[PPT] - Uncertainty Quantification and Propagation in Aerospace Structural PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Uncertainty Quantification and Propagation in Aerospace Structural Dynamical Models

Sondipon Adhikari

Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K. Email: S.Adhikari@bristol.ac.uk URL: http://www.aer.bris.ac.uk/contact/academic/adhikari/home.html

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.1/62

SLIDE 2

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Outline of the presentation

Probabilistic structural dynamics Random matrix model for aerospace systems Wishart random matrices Uncertainty propagation Random eigenvalue problems Experimental validation Open problems & discussions

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.2/62

SLIDE 3

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Overview of Predictive Methods in Engineering

There are five key steps: Physics (mechanics) model building Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) Uncertainty Propagation (UP) Model Verification & Validation (V & V) Prediction Tools are available for each of these steps. Currently, our focus is mainly on UQ and UP in linear dynamical systems.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.3/62

SLIDE 4

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Complex aerospace model

Subsystem 2 Su bs yst em 4 Subsystem 1 Subsystem 3

Possible subsystem models for an aircraft

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.4/62

SLIDE 5

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Why uncertainty?

Different sources of uncertainties in the modeling and simulation of dynamic systems may be attributed, but not limited, to the following factors: Mathematical models: equations (linear, non-linear), geometry, damping model (viscous, non-viscous, fractional derivative), boundary conditions/initial conditions, input forces; Model parameters: Young’s modulus, mass density, Poisson’s ratio, damping model parameters (damping coefficient, relaxation modulus, fractional derivative

rder)

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.5/62

SLIDE 6

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Why uncertainty?

Numerical algorithms: weak formulations, discretisation

f displacement fields (in finite element method),

discretisation of stochastic fields (in stochastic finite element method), approximate solution algorithms, truncation and roundoff errors, tolerances in the

ptimization and iterative methods, artificial intelligent

(AI) method (choice of neural networks) Measurements: noise, resolution (number of sensors and actuators), experimental hardware, excitation method (nature of shakers and hammers), excitation and measurement point, data processing (amplification, number of data points, FFT), calibration

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.6/62

SLIDE 7

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Structural dynamics

The equation of motion: M¨ x(t) + C ˙ x(t) + Kx(t) = p(t) Due to the presence of uncertainty M, C and K become random matrices. The main objectives in the ‘forward problem’ are: to quantify uncertainties in the system matrices to predict the variability in the response vector x

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.7/62

SLIDE 8

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Current Methods

Two different approaches are currently available Low frequency : Stochastic Finite Element Method (SFEM) - assumes that stochastic fields describing parametric uncertainties are known in details High frequency : Statistical Energy Analysis (SEA) - do not consider parametric uncertainties in details

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.8/62

SLIDE 9

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Random Matrix Method (RMM)

The objective : To have an unified method which will work across the frequency range. The methodology : Derive the matrix variate probability density functions of M, C and K Propagate the uncertainty (using Monte Carlo simulation or analytical methods) to

btain the response statistics (or pdf)

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.9/62

SLIDE 10

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Matrix variate distributions

The probability density function of a random matrix can be defined in a manner similar to that of a random variable. If A is an n × m real random matrix, the matrix variate probability density function of A ∈ Rn,m, denoted as pA(A), is a mapping from the space of n × m real matrices to the real line, i.e., pA(A) : Rn,m → R.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.10/62

SLIDE 11

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Gaussian random matrix

The random matrix X ∈ Rn,p is said to have a matrix variate Gaussian distribution with mean matrix M ∈ Rn,p and covariance matrix Σ ⊗ Ψ, where Σ ∈ R+

n and Ψ ∈ R+ p provided

the pdf of X is given by pX (X) = (2π)−np/2 |Σ|−p/2 |Ψ|−n/2 etr

−1

2Σ−1(X − M)Ψ−1(X − M)T

(1)

This distribution is usually denoted as X ∼ Nn,p (M, Σ ⊗ Ψ).

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.11/62

SLIDE 12

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Wishart matrix

A n × n symmetric positive definite random matrix S is said to have a Wishart distribution with parameters p ≥ n and Σ ∈ R+

n , if its pdf is given by

pS (S) =

2

1 2np Γn

1 2p

|Σ|

1 2p

−1 |S|

1 2(p−n−1)etr

−1

2Σ−1S

(2)

This distribution is usually denoted as S ∼ Wn(p, Σ). Note: If p = n + 1, then the matrix is non-negative definite.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.12/62

SLIDE 13

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Matrix variate Gamma distribution

A n × n symmetric positive definite matrix random W is said to have a matrix variate gamma distribution with parameters a and Ψ ∈ R+

n , if its pdf is given by

pW (W) =

Γn (a) |Ψ|−a−1 |W|a− 1

2(n+1) etr {−ΨW} ;

ℜ(a) > 1 2(n− (3) This distribution is usually denoted as W ∼ Gn(a, Ψ). Here the multivariate gamma function: Γn (a) = π

1 4n(n−1)

n

k=1

Γ

a − 1

2(k − 1)

; for ℜ(a) > (n−1)/2 (4)

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.13/62

SLIDE 14

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Distribution of the system matrices

The distribution of the random system matrices M, C and K should be such that they are symmetric positive-definite, and the moments (at least first two) of the inverse of the dynamic stiffness matrix D(ω) = −ω2M + iωC + K should exist ∀ ω

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.14/62

SLIDE 15

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Distribution of the system matrices

The exact application of the last constraint requires the derivation of the joint probability density function of M, C and K, which is quite difficult to obtain. We consider a simpler problem where it is required that the inverse moments of each of the system matrices M, C and K must exist. Provided the system is damped, this will guarantee the existence of the moments of the frequency response function matrix.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.15/62

SLIDE 16

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Maximum Entropy Distribution

Soize (2000,2006) used this approach and obtained the matrix variate Gamma distribution. Since Gamma and Wishart distribution are similar we have: Theorem 1. If ν-th order inverse-moment of a system matrix G ≡ {M, C, K} exists and only the mean of G is available, say G, then the maximum-entropy pdf of G follows the Wishart distribution with parameters p = (2ν + n + 1) and Σ = G/(2ν + n + 1), that is G ∼ Wn

2ν + n + 1, G/(2ν + n + 1)
.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.16/62

SLIDE 17

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Matrix Factorization Approach (MFA)

Because G is a symmetric and positive-definite random matrix, it can be always factorized as G = XXT (5) where X ∈ Rn×p, p ≥ n is in general a rectangular matrix. The simplest case is when the mean of X is O ∈ Rn×p, p ≥ n and the covariance tensor of X is given by Σ ⊗ Ip ∈ Rnp×np where Σ ∈ R+

n .

X is a Gaussian random matrix with mean O ∈ Rn×p, p ≥ n and covariance Σ ⊗ Ip ∈ Rnp×np.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.17/62

SLIDE 18

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Wishart Pdf

After some algebra it can be shown that G is a Wn(p, Σ) Wishart random matrix, whose pdf is given given by pG (G) =

2

1 2np Γn

1 2p

|Σ|

1 2p

−1 |G|

1 2(p−n−1)etr

−1

2Σ−1G

(6)

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.18/62

SLIDE 19

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Parameter Estimation of Wishart Distribution

The distribution of G must be such that E [G] and E

G−1

should be closest to G and G

−1 respectively.

Since G ∼ Wn (p, Σ), there are two unknown parameters in this distribution, namely, p and Σ. This implies that there are in total 1 + n(n + 1)/2 number of unknowns. We define and subsequently minimize ‘normalized errors’: ε1 =

G − E [G]
F /
G
F

ε2 =

G

−1 − E

G−1
F /
G

−1

F

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.19/62

SLIDE 20

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

MFA Distribution

Solving the optimization problem we have: Theorem 2. If ν-th order inverse-moment of a system matrix G ≡ {M, C, K} exists and only the mean of G is available, say G, then the distribution

f G follows the Wishart distribution with parameters

p = (2ν + n + 1) and Σ = G/

2ν(2ν + n + 1), that

is G ∼ Wn

2ν + n + 1, G/
2ν(2ν + n + 1)
.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.20/62

SLIDE 21

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Response statistics - 1

The equation of motion is Dx = p, D is in general n × n complex random matrix. The response is given by x = D−1p Consider static problems so that all matrices/vectors are real.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.21/62

SLIDE 22

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Response statistics - 2

We may want the statistics of few elements or some linear combinations of the elements in x. So the quantify of interest is y = Rx = RD−1p (7) Here R is in general r × n rectangular matrix. For the special case when R = In, we have y = x.

Eq. (7) arises in SFEM. There are many papers
n its solution. Mainly perturbation methods are

used.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.22/62

SLIDE 23

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Response statistics - 3

Suppose D = D0 + ∆D, where D0 is the deterministic part and ∆D is the (small) random

part. It can be shown that

D−1 = D0−D−1

0 ∆DD−1 0 +D−1 0 ∆DD−1 0 ∆DD−1 0 +· · ·

From, this y = y0 − RD−1

0 ∆Dx0 + RD−1 0 ∆DD−1 0 ∆Dx0 + · · ·

(8) where x0 = D−1

0 p and y0 = Rx0.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.23/62

SLIDE 24

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Response statistics - 4

The statistics of y can be calculated from Eq. (8). However, The calculation is difficult if ∆D is non-Gaussian. Even if ∆D is Gaussian, inclusion of higher-order terms results very messy calculations (I have not seen any published work for more than second-order) For these reasons, the response statistics will be inaccurate for large randomness.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.24/62

SLIDE 25

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Response statistics - 5

Response moments can be obtained exactly using

RMT. Suppose D ∼ Wn (n + 1 + θ, Σ).

E [y] = E

RD−1p
= R E
D−1

p = RΣ−1p/θ (9) The complete covariance matrix of y E

(y − E [y])(y − E [y])T

= R E

D−1ppTD−1

RT − E [y] (E [y])T = Trace

Σ−1ppT

RΣ−1RT θ(θ + 1)(θ − 2) + (θ + 2)RΣ−1ppTΣ−1RT θ2(θ + 1)(θ − 2) (10)

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.25/62

SLIDE 26

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Simulation Algorithm: Dynamical Systems

Obtain θ = 1 δ2 G   1 + {Trace

G
}2

Trace

G

2

   − (n + 1) If θ < 4, then select θ = 4. Calculate α =

θ(n + 1 + θ)

Generate samples of G ∼ Wn

n + 1 + θ, G/α
(Matlab command wishrnd can be used to generate

the samples) Repeat the above steps for all system matrices and solve for every samples

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.26/62

SLIDE 27

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Example 1: A cantilever Plate

0.5 1 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 −0.5 0.5 1 X direction (length) Output Input Y direction (width) Fixed edge

A Cantilever plate with a slot: ¯ E = 200 × 109N/m2, ¯ µ = 0.3, ¯ ρ = 7860kg/m3, ¯ t = 7.5mm, Lx = 1.2m, Ly = 0.8m.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.27/62

SLIDE 28

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Plate Mode 4

0.5 1 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.2 0.4 X direction (length)

Mode 4, freq. = 48.745 Hz

Y direction (width)

Fourth Mode shape

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.28/62

SLIDE 29

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Plate Mode 5

0.5 1 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.2 0.4 X direction (length)

Mode 5, freq. = 64.3556 Hz

Y direction (width)

Fifth Mode shape

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.29/62

SLIDE 30

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Deterministic FRF

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) Cross FRF: H(559,109) (ω) Driving−point FRF: H(109,109) (ω)

FRF of the deterministic plate

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.30/62

SLIDE 31

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Stochastic Properties

The Young’s modulus, Poissons ratio, mass density and thickness are random fields of the form E(x) = ¯ E (1 + ǫEf1(x)) (11) µ(x) = ¯ µ (1 + ǫµf2(x)) (12) ρ(x) = ¯ ρ (1 + ǫρf3(x)) (13) and t(x) = ¯ t (1 + ǫtf4(x)) (14) The strength parameters: ǫE = 0.15, ǫµ = 0.15, ǫρ = 0.10 and ǫt = 0.15. The random fields fi(x), i = 1, · · · , 4 are delta-correlated homogenous Gaussian random fields.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.31/62

SLIDE 32

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of cross-FRF

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(559,109) (ω) Ensamble average: SFEM Ensamble average: RMT Standard deviation: SFEM Standard deviation: RMT

Comparison of the mean and standard deviation of the amplitude of the cross-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.32/62

SLIDE 33

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of cross-FRF: Low Freq

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(559,109) (ω) Ensamble average: SFEM Ensamble average: RMT Standard deviation: SFEM Standard deviation: RMT

Comparison of the mean and standard deviation of the amplitude of the cross-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.33/62

SLIDE 34

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of cross-FRF: Mid Freq

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(559,109) (ω) Ensamble average: SFEM Ensamble average: RMT Standard deviation: SFEM Standard deviation: RMT

Comparison of the mean and standard deviation of the amplitude of the cross-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.34/62

SLIDE 35

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of cross-FRF: High Freq

4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(559,109) (ω) Ensamble average: SFEM Ensamble average: RMT Standard deviation: SFEM Standard deviation: RMT

Comparison of the mean and standard deviation of the amplitude of the cross-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.35/62

SLIDE 36

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of driving-point-FRF

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(109,109) (ω) Ensamble average: SFEM Ensamble average: RMT Standard deviation: SFEM Standard deviation: RMT

Comparison of the mean and standard deviation of the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.36/62

SLIDE 37

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of driving-point-FRF: Low Freq

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(109,109) (ω) Ensamble average: SFEM Ensamble average: RMT Standard deviation: SFEM Standard deviation: RMT

Comparison of the mean and standard deviation of the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.37/62

SLIDE 38

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of driving-point-FRF: Mid Freq

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(109,109) (ω) Ensamble average: SFEM Ensamble average: RMT Standard deviation: SFEM Standard deviation: RMT

Comparison of the mean and standard deviation of the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.38/62

SLIDE 39

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of driving-point-FRF: High Freq

4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(109,109) (ω) Ensamble average: SFEM Ensamble average: RMT Standard deviation: SFEM Standard deviation: RMT

Comparison of the mean and standard deviation of the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.39/62

SLIDE 40

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of cross-FRF

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(559,109) (ω) 5% points: SFEM 5% points: RMT 95% points: SFEM 95% points: RMT

Comparison of the 5% and 95% probability points of the amplitude of the cross-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.40/62

SLIDE 41

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of cross-FRF: Low Freq

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(559,109) (ω) 5% points: SFEM 5% points: RMT 95% points: SFEM 95% points: RMT

Comparison of the 5% and 95% probability points of the amplitude of the cross-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.41/62

SLIDE 42

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of cross-FRF: Mid Freq

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(559,109) (ω) 5% points: SFEM 5% points: RMT 95% points: SFEM 95% points: RMT

Comparison of the 5% and 95% probability points of the amplitude of the cross-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.42/62

SLIDE 43

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of cross-FRF: High Freq

4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(559,109) (ω) 5% points: SFEM 5% points: RMT 95% points: SFEM 95% points: RMT

Comparison of the 5% and 95% probability points of the amplitude of the cross-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.43/62

SLIDE 44

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of driving-point-FRF

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(109,109) (ω) 5% points: SFEM 5% points: RMT 95% points: SFEM 95% points: RMT

Comparison of the 5% and 95% probability points of the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.44/62

SLIDE 45

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of driving-point-FRF: Low Freq

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(109,109) (ω) 5% points: SFEM 5% points: RMT 95% points: SFEM 95% points: RMT

Comparison of the 5% and 95% probability points of the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.45/62

SLIDE 46

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of driving-point-FRF: Mid Freq

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(109,109) (ω) 5% points: SFEM 5% points: RMT 95% points: SFEM 95% points: RMT

Comparison of the 5% and 95% probability points of the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.46/62

SLIDE 47

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Comparison of driving-point-FRF: High Freq

4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100 −80 −60 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H(109,109) (ω) 5% points: SFEM 5% points: RMT 95% points: SFEM 95% points: RMT

Comparison of the 5% and 95% probability points of the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF, n = 702, δM = 0.1166 and δK = 0.2622.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.47/62

SLIDE 48

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Experimental Study - 1

A fixed-fixed beam: Length: 1200 mm, Width: 40.06 mm, Thickness: 2.05 mm, Density: 7800 kg/m3, Young’s Modulus: 200 GPa

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.48/62

SLIDE 49

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Experimental Study - 1

12 randomly placed masses (magnets), each weighting 2 g (total variation: 3.2%): mass locations are generated using uniform distribution

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.49/62

SLIDE 50

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

FRF Variability: complete spectrum

Variability in the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.50/62

SLIDE 51

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

FRF Variability: Low Freq

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 −80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 10 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H

(1,1) (ω)

Baseline Ensamble average 5% points 95% points

Variability in the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.51/62

SLIDE 52

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

FRF Variability: Mid Freq

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 −80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 10 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H

(1,1) (ω)

Baseline Ensamble average 5% points 95% points

Variability in the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.52/62

SLIDE 53

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

FRF Variability: High Freq

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 −80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 10 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H

(1,1) (ω)

Baseline Ensamble average 5% points 95% points

Variability in the amplitude of the driving-point-FRF.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.53/62

SLIDE 54

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Other applications of RMT

Mid-frequency vibration problem Modelling random unmodelled dynamics Damping model uncertainty Flow through porous media Localized uncertainty modeling Stochastic domain decomposition method

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.54/62

SLIDE 55

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Experimental Study: cantilever plate

A cantilever plate: Length: 998 mm, Width: 530 mm, Thickness: 3 mm, Density: 7860 kg/m3, Young’s Modulus: 200 GPa

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.55/62

SLIDE 56

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Unmodelled dynamics

10 randomly placed oscillator; oscillatory mass: 121.4 g, fixed mass: 2 g, spring stiffness vary from 10 - 12 KN/m

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.56/62

SLIDE 57

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

FRF Variability: Low Freq

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 −80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H

(1,6) (ω)

Deterministic Ensamble average 5% points 95% points

Variability in the amplitude of the FRF.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.57/62

SLIDE 58

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

FRF Variability: Mid Freq

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 −80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H

(1,6) (ω)

Deterministic Ensamble average 5% points 95% points

Variability in the amplitude of the FRF.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.58/62

SLIDE 59

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

FRF Variability: High Freq

2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 −80 −70 −60 −50 −40 −30 −20 Frequency ω (Hz) Log amplitude (dB) of H

(1,6) (ω)

Deterministic Ensamble average 5% points 95% points

Variability in the amplitude of the FRF.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.59/62

SLIDE 60

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Summary

Using a Matrix Factorization Approach (MFA) it was shown Wishart matrices may be used as the model for the random system matrices in structural dynamics. The parameters of the distribution were

btained in closed-form by solving an
ptimisation problem.

Only the mean matrix and normalized standard deviation is required to model the system. Numerical results show that SFEM and RMT results match well in the mid and high frequency region.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.60/62

SLIDE 61

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

Open problems (OP) - 1

How to incorporate a given covariance tensor of G (e.g.,

btained using the SFEM)?

Possibility: Use non-central Wishart distribution. What is the consequence of the zeros in G are not being preserved? Possibility: Use SVD to preserve the ‘structure’ of the random matrix realizations and check the results. Are we taking model uncertainties (‘unknown unknowns’) into account? How can we verify it?

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.61/62

SLIDE 62

Strathclyde, 30 January 2007

OP - RMT

Pdf of complex linear combinations of real random matrices Joint Pdf of the eigenvalues of real random matrices. Inverse of complex symmetric random matrices.

Uncertainty in Aero Models – p.62/62