Total Solution For Engineering Systems: A New Concept: 1523 - Frame - C14.fm Page 515 Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:10 PM

1523_Frame_C14.
fm Page 515 Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:10 PM
14
Total Solution for Engineering Systems:
A New Concept
During the past decades, the authors often encountered engineering problems
with insufficient input and/or output information. A systematic approach is
required to deal with this type of problem effectively. A concept of total
solution recently suggested by Liu et al. (2001c) for engineering mechanics
problems is introduced in this chapter. The total solution aims to establish a
systematic approach to provide a comprehensive solution for complex engi-
neering problems, especially for traditional forward problems with incom-
plete input information (load, material property, boundary condition) and
inverse problems with insufficient observations (displacement, acceleration,
stress, etc.). The approach for obtaining a total solution is to formulate such
an engineering problem as a parameter identification problem based on the
forward solver of the problem. All the unknown parameterized information
in this forward model is determined through an iterative procedure of con-
ducting alternately forward and inverse (or mixed) analyses.
14.1 Introduction
In order to describe the real engineering mechanics problem clearly, the
general Equation 2.71 is modified slightly to the following expression (see
Figure 14.1):
Y = H(X, P, C) (14.1)
where Y = {y1, y2,…, ym } is a vector of output parameters or a vector of model-

related paramters representing the effects; X = {x1, x2,…,xn} is a vector of
input parameters representing the external causes; P = {p1, p2,…,pr} is a vector
of material property parameters; C = {c1, c2,…,ck} is a vector of parameterized
boundary conditions. P and C may depend on X for nonlinear problems but
are constant in a linear problem. H(X, P, C) is a system transformation matrix
© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

1523_Frame_C14.fm Page 516 Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:10 PM
P C
Y=H(X,P,C) Y
(a) Forward problem
P C
Y=H(X,P,C) Y
(b) a case of inverse problem
P C
H ( X, P, C, )
Y=H(X,P,C)
Y
X
(c) another case of inverse problem
P C
Y=H(X,P,C) Y
(d) a mixed problem
FIGURE 14.1
Schematic illustration of engineering problems that need a total solution. Y = {y1, y2,…, ym} is a
vector of output parameters or a vector of model-related coefficients representing the effects;
X = {x1, x2,…,xn} is a vector of input parameters representing the external causes; P = {p1, p2,…,pr}
is a vector of material property parameters; C = {c1, c2,…,ck} is a vector of parameterized
boundary conditions. P and C may depend on X for nonlinear problems but are constant in a
linear problem. H(X, P, C) is a system transformation matrix representing the translation process
from input to output.

representing a forward solver. It is derived from the physical laws underlying

the problem under consideration and may be dependent on the input X for
nonlinear problems. For a linear problem, matrix H is independent of input
X, and Equation 14.1 has the form of Equation 2.71.
According to the type of information sought in the solution procedure
from Equation 14.1, an engineering problem was traditionally treated as
either a forward problem (see Figure 14.1a) or an inverse problem (Figure
14.1b, c; refer also to Chapter 2 for the classification of problems).
However, a commonly encountered difficulty in solving forward and
inverse problems is that they are often unable to provide complete known
information as required in a traditional sense (see Figure 14.1d). This results
from the various practical limitations in the realistic world. For example,
even for a simple structural analysis problem, the boundary conditions are
sometimes difficult to describe to represent real situations exactly. In these
cases, they must be idealized by saying that the boundary is “fixed,”
“clamped,” or “free” in order to obtain a solution. This kind of idealization
is also made for the other input information, such as initial conditions,
material properties, and system configurations, etc. It is obvious that this
idealization would lead to significant errors for real engineering mechanics
problems. For inverse problems, the difficulty is more obvious. The charac-
teristics of nonuniqueness, ill-posedness, and instability involved in inverse
problems make them intractable to solve even for relatively simple corre-
sponding forward problems (Tikhonov et al., 1990; Tanaka and Bui, 1992;
Haario, 1996; Anikonov, 1997).
There are even more complex and challenging cases in reality. The input
vector X, the output vector Y, the parameter vectors P and C are only partly
known. The information to be sought is the remaining parts of the vectors
X, Y, P, and C. These kinds of problems cannot be properly formulated as
forward problems or inverse problems in a traditional sense; thus, they are
termed “mixed” problems. Presently, mixed problems are very often treated
as forward problems by complementing artificially the unknown informa-
tion in the vectors X, P, and C, or as inverse problems by complementing
artificially the unknown parts in the vector Y and the vectors X, P, and C
based on idealized assumptions. This is obviously improper.
Liu et al. (2001c) have introduced a unified concept of total solution to
deal with all these problems described in Figure 14.1. Based on their study,
this chapter will introduce this new concept as an extension of inverse
analysis.
14.2 Approaching a Total Solution

The concept of total solution is that the problem should be viewed and
treated as it is — without artificial assumptions to any of X, Y, P, and C. The

approach is based on the assumption that a forward solver for the problem
is always available. Sets of system parameters xi (i = 1,…,n), yi (i = 1,…,m),
pi (i = 1,…,r), and ci (i = 1,…,k) are then selected and investigated to provide
as much known information as possible. After that, an iterative procedure
of conducting alternately forward and inverse (or mixed) analyses is imple-
mented. All the unknown parameters in the vectors X, Y, P, and C are then
determined when the iterative process converges.
In this solution procedure, forward analysis is conducted using the corre-
sponding forward solver, while inverse (or mixed) analysis is performed
using the sensitivity matrix-based method or the progressive NN method
developed. The parameters sought may be parts of X, Y, P, and C; thus the
obtained solution is termed a total solution. With the use of this new concept,
it is no longer necessary to artificially assume the unknown information in
vectors X, Y, P, and C when solving forward or inverse problems with
incomplete information. The general treatment of inverse problems is also
greatly improved because of the incorporation of forward solution procedure
that can directly identify the correctness of a trial solution and rapidly correct
the iterative direction in solution procedure. Numerical examples have been
presented to demonstrate the feasibility and the validity of this approach as
well as the implementation of these techniques.
The approach towards a total solution of engineering problems is primarily
motivated from the following findings:
• For most forward and inverse problems found in engineering prac-

tice, the forward mathematical models are obtainable without too
much difficulty due to the rapid development of computer science
and numerical methods.
• Inverse problems can be interpreted as one kind of special forward
problem with incomplete input information. In addition, forward
problems with incomplete input information and inverse problems
with insufficient observations of their effects can be treated as
mixed problems. This means that these problems can be solved in
the same framework.
• In dealing with ill-posedness of the problems (forward and inverse),
it has been shown that as long as the unknown information is suf-
ficient and sensitive enough, it is always possible to deal with the
types I and II ill-posedness effectively and to obtain stable and
accurate solutions. When descritized numerical methods are used
as the forward solver, type III ill-posedness is well suppressed by
the projection regularization together with regularization by filter-
ing. Therefore, stable and accurate inverse solutions can be obtained.
• For most engineering problems, the bounds for parameters are often
very narrow due to the experience and knowledge accumulated in
the past. This helps to reduce or even remove nonuniqueness and
hence the ill-posedness.

• Conducting alternately forward and inverse analyses provides a

way for effective and timely transfer of information between forward
and inverse analyses. It can be done easily to ensure sufficient infor-
mation for each iteration of the analysis process. This would also
help greatly in reducing ill-posedness and increasing stability in
searching for a total solution of problem.
14.2.1 Procedure for a Total Solution

Based on the idea stated previously, the procedure of obtaining a total solu-
tion can be described as follows (Liu et al., 2001c):
• Construction of a forward solver (i.e., the forward computational

model) for the problem is accomplished by determining the sys-
tem outputs yi (i = 1,…,m), based on the basic physical laws of
mechanics, and selecting the proper parameters xi (i = 1,…,n), pi
(i = 1,…,r), and ci (i = 1,…,k) following the Ockham’s razor criterion
of favor simplicity (Santamarina et al., 1998). In choosing forward
model, the simpler model is always preferred, as long as it pro-
duces more accurate results than the experiments.
• Collect as much known information for these parameters as possible
with the help of analytical, experimental, and even experiential
knowledge. When the information is not sufficient, consider con-
ducting additional or alterative experiments. The bounds of the
unknowns should be set as narrow as possible. The experimental
data should be filtered to remove as much noise as possible.
• Development and validation of the inverse procedures and algo-
rithms is a key to obtaining a total solution.
• Identification of all unknown parameters in vectors X, Y, P, and C
is accomplished by alternately conducting forward and inverse (or
mixed) analyses until the entire solution process converges.
14.2.2 Forward Solver

The forward solver is first required to establish from the basic physical laws.
Constructing an effective, reliable, and fast forward solver is the first step
towards a total solution. With the increasing complexity of problems at
present engineering practices, discrete numerical methods have become an
effective major tool to this end. The finite element method (FEM), finite
volume method (FVM), boundary element method (BEM), mesh-free
(MFree) method, wave analysis method, and many other numerical methods
play an important role.
Table 14.1 lists some commercially available software packages using FEM,
FVM, BEM, and MFree methods and wave analysis codes. They can be

TABLE 14.1
Commercially Available Software Packages Using FEM, FVM, BEM, and MFree
Methods and Wave Analysis Codes
Software Method Used Application Problems
ABAQUS FEM (implicit, explicit) Structural analysis, acoustics, thermal analysis,
etc.
ADINA FEM (implicit) Structural analysis, computational fluid
DIANA dynamics, fluid–structural interaction, etc.
ANSYS FEM (implicit) Structural analysis, acoustics, thermal analysis,
etc.
Fluent FVM (implicit) Turbulent flows, heat transfer, reacting flows,
chemical mixing, combustion, and multiphase
flows
I-deas FEM (implicit) Structural analysis, acoustics, thermal analysis,
fluid flow, etc.
LS-DYNA FEM (explicit) Structural dynamics, computational fluid
dynamics, fluid–structural interaction, etc.
MARC FEM (implicit) Structural analysis, acoustics, thermal analysis,
etc.
MFree2D Mesh free (adaptive Two-dimensional solid mechanics
refinement)
MSC-DYTRAN FEM + FVM (explicit) Structural dynamics, computational fluid
dynamics, fluid–structural interaction, etc.
NASTRAN FEM (implicit) Structural analysis, acoustics, thermal analysis,
etc.
Sysnoise FEM/BEM (frequency Acoustics
domain)
TransWave Hybrid numerical Transient waves in anisotropic composite
method (transient laminate
elastic wave solver)
WaveFace FEM type (characteristic Phase, group velocities of waves in anisotropic
of wave solver) composite laminate
directly used to solve most forward problems in engineering mechanics. For

solving inverse or mixed problems, efforts have also been made for making
use of these commercial software packages. These include development of
interfaces to use them as a subroutine in the user main program, for instance,
LS-DYNA (Liu and Ma, 2003), I-deas (Liu et al., 2002f), NASTRAN (Pradhan
et al., 2000; Tao et al., 2000; Yang et al., 2002f).
In using discrete numerical methods, the density of meshes is an important
concern. Denser mesh does not necessarily always produce better results for
inverse problems. In fact, coarser mesh can often produce better and more
stable inverse solutions due to the work of projection regularization. The
consideration should use mesh as coarse as possible, but produces results
more accurately than the experiment can produce (see Section 3.4.5).

14.2.3 System Parameters

Selection of system parameters is very important in constructing an effective
forward solver. All system parameters are assembled in four vectors, i.e., X
= {x1, x2,…,xn}, Y = {y1, y2,…,ym }, P = {p1, p2,…,pr}, and C = {c1, c2,…,ck}. xi (i =
1,…,n) and yj (i = 1,…,m) are the discrete samples of some physical param-
eters at different times and locations. pi (i = 1,…,r) is the structural or material
parameters such as the elastic module, mass density, etc. ci (i = 1,…,k) is the
parameterized boundary condition values.
Generally, these parameters should be sufficient to capture the essential char-
acteristics of the problem. The number of parameters sought should be minimal
as emphasized in the Ockham’s razor criterion of favor simplicity. The param-
eters, especially for those in the output vector used as the known information,
should be sensitive to the parameters sought. The following simple example
can reveal the importance of a proper selection of system parameters.
Consider the damage detection in a cantilever beam. If only the modal
parameters of natural frequencies are selected as the effect vector Y, the
problem would become very difficult to solve because same changes in
natural frequencies of lower orders can result from damages at the different
locations (Pandey et al., 1991). It is therefore not possible to identify the
damage location correctly by using only the observed natural frequencies.
This selection of natural frequency alone is thus incomplete or insufficient.
To overcome this problem, it has been proposed to add other modal param-
eters such as the frequency parameters or the mode shapes into the vector
Y to guarantee the uniqueness of the identified result of a similar case
presented in Section 13.2. However, further studies have found that although
using the natural frequencies together with the modal shapes as the effect
vector Y can avoid the uniqueness problem, it can still be difficult to solve
the damage detection problems in many cases. This is because such a Y
vector may not be sensitive to the damage hidden in the structures (Pandey
et al., 1991; Doebling et al., 1996). To solve the problems effectively, some
researchers have recommended frequency response functions, curvatures of
mode shapes, etc. as part of the effect vector Y. This example has demon-
strated that different ways in the selection of system parameters exist; a
proper selection of system parameters is usually critical to the success of
obtaining a total solution of practical engineering problems.
14.2.4 Mathematical Representation

Once the forward solver and the system parameters are determined, the
problem, no matter what kind of information is sought, can be formulated
as a parameter identification:
Finding: {X1, P1, C1, Y1}

