Advances in Engineering Software 89 (2015) 28–35

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software

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

The efficiency of dynamic relaxation methods in static analysis

of cable structures
M. Hüttner, J. Máca∗, P. Fajman
Department of Mechanics, Czech Technical University in Prague – Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Republic

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

Article history: Nine different schemes of dynamic relaxation method are compared in the paper. Schemes with viscous
Available online 14 July 2015 damping and schemes with kinetic damping are used. Kinetic damping with a peak in the middle of the time
step and kinetic damping with the parabolic approximation of the peak are considered. They are also used
Keywords:
in three different ways of cable approximation. The cable is approximated as a tension bar, a catenary and
Cable structures
Nonlinear analysis
a parabolic cable element. The efficiency and stability of each method are compared to three selected 3D
Dynamic relaxation examples of cable structures and one existing structure. The effect of mass distribution along the structure is
Kinetic damping also of interest and is studied in the paper.
Viscous damping © 2015 Civil-Comp Ltd. and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Iteration

1. Introduction
The dynamic relaxation method (DRM) is an iterative process that
is used to find static equilibrium. DRM is not used for the dynamic
analysis of structures; a dynamic solution is used for a fictitious
damped structure to achieve a static solution. The method relies on a
discretized continuum in which the mass of the structure is assumed
to be concentrated at given points (nodes) of the structure. Resid-
ual forces (the difference between internal and external forces) are
also calculated at these nodes. Nodal displacements are calculated on
the basis of Newton’s second law of motion, in which residual forces
and fictitious variables are used. The diagonal mass matrix and the
diagonal damping matrix attenuation are considered and, therefore,
the nodal displacement equation may be written for each node sep-
arately. And this, in particular, is the main advantage of this method:
DRM does not require the assembly and storage of the global stiffness
matrix of the structure. DRM is quite suitable for solving large-scale
nonlinear problems such as cable structures.
The DRM theory was first described by Day [1]. This theory was
further developed by adding a rule for determining the mass to each
node [2]. Using kinetic damping is another effective method that was
described by Topping [3] and Lewis [4]. Here is also mentioned that
the dynamic relaxation method is more stable and more efficient than
other stiffness matrix approaches for structures with large degrees of
freedom.
The stability of the DRM, the speed of convergence and the CPU
time of the solution can be radically affected by the suitable choice
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +420 24354500.
E-mail address: maca@fsv.cvut.cz (J. Máca).
of fictitious parameters – i.e. mass and damping. If the masses are
too small (in relation to the stiffness of the structure), then the in-
stability of the iteration may occur and the analysis will not converge
to the equilibrium state. On the contrary too large fictitious masses
lead to the slow and time consuming calculations. The iterative DRM
algorithm converges very fast when using the values of damping co-
efficients close to the critical values. Too large values of damping also
lead to the slow and time consuming calculations. For this reason the
technique of kinetic damping is employed (with the viscous damping
coefficient taken as zero).
The paper compares the effectiveness of different solution strate-
gies for the static analysis of cable structures based on the DRM. The
factors having an impact on the stability of the method and the speed
of the convergence, such as distribution of the fictitious mass along
the structure, using the fictitious damping factor and the choice of
the time step are studied in the paper. Three different ways of cable
approximation are used – the cable is approximated as a tension bar,
a catenary and a parabolic cable element. The efficiency and stabil-
ity of each solution DRM strategy are compared to three selected 3D
examples of cable structures and one existing structure.
This study is a follow-up to study [5]. It has been extended to in-
clude the design of the roofing of the Barrandov tram stop in Prague.
2. Approximation of cable
A cable can be approximated as a tension bar, a catenary (sev-
eral tension bars) and a perfectly flexible element (bending moments
along all of its length are equal to zero). Homogeneous material
with a constant cross-section throughout its length is assumed in all
cases.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.06.009
0965-9978/© 2015 Civil-Comp Ltd. and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Hüttner et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 89 (2015) 28–35 29

The force T can be calculated iteratively from Eq. (2), as given in [7]:
  √ 
l2T 2c rQ b
g(T, r, l, c, s0 , Q ) =ln − + +
2rQ l lT lT
 √ 
2c rQ a
− ln − − +
l lT lT
c √  1 √ 
+ ( a − b) + ( a + b) − s0
4rQ 8T
 
T l2 c2 Qr2
− + + =0 (2)
Fig. 1. A bar element. EA r r 12T 2
where:
2.1. Tension bar
• l is the horizontal distance between the two end joints,
• c is the vertical separation between the joint j and the joint i (it
The bar connects the endpoints and carries only a positive normal
can be negative),
force. The internal force T in one bar element may be calculated using
• r is the distance between two end joints of the cable element,
the known Eq. (1) (Fig. 1):
• s0 is the slack length of the cable element,
EA • Q is the resultant of the vertical uniform load q acting vertically
T= (r − s0 ) (1)
s0 along the entire length of a parabolic curved cable, while Q = qs0 .
where: For reasons of clarity, the calculation introduces two more
substitutions:
• E is Young’s modulus of elasticity,
• A is the cross-sectional area, a = Q 2 r2 + 4c2 T 2 + 4l 2 T 2 + 4crQT ;
• r is the distance between two end joints in the chord direction b = Q 2 r2 + 4c2 T 2 + 4l 2 T 2 − 4crQT.
(current length),
• s0 is the non-elongated length of the element (slack length). 3. Dynamic relaxation
The force T acts as a normal force on the bar. If the force T
is negative, then it is set to zero. The deadweight of the strut The theory of this method was first described by Day [1]. This the-
has been assumed to be concentrated equally at its two end ory was further developed and its detailed overview may be found in
joints. Barnes [2], Topping [3] or Lewis [4].

2.2. Catenary 3.1. Principle

The basic assumption of this theory is that the behaviour of a
cable may be approximated by a few bars. These bars are intercon-
nected by joints and sustain only positive normal forces. The be-
haviour of individual bars is described in Section 2.1. As found in
[6], five bars well enough correctly describe the characteristics of
the cable. This approximation enables to describe more precisely
the behaviour of individual members (e.g. vertical deflections of the
cable).
2.3. Cable element
The basic assumption of the analysis of a flexible elastic cable is
that the cable is regarded to be perfectly flexible and is devoid of
any flexural rigidity. The load on the cable, which must include at
least self-weight, is distributed uniformly along the curve of the ca-
ble, which is assumed to be a parabola. The detailed analysis can be
found in [7–9].
For the purpose of the study, it is necessary to use an internal force
T, which is always positive and whose significance is shown in Fig. 2.
The basic Eq. (3) of motion for the joint i, the direction j (j corre-
sponds to x, y and z directions) and the time t is:
Rti j = Mi j · v̇ti j + Ci j · vti j (3)
where:
• Rti j is the residual force at the nodal point i, in the direction j and
at the time t,
• Mi j is the fictitious mass at the nodal point i and in the direction j,
• Ci j is the fictitious damping factor for the nodal point i and in the
direction j,
• vti j is the velocity at the nodal point i in the direction j and at the
time t,
• v̇ti j is the acceleration at the nodal point i in the direction j and at
the time t.
The basic unknowns are nodal velocities, which are calculated
from nodal displacements. The discretisation from the timeline with
the time step t will be performed. During the step t, a linear
change of velocity is assumed. Acceleration during the step t is

Fig. 2. A cable element. Left – symbols of geometry. Right – tensile force T .

30 M. Hüttner et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 89 (2015) 28–35

thus considered to be constant. By substituting the above assump- (d) Determine velocities for each node.
tions and adjusting Eq. (3), velocity can be expressed at a new time (e) Determine current kinetic energy.
point t + t/2: (f) If max|R| < Rlim and Uk < Uk,lim , then stop the algorithm.
(g) Update the coordinates.
Mi j /t − Ci j /2 Rti j
v(i t+ t/2)
= v(i t− t/2)
+ (4) (h) Continue the DRM iteration from step c).
j j Mi j /t + Ci j /2 Mi j /t + Ci j /2
The current coordinates of the nodal point i at the time instant 3.3. Stability and fictitious masses
t + t may then be expressed as follows:
The factors having an impact on the stability of the method and
x(i t+t ) = xti + t · v(ixt+t/2) (5) the speed of the convergence are:
Similarly, equations may be written for the y and z coordinate di- • Distribution of the fictitious mass of a structure at joints,
rections. From the imbalance (between external and internal forces) • using the fictitious damping factor,
in the node i, we may calculate the residual forces Rti j (j = x, y, or z) • choice of the time step t.
for the corresponding node at the time t.
As is written in [3]: “Usually, the time step is a fixed value and the
 xti − xtj
Rtix = Pix − Tkt other two factors are varied until stability of the iteration is achieved.
rkt If the time step t is too large or the masses are too small, then the in-
k
stability of the iteration may occur and the analysis will not converge
 yti − ytj to the equilibrium state. Generally, convergence may be achieved by
Rtiy = Piy − Tkt reducing the time interval or increasing the fictitious masses. It has
rkt
k been shown by Barnes [2] that for any t convergence may usu-
ally be ensured by using fictitious masses defined by the following
 Qk  zti − ztj equation:”
Rtiz = Piz + − Tkt (6)
2 rkt t 2
k k
Mi j = Si j (9)
where: 2
where Sij is the largest direct stiffness of the ith joint in the j direction.
• k is the index of the element entering the nodal point i.
The stiffness Sk of each member k (entering the nodal point i) is
• j is the second endpoint on the element k.
represented by two components – namely, the geometric stiffness
• Pix is the external load at the nodal point i in the direction x,
SkG and the elastic stiffness SkE .
• Piy is the external load at the nodal point i in the direction y,
• Piz is the external load at the nodal point i in the direction z, Ek A k T
Sk = SkE + SkG = + k (10)
• Qk is the resultant of the vertical uniform load for each cable ele- s0k rk
ment k,
Hence, the following Eq. (11) applies to the stiffness of the node Sij :
• xti , yti , zti are the current coordinates of the nodal point i,

• rkt is the distance between two end joints for each cable Si j = Sk, j (11)
element k. k

The internal force Tkt for each cable element k may be calculated where Sk, j is the stiffness Sk – from Eq. (10) – distributed in the direc-
from Eq. (2), and for each bar element from Eq. (1). tion j.
In order to start calculating, the velocity at the time point t/2
must be calculated. Using the initial conditions for the time t = 0 3.4. Damping factors
where v0i j = 0, we obtain:
As shown in [4], the iterative algorithm converges fastest when
t
v(i jt/2) = R0i j (7) using the critically damped mode. In an undamped mode, the struc-
2Mi j ture will oscillate around its position of equilibrium, and the viscous
where R0i j
are residual forces at the time t = 0. damping coefficient, known as critical damping, may be found from
At each time instant, it is also possible to calculate the kinetic en- Eq. (12):
ergy Uk throughout the structure:  4π Mi j
C = 2 Si j · Mi j = , (12)

n 
m  2 Nt
(t+t/2) (t+t/2)
Uk = Mi j vi j (8) where N denotes the number of iterations required to complete one
i j cycle of oscillation. It may now be seen that in order to obtain the
where n is the number of joints and m is the number of dimensions value of the viscous damping coefficient, an additional computer run
(3D or 2D). is necessary, with C set to zero.

3.2. Iteration scheme 3.5. Kinetic damping with a peak in the middle of the time step

The acceptable error of residual forces Rlim and the error of kinetic
energy Uk,lim must be defined before starting the calculation. The it-
eration process can be outlined as below:
(a) Set initial conditions.
(b) Set fictitious masses, the fictitious damping factor and the size
of a time step.
(c) Determine residual forces from stresses and loads for each
element.
The description of the method is based on publications [3] and
[4]. “When the technique of kinetic damping is employed, the viscous
damping coefficient is taken as zero. The system is brought to rest by
following a process stopping the iterations, whenever a peak in the
kinetic energy of the entire system is detected, and then restarting
the computation from the current configuration, but with zero initial
velocity.” In other words, if it is true that:
Uk(t−t/2) > Uk(t+t/2) (13)
 M. Hüttner et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 89 (2015) 28–35 31

the coordinates are set to x(t−  t/2) when the peak is assumed to have 3.7.4. Scheme C
occurred. Then This scheme is based on the theory of kinetic damping with a peak
t in the middle of the time step (Section 3.5). The mass for the whole
x(i t−t/2) = xti − · v(ixt−t/2) (14) structure is calculated from Eq. (18).
2
when the analysis is restarted the velocities must be calculated at the
3.7.5. Scheme D
mid-point of the first time steps as follows:
This scheme is based on the theory of kinetic damping with a peak
t t in the middle of the time step (Section 3.5). The discretized mass Mi
v(ixt+t/2) = R (15)
2Mix ix for each joint i is calculated separately from Eq. (19).
where the residual forces Rt are recalculated from the x(t−  t/2) dis-
3.7.6. Scheme E
placement position.
This scheme is based on the theory of kinetic damping with a peak
in the middle of the time step (Section 3.5). The discretized mass Mi
3.6. Kinetic damping with parabolic approximation
for each joint i is calculated separately from Eq. (19), but the masses
Mi are recalculated after each restart of kinetic energy.
The idea is taken from Lewis [4]. She assumes that the trace of ki-
netic energy near the peak can be approximated by a parabolic curve.
3.7.7. Scheme F
If Eq. (13) is true, the coordinates are set to x(t− β  t) when the peak is
This scheme is based on the theory of kinetic damping with a
assumed to have occurred. Then
parabolic approximation (Section 3.6). The mass for the whole struc-
(t−β t )
xi = xti − β t · v(ixt−t/2) , (16) ture is calculated from Eq. (18).
where
3.7.8. Scheme G
KE3 − KE2
β= , (17) This scheme is based on the theory of kinetic damping with a
KE3 − 2KE2 + KE1 parabolic approximation (Section 3.6). The discretized mass Mi for
(t+t/2) each joint i is calculated separately from Eq. (19).
and where KE3 = Uk is the kinetic energy at the time point
(t−t/2) (t−3t/2)
t + t/2, KE2 = Uk , KE1 = Uk . When the analysis is
3.7.9. Scheme H
restarted the velocities must be calculated at the mid-point of the
This scheme is based on the theory of kinetic damping with a
first time steps from Eq. (15), where the residual forces Rt are recal-
parabolic approximation (Section 3.6). The discretized mass Mi for
culated from the x(t− β  t) displacement position.
each joint i is calculated separately from Eq. (19), but the masses Mi
are recalculated after each restart of kinetic energy.
3.7. DRM schemes

4. Illustrative examples
Nine different DRM schemes will be used in the paper.
Schemes A, A∗ and B are based on the theory of viscous damp-
The above chosen DRM schemes were applied to three different
ing (Section 3.4). Schemes C–E are based on the theory of ki-
constructions. The initial prestress in the link is included as the ini-
netic damping with a peak in the middle of the time step
tial slack length. Unless otherwise indicated, the self-weight consid-
(Section 3.5), and schemes F–H are based on the theory of kinetic
ered is q = 0.001 kN/m. The time step t = 1s in all examples. In
damping with parabolic approximation (Section 3.6).
all cases, the computations were stopped when the vector of residual
forces was reduced to 0.1% (or 1% respectively by cable elements) of
3.7.1. Scheme A
its original value.
The discretized mass M chosen in this scheme is the same for each
All DRM schemes were programmed MATLAB R2012b and calcu-
node and all directions. The mass is calculated based on the max-
lations were carried out on the computer ASUS with processor AMD
imum direct stiffness of the node i and in the j direction. We may
E-450 1.65 GHz, 4GB RAM.
write
The results of the calculations (the number of iterations and the
t 2
M= (max Si j ) (18) CPU time) are presented in Tables 1–6. The maximum number of iter-
2 ations for one calculation was 50,000 iterations. When the total num-
The viscous damping coefficient C for the whole structure is cal- ber of iterations was higher than this limit the result is called “error”
culated from Eq. (12). and marked as “-” in Tables 1–6.

3.7.2. Scheme A∗ 4.1. Cable net (2 × 2)

Fictitious values of mass and damping for the whole structure are
optimized (based on repeated calculations) so that the number of it- The example is taken from Deng et al. [7]: “An orthogonal cable
erations is minimized. net is shown in Fig. 3, which has been discussed in [10,11]. All cable
segments have the same cross-sectional areas A = 1.4645 × 10−4 m2
3.7.3. Scheme B and E = 8.2737 × 1010 N/m2 . The slack length of elements 3, 4, 8, 11
The discretized mass Mi for each joint i is calculated separately is 30.419 m, and that of the remaining elements is 31.76 m. Each of
from Eq. (19): the four internal joints 4, 5, 8 and 9 carries a downward concentrated
t 2 load of 35.56 kN.” and the self-weight of the cable q = 1.46 N/m.
Mi = Si (19)
2
4.2. Hypar net
where Si = max (Six , Siy , Siz ).
The viscous damping coefficient Ci for the nodal point i is calcu- The example is taken from Lewis [4]: “Two sets of straight line
lated as follows: cables generate a model of a hyperbolic paraboloid surface, shown
 √ Mi in Fig. 4. The structure has 36 degrees of freedom. The load P3 of
Ci = 2 Si · Mi = 8· (20)
t 0.0157 kN is applied at all internal nodes, except for nodes 17, 21,
32 M. Hüttner et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 89 (2015) 28–35

Table 1
The number of iterations – cable net (2 × 2).

Scheme Viscous damping Kinetic damping – t/2 Kinetic damping – β t

∗
A A B C D E F G H

Bar 76 71 427 47 47 38 39 39 47
5 bars 454 445 26,108 344 356 899 346 356 968
Cable 77 70 384 43 43 38 38 38 44

Table 2
Time of solution (CPU in seconds) – cable net (2 × 2).

Scheme A A∗ B C D E F G H

Bar 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
5 bars 0.56 0.56 31.85 0.43 0.46 1.39 0.44 0.55 1.47
Cable 15.29 14.26 69.19 10.3 9.69 8.57 8.92 9.86 10.83

Table 3
The number of iterations – hypar net.

Scheme Viscous damping Kinetic damping – t/2 Kinetic damping – β t

∗
A A B C D E F G H

Bar 177 169 8889 214 197 376 215 209 252
5 bars 1042 1014 – 1176 – 3078 1161 – 2894
Cable 135 129 5920 149 139 237 145 165 234

Table 4
Time of solution (CPU in seconds) – hypar net.

Scheme A A∗ B C D E F G H

Bar 0.12 0.12 6.9 0.15 0.14 0.32 0.15 0.15 0.32
5 bars 3.40 3.29 – 4.1 – 12.10 3.73 – 11.39
Cable 52.08 48.43 3247 55.80 52.83 88.38 55.09 66.86 86.92

Table 5
The number of iterations – spatial net.

Scheme Viscous damping Kinetic damping – t/2 Kinetic damping – β t

A A∗ B C D E F G H

Bar 119 112 3557 119 135 257 123 122 425
5 bars 661 660 – 769 602 1098 727 – 1236
Cable – – 2381 199 226 201 263 371 182

Table 6
Time of solution (CPU in seconds) – spatial net.

Scheme A A∗ B C D E F G H

Bar 0.10 0.10 2.84 0.10 0.12 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.26
5 bars 2.70 2.64 – 2.94 2.28 5.10 2.75 – 5.85
Cable – – 1797 89.33 100.4 89.80 114.3 173.4 82.10

Fig. 3. A cable net (2 × 2).

 M. Hüttner et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 89 (2015) 28–35 33

Fig. 4. A hypar net.

central cable where it is 120 kN) and 30 kN in the y direction, plus a

point load P3 = 4.8 kN at all free nodes. Under these initial load con-
ditions, the plan dimensions of the structure are as shown in Fig. 5,
with the values of z coordinates, in metres, as follows:

Nodes 1, 2, 3 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000

Nodes 6, 7, 8, 9 0.0000 0.8195 1.4096 1.6769
Nodes 13, 14, 15, 16 0.0000 0.6870 1.1478 1.3176

The symmetry of the initial configuration about the x and y central

Fig. 5. A spatial net.
and 22. The cross-sectional area of the cables is 0.785 mm2 and
Young’s modulus is 124.8 kN/mm2 . The pre-tension force in all ca-
bles is 0.2 kN. The previous analysis and experimental measurements
of the same structure are reported in [12].”
4.3. Spatial net
The example is taken from Lewis [4]: “The structure shown in
Fig. 5 has 45 degrees of freedom. Its initial geometry is generated
using a pre-tension force of 90 kN in the x direction, (except for the
axes is maintained. The structure is subjected to a further increase in
load by P3 = 2.0 kN at all free nodes. The cross-sectional area of the
cables is assumed to be 350 mm2 in the x direction and 120 mm2 in
the y direction. The elastic modulus is 160 kN/mm2 .
This example was previously analysed by Szabó and Kollár [13],
except for one difference: the cross-sectional area of the central cable
(cables 13–19) considered by Szabó and Kollár was 450 mm2 rather
than 350 mm2 .
5. Practical example – tram stop
The selected methods of dynamic relaxation were further tested
on a real structure. It was the roofing of the Barrandov tram stop in
Prague. The structure is composed of membranes stretched by means
of steel cables. The cables are supported by steel truss pillars and an-
chored into block foundations, see Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Barrandov tram stop.

34 M. Hüttner et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 89 (2015) 28–35

Fig. 7. A plan view of a tram stop.

Table 7
The number of iterations – tram stop.

Scheme Viscous damping Kinetic damping – t/2 Kinetic damping – β t

A A∗ B C D E F G H

Bar 488 364 1353 136 115 309 125 130 332
5 bars 11,461 10,181 – 2767 – 5320 2880 – 4446
Cable 448 331 1290 120 121 301 118 135 313

Table 8
Time of solution (CPU in seconds) – tram stop.

Scheme A A∗ B C D E F G H

Bar 0.36 0.28 1.11 0.12 0.10 0.45 0.10 0.12 0.33
5 bars 38.55 27.60 – 9.72 – 23.56 10.02 – 19.81
Cable 175.4 136.1 475.1 59.60 60.39 130.2 58.22 64.17 132.3

As it is a structure with a central symmetry, only one fourth of the
structure was subjected to modelling. The canvas was represented
by forces exerted by the structure’s own weight and prestress in the
model. The background for the creation of the model was the geodetic
survey of the existing structure made in November 2013.
The anchoring of the cables into anchor blocks was modelled as
a fixed support. The point where the cables were anchored into an-
chor blocks was modelled as a sliding joint allowing the joint’s mo-
tion only in the direction of the x and y axes. The structural scheme
of the structure considered is evident from Fig. 7. Thus, the structure
has the total of 18 degrees of freedom.
The parameters of cables are as follows:
Cables 1–7: E = 140 GPa, ∅23.6 mm, A = 230 mm2 , q = 0.021 kN/m
Cables 8–30: E = 140 GPa, ∅21.2 mm, A = 180 mm2 , q = 0.017 kN/m
The following cable lengths (selected cables) were considered:
Cable 1 – 11.221 m, Cable 2 – 13.618 m, Cable 3 – 14.340 m,
Cable 4 – 13.020 m, Cable 5 – 14.530 m, Cable 6 – 13.820 m.
The load is applied at joints 18 and 19 where the forces exerted by
the canvas act. These forces amount to: P18z = 12 kN and P19z = 16 kN.
The computational accuracy considered with regard to the accu-
racy of the survey of the structure was Rlim = 0.1 kN.
The number of iterations and the solution time for individual DRM
schemes are presented in Tables 7 and 8.
The forces acting in the real structure were measured and de-
scribed in detail in [14]. To verify the computational model against
reality, Scheme C (the most useful scheme) with the cable elements
 M. Hüttner et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 89 (2015) 28–35 35

Table 9 In this context, it may be noticed that the methods based on ki-
A list of measured and computed forces in cables.
netic damping appear more stable and faster, which confirms the
Force T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 conclusions presented by Rezaiee-Pajand [15].
The results confirm that it is beneficial to divide the same amount
Measurement 24.4 11.1 11.8 15.1 10.0 5.6
Scheme C – cable element 20.0 9.9 11.9 15.4 9.7 5.7
of mass into all nodes of the structure proportionally to the stiffest
node of the analyzed structure (Schemes C and F). This way of mass
distribution seems to be very universal in practical calculations and
Table 10
also faster in comparison with the schemes where the discretized
Summary of results.
mass is calculated separately for each joint (Schemes D, E, G and H).
Scheme Damping Total number Total number Total CPU The schemes with the recalculation of the masses after each restart of
of errors of iterations time (s)
kinetic energy (Schemes E and H) are very stable especially for struc-
C Kinetic – t/2 0 6083 232.6 tures with large number of degrees of freedom. On the other hand the
F Kinetic – β t 0 6180 253.9 total CTU time is lager in comparison with the Schemes C and F.
H Kinetic – β t 0 11,373 353.7 The results based on Schemes C and F, D and G and E and H are
E Kinetic – t/2 0 12,152 351.6
practically the same, so it is possible to conclude that the approxima-
A∗ Viscous 1 13,546 233.4
A Viscous 1 15,138 288.6 tion method of the kinetic energy peak has a negligible effect on the
D Kinetic – t/2 2 1981 226.4 total CTU time.
G Kinetic – β t 3 1565 315.2
B Viscous 3 50,309 5629.5 Acknowledgement

The results presented in this paper are outputs of the research

(the most accurate according to [6]) was selected. The values of forces
measured and computed in cables 1–6 are listed in Table 9.
The deviations in computed values are most likely caused by the
inaccuracy of the geometry measurement and the temperature dif-
ferences during the measurement of the forces in cables and during
the geodetic survey of the structure’s geometry.
6. Conclusions
The assessment of the efficiency of different DRM schemes used
for static analysis of cable structures was based on three important
and practical criterions:
(a) Total number of errors – i.e. in this case the total number of it-
erations was exceeded and the analysis did not converge to the
equilibrium state.
(b) Total number of iterations.
(c) Total computational time.
The results obtained in the solution of problems analyzed in
Sections 4 and 5 were summarized for all DRM schemes and struc-
tural approximations. The overall ranking of schemes methods sorted
by the number of errors, the total number of iterations and the total
CPU time is shown in Table 10.
The results imply that the scheme validated as the best solution
was Scheme C, i.e. the kinetic damping method with the approxi-
mation of the kinetic energy peak in the middle of the time step
(Section 3.5) and the same mass for each joint of the structure cal-
culated from Eq. (18).
Project “P105/11/1529 – Analysis of cable-membrane structures” sup-
ported by the Czech Science Foundation.
References
[1] Day AS. An introduction to dynamic relaxation. Engineer 1965;219:218–21.
[2] Barnes MR. Form and stress engineering of tension structures. Struct Eng Rev
1994;6(3–4):175–202.
[3] Topping BHV, Iványi P. Computer aided design of cable membrane structures.
Kippen, Stirlingshire, Scotland: Saxe-Coburg Publications; 2007.
[4] Lewis WJ. Tension structures: from and behaviour. London: Thomas Telford; 2003.
[5] Hüttner M, Máca J, Fajman P. Analysis of cable structures using the dynamic re-
laxation method. In: Topping BHV, Iványi P, editors. Proceedings of the fourteenth
international conference on civil, structural and environmental engineering com-
puting. Stirlingshire, UK: Civil-Comp Press; 2013 Paper 145.
[6] Hüttner M, Fajman P. Aproximace lana přianalýze lanových soustav. In: Proceed-
ings of the 10th international conference on new trends in statics and dynamics of
buildings. Bratislava: Slovak University of Technology; 2012. p. 265–6. (in Czech).
[7] Deng H, Jiang QF, Kwan ASK. Shape finding of incomplete cable-strut assemblies
containing slack and prestressed elements. Comput Struct 2005;83:1767–79.
[8] Kadlčák J. Statika nosných lan visutých střech, Prague: Academia; 1990. (in Czech).
[9] Fajman P. Řešení lana s ohledem na jeho deformaci. Stavební obzor
2012;4(21):105–7 (in Czech).
[10] Jayaraman HB, Knudson WC. A curved element for the analysis of cable structure.
Comput Struct 1981;14:325–33.
[11] West HH, Kar AK. Discretized initial-value analysis of cable nets. Comput Struct
1973;9:1403–20.
[12] Lewis WJ. The efficiency of numerical methods for the analysis of prestressed nets
and pin-jointed frame structures. Comput Struct 1989;33:791–800.
[13] Szabó J, Kollár L. Structural design of cable suspended roofs. Ellis Horwood; 1984.
[14] Fajman P, Máca J. Adjustment of the stress state of a membrane structure in Bar-
randov. Adv Mater Res 2014;969:16–23.
[15] Rezaiee-Pajand M, Sarafrazi SR, Rezaiee H. Efficiency of dynamic relaxation meth-
ods in nonlinear analysis of truss and frame structures. Comput Struct 2012;112–
113:295–310.