See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313876032

Approximation of structural damping and input excitation force

Article  in  Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering · February 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s11709-016-0371-9

CITATION READS

1 338

1 author:

Mohammad Salavati
Bauhaus Universität Weimar
12 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

DFT-CO View project

Create new project "Novel Energy Storage system(NESS)" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Salavati on 25 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
DOI 10.1007/s11709-016-0371-9

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Approximation of structural damping and input excitation

force
Mohammad SALAVATI*
Institute of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Bauhaus University Weimar, Weimar 99423, Germany
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: mohammad.salavati@uni-weimar.de

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

ABSTRACT Structural dynamic characteristics are the most significant parameters that play a decisive role in
structural damage assessment. The more sensitive parameter to the damage is the damping behavior of the structure. The
complexity of structural damping mechanisms has made this parameter to be one of the ongoing research topics. Despite
all the difficulties in the modeling of damping, there are some approaches like as linear and nonlinear models which are
described as the energy dissipation throughout viscous, material or structural hysteretic and frictional damping
mechanisms. In the presence of a mathematical model of the damping mechanisms, it is possible to estimate the damping
ratio from the theoretical comparison of the damped and un-damped systems. On the other hand, solving the inverse
problem of the input force estimation and its distribution to each SDOFs, from the measured structural responses plays an
important role in structural identification process. In this paper model-based damping approximation method and a model-
less structural input estimation are considered. The effectiveness of proposed methods has been carried out through
analytical and numerical simulation of the lumped mass system and the results are compared with reference data.
Consequently, high convergence of the comparison results illustrates the satisfactory of proposed approximation methods.

KEYWORDS structural modal parameters, damping identification method, input excitation force identification, Inverse
problem

