Stability Analysis of Newmark's Method for Non-Singular Linear Systems

  • Thread starter Thread starter traianus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method
AI Thread Summary
Newmark's method is applied to second-order differential equations, specifically in the context of non-singular linear systems. Stability is influenced by the properties of the matrices involved, particularly their eigenvalues and definiteness. If the mass matrix is not positive definite or if negative damping is present, instability can occur, leading to unbounded displacements over time. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the physical constraints of the system and suggests that a stable physical system allows Newmark's method to function effectively. References for further reading include T J R Hughes' work on finite element methods, which provides foundational insights into these stability considerations.
traianus
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Newmark's method deals with second order differential equation in the time domain.
The equation is of the type

M*xddot + C*xdot + K*x = F(t) (1)

Now suppose to have a GENERIC system:

A*xddot + B*xdot + D*x = G(t) (2)

where A,B,C are nonsingular matrices. A is NOT necessarily positive definite as the mass matrix in equation (1). If I apply Newmark's method in equation (2), would I have stability? What are the conditions to have stability in equation (2)? Do you know good references? I applied equation (2) to my case with success, but I like to know what is the mathematics behind it. Thank you
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Yes, it is well behaved in some cases when M is not positive definite.

There are lots of ways to formulate the Newmark method but one way (assuming beta = 1/2 and gamma = 1/4) involves solving the equations

(M + Ch/2 + Kh^2/4)x_{n+1} = something complicated (and not relevant to the issue).

at each time step.

One way to consider stability is to think how the eigenvalues and vectors of the left hand side matrix relate to the the eigenpairs of M, K, and C. For example, if K is positive definite and M is positive semidefinite (i.e. some degrees of freedom have no mass) and C represents Rayleigh damping (C = aK + bM) then the equation system will be positive definite, and this case works fine in practice.

To think about stability for a nonlinear problem, you need to consider M C and K as the linearised (small perturbations, "tangent stiffness", whatever terminology you prefer) matrices at the current state of the system. Dumping all the nonlinearities into the right hand side doesn't make stability problems go away!

For example if the structure buckles, and K is non-positive-definite, that can cause problems for large values of h, if Kh^2/4 dominates M in the equation above.

One formal approach to stability analysis is to do an eigensolution of the LHS matrix, then transform the problem into the modal coordinates so you have N uncoupled scalar equations rather than an NxN matrix equation. However physical insight into what the matrices mean is often quicker than flogging through the maths.

My "bedtime background reading" on this type of problem is T J R Hughes, "The Finite Element Method: Linear statics and dynamic FE Analysis", Prentice-Hall, 1987. Of course there may good modern texts as well - but I'm still learning from re-reading that one occasionally!
 
Last edited:
Thank you! Do you have a reference paper in which it is stated that Newmark can be applied (with stability!) on a general second order problem?
 
A general second order problem isn't always stable anyway, so if Newmark gave always gave stable answers it would be wrong!

As a trivial example, take a 1-dof problem with A = D = 1 and B < 0 in your equation. In other words a mass on a spring, with "negative damping". Give it any non-zero initial conditions you like, apply no external force, and it will go exponentially to infinity (which it should do).

Most likely the physics of your problem puts some constraints on what form the matrices can have (constraints like the matrices must be symmetric, no negative eigenvalues, etc) and what forms the solutions can have (e.g. is the system's energy conserved or it is dissipated). You need to use all the information you have to draw useful conclusions.
 
My problem is a bit more complex . I have a structural system which interacts with the aerodynamics. Then, each structural matrix is "contaminated" by an aerodynamic matrix. Sometimes there can be a stable system and sometimes there can be un unstable system, depending on the geometry. But Your aswer is enough for me: if I have a physically stable system, Newmark's method works just fine.
 
Hi,
I know this thread goes a while back but I'm trying to write a code for a linear system of spring elements using the Newmark's method of integration. The system is undamped and forced and the mass and stiffness matrices are non-singular . I was wondering if you found a good reference in the end?
I've written a code but my displacements keep increasing with time.
Thanks!
 
Posted June 2024 - 15 years after starting this class. I have learned a whole lot. To get to the short course on making your stock car, late model, hobby stock E-mod handle, look at the index below. Read all posts on Roll Center, Jacking effect and Why does car drive straight to the wall when I gas it? Also read You really have two race cars. This will cover 90% of problems you have. Simply put, the car pushes going in and is loose coming out. You do not have enuff downforce on the right...
I'm trying to decide what size and type of galvanized steel I need for 2 cantilever extensions. The cantilever is 5 ft. The space between the two cantilever arms is a 17 ft Gap the center 7 ft of the 17 ft Gap we'll need to Bear approximately 17,000 lb spread evenly from the front of the cantilever to the back of the cantilever over 5 ft. I will put support beams across these cantilever arms to support the load evenly
Thread 'Physics of Stretch: What pressure does a band apply on a cylinder?'
Scenario 1 (figure 1) A continuous loop of elastic material is stretched around two metal bars. The top bar is attached to a load cell that reads force. The lower bar can be moved downwards to stretch the elastic material. The lower bar is moved downwards until the two bars are 1190mm apart, stretching the elastic material. The bars are 5mm thick, so the total internal loop length is 1200mm (1190mm + 5mm + 5mm). At this level of stretch, the load cell reads 45N tensile force. Key numbers...
Back
Top