4.7 Article

Model reduction of rotor-foundation systems using the approximate invariant manifold method

期刊

NONLINEAR DYNAMICS
卷 111, 期 12, 页码 10743-10768

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11071-023-08421-x

关键词

Model reduction method; Nonlinear analysis; Rotor-foundation systems; Approximate invariant manifold method; Component mode synthesis; Fluid-film bearings

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work introduces a model reduction method for performing nonlinear dynamic analysis of high-dimensional rotor-foundation systems using the finite element method. The method combines the component mode synthesis (CMS) method with the approximate invariant manifold method (AIMM) to obtain forced responses through the integration of a single pair of ordinary differential equations. The method is tested on two rotor-foundation systems with nonlinearity from fluid-film bearings and shows significant reduction in numerical cost while maintaining good accuracy compared to direct time integrations. The proposed method provides a feasible option for nonlinear dynamic analysis of high-dimensional rotor-foundation systems.
This work presents a model reduction method suited for performing nonlinear dynamic analysis of high-dimensional rotor-foundation systems modeled by the finite element method. The approach consists in combining the component mode synthesis (CMS) method with the approximate invariant manifold method (AIMM), and allows the obtention of forced responses through the integration of a single pair of ordinary differential equations. The proposed approach is tested using two examples: a simple and a complex rotor-foundation system. In both cases, the nonlinearity comes from the fluid-film bearings. The results show that the method can provide a significant reduction in numerical cost while still retaining good accuracy when compared to direct time integrations. By means of the proposed method, the nonlinear dynamic analysis of high-dimensional rotor-foundation system becomes a feasible option.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据