MODEL REDUCTION USING

GUYAN, IRS, AND DYNAMIC METHODS

Christopher C. Flanigan
Quartus Engineering Incorporated
San Diego, California
Model Reduction Using Guyan, IRS, and Dynamic Methods

AGENDA

• Background and introduction

• Guyan reduction
• IRS reduction
• Dynamic reduction
• Comparison of reduction methods
• Mode shape expansion
• Conclusions
 Background and Introduction

MODAL SURVEY OFTEN PERFORMED

TO 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”
 Background and Introduction

TEST AND ANALYSIS DATA HAVE

DIFFERENT NUMBER OF DOF
• Finite element model (FEM)
– 10,000-1,000,000 DOF
• Test
– 50-500 accelerometers
• Compare test results to analysis predictions

Ortho  T M 
• Many other comparison techniques
– Cross-ortho, MAC, COMAC, CORTHOG, etc.
• Need a common basis for comparison
 Background and Introduction

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)
Kaa  Tga T Kgg Tga Maa  Tga T Mgg Tga

• Many methods to select optimum accelerometer locations

• Many methods to perform reduction transformation
• Sensor locations and transformation method critical for
accurate TAM and test-analysis comparisons
 Transformation Methods

GUYAN REDUCTION IS THE

INDUSTRY 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

K oo K oa  Uo  Po 
K    
 ao Kaa  Ua  Pa 

• Assume forces at omitted DOF are negligible

Po  0
 Transformation Methods

GUYAN REDUCTION IS A
SIMPLE METHOD TO IMPLEMENT
• Solve for motion at omitted DOF
Uo   Koo 1 Koa Ua
• Rewrite static equations of motion
Uo   K oo 1 K oa 
   Ua
 a 
U Iaa 
• Transformation matrix for Guyan reduction

 K oo 1 K oa 
TGuyan   
 Iaa 
 Transformation Methods

IRS REDUCTION ADDS

FIRST ORDER MASS CORRECTION
• Guyan neglects mass effects at omitted DOF
• IRS adds first order approximation of mass effects

GGuyan  GIRS 
TGuyan   
 Iaa 

GGuyan   Koo 1 Koa

 
GIRS  Koo 1 Moa  Moo GGuyan Maa 1 Kaa
 Transformation Methods

DYNAMIC REDUCTION ALSO

ADDS MASS CORRECTION
• Start with eigenvalue equation
i i
K oo K oa  o  i Moo Moa  o 
K       
 ao Kaa  a  Mao Maa  a 

• Replace eigenvalue with constant value L

 K oo  L Moo 1 K oa  L Moa 

TDyn Re d   
 Iaa 
• Equivalent to Guyan reduction if L = 0
 Comparison of Reduction Methods

EACH REDUCTION METHOD HAS

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
• Guyan reduction
– Strengths
• Easy to implement
• Computationally efficient
• Widely available in commercial software (NASTRAN, etc.)
• Extensive use in pretest analysis and correlation
• Works well for many structures when good A-set selection
– Weaknesses
• Poor treatment of mass at omitted DOF
• Unacceptable accuracy for structures with high M/K
• Errors if poorly selected A-set
 Comparison of Reduction Methods

EACH REDUCTION METHOD HAS

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
• IRS reduction
– Strengths
• Relatively easy to implement
– NASTRAN rigid format alter
• Computationally efficient
• Generally more accurate than Guyan reduction
– Weaknesses
• Not COTS available
• Inaccurate if poor A-set (Gordis, 1992)
• Limited industry experience
 Comparison of Reduction Methods

EACH REDUCTION METHOD HAS

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
• Dynamic reduction
– Strengths
• Relatively easy to implement
– NASTRAN rigid format alter
• Computationally efficient
• Generally more accurate than Guyan reduction
– Weaknesses
• Not COTS available
• What is good choice for L?
• Limited industry experience
 Comparison of Reduction Methods

SHAPE EXPANSION IS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO MATRIX REDUCTION
• Expand test mode shapes to FEM DOF
Ug  Tga Ua
• Expansion and reduction give same results if same
matrices used
• Dynamic expansion based on eigenvalue equation

 
oi   Koo  i Moo Koa  i Moa ai 
• Computationally intensive, but computers are getting faster
all the time!
 Conclusions

GUYAN, IRS, AND DYNAMIC REDUCTION

ASSIST TEST-ANALYSIS CORRELATION
• TAM provides basis for test-analysis comparisons
• Many transformation methods
– Guyan (static) reduction
– IRS reduction
– Dynamic reduction
• Each method has strengths and weaknesses
– Applicability to structures and models
– Availability and experience
– Robustness
• Expansion methods should also be considered