The “how to” document is designed to help walk the analyst through difficult aspects of software usage. It should supplement both the User’s manual and the Theory document, by providing examples and detailed discussion that reduce learning time for complex set ups. These documents are intended to be used together. We will not formally list all parameters for an input here – see the User’s manual for this. All the examples in the “How To” document are part of the Sierra/SD test suite, and each will run with no modification. The nature of this document casts together a number of rather unrelated procedures. Grouping them is difficult. Please try to use the table of contents and the index as a guide in finding the analyses of interest.
This document presents tests from the Sierra Structural Mechanics verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/SD code suite and the results of the test checked versus the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SD code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.
Sierra/SD provides a massively parallel implementation of structural dynamics finite element analysis, required for high fidelity, validated models used in modal, vibration, static and shock analysis of structural systems. This manual describes the theory behind many of the constructs in Sierra/SD. For a more detailed description of how to use Sierra/SD, we refer the reader to Sierra/SD, User's Notes. Many of the constructs in Sierra/SD are pulled directly from published material. Where possible, these materials are referenced herein. However, certain functions in Sierra/SD are specific to our implementation. We try to be far more complete in those areas. The theory manual was developed from several sources including general notes, a programmer notes manual, the user's notes and of course the material in the open literature.
The root mean square (RMS) von Mises stress is a criterion used for assessing the reliability of structures subject to stationary random loading. This work investigates error in RMS von Mises stress and its relationship to the error in acceleration for random vibration analysis. First, a theoretical development of stress-acceleration error is introduced for a simplified problem based on modal stress analysis. Using results from the example as a basis, a similar error relationship is determined for random vibration problems. Finite element analyses of test structures subject to an input acceleration auto-spectral density are performed and results from parametric studies are used to determine error. For a given error in acceleration, a relationship to the error in RMS von Mises stress is established. The resulting relation is used to calculate a bound on the RMS von Mises stress based on the computed accelerations. This error bound is useful in vibration analysis, especially where uncertainty and variability must be thoroughly considered.
Component mode synthesis (CMS) is a widely employed model reduction technique used to reduce the computational cost associated with the dynamic analysis of complex engineering structures. To generate CMS models, specifically the formulation of Craig and Bampton, both normal fixed-interface modes and constraint modes of the component’s structure are calculated. These modes are used in conjunction with the component level mass and stiffness matrices to generate reduced mass and stiffness matrices used in the final analyses. For some component models, the most computationally expensive part of this procedure is calculating the component normal modes information. Several different approaches are utilized to investigate the sensitivity of system level responses to variations in several aspects of the CMS models. One approach evaluates changes due to modifications of the reduced mass and stiffness matrices assuming that the mode shapes do not change. The second approach assumes that the mode shapes change but the reduced mass and stiffness matrices do not change. An example is presented to show the influence of these two approaches.