Identification and application of dynamic uncoupling between modifications to vibrating systems

This paper develops and demonstrates a strategy for identifying the lack of dynamic interaction, or coupling, between potential design modifications to a vibrating base structure. Such decoupling may be exploited to efficiently compare the performance of competing engineering designs. In particular, it is shown how different design modifications may be represented as the addition or removal of substructures. When these substructures are uncoupled according to the metric developed here, the computational cost of determining the optimal system design can be greatly reduced. For example, if a designer considers seven possible modifications and wishes to examine all possible combinations of the modifications, 128 possible structures must be analyzed. However, if all modifications are dynamically uncoupled, significant computational effort need only be spent on eight of the possible structures in order to generate the responses for all remaining designs. Example problems demonstrate this cost reduction and illustrate cases where dynamic uncoupling occurs. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Alexander Schrijver,et al.  Combinatorial optimization. Polyhedra and efficiency. , 2003 .

[2]  Qian Wang,et al.  AUGEM: Automatically generate high performance Dense Linear Algebra kernels on x86 CPUs , 2013, 2013 SC - International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC).

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

[4]  Gui-Rong Liu,et al.  An optimization procedure for truss structures with discrete design variables and dynamic constraints , 2001 .

[5]  Mathias Stolpe,et al.  Truss optimization with discrete design variables: a critical review , 2016 .

[6]  Eric Jones,et al.  SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python , 2001 .

[7]  Wolfgang Achtziger,et al.  Global optimization of truss topology with discrete bar areas—Part I: theory of relaxed problems , 2008, Comput. Optim. Appl..

[8]  W. Hurty Dynamic Analysis of Structural Systems Using Component Modes , 1965 .

[9]  Zhang Yunquan,et al.  Model-driven Level 3 BLAS Performance Optimization on Loongson 3A Processor , 2012, ICPADS.

[10]  Wolfgang Achtziger,et al.  Global optimization of truss topology with discrete bar areas—Part II: Implementation and numerical results , 2009, Comput. Optim. Appl..

[11]  Kenneth Steiglitz,et al.  Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity , 1981 .

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

[13]  Xiaoye S. Li,et al.  An overview of SuperLU: Algorithms, implementation, and user interface , 2003, TOMS.

[14]  D. F. Yates,et al.  The complexity of procedures for determining minimum weight trusses with discrete member sizes , 1982 .

[15]  Herbert Martins Gomes,et al.  Truss optimization with dynamic constraints using a particle swarm algorithm , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..