Structural Dynamic Modeling Techniques & Modal Analysis Methods

[ Mn ] [ Ma ] [ ω2]
[ Kn ] Ö [ Ka ] [Ea]

MODEL REDUCTION TECHNIQUES

Peter Avitabile
Mechanical Engineering Department
University of Massachusetts Lowell

Model Reduction Techniques 1 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Model Reduction Techniques
Dynamic reduction means :

XF = full set of dof’s XA = active set of dof’s

reducing a given dynamic
finite element model
to one with
fewer degrees of freedom
while maintaining the dynamic
characteristics of the system

Model Reduction Techniques 2 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Model Reduction Techniques

• Guyan condensation

• Dynamic Condensation

• Improved Reduced System

• System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process

• Hybrid Reduction

Model Reduction Techniques 3 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Model Reduction
Generally, it may be necessary to reduce a finite
element model to a smaller size especially when
correlation studies are to be performed.
Several model reduction techniques are:
• Guyan/Irons condensation
• Dynamic condensation
• Improved Reduced System
• System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process
• Hybrid Reduction (Kammer)

Model Reduction Techniques 4 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 General Transformation
For all model reduction/expansion techniques,
there is a relationship between the master dof
(adof) and the deleted dof (ddof) which can be
written in general terms as
x a 
{x n }= =[T ]{x a }
x d 
n denotes all FEM dof
a denotes master or tested dof
d denotes deleted or omitted dof
x a 
{x n } =   = [T ]{x a } or {x1} = [T12 ]{x 2 }
x d 
Model Reduction Techniques 5 Dr. Peter Avitabile
Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 General Transformation
Since the energy of the system needs to be
conserved, a balance can be written between the
energy at state 1 and state 2 as
1 1
U = {x1} [K1 ]{x1} = {x 2 }T [K 2 ]{x 2 }
T
2 2

Substituting the transformation gives

1 1
U = {[T12 ]{x 2 }} [K1 ]{[T12 ]{x 2 }} = {x 2 }T [K 2 ]{x 2 }
T
2 2

Model Reduction Techniques 6 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 General Transformation
Rearranging some terms then yields
1 1
U = {x 2 } [T12 ] [K1 ][T12 ]{x 2 } = {x 2 }T [K 2 ]{x 2 }
T T
2 2

Then the reduced stiffness is related to the

original stiffness by

[K 2 ] = [T12 ]T [K1 ][T12 ] or [K a ] = [T ]T [K n ][T ]

The mass is reduced in a similar fashion

Model Reduction Techniques 7 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Reduction of System Matrices
The reduced mass and stiffness matrices can be
written as

[M a ] = [T ]T [M n ] [T ]
[K a ] = [T ]T [K n ] [T ]

[M] denotes the mass matrix

[K] denotes the stiffness matrix

Model Reduction Techniques 8 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 General Transformation
The transformation T will take on various forms
depending on the transformation technique utilized

x a 
{x n }= =[T ]{x a }
x d 

XF = full set of dof’s XA = active set of dof’s

Model Reduction Techniques 9 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Eigensolution of Reduced System
Using the reduced mass and stiffness matrices,
the eigensolution produces frequencies that are
higher than those of the original system (for most
of the reduction schemes).

The eigensolution of the reduced matrices

[[K a ]− λ[M a ]]{x a } = {0}
yields
[ωa2 ]; [Ua ]

Model Reduction Techniques 10 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Expansion Formulation
The expansion of the adof from the reduced
model eigensolution over all the ndof is given by

x a 
{x n }= =[T ]{x a }
x d 

XF = full set of dof’s XA = active set of dof’s

Model Reduction Techniques 11 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Guyan Condensation
The stiffness equation
[K n ]{x n } = {Fn }
can be partitioned into the ‘a’ active DOF and the
‘d’ deleted or omitted DOF to form two equations
given as

[K aa ] [K ad ] x a  Fa 
[K ]   = 
 da [K dd ] x d  Fd 

Model Reduction Techniques 12 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Guyan Condensation
Assuming that the forces on the deleted DOF are
zero, then the second equation can be written as

[K da ]{x a } + [K dd ]{x d } = {0}

which can be solved for the displacement at the

deleted DOF as

{x d } = −[K dd ]−1 [K da ]{x a }

Model Reduction Techniques 13 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Guyan Condensation
The first equation can be written as

[K aa ]{x a } + [K ad ]{x d } = {Fa }

and upon substituting for the ‘d’ deleted DOF

gives the equation becomes

[K aa ]{x a } + [K ad ][K dd ]−1 [K da ]{x a } = {Fa }

Model Reduction Techniques 14 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Guyan Condensation
This can be manipulated to yield the desired
transformation to be

 [I]   [ I] 
[Ts ]=  =  
[t ]
 s  − [ K dd ] −1
[ K ]
da 

Model Reduction Techniques 15 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Guyan Condensation
Using this transformation, the reduced stiffness
can be written as

[K Ga ] = [Ts ]T [K n ][Ts ]
Guyan proposed that this same transformation be
applied to the mass matrix given by

[M Ga ] = [Ts ]T [M n ][Ts ]

Model Reduction Techniques 16 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Summary - Guyan Condensation
The stiffness equation
[K n ]{x n } = {Fn }
can be written as

[K aa ] [K ad ] x a  Fa 
[K ]   = 
 da [K dd ] x d  Fd 
The transformation matrix can be written as
 [I]   [ I] 
[Ts ] =   =  
[t ]
 s  − [ K dd ] −1
[ K ]
da 

Model Reduction Techniques 17 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
Guyan Condensation – MATLAB Script

Model Reduction Techniques 18 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Guyan Condensation
• Guyan (static) condensation is only accurate for
stiffness reduction; inertial forces are not
preserved
• Eigenvalues of the reduced system are always
higher than those of the original system
• The quality of the eigenvalue approximation
depends highly on the location of points
preserved in the reduced model
• The quality of the eigenvalue approximation
decreases as the mode number increases

Model Reduction Techniques 19 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Dynamic Condensation
The equation of motion is cast as a shifted
eigenproblem. A shift value, f, is introduced into
the set of equations describing the dynamic
system, thus

[[K n ] − (λ − f )[M n ]]{x n } = {0}

Model Reduction Techniques 20 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Dynamic Condensation
The terms are rearranged to group the constant
term f times the mass matrix with the stiffness
matrix to yield

[[[K n ] + f [M n ]] − λ[M n ]]{x n } = {0}

Then let a new system matrix [D] be used to

describe the ‘effective’ stiffness matrix as

[D n ] = [[K n ] + f [M n ]]

Model Reduction Techniques 21 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Dynamic Condensation
This ‘effective’ stiffness equation
[D n ]{x n } = {Fn }
can be partitioned into the ‘a’ active DOF and the
‘d’ deleted or omitted DOF to form two equations
given as

[D aa ] [Dad ] x a  Fa 

[D ]   = 
 da [Ddd ] x d  Fd 

Model Reduction Techniques 22 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Dynamic Condensation
Assuming that the forces on the deleted DOF are
zero, then the second equation can be written as

[Dda ]{x a } + [Ddd ]{x d } = {0}

which can be solved for the displacement at the

deleted DOF as

{x d } = −[D dd ]−1[D da ]{x a }

Model Reduction Techniques 23 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Dynamic Condensation
The first equation can be written as

[Daa ]{x a } + [Dad ]{x d } = {Fa }

and upon substituting for the ‘d’ deleted DOF this

equation becomes

[D aa ]{x a } + [D ad ][D dd ]−1[D da ]{x a } = {Fa }

Model Reduction Techniques 24 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Dynamic Condensation
This can be manipulated to yield the desired
transformation to be

 [I]   [ I] 
[Tf ]=  =  
[t ]
 f   − [ D dd ] −1
[ D ]
da 

Model Reduction Techniques 25 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Dynamic Condensation
Using this transformation, the reduced stiffness
can be written as

[K fa ] = [Tf ]T [K n ][Tf ]
This same transformation can be applied to the
mass matrix given by

[M af ] = [Tf ]T [M n ][Tf ]

Model Reduction Techniques 26 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Summary - Dynamic Condensation
The equation of motion is cast as a shifted
eigenproblem
[D n ]{x n } = [[K ] − f [M ]]{x n } = {0}
and can be written as
[D aa ] [Dad ] x a  0
   = 
[D da ] [Ddd ] x d  0
The transformation matrix can be written as

 [I]   [ I] 
[Tf ] =   =  
[t ]
 f   − [ D dd ] −1
[ D ]
da 

Model Reduction Techniques 27 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
Dynamic Condensation – MATLAB Script

Model Reduction Techniques 28 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Dynamic Condensation
• If the shift frequency is zero, then this
reduces to Guyan reduction
• The reduced model will at most contain an
eigenvalue equal one from the full model
• If the shift equals as eigenvalue of the original
system, then the reduced system will also
contain this eigenvalue
• All other eigenvalues of the reduced system
may not be good representations of the system
• Dynamic condensation is useful when only one
mode of the system is to be retained in the
model

Model Reduction Techniques 29 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Improved Reduced System
Extensions to the Guyan reduction process are
used to account for the effects of mass inertia
associated with the deleted dof

 [I] 
[Ti ] =   + [t i ]
[t s ]

[t s ] = −[K dd ]−1[K da ]

[0] [0] 
[t i ] =  [M ][T ][M ]−1
[K a ]
[0] [K dd ]
−1  n s a

Model Reduction Techniques 30 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 IRS Reduction– MATLAB Script

Model Reduction Techniques 31 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Improved Reduced System
• Adjustment terms to the Guyan reduction
process allow for the better representation of
the mass associated with the deleted dof

• Improves on the accuracy of the reduced model

when compared to Guyan especially for the
higher modes of the system

Model Reduction Techniques 32 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process
The modal transformation equations can be
written as
{x a } [U a ]
  = {x n } = [U n ]{p} =  {p}
{x d } [U d ]

and for the active set of dof

{x a } = [U a ]{p}

Model Reduction Techniques 33 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process
Least Squares Solution - a ≥ m

{x a } = [U a ]{p}
[U a ]T {x a } = [U a ]T [U a ]{p}
([U a ] [U a ]) [U a ] {x a } = ([U a ] [U a ]) [U a ]T [U a ]{p}
T −1 T T −1

{p} = ([U a ] [U a ]) [U a ]T {x a } = [U a ]g {x a }
T −1

Model Reduction Techniques 34 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process
Using a generalized inverse, this is

{p} = ([U a ] [U a ]) [U a ]T {x a }
T −1

{p} = [U a ]g {x a }

Model Reduction Techniques 35 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process
Substituting into the modal transformation
equation gives

{x n } = [U n ][U a ]g {x a }

{x a } [U a ]
 =
   [U ]
a {x a }
g
{x d } [U d ]

Model Reduction Techniques 36 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process
The SEREP transformation matrix can be written
as

[Tu ] = [U n ][U a ] [( )
[U ] [U ]T [U ] −1 [U ]T ]
[( ]
g
= a a a a
−1
)
[U d ] [U a ] [U a ] [U a ]
T T

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Un = xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ua =
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Model Reduction Techniques 37 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 SEREP Computational Advantages
The SEREP transformation is given by

[Tu ] = [U n ][U a ]g

The reduced mass and stiffness are computed as

[MSa ] = [TU ]T[M n ] [TU ]

[KSa ] = [TU ]T[K n ] [TU ]

Model Reduction Techniques 38 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 SEREP Computational Advantages
Substituting Tu into the reduced mass
computation gives

[ ] = [ ] [U n ]T [M n ][U n ][Uga ]
M Sa g T
Ua

But recall from mass orthogonality that

[U n ] [M n ][U n ] = [I]
T NOTE:
Unit modal
mass scaling

The reduced mass is efficiently computed as

[ ] = [TU ] [M n ][TU ] = [ ] [Uga ]

M Sa T g T
Ua

Model Reduction Techniques 39 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 SEREP Computational Advantages
Substituting Tu into the reduced stiffness
computation gives

[ ] = [ ] [U n ]T [K n ][U n ][Uga ]
K Sa g T
Ua

But recall from stiffness orthogonality that

[U n ] [K n ][U n ] = [Ω ]
T 2 NOTE:
Unit modal
mass scaling

The reduced stiffness is efficiently computed as

[ ] = [TU ] [K n ][TU ] = [ ] [Ω2 ][Uga ]

K Sa T g T
Ua

Model Reduction Techniques 40 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 SEREP Reduction – MATLAB Script

Model Reduction Techniques 41 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
System Equivalent Reduction Expansion Process
• The eigenvalues of the reduced system always
equals the eigenvalues of the full system for
the modes of interest retained in the model

• The modes that are preserved in the reduced

model may be arbitrarily selected from those
modes of interest in the original model

• The eigensolution of the reduced system is

exact and does not depend on the location or
number of points preserved in the reduced
model.

Model Reduction Techniques 42 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Hybrid Reduction
Hybrid reduction combines the advantages of the
full rank nature of Guyan Reduction along with
the accuracy of the SEREP process

[TH ] = [TS ] + [[TU ] − [TS ]][P]

[P] = [U a ][U a ]T [MSa ]

Model Reduction Techniques 43 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Hybrid Reduction
The projection operator can be rewritten as

[P] = [U a ][U a ]T [MSa ] = [U a ][U a ]g

This transformation equation can be manipulated

to give

[TH ] = [TU ][P] + [TS ] [[I] − [P]]

Model Reduction Techniques 44 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Hybrid Reduction
Substituting the projection operator gives

[TH ] = [U n ][U a ]g [U a ][U a ]g + [TS ] [[I] − [U a ][U a ]g ]

And recalling the Moore-Penrose conditions this

can be rewritten as

[TH ] = [U n ][U a ]g + [TS ] [[I] − [U a ][U a ]g ]

or
[TH ] = [TU ] + [TS ] [[I] − [U a ][U a ]g ]

Model Reduction Techniques 45 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 SEREP Applications
Several simple examples are investigated in order
to demonstrate the unique features of the SEREP
process:

• Exactness of the technique

• arbitrary selection of modes included in the
reduced model
• arbitrary selection of dof included in the
reduced model

Model Reduction Techniques 46 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 FRAME Modal Data
N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13
* * * * * * *

*
N6
*
N14

*
N5
*
N15

N4 N20 N21 N22 N23 N24 N16

* * * * * * *

*
N3
*
N17

*
N2
*
N18

N1 N19
* *

Aluminum frame
1-1/2 x 3-1/2
x3/16
24 nodes
24 planar bean
elements

Model Reduction Techniques 47 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 SEREP - Exact System Reduction

Model Reduction Techniques 48 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 SEREP - Effect of Mode Selection

Model Reduction Techniques 49 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 SEREP - Effect of Point Selection

Model Reduction Techniques 50 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 SEREP Applications Summary
A new modeling/mapping techniques referred to as
the System Equivalent Reduction Expansion
Process (SEREP) reveals the following salient
features:

• Arbitrary selection of modes preserved in the

reduced model
• Reduced model accuracy is not dependent on
the selection of master dof
• Reduced model frequencies are identical to
those of the full system model
• Expanded reduced mode shapes are identical
to those of the full system model
Model Reduction Techniques 51 Dr. Peter Avitabile
Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Comparison of Reduced Models
Several simple examples are investigated in order
to compare the different model reduction
techniques - those investigated were:

• Guyan
• IRS
• Dynamic
• SEREP

Model Reduction Techniques 52 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Case 3 - Poor Selection of 6 DOF

Model Reduction Techniques 53 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Case 4 - Better Selection of 6 DOF

Model Reduction Techniques 54 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Case 5 - Larger Selection of DOF

Model Reduction Techniques 55 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Model Reduction Application Summary
Comparison of several different model reduction
methods were presented to show distortion that
results from various schemes. Main points are:
• Guyan condensation always produces frequencies
that are greater than those of the full model;
dof selection is critical to its success
• IRS improves on Guyan by making adjustments to
the inertial effects associated with the ddof
• dynamic condensation will preserve at most one
of the eigenvalues of the original system
• SEREP always produces the same frequencies and
mode shapes as the full system

Model Reduction Techniques 56 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
 Model Reduction Summary
The different reduction forms are:

Guyan [I]
[Ts ]=  =  
[ I]

[t s ] − [K dd ] [K da ]
−1

[I]
Dynamic [Tf ]=   = 
[ I]

[t f ] − [ Bdd ] [Bda ]
−1

[I]  [0] [0]

IRS [Ti ] =  +

[ ][ ][ ]−1
[K a ]
−1 
− [K dd ] [K da ] [0] [K ] −1
dd


M n Ts M a

[Tu ] = [U n ][U a ] [(
[U ] [U ]T [U ] −1[U ]T ) ]
[( ]
g
SEREP = a a a a
T −1
)
[U d ] [U a ] [U a ] [U a ]
T

Model Reduction Techniques 57 Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory