Assessment of explicit and semi‐explicit classes of model‐based algorithms for direct integration in structural dynamics

Summary The “model-based" algorithms available in the literature are primarily developed for the direct integration of the equations of motion for hybrid simulation in earthquake engineering, an experimental method where the system response is simulated by dividing it into a physical and an analytical domain. The term “model-based" indicates that the algorithmic parameters are functions of the complete model of the system to enable unconditional stability to be achieved within the framework of an explicit formulation. These two features make the model-based algorithms also a potential candidate for computations in structural dynamics. Based on the algorithmic difference equations, these algorithms can be classified as either explicit or semi-explicit, where the former refers to the algorithms with explicit difference equations for both displacement and velocity, while the latter for displacement only. The algorithms pertaining to each class are reviewed and a new family of second order unconditionally stable parametrically dissipative semi-explicit algorithms is presented. Numerical characteristics of these two classes of algorithms are assessed under linear and nonlinear structural behavior. Representative numerical examples are presented to complement the analytical findings. The analysis and numerical examples demonstrate the advantages and limitations of these two classes of model-based algorithms for applications in structural dynamics. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

[1]  Shuenn-Yih Chang,et al.  Explicit Pseudodynamic Algorithm with Unconditional Stability , 2002 .

[2]  Shuenn-Yih Chang,et al.  A family of noniterative integration methods with desired numerical dissipation , 2014 .

[3]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Implementation and application of the unconditionally stable explicit parametrically dissipative KR‐α method for real‐time hybrid simulation , 2015 .

[4]  Edward L. Wilson,et al.  A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE DYNAMIC STRESS ANALYSIS OF UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES , 1968 .

[5]  O. Mercan,et al.  Real‐time hybrid testing using the unconditionally stable explicit CR integration algorithm , 2009 .

[6]  Thomas J. R. Hughes,et al.  Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics , 1977 .

[7]  T. Hughes,et al.  Collocation, dissipation and [overshoot] for time integration schemes in structural dynamics , 1978 .

[8]  Shuenn-Yih Chang,et al.  An explicit structure-dependent algorithm for pseudodynamic testing , 2013 .

[9]  J. Ricles,et al.  Development of a family of unconditionally stable explicit direct integration algorithms with controllable numerical energy dissipation , 2014 .

[10]  Shuenn-Yih Chang Enhanced, Unconditionally Stable, Explicit Pseudodynamic Algorithm , 2007 .

[11]  James M. Ricles,et al.  Inelastic Link Element for EBF Seismic Analysis , 1994 .

[12]  F. Charney Unintended Consequences of Modeling Damping in Structures , 2008 .

[13]  Jintai Chung,et al.  A Time Integration Algorithm for Structural Dynamics With Improved Numerical Dissipation: The Generalized-α Method , 1993 .

[14]  O. C. Zienkiewicz,et al.  An alpha modification of Newmark's method , 1980 .

[15]  G. Dahlquist A special stability problem for linear multistep methods , 1963 .

[16]  J. Ricles,et al.  Development of Direct Integration Algorithms for Structural Dynamics Using Discrete Control Theory , 2008 .

[17]  Delfim Soares,et al.  A stabilized central difference scheme for dynamic analysis , 2015 .

[18]  Pierre Pegon,et al.  Alternative characterization of time integration schemes , 2001 .