A COMPARISON

OF TEST-ANALYSIS

MODEL

REDUCTION

METHODS

Andrew M. Freed Christopher C. Flanigan SDRC Engineering Services Division,

Inc.

ABSTRACT Several methods exist for reducing the mass and stiffness muices of a finite element model to a test-analysis model whose degrees of freedom correspond to modal survey accelerometer locations. Four of these methcdPstatic (Guyan) reduction, Improved Reduced System (IRS) method, Modal reduction, and Hybrid reduction-are compared for accuracy and robustness. Comparisons are made using two case studies: a simple finite element model of a generic spacecraft with simulated test data and a pretest finite element model of a large aerospace structure and corresponding modal survey results. The case studies suggest that the quality of the reduction process is problem dependent with none of the methods clearly superior to the others. However, the case studies show that the IRS method is an improvement over the Static reduction, and the Hybrid reduction is an improvement over the Modal reduction. This paper also reviews the theory behind each of the reduction methods. NOMENCLATURE a C f F K 0 T @ Accelerometer set Constraint mauix Free set Applied force vector Stiffness matrix omitted set Generalized coordinate Tranformation matrix Mode shapes

of orthogonality and cross-orthogonality checks. All of these tasks require an accurate reduction of the FEM mass and stiffness matrices down to the TAM DOF, or the TAM will not be able to perform its functions. Four methods of reducing FEM manices are currently in use: Static (Guyan) reduction [II; the Improved Reduction System (IRS) method [2]; Modal reduction [31; and Hybrid reduction [4]. These reduction methods have shown to differ in both accuracy and robustness. Accuracy is a tneasurc of the TAMs ability to predict the modal frequencies and mode shapes of the finite element model. Robustness is a measure of a TAMs ability to show orthogonality of test modes when the finite element model has inaccuracies. Robustness is of particular importance because showing orthogonal test modes is a commonly used requirement to determine the success of a modal survey. This paper will review the theory behind each reduction method and study the accuracy and robustness of the TAMS they produce. Accuracy and robustness will be studied by examining two test cases, one using simulated test data and the other using the results of a modal survey of a large aerospace suucture. MATRIX REDUCTION METHODS

Matrix reduction on transformation

procedures for test/analysis models are based methods of the form: B=TTAT (1)

INTRODUCTION A basic objective of a modal survey is to verify that the finite element model (FEM) of a structure is sufficiently accurate to predict the smxtures response to operating environments. The modal survey measures the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the structure for use in model verification. In general, the FEM will have many more degrees of freedom @OF) than the test configuration will have accelerometers. In order to compare the FEM with the test results directly, a reduced representation or Test-Analysis Model (TAM) must be generated. The degrees of freedom of the TAM will correspond one for one with accelerometers in the modal survey test contiguration. The development of a TAM serves several major functions. The selection of TAM DOF optimizes the test tneasuretnents and excitation locations. The reduced mass matrix provides an ability to calculate on-site orthogonality checks of the test modes. Finally, the TAM enables a quantitative comparison of the accutacy of the FEM during posttest correlation activities in the form

where

A = criginal matrix B = new matrix T = transformation matrix

A simple example of a matrix tmnsfotmation is the conversion of a finite element stiffness matrix from element to global coordinates. For this example, the transformation mahix T contains the direction cosines between the eletmmt and global coordinate systems. This transformation is exact since the number of degrees of freedom is the same for both the original and transformed matrices. The matrix reduction methods for test-analysis models must satisfy much greater demands than the above example. The major challenge is the mahix size difference between the FEM and the TAM. The number of DOF in a finite element model is usually very large (1,000 to 50,000 DOF). However, the number of accelerometers in a modal survey test is usually only 10 to 500. Ttte TAM reduction method must be able to accurately estimate or guess the motion of the FEM DOF using a limited set of 1344

known values at the accelerometer locations. Since the ratio between guessed versus know DOF is so large, the guessing procedure mst be very precise in order to accurately reduce the FEM matrices to the TAM degrees of freedom. The interpolation shapes used to guess the motion of the noninsttumented DOF are the key to the accuracy and robustness of the four TAM matrix reduction methods examined in this paper. The type of information used to generate the interpolation functions will determine the accuracy of the TAM. In addition, the number of vectors used in the interpolation will affect the robustness of the TAM to handle test or model error. The simplest TAM procedure uses the Guya reduction method [l]. This method is based on solving a static problem of the form:

tions to estimate the motion at the omitted DOF. This method is based on partitions of the FEM mode shapes. Writing the displacements as functions of the FEM mode shapes and a modal scale factor: (9) The upper and lower partitions of (9) can be written as: Uo=@,s u.a=o.q Premultiply (11) by I$ d : ~~u,=~.T~.q (10) (11)

(7-J
Premultiply Where o = omitted (noninsmtmented) DOF a = analysis (insmnnented) DOF (12) by[$2 gd~:

(W

[8,T4d1@6Ua=q Substituting (13) into (1) provides A-set and @set DOF: the relationship

(13)

Assuming that there are no loads on the omitted DOF, the upper partition of (2) can be solved: uo = The transformation is: ho- Km ua (3)

between the
(14)

uo=b~oaT$J-~aTu~ The Uansfonnatio matrix for the modal reduction is:

matrix from the FEM DOF to the TAM DOF

The reduced stiffness and mass manices can now be formed using the original FEM maoices and the transfotmation matrix T: L=TTKtrT Maz=TTMrrT

(5)

Note that (13) corresponds to a Moore-Penrose generalized inverse [5]. The solution and the resulting transformation matrix in (15) will be numerically exact if the generalized inverse exists and is well conditioned. Thisrequires that there be sufficient A-set DOF (accelerometers) to make the modes linearly independent and observable. In theory, this implies that a modal reduction could be performed using as few as one accelerometer per mode. However, practical usage requires a more generous selection of accelerometers in order to obtain good numerical conditioning of the generalized inverse. A disadvantage of the medal reduction method is that the number of vectors used to develop the transformation matrix is small since only the FEM mode shapes are used. This is much more limited than the Guya or IRS methods, which use unit deflection shapes for each TAM A-set DOF. While the modal TAM will be numerically very accurate, it may not be robust for situations where the modes of the test article are noticeably different than those predicted by the finite element model. Recent work by Kammer [4] has extended the capabilities of the modal TAM method. The new method, called the hybrid TAM, combines the accura.cy of the modal TAM with the robusmess of the Guyan reduction. A oblique projector matrix is formed using the FEM mode shapes, the uansfornxxtion matrix from the modal TAM, and the FEM mas tnauix P=$ OTT~mTMrthm

The Guyan reduction method makes the assumption that there are no forces on the omitted DOF. This is not a accorate assumption if any of the noninsrmmented DOF have mass. This is the cause of the typical frequency and mode shape errors inrrcduced by Guyan reduction. A new method, called the Improved Reduced System, was recently developed by OCallahan [21. This new method improves upon the Guyan reduction by including mass effects in the development of the transfotmation matrix. The first step in the IRS method is identical to the Guyan reduction. The next step uses the static transformation matrix to estimate the mass effects. The final tramfotmation matrix for the IRS method is: Ttns = Tsratic + T~ynamic where T~ymmic= &it [M., + Moo Tsd Maa- &a (7)

(16)

(8)

The stiffness and mass matrices are reduced to the TAM DOF sing the transfornxxion matrix (7) and the transformation equation (1). An alternate procedure was developed by Kammer [3]. This procedure uses the FEM mode shapes as the interpolation func-

The transfotmation matrix for the hybrid TAM is the combination of the Guyan reduction and modal TAM methods: THREE = Tstatis + ~TMRED Tll?;;,uced Tstd P 07)

mass and stiffness ma&ices are formed sing (17)

pretest FEM to support the test and posttcst analysis activities. For this paper, the reduction was repeated using all four reduction methods. The following paagaphs descrik the DPCA finite elemmz model, the modal survey test results, and the resulting accuracy and robustness of the fom TAMS. The MSQNASTRAN finite element model of the DPCA included 35,730 DOF and 7,691 elements. The model rcpresexed the modal survey contiguration including the rigid payload simulators and a Stiffness Simulator Attachment Structure to simulate the DPCA attachment to the Titan launch vehicle. The detailcd FEM of the DPCA is shown in Figure 5. The pre test model predicted thirty-five modes between 3.1 Hz and 44.1 Hz. Ihe DPCA modal survey identified 29 test modes below 45 Hz. Fourteen of these mcdes were defined as primary mcdes in that they had loge effective mass and would significantly influence flight loads. The primary modes consisted of bending and tarsional mcdes of the entire DPCA and bending and axial modes of the payload simulators on their supporting stxucture. For brevity, only these prima-y modes are considered in this paper. When compared to the test data, frequency errors of the pretest finite element model ranged fmm less than 4 percent for the first seven primary modes up to 18 percent for the higher primary modes. After completion of the DPCA test/analysis correlation all primwy m&es could be predicted by the tinite element model to within 4 percent. From this correlation it was learned that the pretest FEM of the DPCA had several mass and stiffness errors, The crrors in the pretest model were typical of a preveritied finite element model. Therefore, the use of the DPCA pretest finite element mcdel and modal suwey test data provided a realistic case study of the capabilities of the TAM reduction methcds for nonwitied detailed models of large aerospace suucrnres. The four reduction methods were used to reduce the detailed model of the DPCA to the 225 accelerometer DOF, The ability of the TAMS to replicate the pretest FEM frequencies of the fourteen primary mcdes is shown in Figure 6. The Medal and Hybrid TAMS predicted the frequencies exactly. The Static TAM had difficulty predicting the higher primary mcde frequenties and totally missed mode 30 (a torsional mode). The IRS TAM improved on the Static TAM results, especially the prediction of mode 30, but had uouble predicting the frequency of mode 33 (a third bending mcde). Orthogonality checks calculated using the reduced mass matrices and test modes are compared in Figure 7. The Hybrid TAM showed the most robustness of the four TAM methods. Though the Hybrid and Static TAMS had similar average off-diagonal orthogonality co-zfficients (2.07 compared to 2.09, respectively), the Hybrid TAM was the only reduction methcd to meet the tat orthogonality requirement of no off-diagonal terms above 10. The Static TAM failed this requirement by showing a coefticient of 15 for coupling b-ztween mcdes 1 I and 29, which are the two torsion modes. Unexpectedly, the Static TAM showed more robustness than the IRS TAM. The IRS TAM had an average off-diagonal orthogonality tarn of 3.11. The modal TAM showed the least robustness, having an average off-diagonal coefiicient of 3.21 and individual off-diagonal terms as high as 23. Cross-orthogonality checks using the pretest FEM modes, the reduced mass matrices, and the test modes are shown in Figure 8. This check aiso showed the Hybrid TAM to be the most robust. The Hybrid TAM had an average dingonay crossorthogonality tern of 92.4 compared to 88.6 for the Static TAM, 86.8 for the IRS TAM, and 70.9 for the modal TAM The modal TAM showed no correlation bcztween test modes 17 and 22 and Xny FEM modes. It was the only reduction method to have this difticulty.

For the DPCA, the IRS TAM did not perform quite as well as the Static TAM. This was probably caused by the errors in the tnass matrix. Since the JRS TAM includes tnass effects in the development of the transformation matrix, errors in the n~ass manix will be significant, This is not the case with the Static TAM since tnass terms are not used to develop its uansformation mmix.

CONCLUSIONS
Four methods of creating Test-Analysis Models were compared to evaluate accuracy and rohusmess. The four methcds were the Static, IRS, Modal, and Hybrid reduction methods. In one cast study, the IRS TAM appeaxd to Lx superior to the Static TAM since it included mass effects in the development of the trans. formation matrix. In the other case study, the IRS reduction method may have compounded the mass errors in the finite element mcdel prcducing a less robust TAM compared to Static reduction. In both case studies, the Hybrid TAM was better than the Modal TAM since the Hybrid TAM included both the accuracy of the Modal TAM and the robustness of the Static TAM. Each method had swengths and weaknesses. In general, the hybrid reduction method appews to pmvide a better TAM if the pretest finite element model is fairly accurate. The IRS reduction method appears to provide the bet TAM if the pretest tinite element model is significantly different i?om the test strutture. The best method to use on a particular structure will depend on the dynamic characteristics and mcdeling uncertainty. More case studies could further define the relationship between the quality of the reduction methods and the application.

REFERENCES
1. 2. Guyan, R.J., Reduction of Stiffness and Mass Matrices, AIAA Journal, Vol. 3, Feh 1965. GCallahan, J., A Procedure for an Improved System (IRS) Model, 7th International Medal Conference, January, 1989. Reduced Analysis

3.

Kammer, D.C., Test-Analysis Mcdel Development Using an Exact Modal Reduction, mf p, October, 1987, pp. 174.179. Kammer, D.C., A Hybrid Approach to Test Analysis Maid Development for Large Space Smxrnrcs, Submitted for publication to Journal of Smxecraft and Rockets, November, 1989. Penrose, R., A Gencmlized Inverse for Maticcs, Cambridge Phil. Sot, 51.406-413 (1955). Proc,

4.

5. 6.

Brillhart, R.D., Freed, A.M., Hunt, D.L., Chism, T.L., Modal Test and Correlation of the Commercial Titan Dual Payload Cakier, 8th IntemationaJ Modal Analysis Conference, January, 1990,

Table 1, Frequency accuracy for the S2 DOF TAM.

Table 3. Frequency accuracy for the 29 DOF TAM.

ML-d-5 &,&gr I 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

FEM Frequency &id 14.6 17.8 7.0.8 24.3 24.3 29.1 29.6 35.6 35.8 39.6 41.6 43.2 41.4 51.0 55.2

---TAM sat& 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.9 2.3 2.2 0.0

Frequency Error (%)---

MC&

EM Frequency

tiM&dHyw 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

iy!u.&z 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

EM
14.6 17.8 ZO.% 24.3 24.3 29.1 29.6 35.6 35.% 39.6 41.6 43.2 47.4 51.0 55.2

---TAM SW& 5.1 0.0 0.1 4.3 4.3 15.8 6.7 6.3 6.2 8.7 13.4 9.5 NP* NP* 0.0

Frequency Error (%)--IRS Mcdai Hvbrid 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0

Not Predicted

Table 2. Frequency accuracy for the 36 DOF TAM,

M& iyu!rkr 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Frequency fkkl 14.6 17.8 20.% 24.3 24.3 29.1 29.6 35.6 35.8 39.6 41.6 43.2 47.4 51.0 55.2

---TAM a& 5.1 0.0 0.0 4.3 4.3 15.8 6.6 6.3 6.1 2.4 8.3 8.6 4.5 2.7 0.0

Fr.squency Error (%)IQ&$&J0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure 1, General purpose spacecraft fmite element model.

Figure 2. Off-diagonal athogmality terms of 52 DOF GPSC TAMs Khthogonality = Test Mcdes x TAM Mass Matrix x Test Modes).

Figure 3. Off-diagonal mhogmality terns of 36 DOE GPSC TAMs @thogmality = Test Modes x TAM Mass Matrix x Test MC&S).

Figure 4. Off-diagonal orthogonality terms of 29 DOF GPSC TAMS KhxhogonaJity = Test M&s x TAM Mass Matrix x Test M&es).

Figure 5. Martin Marietta Commercial Titan dual payload carrier assembly finite &man model.

Figure 7. Off-diagonal orthogomlity terms of DPCA pretest TAMS (Onhogomdity = Test Mcdes x TAM Mass Matrix x Test Mm&).

Figure X. Cross-orthogonality of DPCA pretest TAMS (Cross-Onhogomlity = FEM Modes x TAM Mass Matrix x Test Mcdes).