Abstract
The calibration of complex industrial structures using vibration test data is an important step toward improving the credibility of model-based decisions for a specified application. Meanwhile, the state-of-practice in industry is to use computer-aided design software that produce very refined finite element meshes thus creating an impractical bottleneck in the iterative calibration process. This paper illustrates a two level bottom-up approach that requires testing at both the component and assembled levels. Initially, a global sensitivity analysis is performed on the complete model to rank the model components in terms of their influence on the quantities of interest. Selected components are then calibrated using dedicated tests before being integrated as a Craig-Bampton superelement into the global assembly. At the top level, model calibration is restricted mainly to the component interface properties. Since test data is available only for a single pump, a deterministic calibration paradigm is applied here. This two level procedure is illustrated on a detailed model of a pump that is studied in the framework of the French nationally funded project SICODYN. A robust calibration methodology will also be outlined for future work in order to account for lack of knowledge in the final operational boundary conditions of the pump.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Contraction between satisfy and suffice. More details can be found pp. 38–39 in [10].
- 2.
Robust local methods and theirs possible applications within the framework of the SICODYN project are however discussed at the end of the paper.
References
Audebert S (2010) Sicodyn international benchmark on dynamic analysis of structure assemblies: variability and numerical-experimental correlation on an industrial pump. Mec Ind 11(06):439–451
Mottershead JE, Friswell MI (1993) Model updating in structural dynamics: a survey. J Sound Vib 167(2):347–375
Hemez FM, Farrar CR (2014) A brief history of 30 years of model updating in structural dynamics. In: Foss G, Niezrecki C (eds) Special topics in structural dynamics, vol 6. Springer, Berlin, pp 53–71
Baruch M (1982) Optimal correction of mass and stiffness matrices using measured modes. AIAA J 20(11):1623–1626
Berman EJ, Nagy A (1983) Improvement of a large analytical model using test data. AIAA J 21(8):1168–1173
Mottershead JE, Link M, Friswell MI (2011) The sensitivity method in finite element model updating: a tutorial. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(7):2275–2296
Govers Y, Link M (2010) Stochastic model updating-covariance matrix adjustment from uncertain experimental modal data. Mech Syst Signal Process 24(3):696–706
Goller B, Broggi M, Calvi A, Schueller GI (2011) A stochastic model updating technique for complex aerospace structures. Finite Elem Anal Des 47(7):739–752
Ben-Haim Y, Hemez FM (2011) Robustness, fidelity and prediction-looseness of models. Proc R Soc A 468:227–244
Ben-Haim Y (2006) Information-gap theory: decisions under severe uncertainty, 2nd edn. Academic, London
Doebling SW, Hemez FM, Schultze JF, Cundy AL (2002) A metamodel-based approach to model validation for nonlinear finite element simulations. In: International modal analysis conference XX, Los Angeles, 4–7 Feb 2002
Craig RR, Bampton MCC (1968) Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AIAA J 6(7):1313–1319
Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott EM (2000) Sensitivity analysis, vol 134. Wiley, New York
Deraemaeker A, Ladevèze P, Leconte P (2002) Reduced bases for model updating in structural dynamics based on constitutive relation error. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191:2427–2444
Morris MD (1991) Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments. Technometrics 33(2):161–174
Atamturktur S, Liu Z, Cogan S, Juang H (2014) Calibration of imprecise and inaccurate numerical models considering fidelity and robustness: a multi-objective optimization-based approach. Struct Multidiscip Optim. doi:10.1007/s00158-014-1159-y
Pereiro D, Cogan S, Sadoulet-Reboul E, Martinez F (2013) Robust model calibration with load uncertainties. In: Topics in model validation and uncertainty quantification, vol 5. Conference proceedings of the society for experimental mechanics series 41. Springer, New York, pp 89–97
Van Buren KL, Atamturktur S, Hemez FM (2014) Model selection through robustness and fidelity criteria: modeling the dynamics of the cx-100 wind turbine blade. Mech Syst Signal Process 43(1):246–259
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kuczkowiak, A., Huang, S., Cogan, S., Ouisse, M. (2015). Bottom-Up Calibration of an Industrial Pump Model: Toward a Robust Calibration Paradigm. In: Atamturktur, H., Moaveni, B., Papadimitriou, C., Schoenherr, T. (eds) Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification, Volume 3. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15224-0_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15224-0_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-15223-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-15224-0
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)