Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The paper considers the problem of updating an analytical model from experimental data
using the reference basis approach. In this general framework, certain parameters, e.g.
natural frequencies or modeshapes, are considered to be completely accurate and the others
are updated by solving a constrained optimization problem. The main results are
closed-form solutions to reported problems with general weighting matrices in the
optimisation criterion. The importance of this generalisation, in addition to its theoretical
value, is the ability to incorporate prior knowledge regarding the accuracy of the model
in specified areas into the method. This paper investigates also the geometrical
interpretation of the results, providing an insight to the mechanism of the updating process.
The advantages of the new updating schemes are demonstrated by means of examples.
7 1998 Academic Press Limited
1. INTRODUCTION
In modern analysis of structural dynamics, much effort is devoted to the derivation of
accurate models. These models are then used to predict the response of the system to
various excitations, boundary conditions and parameter changes. The first step is the
derivation of an analytical model, usually finite element, based on the assumed equations
of motion. When tests are performed to validate the analytical model, inevitably their
results, commonly natural frequencies and modeshapes, do not coincide with the expected
results from the theoretic model. These discrepancies stem from uncertainties regarding
the governing equations of the system, simplifying assumptions in the derivation and
inaccurate boundary conditions. Clearly one would like to have a better model, based on
both the theoretical and the experimental results. It should be noted that the experimental
results are always partial, so even if they are assumed to be absolutely accurate they cannot
be the sole source of the final model. The problem of how to modify the theoretic model
from the experimental results is known as model updating.
The model updating problem has been investigated thoroughly and many approaches
to it have been suggested. One extreme is the field of system identification which, to a
certain degree, completely disregards the analytical model. However, most approaches do
incorporate the analytical model since, as was mentioned earlier, the eigendata provided
by the experiment are incomplete. These approaches include sensitivity methods where the
dependence of the natural frequencies and the modeshapes on physical parameters is
calculated either numerically or analytically [1, 2] or by the mixed matrix approach [3]. In
[4], the rank of the error matrix, rather than the norm as in all other methods, is minimised.
Other methods use the complete frequency response function as their data [5]. An extensive
survey of model updating methods can be found in [6]. In reference basis methods [7–9],
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Let the ‘true’ equations of motion of the system be
MT ẍ(t) + KT x(t) = f (t) x $Rn (1)
where MT and KT are the exact mass and stiffness matrices, respectively, and n is the
number of degrees of freedom. The absolutely accurate model of the system is non-linear,
infinitely dimensional, etc., so ‘true’ means accurate enough for all practical purposes. The
natural frequencies and modeshapes of the system are vTi and FTi respectively. The
analytical model of the system, obtained by finite elements or any other method is given
by
MA ẍ(t) + KA x(t) = f (t) x $Rn (2)
77
where in general MA $ MT and KA $ KT (MA and KA are the analytical mass and stiffness
matrices, respectively). The result of a modal test of the system is a partial set of m Q n
natural frequencies and modeshapes vEi and fEi respectively. These quantities are arranged
in matrix form as
VE = diag{vEi }
VE = VT ,V (4)
The physical justification for this is that they are global variables, common to all
measurements in the system, and the errors in extracting them are relatively small.
The specific problems (or sub-problems) which are defined and solved in the next
sections are characterised by additional assumptions.
The problem discussed in this paper is how to combine the analytic information
(MA , KA ) and the experimental one (VE , FE ) and obtain a model which is more accurate,
i.e. closer to (MT , KT ).
FTMF = I (5)
min J = >W−1/2
k (Lk LTk − KA )W−1/2
k >2F (6)
projection matrix. Thus the correction term is the difference between M and the model
matrix pre- and post-multiplied by a projection into span(F). Notice that this
84 . .
interpretation is somewhat different from the geometric interpretation of the updated
stiffness matrix. In equation (16), K consists of the measured part corrected by the
difference between the measured and the model sitffness matrices. Here, the updated mass
matrix consists of the model matrix and corrected by the difference between the measured
part and the model matrix MA . In terms of sequential least squares, this is equivalent to
deciding which one of the two sources of information, i.e. the analytical model and the
measured modeshapes, is regarded as the ‘old estimate’ and which one is the ‘new
measurement’.
k (Lk Lk − KA )Wk }
+ 1/2 tr{(Lk LTk − KA )W−1 T −1
6. EXAMPLES
To demonstrate the advantages of the new methods, consider the six degrees of freedom
system (n = 6), presented in [12] (Fig. 1).
The true values of the masses and springs are: m1 = 1, m2 = 0.2, m3 = 0.1, m4 = 1, m5 =
0.1, m6 = 0.1; k1 = 10 000, k2 = 1500, k3 = 1250, k4 = 10 000, k5 = 10 000, k6 = 10 000,
k7 = 5000, k8 = 7000.
6.1. 1
The errors in the model are at the springs k1 (k1A = 12 000, 20% error). This example
can represent a case where the ground connections cannot be modeled exactly. One, two
k1
m1
k2 k3
m3 k6 m2
k4 k5
m4
k7 k8
m5 m6
k1 k1
T 1
Cost k for example 1
Wk One mode (×107) Two modes (×106) Three modes (×106)
MA 1.1410 9.1890 9.8981
WAP 0.8076 4.2735 4.1026
WCOM – 7.2252 6.5785
KA 1.0290 8.1234 8.6360
I 1.0803 7.2725 6.9318
88 . .
T 2
Cost m for sequential updating, example 2
Wm One mode Two modes Three modes
MA 0.0842 0.0019 0.0019
WAP 0.0735 0.0015 0.0013
WCOM – 0.0041 0.0030
I 0.0911 0.0035 0.0034
The minimal cost is always achieved in case 2, where Wk was constructed with a priori
knowledge about the modeling error at the spring K1 . If this information is unavailable,
the COMAC can be used. The costs using WCOM , KA , and I are much smaller than the
first case where WK = M, for all numbers of measured modes. Another interesting
observation is that the rate of improvement with the number of measured modes is greatest
in the COMAC based method. This is because in addition to the improvement due to the
new measurement, the weighting matrix also becomes more appropriate for the physical
situation.
6.2. 2
In this example, based on the same system, it is assumed that both MA and KA are
inaccurate. The errors in the model are: K1A = 12 000 (20% error), M1A = 1.3 and
M5A = M6A = 0.13 (30% error). The values of the COMAC for two and three modes are
1 − COMAC (2) = {64 80 93 58 58 59} × 10−4
1 − COMAC (3) = {64 13 55 50 66 63} × 10−4
The solutions are shown using the sequential and the simultaneous approaches (Sections
4 and 5, respectively). Starting with the sequential approach the first step is to find the
best weighting function for mass updating. Four weighting matrices are examined and the
results are given in Table 2. Similar to example 1,
cost m = >M − MT >2F
The results show that the best weight function for the mass updating is the analytical
mass matrix (case 1), except of course the physical weight function (case 2). The updated
mass matrix obtained in case 1 is then used for the updating of the stiffness matrix. The
same five cases of example 1 were investigated and the results are given in Table 3. The
conclusions are very much the same as those from Table 1, namely that the weighting
function based on a priori knowledge is the best choice for the stiffness updating and in
case it is unavailable the COMAC-based weighting can be used instead.
T 3
Cost k for sequential updating, example 2
Wk One mode (×107) Two modes (×106) Three modes (×106)
MA 1.2670 8.7283 8.7296
WAP 0.9381 4.3715 4.3560
WCOM – 7.5999 6.9747
KA 1.1959 7.9431 7.9231
I 1.1284 7.3110 7.1730
89
T 4
Cost k and Cost m for simultaneous updating, example 2
Wm = MA Wm = WAP
a Cost m Cost k (×10 ) 6
Cost m Cost k (×106)
a0 0.0021 8.6024 0.0015 4.3831
5a0 0.0019 8.7225 0.0013 4.3529
10a0 0.0019 8.7278 0.0013 4.3549
1 0.0319 8.2906 0.0127 5.5498
7. SUMMARY
The generalised reference basis model updating problems were defined and solved in this
paper. The generalisation is in using general weighting matrices in the optimisation
criterion while previous solutions were restricted to the mass matrix as the weight. The
free choice of the weights enables incorporation of prior knowledge and engineering
practice, or in broader terms user’s intervention, into an otherwise pure mathematical
operation. In particular, the outcome of error localisation methods can be used to
determine the weighting matrices. This brings the reference basis closer to sound
engineering considerations while keeping its simplicity and closed form solutions. The
examples in Section 6 demonstrate this point.
Another issue is the reconfiguration of the results in a meaningful form and their
interpretations. Two points of view were considered. One is geometric, involving subspaces
defined by the measurements and projection matrices into them such as FRT in Section
3 and Fq−1 m F WM in Section 4. These projections are oblique and their null spaces, or
T
‘angles’ in simpler terms, are defined by the weighting matrices. Secondly, one can think
of the two sources of data as arriving sequentially and indeed equations (16) and (55) have
the structure of recursive least squares.
The issue of positive definiteness of the updated matrices has received special attention
and the solutions guarantee this property. This was achieved by using a multiplicative
parametrisation of these matrices, rather than the additive parametrisation in previous
works which imposes only symmetry.
90 . .
REFERENCES
1. G. L, Q. Z, R. F and J. P 1987 Proceedings of the 5th IMAC,
1183–1190. A complete procedure for the adjustment of a mathematical model from the
identified complex modes.
2. G. L, J. P and S. C 1991 Proceedings of the 9th IMAC, 363–368.
Parametric correction of finite element models by minimization of an output residual:
improvement of the sensitivity method.
3. A. R. T 1972 AIAA Company Paper, 72–346. Derivation of mass and stiffness matrices
using vibration test data.
4. D. C. Z and M. K. K 1994 ASME Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 116,
222–231. Structural damage detection using a minimum rank theory update theory.
5. C.-P. F and S. Z 1991 Computers and Structures 20, 475–486. Updating of finite
element models by means of measured information.
6. J. E. M and M. I. F 1993 Journal of Sound and Vibration 16, 347–375. Model
updating in structural dynamics: a survey.
7. M. B and Y. B I 1978 AIAA Journal 16, 346–351. Optimal weighted
orthogonalization of measured modes.
8. A. B and E. J. N 1983 AIAA Journal 21, 1168–1173. Improvement of a large analytical
model using test data.
9. F.-S. W 1989 Proceedings of the 7th IMAC, 562–567. Structural dynamic model modification
using vibration test data.
10. F. H and C. F 1993 AIAA Journal 31, 1702–1711. Updating finite element dynamic
model using an element-by-element sensitivity methodology.
11. A. M. K 1985 AIAA Journal 23, 1431–1436. Stiffness matrix adjustment using mode data.
12. D. C. K 1988 AIAA Journal 26, 104–112. Optimum approximation of residual stiffness
in linear system identification.
13. R. J. A and D. L. B 1983 Proceedings of the 1st IMAC, 110–116. A correlation
coefficient for modal vector analysis.
14. N. A. L and D. J. E 1990 Proceedings of the 8th IMAC, 768–773. Error localization
and updating finite element models using singular value decomposition.
15. R. J. G 1965 AIAA Journal 3, 380. Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices.
16. H. P. G 1990 Proceedings of the 8th IMAC, 363–368. Comparison of expansion methods
of FE modeling localization.
17. C. A. B and S. W. S 1992 Journal of Optimization Theory and Application 74, 23–56.
Optimal matrix approximants in structural identification.
18. R. K and Y. H 1997 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, no.
VIB-4151. Generalised reference basis model updating in structural dynamics.