See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/364818678

An explicit integration method with third-order accuracy for linear and

nonlinear dynamic systems

Article in Engineering Structures · October 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115013

CITATIONS READS

7 206

5 authors, including:

Peng Yuan
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
37 PUBLICATIONS 285 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Peng Yuan on 28 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 An explicit integration method with third-order accuracy for linear

2 and nonlinear dynamic systems

3 Wei Liu a, Tianxi Ye a, Peng Yuan a*, Michael Beer bcd, Xiaolong Tong e
a
4 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic

5 University, Hung Home, Kowloon.

b
6 Institute for Risk and Reliability, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Callinstr. 34, 30167

7 Hannover, Germany.
c
8 Institute for Risk and Uncertainty and School of Engineering, University of Liverpool,

9 Peach Street, Liverpool L69 7ZF, UK

d
10 International Joint Research Center for Engineering Reliability and Stochastic Mechanics,

11 Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200092, PR China

e
12 School of Civil Engineering, Hunan Institute of Science and Technology, Yueyang 414006,

13 PR China.

14 Wei Liu a, E-mail: lwei_work@163.com

15 Tianxi Ye a, E-mail: 1095983678@qq.com

16 Peng Yuan a*, Email: peng10.yuan@polyu.edu.hk (Corresponding author)

17 Michael Beer bcd, E-mail: beer@irz.uni-hannover.de

18 Xiaolong Tong e, E-mail: txlpaper@outlook.com .

19
20

1
21 Abstract: Computational efficiency and accuracy are two of the most important properties

22 of integration methods. In this study, an explicit single-step integration method with third-order

23 accuracy is proposed to improve computational efficiency and accuracy. The proposed method

24 can achieve fourth-order accuracy in terms of displacement, velocity, and acceleration

25 responses without physical damping. The algorithmic dissipation property is also improved to

26 filter out high-frequency spurious responses on the premise of sufficient accuracy in the low-

27 frequency response domain. Moreover, since the proposed method can advance the calculation

28 step-by-step via the known displacement and velocity items, the time-consuming factorization

29 of an effective stiffness matrix is not required in the calculation for the structure with a lumped

30 mass matrix. In other words, high computational efficiency is ensured in the proposed method.

31 The properties of the proposed method (i.e., the accuracy, convergence, dissipation, efficiency,

32 and effectiveness of the nonlinearity) are demonstrated by using four representative examples.

33 Specifically, a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) dynamic system with a theoretical solution

34 is adopted to comparatively evaluate the accuracy and convergence of the proposed method, a

35 typical nonlinear dynamic system is used to investigate the effectiveness of the nonlinear

36 calculation; a linear Howe truss model is employed to explore the effectiveness and efficiency

37 in the calculation of a multi-DOF structure, and a nonlinear wellbore modelis used to

38 demonstrate the potential to solve the large-scale nonlinear system. Results show that the

39 proposed method can obtain more accurate results in the nonlinear dynamic calculations; and

40 its time consumption is around 65% of that of the Yuan method, 38% of that of the Kim method,

41 and 30% of that of the Zhai method.

2
42 Keywords: Explicit integration method; Prediction-correction; High efficiency and accuracy;

43 Improved dissipation; Linear and nonlinear system.

3
44 1. Introduction

45 The selection of integration methods is an unavoidable problem in dynamic calculations [1][2].

46 Computational efficiency and accuracy are two crucial properties of integration methods. An

47 admirable integration method should be able to achieve high computational efficiency and

48 accuracy simultaneously. Therefore, many research efforts have been made in the step-by-step

49 integration methods to achieve high efficiency and accuracy in dynamic calculations [3][4].

50 The step-by-step integration method consists of two categories, i.e., the implicit

51 integration method and the explicit integration method [5]. The implicit integration method is

52 unconditionally stable, but its computational efficiency is relatively low due to the time-

53 consuming factorization of an equivalent stiffness matrix [6]. In addition, iterative calculations

54 are required in the solution of complicated nonlinear dynamic problems, which makes the

55 implicit method less efficient in comparison with the explicit integration method [7]. The

56 explicit integration method is conditionally stable, and its computational time step is subject to

57 the critical time step size. The critical time step size is determined by the highest frequency of

58 studied systems. However, the time-consuming factorization of an equivalent stiffness matrix

59 is generally not required in the explicit calculation for dynamic problems with a diagonal mass

60 matrix, which widely exist in practical engineering [6]. Therefore, the high-efficiency

61 calculation can be realized in the analyses by using explicit integration methods. It is worth

62 noting that for transient problems, e.g., crash simulations and seismic analyses, a small-time

63 step is necessary to capture high-frequency vibrations caused by the high-frequency loads.

64 Therefore, the efficiency and accuracy of the explicit method have been the main goals pursued

4
65 by researchers in transient dynamic calculations rather than the limitation of the critical time

66 step size of explicit methods [8].

67 The central difference (CD) method with second-order accuracy is a well-known single-

68 step explicit integration method, and it is usually treated as a reference method because the

69 maximum critical time step is attained in explicit methods [9][10]. However, the CD method

70 cannot provide the algorithmic damping/dissipation that can be used to filter out high-

71 frequency spurious vibrations [11][12]. It is worth noting that spurious vibrations are a kind of

72 response that only exists in mathematical results, not in practical engineering. Moreover, even

73 if the diagonal mass matrix is used in the calculation, the factorization of the equivalent

74 stiffness matrix is required for nonlinear problems when the CD method is used in the

75 calculation [13]. The Verlet method, a single-step explicit integration method, was proposed to

76 evade the factorization of the CD method under nonlinear scenarios [14], but only first-order

77 accuracy was achieved in results when physical damping is taken into consideration in the

78 calculation. The Chung and Lee (CL) method improved the Verlet method [15], and second-

79 order accuracy can be ensured in results for the dynamic system with the physical damping,

80 but the computational accuracy can be enhanced further. Kim developed an explicit integration

81 method with second-order accuracy [16], and the algorithmic damping in the high-frequency

82 domain was optimized. The computational accuracy can be further improved, and Kim’s

83 method will be compared in this study. Therefore, it is essential to simultaneously improve the

84 accuracy and dissipation properties of explicit methods.

85 Except for two-time-step explicit methods, continuous three-time steps are also employed

5
 86 to develop explicit methods to improve computational efficiency and accuracy. For instance,

87 Zhai developed a single-step explicit integration method with first-order accuracy to decouple

88 a large dynamic system, and the decoupling property had been proved in the example of the

89 train-bridge coupling system [17]. However, Zhai’s method failed to acquire high accuracy in

90 the low-frequency response domain, and a small-time step must be adopted for satisfying

91 results. Yuan et al. (simplified as the Yuan method) proposed an explicit integration method

92 with second-order accuracy by introducing the displacement and velocity items at the previous

93 time [18]. Furthermore, Yuan et al. developed a new explicit integration method with third-

94 order accuracy by selecting appropriately known quantities and algorithmic parameters [19].

95 Although the accuracy has improved, its computational efficiency is relatively low, and an

96 additional starting procedure is required at the first calculational step. Therefore, it is important

97 to improve the computational accuracy and efficiency of explicit methods.

98 In addition, explicit integration methods with multiple sub-steps were proposed to obtain

99 higher accuracy in the numerical analysis [20], such as the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method

100 [21], the Noh and Bathe method [22], the Kim and Lee method [23], the Kim method [24], the

101 Rezaiee-Pajand and Karimi-Rad method [25], and the Liu and Guo method [26]. Although high

102 accuracy was realized in these methods, a complex calculation procedure would be performed.

103 These methods need to solve the equations of motion at least twice during a time step to obtain

104 response results. For instance, four dynamic calculations are conducted in a time step for the

105 fourth-order Runge-Kutta method. The computational efficiency significantly decreases

106 compared with the single-step method, which has been proven in [27]. Thus, these methods

6
107 with multiple sub-steps would not be discussed in this study.

108 Based on the discussion of the accuracy, dissipation, and efficiency above, this study

109 proposes a single-step explicit integration method with third-order accuracy, and the fourth-

110 order accuracy can be achieved in the absence of physical damping. An algorithmic dissipation

111 property is improved to filter out spurious response contents in the high-frequency response

112 domain on the premise of enough accuracy in the low-frequency response domain. It is worth

113 noting that it is very hard to balance the accuracy and dissipation properties of integration

114 methods. Moreover, the proposed method can be advanced step-by-step by only using previous

115 displacement and velocity items. To detail the derivative and demonstration process of the

116 proposed method, the remainder of this paper is organized as follows:

117 In Section 2, a new prediction-correction integration method is proposed and

118 demonstrated to obtain improved accuracy and dissipation properties. In Section 3, two

119 algorithmic indexes (i.e., stability and accuracy) are studied to demonstrate the algorithmic

120 properties of the proposed method. In Section 4, four representative examples are analyzed by

121 comparing state-of-the-art methods (e.g., the CD method, the Zhai method [17], the Kim

122 method [16], and the Yuan method [19]) to explore the algorithmic properties of the proposed

123 method (e.g., accuracy and efficiency). Some conclusions are summarized in Section 5.

124 2. Proposition for a new integration method

125 A new prediction-correction integration method is proposed to improve the accuracy and

126 dissipation properties in this section. Specifically, multi-parametric prediction-correction

127 schemes for the displacement and velocity items are proposed, and their parameters are

7
128 identified based on the polynomial accuracy of the prediction scheme. Subsequently, the local

129 truncation error of the prediction-correction scheme is investigated to ensure the accuracy of

130 the overall scheme. Finally, the standard formulas with two parameters are formulated.

131 2.1 A new prediction-correction integration method

132 An SDOF system is often used to construct a new numerical integration method to obtain

133 specified algorithmic properties (e.g., high efficiency or accuracy) [28][29]. The governing

134 equation of motion and its initial conditions for the nonlinear SDOF system are, respectively,

135 expressed as follows [30]:

136 x(t ) + N ( x(t ), x(t )) = f (t ) (1 a)

137 x(0) = d0 and x(0) = v0 (1 b-c)

138 where x(t), ẋ(t), and ẍ(t) are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of the SDOF system,

139 respectively, the superposed dots represent the derivative with respect to time, f(t) is the

140 external force applied to the system, d0 and v0 are the initial displacement and velocity of the

141 system, respectively, and N(x(t), ẋ(t)) is the vector of nonlinear internal forces. For linear

142 schemes, the internal force can be expressed as follows [31]:

143 N ( x(t ), x(t )) = 2 x(t ) +  2 x(t ) (2)

144 where ω is the system angular frequency, and ξ is the corresponding damping ratio.

145 To solve the dynamical system by using the step-by-step integration method, the whole

146 computational time T = [t0, tm] is discretized into an n-step time series with a time interval Δt.

147 Three continuously computational time steps are presented in Fig. 1 to illustrate the

148 computational process of the step-by-step integration method. Specifically, to advance

8
149 computations step by step (e.g., from the time step t to the time step t+Δt, as shown in Fig. 1),

150 known quantities (i.e., displacements, velocities, and accelerations) at the time steps t and t-Δt

151 are usually treated as initial conditions to calculate the responses of the unknown quantities at

152 the time step t+Δt [4][15]. Then, this procedure is repeated until the whole computation is

153 completed, and system responses within T can be obtained. In other words, the computational

154 procedure can be advanced directly by the explicit method. It is worth mentioning that both

155 matrix factorizations and nonlinear iterations are necessary for the implicit integration method.

156

157 Fig. 1. Three continuously computational time steps.

158 To make full use of the known quantities at the time steps t-Δt and t, e.g., the displacement

159 and velocity items, the following schemes are proposed to predict the displacement and

160 velocity items at the time step t+Δt.

161 xt + t = b1 x t − t +b2 x t +b3txt − t + b4 txt (3)

162 b5 b
xt + t = x t − t + 6 x t +b7 xt − t + b8 xt (4)
t t
163 where the superposed wavy lines indicate prediction values of the displacement and velocity

164 at the time step t+Δt, and b1~8 are eight free parameters. The general integration expression is

165 used to determine free parameters in the displacement prediction schemes, and more

166 information on the general integration expression can be found in [32]. The following three

167 relationships involving parameters b1, b2, b3, and b4 are derived to ensure second-order

168 accuracy of the displacement prediction scheme (i.e., Eq. (3)), and the detailed derivation

169 process is given in Appendix I.

9
170 b1 = 2b4 − 3 , b2 = 4 − 2b4 , and b3 = b4 − 2 (5 a-c)

171 The parameter b4 will be further determined according to the discussion of algorithmic

172 properties later. Similarly, to guarantee the second-order accuracy of the velocity prediction

173 scheme (i.e., Eq. (4)), the three relationships, involving parameters b5, b6, b7, and b8, can be

174 established as follows:

175 b5 = 2b8 − 4 , b6 = 4 − 2b8 , and b7 = b8 − 3 (6 a-c)

176 Only two parameters (i.e., b4 and b8) are retained in Eqs. (3) and (4). For the nonlinear

177 and linear scenarios, the following acceleration items at the time step t+Δt can be derived by

178 using Eqs. (1) ~ (2).

179 xt +t = f (t ) − N ( x(t ), x(t )) (7)

180 xt +t = f (t ) −  2 xt +t − 2 xt +t (8)

181 Based on the prediction acceleration at the time step t+Δt (i.e., xt +t ), the correction

182 schemes of the displacement and velocity items at the time step t+Δt are proposed as follows:

183 xt + t = b9 x t − t +b10 x t +b11txt − t + b12 txt + b13t 2 xt + t (9)

184 b14 b b
xt + t = x t − t + 15 x t + 16 x t + t +b17 xt − t + b18 xt (10)
t t t
185 where b9~18 are the ten parameters to be determined. It is worth mentioning that Eqs. (3), (4),

186 (9), and (10) are constructed following the Taylor series to make full use of known quantities.

187 Similarly, the following eight relationships can be identified, and two independent parameters

188 (b13 and b18) are retained in Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively.

189 b9 = 5 − 18b13 , b10 = 18b13 − 4 , b11 = 2 − 8b13 , and b12 = 4 − 10b13 (11 a-d)

10
 8 + 5b18 8 − b18 2 + b18
190 b14 = , b15 = −4 − b18 , b16 = , and b17 = (12 a-d)
4 4 2

191 The proposed predictor-corrector integration method is a single-step integration method

192 and it includes the prediction stage (i.e., Eqs. (3), (4), (7), and (8)) and correction stage (i.e.,

193 Eqs. (9) and (10)). Although the correction stage is added in the solution procedures in

194 comparison to the Zhai method and Yuan method, this stage is a highly efficient vector

195 operation with only a slight influence on computational efficiency, which will be demonstrated

196 later. Moreover, for the purpose of simplification, the four unknown parameters (i.e., b4, b8, b13,

197 and b18) are designated as α, β, γ, and φ, respectively, which will be further identified in the

198 following discussion.

199 2.2 Local truncation error

200 Each equation of the proposed scheme is independent, and the local truncation error of the

201 proposed method is examined to ensure the second-order accuracy of the overall scheme in this

202 section [7][19][32][33]. Specifically, based on the proposed method (i.e., Eqs. (1) to (12)), the

203 overall scheme can be derived by assuming f(t) = 0 in Eqs. (1a) and (2). The following recursive

204 relationship between the displacement and velocity can be obtained, and a similar derivation

205 process can be found in [19][32].

 xt   xt − t   0 0 1 0   xt − t 
      
 xt   xt − t   0 0 0 1   xt − t 
206
  = A   = (13)
 31 32 33 34   xt 
 xt + t   xt    
x   x    41 42  43  44   xt 
 t + t   t 
207 where A is the amplification matrix, and each element in the matrix (e.g., μ31) is given in

208 Appendix II. The characteristic equation of the matrix A is derived as follows:

11
209 q( ) = − det( A −  I) = − 4 + A4  3 + A3 2 + A2  + A1 (14)

210 where λ denotes the eigenvalue of A, I is the identity matrix, and coefficients A1, A2, A3, and

211 A4 are given in Appendix III. Based on the characteristic equation, the difference equation of

212 the proposed method can be written as follows [19][32]:

1
213 (− xt + 2 t + A4 xt +t + A3 xt + A2 xt −t + A1 xt − 2 t ) = 0 (15)
t 2

214 Based on the difference equation (i.e., Eq. (15)), the local truncation error (LTE) can be

215 derived. The derivation process of LTE is that all items on the left side of Eq. (15) are first

216 expanded as Taylor series at the time step t, then, Taylor series of the displacement at the time

217 step t is subtracted by the expanded Eq. (15), which leads to the truncation terms (i.e., LTE),

218 and it can be written as follows:

219 LTE = B0 + B1t + B2 t 2 + B3t 3 + O(t 4 ) (16)

220 where O ( t ) is the truncation error item of the overall integration scheme, and the coefficients

221 B0, B 1, B 2, and B 3 are written as follows:

3 2
222 B0 =
2
( xt + 2 xt + xt ) = 0 (17 a)

223 B1 = ( − 2 ) ( 2 xt + 2 xt + xt(3) ) = 0 (17 b)

  3
224 B2 = ( − 2 ) 2 xt + ( − 4 − 3 ) xt(3) + ( − − 1) xt(4) (17 c)
2 2 8

 4 5 2 (3) 5 23    (5)

225 B3 = ( − − ) xt + ( + − ) x(t 4) + ( − )xt (17 d)
4 3 6 3 12 4 4 2

226 where xt(3) , xt(4) , and xt(5) denote the third-order, fourth-order, and fifth-order derivatives with

227 respect to time t, respectively. Eqs. (17a) and (17b) are equal to zero for arbitrary parameters

228 α, β, γ, φ, and ξ. In other words, the proposed integration method can always keep second-order

229 accuracy. Assuming B2 = 0, it can be obtained that:

12
230 β=8 (18 a)

231 γ = 8/(24-7φ) (18 b)

232 The coefficient of Δt2 equals zero (i.e., LTE = B3t 3 + O(t 4 ) ), and the proposed integration

233 method has third-order accuracy at least. Two free parameters (i.e., α and φ) still exist in the

234 proposed method. Assuming B3 = 0, one has:

235 φ = 16/3 (19 a)

236 α = (10+13φ)/(3φ) (19 b)

237 The coefficient B3 equals zero when γ = 8/(24-7φ), β = 8, α = (10+13φ)/(3φ), and ξ = 0,

238 and fourth-order accuracy (i.e., LTE = O(t 4 ) ) can also be achieved in the proposed method. In

239 addition, the proposed method cannot maintain numerical stability when φ = 16/3, which will

240 be discussed in Section 3.1.

241 2.3 Standard computational procedure

242 Based on the accuracy analysis above, the proposed explicit integration method has a third-

243 order accuracy for arbitrary parameter values φ and α, and the standard computational

244 equations of the proposed method are written as follows:

245 xt + t = (2 − 3)x t − t +(4 − 2 )x t +( − 2)txt − t + txt (20 a)

246 12 12
xt + t = x t −t − x +5xt −t + 8xt (20 b)
t t t
247 xt +t = f (t ) − N ( xt +t , xt +t ) (20 c)

24 + 35 48 + 28 16 + 14

xt +t = − x t −t + xt− txt −t
248 24 − 7 24 − 7 24 − 7
(20 d)
16 − 28 8
+ txt + t 2 x t +t
24 − 7 24 − 7

13
 8 + 5 4+ 8− 2+
249 xt + t = x t −t − xt+ x t + t + xt −t +  xt (20 e)
4t t 4t 2

250 Since the quantities at the time step t-Δt are involved in the standard equations, the

251 following expressions are used to launch the computational procedure.

252 1 2
x1 = x0 + tx0 + t x0 (21)
2
253 x1 = x0 + tx0 (22)

254 where x0, 𝑥̇ 0 , and 𝑥̈ 0 are the initial displacement, velocity, and acceleration, respectively, and

255 x1 and 𝑥̇ 1 are the displacement and velocity at the first step, respectively. The standard

256 computational procedure for a multi-DOF system is given in Appendix IV. Based on the

257 discussion above, some features of the proposed method are summarized as follows:

258 (1) The third-order accuracy is achieved in the proposed method at least, and the fourth-

259 order accuracy can be obtained when α = (10+13φ)/(3φ) and ξ = 0;

260 (2) The displacement and velocity responses at the time step t+Δt can be computed only

261 by using the previous displacements and velocities at the time steps t and t-Δt;

262 (3) The proposed explicit method is a single-step integration method, and only vector

263 calculations are conducted in the calculation for the dynamic problem with a lumped mass

264 matrix, which is widely used in practical engineering problems;

265 And (4) iterative calculations are not required in the solution of velocity-dependent

266 nonlinear problems.

267 3 Evaluation for the performance

268 Stability and accuracy are two important indexes to measure the effectiveness of a new

269 integration method, and the characteristics of the stability and accuracy of the proposed method

14
270 are investigated by assuming the parameter α = (10+13φ)/(3φ).

271 3.1 Investigation of stability

272 The spectral radius ρ is widely adopted to measure the stability of a numerical integration

273 method, and the algorithmic stability can be ensured when ρ ≤ 1 [33]. For the proposed

274 integration method, the spectral radius ρ can be expressed as follows [34]:

275  = max( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) (23)

276 where λ1, λ2, λ3, and λ4 are four eigenvalues of the amplification matrix A, which can be solved

277 by Eq. (14). Moreover, to ensure algorithmic stability without physical damping, the following

278 requirement can be derived according to the Routh-Hurwitz criteria, and a similar derivation

279 process can be found in [19][32].

280   0 (24)

281 To explore the characteristics of the stability varying with the parameter φ, the curves of

282 the spectral radius considering different parameter values are plotted in Fig. 2. It is shown that

283 (1) the stability requirement (i.e., ρ ≤ 1) can be satisfied when φ < 0, (2) the abscissa values

284 of the spectral radius at the bifurcating points (as marked in Fig. 2) gradually increase with the

285 decreasing φ, and the ordinate values decrease first and then increase, (3) the critical ratio value

286 (i.e., the abscissa value) of Δtcr/T ((i.e., the critical time step Δtcr / the minimum period T) is

287 close to that of CD method (i.e., 1/π) when φ = -0.001, (4) the spectral radius (i.e., the ordinate

288 value) is close to one when φ = -0.001, and the stable regions of the proposed method decrease

289 gradually with the increase of damping ratios. Therefore, a large parameter value φ (i.e., a small

290 absolute value) should be adopted to obtain a relatively large critical time step size in the

15
291 computation. The suggested range of the parameter φ is from -10 to -0.01, which has a similar

292 critical time step size to CD method, and the stability area and critical step size at the suggested

293 parameter range are shown in Fig. 3.

