...
首页> 外文期刊>Aerospace science and technology >Assessment of computational model updating procedures with regard to model validation
【24h】

Assessment of computational model updating procedures with regard to model validation

机译:有关模型验证的计算模型更新程序的评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In this paper two different computational model updating (CMU) methods are compared. Both procedures make use of the inverse sensitivity approach. The residuals of the first method are formed by eigenvalue and mode shape differences whereas the residuals of the second method include eigenvalue and frequency response errors. Computational model updating of physical mass, stiffness and geometric parameters is possible with the first technique. The second method additionally allows updating of viscous modal damping parameters. This second method uses directly measured frequency response data taken only at the resonance peaks. Since both methods allow to handle incomplete test data vectors, that means that the number of measured degrees of freedom (dof) is much less than the dof no. of the mathematical model, they are able to deal with large order aerospace finite element (FE) models. Both procedures were used to investigate the prediction capability of an updated analytical model of a benchmark test structure with respect to the test data of a modified structure. The results of both techniques are compared, advantages and disadvantages are pointed out and an assessment with respect to the operational validity is given.
机译:本文比较了两种不同的计算模型更新(CMU)方法。两种程序都使用逆灵敏度方法。第一种方法的残差由特征值和众数形状差异形成,而第二种方法的残差包括特征值和频率响应误差。使用第一种技术可以对物理质量,刚度和几何参数进行计算模型更新。第二种方法还允许更新粘性模态阻尼参数。第二种方法使用仅在谐振峰值处直接测量的频率响应数据。由于这两种方法都允许处理不完整的测试数据向量,因此这意味着测得的自由度(dof)的数量远小于自由度。在数学模型的基础上,他们能够处理大型航空航天有限元(FE)模型。两种程序都用于调查基准测试结构的更新分析模型相对于修改后结构的测试数据的预测能力。比较了这两种技术的结果,指出了优点和缺点,并对操作有效性进行了评估。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号