Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEMFOR THE TEST ENGINEER
Christopher C. FlaniganQuartus Engineering Incorporated
San Diego, California USA
18th International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC-XVIII)San Antonio, TexasFebruary 7-10, 2000
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
DOWNLOAD FROM THEQUARTUS ENGINEERING WEB SITE
http://www.quartus.com
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM PEOPLE ARE REALLY SMART
• Or so they would have you believe!
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM for the Test Engineer
TOPICS
• There’s reality, and then there’s FEM• FEM in a nutshell• FEM strengths and challenges• Pretest analysis
– Model reduction– Sensor placement
• Posttest analysis– Correlation– Model updating
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
There’s Reality, and Then There’s FEM
REALITY IS VERY COMPLICATED!
• Many complex subsystems• Unique connections• Advanced materials• Broadband excitation• Nonlinearities• Flight-to-flight variability• Chaos• Extremely high order behavior
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
There’s Reality, and Then There’s FEM
FEM ATTEMPTS TOSIMULATE REALITY
• Fortunately, reality is surprisingly linear– Material properties ( vs. )– Tension vs. compression– Small deflections (sin = )– Load versus deflection
• Allows reasonable opportunity simulate reality using FEM
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
There’s Reality, and Then There’s FEM
REMEMBER THAT FEMONLY APPROXIMATES REALITY
• Reality has lots of hard challenges– Nonlinearity, chaos, etc.
• FEM limited by many factors– Engineering knowledge and capabilities
– Basic understanding of mechanics
– Computer and software power
• But it’s the best approach we have– Experience shows that FEM works well when used
properly
FEMAhead!
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM Strengths and Challenges
TEST IS NOT REALITY EITHER!
• Test article instead of flight article– Mass simulators, missing items, boundary conditions
• Excitation limitations– Load level, spectrum (don’t break it!)– Nonlinearities
• Testing limitations– Sensor accuracy and calibration– Data processing
• But it’s the best “reality check” available
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEMin a Nutshell
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM for the Test Engineer
FEM IN A NUTSHELL
• Divide and conquer!• Shape functions• Elemental stiffness and mass matrices• Assembly of system matrices• Solving• Related topics
– Element library– Superelements
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM in a Nutshell
CLOSED FORM SOLUTIONS, ANYONE?
• Consider a building– Steel girders– Concrete foundation
• Can you write an equation to fully describe the building?– I can’t!
• Even if possible, probably not the best approach– Very time consuming– One-time solution
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM in a Nutshell
DIVIDE AND CONQUER!
• Behavior of complete structure is complex– Example: membrane
• Divide the membraneinto small pieces– Buzzword: “element”
• Feasible to calculate properties of each piece
• Collection of pieces represents structure
13
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
S1S3
S5S7
S9
S11
S13
S15
S17
S19
-1.00-0.80
-0.60-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM in a Nutshell
SHAPE FUNCTIONS ARE THE FOUNDATION OF FINTE ELEMENTS
• Shape function– Assumed shape of element when deflected
• Some element types are simple– Springs, rods, bar
• Other elements are more difficult– Plates, solids
• But that’s what Ph.D.’s are for!– Extensive research– Still evolving (MSC.NASTRAN V70.7)
Spring
F = K X
FX
K
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM in a Nutshell
ELEMENT STIFFNESS MATRIXFORMED USING SHAPE FUNCTIONS
• Element stiffness matrix– Relates deflections of elemental DOF
to applied loads
• Forces at element DOF when unit deflection imposed at DOFi and other DOFj are fixed
• Example: linear spring (2 DOF)
Spring
F = K X
FX
K
KK
KKKspring
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM in a Nutshell
ELEMENT MASS MATRIXHAS TWO OPTIONS
• Lumped mass– Apply 1/N of the element mass to each node
• Consistent mass– Called “coupled mass” in NASTRAN
– Use shape functions to generate mass matrix
• In practice, usually little difference between the two methods– Consistent mass more accurate
– Lumped mass faster
M5.00
0M5.0Mspring
1/4 1/4
1/4 1/4
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM in a Nutshell
SYSTEM MATRICES FORMEDFROM ELEMENT MATRICES
K = 2
K = 5
K = 1
M = 1
M = 2
M = 3
22
22K1
55
55K2
11
11K3
1100
1650
0572
0022
K
5.1000
05.200
005.10
0005.0
M
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM in a Nutshell
CALCULATE SYSTEM STATICAND DYNAMIC RESPONSES
• Static analysis
• Normal modes analysis
• Transient analysis
PqKqCqM TTTT
0MK ii
XKP
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM in a Nutshell
COMMERCIAL FEM ISSUES
• Element libraries– Springs, rods, beams, shells, solids, rigids, special
– Linear and parabolic (shape functions, vertex nodes)
• Commercial codes– NASTRAN popular for linear dynamics (aero, auto)
– ABAQUS and ANSYS popular for nonlinear
• Superelements (substructures)– Simply a collection of finite elements
– Special capabilities to reduce to boundary nodes
– Assemble system by addition I/F nodes
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM in a Nutshell
HONORARY DEGREE IN FEM-OLOGY!
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM for the Test Engineer
FEM STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM Strengths and Challenges
FEM IS VERY POWERFUL FORWIDE ARRAY OF STRUCTURES
• Regular structures– Fine mesh
• Sturdy connections– Seam welds
• Well-defined mass– Smooth distributed– Small lumped masses
• Linear response– Small displacements General Dynamics
Control-Structure Interaction Testbed
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM Strengths and Challenges
FEM HAS MANY CHALLENGES
• Mesh refinement– How many elements required?– Stress/strain gradients, mode shapes
• Material properties– A-basis, B-basis, etc.– Composites
• Dimensions– Tolerances, as-manufactured
• Joints– Fasteners, bonds, spot welds
continued...
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM Strengths and Challenges
FEM HAS MANY CHALLENGES
• Mass modeling– Accuracy of mass prop DB
– Difficulty in test/weighing
• Secondary structures– Avionics boxes, batteries
– Wiring harnesses
• Shock mounts
• Nonlinearities– (large deformation, slop, yield, etc.)
• Pilot error!
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM Strengths and Challenges
FEM ASSISTED BY ADVANCESIN H/W AND S/W POWER
• Computers– Moore’s law for CPU– Disk space, memory
• Software– Sparse, iterative– Lanczos eigensolver– Domain decomposition– Pre- and post-processing
• Increasing resolution– Closer to reality
Moravec, H., “When Will Computer Hardware Match the Human Brain?”Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM Strengths and Challenges
FEM CONTINUES TO IMPROVEABILITY TO SIMULATE REALITY
• Model resolution– Local details
• Some things stillvery difficult– Joints
• Expertise– Mesh size, etc.
• FEM is not exact– Big models do not guarantee accurate models– That’s why testing is still required!
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM for the Test Engineer
PRETEST ANALYSIS
Develop
FEM
Pretest
AnalysisTest
Posttest
Correlation
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis
MODAL SURVEY OFTEN PERFORMEDTO VERIFY FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
• Must be confident that structure will survive operating environment
• Unrealistic to test flight structure to flight loads• Alternate procedure
– Test structure under controlled conditions– Correlate model to match test results– Use test-correlated model to predict operating responses
• Modal survey performed to verify analysis model– “Reality check”
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM
TEST AND ANALYSIS DATA HAVEDIFFERENT NUMBER OF DOF
• Model sizes– FEM = 10,000-1,000,000 DOF– Test = 50-500 accelerometers
• Compare test results to analysis predictions
• Need a common basis for comparison
MOrtho T
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM
TEST-ANALYSIS MODEL (TAM)PROVIDES BASIS FOR COMPARISON
• Test-analysis model (TAM)– Mathematical reduction of finite element model
– Master DOF in TAM corresponds to accelerometer
• Transformation (condensation)
• Many methods to perform reduction transformation
• Transformation method and sensor selection critical for accurate TAM and test-analysis comparisons
gaggT
gaaagaggT
gaaa TMTMTKTK
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
GUYAN REDUCTION IS THEINDUSTRY STANDARD METHOD
• Robert Guyan, Rockwell, 1965– Pronounced “Goo-yawn”, not “Gie-yan”
• Implemented in many commercial software codes– NASTRAN, I-DEAS, ANSYS, etc.
• Start with static equations of motion
• Assume forces at omitted DOF are negligible
a
o
a
o
aaao
oaoo
P
P
U
U
KK
KK
0Po
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
GUYAN REDUCTION IS ASIMPLE METHOD TO IMPLEMENT
• Solve for motion at omitted DOF
• Rewrite static equations of motion
• Transformation matrix for Guyan reduction
aoa1
ooo UKKU
aaa
oa1
oo
a
o UI
KKU
U
aa
oa1
ooGuyan
I
KKT
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
TRANSFORMATION VECTORSESTIMATE MOTION AT “OTHER” DOF
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1 2 3 4
Node ID
Dis
pla
cem
ent
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
TRANSFORMATION VECTORS CANREDUCE OR EXPAND DATA
TAM
Display
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
DISPLAY MODEL RECOVERED USING TRANSFORMATION VECTORS
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1 2 3 4
Node ID
En
han
ced
Dis
pla
y
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1 2 3 4
Sta
nd
ard
Dis
pla
y
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
IRS REDUCTION ADDSFIRST ORDER MASS CORRECTION
• Guyan neglects mass effects at omitted DOF• IRS adds first order approximation of mass effects
aa
IRSGuyanGuyan I
GGT
oa1
ooGuyan KKG
aa1
aaGuyanoooa1
ooIRS KMGMMKG
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
DYNAMIC REDUCTION ALSOADDS MASS CORRECTION
• Start with eigenvalue equation
Replace eigenvalue with constant value
• Equivalent to Guyan reduction if = 0
i
a
o
aaao
oaooii
a
o
aaao
oaoo
MM
MM
KK
KK
aa
oaoa1
oooodReDyn
I
MKMKT
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
MODAL TAM BASED ONFEM MODE SHAPES
• Partition FEM mode shapes
• Pseudo-inverse to form transformation matrix
ooU
aaU
aa
Ta
1
aT
aoModal
IT
aalmodo UTU
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
EACH REDUCTION METHOD HASSTRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Easy to use, efficient Limited accuracy
Guyan Works well if good A-set Bad if poor A-set
Widely accepted Unacceptable for high M/K
Better than Guyan Requires DMAP alter
IRS Errors if poor A-set
Better than Guyan Requires DMAP alter
Dynamic Choice of Lamda?
Limited experience
Exact within freq. range Requires DMAP alter
Modal Hybrid TAM option Sensitivity
Limited experience
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - TAM Transformation Methods
STANDARD PRACTICE FAVORSGUYAN REDUCTION
• Guyan reduction used most often– Easy to use and commercially available
– Computationally efficient
– Widely used and accepted
– Good accuracy for many/most structures
• Use other methods when Guyan is inadequate– Modal TAM very accurate but sensitive to FEM error
– IRS has 1st order mass correction but can be unstable
– Dynamic reduction seldom used (how to choose )
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - Sensor Placement
SENSOR PLACEMENT IMPORTANTFOR GOOD TAM AND TEST
• Optimize TAM– Minimize reduction error
• Optimize test– Get as much independent data as possible
• Focus on uncertainties– High confidence areas need only modest instrumentation
– More instrumentation near critical uncertain areas (joints)
• Common sense and engineering judgement– General visualization of mode shapes
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - Sensor Placement
MANY ALGORITHMS FORSENSOR PLACEMENT
• Kinetic energy– Retain DOF with large kinetic energy
• Mass/stiffness ratio– Retain DOF with high mass/stiffness ratio
• Iterated K.E. and M/K– Remove one DOF per iteration
• Effective independence– Retain DOF that maximize observability of mode shapes
• Genetic algorithm– Survival of the fittest!
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - Sensor Placement
SENSOR PLACEMENT ALGORITHMCLOSELY LINKED TO TAM METHOD
• Guyan or IRS reduction– Must retain DOF with large mass– Iterated K.E. or M/K– Mass-weighted effective independence
• Modal or Hybrid reduction– Effective independence
• Genetic algorithm offers best of all worlds– Examine tons of TAMs!– Seed generation from other methods– Cost function based on TAM method
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Pretest Analysis - Sensor Placement
PRETEST ANALYSIS ASSISTSPLANNING AND TEST
• Best estimate of modes– Frequencies, shapes
• Accelerometer locations– Optimized by sensor placement
studies
• TAM mass and stiffness– Real-time ortho and x-ortho
• Frequency response functions– Dry runs/shakedown prior to test
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM for the Test Engineer
TEST CONSIDERATIONS
Develop
FEM
Pretest
AnalysisTest
Posttest
Correlation
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Test Considerations
PRETEST DATA ALLOWSREAL-TIME CHECKS OF RESULTS
• Traditional comparisons
• What if test accuracy goals aren’t met?– Keep testing (different excitement levels, locations,
types)
– Stop testing (FEM may be incorrect!)
– Decide based on test quality checks
• Experienced test engineer extremely valuable!
testTAMT
test MORTHO
testTAMT
TAM MXORTHO
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM for the Test Engineer
POSTTEST CORRELATION
Develop
FEM
Pretest
AnalysisTest
Posttest
Correlation
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Posttest Correlation
CORRELATION MUST BE FAST!
• FEM almost always has some differences vs. test
• Very limited opportunity to do correlation– After structural testing and data processing complete
– Before operational use of model
• First flight of airplane
• Verification load cycle of spacecraft
• Need methods that are fast!– Maximum insight
– Accurate
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Posttest Correlation
NO UNIQUE SOLUTION FOR POSTTEST CORRELATION
• More “unknowns” than “knowns”• Knowns
– Test data (FRF, frequencies, shapes at test DOF, damping)
– Measured global/subsystem weights
• Unknowns– FEM stiffness and mass (FEM DOF)
• No unique solution• Seek “best” reasonable solution
“When you have
eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be
the truth.”
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Posttest Correlation
MANY CORRELATION METHODS
• Trial-and-error– Stop doing this! It's (almost)
the new millenium!– Too slow for fast-paced projects– Not sufficiently insightful for
complex systems
• FEM matrix updating• FEM property updating• Error localization
FEM
Test OK?
Done
Updates
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Posttest Correlation
MATRIX UPDATE METHODSADJUST FEM K AND M ELEMENTS
• Objective– Identify changes to FEM K and M so that analysis
matches test
• Baruch and Bar-Itzhack (1978, 1982)• Berman (1971, 1984)• Kabe (1985)• Kammer (1987)• Smith and Beattie (1991)• … and many others
1100
1650
0572
0022
K
5.1000
05.200
005.10
0005.0
M
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Posttest Correlation
MATRIX UPDATE METHODSHAVE LIMITATIONS
• Lack of physical insight– What do changes in K, M coefficients mean?
• Lack of physical plausibility– Baruch/Berman method doesn't enforce connectivity
• Limitations for large problems– Great for small “demo” models, but ...
– “Smearing" caused by Guyan reduction/expansion
• What if test article different than flight vehicle?
• Requires very precise mode shapes (unrealistic)
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Posttest Correlation
PROPERTY UPDATE METHODSADJUST MATERIALS AND ELEMENTS
• Objective– Identify changes to element and material
properties so that FEM matches test
• Hasselman (1974)• Chen (1980)• Flanigan (1987, 1991)• Blelloch (1992)• Smith (1995)• … and many others * Calculate updates using
design sensitivity and optimization
FEM
Test OK?
Done
Updates*
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Posttest Correlation
COMMERCIAL SOFTWAREFOR CORRELATION
• SDRC/MTS– I-DEAS Correlation (MAC, ortho, x-ortho, mapping)
• LMS– CADA LINK (parameter updating, Bayesian estimation)
• MSC– SOL 200 design optimization (modes, FRF)
• Dynamic Design Solutions (DDS)– FEMtools (follow-on to Systune)
• Others (SSID, ITAP, etc.)
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Posttest Correlation
MODE SHAPE EXPANSIONFOR CORRELATION IMPROVEMENT
TAM
Display
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
Posttest Correlation
SHAPE EXPANSION IS ANALTERNATIVE TO MATRIX REDUCTION
• Expand test mode shapes to FEM DOF
• Expansion and reduction give same results if same matrices used
• Dynamic expansion based on eigenvalue equation
Computationally intensive– But computers are getting faster all the time!
agag UTU
iaoa
ioaoo
ioo
io MKMK
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM for the Test Engineer
SUMMARY
• FEM is a simple yet powerful method– Complex structures from simple building blocks
• FEM must make many assumptions– Joints, tolerances, linearity, mass, etc.– Big models do not guarantee accuracy
• Testing provides a valuable “reality check”– Within limits of test article, excitation levels, etc.
• FEM can work closely with test for mutual benefit– Pretest analysis to optimize sensor locations– TAM for providing test-analysis comparison basis– Correlation and model updating for validated model
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM PEOPLE REALLY ARE SMART!
• And maybe test people are smart too!
Quartus EngineeringCopyright Quartus Engineering Incorporated, 2000.
FEM for the Test Engineer
RECOMMENDED READING
• Finite element method
– Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, 3rd ed.; Cook, Robert D./Plesha, Michael E./Malkus, David S.; John Wiley & Sons; 1989
– Finite Element Procedures, Klaus-Jurgen Bathe; Prentice Hall; 1995
• Correlation and model updating
– Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics; M. I. Friswell,J. E. Mottershead; Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995.
• Optimization
– Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design, 3rd edition (includes software); Garret N. Vanderplaats, Vanderplaats Research &
Development, Inc., 1999
Top Related