Computational Mechanics

, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 709–724 | Cite as

Equivalent model construction for a non-linear dynamic system based on an element-wise stiffness evaluation procedure and reduced analysis of the equivalent system

Original Paper


In most non-linear analyses, the construction of a system matrix uses a large amount of computation time, comparable to the computation time required by the solving process. If the process for computing non-linear internal force matrices is substituted with an effective equivalent model that enables the bypass of numerical integrations and assembly processes used in matrix construction, efficiency can be greatly enhanced. A stiffness evaluation procedure (STEP) establishes non-linear internal force models using polynomial formulations of displacements. To efficiently identify an equivalent model, the method has evolved such that it is based on a reduced-order system. The reduction process, however, makes the equivalent model difficult to parameterize, which significantly affects the efficiency of the optimization process. In this paper, therefore, a new STEP, E-STEP, is proposed. Based on the element-wise nature of the finite element model, the stiffness evaluation is carried out element-by-element in the full domain. Since the unit of computation for the stiffness evaluation is restricted by element size, and since the computation is independent, the equivalent model can be constructed efficiently in parallel, even in the full domain. Due to the element-wise nature of the construction procedure, the equivalent E-STEP model is easily characterized by design parameters. Various reduced-order modeling techniques can be applied to the equivalent system in a manner similar to how they are applied in the original system. The reduced-order model based on E-STEP is successfully demonstrated for the dynamic analyses of non-linear structural finite element systems under varying design parameters.


Structural dynamics Geometric non-linearities Material non-linearities Equivalent model construction Stiffness evaluation Reduced-order models 



This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (No. 2012R1A3A2048841).


  1. 1.
    Ryckelynck D (2005) A priori hyperreduction method: an adaptive approach. J Comput Phys 202(1):346–366CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farhat C, Chapman T, Avery P (2015) Structure-preserving, stability, and accuracy properties of the energy-conserving sampling and weighting method for the hyper reduction of nonlinear finite element dynamic models. Int J Numer Methods Eng 102(5):1077–1110CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rewienski M, White J (2006) Model order reduction for nonlinear dynamical systems based on trajectory piecewise-linear approximations. Linear Algebra Appl 415(2-3):426–454CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bond BN, Daniel L (2007) A piecewise-linear moment-matching approach to parameterized model-order reduction for highly nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans Comput-Aided Design Integr Circuits Syst 26(12):2116–2129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balajewicz MJ, Dowell EH, Noack BR (2013) Low-dimensional modelling of high-Reynolds-number shear flows incorporating constraints from the Navier–Stokes equation. J Fluid Mech 729:285–308CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balajewicz M, Tezaur I, Dowell E (2016) Minimal subspace rotation on the Stiefel manifold for stabilization and enhancement of projection-based reduced order models for the compressible Navier–Stokes equations. J Comput Phys 321:224–241CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muravyov AA, Rizzi SA (2003) Determination of nonlinear stiffness with application to random vibration of geometrically nonlinear structures. Comput Struct 81(15):1513–1523. doi: 10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00145-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mignolet MP, Przekop A, Rizzi SA, Spottswood SM (2013) A review of indirect/non-intrusive reduced order modeling of nonlinear geometric structures. J Sound Vib 332(10):2437–2460. doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2012.10.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollkamp JJ, Gordon RW, Spottswood SM (2005) Nonlinear modal models for sonic fatigue response prediction: a comparison of methods. J Sound Vib 284(3):1145–1163. doi: 10.1016/j.jsv.2004.08.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Radu A, Kim K, Yang B, Mignolet MP (2004) Prediction of the dynamic response and fatigue life of panels subjected to thermo-acoustic loading. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, p 1557Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mignolet MP, Soize C (2008) Stochastic reduced order models for uncertain geometrically nonlinear dynamical systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197(45):3951–3963. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2008.03.032 CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Capiez-Lernout E, Soize C, Mignolet MP (2012) Computational stochastic statics of an uncertain curved structure with geometrical nonlinearity in three-dimensional elasticity. Comput Mech 49(1):87–97. doi: 10.1007/s00466-011-0629-y CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Capiez-Lernout E, Soize C, Mignolet MP (2014) Post-buckling nonlinear static and dynamical analyses of uncertain cylindrical shells and experimental validation. Comput Mech 271:210–230. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2013.12.011 MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perez R, Wang XQ, Mignolet MP (2014) Nonintrusive structural dynamic reduced order modeling for large deformations: enhancements for complex structures. J Comput Nonlinear Dyn 9(3):031008. doi: 10.1115/1.4026155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim E, Kim H, Cho M (2017) Model order reduction of multibody system dynamics based on stiffness evaluation in the absolute nodal coordinate formulation. Nonlinear Dyn 87(3):1901–1915. doi: 10.1007/s11071-016-3161-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lülf FA, Tran DM, Matthies HG, Ohayon R (2015) An integrated method for the transient solution of reduced order models of geometrically nonlinear structures. Comput Mech 55(2):327–344. doi: 10.1007/s00466-014-1103-4 CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lülf FA (2013) An integrated method for the transient solution of reduced order models of geometrically nonlinear structural dynamic systems. Ph.D. thesis. Paris, CNAMGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sirovich L (1987) Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. I—coherent structures. II—symmetries and transformations. III—dynamics and scalings. Q Appl Math 45.3:561 (ISSN 0033-569X)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Breuer KS, Sirovich L (1991) The use of the Karhunen–Loève procedure for the calculation of linear eigenfunctions. J Comput Phys 96(2):277–296. doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(91)90237-F CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liang YC, Lee HP, Lim SP, Lin WZ, Lee KH, Wu CG (2002) Proper orthogonal decomposition and its applications—part I: theory. J Sound Vib 252(3):527–544. doi: 10.1006/jsvi.2001.4041 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Multiscale Mechanical Design Division, School of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations