Sei sulla pagina 1di 498

Advanced Structural Dynamics

Edited by J. DONÉA

APPLIED SCIENCE PUBLISHERS

This book presents a review of modern numerical procedures for struc- tural dynamics which are illustrated by their application to significant practical problems. The first part of the text covers techniques for dynamic response in the frequency domain as well as methods for transient response by time integration. The variational methods of structural dynamics are presented and their finite element implementation discussed in detail. The use of modal methods for calculating a transient response is described with a particular emphasis on the problem of reducing a multi-degree of freedom system to a smaller set of degrees of freedom. A review is then made of implicit, explicit and combined explicit-implicit opera- tors for transient response by time integration. This is followed by a presentation of finite element formula- tions adapted to implicit and explicit time integrators. The second part of the text is devoted to a detailed presentation of practical applications. These cover a wide range of situations including dynamic fracture mechanics, anti-missile design, pipe whip accidents and transient fluid- structure interaction. The latter topic is given particular attention in view of its growing importance in nuclear reactor safety studies. Applications are de- scribed based on finite difference, finite element and boundary integral methods.

(for List of Contents see inside back flap)

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

APPLIED SCIENCE PUBLISHERS

LTD

RIPPLE ROAD, BARKING, ESSEX,

ENGLAND

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Advanced structural dynamics.

1. Structural dynamics

 

I.

Donéa, J

624'.) 71

TA654

ISBN 0-85334-859-6

WITH 26 TABLES AND 205 ILLUSTRATIONS

C

ECSC, EEC. EAEC, Brussels and Luxembourg, 1980

Publication arrangements by. Commission of the European Communities, Directorate- General for Scientific and Technical Information and Information Management, Luxembourg

EUR 6693 EN

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the Commission of the European Communities nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publishers. Applied Science Publishers Ltd. Ripple Road. Barking. Essex. England

Primed in Gre.il Britain b> Gailurd (Primers) Lid. ureal

Yarmouth

Preface

This book, is based on the lecture notes prepared for the advanced course on structural dynamics held at the Joint Research Centre of the Commission of the European Communities, lspra Establishment, in October 1978. Although the subject of structural dynamics has a long history, the last two decades have seen a remarkable development of numerical methods for dynamic analysis of engineering structures. The intention in organising the lspra Course was to provide a review of modern numerical procedures for structural dynamics and to illustrate their use by application to significant practical problems. The first part of the book covers techniques for dynamic response in the frequency domain as well as methods for transient response by time integration. The variational methods of structural dynamics are presented and their finite element implementation discussed in detail. The use of modal methods for calculating a transient response is described with a particular emphasis on the problem of reducing a multi-degree of freedom system to a smaller set of degrees of freedom. A review is then made of implicit, explicit and combined explicit-implicit operators for transient response by time integration. This is followed by a presentation of finite element formulations adapted to implicit and explicit time integrators.

The second

part

of the book

is devoted

to a detailed presentation

of

practical applications. These cover a wide range of situations, including dynamic fracture mechanics, anti-missile design, pipe whip accidents and transient fluid-structure interaction. The latter topic is given particular attention in view of its growing importance in nuclear reactor safety studies. Applications are described based on finite difference, finite element and boundary integral methods.

The present book will prove to be useful to researchers and engineers engaged in the development and use of numerical methods for dynamic analysis of structures.

JEAN

DONÉA

Contents

Preface

.

ν

Lisi oj Contributors

.......

 

.

ix

Introduction

und

General

Overview

oj

Structural

Dynamics

 

Problems

........

 

.

xi

J.

REYNEN

1 Variational Methods of Structural Dynamics and their Finite

 

Element Implementation

.....

 

.

1

M.

GERADIN

  • 2 The Modal Method for Transient Response and its Application

 

to Seismic Analysis

......

 

.

43

K.

FULLÄRD

  • 3 Transient Response by Time Integration: Review of

Implicit

 

and Explicit Operators

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

71

S.

W.

KEY

  • 4 Integration

Explicit Time

of Structure—Mechanical

Systems

 

97

T.

BELYTSCHKO

  • 5 Implicit Finite Element Methods for the Dynamic Transient Analysis of Solids with Particular Reference to Non­linear

 

Situations

.

.

.

.

.

.12 3

D.

R.

J.

OWEN

Vill

CONTENTS

 
  • 6 Application

of

Transient

Dynamic

Numerical

Methods

to

 
 

Problems in Fracture

Mechanics

 

153

 
  • D. R.

J.

OWE N

  • 7 Survey of Computational Methods for Transient

Fluid-Structure

 
 

Problems in Reactor

Safety

.

.

.

·

·

.19

1

 
  • P. FASOLI-STELLA

and

A.

V.

JONES

 
  • 8 Finite Element Analysis of Transient Dynamic Interaction

Fluid-Structure

255

         

·

·

 

-

 

-

  • J. DONE A

.

 

.

.

.

  • 9 Coupled Fluid-Structural

Dynamics in Blowdown

Suppression

 

Systems: Numerical

Schemes and Applications

 

.

.

291

 
  • R. KRIEG

 
  • 10 Computation

of

Flow-induced

Vibrations

in

Piping

Systems

315

 

R.

J.

Gibert

  • 11 Analysis of Aircraft

Impact

 

Problems

 

337

 

N.J .

K.RUTZ1K

  • 12 Pipe Whip Analysis

 

387

 
  • L. LAZZERI

 
  • 13 Material

Behaviour

and

 

Modelling

in

Transient

Dynamic

 
 

Situations

427

 
  • C. J.

ALBERTINI.

P.

HALLEUX

and

M.

MONTAGNANI

 

Index

465

List of Contributors

  • C. ALBERTINI

Commission

of the European

Joint

Research

Centre,

Applied

Mechanics

Division,

Communities. J 21020 lspra.

Italy.

  • T. BELYTSCHKO

 

Department

of

Civil

and

Nuclear

Engineering,

The

Technological

Institute, Northwestern

University.

Evanslon,

Illinois 60201,

USA.

  • J. DONÉA

Commission

of the European

Joint

Research

Centre,

Applied

Mechanics

Division.

Communities. 1 21020 lspra,

Italy.

  • P. FASOLI-STELLA

 

Commission oj the European Communities. Joint Research Centre, Information Analysis Division, I 21020 lspra. Italy.

  • K. FULLÄRD

 
 

Central

Electricity

Generating

Board, Research

Division,

Berkeley

Nuclear

Laboratories,

Gloucestershire

GLI3

9PB,

UK.

  • M. GERADIN

 
 

Laboratoire

de Techniques Aéronautique s et Spatiales,

Université de

Liège,

Rue du Val-Benoit

75, B-4000 Liège,

Belgium.

  • R. GIBERT

J.

Commissariat

et Thermiques,

à l'Energie Atomique, Centre de Saciar.

