Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2004 Book ModelOrderReductionTechniques PDF
2004 Book ModelOrderReductionTechniques PDF
With 75 Figures
Springer
Zu-Qing Qu, PhD
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
qu@engr.uarkedu
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted
under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in
the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright
Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.
ISBN 978-1-84996-924-6
springeronline.com
The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a
specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore free
for general use.
The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information
contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions
that may be made.
Although the computer speed and memory capacity continue to double every 18
months (Moore's law), the phenomenon that the demand of computer storage and
speed will always exceed existing capabilities has been consistently demonstrated in
finite element analysis during the past half century. Modern supercomputers, for
example, are capable of solving problems involving more than 1,000,000 equations
with 1,000,000 unknowns, but they are still not enough to satisfy the needs of some
engineers. Furthermore, the latest supercomputers are usually not available for most
researchers and engineers.
The development of increasing complex structures and mechanical systems, micro-
electromechanical systems (MEMS) and nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS), for
example, demands sophisticated simulation techniques for design, control, and opti-
mization. These systems typically involve multiple coupled energy domains and media
(mechanical, electrical, magnetically, etc.) and inherent nonlinearities of electrostat-
ics actuation forces, geometric nonlinearities caused by large deformation, material
nonlinearities, and other nonlinearities exist. Due to the complex nature of these sys-
tems, the size of discrete models resulting from the finite element method is usually
very large. Even though modern supercomputers might be able to handle that size of
engineering problem, the simulations would be extremely computationally intensive
and time-consuming if the full model were directly used.
These limitations on the hardware (computer storage and speed) and computa-
tional cost and time tell us one truth: The computational technique is as important as
the computer technique. Efficient computational techniques may significantly reduce
the computer storage and time required. It is well known that the computational
effort of finite element analysis is approximately proportional to the cubic of the size
of a problem. The computational work could be reduced drastically if the size of the
problem is reduced. Therefore, the development of efficient model reduction methods
for creating accurate low-order dynamic models has recently become a major goal of
simulation and modeling research. This is one of the motivations of the development
of model reduction technique.
Great progress has been made on the theory and applications of the finite element
method during the past several decades. Many commercial codes such as ADINA,
ANSYS, IDEAS, and NASTRAN are available for finite element modeling and analysis.
However, due to the fuzziness and uncertainty of the original parameters, boundary
and connection, the accuracy and reliability of finite element modeling have received
much attention. Generally, the experimental results from a modal test are used to
verify and modify a finite element model in the stage of design and analysis. Because
of the complexity of practical structural systems and limitation of the testing tech-
nique, the measured data from a modal test are incomplete. The most important
v
vi Preface
as an educational text for the graduate student who wants to learn the basic theory of
model reduction, modal analysis, and finite element analysis, and as a guide text for
the engineer who hopes to get acquainted and use these techniques in finite element
analysis.
Zu-QingQu
Texas, USA, 2003
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to publishers for the permission to use parts of the papers
published in the following journals:
Qu, Z-Q (1998) A multi-step method for matrix condensation of finite element
models. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 214(5):965-971. Copyright ©1998 by
Elsevier Science Ltd.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2000) Dynamic superelement modeling method for
compound dynamic systems. AIAA Journal, 38(6):1078-1083. Copyright ©2000
by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Qu, Z-Q and Fu, Z-F (2000) An iterative method for dynamic condensation of
structural matrices. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 14(4):667-678.
Copyright ©2000 by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2001) Dynamic superelement for dynamic systems with
local nonlinearities. Proceedings of the 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ASC Struc-
tures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Seattle, Washington),
AIAA, Reston, VA: 3548-3557, AIAAOI-25355. Copyright ©2001 by the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2001) Two-step methods for dynamic condensation.
Proceedings of the 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ASC Structures, Structural Dynam-
ics, and Materials Conference (Seattle, Washington), AIAA, Reston, VA: 373-383,
AIAAOI-25039. Copyright ©2001 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc.
Qu, Z-Q (2001) An efficient modeling method for laminated composite plates with
piezoelectric sensors and actuators. Smart Materials and Structures, 10 (4) :807-818.
Copyright ©200 1 by the Institute of Physics Publishing Limited.
Qu, Z-Q (2002) Model reduction for dynamical systems with local nonlineaities.
AIAA Journal, 40(2):327-333. Copyright ©2002 by the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2002) Efficient method for dynamic condensation of
nonclassically damped vibration systems. AIAA Journal, 40 (2) :368-375. Copyright
©2002 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Qu, Z-Q, Jung, Y and Selvam, RP (2003) Model condensation for non-classically
damped systems-Part I: static condensation. Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 17(5):1003-1016. Copyright ©2002 by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Qu, Z-Q, Selvam, RP and Jung, Y (2003) Model condensation for non-classically
damped systems-Part II: iterative schemes for dynamic condensation. Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing, 17(5):1017-1032. Copyright ©2003 by Elsevier
Science Ltd.
ix
Contents
xi
xii Contents
5 Dynamic Condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71
5.1 Exact Condensation ................................ 71
5.1.1 Direct Back-Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71
5.1.2 Coordinate Transformation ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74
5.1.3 Power Series Expansion of Dynamic Flexible Matrix .... 75
5.1.4 State Space Method for High-Order Eigenproblem ..... 77
5.2 Classical Dynamic Condensation ....................... 79
5.3 Further Discussions on Guyan Condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80
5.3.1 Valid Frequency Range of Guyan Condensation. . . . . . .. 80
5.3.2 Higher-Order Guyan Condensation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82
5.3.3 Error Analysis of Guyan Condensation. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83
5.4 Dynamic Sub structuring Scheme ....................... 84
5.5 Solution Schemes for Nonlinear Eigenproblems ............. 86
5.5.1 Iterative Scheme I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87
5.5.2 Iterative Scheme II ........................... 89
5.5.3 Iterative Scheme III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90
Contents xiii
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 341
in which M, C, and K E Rnxn are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices of the
full order model, simply full model; i, X, and X E R n are the acceleration, velocity,
and displacement response vectors, respectively, of the full model under the external
loads. The vector X is also referred to as the full order coordinates; FERn is the
equivalent force vector acting on the model; n denotes the number of degrees of
freedom of the full model. Since the number n is generally very large for a practical
structural problem, dynamic analyses, simulations, and design require very expensive
computational efforts. Thus, model reduction technique is usually introduced to
reduce the size of the full model and leads to a reduced order model.
Many model reduction schemes involve the form of coordinate transformation:
Introducing Eq. (2) through (4) into Eq. (1) and premultiplying both sides by the
transpose of transformation matrix T leads to
(5)
where M R, C R, and K R E R m x m are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices, respec-
tively, of the reduced order model or simply reduced model, and FR is the equivalent
force vector acting on the reduced model. Clearly, they are defined as
(6)
Equation (5) is the reduced dynamic equations of equilibrium. Although the size of
the reduced model (m) is much smaller than that of the full model (n), that is, m « n,
the dynamic characteristics of the full model within the interested frequency range
may be retained in the reduced model. Therefore, the reduced model is very useful
in further dynamic analyses, particularly when repeated computation is required and
significant research has been conducted in this area.
Based on the type of coordinates retained as the reduced order coordinates, the
existing model order reduction methods fall into three basic categories: physical coor-
dinate reduction, generalized coordinate reduction, and hybrid coordinate reduction.
Each category may include several subcategories.
(7)
(8)
<Pm E Rnxm is the eigenvector matrix of the full model. Each column of the matrix
is an eigenvector or mode shape. Depending on the frequency spectral of exciting
Introduction to Dynamic Model Reduction Techniques 3
forces, the m modes may be taken from the lowest frequency range or any interested
frequency range or any interested modes of the full modeL Substituting Eq. (8) in
Eq. (1) and premultiplying it by the transpose of the eigenvector matrix gives
(9)
where M" en and Kr are, respectively, the modal mass matrix, modal damping
matrix, and modal stiffness matrix. The modal mass and stiffness matrices are diag-
onal matrices for this linear model. The modal damping matrix might be diagonal,
depending on the type of damping matrix. If the eigenvector matrix is <I> m normalized
with respect to the mass matrix, the modal mass and stiffness matrices become the
identity matrix and eigenvalue matrix of the full model. Therefore, these m equations
in Eq. (9) are usually uncoupled in the modal space and can be viewed as m single
degree-of-freedom models. This procedure is also referred to as mode superposition
or modal superposition.
Actually, it is not always necessary to employ the eigenvectors of the full model
in the transformation from the physical coordinates to the generalized coordinates
(modal coordinates in mode superposition). If the loads are known, for example, the
approximately chosen Ritz vectors can be used as a good representation of the eigen-
vectors. This substitution may eliminate the costly eigenvalue analysis and increase
the accuracy in some cases where exact eigenvectors are not the best choice. Therefore,
Ritz vector methods can be regarded as a generalized mode superposition approach
in which the exact eigenvectors are replaced by more generally defined Ritz vectors
(Gu, 2000).
The Ritz vector method has the similar transformation as modal reduction in
Eq. (8). The generalized coordinates in the Ritz vector method are referred to as Ritz
coordinates. The construction of the Ritz vectors is generally more computationally
efficient than the exact eigenvectors. However, the dynamic equations of motion of
the reduced model obtained from Ritz vector methods are generally coupled while
they are usually uncoupled in the modal coordinate reduction.
T <I>N
eMS =[ 0 (10)
Many other hybrid coordinate reduction schemes are available in the literature.
Optimal selection of master degrees of freedom. From the definition of a slave model,
we know that different master degrees of freedom result in a different slave model
with a different lowest frequency. Therefore, optimal selection of these degrees of
freedom may increase the lowest frequency, that is, the cut frequency. As a result,
the ratio will be increased.
Increase of the number of master degrees of freedom. The lowest frequency of the
slave model may be increasing significantly by increasing the number of master
degrees of freedom. This is the reason why this scheme is usually much more
efficient than the preceding scheme.
Inclusion of the lowest modes of the slave model. If several lowest modes of the slave
model are included in the condensation matrix, the cut frequency becomes the
lowest frequency that is not included. As a result, the cut frequency is increased.
Consideration of higher orders of approximation. If the higher order of approxima-
tion is considered in the condensation matrix, the ratio becomes (w~/w2)P+l in
t+
which p is the order of approximation. Clearly, if W < We, (w~ / w2 1 > W~ / w2.
Use of frequency shift technique. After the frequency shift technique is introduced,
the ratio becomes (W~ - q) / (w 2 - q) and is greater than w~ / w2.
(1)
where ({Jm and ({Js are the subvectors of the eigenvector at the master and slave degrees
of freedom. According to this definition, the computational expression can be directly
obtained from the eigenvalue equation of the full model, that is,
(2)
Clearly, the dynamic condensation matrix depends on the mode. Different modes
may have different dynamic condensation matrix and, as a result, a different reduced
model. Therefore, the dynamic condensation is called single-mode-dependent
dynamic condensation. Because the reduced model is frequency-dependent, a special
eigenvalue solver is generally required.
The multimode-dependent dynamic condensation matrix is defined as the relations
of the multi-eigenvectors, p, for example, between the master and slave degrees of
freedom, that is,
(3)
Using this definition, the dynamic condensation matrix may be directly obtained if
these eigenvectors of the full model are available, that is,
(4)
This dynamic condensation matrix is actually the same as that defined by modal
reduction (Kammer, 1987) or system equivalent reduction expansion process
(SEREP) (O'Callahan et aI., 1989). The governing equation of the multimode-
dependent dynamic condensation matrix may be derived from the matrix form of
the eigenvalue problem of the full model.
The response-dependent dynamic condensation matrix is defined as the relations
ofresponses between the master and slave degrees offreedom (Qu, 1998), that is,
(5)
where Xm and Xs are the response vectors at the master and slave degrees of free-
dom. The dynamic condensation matrix may possibly be obtained directly from this
definition. In this procedure, the system responses are simulated using any accurate
time integration scheme. The displacement response vector at all degrees of freedom
is then sampled at a series of different times during the simulation. The dynamic con-
densation matrix is computed from these sampled response vectors. To improve the
features of the reduced model, these sampled vectors should be orthogonalized. Based
on the mode superposition theory, the response-dependent dynamic condensation is
actually full-mode dependent.
The governing equation of the single-mode-dependent dynamic condensation
matrix could be converted into the multimode-dependent form by the introduction of
the eigenproblem of the reduced model, which is valid for all the modes retained in the
reduced model. From the definition of response-dependent dynamic condensation
6 Model Order Reduction Techniques
matrix, the same governing equation as that from the multimode-dependent dynamic
condensation may be obtained by the introduction of the free vibration equations
of the reduced model. Because the reduced model only has rn degrees of freedom,
the equation only represents the contributions from the rn modes. As a result, the
relation between the master and slave degrees of freedom is approximate even though
the reduced model is exact.
the explicit form of reduced stiffness and mass matrices. The dynamic condensation
matrix computed from the undamped model can be simply used in the dynamic mod-
els with proportional damping in which the damping matrix is a linear combination
of mass and stiffness matrices.
For a discrete model with non proportional damping, the dynamic condensation
matrix obtained from the corresponding undamped model may be utilized to reduce
its size. However, the dynamic properties of the reduced model will not converge to
those of the full model (Qu and Selvam, 2000). Therefore, the dynamic condensation
is performed in the state space if the damping has an important effect on the dynamic
features of full model. Many of the iterative dynamic condensation approaches of
the undamped model defined in the displacement space may be extended to the
state space for the damped model (Qu and Selvam, 2004). The reduced model may
approach the full model with iterations. However, the system matrices of the reduced
model are defined in the state space and fully populated. It is really difficult to get the
explicit mass, damping, and stiffness matrices of the reduced model defined in the
displacement space. These explicit matrices are very useful in many dynamic analyses.
in the state space will be described. The reduced stiffness and damping matrixes
computed from these three methods are the same and there is only some difference
among the reduced mass matrices. To get the explicit mass, damping, and mass
matrices of the reduced model, two more dynamic condensation schemes defined in
the displacement are to be provided. Similar tv the modal reduction defined in the
displacement space, its variant in the state space will be given. Due to the complex
nature of the eigenvector matrix, a transform from complex arithmetic operations to
the real is provided. The major part of this topic is the iterative dynamic condensation
methods defined in state space. Two types of iterative methods are described. It will
show that the reduced model defined by these iterative schemes has very high accuracy.
The demonstration of the applications of the dynamic condensation technique
in the structural dynamics community, particular finite element modeling, is the
next topic. Three examples are provided to show the implementation of dynamic
condensation technique into the reduced order modeling of active vibration control
system, finite element modeling of smart structures, and finite element modeling of
structural systems with local nonlinearities. Besides the model order reduction at the
system level, the dynamic condensation technique may be utilized at the substructural
level. Under this topic, static superelement, exact superelement, and iterative dynamic
superelement modeling schemes are provided.
Another important application of the dynamic condensation technique can be
found in the experimental modal analysis. Due to the incompleteness of degrees of
freedom in the modal test, the correlation of the test model and analytical model
becomes difficult. With the application of dynamic condensation approaches, the full
size of the analytical model may be reduced to the space spanned only by the test
degrees of freedom, or alternatively the test mode shapes may be expanded to the size
of the full model.
At the end of this monograph, other model reduction schemes frequently encoun-
tered in the structural dynamic analyses and finite element modeling are summarized.
These schemes include modal coordinate reduction, Ritz vector method, component
mode synthesis, proper orthogonal decomposition, balanced realization reduction,
and condensation model reduction.
References
Friswell, MI, Garvey, so, and Penny, JET (1995) Model reduction using dynamic and iterative
IRS technique. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 186(2):311-323.
Gu, J (2000). Efficient model reduction methods for structural dynamics analyses.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Michigan.
Guyan, RJ (1965) Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices. AIAA Journal, 3(2):380.
Irons, BM (1965) Structural eigenvalue problems - elimination of unwanted variables. AIAA Journal,
3(5):961-962.
Kammer, DC (1987) Test-analysis model development using an exact modal reduction. The International
Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, 2(4):174-179.
Leung, AYT (1978) An accurate method of dynamic condensation in structural analysis. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 12( 11): 1705-1715.
Noor, AK (1994) Recent advances and applications of reduction methods. Applied Mechanics Reviews,
47(5):125-146.
O'Callahan, JC (1989) A procedure for an improved reduced system (IRS) model. Proceedings of the 7th
International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, Nevada), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 17-21.
O'Callahan, JC,Avitabile, P, and Riemer, R (1989) System equivalent reduction expansion process (SEREP).
Proceedings of the 7th International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, Nevada), Union College,
Schenectady, NY: 29-37.
Introduction to Dynamic Model Reduction Techniques 11
Qu, Z-Q (1998) Structural Dynamic Condensation Techniques: Theory and Applications. Ph.D. Disser-
tation, State Key Laboratory of Vibration, Shock and Noise, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai,
China.
Qu, Z-Q, and Selvam, RP (2000) Dynamic condensation methods for damped models. Proceedings of
the 18th International Modal Analysis Conference (San Antonio, Texas), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Bethel, CT, 2000, pp. 1752-1757.
Qu, Z-Q, and Selvam, RP (2004) Insight into dynamic condensation matrix of nondassically damped
models. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 272(3-5):581-606.
Singh, MP, and Suarez, LE (1992) Dynamic Condensation with Synthesis of Substructure Eigenproperties.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 159(1):139-155.
Van Woerkom, PThLM (1990) Mathematical models of flexible spacecraft dynamics: A survey of order
reduction approaches. Control Theory Adv. Technol, 4:609-632.
2 Finite Element Modeling
13
14 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(1)
The displacements at any point of the structure resulting from the external forces are
denoted by
(2)
I;: I
forces can be replaced by an equivalent nodal force vector that has the form
(3)
F =
F~N
Similarly, the nodal displacement vector X of the structure is given by
(4)
Finite Element Modeling 15
In Eqs. (3) and (4), F i and Xi are vectors that depend on the number of the degrees
of freedom at each node.
Let's consider an element in the structure. Similarly, the forces acting on this
element may be the body force, surface forces, concentrated forces, or their
combinations. These forces have the general form
(5)
(6)
in which u, v, and w denote the displacements in the x-, y-, and z-directions,
respectively. They are defined in the local coordinates.
If this element has nn nodes, the equivalent nodal force vector f is given by
f = I;: I (7)
fnn
in which the force vector at each node has the general form
I
and m denotes the moment.
I
Similarly, the nodal displacement x of this element is defined as
X2
Xl
X= (9)
X~n
where
(i = 1,2, ... ,nn) (10)
y,v
dy
x,u
dx
£x= - ,
au £y= - ,
av £z=-
aw (12)
ax ay az
The three independent shear strains (Yxy, yyz, and Yzx), corresponding to the three
independent shear stresses, are defined in terms of the derivatives of the translational
displacements as
au av av aw aw au
yxy = yyx = -ay +-,
ax yyz = Yzy = -az + -,
ay Yzx = Yxz = -ax + -az
(13)
Finite Element Modeling 17
For convenience, the six independent stresses and the corresponding strains are
represented by the column vectors. Thus,
al ax el ex
a2 ay e2 ey
a3 az e3 ez (14)
0'= e=
a4 Txy e4 Yxy
as Tyz es Yyz
a6 Tzx e6 Yzx
These vectors and their associated coordinate axes constitute a complete description
of the state of stress and strain at any point in a three-dimensional structure.
In a linear elastic isotropic material, the strain-stress relationships are written as
1 Txy
ex = - (ax - yay - vaz ), Yxy= - (15a)
E G
1 Tyz
ey = B(ay - vaz - vax), Yyz = - (15b)
G
1 Tzx
ez = -(az - vax - yay), Yzx = - (l5c)
E G
The constant E denotes Young's modulus of elasticity; the constant G is the shear
modulus of elasticity and is given by
E
G=--- (16)
2(1 + v)
0' = Ee (17)
I-v v v 0 0 0
v I-v v 0 0 0
v v I-v 0 0 0
E 1- 2v
E= 0 0 0 0 0 (18)
(l + v)(1 - 2v) 2
1- 2v
o o o 0 --- 0
2
1 - 2v
o o o 0 0
2
The size and details of the matrix E depend on the conditions of the element in the
structure.
18 Model Order Reduction Techniques
In this expression the symbol N denotes a rectangular matrix containing the geometric
functions that make u completely dependent upon x.
The strain-displacement relationships are obtained by introducing Eq. (19) into
Eqs. (12) and (13). Thus,
e= Cu (20)
The linear differential operator matrix C expresses the strain vector e in terms of
displacements in the vector u and is defined as
a 0 0
ax a
0 0
ay
0
a0
C= a a az0 (21)
ay ax
0
a a
az ay
a 0 a
az ax
Substitution of Eq. (19) into Eq. (20) yields the strain-displacement relationships
e=Bx (22)
B=CN (23)
(1 = EBx (24)
in which the matrix product EB gives the stresses at any point within the element due
to unit values of nodal displacements.
done by internal (stresses) and external forces on any compatible, infinitesimal virtual
displacements 8 U is zero, that is,
8W = 8Wint - 8Wext = 0 (25)
The internal virtual work is equal to the actual stresses u going through the virtual
strains 8£ (corresponding to the imposed virtual displacements 8U).
where V denotes the volume of the solid. The external work is equal to the actual
body forces QB dV, surface forces QS dS, concentrated forces QC, and inertia body
forces -pU dV going through the virtual displacement 8U, that is,
where m denotes the mth element. It is important to note that the integration in
Eqs. (28) and (29) are performed over the element volumes v and surfaces s and that
for convenience we may use different element coordinate systems in the calculations.
Indeed, this is basically the reason why each of the integrals can be evaluated very
effectively in general element assemblages.
Substituting Eqs. (22) and (24) into Eq. (28), we have
8Wint = ENE
[18xTBTEBXdv] (30)
8Wext = E
NE
[18xTNT qB dv + i 8x TN TqS ds
NE
~ [8xT 1 BTEBxdv + 18xTNT PNXdV]
NE NE
~[lBTEBdv]x+ ~[lpNTNdv]x
(35)
The structural mass and stiffness matrices, M and K, have this form
NE NE
M= L1PNTNdv= LMm (36)
m=! m=!
(37)
and M m and K m are the element mass and stiffness matrices with respect to the global
coordinates. The corresponding matrices in element coordinates are given by
(38)
Finite Element Modeling 21
The equivalent force vector F includes the effects of the element body forces, surface
forces, and concentrated forces, namely
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
The stresses and strains considered in the above derivation are due only to the nodal
displacements. If initial strains So exist, the stress vector can be expressed as
When this expression is used in place of (1 in Eq. (28), the equivalent force F becomes
(44)
(45)
It can be seen that the assumed displacement field of the element is used to define the
acceleration field (the inertia forces). This is the most commonly used formulation
for the mass matrix in the finite element formulation and is called the consistent mass
formulation. The corresponding mass matrix is called the consistent mass matrix. The
resulting mass matrix is often nondiagonal and positive definite.
Another commonly used mass formulation in the finite element method is the
lumped mass formulation. In this formulation, the element mass matrix is obtained
by lumping the element mass at the nodal points. One way of using the lumped mass
approach is to describe the inertia of the element by concentrated masses that have
zero moment of inertia about their centers. The resulting mass matrix, referred to as
a lumped mass matrix, is singular for the bending beam, plate, and so on because no
inertia is assigned to the rotational degrees of freedom.
the effects of damping upon the dynamic responses can be ignored. One common
example is the short-time responses of a structure with a small amount of damping
excited by a short-duration shock. When the frequency of a periodic excitation is far
away from the resonance frequencies of the system, the damping effects on the steady
state response can also be ignored. However, when the exciting frequency is close to
the natural frequencies, the effects become significant and the damping should be
included in the dynamic analysis.
Generally, the formulation of mathematical expressions for the energy dissipation
is quite complicated. Thus, simplified models have been developed that, in many
cases, have been found to be adequate. There are three commonly used damping
models: viscous damping, structural damping, and internal damping.
Viscous damping occurs when a structure is moving in a fluid medium. The corre-
sponding damping force is a function of the moving velocity. In the simplified viscous
damping model, the damping force is assumed to be linearly proportional to the veloc-
ity of a particle moving in fluid. Structural damping is caused by relative motions
between components in a structure that has common points of contact, joints, or
supports. Internal damping or material damping results from various microscopic
and macroscopic processes in material.
If the linear viscous damping model is used to include the energy dissipation in the
system, Eq. (35) can be modified and takes the form
I I
X(t), X(t), and X(t) are the acceleration response vector, velocity response vector,
and displacement response vector, respectively. pet) is the vector of applied forces.
I I
These vectors are defined as
XI (t) XI (t)
.. X2 (t) . X2(t)
I
= . ' X(t) = . '
I
X(t)
I I
Xn(t) Xn(t) (47)
XI(t)
X2(t) f 1 (t)
x(t) = : ' f(t) = h~t)
Xn(t) fn(t)
Suppose that all the components of vectors X (t) and F (t) are Fourier transformable
and theirtransformations areX(w) and F(w), respectively, and thatX(t) = X(t) = 0
for t = o. The Fourier transformation of Eq. (46) is given by
(50)
The element of the matrix H(w) is referred to as the frequency response function. It is
one of the very important parameters in modal analysis.
Using any of the methods just outlined will produce the equations to describe the
behavior of an element. These equations are written conveniently in matrix form as
where f is the vector of element nodal forces, m and k are the element mass and
stiffness matrices, and x and x are the vector of unknowns element nodal degrees
of freedom or generalized displacements and accelerations. Here, the generalized
displacements may include actual displacements, slopes, or even curvatures.
And there are three common boundary conditions. Further details and methods of
invoking boundary conditions can be found in any book on finite elements.
n=1,~
LV
(a) (b)
n=3~
V
n=4/\
(c) (d)
8c =0
A Ji;r---C---i~ A Ji;1r-_ _
vc ---ilC
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.5 Half model and boundary conditions: (a) half model; (b) symmetric boundary; (c) anti-
symmetric boundary.
condition of zero rotation (}c = 0 is applied at the point C for symmetry modes
and the zero vertical displacement Vc = 0 for antisymmetry modes as indicated by
Figures 2.S(b) and 2.S( c), respectively.
Generally, if a structure has two axis or planes of symmetry, it is only necessary to
idealize one quarter and apply four combinations of symmetric and antisymmetric
boundary conditions on the two axes or planes. For example, the bending plate
shown in Figure 2.6 has two symmetric axes, the x- and y-axes. One quarter is usually
used to compute the modal parameters. The corresponding four combinations of the
boundary conditions are shown in Figure 2.7.
28 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Similarly, if the structure has three planes of symmetry, for example in Figure 2.8,
the modes can be calculated by idealizing one-eighth and applying eight combinations
of symmetric and antisymmetric boundary conditions.
to the responses are zero, which can be explained from the mode superposition
method to be discussed in Chapter 3. Similarly, the antisymmetrically applied loads
lead to the antisymmetric dynamic responses. For either case, one part of the structure
is required for the dynamic responses analysis. If the applied loads on the symmetric
structure are asymmetric, it can sometimes be converted into the combinations of
symmetric and antisymmetric cases. To illustrate this, a simply supported beam is
considered.
As shown in part I of Figure 2.9, a simply supported beam is excited by a concen-
trated load P at point A. Clearly, the load is not symmetric and the symmetry scheme
cannot be directly applied. However, the asymmetric load P can be represented by
the sum of symmetric loads P/2 and antisymmetric loads P/2 at points A and B,
respectively, as indicated in part II. Using the similar logic in the modal analysis, the
dynamic responses of the beam can be computed from one half of the beam with
symmetric and antisymmetric boundary conditions as shown in part II of Figure 2.9.
Let Vs and Os, respectively, be the translational and rotational dynamic responses of
the symmetric case, and Va and Oa from the antisymmetric case. The final dynamic
responses at the left half of the beam are Vs + Va and Os + Oa. Those at the right half
of the beam are Vs - Va and -Os + Oa.
Generally, the component of nodal translation normal to a plane of symmetry and
the components of rotation in the plane must be prevented in order to enforce a
symmetric pattern of distortion. Similarly, the components of nodal translation in a
plane of symmetry and the component of rotation to the plane must be prevented to
P
C
I e
1+---- L
.- .. n ..... !t------
---~
---------~
p12CPI2~ 3p12CPI2~B
fa 3 ealS?fa eal
A B A
II
_._._._._._._._._.~_._._._._._._._._o_._._._._~_._._._0_._.
III ~
S?~c=o
Figure 2.9 Use of symmetry for the asymmetric loads.
30 Model Order Reduction Techniques
give a pattern of distortion that is antisymmetric with respect to the plane (Weaver,
1987).
Several other types of symmetry commonly found in the structural systems are
axisymmetry, cyclic symmetry, and repetitive symmetry (Monaghan,). If a shape can
be defined by rotating a cross section about a line, it is said to be axisymmetric or
rotational symmetric. If the loads and boundary conditions are also axisymmetric
in nature, then an axisymmetric analysis may be carried out. Cyclic symmetry is
the geometric repetition in the form of cyclic sectors. The structure is composed of a
series of identical sectors that are arranged circumferentially to form a ring. Repetitive
symmetry is a symmetry condition that is seen to repeat along the length of a body. For
this type of structural systems, the dynamic sub structuring or dynamic superelement
can be used to significantly reduce the size of model. The details on how to use the
symmetry in the finite element modeling can be found in the manuals of commercial
finite element software.
References
Bathe, KJ (1982) Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Cheung, YK, Lo, SH, and Leung, AYT (1996) Finite element implementation. Blackwell
Science Ltd, Oxford.
Monaghan, D Exploitation of symmetry in FEA models. http://www.dermotmonaghan.com/.
Petyt, M (1990) Introduction to finite element vibration analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Weaver Jr, Wand Johnson, PR (1987) Structural dynamics by finite elements. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
Cheung, YK and Leung, AYT (1991) Finite element methods in dynamics. Science Press, Hong Kong,
Beijing.
3 Theory of Modal Analysis
31
32 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Substituting Eqs. (2) and (3) into Eq. (1) and rearranging it results in
(4)
(5)
(6)
The vector qJi(i = 1,2, ... , n) is known as an eigenvector or modal vector and has the
form
(7)
(K - w;M)qJr = 0 (8)
(K - w;M)qJs =0 (9)
Theory of Modal Analysis 33
Premultiplication of Eq. (8) by ({J; and postmultiplication of the transpose of Eq. (9)
by ({Jr yields
(10)
(11)
(12)
Generally, the rth frequency is not equal to the 5th (r oj= 5) (nonrepeated root case),
namely, w; w;.
oj= Therefore, Eq. (12) leads to
T
({Js M({Jr = ({JrTM ({Js = 0, roj=s (13)
roj=s (14)
For the case of r = 5, the following relationship can be obtained from Eq. (10) or (11):
(15)
in which
(16)
kr and mr are referred to as the rth modal stiffness and modal mass. Clearly, they highly
depend upon the mode and how the mode is normalized.
The expressions in Eqs. (13) through (16) represent the orthogonal conditions
between the mode shapes ({Jr and ({Js. These expressions show that the eigenvec-
tors are orthogonal with respect to the mass matrix M and stiffness matrix K. This
orthogonality indicates that all the eigenvectors are linearly independent.
Because the eigenvector may be scaled arbitrarily, it is often convenient to choose
the magnitude of the eigenvector so as to reduce the corresponding modal mass to
unity, which automatically reduces the modal stiffness to eigenvalue as shown in
Eq. (15). This process is known as normalization of eigenvectors with respect to mass
matrix. Using this process, we have
(17)
where the scaled eigenvector ({J~ is said to be orthonormal with respect to the mass
matrix. The corresponding mode is called the normal mode. For convenience, this
indication n in the superscript will be omitted in the following.
For operational efficiency, an n x n eigenvector matrix or normal modal matrix is
defined by placing all of the eigenvectors columnwise in this matrix with the form
(18)
34 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Using this matrix, the compact form of the eigenproblem shown in Eq. (4) is given by
(19)
(21)
(22)
In the theory of vibration, the space spanned by these modal vectors is called principal
space. The corresponding coordinates are called principal coordinates. The space and
coordinates associated with the normal modal matrix are called normal space or modal
space and normal coordinates or modal coordinates. Of course, these modal vectors are
orthogonal in the modal space. Similarly, we have the relation
(23)
in which ({lZr is the lth component of the rth eigenvector. Similarly, the whole response
vector X(t) may be w~itten as
n
X(t) = .q(t) = L ({Jrqr(t) (25)
r=1
(26)
Introducing Eq. (25) into Eq. (1) and premultiplying it by the transpose of the
eigenvector matrix tP results in
In some cases (structural acoustics problems, etc.), the frequency spectral of exciting
forces falls in the middle frequency range of the model. If the above modal truncation
scheme is used, the number L will be very large. For these cases, the low modes as
well as the high modes usually have less contribution to the responses. Hence, these
modes may be ignored. This scheme is referred to as the low-high modal truncation
scheme (Qu, 2000). Using this scheme, Eq. (25) becomes
L2
X(t) = L ((Jrqr(t) (29)
r=L\
in which the LIth through Lzth modes are retained. For comparison, the modal
truncation scheme used in Eq. (28) is called the middle-high modal truncation scheme
(Qu,2000).
Of course, errors will be introduced using the modal truncation scheme, especially
the low-high modal truncation scheme. These errors are called modal truncation
errors and can be reduced significantly using the mode acceleration method (Qu,
2000).
36 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(1)
Thus, the inverse of the stiffness matrix may be expressed in terms of the modal
parameters as
(2)
K- 1 is usually called the flexible matrix. The inverse of the mass matrix can also be
written in terms of the modal parameters as
(3)
Similarly, the dynamic flexible matrix (K - AM)-l may be rewritten in terms of the
modal parameters as
(4)
The ith (i = 1,2, ... , n) diagonal component of the diagonal matrix (A - AI)-l is
(Ai - A) -1 and Ai is the ith eigenvalue of the model. This component can be expanded
as a power series as
-1- - -1 [ 1+-+
Ai - A - Ai
A ( -A
Ai Ai
)2 + ... + - )H
(A
Ai
+ 1
1 - (A/Ai)
-
(A
Ai
)H+1] (5)
(6)
Because all the diagonal elements in matrix (A - AI)-l have the same form as that
in Eq. (6), the power series expansion of this matrix is given by
H
(A - AI)-l = A -1 ~)AA -l)h + (AA -1)H+1(A - AI)-l (7)
h=o
H
(K - AM)-l = ~A -1 L(AA -l)h~T + ~(AA -1)H+1(A - AI)-l~T (8)
h=O
Theory of Modal Analysis 37
Considering the orthogonality of the eigenvector matrix, Eq. (9) can be simplified as
(10)
Substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (8), the power series form of the dynamic flexible matrix
is given by
H
(K - )'M)-l = K- 1 L()'MK-1)h + ).H+l~A -(H+l)(A - U)-l~T (11)
h=O
The second term on the right-hand side ofEq. (11) is the residual of the power series.
It is expressed in terms of the modal parameters. Alternatively, this term may be
expressed in terms of physical parameters, and as a result Eq. (11) may be rewritten as
H
(K - )'M)-l = K- 1 L()'MK-1)h + ).H+l (K-1M)H+l (K - )'M)-l (12)
h=O
Equation (12) is the power series expansion of the dynamic flexible matrix in terms
of the system physical matrices.
(2)
38 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Because both the identity matrix I and the eigenvalue matrix A are diagonal, the eigen-
vector matrix defined in Eq. (3.1-18) is orthogonal with respect to the proportional
damping matrix defined in Eq. (1).
Inserting Eq. (1) into Eq. (2.1-46) leads to the dynamic equations of motion in the
physical space, that is,
in which the modal damping Ci for the ith normal mode is given by
and Wi is the natural frequency of the undamped model. ~i represents the correspond-
ing modal damping ratio. Clearly, the proportionally damped dynamic equations of
motion are uncoupled in the undamped modal space.
(1)
(2)
If we introduce another supplement identity equations for Eq. (2.1-46), that is,
KX-KX=O (3)
Theory of Modal Analysis 39
(4)
Y= I~l (5)
Y is referred to as the state vector because it includes both the displacement and
velocity, and it completely represents the state of a system. The corresponding
space spanned by the state vector is recognized as state space. For comparison, the
n-dimensional space spanned by the displacement vector X is called the displacement
space. Clearly, Eqs. (2) and (4) are defined in the state space. Using the state vector,
these two equations can be rewritten as
(6)
in which the system matrices A, B E R2nx2n and force vector F E R 2n in the state
space are given by
F= I~l (7)
or
(8)
The system matrices A and B are real symmetric if the mass, damping, and stiffness
matrices are. Equation (6) is usually called the state equation.
In vibration control engineering, another form of state equation is commonly used.
Premultiplying both sides of Eq. (4) by the inverse of matrix
where the system matrix A and the load vector B are given by
(10)
(13)
Inserting Eqs. (12) and (13) into Eq. (11) results in
(A 2M + AC + K)lj! = 0 (14)
Equation (14) is the eigenvalue problem of the damped model. It is a quadratic
eigenproblem or nonlinear eigenproblem and defined in the displacement space.
The solutions of Eq. (14) have the general form Ai = [ti + jf3i in which [ti and
f3iare real numbers. Depending upon the values of [ti and f3i , the system may have
different types of responses, which are listed in Table 3.1. It is necessary to note that
the "unstable" mentioned in this table is based on the linear assumption of the system.
In fact, with the increase of the amplitude of responses, the nonlinear effects become
more and more significant and the linear assumption becomes invalid. Since case 5 is
the most common case in practice, the discussions in the following are concentrated
on this case.
Because it is quite difficult to solve Eq. (14) in the displacement space, the com-
monly used scheme for this quadratic eigenproblem is to transform it from the
displacement space into the state space.
Using Eqs. (12) and (13), the state vector Y in Eq. (5) may be expressed as
(15)
(16)
Introducing Eqs. (15) and (16) into the damped free vibration equations of motion
defined in the state space, that is,
AY+BY =0 (17)
results in
(A+AB)~ =0 ( 18)
in which
(19)
where the superscript * denotes the complex conjugate. Usually, the ith complex
eigenvalue and its complex conjugate, called one complex conjugate pair, have the
form
Ai = ai + jf3i, (20)
(21)
where undamped natural frequency Wi, modal damping ratio ~j, and damped frequency
Wd are given by
~. _ -aj -aj
1- ja; + f31 wi
(23)
Wd=WiJ1-~l (24)
It is necessary to note that the undamped natural frequency given in Eq. (22) is not
equal to that obtained from the corresponding undamped model (C = 0) (Lallement
and Inman, 1995).
42 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Similarly, the rth complex eigenvector and its complex conjugate eigenvector, called
one complex conjugate pair, can be expressed as
(25)
where superscripts R and I represent the real and imaginary parts of the eigenvector,
respectively. Vector Vr~ and Vr;
are real vectors. In fact, the complex eigenvector has
an arbitrary amplitude scaling and an arbitrary phase angle scaling. The difference of
phase angle may be any angle between 0 and 180 Thus, the complex modes for the
0
•
nonclassically damping model do not have stationary nodal line or mode shapes.
(A + ArB)Vrr = 0 (26)
(A + AsB)Vrs = 0 (27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
r =1= 5 (32)
For the case of r = 5, the following relationship can be obtained from Eq. (28) or (29):
(33)
in which
(34)
Generally, a r and br are complex numbers and highly depend upon the mode and
how the mode is normalized.
Theory of Modal Analysis 43
The expressions in Eqs. (31) through (34) represent the orthogonal conditions
between the complex eigenvectors 1/Ir and 1/15' These expressions show that the
eigenvectors are orthogonal with respect to the matrices A and B.
Because the complex eigenvector (amplitude and phase) may be scaled arbitrarily,
ar and br are dependent upon the normalization scheme applied on the eigenvector.
The most commonly used method of normalization is to set each br to unity, that is,
br = 1. Using this condition, we have
(35)
where the scaled eigenvector 1/1;is said to be normalized with respect to the B matrix.
For convenience, this indication n in the superscript will be omitted in the following.
For concise purpose, a 2n x 2n eigenvector matrix is defined by placing all of the
eigenvectors columnwise with the form
(36)
Using this matrix, the eigenvalue problem and the orthogonal conditions are given by
(40)
- [Qo
Q= -
\11= [ \II
\IIQ
\11* ]
\II*Q*
(41)
(42)
(43)
44 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Clearly, the real and imaginary parts of Eq. (44) must separately be equal to zero,
that is,
(lfr~)TAlfr; = 0 (49)
(52)
Similarly, the inverse of matrix B is given in terms of the modal parameters as
B- 1 = ~~T (53)
Equations (52) and (53) will be used in Chapter 8.
Theory of Modal Analysis 45
in which ij(t) is complex modal coordinates. Introducing Eq. (54) into Eq. (6) and
premultiplying it by the transpose of the eigenvector matrix. results in
• - - T
q(t) + Qq(t) = \II F(t) (55)
Because the eigenvalue matrix is a diagonal matrix, the dynamic equilibrium equation
(55) is uncoupled in the complex modal space. This means that the 2n differential
equations can be solved separately in the modal space.
It is necessary to Iiote that there are some differences between the real modal
analysis and the complex modal analysis. In the mode vibration of the complex model,
the phrase angles are different at different points while the difference is 0 or 7f in the
real mode. Therefore, the shape of the complex mode is meaningless.
3.5 Summary
The modal theory of undamped models has been described. It is shown that an n
degree-of-freedom model usually has n modes and they are orthogonal with respect
to the corresponding stiffness and mass matrices. Using the modal orthogonality, the
coupled differential equations in the physical space may be uncoupled in the modal
space.
In fact, most engineering structures and systems have damping. The most com-
monly used damping model is viscous damping. The proportional damping is the
simplest viscous damping model, which is a linear combination of the stiffness and
mass matrices. It is shown that the modal matrix of undamped model can directly
uncouple the proportionally damped differential equations.
There are many situations in which the assumption of proportional damping is
invalid. For these cases, the dynamic equations of motion usually cannot be uncoupled
in the displacement space and the state space is commonly used. The modes resulting
from these models are generally complex. The orthogonalities of the complex modes
and the complex mode superposition are provided.
References
Bertolini, AF (1998) Review of eigensolution procedures for linear dynamic finite element
analysis. Applied Mechanics Review, 51(2):155-172.
De Silva, CW (2000) Vibration fundamentals and practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
He, J and Fu, Z-F (200 I). Modal Analysis. Boston: Butterworth -Heinemann.
Imregun, M and Ewins, DJ (1995). Complex modes-{)rigins and limits. Proceedings of
the 13th International Modal Analysis Conference (Nashville, TN), Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Inc., Bethel, CT: 496-506.
Lallement, G and Inman, DJ (1995). A tutorial on complex eigenvalues. Proceedings of the 13th Inter-
national Modal Analysis Conference (Nashville, TN), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel,
CT: 490-495.
46 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Li, D (1987). On some general concepts of complex mode theory. Proceedings of the 5th International
Modal Analysis Conference (London, England), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 862-867.
Meirovich, L (1986). Elements of Vibration Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York: 157-197.
Mitchell, LD (1990). Complex modes: A review. Proceedings of the 8th International Modal Analysis
Conference (Kissimmee, Florida), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 891-899.
Qu, Z-Q (2000). Hybrid expansion method for frequency responses and their sensitivities, Part I:
Undamped systems. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 231 (1): 175-193.
Shabana, AA (1990). Theory of Vibration (II): Discrete and Continuous Systems. Springer-Vedag, New
York.
Weaver Jr, W and Johnson, PR (1987). Structural Dynamics by Finite Elements. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Static Condensation
The condensation technique for the deletion of unwanted degrees of freedom was
first proposed by Guyan (1965) and Irons (1965) in 1965. Because the dynamic
effect is ignored in the condensation, this method is usually referred to as static
condensation. Since the late 1960s, this technique has been widely used in many static
and dynamic problems. Several examples of the applications are the component mode
synthesis, eigenproblem analysis of large models, and experimental mode expansion.
This approach has been included in many textbooks in the areas of structural dyna-
mics and mechanical vibrations (Weaver and Johnston, 1987; Argyris and Mlejnek,
1991; Petyt, 1990; Bathe, 1996). Today, it is still one of the most popular condensation
methods.
In this chapter, the Guyan condensation matrix will be derived from the static
response problem, dynamic response problem, and eigenproblem, respectively. Two
modifications to improve the accuracy of Guyan condensation will be provided. One
is the generalized Guyan condensation, which is Guyan condensation combined with
the generalized inverse of stiffness matrix. The other is the quasistatic condensation,
which is a combination of Guyan condensation and the eigenvalue or frequency
shifted technique.
was used in the derivation of Guyan condensation. For convenience, the discrete
model without using condensation is called the full order model or simply full model.
Assume that the total degrees of freedom of the full model are categorized as the master
degrees offreedom (primary degrees offreedom, or kept degrees offreedom) and the slave
degrees of freedom (secondary degrees of freedom or deleted degrees of freedom). They
are simply referred to as the masters and slaves and indicated by m and s, respectively.
With this arrangement, the static Eq. (1) may be partitioned as
47
48 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Clearly, the displacements at the slaves consist of two parts due to the linearity of this
model. One part results from the displacements at the masters and is called attached
displacements. Another part results from the external forces acting on the slaves and
is called relative displacements. Introducing Eq. (5) into Eq. (3) results in
(6)
PR = Pm - KmsK;lps (8)
Xs =RGXm (9)
RG = -K;lKsm. (10)
Equation (9) is the relations of displacements between the masters and slaves. The
corresponding condensation matrix is a load-independent matrix because the exter-
nal forces at the slaves were ignored in the derivation. This condensation method
was first proposed by Guyan and is usually referred to as Guyan condensation. The
condensation matrix in Eq. (10) is called the Guyan condensation matrix. Due to the
ignorance of dynamic effects in the condensation matrix, Guyan condensation is also
referred to as static condensation. The Guyan condensation matrix provides the means
to reduce the stiffness matrix. This condensation is usually used in the static problem
to eliminate unwanted degrees of freedom such as the internal degrees of freedom of
an element used in the finite element method.
Using the condensation matrix in Eq. (9), the displacement vector X may be
expressed as
(11)
Static Condensation 49
(12)
1 is an m x m identity matrix. Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (1) and premultiplying
both sides by the transpose of T G result in
(13)
in which KG E Rmxm is the stiffness matrix of the reduced model and is referred to
as the reduced stiffness matrix; FGERm is the equivalent force vector acting at the
masters. They are defined as
KG = T'{;KTG (14)
FG = T'{;F (15)
Using the submatrices of the stiffness matrix and the subvectors of the force vector,
Eqs. (14) and (I5) can be rewritten as .
They are the same as the definitions in Eqs. (7) and (8), respectively. Equation (13)
is the static equations of equilibrium of the reduced order model or simply reduced
model, which denotes the model after condensation. Clearly, the reduced model has
m degrees of freedom, which are usually much less than those of the full model.
For convenience, the coordinates used to define the full model and reduced model
are, respectively, referred to as full order coordinates and reduced order coordinates.
After the displacements at the masters are obtained, Eq. (5) rather than (9) is used to
compute the displacements at the slaves.
E= [1 El] (18)
o E2
50 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Assume that the product of the elementary matrix and the stiffness matrix has the
form
.[1o El]
E2
[Kmm
Ksm
Kms] =
Kss
[AB 10] (19)
Kmm + EIKsm = A
Kms + EIKss = 0
(20)
E2Ksm = B
E2Kss =1
Equation (20) gives the results
A = Kmm - KmsK;;lKsm == KR
B = K;;IKsm == -RG
El = -KmsK;;l == R~ (21)
E2 = K;;l
If the same premultiplication of the elementary matrix is performed on the force
I ~~}
vector of the full model, we have
[1
o
El]
E2
IFm} = IFm +EIFs} = IFm ~~~Fs} =
Fs E2 Fs Kss Fs Kss Fs
(22)
(23)
Clearly, the static condensation matrix, the stiffness matrix, and the equivalent force
vector of the reduced model may be obtained directly from Eq. (23).
Let il = h = h = 1N for the static case. Hence, the force vector of the full model is
given by
The static displacements at these three degrees of freedom are 0.003 m, 0.005 m, and
0.006 m, respectively.
Assume the first and the second degrees of freedom, XI and X2, are selected as the
masters when Guyan condensation is applied to the full model. Using Eqs. (10), (16),
and (17), the Guyan condensation matrix, the stiffness matrix, and the equivalent
force vector of the reduced model may be obtained as
the displacements at the first and the second degrees of freedom may be computed as
0.003 m and 0.005 m, respectively. The displacement at the slave, X3, may be obtained
from Eq. (5) if necessary. Definitely, it is 0.006 m.
Now, let's select the second and the third degrees of freedom, X2 and X3, as the
masters. The corresponding Guyan condensation matrix, the stiffness matrix, and
52 Model Order Reduction Techniques
The displacements may be computed from the static equilibrium. They are 0.005 m
and 0.006 m, and the displacement at the first degree of freedom is 0.003 m. They are
exactly the same as those from the full model.
or in a partitioned form as
where ME R nxn is the mass matrix of the full model and positive definite; X(t) is
the acceleration vector. The second equation ofEq. (2) is expressed as
(3)
In Eq. (3), Fs(t) = 0 is assumed, which is similar to the static problem. Letting
(4)
in Eq. (3), the relation of displacements between the masters and slaves is obtained.
It is the same as that in Eq. (4.1-9).
Because the coordinate transformation matrix T G is independent of time,
differentiating both sides of Eq. (4.1-11) with respect to time t twice leads to
(5)
Static Condensation 53
Introducing Eqs. (4.1-11) and (5) into Eq. (2) and premultiplying it by the transpose
of matrix T G result in
(6)
in which the mass and stiffness matrices of the reduced model, called the reduced
mass matrix and reduced stiffness matrix, respectively, and the equivalent force vector
are defined as
(7)
Introduction of the transformation Eq. (4.1-11) into the above equations results in
(10)
(ll)
Equation (ll) is the expression of potential energy and kinetic energy in terms of
the masters. Therefore, KG and M G are called the stiffness and mass matrices of
the reduced model defined only by the masters. By this definition, the potential and
kinetic energy of the full model will be fully retained in the reduced model.
MR =Mmm (12)
The reduced stiffness matrix and force vector are the same as above. Of course, the
reduced mass matrix in Eq. (12) is positive definite. Clearly, the Guyan condensation
method in this case does not alter the original problem. Thus, no error is introduced
to the reduced model.
[5/4 OJ
°
M(2) = (a)
G 1
The displacement responses computed from the reduced model are shown in
Figures 4.3 and 4.4. The solid and dash curves denote the displacements resulting
Static Condensation 55
0.015 ---------------------------
0.010
g
-
cCI)
ECI)
0.005
U
III
Q.
III
0 0.000
Time (s)
0.015
0.010
g
-
U
III
C
CI)
E
CI)
0.005
III
a.
III
0 0.000
from the full model and the reduced model, respectively. Generally, the displacements
obtained from the reduced model are close to those from the full model. However,
there are some errors. The errors in the first scheme are much greater than those in
the second scheme. This means that the selection of the first and the second degrees
of freedom as the masters is better than the selection of the second and third degrees
of freedom.
56 Model Order Reduction Techniques
0.015 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
0.010
-
E
Jc!
CD 0.005
E
~
t
II)
is 0.000
-0.005 L......J.........--&.--L........--'---'-....L..................."'"'--...L...""'--......."--L......J.........--&.----'
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time (5)
where A and lfI are the eigenvalue (square of frequency) and the corresponding eigen-
vector (mode shape) of the full model, respectively. Using the same division of the
total degrees of freedom in Section 4.1, Eq. (1) may be rewritten in a partitioned
form as
A[Mmm {OJ
([ Kmm
Ksm
KmsJ -
Kss Msm
MmsJ) {lfImJ =
Mss lfIs ° (2)
where the subscripts m and s indicate the parameters corresponding to the masters
and slaves. A simple multiplication of the matrix on the left-hand side of Eq. (2)
expands this equation into two equations, namely,
The relation of the eigenvector between the masters and slaves may be obtained from
Eq. (3b) as
(4)
Static Condensation 57
Although the expression for the computation of the condensation matrix is given
explicitly in Eq. (5), it is a nonlinear function of the unknown eigenvalue A. Letting
A = 0 in Eq. (5) leads to the Guyan condensation matrix as shown in Eq. (4.1-10).
Hence, the eigenvector of the full model may be expressed in terms of the eigenvector
at the masters as
(6)
(7)
KG and M G are the reduced stiffness and mass matrices and are defined in Eq. (4.2-7)
or (4.2-8). Equation (7) is the eigenproblem of the reduced model and is referred to as
the reduced eigenproblem. During the derivation of the Guyan condensation matrix,
the eigenvalue is set to zero. This means that the dynamic effect is ignored in the
condensation matrix. Therefore, Guyan condensation is a static condensation. As the
eigenvalue increases, the ignored effects become more significant.
(8)
Clearly, if the eigenvector at the masters is determined from the reduced model defined
by Guyan condensation, the eigenvector at the slaves may be computed using Eq. (8).
Because the relation is expressed exactly in Eq. (8), it is usually referred to as the exact
mode expansion expression. The inertia effect is considered fully by using this mode
expansion.
The dynamic flexible matrix in Eq. (8) may be expanded as a power series as shown
in Chapter 3. Letting H = 1 in Eq. (3.2-11) and dropping the residual term result in
(9)
(10)
This expression was first used by Kidder (1973) to estimate the eigenvector at the
slaves. Hence, it is referred to as the Kidder's mode expansion.
Expanding the right-hand side of Eq. (10) and dropping the term containing the
quadratic of eigenvalue A yield
The expression in Eq. (11) .was first proposed by Miller (1980) in 1980 and is referred
to as Miller's mode expansion expression.
