Advertisement

Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 5831–5838 | Cite as

A dynamic substructuring-based parametric reduced-order model considering the interpolation of free-interface substructural modes

  • Jaehun LeeEmail author
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

A parametric reduced-order model (PROM) was developed by using a free-interface coupling method. For dynamic substructuring, the accuracy of the free-interface assembly is generally higher than that of the fixed interface one in a low frequency range, since it considers free-interface normal modes and rigid-body modes of each substructures. Therefore, by using the free-interface coupling method, we can enhance the accuracy of the PROM developed previously, in particular, the one formulated with a primal assembly. One important characteristic to retain the efficiency of PROM in the free-interface assembly is that the interpolation of substructural modes should be discriminated considering the characteristics of the modes. In the present work, we newly suggest a strategy for interpolating free-interface mode according to the change of parameter values. To verify the accuracy of the proposed PROM, we investigated the accuracy of the eigenvalues with a high-dimensional parametric input space.

Keywords

Component mode synthesis Free-interface assembly Dynamic substructuring Interpolation Parametric reduced-order model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. C. Antoulas, Approximation of large–scale dynamical systems, SIAM, Texas, USA (2005).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    T. Bui–Thanh, K. Willcox and O. Ghattas, Model reduction for large–scale systems with high–dimensional parametric in–put space, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 30 (6) (2008) 3270–3288.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Amsallem and C. Farhat, Interpolation method for adapting reduced–order models and application to aeroelasticity, AIAA Journal, 46 (7) (2008) 1803–1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. Amsallem, J. Cortial, K. Carlberg and C. Farhat, A method for interpolating on manifolds structural dynamics reduced–order models, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 80 (9) (2009) 1241–1258.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Amsallem and C. Farhat, An online method for interpolating linear parametric reduced–order models, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 33 (5) (2011) 2169–2198.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. Amsallem, J. Cortial and C. Farhat, Towards real–time computational–fluid–dynamics–based aeroelastic computations using a database of reduced–order information, AIAA Journal, 48 (9) (2010) 2029–2037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Lee and M. Cho, An interpolation–based parametric reduced order model combined with component mode synthesis, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 319 (2017) 258–286.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. H. MacNeal, A hybrid method of component mode synthesis, Computers & Structures, 1 (4) (1971) 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Rubin, Improved component–mode representation for structural dynamic analysis, AIAA Journal, 13 (8) (1975) 995–1006.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. J. Rixen, A dual Craig–Bampton method for dynamic substructuring, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 168 (1) (2004) 383–391.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    K. C. Park and Y. H. Park, Partitioned component mode synthesis via a flexibility approach, AIAA Journal, 42 (6) (2004) 1236–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Tayebl and D. Givoli, Optimal modal reduction of dynamic subsystems: Extensions and improvements, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 85 (2011) 1–30.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Lee, H. Mok and C. W. Kim, On a component mode synthesis on multi–level and its application to dynamics analysis of vehicle system supported with spring–stiffness damper system, J. of Mechanical Science and Technology, 25 (12) (2011) 3115–3121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Z. Cao, Q. Fei, D. Jiang and S. Wu, Substructure–based model updating using residual flexibility mixed–boundary method, J. of Mechanical Science and Technology, 31 (2) (2017) 759–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Y. Zuo and J. Wang, A component mode synthesis method for 3–D finite element models of aero–engines, J. of Mechanical Science and Technology, 29 (12) (2015) 5157–5166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Scheepers and P. S. Heyns, A comparative study of finite element methodologies for the prediction of torsional response of bladed rotors, J. of Mechanical Science and Technology, 30 (9) (2016) 4063–4074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    F. M. Gruber, T. L. Bürchner and D. J. Rixen, Dual craigbampton method with reduction of interface coordinates, dynamics of coupled structures, Proceedings of the 35th IMAC, A Conference and Exposition on Structural Dynamics 2017, Springer, 4 (2017) 143–163.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, Matrix computations. Fourth Ed., The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA (2012).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringKyungnam UniversityChangwonKorea

Personalised recommendations