INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING,

VOL. 39,213 1-21 52 (1996)

STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

BY A TIME-DISCONTINUOUS GALERKIN
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

X.D. LI AND N.-E. WIBERG

Department of Structural Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Goteborg, Sweden

SUMMARY
This paper studies a time-discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for structural dynamic problems, by
which both displacements and velocities are approximated as piecewise linear functions in the time domain
and may be discontinuous at the discrete time levels. A new iterative solution algorithm which involves only
one factorization for each fixed time step size and a few iterations at each step is presented for solving the
resulted system of coupled equations. By using the jumps of the displacements and the velocities in the total
energy norm as error indicators, an adaptive time-stepping procedure for selecting the proper time step size
is described. Numerical examples including both single-DOF and multi-DOF problems are used to
illustrate the performance of these algorithms. Comparisons with the exact results and/or the results by the
Newmark integration scheme are given. It is shown that the time-discontinuous Galerkin finite element
method discussed in this study possesses good accuracy (third order) and stability properties, its numerical
implementation is not difficult, and the higher computational cost needed in each time step is compensated
by use of a larger time step size.

KEY WORDS discontinuous Galerkin finite element method; predictor-multicorrector; adaptive time integration;
structural dynamics

1. INTRODUCTION
In structural dynamic analysis, one often needs to solve the system of second-order ordinary
differential equations of the form
Mii(t) + Ci(t) + Ku(t) = F(t), t E I = (0, T ) (1)
with initial conditions
u(0) = uo, U(0) = v(0) = vo (2)
where M is the mass matrix, C is the viscous damping matrix, K is the stiffness matrix, F is the
vector of applied forces, u, u and u are the respective displacement, velocity and acceleration
vectors, I is the time domain, and uo and vo are the given initial data. The dimension of the system
is denoted by ncq.
Time-discontinuous Galerkin finite element method (or DG method) is a newly developed
approach for solving time-dependent problems. The idea is based on using a finite element
formulation to discretize in the time domain and permitting the unknown fields to be

CCC 0029-598 1/96/12213 1-22 Received I1 November 1994

0 1996 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 4 July 1995
2132 X. D.LI AND N.-E. WIBERG

discontinuous at the discrete time levels. While the DG method had been successfully applied to
first-order hyperbolic problems and parabolic problems for some years, Hughes and Hulbert
introduced it to the area of elastodynamics and structural dynamics.’-4 In References 3 and 4,
Hulbert developed the DG methods by including least-squares modifications for the above
structural dynamic equations. Two general formulations, the single-field one, which uses the
displacementsalone as the basic unknowns, and the two-field one, which uses both the displace-
ments and the velocities as the basic unknowns, were derived. Stability and convergence were
proved. Results of finite difference analysis concerning numerical dissipation and dispersion
properties were provided and compared with those of commonly used direct time integration
schemes. Recently, Johnson proved a priori and a posteriori error estimates for a DG method
using linear interpolations of both displacements and velocities for the wave e q u a t i ~ nIt. ~was
shown that there is no need for extra least-squares modificationsfor such a discretization.French
also presented a similar space-time finite element method for the wave equation.6
As the mathematical foundation of the time-discontinuous Galerkin method for structural
dynamics analysis is provided, emphasize on the aspect of its numerical implementation should
be addressed because the success of a new method requires the support of practical numerical
experiments and, especially, because the time-discontinuous Galerkin method typically leads to
systems of coupled equations which are larger than those emanating from existing direct time
integration schemes. Thus, the development of an efficient solution algorithm plays a key role to
determine if the DG method is truly viable. Another subject that needs to be studied is the error
control and automatic step size adjustment algorithm, which has become very important in
modern dynamic analysis.
We shall discuss the specific time-discontinuous Galerkin method which uses piecewise linear
interpolations for both displacements and velocities. This is the DG element named as PI-PI
two-field formulation by H ~ l b e r tand
~ . ~also the one suggested by Johnson’ and French.6 It was
claimed that this element has the advantage over other DG elements with respect to the
computational effort and the stability and convergence proper tie^.'.^ However, the aspect of
numerical implementation for this element has not been discussed in the literature. Therefore,
how to implement this DG method and how to select the proper time step size are our main
concern in this study. We organize the remainder of our paper as follows: In Section 2, we briefly
review the formulations of the DG method. In Section 3, we present an iterative solution
algorithm for solving the resulted system of coupled equations. In Section 4, we describe a
local error indicator and an adaptive time-stepping scheme. In Section 5, the performance of
this DG method is evaluated on a set of numerical examples. Finally, conclusion is drawn in
Section 6.

2. A TIME-DISCONTINUOUS FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

Let 0 = t l < t 2 < . * * < tN+ 1 = T be a partition of the time domain I = (0, T) with correspond-
ing time steps At, = t n + l - t, and I, = (tn,t n + l ) . We make the following specific choice of the
time finite element space:

V h=
{ u (P(I,)),*
Wh E
N

n=l I (3)

where P’ means first-order polynomial, that is, each member of V h is a vector consisting of
neq linear functions on each time step I,. All trial displacements and velocities and their
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2133

corresponding weighting functions are chosen from the space V". Notice that the functions in V"
may be discontinuous at time levels t,. To account for this, we introduce the notation

w.' = lim+w(tn + E), w; = lim- ~ ( t -

, E)
e+O €40
(4)
[w,] = w,+ - w,
where [wn] represents the jump of wn at t n , and we denote the inner product on I, by

(w, u)r, = JIn w .u dt (5)

The time-discontinuous Galerkin method can now be formulated as follows:

Find Uh= {u", v"} E V hx V hsuch that for all W" = {w; ,w!} E V" x V",
BDG(W", U"), = LDG(Wh),,, n = 1,2, . . . ,N
where

and

We observe that equation (6) may be straightforwardly derived from the following weighting
residual form

R, = 6.w!-(LZ1Uh- F)dt +
6. w! -KP2Uhdt

+ w:(t:).K[uL(t,)] + w!(t:).M[~"(t,)] = 0, n = 1 , . . . ,N (12)

and may be viewed as a discrete counterpart of the original equations (1) written in the form
M i + CV+ KU - F = 0
K(U - V) = 0

3. SOLUTION ALGORITHM
The matrix equivalent form of equation (6) and an iterative solution algorithm to solve the
resulted system of equations are presented in this section. In a typical time step In= (t,, tn+J, let
uo and vo denote the nodal displacements and velocities at t:, respectively, and u1 and vl the
nodal displacements and velocities at t + 1, respectively. Also let u; and v; represent the nodal
displacementsand velocities at t,-, respectively, which are known from either the previous step's
2134 X. D. LI AND N.-E. WIBERG

calculations or, if n = 1, the initial data. Thus, the displacements and velocities at time
t E (t,, t,+ can be expressed as

Substituting equations (14) and (15) and their corresponding weighting functions into equation (6)
and performing the integration explicitly, we obtain the following matrix equation:
-
fK $K - fAt,K - &At,K
Ku,
-fK 4K - &At,K - f At,K
0

fAt,K &At,K fM + fAtnC $M + &At,$ F1 + Mv,

FZ
&At,K fAt,K - fM + &At,C fM + fAt,C
where
t,+1 - t
F dt and Fz = jln
t - t,
F dt

Clearly, it is not a trivial task to solve the system of equations (16), which is coupled, four times
large as the original system of equations (1). In order to decrease the computational cost for
solving the system (16), an iterative predictor-multicorrector algorithm is developed. We first
recast the system as follows:

K O - +At,K bAt,K

O K - $At,K - iAt,K

0
0 M*

0 fAt,C + f A t i K
# M + &At,C

M*
voJ
V1

where
M* = M + $At,C + d A t i K

are the effective (or generalized) mass matrix and force vectors, respectively. It is observed that the
third and fourth equations have been partly decoupled from the first and second ones and they
can be solved separately by an iterative predictor-multicorrector algorithm. Given initial pre-
dictor values of vo and v l , for instance v; ,the third and fourth equations are solved repeatedly for
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2135

Table I. Computation algorithm

A. Data input and initialization

u; = u o
v; = vo
t=O
B. Form effective mass matrix and perform factorization
M' =M + f A t C + QAt'K
C . Time integration
(a) Form generalized force vectors
F: = i(5F1+ 5Mv; - F2 - 2AtKuO)
F: = F1 + Fz + Mv;- AtKu;

(b) Predictor
vo = v;
v 1 = vo
i=O
(c) Multicorrector
M*V:+') = F: - (3M + 4AtC)v:"
- F: - ( f A t C + jAtZK)v61'
Msv(l'+*)-
i=i+l
If b > E go to (c)
(d) Ohput solution
v; = v *
At
u; =u, +-(vo+v&
2
t=t+At
If t < T go to (a), else terminate

the corrected values of vo and vl, respectively, until a required accuracy is obtained. Then, the first
equation is used for determining u0 and the second one for ul. In the numerical tests given below,
an accuracy requirement E = is set and the iteration is performed until g = max'$,
(luy: ') - uyil, IU?I+ ') - uyj I) c E is met. Of course, other types of criteria may also be designed.
For discussion about the predictor-multicorrector algorithms for more general time and
space-time finite element methods we refer to Reference 4.
From the knowledge of functional analysis, we may see that the above iteration process is in
fact based on a contraction mapping and, thus, it is convergent and unconditionally stable. To
illustrate this, let us consider the simplest single-DOF model
ii+o2u=o (22)
2136 X. D.LI AND N.-E.WIBERG

in which case the iteration for determining uo from equation (18) is based on

= Tuo =
(1 + &(oAt)2)u0 - $w4At3~O+ Q(oAt)’Uo
(23)
UfJ
(1 + &(wAt)’)’
The mapping T is a contraction because

From equation (23) we also observe that uo -+00 as At + 0 and uo + 0 as A t + co,which are just
wanted.
The above solution algorithm is briefly summarized in Table I. From Table I, we observe that
the implementation of the DG method is indeed not so complex, though the computation effort
needed within each time step is still higher than the commonly used one-step methods such as the
Newmark scheme. Let us estimate the computational cost in a rather rough way. We assume that
the effective matrix is sparse and the semi-bandwidth is d and the computation changes the time
step size M times and takes totally N steps. Thus, the computational cost for the Newmark
method is approximately fn,,d’M + neqdN while for the DG method it is $n,,d2M + neqdN.21,
where I is the number of iteration needed (normally 2-5 would be enough). Since the DG method
is third-order accurate, so a bigger step size can be used and the number of time step size changes
may also be smaller. Hence, the total cost could be comparable. Considering other properties the
DG method possesses, e.g. the possibility to filter high spurious modes and the convenience to
achieve adaptive time-stepping algorithm, as shown later, we may say that the DG method is
really an attractive method for structural dynamic analysis.

4. ADAPTIVE TIME-STEPPING
In addition to an efficient time integration scheme, error control and automatic step size
adjustment are also required in modern dynamic analysis. If a one-step direct time integration
method such as the Newmark scheme is used, the local errors introduced on each time step may
be measured by some simple estimator and, accordingly,the step sizes are adjusted such that the
local errors per step, or, the local errors per unit step, are within a specified tolerance and the
global errors keep proportional to this tolerance7-’
If we define the local error as the difference between the numerical solution and the local exact
solution, i.e., the analytical solution by using the numerical solution at former step as the initial
conditions, the jumps of displacements [ui] and the jumps of velocities [v:] are hereby the local
errors at time tn.And it should be acceptable to use them as local error measures. If adopting the
total energy norm, we thus obtain
ll&llE = (CU:ITKCuil + Cv11TMCv11)”2 (25)
The relative local error in the total energy norm may be defined by

