Chopra: Prentice-Hall

PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14

ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 165

5
Numerical Evaluation of
Dynamic Response

PREVIEW

Analytical solution of the equation of motion for a single-degree-of-freedom system is

usually not possible if the excitationapplied force p(t) or ground acceleration u g (t)
varies arbitrarily with time or if the system is nonlinear. Such problems can be tackled
by numerical time-stepping methods for integration of differential equations. A vast body
of literature, including major chapters of several books, exists about these methods for
solving various types of differential equations that arise in the broad subject area of applied
mechanics. The literature includes the mathematical development of these methods; their
accuracy, convergence, and stability properties; and computer implementation.
Only a brief presentation of a very few methods that are especially useful in dynamic
response analysis of SDF systems is included here, however. This presentation is intended
to provide only the basic concepts underlying these methods and to provide a few computa-
tional algorithms. Although these would suffice for many practical problems and research
applications, the reader should recognize that a wealth of knowledge exists on this subject.

5.1 TIME-STEPPING METHODS

For an inelastic system the equation of motion to be solved numerically is

m u + cu + f S (u, u) = p(t) or m u g (t) (5.1.1)
subject to the initial conditions
u 0 = u(0) u 0 = u(0)

165
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 166

166 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

The system is assumed to have linear viscous damping, but other forms of damping, includ-
ing nonlinear damping, could be considered, as it would become obvious later. However,
this is rarely done for lack of information on damping, especially at large amplitudes of
motion. The applied force p(t) is given by a set of discrete values pi = p(ti ), i = 0 to N
(Fig. 5.1.1). The time interval

ti = ti+1 ti (5.1.2)

is usually taken to be constant, although this is not necessary. The response is determined at
the discrete time instants ti , denoted as time i; the displacement, velocity, and acceleration
of the SDF system are u i , u i , and u i , respectively. These values, assumed to be known,
satisfy Eq. (5.1.1) at time i:

m u i + cu i + ( f S )i = pi (5.1.3)

where ( f S )i is the resisting force at time i; ( f S )i = ku i for a linearly elastic system but
would depend on the prior history of displacement and on the velocity at time i if the sys-
tem were inelastic. The numerical procedures to be presented will enable us to determine
the response quantities u i+1 , u i+1 , and u i+1 at the time i + 1 that satisfy Eq. (5.1.1) at

pi
pi+1
p1 p2
p0
t
t0 t1 t2 ti ti+1
ti

u
ui
u2 ui+1
u1
u0 t
t0 t1 t2 ti ti+1

Figure 5.1.1 Notation for time-stepping methods.

 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 167

Sec. 5.2 Methods Based on Interpolation of Excitation 167

time i + 1:

m u i+1 + cu i+1 + ( f S )i+1 = pi+1 (5.1.4)

When applied successively with i = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , the time-stepping procedure gives the

desired response at all time instants i = 1, 2, 3, . . . . The known initial conditions, u 0 =
u(0) and u 0 = u(0), provide the information necessary to start the procedure.
Stepping from time i to i + 1 is usually not an exact procedure. Many approximate
procedures are possible that are implemented numerically. The three important require-
ments for a numerical procedure are (1) convergenceas the time step decreases, the nu-
merical solution should approach the exact solution, (2) stabilitythe numerical solution
should be stable in the presence of numerical round-off errors, and (3) accuracythe nu-
merical procedure should provide results that are close enough to the exact solution. These
important issues are discussed briefly in this book; comprehensive treatments are available
in books emphasizing numerical solution of differential equations.
Three types of time-stepping procedures are presented in this chapter: (1) methods
based on interpolation of the excitation function, (2) methods based on finite difference
expressions of velocity and acceleration, and (3) methods based on assumed variation of
acceleration. Only one method is presented in each of the first two categories and two from
the third group.

5.2 METHODS BASED ON INTERPOLATION OF EXCITATION

A highly efficient numerical procedure can be developed for linear systems by interpolating
the excitation over each time interval and developing the exact solution using the methods
of Chapter 4. If the time intervals are short, linear interpolation is satisfactory. Figure 5.2.1
shows that over the time interval ti t ti+1 , the excitation function is given by
pi
p( ) = pi + (5.2.1a)
ti

p
Actual pi+1

pi Interpolated: p()

ti

t
ti ti+1
Figure 5.2.1 Notation for linearly
interpolated excitation.
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 168

168 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

where
pi = pi+1 pi (5.2.1b)
and the time variable varies from 0 to ti . For algebraic simplicity, we first consider
systems without damping; later, the procedure will be extended to include damping. The
equation to be solved is
pi
m u + ku = pi + (5.2.2)
ti
The response u( ) over the time interval 0 ti is the sum of three parts: (1) free
vibration due to initial displacement u i and velocity u i at = 0, (2) response to step force
pi with zero initial conditions, and (3) response to ramp force (pi /ti ) with zero initial
conditions. Adapting the available solutions for these three cases from Sections 2.1, 4.3,
and 4.4, respectively, gives
 
u i pi pi sin n
u( ) = u i cos n + sin n + (1 cos n ) + (5.2.3a)
n k k ti n ti
and
u( ) u i pi pi 1
= u i sin n + cos n + sin n + (1 cos n ) (5.2.3b)
n n k k n ti
Evaluating these equations at = ti gives the displacement u i+1 and velocity u i+1 at
time i + 1:
u i
u i+1 = u i cos(n ti ) + sin(n ti )
n
pi pi 1
+ [1 cos(n ti )] + [n ti sin(n ti )] (5.2.4a)
k k n ti
u i+1 u i
= u i sin(n ti ) + cos(n ti )
n n
pi pi 1
+ sin(n ti ) + [1 cos(n ti )] (5.2.4b)
k k n ti
These equations can be rewritten after substituting Eq. (5.2.1b) as recurrence formulas:
u i+1 = Au i + B u i + C pi + Dpi+1 (5.2.5a)
u i+1 = A u i + B  u i + C  pi + D  pi+1 (5.2.5b)
Repeating the derivation above for under-critically damped systems (i.e., < 1)
shows that Eqs. (5.2.5) also apply to damped systems with the expressions for the coeffi-
cients A, B, . . . , D  given in Table 5.2.1. They depend on the system parameters n , k,
and , and on the time interval t ti .
Since the recurrence formulas are derived from exact solution of the equation of
motion, the only restriction on the size of the time step t is that it permit a close approxi-
mation to the excitation function and that it provide response results at closely spaced time
intervals so that the response peaks are not missed. This numerical procedure is especially
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 169

Sec. 5.2 Methods Based on Interpolation of Excitation 169

TABLE 5.2.1 COEFFICIENTS IN RECURRENCE FORMULAS ( < 1)

 

A = e n t  sin D t + cos D t
1 2
 
1
B = e n t sin D t
D
    

1 2 1 2 2 2
C = + e n t  sin D t 1 + cos D t
k n t D t 1 2 n t
  
1 2 2 2 1 2
D= 1 + e n t sin D t + cos D t
k n t D t n t
 
n t n
A = e  sin D t
1 2
 

B  = e n t cos D t  sin D t
1 2
  

1 1 n 1
C = + e n t  +  sin D t + cos D t
k t 1 2 t 1 2 t
  
1
D = 1 e n t  sin D t + cos D t
k t 1 2

useful when the excitation is defined at closely spaced time intervalsas for earthquake
ground accelerationso that the linear interpolation is essentially perfect. If the time step
t is constant, the coefficients A, B, . . . , D  need to be computed only once.
The exact solution of the equation of motion required in this numerical procedure is
feasible only for linear systems. It is conveniently developed for SDF systems, as shown
above, but would be impractical for MDF systems unless their response is obtained as
superposition of modal responses (Chapters 12 and 13).
Example 5.1
An SDF system has the following properties: m = 0.2533 kip-sec2 /in., k = 10 kips/in.,
Tn = 1 sec (n = 6.283 rad/sec), and = 0.05. Determine the response u(t) of this system
to p(t) defined by the half-cycle sine pulse force shown in Fig. E5.1 by (a) using piecewise
linear interpolation of p(t) with t = 0.1 sec, and (b) evaluating the theoretical solution.
Solution
1. Initial calculations

e n t = 0.9691 D = n 1 2 = 6.275
sin D t = 0.5871 cos D t = 0.8095
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 170

170 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

p, kips
10 sin (t / 0.6)
10
10 8.66 8.66
Piecewise linear
interpolation
5 5

t, sec
0.6 Figure E5.1

Substituting these in Table 5.2.1 gives

A = 0.8129 B = 0.09067 C = 0.01236 D = 0.006352

  
A = 3.5795 B = 0.7559 C = 0.1709 D  = 0.1871

2. Apply the recurrence equations (5.2.5). The resulting computations are summarized
in Tables E5.1a and E5.1b.

TABLE E5.1a NUMERICAL SOLUTION USING LINEAR INTERPOLATION OF EXCITATION

ti pi C pi Dpi+1 B u i u i Au i ui Theoretical u i
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0318 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.1 5.0000 0.0618 0.0550 0.0848 0.9354 0.0258 0.0318 0.0328
0.2 8.6602 0.1070 0.0635 0.2782 3.0679 0.1849 0.2274 0.2332
0.3 10.0000 0.1236 0.0550 0.4403 4.8558 0.5150 0.6336 0.6487
0.4 8.6603 0.1070 0.0318 0.4290 4.7318 0.9218 1.1339 1.1605
0.5 5.0000 0.0618 0.0000 0.1753 1.9336 1.2109 1.4896 1.5241
0.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2735 3.0159 1.1771 1.4480 1.4814
0.7 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6767 7.4631 0.7346 0.9037 0.9245
0.8 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8048 8.8765 0.0471 0.0579 0.0593
0.9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6272 6.9177 0.6160 0.7577 0.7751
1.0 0.0000 2.5171 1.2432 1.2718

3. Compute the theoretical response. Equation (3.2.5)valid for t 0.6 sec,

Eq. (2.2.4) modified appropriatelyvalid for t 0.6 sec, and the derivatives of these two
equations are evaluated for each ti ; the results are given in Tables E5.1a and E5.1b.
4. Check the accuracy of the numerical results. The numerical solution based on
piecewise linear interpolation of the excitation agrees reasonably well with the theoretical
solution. The discrepancy arises because the half-cycle sine curve has been replaced by the
series of straight lines shown in Fig. E5.1. With a smaller t the piecewise linear approxima-
tion would be closer to the half-cycle sine curve, and the numerical solution would be more
accurate.
 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 171

Sec. 5.3 Central Difference Method 171

TABLE E5.1b NUMERICAL SOLUTION USING LINEAR INTERPOLATION OF EXCITATION

ti pi C  pi D  pi+1 A u i ui B  u i u i Theoretical u i
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 0.9354 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.1 5.0000 0.8544 1.6201 0.1137 0.0318 0.7071 0.9354 0.9567
0.2 8.6602 1.4799 1.8707 0.8140 0.2274 2.3192 3.0679 3.1383
0.3 10.0000 1.7088 1.6201 2.2679 0.6336 3.6708 4.8558 4.9674
0.4 8.6603 1.4799 0.9354 4.0588 1.1339 3.5771 4.7318 4.8408
0.5 5.0000 0.8544 0.0000 5.3320 1.4896 1.4617 1.9336 1.9783
0.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.1832 1.4480 2.2799 3.0159 3.0848
0.7 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2347 0.9037 5.6418 7.4631 7.6346
0.8 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2074 0.0579 6.7103 8.8765 9.0808
0.9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7124 0.7577 5.2295 6.9177 7.0771
1.0 0.0000 1.2432 2.5171 2.5754

5.3 CENTRAL DIFFERENCE METHOD

This method is based on a finite difference approximation of the time derivatives of dis-
placement (i.e., velocity and acceleration). Taking constant time steps, ti = t, the
central difference expressions for velocity and acceleration at time i are
u i+1 u i1 u i+1 2u i + u i1
u i = u i = (5.3.1)
2t (t)2
Substituting these approximate expressions for velocity and acceleration into Eq. (5.1.3),
specialized for linearly elastic systems, gives
u i+1 2u i + u i1 u i+1 u i1
m +c + ku i = pi (5.3.2)
(t)2 2t
In this equation u i and u i1 are assumed known (from implementation of the pro-
cedure for the preceding time steps). Transferring these known quantities to the right side
leads to
     
m c m c 2m
+ u i+1 = p i u i1 k ui (5.3.3)
(t)2 2t (t)2 2t (t)2
or

ku i+1 = pi (5.3.4)
where
m c
k = + (5.3.5)
(t)2 2t
and
   
m c 2m
pi = pi u i1 k ui (5.3.6)
(t)2 2t (t)2
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 172

172 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

The unknown u i+1 is then given by

pi
u i+1 = (5.3.7)
k
The solution u i+1 at time i + 1 is determined from the equilibrium condition, Eq. (5.1.3),
at time i without using the equilibrium condition, Eq. (5.1.4), at time i + 1. Such methods
are called explicit methods.
Observe in Eq. (5.3.6) that known displacements u i and u i1 are used to compute
u i+1 . Thus u 0 and u 1 are required to determine u 1 ; the specified initial displacement u 0
is known. To determine u 1 , we specialize Eq. (5.3.1) for i = 0 to obtain
u 1 u 1 u 1 2u 0 + u 1
u 0 = u 0 = (5.3.8)
2t (t)2
Solving for u 1 from the first equation and substituting in the second gives
(t)2
u 1 = u 0 t (u 0 ) +
u 0 (5.3.9)
2
The initial displacement u 0 and initial velocity u 0 are given, and the equation of motion at
time 0 (t0 = 0),
m u 0 + cu 0 + ku 0 = p0
provides the acceleration at time 0:
p0 cu 0 ku 0
u 0 = (5.3.10)
m
Table 5.3.1 summarizes the above-described procedure as it might be implemented on the
computer.
The central difference method will blow up, giving meaningless results, in the
presence of numerical round-off if the time step chosen is not short enough. The specific
requirement for stability is
t 1
< (5.3.11)
Tn
This is never a constraint for SDF systems because a much smaller time step should be
chosen to obtain results that are accurate. Typically, t/Tn 0.1 to define the response
adequately, and in most earthquake response analyses even a shorter time step, typically
t = 0.01 to 0.02 sec, is chosen to define the ground acceleration u g (t) accurately.
Example 5.2
Solve Example 5.1 by the central difference method using t = 0.1 sec.
Solution

1.0 Initial calculations

m = 0.2533 k = 10 c = 0.1592
u0 = 0 u 0 = 0
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 173

Sec. 5.3 Central Difference Method 173

p0 cu 0 ku 0
1.1 u 0 = = 0.
m
(t)2
1.2 u 1 = u 0 (t)u 0 + u 0 = 0.
2
m c
1.3 k = + = 26.13.
(t)2 2t
m c
1.4 a= = 24.53.
(t)2 2t
2m
1.5 b=k = 40.66.
(t)2
2.0 Calculations for each time step
2.1 pi = pi au i1 bu i = pi 24.53u i1 + 40.66u i .
pi pi
2.2 u i+1 = = .
k 26.13
3.0 Computational steps 2.1 and 2.2 are repeated for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . leading to Table E5.2,
wherein the theoretical result (from Table E5.1a) is also included.

TABLE 5.3.1 CENTRAL DIFFERENCE METHOD

1.0 Initial calculations

p0 cu 0 ku 0
1.1 u 0 = .
m
(t)2
1.2 u 1 = u 0 t u 0 + u 0 .
2
m c
1.3 k = + .
(t)2 2t
m c
1.4 a = .
(t) 2 2t
2m
1.5 b = k .
(t)2
2.0 Calculations for time step i
2.1 pi = pi au i1 bu i .
pi
2.2 u i+1 = .
k
u i+1 u i1 u i+1 2u i + u i1
2.3 If required: u i = ; u i = .
2t (t)2
3.0 Repetition for the next time step
Replace i by i + 1 and repeat steps 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 for the next time step.

If the excitation is ground acceleration u (t), according to Eq. (1.7.6), replace p by m u in Ta-
g i gi
ble 5.3.1. The computed u i , u i , and u i give response values relative to the ground. If needed, the total velocity
and acceleration can be computed readily: u it = u i + u gi and u it = u i + u gi .
 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 174

174 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

TABLE E5.2 NUMERICAL SOLUTION BY CENTRAL DIFFERENCE METHOD

pi u i+1
ti pi u i1 ui [Eq. (2.1)] [Eq. (2.2)] Theoretical u i+1
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0328
0.1 5.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.0000 0.1914 0.2332
0.2 8.6602 0.0000 0.1914 16.4419 0.6293 0.6487
0.3 10.0000 0.1914 0.6293 30.8934 1.1825 1.1605
0.4 8.6603 0.6293 1.1825 41.3001 1.5808 1.5241
0.5 5.0000 1.1825 1.5808 40.2649 1.5412 1.4814
0.6 0.0000 1.5808 1.5412 23.8809 0.9141 0.9245
0.7 0.0000 1.5412 0.9141 0.6456 0.0247 0.0593
0.8 0.0000 0.9141 0.0247 23.4309 0.8968 0.7751
0.9 0.0000 0.0247 0.8968 35.8598 1.3726 1.2718
1.0 0.0000 0.8968 1.3726 33.8058 1.2940 1.2674

5.4 NEWMARKS METHOD

5.4.1 Basic Procedure

In 1959, N. M. Newmark developed a family of time-stepping methods based on the fol-

lowing equations:
u i+1 = u i + [(1 ) t] u i + ( t)u i+1 (5.4.1a)
 
u i+1 = u i + (t)u i + (0.5 )(t)2 u i + (t)2 u i+1 (5.4.1b)
The parameters and define the variation of acceleration over a time step and determine
the stability and accuracy characteristics of the method. Typical selection for is 12 and
1
6
14 is satisfactory from all points of view, including that of accuracy. These
two equations, combined with the equilibrium equation (5.1.4) at the end of the time step,
provide the basis for computing u i+1 , u i+1 , and u i+1 at time i + 1 from the known u i ,
u i , and u i at time i. Iteration is required to implement these computations because the
unknown u i+1 appears in the right side of Eq. (5.4.1).
For linear systems it is possible to modify Newmarks original formulation, however,
to permit solution of Eqs. (5.4.1) and (5.1.4) without iteration. Before describing this
modification, we demonstrate that two special cases of Newmarks method are the well-
known average acceleration and linear acceleration methods.

5.4.2 Special Cases

For these two methods, Table 5.4.1 summarizes the development of the relationship be-
tween responses u i+1 , u i+1 , and u i+1 at time i + 1 to the corresponding quantities at
time i. Equation (5.4.2) describes the assumptions that the variation of acceleration over
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 175

Sec. 5.4 Newmarks Method 175

TABLE 5.4.1 AVERAGE ACCELERATION AND LINEAR ACCELERATION METHODS

Average Acceleration Linear Acceleration

u u

ui+1 ui+1

ui ui

t t
ti ti+1 ti ti+1

t t

u( ) = 12 (u i+1 + u i ) u( ) = u i + t (u i+1 u i ) (5.4.2)
2
u( ) = u i + 2 (u i+1 + u i ) u( ) = u i + u i + 2t (u i+1 u i ) (5.4.3)
t t
u i+1 = u i + 2 (u i+1 + u i ) u i+1 = u i + 2 (u i+1 + u i ) (5.4.4)

u( ) = u i + u i + u i 2 +
2 2 3
u( ) = u i + u i + 4 (u i+1 + u i ) 6t (u i+1 u i ) (5.4.5)
(t)2
 
u i+1 = u i + u i t + 4 (u i+1 + u i ) u i+1 = u i + u i t + (t) 2 1
6 u i+1 + 13 u i (5.4.6)

a time step is constant, equal to the average acceleration, or linear. Integration of u( )

gives Eq. (5.4.3) for the variation u( ) of velocity over the time step in which = t is
substituted to obtain Eq. (5.4.4) for the velocity u i+1 at time i +1. Integration of u( ) gives
Eq. (5.4.5) for the variation u( ) of displacement over the time step in which = t is sub-
stituted to obtain Eq. (5.4.6) for the displacement u i+1 at time i +1. Comparing Eqs. (5.4.4)
and (5.4.6) with Eq. (5.4.1) demonstrates that Newmarks equations with = 12 and
= 14 are the same as those derived assuming constant average acceleration, and those
with = 12 and = 16 correspond to the assumption of linear variation of acceleration.

5.4.3 Noniterative Formulation

We now return to Eq. (5.4.1) and reformulate it to avoid iteration and to use incremental
quantities:
u i u i+1 u i u i u i+1 u i u i u i+1 u i (5.4.7)

pi pi+1 pi (5.4.8)

While the incremental form is not necessary for analysis of linear systems, it is introduced
because it provides a convenient extension to nonlinear systems. Equation (5.4.1) can be
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 176

176 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

rewritten as
(t)2
u i = (t) u i + ( t) u i u i = (t)u i + u i + (t)2 u i (5.4.9)
2
The second of these equations can be solved for
1 1 1
u i = u i u i u i (5.4.10)
(t) 2 t 2
Substituting Eq. (5.4.10) into Eq. (5.4.9a) gives
 

u i = u i u i + t 1 u i (5.4.11)
t 2
Next, Eqs. (5.4.10) and (5.4.11) are substituted into the incremental equation of motion:
m u i + c u i + k u i = pi (5.4.12)
obtained by subtracting Eq. (5.1.3) from Eq. (5.1.4), both specialized to linear systems
with ( f S )i = ku i and ( f S )i+1 = ku i+1 . This substitution gives
k u i =  pi (5.4.13)
where
1
k = k + c+ m (5.4.14)
t (t)2
and
     
1 1
 pi = pi + m + c u i + m + t 1 c u i (5.4.15)
t 2 2

With k and  pi known from the system properties m, k, and c, algorithm parameters
and , and the u i and u i at the beginning of the time step, the incremental displacement is
computed from
 pi
u i = (5.4.16)
k
Once u i is known, u i and u i can be computed from Eqs. (5.4.11) and (5.4.10), re-
spectively, and u i+1 , u i+1 , and u i+1 from Eq. (5.4.7).
The acceleration can also be obtained from the equation of motion at time i + 1:
pi+1 cu i+1 ku i+1
u i+1 = (5.4.17)
m
rather than by Eqs. (5.4.10) and (5.4.7). Equation (5.4.17) is needed to obtain u 0 to start
the computations [see Eq. (5.3.10)].
In Newmarks method the solution at time i + 1 is determined from Eq. (5.4.12),
which is equivalent to the use of the equilibrium condition, Eq. (5.1.4), at time i + 1. Such
methods are called implicit methods.
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 177

Sec. 5.4 Newmarks Method 177

Table 5.4.2 summarizes the time-stepping solution using Newmarks method as it

might be implemented on the computer.

TABLE 5.4.2 NEWMARKS METHOD: LINEAR SYSTEMS

Special cases
(1) Average acceleration method ( = 12 , = 14 )
(2) Linear acceleration method ( = 12 , = 16 )

1.0 Initial calculations

p0 cu 0 ku 0
1.1 u 0 = .
m
1.2 Select t.
1
1.3 k = k + c+ m.
t (t)2  
1 1
1.4 a = m + c; and b = m + t 1 c.
t 2 2
2.0 Calculations for each time step, i
2.1  pi = pi + a u i + bu i .
 pi
2.2 u i = .
k  

2.3 u i = u i u i + t 1 u i .
t 2
1 1 1
2.4 u i = u i u i u i .
(t)2 t 2
2.5 u i+1 = u i + u i , u i+1 = u i + u i , u i+1 = u i + u i .
3.0 Repetition for the next time step. Replace i by i + 1 and implement steps 2.1 to 2.5 for the
next time step.

Newmarks method is stable if

t 1 1
(5.4.18)
Tn 2 2
For = 1
2
and = 1
4
this condition becomes
t
< (5.4.19a)
Tn

If the excitation is ground acceleration u (t), according to Eq. (1.7.6), replace p by m u in Ta-
g i gi
ble 5.4.2. The computed u i , u i , and u i give response values relative to the ground. If needed, the total velocity
and acceleration can be computed readily: u it = u i + u gi and u it = u i + u gi .
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 178

178 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

This implies that the average acceleration method is stable for any t, no matter how large;
however, it is accurate only if t is small enough, as discussed at the end of Section 5.3.
For = 12 and = 16 , Eq. (5.4.18) indicates that the linear acceleration method is stable if
t
0.551 (5.4.19b)
Tn
However, as in the case of the central difference method, this condition has little signifi-
cance in the analysis of SDF systems because a much shorter time step than 0.551Tn must
be used to obtain an accurate representation of the excitation and response.
Example 5.3
Solve Example 5.1 by the average acceleration method using t = 0.1 sec.
Solution

1.0 Initial calculations

m = 0.2533 k = 10 c = 0.1592
u0 = 0 u 0 = 0 p0 = 0
p0 cu 0 ku 0
1.1 u 0 = = 0.
m
1.2 t = 0.1.
2 4
1.3 k = k + c+ m = 114.5.
t (t)2
4
1.4 a = m + 2c = 10.45; and b = 2m = 0.5066.
t
2.0 Calculations for each time step
2.1  pi = pi + a u i + bu i = pi + 10.45u i + 0.5066u i .
 pi  pi
2.2 u i = = .
k 114.5
2
2.3 u i = u i 2u i = 20u i 2u i .
t
4
2.4 u i = (u i t u i ) 2u i = 400(u i 0.1u i ) 2u i .
(t)2
2.5 u i+1 = u i + u i , u i+1 = u i + u i , u i+1 = u i + u i .

3.0 Repetition for the next time step. Steps 2.1 to 2.5 are repeated for successive time steps
and are summarized in Table E5.3, where the theoretical result (from Table E5.1a) is
also included.

Example 5.4
Solve Example 5.1 by the linear acceleration method using t = 0.1 sec.
Solution

1.0 Initial calculations

m = 0.2533 k = 10 c = 0.1592
u0 = 0 u 0 = 0 p0 = 0
 ICC Oregon
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000
(503) 221-9911

TABLE E5.3 NUMERICAL SOLUTION BY AVERAGE ACCELERATION METHOD

14:14

u i  pi u i u i u i u i ui Theoretical
ti pi (Step 2.5) pi (Step 2.1) (Step 2.2) (Step 2.3) (Step 2.4) (Step 2.5) (Step 2.5) ui
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 5.0000 5.0000 0.0437 0.8733 17.4666 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.1 5.0000 17.4666 3.6603 21.6356 0.1890 2.0323 5.7137 0.8733 0.0437 0.0328
0.2 8.6602 23.1803 1.3398 43.4485 0.3794 1.7776 10.8078 2.9057 0.2326 0.2332
0.3 10.0000 12.3724 1.3397 53.8708 0.4705 0.0428 23.8893 4.6833 0.6121 0.6487
0.4 8.6603 11.5169 3.6602 39.8948 0.3484 2.4839 26.6442 4.7261 1.0825 1.1605
0.5 5.0000 38.1611 5.0000 0.9009 0.0079 4.6417 16.5122 2.2422 1.4309 1.5241
Page 179

0.6 0.0000 54.6733 0.0000 52.7740 0.4609 4.4187 20.9716 2.3995 1.4231 1.4814
0.7 0.0000 33.7017 0.0000 88.3275 0.7714 1.7912 31.5787 6.8183 0.9622 0.9245
0.8 0.0000 2.1229 0.0000 91.0486 0.7952 1.3159 30.5646 8.6095 0.1908 0.0593
0.9 0.0000 28.4417 0.0000 61.8123 0.5398 3.7907 18.9297 7.2936 0.6044 0.7751
1.0 0.0000 47.3714 3.5029 1.1442 1.2718

179
 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 180

180 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

p0 cu 0 ku 0
1.1 u 0 = = 0.
m
1.2 t = 0.1.
3 6
1.3 k = k + c+ m = 166.8.
t (t)2
6 t
1.4 a = m + 3c = 15.68; and b = 3m + c = 0.7679.
t 2
2.0 Calculations for each time step
2.1  pi = pi + a u i + bu i = pi + 15.68u i + 0.7679u i .
 pi  pi
2.2 u i = = .
k 166.8
3 t
2.3 u i = u i 3u i u i = 30u i 3u i 0.05u i .
t 2
6
2.4 u i = (u i t u i ) 3u i = 600(u i 0.1u i ) 3u i .
(t)2
2.5 u i+1 = u i + u i , u i+1 = u i + u i , u i+1 = u i + u i .

3.0 Repetition for the next time step. Steps 2.1 to 2.5 are repeated for successive time steps
and are summarized in Table E5.4, where the theoretical result(from Table E5.1a) is
also included.

5.5 STABILITY AND COMPUTATIONAL ERROR

5.5.1 Stability

Numerical procedures that lead to bounded solutions if the time step is shorter than some
stability limit are called conditionally stable procedures. Procedures that lead to bounded
solutions regardless of the time-step length are called unconditionally stable procedures.
The average acceleration method is unconditionally stable. The linear acceleration method
is stable if t/Tn < 0.551, and the central difference method is stable if t/Tn < 1/ .
Obviously, the latter two methods are conditionally stable.
The stability criteria are not restrictive (i.e., they do not dictate the choice of time
step) in the analysis of SDF systems because t/Tn must be considerably smaller than
the stability limit (say, 0.1 or less) to ensure adequate accuracy in the numerical results.
Stability of the numerical method is important, however, in the analysis of MDF systems,
where it is often necessary to use unconditionally stable methods (Chapter 15).

