An Investigation of Localized Changes of Mesh Density in Finite Element Model Verification

The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School

College of Engineering

An Investigation of Localized Changes of Mesh Density in

Finite Element Model Verification

A Thesis in

Mechanical Engineering

By

Peter J. Jargowsky

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Master of Science

May 1998

I grant The Pennsylvania State University the nonexclusive right to use this work for the
University's own purposes and to make single copies of the work available to the public
on a not-for-profit basis if copies are not otherwise available.

Peter J. Jargowsky

We approve the thesis of Peter J. Jargowsky.

Date of Signature

______________________________ ____________
Eric R. Marsh
Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Thesis Advisor

______________________________ ____________
Timothy C. Ovaert
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering

______________________________ ____________
Richard C. Benson
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering

iii
Abstract

Finite element and experimental models do not always completely agree with one
another. Modeling inaccuracies in finite element analysis and experimental testing errors
can cause discrepancies between the two models. There are many techniques that verify
finite element models to better represent the actual experimental system. The model
verification process consists of three steps; correlating the analytical and experimental
data, localization of the errors in the finite element model, and updating of the finite
element model. Several factors can affect the accuracy of the resultant updated model.
In this thesis, the effect of localized changes of mesh density in finite element
model verification is studied in detail. The modal assurance criterion matrix, the force
balance technique, and the localization matrix are used as the test methods to illustrate
the effects of mesh density variations on the verification process. A notched beam is
used as the test subject where the thickness of the notch is used as a modeling inaccuracy
to compare to the error caused by changes in localized mesh density. The effect of noise
in the experimental model in conjunction with the localized changes in the mesh density
and modeling inaccuracies is also studied.
It is shown that the model verification techniques are sensitive to a localized
change in mesh density. It has been determined that the magnitude of the error from the
modeling inaccuracy (notched section) may be on the same order as the error produced
by the localized changes in the mesh density. This may lead to incorrect model updating
and effect the quality of the finite element model. It is also shown that the presence of
noise in the experimental data has a dramatic effect on the localization procedure. The
iv
magnitude of the error produced by noise in the experimental data can be greater than
that produced by the modeling inaccuracies, in effect, hiding the modeling errors in the
system and preventing convergence of the model.
v
Table of Contents

List of Figures................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ xi
Chapter 1: Overview............................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................1
1.2 Example .............................................................................................................3
1.3 Problem Statement .............................................................................................7
1.4 Research Objectives...........................................................................................9
1.5 Literature Review.............................................................................................10
Chapter 2: Development of Models...................................................................................18
2.1 Base Model ......................................................................................................18
2.2 Experiment 1: Effect of Notch Thickness........................................................20
2.3 Experiment 2: Effect of Mesh Density ............................................................21
2.4 Experiment 3: Effect of Mesh Density with Reduction...................................22
2.5 Experiment 4: Comparison of Notch and Mesh Density Error........................24
2.6 Experiment 5: Effect of Noise in the Experimental Data ................................26

Chapter 3: Results..............................................................................................................27
3.1 Experiment 1: Variation in Thickness Ratio....................................................27
3.2 Experiment 2: Variation of Mesh Density in Both Models .............................34
3.3 Experiment 3: Variation in Mesh Density using Reduction............................40
3.4 Experiment 4: Mesh Density and Thickness Ratio Comparison .....................46
3.5 Experiment 5: Effects of Noise in the Experimental Data...............................52

Chapter 4: Conclusions......................................................................................................57
Appendix A: FEA Matrices ...............................................................................................59
Appendix B: Programs.......................................................................................................61
A.1 Exp1.m............................................................................................................61
A.2 Exp2.m............................................................................................................66
vi
A.3 Exp3.m............................................................................................................71
A.4 Exp4.m............................................................................................................77
A.5 Gordis.m..........................................................................................................83
A.6 MAC.m...........................................................................................................84
A.7 Fbal.m.............................................................................................................85

References..........................................................................................................................86
vii
List of Figures

1.1 Two degree of freedom experimental model .................................................................3
1.2 Two degree of freedom analytical model ......................................................................4
2.1 Model beam with notched section ...............................................................................18
2.2 Experiment 1 set-up. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied....................................20
2.3 Experiment 2 set-up. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied, as is the number of
elements added, n...................................................................................................21

2.4 Experiment 3 set-up. The notch thickness ratio, r, and the number of added
elements, n, are varied ...........................................................................................22

2.5 Example of reduction process......................................................................................23
2.6 Experiment 4 set-up. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied as is the number of
elements added, n...................................................................................................24

3.1 Experiment 1 models. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied and the mesh density
remains constant.....................................................................................................28

3.2 Mode shapes of the expeirmental beam, r = 1.............................................................28
3.3 Mode shape comparison for an unnotched beam and a notched beam with
r = 0.44...................................................................................................................30

3.4 Force balance in notch area for r = 0.44 and several modes........................................31
3.5 Force balance in notch area for several values of r and mode 1..................................31
3.6 Normal error of the localization matrix for a varying r at 117 Hz ..............................33
3.7 Full localization matrix (left) and localization matrix of the notch area (right) for
r = 0.44 at 117 Hz ..................................................................................................33

3.8 Experiment 2 models. The notch thickness, r, is varied, as is the number of
elements added, n...................................................................................................34

viii
3.9 Comparison of the first three experimental and analytical mode shapes for n = 15
and r = 0.76...........................................................................................................36

3.10 Force balance for n = 5 and two values of r for mode 2............................................37
3.11 Force balance for n = 15 and two values of r for mode 2..........................................37
3.12 Normal error of the localization matrix for variations in r and n at 117 Hz..............38
n = 5 and r = 0.76 at 117 Hz ..................................................................................39

3.14 Experiment 3 models. The notch thickness ratio, r, and the number of added
elements, n, are varied ...........................................................................................40

3.15 Force balance for r = 1.0 and two values of n for mode 2.........................................42
3.16 Force balance for n = 5 and two values of r for mode 2............................................43
3.17 Force balance for n = 15 and two values of r for mode 2..........................................43
3.18 Normal error of the localization matrix for various values of r at 117 Hz ................44
n = 5 and r = 0.76 after reduction at 117 Hz .........................................................45

3.20 Experiment 4 models. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied as is the number of
elements added, n...................................................................................................46

3.21 Force balance with n = 1 and two values of r for mode 1 .........................................48
3.22 Localized mesh density error with n = 1 and two values of r for mode 1 .................49
3.23 Localized mesh density error with n = 10 and two values of r for mode 1 ...............49
3.24 Full localization matrix (left) and close-up of the affected degrees of freedom
(right) for r = 0.76 and n = 10 at 117 Hz ...............................................................50



ix
3.27 Experiment 5 models. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied, as is the number of
elements added, n. Random noise is added to the experimental system...............52

3.28 Force balance for various noise levels, n = 10, and r = 0.76 for mode 1...................53
3.29 Localization matrix with no noise, n = 10, and r = 0.76 at 117 Hz ...........................54
3.30 Localization matrix with 0.00005% noise, n = 10, and r = 0.76 at 117 Hz...............55
3.31 Localization matrix with 0.0005% noise, n = 10, and r = 0.76 at 117 Hz.................55
x
List of Tables

2.1 Convergence of the eigenvalues (Hz) in the finite element model ..............................19
3.1 MAC matrix with r = 1................................................................................................28
3.2 MAC matrix with r = 0.44...........................................................................................29
3.3 MAC matrix with r = 0.12...........................................................................................29
3.4 MAC matrix with n = 1 and r = 0.76...........................................................................35
3.6 MAC matrix with n = 15 and r = 0.76.........................................................................35
3.11 MAC matrix with n = 10 and r = 0.76.......................................................................47
3.12 MAC matrix with n = 10 and r = 0.92.......................................................................47
4.1 Summary of results ......................................................................................................58
xi
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Eric Marsh, for giving me the opportunity to
complete this work. I would also like to thank him for his guidance and all that he has
taught me throughout my time in graduate school.
I would like to thank the Spatial MetriX Corporation for supporting my research
and providing me with the opportunity to gain hands on experience which will be
invaluable in my time as an engineer.
I would like to thank my fellow graduate students, Bob Grejda, Byron Knapp,
Thomas OReilly, Allison Robinson, and Adam Schaut. I would like to thank all of my
friends for their support and patience with me during my long hours.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents and sister for their guidance and support.
Without them, I would not have accomplished all that I have and I would not be where I
am today.

1
Chapter 1

Overview

1.1 Introduction

Recent increased interest in experimental modal analysis techniques and finite element
methods has created a demand to relate the finite element model, or dynamic analytical
model, to the experimental results. Techniques that verify the accuracy of a finite
element model can save time and money in the workplace. When designers can place
enough confidence in their analytical model, or finite element analysis, more information
can be obtained from that analysis, which reduces the need for extensive experimental
testing of expensive prototypes. Parts can be designed for desirable dynamic
characteristics under the guidance of an accurate finite element model.
The model verification process consists of three steps: correlation, localization,
and updating. During correlation, the analytical and experimental models are compared
to check for agreement, usually by the natural frequencies and mode shapes. The modal
assurance criterion (MAC) matrix [1] is a popular method of determining the correlation
between mode shape vectors of each model. A MAC value near unity signifies good
correlation between modes, whereas a value near zero shows poor correlation between
modes.
The next step in model verification is localization. In this step, the specific areas
of the model, or the degrees of freedom, in which the modeling inaccuracies are located
are determined. The force balance method is one way to localize the error using a
specified natural frequency and mode shape of the structure [2]. The resulting calculation
2
shows which degrees of freedom in the model contain error with respect to a single
structural mode. Another method, the structural synthesis transformation (SST),
develops a full localization matrix that shows the modeling error for a specified
frequency [3]. This error is a combination of errors from the mass, damping, and
stiffness matrices.
The final step in model verification is updating. From the previous step, the
location of the error is known. The task now is to improve the analytical model to better
match the results obtained from the experimental model. The error matrix method
(EMM) is one technique that can be used to determine differences in the mass and
stiffness matrices of the experimental and analytical models. These values are used to
adjust the mass and stiffness matrices of the analytical model. The analytical model is
then reevaluated with the new mass and stiffness matrices and the process is repeated
until the two models are within a desired tolerance of one another.
In practice, the three-part sequence of model verification is complicated by the
different sizes of the experimental and analytical models. An experimental model may
have a hundred degrees of freedom, while the analytical model can have hundreds or
thousands of degrees of freedom. Verification computations require the model sizes to be
the same. This requires the use of matrix reduction or expansion. These processes
correlate the number of degrees of freedom so that the model sizes are the same and the
verification process can be completed.
3
1.2 Example

The following example shows the three steps involved in updating an analytical model.
Correlation is shown using the modal assurance criterion (MAC), localization is
completed through the force balance technique, the localization matrix, and the error
matrix method (EMM) [4], and updating is done with the EMM. The model investigated
is a two-degree of freedom system, as shown in Figure 1.1. This model will be used to
synthesize the experimental data. The analytical model has an added spring and a
different mass on the second degree of freedom, as shown in Figure 1.2. This added
spring and mass represent modeling inaccuracies for the updating process.
k k
m 2/3m
x1 x2

Figure 1.1 Two degree of freedom experimental model.