Division des Etudes F-91190 Gif-sur-Yvette,

Mécaniques

France.

ix

X

LIST ΟΕ CONTRIBUTORS

  • J. P.

HALLEUX

Commission

of the European

Communities,

Joint

Research

Centre,

Applied

Mechanics

Division,

1 21020 lspra,

Italy.

  • A. V.

JONES

Commission of the European Communities, Joint Research Centre, Information Analysis Division, I 21020 lspra, Italy.

S.

W.

KEY

Division 5521, Sandia Laboratories, USA.

Albuquerque,

New

Mexico87185,

  • R. KRIEG

Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, Institut für Reaktorent­ wicklung, Postjach 3640, D7500 Karlsruhe 1, West Germany.

  • N. J.

KRUTZIK.

Kraftwerk Union A.G

..

Berliner

Str.

295­299,

D6050

OJjenbach

(Main),

West

Germany.

  • L. LAZZERI

 
 

AMN,

Via P. Pesce, 1 16151 Genova Sampierdarena,

Italy.

M .

MONTAGNANl

Commission

of the European

Joint

Research

Centre.

Applied

Mechanics

Division,

Communities. 1 21020 lspra,

Italy.

  • D. J.

R.

OWEN

Department oj Civil Engineering, University of Wales, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK

  • J. REYNEN

 
 

Commission

of the European

Communities.

Joint

Research

Centre,

Systems

Analysis

Division.

I 21020 lspra.

Italy.

Introduction and General Overview of Structural Dynamics Problems

Commission

J.

REYNEN

of the European

Communities,

Italy

Joint Research

Centre,

lspra,

1.

INTRODUCTION

The advent of digital computers some two decades agoand the development of numerical methods such as the finite element method (FEM) exploiting fully the typical features of digital computers (speed and memory) have caused a revolution in the approach to technical problems, i.e. a shift from testing towards analysis. Indeed, until recently the structural engineer has depended on testing to serve (1) as a proof of design and (2) as a proof of manufacture. Constant improvement in instrumentation and test equipment increased the dependence upon testing. However, as the engineer became more proficient at analysis, he found out that the cost of using analysis for design certification is far less than that of testing and that the time lapse between completion of a design and the performance results is far shorter. Moreover, the engineer is now able to inquire into the behaviour of situations and locations too remote to be accessible by testing and instrumentation, of particular importance in the field of postulated accidents with nuclear reactors. This triple impact of lower cost, less time and more complete information has given modern analysis its proper role: analysis is for proof of design; testing is for proof of manufacture. In the last decade this revolution has caused a social impact in the sense that fewer testing personnel are employed and a great demand exists for digital programmers to make the analysis process more efficient by developing pre- and post-processors, computer graphics, remote comput- ing techniques, etc. Testing laboratories have been recycled towards the more fundamental experiments to define physical properties (constitutive

XI

  • xii j

.

REYNEN

relations) with occasional small and clean experiments on semi-finished products to validate the solutions of mathematical models produced by computers, although numerical experiments with different meshes and algorithms seem more attractive for this purpose. The engineer who has to produce an answer to a structural problem—real, anticipated or more or less postulated arbitrarily—has a wide variety of methods at his disposal. At present, the choice between them depends mostly on 'cost" in the widest sense of the word. Indeed, not infrequently a directly available in-house computer program is used which might be less adapted to a specific problem and at the expense of hours of CPU, i.e. at apparently high cost. However. in the industrial, administrative and even academic environment where the answer is needed, 'cost' is not only represented by CPU time but also includes a great many other aspects related to the lapse of time if a special algorithm more adapted to the problem has to be developed and implemented.

Even if on the software market—commercial or academic—such an implementation exists already (and it has been retrieved!), (1) the delay in raising the eventual budget in order to get the piece of software in house, including a detailed 'how-to-use', (2) the time needed to get acquainted with the product and with the difficulties related to the eventual non-portability of the product, and (3) the psychological aversion to working with a'black box' are all factors contributing to the continuing use of computer programs which are not always the most suited for the problem. Answers might come quickly, but are they reliable? The process of remedying this situation may be a long one. but is nevertheless necessary. It is the aim of international gatherings such as the present lspra Course to contribute to it, by diffusing the present state-of-art and identifying trends. The proper understanding of the merits of various numerical approaches and underlying algorithms in relation to the physics of the problem for which an answer is needed will contribute widely to the effective portability of software and the effort spent on it. being the final scope of informatics. The argument against working 'black boxes' is overcome if the software package becomes a clear and transparent tool of which the merits and drawbacks and the limits of application are known by the user, including the reasons for it. In this course the field of structural dynamics in particular will be considered, including fluids and their interactions with structures, in view of applications to design problems and safety issues in the nuclear field, for both light water reactors (LWR) and liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR). The lectures not only deal with the fundamental algorithms and

INTRODUCTION

AND GENERAL OVERVIEW

Xlll

their computer implementations, but also include many examples of case studies. In the present introductory chapter an attempt is made to classify various dynamic problems and their solutions and to marry the various detailed individual contributions together.

  • 2. CLASSIFICATION

OF SOLUTIONS FOR PROBLEMS

DYNAMIC

Until fairly recently, standard university courses in structural addressed mainly three classes of topics:

mechanics

(1) Theory of elasticity. This topic dealt with more or less academic problems, but nevertheless was of interest for the student as an introduction to the principles of equilibrium and compatibility. Applications for the engineer were limited and usually of a qualitative rather than a quantitative nature. (2) Strength of materials. This topic represented the bulk of their theoretical luggage for many generations of engineers. Depending on the specialisation (civil, mechanical, aeronautical), the courses consisted of case studies of various mono- and two-dimensional structures, with some displacement constraint in the 'thickness' direction (frames, plates, vessels, rotating machinery, etc.). (3) Vibrations. Applications were limited to idealisations of discrete masses, springs and dashpots, and to modal analyses of strength-of- material type structures.

Analytical difficulties in dealing with plasticity and creep, even in two- dimensional situations, excluded these topics from the standard courses. In fluid mechanics a similar situation existed: academic solutions for continuum problems, and the main accent on duct flow. Nevertheless.it has been withthis limited knowledgethat many of today's technical achievements have been designed, with which mankind has learned to live with confidence: civil works, ships, cars, aircraft, nuclear reactors. The engineer had to combine physical intuition, limited analytical means and test results on prototypes to defend his project, sometimes backed up by design codes (ASME. TU EV, Lloyd, etc.), which, as a matter of fact, were based on the same limited knowledge but including the experience of many generations of engineering profession.

XIV

J.

REYNEN

At present we are in a completely different situation. For most of the technical achievements mentioned above, and for the load specifications and accepted idealisations at the time of their design, there exist now more or less general-purpose computer programs capable of reproducing automatically the original stress reports, including a confrontation with established design codes. However, as numerical methods performed better, the specifications for both the load and the idealisations became more stringent. Nowadays the structural engineer is confronted with problems of which an experimental verification is not even possible, as, for instance, in the field of postulated hypothetical accidental situations in the nuclear reactor business, or the re- entry problem of a space vehicle, etc. The advice of the structural analyst is sought in fields other than the classical technical ones—for instance, bioengineering (prostheses, simu- lation of the human body in accidental situations, flow problems in veins). The material with which he has to deal is no longer limited to wood, metal or concrete but includes plastics, composites, multiphase fluids, bones, human tissues, etc., at elevated temperatures and/or far beyond the classical limit of proportionality : Hooke's law is replaced by a set of constitutive relations relating stress (pressure) to strain (volume change), strain rate and strain history. His analyses should also include deteriorated structures and the effects and behaviour of defects (fracture mechanics). The numerical treatments of these various problems differ widely and not infrequently the engineer has to use his physical intuition to arrive a priori, with a heuristic argument, at a conclusion as to which phenomena in a particular situation are of importance and which can be neglected. Otherwise, he might end up with an impractical tool which could not be handled by even the fastest and biggest computer. Besides qualitative physical intuition, the analyst has at his disposal published results of numerical experiments by alternative algorithms and implementations. This source of information, even if not yet confirmed with an a posteriori theory of convergence, is not always fully recognised by the software developer, who is inclined to dismiss any empiricism in his work. However, this course will teach that the experience gained from numerical experiments is of paramount importance, and often at the base of the latest and best performing algorithms and of their implementation: the case- study literature has an important role in diffusing the art outside its academic place of birth.

The classification

of the solution methods for dynamic problems, or

basically the integration of partial differential equations representing the

INTRODUCTION

AND GENERAL OVERVIEW

XV

conservation of mass, momentum and energy, interrelated by constitutive equations, is focused around integration with respect to space and integration with respect to time. Analytical integration, in both space and time, is limited to rather simple geometries and linear problems. The classification linear versus non-linear, from the point of view of both material (constitutive equations) and geometry, is the most decisive in structural problems, and in the past, before the advent of digital computers, has also been the threshold. This is related to the possibility of application of the principle of superposition for linear problems. In particular, for dynamic problems it renders possible the separation of the space and time variables, the so-called modal approach. In this approach time integration is carried out analytically for the individual eigenfrequencies and, by proper superposition of eigenmodes based on the decomposition of the load, transients can also be dealt with. The spatial integration in the modal approach can be analytical or numerical and is focused around the eigenvalue problem of finding the natural frequencies and corresponding spatial eigenvectors. Historically, we have to mention here:

Rayleigh-Ritz methods for simple strength-of-material type structures:

the transfer matrix method for chain-type structures; spatial discretisation by means of FDM (finite difference method) and FEM.

In this course the spatial discretisation by means of FEM in particular will be considered, with chapters centred around various aspects such as:

discretisation, stiffness matrix, mass matrix;

automatic condensation of a large system to one with the so-called master and slave degrees of freedom, substructuring; extraction of eigenvalues from large matrices (typically up to 200

masters, being the condensed order of some 5000-10 000 freedom); response of damped structures; applications (anti-earthquake, pipe vibrations, etc.).

degrees

of

The modal analysis is limited to so-called inertia-type transients; for the wave propagation type of response—in particular, with a steep front—the method breaks down and the modal approach has to be replaced by a time integration. Linear wave-propagation-type problems can be solved by the method of

XVI

J.

REYNEN

characteristics in vogue up to some years ago—in particular for fluid dynamics. This method is not dealt with in the present course. More recently, for linear continuum problems, a method similar to the transfer matrix method forchain-type structures has gained popularity: the boundary integral equation (BIE) method. In this course a case study is presented using BIE for a fluid-structure interaction problem. Owing to the prerequisite of linearity in the discussion up to now. the non-linear convective terms in the Eulerian formulation were excluded and the above methods, for both structures and fluids, all use the Lagrangian formulation. The bulk of the remainder of the present course is centred on the methods of numerical time integration of ordinary differential equations obtained by some spatial discretisation, their impact on the spatial formulation ( Lagrangian. Eulerian or a mixture) and discretisation (FDM. FEM) on the one hand, and on the other hand the impact of constitutive equations (linear, plasticity, viscoplasticity. compressible, incompressible) and geometric factors (small versus large displacements) on both time integration and spatial discretisation. The argument as to the relative merits of FDM and FEM for spatial discretisation is not a fundamental one. since linear FEM discretisations on a regular FDM mesh sometimes prove to give exactly the same equations:

FDM is a special case of FEM. However, the greater versatility of FEM for dealing with more complicated geometric configurations due to the fact that the logic of t he computations is embedded in the mesh topology, as well as the possibility of mixing different kinds of elements, including higher- order ones, has made FEM more popular than FDM. Nevertheless, a great many computer programs dealing with fluid dynamics still use FDM. As soon as structures are involved. FDM gives difficulties, and this course will teach that the more recent developments employ FEM for fluid-structure interactions. The choice between mesh formulations is:

Eulerian

Eulerian

Lagrangian

{

pure Lagrangian.

updated

Lagrangian.

convective coordinates

The choice is mostly dictated by the physics of the problem. Even if Lagrangian formulations are preferred—because of the numerical difficulties in dealing with the non-linearconvective terms and with material

INTRODUCTION

AND GENERAL OVERVIEW

XVII

interfaces in a Eulerian mesh—for problems in fluid mechanics with large relative movements the Eulerian formulation is necessary, since a Lagrangian mesh would distort too much. Continuous updating is possible, as will be shown in the chapter dealing with mixed Eulerian-Lagrangian meshes, particularly elegant in dealing with slip-flow of fluids around submerged structures. For structures with history-dependent constitutive equations, rather than an equation of state, the Lagrangian formulation—pure (for small displacements), updated or convective (for large displacements)—is a must. Ample case studies are presented in the course to show the relative advantages and drawbacks in implementation of the various Lagrangian formulations for various element types, including the more recently developed isoparametric shell element SEMI LOOF. The classification of time integrators involves implicit time integrators, explicit time integrators and mixed implicit-explicit meshes. This topic will be discussed in detail, including the numerous aspects which define the choice:

inertia type of loading and response versus wave propagation type; stability and accuracy of the solutions by means of Fourier-type methods and energy methods; linear versus non-linear material behaviour, including the corresponding formulations of plasticity and viscoplasticity; linear versus non-linear geometric effects, with discussions on the relative advantages of the various Lagrangian formulations; complexity of the finite element and corresponding mass lumping techniques (simple triangle, isoparametric elements, beam, shell elements, including the SEMILOOF element);

computer implementation

(ease of programming, CPU

necessary memory requirements, etc.).

consumption,

In particular, the newer ideas will be discussed concerning combined implicit-explicit meshes: logics; efficiency of implementation by means of a frontal-type skyline triangulation solution routine; time-step matching, etc.