where (11 UhIIE) m ax is the maximum total energy norm of the finite element solution recorded
during the computation process.
By the adaptive analysis, we expect the relative errors of the final numerical solution to satisfy
fi‘ < ?IToL (27)
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2137

where ?TOL is a specified error tolerance, and the computational effort to achieve this goal is
nearly minimal.
If the requirement (27) is not satisfied, the solutions are rejected and time step refinement is
performed. Since the convergence rate is O(At3), the new step size is selected as

At; = (%)TOL 1 / 3
At,,

where tIt < 1.0 is a safety factor introduced to avoid the new predicted step being rejected.
If the estimated error is much less than the tolerance ?TOL, the solution is accepted but the step
size may be increased. Such adjustment is done according to equation (28) when

has been registered for K,successive times, where ut is a number less than one and K,an integer.
For practical reasons, some other restrictions are introduced. A small integer J, is specified as
the maximum number of step size adjustment in one step and Atmaxand Atminas the maximum
and minimum time step sizes. It is also necessary for many problems to use a fixed step size at the
first few steps before starting step size adjustment.
It should be noted that above local error indicator is obtained by passing and the extra cost is
trivial. When using a finite difference method, e.g. the Newmark scheme, however, to obtain
a local error estimator requires extra calculations, which at some circumstances may be very
expensive. Therefore, it is advantageous to use the DG finite element for adaptive analysis. This
feature will be further exploited when we apply the DG method, or space-time finite element, to
continuum problems for which both the spatial mesh and the time step size need to be updated.

5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

Example I : SDOF model

The equation of motion of the SDOF model shown in Figure 1 has the form
ii + 25oU + w2u = p ( t )
u(0) = uo, U(0) = uo
A forced vibration with the parameters o = 1.0, t = 0-05, p ( t ) = sin 0-5t, uo = 0-0and oo = 0.0 is
considered. A time step At = 0.1 is used for the computation. Plots of the responses and the error
distributions are given in Figure 2. The maximum numbers of the predictor-multicorrector
iterations for a requirement of E = is 5. Comparisons with, the analytical solution and the
Newmark solution (the trapezoidal rule) are made. It is seen that the DG method provides much

Figure 1. A SDOF system

2138 X. D. LI AND N.-E. WIBERG

0
n

u)
N

8
W

m
E
F

0
F

10

bloblu3 lN3w33vldSla '

,8
W

.F
m
E

u)

0
N 0 N
I
lN3w33vldSIa
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2139

more accurate solutions than does the Newmark method. Figure 3 shows the convergence of
numerical solutions at time t = 10-0sin log scale. It is seen that, while the Newmark method is
only second-order accurate, the DG method used here is third-order.

Example 2: Two-DOF model

Figure 4 shows a two-DOF system for which the governing equations are

In the following we consider three different cases.

Example 2a. Assume ml = 2, m2 = 1, k l = 4,k2 = 2, k3 = 2, fi = 0, f2 = 10 and zero initial
conditions. This is the example being used to illustrate various direct integration methods by
Bathe."
A fixed time step size At = T2/10,where T2 = 2-8is the lower period of the system, is first used
for the calculation over a time interval [0,20 s]. The maximum number of the predictor-
multicorrector iterations for a requirement of E = is 4. Numerical results obtained by the
DG finite element method are compared with the exact results and those by the Newmark
method (the trapezoidal rule) with the same step size. Figures 5(a)-5(d) show the responses of

-4 -2 0 -4 -2 0 -4 -2 0
log At log A t log At

Figure 3. Rate of convergence at time t = 10.0 s for the SDOF system under damped forced vibration: (a) displacement,
(b) velocity, (c) total energy norm

Figure 4. A two-DOF system

 -2 f
.. I
I 1 I 1 I I I
. o 2 4 d I 10 12 14 0 2 4 a a 10 12 14
?e
TIME TIME
P
r
I

d
I_I N m ----- DG finite element
4 4-
-- 2-
ir
! O-
y -2-

-4-
I (b) (d)
4 , I I I I 1 I 1 I 4- I I I I 1 1 I
0 2 4 8 a 10 12 14 0 2 4 a a 10 12 ' 14

TIME TIME

Figure 5. Responses for the two-DOF system of Example 2a with At = 0.28: (a) displacement ul, (b) velocity ul, (c) displacement ut, (d) velocity u z
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2141

the displacements and the velocities. The rate of convergence at time t = 10.0 s is presented in
Figures 6(a)-6(c) in log scale. Similar results to Example 1 are observed.
An adaptive analysis is then made by specifying an error tolerance = 005 per cent
together with parameters 0, = 0.95, ut = 0-6 and K , = 5. The maximum number of the
predictor-multicorrector iterations for a requirement of E = is only 2. Figure 7 shows the
predicted temporal step sizes. The computation takes 498 total time steps and changes the step
size 13 times. Figure 8 shows the estimated local errors in the total energy norm, which are
obviously under control.
Example 2b. Assume m1 = 1, m2 = 1, kl = lo4, k2 = 1, k3 = 0, fl = 0, f2 = 0, ul(0) = 1,
u2(0)= 10, ril(0)= 0 and tiz(0) = 0. This is the example that was used to represent the character of
typical large systems by Hughes." The first mode represents those modes that are physically
important and must be accurately integrated. The second mode represents those spurious high
modes which are desired to be filtered by numerical time integration.

.'a
2 7 2-

0-

-2-

-4-

d 4-

-8 -8-
Ilu-uDua
-10 -10
I I I I I I I I I
(a
-4 -2 0 -4 -2 0 -4 -2 0
log A t log At log A t

Figure 6. Rate of convergence at time t = 10 s for the two-DOF system in Example 2a: (a) displacement, (b) velocity,
(c) total energy norm

"..
Total number of Z m e steps: 498
Tole1 number of step changes: 13
w
N
0

c
v)
O-Oo5-
1

Figure 7. Temporal time step size used in the adaptive analysis for the two-DOFsystem in Example 2a
2142 X. D. L1 AND N.-E. WIBERG

I I 1 I I I I '
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4

Figure 8. Estimated relative error in the adaptive analysis for the two-DOF system in Example 2a

We first use a fixed time step size At = 0.314 (i.e. T1/20, where TI is the higher period of the
system) to perform the time integration over a time interval [0, 5T1].The maximum number of
the predictor-multicorrector iterations for a requirement of E = is 4. The numerical solution
obtained by the DG finite element method is presented in Figures 9(a) and 9(b). For comparison,
the Newmark solution (the trapezoidal rule) and the exact solution of the second component are
also given. But the spurious solution, i.e. the analytical solution of the first component is not
plotted. We observe that the DG method provides very good results in the sense that the
important mode has been accurately integrated and the spurious one successfullyfiltered. For the
performance of other commonly used integration schemes on this model, see pp. 542-550 of
Reference 11.
The problem is then solved by the adaptive time-stepping algorithm. An error tolerance
qToL = 0.05 per cent, together with parameters 8, = 0.9, u, = 0.5 and K , = 5, is specified. The
maximum number of the iteration for a requirement of E = is 5. The temporal step size and
the estimated relative error in the total energy norm are plotted in Figure 10 and Figure 11,
respectively. Calculation of the first 10 steps is performed with a fixed step size 0.1 so as to filter
the spurious responses. Otherwise, a very small step size will be predicted to integrate accurately
the undesired spurious response. The computation takes 234 total time steps and changes the step
size only once. Because the system is under a condition of undamped free vibration, it is
reasonably found that the estimated error in the total energy norm also keeps almost constant.
Example 2c. Assume m 1 = 1, m 2 = 1, kl = 1, k2 = lo4, k3 = 0,fi = 0, fz = 0, ul(0) = 10,
uz(0) = 11, zil(0)= 0 and zi,(O) = 0. This problem is also given by Hughes" after the previous
one. We present the exact solutions for the first body of the system in Figure 12. The results for the
second body of the system is about the same. Two frequencies of the system are 0: = 0.5 and
0 ; = 200003, respectively. The first mode, [l 1IT,represents the motion that two masses move
identically, which is physically important and must by accurately integrated. The second mode,
[l - l]', represents the motion that two bodies move in opposite directions which, although the
velocity contributions are large, is desired to be filtered.
We use a time step size At = 0.888 ( = T1/lO)for the DG method and a time step size At = 0.444
( = T1/20) for the Newmark method (the trapezoidal rule), respectively. Numerical solutions are
plotted and compared in Figure 13, which shows clearly that the DG method provides very good
results but the Newmark method does not. The problem is also solved by the adaptive time-
stepping algorithm by specifying an error tolerance qToL = 005 per cent together with para-
meters 8,= 0-9, u, = 0.5 and K,= 5. The maximum number of the iteration for a requirement of
E = is 5, the temporal step size and the estimated relative error in the total energy norm are
plotted in Figure 14and Figure 15, respectively.Similar results as in Example 2b can be observed.
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2143

20-

10-
I
4 0-

-10-

-20-
0 20 40 , 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100
n
-exact ----- DG finite element

Figure 9(a). Response of the two-DOF system in Example 2b by the DG method with a step size Ar = T1/20
 2144 X.D. LI AND N.-E. WIBERG

' I '

I I I I I
0 20 4 0 n 60 80 100

I I I I I
0 20 40 n 80 80 100

20

-20
0 20 40 ,, 60 80 100

' 0 2

-20 I I I I I
0 20 4 0 n 80 100

-exact -- Newmark

Figure 9(b). Response of the two-DOF system in Example 2b by the Newmark method with a step size Ar = T1/20
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2145

Total number of time steps: 234

Total number of step changes: 1

0 10 1s 20 25 30
TIME

Figure 10. Temporal time step size used in the adaptive analysis for the two-DOF system in Example 2b

0 5 10 15 20 25 50
TIME

Figure 11. Estimated relative error in the adaptive analysis for the two-DOF system in Example 2b

Example 3: A shear building subjected to a base-acceleration pulse

As a multi-DOF system, let us consider the ten-story shear building in Figure lqa). The base of
the building is subjected to a base-acceleration pulse shown in Figure lqb). The data of mass
and stiffness are taken from Reference 12. Rayleigh damping is assumed and the parameters are
selected both to be 0-02.An analysis by the adaptive time-stepping scheme of the time-discontinu-
ous Galerkin finite element method is performed over a time interval [0, 20 s] with an error
tolerance qToL = 0.1 per cent and parameters 0, = 095, u, = 0 7 5 and K,= 5. The temporal step
sizes used for the computation are shown in Figure 17. The total number of time steps is 528 and
the total number of time step changes is 32. The estimated local errors in the total energy norm
are plotted in Figure 18, which indicates that the local errors are well under control. Histories
for displacement and velocity at the top and shear force at the bottom are plotted in
Figures 19(a)- 19(c). The maximum number of the predictor-multicorrector iteration for a re-
quirement of E = is only 2.
2146 X.D. LI AND N.-E.WIBERG

20

10

-10

-20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME

Figure 12. Exact solutions for the first component of the two-DOF system in Example 2c: (a) displacement
(b) velocity

For comparison, the problem is also solved by the Newmark method with two different time
step sizes. The one, At = 0401, is very small and is intended to provide very accurate solutions,
and the other, At = 0.05, is roughly equal to the average size used in the adaptive analysis by the
DG method. Corresponding response histories are also plotted in Figures 19(a)- 19(c).While the
DG solution and the Newmark solution with A t = 0.001 are almost identical, a difference of the
Newmark solution with At = 0.05 from the other two solutions can be observed. This indicates
again that the DG method provides much more accurate solutions than does the Newmark
method, if the same time step size is used.
It is well-known that, when the Newmark method (or other similar finite difference schemes) is
used for the analysis of a ‘stiff’ structure, more precisely, for the case that intermediate and/or
high-frequency modes are also important, a very small time step size has to be adopted in order to
achieve a reasonable solution. In such a case, we shall see that the DG method performs still
better than the Newmark method does. To demonstrate this, let us consider the ten-storey shear
building again, but this time we increase the values of the stiffness coefficientsin Figure 17 by ten
times and ignore the effect of damping. This is a typical problem of shear-wave propagation in
buildings. The problem is solved by the DG method with time step At = 0.1 and by the Newmark
method with Ar = 0*0001,Ar = 0.05 and At = 0.1, respectively. Histories for displacement and
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2147

20
-Exact
-Newmark
_----DO
dr = TJZO
finite element At = Tl/IO

-10-

(4
-20 I I I I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME

i
-w
100- -- Newmark Ar = TJZO
----- DO finite element At = T,/IO
50-

0-
"1

-50 -
-100- (b)
I I I I I 1 I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
TIME
Figure 13. Numerical solutions for the first component of the two-DOF system in Example 2c: (a) displacement
(b) velocity

Total number of time steps: 64

0.3 Total number of step changes: 1

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME

Figure 14. Temporal time step size used in the adaptive analysis for the two-DOF system in Example 2c
2148 X.D. LI AND N.-E. WIBERG

_..

-
3.5 0.084

-0.02 , 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME

Figure 15. Estimated relative error in the adaptive analysis for the two-DOF system in Example 2c

-
1
m,, = 0.5

m9 = 0.7 k,, =

kp = 370
340

ks = 360

k, = 440

h* f

'.o
k6 = 450

I m4 = 2.0 ks = 450

I m, = 2.0
Ik4 = 650 I
1.0 I
2.0 3.0 t

k, = 650

k2 = 750

k, = 950
I
////////////////

Figure 16. A ten-storey shear building subjected to a base.-acceleration pulse

 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2149

Total number of time steps: 528

Total number of step changes: 32

I 1 I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TIME
Figure 17. Temporal time step size used in the adaptive analysis for the ten-storey shear building in Example 3

- .

1 vfl, = 0.075%. ‘

1 I I I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TIME

Figure 18. Estimated relative error in the adaptive analysis for the ten-storey shear building Example 3

velocity at the top and shear force at the bottom are plotted in Figures 20(a)-20(c), respectively. It
is observed that, while the Newmark solution with At = 0 1 is very bad and the one with
At = 0.05 is improved but still not good (in terms of the velocity), the solutions by the DG method
with At = 0.1 and by the Newmark method with At = O-OOOl agree well. This indicates that, even
for the ‘stiff’ structure, a very accurate solution can be obtained by the DG method with a fairly
big step size.

5. CONCLUSION
The time-discontinuous Galerkin finite element method which approximates both displacements
and velocities as piecewise linear functions in the time domain and permits them being discon-
tinuous at the discrete time levels has been studied. It generates a system of coupled equations
which is four times large as the original system of structural dynamic equations. An iterative
predictor-multicorrector algorithm to reduce the computational effort for solving the resulted
system of equations has been presented. By using the jumps of the displacementsand velocities in
the total energy norm as error indicators, an adaptive time-stepping procedure for selecting the
proper time step size has been developed. From the numerical examples conducted above, we
2150 X. D. LI AND N.-E. WIBERG