For given: {X2, P2, C 2, Y2} (14.2)
Subject to: {Y1, Y2} = Fsolver ({X1, X2}, {P1, P2}, {C1, C2})

where Fsolver(.) denotes the forward solver and X = {X1, X2}, Y={Y1, Y2}, P =
{P1, P2}, and C = {C1, C2}, where the subvectors with subscription 1 are the
unknown parts and those with subscription 2 are the known parts in the
corresponding parameter vectors.
14.3 Inverse Algorithms

Inverse algorithms play a key role in obtaining a total solution for engineer-
ing problems. The optimization methods introduced in Chapter 4 and Chap-
ter 5 as well as the progressive neural network introduced in Chapter 6 can
be used as inverse algorithms in searching for the total solution process. As
examples, the use of the sensitivity matrix-based method and the neural
network as inverse algorithms in obtaining a total solution will be presented.
14.3.1 Sensitivity Matrix-Based Method (SMM)

14.3.1.1 Sensitivity-Based Equations
Equation 14.1 relates the cause vector X to the effect vector Y using the
transformation matrix H; however, a sensitivity matrix S is used to relate a
finite change between a compound vector of parameters Q = {X , P , C } and
the effect vector Y ,
Y = SQ (14.3)
where
 ∆y 
Y =  i , i = 1, ... , m
 yi 
 ∆q j 
Q =  , j = 1, ... , ψ ; ψ = n + r + k  (14.4)
 q j 
 ∆y q j 
S =  i , i = 1, ..., m; j = 1, ..., ψ 
 ∆q j yi 
in which q j = {x1 , , xn , p1 , , pr , c1 , , c k }, j = 1, ... , ψ ; ψ = n + r + k

The sensitivity matrix S is usually obtained by:
• Analytical methods such as that derived from the sensitivity equa-

tions (Anju and Kawahara, 1997)

• Numerical computations by using the forward solver, where the

differentiations are approximately replaced by the finite differences
(Yeh, 1986)
• Specially designed experiment methods
By dividing the parameter vectors into the known and unknown parts,
Equation 14.3 can be re-expressed as follows:
 X1 
 
X 2 
 Y1   S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16   P1 
 =   (14.5)
Y2  S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26   P2 
C 
 1
C2 
Then, all the known parts in the vectors Y, X, P, and C are moved to the
left-hand-side of Equation 14.5 and denoted as new vector Y , while all the
unknown parts are moved to the right-hand-side and denoted as new vector
Q . Equation 14.5 is thus transferred as:
Y = SQ (14.6)
where
 − S12 X 2 − S14 P2 − S16 C2 

Y= 
Y2 − S22 X 2 − S24 P2 − S26 C2 
S S13 S15 −I
S =  11  (14.7)
S21 S23 S25 0
[ ]
T
Q = X1 P1 C1 Y1
For several special cases, Y , S , and Q are expressed as:
• Y, P, and C are known, X is sought
Y = Y − S2 P − S3 C
Q=X (14.8)
S = S1
[ ]
T
where Y = S1 S2 S3 X P C

• Y and X are known, P and C are sought
Y = Y − S1 X
[ ]
T
Q= P C (14.9)
S = [S 2 S3 ]
• Y, X2, P2, and C2 are known, X1, P1, and C1 are sought
Y = Y − S2 X 2 − S4 P2 − S6 C2
[ ]
T
Q = X1 P1 C1 (14.10)
S = [S 1 S3 S ] 5
where
[ ]
T
Y = S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 X 1 X2 P1 P2 C1 C2
14.3.1.2 Algorithms
Next, two algorithms are introduced.
14.3.1.2.1 Matrix Inversion Algorithms

Matrix inversion is a kind of traditional inverse problem algorithm in which
the inversion of Equation 14.6 can be directly obtained by
[]
−1
Q= S Y (14.11)
or
[]
−g
Q= S Y (14.12)
[ S ]−1 and [ S ]− g are an inverse and a general inverse matrix of [ S ] , respec-

tively. [ S ]−1 is obtainable only if [ S ] is square and nonsingular. In most
cases, it is necessary to use the general inverse matrix [ S ]− g to calculate
Q . Table 3.1 gives several different representations of [ S ]− g for the differ-
ent cases.
14.3.1.2.2 Iterative Algorithms

This algorithm gradually corrects the solution Q = { qk } in an iterative
procedure. This procedure is iteratively conducted until the error E between

the known output, Y = { y k } , and the predicted output, Y P = { y kP } , from

the solution Q is within the specified toleration or the stopping criterion,
based on the discrepancy principle. Typical algorithms include the widely
used algebraic reconstruction technique (ART), multiplicative ART (MART),
and sequential image reconstruction technique (SIRT). Details of these tech-
niques have been presented by Santamarina and Fratta (1998).
ART updates a trial solution Q starting with the first row i = 1 in Equation
14.6; updating proceeds until the last row is taken into consideration. Then,
the iterations continue by considering the first row again. This process stops
only when the error E reaches a predefined toleration. The correction of qk
for the (s + 1)th iteration is calculated by:
( yi − yiP )sik
( qk ) s+1 = ( qk ) s + (14.13)
∑ k
( qk )2
MART follows the same updating process as that in ART; however, the
correction of qk is conducted by:
yi
( qk ) s+1 = ( qk ) s if sik ≠ 0 (14.14)
∑k
sik ( qk ) s
That means that when the ith row is considered, the kth unknown, qk , is
updated only if it is affected by the ith row.
A little bit different from ART and MART, SIRT delays the correction of
solution until all the rows in Equation 14.6 have been considered. Each qk
is updated by weight averaging all corrections computed for all the rows.
( yi − yiP ) s sik
∑ ∑ (s ) ∑ s
sik
( qk ) s+1 = ( qk ) s + (14.15)
2
i ik ik
k k
14.3.1.3 Solution Procedure

Based on the preceding discussion, the solution procedure towards a total
solution of problem using the SMM can be described as:
1. Construct a forward model for the problem under consideration,

which determines the system output of Y.
2. Assume the unknown parameters {X 10 , P10 , C 10 } from the engineer-
ing experience; put them together with the known parameters
{X 2 , P2 , C 2 } into the forward solver to calculate the corresponding
output {Y10 , Y20 } .

