The University of New South Wales

University College
School of Engineering and Information Technology

Prediction of the Effects of Distributed

Structural Modification on the Dynamic
Response of Structures

Huajiang Hang
B.E. M.E.

A thesis submitted for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

August, 2009

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge
it contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material
which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree of
diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due
acknowledgment is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by
colleagues, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, during my candidature,
is fully acknowledged.
I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work,
except to the extent that assistance from other in the projects design and conception or
in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

Huajiang Hang
August, 2009

ii

Dedicated to my wife Ke Huang and my daughter Linxi Nancy Hang.

iii

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to investigate means of efficiently assessing the effects of
distributed structural modification on the dynamic properties of a complex structure.
The helicopter structure is normally designed to avoid resonance at the main rotor
rotational frequency. However, very often military helicopters have to be modified
(such as to carry a different weapon system or an additional fuel tank) to fulfill
operational requirements. Any modification to a helicopter structure has the potential of
changing its resonance frequencies and mode shapes. The dynamic properties of the
modified structure can be determined by experimental testing or numerical simulation,
both of which are complex, expensive and time-consuming.
Assuming that the original dynamic characteristics are already established and that the
modification is a relatively simple attachment such as beam or plate modification, the
modified dynamic properties may be determined numerically without solving the
equations of motion of the full-modified structure. The frequency response functions
(FRFs) of the modified structure can be computed by coupling the original FRFs and a
delta dynamic stiffness matrix for the modification introduced. The validity of this
approach is investigated by applying it to several cases, 1) 1D structure with structural
modification but no change in the number of degree of freedom (DOFs). A simply
supported beam with double thickness in the middle section is treated as an example for
this case; 2) 1D structure with additional DOFs. A cantilever beam to which a smaller
beam is attached is treated as an example for this case, 3) 2D structure with a reduction
in DOFs. A four-edge-clamped plate with a cut-out in the centre is treated as an
iv

example for this case; and 4) 3D structure with additional DOFs. A box frame with a
plate attached to it as structural modification with additional DOFs and combination of
different structures.
The original FRFs were obtained numerically and experimentally except for the first
case. The delta dynamic stiffness matrix was determined numerically by modelling the
part of the modified structure including the modifying structure and part of the original
structure at the same location. The FRFs of the modified structure were then computed.
Good agreement is obtained by comparing the results to the FRFs of the modified
structure determined experimentally as well as by numerical modelling of the complete
modified structure.

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive
and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University
libraries in all forms of media, now or hereafter known, subject to the provisions of the
Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the
right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or
dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the abstract of my thesis in
Dissertations Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have
either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained
permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have
applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my sincere thanks to a number of people who have supported me
in different ways in the past few years.
Firstly, thanks to my supervisors, Dr. Krishna Shankar and Professor Joseph Lai, for
their advice, guidance, encouragement and kindness, for their effort to provide me with
the facilities and resources, and for improving my English skills.
Secondly, thanks to my family, my wife, Ke Huang and my lovely daughter, Linxi
Nancy Hang, my parents Xiaonan Hang and Caifen Li, my in-laws Fangxin Huang and
Shangju Zhao, my sisters family, Ying Hang, Chunlong Yu and Yuan Yu. It is with
your endless support I can keep pursuing this degree. Special thanks to the support from
my parents and in-laws when we had Nancy in 2007. It is your support that I can keep
studying without being distracted.
Thirdly, thanks to the laboratory and workshop staff, Mrs Marion Burgess, Dr. Andrew
Domback, Mr. Andrew Robert, Mr. Michael Jones, and Mr. Stuart Gay for their support
on my experiment work. Special thanks to Mrs Marion Burgess for encouraging me to
apply for job outside of the campus and being one of my referees.
Fourthly, thanks to the staff in School of Aerospace, Civil and Mechanical Engineering,
Dr. Warren Smith (HOS), Mrs Carol OBrean, Mrs Cheri Khalil, Mrs Carolyn Konrad,
Mrs Jean Leves, Mr Ian Leves, to whom I even cannot remember your name. It is you
making my life in ADFA so colourful, so enjoyable. Thanks to Dr. Murati Thahali, Dr.
Frank Irons, Associate Professor Stephen Yeomans, and Dr. Sean OBrean for
providing me a chance to be helpful in several causes. I really enjoyed the work and the
vii

money I have earned to fill the black hole of my hobby. Special thanks to Dr. Frank
Irons for supporting me to apply for industry positions and being one of my referees.
Fifthly, thanks to my office mates, the postgraduates in ADFA, Dr. Orio Terry Kieboom,
Dr. Stephen Moore, Dr. Jonathan Couldrick, Dr. Jeff McGuire, Dr. Vishwas Puttige, Dr.
Laximicant Kannappan, Dr. Shuiwei Xie, Dr. Shaaban Salman, Dr. Abhijit Kallapur,
Mr. Kartik Ram Ramakrishnan and Mr. Matthew McCarty. Special thanks to Dr. Orio
Kieboom, Dr. Stephen Moore, Dr Ra Inta and Dr. Antti Papinniemi for the suggestion
and supporting when I was applying industry positions.
The last but not the least, many thanks to the people I have met in Australia, and many
thanks to the facilities for supporting my study in UNSW@ADFA. Special thanks to
Mrs Denise Russell to correct the English of my thesis and to provide her kind support
and encourage.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of originality ..................................................................................................... ii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... iv
Copyright Statement ........................................................................................................ vi
Acknowledgement........................................................................................................... vii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. ix
List of figures .................................................................................................................xiii
List of tables .................................................................................................................. xxx
Nomenclature .............................................................................................................xxxiii
Chapter 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1

General Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

1.2

Objectives .......................................................................................................... 2

1.3

Outline of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 3

Chapter 2 Literature Review .............................................................................................. 5

2.1

Structural Dynamic Modification ..................................................................... 5

2.1.1

Direct Problem .......................................................................................... 6

2.1.2

Inverse Problem ........................................................................................ 9

2.1.3

Two Approaches for Structural Modification ......................................... 14

2.1.4

Differences between Structural Modification and Substructuring .......... 20

2.1.5

Application of Structural Modification ................................................... 21

2.2
2.2.1

Determination of Dynamic Responses ............................................................ 21

Theoretical Analysis................................................................................ 22
ix

2.2.2

Modal Testing ......................................................................................... 22

2.2.3

Finite Element Analysis .......................................................................... 22

2.3

Dealing with Rotational Degrees of Freedom................................................. 23

2.3.1

Determination of Rotational Degrees of Freedom .................................. 23

2.3.2

Reduction of Degrees of Freedom .......................................................... 30

2.4

Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 42

Chapter 3 Methodology ................................................................................................... 44

3.1

Structural Modification ................................................................................... 44

3.1.1

Structural Modification with No Change in DOFs ................................. 44

3.1.2

Structural Modification with Reduced DOFs ......................................... 47

3.1.3

Structural Modification with Additional DOFs ...................................... 48

3.2

Delta Dynamic Stiffness Matrix...................................................................... 51

3.3

Validation of Structural Modification on Spring-Mass System ...................... 53

3.3.1

Structural Modification with No Change in DOFs ................................. 54

3.3.2

Structural Modification with Additional DOFs ...................................... 62

3.3.3

Structural Modification with Reduced DOFs ......................................... 66

3.4

Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 68

Chapter 4 Structural Modification on 1D Structure (Beam) ........................................... 69

4.1

Simply-supported Beam .................................................................................. 69

4.1.1

Coarse FE Model .................................................................................... 69

4.1.2

Fine FE Model ........................................................................................ 76

4.2

Cantilever Beam .............................................................................................. 94

4.2.1

Full Model -- Cantilever Beam without Condensation ........................... 94

4.2.2

Reduced Model -- Cantilever Beams with Condensation ..................... 105

4.2.3

Simulation for Experimental Procedure ................................................ 116

x

4.2.4
4.3

Structural Modification with Experimental Data .................................. 126

Conclusion .................................................................................................... 135

Chapter 5 Structural Modification on a 2D Structure (Plate) ........................................ 137

5.1

Numerical Simulations .................................................................................. 137

5.1.1

Full Model Clamped Rectangular Plate without Condensation ......... 137

5.1.2

Reduced Model - Clamped Rectangular Plate with Condensation ....... 146

5.1.3

Simulation for Experimental Procedure ................................................ 153

5.2

Structural Modification with Experimental Data .......................................... 182

5.2.1

Modal Testing ....................................................................................... 182

5.2.2

Structural Modification ......................................................................... 188

5.3

Additional Process for Determination of the Minimum Area ....................... 190

5.3.1

10 Elements per Side for the Original and Modified Plates.................. 190

5.3.2

20 Elements per Side for the Original and Modified Plates.................. 192

5.3.3

40 Elements per Side for the Original and Modified Plates.................. 196

5.4

Conclusions ................................................................................................... 197

Chapter 6 Structural Modification of a 3D Structure (Frame) ...................................... 200

6.1
6.1.1

Numerical Simulations .................................................................................. 200

Full Model Clamped Supported 3D Box Frame without Condensation ..
............................................................................................................... 200

6.1.2

Reduced Model - Clamped Supported 3D Box Frame with Condensation

............................................................................................................... 211

6.1.3
6.2

Simulation for Experimental Procedure ................................................ 221

Structural modification with experimental data ............................................ 232

6.2.1

Modal Testing ....................................................................................... 233

6.2.2

Structural Modification ......................................................................... 240

xi

6.3

Conclusions ................................................................................................... 242

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 245

7.1

General .......................................................................................................... 245

7.2

Conclusions ................................................................................................... 245

7.2.1

Structural Modification with No Change in DOFs on 1-D Structure

(Beam)

............................................................................................................... 245

7.2.2

Structural Modification with Additional DOFs on 1D Structure (Beam) ...

