Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers and Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Efficiency of dynamic relaxation methods in nonlinear analysis of truss

and frame structures
M. Rezaiee-Pajand a,⇑, S.R. Sarafrazi b, H. Rezaiee a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Birjand University, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Twelve new and well known dynamic relaxation methods are considered. Several benchmark frame and
Received 23 May 2011 truss structures, with geometric nonlinear behavior, are solved by these schemes. Based on the total
Accepted 27 August 2012 number of iterations and overall analysis duration, the studied techniques are graded. In this way, the
Available online 18 October 2012
efficiencies of the solvers are found and these algorithms are sorted in terms of their abilities.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Dynamic relaxation
Efficiency
Convergence rate
Nonlinear analysis
Frame and truss

1. Introduction by repeating some cycles. Frankel proposed an iterative technique,

The dynamic relaxation method (DRM) is an iterative process
that is used in solving the system of static equations. By adding
the fictitious mass and damping terms, the DRM converts the static
state to the dynamic one. These masses will oscillate when the
fictitious dynamic system is relaxed from an initial position. If
the DRM masses and damping terms are selected properly, the
responses of the structure converge to the static solutions, as soon
as possible. The dynamic relaxation process calculates each ele-
ment internal forces by multiplication of the nodal displacements
and the element stiffness matrix. Adding all internal force vectors
will lead to the global internal force vector. By calculating the
differences of internal and external forces, the structural residual
forces are found. In other words, DRM does not require assembling
and storing the global stiffness matrix of structure. It should be
added that the dynamic relaxation procedure is very simple and
also eliminates the round-off errors. Due to the important role of
this solver, a variety of researches have been conducted to improve
the DRM convergence rate so far. Simplicity, full explicit vector
operations and no sensitivity to nonlinear behaviors are the main
specifications of the dynamic relaxation procedure.
As acknowledged by Frankel, the first major numerical effort to
utilize the finite difference method in conjunction with a relaxa-
tion scheme was performed by Allen and Southwell [1]. These
investigators analyzed the elastic–plastic continuum by an itera-
tive strategy, in which an estimation of the answer is corrected
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 9153130340; fax: +98 5118412912.
E-mail address: mrpajand@yahoo.com (M. Rezaiee-Pajand).
similar to the Richardson one, for solving the system of the second-
order differential equations. Frankel called his scheme, the second-
order Richardson method. This researcher assumed linear relations
between the errors of the two sequential iterative steps and esti-
mated the maximum value of the error ratio in the terms of eigen-
value error. By maximizing the rate of error reduction, this author
found the required parameters for his approach. The Frankel idea
was employed by Day, and he introduced the DRM [2]. Some other
researchers, such as Otter [3], Lynch et al. [4], and Rushton [5],
utilized this strategy to solve the structural problems.
During several years, the dynamic relaxation methods have
been improved progressively. For instance, the kinetic damping
technique was suggested by Cundall [6]. He eliminated the viscous
damping and changed the DR procedure. In this scheme, the veloc-
ities were set to zero, when the total kinetic energy of the system
was at its top point. Topping also contributed to the kinetic damp-
ing method [7]. A new approach for estimating critical damping
was proposed by Bunce using the concept of a mass-dependent
load vector [8]. In 1981, Papadrakakis studied the errors’ effects
in the DR process and proposed an automatic way to estimate
the DR parameters [9]. Another strategy for evaluating the
damping factor and mass matrix belongs to Underwood [10]. He
developed a suitable technique for analyzing nonlinear problems.
An alternative DRM was proposed by Qiang [11]. Based on the re-
sponses of the un-damped system, Al-Shawi suggested required
formulations for finding the DR fictitious mass and damping fac-
tors in order to solve plate bending structures [12].
In 1989, Zhang and Yu proposed a modified adaptive dynamic
relaxation (maDR) procedure [13]. Moreover, they found a way

0045-7949/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.08.007
296 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310
for estimating a better value of the initial displacements. Zhang
et al. developed the maDR technique and defined the damping fac-
tor for each node of the structure [14]. These researchers revised
the guess of the initial displacement vector as well. It is noted;
the critical damping of a single degree of freedom system is pro-
portional to the mass and stiffness. Munjiza employed this idea
and suggested the Km proportional damping for the DRM [15]. It
should be added, the common DR technique utilizes the first-order
finite difference method. For improving the accuracy, Rezaiee-
Pajand and Taghavian-Hakkak employed the three terms of Taylor
series and formulated a new DR process [16]. In another study,
Rezaiee-Pajand and Alamatian suggested an addition strategy for
evaluating the fictitious masses and damping factor [17].
Some other researchers have focused their efforts on finding the
optimal time step. Recently, Kadkhodayan et al. minimized the
residual force to achieve this goal [18]. Minimizing the residual en-
ergy is another process that was employed by Rezaiee-Pajand and
Alamatian [19]. Lately, Sarafrazi investigated the DR algorithms
and proposed a general formulation [20,21]. In the mentioned
study, the effect of time step is separated to the value of time step
at the current step and the time step ratio. He found the proper
relations for the optimal time step ratio and critical damping. By
setting the damping factor to zero, Sarafrazi also proposed an alter-
native DR algorithm that did not require the damping factor
[20,22].
The proper value of the time step ratio leads to the near exact
solution. By combining the power iterative process and the DR
technique, Sarafrazi suggested a new method for updating the crit-
ical damping [20,21]. Recently, Rezaiee-Pajand et al. proposed a
novel technique for updating the damping factor [23]. In fact, their
approach improves the convergence rate, but it requires inversing
the stiffness matrix. It should be noted that the Dynamic Relaxa-
tion process does not assemble the global stiffness matrix. In other
words, the displacements are calculated by implementing some
simple vector operations. Having the simplicity, efficiency and
robustness, the DRM has been employed for analyzing the highly
nonlinear structures as well [24–26]. To have more information
about the progress of the DRM and the related applications, a short
review of the events can be found in the recent publications
[22,23].
The aforementioned statements briefly show the existence of a
verity of dynamic relaxation algorithms. Most of the creators of
these methodologies describe the capabilities of their techniques,
individually. In other words, and more accurately, there is no com-
prehensive comparison study available to clarify relatively the effi-
ciencies and robustness of these schemes. Based on this fact,
twelve of the mentioned techniques are selected in this article.
First, a short overview of these formulations will be presented.
Afterwards, the related algorithms will be compared with each
other in the nonlinear analysis of the truss and frame structures.
This comparative study is based on the total number of iterations
and overall analysis duration. Finally, the performances of men-
tioned strategies will be graded and the best methods will be
introduced.
2. The dynamic relaxation procedure
The stiffness formulation is the most attractive features of the
finite element methods. In this class of analysis, the displacements
X are evaluated in terms of the acting load P, and the structural
stiffness matrix S, by the following equation:
SX ¼ P
It should be noted, the left-hand side of this relation is the vector of
the internal forces, which is denoted by F = SX. Eq. (1) covers both
linear and nonlinear structural behaviors. In nonlinear behavior,
the stiffness matrix is a function of displacements and can be
denoted by SðXÞ. It should be added that the nonlinear systems
can be analyzed by an iterative procedure. One of the simple solvers
suitable for this duty is the dynamic relaxation method. This tech-
nique transfers Eq. (1) from the static space into the dynamic one
by adding the fictitious inertial and damping forces, as follows:
€ þ CX_ þ SX ¼ P
MX ð2Þ
It is usual to consider the damping matrix as a factor of the mass
matrix and use the next equality:
C ¼ cM ð3Þ
In this equation, c is the damping factor. Employing central finite
difference method, the following iterative relations can be
achieved:
k k
1 2  h c _ k1 2h
X_ kþ2 ¼ k
X 2þ k
M1 Rk ð4Þ
2þh c 2þh c
kþ1 1
Xkþ1 ¼ Xk þ h X_ kþ2 ð5Þ
k+1
In these relations, h is the time step of the finite difference pro-
cess. Vector Rk shows the residual force, Rk = P  F(Xk). The velocity
vector at the middle of the interval time is denoted by X_ k1=2 . It is
well known that the damping factor, time step and artificial
mass matrix affect the convergence capability and rate of the
DRM. In other words, they should be selected in such a way that
the iterative procedure converges as soon as possible. To speed
and simplify the technique, a diagonal mass matrix is selected for
this process. It should be added that the iterative loop should start
from the initial values of velocity and displacement vectors. By
assigning an acceptable residual error, er, the algorithm is able to
converge to the solution of Eq. (1). Usually, analyzers prefer to
utilize zero initial conditions. All aforementioned processes can be
outlined as below:
0
(a) Defining er ; X0 ; X_ 1=2 ¼ 0 and h .
(b) k = 0.
(c) Assembling the internal force vector and applying boundary
conditions.
(d) Evaluating the residual forces, artificial mass matrix and
damping factor.
(e) Updating the value of time step h.
(f) Calculating X_ kþ1=2 and Xk+1.
(g) If kRk+1k 6 er then stop the algorithm.
(h) k = k + 1.
(i) If k 6 kmax, continue the DR iteration from step (c).
Here, kmax is the maximum allowable number of iterations,
which should be defined by the analyst. So far, several methods
have been suggested to evaluate the DR parameters. These tech-
niques have some virtues and demerits. Some of the famous or re-
cent techniques are selected and reviewed in the next sections.
Afterward, these techniques will be numerically compared with
each other.
2.1. Papadrakakis method
One of the famous DR processes belongs to Papadrakakis [9]. He
assumed the DR mass and damping matrices as two factors of the
diagonal matrix, D. The latter one contains the diagonal entries of
the stiffness matrix. Based on Papadrakakis hypothesis, the follow-
ð1Þ ing relationships were obtained:
M ¼ qD ð6Þ
C ¼ cD ð7Þ
 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310 297

It was shown that the error ratios of DRM were related to the fi ðxk1 Þ þ fi ðxk Þ
sl;k
ii ¼ ð17Þ
eigenvalues of B = D1S matrix. Papadrakakis performed an error k1=2
hx_ i
analysis and found the optimum values of h2/q and ch/q ratios as
below: It should be noted, the lowest circular frequency was assumed less
! than two, such as 1.9, when the result of (xk)TSl,kxk was negative.
2
h 4
¼ ð8Þ
q
opt
kBmax þ kBmin 2.3. Qiang DR technique
  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ch 4 kBmax  kBmin P
¼ ð9Þ Qiang calculated the mass matrix via the mii ¼ j jsij j relation
q opt kBmax þ kBmin
and found the optimum values of ch and h as below [11]:
In these equations, kBmin and kBmax are the lowest and the highest pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
eigenvalues of B, respectively. As a common way, Papadrakakis 4 kBmin 2
ch ¼ and h ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð18Þ
established the highest eigenvalue via the Gerschgörin theorem: 1 þ kBmin 1 þ kBmin
X
n
The value of the lowest eigenvalue, kBmin, was calculated utilizing
jkBmax j < max jbij j ð10Þ
i
j¼1
the next Rayleigh relation:

On the other hand, the lowest eigenvalue was computed using the ðfXk gT SXk Þ
next DRM characteristic polynomial: kBmin ¼
ðfXk gT MXk Þ
k2DR  kDR b þ a
kBmin ¼  ð11Þ
kDR c 2.4. The maDR method
The parameter kDR is the rate of the error decay in the sequential
iterations, and a, b and c are related to the DR parameters as below: In 1989, Zhang and Yu suggested a modified adaptive dynamic
relaxation (maDR) process [13]. They calculated DR mass matrix by
2
2  ch=q 2h =q utilizing Eq. (14), and evaluated damping factor via c = 2x0.
a¼ ; b ¼ a þ 1 and c ¼ ð12Þ
Furthermore, the following equation was employed to calculate
2 þ ch=q 2 þ ch=q
the lowest circular frequency:
Papadrakakis approximated the value of q by utilizing the following
relation: sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðXk ÞT f k
x0 ¼ ð19Þ
kxkþ1  xk k ðXk ÞT Mk Xk
kDR ¼ ð13Þ
kxk  xk1 k
Zhang and Yu employed non-zero initial displacements, as follows:
It should be noted, the value of kBmin and kBmax are guessed in the
first iteration. xi þ x
x0i ¼ i
ð20Þ
2
2.2. Underwood procedure
In the last equation, xi and x
i are the first minimum and maximum

Underwood proposed the common DR method [10]. The value displacements in the un-damped system.
of time step was taken to be equal to one in this algorithm. How-
ever, the mass matrix was calculated by utilizing the Gerschgörin 2.5. DODR technique
theorem as below:
By introducing the damping factor for each node separately,
1 2X
n
Zhang and his coworkers developed the maDR algorithm [14]. In
mii P h jsij j ð14Þ
4 j¼1 this process, the artificial damping matrix for node i is calculated
from ci = 1imi. Here, 1i and mi are the damping factor and mass
To assure a stable DR process, the analyzer can utilize h = 1.1. It is matrix of the mentioned structural node, respectively. These
obvious; the stiffness matrix changes when the structural behavior researchers employed the next Rayleigh principle for each node
is nonlinear. Consequently, the artificial mass matrix should be and obtained 1i:
updated. Underwood suggested recalculating the mass matrix when
the maximum value of defined error in the system becomes greater vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u  k T k
u x f
than one. The value of error in each degree of freedom was 1i ¼ 2t iT i ð21Þ
calculated as follows: xki mki xki
 
h €xki  €xk1 
2
ek
¼  i
 ð15Þ It is worth emphasizing that Zhang et al. formulation ignores the
i
4 xki  xk1
i

effects of other nodes on the total energy of node i. This algorithm
usually converges to the unacceptable solution, when the truss and
Moreover, the fictitious damping factor was obtained by using
frame structures are analyzed utilizing the stiffness method [27]. To
c = 2x0. In this relation, x0 is the lowest circular frequency of the
increase the solver ability, the same damping factors are used for all
artificial dynamic system. The Rayleigh principle was employed to
nodes in the present study. It should be noted; Zhang et al.
calculate x0 in the kth iteration, as below:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi improved Zhang and Yu relation for initial displacements. They sug-
ðXk ÞT Sl;k Xk gested performing the DR process by arbitrary initial displacements
x0 ¼ ð16Þ to find the first extreme point of the response curve. These analyz-
ðXk ÞT Mk Xk
ers averaged the obtained solution and utilized X0 to update X0.
The matrix Sl,k in the last equation is a local stiffness matrix and is Two or three repetitions of the mentioned approach give the
evaluated by utilizing the subsequent internal force vector: acceptable value of the initial response.
298 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310

2
h €k
Xkþ1 ¼ Xk þ hX_ k þ X ð22Þ
2
These authors suggested calculating X € k from the dynamic equilib-
rium equation, Rk ¼ MX € k þ CX_ k , and X_ k by utilizing X_ k ¼ ðXk 
Xk1 Þ=h. Furthermore, they considered the artificial mass matrix
as a factor of the stiffness matrix, M = aS. By assuming the time step
equal to one in this algorithm, the convergence rate increases when
the value of a is less than one. The value a = 0.6 was employed for
all truss structures. The damping matrix is calculated as a factor of
the mass matrix, similar to the Qiang suggestion [11]. The men-
tioned algorithm is called RPTH technique in this paper.
Fig. 1. Truss TR1.
2.7. Kinetic damping method

In the common dynamic relaxation procedure, the use of ficti-

tious viscous damping leads the structural response to the steady
state position. Cundall proposed another version of the DRM by
using kinetic damping, and employed the following iterative rela-
tions [6]:
8
< x_ kþ1=2 ¼ x_ k1=2 þ hk r k
i i mii i
ð23Þ
: xkþ1 ¼ xk þ hkþ1 x_ kþ1=2
i i i

The un-damped system oscillates until the kinetic energy of struc-

ture reaches its peak. At this point, the nodal velocities are set to
zero. Topping extended this technique by assuming the peak point
of kinetic energy at the middle of time step [7]. He calculated, the
Fig. 2. The load–displacement curve for Truss TR1. displacements at time tk  Dt/2 in the next form:
k
3 kþ1 ðh Þ2 k
xk1=2 ¼ xikþ1  h x_ kþ1=2 þ r ð24Þ
i
2 i
2mii i
2.6. Rezaiee-Pajand and Taghavian-Hakkak process
At the mentioned time, the nodal velocities reset to zero. Conse-
For the sake of increasing the accuracy-order of the DRM, quently, the velocities at time tk + Dt/2 are obtained via
k
Rezaiee-Pajand and Taghavian-Hakkak considered the three terms x_ kþ1=2
i ¼ h r ki =2mii . Based on this strategy, the residual force vector,
of Taylor series for the displacement extrapolation as below [16]: R , should be evaluated at the Xk1/2 position, as well. The artificial
k

Table 1
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of TR1.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 23 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 266 63.4 6 1.201 60 7
Underwood [10] 83 83 81 77 73 68 61 51 36 31 644 0 9 2.743 0 9
Qiang [11] 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 48 100 1 0.172 100 1
maDR [13] – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
DODR [14] – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
RPTH [16] 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 271 62.6 7 0.655 81.2 5
kdDR [7] 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 11 84 94 2 0.455 89 2
MFT [18] – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
mdDR [17,19] 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 22 5 6 109 89.8 4 0.478 88.1 4
MRE [19] 4 7 7 9 11 13 15 21 15 6 108 89.9 3 0.465 88.6 3
RPS [20,21] 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 22 50 5 153 82.4 5 0.668 80.7 6
zdDR [20,22] 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 301 57.6 8 1.28 56.9 8

Fig. 3. Truss TR2.

 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310 299

Fig. 4. The load–displacement curve for Truss TR2.

mass matrix in this technique should also satisfy the subsequent

condition:
k
ðh Þ2 X
q
mii P jsij j ð25Þ
2 j¼1

It is noted that the present article utilizes the kdDR abbreviation for
the aforementioned technique. Fig. 5. Truss TR3.

2.8. MFT procedure

The optimum value of the time step in the DRM was studied by
Kadkhodayan et al. [18]. By employing Eqs. (14) and (21), they cal-
culated the DR mass matrix and damping factors, respectively.
After that, these authors introduced the following relation for the
rate reduction in the sum of the squares of the nodal residual
forces, ZR:
X
q
 2 X
q
 k 2
pikþ1  fikþ1 6 ZR ri ð26Þ
i¼1 i¼1

Applying the finite difference technique, the following internal

forces at time tk + Dt were approximated in the present method:
kþ1 _ kþ1=2
fikþ1 ¼ fik þ h f ð27Þ Fig. 6. The load–displacement curve for Truss TR3.

In the last equation, the rates of changes in the internal forces were
P
denoted by f_ kþ1=2 , which is approximately equal to qj¼1 sij x_ j
kþ1=2
. By
minimizing the parameter ZR, Kadkhodayan et al. found the subse- Utilizing the optimum time step leads to the modified fictitious time
quent optimum time step: process (MFT) [18]. It is worth emphasizing that the second-order
Pq k _ kþ1=2 derivative of ZR with respect to hk+1 is always positive. When satis-
kþ1 r f fying this condition, Eq. (28) guides the highest convergence rate. It
h ¼ Pi¼1 i ð28Þ
_
ðf kþ1=2 Þ2 ought to be added that the obtained value for time step is

Table 2
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of TR2.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 26 30 25 20 18 168 95 110 14 14 520 24.7 9 2.277 19.5 9
Underwood [10] 29 30 26 23 21 – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
Qiang [11] 13 13 14 15 19 123 215 55 11 11 489 33.7 7 2.153 29.2 8
maDR [13] 202 86 50 32 23 78 47 46 21 19 604 0.3 10 2.527 0 11
DODR [14] 203 86 50 32 23 78 47 46 21 19 605 0 11 2.418 8.5 10
RPTH [16] 11 11 12 12 13 191 11 11 11 11 294 90.4 4 1.248 100 1
kdDR [7] 29 27 25 26 37 81 44 51 24 27 371 68 6 1.545 76.8 5
MFT [18] 47 44 41 36 50 73 36 84 51 47 509 27.9 8 2.019 39.7 7
mdDR [17,19] 8 9 10 12 16 79 46 47 25 24 276 95.6 2 1.311 95.1 3
MRE [19] 7 8 9 11 14 50 48 98 32 30 307 86.6 5 1.4 88.1 4
RPS [20,21] 12 13 13 15 17 53 38 51 25 24 261 100 1 1.254 99.5 2
zdDR [20,22] 15 17 17 19 22 104 35 33 13 12 287 92.4 3 1.607 71.9 6
300 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310

Table 3
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of TR3.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 6319 5085 5643 6189 7529 9618 13002 19133 30985 31106 134609 0 10 408.87 0 10
Underwood [10] 713 727 793 954 900 1111 1357 1612 2121 2066 12354 96.6 2 55.711 94.8 2
Qiang [11] 1656 1359 1330 1358 1566 2384 4977 13628 47506 – – – 0 – – 0
maDR [13] 1680 1465 1522 1637 1821 2125 2675 3813 6037 6376 29151 83.3 7 132.709 74.2 8
DODR [14] 1688 1465 1522 1637 1821 2125 2675 3813 6037 6376 29159 83.3 8 130.33 74.8 7
RPTH [16] 1507 1144 1033 1155 1239 2110 4736 12954 42827 – – – 0 – – 0
kdDR [7] 571 519 631 748 754 535 618 990 1305 1346 8017 100 1 36.449 100 1
MFT [18] 702 915 902 905 886 885 1664 2761 5248 5598 20466 90.2 5 90. 355 85.5 6
mdDR [17,19] 1694 1465 1522 1637 1821 2125 2675 3813 6037 6375 29164 83.3 9 133.236 74 9
MRE [19] 675 844 876 866 857 840 1785 3073 5121 5552 20489 90.1 6 94.317 85.9 5
RPS [20,21] 769 1115 853 907 1016 1187 1519 2113 2498 3507 15484 94.1 3 74.586 89.8 3
zdDR [20,22] 772 1130 882 908 1020 1190 1526 2126 2572 4461 16587 93.2 4 78.203 88.8 4

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h iffi
They also employed c ¼ x20 4  ðhk Þ2 x20 to calculate damping
factor. Furthermore, the lowest circular frequency is calculated via
Eq. (19).

2.10. MRE algorithm

Another algorithm to find the optimum value of the time step

was suggested by Rezaiee-Pajand and Alamatian [19]. They took
advantage of the minimizing the total kinetic energy of the ficti-
tious dynamic system. These researchers defined the residual en-
ergy function as below:
X
q
 2
REF ¼ dxikþ1 r kþ1
i ð30Þ
i¼1

Similar to Kadkhodayan et al. method, rkþ1 i can be approximated in

the terms of rki and h f_ kþ1=2
kþ1
Fig. 7. Truss TR4. i to obtain the following new definition
of the residual energy function:
q 
X  2
kþ1 2
r ki  h f_ i
kþ1=2 kþ1 kþ1=2
REF ¼ ðh Þ x_ i ð31Þ
i¼1

By minimizing Eq. (31), with respect to the time step, one can find a
second-order function, which gives two values for the time step.
One of these time steps makes the related second-order derivative
positive. This value of the time step is optimum one. Taking advan-
tage of this time step will accelerate the DRM, even within a few ini-
tial iterations [20]. If there is no feasible time step, the one
calculated by Eq. (28) is employed.

2.11. Rezaiee-Pajand and Sarafrazi technique

The artificial damping factor is related to the lowest eigenvalue

Fig. 8. The load–displacement curve for Truss TR4. of the DR solver. It is noted that most of the researchers usually uti-
lize the Rayleigh principle. The mentioned method gives the upper
sometimes extremely small or a very large number, which may bound of the lowest eigenvalue, kmin. Consequently, if one exploits
cause numerical instability. Numerical experience showed that a better evaluation of kmin, the DR process converges rapidly. Re-
the analyzer should limit the time step value to prevent shakiness zaiee-Pajand and Sarafrazi used this idea and combined one step
[20]. of the power iterative scheme of finding the eigenvalue and the
DR algorithm [20,21]. It should be noted, the power iterative pro-
2.9. mdDR algorithm cess converges to the highest eigenvalue. When the upper bound
of the highest eigenvalue is a, employing the power iterative algo-
In 2002, Rezaiee-Pajand and Alamatian performed an error rithm on the shifted matrix [M1S  aI] converges to the lowest
analysis on the DRM, and suggested another mass matrix, as below eigenvalue of M1S. The aforementioned approach takes advantage
[17,19]: of Eq. (29) for mass definition, and sets the parameter a to 4. Con-
( k )
k sequently, this strategy leads to the following relations for the DR
ðh Þ2 ðh Þ2 X
q
mii ¼ max sii ; jsij j ð29Þ step to update the damping factor:
2 4 j¼1
 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310 301

Table 4
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of TR4.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 259 264 312 371 445 376 670 332 397 383 3809 91.1 7 16.086 90.8 6
Underwood [10] 252 269 271 316 296 360 453 189 186 196 2788 100 1 11.71 100 1
Qiang [11] 580 635 783 1049 1495 2426 3476 1167 1315 1293 14219 0 12 59.521 0 12
maDR [13] 576 615 653 707 794 1005 729 328 310 296 6013 71.8 8 25.116 72 8
DODR [14] 585 615 653 707 794 1005 729 328 310 296 6022 71.7 10 25.646 70.9 9
RPTH [16] 464 520 659 891 1253 2013 2476 843 889 867 10875 29.3 11 45.463 29.4 11
kdDR [7] 412 355 385 377 401 427 556 285 281 286 3765 91.5 6 16.074 90.9 5
MFT [18] 287 283 324 317 407 550 684 316 302 284 3754 91.5 5 15.459 92.2 3
mdDR [17,19] 591 614 652 706 793 1003 730 327 310 292 6018 71.7 9 28.703 64.5 10
MRE [19] 232 312 323 383 399 499 679 315 295 284 3721 91.8 4 15.481 92.1 4
RPS [20,21] 374 282 259 283 300 402 620 327 310 292 3449 94.2 3 17.689 87.5 7
zdDR [20,22] 390 289 268 286 310 414 674 177 161 172 3141 96.9 2 14.523 94.1 2

Fig. 9. Truss TR5.

Vector u in Eq. (32) is the eigenvector of M1S. The suggested DR

scheme is started from u0 = I, and k0 = 1. Furthermore, the obtained
lowest eigenvalue from Eq. (32) is compared with the Rayleigh one
and minimum value is employed to update the damping factor. It
should be noted, the mentioned technique in this article will be de-
noted by RPS process.

2.12. Zero damping DRM (zdDR)

In 2010, a general DR procedure was proposed by Sarafrazi [20].

He divided the time step effects into the value of the kth time step,
and the time step ratio, which is c = hk+1/hk. Based on this assump-
tion, the optimum value of the time step ratio and critical damping
were formulated. By setting the damping factor to zero, Sarafrazi
Fig. 10. The load–displacement curve for Truss TR5.
obtained the related time step ratio as below [20,22]:
1
c¼ pffiffiffiffiffi2 ð33Þ
v k 1 1
¼ ½M S  aIu ¼ M Su  au ; k ¼ maxðv Þ; u
k k k k k kþ1
¼ v =k
k k 1þ k1

kk1 ¼ kk þ a Consequently, the damping terms were eliminated from the DR

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 algorithm, and a new displacement vector was calculated via the
ck ¼ kk1 4  kk1 next relation:

ð32Þ Xkþ1 ¼ Xk þ DXkþ1 ; DXkþ1 ¼ cðM1 Rk þ DXk Þ ð34Þ

302 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310

Table 5
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of TR5.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 1020 885 – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
Underwood [10] 227 250 751 516 546 703 955 526 502 496 5472 100 1 42.365 100 1
Qiang [11] 285 383 5513 4513 5346 8615 7434 4166 4014 3872 44141 0 9 349.114 0 9
maDR [13] 251 293 1284 875 788 734 1439 1052 981 913 8610 91.88 5 67.652 91.76 8
DODR [14] 257 293 1284 875 788 734 1439 1052 981 913 8616 91.87 6 67.312 91.87 6
RPTH [16] 302 270 – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
kdDR [7] 371 448 – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
MFT [18] 220 243 1277 844 764 704 1442 1002 928 869 8293 92.7 4 64.747 92.7 4
mdDR [17,19] 267 292 1284 875 788 734 1439 1052 981 914 8626 91.84 7 67.158 91.92 5
MRE [19] 212 224 1260 844 764 704 1442 1002 937 868 8257 92.8 3 64.623 92.74 3
RPS [20,21] 271 292 1271 875 803 752 1423 1052 981 914 8634 91.82 8 67.532 91.8 7
zdDR [20,22] 343 359 1095 542 482 617 1207 634 586 544 6409 97.58 2 50.882 97.22 2

Fig. 11. Truss TR6.

same accuracy. However, they require the different number of iter-

ation to achieve the desired accuracy. In order to compare these
solvers, the efficiency degree for the number of iterations, EiI , and
the one related to the analysis duration, EiT , are calculated, as
below:
!
Iimax  Ii
EiI ¼ 100  ð35Þ
Iimax  Iimin
!
ti  ti
EiT ¼ 100  i max i ð36Þ
t max  tmin

In these relations, Ii and ti show the total number of iterations and

Fig. 12. The load–displacement curve for Truss TR6.
It should be added that the artificial mass matrix and the lowest
eigenvalue were used similar to the previous approach.
3. Numerical examples
overall analysis duration for method i, respectively. The lowest
score is zero and belongs to the technique with the highest number
of iterations or the longest analysis duration. On the other hand, the
algorithm that requires the lowest number of iterations or the
shortest analysis time scores 100 points. After marking the selected
DR algorithms in each example, the overall outcomes are compared,
and the DR processes are graded.

The twelve aforementioned algorithms are programmed to ana-
lyze trusses and plane frames. In addition, some benchmark prob-
lems are selected and the geometric nonlinear behaviors of these
structures are traced by applying the entire loads in ten steps.
The acceptable residual errors are the same for all solutions and
are equal to 104 (er = 104). Also, the total number of iterations
and the analysis durations are recorded for each case. All the con-
verged algorithms were shown by dots. These schemes had the
3.1. Simple truss
Fig. 1 shows a single degree of freedom truss that is denoted by
TR1. In this structure, the value of AE is 68,029,310 kgf and P equals
to 32  105 kgf [17]. The load–displacement curve of TR1 is shown
in Fig. 2. The dots in the mentioned figure show the responses of
the converged methods. Furthermore, Table 1 presents the total
number of iterations Ii and analysis duration ti for the studied DR
 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310 303

Table 6
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of TR6.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 77 60 52 39 149 94 94 94 95 95 849 56.6 4 4.763 31.4 6
Underwood [10] 58 57 64 78 106 64 60 63 58 59 667 80.7 2 2.994 82.8 2
Qiang [11] 54 55 61 75 194 132 131 130 129 128 1089 24.8 8 4.673 34 5
maDR [13] 51 70 88 133 227 127 116 115 114 105 1146 17.2 10 5.226 17.9 9
DODR [14] 48 70 88 133 227 127 116 115 114 105 1143 17.6 9 4.992 24.7 8
RPTH [16] 31 31 35 39 110 55 55 55 55 55 521 100 1 2.401 100 1
kdDR [7] 97 88 105 107 151 93 88 91 89 77 986 38.4 5 4.288 45.2 4
MFT [18] 80 89 69 81 202 119 119 96 110 110 1075 26.6 6 4.805 30.2 7
mdDR [17,19] 58 68 85 130 227 127 116 116 114 105 1146 17.2 10 5.366 13.9 11
MRE [19] 93 100 96 110 232 138 148 128 114 117 1276 0 11 5.843 0 12
RPS [20,21] 60 68 85 74 212 127 116 116 114 105 1077 26.4 7 5.258 17 10
zdDR [20,22] 74 85 108 76 120 63 62 62 61 61 772 66.8 3 4.096 50.8 3

Fig. 13. Truss TR7.

3.2. Housetop truss

The shape of this three-dimensional truss, which is named TR2,

is shown in Fig. 3. The housetop truss has 9 degrees of freedom,
and its members’ properties are A = 1 and E = 10 [16]. The obtained
results are shown in Fig. 4 and Table 2. It should be noted, the non-
linear analyses are done using the incremental load method.
Consequently, the snap-though and snap-back parts of the
load–displacement curve cannot be traced. In other words, the
mentioned demerit does not belong to DR strategy.
As it is shown in Table 2, the Underwood method cannot trace
the static path after the critical point of the load. In other words,
the mentioned technique diverges in step 6 and residual force error
increases extremely. At this stage, the computer program stops.

Fig. 14. The load–displacement curve for Truss TR7. 3.3. Chan truss

procedures. Based on the values of Ii and ti, the scores EiI and EiT are
respectively calculated and presented in Table 1.
According to the results, the maDR, DODR and MFT approaches
cannot analyze this structure. The rate of declining residual error in
these methods is very slow. Even by using the maximum allowable
number of iterations in each loading step (kmax), which is defined
60,000 for the computer program, the acceptable residual error
(er) is not attained. Based on the scores, the other techniques are
graded from one to nine as recorded in Table 1. The column of SI
shows the grades of each technique based on the iteration scores.
On the other hand, the marks of analysis duration are shown in
the column of St. In this example, the grades of maDR, DODR and
MFT processes are equal to zero.
Fig. 5 shows TR3 structure that was analyzed by Chan and Lau.
This truss has a strong nonlinear behavior [28]. The value of AE for
all structural members is 9  103. The parameters k and P are set to
5 and 1, respectively. The static path for index displacement is
illustrated in Fig. 6. Table 3 demonstrates the analyses outcomes
and comparison results.
It should be noted, in step 10 of loading, the Qiang and RPTH
procedures did not converge to acceptable residual error in the
admissible number of iterations (i.e. 60,000 iterations).
3.4. 22-element truss (TR-4)
The structure of Fig. 7 has 22 elements . The member’s area
sections are 20 and 40 in.2 for diagonal and other members,
304 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310

Table 7
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of TR7.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 110 118 121 147 196 191 191 172 – – – – 0 – – 0
Underwood [10] 128 143 122 141 148 151 139 1173 206 150 1501 85.7 3 16.984 78 3
Qiang [11] 229 217 210 203 195 185 171 169 1019 787 3385 0 11 31.169 0 11
maDR [13] 240 228 227 229 231 234 242 309 276 145 2361 46.6 9 27.066 22.6 10
DODR [14] 235 228 227 229 231 234 242 309 276 145 2356 46.8 8 25.225 32.7 7
RPTH [16] 175 163 152 137 108 113 117 127 1219 516 2827 25.4 10 25.943 28.7 8
kdDR [7] 197 195 205 209 176 209 204 220 255 184 2054 60.5 6 22.568 47.3 5
MFT [18] 92 101 91 100 91 107 112 122 228 142 1186 100 1 12.982 100 1
mdDR [17,19] 232 226 226 227 229 232 240 307 275 145 2339 47.6 7 26.593 25.2 9
MRE [19] 99 99 118 107 106 101 111 121 241 154 1257 96.8 2 13.691 96.1 2
RPS [20,21] 233 195 185 179 179 179 177 175 296 181 1979 63.9 4 22.411 48.2 4
zdDR [20,22] 241 202 192 191 184 186 184 183 299 186 2048 60.8 5 22.916 45.4 6

Fig. 15. Truss TR8.

respectively [16]. The load–displacement curve is drawn in Fig. 8.
The analysis results for this truss are recorded in Table 4.
All discussed formulations converge to the true nonlinear solu-
tion of this truss. Besides, the Underwood and zdDR techniques
perform a fewer iterations and require a smaller amount of the
times for solving this problem.
3.5. Bridge truss
TR5 is a bridge truss as shown in the Fig. 9. The values of section
area for the bottom and top of the longitude members are respec-
tively 0.003 and 0.005. The other cross section areas of the truss
members are equal to 0.001. The modulus of elasticity for the
structure is 2  1010 [20]. The curve of maximum deflection of
the bridge versus the load variation is plotted in Fig. 10. Table 5
shows the total number of iterations and overall analysis durations
for different DR algorithms. All the twelve DR processes are graded
in the mentioned table, as well.
In this example, the Papadrakakis method diverges in loading
steps 3–10. Furthermore, it is interesting to notice that the RPTH
and kdDR techniques converge to wrong solutions after step 2 of
loading. Based on these unacceptable results, the grades of these
solvers are equal to zero.
3.6. Truss TR-6
This three dimensional truss with 24 elements is drawn in
Fig. 11. The value of section area and modulus of elasticity of its
 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310 305

t/m
q=100
60 , u

q=100
88

q=100
90

q=100
Fig. 16. The load–displacement curve for Truss TR8. 60

members are 3.17 and 303,000, respectively [16]. Also, P is equal to q=100 ton
650. Fig. 12 shows the load–displacement curve for top point of the 30
truss. Moreover, the outcomes of analyses are arranged in Table 6.

3.7. Dome shape truss

TR7 is a dome shape truss with 147 DOFs, which is presented in

Fig. 13. This structure is adopted from the recent published article
[24]. The members’ properties are AE = 1  105 and the value of
Fig. 17. Frame FR1.
load is P = 1000. The deflection–load curve for the crest point of
the dome is plotted in Fig. 14. Table 7 gives the performed analy-
ses’ scores.
It is worth emphasizing that Papadrakakis approach diverges in
step 9 and cannot pass the critical point of the static path. Conse-
quently, the mentioned scheme is graded zero.

3.8. Two-layer space truss

In this example, the DR algorithms are studied in the analysis of

a space truss called TR8. Fig. 15 shows the geometry and loading of
this structure. The members’ section area of the truss and its mod-
ulus of elasticity are 3.657  103 m2 and 2.1  1010 kgf/m2,
respectively [20]. Also, P is equal to 200,000 kgf.
The two-layer space truss is analyzed with the discussed DR
techniques. Fig. 16 shows the curve of the largest structural deflec-
Fig. 18. The load–displacement curve for Frame FR1.
tion. The comparison results are shown in Table 8.

3.9. Five-story frame and loading of the mentioned structure that is denoted by FR1.
The columns and beams of the frame are W2150 and W1835,
In this example, a five-story frame structure with rigid beam to respectively. The frame modulus of elasticity is equal to
column connections is considered. Fig. 17 presents the geometry 2  107 t/m2 [20]. The curve of index displacement via the load is

Table 8
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of TR8.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 3536 3567 3568 3537 3565 4875 5342 5448 5594 5206 44238 0 12 3747.235 0 12
Underwood [10] 1210 1169 1170 935 963 880 777 842 700 704 9350 98.31 7 1167.101 85.24 11
Qiang [11] 1246 1406 1487 1476 1420 1351 1283 1218 1161 1110 13158 87.58 11 1057.511 88.86 10
maDR [13] 1231 1083 976 935 913 880 852 830 816 786 9302 98.45 4 767.381 98.45 3
DODR [14] 1264 1083 976 937 913 880 852 830 816 786 9337 98.35 5 782.232 97.95 6
RPTH [16] 1303 1317 1153 1051 925 847 794 750 712 679 9531 97.80 9 784.806 97.87 7
kdDR [7] 1543 1385 1323 1385 1217 1251 1053 1033 1067 938 12195 90.30 10 999.166 90.79 9
MFT [18] 902 990 965 937 914 845 855 801 813 781 8803 99.85 2 838.190 96.11 8
mdDR [17,19] 1278 1083 976 935 911 871 854 829 815 786 9338 98.35 6 773.496 98.24 4
MRE [19] 858 996 967 936 913 842 850 794 814 781 8751 100 1 720.316 100 1
RPS [20,21] 1366 1075 1055 929 911 873 854 829 815 786 9493 97.91 8 775.555 98.18 5
zdDR [20,22] 1601 1183 1020 895 818 760 708 669 638 610 8902 99.57 3 735.307 99.50 2
306 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310

Table 9
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of FR1.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 2601 2071 1734 1929 2104 2386 2691 3044 3282 4224 26066 44.74 10 246.995 4.26 10
Underwood [10] 503 524 603 616 677 670 712 761 834 905 6805 97.85 4 63.523 87.83 4
Qiang [11] 2936 3052 3240 3467 3739 4071 4482 5003 5686 6613 42289 0 12 256.355 0 12
maDR [13] 1485 1435 1452 1484 1527 1582 1652 1743 1866 2036 16262 71.77 8 100.885 70.73 8
DODR [14] 1489 1435 1452 1484 1527 1582 1652 1743 1866 2036 16266 71.76 9 98.733 71.71 6
RPTH [16] 2973 3090 3271 3488 3747 4061 4446 4932 5561 6408 41977 0.86 11 255.622 0.33 11
kdDR [7] 525 479 491 504 550 640 638 689 721 789 6026 100 1 36.551 100 1
MFT [18] 1355 1266 1321 1448 1584 1737 1798 1857 1645 1371 15382 74.2 5 172.739 38.04 9
mdDR [17,19] 1488 1433 1450 1483 1526 1580 1651 1742 1865 2036 16254 71.79 7 99.122 71.53 7
MRE [19] 1454 1432 1453 1486 1529 1584 1654 1744 1867 2038 16241 71.83 6 98.421 71.85 5
RPS [20,21] 694 480 491 529 558 589 623 664 715 781 6124 99.73 2 37.783 99.44 2
zdDR [20,22] 695 498 500 541 569 598 633 674 725 790 6223 99.46 3 38.079 99.3 3

q=250 kgf/cm
90000 kgf

q=25
75000

q=250
60000

q=250
45000
6@350 cm
q=250
30000

q=2
15000

550 cm

Fig. 19. Frame FR2.

Table 10
The section properties of FR2.

Section Member Story A (cm2) I (cm4) E (kgf/cm2)

C1 Column 1, 2, 3 76.13 25470 2  106
C2 Column 4, 5, 6 66.45 21230
C3 Beam All 58.84 15610

plotted in Fig. 18. The efficiency comparison is expressed in

Table 9.

3.10. Six-story frame

This is a moment resistant frame, which is named FR2. Fig. 19

shows this six-story structure, and Table 10 contains its members’
properties [21]. The nonlinear top drift of the building is plotted in
Fig. 20. Table 11 shows the comparison results.
It should be mentioned, in step 3 of loading of the Qiang, maDR,
DODR and MFT methods, residual error increased in 1000 succes-
sive iterations. At this stage, the computer program stopped. The
maximum allowable number of iterations is defined 1000 in the
computer program. As a result, these schemes are graded zero.
Fig. 20. The load–displacement curve for Frame FR2.
3.11. Fifteen-story frame
Fig. 21 illustrates a fifteen-story moment resistant frame. Its
members’ properties are A = 0.16 m2, I = 0.213  102 m4 and
E = 0.2  1010 kg/m2. Gravity uniform loads and concentrated wind
forces affect this frame structure. These loads are applied in ten
 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310 307

Table 11
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of FR2.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 5237 5670 5252 4132 4611 5405 6464 7967 10410 12120 67268 67.96 7 552.381 68.25 7
Underwood [10] 2637 2516 2468 2654 2803 2951 3410 3732 4142 4908 32221 96.34 2 263.345 96.57 2
Qiang [11] 16348 17553 – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
maDR [13] 4266 3990 – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
DODR [14] 4265 3994 – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
RPTH [16] 7261 7839 8635 9648 10978 12794 15388 19290 25343 34017 151193 0 8 1248.894 0 8
kdDR [7] 1805 2553 2231 2074 2406 3078 3236 3024 3625 3670 27702 100 1 228.322 100 1
MFT [18] 2723 3948 – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
mdDR [17,19] 4274 3989 4149 4389 4717 5182 5841 6760 7957 8966 56224 76.9 6 460.965 77.2 5
MRE [19] 4222 3992 4148 4386 4722 5187 5847 6761 7960 8971 56196 76.93 5 463.883 76.92 6
RPS [20,21] 3740 2452 2635 2935 3238 3578 3986 4473 5002 5182 37221 92.29 3 308.725 92.12 3
zdDR [20,22] 4114 2418 2649 2954 3254 3590 3988 4490 5009 5195 37661 91.94 4 313.163 91.69 4

Fig. 22. The load–displacement curve for Frame FR3.