3. Calculate the sensitivity matrix S j centering on the present param-

eters {X 1j , X 2 , P1j , P2 , C 1j , C 2 , Y1j , Y2j } .
4. Draw the matrix Sj in Equation 14.6 from the sensitivity matrix,
and construct the parameter vector Yj based on the difference
between the known Y2 and the calculated Y2j .
5. Compute the parameter increment vector Qj in Equation 14.6 using
the matrix inversion algorithms or the iterative algorithms.
6. Obtain a new set of parameters {X 1j+1 , P1j+1 , C 1j+1 , Y1'j+1 } by adding the
increment Qj into the solution {X 1j , P1j , C 1j , Y1j } in the jth iteration.
7. Calculate the output Y = {Y1j +1 , Y2j+1 } again from the forward solver
using the newly obtained {X 1j+1 , P1j+1 , C 1j+1 } and the known
{X 2 , P2 , C 2 } .
8. Compare the following five errors between (a) the calculated Y2j+1
and the known Y2 , (b) the calculated Y1j+1 and the computed Y1' j+1 ,
(c) X 1j+1 and X 1j , (d) P1j+1 and P1j , and (e) C 1j+1 and C 1j .
9. If all these errors are within the predefined toleration, the set of
parameters {X 1j+1 , P1j+1 , C 1j+1 , Y1j+1 } is considered the total solution of
the problem and the solution procedure ends. Otherwise, j = :j + 1;
go back to step (2) to calculate the new sensitivity matrix S j .
This procedure is illustrated in the flow chart of Figure 14.2.
14.3.1.4 Comments on SMM

The SMM is very suitable for solving the complex problems of engineering
mechanics, mainly because the SMM uses a sensitivity matrix S rather than
the traditional transformation matrix H(X, P, C) to relate the system param-
eters. The matrix S is always obtainable without too much difficulty when
the forward solver is available for arbitrarily complex mechanics problems;
however, the matrix H(X, P, C) is sometimes very difficult to calculate
because each column in the matrix is a shifted version of system impulse
response or the discrete expression of Green’s function. These are usually
computationally extensive. In addition, the sought parameter vector X is
capably expressed in an explicit form in Equation 14.1 only for linear prob-
lems such as identification for the external loadings (Liu et al., 2002e). Iden-
tification can be successfully conducted using the inverse problem
algorithms based on Equation 14.1.
For nonlinear problems such as detection of the cracks in structures or
identification of the material properties, the parameters to be sought are
involved in the matrix H(X, P, C). The conventional inverse problem algo-
rithms based on Equation 14.1 would become very difficult in solving these
problems. However, the SMM accommodates the nonlinear problems very
well without any extra difficulty because, in the SMM, the sought parameters
are always expressed in an explicit form. Therefore, identification for these

Construct forward solver

J = :0
End
0 0 0
Assumed X , P , C
1 1 1
Total solution
Known X 2 , P2 , C 2 X 1j+1 , P1j+1 , C1j+1 , Y1j+1
Forward solver J = :j+1
No
Calculated Y10 , Y20
|| Y2j+1 − Y2 || ≤ ε y 2
Yes
|| Y1j+1 − Y1' j+1 || ≤ ε y1
j j j j
X , X 2 , P , P2 , C , C 2 , Y , Y
1 1 1 1 2
j
|| X1j+1 − X1j ||≤ ε x
|| P1j+1 − P1j ||≤ ε p
|| C1j+1 − C1j ||≤ ε C
−
Sensitivity matrix S j
= =
Matrix S j and vector Yj Calculated Y1j+1 , Y2j+1
SMM Forward solver
=
Computed Q j Computed X1j+1 , P1j+1 , C1j+1 and known X 2 , P2 , C 2
Updated X1j+1 , P1j+1 , C1j+1 , Y1' j+1
FIGURE 14.2
Solution procedure towards a total solution using the sensitivity matrix-based method (SMM).
(From Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)
parameters can be easily performed using the matrix inversion or iterative

algorithms.
As do any gradient-based approaches, the SMM requires an initial estima-
tion for the unknown parameters involved in the parameter vectors X, P,
and C. This work requires a rational combination of scientific knowledge
and engineering experience. A proper estimation for these parameters would
surely accelerate the convergence of a solution procedure towards a total

solution. If the bounds of the parameters are too big and the initial estimation
is not properly done, the SMM would fail to find the true solution.
14.3.2 Neural Network

Based on the progressive neural network as discussed in Chapter 6, the
solution procedure toward total solution using the NN method can be
described as:
1. Construct a forward solver for the problem under consideration,

which determines the system output of Y.
2. Select an NN model and initially train this model. This includes: (a)
determine the architecture of the NN model with the output vector
Y = {Y1, Y2} as the input of the NN model and the compound vector
Q = {X1, X2, P1, P2, C1, C2} as the output of the NN model. This is
deliberately set to be opposite to the forward solution procedure, (b)
generate a set of initial training samples using the orthogonal array
based method, and (c) train the NN model using the improved
learning algorithm until it converges.
3. Assume the unknown parameters {X 10 , P10 , C 10 } , put them together
with the known {X 2 , P2 , C 2 } into the forward solver to calculate
the output Y 0 = {Y10 , Y20 } .
4. Feed the calculated Y1j and the known Y2 into the trained NN
model to compute the corresponding output {X 1j , X 2j , P1j , P2j ,
C 1j , C 2j } .
5. Examine the output of the NN model and retrain the model using
the adjusted sample as stated earlier until the satisfactory result is
obtained.
6. Put the computed {X 1j , P1j , C 1j } and the known {X 2 , P2 , C 2 } into
the forward solver to calculate the output Y j +1 = {Y1j +1 , Y2j+1 } again.
7. Compare the following five errors between (a) the calculated Y2j+1
and the known Y2 , (b) Y1j+1 and Y1j , (c) X 1j and X 1j−1 , (d) P1j and
P1j−1 , and (e) C 1j and C 1j−1 .
8. If all these errors are within the predefined toleration, the set of
parameters {X 1j , P1j , C 1j } is considered to be the total solution of
problem. The solution procedure ends. Otherwise, j = :j+1; go back
to step (3) to compute the new output {X 1j , X 2j , P1j , P2j , C 1j , C 2j } by
feeding the calculated Y1j and the known Y2 into the re-trained
NN model.
This procedure is illustrated in the flow chart of Figure 14.3.

The NN method is especially suitable for complex engineering problems
when the underlying transformations are unknown or when the event takes

Construct forward solver

J = :0
End
Initially trained NN model
Assumed X10 , P10 , C10 Total solution

X1j , P1j , C1j , Y1j
Known X 2 , P2 , C 2
J = :j+1
No
Forward solver
|| Y2j+1 − Y2 || ≤ ε y 2
Yes
Calculated Y10 , Y20 || Y1j+1 − Y1j || ≤ ε y1
|| X1j − X1j−1 ||≤ ε x
|| P1j − P1j−1 ||≤ ε p
|| C1j − C1j−1 ||≤ ε c
Calculated Y1j and known Y2
NN Calculated Y1j+1 , Y2j+1
Computed X1j , X 2j , P1j , P2j , C1j , C 2j Forward solver
Yes
Examination Computed X1j , P1j , C1j and known X 2 , P2 , C 2
No
Re-train NN model
FIGURE 14.3
Solution procedure towards a total solution using the progressive neural network. (From Liu,
G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)
place in a noisy environment. However, it cannot provide precise physical

or mathematical insights into the underlying physical laws. In using an NN,
care must be taken to avoid over-fitting (see Section 6.4.4).
14.4 Numerical Examples

