Many model updating and dynamic coupling techniques require the response of a structure to be defined at all degrees of freedom. Standard experimental techniques do not routinely allow the measurement of rotational DoFs. Also time constraints do not permit measurement over a dense grid. A laser system has been developed which enables rotations to be extracted by a simple plane-fitting technique, which is described in this paper. A finite element model-based parametric study is presented, which has shown that the performance of the technique is dependent on the amount of corruption present on translation data. A semi-empirical technique is developed, using second derivatives to exacerbate temporarily the noise corruption, which quantifies accurately the equivalent Gaussian noise on the response data. An experimental study is also presented which shows the considerable promise of these procedures. Finally, a brief description of a model updating case study is presented for illustrative purposes. Terminology: In order to avoid a verbose sentence construction, the coordinate at which it is desired to measure the rotational frequency response functions (FRFs) is hereafter referred to as the rotation point. In addition, the distance between the measured translation FRFs and the rotation point is referred to as the measurement radius. [S0739-3717(00)00401-3]

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
rotation, measurement systems, vibration measurement, laser Doppler anemometry, least squares approximations, finite element analysis, Gaussian noise
Topics:
Noise (Sound), Rotation, Finite element model, Fittings
1.
Visser, W. J., and Imregun, M., 1991, “A Technique to Update Finite Element Models Using Frequency Response Data,” IMAC IX. pp. 462–468.
2.
Fissette, E., Stavrinidis, C., and Ibrahim, S., 1988, “Error Location and Updating of Analytical Dynamic Models Using a Force Balance Method,” IMAC VI, pp. 1063–1070.
3.
Lin, R. M., and He, J., 1993, “Analytical Model Improvement Using Modified IEM,” Proc. Structural Dynamics Modelling Test, Analysis and Correlation. pp. 181–194.
4.
Duarte, M. L. M., and Ewins, D. J., 1995, “Some Insights into the Importance of Rotational Degrees of Freedom and Residual Terms in Coupled Structure Analysis,” IMAC XIII, pp. 164–170.
5.
Waters, T. P., 1995, Finite Element Model Updating Using Frequency Response Functions, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, UK.
6.
Guyan
,
R. J.
,
1965
, “
Reduction of Mass and Stiffness Matrices
,”
AIAA J.
,
3
, No.
2
, p.
380
380
.
7.
Cobb, R. E., 1988, Confidence Bands, Measurement Noise, and Multiple Input—Multiple Output Measurements Using the Three-Channel Frequency Response Function Estimator, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, VA.
8.
Allemang, R. J., and Brown, D. L., 1983, “A Correlation Coefficient for Modal Vector Analysis,” IMAC I, pp. 110–116.
9.
Ratcliffe
,
M. J.
, and
Lieven
,
N. A. J.
, June/July
1998
, “
An Improved Method for Parameter Selection in Finite Element Model Updating
,”
Aeronaut. J.
,
102
, No.
1016
, pp.
321
–
329
.
Copyright © 2000
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.