3.

CONCLUSION

An attempt has been made to highlight the role of modern computerised analysis in the process of design and of the safety assessment of today's technical achievements.

XVIII

J.

REYNEN

Various types of approach to dynamic problems as they will be dealt with in this lspra course are classified:

for phenomena of linear, vibrational type: the modal approach as

implemented in standard

software;

for non-linear and for wave-propagation-type phenomena : research and trends in time integration algorithms for ordinary differential equations resulting from a spatial discretisation by means of FDM or FEM.

 

1

Variational Methods of Structural Dynamics and their Finite Element Implementation

 

M.

GERADIN

Université

de Liège,

Belgium

1.

INTRODUCTION

Certain numerical methods, such as finite differences, apply most naturally to physical problems presented in differential or local form. By contrast, the finite element method requires a statement of the problems in integrated or global form. Finding such global equations is an essential step in applying the finite element method to a new domain, and to this purpose general procedures such as weighted residuals or Galerkin methods can be applied. 2 ^

In the case of structural dynamics, virtual work expressions yield, in general, adequate formulations. If. as is the case here, we restrict ourselves to conservative systems, variational principles exist which furnish such global representation of the problems with additional advantages related to the existence of extremum principles. Their systematic use is motivated by the insight into the numerical techniques that they provide. They also allow for a firmly grounded and clear presentation of the finite element method. A variational principle is a mathematical expression which states that one given physical property is approximated in some best sense: for steady state problems of elasticity, this can be static equilibrium orcompatibility of the strain field. More essential conditions, such as the symmetry of the stress tensor and the constitutive equations, are usually assumed to be a priori verified, but could also be relaxed in the most general context. When the time dimension is introduced, the dependence in time between displacements and velocities can be further relaxed, as in Hamilton's theory of mechanics, this leads to a still wider class of variational principles applicable to elastodynamics. The present chapter is largely denoted to their exposition. Although it provides the basis for the complementary formulation in

 

1

2

M. GERADIN

elastodynamics, Toupin's dual formulation for describing the dynamics of a conservative system of particles is still largely unknown. Section 2 will thus be denoted to its presentation in the case of a discrete mechanical system: it will be shown how, starting from Hamilton's principle of least action, and using Friedrichs transformations, a reciprocal form can be obtained in which the only variables are the restoring forces in the elastic restraints of the system. Taking the Euler derivatives of both variational principles yields the general form of the discretised equations of structural dynamics: in the kinematic approach they express dynamic equilibrium in d'Alembert's sense, while in the complementary approach they express the geometric compatibility of the system. In the absence of external forces, both formulations yield to alternative forms of theeigenfrequency problem. The variational properties of its solutions will be briefly recalled at the end of the section. The same path will be followed in Section 3 for obtaining the variational principles that can be used in elastodynamics: however, more attention will be focused on the mixed formulations, since some of them are of considerable practical importance in a finite element context. Section 4 is an introduction to the finite element implementation of some of the variational formulations obtained in Section 3. It will be limited to kinematical elements, equilibrium elements and mixed models based on simultaneous approximations and velocities. Section 5 presents some applications of displacement, equilibrium and mixed models to plate bending and shell problems. In particular, the concept of dual analysis will be illustrated for the case of a skew cantilever plate. An interesting conclusion is that equilibrium may (but does not necessarily) yield to lower bounds to the eigenspectrum, in which case a bracketing of the exact eigenfrequencies results from a dual analysis. The numerical examples presented will also enhance the respective advantages of the various models that can be imagined on the basis of distinct variational expressions.

  • 2. VARIATIONAL THEOREMS FOR DISCRETE SYSTEMS

ELASTIC

2.1.

Hamilton's Principle

In order to facilitate the interpretation of the variational formulations of elastodynamics. let us consider first the case of a conservative, discrete

VARIATIONAL METHODS OF STRUCTURAL

DYNAMICS

FIG.

1.

system of particles (Fig. 1). The Λ mass particles m 7 are supposed free of kinematic restraints, and the resulting 3Λ degrees of freedom system is assumed to have a potential energy V(r' aß ) depending only upon the 3N(N — l)/2 coordinate differences:

 

/ =

1.2.3:

α =

 

Ν;

β > y.

(1)

For conciseness, let us adopt a matrix formalism. rewritten

Equation (1) can

be

 

r =

Lx

(2)

where L isa Boolean matrix of dimension 3N( Ν — l)/2 χ 3V. If theelastic

restrains of Fig.

1 have spring stiffnesses

k^,.

alternative forms

of

the

potential energy of the system are

 
 

V(r)

= h J Sr

and

V(x)

= iv'

Kx

(3)

with the alternative definitions of the stillness matrix

 
 

S

=

diag(A; ;( )

and

K

=

L'SL

(4)

The kinetic energy of the system is that of the individual particles

 

Τ

= i v '

Mx

(5)

with the mass matrix of the system M = diagfm!,). For such a conservative system, Hamilton's principle states that for the actual motion the Lagrangian action is stationary:

(Τ­

\')άτ

= 0

(6)

M. GERADIN

over a time interval subject to the boundary conditions

óx

=

0

at

τ =

τ,

and

τ.

(7)

Performing the variation of eqn. (6) and integrating by parts in time yields

c Τ

~

Í .Y

.

ΟΛ-

'

«

Γ,

+

Λ,

I

«"ι

d

ícT\

άτ\οχ)

t V

cx

δχάτ

= 0

from which result the 3/V Lagrange equations of motion

d

-

(cT\

ατ\(χ/

+

CV

— =

cx

0

(8)

By referring to the explicit forms of 7~and Fin terms of kinematic variables, we obtain the dynamic equilibrium equations

Mx

+

Kx

=

0

describing free vibration motion.

2.2.

Principle Operating on Displacements and Velocities

(9)

11 is classical to transform the 3 Λ' second-order equations (9) into two sets

of first-order equations. This can be performed most conveniently by

relaxing into eqn. (6) the time dependence between displacements velocities:

and

[T + p\x

-

ι·) -

F]dr

=

0

7~is now a function of t he independent velocities v, and ρ is a set of Lagrange multipliers. Let us perform the variational derivatives to obtain the Euler equations:

op: restores the constraint χ = ν όν. shows that the multipliers are kinetic momenta

Γ Τ

ér

Μι

(10)

οχ: expresses dynamic equilibrium in terms of momenta

CV

ex

(11)

VARIATIONAL

METHODS OF STRUCTURAL

DYNAMICS

5

The next step consists of inverting relation (10) in a form

i­ =

¿T*

  • c ρ

(12)

where 7*. the complementary kinetic energy, isa function of the momenta.

This can be achieved through a Legendre transformation

 

T*(p)=p\­

T(v)

 

(13)

It is obvious that T* has the same numerical value as the kinetic energy T,

but is considered as

a function of p:

 
 

T* = \j) x M'

] p

 

With the definition of the extended functional

 
 

H(x,p)

=/;'.v ­

T* ­

V

(14)

Hamilton's principle can be transformed into

 
 

Ò

Ήάτ

= 0

(15)

with the subsidiary conditions

ox

= 0 for

τ =

τ,

and

τ 2 .

Its Euler equations are

 
 

χ =

cT*

compatibility in time

 

(16)

 

ρ

c

and

 

cV

 

ρ =

— ^—

 

dynamic equilibrium

 

(17)

 

ex

They can

be made explicit in the

form

x

= M~ 1 p

 

and

ρ

+

Kx

= 0

(18)

2.3. Toupin's Principle 5 21

The fully reciprocal form of Hamilton's principle is obtained by relaxing

also dependence (2) between absolute coordinates χ and the relative

positions r:

δ

' [p T x

-

V -

T*

+ s T (Lx

-

r)]dx

=

0

(19)

6

M. GERADIN

The variational derivatives of (19) are

ós: restores eqn. (2)

dp: restores eqn. (16)

dr: s =

è V

­

c/'

(20)

shows that the multipliers s are the restoring forces s = —Sr in the

elastic links of the system

ox:pr=L l s

(21)

expresses dynamic equilibrium

in terms of momenta and

spring

forces

 

In Toupin's formulation impulses /; are introduced

 
 

// = /!„_„

+

i

SOT

(22)

in order

to integrate

eqn.

(21) in

the

form

 
 

p = Lfh

 

(23)

It is next assumed that eqn. (20) can be solved for the kinematic variables /·.

which we write

cV*

(h

with the Legendre transformation

V*(h) = ­r l h

­

V(r)

(25)

where V*. the complementary potential energy, is a function of the impulses

/;. As linearity has been assumed, it has the same numerical value as V(r):

V* =\ßS~ l h=\l?Fh

(26)

The matrix

F — S

x is the flexibility matrix of the system.

 

Let us integrate

by parts

eqn. (19) and

make use of eqn. (25):

 

à[h J x}\] + δ

[y*

­

T* + x T (L T /i

-ρ)]άτ

=

0

The last step of the transformation consists of assuming a priori dynamic

VARIATIONAL METHODS OF STRUCTURAL

DYNAMICS

7

equilibrium, and calculating the complementary kinetic energy in terms of

impulses

 

77* =

\hLM

­ ' O

h = ψ

N h

 

(27)

with the definition of the mobility matrix Λ' = LM " 'L T .

Toupin's

principle

implies

the

stationarity

of

the

complementary

expression to Hamilton's principle

 
 

(V*

­

T*)d T

= 0

 

(28)

with the subsidiary conditions

oh = 0 for

τ =

τ,

and

ι,.

Its Euler equations are

 
 

d/££ \

 

£7*

 

at \

ch J

 

oh

or, in explicit form.

 
 

Fli +

Nh

=

0

(29)

They can easily be seen to be a disguised form of the kinematic relations (2).

Their number is equal to 3/V(/V l)/2: it exceeds the number of degrees

of freedom 3Λ 7 of the system by the number of redundancies.

2.4.

Free Vibration Analysis of the Discrete Elastic System

2.4.1. Kinematic Approach

As is well known, the general solution of eqn. (9) can be obtained by

superposition of harmonic solutions of the form x(t) = xcos(œt + φ). The

eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the resulting eigenvalue problem

are denoted by

Kx

= orMx

0

<

ω\

< ω;

<

· ■

· <

 

(30)

ω„.

(31)

We can define the corresponding Rayleigh quotient

ω

= R{x)

  • x l Kx

= -ΤΤΓ

.v

Mx

(32 )

8

M. GERADIN

and by taking variations with respect to ,v, it follows immediately that eqn.

(32) takes the stationary value OJ 2 = ω? for the corresponding mode .v (/| .

We recall the well­known orthogonality properties:

x l) K ­\j)

=

vAj

a n d

x l) Mx \j)

= V¡ ó ¡j

The generalised stiffness and mass so introduced. and μ,, are not

independent of each other, since eqn. (32) gives ω 2 = }'¡/p¡. A convenient

choice of norm consists thus of imposing

xJ it Mx {jj

=

d,j

so that

xl ) K.\ tJ)

= ω 2 δ ί}

(33)

Note that the possible zero frequency modes of eqn. (30). solutions of

Kx = 0, have to be interpreted as either the rigid body modes or the internal

mechanisms of the system, since eqn. (33) shows that they involve no

potential energy.

 

2.4.2. Equilibrium Approach

Just

as in the kinematic

analysis, when we set /.(/)

=

h cos (cot + φ),

the

Euler equations (29) of Toupin's principle take the form

 
 

Ν h = orFh

(34)

Their number, as it is equal to that of the coordinate differences r. exceeds

that of the dynamic equilibrium equations by the number of redundancies

of the system. Thus, as in the kinematic approach, ω 2 = 0 belongs to the

eigenspectrum of the eigenvalue problem (35).

From eqn. (27) it is obvious that the zero frequency modes, obtained

from Nh = 0, are the non-trivial solutions of

Üh

=

0

(35)

They are self­stressing modes—that is. internal force distributions in

equilibrium without external forces, capable of existing without inertia

forces.

The self­stressing modes will be denoted by s U) , and will be supposed to

form an orthogonal basis

sJ t) Ns tJ)

=

o¡j

(36)

The other eigenmodes will be denoted by /;(/) and ranged in increasing

order of their eigenvalues

 

Λ <1>

.

/; .2

K)

0

<

ω 2

<

ω\

< ■ ■ ■

<

ω 2

VARIATIONAL METHODS OF STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

9

and,

in

addition

properties:

to

eqn.

(36), we

have

the

following

orthonormality

ALto, r , =

0

hlNh {j)

= œfo u

and

hJ.Fh^

=

δ

1 V

J

(371

The eigenmodes of eqn. (34) can be obtained as the stationary points of the

Rayleigh quotient in terms of impulses:

ω

=

RU,)

I? N h

=

bJfh

(38 )

Note that for a discrete system of particles, solving the free vibration

eigenvalue problem in the form of either eqn. (30) or eqn. (34) provides the

same non­zero eigensolutions: the choice of either set of degrees of freedom

is essentially a matter of convenience. Once the numerical solution has been

obtained, the transformation from stress parameters to kinematic variables

and its reciprocal are

­v„, =

1

— Μ" 1 ! 1 /;,,,

,

­,

OJ:

and

/;„, =

1

CO:

SLx U)

2.5.

2.5.1

Properties of the Rayleigh Quotient

Independent

or Maximum­Minimum

Eigenvalues

Characterisation

of

(39)

All minimum properties of the Rayleigh quotient can be deduced from

Courant's principle, often called the 'minimax principle", which we give here

without demonstration.

To this purpose, let us consider the variational problem of minimising the

Rayleigh quotient under arbitrary constraints:

min R(x)

Λ

•v ' Kx

=

-=

x

Mx

Ί

ν]χ

= 0

i =

1,

...

, r

-

1

(40)

Courant's principle states that the rth eigenvalue of problem (30) is the

maximum value that can be given to the minimum of the Rayleigh quotient

(40) by varying the r — 1 constraints. This maximum is reached for

v, = Mx, 'ϋ)·

min max { R(x)

=

~.—— : ¡' χ

χ

Mx

=

0 ,

=

co]

j <

r

(41 )

10

M. GERADIN

  • 2.5.2. Recursive Characterisation oj Eigenvalues

As a direct consequence

of the minimax

principle, we consider

the

restricted

class

of

solutions

which

consists

of

orthogonal

to

the

first

/■

-

1 eigenvectors. Then

displacement

modes

χ Ί Κχ

Mx

min­JÄ(.v) = '

ΛκΑ

Λ

1

: x J Mx {j)

=

0}

= OJ;

j

< r

(42)

and this minimum is reached for u = u lr) . This well­known result defines an

adequate procedure for obtaining eigenvalues recursively by minimisation

techniques.

2.5.3.

Minimum

oj the Rayleigh

Quotient

Under

Constraints

The maximum­minimum property of eigenvalues allows also the

prediction of how the eigenspectrum (31) is modified by imposing a set of

independent constraints

 

Sj­v =

0

7=1,

...

,

j

(43)

Rayleigh's theorem on constraints, which we also give without demon­

stration, states that if .v arbitrary constraints (43)

are

imposed

on

a

vibrating system of which eigenvalues are given

by (31). then

the new

eigenvalues ώ 2 separate the old ones in the sense that

 

ω;

<

ώ 2

<

oj; +s

r < η -

s

(44)

Result (44) provides the basis for predicting the convergence behaviour of

Rayleigh-Ritz and finite element approximations in the eigenvalue analysis

of elastic continuous structures.

  • 3. VARIATIONAL

PRINCIPLES FOR SMALL AND

DISPLACEMENTS IN

ELASTODYNAMICS

LARGE

The variational principles that have been presented in Section 2 for discrete

systems can easily be extended to the elastodynamics of conservative

systems.

The progression from Hamilton's principle to Toupin's principle is

essentially the same: continuity in space and time are relaxed to provide a

canonical principle operating simultaneously on displacements, velocities

and impulses. Restoring a priori requirements between the three sets of

variables provides either mixed or one-field variational equations that will

be made explicit below.

VARIATIONAL

METHODS OF STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

1

1

One fundamental difference with the discrete case is that significant

benefit can be obtained from the use of two­field variational expressions.

They can lead to various finite element approximations which can exhibit

interesting properties either with regard to convergence behaviour or by

their relative simplicity in comparison with the purely kinematic and

equilibrium models.

An exhaustive list of the formulations that can be used will thus be given,

together with a tentative judgement as to their respective advantages and

drawbacks.

For geometrically non­linear analysis a total Lagrangian formulation is

adopted : all quantities are referred to the initial configuration of the body,

of volume V 0 and surface S 0 .

The measure of strain adopted is thus Green's strain tensor:

E; . =

i(Z), M; +

D jU¡

+ D^D^j)

(45)

and hyperelasticity of the material is assumed, so that the state of stress, if

described by the symmetric Kirchhofl­Trefftz

stress tensor, derives from a

strain energy density

W(e¡:) by the constitutive relations

°H =

cW

(46)

which are equivalent,

in

the case

of

linear

expression of Hooke's law

elasticity,

to

the

classical

σ ϋ

=

C ¡ju t: u

By a Legendre transformation

energy density

function

 

φ(σ υ )

such that

one introduces the complementary

stress

=

σ, Λ /

­

W{ß i} )

(47)

e,j =

c φ

^

'

(48)

The complementary nature of φ and W is illustrated in the one­dimensional

casein Fig. 2. For linear elastic materials Φ and IF'are quadratic Junctionals

and are thus numerically equal.

3.1.

Hamilton's Principle

Hamilton's principle, or displacement variational principle, states, as in

12

M. GERADIN

,">J

. ήσ': : ·'

.

■ dA(ff); ;'*.

ΦΜ

^

^

dw(« )

,

/

w{,)

"

vd«·/'

Fie. 2.

V

the discrete case, that for fixed­end values of the displacement field, the

Lagrangian action of a conservative system

iff«]

=

( Γ ­

«7)dr

(49)

takes a stationary value on the trajectory of the motion. Τ is the kinetic

energy of the continuum

T(u)

Po u i u , dv o

(50)

and t/, its potential energy, can be split into distinct parts: the strain energy

<Λ =

W(E l} )áV Q

W(D t u J )dV a

(51

results from the integration of the strain energy W(D jj ) per unit of volume

of reference over the domain V 0 . The notation W(D¡u) indicates that the

strain energy density isa function of the displacement derivatives only. The

region I 0 is that occupied by

the body in its initial state. If large

displacements are considered, the strain energy density of the hyperelastic

material can be expressed as a function of the Green strain tensor (45) with

which the Kirchhoff­Trefftz tensor is associated by the constitutive

equations (46).

The

second

contribution

to

the

potential

energy,

U 2 .

results

from

conservative

body

loads

and

surface

tractions

on

the

part

S n

of

the

boundary

 

­

I

Ujtj(T)dS

UjXj(T)dV

 

(52)

VARIATIONAL METHODS OF STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

13

On the remaining

part.

S„,

of

the

boundary

the

displacements

are

prescribed functions of time:

 
 

iij = ÜJ(T)

 

on

S„

at

any

time τ

 

(53)

The variational derivatives of Hamilton's principle express equilibrium in

the body and on the surface Sin a dynamic sense: the dynamic equilibrium

equations are obtained in the form given by Signorini:

A

K

+ a im D m Uj)

+ Xj

­

pit, =

0

"M,j

+ <r im D m Uj)

+

lj = 0

in

V 0

on

S„

3.2. The Canonical Principle

One

notices

that

requirements.

Hamilton's

principle

contains

two

a

priori

(1)

Compatibility in space: the strain field deduced from by eqn. (45)

has to be integratable. and on the part of the boundary where

(2)

displacements are imposed,

u, =

(7,

on

S u

(55)

Compatibility in time: the time dependence between displacements

and velocities

t­, =

in

V

is automatically assumed.

(56)

The canonical principle is one in which conditions (45). (55) and (56) are

incorporated. To construct it from Hamilton's principle by the method of

Friedrichs transformations, one proceeds in three steps:

(1)

The continuity requirements (45), (55) and (56) are relaxed by

adding to eqn. (49) the appropriate dislocation potentials with a

Lagrangian multiplier.

