Modeling of Joints and Interfaces for

Simulation and Design of Structural Systems

K. C. Park, Carlos A. Felippa, Y. Xue, G. Reich

Center for Aerospace Structures and
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0429
email: kcpark@titan.colorado.edu
phone: 303-492-6330/fax: 303-492-4990

Presented at Workshop on
Modeling of Structural Systems with Jointed Interfaces,
25-26 April 2000, Albuquerque, NM

Ideal vs. Realistic Joint

uA
uB

(b) Ideal joint : u A

uB = 0

uB

(a)

uA

uA

Assembled State

dB d A dB

Joint ( d)

(c) Realistic joint: u A

u B 6= 0,

d A
d B 6= 0

u A
d A = 0,

u B
dB = 0

Two substructures fastened by a bolt. (a) Asembled state; (b)

displacements are always in contact; (c) Realistic joint whose i
in contact, thus creating rocking motions. One approach to model
to introduce filler or joint elements that undergo nonlinear b
the uneven rocking motions plus friction.

DIFFICULTIES IN JOINT MODELING

Exclusivity in Model Selection
Non-Scalability of Experimental Results
One-Dimensionality
Ambiguous and Uncertain Sources of Nonlinearities
Non-Smoothness
Stiffness Mismatch and Soft Materials

Exclusivity in Model Selection:

The structural modeler may find a limited number of models available in a
program. As a result, considerable ingenuity may be required to obtain
reasonable results. Sometimes the modeler may eventually find, after
exhaustive simulation studies, that none of the available models is adequate
for the application on hand.

Non-Scalability:
A joint model may have been developed in conjunction with a specific
experimental validation setup. The scalability of a joint model for other length
scales, varying loading levels and forcing frequency ranges is often not
documented or not understood.

One-Dimensionality:
A large class of existing joint models, notably for damping and friction, have
been derived for one dimensional scenarios. Their validity for multidimensional
motions is open to question.

Ambiguous and Uncertain Sources of Nonlinearities:

Many existing joint models have been developed using phenomenological
representations or experiments. As a consequence, the physical source of
nonlinearities, for example friction and slip, may be masked or poorly
understood. In conjunction with non-scalability this can lead to erroneous
predictions.

Non-Smoothness:
Incorporation of non-smooth joint behavior poses challenges in that tangent
surfaces are difficult to obtain objectively, or may not exist. In practice, the nonsmooth joint models are available only in vectorial forms. Hence, a consistent
linearization procedure must be developed for use in tangent-stiffness methods of
dynamic response.

Stiffness Mismatch:
Bolted and welded joints may have high intrinsic stiffness (as 3D bodies)
compared to attached lightweight structural components, such as beam profiles
or thin-wall plates. This makes the energy and interface force transmission
difficult to model in so far as capturing the dominant physical behavior. Robust
regularization methods must be developed to alleviate these problems.

Soft Materials:
In many complex structural systems, particularly aerospace, nonstructural materials
(foams, polymers, etc) are used as vibration/shock absorbers or as impact attenuators.
While these components, strictly speaking, are not joints, their modeling presents a new
and emerging challenge since their roles are becoming increasingly important. For
example, electronic packages are often tied to load-carrying substructures through a
combination of fasteners and foam-like padding.

JOINT MODELING APPROACHES

Hierarchically Modulated Joint Models
Exclusivity in Model Selection
Non-Scalability of Experimental Results
One-Dimensionality

Matrix-free Interfacing with Joints

Non-Smoothness
Vectorial Representation of Ambiguous Sources of Nonlinearities

Interface Regularization and Localization

Stiffness Mismatch and Soft Materials

Roadmap of Joint Modeling

Joint models by
hierarchically
modulated
characterization

Model
construction

Development of
joint constitutive,
phenomenological &
analytical models

Model
assessment

Feedback from
model updates

Interfacing
joint models by
localized Lagrange
multipliers method

Stochastic &
uncertainty
parametrization

Stochastic
characterization of
joints and interface
conditions

Validation through
simulation &
experimental
correlations

Overall structural
model fidelity evaluation

Identification of Joint Flexibility - Continued

Finally, obtain the flexibility F 22 of the isolated joint

BT FB R
b
RbT
0
LbT

F=

0
F21

Ff
B
Lb

R f0
=
0

0
ub

F22

T
F21 = 21 1
21 21 ,

etc.

F23

Generalized
Riccati equation

+
T
T
1 T
LF2 LT = F FB L F+
b B L F + P R(Rb Fb R) R P
T
P = I B L F+
b BL F

Fb = BTL FB L
Rb = BTL R,

B L = null(L S )

Center for Aerospace Structures

(a)

(b)

S2
(c)

S1

S3

Partition of example structure into three substructures:

(a) schematics of a stepped bonded joint
(b) finite element model in the vicinity of the joint
(c) model for experimental correlation
Note: measurements are typically made along the substructural boundaries
between S1 and S2, and between S2 and S3; no sensors are
collocated directly at the joint boundary

Center for Aerospace Structures

Substructure S2
(a)

S21
(b)
S22
S23

Further partition of example structure containing stepped joint into three subdomains:
(a) Analytically and experimentally verified substructure model S2
(b) Further partition of S2 to model S22 by the Partitioned Direct Flexibility Method

Center for Aerospace Structures

(a)

(b)

Derivation of stochastic boundary flexibilty of glue lap joint

(a) Background FEM model to get stochastic free-free stiffness
(b) Reduction to free-free boundary flexibility

Center for Aerospace Structures

Hierarchical Decomposition of Joint Models

0.3

(a)
0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
-0.4

Nonlinear Behavior
-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

+
Linear part
(b)

Next hierarchical level

0.3

0.015

0.2

0.01

0.1

0.005

-0.1

-0.005

-0.2

-0.01

-0.3

-0.015

-0.4
-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.02
-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Physical Phenomenon Scales

Hierarchical Model Candidate

equivalent linearized
model via structural
identification
continuum friction
materials damping
nonlocal strain
theory
micromechanics
Joint Model Scales

Modeling Joint via Global or Tightly Coupled Lagrange Multipliers

KA

x A0 dA0 = 0
A0

B0

xA0

xB0 dB = 0

dB0

AJ

dA 0

KJ

A0

BJ

xB 0
B0

KB

Modeling Joint via Localized Lagrange Multipliers

KA

frame A0

x A 0 uA 0 = 0

A0
B0
B
frame B0

JA

dA 0
KJ

A
uA0

dA0 uA0 = 0

xA0

dB0 uB0 = 0

dB0

JB
uB 0

x B0 uB0 = 0
KB

xB 0

Localized Model Equations:

PX
0
T
BX
0
0

X
B
0
0
0
LTX

0
QJ
0
T

BJ
0

x=

xA
xB

X = BX DX ,
B

0
J
B
0
0
LTJ

x f
0
X





0

d f J

=
0
LX X

LJ J 0

u
0
0

X =

J = BJ DJ ,
B

J =

JA

JB

BX =

BA
0

,
0
BB

u =

u A
uB

BJ =

BJA
0

0
BJB

Suppose that an existing model is found to be inadequate in light

of new constitutive laws, new interface mechanisms, inadequacy
for frequency range under study, new experimental data, or some
combination of these factors.

To incorporate new model features without overwriting the existing model, the field variables are assumed to consist of the
original ones that are designated with subscript 0 plus additional
contributions containing subscript 1, in the form:
x = x0 + x1 ,

d = d0 + d1 ,

= 0 + 1

so that PX and QJ can be expressed as

PX (x0 + x1 ) = P00 x0 + P01 x1 + P10 x0 + P11 x1
QJ (d0 + d1 ) = Q00 d0 + Q01 d1 + Q10 d0 + Q11 d1

The preceding operators are called hierarchically modulated if they

satisfy the conditions:
xTk Pij xj = 0,

i 6= k

Hierarchically Modulated Level-1 Equation:

P11
0
T

B
11
0
0

0
Q11
0
T
B
11
0

11
B
0
0
0
LT11

0
11
B
0
0
LT11

0
f 1
x
1














0
d
f




1
J1

L11 X1 =
0

J1

0

L11






u1
0
0

which indicates that if new model scales can be made to comply

with the modulation criterion, then significant streamlining in
implementing new joint models can be achieved. This is because
we only need to build P11 and Q11 , etc., while preserving the
existing model scales.
Note that not all new models and/or refinements can be expected
to satisfy the hierarchical modulation criterion.

References
[1] G. Adomian, Stochastic Systems , Academic Press, New York, 1983.
[2] K. F. Alvin and K. C. Park, A second- order structural identification procedure via system theory- based realization, AIAA J. , 32( 2), 1994, 397 406, 1994.
[3] K. F. Alvin, K. C. Park, and L. D. Peterson, L. D., Extraction of undamped normal modes and full modal damping matrix from complex modal parameters,
AIAA J. , 35( 7), 1187 1194, 1997.
[4] K. F. Alvin, Finite element model update via Bayesian estimation and minimizationm of dynamic residuals, Proc. International Modal Analysis Conference ,
Ann Arbor, Mich., 561 567, 1996.
[5] K. F. Alvin and K. C. Park, Extraction of substructural flexibility from global frequencies and modal shapes, AIAA J. , 37( 11), 1444 1451, 1999.
[6] A. C. Aubert, E. F. Crawley, and K. J. ODonnell, Measurement of the dynamic properties of joints in flexible space structu res, MIT SSL Report No. 35- 83 ,
Sept. 1983.
[7] C. F. Bears, Damping in structural joints, Shock and Vibration Digest , 11( 9), 1979, 35 44, 1979.
[8] T. M. Cameron, L. Jordan and M. E. M. El- sayed, Sensitivity of structural joint stiffness with respect to beam prop erties, Computers & Structures , 63( 6),
1037 41, 1997.
[9] L. B. Crema et al, Damping effects in joints and experimental tests on rivetted specimens, AGARD Conference Proceedings , No. 277, April 1979.
[10] M. P. Dolbey and R. Bell, The contact stiffness of joints at low apparent interface pressures, Ann. CIRP , XVIV 9, 67 79, 1971.
[11] C. A. Felippa and K. C. Park, A direct flexibility method, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 149, 319 337, 1997.
[12] M. Goland and E. Reissner, The stresses in cemented joints, J. Appl. Mech. , 11( 1), 17 27, 1944.
[13] J. W. Ju and K. C. Valanis, Damage mechanics and localization, ASME Winter Annual Meeting , Anaheim, California, Nov. 1992.
[14] M. Morimoto, H. Harada, M. Okada, and S. Komaki, A study on power assignment of hierarchical modulation schemes for digital broadcasting, IEICE
Trans. , E77- B/ 12, 1495 1500, 1994.
[15] K. J. ODonnell and E. F. Crawley, Identification of nonlinear system parameters in space structure joints using the force- state mapping technique, MIT
SSL Report No. 16- 85 , July 1985.
[16] K. C. Park and C. A. Felippa, A variational framework for solution method developments in structural mechanics, J. Appl. Mech. , 65, 242 249, 1998.
[17] K. C. Park and C. A. Felippa, Aflexibility- based inverse algorithm for identification of structural joint properties, Proc. ASME Symposium on Computational
Methods on Inverse Problems , Anaheim, CA, 15- 20 Nov 1998.
[18] K. C. Park and C. A. Felippa, A variational principle for the formulation of partitioned structural systems, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engrg. , 47, 395 418, 2000.
[19] K. C. Park, Modeling of nonlinearities, in Lecture Notes for Aero Course 16.299 , Fall 1999, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
[20] B. Pattan, Robust Modulation Methods and Smart Antennas in Wireless Communications , Prentice Hall, 1999.
[21] M. D. Rao and S. He, Vibration analysis of adhesively bonded lap joint, Part II: numerical solution, J. Sound Vibr. , 152( 3), 417 425, 1992.
[22] A. N. Robertson, K. C. Park and K. F. Alvin, Extraction of impulse response data via wavelet transform for structural syst em identification, ASME J. Vibr.
Acoust. , 120( 1), 252 260, 1998.
[23] A. N. Robertson, K. C. Park and K. F. Alvin, Identification of structural dynamics models using wavelet- generated impulse response data, ASME Journal
of Vibrations and Acoustics , ASME J. Vibr. Acoust. , 120( 1), 261 266, 1998.
[24] J. W. Sawyer and P. A. Cooper, Analytical and experimental results for bonded single lap joints with preformed adherends, AIAA Journal , 19( 11) 1981,
pp. 1443 1453.
[25] H. S. Tzou, Non- Linear joint dynamics and controls of jointed flexible structures with active and viscoelastic joint actu ators, J. Sound Vib. , 407- 422, 1990.
[26] E. E. Ungar, Energy dissipation at structural joints; mechanisms and magnitudes, Air Force FDL- TDR- 64- 98 , Aug. 1964.
[27] E. E. Ungar, The status of engineering knowledge concerning the damping of built- up structures, J. Sound Vib. , 26 (1), 141- 154, 1973.
[28] W. N. Waggener, Pulse Code Modulation , Artech House Inc., Boston, 1999.
[29] Y. K. Wen, Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems, J. Eng. Mech. ASCE , 102- EM2, 249 263, 1976.