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

net/publication/233319904

Direct Updating Method for Structural Models Based on Orthogonality

Constraints

Article  in  Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures · July 2009

DOI: 10.1080/15376490902781191

CITATIONS READS

15 2,116

3 authors, including:

Y.B. Yang
Chongqing University
307 PUBLICATIONS   10,369 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Vehicle-Bridge Interaction View project

vehicle scanning method View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Y.B. Yang on 09 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Yang, Y. B.]
On: 20 June 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912581599]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713773278

Direct Updating Method for Structural Models Based on Orthogonality

Constraints
Y. B. Yang a; Y. J. Chen b; T. W. Hsu b
a
Department of Construction Engineering, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin,
Taiwan b Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

Online Publication Date: 01 July 2009

To cite this Article Yang, Y. B., Chen, Y. J. and Hsu, T. W.(2009)'Direct Updating Method for Structural Models Based on Orthogonality
Constraints',Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures,16:5,390 — 401
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15376490902781191
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15376490902781191

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, 16:390–401, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1537-6494 print / 1537-6532 online
DOI: 10.1080/15376490902781191
Direct Updating Method for Structural Models Based on
Orthogonality Constraints
Y. B. Yang,1 Y. J. Chen,2 and T. W. Hsu2
1
Department of Construction Engineering, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology,
Yunlin, Taiwan
2
Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
Discrepancies always exist between the dynamic properties pre-
dicted by a finite element model and those measured directly from
the structure. In this study, a direct method based on the orthogo-
nality constraints is proposed for updating the mass and stiffness
matrices of the structure first using a single set of modal data. This
method hinges on replacement of the modal vector of concern by
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009
the modal matrix in computing the correction matrices to solve the
problem of insufficient known conditions. Such a method is then
extended and applied in a consecutive manner to update the struc-
tural model for each of the first few modes that are experimentally
made available. In the numerical studies, it was demonstrated that
for buildings of the shear type, the natural frequencies predicted
by the updated model agree well with the measured ones for those
modes that are experimentally made available, while the rest modes
remain basically untouched. The approach proposed herein is sim-
ple, accurate and robust, which should be favored by engineers for
practical applications.
Keywords direct updating method, mass matrix, model updating,
shear building, stiffness matrix, structural modeling
1. INTRODUCTION
Enhanced by the advances in performance of computers and
workstations in the past half century, the finite element method
has continuously evolved and become the most popular tool for
the modeling and analysis of structures needed in structural de-
sign. However, due to the complicated nature of civil structures,
for instance, caused by the deviations in dimensions and sec-
tions of the structure, variations in the properties of construction
materials, and the uncertainties involved in support conditions,
the results predicted by the finite element models may deviate
significantly from those directly measured from the structure.
With the current high-quality equipment and techniques used
in measurement, it is generally agreed that the measured re-
sults can be considered as more reliable, compared with the
numerical ones [1, 2]. Whenever discrepancies occur between
the predicted and measured results, proper adjustments should
Received 29 April 2008; accepted 24 June 2008.
Address correspondence to Y. B. Yang, Department of Civil
Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan 10617.
E-mail: ybyang@ntu.edu.tw
390
be made on the numerical model using the data collected from
the field, although the possibility of erroneous measured data
should not be completely ruled out.
From the point of structural design, it is preferable that the
results predicted by the finite element model of a structure used
in design be as close as possible to those measured from the
structure after its completion. If the predicted results deviate
significantly from the measured ones, it may imply an inef-
fective or uneconomical design. On the other hand, for certain
important buildings, such as museums, high-precision factories,
and telecommunication buildings, it is crucial that the vibration
of the building be kept within the allowable limits at all times,
such as not to aggravate its normal functions. Clearly, where the
controllability and intelligent properties of a building are de-
sired, there is increasing concern over the predictability of the
dynamic response of the building to environmental disturbances
using the finite element models. One essential step in this regard
is the ability to refine the finite element models for the building
concerned using the data measured from the field.
A significant number of methods have been proposed for im-
proving the finite element models in recent years, as revealed
in the review papers [3, 4]. In Ref. [3], a comprehensive re-
view is given of the related previous works on model updating
techniques, identifying the potential problems in each model up-
dating method, along with directions for further research iden-
tified. In Ref. [4], basic knowledge is given for the techniques
of model updating. The book by Friswell and Mottershead [5],
gives a general introduction to the methods for finite element
model updating, which are broadly divided into three categories.
The first is the direct updating methods using modal data, which
are essentially non-iterative methods. The second is the param-
eter updating methods using modal data, also referred to as the
iterative methods. And the third is model updating methods us-
ing the frequency domain data. For the present purposes, a brief
review will be given of previous works on the direct updating
methods and parameter updating methods.
1.1. Direct Updating Methods Using the Modal Data
The direct updating method is computationally efficient and
suitable for application to complicated models, since it requires
 DIRECT UPDATING FOR STRUCTURAL MODELS BASED ON ORTHOGONALITY CONSTRAINTS
no iterations. By this method, one seeks the changes in stiffness
and mass matrices by solving a system of matrix equations to
replicate the measured natural frequencies and mode shapes.
Both the measured mode shapes and frequencies can be pre-
dicted accurately using the improved model generated.
The direct updating method proposed by Baruch and Bar-
Itzhack was based mainly on the Lagrange multiplier method
[6]. By assuming the mass matrix to be correct, they update the
eigenvectors by minimizing the weighted Euclidean norm of
the difference between the measured and analytical eigenvec-
tors subject to the orthogonality constraints. Though this method
can be used to yield matrices that reproduce exactly the mea-
sured modal data without iteration, it suffers from the drawback
that the structural connectivity is lost, while the corrections in
stiffness matrix are seldom physically meaningful.
To ensure the connectivity in the original model, more em-
phasis is placed on the constraint matrix by other researchers.
In Ref. [7], the approach in Ref. [6] was adopted to modify the
mass matrix using the modal displacements determined from
the tests, but an additional constraint was introduced to make
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009
the matrices symmetric. Later, the analytical model improve-
ment (AMI) procedure was proposed in Ref. [8] to correct the
mass and stiffness matrices by combining the mass matrix cor-
rection procedure of Ref. [7] with the stiffness matrix correction
procedure of Ref. [6]. The structural connectivity information
was utilized by Kabe [9], in addition to modal data, to optimally
adjust the deficient stiffness matrices encountered in previous
studies [10]. With this procedure, the assumed error function
is adjusted so that the stiffness terms are corrected in a rel-
ative manner and the connectivity of the analytical model is
preserved by only allowing the non-zero entries of the matrices
to be adjusted.
Two direct updating methods based on the modal test data
were presented by Caesar and Peter [11]. One method, called
the direct matrix update (DMU) method, is based on the method
