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

net/publication/236031480

Identification of a nonlinear joint in an elastic structure using optimum

equivalent linear frequency response function

Article  in  Acta Mechanica · July 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s00707-012-0656-6

CITATIONS READS

5 170

3 authors:

S.M. Sajed Sadati Ali S. Nobari

Iowa State University Imperial College London
21 PUBLICATIONS   120 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   221 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tahereh Naraghi
Amirkabir University of Technology
3 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

A Frequency Domain Based Approach to Nonlinear Aeroelasticity Analysis Based on Coupling Method View project

Energy, Economic, and Sustainability Assessment of Heated Pavement Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S.M. Sajed Sadati on 21 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Acta Mech
DOI 10.1007/s00707-012-0656-6

S. M. Sajed Sadati · A. S. Nobari · Tahereh Naraghi

Identification of a nonlinear joint in an elastic structure

using optimum equivalent linear frequency response
function

Received: 16 August 2011 / Revised: 6 March 2012

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract As the main source of local nonlinearities, joints can lead to drastic changes in dynamic behavior
of structures in a global scale. Finite element (FE) models often lack these nonlinearities and are incapable of
representing nonlinear behavior. Therefore, the identification of nonlinear dynamic mechanical properties of
the joint is necessary, in order to develop a faithful FE model of the structure. In the present work, dynamic
parameters of a nonlinear joint are identified using an optimum equivalent linear frequency response function
of the structure. A test rig, which includes a beam that can produce cubic stiffness spring characteristic as
a nonlinear joint, is built, and nonlinear dynamic characteristics of the beam are identified. In addition to
hardening behavior related to cubic stiffness, softening effects were also observed in some measured modes
in which further investigation attributed that behavior to the presence of a bolt in the test rig.

1 Introduction

There are various practical examples of nonlinear structures reported in engineering literature. Joints play a
very important role as one of the major sources of nonlinearities in mechanical structures [1–5]. For aerial
structures, besides aeroelastic nonlinearities, friction in control surfaces and joints are the primary sources
of nonlinearities [6,7]. Moreover, in order to achieve lighter structures with less safety factors which in turn
incur more nonlinearity into structures’ behavior, there is an ever growing need for accurate structural design
and high-fidelity finite element (FE) models. Accordingly, identification of nonlinear dynamic characteristics
of structures is studied in many works, and several identification methods have been developed [6]. These
methods are mainly categorized in time and frequency domains. Time domain methods, to a certain extent, are
time consuming for structural applications because of the large number of DOFs. Frequency domain methods,
on the other hand, have been considerably enhanced by using several helpful frequency domain tools developed
in recent decades [6]. Application of each domain has its own advantages and drawbacks, but in general and
especially for structural systems, frequency domain techniques are more advantageous.

S. M. S. Sadati
Vibration Lab., Aerospace Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez Av., Tehran, Iran
E-mail: s.sadati@aut.ac.ir

A. S. Nobari (B)
Aerospace Department, Centre of Excellence in Computational Aerospace Engineering,
Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez Av., Tehran, Iran
E-mail: andishan.pars@gmail.com; Sall358@aut.ac.ir
Tel.: +98-21-64543208
Fax: +98-21-66959020

T. Naraghi
Aerospace Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez Av., Tehran, Iran
E-mail: thnaraghi@yahoo.com
 S. M. Sajed Sadati et al.

The present work is an experimental study of a nonlinear structure comprising a linear beam clamped in
one end and supported by a nonlinear joint with cubic stiffness characteristic in the other end. The applied
identification method is a frequency domain method, one which is developed by Kashani and Nobari [8]. The
identification process uses a FE model updating method to find the parameters that are the sources of differ-
ences between optimum equivalent linear FRF of the nonlinear system (OELF) and the linear FRFs derived
from FEM.

2 A quick review of OELF

OELF matrices of a nonlinear structure are measured for different levels of random excitation. According
to the fact that for most nonlinear structures, nonlinearity depends on the magnitude of displacement, and
using random excitation, one can trust the measured OELF to have a consistent level of nonlinearity for every
level of excitation. The OELF matrix of a nonlinear system, having f and x as the input and output signals,
respectively, can be estimated by Eq. (1) [9]:

HOELF = Sx f S−1
ff, (1)

where HOELF is the OELF matrix and Sx f and S f f are the cross-spectrum of signals x and f and auto spec-
trum of signal f , respectively. As is shown in [9], the OELF matrix represents the linear system that has the
closest behavior to that of nonlinear system, for a specific level of excitations. As such, using OELF, one
is approximating the nonlinear system with an optimally derived linear system for each and every level of
excitation.

3 Identification using OELF

In this method, the dynamic stiffness of the structure, Z, is assumed to have linear and nonlinear parts as
follows:
Z = Zl + Zn . (2)
Equation (2) is the basis of the identification procedure, and as such, since measuring of dynamic stiffness
matrices is difficult and inaccurate, Eq. (2) is rewritten in terms of receptance FRF matrix as Eq. (3) [10]:
Hex Zn Hl = −H. (3)
In this equation, the difference between Hex and Hl is represented as H, which is due to the nonlinear
dynamic stiffness of the structure, Zn and Hex are the OELF measured for a specific level of excitation, and
Hl is the linear FRF matrix generated by an updated FE model of the linear structure.
In order to make sure that the differences between OELF matrix and Hl in Eq. (3) are related to underlying
nonlinear effects in OELF, the FE model of the linear structure is initially updated using experimental FRF
measured for a very low level of excitation. Using Eq. (3), Zn is calculated for several levels of excitations, so
its relation can be found as a function of response level. Such a relation between nonlinear dynamic stiffness
and response level of the structure is the aim of the identification process.
To make the method computationally more efficient, and in order not to lose the physical meaning of the
model embedded in FE model, the nonlinear dynamic stiffness of each element of FE model is assumed to be
proportional to the linear dynamic stiffness of that element. Equation (4) shows this assumption for the i-th
element’s dynamic stiffness matrix of the model:

Zin = pi Zli , (4)

where pi is the unknown real constant coefficient, which represents the influence factor of the i-th element on
the nonlinear behavior of the structure. Therefore, the contribution of each element of FE model to nonlinear
dynamic stiffness can be judged using the relative values of pi -s.
As an experimental advantage of the introduced method, it is possible to perform the computations of
Eq. (3) by measuring only a column of the OELF matrix. This gives the OELF matrix as a vector.
Accordingly, the l.h.s of Eq. (3) would be rewritten as
Identification of a nonlinear joint in an elastic structure

⎡ ⎤
... 0 0 0 ...
:, j
Hl ⎣ . . . 0 pi Zli 0 . . . ⎦ Hex
:, j
= − pi Hi , (5)
... 0 0 0 ...
:, j
where Hex and H:, j represent the column j of Hex and H, respectively. Dynamic stiffness matrices of
elements of the structure FE model, Zli , enter in the nonlinear dynamic stiffness matrix in Eq. (5) one by one,
while the other components of the dynamic stiffness matrix are zero. The contribution of each element to the
:, j :, j
full Hi , which is shown by the term pi Hi , can be estimated easily. All these contributions constitute
:, j
Hi :
  
:, j :, j :, j :, j
H:, j = pi Hi = H1 , H2 , H3 , . . . P, (6)

where P is the vector containing the pi coefficients. Equation (6) is used to determine the unknown coefficients,
pi , which is the last step in identifying the nonlinear dynamic stiffness for the current level of excita-
tion/response.
Since in experimental measurement of Hex it is not possible to access all the DOFs or, in the case of
rotations, even to measure them, a slightly modified version of Eq. (3) is used, in which the FRFs of the
unmeasured DOFs are replaced by FRFs of the corresponding DOFs of FE model as follows [9]:

Hex ∼
Hl Zn
Hl = −H:, j . (7)

Note that, in contrast to Eq. (5), since Eq. (7) is approximate, the solution of this equation will be iterative.
Each iteration gives a set of coefficients for elements, and if the loop is a convergent one, these coefficients
will tend to zero. In this case, for each element i, identification results will be the summation of coefficients
achieved from the iterations for that element.

4 Case study

As the experimental efficiency of the identification technique has not been examined in [8], it is the aim of
this paper to examine this efficiency. To this end, an experimental model of a vibrating system including a
nonlinear joint is considered. The system consists of a linear beam clamped in one end and is supported by a
nonlinear joint in the other. The joint behavior is considered to be identical to that of a cubic stiffness spring,
as shown in Fig. 1.

4.1 Description of the experimental test rig

A modal shaker was used as an exciter, which was connected via a thin stinger to a TMC-YD-312 force
transducer. The force transducer was attached to the structure in the same location as the nonlinear spring and
was used to measure the input force to the structure (Fig. 1). The resulting responses of the selected points
were measured by TMC-TA-YD-181 lightweight piezoelectric acceleration transducers.

Fig. 1 Schematic figure of the test rig

 S. M. Sajed Sadati et al.

Fig. 2 FRF measurement system

Fig. 3 Nonlinear FE solution of a clamped-clamped beam. Force and displacement of the midpoint of the beam

The signal analyzer used to measure the FRF of the system was a B&K type 2035. As previously pointed
out, for measuring the OELF of the nonlinear system, a random signal having a specific PSD is used. In the
present study, this random signal was generated by a B&K signal generator module type 3106. The whole
arrangement of the system used for measuring FRF is shown in Fig. 2.
The conventional identification methods that are mainly based on using harmonic excitation to measure
FRF of the nonlinear structures need dedicated hardware, in order to be able to control the response level of the
system. Therefore, the very simple measurement system is one of the advantages of the introduced method, in
which less time and effort are spent on data acquisition and processing.
The test rig was built of a continuous structure having a local cubic stiffness nonlinearity. Hardening
behavior of a clamped–clamped beam in large deflections is used for design of the cubic stiffness spring. This
hardening behavior can be seen in the nonlinear FE solution of the clamped–clamped beam [11]. Figure 3
represents the nonlinear force–displacement diagram of a beam for its midpoint displacement by ANSYS.
Finite element solution shows the nonlinearity for different levels of excitation, which is due to the axial
forces caused by the clamped–clamped boundary conditions [12]. As is shown in Fig. 3, the force–displace-
ment curve of the FE solution is very close to diagram of a cubic polynomial, whereas the quadratic and also
constant terms of its equation are very small compared to the other terms, thus the beam is an appropriate
choice to demonstrate the cubic stiffness spring behavior. Accordingly, the experimental test rig is designed
and built as shown in Fig. 4. The structural parameters of the beams were given as L A = 50 cm and h A = 8
mm as the length and thickness of the linear beam (beam A), respectively, and L B = 120 cm and h B = 2 mm
for the nonlinear spring (beam B).
Identification of a nonlinear joint in an elastic structure

Fig. 4 Test rig

Fig. 5 Selected points for measuring OELF of the system for different levels of excitation

Fig. 6 Linear FRF of the structure

4.2 OELF measurement results

The frequency response function of the system was measured for some selected points that are shown in
Fig. 5. The excitation was in point 1 for all measurements. The FRF was measured for five different levels
of excitation, each considered as OELF of the system for its excitation level. The FRF was measured for the
first level of excitation, which is the lowest one, considered as the linear FRF of the system, and was used to
update the FE model. This consideration was based on linear criteria, which were determined according to the
FE solution results in Fig. 3.
The resulting measurement of the linear FRF is shown in Fig. 6. As is shown, despite the result of FE
modal solution by ANSYS that shows two resonance frequencies in FRF up to 50 Hz, there are more modes
presented in measured FRFs of the structure in the same frequency range. The dissimilarity is due to the fact
that the shown FRF for the FE solution in Fig. 6 is the point FRF (in which both excitation and response are
measured in point 1) and, since all the points on the linear beam (A) are motionless in the second mode of the
structure predicted by the FE solution (Fig. 7), this mode is absent in the point FRF. In the experiment, due to
the slight asymmetry of the structure, points on the linear beam cannot be that perfectly motionless as in the
 S. M. Sajed Sadati et al.