Two numerical examples are given in this section to validate the approach
and corresponding algorithms. One is referred to a forward problem of

a
a/2
r=a
r=a/2
Φ Φ
t1 t2
K K
FIGURE 14.4
Vibration analysis of a circular plate with elastic supports. The circular plate with step thickness,
where t1 and t2 are the thickness of plate in the regions a/2 ≤ r ≤ a and 0 ≤ r ≤ a/2, respectively.
Φ and K are the rotational and translational spring constants of the elastic supports in the
boundary, respectively. (From Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012,
2001. With permission.)
vibration analysis with incomplete descriptions of their causes, and the

other to an inverse problem of identification for the material properties with
insufficient observations of their effects. Both are treated as mixed problems.
14.4.1 Vibration Analysis of a Circular Plate

Figure 14.4 shows a circular plate with stepped thickness over a concentric
region, where t1 and t2 are the thickness of plate in the region a/2 ≤ r ≤ a and
0 ≤ r ≤ a/2, respectively. E, ν, and ρ are the elastic module, Poisson’s ratio,
and mass density of plate, respectively, and Φ and K are the rotational and
translational spring constants, respectively, to model the elastic supports in
boundary.
For the sake of simplicity, the following characteristic parameters are used
in this example:
ω m = ω m a 2 ρt1 / D1 K = Ka 3 / D1 Φ = Φa 3 / D1
D1 = Et13 / 12(1 − ν 2 ) t = t2 / t1 (14.16)

The objective of vibration analysis for this problem is to calculate the first
six natural frequencies ω i (i = 1,…,6). It is clear that if parameters t , ν, K ,
and Φ can be completely provided, this solution is easily obtained by using
the differential quadrature method (DQM) reported by Wu and Liu (2000).
For testing the approach and the corresponding inverse problem algorithms,
it is intentionally assumed that the spring constants K and Φ are unknown.
This case is most likely to happen in real situations; it is clear that the problem
would be very difficult to solve using conventional solving techniques such
as the DQM because necessary boundary conditions are lacking.
According to the approach towards a total solution, this problem is first
treated as a mixed problem, where the first three frequencies,
ω m (m = 1, 2, 3) , are assumed to be experimentally obtainable. The param-
eter vectors for this problem are thus set up as Q = {Q1, Q2}, Q1 = { K , Φ },
Q2 = { t , ν}, Y = {Y1, Y2}, Y1 = { ω 4 , ω 5 , ω 6 }, and Y2 = { ω 1 , ω 2 , ω 3 }. DQM
is used as the forward solver.
In this numerical experiment, the actual values of parameters t , ν, K ,
and Φ are 1.5, 0.3, 16, and 4, respectively. The first six frequencies,
ω m (m = 1, , 6) , corresponding to this set of physical parameters are cal-
culated to be 4.6, 17.1, 50.8, 113.3, 196.4, and 302.7, respectively, from the
forward solver DQM. This study would demonstrate how the parameters
ω 4 , ω 5 , ω 6 , K , and Φ are solved from the known t , ν, ω 1 , ω 2 , and
ω 3 based on the concept of total solution. The SMM and the NN methods
are used to this end.
14.4.1.1 SMM Solution

According to the solution procedure described in Section 14.3.1, it is first
assumed that the initial values of K and Φ are 8 and 2, respectively, 50%
off from their actual values. Putting these assumed values of K , Φ and the
known t of 1.5, ν of 0.3 into the forward solver DQM, yields the correspond-
ing first six frequencies, ω m (m = 1, , 6) , to be 3.43, 15.31, 48.53, 110.34,
193.78, and 299.21, respectively. Then, a sensitivity matrix S0 centering on
this set of parameters is obtained by way of varying each parameter among
t , ν, K , and Φ and then calculating the corresponding changes of
ω m (m = 1, , 6) for each varied combination of parameters. Subsequently,
the matrix S and the vector Y in Equation 14.6 are formed.
Based on this newly formed Equation 14.6 and using the singular value
decomposition algorithm, the frequencies ω 4 , ω 5 , and ω 6 and the param-
eters K and Φ are computed to be 111.1, 194.2, 300.1, and 11.3, 2.7, respec-
tively (see the second row of Table 14.2). Substituting the originals of
parameters K and Φ with the newly computed values of 11.3 and 2.7 and
putting them together with the known t and ν into the forward solver DQM
once again, a new set of frequencies ω m (m = 1, , 6) is calculated to be 4.0,
16.1, 49.4, 111.5, 194.7, and 300.5 (see the third row of Table 14.2). Then, the
five kinds of errors defined in Section 14.3.1 are examined to decide if the
solution procedure ends (also see Figure 14.2). All of them are larger at this

TABLE 14.2
Solution Procedure towards a Total Solution Using SMM
Input parameters Output parameters
Iteration
No. Method t n K Φ ω1 ω2 ω3 ω4 ω5 ω6
Initial DQM 1.5 0.3 8a 2a 3.4 15.3 48.5 110.3 193.7 299.2
1 SMM 1.5 0.3 11.3 2.7 3.4 15.3 48.5 111.1 194.2 300.1
DQM 1.5 0.3 11.3 2.7 4.0 16.1 49.4 111.5 194.7 300.5
2 SMM 1.5 0.3 15.1 3.4 4.0 16.1 49.4 112.3 195.1 301.6
DQM 1.5 0.3 15.1 3.4 4.5 16.8 50.3 112.5 195.7 301.7
3 SMM 1.5 0.3 16.8 3.8 4.5 16.8 50.3 113.2 196.1 302.6
DQM 1.5 0.3 16.8 3.8 4.7 17.1 50.6 112.9 196.0 302.2
4 SMM 1.5 0.3 16.3 3.7 4.7 17.1 50.6 113.0 195.8 302.4
DQM 1.5 0.3 16.3 3.7 4.7 17.1 50.4 112.9 195.0 301.9
5 SMM 1.5 0.3 15.7 3.6 4.7 17.1 50.4 112.4 195.7 302.0
DQM 1.5 0.3 15.7 3.6 4.6 16.9 50.5 112.8 195.9 302.1
6 SMM 1.5 0.3 15.8 3.8 4.6 16.9 50.5 113.2 196.1 302.4
DQM 1.5 0.3 15.8 3.8 4.6 17.0 50.5 113.1 196.2 302.2
Target 1.5 0.3 16 4 4.6 17.1 50.8 113.3 196.4 302.7
a Initially assumed values.
Note: Data in bold are values obtained at the corresponding solution process.
Source: Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With
permission.
iteration, so the iteratively solving process is required to continue. After six

episodes of such iterations, the maximal error between solved and real values
for all the sought parameters decreases to –5%. The solution procedure ends.
Table 14.2 gives the corresponding solutions at each iteration. Figure 14.5
shows four sensitivity matrices in the iteration procedure, and Figure 14.6
shows the convergence process of frequency error ei (ω i )
ω ij +1 − ω i0
ei (ω ) = i = 1, …, 6 (14.17)
ω ij +1
where ω ij+1 (i = 1, ..., 6) are the frequencies calculated from the DQM at the j
+ 1 iteration, ω i0 (i = 1, 2, 3) are the known frequencies, and ω i0 (i = 4 , 5, 6)
are the frequencies computed from the SMM at the j + 1 iteration.
14.4.1.2 Progressive NN Solution

In accordance with the present problem, the NN model is constructed with
two hidden layers in which the number of neurons in the input and output,
and first and second hidden layers are 6, 4, 21, and 7, respectively. Six input
neurons correspond to six output parameters, ω m (m = 1, , 6) , while four
output neurons correspond to four input parameters t , ν, K , and Φ .
A total of 32 samples is generated for initially training this NN model,
among which 16 samples are determined by the orthogonal array L16(45).

