OSE801 Engineering System Identification

Lecture 12: STRUCTURAL PARAMETER

DETERMINATION FROM SYSTEM
REALIZATION
1 Introduction

System realization algorithms discussed in the previous chapter yield the

triplet (A, B , C ) from the measured input and output (u, y). However, the
resulting discrete equations from system realizations are not only expressed in
a state-space model form but also represent one of many possible realizations
that can be related to a particular realization through similarity transfor-
mations. This means that the realization models, while applicable for active
control synthesis, do not directly render physical insight into the structural
characteristics. Thus, this chapter is devoted to the determination of structural
parameters from the state-space realization models: the transformation of the
state-space realization models into the corresponding structural normal-mode
models, and the subsequent determination of the structural mass, damping
and stiffness matrices from the structural modal equations.

The two key ideas that we will utilize are the so-called output invariance prop-
erty and the unique matrix profiles of the second-order structural dynamics
equations, especially for proportionally damped systems. The use of these two
properties enables one to uniquely determine the normal modal parameters
from all possible equivalent state space-based realizations. The resulting com-
putational procedure is designated as Common Basis-normalized Structural
Identification (CBSI) procedure.

An important computational advantage of the CBSI procedure is its determi-

nation of the normal mode parameters by working on (2 × 2) matrices, instead
of working on (n × n) matrices. There is a restriction: the basic CBSI proce-
dure approximates non-proportional damped systems to fit as proportionally
damped systems. In case when the system is not proportionally damped, one
can estimate the errors stemming from the proportionally damped assumption
by examining the residuals of the normal mode estimates.

2 Realization Models and Structural Normal Modes

The continuous state-space realization model, Eq.(63) of Lecture 11: System

Realization, can be expressed with displacement sensing, for each state-space

2
i-th mode (not structural mode!), as
      
 żi (t)  T 
 σi + jωi 0  zi (t) Bzi 
  
 
 

=   + u(t)
 z̄˙ σi − jωi  z̄i (t)   B̄Tzi 
i (t) 0
 
    
  (1)
Xn   zi (t) 

y(t) = Czi C̄zi 
z̄i (t) 

i=1 

where z̄i (t), B̄Tzi and C̄zi are complex conjugates of the complex quantities
zi (t), BTi and Czi , respectively.

On the other hand, the normal-mode form of the governing structural dynam-
ics equations expressed in a state-space form is expressed as
      
 η̇i (t) 
 0 1 
   ηi (t) 
   0  
=  + u(t)
 η̈ (t)  −Ω2i −2ζi Ωi  η̇i (t)   φTi B̂ 
    
i

  (2)
n 
X 
 ηi (t) 

yd (t) = Sd φi 0 
η̇i (t) 

i=1 

As a first step to transform the system-realized state space modal equation

(??) we employ the following similarity transformation:
 
−1
1 1
Vi1 =
 

σi + jωi σi − jωi
  (3)
j  σi − jωi −1 
Vi1 =
2ωi −σi − jωi 1
 

such that    
σ + jωi
−1  i
0  0 1
Vi1   Vi1 = (4)
 

0 σi − jωi −Ω2i −2ζi Ωi
Therefore, the roots in the state-space modal form (1) and those of the struc-
tural normal-mode form (2) are related via:

σi = −ζi Ωi
q
ωi = Ωi 1 − ζi2 (5)

where φi is the mass-normalized structural normal mode shapes, σi and ωi are

the real and imaginary parts of the state-space eigenvalues, Ωi is the undamped

3
structural natural frequency, and ζi is the structural modal damping ratio.

It should be noted that the preceding relations only hold for proportionally-
damped systems, or in the limit as the degree of damping goes to zero. How-
ever, the transformation (3) known as the McMillan transformation does not
correctly transform the damped modal coordinates zi (t) to a second-order
canonical basis. This is discussed below.

