Static and Dynamic Model Update of an Inflatable/Rigidizable Torus Structure (Work In Progress)

Lucas G. Horta and Mercedes C. Reaves Structural Dynamics Branch NASA Langley Research Center

FEMCI Workshop 2005 May 5, 2005

Langley Research Center

Background
The TSU* Hexapod is a generic test bed that incorporates design features of structures that can be packed for launch and deployed in space Inflatable/rigidizable structures can be inflated to more than 12 times their packaged size enabling new space mission scenarios However, new fabrication techniques also bring new modeling challenges

*TSU= Tennessee State University

Langley Research Center

Objective and Motivation

Objective-To develop a mathematical and computational procedure to reconcile differences between finite element models and data from static and dynamic tests Motivation- All missions envisioned for inflatable and rigidizable systems will require state of the art controls and accurate analytical models. In the Hexapod case, the initial model missed many important modes
10
-1

Initial Model Shaker No. 2

Scale Factor = 0.11241 Sensor No. 12 Shaker 2 Test NASTRAN 10 Mag
-2

10 10

-3

-4

10

-5

10

20

30

40

50

60 Freq. (Hz)

70

80

90

100

110

100 50 Phase (deg) 0 -50 -100 -150 10

20

30

40

50

60 Freq. (Hz)

70

80

90

100

110

Langley Research Center

Approach
FEM developed using commercial tools Static test results used to update stiffness values Dynamic test results used to update mass distribution Probabilistic assessment used to compute most likely set of parameters Update parameters computed via nonlinear optimization (genetic and gradient based) Computational tools based on MATLAB System ID using the Eigensystem Realization Algorithm Incremental update of components starting with torus

Langley Research Center

Model Update Procedure

Develop baseline finite element model

Select parameters for update Define parameter bounds & probability distribution Compute output probability & sensitivity values Reduce parameter set using sensitivity and probability results

Solve optimization for updated parameters & probability

Langley Research Center

Computational Framework
NASTRAN
Static Dynamic

Bulk Data File MATLAB

Optimization Probability Sensitivity System ID

Output Data File

External Inputs 1- Parameter selection and prob. distribution 2- Experimental data

Langley Research Center

Torus Description and Nomenclature

Urethane Joint (typ.) 1.858 m
Joint flange t = 0.00508 m Inner joint t = 0.0063 m

Outer joint t = 0.0032 m

Tube (typ.) t = 0.00042 m

Tube (typ.) O.D. 0.0181 m

Langley Research Center

Main Sources of Modeling Uncertainties

Fabrication irregularities due to materials and fabrication methods (irregular cross-section, irregular geometry, etc) Unknown stiffness of adhesive bonded joints Composite material property uncertainties, effective single ply and rule of mixture approximations

Langley Research Center

STATIC TEST RESULTS

Langley Research Center

Static Test Configuration

Torus static test set-up
Support 1

Instrumentation set-up
Laser displacement sensor

Aluminum Bracket

Support 3

Retro-reflective Target

Point load

Support 2

Steel Block

Langley Research Center

Input Load and Sensor Location for Static Tests

Support 1 14 13 12

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 Support 3

11

10 9
8 7 6

5 22
23 24 1 2 4 Support 2

Loading Point

Langley Research Center

Static Test Parameters Selected for Update

1. Torus tube thickness 2. Urethane joint: - Inner joint thickness - Outer joint thickness - Joint flange thickness 3. Torus tube orthotropic material properties: E1, E2 4. Urethane joint modulus of elasticity E

Langley Research Center

Output Probability Statement How probable is it to predict the measured output?

w range

Linear Torus Solution

Output No. 1 Output No. 2 v range

Probability Bands

w
Updated parameters

Sample Space 300 points

Langley Research Center

Displacement Results: Test, Baseline, and Updated Model

Measurement locations
Support 1 13 12 11 15 14 16 10 3

Torus static test results

9
Vertical Displacement (mm) 8 7 6

17 18 19

2 1 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 -1 -2 -3
Baseline

20 21 Support 3 22 23 24 1

5
2 3 4

Support 2

Loading Point

-4 -5 -6

Update Update Gen Average Test

Support 1 Support 3 Target 1 Z = -4.54 mm Load =42.1 N Support 2

Measurement location

/=1.1

/=0.01

Torus structure displacement under load

Static Update Summary

Parameters Baseline Lower Bound Upper Bound Optimum FMIN Optimum Genetic % Change FMIN
0

% Change Genetic
5.4

Tube E1,E2

6.16E+10

5.5E+10

6.77E+10

6.16E+10

5.83E+10

Joint E Tube thickness Outer joint thickness Inner joint thickness Flange thickness