(2)

The meaning of the Lagrangian multipliers utilised in (1) is restored

by using the appropriate variational derivatives of the functional.

(3)

To eliminate the strain variables in profit of stresses, the

complementary energy density φ(σ,,) is introduced by the contact

transformation (47), the derivation of which with respect to stresses

yields the constitutive equations in the inverse form (48).

The resulting variational principle operates on displacements, stresses and

velocities:

δϊ£[u.

ν, σ] =

δ

\'

F[u, ν, σ]άτ

= 0

14

M.

GERADIN

with the functional

F[u, ν, σ]

[φ(σ υ )

­

\a u (D i u j

+ Dju, +

D t u m D jUm )

+ X¡u¡ \pv¡v¡ + pv¡u¡] d V 0

+

i,u. dS

where the

are

boundary:

the

Lagrangian

surface

tractions

t j

= n i (a ij

+ o,„ l D m u j )

tj(.tij­üj)dS

(57)

on

the

undeformed

 

(58)

Its Euler equations provide the full set of equations of structural dynamics:

  • (i) the variation du¡ yields the dynamic equilibrium equations in terms

(ii)

of displacements and velocities:

A K ­

+

<r¡J> m u¡) + X i

­

Pij

=

°

"Mij

+ tr im D m Uj) +

tj = 0

i n

on

v o

S a

(59)

Varying the stresses ó¡j and the surface tractions t j restores the

compatibility in space:

(iii)

c φ

\(D l ii J

+ Dju, + D,u m Dju m )

=

0

u. = υ.

in

V 0

on

S„

(60)

By the variation ¡ 7 one restores the dependence (56) between

displacements and velocities.

The functional (57) is particularised to geometrically linear problems

simply by noticing that, for infinitesimal displacements.

and

\a ij (D i u j

+ Dju i + D¡w m DjU„) =s a u D,Uj

tj =

n¡(a¡j +

<f¡ m D m Uj) ­ n¡a¡j

The only a priori conditions that remain in the canonical principle concern:

  • (i) The constitutive equations (46).

(ii) The symmetry of the Kirchhoff­Trefftz tensor a tj = σ β . which

implies that rotational equilibrium is satisfied everywhere. A still

more general principle could be derived by relaxing this condition,

as will be briefly mentioned in the next section.

VARIATIONAL

METHODS

OF

STRUCTURAL

DYNAMICS

15

The continuity requirements on the three fields are the following'.

displacements

C 0

continuity

velocities

no continuity

stresses σ,,

C 0 continuity

3.3. Two­field Variational Principles

Two­field variational principles are obtained by specialising the

canonical principle to the cases where one set of Euler's equations are taken

as essential conditions. The remaining two fields are left independent.

3.3.1.

Principle

Operating

on Displacements

and

Stresses

The principle operating on displacements and stresses is obtained by

restoring the dependence (56) between displacements and velocities. It can

be written

δ¥[ιι,σ]

= δ

F[u. σ] dr

=

0

with the two­field

functional

F[u. σ] =

Vu

[(/»(σ,,) ­

ίσ,/Α" , + Dju ¡ + D¡u m DjuJ+

X¡u¡ +

yú,u¡]dV

+

t;U;dS

/;(«,·­ H;)dS

JS U

(61)

It was formulated independently by Fraeijs de Veubeke 6 and Reissner 3 for

static analysis of geometrically linear problems.

3.3.2.

Principle

Operating

on Displacements

and Velocities

(Hughes)

This corresponds to the case where compatibility in space is rendered

essential. It is obtained most rapidly from Hamilton's principle by relaxing

the dependence between displacements and velocities. The functional of

this second two­field variational theorem of elastodynamics 14

Ô&[u,v]

= δ

F[u, ν] dx

=

0

takes the form

F[u, v]

J

Γ,,

W(D,Uj) + X¡u¡ ­

\pv ¡V¡ + ρν-,ύλάν

+

t:U: dS

(62)

16

M. GERADIN

As it allows for independent assumptions on displacements and velocities, it

can be used for reducing in a consisten t way the number of parameters in the

representation of the kinetic energy.

3.3.3. Principle Operating on Stresses and Velocities (Reissner)

The third two­field variational principle corresponds to the case where

dynamic equilibrium (59) is an essential condition. As shown by Fraejis de

Veubeke.' ' the existence of an explicit form of the functional F[v. σ) is,

however, limited to the geometrically linear case.

The functional of Reissner's principle, 1,2 valid only, for geometrically

linear structures, is

F[r,<xj=

[φ^^-^ρν,νΐάν-

t¡ü¡dS

(63)

The formal independence of the stress and velocity fields in the associated

variational principle is, however, seriously restricted in practice by the

requirement of satisfying a priori dynamic equilibrium. As one has to

consider infinitesimal displacements, the coupling between the two fields is

reintroduced by

D¡a u

+ Xj

­

pi­j =

0

in

F

(64)

One way of generalising the functional (63) to finite elastic displacements,

based on the polar decomposition of the Jacobian matrix of the

transformation, was suggested by Fraeijs de Veubeke.' ' The correspond­

ing variational principle operates then on three fields: the Piola stress

tensor, the velocities Vj and the matrix of finite rotations associated with the

deformation. The resulting functional will not be made explicit here.

3.4.

Complementary Energy Principle (Toupin)

Like Reissner's principle, the complementary energy principle is limited

to linear elastodynamics.

The requirement of satisfying the dynamic equilibrium equations (64)

suggests the introduction of an impulse field 0, 7 5 such that

Vj^­Dfiu

Ρ

Hence, in the absence of body forces,

e u

=

['>,,]„ +

Ρ

σ υ άτ

and

Ô u =

σ υ

(65)

(66)

VARIATIONAL METHODS OF STRUCTURAL

DYNAMICS

17

The resulting functional is

F(ß) =

Φ0η)

Y p Dß,PJ m ~\ dV

­

tjûjdS

s.

(67)

with the modified expression of the surface tractions.

Euler's equations of this principle are obtained by variation of the

impulses. They appear to be a disguised form of the time derivatives of the

compatibility equations of linear elasticity:

dr\cj;) + Tp (D ' DJ -

+

D ' D "' 0 "" ] =

°

1

dii­

in

v

(68)

3.5. Special-purpose Two-field Variational Principles

Special forms of the two­field variational principles are useful in the finite

element context to derive the so­called hybrid elements. The motivation for

using these principles is always the desire to make independent assumptions

inside the domain constituted by a finite element and along its boundary for

the choice of connection modes.

Such principles have been introduced by Pian 7 and Pian and Tong, 8 and

play an important role in the justification of elements based on engineering

intuition but violating the rules of the general principles.

The first of these principles allows for assumptions on the displacements

inside the boundary and along the boundary S„ that are independent of the

assumptions on the Lagrangian surface tractions along S u , as recalled by

the notation

Ó^lu,/(SJ]

=

Ò

F[u, t(SJ]

= 0

The corresponding functional is

F[uJ(SJ)

%pu,u¡­

W(D,u J ) +

X t u,]dV

+

t.ii: dS

+

1,(11,

­

¡7,)dS

(69)

The complementary functional obviously exists in the geometrically

linear case. One then assumes that dynamic equilibrium is a priori satisfied

18

M. GERADIN

 

öt'T

 
 

δ7(£/,σ)= 0

α

prion

 
 

ύ

-

ν

 

Scr Γ

ί

8?[ί/,/(ϋ,)] = 0

 

o

prio n

 

ù

-

ν

'8

c

-

Du

 

1

 

δ?(ί/ )

= 0

α

prio n

 

Du

W

 

Su

 

| δ σ 87(</,Η= 0

83"(i-,<r)=0

 

α

prion

 

α

prion

 
 

ί

=

Οι/

¿7σ+Χ-ρι>Ό

 

i/

= ¡7(5ι/)

Ι

-■ /~(5„)

1 r

"

'Sif

 

8?[ô,i/(5,)]=0

α

prio n

 

s,

δί/

δι-"

ύ

-

ν

 

¡fc-iX-pÎ'-O

 

1

' ■

Ι

 

δ?(θ )

= 0

ο

prio n

 
 

υ

-

t

- Du

compatibility equations

 

D\A- X-py-0

equilibrium

 

FIG. 3.

Relationship between the variational principles.

only in the volume. The resulting principle operates on the impulses 0,­ · in

the volume and on the displacements on S a

ÔJf[0,u(S a )]

=

ó

with the functional

F[e,u(S a ))dr

= 0

F0,u(a)

=

Φ(Ο,)--ΑΟ,Α, ^

d F +

Uj(tj ­

n&jújdS

(70)

The filiation of the various principles is schematised in the flow chart of

Fig. 3.

  • 4. FINITE ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE

VARIATIONAL

PRINCIPLES OF

ELASTODYNAMICS

We shall limit ourselves here to a rather brief description of the finite

element approximations that can be based on the variational principles

established above.

First, it is worth while indicating the respective properties and limitations

VARIATIONAL METHODS OF STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

19

of the various formulations that have been given, according to the use that

can be made of them. These are summarised in Table I.

The variational principle of widest use, on which the kinematic approach

is based, is of course Hamilton's principle. No limitations are encountered

in its practical implementation. For eigenvalue analysis in the linear range,

a direct consequence of Courant's minimax principle is that the kinematic

approach using purely conforming models guarantees obtaining upper

bounds to the eigenfrequency spectrum, but the price paid for this

behaviour is an excessive cost in the representation of kinetic inertia.

Up

to

now,

the canonical

and

F[u, σ] principles have always been

considered of no practical interest from the point of view of finite element

discretisation. It seems, however, that this assertion ought to be

reconsidered for non-linear analysis. The observation that the com­

plementary energy remains a quadratic form of the stresses for

geometrically non-linear problems indicates that a mixed discretisation

could perhaps provide a more adequate approach than a purely kinematic

modelling.

The F[u, v] functional has been regarded independently by Hughes 14 and

Geradin, Sanderand Nyssen 16 as a consistent way of lumping masses. The

results obtained with it in eigenvalue analysis are quite promising, as will be

shown in numerical examples. However, the [u, v] approach does not give a

systematic convergence to the eigenspectrum by either upper or lower

bounds. Its main drawback seems to be the practical impossibility of

implementing it together with explicit time integration schemes in non­

linear problems.

A few observations can be made in common on the variational principles

based on the complementary energy (Reissner, Toupin and Pian): they

cannot be implemented for geometrically non-linear problems; they do not

allow for an easy handling of other body loads than inertia loads; according

to the Euler equations (68), the actual impulse field contains two sets of

impulse (or stress) modes, just as in the discrete case: an infinite set of self-

stressing modes, solutions of £>,CT ;J = 0, and particular solutions of the non-

homogeneous equation (64).

The first two observations indicate that the practical application

of

complementary energy principles in structural dynamics is limited to

eigenvalue analysis. The last has two consequences:

(1)

For two- and three-dimensional elastic structures, the number of

self-stressing modes included in a finite element model is generally

much larger than the number of stress modes that equilibrate the

body loads. This gives a significant reduction of the number of

Variational

Functional

principle

Canonical

F[u. ν, σ]

Eraeijs

F[u, a)

de Veubeke

Reissner

F{v,a\

Hughes

F[u,v]

Hamilton

F[u]

Toupin

Flo]

'And-Pian'

/·[«. i(SJ]

Pian

f[ff.w(S.)]

SJ

 

o

 

TABLE I

APPLICABILITY OF VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES IN ELASTODYNAMICS

 

Eider equations

Non-linear

Reduction

Practical

Other

elasticity

of inertia

interest

limitations

 

forces

compatibility

in

space

yes

yes

?

compatibility

in

time

equilibrium

compatibility

in

space

yes

no

?

equilibrium

c.

compatibility

in

 

'1

body loads

rr.

space

no

yes

7=

>

compatibility

in

space

yes

yes

yes

non linear

Ό

equilibrium

explicit

schemes

equilibrium

yes

no

yes

compatibility

in

space

no

yes

yes

body loads

equilibrium in V compatibility on S„

yes

no

7

compatibility in equilibrium on ,

V

no

yes

yes

body loads

VARIATIONAL METHODS OF STRUCTURAL

DYNAMICS

21

parameters in the representation of the kinetic energy, just as with

the F[u, v] functional.

(2) The convergence properties of equilibrium models are strongly

influenced by the balance between self-stressing modes and other

stress modes, as can be shown from Courant's minimax principle.

Increasing the number of self-stressing modes raises the calculated

eigenfrequencies. and injecting more stress modes equilibrating the

body loads has the converse effect. The smaller the ratio between

the number of particular stress modes and that of self-stressing

modes, the larger the chance of getting convergence behaviour to

the eigenvalues by lower bounds. 12

In what follows a short description is given of the implementation of the

finite element method for the functionals F[u], Flu, v] and F(a), limited to

linear elastodynamics.

For the sake of simplicity let us represent displacements, velocities,

surface tractions, strains, stresses and impulses as row vectors:

w T =

(u 1 u 2 u i );

v T =

(υ,,υ 2 3 );

t T

=

(t l t 2 t i )

K T = (ε,,ε 2 2 ί: 33εΐ2 ί: ΐ3 ί; 23);

ffl

=

(σιισ 22 σ 3 3σ,

( ) T =(0 ,

,0^0330,20,3^23)

Then, with the help of a matrix differential

operator

~D l

0

0

0

/λ,

D 2

3^23)