pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22732 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA· physics.comp-ph

Craig-Bampton-based Quadratic Manifold for Nonlinear Substructuring

Alexander Saccani , Paolo Tiso This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 10:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NAphysics.comp-ph
keywords nonlinear substructuringCraig-Bampton methodquadratic manifoldreduced-order modelgeometric nonlinearitycomponent mode synthesisGalerkin projectionperturbation analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

A quadratic manifold extends Craig-Bampton substructuring to geometrically nonlinear structures.

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

The paper develops a nonlinear extension of the Craig-Bampton method that builds a quadratic reduction manifold from perturbation analysis. High-frequency fixed-interface modes are statically condensed onto a reduced set of low-frequency modes and interface coordinates, so geometric nonlinear effects enter the model without adding degrees of freedom. Galerkin projection onto the tangent space of this manifold produces a polynomial reduced-order model that integrates efficiently in time while preserving the Lagrangian structure and energy consistency of the original finite-element system. Readers care because the approach keeps the modularity of classical substructuring for assemblies whose components exhibit geometric nonlinearity.

Core claim

The authors construct a quadratic manifold in which high-frequency fixed-interface modes are statically condensed onto low-frequency modes and interface coordinates via perturbation analysis. Galerkin projection onto the tangent space of this manifold yields the Nonlinear Craig-Bampton reduced-order model, which has a polynomial structure suitable for efficient time integration and preserves the Lagrangian structure of the finite element model.

What carries the argument

The quadratic reduction manifold derived via perturbation analysis, with high-frequency fixed-interface modes statically condensed onto low-frequency modes and interface coordinates.

If this is right

  • The NL-CB model captures the essential nonlinear dynamic response of representative structural systems.
  • The polynomial structure of the reduced equations allows efficient time integration.
  • Lagrangian structure is preserved, ensuring consistent energetic behavior and numerical stability.
  • Modularity and computational efficiency of classical substructuring remain available for nonlinear problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same condensation idea could be tested on other component-mode-synthesis bases beyond Craig-Bampton to see whether quadratic manifolds generalize.
  • Combining multiple NL-CB components might enable simulation of very large nonlinear assemblies while keeping the reduced dimension low.
  • Structures with stronger or different nonlinearities could be used to map the practical range where the quadratic approximation remains accurate.