1.0
0 . −
t
. . K−
0.8
0.6 - . ν R . −
Φ 0
0.4 . 0 0
0 0
0.2
0.0
R- R.- R.- R.- R.- .R-
0
-0.2
ω1 ω2 ω3 ω4 ω5 ω6
(a) S 0 at initial solution
1.0
Sensitivity of input parameters to the output frequencies
0.8
0.6
0
0 0
0.4 . 0 0
0.2
R- .R- R.- R.-
0.0 R.- R.-
0
-0.2
ω1 ω2 ω3 ω4 ω5 ω6
st
(b) S1 at 1 iteration
1.0
0.8
0.6 0
0 0
0.4 . 0 0
0.2
. R.-
0.0 R- -R R.- R.- R.-
0
-0.2
ω1 ω2 ω3 ω4 ω5 ω6
(c) S3 at 3rd iteration
1.0
0.8
0.6
0
0 0
0.4 . 0 0
R.-
0.2
0.0 R- R.- R.- .R- .R-
0
-0.2
ω1 ω2 ω3 ω4 ω5 ω6
(d) S 5 at 5th iteration
FIGURE 14.5
Sensitivity matrices produced in solution procedure. (From Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)
This array is selected by setting each of the four parameters t , ν, K , and

Φ with five discrete values. Another 16 samples are generated from the
random-based method. These sample data are then normalized to ensure
that they are not too close to 0 or 1, so as to avoid some numerical difficulties
in the training process.
The improved learning algorithm and the progressive training strategy as
stated in Chapter 6 are used to train this NN model, where the learn rate η
and the jump factor γ are set to be 1.8 and 0.02, respectively. Figure 14.7
shows the convergence process of error norm within the first 5000 training
iterations in the first episode of training. This training process ends after
8253 iterations when the given convergence criterion is fulfilled.

10
H H
C
E
A E
C
A C
E
A
0 F
JF
E
A
C JA
C
E
F
H
JF JE
H
FA
C
JH
F
F
J
Error (%)
-10 J
H H ω1 C ω4
J ω2 E ω5
-20 F ω3 A ω6
-30
initial 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of iterations
FIGURE 14.6
Convergence process of the frequency errors e i (ω i ) (i = 1,…, 6). (From Liu, G.R. et al., Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)
8.0
α α
1 2
1 1
7.0 α
0
1
… … α
3
1
α α α α
0 1 2 3
i p q j
6.0 α
0
n
… … α
3
m
α α
1 2
a b
5.0
Error norm
Neurons: 6 – 21 – 7 – 4
4.0
Learning rate: η = 1.8
3.0 Jumping factor: γ = 0.02
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Number of iterations in training
FIGURE 14.7
Convergence process of error norm in initial training of NN model. (From Liu, G.R. et al.,
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)

TABLE 14.3
Solution Procedure towards a Total Solution Using Progressive NN (PNN)
Method
Input Parameters Output Parameters
Iteration
No. Method t n K Φ ω1 ω2 ω3 ω4 ω5 ω6
Initial DQM 1.5 0.3 8a 2a 3.4 15.3 48.5 110.3 193.7 299.2
1 PNN 1.48 0.39 14.36 2.58 4.6 17.1 50.8 110.3 193.7 299.2
DQM 1.5 0.3 14.36 2.58 4.5 16.6 49.5 111.4 194.6 300.3
2 PNN 1.49 0.37 15.24 2.91 4.6 17.1 50.8 111.4 194.6 300.3
DQM 1.5 0.3 15.24 2.91 4.5 16.7 49.8 111.8 195.0 300.9
3 PNN 1.51 0.35 16.67 3.31 4.6 17.1 50.8 111.8 195.0 300.9
DQM 1.5 0.3 16.67 3.31 4.6 17.0 50.2 112.4 195.6 301.6
4 PNN 1.50 0.34 16.53 3.72 4.6 17.1 50.8 112.4 195.6 301.6
DQM 1.5 0.3 16.53 3.72 4.7 17.1 50.6 112.9 196.1 302.3
5 PNN 1.50 0.32 16.18 3.87 4.6 17.1 50.8 112.9 196.1 302.3
DQM 1.5 0.3 16.18 3.87 4.7 17.2 50.7 113.1 196.3 302.5
6 PNN 1.50 0.32 16.17 3.95 4.6 17.1 50.8 113.1 196.3 302.5
DQM 1.5 0.3 16.17 3.95 4.6 17.1 50.7 113.2 196.3 302.6
Target 1.5 0.3 16 4 4.6 17.1 50.8 113.3 196.4 302.7
Source: Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With
permission.
After the NN model is trained well, the solution procedure as described

in Section 14.3.2 takes place. As with using the SMM, assume the initial K
and Φ to be 8 and 2, respectively. Using this assumed K and Φ and the
known t of 1.5, ν of 0.3, the first six frequencies, ω m (m = 1, , 6) , are
calculated to be 3.4, 15.3, 48.5, 110.3, 193.7, and 299.2, respectively, from the
forward solver DQM. Then, a new input to the NN model is formed by using
the known first three frequencies and the calculated ω 4 , ω 5 , and ω 6 . They
are 4.6, 17.1, 50.7, 110.3, 193.7, and 299.2.
With this new input, the corresponding t , ν, K , and Φ are computed
to be 1.48, 0.39, 15.36, and 2.58, respectively, from the retrained NN model
(see the second row of Table 14.3). Using the computed K of 15.63, Φ of
2.58, and the known t , ν, a new set of frequencies, 4.5, 16.6, 49.5, 111.4, 194.6,
and 300.3, is calculated again from the DQM (see the third row of Table 14.3).
Similar to that using the SMM, the five kinds of errors defined in Section
14.3.2 (also see Figure 14.3) are examined. Because all of them are larger at
this iteration, the solving process continues to the next iteration. After six
episodes of such iterations, the maximal error of the sought parameters with
respect to their real values decreases to –1.25%. Table 14.3 gives the corre-
sponding solutions at each iteration. Figure 14.8 shows the convergence
process of errors ei (ω i ) (i = 1, 2, 3) and ei ( pi ) (i = 1, 2) for all the known
and solved parameter values.

30 J
J
20
J
J
10
J J
Error (%)
F F
H
F H
C C
H H
C
F
0 H H C
E E E E
F
E
C E
F
C
E
-10 C H t C ω2
J v E ω3
-20 F ω1
-30
initial 1 2 3 4 5 6
FIGURE 14.8
Convergence process of the errors e i ( p i ) (i = 1, 2) and e i (ω i ) (i = 1, 2, 3). (From Liu, G.R. et
al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)
ω ij +1 − ω i0
ei (ω ) = i = 1, 2, 3 (14.18a)
ω ij +1
pij − pi0
e i ( pi ) = i = 1, 2 (14.18b)
pij
where ω i0 and ω ij+1 (i = 1, 2, 3) (i = 1, 2, 3) are the known frequencies and

the calculated frequencies from the DQM at the j + 1 iteration, respectively.
p10 and p1j are the known and the calculated value of K , respectively. p20
and p2j are the known and the calculated values of Φ , respectively.
14.4.2 Identification of Material Properties of a Beam

Figure 14.9 shows a beam with a centralized force Pc = 5 × 103N on its end.
This beam is fixed at node 1, simply supported at node 2 and free at node
3. It has the different material and geometrical properties in the spans 1 to
2 and 2 to 3, respectively. They are given in Table 14.4.
Analysis is conducted only in the x–y plane for simplicity. With the finite
element model (FEM) of the beam and the complete input information, the
translational and rotational displacements of the beam at node 2 and node
3 (i.e., x2, θ2, x3, y3, and θ3) can be easily calculated. The FEM model of the
beam is used as the forward solver.

Pc = 5×103 N
1 2 3
45°
80 mm 50 mm x
FIGURE 14.9
A beam subjected to a concentrated load at its end. The beam is fixed at node 1, simply supported
at node 2 and free at node 3. It has different material and geometrical properties in spans 1 to
2 and 2 to 3. (From Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With
permission.)
TABLE 14.4
Properties of the Beam
E (N/mm2) ν A (mm2) Iz (mm4)
Span 1–2 2 × 105 0.3 6 × 103 200 × 106
Span 2–3 2 × 105 0.3 4 × 103 40 × 106
Source: Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.
It is intentionally assumed that E1, E2 and x2, θ2, θ3 are unknown, but the
transnational displacements at node 3 (i.e., x3 and y3) and the section areas
of the beam (i.e., A1 and A2) are experimentally obtained. In this case, iden-
tification of the material properties E1 and E2 would be very difficult using
conventional inverse problem algorithms based only on the known output
x3 and y3. However, the approach towards a total solution is available for
this problem. It is able to make use of the other know information of A1, A2.
As in the previous example, the SMM and the NN methods are used.
14.4.2.1 SMM Solution

Similar to Section 14.4.1.1, it is first assumed that E1 and E2 are 1 × 105, which
is 50% off from their actual values. Using the FEM model, displacements x2,
θ2, x3, y3, and θ3 are calculated to be 2.36 × 10–2, –5.07 × 10–2, 4.57 × 10–2, –1.92
× 10–2 and –3.04 × 10–2, respectively. Then, an initial sensitivity matrix S0 is
obtained from this set of physical parameters and, subsequently, E1, E2, x2,
θ2, and θ3 are computed in the same way as that in the previous example
(see the second row of Table 14.5). With the computed E1 of 1.31 × 105, E2 of
1.29 × 105, the known A1 of 6.0 × 103, and A2 of 4.0 × 103, a new set of
displacements, 4.72 × 10–2, –10.13 × 10–2, 9.13 × 10–2, –3.83 × 10–2, and –6.08 ×
10–2, are calculated from the FEM model (see the third row of Table 14.5).
The parameter errors similar to that defined in Equation 14.17 are examined
to assess whether the present solution is satisfactory in accuracy.
This solving process experiences a total of five iterations. Figure 14.10
shows two sensitivity matrices, S1 and S4 , at the first and fourth iterations,

TABLE 14.5
Solution Procedure towards a Total Solution Using SMM
Iteration E1 E2 A1 A2 x3 y3 x2 θ2 θ3
No. Method (×105) (×105) (×103) (×103) (×10–2) (×10–2) (×10–2) (×10–2) (×10–2)
Initial FEM 1.0a 1.0a 6.0 4.0 9.13 –3.83 4.72 –10.13 –6.08
1 SMM 1.31 1.29 6.0 4.0 9.13 –3.83 4.65 –10.08 –6.02
FEM 1.31 1.29 6.0 4.0 6.99 –2.94 3.60 –7.73 –4.67
2 SMM 1.73 1.62 6.0 4.0 6.99 –2.94 3.04 –6.21 –4.06
FEM 1.73 1.62 6.0 4.0 5.45 –2.33 2.73 –5.86 –3.71
3 SMM 2.21 2.02 6.0 4.0 5.45 –2.33 1.93 –4.11 –2.49
FEM 2.21 2.02 6.0 4.0 4.32 –1.86 2.13 –4.58 –2.97
4 SMM 1.97 1.98 6.0 4.0 4.32 –1.86 2.33 –5.01 –3.05
FEM 1.97 1.98 6.0 4.0 4.63 –1.94 2.39 –5.14 –3.07
5 SMM 2.02 1.99 6.0 4.0 4.63 –1.94 2.34 –5.05 –3.04
FEM 2.02 1.99 6.0 4.0 4.555 –1.92 2.33 –5.02 –3.05
Target 2.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 4.57 –1.92 2.36 –5.07 –3.04
Source: Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.
0.0 Ç
É Ç
É H
H F
-0.4 Ç
É
F
H F
Sensitivity
É É
-0.8 F
H H
Ç Ç
-1.2 H E1 F A1
F
-1.6
É E Ç A
2 2
-2.0
x
3
y
3
x
2
θ2 θ3
(a) S1 at 1st iteration
0.0 É
Ç É
Ç H
H F
É
Ç
F
H F
-0.4
Sensitivity
É É
-0.8 F
H H
Ç Ç
-1.2 F
-1.6
-2.0
x3 y3 x2 θ2 θ3
(b) S4 at 4th iteration
FIGURE 14.10
Sensitivity produced in solution procedure. (From Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)

100 H
J
H x3 C θ2
80
J y3 E θ3
60
Error (%) JH F x2
40
JH
20 E
C
F
F
C
JH
E E
0 JC
HF
JH
C
E
F
-20 E
F
C
-40
initial 1 2 3 4 5
FIGURE 14.11
Convergence process of the displacement parameter errors. (From Liu, G.R. et al., Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)
respectively. Figure 14.11 shows the convergence process of displacement

parameter errors with the similar definition of Equation 14.17. The maximal
error between the solved and the actual values for the sought parameters is
just 1%. Table 14.5 shows the corresponding solutions at each iteration.
14.4.2.2 Progressive NN Solution

The NN model is selected to have two hidden layers, where the number of
neurons in the input and output, and first and second hidden layers is 5, 4,
15, and 7, respectively. Five input neurons correspond to five displacements
x2, θ2, x3, y3, and θ3, while four output neurons correspond to E1, A1, E2, and A2.
Similar to Section 14.4.1.2, a total of 32 samples is initially used to train
this NN model by using the improved learning algorithm. Figure 14.12
shows the convergence process of error norm within the first 5000 training
iterations in the first time of training. The given convergence criterion is
fulfilled after 7819 iterations of training.
The trained NN model is then used in the solution procedure in search of
a total solution of the problem. E1 and E2 are first assumed to be 1 × 10 5. The
corresponding displacements, x2, θ2, x3, y3, and θ3, are calculated from the
FEM model using these assumed values of E1 and E2, and the known A1 and
A2 (see the first row of Table 14.6). After five episodes of iteration as per-
formed in the previous example, all the parameter errors converge within
the required toleration. The maximal error of the solved parameters with
respect to their actual values is 3.5%. Figure 14.13 shows the convergence

8.0
7.0 α
1
1 α
2
1
α
… …
3
α
0
1
1
α α α α
6.0
0 1 2 3
i p q j
α
0
n
… … α
3
m
α α
1 2
a b
5.0
Error norm Neurons: 5 – 15 – 7 – 4
4.0
Learning rate: η = 1.8
3.0
Jumping factor: γ = 0.01
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Number of iterations in training
FIGURE 14.12
Convergence process of error norm in the initial training of the progressive NN model. (From
Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)
TABLE 14.6
Solution Procedure towards a Total Solution Using Progressive NN (PNN)
Method
Iteration E1 E2 A1 A2 x3 y3 x2 θ2 θ3
No. Method (×105) (×105) (×103) (×103) (×10–2) (×10–2) (×10–2) (×10–2) (×10–2)
Initial FEM 1.0a 1.0a 6.0 4.0 9.13 –3.83 4.72 –10.13 –6.08
1 PNN 1.88 2.56 7.61 3.77 4.57 –1.92 4.72 –10.13 –6.08
FEM 1.88 2.56 6.0 4.0 4.24 –1.62 2.51 –5.39 –2.52
2 PNN 1.95 2.21 7.31 3.82 4.57 –1.92 2.51 –5.39 –2.52
FEM 1.95 2.21 6.0 4.0 4.41 –1.78 2.42 –5.21 –2.79
3 PNN 1.94 2.15 5.83 4.02 4.57 –1.92 2.42 –5.21 –2.79
FEM 1.94 2.15 6.0 4.0 4.48 –1.82 2.43 –5.22 –2.87
4 PNN 1.98 2.06 5.88 4.03 4.57 –1.92 2.43 –5.22 –2.87
FEM 1.98 2.06 6.0 4.0 4.52 –1.88 2.38 –5.112 –2.97
5 PNN 2.07 1.98 6.09 4.01 4.57 –1.92 2.38 –5.112 –2.97
FEM 2.07 1.98 6.0 4.0 4.55 –1.92 2.32 –4.99 –3.05
Target 2.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 4.57 –1.92 2.36 –5.07 –3.04
Source: Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.

100 F
C
80
H A1 F x3
60 J A2 C y3
Error (%)
40
H
H
20
J J H
J
C
0 F F
H F
H
C F
J J C
F C
C
-20
initial 1 2 3 4 5
Number of iteration
FIGURE 14.13
Convergence process of the parameter errors. (From Liu, G.R. et al., Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng., 191, 989–1012, 2001. With permission.)
process of the errors between the known and the solved parameter values.
Table 14.6 gives the corresponding solutions at each iteration.
14.5 Remarks
• Remark 14.1 — the approach towards a total solution provides a

comprehensive solution strategy for all kinds of engineering prob-
lems, especially for forward problems with incomplete descriptions
of their causes and inverse problems with insufficient observations
of their effects.
• Remark 14.2 — the basic idea of this total solution approach is to
formulate the engineering mechanics problem as a parameter iden-
tification problem using a forward solver. An iterative process of
conducting alternately forward and inverse (or mixed) analyses is
implemented to identify all the unknown parameters. This approach
allows solution information to be shared between the forward and

inverse analyses at each iteration, which ensures a stable conver-

gence of solution procedure.
• Remark 14.3 — SMM and the NN methods are developed for con-
ducting the inverse (or mixed) analyses in the solution procedure
towards a total solution of a problem. Numerical examples have
demonstrated their effectiveness.
• Remark 14.4 — the concept of total solution and the approach is still
in the infant stage. However, it offers a new viewpoint and strategy
for solving practical engineering problems. Further study is needed.
The results are expected to have a significant impact on the treatment
of practical engineering problems.

Total Solution For Engineering Systems: A New Concept: 1523 - Frame - C14.fm Page 515 Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:10 PM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Total Solution For Engineering Systems: A New Concept: 1523 - Frame - C14.fm Page 515 Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:10 PM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1523_Frame_C14.

fm Page 515 Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:10 PM

where Y = {y1, y2,…, ym } is a vector of output parameters or a vector of model-

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

(a) Forward problem

(b) a case of inverse problem

(c) another case of inverse problem

(d) a mixed problem

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

representing a forward solver. It is derived from the physical laws underlying

14.2 Approaching a Total Solution

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

• For most forward and inverse problems found in engineering prac-

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

• Conducting alternately forward and inverse analyses provides a

14.2.1 Procedure for a Total Solution

• Construction of a forward solver (i.e., the forward computational

14.2.2 Forward Solver

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

directly used to solve most forward problems in engineering mechanics. For

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

14.2.3 System Parameters

14.2.4 Mathematical Representation

Finding: {X1, P1, C1, Y1}

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

14.3 Inverse Algorithms

14.3.1 Sensitivity Matrix-Based Method (SMM)

in which q j = {x1 , , xn , p1 , , pr , c1 , , c k }, j = 1, ... , ψ ; ψ = n + r + k

• Analytical methods such as that derived from the sensitivity equa-

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

• Numerical computations by using the forward solver, where the

 − S12 X 2 − S14 P2 − S16 C2 

For several special cases, Y , S , and Q are expressed as:

• Y, P, and C are known, X is sought

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

• Y and X are known, P and C are sought

14.3.1.2.1 Matrix Inversion Algorithms

[ S ]−1 and [ S ]− g are an inverse and a general inverse matrix of [ S ] , respec-

14.3.1.2.2 Iterative Algorithms

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

the known output, Y = { y k } , and the predicted output, Y P = { y kP } , from

14.3.1.3 Solution Procedure

1. Construct a forward model for the problem under consideration,

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

3. Calculate the sensitivity matrix S j centering on the present param-

This procedure is illustrated in the flow chart of Figure 14.2.

14.3.1.4 Comments on SMM

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

Construct forward solver

Forward solver J = :j+1

SMM Forward solver

Updated X1j+1 , P1j+1 , C1j+1 , Y1' j+1

parameters can be easily performed using the matrix inversion or iterative

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

14.3.2 Neural Network

1. Construct a forward solver for the problem under consideration,

This procedure is illustrated in the flow chart of Figure 14.3.

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

Construct forward solver

Assumed X10 , P10 , C10 Total solution

NN Calculated Y1j+1 , Y2j+1

Computed X1j , X 2j , P1j , P2j , C1j , C 2j Forward solver

place in a noisy environment. However, it cannot provide precise physical