, the displacement increment { r ik} can be determined as,
{ r ik} = [K ik ]-1 { Fik} T

(4.3)

in which [K ik ]T is the instantaneous tangent stiffness matrix; the superscript i is for the k i-th iteration. Thus, the updated total displacement {r i+1} can be added by the last displacement {r ik} 3 to this displacement increment as,
k {r i+1} = {r ik} + { r ik}

(4.4)

k k The resistance of the structure {R i+1} and the unbalanced force { Fi+1} can be calculated as,
k k k {R i+1} = [ e K i+1] {r i+1}

k = k-1 + k
k k { Fi+1} = k {F} - {R i+1}

(4.5)

k k in which [ e K i+1] is the element stiffness at local coordinate and {r i+1} is the element nodal displacement extracted from the global displacement vector and transformed to the element local axis. The procedure from Equation (4.3) to (4.5) is repeated until convergence is reached. For the conventional Newton-Raphson method, the tangent stiffness matrix of the structure [K ik ]T will be updated at every iteration while for the modified Newton-Raphson method, it is reformed only in the first iteration and is kept

Convergence Criteria

139

unchanged within the load cycle. The conventional and the modified Newton-Raphson methods usually provide a rapid rate of convergence in the stable equilibrium range. However, when approaching the limit point of the load-deflection curve, a large number of iterations will be required even for a small load increment. In the Newton-Raphson method, the solution point at the specified applied load level is sought and therefore any unloading path cannot be traced. Consequently, the solution scheme diverges near the critical point due to the ill-conditioning of the tangent stiffness matrix or simply due to the size of the load increment being greater than the limit load as shown in the Fig. 4.5.

140

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

Divergence Load

Load, F

Equilibrium Path
F
1

F
0

K = Constant within a load cycle

T

u
0

u
1

K
O T

Displacement, u

Figure 5.5 Modified Newton-Raphson Method

4.4.4

The Displacement Control Method

Unlike the load control methods previously described, a constraint equation for displacement is imposed in this approach. The diagrammatic presentation of the above procedures is depicted in Fig. 4.6.

Convergence Criteria
Applied Load, F
[u] 2

141

[u] 1

[F] 2

Last Solution Point

Displacement, u

Figure 5.6 The displacement control method

The constant displacement method does not exhibit any difficulty in passing the snap-through limit point but fails to converge in snap-back problems. Thus, it is usually used in conjunction with other solution schemes in order to solve general nonlinear problems. For example, Sabir and Lock (1972) used the constant load Newton-Raphson method, which can handle the snap-back but not the snap-through problem, together with the constant displacement method in their nonlinear analysis of shell structures exhibiting snap-through and snap-back behaviour.

4.4.5

The Constant Work Method

Similar to the constant displacement method, the basic idea of the constant work method is to impose a constraint equation to guide the incremental load. In this case, the work done by the external loading is kept constant within a load increment. The use of this concept on nonlinear analysis has been reported by many researchers

Computed Applied Force

Solution Point Specified Displacement Increment

[F] 1

142

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

including Honecher (1980), Powell and Simons (1981), Karamanlidis et al. (1981), Bathe and Dvorkin (1983) and Yang (1984).

4.4.6

The Arc-Length Method

Different forms of the arc-length method have been proposed by Wempner (1971), Riks (1979) and Ramm (1980; 1981) for nonlinear analysis. The basic concept of the spherical arc-length method is to constrain the load increment so that the dot product of displacement along the iteration path remains a constant in the 2-dimensional plane of load versus deformation. The procedure of the spherical arc-length method is illustrated in Fig. 4.7. Owing to its accuracy, reliability and satisfactory rate of convergence, it is probably the most popular method for nonlinear analysis and it was noted to be robust and stable for pre- and post-buckling analysis.

Applied Load, F
[ u] 1 [ u] 2

Arc-Le ngth, ^ S

[ F]

2 [ F]1

Solution

Equilibrium Path

Spherical Path

Last Solution Point

Displacement, u

Figure 5.7 The Arc-length Method

Convergence Criteria

143

4.4.7

The Minimum Residual Displacement Method

The basic idea of this method originally proposed by Chan (1988) is to minimize the norm of residual displacement in each iteration. The graphical representation of the procedure is demonstrated in Fig. 4.8. From the Figure, it can be seen that this constraint condition enforces the iteration path to follow a path normal to the load-deformation curve. It adopts the shortest path to arrive at the solution path by error minimization and thus is considered to be an optimum solution. Generally speaking, owing to its efficiency and effectiveness in tracing the equilibrium path, the minimum residual displacement method is usually chosen to perform the iterative procedure and combined with the part for load size determination in the first iteration by the arc-length method.

Applied Load, F

[F] 2
Solution

[u]

[u]

[F] 1

Last Solution

Displacement, u

Figure 6.8 The Minimum Residual Displacement Method

144

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

4.5

CONVERGENCE CRITERIA

In an effective incremental-iterative method, some criteria should be pre-determined for termination or continuation of iterations. If a tight tolerance is selected, excessive computation effort is spent on unnecessary accuracy. If the tolerance is set too loose, the equilibrium error may be excessive and inaccurate solutions resulted. Further to this, the question of whether the equilibrium tolerance should be set on the unbalanced forces or displacements is debatable. Through a number of nonlinear analyses by the authors, it was found that a slightly loose tolerance imposed on both the displacement and force error is preferable to a tight tolerance for either the displacement or the force error norm. To this, 0.1% equilibrium error is allowed for each of the maximum unbalanced displacement and force norms. Equilibrium is only assumed when both of the equilibrium checks are satisfied. Mathematically, the convergence criteria for force and displacement are expressed respectively as,

{ F }T { F} TOL {F }T {F} { u }T { u} TOL {u }T {u}

(4.29) (4.30)

in which {F} and {u} are the accumulated force and displacement vectors respectively. TOL is the tolerance for equilibrium condition and is set to 0.1% for the present study.

4.6

COMPARISON ALGORITHMS

AMONG

THE

NUMERICAL

The performance of the aforementioned numerical methods has been studied by Ho (1991) in detail. In his study, the characteristics of various schemes are investigated through a number of numerical examples. A summary of the scope and limitation of these commonly used methods is given below. Although the load control Newton-Raphson method is slower in convergence when compared to the arc-length or the minimum residual displacement method or even diverge near the limit point, it is the only solution scheme which allows the analyst to specify an exact load level at which the stresses and deflections are studied. Consequently it is particularly suitable for design of a practical structure allowing for various nonlinearities and under a set of fixed loads, such as the design loads. In addition, since the exciting dynamic load is prescribed as an input data in a nonlinear

Comparison Among the Numerical Algorithms

145

dynamic analysis, the load control Newton-Raphson method is very suitable for analyzing a structure subjected to cyclic loads. The displacement control method performs satisfactorily when handling snap-through problems, but it fails at a snap-back point. Moreover, it may be very difficult, in some cases, to select a suitable displacement degree of freedom as the control parameter. Nevertheless, as the user can specify an exact value of displacement in advance, it can be used in the analysis when a specified displacement is required. One example is a structure under differential settlements, in which specified displacements at settled supports are assumed to calculate the settlement effect on the overall structural behaviour. The constant work, the arc-length and the minimum residual displacement methods are capable of tracing the nonlinear load-deformation curve with snap-through and snap-back phenomena. It has been generally observed that the minimum residual displacement method gives the most rapid rate of convergence and the highest reliability among these three methods. Better performance may be achieved when the minimum residual displacement iterative scheme is used in conjunction with the arc-length load increment for nonlinear static analysis.

4.7

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

Combining the element stiffness matrix method described in Chapter 2 and the aforementioned numerical schemes, a computer-based FORTRAN program capable of handling the large deflection analysis of thin-walled members and frames has been written. A number of numerical examples are selected to validate the developed program by comparison with the present results with those by other researchers.

146

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

4.7.1

William's Toggle Frame

The two-member frame shown in Fig. 4.9 has been solved both experimentally and analytically by Williams (1964). The problem was also analysed by a number of researchers including Wood and Zienkiewicz (1977) using five elements per member, by Papadrakakis (1981) using the dynamic relaxation method and by Meek and Tan (1983) using the arc-length method coupled with the co-rotational approach. This example serves to test the updated Lagrangian formulation and the derived tangent stiffness matrix, which are different from those of other researchers. Only one element per member was used in this example. Excellent agreement has been obtained by the authors when compared with the analytical solutions by Williams (1964) implying the validity of the present approach in handling snap-through problems. The load - deflection curve for the toggle frame with the two ends hinged using one element per member was also plotted in the same figure. One element per member was again used.

Numerical Examples

147

4.7.4

Hexagonal Frame

The large deflection analysis of the hexagonal frame shown in Fig. 4.11 provides a good example for verifying the theory in three dimensional structures. The hexagonal frame has been studied experimentally by Griggs (1966) and analytically by Chu and Rempetsreiter (1972), by Papadrakskis (1981) and by Meek and Tan (1983). The present results are in very close agreement with Meek and Tan (1983) who used the more complicated co-rotational approach. This validates the use of the simpler secant stiffness relations and more efficient formulation procedures in the present work. The deflection curve obtained by Papadrakakis (1981) was also plotted in Fig. 4.10 for comparison.
30

Vertical Point Load, P (lbs)

25 20 15 10

Pinned Support 1 Element per Member Roller Support 1 Element per Member Roller Support 2 Elements per Member 24

1.72

P,

5 0 -5 -10 0 1 2 3 4

Vertical Deflection, (inch)

Figure 5.10 Post-buckling Analysis of Three-Dimensional Hexagonal Frame

148

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

4.7.5

Analysis of a Shallow Arch Ranging from 3-Pinned to Fully Rigid Conditions

The behaviour of a shallow arch with pin-ended restraints was first studied by Harrison (1978) using discrete element method. The same arch was selected by Clarke and Hancock (1988) for the comparative study of various nonlinear numerical strategies. In the present study, the boundary conditions of this arch have been modified from 3-pinned arch to fully rigid conditions modelled by 12 flexibly connected beam-column elements. The corresponding load-deflection curve is depicted in Fig. 4.11. The arch models are analysed by the minimum residual displacement method. In the case of pinned supports, the results show a good agreement with Harrison (1978) and Clarke and Hancock (1988). The result is obtained without any difficulty in convergence which is sightly different with that reported by Clarke and Hancock (1988), who required one re-solution near the vicinity of the second and third limit points. This may be explained by the adoption of different element formulations and control parameters in the numerical scheme. The solution is first obtained by modelling it as a 3-pinned arch. By increasing the stiffness of the central spring element from 0 to , the result becomes the solution of a 2-pinned arch. The stiffness of the spring elements at both ends is then increased from 0 to . Similarly, the last result becomes the solution of a fully fixed arch. Any solution of semi-rigid joints should therefore lie between the upper bound (fully encased) and lower bound (3-pinned) conditions. It is interesting to note from the results that an increase in rotational stiffness of central spring from zero to 2x106 will increase the limit load of a 3-pinned arch by 60.5%. However, an increase of the spring stiffness at the supports to 2x106 will increase the first maximum load of a 2-pinned arch by only 5.1%.
10 9 8 7

P (kN)

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12

Lateral Deflection at Top (mm)

10 9 8 7 6

EI = 2x10 N/mm EA = 2x10 N

6

10

200 mm

500 mm

P (kN)

5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 0 0.2

10,000 mm

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

Vertical Deflection (m)

Figure 5.11 Post-Buckling Analysis of Shallow Circular Arch

Conclusions

149

The observation reported in this problem is slightly different from the result by Clarke and Hancock (1988) due to two possible and major reasons. Firstly, the use of the Total Lagrangian formulation in their analysis and the presently used Updated Lagrangian formulation have different characteristics in convergence. Secondly, the maximum arc-distance have not been indicated in the publication (Clake and Hancock 1988), which have significant influence on the convergence characteristics of a solution scheme, as indicated previously in this chapter.

4.8

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics and procedures of several commonly used numerical solution methods for nonlinear analysis are briefly described in this Chapter. The merits and limitations of these methods are also discussed. None of these methods is applicable to all problems and superior to others in all cases. An appropriate choice among them depends heavily on the natures and types of problems being studied. Summarizing the performance of these approaches, the algorithm using the arc-length load increment in the first iteration and the minimum residual displacement scheme in the subsequent iterations is, to the authors's experience, suitable for general nonlinear static analysis involving the tracing of pre- and post-buckling paths and thus it is used in the present study. For nonlinear dynamic analysis, the Newton-Raphson method for all load step increments and subsequent convergence iterations is employed. In this chapter, a number of numerical problems have been re-analysed by the developed computer program for nonlinear structural analysis of thin-walled frames. The present results have been compared with those by other researchers and it was found that these results are in good agreement. This can prove that the present theory which combines the tangent stiffness matrix in Chapter 2 and the numerical solution methods in this chapter is valid and capable of handling large deflection analysis of framed structures.