originally proposed in Ref. [8], which allows the update of
free/free and fixed/free structure models satisfying the force
equilibrium or total mass conditions, in addition to the orthogo-
nality and eigendynamic constraints. The other method enables
us to overcome the drawbacks of the DMU method by selecting
some arbitrary coefficients of the stiffness and mass matrices as
the control variables. The DMU method can be easily applied
without detailed knowledge of the correlation between the test
and analysis models. The element correction method, combined
with the Lagrange multiplier technique, was adopted by Wei and
Zhang to improve the analytical model [12]. Similar updating
techniques with different Lagrange multipliers that takes into
account the interaction between the mass and stiffness matrices
were proposed by Wei [13, 14]. By this method, both the ana-
lytical mass and stiffness matrices are modified simultaneously
using the vibration test data. The direct methods were extended
by Friswell et al. to update the damping and stiffness matrices
simultaneously based on the measured modal data, assuming
the mass matrix to be correct [15].
391
In order to avoid the eigensolution requirements without los-
ing the advantage of Kabe’s method [9], the projector matrix
(PM) method was proposed by Kammer, which utilizes the pro-
jector matrix theory and the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse
[16]. By this method, weighting matrices are used to enforce
connectivity and make weighted corrections to the original ana-
lytical stiffness matrix. By adjusting the submatrix scaling fac-
tors and considering the stiffness matrix’s connectivity with the
structural configuration, an efficient method for correcting the
stiffness matrix was presented by Lim [17].
1.2. Parameter Updating Methods Using the Modal Data
The parameter updating procedure is also known as the it-
erative method. With some assigned values used as the starting
point, the parameters are modified iteratively based on the dif-
ference between the analytical and measured values. Central to
this procedure is the sensitivity of eigenvalues and eigenvectors
with respect to the model parameters.
Iterative procedures that employ statistical parameter estima-
tion to adjust the analytical models were proposed by Collins
et al. [18]. By the inverse eigensensitivity matrix method, the
eigensensitivity matrix is used as the indicator for model updat-
ing. This method can yield good results for systems of which
the number of measured degrees of freedom is less than that
of the analytical model. For this reason, it was often used by
researchers. However, this method suffers from the drawback
that the errors between the analytical and measured models
should be kept within a certain limit of magnitude, while the
speed of convergence is generally slow. Recently, the improved
inverse eigensensitivity method (IIEM) was proposed by Lin
et al. [19], using both the analytical and experimental modal
data for evaluating the eigensensitivity matrix.
By the parameter updating methods, the updated matrices
usually remain physically meaningful. However, the selection
of proper parameters requires some engineering judgment or ex-
perience, which in some cases may fall beyond the intuition of a
structural analyst. It is realized that overlooking some sensitive
parameters may result in unrealistic changes in the selected pa-
rameters. Another drawback with the parameter updating meth-
ods is that the relationship between the parameters and the el-
ements in the mass and stiffness matrices are not explicit for
complex structures. To overcome this drawback, identification
procedures were proposed in Refs. [20, 21], using the matrix
perturbation theory to compute the Jacobian matrix and the new
eigendata for adjusting the analytical model. By these proce-
dures, neither the explicit relationships between the parameters
and elements in the mass and stiffness matrices nor the analyti-
cal expressions of the mass and stiffness matrices are required.
Nevertheless, the selection of parameters can still affect the final
result of the updated models.
Although there exist numerous updating methods, as re-
viewed above, they are either too complicated in formulation or
suffer from inherent drawbacks. For most structural engineers,
a simple, reliable and physically meaningful updating method
 392 Y. B. YANG ET AL.
that can meet the practical needs will be the best choice. It is
with this motive that the present study is carried out. As can be
seen from derivations to follow, the approach proposed herein
is simple, accurate, and robust, which should find applications
in practical problems.
2. FORMULATION OF THE THEORY
Let [Ma ] and [Ka ] respectively denote the analytical mass
and stiffness matrices of the finite element model of a struc-
ture with N degrees of freedom (DOF), and (ωa )2i and {φa }i
respectively the ith eigenvalue and eigenvector solved for this
model. The following are the conditions of orthogonality and
normalization for the eigenvectors {φa }i :
{φa }Ti [Ma ]{φa }j = 0 for i ̸= j (1)
{φa }Ti [Ma ]{φa }j = 1 for i=j (2)
and
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009
{φa }Ti [Ka ]{φa }j = 0 for i ̸= j (3)
{φa }Ti [Ka ]{φa }j = (ωa )2i for i = j (4)
For a structure with numerous DOFs, we shall assume that only
the first mode or the first few modes are experimentally made
available, due to the limit of accuracy of the vibration sensors
in measuring the higher modes, and the decreasing importance
of these modes.
Theoretically, both the mass and stiffness matrices, [Ma ],
[Ka ], of the finite element model may be different from the mass
and stiffness matrices, [Mx ], [Kx ], of the experimental model or
real structure. In this section, a procedure will be presented for
updating first the mass matrix and then the stiffness matrix of
the analytical model using the natural frequency and vibration
shape of the first mode. Such a procedure will then be extended
in the following section to deal with the cases of multi modal
data.
2.1. Updating of the Mass Matrix Considering Only the
First Mode
Let [!M] denote the mass matrix corrector or the difference
between the real and analytical mass matrices of the structure.
Also, let {φx }1 and {φa }1 respectively denote the experimental
and analytical vibration shape of the first mode of the structure,
and {!φ}1 the difference between them. Namely,
[Mx ] = [Ma ] + [!M] (5)
{φx }1 = {φa }1 + {!φ}1 (6)
For the first mode of the real structure, the condition of or-
thogonality similar to the one in Eq. (1) can be written for the
experimental model as
{φx }T1 [Mx ]{φx }1 = 1 (7)
Substituting Eqs. (5) and (6) into Eq. (7), one obtains
({φa }1 + {!φ}1 )T ([Ma ] + [!M])({φa }1 + {!φ}1 ) = 1 (8)
which can be expanded to yield
{φa }T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 + {φa }T1 [!M]{φa }1 + 2{!φ}T1 [Ma ]{φa }1
+ 2{!φ}T1 [!M]{φa }1 + {!φ}T1 [Ma ]{!φ}1
+ {!φ}T1 [!M]{!φ}1 = 1 (9)
Neglecting the higher order terms, the preceding equation re-
duces to
{φa }T1 [!M]{φa }1 = −2{!φ}T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 (10)
As can be seen, both sides of Eq. (10) are scalars and [!M]
is the only unknown matrix. However, since there are N × N
unknowns in [!M], Eq. (10) by itself is an underdetermined
problem. It is realized that such a problem can be solved by
singular value decomposition (SVD), but after testing, the result
appears to be not good. Furthermore, no matter how large the
dimension of [!M] is, what we can get is a scalar quantity.
Obviously, the larger the dimension of the updating matrix is,
the worse the result will be.
Let ["] denote the modal matrix of dimension N × N of
the real structure, which is in fact unobtainable. To remedy the
problem of insufficient number of equations mentioned above,
we shall arbitrarily substitute the modal matrix ["] for {φa }1 on
the left side of Eq. (10), post-multiplying the right side of Eq.
(10) by the unit matrix [I ], and then pre- and post-multiply the
equation by ["] and ["]T , respectively. Finally, we get
["]["]T [!M]["]["]T = ["](−2{!φ}T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 )[I ]["]T
(11)
Since ["] has been normalized with respect to [Mx ], the follow-
ing orthogonality condition remains valid:
["]["]T = [Mx ]−1 (12)
Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (11) and rearranging, one obtains
[!M] = (−2{!φ}T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 )[Mx ] (13)
Finally, substituting Eq. (5) for the real mass matrix [Mx ] into
Eq. (13) and rearranging, one obtains the following:
[!M] = (−2{!φ}T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 )([Ma ] + [!M])
= (−2{!φ}T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 )[Ma ]
+ (−2{!φ}T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 )[!M] (14)
 DIRECT UPDATING FOR STRUCTURAL MODELS BASED ON ORTHOGONALITY CONSTRAINTS 393

or which can be expanded to yield

(−2{!φ}T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 ) CM {φa }T1 [Ka ]{φa }1 + {φa }T1 [!K]{φa }1 + 2{!φ}T1 [Ka ]{φa }1
[!M] = [Ma ] = [Ma ]
1 − (−2{!φ}1 [Ma ]{φa }1 )
T 1 − CM + 2{!φ}T1 [!K]{φa }1 + {!φ}T1 [Ka ]{!φ}1
(15)
+ {!φ}T1 [!K]{!φ}1 = (ωx )21 (21)
where
By neglecting the higher order terms, Eq. (21) can be rewritten
CM = −2{!φ}T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 (16) as follows:

and {!φ}1 represents the difference between the real and ana- {φa }T1 [!K]{φa }1 = (ωx )21 −(ωa )21 −2{!φ}T1 [Ka ]{φa }1 (22)
lytical vibration shape of the first mode. Accordingly, the mass
matrix of the structure can be updated as Again, both sides of Eq. (22) are scalars and [!K] is the only
unknown matrix. As there are N × N unknowns in [!K], this
CM 1 equation cannot be solved uniquely.
[Mx ] = [Ma ] + [Ma ] = [Ma ] (17)
1 − CM 1 − CM Following the procedure for updating the mass matrix, we
shall arbitrarily substitute the full real modal matrix ["] for
Concerning the mass matrix corrector in Eq. (17), the fol- {φa }1 on the left side of Eq. (22), and post-multiplying the right
lowing remarks can be made: side of Eq. (22) by the unit matrix [I ]. Further, pre- and post-
multiplying the equation by ["] and ["]T , respectively, one
(1) The equation for updating is rather simple, which contains obtains
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009

only a correction factor, CM .

(2) Though the full real modal matrix ["] has been used ["]["]T [!K]["]["]T
in the derivation, only the first eigenvector {φa }1 of the = ["]((ωx )21 − (ωa )21 − 2{!φ}T1 [Ka ]{φa }1 )[I ]["]T (23)
analytical model and the corrector {!φ}1 are required in
the final updating equation. By use of the orthogonality condition in Eq. (12), Eq. (23) can
(3) As long as the mass matrix [Ma ] of the analytical model be rearranged as follows:
is symmetric, the symmetry of the updated mass matrix
is preserved. [!K] = ((ωx )21 −(ωa )21 −2{!φ}T1 [Ka ]{φa }1 )[Mx ] = CK [Mx ]
(24)
where
2.2. Updating of the Stiffness Matrix Considering Only
the First Mode
CK = (ωx )21 − (ωa )21 − 2{!φ}T1 [Ka ]{φa }1 (25)
In this section, we shall derive the procedure for updating the
stiffness matrix of the shear building, assuming that the mass
and {!φ}1 represents the difference between the vibration
matrix has already been updated using the procedure presented
shapes of the first mode of the real and analytical models. Ac-
above. Similarly, let [!K] denote the stiffness matrix corrector
cordingly, the stiffness matrix can be updated as follows:
or the difference between the stiffness matrices of the real and
analytical model, i.e.,
[Kx ] = [Ka ] + [!K] = [Ka ] + CK [Mx ] (26)

