DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF GEOMETRICALLY

NONLINEAR TRUSS STRUCTURES

S. ABRAT@ and C. T. SUN$
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN47907, U.S.A.

(Received 7 September 1982; received for publication 27 October 1982)

Abstract-Beam-like truss structures undergoing large deflections when subjected to static and dynamic
loadings are studied by using the matrix method and equivalent continuum models. For the matrix
method, an incremental procedure with equilibrium iterations are used. Equivalent continuum beam
models are derived based on the properties of a typical substructure of the truss. Solutions obtained by
using both methods are compared for a number of examples.

INTRODUCTION proposed [7,8] where the generalized coordinate space

Large space truss structures consisting of a great num-
ber of identical substructures can be studied using
matrix methods of analysis. However, the large num-
ber of resulting equations limits the size of problems
that can be solved, and, therefore, for linear analysis,
methods have been developed to reduce the dimension
of the problem.
One such method is the order reduction method[l]
which reduces the system of equations in order to
retain a smaller number of normal modes. Another is
the subs~c~~ng methodf2j which requires solving
several substructural problems as a preliminary step
for the analysis of the global system. These two ap-
proaches require the description of each individual
member and the formulation of governing equations
for the total assemblage, and simplifi~tions in the
analysis depend on certain methematical manipu-
lations of the resulting system of equations.
A third approach, in which one takes advantage of
the fact that many complex structures may appear
grossly as beams or plates, consists of using an equiv-
alent continuum model. A truss structure consisting of
a large number of identical cells can be modelled as a
beam or a plate. The properties of the equivalent
model can be derived as in [3] where the stiffness
equations for the unit cell, written in terms of
difference operators, are transformed into differential
equations. An alternative is to express the strain en-
ergy and the kinetic energy of the unit cell in term of
the joint displacements, the transition from the dis-
crete lattice to the continuum is done by introducing
basic assumptions with regard to the displacement
components and using Taylor series expansions to go
from discrete to continuous variables Refs. [4,5].
These two procedures for finding equivalent con-
tinuum properties require a long analysis for each type
of unit cell used thus limiting the interest of the
method as far as time savings are concerned. A third
procedure to determine equivalent continuum proper-
ties from a finite number of numerical analyses on the
typical cell has been proposed[6].
For nonlinear problems, the need for simplification
is magnified. Reduction methods have beerr
is represented by an appropriate reduced basis which,
e.g. may be a set of first linear eigenvectors. Sub-
structuring techniques have been proposed also for
problems where the nonlinearities are confined to a
specific zone of the structure[9], Continuum models
accounting for non~nea~ties still remain lacking.
In this paper, beam-like truss structures undergoing
large deflections when subjected to static and dynamic
loadings are studied by using the matrix method and
equivalent continuum models. The solutions obtained
by these two approaches are compared to evaluate the
adequacy of the continuum models.
FORMULATION BY MATRIX METHOD
The equations of equilibrium are formulated by the
direct stiffness matrix approach. It is assum& that the
pin-ended bar elements remain straight, undergo large
rotations, and that the stress-strain behavior follows
Hookes law so that only geometric nonlinearities are
considered. Taking into account material non-
linearities would not present additional difficulties,
especially if the constitutive relations can be modelled
by a Romberg-Osgood equation.
The derivation of the element stiffness matrix is
given in detail in [IO] and discussed also in [l 11.Con-
sider the axial element shown in Fig. 1 in the reference
configuration under a load P which produces an axial
strain 6. As further deformation takes place, the total
strain is:
L =P+eo (1)
where t is the incremental strain.
Considering moderately large rotations but small
strains we can write:
c4 = du/dx + f (du/dx)2. (2)
The total strain energy increment U may then be
written as:
U =I (J;+?r Q)dV. (3)

For a linearly elastic material, Hookes law holds:

tGraduate Research Assistant.
fFVofessor. o=Er. (4)
491
491 S. ABRATE and C. T. SUN

The stiffness matrices in ghe global frame of reference

t are obtained from the local stiffnesses by the trans-
formation TrKT where the transformation matrix T
is given as:

O[

I
U
_ 1
I
-X
1
0
0
P

with L = cos 0 and p = sin 6. The global stiffnesses

-P 0 10 1 (9)

(a) are then:

P2 $ -P2 - 4J
KE = AE/L

[ Symmetric
-1p
P2
-g

3
I (10)

KG = P/L
P2 -1p
P

Symmetric
-jl*
b
p2
-P2
-h
4J

R2 1 (11
The mass matrix is obtained by lumping the mass
-X
at the joints.

