nonlinear dynamic analysis of reticulated space truss structures
TRANSCRIPT
1
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of
Reticulated Space Truss Structures
Chung-Yue Wang1 , Ren-Zuo Wang1 , Ching-Chiang Chuang2, Tong-Yue Wu3
1 Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Chungli, 320 Taiwan, ROC
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chungli, 320 Taiwan, ROC
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chungli, 320 Taiwan,
ROC
Abstract In this paper, a simpler formulation for the nonlinear motion analysis of reticulated
space truss structures is developed by applying a new concept of computational
mechanics, named the vector form intrinsic finite element (VFIFE or V-5) method.
The V-5 method models the analyzed domain to be composed by finite particles and
the Newton’s second law is applied to describe each particle’s motion. By tracing
the motions of all the mass particles in the space, it can simulate the large geometrical
and material nonlinear changes during the motion of structure without using
geometrical stiffness matrix and iterations. The analysis procedure is vastly simple,
accurate, and versatile. The formulation of VFIFE type space truss element includes
a new description of the kinematics that can handle large rotation and large
deformation, and includes a set of deformation coordinates for each time increment
used to describe the shape functions and internal nodal forces. A convected material
frame and an explicit time integration scheme for the solution procedures are also
adopted. Numerical examples are presented to demonstrate capabilities and
accuracy of the V-5 method on the nonlinear dynamic stability analysis of space truss
structures.
2
Keywords: space truss, nonlinear, dynamic, stability, particle, convected material
frame, deformation coordinates
1. Introduction
The nonlinear behavior of a reticulated space structure has been an important
problem in classical structural analysis. This is, in part, because most of the space
structures are quite flexible. Thus, the understanding of changes in the structural
geometry due to external loading is a critical aspect of the design process. In
practice truss structures are usually constructed by using a large number of
components and joints, and the structural geometry can be complex and innovating.
It is thus necessary to use numerical procedures for the analysis. A literature survey
shows that, during the past three decades, a large variety of formulations and
algorithms have been proposed for the study of reticulated trusses [1-20]. Some are
quite elaborate and complex. In general, several techniques seem have adopted the
stiffness or flexibility method as the basis of formulation for the classical matrix
analysis of structures. Modifications are introduced to account for the geometrical
changes. A common example is the addition of geometrical stiffness matrices. For
the calculation process, the basic algorithm is essentially linear. An iterative
procedure is employed to perturb the added nonlinear and geometrical terms. For
post-buckling and snap-through responses, special algorithms are required to impose
displacement inputs and to trace the full load-displacement path.
Among the earlier reports, Noor [3, 6] used a mixed formulation, with unknowns
consisting of both the force and displacement parameters, to analyze the geometrical
and material nonlinear problems of space structures. However, the mixed method
increases the computation effort required for the matrix operation, so a reduction
3
method is applied to reduce the amount of computation. Jagannathan et al. [7] and
Wood et al. [24] used the stiffness method and the finite element method, respectively,
to study snap-through instability problems containing large deformation and large
rotation. In their analyses, Lagrangian coordinates and incremental moving
coordinates were adopted to describe the large displacement and rigid body rotations.
Jagannathan, Epstein and Christiano [8] used the Newton-Raphson method to analyze
the post-buckling behaviors of reticulated space structures. Furthermore, Rothert,
Dickel and Renner [9] compared the accuracy of four different types of modified
Newton-Raphson method for the analysis of the post-buckling behaviors of reticulated
space structures. These modified Newton-Raphson methods combine the
conventional incremental and iteration techniques with a predictor-corrector principle.
Papadrakakis [10] proposed a two-vector iteration method, that is, a combination of,
the dynamic relaxation method and the conjugate gradient method, to correct errors
due to unbalanced forces, to obtain the post-buckling analysis response curves.
Meek and Tan [11] applied the arc length method, and Watson and Holzer [25] used
the Crisfield’s method, to study the post-bucking behavior of a space truss. Holzer et
al. [17] has checked whether the location of the combined loading in the
loading-interaction diagram exceeds the stability boundary or not, to define the force
equilibrium path of a lattice structure. Leu and Yang [18, 37] have pointed out that
an unbalanced force will cause a fictitious response during rigid body motion, and
higher order nonlinear stiffness matrix, together with geometric stiffness matrix,
should be included to remove computational errors. Similar analyses have been also
conducted by Leu and Yang [26], Mallett [27] and Rajasekaran et al. [28]. Levy et al.
[19] have developed a so called exact geometrical nonlinear displacement method to
study the buckling problems of a truss with an arbitrary shape and applied loading.
Krishnamoorthy et al. [20] have done post-buckling analysis of structures using
4
three-parameter constrained solution techniques to get the correct load-deflection
path.
As discussed previously, the nonlinear behavior of structures under static loading
has attracted a good deal of interest to date. In contrast, the nonlinear structural
response under dynamic loading has not received much attention. Kassimali et al.
[41] had studied the stability of truss under dynamic load based on an Eulerian
formulation accounting for arbitrarily large displacements. Zhu et al. [42] stated that
the nonlinearity of reticulated structures under dynamic loading can stem from
various origins: (i) geometrical; (ii) material; (iii) inertia; (iv) damping characters of
the structure system. Due to the complexity of the problem, the nonlinear response
and stability of these space structures under dynamic loads have thus far received only
limited attention [38-44]. It attracts the authors of this article to investigate this topic
by the newly proposed VFIFE method [30-32].