4.9

REFERENCES

Argyris, J.H. (1964), "Recent Advances in Matrix Method of Structural Analysis", Progress in Aeronautical Science, Pergamon Press. Argyris, J.H. (1965), "Continua and Discontinua", Proceedings of 1st Conference on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, pp. 11-189. Bathe, K.J. and Bolourchi, S. (1979), "Large Displacement Analysis of Three-Dimensional Beam Structures", International J. of Numerical Methods in Engng., 14, pp.961-986. Bathe, K.J. and Dvorkin, E.N. (1983), "On the Automatic Solution of Nonlinear Finite Element Equations", Computers and Structures, 17(5-6), pp. 871-879.

150

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

Batoz, J.L. and Dhatt, G. (1979), "Incremental Displacement Algorithms for Nonlinear Problems", International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, 14, pp. 1262-1267. Bergan, P.G. (1980), "Solution Algorithms for Nonlinear Structural Problems", Computers and Structures, 12, pp. 497-509. Bergan, P.G. (1981), "Strategies for Tracing the Nonlinear Response Near Limit Points", Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics, Edited by Wunderlich, W., Stein, E. and Bathe, K.J., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 63-69. Bergan, P.G. and Soreide, T.H. (1978a), "Solution of Large Displacement and Instability Problems using the Current Stiffness Parameter", In : Bergan, P.G., Finite Elements in Nonlinear Mechanics, Tapir, Trondheim, pp. 647-669. Bergan, P.G., Horrigmoe, G., Krakeland, B. and Soreide, T.H. (1978b), "Solution Techniques for Nonlinear Finite Element Problems", International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, 12, pp. 1677-1696. Chan, S.L. (1988), "Geometric and Material Non-linear Analysis of Beam-Columns and Frames using the Minimum Residual Displacement Method", International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, 26, pp. 2657-2699. Chan, S.L. and Ho. G.W.M. (1990), "A Comparative Study on the Nonlinear Numerical Algorithms", Proceeding of the Third International Conferences in Numerical Engineering and Applications, University of Swansea, U.K., Published by Elsevier Applied Science, pp. 552-565. Chu, K.H. and Rempetsreiter, R.H. (1972), "Large Deflection Buckling of Space Frames", J. of the Struct. Div., ASCE, 98(ST12), pp.2701-2722. Clake, M.J. and Hancock, G.J. (1988), "A Study of Incremental-Iterative Strategies for Nonlinear Analysis", Research Report No. R587, The Univ. of Sydney, School of Civil and Mining Engng., Dec. Crisfield, M.A. (1979), "A Faster Modified Newton-Raphson Iteration", Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 20, pp. 267-278. Crisfield, M.A. (1981), "A Faster Incremental / Iterative Solution Procedure that Handles Snap-Through", Computers and Structures, 13, pp. 55-62. Frisch-Fay, R., "Flexible Bars", Butterworths, London, pp.35-40. Griggs, H.P. (1966), "Experimental Study of Instability in Elements of Shallow Space Frames", Research Reprot, Dept. of Civil Engng., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

References

151

Harrison, H.B. (1978), "Post-Buckling Behaviour of Elastic Circular Arches", Proceeding of Instit. of Civil Engrs, Part 2, 65, June, pp.283-298. Ho, G.W.M. (1991), "Nonlinear Analysis of Steel Frames with Semi-Rigid Connections", Ph.D Thesis, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic. Honecker, A. (1980), "Entwicklung Implementierung and Austestung von Losungsalgorithmen fur Gleichungssysteme mit Singular Werdender Funktionalmatrix", Diploma Thesis, Berlin.

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves 152

Karamanlidis, D., Honecher, A. and Knothe, K. (1981), "Large Deflection Finite Element Analysis of Pre- and Post- Critical Response of Thin Elastic Frames", in Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics, Edited by Wunderlich, W., Stein, E. and Bathe, K.J., Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, N.Y. Livesley, R.K. (1964), "Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis" Pergamon Press Ltd. Meek, J.L. and Tan, H.S. (1983), "Large Deflection and Post-Buckling Analysis of Two and Three Dimensional Elastic Spatial Frames", Research Report CE49, Dept. of Civil Engng., Univ. of Queensland, Australia. Oden, J.T. (1969), "Finite Element Applications in nonlinear structural analysis", Proc. Conf. on Finite Element Method, Vanderbilt Univ., Tennessee. Papadrakakis, M. (1981), "Post-Buckling Analysis of Spatial Structures by Vector Iteration Methods", Computers and Structures, 14, pp.393-402. Pian, T.H.H. and Tong, P. (1971), "Variational Formulation of Finite Displacements Analysis", in High Speed Computing of Elastic Structures, Edited by De Venbeke, B.F., Liege, Belgium, pp. 43-63. Powell, G. and Simons, J. (1981), "Improved Iteration Strategy for Nonlinear Structures", International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, 17, pp. 1455-1467. Ramm, E. (1980), "Strategies for Tracing the Nonlinear Response Near Limit Points", Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics, Proceedings of the Europe-U.S. Workshop, pp.63-89, Bochum, Germany, July 28-31. Ramm, E. (1981), "Strategies for Tracing the Nonlinear Response Near Limit Points", Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics, Edited by Wunderlich, W., Stein, E. and Bathe, K.J., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 63-89. Riks, E. (1979), "An Incremental Approach to the Solution of Snapping and Buckling Problems", International Journal of Solids and Structures, 15, pp. 529-551. Sabir, A.B. and Lock, A.C. (1972), "The Application of Finite Elements to the Large Deflection Geometrically Nonlinear Behaviour of Cylindrical Shells", Variational Methods in Engineering, Edited by Brebbia, C.A. and Tottenham, H., Southampton University Press, pp. 7/66-7/75. Turner, M.J., Martin, H.C. and Weikel, R.C. (1964), "Further Development and Application of the Stiffness Method", Agardograph 72, Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 203- 266. Wempner, G.A. (1971), "Discrete Approximations Related to Nonlinear Theories of Solids", International Journal of Solids and Structures, 7, pp. 1581-1599. Wen, R.K. and Rahimzadeh, J. (1983), "Nonlinear Elastic Frame Analysis by Finite Element", J. of Struct. Engng., ASCE, 109(8), pp.1952-1971.

References

153

Williams, F.W. (1964), "An Approach to the Nonlinear Behaviour of the Members of a Rigid Jointed Place Framework with Finite Deflections", Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 17, pp.451-469. Wood, R.D. and Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1977), "Geometrically Nonlinear Finite element Analysis of Beams, Frames, Arches and Axisymmetric Shells", Computers and Structures, 7, pp.725-735. Yamada, Y., Iwata, K., Kakimi, T. and Hosomura, T. (1974), "Large Deflection and Critical Loads Analysis of Framed Structures", Computational Methods in Nonlinear Mechanics, Edited by Oden, J.T., University of Texas, Texas, pp. 819-829. Yang, Y.B. (1984), "Linear and Nonlinear Analysis of Space Frames with Non-Uniform Torsion Using Interactive Computer Graphics", Ph.D Thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University. Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1971), "Incremental Displacement in Nonlinear Analysis", International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, 3, pp. 587-592.

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves 154

Step 1 Step 2

Initialisation of variables and parameters Input first incremental load, boundary condition, connectivity, structural geometry and material properties

Step 3

Formation of the element tangent stiffness matrix [ekT]

[k T ] = [L ]T [ e k T ] [L] Step 4 Transformation from local to gloabl axis

i =1, NMEM

[ KT ] =

[ kT ]

Step 5

Assembling to form the tangent stiffness matrix [KT]

[ u ]i+1 = [ K T ]-1 [ F ]i+1

Step 6 Solving for displacement increment

[u ]i+1 = [u ]i + [ u ]i+1

Step 7

Accumulation of displacement increment to total displacement

[x ]i+1 = [x ]i + [ u ]i+1

Step 8 Step 9

Updating of geometry Calculation of element displacements by extracting from the global displacement
[ u e ]i+1 = [T] [L] [ u ]i+1

vector and transforming to the local element coordinate axes. Step 10 Computation of element force.

References

155

[ e R ]i+1 = [k e] [ u e ]i+1

156

Numerical Techniques for Tracing Non-Linear Load-Deformation Curves

Step 11

Accumulate the element force vector to obtain the final element [ e R ]i+1 = [ e R ]i + [e R ]i+1 [R ]i+1 = [R ]i + [e R ]i+1 force vector and transform to global coordinate for resistance force.

Step 12

Comparison with the applied forces, the unbalanced forces are [ F ]i+1 = [F ]i+1 - [R ]i+1 determined.

Step 13

Check for equilibrium. If satisfied, apply next load increment or stop. Otherwise go to Step 3 for conventional Newton Raphson

check : [ F ]T [ F] < TOLER * [R ]T [R] [ u ]T [ u] < TOLER * [u ]T [u]

method or Step 6 for modified Newton Raphson method.

FLOW CHART FOR SECOND-ORDER ANALYSIS USING THE NEWTON RAPHSON PROCEDURE