Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Accelerating Construction of Non-Intrusive Nonlinear Structural Dynamics Reduced Order Models through Hyperreduction

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A hyperreduction scheme speeds nonlinear structural ROM construction up to 13.9x by replacing exact stiffness evaluations with a weighted mesh subset, matching full-model power spectra.

desk verdict A solid, practically useful methods paper that combines EED and ECSW to cut offline ROM construction time by 3-14x on two Abaqus models, with a real but non-fatal gap: no error bound for the cubature's extrapolation to tangent stiffness at off-manifold probe displacements. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14262 v1 pith:7EZHUIAR submitted 2024-11-21 math.NA cs.NAphysics.comp-ph

Alexander Saccani , Paolo Tiso This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAphysics.comp-ph MSC 74S0574H45
keywords GeometricNonlinearityReducedOrderModelingGalerkin-ROMModalDerivativesHyperreductionECSWEEDAcousticLoading
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the most expensive step in building non-intrusive reduced order models for geometrically nonlinear structures—identifying the cubic stiffness tensors from a commercial finite element code—can be accelerated with hyperreduction. The proposed EED-ECSW method replaces each exact evaluation of the reduced nonlinear tangent stiffness in the Enhanced Enforced Displacement scheme by an Energy Conserving Sampling and Weighting approximation over a small, weighted subset of elements. The reduced mesh and weights are trained simulation-free on force snapshots from a static quadratic manifold, so no full high-fidelity dynamic runs are needed. On a curved panel and a nine-bay aeronautical panel under random acoustic loading, the method matches the power spectral densities of standard EED and of the high-fidelity model while cutting ROM construction time by factors of 3.18 and 13.86. If correct, it makes large tensorial ROMs practical for industrial acoustic-fatigue studies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ECSW approximation of the reduced nonlinear tangent stiffness: $\tilde{\mathbf K}^{(nl)} \approx \sum_{e\in \tilde E}\xi_e\mathbf V_e^{T}(\mathbf K^t_e-\mathbf K_e)\mathbf V_e$. ECSW is a hyperreduction method that replaces the full element sum by a sparse non-negative weighted subset of elements, determined here with the sNNLS algorithm. The weights are trained on element forces from static quadratic manifold displacements $\mathbf q=\Gamma(\boldsymbol\gamma)$ with Latin-hypercube amplitudes, after subtracting each element's linear force. This same weighted subset is then used inside EED to evaluate the left-hand side of the identification equations for probes along individual basis vectors and pairs, providing all $(m^2+5m)/2$ tangent-stiffness evaluations at reduced cost. The transformation of the identified tensors from the physical to the orthogonalized basis, via $\mathbf U=(\mathbf V^T\mathbf V)^{-1}\mathbf V^T\mathbf W$, completes the construction.

What would settle it

Evaluate the ECSW approximation in Eq. (26) at EED's probe displacements, comparing the weighted reduced-mesh stiffness against a full-mesh assembly; if the relative error there is far larger than the ECSW validation error $\epsilon_{\rm ECSW}$, the identified tensors will be biased even when the training looks accurate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ECSW reduced mesh trained to reproduce reduced nonlinear internal forces on a static quadratic manifold also reproduces the reduced nonlinear tangent stiffness needed for EED tensor identification. Specifically, the paper approximates $\tilde{\mathbf K}^{(nl)} = \mathbf V^{T}(\mathbf K_t-\mathbf K^{(1)})\mathbf V$ by $\sum_{e\in\tilde E}\xi_e \mathbf V_e^{T}(\mathbf K^t_e-\mathbf K_e)\mathbf V_e$, computes the weights from nonlinear force snapshots with linear parts removed, and uses this cheap tangent stiffness in the identification equations to determine the tensors. Identified on the physical basis $\mathbf V$ and then transformed to an orthogonalized basis $\mathbf W$, the tensors produce ROMs whose displacement PSDs overlay the standard EED ROM and the finite element model, while the tensor-construction time drops from 1908.5 s to 599.9 s on the curved panel and from 13.759 h to 0.993 h on the nine-bay panel.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a small set of weighted finite elements chosen to reproduce nonlinear forces on static manifold shapes will also reproduce the tangent stiffness at EED's probe displacement shapes, which are outside the training set, and the paper provides no error bound connecting those two errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Offline tensor identification time drops by factors of 3.18 and 13.86 on the two test panels, with the largest gains coming from faster finite element runs and faster reading of tangent-stiffness matrices.
  • ROM accuracy is preserved: power spectral densities from EED-ECSW tensors overlay those from standard EED and from the high-fidelity model, including nonlinear peak smearing, frequency shifts, and out-of-band response.
  • The method stays fully non-intrusive, so tensors can be built from the outputs of a commercial finite element code without accessing the element formulation.
  • The ECSW training tolerance $\tau$ provides a tunable trade-off: smaller $\tau$ gives larger reduced meshes and higher accuracy, while larger $\tau$ gives faster construction, as demonstrated by the nine-bay panel tolerance study.
  • Because the identified ROM remains in tensorial form, online integration stays independent of the finite element code, preserving online speedups of roughly 400x and 267x over the high-fidelity model on the two test cases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: since the ECSW reduced mesh is trained only from vibration modes and static modal derivatives, the same reduced mesh could plausibly be reused across load cases or small geometry perturbations sharing a reduction basis, which the paper motivates but does not test.
  • Editorial extension: the paper introduces a Modal Derivative Participation Factor for ranking static modal derivatives, but does not isolate its effect on accuracy; a dedicated comparison against frequency-based or random selection would test whether this ranking is the right one.
  • Editorial extension: the absence of an error bound connecting $\tau$ or $\epsilon_{\rm ECSW}$ to tensor identification error suggests a practical safeguard the paper does not explore: re-evaluate a few EED probe equations with the full mesh and stop refining the reduced mesh only when the identified tensors stop changing.
  • Editorial extension: the same EED-ECSW construction could be applied to updated-Lagrangian or co-rotational element formulations where the polynomial force model is approximate; the physical-to-orthogonalized basis transformation may reduce the resulting bias, but the paper leaves that setting untested.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hyperreduction-accelerated variant of the Enhanced Enforced Displacement (EED) method for non-intrusive identification of cubic stiffness tensors in Galerkin ROMs of geometrically nonlinear structures. The reduced nonlinear tangent stiffness needed in EED is evaluated with an ECSW cubature whose reduced mesh and weights are trained on force snapshots generated from a static quadratic manifold, avoiding HFM time-integration simulations for training. Tensors are identified in the physical VM/SMD basis and subsequently transformed to an orthogonalized basis. The method is tested on a curved panel (RB of 35) and a nine-bay fuselage panel (RB of 50), reporting speed-ups of 3.18x and 13.86x in ROM construction while producing displacement PSDs in close agreement with standard EED and Abaqus HFM.

Significance. If confirmed, the contribution is practically significant because EED tensor identification is the dominant offline cost for large ROMs in acoustic-loading applications, and the method preserves full non-intrusiveness with respect to commercial FE codes. The numerical study is carefully designed: ECSW training is simulation-free, the comparison against both standard EED and the HFM is appropriate, and the tolerance study in Section 4.2.4 gives useful practical guidance. The main caveat is that the transfer of ECSW weights from force training to tangent-stiffness evaluation at EED probe displacements is heuristic; the paper does not provide an error bound, and its validation relies on aggregate PSD comparisons. I therefore view the empirical claims as well supported for the two tested structures, but the generality claim needs either a diagnostic or an explicit limitation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.5, §2.5.2, Algorithm 2, §4.1.3, §4.2.1] The number of EED enforced displacements is stated inconsistently. Section 2.5 and Algorithm 2 give (m^2+5m)/2, but the reported 665 displacements for m=35 (Section 4.1.3) and 1325 for m=50 (Section 4.2.1) equal (m^2+3m)/2. The sentence in Section 2.5.2 saying 'additional m(m−2)/2 displacements' is non-integer for the m values used and is presumably a typo for m(m−1)/2. Please correct the formulas so the complexity count and the implementation match; this is necessary for reproducibility.
  2. [§3.2, §3.3.2, Eq. (26), Eq. (35)] The ECSW weights in Eq. (24) are trained to reproduce reduced nonlinear forces on SQM samples q=Γ(γ), but Eq. (26) uses the same weights to approximate the reduced nonlinear tangent stiffness at EED probe displacements q=η_r v_r and q=η_s v_s+η_r v_r. These probes are not in the SQM training distribution: a pure SMD displacement has no VM component and cannot be represented on the SQM of Eq. (10). The validation error in Eq. (35) only measures force reproduction on held-out SQM samples and provides no bound on the tangent-stiffness error at the probes. Since Eqs. (20) and (21) are solved from the approximate tangent stiffness, this is a genuine extrapolation step. The excellent PSD agreement in Section 4 is reassuring, but PSDs are aggregate statistics and may be insensitive to systematic tensor errors in weakly excited components. Please either add a direct numerical check of the ECSW tangent-stiffness approximation at representative EED probes, or state explicitly as a limitation that no transfer guarantee is provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (21)] In Eq. (21), the last term should read K~(3)_issj η_s^2, not η_r^2, for the case r<s<j.
  2. [Section 4.2.4, Table 3] In Table 3 the 'accuracy' column is only quantified by ϵ_ECSW; the dynamic accuracy is shown in Fig. 10. Please clarify in the caption that ϵ_ECSW is the SQM force-reproduction error and not a direct measure of ROM accuracy.
  3. [Section 4.1.4] The text uses both 'EED-ECSW' and 'ECSW-EED' to refer to the same method; please standardize the terminology.
  4. [Section 1] The introduction contains a typo 'pyhsics-based strategies' (should be 'physics-based strategies').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the identified tensors are fit to Abaqus tangent-stiffness data and validated against independent HFM PSDs; self-citations are methodological antecedents, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained and externally grounded. The EED-ECSW method identifies the reduced-order nonlinear tensors by enforcing Eqs. (20) and (21) against an ECSW-approximated reduced tangent stiffness, Eq. (26), where the ECSW weights are computed from nonlinear force snapshots on the static quadratic manifold, Eqs. (24) and (32). The unknown tensor coefficients are solved from these equations using Abaqus-supplied element tangent stiffnesses; they are not re-used as the target of a prediction. The final comparison is against the standard EED ROM and the high-fidelity Abaqus model, so the accuracy claim is tested externally rather than being true by construction. The self-citations to prior work on SQM lifting and ECSW (e.g., [21], [42]) describe methodology that is re-derived in Sections 2.6 and 3.3 with explicit formulas, and the cited results are externally falsifiable; they do not import the paper's conclusion. The main limitation, namely that ECSW is trained on SQM force snapshots but used for tangent stiffness at EED probe displacements not on the SQM, is an extrapolation and robustness concern without an error bound, not a circular reduction. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force the choice, and no known empirical pattern is merely relabeled. Consequently, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the cubic polynomial force model, the EED algebraic reconstruction, and the untested transfer of ECSW weights from force training to tangent-stiffness evaluation. The free parameters are analyst choices (alpha, tau, sample counts, h, basis sizes) rather than fitted coefficients.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (SQM amplitude bound) = 0.6 t for curved panel, t for nine-bay panel
    User-provided bound in Eq. (28) sets the LHS sampling range; chosen by experience to activate geometric nonlinearities without nonphysical displacements, so it controls the ECSW training set.
  • tau (ECSW relative tolerance) = 1e-3 in main results; 1e-4 to 1e-2 in Table 3
    Tolerance in Eq. (24) trades reduced-mesh size against validation error; no a priori rule beyond the literature range is given.
  • Number of training and validation samples Nt, Nv = 45/5 and 60/10 for the two examples
    Chosen by experience; affects coverage of the SQM and the cost of training-force computation.
  • Finite-difference step h for SMDs = not reported
    User-defined perturbation in Eq. (9) for SMD computation; no convergence study is reported.
  • VM and SMD selection counts = 7 VMs + 28 SMDs for curved panel; 15 VMs + 35 SMDs for nine-bay panel
    Selected by sMPF and the proposed MDPF criteria; the selection defines the RB and therefore the size and difficulty of tensor identification.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption FE internal forces are exactly a cubic polynomial in nodal displacements (Eq. 3).
    Applies to Green-Lagrange and von Karman formulations assumed in Section 2.1; it is the basis for the tensorial ROM and for the algebraic identification equations.
  • standard math The sparse coefficients in Eqs. (18) and (19) are uniquely identifiable from tangent-stiffness probes.
    Requires the monomial basis to be linearly independent and the polynomial form to be exact; used to set up the small linear systems in EED.
  • domain assumption ECSW weights trained on reduced nonlinear force snapshots approximate the reduced nonlinear tangent stiffness for unseen displacements.
    Used in Eq. (26) to accelerate EED; no theoretical error estimate connects the force training objective in Eq. (24) to the tangent-stiffness error.
  • domain assumption LHS sampling of VM amplitudes bounded by alpha in Eq. (28) covers the displacement range relevant to the dynamic response.
    Training-set quality controls ECSW generalization; alpha is chosen by experience, not derived from the load or the response.
  • domain assumption Tensors identified on physical RB V and transformed via U = (V^T V)^-1 V^T W in Eq. (44) are correct for the orthogonalized RB W.
    Holds exactly only if internal forces are exactly cubic and V and W span the same subspace; commercial shell formulations may deviate slightly.
  • domain assumption SMDs computed by central finite differences in Eq. (9) are accurate with the chosen h.
    The RB itself depends on the finite-difference approximation of the directional derivative of Kt; no convergence study is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accelerating Construction of Non-Intrusive Nonlinear Structural Dynamics Reduced Order Models through Hyperreduction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EZHUIAR

@misc{pith2026241114262,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accelerating Construction of Non-Intrusive Nonlinear Structural Dynamics Reduced Order Models through Hyperreduction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EZHUIAR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14262}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel technique to significantly reduce the offline cost associated to non-intrusive nonlinear tensors identification in reduced order models (ROMs) of geometrically nonlinear, finite elements (FE)-discretized structural dynamics problems. The ROM is obtained by Galerkin-projection of the governing equations on a reduction basis (RB) of Vibration Modes (VMs) and Static Modal Derivatives (SMDs), resulting in reduced internal forces that are cubic polynomial in the reduced coordinates. The unknown coefficients of the nonlinear tensors associated with this polynomial representation are identified using a modified version of Enhanced Enforced Displacement (EED) method which leverages Energy Conserving Sampling and Weighting (ECSW) as hyperreduction technique for efficiency improvement. Specifically, ECSW is employed to accelerate the evaluations of the nonlinear reduced tangent stiffness matrix that are required within EED. Simulation-free training sets of forces for ECSW are obtained from displacements corresponding to quasi-random samples of a nonlinear second order static displacement manifold. The proposed approach is beneficial for the investigation of the dynamic response of structures subjected to acoustic loading, where multiple VMs must be added in the RB, resulting in expensive nonlinear tensor identification. Superiority of the novel method over standard EED is demonstrated on FE models of a shallow curved clamped panel and of a nine-bay aeronautical reinforced panel modelled, using the commercial finite element program Abaqus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14262 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometry (a) and FE mesh (b) of the curved panel. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time history (a) and PSD (b) of the uniform in space pressure applied to the curved panel. PSD was obtained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reduced mesh for the curved panel. Color intensity maps to ECSW element’s weight. The number of active elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time domain displacements of node A (xA = 0.5 · l, yA = 0.516 · w, zA = h) and their PSDs. In (a) and (b) out of plane displacements, while in (c) and (d) in plane displacements. Displacements in (a) and (c) are normalized with respect to the thickness of the plate. Th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time domain displacements of node B (xB = 0.34 ·l, yB = 0.322 · w, zB = 0.90 · h) and their PSDs. In (a) and (b) out of plane displacements, while in (c) and (d) in plane displacements. Displacements in (a) and (c) are normalized with respect to the thickness of the pl…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Convergence analysis for the curved panel by increasing the number of VMs in the ROM. PSD of nodal displacement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: sMPF (a) and natural frequencies (b) of the nine-bay panel. In (a), the 15 VMs included in the RB are plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: In (a) FE mesh for the nine-bay panel: the bays on the skin are numbered from 1 to 9. In (b) its reduced mesh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Power spectral density of displacements for three different nodes located in the middle of bay 5 (a.1-a.3), of bay 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of tolerance τ used in ECSW training on PSD accuracy of displacements for the nine-bay panel. Different reduced tensors are identified with EED-ECSW using τ = 0.01, 0.005, 0.001, 0.0005, 0.0001 for the computation of the reduced mesh. The solutions obtained wit…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. J. Hollkamp, Experiences with nonlinear modeling and acoustic fatigue, Journal of Sound and Vibra- tion 437 (2018) 437–446.doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2018.04.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2018.04.029 2018

  2. [2]

    R. W. Gordon, J. J. Hollkamp, Reduced-order models for acoustic response prediction of a curved panel,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Spottswood, J

    S. Spottswood, J. Hollkamp, T. Eason, On the use of reduced-order models for a shallow curved beam under combined loading, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), 2008. doi: 10.2514/6.2008-2235

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2008-2235 2008

  4. [4]

    Przekop, S

    A. Przekop, S. A. Rizzi, Dynamic snap-through of thin-walled structures by a reduced-order method, AIAA Journal 45 (2007) 2510–2519.doi:10.2514/1.26351

    work page doi:10.2514/1.26351 2007

  5. [5]

    Przekop, S

    A. Przekop, S. A. Rizzi, D. S. Groen, Nonlinear acoustic response of an aircraft fuselage sidewall struc- ture by a reduced-order analysis, in: Ninth International Conference on Recent Advances in Structural Dynamics, no. Paper-135, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    M. P. Mignolet, A. Przekop, S. A. Rizzi, S. M. Spottswood, A review of indirect/non-intrusive reduced order modeling of nonlinear geometric structures, Journal of Sound and Vibration 332 (10) (2013) 2437–2460

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Krysl, S

    P. Krysl, S. Lall, J. E. Marsden, Dimensional model reduction in non-linear finite element dynamics of solids and structures, International Journal for numerical methods in engineering 51 (4) (2001) 479–504

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Kerschen, F

    G. Kerschen, F. Poncelet, J.-C. Golinval, Physical interpretation of independent component analysis in structural dynamics, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 21 (4) (2007) 1561–1575. 26

    work page 2007

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    T. Lieu, C. Farhat, M. Lesoinne, Pod-based aeroelastic analysis of a complete f-16 configuration: Rom adaptation and demonstration, in: 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynam- ics and materials conference, 2005, p. 2295

    2005

  2. [10]

    Géradin, D

    M. Géradin, D. J. Rixen, Mechanical vibrations: theory and application to structural dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    S. R. Idelsohn, A. Cardona, A reduction method for nonlinear structural dynamic analysis, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 49 (1985) 253–279.doi:10.1016/0045-7825(85) 90125-2

    1985 doi

  4. [12]

    S. R. Idelsohn, A. Cardona, A load-dependent basis for reduced nonlinear structural dynamics, Com- puters & Structures 20 (1-3) (1985) 203–210

    1985

  5. [13]

    Marconi, P

    J. Marconi, P. Tiso, F. Braghin, A nonlinear reduced order model with parametrized shape defects, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 360 (3 2020). doi:10.1016/j.cma. 2019.112785

    2020

  6. [14]

    Marconi, P

    J. Marconi, P. Tiso, D. E. Quadrelli, F. Braghin, A higher-order parametric nonlinear reduced-order model for imperfect structures using neumann expansion, Nonlinear Dynamics 104 (2021) 3039–3063. doi:10.1007/s11071-021-06496-y

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    M. K. Mahdiabadi, P. Tiso, A. Brandt, D. J. Rixen, A non-intrusive model-order reduction of geometri- cally nonlinear structural dynamics using modal derivatives, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 147 (1 2021). doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107126

    2021

  8. [17]

    L. Wu, P. Tiso, Nonlinear model order reduction for flexible multibody dynamics: a modal derivatives approach, Multibody System Dynamics 36 (2016) 405–425.doi:10.1007/s11044-015-9476-5

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    J. B. Rutzmoser, D. J. Rixen, A lean and efficient snapshot generation technique for the hyper-reduction of nonlinear structural dynamics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 325 (2017) 330–349. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2017.06.009

    2017 doi

  10. [19]

    P. Tiso, E. Jansen, M. Abdalla, Reduction method for finite element nonlinear dynamic analysis of shells, AIAA journal 49 (10) (2011) 2295–2304

    2011

  11. [20]

    Farhat, P

    C. Farhat, P. Avery, T. Chapman, J. Cortial, Dimensional reduction of nonlinear finite element dynamic models with finite rotations and energy-based mesh sampling and weighting for computational efficiency, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 98 (2014) 6...

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    S. Jain, P. Tiso, Simulation-free hyper-reduction for geometrically nonlinear structural dynamics: A quadratic manifold lifting approach, Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics 13 (7 2018). doi:10.1115/1.4040021

    2018 doi

  13. [22]

    S. S. An, T. Kim, D. L. James, Optimizing cubature for efficient integration of subspace deformations, ACM Transactions on Graphics 27 (12 2008).doi:10.1145/1409060.1409118

    2008

  14. [23]

    Rutzmoser, Model order reduction for nonlinear structural dynamics, Ph.D

    J. Rutzmoser, Model order reduction for nonlinear structural dynamics, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Uni- versität München (2018)

    2018

  15. [24]

    M. P. Mignolet, C. Soize, Stochastic reduced order models for uncertain geometrically nonlinear dy- namical systems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 197 (2008) 3951–3963. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2008.03.032

    2008 doi

  16. [25]

    M.Nash, Nonlinearstructuraldynamicsbyfiniteelemetnmodalsynthesis, Ph.D.thesis, ImperialCollege London (1977). 27

    1977

  17. [26]

    Y. Shi, C. Mei, A finite element time domain modal formulation for large amplitude free vibrations of beams and plates, Journal of sound and vibration 193 (2) (1996) 453–464

    1996

  18. [27]

    B. O. Almroth, P. Stern, F. A. Brogan, Automatic choice of global shape functions in structural analysis, AIAA Journal 16 (5) (1978) 525–528

    1978

  19. [28]

    A. A. Muravyov, S. A. Rizzi, Determination of nonlinear stiffness with application to random vibration of geometrically nonlinear structures, Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 1513–1523.doi:10.1016/ S0045-7949(03)00145-7

    2003

  20. [29]

    M. I. McEwan, J. R. Wright, J. E. Cooper, A. Y. Leung, A finite element/modal technique for nonlinear plate and stiffened panel response prediction, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc.,

  21. [30]

    J. J. Hollkamp, R. W. Gordon, Reduced-order models for nonlinear response prediction: Implicit con- densation and expansion, Journal of Sound and Vibration 318 (2008) 1139–1153.doi:10.1016/j. jsv.2008.04.035

    2008 doi

  22. [31]

    Perez, X

    R. Perez, X. Q. Wang, M. P. Mignolet, Nonintrusive structural dynamic reduced order modeling for large deformations: Enhancements for complex structures, Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics 9 (7 2014).doi:10.1115/1.4026155

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    X. Q. Wang, G. P. Phlipot, R. A. Perez, M. P. Mignolet, Locally enhanced reduced order modeling for the nonlinear geometric response of structures with defects, International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 101 (2018) 1–7.doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2018.01.007

    2018 doi

  24. [33]

    Perez, X

    R. Perez, X. Q. Wang, M. P. Mignolet, Reduced order modeling for the nonlinear geometric response of cracked panels, 2011.doi:10.2514/6.2011-2018

    2011 doi

  25. [34]

    Farhat, S

    C. Farhat, S. Grimberg, A. Manzoni, A. Quarteroni, et al., Computational bottlenecks for proms: precomputation and hyperreduction, Model order reduction 2 (2020) 181–244

    2020

  26. [35]

    Chaturantabut, D

    S. Chaturantabut, D. C. Sorensen, Nonlinear model reduction via discrete empirical interpolation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 32 (5) (2010) 2737–2764

    2010

  27. [36]

    Farhat, T

    C. Farhat, T. Chapman, P. Avery, Structure-preserving, stability, and accuracy properties of the energy- conserving sampling and weighting method for the hyper reduction of nonlinear finite element dynamic models, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 102 ...

    2015 doi

  28. [37]

    Trainotti, J

    F. Trainotti, J. Marinko, J. Maierhofer, D. J. Rixen, Ecsw hyperreduction of hyper-viscoelastic components via co-simulation with abaqus, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 241 (11 2024). doi:10.1016/j.finel.2024.104222

    2024

  29. [38]

    Y. Kim, S. H. Kang, H. Cho, H. Kim, S. J. Shin, Parametric reduced-order modeling enhancement for a geometrically imperfect component via hyper-reduction, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 403 (2023) 115701.doi:10.1016/J.CMA.2022.115701

    2023

  30. [39]

    Crisfield, Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Wiley, 1991

    M. Crisfield, Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Wiley, 1991

    1991

  31. [40]

    P. Tiso, M. Karamooz Mahdiabadi, J. Marconi, Modal methods for reduced order modeling, in: Model Order Reduction: Volume 1: System-and Data-Driven Methods and Algorithms, De Gruyter, 2021, pp. 97–138

    2021

  32. [41]

    Andersson, P

    L. Andersson, P. Persson, K. Persson, Efficient nonlinear reduced order modeling for dynamic analysis of flat structures, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 191 (5 2023).doi:10.1016/j.ymssp. 2023.110143

    2023

  33. [42]

    S. Jain, P. Tiso, J. B. Rutzmoser, D. J. Rixen, A quadratic manifold for model order reduction of nonlin- ear structural dynamics, Computers and Structures 188 (2017) 80–94.doi:10.1016/j.compstruc. 2017.04.005. 28

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    Weeger, U

    O. Weeger, U. Wever, B. Simeon, On the use of modal derivatives for nonlinear model order reduction, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 108 (2016) 1579–1602.doi:10.1002/ nme.5267

    2016

  35. [44]

    P. Tiso, Optimal second order reduction basis selection for nonlinear transient analysis, in: Modal Analysis Topics, Volume 3: Proceedings of the 29th IMAC, A Conference on Structural Dynamics, 2011, Springer, 2011, pp. 27–39

    2011

  36. [45]

    J. B. Rutzmoser, D. J. Rixen, P. Tiso, S. Jain, Generalization of quadratic manifolds for reduced order modeling of nonlinear structural dynamics, Computers and Structures 192 (2017) 196–209.doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.06.003

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    Vizzaccaro, L

    A. Vizzaccaro, L. Salles, C. Touzé, Comparison of nonlinear mappings for reduced-order modelling of vibrating structures: normal form theory and quadratic manifold method with modal derivatives, Nonlinear Dynamics 103 (2021) 3335–3370.doi:10.1007/s11071-020-05813-1

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    Veraszto, S

    Z. Veraszto, S. Ponsioen, G. Haller, Explicit third-order model reduction formulas for general nonlinear mechanical systems, Journal of Sound and Vibration 468 (3 2020). doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2019. 115039

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    J.Lin, X.Q.Wang, B.Wainwright, M.P.Mignolet, Improvedidentificationofstiffnesscoefficientsofnon intrusive nonlinear geometric reduced order models of structures, International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 152 (6 2023).doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2023.104380

    2023

  40. [49]

    J. C. Helton, F. J. Davis, Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 81 (1) (2003) 23–69

    2003

  41. [50]

    J. D. Schoneman, M. S. Allen, R. J. Kuether, Relationships between nonlinear normal modes and response to random inputs, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 84 (2017) 184–199.doi:10. 1016/j.ymssp.2016.07.010

    2017

  42. [51]

    M. H. Hayes, Statistical Digital Signal Processing and Modeling, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996

    1996

  43. [52]

    R. D. Buehrle, G. A. Fleming, R. S. Pappa, F. W. Grosveld, Finite element model development for aircraft fuselage structures, in: XVIII International Modal Analysis Conference, 2000. 29

    2000

  44. [2001]

    doi:10.2514/6.2001-1595

    2001 doi

  45. [2011]

    doi:10.2514/6.2011-2081

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.