5.5.2 Computational Error

Error is inherent in any numerical solution of the equation of motion. We do not discuss
error analysis from a mathematical point of view. Rather, we examine two important char-
acteristics of numerical solutions to develop a feel for the nature of the errors, and then
mention a simple, useful way of managing error.
 ICC Oregon
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000
(503) 221-9911

TABLE E5.4 NUMERICAL SOLUTION BY LINEAR ACCELERATION METHOD

14:14

u i  pi u i u i u i u i ui Theoretical
ti pi (Step 2.5) pi (Step 2.1) (Step 2.2) (Step 2.3) (Step 2.4) (Step 2.5) (Step 2.5) ui
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 5.0000 5.0000 0.0300 0.8995 17.9903 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.1 5.0000 17.9903 3.6603 31.5749 0.1893 2.0824 5.6666 0.8995 0.0300 0.0328
0.2 8.6602 23.6569 1.3398 66.2479 0.3973 1.7897 11.5191 2.9819 0.2193 0.2332
0.3 10.0000 12.1378 1.3397 82.7784 0.4964 0.0296 24.8677 4.7716 0.6166 0.6487
0.4 8.6603 12.7299 3.6602 60.8987 0.3652 2.6336 27.2127 4.7420 1.1130 1.1605
0.5 5.0000 39.9426 5.0000 2.6205 0.0157 4.7994 16.1033 2.1084 1.4782 1.5241
Page 181

0.6 0.0000 56.0459 0.0000 85.2198 0.5110 4.4558 22.9749 2.6911 1.4625 1.4814
0.7 0.0000 33.0710 0.0000 137.4264 0.8241 1.6292 33.5584 7.1469 0.9514 0.9245
0.8 0.0000 0.4874 0.0000 137.1965 0.8227 1.6218 31.4613 8.7761 0.1273 0.0593
0.9 0.0000 31.9487 0.0000 87.6156 0.5254 4.1031 18.1644 7.1543 0.6954 0.7751
1.0 0.0000 50.1130 3.0512 1.2208 1.2718

181
 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 182

182 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

1 Theoretical
Average
Central acceleration
difference

0
u

Linear
acceleration
Wilson

1
0 1 2 3
t/Tn

Figure 5.5.1 Free vibration solution by four numerical methods (t/Tn = 0.1) and the theoretical
solution.

Consider the free vibration problem

m u + ku = 0 u(0) = 1 and u(0) = 0

for which the theoretical solution is

u(t) = cos n t (5.5.1)

This problem is solved by four numerical methods: central difference method, av-
erage acceleration method, linear acceleration method, and Wilsons method. The last of
these methods is presented in Chapter 15. The numerical results obtained using t =
0.1Tn are compared with the theoretical solution in Fig. 5.5.1. This comparison shows that
some numerical methods may predict that the displacement amplitude decays with time,
although the system is undamped, and that the natural period is elongated or shortened.
Figure 5.5.2 shows the amplitude decay AD and period elongation PE in the four
numerical methods as a function of t/Tn ; AD and PE are defined in parts (b) and (c)
of the figure, respectively. The mathematical analyses that led to these data are not pre-
sented, however. Three of the methods predict no decay of displacement amplitude. Wil-
sons method contains decay of amplitude, however, implying that this method introduces
numerical damping in the system; the equivalent viscous damping ratio is shown in
part (a) of the figure. Observe the rapid increase in the period error in the central differ-
ence method near t/Tn = 1/ , the stability limit for the method. The central difference
method introduces the largest period error. In this sense it is the least accurate of the meth-
ods considered. For t/Tn less than its stability limit, the linear acceleration method gives
the least period elongation. This property, combined with no amplitude decay, make this
method the most suitable method (of the methods presented) for SDF systems. However,
 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 183

Sec. 5.5 Stability and Computational Error 183

(a) (c)
0.5 0.1 0.5

0.4 Wilsons method 0.08 0.4 Wilsons method

( = 1.4) ( = 1.4)

0.3 0.06 0.3

AD

Average

PE = (Tn - Tn) / Tn
0.2 0.04 0.2 acceleration

0.1 0.02 0.1 Linear

Central difference acceleration
Linear acceleration
Average acceleration
0 0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
t / Tn
u (b) -0.1
Central
1 AD difference

Numerical method
0 t
Tn T n -0.2
Exact
-1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
t / Tn

Figure 5.5.2 (a) Amplitude decay versus t/Tn ; (b) definition of AD and PE; (c) period elongation
versus t/Tn .

we shall arrive at a different conclusion for MDF systems because of stability requirements
(Chapter 15).
The choice of time step also depends on the time variation of the dynamic excita-
tion, in addition to the natural vibration period of the system. Figure 5.5.2 suggests that
t = 0.1Tn would give reasonably accurate results. The time step should also be short
enough to keep the distortion of the excitation function to a minimum. A very fine time
step is necessary to describe numerically the highly irregular earthquake ground acceler-
ation recorded during earthquakes; typically, t = 0.02 sec and the time step chosen for
computing structural response should not be longer.
One useful, although unsophisticated technique for selecting the time step is to solve
the problem with a time step that seems reasonable, then repeat the solution with a slightly
smaller time step and compare the results, continuing the process until two successive
solutions are close enough.
 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 184

184 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

The preceding discussion of stability and accuracy applies strictly to linear systems.
The reader should consult other references for how these issues affect nonlinear response
analysis.

5.6 ANALYSIS OF NONLINEAR RESPONSE: CENTRAL

DIFFERENCE METHOD

The dynamic response of a system beyond its linearly elastic range is generally not amen-
able to analytical solution even if the time variation of the excitation is described by a
simple function. Numerical methods are therefore essential in the analysis of nonlinear
systems. The central difference method can easily be adapted for solving the nonlinear
equation of motion, Eq. (5.1.3), at time i. Substituting Eqs. (5.3.1), the central difference
approximation for velocity and acceleration, gives Eq. (5.3.2) with ku i replaced by ( f S )i ,
which can be rewritten to obtain the following expression for response at time i + 1:
ku i+1 = pi (5.6.1)
where
m c
k = + (5.6.2)
(t) 2 2t
and
 
m c 2m
pi = pi u i1 ( f S )i + ui (5.6.3)
(t) 2 2t (t)2
Comparing these equations with those for linear systems, it is seen that the only difference
is in the definition for pi . With this modification Table 5.3.1 also applies to nonlinear
systems.
The resisting force ( f S )i appears explicitly as it depends only on the response at time
i, not on the unknown response at time i + 1. Thus it is easily calculated, making the
central difference method perhaps the simplest procedure for nonlinear systems. Although
attractive in this regard, the method is not popular for practical or research applications
because more effective methods are available.

5.7 ANALYSIS OF NONLINEAR RESPONSE: NEWMARKS METHOD

In this section Newmarks method, described in Section 5.4 for linear systems, is extended
to nonlinear systems. Although not as simple as the central difference method, it is per-
haps the most popular method for earthquake response analysis because of its superior
accuracy.
The difference between Eqs. (5.1.3) and (5.1.4) gives an incremental equilibrium
equation:
m u i + c u i + ( f S )i = pi (5.7.1)
 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 185

Sec. 5.7 Analysis of Nonlinear Response: Newmarks Method 185

fS

(ki)sec
(ki)T
1
1
(fS)i+1

(fS)i

(fS)i

ui

u
ui ui+1 Figure 5.7.1

The incremental resisting force

( f S )i = (ki )sec u i (5.7.2)
where the secant stiffness (ki )sec , shown in Fig. 5.7.1, cannot be determined because u i+1
is not known. If we make the assumption that over a small time step t, the secant stiffness
(ki )sec could be replaced by the tangent stiffness (ki )T shown in Fig. 5.7.1, then Eq. (5.7.2)
could be approximated by
( f S )i  (ki )T u i (5.7.3)
Dropping the subscript T from (ki )T in Eq. (5.7.3) and substituting it in Eq. (5.7.1) gives
m u i + c u i + ki u i = pi (5.7.4)
The similarity between this equation and the corresponding equation for linear systems,
Eq. (5.4.12), suggests that the noniterative formulation of Newmarks method presented
earlier for linear systems may also be used in the analysis of nonlinear response. All that
needs to be done is to replace k in Eq. (5.4.14) by the tangent stiffness ki to be evalu-
ated at the beginning of each time step. This change implies that step 1.3 of Table 5.4.2
should follow step 2.1. For nonlinear systems step 2.5 and Eq. (5.4.17) would give dif-
ferent values of u i+1 , and the latter value is preferable because it satisfies equilibrium at
time i + 1.
This procedure with a constant time step t can lead to unacceptably inaccurate
results. Significant errors arise for two reasons: (1) the tangent stiffness was used instead
of the secant stiffness, and (2) use of a constant time step delays detection of the transitions
in the forcedeformation relationship.
First, we consider the second source of error, illustrated by the forcedeformation
relation of Fig. 5.7.2a. Suppose that the displacement at time i, the beginning of a time
step, is u i and the velocity u i is positive (i.e., the displacement is increasing); this is shown
by point a. Application of the previously described numerical procedure for the time step
results in displacement u i+1 and velocity u i+1 at time i + 1; this is shown by point b.
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 186

186 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

fS fS
b Numerical
b
a b
c b Exact
c Numerical a
Exact

u u
ui ui+1 ui ui+1

(a) (b)

Figure 5.7.2

If u i+1 is negative, then at some point b during the time step, the velocity became zero,
changed sign, and the displacement started decreasing. In the numerical procedure, if we
do not bother to locate b , continue with the computations by starting the next time step at
point b, and use the tangent stiffness associated with the unloading branch of the force
deformation diagram, this procedure locates the point c at the end of the next time step with
displacement u i+2 and negative velocity. On the other hand, if the time instant associated
with b when the velocity actually became zerocould be determined, computations for
the next time step would start with the state of the system at b and give the displacement
and velocity at the end of the time step, identified as c . Not locating b has the effect
of overshooting to b and not following the exact path on the forcedeformation diagram.
These departures from the exact path would occur at each reversal of velocity, leading
to errors in the numerical results. A similar problem arises at other sharp corners in the
forcedeformation relationship, as in elastoplastic systems.
These errors could be avoided by locating b accurately. This could be achieved by
retracing the integration over the time interval ti to ti+1 with a smaller time step, say, t/4.
Alternatively, an iterative process may be used in which integration is resumed from time
i with a step smaller than the full time step, whose size is progressively adjusted so that at
the end of such an adjusted time step, the velocity is close to zero.
Now, we return to the first source of error that is associated with the use of tan-
gent stiffness instead of the unknown secant stiffness, and is illustrated by the force
deformation relation of Fig. 5.7.2b. The displacement at time i, the beginning of a time
step, is shown as point a. Using the tangent stiffness at a, numerical integration from time
i to time i + 1 leads to the displacement u i+1 , identified as point b. If we were able to
follow the curve exactly, the result may have been the displacement at b . This discrepancy
accumulating over a series of time steps may introduce significant errors.
These errors can be minimized by using an iterative procedure. The key equation
that is solved at each time step in Newmarks method is Eq. (5.4.13), which, modified for
nonlinear systems, becomes
ki u i =  pi (5.7.5)
 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 187

Sec. 5.7 Analysis of Nonlinear Response: Newmarks Method 187

where  pi is given by Eq. (5.4.15) and

1
ki = ki + c+ m (5.7.6)
t (t)2
For convenience in notation we drop the subscript i in ki and replace it by T to empha-
size that this is the tangent stiffness; also, the subscript i is dropped from u i and  pi .
Equations (5.7.5) and (5.7.6) then become

k T u =  p (5.7.7)

and
1
k T = k T + c+ m (5.7.8)
t (t)2
Figure 5.7.3a shows a schematic plot of Eq. (5.7.7). The relationship is nonlinear because
the tangent stiffness k T depends on the displacement u and hence the slope k T is not con-
stant. In static analysis of a nonlinear system, k T = k T and the nonlinearity in k T is the
same as in k T . In dynamic analysis the presence of mass and damping terms in k T de-
creases the nonlinearity because the constant term m/(t)2 for typical values of t is
usually much larger than k T .

p^ R(4) p^ R(3) R(4)

1 2 3 1 2 3
R(3)

R(2) R(2) (2) ^
f kT(3)
f (3)
f (3) ^
kT(2)
p^ f (2) p^
f (1)
f (1)

^ ^
kT kT(1)

u(1) u(2) u(3) u(1) u(2) u(3)

u u

(a) (b)

Figure 5.7.3 Iteration within a time step for nonlinear systems: (a) modified NewtonRaphson
iteration; (b) NewtonRaphson iteration.

The iterative procedure is described next with reference to Fig. 5.7.3a. The first
iterative step is the application of Eq. (5.7.7) in the procedure described previously:
k T u (1) =  p (5.7.9)
to determine u (1) (corresponding to point b in Fig. 5.7.2b), the first approximation to the
final u (corresponding to point b in Fig. 5.7.2b). Associated with u (1) is the true force
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 188

188 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

 f (1) , which is less than  p, and a residual force is defined: R (2) =  p  f (1) . The
additional displacement u (2) due to this residual force is determined from
k T u (2) = R (2) =  p  f (1) (5.7.10)
This additional displacement is used to find a new value of the residual force, and the
process is continued until convergence is achieved. This iterative process for the time step
i to i + 1, summarized in Table 5.7.1, is known as the modified NewtonRaphson method.

TABLE 5.7.1 MODIFIED NEWTONRAPHSON ITERATION

1.0 Initialize data.

(0) (0)
u i+1 = u i fS = ( f S )i R (1) =  pi k T = ki

2.0 Calculations for each iteration, j = 1, 2, 3, . . .

2.1 Solve: k T u ( j) = R ( j) u ( j) .
( j) ( j1)
2.2 u i+1 = u i+1 + u ( j) .
( j) ( j1)
2.3  f ( j) = f S fS + (k T k T ) u ( j) .
2.4 R ( j+1) = R ( j)  f ( j) .

3.0 Repetition for next iteration. Replace j by j + 1 and repeat calculation steps 2.1 to 2.4.

The equation in step 2.3 is not obvious. Instead of a formal derivation we provide an
intuitive interpretation. In static analysis of a nonlinear system k T = k T and  p = p in
Eq. (5.7.7) and the pu plot in Fig. 5.7.3a reduces to a p (or f S )u plot. In static analysis,
( j) ( j1)
therefore,  f ( j) = f S f S . The remaining terms in the equation of step 2.3 come
from the dynamics of the system, as reflected by the terms involving c and m in Eq. (5.7.8),
which can be expressed as (k T k T ).
The iterative process is terminated after  iterations when the incremental  displace-
ment u () becomes small enough compared to the current estimate of u = j=1 u ( j) ;
that is,
u ()
<
u
Then the displacement increment over the time step i to i + 1 is given by


u i = u ( j) (5.7.11)
j=1

This is an accurate value of u i that replaces the one obtained without iteration from
Eq. (5.7.5); the latter is the same as u (1) obtained after one iteration.
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 189

Sec. 5.7 Analysis of Nonlinear Response: Newmarks Method 189

With u i known, the rest of the computation proceeds as before; in particular, u i

and u i are determined from Eqs. (5.4.10) and (5.4.11), respectively. Table 5.7.2 summa-
rizes the time-stepping solution as it might be implemented on the computer.

TABLE 5.7.2 NEWMARKS METHOD: NONLINEAR SYSTEMS

Special cases

(1) Average acceleration method ( = 12 , = 14 )

(2) Linear acceleration method ( = 12 , = 16 )
1.0 Initial calculations
p0 cu 0 ( f S )0
1.1 u 0 = .
m
1.2 Select t.  
1 1
1.3 a = m + c; and b = m + t 1 c.
t 2 2
2.0 Calculations for each time step, i

2.1  pi = pi + a u i + bu i .

2.2 Determine the tangent stiffness ki .

1
2.3 ki = ki + c+ m.
t (t)2
2.4 Solve for u i from ki and  pi  using theiterative procedure of Table 5.7.1.

2.5 u i = u i u i + t 1 u i .
t 2
1 1 1
2.6 u i = u i u i u i .
(t)2 t 2
2.7 u i+1 = u i + u i , u i+1 = u i + u i , u i+1 = u i + u i .

3.0 Repetition for the next time step. Replace i by i + 1 and implement steps 2.1 to 2.7 for the
next time step.

The original NewtonRaphson method converges more rapidly, as illustrated in

Fig. 5.7.3b, than the above-described iterative process at the expense of additional com-
putation. This improved convergence is achieved by using in each iteration the current
( j) ( j)
tangent stiffness k T and the associated value of k T from Eq. (5.7.8) instead of k T and
k T . At each iteration the residual force vector R ( j) is now smaller, as seen by comparing
parts (a) and (b) of Fig. 5.7.3, and the process will converge in fewer iterations. It requires,
however, that the tangent stiffness be evaluated at each iteration, involving additional com-
putation, which can be significant for MDF systems (Chapter 15).
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 190

190 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

Example 5.5
An SDF system has the same properties as in Example 5.1, except that the restoring force
deformation relation is elastoplastic with yield deformation u y = 0.75 in. (Fig. E5.5). Deter-
mine the response u(t) of this system (starting from rest) to the half-cycle sine pulse force in
Fig. E5.1 using the average acceleration method without iteration.

fS, kips

a b
7.5

e
10
1 u, in.
o
0.75
10
10
1
1
-7.5
d c
Figure E5.5

Solution

1.0 Initial calculations

m = 0.2533 k0 = 10 c = 0.1592
u0 = 0 u 0 = 0 p0 = 0
p0 cu 0 k0 u 0
1.1 u 0 = = 0.
m
1.2 t = 0.1.
4
1.3 a = m + 2c = 10.45; and b = 2m = 0.5066.
t
2.0 Calculations for each time step, i
2.1  pi = pi + a u i + bu i = pi + 10.45u i + 0.5066u i .
2.2 ki = k for branches oa, bc, and de; and ki = 0 for ab and cd.
2 4
2.3 ki = ki + c+ m = ki + 104.5.
t (t)2
 pi
2.4 u i = .
ki
2
2.5 u i = u i 2u i = 20u i 2u i .
t
2.6 u i+1 = u i + u i ; and u i+1 = u i + u i .
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 191

Sec. 5.7 Analysis of Nonlinear Response: Newmarks Method 191

2.7 ( f S )i+1 = ( f S )i + ki u i .
pi+1 cu i+1 ( f S )i+1
2.8 u i+1 = .
m

In this procedure without iteration the acceleration is computed by steps 2.7 and 2.8
above, instead of step 2.7 in Table 5.7.2, to ensure dynamic equilibrium at the end of the time
step.

3.0 Repetition for the next time step. Steps 2.1 to 2.8 are repeated for successive time steps
and are summarized in Table E5.5.

TABLE E5.5 NUMERICAL SOLUTION BY AVERAGE ACCELERATION METHOD WITHOUT

ITERATION

u i  pi ki u i u i ui
ti pi ( f S )i (Step 2.8) (Step 2.1) ki (Step 2.3) (Step 2.4) (Step 2.6) (Step 2.6)
0.0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.0000 10 114.5043 0.0437 0.0000 0.0000
0.1 5.0000 0.4367 17.4666 21.6356 10 114.5043 0.1890 0.8733 0.0437
0.2 8.6602 2.3262 23.1803 43.4485 10 114.5043 0.3794 2.9057 0.2326
0.3 10.0000 6.1207 12.3724 53.8708 10 114.5043 0.4705 4.6833 0.6121
0.4 8.6603 7.5000 1.6110 46.5455 0 104.5043 0.4454 4.7261 1.0825
0.5 5.0000 7.5000 12.4970 32.3703 0 104.5043 0.3098 4.1818 1.5279
0.6 0.0000 7.5000 30.8738 5.3984 0 104.5043 0.0517 2.0132 1.8377
0.7 0.0000 7.5000 28.9930 24.9304 10 114.5043 0.2177 0.9801 1.8893
0.8 0.0000 5.3228 18.8932 44.8354 10 114.5043 0.3916 3.3744 1.6716
0.9 0.0000 1.4071 2.7549 47.9712 10 114.5043 0.4189 4.4568 1.2801

Example 5.6
Repeat Example 5.5 using modified NewtonRaphson iteration within each time step of t =
0.1 sec.
Solution The procedure of Tables 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 is implemented for this example. Com-
putational steps 1.1 to 2.3 of Table 5.7.2 are identical to those in Example 5.5. Step 2.4 is
now accomplished using the iterative procedure of Table 5.7.1. Step 2.5 is the same, and is
followed by steps 2.6 and 2.7c:

4 4
2.6 u i = u i u i 2u i = 400u i 40u i 2u i
(t)2 t
2.7c u i+1 = u i + u i

The calculations for the first 0.9 sec are shown in Table E5.6. During the first three time
steps, u i < u y = 0.75 in. (i.e., the system is linear) and iteration does not change the results.
In fact, iteration in each of these time steps converges in one cycle, giving results identical to
step 2.4 of Example 5.5. If the stiffness (or damping) changes during a time step, more than
one iteration is required for convergence.
 Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 192

192 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

TABLE E5.6 NUMERICAL SOLUTION BY AVERAGE ACCELERATION METHOD WITH ITERATION

 pi u i ui
( j)
ti pi ( f S )i or R ( j) ki ki or u ( j) u i u i or u i+1

0.0 0.0000 0.0000 5.0000 10 114.5043 0.0437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.1 5.0000 0.4367 21.6356 10 114.5043 0.1890 0.8733 17.4666 0.0437
0.2 8.6602 2.3262 43.4485 10 114.5043 0.3794 2.9057 23.1803 0.2326
0.3 10.0000 6.1207 53.8708 10 114.5043 0.4705 4.6833 12.3724 0.6121
3.3254 0.0290 1.1116
0.2904 0.0025 1.1141
0.0254 0.0002 1.1143
0.22E02 0.19E04 1.1143
0.4 8.6603 7.5000 52.9849 0 104.5043 0.5070 5.3621 1.2027 1.1143
0.5 5.0000 7.5000 38.4086 0 104.5043 0.3675 4.7782 12.8805 1.6213
0.6 0.0000 7.5000 11.0600 0 104.5043 0.1058 2.5725 31.2339 1.9889
0.7 0.0000 7.5000 19.6226 10 114.5043 0.1714 0.4558 29.3312 2.0947
0.8 0.0000 5.7863 41.6857 10 114.5043 0.3641 2.9716 20.9850 1.9233
0.9 0.0000 2.1458 47.9600 10 114.5043 0.4188 4.3095 5.7722 1.5593

As an example, consider the time step that begins at 0.3 sec and ends at 0.4 sec. The
calculations of Table 5.7.1 are implemented as follows.

1.0 Initialize data

(0) (0)
u i+1 = 0.6121 fS = 6.1207

R (1) =  pi = 53.8708 k T = 114.5043

2.0 First iteration, j = 1
53.8708
2.1 k T u (1) = R (1) , or u (1) = = 0.4705.
114.5043
(1) (0)
2.2 u i+1 = u i+1 + u (1) = 0.6121 + 0.4705 = 1.0826.
(1) (0) a
2.3  f (1) = f S f S + u (1)
t
= 7.500 6.1207 + (104.5043)0.4705 = 50.5454.
2.4 R (2) = R (1)  f (1) = 53.8708 50.5454 = 3.3254.

2.0 Second iteration, j = 2

3.3254
2.1 k T u (2) = R (2) , or u (2) = = 0.02904.
114.5043
(2) (1)
2.2 u i+1 = u i+1 + u (2) = 1.0825 + 0.02904 = 1.1116.
(2) (1) a
2.3  f (2) = f S f S + u (2)
t
= 7.500 7.500 + (104.5043)0.02904 = 3.0349.
2.4 R (3) = R (2)  f (2) = 3.3254 3.0349 = 0.2904.
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 193

Chap. 5 Problems 193

2.0 Third iteration, j = 3

0.2904
2.1 k T u (3) = R (3) , or u (3) = = 0.0025.
114.5043

and so on. These calculations and those for additional iterations during the time step 0.3 to
0.4 sec are shown in Table E5.6.
During the next three time steps, the system is on the yielding branch. In other words,
the stiffness ki = 0, and no iteration is necessary. Between 0.6 and 0.7 sec the velocity
changes sign from positive to negative, implying that the deformation begins to decrease, the
system begins to unload along the branch bc, and the stiffness ki = 10. However, we have
ignored this change during the time step, implying that the system stays on the branch ab and
no iteration is necessary.
The computation for the time step starting at 0.6 sec can be made more accurate by find-
ing, by a process of iteration, the time instant at which u = 0. Then the calculations can be car-
ried out with stiffness ki = 0 over the first part of the time step and with ki = 10 over the sec-
ond part of the time step. Alternatively, a smaller time step can be used for improved accuracy.
Comparison of the results in Tables E5.5 and E5.6 shows the differences in the results
obtained by the use of tangent stiffness without and with iteration within a time step. In either
case equilibrium is satisfied at the end of the time step. However, the results are more accu-
rate with iteration because the nonlinearity of the forcedeformation relation is recognized,
whereas with no iteration the system is assumed to be linear. Even with iteration the solution
over the time step is not exact because equilibrium is not satisfied at all time instants within
the time step. This implies that the energy balance equation (Chapter 7) is violated. The
discrepancy in energy balance, usually calculated at the end of the excitation, is an indication
of the error in the numerical solution.

FURTHER READING

Bathe, K.-J., Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1996, Chapter 9.
Hughes, T. J. R., The Finite Element Method, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1987,
Chapter 9.
Humar, J. L., Dynamics of Structures, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1990, Chapter 8.
Newmark, N. M., A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics, Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division, ASCE, 85, 1959, pp. 6794.

PROBLEMS

5.1 In Section 5.2 we developed recurrence formulas for numerical solution of the equation of
motion of a linear SDF system based on linear interpolation of the forcing function p(t)
over each time step. Develop a similar procedure using a piecewise-constant representation
of the forcing function wherein the value of the force in the interval ti to ti+1 is a constant
Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 194

194 Numerical Evaluation of Dynamic Response Chap. 5

equal to pi (Fig. P5.1). Show that the recurrence formulas for the response of an undamped
system are:
sin(n ti ) pi
u i+1 = u i cos(n ti ) + u i + [1 cos(n ti )]
n k
pi
u i+1 = u i [n sin(n ti )] + u i cos(n ti ) + n sin(n ti )
k
Specialize the recurrence formulas for the following definition of the piecewise-constant force:
pi = ( pi + pi+1 )/2. Write the recurrence formulas in the following form:
u i+1 = Au i + B u i + C pi + Dpi+1

u i+1 = A u i + B  u i + C  pi + D  pi+1
with equations for the constants A, B, C, . . . , D  .

pi+2

pi+1

p~i+1
pi
~
pi

t
~
~

ti ti+1 ti+2 Figure P5.1

5.2 Solve Example 5.1 using the piecewise-constant approximation of the forcing function; ne-
glect damping in the SDF system.
5.3 Solve the problem in Example 5.1 by the central difference method, implemented by a com-
puter program in a language of your choice, using t = 0.1 sec. Note that this problem was
solved as Example 5.2 and that the results were presented in Table E5.2.
5.4 Repeat Problem 5.3 using t = 0.05 sec. How does the time step affect the accuracy of the
solution?
5.5 An SDF system has the same mass and stiffness as in Example 5.1, but the damping ratio
is = 20%. Determine the response of this system to the excitation of Example 5.1 by
the central difference method using t = 0.05 sec. Plot the response as a function of time,
compare with the solution of Problem 5.3, and comment on how damping affects the peak
response.
5.6 Solve the problem in Example 5.1 by the central difference method using t = 13 sec. Carry
out your solution to 2 sec, and comment on what happens to the solution and why.
5.7 Solve the problem in Example 5.1 by the average acceleration method, implemented by a
computer program in a language of your choice, using t = 0.1 sec. Note that this problem

*Denotes that a computer is necessary to solve this problem.

Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 195

Chap. 5 Problems 195

was solved as Example 5.3, and the results are presented in Table E5.3. Compare these results
with those of Example 5.2, and comment on the relative accuracy of the average acceleration
and central difference methods.
5.8 Repeat Problem 5.7 using t = 0.05 sec. How does the time step affect the accuracy of the
solution?
5.9 Solve the problem in Example 5.1 by the average acceleration method using t = 13 sec.
Carry out the solution to 2 sec, and comment on the accuracy and stability of the solution.
5.10 Solve the problem of Example 5.1 by the linear acceleration method, implemented by a com-
puter program in a language of your choice, using t = 0.1 sec. Note that this problem was
solved as Example 5.4 and that the results are presented in Table E5.4. Compare with the
solution of Example 5.3, and comment on the relative accuracy of the average acceleration
and linear acceleration methods.
5.11 Repeat Problem 5.10 using t = 0.05 sec. How does the time step affect the accuracy of the
solution?
5.12 Solve the problem of Example 5.5 by the central difference method, implemented by a com-
puter program in a language of your choice, using t = 0.05 sec.
5.13 Solve Example 5.5 by the average acceleration method without iteration. For this purpose
implement the method using a language of your choice.
5.14 Solve Example 5.6 by the average acceleration method with modified NewtonRaphson iter-
ation within each time step. For this purpose implement the method by a computer program
in a language of your choice.

*Denotes that a computer is necessary to solve this problem.

Chopra: Prentice-Hall
PAGES JUL. 19, 2000 14:14
ICC Oregon (503) 221-9911
Page 196