Load-bearing premise

The quadratic manifold obtained by condensing high-frequency fixed-interface modes onto low-frequency modes and interface coordinates is sufficient to capture the essential geometric nonlinear effects for the targeted structures.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison of time responses from the NL-CB reduced model against a full-order nonlinear finite-element simulation on one of the demonstrated structures, checking whether the essential nonlinear dynamics match within engineering accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22732 by Alexander Saccani, Paolo Tiso.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flat clamped-clamped beam withvon Kármán nonlinearities. In (a), FE assembly partitioned in two substructures view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Accuracy of the CB ROM in predicting the vibration of the flat clamped-clamped von Kármán beam subjected view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Response of a curved, clamped-clamped beam, investigated using the NL-CB ROM. In (a), FE assembly of the beam, view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nonlinear CB ROM used for investigating the response of a clamped flat panel to uniform acoustic pressure. In (a) view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NL-CB ROM tested on a MEMS gyroscope. In (a) FE model of the MEMs gyroscope, partitioned into substructures view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Component Mode Synthesis methods, such as the Craig-Bampton (CB) approach, are widely used in structural dynamics due to their modularity and compatibility with substructuring workflows. While highly effective for linear systems, extending these methods to geometrically nonlinear structures remains a significant challenge. In this work, we propose a nonlinear extension of the CB method tailored to such contexts. The approach is based on the construction of a quadratic reduction manifold, derived via perturbation analysis, in which high-frequency fixed-interface modes are statically condensed onto a reduced set of low-frequency modes and interface coordinates. This formulation enables the representation of geometric nonlinear effects without increasing the number of reduced degrees of freedom.The resulting Nonlinear Craig-Bampton (NL-CB) reduced-order model is obtained through Galerkin projection onto the tangent space of the manifold and admits a polynomial structure that is efficient for time integration. The formulation preserves the Lagrangian structure of the underlying finite element model, ensuring consistent energetic behavior and numerical stability.The proposed method is demonstrated on representative nonlinear structural systems of increasing complexity. The results show that the NL-CB model captures the essential nonlinear dynamic response while retaining the modularity and computational efficiency of classical substructuring approaches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a nonlinear extension of the Craig-Bampton (CB) method for geometrically nonlinear structures. High-frequency fixed-interface modes are statically condensed onto a reduced set of low-frequency modes and interface coordinates via a quadratic manifold derived from perturbation analysis. The Nonlinear Craig-Bampton (NL-CB) reduced-order model is then obtained by Galerkin projection onto the tangent space of this manifold. The resulting model has a polynomial structure suitable for time integration and preserves the Lagrangian structure of the underlying finite-element model, ensuring energetic consistency and numerical stability. The approach is demonstrated on representative nonlinear structural systems of increasing complexity, with the claim that it captures essential nonlinear dynamic response while retaining the modularity and efficiency of classical substructuring.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would provide a modular and computationally efficient framework for nonlinear substructuring that extends classical component-mode synthesis without increasing the number of reduced degrees of freedom. The explicit preservation of the Lagrangian structure is a notable strength, as it guarantees consistent energetic behavior and stability without ad-hoc corrections. The polynomial form of the reduced equations further supports efficient time integration, addressing a practical need in structural dynamics for systems exhibiting geometric nonlinearities.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 (Manifold Construction)] §3 (Manifold Construction): The quadratic manifold is obtained by perturbation-based static condensation of high-frequency fixed-interface modes. The manuscript does not supply the explicit perturbation equations nor an a priori error bound on the truncation of higher-order (cubic and beyond) terms. Because geometric nonlinearities in beams, plates, and shells routinely produce such terms, the sufficiency of the quadratic approximation for the amplitude ranges of interest is load-bearing for the claim that the NL-CB model captures the essential nonlinear response.
  2. [§5 (Numerical Demonstrations)] §5 (Numerical Demonstrations): The results are stated to show that the NL-CB model captures the essential nonlinear dynamic response, yet no quantitative error metrics (e.g., relative L2 displacement or energy errors versus the full-order model) or baseline comparisons with other nonlinear reduction techniques are reported. Without these, the accuracy and efficiency claims cannot be rigorously assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'representative nonlinear structural systems of increasing complexity' without naming the specific structures or loading conditions; adding these details would improve clarity for readers.
  2. [§2] Notation for the reduced coordinates and manifold parameters would benefit from a compact symbol table or explicit listing in the method section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 (Manifold Construction)] The quadratic manifold is obtained by perturbation-based static condensation of high-frequency fixed-interface modes. The manuscript does not supply the explicit perturbation equations nor an a priori error bound on the truncation of higher-order (cubic and beyond) terms. Because geometric nonlinearities in beams, plates, and shells routinely produce such terms, the sufficiency of the quadratic approximation for the amplitude ranges of interest is load-bearing for the claim that the NL-CB model captures the essential nonlinear response.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit perturbation equations should be supplied for clarity. The quadratic manifold follows from a standard perturbation expansion of the nonlinear equations of motion restricted to the fixed-interface modes, yielding a quadratic correction term in the low-frequency modes and interface coordinates. We will insert the full perturbation equations into the revised §3. Deriving a general a priori error bound on the truncation of cubic and higher terms is non-trivial for arbitrary geometric nonlinearities without further assumptions on the structure or loading; we therefore rely on the numerical evidence in §5 to support sufficiency within the amplitude ranges examined. We will add a short discussion of the expected truncation error and its practical implications in the revised manuscript. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§5 (Numerical Demonstrations)] The results are stated to show that the NL-CB model captures the essential nonlinear dynamic response, yet no quantitative error metrics (e.g., relative L2 displacement or energy errors versus the full-order model) or baseline comparisons with other nonlinear reduction techniques are reported. Without these, the accuracy and efficiency claims cannot be rigorously assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge that quantitative error metrics and baseline comparisons would strengthen the validation. In the revised §5 we will report relative L2 displacement and energy errors between the NL-CB model and the full-order finite-element solution for each example. We will also add comparisons against at least one established nonlinear reduction method (e.g., nonlinear modal analysis) to provide a direct baseline for accuracy and computational cost. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: manifold from independent perturbation analysis, projection is standard

full rationale

The derivation begins with a quadratic manifold obtained from perturbation analysis that statically condenses high-frequency fixed-interface modes onto low-frequency modes plus interface coordinates; this step is an explicit asymptotic expansion independent of the final ROM performance. Galerkin projection onto the manifold's tangent space then yields the polynomial NL-CB model while preserving the Lagrangian structure. Neither step invokes a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, a self-citation load-bearing uniqueness claim, or an ansatz smuggled from prior work by the same authors. The abstract and reader's summary confirm the chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, with no reduction of outputs to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that perturbation analysis yields a quadratic manifold adequate for condensing high-frequency nonlinear effects, plus the standard assumption that Galerkin projection onto the manifold tangent space preserves the essential dynamics.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Perturbation analysis produces a quadratic manifold that accurately condenses high-frequency fixed-interface modes onto low-frequency modes and interface coordinates for geometric nonlinearity
    Invoked to construct the reduction manifold without increasing reduced degrees of freedom.
  • standard math Galerkin projection onto the manifold tangent space yields a polynomial reduced-order model that preserves the Lagrangian structure
    Used to obtain the final NL-CB equations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5507 in / 1406 out tokens · 27505 ms · 2026-05-08T10:33:02.298073+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. J. Guyan, Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices, AIAA Journal 3 (2) (1965) 380–380. doi:10.2514/3.2874

    work page doi:10.2514/3.2874 1965

  2. [2]

    Irons, Structural eigenvalue problems - elimination of unwanted variables, AIAA Journal 3 (5) (1965) 961–962

    B. Irons, Structural eigenvalue problems - elimination of unwanted variables, AIAA Journal 3 (5) (1965) 961–962. doi:10.2514/3.3027. 27

    work page doi:10.2514/3.3027 1965

  3. [3]

    W. C. Hurty, Dynamic analysis of structural systems using component modes, AIAA Journal 3 (1965) 678–685. doi:10.2514/3.2947

    work page doi:10.2514/3.2947 1965

  4. [4]

    R. R. Craig, M. C. C. Bampton, Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses., AIAA Journal 6 (7) (1968) 1313–1319. doi:10.2514/3.4741

    work page doi:10.2514/3.4741 1968

  5. [5]

    Rubin, Improved component-mode representation for structural dynamic analysis, AIAA Journal 13 (1975) 995–1006

    S. Rubin, Improved component-mode representation for structural dynamic analysis, AIAA Journal 13 (1975) 995–1006. doi:10.2514/3.60497

    work page doi:10.2514/3.60497 1975

  6. [6]

    J. D. Deaton, R. V. Grandhi, Significance of geometric nonlinearity in the design of thermally loaded structures, in: Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 52, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc., 2015, pp. 1226–1234. doi:10.2514/1.C032872

    work page doi:10.2514/1.c032872 2015

  7. [7]

    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

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4026155 2014

  8. [8]

    Y. Fan, Y. Zhang, M. Q. Niu, L. Q. Chen, An internal resonance piezoelectric energy har- vester based on geometrical nonlinearities, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 211 (4 2024). doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2024.111176

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2024.111176 2024

  9. [9]

    X. L. Jia, J. Yang, S. Kitipornchai, C. W. Lim, Resonance frequency response of geometrically nonlin- ear micro-switches under electrical actuation, Journal of Sound and Vibration 331 (2012) 3397–3411. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2012.02.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2012.02.026 2012

  10. [10]