(b)
SOLUTION PROCEDURE
Fig. I. Bar element (a) in the local coordinate system (b) in
the global coordinate system. For static analysis, an incremental procedure with
equilibrium iterations was used. Assuming that the
configuration at the end of increment n is known, the
After substitutions and retaining only terms up to the stiffness matrices are computed at this configuration.
second order we obtain The node1 displacements for increment n + 1 are

s
L
determined from an iterative procedure. Let the
AE(du,dx)2 dx + i, A& [; (dv,dx)] dx converged nodal displacement vector at step n be Qz,
0 and the increment in displacements between iteration
i=L i and i+l be Q=Qi:,-Q,!,, with Qi+,=Qz,
AEt(du/dx)
+
J 0
dx. (5)
then the equilibrium equations are given by

We introduce the shape functions: WE+ KAQ = Rt , I - F (12)

II = (1 - X/L)& + (x/L)u,
where the subscripts n and (n + 1) indicate the quan-
(6) tities evaluated after the n th and (n + 1)th in-
v = (1 - x/L)o, + (x/L)v* crements, respectively, R,, , is the vector of in-
cremental external forces for increment n + 1, and F
where u,, u2, u, and v2 are the node1 displacement is the internal force vector.
components. Substituting eqn (6) into eqn (5) and
performing the necessary integrations and
100 I
differentiations we obtain 1 A

Elastic stiffness matrix:

pi

1
$_ EA,pA

1 0 -1 0
0 0
&= VEIL) _; 0 1 ; (7)
k5:61bsm

1
0 0 0 0
P (Ibs)
Geometric stiffness matrix:

0 0
0 1
0 0 (8)
0 Fig. 2. Nickells rod-spring example.
 Dynamic analysis of geometrically nonlinear truss structures
At the beginning of each increment the KE and K.
matrices are evaluated and used throughout the
iterative process to determine the deformed position
at the end of the increment. At the end of each
iteration, the internal force vector is determined
directly from the deformed configuration. The iter-
ative process is stopped when the maxima com-
ponent of the incremental displacement during iter-
ation is less than a prescribed fraction of the
maximum component during the first iteration.
It is to be noted that with this procedure, a
deviation from the true solution at the beginning of
the increment and the error stemming from the
linearization process in the derivation of the stiffness
matrices do not create a drift of the solution from the
~uilibrium path. Also provided that the load in-
crements are small, the iteration process, which is of
the Newton-Raphson type, will converge.
For dynamic analysis, the equations of motion
read
JCL bl +Vh+&)rQ =&+~r-6
where Q, + ht = vector of nodal point accelerations for
time f + At; Q = Qz+A,- Q, = vector of nodal point
incremental displacements; and @is the lumped mass
matrix.
These equations were solved using Newmarks
integration scheme with equilibrium iterations as
described in [12]. This well known procedure has been
proven to be unconditionally stable when non-
linearities of material and geometrical nature are
present[l3].
CORM MODEL
To represent a truss as a continuum beam, the
equivalent beam properties must be evaluated first.
Since only the geometrical nonlinearity is included,
the beam stiffness properties can be determined
within the scope of linear theories. For an extended
Timoshenko beam which includes extension, ben-
ding, and transverse shear deformations, the linear
constitutive equations are
where N = extensional force; Q = transverse shear
force; M = bending moment; u = longitudinal dis-
placement; w = transverse_displacement; $ = rotat-
ion of the cross-section; EA = lo~tudinal rigidity;
GA = transverse shear rigidity; EI = bending rigid-
ity; yU= coupling coefficients; and a comma indicates
partial differentiation. In this study, we assume that
the truss is symmetrical with respect to its mid-plane,
then qii = 0, and there are three beam rigidities to be
evaluated, i.e. EA, GA, EI. A procedure has been
proposed in [6] to determine these beam rigidities by
analyzing a typical substructure (cell).
If the transverse shear defo~ation is neglected, i.e.
w,, + $ = 0
(14)
$., = - W,u
then the classical ~emoulli-Euler beam results. The
493
corresponding equations of motion which account
for large deflections are given by
N,, = riiii
(15)
M,,, + (NW&, = ritri;
where & is the mass per unit length and
N=F;i[u,+;(w,J]
-
M = - Eiw,,.
It should be noted that in eqn (15), the rotatory
inertia has been neglected.
Several authors have studied large amplitude vi-
bration of beams. Yang[l4] developed a method for
the analysis of large displacements of beams using the
matrix displacement approach. Solutions were given
for inextensional beams and agreement with previous
results was shown to be excellent. Bathe[l2] in-
vestigated the static and dynamic behavior of a
cantilever beam undergoing large displacements us-
ing isoparametric plane stress finite elements.
McDonald [ 161gave a series solution for a beam with
hinged end supported axially restrained, which is
subjected to a concentrated lateral force at the mid-
point of its span and released from rest at the
deflected position.
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Five examples are presented in this section. The
first one dealing with a simple problem for which
detailed results are available shows the validity of the
present formulation. The following examples dealing
with planar beam-like trusses are aimed at gaining
hindsight into the behavior of such geometrically
nonlinear structures in comparison with equivalent
homogeneous beams.
Rod-spring system
Nickell[7] studied this classical problem using
several numerical procedures to solve the governing
differential equation determined analytically. In the
present analysis, the bar (Fig. 2) was modelled as an
axial element with a lumped mass at node 2 equal to
one third of the total mass of the element. The spring
was represented by a very long massless bar element.
Table 1 shows the comparison between the present
results and those in Ref. [8]. In Fig. 3, the solid line
representing the present results, shows good agree-
ment with results in [7l obtained using Newmarks
inte~ation which are represented by triangles.
Canfilever truss under a static concentrated force
The IO-bay cantilever truss structure shown in Fig.
4 has been studied in [6] for small amplitude vi-
brations using both the finite element method and an
equivalent beam model. Its characteristics are given
by
A,=80x 10-6m2, L,=7Sm
A,=60x 10-6m2, L,=S.Om
A,=40 x 10d6m2,
E = 7.17 x 10ON/mZ
p = 2768 kg/m3
494 S. ABRATE and C. T. SUN

Table 1. Comparison of present results with Nickells[7]in both cases Newmarks integration method was
used with Ar =O.l s

Present Present
Time Method Nickel1 Time Method Nickel1

0.1 0.0037 0.0037 2.1 1.2572 1.2436

0.2 0.0184 0.0184 2.2 1.3070 1.2927

0.3 0.0470 0.0470 2.3 1.3525 1.3376

0.4 0.0883 0.0883 2.4 1.3933 1.3779

0.5 0.1407 0.1406 2.5 1.4290 1.4134

0.6 0.2022 0.2018 2.6 1.4592 1.4435

0.7 0.2707 0.2700 2.7 1.4836 1.4681

0.8 0.3443 0.3430 2.8 1.5018 1.4867

0.9 0.4211 0.4192 2.9 1.5137 1.4992

1.0 0.4996 0.4970 3.0 1.5190 1.5054

1.1 0.5786 0.5751 3.1 1.5177 1.5051

1.2 0.6570 0.6526 3.2 1.5098 1.4985

1.3 0.7341 0.7287 3.3 1.4953 1.4855

1.4 0.8094 0.8029 3.4 1.4746 1.4663

1.5 0.8823 0.8747 3.5 1.4479 1.4413

1.6 0.9526 0.9439 3.6 1.4155 1.4107

1.7 1.0201 1.0103 3.7 1.3777 1.3748

1.8 1.0845 1.0737 3.8 1.3350 1.3341

1.9 1.1456 1.1338 3.9 1.2878 1.2888

2.0 1.2033 1.1905 4.0 1.2393

-

N-l - PRESENT SClLUTII3N The static large deflections of the truss under an
z . NICKELL horizontal force at node 22 was analyzed. The non-
- Y. dimensional displacements [(Q + ~4~)/(2L.)] and
[l - (a*, + t&/(215)] are plotted vs the non-
2
z r-
dimensional loads PL2/EI in Fig. 5, where ui and vi
i5 are the horizontal and vertical displacements at node
g WI.
i, respectively. These results are compared with those
2 given in [14] for a homogeneous Bernoulli-Euler
2 beam.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
As shown in Fig. 5, the displacements of the truss
are slightly larger than those given in Ref. [14] for an
TIME (S) homogeneous beam. This can be attributed to the
Fig. 3. Solution of Nickel13 rod-spring example. transverse shear deformation which was not ac-
counted for in [14]. Shear deformation has been
where A,, A, and Ad are the cross-sectional areas of shown to be of importance for such a truss[6], and
the longitudinal, transverse and diagonal members, Sinclair[lS] showed that the effects of shear defor-
respectively, E is the Youngs modulus and p is the mation on the large deflections of homogeneous
density. beams are similar to what is shown in Fig. 5.
As obtained in [14] the equivalent bending rigidity,
extensional rigidity, and the mass per unit length are
Cantilever trw under a static distributed load
~=7.17x107N~mz, G=1.46x107N, The same truss considered in the previous example
was subjected to a distributed load p which was
and
modelled by concentrated forces applied at each
fi = 0.875 N - sec*/m node._The nondimensional displacements vs load
(pL3/EZ) curves in Fig. 6 compare well with similar
respectively. results for homogeneous beams[l2].
 Dynamic analysis of geometrically nonlinear truss structures 495

~_ 4 6 0 70

Dimensionless load

Fig. 6. Static deflections of the cantilever truss under a

distributed load.

Table 2. Maximum displacement of the tip of a cantilever

beam subjected to a step pressure load, and comparison
with results for an homogeneous beam (AZ= 0.01 s)
1
Truss Beam in Ref. [12]

Fig. 4. Cantilever truss.

Linear
0.742 0.720
Analysis

Nonlinear
0.602 0.59
Analysis

in [12]. Amplitudes of oscillations show good agree-

ment (Table 2), but since the bending rigidities are
different, periods of oscillations cannot be compared.

Pinned-pinned truss beam

Because of the symmetry of the structure and the
loading, only half of the truss needs to be considered
as shown in Fig. 8. Its characteristics are the same as
those of the previous examples. A concentrated load
P = 70OOON was applied at the center and then
suddenly removed. The same problem was solved by
McDonald for homogeneous beams[l6]. In Fig. 9
I

0 2
I
4
I I
6
1
8
results of the truss analysis are shown to be in good
agreement with the series solutions from f16] for the
DimensIonless load equivalent beam.
Fig. 5. Static deflections of cantilever truss (Fig. 4) under a CONCLUSION
concentrated tip toad.
A method by which geometrically nonlinear truss
structures can be analyzed has been proposed and
solutions for several beam-like trusses presented. The
Cantilever truss under a step pressure loading static and dynamic behaviors compare well with
The same cantilever truss wmden subjected to a available results for homogen~us beams, pointing
uniform pressure such that pL/EI = 2.85, varying in out the possibility of continuum model&g in the case
time as a step function. The same problem was solved of geometrically nonlinear beam-like trusses. Such
in [12] for an homogeneous beam using plane stress simple models offer the advantage of time savings and
isoparametric elements. Qualitatively, the truss re- will also allow the use of existing solutions and
sponse shown in Fig. 7 is similar to that of the beam computer programs developed for beam problems.
 S. ABRATEand C. T. Suw

_ Noni~ncar anaiys~s

-_- Linear dnalysis

0 5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

TIME (s)

Fig. 7. Cantilever beam subjected to a step pressure load.

Fig. 9. Response of the pinny-pinned truss in Fig. 8.

4. A. K. Noor and C. M. Anderson, Analysis of beam-like

.75 m
Fig. 8. Model of the pinned-pinned truss subjected to static
force which is suddenly removed.
REFERENCES
I. R. J. Guyan, Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices.
AI& J. 3, 380 (1965).
2. F. C. Nelson, A review of substructure analysis of
vibrating systems. Shock Vibr. 3-9 (1981).
3. J. D. Renton, The related behavior of plane grids, space
grids and plates. Space Structures (Edited by R. M.
Davies). Blackwell Scientific Publications (1967).
lattice trusses. Camp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engrtg 20.
53-70 ( 1979).
5. C. T. Sun and T. Y. Yang, A continuum approach
towards dynamics of gridworks. J. Appl. Mech. 186-192
(1972).
6. C. T. Sun, B. J. Kim and J. L. Bogdanoff, On the
derivation of equivalent simple models for beam and
plate-like structures in dynamic analysis. Proc. AIAA
Dynamics Speciaksts ConjI, pp. 523-532. Atlanta, Geor-
gia, 6-8 April (1981).
7. R. E. Nickell, Nonlinear dynamics by mode super-
position. Comp. Meth. Appt. Mech. Engng 7, 107-129
( 1976).
8. A. K. Noor, Recent advanced in reduction methods for
nonlinear problems. Comput. Structure 13, 31-44
(1981).
9. K. J. Bathe and S. Graceswski, On nonlinear dynamic
analysis using substructuring and mode superposition.
Comput. Structures 13, 699-707 (1980).
10. H. C. Martin and G. F. Carey, Introduction to Finite
Eiement Anafysis. McGraw-Hill, New York (1973).
11. 3. A. Stricklin, W. E. Haisler and W. A. Von Ries-
emann, Geometrically nonlinear structural analysis by
the direct stiffness method. ASCE J. Struct. Div.,
2299-2313 (1971).
12. K, J. Bathe, An assessment of current finite element
analysis of nonlinear problems in solid mechanics. In
 Dynamic analysis of geometrically nonlinear truss structures 491

Numerical Solution of Partial Differential Equations
(Edited by B. Hubbard). Academic Press, New York
(1976).
13. T. J. R. Hughes, A note on the stability of Newmarks
algorithm in nonlinear structural dynamics. Int. J. Num.
Meth. Engng 383-386 (1975).
14. T. Y. Yang, Matrix displacement solution to elastic
problems of beams and plates. Int. J. Solids Structures
9, 829-842 (1973).
15. G. B. Sinclair, The nonlinear bending of a cantilever
beam with shear and longitudinal deformations. ht. J.
Nonlinear Mech. 14, 111-122 (1979).
16. P. H. McDonald, Nonlinear dynamic coupling in a
beam vibration. J. Appl. Mech. 573-5785 (1955).