Advertisement

Design Sensitivities of Components Using Nonlinear Reduced-Order Models and Complex Variables

  • Joseph J. Hollkamp
  • Ricardo A. Perez
  • S. Michael Spottswood
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

This work-in-progress paper explores the use of complex variables to define the design sensitivities of high-speed aircraft components modeled by nonlinear reduced-order models (NLROMs). Extreme conditions are expected to be seen by high-speed flight vehicles and it is anticipated that portions of the structure are likely to exhibit significant nonlinearity in their response. Accurate prediction of the path-dependent response requires direct time-integration of nonlinear models. Large finite element models of the structural components would require prohibitively large amounts of computer time to properly simulate. Methodologies have been proposed that use NLROMs to model the component level, dynamic response. The nonlinear ROMs are linear modal models that have been coupled through the addition of nonlinear modal stiffness terms. The nonlinearity in these models is sensitive to the connectivity of the components with the assembly. Recent work has investigated the use of complex variables to update NLROMs based on the boundary stiffness of the adjoining structure. This paper will explore complex methods to determine component design sensitivities to the thermal expansion and stiffness of the surrounding structure.

Keywords

Reduced-order modeling Complex variables Nonlinear vibration Geometric nonlinearity Design sensitivity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The financial support of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research through Task Nos. 14RQ09COR, 15RQCOR181, and 12RB04COR (Dr. David Stargel and James Fillerup, Program Officers), is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Hollkamp, J.J., Gordon, R.W., Spottswood, S.M.: Nonlinear modal models for sonic fatigue response prediction: a comparison of methods. J. Sound Vib. 284, 1145–1163 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mignolet, M., Przekop, A., Rizzi, S., Spottswood, S.: A review of indirect/non-intrusive reduced order modeling of nonlinear geometric structures. J. Sound Vib. 332, 2437–2460 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gordon, R., Hollkamp, J.: Reduced-order models for acoustic response prediction. Technical Report AFRL-RB-WP-TR-2011-3040, Air Force Research Laboratory, July (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rizzi, S., Przekop, A.: The effect of basis selection on static and random acoustic response prediction using a nonlinear modal simulation. Technical Report NASA/TP-2005-213943 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McEwan, M.: A combined modal/finite element technique for the non-linear dynamic simulation of aerospace structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perez, R.A.: Multiscale reduced order models for the geometrically nonlinear response of complex structures. Ph.D. thesis, Arizona State University (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollkamp, J.J., O’Hara, P.J.: Using complex variables to estimate the derivatives of nonlinear reduced-order models. AIAA-2016-1707 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Voorhees, A., Bagley, R., Millwater, H.: Complex variable methods for shapes sensitivity of finite element models (preprint). Technical Report AFRL-RX-WP-TR-2010-4059, Air Force Research Laboratory, University of Texas at San Antonio, January (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Squire, W., Trapp, G.: Using complex variables to estimate derivatives of real functions. SIAM Rev. 40, 110–112 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shirinkam, S., Millwater, H.: Multicomplex Taylor series expansion for computing high-order derivatives. Int. J. Appl. Math. 27, 1 (2014)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, MATLAB, Release 2008a, 2008Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garza, J., Millwater, H.: Multicomplex newmark-beta time integration method for sensitivity analysis in structural dynamics. AIAA J. 53, 1188 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Przekop, A., Rizzi, S.A., Sweitzer, K.A.: An investigation of high-cycle fatigue models for metallic structures exhibiting snap-through response. AIAA-2007-2204 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM E 1049-85 (Reapproved 1990), Standard practices for cycle counting in fatigue analysis, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1990Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brodtkorb, P.A., et al.: WAFO: a matlab toolbox for analysis of random waves and loads. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seattle, vol. III, pp. 343–350 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miner, M.A.: Cumulative damage in fatigue. Trans. ASME J. Appl. Mech. 67, A159–A164 (1945)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph J. Hollkamp
    • 1
  • Ricardo A. Perez
    • 2
  • S. Michael Spottswood
    • 1
  1. 1.Structural Sciences Center, Air Force Research Laboratory, AFRL/RQHFWright-Patterson AFBUSA
  2. 2.Universal Technology CorporationDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations