Multibody System Dynamics

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 111–128 | Cite as

Comparison of model reduction techniques for large mechanical systems

A study on an elastic rod
  • P. KoutsovasilisEmail author
  • M. Beitelschmidt


Model reduction is a necessary procedure for simulating large elastic systems, which are mostly modeled by the Finite Element Method (FEM). In order to reduce the system’s large dimension, various techniques have been developed during the last decades, many of which share some common characteristics (Guyan, Dynamic, CMS, IRS, SEREP). A fact remains that many reduction approaches do not succeed in reducing the system’s dimension without damaging the dynamical properties of the model. The mathematical field of control theory offers alternative reduction methods, which can be applied to second order Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs), derived by the FE-discretization of large elastic Multi Body Systems (MBS), e.g., Krylov subspace method or balanced truncation. In this paper, some of these methods are applied to the elastic piston rod. The validity of the reduced models is checked by applying Modal Correlation Criteria (MCC), since only the eigenfrequency comparison is not sufficient. Diagonal Perturbation is proposed as an efficient method for iteratively solving ill-conditioned large sparse linear systems (A x=b, A: ill-conditioned) when direct methods fail due to memory capacity problems. This is the case of FE-discretized systems, when tolerance failure occurs during the discretization procedure.


Model reduction Elastic piston rod Modal Correlation Criteria Large sparse linear systems Diagonal perturbation ANSYS MATLAB 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Koutsovasilis, P., Beitelschmidt, M.: Model reduction comparison for the elastic crankshaft mechanism. In: Proc. 2. International Operational Modal Analysis Conference (IOMAC), vol. 1, pp. 95 –106, Copenhagen (2007) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benner, P.: Numerical linear algebra for model reduction in control and simulation. Mitteilungen Ges. Angew. Math. Mech. 29(2), 275–296 (2006) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyan, J.: Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices. AIAA J. 3, 380 (1965) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Myklebust, L.I., Skallerud, B.: Model reduction methods for flexible structures. In: 15th Nordic Seminar on Computational Mechanics, Aalborg, Denmark, October 2002 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gloth, G.: Vergleich zwischen gemessenen und berechneten modalen Parametern. In: Carl-Cranz Gesellschaft e.V, Oberpfaffenhofen (2001) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Craig, R., Bampton, M.: Coupling of substructures in dynamic analysis. AIAA J. 6, 1313–1319 (1968) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Callahan, J.C.: A procedure for an improved reduced system (IRS) model. In: Proc. 7. International Modal Analysis Conference, Las Vegas (1989) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friswell, M.I., Garvey, S.D., Penny, J.E.T.: Model reduction using dynamic and iterated IRS techniques. J. Sound Vibr. 186, 311–323 (1995) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Callahan, J.C., Avitabile, P., Riemer, R.: System equivalent reduction expansion process (SEREP). In: Proc. 7. International Modal Analysis Conference, Las Vegas (1989) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Antoulas, A.C.: Approximation of Large-Scale Dynamical Systems. Advances in Design and Control, 1st edn. SIAM, Philadelphia (2005) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krylov, A.N.: On the numerical solution of the equation by which in technical questions frequencies of small oscillations of material systems are determined. Izv. Acad. Sci. USSR, Otd. Mat. Estestv. Nauk. 2(4), 491–539 (1931) (original text in Russian) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lohmann, B., Salimbahrami, B.: Ordnungsreduktion mittels Krylov-Unterraummethoden. Automatisierungstechnik 52, 1 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gildin, E.: Model and controler reduction of large-scale structures based on projection methods. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin, December 2006 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beitelschmidt, M., Koutsovasilis, P., Quarz, V.: Zur modellierung und simulation der kolbenmaschinendynamik unter berücksichtigung von strukturelastizitäten. In: Proc. ANSYS Conference and 24. CADFEM Users Meeting, Stuttgart (2006) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lehner, M., Eberhard, P.: A two-step approach for model reduction in flexible multibody dynamics. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 17, 157–176 (2007) zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Benner, P., Mehrmann, V.: Dimension Reduction of Large-Scale Systems. Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, vol. 45. Springer, Berlin (2005) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chahlaoui, Y., Lemonnier, D., Vandendorpe, A., Van Dooren, P.: Second-order balanced truncation. Linear Algebra Appl. 415, 373–384 (2006) zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stykel, T.: Balanced truncation model reduction of second order systems. In: Proc. 5. MATHMOD, Vienna (2006) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Craig, R.R. Jr.: Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses: an overview. AIAA-2000-1573 (2000) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benninghof, J.K., Lehoucq, R.B.: An automated multilevel substructuring method for eigenspace computation in linear elastodynamics. SIAM. J. Sci. Comput. 25(6), 2084–2106 (2004) CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eid, R., Salimbahrami, B., Lohmann, B., Rudnyi, E.B., Korvink, J.G.: Parametric order reduction of proportionally damped second order systems. Technical Reports on Automatic Control, TRAC-1, October 2006 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lehner, M., Eberhard, P.: Modellreduktion in elastischen Mehrkörpersystemen. Automatisierungstechnik 54, 4 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waltz, M.: Dynamisches Verhalten von gummigefederten Eisenbahnrädern. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Hochschule Aachen, Fakultät für Maschinenwesen (2005) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, T.A.: Direct Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. Fundamentals of Algorithms. SIAM, Philadelphia (2006) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manteuffel, T.A.: An incomplete factorization technique for positive definite linear systems. Math. Comput. 34(150), 473–497 (1980) zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sami, A., Seid, F., Sameh, A.: Efficient iterative solvers for structural dynamic problems. Comput. Struct. 82, 2363–2375 (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Saad, Y.: Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems, 2nd edn. SIAM, Philadelphia (2003) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reichelt, M.: Anwendung neuer Methoden zum Vergleich der Ergebnissen aus rechnerischen und experimentellen Modalanalyseuntersuchungen. VDI Berichte 1550, 481–495 (2000) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McGowan, P.E., Angelucci, A.F., Javeed, M.: Dynamic test/analysis correlation using reduced analytical models. Technical report, NASA Technical Memorandum 107671, September 1992 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Toledo, S.: TAUCS a library of sparse linear solvers. Technical report, School of Computer Science, Tel-Aviv University (2003) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Burrage, K., Erhel, J., Pohl, B.: A deflation technique for linear systems of equations. Technical Report 94-02, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (1994) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwertassek, R., Wallrap, O.: Dynamik flexibler Mehrkörpersysteme. Grundlagen und Fortschritte der Ingenieurwissenschaften. Vieweg, Wiesbaden (2005) Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    SIMPACK. FEMBS. Technical report, SIMPACK Release 8.6, November 2004 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wallrap, O.: Standardization of flexible modeling in multibody system codes, part I: definition of standard input data. Mech. Struct. Mach. 22(3), 283–304 (1994) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Koutsovasilis, P., Quarz, V., Beitelschmidt, M.: FEM-MKS coupling: transfering elastic structures into the SID file-format by the use of Krylov subspace method. In: Proc. ANSYS Conference and 25. CADFEM Users Meeting, Dresden (2007) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Koutsovasilis, P., Quarz, V., Beitelschmidt, M.: Standard input data for FEM-MBS coupling: importing alternative model reduction methods into SIMPACK. Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst. (2008, submitted) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Transportation and Traffic Sciences “Friedrich List”, Institute of Railway Vehicles and Railway Technology, Chair of Vehicle Modelling and SimulationTU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations