Compurrrs & S~rucrures Vol. 32. No. 6. pp. 1371-1386, 1989 004s7949/89 $3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press plc

A SURVEY OF DIRECT TIME-INTEGRATION METHODS

IN COMPUTATIONAL STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS-I.
EXPLICIT METHODS
M. A. DOKAINISH and K. SUBBARAJ
Mechanical Engineering Department, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L7

(Received 7 June 1988)

Abstract-A comprehensive survey of direct time-integration methods and computational solution

procedures for easier computer implementation is given in four parts for dynamic analysis of linear and
nonlinear structures.
Part I is exclusively devoted to explicit methods. Popular second order central difference methods
(formulation, step-by-step solution procedures, recent developments, computational and stability aspects)
are described in detail. Other explicit methods, viz. Runge-Kutta methods, stiffly stable methods,
Predictor-Corrector methods and Taylor series schemes are also presented. Techniques for stabilizing
numerical computations are given.
In Part II, conventional implicit methods, viz. the Newmark, Wilson-B and Houbolt methods and their
step-by-step solution procedures are given with reference to solution of linear and nonlinear structural
dynamics problems. Also presented are Trujillo’s modified Newmark-beta method and implicit formulae
via weighted residual approach. Computational and stability aspects, desirable characteristics of an ideal
solution procedure and salient features of conventional implicit algorithms are discussed.
Part III reviews further developments in implicit methods. In Part IV, mixed implicit-explicit finite
element methods and operator-splitting methods are described.
Numerical solution methods surveyed here will be of much use to practicing computational/finite
element/structural engineers working in the area of dynamics of structures.

I. INTRODUCTION design of multi-faceted systems. The choice of a

In many engineering applications of
situations the inclusion terms in the
of dynamic
analysis of structures is essential. The term ‘dynamic
situation’ implies that the inertia terms must be
included in the equations of equilibrium. Examples
where such inertia effects are important include the
impact loading of structures due to collision, shock
blast or explosive conditions in which case the load-
ing is of high intensity and is applied for a short
period of time (z 1 ms) and seismic action where the
structural loading takes the form of a prescribed
acceleration history. In no application are the prob-
lems more serious than in the nuclear and chemical
industries, where ‘fail safety’ conditions are essential.
Also included in these are: the response of submarines
and other naval vehicles to undersea environmental
loadings, and assessment of their survival potential
under impact loading, and their response to airborne
missiles and conventional weapons; in earthquake
prone areas, the response of reactors and present
day high-rise buildings to seismic loading, the crash-
worthiness of automobiles and occupant-carrying
vehicles, and the response of off-shore oil-drilling
platforms and associated support equipment to
undersea seismic action and wind-wave loadings
under severe weather conditions. These are only a few
among the many important situations where dynamic
action has to be incorporated in the analysis and
numerical method for the solution of a problem
dynamic depends on the type of structural loading.
1.1. Classification of dynamics problems
Generally linear or nonlinear dynamics problems
are classified, depending on the effect of the spectral
characteristics of the excitation on the overall struc-
tural response, as wave propagation problems and
inertial problems.
Wave propagation problems. The wave propagation
problems are those in which the behaviour at the
wave front is of engineering importance, and in such
cases it is the intermediate and high-frequency struc-
tural modes that dominate the response throughout
the time span of interest. Problems that fall into this
category are shock response from conventional and
nuclear weapons, such as explosive or impact load-
ings; and problems in which wave effects such as
focussing, reflections and diffractions are important.
Examples are the pressure waves set up by pinpoint
transients and bubble dynamics.
Inertial problems. All dynamic problems which are
not wave propagation type can be considered as
inertial and here the response is governed by a
relatively small number of low frequency modes. This
class includes seismic response and large deforma-
tions of elasto-plastic structures under ramp or step
loading. Problems of this type are often also called
structural dynamics problems.

1371
1372 M.A. DOKAINISH
In the above type, the terms ‘frequencies’ and
‘modes’ refer to the eigen-spectrum of the linearized
structural dynamics equation. Because of non-
linearities this spectrum can be expected to vary
(usually mildly) with state. The qualifiers ‘low’,
‘intermediate’ and ‘high’ refer to frequencies whose
associated wavelengths are much Iarger than, of the
order of and much smaller than the characteristic
acoustic wavelengths, respectively.
In practice, a combination of the above types is
often encountered. For example, in shock-excited
problems, an initial high-frequency transient gradu-
ally decays to a steady state or free vibration regime
(step waves, earthquakes, single impact, accidents).
In multi-shook excited problems, multiple high-
frequency transients occur with some regularity,
possibly leading to gradual collapse or fatigue
phenomena (reflecting shockwaves, repeated impacts,
etc.).
As a broad guideline, wave propagation problems
are best solved by explicit integration techniques
whereas implicit integration techniques are more
effective for inertial problems, However, the relative
economy of both approaches is also influenced by the
topology of the finite element mesh and by the type
of computer to be employed.
In the last ten years, significant advances have been
made in the development and application of numeri-
cal methods to the solution of dynamic transient
problems [l]. A primary factor in this progress has
been the parallel development of large high speed
digital computers providing the faster execution times
required to make the solution of large engineering
problems a feasible proposition. This has resulted
in the development of many commercially available
and special purpose computer codes, viz. ANSYS,
ASKA, MARC, ADINA, NONSAP, etc. [2,3].
In recent years, considerable work has been
directed towards improving the computational
efficiency in solving dynamic problems such as tem-
poral integration of the discrete equations of motion
and solution of resulting nonlinear algebraic matrix
equation systems. However, the solution of most
large-scale nonlinear dynamic structural problems is
still not economically feasible. The recent advances in
the computing systems such as vector-processing
computers, viz. the CDC STAR-100 computer, the
TIAC (The Texas Instruments Advanced Scientific
Computer) and the CRAY-1 suer-computers [4],
and the parallel processing computer systems under
development [S, 61 might result in reducing the com-
putational times for the nonlinear dynamic analysis
of large structural systems to within an acceptable
practical range.
The objective of this paper-series is to present a
survey of various (direct time-integration) numerical
solution methods and the ~mputational procedures
for linear and nonlinear finite element analyses of
structures subjected to dynamic loads. For a broader
and more detailed presentation of computational
and K. SUBBARAJ
methods for dynamic analysis and applications the
interested reader can refer to the relevant litera-
ture [ 1,7-36,88,89]. The formulation procedures for
governing equations of dynamic motion can be re-
ferred to in appropriate publications and recent finite
element texts [12], and will not be presented here.
The following are the direct time-integration
methods (both the formulation and step-by-step com-
putational procedure for easier computer implemen-
tation) for dynamic analysis of structural systems,
presented in four parts:
Part I: explicit time-integration methods: (i) cen-
tral difference methods for linear and non-
linear problems; some recent developments;
step-by-step solution procedures; compu-
tational and stability aspects, (ii) Runge-
Kutta methods, (iii) stiffly stable methods,
(iv) Predictor-Corrector methods, and
(v) Taylor series schemes. Stabilization of
numerical computations.
Part II: implicit time-integration methods: (i)
Newmark family of methods, (ii) Wilson-8
method, and (iii) Houbolt method; step-
by-step solution procedures for Iinear and
nonlinear problems. Trujillo’s modified
Newmark-beta method; implicit methods
via weighted residual approach; computa-
tional and stability aspects; desirable
characteristics and salient features of
conventional implicit algorithms [37].
Part III: recent developments in imphcit methods:
(i) semi-implicit methods by Trujillo and
Park-Housner (matrix-splitting method);
(ii) Hilber’s alpha methods; (iii) Bossak’s
modified alpha method; (iv) Hilber’s col-
location methods; (v) Bazzi-Anderheggen’s
rho method; (vi) Gillert’s implicit algor-
ithm; (vii) Euler methods; and (viii) finite
integral method by Swannell. Computa-
tional procedures for hnear and nor&near
problems are given in [38].
Part IV: mixed implicit-explicit finite element
methods: solution procedures for linear and
nonlinear structural dynamics problems
(interacting media-structure problems in
particular); variable partition algorithms;
o~rator-splitting t~hniques f39].
Surveys of modal-superposition methods in compu-
tational structural dynamics and dynamic reduction
methods for solution of large eigenvalue problems are
given in companion papers by the authors [40,41].
The broad spectrum of the numerical solution
methods employed frequently in the analysis of
linear and nonlinear dynamics of structures, pre-
sented here, witi be of much use and practical impor-
tance to practicing computational~structural/finite
element engineers working in the area of dynamics of
structures.
 Direct time-integration methods in structural dynamics-I
Modal synthesis techniques and Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT) methods for structural dynamics
problems will not be treated here and the inter-
ested readers can refer to relevant literature (see
Bibliography).
Governing equations of motion for linear and
nonlinear structural dynamics are described in the
next section for the purpose of completeness.
2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL
DYNAMICS
To solve transient structural or continuum
mechanics problems numerically, the governing
hyperbolic partial differential equations are first
discretized in space. This procedure is called a semi-
discretization. Either finite element or finite difference
methods can be used to semi-discretize the governing
equations. The semi-discretization will reduce the
problem to a system of ordinary differential equa-
tions in time, which in turn must be integrated to
complete the solution process.
In dynamic analysis the governing semi-discrete
equations of motion are obtained by considering the
static equilibrium at time t which includes the effect
of acceleration-dependent inertia forces and velocity-
dependent damping forces in addition to the exter-
nally applied discretized forces and the internal nodal
forces of the continuum or structure, and may be
written as
F’(t) + FD(t) + F*“‘(r) = FEx’(r), (1)
where F’(t) are the inertia forces, F’(t) = MX; FD(r)
are the damping forces, FD(t) = Ck; F*“‘(f) are the
internal (nodal) forces including forces due to initial
stresses in the system which may depend upon X, %
and their histories, and FEx’(t) are the external forces,
ail of them being time-dependent. The superscript (a)
denotes time derivatives (e.g. x = d2X/dt2 is the accel-
eration vector). M is the structural mass matrix
(generally independent of time or displacements)
and C is the damping matrix (may be a function of
velocities, fr); and vector X stands for a set of
parameters describing the displacements which in the
context of the finite element method are the nodal
displacement components.
2.1. Equations of motion for linear structural dynamics
The equation of static equilibrium, governing the
linear dynamic response of a semi-discrete structural
system at time t is derived from (1) as
MX+C%+KX=R, (2)
where M is the discrete mass matrix, C is the viscous
damping matrix, K is the linear stiffness matrix, R is
the vector of external discrete forces which include
body forces, surface forces and concentrated loads
acting on the system, and X, % and 9 are the
1373
nodal displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors,
respectively. In general M, C and K are constant and
symmetric, M and K are positive definite, C is positive
semi-definite and R = R(t) is a given continuous
function of time, r. Mathematically, eqn (2) repre-
sents a coupled system of linear ordinary differential
equations of second order.
The initial value problem for (2) consists of finding
the time-history response of a structure, X =X(t),
where t E [0, t], T > 0, satisfying (2) and the initial
conditions
X(0) = X0 (3)
and
QO) = $0, (4)
where X, and %,, are the given initial displacement
and velocity data. x(O) = x,,, if not specified, may be
obtained using (3) and (4) in (2) as
x, = M-‘(R(O) - C% - KX,). (5)
In the absence of the effects of inertia and damping
forces on the system, the finite element equilibrium
eqns for static analysis of a linearly elastic structural
system become
KX=R. (6)
Here the displacement response, X, is a linear func-
tion of the applied force vector R which is not the
case for nonlinear structural systems. Also in (6),
applied forces, R, may vary with time, in which case
the displacements also vary with time, and then (6) is
a statement of the static equilibrium for any specific
point in time. In practice, the time-dependent applica-
tion of loads can thus be used to model multiple
load cases. However, if in actuality the loads are
applied rapidly, inertia forces need to be considered,
that is, a truly dynamic problem must be solved.
Using d’Alembert’s principle we can simply include
the inertia forces in eqn (6). Now the equilibrium
equation, for no damping, becomes
M%+KX=R, (7)
where R and X are time-dependent.
Finally it should be mentioned that in the static
analysis, a nodal point displacement boundary
condition must be imposed in order to effect a stable
solution, whereas in the dynamic analysis such a
displacement boundary condition is not necessary.
2.2. Equations of motion for nonlinear structural
dynamics
The semi-discrete equations of motion for a general
nonlinear structural system are
MX + Cft + N(X) = R(r), (8)
1374 M. A. DOKAINISHand K, SUBBARAJ
where the resisting force vector, N, is the vector of
nodal point (nonlinear) internal forces corresponding
to the element stresses in the current configuration at
time t. Similarly R(t) refers to the externally applied
nodal point forces in the configuration at time f.
K,(X) = ~N(X)/~X, (9)
where I& denotes the tangent stiffness matrix
which is, generally, a nonlinear function of X. In (8)
the nonlinearities enter through N which is a non-
linear function of the displacement vector, X. For
example, in problems of small deformations, small
displacements and small strains of nonlinear
materials, having the material constitutive law
defined as
o = (T(E), (10)
where the Cauchy stress U(E) is a nonlinear function
of strain, E, N is given by
B%(e) d V, (11)
where V refers to the volume of the body at time 1,
superscript T indicates transpose and B is the strain-
displacement matrix. For large deformation (geo-
metrically nonlinear) problems, B itself is a function
of the displacements, X. For nonlinear, ‘rate-type’,
viscoelastic materials (i.e. materials with memory),
the internal force vector, N, will be an algebraic
function of displacement and velocity (i.e. rate of
displacement),
N = N(X, X). (12)
In (8) M is constant, M and Kr are symmetric and
positive definite and C is positive semi-definite.
The initial value problem consists of (3), (4), (5)
and (8).
Equations (2) and (8) do not cover the esoteric class
of mass varying problems such as re-entry vehicle
dynamics.
2.3. Some remarks on mass and damping matrices
Mass matrix. Two types of mass matrices are used:
(1) consistent, nondiagonal mass matrices, and (2)
lumped, diagonal mass matrices. Consistent mass
matrices tend to yield more accurate frequencies for
flexural members, such as beams and shells, though
this advantage becomes small whenever the wave-
length of the mode spans five or more elements.
The nature of the frequency error for these two types
of mass matrices also differs. Also, consistent mass
matrices usually over-estimate the frequencies,
whereas lumped masses underestimate the frequen-
cies. The nature of these errors should be borne in
mind when choosing a method of integration for
eqns (2) and (8), since it is desirable that the errors
introduced by the time-integration operator compen-
sate for the error due to the mass matrix, rather than
amplifying the error [42]. The use of consistent
matrices does not always lead to improved accuracy
and always involves additional computational
work [43]. Key and Beisinger [44) have presented a
method for deriving a diagonal mass matrix from
the standard consistent mass matrix for elements
with linear or cubic displacement functions. Hinton
et al. [45] have recommended a procedure of mass
lumping for parabolic isoparametric elements to com-
pute the diagonal terms of the consistent mass matrix
and then to scale these terms so as to preserve the
total mass of the element. Numerical examples of
application of this mass lumping scheme are given by
Shantaram f29].
Damping matrix. In practice it is difficult, if not
impossible, to determine for general finite element
assemblages the element damping parameters in
particular because the damping properties are
frequency-dependent. For this reason, the matrix is
in general not assembled from element damping
matrices, but is constructred using the mass
matrix M and stiffness matrix K of the complete
element assemblage. Rayleigh damping using propor-
tional damping has been in common use, which is of
the form
C=aMfbK, (13)
where a and b are the given Rayleigh constants. Some
fo~ulations used to construct physically si~ificant
damping matrices are described in f14.
A disadvantage of Rayleigh damping is that the
higher modes are considerably more damped than
the lower modes, for which the Rayleigh constants
have been selected. In many analyses, the assumption
of proportional damping is adequate. However, in
the analysis of structures with widely varying material
properties, nonproportional damping may be needed.
For example, in the analysis of foundation-s~cture
interaction problems, significantly more damping
may be reasonable to assign in the construction of the
damping matrix with different Rayleigh coefficients
for different parts of the structure.
3. DIRECT INTEGRATION METHODS
The ease of implementation of direct integration
methods along with their ready usability in nonlinear
studies has tended to enhance rapidly the popularity
of these approaches. In direct integration the govern-
ing ordinary second order differential eqns in time,
resulting from the semi-discretization of the struc-
tural system (by means of finite element methods),
given by equations (2) and (8) respectively for linear
and nonlinear dyn~ic structural response, are inte-
grated using a numerical step-by-step procedure. The
term ‘direct’ means that prior to the numerical inte-
gration process, no transformation of the eqns into a
 Direct time-int~~atjon methods in structural dynamics-I
diflerent form is carried out. In essence, direct numer-
ical integration is based on two ideas: (1) the dynamic
equilibrium equations (2) and (8) are satisfied at
discrete time intervals At apart. This means that,
basically, (static) equilibrium, which includes the
effect of inertia and damping forces, is sought at
discrete time points within the interval of solution; (2)
a variation of displacements, velocities and acceler-
ations within each time interval At is assumed. Differ-
ent forms of these assumed variations give rise to
different direct integration schemes, each of which
have different accuracy, stability and cost. The avail-
able direct procedures can be further subdivided into
explicit and implicit methods each with distinct ad-
vantages and disadvantages. Each approach employs
difference equivalents to develop recurrence relations
which may be used in a step-by-step computation of
the response. The critical parameter in the use of each
of these techniques is generally the largest value of the
time step which can be used to provide sufficiently
accurate results, as this is directly related to the total
cost of satisfactory analysis.
3.1. Explicit rnet~o~
The first approach, which is based on so-called
explicit time-integration techniques, employs finite
difference methods and is particularly well suited
for short duration dynamical problems or wave
propagation problems such as structures subjected to
blast or high velocity impact. In the explicit method,
the solution at time t + At is obtained by consider-
ing the equilib~um conditions at time t, and such
integration schemes do not require factorization of
the (effective) stiffness matrix in the step-by-step
solution. Hence the method requires no storage of
matrices if a diagonal mass matrix is used. Com-
putational cost per time step is generally much less
for explicit methods and less storage is required than
for implicit methods. Computer operations for the
explicit method are relatively few in number and
are independent of the finite element mesh band or
front width. However, explicit time integration
schemes are only conditionaily stable and generally
require small time steps to be employed to insure
numerical stability. Here, the step size restriction is
often more severe than accuracy considerations
require. This restriction limits the effectiveness of the
approach when used to study dynamic problems of
moderate duration, e.g. earthquake response prob-
lems. The conditionally stable algorithms require the
time step size employed to be inversely proportional
to the highest frequency of the discrete system. The
explicit methods allow the displacements at the cur-
rent time step, t + At, to be found in terms of the
known displacements, velocities and accelerations,
X,, *,, x,, at previous time step, t. This enables one
to evaluate the material physics which can be used to
generate new internal stresses for use in the solution
at the next step. Also, very compiex materiai models
can be easily incorporated using this approach.
1375
3.2. Implicit methods
The second approach which utilizes implicit
time-integration together with the finite element
method has its primary strengths exactly in the areas
where the first approach has its weaknesses, namely
in the capability of treating inertial problems such
as impact and seismic problems and the modelling
of complex structural geometries. In the implicit
methods the equations for the displacements at the
current time step involve the velocities and accelera-
tions at the current step itself, t + At. Hence the
determination of displacements at t + At involves the
solution of the structural stiffness matrix at every
time step. Many implicit methods are unconditionatly
stabIe for linear analysis and the maximum time step
length that can be employed is governed by the
accuracy of solution and not by the stability of the
integration process. Although the implicit methods
usually require considerably more computational
effort per time step than explicit methods, the time
step may be much larger since it is restricted in size
only by accuracy requirements. The time step in
most explicit methods, on the other hand, is restricted
only by numerical stability ~quirements which may
result in a time step much smaller than that needed
for the requisite accuracy, thus increasing the cost of
computation.
Unfortunately both the methods suffer from one
major drawback. The material state during the time
interval At must be estimated prior to the solution
for the next time step. This may be very difficult or
even impossible to do, depending on the complexity
of the material model and the nonlinearity which
occurs during the interval At. As a result equilibrium
iteration is almost always necessary and convergence
may not occur. This problem is not severe for well-be-
haved problems where the loading is monotonic, the
material model is relatively simple and when the
transition between elastic and plastic material be-
haviour is gradual. However, nume~cal failure can
and often does occur even for ‘simple’ problems such
as elasto-plastic structures subjected to oscillatory
loading. For these problems the abrupt transitions of
material from plastic to elastic states can produce
numerical instability problems. The problem is par-
ticularly aggravating for dynamical problems of
moderate duration where changes in the stiffness and
mass matrices are significant. Here material loading
and unloading occur frequently but at locations and
times which cannot be predetermined [46]. Various
implicit methods are described in Part II [37] and
recent developments in Part III [38] of this series.
Only explicit methods will be given here.
4. EXPLICITTIME-INTEGRATION
PROCEDURES
In structural analysis, explicit solution techniques
of temporal integration are characterized by the fact
that the displacement vector to be determined at the
end of the time step is not a function of either the
mechanical loads or the structural stiffness of the
body at the end of the time step. This negates the need
for extrapolation techniques or iterative calculations
and thereby simplifies the step-by-step computations.
The explicit time-integration methods are developed
from difference formulas that relate the accelerations,
velocities and displa~ments.
4.1. Second order central dgerence methods
The second order central difference explicit method
is one of the most widely used among explicit (numer-
ical integration) techniques in large scale structural
dynamics programs. The central difference method
is said to have the highest accuracy and maximum
stability limit for any explicit method of order
two 1473.However, it has the disadvantage of requir-
ing small time steps. The central difference method is
based on the following central difference formulas:
X ,CI/Z~~=(X,+~,-X,)/A~ (14)
= (X, - X,-,,)/Ar
X1--112& (15)
X, = K + r/as - X,.- &lAr (W
2, = (XI + I12Ar - 2, - AdAt (17)
X1* &I2 =f(x,+A,+X,) (18)
and
X,-mAt=f(Xi+Xr-br), (19)
where t - At, 2, and I + At are three successive time
levels. To construct a central difference algorithm, we
begin with the following finite difference expressions
in time for nodal velocities [using (18) and (19) in
( IIS)]and for accelerations [using (14) and (I 5) in (17))
at time t; Xlfd,, X, and X, _88 are the values of
displacement vector X at times I f At, c and t - At
res~~t~ve~y~ At is a smalt but constant time step; $
and X, are the velocity and acceleration vectors at
time t, respectively.
‘rE:
,-&(x,+A,-x,-A,) (20)
The error in the expressions (20) and (21) is of order
(At)‘, so the error in X is quartered when A? is halved.
Linear problems. The displacement solution at time
t + At is obtained by considering the discrete equa-
tion of motion (for linear dynamic structural. systems)
at time t, i.e.,
MX,+C*,+Xx,==R,* (22)
Substituting the relations for A, and X, from (20) and
(21) respectively, into (22), and rearranging terms, we
obtain a fully discrete temporal system for linear
problems
&M+&C ) X ,+,,+(K-+)X,
i--&i (23)
from which we can solve for X, + Ar.
The solution of X, +A,by eqn (23) is based on using
the equilibrium conditions at time t. For this reason
the integration procedure is called an explicit integra-
tion method and it is noted from (23) that such
integration schemes do not require a factorization of
the (effective) stiffness matrix in the step-by-step
solution procedure.
It should be observed in using the central difference
method that the calculation of X, +A,involves X, and
X, _ A,. Therefore, to calculate the solution at time A&
a special starting procedure must be employed. Since
X0, Xk,and X, are known (note that with X0 and &
known, X, can be calculated using (22) at time t = 0)
the relations in (20) and (21) can be used to obtain
X,_61. 3y substituting for Xl+&, in (21) from (20) and
rearranging the terms, we have for X,-A<,
X,_,,=X,-A&,+%X,
For f = 0, eqn (24) becomes
The effectiveness of the aforementioned procedure
depends on the use of a diagonal mass matrix ob-
tained by mass lumping, and the neglect of general
velocity-dependent damping forces. If only a diagonal
damping matrix is inchtded, the benefits of perform-
ing the sofution on the element Ieve are preserved.
On the other hand, if the nondiagonaf damping
matrix is introduced, the solution requires factoriza-
tion of the effective mass matrix. This is one of the
shortcomings of the central difference method apart
from time step restriction due to stability consider-
ations. But methods have been developed to over-
come some of these drawbacks and are reported here.
Table f summarizes the step-by-step central
difference computation procedure.
For structural systems without physical damping
(C is zero) eqn (23) reduces to
where
 Direct time-integration methods in structural dynamics-I 1377

Table I. Step-by-step solution procedure using central difference method (general mass and damping
matrices)
a. Initial calculations:
1. Form (global) structure mass matrix M and structure stiffness matrix K and damping matrix C.
2. Initialize X,, X, and X0.
3. Select time step AI, Ar < At,,, and calculate integration constants:
1 1
a,=$; a,=-; a,=2a,; a, = l/a,.
2At
4. Calculate X! _ d, = X, - At&, + a,&,.
5. Form effecttve mass matrix i%l= a,M + a,C.
6. Triangularize fi : ti = LSLr.
b. For each time step:
I. Calculate effective loads at time f:
R,=R,-(K-a,M)X,-(a,M-a&)X,_,,.
2. Solve for displacements at time t + At:
LDLrX, +b, = 8,.
3. If required, evaluate velocities and accelerations at time I:
X,=c,(X,+,,-XX,-,,)
X, = a,(X,+,, -2X,+X,-,,)

Equations (26) and (27) can be further simplified
x ,+~,=Ar*M~‘(R,-KX,)+2X,-X,_,,.
Therefore, if the mass matrix is diagonal, the un-
damped structural dynamics equations can be solved
without factorizing a matrix. That is, for undamped
structural systems, the integration by the explicit
central difference method does not require the solu-
tion of any simultaneous equations; only matrix
multiplications are required to obtain the vector
KX,, after which the displacement components are
obtained using
to integration used to compute the mass matrix [48]. The
convergence of a diagonal mass approximation has
(28) been proved by Fujii [49]. The errors introduced by
mass lumping have been examined by Belytschko and
Mullen [50]. According to Krieg and Key[42], the
errors introduced by the lumped masses and the
central difference operator tend to be compensatory,
so the use of diagonal mass matrices in explicit
methods is desirable both from the viewpoint of
accuracy and computational efficiency.
Damping may be included and the explicit form
still be preserved (provided M is diagonal), if the
backward, rather than the central difference approxi-
mation, is used for X,; i.e. eqn (20) is replaced by

X:,.,=(~)(R:-+)+2X;-Xi_,,, (29)
X,=&X,-X,_,,). (30)

where: Xi +A, and R: denote the ith component of The modified form of eqn (28) can be written
vectors X, +b, and R, respectively and m,i is the ith
element of the diagonal mass matrix. It is assumed X,+A! = M-‘[At2(R, - KX,) - AtC(X, - X,_,,)]
that mii > 0 for all i. N is the total d.o.f. or the order + 2x, - X,-A,. (31)
of the matrix K. Also note here that the matrix K need
not be assembled from element matrices K’; we can This explicit formulation, suggested recently by
compute vector KX, by assembling from the ele- Warburton [32], requires no matrix factorization if
mental contributions. KX, is equal to the nodal point M is diagonal even if damping is included.
(internal) forces corresponding to the element stresses Nonlinear problems. As in the linear analysis the
at time t, Fj”‘@). equilibrium of the discrete structural system is con-
Using the central difference scheme as given in (29), sidered at time t in order to calculate the displace-
systems of a very large order can be solved effectively. ments at time t + At, i.e. the equilibrium at time t is
Even if a nondiagonal mass matrix (obtained in a given by
consistent formulation of the semi-discrete equation
of motion) is used, it needs to be inverted only once, MX, + CX, + N(X,) = R,, (32)
so explicit procedures are computationally more
where N(X,) is the nodal point (elastic resisting) forces
efficient per time step than implicit methods. Pro-
provided by the structure which is evaluated at time
cedures have been developed to compute the diagonal
mass matrix from the standard consistent mass t by
matrix [29,43-45]. Improved diagonal mass matrices
NC’&) = 1 Bra@,) dl’, (33)
have been generated by modifying the numerical c s VI
1378 M. A. DOKAINISH and K. SIJBBARAJ

where the integral is taken over the element volume
at time t. B is the strain-displacement matrix and tr
is the Cauchy stress which is a nonlinear function of
strains, 6.
The solution for the nodal point displacements at
time t + At is obtained using the central difference
approximation for velocity and acceleration given by
(20) and (21) to substitute respectively for X, and X,
in (32). Then for nonlinear systems we have,
factorization, uses backward rather than central
difference approximation for X,; an alternative
scheme is presented here which uses the central
difference approximations mentioned earlier.
Governing nonlinear semi-discrete equations of
motion of a damped structural system can be
conveniently expressed at time t as follows:
MX, = R, - (CX, + N(X,)), (39a)

i.e.,
AM+& ) X ,+,v=R.-(N(XJ--&MX,)
(
MX, = 8, (39b)
- -&M-&C X,-A,. (34)
( > where R, is the effective load vector at time t.
Accelerations at each time step can be found by
For undamped nonlinear structural systems (34) solving eqn (39). With known X, and X,, 8, can be
reduces to evaluated. If M is diagonal which is often the case,
the method requires no matrix inversion. Then dis-
X,+A, = (At)‘M-‘(R, - N(X,)) + 2X, - X,-b, (35) placements and velocities at t + At are found by eqns
(20) and (21). For diagonal mass matrix,
and if the mass matrix is diagonal, we have
x = (l/m,&. (40)
X:,,,=++;N:(X,))+2X:x:-.,. (36)
A step-by-step computational procedure for this
scheme is given in Table 2.
For structural systems with damping, using backward Similar explicit integration procedures using a
difference approximation for velocity vector X, as in central difference scheme have been proposed by
(30), we have the recurrence relation, Belytschko [51] and Noor and Lambiotte [4] for
undamped structural systems.
X,+b,=M-‘[At*(R,-N(X,))-AtC(X,-X,_,,)] Other forms of central difference schemes. Key
and Beisinger [52], Belytschko [51] and Noor and
+ 2X,-X,-b,. (37) Lambiotte [4] have employed the following central
difference formula, with velocities at the mid-point of
Thus all terms on the right-hand side of equation (37) the time step [53]:
have been determined from previous time steps, t and
t -At, and X,+br is given explicitly by (37).
Xr+Ar/2 = %Ar/2 + At% (41)
An alternative explicit scheme. In the afore-
mentioned computation scheme for damped struc-
and
tural systems, the effective mass matrix, M, on the
left-hand side of the recurrence schemes for linear and
X r+Ar=X,+AtX(r+A@, (42)
nonlinear cases respectively given by (23) and (34)
involves mass, M, and damping, C, matrices requir-
ing factorization of the effective mass matrix, M, even where eqns (41) and (42) are the same as (17) and
if M is diagonal. Rayleigh damping, which uses (14), respectively. X,, $, and !&, are given initial
proportional damping, has been in common use for values. If X, is not given, it can be calculated using
computing C and is given by (22) for linear cases and (32) for nonlinear cases,
i.e.
C=aM+bK (38)
M!&,=l&-C&,-K& (43)
where a and b are the given Rayleigh constants. Using
Rayleigh damping, damping matrix C, as in eqn (38), for linear problems and
is not diagonal but banded, since it involves K which
is banded for finite element discretization. Hence Mx, = R, - CX, - N(X,) (44)
solution schemes given by (23) and (34) require a
complete matrix factorization. This is one of the for nonlinear problems. To calculate X,+Ar,2 using
shortcomings of the central difference method. (41), we need to determine $_.A,,2 which is
A modified explicit form suggested by accomplished by using the relation
Warburton [32] (for undamped structural system
with diagonal masses) which requires no matrix X,= f@,+A,,Z + %-AU,). (45)
 Direct time-integration methods in structural dynamics-I 1379

Table 2. An alternative step-by-step solution using central difference method (general mass and damping
matrices)
a. Initial calculations:
1. Initialize Xs and X0.
2. Form structure mass matrix M and damping matrix C.
3. Triangularixe structure mass matrix M = LDLT.
4. Select time step Ar < At,,.
b. For each time step:
1. Calculate effective loads at time f:
R,=R,-C&RX, for linear case
8, = R, - CX, - N(X,) for nonlinear case.
2. Solve for accelerations at time t:
LDL%, = 8,.
3. Evaluate
X,-&,=X,-A&+$X,.

This step is necessary only for the first time, i.e., I = 0. For further time steps, this step is skipped.
4. Evaluate displacement and velocity vectors at time t + Ar:
XWA1 = -X,_dr+2Xt+At2X2
XlidI = xc+,, -X,/At.

5. t+-i +Ar, and go to bl.

By eliminating X, + &,,sbetween (41) and (45) we have The step-by-step computational procedure is given
in Table 3.
A slightly different approach has been adopted by
x,-,,,=*,-;x, (46) Noor and Lambiotte [4] and Belytschko [Sl] in which
first X, is computed at time t using the ~mi-discrete
and substituting (46) in (41) we have equation of motion and then the velocity and dis-
placement vectors X,+A,,2 and Xl+&, are evaluated
using eqns (41) and (42). This procedure has been
R r+At/Z=%+;X,. (47) incorporated on CDC Star-100 computer [4]. In
Table 3, the velocity X,+a,2 is evaluated directly.
Equation (47) is used to evaluate X,+A,,2, so at time Computational aspects. The number of computa-
t =o, tions in the above mentioned explicit procedures
depends principally on the number of elements, the
sA*,2=Xo+g%. complexity of the elements, and the complexity of the
stress-strain law. In any case, the number of compu-
tations varies linearly with the number of elements,
Computational algorithm. Computational steps regardless of the node numbering and hence the
using these formulas are given by Noor and bandwidth of the mesh. The only disadvantage of
Lambiotte [4] and Belytschko [51]. For the con- these procedures is that the time step must be small
venience of computer implementation, the damped enough to be consistent with the numerical stability
equations of motion are solved by the following limits. In problems with very rapid load variations,
difference equations: using (43) or (44) for X, in (41) particularly for path-de~ndent materials, such as
elastic-plastic materials, the time step required to
Xr+A,,z=fr,-A,,,+AtM-‘(R,-CR,-KX,) (49) follow the material’s stress history is often not much
larger than the stability limit, so for these cases the
along with (42). Using (45) in (49) and rearranging time step limitations in the explicit method are not a
the terms, we have [.53] particular disadvantage[51]. On the other hand for
very long duration loads with low rise times, the
stability limits are often far below the time step
required for tracking the material history and the
response, so that the explicit method may be quite
inefficient.
X (dtR,+[M-~C]X,_,,:,-AtKX,) (50)
Stability aspects. The most significant drawback of
the central difference method (and the other explicit
for linear cases. For nonlinear cases, we use N(X,) methods (471) is its conditional stability [54]. If too
instead of the last term in (SO). large a time step is used, the computations become
t330

Table 3. Computation procedure using different central difference formula

a. Initial calculations:
I. Initialize X,, h, and x0,
2. Select time step Ar, AI < At,,.
3. Farm effective mass matrix, $I = M + At/2C.
4. Triangularize i%¶= LDL’.
5. Calculate %i_dr,Z= %, - At/2&.
b, For each time step:
I, Calculate effective loads at time f:

2.
8, = AIR,+

Solve for velocity at t -I-AC/~:

[
M-;C
1 %r_arjz- ArKX,.

s ,+&,* = @‘iI,.
3. Evaluate displacement vector X, f bi:
Xrt~r = X, f A&+w-
4. f+-~ + At and go to step bi.

numerically unstable. The numerical process will be
stable for time steps smaller than a certain value, At,, .
Studies on the stabihty of the central difference
method for linear problems [47,49,55-57], and for
nonlinear problems [53,58] show that the size of the
time step is limited for stability by
At c At,,; Ac = 2le~max
for an undamped system, where amax is the maxi-
mum (natural) frequency of the modelled structure
(IK- w*M I= 0). Because of round-off errors the
practical limit on At is roughly 25% less than Al,,
and non~agonal damning reduces A&159, p 3211.
A value in the range 5-20% of Ar, has been sug-
gested by Belytschko [51]. Expressed differently, A?,,
is the time required for an acoustic wave to traverse
the element with the least traversal time. For
homogeneous strain elements, this condition can be
rewritten in terms of the acoustic wave speed c and
the element length tp in the form [48,51],
system stiffens and this time step adjustment must be
performed in a conservative manner, so that with
certainty the condition At G At,, is satisfied at all
times [12, p. 5481. Also there is considerable empirical
evidence that aforementioned stability limits are
valid for no&near problems if the current highest
frequency or wave speed is used in the equations [Sl].
(51) Approximate formulas for At,, have been offered
by Ferguson and Clark [61]. Alternatively one can
solve an eigenvalue problem to find a,,,,,, or estimate
wi,, from the properties of the scaled stiffness matrix,
K, [59, p. 4131, o$,_ z max Qi, where
where j is the column index and n is the order of I&.
Kelsey et al. [62] find 1.5 G aLax $3.2 for a series of
test cases. The scaled matrix K, is
K, = S-iKSf and S 1: diag~l~~~j)~~*~. (S5)

Ar,, < P,/e.
Equation (52) corresponds to the Courant-
Friedricks-Lewy condition [60] that the Courant
number, r (r ticcAtit), be less than unity. For flexural
members the time step can be estimated by using
equation (52) as
m&, = I2O/&?f,
where D is the flexural rigidity and m is the rotary
lumped mass. For nonlinear problems, the current
highest frequency or wave speed should be used in the
above equations [Sl]. In the nonlinear analysis, the
stiffness properties change during the response calcu-
lations. These changes in the material and/or geo-
metric conditions enter in the evaluation of the
internal force vector Nfx,). Since, therefore, the value
of e&l,, is not constant during the response calcula-
tions, the time step At needs to be decreased if the
(52) Diagonal coefficients of K, are unity. The mass
matrix, M, has also been suggested for S, in which
case
K, = L-‘KL-T, (56)
where L is a lower triangular factor of M, obtained
by Choleski decomposition. If M is a band matrix, so
(53) is L but L-i is a fuIl matrix and so is KS. But if M
is diagonal, so are L and L-l, and the ith coefficient
of L-l is simply mg;‘/2. Then KS has the same band
structure as K and M must be nonsingular. Note
that M will be singular if M is a lumped mass
matrix with any rotation d.o.f. present in X but
not associated with any rotary inertia. In such cases,
the rotational d.o.f. of the structure can be removed
by condensation. Clough and Petien[63] remark
that the subs~tu~on M =LLf may produce an
eigenproblem that is numerically sensitive and hard
to solve accurately. They suggest a more reliable
 Direct time-integration
but more expensive transformation which involves
decomposing K instead of M. In this case, K, is
K, = L-‘ML-‘, where
K = LLr.
If the stability limits are exceeded in linear
problems during the computation (i.e. At > At,,) the
solution quickly ‘blows up’ and may reach the
overflow limits on the computer so that the instability
is easily recognized by the user. On the other hand,
in elastic-plastic problems and in other materials
which are capable of dissipating energy effectively,
it is possible for the instability to be arrested, so that
the erroneousness of the solution is not obvious
to the user. This type of numerical phenomenon is
termed an ‘arrested instability’. These can be detected
by an energy balance check, for the sum of the
internal and kinetic energies will exceed the energy
input subsequent to the occurrence of the arrested
instability (511. If energy balance checks are not avail-
able in the finite element programs currently in use
the user is advised to rerun the problem with a smaller
time step to insure that the result is reasonably
independent of the size of the time step.
4.2. Fourth order Runge-Kutta method
The classical fourth order Runge-Kutta
method [64-66] has long been popular and often
recommended by mathematicians for accurate
numerical computations of solutions for ordinary
differential equations. A comprehensive survey of
these methods and others, such as Euler’s method, is
given by Hull et al. [67]. The solution of a discrete
system of dynamic equations of motion, eqns (2) and
(8), can be readily accomplished using Runge-Kutta
formulas written as
X ,+ A, = X, + At%
+ T (A, + A, + AZ}+ 0(At5)
s,+,,=x,+;
x {A,, + 2A, + 2A, + A,} + O(At’),
where
A, = X(t, X,)
A, = X(t + iAt, X + :A&,)
A, = X(t + jdt, X, + ;A&, + ;(At)*&)
A, = X(t + it, x, + A&, + f(Af )*A,).
The accelerations in eqn (59) are calculated by solving
(2) and (8) using the time and displacement values
indicated therein.
methods in structural dynamics-I 1381
This one-step algorithm possesses several desirable
features: (1) the scheme is self starting, (2) the time
step may be easily changed, (3) the explicit nature of
formulation negates the need for iteration in non-
(57) linear problems and (4) the method is of a relatively
high order and possesses at worst a weak instability.
These desirable features are somewhat offset by the
fact that the acceleration vector must be computed
four times per time step, especially when a consistent
mass matrix is employed without significant banding,
but procedures have been developed to compute the
diagonal mass matrix from the standard consistent
mass matrix [29,4345]. The time step must be small
in order to get accurate results from stiff equations.
Also the computational time required for the solution
of a problem by this method may be rather large
compared to other numerical integration methods.
The method does not have a simple error estimate,
but modified methods such as the Runge-Kutta-
Fehlberg methods of orders 1 to 3 [68] and an
adaptive Runge-Kutta method [69] with optimized
stability properties have been developed and are
equipped with automatic step control based on
local error estimates [70]. Recently Braekhus and
Aasen [71] have compared the performance of these
methods with the explicit central difference and
implicit average acceleration methods by means of
numerical experiments on structural dynamics prob-
lems. The superiority of the explicit central difference
method with respect to computational time has been
established in these tests.
Evaluations of the technique in nonlinear shell
studies [72] have not led to recommendation of the
method for large scale problems. Current use of the
method is therefore almost totally limited to obtain-
ing initial values required for other procedures and in
rare instances, as an aid in changing the time step in
codes using multi-step methods of solution. Recently
the method has been effectively used to calculate the
internal resisting forces in complicated nonlinear
(58a) material models [73].
4.3. Other explicit methods
A multiplicity of other explicit techniques exist
which could be used in linear and nonlinear struc-
(58b) tural problems. These include stiffly stable methods
and Predictor-Corrector iterative methods such as
the second order Adams-Moulton method, PEC
(predict-evaluate-correct) algorithms, high order
Taylor series schemes and many others described in
texts on numerical analysis and solution techniques
for first order systems. Some of these methods are
briefly described here.
St@?y stable methods. Stiffly stable solution pro-
cedures have been developed to extend the range of
(59) stability of explicit calculation for use in ‘stiff equa-
tion systems produced by a finite element discretization
process, in which some frequency components vary
rapidly in time while others do not. The difficulty of
numerically integrating these equations is associated
with two offsetting factors [74]: firstly, if smdl time
steps are employed to accurately treat the stiff com-
ponents, then the total computational time becomes
excessive, and secondly, large time steps often result
in instabilities and inaccurate response predictions.
The concept of stiffly stable methods was first
introduced by Gear [75] in t967. An excehent review
on stiffly stabie methods is given in [74]. Further
extensions to these methods are presented by
Jensen [76] and Park [77].
Stabilization of numerical computatians by viscous
or artificial damping and composite implicit schemes
are given under Sec. 5, Stabilization of numerical
computations.
P~e~~~#or~Corr~~~o~ methods. The Fredictor-
Corrector (PC) methods are iterative methods that
use the information at one or more previous time
points to assist in evaluating the dependent variable
at each successive time point. ‘Single point’ PC
methods use only information at one (previous) time
while ‘multi-point’ PC methods make use of informa-
tion at more than one previous point. There has been
an evolution in PC methods 1781,An excellent review
on the PC methods as apphed to structural dynamics
is given by Humar and Wright [79].
In early PC methods the corrector was used
iteratively, but methods such as PEC (predict-
evaluate-correct) and PECE (predictevaluate-
correct-evaluate) schemes have been developed, in
which the corrector is used only once. A survey of
these PC methods can be found in [67] and f78].
A second order Adams-Molton (AM) PC scheme
as employed for nonlinear structural dynamic anafy-
sis of aircraft structures by Armen et al. in {SO]and
reproduced by Park et al. in [RI] is given by
Predictor:
Corrector:
The solution starts with predicting X$‘+br, then
iterating with the corrector until it converges. The
other details af the procedure are given in [SO] and
@I]. The stability aspects of the method as apphed to
undamped structural systems can be found in [&I].
The stability of the AMPC scheme reaches, with five
iterations, that of the central difference scheme which
requires no iteration. Because of the slow conver-
gence of the AMPC scheme, users of PC schemes
have turned to other schemes, viz, Newmark’s
scheme [SZJ, for the corrector with some appropriate
predictors for better stability conditions.
Recently, two new PEC algorithms for the
numerical solution of ordinary differential equations,
a second order and a fourth order, are given by
Crown [83]. It is reported that significant reduction
of computational time can be obtained with PEC
methods and they are more accurate than the fourth
order Runge-Kutta method. But problems with error
estimation remain for PEC methods. Use of PEC
methods in structural dynamics analysis has not been
made so far. Readers interested in PEC methods are
referred to P3].
Taylor series schemes. The methods based on
Taylor series, which also include the well known
Runge-Kutta methods, have received extensive treat-
ment in the literature. It has been shown [81] that an
extended stability limit, beyond that of the central
difference and other explicit schemes, can be achieved
by Taylor series expansion and the high order terms
of a Taylor series can improve substanti~ly the
accuracy characteristics. However, experience has
shown[&l] that (with the exception of small-scale
problems where any scheme works) the maximum
time step is often dictated by the stability limit and
not by the accuracy requirements. Both for linear and
nonlinear cases the ratio of computation of the
Taylor series to that of the central difference scheme
increases as the number of terms increases. The only
advantage of the Taylor series over the central differ-
ence scheme would be an improved accuracy
at the expense of an increase of computational
effort. However, this advantage is not guaranteed for
nonlinear problems [8 11.
A Taylor series scheme proposed by Melosh I841 is
Belytschko and Hesieh [SS] have employed a con-
vected coordinate formulation with an explicit
solution operator which relies upon a Taylor series
expansion (at time t) to determine the displacements
at t -I- At and an average acceleration during the time
step to compute the velocity components. Heifitz and
Constantino [86] have also used the explicit operator
presented in f85].
To date, limited use has been made of these
techniques in structural analysis as code developers
have a tendency to use more conventional techniques
in their programs.
5. STA~rLIZATr~N OF NUMERICAL CUW’UTATEONS
The transient response analysis of large scale,
linear or nonlinear structural dynamics systems poses
great difficulties for structural analysts. The equa-
tians of motion of such systems are often character-
ized by widely varying frequency components, with
low-frequency components usually dominating the
response. Such structural dynamic equations are
termed ‘stiff systems’. Unfortunately~ the unimpor-
tant high-f~quency components, whether physical
or an artefact of the spatial discretization process,
remain embedded in the equations and may cause
 Direct time-integration methods in structural dynamics--I
instability problems in numerical computations. The
degree of difficulty encountered in performing such
computations is highly dependent upon the iterative
characteristics of the particular time-integration
scheme used and the governing equations of motion.
For many structural systems, a finite element ideal-
ization gives rise to a set of ‘stiff equations, i.e.,
equations in which some natural vibration fre-
quencies vary rapidly in time while others do not.
Also, stiff equations characterize a structure whose
highest frequencies are much greater than the lowest
(%I, & cotin). Especially ‘stiff structures, therefore,
include those with a very fine mesh, thin shell struc-
tures (whose membrane stiffness greatly exceeds its
bending stiffness), and structures with near-rigid sup-
port members. If a conditionally stable algorithm is
used for these structures, At must be very small, even
if the highest modes are of no interest. As noted
in [74] the difficulty of numerically integrating these
equations is associated with two factors. First of all,
if a small time step is employed to accurately treat the
stiff components, then the total computation becomes
expensive. Secondly, larger time steps often result in
instabilities and inaccurate response prediction. The
concept of stiffly stable methods was first introduced
by Gear [75] in 1967. An excellent review on stiffly
stable methods is contained in the paper by
Jensen [74]. ‘Stiffly stable’ methods have been further
improved by Jensen [76] and Park [77] to analyse
these structural systems.
5.1. Stabilization techniques
Stabilization of numerical computations via the
introduction of artificial damping into the equations
of motion and construction of composite implicit
integration schemes have been in use. The algorithmic
damping of temporal integrators may be described as
the tendency of the difference scheme to damp certain
components of the response.
Stabilization by arttjicial damping. The first use of
‘artificial viscosity’ was introduced by Von Neumann
and Richtmyer [87] in their celebrated paper on the
numerical calculations of hydrodynamical shocks.
This dissipation (‘shock smearing’) technique primar-
ily allows the automatic occurrence of shocks while
maintaining a smooth transition of shocks over a
small number of finite difference grid spaces. The
shock smearing through the artificial damping re-
duces the stability of almost all explicit schemes [53].
While the artificial damping has been primarily used
for shock smearing in the wave propagation prob-
lems, a similar concept has been suggested in [84]
to stabilize the numerical solution of structural
dynamics problems by explicit schemes.
The effects of artificial damping are most pro-
nounced in the highest frequencies of the mesh.
Therefore, if the higher frequencies are of interest,
such as in shock-loaded problems, operators with
artificial damping should be avoided [51]. On the
other hand, if only the lower frequencies are of
1383
interest, the effects of damping are not particularly
damaging and they do serve to smooth out the
solutions and thus aid in their interpretation. On the
whole, integrators with considerable damping are not
recommended [51]. A sort of artificial damping is
introduced in the stiffly stable method (to filter the
high frequency contributions out of the solution)
used for the solution of stiff equations produced by
a finite element discretization process.
The Newmark methods have no artificial damping;
all the other methods introduce artificial damping in
varying amounts with the Wilson-B method introduc-
ing the most.
The effect of artificial damping on the stability and
accuracy of various integration schemes has been
studied by Park [53]. It is shown that stabilization
by artificial damping fails for any explicit scheme
contrary to the notion that a frequency-proportional
damping would suppress the high frequency
components [53]. It is also shown that among
explicit schemes, viz. second order central difference,
high order Taylor series, fourth order Runge-Kutta
scheme and second order Adams-Moulton Predictor-
Corrector scheme, the central difference scheme is
preferred from the stability considerations [53].
Second order accurate implicit schemes do not
need any stabilization technique; on the other hand
stabilization is necessary for high order implicit
schemes to solve the undamped equations of motion.
Stabilization by input damping or artificial damping
introduced through a component proportional to
stiffness into the Gear third order scheme have been
shown to improve its stability [53]. For more elabor-
ate details of such stabilization techniques for high
order implicit schemes the reader is referred to
Jensen [76].
Even though such a stabilization technique may be
effective for linear and nonlinear problems using the
tangent stiffness formulation, it is not considered an
appropriate measure for nonlinear problems when
solved by the pseudo-force formulation. The reason
is that one is forced to determine the artificial
damping based on the linearized (or initial) stiffness.
Therefore, the numerical solution will be damped
for softening structures and unstable for hardening
structures.
Stabilization by composite implicit schemes. The
other stability technique is to construct composite
implicit integration schemes by combining strongly
stable schemes with unstable schemes. It has been
shown [77] that such composite schemes can possess
improved stability and accuracy characteristics. The
composite scheme can be represented symbolically as
s = c,s, + C,S” (63)
where S is the composite scheme, c, and c, are the
influence factors and S, and S, designate stable
and unstable schemes respectively. One can view
this approach either as a stabilization for unstable
schemes or destabilization for strongly damped
schemes. The stabilization via this composite scheme
by Park [77] has shown improved accuracy and stabil-
ity. This approach has been successfully used 177) for
the development of an improved mixed scheme. This
stabilization approach is not affected by the solution
procedure, viz, tangent stiffness method and pseudo-
force method for nonlinear problems.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
A survey of explicit time-integration methods is
presented. Among them, popular central difference
methods applied to linear and nonlinear dynamics
problems, their recent devefopments, and associated
step-by-step computationa procedures for easier
computer ~mpiementation are given in detail. Compu-
tational and stability aspects of these methods as well
as techniques for stabilizing numerical computations
are also discussed.
REFERENCES
I. T. 3. It. Hughes and T. Beelytschko, A precis ofdevetop-
ments in computational methods for transient analysis.
J. a&. Me& SO, 1033-1041 (1983)
2. B. Fredriksson and J. Mackerle, Overview and
evaluation of some versatile general purpose finite
element computer programs. Xn I;i’nite Element
Methods in the Commercial Environment, Vol. 2 (Edited
by J. Robinson), pp. 390-419. Publ, Robinson and
Associates, Dorset, U.K. (19%).
3, B. Fredriksson and J. Mackerle, PartiaI list of major
finite element programs and description of some of
their canabilities. In ~iate-uf-tie-Ari Survevs on Finite
Elemen; Technology (Edited”by A. K. Noor and W. D.
Pilkey), pp. 363404. ASME, NY (1983).
4. A. K. Naor and J. J. Lambiotte, Jr, Finite ele-
ment dynamics analysis on CDC Star-100 computer.
Comput. Struct. 15, l-9 (1979).
5 R. E. Fulton, The finite element machine: an assessment
of impact of parallel computing on future finite element
computations. Finite EIemenrs in An&.& and Design 2,
83-98, 1986.
6. S. Utku, R. Melosh and M. Islam, On nonlinear fmite
element analysis in single, multi, and paraflei processors.
Comput. Snuct. 15, 39-47 (1982).
I. H. Adeli, Y.M. Gere and W. Weaver, Jr, Algorithms for
nonlinear structural dynamics. J. Struct, Div., AXE
154, 263-280 (1978).
8. H. Armen, Assumptions, models and computational
methods for plasticity. Comput. Sttuct. 15, 161-174
(1979).
9. 3. S. Arora and D. T. Nguyen, Eigensohttion for large
structural systems with substructures, Int. J* &mer.
1weth. Engng 15, 333-34I (1980).
10. K. 3. Bathe and E. L. Wilson, Large eigenvalue prob-
lems in dynamic analysis. J. Engng Mech. Div., ASCE
48, 1471-1485 (1972).
II. K. J. Bathe, Finite element formulation, modeling and
solution of nonlinear dynamic problems. In Numerical
Methods for Partial Drxerential Equartons, pp. l-40.
Academic Press, New York (1979).
12. K. J. Bathe, Finite EIPmenr Pracedures in Engineering
Anal’ysis, pp. 499-556. Prentice-Hail, New York (1982).
t3. K. J. Bathe and G. Larsson, The ADINA system in
engineering practice. Finire Elements in Anaiysis and
Design 2, 41-60 (1986).
I4 J. L. Bayier and J. P. Wright, Three dimensional
nonlinear analysis. In Finite Element Analysts of
Transient Nor&sear Srructural Behaviour (Edited by
T. Belytschko. J. R. Osias and P. V. Marcal). DD.
179-141. ASME Applied Mechanics Symposia S&&s.
AMD-Vol. 14 (1975).
I52 T. Belytschko, An improved element by element semi-
implicit scheme for dynamic probfems. Nrrci. Engng Des.
85, 127-i3Q (1984~~
16. J. Donia, A&meer in ~tr~et~r~ ~~n~rn~c~.Appl. Sci.
Publ., London, UK (1980).
17. W. N. Enright, On the efficient time integration of
systems of second order equations arising in structural
dynamics. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 16, 13-18 (1980).
IS H. D. Hibbitt and B. I. Karlsson, Analysis of pipe
’ whip. ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., San
Francisco, Palo Alto, CA (1979).
19. J. F. Imbert. A survey of current capability for
dynamic analysis of complex structures. fn Finite Ele-
ment methods in the Commercial ~nvjronment, Vol. 2
(Edited by 3. Robinson), pp. 423464. Publ. Robinson
Associates, Dorset, U.K. (1978).
20. J. F. McNamara, Solution schemes for problems of
nonlinear structural dynamics. J. Pressure Vessel
Technology 96, 96102 (1974).
21. D. P. Mondkar and G. H. Powell, Finite element
analysis of nonlinear static and dynamic response.
Inf. J. Numer. rtferh. Engng 11,499-525 (1977).
22. A. K. Noor, J M. Peters and C. M. Anderson,
Two-stage Rayfeigh-Ritz technique for nonlinear anal-
ysis of structures. In Innovative Numerical Analysis far
the Applied Engtneering Sciences (Edited by R. Shaw,
W. Pillkey, BT Pilkey, R. Wilson, A. Lakis, A.
Chaudouet and C. Marina).II ._ vu. 743-753. Universitv
Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1980). .
23. A. K. Noor and J. M. Peters, Penalty finite element
models for nonlinear dynamic analysis. AIAA Jnl 24,
312-320 (1986).
24, I?. R. J. Owen, Implicit finite element methods for
dynamic transient analysis of solids with particular
reference to nonlinear situations, In Advances in Struc-
tural Dynamics (Edited by Y. Donea), pp. 123-152.
Appl. Sci., London, UK (1980).
25 K. C. Park, Time integration of structural dynamics
equations: a survey. In Pressure Vessels and Piping:
Design Technology, A Decade of Progress (Edited by
S. Y. Zamrik et al.) ASME, NY (1982).
26 A. B. Pifko and R. Winter, Theory and applications of
finite element analysis to structure crash simulation.
Cumput. Struct. X3, 277-281 (1981).
27. G. H. Powell, D. G. Row, J. P. Holhngs, P. Chen, F. C.
Hu, M. Mahasu-verachal, 8. Mosaddad, P. Nicklin,
S. Nour-Omid, C. Ough-ourlian and A. Riachi, Com-
puter development for pipe whip and impact analysis.
Report No. NUREC/CR-1721, Vol. 2, and UCRL
15273, Vol. 2, Lawrence Livermore Lab., Livermore,
CA (1981).
28. A, Segal and N. Praagman, A fast implementation of
exphcit time stepping algorithms with the finite element
method for a class ofnonlinearevolution problems. In?.
J. Numer. Meth. Engng X3, 155-168 (1986).
29. D. Shantaram, D. R. J. Owen and 0. C. Zienkiewicz,
Dynamic transient behaviour of two and three dimen-
sional structures including plasticity, large deformation
effects and fluid interactions. Int. Report C/R/231/74,
Civil Engng Dept, University of Wales, Swansea, UK
(1974).
30. J, R. Tillerson, Selecting solution procedures for non-
hnear structural dynamics. S!mc~ and Vibration Digest
7, Z-13 (1975).
31, R. Ushijima and K, Kausel, Two efficient schemes for
dynamic analysis with finite elements. Nucl. Engng Des.
66, 141-146 (1981).
 Direct time-integration methods in structural dynamics--I
32. G. B. Warburton, Some recent advances in structural
vibrations. In Vibrations of Engineering Structures
(Edited by I. A. Brebbia and S. A. Orszag), pp. 21.5-223.
Lecture Notes in Engineering, No. 10. Springer, Berlin
11985).
33. w. i P. Wright, Mixed time integration schemes.
Compur. Struct, 10, 235-238 (1979).
34. I. Zeid, Fixed point iteration to nonlinear finite element
analysis, Part II: formulations and implementation.
Int. .I. Numer. Meth. Enann 21. 2049-2069 (1985).
35. 0. C. Zienkiewicz, Thee-genkralized finite element
method: a state of the art and future directions. J. appl.
Mech. SO, 121%1217 (1983).
36. 0. C. Zienkiewicz, Dynamic transient analysis by a
mixed iterative method. Inr. .I. Numer. Meth. Engng 23,
13431353 (1986).
37. K. Subbaraj and M. A. Dokainish, A survey of direct
time-integration methods in computational structural
dynamics-II. Implicit methods. Comput. Struct. 32,
1387-1401 (1989).
38. M. A. Dokainish and K. Subbaraj, A survey of direct
time-integration methods in computational structural
dynamics-III. Recent developments in implicit
methods. Comput. Struts. (submitted).
39. K. Subbaraj and M. A. Dokainish, A survey of
direct time-integration methods in computational struc-
tural dynamics-IV. Mixed implicit-explicit methods
and operator-splitting methods. Comput. Struct.
(submitted).
40. K. Subbaraj and M. A. Dokainish, Modal super-
position methods in computational structural dynamics.
J. Emma Mech. Diu. ASCE (submitted).
41. M. AT Dokainish and K. Subbaraj, Dynamic reduction
methods for large eigenvalue problems. Comput. Meth.
uppl. Mech. Engng (in press).
42. R. D. Krieg and S. W. Key, Transient shell response by
numerical time integration. ht. J. Numer. Meth. Engng
17, 273-286 (1973).
43. R. W. Clough, Analysis of structural vibration and
response. In Recent Advances in Matrix Methods of
Structural Analysis and Design (Edited by R. H.
Gallagher, Y. Yamata and J. T. Oden), pp. 25-46.
Univ. Alabama Press, Huntsville, AL (1971).
44. S. W. Key and Z. E. Beisinger, The transient dynamic
analysis of thin shells by the finite element method.
Proc. 3rd Conf on Matrix Methods in Structural
Analysis, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, pp.
479-518 (1971).
45. E. Hinton, T. Rock and 0. C. Zienkiewicz, A note on
mass lumping and related process in the finite element
method. Earthq Engng Struck Dyn. 4, 245-249 (1976).
46. R. B. Nelson and R. Mak, A method for improving
numerical stability of implicit time integration for non-
linear dynamic structural response. Nucl. Engng Des. 70,
37-43 (1982).
47, R. D. Krieg, Unconditional stability in numerical time
intearation methods. J. at&. Mech. 40.417420 (1973).
48, R. -Mullen and T. Beiytschko, An’ analysis ‘of an
unconditionally stable explicit method. Comput. Struct.
16, 691-696 (1983).
49. H. Fujii, Finite element schemes: stability and con-
vergence. In Advances in Computational Methods in
Structural Mechanics and Design (Edited by J. T. Oden,
R. W. Clough and Y. Yamamoto), pp. 201-218. Univer-
sity of Alabama Press, Huntsville, AL (1972).
x). T. Belytschko and R. Mullen, Explicit integration of
structural problems. In Finite Elements in Nonlinear
Mechanics (Edited by P. Bergan, P. K. Larsen, H.
Petterson, A. Samuelsson, T. Soreide and N. E. Wiberg),
pp. 697-702. Tapir Press, Trondheim, Norway (1978).
51. T. Belytschko, A survey of numerical methods and
computer programs for dynamic structural analysis.
Nucl. Engng Des. 37, 23-34 (1976).
1385
52. S. W. Key and Z. E. Beisinger, SLADE D: a com-
puter program for the computer analysis of thin shells.
Report SLA-73-0079, Sandia Labs., Alburquerque, NM
(1973).
53. K. C. Park, Practical aspects of numerical time
integration. Comput. Stnrct. 7, 343-353 (1977).
54. G. P. Destefano, Causes of instabilities in numerical
integration techniques. Int. J. Compur. Math. 2,123-142
(1968).
55. T. .I. R. Hughes and W. K. Liu, Implicit-explicit finite
elements in transient analysis: stability theory. J. appl.
Mech. 45, 371-374 (1978).
56. J. W. Leech, P. Hsu and E. W. Mack, Stability of a
finite difference method for solving matrix equations.
AIAA Jnf 3, 2172-2173 (1965).
57. S. Levy and W. D. Kroil, Errors introduced by finite
space and time increments in dynamic response com-
putations. Proc. First U.S. Nat. Co& on Appl. Mech.,
1-8 (1951).
58. J. T. Oden and R. B. Frost, Convergence, accuracy and
stability of finite element approximations for a class of
nonlinear hyperbolic equations. Int. J. Numer. Meth.
Engng 6, 357-365 (1973).
59. R. D. Cook, Concepts and Application of Finire
Element Analysis (2nd Edition), pp. 186188, 31 I-325.
John Wiley, New York (1981).
60. R. Courant, K. Friedrichs and H. Lewy, Uber die
partiellen Differenzengl-eichungen der Mathematischen
Physik. Math. Annln k0, 32-74 (1928).
61. G. H. Ferguson and R. D. Clark, A variable thickness,
curved beam and shell stiffening element with shear
deformation. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 14, 581-592
(1979).
62. S. Kelsey, K. N. Lee and C. K. K. Mak, The condition
of some finite element coefficient matrices. Proc.
Computer Aided Engng Symp. (Edited by G. M. L.
Gladwell). University of Waterloo, Ontario (1971).
63. R. W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures.
McGraw Hill, New York (1975).
64. K. Dekker, Comparing stabilized Runge-Kutta
methods for semi-discretized parabolic and hyperbolic
equations. Report-NW 45/77, Stichting Mathematisch
Centrum, Amsterdam (1977).
65. W. Kutta, Beitrag zur nlherungsweisen integration
totaler differential-gleichungen. Z. Math. Phys. 46,
435453 (1901).
66. C. Runge, Uber die numerische au Riisugn von differen-
tial-gleichungen. Math. Annln 46, 167-175 (1895).
67. T. E. Hull. W. H. Enrinht. B. M. Fellen and A. E.
Sedwich, Comparing numerical methods for ordinary
differential equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 9,603-637
(1972).
68. E. Fehlberg, Klassiche Runge-Kutta formula vierter
und niedriger ordnung. Computing 6, 61-67 (1970).
69. G. Dahlquist and A. Bjorck, Numerical Method, p. 353.
Prentic~Hall. Enelewood Ciiffs. NJ (1974).
70. L. F. Shampine,lLocaI error controls in codes for
ordinary differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 3,
189-210 (1977).
71. J. Braekhus and J. 0. Aasen, Experiments with direct
integration algorithms for ordinary differential equa-
tions in structural dynamics. Comput. Struct. 13,95-96
(1981).
12. H. Garnet and H. Armen, Evaluation of numerical time
integration methods applied to elastic-plastic dynamic
problems involving wave propagation. Grumman Res.
Dept. Report RE-475, Bethpage, New York (1974).
73. M. A. Bhatti and K. S. Pister, Transient response
analysis of structural systems with nonlinear behaviour.
Comput. Struct. 13, 181-188 (1981).
74. P. S: Jensen, Transient analysis of
structuresby stiffly
stable methods. Comput. Struct 4, 615-626 (1974).
75. C. W. Gear, Numerical integration of stiff ordinary
1386 M. A. D~KA~NISH
and K.
differential equations. Report 221, Dept. of Computer
Science, Univ. Illinois at Urbana, IL (1967).
76. P. S. Jensen, Stiffly stable methods for undamped
second order equations of motion. J. Numer. Anal. 13,
549-563 (1976) [also LMSC-D409277, Lockhead Palo
Alto Research Laboratory, Palo Alto, California (1975)].
77. K. C. Park, An improved stiffly stable method for direct
integration of nonlinear structural dynamic equations.
J. a&. &fech 42, 464-470 {f9?5).
7%. P. Henrici, Discrefe ~~orZ$e ~~~~~ in ~r~i~~
Differential
._ Eauarions. John Wilev. NY (19681.
79. J. L. Humar and E. W. Wright, Numerical methods in
structural dynamics. can. J. civ. z%g?zg1, 179193 (1974).
80. H. Armen, Jr, A. Pifko and H. Levine, Nonlinear
finite element techniques for aricraft crack analysis.
In Aircraft Crash Worthiness (Edited by K. K. Saczalski
ef a/.), pp. 517-548. University Press of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA (1975).
81. K. C. Park, C. A. Felippa and J. A. DeRuntz,
Stabjli~ation of staggered solution procedures for &id-
structure interaction analysis. In Computational Metho&
for Fluid-Structure interaction Problems (Edited by
T. Belytschko and T. L. Geers), pp. 95-124. ASME
Applied Mechanics Symposia Series, AMD-26 (1977).
82. N. M. Newmark, A method of computation for struc-
tural dynamics. J. Engng Mech. Div., AXE sS,67-94
(1959).
83. J. C. Crown, A new PEC algorithm for the numerical
solution of ordinary differential equations. .+p!. Ma&.
Cornput. 5, 189-209 (I 980).
84. R. .I. Melosh, integration of linear equations of motion.
J. Struct. Din., AXE 101, 155l-1558 (1975).
85. T. Belytschko and 9. J. Hesieh, Nonlinear transient
finite element analysis with convected coordinates.
Inr. J. Numcr. Meth. Engng 1, 255-271 (1973).
86. J. H. Heilitz and C. J. Constantino, Dynamic response
of nonlinear media at large strains. S. Engng Me&. Div.,
AXE 98, 15tl-l528 (1972).
87. f. Von Neumann and R. D, Richtmyer, A method for
the numerical calculation of h~dr~~arn~c shocks.
J. appl. Phys. 21, 232-257 jl950).
88. R. E. Nickel], Direct integration methods in structural
dynamics. J. EplgngMech. Div., ASCE99,303-317 (1973).
89. J. A. Stricklin and W. E. Haisler. Formulations and
solution procedures for nonlinear structural analysis.
Comput. Struet. 7, 125-136 (1977).
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LJTERATURE ON MODAL
SYNTHESE3 METHODS
1. C. A. Bucher, A modal synthesis method employing
physical coordinates, free component modes and
residual flexibilities. Comput. Struct. X$559-564 (1986).
2. P. C. Chowdhury, An alternative to normal mode
method. Comput. Struct. 5, 315 (1975).
3. J. W. Cooley and J. W. Tukey, An algorithm for
the machine calculation of complex Fourier series.
Math. Cumpur. 19, 297-301 (1965).
4. R. R. Craig, Jr and M. C. C. Bampton, Coupling of
substructures for dynamic analysis. AIAA frill St
1313-1319 (1968).
5. R. R. Craig, Jr, Methods of component mode synthesis.
Shock V&F. Digest 9, 3-10 (1977).
6. H. Flashner, An orthogonal decomposition approach
to modal synthesis. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 23,
471-493 (1986).
I. A. L. Hale and L. Meirovitch, A general substructure
synthesis method for the dynamic simulation of com-
plex structures. J, Sound P&r, 69(2), 309-326 (1980).
g. A. L, Hale and L. Meirovitcb, A procedure for im-
proving discrete substructure representation in dynamic
synthesis. AIAA Jni 20, 11281136 (1982).
9 f. F. Hall, An FFT algorithm for structurai dynamics.
Eurthq Engng Struct. Dyn. 10, 797-81 I (1982).
SUBBARAI
10. S. N. Hou, Review of modal synthesis techniques and
new approach. Shock Vibr. &ii. 40, 2530 (1969).
Il. W. C. Hurty and M. F. Rubinstein, Dynamics of
Structures. Prentice-Hall (1964).
12. W, C. Hurty, Dynamic analysis of structural systems
using component modes. AIAA Jnl3, 678485 (1965).
13. W. C. Hurty, J. D. Collins and G. C. Hart,
Dynamic analysis of large structures by modal synthesis
techniques. Cwnpul. Struct. 1, 535-563 (1971).
14. R, A. Ibrahim and T. D. Wrtodall, Linear and non-
linear modal analysis of aero elastic structural systems.
Camnut. Struct 22. 699-701 (1986).
15. T. hramura, H. Suzuki and T. ‘Sata, An improved
method of dynamic coupling in structural analysis and
its application. J. Dyn. Cyst. Measurement Control,
ASME 106, 82-89 (1984).
16. T. Inamura, Theory and application of dynamic
decoupling in s&ctural anal&is. Fin&e Elem&ts in
Annlvsis and Des&n I. 323-339 11985t.
is. K. G. Kim, W. j. Anderson and B. S. Sandstorm,
Nonlinear inverse perturbation method in dynamic
analysis. AIAA Jnl 21, 1310-1316 (1983).
18. K, 0, Kim and W. J. Anderson, Generalized dynamic
reduction in finite element dynamic optimization.
AIAA Jnl22, 1616-1617 (1984).
19. K. 0. Kim, Dynamic condensation for structural
redesign. AfAA Jnl 23, 1830-1831 (1985).
20. f. H_ Kuang and Y. G. Tsuei, A more general method
of substructure mode synthesis for dynamic analysis.
AIAA “+zf23, 618-623 (1985).
21. K. Kubomura, A theory of substructure modal
synthesis. J. appl. Meek 49, 903-909 (1982).
22. K. Kubomura, Transient loads analysis by dynamic
condensation. J. appl. Mech. 52, 559-564 (1985).
23. A. R. Kukreti and H. 1. Issa, Dynamic analysis of
nonlinear structures by pseudonormal mode super-
position method. Comput. Strucf. 1s 653663 (1984).
24. Y. T. Leung, Fast modal response method for struc-
tures. int. +i_hiumer. Heth. Engng lP,t435-1451 (1983).
25. L. Me~rov~~h, C~rn~t~i~~nal Meib~~ in ~t~ct~r~~
Dynamics. Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen and Rijn,
The Netherlands (1980).
26. L. Meirovitch and A. L. Hale, On the substructure
synthesis method. AIAA Jrrl 19, 940-947 (1981).
21. F. C, Nelson, A review of substructure analysis of
vibrating systems. Shock V&r. Digesf 11, 3-9 (1979).
28. A. K. Noor, H. A. Kamel and R. E. Fulton,
Substructuring techniques: status and projections,
Cornput. Srrucr. 8, 621632 (197%).
29. M. Ookuma and A. Nagamatsu, Vibration analysis by
component mode synthesis method. &ii. JSME 29,
882-887 (1986).
30. B. G. Prakash and M. S. S. Prabhu, Reduction tech-
niques in dynamic substructures for large problems.
Compur. Strucr. 22, 539-552 (1986).
31. A. S. Salmonte, Considerations on the residual contri-
bution in modal analysis. Eatlg Engng Sfrucr. Dyn. 10,
295-304 ( f 982).
32. I. Senjanovic, Harmonic acceleration method for
dynamic structural analysis. Cornput. S&act. lg, 71-80
(19&I),
33. C. Stavrinidis, Theory and Practice of modal synthesis
techniques. In Finite Element Method in Commercial
.&uironment, Vol. 1 (Edited by J. Robinson), pp. 308-331.
Publ, Robinson and Associates, Dorset, U.K. (1978).
34. A. S. Veletsos and C. E. Ventura, Dynamic analysis of
structures bv the DFT method. S. Sfruct. Div., AXE
ill, 2625-2~642(1985).
35, B. P. Wane. W. D. Pilkev and A. R. Palaazofo,
Reanalysis, kodaf synthesis-and dynamic design. In
Stcrte-r&-&e-Art Surveys on Finite Element Technofogy
(Edited by A. K. Noor and W. D. Pilkeyf, pp. 225-295.
ASME, New York (l9g3).