Mechanics Research Communications, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp.

543-55 I, 2000
Copyright © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0093-6413/O01$-see front matter
PII: S0093-6413(00)00128-2

MODEL UPDATING USING CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION

S. V. Modak, T. K. Kundra and B. C. Nakra

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi, 110016, India

(Received 29 March 2000; acceptedfor print 7 August 2000)

Introduction

Availability of an accurate dynamic finite element model of a structure is very important to

design engineers as it allows them to improve the dynamic design of the structure at computer
level resulting in an optimized design apart from savings in terms of money and time. But there
may be some inaccuracies or uncertainties that may be associated with a finite element model.
The Discretisation error, arising due to approximation of a continuous structure by a finite
number of individual elements, is inherent to the finite element technique. While other
inaccuracies may be due to the assumptions and simplifications made by the analyst with regards
to the choice of elements, modelling of boundary conditions, joints, etc. This is reflected in the
difference between finite element model predictions and the dynamic test data. Given the
availability of an accurate data acquisition and measuring equipment the measured test data,
though may not be precise, is generally considered to be more accurate than analytical model
predictions. The modal testing and modal extraction methods, [1,2], are also well developed for
obtaining a reliable estimate of the modal data. This has formed the basis for adjustment or
correction of a finite element model, in the light of measured test data, which is referred as
model updating.
A number of model updating methods have been proposed in recent years as shown in the
surveys [3,4] and the details of number of them can be found in the text [5]. The model updating
methods can be broadly classified into direct methods, which are essentially non-iterative ones,
and the iterative methods. A significant number of methods, [6,7,8], which were first to emerge,
belonged to the direct category. These methods update directly the elements of stiffness and
mass matrices and are one step procedures. The resulting updated matrices though reproduce
measured modal data exactly but do not generally maintain structural connectivity and the
corrections suggested are not physically meaningful. Iterative methods have generally been
based on either modal data or frequency response function (FRF) data. Analytical model
updating using modal data in an iterative framework was first proposed in [9]. The updating
equations were based on the first order approximation for the eigenvalues and the eigenvectors in
terms of updating parameters. In [10] a matrix perturbation technique for recalculation of
eigensolution and evaluation of eigendata sensitivities has been used. The effect of including
543
544 S.V. MODAK, T. K. KUNDRA and B. C. NAKRA

second order eigendata sensitivities was studied in [11]. Recently in [12] it is proposed to employ
both analytical and experimental modal data for evaluating sensitivity coefficients with the
objective of improving convergence and widening the applicability of method to cases where
there is higher error magnitude.
There have been attempts to use directly the measured FRF data for identifying the system
matrices as done in [13]. In [14] a method, named as Response function method (RFM), has been
developed which uses measured FRF data to update an analytical model.
Parameterization of a finite element model is one of the important issues. Generic element mass
and stiffness matrices have been introduced in [15] while in [16] this formulation has been
applied to the problem of joint identification. A strategy for parameterization of a welded joint
and a clamped end has been proposed in [17] and the parameters updated by sensitivity method.
Similarly in [ 18] the methods of parameter subset selection has been extended to the selection of
groups of parameters.
Model updating using genetic algorithms has been proposed in [ 19,20] as it is expected that the
genetic algorithms would help to find the global minimum. An updating approach using neural
networks based on FRF-data is proposed in [21].
Iterative method using modal data, which has also been referred as inverse eigensensitivity
method (IESM) in the literature, has been among the more successful methods of model
updating. This is mostly because of the flexibility it offers in the choice of updating parameters.
In this paper a new model updating method, named as model updating using constrained
optimization, which seeks to improve the correlation between the analytical and the measured
modal data is introduced. The proposed method involves framing of finite element model
updating problem as a constrained nonlinear optimization problem which when solved yields
corrections to the selected updating parameters. An objective function quantifying the difference
between analytical and measured natural frequencies and mode shapes is minimized subjected to
inequality constraints based on bounds on updating parameters and values of Modal assurance
criterion (MAC) [22].
Some numerical test cases have been presented which were conducted to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the proposed method. Updating using IESM has also been performed with the
intention of assessing the performance of the proposed method.

Theory_

The proposed model updating method is first described in this section. This is followed by a brief
description of the Inverse eigensensitivity method (IESM).

a) Proposed method of model updating using constrained optimization:

In the proposed method the problem of updating of a finite element model in the light of
measured data is framed as a constrained optimization problem. The development of the
objective function and the constraints based on modal data, namely natural frequencies and mode
shapes, is explained below.