3 The CBSI Algorithm

The McMillan transformation (3) introduced in the previous section assumes

the following transformation:

   
 zi (t) 
   η̂i (t) 
 
= Vi1 (6)
 z̄  η̂˙
i (t) i (t)
 
  


which, when substituted into (1) yields

      
 η̂˙ i (t)   bT 
 0 1
   η̂i (t) 
   
i1
= + u(t)

 
 η̂¨ (t) 

−Ω2i −2ζi Ωi  η̂˙ i (t)   bTi2 
   
i

  (7)
Xn   
 η̂i (t) 

y(t) = ci1 ci2 
i=1  η̂˙ (t) 
i


where bi1 , bi2 , ci1 and ci2 are real-valued partitions of the transformed input
and output arrays, respectively, and zmi is the real-valued basis resulting from
the McMillan transformation and corresponding to the complex modal basis
z(t)i and its complex conjugate.

Therefore, comparing the above transformed equation (7) with the normal
mode form (2) unless bTi1 = 0 and ci2 = 0 we observe that one cannot recover
the structural normal mode form from the McMillan transformation. K. F.
Alvin as part of his thesis work obtained a correct normal-mode form from
(1) by introducing the following general transformation:

    
 ei (σ − jωi ) −ei  ηi (t)
 zi (t) 
  j

 

= (8)
2ei ωi di −(σ + jωi ) 1 
 
 z̄
i (t)
   η̇ (t) 
i
 

where di and ei are parameters to be determined. It is noted that the McMil-

lan transformation results when one selects ei = di = 1. Although one can
carry out the desired transformation with the above formula, it is easier and

4
insightful to introduce a second transformation to the McMillan transformed
equation (7). The second transformation assumes the form:

   
 η̂i (t) 
   ηi (t) 
 
= Vi2
 η̂˙
i (t)
 η̇
i (t)
 
  

 
−1
1 ei
Vi2 = di 
 

−ei (σi2 + ωi2 ) 1 + 2σi ei (9)
 
1  1 + 2σi ei −ei 
Vi2 = ¯  
di ei (σ 2 + ω 2 ) 1
i i
 
d¯i = di 1 + 2σi ei + (σi2 + ωi2 )e2i

Carrying out the necessary transformation of (7) with Alvin’s transformation

(9) we obtain
      
 η̇i (t) 
 0 1 
   ηi (t) 
   0 
=  + u(t)
 η̈ (t)  −Ω2i −2ζi Ωi  η̇i (t)   bTηi 
    
i

 
n 
X 
 ηi (t) 
 (10)
y(t) = cηi 0 
η̇i (t) 

i=1 

where
 
bTηi = di bi2 + di ei 2σi bi2 − (σi2 + ωi2 )bi1
1 ei  
cηi = ¯ ci1 + ¯ 2σi ci1 + (σi2 + ωi2 )ci2 (11)
di di

which must satisfy the two constraint conditions:

bTi1 + ei bTi2 = 0
ci2 − ei ci1 = 0 (12)

Observe that the first of (12) is to satisfy the identity, viz., the first row of
the structural modal equation (2) and the second of (12) is to satisfy the
displacement sensing condition. This is the basic CBSI algorithm. We now
specialize it to a few specific cases.

5
4 CBSI for Proportional Damping

The mode-by-mode transformation matrix Vi2 introduced to obtain the struc-

tural normal mode form from system realized state-space models requires the
determination of two parameters, ei and di . We now describe the procedure
for the determinations of the two undetermined parameters.

