A comparison of two stochastic model updating methods using the DLR AIRMOD test structure

The problem of stochastic model updating is addressed by means of the application of two methods (covariance and interval model updating) to the DLR AIRMOD structure which is repeatedly disassembled and reassembled to provide a database of modal variability due to uncertainty in joint and support stiffnesses and masses of cables and screws. The covariance method is based on an assumption of small uncertainty and implemented at each step of an iterative approach by forward propagation of uncertain parameters using a multivariate normal distribution. The interval approach is based on a Kriging meta-model, thereby providing a very efficient surrogate to replace the expensive full finite element model. This allows a mapping from multiple output measurements to define a hypercube bounded by intervals of parameter uncertainty. It is shown that the measured data is fully enclosed by the hyper-ellipses and hypercubes of the covariance and interval methods respectively. As expected, the interval method is found to be more conservative than the covariance approach but still provides useful estimates without restriction by any assumption of probability distribution.

[1]  Michael Link,et al.  Stochastic model updating—Covariance matrix adjustment from uncertain experimental modal data , 2010 .

[2]  Jérôme Antoni,et al.  A comprehensive Bayesian approach for model updating and quantification of modeling errors , 2011 .

[3]  Sondipon Adhikari,et al.  Distributed parameter model updating using the Karhunen–Loève expansion , 2010 .

[4]  M. Friswell,et al.  Perturbation methods for the estimation of parameter variability in stochastic model updating , 2008 .

[5]  Jm M. Ko,et al.  An improved perturbation method for stochastic finite element model updating , 2008 .

[6]  Michael Link,et al.  Using stochastic experimental modal data for identifying stochastic finite element parameters of the AIRMOD benchmark structure , 2012 .

[7]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics , 1995 .

[8]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Stochastic model updating: Part 1—theory and simulated example , 2006 .

[9]  Sondipon Adhikari,et al.  A second-moment approach for direct probabilistic model updating in structural dynamics , 2012 .

[10]  Tshilidzi Marwala,et al.  Model selection in finite element model updating using the Bayesian evidence statistic , 2011 .

[11]  Y. Govers,et al.  Stochastic model updating of an aircraft like structure byparameter covariance matrix adjustment , 2010 .

[12]  J.E. Mottershead,et al.  Stochastic model updating: Part 2—application to a set of physical structures , 2006 .

[13]  Ricardo Perera,et al.  A stochastic model updating method for parameter variability quantification based on response surface models and Monte Carlo simulation , 2012 .

[14]  Hong Wang,et al.  An efficient statistically equivalent reduced method on stochastic model updating , 2013 .

[15]  Etienne Balmes,et al.  GARTEUR GROUP ON GROUND VIBRATION TESTING. RESULTS FROM THE TEST OF A SINGLE STRUCTURE BY 12 LABORATORIES IN EUROPE. , 1997 .

[16]  Helmut J. Pradlwarter,et al.  Robust model updating with insufficient data , 2009 .

[17]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  The sensitivity method in finite element model updating: A tutorial (vol 25, pg 2275, 2010) , 2011 .

[18]  J. Mottershead,et al.  Interval model updating with irreducible uncertainty using the Kriging predictor , 2011 .

[19]  Pelin Gundes Bakir,et al.  Inverse propagation of uncertainties in finite element model updating through use of fuzzy arithmetic , 2013, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[20]  Marc Böswald,et al.  Analysis of Sources and Quantification of Uncertainty in Experimental Modal Data , 2006 .

[21]  Michael Link,et al.  WORKING GROUP 1: GENERATION OF VALIDATED STRUCTURAL DYNAMIC MODELS—RESULTS OF A BENCHMARK STUDY UTILISING THE GARTEUR SM-AG19 TEST-BED , 2003 .

[22]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Model Updating In Structural Dynamics: A Survey , 1993 .