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 multidegree of freedom system to a smaller set of degrees of freedom. A review is then made of implicit, explicit and combined explicitimplicit 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, antimissile 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 0853348596 
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
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 multidegree of freedom system to a smaller set of degrees of freedom. A review is then made of implicit, explicit and combined explicitimplicit 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, antimissile design, pipe whip accidents and transient fluidstructure 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
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 



to Seismic Analysis 
...... 
. 
43 

K. FULLÄRD 

Implicit 

and Explicit Operators 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
71 

S. W. KEY 

Explicit Time 
of Structure—Mechanical Systems 
97 

T. BELYTSCHKO 



Situations 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
.12 3 

D. R. J. OWEN 
Vill 
CONTENTS 

of Transient 
Dynamic 
Numerical 
Methods to 

Problems in Fracture 
Mechanics 
153 


J. OWE N 


FluidStructure 

Problems in Reactor 
Safety 
. 
. 
. 
· 
· 
.19 
1 


and 
A. 
V. 
JONES 


FluidStructure 
255 

· 
· 
■ 

 
 

. 
. 
. 
. 


Dynamics in Blowdown 
Suppression 

Systems: Numerical 
Schemes and Applications 
. 
. 
291 



of 
Flowinduced 
Vibrations 
in 
Piping Systems 
315 

R. 
J. Gibert 


Impact 
Problems 
337 

N.J . 
K.RUTZ1K 


387 



Behaviour 
and 
Modelling in 
Transient 
Dynamic 

Situations 
427 

ALBERTINI. 
P. HALLEUX 
and 
M. 
MONTAGNANI 

Index 
465 


Commission of the European 
Joint 
Research 
Centre, 

Applied 
Mechanics 
Division, Communities. J 21020 lspra. 
Italy. 



Department of Civil 
and Nuclear 
Engineering, 
The Technological 

Institute, Northwestern 
University. 
Evanslon, 
Illinois 60201, 
USA. 



Commission of the European 
Joint 
Research 
Centre, 

Applied 
Mechanics 
Division. Communities. 1 21020 lspra, 
Italy. 


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


Central Electricity Generating 
Board, Research Division, 
Berkeley 

Nuclear Laboratories, Gloucestershire 
GLI3 9PB, 
UK. 



Laboratoire de Techniques Aéronautique s et Spatiales, 
Université de 

Liège, Rue du ValBenoit 75, B4000 Liège, Belgium. 

J. Commissariat et Thermiques, à l'Energie Atomique, Centre de Saciar. 
Division des Etudes F91190 GifsurYvette, 
Mécaniques France. 
ix
X
LIST ΟΕ CONTRIBUTORS

HALLEUX 

Commission of the European 
Communities, 
Joint 
Research 
Centre, 

Applied Mechanics 
Division, 
1 21020 lspra, 
Italy. 


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.

KRUTZIK. 

Kraftwerk Union A.G 
.. Berliner 
Str. 295299, 
D6050 OJjenbach 

(Main), West Germany. 



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. 

R. OWEN 

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



Commission of the European Communities. 
Joint 
Research Centre, 

Systems Analysis Division. I 21020 lspra. 
Italy. 
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 postprocessors, 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 semifinished 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 inhouse 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 'howtouse', (2) the time needed to get acquainted with the product and with the difficulties related to the eventual nonportability 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 stateofart 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 twodimensional 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 strengthof 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 generalpurpose 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 nonlinear, 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 socalled 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:
RayleighRitz methods for simple strengthofmaterial type structures:
the transfer matrix method for chaintype 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 socalled master and slave degrees of freedom, substructuring; extraction of eigenvalues from large matrices (typically up to 200
masters, being the condensed order of some 500010 000 freedom); response of damped structures; applications (antiearthquake, pipe vibrations, etc.).
degrees
of
The modal analysis is limited to socalled inertiatype 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 wavepropagationtype 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 forchaintype structures has gained popularity: the boundary integral equation (BIE) method. In this course a case study is presented using BIE for a fluidstructure interaction problem. Owing to the prerequisite of linearity in the discussion up to now. the nonlinear 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 fluidstructure 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 nonlinearconvective 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 EulerianLagrangian meshes, particularly elegant in dealing with slipflow of fluids around submerged structures. For structures with historydependent 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 implicitexplicit 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 Fouriertype methods and energy methods; linear versus nonlinear material behaviour, including the corresponding formulations of plasticity and viscoplasticity; linear versus nonlinear 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 implicitexplicit meshes: logics; efficiency of implementation by means of a frontaltype skyline triangulation solution routine; timestep 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 nonlinear and for wavepropagationtype 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' _{a}_{ß} ) 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' secondorder equations (9) into two sets
of firstorder 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
^{Μ}^{ι}
(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} ^{2}^{1}
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
_{=} _{}_{Τ}_{Τ}_{Γ}
.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) ^{M}^{x} \j)
= V¡ ^{ó} ¡j
The generalised stiffness and mass so introduced. y¡ 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 _{i}_{t} Mx _{{}_{j}_{j}
=
d,j
so that
xl _{)} K.\ _{t}_{J}_{)}
= 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 nontrivial 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 _{t}_{J}_{)}
=
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
=
_{b}_{J}_{f}_{h}
(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 _{l}_{r}_{)} . 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
RayleighRitz 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 onefield 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 _{j}_{U}_{¡}
+ 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 _{¡}_{j}_{u} 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
_{1}_{2}
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
_{i}_{f}_{f}_{«}_{]}
_{=}
( Γ
«7)dr
_{(}_{4}_{9}_{)}
takes a stationary value on the trajectory of the motion. Τ is the kinetic
energy of the continuum
T(u)
Po ^{u} i ^{u} , ^{d}^{v} o
(50)
and t/, its potential energy, can be split into distinct parts: the strain energy
_{<}_{Λ} _{=}
_{W}_{(}_{E} _{l}_{}} _{)}_{á}_{V} _{Q}
W(D _{t} u _{J} )dV _{a}
_{(}_{5}_{1}
results from the integration of the strain energy W(D _{j}_{j} ) 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 _{i}_{m} D _{m} Uj)
+ Xj
pit, =
0
"M,j
+ <r _{i}_{m} 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 u¡ 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, =
u¡
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 _{j}_{U}_{m} )
+ X¡u¡ — \pv¡v¡ + pv¡u¡] d V _{0}
_{i}_{,}_{u}_{.} _{d}_{S}
where the
t¡ are
boundary:
the
Lagrangian
surface
tractions
t _{j}
= n _{i} (a _{i}_{j}
+ 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 _{i}_{m} 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„
^{(}^{6}^{0}^{)}
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 _{i}_{j} (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 _{t}_{j} = 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
_{1}_{5}
The continuity requirements on the three fields are the following'.
displacements u¡ 
C _{0} 
continuity 
velocities v¡ 
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 ^{1}^{4}
_{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} _{D}_{ß}_{,}_{P}_{J} _{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} ' ^{D}^{J} 
+
D _{'} D _{"}_{'} 0 _{"}_{"} ] =
_{°}
1
dii
in
v
^{(}^{6}^{8}^{)}
3.5. Specialpurpose Twofield 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+Χρι>Ό 

i/ 
= ¡7(5ι/) 
Ι 
■ /~(5„) 

1 r 
■ 
" 
'Sif 

8?[ô,i/(5,)]=0 

α prio n 

s, 
δί/ 
δι" 
ύ 
 
ν 

¡fciXpÎ'O 

1 
' ■ 
Ι 

δ?(θ ) 
= 0 

ο 
prio n 

υ 
 

t 
 Du 
compatibility equations 

D\A Xpy0 
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}_{,}_{)}_{}_{}_{Α}_{Ο}_{,}_{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 nonlinear analysis. The observation that the com
plementary energy remains a quadratic form of the stresses for
geometrically nonlinear 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 ^{1}^{4} and
Geradin, Sanderand Nyssen ^{1}^{6} 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 nonlinear 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 threedimensional elastic structures, the number of
selfstressing 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] 
'AndPian' 
/·[«. i(SJ] 
Pian 
f[ff.w(S.)] 
SJ
o 

TABLE I 

APPLICABILITY OF VARIATIONAL PRINCIPLES IN ELASTODYNAMICS 

Eider equations 
Nonlinear 
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 selfstressing modes and other
stress modes, as can be shown from Courant's minimax principle.
Increasing the number of selfstressing 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 selfstressing
modes, the larger the chance of getting convergence behaviour to
the eigenvalues by lower bounds. ^{1}^{2}
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} ,υ _{3} );
t ^{T}
=
(t _{l} t _{2} t _{i} )
K ^{T} = (ε,,ε _{2} 2 ^{ί}^{:} 33εΐ2 ^{ί}^{:} ΐ3 ^{ί}^{;} 23);
^{f}^{f}^{l}
=
(σιισ _{2}_{2} 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)
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.