4.1 Determination of ei

We recall from (12) that ei relates the two vectors bi1 and bi2 according to:

bTi1 = −ei bTi2 (13)

which can be valid only if the two vectors are collinear. If the damping is
proportional, this collinearity is satisfied since the mode shapes for the dis-
placement vector is the same as those for the velocity vector. Therefore, the
undetermined parameter ei for each mode can be obtained by

−bTi1 bi2
ei = T (14)
bi2 bi2

In addition, the vectors ci1 and ci2 are also linear combinations of the real and
imaginary parts of the damped mode shape, and hence must also be collinear.
In fact, they can be shown to satisfy

ei ci1 = ci2 (15)

4.2 Determination of di

Having determined ei , let us now determine di . Of several possibilities we

will invoke the concept of mass normalization. This is not only desirable for
extracting the structural flexibility from the normal modes and mode shapes,
but also leads to a convenient procedure for determining di .

Observe that both B̂ and Sd are Boolean matrices with unity appropriate for
the forcing actuation and sensor locations. Therefore, for a pairs of a collocated
actuator and sensor, we must have

B̂T = Sd ⇒ bηi = cηi = φi (16)

6
This enables us to obtain di from (10):

ci1 + ei (2σi ci1 + (σi2 + ωi2 )ci2 )

d2i = (17)
(1 + 2σi ei + (σi2 + ωi2 )e2i ) (bi2 + ei (2σi bi2 − (σi2 + ωi2 )bi1 ))

Hence, we have obtained from any state-space form of realization the desired
nomal mode form of structural dynamics equations. We now reconstruct the
two consecutive transformations below:

By recursively tracing back from (10) to (1), it can be shown that the system
realization model for proportionally damped systems can be expressed as
      
 żi   (1 − j)φT B̂ 
 σi + jωi 0  zi 1
   
   
i
= + √  u
2 ωi  (1 + j)φT B̂ 

 ˙
 ¯z 
i 0 σi − jωi  z̄ 

i

i

  (18)
n zi 
1
X  
 
yd = √ (1 − j)Sd φi (1 + j)Sd φi  
i=1 2 ωi  z̄ 
i

Second, the McMillan transformation given by (3) leads to

      
 η̂˙ i (t)  φTi B̂
 0 1
   η̂i (t) 
  1

 

= + √  u

ωi  (σi + ωi )φT B̂ 

 η̂¨ (t) 
 2
−ωni −2ζi ωni  η̂˙ (t) 

i i
  
i
  (19)
n η̂i (t) 
1
X  
 
yd = 3/2 (σi + ωi )Sd φi −Sd φi 
i=1 ωi  η̂˙ (t) 
i


From the above McMillan-transformed expression, the two parameters ei and

d¯i can be determined as

−1
ei =
σi + ωi
(20)
2di ωi2
d¯i =
(σi + ωi )2

Third, applying the Alvin transformation (10) the CBSI realization is found
as
      
 η̇i  3/2
 0  ηi 1 2di ωi 0 
  
   
 
= + u
−2ζi ωni  η̇i  σi + ωi
 
2  φT B̂ 
 η̈  −ωni
   
i
 
i
  (21)
n
X σ +ω    ηi 
 
ii
yd = 3/2 Sd φi 0 
i=1 2di ωi η̇i 
 

7
Finally, the mass-normalization of the normal mode shapes leads

σi + ωi
di = 3/2
(22)
2ωi

In passing, we note that identified models are often non-proportionally damped.

This is, however, beyond the scope of the present coverage and interested read-
ers may consult the thesis by Alvin.

5 Reduced Mass and Stiffness from Normal Modal Parameters

One of the major motivations for conducting structural system identification is

to construct the corresponding discrete equations of motion for structures from
measurements. The measurement-based structural models are then utilized
for a variety of purposes: updating of the finite element models to match
experimentally measured modes and mode shapes, predicting the health or
damages of the structures, and design modifications involving a redistribution
of mass and stiffness. The resulting discrete structural equations can at most
be represented in terms of the sensor degrees of freedom, which is substantially
smaller than the size of a typical finite element model. To this end, let us
consider the following finite element model:

     
 Mmm Mmi  q̈m (t)  Dmm Dmi  q̇m (t)

 
 
 

  +  
MTmi Mii  q̈i (t)  T
Dmi Dii  q̇i (t) 
   
     (23)
K
 mm K mi 

 q m (t) 
 
 B̂m


+  = u(t)
KT K  q (t)   B̂ 
 
ii i i
 
mi

where the subscripts m and i denote the measured and unmeasured DOFs,
respectively.

One way to reduce the preceding finite element equations is to introduce the
following static condensation:

qi = −K−1 T
ii Kmi qm (24)

for which we have assumed that no force is applied to the unmeasured nodal

8
points. The total nodal displacement vector can thus be written as
 
I
q=  qm = Φc qm (25)
 
−K−1 T
ii Kmi

which is widely utilized in component mode synthesis (CMS) procedures, where

Φc are often termed the constraint modes. Physically, Φc represents the dis-
placement vectors of the internal degrees of freedom qi with respect to the
constraint modes, defined as the set of orthogonal unit displacements of the
retained degrees of freedom qm .

Substituting the above reduced representation (25) into (??), we obtain the
reduced equation:
M̄q̈m + D̄ q̇m + K̄qm = B̄u (26)
where

K̄ = ΦTc KΦc = Kmm − Kmi K−1 T

ii Kmi
D̄ = ΦTc DΦc M̄ = ΦTc MΦc
(27)
 
 B̂m 
 
B̄ = ΦTc
B̂i 

 

In structural dynamics community the reduction process outlined above is

called the Guyan reduction and often used in substructuring techniques.

Alternatively, a reduced model can be derived by using the measured modes

and mode shapes. First, we express the physical degrees of freedom q(t) in
terms of the complete (measured and unmeasured together) normal-mode ba-
sis η(t)  
 φm 
 
q(t) = Φn η(t) = η(t) (28)
φi 

 

where φm , φi are partitions of the eigenvectors at the measured and unmea-

sured (i.e. internal) degrees of freedom, respectively.

Assuming that K is non-singular, the flexibility matrix, or the inverse of K,

can be written as
 
K̄−1 −K̄−1 Kmi K−1
ii
K−1 = 
 
 
−K−1 T
ii Kmi K̄
−1
K−1
ii I+ KTmi K̄−1 Kmi K−1
ii
  (29)
−2 T
 φm Ω φm φm Ω−2 φTi
=


φi Ω−2 φTm φi Ω−2 φTi

9
Thus, comparing the term by term of the flexibility expressed in terms of the
stiffness elements and of the normal modes, we find that the inverse of the
measured flexibility is in fact the reduced stiffness matrix:
 −1
K̄ = φm Ω−2 φTm (30)

The determination of the corresponding reduced mass utilizes the following

identity:
M = KK−1 MK−1 K (31)
which, when only measured quantities are to be used, enables us to obtain the
reduced mass matrix by
   
 
 φm 
  
 K̄ 

M̄ = K̄ 0  Ω−4 φTm φTi 
φi 0
 
  

M̄ = K̄φm Ω−4 φTm K̄ (32)

M̄ = φ−T 2 −1 −4 T −T 2 −1
m Ω φm φm Ω φm φm Ω φm
= φ−T −1
m φm = (φm φm )
T −1

Finally, the reduced damping matrix D̄ is obtained as

D̄ = K̄φm Ω−2 ΞΩ−2 φTm K̄ (33)

where Ξ is the system-identified modal damping matrix.

There is a direct procedure for obtaining the reduced stiffness K̄ from the
system transfer function H (ω). For displacement sensing, we have
 −1
H (ω) = Sd K + iωD − ω 2 M B̂ (34)

which approaches, as ω → 0, to

lim H (ω) = Sd K−1 SdT = K̄−1 (35)

ω→0

We note here that K̄ is determined from the modes of the identified model
which is generally a curve fit of much smaller dimension than is required to
match the transfer function exactly. Thus, K̄ expresses the receptance of the
approximate model, rather than the test-measured transfer function matrix.

10