4.7 Article

A non-contact acoustic pressure-based method for load identification in acoustic-structural interaction system with non-probabilistic uncertainty

期刊

APPLIED ACOUSTICS
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 223-237

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.12.034

关键词

Load identification; Acoustic-structure interaction; Non-contact; Non-probabilistic uncertainty

资金

  1. Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51621004]
  2. Opening Project of Guangxi Key Laboratory of Automobile Components and Vehicle Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology [2017GKLACVTKF01]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China [2017112059]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A non-contact acoustic pressure-based method is proposed for load identification in the acoustic structure interaction system involving non-probabilistic uncertainty. The forward problem for load identification is established through the discretized convolution integral relationship of the dynamic loads and the Green's kernel function matrix of the system. The inverse process is constructed by using truncated single value decomposition approach in order to overcome the ill-posedness of the global kernel function matrix. In this work, two non-probabilistic models including ellipsoid model and interval model are proposed to quantify the effects of the system uncertainty. Several numerical examples are investigated to verify the effectiveness of the present methods. The results show that the non-contact acoustic pressure-based method with great convenience for dynamic load identification is accurate and effective. For the system with non-probabilistic uncertainty, the ellipsoid model and interval model are the proper choices to identify the bounds with knowing only the extreme values of the parameters. Moreover, the load bounds derived from the ellipsoid model are more reliable than those derived from the interval model. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据