Let {f~} and {fA} be the vectors of measured and analytical natural frequencies to be used in
updating. These vectors can be established by first identifying correlated mode pairs (CMPs),
which is essentially a list indicating correspondence between measured and analytical modes,
using a correlation tool like Modal assurance criterion (MAC). The Euclidean norm-based
normalized percentage error in natural frequencies is written as,
 MODEL UPDATING USING OPTIMIZATION 545

IIG }- LfAI1×100 (1)

Equation (1) represents error in natural frequencies in an average sense. The total percentage
error in m number of natural frequencies will be,

c, = m x F I (2)

The norm-based normalized percentage error in m number of mode shapes is written as,

(3)

Where {qSx}i a n d {@A}i are the i TMsimulated experimental and analytical mode shape vectors. The
term inside summation sign in equation (3) represents an average error in one measured
coordinate of iTMmode shape vector. Multiplication of this term by n, the number of measured
coordinates, gives a measure of error in an entire ith mode-shape-vector. In this way the total
percentage error in m number of mode shapes can be written as,

~'2 = n x F 2 (4)

The objective function to be minimized, based on error in natural frequencies and mode shapes
given by equations (2) and (4) respectively, is constructed as,

e(u) = ~ × e, + G × e2 (5)

Wl and W2 in equation (5) are the weights to be given to the natural frequencies-based and the
mode shapes-based errors.

Two sets of constraints are imposed on the objective function to be minimized. The first set of
constraints are the lower and upper bounds on the vector of correction factors {u}, whose
elements represent the unknown fractional corrections to be made to the chosen updating
variables, and is written as,

{u}L s <_ {u}< {u}v s (6)

The second set of constraints seeks to put a lower bound on the MAC-values of the modes used
in updating. This set of constraints are imposed to ensure that the level of correlation between
measured and analytical modes shapes, represented by MAC-value, existing before updating is at
least retained after updating. The constraint for ith CMP is given by following inequality,
546 S.V. MODAK, T. K. KUNDRA and B. C. NAKRA

Where right and left side of the inequality represents MAC-value corresponding to i th CMP
before updating and at jth iteration respectively. If the unconstrained version of the method is
used, where the MAC-value constraints are not imposed, then CMPs will have to be established
at each iteration. The MAC-value is calculated as,

(8)

The objective function given by equation (5) is minimized subjected to inequality constraints
given by equation (6) and (7). The analytical natural frequencies and mode shapes appearing in
the objective function and constraints are related to analytical stiffness matrix [KA] and analytical
mass matrix [MA] by an eigenvalue problem, which for i th mode is written as,

= ,VA[M.]{O.}' (9)

Where ~A=(2"/~fA)2. The [KA] and [MA] are in turn the functions of the selected updating
parameters. The optimization problem is solved using routine for constrained minimization of
nonlinear functions available in MATLAB. The routine is based on sequential quadratic
programming in which at every iteration a quadratic programming sub-problem is formulated
and solved. This requires the first and second order derivatives of the objective function and the
constraints. The first order derivatives were derived and supplied to the routine while the Hessian
matrix, the matrix of second order derivatives, is constructed by the routine itself.

b) Inverse eigensensitivity method (IESM):

The updating equations for this method are based on linear approximation of the modal data
using Taylor's series expansion. For r th eigenvalue (square of the r th natural frequency in
rad./sec.) and r th eigenvector (the mode shape), linearisation gives,

;or. = ,~ ~
""fOX " /'p , ) (10)

{:}i ={:}; + Z {: }, .Ap, (i1)

Where the eigenvalue and eigenvector derivatives can be calculated from the relationships
derived in [23]. Api is a small change in the i th updating parameter Pl, which are nu in numbers.
Equation (10) and (11) can be written for all the modes to be used in updating. These equations
together, after dividing and multiplying by Pi and then writing ui in place of Api/p,, can be written
in the following matrix form,

[sL+,, .... {uLx, = 12)

 MODEL UPDATING USING OPTIMIZATION 547

The sensitivity matrix [S] depends on the eigenvalue and eigenvector derivatives and current
values of the updating parameters while vector .{AZ} contains difference of experimental and
current analytical model natural frequencies and mode shapes. The order of rows in [S]
corresponding to eigenvalues is not the same as the order of the rows corresponding to mode
shapes. To improve the numerical condition, balancing is done by dividing the rows relating to
the eigenvalues on both the sides in equation (12) by the corresponding eigenvalue. The above
balanced equation can be solved in a least square way. The {u} so found is used to update vector
of physical variables {p} and then the updated version of analytical finite element model is built
using these new set of physical variables. Due to the use of linear approximation, in equation
(10) and (11), the updating is carried out in an iterative way until convergence is obtained. The
accuracy of the measured data can be taken into account in the form of a weighting matrix [W],
in which case the solution for {u} is given by,

