Modal Reduction Based on Accurate Input-Output Relation Preservation

  • M. Khorsand Vakilzadeh
  • S. Rahrovani
  • T. Abrahamsson
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

An eigenmode based model reduction technique is proposed to obtain low-order models which contain the dominant eigenvalue subspace of the full system. A frequency-limited interval dominancy is introduced to this technique to measure the output deviation caused by deflation of eigenvalues from the original system in the frequency range of interest. Thus, the dominant eigensolutions with effective contribution can be identified and retained in the reduced-order model. This metric is an explicit formula in terms of the corresponding eigensolution. Hence, the reduction can be made at a low computational cost. In addition, the retained low-order model does not contain any uncontrollable and unobservable eigensolutions. The performance of the created reduced-order models, in regard to the approximation error, is examined by applying three different input signals; unit-impulse, unit-step and linear chirp.

Keywords

Modal analysis Frequency-limited dominancy metric Unit-impulse response Model reduction Linear system dynamics 

References

  1. 1.
    Antoulas AC (2005) Approximation of large-scale dynamical. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noor AK (1994) Recent advances and applications of reduction methods. Appl Mech Rev 47(5):125–146Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ersal T, Fathy HK, Rideout DG, Louca LS, Stein JL (2008) A review of proper modeling techniques. J Dyn Syst Measur Control Trans ASME 130(6):0610081–06100813. doi:10.1115/1.2977484Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Varga A (1995) Enhanced modal approach for model reduction. Math Modell Syst 1(2):91–105. doi:10.1080/13873959508837010Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Qu ZQ (2004) Model order reduction techniques: with application in finite element analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davison E (1966) A method for simplifying linear dynamic systems. Auto Control IEEE Trans 11(1):93–101. doi:10.1109/tac.1966.1098264Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rommes J, Martins N (2007) Computing transfer function dominant poles of large-scale second-order dynamical systems. SIAM J Sci Comput 30(4):2137–2157. doi:10.1137/070684562Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rommes J, Martins N (2006) Efficient computation of multivariable transfer function dominant poles using subspace acceleration. IEEE Trans Power Syst 21(4):1471–1483. doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2006.881154Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skelton RE, Yousuff A (1983) Component cost analysis of large scale systems. Int J Control 37(2):285–304Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Skelton RE (1980) Cost decomposition of linear systems with application to model reduction. Int J Control 32(6):1031–1055Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lastman GJ, Sinha NK, Rozsa P (1984) On the selection of states to be retained in a reduced-order model. IEE Proc D: Control Theory Appl 131(1):15–22Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aguirre LA (1993) Quantitative measure of modal dominance continuous systems. In: Anon (ed) Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE conference on decision and control, Part 3 (of 4), San Antonio, TX. IEEE, pp 2405–2410 doi: 10.1109/CDC.1993.325629Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green M, Limebeer DJN (1995) Linear robust control, reprint edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ewins DJ (2001) Modal testing: theory, practice and application. Res Stud Press, LetchworthGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Khorsand Vakilzadeh
    • 1
  • S. Rahrovani
    • 1
  • T. Abrahamsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied MechanicsChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations