Reanalysis of Modified Structures by Adding or Removing Substructures

Kim, Yong‐Su; Eun, Hee-Chang

doi:10.1155/2018/3084078

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, Wang et al [12] integrated reanalysis methods and apace mapping algorithms to tackle optimization problems. Kim and Eun [13] considered structural reanalysis due to addition/removal of substructures and changes in design variables by a generalized inverse method. Based on polynomial-type extrapolation for reanalysis of structures under changes in the initial design, Hosseinzadeh et al [14] proposed another approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Different Methods for Approximate Analysis of Bar Structures

Rezaiee‐Pajand

Momenipour

Hozhabrossadati

2020

IJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, modified solutions were compared through utilizing three different approximate methods for bar structures. The modifications considered various changes in the initial design. To authors' best of knowledge, the studies have carried out on this matter so far are not broad enough and have considerred the simeltaneous variations of size, geometry and topology on the bar structures. In this study, three wellknown methods, including combined approximation, rational approximation and the approximate inversion of stiffness matrix methods are formulated. A large variety of problems will be performed with different characteristics to compare the ability of these approaches in determining the suitable approximate modified displacements. Cross sectional properties and nodal coordinates are considered as design variables. Displacement errors and computational efforts of the processes considered as comparison factors. It is shown that the approximate inversion of the stiffness matrix method cannot solve the problems, which requires the modification of structural geometry. Furthermore, the combined approximation and rational approximation methods have the ability of reaching displacements with suitable quality in the problems with a moderate size.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Different Methods for Approximate Analysis of Bar Structures

Rezaiee‐Pajand

Momenipour

Hozhabrossadati

2020

IJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Secondly, these methods change the way people communicate the design information, engineers can design every component or substructure of a complex system independently, and they can communicate the component mass and stiffness matrix instead of the detailed design information when they are interested in the assembly properties. Last but not least, these techniques are applicable to the fast designs and predictions when the local mesh increases or decreases, the dynamic system can be 2 Shock and Vibration quickly synthesized and reanalyzed, which makes the CMS methods overwhelm [7] the most efficient structural dynamic modification algorithms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stabilized Solution to Spurious Mode Problem and Ill‐Conditioning in Interface Force Based Substructure Coupling Method

Feng

Mou

Teffah

2018

Shock and Vibration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are two major types of substructure mode synthesis methods, i.e., the fixed-interface component mode synthesis and freeinterface component mode synthesis. There are two coupling methods, the interface degrees of freedom based coupling method and the interface force based coupling method, the former one is referred to as the primary assembly method, and the latter is referred to as the dual assembly method. However, the dual assembly method is theoretically shown to be unstable in this research, such reduced stiffness matrix is indefinite, this fatal weakness can be conquered by further interface reduction, and the interface compatibility is therefore rigorously enforced. Unfortunately, Craig's method leads to another numerical instability when inverting a submatrix of residual flexibility on the interface degrees of freedom, this problem is neglectable in small dimensional matrix problems, but it is prominent in large models when the number of interface degrees of freedom is large, this ill-conditioning problem may be circumvented by truncated singular value decomposition technique; here, a more efficient strategy is proposed, the substructure reduction is modified, this modification proves to be numerically stable, and it can be even more accurate than the prevailing Craig-Bampton method; the numerical examples validate the suggestion.

show abstract