Equation of motion, Experimental Model:

)
`
=
)
`

+
)
`
(
(
0
0 2
3
2
0
0
2
1
2
1
x
x
k k
k k
x
x
m
m
& &
& &
(1.1)

4
k k
m m
x1
x2
k

Figure 1.2 Two degree of freedom analytical model.

Equation of Motion, Analytical Model:

)
`
=
)
`

+
)
`
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
1
2
1
x
x
k k
k k
x
x
m
m
& &
& &
(1.2)

Solution of the EVP:

Eigenvalues Eigenvectors

Experimental:
(
(
(
=
m
k
m
k
E
3
0
0
2
2

(
=
0 . 1 5 . 1
0 . 1 0 . 1
E

Analytical:
(
(
(
=
m
k
m
k
A
3
0
0
2

(

=
0 . 1 0 . 1
0 . 1 0 . 1
A

Correlation:

(
=
00 . 1 00 . 0
04 . 0 96 . 0
MAC

The value of 1.0 in the second diagonal position of the MAC matrix reveals that the
second mode of the analytical and experimental models correlate well. The first mode
5
shows a value of 0.96, which suggests good correlation, but also means that they are not
identical. This error is caused by the differences in the mass and stiffness matrices of the
two models. The low values in the off diagonal terms show little correlation between the
first and second mode, as expected.
Localization:

Force Balance =
(
0 80 . 0
0 0

The force balance is developed using the analytical mass and stiffness matrices
and the experimental eigenvalues and eigenvectors, as shown in Equation 1.16. For each
mode, the force balance yields non-zero terms in the degrees of freedom that do not agree
between the two models. In this example, the force balance localizes the error to the first
mode and the second degree of freedom. This agrees with the discrepancy in the
eigenvectors and the two mass-spring models.
L
1
= L
(
88 . 4 0
0 0
2
=
(
95 . 96 0
0 0
The structural synthesis transformation method, or localization matrix, developed
by Gordis [2] is another way to localize the error in the analytical model. The first
matrix, L
1,
was calculated at
1
= m k 3 , below the first mode, and L
2
was calculated at
2
= m k 5 , above the second mode. Both matrices localize the error to the second
degree of freedom, where the mass and stiffness errors are located. The increase in error
from one matrix to the next is due mainly to the increase in frequency, as shown in
Equations 1.12-1.13.
6
Updating:

EMM:
(
=
3 0
0 0
k K
(
=
5 . 0 0
0 0
m M

In this example, the error matrix method produces unexpected results. The actual
error is evident by inspection:

(
=
1 0
0 0
k
exact
K
(
=
333 . 0 0
0 0
m
exact
M

Obviously there are some discrepancies between the actual and computed error.
This is caused by assumptions made in the derivation of the EMM. The EMM assumes
that the error is small to simplify the inversion of a matrix. Often, the EMM tends to
produce fully populated error matrices even in the presence of a localized error. This is a
major problem with many of the updating techniques.
Updated:
(
(
(
=
m
k
m
k
updated
45 . 2 0
0 45 . 2
2

(
=
45 . 0 46 . 4
00 . 1 00 . 1
updated
After updating, the eigenvalue for the first mode is now negative and both
eigenvectors have changed when only one was in error. If the discrepancies between the
experimental and analytical models are not as large, the EMM becomes more accurate;
however, the convergence is slow. For example, if the modeling error was only 0.1k
(instead of k), the updated analytical model would still predict frequencies of m k 48 . 0
and m k 99 . 2 .
7
1.3 Problem Statement

Many methods have been developed for the model verification process. Some of the
methods correlate the results, some localize, some update, and others combine the three.
However, a method has not been developed that completely identifies the source of the
error.
Experimental data is not free of error in itself. Test equipment, such as
accelerometers, impact hammers, data acquisition systems, and cabling, can introduce
errors into the system. Calibration of the equipment, nonlinearities in the system, and
rounding errors due to limitations of the equipment and modal analysis packages also add
to the error in the experimental model. Even after updating, the analytical model can
only be as good as the experimental data used for the verification process.
The analytical model is affected by many factors as well. Many assumptions are
made when using finite element packages. Boundary conditions and joint modeling may
not always be identical to those present in the experimental hardware. Many times small
details such as radii, small holes, chamfers, and rounded edges are ignored to reduce the
complexity of the mesh, the size of the model, and the computational time.
In the presence of these errors, performing model verification may not lead to a
converged and accurate finite element model, that is, a model that matches the
experimental data. The localization process may point to errors other than modeling
errors. It may point to errors associated with the experimental data and therefore mislead
the updating process, resulting in poor convergence or instability of the updating process.
8
The updating process can also be flawed. Mottershead [5] states that the mass,
stiffness, and damping matrices should be physically meaningful after the updating
process. Initially, the analytical mass and stiffness matrices are highly banded as a result
of the connections between adjacent elements. In many methods, such as the EMM, the
matrices calculated for the updating process are full matrices. If the analytical model is
updated with these matrices, the updated mass and stiffness matrices will be full and will
lose their physical meaning. That is, the mass and stiffness matrices will no longer be
banded matrices. These additional terms signify masses and springs between degrees of
freedom that are not physically connected in the actual model.

9
1.4 Research Objectives

In a finite element model, the number of elements in the mesh is increased until
convergence is reached. If a stress concentration is involved in the structure, such as a
hole, radius, notch, or other abrupt change in geometry, a localized increase in the mesh
density is required to accurately describe the behavior of the structure. A goal of this
work is to show that both the notch and the increase in localized mesh density have an
effect on the model verification process.
In this thesis, the effect of localized variations in mesh density is studied in detail. A
beam with a notched section is used as the model for the studies. Variations in the beam
geometry will be used to synthesize the experimental and analytical models. Noise is
also introduced into the experimental model to explore its effects on the localization of
notch and mesh density errors.
As the mesh density is increased, the number of degrees of freedom in the analytical
model is increased. In practice, the number of degrees of freedom in the experimental
model is not as large as the number of degrees of freedom in the analytical model. This
requires either an increase in the number of points experimentally measured, an
expansion of the experimental data, or a reduction of the analytical data. Increasing the
number of experimental degrees of freedom requires more time and resources than a
simple reduction of the analytical data set or expansion of the experimental set.
Therefore, reduction is often used. A goal of this study is to analyze the effect the
reduction process on the updating procedure.

10
1.5 Literature Review

There has been significant work in the past years in the field of error localization and
updating. This has been due to the demand of industry for a technique to ensure that
finite element models will provide an accurate representation of a design.
Mottershead [5] describes the three main categories of numerical model error as
being structure, parameter, and order errors. Structure errors can be caused by
nonlinearities in the structure or material that are not accounted for in the finite element
model (FEM). Errors in the equations of motion are a factor in the structural error as
well. Development of the boundary conditions and modeling assumptions make up the
parameter based error. If the boundary conditions do not properly represent the actual
system or the assumptions made are too broad, the FEM will not properly represent the
experimental system. Finally, in the discretization of both structures some details in the
system are neglected, introducing error into the equations. Mottershead states that the
most inaccurate model parameters should be located prior to updating. In doing so, the
updating process can be done in a manner which only accounts for the most inaccurate
results. This helps preserve the physical meaning of the model by not updating the entire
model.
Finite element models may be thousands of degrees of freedom in size, while, an
experimental test may only involve a few hundred or less. The updating process requires
that both the analytical and experimental models be of the same size. This requires the
use of a reduction or expansion technique to resize one of the sets of data to match the
size of the other.
11
A method of reducing the mass and stiffness matrices was developed by Guyan
[6]. The first step in reducing a model is to determine the master and deleted degrees of
freedom. The analytical degrees of freedom that coincide in the experimental data are the
master degrees of freedom. Once these are determined, the mass and stiffness matrices
must be reordered such that:
(
=
dd dm
md mm
M M
M M
M (1.3)
(
=
dd dm
md mm
K K
K K
K (1.4)
The subscript m denotes master and the subscript d denotes deleted degrees of freedom.
By neglecting the mass terms, a transformation matrix can be derived.
m
d
m
x
x
x
T =
)
`
where: (1.5)
(
=

md dd
K K
I
T
1
Where I is an identity matrix with size equal to the number of master degrees of freedom.
Finally the reduced mass and stiffness matrices can be rewritten using the transformation
matrix T.
MT T M
T
reduced
= (1.6)
KT T K
T
reduced
= (1.7)
Alternatively, the experimental model may be expanded to match the number of
degrees of freedom in each model. Other methods for expansion/reduction are presented
by Lieven et al. [7], Kidder [8], and others. The methods use the analytical mass and
stiffness matrices to expand the experimental mode shapes. The result is an experimental
mode shape vector with the same dimensions as the analytical model. Lieven et al. state
12
that the accuracy of this approach relies on the validity of the finite element model.
Because the analytical matrices are used in the updating process, errors present in the
analytical model can be spread to the expanded experimental model.
{ } 0
M M
M M
K K
K K
=
)
`
|
|
.
|
\
|
(
r d
r m
dd a dm a
md a mm a
r
dd a dm a
md a mm a
,
,
2
(1.8)
{ } | | | | ( ) | | | | ( ){ }
r m x dm a r dm a dd a r dd a r d x ,
2
1
2 *
,
M K M K =

(1.9)
Where a = analytical, x = experimental, r = mode number, m denotes the master degrees
of freedom, and d denotes deleted degrees of freedom.
Once the mass and stiffness matrices are the same size they can be checked for
correlation through a number of methods. One of the most widely used correlation
methods is the modal assurance criterion (MAC) [1]. The MAC, as shown in Equation
1.10, shows the correlation between two eigenvectors. A value of unity shows high
correlation between eigenvectors and a value of zero shows no correlation between
eigenvectors. When comparing two matched modes of two models, the MAC value
should be near unity.
) (
) (
) , (
2
k
T
k j
T
j
k
T
j
k j

= MAC (1.10)
The MAC matrix is not sufficient in localizing the error between two sets of data.
It provides a general overview of how well the sets of data agree. For example the third
experimentally measured mode may best match the fourth analytical mode. It is
important in subsequent steps of error localization that the modes be properly matched.
Research has been done to improve the MAC to provide specific information on where
13
the two data sets differ. Lieven et al. [9] developed a technique that locates the specific
degrees of freedom in which the two models differ. The coordinate modal assurance
criterion (COMAC), as shown in Equation (1.11) works along with the MAC to find the
mode and location of the error. The MAC determines the specific mode shapes that are
in error. Then, the COMAC determines the specific degrees of freedom in which the
error is localized. Similar to the MAC, the COMAC returns a number from zero to unity.
A smaller value signifies locations in which the data is not in agreement.

= =
=
=
max max
max
1
2
,
1
2
,
1
2
, ,
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
) (
L
L
L B
L
L
L A
L
L
L B L A
i

COMAC (1.11)
Where i = coordinate number,
L
max
= The highest Correlated Mode Pair Number(CMPN), determined by the
MAC matrix,
L = Incremental counter of the CMPN.
Another variation on the MAC technique is the partial MAC (PMAC), which is
presented by W. Heylen et al. [10]. The PMAC uses the same equation as the MAC, but
limits the number of degrees of freedom used. The PMAC allows one to select an area of
a model to investigate and only include those degrees of freedom in the calculation.
Implementing these calculations across an entire modal vector will show those areas that
have the largest errors. Values will range from zero to one, the lower values signify
greater error.
14
A variety of methods are available to localize model errors. This is a key step in
the verification process. Most of the methods developed do not quantify the error, but
they do specify a location within the model, similar to the PMAC and COMAC.
Gordis [2] has developed a structural synthesis transformation (SST) for model
error localization in the frequency domain. This method allows for the direct comparison
by frequency response functions. By comparing the frequency response functions, the
need to use a curve-fitting technique to extract model parameters is eliminated. Gordis
states that the SST method develops an exact frequency domain expression for model
error location in the form of the localization matrix, L, as shown in Equation 1.12.
Gordis does note that the SST method is frequency dependent and does not specify
whether the location of the error is in the mass, damping, or stiffness errors. This
requires that the L matrix be calculated for several values of . From selected values of
, the specific sources of errors (mass, stiffness, or damping) can be determined.
a x a
Z H Z I L ) ( = (1.12)
a a a a
j C M K Z + =
2
(1.13)
Where I is the identity matrix,
Z
a
is the impedance matrix of the analytical model,
H
x
is the frequency response function of the experimental model.
Fissette [1] presents a method that localizes and updates an analytical model using
a force balance method. The method uses only one experimental eigenvalue and
eigenvector along with the entire analytical mass and stiffness matrices. As always the
models must be of the same size, which requires either and expansion of the experimental
15
data or a reduction of the analytical model. Fissette states that the magnitude of the error
differs from mode to mode, but that the overall distribution of the error should remain the
same and be associated with those degrees of freedom that are in error. The model may
now be updated by developing coefficients, a
j
, for each element in the model, as shown
in Equation 1.15. Once these values are determined the stiffness matrix can be updated.
The same method can be applied to update the mass matrix. Fissette states that several
iterations should be used to ensure convergence of the model.
x a x a
) (
2
M K E = (1.14)
0 ) (
1
2
= +

=
m
j
xi j j a x a
K a M K (1.15)
The singular value decomposition (SVD) [11] method also develops a pseudo-
inverse of the mass and stiffness matrices. The first step in the SVD method is to use a
correlation technique, such as the MAC, to develop correlated mode pairs. The
eigenvectors and eigenvalues are then used to develop the pseudo-mass and stiffness
matrices using Equations (1.16 1.18). The pseudo-inverse can then be generated by
decomposing the pseudo-matrices into the product of three matrices V, U, and , a
derivation of the decomposition is shown in [11]. The pseudo-inverse is shown in the
following equation:
| | | | | | | |
T
U V A
1
* 1
*

= (1.16)
Finally the error matrices can be developed using the following:
| | | | | | | | | |
* *
1
1
*
1
1
*

=
a x
K K K (1.17)
| | | | | | | | | |
* *
1
1
*
1
1
*

=
a x
M M M (1.18)
16
These matrices can then be used to update the analytical data in order to converge the
analytical model to the actual system.
A method developed to correlate, locate, and update two sets of data is presented
by Lieven et al. [3]. The error matrix method (EMM) develops two matrices to be used
in the updating process, a K and M matrix. Lieven et al. state that the ideal way to
produce these matrices is by simply subtracting the analytical mass and stiffness matrices
from the experimental set. In practice, one can not experimentally determine a stiffness
matrix. Therefore, it is necessary to approximate these matrices by using Equations (1.19
1.24).
| | | | | | | | | || |
a x a a
K K K K K
1
*
1
*

= (1.19)
where:
| | | | | | | |
T
a a a a

1
2
1
*

= K (1.20)
| | | | | | | |
T
x x x x

1
2
1
*

= K (1.21)

| | | | | | | | | || |
a x a a
M M M M M
1
*
1
*

= (1.22)
where:
| | | | | |
T
a a a
=
1
*
M (1.23)
| | | | | |
T
x x x
=
1
*
M (1.24)
Lieven et al. also describe some complications associated with the EMM updating
process. They go into detail on the effects of modal incompleteness and noise in the
measured data. It is concluded that the experimental mode shapes must be kept to an
17
accuracy of 4 significant figures and the natural frequencies must be kept to an accuracy
of 6 significant figures. A second criterion for convergent results on the EMM is to keep
the noise on the measured data below one percent. It is noted that with the modal
analysis equipment and software used today, keeping the noise to the levels specified is
almost unattainable and complete convergence may not be obtainable.

18
Chapter 2
Development of Models

2.1 Model Development
The base model of each of the experiments is synthesized using a T-6061 aluminum
beam with dimensions of 0.6 meters long, 0.05 meters wide, and 0.01 meters thick with
free-free boundary conditions. A notch, 1/24 the length of the beam, is located arbitrarily
at 0.21 meters from one end, as shown in Figure 2.1. The thickness of the notch will vary
throughout the experiments.

Figure 2.1 Model beam with notched section.
The beam is discretized using four-node elements with two degrees of freedom
per node, translational and rotational; the elemental mass and stiffness matrices are
shown in Appendix A. A final model size of 24 evenly spaced elements is used so that
one element fills the notch. An important factor in the decision to use 24 elements was
convergence of the finite element model. The first three modes were measured
experimentally and considered in the convergence process, as shown in Table 2.1. The
19
table shows that finite element models natural frequencies do not change after the first
iteration of the model and the numbers agree fairly well with the experimental beam.
Table 2.1 Convergence of the eigenvalues (Hz) in the finite element model.
Mode 24
Elements
48
Elements
72
Elements
Experimental
1 117.1 117.1 117.1 119
2 403.4 403.4 403.4 409
3 940.8 940.8 940.8 955
4 1400.4 1400.4 1400.4 --

Synthesizing a notched beam as the experimental model and a beam without a
notch as the analytical model provides the two models used in these experiments.
Several parameters are changed throughout the experiments to develop insight into their
effects on the model verification process. The parameters that are altered are discussed in
the following sections.

20
2.2 Experiment 1: Effect of Notch Thickness
In the first experiment, the effect of the notch thickness is investigated. The analytical
model is defined as the beam without a notch and meshed with twenty-four evenly spaced
four-node elements. The experimental model is the same beam with the same mesh,
however, the thickness of the ninth element in the experimental model is varied.
Notched section with
thickness ratio, r
Experimental model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Analytical model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Figure 2.2 Experiment 1 set-up. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied.
The effect of the thickness ratio, r, defined as the thickness of the notched element in
the experimental model divided by the thickness of the unnotched analytical model, is
analyzed through three correlation and localization procedures. The MAC is used to
correlate the eigenvectors, or mode shapes, of the two models. The force balance method
is used to localize the error in each correlated mode shape pair. The SST is used to
determine the localization matrix.

21
2.3 Experiment 2: Effect of Mesh Density
In the second experiment, the effect of the mesh density in the notch is investigated. The
analytical model is defined as the beam without a notch and separated into twenty-four
evenly spaced sections. The experimental model is the same beam with twenty-four
evenly spaced sections and a notch of a specified thickness ratio, r, located in the ninth
section. The mesh density in both the experimental and analytical model is increased in
the ninth section, as shown in Figure 2.3, while the other sections are meshed with one
four-node element. By increasing n in both models, the reduction process is avoided and
the effect of the mesh density will be isolated. Once the experiment is completed for a
value of r, the ratio will be changed. The experiment is performed for several values of r.
thickness ratio, r
Experimental model
Added Elements, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23
Analytical model
Added Elements, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Figure 2.3 Experiment 2 set-up. The notch thickness, r, is varied, as is the number of
elements added, n.

The effect of the mesh density in the notch is analyzed through the same three
correlation and localization procedures as in the previous experiment. Using these
methods, the effect of the mesh density as a function of n is determined. Also, the effect
of the size of the notch in conjunction with the increased mesh density is investigated.
22
2.4 Experiment 3: Effect of Mesh Density with Reduction
In the third experiment, the effect of the mesh density within the notch is investigated
while using the reduction process. The analytical model is defined as the beam without a
notch and divided into twenty-four evenly spaced sections; each section is meshed with
one four-node element. The experimental model is the same beam with twenty-four
evenly spaced sections and a notch of a specified thickness ratio located in the ninth
section. The mesh density in the experimental model is originally one four-node element
in each section and is then increased in only the notched section, as shown in Figure 2.4.
Once the experiment is completed for a specified thickness ratio, r, it will be varied. The
experiment is performed for several values of r.
thickness ratio, r
Experimental model
Added Elements, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23
Analytical model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Figure 2.4 Experiment 3 set-up. The notch thickness ratio, r, and the number of added
elements, n, are varied.

Since only the experimental models mesh is increased, it is necessary to reduce the
experimental model to correlate the number of degrees of freedom. This is done using
the Guyan reduction method. The degrees of freedom that match up are dependent on the
number of elements added to the notch location. In each case, however, all of the degrees
23
of freedom from the analytical model will match up with degrees of freedom from the
experimental model. Therefore, the analytical model will not require a reduction process.
Analytical
(n = 1)
Experimental
(n = 2)
Master DOF
Deleted DOF

Figure 2.5 Example of reduction process.
The effect of the mesh density in the notch is analyzed with the MAC, the force
balance method, and the localization matrix, as before. The effect of reduction on the
localized increase in mesh density as a function of n is found using the three methods.
The second parameter investigated is the effect of the thickness ratio, r, in conjunction
with the increase in the n and the reduction process.

24
2.5 Experiment 4: Comparison of Notch and Mesh Density Error
In the fourth experiment, the magnitude of the notch error is compared to the error
produced by the localized increase in mesh density. The main goal of this experiment is
to determine if the localization techniques point toward the notch or toward the localized
increase in mesh density after the reduction process. The analytical model is defined as
the beam without a notch and is divided into twenty-four evenly spaced sections. The
mesh density in the analytical model is increased in the fifteenth section, while the rest of
the sections are meshed with one four-node element. The experimental model is the
same beam with twenty-four, evenly spaced four-node elements and a notch of a
specified thickness ratio, r, located in the ninth element with no mesh density increase, as
shown in Figure 2.6. Once the experiment is completed for a specified value of r, r will
be varied. The experiment is performed for several values of r.
thickness ratio, r
Experimental model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Analytical model
Added Elements, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Figure 2.6 Experiment 4 set-up. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied as is the number
of elements added, n.

25
The analytical models mesh is increased while the experimental models is not.
This makes it necessary to reduce the analytical model to correlate the degrees of
freedom in the two models. Again, this is done using the Guyan reduction method.
The effect of increasing n in a location other than that of the notch location is
analyzed. In doing so, the effect of increasing the localized mesh density on the
localization process is found. The thickness ratio is changed to compare the magnitude
of error caused by the increase in n with the error caused by the change in r.
26
2.6 Experiment 5: Effect of Noise in the Experimental Data
As a final test, noise is added to the experimental data to determine its effects on the
model verification process. A goal is to determine the magnitude of noise needed to
make the localization procedure ineffective. A second goal is to determine its effect on
the localization of the mesh density and modeling error.
The model used for this experiment is the same as the model used in the fourth
experiment. A notch is located in the ninth section in the experimental model. The
localized mesh density increase is located in the fifteenth section in the analytical model,
as shown in Figure 2.6. Noise is added to the experimental mode shapes for the force
balance and to the frequency response function for the localization matrix.
In order to add noise to the experimental mode shapes, a random noise vector
must be produced. Generating a random vector from 0.5 to 0.5, normalizing it to each
individual mode shape, and multiplying by a weighting factor, results in the noise vector.
This vector is then added to the mode shape vector resulting in the original mode shape
with random noise of a desired percentage. A similar process is completed for the
localization matrix, but the noise is added to the experimental frequency response
function.
27
Chapter 3

Results

In this chapter, the results of the experiments will be discussed. The effect of the
variation of thickness ratio, variations in the localized mesh density, and noise on the
localization process will be shown. The MAC matrix, force balance, and localization
matrix will be used to show the effects of each of the parameters.

3.1 Experiment 1: Variation in Thickness Ratio
In the first experiment, the effect of a notch in a beam with free-free boundary conditions
is investigated. In order to determine the magnitude of error produced from a modeling
inaccuracy, the notch is not included in the analytical finite element model, as shown in
Figure 3.1. The effect of the thickness ratio, r, defined as the thickness of the notched
section divided by the thickness of the beam without a notch, on the localization process
is investigated.
28
thickness ratio, r
Experimental model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Analytical model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Figure 3.1 Experiment 1 models. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied and the mesh
density remains constant.

Tables 3.1-3.3 display the MAC matrices generated using the experimental and
analytical mode shapes. To develop a model with no error, the thickness ratio is set to
unity. Table 3.1 shows the MAC matrix for a thickness ratio, r, of 1. As expected the
diagonal values are unity indicating that the eigenvectors are the same and correlate well.
Figure 3.2 shows the first through fifth bending modes for the beam. The MAC matrices
are developed using these five bending modes.
1 2
3 4 5

Figure 3.2 Mode shapes of the expeirmental beam, r = 1.
Table 3.1 MAC matrix with r = 1.
Mode Exp. 1 Exp. 2 Exp. 3 Exp. 4 Exp. 5
An. 1 1.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.08
An. 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.00
An. 3 0.15 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10
An. 4 0.00 0.12 0.00 1.00 0.00
An. 5 0.08 0.00 0.10 0.00 1.00
29

The MAC matrix for a thickness ratio of 0.44 is shown in Table 3.2. As the
thickness ratio is decreased the diagonal terms lower in value, as shown in Table 3.3.
The off diagonal terms are also affected by the thickness ratio, but not to the extent of
which the diagonal terms are affected. Figure 3.3 shows the first three mode shapes for a
beam without a notch (analytical) and for a notched beam (experimental) with thickness
ratio of 0.44. The notch is located in the 49
th
to 56
th
degrees of freedom. The
experimental models first and second modes are affected in the area of the notch, where
as the third does not change much because in the third mode there is little bending in the
area of the notch. This agrees with the MAC results shown in Table 3.2. As the thickness
ratio decreases more, all modes begins to be affected by the notch, as shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.2 MAC matrix with r = 0.44.
An. 1 0.93 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.07
An. 2 0.05 0.95 0.00 0.12 0.00
An. 3 0.14 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.09
An. 4 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.92 0.01
An. 5 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.95

Table 3.3 MAC matrix with r = 0.12.
An. 1 0.74 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.02
An. 2 0.16 0.69 0.01 0.06 0.02
An. 3 0.11 0.01 0.28 0.06 0.08
An. 4 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.55 0.06
An. 5 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.24

30
0 50 100 150
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Degree of Freedom
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Mode 1 - An.
Mode 2 - An.
Mode 3 - An.
Mode 1 - Exp.
Mode 2 - Exp.
Mode 3 - Exp.

Figure 3.3 Mode shape comparison for an unnotched beam and a notched beam with r =
0.44.

The force balance method was used to determine the location of the modeling
errors revealed by each mode shape. The degrees of freedom around the notch are
plotted in Figures 3.4 and 3.5 to show the distribution of the notch error. The error is
approximately zero for all degrees of freedom not shown in the figures. Figure 3.4 shows
the force balance for a thickness ratio of 0.44 for the first three modes. The magnitude of
the error is different for each mode, but the force balance points to the same location in
each case. Figure 3.5 shows the force balance for the first mode for three different
thickness ratios. Again, only the degrees of freedom around the notch are shown. It can
be seen from this plot that as r decreases the force balance shows a higher error.

31
45 50 55 60 65
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
x 10
7
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3

Figure 3.4 Force balance in notch area for r = 0.44 and several modes.

45 50 55 60 65
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
x 10
6
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
r = 1
r = .44
r = .12

Figure 3.5 Force balance in notch area for several values of r and mode 1.
32
The localization matrix was formed using the SST method developed by Gordis. To
determine the overall effect of the thickness ratio, the normal value of the matrix is
calculated, as shown in Figure 3.6. The normal value of the matrix is defined as the sum
of the maximum absolute values in each column of the matrix. This is used to show the
overall effect of the thickness ratio on the entire localization matrix rather than specifying
the maximum error on one degree of freedom.
The thickness ratio, r, is the only variable changed in this model. Figure 3.6 shows a
relationship between the normal error and r that is similar to a third order polynomial.
This relationship is to be expected. The bending component of the stiffness matrix is
related to the element thickness by a factor of thickness cubed and the shear component is
dependent linearly with thickness. A similar trend is seen in the mass matrix, as shown in
Appendix A.
Figure 3.7 is a mesh of the entire localization matrix and shows the localization of
the error around the notch. The localization matrix was developed at a frequency of 117
Hz, near the first natural frequency of the system. The localization matrix was calculated
for other frequencies with similar results. The magnitudes of the normal error did not
vary significantly and the trends with respect to r were as shown in Figure 3.7.
Therefore, 117 Hz is used as a reference frequency for the localization matrix in the rest
of the SST calculations. An important note is that the localization matrix was calculated
for a system with no damping. As stated, in each case the trends were similar.
Therefore, it was determined that including damping in the system was not necessary to
provide accurate results with the localization matrix.
33
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
11
Thickness Ratio, r
N
o
r
m
a
l

E
r
r
o
r

Figure 3.6 Normal error of the localization matrix for a varying r at 117 Hz.
45
50
55
60
45
50
55
60
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
x 10
10
Degree of Freedom
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
10

Figure 3.7 Full localization matrix (left) and localization matrix of the notch area (right)
for r = 0.44 at 117 Hz.
34
3.2 Experiment 2:Variation of Mesh Density in Both Models
The second experiment investigates the effect of a localized increase in mesh density in
the notched section of the beam. The mesh density is increased from one four-node
element in the ninth section in both the experimental model and the analytical model. The
ninth section in the experimental model is notched, while the analytical model is not, as
shown in Figure 3.8. The increase in the mesh density will be referred to the number of
added elements, n. By increasing the mesh in both models, the reduction process is not
required and the effect of the localized increase in mesh density can be determined. The
experiment is performed for several thickness ratios in the notched section.
thickness ratio, r
Experimental model
Added Elements, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23
Analytical model
Added Elements, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Figure 3.8 Experiment 2 models. The notch thickness, r, is varied, as is the number of
elements added, n.

In the following tables, the MAC values are shown for a thickness ratio of 0.76
and for an increasing number of added elements in the notch area. The diagonal values
are close to unity in all three cases. As shown in the first experiment, decreasing the
thickness ratio, r, from one will reduce the main diagonal values. As the mesh density is
increased, the overall effect on the MAC matrices is minimal. The magnitude of the
35
change in the MAC is on the order of 0.1%. This verifies that the mode shapes are not
affected by an increase in mesh density. This was expected because the mesh was
previously checked for convergence.
Table 3.4 MAC matrix with n = 1 and r = 0.76.
An. 1 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.08
An. 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.13 0.00
An. 3 0.12 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.07
An. 4 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.99 0.00
An. 5 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.99

An. 1 1.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.11
An. 2 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.13 0.01
An. 3 0.04 0.01 1.00 0.01 0.02
An. 4 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.99 0.01
An. 5 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.99

An. 1 1.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.18
An. 2 0.01 0.99 0.03 0.15 0.03
An. 3 0.00 0.04 1.00 0.06 0.01
An. 4 0.04 0.14 0.06 0.98 0.03
An. 5 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.99

Figure 3.9 shows the first three mode shapes for a thickness ratio of 0.76 with 15
added elements in the notch area. The effect of the notch can be seen in the first and
second modes. This corresponds to the results of the MAC matrix. The error in the
MAC matrix can be attributed solely to the thickness ratio of less than one.
36
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Degree of Freedom
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Mode 1 - An.
Mode 2 - An.
Mode 3 - An.
Mode 1 - Exp.
Mode 2 - Exp.
Mode 3 - Exp.

Figure 3.9 Comparison of the first three experimental and analytical mode shapes for n =
15 and r = 0.76.

The force balance method was used to find the location of the error. It is expected
that the error should be caused by the thickness ratio in the notch only, because the mesh
density is shown not to affect the mode shapes in the MAC. Figure 3.10 shows the force
balance for two thickness ratios and for 5 added elements and Figure 3.11 shows the
force balance for the same thickness ratios and 15 added elements. In each figure, there
are two peaks. These peaks are located at each end of the notched section. The values
outside of the notched section are approximately zero and inside are on the order of 10
2
.
There is no difference between the error calculated for 5 and 15 added elements other
than the width between the peeks, which is caused by the added degrees of freedom in the
notch. This shows that the force balance is not effected by the localized increase in mesh
density when both models contain the increase in mesh density. This agrees with the
trends displayed in the MAC.
37
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
6
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
r = 0.76
r = 0.50

Figure 3.10 Force balance for n = 5 and two values of r for mode 2.
0 50 100 150 200 250
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
6
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
r = 0.76
r = 0.50

The SST localization matrix is computed for the same two values of the thickness
ratio that are used in the force balance method. Since both models have a localized mesh
38
density increase, both models stiffness matrix terms increase with the added elements.
Therefore, it is expected that the only error should come from the thickness ratio. The
normal error was calculated and plotted against the localized mesh density increase, as
shown in Figure 3.12. The increase in normal error with added elements can be explained
through the added degrees of freedom in the notch area. The added degrees of freedom
add to the number of error terms being summed in the normal error calculations resulting
in increasing normal error. The increase in slope is caused by the thickness ratio
decrease. The values do not cross through zero with zero added elements because there is
still error caused by the value of r being less than one.
0 5 10 15
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
x 10
11
Number of Added Elements, n
N
o
r
m
a
l

E
r
r
o
r
r = 0.76
r = 0.50

Figure 3.12 Normal error of the localization matrix for variations in r and n at 117 Hz.
39

for n = 5 and r = 0.76 at 117 Hz.

The left mesh in Figure 3.13 shows that the localization matrix points to the notch
area as expected and does not show error in any other area. The mesh on the right shows
a magnification of the notch area. The increase in width of the error, when compared to
the previous experiment, is due to the added degrees of freedom in the notch.
40
3.3 Experiment 3: Variation in Mesh Density using Reduction
The third experiment investigates the effect of increasing the mesh density in the notched
section in only the experimental model. The analytical model is a uniform, evenly
meshed beam with twenty-four, four-node elements, as shown in Figure 3.14. This
requires the use of Guyan reduction on the experimental data. The effect of the mesh
density and reduction on the localization error will be shown using the same three
techniques.
thickness ratio, r
Experimental model
Added Elements, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23
Analytical model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Figure 3.14 Experiment 3 models. The notch thickness ratio, r, and the number of added
elements, n, are varied.

The following tables show the MAC matrices for several values of n for a
thickness ratio of 0.76. The results are similar to those found in the previous two
experiments. The increase in the localized mesh density does not effect the MAC values
and decreasing the thickness ratio reduces the values in the MAC matrix.
41
An. 1 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.05
An. 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.11 0.00
An. 3 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.09
An. 4 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.99 0.00
An. 5 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.99

An. 1 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.05
An. 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.11 0.00
An. 3 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.09
An. 4 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.99 0.00
An. 5 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.99

An. 1 0.94 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.05
An. 2 0.04 0.96 0.00 0.11 0.00
An. 3 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.09
An. 4 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.94 0.01
An. 5 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.96

The force balance technique is used to determine if the reduction of the
experimental data will have an effect on the error. Figure 3.15 shows the force balance
for a thickness ratio of 1.0 with a localized mesh density increase of 5 and 15 elements.
Figures 3.16 and 3.17 show the force balance for 5 and 15 added elements respectively
and for two values of r. Figure 3.15 shows that the force balance does show localized
error for a beam without a notch and added elements. This was not found previously
because the localized mesh density was increased in both models, whereas now, only the
42
experimental model contains a localized increase in mesh density. The elemental
stiffness terms in the notch area are larger in the experimental model than in the
analytical model due to the reduction in element length caused by the added elements.
The magnitudes of the errors given by the force balance method in Figures 3.16 and 3.17
are very close to those previously found without the reduction process and at least an
order of magnitude greater than the error caused by the change in n. The reduction
process is shown to not have much of an effect on the error predicted by the force
balance. This will hold true as long as the error from the notch is significantly greater
than the error from the mesh density. As shown previously, the error produced for each
mode of the force balance can differ significantly.
0 50 100 150
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
4
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
n = 5
n = 15

Figure 3.15 Force balance for r = 1.0 and two values of n for mode 2.
43
0 50 100 150
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
6
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
r = 0.50
r = 0.76

0 50 100 150
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
6
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
r = 0.50
r = 0.76

44
The SST localization matrix is developed for three thickness ratios and as a
function of n. Figure 3.18 shows the normal error of these localization matrices. There is
a dramatic difference in the results obtained by the localization matrix.
The error increases sharply for the first two added elements and then levels off for
additional elements. The magnitude of the error fluctuates somewhat as n increases. As
the experimental model is reduced, the master degrees of freedom change and the
location in the elemental stiffness matrix of those master degrees of freedom varies.
These master degrees of freedom are being compared to the same analytical stiffness
values, which do not change. In Appendix A, it is shown that the values of terms in the
stiffness matrix along the main diagonal are not constant, resulting in variation in
magnitude in the plots.
0 5 10 15
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
x 10
11
Number of Added Elements
N
o
r
m
a
l

E
r
r
o
r
r = 0.76
r = 0.68
r = 0.50

Figure 3.18 Normal error of the localization matrix for various values of r at 117 Hz.

45
45
50
55
60
45
50
55
60
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
x 10
11
Degree of Freedom
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
x 10
10

for n = 5 and r = 0.76 after reduction at 117 Hz.

Figure 3.19 shows the localization matrix for a thickness ratio of 0.5 and 5 added
elements. The error is localized in the notched section. The error is not dispersed
throughout the matrix due to the reduction process.
46
3.4 Experiment 4: Mesh Density and Thickness Ratio Comparison
This experiment compares the magnitude of the error caused by the thickness ratio in the
notch with the error caused by the increase in mesh density. The notch is placed in the
experimental model in the ninth section and a localized increase in the mesh density is
placed in the analytical model. As described in Chapter 2, the localized mesh density is
placed in the fifteenth section rather than the notch location, as shown in Figure 3.20.
This simulates the effect of a modeling assumption error (concentrating the mesh in the
wrong area as well as neglecting the notch). The analytical model will be reduced to
correlate the degrees of freedom in the analytical and experimental models.
thickness ratio, r
Experimental model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Analytical model
Added Elements, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Figure 3.20 Experiment 4 models. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied as is the
number of elements added, n.

Tables 3.10 and 3.11 show the effect of a modeling assumption error (increasing
the mesh in the wrong area) on the mode shape correlation. The MAC matrices are not
affected by the increase in the localized mesh density in the analytical model. This
agrees with previous findings on the increase in mesh density. Table 3.12 shows a MAC
47
for a different thickness ratio. The increase in thickness ratio increases the correlation
between the analytical and experimental models as previously determined.
Table 3.10 MAC with n = 1 and r = 0.76.
An. 1 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.05
An. 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.11 0.00
An. 3 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.09
An. 4 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.99 0.00
An. 5 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.99

An. 1 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.05
An. 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.11 0.00
An. 3 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.09
An. 4 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.99 0.00
An. 5 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.99

An. 1 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.06
An. 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.11 0.00
An. 3 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10
An. 4 0.00 0.11 0.00 1.00 0.00
An. 5 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.00 1.00

The force balance method is used to localize the errors in the model. Figure 3.21
shows the resultant error for 1 added element for two thickness ratios. The error due to
the notch is in the 49
th
through 56
th
degrees of freedom and the localized mesh density
increase is found in the 85
th
through 92
nd
degrees of freedom. The error caused by the
48
notch is significantly larger than that caused by the localized increase in the mesh density
for the case of one added element.
0 50 100 150
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
5
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
r = 0.92
r = 0.76

Figure 3.21 Force balance with n = 1 and two values of r for mode 1.
Figure 3.22 shows a magnification of the error caused by the mesh density
increase. The error predicted by the force balance technique is not affected by an
increase in the mesh density, as shown in Figure 3.23. This agrees with previous findings
in Experiments 2 and 3.

49
84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
r = 0.92
r = 0.76

Figure 3.22 Localized mesh density error with n = 1 and two values of r for mode 1.

84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
r = 0.92
r = 0.76

Figure 3.23 Localized mesh density error with n = 10 and two values of r for mode 1.
50
The SST localization matrix is formed for varying thickness ratios and mesh
densities. The results are similar to that of the force balance method. The error does
change much with an increase in n. There is an immediate increase of error in the
localization matrix with the first added element and then the error levels off. At that
point, the error fluctuates around a value of about 8x10
9
. This fluctuation is similar to
that displayed in Experiment 3 and is a result of the reduction process as discussed
earlier. The error caused by the notch does not change with the mesh density as before
because the localized mesh density increase is not placed in the notched section of the
beam. In other words, the mass and stiffness terms being compared for the notch are
constant and the number of degrees of freedom in the notch area is constant.
Three localization matrices are shown in Figures 3.24 through 3.26. The first
shows the matrix for a thickness ratio of 0.76, the second for a ratio of 0.92, and the third
for a ratio of 0.5. In the first plot the errors from each source are about the same. The
second figure shows the mesh density error to be much greater than the notch location.
The final figure shows the error to be greatest in the notched area.

Figure 3.24 Full localization matrix (left) and close-up of affected degrees of freedom
(right) for r = 0.76 and n = 10 at 117 Hz.
51



It has been shown previously that an increase in localized mesh density does not
affect the eigenvalues or eigenvectors in the analytical model. The results from the two
localization techniques show error from both sources rather than just from the thickness
ratio in the notched area of the beam. Depending on which updating technique is used,
the resultant updated model will affect both areas of the model, correcting an area that
may not need to be corrected.
52
3.5 Experiment 5: Effects of Noise in the Experimental Data
In this section, the effect of adding noise to the experimental data on the model
verification process is investigated. Random noise is added to the experimentally
synthesized mode shapes for the force balance technique and directly to the experimental
frequency response functions for the SST localization matrix. A beam with a notch, with
a thickness ratio of 0.76, located in the ninth section is used for the experimental beam.
The analytical beam is defined with a localized mesh density increase in the fifteenth
section of the beam, as shown in Figure 3.27.
thickness ratio, r
Experimental model
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23
Analytical model
Added Elements, n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 19 18 21 22 23

Figure 3.27 Experiment 5 models. The notch thickness ratio, r, is varied, as is the
number of elements added, n. Random noise is added to the experimental system.

The effect of the noise on the localization process is determined using the force
balance technique and the localization matrix. Developing a random vector of values
between -0.5 and 0.5 produces the noise vector. This vector is then normalized to each
mode shape vector and multiplied by a percentage. This results in a noise vector of the
desired weight, which can be added to the mode shape. The force balance results for no
noise, 0.00005% noise, and 0.0005% noise are shown in Figure 3.28. The line displaying
the force balance results for no noise shows a localized error in the region of the notch.
53
As the noise is increased, the force balance shows error in areas other than the notch, but
the error in the notch location still dominates. When the noise on the experimental data is
increased to 0.0005%, the error can no longer be localized to any one area using the force
balance technique.
0 50 100 150
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
5
Degree of Freedom
E
r
r
o
r
No Noise
0.00005% Noise
0.0005% Noise

Figure 3.28 Force balance for various noise levels, n = 10, and r = 0.76 for mode 1.
The localization matrix is now used to determine the effect of adding noise to the
experimental data in the localization process. A similar technique is used to determine
the noise as was used for the force balance, but the noise is now added to the
experimental frequency response function. Figure 3.29 shows the localization matrix
with no noise for a thickness ratio of 0.76 and 10 added elements. The error for each
location, the notch and localized increase in mesh density, is about the same magnitude.
Next 0.00005% noise is added to the experimental frequency response function, as shown
in Figure 3.30. As with the force balance technique, the localization matrix begins to
54
show error in locations other than the area of localized mesh density increase. Figure
3.31 shows the localization matrix with 0.0005% noise. The localization matrix is now
full and the error cannot be localized to any one location in the model.

Figure 3.29 Localization matrix with no noise, n = 10, and r = 0.76 at 117 Hz.

55

Figure 3.30 Localization matrix with 0.00005% noise, n = 10, and r = 0.76 at 117 Hz.

Figure 3.31 Localization matrix with 0.0005% noise, n = 10, and r = 0.76 at 117 Hz.
56
The force balance method and the localization matrix are both affected by noise in
a similar fashion. When the noise reaches a point to which the sixth significant figure is
affected, the error can no longer be localized to any specific location. At that point, the
error caused by the noise is of the same magnitude as the error caused by the notch in the
beam and by the localized mesh density increase. The effects of noise in the
experimental system compare to those found by Ewins et al. when using the error matrix
method (EMM).
57
Chapter 4
Conclusions

The effect of localized changes in the mesh density in finite element model verification
has been studied in detail. The subject used in these studies has been a beam with a notch
located slightly off center. The beam was modeled without the notch in the finite element
model and the error produced from this modeling inaccuracy was compared to the error
caused by a localized mesh density increase. It was determined that the error caused by a
localized increase in mesh density may mask a modeling error, such as that caused by a
notch.
Consequently, mesh density may have a dramatic effect on the verification
process. It has been shown that the increase in mesh density, after convergence of the
model, will not affect the natural frequencies or mode shapes of the model. The finite
element model is updated based on the results of the localization process. If the
localization process points toward an increase in localized mesh density rather than the
modeling inaccuracy, such as a notched section, the model will not be updated properly.
This can result in inaccurate results and divergence of the finite element model after
updating.
The effect of noise in the experimental data has also been investigated in this
work. It has been shown that the noise on the experimental data must be kept on the
order of 5x10
-4
%, accurate to 6 significant figures, to ensure accurate localization of the
errors. If the noise exceeds this amount, the techniques presented in this work cannot
58
distinguish the error caused by the noise from the error caused by the modeling
inaccuracies. Table 4.1 shows a summary of the results from this work.
Table 4.1 Summary of results.
Variable MAC Force Balance Localization Matrix
Decreasing r Reduced correlation Increased error Increased error
Increasing n w/o reduction No effect No effect No effect
Increasing n w/ reduction No effect Small localized error Localized error
Increasing noise N/A Poor localization Poor localization

59
Appendix A

FEA Matrices

List of Symbols:

: Density
A: Element cross sectional area
B: Bending stiffness matrix
b: Width of beam
E: Youngs modulus
F
shear
: Shear factor (5/6)
G: Modulus of rigidity
h: Height of beam
I: Inertia
K: Stiffness matrix
L: Element length
M: Mass matrix
S: Shear stiffness matrix

Equations for four-node, 2 DOF, elemental mass and stiffness matrices:

12
3
bh
I = (A.1)

bh A = (A.2)

S B K + = (A.3)

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

=
148 0 189 0 54 0 13 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
189 0 432 0 297 0 54 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 0 297 0 432 0 189 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 54 0 189 0 148 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40L
EI
B (A.4)
60

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

=
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
128 840 99 1197 36 504 19 147
840 6216 1179 7938 504 2268 147 546
99 1197 648 0 81 1701 36 504
1197 7938 0 18144 1701 12474 504 2268
36 504 81 1701 648 0 99 1197
504 228 1701 12474 0 18144 1197 7938
19 147 36 504 99 1197 128 840
147 546 504 2268 1197 7938 840 6216
1680
L L L L L L L L
L L L L
L L L L L L L
L L L
L L L L L L L
L L L
L L L L L L L L
L L L L
L
GA F
S
shear
(A.6)

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
I I I I
A A A A
I I I I
A A A A
I I I I
A A A A
I I I I
A A A A
L
M
128 0 99 0 36 0 19 0
0 128 0 99 0 36 0 19
99 0 648 0 81 0 36 0
0 99 0 648 0 81 0 36
36 0 81 0 648 0 99 0
0 36 0 81 0 648 0 99
19 0 36 0 99 0 128 0
0 19 0 36 0 99 0 128
1680
(A.5)

61
Appendix B
Programs

A.1 Exp1.m
%Peter J. Jargowsky
%1/26/98
%Investigate thickness ratio of notch on three indicators
close all
clear all

% INPUT MESH PARAMETERS
% Get # nodes and location for smaller elements and for notch
nelem=24;
small=nelem/8*3;
notch=nelem/8*3;

for n=1:12,
npe = 4; %Nodes per element
nelem2=nelem; %Number of elements for second beam
dof = 2; %Degrees of freedom per node
glsz = dof*(nelem*(npe-1)+1); %Size of global matrii(analytical)
glsz2 = dof*(nelem2*(npe-1)+1); %Size of global matrii(experimental)
master=glsz; %Number of Master DOF
small_loc=1+6*(small-1); %Location of smaller elements

% BEAM AND MATERIAL CONSTANTS

width = 0.05; %Beam Width
thick = 0.0125; %Beam Thickness
thick3(n)= 0.0015+.001*(n-1); %Notch Thickness
Length = 0.61; %Beam Length
elength = Length/nelem; %Element Length
elength2 = elength; %Smaller elements
shearf = 5/6; %Shear Factor
area = width*thick; %Area
area3 = width*thick3(n); %Area for notch
inertia = width*thick^3/12; %Inertia
inertia3 = width*thick3(n)^3/12; %Inertia for notch
nu = 0.3; %Poisson's Ratio
Emod = 207*10^9; %Young's Modulus
Gmod = Emod/(2*(1 + nu)); %Shear Modulus
rho = 7850; %Density

ratio(n)=thick3(n)/thick;

% 4 NODE ELEMENTS for normal elements

bend = (Emod*inertia)/(40*elength) * ...
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
62
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
shear = (shearf*Gmod*area)/(1680*elength) * ...
[6216, 840*elength, -7938, 1197*elength, 2268, -504*elength, -546,
147*elength;
840*elength, 128*elength^2, -1197*elength, 99*elength^2, 504*elength, -
36*elength^2, -147*elength, 19*elength^2;
-7938, -1197*elength, 18144, 0, -12474, 1701*elength, 2268, -504*elength;
1197*elength, 99*elength^2, 0, 648*elength^2, -1701*elength, -
81*elength^2, 504*elength, -36*elength^2;
2268, 504*elength, -12474, -1701*elength, 18144, 0, -7938, 1197*elength;
-504*elength, -36*elength^2, 1701*elength, -81*elength^2, 0,
-546, -147*elength, 2268, 504*elength, -7938, -1197*elength, 6216, -
840*elength;
147*elength, 19*elength^2, -504*elength, -36*elength^2, 1197*elength,
99*elength^2, -840*elength, 128*elength^2];
mass = (elength*rho)/1680 * ...
[128*area, 0, 99*area, 0, -36*area, 0, 19*area, 0;
0, 128*inertia, 0, 99*inertia, 0, -36*inertia, 0, 19*inertia;
99*area, 0, 648*area, 0, -81*area, 0, -36*area, 0;
0, 99*inertia, 0, 648*inertia, 0, -81*inertia, 0, -36*inertia;
-36*area, 0, -81*area, 0, 648*area, 0, 99*area, 0;
0, -36*inertia, 0, -81*inertia, 0, 648*inertia, 0, 99*inertia;
19*area, 0, -36*area, 0, 99*area, 0, 128*area, 0;
0, 19*inertia, 0, -36*inertia, 0, 99*inertia, 0, 128*inertia];
spring = bend + shear;
%Four Node Elements for smaller elements
bend2 = (Emod*inertia)/(40*elength2) * ...
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
shear2 = (shearf*Gmod*area)/(1680*elength2) * ...
[6216, 840*elength2, -7938, 1197*elength2, 2268, -504*elength2, -546,
147*elength2;
840*elength2, 128*elength2^2, -1197*elength2, 99*elength2^2,
504*elength2, -36*elength2^2, -147*elength2, 19*elength2^2;
-7938, -1197*elength2, 18144, 0, -12474, 1701*elength2, 2268, -
504*elength2;
1197*elength2, 99*elength2^2, 0, 648*elength2^2, -1701*elength2, -
81*elength2^2, 504*elength2, -36*elength2^2;
2268, 504*elength2, -12474, -1701*elength2, 18144, 0, -7938,
1197*elength2;
-504*elength2, -36*elength2^2, 1701*elength2, -81*elength2^2, 0,
648*elength2^2, -1197*elength2, 99*elength2^2;
-546, -147*elength2, 2268, 504*elength2, -7938, -1197*elength2, 6216, -
840*elength2;
147*elength2, 19*elength2^2, -504*elength2, -36*elength2^2,
1197*elength2, 99*elength2^2, -840*elength2, 128*elength2^2];
mass2= (elength2*rho)/1680 * ...
63
spring2 = bend2 + shear2;
%Four Node Elements for Notch elements
bend3 = (Emod*inertia3)/(40*elength) * ...
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
shear3 = (shearf*Gmod*area3)/(1680*elength) * ...
147*elength;
840*elength;
mass3 = (elength*rho)/1680 * ...
[128*area3, 0, 99*area3, 0, -36*area3, 0, 19*area3, 0;
0, 128*inertia3, 0, 99*inertia3, 0, -36*inertia3, 0, 19*inertia3;
99*area3, 0, 648*area3, 0, -81*area3, 0, -36*area3, 0;
0, 99*inertia3, 0, 648*inertia3, 0, -81*inertia3, 0, -36*inertia3;
-36*area3, 0, -81*area3, 0, 648*area3, 0, 99*area3, 0;
0, -36*inertia3, 0, -81*inertia3, 0, 648*inertia3, 0, 99*inertia3;
19*area3, 0, -36*area3, 0, 99*area3, 0, 128*area3, 0;
0, 19*inertia3, 0, -36*inertia3, 0, 99*inertia3, 0, 128*inertia3];
%Four Node Elements for smaller and notch elements(when small==notch)
bend4 = (Emod*inertia3)/(40*elength2) * ...
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
shear4 = (shearf*Gmod*area3)/(1680*elength2) * ...
147*elength2;
-7938, -1197*elength2, 18144, 0, -12474, 1701*elength2, 2268, -
504*elength2;
2268, 504*elength2, -12474, -1701*elength2, 18144, 0, -7938,
1197*elength2;
64
840*elength2;
mass4 = (elength2*rho)/1680 * ...