Fig. 7 Three vibration modes of the structure (Dashed lines show the undeformed shape of the structure)

Fig. 8 OELFs of the system measured for different levels of excitation

Fig. 9 FE model FRF updated with the measured linear FRF

FE model for the second mode, thus the second mode is observable in the point FRF given by measured point
FRF.
Nonlinear behavior of the system can be seen in Fig. 8, which represents the OELFs of the nonlinear
structure for different levels of excitation. The very interesting observation from this figure is that although the
third mode shows hardening behavior, the first and second modes are softening. The possible reason for this
paradoxical behavior of the structure is the presence of a bolted joint in the cubic stiffness spring mechanism,
which is locally excited by the 1st and 2nd modes. Gaul et al. [13] and Jalali et al. [4] reported softening
behavior of the bolted joint through experimental studies.
As discussed before, in the present study, the hardening behavior of the system will be identified. For this
reason, the third mode of the FRF is selected to enter into the identification process. As the first stage, the FE
model is updated in a frequency range including the third resonance frequency of the structure. The FRF of
the updated FE model and the measured linear FRF are shown in Fig. 9.
Although for stiffness parameters, all the elements of the FE model entered the updating process, damping
parameters are updated using only four elements of the whole FE model, which are elements 1,4,7 and 11.
This choice was made because of the very low loss factor of the structure which is made of steel. The elements
used to update the damping parameters were selected according to their effective role in reducing the norm
of H. The norm of H was reduced from 0.35 to 0.07 after 10 iterations of the updating process (Table 1).
Identification results will be more reliable having the FE model updated.
Identification of a nonlinear joint in an elastic structure

Table 1 Norm of H after updating the FE model

Iteration ||H||
Before updating 0.3514
1st 0.0781
2nd 0.0784
3rd 0.0790
4th 0.0790
5th 0.0801
6th 0.0800
7th 0.0746
8th 0.0715
9th 0.0701
10th 0.0694

Fig. 10 Elements of FE model used for updating

Fig. 11 FRF of FE model after identification process for each excitation level. a First level, b second level, c third level, and
d fourth level of excitation

4.3 Identification results

The identification process was completed for two elements of the nonlinear beam (B) that are shown as ele-
ments 9 and 10 in Fig. 10. These elements were selected based on the few trial runs of the identification routine,
which indicated the dominant contribution of these elements to nonlinear behavior of the structure.
Stiffness and damping parameters of elements 9 and 10 were updated to force the linear FRF curve to move
toward the OELF curve for each excitation level. Results of the identification are shown in Fig. 11. The figure
shows the resultant FRF of the system after being updated using measured OELFs of four different levels.
The resultant coefficients for stiffness and damping parameters are shown in Table 2. As is evident from
the results, the norm of H has been reduced after the identification process, which shows that the linear
FRF curve has got closer to the OELF one. The coefficients calculated in the identification process substan-
 S. M. Sajed Sadati et al.

Table 2 Identification results for elements 9 and 10 of the FE model

Excitation Random Response Parameter Element pi ||H|| ||H||
level signal level level ( mm) before after iden.
(mV) iden.
1st level 300 1.62 Stiffness 9 0.0111371 0.0268 0.0196
10 0.016740
Damping 9 0.000502
10 0.000605
2nd level 400 2.63 Stiffness 9 0.11146314 0.0252 0.0156
10 0.018940274
Damping 9 0.000702346
10 0.000904537
3rd level 500 3.39 Stiffness 9 0.630409 0.0260 0.0113
10 0.111036
Damping 9 0.0044
10 0.000324
4th level 600 3.91 Stiffness 9 0.993506 0.0266 0.0117
10 0.094733
Damping 9 0.001172
10 0.001746