[Kx ] = [Ka ] + [!K] (18)
The normalization as given in Eq. (4) is valid for the first eigen-
vector with respect to the stiffness matrix of the analytical
model. Similarly, for the experimental model, the first eigen-
vector {φx }1 can be normalized with respect to the stiffness
matrix as follows:
{φx }T1 [Kx ]{φx }1 = (ωx )21 (19)
Substituting Eqs. (18) and (6) into Eq. (19), one obtains
({φa }1 + {!φ}1 )T ([Ka ] + [!K])({φa }1 + {!φ}1 ) = (ωx )21
(20)
The preceding equation for updating the stiffness matrix is
based only on the vibration data of the first mode of the real
structure. The following remarks can be made:
(1) The procedure is simple, as only a correction factor, CK ,
is needed in updating the stiffness matrix.
(2) Only the first modal vector {φa }1 of the analytical model,
the corrector {!φ}1 , and the first eigenvalues (ωx )21 and
(ωa )21 of the real and analytical models are required in the
final expression of Eq. (24).
(3) The symmetry of the stiffness matrix is preserved as long
as the mass matrix [Mx ] involved in Eq. (24) is symmetric.
Hereunto we have derived the equations for updating the
mass and stiffness matrices using only the measured data of the
 394 Y. B. YANG ET AL.

first mode of the structure. In the numerical studies, it will be and {!φui−1 }i denotes the difference between the vibration
demonstrated that the first natural frequency computed from the shapes of the ith mode of the experimental and updated models
updated model agrees excellently with the real one, while the rest with adjustments made consecutively for the i-1 modes.
modes remain basically untouched. In the following, the above
procedure will be extended to update the finite element model
3.2. Updating of the Stiffness Matrix Considering the
using multi modal data measured from the field.
First Few Modes
First of all, we shall rewrite Eq. (26) in the following form:
3. GENERALIZATION OF THE THEORY TO INCLUDE
THE FIRST FEW MODES [Ku ]1 = [Ka ] + [!K]1 = [Ka ] + CK1 [Mu ]1 (33)
In this section, the equations as presented in Eqs. (17) and
(26) will be generalized to deal with the cases when the first few
where [Ku ]1 denotes the stiffness matrix that has been updated
modes are experimentally made available. The strategy adopted
using only the first modal data, and
herein is that one mode is updated at a time. So if there are i sets
of modal data available, then the mass and stiffness matrices
should be updated for i times. CK1 = (ωx )21 − (ωa )21 − 2{!φa }T1 [Ka ]{φa }1 (34)

Once the first mode has been updated, the stiffness matrix of the
3.1. Updating of the Mass Matrix Considering the First
structure can be updated using the second set of modal data as
Few Modes
follows:
For the purpose of generalization, we shall rewrite Eq. (16)
as follows;
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009

[Ku ]2 = [Ku ]1 + [!K]2 = [Ku ]1 + CK2 [Mu ]2 (35)

CM1 1
[Mu ]1 = [Ma ] + [Ma ] = [Ma ] (27)
1 − CM1 1 − CM1 where

where [Mu ]1 denotes the mass matrix that has been updated CK2 = (ωx )22 − (ωu1 )22 − 2{!φu1 }T2 [Ku ]1 {φu1 }2 (36)
using the first modal data,
It follows that the stiffness matrix of the structure can be updated
CM1 = −2{!φa }T1 [Ma ]{φa }1 (28)
using the ith set of modal data as follows:
and {!φa }1 denotes the difference between the experimental
and analytical vibration shapes of the first mode. Once the first [Ku ]i = [Ku ]i−1 + [!K]i = [Ku ]i−1 + CKi [Mu ]i (37)
mode has been updated, the mass matrix can be updated using
the second set of modal data in a similar way as where

CM2 1 CKi = (ωx )2i − (ωui−1 )2i − 2{!φui−1 }Ti [Ku ]i−1 {φui−1 }i (38)
[Mu ]2 = [Mu ]1 + [Mu ]1 = [Mu ]1 (29)
1 − CM2 1 − CM2
The equations as given in Eqs. (31) and (37) are exactly the
where ones that will be used consecutively in updating the mass and
stiffness matrices of the structure for each set of the modal data
CM2 = −2{!φu1 }T2 [Mu ]1 {φu1 }2 (30) that are made available from the field measurement.
and {!φu1 }2 denotes the difference between the vibration
shapes of the second mode of the experimental and updated 4. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
models with adjustments made only for the first mode. By the To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method, a
same token, the mass matrix can be further updated using the three-story, a five-story and a ten-story shear building will be
ith set of modal data, when made available, by the following studied in this section.
equation:

CMi 1 4.1. Three-Story Shear Building

[Mu ]i = [Mu ]i−1 + [Mu ]i−1 = [Mu ]i−1
1 − CMi 1 − CMi The first analytical model considered is the three-story shear
(31) building shown in Figure 1, which is modeled as a three-DOF
where system, with the following properties: Young’s modulus E =
200 GPa, moment of inertia Iz = 30000 mm4 , story height
CMi = −2{!φui−1 }Ti [Mu ]i−1 {φui−1 }i (32) L = 4 m, and lump mass m = 20000 t. For this model, the
 DIRECT UPDATING FOR STRUCTURAL MODELS BASED ON ORTHOGONALITY CONSTRAINTS 395

FIG. 2. Natural frequencies for the 3-story building (updating only first
mode).

FIG. 1. Three-story shear building: analytical model.
analytical mass and stiffness matrices are as follows:
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009
Once the analytical data (ωa )1 and {φa }1 and experimental data
(ωx )1 , and {φx }1 are made available, we can substitute them into
Eqs. (16) and (25) and then into Eqs. (17) and (26) to obtain
the updated mass and stiffness matrices. Correspondingly, the

⎡ ⎤ natural frequencies computed for the model adjusted for the first
2 × 107 0 0 mode are
⎢ ⎥
[Ma ] = ⎣ 0 2 × 107 0 ⎦ kg
0 0 2 × 107 (ωu1 )1 = 0.378 rad/s; (ωu1 )2 = 1.292 rad/s;
⎡ ⎤ (ωu1 )3 = 1.890 rad/s
4.50 × 107 −2.25 × 107 0
⎢ ⎥
[Ka ] = ⎣ −2.25 × 107 4.50 × 107 −2.25 × 107 ⎦ N/m The analytical, experimental and updated natural frequencies
0 −2.25 × 107 2.25 × 107 have been plotted in Figure 2. In Table 1, the error of the first
analytical and updated natural frequency with respect to the
Solving the associated eigenproblem, we will get the natu- experimental one have been listed. As can be seen, the first
ral frequencies and modal shapes for the analytical model as natural frequency of the updated model is almost identical to the
follows: experimental one, while the second and third natural frequencies
(ωa )1 = 0.472 rad/s; (ωa )2 = 1.322 rad/s; of the updated model remain basically untouched.
(ωa )3 = 1.911 rad/s
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ 4.1.2. Model Updating Using the First Two Modes
⎪
⎪ 0.000073 ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000165 ⎪⎪ Furthermore, we assume the experimental data of the second
⎨ ⎬ ⎨ ⎬
{φa }1 = 0.000132 m; {φa }2 = 0.000073 m mode are also measured from the structure as follows:
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ 0.000165 ⎪⎭ ⎪
⎩ −0.000132 ⎪
⎭ ⎧ ⎫
⎨ 0.000099 ⎪
⎪ ⎬
⎧ ⎫ (ωx )2 = 0.794 rad/s; {φx }2 = 0.000044 m
⎪ 0.000132 ⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭
−0.000079
{φa }3 = −0.000165 m
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎩ 0.000073 ⎪
⎭ Once we have the modal data of the first two sets for the an-
alytical model, i.e., (ωa )1 , (ωa )2 , {φa }1 and {φa }2 , and for
4.1.1. Model Updating Using Only the First Mode
In the first demonstration, we assume the experimental data TABLE 1
of the fundamental mode are measured from the structure as Errors of natural frequencies compared with experimental ones
follows: for the 3-story building (updating only first mode)
⎧ ⎫ ωx
⎨ 0.000058 ⎪
⎪ ⎬ Mode (rad/s) ωa (rad/s) Error (%) ωu1 (rad/s) Error (%)
(ωx )1 = 0.378 rad/s; {φx }1 = 0.000106 m
⎪
⎩ ⎪
⎭ 1 0.378 0.472 25.00 0.378 0.005
0.000132
 396 Y. B. YANG ET AL.

FIG. 3. Natural frequencies for the 3-story building (updating only first two
mode).

the experimental model, i.e., (ωx )1 , (ωx )2 , {φx }1 and {φx }2 ,

together with the second modal data from the updated model
already adjusted for the first mode, i.e., (ωu1 )2 and {φu1 }2 , we
can substitute all these data into Eqs. (31) and (37), with the use
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009

of Eqs. (32) and (38), to obtain the updated mass and stiffness
matrices. Solving the associated eigenproblem, we can obtain
the natural frequencies from the analytical model that has been FIG. 4. Five-story shear building analytical model.
updated for the first two modes as

(ωu2 )1 = 0.378 rad/s; (ωu2 )2 = 0.794 rad/s;

(ωu2 )3 = 1.592 rad/s
of the three-story shear building.
All the natural frequencies are plotted in Figure 3. The up- For this structure, the mass and stiffness matrices are
dated natural frequencies have been compared with the exper-
imental ones with the errors indicated in Table 2. As can be
seen, the first two natural frequencies have been adjusted to ⎡
2 × 107 0 0 0 0
⎤
those of the measured ones with almost no errors, while for the ⎢ 7 ⎥
⎢ 0 2 × 10 0 0 0 ⎥
third mode remains basically unchanged, as was expected. A ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
[Ma ] = ⎢ 0 0 2 × 107 0 0 ⎥ kg
comparison of the results in Figure 3 with those in Figure 2 ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
7
indicates that the proposed scheme for updating the mass and ⎢ 0 0 0 2 × 10 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
stiffness matrices in a mode-by-mode manner is feasible. 0 0 0 0 2 × 107

⎡ ⎤
4.50 × 107 −2.25 × 107 0 0 0
4.2. Five-Story Shear Building ⎢ ⎥
⎢ −2.25 × 107 4.50 × 107 −2.25 × 107 0 0 ⎥
The next model considered is the five-story shear building ⎢
⎢ 7 7 7
⎥
⎥
[Ka ] = ⎢ 0 −2.25 × 10 4.50 × 10 −2.25 × 10 0 ⎥N/m
shown in Figure 4, which is modeled by five lump masses with ⎢
⎢
⎥
7 7 7⎥
⎣ 0 0 −2.25 × 10 4.50 × 10 −2.25 × 10 ⎦
five DOFs. The elastic modulus E, moment inertia Iz , story
height L, and lump mass m adopted herein are identical to those 0 0 0 −2.25 × 107 2.25 × 107