clear elength, clear rho, clear bend, clear shear, clear inertia, clear area
clear Gmod, clear width, clear thick, clear nu, clear Emod, clear Length

% ASSEMBLE GLOBAL STIFFNESS AND MASS MATRICES

kmat = zeros(glsz);
mmat = zeros(glsz);
inc = dof*(npe-1);

for i = 0: nelem - 1,
a=i*inc+1;
b=i*inc+dof*npe;
kmat(a:b,a:b) = kmat(a:b,a:b) + spring;
mmat(a:b,a:b) = mmat(a:b,a:b) + mass;
end
% APPLY A STIFFNESS TO 1 AND LAST NODES TO AVOID SINGULARITIES
bc=1.000;
kmat(1,1)=kmat(1,1)*bc;
kmat(glsz-1,glsz-1)=kmat(glsz-1,glsz-1)*bc;
kmat(glsz,glsz)=kmat(glsz,glsz)*bc;

% ASSEMBLE GLOBAL STIFFNESS AND MASS MATRICES for EXPERIMENTAL BEAM

kmat2= zeros(glsz2);
mmat2= zeros(glsz2);
inc = dof*(npe-1);
i=0;
while i<=nelem2-1,
a=i*inc+1;
b=i*inc+dof*npe;
if ((i==small-1)&(small~=notch))
for j=small-1:small-1,
a=j*inc+1;
b=j*inc+dof*npe;
kmat2(a:b,a:b)=kmat2(a:b,a:b) + spring2;
mmat2(a:b,a:b)=mmat2(a:b,a:b) + mass2;
end

i=j;
elseif ((i==small-1)&(small==notch))
for j=small-1:small-1,
a=j*inc+1;
b=j*inc+dof*npe;
65
end
i=j;
else
kmat2(a:b,a:b) = kmat2(a:b,a:b) + spring;
mmat2(a:b,a:b) = mmat2(a:b,a:b) + mass;
end
i=i+1;
end

kmat2(1,1)=kmat2(1,1)*bc;
kmat2(glsz2-1,glsz2-1)=kmat2(glsz2-1,glsz2-1)*bc;
kmat2(glsz2,glsz2)=kmat2(glsz2,glsz2)*bc;

clear mass2, clear spring2, clear i, clear inc
clear mass, clear spring, clear i, clear inc

% MAKE UP ANALYTICAL (FINITE ELEMENT) DATA SET
% NOTE: UNITS ON EIGENVALUES ARE IN RAD/SEC

femmodes = 7;
[FEvector, FEvalues] = eigsort(kmat,mmat);
phia = FEvector(:, 3:femmodes);
wna = sqrt(diag(FEvalues(3:femmodes,3:femmodes)));
% Cacluate exerimental data

[FEvector2, FEvalues2] = eigsort(kmat2,mmat2);
phie = FEvector2(:, 3:femmodes);
wne = sqrt(diag(FEvalues2(3:femmodes, 3:femmodes)));

%Apply Gordis Method
[L(:,:),f]=gordis(kmat,mmat,kmat2,mmat2);
%Determine Mac
Mac=mac(phia,phie);

%Do Force Balance
F(:,n)=real(fbal(kmat,mmat,wne(1),phie(:,1)));

e_norm(n)=norm(L(:,:));

66
A.2 Exp2.m
%Peter J. Jargowsky
%1/27/98
%With a given thickness ratio add elements to the notch location on both
% Anayltical and experimental models
% Investigate Gordis, MAC, and Force Balance

clear all

nelem=24;
small=nelem/8*3;
notch=nelem/8*3;
h=waitbar(0,'Inverting Matricii ...');
%Start loop for adding elements to notch area on both models
for n=1:15, %
nelem2=nelem+n; %Number of elements for second beam
master=glsz; %Number of Master DOF


thick3 = 0.0125; %Notch Thickness
elength2 = elength/(n+1); %Smaller elements
area3 = width*thick3; %Area for notch
inertia3 = width*thick3^3/12; %Inertia for notch

% Develop vectors for plotting modeshapes
lvec1=[0:elength/3:Length]; %Length vector, analytical node locations
lvec2=zeros(glsz2/2,1); %Length vector, experimental node locations
lvec2(1:(small_loc+1)/2)=[0:elength/3:(small-1)*elength]';
lvec2((small_loc+1)/2:(2+6*(small+n))/2)=[(small-1)*elength
:elength2/3:(small)*elength]';
lvec2((2+6*(small+n))/2:glsz2/2)=[(small)*elength:elength/3:Length]';


[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
67
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength;
840*elength;
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength2;
-7938, -1197*elength2, 18144, 0, -12474, 1701*elength2, 2268, -
504*elength2;
2268, 504*elength2, -12474, -1701*elength2, 18144, 0, -7938,
1197*elength2;
840*elength2;
68
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength;
840*elength;
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength2;
-7938, -1197*elength2, 18144, 0, -12474, 1701*elength2, 2268, -
504*elength2;
2268, 504*elength2, -12474, -1701*elength2, 18144, 0, -7938,
1197*elength2;
69
840*elength2;



kmat = zeros(glsz2);
mmat = zeros(glsz2);
inc = dof*(npe-1);
i=0;
an=0;
while i<=nelem2-1,
a=i*inc+1;
b=i*inc+dof*npe;

if ((i==small-1)&(small==notch))
for j=small-1:small-1+n,
a=j*inc+1;
b=j*inc+dof*npe;
kmat(a:b,a:b)=kmat(a:b,a:b) + spring2;
mmat(a:b,a:b)=mmat(a:b,a:b) + mass2;
an=an+1;
end
i=j;
else
end
i=i+1;
end
an;
bc=1;
kmat(glsz2-1,glsz2-1)=kmat(glsz2-1,glsz2-1)*bc;
kmat(glsz2,glsz2)=kmat(glsz2,glsz2)*bc;


inc = dof*(npe-1);
i=0;
ex=0;
while i<=nelem2-1,
a=i*inc+1;
70
b=i*inc+dof*npe;
a=j*inc+1;
b=j*inc+dof*npe;
end
i=j;
elseif ((i==notch-1)&(small~=notch))

a=j*inc+1;
b=j*inc+dof*npe;
ex=ex+1;
end
i=j;
ex;
else
end
i=i+1;
end




femmodes = 7;


L=gordis(kmat,mmat,kmat2,mmat2);

Mac=mac(phia,phie);

F(:,n+1)=fbal(kmat,mmat,wne(3),phie(:,3));

e_norm(n+1)=norm(L(:,:));

end
71

A.3 Exp3.m
%Peter J. Jargowsky
%1/28/98
%Analyzing the effect of adding elements to the notch in only the experimental
model

clear all
close all


nelem=24;
small=3*(nelem/8);
notch=3*(nelem/8);

for n = 0:15,
master=glsz; %Master Dofs


thick3= 0.0095; %Notch Thickness
elength2 = elength/(1+n); %Smaller elements


[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength;
72
840*elength;
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength2;
-7938, -1197*elength2, 18144, 0, -12474, 1701*elength2, 2268, -
504*elength2;
2268, 504*elength2, -12474, -1701*elength2, 18144, 0, -7938,
1197*elength2;
840*elength2;
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
73
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength;
840*elength;
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength2;
-7938, -1197*elength2, 18144, 0, -12474, 1701*elength2, 2268, -
504*elength2;
2268, 504*elength2, -12474, -1701*elength2, 18144, 0, -7938,
1197*elength2;
840*elength2;
74



kmat = zeros(glsz);
mmat = zeros(glsz);
inc = dof*(npe-1);

for i = 0: nelem - 1,
a=i*inc+1;
b=i*inc+dof*npe;
end
bc=1.0001;
kmat(glsz-1,glsz-1)=kmat(glsz-1,glsz-1)*bc;
kmat(glsz,glsz)=kmat(glsz,glsz)*bc;

%
%

inc = dof*(npe-1);
i=0;
while i<=nelem2-1,
a=i*inc+1;
b=i*inc+dof*npe;
a=j*inc+1;
b=j*inc+dof*npe;
end
i=j;
elseif ((i==notch-1)&(small~=notch))
a=j*inc+1;
b=j*inc+dof*npe;
end
i=j;
else
75
end
i=i+1;
end



%Reduce experimental model to compare with analytical

To=zeros(glsz2,glsz2); %Reordering Matrix
%Fill in Master DOF
i=1;
d=(small_loc+6*(n+1)+2);
while i<=master

a=i;
if (a<small_loc)|(small==0)
To(a,i)=1;
elseif ((a==small_loc)&(small~=0)),
for j=1:4,
b=small_loc+(2+2*n)*(j-1);
c=small_loc+(2+2*n)*(j-1)+1;
To(b,i+2*(j-1))=1;
To(c,i+2*j-1)=1;
end
i=i+2*j-1;
elseif a>small_loc,
To(d,i)=1;
d=d+1;
end
i=i+1;
end

index=master+1; %index factor for deleted DOF
%Fill in Deleted Dof
for i=1:glsz2
x=0;
for j=1:glsz2
x=x+To(i,j);
end
if x<1
To(i,index)=1;
index=index+1;
end
end
% Reorder
kmatr=To'*kmat2*To;
mmatr=To'*mmat2*To;

%Find the Reduction Matrix
n=master;
kdd=kmatr(n+1:glsz2,n+1:glsz2);
kaa=kmatr(1:n,1:n);
kda=kmatr(n+1:glsz2,1:n);
76
r=-inv(kdd)*kda;
Ti=zeros(glsz2,n);
id=eye(n);
Ti(1:n,1:n)=id;
Ti(n+1:glsz2,1:n)=r;

%Reduce the experimental data
redm=Ti'*mmatr*Ti;
redk=Ti'*kmatr*Ti;


femmodes = 7;

[FEvector2, FEvalues2] = eigsort(redk,redm);

%Apply Verification Methods
L=gordis(kmat,mmat,redk,redm);
Mac=mac(phia,phie);
F(:,n+1)=fbal(kmat,mmat,wne(3),phie(:,3));
e_norm(n+1)=norm(L(:,:));
end
77
A.4 Exp4.m

%Peter J. Jargowsky
%1/28/98
%Increased mesh density in the analytical model at the wrong location.
%Experimental model has a notch, vary the notch size

clear all
close all

nelem=24;
small=5*(nelem/8);
notch=3*(nelem/8);

for n=0:15,

master=glsz;


thick3= 0.00625; %Notch Thickness
elength2 = elength/(1+n); %Smaller elements


[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength;
78
840*elength;
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength2;
-7938, -1197*elength2, 18144, 0, -12474, 1701*elength2, 2268, -
504*elength2;
2268, 504*elength2, -12474, -1701*elength2, 18144, 0, -7938,
1197*elength2;
840*elength2;
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
79
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength;
840*elength;
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 148, 0, -189, 0, 54, 0, -13;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -189, 0, 432, 0, -297, 0, 54;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, 54, 0, -297, 0, 432, 0, -189;
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
0, -13, 0, 54, 0, -189, 0, 148];
147*elength2;
-7938, -1197*elength2, 18144, 0, -12474, 1701*elength2, 2268, -
504*elength2;
2268, 504*elength2, -12474, -1701*elength2, 18144, 0, -7938,
1197*elength2;
840*elength2;
80



kmat = zeros(glsz2);
mmat = zeros(glsz2);
inc = dof*(npe-1);

i=0;
while i<=nelem2-1,
a=i*inc+1;
b=i*inc+dof*npe;
if ((i==small-1))
a=j*inc+1;
b=j*inc+dof*npe;
kmat(a:b,a:b)=kmat(a:b,a:b) + spring2;
mmat(a:b,a:b)=mmat(a:b,a:b) + mass2;
end
i=j;
else
end
i=i+1;
end
bc=1.0001;
kmat(glsz2-1,glsz2-1)=kmat(glsz2-1,glsz2-1)*bc;
kmat(glsz2,glsz2)=kmat(glsz2,glsz2)*bc;


kmat2= zeros(glsz);
mmat2= zeros(glsz);
inc = dof*(npe-1);
i=0;
while i<=nelem-1,
a=i*inc+1;
b=i*inc+dof*npe;
if ((i==notch-1)&(small~=notch))
for j=notch-1:notch-1,
a=j*inc+1;
b=j*inc+dof*npe;
end
i=j;
else
81
end
i=i+1;
end

kmat2(glsz-1,glsz-1)=kmat2(glsz-1,glsz-1)*bc;
kmat2(glsz,glsz)=kmat2(glsz,glsz)*bc;


%Reduce analytical model to compare with analytical
To=zeros(glsz2,glsz2); %Reordering Matrix
%Fill in Master DOF
i=1;
d=(small_loc+6*(n+1)+2);
while i<=master

a=i;
if (a<small_loc)|(small==0)
To(a,i)=1;
elseif ((a==small_loc)&(small~=0)),
for j=1:4,
b=small_loc+(2+2*n)*(j-1);
c=small_loc+(2+2*n)*(j-1)+1;
To(b,i+2*(j-1))=1;
To(c,i+2*j-1)=1;
end
i=i+2*j-1;
elseif a>small_loc,
To(d,i)=1;
d=d+1;
end
i=i+1;
end

index=master+1; %index factor for deleted DOF
% Fill in Deleted Dof
for i=1:glsz2
x=0;
for j=1:glsz2
x=x+To(i,j);
end
if x<1
To(i,index)=1;
index=index+1;
end
end
% Reorder
kmatr=To'*kmat*To;
mmatr=To'*mmat*To;

%Find the Reduction Matrix
n=master;
kdd=kmatr(n+1:glsz2,n+1:glsz2);
kaa=kmatr(1:n,1:n);
kda=kmatr(n+1:glsz2,1:n);
82
r=-inv(kdd)*kda;
Ti=zeros(glsz2,n);
id=eye(n);
Ti(1:n,1:n)=id;
Ti(n+1:glsz2,1:n)=r;

%Reduce the analytical data
redm=Ti'*mmatr*Ti;
redk=Ti'*kmatr*Ti;


femmodes = 7;
[FEvector, FEvalues] = eigsort(redk,redm);


%apply noise to modeshapes
percent=0.0005/100;
noise=(rand(size(phie))-.5);

for j=1:femmodes-2
N=max(noise(1:2:glsz,j))/max(phie(1:2:glsz,j));
noise(:,j)=percent*noise(:,j)/N;
end
phie(1:2:glsz,:)=phie(1:2:glsz,:)+noise(1:2:glsz,:);

%Apply Localization Methods
L=gordis(redk,redm,kmat2,mmat2);
Mac=mac(phia,phie);
F=fbal(redk,redm,wne(1),phie(:,1));

e_norm_notch(n+1)=norm(L(40:60,40:60));
e_norm_dens(n+1)=norm(L(80:100,80:100));
end

83
A.5 Gordis.m

function [L,f] = gordis(kmat,mmat,redk,redm)
%gordis gordis(kmat,mmat,redk,redm) applies the Gordis Method
%
% kmat= Analytical Stiffnes Matrix
% mmat= Analytical Mass Matrix
% redk= Experimental Stiffness Matrix
% redm= Experimental Mass Matrix
% NOTE: All matices must be the same size
%
% P. Jargowsky 1-18-98
% Penn State University--MDRL--Annex

glsz=length(kmat);
f=x; %input('Enter a Frequency(Hz) for Gordis Evaluation: ');
w=f*2*pi;
clear i

%Develop Impedence Matrix for Analytical Data
Za=(kmat-w^2*mmat);

%Develop H matrix for Experimental Data
Hx=inv(redk-w^2*redm);

%Make the L Matrix
L=(eye(glsz)-Za*Hx)*Za;

84
A.6 MAC.m

function MAC = mac(ANvec,EXPvec)
% mac(ANvec,EXPvec)
%
% Calculates the modal assurance criterion of the analytical
% and experimental modeshapes in the form of:
%
% An. Exp.
% An. | 1 --- |
% | |
% Exp. | --- 1 |
%
%
% ANvec= Analytical modeshapes
% EXPvec= Experimental modeshapes
%

[master,modes]=size(ANvec);
smodr=zeros(master,2*modes);
smodr(:,1:modes)=ANvec;
smodr(:,modes+1:2*modes)=EXPvec;

for p=1:2*modes
for b=1:2*modes
MAC(b,p)=real((smodr(:,b)'*smodr(:,p))^2/...
((smodr(:,b)'*smodr(:,b))*...
(smodr(:,p)'*smodr(:,p))));
d en
end

85
A.7 Fbal.m

function E = fbal(kmat,mmat,w_exp,phi_exp)
%fbal fbal(kmat,mmat,w_exp,phi_exp) applies the Force Balance%
% kmat= Analytical Stiffnes Matrix
% mmat= Analytical Mass Matrix
% w_exp= Experimental Natural Frequency --one value
% phi_exp= Experimental Mode Shape --cooresponding column to w_exp
%
%

glsz=length(kmat);

E=(kmat-w_exp^2*mmat)*phi_exp;

86
References

[1] R.J. Allemang and D.L Brown, A Correlation Coefficient for Modal Testing, IMAC
1, 1983.

[2] E. Fissette and Prof. S. Ibrahim, Error Location and Updating of Analytical Dynamic
Models using a Force Balance Method, Proceedings of IMAC VI, p. 1063.

[3] Gordis, Joshua H., An Exact Formulation for Structural Dynamic Model Error
Localization, IMAC II, 1993.

[4] N.A.J. Lieven and D.J. Ewins, Effect of Incompleteness and Noise on Error Matrix
Calcluations, Proceedings of the 10
th
IMAC, 1992.

[5] J. E. Mottershead and M. I. Friswell, Model Updating in Structural Dynamics: A
Survey, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1993, p. 347.

[6] Guyan, R.J., Reduction of Stiffness and Mass Matrices, AIAA Journal, Vol. 3,
No.2, Feb. 1965, p.380.

[7] N.A.J. Lieven and D.J. Ewins, Expansion of Modal Data for Correlation, 8
th
IMAC,
1990.

[8] Kidder, Robert L. Reduction of Structural Frequency Equations, AIAA Journal Vol.
11 No.6, June.

[9] N.A.J.Leiven and D.J. Ewins, Spatial Correlation of Mode Shapes, The coordinate
Modal Assurance Criterion (COMAC), IMAC 9, 1998.

[10] W. Heylen and T. Janter, Extensions of the Modal Assurance Criterion, Journal of
Vibrations Volume 112, October 1990.

[11] N.A.J. Lieven and D.J. Ewins, Error Location and Updating of Finite Element
Models Using Singular Value Decomposition, 8
th
IMAC 1990.

[12] K. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures, pp. 66-72, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey, 1996.

An Investigation of Localized Changes of Mesh Density in Finite Element Model Verification

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

An Investigation of Localized Changes of Mesh Density in Finite Element Model Verification

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

S-ar putea să vă placă și