----- DG finite elemem

0.1- -Newmarkwithdl = O . o o L
-- NeWmerkWiIhdf = 0.0s

..
-0.15 I I I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TIME

----- DG finite element

-
--.--.-
NeWmarkWithAf = 0.001
Newmark with dr = 0 . 0 5

-0.2-
(b)
-0.3 I I I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 D
TIME

I"
-----
-DG finite element
Newmarkwimdf = 0.001
M e m a n with df = 0.05

I
v)
-10-
(c)
-15 I I I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TIME
Figure 19. Response histories of the ten-storey shear building: (a) displacement at the top, (b) velocity at the top,
(c) shear force at the bottom

have observed many advantages of this DG method, for example, third-order accuracy, possib-
ility to filter the effects of spurious modes, convenience to apply adaptive time-steppingalgorithm
and so forth. Therefore, we believe that the time-discontinuous Galerkin finite element method
discussed in this study is well suited to structural dynamic analysis.
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 2151

0.02
-N~markwithdr= 0 . m 1
----- DGfiniteelementwithAr= 0 . I
.........
5 0.01- - Nemark with A t = 0 . I
Nemnarkwim dr = O . M
W
5 .................................................
. . . .
0
4L
0.0- . . . . . . ..........................................
....... ~.

cn
-0.0 1 -

-0.02
(4
I I I I I I I I I

-Newmerk with dl = 0.OOOI

0.04-
-----
......... DG finite element with Ar = 0 . 1
> - Nemerk with df = 0 . 1
Newmarkwith dr = 0 . 0 5
6 0.02

2> 0.0

-0.02

-0.04-
(b)
-0.06 I I I I I I I I I

.-
-Newmark with 41 = O.OOO1
......... Newmarkwith At = 0 . I - 0.1
1.0-
----- ffifiniteehentwithdr
W ----- Newmark with dr = 0.05
4 03-
2 ............. :.,, . . . . . . . . .
3 O-O-
$05-
:.: .,,: ..... .......... . . . . .
7

-1.04

-15 / I I I
I I I I I I
(c)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TIME

Figure 20. Response histories of the ten-storey shear building when the stiffness coefficients are increased by ten times:
(a) displacement at the top, (b) velocity at the top, (c) shear force at the bottom

REFERENCES
1. T. J. R. Hughes and G. Hulbert, ‘Space-time finite element methods for elastodynamics: formulations and error
estimates’, Cornput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 66, 339-363 (1988).
2152 X.D. LI AND N.-E. WIBERG

2. G. Hulbert and T. J. R. Hughes, ‘Space-time finite element methods for second order hyperbolic equations’, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 84,327-348 (1990).
3. G. Hulbert, Time finite element methods for structural dynamics’, Int. j . numer. methods eng., 33, 307-331 (1992).
4. G. Hulbert, ‘Space-time finite element methods for second order hyperbolic equations’, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, 1989.
5. C. Johnson, ‘Discontinuous Galerkin finite element methods for second order hyperbolic problems’, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng., 107, 117-129 (1993).
6. D. A. French, ‘A space-time finite element method for the wave equation’, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 107,
145-157 (1993).
7. 0. C. Zienkiewicz and Y. M. Xie, ‘A simple error estimator and adaptive time-stepping procedure for dynamic
analysis’, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 20, 871-887 (1991).
8. X. D. Li, L. F.Zeng and N.-E. Wiberg, ‘A simple local error estimator and an adaptive time-stepping procedure for
direct integration method in dynamic analysis’, Commun. numer. methods eng., 9, 273-292 (1993).
9. N.-E. Wiberg and X. D. Li, ‘A postprocessed error estimate and an adaptive procedure for the semidiscrete finite
element method in dynamic analysis’, Int. j . numer. methods eng., 37, 3585-3603 (1994).
10. K. J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982.
11. T. J. R. Hughes, The Finite Element Method, Linear Static and dynamic Finite Element Analysis, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.1987.
12. M. A. M. Torkamani and A. K. Ahmadi, ‘Stiffnessidentification of two- and three-dimensional frames’, Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 18, 1157-1 176 (1988).