Journal of Sound and Vibration (1981) 76(4), 467-480

VIBRATION OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES: THE MODAL

CONSTRAINT METHOD

J. G. M. KERSTENS
Space-Division, Fokker B. V., Schiphol-Oost, The Netherlands

(Received 3 July 1980, and in revised form 28 October 1980)

A method is described for establishing the natural frequencies of an arbitrary structure

with arbitrary supports. The method is based on the modal constraint technique described
in a previous paper [l]. As shown in the present paper Weinstein’s theory for the
intermediate problem can be regarded as equivalent to the Lagrangian multiplier method:
i.e., both methods result in the same eigenvalue equations. Weinstein’s theory deals with
modifications of base differential operators whereas the Lagrangian multiplier method
deals with modifications of base energy functionals. The modal constraint technique is an
extension of Weinstein’s theory, or in energy terms the generalized Fourier expansion of
the Lagrangian multiplier. The merits of this method lie in the fact that the eigenvalues
and eigenfunctions of structures are used as base structures. The coupling of these
structures are taken into account by Lagrangian generalized forces of the constraint acting
on the base structures. Some examples are given and the results compared with known
solutions.

1. INTRODUCTION
For any structural system whose dynamic behaviour is important the dynamic behaviour
of a representative analytical model is required. In the design of structural systems an
iterative design/analysis process is performed until a satisfactory design is achieved. For
linear dynamic analyses the extraction of eigenvalues and subsequently the eigenvectors
is especially expensive when the mathematical models are large. Cost savings can be
realized if the results of the updated mathematical model can be established for reduced
computer time. The basic idea behind the theory described in the present paper is that
the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a master mathematical model (base structure) are
used for the updated or modified mathematical model (desired structure) without perfor-
ming the previous analysis again.
The new eigenvalues and new eigenvectors are calculated with the aid of a simple
formalism outlined in this paper.
Experience with the new method indicates that the reduction of computer time is quite
large for results which have an accuracy comparable with that of other methods. The
theory in this paper is capable of treating the following modifications: support
modifications (suppressing translations and rotations); structural modifications by coup-
ling base structures (substructuring).
In an earlier paper [l] a method for establishing the eigenvalues of a rectangular plate
supported at an arbitrary number of points was presented based upon the use of
eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a completely free vibrating rectangular plate (base
structure). The method described in reference [l] is extended to a more general method
in this paper.
467
0022-460X/81/120467 + 14 $02.00/O 0 1981 Academic Press Inc. (London) Limited
468 J. G. M. KERSTENS

It is relevant to mention some other publications on similar topics, without any attempt
at a complete survey. Dowel1 [2-4] has described a general formalism called the “com-
ponent mode method”. The constraint or continuity conditions between components are
enforced by means of Lagrangian multipliers. In the next section it shall be explained that
the “component mode method” is closely related to Weinstein’s formulation [6,7], which
is not a Lagrangian multiplier formalism in its approach. In references [5,8-lo] the
resultant eigenvalue equations have appearances similar to the Weinstein determinants.
This interesting result provides the connection between several recent methods, as
mentioned in the above references, and the method of Weinstein and Aronszjan called
the “intermediate problem technique”, which was introduced first in the years 1935-1937.
Several other publications [ll-131 treat the same class of problems but with different
methods.
The purpose of the present paper is to demonstrate the usefulness of the new formalism.
Therefore the method is applied to the following representative structures: coupled
hinged-hinged beams; two cross beams coupled with a simply supported plate.
In section 2 the theoretical development is presented. Applications of the method are
treated in section 3. Numerical results and conclusions are given in section 4.

2. THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
The intermediate problem technique was formulated in 1935 by Weinstein for a change
in boundary conditions. First the theoretical formulation of the intermediate problem
technique shall be described for a change in the problem boundary conditions which
reflects a change in region shape. In many problems an eigenvalue problem is formulated
for arbitrary regions, which involves severe mathematical complications. The numerical
evaluations for such problems are carried out by successive approximations with con-
tinuity conditions applied to a “base problem” whose solution is already known. The
subsequent development of the theory proceeds along a different line.
First of all the base problem can be formulated. The solution of the following problem
is supposed to be known:
Lu = Au. (1)

Here QI, ~2,. . . are the eigenvectors of functions and Al, Aa, . . . are the corresponding
eigenvalues (a list of nomenclature is given in the Appendix). SinEe the set of eigenvectors
QI, Q2,. . . is a complete orthonormal set (c.0.n.s.) any element u in the function domain
D of L can be written as an infinite “Fourier” expansion of the elements cpl, ~2, . . . with
the Fourier coefficient (u, cpi) = qi, where (u, v) is a scalar product. Therefore each vector
u of L can be written as

U = T q;Qi. (2)
i=l

Before the desired and base problems are related the definitions of the base and desired
problem can be briefly given, as follows:

base problem:
eigenvalue equation: Lu = Au region RL
boundary BL
function domain: ,D c H (separable Hilbert space)
known solution: A, u (3)
 VIBRATION OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES 469
desired problem:
eigenvalue equation: Llv = Au region RL,
boundary BL,
function domain: D1 c D (assumption)
to be solved: A, v. (4)
The eigenfunctions Ijll, $2, . . . form a c.o.n.s. in the subspace D1 = D.
Extension to the subspace D c H can be performed by addition of new elements w to
form a c.0.n.s. in D.
Let D GO1 denote the infinite orthogonal complement space to D; then every element
K in D can be uniquely written as
u=v+w, (5)
where w belongs to D OD1. The subspace D 001 also contains a c.o.n.s. pl, ~2, . . . , each
of which is orthogonal to the subspace D. Hence the subspace D is decomposed into
DOD1 and Di.
The subspace D is the direct sum of D OD1 and D1:
D =DOD1OD1.
The passage from D to Di is the projection of D on DI along D 001 and associates with
u the image v. An explicit expression for this projection is

v=u_proj(u;pl,P2,...),

proj (u; PI, PI, p2, . * - )= j, (4 PillPi, Pi)-lPi. (6)

The vectors L1v are the projections of the vectors Lu on the subspace D1 orthogonal to
DODI:
Llv = Lu -proj (Lu; pl, p2,. . . ), (7)
or
Lu -proj (Lu; PI, p2, . . . ) = Au -hproj (u; pl, p2,. . . ).
The eigenfunctions u are restricted to be orthogonal to the c.o.n.s. pl, p2, . . . and therefore
proj (u; PI, p2, . . . ) = 0 and equation (7) can be written as
Lu-proj(Lu;pi,p2,...)=Au. (8)
Truncation of the subspace DI into Dl(k) leads to approximate solutions of the eivenvalues
of operator L1; however this process converges with increasing k as can be shown. (It
must be noted that proof of some of the statements made here involves considerable
theoretical development which is not the intention of this paper.)
Further evaluation of the projection operator leads to

proj (Lu; PI, ~2,. . * ) = @a P&PI, PJIPl + 04 P2MP2, P2)-lPz+ * * * + (Jh, Pk)

x (Pk, pk )-‘pk. (9)

Let 8i = (LU, pi)(pi, pi)-l; then equation (9) becomes
LU - (@ipi + &p2 + ’* ’+ &pk) = Au. (10)
Recalling from equation (2) that u = xi”=;,qipi one can take the scalar product with
equation (10):
(LU, U)--{&(Pl, U)+ez(P2, U)+ * ’ * +okk(pk, u))=A(u, 24). (11)
470 J. G. M. KERSTENS

Further elaboration of equation (11) leads to the following matrix expression, for Ai # A :

Due to the fact that (u, pi) = 0 the following expression can be written:

(13)

Multiplying equation (12) by the matrix with elements (pi, cpi) gives:

For a non-trivial solution the determinant of the coefficients Bi must be zero. This
determinant is called Weinstein’s determinant for non-persistent eigenvalues.
It may turn out that none of the kth intermediate eigenvalues are persistent from the
base problem. As there is no definite assurance, however, that the intermediate problem
will have only non-persistent eigenvalues, an added burden of verifying that hi f A may
be encountered.
In any particular problem, a set of constraint vectors pi will be selected corresponding
to the k physical constraints which constrain the functions u on the region RL to satisfy
conditions on the boundary BL1 of the operator Li. These constraints will take the form
of an expression between the generalized co-ordinates:
h(q1, (I29 * * *,4”) = 0. (15)

Taylor series expansion about equilibrium of the linear function gives

(16)

or

h(q1,q2, * * 4”) = i
a 7 Uiqi = 0.
i=l

If there are k distinct constraints or k linearly independent relations between the

generalized co-ordinates then

h1(q1, qz, * - .,qn)= IF, Cliqi=O,

i=l

hkhl, q2, . . . , 4”) = ,gl Ckfli = 0. (17)

A one-to-one correspondence of equations (17) with pi can be set up with the aid of the
orthogonality condition (u, pi) = 0. Each vector pj in D can be uniquely represented by a
 VIBRATION OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES 471
Fourier type series:

(18)

The scalar product (u, pi) then is

”
(U,pj) = C bjiqi = 0. (19)
i=l

One-to-one correspondence between hi and (u, pi) shows that cii = bii and the constraint
vectors pi can be written as

(20)

In practical calculations, difficulties are often encountered due to the boundary Bt, being
complicated. Therefore a single constraint relation hi(q1, 92, . . . , qn) = 0 is often not
capable of describing the desired boundary conditions. In such a case an infinite sequence
of constraint relations is required. The successive application of k of these approximating
constraint relations generates what is called the “kth intermediate problem”.

2.1. FINITE POINT SET

A suitable set of point co-ordinates xi, yj are selected to represent the boundary BL,.
The function u must vanish at each of these points:

U(Xj,Yj)= i clicPi(xj, Yj) = O9 j = 1,2, . . . , k. (21)

i=l

If rpi(xi, yi) = cji then the equation has the same form as the constraint relations (17).
The substitution of equation (20) in the constraint matrix having the elements (pi, pi)
leads to the following Weinstein determinant which can be written in a similar way as in
references [2-5, g-101:

Yi)qOm(xi9 Yj)
det

I i

Wl=l
cPm(Xi9

(&-A) I=O. (22)

Further comparison of the Lagrange multiplier formalism used in references [2-4,8-lo]

and the Weinstein formulation leads to the very interesting result that both methods leads
to identical eigenvalue equations. Hence the 8i in equation (10) can be regarded as
Lagrangian multipliers.

2.2. CONSTRAINTS BY MOMENTS

A promising method of constraint decomposition presented by Chi [14] is the method

of constraints by moments. In this method one has the condition that u must vanish in
the subregion RL - RL~ and on the boundary BL1. If u is a function defined and continuous
on a region RL, then

RL-R,,
II u(x, y)x’-ly’-’ dx dy = 0, (23)

for r = 0, 1,2,. . . and s = 0, 1,2,. . . . Then the following constraint relation can be
472 J. G. M. KERSTENS

established:

M41, 42, *. .)= Ij- u(x, yh-‘ys-l dx dy = 0, (24)

RI-&.,
where j = 1,2,. . . , k, each j corresponding to a distinct set r, s.
Expanding equation (24) gives

hi(41, q2 * * * Izit14i II Cci(x,Y)~‘-‘Y”-‘dxdy=0, (25)

RL-RQ

which has the same form as equation (17).

For both the finite point set and constraints by moment a set of constraint vectors
Pl,PZ,..*, Pk can be generated, as described. Computational difficulties (no convergence
to exact value) indicate that the resulting constraint vectors are not automatically linearly
independent. The constraint vectors must therefore be orthonormalized with the aid of
the Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization procedure to form a c.o.n.s. of constraint vectors
Pl,PZ,..., Pk. For the finite point set the points may not be selected so close with respect
to each other that the resulting constraint matrix is nearly singular.
Now the classic theory of Weinstein can be extended in a formulation which is also
suited for persistent eigenvalues (i.e., common to both base and desired problem) as
already treated in reference [l]. The new method is called the modal constraint method.
First the coefficients 0, in equation (10) are expanded in the generalized co-ordinates
4i. Recalling @j= (IA, pj)( pi, pj)-‘, then, when the constraint vectors pi are orthonormal,
Oj = (LU, Pj). (26)

Substitution of equation (2) and equation (20) in equation (26) yields

6j = (LU, Pj) = i Cj*hiqi. (27)

i=l

Equation (12) in a different form is

C”‘a”l,.“j[;:]-[I;; 111, ?][;?]=[]. (28)

Substitution of equation (27) in matrix form into equation (28) leads to the following
eigenvalue equation:

(29)

Equation (29) rewritten in compact form iS

(30)

where C is the constraint matrix, -

A*
1
cJ
is the diagonal matrix of base problem eigenvalues,
and I is the unit matrix. Solutions for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors in equations (30)
 VIBRATION OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES 473

can be found by classical methods. Persistence of eigenvalues does not present a problem
in this formulation.
In reference [l] the derivation of equation (30) was established via energy expressions
since the Lagrangian multiplier formalism and Weinstein’s formalism can be regarded as
equivalent.
Following the development given in reference [l], one can write the energy functional
for the desired problem as

(31)

where A is the region of the operator L. The constraint energy Wk contributed by the
homogeneous boundary conditions formed by the constraints as support can be expressed
as (see also references [2-41)

wk = ok c qdkmr (32)
m

where the & can be identified as the Lagrangian multipliers representing the unknown
forces. Substitution of equation (32) and equation (2) in equation (31) and taking the first
variation gives
Pdi + hiqi = C ekcki, (33)
k

where Ai is the eigenvalue of the base problem. Further evaluation of equation (33) results
in Weinstein’s determinant of the first order, as already shown for the differential
formulation (see also references [2-41). From the new development starting with equation
(26) equation (34) can be finally written as

pdi + hiqi = 1 1 hjCk&kiqi* (34)

k i
Equation (34) in matrix notation is

[[~-cTc]-AC~~][~]=[O], [q]=[+-j9], [K-AM][(?]=[Ol. (35)

Both the matrices K and M are symmetric positive definite; note that matrix M is a
diagonal matrix. Generally the rank of matrix K is not equal to its dimension; the rank
deficiency is equal to the number of constraint relations.
Equation (35) is suitable only for treating the support modification problem as con-
sidered in reference [l]. For structure modifications (i.e., several coupled base structures)
the energy functional given in equation (31) must be extended as follows:

E=iicl dAi +piJAt ($)2

[I,, (L;u~)u~ dA,I-f wk. (36)

Here N is the number of base structures to be coupled, and M is the number of coupling
relations. In accordance with the result obtained by the Lagrangian multiplier approach
(see also references [3,4]), when coupling base structure i to base structure i + 1 the
expression for the coupling energy becomes

Cqmickmi-Cqni+lckni+l . (37)
m n I
474 J. G. M. KERSTENS

Instead of following the approach of Dowel1 [3,4] the coefficient ok will here be expanded
in a similar way as for equation (27). Let there be constraint vectors pk i andp, i+l such that

Pk,i=CqmiCkmi, Pki+l =C~ni+lCkni+l* (38)

m n
Then the coefficients ok can be expressed as

or

6k=CA,i4,ickrni_Chni+1qni+lckni+l. (39)
m ”
Depending on the type of coupling, the Fourier elements c k ,,,i, c k n i+i can be expressed
as a finite point set or constraints by moments as shall be demonstrated in the next section.

3. APPLICATIONS

3.1. TWO COUPLED-HINGED BEAMS

The base structures each consist of a hinged-hinged

_ beam for which the exact eigen-
values and eigenfunctions are known. The eigenvalue A”i is
h,i = n7r (40)
and the eigenfunction is
coni = sin (nm). (41)
The first derivative with respect to x is
CpAi(X)
= n7r COS (n7rx). (42)
For the ends of the hinged-hinged beam

rPli Co) = m CpLi(l)= n7r(-l)“. (43)

In Figure 1 the two coupled beams are shown.

AT& Lagrangian multiplier 81

I

Figure 1. Two coupled hinged-hinged beams.

The matrix equations for the base structures, i = 1,2, are (see section 2)
llh: -Ad[q+[C:~]& = LO], i = 1,

rA2*-AJ[q+[C:&=[O], i = 2, (44a)
where Cl1 =[nr] and Cl2 = [nr(-1)“] (see equations (43)). Combining these two
 VIBRATION OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES 475
equations gives the following assembled matrix equation:

(44b)

Equation (17) in matrix form for this problem is

L 111
AT 0 41
81=[C*1-Cl21 % . (45)
0 A; q2

The final matrix equation is

[[;‘j;[ :IT;;rr -~~~~~]-A~~~~~,~tl)[::l-! 11’

(46)
[::l=r’l“-l,::;l::l~
Before solving the above general eigenvalue problem K -AM = 0 the constraint vector
[CII- C&l in equations (44) and (45) must be orthonormalized. The matrices K and A4
aresymmetric positive definite. The results are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1
Dimensionless eigenfrequencies F,,of simply supported beam having two
spans of length a

(n = 6) (n = 10) (n = 15) (n = 20)

1 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87

2 15.42 16.57 16.08 15.85 15.73
3 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48
4 49.98 54.15 52.26 51.43 51.04
5 88.85 88.83 99.83 88.84 88.83

3.2. THREE CGUPLED HINGED-HINGED BEAMS

The coupling procedure for this case is shown in Figure 2.
I -\

ATfi Lagrangian multiplier 81

:ti Lagrangian multiplier 6)~

:)+7a

Figure 2. Three coupled hinged-hinged beams.

476 J. G. M. KERSTENS

The matrix equations for these base structures are

[AT -AI[qJ-[CT1 I& = Ku9

IlAT-m.?zl-II-CT* m[B,:] =m

CA;-A3[q3]-[-C~~]e2=[0]. (47)
Combining the three equations results in

22 (48)

-CL

In a similar way as for equation (24),

The constraint matrices in equations (48) and (49) must be orthonormalized column wise
and row wise, respectively (e.g., by Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization). The final matrix
equation is

with Cl1 = (nrr], Cr2 = [n~(-1)“], CZ2= [nrr] and C’23= [nrr(-l)“] (see equations (43)).
The general eigenvalue problem can again be solved by using standard numerical
subroutines. The matrices are again symmetric positive definite. The results are shown in
Table 2.
 VIBRATION OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES 477

TABLE 2

Dimensionless eigenfrequencies F,, of simply supported beam having

three spans of length a

Fn=&

i Reference [ 151
n (n = 6) (n = 10) (n = 15) (n = 20)

1 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87

2 12.60 13.19 12.97 12.87 12.81
3 18.53 20.49 19.61 19.18 19.01
4 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48
5 44.79 47.56 46.34 45.81 45.61

n = number of terms for each base structure (simply supported beam)

3.3.PLATE WITH TWO CROSS BEAMS

In order to demonstrate the power of the method a complex structure has been
analyzed: i.e., a simply supported plate with two cross bars (see Figure 3). The base
structures are (1) a simply supported plate with eigenvalues AT =
[{E17r4/12(1 - v2)p}(m2+n2)*] and eigenfunctions cpl = [2sin rn7rx sin nary)], (2) a
hinged-hinged beam with eigenvalues A; = [(k~)~] and eigenfunctions cp2=
[J2 sin (krx)], and (3)a hinged-hinged beam with eigenvalues AT = [(/T)~] and eigen-
functions (p3 = [Jz sin (krx)].

7{,
X
_ 6_*
1 2 3 4

5”x
T_ T-_
Y

T
Y

1
X X

Modal constraint model Finite element model

Figure 3. Simply supported plate with two cross beams,

As shown in Figure 3 there are eight coupling points (two at the cross) and hence there
are also eight Lagrangian multipliers. The co-ordinates of the coupling points are given
in Table 3.
The next step is the establishment of the (transposed) constant matrix, as in the previous
examples, which is
coupling points f* Lagrangian multipliers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
plate CT1 CT1 cJ1 C;fl CT1 G CT1 c;fi
beam 1. -CL 42 -c32 T -CT* 0 0 0 0 (51)
beam 2 0 0 0 0 43 -cz -CT3 -c-l3
478 J. G. M. KERSTENS
TABLE 3
Co-ordinates of coupling points for a simply
supported plate with two cross beams

Plate Beam 1 Beam 2

W X X

1 0.2 0.4 0.2 -

2 0.4 0.4 0.4 -

3 0.6 0.4 0.6 -
4 0.8 0.4 0.8 -
5 0.4 0.2 - 0.2
6 0.4 0.4 - 0.4
7 0.4 0.6 - 0.6
8 0.4 0.8 - 0.8

The elements CF in the constraint matrix represent column vectors with size equal to the
number of eigenvalues. The elements Cf of the constraint matrix (5 1) can be established
by either of the two *methods mentioned in the previous section: i.e., finite point set and
constraints by moments. For the finite point set method the elements of the constraint
matrix are defined as

Cs = +1(x = Xj, y = yj), j=l 9 * - . , 8, C;fi=4*(X=Xj), j=l,. as 94,

Ci’, =43(X=Xj), j=l,. *. 74, (52)

where 4i is the modal displacement column vector with a dimension equal to the relevant
number of eigenvalues. For the constraints by moments method the elements of the
constraint matrix are defined as
1 1

CT1 = 41(X, y = yj)Xj dx, CT+a,i = ~I(X =xj, y)y’ dx, j = 1, . . . ,4,
10 I0

C,; = &(x)x’ dx, CT++3 = j=l,..., 4. (53)

TABLE 4
Radian eigenfrequencies for a simply supported plate with two cross beams: plate,
EI/p12(1- v2)b4 = 1.0; beam 1, EI/pa4 = 1.0; beam 2, EI/E.ca4 = 1.0 (b = a = 1.0)

m=n=3 m=n=4 m=n=4 m=n=s Finite element

k=l=3 k=l=4 k=l=4 k=l=S model
Mode (1) (1) (2) (1) (3)

1 13.50 12-64 12.64 12.64 12.53

2 42.81 38-62 38.62 38.57 37.47
3 SO.65 42.18 42.18 42.16 40.97
4 71.49 67.70 67.70 67.38 65.83

m, n : Numbers of modes, plate.

k, 1: Numbers of modes, beams.
(1) Finite point set.
(2) Constraint by moments.
(3) Lumped mass.
 VIBRATION OF COMPLEX STRUCTURES 479
The next step is the orthonormalization of both constraint matrices. The final eigenvalue
equation is again K -AM = 0 with K and M symmetric positive definite. The results are
shown in Table 4.

4. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A formalism for analyzing free vibrations of complex structures has been presented
based upon the formalism of the modal constraint method. The fundamental nature of
the formalism is as follows; the Lagrange multipliers are expressed in a general Fourier
expansion. The eigenvalue equation for the desired structure follows immediately from
the knowledge of the unconstrained eigenfunctions and eigenvalues and the coupling
conditions. The results are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 4 and Figure 4.

(b)

Cc) Cd)

Figure 4. Modes obtained by using the modal constraint method. (a) First mode, WI= 12.64 rad/s; (b) second
mode, w2 = 38.62 rad/s; (c) third mode, o3 = 42.18 rad/s; (d) fourth mode, o4 = 67.70 rad/s.

Brief comments on the results are desirable. When in the constraint matrix both
rotations and translations for the coupling points appear, the constraint matrix will become
singular iq most cases. Satisfactory results are then not obtained. Coupling only rotations
then results in the same eigenvalues as when only translations are coupled. Coupling only
translations results in a very fast convergence of the eigenvalues (see Table 4). The results
for the finite point set method and the constraints by moments method are of the same
accuracy for an equal number of constraint relations (see Table 4).
Comparisons between the present method and both the method of receptance [9, lo]
and the component mode method [2-4] can only be carried out when versatility and
computer costs are taken into account for a representative problem. However it is believed
that the present method has computational and conceptual advantages as is illustrated by
the examples.
480 J. G. M. KERSTENS

REFERENCES
1. J. G. M. KERSTENS 1979 Journal of Sound and Vibration 65, 493-504. Vibration of a
rectangular plate supported at an arbitrary number of points.
2. E. H. DOWELL 1971 Journal of Applied Mechanics 38, 595-600. Free vibrations of a linear
structure with arbitrary support conditions.
3. E. H. DOWELL 1972 Journal of Applied Mechanics 39 727-732. Free vibrations of an
arbitrary structure in terms of component modes.
4. E. H. DOWELL 1979 Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 46,
206-209. On some general properties of combined dynamical systems.
5. R. G. JACQUOT and W. SOEDEL 1970 Journal of Applied Mechanics 47, 1354-1958.
Vibrations of elastic surface elements carrying dynamic elements.
6. A. WEINSTEIN 1961 International Conference on Partial Differential Equations and Continuum
Mechanics, Madison, Wisconsin. Bounds for eigenvalues and the method of intermediate
problems.
7. A. WEINSTEIN and W. STENGER 1972 Methods of Intermediate Problems for Eigenvalues.
New York: Academic press.
8. S. D. CHANG and R. GREIF 1979 Journal of Sound and Vibration 67,315-328. Vibrations of
segmented cylindrical shells by a Fourier series component mode method.
9. I. D. WILKEN and W. SOEDEL 1976 Journal of Sound and Vibration 44, 563-576. The
receptance method applied to ring-stiffened cylindrical shells: analysis of modal characteristics.
10. I. D. WILKEN and W. SOEDEL 1976 Journal of Sound and Vibration 44,577-589. Simplified
prediction of modal characteristics of ring-stiffened cylindrical shells.
11. N. L. BASKEDAS and M. CHI 1971 Journal of Sound and Vibration 17, 187-206. Response
of oddly-stiffened circular cylindrical shells.
12. A. L. HALE and L. MEIROVITCH 1980 Journal of Sound and Vibration 69,309-326. A general
substructure synthesis method for the dynamic simulation of complex structures.
13. B. L. EDGE, P. G. MAYER and G. A. PIERCE 1971 JournalofAppliedMechanics 38,118-124.
An analysis technique for composite structures subject to dynamic loads.
14. M. CHI 1969 The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Report. Eigenvalue
problem involving a domain of arbitrary shape.
15. C. M. HARRIS and C. CREDE (editors) 1976 Shock and Vibration Handbook. 2nd Edition,
1976, New York, McGraw-Hill, second edition, see pp. 7-21.

APPENDIX: NOMENCLATURE

4i generalized co-ordinate (vector)

W vector which lies in manifold spanned by (pl, . . . , p,)
Pi vector in subspace D orthogonal to subspace D,; constraint vector
ok Lagrangian multiplier
hkk?,, . . ,4n) constraint relation
Qi constant coefficient
Cki Fourier coefficient
bii Fourier coefficient
A function domain of operator L
4 generalized co-ordinate vector
4 transformed q
density
number of base structures
number of coupling conditions
derivative with respect to function argument
matrix transpose
beam density
ET bending stiffness
V Poisson’s ratio
w radian frequency
b square plate dimension
a beam length