Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
R=19850006877 2019-12-11T02:45:16+00:00Z
DECEMBER 1984
Nat~onalAeronautics and
Space Adrn~n~stratlon
hngley Rmbarch Center
Hampton,Vlrgmia 23665
SENSI T I V I rY ANALY 513 FOR 01SCHETE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS - A SURVEY
In t roduct ion
v a r i e t y o f uses f o r s e n s i t i v i t y d e r i v a t i v e s . I n i t s e a r l y stages, s e n s i t i v i t y
o f Tomovic (1963); Brayton and Spence (1980); Frank (1978); and Radawvic
t u r a l o p t i m i z a t i o n as a u s e f u l t o o l f o r t h e p r a c t i c i n g s t r u c t u r a l design
1it e r a t u r e pub1ished during the past two decades and t h e paper concentrates
which the derivatives are calculated w i t h respect t o variables which def ine
S e n s i t i v i t y o f S t a t i c Response
F i n i t e Difference Method
(1967); Kelley and Lefton (1980); and Haftka and Malkus (1981). A recent
paper by Haftka (1984) describes s technique f o r reducing c o n d i t i o n e r r o r s i n
methods.
Analytical Methods
thereof have been described by Arora and Haug (1976, 1979); and Haug and Arora
and (2).
the equation
and Arora (1983); and Gurdal and Haftka (1984) extended t h e a d j o i n t method f o r
boundary conditions which require special ized treatment w h i l e Haug and Choi
derivatives are not e a s i l y evaluated (see Giles and Rogers, 1982). Hence, t h e
and Emerson (1982); Camarda and Adelman (1984); and Wal l e r s t e i n (1984).
been proposed by Chun and Haug (1978, 1979, 1983); Rousselet and Haug (1981,
1983); Rousselet (1983b); Zolesio (1981); Choi and Haug (1983); Dems and
Mrdz (1984a); Braibant and Fleury (1984); Yoo, Haug, and Choi (1984); Choi
(1984) ; and Yang and Chef (1984). However, computational experience using
example,
However, f o r m design variables there are m(m + 1)/2 second derivatives,
-
Stress Deri vat ives
The stresses i n an element may be obtained from the displacements using
functions of v and the complete expression must be used; see Camrda and
Nonlinear Analysis
form
vector a from
Prasad and Haftka (1980) ; and Schmi t and Farshi (1974). Use of d i s p l a c e w l
and stress derivatives t o construct expl i c i t constraint approximations ir
described, f o r example, by Schmit and Farshi (1974); Storaasli and
S ~ b i e s r c z a n ~(1974);
ki and Noor and Louder (1975). A basic example o f such an
approximation i s
e i genvalue problem:
Jacobi (1846) who developea the r e s u l t f o r the special case o f symmetric A,and B = 1 f
the d e r i vat ives o f buckl ing e i genvalues and presented r e s u l t s f o r the change
values was also investigated by Simpson (1976); and Haug and Rousselet
differentiable.
Two methods developed f o r sensi t i v i t y analysis o f e l e c t r o n i c networks are
Morgan's own assertion however, the computational e f f o r t i s not nuch less than
e i genvectors.
same geometry and nodal connections as the actual configuration, but t h e ele-
Fox and Kapoor (1968) and Fox (1971) considered the special case o f
For eigenvector derivatives, two methods are presented by Fox and Kapoor. The
general problem (eqs. (16) and (17)). For eigenvalues, the equation i s
presented by Taylor and Kane (1975). Garg (1973) investigated the case where
those o f Fox and Kapoor. Rudisi 11 and Chu (1975) developed the same
Andrew (1978 and 1979) provided some proofs and refinements o f R u d i s i l l ' s and
(25)
methods o f Fox and Kapoor, Plaut and Huseyin, and Rudisi 11). Cardani and
R u d i s i l l and Bhatia (19723, Rao (1972), Seyranian (1982), and by Pedersen and
Seyrani an (1983) . Deri v a t i ves o f nonl inear buck1 ing e i genvalues were obtained
Haug and Rousselet (1980b) and the t e x t by Haug, Komkov, and Choi (1984)
should be o f i n t e r e s t t o readers.
Genera 1
form
where U i s t h e response, F i s a vector of functions, t i s time, v is a
Direct Method
Equations (28) have t o be solved once f o r each design variable, and are
function approach (see Hwang, Dougherty, Rabitz, and Rabitz, 1978) i s more
conputed using reduction techniques such as modal analysis (e.g., see Haftka
dU/dv, i s w r i t t e n as
by Rab i t z and co-workers (Demi r l a p and Rabi tz, 1981; Dougherty, Hwang, and
Rdbitz, 1979; Dougherty and Rabitz, 1979, 1980; Eslava, Eno, and Rabitz, 1980;
Kramer and Calo, 1981; Kramer, Calo, Rabitz, and Kee, 1982; Rabitz, 1981).
(Kramer, Calo, Rabitz, and Kee, 1982). The Green's function method i s also
(34)
(see Haftka, 1981; and Haftka and Ma1kus, 1981). When imp1i c i t i n t e g r a t i o n
-
FAST Method
tion. The -
Fourier -
Amp1 i t u d e - -
S e n s i t i v i t y Test (FAST) method (see review by
= ai t bi s i n wis
i
method has been applied extensively i n physical chemistry (e.g., Koda, McRde
and Seinfeld, 1979; Tilden and Seinfeld, 1982), and a corrputer inplementation
analysis before d i s c r e t i zing. Koda, Dogru, and Seinfeld (1979); Owyer and
Peterson (1980); and Koda and Sei n f e l d (l982), f o r example, discuss appl i c a -
Gibson and Clark (1977) and Cacuci (1981) present s e n s i t i v i t y analysis i n the
fact,
Behrens, 1979).
the change i n the constraints. For example, the optimization problem may
be posed as
Minimize f(v)
such t h a t
df* x af
(v*) -
that A
i s the change i n the o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n due t o a u n i t change i n
McCormick (1968); Armacost and Fiacco (1974); Fiacco (1976, 1980); Bigelow
Vanderpl aats and Yoshi da (1984) discuss applications t o the optimal design o f
Concluding Remarks
methods are the adjoi n t variable technique from control theory, and the
clear gui del ines g i v i ng c l asses o f problems where t h e v a r i ous methods are
are established guide1 ines f o r deciding when t o choose among the various
a n a l y t l c a l method.
Methods f o r d e r l vatlves of optlnum deslgns w l t h respect t o problem
parameters are revlewed. Recause t h i s I s a relatively new topic, t h e body of
l i t e r a t u r e was not large. The d e r i v a t l v e o f the o b j e c t l v e functlon can be
easi ly obtained by a reasonably simple fornula. The derlvatlves o f t h e
optinum design variables are somewhat more d l f f i c u l t t o obtain. A compllca-
response quant it i e s .
References
.
Andrew, A. L. (1979): I t e r a t i v e Computation o f Derivatives o f Eigenvalues and
Eigenvectors. Journal o f Inst. Math. ApplJcs., Vol 24, pp. 209-218,
Cardani , C .;
and Mantsgazza, P. (1979) : Calculation o f Ei genvalue and Ei gen-
vector Deri v a t i ves f o r 41 gebraic F l u t t e r and Divergence Ei genproblems.
A I A A J., Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 408-412.
Eslava, L. A.; Eno, L.; and Rabitz, H. A. (1980): Further Devslopments and
Applications o f S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis t o C o l l i s i o n a l Energy Transfer. J. Chem.
Physics, Vol. 73, No. 10, pp. 4998-5012.
pp. 327-348.
Fiacco, A. V. (1983): I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S e n s i t i v i t y and S t a b i l i t y i n Nonlinear
Programni ng. Academic Press.
Fox, R. L.; and Kapoor, M. P. (1968): Rates o f Change o f Ei genval ues and
Eigenvectors. A I M J., Vol. 6, No. 12, pp. 2426-2429.
Haug, E. J .;
and Ehle, P. E. (1982): Second-Order Design S e n s i t i v i t y Analys i s
o f Mechanical System Dynamics. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Journal f o r Numerical Methods i n
.
Engineering, ~ o l18, bp. 1699-1717.
.
Element Technology (A. K. Noor and W. D m Pilkey, editors), American Society o f
C i v i 1 Engineers
Buck1ing and Vibration Problems. 3. Royal Aeronaut! cal Society, Vol 66,
pp. 590-591.
.
W i t t r i c k , W. H. (1962): Rates o f Change o f Eigenvalues, w i t h Reference t o
Yoo, Y. M.; Haug, E. 3.; and Choi, K. K. (1984): Shape Optimal Design o f an
Engine Connecting Rod. J . Mech. Design ( I n Press).
.
Young, S. 0.; and Shoup, T. E. (1982): The S e n s i t i v i t y Analysis of Cam
Mechanism Dynamics. ASME J. Mech. Design, Vol 104, pp. 476-481.
S t a t i c displacenrent
NRT s i z i n g variables Direct Fox (l965), Haug 6 Arora (1978). Arora 6 M u g (1979)
Adjoint variable Barnett Herman (l968), Kelley (l962), Haug 6 Arora (1978)
WT shape variables Differentiate dis- Botkin (1981). Bennett and Botkin (1983)
c r e t e equations
Material d e r i v a t i v e Rousselet 6 Haug (1983), Rousselet (1983), Dens 6 h ' z (1984b)
Second der ivat ives Direct Jawed and Morris (1984), ,Van Be11e (1982)
Adjoint variable Haug (1981). Dems and Hroz (1984b)
M i xed Haftka (1982 )
E igenval ues
Symmetric matrices
D i s t i n c t e i genval ues Direct Fox 6 Kapoor (1968), Fox (1971), W i t t r i c k (1962), Vanhonacker (1980)
Mu1t ip l e eigenval ues Direct Lancast e r (1964). Simpson (1976), Haug and Roussel e t (1980)
Nonsymnetric matrices Direct Jacobi (1846). Rogers (1970), Stewart (1972), Plaut 6 Husseyin (1973)
2 Second derivatives Direct Plaut 8 Husseyin (1973). R u d i s i l l (l974), Doughty (1972) , Brandon (1 984)
Eigenvectors
F i r s t derivatives Direct Fox and Kapoor (1971), Rogers (IWO), Nelson (1976)
Modal expansion Fox and Kapoor (1971), Rogers (IWO), Stewart (1972)
Second derivatives Direct Taylor and Kane (1975)
Modal expansion Taylor and Kane (1975)
Transient displacement
F i r s t derivatives Direct Haftka (1981 )
Adjoint variable Ray, e t a1 (1981 )
~ & n ' s function Kramer, e t a1 (1982), Hwang, e t a1 (1978)
FAST Cukier, e t a1 (1978)
Second derivatives Direct Coffee and Heimerl (1983)
Adjoint variable Haug and Ehle (1982)
Mixed Haftka (1982)
Optimum designs
Objective function Annacost 6 Fiacco (l974), kl(eorm (l98O), Sobieski, e t a1 (1982)
Design variables Barthelerny 6 Sobieski (1983a), Schlnit 8 Chang (l984), Fiacco (1983)
* F i n i t e difference methods are generally applicable. See, for example, 6111 (1980, l983), Stewart (l967),
kll e y and Lefton (1980), Haftka and Ma1kus (1981 )