    D. J. Segalman, Modelling joint friction in structural dynamics, Structural Control and Health Moni- toring 13 (2006) 430–453. doi:10.1002/stc.119

    work page doi:10.1002/stc.119 2006

  11. [11]

    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.,

    work page

  12. [12]

    doi:10.2514/6.2001-1595

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2001-1595 2001

  13. [13]

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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2008.04.035 2008

  14. [14]

    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

    work page doi:10.1016/0045-7825(85)90125-2 1985

  15. [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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107126 2021

  16. [16]

    K. Kim, A. G. Radu, X. Q. Wang, M. P. Mignolet, Nonlinear reduced order modeling of isotropic and functionally graded plates, International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 49 (2013) 100–110. doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2012.07.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2012.07.008 2013

  17. [17]

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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.04.005 2017

  18. [18]

    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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2017.06.003 2017

  19. [19]

    S. Jain, G. Haller, How to compute invariant manifolds and their reduced dynamics in high-dimensional finite element models, Nonlinear dynamics 107 (2) (2022) 1417–1450

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    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. 28

    work page doi:10.1007/s11071-020-05813-1 2021

  21. [21]

    M. S. Allen, D. Rixen, M. van der Seijs, P. Tiso, T. Abrahamsson, R. L. Mayes, Substructuring in Engi- neering Dynamics: Emerging Numerical and Experimental Techniques, 1st Edition, CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2019. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25532-9. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25532-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-25532-9 2019

  22. [22]

    R. J. Kuether, M. S. Allen, J. J. Hollkamp, Modal substructuring of geometrically nonlinear finite- element models, AIAA Journal 54 (2016) 691–702. doi:10.2514/1.J054036

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j054036 2016

  23. [23]

    Krattiger, L

    D. Krattiger, L. Wu, M. Zacharczuk, M. Buck, R. J. Kuether, M. S. Allen, P. Tiso, M. R. Brake, Inter- face reduction for hurty/craig-bampton substructured models: Review and improvements, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 114 (2019) 579–603. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.05.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.05.031 2019

  24. [24]

    R. J. Kuether, M. S. Allen, J. J. Hollkamp, Modal substructuring of geometrically nonlinear finite element models with interface reduction, AIAA Journal 55 (5) (2017) 1695–1706. doi:10.2514/1.J055215

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j055215 2017

  25. [25]

    M. K. Mahdiabadi, A. Bartl, D. Xu, P. Tiso, D. J. Rixen, An augmented free-interface-based modal substructuring for nonlinear structural dynamics including interface reduction, Journal of Sound and Vibration 462 (12 2019). doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2019.114915

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2019.114915 2019

  26. [26]

    Hippold, J

    P. Hippold, J. Gross, M. Krack, A sub-structuring approach for model reduction of friction- ally clamped thin-walled structures, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 229 (4 2025). doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2025.112482

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2025.112482 2025

  27. [27]

    K. Park, M. S. Allen, A gaussian process regression reduced order model for geometrically nonlinear structures, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 184 (2 2023). doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109720

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109720 2023

  28. [28]

    Y. Shen, N. Béreux, A. Frangi, C. Touzé, Reduced order models for geometrically nonlinear structures: Assessment of implicit condensation in comparison with invariant manifold approach, European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids 86 (3 2021). doi:10.1016/j.euromechsol.2020.104165

    work page doi:10.1016/j.euromechsol.2020.104165 2021

  29. [29]

    Wenneker, P

    F. Wenneker, P. Tiso, A substructuring method for geometrically nonlinear structures, in: M. Allen, R. Mayes, D. Rixen (Eds.), Dynamics of Coupled Structures, Volume 1, Springer International Publish- ing, Cham, 2014, pp. 157–165

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11044-015-9476-5 2016

  31. [31]

    L. Wu, P. Tiso, K. Tatsis, E. Chatzi, F. van Keulen, A modal derivatives enhanced rubin substructuring method for geometrically nonlinear multibody systems, Multibody System Dynamics 45 (2019) 57–85. doi:10.1007/s11044-018-09644-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11044-018-09644-2 2019

  32. [32]

    Mashayekhi, S

    F. Mashayekhi, S. Zucca, Modal derivatives for efficient vibration prediction of geometrically nonlinear structures with friction contact, Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 14 (5 2024). doi:10.3390/app14093936

    work page doi:10.3390/app14093936 2024

  33. [33]

    T. A. Bui, J. Park, J. S. Kim, A reduced-order model for geometrically nonlinear curved beam struc- tures with substructuring techniques, International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 162 (6 2024). doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2024.104724

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2024.104724 2024

  34. [34]

    Tiso, Optimal second order reduction basis selection for nonlinear transient analysis, in: T

    P. Tiso, Optimal second order reduction basis selection for nonlinear transient analysis, in: T. Proulx (Ed.), Modal Analysis Topics, Volume 3, Springer New York, New York, NY, 2011, pp. 27–39

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    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 dy- namic models, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 102 (2015) 1077–1110. doi:10.1002/nme.4820

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.4820 2015

  36. [36]

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

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

    work page 1991

  37. [37]

    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. 29

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2008.03.032 2008

  38. [38]

    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)

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    R. R. Craig Jr, M. C. Bampton, Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses., AIAA journal 6 (7) (1968) 1313–1319

    work page 1968

  40. [40]

    M. P. Castanier, Y.-C. Tan, C. Pierre, Characteristic constraint modes for component mode synthesis, AIAA Journal (2001) 39doi:10.1115/1.1338948. URLhttps://hal.science/hal-01537673v1

    work page doi:10.1115/1.1338948 2001

  41. [41]

    S. K. Hong, B. I. Epureanu, M. P. Castanier, Next-generation parametric reduced-order models, Me- chanical Systems and Signal Processing 37 (2013) 403–421. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2012.12.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2012.12.012 2013

  42. [42]

    Lindberg, N

    E. Lindberg, N. E. Hörlin, P. Göransson, Component mode synthesis using undeformed interface coupling modes to connect soft and stiff substructures, Shock and Vibration 20 (2013) 157–170. doi:10.3233/SAV-2012-0734. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3233/SAV-2012-0734

    work page doi:10.3233/sav-2012-0734 2013

  43. [43]

    Géradin, D

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

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    Kerschen, M

    G. Kerschen, M. Peeters, J. C. Golinval, A. F. Vakakis, Nonlinear normal modes, part i: A useful framework for the structural dynamicist, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 23 (2009) 170–194. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2008.04.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2008.04.002 2009

  45. [45]

    Haller, S

    G. Haller, S. Ponsioen, Nonlinear normal modes and spectral submanifolds: existence, uniqueness and use in model reduction, Nonlinear dynamics 86 (3) (2016) 1493–1534

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    doi:10.1002/nme.5267

    O.Weeger, U.Wever, B.Simeon, Ontheuseofmodalderivativesfornonlinearmodelorderreduction, In- ternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 108 (2016) 1579–1602. doi:10.1002/nme.5267

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.5267 2016

  47. [47]

    Zeidler, Nonlinear Functional Analysis and Its Applications I: Fixed-Point Theorems, Vol

    E. Zeidler, Nonlinear Functional Analysis and Its Applications I: Fixed-Point Theorems, Vol. 1 of Nonlinear Functional Analysis and Its Applications, Springer, New York, 1986

    work page 1986

  48. [48]

    Saccani, P

    A. Saccani, P. Tiso, Accelerating construction of nonintrusive nonlinear structural dynamics reduced- order models through hyperreduction, AIAA Journal (2025) 1–18doi:10.2514/1.j065177

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j065177 2025

  49. [49]

    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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11071-021-06496-y 2021

  50. [50]

    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 (2013) 2437–2460. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2012.10.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2012.10.017 2013

  51. [51]

    S. Z. Fard, P. Tiso, P. Omidvar, M. Serra-Garcia, Embodying computation in nonlinear perturbative metamaterials (9 2025). URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2509.01625

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    S. Jain, J. Marconi, P. Tiso, Yetanotherfecode (2021). 30

    work page 2021