TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Reduction Methods for Finite Element Geometrically Nonlinear Beam Structures
AU - Shen, Yichang
AU - Vizzaccaro, Alessandra
AU - Kesmia, Nassim
AU - Yu, Ting
AU - Salles, Loïc
AU - Thomas, Olivier
AU - Touzé, Cyril
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the authors.
PY - 2021/3/1
Y1 - 2021/3/1
N2 - The aim of this contribution is to present numerical comparisons of model-order reduction methods for geometrically nonlinear structures in the general framework of finite element (FE) procedures. Three different methods are compared: the implicit condensation and expansion (ICE), the quadratic manifold computed from modal derivatives (MD), and the direct normal form (DNF) procedure, the latter expressing the reduced dynamics in an invariant-based span of the phase space. The methods are first presented in order to underline their common points and differences, highlighting in particular that ICE and MD use reduction subspaces that are not invariant. A simple analytical example is then used in order to analyze how the different treatments of quadratic nonlinearities by the three methods can affect the predictions. Finally, three beam examples are used to emphasize the ability of the methods to handle curvature (on a curved beam), 1:1 internal resonance (on a clamped-clamped beam with two polarizations), and inertia nonlinearity (on a cantilever beam).
AB - The aim of this contribution is to present numerical comparisons of model-order reduction methods for geometrically nonlinear structures in the general framework of finite element (FE) procedures. Three different methods are compared: the implicit condensation and expansion (ICE), the quadratic manifold computed from modal derivatives (MD), and the direct normal form (DNF) procedure, the latter expressing the reduced dynamics in an invariant-based span of the phase space. The methods are first presented in order to underline their common points and differences, highlighting in particular that ICE and MD use reduction subspaces that are not invariant. A simple analytical example is then used in order to analyze how the different treatments of quadratic nonlinearities by the three methods can affect the predictions. Finally, three beam examples are used to emphasize the ability of the methods to handle curvature (on a curved beam), 1:1 internal resonance (on a clamped-clamped beam with two polarizations), and inertia nonlinearity (on a cantilever beam).
KW - direct normal form
KW - geometric nonlinearity
KW - implicit condensation and expansion
KW - modal derivatives
KW - reduced-order model
U2 - 10.3390/vibration4010014
DO - 10.3390/vibration4010014
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85106401183
SN - 2571-631X
VL - 4
SP - 175
EP - 204
JO - Vibration
JF - Vibration
IS - 1
ER -