............................................................................................................... 246

7.2.3

Structural Modification with Reduced 2D Structure (Plate) ................. 248

7.2.4

Structural Modification with Additional DOFs on 3D Structure (Frame) ..

............................................................................................................... 249

7.3

Recommendations for Future Work .............................................................. 251

PUBLICATIONS ARISING FROM THIS THESIS WORK....................................... 252

REFERENCE ................................................................................................................ 253

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Two-DOF spring-mass system ...................................................................... 54
Figure 3.2 Modified two-DOF spring-mass system with mass, m, added on the first
DOF ................................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 3.3 Modified two-DOF spring-mass system with added spring, k, on second
DOF ................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 3.4 Modified two-DOF spring-mass system with added mass, m, and spring, k,
on second DOF................................................................................................................ 60
Figure 3.5 Two-DOF spring-mass system after structural modification with an
additional DOF ................................................................................................................ 62

Figure 4.1 Coarse FE model of the original beam .......................................................... 70

Figure 4.2 Coarse FE model of the modified beam ........................................................ 70
Figure 4.3 Calculated FRFs of the original beam at 4FY4UY ....................................... 71
Figure 4.4 Comparison of FRFs of simply-supported beams at 4FY4UY ..................... 73
Figure 4.5 Comparison of FRFs of simply-supported beams at 11FY11UY ................. 73
Figure 4.6 FE model of original beam ............................................................................ 76
Figure 4.7 FE model of modified beam .......................................................................... 76
Figure 4.8 Calculated FRFs of original beam at 10FY10UY ......................................... 77
Figure 4.9 Comparison of FRFs of simply-supported beams at 10FY10UY ................. 78
Figure 4.10 Comparison of FRFs of simply-supported beams at 15FY15UY ............... 78
Figure 4.11 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at
10FY10UY ...................................................................................................................... 80
xiii

Figure 4.12 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at

15FY15UY ...................................................................................................................... 80
Figure 4.13 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from whole FE model and calculated
FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified beam ............................................... 82
Figure 4.14 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 1 (0.7m) and
calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified beam .............................. 82
Figure 4.15 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 2 (0.8m) and
calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified beam .............................. 83
Figure 4.16 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 3 (0.9m) and
calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified beam .............................. 83
Figure 4.17 Comparison of FRFs of simply-supported beam at 10FY10UY ................. 86
Figure 4.18 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at
10FY10UY by coupling reduced harmonic analysis results and Guyan-reduced delta
stiffness matrix ................................................................................................................ 87
Figure 4.19 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from whole FE model and calculated
FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of the modified beam ........................................ 88
Figure 4.20 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 1 (0.7m) and
calculated FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of the modified beam ....................... 88
Figure 4.21 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 2 (0.8m) and
calculated FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of the modified beam ....................... 89
Figure 4.22 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 3 (0.9m) and
calculated FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of the modified beam ....................... 89
Figure 4.23 Comparison of FE models of original beam in partial FE model 1 ............. 90
Figure 4.24 Comparison of FE models of the modified beam in partial FE model 1 ..... 91

xiv

Figure 4.25 Comparison of predicted FRFs from re-meshed partial FE model 1 with
calculated FRFs for the modified beam at 13FY13UY .................................................. 92
Figure 4.26 Comparison of predicted FRFs from re-meshed partial FE model 1 with
calculated FRFs for modified beam at 23FY23UY ........................................................ 92
Figure 4.27 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from re-meshed partial FE
model 1 compared with calculated FRFs for modified beam ......................................... 93
Figure 4.28 FE model of original cantilever beam ......................................................... 95
Figure 4.29 FE model of modified cantilever beam ....................................................... 95
Figure 4.30 Calculated FRFs of original beam at 9FZ9UZ from full harmonic analysis
......................................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 4.31 Comparison of FRFs of cantilever beams at 9FZ9UZ................................. 97
Figure 4.32 Comparison of FRFs of cantilever beams at 9FZ34UZ............................... 98
Figure 4.33 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at 9FZ9UZ
for modified beam ........................................................................................................... 99
Figure 4.34 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at 9FZ34UZ
for modified beam ........................................................................................................... 99
Figure 4.35 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted receptance FRFs from whole FE
model compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam .................................... 101
Figure 4.36 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted receptance FRFs from whole FE
model compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam with the first mode
excluded ........................................................................................................................ 101
Figure 4.37 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted receptance FRFs from partial FE
model 1 compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam with the first mode
excluded ........................................................................................................................ 102

xv

Figure 4.38 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted receptance FRFs from partial FE
model 2 compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam with the first mode
excluded ........................................................................................................................ 102
Figure 4.39 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted inertance FRFs from whole FE
model compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam .................................... 103
Figure 4.40 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted inertance FRFs from partial FE
model 1 compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam ................................. 103
Figure 4.41 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted inertance FRFs from partial FE
model 2 compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam ................................. 104
Figure 4.42 Calculated FRFs of original beam at 9Z9Z from ANSYS harmonic analysis
....................................................................................................................................... 105
Figure 4.43 Comparison of FRFs of cantilever beams at 9FZ9UZ............................... 107
Figure 4.44 Comparison of FRFs of cantilever beams at 34FZ34FZ ........................... 108
Figure 4.45 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at 9FZ9FZ
by coupling reduced harmonic analysis results and Guyan reduced delta dynamic
stiffness matrices ........................................................................................................... 109
Figure 4.46 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at
34FZ34FZ by coupling reduced harmonic analysis results and Guyan reduced delta
dynamic stiffness matrices ............................................................................................ 110
Figure 4.47 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from whole FE model
compared with calculated FRFs of the modified beam from reduced harmonic analysis
....................................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 4.48 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from partial FE model 1
(0.6 m) compared with calculated FRFs of the modified beam from reduced harmonic
analysis .......................................................................................................................... 112
xvi

Figure 4.49 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from partial FE model 2
(0.7 m) compared with calculated FRFs of the modified beam from reduced harmonic
analysis .......................................................................................................................... 113
Figure 4.50 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted receptance FRFs from whole FE
model compared with calculated FRFs of the modified beam from reduced harmonic
analysis with the first mode excluded ........................................................................... 113
Figure 4.51 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted receptance FRFs from partial FE
model 1 compared with calculated FRFs of the modified beam from reduced harmonic
analysis with the first mode excluded ........................................................................... 114
Figure 4.52 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted receptance FRFs from partial FE
model 2 compared with calculated FRFs of the modified beam from reduced harmonic
analysis with the first mode excluded ........................................................................... 114
Figure 4.53 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted inertance FRFs from whole FE
model compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam .................................... 115
Figure 4.54 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted inertance FRFs from partial FE
model 1 compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam ................................. 115
Figure 4.55 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted inertance FRFs from partial FE
model 2 compared with calculated FRFs for the modified beam ................................. 116
Figure 4.56 Comparison of synthesized FRFs with calculated FRFs of the original beam
from reduced harmonic analysis at 9FZ9UZ ................................................................ 120
Figure 4.57 Comparison of synthesized FRFs with calculated FRFs of the original beam
from reduced harmonic analysis at 9FZ34UZ .............................................................. 121
Figure 4.58 Distribution of FRAC values of synthesized FRFs compared with calculated
FRFs of the original beam from reduced harmonic analysis ........................................ 121
Figure 4.59 Comparison of FRFs of the modified beam at 9FZ9FZ ............................ 122
xvii

Figure 4.60 Comparison of FRFs of the modified beam at 9FZ34FZ .......................... 123
Figure 4.61 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from whole FE model and calculated
FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of the modified beam by only taking the
magnitude of the FRFs into consideration .................................................................... 124
Figure 4.62 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 1 (0.6m) and
calculated FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of the modified beam by only taking
the magnitude of the FRFs into consideration .............................................................. 125
Figure 4.63 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 2 (0.7m) and
calculated FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of the modified beam by only taking
the magnitude of the FRFs into consideration .............................................................. 125
Figure 4.64 Schematic of experimental set-up for original beam ................................. 127
Figure 4.65 Photograph of modal testing of original beam .......................................... 128
Figure 4.66 Comparison between measured FRF and calculated FRF of original beam at
driving point (9FZ9UZ) from shaker tests .................................................................... 129
Figure 4.67 Measured FRFs of original beam at free end (9FZ34UZ) from shaker tests
....................................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 4.68 Comparison between measured FRFs from the impact hammer test and
calculated FRFs of original beam at 17FZ6UZ............................................................. 131
Figure 4.69 Comparison between measured FRFs from the impact hammer test and
calculated FRFs of original beam at 26FZ6UZ............................................................. 131
Figure 4.70 Comparison of FRFs of modified cantilever beam (measurements at driving
point, node 9) ................................................................................................................ 133
Figure 4.71 Comparison of FRFs of modified cantilever beam (measurements at free
end, node 34) ................................................................................................................. 134

xviii

Figure 5.1 FE model of clamped rectangular plate without cut-out ............................. 138
Figure 5.2 FE model of clamped plate with rectangular cut-out................................... 138
Figure 5.3 Calculated FRF of original plate at 271FZ271UZ....................................... 140
Figure 5.4 Calculated FRF of the original plate at 401FZ271UZ ................................. 140
Figure 5.5 Comparison of FRFs of original and modified plates at 271FZ271UZ....... 141
Figure 5.6 Comparison of FRFs of original and modified plates at 401FZ271UZ....... 142
Figure 5.7 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at
271FZ271UZ ................................................................................................................. 142
Figure 5.8 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at
401FZ271UZ ................................................................................................................. 143
Figure 5.9 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from whole FE model and FRFs from
full harmonic analysis for modified plate ..................................................................... 144
Figure 5.10 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 1 and FRFs
from full harmonic analysis for modified plate ............................................................ 144
Figure 5.11 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 2 and FRFs
from full harmonic analysis for modified plate ............................................................ 145
Figure 5.12 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 3 and FRFs
from full harmonic analysis for modified plate ............................................................ 145
Figure 5.13 Comparison of calculated FRFs of original plate from reduced and full
harmonic analysis at 271FZ271UZ ............................................................................... 147
Figure 5.14 Comparison of calculated FRFs of original plate from reduced and full
harmonic analysis at 401FZ271UZ ............................................................................... 148
Figure 5.15 Comparison of FRFs of original and modified plates, using different
methods, at 271FZ271UZ ............................................................................................. 149

xix

Figure 5.16 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models at

271FZ271UZ, by coupling reduced harmonic analysis results and Guyan reduced delta
stiffness matrices ........................................................................................................... 149
Figure 5.17 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from whole FE model and FRFs
from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate ........................................................ 151
Figure 5.18 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 1 and FRFs
from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate ........................................................ 151
Figure 5.19 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE 2 model and FRFs
from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate ........................................................ 152
Figure 5.20 FRAC values between predicted FRFs from partial FE model 3 and FRFs
from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate ........................................................ 152
Figure 5.21 Comparison of synthesized FRFs and calculated FRFs from full harmonic
analysis of original plate at 385FZ271UZ .................................................................... 157
Figure 5.22 Comparison of synthesized FRFs and calculated FRFs from full harmonic
analysis original plate at 385FZ385UZ ......................................................................... 157
Figure 5.23 Distribution of FRAC values of synthesized FRFs with 7 modes compared
with calculated FRFs of original plate .......................................................................... 158
Figure 5.24 Distribution of FRAC values of synthesized FRFs with 17 modes compared
with calculated FRFs of original plate .......................................................................... 158
Figure 5.25 Distribution of FRAC values of synthesized FRFs with 38 modes compared
with calculated FRFs of original plate .......................................................................... 159
Figure 5.26 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification and calculated
FRFs from full harmonic analysis of modified plate at 385FZ271UZ ......................... 160
Figure 5.27 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification and calculated
FRFs from full harmonic analysis of modified plate at 385FZ385UZ ......................... 161
xx

Figure 5.28 Comparison of synthesized FRFs with 7 modes and calculated FRFs from
full harmonic analysis of the original plate at 385FZ385UZ ........................................ 165
Figure 5.29 Comparison of synthesized FRFs with 17 modes and calculated FRFs from
full harmonic analysis of original plate at 385FZ385UZ .............................................. 166
Figure 5.30 Comparison of synthesized FRFs with 38 modes and calculated FRFs from
full harmonic analysis of the original plate at 385FZ385UZ ........................................ 166
Figure 5.31 Distribution of FRAC values of 7 modes synthesized FRFs with static
compensation compared with calculated FRFs of original plate .................................. 167
Figure 5.32 Distribution of FRAC values of 7 modes synthesized FRFs with secondorder compensation compared with calculated FRFs of the original plate ................... 167
Figure 5.33 Distribution of FRAC values of 17 modes synthesized FRFs with static
compensation compared with calculated FRFs of the original plate ............................ 168
Figure 5.34 Distribution of FRAC values of 17 modes synthesized FRFs with secondorder compensation compared with calculated FRFs of the original plate ................... 168
Figure 5.35 Distribution of FRAC values of 38 modes synthesized FRFs with static
compensation compared with calculated FRFs of the original plate ............................ 169
Figure 5.36 Distribution of FRAC values of 38 modes synthesized FRFs with secondorder compensation compared with calculated FRFs of the original plate ................... 169
Figure 5.37 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification, by coupling 17
modes synthesized FRFs and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness matrix from
whole FE model, and calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate
at 385FZ271UZ ............................................................................................................. 170
Figure 5.38 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification, by coupling 17
modes synthesized FRFs and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness matrix from
xxi

whole FE model, and calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate
at 385FZ385UZ ............................................................................................................. 171
Figure 5.39 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification, by coupling 17
modes-synthesized FRFs and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness matrix from partial
FE model 1, and calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate at
385FZ271UZ ................................................................................................................. 172
Figure 5.40 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification, by coupling 17
modes-synthesized FRFs and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness matrix from partial
FE model 1, and calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate at
385FZ385UZ ................................................................................................................. 172
Figure 5.41 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification, by coupling 17
modes-synthesized FRFs and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness matrix from partial
FE model 2, and calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate at
385FZ271UZ ................................................................................................................. 173
Figure 5.42 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification, by coupling 17
modes-synthesized FRFs and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness matrix from partial
FE model 2, and calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate at
385FZ385UZ ................................................................................................................. 174
Figure 5.43 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification, by coupling 17
modes-synthesized FRFs and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness matrix from partial
FE model 3, and calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate at
385FZ271UZ ................................................................................................................. 174
Figure 5.44 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification, by coupling 17
modes-synthesized FRFs and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness matrix from partial

xxii

FE model 3, and calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate at
385FZ385UZ ................................................................................................................. 175
Figure 5.45 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from structural
modification with 17 modes and static compensation from whole FE model compared
with calculated FRFs of the modified plate with 4 Hz frequency bandwidth. .............. 176
Figure 5.46 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from structural
modification with 17 modes and second-order dynamic compensation from whole FE
model compared with calculated FRFs of the modified plate with 4 Hz frequency
bandwidth. ..................................................................................................................... 177
Figure 5.47 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from structural
modification with 17 modes and static compensation from partial model 1 compared
with calculated FRFs of the modified plate with 4 Hz frequency bandwidth. .............. 177
Figure 5.48 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from structural
modification with 17 modes and second-order dynamic compensation from partial
model 1 compared with calculated FRFs of the modified plate with 4 Hz frequency
bandwidth. ..................................................................................................................... 178
Figure 5.49 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from structural
modification with 17 modes and static compensation from partial FE model 2 compared
with calculated FRFs of the modified plate with 4 Hz frequency bandwidth. .............. 179
Figure 5.50 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from structural
modification with 17 modes and second-order dynamic compensation from partial FE
model 2 compared with calculated FRFs of the modified plate with 4 Hz frequency
bandwidth. ..................................................................................................................... 179

xxiii

Figure 5.51 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from structural

modification with 17 modes and static compensation from partial FE model 3 compared
with calculated FRFs of the modified plate with 4 Hz frequency bandwidth. .............. 180
Figure 5.52 Distribution of FRAC values of predicted FRFs from structural
modification with 17 modes and second-order dynamic compensation from partial FE
model 3 compared with calculated FRFs of the modified plate with 4 Hz frequency
bandwidth. ..................................................................................................................... 181
Figure 5.53 Schematic of experimental set-up for original plate .................................. 183
Figure 5.54 Photograph of modified plate under modal testing.................................... 184
Figure 5.55 Measured FRF of original plate at the driving point (361FZ361UZ) from
impact hammer test ....................................................................................................... 184
Figure 5.56 Measured FRF of original plate at (385FZ361UZ) from impact hammer test
....................................................................................................................................... 185
Figure 5.57 Measured FRF of original plate at driving point (385FZ385UZ) from
impact hammer test ....................................................................................................... 185
Figure 5.58 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models and
experimentally measured FRFs at 361FZ361UZ .......................................................... 188
Figure 5.59 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models and
experimentally measured FRFs at 385FZ361UZ .......................................................... 189
Figure 5.60 Comparison of predicted FRFs from different-sized FE models and
experimentally measured FRFs at 385FZ385UZ .......................................................... 189
Figure 5.61 FRAC value vs the ratio of partial models over the modifying part ......... 191
Figure 5.62 FRAC value vs the ratio of partial models over the modifying part for the 2
elements per side cut-out ............................................................................................... 193

xxiv

Figure 5.63 FRAC value vs the ratio of partial models over the modifying part for the 4
elements per side cut-out ............................................................................................... 194
Figure 5.64 FRAC value vs the ratio of partial models over the modifying part for the 6
elements per side cut-out ............................................................................................... 195
Figure 5.65 FRAC value vs the ratio of partial models over the modifying part for the 6
elements per side cut-out ............................................................................................... 196

Figure 6.1 FE model of original 3D box frame ............................................................. 201

Figure 6.2 FE model of modified 3D box frame with aluminum plate attached .......... 201
Figure 6.3 Node numbers of the original 3D box frame ............................................... 203
Figure 6.4 Calculated FRFs of original 3D box frame at 13FZ13UZ........................... 203
Figure 6.5 Calculated FRFs of original 3D box frame at 47FX47UX .......................... 204
Figure 6.6 Calculated FRFs of original 3D box frame at 75FY75UY .......................... 204
Figure 6.7 Partial FE model 1 of original 3D box frame .............................................. 205
Figure 6.8 Partial FE model 2 of original 3D box frame .............................................. 206
Figure 6.9 Partial FE model 3 of original 3D box frame .............................................. 206
Figure 6.10 Comparison of FRFs of original and modified 3D frames at 13FZ13UZ . 207
Figure 6.11 Comparison of FRFs of original and modified 3D frames at 47FX47UX 208
Figure 6.12 Comparison of FRFs of original and modified 3D frames at 75FY75UY 208
Figure 6.13 Comparison of predicted FRFs of different-sized FE models at 13FZ13UZ
....................................................................................................................................... 209
Figure 6.14 Comparison of predicted FRFs of different-sized FE models at 47FX47UX
....................................................................................................................................... 210
Figure 6.15 Comparison of predicted FRFs of different-sized FE models at 75FY75UY
....................................................................................................................................... 210
xxv

Figure 6.16 Comparison of calculated FRFs of original 3D frame from reduced

harmonic analysis and from full harmonic analysis at 13FZ13UZ ............................... 212
Figure 6.17 Comparison of calculated FRFs of original 3D frame from reduced
harmonic analysis and from full harmonic analysis at 47FX47UX .............................. 212
Figure 6.18 Comparison of calculated FRFs of original 3D frame from reduced
harmonic analysis and from full harmonic analysis at 75FY75UY .............................. 213
Figure 6.19 Comparison of FRFs of original and modified 3D frames obtained by
different methods at 13FZ13UZ.................................................................................... 214
Figure 6.20 Comparison of FRFs of original and modified 3D frames obtained by
different methods at 47FX47UX................................................................................... 214
Figure 6.21 Comparison of FRFs of original and modified 3D frames obtained by
different methods at 75FY75UY................................................................................... 215
Figure 6.22 Comparison of predicted FRFs of different-sized FE models at 47FX47UX
obtained by coupling reduced FRF matrix and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness
matrix ............................................................................................................................ 216
Figure 6.23 Comparison of predicted FRFs of different-sized FE models at 75FY75UY
obtained by coupling reduced FRF matrix and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness
matrix ............................................................................................................................ 216
Figure 6.24 Comparison of predicted FRFs of different-sized FE models at 13FZ13UZ
obtained by coupling reduced FRF matrix and Guyan reduced delta dynamic stiffness
matrix ............................................................................................................................ 217
Figure 6.25 FRAC values between predicted FRFs of whole FE model and FRFs from
reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame ........................................................ 219
Figure 6.26 FRAC values between predicted FRFs of partial FE model 1 and FRFs from
reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame ........................................................ 219
xxvi

Figure 6.27 FRAC values between predicted FRFs of partial FE model 2 and FRFs from
reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame ........................................................ 220
Figure 6.28 FRAC values between predicted FRFs of partial FE model 3 and FRFs from
reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame ........................................................ 220
Figure 6.29 Comparison of synthesized FRFs and calculated FRFs from reduced
harmonic analysis of original 3D frame at 13FZ13UZ ................................................. 223
Figure 6.30 Comparison of synthesized FRFs and calculated FRFs from reduced
harmonic analysis of original 3D frame at 47FX47UX ................................................ 224
Figure 6.31 Comparison of synthesized FRFs and calculated FRFs from reduced
harmonic analysis of original 3D frame at 75FY75UY ................................................ 224
Figure 6.32 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification with whole FE
model and calculated FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame at
13FZ13UZ ..................................................................................................................... 225
Figure 6.33 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification with whole FE
model and calculated FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame at
47FX47UX .................................................................................................................... 226
Figure 6.34 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification with whole FE
model and calculated FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame at
75FY75UY .................................................................................................................... 226
Figure 6.35 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification using
synthesized original FRFs with 25 modes and calculated FRFs of modified 3D frame at
13FZ13UZ ..................................................................................................................... 227
Figure 6.36 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification using
synthesized original FRFs with 25 modes and calculated FRFs of modified 3D frame at
47FX47UX .................................................................................................................... 228
xxvii

Figure 6.37 Comparison of predicted FRFs from structural modification using

synthesized original FRFs with 25 modes and calculated FRFs of modified 3D frame at
75FY75UY .................................................................................................................... 228
Figure 6.38 FRAC values between predicted FRFs of whole FE model and calculated
FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame ...................................... 229
Figure 6.39 FRAC values between predicted FRFs of partial FE model 1 and calculated
FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame ...................................... 230
Figure 6.40 FRAC values between predicted FRFs of partial FE model 2 and calculated
FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame ...................................... 230
Figure 6.41 FRAC values between predicted FRFs of partial FE model 3 and calculated
FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis of modified 3D frame ...................................... 231
Figure 6.42 Dimensions of 3D frame under testing (All dimensions in mm)............... 233
Figure 6.43 Schematic of experimental set-up for original 3D frame .......................... 234
Figure 6.44 Photo of modal testing of 3D frame .......................................................... 236
Figure 6.45 Illustration of measurement points ............................................................ 236
Figure 6.46 Measured FRFs of original 3D box frame at driving point (38FY38UY)
from impact hammer test .............................................................................................. 237
Figure 6.47 Measured FRFs of original 3D box frame at driving point (38FZ38UZ)
from impact hammer test .............................................................................................. 238
Figure 6.48 Measured FRFs of original 3D box frame at random point (38FZ49UY)
from impact hammer test .............................................................................................. 238
Figure 6.49 Comparison of predicted FRFs of different-sized FE models with
experimental measured FRFs at 38FY38UY ................................................................ 240
Figure 6.50 Comparison of predicted FRFs of different-sized FE models with
experimental measured FRFs at 38FZ38UZ ................................................................. 241
xxviii

Figure 6.51 Comparison of predicted FRFs of different-sized FE models and measured

FRFs at 38FZ49UY ....................................................................................................... 241

xxix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Different types of frequency response functions ............................................ 19

Table 4.1 Geometry and material parameters of the original simply-supported and
modifying beams ............................................................................................................. 70
Table 4.2 Comparison of natural frequencies from different element sizes of FE model
for original beam ............................................................................................................. 74
Table 4.3 Comparison of natural frequencies from different element sizes of FE model
for modified beam ........................................................................................................... 75
Table 4.4 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values from different-sized FE
models compared with FRFs from full harmonic analysis ............................................. 84
Table 4.5 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values from different-sized FE
models compared with FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis, with 2Hz frequency band
......................................................................................................................................... 90
Table 4.6 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values for re-meshed partial FE
model 1 compared with calculated FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis, with 2Hz
frequency band ................................................................................................................ 93
Table 4.7 Geometry and material parameters of original cantilever and modifying
cantilever beams .............................................................................................................. 95
Table 4.8 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values by comparing inertance FRFs
from different-sized FE models with calculated FRFs for modified beam ................... 104

xxx

Table 4.9 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values from different-sized FE
models compared with calculated receptance FRFs of the modified beam from reduced
harmonic analysis .......................................................................................................... 116
Table 4.10 Identified natural frequencies of original beam from STAR Modal version 5
compared with calculated natural frequencies from ANSYS ....................................... 117
Table 4.11 First 10 identified mode shapes of the original beam from STAR Modal
version 5 ........................................................................................................................ 118
Table 4.12 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values from different-sized FE
models compared with FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis by only taking the
magnitude of the FRFs into consideration, with 4 Hz frequency bandwidth................ 126
Table 4.13 Comparison of natural frequencies of original beam obtained by different
methods (0Hz to 800Hz) ............................................................................................... 132

Table 5.1 Dimensions of original and modified plates ................................................. 139

Table 5.2 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values from different-sized FE
models compared with FRFs from full harmonic analysis ........................................... 146
Table 5.3 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values from different-sized FE
models compared with FRFs from full harmonic analysis ........................................... 153
Table 5.4 Comparison of calculated natural frequencies and identified natural
frequencies .................................................................................................................... 154
Table 5.5 The identified mode shapes of the original beam within frequency range 0 to
800 Hz from STAR Modal version 5 ............................................................................ 154
Table 5.6 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values of synthesized FRFs
compared with calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of original plate ............ 159

xxxi

Table 5.7 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values of predicted FRFs compared
with calculated FRFs from full harmonic analysis of the modified plate with 4 Hz
frequency bandwidth. .................................................................................................... 181
Table 5.8 Comparison of natural frequencies of the original plate obtained by different
methods (0-800Hz)........................................................................................................ 186
Table 5.9 Comparison of natural frequencies of original plate with updated size and
material properties (0-800Hz) ....................................................................................... 187

Table 6.1 Corresponding number sequence to the node DOFS .................................... 218
Table 6.2 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values of different-sized FE models
compared with FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis ................................................. 221
Table 6.3 Comparison of calculated and identified natural frequencies within 0 800 Hz
....................................................................................................................................... 222
Table 6.4 Maximum, minimum and average FRAC values of different-sized FE models
compared with FRFs from reduced harmonic analysis ................................................. 231
Table 6.5 Comparison of natural frequencies of original 3D frame obtained by different
methods (0-800Hz)........................................................................................................ 239

xxxii

NOMENCLATURE
a

length of a plate

acceleration

width of a plate

Youngs Modulus

Force applied

moment applied

frequency

thickness of a plate

integer 1,2,3,

integer 1,2,3,
l

length of a beam

Matrices:
[ B]

dynamic stiffness matrix

[H ]

receptance frequency response function

[K ]

stiffness matrix

[M ]

mass matrix

Vectors:
{u}

displacement vector
xxxiii

{f}

force vector of forces and moments

Variables:

circular frequency

translation displacement variable;

rotational displacement variable;

Subscripts:
a,b,c

indicating the three parts in the modified structure

0,1

indication the original structure and modified structure

Superscripts:
-1

matrix inverse

matrix transpose

xxxiv