294

295 Fig.2 Spectral radius curves of the proposed method under various parameters φ

296

297 Fig.3 Critical time step size of the proposed method for various parameters φ and ξ.

298 3.2 Discussion of dissipation and dispersion

299 The numerical dissipation and dispersion are two indexes to measure the accuracy of the

300 numerical integration method [7][17], and they are, respectively, evaluated by using the

301 amplitude decay ξ̅ (AD) and the period elongation (T̅ -T)/T (PE), where ξ̅ and T̅ are the

302 algorithmic damping and period, and T is the exact period. Detailed information on the two

303 indexes can be found in [35][36][37]. Although the numerical dissipation represents the

304 computational error, it is useful for filtering out spurious content in the high-frequency response

305 domain. Spurious vibrations only exist in mathematical results, not in practical engineering.

306 One of the characteristics of an admirable integration method is that the proposed method can

307 obtain accurate responses in low-frequency response domains and adequately suppress

308 spurious vibration in high-frequency response domains simultaneously, which is usually not

309 easy to realize in a method.

310 To explore the characteristics of the accuracy of the proposed method, the curves of the

311 AD and PE for different damping scenarios are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively. Four

312 typical explicit integration methods with a single time step (i.e., the CD method, Zhai method
16
313 [17], Kim method [16], and Yuan method [19]) are compared in the two figures to highlight the

314 superiority of the proposed method. It is important to note that to obtain the high accuracy in

315 the low-frequency domain and the high numerical dissipation in the high-frequency

316 simultaneously, the parameters are selected as φ = ψ = 0.6 for the Zhai method, β = 1/27 for

317 the Kim method, and (β = 0.2 and δ = 0.3) for the Yuan method, as marked in Fig. 5 and Fig.

318 6. Moreover, the Zhai method and the Yuan method are constructed by three continuous

319 computational time steps, and both the CD method and the Kim method are built by two

320 continuous computational time steps.

321 Fig. 4 shows that (1) the CD method has no numerical dissipation with the increase of

322 Δt/T, (2) the Zhai method presents a large numerical dissipation in the low-frequency response

323 domain (i.e., the small ratio stage of Δt/T), and a relatively small numerical dissipation is

324 observed in the high-frequency response domain (i.e., the large ratio stage of Δt/T), and (3) the

325 Yuan method seems to satisfy the condition of an admirable algorithm as it has an adequate

326 numerical dissipation in the high-frequency domain compared with the CD, Zhai, and Kim

327 methods. For the proposed integration method, the accuracy gradually increases in the low-

328 frequency response domain with the decreasing φ, and the algorithmic damping gradually

329 increases in the high-frequency response domain. In other words, high accuracy can be

330 achieved in the low-frequency domain, and large numerical dissipation can be obtained in the

331 high-frequency domain by adjusting parameters, e.g., φ = -2.5, as shown in Fig. 4. The AD

332 curves for different integration methods with ξ = 0.02 are shown in Fig. 4 (b). A similar trend

333 to the scenarios where ξ = 0 is captured. For instance, the high accuracy in the low-frequency

17
334 domain and the large numerical dissipation in the high-frequency domain are observed in the

335 proposed method, and both the accuracy and dissipation for the proposed method can be

336 adjusted by using the parameter φ.

337 The PE given in Fig. 5 shows that (1) a similar trend of the PE is captured in the scenarios

338 with or without physical damping (i.e., ξ = 0 in Fig. 5 (a) and ξ = 0.02 in Fig. 5 (b)), (2) the

339 value of the PE gradually increases with the increase of φ from positive values to negative

340 values in the high-frequency domain, (3) the Zhai method has the maximum PE compared with

341 other methods, and (4) the minimum PE in low-frequency parts can be obtained in the proposed

342 method by adjusting the parameter φ.

343

344 Fig.4 Comparison of the amplitude decay in the proposed integration method and the

345 typical integration methods. (a) ξ = 0 and (b) ξ = 0.02.

346

347 Fig.5 Comparison of the period elongation in the proposed explicit integration method

348 and typical methods. (a) ξ = 0 and (b) ξ = 0.02.

349 4 Numerical demonstration

350 Four representative examples are studied to demonstrate the algorithmic properties of the

351 proposed method by comparing with the existing state-of-the-art methods. Specifically, the

352 accuracy and convergence are evaluated by using an SDOF dynamic system with a theoretical

353 solution. The effectiveness of the nonlinear system calculation is investigated via a typical

354 nonlinear dynamic system. A linear Howe truss model subjected to impact and earthquake loads

355 is calculated to explore its effectiveness in calculating both high-frequency vibrations and

18
356 earthquake responses. Finally, a nonlinear wellbore model is used to study the solution ability

357 of the complex large-scale nonlinear system.

358 4.1 A SDOF linear system

359 A typical SDOF linear dynamic system without damping is used to study the computational

360 accuracy theoretically. Namely, ξ = 0 and f(t) = 0 are set in Eq. (2). The equation of motion of

361 the investigated system is written as follows [19]:

362 x(t ) +  2 x(t ) = 0 (25)

363 where ω = 2π rad/s, and T = 1 s. The initial conditions are x(0) = 1 m and ẋ(0) = 0 m/s. The

364 theoretical solution of the displacement responses is x(t) = cos(2πt) m.

365 1) Analysis of accuracy

366 The time history curves of the displacement, velocity, and acceleration are depicted in Fig.

367 6, and responses of different integration methods are compared in the figure, e.g., the CD

368 method, the Zhai method (φ = ψ = 0.5), and Kim method (β = 1/27) with the second-order

369 accuracy, and the Yuan method with the third-order accuracy. Their stability limits Δtcr/T are

370 0.318 for the CD method, 0.318 for the Zhai method [17], 0.297 for the Kim method [16],

371 0.288 for the Yuan method [19], and 0.24 for the proposed method. A time step of 0.05 s is used

372 in the calculation for all integration methods. To observe the difference with the exact results

373 clearly, only the responses from 9 s to 10 s are shown in Fig. 6. It is shown that (1) similar

374 displacement responses are observed in the CD method and Zhai method, (2) the responses of

375 the proposed method well match up with the exact results compared with other methods, i.e.,

376 high accuracy is ensured in the low-frequency response domain (f = 1 Hz), and (3) the accuracy

19
377 of can be adjusted by using the parameters φ.

378

379 Fig. 6. Comparison of the accuracy in various integration methods and the exact
380 solution. (a) displacement, (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration.

381 2) Discussion of the rate of convergence

382 The following global error defined in [12] is used to investigate the rate of convergence

383 of the proposed method.

 (x i
p
− dip )2
384 Ep = i=0
n
(26)
 (d
i=0
i
)
p 2

385 where p is the order of the derivative with respect to time, p = 0, 1, and 2 represent displacement,

386 velocity, and acceleration, respectively, 𝑥𝑖𝑝 and 𝑑𝑖𝑝 are the numerical and theoretical results at

387 the time step ti, respectively, and n is the number of the computational time step.

388 The rates of convergence for the displacement, velocity, and acceleration are presented in

389 Fig. 7, and the methods discussed in Fig. 6 are used to comparatively analyze the rate of

390 convergence. It is shown that (1) the CD method has the second-order accuracy in the

391 displacement responses, but it only maintains first-order accuracy in both the velocity and

392 acceleration responses, (2) both the Zhai method with φ = ψ = 0.5 and the Kim method with β

393 = 1/27 retain the second-order accuracy, (3) the Yuan method can keep the third-order accuracy

394 except for the second-order accuracy of velocity responses, (4) the proposed method has the

395 fastest rate of convergence and achieves the fourth-order accuracy in displacement, velocity,

396 and acceleration responses, and (5) the rate of convergence of the proposed method slightly

397 increases with the decreasing φ. Therefore, compared with the state-of-the-art integration
20
398 methods, the proposed method is characterized by a high rate of convergence and accuracy for

399 the linear dynamic system.

400

401 Fig. 7. Comparisons of the rate of convergence in the proposed method and typical

402 methods (T = 1). (a) displacement, (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration.

403 4.2 A nonlinear SDOF dynamic system

404 A typically nonlinear second-order differential equation (i.e., the well-known van der Pol’s

405 equation) is used to discuss the applicability of the proposed method in terms of nonlinear

406 problems [38][39]. The governing equation is expressed as follows [40]:

407 (1 + x 2 )x + (c0 + x 2 )x + x = 0 (27)

408 where c0 = 2 is the damping coefficient. The initial conditions are x(0) = -0.02 and 𝑥̇ (0) = 0.

409 The computational time step is 0.2 s for the proposed method and the methods discussed

410 in Fig. 6, and the near-exact solution is calculated by using the Kim method with a time step of

411 0.002 s. Fig. 8 shows the dynamic responses of the nonlinear system. It is shown that (1) the

412 errors from the CD method, the Zhai method, the Kim method, and the Yuan method are

413 obvious compared with those of the proposed method, and (2) the results from the proposed

414 method overlap with the near-exact results when φ = -4. Therefore, compared with the

415 examined methods, the proposed method can more accurately compute the nonlinear dynamic

416 system.

417

418 Fig. 8 Dynamic responses of the nonlinear system calculated by various integration

419 methods. (a) displacement, (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration.

21
420 4.3 A linear multi-DOF dynamic system

421 A linear Howe truss, as shown in Fig. 9, is used to discuss the algorithmic performance of the

422 proposed integration methods in terms of complex structures and loads [41][42]. The accuracy,

423 the dissipation, and the efficiency are investigated successively. The periodic impact load is set

424 as F(t) = Picos(ωt), in which Pi represents external loads acting on nodes, as shown in Fig. 9.

425 Two loading frequencies of ω = 0 and 100 π are employed to generate spurious responses in

426 the analysis, and the duration of the impact loads is 0.1 s. The material properties of the Howe

427 truss model are given in Fig. 9. Structural damping is ignored in the calculation, and the element

428 and node numbers are marked in the figure.

429
430 Fig. 9. A Howe truss under periodic impacts

431 1) Discussion of accuracy

432 The horizontal responses of Node 5 are shown in Fig. 10 when the loading frequency is

433 ω = 0. The near-exact solution is obtained by using the CD method with a time step of 0.00001

434 s, and a time step of 0.001 s is employed in the calculation of other methods. Only the proposed

435 method can achieve the approved results, and large errors are observed in the results from other

436 methods. In addition, more accurate solutions can be obtained by adopting smaller time steps

437 for all these methods, but the computational cost will remarkably increase. Thus, the proposed

438 method outperforms in terms of balancing accuracy and efficiency when linear multi-DOF

439 dynamic systems are calculated.

440

441 Fig. 10 Responses of Node 5 in the horizontal direction when ω = 0. (a) displacement, (b)

22
442 velocity, and (c) acceleration.

443 2) Investigation of dissipation

444 To generate the spurious vibrations, the structural stiffness is magnified 55 times, and the

445 loading frequency is 100 π. The computational results show that the response frequency ranges

446 from 94 to 697 Hz. The maximum vibration frequency exists in the horizontal vibration of

447 Node 5, whose responses are used to discuss the dissipation property. The response with full

448 frequencies is calculated by using the CD method with a time step of 0.00001 s, as shown in

449 Fig 11. The time steps used in other methods are 0.0003 s. The displacement responses are

450 given in Fig. 11 (a), and its enlarged view from 0.085 s to 0.093 s is depicted in Fig. 11 (b) to

451 observe spurious vibrations. Fig. 11 (a) shows that results in the low-frequency response

452 domain overlap with the full-frequency responses for all integration methods. In other words,

453 accurate results can be captured in the low-frequency domain by all methods. Moreover, the

454 spurious high-frequency vibrations, as marked in Fig. 11 (a), can be efficiently filtered out by

455 adjusting the parameter φ of the proposed method, which cannot be realized in the CD method.

456 Therefore, the proposed method is featured with the superior numerical dissipation property.

457

458 Fig. 11 Responses of Node 5 in the horizontal direction when ω = 100 π. (a) displacement

459 and (b) enlarged view.

460 3) Application to seismic loadings

461 To explore the potential and computational accuracy under complex loadings, the Howe

462 truss under seismic impacts, as shown in Fig. 12, is calculated. A time step of 0.002 s is used

463 in the calculation for all the methods. The near-exact solution is solved by using a time step of
23
464 0.0001 s, and responses of 50 s are calculated in the analysis. The responses of Node 5 are

465 plotted in Fig. 13. We find that (1) the methods (i.e., the CD method, the Zhai method, and the

466 Kim method) have relatively poor results, (2) the Yuan method makes more progress in the

467 computing accuracy in terms of the displacement responses, as shown in Fig.13 (a), and (3)

468 satisfying results are observed in all responses by using the proposed method, including

469 displacement, velocity, and acceleration responses. Therefore, the proposed method is suitable

470 for solving the responses of multi-DOF systems under complex impacts.

471

472 Fig. 12 Vertical acceleration of ground motion

473

474 Fig. 13 Earthquake responses of Node 5 in the horizontal direction. (a) displacement, (b)
475 velocity, and (c) acceleration.

476 4) Evaluation of efficiency

477 To compare the computational efficiency of different integration methods, the same

478 accuracy is ensured in all methods. More specifically, considering the accuracy of integration

479 methods comprehensively (i.e., including the AD and PE), different ratios of Δt/TMin are

480 selected to obtain the same global errors of the acceleration (e.g., Log(E2) = 0.01), as shown in

481 Fig. 7 (c). The obtained ratios and time step sizes of the investigated methods are listed in Table

482 1. Fig. 14 gives the average time consumption of 10 calculations for the Howe truss subjected

483 to earthquake excitations with a duration of 50 s. All calculations are conducted by a computer

484 with an Intel(R) Core (TM) i7-8700. We find that (1) the largest time consumption is observed

485 in the CD method due to the time-consuming factorization of an effective stiffness matrix, and

24
486 (2) the proposed method has the shortest time consumption, which is around 65% of that of the

487 Yuan method, 38% of that of the Kim method, and 30% of that of the Zhai method. Therefore,

488 the highest efficiency can be obtained in the proposed method.

489 Table 1. The ratios of t / T and time step sizes for various methods.

490

491

492 Fig. 14 Time consumptions for various methods

493 4.4 A nonlinear multi-DOF dynamic system

494 A nonlinear plate model with 3600 DOFs, which is employed to simulate the wellbore

495 shown in Fig. 15, is studied to evaluate the computational accuracy of large-scale nonlinear

496 systems based on the plane strain assumption. The inner and outer boundaries and the thickness

497 of plating (d = 0.1 m) of the wellbore are shown in Fig. 15 (a), and more information can be

498 accessed in [43][44]. Considering the symmetry, only Pi/4 rad of the plate model is built to

499 simplify the modeling process, and the relevant parameters are given in Table. 2. Fig. 15 (a)

500 depicts the inner and outer wall dimensions. The periodic radial force applied to the inner wall

501 is set as F(t) = r0sin(ωt), in which r0 = 104 N and ω = 10π rad/s. The lump mass matrix is used

502 in the calculation and the damping ratio is 0.01. The minimum and maximum frequencies of

503 the model are 30.93 Hz and 16072 Hz, respectively. Considering the nonlinear damping with

504 the combined viscous and quadratic damping [45], the governing equation of the wellbore plate

505 model is given as [46]

506 Mb X + Cb X + Db X X + K b X = Fb (28 a)

25
507 Cb = a0Mb + a1K b , Db = a0Mb (28 b,c)

508 where Mb, Kb, and Cb are the mass matrix, the stiffness matrix, and the Rayleigh damping

509 matrix, respectively, X, Ẋ and Ẍ are the displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors,

510 respectively, Fb is the loading vector, Db is the constant matrix related to the mass matrix, and

511 a0 and a1 are the coefficients of the mass matrix and stiffness matrix, respectively.

512 Only pure vector operations are conducted in the calculation for the Kim method, the Zhai

513 method, and the Yuan method. Hence, they are selected in the comparative analysis. The CD

514 method is excluded in the comparison due to the factorization of the equivalent stiffness matrix

515 in nonlinear calculations [13]. The horizontal and vertical acceleration responses of the two

516 representative points P1 and P2 (as marked in Fig. 15 (b)) are presented in Figs. 16 and 17,

517 respectively, to explore the response properties. The near-exact solution is obtained by using

518 the Kim method with a time step of 2×10-7 s, and the time step of other methods is 2×10-6s.

519 Considering the critical time steps of integration methods, the algorithmic parameters are,

520 respectively, selected as β = 0.2 for the Kim method, φ = 0.5 and ψ = 0.5 for the Zhai method,

521 β = 0.2 and δ = 0.25 for the Yuan method, and φ = 0.01 for the proposed method, as shown in

522 Figs. 16 and 17. It is shown that only the response curves of the proposed method overlap with

523 the near-exact solution, and results from other methods are gradually divergent, as marked in

524 the locally enlarged views. Note that the Kim method, Zhai method, and Yuan method can also

525 obtain near-exact solutions if they adopt smaller time steps. Therefore, the proposed method

526 can be used to solve complex nonlinear dynamic systems, and the proposed method has a better

527 rate of convergence when compared with the Kim method, the Zhai method, and the Yuan

26
528 method.

529

530 Fig. 15 The nonlinear wellbore model with (a) the cross-section and (b) the simplified model.

531
532 Table 2. Main parameters of the wellbore model
533

534

535 Fig. 16 The dynamic responses of the point P1 close to the inner boundary. (a) horizontal

536 acceleration and (b) vertical acceleration

537

538 Fig. 17 The dynamic responses of the point P2 close to the out boundary. (a) horizontal

539 acceleration and (b) vertical acceleration

540 5. Conclusions

541 In this study, an explicit integration method is proposed, and two parameters φ and α are

542 introduced to adjust its stability and accuracy properties. A systematical theoretical and

543 numerical demonstration of the algorithmic properties of the proposed method is conducted,

544 and several typical integration methods, e.g., the CD method, the Kim method, the Yuan

545 method, and the Zhai method, are compared in the analysis. Four representative examples are

546 used to investigate the properties of the proposed method, including the accuracy, efficiency,

547 dissipation, and effectiveness of the nonlinear calculation. Some conclusions are summarized

548 as follows:

549 • The third-order accuracy can be realized in the proposed method at least, and the

550 fourth-order accuracy can be obtained in the absence of physical damping.

551 • The proposed method is featured with desirable accuracy properties. Specifically,
27
552 high accuracy can be ensured in the low-frequency response domain, and

553 improved algorithmic damping can be achieved in the high-frequency response

554 domain. Therefore, the proposed method can be used to efficiently filter out

555 spurious responses in the high-frequency domain on the premise of enough

556 accuracy in the low-frequency response domain.

557 • The proposed explicit method is a single-step integration method, and it can

558 advance the solution step-by-step via the obtained displacements and velocities.

559 The time-consuming factorization of an effective stiffness matrix is not required

560 for the structure with a lumped mass matrix. Namely, pure vector calculations are

561 conducted for the dynamic analysis. Therefore, high computational efficiency is

562 ensured in the proposed method.

563 • Compared with existing single-step methods, the proposed method is

564 characterized by a high rate of convergence and accuracy for the linear dynamic

565 calculation, and more accurate results can be obtained in the nonlinear dynamic

566 calculation.

567 The limitations of the proposed method and future work are given as follows:

568 1. The proposed method cannot achieve self-starting, and the information from the first

569 step needs to be given in the calculation. Self-starting is possible when the displacement and

570 velocity at the time step (t0-Δt) are obtained by using initial conditions (t0).

571 2. The applicability of the proposed explicit integration method in more complex

572 structural dynamic systems is worthy of investigation in future work.

28
573 References

574 [1] He JJ, Lu ZZ, Liu YM. New method for concurrent dynamic analysis and fatigue damage

575 prognosis of bridges. J Bridg Eng 2012;17(3):396-408.

576 [2] Yu Y, Yao H, Liu YM. Aircraft dynamics simulation using a novel physics-based learning

577 method. Aerosp Sci Technol 2019;87:254-264.

578 [3] Hughes Thomas JR. The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element

579 analysis. Massachusetts: Courier Corporation, 2012.

580 [4] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2011.

581 [5] Dokainish MA, Subbaraj K. A survey of direct time-integration methods in computational

582 structural dynamics—I. Explicit methods. Comput Struct 1989;32(6):1371–1386.

583 [6] Yuan P, Cai CS, Li DJ, Xu GJ, Li CX. New method for concurrent dynamic analysis and

584 fatigue damage prognosis of bridges. J Bridg Eng 2012;17(3):396–408.

585 [7] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996.

586 [8] Bathe KJ, Noh GW. Insight into an implicit time integration scheme for structural dynamics.

587 Comput Struct 2012;98:1-6.

588 [9] Hulbert GM, Chung J. Explicit time integration algorithms for structural dynamics with

589 optimal numerical dissipation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1996;137(2):175-188.

590 [10] Kim W. An accurate two-stage explicit time integration scheme for structural dynamics

591 and various dynamic problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2019;120(1):1-28.

592 [11] Liu W, Guo WH. A Non-Iterative Integration Scheme Enriching the Solution to the

593 Coupled Maglev Vehicle-Bridge System. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2021;21(04):2150052.

594 [12] Wen WB, Wei K, Lei HS, Duan SY, Fang DN. A novel sub-step composite implicit time
29
595 integration scheme for structural dynamics. Comput Struct 2017;182:176-186.

596 [13] Park KC. An improved stiffly stable method for direct integration of nonlinear structural

597 dynamic equations. J Appl Mech 1975;42(2):464-470.

598 [14] Fung TC. Numerical dissipation in time-step integration algorithms for structural dynamic

599 analysis. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2003;5(3):167-180.

600 [15] Chung JT, Lee J. A new family of explicit time integration methods for linear and non-

601 linear structural dynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1994;37(23):3961-3976.

602 [16] Kim W. A simple explicit single step time integration algorithm for structural dynamics.

603 Int J Numer Methods Eng 2019;119(5):383-403.

604 [17] Zhai WM. Two simple fast integration methods for large-scale dynamic problems in

605 engineering. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1996;39(24):4199-4214.

606 [18] Yuan P, Li DJ, Cai CS, Xu GJ. An efficient decoupling dynamic algorithm for coupled

607 multi-spring-systems. Comput Struct 2018;209:44-56.

608 [19] Yuan P, Li DJ, Cai CS, Xu GJ. A Novel Decoupling Dynamic Method with Third-order

609 Accuracy and Controllable Dissipation. Comput Struct 2021;249:106512.

610 [20] Zhu ZH, Gong W, Wang LD, Li Q, Yu ZW, Harik IE. An efficient multi-time-step method

611 for train-track-bridge interaction. Comput Struct 2018;196:36-48.

612 [21] Dormand JR, Prince PJ. A family of embedded Runge-Kutta formulae. J Comput Appl

613 Math 1980;6(1):19-26.

614 [22] Noh G, Bathe KJ. An explicit time integration scheme for the analysis of wave

615 propagations. Comput Struct 2013;129:178-193.

616 [23] Kim W, Lee J. An improved explicit time integration method for linear and nonlinear

617 structural dynamics. Comput Struct;2018;206:42–53.

618 [24] Kim W. A new family of two-stage explicit time integration methods with dissipation

619 control capability for structural dynamics. Eng Struct 2019;195:358-372.

620 [25] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Karimi-Rad M. A family of second-order fully explicit time integration

621 schemes. Comput Appl Math 2018;37(3):3431-3454.

622 [26] Liu W, Guo WH. A novel predictor-corrector explicit integration scheme for structural

30
623 dynamics. Structures 2021;34:2735-2745.

624 [27] Braekhus J, Aasen J. Experiments with direct integration algorithms for ordinary

625 differential equations in structural dynamics. Comput Struct 1981;91-96.

626 [28] Diogo FR, Walnório GF, Webe JM, Adenilcia Fernanda Grobério Calenzania. A review of

627 automatic time-stepping strategies on numerical time integration for structural dynamics

628 analysis. Eng Struct 2014;80:118-136.

629 [29] Kim W, Reddy JN. Novel explicit time integration schemes for efficient transient analyses

630 of structural problems. Int J Mech Sci 2020;172:105429.

631 [30] Delfim S, Georg G. Nonlinear structural dynamic analysis by a stabilized central

632 difference method. Eng Struct 2018;173:383-392.

633 [31] Idesman AV. A new high-order accurate continuous Galerkin method for linear

634 elastodynamics problems. Comput Mech 2007;40(2):261-279.

635 [32] Cheng FY. Matrix analysis of structural dynamics: applications and earthquake

636 engineering. Florida: CRC Press, 2017.

637 [33] Liu TH, Huang FL, Wen WB, He XH, Duan SY, Fang DN. Further insights of a composite

638 implicit time integration scheme and its performance on linear seismic response analysis.

639 Eng Struct 2021;241:112490.

640 [34] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Esfehani SAH, Karimi-Rad M. Highly accurate family of time

641 integration method. Struct Eng Mech 2018;67(6):603-616.

642 [35] Hilber HM, Hughes TJR. Collocation, dissipation and [overshoot] for time integration

643 schemes in structural dynamics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1978;6(1):99-117.

644 [36] Chang SY. A family of noniterative integration methods with desired numerical dissipation.

645 Int J Numer Methods Eng 2014;100(1):62-86.

646 [37] Bazzi G, Anderheggen E. The ρ-family of algorithms for time-step integration with

647 improved numerical dissipation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1982;10(4):537-550.

648 [38] Kougioumtzoglou IA, Spanos PD. Nonlinear MDOF system stochastic response

649 determination via a dimension reduction approach. Comput Struct 2013;126: 135-148.

650 [39] Kougioumtzoglou IA. Stochastic joint time--frequency response analysis of nonlinear

31
651 structural systems. J Sound Vib 2013;332(26):7153-7173.

652 [40] Semler C, Gentleman WC, Paı Doussis MP. Numerical solutions of second order implicit

653 non-linear ordinary differential equations. J Sound Vib 1996;195(4):553-574.

654 [41] Yuan P, Li DJ, Cai CS, Xu GJ. Time integration method with high accuracy and efficiency

655 for structural dynamic analysis. J Eng Mech 2019;145(3):4019008.

656 [42] Guo T, Frangopol DM, Chen YW. Fatigue reliability assessment of steel bridge details

657 integrating weigh-in-motion data and probabilistic finite element analysis. Comput Struct

658 2012;112:245-257.

659 [43] Hodge MO. Avoiding Borehole Failure by Time-dependent Stability Analysis of Stressed

660 Poroelastic Rocks, University of New South Wales, 2006.

661 [44] Yuan P, Dong Y. High-efficient decoupling method for coupling systems with multiple

662 subdomains and time steps. Mech Syst Signal Pr 2022;163:108159.

663 [45] Franchetti P, Modena C, Feng MQ. Nonlinear damping identification in precast prestressed

664 reinforced concrete beams. Comput-Aided Civ Inf 2009;24(8):577-592.

665 [46] Wang CH, Xiao JZ, Wang CQ, Zhang CZ. Nonlinear damping and nonlinear responses of

666 recycled aggregate concrete frames under earthquake loading. Eng Struct

667 2019;201:109575.

668

669 Appendix I. The parameter relationships of the displacement prediction scheme.

670 The displacement prediction scheme of the proposed method can be written as follows:

671 xt + t = b1 x t − t +b2 x t +b3txt − t + b4 txt (A1)

672 Eq. A1 is similar to the general integration expression and detailed information on the

673 general integration expression can be found in [32]. By selecting suitable parameter values, Eq.

674 A1 can be exact in the special case where x is a polynomial of order m-1, i.e., x = tm-1, and the

675 second-order accuracy is obtained in the displacement prediction scheme, i.e., x = 1, t, t2.

676 Specifically, when x = 1, 𝑥̇ = 0, and 𝑥̈ = 0, Eq. (A1) can be written as follows:

32
677 1 = b1 + b2 (A2)

678 When x = t, 𝑥̇ = 1, and 𝑥̈ = 0, Eq. (A1) can be rewritten as follows:

679 (n + 1)t = b1(n − 1)t + b2 n t + b3t + b4 t (A3)

680 Then, we have:

681 b3 + b4 − b1 = 1 (A4)

682 When x = t2, 𝑥̇ = 2t, and 𝑥̈ = 2, we can arrive at:

683 (n + 1)2 t 2 = b1(n − 1)2 t 2 + b2 n 2 t 2 + 2b3n t 2 − 2b3t 2 + 2b4 n t 2 (A5)

684 Simplifying Eq. (A2), one has:

685 b1 − 2b3 = 1 (A6)

686 Therefore, the following three relationships between parameters b1, b2, b3, and b4 can be

687 obtained. A similar derivation on the Newmark method is given in [32].

688 b1 = 2b4 − 3 , b2 = 4 − 2b4 , and b3 = b4 − 2 (A7)

689 Appendix II. The integration approximation operator A

690 Using Eqs. (3) - (12), the following integration approximation operator can be obtained. A

691 similar derivation process can be found in [19][32].

 0 0 1 0 
 
0 0 0 1 
692 Α=  (B1)
 31 32 33 34 
 
  41  42  43  44 
693 where the coefficients in the matrix are expressed as follows:

694 31 = 3t 2 2 − 18 − 2t 2 2 + 8t  − 4t  + 5 (B2)

695 32 = 2t − 8t + 2t 3 2 + 6t 2 − t 3 2 − 2t 2 (B3)

696 33 = 18 − 4t 2 2 + 2t 2 2 − 8t + 4t  − 4 (B4)

33
697 34 = 4t − 10t − t 3 2 − 2t 2 (B5)

12 36 9 3t 2

41 = − + 16 + + 6t −
2

698 t t 2t 4
(B6)
t 2
− 4t − 2 − 8 +  +
2

t 2 2
42 = 2 − 16 + 4t 2 2 − − 2t 2 2 + 12t 
699 2
(B7)
t 
2 2
3t t
+ − − 4t + +5
4 2 2

36 12 9
43 = − − 16 − − 8t 2 + t 2
700 t t 2t
(B8)
t 2
+ 4t 2 + 2 + 8 −  −
2

5 t 2 2 t

701 44 = − 20 − 2t 2 2 + − 4t + +8 (B9)
2 4 2

702 Appendix III. Coefficients of the characteristic polynomial

A1 = 2 −  + t 2 2 + t 2 2 + 4t

703 (C1)
t 2 2 7t t
− + − −1
4 2 2

9
A2 = − 6 − 4t 2 2 − 3t 2 2 − 16t
704 2
(C2)
3t 2 2 3t
+ − 10t  + +4
4 2

7t 2 2
A3 = 6 − 6 + 7t 2 2 + + 20t
705 2
(C3)
3t 2 2 13t 3t
− + − −6
4 2 2

5 t 2 2 t

706 A4 = − 2 − 4t 2 2 − 8t + + +4 (C4)
2 4 2

707 Appendix IV. The standard computational procedure for a multi-DOF system

708 The standard computational procedure for multi-DOF systems can be written as follows:
34
709 Xt +t = (2 − 3) X t −t +(4 − 2 ) X t +( − 2)tXt −t + tXt (D1)

710 12 12
Xt + t = X t −t − X +5Xt −t + 8Xt (D2)
t t t
711 Xt + t = M −1(F t + t −N(Xt + t , Xt + t )) (D3)

24 + 35 48 + 28 16 + 14

Xt +t = − X t −t + Xt − tXt −t
712 24 − 7 24 − 7 24 − 7
(D4)
16 − 28 8
+ tXt + t 2 X t +t
24 − 7 24 − 7

8 + 5 4 + 8 − 2 +
713 Xt +t = X t −t − Xt + X t +t + Xt −t +  Xt (D5)
4 t t 4 t 2
714 where Xt-Δt and Xt −t denote the vectors of the displacement and velocity at t-Δt, respectively,

715 Xt and Xt represent the vectors of displacement and velocity at t, respectively, Xt +t , Xt +t ,

716 and Xt +t are the vectors of the prediction displacement, velocity, and acceleration at t+Δt,

717 respectively, Xt+Δt and Xt +t are the vectors of the displacement and velocity at t+Δt,

718 respectively, Ft+Δt and N( Xt +t , Xt +t ) are the vectors of the external and internal forces at t+Δt,

719 respectively, and M is the mass matrix of dynamic systems. The computational flowchart of

720 the proposed method is shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, computational procedures for numerical

721 examples can follow this flowchart.

722

723 Fig. 18 The computational flowchart of the proposed method

724

35
725 Captions of table and figures

726 Table 1. The ratios of t / T and time step sizes for various methods.
727 Table 2. Main parameters of the wellbore model

728 Fig. 1. Three continuously computational time steps.

729 Fig. 2. Spectral radius curves of the proposed method under various parameters φ
730 Fig.3 Critical time step size of the proposed method for various parameters φ and ξ.

731 Fig. 4. Comparison of the amplitude decay in the proposed integration method and the typical
732 integration methods. (a) ξ = 0 and (b) ξ = 0.02.
733 Fig. 5 Comparisons of the period elongation in the proposed explicit integration method and
734 typical methods. (a) ξ = 0 and (b) ξ = 0.02.
735 Fig.5 Comparisons of the period elongation in the proposed explicit integration method and
736 typical methods. (a) ξ = 0 and (b) ξ = 0.02.
737 Fig. 6. Comparison of the accuracy in various integration methods and the exact solution. (a)
738 displacement, (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration.
739 Fig. 7. Comparisons of the rate of convergence in the proposed method and typical methods (T
740 = 1). (a) displacement, (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration.
741 Fig. 8 Dynamic responses of the nonlinear system calculated by various integration methods.
742 (a) displacement, (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration.
743 Fig. 9. A Howe truss under periodic impacts
744 Fig. 10 Responses of Node 5 in the horizontal direction when ω = 0. (a) displacement, (b)
745 velocity, and (c) acceleration.
746 Fig. 11 Responses of Node 5 in the horizontal direction when ω = 100 π. (a) displacement and
747 (b) enlarged view.
748 Fig. 12 Vertical acceleration of ground motion
749 Fig. 13 Earthquake responses of Node 5 in the horizontal direction. (a) displacement, (b)
750 velocity, and (c) acceleration.
751 Fig. 14 Time consumptions for various methods
752 Fig. 15 The nonlinear wellbore model with (a) the cross-section and (b) the simplified model.
753 Fig. 16 The dynamic responses of the investigated point P1. (a) horizontal acceleration and (b)
754 vertical acceleration

36
755 Fig. 17 The dynamic responses of the investigated point P2. (a) horizontal acceleration and (b)
756 vertical acceleration
757 Fig. 18 The computational flowchart of the proposed method

37
758 Table 1. The ratios of t / T and time step sizes for various methods.
Methods Algorithm parameters Δt/TMin (×10-2s) Δt (×10-4s)

CD method － 0.1504 0.1504

Zhai method φ = ψ = 0.5 1.307 1.3074

Kim method β = 1/27 1.694 1.6939

Yuan method β = 0.2, δ = 0.283 2.871 2.8711

Prop. φ = -4 4.573 4.5726

759 Note: TMin is the minimum period of Howe truss

760

38
761 Table 2. Main parameters of the wellbore model
Parameters Unit Value
Modulus of elasticity N/m2 2×109
Poisson’s ratio - 0.3
Density kg/m3 2500
Damping ratio - 0.02
Outer diameter m 5
Inner diameter m 0.5
Angle rad π/4
762
763

39
764

765 Fig. 1. Three continuously computational time steps.

766

40
767

768 Fig.2 Spectral radius curves of the proposed method under various parameters φ
769

41
770

771 Fig.3 Critical time step size of the proposed method for various parameters φ and ξ.
772

42
773

774
775 Fig.4 Comparison of the amplitude decay in the proposed integration method and the

776 typical integration methods. (a) ξ = 0 and (b) ξ = 0.02.

43
777

778
779 Fig.5 Comparisons of the period elongation in the proposed explicit integration method

780 and typical methods. (a) ξ = 0 and (b) ξ = 0.02.

44
781

782

45
783
784 Fig. 6. Comparison of the accuracy between various integration methods and the exact

785 solution. (a) displacement, (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration.

786

46
787

788

47
789
790 Fig. 7. Comparisons of the rate of convergence between the proposed method and

791 typical methods (T = 1). (a) Displacement, (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration.
792

48
793

794

49
795
796 Fig. 8 Dynamic responses of the nonlinear system calculated by various integration

797 methods. (a) displacement, (b) velocity, and (c) acceleration.

798

50
799
800 Fig. 9. A Howe truss under impact
801

51
802

803

52
804
805 Fig. 10 Responses of Node 5 in the horizontal direction when ω = 0. (a) displacement, (b)

806 velocity, and (c) acceleration.

807

53
808

809
810 Fig. 11 Responses of Node 5 in the horizontal direction when ω = 100 π. (a) displacement

811 and (b) enlarged view.

812

54
813

814 Fig. 12 Vertical acceleration of ground motion

815

55
816

817

56
818
819 Fig. 13 Earthquake responses of Node 5 in the horizontal direction. (a) displacement, (b)
820 velocity, and (c) acceleration.
821

57
822
823 Fig. 14 Time consumptions for various methods
824

58
 (a)

825

(b)

826

827 Fig. 15 The wellbore model with (a) the cross-section and (b) the simplified model.

59
828

829
830 Fig. 16 The dynamic responses of the investigated point P1 close to the inner boundary. (a)
831 horizontal acceleration and (b) vertical acceleration
832
833

60
834

835
836 Fig. 17 The dynamic responses of the investigated point P2 close to the out boundary. (a)
837 horizontal acceleration and (b) vertical acceleration
838

61
839

840 Fig. 18 The computational flowchart of the proposed method

62

View publication stats