1 Introduction tracking of effects on mechanical properties are considered

The structural identification is classified in two scale like
entire structure and material scales. In the whole structural
level, assorted analysis methods have been extensively
used to extract dynamic characteristic based on measure-
ment vibration data as an inverse problem, as well as
identifying damage on the structures. The structural
dynamic characteristics are the most significant parameters
that play a decisive role in structural damage assessment.
The significance of these determinants came from the fact
that their changes have the physical meaning, such as the
variability of the modal frequency, mode shapes and modal
damping are related to variability of the structural stiffness,
mass and energy dissipation behavior respectively. On the
other hand, changing in modal properties is the result of
changing in geometry shape and material properties of the
structure. In the material scale, damage identification and
Article history: Received Feb 29, 2016; Accepted Aug 24, 2016
as multiscale analysis that contains nano, micro, meso and
macro scales. Nanthakumar et al. [1] proposed an iterative
method to identify damage in piezoelectric structures. In
each iteration for different defect configuration, the inverse
problem of cracks and voids detection is treated by solving
the forward problem with using extended finite element
methods (EFEM). The cost function is minimized by
performing multilevel coordinate search (MCS) method.
Also, the numerical method based on combination of
classical shape derivative and the level-set method is used
to minimize the cost function in structural optimization
[2,3]. Integrity of XFEM-MCS methodology and proposed
numerical method is demonstrated throughout the test
problems [4]. Rabczuk et al. [5] considered to the fracture
and fragmentation of concrete through simulation of the
concrete fragmentation under explosive loading by a
meshfree lagrangian and smooth particle hydrodynamics
methods. Also, three dimensional discrete cracks modeling
in meshfree are considered in Refs. [6–8]. Goangseup et al.
2 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
[9] proposed an extended meshfree method for cohesive
cracks. Rabczuk et al. [10] proposed a three-dimensional
meshfree method for arbitrary crack initiation and
propagation. Moreover, a three-dimensional meshfree
methods for modeling random crack initiation and growth
are presented in Ref. [11]. Various crack tracking
techniques are considered which is applicable in three-
dimensions in the context of partition of unity methods,
especially meshfree methods [12]. The meshfree method
based on the local partition of unity for cohesive cracks are
presented in Ref. [13]. Analysis of prestressed concrete
beams under quasi-static loading by choosing coupled
element free Galerkin finite element approach are
investigated in Ref. [14]. Two-dimensional approach to
model fracture of reinforced concrete structures under
ascending static loading conditions are described in Ref.
[15]. Particle methods for modeling reinforced concrete
[16] which can easily handle large deformations and
fracture and the dynamic failure of concrete structures
under blast and impact loading are presented [17].
There are wide ranges of approaches to the structural
identification. Accurate identification of modal parameters
and specially tracking the variability of modal frequencies
and mode shapes are discussed in literatures [18–24]. The
more sensitive parameter to the damage is the damping
behavior of the structure. The damping properties of a
system are described as the ratio of energy absorbing
ability. The complexity of structural damping mechanisms
has made this parameter to be one of the ongoing research
topics. The uncertainty of which state variables of the
motion that are affected by the damping forces is hardening
the modeling of the damping. Damping modeling are
considered as linear and nonlinear models which are
described as the energy dissipation throughout viscous,
material or structural hysteretic and frictional damping
mechanisms [25–32]. Moreover, measuring the input force
and its distribution on each SDOFs are not possible in
many cases. Structures are exposed to the various forcing
scenarios at the same time, solving the inverse problem of
the input force estimation and its distribution to each
SDOFs, from the measured structural responses plays an
important role in structural identification process [33–40].
Rayleigh damping is the stiffness and mass proportional
model which has been used for decades. It is assumed that
the only damping related state of the motion is the
instantaneous velocity variable [41]. Despite the all of
damping modeling advances, the real structural energy
dissipation mechanism is still complicated. Lee [42]
developed a direct method to identify damping from
frequency response function (FRF). To gain more accurate
results, the natural mode information is not used. The both
viscous damping and internal structural damping mechan-
isms are identified in separate matrices. Yamaguchi and
Adhikari [43] identified modal damping of structural
cables by using energy-based representation of modal
damping. According to this damping ratio definition the
modal damping for each mode is considered as the ratio of
the modal dissipated energy per cycle to the modal
potential energy. Finally, the damping ratio is semi-
analytically evaluated in a different type of bridges to
investigate the applicability of energy-based method. Xu et
al. [44] proposed a neural network-based algorithm for
direct identification of structural stiffness and damping
parameters by using time domain velocity and displace-
ment responses. The proposed method theoretically based
on the comparison of an object structure response with a
reference structure which has the same topology and a
degree of freedom with that. To investigate the perfor-
mance of the neural network, the proposed root mean
square (RMS) difference vector of velocity and displace-
ment responses are evaluated for both reference and object
structure. The results prove that it is an effective index for
system identification with a parametric evaluation neural
network. To identify multi degree of freedom system’s
damping, Slavic et al. [45] presented a continuous wavelet
transform (CWT) method based on the Gabor wavelet
function for possibility of adapting its time and frequency
spread. Some uncertainties such as: a description of the
instantaneous noise, the edge-effect of the CWT, the
frequency-shift of the CWT and the bandwidth of the
wavelet function and the selection of the parameters of the
Gabor wavelet function of the CWT are considered
throughout presenting of three damping identification
methods: the cross-section method, the amplitude method
and the phase method. The results demonstrate the
advantages of using the amplitude and phase methods,
which give information about the instantaneous noise and
are appropriate for automating the identification process.
Min et al. [46] proposed a direct identification method by
using experimental data. System matrices are identified for
non-proportional damping structures by using modal
parameters. Consequently, this method can accurately
identify the stiffness, mass and damping matrices of the
highly damped system, and is the perfect mathematical
model for a lumped mass system. Arora [47] proposed a
new direct structural damping identification method by
using complex FRFs and accurate mass and stiffness
matrices. In this method damping is modeled as structural
damping by using the complex stiffness model. First, the
mass and stiffness matrices are updated by using FRF-
based updating method, then the damping is identified by
using updated mass and stiffness matrices as proposed in
this study. The advantage of this method is its ability in the
identification of damping in closely spaced mode cases.
This method requires a complex FRF matrix of structure so
it is not practicable for using in complicated structures.
Different numerical and experimental cases with various
damping levels are considered in this study, consequently
proposed method is able to identify the experimental FRFs
with all levels of damping in the system. Pan and Wang
[48] presented a new potential damping model in order to
identify the exponential damping model. Application of
 Mohammad SALAVATI. Approximation of structural damping and input excitation force
complex modes analysis and its damping identification
procedure are investigated. As a result, it’s applicable to
identifying both viscous and non-viscous damping in
structures. Also, an iterative method is proposed for
relaxation factor. Finally, the FE model updating method
for the systems with exponential damping is presented
based on FRF, in which it is suitable to predict the natural
frequencies and FRFs of the systems.
Consequently, it is obvious that the complication of the
various approaches due to the intrinsic complexity of the
physical phenomenon. Mystery of the damping comes
from the fact that unlike the elastic modulus which is
accounted in stiffness computation, the damping properties
of materials are not developed well, so it could not be
possible to identify damping from properties like as the
stiffness account. The structural damping matrix should be
calculated from the modal damping ratios. On the other
hand, because of various mechanisms of damping sources
and uncertainty of damping relate state of the motion, it’s
not feasible to identify or describe a mathematical model
thus it should be idealized like as viscous or equivalent
viscous damping models. In the presence of any
mathematical model of the damping mechanisms, it is
possible to estimate the damping ratio from the theoretical
comparison of the damped and un-damped systems, also it
is possible to measure structural responses and fix damping
related state of the motion to be zero in order to find
structural un-damped responses. The both of these facts are
used in the process of the further proposed method. The
idea behind the proposed damping identification method is
the comparison of damped system models with un-damped
forms.
2 Theoretical development of the proposed
methods
2.1 Mathematical model-based damping identification
Despite all the difficulties in the modeling of damping,
there are some approaches like as a viscous and structural
(hysteretic) damping models that have been used for
decades. If the exact damping related state of the equation
of motion is known, it is possible to identify the exact
damping ratio from the comparison of the damped and un-
damped systems, but if the exact damping related state of
the equation of motion is not known then it is possible to
identify the equivalent damping ratio by mentioned
comparison. The importance of this kind of approach is
that clarification in a damping variation of the structure in
the case of unknown damping model. The viscous and
hysteretic damping models are used in this study to
identify the damping ratio. First, the damped and un-
damped systems with viscous damping models are
introduced as the second order differential equation of
motion for a single degree-of-freedom (SDOF), given by:
3
mX€ d ðtÞ þ cX_ d ðtÞ þ kXd ðtÞ ¼ Fd ðtÞ, (1)
mX€ u ðtÞ þ k X_ u ðtÞ ¼ Fu ðtÞ, (2)
where X€ d , X_ d , Xd and Fd are the acceleration, velocity,
displacement responses and excitation force of the damped
system, and X€ u , Xu , Fu are the acceleration, displacement
responses and excitation force of un-damped system,
respectively. Also, m is the mass, c is the viscous damping
coefficient, k is the stiffness, and t is the time variable. For
harmonic excitation, Fourier transform solution is X ðtÞ ¼
X ðωÞeiωt and FðtÞ ¼ FðωÞeiωt . Equations (1) and (2)
become:
ðk – ω2d mÞXd ðωÞ þ ðiωcÞXd ðωÞ ¼ Fd ðωÞ, (3)
ðk – ω2u mÞXu ðωÞ ¼ Fu ðωÞ: (4)
Normal or real dynamic stiffness matrix for both systems
are given by:
Sd ¼ k – ω2d m, (5)
Su ¼ k – ω2u m: (6)
The excitation force is known or acquired from the
lowest level response of the structure or could be estimated
from the second part of proposed methods. As assump-
tions: first, the mass and stiffness of the un-damped system
are updated with considered to the damped system
responses by using the Finite element (FE) model updating
in order to gain un-damped system responses. Secondly,
excitation forces of the both systems are equal. Then from
Eq. (3) and Eq. (4):
Fd ðωÞ ¼ Fu ðωÞ: (7)
By substituting Eq. (5)-Eq. (6) and also using Eqs. (3) (4)
and (7) becomes:
Sd Xd ðωÞ þ ðiωcÞXd ðωÞ ¼ Su Xu ðωÞ: (8)
Equation (8) can be rewritten as:
ðiωcÞXd ðωÞ ¼ Su Xu ðωÞ – Sd Xd ðωÞ: (9)
For each ω value, Eq. (9) can be written as:
Su Xu ðωÞ – Sd Xd ðωÞ
iωc ¼ : (10)
Xd ðωÞ
Magnitude of complex value of c is giving viscous
damping coefficient directly.
Energy dissipation per vibration cycle which is
mentioned in many researches, prove that it is proportional
to the velocity of motion and also over wide frequency
range it’s independent from frequency and proportional to
the square of the vibration amplitude [49,50]. Dissipated
energy per cycle for viscous damping is:
4 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Sd Xd ðωÞ þ ðiDÞXd ðωÞ ¼ Su Xu ðωÞ:

!0 ðf ÞX_ dt ¼ πcωX 2,
T (23)
Edissipation ¼ (11)
Equation (23) can be rewritten as:
ðiDÞXd ðωÞ ¼ Su Xu ðωÞ – Sd Xd ðωÞ:
!0 ðcX_ ÞX_ dt ¼ πcωX02,
T
(24)
ΔEviscous ¼ (12)
For each ω value, Eq. (24) can be written as:
where X0 is the initial vibration amplitude, and integral is
taken over period T. By using the identified damping Su Xu ðωÞ – Sd Xd ðωÞ
iD ¼ : (25)
coefficient, viscous damping ratio, ξ can be as: Xd ðωÞ
ΔEviscous On the other hand, whereT ¼ 2π=ω is the time period of
ξ¼ , (13) vibration. According to many researches which determined
4πEpotential
that the damping due to internal friction (material
where Epotential is the maximum strain potential energy of hysteresis) is nearly independent of the forcing frequency
the structure and given by: but still proportional to the square of the response
amplitude [51–53].
1
Epotential ¼ kX02 : (14)
2 Edissipation / aX 2 : (26)
By substituting Eq. (12), Eq. (14) in to Eq. (13), and using Then from Eq. (11) and Eq. (26);
identified damping coefficient then:
cω πcequivalent ωX 2 ¼ aX 2 : (27)
¼ : (15)
2k Then equivalent damping coefficient is:
Finally, structural (hysteretic) damping model is used here a
to identify the damping. The damped and un-damped cequivalent ¼ : (28)
πω
systems with hysteretic damping model are introduced as
the second order differential equation of motion for a By substituting equivalent viscous damping coefficient
single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) by using the concept of instead of viscous damping coefficient in Eq. (1) and using
complex stiffness, given by: the X_ ¼ iωX for a harmonic vibration Feiωt , it becomes:
a
mX€ d ðtÞ þ ðk þ iDÞXd ðtÞ ¼ Fd ðtÞ, (16) mX€ þ iωX þ kX ¼ Feiωt : (29)
πω
mX€ u ðtÞ þ kXu ðtÞ ¼ Fu ðtÞ: (17) a a
Let η ¼ and D ¼ : mX€ þ ðk þ iDÞX ¼ Feiωt : (30)
For harmonic excitation, Fourier transform solution is πk π
X ðtÞ ¼ X ðωÞeiωt and FðtÞ ¼ FðωÞeiωt . Equation (16) and By factoring out the stiffness and using identified
Eq. (17) become: hysteretic damping ratio, then:
ðk – ω2d mÞXd ðωÞ þ ðiDÞXd ðωÞ ¼ Fd ðωÞ, (18) mX€ þ kð1 þ iηÞX ¼ Feiωt , (31)

ðk – ω2u mÞXu ðωÞ ¼ Fu ðωÞ: (19) D

η¼ , (32)
k
Normal or real dynamic stiffness matrix for both systems
are given by: where k(1 + iη) is the complex stiffness description and, η
is the hysteretic damping ratio or structural damping factor.
Sd ¼ k – ω2d m, (20)
2.2 Mathematical model-less input force estimation and
Sd ¼ k – ω2u m: (21) damping ratio
According to the same assumptions and procedure as
mentioned above for viscous damping model (Eq. (3)– While the structures are exposed to the different forcing
Eq. (9)), for each ω values, hysteretic damping ratio can be like a random earthquake, wind and environmental forcing
identified. patterns, so measuring the input force and its distribution
on each SDOFs are not possible in many cases. Solving the
Fd ðωÞ ¼ Fu ðωÞ: (22) inverse problem of the input force estimation and its
By substituting Eq. (20) and Eq. (21) and also using Eq. distribution to each SDOF, from the measured structural
(18) and Eq. (19), Eq. (22) becomes: responses plays an important role in structural identifica-
tion process [54–59]. One of the fundamental concepts in
 Mohammad SALAVATI. Approximation of structural damping and input excitation force
the field of vibration analysis is the Frequency Response
Function (FRF). FRF is the function of frequency that
transforms the system input force to the response Fig. 1. It
can be expressed as the Fourier series expansion of the
input and output of the system.
Fig. 1 Basic concept of the FRF
FFT ðX Þ
H ðωÞ ¼ , (33)
FFT ðFðtÞÞ
Hd– 1 ðωÞXd ðωÞ ¼ Fd ðωÞ:
Multiplying both sides of Eq. (34) with Hd ðωÞ:
Hd– 1 ðωÞHd ðωÞXd ðωÞ ¼ Hd ðωÞFd ðωÞ:
In the first part of Eq. (35), the state of Hd ðωÞXd ðωÞ
theoretically means that, the damped system is inversely
excited by the external excitation force Xd ðtÞ, and the
second part should be equal to the Xd ðωÞ. Then Eq. (35)
comes to:
Hd– 1 ðωÞχ f ðωÞ ¼ Xd ðωÞ:
In which, χ f ðωÞ is the response of damped system to the
external excitation force Xd ðtÞ. If it is not possible to excite
the system by this kind of excitation force then, for each
SDOF, the χ f ðωÞ could be produce by using a numerical
method. The mass and stiffness of the system are updated
and only by guessing the damping coefficient value
process should be continuing. The approximated damping
coefficient should be iteratively checked with damping
coefficient that identified by using the first part of the
proposed method, or by checking the similarity of the
estimated response to the measured response. High
convergence will give the exact damping ratio. Once, the
χ f ðωÞ response is acquired, then the external excitation
force (Fdi ) and FRF (Hdi ) of the damped system should be
identified by:
Hdi ðωÞ ¼ χ f ðωÞXd– 1 ðωÞ,
Fdi ðωÞ ¼ Xd ðωÞχ f – 1 ðωÞXd ðωÞ:
As it is seen from Eqs. (37) and (38), for all identified
FRF and excitation force, they must produce the response
of the system Xd ðωÞ, but the target FRF and excitation
force should be justified in two steps. First, checking the
damping coefficient from the first part of the proposed
method, by using identified excitation force, and second
5
measuring the similarity (in the mean of measuring the
similarity of the shape) of the produced response by using
new methods and the acquired response from the real
system.
Hdi ðωÞFdi ðωÞ ¼ Xd ðωÞ, (39)
X i ðωÞ ¼ Xd ðωÞ: (40)
However, the proposed method seems to be simplistic,
but according to the result of numerical and analytical
approaches in the next sections, it is very effective in
decomposition of the structural responses to their prior
product parts. In the case of complicate models, just by
guessing the damping ratio and controlling by the
similarity of the identified responses with primarily
measured responses, it is possible to estimate the
structure’s input force and subsequently damping ratio.
(34)
3 Numerical investigation
(35)
3.1 Mathematical model base damping identification
In this part, the effectiveness of proposed identification
methods is investigated by using two various data
simulation approaches such as: mathematical model by
using the Mathworks Matlab-Simulink programming
(36) environment and numerical evaluation of dynamic
response by using a numerical method based on interpola-
tion of excitation force [60]. In all two approaches zero
mean band limited Gaussian white noise (WN) process
(bandwidth between 0.05 and 50 Hz) with noise root mean
square (RMS) acceleration of 0.04 g, is used as an external
excitation force. Finally, the identified damping ratios are
compared to the results which are identified by using an
advanced output-only structural identification method
which is named Natura Excitation Technique combined
with Eigen system Realization Algorithm (NeXT-ERA).
In the first section, simple lumped mass model of SDOF
system is used to acquire simulated data. The mass,
stiffness and damping coefficient are assumed to be
known. The simple mass-spring-damper model is built
with Matlab Simulink programming environment which is
shown in Fig. 2 is described by lumped mass m of 500 kg
and spring stiffness k of 5 105 N/m, the viscous damping
(37) coefficient c is assumed in four different values of 3  103,
5  103, 1  104 and 2 104 N/m. To gain displacement
response of damped and un-damped systems, 10 s external
(38)
WN excitation force is input to the model.
According to the assumed values for m, k and c, the
estimated damping ratio as the reference damping ratios is
r , and also the identified damping ratios by using the
proposed method is i which are shown in Table 1.
As it shown in Table 1, proposed damping identification
results perfectly match with reference assumed damping
6 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 2 Matlab simulink simple model of mass-spring-damper

Table 1 Comparison of assumed damping ratios with identifies Table 2 Overlap similarity between the reference and estimated
damping ratios by using proposed method and NeXT-ERA responses
viscous damping 3  10 3
5 10 3
1  10 3
2  10 3
reference
coefficients c damping ratios 0.09 0.16 0.32 0.63
r
damping ratios
similarity/% 97.16 98.33 98.94 99.17
r 0.09 0.16 0.32 0.63
i 0.11 0.17 0.32 0.66
NeXT-ERA i 0.07 0.10 0.30 0.66
damped SDOF system is considered through numerical
implementation. The displacement response of the system
ratios. is produced by using a numerical method based on
In the second part of this section, in order to determine interpolation of excitation force [60]. The zero mean band
accuracy of the identified damping coefficient by using the limited Gaussian white noise (WN) process (bandwidth
proposed method, the displacement response of the between 0.05 and 50 Hz) with noise root mean square
damped system is inversely simulated from a numerical (RMS) acceleration of 0.04 g, is used as an external
method. All above mentioned assumptions for the mass, excitation force. The system physical parameters, mass,
stiffness and excitation force are the same assumptions as stiffness and damping coefficient are assumed to be known
here. Once, the response is numerically simulated then the and described as mass (m) of 50 kg and stiffness (k) of
comparison of the reference mathematical model response 2106 N/m, the damping coefficient (c) is assumed in four
and the response which produced numerically are different values of C1 = 3  103, C2 = 5  103, C3 = 1 
considered in Fig. 3. For the different values of damping 104 and C4 = 1.9  104 N/m. Firstly, the excitation force
ratio, the similarity of them is given in Table 2. It should be and FRF are identified by using the proposed method.
accounted that there is around 0.3%–1% bias from the Identified and reference excitation forces are shown in
numerical method accounting process error. Fig. 4.
In the second part, in order to determine the accuracy of
3.2 Mathematical model-less input excitation force and estimated force, the same system is excited by the
damping ratio estimation identified force. The displacement response of both,
identified and reference response of the system must be
In this section, accuracy of the proposed method for the same as each other. The process results are shown in
inverse identification of the input force and FRF of the Fig. 5 and Table 3.
 Mohammad SALAVATI. Approximation of structural damping and input excitation force 7

Fig. 4 Comparisons of reference and identified excitation force

for each damping coefficient values such as: (a) C1; (b) C2; (c) C3;
Fig. 3 Comparison of the reference mathematical model (d) C4
response and estimated numerical displacement response for
various damping ratios: (a) r ¼ 0:09; (b) r ¼ 0:16; (c) r ¼ 0:32;
(d) r ¼ 0:63

Table 3 Overlap similarity of the identified and reference responses for different value of damping coefficients
C1 (r = 0.15) C2 (r = 0.25) C3 (r == 0.50) C4 (r = 0.95)
response similarity/% 98.3085 99.1039 99.6179 99.7100
8 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 5 Comparisons of reference and identified displacement responses for each damping coefficient values by using (a) C1; (b) C2; (c)
C3; (d) C4

4 Analytical approaches by using the finite
element modeling method
In this part, the effectiveness of the mathematical model-
less input excitation force method is investigated by using
an analytical approach. Analytical modeling of the simple
structure is investigated by using Finite element modeling.
In the case of complicate models, just by guessing the
damping ratio and controlling by the similarity of the
identified responses with primarily measured responses, it
 Mohammad SALAVATI. Approximation of structural damping and input excitation force
is possible to estimate the structure’s input force and
subsequently damping ratio. To find the effectiveness of
the proposed method, a simple lumped mass SDOF system
is considered for identification. This steel structure is
modeled in the SAP2000 finite element modeling program
which is shown in Fig. (6). The damping ratio is
considered as constant damping in this model. The mass
and stiffness in the response direction are m = 400 kg and
k = 1.1139105 N/m. FE model is excited in x direction by
the zero mean band limited Gaussian white noise (WN)
process (bandwidth between 0.05 and 50Hz) with noise
root mean square (RMS) acceleration of 0.9 g.
Fig. 6 FE model of the lumped mass system
Time history analysis is done and the response of the
structure is acquired from the joint which is shown in
Fig. (6). By using the proposed method, the forces on
structure are identified and then compared to the reference
excitation forces which are shown in Fig. (7).
Fig. 7 Comparisons of reference and estimated excitation force;
similarity = 97.9483%
In the second step, FE model is excited by the identified
excitation forces and then the new response of the system
is measured from the same joint. The key point here is a
selection of the damping ratio. The Target damping ratio
should produce the maximum similarity of the measured
response. Comparison between the reference response
9
which is measured from the FE model with identified
response and their similarity are shown in Fig. (8).
Fig. 8 Comparisons of reference and estimated acceleration
responses; similarity = 99.9869%; FE damping ratio = 0.6; esti-
mated damping ratio = 0.6
5 Conclusions
In the first part of this study, a model-based structural
damping identification method is proposed. The idea
behind this proposed method is a theoretical comparison of
the damped and un-damped system models. In the second
part, estimating of the input excitation force is considered.
This method is based on the fundamental concept of the
FRF. The effectiveness of them is investigated by
numerical and analytical approaches. The importance of
these methods is their ability to identifying target
parameters just by using measured responses and also for
each frequency content of a response it can be possible to
track each SDOFs behavior. In addition, capability of
proposed damping identification method in different
modeling of the damping or following the damping
variation of the structure in the case of unknown damping
model. The identified responses and input excitation force
by using these methods are compared with reference ones
that are used in the simulation process. High convergence
results illustrate the satisfactory of the proposed approx-
imation methods.
Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the Institute of
Structural Mechanics, Civil Engineering Faculty of Bauhaus University
Weimar in Germany.
References
1. Nanthakumar S S, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Zic G, Rabczuk T.
Detection of material interfaces using a regularized level set method
in piezoelectric structures. Inverse Problems in Science and
Engineering, 2016, 24(1): 153–176
2. Nanthakumar S S, Valizadeh N, Park H S, Rabczuk T. Surface
effects on shape and topology optimization of nanostructures.
Computational Mechanics, 2015, 56(1): 97–112
3. Nanthakumar S S, Lahmer T, Rabczuk T. Detection of multiple
10 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
flaws in piezoelectric structures using XFEM and level sets.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2014,
275: 98–112
4. Nanthakumar S S, Lahmer T, Rabczuk T. Detection of flaws in
piezoelectric structures using extended FEM. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2013, 96(6): 373–389
5. Rabczuk T, Eibl J, Stempniewski L. Simulation of high velocity
concrete fragmentation using SPH/MLSPH. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2003, 56(10): 1421–1444
6. Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. A three dimensional large deformation
meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 196(29–30): 2777–
2799
7. Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A simple and robust
three-dimensional cracking-particle method without enrichment.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2010,
199(37–40): 2437–2455
8. Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Cracking particles: a simplied meshfree
method for arbitrary evolving cracks. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 2004, 61(13): 2316–2343
9. Zi G, Rabczuk T, Wall W A. Extended meshfree methods without
branch enrichment for cohesive cracks. Computational Mechanics,
2007, 40(2): 367–382
10. Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Zi G. A three-dimensional meshfree method
for continuous multiple crack initiation, nucleation and propagation
in statics and dynamics. Computational Mechanics, 2007, 40(3):
473–495
11. Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, Nguyen-Xuan H. A geometrically non-
linear three dimensional cohesive crack method for reinforced
concrete structures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2008, 75(16):
4740–4758
12. Rabczuk T, Bordas S, Zi G. On three-dimensional modelling of
crack growth using partition of unity methods. Computers &
Structures, 2010, 88(23–24): 1391–1411
13. Rabczuk T, Zi G. A meshfree method based on the local partition of
unity for cohesive cracks. Computational Mechanics, 2007, 39(6):
743–760
14. Rabczuk T., Eibl J.: Numerical analysis of prestressed concrete
beams using a coupled element free Galerkin/nite element method,
International Journal of Solids andStructures, 2004, 41 (3- 4), 1061–
1080
15. Rabczuk T, Akkermann J, Eibl J. A numerical model for reinforced
concrete structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures,
2005, 42(5–6): 1327–1354
16. Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Application of particle methods to static
fracture of reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of
Fracture, 2006, 137(1–4): 19–49
17. Rabczuk T, Eibl J. Modeling dynamic failure of concrete with
meshfree particle methods. International Journal of Impact Engi-
neering, 2006, 32(11): 1878–1897
18. Juang J N, Pappa R S. Eigen-system realization algorithm for modal
parameter identification and model reduction. Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, 1985, 8(5): 620–627
19. Mohanty P, Rixen D J. Identifying mode shapes and modal
frequencies by operational modal analysis in the presence of
harmonic excitation. Experimental Mechanics, 2005, 45(3): 213–
220
20. Moaveni B, Barbosa A, Conte J P, Hemez F M. Uncertainty analysis
of modal parameters obtained from three system identification
methods. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Modal Analysis
Conference (IMAC-XXV). Orlando, USA, 2007
21. Amani M G, Riera J, Curadelli O. Identification of changes in the
stiffness and damping matrices of linear structures through ambient
vibrations. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2007, 14(8):
1155–1169
22. Yang Y B, Chen Y J. A new direct method for updating structural
models based on measured modal data. Engineering Structures,
2009, 31(1): 32–42
23. Fan W, Qiao P Z. Vibration-based damage identification methods: a
review and comparative study. Structural Health Monitoring, 2011,
10(1): 83–111
24. Ozcelik O, Salavati M. Variability of modal parameter estimations
using two different output-only system identification methods.
Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 2013, 41(6): 20120361
25. Doebling S W, Farrar Ch, Prime M B, Shevitz D W. Damage
identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical
systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: A Literature
Review. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report. LA-13070-MS.
UC900, 1996
26. Salawu O S. Detection of structural damage through changes in
frequency: A review. Engineering Structures, 1997, 19(9): 718–723
27. Modena C, Sonda D, Zonta D. Damage localization in reinforced
concrete structures by using damping measurements, damage
assessment of structures. In: Proceedings of the international
conference on damage assessment of structures. DAMAS 99,
1999, 132–141
28. Kawiecki G.Modal damping measurements for damage detection.
In: European COST F3 conference on system identification and
structural health monitoring. Madrid, Spain, 2000, 651–658
29. Zonta D, Modena C, Bursi OS. Analysis of dispersive phenomena in
damaged structures. In: European COST F3 conference on system
identification and structural health monitoring. Madrid, Spain, 2000,
801–810
30. Zou Y, Tong L, Steven G P. Vibration-based model-dependent
damage (delamination) identification and health monitoring for
composite structures–a review. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
2000, 230(2): 357–378
31. Curadelli R O, Riera J D, Ambrosini D, Amani M G. Damage
detection by means of structural damping identification. Engineer-
ing Structures, 2008, 30(12): 3497–3504
32. Gomaa F R, Nasser A A, Ahmed Sh O. Sensitivity of modal
parameters to detect damage through theoretical and experimental
correlation. International Journal of Current Engineering and
Technology, 2014, 4(1): 172–181
33. Wang M L, Kreitinger T J. Kreitinger, Identification of force from
response data of a nonlinear system. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 1994, 13(4): 267–280
34. Ma C K, Lin D C. Input forces estimation of a cantilever beam.
Inverse Problems in Engineering, 2000, 8(6): 511–528
35. Steltzner A D, Kammer D C. Input Force Estimation Using an
Inverse Structural Filter. IMAC XVII, 1999
36. Ma C K, Chang J M, Lin D C. Input forces estimation of beam
 Mohammad SALAVATI. Approximation of structural damping and input excitation force
structures by an inverse method. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
2003, 259(2): 387–407
37. Ekke J Oosterhuis, Wouter B Eidhof, Peter J. M. van der Hoogt, de
Boer A. Force prediction via the inverse FRF using experimental
and numerical data from demonstrator with tunable nonlinearities.
In: Proceedings of the 13th international congress on sound and
vibration. Vienna, Austria, 2006
38. Hisham. A. Al-Khazali. Calculations of frequency response
functions (FRF) using computer smart office software and nyquist
plot under gyroscopic effect rotation. International Journal of
Computer Science and Information Technology & Security, 2011, 1
(2): 90–97
39. Foss G, Niezrecki C. Special topics in structural dynamics volume
6. In: Proceeding of the 32nd IMAC. A conference and exposition of
structural dynamics, 2014
40. Unavane T V, Panse Dr M S. New method for online frequency
response function estimation using circular queue. International
Journal for research in emerging science and technology, 2015, 2(6):
134–137
41. Rayleigh L. Theory of Sound (two volumes). New York: Dover
Publications, 1897
42. Lee J H, Kim J. Direct identification of damping parameters from
FRF and its application to compressor engineering. In: Proceedings
of International Compressor Conference at Purdue University. 2000,
869–876
43. Yamaguchi H, Adhikari R. Energy-Based evaluation of modal
damping in structural cables with and without damping treatment.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1995, 181(1): 71–83
44. Xu B, Wu Z, Chen G, Yokoyama K. Direct identification of
structural parameters from dynamic responses with neural networks.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2004, 17(8):
931–943
45. Slavic J, Simonovski I, Boltezar M. damping identification using a
continuous wavelet transform: application to real data. Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 2003, 262(2): 291–307
46. Min C, Park H, Park S, PARK H, PARK S. Direct identification of
non-proportional modal damping matrix for lumped mass system
using modal parameters. Journal of Mechanical Science and
Technology, 2012, 26(4): 993–1002
47. Arora V. Direct structural damping identification method using
complex FRFs. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2015, 339: 304–323
View publication stats
11
48. Pan Y, Wang Y. Iterative method for exponential damping
identification. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineer-
ing, 2015, 30(3): 229–243
49. Kimball A.Vibration Damping, Including the Case of Solid
Damping, Trans. ASME, APM51–52, 1929
50. Thomson W T. Theory of Vibration with Applications. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972
51. Lazan B J. Damping of Materials and Members in Structural
Mechanics. Oxford: Pergamom Press, 1968
52. Frizzarin M, Feng M Q, Franchetti P, Soyoz S, Modena C. Damage
detection based on damping analysis of ambient vibration data.
Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 2010, 17: 368-385
53. Montalvão D, Silva J M M. An alternative method to the
identification of the modal damping factor based on the dissipated
energy. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2015, 54–55:
108–123
54. O’Callahan J, Piergentili F. Force estimation using operational data.
In: International Modal Analysis Conference 1996. Dearborn, USA,
1996
55. Hong L L, Hwang W L. Empirical formula for fundamental
vibration periods of reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2000, 29(3):
327–337
56. Ma C K, Chang J M, Lin D C. Input forces estimation of beam
structures by an inverse method. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
2003, 259(2): 387–407
57. Suwała G, Jankowski Ł. A model-less method for added mass
identification. Diffusion and Defect Data, Solid State Data. Part B,
Solid State Phenomena, 2009, 147–149: 570–575
58. Khoo S Y, Ismail Z, Kong K K, Ong Z C, Noroozi S, Chong W T,
Rahman A G A. Impact force identification with pseudo-inverse
method on a light weight structure for under-determined, even-
determined and over-determined cases. International Journal of
Impact Engineering, 2014, 63: 52–62
59. Rajkumar S, Dewan A, Bhagat Sujatha C, Narayanan S.
Comparison of various techniques used for estimation of input
force and computation of frequency response function (FRF) from
measured response data. In: the 22nd International Congress on
Sound and Vibration- ICSV22. Florence, Italy, 12–16, July, 2015
60. Chopra A K. Dynamics of structures. 3rd ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River (NJ), 2007