Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Paul Blelloch

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Blelloch.

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

Uncertainty Models for the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method of Uncertainty Quantification; Analysis

There is some level of uncertainty in every finite element model (FEM), which flows to a level of uncertainty in predicted results. The purpose of uncertainty quantification (UQ) is to provide statistical bounds on prediction accuracy based on model uncertainty. This is distinct from model updating, which attempts to modify models to improve their accuracy. UQ does not improve the accuracy of models, but accepts that the models are inherently inaccurate and attempts to quantify the impact of that inaccuracy on predicted results. Previously, an alternate method for UQ, called the Hybrid Parametric Variation (HPV) method, was applied to Space Launch System (SLS) Hurty/Craig-Bampton (HCB) components to predict system-level statistics for launch vehicle attitude control transfer functions and core stage section loads due to buffet. The HPV method combines a parametric variation of the HCB fixed-interface (FI) modal frequencies with a nonparametric variation (NPV) method that randomly varies the HCB mass and stiffness matrices as Wishart random matrix distributions using random matrix theory (RMT). Alternatively, the most common method for modeling uncertainty in the structural dynamics community is a parametric approach, which varies physical parameters in the model. However, there are several disadvantages associated with the parametric method. Determining a reduced set of parameters that have a significant impact on the system response can be time consuming, and the selected parameter probability distributions are rarely reliably known. Therefore, in practice, the parameters are surrogates for the actual errors, and the link to parameter uncertainty is unknown. Another major drawback is that the uncertainty that can be represented is limited to the form of the nominal FEM. It is the experience of the authors that based on numerous aerospace programs, almost all FEM errors are in form rather than parameter values. This hypothesis is supported by the observation of the authors that it is almost never possible to ‘tune’ a FEM to match modal test results by only modifying model parameters. Model-form uncertainty cannot be directly represented by FEM input parameters nor included in a parametric approach. However, model-form uncertainty can be modeled using RMT, where a probability distribution is developed for the matrix ensemble of interest. The major advantage of the NPV method is that it covers errors in model form. The HPV method anchors uncertainty at the HCB component level to component modal test results by matching the HCB and test modes based on mode descriptions or other methods, and then applying differing levels of frequency variation. The specific variations depend on the confidence to which a component FEM has been validated through modal testing. The NPV method is layered on the frequency variation to match modal test self-orthogonality and cross-orthogonality (XO) results. Once the component uncertainty models are identified, they are assembled, and the uncertainty is propagated to the system level using a Monte Carlo (MC) analysis approach that generates statistics for system-level predictions This provides a UQ method that can be traced to test data, which can be updated as additional data and improved correlated models become available. The purpose of this paper is to collect and present all of the theory for HPV that has been previously published in reports and papers and to present examples of its application. Specifically, component uncertainty models based on the dispersion of corresponding mass and stiffness matrices using proposed test/analysis correlation metrics are investigated. The first example is purely academic so that the true answers are known, and the validity of the HPV method and the corresponding uncertainty models can be determined. The purpose of this paper is to collect and present all of the theory for HPV that has been previously published in reports and papers and to present examples of its application. Specifically, component uncertainty models based on the dispersion of corresponding mass and stiffness matrices using proposed test/analysis correlation metrics are investigated. The first example is purely academic so that the true answers are known, and the validity of the HPV method and the corresponding uncertainty models can be determined. The second example is an application to a component that is design specific to the SLS. Based on this work and other assessments, the HPV method provides another tool to the toolset used for complex system UQ analysis. From experience gathered to date using the HPV method, additional design specific applications must be investigated to provide further confidence in the validity of the HPV method of UQ analysis.

Uncertainty quantification↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Variational Coupled Loads Analysis using the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method

Time-domain coupled loads analysis (CLA)is used to determine the response of a launch vehicle and payload system to transient forces, such as liftoff, engine ignitions and shutdowns, jettison events, and atmospheric flight loads, such as buffet. CLA, using Hurty/Craig-Bampton (HCB)component models, is the accepted method for the establishment of design-level loads for launch systems. However, uncertainty in the component models flows into uncertainty in predicted system results. Uncertainty in the structural responses during launch is a significant concern because small variations in launch vehicle and payload mode shapes and their interactions can result in significant variations in system loads. Uncertainty quantification (UQ)is used to determine statistical bounds on prediction accuracy based on model uncertainty. In this paper uncertainty is treated at the HCB component-model level. In an effort to account for model uncertainties and statistically bound their effect on CLA predictions, this work combines CLA with UQ in a process termed variational coupled loads analysis (VCLA). The modeling of uncertainty using a parametric approach, in which input parameters are represented by random variables, is common, but its major drawback is the resulting uncertainty is limited to the form of the nominal model. Uncertainty in model form is one of the biggest contributors to uncertainty in complex built-up structures. Model-form uncertainty can be represented using a nonparametric approach based on random matrix theory (RMT). In this work, UQ is performed using the hybrid parametric variation (HPV)method, which combines parametric with nonparametric uncertainty at the HCB component model level. The HPV method requires the selection of dispersion values for the HCB fixed-interface (FI)eigenvalues, and the HCB mass and stiffness matrices. The dispersions are based upon component test-analysis modal correlation results. During VCLA, random component models are assembled into an ensemble of random systems using a Monte Carlo (MC)approach. CLA is applied to each of the ensemble members to produce an ensemble of system-level responses for statistical analysis. The proposed methodology is demonstrated through its application to a buffet loads analysis of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS)during the transonic regime fifty seconds after liftoff. Core stage (CS)section shears and moments are recovered, and statistics are computed.

Uncertainty Quantification↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

SLS Integrated Modal Test Uncertainty Quantification using the Hybrid Parametric Variation Method

Uncertainty in structural loading during launch is a significant concern in the development of spacecraft and launch vehicles. Small variations in launch vehicle and payload mode shapes and their interaction can result in significant variation in system loads. In many cases involving large aerospace systems it is difficult, not economical, or impossible to perform a system modal test. However, it is still vital to obtain test results that can be compared with analytical predictions to validate models. Instead, the “Building Block Approach” is used in which system components are tested individually. Component models are correlated and updated to agree as best they can with test results. The Space Launch System consists of a number of components that are assembled into a launch vehicle. Finite element models of the components are developed, reduced to Hurty/Craig-Bampton models and assembled to represent different phases of flight. The only opportunity to obtain modal test data from an assembled Space Launch System will be during the Integrated Modal Test. There is always uncertainty in every model, which flows into uncertainty in predicted system results. Uncertainty Quantification is used to determine statistical bounds on prediction accuracy based on model uncertainty. For the Space Launch System, model uncertainty is at the Hurty/Craig-Bampton component level. Uncertainty in the Hurty/Craig-Bampton components is quantified using the hybrid parametric variation approach that combines parametric and nonparametric uncertainty. Uncertainty in model form is one of the biggest contributors to uncertainty in complex built-up structures. This type of uncertainty cannot be represented by variations infinite element model input parameters and thus cannot be included in a parametric approach. However, model-form uncertainty can be modeled using a nonparametric approach based on random matrix theory. The hybrid parametric variation method requires the selection of dispersion values for the Hurty/Craig-Bampton fixed-interface eigenvalues, and the Hurty/Craig-Bampton stiffness matrices. Component test/analysis frequency error is used to identify the fixed-interface eigenvalue dispersions, while test/analysis cross-orthogonality is used to identify stiffness dispersion values. The hybrid parametric variation uncertainty quantification approach is applied to the Space Launch System Integrated Modal Test configuration. Monte Carlo analysis is performed, and statistics are determined for modal correlation metrics, frequency response from Integrated Modal Test shakers to selected accelerometers, as well as other metrics for determining how well target modes are excited and identified. If the predicted uncertainty envelopes future Integrated Modal Test results, then there will be increased confidence in the utility of the component-based hybrid parametric variation uncertainty quantification approach.

Uncertainty Quantification↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Probability Bounds Analysis Applied to Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Nonlinearity

The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Program Orion vehicle finite element model (FEM) was updated based on a modal test performed by Lockheed Martin. Due to nonlinearity observed in the test results, linear low force level (LL) and high force level (HL) FEMs were developed for use during various Space Launch System (SLS) flight regimes depending on expected forcing levels. Uncertainty models were derived for the combined MPCV and MPCV Stage Adaptor LL and HL Hurty/Craig-Bampton (HCB) components based on the MPCV structural test article Configuration 4 modal test-analysis correlation results. Subsequently, system-level uncertainty quantification analyses were performed using both models for various SLS flight configurations to determine the impact of the nonlinearity on important system metrics. The system metrics included both transfer functions associated with attitude control and dynamic loads associated with aerodynamic buffeting during ascent. In each case, an independent Monte Carlo (MC) analysis was performed, and no attempt was made to combine the results. The Hybrid Parametric Variation (HPV) method was used to develop the LL and HL MPCV HCB uncertainty models. The HPV method provides both parametric and non-parametric components of uncertainty. The non-parametric uncertainty accounts for the difference in model-form between the linearized analytical model and the corresponding linearized component test results in the form of mode shapes and frequencies at that force level. This linear model-form uncertainty is implemented in the HPV method using random matrix theory. However, the HPV uncertainty models developed for the linear LL and HL MPCV components do not account for the nonlinearity in the MPCV. With respect to the linearized models, this nonlinearity is also an uncertainty in model form, but in this case, it must be treated independently as an epistemic uncertainty. It represents a lack of knowledge, in contrast to an aleatory uncertainty due to the randomness of a variable. In the case of an epistemic variable, the true value is unknown, only the interval within which it lies is known. Epistemic uncertainty can be reduced with increased knowledge, while in general, aleatory uncertainty cannot. This work combines the epistemic uncertainty due to the MPCV nonlinearity with the parametric and non-parametric uncertainty within the HPV method using a second order propagation approach. The LL and HL test data is augmented with surrogate test data derived from a nonlinear MPCV representation. The impact of the MPCV nonlinearity on system response statistics is determined using a series of cumulative distribution functions in the form of a horsetail plot, or p-box. This results in an interval of probabilities for a specific response value, or an interval of response values at a specific probability.

Daniel C Kammer↗