Fig. 12 Identified stiffness variation versus response level

tiate the hardening behavior of the structure in its third mode. Figure 12 shows the stiffness augmentation
as the displacement response level of the structure increases. This variation can be expressed by a quadratic
polynomial. A quadratic polynomial, as a relation between stiffness and displacement, is also an outcome of
the implementation of the “harmonic balance method” for cubic stiffness nonlinearity [14]. This verifies the
results of the present study. The negative part of the diagram shown in Fig. 12 is meaningless and is due to the
fact that up to a certain point, the stiffness of the system remains constant.
The identified damping coefficients are increasing by response level increase except for the last and the
highest level (Fig. 13). The most important factor in damping variations is the local behavior of the bolted
joint [4,7]. To investigate the bolted joint effect on the nonlinearity of the structure, Fig. 14 shows the OELFs
of the structure using a welded joint instead of bolted one. The figure illustrates the hardening behavior of the
structure for all measured modes of the OELFs except for the first mode, which is unchanging. By comparison
between Figs. 8 and 14, one can infer that the softening behavior of the structure is disappeared by eliminating
the bolted joint.
Identification of a nonlinear joint in an elastic structure

Fig. 13 Identified damping coefficients versus response level

Fig. 14 OELFs of the system for different levels of excitation using welded joint

5 Conclusion

An experimental study of a recently developed nonlinear joint identification method was made considering
the cubic hardening nonlinearity. The OELF of the nonlinear structure illustrates nonlinear behavior of the
structure when considering it at different excitation levels. OELF was measured for different excitation levels
and used to identify the parameters of the nonlinear joint. The simple measurement setup and identification
technique show the clear advantage of this method to other identification methods, in which very complicated
and controlled measurement setups are necessary.
The third mode of the measured OELFs showed the hardening behavior, that is, an increase of the resonance
frequency as the excitation level increases, while the first and second modes were softening. The identified
stiffness parameters demonstrated the cubic hardening behavior for the third mode of the structure.
Damping coefficient dependence on the displacement amplitude, which was due to the presence of a bolted
joint in the test setup, was particularly interesting. The measured OELFs for the structure with bolted joint
omitted and replaced by a welded one show that the softening behavior of the former structure in first and
second modes was associated with the bolted joint.
 S. M. Sajed Sadati et al.

References

1. Gaul, L., Bohlen, S.: Identification of nonlinear structural joint models and implementation indiscretized structure models.
In: Proceedings Of The 11th ASME Conference on Mechanical Vibration And Noise, Boston, USA, pp. 213–219 (1987)
2. Tong, L.: Bond strength for adhesive-bonded single-lap joints. Acta Mech. 117, 101–113 (1996)
3. Gaul, L., Nitsche, R.: The role of friction in mechanical joints. Appl. Mech. Rev. 54, 93–106 (2001)
4. Jalali, H., Ahmadian, H., Mottershead, J.E.: Identification of nonlinear bolted lap-joint parameters by force-state mapping.
Int. J. Solids Struct. 44, 8087–8105 (2007)
5. Gaul, L., Hurlebaus, S., Wirnitzer, J., Albrecht, H.: Enhanced damping of light weight structures by semi-active joints. Acta
Mech. 195, 249–261 (2008)
6. Kerschen, G., Worden, K., Vakakis, A.F., Golinval, J.: Past, present and future of nonlinear system identification in structural
dynamics. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 20, 505–592 (2006)
7. Gaul, L., Lenz, J.: Nonlinear dynamics of structures assembled by bolted joints. Acta Mech. 125, 169–181 (1997)
8. Kashani, H., Nobari, A.S.: Identification of dynamic characteristics of nonlinear joint based on the optimum equivalent
linear frequency response function. J. Sound Vib. 329, 1460–1479 (2010)
9. Goyder, H.G.D.: Short course notes: vibration analysis and identification of nonlinear structures. University of Manchester,
Simon Engineering Laboratories (1985)
10. Lin, R., Ewins, D.J.: Model updating using FRF Data. In: 15th International Modal Analysis, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 141–163
(1990)
11. Ferreira, J.V., Ewins, D.J.: Experimental vibration characteristics of a beam with nonlinear support using receptance coupling
analysis. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. 24, 105–110 (2002)
12. Busby, H.R., Weingarten, V.I.: Non-linear response of a beam to periodic loading. Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 7, 289–303 (1972)
13. Gaul, L., Nackenhorst, U., Willner, V., Lenz, J.: Nonlinear vibration damping of structures with bolted joints. In: 12th IMAC,
pp. 875–881 (1993)
14. Ewins, D.J.: Modal Testing: Theory, Practice, and Application. Research Studies Press, London (2000)

View publication stats