As will be described in Chapter 5, Guyan condensation is the first-order approxima-
tion of the exact reduced eigenproblem defined in Eq. (5.1-6). Hence, the eigenvalue
and the corresponding eigenvector resulting from Guyan condensation are also the
first-order approximation of the exact values. In the exact mode expansion expres-
sion, the ignored effect is fully considered. Of course, it is not consistent with these
approximate eigenvalues and eigenvectors at the masters. Therefore, the inertia might
be considered overly and the accuracy will become worse if the exact mode expansion
expression is used to estimate the eigenvector on the slaves. Furthermore, the solu-
tion of Eq. (8) is required, which is usually very time-consuming. In Kidder's mode
expansion expression, although the first -order approximation of the dynamic flexible
matrix is considered as shown in Eq. (9), the second-order approximation is partially
included in the final expression (10). It is also inconsistent with the results from
Guyan condensation. However, the inconsistency is much slighter than that of the
exact mode expansion expression. Miller's expression is the first-order approximation
and, hence, consistent with Guyan condensation.
Eigenproblems
A two-story 4 m x 4 m plane frame, shown in Figure 4.5, is considered. The structure
is modeled as a two-dimensional frame using the finite element method. It has a
total of 32 nodes, with the first node grounded and the second node constrained in
the vertical direction. The structure has a total of 96 degrees of freedom including
the four fixed ones. For all the beams, the modulus of elasticity is 2 x 1011 N/m2,
mass density 7, 800 kg/m 3 , area moment of inertia 8 x 10-9 m4, cross-sectional area
25 6 27 28 29 30 3.1
24 32
22 23
20 21
18 19
10 11 13 14 15 16
J-
9 17
x
7 8
5 6
3 4
2
2.4 X 10- 4 m 2 . The lowest 15 natural frequencies resulting from the full model are
listed in Table 4.1. They are considered as the exact values for comparison.
The natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes are selected to check
the accuracy of the reduced model in the following sections and chapters. If the
eigenpairs (eigenvalue or the square of frequency and the corresponding eigenvector
or mode shape) of the reduced model are close to those of the full model, we may say
that the reduced model is close to the full model at that frequency range. Hence, the
comparison of the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes between
the reduced model and the full model is necessary. During the comparison, the
following two parameters will be used. One is the percent error of natural frequency,
namely,
(12)
Wj and w?) are the exact and the ith approximation of the jth (j = 1,2, ... , m) fre-
quency, respectively. The other is the correlated coefficient for modal vector (CCFMV)
value, that is,
T (i)
where, <fJmj and <fJ~ are the exact and the ith approximation of the jth (j = 1,2, .. , , m)
eigenvector, respectively. A CCFMV value close to 1 suggests that the two modes or
vectors are well correlated, and a value close to 0 indicates uncorrelated modes.
The first two cases for the selection of masters, shown in Table 4.2, will be consid-
ered. The natural frequencies and their percent errors of the reduced model are listed
in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 for the two cases, respectively. The CCFMV values of the mode
shapes are also listed.
The first frequency and the corresponding mode shape in the first case, shown in
Table 4.3, have a high accuracy and are usually acceptable. However, the accuracy of
the higher modes is very low, especially for the fifth frequency and mode shape. The
CCFMV value of the fifth mode is 0.00144, which indicates that the two mode shapes
are strongly uncorrelated, Generally, the frequencies and mode shapes resulting from
the second case have higher accuracy than the first case. For the three higher order
of frequencies, the errors are reduced to one sixth through one sixtieth. Therefore,
60 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Table 4.3 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from
Guyan condensation (Case 1)
Table 4.4 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from
Guyan condensation (Case 2)
Table 4.5 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from
Guyan condensation (Case 3)
although Guyan condensation is exact for static problems, its accuracy is usually
very low for dynamic problems. The accuracy highly depends on the selection of
masters. If only the accuracy is considered, the masters in Case 2 are better than those
in Case 1. The frequencies resulting from the reduced model are higher than those
from the full model. This means that the reduced model is stiffer than the full model.
Generally, the lower orders of frequencies have higher accuracy than the higher orders
of frequencies. This will be explained in Chapter 5. This phenomenon is not clear for
the mode shapes because the accuracy of the reduced model is very low.
As seen above, the optimal selection of masters may increase the accuracy of the
reduced model. For given eigenpairs, increasing the number of masters can also
increase their accuracy. To demonstrate it, three more degrees of freedom for Case 1
are selected as the masters and called Case 3 in Table 4.2. The lowest five frequencies,
their errors, and the CCFMV values of the corresponding mode shapes resulting from
the reduced model are listed in Table 4.5. It can be seen that the accuracy of the lowest
Static Condensation 61
five frequencies and mode shapes has been increased substantially. For example, the
error of the fifth frequency in Table 4.3 (five master degrees of freedom) is 177.63%,
while it reduces to 3.2737% when three more degrees of freedom are kept.
The way to slightly increase the number of masters is feasible in practice although
the computational effort may be increased. Generally, a finite element model of a
practical structure has a minimum of tens of thousands degrees of freedom. Of course,
the full model has tens of thousands of modes. However, tens of them are usually
enough for the dynamic analysis of this model. After the slight increase of the number
of masters, the reduced model only has a total of ten of degrees of freedom. The size of
the reduced model is still much smaller than that of the full model, while the accuracy
of the reduced model in that frequency range may be increased significantly.
Three cases for the selection of masters shown in Table 4.2 are used. The CCFMV
values of the full mode shapes based on the three expansion expressions are listed in
Tables 4.6 through 4.8, respectively. The frequencies and the CCFMV values of the
Mode 4 ModeS
6.3G5 14.999 WM8 36.1.
~ 0.998H 0.88082 G.97l24
8.:99999 0.99216 OJ5974 o.585l2 G.93316
0.99999 o.tM03 0.83505 0,790S3 0.90328
0.99999 G.9HOI 0.83519 0.78980 0.90031
",
Model Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode .. ModeS
PteqIMDq(ndIa) 6.2842 14.661 28JJ91 30.987 36.282
CCFMV (GupD) 1.00000 0.99976 G.829H 0.95039 o.9!I621
OCPMV~) 1.00000 0.99925 0.89657 0.80!100 0.74875
OCPMV (Kidder) 1.00000 0.99942 0.19703 G.89MO 03P177
CCJIMV (Miller) 1.00000 0.99938 0.89713 o.8983S 03Pl31
62 Model Order Reduction Techniques
corresponding mode shapes resulting from Guyan condensation are also listed for
comparison purposes. The CCFMV values of the full mode shapes resulting from
Kidder's and Miller's expansions are very close. They are generally much higher than
those resulting from the exact expansion.
where the superscript + denotes the generalized inverse of the matrix and is defined
as
(4)
(5)
(6)
we have
(7)
Hence, the generalized inverse of the submatrix Ks and the generalized Guyan
condensation matrix are given by
K; = [PRe p] (8)
Using the generalized Guyan condensation matrix, the stiffness and mass matrices of
the reduced model may be obtained as
A AT A AT A
Ke = Krnrn + ReKsrn + KrnsRe + ReKssRe (lOa)
A AT A AT A
Me = Mrnrn + ReMsrn + MrnsRe + ReMssRe (lOb)
(11)
The two-story frame used in Section 4.3 will be used. The first two cases for the
selection of masters are to be considered. The natural frequencies of the reduced
model resulted from the generalized Guyan condensation are listed in Tables 4.9 and
4.10, respectively. The percent errors of frequencies and the CCFMV values of mode
shapes are also listed for comparison.
The frequencies resulting from the reduced model are higher than those from the
full model. This means that the reduced model is stiffer than the full model. Generally,
the lower frequencies have higher accuracy than the higher ones. That is to say, the
more the frequency closes to zero, the higher accuracy the frequency has. These
phenomena are similar to those of Guyan condensation. Comparing these results
with those in Section 4.3, we find that the generalized Guyan condensation usually
has much higher accuracy than Guyan condensation. The error of the first frequency,
for example, is reduced to about three hundredths by replacing Guyan condensation
with the generalized one. For the higher modes, the improvement of accuracy is also
significant. Further research shows that the generalized Guyan condensation may
sometimes have lower accuracy than Guyan condensation.
Table 4.9 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from
the generalized Guyan condensation (Case I)
Table 4.10 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from
the generalized Guyan condensation (Case 2)
(K - XM)<fJ = ° (1)
where the dynamic stiffness matrix and eigenvalue with shift are given by
q is the value of the eigenvalue shift. With the same division of the total degrees of
freedom, Eq. (1) is partitioned as
(4)
(6)
Therefore, the stiffness and mass matrices of the reduced model based on the
condensation matrix in Eq. (5) are given by
- -T - -T - -T -
MG = T GMTG = Mmm + RGMsm + MmsRG + RGMssRG
KG = T~KT G = K mm + R~Ksm + K msRG + R~KssRG (7)
- -T
Fdt) = Fm(t) + RGFs(t)
If we set the eigenvalue shifting value q = 0 in Eq. (5), the classical Guyan con-
densation discussed in Section 4.1 will be obtained. Because the dynamic influence
is considered in the condensation matrix, this condensation is actually a dynamic
condensation.
Similarly, the eigenvalue shifting technique may also be implemented into the
generalized Guyan condensation matrix defined in Eq. (4.4-3). With this application,
the condensation matrix is given by
(10)
or
(11)
where
-
P = (Kss - qMss )
-I -
[I - Rc(I + Rc
-T- -I-T
Rc ) Rc] (12)
For convenience, Eq. (10) or (11) is called the generalized quasistatic static condensation
matrix, and the method is called generalized quasistatic Guyan condensation.
The two-story frame and the first case for the selection of masters in Section 4.3 will
be used. The quasistatic condensation and the generalized quasi static condensation
schemes are to be considered. The eigenvalue shifting value is q = 35. The results
obtained from the reduced model are listed in Tables 4.11 and 4.12.
Clearly, the accuracy of both the frequencies and the mode shapes is improved after
the application of the eigenvalue shift. The percent error of the first frequency resulting
from Guyan condensation without shift (in Table 4.3) is, for example, 1.1076%, while
it becomes 0.01175% after the implementation of the eigenvalue shift (in Table 4.11).
The latter is about one hundredth of the former. For the second through fifth frequen-
cies, the errors reduce very slightly after the implementation. Similar phenomenon
may be found by comparing the results in Tables 4.9 and 4.12. Generally, the more
the eigenvalue closes the shifting value q, the more accurate the mode is.
Table 4.11 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from
the quasi static condensation (q = 35)
Table 4.12 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from
the generalized quasistatic condensation (q = 35)
Now, we want to significantly improve the accuracy of the second mode, whose
frequency is 14.427 radis. According to the discussion above, we may let the shifting
value close to the square of the frequency, namely, q ~ w~. Similarly, Guyan con den -
sation and the generalized Guyan condensation are considered and the shifting value
q = 200 is selected. The frequencies and their errors as well as the CCFMV values of
the reduced model are listed in Tables 4.13 and 4.14.
The errors of the second frequency resulting from Guyan condensation and the
generalized Guyan condensation without shift are 38.996% and 1.3214%, respectively.
After the application of the shift q = 200, they, respectively, reduce to 0.12196% and
0.00152%. Clearly, the improvement of the accuracy is significant. There is some
reduction of the errors of the third through the fifth modes, although this reduction
is very small. However, the accuracy of the first mode is substantially reduced in both
methods. The reason is that the first eigenvalue is much farther away from q = 200
than q = 0 (no shift). These results are further evidence that the more the eigenvalue
closes the shifting value q, the more accurate the mode is.
We can increase the eigenvalue shifting value again and make it close to a further
higher eigenvalue, 10 for example. According to the feature discussed above, the
tenth eigenvalue will have the highest accuracy and then other eigenvalues close to it.
However, the total number of degrees of freedom of the reduced model is only five.
This means that the maximum number of modes provided by the reduced model
should be five. Hence, these five modes of the reduced model will not close to the
lowest five modes of the full model again. This is to be demonstrated in the following.
Let q = 32,400, which falls between the llth and the 12th eigenvalue of the full
model. The frequencies, their percent errors, and the CCFMV values of the corre-
sponding modes are listed in Tables 4.15 and 4.16. Clearly, the modes of the reduced
models resulting from both approaches with the shift q = 32,400 are close to the 9th
through the 13th modes rather than the lowest five modes of the full model. This fea-
ture is very useful for some applications such as structural sound analysis and control.
The dynamic characteristics of the systems in the middle- or high-frequency range are
much more important than those in the low-frequency range in these applications.
...
Table 4.13 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from
the quasistatic condensation (q = 200)
PnIIpIIq (mdIt)
Mode 1
7.6490
Mode 2
14.445
Mode 3
33.712
Mode 4
46.216
ModeS
90.223
Paaat enor(~) 22.621 0.12196 '21.289 SU95 156.81
OCPMV 0.99631 1.00000 0.24199 0.34417 0.35037
...
Table 4.14 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from
the generalized quasistatic condensation (q = 200)
Table 4.15 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from the
quasistatic condensation (q = 32,400)
Table 4.16 Accuracy of the frequencies and mode shapes resulted from the
generalized quasistatic condensation (q = 32,400)
Furthermore, the results show that the mode closest to the shifting value has the
highest accuracy. Therefore, the conclusion that the more the eigenvalue closes the
shifting value q, the more accurate the mode will be is still right. However, the percent
errors of the frequencies are not always greater than zero, which is different from the
phenomenon above.
with the division of total degrees of freedom, the partitioned form of Eq. (1) is given
by
[ K mm
Ksm
K ms] [Emm
Kss Esm
Ems]
Ess
= [I 0]
0 1
(2)
(3)
(4)
68 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Therefore, the static condensation matrix may be expressed in term of the flexibility
matrix as
(5)
(6)
Solving for Fm from Eq. (7) and substituting it into Eq. (8) gives
(9)
The reduced system matrices may be computed using the coordinate transformation
matrix defined above.
4.7 Summary
Three static condensation approaches, Guyan condensation, generalized Guyan con-
densation, and quasistatic condensation, have been provided. The static response
problem, dynamic response problem, and eigenproblem have been considered. Sev-
eral numerical examples are provided to demonstrate the features of these approaches.
Guyan condensation is the simplest approach to eliminate the unwanted degrees
of freedom. It has been broadly applied to a large number of practical problems.
However, because the inertia effects are ignored in the Guyan condensation matrix, it
is exact for static problems. For the dynamic problems in which the masses on some
degrees of freedom are ignored, Guyan condensation is also exact when only the
massless degrees of freedom are selected as the slaves. For other dynamic problems
the error will be introduced by Guyan condensation into the reduced model and the
accuracy of the reduced model highly depends on what and how many degrees of
freedom are kept in the masters.
If the standard Gauss-Jordan elimination process is applied systematically on the
static equation of equilibrium of the full model to eliminate the slaves, the Guyan
Static Condensation 69
condensation matrix, the reduced stiffness matrix, and the equivalent force vector are
directly obtained from the eliminated equation.
The frequencies of the reduced model resulting from Guyan condensation are
always higher than those obtained from the full model. This means that the reduced
model is stiffer than the full model in that frequency range. The lower mode usually has
higher accuracy than the higher mode in Guyan condensation. After the eigenvector
on the masters is determined, the eigenvector on the slaves may be computed using
three expressions, that is, the exact, Kidder's, and Miller's mode expansion expressions.
Among them, the Miller's mode expansion is consistent with the eigenvector from
Guyan condensation.
The reduced model resulted from the generalized Guyan condensation usually
has higher accuracy than Guyan condensation. However, the computational work
of the former is higher than the latter. The eigenvalue or frequency shifting tech-
nique may increase the accuracy of Guyan condensation or make the reduced model
be close to the full model within any given frequency range. The more the eigenvalue
closes to the shifting value, the higher accuracy the corresponding mode generally
has. To do this, the masters should be carefully selected to make the interested modes
observable at these degrees of freedom.
The condensation matrix defined by Guyan condensation is independent of the
submatrix K mm of the stiffness matrix. Similarly, the condensation matrix given
by the quasistatic condensation method is independent of the submatrices K mm of
the stiffness matrix and M mm of the mass matrix. Therefore, any changes within
these submatrices do not change the condensation matrix. This feature is, on one
hand, very useful in the structural optimization, modification, and reanalysis (Lin
and Lim, 1995). By selecting all the degrees of freedom on which changes will occur
during optimization or modification as masters, it is unnecessary to recompute the
condensation matrix although the repeated structural re-analyses are required. On
the other hand, this feature is one important reason that these two static condensation
methods have low accuracy.
References
Argyris, JH and Mlejnek, H-P (1991) Dynamics of structures. North-Holland, New York:
172-186.
Bathe, KJ (1996) Finite element procedures. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 717- 726.
Guyan, RJ (1965) Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices. AIAA Journal, 3(2):380.
Ha, SK, Keilers, C, and Chang, FK (1992) Finite element analysis of composite structures
containing distributed piezoelectric sensors and actuators. AIAA Journal, 30(3):772-780.
Irons, BM (1965) Structural eigenvalue problems - elimination of unwanted variables. AIAA Journal,
3(5):961-962.
Kaufman, S and Hall, DB (1968). Reduction of mass and loading matrices. AIAA Journal, 6(3):550
Kidder, RL (1973) Reduction of structural frequency equations. AIAA Journal, 11 (6):892.
Lin, RM and Lim, MK (1995) Structural sensitivity analysis via reduced-order analytical model. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 121{1-4):345-359.
Miller, CA (1980) Dynamic reduction of structural models. Journal of the Structural Division,
106(STlO):2097-2108.
Paz, M (1983) Practical reduction of structural eigenproblems. Journal of Structural Engineering,
109(11):2591-2599.
Paz, M (1991) Structural dynamics: Theory and computation, Third Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.
Petyt, M (1990) Introduction to finite element vibration analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York:
364--369.
70 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Ramsden, JN and Stoker, JR (1969). Mass condensation: A semi-automatic method for reducing the size
of vibration problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1(4):333-349
Sowers, JD (1978). Condensation of free body mass matrices using flexibility coefficients. AIAA Journal,
16(3):272-273.
Tzou, HS and Ye, R (1996) Analysis of piezoelectric systems with laminated piezoelectric triangular shell
elements. AIAA Journal, 34(1):110-115.
Weaver Jr., Wand Johnston, PR (1987) Structural dynamics by finite elements. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 282-299.
5 Dynamic Condensation
The static condensation technique has been described extensively in the preceding
chapter. Because the inertia effects are ignored in this condensation, the accuracy of
the resulting reduced model is generally very low for dynamic problems. To achieve
reasonably accurate results, the masters must be chosen with great care and the num-
ber of masters should be greater than the number of modes interested. To alleviate the
limitations, the inertia effects could be partially or fully included in the condensation.
The corresponding condensation approaches are generally called dynamic condensa-
tion. In this chapter, exact condensation, classical dynamic condensation, high-order
Guyan condensation, dynamic sub structuring scheme, and modal-type condensation
will be provided.
(K - AM)qJ = ° (1)
Using the same division of the total degrees of freedom as that in Section 4.1, Eq. (1)
may be rewritten in a partitioned form as
([ Kmm
Ksm
KmsJ _ A [Mmm
Kss Msm
MmsJ) {qJm} =
Mss qJs
{o}° (2)
A simple multiplication of the matrix on the left-hand side of Eq. (2) expands this
equation into two equations, namely,
The relation of the eigenvector between the masters and slaves may be obtained from
Eq. (3b) as
(4)
71
72 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(5)
Clearly, the eigenvalue problem of the reduced model is also nonlinear with respect
to the unknown eigenvalue. Because no error is introduced during the derivation
of the condensation matrix in Eq. (5) and the reduced eigenproblem in Eq. (6), the
condensation matrix is usually referred to as the exact condensation matrix and the
corresponding method is called exact dynamic condensation or exact condensation.
Therefore, the accuracy of the reduced model does not depend on the selection of
masters except in the rare case when the energy of the system does not contribute
to the whole set of masters at all, a situation referred to as partial vibrations (Leung,
1978). Even for this case, convergence to all the modes of interest is guaranteed by
inherent Sturm sequence properties of the dynamic system.
If the stiffness and mass matrices of a system are denoted by K* and M*, the
corresponding dynamic stiffness matrix is given by
According to Leung's theorem (Leung, 1978), the following equation may be used to
exactly compute the stiffness and mass matrices from the dynamic stiffness matrix:
* aD*(A) aD*(A)
M ----
- aA'
K* = D*(A) + AM* = D*(A) - A--
aA
(9)
Therefore, the stiffness and mass matrices of the reduced model defined in Eq. (7) are
respectively given by
aDR(A)
Dynamic Condensation 73
According to matrix theory, the derivative of the inverse of matrix Dss can be
expressed as
(14)
With the introduction ofEq. (14) into Eq. (12), the reduced mass matrix is given by
The reduced stiffness matrix KR may be obtained from Eqs. (11) and (15) as
Clearly, the reduced stiffness and mass matrices are functions of the unknown eigen-
value. These matrices at a specific eigenvalue, AO' for example, may be obtained by
substituting AO for A in Eqs. (15) and (16). Particularly, the stiffness and mass matrices
at A = 0 are given by
The reduced system matrices defined in Eqs. (17) and (18) are the same as
those defined by Guyan condensation, as shown in Section 4.2. Therefore, Guyan
condensation is a static condensation and only exact at zero eigenvalue (frequency).
Although the reduced stiffness and mass matrices given in Eqs. (15) and (16)
are exact, they are eigenvalue- or frequency-dependent. The differential form of the
reduced system matrices can be replaced by the difference form if the frequency range
considered is narrow. The difference form of the reduced system matrices within the
eigenvalue range [AI> A2] are given by (Mokeyev, 1998)
(19)
The physical meaning of these three definitions of the reduced system matrices are
shown in Figure 5.1 in which dR(A), mR(O), mR(A), and mR(A1,2) denote the elements
of the dynamic stiffness matrix and mass matrices of the static form, differential form,
and difference form, respectively.
Actually, the accuracy of the reduced system matrices as well as the eigenvalue
problem resulting from the difference form depends substantially on the choice of
the step length of difference. Different systems may require different step lengths.
74 Model Order Reduction Techniques
o
Figure 5.1 Explanation of three forms of reduced mass matrices.
T(A) = [ I ] = [ I ] (21)
R(A) -(Kss - AMss)-l(K sm - AMsm)
Substituting Eq. (20) into the left-hand side of Eq. (2) and premultiplying the
transpose of matrix T(A) gives
(22)
(23)
Dynamic Condensation 75
It can be seen that the reduced mass and stiffness matrices defined in Eq. (24) are
the same as those defined in Eqs. (15) and (16). Therefore, the same reduced model
will result from the direct back-substitution and coordinate transformation if the
definition in Eq. (9) is used.
Research shows that the reduced model resulting from the coordinates transforma-
tion generally has higher accuracy than that from direct back-substitution if the same
dynamic condensation matrix is used in both cases and the condensation matrix is
not exact. Such improvement of coordinate transformation is attributed to Rayleigh's
principle that a first-order error in mode shape gives only a second-order error in the
estimated frequency.
Equation (22) is the eigenvalue problem of the reduced model. Because the dynamic
condensation matrix is a function of the unknown eigenvalue A, the stiffness and
mass matrices of the reduced model are frequency-dependent. The corresponding
eigenproblem of the reduced model is nonlinear, called a nonlinear eigenproblem, with
respect to the eigenvalue A. A special approach is required to solve this eigenproblem.
The details of the solution schemes are discussed in Section 5.5.
(25)
(26)
where I E R SXS is an identity matrix; cf, and A E R SXS are the complete eigenvector
and eigenvalue matrices of the slave model. From the orthogonal equations, the
inverse of the stiffness and mass matrices may be expressed as
-1 - - -1 - T
Kss = ~A ~, (27)
Similarly, the dynamic flexible matrix on the right-hand side of Eq. (7) may be
expressed in terms of the modal parameters as
-1 - - -1 - T
(Kss - AMss) = ~(A - AI) ~ (28)
76 Model Order Reduction Techniques
where (Ass - A1 ss )-1 is a diagonal matrix. Using the power series expansion in
Section 3.2, the dynamic flexible matrix may be expanded as a power series, that is,
H
(Kss - AMss)-1 = K;;I L(AMssK;;I)h + AH+1cj,A -(H+ll(A - AI)-Icj,T (29)
h=O
or
H
(Kss - AMss)-1 = K;;I L(AMssK;;I)h + AH+ 1(K;;IMss)H+I (Kss - AMss)-1
h=o
(30)
Using the power series, the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (7) may be
rewritten as
where
-I - T]
DI (A) = -Kms [Kss-I + AKss-I MssKss-I + cI>A
- 2 -
(A - AI) cI> Ksm
= -KmsK;;IKsm - AKmsK;;IMssK;;IKsm
- 2 - -2 - 1- T
- KmscI>A A (A - AI)- cI> Ksm (36)
Letting H = 0 in Eq. (29) and substituting it into Eq. (33) and (34), respectively, yield
-I - - -1 - -1 - T
D2(A) = AKms[Kss + cI>AA (A - AI) cI> ]Msm
-I - - -I - -I - T
= AKmsKss Msm + AKmscI>AA (A - AI) cI> Msm (37)
D3(A) = AMms[Kss
-I
+ cI>AA
- - -1 -
(A - AI)
-1 - T
cI> ]Ksm
Introducing Eqs. (35) through (38) into Eq. (31) and then substituting the resulting
equation into Eq. (7), we have
(39)
Dynamic Condensation 77
or in a power series as
Many investigators consider Eq. (39) as a standard equation (Berkkan and Dokainish,
1990; Zhang and Wang, 1993; Rothe and Voss, 1994; Qu, 1998) to develop efficient
eigensolvers.
Equations (39) and (40) may be rewritten in terms of the physical parameters as
Equations (40) and (42) are the power series expansion of the dynamic stiffness matrix
of the reduced model.
Again, the stiffness matrix KG and mass matrix M G defined in Eqs. (43) and (44)
are identical to those resulting from Guyan condensation. Thus, the reduced system
matrices defined by Guyan condensation may be viewed as an initial approximation
ofEq. (40) or (42).
No approximation was introduced in the derivation of the expression in equation
(40). Therefore, the expression on the right-hand side of Eq. (40) is exactly equal
to that on the right-hand side of Eq. (7). Clearly, the power series in Eq. (40) is
conditionally convergent. The condition is).. < ).. 1 in which).. 1 is the lowest eigenvalue
of the slave model.
When A < Ac> the dynamic stiffness matrix may be expanded in a power series,
that is,
(47)
where
(49)
Introducing
(i = 0,1,2, ... ,p) (50)
(53)
where
Do 0 0 0 Dl Dz Dp-l Dp
0 Dz D3 Dp D2 D3 Dp 0
Ep = Fp =
0 Dp- 1 Dp 0 Dp- 1 Dp 0 0
0 Dp 0 0 Dp 0 0 0
(54)
Clearly, the order of the eigenvalue Eq. (53) in the state space is pm x pm. Using
the state space vector, the high-order eigenproblem is linearized. Eq. (53) is a clas-
sical eigenvalue problem. It can be solved using most classical techniques, and all
eigensolutions may be obtained simultaneously.
No approximation was introduced from Eq. (49) to Eq. (54). These two eigen-
value equations are, hence, equivalent. However, the size of the eigenvalue problem in
Eq. (53) is increased. Fortunately, several terms are usually enough for accuracy pur-
poses and, as a result, pm is still much smaller than n. Furthermore, schemes (Fricker,
1983a, 1983b) are available to accelerate the convergence of subspace iteration and
to reduce the computational effort for solving the equivalent linearized eigenvalue
problem (53).
Dynamic Condensation 79
Specifically, the quadratic and cubic eigenproblems may be, respectively, expressed
as
(55)
and
(56)
(57)
in the valid eigenvalue range [0, Ac), Eq. (56) may be simplified as (Bouhaddi and
Fillod, 1996)
(58)
(1)
Clearly, it is the quasistatic condensation given in Section 4.5. Since the inertia effects
are included in the condensation matrix R(wo), it is usually referred to as the dynamic
condensation matrix in the literature. To tell the difference between this method
and the dynamic condensation method with general meaning, it is referred to as
classical dynamic condensation in this book. Because the frequency Wo is prescribed,
the dynamic condensation matrix in Eq. (1) is a constant matrix and independent
of the unknown eigenvalues. The reduced stiffness matrix KR(WO) and mass matrix
MR(WO) based on this dynamic condensation matrix can be similarly computed from
Eq. (5.1-24), that is,
{
MR(WO) = Mmm + MmsR(wo) + RT (wo)Msm + RT (wo)MssR(wo) (2)
KR(WO) = Kmm + KmsR(wo) +RT(Wo)Ksm +RT(wo)KssR(wo)
One important feature of the classical dynamic condensation approach is that the
relation of responses or eigenvectors between the masters and slaves is exact at the
80 Model Order Reduction Techniques
to eliminate the slaves, these equations will be reduced to (Paz, 1984, 1991)
(4)
(5)
where
(p,q = m,s) (6)
The reduced mass matrix may be obtained from the first equation ofEq. (2), and the
reduced stiffness matrix is computed from the relation
(7)
The reduced model defined above is useful for the system under a harmonic excita-
tion or a periodical excitation whose frequency spectral is very close to the specific
frequency Wo because the reduced model is exact for the harmonic excitation and
highly accurate for the periodical excitation.
(2)
where the matrix G(A) is defined in Eq. (5.1-45). The second term on the right-hand
side of Eq. (2) denotes the error of the power series. Clearly, the Guyah condensation
matrix may be viewed as the initial approximation of the exact condensqtion matrix
Dynamic Condensation 81
and the error is represented by the second term. The errors in the condensation matrix
can be rewritten as
- 1 - ] G T (A)
qJs
As/A - 1
(3)
where).j and cPj(i = 1,2, ... ,5) denote the ith eigenvalue and eigenvector of the slave
model. Clearly, if the computed eigenvalue A is much smaller than the first eigen-
value). 1 of the slave model, the sum of the error effectively has a small contribution
and Guyan condeJ?sation will be generally valid. Therefore, the valid eigenvalue (fre-
quency) range of Guyan condensation is 1..< Ae =).1 or W < We = WI in which Ae
and We are usually called cut eigenvalue or cut frequency. To guarantee that this con-
densation has enough accuracy, A < 0.31.." is usually selected (Bouhaddi and Fillod,
1996). For A ~ Ae, the results of Guyan condensation can be totally erroneous.
Similarly, the error resulting from the quasistatic condensation is given by
i' i - ] GT (A)
[
= fl_i iPl ~qJs
AS - A
1 _ 1 _
[ 1 -] G T (A)
= (i l - q)/(A _ q) _ 1 qJI -
(A2 - q) / (A - q) - 1
qJ2 -
(AS - q) / (A - q) - 1
qJs
(4)
Clearly, the valid eigenvalue range or frequency range is identical to that of Guyan
condensation.
As defined above, the slave model is the full model with all its masters grounded.
The frequencies of the full model will increase if some of its degrees of freedom are
fixed (that is, the slave model). Hence, the eigenvalues in the lowest frequency range
of the full model are usually smaller than the first eigenvalue of the slave model, that
is, the cut eigenvalue. This is the reason why Guyan condensation is generally valid
in the lowest frequency range of the full model and the corresponding results have
reasonable accuracy within that range.
The errors in the Guyan condensation matrix, shown in Eq. (3), indicate that
these errors depend on the ratio AdJ.... The bigger the ratio, the more accurate the
reduced model. Similarly, the ratio Ae - q/A - q affects the errors in the quasistatic
condensation matrix as shown in Eq. (4), This ratio may be greater than AdA if the
shifting value is selected properly. This is why the quasistatic condensation sometimes
has higher accuracy than Guyan condensation, as shown in Section 4.5. Furthermore,
the more the eigenvalue shifting value q approaches the eigenvalue A, the greater the
ratio Ae - q/A - q is, the fewer errors the condensation matrix has, and the higher
accuracy this eigenvalue is. Consequently, the accuracy of Guyan condensation may
be improved by increasing the ratio of AdA.
From the definition of a slave model we know that different masters result in
different slave models as well as a different lowest eigenvalue. This means that the
lowest eigenvalue of the slave model-that is, the cut eigenvalue-depends on the
82 Model Order Reduction Techniques
choice of masters. Therefore, optimal selection of masters may increase the ratio
}..d}.. and, as a result, the accuracy of Guyan condensation. On the other hand, the
lowest eigenvalue (cut eigenvalue) may also be increased significantly by increasing
the number of the masters (constraint degrees of freedom). Consequently, what and
how many degrees of freedom are retained in the master set have significant influence
on the accuracy of Guyan condensation. The details on this topic can be found in
Chapter 7.
(5)
The flexible matrix in Eq. (5) may be expanded in a power series. Substituting the
power series with If for the first dynamic flexible matrix on the right side of Eq. (5)
and the power series with If - 1 for the second dynamic flexible matrix, we have
+).. ["I:
h=O
(}"K;;lMss)h] K;;lMsm + }..H+liX -H (A - }..I)-li TMsm (6)
H H
R()") = RG + L [),.\K;;lMss)h-l] K;;lMssRG + L [),.h(K;;lMss)h-l] K;;lMsm
h=l h=l
_ ),.H+liA -H (A _ AI)-l A -liT Ksm +),.H+liA-H(A - H)-liTMsm
(7)
or in a simplified form as
H
R()") = RG + L [),. \K;;l Mss)h-l] K;;l (Msm + MssRG)
h=l
+),.H+liA-H(A _H)-lG T (8)
where G is defined in Eq. (5.1-45). Equation (8) is the general expression of the
high-order Guyan condensation. The last term on the right side of Eq. (8) denotes
the residual of the power series because the expansion is conditionally convergent.
The former three terms, H = 3, in the power series were considered by Chen and Pan
( 1988) when discussing the features of Guyan condensation.
Dynamic Condensation 83
Similar to Eq. (3), the error denoted by the third term on the right side of Eq. (8)
may be expressed as
AH+1iX -H(X _ll)-lG T
[
AH+l -(I) )..H+1 -(2) )..H+l -(5)] GT
= ~{'(~I_A)fIIs ~r(~2_)..)fIIs W(~s_A)fIIs
[
1 -(1) 1 -(2) 1 -(5)] G T
= (~l/)..)H(~I/A _ 1) fPS (~2/A)H(~2/A -1) fils (~sIA)H(isl).. _ 1) fils
(9)
It can be seen immediately that the valid eigenvalue range or frequency range of
the high-order Guyan condensation is the same as that of Guyan condensation. The
errors in the high-order Guyan condensation matrix, Eq. (9), depend upon the ratio
O. .clA)H. Since the ratio (AclA)H is greater than AdA in the valid frequency range.
the high-order Guyan condensation has higher accuracy than Guyan condensation.
However, if the eigenvalue is out of the valid range, the error may be exaggerated.
Furthermore, the computational effort of the higher-order Guyan condensation is
much more expensive than Guyan condensation due to the frequency-dependent
terms.
A =AG+AA (12)
where AG and CfJmG are the eigenvalue and eigenvector resulting from Guyan conden-
sation. Substituting Eqs. (12) and (13) into Eq. (10), ignoring the higher-order small
number, and considering
K GCfJmG = AGM GCfJmG (14)
we have
Premultiplying both sides of Eq. (15) by CfJ ~G and considering Eq. (14) again results in
(16)
I:!..A AG T
S = T = -TCfJmGI:!..MCfJmG (17)
Substituting Eq. (12) into the right-hand side ofEq. (17) and assuming I:!..A is a small
number compared with AG, we have
(18)
where
(19)
in which the subscript i denotes the ith eigenvalue; ASl is the first eigenvalue of
the slave model. Acs is the lowest constrained eigenvalue encountered during the
automatic elimination of the slaves using Henshell and Ong's scheme (Henshell and
Ong, 1975). The details can be found in Chapter 7.
The error bound given by Eq. (20) is conditionally right. The condition is that the
computed eigenvalue is much smaller than the cut eigenvalue, that is, A « Ac. If not
this condition, the perturbation of the reduced mass matrix M G used by investigators
(Flax, 1975; Johnson et al., 1980; Thomas, 1982; Chen and Pan, 1988) is not right.
The matrix I:!..M shown in Eq. (11) may not be viewed as a perturbation because it is
not higher-order smaller than the reduced mass matrix MG.
higher-order eigenvalue. This is another way to increase the cut eigenvalue, and the
logic of the dynamic substructuring scheme is to be discussed in this section.
One feature of this method is that it employs a "mixed" function base that consists
of two different classes of shape functions, namely, (1) static response functions and
(2) admissible functions that are linearly independent of the functions of class one
(Bouhaddi and Fillod, 1996). Of course, the mode shape of the slave model satisfies
the requirement and is a good selection. The Guyan condensation matrix may be used
for the function base of class one. In order to take into account the contribution of the
slaves, a second class of admissible shape functions associated with a finite number p
(p « s) of additional coordinates can be introduced. In the particular case that the
modal admissible function (p is defined by Eq. (5.1-25), the transformation of slave
coordinates CfJ s to the modal coordinate takes the following form:
(1)
where the matrix (,p E RSxP consists of the lowest p mode shapes of the slave model;
a E RP is the modal coordinate. The eigenvector of the full model may thus be
expressed as
(2)
Introducing Eq. (2) into Eq. (5.1-2) and premultiplying it by the transpose of matrix
Ta result in
o ] _ A [MG (3)
App GJ
in which the matrix
(4)
expresses the dynamic coupling between CfJ s and CfJm. It can be seen that if all modes
of the slave model are included in Eq. (1), the relation of eigenvector between the
masters and slaves is exact. The condensed eigenvalue problem (3) is usually used in
the substructure synthesis and retains both CfJ m and a in the reduced model (Craig
and Bampton, 1968; Hale and Meirovitch, 1982).
In the dynamic condensation and dynamic substructuring method, only the physical
degrees of freedom, the masters, are retained. The expression for the modal coordinate
a in terms of the physical coordinate CfJm may be obtained from the under part of
Eq. (3) as
- -1 T
a = ACApp - AI) Gp CfJ m (5)
Finally, the relation of eigenvector between the masters and slaves is defined by
introducing Eq. (5) into Eq. (1), namely,
(6)
(7)
86 Model Order Reduction Techniques
where
(8)
The mass correction matrix is symmetric and takes into account the dynamic effect
of slaves.
Actually, the condensation matrix defined in Eq. (6) may be obtained directly from
Eq. (5.3-8). As we know, if let H = 0 in Eq. (5.3-8) and drop the residual term,
the Guyan condensation matrix results. In order to increase the accuracy of Guyan
condensation, some part of the residual term, the contribution of the lowest p modes
of the slave model, for example, may be included in Guyan condensation. That is the
condensation matrix defined in Eq. (6).
within the interested frequency range. Using this approximate linearization, Eq. (5.1-
39) becomes
(2)
the valid range A < Ac. The direct iteration approach is actually a combination of the
eigenvalue shift (spectrum shift) and any classical eigensolver such as inverse iteration
and Jacobi transformation. In this section, three schemes based on the direct iteration
will be provided.
This iterative scheme begins with the selection of the initial approximation of the ith
eigenvalue AiO) or frequency wiD) and follows by four major steps.
1. Set the initial approximate eigenvalue as the eigenvalue shift and compute the
dynamic condensation matrix using Eq. (5.2-1).
2. Compute the reduced mass and stiffness matrices using Eq. (5.2-2).
3. Solve for the reduced eigenvalue problem using any classical eigensolver such as
inverse iteration and Jacobi transformation and find the current approximation
of the ith eigenvalue.
4. Check the convergence of the eigenvalue or frequency. If it does not converge, go
back to step 1.
The basic computational steps for the ith mode (i = 1,2, ... , m) are as follows:
1. Select the initial approximation of the ith eigenvalue AiO) or frequency wiD) .
2. For j = 1, 2, ... , begin the iteration:
2.1 Formulate matrix D(A;j-l)) = K - A;j-l) M or
K - (wY-l))2M and partition
(b)
2.3 Compute the reduced mass and stiffness matrices using the following matrix
operations:
or (f)
2.5 Find the jth approximation of the ith eigenvalue A;j) or frequency wj j ) from
those resulted from Eq. (f).
88 Model Order Reduction Techniques
or (g)
where 8 is the prescribed error tolerance. If the iteration does not converge,
go back to step 2.1.
2.7 Compute the mode on the slaves if necessary:
(h)
The proper selection of the approximate eigenvalue is required twice in this iterative
scheme. One is the initial approximation in step 1 and the other is the jth approxima-
tion from current iteration in step 2.5. If the approximate eigenvalues are not selected
properly, the convergence of these eigenvalues to the required is not guaranteed.
Several ways may be used for the selection of the initial approximation of the
ith eigenvalue or frequency. The approximate eigenvalues or frequencies could be
obtained from Guyan condensation (Hou and Chen, 1997) or by having the interval
of frequency, i.e., bisection, incorporate with the Sturm sequence properties (Wittrick
and Williams, 1971) of the dynamic stiffness matrix (Leung, 1978; Miller, 1980) or
from modal test (Hou and Chen, 1997) or from the eigenvalue of reduced model
next to the currently converged eigenvalue or frequency (zero for the first eigenvalue)
(Leung, 1978; Paz, 1984, 1991).
As we know, the accuracy of eigenvalues resulting from Guyan condensation is
usually very low. Hence, these eigenvalues are usually not good approximations, espe-
cially for the higher order of modes. Some eigenpairs may be lost using this selection.
The latter three selecting schemes are better than the first. Of course, the approximate
eigenvalues from modal test usually have very high accuracy. However, the experi-
mental results are usually unavailable and very costly for a large size of structures or
systems. The approximate eigenvalues of the reduced model may also be obtained
by isolating them in closed intervals using the Sturm theorem as mentioned above.
In order to make the intervals as small as possible, a large number of bisections
are usually required. Since the Gauss elimination process is required to triangularize
the dynamic stiffness matrix of the full model for each trial value, the computa-
tional work used in these bisections will be very expensive. Fortunately, the number
of bisections can be reduced using the subpolynomial interpolation (Berkkan and
Dokainish, 1990). This iteration method was originally proposed by Iyers (1981) for
the solution of large linear eigenproblems but can be more efficiently employed for
the frequency-dependent eigenproblems. No extra computational effort is necessary
in Paz's scheme because the solution of the eigenvalue problem of the reduced model
is required anyway.
It is quite difficult to find the eigenvalue for the current approximation in step
2.5. Paz (1984, 1991) believed that the order of the currently interested eigenvalue
should not change during iterations. This means the ith eigenvalue (eigenvector) of
the full model should come from the ith eigenvalue (eigenvector) of the reduced
model. Therefore, the ith eigenvalue resulting from the reduced eigenproblem (0 is
the current approximation. Generally, this is not right. As described above, the modes
in the reduced model approach to those of the full model in a specific frequency
Dynamic Condensation 89
range rather than the low-frequency range because the dynamic condensation at each
of the iterations is actually the quasistatic condensation. Therefore, the order of the
currendy interested mode is usually not the same order of the modes in the reduced
model. This will be demonstrated in Example 5.1.
It has been shown and will be shown later that an eigenvalue calculated for
any mode in the iteration process should converge monotonically from above
to the exact eigenvalue. Thus, the exact value of the next eigenvalue falls between
the currendy converged eigenvalue and the approximate eigenvalue next to it in
the reduced model. Unfortunately, this is not right if the high modes rather than the
lowest modes are retained in the reduced model due to the shift. This problem
has not been properly solved up to now. In Example 5.1, it will be shown that
this problem can be circumvented by increasing the accuracy of the quasistatic
condensation.
1. Select the initial approximation of the ith eigenvalue A~O) or frequency wrO);
2. For j = 1,2, ... , begin the iteration:
2.1 Formulate the partitioned dynamic stiffness matrix:
(j-l) (j-1)
D
( ~-1») =
AI
[ Kmm - \
(j-l)
Mmm Kms - Ai
(j-l)
M ms]
(a)
Ksm - \ Msm Kss - \ Mss
2.2 Reduce the dynamic stiffness matrix (a) by Gauss-Jordan elimination of the
slaves to
~] (b)
T(j) = [ I ] (c)
R(j)
2.4 Compute the mass and stiffness matrices of the reduced model:
r
2.5 Solve for the reduced eigenproblem:
K~) ({)C;;; = A(j) M~) ({)C;;; or K~) ({)C;;; = (w (j) M~) ({)C;;; (e)
2.6 Find the jth approximation of the ith eigenvalue A~) from those resulting
from equation (e) I
90 Model Order Reduction Techniques
or (f)
where E is the prescribed error tolerance. If the iteration does not converge,
go back to step 2.1.
2.8 Compute the mode on the slaves if necessary:
(g)
The solution of the linear equations (b) in Schemel is replaced by the Gauss-Jordan
elimination of the slaves in Scheme II. Also, the reduced stiffness matrix is directly
computed from the reduced dynamic stiffness matrix. Therefore, the transformation
process of the stiffness matrix from the full physical space to the reduced space is
avoided.
However, the explicit transformation process of the mass matrix from the full
physical space to the reduced space is still required at each iteration as shown in
equation (d) in Scheme II. This transformation involves the multiplication of three
matrices of dimensions equal to the total number of degrees of freedom in the
full model. mn 2 + m 2 n multiplications and mn 2 + (m 2 - m)n - m 2 additions are
required in this transformation. Thus, if the number of the total degrees of freedom,
n, is large, this process may take some time. A modification, proposed by Paz (1989),
obviates such numerical operations. This modification consists of calculating the
reduced stiffness matrix K R only once by simple elimination of the slaves from the
full matrix after setting the initial approximation of eigenvalue zero. The reduced
mass matrix for any mode i is calculated as
(1)
A = AD + ~A (2)
Dynamic Condensation 91
where !l).. is the difference between the approximate and the exact eigenvalues. The
corresponding eigenvalue problem in the incremental form is given by
(3)
2.3 Compute the reduced mass and dynamic stiffness matrices using the
following matrix operations:
R -- D mm
D(j) + D ms R(j) (e)
(£)
2.5 Find the jth approximate increment !l)..Y) of the ith eigenvalue )..Y) from
those resulting from equation (£),
2.6 Check the convergence:
(g)
(h)
Similarly, the convergence of the modes of interest may be safeguarded by the Sturm
theorem associated with the dynamic stiffness matrix (Leung, 1978). Let sD denote
92 Model Order Reduction Techniques
the Sturm number of the matrix D, that is the number of negative elements on the
diagonal of the triangularized form of D by Gauss elimination without interchanges,
then the Sturm sequence properties of D ensure that the number of natural modes
below AO is equal to SD(AO). It can be shown that
where sDss and SDR may be obtained in steps 2.2 and 2.4 of the algorithm when the
matrices are decomposed.
In step 2.5, Leung (1978) suggested that the jth approximate increment /).A7)
of the ith eigenvalue A7) is the lowest absolute eigenvalue from the eigenproblem
equation (f), while the lowest positive eigenvalue was suggested by Zhang and Sains-
bury (1999). Sometimes, both are not right because the selection highly depends
on the accuracy of the initial approximation of this eigenvalue. The details for the
selection of the initial approximation and the jth approximation of the ith eigenvalue
have been previously discussed.
Table 5.1 Accuracy of frequencies and mode shapes without iteration (Case 1)
Mode. Mode 5
!J7MO 136.68
226.19 289.G3
0.18370 0.G9736
Dynamic Condensation 93
1 2
1 ~
2 8.7611
3 14.151
15.018
5 1&.9'13
of the three higher orders of modes is increased. Of course, the accuracy of the first
mode is reduced. Therefore, this selection of the initial approximation of the second
frequency may be fine. Unfortunately, 32.640 is absolutely not a good approximation
for the third frequency (27.794) because this value falls between the fourth and
the fifth exact frequencies as shown in Table 4.1. Of course, this condensation is
much worse than the second condensation concerning to the accuracy. Similarly,
the approximation of the fourth and fifth frequencies is much closer to the sixth
and the eighth frequencies, respectively, rather than themselves. As a consequence,
the accuracy of the reduced model is getting worse and worse. This phenomenon
also happens when the second case for the selection of the masters in Table 4.2 is
considered as shown in Table 5.3. Fortunately, the deterioration of accuracy is not as
serious as that in Table 5.1.
Next, Scheme I, in which the first eigenvalue resulting from Guyan condensation
is assigned to the initial approximation of the first eigenvalue, is used. Similarly,
no iteration is implemented. The natural frequencies, their errors, and the CCFMV
values of the corresponding mode shapes resulting from this solution scheme are
listed in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. Cases 1 and 2 for the selection of masters are used. Clearly,
there is not much improvement for the accuracy in both cases.
Now, let's consider Scheme I with iteration. Both Case 1 and Case 2 for the selection
of the masters are used. The error tolerance is set at £ = 10- 4 . The results are listed
in Tables 5.6 and 5.7. It can be seen that the modes converge to the exact after several
iterations. Unfortunately, they are not convergent to the modes that we want. In
Table 5.6, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 13th orders of frequencies and mode shapes are
obtained, and the results in Table 5.7 converge to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 13th
94 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Table 5.4 Accuracy of frequencies and mode shapes without iteration (Case 1)
MocIe2 Mode 4
35.012 98.ti7
2S.967 227..51
G.56B Utili
Table 5.5 Accuracy of frequencies and mode shapes without iteration (Case 2)
" MocIeS
Table 5.6 Accuracy of frequencies and mode shapes with iteration (Case 1)
20Ut
212 3 7
LOII08O 1.l10080 UIGOOO UIOOIIO 1
Table 5.7 Accuracy of frequencies and mode shapes with iteration (Case 2)
modes of the full model. Several lower modes interested are lost. The reason is the
improper selection of the initial approximation and the following approximations for
the currently interested frequencies. Therefore, the noniterative and iterative scheme
for the solution of the frequency-dependent reduced eigenproblem, which results
from the exact dynamic condensation, strongly depends on the accuracy of Guyan
condensation if paz's scheme for the selection of approximate frequencies is used.
If the accuracy of Guyan condensation or quasistatic static condensation is low, the
lower modes interested may be lost although the iteration can converge.
This problem may be solved by selecting several more degrees of freedom as the
masters. Case 3, in which three more degrees of freedom are selected compared to
Case 1, is finally considered. The iterative scheme is run again with the same error
tolerance. The results are listed in Table 5.8. The results excellently agree with the
Dynamic Condensation 95
Table 5.8 Accuracy of frequencies and mode shapes with iteration (Case 3)
..
4 0 14.085 22.330 27.900 29.934
14.080 .22.302 27.897 ~
5 0 15.376 26.333 29.740 32.762
5 15.348 26.318 29.734 32.602
exact values of the first five modes after one or two iterations. The frequencies of
the reduced model during iterations are listed in Table 5.9. The underlined numbers
are the final frequencies in the solution scheme and the italic numbers are the initial
approximation of the next frequency. The initial approximations for the lower five
frequencies used in the iterative scheme are 6.2842, 14.584,28.550,29.955, and 35.230.
The errors of these approximations are 0.74311 %, 1.0851 %,2.7191 %,0.07174%, and
0.27811 %, respectively. Clearly, they are already very close to the exact frequencies.
Therefore, the highly accurate approximation is absolutely necessary in this iterative
scheme. For the system with close frequencies, the requirement of the accuracy of
initial approximation will be much higher. Consequently, Leung, Hou and Chen
suggested two schemes for the selection of initial approximation. In these schemes,
the initial approximations usually have reasonable high accuracy.
very close to the full model although the band nature of the dynamic stiffness matrix
may be taken into account.
The series expansion of the inverse of dynamic stiffness matrix (Kss - AMss) may
be used (Leung, 1988). Letting H = 1 in Eq. (5.1-29) leads to
(Kss - AMsJ
-1 -1
= Kss + AKss-1 MssKss-1 + A2 <l»A
- - -2 -
(A - AI)
-I - T
<I» (5)
Since it is impossible to obtain all the modes of the slave model, only the first several
modes, p for example, are considered. With this consideration, Eq. (5) becomes
where the computation of the matrix K;; 1 or its equivalence is required by all the
condensation methods. Although only several modes are included in the expansion,
the results usually have a high accuracy. In practice, the computation of K;; 1K sm
instead of the explicit inverse K;;I, (K;;IKsm)TMssK;;IKsm instead of the explicit
product K;; 1M ssK;; 1 are performed. This may be accomplished by any equation
solver that takes advantage of the sparsity of the matrix Kss.
Although the computational work may be reduced somewhat using the series
expansion, the series is conditionally convergent. Special care should be taken when
using it. Furthermore, the lower modes of the slave model are required, which is also
very time-consuming. A lot of matrix multiplication processes also introduced using
this power series. It will be shown in Chapter 6 that the repeated computation of the
inverse of the dynamic stiffness matrix or its equivalence as well as the modes of the
slave model is unnecessary.
where X(t) and X(t)are the acceleration and displacement response vectors, respec-
tively. Using the mode superposition method, the displacement response vector in
Eq. (1) may be expressed as
in which «I» E Rnxnis the complete eigenvector matrix of the full model; q(t)E R n is
modal coordinates. It is well known that the computation of the complete eigenvec-
tor matrix is unnecessary and impossible for a large-size model. Therefore, modal
truncation is usually used in mode superposition. If p eigenvectors of the full model
are used in the mode superposition, Eq. (2) is rewritten as
(3)
Because the modal coordinate is p-dimension as, the modal displacement vector qp (t)
has p components. The eigenvector matrix «I»p E RnxP only consists of p eigenvectors
of the full model. These p eigenvectors may be selected from the lowest frequency
range, or any interested frequency range, or totally arbitrarily, which depends upon
the requirement of the reduced model. Since the eigenvectors in the matrix are linearly
independent, the rank of the eigenvector is p.
With the arrangement of the total degrees of freedom, Eq. (3) may be partitioned as
(4)
Case A: m = p
This is the simplest case. If the mode shapes (eigenvectors) selected are all observed at
the masters, matrix «I»mm is full-column rank, nonsingular, and invertible. Therefore,
qp(t) can be solved from Eq. (5) as
(7)
98 Model Order Reduction Techniques
CaseB: m > p
Since the number of equations is greater than the number of unknowns, Eq. (5) can
be put into a normal form by projecting this equation as
(8)
(9)
(10)
Substituting Eq. (8) into (10) produces the general form of the solution of the
modal coordinates in terms of physical coordinates and modal matrix as
(ll)
where +~p (m > p) is the generalized inverse of matrix +mp and is defined as
(m > p) (12)
Equation (ll) represents the "best" solution of the p variables given in Eq. (5). It
is important to note that Eq. (ll) can alternatively be obtained by using a least-
square solution if the minimization of the error squared between Xm(t) (exact) and
+mpqpCt) (approximate) is performed. For this reason, the modal reduction is called
the least-square model reduction by Chiao (1992, 1996).
CaseC: m < p
In the case that the number of equations is less than the number of unknowns, the best
solution of Eq. (5) is an average solution of the equations. If the system matrices are
formed for this condition, they are row-rank m and are, therefore, not rank-deficient.
But the system modal variables p have been put into m equations, thus producing an
average of the system variables.
Finding the solution for this condition requires a set of m variables be projected to
the p system variables as .
(13)
Dynamic Condensation 99
where qm (t) is the approximate solution set. The opposite of this statement implies
that the p system variables will be averaged into the m system equations. Substituting
it into Eq. (5) produces
(14)
which, in turn, can be used to solve for the qm(t). The coefficient matrix in Eq. (14)
can be shown to be of proper rank to possess a standard inverse such that
Introducing Eq. (15) into Eq. (l3) produces the general form of the average solution
(O'Callahan et aI., 1989) as
qp(t) = 4>~pXm(t) (16)
(m < p) (17)
R = 4>sp4>~p (20)
Equation (20) is the dynamic condensation matrix defined in modal reduction and
SEREP. Actually, Eq. (20) may be directly obtained from the definition equation of
dynamic condensation matrix, namely, 4>sp = R4>mp.
As stated above, the coefficient matrices in Eq. (9) can be inverted safely using the
singular value decomposition (SVD) process. The procedure is also used to determine
the rank of a matrix since the number of singular values (that is, those values that are
above a threshold value of the machine zero) represents the rank of the matrix.
Any matrix A of order (n x m) can be decomposed into its orthonormal matrices
and singular values as
A = Ul:V T (21)
In Eq. (21), U is an orthonormal matrix of order (n x n) whose columns are the eigen-
vectors of matrixAA T; V is an orthonormal matrix of order (m x m) whose columns
100 Model Order Reduction Techniques
are the eigenvectors of matrix ATA; 1: is the matrix of order (n x m) containing the
singular values as
(22)
The reduced system matrices have the same form as those in Eq. (5.1-23).
In SEREP (O'Callahan et al., 1989), the coordinate transformation matrix is obtained
by substituting Eq. (18) into Eq. (4), namely,
(24)
in which
T = • •+ =
p mp \••cI»++}
•
mp mp
sp mp
(25)
Using the coordinate transformation in Eq. (25), the reduced system matrices and
equivalent force vector are given by
(26)
Clearly, the coordinate transformation matrices defined in Eq. (23) and (25) are
different. Consequently, the resulting reduced system matrices are also different.
Introducing Eq. (23) into Eq. (26) gives
(30)
where App is the eigenvalue matrix consisting of the p eigenvalues of the full model.
Using the reduced stiffness matrix in Eq. (29), we have
or in a simplified form as
(33)
(34)
Equations (33) and (34) show that the reduced stiffness and mass matrices defined in
Eq. (29) are bothorthonormalized with respect to the eigenvector matrix consisting
of the p eigenvectors at masters. This means that the p modes are retained in the
reduced modes exactly. Similarly, one can easily verify that
(35)
(36)
Because the matrix 4)mp is partitioned from the matrix 4)p, which contains p linearly
independent vectors by column, it is not very difficult to make the column vectors of
matrix 4)mp linearly independent by the proper selection of masters (see Chapter 7).
Thus, the singular-value matrix has the form
(37)
(38)
102 Model Order Reduction Techniques
where
(39)
where the terms with the square brackets can be reduced using SVD to
(41)
in which
(42)
Equations (40) through (42) show that the rank of K~ is p, which is less than the
order m of the matrix. Therefore, the reduced stiffness matrix K~ is rank-deficient
(O'Callahan et aI., 1989). In a similar fashion, introducing Eqs. (38) and (39) into the
expression for M~ in Eq (30) yields
(43)
(44)
Thus, the reduced mass matrix is also rank-deficient at rank p (O'Callahan et aI.,
1989).
For the case of p = m, the coordinate transformation matrices resulting from the
two definitions, modal reduction and SEREP, are the same. The reduced system
matrices are, thus, identical and full ranked. However, the calculation of these m
modes of the full model will be a very heavy burden because m is generally several
hundreds or thousands for a large-sized model.
-lyTA Y -I ,-2
U [ (1pp pp o(1pp - A(1pp
o ] U T CfJ m = 0 (46)
O-AO
Dynamic Condensation 103
or simply
(48)
It is shown in Eqs. (46) and (47) that the reduced eigenvalue problem contains two
groups of eigenvalues. The first group defined in the upper partition is the group of
eigenvalues of the full model. The second group results from the fact that the system
matrices of the reduced model are rank-deficient and therefore are in determinant.
These values are considered as null values of the eigenproblem.
As discussed above, the reduced model resulting from the modal-type reduction
exactly preserves all the modes selected from the full model although the reduced
system matrices are rank-deficient. These modes of interest may be at any frequency
range of the full model or totally arbitrary. Hence, the accuracy of the reduced
model is generally independent of the selection of masters provided that the selected
modes are observable at these masters. Therefore, this method is very useful for the
modal expansion of the measured modes and test-analysis model correlation. The
disadvantages are that the interested modes of the full model should be computed
before the reduction and that the special scheme is required to remove the null values
of the reduced model before eigenanalysis is performed.
An iterative SEREP was developed by Sastry, Mahapatra, and Sopalakrishnan et al.,
(2003) for high-frequency responses based on Sturm sequence check. The method
uses eigenvalue separation properties on the excitation frequency band to identify the
optimal number of the eigenpairs required to capture the accurate responses.
(49)
104 Model Order Reduction Techniques
The dynamic condensation matrix derived from this complete modal matrix is
expressed as (Zhang and Wei, 1995)
in which the matrix RG is the generalized Guyan condensation matrix, which is given
in Section 4.4. Clearly, if RG is a null matrix, the complete mode condensation is
identical to modal reduction.
{ ....
..,
} =[ I ] ..
-IC;;IIC,.. ..
No
{ .... }_[ I ] .. No
.., -ICiIC. . . .
{::}-[-k;~ J. . No
QUIIiIIIIdc
..........ioD
(::) - [_ I Jt'. No
I!Dct
t::) -[ I
Ya
t::) -[ No
{....., } -[-IC;I,,_
, ,J ft'.. ).. -l(A,. - A.l)-IGJ... Ya
No
Dynamic Condensation 105
Preqaeocy
depeDrIeoce
I::} = [:::t],,·
Hybrid reduction {::} ... To.,. + (T.....w - Taa,.)PTf'. No
and other similar reduction schemes such as general dynamic reduction (O'Callahan,
1990), extended Guyan condensation (Conti, 1989), dynamic substructure (Cheung
and Leung, 1991), and Craig-Bampton method (Craig and Bampton, 1968) are also
listed. It is necessary to note that the coordinate transformation matrix listed in this
table can also be used for responses. The important features of these methods are
summarized below.
Type of Condensation
All the condensation methods provided in Chapters 4 and 5 can be generally divided
into three categorizes and referred to as physical-type, modal-type, and hybrid-type
dynamic condensation. If only the system matrices, stiffness and mass matrices, of the
full model are required directly in the computation of dynamic or static condensation
matrix, this approach is called physical-type condensation. Guyan condensatiqn, gen-
eralized Guyan condensation, quasistatic condensation, generalized quasistatic Guyan
condensation, exact condensation, and classical dynamic condensation fall into this
category. In the modal-type condensation, a given number of modes of the full model
are required to compute the dynamic condensation matrix. Modal reduction and
SEREP belong to this type. Ifboth the system matrices and the modal data of the full
model or slave model are used to estimate the dynamic condensation, this method
106 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Exact Condensation
As the name says, the dynamic condensation matrix and the system matrices of
the reduced model resulting from the exact condensation are exact. However, these
matrices are functions of the unknown eigenvalues. The reduced eigenproblem
is frequency-dependent, and a special scheme is required for the solution of the
eigenproblem.
For the case that the dynamic stiffness matrix of the reduced model can be expanded
into a power series, the state space approach or its equivalent may be used to solve for
the nonlinear eigenvalue problem. In the linearization approaches, all the high orders
of terms are linearized within a narrow, interested frequency range. Alternatively, these
high orders of terms may be viewed as a perturbation of the reduced mass matrix
defined by Guyan condensation. The direct iterative scheme is the simplest approach
for solving the frequency-dependent eigenvalue problem. However, proper selection
of the initial approximation and the approximate values for the next round of iteration
are required. In the latter two schemes, the eigenpairs are usually computed one by
one. The matrix inverse of the dynamic stiffness matrix or its equivalent is required
at each iteration in the direct iterative methods. This is usually very time-consuming.
In the modified scheme I of exact condensation, the inverse of the dynamic stiffness
matrix is replaced by a power series with the first two terms and some of the residual
considered. Therefore, the matrix inverse is unnecessary during the iteration. How-
ever, the first several modes of the slave model are required. The condensation matrix
is not exact anymore due to the truncated errors of the high modes of the slave model.
Therefore, optimal choice of masters may increase the cut eigenvalue and the
ratio Ac / A. Furthermore, increasing the number of masters may increase the cut
eigenvalue significantly.
3. Inclusion of the lowest modes of the slave model: In the dynamic substruc-
turing scheme, since the effect of the several lowest modes are included in the
condensation matrix, the cut eigenvalue increases from the first eigenvalue to
the lowest eigenvalue that the corresponding modes do not consider in the
condensation matrix. Thus, its accuracy is higher than Guyan condensation.
However, a special eigensolver for the reduced eigenproblem is required due
to the frequency-dependent system matrices of reduced model. Of course, the
dynamic substructuring scheme may also be implemented into the high-order
Guyan condensation, dynamic condensation, etc.
Generalized Coordinates
The form of transformation between the full model coordinates and the reduced
model coordinates defined by the Craig-Bampton method, general dynamic reduc-
tion, extended Guyan reduction, and Ritz vector method are essentially the same.
The only difference among these is the selection of generalized coordinates and the
corresponding transformation. In the Craig-Bampton formulation, for example, the
transformation matrix concerning the generalized coordinates are selected from the
mode shapes of the slave model. In extended Guyan condensation, the transforma~
tion is mass-weighted static shape vectors associated with slaves when the masters are
constrained.
Other Schemes
The version of the substructure synthesis provided in Table 5.10 is in fact similar to the
dynamic substructuring method in formulation. The difference between them is the
108 Model Order Reduction Techniques
solution sequence. The substructure synthesis method retains the master coordinates
(/Jmand the general coordinates a in the final equation while the dynamic substructure
method retains only the master coordinates.
The transformation matrix of the Ritz vector method is very similar to those of the
substructure synthesis approach and the dynamic substructure approach. The Ritz
vectors Y and Ritz coordinates yare used in the former while the mode shapes of the
slave model and the modal coordinates are used in the latter two.
References
Arduini, C (1984) Spectral condensation: A new concept in numerical structural dynamic
analysis. ESA Journal, 8(1):27-36.
Berkkan, K and Dokainish, MA (1990) Accuracy of condensed eigenvalue solution. AIAA
Journal, 28(7):1324-1325.
Bouhaddi, Nand Fillod, R (1992). Substructuring using a linearized dynamic condensation
method. Computers and Structures, 45( 4):679-683.
Bouhaddi, Nand Fillod, R (1996) Model reduction by a simplified variant of dynamic condensation.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 191 (2):233-250.
Chen, S-H and Pan, HH (1988) Guyan condensation. Communications in Applied Numerical Methods,
4(4):549-556.
Cheung, YK and Leung, AYT (1991) Finite Element Methods in Dynamics. Science Press, Hong Kong,
China:223-234.
Chiao, K-P (1992) Least square model reduction for vibration control of complex mechanical systems.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland.
Chiao, K-P (1996) A systematic coupling procedure for component mode synthesis with least square model
reduction. Proceedings of the 14th International Modal Analysis Conference (Dearborn, Michigan),
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT:648-654.
Conti, P (1989) A higher order generalization of the Guyan reduction method. Proceedings of the 7th
International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, Nevada), Union College, Schenectady, NY:529-532.
Craig, RR, Jr and Bampton, MCC (1968). Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AIAA Journal,
6(7):1313-1319.
Flax, AH (1975) Comment on "reduction of structural frequency equations." AIAA Journal, 13(5):701-702.
Fricker, AJ (l983a) A new approach to the dynamic analysis of structures using fixed frequency dynamic
stiffness matrices. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 19(8): 1111-1129.
Fricker, AI (I 983b ) A method for solving high-order real symmetric eigenvalue problems. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 19(8):1131-1138.
Fox, GL (1981) A method for estimating the error induced by the Guyan reduction. Shock and Vibration
Bulletin, 51 (I): 19-24.
Hale, AL and Meirovitch, L (1982) General procedure for improving substructures representation in
dynamic synthesis. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 84(2):269- 287.
Henshell, RD and Ong, JH (1975) Automatic masters for eigenvalue economization. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3(4):375-383.
Hou, Z and Chen, S (1997) Iterated dynamic condensation technique and its applications in modal testing.
Shock and Vibration, 4(3):143-151.
Hu, Y and Zheng, Z-C (1989) Improving the accuracy of Guyan reduction by the perturbation technique.
Proceedings of the 7th International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, Nevada), Union College,
Schenectady, NY:988-99I .
Iyer, MS (1981) Eigensolution using Lagrangian interpolation. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 17(10):1443-1453.
Johnson, CP, Craig Jr, RR and Yargicoglu, A (1980) Quadratic reduction for the eigenproblem. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 15(6):911-923.
Kammer, DC (1987) Test-analysis model development using an exact modal reduction. International
Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, 2( 4): 174-179.
Kammer, DC (1991) A hybrid approach to test-analysis-model development for large space structures.
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 113(3):325-332.
Leung, AYT (1978) An accurate method of dynamic condensation in structural analysis. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 12(11): 1705-1715.
Dynamic Condensation 109
Leung, AYT (1988) A simplified dynamic substructure method. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 16(6):827-837.
Lin, Rand Xia, Y (2003) A new eigensolution of structures via dynamic condensation. Journal of Sound
and Vibration, 266(1):93-106.
Miller, CA (1980) Dynamic reduction of structural models. Journal of the Structural Division,
106(STlO):2097-2108.
Mokeyev, VV (1998) A frequency condensation method for the eigenvalue problem. Communications in
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 14(1):1-8.
Moler, CB and Stewart, GW (1973) An algorithm for generalized matrix eigenvalue problems. SIAM
Journal of Numerical Analysis, 1O( 2):241-256.
O'Callahan, JC, Avitabile, P, Lieu, 1-W, and Madden, R (1986) An efficient method of determining rotational
degrees of freedom from analytical and experimental modal data. Proceedings of the 4th International
Modal Analysis Conference (Los Angeles, CAl, Union College, Schenectady, NY: 50-58.
O'Callahan, JC,Avitabile, P, and Riemer, R (1989) System equivalent reduction expansion process (SEREP).
Proceedings of the 7th International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, Nevada), Union College,
Schenectady, NY: 29-37.
O'Callahan, J (1990) Comparison of reduced model concepts. Proceedings of the 8th International Modal
Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, Florida), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 422-430.
Paz, M (1984) Dynamic condensation. AIAA Journal, 22(5):724-727.
Paz, M (1989) Modified dynamic condensation method. Journal of Structural Engineering, 115(1):
234-238.
Paz, M (1991) Structural Dynamics: Theory and Computation, Third Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York: 273-299.
Qu, Z-Q and Chang, W-J (1997) An extended order method (EOM) for nonlinear eigenvalue problems.
Mechanics and Practice, 19( 6):25-26.
Qu, Z-Q and Fu, Z-F (1998) Extended order method for eigenproblem and its sensitivity of frequency-
dependent systems. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 32( 4):23-26.
Ramani, A and Knight, CE (1997) A solution method for some nonlinear eigenproblems in structural
dynamics. Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, Florida), Society
for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1952-1958.
Rothe, K and Voss, H (1994) Improving condensation methods for eigenvalue problems via Rayleigh
functions. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 111(1-2):169--183.
Roozen, NB, de Kraker, A, Kriens, RFC, and van Campen, DH (1989) Foundation and application
of the spectral condensation technique for dynamic analysis of large structures. Proceedings of the
7th International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, Nevada), Union College, Schenectady, NY:
233-242.
Sastry, CVC, Mahapatra, DR, Sopalakrishnan, S, and Ramamurthy, TS (2003) An iterative system equivalent
reduction expansion process for extraction of high frequency response from reduced order finite element
model. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 192 ( 15): 1821-1840.
Thomas, DL (1982) Errors in natural frequency calculations using eigenvalue economization. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 18(10):1521-1527.
Wittrick, WH and Williams, FW (1971) A general algorithm for computing natural frequencies of elastic
structures. Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 24(3):263-284.
Yang, K-Tand Kim, H-S (1998) An alternative approach to modeling of structures using dynamic stiffness
matrices. Proceedings of the 16th International Modal Analysis Conference (Santa Barbara, California),
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT: 674-680.
Zhang, DW and Wei, FS (1995) Complete mode-type reduction (CMR) for structural dynamic system.
Proceedings of the 13th International Modal Analysis Conference (Nashville, Tennessee), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 616--622.
Zhang, QJ and Sainsbury, MG (1999) On the exact reduction and eigensolution for the Galerkin element
method. Computers and Structures, 71(4):413-422.
Zhang, Y-Q and Wang, W-L (1993) A new method for dynamic reduction. Proceedings of the 11th
International Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, Florida), Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Inc., Bethel, CT: 513-515.
6 Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation
6.1 Introdudion
Various dynamic condensation approaches have been described in the preceding
chapter. Generally, they can significantly improve the accuracy of static condensation.
Unfortunately, these methods have one or more disadvantages:
111
112 Model Order Reduction Techniques
3. Construct a new subspace using the mode shapes at the masters and slaves, or
directly using the improved dynamic condensation matrix and an identity matrix.
4. Formulate the system matrices of the reduced model for the second time using
the new subspace, and then compute the eigenpairs of the reduced model if
necessary.
Although the inertia is considered partially or fully in the exact, the Kidder, and
the Miller mode expansions, the new mode shapes computed from these expansions
had not been used to perform a second stage of model reduction for quite a long
time. According to Rayleigh's principle, a first-order error in mode shape gives only a
second-order error in the estimated frequency, so the accuracy of the reduced model
could be increased if the coordinate transformation is defined properly.
Based on the exact, the Kidder, and the Miller mode expansions, two versions
of two-step approaches, SEREP-Guyan condensation and SEREP-IRS (improved
reduced system), were proposed by Papadopoulos and Garcia (1996). The advantage
of these schemes is that several eigenpairs may be obtained simultaneously. However,
it can be proven that the SEREP procedure used does not have any effect on the
accuracy of the reduced model. Research (Qu and Fu, 1998c) shows that the SEREP-
Guyan scheme based on the exact and the Kidder mode expansions may improve
the accuracy of Guyan condensation only when the accuracy of Guyan condensation
is very high. It can be proven that the SEREP-Guyan scheme based on the Miller
mode expansion is equivalent to the improved reduction system method, which will
be described later. In 1998, Mokeyev (1998) proposed a two-step scheme based on
the exact mode expansion. Similarly, the accuracy of this scheme is usually lower
than Guyan condensation. Furthermore, only one eigenpair can be computed once.
The computational effort is very expensive due to the inclusion of iteration. By the
introduction of the generalized inverse technique, the two-step methods based on
the exact, the Kidder, and the Miller mode expansions were extended and three vari-
ants were developed byQu and Selvam (2001). The results show that the new variants
may improve the accuracy of the reduced model. However, the computational effort is
expensive due to the matrix manipulation required in the computation of generalized
mverse.
In 1989, an improved reduced system (IRS) was proposed by O'Callaham (1989)
based on the concept of the two-step condensation schemes. This method has a very
important impact on the development of iterative dynamic condensation technique.
In this scheme, the parameters of the reduced model resulting from Guyan conden-
sation were used to represent the inertia effect in the dynamic condensation matrix.
Hence, the ignored inertia in Guyan condensation is considered partially. It is well
known that the accuracy of the reduced model computed from IRS is much higher
than that from Guyan condensation.
The concept in the two-step methods may be extended in a successive manner. This
leads to many iterative approaches. Sauer (1989) proposed a successively approaching
scheme. The eigenvalue is updated during iterations. Because the mode shapes at the
masters resulting from Guyan condensation never changes, this scheme is usually not
convergent. It will not converge to the exact value even though it might converge in
some cases.
Two modifications were proposed by Blair (Blair et aI., 1991) for the Sauer's scheme:
(1) The eigenvalue as well as the eigenvector are updated simultaneously during
iterations. (2) All the eigenpairs are computed simultaneously from the reduced
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 113
model. In this method, the Miller mode expansion is successively used to improve
the accuracy of the reduced model. The initial, first, and second approximations
of this method are equivalent to Guyan condensation, IRS, and SEREP-IRS based on
the Miller mode expansion, respectively. Only the relation between the accelerations
and the displacements at masters are updated successively in this scheme, while the
static relation RG is kept for the relation between the masters and slaves. Thus, this
scheme might converge. However, it will not converge to the exact values.
Based on the successive theory, an iterative scheme was developed by Zhang (Zhang,
1994; Zhang and Li, 1995). Two assumptions were used in this scheme. (l) The
stiffness matrix resulting from Guyan condensation is exact and it is unnecessary
to update during iteration. (2) The mass matrix of the reduced model is defined as
M~) = T~MT(i). Compared to the Blair scheme, the dynamic condensation matrix
is updated in this scheme during iterations. However, the system matrices of the
reduced model are not updated fully. This scheme does not converge.
The IRS method was correctly extended to produce an iterative algorithm, referred
to as iterative IRS, by Friswell, Garvey, and Penny (1995, 1997). Because the corrective
term is updated iteratively using the current best estimation of the reduced model,
numerical examples and full proof of the convergence (Friswell et al., 1998) showed
that the eigenpairs of the reduced model could converge to those of the full model.
Based on the generalized inverse of the sub matrices of system matrices, a succes-
sive approach was proposed by Zhang (1996) and then improved by Qu, Fu, and Hua
(l999). The convergence rate of this approach is higher than iterative IRS. Unfor-
tunately, the generalized inverse of the system matrix should be calculated before
iteration. This makes the approach computationally expensive.
A governing equation of dynamic condensation matrix was first derived from the
eigenvalue equation of the full model by Suarez and Singh (Suarez and Singh, 1992;
Singh and Suarez, 1992). Due to the nonlinearity of the governing equation, an
iterative scheme was proposed in which Guyan condensation is selected as an initial
approximation of the dynamic condensation matrix. This method is based on the
standard eigenvalue problem. For general eigenproblems, a Cholesky decomposition
of the mass matrix is required to transfer the general eigenproblem into the standard
one. This scheme was successfully extended to the general eigenproblem by Qu and Fu
(1998a). Because the method is directly derived from the general eigenproblem, the
transformation from the general to the standard eigenproblems becomes unnecessary.
To accelerate the convergence of the iteration, one modification was proposed by Qu
and Fu (l998b). Numerical examples show that this modification may accelerate the
convergence. However, the initial computational effort becomes more expensive.
A hybrid dynamic condensation for eigenproblems was derived by Kim (l995, 1996).
It is a combination of the dynamic condensation, modified inverse iteration, and
modal reduction. An iterative dynamic condensation approach was developed by Qu
(Qu, 1998; Qu and Fu, 2000) by the introduction of classical subspace iteration. This
method has three advantages: (1) The convergence is much faster than all the methods
stated above, especially when the eigenpairs of the reduced model are close to those of
the full model; (2) it is much more computationally efficient than those approaches,
because it is unnecessary to calculate the stiffness and mass matrices as well as the
eigenpairs of the reduced model within every iteration; (3) the convergence can be
proven simply.
In this chapter, several two-step methods will be described at first. Then, three
iterative approaches for the dynamic condensation will be provided. It will be shown
114 Model Order Reduction Techniques
that the accuracy of the reduced model computed from the iterative approaches is
much higher than that obtained from static condensation and some of the dynamic
condensation methods in Chapter 5. All the eigenpairs of the reduced model may be
computed simultaneously in these algorithms.
({lis ~ -[K;;! Ksm + Ai( -K;;! Msm + K;;! MssK;;1 Ksm)]({lim (4.3-11)
The details of these three mode expansion schemes may be found in Section 4.3.
Therefore, the eigenvector matrix constructed by these m eigenvectors is given by
(2)
(3)
Finally, the system matrices and eigenproblem of the reduced model are given by
After the eigenvectors at the masters are determined, the eigenvectors at the slaves
may be computed using these mode expansions again.
When the exact expansion is used in the mode expansion, it is required to cal-
culate the inverse of matrix (Kss - AiMss) or its equivalent repeatedly for m times.
Since s is very close to n, this expansion procedure is quite computationally expen-
sive. In Kidder's and Miller's expansions, there is no extraordinary inverting process.
However, the coefficient matrices
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 115
and
_[K.;;lKsm + Ai(-K.;;lMsm + K.;;lMssK.;;lKsm)]
should be calculated repeatedly.
The eigenproblem of the reduced model defined by Guyan condensation is usually
given by
(6)
Because the reduced mass matrix is positive definite, premultiplying both sides of
Eq. (6) by the inverse of the reduced mass matrix M G leads to
Introducing Eq. (7) into the right-hand side of Eq. (4.3-11) results in
The dynamic condensation matrix in Eq. (9) was named the improved reduced system
by O'Callahan (O'Callahan, 1989). Compared to all the condensation approaches
discussed up to now, there are several important advantages of this dynamic con-
densation method. They are
It will be shown that the accuracy of the reduced model defined by this dynamic
condensation matrix is much higher than that by Guyan condensation.
Not much extra computational effort is required to formulate this dynamic conden-
sation matrix because the inverse or its equivalent of the stiffness matrix of the
slave model is required by all other approaches anyway.
The dynamic condensation is independent of the eigenvalue. Hence, the reduced
model is also independent of the eigenvalue, that is, eigenvalue-independent. Stan-
dard methods may be used to solve the reduced eigenproblem. As we know, many
dynamic condensation approaches provided in Chapter 4 are frequency-dependent,
and a special solution scheme is required.
(10)
Km = [KmmJ'
Ksm
Ks = [KmsJ,
Kss
Mm = [MmmJ,
Msm
Ms = [MmsJ
Mss
(11)
116 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Letting A = 0 in Eq. (l3), we may obtain the generalized Guyan condensation matrix
defined in Section 4.4.
It can be proven that the matrix (Ks - AMs)+ in Eq. (l3) can be expanded in a
power series as
(15)
All terms containing higher powers of A than quadratic are dropped in Eq. (15) and
substituting it into Eq. (l3) leads to
({Js = (K; + AK;MsK;)(Km - AMm)({Jm (16)
Expanding Eq. (16) and once again dropping the terms that contain higher powers of
A yield
(17)
Equations (13), (16), and (17) are the three mode expansions based on the generalized
inverse (Qu and Selvam, 2001) and, for convenience, referred to as generalized exact
mode expansion, generalized Kidder's mode expansion, and generalized Miller's mode
expansion, respectively.
After the eigenvectors at the masters are determined from generalized Guyan con-
densation, the corresponding eigenvectors at slaves can be computed from any of
these three mode expansions. Then, the procedure shown in Eqs. (1) through (4) may
be used to obtain the reduced model.
As shown in Section 4.4, the eigenproblem of the reduced model defined by the
generalized Guyan condensation is given by
(18)
Because the reduced mass matrix is positive definite, premultiplying both sides of
Eq. (18) by the inverse of the reduced mass matrixMG leads to
-1
= AqJm
h h
MG KG({Jm (19)
Introducing Eq. (19) into the right-hand side ofEq. (17) results in
(20)
Therefore, the dynamic condensation matrix defined by the third expansion is
given by
-1 -1
+ Kss + MssRG)MG
.... A A A A
shows the same phenomena occur even if the accuracy of the corresponding Guyan
condensation is very low. This means that these two two-step methods may increase
the accuracy of the reduced model defined by Guyan condensation even if the masters
are improperly selected.
Generally, the accuracy of the frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes
computed from the two-step method based on the exact expansion is much lower
than that of Guyan condensation. In Case 2, in which the masters were properly
selected, the percent error of the fifth frequency resulting from Guyan condensation
and the exact expansions are, for example, 2.9517% and 93.695%. The latter is much
bigger than the former. Only the accuracy of the first and third modes in Case 1 and
the first two modes in Case 2 is increased after the application of the exact expansion.
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 119
Furthermore, the computational effort of the exact expansion is much more expensive
than Kidder's and Miller's expansions.
The two-step methods based on the generalized exact, the generalized Kidder, and
the generalized Miller expansions have very similar features as those of the two-step
methods based on the exact, the Kidder, and the Miller expansions. This is verified
easily by the results in Tables 6.3 and 6.4. Generally, the reduced models computed
from the generalized inverse-based two-step methods have higher accuracy than those
from the common inverse-based two-steps methods. However, the computational
efforts required in the former methods are usually more expensive than the latter
methods due to the computation of generalized inverse.
(5.1-4)
(5.1-5)
In Eqs. (5.1-4) and (5.1-5), A and qJ (qJm and qJs) are the eigenvalue and eigenvector
of the full model. Clearly, the dynamic condensation matrix as well as the reduced
model is a function of the unknown eigenvalue. Different modes may have a different
dynamic condensation matrix and as a result a different reduced model. Therefore,
the dynamic condensation is called single-mode-dependent condensation.
The dynamic flexible matrix in Eq. (5.1-5) may be rewritten as
(5)
120 Model Order Reduction Techniques
we have
(6)
(7)
(8)
or
(9)
Equation (8) or (9) is the governing equation of the dynamic condensation matrix.
No explicit unknown eigenvalue and mode of slave model is included. Therefore, all
the modes of interest may be computed simultaneously.
KcI»=McI»A (10)
cI»TKcI»=A (11)
cI»TMcI» =1 (12)
where cI» and A E R nxn are, respectively, the eigenvector and eigenvalue matrices of
the full model; IE R nxn is an identity matrix. If the total degrees of freedom are
divided into the masters and slaves, the partitioned form ofEq. (10) is given by
(13)
A simple multiplication of the matrix in Eq. (14) expands this equation into two
equations, namely,
Using Eq. (16), the submatrix of the eigenvector matrix on the slaves may be expressed
in terms of itself and that on the masters as
Introducing this definition of dynamic condensation matrix into Eq. (17) leads to
(19)
If the submatrix of eigenvector matrix at masters is a full rank matrix, Eq. (19) can
be rewritten as
(20)
or
(21)
Equation (20) or (21) is the governing equation of the dynamic condensation matrix.
The aforementioned derivation for the governing equation of the dynamic conden-
sation matrix is used by Qu and Fu (1998a) for the dynamic models with the general
form of the mass matrix. It is an extension of the scheme used by Suarez and Singh
(1992) in which a standard eigenproblem was considered. For the general eigenprob-
lem the Cholesky decomposition was suggested to transfer it into the standard form
before the method (Suarez and Singh, 1992) is applied. If the mass matrix is diagonal,
the transformation is simple. For consistent mass formulations, however, the prelimi-
nary procedure for the transformation can be a significant burden. Furthermore, this
transformation is inconvenient in the response analyses for a dynamic model.
It will be shown later that the reduced model defined by the dynamic condensation
matrix in Eq. (20) or (21) approaches the full model at the lowest frequency range.
Another dynamic condensation matrix and its governing equation may be obtained
using the similar derivation. The corresponding reduced model could approach the
full model at the highest frequency range (Suarez and Singh, 1992). Because this
situation rarely happens in the finite element analysis, it will not be described herein.
The partitioned form of Eq. (11) may be written as
(22)
Here, the ascending order of the eigenvalues in matrix A is not required. Therefore,
the eigenvectors in the eigenvector submatrix may be selected randomly. Matrix c)mm,
for example, may be constructed by the lowest m eigenvectors, or the m eigenvectors
within any given frequency range, or totally random m eigenvectors. For a model with
r repeated eigenvalues, the r modes generally should be included in the submatrix as
122 Model Order Reduction Techniques
a whole if any of them is included. Expanding Eq. (22) leads to the following four
equations, namely,
Assume the stiffness and mass matrices of the reduced model are K Rand MR. Accord-
ing to the requirement of the dynamic condensation, they should satisfy the following
eigenvalue equations and orthogonal conditions:
Comparing Eq. (29) with Eq. (27) leads to the reduced stiffness matrix, namely,
(31)
Similarly, the reduced mass matrix may be derived from Eqs. (12) and (30) as
(32)
The definition of the reduced stiffness and mass matrices in Eqs. (31) and (32) has
the same form as that in Section 5.1.
Up to now, three schemes for the derivation of the reduced system matrices have
been presented: (1) direct substitution (Section 5.1.1); (2) coordinate transformation
(Section 5.1.2); and (3) the orthogonal requirement of reduced system matrices.
The first scheme is valid for the single-mode-dependent dynamic condensation and
the latter two are valid for the single-mode- and multimode-dependent dynamic
condensation.
Clearly, the eigenvector and eigenvalue matrices of the reduced model are included
in governing Eqs. (20) and (21). If an iterative scheme is used to solve the equation,
the computation of them is required at every iteration. Furthermore, the inverse of
the eigenvector matrix is necessary. Thus, two modifications (Qu and Fu, 1998a) may
be introduced to improve the features of the governing equations.
Postmultiplying by the inverse of eigenvector matrix +mm on both sides ofEq. (29)
results in
(33)
Inserting Eq. (33) into the governing Eq. (20) or (21) gives
or
(35)
Clearly, the inverse procedure of the eigenvector matrix becomes unnecessary in the
governing Eq. (34) or (35).
Premultiplying by the inverse of the reduced mass matrix on both sides ofEq. (28)
leads to
(36)
Introducing Eq. (36) into the right-hand side ofEq. (20) or (21), the governing equa-
tion defined in Eq. (8) or (9) results. It can be seen that the eigenvalue and eigenvector
matrices of the reduced model are not included in the governing equation. Therefore,
the corresponding computation is unnecessary during iteration. The reduced stiffness
and mass matrices are necessary to be computed at every iteration anyway.
Assuming Xm(t) = 0 and Xs(t) = 0 in Eq. (41), the Guyan condensation matrix
results.
Define the dynamic condensation matrix as
(42)
..
X(t)
IXm(t)} =
=..
Xs(t)
[1]..
R
Xm(t)
.
= TXm(t) (44)
Introducing Eqs. (43) and (44) into Eq. (38) and premultiplying it by the transpose
of T produces
(45)
(46)
from which the relation between the acceleration and displacement responses at the
masters is obtained as
.. -1
Xm(t) = -MR KRXm(t) (47)
Inserting Eqs. (42), (44), and (47) into Eq. (41) results in
The governing equation of the dynamic condensation matrix may be obtained from
the above equation, which is the same as that given in Eq. (8).
integration scheme. The displacement response vector X (t) at all degrees of freedom
is then sampled at a series of different times during the simulation. The dynamic con-
densation matrix is then computed from these sampled response vectors. To improve
the features of the reduced model, these sampled vectors should be orthogonalized.
From the definition of response-dependent dynamic condensation matrix, the
same governing equation as those from the multimode-dependent dynamic conden-
sation may be obtained by the introduction of the relation between the displacement
and acceleration responses at masters shown in Eq. (47). Because the reduced model
has only m degrees of freedom, the equation represents the relation of responses con-
tributed by m modes. As a result, this relation is approximate even when the reduced
model is exact.
It is well known that the displacement responses in time domain X(t) may be
expressed using the mode superposition as
I I [~mnJ
where q(t) ERn is a modal coordinate. The partitioned form ofEq. (49) is given by
in which ~mn E R mxn and ~sn E R sxn . Substituting Eq. (50) into Eq. (42) gives
(51)
(1)
jR(i) = RG +K;;l(Msm
4. Compute the initial approximation of the reduced stiffness and mass matrices:
(O) - K
KA R(O)
-ms,
M(O) - M
A-ms,
R(O) M(O) - M R(O)
B-SS
(c)
(O) -
KR -
K
mm
+ K(O)
A (d)
~=~+Mm W
6.2 Calculate the ith approximation of the reduced system matrices:
K(i) - K
A- ms,
R(i) M(i) -
A-
M ms R(i) ,
(i) - K R(i)
KB -ss,
M(i) -
B-
M ss R(i) (i)
K(i) cI»(i)
R mm
= M(i) cI»(i) A (i)
R mm mm (1)
and those in Eqs. (h) through (k) for k times to obtain the ith approximation
of the dynamic condensation matrix.
6.2 Solve the reduced eigenproblem shown in Eq. (1).
6.3 Check convergence:
(i) (i-k)
Wj -wj
(i)
<8 (j = l,2, ... ,p =:: m) (0)
w·]
In this iterative scheme, the computation of the reduced system matrices and the
inverse of the reduced mass matrix is required at every iteration. The solution of the
reduced eigenproblem is required every k iterations. If the check of convergence is
required at every iteration, iterative Scheme I is recommended. However, the conver-
gence is usually very slow when the modes of the reduced model are close to those
of the full model, as will be shown in the numerical example. For this case, it is
unnecessary to check the convergence at every iteration and iterative Scheme II, in
which k is greater than 1, may be used.
through 10. Generally, the CCFMV values of mode shapes increase with the increase
of the number of iterations. The accuracy of the natural frequencies and mode shapes
increases significantly at the first several iterations, especially at the first iteration.
However, the convergence slows down when the reduced model is close to the full
model. Therefore, iterative Scheme II is necessary.
Cantilever Plate
The cantilever plate shown in Fig. 6.1 is considered for iterative Scheme I. The length,
width, and thickness of the plate are 3.0 m, 2.0 m, and 0.02 m, respectively. The
modulus is 2 x 1011 N/m2, mass density is 7,800kg/m 3 , and the Poisson ratio is
0.3. The plate is discretized by the finite element method using a thin rectangular
plate element as shown in Fig. 6.1. The discretized model has a total of 49 nodes
and 147 degrees of freedom (three degrees of freedom at each node). The lowest 15
natural frequencies of the full model are listed in Table 6.7 and considered as the exact
~ 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
~ 42 41 40 39 38 37 36
~ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
~ 28 27 26 25 24 23 22
~ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
~ 14 13 12 II 10 9 8
~I 2 3 4 5 6 7
j
Figure 6.1 Cantilever plate and its finite element model.
130 Model Order Reduction Techniques
value for comparison. The translations at nodes 3, 18, 24, 37, and 49 are chosen as
masters.
The percent errors of natural frequencies and the CCFMV values of the corre-
sponding mode shapes of the reduced model are listed in Tables 6.8 and 6.9 in the
first 10 iterations. Clearly, the natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 131
of the reduced model converge to the exact after sufficient iterations. Similarly, the
lower modes usually converge more quickly than the higher modes. After several
iterations, the convergence becomes slow.
The selection of masters is not as crucial for the accuracy of iterative method herein
as for many other physical-type condensation methods, although it may affect
the number of iterations required to achieve the convergent values. This selec-
tion should make all the interested modes observable at masters. Otherwise, the
unobservable modes will not be retained in the reduced model. This is particularly
important for the models with closed frequencies or repeated frequencies. The
details on the chosen of masters will be described in Chapter 7.
No further matrix inverse or its equivalent is necessary in the iterative scheme. Com-
pared to Guyan condensation, its variants, and several dynamic condensation
methods, the extra computational work of the present iterative scheme is not
expensive with the implementation of iteration while the accuracy of the reduced
model could be increased significantly.
The dynamic condensation matrix and the corresponding reduced model resulting
from the present method are multimode-dependent. Therefore, all the interested
modes can be computed from the reduced model simultaneously while they should
be calculated one by one in the exact dynamic condensation and its variants. The
convergence of the present iterative method is guaranteed, while the convergence
of the exact method and its variants strongly depends on the selection of the initial
approximation and the approximation for the next mode. The present reduced
model is very useful in further dynamic analyses due to the multimode-dependent
features. The speed of convergence of the present method is generally slower than
that of the methods aforementioned.
The present iterative method converges monotonically from the statically reduced
model to the SEREP or modal reduction model in which the number of kept modes
is equal to that of masters. All the interested eigenvectors should be available before
the condensation is performed in SEREP while they are bypro ducts of the present
method. When the number of interested modes (p) is less than the number of
masters (m), the reduced system matrices obtained from SEREP are rank-deficient
and the other (m - p) modes of the reduced model are undetermined. This leads
to difficulties in further dynamic analyses using the reduced model. The reduced
model resulted from the present method contains m modes although the accu-
racy of the (m - p) higher modes might be low. Choosing masters for which a
low mode is not observable leads to difficulties in SEREP. In the present iterative
method the modes that are not observable simply do not contain in the reduced
model.
The convergence of the present iterative method may be accelerated (Qu and Fu,
1998b). Due to the expensive computation of the modified stiffness matrix, this
method will not be described herein.
132 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(1)
where the matrices K m, K s' M m, and Ms are defined in Eq. (6.2-11). A simple
multiplication of the matrix in Eq. (1) leads to
(2)
Because the number of equations (n) is a little greater than the number of slaves, there
is no exact solution in Eq. (2). Generally, the coefficient matrixK s is full-column rank.
The least-square solution of Eq. (2) is given by
(3)
(4)
The iterative schemes in Section 6.4 may be used to solve the governing Eq. (5) or
(6). The initial approximation of the dynamic condensation matrix is the generalized
Guyan condensation matrix. This iterative method was first developed by Zhang
(1996) and improved by Qu and Fu (1999). Because the basic concept of this method
is very similar to the iterative IRS, it is referred to as the generalized iterative IRS for
convemence.
the first several iterations. After these iterations, the convergence becomes very slow,
especially when the dynamic properties, frequencies, and the corresponding mode
shapes, for example, of the reduced model are dose to those of the full model. In
this section, an iterative approach based on subspace iteration is to be presented. This
approach was first proposed by Qu (1998) and improved byQu and Fu (2000). It will
be shown that, as to the rate of convergence, this method is much faster than those
three approaches.
(1)
If the iterations proceeded using X~+I) as the next estimation of the subspace,
the subspace would collapse to a subspace of dimension 1 and only contain the
eigenvector corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue. Therefore, the Rayleigh-Ritz
procedure is adopted.
2. Compute the projections of the stiffness matrix K and mass matrix M in the
(,+1)
subspace spanned by X r:z :
(3)
where Q(i+I) and A (i+1) are the eigenvector and eigenvalue matrices of the
(i + l)th approximately projected model. Finally, the (i + l)th approximate
eigenvector matrix is given by
.(i+I)
m
= X(i+I)Q(i+l)
m (4)
Because Q(i+I) is the eigenvector matrix of the projected model in the subspace
and orthonormalized with respect to the projected mass matrix, the matrix .~+I)
136 Model Order Reduction Techniques
= (Q(i+l)TMpQ(i+l) = I
.(i+l)]
.(i+l) = [ mm = [X(i+l)Q(i+l)]
mm (5)
m .... (i+l) X(i+l)Q(i+l)
"'sm sm
(8)
in which
(9)
Using the definition of dynamic condensation matrix, the ith approximate eigenvector
may be expressed as
(10)
[X~;;'l)]
X (i+l)
_[CCmm
-
Cms] [ I ] .(i)
C ss R(i) mm
(11)
sm sm
(i+l) = (C
X mm mm
+ C ms R(i)).(i)
mm (12)
X(i+l)
sm
= (C sm + Css R(i)).(i)
mm (13)
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 137
(14)
Assuming R( -I) is a zero matrix and substituting it into the right-hand side ofEq. (14),
an initial approximation of dynamic condensation matrix is defined as
R(O) = C sm C-
mm
I (15)
Equations (14) and (15) are the governing equations of the dynamic condensation
matrixR.
From the above derivation, we can see that although the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure
is very important for the subspace iteration method, it has no effect on the dynamic
condensation matrLx and that since no parameters of the reduced model are included
in the iterative Eq. (14), it is unnecessary to calculate the system matrices (stiffness and
mass matrices) and eigensolutions of the reduced model at every iteration. Therefore,
a lot of computational work may be saved.
C = [Cmm Cms]
C sm C ss
)'y+ k) _ A(i)
J J
< £1 (j = 1,2, .. . ,p::::: m) (16)
)'y+k )
J
138 Model Order Reduction Techniques
where )..?) and)..ji+k) denote the ith and the (i + k)th approximations of the
jth eigenvalue. 81 is an error tolerance. If the former p eigenvalues converge,
exit the loop.
. (i+k)i+k)
4. Output the results: R = R(l+k), KR = K k ,MR = Mk and stop.
Since the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure has no effect on the iteration, the value k in this
iterative scheme can be any integers such as 1,2,3 and so on. When the value k is greater
than 1, k - 1 Rayleigh-Ritz procedures are avoided. This makes the present iterative
scheme computationally more efficient, especially when the number of masters is
large.
Scheme II
where r?) and r?+I) are the ith and the (i + l)th approximations of the
jth column vectors of dynamic condensation matrix, respectively. If the m
column vectors converge, exit this loop.
4. Calculate the stiffness and mass matrices of the reduced model.
5. Solve for the reduced eigenproblem if necessary.
7. Output the results: R = R(i+l), KR = K~+I),MR = M~+I) and stop.
In Scheme II, the stiffness and mass matrices as well as the eigenproblem of the
reduced model are computed only after the dynamic condensation matrix converges.
This makes the scheme more computationally efficient than iterative Scheme 1.
1. Assume the dynamic condensation matrix is a zero matrix and construct subspace
Xm:
(18)
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 139
X(O) _
(0)] _ K- 1MX
[Xmm (19)
m - X(O) - m
sm
R(O) = X(O) (X(O) )-1 (20)
sm mm
The next steps are similar to those in Scheme II and are omitted. Clearly, this
modification will not affect the results.
in which G E R nxm is the coefficient matrix. IntroducingEq. (22) into Eq. (19) results
m
(23)
(24)
or in a partitioned form as
[X~~]
Xsm
_[.mm
(0)
.sm
- (25)
Introducing Eq. (23) into the right-hand side ofEq. (21) for i = 0, we have
(29)
Since the diagonal elements in matrix Ass are greater than those in matrix Amm,
Eq. (31) may converge, namely,
+sm+;;;~ is the exact value of the dynamic condensation matrix. Therefore, the iter-
ative approach for the dynamic condensation proposed in this section is convergent.
The convergent value is +sm+;;;~.
•
S
0.0l1OOO
0.00000
o.oooao
Q.OIIOOO
Q.A!f!IIO
t..OQOIID
Iteration
0
Molle 1
1.0000
" ModeS
G.55J58
1 1.0000 .."". 0JI5246 0.98732
2 1.0000 1.0000 G.99995 0.99992
] 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
4 1.0000 1.0000 l.obOO 1.0000 1.0000
S 1.0000 1.0000 UlllOO 1.0000 1.0000
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 141
of the natural frequencies and the CCFMV values of the corresponding mode shapes
resulted from the reduced model are listed in Tables 6.14 through 6.17 for the former
five iterations due to the fast convergence.
The iterative method based on the subspace iteration is convergent. As shown in
Table 6.14, the relative errors of the natural frequencies resulting from the reduced
model with initial approximation are 0.98739%, 38.431 %, 24.855%, 77.314%, and
174.417%, respectively. The accuracy increases very quickly with the application of
iterations. After five iterations, these relatively errors are all less than 10- 5 . The
accuracy of the corresponding mode shapes is excellent after three iterations. The
convergence offrequencies and mode shapes of the plate, shown in Tables 6.16 and
6.17, is a little slower. However, the lower four frequencies and mode shapes are very
close to the exact after five iterations. Even for the fifth frequency the relative error
reduces to less than one 400th after five iterations.
All errors of natural frequencies are greater than zero. This means that the natural
frequencies are always higher than the real and the reduced model approaches the full
model from above. Generally, the lower modes have higher accuracy than the higher
modes for the same iteration. In these two examples, the CCFMV values increase with
the number of iterations.
To check the convergence of the dynamic condensation matrix, the ej-values,
defined in Eq. (17), during the iteration are plotted in Figs. 6.2 and 6.3 for the
two examples respectively. It is shown in Fig. 6.2 that the value ej reduces very fast
and steadily with the implementation of iterations. After five iterations, they are all
less than 10- 7 . In the second example, the convergence of the dynamic condensation
matrix is much slower than the first example. All the ej-values are less than 10- 5 after
142 Model Order Reduction Techniques
100
10.1 --j=1
10.2 -.-j=2
10-3
-e-j=3
-"-j=4
10"" -T-j=5
·--.10-8
CI)
10-8
10.7
10"
10-9
10.10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iteration
Figure 6.2 Convergence of dynamic condensation matrix (frame).
10 iterations. Under these iterations the frequencies and mode shapes have very high
accuracy. The convergence is not steady at the be~inning of the iteration although it
becomes consistent after the values are small, 10- for example. Therefore, although
the iterative Scheme II is computationally more efficient than Scheme I, the use of the
convergent criterion, Eq. (17), should be careful.
1~r-----------------------~====~~
--j=1
-.-j=2
-e-j=3
-"-j=4
~ -.-j=5
~~
a;--'
10-3
10""
10-8~--~--~--~----~--~--~--~~~~~~
~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iteration
Figure 6.3 Convergence of dynamic condensation matrix (plate).
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 143
in which the dynamic stiffness matrix and the shifted eigenvalue matrix are given by
D=K-qM (2)
A= A -qI (3)
Using the same division of the total degrees of freedom, Eq. (1) may be partitioned as
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Introducing the definition of dynamic condensation in Eq. (6.3-18) into Eq. (7) leads
to
(8)
(9)
144 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Similarly, if the same eigenvalue shift is applied to the eigenvalue problem, the
orthogonality condition of the reduced modelin Eqs. (6.3-28) and (6.3-29) produces
in which
DR =KR -qMR (12)
Postmultiplying both sides of Eq. (11) by the inverse of matrix 'Pmm gives
T
'PmmDR = Amm'Pmm
--1
(13)
Using the relations in Eq. (13), the governing Eq. (9) can be expressed as
Premultiplying both sides of Eq. (10) by the inverse of matrix MR and then
postmultiplying it by the inverse of matrix 'Pmm produces
Equations (14) and (16) are the governing equations of the dynamic condensation
matrix with the eigenvalue shift technique. Clearly, it is very difficult to directly solve
for the dynamic condensation matrix from these two equations, and an iterative
scheme is generally required. The iterative forms of these two equations are given by
{
R(i+1) = D;1[(Msm + MssR(i»'P~m('P~m)TDg) - Dsml (i = 0, 1,2, ... )
RCO) = _D;1 Dsm
(17)
(i = 0, 1,2, ... )
(18)
The similar iterative schemes in Section 6.4 may be applied to solve Eqs. (17) and
(18).
(19)
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 145
in which AI is the lowest eigenvalue of the full model. The shift value in the second
case can be found from this relation:
or (20)
In Eq. (20), Wmin and W max are the under and upper boundary of the frequency
range within which the dynamic characteristics are required to be kept in the reduced
model; W is the frequency around which the dynamic characteristics are interested.
The shift value of 35 in Case 1 satisfies the requirement in Eq. (19). Thus, it may
increase the rate of convergence. For the reduced model obtained from the same
iteration, the accuracy of the dynamic condensation with eigenvalue shift should be
higher than the condensation without shift. This can be seen clearly by comparing
the results in Tables 6.19 and 6.20 with those in Tables 6.5 and 6.6. This type of shift
has more effects on the lower modes than higher modes. Further researches show that
this shift technique is good for the models with close frequencies.
In many practical problems, we may require that the reduced model be close to
the full model within a given frequency range or around a given frequency. The shift
value given by Eq. (20) may be used. In Case 2 and Case 3, the given frequencies are
180 rad/s and 200 rad/s, respectively.
The results in Tables 6.21 and 6.22 show that, with the iterations, the modes of
reduced model approach to the 9th through 13th modes of the full model rather than
the lowest five modes. After five iterations, the maximum error is -1.2386%. This
accuracy is generally enough in engineering. The third mode of the reduced model,
which corresponds to the 11 th mode of the full model, has the highest accuracy
because the square of this frequency is the closest to the shift value.
Similarly, the modes obtained from the reduced model in Case 3 approach to the
4th through 8th modes of the full model as shown in Tables 6.23 and 6.24. The results
in Case 2 and Case 3 show that the percent errors of the natural frequencies are not
all positive anymore. Furthermore, small oscillations occur during iteration although
the iteration is generally convergent.
The two functions of the eigenvalue shift technique are also valid for the other two
iterative methods. For concise purposes, the discussion on this topic is omitted.
6.8 Summary
Three two-step methods for dynamic condensation have been provided based on the
exact, Kidder's and Miller's mode expansion expressions. The reduced models result-
ing from the two-step methods based on Kidder's and Miller's expansions have very
close accuracy. Their accuracy is much higher than that of Guyan condensation even
if the latter has very low accuracy when the masters are improperly selected. Gener-
ally, the accuracy of the reduced model computed from the two-step method based
on the exact expansion is much lower than that of Guyan condensation. These three
approaches have been extended and three variants presented using the generalized
inverse technique. They have very similar features as the methods based on common
mverse.
Three iterative methods for the dynamic condensation have been described. Several
numerical examples have also been provided to show the features of these conden-
sation approaches. A detailed comparison of these iterative methods and other four
iterative approaches can be found in Ye and Qu (2000).
The dynamic condensation methods can be broadly classified into three categories:
single-mode-dependent dynamic condensation; multimode-dependent dynamic
condensation; and response-dependent dynamic condensation. In these dynamic
condensation approaches, the dynamic condensation matrix is, respectively, defined
as the relations of single eigenvector, multi-eigenvectors, and displacement response
between the masters and slaves. The exact dynamic condensation method and the
SEREP can be directly obtained from the former two definitions. The same governing
148 Model Order Reduction Techniques
equations for the dynamic condensation matrix may be obtained from these defini-
tions after the introduction of an assumption for the response-dependent dynamic
condensation. The response-dependent dynamic condensation is actually equivalent
to all-mode-dependent dynamic condensation and, hence, the former two categories
may be viewed as the special cases of the response-dependent dynamic condensation.
Three types of governing equations of dynamic condensation matrix have been
derived based on the common inverse. Two iterative schemes for two of the governing
equations are provided in Section 6.4. The dynamic condensation matrix in these
schemes converges monotonically from the static condensation matrix through IRS
condensation matrix to the SEREP matrix in which the number of kept modes is
equal to that of masters.
The selection of masters is not as crucial for the accuracy of the iterative method as
for many other physical-type condensation methods, although it may still affect the
number of iterations required to achieve the convergence. Compared with Guyan con-
densation, the extra computational work during the iteration is not expensive while
the accuracy of the reduced model could be increased significantly. The dynamic
condensation matrix and the corresponding reduced model resulting from the iter-
ative method are multimode-dependent and, therefore, the resulting reduced model
contains all the modes interested. This feature is very useful in the applications.
Furthermore, the convergence of the iterative schemes is guaranteed.
Based on the generalized inverse, one variant of the iterative dynamic condensation
method has been derived. The resulting reduced model generally has higher accuracy
than the method based on common inverse. However, the computational work in the
former approach is higher than the latter.
For the method based on the subspace iteration, no information of the red-
uced model, such as reduced stiffness and mass matrices, reduced eigenpairs, etc.,
is included in the governing equation of the dynamic condensation matrix. Thus, it
is unnecessary to compute these parameters during iteration. A lot of computational
effort may be saved. The convergent rate of this approach is much faster than the two
methods in Sections 6.4 and 6.5, especially when the reduced model is close to the
full model.
The eigenvalue shift technique may accelerate the convergence of iterative dynamic
condensation or make the reduced model close to the full model within any frequency
range. This technique is very efficient for the models with close frequencies.
References
Bathe, KJ and Wilson, EL (1972) Large eigenvalue problems in dynamic analysis. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Division, 98(EM6): 1471-1485.
Blair, MA, Camino, TS, and Dickens, JM (1991) An iterative approach to a reduced mass
matrix. Proceedings of the 9th International Modal Analysis Conference (Centro Affari,
Firenze, Italy), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 621-626.
Friswell, MI, Garvey, SD, and Penny, JET (1995) Model reduction using dynamic and iterative IRS
technique. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 186(2):311-323.
Friswell, MI, Garvey, SD, and Penny, JET (1997) Using iterated IRS model reduction techniques to calculate
eigensolutions. Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, Florida),
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1537-1543.
Friswell, MI, Garvey, SD, and Penny, JET (1998) The convergence of the iterated IRS methods. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 211(1):123-132.
Kidder, RL (1973) Reduction of structural frequency equations. AlAA Journal, 11(6):892.
Kim, K-O (1995) Hybrid dynamic condensation for eigenproblems. Computers and Structures,
56(1):105-112.
Iterative Methods for Dynamic Condensation 149
Kim, K-O (1996) Improved hybrid dynamic condensation for eigenproblems. Proceedings of the 37th
AIANASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Salt Lake
City, UT): 756-765.
Miller, CA (1980) Dynamic reduction of structural models. Journal of the Structural Division,
106(STlO):2097-2108.
Mokeyev, VV (1998) A frequency condensation method for the eigenvalue problem. Communications in
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 14(1):1-8.
O'Caliahan, JC (1989) A procedure for an improved reduced system (IRS) model. Proceedings of the 7th
International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, Nevada), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 17-2l.
Papadopoulos, M and Garcia, E (1996) Improvement in model reduction schemes using the system
equivalent reduction expansion process. AIAA Journal, 34(10):2217-2219.
Qu, Z and Fu, Z (1998a) An iterative method for dynamic condensation of finite element models, part I:
Basic method. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (English Edition), E-3(1):83-88.
Qu, Z-Q and Fu, Z-F (1998b) New structural dynamic condensation method for finite element models.
AlAA Journal, 36(7):1320-1324.
Qu, Z-Q and Fu, Z-F (1998c) Comment on improvement in model reduction schemes using the system
equivalent reduction expansion process. AIAA Journal, 36(10):194l.
Qu, Z-Q (1998) A multi-step method for matrix condensation of finite element models. Journal of Sound
and Vibration, 214(5):965-971.
Qu, Z, Fu, Z, and Hua, H (1999) A shifted iterative method of dynamic condensation for finite element
models. Chinese Journal of Applied Mechanics: 61-67.
Qu, Z-Q and Fu, Z-F (2000) An iterative method for dynamic condensation of structural matrices.
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 14(4):667-678.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2001) Two-step methods for dynamic condensation. Proceedings of the
42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Seattle,
Washington), AIAA, Reston, VA: 373-383.
Sauer, G (1989) Iterative improvement of eigensolution from reduced matrices. Communications in
Applied Numerical Methods, 5:329-335.
Singh, MP and Suarez, LE (1992) Dynamic Condensation with Synthesis of Substructure Eigenproperties.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 159(1):139-155.
Suarez, LE and Singh, MP (1992) Dynamic condensation method for structural eigenvalue analysis. AIAA
Journal, 30(4):1046-1054.
Ye, Y and Qu, Z-Q (2000) Iterative methods for dynamic condensation of structural matrices. Proceed-
ings of the 18th International Modal Analysis Conference & Exhibit (San Antonio, Texas), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT: 1776-1782.
Zhang, D (1994) Succession-level approximate reduction technique (SART) in structural dynamic analysis.
Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, 15(4):360-364.
Zhang, D-W and Li, S (1995) Succession-level approximate reduction (SAR) technique for struc-
tural dynamic model. Proceedings of the 13th International Modal Analysis Conference (Nashville,
Tennessee), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 435--44l.
Zhang, D (1996) An improved Guyan reduction and successive reduction procedure of dynamic model.
Chinese Journal of Computational Structural Mechanics and Applications, 13( 1):90-94.
Selection of Master Degrees of Freedom
In the dynamic condensation the total degrees of freedom of a full model need to be
divided into masters and slaves. Therefore, the selection of masters generally plays
an important role in the condensation technique. Which and how many degrees of
freedom should be kept as masters are the crux of the selection.
In this chapter, the selection rules for masters will be described separately for the
physical-type and modal-type dynamic condensation approaches. These rules are
mainly for accuracy and completeness purposes, respectively. Other considerations,
such as the symmetry of a structure and the practicality, will also be discussed.
151
152 Model Order Reduction Techniques
for Guyan condensation although they also could be used in other dynamic conden-
sation methods. It is necessary to note that all the rules are based on the viewpoint of
accuracy of condensation.
degrees of freedom in the regions having significant masses (Bouhaddi and Fillod,
1992; Bouhaddi et aI., 1992).
Based on the modal energies associated with the degrees of freedom in the mode
shapes of a structural system, an analytical method for the selection of masters was
proposed by Kim and Choi (2000). Because the mode shapes are usually not available
before the selection, Ritz vectors computed from the stiffness and mass matrices are
used to estimate the energy distribution. It was shown that the usual rule of choosing
translational degrees of freedom is appropriate only for the lowest several modes. For
the higher modes, some of the rotational degrees of freedom should be selected.
The modal energy method has also been used by Li (2003) to develop an automatic
selecting scheme, which is called the modal energy selection method. In this method
the individual modal energy gradients are estimated from a newly defined basis in
the neighborhood of the original natural space. In case the energy variation of a
degree of freedom tends to increase in this neighborhood, that degree of freedom
is classified as a slave since it relatively has a tendency to provide the energy to the
nodes nearby. On the other hand, if the energy variation is decreasing, then it is a
master. All the classification criteria are finally mapped to one parameter, which is
called the index of classification. By examining the magnitude of these indices, one
is able to determine the masters and slaves. Clearly, the approximate mode shapes or
Ritz vectors are required in the above two energy-based approaches, which makes this
scheme computationally expensive.
Matta's Scheme
where the minimum is taken over all possible vectors q; Q(q) is the Rayleigh quotient
qTKq
Q(q) = TM (2)
q q
(3)
The terms ki;/mii in Eq. (3) are the least dependent on the approximate eigenvectors
selected. Hence, in the selection of degrees of freedom, the higher the values of ki i / mii
of the slaves, the lower the error introduced during the condensation. Therefore, the
selection of masters could be executed as follow (Matta, 1987):
1. Compute the basic stiffness and mass matrices K and M.
2. Divide the diagonal terms of the stiffness matrix by the corresponding diagonal
terms of the mass matrix to obtain the nodal ratio ri = kii / mii.
154 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(4a)
(4b)
To simplify the selection process, all the ri, i = 1,2, ... , n, are divided by the lowest r
and are listed in ascending order. In case there are equal nodal ratios, the geometric
flexibility of the corresponding nodes should be considered. Only selected numbers
of these nodes should be used if these nodes are located in the same region of the
structure.
Let )"1 :s A2 :s ... :s An be the eigenvalue of a full model and We be a cutoff fre-
quency that is higher than all the significant frequencies. As suggested by Shah and
Raymund (1982), the cutoff frequency should be approximately three times the high-
est significant frequency, so that all the significant mode shapes are preserved in the
reduced model obtained from Guyan condensation. Find a degree of freedom for
which the ratio rr = kidmii is the highest. This degree of freedom is eliminated as a
slave provided rl > We. The reduced eigenproblem is of size (n - 1) x (n - 1). Let
All :s A12 :s ... :s AI(n-l) be the eigenvalues of the reduced model. Then we have
The eigenvalue Ali is an upper bound to Ai and the accuracy of this approximation
will decrease as the subscript i increases.
The above-described process to eliminate a slave is repeated again, but this time it is
applied to the reduced eigenvalue problem. This process is stopped after eliminating
j slaves if rI+
1 is smaller than w;. At this point, all the (n -
j) degrees of freedom
associated with the reduced eigenvalue problem are selected as masters.
The procedure to select masters is briefly described by the following steps (Shah
and Raymund, 1982):
1. Find a degree of freedom for which the ratio kid mii is the largest. If several
degrees of freedom have the same ratio, then the one with the smallest index is
considered in the next step.
2. w;,
If this ratio is greater than eliminate this degree of freedom from mass and
stiffness matrices by the Guyan condensation method.
3. Apply steps 1 and 2 to the reduced matrices obtained in step 2.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 until the largest ratio found in step 1 is less than or equal to
w;. At this point, the degrees of freedom associated with the resultant reduced
matrices represent the selected masters.
Selection of Master Degrees of Freedom 155
where .ap E RaxP is the reduced modal matrix; p and a denote the number of modes
of interest and the number of degrees of freedom selected, respectively. Clearly, this
matrix contains only the modes of interest at the selected degrees of freedom. The
matrix E is then formed by
(2)
Matrix E is an idempotent matrix with the property that its trace equals its rank. Thus,
terms on the diagonal of E represent the fractional distribution of each degree of
freedom to the rank of E and hence to the independence of the chosen modes. Matrix
E will only be full rank if all of the modes of interest are linearly independent. The
selection procedure is to examine the elements of the diagonal of E. Since the smallest
element relates to the degrees of freedom contributes least to the independence of the
chosen modes, this degree of freedom is removed. The matrix E is then recomputed
and the process is repeated. When the process is stopped, the remaining degrees of
freedom serve as the masters. The reduced modal matrix. ap is the eigenvector matrix
used in SEREP and modal reduction.
156 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(3)
A MAC value close to 1 suggests that the two modes or vectors are well correlated, and
a value close to 0 indicates un correlated modes. For the eigenvector matrix, the MAC
is a matrix and its diagonal elements are unity. Usually, the off-diagonal terms are not
zero because the eigenvectors are orthogonal with respect to the mass and stiffness
matrices and the MAC includes no such weightings.
The logic to check the completeness is very simple: (1) Compute the MAC matrix
using the interested analytical eigenvector matrix at masters. (2) Check the off-
diagonal terms of the MAC matrix. The larger the off-diagonal terms, the more
dependent the mode shape vectors. To obtain an average measure of the dependence
of the vectors, the RMS value of the off-diagonal entries in the MAC matrix may be
calculated (Penny et aI., 1994).
(l)
and
(2)
where E, p, h, v represent Young's modulus, mass density, thickness, and the Poisson
of the plate; m and n denote the number of half-waves in the x- and y-directions,
respectively. Using this formulation, the lowest 10 natural frequencies are calculated
and listed in the third column of Table 7.1. There are four groups of repeated natural
frequencies.
The finite element method is used to discretize the square plate. Its finite element
mesh is shown in Figure 7.2. There are 64 elements and 81 nodes. The total number
of degrees of freedom is 175. The lowest 10 natural frequencies computed from this
finite element model are listed in the fourth column of Table 7.l. Although there is
some difference in the frequencies, the repeated feature of natural frequencies is kept.
Two cases for the selection of masters are considered. The translational degrees
of freedom at nodes 21, 23, 25, 39, 41, 43, 57, 59, and 61 are selected as masters in
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81
64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
the first case and those at nodes 21, 23, 25, 39,41,43,48, SO, and 52 are selected in
the second case. Clearly, the degrees of freedom in the former case keeps the same
symmetry property of the full model (referred to as the symmetrical case) while the
latter case does not (referred to as the unsymmetrical case). The iterative method in
Section 6.4 is implemented to compute the reduced model and its natural frequencies.
The frequencies resulted from the initial, first, second, third, 10th approximations are
listed in Tables 7.2 and 7.3, respectively.
In the symmetrical case shown in Table 7.2, these repeated frequencies of the
full model are retained in the reduced model even though these frequencies are
higher than the exact. However, these repeated frequencies are not retained in the
reduced model before the iteration converges in the unsymmetrical case as shown
in Table 7.3. Therefore, it will be dangerous to use the reduced model before all the
Selection of Master Degrees of Freedom 159
repeated frequencies converge if the masters are not selected symmetrically. This is
the requirement of the selection of masters for the systems with repeated frequency.
7.3.2 Practicality
Many guidelines and rules have been provided in preceding sections in this chapter.
In many situations, however, some degrees of freedom must be kept as masters for
practicality purposes whether or not they satisfy these rules. These degrees of freedom
usually include those at which external forces locate, at which the displacements are
prescribed, and at which the responses are of interest. Thus, the selection of these
degrees of freedom will not follow the criteria mentioned in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.
the master set is described by the ratio of the number of masters to the number of
accurate modes in the solution.
Two factors need to be considered when deciding the size of the master set. The
first is the accuracy of condensation. For a given number of modes of interest, the
more the number of degrees of freedom are retained in the master set, the higher
accuracy the dynamic condensation approaches (except the SEREP and its equiva-
lence) have. The reason is clear. With the increase of the number of masters, the
number of constraints imposed on the full model to obtain the slave model increases
and, as a result, the frequencies of the slave model increase. Accordingly, the lowest
frequency of the slave model as well as the cutoff frequency of Guyan condensation
increase. Therefore, the accuracy of Guyan condensation and other dynamic conden-
sation approaches that are based on Guyan condensation will increase. The second is
the computational work involved. Clearly, the size of a reduced model increases with
the increase of the number of masters. More computational effort is required for the
reduced model with a larger size. Therefore, there has to be a tradeoff between the
accuracy and computational work for determining the size of the master set.
Levy (1971) quotes a rule of thumb to the essential size of reduced matrix: "the
ratio of the number of degrees of freedom in the model to the number of accurate
modes in the solution is between 2 and 3." Ramsden and Stoker (1969) recommend
the ratio as 3.5 when no prior knowledge of the solution is available. These ratios
are based on Guyan condensation. If the iterative methods are used, the ratio can be
reduced significantly. Suarez and Singh (1992) suggest a value of 1.4 after surveying
several numerical simulations.
After investigating six numerical examples, Henshell and Ong (1975) proposed an
empirical formula to estimate the percentage errors of Guyan condensation in terms
of ratio, that is,
30
percentage error = - - ' - 2 (1)
(ratIo)
In many situations, all the modes within a given frequency range are of interest.
However, we do not know the number of these modes before the eigenproblem is
solved. Under these situations, a cutoff frequency, which should be higher than all the
significant frequencies, recommended by Shah and Raymond (1982) may be used to
decide how many degrees of freedom should be selected as the masters. The details
are described in Section 7.1.
7.5 Summary
Two topics-what and how many degrees of freedom should be included in masters-
need to be considered in the selection of masters. Accuracy, completeness, symmetry,
and practicality are four major requirements in the selection. Physical-type con-
densation and modal-type condensation methods have different rules on each
requirement.
The selection of masters generally has a significant influence on the accuracy of
physical-type condensation approaches. Thus, the accuracy of a reduced model is
a major consideration when selecting masters. This means that the selection should
make the reduced model as accurate as possible. With the increase of the ratio, the
dynamic characteristics computed from the reduced model approach those of the full
model steadily. However, a large ratio will lead to expensive computational effort.
Selection of Master Degrees of Freedom 161
References
Akesson, Band Olhoff, N (1998) Minimum stiffness of optimally located supports for
maximum value of beam eigenfrequencies. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 120(3):
457--463.
Allemang, RJ and Brown, DL (1982) A correlation coefficient for modal vector analysis.
Proceeding of the 1st International Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Union
College, Schenectady, NY: 110-116.
Anderson, RG, Irons, B, and Zienkiewicz, OC (1968) Vibration and stability of plates using finite elements.
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 4: 1031 - 1055.
Bouhaddi, N, Cogan, S, and Fillod, R (1992) Dynamic substructuring by Guyan condensation selection
of the master DOE Proceedi ngs of the 10th International Modal Analysis Conference (San Diego, CAl,
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 328-333.
Bouhaddi, Nand Fillod, R (1992). A method for selecting master DOF in dynamic substructuring using
the Guyan condensation method. Computers and Structures, 45(5/6):941-946.
Downs, B (1980) Accurate reduction of stiffness and mass matrices for vibration analysis and a rationale
for selecting master degrees of freedom. Journal of Mechanical Design, 102(2):412--416.
Henshell, RD and Ong, JH (1975) Automatic masters for eigenvalue economization. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3(4):375-383.
Irons, BM (1970) A frontal solution program for finite element analysis. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2(1):5-32.
Kammer, DC (1991) Sensor placements for on-orbit modal identification and correlation of large space
structures. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 14(2):251-259.
Kammer, DC (1992a) Effect of noise on sensor placement for on-orbit modal identification and correlation
of large space structures. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, 114(3):436--443.
Kammer, DC (1992b) Effect of model error on sensor for on-orbit modal identification and correlation of
large space structures. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 15(2):334-341.
Kim, K-O and Choi, Y-J (2000) Energy method for selection of degrees of freedom in condensation. AIAA
Journal, 38(7):1253-1259.
Levy, R (1971) Guyan reduction solutions recycled for improved accuracy. NASTRAN Users Experiences:
201-220.
LMS International (1991) Large-scale modal testing of a space frame structure - from pretest analysis to
FEA model validation. Sound and Vibration: 6-16.
Li, W (2003) A degree selection method of matrix condensations for eigenvalue problems. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 259(2):409--425.
Matta, KW (1987) Selection of degrees of freedom for dynamic analysis. Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, 109(1):65-69.
Oh, D and Park, Y (1994). Order reduction based on singular values of a modal matrix. Mechanical Systems
and Signal Processing, 8(1 ):63-79.
Ong, JH (1987) Improved automatic masters for eigenvalue economization. Finite Element Analysis in
Analysis and Design, 3(2):149-160.
Penny, JET, Friswell, MI, and Garvey, SD (1992) The automatic choice of measurement locations for
dynamic testing. Proceedings of the 10th International Modal Analysis Conference (San Diego, CAl,
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 30-36.
162 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Penny, JET, Friswell, MI, and Garvey, SD (1994). Automated choice of measurement locations for dynamic
testing. AIAA Journal, 32(2):407-414.
Pitarresi, JM and Di Edwardo, AV (1993) A design approach for the systematic improvement of support
locations for vibrating circuit cards. Journal of Electronic Packaging, 115(1):118-123.
Popplewell, N, Bertels, AWM, and Arya, B (1973) A critical appraisal of the eliminating technique. Journal
of Sound and Vibration, 31(2):213-233.
Qi, Y (1990) Selection of master degrees of freedom in model reduction techniques. Master Thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.
Ramsden, JN and Stoker, JR (1969) Mass condensation - a semi-automatic method for reducing the size
of vibration problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1(4):333-349.
Shah, VN and Raymund, M (1982) Analytical selection of masters for the reduced eigenvalue problem.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 18(1):89-98.
Son, JH and Kwak, BM (1993) Optimization of boundary conditions for maximum fundamental frequency
of vibrating structures. AIAA Journal, 31 (12):2351-2357.
Suarez, LE and Singh, MP (1992) Dynamic condensation method for structural eigenvalue analysis. AIAA
Journal, 30(4): 1046-1 054.
Won, K-M and Park, Y-S (1998) Optimal support positions for a structure to maximize its fundamental
natural frequency. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 213( 5):801-812.
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically
Damped Models
8.1 Introduction
The static and dynamic condensation methods for undamped models have been
described in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. These methods are also valid for proportionally
or classically damped models because the proportional damping does not affect the
normal modes of the undamped models. However, for many real-world structures
and systems the proportional damping assumption is invalid. Examples of such cases
are the structures made up of materials with different damping characteristics in dif-
ferent parts, structures equipped with passive (such as concentrated dampers) and
active control systems, structures with layers of damping materials (such as smart
structures), and structures with rotating parts (such as a rotor). For these struc-
tural systems, the normal modes with real values resulting from the corresponding
undamped models cannot be used to uncouple the dynamic equations of the nonclas-
sically damped model, the state vectors defined in state space are, hence, commonly
used. The size of the system matrices in the state space will be doubled automati-
cally compared to those defined in the displacement space. Therefore, the dynamic
condensation technique becomes very important.
Generally, we may perform the model reduction for the non classically damped
models both in the displacement space and in the state space (Qu and Selvam, 2000).
One advantage of the methods performed in the displacement space is that the result-
ing reduced model is also defined in the displacement space. The explicit form of mass,
damping, and stiffness matrices may be easily obtained. This makes it convenient in
some dynamic analyses where the explicit system matrices are required.
The simplest approach for the nonclassically damped models is the extension of
Guyan condensation in which the Guyan condensation matrix is directly used to
reduce the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices of the full model (Rouch and
Kao, 1980; Reddy and Sharan, 1986; Qu et al., 2003a). Of course, both the inertia
and the damping effects are ignored in this approach. Therefore, the accuracy of
reduced model is usually low, especially for the models with high frequency and
damping.
An exact dynamic condensation method for nonclassically damped models, which is
essentially an extension of the exact dynamic condensation of undamped models, was
developed by Huang and Gu (1993). The resulting dynamic condensation matrix and
the system matrices of the reduced model generally have complex values. The further
163
164 Model Order Reduction Techniques
analysis of the reduced model, hence, becomes very complex. To overcome this
drawback, Huang and Gu (1993) expanded the dynamic flexible matrix of the slave
model into a power series. With the assumption that the norms of the damping and
mass matrices of the slave model are much smaller than that of the stiffness matrix, the
first order of approximation was considered in the dynamic condensation matrix. The
resulting system matrices of the reduced model are all real and symmetric. However,
the accuracy of the reduced model is usually low.
The iterative dynamic condensation algorithms presented in Sections 6.4 and 6.6
were used by Qu and Selvam (2000) to reduce the size of nonclassically damped mod-
els. Unfortunately, it is difficult to include the influence of nonclassical damping into
the dynamic condensation matrix. Therefore, the reduced model may be convergent.
However, it will not converge to the full model in the interested frequency range.
Due to these difficulties, the dynamic condensation of non classically damped
models is usually performed in the state space. One merit of this scheme is that the
nonclassical damping can be easily considered in the dynamic condensation matrix.
Two static condensation approaches performed in the state space were developed
by Qu (1998) and by Qu, Jung, and Selvam (2003). They were compared with the
static condensation in the displacement space from the viewpoints of assumptions,
condensation matrices, computational work, and reduced system matrices. The com-
parison shows that the reduced stiffness and damping matrices computed from these
three methods are the same and only the reduced mass matrices are different. With
the introduction of the concept of generalized inverse, a third static condensation was
also developed. One advantage of the former two methods is that the reduced system
matrices in the state space can be easily converted into the mass, damping, and stiff-
ness matrices in the displacement space. It will be shown later that these approaches
are not exactly static again.
Based on the modal reduction method for undamped models, an extended modal
reduction method for nonclassically damped models was proposed by Kane and Torby
(1991) and applied to the rotor dynamic problems. In this method the interested
eigenvectors of the full model should be available before the dynamic condensation is
performed. Due to the complex nature of the eigenvectors, the operations of complex
values were used to compute the dynamic condensation matrix. It was shown by Qu
and Selvam (2004) that these complex operations could be avoided using a properly
defined transformation.
Similar to the iterative methods for undamped models, several iterative dynamic
condensation schemes were developed by Rivera, Singh, and Suarez (1999), Qu and
Selvam (2000), and Qu, Selvam, and Jung (2003b). They are all defined in the state
space. The main ideas of these three approaches are very similar. The governing
equations for the dynamic condensation matrix defined in the state space are derived
from the general eigenproblems in the state space. Due to the nonlinearity of the
governing equations, iterative schemes were proposed to solve for the dynamic con-
densation matrix. The initial approximations of the dynamic condensation matrix
used in these three papers are different. The form of the system matrices in the state
space used by the former two approaches is different from that in the third approach.
Research shows that the reduced model computed from these iterative schemes has
much higher accuracy than those from static condensation. These reduced models
may accurately represent the full model within an interested frequency range after suf-
ficient iterations. Based on the dynamic equations of equilibrium in the state space,
a governing equation for the dynamic condensation matrix was derived by Qu and
Chang (2000). This governing equation is the same as those defined by Rivera, Singh,
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 165
and Suarez (1999), and by Qu and Selvam (2000) if only the former m eigenpairs are
used to compute the dynamic responses.
The iterative dynamic condensation approaches (Rivera et aI., 1999; Qu and Chang,
2000) were successfully extended to the systems with unsymmetric system matrices
by Rao (2002). The merits of the two methods were kept and the demerits were aban-
doned in the new iterative approach. Due to the unsymmetric nature of matrices, two
condensation matrices were defined to relate the masters and slaves. Furthermore,
with the combination of substructure synthesis technique, this dynamic condensation
method was utilized to obtain the reduced order models of complicated unsymmetric
systems. However, the conception that the reduced system matrices in the state space
have the same forms as those of the full system matrices may not be used in the
systems with symmetrical matrices (Qu, 2003).
Based on the complex subspace iteration, a governing equation for the dynamic
condensation matrix defined in the state space was derived by Qu and Selvam (2000,
2002). Two iterative schemes were proposed to solve the governing equation. This
method has three advantages.
l. The convergence is much faster than the iterative methods aforementioned, espe-
cially when the approximate values of reduced model are close to those of full
model.
2. A full proof of the convergence can be made simply.
3. Because there is not any parameter of the reduced model in the governing equa-
tion of the dynamic condensation matrix, it is unnecessary to calculate them
in every iteration. This makes the iterative scheme much more computationally
efficient, especially when the number of the masters is large.
The merit of the iterative dynamic methods is that the accuracy of the reduced model
is much higher than those computed from static condensation schemes. However, the
reduced system matrices defined by iterative dynamic condensation schemes are gen-
erally fully populated. It is very difficult to convert them into the stiffness, damping,
and mass matrices defined in displacement space.
where, M, C, and K E Rnxn are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices of the full
model. They are assumed to be positive definite, positive semidefinite, and positive
semidefinite, respectively.J(t) E R n is an external force vector. X(t),X(t), andX(t) E
R n are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration response vectors of the system.
They are functions of time t. For simplicity, this indication of time is omitted in the
following. Assume that the total degrees of freedom (n) of the full model are divided
into the masters and slaves. With this division, Eq. (1) can be rewritten in a partitioned
166 Model Order Reduction Techniques
form as
[ Mmm
Msm
Mms]
Mss
I~mj
Xs
+ [C mm
Csm
Cms]
Css
I~mj
Xs
+ [Kmm
Ksm
Kms]
Kss
IXmj
Xs
= Ifmj
fs
(2)
where M mm , C mm , Kmm E Rmxm; M ms , Cms, Kms E R mxs ; M sm , Csm , Ksm E Rsxm ;
M ss , Css , Kss E RSxs ; X m, X m, X m, f m E Rm; X S, X s, X s' fs E RS. Expanding the
second equation of the partitioned Eq. (2) produces
MsmXm + MssXs + CsmXm + CssXs + KsmXm + KssXs = fs (3)
Since the condensation matrix is load-independent, the external force vector fs in
Eq. (3) can be set to zero for simplicity and, hence, this equation becomes
-1 .. .. '. .
Xs = -Kss (MsmXm + MssXs + CsmXm + CssXs + KsmXm) (4)
Letting
(5)
in Eq. (4), we have
(6)
where RD E Rsxm is defined as
(7)
RD is the condensation matrix of nonclassically damped systems in displacement space.
It is identical to the Guyan condensation matrix. This is a static condensation method
because the inertia and damping effect on the condensation matrix are omitted, as
shown in Eq. (5).
Clearly, the condensation matrix defined in Eq. (7) is independent of time t.
Differentiating both sides of Eq. (6) with respect to time t twice yields
(8)
Substituting Eqs. (6) and (8) into Eq. (2), and then premultiplying both sides of the
equation by matrix [I RJ], where I E R mxm is an identity matrix, results in
(9)
The mass matrix MR E R mxm , damping matrix CR E R mxm , stiffness matrix KR E
R mxm , and force vector f R E R m of the reduced model are given by
MR = Mmm - KmsK;;1Msm - MmsK;;1Ksm + KmsK;; 1MssK;; 1Ksm (lOa)
(11)
where the system matrices AI, BI E R2nx2n, state vectors Y, Y, pI E R2n are given by
AI = [Ko 0
-M
J, BI = [-C
-M -:l
Y = {~) , Y = {~)I pI = {~) (12)
With the same division of the total degrees of freedom, Eq. (11) can be partitioned as
AI = [Kss (14a)
ss 0
BI = [-Css (14b)
ss -Mss
(14c)
Expanding the second equation ofEq. (13) and ignoring the force vector pi leads to
I I I· I .
Asm Y m + AssYs - Bsm Y m - BssYs = 0 (15)
Setting
Ym =0, (17)
(19)
Because the vectors Ym and Ys are set to zero when deriving the condensation matrix,
this method is referred to as the static condensation in state space. However, it is
different from the static condensation defined in the displacement space as shown in
Eq. (7) because the inertia effect is partially included in the condensation matrix in
Eq. (19). Hence, it is not exactly a static condensation anymore.
Differentiating both sides ofEq. (18) with respect to time once results in
. I .
Y s = RsYm (20)
Substituting Eqs. (18) and (20) into Eq. (13), and then premultiplying it by the matrix
[1 (R~)T], where 1 E R2mx2m is an identity matrix, yields
(21)
The system matrices A1, B1 E R2mx2m and force vector F1 E R2m of the reduced
model are defined as
F1 = F~ + (~)TF! (22c)
A1 = [~1 0
-MR
1 ], (23)
where
M1, c1,and K1 E R mxm are the corresponding mass, damping, and stiffness matrices
of the reduced model defined in displacement space.
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 169
where
(26)
Using the same division of the total degrees of freedom, Eq. (25) can be partitioned
as
B~]
Bll
{~mJ
y
= {p~J
pll
(27)
ss s s
in which the sub matrices are defined as
All
ss
= [Kss
0 (28a)
B!.Imm = [Kmm
0
BII =
ms (B!.Ism )T = [Kms
0
(28b)
(28e)
Based on the same assumption in Eq. (17) and derivation in preceding subsection,
the condensation matrix is obtained from the under part of Eq. (27) as
(29)
Substituting for A~~ andA~~ in Eq. (29) using Eq. (28a) yields
Jtf = _ [-K;;ICssKss
K;;l
K;;l]
0
[0 Ksm
Ksm]
Csm
from the static condensation in the displacement space. The corresponding method
is called static condensation in state space. The damping effect is partially included in
the condensation matrix, as shown in Eq. (30).
The corresponding dynamic equations of the reduced model are given by
A lly
R m _ BIIy·
R m- - pII
R (31)
The system matrices and force vector of the reduced model are defined as
(32a)
(32b)
pII = pII
R m
+ (RII)T
S
pII
5
(32c)
o II] ,
-MR PRII II
= f~
0 (33)
where
f~ = f m - KmsK;;lfs (34d)
and
(35)
(36)
M~, C~, and K~ E R mxm are the corresponding mass, damping, and stiffness
matrices of the reduced model defined in the displacement space.
Assumption
The assumption of the SCDS is Eq. (5) in which the velocities and accelerations of
the full model are assumed to be zero. The assumptions of SCSS(I) and SCSS(I1)
are Eq. (17). Substituting Eq. (14c) into Eq. (17), we will find that the assumptions
used by the three approaches are identical. This means the inertia forces of the full
model are ignored in the condensation matrices of the three algorithms. However, it
is not true for the velocities or damping forces. From the assumption Eq. (17), we can
see that the velocities are required to be zero in the static condensation. The velocity
vector is also included in the state vector Y m and Y s , which are not required to be
zeros. Therefore, the requirement that velocities should be zero is incomplete in the
static condensation defined in the state space.
Condensation Matrix
As mentioned above, the condensation matrix is defined as the relation of the dis-
placements, velocities, and accelerations between masters and slaves. For SCDS the
relations of displacements, velocities, and accelerations are given by
(37)
Clearly, the displacements, velocities, and accelerations associated with the masters
and slaves have the same relations.
Substituting Eqs. (19) and (14c) into Eq. (18), we have
(38)
(39)
Compared to SCDS, two differences need to be noted for the SCSS(I) and SCSS(II):
I. The relationships of displacements, velocities, and accelerations between masters
and slaves are different. The relation matrix between Xs and X m, for example, is
_K;;l K sm , while it is -M;;lMsm for velocities as shown in Eq. (38).
2. The relations of velocities between the masters and slaves are contradictive. For
example, they are _M;;l Msm and _K;;l Ksm in Eqs. (38) and (39), respectively.
As one knows, the norm of the damping matrix is usually much smaller than that of
the stiffness matrix, which leads to
(42)
172 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Hence, the inconsistency and contradiction ofSCSS(II) are much lighter than SCSS(I).
Moreover, if the damping matrix is proportional to the stiffness matrix, SCSS(II) is
identical to SCDS. .
If we assume the mass matrix is diagonal, Eqs. (38) and (39) become
Xs=O (43)
Clearly, the assumptions in Eq. (43) are unreasonable. Consequently, for reasonable
reasons, the assumption of SCDS is a little better than SCSS(II). The latter is much
better than SCSS(I). The numerical examples will show that the accuracy of SCSS(II)
is close to SCDS. However, the accuracy of SCSS(I) is much lower than SCDS and
SCSS(II).
Computational Work
Comparing Eqs. (10), (24), and (34), we can easily find that the computational efforts
for the stiffness matrix, damping matrix, and force vector of the reduced model are the
same. The only difference among them comes from the computation of the reduced
mass matrix. The computational efforts for computing the reduced stiffness, mass,
and damping matrices using the three schemes are listed in Table 8.1. As we know,
multiplication is usually faster than division. However, the speed difference between
them on computers using numerical coprocessors is small. Moreover, multiplication
has been optimized to the point where it is as fast as addition and subtraction on
supercomputers. Consequently, only the total arithmetic operations are given for
each case. The symmetrical feature of the physical matrices has not been considered
in the results in Table 8.1. For example, the total number of arithmetic operations for
the Gauss-Jordan algorithm in the inversion of an 5 x 5 matrix is taken as 45 3 - 25 2
(Carroll, 1999).
For a large model, the number of total degrees of freedom is usually very large. This
leads to 5 ~ n » m. Consequently, the computational work for SCSS(I) and SCSS(II)
is approximately twice that of SCDS when the consistent mass matrix is considered.
The number of arithmetic operations for SCSS(I) will reduced by half if the mass
matrix is diagonal.
Since the system matrices A~, A~, B~, and B~ of the reduced model in the state
space have the same forms of the matrices AI, AIl, B I , and BII , respectively, we
can easily convert them into the reduced stiffness, mass, and damping matrices in
the displacement space. Furthermore, the dynamic equilibrium Eqs. (21) and (31)
defined in the state space can be rewritten in the displacement space as
(44)
(45)
Comparing the system matrices and force vectors of the reduced model resulting from
the three approaches, we find
MRiM~iM~,
KR=K1=K~, (46)
This means that the damping matrices, stiffness matrices, and force vectors obtained
from the three methods are the same. There is only some difference among the mass
matrices.
Of course, the three static condensation methods provided above may be extended
using the generalized inverse of submatrix. Research shows (Qu, 1998; Qu, lung,
and Selvam, 2003) that the accuracy of the reduced model may be increased slightly.
However, the computational work will be increased due to the matrix process of
generalized inverse.
In order to list the stiffness, mass, and damping matrices of the reduced model explic-
itly, the first example considered is a 3-degree-of-freedom mass-damper-stiffness
system shown in Figure 8.1, for which it is unnecessary to apply any condensation
procedure. Suppose m = c = k = 1; the stiffness, mass, and damping matrices of this
system can be easily obtained as
[10 01 0]0 ,
-1
2 M=
-1 001
Assume the first degree of freedom, Xl, is selected as the master when the three
static condensation methods are applied to the full model. The stiffness, mass, and
damping matrices of the reduced models obtained from SCDS, SCSS(I), and SCSS(II)
174 Model Order Reduction Techniques
are given by
KR = I, MR=3, CR = 1
Kk = I, Mk = I, Ck = 1
KIIR = I, M~ =3, C~ = 1
respectively. If the third degree of freedom is selected as the master, the stiffness, mass,
and damping matrices of the reduced models obtained from the three methods are
respectively.
The complex frequencies or called complex eigenvalues of the reduced models for
the two cases are listed in Table 8.2. The first frequency of the full model is also listed in
the table for comparison purposes. Generally, the frequencies of the reduced models
are very low due to the ignorance of the inertia and damping effects. Particularly, the
real parts on which the damping ratios are based have much higher errors than those
of the imaginary parts. Because these algorithms are static, the selection of the master
has a great effect on the accuracy of the reduced model, which can be seen clearly
from Table 8.2. The selection of master in Case 2, for example, is much better than
that in Case 1. SCDS and SCSS(II) have very similar accuracy.
2cW(MDOP)
0.46153
0.57467
0.47286
0.45488
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 175
A floating-raft isolation system, which has been developed during the past 20 years, is
an efficient equipment for vibration isolation and noise reduction. It can effectively
isolate the vibrations of the host and auxiliary machines and reduce the structural
noise of ships and submarines. The floating-raft isolation system will protect the
equipment in ships or submarines from damage and let them work normally when
the ships or submarines are subjected to strong external loads or shocks.
The schematic of a floating-raft isolation system is shown in Figure 8.2. ml =
100 kg and m2 = 120 kg denote the machines whose vibrations are to be isolated.
A and B are rectangular plates and denote the raft frame and base, respectively.
The length, width, and thickness of them are 1.2 m, 0.8 m, 0.02 m and 2.8 m, 0.8 m,
0.04 m, respectively. Their modulus of elasticity = 2.0 x 1011 N/m2, mass density =
7,800 kg/m 3 . The two short sides of plate B are simply supported and two long sides are
free. The four sides of plate A are all free. kl = 1.0 X 105 N/m, k2 = 5.0 X 105 N/m,
ci = 100 n.s/m 2 , c2 = 200 n.s/m 2 •
The finite element mesh of the raft frame is shown in Figure 8.3. The model has
24 rectangular elements, 35 nodes, and 105 degrees of freedom. The nodes, which
are connected with spring and damper I, kl and c], are 17 and 19. The nodes that are
connected with spring and damper II are 1,3,5,7,15,17, 19,21,29,31,33,and35. The
finite element grid of the base is shown in Figure 8.4. The model has 14 rectangular
elements, 24 nodes, and 72 degrees of freedom. The nodes that are connected with
spring and damper II are 7,12,13,18,8,11,14,17,9,10,15, and 16. The isolation
A
C2
B
~-----LA------~
~------------L.~------------~
29 30 31 32 33 34 35
28 27 26 25 24 23 22
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
14 13 12 11 10 9 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 10 15 16 21 22
2 5 8 III 14 17 20 23
I 6 7 12 13 18 19 24
system has a total of 179 degrees of freedom. The lowest 15 complex frequencies are
listed in Table 8.3. They are considered as exact for comparison purposes.
The degrees of freedom associated with the two machines and the translational
degrees of freedom at nodes 2, 4, 8, 9, 14, 22 in raft and at nodes 6, 21 in base are
selected as masters when condensation is applied. All the eigenvalues of the reduced
model resulting from these static methods are listed in Table 8.4 (including 8.4-1
and 8.4-2).
The two lowest frequencies of the reduced model resulted from SCSS(I) are very
close to the exact. However, the third through the tenth eigenvalues are much higher
than the exact. Many of them are more than 10 times the exact. Hence, the correspond·
ing reduced model cannot represent the full model in any kind of meaning. The reason
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 177
is that the relations of the velocities between masters and slaves are contradictive. This
has been explained clearly in Section 8.2.4.
There is little difference between the results obtained from the SCDS and SCSS(II).
They have a much higher accuracy than those from SCSS(I). Unfortunately, the errors
are still a little high, especially for the higher modes.
As discussed in preceding chapters, there are two ways to improve the accuracy of
the reduced model. One is to optimally select the masters. The other is to increase
the number of the masters. Both ways have advantages and disadvantages. Only the
latter is considered here.
The degrees of freedom associated with the two machines and the translational
degrees of freedom at nodes 1,7, IS, 17, 19,21,29,35 in raft and at nodes 7, 8, 9,10,
IS, 16 in base are selected as the masters. There is a total of 16 masters. The former
10 complex frequencies resulting from the three methods are listed in Table 8.5-
1. Although the errors of the frequencies resulted from SCSS(I) reduce when the
number of masters increases, they are still very big and cannot satisfy the requirement
of engineering applications. Due to this, this approach is impractical. The accuracy
of the reduced model obtained from other two approaches improves a lot, especially
for the high modes.
"5 -7.4375
-9.5545
-162.2806
-5.8857
-7.4361
-9.5629
6 -7.6065 -388.0041 -7.6022
7 -9.4333 -95.009 -9.4370
8 -12.5972 -1.898.321 -12.6483
9 -18.5966 -536.9111 -18.5976
10 -26.4526 -33.5575 -26.4607
178 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Back-substitution of Eq. (3) into the first equation of Eq. (2) leads to
(4)
Equation (4) is the eigenproblem of the reduced model in terms of the dynamic
stiffness matrix DR, which is defined as
The reduced stiffness, damping, and mass matrices may be expressed in terms of the
coordinate transformation matrix as
(6)
(8)
Similarly, the power series of (Kss + iwCss - w2Mss)-1 may be introduced into
Eq. (4). Assume that the eigenproblem equation of the reduced model has the same
form as the one shown in Eq. (8) and that all the system matrices of the reduced
model are independent of frequency w. Comparing the coefficients matrices of the
terms with wO, wI, and w 2 from the expanded version ofEq. (4) and Eq. (8), we have
(Huang and Gu, 1993)
KR = Kmm + KmsRc
CR = Cmm + CmsRc + R'[;Csm + R'[;CssRc
180 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Clearly, the reduced mass, damping, and stiffness matrices defined in Eq. (10) are real
and symmetric. It can be simply proven that the reduced system matrices given in
Eq. (10) are the same as those given in Eq. (8.2-34).
(11)
where
(12)
Actually, the dynamic condensation matrix resulting from any approach for
undamped models can be used in Eq. (7). Of course, the reduced model may converge
if the iterative methods are implemented. However, it will not converge to the exact.
It can be seen that the frequencies resulting from the iterative approach do not
converge to the exact values even though they are convergent. The reason is that the
dynamic condensation matrix does not include the effect of damping. The results in
the first approximation are much better than those in the initial approximation.
7,
where Wi is the ith complex eigenvalue. The left-side eigenvector, lit is defined through
the transpose of (A - wiB) from Eq. (1), i.e.,
(2)
-R -L -R
For unsymmetricA or B, ti does not equal ti and for symmetric A and B, t i equals
lit7· These eigenvalues and eigenvectors may be computed from Eqs. (1) and (2).
Once the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are computed, the full model can be reduced
using these eigenvectors. In the reduction, the masters and the retained modes must
be properly chosen. The selection of masters has been described in Chapter 7. In
determining which mode is to be kept, it is usually desirable to retain the lowest
modes of the full model although it is not necessary to do so. The number of retained
modes should be equal to or less than the number of masters.
With the rearrangement of the total degrees of freedom, the system matrices A,
B, and the eigenvector matrix may be rewritten in a partitioned form. Assume that
the right-side eigenvector matrix i;
E C2nx2P and the left-side eigenvector matrix
it E c2n x 2P consist of the P complex conjugate right-side and left -side eigenvectors,
respectively. The partitioned forms of them are given by
-L -
\IIp -
[i~pJ
-L (3)
\lisP
(4)
182 Model Order Reduction Techniques
-R
Y m = \IImpq (5)
-R
Y s = \IIspq (6)
Because the matrix i~p is generally not a square matrix, the displacements in the
normal coordinates may not be expressed exactly in terms of the displacements at
the masters and the eigenvector matrix i~p. Premultiplying both sides of Eq. (5) by
the transpose of the matrix i~p gives
(7)
Equation (7) is the normal equation of (5). The generalized inverse may now be used
to solve for q, that is,
(8)
(9)
RR is the dynamic condensation matrix based on the right -side eigenvector. Similarly,
the dynamic condensation matrix based on the left-side eigenvector is derived as
(10)
where
(ll)
(12)
or
(13)
(14)
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 183
When the number of the retained modes is equal to the number of masters, the right-
and left-hand dynamic condensation matrices can be simply expressed as
(15)
The coordinate transformation matrices associated with those defined in Eqs. (12)
and (13) are the same and are given by
(16)
It can be seen from the definitions of the dynamic condensation matrices that the
arithmetic operation for the complex values is required because the eigenvector matri-
ces are generally complex. In fact, the complex arithmetic operation is unnecessary for
the construction of the dynamic condensation matrix. Furthermore, it can be proven
that the right- and left-side dynamic condensation matrices as well as the reduced
system matrices are all real (Qu and Selvam, 2004).
-
\11= [ \II \11*]
\II*Q* =
[A\II (17)
\IIQ
(18)
The complex matrix l{t can be expressed in terms of two real matrices U and V E
R 2nxn as
l{t = U + iV (19)
(21)
(22)
184 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(23)
]_=I-iI, (24)
(25)
i p = i p r 1 (26)
Introducing Eqs. (22) and (25) into Eq. (26) gives
If the same division of the total degrees of freedom is applied to Eq. (28), we have
Clearly, the right-hand dynamic condensation matrix is real. Similarly, the left-hand
dynamic condensation matrix is also a real matrix and is given by
(32)
Therefore, the coordinate transformation matrix, the system matrices of the reduced
model are all real. A numerical example provided by Kane and Torby (1991) can also
verify this conclusion.
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 185
-
(1= [ (I
(12
(1* ]
(1*2* '
- [2o
2= (2)
The superscript "*,, denotes the complex conjugation. The orthogonalities of the
model are given by
(3)
(4)
Based on the same division of the masters and slaves, Eq. (4) can be expressed in a
partitioned form as
(5)
where the submatrices A~m' A~s' Aim> Ais' B~m' B~s' Bim> and B;s are given in
Eq. (8.2-14) and
-
(lmm = [(lmm -
(Ism = [(Ism
(lmm 2 mm (lsm 2 mm
Si mm = [2mm
o n*
0]
~r.mm
(6)
(7)
which leads to
186 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(10)
(lla,b)
where the reduced system matrices are defined as
I = AImm
AR + RITAsm
I + AImsRr + RTAI
r ssRI (12a)
(13)
Premultiplying both sides of Eq. (lla) by the inverse of matrix B~s and then
postmultiplying it by the inverse of matrix i mm , we obtain
I -I r - - --I
(B R) AR = \IImmQmm\llmm (14)
Using Eqs. (13) and (14), the governing Equation (10) can be rewritten as
RI = (Ass) I -I [I I - - I -AsmI]
(Bsm + BssRI)\IImm\IImmAR
T (15)
Equations (15) and ( 16) are also the governing equations of the dynamic condensation
matrix. Because the governing equations (10), (15), and (16) are nonlinear with
respect to the dynamic condensation matrix, it is difficult to solve them directly. The
iterative forms of these three equations are given by
where i = 1,2, .... The initial approximation of the dynamic condensation matrix is
given by
(20)
which has been explained earlier. The same governing equation as Eq. (19) for the
dynamic condensation matrix was developed by Qu and Change (2000) in which
the dynamic condensation matrix is defined as the relation of displacements between
masters and slaves in the state space. It was shown that this definition of dynamic
condensation matrix is equivalent to the definition in this section if only the lowest
m eigenpairs are considered for computing the displacement responses.
It can be seen from Eq. (20) that the initial approximation of the dynamic conden-
sation matrix is real. Hence, the corresponding reduced system matrices (A1)(O) and
(B1)(O) are real, as shown in Eq. (12). Thus, the first approximation of the dynamic
condensation matrix, given in Eq. (19) for i = 1, is also real. Similarly, we can conclude
that the dynamic condensation matrix resulting from Eq. (19) and the correspond-
- - --1
ing reduced system matrices are all real. Therefore, the product \II mm S2 mm \llmm is
real, as shown in Eq. (14). So is the product l)mm.q,~mA1. However, this does not
mean that each part in these products is real. Actually, l)mm and Qmm are generally
complex. Consequently, the computation of complex values is required in the gov-
erning Equations (17) and (18). This is inconvenient even though the final results are
real.
An alternative initial estimation of the dynamic condensation matrix RjO) was used
by Rivera, Singh, and Suarez (1999). The matrix is defined as
(21)
This alternative definition of RjO) has the advantage that the calculation of the inverse
of matrix Mss is avoided. In addition, several numerical trials carried out using
Eqs. (20) and (21) have shown that the latter leads to better initial values. Actually, the
alternative estimation is identical to the Guyan condensation defined in displacement
space, which has been explained clearly in Section 8.2.
Clearly, when an iterative scheme is utilized to solve Eq. (17), the system matrices
as well as the eigenvalue matrix, eigenvector matrix, and its inverse of the reduced
model should be calculated at every iteration. Because the eigenvalue analysis of the
nonclassically damped model is usually very time-consuming, the solution time used
in the iteration will rise rapidly as the dimension of the reduced model increases.
Furthermore, the operation of the complex values is required. The governing equa-
tion (18) is a little better than Eq. (17) because there is not any inverting processing.
To reduce the computational work, an alternative governing equation is given in
Eq. (19). Since there is no eigenvector and eigenvalue of the reduced model included
in this governing equation, it is unnecessary to compute the reduced eigenproblem
during each iteration. Also, no complex value operation is required in this governing
equation.
188 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(b) Calculate the reduced system matrices A~+k) and B~+k) and the correspond-
ing eigenpairs.
(b)
a jU+k) -aj(i)
(j = 1,2, ... ,p:::: m) (22)
a~i+k)
J
where a denotes the real and imaginary parts of the complex frequencies,
respectively. The frequencies are the diagonal elements of the matrices 2~m
and n(i+k) . 1 .. 1
~C.mm respectIve y. 8 IS a gIVen error to erance.
If th '
e gIVen p frequenCles
.
are convergent, exit the loop.
6. Output the results R] = Rji+k), AR = A~+k), BR = B~+k) and stop.
In this iterative scheme, when the integer k is larger than 1, k - 1 times calculation of
the reduced eigenvalue problems is avoided.
(23)
Dynamic Condensation of Nondassically Damped Models 189
-- [-CM
B- - If}
-MJO O ,F- (24)
Since the system matrices are unsymmetric, the eigenvalue problem corresponding
to Eq. (23) may be expressed as
--R --R-
A\II = B\II n (25)
and
-T-L -T-L-
A \II =B \lin (26)
l)-R and l)-L are the right-side eigenvector matrix and left-side eigenvector matrix,
respectively; Q is eigenvalue or complex frequency matrix and it is diagonal. The
orthogonality of the two eigenvector matrices are expressed as
(27)
Similar to Eq. (5), the partitioned form of Eq. (25) in which only the former m
eigenpairs are considered may be given by
(28)
Based on the similar derivation as above, the governing equation for the right dynamic
condensation matrix is obtained as
(30)
--ll- + -
R R = Ass (Bsm BssRR)\IImm(\II
-R -L )T- -
mm AR - Asm
J (31)
Equations (30), (31), and (32) are the governing equations of the right-side dynamic
condensation matrix. They are implicit and, hence, an iterative scheme is required
to solve for the condensation matrix. For example, the iterative form of Eq. (32) is
expressed as
190 Model Order Reduction Techniques
- L L - L
\{Ism = R \{I mm (34)
Using the same derivation, the governing equations of the left-side dynamic conden-
sation matrix may be obtained as
(35)
(36)
(37)
In Eqs. (31), (32), (36), and (37), the reduced system matrices in the state space are
given by
- - -
AR = Amm + (R L) Y-Asm + AmsR R
+ (R L) Y-AssRR (39a)
The iterative scheme in Section 8.5.2 may be used to solve for the left-side and
right-side dynamic condensation. It is necessary to note that these two dynamic
condensation matrices should be computed at the same time.
(1)
If only the m eigenpairs are considered, the partitioned form of the eigenproblem
equations may be written as
A;;'S]
A ll
[~mm]
;i.
= [B;;,m
BIl
(2)
ss 'l'sm sm
h
were .
t h e submatnces AlI
mm' Allms' AlI
sm' All
ss' BIl
mm' BII sm' an d BII
ms' BII .
ss are gIven
in Eq. (8.2-28). Based on the similar derivation above, the iterative forms of the
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 191
R(i) = (A II )-ll(BIl
IT ss sm
+ BIIss R(i-1»~(i-l)
II mm
Q(i-1)(~(i-l»_1
mm mm
- AIl
sm
J (3)
(6)
which has been discussed in Section 8.2. Of course, Eq. (8.5-21) may be used as the
initial approximation. As shown in Section 8.2, the accuracy of the condensation
matrices resulting from Eq. (6) and (8.5-21) is very close. Therefore, we usually use
Eq. (6) as the initial approximation because the corresponding computational work
is required in the iteration anyway. A similar iterative scheme in Section 8.5.2 may be
used to solve for the dynamic condensation matrix from Eq. (5). When the dynamic
condensation matrix is computed, the reduced system matrices are given by
(1)
(2)
If only the former m groups of eigenpairs are considered, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as
(3)
[A IIl
mm AIll]
ms [,..
T'mm ] = [BIll
mm
(4)
A III AIII ,.. BIII
Stn ss 'f!srn sm
192 Model Order Reduction Techniques
BIII
S5
= _ [ Css
M55 ~ss] (Sb)
(Sc)
(6)
Substituting Eq. (8.5-9) into both sides ofEq. (7) and then postmultiplying both sides
by the inverse of matrix ljt :~, the dynamic condensation matrix is obtained as
(8)
Equation (8) is the basic version of the governing equation of the dynamic conden-
sation matrix.
Using the dynamic condensation matrix, the eigenvector matrix ljtm of the full
model may be expressed as
(9)
(10)
Dynamic Condensation of Nondassically Damped Models 193
AW, BW E R2mx2m are the state matrices of the reduced model. They are given by
A III
R mm + RT
= TTIIIAIIITIII = AlII sm + AIIIR
III AlII ms III + RT
III AIIIR
ss III (lla)
Equation (10) is the eigenvalue equations of the reduced model. The corresponding
orthogonality equations can be expressed in the state space as
(12a,b)
Equations (10) and (12) show that the reduced model (AW,BW) computed
from Eq. (11) may exactly keep the given m eigenpairs of the full model if the
dynamic condensation matrix, as a result the coordinate transformation matrix, is
exact.
Similarly, if the transformation defined in Eq. (9) is, respectively, performed on
both sides of Eqs. (8.5-5) and (8.6-2), we have
(13)
(14)
in which the state matrices of the reduced model may be computed by analogy with
Eq. (11), that is,
and
A ll
R = TTIII AlITIII = Allmm + RTIII Allsm + Allms RIII + RTIII AIIR
ss III (l6a)
The orthogonality equations for these two reduced models are given by
(17a,b)
(l8a,b)
Postmultiplying both sides of Eq. (12a) by the inverse of matrix l)mm results in
(19)
Premultiplying both sides of Eq. (10) by the inverse of matrix BW and then post-
multiplying by the inverse of matrix l)mm, we obtain
(20)
194 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Using Eqs. (19) and (20), the governing Equation (8) can be rewritten as
Equations (21) and (22) are also the governing equations of dynamic condensation
matrix. Only the third form of the state matrices AIII and BIII are included in these
two equations.
Postmultiplying both sides ofEq. (17a) by the inverse of matrix q,mm results in
(23)
Premultiplying both sides of Eq. (13) by A1(B1)-1 and with consideration for this
equation, we have
I I -1 I - I - - I - - 2
AR(BR) AR\IImm = AR\IImmQmm = BR\IImmQmm (24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
Equations (26) and (27) are two governing equations based on the first and third
forms of the state matrices. Two forms of the state matrices are used in each of these
two governing equations. Thus, they are referred to as hybrid governing equations
of dynamic condensation matrix. Similarly, another two hybrid governing equations
using the second and third forms of the state matrices are given by
III-l[ III
RIII = (Ass) . (Bsm
- Qmm
+ BssIII Rm ) \IImm - \II-TmmARII - Asm
III] (28)
in which the state matrices A~ and B~ E R2mx2m of the reduced model may be
computed from Eq. (16).
The iterative forms of governing Equations (8), (21), and (22) are given by
R(i)
III
= (AIII)-1 [CBIII
55 sm
+ BIll R(i_l)q,(i-l)
55 III mm
(q,(i-I)TCAIII)(i-l)
mm R
_ AIII]
sm
(31)
A similar scheme may be used to solve for the dynamic condensation matrix from
Eq. (31) or (32). where i = 1,2,3, .... The initial approximation of the dynamic
condensation matrix is given by
(33)
The iterative methods given in Sections 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7 will be demonstrated by a
40-story-tall building with tuned mass damper (TMD) (Wu et aI., 1998) shown in
Figure 8.5. Each story unit of the building is identically constructed with a story height
of4m,massmj = I,290tons,stiffnesskj = I0 6 kN/m,anddampingcj = I4260kN·
slm for i = 1,2, ... ,40. The building is symmetric in both lateral directions and
the mass center coincides with the elastic center, so that there is no coupled lateral-
torsional motions. Only one directional motion will be considered. The mass of
the damper is 258 tons, which is 20% of a floor mass. The stiffness and damping
coefficient of the damper are 300.9 kN/m and S3.592 kN . slm, respectively. The
lowest five damping ratios and damped frequencies resulting from the full model are
listed in Table 8.7. In this example and the examples that follow, if the frequencies
and eigenvectors (mode shapes) resulting from the reduced model are close to those
of the full model, we will say that the reduced model is close to the full model within
that frequency range.
Six cases, shown in Table 8.S, for the dynamic condensation will be considered
in this example. The numbers in the parentheses represent the equations used. In
Case 1, for example, Eqs. (S.5-IS) and (S.5-20) or (S.5-I9) and (8.5-20) are used to
compute the dynamic condensation matrix, while Eq. (8.5-12) is utilized to calculate
the reduced state matrices from which the corresponding eigenpairs are obtained.
The degrees of freedom pertaining to the 10th, 20th, 30th, and 40th floors and
the TMD are selected as masters when the dynamic condensation approaches are
applied to the tall building. The relative errors of the five damping ratios and damped
frequencies of the reduced models are listed in Tables 8.9 through 8.18. Contrasted to
the relative errors defined in Eq. (8.5-22), those currently used are easy to show the
convergence of the iteration and how the reduced model approaches the full model
during the iteration. Ten iterations are considered for the reduced model. "-" in these
tables indicates that the relative error is less than 5 x 10- 6 . The convergent features of
Table 8.7 Lowest five damping ratios and damped frequencies (rad/s)
the eigenvectors are not shown because they are very similar to those of the damped
frequencies and this takes lots of space.
The reduced models obtained from all four iterative approaches are convergent
to the full model after sufficient iterations. Several iterations are enough to com-
pute the lower order of eigenpairs. For example, the first and second orders of
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 199
damped frequencies from the first approximation are accurate enough for engineer-
ing applications. One or two iterations are also enough for the accuracy of these two
damping ratios.
Due to the contradiction in the initial approximation of the dynamic condensa-
tion matrix used in Case 1, the accuracy is generally very low. Most of the relative
errors are greater than one as shown clearly in Tables 8.9 through 8.18. They are
reduced significantly after the first or second iteration. The results in these tables
show that this iterative scheme converges although the accuracy of the initial approx-
imation is very low. This means that the accuracy of the initial approximation will
not affect the convergence of the iterative scheme, although it may reduce the speed
of convergence.
The accuracy of the initial approximation based on Guyan condensation matrix is
much higher than that in Case 1, especially for the second through fifth damped fre-
quencies and the third through fifth damping ratios. However, the difference reduces
with the increase of the number of iterations. After several iterations, the accuracy of
200 Model Order Reduction Techniques
the reduced models resulting from these two iterative methods, shown in Eqs. (8.5-18)
and (8.5-20) or (8.5-18) and (8.5-21), is very close.
The relative errors of the initially approximate eigenpairs in Case 3 are the same as
those in Case 2 because the damping matrix in this example is almost proportional to
the stiffness matrix. Generally, the iterative approach in Case 3 converges faster than
the approach in Case 2. However, this is not right for the fifth damping ratio of the
reduced model, as shown in Table 8.18.
The iterative method in this section converges much faster than the other three
iterative schemes in Cases 1 through 3. The relative errors of the eigenpairs resulting
from the former are generally less than one tenth of those resulting from the latter
three methods. As anticipated, the accuracy of the reduced models in Cases 4, 5, and
6 are very close. Due to this, the latter two cases will not be considered in the second
example.
The floating-raft isolation system used in Section 8.2 is considered again. The lowest
15 complex frequencies are listed in Table 8.19. They are considered as exact for
comparison purpose.
The lowest 10 eigenpairs are of interest. The ratio of the number of masters to the
number of modes interested is selected as loS, that is, the number of masters is 15. The
degrees of freedom associated with the two machines and the translational degrees
of freedom at nodes 1,7, IS, 17, 19,21,29,35 in raft and at nodes 7, 8, 9,10,16 in
base are selected as the masters. The former four cases in Table 8.8 are considered in
this example. They are denoted by A, B, C, and D, respectively. Since higher modes
generally converge more slowly than the lower, only the higher five damping ratios
and damped frequencies are considered to show the convergence. The relative errors
of the damping ratios and damped frequencies of the reduced models resulted from
these four iterative schemes are plotted in Figures 8.6 and 8.7.
The damped frequencies of the reduced models approach those of the full model
steadily with the implementation of iteration as shown in Figure 8.6. The convergence
is very fast at the first several iterations. After that, the convergence becomes much
slower. Particularly, the relative errors of the damped frequencies computed from
Cases A and B reduce very slowly after several iterations-five, for example. The
error curves A and B are almost horizontal after these iterations. Therefore, very
small error tolerance for the damped frequency is required in the iterative methods
in Section 8.5. It could be slightly big in the iterative method in Section 8.6. For both
Table 8.19 Lowest 15 damping ratios and damped frequencies of the isolation system (rad/s)
10'..-----------------c=="
--~
§
--c
-y-D
10"'
~
10"'
(a) (b)
10' ~---------- -- - _... ---~------
--~
§ --c
-y-D
101 -------~-----
§__ 6
--c
-y-D
A
3 4 5 B 7 8 9 10 10 0t--:---:---73-=4==;5~B=7~::;8=9~10
4
Iteration iteration
(c) (d)
10'
§ --6
--c
-y-D
A
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iteration
(e)
Figure 8.6 Comparison of relative errors of damped frequencies: (a) 6th damped frequency; (b) 7th
damped frequency; (c) 8th damped frequency; (d) 9th damped frequency; (e) 10th
damped frequency.
10' 10'
~ 10~ ---;t
1~ ~
10.0 10~ 0
3 4 5 6 9 10 2 4 5 6 9 10
Iteration Iteration
(a) (b)
I--A
10'
-+-8
-6.-C
1""'-0
~
! 10·
1r
1~0
----- 1~0
4 5 6 9 10 2 4 5 6 7 9 10
Iteration Iteration
(C) (d)
10'
~
~
w 10'
10'
10. 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Iteration
(e)
Figure 8.7 Comparison of relative errors of damping ratios: (a) 6th damping ratio; (b) 7th damping
ratio; (c) 8th damping ratio; (d) 9th damping ratio; (e) 10th damping ratio.
The accuracy of the damped frequencies obtained from Case C is higher than
that of Cases A and B after several iterations. This means that the advantages of
the iterative method in Case C can only be shown after these iterations. Except for
the initial approximation, the method presented in this section has a much higher
accuracy than these three iterative approaches.
The convergent properties of the damping ratios shown in Figure 8.7 are not as clear
as those of damped frequencies, although they are generally similar. Therefore, it is
better to select the damped frequency as the major parameter to check the convergence
and the damping ratio as the minor.
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 203
where the matrices A and B may beAl andBl in Eq. (8.2-12), respectively, or AIl
and BII in Eq. (8.2-26), respectively. If the iterations proceeded using X~+l) as
the next estimation of the subspace, the subspace would collapse to a subspace
of dimension 1 and only contain the eigenvector corresponding to the lowest
eigenvalue. Therefore, the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure is adopted.
2. Compute the projections of matrices A and B in the subspace spanned by X~+ 1):
h
were -(i+1) an dA-(i+1) are t h e C't + 1)t h approXImate
Q .. eIgenvector and'
elgenvalue
matrices of the projected model. Finally, the (i + l)th approximate eigenvector
matrix is given by
~(i+1) = X(i+1)Q-(i+1) (4)
m m
·
EIgenvector . .i/i+1).
matrIX ... m IS used to cal cul ate t h e next approXImate
.. elgenvalues
and eigenvectors until they converge, that is,
jAji+1) _ AY)I
(j = 1,2, ... ,p::s m) (5)
jAji+1) I
Because the ith approximation of the eigenvector matrix used in Eq. (1) is a complex
matrix, the corresponding subspace X~+I) is also a complex matrix. This may lead to
the complex reduced system matrices A and B, and the eigenproblem of the reduced
model becomes very computationally expensive.
(6)
. - (HI) - (i+l)
where submatnces \II mm (2m x 2m) and \115m (25 X 2m) are defined as
(i+I)
- (i+l) [ \II mm
\II mm = ,T.(i+ 1) n(i+ I)
"t'mm ~~mm
(i+I)
-(i+I) [ \115m
\115m = ,T.(i+ 1) n(i+ I)
(7)
"t'sm ~~mm
According to the definition of the dynamic condensation matrix in Eq. (8.5-9), we have
(8)
(9)
R(i+I) = X(i+I)
sm
(X(i+I»-1
mm (10)
It shows dearly in Eq. (10) that the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure does not affect the
dynamic condensation matrix.
Equation (1) can be rewritten as
(11)
(13)
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 205
and
F = -K- 1M (14)
I and O(n x n) are the unity and null matrices, respectively. Clearly, both forms of
the system matrices result in the same matrix G. Based on the division of the degrees
of freedom, Eq. (11) may be expressed in a partitioned form as
where the submatrices Gll (2m x 2m), G12(2m x 25), G21 (25 x 2m), and G22(25 x
25) are defined as
- [Emm
G ll-
Imm
Fmm] ,
0
G12 = GT21 = [Ems
0
Fms]
0' G22 = [Ess
0 Iss
FSS]
(16)
Using the definition of the dynamic condensation matrix in Eq. (8.5-9), we have
(17)
(i+l)]
[X mm [G II
(18)
X~::l) - G21
mm = (G 11
X(i+l) + G12R(i»l)(i)
mm (l9a)
sm =
X(i+l) (G21 + Gn R(i»l)(i)
mm (19b)
Equations (20) and (21) are the governing equations of the dynamic condensation
matrix. It can be seen dearly that the dynamic condensation matrix is independent of
the system matrices and eigenpairs of the reduced model. Therefore, it is unnecessary
to calculate them during iteration, which makes this method very computationally
efficient.
206 Model Order Reduction Techniques
After the dynamic condensation matrix is obtained, the reduced system matrices
AR and BR in the state space may be computed using Eq. (8.2-12) or alternatively
(23)
(24)
Using the coordinate transformation matrix, the subspace X~+I) in Eq. (1) can be
expressed as
X(i+1)
m
= {X~~l)l
(i+1)
= T(i+!)X(i+1)
mm (25)
Xsm
Introducing Eq. (24) itlto Eq~ (2) leads to
A (i+1) = (X(i+1»)T(T(i+l»)T AT(i+!) X(i+l)
p mm mm
= (X(i+l»)T
mm
A (i+l) X(i+l)
R mm
(26a)
3.4 Check the convergence for the real and imaginary parts of the eigenvalues
using the criterion
Iaj(i+I) - aj(i) I
I I .: :
a?+I)
81 (j = 1,2, ... ,p.:::: m) (28)
where a denotes the real and imaginary parts of the complex eigenvalues,
respectively. If the first p eigenvalues converge, exit the loop.
4. Output the dynamic condensation matrixR(i+l) and system matricesA~+l) and
B~+ I) of the reduced model.
Clearly, there are three types of major computational work within each iteration. They
are to evaluate the (i + I)th approximate dynamic condensation matrix R(i+1), to
construct the (i + I )th approximate system matrices A ~+ I) and B~+ 1) of the reduced
model, and to solve for the eigenproblem of the reduced model. Assume the compu-
tational work for these three types are WI, W2, W3, respectively. The total work for
one iteration is WI + W2 + W3 and k(WI + W2 + W3) for k iterations.
As shown in Eq. (12), since the matrix G is defined by the system matrices of the
full model, the dynamic condensation matrix is only dependent on itself, as shown
in Eq. (20). This means the system matrices as well as the eigenpairs of the reduced
model have no effect on the iteration. We do not have to compute them within every
iteration. Therefore, the following iterative scheme is presented.
Iterative Scheme I
I. Choose the masters and construct all the submatrices to be used in the following.
2. Calculate the initial approximation of the dynamic condensation R(O) by using
Eq. (21).
3. For i = 0, k, 2k, 3k, . .. (k > 1), begin the iteration:
3.1 Calculate the (i + k)th approximate dynamic condensation matrix R(i+k)
by iterating Eq. (20) k times.
3.2 Calculate the system matrices of the reduced model using Eq. (8.2-12) or
(22).
3.3 Solve for the eigenproblem of the reduced model:
A (i+k) i(i+k)
R mm
= B(i+k)
R
i(i+k) g (i+k)
mm mm
3.4 Check the convergence for the real and imaginary parts of the eigenvalues
using the criterion
la?+k) - ay) I
Jaji+k) I .: : 81 (j = 1,2, .. ·,P:::: m) (29)
4. Output the dynamic condensation matrix R(i+k) and system matrices A~+k) and
B~+k) of the reduced model.
Clearly, the iterative scheme I becomes the classical iterative scheme if k = 1. Since
the computation of the system matrices of the reduced model and the corresponding
eigenproblem does not affect the dynamic condensation matrix, the dynamic con-
densation matrix R(i+k) and the system matrices A~+k) and B~+k) of the reduced
model resulting from the two schemes should be identical.
As mentioned earlier, the major computational work for obtaining the reduced
model (A~+k) and B~+k)) using the classical iterative scheme is k(Wl + W2 + W3).
It is kWl + W2 + W3 if the iterative scheme I is used. Clearly, (k - 1)(W2 + W3)
computational work may be saved for k iterations and (k - 1)(W2 + W3) /k for one
iteration. Here, W3 denotes the computation of the eigenproblem of the reduced
model in state space. As we know, the computation of the eigenpairs is usually very
expensive, especially when the size of the reduced model or the number of the masters
is a little large. Therefore, the computational effort required in iterative scheme I is
much less than the classical iterative scheme if k > 1 and the size of the reduced model
is big.
In iterative scheme I, the system matrices of the reduced model and the
corresponding eigenpairs are still to be computed after a couple of iterations.
Iterative Scheme II
where ry) and ry+l) are the jth column vectors of the ith and (i + l)th
approximate dynamic condensation matrix, respectively. If the m column
vectors converge, exit the loop.
4. Calculate the system matrices of the reduced model.
5. Solve for the eigenproblem of the reduced model if necessary.
6. Output the dynamic condensation matrix and system matrices.
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 209
In this scheme, the system matrices of the reduced model are only to be calculated
after the dynamic condensation matrix converges. The eigenpairs are to be computed
only when it is necessary. Therefore, this scheme is a little more computationally
efficient than Scheme I.
(31)
X(O) -
m -
[ (0)]
Xmm
X(O)
-
-
A-1BX
m (32)
sm
R(O) = X(O)
sm
(X(O) )-1
mm (33)
(34)
R(i+l) = X(i+l)(X(i+l»-l (35)
sm mm
The following steps are similar to those in Scheme II. Clearly, Eqs. (33) and
(35) are equivalent to Eqs. (21) and (20).
Suppose the subspace X m can be expressed as
(36)
where D is a coefficient matrix of 2n x 2m. Introducing Eq. (36) into (32) results in
(37)
When the orthogonalities of the eigenvector matrix with respect to matrix A, shown
in Eq. (8.5-3), are considered, we have
1 ---I-T
A- = \IIQ \II (38)
210 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Introducing Eq. (38) into Eq. (37) and using Eq. (8.5-3) again leads to
X(O) -
m - 1tQ -I D (39)
(0) ] _ [ 'IImm
Xmm -
[ (0) - - (40)
Xsm '115m
(41a)
(41b)
R
(0)
= «(lsmQmmDmm
- - -I
+ 'IIssQ
-
ss Dsm)('IImmQmmDmm +, 'IIms Q ss Dsm)
- -I - - -I - - -I
(42)
Based on the same derivative procedure, the ith approximation of the dynamic
condensation matrix is given by
(i) - - -i-I - - -i-I - - -i-I - - -i-I -I
R = ('IIsmQmm Dmm + 'IIssQ ss Dsm)('IImmQmm Dmm + 'IIms Q ss Dsm)
(43)
Because the moduli of all the diagonal elements in matrix Qss are greater than those
in matrix Qmm, we have
(i -* (0) (44)
i.e.,
(') - --I
R I -* 'IIsm'llmm (i -* (0) (45)
in which 1tsm 1t:~ is the exact value of the dynamic condensation matrix.
in which aji) and aJ are the real/imaginary parts of the ith approximate and exact
eigenvalues, respectively. The subscript denotes the jth eigenvalue. Here, the eigen-
values are just used to demonstrate how the reduced model closes the full model and
not for eigenvalues themselves.
As shown clearly from the results in Table 8.20, the errors of the initial approxi-
mations are very large, especially for the real parts of eigenvalues. All the errors of
the real parts are greater than 100%. Clearly, the corresponding eigenvalues or the
Table 8.20 Relative errors of the eigenvalues of reduced model (present method)
o
I
2
4
5
6
7
•
9
10 0.0000001 0 _
212 Model Order Reduction Techniques
reduced model is meaningless. The real parts of the eigenvalues resulting from the
reduced model quickly converge to the exact when iteration is implemented. After 10
iterations, the errors reduce to less than one 1000th of the initial approximation. The
imaginary parts of the eigenvalues converge to the exact results consistently during
iterating. These errors are all larger than zero, which means the complex frequencies
of the reduced model are larger than the exact and the reduced model approaches the
full model from above. After 10 iterations, the reduced model AR and BR, which is
described by the 1st, 6th, 11 th, and 16th degrees of freedom, can accurately represent
the full model in the lowest frequency range with the highest error 0.5%. Therefore,
it can be used directly in the test-analysis model correlation, active vibration control,
and so on.
For comparison purposes, the errors resulted from Scheme A, defined as Case 1
in Table 8.8, are listed in Table 8.21. Although there is little difference between the
errors of the initial approximations resulting from the two kinds of methods, the
errors obtained from the present method reduce much more quickly than those from
SchemeA.
The damping matrix in this example is proportional to the stiffness matrix because
of the particular selection of the damping matrix. As mentioned, the dynamic con-
densation method for undamped systems can be used to solve the problem directly.
Here, we want to show that the dynamic condensation approaches for non classically
damped systems can also be applied to proportionally damped models.
The floating-raft isolation system is considered as the second example. The degrees of
freedom associated with the two machines, and the translational degrees of freedom
at nodes 2, 4,8,9, 14,22 in raft and at nodes 9, 14 in base, are selected as masters when
the dynamic condensation is applied. All the complex frequencies of the reduced
model at the first 12 iterations are listed in Tables 8.22 and 8.23. The results obtained
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 213
Table 8.22 Real parts of the complex frequencies of reduced model (present method)
Iter. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 BIllet
Iftq.l -0.351257 -0.334284 -0.334283 -0.334283 -0.334283 -0.334283 -0.334283 -o.33G83
1ftq.2 -0.459752 -0.454051 -0.454051 -0.454051 -0.454051 -0.454051 -0.454051 -o.~1
1ftq.3 -3.35444 -0.322134 -0.321728 -0.321728 -0.321728 -0.321728 -0.321728 -0.321728
Preq.4 -20.2196 -631912 -6.48547 -6.46571 -6.46483 -6.46483 -6.46483 -6.46483
Preq.S -29.4092 -10.3897 -9.77570 -9.76763 -9.76748 -9.76748 -9.76748 -9.76748
Preq.6 -16.2522 -7.67117 -6.77129 -6.72992 -6.72766 -6.72764 -6.72764 -6.72764
Preq.7 -5f.9616 -711M12 -7.50688 -7.46009 -7.49449 -7.493CM -7.49290 -7.49290
Preq.8 -57.6414 -19.8781 -18.1923 -12.5756 -13.3257 -12.9869 -12.9500 -12.9449
PIeq.9 -154.475 -21,5751 -16.3887 -17.9246 -17.8943 -17.8887 -17.8875 -17.8871
lPreq.l0 -6UOO6 -37.6786 4.99675 -17.3053 -16.4704 -16.4175 -16.4105 -16.4082
Table 8.23 Imaginary parts of the com plex frequencies of reduced model (present
method, radfs)
Iter. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Exact
Preq.l 27.6811 27.4784 27.4784 27.4784 27.4784 27.4784 27.4784 27.4784
Freq.2 30.8131 30.7270 30.7270 30.7270 30.7270 30.7270 30.7270 30.7270
Preq.5 193.028 67.4832 67.4671 67.4671 67.4671 67.4671 67.4671 67.4671
Preq.4 362.290 227.711 226.81Z 226.761 226.759 226.759 226.759 226.759
Preq.5 510.015 231.199 2TI.m 227.90Z 2TI.902 227.902 227.902 227.902
Preq.6 673-'" 242.2SO 238.m 238.649 238.642 238.642 238.642 238.642
PNq.7 732.313 347.848 340.J25 337.011 335.960 335.931 335.931 335.931
1ftq.8 1076.46 555.324 534.822 491.904 420.814 418.423 418.327 418.319
Preq.9 1922.65 565.686 542.570 533.991 533.940 533.935 533.934 533.934
iPreq.l0 2986.84 1326.30 978.800 546.799 542.968 542.839 542.828 542.827
Table 8.24 Real parts of the complex frequencies of reduced model (Scheme A)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 I!Dct
-0.3529t6 -G.334284 -0.334283 -0.334283 -0.334283 -0.334283 -0.334283 -0.334283
-o.4Ii0291 -0.454051 -0.454051 -0.454051 -0.454051 -0.4540S1 -0.454051 -0.454051
-42.6293 -o.m148 -0.321539 -0.321560 -0.321574 -0.321587 -0.321597 ,.-0.321728
-KSMS -6M264 -6.50874 -6.47890 -6.47562 -6.f7423 -6.'47518 -6.46483
-28L91O 1UGZ5 -9.76172 -9.75627 -9.75746 -9.75834 -9.75(189 -936748
-165.917 -7..,154 -6.76654 -6.73457 -6.73192 -6.73122 -6.73066 ,...6.72764
-1.16662 -7.52963 -7.42061 -7.43290 -7-""2 -7A5915O -7.49290
-19.2819 -18.G1164 -13.0259 -13A1361 -13.G567 -.3.G879 -l2.M49
-22.4687 -16.3650 -17.9903 -17.9497 -17.9459 -17.M2I -17.8871
-34.6759 5.53147 -18.7647 -16.6137 -16.5342 -16.5134 -16.4082
214 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Table 8.25 Imaginary parts of the complex frequencies of reduced model (Scheme A, rad/s)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
27.7031 27.4784 27.4784 27.4784 27.4784 27.4784 27.4784
30.8217 30.7270 30.7270 30.7270 30.7270 30.7270 30.7270
6A039 67.4935 67.489 67.4688 67.4688 67.46811 67.4688 67.4671
13OL90 228.193 226.932 226.842 226.831 226.82S 226.821 226.759
178).21 233.059 228.368 228.288 22IL26l 228.24S 228.230 227.902
2147.30 242.776 238.978 238.850 2S8.828 238.817 238.809 238.642
2S68.93 • 355.506 343.999 339.298 351.788 357.463 337.271 335.931
3541.74 559.382 537.682 524.S40 441.77. 436.950 433.454 418.319
4999.02 566.196 544.449 536.245 535.780 535.571 535.445 533.934
6493.01 1291.61 998.693 554.278 S44.407 S44.OM 543.985 542.827
,0'
~
'0'
j '0' 1'0'
,0'
,0'
"r'
'0' ,0'
- -
'0' ,0'
,0'0 l
,o"a
(a) (b)
Figure 8.9 Errors of the ninth complex frequency for the four cases: (a) Real parts; (b) imaginary parts.
,0' ,0'
to' to'
'0'
,.., to-
j '0' j
'0"
'0'
~
,0' ,0'
,.'
I.-
-
'0"
-
10'
,0'0 10"'.
(a) (b)
Figure 8.10 Errors of the 10th complex frequency for thefour cases: (a) Real parts; (b) imaginary parts.
Dynamic Condensation of Nonclassically Damped Models 215
from the method in Scheme A defined above are listed in Tables 8.24 and 8.25 for
comparison purposes. The "Exact" indicates the results obtained from the full model.
Because the reduced model is derived from the full model, it is reasonable to consider
the full model as exact. Again, the results show that the method in this section is
more efficient for nonclassically damped systems. Although the reduced model has
only 10 degrees of freedom, which is about one 18th of the full model, it is a good
representation of the full model in frequency range (0, 500) rad/s after 10 iterations.
Since the lower order of complex frequencies usually converge much faster than the
higher order, the 9th and 10th frequencies of the reduced model are considered. The
errors of these two frequencies computed from four cases are shown in Figures 8.9
and 8.10, respectively. In these figures, Case A denotes the results obtained from
Scheme A. Cases B, C, and D are the presented method with k = 1,2 and 3, respec-
tively. Clearly, the convergence of the current method is much faster than Scheme A.
It becomes faster and faster with the increase of k.
8.9 Summary
Three static condensation methods for nonclassically damped models have been
described. One is defined in the displacement space and the other two are defined
in the state space. The former is actually equivalent to Guyan condensation and the
latter two are not exactly static condensation because the inertia or damping effect is
partially included in the condensation matrix. The reduced stiffness, damping matri-
ces, and equivalent force vector resulting from these three approaches are identical.
There is only some difference among the reduced mass matrices. The accuracy of the
reduced model computed from SCDS and SCSS(II) is very close and higher than that
from SCSS(I).
The exact dynamic condensation for a nonclassically damped model is provided.
Unfortunately, both the dynamic condensation matrix and the reduced system matri-
ces are complex. It is very inconvenient if the reduced model is utilized in further
analyses. The dynamic condensation matrix obtained from the undamped model
may also be used to reduce the size of the nonclassically damped models. However,
the reduced model usually has low accuracy and will not converge to the full model
if the iterative schemes are implemented.
One modal-type dynamic condensation for the nonclassically damped model is
described in this chapter. Its advantage is that the reduced model could exactly retain
the interested modes of the full model. However, the interested eigenpairs of the full
model should be available before the condensation is performed. It has been proven
that the dynamic condensation matrix and the reduced system matrices resulting
from the modal-type condensation are all real. Furthermore, the complex numerical
operation is unnecessary during the condensation.
Three versions of iterative algorithms for the dynamic condensation of nonclas-
sically damped models are presented. They are defined in the state space and have
similar iterative forms. The third method is better than the second, which is better
than the first. Generally, the rate of convergence at the first several iterations is very
fast. It becomes very slow after these iterations, especially for the first iterative method.
An iterative method based on the inverse iteration in the state space is presented.
The computation of the reduced system matrices as well as the reduced eigenproblem
is unnecessary during the iteration. Hence, much computational work could be saved.
216 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Generally, the speed of convergence of this method is faster than the three iterative
methods in Sections 5, 6, and 7.
References
Bathe, KJ and Wilson, EL (1972) Large eigenvalue problems in dynamic analysis. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Division, 98(EM6):1471-1485.
Carroll, WF (1999) A primer for finite elements in elastic structures. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, NY.
Huang, F and Gu, S (1993) A new approach for model reduction. Proceedings of the lIth
International Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, Florida), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.,
Bethel, CT: 1572-1575.
Kane, K and Torby, BJ (1991) The extended modal reduction method applied to rotor dynamic problems.
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 113( II ):79-84.
Qu, Z-Q (1998) Structural dynamic condensation techniques: Theory and applications. Ph.D. Dissertation,
State Key Laboratory of Vibration, Shock and Noise, Shanghai hao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2000) Dynamic condensation methods for viscously damped models. Proceed-
ings of the 18th International Modal Analysis Conference, (San Antonio, Texas), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1752-1757.
Qu, Z-Q and Chang, W (2000) Dynamic condensation method for viscous damped vibration systems in
engineering. Engineering Structures, 22(11): 1426-1432.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2002) Efficient method for dynamic condensation of nonclassically damped
vibration systems. AIAA Journal, 40(2):368-375.
Qu, Z-Q, Jung, Y, and Selvam, RP (2003) Model condensation for nonclassically damped systems- Part I:
Static condensation. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 17(5):1003-1016.
Qu, Z-Q, Selvam, RP, and Jung, Y (2003) Model condensation for non classically damped systems-Part
II: Iterative schemes for dynamic condensation. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 17(5):1017-
1032.
Qu, Z-Q (2003) Discussion on dynamic condensation and synthesis of unsymmetric structural systems.
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 70(5):784.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2004) Insight into dynamic condensation matrix of nonclassically damped
models. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 272(3-5):581-606.
Rao, GV (2002) Dynamic condensation and synthesis of unsymmetric structural systems. Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 69(5):610-616.
Reddy, VR and Sharan, AM (1986) The static and dynamic analysis of machine tools using dynamic matrix
reduction technique. Proceedings of the 4th International Modal Analysis Conference (Los Angeles,
CAl, Union College, Schenectady, NY: 1104-1109.
Rivera, MA, Singh, MP, and Suarez, LE (1999) Dynamic condensation approach for nonclassically damped
structures. AIAA Journal, 37(5):564-571.
Rouch, KE and Kao, JS (1980) Dynamic reduction in rotor dynamics by finite element method. Journal of
Mecbanical Design, 102(2):360-368.
Wu, JC, Yang, JN, and Schmitendorf, WE (1998) Reduced-order H oo and LQR control for wind-excited
tall buildings. Engineering Structures, 20(3 ): 222-236.
9 Application I: Model Reduction on System Level
9.1 Introdudion
Various approaches for the dynamic condensation of large size of discrete models
have been presented in preceding chapters. When a new method for dynamic con-
densation is proposed, natural frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes are
generally utilized to check the accuracy of the new approach. If the differences of
natural frequencies and mode shapes between the full model and the reduced model
obtained from the new condensation method are less than the prescribed tolerance,
the new development is considered to be successful. Using this comparison, it can be
guaranteed that the dynamic characteristics of the reduced model are close to those
of the full model within the frequency range of interest. Thus, the reduced model can
represent the full model within that frequency range. For this reason, all the dynamic
condensation methods may be implemented into the eigenvalue analysis oflarge-size
models. This is the traditional and widely acknowledged application and has been
well demonstrated in preceding chapters.
Besides the direct implementation of dynamic condensation technique into eigen-
value problem analysis, this technique has been incorporated with other eigenvalue
solvers to improve the convergence of iteration. For instance, the transformation
matrices obtained from Guyan condensation (Cheu et aI., 1986), dynamic conden-
sation (O'Callahan et al., 1986), and the quadratic condensation (Cheu et al., 1986)
(a variant of exact condensation) were used as the starting vector of subspace iteration
method. Although computation time is required for the retrieval of starting vectors
from Guyan condensation and quadratic condensation, research shows that the total
computer time required for the subspace iteration using the new starting vectors is
less than that required using the traditional starting vectors.
It is shown in preceding chapters that the size of the reduced finite element model
is much smaller than that of the full finite element model after the implementation of
dynamic condensation technique, while the important dynamic characteristics of the
full model are accurately retained in the reduced model. Therefore, the reduced model
is very useful in structural dynamic analyses, structural simulations, and structural
control.
The dynamic condensation technique may be directly utilized to reduce the global
finite element model of a structural system. To this end, the finite element model
should be, at first, formulated for the whole or major part of structural system. Then,
the full model is reduced using the dynamic condensation technique. The implemen-
tation is quite simple and has been well demonstrated in preceding chapters. Due to
217
218 Model Order Reduction Techniques
the large number of published materials on this topic, the applications of dynamic
condensation approaches on the system level are concisely listed in Table 9.1 for ref-
erence purposes. All the papers referred to in this table are listed in the bibliography
at the end of this book.
In this chapter the implementation of dynamic condensation technique to the
primary-secondary system, which consists of one primary subsystem and one or more
secondary subsystems, will be demonstrated. Examples of this kind of systems are
the structure with its active vibration control system (Qu et al., 2001), bridge-vehicle
interaction system (Henchi et aI., 1998), and aircraft-ship interaction system (Tong
and Qu, 2000). These systems have several common features:
The primary subsystem is generally very complex. The finite element method is
usually utilized to generate the discrete model for the primary subsystem. Due to
the complexity, the size of the finite element model is very big.
The secondary subsystem is quite simple and any dynamic condensation approach
seems to be unnecessary.
The physical parameters of the secondary subsystems change repeatedly during the
design stage and, hence, it is inconvenient to use any dynamic condensation.
Furthermore, the implementation of dynamic condensation into the secondary
subsystems is sometimes very difficult due to nonlinearities.
For this kind of systems, the full finite element model of the primary subsystem is
first reduced in physical space using the dynamic condensation technique. Then, the
reduced model is assembled with the full models of the secondary subsystems and
other connections to formulate the reduced global model. For illustration purposes,
the schematic of reduced finite element modeling of primary-secondary systems
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 219
Secondary
.Jj7
Full Model
Design r - - ___
I
0_____
Full Model I
~ O ~ Oi
'1!'<-'~""~~"1 ~ 1
~nectlo
c.o..n I I ijillili ~ Il lm ll l!
Primary FE Full Model I FE Reduced Model
l..- ___ _______ . .:
Reduces! Global Mode!
is shown in Figure 9.1. One major advantage of this modeling scheme is that the
reduced model of the primary subsystem needs to be generated only once although the
parameters of secondary subsystems may change repeatedly. Whenever the physical
properties of the secondary subsystems are given, the global finite element model may
be obtained by assembling the models of the secondary subsystems and the reduced
model of the primary subsystem. This modeling scheme has been successfully applied
to aircraft-ship interaction systems (Tong and Qu, 2000), active vibration control
systems (Qu et aI., 2001), finite element modeling of structures with smart material
(Qu, 2001), dynamic systems with local nonlinearities (Rouch and Kao, 1980; Shiau
and Jean, 1990, 1991; Friswell et aI., 1995, 1996; Burton et aI., 2000; Qu and Selvam,
2001; Qu, 2002; Meyer and Link, 2003), and responses of secondary systems under
seismic excitation (Bernal, 1999), and so on.
In the reduced order control, controllers are designed based on the reduced order
model that has much fewer degrees of freedom than the original model referred to as
full order model. The block diagram of the reduced order control, as well as the full
order control, is shown in Figure 9.2. Likewise, it is much easier to design the output
feedback controller for the reduced order model than for the full order model.
For the reduced order control, a reduced order model needs to be constructed from
the full order model of the structural system using system reduction schemes. The
resulting reduced order model should retain the important dominant characteristics
of the full order model, such as the important modes to be controlled, as much as pos-
sible. Many kinds of system reduction methods are available in the literature. Several
examples are the cost analysis (Skelton and Hughes, 1980), the optimal projection
(Wilson, 1974; Hyland and Bernstein, 1984), the balanced reduction (Moore, 1981),
the critical mode reduction (Yang and Liu, 1982), and Guyan condensation (Guyan,
1965).
One of the advantages of the condensation method over other approaches already
mentioned is that the corresponding reduced order model is defined in the subspace
of the full order model. Thus, each coordinate has a specific physical meaning and
can be used in the measurement directly. Using the dynamic condensation technique,
the number of nodes of the finite element model as well as the number of degrees of
freedom at each node can be reduced significantly. Up to now, the simplest conden-
sation method-Guyan condensation-has been broadly implemented into active
vibration control systems such as journal bearing (Sun et al., 1994), spacecraft solar
array (Sowmianarayanan and Pradeep, 1999), and flexible payloads (Gaudenzi et al.,
1999; Mills and lng, 1996).
Due to the ignorance of dynamic effects in Guyan condensation, it is only exact
for static problems. For dynamic problems, the accuracy is usually low and fully
depends on the selection of masters. If the masters are properly selected and the ratio
of number of masters to the number of modes of interest is high, the reduced order
model resulting from Guyan condensation will generally have necessary accuracy.
However, the degrees of freedom on which the actuators and sensors are mounted
and on which the displacements (velocities and accelerations) are interested should
be selected as masters in active vibration control. Furthermore, the size of the reduced
model cannot be comparatively high. Therefore, we do not have much freedom to
Reduced
Order antral
Z Full Order
Control
Figure 9.2 Block diagram of reduced and full order model control.
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 221
{
MX(t) + CX(t) + KX(t) = F(t) + D!d(t) - Dfc(t)
(1)
md[xd(t) + xn(t)] + !d(t) = fc(t)
where M, C, and K are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the building,
respectively. Only the proportional damping, that is, C = cxK + 13M, is considered
herein. If the damping is viscous, the dynamic condensation methods in Chapter 8
may be implemented to reduce the full order model of the building. F(t) is a loading
vector. Force !d(t) and the force distribution vector D are expressed as
!d(t) = CdXd(t) + kdXd(t) (2)
DT={~I} n-1
(3)
222 Model Order Reduction Techniques
fdU)
~i
fAt) !
feU)
I fcCtL
I
I
I
I
I
I
Using matrix form, Eqs. (1), (2) and (3) can be rewritten as
.. .
M X(t) + C X(t) + K X(t) = F(t) + Dfc(t) (4)
- [M
M=
Md :J, - [c C=
0
Cd]'
Cd
K= [K
o
Kd]
kd
(Sa)
Xl (t) 0
X(t) =
X2(t)
xn(t)
D= 0
-1
F(t) = {F~t) I (Sb)
Xd(t) 1
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 223
In Eq. (5),0 is an n-dimensional column or row null vector. The n-dimensional row
vector Md, column vectors Cd and Kd are given by
Md = {O CJ = {O ... 0 -Cd}'
KJ = {O (6)
A = [
-M
_0_ 1 -
K -M
_1_ 1 -J,
C
Vet) OJ ,
= [ _-1- Z(t) = IX(t)j
!. (8)
M F(t) X(t)
The linear quadratic regulator (LQR) is considered herein for the control algorithm.
The regulator problem is defined as (Meirovitch, 1990) the problem of designing a
control input so as to drive the structures from some initial state to the zero state.
The linear regulator problem is the one in which the control is a linear function of
the state. According to the definition of the LQR, we have
Vet) =0 (9)
The object of the LQR is to determine an optimal control minimizing the quadratic
performance measure
1 (tt)SZ(tt)
J = _ZT + -1 lot! [zt (t)Q(t)Z(t) + !c(t)U(t)!c(t) ]dt (10)
2 2 0
where the weighting matrices Sand Q of state variable are real, symmetric, positive,
and semidefinite. U is usually a real, symmetric, positive, and definite matrix. How-
ever, it is a positive variable for the control model considered here. tt is the end of
integration time. A minimization of the performance index J in (10) subject to the
constraint of (7) results in the well-known LQR controller (Meirovitch, 1990),
(11)
(12)
It can be proven that Eq. (12) has a unique, positive, definite solution as long as
(A, Q) is observable. r is the state feedback matrix. The dynamic equation of the
corresponding closed-loop control system is given by
(13)
224 Model Order Reduction Techniques
where matrices MR, CR, KR E R(m+l)x(m+l) and vectors Xm(t), FR(t) and DR E
R(m+l) of the reduced order model are defined as
-
MR= [MR
MRd :J, -
CR= [CR
0
CRd] ,
Cd
KR = [KR
o
KRd]
kd
(16a)
(18)
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 225
Similarly, we have the following equations by using the LQR control technique:
(20)
(21)
(22)
Because the number of masters is much less than that of the total degrees of freedom,
the size of the reduced order model is much smaller than that of the full order model.
Thus, a much smaller size of matrix manipulation is required in the reduced order
control.
Table 9.2(a) Real parts of the frequencies of the tall building (rad/s)
Table 9.2(b) Imaginary parts of the frequencies of the tall building (rad/s)
model are all very close to the full order model after two or three iterations. Hence,
the reduced order model can accurately represent the dynamic characteristics of the
full order model in the low-frequency range after several iterations.
Now let us consider the building with TMD and ATMD. Similarly, the dynamic
condensation approaches are used to reduce the model of building before the con-
trol devices are assembled. The reduced order control model has nine degrees of
freedom among which eight are from the building and one from the TMD or
ATMD. The lowest eight complex frequencies of the reduced order model and the
full order model are listed in Tables 9.3 and 9.4 for the building with TMD and
ATMD, respectively.
As shown in these four tables, the second complex frequency concerns the TMD or
ATMD, and the other seven frequencies pertain to the vibration of the building. The
damping ratio of the first mode of the building is 0.0077. After the implementation
of the TMD and ATMD, the corresponding damping ratio increased to 0.0274 and
0.0745, respectively. Therefore, the displacement responses significantly resulting
from the first mode of the building will be reduced substantially, which will be shown
later.
The use of different dynamic condensation approaches does not have much effect
on the accuracy of the second mode. In the case of TMD, for example, the errors
of damping ratio and frequency are, respectively, 0.14% and -0.018% when Guyan
condensation is applied to the building. The reason is that this mode concerns the
vibration of the TMD and ATMD, respectively, on which the model reduction is
Table 9.3(a) Real parts of the frequencies of the tall building with TMD (rad/s)
Table 9.3(b) Imaginary parts of the frequencies of the tall building with TMD (rad/s)
Table 9.4(a) Real parts of the frequencies of the tall building with ATMD (rad/s)
Table 9.4(b) Imaginary parts of the frequencies of the tall building with ATMD (rad/s)
not performed. The results in Tables 9.3 and 9.4 show that the first mode has a much
higher error than the second mode. The errors of the damping ratio and the frequency
of the first mode resulting from Guyan condensation in the case of TMD, for example,
are -l.02% and 0.17%, which are almost 10 times the second mode. The reason is
that this mode pertains to the building on which the condensation method is applied.
The accuracy of the reduced order model resulting from Guyan condensation is
very low. With the iteration, the complex frequencies of the reduced order model
approach steadily those of the full order model. The reduced order model can accu-
rately represent the full order model in the low-frequency range after two or three
iterations. Since the reduced order model only has nine degrees of freedom, which is
much smaller than that of the full order model, much computational effort can be
saved during the design of the control system and simulation.
Assume that a unit step load is acted on the top floor of the building. The responses
of the top floor of the building with TMD and ATMD obtained from the reduced
order model and the full order model are plotted in Figures 9.5 and 9.6, respectively.
1.0x10·7 r---------;:=========;-]
- - . Full MO-del-~
8.0xW8
[ . - - Reduced Mo~=~ ~::?~ I
Reduced Model (i=1~ I
E
~ 6.0xW 8
~ \ -=-~.'""'" """"'-"J
!fNlfMIMN
OJ
E
OJ
g 4.0x11J8
n.
\ II
VJ
D
2.0xWB
0.0 w.....~w..............J~-'-'-'~'-'-'-~'-'-'-~'-'-'-~.........~.........~-'-'-~.w
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (5)
1.0x11J7
- - Full Model
8.0x11JB Reduced Model (i=O)
Reduced Model (i= 1)
E Reduced Model (i=2)
~
~ 6.0x11J8
OJ
E
OJ
()
ro 4.0xW8
n.
\1
VJ
D
~
2.0xW8
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (5)
Clearly, there is a little difference between the initial approximation and the exact,
while the responses of the first and second approximations are very close to the exact
and it is very difficult to distinguish them from these figures.
1400
1200
1000
I!!
8.
co 800
..
Q.
'5
G)
600
.Q
E
:s 400
Z
200
o+-,-~=r-.-.-r-r-r-r~~~~~~~~~~
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Year
structure. Hence, the sensors and actuators are usually discretely distributed on the
structure.
The finite element method is a powerful numerical technique that provides solu-
tions to many complicated engineering problems. It was directly applied to the smart
materials and structures by the later 1980s (Tzou, 1989). After that, the finite ele-
ment modeling of smart structures attracted numerous researchers and became a
major area of research. Various types of formulations have been proposed for one-,
two-, and three-dimensional elements. For the plates, the elements with and with-
out electric degrees of freedom have been developed. Most of the elements without
the electric degrees of freedom used an equivalent single-layer model for multilayer
piezoelectric plates. Hwang et al. (1993) used classical laminated plate theory with
the induced strain actuation and Hamilton's principle to formulate the equations of
motion. The first-order shear deformation laminated plate theory was implemented
by Chandrashekhara and Agarwal (1993) into laminated composite plates, which is
applicable for both thin and moderately thick plates. This model takes into account
the mass and stiffness of the piezoelectric patches. A detailed survey and discussion
of the advances and trends in the formulations and application of the finite element
modeling of adaptive structural elements has been presented by Benjeddou (2000)
recently.
Although the finite element method is valid for almost any complex structures and
the dynamic characteristics obtained from the model can accurately approach the
real within a wide frequency range, to make sure that the results have the necessary
accuracy, the finite element model is usually very large for complex structures. More-
over, the mechanical and electric responses are coupled due to the inclusion of the
smart sensors and actuators. This makes the computation very expensive. Actually,
only a small portion of degrees of freedom of the structure is coupled with the electric
responses in a discretely distributed smart structure as mentioned above. If we can
delete or omit most of the degrees of freedom that have nothing to do with the sensors
and actuators, a lot of computational time and space can be saved.
The model reduction for the finite element model with electric degrees of freedom
has been mentioned in Chapter 4. Because the mass concerning the electric degrees of
freedom is zero, Guyan condensation can exactly delete the electric degrees of freedom
from the governing equations of motion. In this section, the general case for the model
reduction of the finite element model of smart structures will be demonstrated.
(1)
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 231
z(w)
8y
I------Ah~::...... y(v)
x (u)
where u, v, and ware the displacements in the x-, y-, and z-directions; 8x and 8y
are the rotations of a transverse normal about the x- and y-axes, respectively. In
Eq. (1), the displacements in the mid-plane are not considered. In the FSDT, the
straight lines originally normal to the mid-plane will remain straight, but they will
not remain normal to the mid-plane during bending. Instead, they will rotate through
angular displacements 8x and 8Y' independent of the transverse displacement w or its
derivatives W,x and W,y' This allows transverse shear strains and stresses to develop
during bending.
If there is no initial strain, the strain-displacement relationship in a Cartesian
coordinate system is given by
Ex u,x
Ey V,y
€=!~·l= Yxy
Yyz
U,y+v,x
'~:y':"':f(
(2)
Yxz W,x + 8y
! I
where, the subscripts "f" and "s" denote the strains corresponding to the flexural and
shear. Using Eq. (1), we can write the flexural strain in Eq. (2) as
€f ==
ZK Z
8y,x
-8x ,y (3)
8y ,y - 8x ,x
Constitutive Relations
is defined as the stretching (rolling) direction for uniaxially stretched PVDF films
(biaxially stretched PVDF films and piezoceramics behave isotropically in the Xl-X2-
plane), and the x3-axis is the poling axis. In either case, the x2-axis is determined
according to the right-hand rule (Chandrashekhara and Tenneti, 1995).
The constitutive relations for the kth orthotropic lamina in the principal material
coordinates (Xl-X2-X3) of the lamina are given by (Reddy, 1997)
where a-k and ek are the stress and strain vectors; Qk is the elastic stiffness matrix. In
the FSDT, the stresses and strains are usually divided into two groups that concern
the flexure and shear, respectively. Based on this, Eq. (4) can be rewritten as
Us
0 0]
[ a-~kj ) = [ Qj Qk [e~kj )
s Es
(5)
p; r
where
~k
uJ =
I:.J Q12
ej =
Yl2
~k --
Us [T23) ,
T13
e~ = [Y23)
Y13
Qj= [Q"
~2 Q22 o] , Qk =
s
[Q44
0 Q~5] (6)
0 Q66
The elastic stiffness Qij can be defined in terms of the engineering constants as shown
in Reddy (1997).
In practice, most of the polymer-based composites are constructed by stacking thin
plies made of unidirectional fibers bound by the matrix. Each ply or lamina may have
a different orientation to the others, and it is necessary to consider the stresses and
strains in the laminate coordinate. Define the stress and strain vectors in the laminate
coordinate as
uj = I::]k,
Txy
U} = [Tyz)k,
Txz
Ej = I::
Yxy
]k, E} = [yyz)k
Yxz
(7)
The transformations of the stresses and strains between the material and laminate
coordinates are defined as
k = Tksus
~k
EJ = (k)
T J TEJk, ~k
Es = (k) Tk
Ts Es'
k Tk ~k
u J = JUJ' US
~k
(8)
where
-2mn]
:]
n2
T k=
J
[m'
n2 m2 2mn , T} =[m (9)
-n
mn -mn m2 _ n2
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 233
(10)
(11)
The internal virtual work is equal to the actual stresses 0' going through the virtual
strains oe (that corresponding to the imposed virtual displacements). Because the
plate has N layers of laminae, internal virtual work should be the summation of the
virtual work of each layer, that is,
(13)
where V k is the volume of the kth layer of the plate. Considering Eq. (6), we can
rewrite the above equation as
(14)
(15)
A is the area. Df and Ds are the flexural and shear stiffness matrix of an anisotropic
plate and are expressed as
where /-L is the shear correction coefficient due to the fact that the transverse shear
strains are assumed to be a constant through the laminate thickness (Reddy, 1997).
The elements of the two matrices are given by
N N
(Dij)f = ~ L (Oij);(z~ - zLl)' (Dij)s = /-L L (Oij);(Zk - Zk-l) (17)
k=l k=l
Zk in the above two equations is the vertical distance from the plate mid-plane, Z = 0,
to the upper surface of the kth lamina.
The external virtual work is equal to the actual distributed forces fd, concentrated
forces f', and inertia body forces - pu dV going through the virtual displacement ad,
that is,
! ~f!s
C1
= [Qf
0
0]
Qs
!~f!_
Es
[e!]E
es
(converse effect) (19)
where b and E are the electric displacements (charge/area) and electric fields
(volt/length); ef and es are the piezoelectric moduli matrices corresponding to the
p
flexure and shear; E is the dielectric constant matrix. They are defined as (Reddy, 1997)
ef~
e31
0
0
e32
0]
o ,
e36
e, ~ [~4 e~5] (21)
[Ell 0
E:,]
E= 0 E22 (22)
0 0
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 235
(23)
o
00,
0] (24)
d32 0
(27)
where eA denotes the induced strains in the kth actuator layer. The corresponding
stresses are given by
(28)
(29)
where
~J
-n
= TE ~ ,
U
EA TE = m (31)
0
236 Model Order Reduction Techniques
When the voltage VA is applied to the actuator of the thickness tA in the thickness
direction only, the electric fields are expressed as
(32)
(33)
where
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
where A is the effective surface electrode of the patch. The effective electrode is
the portion of the patch covered by electrodes on both sides. The electric charge
generated due to the external mechanical disturbance will be detected only if the
charge is collected through the effective surface electrode. In the present analysis,
it will be assumed that the entire piezoelectric patch serves as the effective surface
electrode. Substituting Eq. (36) into Eq. (37) and using Eq. (3) results in
(38)
in which zg is the vertical distance from the mid-plane of the laminate to the mid-plane
of the sensor.
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 237
Feedback Control
The actuator and sensor equations have been developed separately. For an improved
system performance, they have to be used in conjunction to form a closed-loop control
system. When piezoelectric sensors are used as strain rate sensors, the output charge
can be transformed to voltage as follows. The current on the surface of a sensor can
be obtained by differentiating the charge with respect to time, that is, i(t) = dq( t) / dt.
The current is converted into sensor voltage Vs by
. dq(t)
Vs = Rt(t) = R----;{t (39)
where R is the gain of current amplifier. If negative velocity feedback control is applied,
the sensor voltage is fed back to the actuator multiplied by feedback gain G, that is,
dq(t)
VA = GVs = GR--
dt
(40)
Virtual Work
The virtual work done by the active stresses in the actuator can be expressed as
(41)
where VA is the volume of the actuator. Substituting Eq. (33) into Eq. (41) and using
Eqs. (40), (38), and (3) results in
(42)
in which ~ is the vertical distance from the mid-plane of the laminate to the mid-
plane of the actuator;
(43)
(44)
in which
(i = 1,8) (45)
238 Model Order Reduction Techniques
The displacements at any point within the element are defined as the sum of the
products of the shape functions and their corresponding nodal displacements:
(46)
where N is the shape function matrix. Based on the physical meaning of the shape
function, the Ni can be easily derived (Owen and Hinton, 1980; Carroll, 1999).
Introducing Eq. (46) into Eq. (2), we can express the flexural and shear strains as
(47)
where Bf and Bs are the strain-displacement matrices for flexure and shear and
defined as
(52)
Using Eqs. (50), (51), and (53), the dynamic equilibrium equations of the element
with or without sensors/actuators can be obtained from Eq. (12) as
(54)
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 239
where the mass, damping, stiffness matrices, and force vector are defined as
N
m= L { NTpkNdV (55)
k=! lVk
c= GRzg4 { aT dA { adA (56)
lAA lAS
k = 1 BJDfBfdA+ 1B;DsBsdA (57)
Assembling all these element matrices and vector will result in the dynamic
equilibrium equations for the whole system,
(59)
where M, C, and K are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices of the whole
structure; X, ie, and X are the displacement, velocity, and acceleration vector under
the external force vector F.
In the dynamic condensation, the masters usually include (1) the degrees of free-
dom on which the responses are interested and (2) those that are coupled with the
degrees of freedom of the sensors and actuators. Based on this division, Eq. (59) can
be rewritten in a partitioned form as
[ Mmm
Msm
Mms]
Mss
{~m}
Xs
+ [Cmm
Csm
Cms]
Css
{~m}
Xs
+ [Kmm
Ksm
Kms] {Xm} = {Fm}
Kss Xs Fs
(60)
Since all the degrees of freedom associated with the sensors and actuators are selected
as masters, the submatrices Cms, Csm , and Css are zeros. Thus, the second equation of
Eq. (60) can be rewritten as
(61)
which leads to the governing equation of the dynamic condensation matrix, namely,
(62)
Equation (62) is identical to the governing equation in Section 6.3. Thus, the same
iterative schemes may be used to compute the dynamic condensation matrix R. When
this matrix is available, the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices of the reduced model
are defined as
Finally, the dynamic equations of equilibrium of the reduced model are given by
(64)
Because all the degrees of freedom of the sensors and actuators are selected as masters,
the dynamic condensation matrix resulting from the second equation of Eq. (60) is
independent of the damping caused by the smart materials. This feature is very useful
in the design of smart structures. When the parameters of the sensors and actuators,
such as gains, piezoelectric strain constants, change, we do not need to recalculate the
reduced model if the position of the sensors and actuators is fixed.
,
,,
A-- _nnmn_nm+_+__\nnnmnm -n A
Section A- A
o Sensor • Actuator
The side length of the plate is 1.0 m. Its thickness is 0.01 m. The thickness of the piezo-
ceramic patch is taken as 0.001 m. The composite plate composes by four symmetric
cross-ply layers [0/90/90/0J. An 8 x 8 mesh, shown in Figure 9.10, is used. Therefore,
the number of the total degrees of freedom of the plate is 675. All degrees of freedom
at nodes 85 through 89, 99 through 101, III through 115, 125 through 127, 137
through 141 and the translational degrees of freedom at nodes 57, 65, 161, 169 are
selected as the kept degrees of freedom. The number of them is 21 x 3 + 4 = 67. It is
about one tenth of the full model.
The dynamic equations of the full model, Eq. (59), and the reduced model, Eq. (64),
in the frequency domain may be rewritten as
-
,
, ~
0 57 2 1 58 2 2 59 2 3 60 2 4 61 2 '5 62 2 6 63 2 7 64 2 8
4 49 1 5 50 1 (; 51 1 7 52 1 8 53 1 9 54 1 0 55 1 1 56 1
" 3
8 41 1 9 42 1 0 43 11 44 1 2 45 1 3 46 1 4 47 1 5 48 1
- 25 9 26 g~ 27 9 28 1 a 29 11 30 1 2 31 1 3 32 1
0' o·
": 0' n, '0
7 17 7 18 7~ 19 7 20 "
21 7 22 7 23 71 24 7
- ", '"
,n o· o. 0,
9 4p 10 4~ 11 4 12 13 4 14 5 15 5 16 5
0-
-= 00 0, ," 00
* 2~
1 1 1~ 2 2P 3 2 4 5 2 6 7 8 2
- - 1
1E4y----------------------------------,
fE-5 --Exact
----- ;=0
! 1E-6 ·········;=1
-.-..... ;=2
i 1E-7
j~
ri' 1£-'9
!l
IT 1E-10
I!!
II-
1E-11
1E-12+-~~~____r~~~~.__~~~__r~~~_r_i
o 1000 .2000 3000 4000
Frequency (rad/s)
(a)
1£~.---------------------------------__,
1E-5 --Exact
----- ;=0
! 16-6 ·········;=1
-.-.-.-. ;=2
'm
31c:
!'E-8
!
ri' 1E-9
,,
c:
AI ','
W1E-10
II-
1E-11
1E-12+-~~~____r~~~~.__~~~__r~~~~
o 1000 2000 3000 4000
Frequency (radls)
(b)
'figure9." Transverse frequency responses: (a) at central point (0.5,0.5); (b) at point (0.25,0.25).
increase of frequency. When the iterative IRS is applied, the accuracy increases very
fast. For the case where i = 1, there is only a litde·difference for the frequency higher
than 3;000 rad/s. The responses are very close to the exact within the frequency range
(0, 4,000)rad/s if i = 2 is used. This indicates that two iterations are enough for the
accuracy of the frequency responses.
When we derive the dynamic condensation matrix, we ignore the forces on the
-slaves because the external forces do not .affect the condensation matrix. If there is
force 'on the slaves, the equivalent force vector of the reduced modd becomes
(66)
Suppose a distributed load, q = 1 N/m2, is acting on all areas of the plate. The
frequency responses resulting from both the full model and the reduced model are
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 243
l--Exact -I
1-E·5 ----- i=O I
g - - --i=1
-------- i =2
1/1 1E·6
CII
1/1
C
~
CII
1E-7
"g 1E-8
,
,,
CI>
~ .'.,,
1E·9 '.,
II.
'.
1000 2000 3000 4000
Frequency (rad/s)
(a)
1e4 ---~-~----------:l
'--Exact I
1E·5
----- i=O
g ---------i=1
I'
1E.10
0 1000 2000 3000
Frequency (radls)
(b)
Figure 9.12 Transverse frequency responses with forces at slaves: (a) at central point (0.5,0.5); (b) at
point (0.25,0.25).
plotted in Figure 9.12. The accuracy resulting from the initial approximation is very
low while two iterations make the results very close to the exact.
of such systems are rotating mechanical systems with nonlinear bearing supports,
mechanical systems with dry friction and backlash phenomena in certain connections,
vibration control systems with local nonlinear springs and/or dampers, etc. The
nonlinearities in these models are generally local in the sense that the force in the
nonlinear components may be determined by a small number of degrees of freedom.
From a spatial point of view, although the local nonlinearities constitute only a small
part of the mechanical system, the dynamic behavior of the system is wholly nonlinear.
The numerical analysis of the dynamic behavior of these kinds of models generally
needs more computing time and may cause computational problems. How to treat
such systems is an important problem for nonlinear analysis (Fey et al., 1996).
The simplest method is directly to solve the large order of dynamic model using
direct integration with iteration in time domain. Obviously, this method is very
computationally expensive. Recently, several reduction methods have been proposed
to solve this problem. In these methods, the nonlinear equations of motion are
transformed into a set of condensed simultaneous nonlinear algebraic equations.
If the number of these coordinates is very small compared to that of the entire system,
a substantial reduction of computational work will be expected.
Feyet aI., (1996) studied the long-term behavior of the mechanical system with local
nonlinearity using component mode synthesis technique. This method was also used
by Nataraj and Nelson, 1989). A modal transformation method was used by Zheng
and Hasebe (1999) to reduce the number of degrees of freedom of the linear subset.
These works not only save computing time but also avoid the convergence difficulty
in numerical calculation. However, the reduced models obtained from these methods
are defined in general coordinates or modal coordinates, and the calculation of the
eigenvalues and eigenvectors are required before using these approaches.
Rouch and Kao (1980) and Subbiah et al. (1989) implemented Guyan/static reduc-
tion method into rotor dynamics to arrive at a reduced size model. Mclean and Hahn
(1983) proposed a solution technique with a static reduction to evaluate the response
of the system. Shiau and Jean (1990) developed a reduction technique, which is sim-
ilar to Guyan reduction, to link the harmonic balance method for investigating the
periodic synchronous and nonsynchronous response of large-order nonlinear rotor
dynamic systems.
Static condensation, Paz's dynamic condensation, IRS, and SEREP were imple-
mented into the dynamic systems with local nonlineartities by Friswell, Penny, and
Garvey (1995). Shortly after, they utilized IRS, SEREP, modal reduction, and balanced
realization method to the same problem (1996). Static condensation, IRS, especially
the iterative IRS, were implemented into the structural systems with local nonlinear-
ities by Qu and Selvam (2001) and Qu (2002). These model reduction schemes were
performed both on the system level and on the substructure level.
The nonlinear force vector G(X) is related to the nonlinear components of the system.
It can be expressed as a nonlinear function of the displacements at positions associated
with the nonlinear components, that is,
(3)
If the total degrees of freedom of the full model are divided into masters and slaves,
Eq. (1) can be partitioned as
(4)
As shown in Section 6.3, the relation of the displacements between the masters and
slaves is defined by the dynamic condensation matrix. Using this condensation matrix,
the following transformation is defined:
(5)
where R is the dynamic condensation matrix. Since the dynamic condensation matrix
is independent of time, we have
(6)
Introducing Eqs. (5) and (6) into Eq. (4) and premultiplying it by the transpose of
matrix T leads to
.. • L N
MRXm + CRXm + KRXm + KRXm = FR (7)
The reduced system matrices and force vector in Eq. (7) are defined as
Generally, the masters include those degrees of freedom on which the dynamic char-
acteristics are directly interested. For the nonlinear model, the masters should also
246 Model Order Reduction Techniques
include those on which the nonlinear force vector G is directly dependent. This means
that all the degrees of freedom that are important to specify the nonlinearities should
be kept as masters. Since the nonlinearities are lm;ally populated, the number of these
degrees of freedom is comparatively small. Based on this selection, we have
N
Kms = (N)T
Ksm = 0, (9)
Consequently, the nonlinear stiffness matrix of the reduced model defined in Eq. (8d)
becomes
(10)
Equation (10) indicates that the nonlinear part of the reduced model is independent
of the dynamic condensation matrix and Can be obtained directly from the full model,
The major steps for the model reduction of structural systems with local
nonlinearities at the system level are listed as follows.
L Construct the mass, damping, linear stiffness matrices, and external force vector,
2. Compute the dynamic condensation matrix using the iterative method described
in Section 6.4.
3. Formulate the mass, damping, linear stiffness matrices, and force vector of the
reduced model using Eq. (8).
4. Assemble the nonlinear components into the reduced system matrices to
construct the reduced global model of the whole system.
It should be noticed that the effect of the nonlinear properties on the dynamic
condensation matrix is not considered. When the nonlineartities are locally located
or do not have much effect on the global properties, this approximation is accept-
able. Consequently, the present approach is usually valid for the system with local
nonlinearities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
k B k: ~B k· ~B k: B k B k: ~B
22 42
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41A
Assume that the excitations have the form of F :::;: Fo sin(wt), If only the periodic
motions are considered, the steady state response is expressed as
m
Xi :::;: I>ij cos(jwt) + bij sin(jwt) (11)
j=!
For simplicity, only the first two terms, which have the same harmonic with the
excitation, are considered to calculate the response, that is,
Introducing Eq. (12) into Eqs. (1) or (7) gives a set of simultaneous polynomials in
the constant aj and hi. These nonlinear polynomial equations can be solved using the
Newton-Raphson method.
Assume a unit force is acted on node 9 at the transverse direction. The amplitude~
frequency relation curves (backbone curves) at nodes 9 and 30 resulting from the
full global model are plotted in Figure 9.14 and indicated by "N." "9" and "30" are
node numbers. For simplicity, the jumps of the amplitudes are kept in these curves.
Therefore, they are not exact backbone curves. Although they are approximate, they
will serve the purpose to check the accuracy of the reduced model. The transverse
frequency responses at nodes 9 and 30 for the system without nonlinear springs,
indicated by "L;' are also plotted in Figure 9 .14 for comparison, In these four curves,
the proportional damping, C:::;: 2 x lO-sK, is assumed for the two beams. For con-
venience, the amplitude-frequency curves of the nonlinear system are also called
frequency responses.
The transverse degrees of freedom at nodes 1,5,9, 13, 17,21,7, 15 in the upper
beam .and those at nodes 22, 26, 30, 34,38,42, 28, 36 in the under beam are selected as
the masters when the dynamic condensation method is applied. Hence, the reduced
model has 16 degrees of freedom including the two fixed oneS. After the linearly
reduced model is available, the nonlinear springs are directly assembled to formulate
the reduced global model. Again, the harmonic balance method is used to solve the
nonlinear equations of the reduced model.
The frequency responses of the reduced model at nodes 9 and 30 in the transverse
directions are plotted in Fig. 9.15, respectively. The exact results are also plotted
in the figures for comparison. The accuracy of the frequency responses resulting
from the initial approximation of the reduced model is very low, especially for the
248 Model Order Reduction Techniques
10°
10-1 --L9
----- L30
10.2 --N9
----- N30
10.3
LI. 10-4
0:::
LI.
10.5
10.6
10.7
10-8
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Frequency (rad/s)
For the second example, the floating-raft isolation system used in Section 8.2 is
considered. It contains springs, dampers, machines to be isolated, a raft frame, and a
base. It is very difficult to construct a reasonable dynamic model by using multirigid
body method or elastic wave analysis method when the raft frame and the base are
a little complex, when their elasticity is to be considered, and when there are local
nonlinearities (Qu, 1998).
One spring with cubic stiffening nonlinearity, B = 5 x 10 1O N/m 3 , is mounted
under masses 1 and 2, respectively. For both plates, the damping is considered to be
proportional to their stiffness matrices and the ratio is 0.0003. The other parameters
are the same as those in Section 8.2. The base and the raft are discretized by the finite
element method. The base has 14 rectangular elements, 24 nodes, and 72 degrees of
freedom. The raft has 24 rectangular elements, 35 nodes, and 105 degrees of freedom.
Therefore, the full global model has a total of 167 degrees of freedom except the fixed.
Select the translational degrees of freedom at m] and node 11 on the base as the input
and output degrees of freedom, respectively. The frequency responses obtained from
the full global finite element model are plotted in Figure 9.16. They are considered as
the exact for comparison purpose.
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 249
§J
1~r---------------------------------'
ct
10" ...••. ;=0
....... ;=1
......... /=2
(a)
10.1
--Exact
10"
······;=0
......... ;=1
10" •...•.•.. ;=2
u.
IX
u. 10'"
10"
10.7
(b)
Figure 9.15 Frequency responses of reduced model: (a) node 9; (b) node 30.
10"
10·'
10-6
10.7
10-6
La. 10.9
a:::
La.
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
0 50 100 150 200 250
Frequency (Hz)
10°
10.1
10.2
...
e... 10-3
w
10"
10-6
10-6
0 50 100 150 200 250
Frequency (Hz)
9.5 Summary
The implementation of dynamic condensation technique to the primary-secondary
systems has been demonstrated in this chapter using three numerical examples. They
are active vibration control of high building with an active tuned mass damper, finite
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 251
References
Abiru, H, Fujishiro, M, and Matsumoto, T (1994) Tuned active dampers installed in the
Yokokama Landmark Tower. JSME International Journal, Series C: Dynamics, Control,
Robotics, Design and Manufacturing, 37(3):450-455.
Ankireddi, S and Yang, HTY (1996) Simple ATMD control methodology for tall buildings
s\lbject to wind loads. Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(1):83-91.
Benjeddou, A (2000) Advances in piezoelectric finite element modeling of adaptive structural elements:
A survey. Computers and Structures, 76(1-3):347-363.
Bernal, D (1999) A dynamic stiffness formulation for the analysis of secondary systems. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28( II): 1295-1308.
Burton, TD, Hemez, FM, and Rhee, W (2000) A combined model reduction/SVD approach to nonlinear
model updating. Proceedings of the 18th International Modal Analysis Conference, (San Antonio, Texas),
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT: 116-123.
Carroll, WF (1999) A primer for finite elements in elastic structures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Chandrashekhara, K and Agarwal, AN (1993) Active vibration control oflaminated composite plates using
piezoelectric devices: A finite element approach. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures,
4(4):496-508.
Chandrashekhara, K and Tenneti, R (1995) Thermally induced vibration suppression of laminated plates
with piezoelectric sensors and actuators. Smart Materials and Structures, 4(4):281-290.
Chee, CYK, Tong, L, and Steven, GP (1998) A review on the modeling of piezoelectric sensors and actuators
incorporated in intelligent structures. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 9(1):
3-19.
Cheu, TC, Johnson, CP, and Craig Jr, RR (1986) Selection of initial vectors for subspace iteration method.
Proceedings of the 4th International Modal Analysis Conference (Los Angeles, CAl, Union College,
Schenectady, NY: 44-49.
Fey, RHB, van Campen, DH, and de Kraker, A (1996) Long-term structural dynamics of mechanical systems
with local nonlinearities. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 118(2):147-153.
Friswell, MI, Penny, JET, and Garvey, SD (1995) Using linear model reduction to investigate the dynamics
of structures with local non-linearities. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 8(3):317-328.
Friswell, MI, Penny, JET, and Garvey, SD (1996) The application of IRS and balanced realization methods
to obtain reduced model of structures with local non-linearities. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
196(4):453-468.
Gaudenzi, P, Giarda, D, and Morganti, F (1999) Active microvibration control of an optical payload installed
on the ARTEMIS spacecraft. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 9(9):740-748.
Guyan, RJ (1965) Reduction of stiffness and mass matrix. AIAA Journal, 3(2):380.
Henchi, K, Fafard, M, Talbot, M, and Dhatt, G (1998) An efficient algorithm for dynamic analysis of bridges
under moving vehicle using a coupled modal and physical components approach. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 212(4):663-683.
Hyland, BC and Bernstein, DS (1984) The optimal projection equation for fixed order dynamic
condensation. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, 29(11):1034-1037.
Hwang, WS, Park, HC, and Hwang, W (1993) Vibration control of a laminated plate with piezoelectric
sensor/actuator: Finite element formulation and modal analysis. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures, 4(3):317-329.
Lee, CK (1990) Theory of laminated piezoelectric plates for the design of distributed sensors/actuators,
Part I: Governing equations and reciprocal relationships. Journal of Acoustics Society of American,
87: 1144-1158.
Lewandowski, B (1997) Computational formulation for periodic vibration of geometrically nonlin-
ear structures-Part 1: Theoretical background. International Journal of Solids and Structures,
34(15):1925-1947.
252 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Mackerle, J (2000) Smart materials and structures: FEM and BEM simulations: A bibliography (1997-
1999). Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 37(1):71-83.
Meirovitch, L (1990) Dynamics and Control of Structures. Wiley, New York.
Mclean, LJ and Hahn, EJ (1983) Unbalance behavior of squeeze film damped multi-mass flexible rotor
bearing systems. Journal of Lubrication Technology, 105(1):22-28.
Meyer, S and Link, M (2003) Modeling and updating of local non-linearities using frequency response
residuals. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 17 (1) :219-226.
Mills, JK and lng, JGL (1996) Dynamic modeling and control of a multi-robot system for assem-
bly of flexible payloads with applications to automotive body assembly. Journal of Robotic Systems,
13(12):817-836.
Moore, BC (1981) Principal component analysis in linear system: Controllability, observability, and model
reduction. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, 26(1): 17-32.
Nataraj, C and Nelson, HD (1989) Periodic of solutions in rotor dynamic systems with nonlinear sup-
ports: A general approach. Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress, and Reliability in Design, 111(2):
187-193.
O'Caliahan, JC, Koung, RTF, and Chou, C-M (1986) Improved starting vectors for subspace iteration eigen-
solution using dynamic condensation. Proceedings of the 4th International Modal Analysis Conference
(Los Angeles, CAl, Union College, Schenectady, NY: 858-863.
Owen, DRJ and Hinton, E (1980) Finite Elements in Plasticity: Theory and Practice. Swansea, U.K.:
Pineridge Press.
Qu, Z-Q (1998) Structural Dynamic Condensation Techniques: Theory and Applications. Ph.D. Disser-
tation, State Key Laboratory of Vibration, Shock and Noise, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai,
China.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2001) Dynamic superelement for dynamic systems with local nonlineari-
ties. Proceedings of the 42nd AIAAI ASMEIASCEI ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference (Seattle, WA), AIAA, Reston, VA: 3548-3557.
Qu, Z-Q, Shi, Y, and Hua, H (2001) A reduced order modeling technique for tall buildings with active
tuned mass damper. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30(3):349-362.
Qu, Z-Q (2001) An efficient modeling method for laminated composite plates with piezoelectric sensors
and actuators. Smart Materials and Structures, 10(4):807-818.
Qu, Z-Q (2002) Model reduction for dynamical systems with local nonlinearities. AIAA Journal,
40(2):327-333.
Rao, SS and Sunar, M (1994) Piezoelectricity and its use in disturbance sensing and control of flexible
structures: A survey. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 47 (4): 113-123.
Reddy, JN (1997) Mechanics of Laminated Composite Plates. New York: CRC Press, Inc.
Rouch, KE and Kao, JS (1980) Dynamic reduction in rotor dynamics by finite element method. Journal of
Mechanical Design, 102(2):360-368.
Shiau, T-N and Jean, A-N (1990) Prediction of periodic response of flexible mechanical systems with
nonlinear characteristics. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 112(3):501-507.
Shiau, TN and Jean, AN (1991) Nonlinear transient analysis of large rotordynamic systems. Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 58(2):596-598.
Skelton, RE and Hughes, PC (1980) Model cost analysis for linear matrix second order systems. Journal of
Dynamic System, Measurement and Control, 102(1):151-158.
Sowmianarayanan, Sand Pradeep, S (1999) Vibration suppression of a spacecraft solar array using on -off
thrusters. Proceedings of the 40th AIAAI ASMEIASCEIAHSIASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference and Exhibit (St. Louis, MO): 3097-3106.
Soong, TT, Reinhorn, AM, Aizawa, S, and Higashino, M (1994) Recent structural applications of active
control technology. Journal Structural Control, 1(2):15-21.
Subbiah, R, Bhat, RB, and Sankar, TS (1989) Dynamic responses of rotors using modal reduction
techniques. Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress, and Reliability in Design, III (4):360-365.
Sun, L, Krodkiewski, JM, Janusz, M, and Zhang, N (1994) Modeling and analysis of the dynamic behavior
of an active journal bearing. Proceedings of the International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress
and Exposition, ASME New York: 1-6.
Tong, Land Qu, Z-Q (2000) Landing loads of an aircraft on moving ships. Proceedings of the 18th Inter-
national Modal Analysis Conference & Exhibit (San Antonio, TX), Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Bethel, CT: 1745-1747.
Tzou, HS (1989) Integrated distributed sensing and active vibration suppression of flexible manipulators
using distributed piezoeiectrics. Journal of Robotic Systems, 6(5):745-767.
Wilson, DA (1974) Model reduction for multivariable systems. International Journal of Control,
20(1):57-64.
Application I: Model Reduction on System Level 253
WU, JC, Yang, IN, and Schmitendorf, WE (1998) Reduced-order H oo and LQR control for wind-excited
tall buildings. Engineering Structures, 20(3):222-236.
Yang, IN and Liu, MJ (1982) Optimal critical-mode control of building under seismic load. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 108(EM6): 1167-1185.
Zhang, L, Yang, CY, Chajes, MJ, and Cheng, AHD (1993) Stability of active tendon structural control with
time delay. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 119(5): 10 17-1024.
Zheng, T and Hasebe, N (1999) An efficient analysis of high-order dynamical system with local nonlinearity.
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 121(3):408-416.
10 Application II: Model Reduction on Component
Level-Superelement Modeling Technique
10.1 Introduction
In the preceding chapter, the application of the dynamic condensation technique in
model reduction of large size of discrete models on the system level is demonstrated
by three examples. The results show that the computational effort could be reduced
significantly after the implementation of the dynamic condensation technique.
The dynamic condensation technique may also be implemented to reduce the size
of the finite element model at the substructure or component level (Leung, 1979, 1988;
Bouhaddi and Fillod, 1992; Qu and Selvam, 2000). This is, actually, a combination
of the dynamic substructure technique and dynamic condensation technique. Due
to the large number of published materials on this topic, some of them are listed in
Table 10.1 for reference purposes. All the papers referred to in this table are listed in
the bibliography at the end of this book.
255
256 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Figure 10.1 Schematic of reduced finite element modeling on the component level.
1. Divide a structural system into flexible substructures and other components such
as connections.
2. Formulate the full finite element model for each flexible substructure.
3. Construct the reduced finite element model for each substructure using the
dynamic condensation technique.
4. Construct the global model by assembling the reduced models of all the flexible
substructures and other components.
The model reduction schemes on the system level and on the component level both
have strengths and weaknesses. Usually, the accuracy of the former is higher than the
latter because some useful information might be lost if the condensation approach is
not properly utilized at the component level.
Because the number of the degrees of freedom of each substructure is much smaller
than that of the global model, the computation of the dynamic condensation matrix
on the substructure level is much more efficient than on the system level. If there
are identical substructures, the corresponding reduced models are only required to
construct once and, hence, much computational work can be saved. The model
reduction on the component level makes hybrid modeling possible. This means that
different modeling approaches, including analytical modeling (finite element method,
finite difference method, boundary element method, etc.) and experimental modeling
may be utilized for different components. Different components may be modeled
and analyzed at different places and different times. Furthermore, the components
with nonlinearities will not affect the dynamic condensation performed on the linear
components.
example, one superelement may cover the region surrounding the fillet in a crank
shaft having a much finer element mesh than the superelements on each side of the
fillet. The former superelement is capable of reproducing the stress concentration
and the others the correct stiffness properties and boundary conditions (Egeland and
Araldsen, 1974; De Langhe et al., 1997).
Dynamic condensation is the most frequently used technique to formulate the
superelement although many other schemes are also available in the literature (Law
et al., 2001a, 2001b). The superelement modeling method generally consists of three
principal stages. At first a complete structure is decomposed into two or more sub-
structures. These substructures may have different geometries. However, it is better to
make them as identical as possible. As shown in Figure 10.2, the shear wall is divided
into three substructures. These substructures have the same shape. Thus, only one
substructure needs to be considered to formulate the superelement.
The next stage is to construct a superelement for each substructure. Generally,
the finite element method is utilized to discretize the substructures and construct
the corresponding full finite element models. For each substructure the nodes that
are common to adjoining substructures are categorized as boundary nodes, as shown
in Figure 10.3. The degrees of freedom on these nodes are called boundary degrees
of freedom. Those nodes that are not at the boundary of a substructure are catego-
rized as interior nodes. The associated degrees of freedom are called interior degrees
of freedom. In this stage, the substructure is usually finely meshed to capture some
important information. For the shear wall, because each substructure is a combi-
nation of beams, columns, shear walls, and slabs, the connectivity difficulty will
happen if a coarse grid is used in the finite element modeling. To solve this prob-
lem, the substructure should be finely meshed, which leads to a relatively large-size
model.
These full finite element models of substructures may be directly assembled to
formulate the global finite element model of the complete structure. This can simplify
the modeling process for complex structures, particularly when these structures have
identical components. However, there is not any benefit for computational purposes.
D D
c Boundary Nodes
• Internal Nodes
Therefore, schemes such as condensation methods are usually used to remove part
or all of the internal degrees of freedom before the assemblage. The resulting model
of each substructure has many fewer degrees of freedom than that of the full model.
The reduced model can be treated as a large finite element with its own set of discrete
shape functions and is, hence, called a superelement.
At last, all superelements are assembled to formulate the reduced global model
of the complete structure just as the common finite elements would be, as shown
in Figure IDA. The size of the reduced global model obtained from this technique is
usually much smaller than that of the full global model directly derived from the finite
element method, as indicated in Figure 10.5. Any static and dynamic analyses could
be directly performed on the reduced global model. The back-substitution based on
the condensation matrix may be used when the information on the interior degrees
of freedom of any substructure is required.
Another group of superelements is also available in the literature (Koko and Olson,
1991; Jiang and Olson, 1993a, 1993b, 1994; Nurse, 2001; Ahmadian and Zangeneh,
2003). The formulation of these superelements is mainly for the modeling of spe-
cial problems. Thus, the model reduction may not necessarily be applied to the
components. In the development of the superelement for stiffened plates and shells,
260 Model Order Reduction Techniques
~ ///////'///
Figure 10.5 Full finite element model of a shear wall.
for example, the usual polynomials are augmented by specially chosen analytical
functions so that only one shell element per panel bay and one beam element per
span are needed to achieve engineering design-level accuracy. As a consequence,
the structural modeling is relatively simple and requires less data manipulation and
computational time. The discussion on this topic is beyond the scope of this book.
Interested readers may find the details from the references.
The superelement modeling technique has been frequently utilized in the finite
element modeling of complex structural systems. Using this technique, the size of
finite element models may be reduced to the manageable size before a complete
model is formulated. Although the size of the reduced model is much smaller than the
regular finite element model, some detailed information may be retained as required.
The advantage of superelement modeling technique is even more salient for identical
substructures because the method requires the handling of just one representative
substructure. Since the features of a superelement are similar to those of a regular
finite element, the superelement modeling formulation can be easily incorporated
into a standard, general-purpose finite element code to perform further analyses
of large complex structures using the program's original solution capabilities. This
technique has been incorporated into many commercial finite element analysis codes
such as ANSYS and MSC-NASTRAN.
One popular example of the usage of the superelement modeling technique may
be found in the finite element modeling of flexible multibody systems. Numerous
large, complex mechanical systems consist of interconnected rigid and flexible sub-
structures, e.g., heavy machinery, wheeled/tracked military land vehicles, machine
tools, rotorcraft, weapon systems, etc. For simplicity, these flexible substructures are
assumed to be rigid bodies during the analysis and simulation. The corresponding
model usually has a maximum of tens of degrees of freedom. Due to the efficiency,
this model has been broadly used in the simulation. Because the flexible substructures
are considered as rigid bodies, significant errors may be introduced in some severe
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 261
cases such as firing. To improve the accuracy, the finite element method can be used
to discretize the flexible components.
It is well known that multibody dynamics problems are inherently highly non-
linear. The nonlinearities are mainly due to the large relative rotations between
bodies (Cardona and Geradin, 1992). In fact, in many cases, the deformation effects
inside the flexible body are small enough to consider that the elastic behavior of
each body remains linear in a local frame that follows its overall motion. There-
fore, a linear finite element model is generally used for each individual elastic body.
The finite element models of flexible components have many more degrees of free-
dom than rigid-body models; the size of the global model obtained from the finite
element method, therefore, becomes very large. Numerical analysis and dynamic
simulation are very expensive and may cause computational problems if the full
model is directly used. In the superelement modeling technique, each flexible body
is viewed as a substructure. These substructures are discretized using the finite ele-
ment method by themselves with the interconnecting nodes (boundary nodes) to
each other. Before assembling, these discretized finite element models are replaced by
the corresponding superelements, which have many fewer degrees of freedom than
the full models.
Another example using the superelement modeling technique is the modeling of
a high-rise box-type building. Recently, many high apartment buildings have been
constructed, especially in Asian regions, using the box system that consists only of
reinforced concrete walls and slabs. The shear walls in a box system structure may have
openings for windows, doors, and duct spaces for functional reasons. The number,
location, and size of openings affect the behavior of a structure as well as stresses in the
shear wall. Most of the related research has been focused on the development of the
approximate stiffness of shear wall with openings. However, high stress concentrations
at corners of an opening could not be obtained by these analysis methods (Kim and
Lee, 2003). It is, therefore, necessary to use a finely meshed finite element model
for an accurate analysis of a shear wall with openings. Unfortunately, if an entire
apartment building structure were divided into a finer mesh with a large number of
elements, it would require a significant amount of computational time and memory.
Because some of the high-rise buildings adopt the box system, which has a repeated
arrangement of residential units with the same architectural plan on each floor, the
superelement modeling becomes very convenient for this type of structure.
Most condensation methods mentioned in preceding chapters may be utilized
to formulate a superelement. For example, if the superelement is constructed by
the static condensation approach, the superelement is referred to as a static super-
element. Similarly, exact, dynamic superelements may be defined. Among them, the
superelement formulated by static condensation, exact condensation, and iterative
IRS methods will be described in the following sections.
Other model reduction schemes may also be implemented to formulate a
superelement. The standard fixed interface component mode approach described
in Chapter 12, for example, was adopted by Shu and Chu (1984) and Cardona and
Geradin (1992) to formulate superelement models. The resulting degrees of freedom
of the superelement are the boundary degrees of freedom of the substructure and a
given number of modal coordinates concerning the slave model. This superelement
formulation was successfully implemented into the general-purpose finite element
code (Shu and Chu, 1984) and the multibody systems with large rotations (Cardona
and Geradin, 1992).
262 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(1)
M(i) and K(i) are the mass and stiffness matrices of the ith substructure; X(i) and XU)
are, respectively, the acceleration and displacement response vectors; pU) is the force
vector acting on the substructure. It includes the external forces originally applied
on the substructure E p(i) and the internal forces on the interface I p(i) due to the
subdivision. Therefore, the force vector can be written as
pO) = E p(i) + I p(i) (2)
Assume that this substructure is discretized by the finite element method, which leads
to a finite element model with ni degrees of freedom.
According to the requirement in the dynamic condensation, the total degrees of
freedom are divided into the masters and slaves. These numbers are represented by
mi and Si. It is necessary to note that the masters should include all the degrees of
freedom at the interface that are connecting to other substructures and those on which
the external forces apply. Using this division, the internal and external force vectors
I I
become
Ep(t). _ (Ep(i)
m _ (EP(i)
m
(3)
- Ep~i) - 0 '
[M~m
M(i)
(4)
sm
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 263
After the static condensation is performed on the above equation, the dynamic
equations of the reduced model are given by
M(j) XU)
Rm
+ K(j)
Rm
X(j) = p(i)
m
= E p(i)
m
+ I p(i)
m (5)
Equation (5) has a similar format to Eq. (1). During further. analyses, the reduced
model of the substructure can be viewed as a sl!-rerelement. M~) and K~) are the mass
and stiffness matrices of the superelement; X~ and x}fl are the acceleration and dis-
placement response vectors; p}fl is the force vector applied to the superelement. The
superelement has most features that a regular finite element has. These superelements,
for example, may be directly assembled to formulate the global model of a complete
structure. There are several advantages of the superelement over the regular element
during the modeling. The superelement generally contains much more information
than a regular element because it is constructed from a group of elements. Further-
more, the superelement is valid for a comparative complex component, while the
regular element cannot.
Suppose that two superelements A and B have the same coordinates; their dynamic
equations of equilibrium may be given by
M(A) X(A)
R m
+ KCA)
R
X(A) =
m
EpeA)
m
+ I peA)
m (6)
M(B) x(B)
R m
+ K(B)
R
X(B)
m
= E p(B)
m
+ I pCB)
m (7)
(8)
Equation (8) is the dynamic equation of equilibrium of the reduced global model.
X m and X m are the displacement and acceleration responses at the coordinates of the
superelement. The mass matrix, stiffness matrix, and force vector are given by
M R -- M(A)
R
+ M(B)
R '
K -
R -
K(A)
R
+ K(B)
R '
Equation (9) is valid for two superelements having the same masters. This actually
seldom happens. More generally, the system mass matrix, stiffness matrix, and force
vector of the .reduced global model of a complete structure may be symbolically
written as
N
Pm = LEp~ (10)
i=1
Clearly, they have the same form as that of the regular finite element method.
Therefore, each superelement may be treated as a regular finite element during the
assemblage.
264 Model Order Reduction Techniques
The static superelement modeling scheme given above has been widely implemented
into various problems such as dynamic analyses of cracked plates (Go et al., 1998),
railway passenger car (Peide and Xing, 1998), topology optimization (Yang and Lu,
1996), regular meshing patterns exploitation (Liu and Lam, 1995), nonlinear analysis
of a rotating paper machine (Jarvenpaa and Keskinen, 2000), parallel mesh partition-
ing optimization (Yang and Hsieh, 2002), stability analysis of thin-walled members
(Chin et aI., 1992), and so on. Because the inertia terms are ignored in Guyan con-
densation, the superelement is only exact for static problems. For dynamic problems,
the accuracy is usually very low and highly dependent on the selection of masters.
Improper masters or an insufficient number of them would result in serious errors.
(11)
k ~ 2EI [
[3
:1
-6
31
212
-31
-6
-31
6
31
12 ]
-31 '
m = pAl
420
[ 156
221
54
221
412
l31
54
131
156
-13]
-312
-221
31 12 -31 212 .' -l31 -312 -221 4[2
(12)
where
VI v2
.... ....
1 )0, 2 O2
~ ~
I = moment of inertia (second moment of area) of the cross section with respect to
the neutral axis
p = mass density
For simplicity, the shear effects on the mass matrix is not considered in Eq. (12).
Suppose this part of the beam consists of two identical beam elements, as shown
in Figure 10.7. A static superelement with two nodes at the two ends and four degrees
of freedom is to be formulated in the following.
If the displacement vector of the full model of this segment is given by
(l3)
the mass and stiffness matrices can be simply obtained by assembling these two beam
elements as
6 35 -6 35 0 0
35 25 2 -35 52 0 0
k = 2EI -6 -35 12 0 -6 35
(l4b)
53 35 52 0 45 2 -35 52
0 0 -6 -35 6 -35
0 0 35 52 -35 25 2
in which 5 = 1/2. According to the requirement of the superelement, the four degrees
of freedom at nodes 1 and 3 are selected as the masters. Based on this selection, the
VI v2
.... .... ....
) 2 )
-
1 3
(}I
V2 -1(}2 -
I
[56
-L} l -13'l
225 0
m _ pA5 225 45 2 0 m = mT = pA5 54
135 -35 2
mm - 420 0 0 156 ms sm 420 54 135 '
0 0 -225 45 2 -135 -35 2
m _ pA5 [312
ss - 420 0 8~2] (1Sa)
-q, l-6 l
35 0
k mm -- m
53 l:' 0
25 2
0
0
6
k
ms
= esm = 2EI
3
5
-35
-6
52
3,
-35 '
0 0 -35 25 2 35 52
k ms = 2EI
53
[12
0 4~2 ]
(1Sb)
R = -k-1ksm
ss
=_ [12
0
0
45 2
]-1 [-6
35
-6
-35
[3 -~ 5
_ _ 2 4 2
- (16)
1 3
45 4 4s iJ
Therefore, the stiffness matrix of the superelement is given by
-q
35 0
ks = k mm + kmsR =
2EI
-3-
5
l6
35
0
25 2
0
0
6
0 0 -35 25 2
[-6 3'][ 1 5
!]
2 --
_ 2EI -35 5 2 4 2
53 -6 -35 3 1 3
-
52 45 4 45 (17)
35
3 3 3 3
-5 -5
4 4 4 4
3 3 1 2
-5 52 --5 -5
2EI 4 4 2
53 3 3 3 3
--5 --5
4 4 4 4
3 1 2 3
-5 -5 --5 52
4 2 4
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 267
[:1
31 -6
212 -31 31
[2 ]
k = 2EI (18)
5 [3 -6 -31 6 -31
31 12 -31 212
Similarly, the mass matrix of this superelement may be computed and given by
~
156 54 -131
ms = pAl
420
221
54
131
156
-312
-221
J (19)
Clearly, they are exactly the same as those from the single element as shown in Eq. (12).
It was reported (Corn et aI., 1997) that the Timoshenko beam has the same feature.
It can be simply verified that the static superelement of a uniform beam is identical
to the regular finite element if they have the same degrees of freedom. This means
that by subdividing the beam while keeping the same degrees of freedom, there is
no change of the stiffness and mass matrices. The bar or truss element has the same
feature. It will be shown later that the frame structure also has a similar feature.
(20)
3...-.U 3
1/2
.1
or in another form as
(21)
The coefficients ab a2, and a3 in Eqs. (20) and (21) can be determined using the
conditions
UX=O = Ul
/ Ux =I/2 = U3 (22)
Ux=l = U2
o
-1/1
0] [u!]
4/1 u2 (23)
2/12 -4/1 2 u3
jN!
N2
= (1 - 2~)(l -~)
= -~(l - 2~) (25)
N3 = 4~(l -~)
and ~ = x/I. Using the formula in Chapter 2, the element mass and stiffness matrices
may be obtained as
M~ :0 [~I ~l -1
4
2 16
k~EA[;
31
-8
1
7
-8
-8]
-8
16
(26)
n
Finally, the dynamic equations of equilibrium of the element are given by
:0 [~I
-1
4
2
22
16
Jr'J
U2
U3
+ 31
EA [71
-8
1
7
-8
-8]{"'\
-8
16
U2
U3
= h
h
(27)
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-5uperelement Modeling Technique 269
Now, let us select the first and second degrees of freedom as masters. The static
condensation is performed on the three-node bar element. It can be simply verified
that the mass and stiffness matrices of the static superelement are the same as those
of the two-node bar element. Therefore, the static superelement resulting from the
three-node higher-order bar element is identical to the regular two-node bar element.
Actually, a beam element has the same phenomenon. Because Guyan condensation
is based on static deformation and the static deformation of a beam is a third-order
polynomial, all interpolations of order 3 or higher lead to the same condensed system
matrices (Corn et al., 1997).
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 10.10 Construction of superelement (case 1): (a) substructure; (b) superelement.
(a) (b)
Figure 10.11 Construction of superelement (case 2): (a) substructure; (b) superelement.
Figure 1O.1O(a) in the first case and 24 elements, 25 nodes in the second case, as
shown in Figure 10.11(a). Thus, the full models of the substructures have a total of39
and 75 degrees of freedom, respectively. Clearly, the four corner nodes are boundary
nodes and all others are interior nodes. During the formulation of the superelement,
only the boundary nodes or degrees of freedom are kept in the superelement as shown
in Figures 1O.1O(b) and 10.11 (b). The stiffness and mass matrices of the superelement
may be computed using the static condensation.
When the stiffness and mass matrices of the superelement are available, they can
be assembled to formulate the global stiffness and mass matrices as shown in Fig-
ure 10.12. Therefore, the reduced global model has 8 nodes and 24 degrees of freedom.
The former 12 natural frequencies computed from the reduced global models are
listed in the second and third columns of Table 10.2.
For comparison, the natural frequencies computed from the full models are
given in columns 4 through 6. Here, three discretization patterns are considered.
In Case I, the finite element model has a total of 36 elements and 105 degrees
of freedom, as shown in Figure 10.13. In the second and third finite element
models, 18 elements with 51 degrees of freedom and 9 elements with 24 degrees
of freedom are used. The lowest 12 frequencies of the reduced model computed
from Guyan condensation are listed in the last column of Table 10.2. During the
static condensation, the finite element model I of the complete structure is con-
sidered as the full model and the nodes at each corner, 8 in total, are selected as
masters.
The comparison of the results in Table 10.2 gives the following three phenomena:
1. The frequencies computed from the full finite element model with 36 elements,
shown in the fourth column of Table 10.2, have the highest accuracy. The next
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 271
(a) (b)
is the full model with 18 elements. The full model with nine elements has the
lowest accuracy. This is the common sense of the finite element method.
2. Although two different meshes were used in the construction of the superelement,
the resulting frequencies of the two reduced global models are identical. They are
exactly equal to those computed from the full model with nine elements. Fur-
ther research shows that the superelements formulated from the two meshes are
identical to the finite element model with three regular elements. This indicates
that the system matrices of a superelement do not depend upon the mesh.
272 Model Order Reduction Techniques
The latter two phenomena show that the conclusion in Section 10.3.2 is also valid
for frames with uniform sections. Therefore, there is usually not benefit if the static
superelement modeling approach is utilized in simple structures.
(1)
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 273
(2)
w is the unknown natural frequency of the substructure. Based on the division of total
degrees of freedom, the partitioned form of the dynamic equations can be expressed as
[K~m
K
-w2M~m
2M
(i) _ (i)
sm W sm
After the exact condensation is performed on the above equation, the dynamic
equations of the reduced model, that is, the exact superelement, are given by
(4)
or simply
(5)
Kg), Mg), andDg) are, respectively, the stiffness, mass, and dynamic stiffness matrices
of the exact superelement. These matrices are given by
K(i)
R
= K(i) _ K(i)
mm ms
(D(i»)-ID(i)
ss sm
_ D(i)
ms
(D(i»)-l
ss
K(i)
sm
+ D(i)
ms
(D(i»)-l
ss
K(i) (D(i))-l D(i)
ss ss sm (6)
M(i) = M(i) _ M(i) (D(i»)-l D(i) _ D(i) (D(i»)-l M(i)
R mm ms ss sm ms ss sm
+ D(i)
ms
(D(i») -I M(i) (D(i)) -I D(i)
ss ss ss sm (7)
D(i) = D(i) _ D(i) (D(i»)-I D(i) (8)
R mm ms ss sm
Similarly, the dynamic equations of equilibrium of the complete structure using the
exact superelement modeling may be given by
(10)
or
(1 I)
in which the mass matrix, stiffness matrix, dynamic stiffness matrix, and force vector
are respectively defined as
i=l
(12)
274 Model Order Reduction Techniques
It is clear that the system matrices of the reduced global model are frequency-
dependent after the assemblage. Therefore, a special solution scheme is generally
required. The details of these methods may be found in Chapter 5. The reduced
global model obtained from the exact superelement modeling can exactly keep the
dynamic properties of the full global model. turthermore, the reduced global model
can predict more global modes than its number of degrees of freedom if a proper
solution scheme is used.
Other versions of exact condensation schemes mentioned in Chapter 5 can be
used to co:nstruct the superelement. For example, the inverse of the dynamic stiffness
matrixD~:) was replaced by the expression in Eq. (5.5-6) by Leung (1988) to construct
the superelement. This replacement can accelerate the convergence of iteration as
reported. Another example is the use of the dynamic stiffness matrix in Eq. (5.1-39)
(Leung, 1979). In these two variants, some modes of the slave model are required.
Furthermore, the reduced model is also frequency-dependent and a special solution
scheme is generally required.
The simplest way to make Eq. (5.1-39) frequency-independent is to replace the
unknown by one specific value at each frequency of interest (Belyi, 1993). Based
on the linearization of Eq. (5.1-39), a simplified dynamic condensation method was
developed by Lu (1988) to construct a superelement. The simplified dynamic con-
densation can take into account some dynamic effects on the slaves of substructures.
The accuracy of this superelement is higher than the static. However, the linearization
is only valid in a very limited frequency range. Another disadvantage of this method
is that the eigenproblems of all slave models should be solved.
Consider the space frame (Leung, 1993) shown in Figure lO.14. All the beams
have the same squared cross section with size 0.02 m x 0.02 m. They have the
(a) (b)
f+-1.3 + 1.3
...- -......- - -.. S
~
The natural frequencies computed from the reduced global model based on the
exact superelement are exact as indicated in Table 10.3. The accuracy of the static
superelement modeling is very low. Only the lowest several natural frequencies are
close to the exact. One disadvantage of the exact superelement modeling is that the
computational cost is much higher than the static due to the frequency-dependent
feature. Essentially, the total computational cost of the static superelement analysis is
approximately equal to that of one iteration of the exact superelement analysis for one
natural frequency. A detailed comparison of the numerical operations required by the
static and exact superelement methods was reported by Leung (1993). Furthermore,
the exact superelement modeling is generally used in frequency domain or harmonic
excitation problems in time domain. Due to these limitations, the exact superelement
modeling is much less popular than the static superelement.
(1)
Because the forces on the interface resulting from subdivision will not go to the
assembled equations, only the external forces are included in the force vector p(j).
For simplicity, only the proportional damping is considered. If the total degrees of
freedom (n) of the full model are divided into the masters and slaves, Eq. (1) can be
I
rewritten in a partitioned form as
[M~~
M Cj)
sm
c(j)] IX(j)
ms
C ssC;)
m.
X· (;)
s
+ [K(j)
m!1l
K(;)
sm
K~l] Ix~)
K D(;)
l-Ip~)
XC;) - p(;)
s s
I
(2)
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 277
Usually, the masters should include (1) boundary degrees of freedom, (2) those
degrees of freedom on which the exciting forces locate, and (3) those in which the
displacements are interested.
As described in Chapter 6, the relation of responses between the masters and slaves
given by the iterative dynamic condensation is expressed as
X 5(j) -- R(j)x(j)
m) (3)
in which R(j) is the dynamic condensation matrix and governed by the following
equation:
(4)
M~j) and K~j) are the mass and stiffness matrices of the jth superelement. Of course,
Eq. (4) is nonlinear, and iterative schemes listed in Chapter 6 may be utilized to solve
for the dynamic condensation matrix. The coordinate transformation matrix T(j)
corresponding to the dynamic condensation matrix is defined as
(5)
Therefore, the displacement, velocity, and acceleration vectors of the full model may
be expressed as
Introducing Eq. (6) into Eq. (1) and premultiplying both sides of the equation by the
transpose of matrix T(j) , we have
(7)
where K~j) , cV) and MV) are, respectively, the stiffness, damping, and mass matrices
of the jth dynamic superelement. They are defined as
It is shown in Eq. (4) that an inversion of matrix K~P or its equivalent is required
for the condensation matrix. When the number of rigid degrees of freedom of a
substructure is larger than the number of masters, the matrix is singular and cannot
be inverted directly. Hence, an eigenvalue shifting technique is needed and Eq. (4)
becomes
(9)
where
(j) - _(D(j»)-lD(j)
RDG- ss sm (10)
D ss(j) -- K(j)
ss
+ qM(j)
ss,
D(j) - K(j)
sm- sm
+ qM(j)
sm (11)
(12)
278 Model Order Reduction Techniques
In Eqs. (11) and (12), q is an eigenvalue shift. Usually, it is a small, positive number.
When q = 0, Eq. (9) reduces to Eq. (4).
The iterative scheme for the dynamic superelement modeling of compound systems
is listed below:
1. Divide the complete structural system into substructures and other connect-
ing components such as springs and dampers, if any, according to the system's
inherent feature.
2. Discretize the substructures using the finite element method if necessary.
3. For i = 0, 1,2, ... , enter the iteration loop:
3.1 Construct the ith approximate dynamic superelement for the substructures
for which dynamic superelement modeling is required. This includes (a)
compute the ith approximation of dynamic condensation matrix using the
iterative scheme and (b) construct the ith approximate system matrices
of the superelement. If there are more than one physically identical sub-
structures, the corresponding superelement only needs to be constructed
once.
3.2 Assemble all the superelements and other components to formulate the
global model of the complete structural system.
3.3 Calculate the ith approximate natural frequencies w?)
(j = 1,2, ... , p) from
the reduced global model. Check the convergence using the criterion.
Since the natural frequencies are used to check the convergence of the dynamic
superelement modeling, they are computed at each iteration. However, the pur-
pose of the present scheme is not to compute these frequencies but to get the reduced
global model, dynamic superelements, and the corresponding dynamic condensation
matrices. Of course, other parameters may be used to check the convergence.
KqJ = 0 (14)
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 279
or in a partitioned form
[ Kmm
Ksm
KmsJ {CPm}
Kss CPs =
{o}° (IS)
(l6a)
Equation (18) indicates that the superelement obtained from the initial approxima-
tion of the dynamic condensation, Guyan condensation, can retain the rigid mode
shape of the full model.
The iterative form of Eq. (4) is rewritten as
(19)
where
Using Eq. (19), the (i + l)th approximation of the stiffness matrix of the superelement
becomes
(22)
(23)
280 Model Order Reduction Techniques
1. For the initial approximation, the stiffness matrix of the superelement is K~O) •
From Eq. (18), we know that it retains the rigid mode shape of the full model.
2. Suppose the ith approximate stiffness matrix contains the rigid mode shape (/1m'
that is
(24)
(25)
K(i+l)tn
S
- K(O)rIJ
't'm - S 't'm
+ (K(i»)T(E(i»)T
S
K E(i)K(i)rIJ -
ss S 't'm -
0 (26)
Equation (26) shows that the (i + l)th approximate stiffness matrix K~+l) also
contains the same rigid mode shape of the full model.
Based on the statements in (1) through (3), we conclude that the superelement con-
tains the rigid mode shape of the full model during iteration. Hence, the present
method is valid when the substructure is free or there is rigid mode shape in the
substructure.
To explain this conclusion clearly, a three-degree-of-freedom mass-stiffness system,
shown in Figure 10.16, is considered. The system has one rigid-body mode shape.
The mass and stiffness matrices are given by
-k
2k
-k
m m m
k k
Let k = 1 N/m and m = 1 kg. The frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes
are given by
The corresponding mass and stiffness matrices of the reduced model are
The frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes of this approximation are
(0)
WI = OradIs, wiO) = 1.5 rad/s
fP~~ = {0/3 v'3/ 3 } T
fPi~ = {./6/3 -./6/6} T
The first mode shape is a rigid-body mode and the same as the full model. The second
frequency, 1.5 rad/s, is higher than the exact, 1 rad/s. The accuracy is very low.
The first approximation of the dynamic condensation matrix and the correspond-
ing mass, stiffness matrices are
Clearly, it contains the rigid-body mode, and the accuracy of the reduced model is
much higher than the initial approximation.
With the increase in the number of iterations, the accuracy improves quickly. The
exact dynamic condensation matrix, mass, and stiffness matrices of the superelement
are given by
R=[-1 2]
= [2k
KR
-2k -2k]
2k , MR = [2m -2m]
-2m 5m
The frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes of the superelement are identical
to the first two modes of the full model.
KA 0 0 0] MA 0 0 0]
K= [ 0 KB 0 0 + Kc, M= .[ 0 MB 0 0 +Mc
o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
K c and M c are the stiffness and mass matrices pertaining to the springs and machines.
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 283
....
Table 10.4 Twenty lowest frequencies of the global model (Hz)
, ...,.
2 4.89U 7 53.555 12 12U1 17 203.48
.S IG
..
3 IG.756 8 235.94
36.054 K947 14 295.76
5 36.3CW 10 86.401 15 .9I.lS 297.41
The full global model of the floating-raft isolation system has a total of 179 degrees
of freedom. However, the reduced global model constructed using the dynamic
superelement modeling has 26 degrees of freedom, which is much less than those
of the full global model. The lowest 20 natural frequencies of the full global model
are listed in Table 10.4. They are considered as exact for comparison purposes. The
lowest 20 natural frequencies of the reduced global model are also calculated. The
errors, defined as, Error = (Wreduced - Wexact) / Wexact, are shown in Figure 10.17. In
this figure, A, B, C, and D denote the four cases: initial approximation (Guyan con-
densation), the first approximation (IRS), the second approximation, and the third
approximation, respectively.
The accuracy of the lowest five natural frequencies computed from the reduced
global model with the initial approximation is very high. Their errors are all less than
0.6%. However, the errors become larger and larger with the increase of the order
of frequency. The error of the 20th frequency, for example, is 22.4%. Generally, the
accuracy of the reduced global model increases with the increase of iterations. The
errors of the 20th frequencies based on the initial, first, second, and third approxima-
tions are 22.4%, 3.76%, 0.804%, and 0.221%, respectively. The error reduces to one
hundredth after three iterations.
1<f
10"
10'2
g
w
1<fl
[d
1<r
-- - B
1(J5 ..... C
_._.- 0
1<r 0
5 10 15 20
Order
UJ
1U5
1U6
- - - B
1U7 ...... C
--_.- D
1U8
10.9
U. 1U1O
0:::
U. 111U
1U12
1U 13
1U14 "II
I
1U15
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Frequency (Hz)
When iteration is applied, the accuracy of the middle and high frequencies of the
reduced global model improves quickly. However, this does not have much effect
on the accuracy of the lowest frequencies. Particularly, the accuracy of three lowest
frequencies reduces when iterations are adopted. Fortunately, the errors of these
frequencies are less than 0.04% and have little effect on the accuracy of responses.
The errors of the low and middle frequencies of the reduced global model are
less than 1% when only several iterations, two or three for example, are applied.
This accuracy is enough in engineering analyses. All the errors of the frequencies are
positive. This means that the reduced global model approaches the full global model
from above.
The frequency response functions (FRFs) for the four cases are plotted in Figure
10.18. The exciting force locates on ml in the z-direction and the response is the
displacement at node 11 in base in this direction. For convenience, only the absolute
values ofFRFs are shown in the figure. In Figure 10.18, curve A denotes the exact FRFs
that are calculated using the full global model. Curves B, C, and D denote the FRFs
obtained from the reduced global model when the iteration numbers are 0, 1, and 2,
respectively. Clearly, the errors of the FRFs computed from the initial approximation
are very large. The first approximation improves the accuracy quickly. The FRFs
from the second approximation are very close to the exact. These results show that
iterations can efficiently improve the accuracy of the reduced global model resulting
from the static superelement.
dynamic condensation technique. The reduced global model has a total of 14 degrees
of freedom. The harmonic balance method is used to solve the nonlinear equations.
Similarly, the FRFs of the reduced global model at nodes 9 and 30 in the transverse
directions are plotted in Figure 10.19. The exact results are also plotted in the figures
for comparison. Similarly, if the FRFs obtained from the reduced global model are
very close to those from the full global model, we will say that the reduced model
may accurately represent the full model at that frequency range. The accuracy of
the initial approximation is low, especially for the FRFs at the high-frequency range.
10-' . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
--Exact
10"
------i=O
--------. i=1
--------- i=2
10-7
10"
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Frequency (rad/s)
(a)
10-'
--Exact
10"
------i=O
--- .. --.- i=1
10"
--------- i=2
10-4
LL.
~
LL. 10"
10"
10-7
10"
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Frequency (radls)
(b)
Figure 10.19 FRFs ofreduced models: (a) node 9; (b) node 30.
286 Model Order Reduction Techniques
With the increase of the number of iterations, the FRFs approach the exact solution
quickly. The first approximation, for example, is much more accurate than the initial
approximation.
For this example, 751 time steps are used to simulate the FRFs of the full global
model and the reduced global model. The code is run on a Sun 4500 computer with
a 400-MHz CPU and 4-GB memory. The computer time of the full global model
and the reduced global model are 2,999 seconds and 25 seconds, respectively. Clearly,
the reduced global model is much more computationally efficient than the full global
model.
Now, the floating-raft isolation system used in Section 9.4 is considered. The two
plates in the system are viewed as two flexible substructures. The same degrees of free-
dom on the two plates as those used in Section 9.4 are selected as masters. Each of the
two reduced models of plates has 12 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the reduced global
model has 26 degrees of freedom. The FRFs resulting from the initially approximate
reduced global model are shown in Figure 10.20 and are indicated by su. The FRFs
computed from the full global model are also provided for comparison. The errors
of the FRFs obtained from the reduced global models with different approximations
are plotted in Figure 10.21. Clearly, the errors of the initial approximate FRFs are very
big. These errors reduce when the number of iteration increases, especially for the
FRFs at the high-frequency range.
For this example, 2,501 time steps are used to simulate the FRFs of the full global
model and the reduced global model. The code is run in the same computer as above.
The computer time for the two models is 1,452 seconds and 6 seconds, respectively.
Clearly, the reduced global model is much more computationally efficient than the
full global model. The computer time of this example is shorter than that in the first
example although the number of degrees of freedom of the former is about double
that of the latter. The reason is that the nonlinearity in this example is much more
10"
10·'
10"
10.7
10"
u..
a::: 10"
u.. 10. •
'
10.11
10.,2
10.13
10."
0 50 100 150 200 250
Frequency (Hz)
10°
10.1
10" I
....
w
~ 10""
10"
10-15
r
10"
0 50 100 150 200 250
Frequency (Hz)
localized than that in the first example. Consequently, more iterations are required in
the first example.
The errors of the FRFs computed from the reduced global models defined on the
system level, described in Section 9.4, and defined on the component level, described
in this section, for i = 1 and 3 are plotted in Figure 10.22. The "SY" and "SU" indicate
these two cases, respectively. Clearly, the accuracy of the model reduction defined on
the system level is much higher than the one defined on the component level.
10°
10.1
10"
.g 10""
.. '
".'
'
w .'
10"
- - i=1(SY)
---- -- i=3(SY)
10-15 ......... i=1(SU)
.. _._._.. i=3(SU)
1r ~~~-,~~~~~~.-~~~~~~
o 50 100 150 200 250
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 10.22 Errors of FRFs from the two model reduction schemes.
288 Model Order Reduction Techniques
......... .........
=:n
III
~ ~ .:::: :.........
~
V\
r:,..::: ::-"., II
\
V\
r:,..::: ::-".,
\
~
V\ t:;;.<C ~
\
Figure 10.23 Space frame and its substructures: (a) complete structure; (b) first-level substructures;
(c) second-level substructures.
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 289
'"o
=:IJ~=:Il "
rrtl~rrtl~ c:::::::> c:::::::>
rrtl~rrtl~ ~ ~
fTTl~fTTl~
o
s:::
c:::::::> 1~7k ~ 0-
fTTl ~ fTTl ~ l--" "~ !!..
o
a.~
~
0-
:::
~
fTTl~fTTl~ 0'
;:l
(a) (b) (e) (d) (e) i;l
8-
;:l
Figure 10.24 Multilevel superelement modeling: (a) finite element model; (b) first-level superelement; (e) assembly of first-level $
:::
superelements; (d) second-level superelement; (e) assembly of different-level suerpelements, ~
Application II: Model Reduction on Component Level-Superelement Modeling Technique 291
aircraft are, for example, interested in the nonlinear dynamic analyses of the coupled
system of the flight deck and a landing aircraft (Tong and Qu, 2000). Definitely, the
deformations and motions of the ship, as a whole, playa very important role on
the dynamic responses of the flight deck. Due to the high complexity of the ship
structure, we could not perform a full finite element simulation for the whole ship
under different sea conditions. Therefore, the global-local analysis was introduced in
the analysis.
In the global analysis, the ship is considered as a Timoshenko beam. Since the size
of the model is very small, it is very efficient to simulate the dynamic behaviors of the
ship as a whole, including global deformations and motions, under the hydrodynamic
loads in wave. Although the weight and location of an aircraft may theoretically affect
these global responses, this effect is too minor to be ignored in this stage. Based on
these global deformations and motions, the displacements and forces at the boundary
of the portion of flight deck isolated from the ship, as shown in Figure 10.25, may be
obtained.
The next stage is local analysis. Because this portion of the light deck is much
simpler than the whole ship, the refined finite element model may be used to model
the coupled system. The key ingredient for the local analysis is the application of
boundary conditions on the refined finite element model. The displacements at the
boundary nodes need to be interpolated from the global deformations and motions
and the stresses at the boundary need to be converted into the nodal forces.
Of course, the global-local analysis scheme can be extended to more than two levels,
in which case it receives the more encompassing name multiscale analysis (Felippa,
2002). Although this generation is still largely in the realm of research, it has been
receiving increasing attention from various science and engineering communities
for complex products such as microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and nano-
electromechanical systems (NEMS) in which the multiphysics phenomena should be
considered. The multiscale analysis is based on the fact that continuum and atomistic
analysis methods are complementary. At the meso-scale, the continuum analyses start
to break down and atomistic analyses begin to reach their inherent time and length-
scale limitations. Mesoscope simulation approaches are currently used to bridge the
critical gap in between the extremes length scales,
Central Line of
I-+--+-I-+--+--I--+---+--I--+--+-+-+=-'-.f,-,- Oblique Deck
- --- --- --
26 m ,_,1--,_-1,r,-_-+,-,_-,-1--,_-1,1-,-_-+,-,-_+,-,_-+-,_+--+-1-,_-1_-,-_+_-,-_+-_-,_+-_-1,
__ ,_, Central Line of
Straight Deck
45m
10.9 Summary
The implementation of the dynamic condensation technique on the component
level, particularly the superelement modeling technique, has been described and
demonstrated in this chapter. The dynamic superelement modeling technique is very
efficient for the complex structural systems with identical components or substruc-
tures. Many of the dynamic condensation approaches provided in preceding chapters
may be implemented to generate the corresponding superelement.
concentration analysis and the simulation of crack propagation, and the latter
is generally used in the MEMS and NEMS.
References
Ahmadian, MT and Zangeneh, MS (2003) Application of super elements to free vibration
analysis of laminated stiffened plates. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 259(5):1243-1252.
Avitabile, P, Piergentili, F, Parziale, P, and Crompton, D (1997) Comparison of some system
modeling approaches. Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Conference
(Orlando, Florida), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1043-1052.
Belyi, MV (1993) Superelement method for transient dynamic analysis of structural systems. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 36(13):2263-2286.
Bouhaddi, Nand Fillod, R (1992) Substructuring using a linearized dynamic condensation method.
Computers and Structures, 45(4):679-683.
Cardona, A and Geradin, M (1992) A superelement formulation for mechanism analysis. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 100(1):1-29.
Chin, CK, AI-Bermani, FGA, and Kitipornchai, S (l992) Stability of thin-walled members having arbitrary
flange shape and flexible web. Engineering Structures, 14(2):121-132.
Corn, S, Bouhaddi, N, and Pi randa, J (l997) Transverse vibrations of short beams: Finite element models
obtained by a condensation method. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 201 (3):353-363.
De Langhe, K, Vandepitte, D, and Sas, P (l997) A combined dynamic-static finite element model for the
calculation of dynamic stresses at critical locations. Computers and Structures, 65(2):241-254.
Egeland, 0 and Araldsen, PO (1974) SESAM-69-a general-purpose finite element method program.
Computers and Structures, 4(1):41-68.
Felippa, C (2002) Introduction to Finite Element Methods (class notes) . Department of Aerospace Engi-
neering Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, http://caswww.colorado.edu j courses.djIFEM.dj.
Go, CG, Lin, C, Lin, YS, and Wu, SH (1998) Formulation of a super-element for the dynamic problem of a
cracked plate. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering, 14(12):1143-1154.
Jacobsen, KP (1983) Fully integrated superelements: A database approach to finite element analysis.
Computers and Structures, 16{1-4):307-315.
Jarvenpaa, V-M and Keskinen, EK (2000) Finite element model for rotating paper machine roll. Proceedings
of the 18th International Modal Analysis Conference (San Antonio, TX), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Bethel, CT: 536-542.
Jiang, J and Olson, MD (l993a) A super element model for nonlinear analysis of stiffened box structures.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 36:2203-2217.
Jiang, J and Olson, MD (I 993b) Application of a super element model for nonlinear analysis of stiffened
box structures. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 36:2219-2243.
Jiang, J and Olson, MD {l994} Nonlinear analysis of orthogonally stiffened cylindrical shells by a super
element approach. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 18{1-3):99-11O.
Kim, H-S and Lee, D-G (2003) Analysis of shear wall with openings using super elements. Engineering
Structures, 25(8):981-991.
Koko, TS and Olson, MD (1991) Nonlinear transient response of stiffened plates to air blast loading by a
superelement approach. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 90(1-3):737-760.
Law, SS, Chan, THT, and Wu, D (200Ia) Superelement with semi-rigid joints in model updating. Journal
of Sound and Vibration, 239(1): 19-39.
Law, SS, Chan, THT, and Wu, D (2001b) Efficient numerical model for the damage detection of large scale
structure. 23(5):436-451.
Leung, AYT (l978) An accurate method of dynamic condensation in structural analysis. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 12(11): 1705-1715.
Leung, AYT (1979) An accurate method of dynamic substructuring with simplified computation.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 14(8):1241-1256.
Leung, AYT (1988) A simplified dynamic substructure method. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 16(6):827-837.
Leung, AYT (1993) Dynamic Stiffuess and Substructures. Springer-Verlag, London, UK.
Li, TY, Zhang, XM, Zuo, Yr, and Xu, MB (1997) Structural power flow analysis for a floating raft isolation
system consisting of constrained damped beams. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 202( I ):47-54.
Liu, X-L and Lam, YC (1995) Condensation algorithms for the regular mesh substructuring. International
Journal for Numerical Method in engineering, 38(4):469-488.
294 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Lu, X (1988) Simplified dynamic condensation in multi-substructure systems. Computers and Structures,
30(4):851-854.
Lu, X, Lin, J, and Zhong, W (1989) Subspace iteration method in multi-level substructure systems.
Computers and Structures, 33(2):459-462.
Lu, X, Zhong, W, and Lin, J (1990) Dynamic superelement substructure method in forced vibration analysis.
Computers and Structures, 37(5):737-74l.
Nurse, AD (2001) New superelements for singular derivative problems of arbitrary order. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 50(1):135-146.
Peide, S and Xing, JW (1998) Calculation of a railway passenger car body using macroelement methods.
Proceedings of the 16th International Modal Analysis Conference (Santa Barb;ua, CAl, Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1479-1485.
Qu, Z-Q (1998) Structural Dynamic Condensation Technique: Theory and Application. State Key
Laboratory of Vibration, Shock and Noise, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2000) Dynamic superelement modeling method for compound dynamic systems.
AIAA Journal, 38(6):1078-1083.
Shiau, T-N and Jean, A-N (1990) Prediction of periodic responses of flexible mechanical systems with
nonlinear characteristics. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 112(4):501-507.
Shu, C-F and Chu, F-H (1984) A general superelement approach by the component mode synthesis
method. Proceedings of the 2nd International Modal Analysis Conference and Exhibit (Orlando, FL),
Union College, Schenectady, NY: 676-682.
Tong, Land Qu, Z-Q (2000) Landing loads of an aircraft on moving ships. Proceedings of the 18th Inter-
national Modal Analysis Conference & Exhibit (San Antonio, TX), Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Bethel, CT: 1745-1747.
van Vroonhoven, JCW and de Borst, R (1999) Combination of fracture and damage mechanics for
numerical failure analysis. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 36: 1169-1191.
Yang, RJ and Lu, CM (1996) Topology optimization with superelements. AIAA Journal, 34(7):1533-1535.
Yang, Y-B and Lin, B-H (1995) Vehicle-bridge interaction analysis by dynamic condensation method.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 121 (11): 1636-1643.
Yang, Y-S and Hsieh, S-H (2002) Iterative mesh partitioning optimization for parallel nonlinear dynamic
finite element analysis with direct substructuring. Computational Mechanics, 28( 6):456-468.
11 Applications III: Modal Testing
11.1 Introduction
Modal testing has been employed in many engineering disciplines to determine the
vibration characteristics of a system including natural frequencies, mode shapes, fre-
quency responses, and so on. With the development of hardware and software, the
modal testing technique has become more and more efficient, reliable, and accurate
and has been widely adopted in industry. However, for large, complex structures,
the test is usually costly and time-consuming, especially when mode shapes are con-
cerned. Furthermore, highly accurate experimental data are generally not easy to be
obtained for a complex structural system because many concerns, such as the overall
system properties, test setup, instrumentation, digital signal processing, frequency
response function formulation, excitation, and modal parameter estimation, should
be considered carefully in the test (Avitabile, 1998). Any carelessness may result in
errors in the test data.
On the other hand, the finite element method has become a powerful tool for
engineering structural analysis. However, applications of the method depend, in
many cases, on how the mathematical model appropriately represents the real physical
system. Due to the complexity of real engineering structures, the analytical finite
element model generally contains modeling errors and could not represent the real
structures perfectly, especially for the features at the middle- and high-frequency
range and the feature's close boundary.
Many efforts have been devoted to bridge the gap between these two techniques. The
test analysis correlation, as an efficient and popular technique, is frequently utilized to
resolve this problem. It is achieved by the comparison of modal parameters derived
from modal or vibration test data with the corresponding modal data predicted by the
analytical finite element model. If the test-analysis correlation is unsatisfactory, either
finite element model updating or modification technique is used to update the finite
element model until some criterion is satisfied (Friswell and Mottershead, 1995),
or the modal test needs to be redone. Since the test data are generally much more
reliable than analytical data, any differences between them are usually considered as
the errors of the analytical finite element model. Therefore, a modal test is usually
used to validate the analytical finite element model.
In the validation of the analytical finite element model, modal parameters including
modal frequencies and mode shapes are used. It is quite a simple task to check
the accuracy of frequencies. However, it is much more difficult to determine the
295
296 Model Order Reduction Techniques
accuracy of mode shapes due to the incompleteness of the mode shapes obtained
from experimental analysis.
Two types of incompleteness of the data from experimental modal analysis fre-
quently occurs in the validation (Gysin, 1990): (1) The number of degrees of freedom
to be used in test is generally one or more orders of magnitude smaller than that to be
used in the finite element model; and (2) the number of modes that can be identified
from a modal test is usually extremely smaller than that the finite element model can
provide. The two cases of incompleteness are referred to as coordinate incompleteness
and mode incompleteness, respectively. It has been proven (Fissette et al., 1988; Ojalvo
and Pilon, 1988) that the mode incompleteness is not severe because approaches
are available to validate the finite element model using just one complete mode.
While it appears that full-scale tests are including more and more accelerometers, the
level of detail in the finite element model is increasing even faster. This problem is
not likely to cure itself. Therefore, the coordinate incompleteness is a big issue in the
validation of the finite element model.
Most correlation techniques require a one-to-one correspondence between the test
data and analytical data. Thus, the coordinate incompleteness must be properly solved
before any correlation is performed. Model reduction and mode expansion are two
opposite ways used to cope with this incompleteness. The former reduces a finite
element model from the full model space, spanned by all the degrees of freedom of
the full model, to the reduced model space, spanned by all the degrees of freedom of the
reduced model or experimental model. Mode expansion expands the experimental
mode shape from the reduced model space to the full model space. Both algorithms
have strengths and weaknesses. The selection of them highly depends on the objectives
of the test analysis correlation. Actually, it can be simply verified that if the same
transformation matrix is used for reduction and expansion, the numerical results will
be identical.
The correlation at the reduced model space has several advantages. It is usually more
convenient and computationally efficient to reduce the full order of mass and stiffness
matrix. It also reduces the volume of data to be stored and used in the correlation.
Furthermore, the model reduction can be performed before the modal test. It could
help to identify the test locations. Therefore, if the objective is to assess the degree
of correlation between the experimental and theoretical models, a reduction of the
analytical finite element model from the full model space to the reduced model space
is probably the wisest routine.
However, the correlation based on the reduced model has weaknesses. As shown by
Berman and Nagy (1983) and He and Ewins (1991), the connectivity ofthe original
finite element model will be destroyed when the reduction technique is implemented
to produce the reduced model. The inverse quality of the stiffness matrix of the
slave model propagates the potential modeling errors to every entry of the reduced
system matrices. Since one fundamental issue of test -analysis correlation is to identify
the modeling errors, there should be as little masking of the original finite element
model connectivity and inverse spreading of modeling errors as possible to facilitate
the localization of discrepancies between the test data and the analytical data (Hemez
and Farhat, 1994). The mode expansion could resolve this problem properly. Since
no modification is performed on the original matrices of the finite element model
in the correlation based on mode expansion, there is no change of the connectivity
and modeling errors. However, the correlation based on the expanded mode shapes
has a severe drawback. Errors in the finite element model, which are to be identified,
are introduced into the expanded test mode shapes, which are assumed to reflect the
real structure, by mode expansion technique. This corruption of the test data will
Applications III: Modal Testing 297
generally lead to errors in the model validation process. Therefore, if the objective is
to update the finite element model or to recover the data on the untested locations
such as the rotational degrees of freedom, the mode expansion is a prerequisite.
The model reduction technique has been playing a very important role in exper-
imental modal analysis and test-analysis model correlation. The schemes for the
optimal selection of masters may help identify measurement locations in modal test-
ing. The reduced mass and stiffness matrices computed from the model reduction
technique may be used to compare the analytical and experimental modes through
orthogonality checks. The transformation inherent in the model reduction schemes
may also be used to expand the measured mode shapes to the full size of the finite
element model, and these mode shapes may then be used in test-analysis correlation
or model updating.
q;ji is the jth element of the ith mode shape. Here, the mode shapes are assumed to be
real. The coordinates with largest ADPRs are chosen as measurement locations. This
procedure appears to work well in many instances; there are some models for which
this averaging process leads to some modes being poorly observed (Penny et aI., 1992).
The purpose of Guyan condensation, as mentioned in Chapter 4, is to reduce the
number of degrees of freedom in a large finite element model and produce a manage-
able reduced model. So far we have described the application of Guyan condensation
to a large finite element model for the purpose of generating a reduced model that
accurately maintains the characteristics of the original model at a lower frequency
range. In many respects the criterion for choosing the measurement locations in a
large system is the same, that is, we measure the lower-frequency modes accurately
(Penny et aI., 1994). It is reasonable to postulate that the master coordinates of a
finite element model can also serve as the measurement locations in modal testing.
298 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Therefore, the selection schemes for the masters in Guyan condensation have been
used for selecting the locations of modal measurement (Penny et al., 1992, 1994).
In practice we determine the measurement locations as follows (Pennyet al., 1994).
We will begin with a finite element model that has many more degrees of freedom
than those that could be measured realistically. Before the automatic selection pro-
cedure begins, coordinates in the finite element model that cannot readily serve as
measurement locations are removed. They normally include most rotational degrees
of freedom and inaccessible degrees of freedom. Furthermore, the degrees of freedom
that may not be measured as accurately as others should be removed because use of
these less accurately measured degrees of freedom may tend to degrade the orthogo-
nality check (Avitabile et al., 1994). The automatic selection procedure (see Chapter 7)
is then used to reduce the number of master coordinates in the finite element model
to the number required for measurement purposes. Note that at each stage of the
reduction process, a reduced mass and stiffness matrix is generated. At the end of the
process these matrices generated could be used in test-analysis correlation.
(1)
or
(2)
Using this transformation matrix, we may obtain the stiffness and mass matrices of
the reduced model, referred to as the test-analysis model (TAM), defined only by test
degrees of freedom, as
(3)
These two matrices are, respectively, called the TAM stiffness matrix and TAM mass
matrix. Generally, the mass matrix represents the inertia of a system and is more
accurate than the stiffness matrix that models the elasticity of the system. Therefore,
the mass matrix is usually used as a weighting matrix in test-analysis mode shape
correlation computations such as orthogonality and cross-orthogonality checks.
The modal assurance criteria (Allemang and Brown, 1982) (see Section 7.2) is a
simple scheme to check the correlation of two modes. It was originally developed
to evaluate the consistency of experimental modal vectors obtained from different
modal tests. It can be extended to check the modal confidence between the analytical
and experimental modal vectors. The MAC is defined as
(4)
where CPA and cP B are the mode shapes of models A and B, respectively. A MAC value
close to 1 suggests that the two modes or vectors are well correlated, and a value close
to 0 indicates uncorrelated modes.
The main advantage of MAC is that no mass matrix is required for the determi-
nation of vector correlation. The MAC provides useful information when sufficient
degrees of freedom are used to spatially identify modal vectors. The major disad-
vantage of the MAC is that the larger modal coefficients dominate the MAC results
and the contributions from smaller amplitude modal coefficients are not effectively
evaluated very well (Avitabile et aI., 1992). Therefore, the MAC is usually performed
to determine the first level of correlation that exists between the analytical and experi-
mental modal data before any detailed orthogonality checks are performed (Avitabile
et aI., 1994).
Orthogonality
The orthogonality of test modes c)TEST with respect to the TAM mass matrix MTAM
in the reduced model space or TAM space is defined (Kammer, 1991) as
(5)
in which TOM is referred to as the test orthogonality matrix. If the TAM mass matrix
is an exact representation of the real structural mass distribution, and if the test
modes have been normalized with respect to mass matrix, TOM will be an identity
matrix with 1 on the diagonal and 0 on the off-diagonal. This would indicate perfect
orthogonality of the test modes with respect to the TAM mass matrix. Unfortunately,
various inaccuracies always occur in the analytical finite element model, as a result
300 Model Order Reduction Techniques
the TAM, and in the test mode shapes. Therefore, the off-diagonal terms in TOM will
not be o. It is common practice to classify the orthogonality level as acceptable if all
the off-diagonal terms are less than 0.10.
Cross Orthogonality
Test and analysis mode shapes may also be directly compared using the TAM mass
matrix in a cross-orthogonality or pseudo-orthogonality check. The resulting cross-
generalized mass matrix (CGM) is given by (Kammer, 1991)
(6)
where both the test modes and the TAM modes 4>TAM have been normalized with
respect to mass. If the test and analysis mode shapes are identical, CGM will be an iden-
tity matrix. It is also common practice to state that an acceptable level of agreement
exists if the diagonal terms are larger than or equal to 0.90 and the off-diagonal-
diagonal terms are less than 0.10. If both the orthogonality and cross-orthogonality
conditions are met, and if the difference of test and analysis frequencies is within
5.0%, the analytical finite model is usually considered to be test-validated.
Guyan condensation, IRS, modal reduction, and hybrid reduction were inves-
tigated by Tan (1993) using the NASA/Langley 10-bay truss. The results indicate
that Guyan TAM exhibits reasonable robustness and IRS has the best overall results
among the four methods. The robustness of modal reduction and hybrid reduction
is highly dependent upon the fidelity of the finite element model to the test model
and significantly poorer than either Guyan condensation or IRS.
Five model reduction methods-Guyan condensation, IRS, modal reduction,
hybrid reduction, and Craig-Bampton reduction-were investigated by Chung
(1998) using three space station hardware modal survey data. It was reported that
Guyan condensation has better robustness and less sensitivity to test-analysis errors
than the other four approaches.
Most investigations on the quality of TAM are based on the assumption that the
test data are absolutely accurate. As mentioned, highly accurate experimental data
are generally not easy to obtain from a complex structural system. The omission of
these inaccuracies in tests may lead to improper conclusions of the assessment of
model reduction methods.
GuyanlStatic TAM
The simplest TAM uses Guyan condensation method and is referred to as Guyan
TAM or static TAM. The transformation matrix T defined by Guyan condensation is
given by
Tcuyan = [ I ] = [ I ] (7)
RCuyan -K:;;I Ksm
Introducing Eq. (7) into Eq. (3) gives the Guyan TAM mass matrix, that is,
Although Guyan condensation generally has lower accuracy than other advanced
model reduction approaches such as IRS, modal reduction, hybrid reduction, research
shows that (Freed and Flanigan, 1990; Kammer, 1991; Chung, 1998) it has better
robustness than most advanced approaches.
IRS TAM
TIRS = [1] [
RIRS
=
RGuyan + K;;
1
[(Msm
1 -I
+ MssRGuyan)MGuyanKGuyan]
] (9)
in which KGuyan and MGuyan are the reduced stiffness and mass matrices resulting
from Guyan condensation. The TAM resulting from the IRS is called IRS TAM, and
the corresponding mass matrix may be obtained by substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (3).
It is well acknowledged that IRS has higher accuracy than Guyan condensation due
to partial consideration of inertia ignored in Guyan condensation. This approach is
also not difficult to implement. However, it has been reported by many researchers
(Gordis, 1992, 1994; Kammer, 1991; Chung, 1998; Flanigan, 1998) that the IRS TAM
mass matrix lacks robustness in the orthogonality and cross-orthogonality checks.
The examination of the theory of IRS TAM was initiated by Gordis (1992). It was
found that if the modes of the slave model approach the frequency range of the IRS
TAM, the IRS TAM mass matrix would be poorly conditioned. An improvement in
the robustness of the IRS TAM mass matrix can be achieved by increasing the lowest
frequency of the slave model and thereby decreasing the overlap of spectrum of slave
model and IRS TAM.
In the iterative IRS TAM, the transformation matrix is obtained by an iterative scheme
!
given by
R (i)
IIRS = RGuyan -
-I
Kss
[(M
sm + Mss R(i-l))
!IRS
(M(i-l))-IK(i-I)]
R R (i=1,2, ... )
(0)
R IIRS = RGuyan
(10)
and
(i)
T IIRS = [1]
R(i)
IIRS
(11)
As shown in Chapter 6, the initial and the first orders of approximations of the
transformation matrix computed from the iterative scheme are, respectively, identical
to Guyan condensation and IRS. The iterative IRS has much higher accuracy than
Guyan condensation and IRS. However, it is inconvenient to implement this scheme
due to the iteration. The investigation on its robustness has not been reported in
literature.
Applications III: Modal Testing 303
Modal TAM
Modal TAM, derived from modal reduction, uses the analytical mode shapes to reduce
the finite element model. In this method, the transformation matrix takes the form
T Modal =[ ~ I~+
sk mk
]=[ ~ (~T ~I
sk mk mk
)-l~T ]
mk
(12)
The subscript k denotes the kept modes. The numbers of the kept modes and the
test degrees of freedom are represented by nk and n m . The transformation matrix in
Eq. (12) will be numerically exact if the generalized inverse exists and is well condi-
tioned. This requires that there be sufficient test degrees of freedom to make the modes
linearly independent and observable at these degrees of freedom. In theory, a modal
reduction could be performed using as few as one accelerometer per mode (Freed
and Flanigan, 1990). However, practical usage requires a more generous selection of
accelerometers in order to obtain good numerical conditioning of the generalized
inverse. When the number of modes used to form a modal transformation matrix is
equal to the number of test degrees of freedom (nk = n m ), the reduced mass matrix
(TAM mass matrix) and stiffness matrix contain an exact description of the full finite
element model's dynamics for the modes of interest. However, when the former is
less than the latter (nk < n m ), although the transformation matrix concerning the
selected modes is exact, the transformation matrix with respect to those nonselected
modes has big errors.
Modal TAM has very high accuracy because the exact mode shapes of the analytical
finite element model are used to formulate the transformation matrix. It has been
successfully applied to test analysis correlation for several large structures (Kammer
et al., 1989; Kammer and Flanigan, 1991). However, when the test modes are notice-
ably different from those predicted by the finite element model or when the finite
element model has noticeable errors, the use of a modal TAM in test-analysis orthog-
onality and cross-orthogonality computations can result in larger off-diagonal terms
than the corresponding values produced by a much less accurate static TAM (Freed
and Flanigan, 1990; Kammer, 1991; Chung, 1998). This means that modal reduction
is more sensitive to the differences between the test and analysis models than Guyan
condensation.
In general, the test mode shapes contain measurement noise from the sensors. In
addition, each test mode also contains noise due to corruption from other modes.
Methods for extracting mode shapes from test data are not perfect; therefore, each
resulting test mode is actually a linear combination of many modes. Many of these
corrupting mode shapes are residual modes that are not included in the modal reduc-
tion. Lack of sensors resources prohibits the inclusion of all the residual modes in the
modal TAM generation process within the frequency range of interest. It is believed
that the modal TAM's poor representation of these residual modes makes it extra
sensitive to residual corruption of the test data and model error (Kammer, 1991).
Chung (1998) believed that the low robustness of modal TAM resulted from the
implementation of analytical mode shapes in generating the transformation matrix.
These mode shapes are generally deteriorated due to the errors in the modeling of the
finite element model.
304 Model Order Reduction Techniques
SEREPTAM
The SEREP was developed to reduce a finite element model down to an exact model
at the reduced model space, which correctly preserves the eigenvalues and eigen-
vectors at the reduced set of test degrees of freedom for a specific set of modes.
The transformation matrix is formed from the analytical mode shapes, that is,
Hybrid TAM
To overcome the low robustness of modal reduction, a hybrid reduction was developed
by Kammer (1991) that combines the accuracy of the modal TAM with the robustness
of Guyan condensation. The reduced model computed from the hybrid reduction is
referred to as hybrid TAM. In this technique, the responses of the full model are
defined as the summation of the contribution by the kept modes indicated by k and
by the residual modes indicated by r (the number is n r ), that is,
(14)
The kept responses are expanded using the modal reduction transformation in
Eq. (12), and the residual responses are approximated by the static condensation.
Applications III: Modal Testing 305
(15)
Assume an idempotent projector, PT, exists such that a space can be divided into two
complementary subspaces. Define
(16)
(17)
X~ =PTXm (18)
X:;" = PNX m = (I - PT)X m (19)
(20)
PT is an oblique projector matrix that is formed using the analytical finite element
mode shapes, the transformation matrix from modal TAM, and the analytical mass
matrix:
(22)
With the substitution of Eq. (21) into Eq. (3), the hybrid TAM mass matrix is
obtained as
It can be simply verified that all the kept modes are orthogonal with the hybrid
TAM and the hybrid TAM null space dynamics come exclusively from the static TAM
representation.
Research (Kammer, 1991) shows that the hybrid TAM usually has a significant
improvement in the representation of the residual dynamics of the system compared
to the modal TAM representation. This improved residual representation results in
reduced sensitivity of test-analysis correlation to model error and contamination of
the test data by residual dynamics. Although the hybrid TAM shows some improve-
ment over the modal TAM, it still has some problems (Freed and Flanigan, 1990;
Chung, 1998). It is more sensitive to the error in the analytical finite element model
than Guyan condensation in some cases.
It is necessary to note that when the number of test degrees of freedom is equal to
the number of kept modes, the modal reduction, SEREP, and hybrid reduction are
exactly the same.
306 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Craig-Bampton TAM
(1)
The various algorithms differ by the choice of the norm 1111, by the choice of a sym-
metric, positive definite weighting matrix W, and by the adjunction of orthogonality
constraints on rotation matrix R such as
(2)
A typical choice of norm is the Frobenius (or Euclidean) norm because it facilitates
the derivation of closed-form formulae. It can be simply verified that the SEREP
can be obtained from Eq. (1) when the weighting matrix is set as identity matrix.
Therefore, the subspace rotation algorithm overlaps with the projection algorithm to
some extent.
The details on the geometrical methods and subspace rotation algorithms are
beyond the scope of this book and may be found from the references. Only the
projection algorithms will be discussed in the following.
The mode expansion usually takes the form of a matrix transformation:
where the subscript Exp denotes the expanded mode shape. T is the transformation
matrix as defined in the preceding section. Mode expansion could be used when
there are insufficient numbers of test degrees of freedom to produce a good
TAM. Theoretically, mode expansion can provide good results using only one
accelerometer.
After the test mode shapes are expanded from the reduced model space to the
full model space, the aforementioned criteria may be utilized to validate the finite
element model if required. Even if the MAC can be performed at the reduced
model space, the results may not be satisfactory due to the limited spatial quali-
ties of the reduced space. Since this approach is a spatial correlation method, it is
important that the degrees of freedom used in comparison be proper and sufficient.
308 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Therefore, the implementation of MAC at full model space generally shows good
performance.
The orthogonality check performed at the full model space using the fully expanded
mode shapes takes the form
(4)
(5)
Definitely, the orthogonality checks at the full model space are more computationally
expensive than those at the reduced model space.
Because the mode expansion is actually an inverse process of model reduction,
most model reduction approaches mentioned in preceding chapters may be imple-
mented in the mode expansion. Several commonly used and promising approaches
are Guyan expansion, IRS expansion, iterative IRS expansion, modal expan-
sion, SEREP expansion, exact expansion, modified exact expansion, and Kidder's
expansion.
The Guyan condensation method is the simplest scheme in the mode expansion.
Theoretically, the modeling errors localized in the test degrees of freedom does not
have any effect on the mode expansion matrix although it is practically difficult to
make it. Other strengths and weaknesses of Guyan expansion are the same as Guyan
condensation.
Exact Expansion
The mode expansion matrix corresponding to the exact expansion has the form
in which (j) can be the frequency either from modal test or from analytical model.
The exact expansion method may drastically improve orthogonality and cross-
orthogonality results for selected problems (Flanigan and Freymiller, 1994; Flanigan
and Botos, 1997).
Modified exact expansion was proposed by Gysin (1990) to include all the elements of
system matrices into the transformation matrix:
(7)
Applications III: Modal Testing 309
The above two mode expansion schemes have the advantage of explicitly using the
available test frequencies. The expansion matrices have high accuracy if the errors in
the analytical stiffness and mass matrices are small and the test frequency has enough
accuracy.
However, it is clearly shown in Eqs. (6) and (7) that the transformation matrices of
exact expansion and modified exact expansion methods are mode-dependent. Thus,
all tested mode shapes have to be expanded one by one. This means that Eq. (6) or
(7) must be solved uniquely for each mode. For a large size of models, the expansion
process can be extremely time-consuming.
Furthermore, it is believed (Qu and Fu, 1998; Qu and Selvam, 2001) that the
exact expansion could give very good results when the analytical modes are close
to test modes. However, this expansion will significantly deteriorate the accuracy of
the expanded mode if the difference between the analytical modes and test modes is
relatively large.
Kidder's Expansion
The mode expansion matrix in Kidder's expansion is given by
TKidder = I
[-(Kss-1 + w 2Kss-1 MssKss
-1 ] 2
)(Ksm - w Msm)
(9)
where w can be the frequency either from the modal test or from the analytical
model. It is believed that (Qu and Fu, 1998; Qu and Selvam, 2001) this expansion is
less sensitive to the difference between the analytical modes and test modes.
These mode expansion approaches have also been broadly implemented into the
expansion of measured frequency response functions (Choudhury and He, 1996;
Avitabile and O'Callahan, 2003) and the data recovery (Pang, 1996, 2002). In
engineering the responses or mode shapes at the nonmeasured degrees of free-
dom are sometimes of interest. One example is structure control. Usually only
a small number of sensors are used for a feedback control algorithm. The mode
expansion technique may be utilized to predict these responses at nonmeasured
locations.
In model recovery technique, the same parameters as those in test-analysis model
correlation must be considered to prove that the structure's characteristics are accu-
rately recovered. A detailed investigation of four model reduction methods, Guyan
condensation, IRS, iterative IRS, and SEREP, on the quality of model recovery was
performed by Pang (1996, 2002) through a highway bridge. It was reported that the
masters on a structure were critical for a model recovery. If the masters are uniformly
picked up on a structure and the number of degrees of freedom is enough to reflect
structure dynamic characteristics, the information will be well recovered. If the mas-
ters are chosen on a concentrated location, the mode shapes and some responses of
310 Model Order Reduction Techniques
full model close to the location of masters could be successfully recovered. However,
the recovered responses far away from the concentrated masters have significant error.
Among the four reduction methods, the recovered model from the iterative IRS has
the highest accuracy.
11.5 Summary
In modal testing it is impossible to mount sensors on all degrees of freedom that
are used in the analytical finite element model. Hence, the choice of locations to be
tested has a major influence on the quality of results. In many respects the criteria
for choosing measurement locations in a large system are the same as those for
selecting masters in model reduction. Therefore, many selection schemes for the
masters in model reduction approaches may be implemented to choose measurement
locations.
The test -analysis correlation technique has been widely used in the validation of
analytical finite element model using the data from a modal test. Due to the incom-
pleteness of data from experiment, the model reduction technique is commonly used
to reduce the full finite element model to the reduced model space or expand the test
mode shape to the full model space. Therefore, with the model reduction technique,
the test analysis correlation may be performed either at the reduced model space or
at the full model space. If the objective of the test analysis correlation is to assess the
degree of correlation between the experimental and theoretical models, a reduction
of the analytical finite element model from the full model space to the reduced model
space is probably the wisest routine. If the objective is to update the finite element
model or to recover the data on the untested locations, the mode expansion is a
prerequisite.
Guyan condensation, IRS, iterative IRS, modal reduction, SEREP, and hybrid
reduction are the frequently used or promising model reduction approaches in gener-
ating the test-analysis model. Although Guyan condensation has the lowest accuracy
among these approaches, it is the simplest, most widely acknowledged approach.
It is less sensitive to the errors in analytical finite element model than all advanced
schemes. IRS has higher accuracy than Guyan condensation due to the partial con-
sideration of inertia ignored in the latter. However, it shows less robustness in some
cases. Iterative IRS has much higher accuracy than Guyan condensation and IRS. The
investigation on its robustness is still underway. Modal reduction, SEREP, and hybrid
reduction are exact for the mode shapes selected. However, for the un selected modes,
the modes predicted by modal reduction and SEREP have very big errors and are
meaningless, respectively. The robustness of these three approaches still has problems
10 some cases.
Guyan expansion, IRS expansion, iterative IRS expansion, modal expansion, SEREP
expansion, exact expansion, modified exact expansion, and Kidder's expansion are
frequently used or are promising mode expansion approaches in the literature. Exact
expansion and modified exact expansion schemes have the advantage of explicitly
using the available test frequencies. The expansion matrices have high accuracy if the
errors in the analytical stiffness and mass matrices are small and the test frequency has
enough accuracy. However, they are very sensitive to the errors in the finite element
model. It is believed that Kidder's expansion is less sensitive to the difference between
the analytical modes and test modes.
Applications III: Modal Testing 311
Since the robustness of all advanced model reduction techniques is highly problem-
dependent, it is better to use several schemes for the same problem in the test-analysis
correlation. Generally, all the schemes tend to give close results if the analytical finite
element model is close to the test model.
References
A1lemang, RJ and Brown, DL (1982) A correlation coefficient for modal vector analysis.
Proceedings of the 1st International Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 110-116.
Avitabile, P, Pechinsky, F, and O'Callahan, J (1992) Study of modal vector correlation
using various techniques for model reduction. Proceedings of the 10th International Modal
Analysis Conference (San Diego, CAl, Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 572-583.
Avitabile, P, Foster, T, and O'Callahan, J (1994) Comparison ofreduction vs expansion for orthogonality
checks. Proceedings of the 12th International Modal Analysis Conference (Honolulu, HI), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 225-231 .
Avitabile, P (1998) Correlation considerations, Part 3: Experimental modal testing considerations for finite
element model correlation. Proceedings of the 16th International Modal Analysis Conference (Santa
Barbara, CAl, Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 185-196.
Avitabile, P and O'Callahan, J (2003) Frequency response function expansion for unmeasured translation
and rotation dofs for impedance modeling applications. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing,
17(4):723-745.
Balmes, E (2000) Review and evaluation of shape expansion methods. Proceedings of the 18th International
Modal Analysis Conference (San Antonio, TX), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT: 555-
561.
Berman, A and Nagy, EJ (1983) Improvement of large analytical model using test data. AIAA Journal,
21 (8): 1168-1173.
Choudhury, AR and He, J (1996) Structural damage location using expanded measured frequency response
function data. Proceedings of the 14th International Modal Analysis Conference (Dearborn, MI), Society
for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 934-942.
Craig, RR, Jr and Bampton, MCC (1968) Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AlAA Journal,
6(7):1313-1319.
Chung, YT (1998) Evaluation of model reduction methods using modal test data. Proceedings of the 16th
International Modal Analysis Conference (Santa Barbara, CAl, Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Inc., Bethel, CT: 660-666.
Fissette, E, Ibrahim, SR, and Stavrinidis, C (1988) Error location and updating of analytical dynamic
models using a force balance method. Proceedings of the 6th International Modal Analysis Conference
(Kissimmee, FL), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 1063-1070.
Flanigan, CC and Hunt, DL (1993) Integration of pretest analysis and model correlation methods for modal
surveys. Proceedings of the II th International Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 444-448.
Flanigan, CC and Freymiller, JE (1994) Using dynamic expansion to improve test -analysis correlation. Pro-
ceedings of the 12th International Modal Analysis Conference (Honolulu, HI), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 198-204.
Flanigan, CC and Botos, CD (1997) Improvement of the centaur modal survey test correlation using
dynamic expansion. Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL),
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 832-837.
Flanigan, CC (1998) Model reduction using Guyan, IRS, and dynamic methods. Proceedings of the 16th
International Modal Analysis Conference (Santa Barbara, CA), Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Inc., Bethel, CT: 172-176.
Freed, AM and Flanigan, CC (1990) A comparison of test-analysis model reduction methods. Proceedings
of the 8th International Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Union College, Schenectady, NY:
1344-1351.
Friswell, MI and Mottershead, JE (I995) Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, New York.
Gordis, JH (1992) An analysis of the improved reduced system (IRS) model reduction procedure. Proceed-
ings of the 10th International Modal Analysis Conference (San Diego, CA), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 471-479.
312 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Gordis, JH (1994) An analysis of the Improved Reduced System (IRS) model reduction procedure. Modal
Analysis, 9(4):269-285.
Gysin, H (1990) Comparison of expansion methods for FE modeling error localization. Proceedings of
the 8th International Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Union College, Schenectady, NY:
195-204.
He, J and Ewins, DJ (1991) Compatibility of measured and predicted vibration modes in model
improvement studies. AIAA Journal, 29(5):798-803.
Hemez, FM and Farhat, C (1994) Comparing mode shape expansion methods for test-analysis corre-
lation. Proceedings of the 12th International Modal Analysis Conference (Honolulu, HI), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1560-1567.
Heylen, Wand Avitabile, P (1998) Correlation considerations, Part 5: Degree of freedom correlation
technique. Proceedings of the 16th International Modal Analysis Conference (Santa Barbara, CAl,
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 207-214.
Imregun, M and Ewins, DJ (1993) An investigation into mode shape expansion techniques. Proceedings of
the 11 th International Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Inc., Bethel, CT: 168-175.
Kammer, DC, Jensen, BM, and Mason, DR (1989) Test -analysis correlation of the space shuttle solid rocket
motor center segment. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 26(4):266-273.
Kammer, DC and Flanigan, CC (1991) Development of test -analysis models for large space structures
using substructure representation. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 28(2):244-250.
Kammer, DC (1991) A hybrid approach to test-analysis-model development for large space structures.
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 113(3):325-332.
Kammer, DC (1998) Correlation considerations, Part 2: Model reduction using modal, SEREP, and hybrid.
Proceedings of the 16th International Modal Analysis Conference (Santa Barbara, CAl, Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 177-184.
LMS International (1991) Large-scale modal testing of a space frame structure-from pretest analysis to
FEA model validation. Sound and Vibration: 6-16.
O'Cailahan, J and Li, P (1996) SEREP expansion. Proceedings of the 14th International Modal Analysis
Conference (Dearborn, MI), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1258-1264.
O'Caliahan, J (1998) Correlation considerations, Part 4: Modal vector correlation techniques. Proceedings
of the 16th International Modal Analysis Conference (Santa Barbara, CAl, Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 197-206.
Ojalvo, IV and Pilon, D (1988) Diagnostics for geometrically locating structural math model errors from
modal test data structures. Proceedings of the 29th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conference (Orlando, FL): 1174-1186.
Pang, J (1996) Modeling and Experimental Modal Analysis of Highway Bridge. Ph.D. Dissertation, Center
of Structural Control, The University of Oklahoma.
Pang, J, Dukkipati, R, and Patten, WN (2002) Model recovery technique from reduced model. International
Journal of Vehicle Design, 29(4):317-333.
Penny, JET, Friswell, MI, and Garvey, SD (1992) The automatic choice of measurement locations for
dynamic testing. Proceedings of the 10th International Modal Analysis Conference (San Diego, CAl,
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 30-36.
Penny, JET, Friswell, MI, and Garvey, SD (1994) Automated choice of measurement locations for dynamic
testing. AIAA Journal, 32(2):407-414.
Qu, ZQ and Fu, ZF (1998) Comment on improvement in model reduction schemes using the system
equivalent reduction expansion process. AIAA Journal, 36(10):1941.
Qu, ZQ and Selvam, RP (2001) Two-step methods for dynamic condensation. Proceedings of the 42nd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Seattle, WA),
AIAA, Reston, VA: 373-383.
Tan, MK (1993) Evaluation of reduced model concepts for the 1O-bay CST truss modal test. Proceedings of
the 11 th International Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Inc., Bethel, CT: 1493-1501.
12 Summary of Other Model Order Reduction
Techniques
313
314 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Mode Superposition
~
Full Model with n Modal OOFs
------------------------,
,,,
: I I I n I' ,,
,
'k ,
,
, I ,
,
------------n----------- J
Modal Truncation
~
------------------------,
Reduced Model with m Modal DOFs
I ',
,,
: I I I m
,
:k e e ek :
,
, 1
________________________ J
m
,
,
A concise review of the applications of real and complex modal coordinate reduction
into rotor dynamics was performed by Khulief and Mohiuddin (1997).
For completeness the dynamic equations of equilibrium of a structural dynamic
system is rewritten herein as
Substituting Eq. (2) in Eq. (1) and premultiplying it by the transpose of the eigenvector
matrix give
(3)
(5)
(8)
The first term at the right-hand side ofEq. (8) is the same as that in mode superposi-
tion as shown in Eq. (2). The second term represents the static correction of truncated
modes. With the introduction of the correction term, the number of normal modes
required in the mode superposition is significantly reduced if the same accuracy of
responses is required. The convergent condition of the mode acceleration is that the
smallest frequency of the truncated modes is greater than the upper boundary value
316 Model Order Reduction Techniques
of the exciting frequencies (Ou, 2000, 2001). Actually, Eq. (8) is the first order of
mode acceleration, the more general cases of low-frequency mode acceleration method,
whose specific form for transient response is also called force derivative method, are
available in the literature for undamped models (Akgun, 1993; Ou, 2000), propor-
tionally damped models (Ou, 2001), and nonproportionally damped models (Ou
and Selvam, 2000).
achieve the same level of accuracy in response analysis under that excitation. How-
ever, the Ritz vectors have to be regenerated if the load pattern changes. Therefore, the
reduced model obtained from the Ritz vector method is load-dependent. Different
load-patterns have different reduced models. This is a weakness of the LDRV method.
