ow-7949/89 s3.00+ 0.

00
Comjwers & Srrucrures Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 791-800, 1989
0 1989 Pergamon PM plc
Printed tn Great Britain.

THE EFFICIENCY OF NUMERICAL METHODS FOR THE

ANALYSIS OF PRESTRESSED NETS AND
PIN-JOINTED FRAME STRUCTURES
W. J. Lnvvrs
Department of Engineering, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, England

(Received 13 October 1988)

Abstract-The non-line static response of p~t~sion~ cable net and pin-joints frame structures is
analysed using the minimum potential energy principle. The relative efficienciesof the stiffness matrix and
dynamic relaxation methods in solving specific structural examples are examined. The performance of the
dynamic relaxation algorithm with kinetic and viscous damping is discussed.

NOTATION Provided that both types of structures are made of

suflk indicating direction (x, y or z)
node numbers for each end of a cable link (in global
co-ordinates)
number of cable links meeting at node j
elastic force in member m
initial pretension length of member m
increase in length due to eiastic strains
Cartesian co-ordinates of the structure
external load vector
nodal displacements
internal force vector compatible with deformations
residual or unbalanced force vector
lumped mass
velocities and accelerations respectively
viscous damping coethcient per unit mass
time increment
Young’s modulus
cross-section area
initial pretension force in member m
elastic and geometric stiffness of cable links
global stiffness matrix
column vector of displacements
column vector of internal forces
elemental stiffness matrix
3 x 3 unit matrix
column vector of external loads
residual force vector
vector of Cartesian co-ordinates
weighting factor
order of matrix K
INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, structural analysis has been concerned
mainly with structures which undergo small displace-
ments and hence are assumed to exhibit linear
load-displacement characteristics. It is generally ac-
cepted that structural frames fall into this category of
“linear structures”. Prestressed cable nets, on the
other hand, undergo large deformations, which affect
their overall geometry, causing the so-called “geomet-
ric non-lin~ti~*’ in the load~isp~a~~t relation-
ship. The degree of non-linearity is infhrenced by the
initial sag to span ratio and the stiffness of the
structure [ 1,2].
791
linear elastic material, the methods of analysis of
prestressed cable nets presented here can automati-
cally be applied to statically determinate and indeter-
minate pin-jointed frames. The analysis makes
repetitive use of the static equilibrium and compati-
bility equations in the process of minimization of the
total potential energy of the structure [I, 31.
Solution of the governing equations can be carried
out by a variety of numerical methods [l-3], but little
information is available as to the most efficient
methods for practical applications. Depending on the
degree of non-linearity and the size of the structure,
some methods can be very time consuming, even with
the main frame computers. In this paper two funda-
mentally different numerical methods are examined
with respect to their efficiency in providing solutions
of geometrically non-linear structures:
(1) the dynamic relaxation method, used in the
analysis of highly redundant structures, such as
cable nets;
(2) the stiffness matrix formulation, based on a
linear model, well known in the analysis of
frames.
The two methods adopted are chosen on the basis
of their current use in the analysis of linear and
non-linear structures. Other iterative methods in-
clude: the method of steepest descent, the method
of conjugate gradients and the NewtowRaphson
method. These techniques are known to have certain
limitations such as slow convergence, characteristic of
the method of steepest descent, or instability, inherent
in the Newton-~phson method [I, 41, and therefore
are not considered here.
A wide range of pretensioned cable networks is
analysed by both the dynamic relaxation and the
stiffness matrix methods. Their convergence, in terms
of the number of iterations and the total CPU
(central processing unit) time used to complete the
solution, is observed. The efficiency of the dynamic
relaxation method is studied further, with respect to
the use of kinetic and viscous damping.
192 W. J
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
A cable structure is assumed to represent a discrete
assembly of straight links with extensional stiffness
only. Loads are concentrated at the nodal intersec-
tions of cables. Application of the principle of mini-
mum potential energy leads to the system of
simultaneous equilibrium equations of the form:
$,LILL{(x:-x:)+(d:-d;‘)}-P:=O
m m
(1)
i = 1,2, 3 (x, y, z directions)
where N, is the number of links meeting at nodej; F,
is the force in link m due to the initial pretension and
the elastic straining of the cables; L,,, is the initial
pretension length of link m; AL, is the increase in
cable length; X:, X;l are the Cartesian co-ordinates of
nodes n,j; d:, dj are the node displacements, and P{
is the external load vector.
It can easily be seen that the terms on the left hand
side of Pj in eqn (1) amount to the internal force
vector Fi, which has to balance the external load. Full
derivation of the equilibrium equations can be found
in [l, 31. In order to provide the solution, an addi-
tional set of equations is required which describes the
compatibility of the deformations of the structure
with the applied loads and boundary conditions. A
full set of the governing equations can then be used
to solve for the unknown deflections and member
forces.
In the case of a linear structure, the solution can be
obtained in one iteration. In the more general case of
a geometrically non-linear structure, the equilibrium
can only be obtained in a stepwise process, as the
result of the changing geometry. Hence, the right
hand side of eqn (1) is not zero but equal to some
unbalanced or residual force vector Rj. At this stage
various iterative methods can be employed to reduce
the residual force to a minimum. The choice of the
iterative technique largely depends on the initially
assumed mathematical model. In the following sec-
tions the account of two numerical algorithms, de-
scribed earlier, is given.
DYNAMIC RELAXATION ALGORITHM
Viscous damping
Dynamic equilibrium of a system in motion, de-
scribed by the D’Alembert principle, forms the basis
of the numerical algorithm [3]. The attainment of
static equilibrium is achieved as a result of damped
motions of the structure. Assuming that the mass of
the structure is concentrated at the nodes, the equa-
tion of dynamic equilibrium takes the form:
R’I = mJ&
I I + Cm{d{ (2)
where mf is the lumped mass of the structure, C the
LEWIS
viscous damping coefficient per unit mass, causing the
dissipation of the kinetic energy of the structure, and
A:, $ velocities and accelerations respectively.
For the purpose of clarity, the indexj is omitted in
further derivations. Equation (2) can be approxi-
mated by centred finite differences in time and space,
where the suffix n is used to indicate the time interval
At, at which relevant values are calculated:
R”il?
/ = m,{(d:+l -@)/At}
+ Cm,{(j:+’ + d:)/2}. (3)
Rearranging eqn (3) gives the recurrent equation for
velocities:
$“‘=A,(R:+“At/m,) -+A?$ (41
where
A, = l/( 1 + C At/2);
A? = (I - C At,/2)/( 1 + C At/2).
The displacements of any node j of the structure can
be found at the mid-point of the time interval as:
d”+l;=d”+I?+8”,1 , At. (5)
Equations (1), (4), (5) and (6) can be incorporated
into an iterative solution, continued until the condi-
tions of static equilibrium are satisfied.
Numerical stability of the dynamic relaxation pro-
cedure depends on the value of time increment At,
relative to the lumped masses m, and the stiffness of
the structure S,. Barnes[S] gives the following cri-
terion for assured convergence:
At < J2m,/S, (6)
where S, is the sum of the elastic stiffness EA /L,, and
the geometric stiffness T,,,/L,, of the links meeting at
common nodes.
The total number of iterations necessary to com-
plete a solution depends on the viscous damping
coefficient, whose critical value should be based on
the lowest natural frequency of the system. To obtain
this value, an additional computer run is necessary,
in which the undamped oscillations in the values of
deflections of the structure are observed. The pro-
cedure is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The numerical algorithm based on the dynamic
relaxation model with viscous damping is outlined
below.
STEP 1: Input the geometry of the structure X,, the
external loads P,, material properties: A, E,
the pretension force T,,,, the value of the
damping coefficient C, and the time incre-
ment At.
STEP 2: Calculate the initial lengths L,, the elastic
stiffness EA IL,,, , the geometric stiffness
 Numerical analysis of prestressed nets and pin-jointed frames
Fig. 1. Dynamic relaxation with viscous damping.
T,[L,, and hence the ratio of m,fAt [eqn
@)I+
STEP 3: Set the deflections d,, the velocities d,, and
the member forces &, at their initial values.
STEP 4: Start iteration. Calculate the residuals R,
[eqn (l)l.
STEP 5: Find the velocities fti [eqn (411. Apply
boundary conditions.
STEP 6: Obtain the values of displacements d, [eqn
@)I.
STEP 7: Update the current geometry of the struc-
ture Xi. Hence obtain the current length of
members, i.e. Lm-I- AL,.
STEP 8: Assuming a linear stress-strain relation-
ship, find the member forces F, consistent
with the elongations AL,.
STEP 9: Return to step 4 unless the residuals R, are
close enough to zero.
For practical purposes it is usually only necessary
to reduce the value of the residual to about 0. I % of
its initial value.
The two-stage analysis, which involves finding the
critical viscous damping coefficient, is rather inconve-
nient, and is recently being replaced by a modified
dynamic relaxation method, with “kinetic damping”.
Kinetic ~rn~~ng
In this process, the structure is set in an undamped
motion, during which the sum of the kinetic energy
of all the nodes in all three directions is recorded.
When a peak in the totai kinetic energy is detected,
the velocity components at all nodes are set to zero.
The whole process is restarted from the current
geometry and continued until the next peak in energy
is found. As the geometry of the structure gradually
approaches the ~~~~tion consistent with the
static equilibrium, the subsequent energy peaks are
793
Number of iterokns
decreasing in magnitude, and eventually disappear.
The process is illustrated in Fig. 2. It should be noted
that because of the fictitious value of mass used in the
analysis, the kinetic energy is represented by the term
m,rif /At.
The numerical algorithm makes use of the same
recurrent equations, namely eqns (l), (4) and (5),
except that the constants A, and A2 in eqn (4) are
both equal to I, as a result of setting the value of the
viscous damping coefficient to zero. Detailed descrip-
tion of dynamic relaxation with kinetic damping can
be found in [5].
STIFFNESS MATRIX AL~R~M
Additional compatibility equations are obtained,
assuming a linear model, in which the vector of nodal
displacements d, is related to the internal force vector
F, through the global stiffness matrix K as follows:
Kd, = FI. (7)
The global stiffness matrix is assembled from elemen-
tal matrices k, derived from the sum of elastic and
geometric stiffness properties [l]. For an individual
member, with six degrees of freedom, namely the
x, y, z displacements at either end, k is a 6 x 6 matrix,
given by
k
where I is a unit matrix of dimension 3 x 3, and
G=$+d,]? (9)
m
794 w.
Fig. 2. Kinetic damping in dynamic relaxation.
If the structure is not in static equilibrium, the
internal force. vector F, and the vector of external
loads P, will not be equal, and hence:
R,=P,-F,. (10)
In order to minimize the unbalanced vector force R,,
eqn (7) is rewritten as:
d, = K-‘R, (11)
and a process of simple iteration is started, using eqns
(7), (8), (10) and (11). During this procedure, the
global stiffness matrix K becomes the “transient
matrix”, updated after each iteration in accordance
with the changing geometry of the structure. If n
denotes the iteration number, the configuration of the
structure at the n + I iteration is given by:
X:‘+‘=X;+d;. (121
The numerical algorithm based on the stiffness
matrix formulation is outlined below.
STEP 1: Input the initial geometry of the structure
X,, the external load vector P,, material
properties: A, E, and the pretension force
T
STEP 2: Szt’ the internal force vector F and the
displacement vector d, at their in&al values.
STEP 3: Calculate the initial pretension lengths L,,,,
the elastic stiffness EA /L, , and the geomet-
ric stiffness T,,,/L, for all members.
STEP 4: Calculate the elemental stiffness matrices k
hn @)I.
STEP 5: Assemble the global stiffness matrix K
using matrix connectivity rules and
boundary conditions.
.f. LEWIS
Number of lteratlons
STEP 6: Start iteration. Find the residual force
vector R, [eqn (IO)].
STEP 7: Solve matrix equations for the unknown
displacements d, [eqn (1 I)].
STEP 8: Find the new configuration of the structure
feqn W)].
STEP 9: Return to step 6 unless the residual force
vector R, is close enough to zero.
The convergence of the iterative procedure depends
on the values of the coefficients entered in the global
stiffness matrix. Large variations in the relative
ma~itudes of the coefficients along the leading diag-
onal may cause iii-conditioning of the equations. The
solution is then extremely sensitive to round-off
errors [4, 61. For well-conditioned systems, the speed
of convergence can be influenced by the use of a
weighting factor p, which controls the size of the
iterative step, so that:
d; =pd:. (13)
Values of p can be found by trial and error. In the
numerical examples that follow, values of 0.9 and 1.O
gave best results.
SOLVED EXAMPLES
Both the stiffness matrix and dynamic relaxation
algorithms have been programmed in Fortran 77 to
analyse the non-linear static response of discrete
structures, such as prestressed cable nets and pin-
jointed frames. Study of the efficiency of the algor-
ithms was carried out on six examples of prestressed
networks attached to rigid boundaries, as shown in
Figs 3-8. All computations were carried out in double
precision accuracy (approximately 15 significant
figures) on a Prime 750 mainframe. Iterations were
 Numerical analysis of prestressed nets and pin-jointed frames 195

Fig. 3. Simple net.

Fig. 4. 2 x I cable net.

stopped when the vector of unbalanced forces was
reduced to 0.1% of its initial value.
Example 1. Simple net
This very simple, hypothetical structure with zero
curvature (Fig. 3), has only three degrees of freedom,
which are the x, y, z components of displacements.
The cross-section area of cables is 0.785 mm* and
Young’s modulus is 124.8 kN/mm*. The pretension
force in both cables is 0.2 kN. The external load P,
(in the z direction) of 0.015 kN is applied in the
centre.
Example 2. 2 x 1 cable net
The structure, also analysed by Buchholdt [1], is a
flat net with six degrees of freedom (Fig. 4). The
pretensioned force in all cables is 0.5 kN. The cross-
section area of cables is 2.0 mm2 and their Young’s
modulus is 110 kN/mm*. Load P., of 0.2 kN acts at
nodes 3 and 6.
Example 3. 2 x 2 cable net
Material properties and the value of pretension
force in the network shown in Fig. 5 are the same as
in Example 1. The structure has 12 degrees of free-
dom and is subjected to the external load P, of
0.015 kN at nodes 4, 5 and 8.
Example 4. Hypar net
Two sets of straight line cables generate a model of
a hyperbolic paraboloid surface, shown in Fig. 6. The
structure has 36 degrees of freedom. Load P, of

3 XOH.2 m

Fig. 5. 2 x 2 cable net.

796 w.
Fig. 6. Hypar net.
0.0157 kN is applied at all internal nodes, except
nodes 17, 2 1 and 22. The remaining data, concerning
the material properties and the values of the preten-
sion force, are the same as in Example 3. Previous
analysis and experimental measurements on this
structure are reported in [3].
Example 5. Spatial net
The initial geometry of the structure (Fig. 7) is
achieved by means of the pretension force of 90 kN
in the x direction, 30 kN in the y direction, and the
additional concentrated load P, = 4.8 kN at all in-
ternal nodes. The structure is subjected to a further
increase in load by 2 kN. The initial, plan geometry
of the structure can be determined from Fig. 7, with
the values of z co-ordinates, in m, as follows:
nodes 1,2,3 1.oooo 2.0000 3.0000
nodes 6,7,8,9 0.0000 0.8195 1.4096 1.6769
nodes 13, 14, 15, 16 0.0000 0.6870 I. 1478 1.3176.
The symmetry of the initial con~guration about the
x and y centre axes is maintained. The cross-section
area of cables is 350mm* in the x direction and
Fig. 7,
J. LEWIS
120 mm* in the y direction. The elastic modulus
is 160 kN/mm*. The structure has 45 degrees of
freedom.
Example 6. Saddle net
This is a practical example of a large scale struc-
ture, which has 142 members and 189 degrees of
freedom. The saddle shape (Fig. 8), in Cartesian
space, can be determined from the equation:
z = -a, x -t-a2x2, where a, is a function of y given by:
a, = 0.304 - 0.0171~ + 0.00043y2, and the ratio of
al/a2 is 50. The value of the pretension force in the
x and y directions is 90 kN, the cross-section area of
cables is 306mm2, and their elastic modulus is
147 kN/mm*. The external loads P3 and PI act on half
of the structure, as shown by the shaded area in
Fig. 8.
RESULTS
Deformation analysis of prestressed cable nets
carried out by the stiffness matrix and dynamic
relaxation algorithms produced results which are in
excellent agreement with each other and with other
Spatial net.
 Numerical analysis of prestressed nets and pin-jointed frames 191

Fig. 8. Saddle net.

Table 1. Deformation analysievalues of deflections published data [1,3]. However, the stiffness matrix
Node Deflections (mm) solution did not converge for the saddle shaped net
Example no. X Y Z and hence the results using the dynamic relaxation
I. Simple net 3 0.0 0.0 6.97 method are given in this case. The results are summa-
rized in Tables 1 and 2, which give values of nodal
2. 2 x 1 cable net 6 0.0 3.3 199.7
deflections and the corresponding member forces for
3. 2 x 2cablenet 4 -0.07 -0.07 12.19 each of the six examples described earlier. In quoting
5 0.04 -0.08 11.20
-0.95 -1.01
the results, advantage is being taken of symmetry,
8 19.39
whenever possible. Values of deflections below
4. Hypar net 5 -0.04 - 0.04 5.61
0.01 mm are not included in Table 1. In the case of
6 - 1.02 -2.30 25.34
7 -0.78 -2.80 22.96 the saddle net, abbreviated results are given con-
10 -2.22 -1.15 25.58 cerning one quarter of the structure.
11 -2.56 -2.77 33.80 Results from the investigation of the relative
12 -1.99 -3.35 29.33 efficiency of the stiffness matrix and dynamic relax-
15 -3.10 -1.04 25.42
16 -3.45 -2.41 31.10 ation algorithms are given in Table 3 and illustrated
17 -2.34 -2.48 21.27 further in Figs 9 and 10. The efficiency of each
20 -3.23 -0.80 21.15 numerical method is observed in terms of the total
21 -2.90 -1.63 19.77 CPU time required for the solution to a given limit
22 -2.06 - 1.70 14.27
of accuracy. This depends directly on the total num-
5. Spatial net 7 -5.14 0.42 30.41 ber of iterations and the CPU time per iteration. The
8 -2.26 0.47 17.70
9 -2.27
latter is a reflection of the complexity of the numerical
0.0 -3.62
14 -4.98 0.0 43.49 algorithm.
15 -2.55 0.0 44.47
16 0.0 0.0 41.65
DISCUSSION
6. Saddle net 11 15.51 - 4.49 81.95
12 11.43 -5.62 61.55 Referring to Table 3, it can be seen that the stiffness
13 7.30 -4.28 33.52 matrix algorithm, provided it does converge, requires
14 5.28 -3.21 17.97
4.09 -2.90 11.20
considerably fewer iterations than the dynamic relax-
:: 14.40 -3.55 97.28 ation method. For carefully chosen weighting factors
23 11.22 -4.52 73.02 p, further saving in the number of iterations can be
24 7.19 -3.04 31.90 obtained, as shown in Fig. 9.
25 5.63 -2.19 10.23
26 4.76
In terms of the total CPU time, the efficiency of the
-0.67 -11.73
33 11.68 -1.72 92.44 stiffness matrix method is comparable with that of the
34 9.51 -2.14 66.85 dynamic relaxation algorithm, but only for very
35 6.25 -1.19 19.81 simple cases, such as those given in Examples l-3. In
36 4.88 -0.26 - 14.70 more complex cases (Examples 4-6), a dispropor-
37 4.64 -0.49 -36.55
tionate amount of time is spent on solution of the
798 w. J. LEWIS

Table 2. Deformation analysis--cable tensions linear equations by matrix inversion. The program
Example Cable Tension (kN) uses the FOIAAF NAG library routine, based on
1. Simple net all members 0.2149
Crout’s decomposition with partial pivoting. The
total number of arithmetic operations and the time
2. 2 x I cable net l-3.68 I .2328 used by the routine is proportional to q3, q being the
36 1.2254
all other 0.7740 order of the global stiffness matrix K [4, 71.
3. 2 x 2 cable net 14 0.228 1
The accuracy of the computed inverse depends on
2-5 0.2193 the conditioning of the original matrix. which is poor
4-5 0.2280 in the case of the saddle net, and hence responsible
56 0.228 1 for the lack of convergence. In physical terms, the
5-9 0.2192 resulting inaccuracies in the matrix inverse imply that
9-10 0.2191
the nodal displacements and the nodal forces are not
4. Spatial net 1-7 25.9839 related correctly. Numerical ill-conditioning can be
7-14 25.9866
2-8 19.8156 overcome by the introduction of a diagonal scaling
8-15 19.7211 matrix, suggested by Buchholdt [1], or by the use of
3-9 23.8401 more sophisticated routines producing results correct
9-16 22.5546 to full machine accuracy, by employing successive
&7 104.3869
corrected approximations to the inverse [4, 71. These,
7-8 103.1241
8-9 102.2507 however, would increase the computational effort
13-14 125.8043 even further. Solving the linear system of equations
14-15 124.5757 directly would require less computation, but for large
15-16 123.8600 systems of equations similar techniques for improved
maximum accuracy and numerical stability must be employed.
values (link) The dynamic relaxation algorithm shows both a
5. Hypar net l-24 0.2282 (l-5) considerably lower CPU time per iteration, and a
2-25 0.2497 (26) lower total CPU time to convergence than the
3-26 0.2400 (3-7) stiffness matrix algorithm (Table 3). In the specific
4-8 0.2434 (4-5)
9-13 0.2766 (9-10) case of the saddle net structure, the total CPU time
14-18 0.2667 (1415) used by the dynamic relaxation algorithm amounts to
19-23 0.2397 ( 19-20) just a fraction of the time the stiffness matrix method
6. Saddle net l-87 75.5151 (I-11) needs to perform one iteration. The total number of
2-88 79.2964 (2-12) iterations required by the kinetic and viscous damp-
3-89 70.3223 (3-13) ing techniques to complete the solution are very
490 61.3956 (4-14) similar. Although the latter technique shows smaller
5-91 54.1575 (5-15)
l&20 55.1302 (l&l 1)
values of the total CPU time required for conver-
21-31 60.3793 (21-22) gence, its two-stage analysis, in real time, takes
32-42 65.5596 (32-33) considerably longer than the analysis by the kinetic
43-53 67.1878 (4344) damping technique. Both dynamic relaxation tech-

Table 3. Efficiency of the numerical algorithms

Dynamic relaxation algorithm
Stiffness matrix algorithm Viscous damping Kmetic dampmg

No. of CPU time Total CPU time Total CPU time Total
degrees Total per CPU Total per CPU Total per CPU
of no. of Iteration time no. of iteration time no. of Iteration time
Example freedom iterations (set) (set) iterations (set) (set) iterations (set) (set)
1. Simple 3 3 0.043 0.13 34 0.0056 0.19 46 0.0067 031
net
2.2x1 6 7 0.067 0.47 35 0.0086 0.30 39 0.016 061
cable
net
3.2x2 12 4 0.168 0.66 113 0.0095 1.07 148 0.016 2.32
cable
net
4. Hypar 36 6 1.33 7.98 176 0.021 3.62 263 0.032 8.33
net
5. Spatial 45 5 3.14 15.71 132 0.027 3.50 139 0 055 7.64
net
6. Saddle 189 1.60 - 262 0.090 23.70 329 0.14 46.32
net
 Numerical analysis of prestressed nets and pin-jointed frames 799

/
/ x EXAMPLE 1

Y
tl
\ IqK A EXAMPLE 2
\ n EXAMPLE 3
‘\ \ /’
‘\ ha’ V EXAMPLE 4
\ / o EXAMPLE 5
‘1 /
x-~-x

21 r
08 0.9 70 IS 12 P

Fig. 9. Plot of number of iterations versus p, the weighting factor.

s ----A STIFFNESS MATRIX

Iflsoo_

DYNAMIC RELAXATI ON:

E”
t= -----e Viscous damping
2 ---o Kinetic damping
U
100 _

50

Degrees of freedom

Fig. 10. Comparison of the efficiency of methods.

800 w. J.
niques are found to be numerically stable under the
predetermined condition given in eqn (6).
The relative performance of the dynamic relaxation
algorithm against the stiffness matrix method is
shown in Fig. 10. Using the log-log scale, the number
of degrees of freedom corresponding to each of the
solved examples is plotted along the x axis, and the
total CPU time required by each algorithm to com-
plete the solution along the J axis. The stiffness
matrix algorithm shows a strong exponential re-
lationship between the CPU time and the size of the
problem considered. It can be seen that for a struc-
ture with 189 degrees of freedom (Example 6), any
realistic limits of a computer time would have been
exceeded, unless steps to treat the numerical ill-con-
ditioning are taken.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A method of analysis of the non-linear static
response of prestressed cable net and pin-jointed
frame structures, based on the minimum energy
principle, is presented. The method can be applied to
statically determinate and indeterminate pin-jointed
frames, e.g. steel trusses. The compatibility equations
are formulated in two ways:
(1) using the equation of dynamic equilibrium of a
body in motion (the D’Alembert principle),
which leads to the formulation of the dynamic
relaxation algorithm;
(2) using the linear load-displacement relationship,
which results in a stiffness matrix algorithm.
Detailed presentation of both algorithms is given
and their performance in solving a number of struc-
tural examples with various degrees of complexity is
studied. In the case of the dynamic relaxation algor-
ithm, the efficiency of the techniques using viscous
and kinetic damping coefficients is discussed. The
conclusions reached are summarized below.
The dynamic relaxation method shows higher
efficiency in terms of the total CPU time required
LEWIS
for convergence than the stiffness matrix solution.
Stability of iterations is assured, provided that the
limits for the time increment [eqn (6)] are observed.
The kinetic damping routine gives real time saving
over the viscous damping technique.
The stiffness matrix method is characterized by a
comparatively high value of CPU time per iteration.
Although fewer iterations are needed than in the
dynamic relaxation method, the total CPU time is
considerably greater, particularly m the case of more
complex structures (Examples 46). For large prob-
lems, as exemplified by the saddle net structure,
ill-conditioning of equations leads to a lack of con-
vergence. Methods to overcome this are suggested,
which would add to the computational effort [4. 71.
Acknowledgemenr-The author is gratefully indebted to
Dr. G. Lewis of Wolverhampton Polytechnic for hts advtce
in preparation of this paper.
REFERENCES
1. H. A. Buchholdt, An Introducrron to Cable Roof Struc-
tures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985).
2. J. Szabo, L. Kolllr and M. N. Pavlovic, Structural
Design of Cable-suspended Roofs. Ellis Horwood Ltd
(1984).
3. W. J. Lewis, M. S. Jones and K. R. Rushton, Dynamic
relaxatton analysis of the non-linear static response of
pretensioned cable roofs. Comput. Struct. 18, 989-997
( 1984).
4. J. H. Wilkinson and C. Reinsch. Lmear Algebra. Hand-
book for Auromatlc Computation, Vol. 2. Springer.
Berlin (1971).
5. M. R. Barnes, Form finding and analysis of prestressed
nets and membranes. Int. Conf. Non-convenrional Struc-
tures 1, 327-337 (1987).
6. L. Fox, An Introduction to Numerical Linear Algebra.
Clarendon Press, Oxford (1964).
7. NAG Fortran Library Manual, Vol. 4, FOI (1982) and
Vol. 5, F04 (1984).
8. W. J. Lewis, A comparative study of numerical methods
for the solution of pretensioned cable networks. Inf.
Conf. Non-conventional Structures 2, 27-33 (1987).