0
Research Papers

Frequency Band Averaging of Spectral Densities for Updating Finite Element Models

[+] Author and Article Information
Daniel C. Kammer

Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin, 1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706kammer@engr.wisc.edu

Sonny Nimityongskul

Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin, 1500 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706

J. Vib. Acoust 131(4), 041007 (Jun 08, 2009) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3085885 History: Received October 06, 2008; Revised January 09, 2009; Published June 08, 2009

The successful operation of proposed precision spacecraft will require finite element models that are accurate to much higher frequencies than the standard application. The hallmark of this mid-frequency range, between low-frequency modal analysis and high-frequency statistical energy analysis, is high modal density. The modal density is so high, and the sensitivity of the modes with respect to modeling errors and uncertainty is so great that test/analysis correlation and model updating based on traditional modal techniques no longer work. This paper presents an output error approach for finite element model updating that uses a new test/analysis correlation metric that maintains a direct connection to physical response. The optimization is gradient based. The metric is based on frequency band averaging of the output power spectral densities with the central frequency of the band running over the complete frequency range of interest. The results of this computation can be interpreted in several different ways, but the immediate physical connection is that it produces the mean-square response, or energy, of the system to random input limited to the averaging frequency band. The use of spectral densities has several advantages over using frequency response directly, such as the ability to easily include data from all inputs at once, and the fact that the metric is real. It is shown that the averaging process reduces the sensitivity of the optimization due to resonances that plague many output error model updating approaches.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Test and nominal FEM velocity PSD sums for 6DOF example

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Test and nominal FEM velocity PSD sums with 7% FBA for 6DOF example

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Convergence of normalized design variables for 7% FBA

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

General purpose spacecraft and input locations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Test and nominal FEM velocity PSD sums for GPSC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Sensitivities of system response to design variables

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Convergence of GPSC normalized design variables for 5% FBA

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Generic spacecraft (GSC) example finite element model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Test and nominal FEM velocity PSD sums for GSC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Noisy and averaged velocity PSD for a typical sensor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Simple spring-mass system

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In