The LDRV method was probably first developed by Wilson, Yuan, and Dickens
(1982) and improved by Nour-Omid and Clough (1984, 1985) and by Leger, Wilson,
and Clough (1986). These schemes employ static recurrence procedures to generate
the LDRVs. They are best suited for low-frequency problems. For high frequency, or
banded-frequency, problems, they may engender large set of Ritz vectors to span the
configuration space associated with high frequencies.
To overcome this limitation, a new LDRV method, called the quasistatic Ritz vector
method, was proposed by Gu, Ma, and Hulbert (2000) that employs a quasistatic
recurrence procedure. The introduction of a tuning parameter, designated as the
centering frequency, into the quasistatic recurrence procedure enables the quasistatic
Ritz vector method to achieve a good set of Ritz vectors. It was reported (Gu et aI.,
2000) that the quasistatic Ritz vector method is more efficient (in terms of num-
ber of recurrence steps or LDRVs employed), more accurate (in terms of response
errors), and more stable (in terms of the orthogonality of the Ritz vectors) than other
LDRV methods. The quasistatic Ritz vector method can include multiple centering
frequencies and accommodate multiple loading cases.
In structural dynamics the dynamic equations of equilibrium of a system with
damping are usually given by
The external load vector F(t) is often represented by a superposition of the spatial
matrix G (loading patterns) and the time-dependent vector H (t), i. e.,
k
F(t) = GH(t) = L:gjhj(t) (2)
j=1
where
G- r_
-1..81 H(t) = {hi (t) (3)
and k denotes the total number of loading patterns. For many types of loading, the
number of loading patterns is small.
Assume that the Ritz vectors are obtained as V m with the order of n x m. The
physical coordinates X(t) may be represented by the generalized coordinates qm(t),
referred to as Ritz coordinates, with the Ritz vectors V m as
(4)
(5)
or
(6)
318 Model Order Reduction Techniques
MR = V~MV m, CR = V~CV m,
FR = V~F, GR = V~G (7)
Equation (5) or (6) is the dynamic equations of equilibrium of the reduced model.
Clearly, they are dependent on the Ritz vectors V m. In the following, only the case
of a single loading pattern will be described. The corresponding spatial matrix G is
a vector, and the time-dependent vector H(t) is a scalar function. The details on the
multiple load patterns may be found in Gu, Ma, and Hulbert (2000).
VI
A
= K- I g (8)
(9)
The inertia term neglected is considered in the successive steps to generate new Ritz
vectors:
(i = 2,3, ... ,m) (IO)
The Gram-Schmidt mass orthogonalization and normalization are employed for these
vectors.
i-I
M-Orthogonalization: Vi = Vi - L (VJMVi}Vj (11)
j=I
M -Normalization: (12)
This process is repeated until enough Ritz vectors have been generated, or no more
independent Ritz vector can be generated by the process, or some threshold is satisfied.
The LDRVs generated using the above procedure are referred to as WYD vectors. As
noted in the introduction, the static completeness condition for the generated Ritz
vector set is satisfied automatically.
To determine how many LDRVs are necessary for a given problem, a participation
factor Pi may be used to measure the significance of one particular Ritz vector Vi in
vT
the total response, that is, Pi = g. This participation factor is computed for each
Ritz vector and is used to terminate the vector generation process provided its value
drops below some threshold.
Summary of Other Model Order Reduction Techniques 319
In the WYD's algorithm the full orthogonalization, shown in Eqs. (11) and (12), is
utilized. To save computational effort, a set of Ritz vectors, known as Lanczos vectors,
was developed by Nour-Omid and Clough (1984) based on the same Krylov sequence
as that used in the WYD's scheme. The orthogonalization procedure utilized in the
Lanczos vectors is only applied to the previous two vectors.
(13)
i = 2,3, .. . ,m
i = 3,4, . .. ,m (14)
The same normalization condition as Eq. (12) is employed by the Lanczos algorithm.
Although the full orthogonalization procedure is not necessary in the Lanczos algo-
rithm, it is still used in practice due to the possible roundoff error in numerical
computation.
The LDRVs generated by the above two schemes generally work fine. However,
when the number of the Ritz vectors becomes large, the orthogonality among these
vectors might be lost due to the roundoff errors from numerical computation. This
leads to difficulty when solving the reduced system equations (5) or (6). To alleviate
this difficulty, a more stable Ritz vector generation procedure that uses an additional
set of temporary vectors Uj and orthogonalization procedure was proposed by Leger,
Wilson, and Clough (1986). In this algorithm, the Ritz vectors are generated using
(15)
where Ul is the static mode shape due to the loading patterns g, i.e.,
Ul = K- 1g (16)
For i :::: 2, the vector Uj is mass orthogonalized before being introduced into Eq. (15):
Likewise, the standard Ritz vector orthonormalization (11) and (12) are used for each
recurrence step (Gu et al., 2000).
(18)
320 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(19)
(20)
i-I
Vi = Vi - L (VJMVi}Vj (21)
j=1
(22)
(23)
where
(24)
w
is the frequency response due to the loading pattern g, and is a specified frequency.
At the maximum value of 1, the Ritz vector exactly matches the frequency response
deformation shape, while the minimum value of zero denotes that the Ritz vector
Summary of Other Model Order Reduction Techniques 321
is orthogonal to the frequency responses deformation and, hence, not likely to con-
tribute significantly to the reduced model response. The frequency parameter, iV, is
chosen to represent a dominant frequency of the loading pattern. Clearly, if iV = We>
S becomes the initial Ritz vector V1. This indicates that the first vector usually appears
to be more important or have greater contribution than the others.
(1)
where the superscript A indicates component A. For simplicity, the damping is not
included for the time being. The force vector on the component should not include the
forces on the interfaces because they are internal forces. Let nA , n~, and n1 represent
the numbers of total, boundary, and internal degrees of freedom, respectively. Clearly,
we have the relation nA = n~ + n1. Based on the division of the total degrees of
freedom of the component, the dynamic equations may be partitioned as
(2)
The subscripts B and I refer to boundary and internal degrees of freedom, respectively.
In order to reduce the size of the component, the following transformation is
applied:
pA are the coordinates of the reduced model of component A. They consist of the
boundary degrees of freedom of the component and generalized coordinates p»
c:{? I-'a
iii'
(a) (b)
Figure 12.2 Division of one structure into two components with fixed interface: (a) complete structure;
(b) components.
Summary of Other Model Order Reduction Techniques 323
which relate to the mode shapes of the component. • c is the matrix of constraint
modes of the component and given by
.c = [ -(K~~-lK1J (4)
Clearly, the constraint mode matrix represents the static deflections of a substructure
due to successive unit displacement at interface degrees of freedom, while the remain-
ing interface degrees of freedom are constrained and the interior degrees of freedom
are free. By this definition the set of constraint modes is statically complete, i.e., a
superposition of the constraint modes is sufficient to determine the static response of
the component subjects to external forces applied only on the interface (Gu, 2000) .
• N is called component normal modes and may be obtained from the eigenproblem
.N
(5)
Because the columns of matrix are the mode shapes of the component with
interface degrees of freedom fixed, they are also referred to as fixed interface modes.
In general, the normal mode matrix is incomplete and the higher-order modes are
truncated. This is based on the assumption that only the first few lower modes, nt,
of the component contribute significantly to the modes of the complete structure.
Substitution ofEq. (3) into Eq. (2) and premultiplication of the result by T~p yields
~N]
",ANN
(7)
14N] (8)
KirN
f: ixed = T~pFA = I~l} (9)
where ANN is the submatrix of eigenvalue matrix AIl shown in Eq. (5). It consists
matrix .N.
of the eigenvalues that the corresponding eigenvectors are kept in the normal mode
The subvectors of the force vector are
(12a)
(12b)
[ n4B (13)
~B
Clearly, only the mass is coupled between the boundary coordinates and the modal
coordinates. Submatrix n4N
represents the dynamic coupling terms. The dynamic
equations of the reduced model of substructure B may be similarly obtained as
(14)
Add the contributions from the two substructures A and B, and we have
-- { f~fA+f~}
N (15)
f~
•• "A "B
in whichXB = X B = X B • Equation (15) is the final dynamic equation of the complete
structure. Clearly, the size of the reduced global model is nB + n~ + n~, and the full
n1
global model is nB + + nf. Since n~ « n1
and n~ « nf, the size of the reduced
global model is much smaller than that of the full global model.
Generally, three types of damping are considered in the component mode synthesis:
modal damping, proportional damping, and nonproportional damping. If the modal
damping is applied, Eq. (13) may be rewritten as
gN and w~ are, respectively, the modal damping ratio and natural frequency of the
component with interface fixed. The proportional damping is simple because it is a
Summary of Other Model Order Reduction Techniques 325
combination of the mass and stiffness matrix. The same combination can be used to
get the reduced damping matrix from the reduced mass and stiffness matrices. The
nonproportional damping is generally quite difficult and state space formulation is
required.
The dynamic responses at the boundary coordinates and modal coordinates may
be computed from Eq. (15). The responses at the internal degrees of freedom can be
obtained using the back-substitution transformation in Eq. (3).
Actually, the fixed interface component mode synthesis may be viewed as an exten-
sion of the Guyan condensation method. If the boundary degrees of freedom are
selected as masters in Guyan condensation, it can be simply verified from the following
relations:
Because only the physical degrees of freedom are retained in the reduced model,
the accuracy of Guyan condensation is generally very low and highly depends on
the selection of masters. As shown in Chapter 5, one way to increase its accuracy is
to include the effect of the eigenvectors of slave model. However, because no extra
coordinates are used, the reduced model becomes frequency-dependent.
The fixed interface component mode synthesis has very good convergence prop-
erties as the number of component modes is increased. However, the reduced global
model may still have a large number of coordinates if too many components are used.
Therefore, a second-level model reduction may be further used to eliminate part of
these degrees of freedom.
XAI = Ix:j
XA
o
(19)
(20)
The modal coordinates can be solved from the second partition of Eq. (20):
(21)
Introduction of Eq. (21) into Eq. (20), the transformation matrix from the Craig-
Bampton coordinates to the physical coordinates may be given by
(22)
Using the two coordinate transformation matrices, the mass and stiffness matrices
of each component may be given by
A
m TAM = TTCP2 TTCP MAT CP TCP2 = T TCP2 mFixed
A
T CP2 (23a)
The system matrices of the global model are obtained by synthesizing all of the
substructure TAMs. Clearly, the global model contains all of the interface degrees of
freedom from each of the upstream substructures. They are not, in general, selected as
measurement locations. Therefore, the global model needs further modal reduction
to produce a model that only has test degrees of freedom.
(24)
where the columns of matrix C)Jt are the normalized eigenvectors of the component
with interface degrees of freedom free. They are obtained from the eigenproblem:
(25)
Again C)Jt is incomplete and only the first few mode shapes selected from matrix c)A
are kept. If a component is completely free, the rigid-body modes are treated as modes
with zero frequency.
Substitution of Eq. (24) into Eq. (1) and premultiplication of the result by the
transpose of .Jt.
yields
FreePN =f Free
+ k A....A
A ··A A
m FreePN (26)
A B~
(a) (b)
Figure 12.3 Division of one structure into two components with free interface: (a) complete structure;
(b) components.
328 Model Order Reduction Techniques
where
(27)
(28)
(29)
Thus, the dynamic equations of the reduced model of component A are given by
(30)
··B
PN + ANNPN
B B
= fBFree (31)
I
Adding the contributions of the two components together gives
..A + [AANN
{PN
··B
PN 0 A~TN
o ] {P'iv I I
p~ - f~ree
{f:ree (32)
or simply
(33)
The next step is to apply the displacement constraints between the two components.
These constraints may be expressed in physical coordinates as
x~=xj (34)
c1J~N and c1JjN are the submatrices of eigenvector matrices related to the interface
degrees of freedom.
Assume the number of kept modes n1v is greater than the number of boundary
degrees of freedom n~ in component A; the matrix c1J~N can be partitioned as
(36)
c1J~R E R~xnJi in which nJ1 = n1v - ~. Introduction ofEq. (36) into Eq. (35) gives
.....A 'l."BR
['l."BB ..... A] {~I =
~
c1JBBN pBN (37)
(38)
Summary of Other Model Order Reduction Techniques 329
(39)
Thus, the relations between the generalized coordinates PN and q may be given by
(40)
TFree = [
I (41)
o
Introducing the coordinate transformation into Eq. (33), the dynamic equations of
the reduced global model can be expressed as
(42)
in which the reduced mass, stiffness matrices, and equivalent force vector are defined
as
(46)
The advantage of the free interface component mode synthesis is that the interface
degrees of freedom do not appear in the final equations of motion. The number of
coordinates in the reduced global model is ~ + n~. Another advantage is that if
a particular component is difficult to model using the finite element technique, its
modal representation can be determined experimentally and included in the synthesis.
In this case it is simpler to test the component with interface degrees of freedom free
rather than fixed. The main disadvantage of this method is that the convergence is
weak. This can be overcome by including a low-frequency approximation, residual
flexibility, for the neglected high-frequency modes.
330 Model Order Reduction Techniques
(1)
where x(l) is the approximate expression of a random vector x using the first I
basis vectors of the undetermined set of orthonormal basis vectors, and x(l) is the
approximate expressions of x using arbitrary I basis vectors in Rn.
The problem can be stated as follows. Assume that x E R n is a random vector
and ({Ji(i = 1, ... , n) is a set of arbitrary orthonormal basis vectors: Then x can be
expressed as
n
X = LYi({Ji = cI»y (2)
i=!
where
The objective of the POD is to find a set of basis vectors that satisfies the following
extreme-value problem:
where
I
x(l) = I,>iIPi (l ::: n)
i=1
As mentioned, any of the KLD, PCA, and SVD schemes can realize the POD. The
details of these three schemes are described by Liang et al. (2002a). A summary of the
equivalence of the three POD methods was also made, and the connections among
them is demonstrated in this paper. The realization of POD based on SVD will be
considered.
The SVD can be viewed as the extension of the eigenvalue decomposition for non-
square matrices. As far as the proper decomposition is concerned, the SVD can also
be seen as an extension for asymmetric matrices. Because the SVD is much more gen-
eral than the eigenvalue decomposition and intimately relates to the matrix rank and
reduced-rank least-squares approximation, it is a very important and fundamental
working tool in many areas such as matrix theory, linear system, statistics, and signal
analysis (Liang et aI., 2002a).
The SVD uses the singular-value decomposition to find the basis vec~ors satisfying
the POD requirement in the sample space. Assume a total of N sample vectors Ui
in the subspace are selected and denoted by the matrix U. According to the theory,
the requirement of POD can be accomplished quite simply by taking the SVD of the
matrix U (Hung and Senturia, 1999). The SVD of U is given as
(4)
where 1: = diag(<TI' <T2, ... ,<TN) and <TI :::: <T2 :::: ... :::: <TN :::: 0, V and Ware
orthonormal matrices. Then, the proper orthogonal basis IPi can be chosen as IPi = Vi
for i = 1,2, ... , I in which the vectors Vi are the columns of V. The basis vectors are
usually referred to as proper orthogonal modes. The corresponding proper orthogonal
values are the squares of the singular values <T/.
Clearly, the columns of V are the eigenvectors of matrix UU T and the columns of
Ware the eigenvectors of matrix U T U. Thus, the standard formulation of the proper
orthogonal decomposition is equivalent to explicitly computing the eigenvalues and
eigenvectors of U T U along with substitution back into a matrix multiplication in
order to find the basis vectors. However, there are algorithms for computing the
SVD of U, and they are numerically more robust than computing the U T U product
directly. Therefore, it has been suggested (Hung and Senturia, 1999) that the compu-
tation of the SVD of U is a preferred approach, in practice, for generating the basis
vectors.
In the structural dynamics and vibrations, the sample vectors can be generated
experimentally and analytically. In the analytical scheme the large size of discrete
model, finite element model, or finite difference model, for example, is simulated
332 Model Order Reduction Techniques
using an accurate scheme in time domain. The dynamic responses are sampled at a
series of N different times during the simulation. The sampled vectors may be written
in a matrix form U E R nxN in which n is the number of degrees of freedom of the
model. Each vector of the matrix is actually a "snapshot" of the system's responses
in time. The experimental scheme is very similar to the analytical scheme. In the
experimental scheme, the n sampled locations in the structural system need to be
selected. The samples are taken from the sensed, actual structural responses.
where M, C, and K are the mass, damping, and stiffness matrices with order n x nj
F is the input distribution matrix and u is an input vector. The input distribution
matrix describes how the input is distributed throughout the structure. It is easy to
construct the matrix for finite element model when the locations of the actuators are
given. Equation (1) is a set of second-order differential equations. However, control
design typically works with first-order differential equations in state space and they
have the forms:
Equations (2) and (3) are, respectively, referred to as input and output equations. In
these two equations:
A(2n x 2n): System matrix or plant matrix that is constructed by the mass,
damping, and stiffness matrices of the system
lB(2n x s): Input matrix or control matrix with s being the number of system
input
ceq x 2n): Output matrix with q being the number of system output
][))(q x s): Feedthrough matrix or transfer matrixj usually ][)) = 0 (zero matrix)
Y(t)(2n xl): State vector
y(t)(q x 1): Output vector
Summary of Other Model Order Reduction Techniques 333
The relations of the system matrices or vector in state space with those in
displacement space are given by
lffi= [ 0]
M- 1p
, yet) = {~(t)l
X(t)
(4)
(5)
Wo = 1 00
eA.TtcTCeAt dt (6)
These two grammians are conveniently calculated from the algebraic Lyapunov
equations (Laub, 1980; Moore, 1981):
AWe + WeAT+lffilffiT=0 (7)
Rearrange the balanced coordinates as two groups Ymet) and Ys(t). They are, respec-
tively, concerning the coordinates with smaller and bigger singular values. Based on
this division, Eqs. (11) and (12) may be rewritten as
(14)
(15)
334 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Since the controllable and observable grammians represent how an individual state
contributes to the system's controllability and observability, if the singular values
ai = 0, the corresponding state is uncontrollable or unobservable. The ignorance of
this state will not affect the input-output properties. Therefore, after the omission of
the states with smaller ai in the balanced coordinates, the input-output properties
of the reduced model is approximately equal to those of the original system. Based on
this, the input and output equations of the reduced model in balanced coordinates
are given by (Gu, 1997)
Rather than the direct removal of the states with smaller contributions to controlla-
bility and observability, Friswell et aI., (1996) suggested using the transformation
(18)
asymmetric matrices. Recently, this method was implemented into a linear, two-
dimensional, transient finite element environment (Dyka et aI., 1996). In the following
the CMR is reproduced in a convenient way for finite element modeling.
Consider the dynamic equations of equilibrium in the form of second-order
differentiation, that is,
d 2X(t) dX(t)
M-- + c-- + K X(t) = f(t) (1)
dt 2 dt
where the mass, stiffness, and damping matrices might be symmetric or asymmetric.
Equation (1) may be expressed in operator form as
d2 d
L=M-+C-+K (3)
dt 2 dt
Similar to the dynamic condensation technique, the total degrees of freedom of the
full model are divided into the masters and slaves in CMR. Based on this division,
Eq. (2) may be partitioned as
(4)
(5)
or
They have the same form as those used in the dynamic condensation technique. In
CMR, one assumption is adopted for the relations ofloads on the masters and slaves
(Dyka et al., 1996), that is,
f(t) = [IJ
a
f m(t) = [f m(t)
af/t)
J (7)
(8)
(10)
(11)
or
(12)
d2 d
= (aMmm - Msm) dt 2 + (aCmm - CSm ) dt + (aKmm - Ksm) (13)
Equation (13) is the differential equations with respect to the condensation matrix R.
In CMR, the condensation matrix is expressed in a series up to second order (Dyka
et aI., 1996) as
(14)
Introducting Eq. (15) into Eq. (14) and the resulting equation into Eq. (13), we have
(16)
in which the load on the slaves is assumed to be zero. The reduced operator in Eq. (16)
is given by
d2 d
CCMR = MCMR dt 2 + CCMR dt + K CMR (17)
Summary of Other Model Order Reduction Techniques 337
and the reduced mass matrix MCMR, damping matrix CCMR, and stiffness matrix
KCMR are given (Dyka et aI., 1996) by
Any time integration scheme may be used to solve for the responses from Eq. (16).
After the responses at masters are computed, the displacements and velocities at slaves
may be computed as
Assume the system matrices are symmetric and a = o. The reduced system matrices
defined by CMR become
Research shows that the CMR is at most as accurate as Guyan condensation. However,
it offers a new way for dynamic condensation of the finite element model because
it is based on projection operators. Further development is necessary before the
implementation of this approach in finite element model reduction.
References
Akgun, MA (1993) A new family of mode superposition methods for response calculations.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 167(2):289-302.
Azeez, MFA and Vakakis, AF (2001) Proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) of a class of
vibroimpact oscillations. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 240(5):859-889.
Bathe, KJ and Gracewsky, S (1981) On nonlinear dynamic analysis using mode superposition
and substructuring. Computers and Structures, 13(5-6):699-707.
Blades, EL and Craig Jr, RR (1997) A Craig-Bampton test -analysis model. Proceedings of the 15th Inter-
national Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel,
CT: 1386-139l.
Chatterjee, A (2000) An introduction to the proper orthogonal decomposition. Current Science,
78:808-817.
Craig RR, Jr and Bampton, MCC (1968) Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AIAA Journal,
6(7):1313-1319.
Craig RR, Jr (1995) Substructure methods in vibration. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics,
117(Special):207-213.
338 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Craig RR, Jr (2000) A brief tutorial on substructure analysis and testing. Proceedings of the 18th Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference (San Antonio, TX), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel,
CT: 899-908.
Dyka, CT, Ingel, RP, and Flippen, LD (1996) A new approach to dynamic condensation for FEM. Computers
and Structures, 61(4):765-773.
Feeny, BF and Kappagantu, R (1998) On the physical imerpretation of proper orthogonal modes in
vibrations. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 211(4):607-616.
Flippen Jr, LD (1992a) Abstract zwanzig model reduction theory with application to discretized linear
systems. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 16(10):121-134.
Flippen Jr, LD (1992b) Fundamental law preservation in model reduction. Mathematical and Computer
Modeling, 16(11):171-182.
Flippen Jr, LD (1992c) Polynomial-basis model reduction. Mathematical and Computer Modeling,
16(12):121-132.
Flippen Jr, LD (1994a) A theory of condensation model reduction. Computers & Mathematics with
Applications, 27(2):9-40.
Flippen Jr, LD (1994b) Constitutive-operator smoothing by condensation. Computers & Mathematics
with Applications, 27( 6):5-18.
Flippen Jr, LD (1994c) Current dynamic substructuring methods as approximations to condensation model
reduction. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 27(12):17-29.
Friswell, MI, Penny, JET, and Garvey, SD (1996) The application ofIRS and balanced realization methods
to obtain reduced model of structures with local non-linearities. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
196(4):453-468.
Georgiou, IT, Schwartz, IB, Emaci, E, and Vakakis, AF (1999) Interaction between slow and fast oscillations
in an infinite degree-of-freedom linear system coupled to a nonlinear subsystem: Theory and experiment.
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 66(2):448-459.
Goldman, RL (1969) Vibration analysis by dynamic partitioning. AIAA Journal, 7: 1152-1154.
Gu, J (2000) Efficient Model Reduction Methods for Structural Dynamics Analysis. Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Michigan.
Gu, J, Ma, Z-D, and Hulbert, GM (2000) A new load-dependent Ritz vector method for structural dynamics
analyses: Quasi-static Ritz vectors. Finite Element in Analysis and Design, 36(3-4):261-278.
Gu, ZQ (1997) Active Vibration Control. Defense Industry Publisher, Beijing, China.
Han, S and Feeny, B (2003) Application of proper orthogonal decomposition to structural vibration
analysis. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 17(5):989-1001.
Hou, SN (1969) Review of modal synthesis techniques and a new approach. Shock and Vibration Bulletin,
40(4):25-39.
Hung, ES and Senturia, SD (1999) Generating efficient dynamical models for microelectromechani-
cal systems from a few finite element simulation runs. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems,
8(3):280-289.
Hurty, WC (1965) Dynamic analysis of structural system using component modes. AIAA Journal,
3(4):678-685.
Kammer, DC and Flanigan, CC (1991) Development of test-analysis models for large space structures
using substructure representation. Journal of Spacecraft and Rocket, 28(2):244-250.
Kerschen, G, Feeny, BF, and Golinval, J-C (2003) On the exploitation of chaos to build reduced-order
models. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 192( 13): 1785-1795.
Khulief, YA and Mohiuddin, MA (1997) On the dynamic analysis of rotors using modal reduction. Finite
Elements in Analysis and Design, 26(1):41-55.
Laub, AJ (1980) Computation of "balancing" transformation. Proceedings of American Control
Conference, paper FA8-E.
Leger, P (1989) Coordinate reduction procedures for seismic analysis of dam-foundation-reservoir systems.
Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 5(1):73-85.
Leger, P, Wilson, EL, and Clough, RW (1986) The use ofload dependent vectors for dynamic and earth-
quake analyses. Earthquake Engineering Research Center report, University of California, Berkeley,
UCB/EERC-86/04.
Liang, YC, Lee, HP, Lim, SP et al. (2002a) Proper orthogonal decomposition and its applications - Part I:
Theory. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 252(3):527-544.
Liang, YC, Lin, WZ, Lee, HP et al. (2002b) Proper orthogonal decomposition and its applications - Part
II: Model reduction for MEMS dynamical analysis. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 256(3):515-532.
MacNeal, RH (1971) A hybrid method for component mode synthesis. Computers and Structures,
1(4):582-601.
Summary of Other Model Order Reduction Techniques 339
Moore, BC (1981) Principal component analysis in linear systems: Controllability, observability, and model
reduction. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 26(1):17-32.
Nour-Omid, B and Clough, RW (1984) Dynamic analysis of structures using Lanczos coordinates.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 12(4):565-577.
Nour-Omid, B and Clough, RW (1985) Block Lanczos method for dynamic analysis of structures.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 13(2):271-275.
Petyt, M (1990) Introduction to Finite Element Vibration Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press:
369-370.
Qu, Z-Q (2000) Hybrid expansion method for frequency responses and their sensitivities, Part I: Undamped
systems. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 231 (1): 175-193.
Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2000) Hybrid expansion method for frequency responses and their sensitivities,
Part II: Viscously damped systems. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 238(3):369-388.
Qu, Z-Q (2001) Accurate methods for frequency responses and their sensitivities of proportionally damped
systems. Computers and Structures, 79( 1):87-96.
Santiago, JM and Jamshidi, M (1985) Some extension of the open-loop balanced approach for model
reduction. Proceedings of American Control Conference: 1005-1009.
Tse, EC, Medanic, J, and Perkins, WR (1978) Generalized Hessenberg transformations for reduced order
modeling of large scale systems. International Journal of Control, 27(4):493-512.
Vethecan, JK and Subic, A (2002) Recursive identification of modal participation in substructuring
applications. Computers & Structures, 80(7-8):591-603.
Wilson, EL, Yuan, MW, and Dickens, JM (1982) Dynamic analysis by direct superposition of Ritz vectors.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 1O:813-82l.
Xue, DY (1991) Finite element frequency domain solution of nonlinear panel flutter with tempera-
ture effects and fatigue life analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Engineering Mechanics, Old
Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
Yee, V (1990) Reduction of component mode synthesis formulated matrices for correlation studies. AIAA
Journal,28(6):1142-1143.
Zheng, T and Hasebe, N (1999) An efficient analysis of high-order dynamical system with local nonlinearity.
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 121(3):408-416.
Bibliography
Book
1. Cheung, YK and Leung, AYT (1991) Finite Element Methods in Dynamics.
Science Press, Hong Kong, China: 223-234.
2. Leung, AYT (1993) Dynamic Stiffness and Substructures. Springer-Verlag,
London, UK.
3. Paz, M (1991) Structural Dynamics: Theory and Computation, Third Edition.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York: 273-299.
341
342 Model Order Reduction Techniques
12. Foster, T (1993) Evaluation of DOF Selection for Modal Vector Correlation
and Expansion Studies. Master Thesis, University of Massachusetts Lowell,
Lowell,MA.
13. Gu, J (2000) Efficient Model Reduction Methods for Structural Dynamics
Analysis. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI.
14. Gordis, JH (1990) On Structural Synthesis and Identification in the Frequency
Domain. Doctoral Dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
15. Kim, KO (1983) Nonlinear inverse perturbation method in dynamic redesign.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
16. Lee, KO (1996) Model Reduction in Linear and Nonlinear Structural Dyna-
mics. Master Thesis, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering,
Washington State University, WA.
17. Luo, Z (1997) The dynamic analyses and design of complex structures. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Engineering Mechanics, Nanjing Unversity of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China.
18. Malpartida, CA (1983) Dynamic Condensation of Structural Eigenproblems.
Master Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Louisville, KY.
19. Pang, J (1996) Modeling and Experimental Modal Analysis of Highway Bridge.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Center of Structural Control, The University of Oklahoma,
Oklahoma.
20. Qi, Y (1990) Selection of master degrees of freedom in model reduction tech-
niques. Master Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, New Jersey
Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.
21. Qu, Z-Q (1998) Structural Dynamic Condensation Techniques: Theory and
Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation, State Key Laboratory of Vibration, Shock and
Noise, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
22. Rivera, MA (1997) Seismic Response of Structures with Flexible Floor Slabs
by a Dynamic Condensation Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Engineering Sci-
ence and Mechanics Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
23. Yong, ME (1994) Exact Model Reduction in Structural Dynamics. Ph.D. Dis-
sertation, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Washington
State University.
24. Zimmerman, CF (1983) Application of the dynamic condensation to gen-
eral structural problems. Department of Civil engineering, University of
Louisville, KY.
Journal Papers
25. Arduini, C (1984) Spectral condensation: A new concept in numerical
structural dynamic analysis. ESA Journal, 8(1):27-36.
26. Avitabile, P (2001) A comparison of some common system-modeling
approaches. Shock and Vibration Digest, 33(4):281-291.
27. Avitabile, P and O'Callahan, J (2003) Frequency response function expan-
sion for unmeasured translation and rotation dofs for impedance modeling
applications. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 17(4):723-745.
Bibliography 343
46. Downs, B (1980) Accurate reduction of stiffness and mass matrices for vibra-
tion analysis and a rationale for selecting master degrees of freedom. Journal
of Mechanical Design, 102(2):412-416.
47. Dubigeon, S and Peseux, B (1994) Dynamic condensation: The 'free mode'
method. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
37(20):3521-3543.
48. Ebner, R and Zenger, C (1999) Distributed functional framework for recursive
finite element simulations. Parallel Computing, 25(7):813-826.
49. Egeland, 0 and Araldsen, PO (1974) SESAM-69-a general-purpose finite
element method program. Computers and Structures, 4(1):41-68.
50. Flax, AH (1975) Comment on "reduction of structural frequency equations."
AIAA Journal, 13(5):701-702.
51. Flax, AH (1981) Discussion on "dynamic reduction of structural models."
Journal of Structural Division, 107(7):1393-1394.
52. Flax, AH (1985) Comment on "dynamic condensation." AIAA Journal,
23(11):1841-1843.
53. Fricker, AJ (1983a) A new approach to the dynamic analysis of structures
using fixed frequency dynamic stiffness matrices. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 19(8):1111-1129.
54. Fricker, AJ (1983b) A method for solving high-order real symmetric eigen-
value problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
19(8):1131-1138.
55. Fried, I (1972) Condensation of finite element eigenproblem. AIAA Journal,
10(11):1529-1530.
56. Friswell, MI, Garvey SD, and Penny, JET (1995) Model reduction using
dynamic and iterative IRS technique. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
186(2):311-323.
57. Friswell, MI, Penny, JET, and Garvey, SD (1995) Using linear model reduction
to investigate the dynamics of structures with local non-linearities. Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing, 8(3):317-328.
58. Friswell, MI, Penny, JET, and Garvey, SD (1996) The application ofIRS and
balanced realization methods to obtain reduced model of structures with local
non-linearities. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 196(4):453-468.
59. Friswell, MI, Garvey, SD, and Penny, JET ( 1998) The convergence of the iterated
IRS methods. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 211(1):123-132.
60. Fox, GL (1981) A method for estimating the error induced by the Guyan
reduction. Shock and Vibration Bulletin, 51(1):19-24.
61. Gangadharan, SN, Haftka, RT, and Nikolaidis, E (1990) An easily implemented
static condensation method for structural sensitivity analysis. Communica-
tions in Applied Numerical Methods, 6(3):161-171.
62. Gaudenzi, P, Giarda, D, and Morganti, F (1998) Active microvibration con-
trol of an optical payload installed on the ARTEMIS spacecraft. Journal of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 9(9):740-748.
63. Geradin, M and Chen, SL (1995) An exact model reduction technique for beam
structures: Combination of transfer and dynamic stiffness matrices. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 185(3):431-440.
Bibliography 345
64. Go, CG, Lin, C, Lin, YS, and Wu, SH (1998) Formulation of a super-element
for the dynamic problem of a cracked plate. Communications in Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 14(12):1143-1154.
65. Gopalakrishnan, S and Doyle, JF (1995) Spectral super-elements for wave
propagation in structures with local non-uniformities. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 121(1-4):77-90.
66. Gordis, JH (1994) An analysis of the Improved Reduced System (IRS) model
reduction procedure. Modal Analysis, 9(4):269-285.
67. Gordis, JH (1996) Omitted coordinate systems and artificial constraints in
spatially incomplete identification. Modal Analysis, 11 (1-2):83-95.
68. Guyan, RJ (1965) Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices. AIAA Journal,
3(2):380.
69. Ha, SK, Keilers, C, and Chang, FK (1992) Finite element analysis of composite
structures containing distributed piezoelectric sensors and actuators. AIAA
Journal,30(3):772-780.
70. Henchi, K, Fafard, M, Talbot, M, and Dhatt, G (1998) An efficient algorithm
for dynamic analysis of bridges under moving vehicle using a coupled modal
and physical components approach. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 212(4):
663-683.
7l. Henshell, RD and Ong, JH (1975) Automatic masters for eigenvalue
economization. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 3(4):
375-383.
72. Hitziger, T, Mackens, W, and Voss, H (1995) Condensation-projection method
for the generalized eigenvalue problem. High-Performance Computing in
Engineering, 1(95-20):239.
73. Hou, Z and Chen, S (1997) Iterated dynamic condensation technique and its
applications in modal testing. Shock and Vibration, 4(3):143-15l.
74. Hung, ES, and Senturia, SD (1999) Generating efficient dynamical models for
microelectromechanical systems from a few finite element simulation runs.
Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 8(3):280-289.
75. Irons, BM (1965) Structural eigenvalue problems-elimination of unwanted
variables. AIAA Journal, 3(5):961-962.
76. Jacobsen, KP (1983) Fully integrated superelements: A database approach to
finite element analysis. Computers and Structures, 16(1-4):307-315.
77. Jiang, J and Olson, MD (1993a) A super element model for nonlinear analysis
of stiffened box structures. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 36(13):2203-2217.
78. Jiang, J and Olson, MD (1993b) Application of a super element model for non-
linear analysis of stiffened box structures. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 36(13):2219-2243.
79. Jiang, J and Olson, MD (1994) Nonlinear analysis of orthogonally stiffened
cylindrical shells by a super element approach. Finite Elements in Analysis and
Design, 18(1-3):99-110.
80. Johnson CP, Craig Jr, RR, and Yargicoglu, A (1980) Quadratic reduction for the
eigenproblem. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
15(6}:911-923.
346 Model Order Reduction Techniques
159. Qu, Z-Q, Jung, Y, and Selvam, RP (2003) Model condensation for non-
classically damped systems-Part I: Static condensation. Mechanical Systems
and Signal Processing, 17(5):1003-1016.
160. Qu, Z-Q, Selvam, RP, and Jung, Y (2003) Model condensation for non-
classically damped systems-Part II: Iterative schemes for dynamic conden-
sation. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 17(5):1017-1032.
161. Qu, Z-Q (2003) Discussion on dynamic condensation and synthesis of
unsymmetric structural systems. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 70(5):784.
162. Qu, Z-Q and Selvam, RP (2004) Insight into dynamic condensation
matrix of nonclassically damped models. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
272(3-5):581-606.
163. Ramsden, JN and Stoker, JR (1969) Mass condensation-a semi-automatic
method for reducing the size of vibration problems. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1(4):333-349.
164. Rao, GV (2002) Dynamic condensation and synthesis of unsymmetric
structural systems. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 69(5):610-616.
165. Rivera, MA, Singh, MP, and Suarez, LE (1999) Dynamic condensation approach
for nonclassically damped structures. AIAA Journal, 37(5):564-571.
166. Robinson,AR and Chen, C-C (1993) Improved time-history analysis for struc-
tural dynamics. II: Reduction of effective number of degrees of freedom.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 119(12):2514-2530.
167. Rohde, H (1972) Frequency-dependent condensation for structural dynamic
problems. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 20(3):4l3-416.
168. Rothe, K and Voss, H (1994) Improving condensation methods for eigenvalue
problems via Rayleigh functions. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, 111(1-2):169-183.
169. Rothe, K and Voss, H ( 1995) Fully parallel condensation method for generalized
eigenvalue problems on distributed memory computers. Parallel Computing,
21(6):907-921.
170. Rouch, KE and Kao, JS (1980) Dynamic reduction in rotor dynamics by finite
element method. Journal of Mechanical Design, 102(2):360-368.
171. Sastry, CVC, Mahapatra, DR, Sopalakrishnan, S, and Ramamurthy, TS
(2003) An iterative system equivalent reduction expansion process for
extraction of high frequency response from reduced order finite element
model. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 192(15):
1821-1840.
172. Shah, VN and Raymond, M (1982) Analytical selection of masters for the
reduced eigenvalue problem. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, 18(1):89-98.
173. Shiau, T-N and Jean, A-N (1990) Prediction of periodic response of flexible
mechanical systems with nonlinear characteristics. Journal of Vibration and
Acoustics, 112(3):501-507.
174. Shiau, TN and Jean, AN (1991) Nonlinear transient analysis of large
rotordynamic systems. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 58(2):596-598.
175. Singh, MP and Suarez, LE (1992) Dynamic condensation with synthesis of sub-
structure eigenproperties. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 159(1):l39-155.
Bibliography 351
176. Sowers, JD (1978) Condensation of free body mass matrices using flexibility
coefficients. AIAA Journal, 16(3):272-273.
177. Suarez, LE and Singh, MP (1992) Dynamic condensation method for structural
eigenvalue analysis. AlAA Journal, 30(4):1046-1054.
178. Subbiah, R, Bhat, RB, and Sankar, TS (1989) Dynamic responses of rotors
using modal reduction techniques. Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress, and
Reliability in Design, 11(4):360-365.
179. Takewaki, I and U etani, K (1999) Efficient redesign of damped large structural
systems via domain decomposition with exact dynamic condensation. Com-
puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 178(3/4):367-382.
180. Thomas, DL (1982) Errors in natural frequency calculations using eigenvalue
economization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
18(10): 1521-1527.
181. Tzou, HS and Ye, R (1996) Analysis of piezoelectric systems with laminated
piezoelectric triangular shell elements. AlAA Journal, 34(1):110-115.
182. van Vroonhoven, JCW and de Borst, R (1999) Combination of fracture and
damage mechanics for numerical failure analysis. International Journal of
Solids and Structures, 36(8):1169-1191.
183. Wilson, EI (1974) The static condensation algorithm. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 8(1):198-203.
184. Wittrick, WH and Williams, FW (1971) A general algorithm for computing
natural frequencies of elastic structures. Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and
Applied Mathematics, 24(3):263-284.
185. Won, K-M and Park, Y-S (1998) Optimal support positions for a structure to
maximize its fundamental natural frequency. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
213(5):801-812.
186. Wright, GC and Miles, GA (1971) An economical method for determin-
ing the smallest eigenvalues of large linear systems. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 3(1):25-33.
187. Yang, X and Lian, H (2002) Hybrid reanalysis method for eigenproblems of
topological modifications. AIAA Journal, 40(6):1244-1246.
188. Yang, Y-B and Lin, B-H (1995) Vehicle-bridge interaction analysis by dynamic
condensation method. Journal of Structural Engineering, 121 (11): 1636-1643.
189. Yang, Y-S and Hsieh, S-H (2002) Iterative mesh partitioning optimization for
parallel nonlinear dynamic finite element analysis with direct substructuring.
Computational Mechanics, 28( 6):456-468.
190. Zhang, D (1994) Succession-level approximate reduction technique (SART) in
structural dynamic analysis. Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, 15(4):360-364.
191. Zhang, D (1996) An improved Guyan reduction and successive reduction
procedure of dynamic model. Chinese Journal of Computational Structural
Mechanics and Applications, 13 (1) :90-94.
192. Zhang, N (1995) Dynamic condensation of mass and stiffness matrices. Journal
of Sound and Vibration, 188(4):601--615.
193. Zhang, QJ and Sainsbury, M G (1999) On the exact reduction and eigensolution
for the Galerkin element method. Computers and Structures, 71(4):413-422.
352 Model Order Reduction Techniques
Conference Papers
197. Abdalla, M, Grigoriadis, K, and Zimmerman, D (2000) LMI hybrid expansion-
reduction damage detection method. Proceedings of the 18th International
Modal Analysis Conference (San Antonio, TX), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1537-1543.
198. Abdelhamid, MK and Chiang, S-S (1990) Evaluation methods of reduced
models. Proceedings of the 8th International Modal Analysis Conference
(Kissimmee, FL), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 497-503.
199. Alvin, K and Hemez, F (2000) Dynamic mode shapes expansion using mass
orthogonality constraints. Proceedings of the 18th International Modal Anal-
ysis Conference (San Antonio, TX), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.,
Bethel, CT: 1496-1502.
200. Avitabile, P, O'Callahan, JC, Chou, CM, and Kalkunte, V (1987) Expansion of
rotational degrees of freedom for structural dynamic modifications. Proceed-
ings of the 5th International Modal Analysis Conference (London, England),
Union College, Schenectady, NY: 950-955.
201. Avitabile, P, O'Callahan, J, Milani, J, and Pan, ED-R (1989) System model devel-
opment using analytically enhanced experimental data. Proceedings of the 7th
International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, NV), Union College,
Schenectady, NY: 589-595.
202. Avitabile, P, O'Callahan, J, and Pan, ED-R (1989) Various model reduction
techniques on computed system response. Proceedings of the 7th International
Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, NV), Union College, Schenectady, NY:
777-785.
203. Avitabile, P, O'Callahan, J, and Milani, J (1989) Comparison of system char-
acteristics using various model reduction techniques. Proceedings of the 7th
International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas, NV), Union College,
Schenectady, NY: 1109-1115.
204. Avitabile, P, Pechinsky, F, and O'Callahan, J (1992) Study of modal vector
correlation using various techniques for model reduction. Proceedings of the
10th International Modal Analysis Conference (San Diego, CA), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 572-583.
205. Avitabile, P, Li, P, and Foster, T (1993) Effects ofDOF selection on orthogonality
using reduced system matrices. Proceedings of the 11 th International Modal
Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Inc., Bethel, CT: 1073-1078.
Bibliography 353
206. Avitabile, P and Foster, T (1993) DOF selection for smoothing expansion of
measured data. Proceedings of the 11 th International Modal Analysis Confer-
ence (Kissimmee, FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT:
1486-1489.
207. Avitabile, P, Foster, T, and O'Callahan, J (1994) Comparison of reduction
vs expansion for orthogonality checks. Proceedings of the 12th Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference (Honolulu, HI), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 225-23l.
208. Avitabile, P and O'Callahan, JC (1995) Mass and stiffness orthogonality checks
without a mass or stiffness matrix. Proceedings of the 13th International Modal
Analysis Conference (Nashville, TN), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.,
Bethel, CT: 1515-1519.
209. Avitabile, P and Foster, TJ (1996) Evaluation of degree of freedom based vector
correlation methods. Proceedings of the 14th International Modal Analysis
Conference (Dearborn, MI), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel,
CT: 1048-1056.
210. Avitabile, P, Piergentili, F, Parziale, P, and Crompton, D (1997) Comparison
of some system modeling approaches. Proceedings of the 15th Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1043-1052.
211. Avitabile, P, Piergentili, F, and Lown, K (1997) Application of hybrid modeling
techniques for computer related equipment. Proceedings of the 15th Inter-
national Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1426-1430.
212. Avitabile, P and O'Callahan, J (2001) Dynamic expansion of frequency
response functions for the full FRF matrix. Proceedings of the 19th Inter-
national Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 887-896.
2l3. Balmes, E (1995) Parametric families of reduced finite element models: The-
ory and applications. Proceedings of the 13th International Modal Analysis
Conference (Nashville, TN), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel,
CT: 307-314.
214. Balmes, E (1996) Use of generalized interface degrees of freedom in component
mode synthesis. Proceedings of the 14th International Modal Analysis Con-
ference (Dearborn, MI), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT:
204-210.
215. Balmes, E (1999) Sensors, degrees of freedom, and generalized modeshape
expansion methods. Proceedings of the 17th International Modal Analysis
Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel,
CT: 628-634.
216. Balmes, E (2000) Review and evaluation of shape expansion methods. Pro-
ceedings of the 18th International Modal Analysis Conference, (San Antonio,
TX), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT: 555-56l.
217. Bennighof, JK, Kaplanm MF, and Muller, MB (1997) Frequency response anal-
ysis using adaptive multi-level substructuring. Proceedings of the 15th Inter-
national Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 64-70.
354 Model Order Reduction Techniques
218. Bennighof, JK, Kaplan, MF, and Muller, MB (1999) Reducing NVH analy-
sis burden using automated multi-level substructuring. Proceedings of the
17th International Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 372-377.
219. Bhat, SP and Bernstein, DS (1995) Second-order systems with singular mass
matrix and an extension of Guyan condensation. 15th Biennial Conference on
Mechanical Vibration and Noise (Boston, MA): 943-948.
220. Bhatia, SS and Allemang, BJ (1995) A test-analysis-matrix (TAM) with
improved dynamic characteristics. Proceedings of the 13th International
Modal Analysis Conference (Nashville, TN), Society for Experimental Mechan-
ics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1506-1514.
221. Bjorndahl, 0 and Ahlin, K (1994) Verification of FEM models by means of
measurements: A case study on a real cylindrical shell structure. Proceedings
of the 12th International Modal Analysis Conference (Honolulu, HI), Society
for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 765-777.
222. Blades, EL and Craig Jr, RR (1997) A Craig-Bampton test-analysis model.
Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando,
FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1386-1391.
223. Blair, MA, Camino, TS, and Dickens, JM (1991) An iterative approach to a
reduced mass matrix. Proceedings of the 9th International Modal Analysis
Conference (Centro Affari, Firenze, Italy), Union College, Schenectady, NY:
621-626.
224. Brahmi, K, Bouhaddi, N, and Fillod, R (1995) Reduction of junction degrees
of freedom in certain methods of dynamic substructure synthesis. Proceedings
of the 13th International Modal Analysis Conference (Nashville, TN), Society
for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1763-1769.
225. Bouhaddi, N, Cogan, S, and Fillod, R (1992) Dynamic substructuring by Guyan
condensation selection of the master DOE Proceedings of the 10th Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference (San Diego, CA), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 328-333.
226. Brahmi, K and Bouhaddi, N (1997) Improved component mode synthesis
based on double condensation method. Proceedings of the 15th Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1469-1475.
227. Burton, TD, Farrar, CR, and Doebling, SW (1998) Two methods for model
updating using damage Ritz vectors. Proceedings of the 16th International
Modal Analysis Conference (Santa Barbara, CA), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 973-979.
228. Burton, TD and Yong, ME (1994) Model reduction and nonlinear normal
modes in structural dynamics. International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition (Chicago, IL) ASME, NY: 9-16.
229. Burton, TD, Hemez, FM, and Rhee, W (2000) A combined model
reduction/SVD approach to nonlinear model updating. Proceedings of the
18th International Modal Analysis Conference (San Antonio, TX), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT: 116-123.
230. Chen, SY and Tsuei, YG (1996) System identification and structural modifica-
tion. Proceedings of the 14th International Modal Analysis Conference (Dear-
born, MI), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 655-664.
Bibliography 355
231. Cheu, TC, Johnson, CP, and Craig Jr, RR (1984) A quadratic reduction method
for eigenvalue problems. Proceedings of the 2nd International Modal Analy-
sis Conference and Exhibit (Orlando, FL), Union College, Schenectady, NY:
667-675.
232. Cheu, TC, Johnson, CP, and Craig Jr, RR (1986) Selection of initial vectors for
subspace iteration method. Proceedings of the 4th International Modal Anal-
ysis Conference (Los Angeles, CA), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 44-49.
233. Chiao, K-P (1996) A systematic coupling procedure for component mode
synthesis with least square model reduction. Proceedings of the 14th Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference (Dearborn, MI), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 648-654.
234. Choudhury, AR and He, J (1996) Structural damage location using expanded
measured frequency response function data. Proceedings of the 14th Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference (Dearborn, MI), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 934-942.
235. Chung, YT (1998) Evaluation of model reduction methods using modal
test data. Proceedings of the 16th International Modal Analysis Conference
(Santa Barbara, CA), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT:
660-666.
236. Conti, P (1989) A higher order generalization of the Guyan reduction method.
Proceedings of the 7th International Modal Analysis Conference (Las Vegas,
NV), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 529-532.
237. D'Ambrogio, Wand Sestieri, A (2000) Models for accounting/eliminating
rotational DOFs in distributed structural modification. Proceedings of the
18th International Modal Analysis Conference, (San Antonio, TX), Society for
Experimental Mechanics, Bethel, CT: 220-226.
238. Deiters, TA and Smith, KS (1999) Faster, easier finite element model reduction.
Proceedings of the 17th International Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee,
FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 922-928.
239. Dobson, BJ and Lee, HG (1991) Comparing measured and predicted spatial
properties. Proceedings of the 9th International Modal Analysis Conference
(Centro Affari, Firenze, Italy), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 555-562.
240. Flanigan, CC (1991) Development of the IRS component dynamic
reduction method for substructure analysis. Proceedings of the 32nd
AIAA/ ASME/ASCE/AHS / ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Mate-
rials Conference (Baltimore, MD): 2504-2509.
241. Flanigan, CC and Botos, CD (1992) Automated selection of accelerometer
locations for modal survey tests. Proceedings of the 10th International Modal
Analysis Conference (San Diego, CA), Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Inc., Bethel, CT: 1205-1208.
242. Flanigan, CC and Hunt, DL (1993) Integration of pretest analysis and model
correlation methods for modal surveys. Proceedings of the lIth Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 444-448.
243. Flanigan, CC and Freymiller, JE (1994) Using dynamic expansion to improve
test -analysis correlation. Proceedings of the 12th International Modal Analysis
Conference (Honolulu, HI), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel,
CT: 198-204.
356 Model Order Reduction Techniques
244. Flanigan, CC and Botos, CD (1997) Improvement of the centaur modal survey
test correlation using dynamic expansion. Proceedings of the 15th Interna-
tional Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 832-837.
245. Flanigan, CC (1998) Model reduction using Guyan, IRS, and dynamic meth-
ods. Proceedings of the 16th International Modal Analysis Conference (Santa
Barbara, CA), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 172-176.
246. Freed, AM and Flanigan, CC (1990) A comparison of test-analysis model
reduction methods. Proceedings of the 8th International Modal Analysis
Conference (Kissimmee, FL), Union College, Schenectady, NY: l344-l35l.
247. Friswell, MI, Garvey, SD, and Penny, JET (1997) Using iterated IRS model
reduction techniques to calculate eigensolutions. Proceedings of the 15th Inter-
national Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental
Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 1537-1543.
248. Ghlaim, KH and Martin, KF (1984) Reduced component modes in a damped
system. Proceedings of the 2nd International Modal Analysis Conference and
Exhibit (Orlando, FL), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 683-689.
249. Gloth, G (2000) Using mode shape expansion techniques for pretest analysis
and correlation. Proceedings of the 18th International Modal Analysis Confer-
ence (San Antonio, TX), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT:
1237-1243.
250. Gysin, H (1990) Comparison of expansion methods for FE modeling error
localization. Proceedings of the 8th International Modal Analysis Conference
(Kissimmee, FL), Union College, Schenectady, NY: 195-204.
25l. Gordis, JH (1992) An analysis of the improved reduced system (IRS) model
reduction procedure. Proceedings of the 10th International Modal Analysis
Conference (San Diego, CA), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel,
CT: 471-479.
252. Gordis, JH (1997) Artificial boundary conditions for model updating and
damage detection. Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Con-
ference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT:
1256-1262.
253. Guo, SJ and Hemingway; NG (1991) Improvement of a finite element model
with dynamic reduction using test data. Proceedings of the 9th International
Modal Analysis Conference (Centro Affari, Firenze, Italy), Union College,
Schenectady, NY: 469-473.
254. Hemez, FM and Farhat, C (1994) Comparing mode shape expansion meth-
ods for test-analysis correlation. Proceedings of the 12th International Modal
Analysis Conference (Honolulu, HI), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc.,
Bethel, CT: 1560-1567.
255. Hemez, FM (1997a) Finite element updating of substructured models. Pro-
ceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Conference (Orlando, FL),
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, CT: 565-57l.
256. Hemez, FM (1997b) Structural damage detection with very large dimensional
finite element models. Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis
Conference (Orlando, FL), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel,
CT: 1117-1123.
Bibliography 357
363
364 Index
U
undamped free vibration 32 Y
undamped natural frequency 41 Young's modulus 17