Although procedures based on matrix formulations and perturbation concepts [45,
46] seem to yield excellent results, there are some drawbacks when the proposed
procedures are implemented for engineering practices. Firstly, large geometrical
changes are often combined with material property changes, such as yielding and
damage. In fact, the formation of local yielding zones could be the primary source
of global shape changes of structure. Furthermore, for a large engineering structure,
yielding may occur simultaneously at multiple locations. If iterative procedures are
used to perturb both the geometrical and material nonlinearities, the accuracy and
stability of the algorithm can not be assured. Secondly, for a large structure,
geometrical changes may be caused by the buckling and yielding of a large number of
members. If a special technique is required for each member, to describe a
displacement controlled procedure the algorithm can become quite complex. Thirdly,
iterative procedures for nonlinear behavior are often limited to specific types of
5
loading conditions. The restriction on applying loading conditions (type, direction,
magnitude) into the system can be a problem when a realistic simulation needs to be
performed. Another fundamental consideration in developing a practical algorithm
is the choice of a vector or matrix operation. Classical structural analysis for linearly
elastic material and static loading adopts a matrix formulation. However, vector
formulations as Hallquist [29] have been shown to be the preferable choice for the
study of the structure response under transient loading, shocks, and impacts with
complicated material properties.
This paper reports on a recent attempt to develop a simpler formulation for the
analysis of nonlinear dynamic behaviors of 3D reticulated structure. A recently
proposed approach by Ting et al. [30-32] named the vector form intrinsic finite
element (VFIFE, or V-5) for the analysis of large geometrical changes in continuous
media is discussed. The concept is adopted into the present paper for 3D truss
members. The formulation does not follow traditional approaches. Instead, a
convected reference frame, fictitious reversed rigid body motion and updated
deformation coordinate system are used to separate the rigid body motion and pure
deformation of the system. Then the internal force is calculated from the
deformation of element and applied to the mass particle to constrain its motion.
After combining with explicit time integration scheme, the proposed method can
effectively simulate the dynamic behaviors of space truss structures having large
deformation. This leads to a straightforward incremental algorithm. Nonlinear
dynamic force-displacement responses can be accurately calculated without using any
iteration, which also permits force or displacement inputs, without the need for special
handling.
Results for several examples of space truss structures under various types of
dynamic loading that had been discussed by previous researchers are compared and
6
extended analyses were conducted to demonstrate the capability, accuracy and
stability of this newly proposed computation method.
2. Rotation and Deformation
The basic modeling assumptions for the vector form intrinsic finite element (V-5)
method for truss structures are essentially the same as those in classical structural
analysis. A truss is constructed by means of prismatic members and pin-connected
joints. Members are subjected to axial forces only. Joints have work equivalent
masses, and can be modeled as mass points. Motions of the joints can be described
by the principles of virtual work or equations of motion for particles. Members have
no mass, and are thus in static equilibrium. Therefore, the structural configuration of
a space truss can be described by the positions of the joints.
As shown in Fig. 1a. the position of a truss member is defined by the locations of
its attached end joints, denoted as nodes (1, 2). At time t the nodal positions are
( 1x , 2x ) and the length and cross-sectional area are l and A . At time tt ∆+ ,
following a time increment, t∆ , the corresponding values become ( 1x′ , 2x′ ) , l ′ and
A′ . Thus, relative positions between the nodes are
122 xxx −=d (1)
122 xxx ′−′=′d (2)
2x′= dl (3)
2xdl =′ (4)
The nodal displacements are
222 xxu −′= (5)
111 xxu −′= (6)
If the motion of the end node 1 is defined as the rigid body translation of a truss
7
member 1u during the time increment, the relative displacement of an arbitrary point
on the member is then the displacement due to member rotation and the deformation;
see Fig. 1b.
xxuuu ddd −′=−= 1 (7)
For large geometrical changes, displacements due to rotation and deformation
can both be finite. Superposition does not apply. More importantly, there is no
prior knowledge as to how the applied load induces each displacement component.
Rigid body rotation and deformation of the truss member can not be calculated
independently. Therefore, the traditional co-rotational description of the frame
kinematics is no longer valid.
Although finite rotation and deformation can not be exactly separated there is
still a need to calculate deformation. Firstly, internal stresses are related to
deformation only. Secondly, the deformation component of the displacement is
usually much smaller than the rotational component. If these components are not
separated, at least approximately, the accuracy of the stress calculation may quickly
be lost and the algorithm diverges. For the purpose of evaluating deformation and
internal stresses, the approach of V-5 suggests the following.
Consider the state of the truss member (1, 2) at tt ∆+ , after it has completed its
motion for the time increment t∆ . The member is then subjected to a fictitious
reversed rotation described by a rotational vector θ or a rotational matrix R . The
fictitious motion induces a relative displacement vector rdu at an arbitrary point.
The deformation vector of the arbitrary point A is then defined as
rd ddd uuu −= (8)
A schematic diagram of the rotation and deformation at tt ∆+ is shown in Fig. 2.
The relationships of the rotational vector θ , rotation matrix R and relative
displacement rdu can be obtained through some algebraic manipulations [33]. The
8
derivations are summarized in the following. Referring to Fig. 3, consider a plane of
rotation OAB with a normal vector θe , and a set of cylindrical coordinates with the
unit vectors ( re , se , θe ) as shown. The vector rdu can be written as
=rdu AD DB+uuuv uuuv
sr rr ee θθ sin)1(cos +−= (9)
Note that;
αθ sinxxe ′=′×= ddr (10)
)(sin
1As eee ×= θα
(11)
xxe′′
=dd
A (12)
θeee ×= sr (13)
Representing re and se in terms of θe and x′d , we get
)]()[cos1( xeeu ′××−= dd rθθθ
)(sin xe ′×+ dθθ (14)
A cross product of vectors can be written alternatively in matrix form as
xAxde ′=′× dθθ (15)
in which
⎥⎥⎥
⎦
⎤
⎢⎢⎢
⎣
⎡
−−
−=
00
0
θθ
θθ
θθ
θ
lmln
mnA (16)
with
⎪⎭
⎪⎬
⎫
⎪⎩
⎪⎨
⎧=
θ
θ
θ
θ
nml
e (17)
rdu May be written as
9
xRu ′= dd rθ (18)
and θθθ θθ AAR sin)cos1( 2 +−= (19)
From Fig. 3, we see that
=′′xd O B O A AB′ ′= +uuuv uuuv uuuv
rdd ux +′=
xRI ′+= d)( θ (20)
The rotational matrix is then
θRIR += (21)
The deformation vector of an arbitrary point can be written as
x-xRIu ddd d ′−= )( θ (22)
For finite incremental displacements, the above deformation vector is clearly not the
pure deformation. The magnitude and direction of the vector also depend on the
choice of rigid body rotation vector. Although it is possible to derive the exact
formulation, it is interesting to note that an exact measure is not needed in the present
numerical approach. As long as the assumed rotation is a close approximation of the
true rotation, this deformation vector should have the same order of magnitude as the
true deformation of the member. Then, as shown in following sections for the
equations of motion and numerical verifications, it is sufficient to obtain a convergent
solution. The advantage of not using the complicated exact formulation is that the
resulting algorithm is simple and flexible.
In the numerical analysis, a change of member orientation during the time
increment is taken as the rotation vector. That is, the angle between the relative
displacement vectors 2xd and 2x′d can be calculated as follows:
θθ eθ = (23)
)(sin 221 xddx ′×= −θ (24)
10
22
22
xxxxe′×′×
=dddd
θ (25)
3. Equations of Motion
The motion of each joint mass is assumed to satisfy the principle of virtual work
associated with incremental displacements
0=+− αα δδ WU , n,...,3,2,1=α (26)
where α is an arbitrary joint, and n is the total number of joints in the structure.
It is straightforward to evaluate the virtual work that occurs due to the applied joint
force and the inertia of the joint mass. We have
αααααα δδδ dMdPd &&TTW −= (27)
where { }zyxT ddd αααα =d are the incremental joint displacements; αP is the
total applied force vector acting on the joint at time tt ∆+ ; αM is the joint mass
value. The internal virtual work of the joint αδU is the sum of the work that occurs
due to the deformation of the connecting members, and can be expressed by the
following equation
∑=e
eUU αα δδ (28)
where e is the number of elements connected to the joint. The internal virtual
work of the member referred to is the deformed state at time tt ∆+ and is associated
with an incremental virtual displacement )( udδ . The deformed state is the truss
position (1′ , 2′ ) , which is shown in Fig. 1a. Since the member has no mass, and the
internal forces are assumed to be in static equilibrium, the virtual work that occurs
due to a fictitious translation 1u and a rigid body rotation θ are both equal to zero.
Thus, the internal work may instead be referred to as the fictitious state of the
11
deformation, the truss position (1′′ , 2 ′′ ) shown in Fig. 2, and is associated with a
virtual deformation vector )( dduδ .
To describe the deformation of a member, a deformation coordinate system x
( x , y , z ) is assumed for the time tt ∆+ . The x axis is parallel to the deformation
vector of the end node 2, that is dd 2u . The projection of members (1, 2) and (1′′ ,
2 ′′ ) are used to evaluate the deformation and the stress distribution. A schematic
diagram of the deformation coordinates and the projection values is shown in Fig. 4.
Using the prismatic assumption of the truss member,
1ˆˆˆˆˆ eu ∆=∆lx , where (29)
u∆ is the deformation vector at a point on the member projection on x ; 1e a unit
directional vector parallel to the deformation coordinate axis x ; ∆ is the
projection of the incremental deformation dd 2u of node 2 on the x axis. The
corresponding axial strain along the projected member is then
1ˆˆˆ
ˆˆˆ euε
lx∆
=∂∆∂
=∆ (30)
Where l is the projection length of the truss element at time t on the deformation
coordinate x . The virtual work of the member, at time tt ∆+ , due to the virtual
incremental deformation )ˆ( u∆δ , can be calculated as
xdAUl T ˆˆ)ˆ(ˆ
0∫ ′∆= sεδδ
∫ ′∆=
lxdA
l
ˆ
0ˆˆ
ˆˆ
sδ (31)
sss ˆˆˆ ∆+= t , where (32)
ts and s are the total stress vectors at time t and tt ∆+ ; 1ˆˆˆ es s∆=∆ is the
incremental stress vector; A′ is the cross-sectional area at time tt ∆+ . Define a
set of equivalent internal forces acting on the end nodes
1ˆˆˆ ef ii f= , 2,1=i (33)
12
such that
2211ˆ)ˆ(ˆ)ˆ( fufu TTU ∆+∆= δδδ
2211ˆˆˆˆ( f)uδ(f)u ∆+∆= δ (34)
where 1u∆ and 2u∆ are the incremental deformation vectors of the end nodes in
the time increment t∆ .
Since 0ˆ1 =∆u , ∆=∆ ˆˆ2u and (35)
2ˆˆ fU ∆= δδ (36)
the nodal force at node 2 can be obtained as
xdAssl
fl
t ˆ)ˆˆ(ˆ1ˆ ˆ
02 ′∆+= ∫ (37)
For a member with a uniform cross section and of uniform material,
∆′
+= ˆˆ
ˆˆ22 l
AEff t , where (38)
E is the tangent modulus at the stress value ts , and tf 2ˆ is the internal nodal force
of node 2 at time t . The equilibrium requirement of the truss member yields
21ˆˆ ff −= (39)
Using the total incremental displacement of the nodes, including the components due
to rigid body motion, we get
21 UUU δδδ +=
2211 fufu TT δδ += , where (40)
if and iu are nodal forces and displacements expressed in global coordinates,
rd dd 2212 uuuu ++= (41)
1ˆˆ ef ii f= )2,1( =i (42)
12 ˆˆ eu ∆=dd (43)
13
1Uδ and 2Uδ are each summed into the connecting joints, and 1u and 2u and
equal to the corresponding joint displacements. Now, returning to an arbitrary joint
α , the internal virtual work of the joint is the sum of the contributions by all the
connecting members.
)(∑==i
iTTU fdfd αααα δδδ (44)
αf is the sum of all global internal force components and
{ } ∑==i
iT
zyx fff ffα (45)
Hence, from the principle of virtual work for joint α can then be written as
0=−+− ααααααα δδδ dMdPdfd &&TTT (46)
This leads to the following equations of motion for the joint :
αααα fPdM −=&& (47)
α
α⎪⎭
⎪⎬
⎫
⎪⎩
⎪⎨
⎧
−−−
=⎪⎭
⎪⎬
⎫
⎪⎩
⎪⎨
⎧
zz
yy
xx
z
y
x
fPfPfP
ddd
M&&
&&
&&
(48)
Various techniques may be used to calculate the solution of a standard equation of
motion. An explicit time integration procedure is adopted for the numerical
examples. Discussions concerning the stability criterion, size of the time step, and
the procedures to obtain quasi-static solutions are well-documented in textbooks and
literatures. A central difference, similar to that used by Rice and Ting [34], is
adopted here. For each equation of motion, the difference equations produce
)( 3212 mccc
net
tttttFddd +∆−∆=∆ ∆+∆+ (49)
mc
=α , tt
a∆
+∆
=2
121
α (50)
11
1a
c = , 222t
c∆
= (51)
14
ttI mm ddF &&& α+= (52)
F P f Fnet Iα α= − − (53)
Thus, the equations of motion formulated at time tt ∆+ yield the displacements at
tt ∆+ 2 . The algorithm requires special attention at the initial time step
20001 )(
21)( tt ∆∆+∆∆−∆=∆ dddd &&& (54)
It is interesting to note that the internal nodal forces at time t+Δt do not act in
the axial direction of the truss member; see Fig. 5. This is due to the following two
reasons: Firstly, the assumed rotation is in general, not the true rotation. The error
leads to deviations of the force components. The resulting transverse components
form a couple, which provides a correction to the assumed rotation vector. In an
implicit algorithm for solutions, the correction is carried out by an iterative process.
In an explicit procedure, it is performed by subsequent time steps. Analogous to a
predictor-corrector scheme, the assumed rotation vector plays the role of a predictor in
the present algorithm, and the force couple behaves as a corrector. Secondly, in the
V-5 formulation, the rigid body motion of a member is defined by the motions of the
joint masses. The internal force is related only to the deformation and the member
stress at time t. Thus, the resulting nodal forces are not axial forces. This is
different from the traditional nonlinear formulation of a reticulated truss member.
By using a Lagrangian or Almansi strain measure to include both the effects of the
rigid body rotation and the deformation, the total internal force for a nonlinear
formulation should be in the axial direction. The physical interpretation of the nodal
force components related to rotation and deformation, is frequently discussed in the
literatures by Leu and Yang [18] and Yang and Chiou [37].
In the present formulation with the correction mechanism and a separate
15
treatment of rigid body motion, a nonlinear strain measure is not assumed.
Furthermore, the formulation for member rotation does not have to exact. This leads
to a simple and flexible algorithm.
4. Numerical Examples
Three examples are presented in this section. The first one dealing with a
buckling of a space truss structure for which detailed results are available shows the
validity of the present formulation. It also implies that the capability of applying a
dynamic formulated method to solve a static problem. The following examples
dealing with the space structure under various types of excitation are aimed at gaining
hindsight into the behavior of the dynamic instability of space truss structures.
4.1 Snap-though of a space truss dome.
Figure 6 shows a space dome structure constructed using 168 truss members.
This problem has been studied by Leu and Yang [36] as an illustration of the
importance of rigid body motion in large dome deflection. The truss members are
made of the same material. The Young’s modulus is 81004.2 ×=E 2/ mKN and the
cross sectional area is 410431.50 −×=A 2m . The calculation results by using the V-5
method are compared with the ones in reference [36] and good agreement for all cases
are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. For the V-5 calculations on this static problem, the
displacement rate is arbitrarily set at 45 m/s, and a constant time step of s8100.1 −×
is used.
4.2 Two-member toggle truss
Figure 9(a) shows a two-member toggle truss. The snap through behavior of
the two-member truss under dynamic load has been examined by Kassimali et al. [41]
and Zhu et al. [43]. In this study the maximum deflection and the transient response
16
of the truss under step, triangular and sinusoidal loads as shown in Fig. 9(b) have been
studied. The damping properties of the truss have been ignored. The truss
members are made of the same material. The Young’s modulus E is 27 /100.3 ink× ,
the cross sectional area A is 1 2in and the density ρ is 24 sec10339.7 −× − ksi . The
length L of each member is in100 . Two types of structure of inclination
angle, o30=α and o75=α were considered. For the steep two—member truss
with o75=α , an additional horizontal eccentric load PeP 01.0= as shown in Fig.
9(a) is considered into the analysis.
Figure 10 shows the dynamic response of a toggle truss ( o30=α ) under a step
forcing function with P = 800 kips. Figure 11 shows the maximum deflection
response of the truss joint under static and step loads. As seen in Fig. 11 the truss
will snap-through at a step load of approximately 1310 kips, compared with a
snap-through load of 1659 kips under static load. The deflection chosen in this
figure corresponds to the first peak value obtained in the nonlinear transient response.
In this problem, the structure responses under larger loads were further investigated.
Figure 12 shows the transient responses of the vertical displacement of the node 2 for
various magnitude of step load. The occurrence of the snap-through can be easily
identified in Fig. 12 from the bifurcation of the vibration modes at the load is 1311
kips which is a little bit different from the values predicted by Kassimali et al [41] and
Zhu et al. [43] as shown in Fig. 11.
Figure 13 shows the transient response of the vertical displacement of the node 2
for triangular forcing functions of P = 200 kips and P = 800 kips, sec3.0=dT . From
Fig. 14, it is found that the dynamic snap-through load is increased as the impulse
duration is decreased. It is expected that the critical load under the triangular forcing
function will approach that of step function as the impulse duration is increased.
Figure 15 shows the transient responses of the vertical displacement of the node 2 for
17
various forcing amplitude P of triangular forcing functions but the same duration
sec3.0=dT . From this figure the dynamic snap-through load is easily identified as
1621 kips.
For the sinusoidal loading case, some representative load-deflection curves are
presented in Fig. 16. It seems that, unlike the load-deformation curves with steadily
decreasing slopes presented previously for the step and triangular loadings, the
snap-through load for the two-member toggle truss under sinusoidal loading is a
function of the loading frequency. The response curves obtained by the V-5 methods
have some variations from the ones presented by Kassimali et al [41]. In this figure,
the response curves of the truss after the snap-through and the deflection of very large
deformation states were also predicted by the V-5 method.
Numerical solutions generated for the steep two-member truss ( 075=α ) under
various static and step forcing functions with lateral load are summarized in Figs
17-18. For this structure, the primary loading is similar to that of the shallow truss
(i.e. a vertical load, P, applied symmetrically at the free joint), except that a small
lateral load eP, is now introduced to simulate a condition of imperfection with a
parameter e. The predictions by the V-5 method compared with the ones presented
by Kassimali [41] are shown in Fig. 17. The snap-through load of 4466 kips for this
case can be identified from the transient response curves of different load level P in
Fig. 18.
4.3 Dynamic stability of geodesic truss dome
The dynamic stability of geodesic dome under a triangular forcing function as
shown in Fig. 19 is investigated here. Two triangular forcing functions as shown in
Fig. 9(b) with different impulse durations have been used. The maximum deflection
obtained during the impulse duration is presented against the forcing amplitude in Fig.
18
20. Same conclusion is obtained as previous researchers that the snap-through load
is decrease as the forcing duration is increased. Figure 21 shows the transient
response of the dome under two different triangular forcing functions with the same
amplitude but different impulse duration.
To demonstrate the capability of the V-5 method on the analysis of very large
motion of structure, the problem presented in Figs 20-21 was further investigated with
very high forcing amplitude. As seen from Fig. 22, it is very interesting to find that
there are two snap-through load levels for this geodesic truss dome, this first one is at
the forcing amplitude P equal to 6.5 kips and the second one is at the forcing
amplitude equal to 50 kips for the forcing duration of 0.005 sec. To understand the
mode instability behavior at these two bifurcation points, the transient response of the
vertical displacement of the nodal point 1 of the dome are shown in Figs. 23-24. The
nonlinear responses can also be qualitatively analyzed by studying the trajectories in
the phase plane. As shown in Figs. 25-27, the mode of instability is seen as the
shifting of the repelling range of the trajectories. Highly nonlinear motion is seen
for the forcing amplitude is equal to 50 kips from Fig. 27. .
Since the V-5 method does not need to solve any matrix equation, this character
allows the V-5 method be capable to analyze the dynamic behavior of structure with
members of very much difference in their material properties. To verify this, the
elastic modulus E of the member “a” in the geodesic truss is changed to ksi9100.1 ×
and keep other members of the same stiffness ( ksi4100.1 × ) as previously. The
Transient response of a geodesic truss dome with and without a member of high
stiffness difference is shown in Fig. 28. It is clear from this figure that varying the
stiffness of a member may alter the nonlinear transient response significantly. For
the structure without stiffness difference, the forcing amplitude of 6.5 kips is a
bifurcation load. However, the increase of the stiffness value of a member causes
19
the 6.5 kips not a bifurcation forcing amplitude.
5. Conclusions
A vastly simple numerical procedure is developed in this paper for motion analyses of
the nonlinear response and stability of reticulated space truss structures subjected to
large geometrical changes and complicated excitations.
Different from conventional matrix form structure analysis methods, the vector
type motion equation of each mass particle makes the analysis procedure of the
proposed method dramatically simple. Due to the inherited predictor-corrector
mechanism, iterations are not required as conventional methods in nonlinear motion
analysis. In addition, due to the nature of discrete independent particle point, it is
not required to set essential boundary conditions of the system. It is very easy to
prescribe the displacement and forcing conditions on each particle during the
procedure of analysis.
Through the numerical analyses of a few benchmark problems of features as
large rotation and dynamic instability, the newly proposed method demonstrates its
accuracy and superior capability on the nonlinear motion analysis of space truss
structure. As well, the vector form nature of the V-5 method allows it to be linked
with parallel computation techniques to study the large scale problems that have
complicated geometrical variations and loading histories. It is believed that the V-5
method can be a very effective tool for engineers on the structure analysis.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Professor E. C. Ting for his help, advice
20
and encouragement during this work.
References 1. Epstein, M. and Tene, Y., “Nonlinear analysis of pin-jointed space trusses,” J.
Struct. Div., ASCE, 97(9), pp. 2189-2202 (1971). 2. Baron, F. and Venkatesan, M. S., “Nonlinear analysis of cable and truss
structures,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 97(2), pp. 679-710 (1971). 3. Noor, A. K., “Nonlinear analysis of space trusses,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 100(3),
pp. 533-546 (1974). 4. Wright, D. J., “Membrane Forces and Buckling in reticulated shells,” J. Struct.
Div., ASCE, 91(1), pp. 173-201 (1965). 5. Cooker, J. O., “Buchert KP. Reticulated space structures,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE,
96(3), pp. 687-700 (1970). 6. Noor, A. K. and Peters, M., “Instability analysis of space trusses,” Comp. Meth.
Appl. Mech. Eng., 40, pp. 199-218 (1983). 7. Jagannathan, D. S., Epstein, H. I. and Christiano, P., “Fictitious strains due to rigid
body rotation,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 101(11), pp. 2472-2476 (1975). 8. Jagannathan, D. S., Epstein, H. I. and Christiano, P., “Nonlinear analysis of
reticulated space trusses,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 101(12), pp. 2641-2658 (1975). 9. Rothert, H., Dickel, T. and Renner, D., “Snap-through buckling of reticulated
space trusses,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 107(1), pp. 129-143 (1981). 10. Papadrakakis, M., “Post-buckling analysis of spatial structures by vector
interaction methods,” Comput. Struct., 14(5-6), pp. 759-768 (1981). 11. Meek, J. L. and Tan, H. S., “Geometrically nonlinear analysis of space frames by
an incremental iterative technique,” Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 47, pp. 261–282 (1984).
12. Hill, C. D., Blandford, G. E. and Wang, S. T., “Post-buckling Analysis of steel space trusses,” J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 115(4), pp. 900-919 (1989).
13. Freitas, J. A. T. and Ribeiro, A. C. B. S., “Large displacement elastoplastic analysis of space trusses,” Comput. Struct., 44(5), pp. 1007-1016 (1992).
14. Ramesh, G. and Krishnamoorthy, C. S., “Post-buckling analysis of structures by dynamic relaxation,” Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 36, pp. 1339-1364 (1993).
15. Ramesh, G. and Krishnamoorthy, C. S., “Inelastic post-buckling analysis of truss structures by dynamic relaxation method,” Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 37, pp. 3633-3657 (1994).
16. Blandford, G. E., “Progressive failure analysis of inelastic space truss structures,” Comput Struct., 58(5), pp. 981-990 (1996).
21
17. Holzer, S. M., Plaut, R. H., Somers, A. E. and White, S. W., “Stability of lattice structures under combined loads,” J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 106(2), pp. 289-305. (1980).
18. Leu, L. J. and Yang, Y. B., “Effects of rigid body and stretching on nonlinear analysis of trusses,” J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 116(10), pp. 2582-2598 (1990).
19. Levy, R., Vilany, O. and Acheampong, K. B., “Exact geometry considerations in buckling analysis of trusses,” Comput. Struct., 41(6), pp. 1241-1248 (1991).
20. Krishnamoorthy, C. S., Ramesh, G. and Dinesh, K. U., “Post-buckling analysis of structures by three-parameter constrained solution techniques,” Finite. Elem. Anal. Des., 22, pp. 109-142 (1996).
21. Goldberg, J. E. and Richard, R. M., “Analysis of nonlinear structures,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 89(4), pp. 333-351 (1963).
22. Richard, R. M. and Goldberg, J. E., “Analysis of nonlinear structures : force method,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 91(9), pp. 33-48 (1965).
23. Hensley, R. C. and Azar, J. J., “Computer analysis of nonlinear truss structures,” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 94(9), pp. 1427-1439, (1968).
24. Wood, R. D. and Zienkiewicz, O. C., “Geometrically nonlinear finite element analysis of beam, frames, arches and axisymmetric shell,” Comput. Struct., 7, pp. 725-735 (1977).
25. Watson, L. T. and Holzer, S. M., “Quadratic convergence of Crisfield’s method,” Comput. Struct., 17(1), pp. 69-72 (1983).
26. Leu, L. J. and Yang, Y. B., Discussion of “Post-buckling analysis of steel space trusses,” by Hill , C. D., Blandford, G. E. and Wang, S. T. (Proc. No. 23407), J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 117(12), pp. 3824-3828 (1991).
27. Mallett, R. H. and Marcal, P. V., “Finite element analysis of nonlinear structures,” J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 94(9), pp. 2081-2105 (1968).
28. Rajasekaran, S. and Murray, D. W., “Incremental finite element matrices,” J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 99(12), pp. 2423-2438, (1973).
29. Hallquist, J. O., LLS-DYNA Theoretical Manual, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, (1998).
30. Ting, E. C., Shih, C. and Wang, Y. K., “Fundamentals of a vector form intrinsic finite element: Part I. basic procedure and a plane frame element,” J. Mech., 20(2), pp. 113-122 (2004).
31. Ting, E. C., Shih, C. and Wang, Y. K., “Fundamentals of a vector form intrinsic finite element: Part II. plane solid elements,” J. Mech., 20(2), pp. 123-132 (2004).
32. Shih, C., Wang, Y. K. and Ting, E. C., “Fundamentals of a vector form intrinsic finite element: Part III. Convected material frame and examples,” J. Mech., 20(2), pp. 133-143 (2004).
22
33. Goldstein, H., Classical Mechanics, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, (1959). 34. Rice, D. L. and Ting, E. C., “Large displacement transient analysis of flexible
structures,” Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 36, pp. 1541-1562 (1993). 35. Crisfield, M. A., Non-linear finite element analysis of solids and structures, John
Wiley & Sons, England (1991). 36. Yang, Y. B., Yang, C. T., Chang, T. P. and Chang, P. K., “Effect of member
buckling and yielding on ultimate strengths of space trusses,” Eng. Struct., 19(2), pp. 179-191 (1997).
37. Yang, Y. B. and Chiou, H. T. “Rigid body motion test for nonlinear analysis with beam elements,” J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 113(9), pp. 1404-1419 (1987).
38. Abrate, S. and Sun, C. T., “Dynamic analysis of geometrically nonlinear truss structures,” Comput. Struct., 17(4), pp. 491-497 (1983).
39. Noor, A. K. and Peters, J. M., “Nonlinear dynamic analysis of space trusses,” Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng., 21, pp. 131-151 (1980).
40. Coan, C. H. and Plaut, R. H., “Dynamic stability of a lattice dome,’’ Earthquake. Engng. Struct. Dynam., 11, pp. 269-274 (1983).
41. Kassimali, A. and Bidhendi, E., “Stability of trusses under dynamic loads,” Comput. Struct., 29(3), pp. 381-392 (1988).
42. Sllaats, P. M., Jough, J. de. and Sauren, A. A. H., “Model reduction tools for nonlinear structural dynamics,” Comput. Struct., 54(6), pp. 1155-1171 (1995).
43. Zhu, K., Al-Bermani, F. G. A. and Kitipornchai, S., “Nonlinear dynamic analysis of lattice structures,” Comput. Struct., 52(1), pp. 9-15 (1994).
44. Tada, M. and Suito, A., “Static and dynamic post-buckling behavior of truss structures,” Eng. Struct., 20(4-6), pp. 384-389 (1998).
45. Walker, A. C. and Hall, D. G., “An analysis of Large deflections of beams using the Rayleigh-Ritz finite element method,” Aeronautical Quarterly., pp. 357-367 (1968).
46. Walker, A. C., “A nonlinear finite element analysis of shallow circular arches,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 5, pp. 97-107 (1969).
23
Figures:
1x
1x′ 1u
2u
x
y
ztat
tttat ∆+=
1 2
1′
2′
2x
2x′
u
2xd ′
2dx
x
x′
Figure 1a. Motion of a truss member in space.
2du
1′
2′
1 2dx
xd ′du
Figure 1b. Relative displacements.
24
θe
2xd ′
dx A
durdu
ddu
2du
d2du
r2du-
1 1′
2′
2 ′′
2
θ-
xd ′
1′′
l′
l′2xd ′′
l
2dx
xd ′′
A′
A ′′
Figure 2. Fictitious reverse rotation.
θ
θe
A
B
re
θe
se
O
O′
r
αAe
rD
rdu
xd ′
θ
Figure 3. Rotational displacement.
25
l
∆ 1e x
1 1′′2 ′′
2ddu
x ′′x
xl
d2du
u∆
Figure 4. Deformation coordinates.
1
x
y2
2 ′′ 1e
1e x
1e2f
2f−1′
2′
d2du
1′′
1u
2u
tttimeat ∆+
Figure 5. Internal nodal forces.
26
1
2
(a) Top view
P
66.9 cm
116.7 cm
135.0 cm
181. cm 194.9 cm 204.1 cm 580. cm
(b) Side view
Fig 6. Reticulated space truss structure composed of 168 members.
27
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00Central Disp. (cm)
-800.00
-400.00
0.00
400.00
800.00
1200.00
P (K
N)
Yang [36]
V - 5
Figure 7. Response curve of load versus vertical displacement at joint 1.
-2.00 0.00 2.00Vertical and Horizontal Displ. of Joint 2 (cm)
-800.00
-400.00
0.00
400.00
800.00
1200.00
P (K
N)
Yang [36] (Vertical)
VFIFE (Vertical)
Yang [36] (Horizontal)
VFIFE (Horizontal)
Figure 8. Response curves of load versus vertical and
horizontal displacements at joint 2.
28
eP
3
Y
X1
P
2
L
α
(a)
P
Load
Time
P
Load
Time
dT
P
Load
Time
dT (b)
Figure 9 (a) two-member toggle truss, (b) various loading types of P
29
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60Time (sec)
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
Dis
plac
emen
t (in
)
ZhuVFIFE
Figure 10 Transient response of the vertical displacement of the node 2 for step load
P = 800 kips ( 030=α , e= 0) (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
0.00 40.00 80.00 120.00 160.00Displacement (in)
-2000.00
-1000.00
0.00
1000.00
2000.00
Load
P (k
ips)
Zhu ( Step Load )
Kassimali ( Step Load )
VFIFE ( Step Load )
Kassimali ( Static Load )
VFIFE ( Static Load )
Figure 11 Maximum vertical displacements at node 2 under static and step loads ( 030=α , e= 0) (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
30
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20
Time (sec)
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
180.00
200.00
220.00
Dis
plac
emen
t (in
)
P = 1300 kips
P = 1310 kips
P = 1311 kips
P = 1315 kips
P = 2000 kips
Figure 12 Transient responses of the vertical displacement of the node 2 for various magnitudes of step load ( 030=α , e= 0) (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm).
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30Time (sec)
-8.00
-4.00
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
Dis
plac
emen
t (in
)
Zhu ( P=200kips )
VFIFE ( P=200 kips )
VFIFE ( P=800kips )
Figure 13 Transient response of the vertical displacement of the node 2 for triangular loads (P = 200 kips and P = 800 kips, sec3.0=dT , 030=α , e= 0)
(1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
31
0.00 40.00 80.00 120.00 160.00
Displacement (in)
0.00
1000.00
2000.00
3000.00
Load
P (k
ips)
Kassimali (Triangular Td=0.3 sec)
Zhu (Triangular Td=0.3 sec)
VFIFE (Triangular Td=0.3 sec)
Kassimali (Triangular Td=0.2 sec)
VFIFE (Triangular Td=0.2 sec)
Figure 14 Maximum vertical displacements at node 2 under various triangular
forcing functions ( 030=α , e= 0) (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Time (sec)
-50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
Dis
plac
emen
t (in
)
P = 1600 kips
P = 1620 kips
P = 1621 kips
P = 2000 kips
Figure 15 Transient responses of the vertical displacement of the node 2 for various forcing amplitudes of triangular forcing functions ( sec3.0=dT , 030=α , e= 0)
(1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
32
0.00 40.00 80.00 120.00 160.00Displacement (in)
0.00
400.00
800.00
1200.00
1600.00
2000.00
Load
P (k
ips)
Kassimali (Sinusoidal Td=0.1 sec)
VFIFE (Sinusoidal Td=0.1 sec)
Kassimali (Sinusoidal Td=0.3 sec)
VFIFE (Sinusoidal Td=0.3 sec)
Kassimali (Sinusoidal Td=0.6 sec)
VFIFE (Sinusoidal Td=0.6 sec)
Figure 16 Maximum vertical displacements at node 2 of a shallow two-member
truss ( 030=α , e= 0) under sinusoidal forcing functions with various dT values.
(1 kips = 4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00
Maximum Horizontal Displacement (in)
0.00
2000.00
4000.00
6000.00
Load
P (k
ips)
Kassimali (Step Load)
VFIFE (Step Load)
Kassimali (Static Load)
VFIFE (Static Load)
Figure 17 Load-deflection curves for steep two-member truss ( 075=α ) under
various static and step forcing functions ( 01.0=e ). (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
33
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00Time (sec)
-200.00
-100.00
0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
Dis
plac
emen
t (in
)
P = 4400 kips
P = 4465 kips
P = 4466 kips
Figure 18 Transient responses of the vertical displacement of the node 2 for various forcing levels of step forcing function ( 01.0=e , 075=α )
(1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
34
21
FREE
FIXED
34
5
6 7
11
10
12 8
13
9
Z
Y
a
(a) top view
2.1 in
8.2 in
25.4 in 25.4 in
43.3 in 43.3 in
P
Z
X
(b) side view
Figure 19 Geodesic dome: dimensions, properties and loading (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
35
0.00 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00Displacement (in)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Load
P (k
ips)
Kassimali ( Td = 0.005 sec )
Zhu ( Td = 0.005 sec )
VFIFE ( Td = 0.005 sec )
Kassimali ( Td = 0.01 sec )
Zhu ( Td = 0.01 sec )
VFIFE ( Td = 0.01 sec )
Figure 20 Maximum vertical displacement at the top joint of a geodesic truss dome under triangular impulse with different durations. (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010Time (sec)
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
Dis
plac
emen
t (in
)
Zhu ( Td = 0.005 sec )
VFIFE ( Td = 0.005 sec )
Zhu ( Td = 0.01 sec )
VFIFE ( Td = 0.01 sec )
Figure 21 Transient response of a geodesic truss dome under triangular forcing
functions of the same forcing amplitude (P = 2kips) but different durations. (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
36
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Displacement (in)
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
Load
P (k
ips)
VFIFE ( Triangular Load )
Td = 0.01 sec
Td = 0.005 sec
Figure 22 Maximum vertical displacement at the top joint of a geodesic truss dome under triangular impulses with different durations and different forcing amplitudes.
(1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20Time (sec)
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Dis
plac
emen
t (in
)
P = 6.49 kips
P = 6.5 kips
Figure 23. Bifurcation of the transient response of the top joint at the first critical
forcing amplitude of a geodesic truss dome under triangular forcing function ( sec005.0=dT ).(1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
37
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
Time (sec)
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Dis
plac
emen
t (in
)
VFIFE (Triangular Load)
P = 49 kips
P = 50 kips
Figure 24. Bifurcation of the transient response of the top joint at the second critical
forcing amplitude of a geodesic truss dome under triangular forcing function ( sec005.0=dT ).(1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00Displacement (in)
-1000.00
-500.00
0.00
500.00
1000.00
Velo
city
(in/
sec)
Figure 25. Phase diagram of the vertical motion of the node 1 (forcing amplitude
P= 6.49kips, sec005.0=dT ) (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm).
38
-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00Displacement (in)
-1000.00
-500.00
0.00
500.00
1000.00
Velo
city
(in/
sec)
Figure 26. Phase diagram of the vertical motion of the node 1 (forcing amplitude P= 6.5kips, sec005.0=dT ) (1 kips=4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm).
-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00Displacement (in)
-8000.00
-6000.00
-4000.00
-2000.00
0.00
2000.00
4000.00
6000.00
8000.00
Velo
city
(in/
sec)
Figure 27. Phase diagram of the vertical motion of the node 1 (forcing amplitude P
= 50 kips, sec005.0=dT ) (1 kips = 4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm).
39
0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02Time (sec)
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Dis
plac
emen
t (in
)
a member E=1.e4 ( P = 2 kips)
a member E=1.e9 ( P = 2kips )
a member E=1.e4 ( P = 6.49 kips )
a member E=1.e9 ( P = 6.49 kips )
a member E=1.e4 ( P = 6.5 kips )
a member E=1.e9 ( P = 6.5 kips )
Figure 28 Transient response of a geodesic truss dome with and without a member
of high stiffness difference, sec005.0=dT . (1 kips = 4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm)