SUBSTRUCTURING TECHNIQUES-STATUS

AND PROJECTIONS?

AIMED K. NOOR,*
HUSSEIN A. KMEL! and ROBERT E. FULTON~

(Received March 19n; received for publication 1 June 1977)

A&net-Status and recent developments of substructuring techniquesand their applicationto structuralanalysis

and design are summarized. Discussion focuses on a number of aspects including: multilevel substructuring
algorithms; use of hyperrnatrix and other sparse matrix schemes, use of substructuring in automated design
systems and application of substructuring in elasto-plastic probkms. Numerical exampks are presented to
demonstrate the reduction in the number of arithmetic operations and disk storage requirements obtained by using
multilevel substructuring techniques. Also discussed are the potential benefits of using such techniques with new
computing hardware such as CDC STAR-100 and minicomputer systems.

NowwcLATlmR external forces at constrained and external

[C] connection matrix defined in eqn (8) nodes delined by qn (12)
{C) vector of undetermined coefficients de&d in incremental external forces defined by eqn (27)
qn (22) reduced incremental load vector defined by
(CPU),,(CPU)d CPU times required for substructuring and qn (30)
direct analysis, respectively (Fig. 13) structure load matrix defined by qn (7)
d,“, d: original and modified set of design variables reduced substructure and structure load vec-
[I] identity matrix tors defined by qns (24) and (26)
&I. i&J. displacemeot unknowns at internal and inter-
substructure. stifncss matrices defined by qn face nodes defined by qn (I)
IK,l. [&,I I (1) displacements at constrained and external
[&I reduced (effective) substructure stiffness nodes, qn (It)
matrix defined by qns (3) and (4) incremental displacements defined by qn (27)
I&l*I&It matrix of displacements at all interfaces, qn
(7)
stiffness matrices of co&9ra&l substructure
Wcfl.
[&I‘ disk storage requirements in substructuring
defined by qn (12) and direct analysis, respectively (see Fig. 6)
L!Ll.[!L]?
[K&l,[K-l I disk storage requirements for direct analysis
[&I* I&J with one node per block (see Fig. 7)
1 incremental stiffness matrices detined by qn number of design variables
tmnsfommtion matrices defined by eqns (13)
reduced incremental stiffness matrix defined in and (17)
qn (2% matrices of reduced base vectors for internal
structure stiffness matrix defined by qn (7) and interface unknowns defined by qns (20)
reduced substructure and structure stiflness and (21)
matrices deflned by eqns (23) and (24)
beginning address of submatrix [K,] (see Pii IrvmomlcTIoN
21 The concept of dividing a structure into parts to carry
number of floating-point multiplications in
substructuring and direct analysis, respec-
out analysis dates back to the precomputer era and is
tively (see Fig. 6) closely related to matrix partitioning. With the advent of
number of floating-point multiplications in digital computers, substructuring technology has been
direct analysis with one node per block (see further developed and applied to several stress analysis,
I%. 7) eigenvalue and automated structural design problems.
number of substructures For example, several finite element computer programs
external forces at internal and interface nodes, now have substructuring as a standard capability (e.g.
defined by qn (1) NA!3TRAN, ASKA, SESAM-69, DAISY and GIFTS,
reduced (effective) substructure load matrix
Refs.[l-51). Substructuring applications to eigenvalue
defined by qn (5)
problems are surveyed in Refs. [6-91.
Substructuring developments, however, have been
oriented primarily to capabilities provided by current
tPresented at the Second National Symposium on Com- third generation computers. Recent and expected
puterized Structural Analysis and Design of Engineering and developments in computers offer potential for improved
Applied Science, George Washington University, Washington, capabilities in calculations for the future. Such new
D.C. 29-31 March 1916.
systems include not only large advanced computers such
tProfessor of Engine&n8 and Applied Science, George
Washington University Center at NASA-Langley Research Cen_
as the STAR-100, ILLIAC IV and ASC but also
ter, Hampton, VA 23665, U.S.A. numerous minicomputers which provide dramatic reduc-
OProfessor of Aerospace Engineering, University of Arizona, tion in computing costs coupled with a high degree of
Tucson, Arizona. man/machine interaction. Both classes of computers are
1Monager. IPAD Project Ot?lcc. NASA-Langley Research well suited for subsaucturing and it is appropriate to
Center. Hampton, VA 23665, U.S.A. review substructuring technology to identify methods
621
622
particularly well suited for this evolving computer
environment. This paper summarizes the status and
recent developments in static substructuring techniques
and their application to structural analysis and design.
Since the subject is very broad, discussion focuses
herein on a number of aspects which are of interest to
the authors and which have not been fully covered in the
literature. These aspects include: multilevel substructur-
ing algorithms, use of hypermatrix and other sparse
matrix schemes, substNcturing techniques for automated
design systems and substructuring techniques on new
computing systems such as the CDC STAR-100 and
minicomputer systems.
SUMMARY OF SUBSt’RUCTUlUNGMETHODSIN
SrATIC SFBUCTURAL. ANALe3Is
The method of substructuring for static structural
analysis is based on subdividing the large structure into
smaller parts which are analyzed separately to obtain
relationships between forces and displacements at the
part interfaces. These interface variables are then
determined and the results used to obtain the unknowns
within each substructure. Whilst substructuring tech-
niques can be applied with the force or mixed methods
of structural analysis (see, e.g. Refs.[lO, 1l]), the dis-
cussion herein is limited to the displacement method. An
historical account of the development of substructuring
techniques is given in Ref. [12] where it is shown that
these techniques are closely related to matrix
partitioning[ 131 and that Kron’s method of tearing[l4]
represents the first computational procedure of the
modern substructuring analysis. This section gives a
brief review of the mathematical theory of substructur-
ing for static structural analysis together with some
recent developments relative to sparse matrices, hyper-
matrices and introduction of constraints.
Review of static substructuring theory
For a structure composed of m substructures (Fig. I),
the well-known force equilibrium equations for the jth
substructure (j = 1 to m) are:
where [Ui”qV [Q,(“], [P,oq and [P,o’] are displacement
and external forces at the internal and interface nodes,
respectively; the [K]‘s are stiffness submatrices and
superscript j refers to the jth substructure.
Fig. 1. Origiial structure and a substructure.
A. K. Noon et al.
The internal degrees of freedom [U,‘i’] are expressed
in terms of interface degrees of freedom [U,“‘] and are
eliminated from eqn (1) giving (superscript j is omitted
for convenience):
[&I = - [Kil-‘[&I [ubl + [Kiil-‘[pil, (2)
and
[&I [Ubl = rs1 (3)
where [&I is the effective substructure stiffness matrix,
[&I = iKbbl- [K&l[&-‘[&I9 (4)
and [&,I is the effective SubstNcture load matrix,
IsI = lpbl - LKbil[Kiil-‘[PiI. (5)
The matrix inversion in eqns (4) and (5) is not normally
done explicitly but the products [Kii]-‘[Kib] = [Ml] and
[K,]-‘[Pi] = [Q] are obtained by solving:
IKiilIM j Qil = [Kb \ pil (6)
via decomposition, forward reduction and back sub-
stitution.
Matrix [I&] can also be obtained by reducing the
stiffness matrix of eqn (1) to an upper triangular form
using Gaussian elimination but terminating elimination
when the final row of the rectangular matrix [Kii Kib]
has been reduced. The matrix [&I then occupies the
location of the original matrix [&,,I. This method is
discussed in Ref. [lo] and is referred to as partial tri-
angulation.
The governing equations for the whole structure are
obtained by assembling the stiffness and load matrices
[&I and [Pb] of the m substructures. The equations can
be written in the following form:
P-l [%I = [PI (7)
in which [%I is the matrix of displacements at all inter-
faces; and [YLJand [g] are the stiffness and load matrices
of the whole structure. The displacement matrix [U,,] for
each SubStNctttre is extracted from [%I and substituted
into eqn (2) to yield internal displacements and forces.
In cases where the sequential order of the boundary
displacement components is not the same in all sub-
structures, or when different coordinate systems are used
for different substructures the assembly process can be
simplified by introducing a connection matrix, which
relates [II&“‘]to [%I, namely:
[V,“‘] = [C”‘] [%I. (f-v
The corresponding expressions for the structure stiffness
and load matrices are:
WI = g, c-TuGO’l b?‘l (9)
ISI = 2 [C”‘l=[&.o)]. (10)
i-1
A hierarchy of substNctures (multilevel substructur-
 Substructuring techniques-status
ing) can be obtained by combining (assembling) goups
of substructures and eliminating the internal unknowns
within them. This process amounts to applying eqns
(l)-(lO) in a recursive manner. When the lowest (first)
level substructure consists of only few elements, arran-
ged in a standard pattern, it is usually denoted a super
element, i.e. a substructure may be thought of as consist-
ing of a number of super elements. The te.rm multilevel
super element is sometimes used 10 refer to multilevel
substructuring[31.
Relationship between substructuring and sparse matrix
techniques
Recent work has shown that the banded, profile and
wave front schemes are not the most efficient techniques
for solving a system of algebraic equations[lS, 161where
efficiency is measured in terms of the number of arith-
metic operations and fill-in (number of zero terms in the
original equations which become nonzero in the solution
process). References115 and 161 conclude that more
efficient solution techniques are based on an ordering
strategy of the fundamental unknowns called nested dis-
section which results in a highly sparse nonbanded
matrix of the equations.
The basic idea of nested dissection is to divide the
nodes of the complete structure into sets of internal and
interface nodes. Each set of internal nodes is further
subdivided into internal and interface nodes of the
second level. The process is continued until it is no
longer possible to divide the internal node sets. The
numbering of the nodes starts with the node sets of the
highest level. The internal nodes of any level are num-
bered before the interface nodes of that level. The zero
elements in the resulting algebraic equations are neither
stored nor operated upon in the process of solution.
A comparison between sparse matrix schemes and
substructuring techniques is given in [VI. In this section
the equivalence of multilevel substructuring and nested
dissection schemes is discussed, and in succeeding sec-
tions numerical examples are presented to demonstrate
the reduction in arithmetic operations and disk storage
requirements obtained by using multilevel substructuring
techniques.
Assume the structure is broken into m substructures.
If all the equilibrium equations corresponding to the m
substructures are grouped together, one obtains:
[K;;‘]
VT’1
h ;
[C(“]T(K6:‘] . . . [C’Z’]T[K:‘j.. . (C’m’]=[K;y’]
where eqn (8) has already been used to express the
interface unknowns for the individual substructures
[&,“I in terms of the structure unknowns (matrix of
displacements at all interfaces) [%I. The same set of
eqns (11) results from the nested dissection approach[lS]
and numbering the internal nodes for all of the m sub
structures first followed by the interface nodes. If eqns
and projections 623
(11) are applied in a recursive manner, the equivalence
between multilevel substructuring and nested dissection
can be established. The equivalence between nested dis-
section and multilevel substructuring suggest the follow-
ing consequences:
1. The rules for numbering the nodes to reduce the
number of arithmetic operations and the fill-in using
nested dissection scheme[lS, 161can be used in dividing
the structure into substructures and in numbering the
nodes of individual substructures. This latter aspect is
particularly important since poor numbering of the nodes
of individual substructures can offset the computational
advantages of substructuring techniques.
2. If all substructures are different, then the number of
arithmetic operations involved in the nested dissection
scheme is identical with those involved in the substruc-
turing technique, provided of course, that the internal
nodes are numbered in the same way. On the other hand,
if a number of substructures are identical, then the
substructuring technique involves significantly less
arithmetic operations than the nested dissection scheme.
This situation is true even when the substructures are
differently oriented with respect to the global (structure)
axes in which case the effective substructure and load
matrices have to be transformed to the global axes.
These transformation usually involve considerably less
arithmetic than that involved in the generation of
effective substructure matrices.
Hypermatrir storage schemes
The hypermatrix (or block matrix) scheme based on
partitioning the structural matrices in both the row and
column directions[l8] has proved to be a versatile and
effective technique for handling large systems of equa-
tions resulting in the finite element analysis of large and
complex structures. The location of the nonzero sub
matrices in the hypermatrix is identified by an address or
a pointer matrix (see Fig. 2). A zero entry in the addresc
matrix denotes a zero submatrix which is neither stored
nor operated upon. Among the advantages of the
hypermahix scheme are the independence of the central
memory requirements from the problem type and size, a
controllable ratio between CPU and I/O times and a high
modularity.
The use of hypermatrix storage schemes in conjunc-
tion with substructuring techniques has the additional
I-
,/”
p?
= pcm’
3 rm’rP,o”J
(11)
advantage of allowing exploitation of the sparsity of the
substructure matrices in the analysis, an important fea-
ture for complicated substructures. Moreover, the use of
hypermatrix storage scheme appears to hold promise for
use on fourth-generation computers (e.g. CDC STAR-
100) where a large central memory is available for the
analysis. The identification of the substructure shapes
624 A. K. Noon et al.

KI.15.2 0 0 Q 5.”

+Yl
1cr
.2 K2.3 0 Kzn-1 K2.n
o INIERNALNODES
5.3 K3.4 0 0 0 CONSTRAINEDNODE
OEXlERNALraE
K4.4 0 K4.n

~SYMtAETRIC
-5.
K
. 1 ‘“qj
il-l.ll-l
O
K
"." ADDRESS IPOINTERI
MAMTRIX

HYPERMATRIX Ii,/
= BEGINNINGADDRESS
OF SUMATRIX KLj

Fig. 2. Hypermatrix and address (pointer) matrix. Fig. 3. Representative constrained substructure model.

and levels can be accomplished by proper numbering of (13) has been used):
the nodes. The governing equations for individual sub-
structures are written (in the format of eqns 11) or (14)
backing storage before starting the reduction process.
The use of substructuring techniques on the STAR-100 where
computer is discussed in succeeding sections.

Constrained substructuring technique

The constrained substructuring technique such as that
proposed in Ref.[19] is based on applying kinematic
constraints to the boundaries of individual structures to
reduce the number of independent interface degrees of
freedom. It is closely related to the hybrid finite element
models developed by Pian[20], wherein a displacement
interpolation scheme is assumed along the boundaries.
The constrained substructuring procedure provides the
experienced analyst with additional flexibility in model-
ing, by which reasonably accurate solutions can be
obtained with considerable savings in computer time. It
is feasible to incorporate into this procedure a library of
kinematic constraints such as rigid links, and linear,
quadratic or spline interpolations.
A schematic representation of a constrained substruc-
ture model is shown in Fig. 3. The interface nodes are
divided into external nodes, designated by open squares,
and constrained nodes, designated by solid circles. The
constrained nodes are made to be kinematically depen-
dent on the external nodes. The internal nodes are
designated by open circles. The number of external
nodes is usually selected to be less than the number of
the constrained nodes.
The equilibrium equations of the jth substructure, eqn
(1), are now rewritten in the following modified form
(where, for convenience, superscript j has been deleted).
where [UC], [UJ, [PC] and [P,] are substructure dis-
placement and external forces at constrained and exter-
nal nodes, respectively.
The kinematic relationship between the constrained
and external interface displacements can be written as:
[I-J,1= [reel [Kl
where [r,] is the transformation matrix.
The effective (reduced) substructure equations are
obtained by eliminating [Vi] and [UC] from eqn (12). The
resulting equations have the following form (where eqn
The constrained substructuring technique not only has
computational advantages but also simplifies assembly of
elements with different dimensionality (e.g. shell ele-
ments assembled to one-dimensional beam elements, and
beams tied to membrane elements, see Fig. 4).
COMPUTER RESOURCEUTILUATION
Computer costs and data management
The size and topo!ogy of substructures selected
significantly impacts the amount of data being managed
and required computer resources such as: central pro-
cessing unit (CPU), rapid access (central) memory and
peripheral processing unit (PPU). The CPU cost is pro-
portional to the number of arithmetic operations and
central memory cost is a function of the core space
requested and time occupied. The PPU cost includes the
costs of disk storage and input/output (I/O) channel
utilization. Such costs have different weights depending
on system type and degree of use. For example, a system
with an extremely fast disk drive may not penalize I/O
operations as much as one with a slow drive. A system in
which most users do not require extensive computation,
encourages the use of the central processor-so that it
becomes an inexpensive resource.
(13) For static structural analysis, substructuring com-
putations can be divided into three phases[211: (a)
generation of basic substructures; (b) reduction and
assembly of substructure matrices and (c) local analysis
of individual substructures. The computer resources
most used in each step of these three phases are listed in

kiif
SEAMELEMENT
0 MTERNAL NODES
* CONSTRAINEDNUDES
Fig. 4. Examples of constrainedsubstructuremodels.
Table 1, and Ref. [22] describes a computer program to
identify the number and size of substructures that results
in the least cost in a given computing system.
The data management aspects in a general purpose
finite element program with substructuring capability are
more important than in direct analysis. Data associated
with the problem is usually stored in a data base com-
posed of many distinct and often complex files. For
example, a substructure is a finite element model of a
structure and requires the complete set of data files
necessary for model description. The substructure,
however, also requires storage of the files associated
with its formation (such as the condensed stiffness, load
and mass matrix files and intermediate files used during
the process of static condensation) and alphanumeric
identifiers to allow the program, during the main analysis,
to access the substructure files for automatic assembly of
substructure matrices. Furthermore, the constrained
substructure approach also requires storage of additional
quantities such as kinematic constraints and connec-
tivities. In multilevel substructuring, cross references
must also be provided between a primary level structure
and subsequent lower level substructures to permit
Table 1. Computerresourcesused in each step of the static substructuringanalysis
Analysis step
Phase I - Generation of Basic Substructures
Computation of elemental stiffness
Assembly of elemental stiffness
Load application
Formation of boundary constraint matric’es
(for constrained substructures)
Phase II - Reduction and Assembly
Substructures
Reduction of substructure matrices and
transformation to global coordinates
Assembly of substructure matrices
PhrrseIII - hCti tiJ’SiS Of SubStNChWS6
Computation of elemental displacements
and stresses
CA.3Vd. 8, No. S-F
625
- CfflTRM.
-----DATA FLOW
Fig. 5. Sequence of operations in an example two-level sub-
structuringanalysis.
model assembly and solution to proceed in a certain
order (see Fig. 5 for the sequence of operations in an
example two-level substructuring problem).
Simulator generated numerical examples
To assess the computational advantages of substruc-
turing techniques, a computer program was developed to
simulate the substructuring analysis process. No actual
floating-point computations were carried out but
measurements were made of computing resource use. In
particular, the following information was determined:
1. Number of floating-point arithmetic operations
(multiplications, additions and divisions),
2. Number of I/O transfers to and from central
memory and the number of words transferred and
3. Disk storage use which is measured by the space
required for the substructure and structure stiffness
matrices (equal to the space required by the decomposed
matrix on the left-hand side of eqns (11)).
A large number of problems were solved using both
direct analysis (zero-level substructuring) and various
levels of substructures. In all cases the hypermatrix
storage scheme was used to exploit the sparsity pattern
Computer resources
most used
matrices CPU
matrices I/O
I/O and possibly CPU
I/O
of
Both CPU and I/O
I/O
I/O
626 A. K. NOORet al.

Table 2. Number of arithmeticoperationsand disk storagerequirementsin the direct and substructuringanalyses

Direct T Substructuring analysis

Grid* analysis One level Two levels Three levels Four levels
I
a) Number of floating point multiplications
8X8 1,016,739 715,203 722,763 __-_____ ________
16 x 16 11,160,94? 7,362,803 6,543,731 6,462,515 -_______
32 x 32 143,987,859 90,378,387 68,953,347 58,190,715 57,490,Oll
b) Number of floating point additions
8X8 1,002,321 703,377 711,009 ________ ________
16 x 16 11,067,617 7,289,057 6,476,897 6,396,833 --__--__
32 x 32 143,321,985 89,864,577 68,529,249 57,821,265 57,127,761
c) Disk storage requirements (in words)
6X6 28,836 23,652
16 x 16 186,660 147,492
32 x 32 1,331,748 1,027,820
and 32*Number
x 32 grids,
of degrees of freedom = 486, 1734 and 6534 for the 8 x 8, 16 x 16,
respectively.

of the substructure and structure matrices. Each of the A$ = NUMBER OF WLTIPLICATIONS SD = DISK STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
IN DIRECT ANALYSIS FOR DIRECT ANALYSIS
matrices was partitioned in the row and column direc- WITH ONE NODE PER WITH ONE NODE PER
tions (see Fig. 2). Zero blocks were neither formed nor BLOCK BLOCK

operated upon. However, to simplify the analysis the

zeros within each block were not exploited, since
exploitation of these zeros would require additional
bookkeeping and complicate comparisons.
The effect of variation of the block size on the number
of arithmetic operations and storage requirements was
investigated and typical results are presented in Table 2
and in Figs. 6-8 for square grids of 8 x 8, 16x 16 and
32 x 32 elements having six degrees of freedom at each
node. While the substructures are geometrically similar, 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 S
they are assumed to have different stiffness matrices. NUMBER OF NODES PER BLOCK NUMBER OF NODES PER BLOCK
The results presented in Fig. 6 and Table 2 show that,
Fig. 7. Effect of variationsin the size of submatrices on arith-
except for the small 8 x 8 grid, as the number of sub- metic operations and storage requirements.
structuring levels increases, the number of arithmetic
operations and disk storage requirements decrease.
However, the cost of data handling and automatic mesh
generation is likely to increase. These latter drawbacks
are more than offset by the other well-known advantages
of substructuring techniques such as breaking the prob-
lem into smaller manageable pieces, simplifying input
and output and aiding management of large projects (see,
for example, Refs. [22,231). Figure 7 shows the effect of
variation of the block size from 6 x 6 (corresponding to

Ss= DISK STORAGE

REQUIREMENTS
IN SUBSTRUCTURING
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS

MULTlPLlCATlON
RATIO

Fig. 8. Schematic representation of the structure equations.