the portal frame is 8,274,037.9 N/m2. The values of section area

Fig. 21. Frame FR3.
steps and the displacement at the top-right node of the frame is
plotted in Fig. 22.
The total number of iterations and the overall analysis duration
are reported in Table 12 for different DR methods. This table shows
the iteration and time scores as well. According to the obtained
results, the kdDR process is the best solver for the fifteen-story
moment resistant frame. Also, the Papadrakakis method cannot
attain to acceptable residual error in the maximum allowable
number of iterations defined for the computer program in loading
steps 6–10.
3.12. Portal frame
A nonlinear benchmark problem, as it is shown in Fig. 23, is
studied in the present section [23]. The modulus of elasticity for
and moment of inertia for all members are A = 12.9032 
104 m2 and I = 27.74876171  108 m4, respectively. The value
of the concentrated load P is equal to 0.44484 N. In this example,
each member of the structure is modeled by three frame elements.
The nodal displacement under the horizontal force is expressed by
D. Fig. 24 shows the load–displacement curve of the horizontal dis-
placement at the top of the frame.
The results of DR analyses are presented in Table 13. The DR
algorithms can be compared utilizing scores SI and St. In steps
7–10 of loading, the Papadrakakis method cannot attain the
acceptable residual error in the admissible number of iterations
defined for the computer program (i.e. 60,000 iterations). It should
be added that this circumstance is occurred for the methods of
Qiang and RPTH in all loading steps. On the other hand, the kdDR,
Underwood and zdDR techniques are the best three ones for
solving this problem.
3.13. Arch structure
Fig. 25 illustrates an arch structure, which will be analyzed in
this section. Fifty elements are going to be used for solving the
arch. The shape of structure is a part of a parabola with equation
y = 0.7x  0.012x2. Arch structural properties include: A = 0.04 m2,
I = 0.13333  103 m4 and E = 2  109 kgf/m2. Load P = 100,000
kgf is applied at the point with coordinates (25, 10). The static path
for the horizontal displacement of the load point is shown in
Fig. 26. Table 14 presents the number of iterations and the conver-
gence time of the analysis methods.
It should be noted that because of low convergence rates of all
approaches in this example, the acceptable residual error is consid-
ered 103. However, as it is shown in Table 14, the Papadrakakis,
308 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310

Table 12
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of FR3.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 47036 49728 53574 55954 58857 – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
Underwood [10] 2587 2757 2819 3055 2950 4883 3263 3502 3777 3958 33551 98 2 450.794 98 2
Qiang [11] 20350 20656 21400 22310 23397 24731 26130 27922 30050 32671 249617 6.1 10 3353.229 5.1 10
maDR [13] 8522 8149 8063 8298 8438 8660 8777 9127 9423 9816 87273 75.2 8 1170.506 75 8
DODR [14] 8598 8149 8063 8298 8438 8660 8777 9127 9423 9816 87349 75.1 9 1169.748 75 7
RPTH [16] 21673 21892 22691 23665 24801 26121 27670 29495 31685 34370 264063 0 11 3513.86 0 11
kdDR [7] 2344 2344 2371 2743 2953 2698 3205 3660 3552 3024 28894 100 1 389.813 100 1
MFT [18] 5467 5158 7391 7605 7946 8552 8803 9112 9497 9851 79382 78.5 6 1059.842 78.6 6
mdDR [17,19] 8556 8088 8140 8198 8394 8688 8781 9103 9401 9858 87207 75.2 7 1214.722 73.6 9
MRE [19] 4568 5783 5940 5888 6252 6746 7224 7684 9484 9818 69387 82.8 5 962.787 81.7 5
RPS [20,21] 3984 9093 4045 3426 3118 3282 3423 3840 4210 4723 43144 93.9 4 581.85 93.9 4
zdDR [20,22] 3959 8544 4281 3439 3080 3049 3355 3763 4221 4561 42252 94.3 3 568.574 94.3 3

Fig. 25. Arch structure.

Fig. 23. Frame FR4.

Fig. 26. The load–displacement curve for Arch structure.

Fig. 24. The load–displacement curve for Frame FR4.

Table 13
Comparing the DR processes in analysis of FR4.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] 46938 34086 38858 43348 49910 57861 – – – – – – 0 – – 0
Underwood [10] 1252 1043 1575 1514 1685 1748 3244 2748 2881 3075 20765 90.8 2 106.938 91.2 2
Qiang [11] – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
maDR [13] 19110 12781 12004 11951 12158 12520 13010 13640 14450 15529 137153 0 7 703.312 3.2 7
DODR [14] 19163 12781 12004 11951 12158 12520 13010 13640 14450 15529 137206 0 8 708.666 2.5 8
RPTH [16] – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
kdDR [7] 681 718 744 780 834 893 935 1047 1104 1298 9034 100 1 46.953 100 1
MFT [18] 3653 4126 9512 10077 9771 10441 11406 12115 12998 15344 99443 29.5 5 512.973 31.3 5
mdDR [17,19] 19174 12779 12003 11950 12158 12519 13010 13640 14450 15530 137213 0 9 725.339 0 9
MRE [19] 3597 4108 9612 9613 10167 10739 11169 11891 13559 22722 107177 23.4 6 560.214 24.3 6
RPS [20,21] 1277 2101 2051 1995 2127 2111 2405 2292 2670 3119 22148 89.8 4 114.666 90 4
zdDR [20,22] 1279 2099 2055 2022 2013 2207 2232 2292 2684 3094 21977 89.9 3 112.36 90.4 3
 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310 309

Table 14
Comparing the DR processes in the analysis of Arch structure.

Method Number of iterations in each loading step Ii EiI SI ti (s) EiT St

Step
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Papadrakakis [9] – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
Underwood [10] 15762 30389 16469 14025 12408 12248 10957 9372 9737 8235 139602 76.88 2 1127.788 77.65 2
Qiang [11] – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
maDR [13] 21919 40447 33819 26570 22396 19813 18149 16919 16021 15335 231388 0.09 6 1894.623 0 8
DODR [14] 21936 40406 33798 26560 22396 19822 18132 16907 16017 15331 231305 0.16 4 1866.215 2.88 4
RPTH [16] – – – – – – – – – – – – 0 – – 0
kdDR [7] 12868 18324 14259 13379 12526 10463 7343 8007 7209 7582 111960 100 1 907.126 100 1
MFT [18] 21991 40427 33785 26568 22396 19838 18146 16912 16039 15335 231437 0.05 7 1869.040 2.59 5
mdDR [17,19] 21990 40420 33788 26572 22381 19832 18119 16914 16023 15338 231377 0.1 5 1876.262 1.86 7
MRE [19] 22001 40466 33806 26568 22413 19832 18134 16916 16023 15339 231498 0 8 1864.172 3.08 3
RPS [20,21] 21421 40404 33784 26566 22311 19730 18107 16882 15980 15268 230453 0.87 3 1875.420 1.94 6
zdDR [20,22] – – – 57918 51824 40412 33306 26792 21280 16762 428294 – 0 3357.874 - 0

Table 15
Grading the DR algorithms based on the analysis duration.

i Method Cij Gi
j=0 j=1 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=5 j=6 j=7 j=8 j=9 j = 10 j = 11 j = 12
1 Papadrakakis [9] 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 24
2 Underwood [10] 1 2 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 74
3 Qiang [11] 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 25
4 maDR [13] 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 1 0 35
5 DODR [14] 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 42
6 RPTH [16] 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 35
7 kdDR [7] 1 6 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 77
8 MFT [18] 2 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 53
9 mdDR [17,19] 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 4 1 1 0 49
10 MRE [19] 0 1 1 3 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 71
11 RPS [20,21] 0 0 2 2 3 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 68
12 zdDR [20,22] 1 0 3 4 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 71

Table 16
Grading the DR algorithms based on the total number of iterations.

i Method Cij Gi
j=0 j=1 j=2 j=3 j=4 j=5 j=6 j=7 j=8 j=9 j = 10 j = 11 j = 12
1 Papadrakakis [9] 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 25
2 Underwood [10] 1 2 6 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 76
3 Qiang [11] 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 23
4 maDR [13] 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 0 0 39
5 DODR [14] 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 0 36
6 RPTH [16] 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 29
7 kdDR [7] 1 6 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 74
8 MFT [18] 2 1 1 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 57
9 mdDR [17,19] 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 4 0 3 1 0 0 52
10 MRE [19] 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 67
11 RPS [20,21] 0 1 1 4 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 73
12 zdDR [20,22] 1 0 2 6 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 72

Table 17
Five top DR methods.

Evaluation basis Grade

1 2 3 4 5
Analysis duration kdDR [7] Underwood [10] MRE [19,20] and zdDR [20,22] RPS [20,21] MFT [18]
Total number of iterations Underwood [10] kdDR [7] RPS [20,21] zdDR [20,22] MRE [19,20]

Qiang and RPTH methods are so slow that in the allowable number
of iterations for one loading step (i.e. 60,000 iterations), they can-
not attain to the acceptable residual error. Furthermore, in loading
steps 1–3, the zdDR technique does not achieve the acceptable
residual error in 60,000 iterations.
4. Conclusions
In this comparative study, several geometrical nonlinear struc-
tures have been analyzed by 12 famous and recently proposed DR
algorithms. Based on the total number of iterations and overall
310 M. Rezaiee-Pajand et al. / Computers and Structures 112-113 (2012) 295–310
analysis duration, a number between 1 and 12 is assigned for each
DR technique in solving each benchmark problem. The mark one
stands for the best approach, and the number 12 indicates the
worst one. Consequently, one can enumerate rank j for the scheme
i and defines Cij. For example, the kdDR method has been the fifth
process three times. Therefore, Ci5 is three for the mentioned algo-
rithm. The value of Ci0 demonstrates the number of structure
which technique i could not analyze it. Based on the values of Cij,
the grade of method i is calculated by the following formulas:
X
12
Gi ¼ 100  C ij  ð13  jÞ=156
j¼1
For instance, the number 156 is obtained when a technique obtains
score 12 in all 13 solved problems. Consequently, the Grade Gi for
this strategy is 100. Based on the analyses duration and total num-
ber of iterations, the values of countered ranks, Cij, and grades, Gi,
are arranged in Tables 15 and 16, respectively.
Based on the obtained grades, the five top procedures are ar-
ranged in Table 17. The kdDR algorithm requires lesser time to per-
form structural analysis. On the other hand, the Underwood
procedure requires a fewer iterations to find the answers. How-
ever, the later methodology increases the analysis duration, and
based on this aspect, the mentioned formulation occupies the sec-
ond position. As it is demonstrated in the table, the kdDR strategy
has second rank in the iteration requirements. It is worth empha-
sizing that the Underwood, kdDR and zdDR techniques are among
the top techniques, which cannot analyze the structure in one
example. Furthermore, the MFT method cannot solve two exam-
ples. This fact explains that these approaches are not reliable in
the analysis of a general truss or frame structures.
References
[1] Frankel SP. Convergence rates of iterative treatments of partial differential
equations. Math Tables Aids Comput 1950;4:65–75.
[2] Day AS. An introduction to dynamic relaxation. Engr 1965;219:218–21.
[3] Otter JRH. Computations of prestressed concrete pressure vessels using
dynamic relaxation. Nucl Struct Eng 1965;1:61–75.
[4] Lynch RD, Kelsey S, Saxe HC. The application of dynamic relaxation to the finite
element method of structural analysis. Technical report No. Themis-Und-68-1,
University of Notre Dame, Indiana; 1968.
[5] Rushton KR. Dynamic relaxation solutions of elastic plate problems. J Strain
Anal 1968;3:23–32.
[6] Cundall PA. Explicit finite-difference methods in geomechanics. In:
Proceedings of the EF conference on numerical methods in geomechanics,
Blacksburg, VA; 1976. p. 132–50.
[7] Topping BHV, Ivanyi P. Computer aided design of cable-membrane
structures. Saxe-Coburg Publications; 2007.
[8] Bunce JW. A note on estimation of critical damping in dynamic relaxation. Int J
Numer Methods Eng 1972;4:301–4.
[9] Papadrakakis M. A method for automatic evaluation of the dynamic relaxation
parameters. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1981;25:35–48.
[10] Underwood P. Dynamic relaxation. In: Belytschko T, Hughes TJR, editors.
Computational method for transient analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1983. p.
245–65.
[11] Qiang S. An adaptive dynamic relaxation method for nonlinear problems.
Comput Struct 1988;30:855–9.
[12] Al-Shawi FAN, Mardirosian AH. An improved dynamic relaxation method for
the analysis of plate bending problems. Comput Struct 1987;27:237–40.
[13] Zhang LC, Yu TX. Modified adaptive dynamic relaxation method and its
application to elastic–plastic bending and wrinkling of circular plates. Comput
Struct 1989;34:609–14.
[14] Zhang LC, Kadkhodayan M, Mai YW. Development of the maDR method.
Comput Struct 1994;52:1–8.
[15] Munjiza A. A Km proportional damping for dynamic relaxation. Int J Eng Model
1996;9:1–9.
[16] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Taghavian-Hakkak M. Nonlinear analysis of truss structures
using dynamic relaxation. Int J Eng 2006;19:11–22.
[17] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Alamatian J. The dynamic relaxation method using new
formulation for fictitious mass and damping. Struct Eng Mech
2010;34:109–33.
[18] Kadkhodayan M, Alamatian J, Turvey GJ. A new fictitious time for the dynamic
relaxation (DXDR) method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2008;74:996–1018.
[19] Alamatian J. Numerical integration for structural analysis. Dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of doctor
of philosophy, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran; 2007 [in Persian].
[20] Sarafrazi SR. Numerical integration for structural dynamic analysis.
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
degree of doctor of philosophy, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran; 2010 [in
Persian].
[21] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Sarafrazi SR. Nonlinear structural analysis using dynamic
relaxation method with improved convergence rate. Int J Comput Methods
2010;7:1–28.
[22] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Sarafrazi SR. Nonlinear dynamic structural analysis using
zero damping dynamic relaxation. Comput Struct 2011. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.04.005.
[23] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Kadkhodayan M, Alamatian J, Zhang LC. A new method of
fictitious viscous damping determination for the dynamic relaxation. Comput
Struct 2011;89:783–94.
[24] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Alamatian J. Automatic DR structural analysis of snap-
through and snap-back using optimized load increments. J Struct Eng ASCE
2011;137:109–16.
[25] Lee K, Han S, Park T. A simple explicit arc-length method using the dynamic
relaxation method with kinetic damping. Comput Struct 2011;89:216–33.
[26] Golmakani ME, Kadkhodayan M. Nonlinear bending analysis of annular FGM
plates using higherorder shear deformation plate theories. Compos Struct
2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.06.024.
[27] Alamatian J. Structural analysis using dynamic relaxation method. Thesis
presented in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of master of
science, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran; 2002 [in Persian].
[28] Chan ASL, Lau TB. Further development of the reduced basis method for
geometric nonlinear analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
1987;62:127–44.