Identification and verification of structural nonlinearities

based on vibration tests

G.B. Zhang, C. Zang
College of Energy and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Nanjing, 210016, China
e-mail: c.zang@nuaa.edu.cn

Abstract
Practical engineering structures often exhibit nonlinear dynamic behaviour. It is essential to construct an
accurate nonlinear model from measured vibration data in order to predict the nonlinear dynamic
characteristics and response of these structures. This paper develops a novel technique to identify
structural nonlinearity and verify the nonlinear model. The method consists of two dynamic tests which
are constant-amplitude displacement test and constant-amplitude velocity test. Both tests use special
sinusoidal force excitations. The constant-amplitude displacement test is used to measure the nonlinear
stiffness behaviour and identify nonlinear stiffness terms from measured FRFs of the structure subjected to
sinusoidal force excitations which need to ensure the amplitudes of displacement is constant through
adjusting the amplitude of the force over the frequency range. The constant-amplitude velocity test is
similar to the constant-amplitude displacement and used to measure the nonlinear damping behaviour and
identify nonlinear damping terms. The identified nonlinear stiffness and damping terms are included into
the nonlinear model. The verification is done through comparison between predicted nonlinear behaviour
from the nonlinear model with measured nonlinear behaviour. This solution, taking advantage of modal
test and equivalent linearization theory, is direct and accurate. The solution is illustrated and verified
through a framed structure with bolted joints.

Introduction

In the dynamic model validation, high quality model can be obtained through establishing detailed finite
element model and further model updating using modal testing data. The updated model can be applied to
predict and analyze the dynamic response of the structure sufficiently and accurately within the interested
frequency range. Generally, most validation methods are based on linear system. The structural
nonlinearities, due to the difficulty to obtain accurate nonlinear parameters in the measurement, are often
ignored completely or considered as uncertain factors to deal with [1-4]. Worden [5] and Kershen [6]
comprehensively discussed nonlinear detection, localization and identification in structural dynamics, but
there still exist difficulties in nonlinear parameter identification suitable for engineering application with
standard vibration test because of the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Recently, sinusoidal
excitation and modal analysis techniques [7-9] have been developed for the nonlinear identification. The
method, based on the equivalent linearization theory [5], is expected to be applied widely in industry
because of its mathematical simplicity and relatively mature technique.
Most recently, Zang, Schwingshackl & Ewins [10] put forward an effective linearity method to deal with
the existed nonlinearity in an approach to the Sandia Structural Dynamics Challenge for model validation
of structural dynamic analysis. They[11] also investigated the influence of nonlinearity on uncertainty and
variability for dynamic models. Based on simulation of three degrees of freedom vibration system with a
weakly nonlinearity, two dynamic tests, namely constant-amplitude displacement test and constantamplitude velocity test, are exploited to identify the nonlinear stiffness and damping behaviour
respectively under the sinusoidal force excitations.

2611

2612

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

This paper will focus on the nonlinearity identification with practical modal test. A framed structure with
bolted joints is used as an example. The constant-amplitude displacement test is used to measure the
nonlinear stiffness behaviour and identify nonlinear stiffness terms from measured FRFs of the structure
subjected to sinusoidal force excitations which need to ensure the amplitudes of displacement is constant
through adjusting the amplitude of the force over the frequency range. Similarly, the nonlinear damping
features and term can be identified through the constant-amplitude velocity test. The verification is
undertaken through comparison between the predicted nonlinear behaviour from the nonlinear model with
the measurement. The results show the effectiveness of the proposed method.

2
2.1

Identification of structural nonlinearity

Equivalent linearization of structural nonlinearity

In the case of a SDOF nonlinear system where the nonlinearity is additively separable, the equation of
motion can be written as:

mx f d x f s x F sin t

(1)

Where f d x represents the weak nonlinearity of damping behavior and f s x represents the weakly
nonlinear stiffness feature. Based on equivalent linearization theory, its equivalent linearization is written
as:

mx ceq x keq x F sin t

(2)

where ceq is the equivalent linear damping and k eq is the equivalent linear stiffness. Then, the equivalent
linear FRF is described as:

H eq

1
m j ceq keq
2

(3)

Simply assuming that the response to a sinusoidal excitation is a sinusoid at the same frequency, the
displacement and velocity can be expressed as

x A sin t

(4)

x A sin t
2

(5)

where A is the amplitude of displacement response at steady state.

The harmonic balance (HB) applied to the equation of motion yields the equivalent stiffness

keq

1 2
f A sin sin d f A
A 0 s

(6)

and the equivalent damping

ceq

f d A sin cos d g ( A)

(7)

According to Eq. (6) and Eq. (7), the equivalent stiffness is the function of displacement amplitude and the
equivalent damping is the function of velocity amplitude, respectively. Therefore, if the amplitudes of
displacement are kept constant through adjusting the amplitude of the sinusoidal force over the interested
frequency range, the influence of the nonlinear stiffness on the measured FRF data can be minimised.
Such test is called as constant displacement test and can be used to measure the relationship between
equivalent stiffness and displacement amplitude. The nonlinear damping behaviour and terms can be also

N ON - LINEARITIES : IDENTIFICATION AND MODELLING

2613

obtained in the same way through acting on the constant velocity test to the structure. Afterwards, the
identified nonlinear properties can be included into the model to predict the response of nonlinear system.

2.2

Dynamic test methods

There are three dynamic test methods using the sinusoidal excitation with amplitude control: constant
force test, constant displacement test, and constant velocity test. The most widely used constant force test
needs to keep the sinusoidal excitation force amplitude constant at various interested frequency points
over the frequency range during the test. The constant displacement and constant velocity tests need to
adjust the amplitude of sinusoidal force in order to keep the displacement or velocity response amplitude
unchanged during the frequency range of excitation. The difficulty in conducting constant displacement
and constant velocity tests are how to determine the amplitude of sinusoidal excitation at each frequency
so that the response amplitudes at the steady state are maintained the same value. Generally, the feedback
control method is effective, but it is time-consuming. Here, a simple method is employed without
feedback control. As the relationship between the sinusoidal excitation and response amplitudes is affected
by nonlinearity at various frequencies, it is generally not linear but remains a monotonic increasing. This
may be true for many nonlinear structures. Therefore, the function can be measured at each interested
frequency, such as

X f (F ,i ),

i 1,2,...n

F f 1 ( X , i ),

i 1, 2,...n

(8)
(9)

So, the response amplitude can be only determined by a given excitation amplitude for a frequency in zero
initial conditions

x f (F0 ),

Freq fi ,

i 1,2,...n

(10)

If this function has been gained from test data, the excitation amplitude can be only determined by a given
response amplitude
F0 f 1 ( x),

Freq f i ,

i 1, 2,...n

(11)

In practice, the function can be created by the piecewise spline interpolation polynomial, and will be
further verified in the subsequent experimental research.
Actually, the phase difference between excitation and response is, similar to the amplitude in the zero
initial conditions, a monotonic increasing or decreasing function. Therefore, the excitation amplitude and
phase difference between excitation and response can alternatively be determined by a given response
amplitude using the data from constant force test. Therefore, the FRFs can also be determined. As a result,
the constant-amplitude displacement and constant-amplitude velocity tests can be conducted virtually
from constant force excitation.

3
3.1

Experimental study of a framed structure with bolted joints

Experimental setup

In order to illustrate and verify the nonlinear parameters identification method, a series of tests has been
conducted in a framed structure with bolted joints shown in Figure 1. This structure was originally
intended to represent a 3DOF system and can represent a SDOF system after removing two mass
components. Four rubber rings are installed between the four aluminum beams and the base plate
respectively to enhance the nonlinear stiffness and damping behavior of the SDOF system.

2614

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

(b) 3DOF system

(a) SDOF system

Figure 1: Experimental setup

3.2

Nonlinearity detection using swept sine test

To detect the nonlinearity of the SDOF system, a series of swept sinusoidal excitation with various force
levels from 0.1N to 10N are exploited to the frame and the responses of acceleration are measured.
Obviously, the overlay of measured FRFs from Figure 2 shows the distortion characteristic of acceleration
FRFs. With the increase of excitation force levels, the resonant frequency shifts downwards to the
softening system. The zoomed changes in natural frequency and phase between 36Hz and 48Hz are
overlaid in Figure 3. The modal parameters extracted from FRFs using circle fit method from ICATS
software are shown in Figure 4.
20

0.1N
0.5N
1N
3N
5N
7N
10N

Amplitude / g/N,dB

0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
20

30

40
50
Frequency / Hz

60

70

Figure 2: The acceleration FRFs at different force levels

10

200

0.1N
0.5N
1N
3N
5N
7N
10N

150
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
36

38

0.1N
0.5N
1N
3N
5N
7N
10N
40
42
44
Frequency / Hz

Phase / deg

Amplitude / g/N,dB

100

50

46

48

0
36

38

40
42
44
Frequency / Hz

46

48

Figure 3: The acceleration FRFs at different force levels between 36Hz and 48Hz

2615

45

3.2

44.5

Viscous damping ratio / %

Natural frequency / Hz

N ON - LINEARITIES : IDENTIFICATION AND MODELLING

44
43.5
43
42.5

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2

42
0

4
6
Amplitude / N

1.8
0

10

4
6
Amplitude / N

10

Figure 4: The modal parameters at different force levels of excitation

It can be seen that the natural frequency shifts from 44.8Hz to 42.4Hz and the viscous damping ratio shifts
from 1.8% to 5.6% respectively, while the excitation force is raised from 0.1N to 10N. Strictly speaking, it
is not suitable to estimate the modal parameters for nonlinear system directly using traditional modal
analysis method such as the circle fit method. The fitting error will be produced because of the Nyquist
plot distortion as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, it is difficult to identify nonlinear parameters accurately
using the swept sine test directly.

(a) 10N

(b) 0.1N

Figure 5: Circle fit at different force levels of excitation

3.3

Constant force test

The parameter setting of the sinusoidal excitation used to conduct constant force test is shown in Table 1.
The accelerance FRFs obtained from constant force test and their amplitudes and phases against frequency
are plotted and shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. The relationship of both amplitude acceleration and phase
against the force respectively at different frequencies is plotted in Figure 8. A monotonic increasing
function between amplitude and force can be seen clearly while the phase shows the decreasing function
instead.
Frequency span

Frequency interval

Force levels

Sampling Freq

Sampling time

40 Hz~47Hz

0.25Hz

0.5,1,2,3,4,5,7,9N

5120Hz

1.6s

Table 1: The parameter setting for constant force test

2616

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

Figure 6: The 3D plot of amplitude of accelerance FRFs

Figure 7: The 3D plot of phase of accelerance FRFs

5
4

40 Hz
41 Hz
42 Hz
43 Hz
44 Hz
45 Hz
46 Hz
47 Hz

140
120
Phase / deg

Acceleration / g

160

40 Hz
41 Hz
42 Hz
43 Hz
44 Hz
45 Hz
46 Hz
47 Hz

100
80
60

40
1
20
1

5
Force / N

5
Force / N

Figure 8: The amplitude and phase of acceleration against excitation levels at different frequencies

N ON - LINEARITIES : IDENTIFICATION AND MODELLING

2617

If the accelerance FRFs is H a , the mobility FRFs H v and receptance FRFs H d can be
written respectively as

H v

H d

H a
j

(12)

H a

(13)

Therefore, the displacement and velocity can be easily obtained from measured acceleration for a linear
system subjected to sinusoidal excitation without measuring directly. Based on the mobility and
receptance FRFs respectively, the amplitudes and phases of velocity vary with the excitation levels at
different frequencies are plotted in Figure 9. Similarly, the relationship between displacement and
excitation is described as Figure 10.
0.25

40 Hz
41 Hz
42 Hz
43 Hz
44 Hz
45 Hz
46 Hz
47 Hz

0.15

40

Phase / deg

Velocity / m/s

0.2

40 Hz
41 Hz
42 Hz
43 Hz
44 Hz
45 Hz
46 Hz
47 Hz

60

0.1

20
0
-20
-40

0.05

-60
1

5
Force / N

4
Force / N

Figure 9: The amplitudes & phases of velocity vary with the excitation levels at different frequencies
-4

x 10

7
6
5

-40

40 Hz
41 Hz
42 Hz
43 Hz
44 Hz
45 Hz
46 Hz
47 Hz

-60
Phase / deg

8
Displacement / m

-20

40 Hz
41 Hz
42 Hz
43 Hz
44 Hz
45 Hz
46 Hz
47 Hz

-80
-100

-120

-140

-160
1

5
Force / N

5
Force / N

Figure 10: The amplitudes & phases of displacement vary with the excitation levels at different
frequencies
As can be seen from Figure 9 and Figure 10, the relationship between the velocity/displacement and
excitation at different frequencies can be obtained. Based on those, the constant displacement and velocity
tests can be virtually conducted. For example, if the X axis (Force) in Figure 6 is replaced by the
corresponding velocity, the FRFs surface from constant velocity test can be obtained directly. And if the
surface is cut by a plane perpendicular to X axis, the intersection is the constant velocity FRFs at the
current velocity. Figure 11 reveals the relationship between constant force FRFs and constant velocity
FRFs. It also can be seen the constant force FRFs are distorted in constant velocity FRFs surface. That is
why the constant velocity/displacement test can be conducted virtually.

2618

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

Figure 11: Constant force FRFs and constant velocity FRFs

3.4

Nonlinearity identification

3.4.1

Nonlinear stiffness identification

The FRFs of the constant displacement tests under the different excitation levels are shown in Figure 12.
Suppose the equivalent stiffness is

keq a b x
D
D

Amplitude / dB,m/N

-80

D
-82

D
D

-84

D
D

-86

D
-88

40

D1
D2

-40

D3

3
4
5
6
7
8

-60

D4

-80

D5
D6

-100

D7

-120

D8

-140

D10

D9

D10

-90

(14)

-20

Phase / deg

-78

-160
41

42

43
44
Frequency / Hz

(a) Amplitude

45

46

47

40

41

42

43
44
Frequency / Hz

45

46

47

(b) Phase

Figure 12: Constant displacement FRFs with different excitations

The parameters a, b, and the index m can be identified by the least squire curve fitting method using the
data from Table 2 obtained through modal analysis. The fitting results are shown in Table 3.

N ON - LINEARITIES : IDENTIFICATION AND MODELLING

2619

Displacement

Equivalent Stiffness

Natural Frequency

[10-3m]

[104m/N]

[Hz]

D1

0.0719

8.9595

43.9857

D2

0.1211

8.8508

43.7182

D3

0.1703

8.7613

43.4967

D4

0.2195

8.6883

43.3150

D5

0.2688

8.6272

43.1624

D6

0.3180

8.5749

43.0314

D7

0.3672

8.5272

42.9117

D8

0.4164

8.4831

42.8005

D9

0.4656

8.4440

42.7017

D10

0.5149

8.4106

42.6173

No.

Table 2: Constant displacement test results

a

9.271910

m
5

-3.864110

1/2

Table 3: Curve fitting results

The curve fitting and the test of both natural frequencies and the equivalent stiffness against the
displacement amplitude respectively is plotted in Figure 13.
4

x 10

Natural frequency / Hz

44.5
44
43.5
43
42.5
42
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-3
Displacement / m
x 10

Test
Fit

9.2

Equivalent stiffness / N/m

Test
Fit

9
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-3
Displacement / m
x 10

Figure 13: Curve fitting and the test of both natural frequencies and the equivalent stiffness against the
displacement amplitude
3.4.2

Nonlinear damping identification

Similar to the nonlinear stiffness identification, the amplitude and phase characteristics of Constant
velocity FRFs within the frequency range from 40 to 47Hz is plotted in Figure 14.

2620

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

V
V

-30

-32

3
4

V5

-34

V6

-36

V7

-38

V9

V8

42

43
44
Frequency / Hz

45

46

40

V3

V2
V4

20

V5
V6

V7

-20

V8
V9
V10

-60

-40
41

V1

-40

V 10

40

60

Phase / deg

Amplitude / dB,m/sN

47

40

41

42

43
44
Frequency / Hz

45

46

47

Figure 14: Constant velocity FRFs

Suppose the equivalent damping is

ceq p q x

(15)

The parameters p, q, and the index n can be determined with least squire method using the data from Table
4 obtained through modal analysis. The fitting results are shown in Table 5.
Velocity

Equivalent Damping

Damping ratio

[m/s]

[Ns/m]

[%]

v1

0.0199

14.0165

2.1618

v2

0.0329

14.8286

2.3007

v3

0.0458

15.2921

2.3845

v4

0.0588

15.6806

2.4553

v5

0.0718

15.9693

2.5093

v6

0.0848

16.2260

2.5574

v7

0.0977

16.5065

2.6089

v8

0.1107

16.7664

2.6569

v9

0.1237

16.9640

2.6946

v10

0.1367

17.0932

2.7205

No.

Table 4: Constant velocity test results

p

12.3924

13.0957

1/2

Table 5: Curve fitting results

The curve fitting and the test of both viscous damping ratio and the equivalent viscous damping against
the velocity amplitude is plotted in Figure 15 respectively.

Viscous damping ratio / %

3
Test
Fit

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
0

0.05

0.1
0.15
0.2
Velocity / m/s

2621

Equivalent viscous damping / Ns/m

N ON - LINEARITIES : IDENTIFICATION AND MODELLING

19
18

Test
Fit

17
16
15
14
13

0.25

0.05

0.1
0.15
0.2
Velocity / m/s

0.25

Figure 15: Curve fitting and the test of both the viscous damping ratio and the equivalent viscous damping
against the velocity amplitude

3.5

Verification of nonlinearity identification

Based on the nonlinearity identification of stiffness and damping property, the equation of motion of the
bolted frame can be written as
1

mx c0 x cn x x 2 k0 x kn x x 2 F sin t

(16)

where the equivalent stiffness and damping are described as

1

keq k0 0.9153kn x 2

(17)

ceq c0 0.9153cn x 2

(18)

Then, the stiffness and damping terms are

k0 a
kn b / 0.9153

(19)

c0 p
cn q / 0.9153
The results of parameter identification are shown in Table 6.

m ( kg )

k0 ( N/m )

kn ( N/m1.5 )

c0 ( Ns/m )

cn ( Ns1.5/m1.5 )

1.1730

9.2719104

-4.2216105

12.3924

14.3074

Table 6: The results of parameter Identification

In order to verify the identified nonlinear model, the comparison of acceleration responses under the
different excitation force levels is undertaken between the prediction of the nonlinear model and measured
nonlinear behaviour. The overlay of the responses is plotted in Figure 16. Obviously, the predicted
responses are closely matched with the measured responses. The amplitudes and phases characteristics of
FRFs are calculated from the prediction model and compared with the experimental measurement. The
overlay of the predicted and measured FRFs under the different excitation force levels are plotted in
Figure 17. It clearly shows that very good agreements between them are obtained. A slight difference in
the resonance zone may be due to the measurement error of excitation in the experimental test. Thus, the
identified nonlinear model can represent the actual nonlinear behaviour of the structure.

2622

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012

Test - 0.5N
Test - 3N
Test - 7N
Prediction - 0.5N
Prediction - 3N
Prediction - 7N

Acceleration /g

5
4
3
2
1
40

41

42

43
44
Frequency /Hz

45

46

47

160

-2

140

-4

120

Phase /deg

Amplitude /dB,g/N

Figure 16: The overlay of acceleration responses between the model prediction and the measurement

-6
Test - 0.5N
Test - 3N
Test - 7N
Prediction - 0.5N
Prediction - 3N
Prediction - 7N

-8
-10
-12
-14
40

41

42

43
44
45
Frequency /Hz

Test - 0.5N
Test - 3N
Test - 7N
Prediction - 0.5N
Prediction - 3N
Prediction - 7N

100
80
60
40

46

47

20
40

41

42

43
44
45
Frequency /Hz

46

47

Figure 17: The overlay of acceleration FRFs between the model prediction and the measurement

Conclusions

Nonlinearities are very common in real structures. In most cases, the functional types of nonlinearities are
unknown; therefore it becomes crucial to decide the nonlinear functional forms. The constant
displacement test and the constant velocity test under the ssinusoidal force excitations can be used to
identify the nonlinear stiffness and the nonlinear damping behaviours respectively from measured FRFs of
the structure. Both methods are mainly based on equivalent linearization theory and only considered the
first harmonic in the nonlinear identification. The experimental research based on a SDOF system with a
weakly nonlinear system shows the satisfactory results. Future work will extend to a MDOF system and a
FEM model, for example, the bolted joint beam etc.

Acknowledgements
The financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 51175244) and
Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (Project No. 20093218110008) are
gratefully acknowledged. Zang also acknowledges the project sponsored by the Scientific Research
Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry and the Fundamental
Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Project No. kfjj20110204).

N ON - LINEARITIES : IDENTIFICATION AND MODELLING

2623

References
[1] R.G. Ghanem, A. Doostan and J. Red-Horse, A probabilistic construction of model validation,
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol.197 No.29-32 (2008), pp. 2585-2595.
[2] T. Hasselman and G. Lloyd, A top-down approach to calibration, validation, uncertainty
quantification and predictive accuracy assessment, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol.197 No.29-32 (2008), pp. 2596-2606.
[3] L.G. Horta, et al., NASA Langley's approach to the Sandia's structural dynamics challenge problem,
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol.197 No.29-32 (2008), pp. 2607-2620.
[4] J. McFarland and S. Mahadevan, Error and variability characterization in structural dynamics
modeling, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2008. 197(29-32), pp. 26212631.
[5] K. Worden and G.R. Tomlinson, Nonlinearity in structural dynamics: detection, identification, and
modeling, 2001: Taylor & Francis.
[6] G. Kerschen et al., Past, present and future of nonlinear system identification in structural dynamics,
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol.20 No.3 (2006), pp. 505-592.
[7] O. Arslan, M. Aykan and H. N Ozguven, Parametric identification of structural nonlinearities from
measured frequency response data, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol.25 No.4 (2011),
pp. 1112-1125.
[8] O. Arslan, M. Aykan and H. N Ozguven, Modal identication of non-linear structures and the use of
modal model in structural dynamic analysis, in: 26th International Modal Analysis Conference
IMAC, Orlando, USA, 2008, Paper no.95.
[9] A. Carrella and D.J. Ewins, Identifying and quantifying structural nonlinearities in engineering
applications from measured frequency response functions, Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, Vol.25 No.3 (2011), pp. 1011-1027.
[10] C. Zang, C.W. Schwingshackl and D.J. Ewins, Model validation for structural dynamic analysis: An
approach to the Sandia Structural Dynamics Challenge, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, Vol.197,No 29-32,(2008), pp. 2645-2659.
[11] C.W. Schwingshackl, C. Zang and D. J. Ewins. The influence of nonlinearity on uncertainty and
variability for dynamic models, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Uncertainty in
Structural Dynamics. Sheffield, UK, May 2007, pp. 311-319.

2624

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2012-USD2012