the degrees of freedom at one node) to 48 ~48 (cor-

responding to the degrees of freedom at eight nodes). As
I I h I I can be seen from Fig. 7, if the sparsity pattern of
NUMBER Of SUSSlRUClURING tEk5 NUMSiR OF S:SSTRUiNR,,iG lEV& individual blocks is not exploited, the increase in the
Fig. 6. Effect of numberof levels of substructuringon floating- block size results . _. _ in increasing both the arithmetic
point arithmetic operations. .and_ disk storage requirements. operations and disk storage requirements. However, the
Squaregnds of elements. I/O transfers are reduced. Figure 8 shows a schematic of
 Substructuring techniquecstatus
the equations before and after decomposition for an 8 x 8
grid. The two cases of direct analysis and two-level
substructuring are shown. In the latter case the equilib-
rium equations for the individual substructures are
grouped together in a manner similar to that of eqns (I 1).
The reduction in the fi/f in obtained by using substruc-
turing techniques is noted in the table in Fig. 8. These
computational gains obtained by substructuring are
similar to those reported in Refs. 123,241for more com-
plex structures.
The computational advantages of substructuring tech-
niques are strongly dependent on the selection of the size
of individual substructures and the numbering of their
nodes. A number of attempts have been made to
rationalize the selection of substructures (see, e.g.
Refs.[25-271 which only treat simple structures). For
guidelines regarding the numbering of the nodes in sim-
ple structures, reference can be made to nested dis-
section schemes[lS, 161. A heuristic approach for the
selection of substructures for complex structures in
order to minimize the cost of the analysis is presented in
Ref. [27].
Numerous applications have been made of nonlinear
mathematical programming techniques to the optimum
design of small and medium-sized structures. For large
structural systems, however, excessive computer
requirements limit the usefulness of such techniques. A
number of techniques have been proposed in recent
years to reduce computational effort. Among the more
promising approaches which use substructuring concepts
are: (a) use of multilevel optimization techniques, and (b)
use of approximate reanalysis techniques with substruc-
turing.
The first approach is based on decomposing the struc-
ture into substructures each with its own objective func-
tion and constraints (see, e.g.[28,29]), the vector of
design variables is partitioned into substructure and in-
teraction variables. The optimization problems for the
individual substructures are tirst solved independently
and then the interaction solutions are obtained itera-
tively. Different optimization techniques can be used for
individual substructures and the interaction problem.
Success with this method has been limited and further
work is needed to facilitate its usefulness.
The second approach which can be used in conjunc-
tion with, or independent of, the tirst approach is to use
reanalysis techniques to generate the solutions for the
mod&d structure (corresponding to a modified set of
design variables) in significantly less computer time than
that required to solve the full structure equations. Two
efficient reanalysis procedures which have potential in
substructuring are the Taylor series expansion and
reduced basis techniques, a discussion of each follows.
Taylor series expansion. In this technique the new
displacement vectors {Uf} and {Ut} for each substruc-
ture corresponding to a mod&d set of design variables
d? (I= 1 to S) are approximated by a truncated Taylor’s
series
where{Wddd and (W,/~dJ are the first-order sen-
and projections 627
sitivity analysis vectors, measuring the rates of change of
the response variables with respect to the design
variables; dp are the original design variables (I = I to s)
and an asterisk refers to a modified quantity. The sen-
sitivity analysis vectors can be obtained by first differen-
tiating the substructure equations, eqns 1, with respect to
design variables, eliminating the internal unknowns, and
assembling the different substructures in exactly the
same manner as in the original substructure analysis (see
Ref.[30]). The computational cost of obtaining the sen-
sitivity analysis vectors is only a fraction of the cost of
the full analysis.
A large number of numerical experiments on statically
indeterminate trusses and wing-box finite element models
have shown that the Taylor series expansions provide
highly accurate approximations for (UY} and (IQ} for
moderate changes in the design variables, provided the
design variables are chosen as reciprocals of the sizing
variables. For large modifications in the design variables
the reduced basis technique described subsequently was
found to be more appropriate.
Reduced basis technique. In this technique each of the
displacement vectors (I-J:} and (U:} are approximated
by a linear combination of s linearly independent sen-
sitivity analysis vectors normalized to reduce numerical
roundoff error, in which s is the number of design
variabks and is much smaller than the dimensions of the
substructure stiffness matrices. This process is expressed
by the following equations:
(19)
where
~~~l=[[~},[~]....[~}] (20)
~~*I=[[~},[~]....[~]] (21)
and (c},., is a vector of undetermined participation
coefficients and a bar denotes a normalized vector.
The governing equations for (c) may be obtained by
applying the stationary potential energy principle-after
expressing the total potential energy in terms of the trial
displacements of eqns (19).
in which
WY = cm ICI (2%
(Pr}= [+ilil’{Ptl
+ [@blr(pbl (26)
and m is the number of substructures.
628
The major savings obtained by using the reduced basis
technique are: (a) avoiding the decomposition of the
modified matrices [K$]; (b) reducing the assembly of the
[K*,] and {Pr} matrices to straight forward matrix addi-
tion; and (c) significantly reducing the size of the struc-
ture matrix [YL’$,..The reduced basis technique appears
to be well suited for problems where the number of
design variables has been reduced by design variable
linking, a process by which some design variables are
expressed in terms of others (see Ref. [311).The accuracy
of the two reanalysis techniques for a transmission tower
(Fig. 9) is given in Fig. 10. For example, a reduction of
50% in the cross sectional areas of the vertical members
of substructure IV, results in less than 35% change in the
maximum displacement of the tower. The Taylor series
expansion and reduced basis techniques calculate this
displacement to within 0.7% and 0.2%, respectively.
suBsrRtJcTtJRtNGIN ELAsTcMLAsrK
PROBLEMS
In elasto-plastic problems where yielding is confined to
a small portion of the structure (e.g. crack propagation
problems), computations can be substantially reduced by
reducing the size of the nonlinear problem. This can be
accomplished by dividing the structure into two sets of
substructures. The first set consists of those substruc-
tures which are known to remain elastic throughout the
analysis. The second set consists of the substructures
which may undergo yielding during the analysis. The
Fig. 9. Substructuringanalysisof a transmissiontower (219bars).
+I\ I IN SUBSTRUCTURE IV
I gives comparative costs of conducting basic arithmetic
lot
‘jy:I
D 50 -5D -10 0 IO
+ MODlFlCATlON OF A5
30 x)
Fig. 10. Accuracy of maximum displacement obtained by the
reanalysistechniques.
A. K. Noon ef al.
elastic substructures are reduced only once prior to the
start of the nonlinear analysis. On the other hand, the
plastic substructures are mod&d during load incremen-
tation and equilibrium iterations. Such an approach can
be mathematically described by the following set of
incremental equilibrium equations (see Refs. [32,33]).
where the K’s are incremental stiffness matrices, AU’s
and AP’s are incremental displacements and external
forces, and subscripts e and p refer to the elastic and
plastic substructures, respectively.
If AU, are eliminated from eqns (27) one obtains:
where
]$,I - W,,l [~eeI-‘weJ
= W,,l (2%
{Ah,,= W’pl- [&,I KJ’W’J. (30)
[&,] is the reduced incremental stiffness matrix and
{AP,} is the reduced incremental load vector. Note that
only part of the stiffness matrix, namely [K,,.] and [Z&l,
needs to be modified at each load increment. The sub-
matrix [K,] which is much larger than [Z&J does not
have to be reformulated or decomposed at succeeding
load increments. Such a procedure was used in
Refs. 134and 351 to study crack extension and closure
under cyclic loading.
hnNtcoMPuTgR-MDEDstlWrRuclwRAL
ANALYSIS
The recent advances in minicomputers provide a new
dimension to cost effective computer-aided structural
analysis and design. Such minicomputers may be pur-
chased for less than $100,000, operate in a normal office
environment, and carry out selected structural analysis
and design tasks for only a fraction of the cost for the
same task done on a large-scale computer (see, e.g.
Ref.[36]). However, minicomputers do not, in general,
replace large-scale computers, but provide a less power-
ful, but inexpensive, adjunct to such capability.
Reference[36] shows substantial benefit in the use of
minicomputers for such tasks as data management, in-
teractive graphics support and structural analysis of
moderate-sized problems. Furthermore, some organiza-
tions having purchased a minicomputer will likely seek to
stretch its capabilities to very demanding activities
and/or classes of problems.
This section discusses some potential minicomputer
applications for substructuring both as an independent
computer and as an adjunct to a large computer. To
identify the cost-effective features of the mini, Table 3
tasks on three computers: a minicomputer without float-
ing point hardware (PDP 15 at the University of
Arizona-Tucson), a minicomputer with floating point
hardware (PDP 15), and a large-scale computer (CDC
6400 at the University of Arizona). While the large
computer results are dependent on specific installation
and user demands at the time, the results, nevertheless,
indicate that for many activities the minicomputer, both
with and without floating point hardware, can be a cost-
 Substructuringtechniques-status and projections
Table 3. Comparisonof unit cost of arithmeticoperationson largeand minicomputers
Item
(Univ. of Arizona)
Floating point Addition
arithmetic
time (sec.) Multiplication
Number of Addition
operations
per second Multiplication
sr;F
effective tool for many computational tasks. Although
the mini is slower, the fact that it may operate in a
dedicated mode means that the turn-aroundtime may be
shorter than with a heavily loaded large computer. The
minicomputer may be used for moderately large struc-
tural analysis problems through use of substructuring.
The following discusses a specific example.
Consider the uniformly thick plane stress problem
shown in Fig. 11 which represents a metal plate per-
forated at equal intervals and subjected to in-plane load-
ing. Two static load cases are considered: (I) inertial
loading in the horizontal direction; and (2) inertial load-
ing in the vertical direction. The structure is separated
into 16 substructures as shown with each substructure
having 200 elements with two in-plane degrees of
freedom at each node. Because of the repetitiveness,
only one constrained substructure was formed and its
stiffness reduced to eight main analysis node points
around its boundary. Normal displacements on a boun-
dary between two external substructure nodes are con-
strained to a cubic displacement function whereas tan-
gential displacements are assumed to vary linearly.
Loads were applied to the substructure nodes and
automatically condensed and assembled for the system
analysis. The overall system structural analysis was car-
ried out followed by a detailed analysis of a represen-
tative substructure at the bottom right corner. Figure 12
shows overall deflections for the second load case, as
well as deflection and stress results for the representative
substructure.
Minicomputer times required for the three step
NUMBER M
SUBSTFZUCTURES- 16
NUMBER OF D.O.F. IN EACH
SUBSTRUCNRE = 41)
NUMBER m D.OF. IN MIN
ANAL% IS = 255
ELEWENTIAVOUT x WD REPRESENTATION
Fig. It. Substructuremodel of a perforatedplate.
CDC 6400
1.1 x 10’6
5.7 x 10’6
0.45 0.06 I 1.11 ~ I
0.09 0.06 0.74
process of (1) substructure decomposition, (2) main sys-
tem analysis and (3) detailed analysis of the specific
substructure are shown in Table 4. These results indicate
that it is practical to conduct substructure analysis for
such moderate-sized structures using a minicomputer
and the total time of about 1 hr and 11 min is not unac-
ceptably large. Furthermore, a floating-point processor is
available on the market which would significantly reduce
this time.
The computer times in Table 4 indicate that almost 50
and 19 min. respectively, were required for steps (1) and
(2), while only about 3min were required for step (3).
The results also show that the major time consumers
(denoted with an asterisk) are reduction activities for the
substructure and decomposition for the main system
analysis. These tasks are essentially independent and can
be separated in a modularized structural analysis such as
done here. This situation suggests that future structural
analysis programs should be organized so that large,
calculation-oriented tasks are carried out on a large-scale
computer well suited for number crunching, and assembly
processes, which are primarily data management and
could be thought of as pre- or post-processing, are car-
ried out on a minicomputer. Furthermore, the calculation
phases, such as those noted with the asterisk, are pri-
marily vector-oriented and may be well suited for a
future distributed computing environment where the
large computer is a vector-processing computer such as
the STAR-1001371.
Such distributed computing concepts which would
facilitate independent calculations on different machines
cmFlJTATlm TIME 011
PDPQ IwlnKRJ1F.P. MRDWARQ
l SUBSTRLlCNRE 49 min 46 set
REDUCTIDN
l K4 IN SWIM lB*nZOsa
AMLVS IS
l LOCAL SUBSTRUCTURE 3 tin 4 I*:
MJALYSIS
TOTAL 1 hr I1 min 4 WC
yt
x RIBHTSUBSTRUCNRE DEFLECTEDSUBSTRLICTURE
Fig. 12. Stress and deflectionresults for perforatedplate model.
630 A. K.
Table 4. Minicomputer times
Structural Description
No. of active nodes in each constrained subatmcture = 240
No. of degrees of free&m per node = 2
Type of boundary interpolation = 8 cubic segments/substructure
No. of constrained substructures = 16
No. of nodes in main analysis = 85
No. of degrees of freedom/node = 3
No. of loading cases = 2
Computation Times on the PDP-15 Computer (without Floating PoM Hardware)
Substructure Decomposition (Total for all substructures)
Bandwidth optimization
l Stiffness assembly
+ Decomposition of internal nodes
* Stiffness and load condensation
Main System Analysis
Bandwidth optimiznkion
Stiffness asssembly
+ Decompoeition time
Back substitution
Detailed Subatructuw Analysis (Total for all substructures)
ComputaUon of aubetructure deflection8
Computation of sub&ucture stresses
T&al
*Major time-consuming operatione.
are still evolving and software needs to be developed to
support routine data transfers among minicomputers,
large computers, and vector processors. Nevertheless,
these results suggest that future finite element work
should be oriented toward development of finite element
substructure analysis methods in highly modular form
with standardized procedures for module input/output so
that specific tasks, such as those noted in Table 4, can be
assigned to the most appropriate computer hardware. It
also suggests that the concept of pre- and post-process-
ing should be redefined to encompass a vast array of
specialized data management oriented tasks at the
beginning or end of each modular analysis and that such
tasks be assigned where possible to a minicomputer as
the most cost-effective. timely way of conducting these
tasks.
stJBsmucruRlh.cON CLK SrAR-1m
COMPUTER
The fourth generation CDC STAR-100 computer has
many new features which distinguish it froin current
third-generation hardware. Features which appear to
influence most significantly finite element analysis in
general and substructuring techniques in particular are
the vector and sparse vector pipeline processing capabil-
ity and the virtual memory. These concepts have been
discussed in Refs.[37,38] and are summarized in
Appendix A. Some numerical results based on the
STAR-100 computer configuration at the NASA-Langley
Research Center are given in this section.
NOOR et al.
for analysis of perforatedplate
1 min. 57 sec.
12 min. 48 sec.
8 min. 05 8ec.
26 min. 50 sec.
Total 4%min. 40 sec.
49 sec.
3 min. 33 sec.
8 min. 50 sec.
5 min. 8 sec.
Total 18 min. 20 sec.
1 min. 30 sec.
lmirLS4lWc.
SIX&L 4sec.
To assess the effect of using multilevel substructuring
on the CPU time and storage requirements on the STAR,
a computer program was developed to simulate the sub
structuring analysis process and estimate the CPU time
and storage requirements (see Table 5 for the scalar and
vector timings on the STAR). The three square grids
(8 x 8, I6 x I6 and 32 x 32) considered in the preceding
sections were analyzed. In each case the hypermatrix
storage scheme was used to exploit the sparsity pattern
of the substructure and structure matrices. The opera-
tions on submatrices were vectorized in the manner
described in Ref.[38]. Zero blocks were neither formed
nor operated upon. However, the zeros within each
block were not exploited. To exploit these zeros the
sparse vector capability of the STAR can be used, but
since this capability is still evolving, no timing infor-
mation is available for sparse vector operations, and
therefore, to simplify the comparison, sparse vectors were
not considered.
Typical results are shown in Figs. 13(a)and (b). &ure
13(a) shows the ratio of the estimated CPU time in the
substructuring analysis to that in the direct analysis. For
small problems, the reduction in the CPU time obtained
by substructuring is small due to the use of short vectors.
As the problem size increases, the reduction in CPU time
becomes more pronounced-up to a point, after which
very small gain in CPU time is dbtained. Figure 13(b)
shows the ratio of storage requirements in substructuring
analysis to that in the direct analysis. As is clear from
 Substructuringtechniques-status and projections
ICPl+ = CPU TIME
REQUIRE0 FOR
SURSTRUCNRING
ANALYSIS SUBSTRUCTURING
0 P 0 4
NU:BER 0: dS Gf N”hhER 0: LEVEL: OF
SUBSTRUCTURING SUBSTRUCNRING
Fig. 13. Effect of number of levels of substructuringon CPU
time and storagerequirementson the STAR.
this figure, substructuring reduces storage requirements.
The numerical results presented in this subsection sug-
gest that, for computational efficiency on the STAR,
substructuring should be used for large problems and
should not be. carried out as far as on the third generation
computers. This is because the data management cost is
likely to increase with the increase in the number of
levels of substructures.
CONCURWNG ltEMMtW
Status and recent developments of substructuring
techniques and their application to structural analysis
and design are summarized. A number of substructuring
aspects are considered herein including: multilevel sub-
structuring algorithms, use of hypermatrix and other
sparse matrix schemes, use of substructuring in
automated design systems and substructuring in elasto-
plastic problems.
The results of the present study suggest several con-
clusions relative to assessing and improving the
efficiency of substructuring techniques and exploiting
new computer hardware advancements.
1. Assessing the efficiency of different substructuring
techniques for large structures can be effectively and
economically carried out through simulation of the
software operations, a technique well used in computer
science but not widely applied to engineering software.
Such an approach provides the key information on rela-
tive merits of alternate techniques without undue com-
mitment of computer resources.
2. The computational efficiency of substructuring
analysis can be enhanced through a number of guidelines
such as
(a) Proper selection of the size, topology and node
numbering of individual substructures. Improper node
numbering can offset any computational advantages of
substructuring. For guidelines regarding the numbering
of nodes to reduce the arithmetic operations and disk
storage requirements reference can be made to nested
dissection schemes.
(b) Use of constrained substructuring techniques
wherein constrained nodes are kinematically coupled to
external nodes. The use of those techniques can enhance
modeling flexibility, reduce computer time and simplify
assembly of elements with different dimensionality (for
example shell elements connected to beam elements).
3. Substructuring techniques provide an effective
631
means of exploiting some of the features of new computer
hardware. For example
(a) Minicomputers are eminently suited for carrying
out the prelpost processing and data management tasks
in the substructuring analysis.
(b) The virtual memory of the CDC STAR-100 com-
puter is particularly effective for use with substructuring.
However, for large problems, data management costs are
expected to lead to less levels of substructuring on a
STAR-100 than on third-generation computers.
4. Reanalysis procedures used in conjunction with
substructuring can substantially reduce computational
requirements for automated (optimum) design of large
structures.
REFZRENCEf
I. The NASTRAN TheoreticalManualLevel 16.0, NASA SP-
221(03)(1976).
2. E. Schremand J. R. Roy, An Automaticsystem for kinema-
tic analysis, ASKA, Part 1. Proc. of the IUTAM Symposium
on High Speed Computing of Eiastic Structuns, Vol. 2,
Universityof Liege, pp. 477-507 (1971).
0. Egelandand P. 0. Araldsen,SESAM-69-A general pur-
pose finiteelement program.Comput.Struct.4.41-68 (1974).
H. A. Kamel and A. Elbatouti, DAISY Engineer’s Manual.
Volumes 1and 2, Universityof Arizona,Tucson (1970).
H. A. Kamel and M. W. McCabe, A graphics oriented
interactive finite element time sharing package, GIFTS.
ResearchReport,Universityof Arizona,Tucson (1973).
6. R. Bamford, B. K. Wada, J. A. Garba and J. Chisholm,
Dynamicanalysis of largestructuralsystems. In Synthesis of
Vibrating Systems. ASME Booklet, pp. 57-71 (1971).
7. W. A. Bentield, C. S. Bodley and G. Murrow,Modal syn-
thesis methods. Space Shuttle Dynamics and Aemelasticity
Work Group Symposium on Substructuring, NASA Marshall
Space FlightCenter, Alabama(1972).
8. R. M. Hintz, Analytical methods in component modal syn-
thesis. AlAA J. 13(No. S), 1007-1016(1975).
9. R. R. Craig, Jr. and C. J. Chang, A review of substructure
coupling methods for dynamic analysis. In Advances in
Engineering Science, Proceedingsof the 13 Annual Meeting
of Engineenitg Science, Hampton,Va. NASA CP-2001,Vol.
2, pp. 393-408. 1-3 Nov. 1976.
10. J. S. Przemieniecki and P. H. Denke, Joining of complex
substructuresby the matrix force method. J. Aircmft 3(3),
236-243 (1966).
11. A. K. Noor and S. J. Hartley, Nonlinear shell analysis via
mixed isoparametric elements, Comp. Struct. 7, 615-626
(1977).
12. R. H. h&Neal and C. W. McCormick,Computerizedsub-
structure analysis. Proc. of the World Congress on Finite
Element Methods in Structuml Mechanics, Dorset, England,
(12-17 Oct. 1975).
13. S. U. Benscoten, The partitioningof matrices in structural
analysis. I. Appl. Mech. 15,303307 (1948).
14. G. Kron, Solving highly complex elastic structuresin easy
stages. J. Appl. Mech. 22,235-244 (1955).
15. J. A. George, Nested dissection of a regularfinite element
mesh. SIAM I. Numer. Anaivsis lOf2). 345-363 0973).
16. J. A. George, Numerical -experiments using dissection
methods to solve n by n grid problems. Research Report
CS-75-07,Departmentof ComputerScience, University of
Waterloo,Waterloo,Ontario, Canada(1975).
17. F. W. Williams,Comparisonbetween sparse stiffnessmatrix
and substructuremethods. Int. J. for Numer. Methods in
Engng 5.383394 (1973). Discussion by K. Bemhardtand J.
R. Roy, a(4), 601-602(1974).
18. G. von Fuchs, J. R. Roy and E. Schrem,Hypermatrixsolution
of large sets of symmetricpositive-definitelinear equations.
Computer Methods in Appl. Mech. Engng 1, 197-216(1972).
19. H. A. Kamel, D. Liu, M. W. McCabeand V. Phihppopotdos,
Some developments in the analysis of complex ship struc-
632 A. K. NOORet al.
tures. In Advances in Computational Methods in Structural
Mechanics and Design, pp. 703-726. (Edited by J. T. Oden,
R. W. Clougb and Y. Yamamoto), The University of
Alabama in Huntsville Press (1972).
20. T. H. H. Pian and P. Tona. Rationalization in deriving
element stiffness matrix by assumed stress approach. Pro;
of the 2nd Conf. on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics
AFFDLTR-68-140, pp. 44149 (1%8).
21. E. I. Field, D. N. Herting, D. L. Herendeen and R. L.
Hoesly, The automated multi-stage substructuring system for
NASTRAN. In NASTRAN: Users’ Experiences, NASA TM
X-3278,pp. 571-591(1975).
22. E. Klutz and S. Utku, Best partitions of a structure in a given
computing environment. Presented at the Second National
Symposium on Computerized Analysis and Design, George
Washington University, Washington, DC. (29-31 Mar. 1976).
23. P. 0. Araldsen, The application of the superelement method
in analysis and design of ship structures and machinery
components. Presented at the National Symposium on
Computerized Structural Analysis and Design, George
Washington University, Washington, D.C. (27-29 Mar. 1972).
24. R. E. Miller, Jr., et al., Recent advances in computerized
aerospace structural analysis and design. Presented at the
Second National Symposium on Computerized Structural
Analysis and design, George Washington University,
Washington, D.C. (29-31 Mar. 1976).
25. J. Lestingi and S. Prachuktam, A blocking technique for
large scale analysis. Comp. Struct. 3.669-714 (1973).
26. S. Utku, Systematic substructuring. J. Struct. Div. ASCE
lOl(ST), 717-738 (1975).
27. M. O’Rourke and T. Bizal, Optimal substructuring schemes.
Proc. of the National ASCE Structural Enaineeting Con-
ferenceon Methods of Structural Analysis, pp. 1037-1048.
Madison, Wisconsin (22-25 Aug. 1976).
28. U. Kirsch. Multilevel aonroach to o&mum structural design.
I. Struct. Div. ASCE ii, 957-974 (1975).
29. U. Kirsch, M. Reiss and U. Shamir, Optimum deisgn by
partitioning into substructures. J. of the Struct. Div. ASCE
98.249-267 (1972).
30. A. K. Noor and H. E. Lowder, Approximate reanalysis
techniques with substructuring. J. Struct. Div. ASCE
101(ST8)1687-1698(1975).
31. L. A. Schmit, Jr. and H. Miura, Approximation concepts for
efficient structural synthesis. NASA CR-2552(1976).
32. B. Aamodt, P. G. Bergan and H. F. Klem, Calculation of
stress intensity factors and fatigue crack propagation of
semi-elliptical part-though surface cracks. Proc. of the
Second internaGona1 Conference on Pressure Vessel Tech-
nology, San Antonio, Texas, pp. 911-921 (1973).
33. B. Aamodt and P. G. Bergan, Numerical techniques in linear
and non-linear fracture mechanics. Computational Fracture
Mechanics, ASME 199-216(1975).
34. H. Armen, Jr., Application of a substructuring technique to
the problem of crack extension and closure. NASA CR-
132458(1974).
35. J. C. Newman, Jr. and H. Armen, Jr.. Elastic-plastic analysis
of a propagating crack under cyclic loading. AIAA 1. 13(g)
1017-1023(1975).
36. 0. 0. Storaasli, On the role of minicomputers in structural
design, Comp. Struct. 7, 117-123(1977).
37. A. K. Noor and R. E. Fulton, Impact of CDC STAR-198
computer on finite element systems. J. Struct. Div. ASCE
731-750 (1975).
38. A. K. Noor and S. I. Voigt, Hypermatrix scheme for finite
element systems on CDC STAR-100 computer. Comp.
Struct. 8(5/6) 287-2% (1975).
SUMMNtY OF SFAR-100 CAl’ABlLWlES
Virtual memory
The memory organization on the STAR-100computer includes
a magnetic core storage and random access auxiliary storage
(CDC 819 disk storaae unit). Memorv is divided into 512 word
pages where each word is.64 bits (approximately 15 decimal
digits). Also allowed are large pages each consisting of 128small
pages or 65,536 words. Central memory 524,288 words (1024
small pages or eight large pages) with a capability to expand to
twice that size. The CDC 819 unit is a moving disk system with a
capability of 33 million words on each of five drives (a total of
165million words). The central memory and disk are available to
the user through virtual memory concepts. However, to perform
the computations, data must be stored in (or transferred to)
central memory. The transfer of data to central memory is done
in blocks of small or large pages which is considerably slower
than computation time; hence, several computations per data
item are needed to balance the CPU and I/O times. Moreover, to
avoid excessive I/O transfers during any particular phase of
computation, data references must be localized in one area of the
user’s memory space. Substructuring provides an effective way of
achieving this data locality.
Pipeline processing
The central processor of the CDC STAR-188 computer con-
tains a pipeline arithmetic unit which segments arithmetic com-
putation into a sequence of basic operations (such as exponent
comparison, coefficient alignment, add and normalize shift). The
arithmetic unit can perform basic operations simultaneously on
independent pairs of data elements, each pair at a dilferent stage
in the computation. A complete arithmetic operation requires a
pair of data elements to stream through the entire pipeline (e.g.
eight segments).
There are two types of data elements on STAR: scalars (a
single-valued data element usually contained in one storage
word), and vectors (an array of scalars usually contained in
consecutive storage words and addressable by a starting address
and length). If the same operation is performed on successive
data pairs (STAR vectors), results can occur at 40 psec intervals
for some operations[38]. These vector operations can lead to
substantial gain in speed over sequential scalar arithmetic. Each
STAR vector operation has a fixed delay or startup time before
the first result emerges from the pipeline, and this effect on the
computation time decreases with increasing vector length. Exe-
cution time for a vector instruction is of the form:
T=S+Np
where T = total time, S = startup time, p = time per result and
N = vector length.
Designing a program to make effective use of STAR pipeline
capabilities requires substantial vectorization of tasks. For a task
to be vectorizable, it should have: (a) repeated operations; (b)
independence of each result from the others and (c) members of
each operand packed into contiguous memory locations.
Sparse vector capability
The STAR computer also has hardware features which are
convenient for sparse vectors having a random set of nonzero
elements. Only the values of nonzero elements are stored along
with a secondary full vector called an order vector whose ele-
ments are all bits. The nonzero bits in the order vector indicate
the location of the nonzero values and zero bits indicate the
absence of values in the primary (value) vector. This capability is
still evolving and experience with its use is limited.