1. GSA Maths Applied to Structural Analysis
Stephen Hendry |

2. “Engineering problems are under-defined, there are many solutions, good, bad and indifferent. The art is to arrive at a good solution.
This is a creative activity, involving imagination, intuition and deliberate choice.”
Ove Arup

3. CCTV - Beijing

4. Kurilpa Bridge - Brisbane

5. Dragonfly Wing

6. Design Process – The Idea
Royal Ontario Museum - Toronto

7. Design Process – The Geometry

8. Design Process – The Analysis

9. Design Process – The Building

10. An Early Example
In 1957 Jørn Utzon won the £5000 prize in a competition to design a new opera house

11. Sydney Opera House

12. Sydney Opera House
One of the first structural projects to use a computer in the design process (1960s)
Early application of matrix methods in structural engineering
Limitations at the time meant that shells were too difficult
Structure designed using simpler beam methods

13. Sydney Opera House

14. Structural Analysis

15. Structural analysis types
Static analysis – need to know how a structure responds when loaded.
Modal dynamic analysis – need to know the dynamic characteristics of a structure.
Modal buckling analysis – need to know if the structure is stable under loading

16. Computers & Structural Analysis
Two significant developments
Matrix methods in structural analysis (1930s)
Finite element analysis for solution of PDEs (1950s)
Computers meant that these methods could become tools that could be used by engineers.
Structural analysis software makes use of these allowing the engineer to model his structure & investigate its behaviour and characteristics.

17. Static Analysis
The stiffness matrix links the force vector and displacement vector for the element
𝐟 𝑒 = 𝐊 𝑒 𝐮 𝑒
Assemble these into the equation that governs the structure
𝐟=𝐊 𝐮
Solve for displacements
𝐮= 𝐊 −𝟏 𝐟

18. Static Analysis Challenge is that the matrix 𝐊 can be large…
… but it is symmetric & sparse
GSA solvers have gone through several generations as the technology and the engineer’s models have evolved
Frontal solver
Active column solver
Conjugate gradient solver
Sparse direct
Parallel sparse solver

19. Modal Dynamic Analysis
We create a stiffness matrix and a mass matrix for the element
𝐊 𝑒 , 𝐌 𝑒
Assemble these into the equation that governs the structure
𝐊φ−λ𝐌φ=𝟎
Solve for eigenpairs (‘frequency’ & mode shape)
λ,φ , 𝑓= 1 2π λ

20. Modal Buckling Analysis
We create a stiffness matrix and a geometric stiffness matrix for the element
𝐊 𝑒 , 𝐊 𝑔,𝑒
Assemble these into the equation that governs the structure
𝐊φ+λ 𝐊 𝒈 φ=𝟎
Solve for eigenpairs (load factor & mode shape)
λ,φ

21. Aquatic Centre, Beijing
© Gary Wong/Arup

22. Comparison of Static Solvers
11433 nodes
22744 elements
65634 degrees of freedom
Solver
Solution time (s)
No. terms
% non-zero terms
Active column
216
1.445
Sparse 12
0.036
Parallel sparse 4
734323
0.017

23. Modelling Issues

24. What is the Right Model
Need to confidently capture the ‘real’ response of the structure
Oversimplification
Over-constrain the problem
Miss important behaviour
Too much detail
Response gets lost in mass of results
More difficult to understand the behaviour

25. Emley Moor Mast Early model where dynamic effects were important
Modal analysis
Model stripped down to a lumped mass – spring system (relatively easy in this case)

26. Emley Moor Mast

27. Emley Moor Mast One-dimensional geometry
𝑘 1 + 𝑘 2 −𝑘 2 −𝑘 2 𝑘 2 + 𝑘 ⋱ φ 1 φ 2 ⋮ −
λ 𝑚 𝑚 ⋱ φ 1 φ 2 ⋮ =0

28. Modal analysis – restrained in y & z to reduce the problem size
Over-constraining
Modal analysis – restrained in y & z to reduce the problem size
‘Helical’ structure – response dominated by torsion & restraint in y suppressed this

29. Graph Theory

30. Graph Theory & Façades

31. Graph Theory & Façades
Many structural models use beam elements connected at nodes.
Graph theory allows us to consider these as edges and vertices.
Use planar face traversal (BOOST library) to identify faces for façade.

32. Graph Theory & Façades
Problem: graph theory sees the two graphs below as equivalent.
The figure on the left is invalid for a façade…
… so additional geometry checks are required to ensure that these situations are trapped.

33. Graph Theory & Façades

34. Current Developments

35. Current development work
Model accuracy estimation
Structure – what error can we expect in the displacement calculation
Elements – what error can we expect in the force/stress calculation
How can we run large models more efficiently

36. Solution Accuracy

37. Model Accuracy – Structure
Ill-conditioning can limit the accuracy of the displacement solution
‘Model stability analysis’ – looks at the eigenvalues/eigenvectors of the stiffness matrix
𝐊φ−λφ=0
Eigenvalues at the extremes (low/high stiffness) are indication that problems exist
Eigenvectors (or derived information) give location in model

38. Model Accuracy – Structure
For each element calculate ‘energies’
𝑣 𝑒 = φ 𝑒 𝑇 φ 𝑒
𝑠 𝑒 = φ 𝑒 𝑇 𝐊 𝑒 φ 𝑒
For small eigenvalues, large values of 𝑣 𝑒 indicate where in the model the problem exists.
For large eigenvalues, large values of 𝑠 𝑒 indicate where in the model the problem exists.

39. Model Accuracy - Structure

40. Model Accuracy – Elements
Force calculation depends on deformation of element, for bar
𝑓= 𝐴𝐸 𝑙 𝑢 2 − 𝑢 1
If 𝑢 1 & 𝑢 2 are large and 𝑢 1 ≈ 𝑢 2 then the difference will result in a loss of precision

41. Model Accuracy – Elements
Remove rigid body displacement to leave the element deformation
𝑢 𝐷 =𝑢− 𝑖=𝑥 𝑧𝑧 𝑢 𝑅𝑖 𝑢. 𝑢 𝑅𝑖
Number of significant figures lost in force calculation
𝑛=log 𝑢 𝑢 𝐷

42. Solver Enhancements

43. Domain Decomposition Method of splitting a large model into ‘parts’.
Used particularly to solve large systems of equations on parallel machines.

44. Domain Decomposition
For many problems in structural analysis the concept of domain decomposition is linked with repetitive units
Analyse subdomains (in parallel)
Assemble instances of subdomains into model
Analyse complete model
Exploit both repetition & parallelism
Substructure & FETI/FETI-DP methods

45. Substructuring & FETI methods
Substructuring – parts are connected at boundaries.
FETI (Finite Element Tearing & Interconnect) – parts are unconnected. Lagrange multipliers used to enforce connectivity.
FETI-DP – parts are connected at ‘corners’ and edge continuity is enforced by Lagrange multipliers.

46. A Historic Example – COMPAS

47. A Historic Example – COMPAS
Historically substructuring was used to allow analysis of ‘large’ models on ‘small’ computers.
Tokamak has repetition around doughnut
Split model into one repeating ‘simple slices’ and …
… a set of ‘slices with ports’
Used PAFEC to do a substructuring analysis on Cray X-MP

48. Substructure Identification

49. Substructuring Make it easy for the engineer!
Use GSA to create component(s).
In GSA master model – import component(s).
Create parts
Instances of components
Defined by component + axis set
Maintain a map between elements in assembly and elements in part/component.

50. Substructuring & Static Analysis
Basic equations for part (substructure) are partitioned into boundary and internal degrees of freedom
𝐊 𝑏𝑏 𝐊 𝑏𝑖 𝐊 𝑖𝑏 𝐊 𝑖𝑖 𝑢 𝑏 𝑢 𝑖 = 𝑓 𝑏 𝑓 𝑖
Reduce part to boundary nodes only
𝐊 𝑏𝑏 = 𝐊 𝑏𝑏 − 𝐊 𝑏𝑖 𝐊 𝑖𝑖 −1 𝐊 𝑖𝑏
𝑓 𝑏 = 𝑓 𝑏 − 𝐊 𝑏𝑖 𝐊 𝑖𝑖 −1 𝑓 𝑖
Include only boundary nodes in assembly.

51. Substructuring & Static Analysis
Solve for displacements of assembly.
𝑢= 𝐊 −1 𝑓
Calculate the displacements inside the part
𝑢 𝑏 = 𝐓 𝒃 𝑢
𝑢 𝑖 = 𝐊 𝑖𝑖 −1 𝑓 𝑖 − 𝐊 𝑖𝑏 𝑢 𝑏
Element forces calculated at element level.
𝑓 𝑒 = 𝐊 𝑒 𝑢 𝑒

52. Substructuring & Modal Analysis
Substructuring cannot be applied directly to modal analysis.
Craig-Bampton method and component mode synthesis give an approximate method

53. Craig-Bampton Method For each substructure
Assume a fixed boundary
Select the number of modes required to represent the dynamic characteristics of this component
The component can be represented in the assembly by
Boundary nodes and displacements
A matrix of modal mass and modal stiffness, with modal displacements as variables

54. Craig-Bampton Method
Each substructure is represented in the assembly as a hybrid system
𝐌 𝑟𝑟 𝐌 𝑟𝑚 𝐌 𝑚𝑟 μ 𝑢 𝑟 𝑞 𝑚 +
𝐊 𝑟𝑟 𝐊 𝑟𝑚 𝐊 𝑚𝑟 κ 𝑢 𝑟 𝑞 𝑚 = 0 0
Similarly for buckling analysis

55. Key Drivers Engineer Software developers
Understanding and optimising the behaviour/design of their structures
Need for more detail in the computer models
Software developers
Problem size (see above)
Parallelism – making efficient use of multiple cores
Confidence in the results

56. Conclusions
Modern structural analysis software depends on maths – which engineers may not understand in detail.
Continual need for better/faster/more accurate methods to solve linear equations and eigenvalue problems.
Dialogue between engineers and mathematicians can be mutually beneficial.
Any novel ideas for us to make use of?

57. www.arup.com www.oasys-software.com