A State-Space Examination of Fictive Constraints

Dionisio Bernal1 and Omer F. Tigli2

1

Northeastern University, Center for Digital Signal Processing, Boston MA, E-mail: bernal@neu.edu
2

PhD Candidate,, Northeastern University, Boston MA, E-mail: tigli.o@neu.edu

ABSTRACT The success of any Model Updating Algorithm can be enhanced by increasing the experimental information on the tested structure. Resonant frequencies and mode shapes identified from measured data have traditionally constituted the information exploited to relate the tested system to its mathematical model. A convenient way to extract information hidden in the apparent featureless portions of the FRFs, while retaining the convenience of a contrast between model and data at resonant locations, is by introducing fictive constraints. Fictive constraints provide a view of the available data from the perspective of a modified support configuration. The traditional approach to introduce fictive grounding takes place in the frequency domain. This paper examines the matter in the context of state-space theory and contends that the alternative offers conceptual simplicity and computational convenience, especially for users more familiar with time-domain than frequency domain analysis. An item examined in the paper is how modal truncation in the original system affects the accuracy of the estimated fictive system poles.

1. Introduction As the name indicates, finite element (FE) model updating techniques seek to adjust the parameters of a FE model so that the discrepancies between its predictions and the measurements are reduced. The fundamental difficulty with FE model updating lies in the fact that the problem is often ill-conditioned because the constraints extracted from the data are limited in number and the number of free parameters (i.e., candidates for updating) is often large. Conditioning can be improved by either reducing the size of the free parameter space or by increasing the number of constraints extracted from analysis of the data. In this paper attention is placed on the second alternative, namely, on a possible increase in the number of constraints. References [1 & 2] proposed techniques to increase the number of constraints based on performing additional tests on the structure after perturbing the system in some fashion that is known; for example, by adding a known mass or a grounded spring of known stiffness at a certain coordinate. The basic idea is evident, namely, since the perturbation is known it does not add to the uncertainties yet the resonances of the perturbed structure provide constraints that can be used in updating. The disadvantage with performing complementary tests lies in the fact that these can be time consuming and expensive and, unfortunately, it is often difficult to introduce the desired modification into the structure without creating a situation that increases the uncertainties. For example, an added mass may be known but it is not a point mass, a spring may be known but the stiffness of its grounded side is not, and so on. Needless to say, the ability to perform complementary tests is not even an option for some operating conditions. An attractive alternative to complementary tests is to analytically determine the behavior for different support configurations. As one gathers, the analytical introduction of fictive constraints cannot add new information so what the approach offers is a way to look at the available information from an alternative perspective. References 3 and 4 present detailed discussion on the computation of fictive systems in the frequency domain where the basic operation is the condensation of the frequency response matrix (FRM) to enforce the selected groundings. Although simplifications are possible, in the general case of multiple groundings and non-negligible damping the identification of the fictive system poles follows by performing a modal identification using the condensed FRM. An inconvenient feature in the general solution is the fact that condensation of the FRM has to be carried out independently at each frequency line and for every fictive configuration considered. A first objective of this paper

is to illustrate an alternative treatment of the problem of introducing fictive groundings that operates in the time domain in a state-space framework. The state-space alternative is simple and can be computationally advantageous. A second objective is to examine how modal truncation affects the accuracy of the identified fictive poles. The state space framework in the time domain is examined in two variants. In the first one a realization in continuous time is obtained from the data and the realization for the fictive system is expressed in terms of appropriate partitions. The second option differs from the first in the fact that the discrimination of the system and noise modes is not carried out in the original system but independently in each of the fictive configurations considered and the way this is implemented is by extracting estimates of the discrete time Markov Parameters of the fictive system directly from those of the original system (i.e., prior to obtaining a realization). We note from the outset, however, that issues associated with the inter-sample behavior of the control forces that impose the fictive constraints introduce an error in the modal contribution to the discrete time Markov parameters of the fictive system which increases as the time step to period ratio increases. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the standard frequency domain solution and briefly notes how non self-adjoint systems are formulated. Sections 3 and 4 contain the basic derivations of the state-space form and of the estimation of the Markov parameters of the fictive system from those of the original one. The effect of truncation on the accuracy of the identified poles is examined in the context of some numerical examples in section 5. The paper concludes with a critical review of the material presented.

2. Conventional Formulation Based on Measured FRF Suppose that for a given structure a measured FRF sub-matrix [H()] is available. For the subsequent treatment we introduce the following notation: Coordinates with inputs = a b Coordinates with output measurements = a d The set a in any particular case is the subset of input coordinates where the analytical grounding is to be enforced, one has

H aa ( ) H ab ( ) f a ( ) y a ( ) H ( ) H ( ) f ( ) = y ( ) db da b d

(1)

To minimize clutter in the notation we eliminate explicit reference to in the remainder of the paper. Forcing the constraint y a = 0 one gets

H aa f a = H ab fb
from where

(2)

f a = H aa 1H ab fb
Substituting eq.3 into eq.1 gives

(3)

H db fb = y b
where

(4)

H db = H db H da H aa 1H ab

(5)

which is the FRM for the constrained system. Recognizing that the number of elements in set b has an upper bound given by the actual experimental setting but can always be taken smaller (by discarding columns in eq.1) one notes that eq.2 can also be satisfied by

fb = H ab 1H aa f a

(6)

provided that there is a subset in b equal in number to the coordinates to be grounded and that the subset is associated with a full rank H ab . The input-output map obtained after substituting eq.6 into eq.1 is

H da f a = y d
where

(7)

H da = H da H db H ab 1H aa

(8)

Given eq.5 or eq.8 one can fit a modal model to identify the poles of the realized fictive system. In a model updating setting one would attempt to minimize the discrepancy between the poles predicted by the model and those obtained from the fictive system for all the fictive configurations considered. From a mathematical perspective the poles of the model for the fictive restraints follow by solving the polynomial eigenvalue problem after removing, from the system matrices, the appropriate rows and columns. When viewed from this perspective (i.e., removal of rows and columns) there is no operational difference between the situations realized in eq.5 or eq.8. From the point of view of the physical interpretation of the constraints, however, the situations in eq.5 and eq.8 are entirely different. In particular, the condition reflected in eq.5 corresponds to the standard grounding of DOFs while that in eq.8 does not. If one is operating with the aid of conventional software for structural analysis the situation in eq.5 can be realized simply by restraining the required coordinates and there is no need to have access to the system matrices. In the situation reflected in eq.8, however, zero motion at the selected coordinates is realized in a noncollocated fashion and an interpretation in terms of added supports does not exist. Indeed, in this case the poles of the fictive system can be interpreted as those of a close-loop system where non-collocated control forces are used to cancel the response at the selected coordinates. Whether requiring access to the system matrices to compute the fictive poles is an important issue or not depends, of course, on the perspective of the user. A more theoretical import, however, is the question of sensitivity of the non-collocated (non-self-adjoint) systems to inevitable approximations in the identification and to modal truncation. Examination of this aspect, however, is outside the scope of this paper. It is opportune to note that although all the formulation presented in this section start with a measured FRF sub-matrix, if a modal model is obtained the FRM can be extended (by taking advantage of reciprocity) to the union of all the input and output coordinates, provided there is at least one collocated coordinate in the test set-up [5].

2.2 Continuous Time State-Space Formulation The input-to-state-to-output map of a linear, time-invariant, finite dimensional system can be written as

x(t ) = A c x(t ) + Bc f (t ) y (t ) = Cc x(t ) + D c f (t )

where

(9) (10)

Ac
mxr

nxn

is the system matrix,

Bc

nxr

is the input influence matrix,

nx1

Cc

mxn

is the output matrix,

Dc

is the direct transmission term and x

, f

rx1

, y

mx1

are the state, input and output vectors

respectively. Integers n, r and m refer to the order of the system and the number of input and output coordinates respectively. To reduce the clutter in the notation explicit reference to t is eliminated from this point onward. Eqs.9 and 10 can also be written in the following partitioned form

f Bb ] a f b D1a D1b f a y1 C1 = x + y 2 C 2 D 2 a D 2 b f b x = A c x + [B a

(11)

(12)

where B a and Bb are columns of the matrix B c associated with the input coordinates collected in partitions a and b, and C1 and C2 are the rows of the matrix Cc corresponding to the output coordinates contained in partitions 1 and 2 respectively. Taking y1 = 0 one finds from eq.12
f a = D1a1C1x D1a1D1b fb

(13)

And substituting eq.13 into eqs.11 and 12;

x = A c B a D1a 1C1 x + Bb B a D1a 1D1b fb y 2 = C2 D2 a D1a 1C1 x + D2b D2 a D1a 1D1b fb

or,

(14) (15)

x = A c x + B c fb y 2 = Cc x + D c f b

(16) (17)

The resonance frequencies of the generalized fictive systems can then be readily computed as the eigenvalues of the system matrix A c . Although the state-space formulation presented has been derived assuming acceleration for the measured output this does not impose any limitation on the actual measurements used. Specifically, when the measured output is velocity (or displacement), one simply differentiates the output equation and, after simple substitutions, finds the results summarized in Table 1. Table 1. State-space matrices for the generalized fictive systems when the measured output is velocity or displacement Output Vel. Disp.

Ac
v v A c B a ( C1 B a ) C1 A c 1 d d 2 A c B a ( C1 A c B a ) C1 A c 1

Bc
v v Bb B a ( C1 B a ) C1 Bb 1 d d Bb B a ( C1 A c B a ) C1 A c Bb 1

Cc
Cv 2 Cd 2

Dc

0 0

where superscripts v and d of matrix C1 denote that the measured output is velocity or displacement respectively.

3. From the Original Markov Parameters to Those of the Fictive System In the previous treatment we assumed that a realization for the original support configuration has been extracted from the data. The foregoing implies that discrimination between system and noise modes is carried out in the original system configuration. Needless to say, it would appear that a discrimination between computational and system modes done in each fictive configuration may be preferable since in this way a different look at the

complete information is done in each case. One way to do this in the time domain formulation is to extract the Markov parameters of the fictive system from those of the original system.

Discrete-Time State-Space Formulation Following an assumption for the inter-sample behavior of the input the continuous time state space formulation can be converted to a purely algebraic form which is given by

f (k ) Bb a f (k ) b f (k ) D1a D1b y1 (k ) C1 a = x( k ) + fb ( k ) y 2 ( k ) C2 D2 a D2 b x(k + 1) = Ax(k ) + B a

(18)

(19)

where the partitions are the same as described in the continuous time case. The discrete time-domain counterpart of eq.13 is thus

f a (k ) = D1a1C1x(k ) D1a1D1b fb (k )
and the counterparts of eqs.14 and 15 are clearly

(20)

x(k + 1) = A c B a D1a 1C1 x( k ) + Bb B a1D1a 1D1b fb ( k )

y 2 (k ) = C2 D2 a D1a 1C1 x(k ) + D2b D2 a D1a 1D1b fb (k )

(21) (22)

As is evident by inspection the results in Table 1 hold in discrete time by replacing the continuous-time matrices with the discrete-time counterparts.

Markov Parameters of the Fictive System The Markov parameter sequence is simply the pulse response of the system. For the initial configuration they are

Yi = CA i 1B
We introduce the following notation

(i = 1, 2,....), Y0 = D

(23)

1,1 1,2 Y0 = D1a , Y0 = D1b , Y02,1 = D2 a , Y02,2 = D2b Yi1,1 = C1 A i 1B a , Yi1,2 = C1 A i 1Bb , Yi2,1 = C2 A i 1B a , Yi2,2 = C2 A i 1Bb

Since it suffices for illustration purposes we focus on the case where measurements are velocities (the other cases follow readily using the same approach). Following the sequence for the first few Markov parameters one finds

Y1 = Y12,2 Y12,1 ( Y
2 1 i =1

Y0 = 0

(24)
1,1 1 1

Y2 = Y22,2 Y32,1 ( Y11,1 ) Yi1,2 + Y12,1 i

) Y (Y )

1,2 1

(25)
1,1 Y2 ( Y11,1 ) Y11,2 1

1,1 1 1

(26)

From where, by induction, one concludes (extended to the general case) that

j j p +1 1,1 1 Yj = Y j2,2 Yr2,1 ( Yb ) Y1,2b r + ( 1) Y j , p j+ r = min( b , j ) p =1

( j = 0,1, 2,..)

(27)

where,
j p j p a1 j p a1 a p + 2 + pb + ( p +1) b +1 p 1 j p a p + 2 ak k =1 + ( p +1) b + p 1

Yj , p =

a1 = min( b , j p ) a p + 2 = b

a2 = b +1

........

a p = b +1

1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,2 Ya2,1 ( Yb ) Ya2 ( Yb ) .....Ya p ( Yb ) Ya p+1 ( Yb ) Ya p+2 1 1 1 1 1

a p +1 = j + ( p + 1)b ak a p + 2 and b=0, 1 and 2 depending on the measured output being acceleration, k =1
p

velocity and displacement respectively. There are two points worth making here. The first one is that in computing the sequence in eq.27 it is necessary to check the behavior of the original Markov sequence to ensure that numerical round off does not destroy accuracy for the number of terms considered. Specifically, it is not unusual to find that if one tries to compute a very large number of terms, after becoming negligible the Markov parameters start growing again and eventually blow up. The second issue is to note that even if the Markov parameters of the original system are exact the ones computed from eq.27 ensure zero deformation at the constrained coordinates only at the sampled times, not continuously, and this approximation is reflected in an error that increases as the frequency of the identified fictive pole increases.

4. Effect of truncation in the Continuous time formulation The structure selected is the prismatic beam shown in fig.1. For simulation purposes the beam is modeled using 20 equal length segments (40 DOF), inertia is modeled using a consistent mass matrix and damping is taken as 5% of critical in each of the 40 modes. It is found that the undamped natural frequencies go from 1Hz to 2035Hz. The selected sampling rate is 200 Hz and in this bandwidth one finds the first 9 modes. The input is simulated as white noise and 5 displacement sensors are taken as output.

Input

Output Sensors L
Figure 1: 40 DOF beam (E=28013, I=13824, L=240, m =0.288 with consistent units) a) Noise Free Case Here we fictively ground the vertical translation DOF denoted as 1 using the collocated input. Fig.2 compares the exact point FRF for coordinate 2 with the estimates obtained from the continuous time state space model and from the system identified from the discrete time Markov parameters of the fictive system. As expected, both approximations are very accurate at the lower frequencies and error in the DTF increases with increasing frequency. In this case the error due to truncation in the accuracy of the poles estimated by the CTF is minimal (Table 2).

Figure 2: Comparison of the magnitude and phase plots of the FRF between input and output @ 2 computed from time-domain formulations and the exact solution Table 2: Poles of the fictive system computed based on CTF and DTF Fictive Poles (Exact) -0.429 - 11.364i -1.617 - 37.04i -3.577 - 77.662i -6.319 - 133.34i -9.847 - 204.11i -14.164 - 289.91i -19.268 - 390.5i -25.136 - 505.02i b) Truncation and Noise We now consider a situation where both the input and the output signals are contaminated by noise with 5% RMS of the reference signal. As in the previous case we fictively constrain DOF 1 using the collocated input. The abbreviations CTFO and CTFF are used to refer to the situations where the cleaning of the computational modes is done using the state space matrices of the original configuration (CTFO) or the fictive one (CTFF). As can be see from Table 3, in the low frequency region there is no significant difference between results but it is clear that, in this example at least, CTFO yields more accurate results than CTFF and DTF. Since errors in the estimated poles obtained from DTF are significantly larger than those in CTFO or CTFF this formulation is not recommended. Fictive Poles (CTF) -0.367 - 11.37i -1.527 + 37.063i -3.457 + 77.72i -6.168 - 133.43i -9.764 + 204.31i -14.116 - 289.96i -21.74 - 390.56i -29.125 - 500.98i Fictive Poles (DTF) -0.359 - 11.553i -1.597 - 37.958i -3.351 - 80.186i -5.231 - 138.23i -7.940 - 211.57i -11.496 - 299.15i -18.65 - 399.13i -28.685 - 506.49i CTF DTF (% error) (% error) 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.76 1.64 2.47 3.23 3.63 3.61 3.14 2.20 0.33

Table 3: Poles of the fictive system computed based on CTFO, CTFF, DTF and the associated % errors Fictive Poles (Exact) -0.429 - 11.364i -1.617 - 37.04i -3.577 - 77.662i -6.319 - 133.34i -9.847 - 204.11i -14.164 - 289.91i -19.268 - 390.5i -25.136 - 505.02i
1

Fictive Poles (CTFO) -0.431 + 11.378i -1.581 - 37.034i -3.500 - 77.654i -6.066 + 133.32i -9.377 203.93i -14.956 290.31i -30.274 + 394.93i -26.873 + 496.75i

Fictive Poles (CTFF) -0.972 + 11.373i -2.480 - 37.136i -4.396 - 78.187i -6.386 + 133.31i -11.274 - 207.39i -9.027 - 289.78i -20.080 + 392.96i N/A

Fictive Poles (DTF) -0.588 - 11.549i -1.613 - 38.144i -3.326 - 80.442i -5.560 - 137.93i -4.390 - 214.36i -9.560 - 299.21i -22.883 - 399.26i -30.725 - 494.74i

CTFO CTFF DTF (% error)1 (% error)1 (% error)1 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.15 1.31 1.62 0.37 0.39 0.73 0.02 1.64 0.12 0.64 N/A 1.69 2.98 3.56 3.41 4.92 3.14 2.29 1.97

computed from the modulus of the poles.

5. Conclusion Accepting that fictive constraints are introduced after a modal model is fitted to the data it is evident that all that is being done with this operation is to take an alternative look at the available information. Since the poles obtained for the fictive system depend on the poles and eigenvectors of the original configuration the ultimate question if whether the original poles augmented by the fictive poles provide a knowledge space that has less variance than the poles and mode shapes of the original system. The question, of course, is not a simple one to answer since there are many alternatives on how to incorporate the information into the cost function. One apparent advantage of the fictive poles option, however, is the fact that decisions on weights for incorporation the information in the cost function are much simpler than when modes are used. The argument for fictive constraints as potentially bringing new information because noise and computational modes may look different from different configurations is independent of the previous arguments and is one that, in the opinion of the writers, deserves some further attention experimentally. Apart from this important item, however, the question of the variance of the knowledge space connected with poles and eigenvectors or poles augmented by fictive poles appears worthy of analytical examination.

References [1] Nalitolela, N. G., Penny J. E. T. and Friswell M. I., Updating structural parameters of a finite element model by adding mass or stiffness to the system, Proceedings of the 7th IMAC, Orlando, U.S.A., pp. 836-842, 1990. [2] Lammens S., Heylen W., Sas P. and Brown D. Model updating and perturbed boundary condition testing, Proceedings of the 11th IMAC,Orlando, U.S.A., pp. 449-455, 1993. [3] Lallement, G. and Cogan. S. Reconciliation between measured and calculated dynamic behaviors: Enlargement of the knowledge space. Proceedings of the 10th IMAC, San Diego, CA, pp. 487493, February 1992. [4] Rade, D. A. and Lallement, G., A Strategy for the Enrichment of the Experimental Data as Applied to an Inverse Eigensensitivity - based FE Model Updating Method, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 12(2), pp. 293-307,1998. [5] Bernal, D., and Tigli, O., On the Analytical Expansion of Transfer Matrices, Proceedings of the 24th IMAC, St. Louis, MO, On CD, February 2006.