Advertisement

Calibration, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification of Nominally Identical Car Subframes

  • Mladen GibanicaEmail author
  • Thomas J. S. Abrahamsson
  • Magnus Olsson
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

In this paper a finite element model, with over half a million degrees-of-freedom, of a car front subframe has been calibrated and validated against experimental MIMO data of several nominally identical components. The spread between the individual components has been investigated and is reported. Sensor positioning was performed with an extended effective independence method, using system gramians to reject sensors with redundant information. The Fisher information matrix was used in the identification of the most significant model calibration parameters. Validation of the calibrated model was performed to evaluated the difference between the nominal and calibrated model, and bootstrapping used to investigate the validity of the calibrated parameters. The parameter identification, calibration, validation and bootstrapping have been performed using the open-source MATLAB tool FEMCali.

Keywords

Model updating Uncertainty quantification Parameter identification Bootstrapping Femcali 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Volvo Car Corporation is gratefully acknowledged for providing the funding for this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Ewins, D.J.: Modal Testing: Theory, Practice and Application, 2nd edn., 576pp. Wiley-Blackwell, Baldock, Hertfordshire, Philadelphia, PA (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friswell, M.I., Mottershead, J.E.: Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics. Solid Mechanics and Its Applications, vol. 38. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrahamsson, T.J.S., Kammer, D.C.: Finite element model calibration using frequency responses with damping equalization. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 6263, 218–234 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.02.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abrahamsson, T., et al.: Calibration and cross-validation of a car component using frequency response functions and a damping equalization technique. In: 26th International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, ISMA 2014, Including the 5th International Conference on Uncertainty in Structural Dynamics, USD 2014, pp. 2625–2640 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abrahamsson, T.J.S., et al.: Calibration and validation of a car subframe finite element model using frequency responses. In: Mains, M. (ed.) Topics in Modal Analysis. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, vol. 10, pp. 9–22. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Larsson, K.-J., et al.: Calibration and cross-validation of a car component model using repeated testing. In: Atamturktur, H.S., et al. (eds.) Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification. Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, vol. 3, pp. 339–350. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Granado, I.E.: Model calibration of a vehicle tailgate using frequency response functions. Chalmers Student Theses (2015). http://studentarbeten.chalmers.se. Accessed on 22 Oct 2015
  8. 8.
    Kammer, D.C.: Sensor set expansion for modal vibration testing. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 19 (4), 700–713 (2005). doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2004.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gibanica, M., Abrahamsson, T.J.S., Kammer, D.C.: Redundant information rejection in sensor localisation using system gramians. In: Proceedings of the 34th IMAC, Orlando, FL (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vakilzadeh, M.K,. et al.: Experiment design for improved frequency domain subspace system identification of continuous-time systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th IFAC Symposium on System Identification, Bejing (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKelvey, T., Akçay, H., Ljung, L.: Subspace-based identification of infinite-dimensional multivariable systems from frequency-response data. Automatica 32 (6), 885–902 (1996). doi: 10.1016/0005-1098(96)00022-2 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J.: The Elements of Statistical Learning - Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Craig, R.R.J., Kurdila, A.J.: Fundamentals of Structural Dynamics, 2nd edn, 744pp. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J., Conover, W.J. Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21 (2), 239–245 (1979). doi: 10.1080/00401706.1979.10489755 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mladen Gibanica
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Thomas J. S. Abrahamsson
    • 1
  • Magnus Olsson
    • 2
  1. 1.Applied MechanicsChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.Volvo Car CorporationGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations