10.15131/shef.data.4206087.v1
Oreste S. Bursi
Oreste S.
Bursi
Vincenzo La Salandra
Vincenzo
La Salandra
Giuseppe Abbiati
Giuseppe
Abbiati
Luca Caracoglia
Luca
Caracoglia
EACS 2016 paper - A comparison of online and offline experimental substructuring methods for the simulation of complex linear dynamic systems
The University of Sheffield
2017
EACS2016
Uncertainty Propagation
online/offline substructuring method
offline methods
hybrid dynamic simulation
Mechanical Engineering
2017-03-28 15:19:12
Journal contribution
https://orda.shef.ac.uk/articles/journal_contribution/EACS_2016_paper_-_A_comparison_of_online_and_offline_experimental_substructuring_methods_for_the_simulation_of_complex_linear_dynamic_systems/4206087
<p>EACS 2016 Paper No. 122</p><p>Online hybrid (numerical/physical) dynamic substructuring
simulations (HDS) on an as-built/isolated viaduct and on a petrochemical piping
subject to non-stationary seismic loading have shown their potential for
efficient realistic dynamic analysis of almost any type of structural system.
Moreover, owing to ever faster and more accurate testing equipment, dynamic
substructure coupling developed in mechanical engineering through a number of
different offline experimental substructuring methods operating both in time, e.g.
the impulse-based substructuring (IBS), and frequency domains. Numerous studies
have dealt with the above-mentioned methods and with associated
error/uncertainty propagations issues. Nonetheless, there is still a paucity of
publications devoted to: i) the comparison of the performances of these methods
from an error/uncertainty perspective; ii) the possibility of their
exploitation in a complementary way to both improve and speed up the overall
experiment/simulation. In this paper, we compare the performances of these
methods including standard time integration schemes and the coupling algorithm
of subdomains based on an advanced parallel finite element tearing
interconnecting algorithm. Moreover, we include typical random uncertainties
coming from devices and operators exploited in the analysed methods. Main
results and comparisons based on Monte Carlo sampling of three- and five-DoF
linear systems point out that the HDS method exhibits better performances with
respect to phase and energy errors whilst the IBS slightly prevails on
coefficients of variation of coupling node displacements.</p>