TABLE 2
Errors of natural frequencies compared with experimental ones By solving the associated eigenproblem, we can obtain the nat-
for the 3-story building (updating the first two modes) ural frequencies and modal shapes as follows:
ωx
Mode (rad/s) ωa (rad/s) Error (%) ωu1 (rad/s) Error (%)
(ωa )1 = 0.302 rad/s; (ωa )2 = 0.881 rad/s;
1 0.378 0.472 25.00 0.378 0.005 (ωa )3 = 1.389 rad/s; (ωa )4 = 1.785 rad/s;
2 0.794 1.323 66.67 0.794 0.0009
(ωa )5 = 2.035 rad/s
 DIRECT UPDATING FOR STRUCTURAL MODELS BASED ON ORTHOGONALITY CONSTRAINTS 397
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪ 0.000038 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000102 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000073 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000133 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬ ⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬
{φa }1 = 0.000102 m; {φa }2 = 0.000073 m;
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000123 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
−0.000038 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ 0.000133 ⎪
⎭ ⎩ −0.000123 ⎪
⎪ ⎭
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪ 0.000133 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000123 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000038 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000102 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬ ⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬
{φa }3 = −0.000123 m; {φa }4 = −0.000038 m;
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000073 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000133 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ 0.000102 ⎪⎭ ⎩ −0.000073 ⎪
⎪ ⎭
FIG. 5. Natural frequencies for the 5-story building (updating only first
⎧ ⎫ mode).
⎪
⎪ 0.000073 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000123 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬ 4.2.2. Model Updating Using the First Two Modes
{φa }5 = 0.000133 m Once the modal data of the first two sets for the analyt-
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ical model, i.e., (ωa )1 , (ωa )2 , {φa }1 and {φa }2 , and those
⎪ −0.000102 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ 0.000038 ⎪
⎪ ⎭ for the experimental model, i.e., (ωx )1 , (ωx )2 , {φx }1 and
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009

{φx }2 , as well as those for the updated model, i.e., (ωu1 )2

and {φu1 }2 , are made available, we can substitute all of them
The conceived experimental natural frequencies and modal into Eqs. (31) and (37) to obtain the updated mass and stiff-
shapes of the first two modes in the field are as ness matrices. From the associated eigenproblem, the nat-
ural frequencies for the updated model can be solved as
(ωx )1 = 0.242 rad/s; (ωx )2 = 0.617 rad/s follows:
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪ 0.000030 ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000071 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000058 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000093 ⎪
⎪ (ωu2 )1 = 0.242 rad/s; (ωu2 )2 = 0.617 rad/s;
⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬ ⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬
0.000082 0.000051 (ωu2 )3 = 1.238 rad/s; (ωu2 )4 = 1.670 rad/s;
{φx }1 = m; {φx }2 = m
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ (ωu2 )5 = 1.936 rad/s
⎪ 0.000098 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ −0.000027 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ 0.000106 ⎪
⎪ ⎭ ⎩ −0.000086 ⎪
⎪ ⎭
The natural frequencies are plotted in Figure 6. The natural
frequencies for the updated model have been compared with
the experimental ones with errors listed in Table 4. It can be
4.2.1. Model Updating Using Only the First Mode seen that excellent effect of updating has been achieved for
Once we have the first modal data (ωa )1 , {φa }1 for the ana- the first two modes, but with little improvement for the re-
lytical model, and (ωx )1 , {φx }1 for the experimental model, we maining, untouched modes. Comparing the results in Figure 6
can substitute them into Eqs. (17) and (26), along with Eqs. (16) with those in Figure 5 indicates that the proposed scheme
and (25), to obtain the updated mass and stiffness matrices. By for updating the mass and stiffness matrices of a structure is
solving the eigenproblem for this updated model, we can obtain feasible.
the natural frequencies as follows:
4.3. Ten-Story Shear Building
(ωu1 )1 = 0.242 rad/s; (ωu1 )2 = 0.862 rad/s;
The final analytical model considered is the ten-story shear
(ωu1 )3 = 1.377 rad/s; (ωu1 )4 = 1.775 rad/s; building shown in Figure 7, which is modeled as a ten-DOF
(ωu1 )5 = 2.027 rad/s
TABLE 3
The natural frequencies are plotted in Figure 5. The error of Errors of natural frequencies compared with experimental ones
the first natural frequency computed from the updated model for the 5-story building (updating only the first mode)
with respect to the experimental one has been listed in Table 3.
As can be seen, the error for the natural frequency of the first ωx
mode is almost zero, indicating that the effect of updating is Mode (rad/s) ωa (rad/s) Error (%) ωu1 (rad/s) Error (%)
perfect, while the second to the fifth modes remain basically
1 0.242 0.302 25.00 0.242 0.009
intact.
 398 Y. B. YANG ET AL.

TABLE 4
Errors of natural frequencies compared with experimental ones
for the 5-story building (updating the first two modes)
ωx
Mode (rad/s) ωa (rad/s) Error (%) ωu1 (rad/s) Error (%)
1 0.242 0.302 25.00 0.242 0.009
2 0.617 0.881 42.86 0.617 −0.0008

Solving the associated eigenproblem, we can get the natu-

ral frequencies and modal shapes for the analytical model as
follows:
FIG. 6. Natural frequencies for the 5-story building (updating only first two
modes). (ωa )1 = 0.159 rad/s; (ωa )2 = 0.472 rad/s;
(ωa )3 = 0.775 rad/s; (ωa )4 = 1.061 rad/s;

system, with Young’s modulus E = 200 GPa, moment of in- (ωa )5 = 1.323 rad/s; (ωa )6 = 1.555 rad/s;
ertia Iz = 30000 mm4 , story height L = 4 m, and lump mass (ωa )7 = 1.753 rad/s; (ωa )8 = 1.911 rad/s;
m = 20000 t. The analytical mass and stiffness matrices for this
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009

model are as follows: (ωa )9 = 2.027 rad/s; (ωa )10 = 2.098 rad/s

⎡ ⎤
2 × 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 2 × 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 2 × 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 2 × 107
0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 2 × 107
0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
[Ma ] = ⎢ 7
⎥ kg
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 2 × 10 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 7 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 × 10 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 7 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 × 10 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 × 107 0 ⎦
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 × 107

⎡ ⎤
4.50 × 107 −2.25 × 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −2.25 × 107 4.50 × 107 −2.25 × 107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 7 7 7 ⎥
⎢ 0 −2.25 × 10 4.50 × 10 −2.25 × 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 −2.25 × 107 4.50 × 107 −2.25 × 107 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 7 7
−2.25 × 10 4.50 × 10 −2.25 × 10 7
0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
[Ka ] = ⎢ ⎥ N/m
0 0 0 0 −2.25 × 10 7
4.50 × 107
−2.25 × 10 7
0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 7 7 7
⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 −2.25 × 10 4.50 × 10 −2.25 × 10 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 7 7 7 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 −2.25 × 10 4.50 × 10 −2.25 × 10 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 7 7 7⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 −2.25 × 10 4.50 × 10 −2.25 × 10 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 −2.25 × 107 2.25 × 107
 DIRECT UPDATING FOR STRUCTURAL MODELS BASED ON ORTHOGONALITY CONSTRAINTS 399

⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪ 0.000015 ⎪ ⎪ 0.000042 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000029 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000076 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000042 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000095 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000055 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000095 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎨ 0.000066 ⎪
⎪ ⎬ ⎪
⎨ 0.000076 ⎪
⎬
{φa }1 = m; {φa }2 = m;
⎪
⎪ 0.000076 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000042 ⎪⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000085 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000000 ⎪⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000091 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000042 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000095 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000076 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ 0.000097 ⎭ ⎩ −0.000095 ⎭
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪ 0.000066 ⎪ ⎪ 0.000085 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000097 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000085 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000076 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000000 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000015 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000085 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎨ −0.000055 ⎬ ⎨ −0.000085 ⎪
⎪ ⎬
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009

{φa }3 = m; {φa }4 = m;
⎪
⎪ −0.000095 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000000 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000085 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000085 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000029 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000085 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
0.000042 ⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000000 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ 0.000091 ⎪
⎪ ⎭ ⎩ −0.000085 ⎪
⎪ ⎭

⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪ 0.000095 ⎪ ⎪ 0.000097 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000042 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000015 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000076 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000095 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000076 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000029 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ 0.000042 ⎪⎬ ⎨ 0.000091 ⎪
⎪ ⎬
{φa }5 = m; {φa }6 = m;
⎪
⎪ 0.000095 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000042 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000000 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ −0.000085 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000095 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000055 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000042 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000076 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ 0.000076 ⎪
⎪ ⎭ ⎩ −0.000066 ⎪
⎪ ⎭
FIG. 7. Ten-story shear building: analytical model
⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪ 0.000091 ⎪ ⎪ 0.000076 ⎪ ⎪ 0.000055 ⎪ 0.000029 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000066 ⎪ ⎪ −0.000095 ⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000091 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000055 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000042 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000042 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000095 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000076 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000097 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000042 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000066 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000091 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ −0.000029 ⎪
⎪ ⎬ ⎨ −0.000095 ⎪
⎪ ⎬ ⎨ 0.000015 ⎪⎬ ⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬
0.000097
{φa }7 = m; {φa }8 = m; {φa }9 = m; {φa }10 = m
⎪
⎪ −0.000076 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000076 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000042 ⎪⎪ ⎪ −0.000095 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000085 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000000 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000085 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ 0.000085 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000015 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ 0.000097 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000076 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000066 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −0.000095 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000095 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000076 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000042 ⎪
⎪
⎩ 0.000055 ⎪
⎪ ⎭ ⎩ −0.000042 ⎪
⎪ ⎭ ⎩ 0.000029 ⎪⎭ ⎩
−0.000015
⎭
 400 Y. B. YANG ET AL.

Then, we assume that the experimental data for the natural TABLE 5
frequencies and modal shapes, measured in the field, are as Errors of natural frequencies compared with experimental ones
follows: for the 10-story building (updating only first mode)

(ωx )1 = 0.127 rad/s; (ωx )2 = 0.330 rad/s ωx

⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ Mode (rad/s) ωa (rad/s) Error (%) ωu1 (rad/s) Error (%)
⎪ 0.000012 ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000029 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000023 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000053
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1 0.127 0.159 25.00 0.127 −0.009
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000034 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000067 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000044 ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000067 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000053 ⎬⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ TABLE 6
⎨ ⎨ 0.000053 ⎪ ⎬
{φx }1 = m; {φx }2 = m Errors of natural frequencies compared with experimental ones
⎪
⎪ 0.000061 ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000029 ⎪
⎪ for the 10-story building (updating the first two modes)
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000068 ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 0.000000 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ωx
⎪
⎪ 0.000073 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000029 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ Mode (rad/s) ωa (rad/s) Error (%) ωu1 (rad/s) Error (%)
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.000076 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −0.000053 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ 1 0.127 0.159 25.00 0.127 −0.009
⎩ 0.000078 ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
−0.000067 2 0.330 0.472 42.86 0.330 −0.005
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009

4.3.1. Model Updating Using Only the First Mode

As long as the analytical data (ωa )1 and {φa }1 and experi-
mental data (ωx )1 , and {φx }1 are made available, we can sub-
stitute them into Eqs. (16) and (25) and then into Eqs. (17) and
(26) to obtain the updated mass and stiffness matrices. Cor-
respondingly, the natural frequencies computed for the model
with adjustment made for the first mode are as follows:

(ωu1 )1 = 0.127 rad/s; (ωu1 )2 = 0.462 rad/s;

(ωu1 )3 = 0.769 rad/s;
(ωu1 )4 = 1.056 rad/s; (ωu1 )5 = 1.319 rad/s;
(ωu1 )6 = 1.552 rad/s;
(ωu1 )7 = 1.750 rad/s; (ωu1 )8 = 1.909 rad/s;
FIG. 8. Natural frequencies for the 10-story building (updating only first
(ωu1 )9 = 2.025 rad/s; (ωu1 )10 = 2.095 rad/s mode).

The natural frequencies computed have been plotted in

Figure 8. The errors of the analytical and updated natural fre-
quencies with respect to the experimental one have been listed
in Table 5. Clearly, the first natural frequency of the updated
model is almost identical to the experimental one, but the natu-
ral frequencies of the higher modes remain basically untouched.
Such a result conforms to our expectation, since only the first
modal data were used in updating the matrices of the analytical
model.

4.3.2. Model Updating Using the First Two Modes

Once we have the first two sets of modal data for the analytical
model, i.e., (ωa )1 , (ωa )2 , {φa }1 and {φa }2 , and the experimental
modal data, i.e., (ωx )1 , (ωx )2 , {φx }1 and {φx }2 , together with
the second modal data from the updated model already adjusted
FIG. 9. Natural frequencies for the 10-story building (updating only first two
for the first mode, i.e., (ωu1 )2 and {φu1 }2 , we can substitute all
modes).
these data into Eqs. (31) and (37), with the use of Eqs. (32)
 DIRECT UPDATING FOR STRUCTURAL MODELS BASED ON ORTHOGONALITY CONSTRAINTS
and (38), to obtain the updated mass and stiffness matrices. By
solving the associated eigenproblem, we can obtain the natural
frequencies from the updated model that has been adjusted for
the first two modes as
(ωu2 )1 = 0.127 rad/s; (ωu2 )2 = 0.330 rad/s;
(ωu2 )3 = 0.698 rad/s;
(ωu2 )4 = 1.006 rad/s; (ωu2 )5 = 1.279 rad/s;
(ωu2 )6 = 1.518 rad/s;
(ωu2 )7 = 1.720 rad/s; (ωu2 )8 = 1.881 rad/s;
(ωu2 )9 = 1.999 rad/s; (ωu2 )10 = 2.070 rad/s
The natural frequencies computed have been plotted in
Figure 9. Comparing the updated natural frequencies with the
experimental ones, the errors have been listed in Table 6. As
can be seen, the first two natural frequencies have been adjusted
to those of the measured ones with almost no errors, while
the higher modes remain generally untouched. A comparison
of the results in Figure 9 with those in Figure 8 indicates that
Downloaded By: [Yang, Y. B.] At: 02:06 20 June 2009
the proposed mode-by-mode scheme for updating the mass and
stiffness matrices of a structure is rather reliable.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
A simple direct method is proposed in this study for updating
the finite element model, based on the first few sets of modal
data measured for the real structure. This method is formulated
first for a single mode based on the conditions of orthogonality.
By replacing the modal vector of concern by the modal matrix,
the correction matrix can be derived for the mass matrix, and
then for the stiffness matrix. Such a procedure is then extended
to update the structural model for each of the vibrations modes
measured from the real structure. As an illustration, three build-
ings of the shear type, three-story, five-story and ten-story, are
studied. It was demonstrated that the proposed method can be
adopted to update the mass and stiffness matrices of the analyt-
ical model of the first few modes with the modal data experi-
mentally made available. As for the remaining modes, basically
no changes will be made. The proposed method has the ad-
vantage of being simple, accurate, and robust in computation,
which should find its applicability to a wide range of dynamic
problems.
View publication stats
401
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research presented herein is sponsored in part by the
National Science Council through Grant No.: NSC 93-2211-E-
002-046.
REFERENCES
1. D.J. Ewins, Modal Testing: Theory and Practice, Research Studies Press,
London, 1984.
2. D.J. Ewins, and M. Imregun, State-of-the-Art Assessment of Structural
Dynamic Response Analysis Methods (DYNAS), Shock Vib., vol. 56, no.
1, pp. 59–90, 1986.
3. M. Imregun and W.J. Visser, A Review of Model Updating Techniques,
Shock Vib., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 9–20, 1991.
4. J.E. Mottershead and M.I. Friswell, Model Updating in Structural Dynam-
ics: A survey, Sound Vib., vol. 167, no. 2, pp. 347–375, 1993.
5. M.I. Friswell and J.E. Mottershead, Finite Element Model Updating in
Structural Dynamics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1995.
6. M. Baruch and I.Y. Bar-Itzhack, Optimal Weighted Orthogonalization of
Measured Modes, AIAA J., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 346–351, 1978.
7. A. Berman, Mass Matrix Correction Using an Incomplete Set of Measured
Modes, AIAA J., vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1147–1148, 1979.
8. A. Berman and E.J. Nagy, Improvement of a Large Analytical Model using
Test Data, AIAA J., vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1168–1173, 1983.
9. A.M. Kabe, Stiffness Matrix Adjustment using Mode Data, AIAA J., vol.
23, no. 11, pp. 1431–1436, 1985.
10. M. Baruch, Optimization Procedure to Correct Stiffness and Flexibility
Matrices using Vibration Tests, AIAA J., vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1208–1210,
1978.
11. B. Caesar and J. Peter, Direct Update of Dynamic Mathematical Models
from Modal Test Data, AIAA J., vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1494–1499, 1987.
12. F.S. Wei and D.W. Zhang, Mass Matrix Modification using Element Cor-
rection Method, AIAA J., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 119–121, 1989.
13. F.S. Wei, Analytical Dynamic Model Improvement using Vibration Test
Data, AIAA J., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 175–177, 1990.
14. F.S. Wei, Mass and Stiffness Interaction Effects in Analytical Model Mod-
ification, AIAA J., vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1686–1688, 1990.
15. M.I. Friswell, D.J. Inman, and D.F. Pilkey, Direct Updating of Damping
and Stiffness Matrices, AIAA J., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 491–493, 1998.
16. D.C. Kammer, Optimum Approximation for Residual Stiffness in Linear
System Identification, AIAA J., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 104–112, 1988.
17. T.W. Lim, Submatrix Approach to Stiffness Matrix Correction using Modal
Test Data, AIAA J., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1123–1130, 1991.
18. J.D. Collins, G.C. Hart, T.K. Hasselman, and B. Kennedy, Statistical Iden-
tification of Structures, AIAA J., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 185–190, 1974.
19. R.M. Lin, M.K. Lim, and H. Du, Improved Inverse Eigensensitivity Method
for Structural Analytical Model Updating, J. Vib. Acoust., vol. 117, no. 2,
pp. 192–198, 1995.
20. J.C. Chen, and B.K. Wada, Criteria for Analysis-Test Correlation of Struc-
tural Dynamic Systems, J. Appl. Mech., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 471–477, 1975.
21. J.C. Chen, and J.A. Graba, Analytical Model Improvement using Modal
Test Results, AIAA J., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 684–690, 1980.