A Rosenbrock‐W method for real‐time dynamic substructuring and pseudo‐dynamic testing

SUMMARY A variant of the Rosenbrock-W integration method is proposed for real-time dynamic substructuring and pseudo-dynamic testing. In this variant, an approximation of the Jacobian matrix that accounts for the properties of both the physical and numerical substructures is used throughout the analysis process. Only an initial estimate of the stiffness and damping properties of the physical components is required. It is demonstrated that the method is unconditionally stable provided that specific conditions are fulfilled and that the order accuracy can be maintained in the nonlinear regime without involving any matrix inversion while testing. The method also features controllable numerical energy dissipation characteristics and explicit expression of the target displacement and velocity vectors. The stability and accuracy of the proposed integration scheme are examined in the paper. The method has also been verified through hybrid testing performed of SDOF and MDOF structures with linear and highly nonlinear physical substructures. The results are compared with those obtained from the operator splitting method. An approach based on the modal decomposition principle is presented to predict the potential effect of experimental errors on the overall response during testing. Copyright q 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  David J. Wagg,et al.  Novel coupling Rosenbrock‐based algorithms for real‐time dynamic substructure testing , 2008 .

[2]  K. Park An Improved Stiffly Stable Method for Direct Integration of Nonlinear Structural Dynamic Equations , 1975 .

[3]  Martin S. Williams,et al.  Real‐time hybrid experiments with Newmark integration, MCSmd outer‐loop control and multi‐tasking strategies , 2007 .

[4]  Lawrence F. Shampine,et al.  Implementation of Rosenbrock Methods , 1982, TOMS.

[5]  G. Dahlquist A special stability problem for linear multistep methods , 1963 .

[6]  Jacob Philippus Meijaard,et al.  Application of Runge–Kutta–Rosenbrock Methods to the Analysis of Flexible Multibody Systems , 2003 .

[7]  Jinping Ou,et al.  Stability and accuracy analysis of the central difference method for real‐time substructure testing , 2005 .

[8]  Masayoshi Nakashima,et al.  Development of real‐time pseudo dynamic testing , 1992 .

[9]  Guoshan Xu,et al.  Operator‐splitting method for real‐time substructure testing , 2006 .

[10]  P. Benson Shing,et al.  Performance of a real‐time pseudodynamic test system considering nonlinear structural response , 2007 .

[11]  Antony Darby,et al.  The development of real–time substructure testing , 2001, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[12]  Martin S. Williams,et al.  REAL-TIME SUBSTRUCTURE TESTS USING HYDRAULIC ACTUATOR , 1999 .

[13]  A. Blakeborough,et al.  Improved control algorithm for real‐time substructure testing , 2001 .

[14]  H. H. Rosenbrock,et al.  Some general implicit processes for the numerical solution of differential equations , 1963, Comput. J..

[15]  Richard L. Peskin,et al.  A prototyping environment for differential equations , 1992, TOMS.

[16]  Lawrence F. Shampine,et al.  Fixed versus variable order Runge-Kutta , 1986, TOMS.

[17]  R. Piché An L-stable Rosenbrock method for step-by-step time integration in structural dynamics , 1995 .

[18]  T. Steihaug,et al.  An attempt to avoid exact Jacobian and nonlinear equations in the numerical solution of stiff differential equations , 1979 .