3.03E+09

2.73E+09

3.33E+09

3.03E+09

3.21E+09

-6.1

0.000432

0.0003024

0.000496

0.000376

0.0003912

13

9.4

0.00317

0.00253

0.0038

0.00379

0.00352

19.6

-11.0

0.00634

0.00507

0.00761

0.00507

0.00527

20.0

16.9

0.01016

0.0086

0.01168

0.01157

0.00873

-13.9

14.1

Langley Research Center

Dynamic Test Results

Langley Research Center

Dynamic Test Configuration

Laser Vibrometer Suspension 3 Suspension 1

Suspension 2

Spring/cable suspension Retroreflective Target (typ.) Shaker

Force gage

Langley Research Center

Shaker and Sensor Locations for Dynamic Tests

Shaker4 XY
C C

14 13

Suspension 2 Shaker 2Z

Suspension 1 Shaker 1Z
C

15

16
C

12 11 17

18
C

10 9
C

8 3
C

2 7 4
C

Suspension 3

Langley Research Center

Sample Set of Identification Results (Drive Point 1 & 2)

Shaker No. 1
10 Amplitude
5

Predicted (- -) and Real FRFs for input No. 1 and output No. 11

10

Shaker No. 2
10
-5

20

40

60 Frequency (Hz)

80

100

120

10 Amplitude 10 10 10

Predicted (- -) and Real FRFs for input No. 2 and output No. 17

200 Phase (deg) 100 0 -100 -200 0 20 40 60 Frequency (Hz) 80 100 120

-2

-4

20

40

60 Frequency (Hz)

80

100

120

200 Phase (deg) 100 0 -100 -200 0 20 40 60 Frequency (Hz) 80 100 120

Langley Research Center

Principal Values for Experimental Frequency Response Functions

Principal Values

10

10

-1

10

-2

20

40 60 80 Frequency (Hz)

100

Langley Research Center

Dynamic Update Summary*

Parameter^
Spring 1 Spring 2 Spring 3 Torus tube density Joint 5 density Joint 4 density Joint 2 density Joint 1 density Joint 17 density Joint 16 density Joint 14 density Joint 13 density Joint 11 density Joint 10 density Joint 8 density Joint 7 density

Lower Bound
2334.8 2334.8 2334.8 1467.2 955.5 955.5 955.8 955.8 955.8 955.8 955.8 955.8 955.8 955.8 955.8 955.8

Nominal Value
2918.5 2918.5 2918.5 1834.0 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8 1194.8

Upper Bound
3502.2 3502.2 3502.2 2200.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8 1433.8

Optimum Value
2752.9 3169.8 2400.4 1770.4 1204.6 996.08 980.59 1093 1231.4 1080.2 1433.8 1239.2 1150.5 1063.5 990.76 1279.8

* list of parameters not based on statistical analysis

Principal Component Comparison Test/Nominal/Updated

10
0

Maximum Principal Value Maximum Principal Value Principal Value := 1

Test Updated Nominal

10

-1

MinimumPrincipal Principal Value Value := 3

Test Updated Nominal

10 Mag

-1

Mag 10
-2

10

-2

10

-3

10

10 Frequency (Hz)

10

10

-3

10

10 Frequency (Hz)

10

Langley Research Center

Orthogonality of Test/Analysis Modes

14.25 14.33 14.16 14.51 14.54 14.58 18.23 36.94 37.17 49.75 85.34 123.661 113.295 113.262 101.684 92.302 92.301 86.673 86.639 68.310 68.307 Analysis Modes 52.785 52.754 38.969 38.463 20.803 20.798 13.734 13.734 4.338 4.138 4.138 1.228 1.123 1.123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ERA Identified Modes 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 91.14 4.36 4.43 4.55 4.75 0.7

Animation of Test Mode

Animation of Analysis Mode

Langley Research Center

Work To Be Done
Establish repeatability of test data Complete probabilistic assessment of dynamic FRF to verify parameter selection Compute updated parameters for dynamic case using nongradient based optimizer Verify computational accuracy with refined FEM Implement error localization algorithm to examine potential FEM problem areas Compute Modal Assurance Criterion using reduced mass matrix Re-test with increased sensor count to improve spatial resolution for test and analysis modes Refine system ID results to improve areas near FRF zeros

Langley Research Center

Concluding Remarks
Computational procedure using MATLAB in place
Initial updates completed using static and dynamic tests results Updated solution for static case is in good agreement with test Selected parameters for static analysis showed low output probability values when used to predict observed solution Two step approach using output probabilities followed by optimization provides good physical insight into the problem Dynamic test and analysis results need to be re-visited Procedure computationally intensive but well suited for multiprocessor systems

Langley Research Center