Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:18:19.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SICODYN international benchmark on dynamic analysis ofstructure assemblies: variability and numerical-experimental correlation on an industrialpump

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2010

Sylvie Audebert
Sylvie Audebert*
Affiliation:
EDF Recherche et Développement, Département Analyses Mécaniques et Acoustique, 1 avenue du Général de Gaulle, 92141 Clamart Cedex, France
*
a Corresponding author:[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A benchmark is organised to quantify the variability relative to structure dynamicscomputations. The chosen demonstrator is a pump in service in thermal central units, whichis an engineered system with not well-known parameters, considered in its workenvironment. The blind modal characterisation of the separate pump components shows a5%–12% variability on eigenfrequency values and a less than 15% frequency error incomparison with experimental values. The numerical-experimental MAC numbers reach 0.7 atthe maximum, even after updating. An example of modal results on the pump assembly fixedis presented, which shows a larger discrepancy with measurement values, essentially due tothe modelling of the interfaces and boundary condition, and to the possible simplificationof the main components F.E. models to reduce their size. Though a significant frequencyerror, the first overall modes are correctly identified. If this tendency can be confirmedfrom all the participants’ results, the conclusion to be drawn is that, if the predictivecapability of F.E. models to represent the dynamical behaviour of sub-structures issatisfactory, the one relative to structures that are built-up of several components doesnot allow their confident use. Additional information issued from measurements is neededto improve their accuracy.

Keywords

Benchmarkstructural dynamicsmodal analysisfinite-elementsblind comparisonnumerical-experimental correlationnumerical variabilityuncertaintymodel validationerror estimationBenchmarkdynamique des structuresanalyse modaleéléments-finiscomparaison en aveuglecorrélation numérique-expérimentalevariabilité numériqueincertitudevalidation de modèleestimation d’erreur
Type
Research Article
Information
Mechanics & Industry , Volume 11 , Issue 6: VCB (Vibrations, Chocs et Bruits) , November 2010 , pp. 439 - 451
Copyright
© AFM, EDP Sciences 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Trucano, T.G., Swiler, L.P., Igusa, T., Oberkampf, W.L., Pilch, M., Calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis: What’s what, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 91 (2006) 1331–1357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberkampf, W.L., Trucano, T.G., Verification and validation benchmarks, Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (2008) 716–743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zang, C., Schwingshackl, C.W., Ewins, D.J., Model validation for structural dynamic analysis: An approach to the Sandia Structural Dynamic Challenge, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197 (2008) 2645–2659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, R.G., Pilch, M., Dowding, K.J., Red-Horse, J., Paez, T.L., Babuska, I., Tempone, R., Validation Challenge Workshop, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197 (2008) 2375–2380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paez, T.L., Red-Horse, J., Structural dynamics challenge problem: Summary, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197 (2008) 2660–2665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Red-Horse, J., T.L Pae, Sandia National Laboratories Validation workshop: Structural dynamics application, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197 (2008) 2578–2584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuëller, G.I., Pradlwarter, H.J., Benchmark study on reliability estimation in higher dimensions in structural systems – An overview, Struct. Saf. 29 (2007) 167–182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, M., Friswell, M., Working group 1: generation of validated structural dynamic models – Results of a benchmark study utilising the GARTEUR SM-AG19 test-bed, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 17 (2003) 9–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
S. Lermitte, T. Chaudat, D. Vandeputte, T. Payen, E. Viallet, Evaluation de la fragilité d’un bâtiment de trois étages présentant des effets tridimensionnels, Actes du 7e Colloque national Agence Française du Génie Parasismique AFPS’07, Châtenay-Malabry, France, 4–6 juillet 2007
S. Lermitte, Seismic Design and Best-Estimate Methods Assesment for RC Buildings Subjected to Torsion, Proceedings of 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Smart 2008, Beijing, China, October 12–17, 2008
W. Lienau, P. Stanford, Y. Deger, Identification of bearing housing vibrations of a large barrel type injection pump and their analysis by means of the finite element method, Proceedings of 22nd International Pump Users Symposium, 2005
http://www.salome-platform.org
R.J. Allemang, The Modal Assurance Criterion Twenty years of use and abuse, Sound and Vibration, 2003
Rebba, R., Mahedevan, S., Validation of models with multivariate output, Reliab. Eng. System Safe. 91 (2006) 861–871 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebba, R., Mahadevan, S., Huang, S., Validation and error estimation of computational models, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 91 (2006) 1390–1397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibrahim, R.A., Pettit, C.L., Uncertainties and dynamic problems of bolted joints and other fasteners, J. Sound Vib. 279 (2005) 857–936 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D. Ewins, Effective integration of analysis and test in structural dynamics, Benchmark The international magazine for engineering designers & analysts, NAFEMS, October 2009
Kim, Jeong, Yoon, Joo-Cheol, Kang, Beom-Soo, Finite element analysis and modeling of structure with bolted joints, Appl. Math. Modell. 31 (2007) 895–911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackerle, J., Finite element analysis of fastening and joining: a bibliography (1990–2002), Int. J. Press. Vessels Piping 80 (2003) 253–271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, E.J. et al., Probabilistic investigation of sensitivities of advanced test-analysis model correlation methods, J. Sound Vib. 329 (2010) 2516–2531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuëller, G.I., On the treatment of uncertainties in structural mechanics and analysis, Comput Struct. 85 (2007) 235–243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A.E. Rice, T.G. Carne, D.W. Kelton, Model validation of a complex aerospace structure, Sound and Vibration, 2008
D’Ambrogio, W., Fregolent, A., Effect of uncertainties on substructure coupling: modelling and reduction strategies, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 23 (2009) 588–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adhikari, S., Friswell, M.I., Lonkar, K., Sarkar, A., Experimental case studies for uncertainty quantification in structural dynamics, Prob. Eng. Mech. 24 (2009) 473–492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guedri, M., Ghanmi, S., Majed, R., Bouhaddi, N., Robust tools for prediction of variability and optimization in structural dynamics, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 23 (2009) 1123–1133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarland, J., Mahadevan, S., Error and variability characterization in structural dynamic modeling, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197 (2008) 2621–2631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voormeeren, S.N., de Klerk, D., Rixen, D.J., Uncertainty quantification in experimental frequency based substructuring, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 24 (2010) 106–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butland, , Avitabile, P., A reduced, test verified component mode synthesis approach for system modelling applications, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 24 (2010) 904–921 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinke, L., Dohnal, F., Mace, B.R., Waters, T.P., Ferguson, N.S., Component mode synthesis as a framework for uncertainty analysis, J. Sound Vib. 324 (2009) 161–178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar