Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reduction process based on proper orthogonal decomposition for dual formulation of dynamic substructures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Computational Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Novel reduction processes utilizing the proper orthogonal decomposition method have been proposed to facilitate dual formulation of dynamic substructures. Dual formulation is significant owing to its capability of effectively solving ill-conditioned problems related to parallel-processing computers. Dual-formulation techniques employ the Lagrange multiplier method to couple substructures. In the proposed approach, substructures are reduced under constraint conditions via use of the Lagrange multiplier method, and each domain is divided into internal and interface parts—each handled separately during the reduction process. The interface to which the coupling condition is imposed is preserved without further reduction (using the internal reduction method) or reduced to a different ratio from the internal part (via internal and interface reduction technique). Once all substructures are reduced, Lagrange multipliers are applied to preserved or reduced interface parts. Since Boolean matrices that preserve constraint conditions are not reduced but constructed instead, the stability and accuracy of the reduced system are highly enhanced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Klerk D, Rixen DJ, Voormeeren SN (2008) General framework for dynamic substructuring: history, review and classification of techniques. AIAA J 46(5):1169–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Craig Jr, Roy R, Ching-Jone C (1977) Substructure coupling for dynamic analysis and testing

  3. Magoulès F, Roux F-X (2006) Lagrangian formulation of domain decomposition methods: a unified theory. Appl Math Model 30(7):593–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith B et al (2004) Domain decomposition: parallel multilevel methods for elliptic partial differential equations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Valli A, Quarteroni A (1999) Domain decomposition methods for partial differential equations. Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Computation. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Toselli A, Widlund OB (2005) Domain decomposition methods: algorithms and theory, vol 34. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Lai CH, Bjørstad PE, Cross M, Widlund O (1998) Eleventh international conference on domain decomposition methods. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on domain decomposition methods in Greenwich, England, 20–24 July 1998

  8. Dryja M, Widlund OB (1990) Towards a unified theory of domain decomposition algorithms for elliptic problems, In: Proceedings of the third international symposium on domain decomposition methods for partial differential, held in Houston, Texas, 20–22 March 1989, SIAM

  9. Collino F, Ghanemi S, Joly P (2000) Domain decomposition method for harmonic wave propagation: a general presentation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 184(2):171–211

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Farhat C, Le Tallec P, eds (2000) Vistas in domain decomposition and parallel processing in computational mechanics

  11. Lai C-H et al (1999) Accuracy of a domain decomposition method for the recovering of discontinuous heat sources in metal sheet cutting. Comput Vis Sci 2(2):149–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Keyes DE (2002) Domain decomposition in the mainstream of computational science. In: Proceedings of the 14 international conference on domain decomposition methods

  13. Hurty WC (1965) Dynamic analysis of structural systems using component modes. AIAA J 3(4):678–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bampton MCC, Craig RR (1968) Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AIAA J 6(7):1313–1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. MacNeal RH (1971) A hybrid method of component mode synthesis. Comput Struct 1(4):581–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Benfield WA, Hruda RF (1971) Vibration analysis of structures by component mode substitution. AIAA J 9(7):1255–1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rubin S (1975) Improved component-mode representation for structural dynamic analysis. AIAA J 13(8):995–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Robert Morris Hintz (1975) Analytical methods in component modal synthesis. AIAA J 13(8):1007–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Craig R, Chang CJ (1977) On the use of attachment modes in substructure coupling for dynamic analysis. In: 18th structural dynamics and materials conference

  20. Meirovitch L, Hale AL (1981) On the substructure synthesis method. AIAA J 19(7):940–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Spanos JT, Tsuha WS (1991) Selection of component modes for flexible multibody simulation. J Guid Control Dyn 14(2):278–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim H, Cho M (2007) Improvement of reduction method combined with sub-domain scheme in large-scale problem. Int J Numer Meth Eng 70(2):206–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim H, Cho M (2008) Sub-domain reduction method in non-matched interface problems. J Mech Sci Technol 22(2):203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Choi D, Kim H, Cho M (2008) Improvement of substructuring reduction technique for large eigenproblems using an efficient dynamic condensation method. J Mech Sci Technol 22(2):255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Choi D, Cho M, Kim H (2008) Efficient dynamic response analysis using substructuring reduction method for discrete linear system with proportional and nonproportional damping. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci 9(1):85–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee J, Cho M (2017) An interpolation-based parametric reduced order model combined with component mode synthesis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 319:258–286

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Kerschen G, Golinval J-C (2002) Physical interpretation of the proper orthogonal modes using the singular value decomposition. J Sound Vib 249(5):849–865

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Chatterjee A (2000) An introduction to the proper orthogonal decomposition. Curr Sci 78(7):808–817

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kerschen G et al (2005) The method of proper orthogonal decomposition for dynamical characterization and order reduction of mechanical systems: an overview. Nonlinear Dyn 41(1):147–169

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Kerfriden P et al (2013) A partitioned model order reduction approach to rationalise computational expenses in nonlinear fracture mechanics. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 256:169–188

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Corigliano A, Dossi M, Mariani S (2015) Model Order Reduction and domain decomposition strategies for the solution of the dynamic elastic–plastic structural problem. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 290:127–155

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Confalonieri F et al (2013) A domain decomposition technique applied to the solution of the coupled electro-mechanical problem. Int J Numer Meth Eng 93(2):137–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Markovic D, Park KC, Ibrahimbegovic A (2007) Reduction of substructural interface degrees of freedom in flexibility-based component mode synthesis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 70(2):163–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Valk PLC (2010) Model reduction and interface modeling in dynamic substructuring. Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Multiscale Mechanical Design Division, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National University, Gwanak-ro 1, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-744, Republic of Korea

    Sunyoung Im & Maenghyo Cho

  2. Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials, Gajeongbuk-ro 156, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

    Euiyoung Kim

Authors
  1. Sunyoung Im
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Euiyoung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maenghyo Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maenghyo Cho.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Im, S., Kim, E. & Cho, M. Reduction process based on proper orthogonal decomposition for dual formulation of dynamic substructures. Comput Mech 64, 1237–1257 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-019-01702-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-019-01702-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation