Experimental modal substructuring to couple and uncouple substructures with flexible fixtures and multi-point connections

Modal substructuring or component mode synthesis (CMS) has been standard practice for many decades in the analytical realm, yet a number of significant difficulties have been encountered when attempting to combine experimentally derived modal models with analytical ones or when predicting the effect of structural modifications using experimental measurements. This work presents a new method that removes the effects of a flexible fixture from an experimentally obtained modal model. It can be viewed as an extension to the approach where rigid masses are removed from a structure. The approach presented here improves the modal basis of the substructure, so that it can be used to more accurately estimate the modal parameters of the built-up system. New types of constraints are also presented, which constrain the modal degrees of freedom of the substructures, avoiding the need to estimate the connection point displacements and rotations. These constraints together with the use of a flexible fixture enable a new approach for joining structures, especially those with statically indeterminate multi-point connections, such as two circular flanges that are joined by many more bolts than required to enforce compatibility if the substructures were rigid. Fixture design is discussed, one objective of which is to achieve a mass-loaded boundary condition that exercises the substructure at the connection point as it is in the built up system. The proposed approach is demonstrated with two examples using experimental measurements from laboratory systems. The first is a simple problem of joining two beams of differing lengths, while the second consists of a three-dimensional structure comprising a circular plate that is bolted at eight locations to a flange on a cylindrical structure. In both cases frequency response functions predicted by the substructuring methods agree well with those of the actual coupled structures over a significant range of frequencies.

[1]  Matthew S. Allen,et al.  Combining Experimental and Analytical Substructures with Multiple Connections. , 2007 .

[2]  W. J. Duncan XXXV. The admittance method for obtaining the natural frequencies of systems , 1941 .

[3]  S. Goldenberg,et al.  A study of modal coupling procedures for the space shuttle , 1972 .

[4]  Jerry H. Ginsberg,et al.  Mechanical and Structural Vibrations: Theory and Applications , 2001 .

[5]  Antonio Paulo Vale Urgueira,et al.  Dynamic analysis of coupled structures using experimental data , 1990 .

[6]  Jer-Nan Juang,et al.  Substructure system identification and synthesis , 1994 .

[7]  Matthew S. Allen,et al.  Estimating the degree of nonlinearity in transient responses with zeroed early-time fast Fourier transforms , 2010 .

[8]  Jianrong Dong,et al.  Extracting multi-directional FRF matrices with Instrument cluster , 2002 .

[9]  Demeter G. Fertis,et al.  Mechanical And Structural Vibrations , 1995 .

[10]  R. Macneal A hybrid method of component mode synthesis , 1971 .

[11]  Nuno M. M. Maia,et al.  Theoretical and Experimental Modal Analysis , 1997 .

[12]  R. L. Mayes,et al.  The SMAC Modal Parameter Extraction Package , 1998 .

[13]  Peter Avitabile,et al.  FREQUENCY RESPONSE FUNCTION EXPANSION FOR UNMEASURED TRANSLATION AND ROTATION DOFS FOR IMPEDANCE MODELLING APPLICATIONS , 2003 .

[14]  J. Doltsinis Structural dynamics , 1987 .

[15]  David J. Ewins,et al.  SUBSTRUCTURE SYNTHESIS VIA ELASTIC MEDIA , 2002 .

[16]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Structural modification. Part 2: assignment of natural frequencies and antiresonances by an added beam , 2005 .

[17]  M. Bampton,et al.  Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. , 1968 .

[18]  E. Parloo,et al.  Sensitivity-based operational mode shape normalisation: Application to a bridge , 2005 .

[19]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Structural modification. Part 1: rotational receptances , 2005 .

[20]  Matthew S. Allen,et al.  Comparison of FRF and Modal Methods for Combining Experimental and Analytical Substructures , 2006 .

[21]  Thomas Abrahamsson,et al.  Substructure system identification from coupled system test data , 2008 .

[22]  E. Balmés Review and evaluation of shape expansion methods , 2000 .

[23]  Daniel P. Hensley,et al.  Extending SMAC to Multiple Reference FRFs , 2006 .

[24]  M. Corusa,et al.  Using model reduction and data expansion techniques to improve SDM , 2006 .

[25]  M. Baker,et al.  Component mode synthesis methods for test-based, rigidly connected, flexible components , 1984 .

[26]  David J. Ewins,et al.  Modal Testing: Theory, Practice, And Application , 2000 .

[27]  Clark R. Dohrmann,et al.  Using a modal test to estimate support properties , 2002 .

[28]  M. Tinker,et al.  A general mass-additive method for component mode synthesis , 1997 .

[29]  T. G. Carne,et al.  Combined experimental/analytical modeling using component mode synthesis , 1984 .

[30]  S. Rubin Improved Component-Mode Representation for Structural Dynamic Analysis , 1975 .

[31]  Annalisa Fregolent,et al.  Decoupling procedures in the general framework of Frequency Based Substructuring , 2009 .

[32]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Structural modification of a helicopter tailcone , 2006 .

[33]  D. Rixen,et al.  General Framework for Dynamic Substructuring: History, Review and Classification of Techniques , 2008 .