{u} = (Isl [wlsl)-'[sI l{ z} (13)

Description of the case study

Updating of an undamped finite element model of a simple but representative fixed-fixed beam
structure using simulated experimental data is considered to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
proposed method. The dimensions of the beam are 9100x50x5 mm and it is modeled using thirty
beam elements with node at ends fixed giving a total of 29 nodes each having three degrees of
freedom, axial, lateral and rotational. The simulated experimental natural frequency and mode
shape data is obtained by generating a finite element model by introducing certain known
discrepancies in the thickness of all the finite elements with respect to the analytical model the
details of which are given in TABLE 1.
The proposed method has been evaluated for the cases of complete, incomplete and noisy data
since the real life measured data is always incomplete, as it is not realistic to measure all the
coordinates specified in the analytical finite element model, and always contains some
measurement noise. Two levels of incompleteness are considered by assuming that only lateral
degrees of freedom, at all the 29 nodes and then at 15 nodes selected alternately, are measured.
This has been referred as cases of 33.33% and 17.24% incomplete data respectively, the
percentages being calculated as number of measured coordinates divided by total number of
degrees of freedom of the model. The noise is simulated by adding 2% and 0.2% random error to
mode shapes and natural frequencies respectively.
The performance of the proposed method is judged on the basis of the accuracy with which the
discrepancies between the analytical and the simulated experimental model are predicted. The
percentage average error in the vector of correction factors {u} (AECF) is calculated as error in
the predicted correction factors as a percentage of the known exact correction factors as given by
following expression,

nu

Zabs(uexAcr --ueREotcreo)i
AECF = i ~. x 1O0 (14)
Eabs(uExAcr)i
i
548 S.V. MODAK, T. K. KUNDRA and B. C. NAKRA

Results and discussion

For all the test cases reported here the lower and upper bound values in equation (6) are taken as
-0.5 and 0.5 respectively and solved by taking first six simulated experimental natural
frequencies and mode shapes as the available measured data unless stated otherwise. The
thickness of each finite element is taken as an updating parameter resulting in thirty number of
unknowns. The case of complete data is considered first in which all the degrees of freedom
specified in the finite element model are assumed to be known. The discrepancies are predicted
exactly as seen in FIG. (1) showing the bar chart for the estimated values of the correction
factors, Considering the case of 33.33% incomplete data the discrepancies are again predicted
exactly. In quantified terms this is indicated by the value of the index AECF which is found to be
2e-05%.
For the case of 17.24% incomplete data the analytical finite element model has also been updated
using the balanced version oflESM. Since there is no noise the weights W1 and W2 in equation
(5) are taken as unity and similarly no weighting is considered for IESM as well. FIG. (2) shows
comparison of the predicted correction factors obtained by the proposed method and the IESM.
The predictions obtained by the proposed method are almost exact, as can be seen when
compared to FIG. (1), while those obtained by IESM are relatively more in error. Updating is
also performed with 5 and 4 number of simulated experimental modes used in updating in
addition to the case involving 6 modes. This is done to see the effect on the performance of the
algorithm when fewer number of modes are available. TABLE 2 gives a comparison of values of
error index AECF after updating obtained by the proposed method and IESM when 4,5 and 6
simulated experimental modes are used. It is seen that the error in predictions obtained by IESM
are on much higher side as compared to that obtained by the proposed method. The higher level
of error in case of IESM is primarily due to the insufficient weightage the mode shapes receive
as compared to the natural frequencies. This is on account of large difference between
sensitivities of mode shapes and natural frequencies with former being on the lower side. A
Mode shape contains a relatively more detailed modal domain description of the structure than
the corresponding natural frequency which being just a single number can be said to be more of a
global property of the structure. The use of mode shape information, it seems, is therefore
important to guide the algorithm towards a solution that is physically closer to the actual
structure. The proposed algorithm uses a normalized objective function, which allows sufficient
weightage being given to the error in mode shapes. In practice the mode shapes obtained from a
dynamic test are less accurate than the natural frequencies. This may be accounted for by
suitably selecting weights Wi and W2 in equation (5) to represent measurement accuracy.
For the case of 17.24% incomplete data with 2% noise relative weightings are also incorporated
so as to reflect the noise present in the simulated natural frequencies and mode shapes. The
weighting matrix [W] is taken as a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being taken as
reciprocals of the variances of the corresponding simulated measured quantity. The simulated
noise of 0.2% on natural frequencies and 2% on mode shapes is taken as a measure of standard
deviation to estimate the variances. FIG. (3) shows a comparison of predicted correction factors
obtained by the two methods. It is clear, after comparing this figure with FIG. (1), that the
predicted correction factors obtained by the proposed method are closer to their exact values then
those obtained by the IESM. In quantified terms the value of index AECF after updating is found
to be 20.7% for the proposed method and 33.6% for the IESM.
In terms of the computational effort required, it is found that the proposed method is
computationally more intensive and also slower as compared to the IESM. This is on account of
the fact that the proposed method is based on nonlinear optimization against IESM that is based
on linear approximation.
 MODEL UPDATING USING OPTIMIZATION 549

Conclusion

A new model updating method based on constrained optimization has been proposed. The
proposed method addresses the difficulty that may arise due to the large difference between the
sensitivities of natural frequencies and mode shapes. The proposed method, though
computationally more intensive, is working successfully for the case of complete and incomplete
data. The method also predicted the corrections required in the analytical model in the case of
noisy data with reasonable accuracy.

References

1. D.J. Ewins, Modal Testing : Theory and Practice. Research studies press, Letchworth
(1984)
2. N.M. Maia and J.M.M. e Silva, Theoretical and experimental modal analysis. Research
studies press, John Wiley and Sons (1997)
3 M. Imregun and W.J. Visser, The Shock and Vibration Digest 23(1), 9(1991)
4 J.E. Mottershead and M.I. Friswell, Journal of Sound and Vibration 167(2), 347(1993)
5 M.I. Friswell and J.E. Mottershead, Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995)
6 M. Baruch and I.Y. Bar-Itzhack, AIAA Journal 16(4), 346(1978)
7 A. Berman and E.J. Nagy, AIAA Journal 21(8), 927(1983)
8 M. Baruch, AIAA Journal 22(4), 561(1984)
9 J.D. Collins, G.C. Hart, T.K. Hasselman and B. Kennedy, AIAA Journal 12(2), 185(1974)
10 J.C. Chen and J. Garba, AIAA Journal 18(6), 684(1980)
11 K.O. Kim, W.J. Anderson and R.E. Sandstorm, AIAA Journal 21(9), 1310(1983)
12 R.M. Lin, M.K. Lim and H. Du, ASME Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 117, 192(1995)
13 C.P. Fritzen, ASME Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress and Reliability in Design 108,
9(1986)
14 R.M. Lin and D.J. Ewins, Proceedings of the 15~ International Seminar on Modal Analysis,
Belgium, 141(1990)
15 G.M.L. Gladwell and H. Ahmadian, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 9(6),
601(1995)
16 M.J.Ratclifee and N.A.J. Lieven, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 14(1), 3(2000)
17 J.E. Mottershead, M.I. Friswell, G.H.T. Ng and J.A. Brandon, Mechanical Systems and
Signal Processing 10(2), 171(1996)
18 M.I. Friswell, J.E. Mottershead and H. Ahmadian, Journal of Vibration and acoustics 120(4),
854(1998)
19 R.I. Levin and N.A.J. Lieven, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 12(1), 91(1998)
20 D.C.Zimmerman, K. Yap and T. Hasselman, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing
13(4), 609(1999)
21 M.J. Atalla and D.J. Inman, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 12(1), 135(1998)
22 R.L. Allemang and D.L. Brown, Proceedings of the 1st International Modal Analysis
conference, Florida,USA, 110(1982)
23 R.L. Fox and M.P. Kapoor, AIAA Journal 12(6), 2426(1968)
550 S.V. MODAK, T. K. KUNDRA and B. C. NAKRA

TABLE i
Discrepancies between the finite element and the simulated experimental model

Element Number 3 5 11 16 25 29 [ All other elements

% Deviation in Thickness +20% +40% +25% +40% +30% +30% ] +10%

TABLE 2
Comparison of values of error index AECF when 4,5 and 6 number of simulated experimental
modes are used in updating

No. of modes used Using the proposed Using the IESM

method
6 0.091% 25.85 %
5 0.072 % 34.26 %
4 3.764 % 33.87 %

0.4

0.3
1.4-
¢.,.
.o 0.2

8 0.1

0
1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Correction Factor Number

FIG. 1
Correction factors after updating for the case of complete data predicted by proposed method
 MODEL UPDATING USING OPTIMIZATION 551

Proposed method IESM

0.I

0.:
.!
OJ
o
0.1

0 1 ~ 1U 13 LU lid ,,~U
1 5 10 15 20 25 30
CorrectionFactorNumber Correction Factor Number

FIG. 2
Comparison of predicted correction factors for the case of 17.24% incomplete data

Proposed method IESM

0.4 0.~
r

0.3 o,, 0.:'" I

0
I 5 10 15
mu
20 25 30 01 5 10 15 20 25 30
Correction Factor Number Correction Factor Number

FIG. 3
Comparison of predicted correction factors for the case of 17.24% incomplete data with 2%
noise