Comparing two strategies to model uncertainties in structural dynamics

In the modeling of dynamical systems, uncertainties are present and they must be taken into account to improve the prediction of the models. Some strategies have been used to model uncertainties and the aim of this work is to discuss two of those strategies and to compare them. This will be done using the simplest model possible: a two d.o.f. (degrees of freedom) dynamical system. A simple system is used because it is very helpful to assure a better understanding and, consequently, comparison of the strategies. The first strategy (called parametric strategy) consists in taking each spring stiffness as uncertain and a random variable is associated to each one of them. The second strategy (called nonparametric strategy) is more general and considers the whole stiffness matrix as uncertain, and associates a random matrix to it. In both cases, the probability density functions either of the random parameters or of the random matrix are deduced from the Maximum Entropy Principle using only the available information. With this example, some important results can be discussed, which cannot be assessed when complex structures are used, as it has been done so far in the literature. One important element for the comparison of the two strategies is the analysis of the samples spaces and the how to compare them.

[1]  C Soize,et al.  Maximum entropy approach for modeling random uncertainties in transient elastodynamics. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  Sondipon Adhikari,et al.  Wishart Random Matrices in Probabilistic Structural Mechanics , 2008 .

[3]  S. Adhikari.  An Unified Parametric-Nonparametric Uncertainty Quantification Approach for Linear Dynamical Systems , 2007 .

[4]  Sondipon Adhikari,et al.  Matrix Variate Distributions for Probabilistic Structural Dynamics , 2007 .

[5]  Christian Soize.  A comprehensive overview of a non-parametric probabilistic approach of model uncertainties for predictive models in structural dynamics , 2005 .

[6]  Christian Soize.  A nonparametric model of random uncertainties in linear structural dynamics , 1999 .

[7]  Humberto Contreras,et al.  The stochastic finite-element method , 1980 .

[8]  Edson Cataldo,et al.  Timoshenko beam with uncertainty on the boundary conditions , 2008 .

[9]  A. Rukhin.  Matrix Variate Distributions , 1999, The Multivariate Normal Distribution.

[10]  J. N. Kapur,et al.  Entropy optimization principles with applications , 1992 .

[11]  Some recent advances in the theory of random vibration. , 2002 .

[12]  R. Ghanem,et al.  Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach , 1990 .

[13]  Christian Soize.  A nonparametric model of random uncertainties for reduced matrix models in structural dynamics , 2000 .

[14]  R. Serfling.  Approximation Theorems of Mathematical Statistics , 1980 .

[15]  E. Jaynes.  Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics , 1957 .

[16]  Pavel Bleher,et al.  Random Matrix Models and Their Applications , 2001 .

[17]  Thomas L. Paez,et al.  The history of random vibrations through 1958 , 2006 .

[18]  M. Stephanov,et al.  Random Matrices , 2005, hep-ph/0509286.

[19]  Y. Lin.  Some recent advances in the theory of random vibration , 2002, Naturwissenschaften.

[20]  Christian Soize,et al.  Modeling random uncertainties in voice production using a parametric approach , 2008 .

[21]  Michał Kleiber,et al.  The Stochastic Finite Element Method: Basic Perturbation Technique and Computer Implementation , 1993 .

[22]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[23]  Christian Soize,et al.  Chair of Engineering Mechanics Ifm-publication 2-391 Data and Model Uncertainties in Complex Aerospace Engineering Systems , 2022 .