Identification of finite

element models in structural

dynamics
Danilo Capecchi and Fabrizio Vestroni
Drparmnento dt lngegnena delle Strutture delle Acque e del Terreno, Umversitv of
L 'Aqmla, 67040 Monteluco dl Rolo, L'Aqulla, haly
(Received April 1990, revised verslon accepted May 1991)

Structural =dentffmation is a technique for restricting uncertainties in

structural modelhng by making use of available experimental data. For
large and complicated systems these data are frequently very bruited,
thus interpretative models which retain most of the a priori information, such as finite element models, are preferable. Those aspects of
identification procedures which use FE models in the frequency
domain and a Bayesmn context are examined. Attention is given to
the optimal choice of parameters and observed quant=ties, =dentffiability, expected accuracy and to features of the numerical procedure. A quantitatwe evaluat=on of these aspects ~s undertaken to
=dent=fy a FE model of a spat=al framed structure using pseudoexperimental data.
Keywords: structural ~dent=ficat~on, dynam=cs, finite elements

Great improvements have been made m modelhng the

dynamic behaviour of structural systems However, the
investigation of the response of complicated engineering
structures cannot be reliably developed solely by means
of a mathematical model Simplifying assumpnons are
necessary and knowledge of the actual parameter values
can only be approximate Experimental data obtained
from the real structure can be used to update the
mathematical model The range of experimental conditions that can be investigated ~s, however, limited and
the information that can be obtained mostly concerns
general response quantities rather than specific
characteristics of the structure. The best use of
experimental data ~s achieved by referring to a system
ldenUflcatton techmque that allows for statable correlauon of a priori analyncal mformatlon w~th test
results ~-'
Many different techniques have been
introduced, even restricting attention to elasuc structures and parametric models, both the models and the
experimental results can vary Experimental data
typically comprise response quantmes such as displacement or acceleration components m the ume domain or
frequency and etgenvector components in the frequency
domain. The main choice xs between modal models and
physical models. In modal models the only assumption
concerns the basic structure of the model 4-v_ In
physical models wxder use is made of a priori informaUon, and updating the model mainly consists of
adjusting the values of physical parameters ~ ~4. These
parameters will effectively maintain physical meaning if
the lnodel is accurate to reproduce structural behawour,
otherwise they are merely instrumental quannttes The
0 1 4 1 0 2 9 6 93 0 1 0 0 2 1 10
~- 1 9 9 3 B u t t e r w o r t h - H e m e m a n n

models considered here are held to be sufficiently complete for any uncertainty to be restricted to the values of
parameters No account is taken of the problems arising
from the use of models unable to accurately describe the
behavlour of the structure
The choice of modal or physical models thus depends
on whether it is more reasonable to formulate a reahsUc
analyUcal model with accurate values for the
geometrical and mechanical charactertsUcs or whether it
is possible to develop a sufficiently broad series of
experimental tests to allow adequate measurement of a
sufficient number of response quantmes
In this paper some problems of structural ldenUficanon procedures are discussed. Theoretical aspects are
examined and a numerical study concerning tdentlflcanon of the numerical model of a building which uses
pseudo-experimental data is developed. A fimte element
model is used in which some mechanical characteristics
are treated as parameters. Model updating Is performed
m the frequency domain and m a Bayesian context An
opumal procedure for the selection of parameters and
the location of sensors Is proposed and the reliablhty of
the estimation techmque ~,, evaluated Several cases of
parameter ldennflcatlon are considered showing the
influence of the number of measurements on the
accuracy of the result,,

Methodology
For large and complicated structural systems refined
models that can reliably predict the response under

Ltd

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 1 21

FE models m structural dynamics D Capecch~ and F Vestrom

expected Ioadlng,~ are almost essential It Irequentl~ happens. howe\er, thai the lnfl)rnmtlon from experimental
tests that can be used in the inodelhng is scarce, since
teu points can be instrumented, while the number of
condmons that can be mvestlgated lb hmlted
In this context it Is convement to adopt a physical
Interpretative lnodel, such as a finite elelnent inodel
This allows use to be made of all a priori information on
system behavlour derived froln the theory of structures
and knowledge of the constitutive relationships, while
guaranteeing a well-detailed descnpuon of the structural
response Uncertainties regarding system modelling are
restricted to the values of some physical parameters
governing the response of the model The optimal values
of these are determined so as to minimize the difference
between measured and predicted response quantities
according to a selected criterion
Let h ( x ) be the function which relates the vector x of
parameters with the vector z of observed response quantities The following relation between z and x is assumed
(1)

z = h(x) + n

where n is a stochastic vector noise, independent of x

The experimental data is affected by errors and the
mathematial model may be inaccurate, so there is httle
sense In forcing the model to match the data 2 ~ 9 It ~s
better to consider the parameters as random variables
and to take into account the relative a priori information
following a Bayesian approach Accordingly, the best
estimated .f of parameters maximizes the probablhty of
occurrence of x given measured quantities z (MAP
estimator) Assuming a normal distribution for x and n,
and taking S,, to denote the covariance matrix of the
noise and S, that of the initial estimate of parameters,
the maximum o f p ( x I z) is attained for a value .f o f x for
which the objective function
I(x) = [ z - h ( x ) ] TS,,- t[Z -- h ( x ) ]
+ (x - Xo)IS,-~(x - x,,)

(2)

is a minimum ~6. The first term of l(x) takes into

account the difference between the measured and
predicted quantities, the second the distance of x from
the initial estimate x0 of the parameters, weighted by
the inverse of the covarlance matrices of the noise and
parameters, respectively. Since the response quantities
depend nonhnearly on the parameters, the minimization
of l(x) is sought by a numerical iterative procedure For
large structures this is not a simple task, and some
slmphfylng assumptions are necessary The method
used here consists of approximating the relation h ( x ) by
polynomial functions that Interpolate the finite element
model locally.
The classical Newton method ~s used, denoting the ith
component of the vector S,? ~[ z - h(x~)] as y,(x~) the
iteratlve solution formula is obtained
X,~ 1,1 = x , + [H[S,,-IH~-

~_~ y,(x,)G,~

+ S F J] J [HIS,, ~ [ z - h ( x ~ ) ]
+ S,-~(Xo - x ~ ) ]

22

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 1

(3)

where H~ is the sensitivity lnatrlX O| the problem and

G,, the Hessian m a t r i x of h,(x), given b\
H~ = Oh(x)lOx l,

and

G.; : ,?Jz.(x)/(x' l, ,

(4)
Both matrices H and G can be evaluated explicitly due
to the polynomial nature of h(x)
After the optimal values 2 are determined, it is worth
evaluating the dispersion of the estimated parameters as
measured by the a posterlorl covarlance matrix S
Assuming a Gausslan distribution for the estimate el x
in the nelghbourhood o f . f . S is given bv ~
S=(HIS,,

JH+S,

(5)

II i

Optimal choice of parameters and measures

The behavlour of a finite element model, furnished by

the function h(-) of equation (1), is described by many
response quantities and depends on many parameters
Function h(-) relates p observable quantities to q
parameters but in practice only m < p z, are observed
and it is meaningful to consider only n < q a, as
parameters to be determined It is thus necessary to use
a criterion for optimal choice of the components o f z and
x
The criterion can differ depending on the purpose of
the identification. Here the estimate of the best
parameter values is pursued with the aim of obtaining a
model suitable for predicting the response of the structure even under different conditions from those used for
model identification In statistical identification the problems can be approached by referring to the a posteriori
covarlance matrix of the parameters S '~ t~ furnished by
equation (5). There H is the sensitivity matrix of all the
p observable quantities with respect to q parameters and
depends on the experimental data variance and the
model characteristics.
Where the choice of parameters is concerned, it is
convenient to refer to the part of S which contains
experimental information, the Fisher matrix
A = HrS,//H

As a first step, each parameter associated

diagonal element of A is omitted. Further
then required because some parameters
independent At this point, a new parameter
be adopted, this is the representation of x
of the elgenvectors of A
= VT(x - xo)

(6)
with a zero
reducUon is
may not be
vector t~ can
on the basis

(7)

where each column of V is an elgenvector of A. The new

parameters have the property of being independent, i e
the response of the model can be represented by a vector
z* resulting from a combination of z components with
the same dimension of t~ so that each of ItS components
depends on one parameter only (see the Appendix)
Consequently the information matrix of tx is diagonal
with the elements equal to the eigenvalues of A
A . = VTHrS,; I H V = dlag [ 3,~ ]

(8)

FE models in structural dynamms: D. Capeccht and F. Vestrom

Each 3,, directly furmshes the sensitivity of t~, weighted
with respect to S,-~. Where the rank r of H is less than
q, q - r eigenvalues are equal to zero and the choice of
parameters is hmited to the set of r components. By
ordering the X, elgenvalues from the highest to the
lowest, the ~, components are correspondingly ranked
in decreasing order of ~mportance The selection of the
optimal parameter number n must take into account that
a small number guarantees an estimate with low variance
but limits the model resolution, while a large number
makes the estimate more comphcated and the variance
too high ~. When fit parameters have been selected, the
relations ( 2 - 4 ) can be expressed in terms of the new
parameters using
x = l?& + x0

(9)

where (" is the matrix of the n columns of V.

At this point the choice of measures is tackled It is
performed by considering a set of m measures for which
the covariance matrix S IS at a minimum. Of the various
criterm available for comparing matrices, the trace has
been chosen. In practice, reference has been made to the
trace of S assuming that
S~ < $2

when tr(St) < tr(S2)

(10)

or to the trace of S -1 assuming that

Si < $2 when tr(S~ 1) > tr(Sz-~)

(11)

The matrix S,, ~s taken to be diagonal, as is usual when

little mformatmn is available concerning the experimental error d~stribution. Thus, the criterion (11) represents
a convement approximation of the more correct (10),
indeed tr(S -~) ~s addttwe w~th respect to the contributions A, of each measure ith
tl

A, tr(S-') = E

1/a~, (Oh,/Ox,) 2

(12)

where cry, Is the tth element of S,, The opumai set of

measures is straightforwardly determined by the m
quantities with higher A,tr(S-I)
Although procedures (10) and (11) are in general
equwalent, they can lead to different results when some
elements of S are much greater than others, Criterion
(11) ~s used as a first selection and the choice is then
verified by means of criterion (10)

etgenmodes, mainly when the number o! experimental

data is high
Where the parameters are the stiffness matrix coefficients, ~t can be shown that, given a system w~th n
degrees of freedom for which r modes are known
experimentally, the available r n data furmshes only
r(2n - r + 1)/2 independent items of reformation. This
number decreases percentagew~se compared with those
available as r increases -'~
When physical models are adopted and the parameters
include some of the mechamcal and geometrical
characteristics of the structure, ~t ts more difficult to
estabhsh a priori if the measured quantities are sufficxent
to identify the model In practice ~t ~s convenient to
analyse the definiteness of the Hessian matrix H,, of l(x)
m a subset B, of R', that ensures the uniqueness of the
minimum of I(x) m B, although th~s requ=res a timeconsuming numerical evaluauon of the matrix, Since
h(x) is weakly nonhnear and the term y,G,, m equauon
(3) is small near Yc, H,, can be approximated by the
hnearized relation

H, = [H'S,, ' H + S / ' ]

(13)

and its value can be computed in x o. Within th~s

approximation ~t coincides with the inverse of the
parameter covanance matrix S t, this implies that the
estimated parameters have a fimte variance if H,, ts
posttwe defimte. When errors are present, the
defimteness of H,,, or S-~, is no longer a sufficient
condltmn for Identiflablhty, due to the approximation of
the llneanzed equauon (13) More measures than are
strictly necessary must be used to obtain a umque and/or
acceptable solution
The problem of identlfiablhty is thus shifted to that of
the evaluation of the accuracy of the parameter estimate.
For this purpose reference must be made directly to the
covarlance matrix S, the square root of each dmgonal
term furnishes the standard deviation of the parameters.
Numerical aspects of the ldentffiabihty and eshmatlon
accuracy are discussed through the apphcatlons m the
following secUon

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the s t r u c t u r e
The general aspects previously presented and others
more closely related to the parameter estimation are
examined m detail here by reference to a particular
structural problem_ Pseudo-experimental data IS consldered m the Identification procedure, this has allowed
different s~tuattons to be mvesugated

Identifiability and reliability of the estimate

Structure and model

Reference is made to the identifiabllity of the model as

the possibility of determining uniquely the parameters x
such that the objectwe function is at a minimum Interest
is hmlted to local identifiabihty, which is assured when
the umqueness exists in a connected subset of the
parameter space, an interesting case of local but not
global identlfiabihty is given in Reference 19. In this
context a necessary conditmn for identifiability is that
the number of available data is at least equal to that of
the unknown parameters. The condition is sufficient if
the data is independent; this characteristic is easily lost
if the measured quantities are elgenfrequencles and

The object of the study is a building with a reinforced

concrete framed structure refilled by brick masonry in
those parts represented in Figure 1 The building has
four floors, supported by a regular beam grid which
Interconnects all the columns, and a stiffened foundauon
slab A detailed descriptmn of the structure can be found
elsewhere '- The structure is modelled by a spahal
beam frame with the panels described by truss elements;
the floors are assumed to be rigid in-plane The foundation is considered rigid both m-plane and out-of-plane
and ts supported on elastic springs accounting for soil
deformability According to these assumptions, the

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 1

23

FE models ~n structural dynamics D Capecchl and F Vestrom

~1---- 4.50

y~
p

4.80 . ~ - ~
/.////'././/.//././//'/'////.,z/.////A

. q ~ - - 4.20 - ~ - ~
I

3.00

AI

A2

4.20
A1
J-

A3

2.80

Y./z'./Z V//-"////////;

Illllll
I IllllIJ

7.00

3.00

,!

7.///.~

A3
3.00

A1

5.50

AI

A2

f////J//.////////J///////~

"]y////.///////.//////.,4

3.00

1.40

El

Ftgure 1 (a), plan, (b), section of s t r u c t u r e

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

Figure 2

M7

M9

M10

M o d a l shapes for base values of parameters

model has 16 nodes for each floor, 15 at the

b e a m - c o l u m n joints and one in the centroidal which
describes the rigid plane motion
Modal quanutles are considered as experimental data
m the ~dentification process The fimte element model of
the structure provides the relation between modal shapes
and frequencies and a certain set of parameters By
assuming a base value for these, the first 10 frequencies
and modes are computed; they are illustrated m Figure
2 and Table 1, where participation factors are also

24

M8

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 1

given. Some modes are mainly translational in the ydirection (lst, 4th, 7th, and 9th) and m the x-direction
(2nd, 5th and 8th), while the others are mainly rotational
(3rd, 6th and 10th). In particular, m the higher modes
(8th, 9th and 10th) the presence of deformable soil is
evident.
To reduce the computational effort m the minimization of l(x), the exact relationship h(x) furnished by the
fimte element model is approximated by an analytical
function (h(x), following the approach reported in

FE models m structural dynamics: D. Capecchi and F. Vestrom

Table 1

Frequencies (Hz) and participation factors

Mode

10

Frequency
g,
g,

2 O0
0 46
7 73

2 26
7 83
0 62

2 93
1 28
0 94

588
0 25
3 51

6 76
3 62
0 37

8 19
087
063

939
0 16
2 65

106
3 19
031

120
0 31
3 57

126
064
044

References 10, 11 and 13 Each selected response quantity is described by a polynomial form

t~,(x) = c, + E

a,~(x~ - x )

1,

+ b,~(x k - x ) 2 i = 1, 2, .

, m

(14)

where n is the number of parameters and m the number

of measures
The ( 2 n + l)m coefficients of the
polynomial model are determined by using the results of
the modal analysis of the finite element model for
(2n + 1) sets of parameters These are chosen by first
considering the base value x and assigning successively to each of them an upper value x," and a lower
value x, t in a range where the accuracy of the approximated model is felt to be acceptable.
With reference to the first 10 frequencies and modes,
the accuracy of the polynomial model is evaluated for
different sets of parameters The m a x i m u m errors on
frequencies in the range x]' - x, ~ are generally very low,
the mean value being about 1%, the errors on the
eigenvectors are higher, increasing with the mode
number from 0.5% in the first mode to 7% in the eighth.
Optimal selection o f parameters and measures
Parameters are chosen from a certain number of physical
quantities judged to be potentially meaningful from an
engineering pomt of view and using the information
given by the diagonal elements of the Fisher matrix. We
preferred not to introduce generahzed parameters t~ and
to maintain the original physical ones since different
cases are considered, starting with 10 parameters and
reducing the number to 2. In each case, a check was
always made that the rank of matrix H was equal to the
number of parameters, thus ensuring ldentlflabllity.
With reference to the model of the structure, the followIng 10 parameters are considered: x t , x 2 are the soil
shear modulus and the equivalent radius of the foundation plan, both of which govern the elastic springs
representing
soil
deformability
The
remaining
parameters are the elastic modulus of the masonry
panels, x ~ - x 5 - x 7 - x, refer to the elements of the
external perimeter and x4 - x6 - x8 - xL0 to the internal
stair core at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th interstoreys,
respectively.
With regard to the selection of measured quantities,
the criterion of maximum tr(S-~) is first used to restrict
the search to a limited number of situations For each of
the latter, tr(S) is calculated and the set of measures for
which tr(S) is a minimum is taken to be the optimal one.
Since the investigation is devoted mainly to revealing the
influence of the experimental data, the a prior1 information on the parameters is disregarded in equations (2)

and (5) Accordingly, S depends only on the selected

measures and their covariance matrix S,, Taking Om
and E(z,) to describe the coefficient of variation and the
expected value of measure z,, respectively, the coefficients of the diagonal matrix S,, are defined by the
square of
o,,, = p,,,E(z,)

(15)

Forty displacement components are considered as candidates to be instrumented, the components of the first
10 modes and related frequencies are taken as a set of
410 observable quantities. By ranking the 40 components according to their decreasing contribution to
S -~, the 15 shown in Figure 3 are selected The importance of the different modes was also analysed; on
average the first modes are the most important, although
for certain parameters (x~ and x2 for example) the
higher modes are also significant, since they activated
the soil springs (Figure 2). While in almost all of the
cases studied the measured components are those
selected, the number of modes considered is changed to
modify the global number of experimental quantities
used
Several cases are considered in the investigation performed as shown in Table 2, they differ mostly in the

Figure 3

Selected displacement components

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 1

25

FE models in structural dynamics. D Capecchl and F Vestrom

Table 2
case
n.
nt
n

Set of cases studied

10 1
5
10
85

Table 3

10 2
1
10
25

101
10 2
10 3
10 4
10 5
10 6
10 7

45102
1 1 104
1 2 107
1 9 105
5 2 10 4
1 4 107
1 1 10 4

1
2
3
4

10 5
1
1
16

10 6
1
3
11

10 7
2
0
30

6 1
5
10
85

6 2
1
10
25

6 4
0
6
6

P~

P2

/93

p4

t%

P6

27
15 7
290 1
117 4
37 1
41 2
28 34

19
16 0
53 0
91 2
28 8
54 8
22 56

73
34 3
1637 3
257 4
44 3
106 3
34 35

154
70 9
3391 1
2961 4
100 9
350 7
96 44

65
31 5
736 9
356 3
40 1
328 6
35 21

150
33 7
1187 4
1926 1
58 3
255 3
55 14

6
3
9
6

9
8
5
7

t~

10 ~
102
10 3

10 S

2
6
9
124

p2

60
47
99
50

1
3
4
45

80
75
32
50

number of parameters (which denotes the first index)

and measured quantities, frequencies and selected
displacement components of the modes. In the first
group, a model with the complete set of ten parameters
ts adopted; in the other two, 6 parameters (xt, xz, x~,
x~, XT, xg) and two parameters (x j, x2) are adopted,
respectively For the mode shapes the selected 15 components are always used except m case 10.6 where only
8 components are taken

Model ldennfiabthtv and estimate rehabthty

The identlfiabflity of the model and the rehabdity of the
estimation technique are investigated by means of the
approximated model (14) to relate selected measures and
parameters.
Despite the positive definiteness of S ~ .t does not
guarantee .dentlfiabihty when errors are present,
however, it furmshes useful information on the conditioning of the numerical solution, The maximum and
m l m m u m elgenvalues of S r and their ratio k (Tables
3 - 4 ) indicate that S t is always positive definite, and
l(x) has a low curvature and a fairly elongated shape. By
way of example for the case with 2 parameters and 2 different numbers of measurements, the contour lines of
l(x) around the esumated values are drawn m Figure 4,
the shape of the surface is quite regular with only one
minimum, but the curves are far from ellipses, partlcularly in the case (2.3) which revolves a lower number
of measurements.
The expected accuracy of the estimation is evaluated
on the basis of the matrix S, according to equation (5),
where the diagonal elements of S, -t are obtained from
equation (15) In the latter E(z,) is taken as the value J,
related to x0 values of parameters, when z, ~s a fre-

26

6 3
0
10
10

2 1
5
10
85

2 2
l
10
25

2 3
0
10
10

2 4
0
6
6

2 b
~)

Z
2

! 6
1
0
15

2 7
I
I
16

P7

58
19 2
877 5
641 8
86 2
2594 2
47 54

#)8

P9

[)10

109
36 1
9257 4
2971 5
70 2
1407 1
60 33

64
56 9
702 8
13564 6
427 7
9284 4
65 34

83
102 4
751 6
189 2 0 8
469 0
5852 1
238 54

Rat=o maxJmum/mpnJmum eJgenvalues of S and c o e f f i c t e n t s of variation (6 parameters)

Case

6
6
6
6

10 4
1
0
15

Rat)o max~mum/mJnlmum e~genvalues of .-q and c o e f f i c i e n t s of v a n a t t o n (10 parameters)

Case

Table 4

10 3
0
10
10

Number of modes In.), frequencies (n,) and m e a s u r e m e n t s ( n )

Eng. Struct.

1993,

Vol.

15, No

p3

6
30
104
1131

P5

23
85
88
O0

5
44
45
937

p7

80
94
72
55

404
51 38
63 72
282 13

,O9

3
47
17
801

44
33
26
25

quency, while for the elgenvector it is constant for all

the components and equal to their maximum value, stdl
corresponding to x 0 For the cases with 10 and 6
parameters, Tables 3 and 4 report the coefficients of
variation of the parameters, by assuming p,,, equal to 1
for all measurements. It ensues that the estimate ,s
rehable if the number of data is h i g h in case 10 1, with
85 measurements, for an assumed p,, = 1%, o,
minimum is equal to 1.9% for x, and the maximum ~s
15 4% for x4, when the measurements decrease to 25
(case 102). p, mcreases to 16% and 71%, respectively
From the results of th~s analysis it Is possible to single
out 3 different groups of parameters w.th increasing
variance, soil parameters (x~, x2), external masonry
(x~, xs, XT, xg) and internal masonry ( x 2 - x 4 - x ~ x~0). By reducing the number of parameters, there ,s a
slight decrease of the coefficients of variation m those
cases with many measurements, while in other cases the
decrease is marked as in the comparison between IQ2
and 6,2 This is because for each case there ts an optmaal
number of data above which estimation accuracy cannot
be improved

PtIF(d/?leler estlmaHo/1

and a( curacv

Model parameters are identified by assuming as

experimental data z the elgenvalues and eigenvectors of
the fimte element model for a set of assigned
parameters Their values, nondlmenslonalized with
respect to the basic values are
x, = 1 0 8 ,

1.12, 0 8 , I 15,0_75, 120, 1 15,

1.20, 0 75, 0 81J

(16)

FE models m structural dynamics: D. Capecch~ and F. Vestront

Lmm = 0 . 5 1 E - 0 4
Lrnax = 0.65
DL = 0.01

Lmm = 1 . 8 q E - 0 4
Lma x = 1.76

DL = 0,03
0.5

<~

0.5

<

o.o -

-0.5

(0.85,1.13)

I
-0.5

0.5

0.0

-0.5

('I-X"1)

Figure 4

0.0 -

0.0

0.5

(I-~)

Example o f c o n t o u r hne of I(x) for cases 2 l ( a ) and 2 3(b)

Since the interpretative model (14) used in the identification is approximated, it ~s not possible to match exactly
the data z; m this sense the situauon is similar to the real
one, where analytical and experimental errors occur.
The optimal values of the parameters are obtamed by
minimizing the objecttve function which, according to
the assumptions previously introduced, has the
slmphfied form
m

t(x)= ~ 1/o~,,[z,-fi,(x)]-"

(17)

The vahdity of the estimauon ts evaluated on the basis

of parameter error and measurement error defined,
respectwely as
e, = I[~ - x,, II/{Ix,, II, e_ = [l(~)/rn] ,:2

(18)

where .~ is the estimated parameter vector, x~ the exact

values and I1,~II is the Euchdean norm. Both indices are
considered, since the,r trend is not necessarily the same,
as indicated in Reference 11
The results for the cases with l0 and 6 parameters are
reported in Tables 5 - 6 Generally speaking, when the
amount of data ~s sufflc=ently large, the results are qmte
satisfactory, l e a mean error of around 3 - 5 % . As the
number of measurements decreases the accuracy also
decreases markedly. When the number of measurements
and parameters is equal, ,.e. the necessary ident=fiabihty
condition is verified, the solution is completely wrong m
the case with the largest number of parameters; with 6
parameters the error ~s stall h=gh and it becomes accep-

table with 2 According to the necessary condition, e. is

nonetheless very small
The numerical investigation shows that a slightly different choice of experimental quantiues somettmes produces an unexpected ~mprovement m accuracy, as in
passing from 10.4 to 10.5, 10 6 even w~th a decrease in
data. This behav~our must be ascribed to the approximate errors of the model and their influence on the
parameter estlmauon.
Figure 5, where the ratio 2,/x,,, versus the number of
,teratlons is reported, shows the typical convergence
characteristics of the esumaUon procedure_ In case (a)
w~th a larger number of measurements the parameters
approach the exact value, 2,/x,., = l, better and faster
than in case (b) with a lower number
It has already been demonstrated that the two sod
parameters are predominant with respect to the others m
this problem. Two sets of 3 cases are thus investigated
with 8 and 4 parameters which do not include x~ and
x~ The number of measurements assumed is equal to
tt]at of cases 10 1, 10 2 and 10.3 The results show that
the errors are considerably smaller, as is the number of
iterations needed to reach the optimal values Th~s ~s
because of the better values of the eigenvalue ratios and
the dmgonal terms of S w.th respect to cases w~th 10 and
6 parameters. Table 7 reports the results for 8
parameters: only in case 8 3 ts the solution unsatisfactory because the number of data ,s not really suffiment
to achieve good accuracy.
The effect of the estimation error on the accuracy of
the identified fimte element model is investigated by
comparing a large number of modal quantities furmshed
by the finite element model for x = ,e and for x = x,,.

Eng. Struct.

1993,

Vol. 15, No 1

27

FE m o d e l s m s t r u c t u r a l d y n a m i c s

Capecchl and F

Vestrom

Tahle 5

Identified v31ues, parameter and m e a s u r e m e n t errors, (10 parameters)

Case

0 80

1 12

0 80

1 15

0 75

1 20

1 15

1 20

0 75

0 80

e~(ol

~J Iu,,)

101
10 2
10 3
104
10 5
10 6
10 7

087
0 81
0 77
084
0 83
0 84
0 83

110
1 16
0 97
112
1 14
1 13
1 14

079
0 81
0 58
078
0 79
0 79
0 79

116
1 14
1 03
103
1 17
1 17
1 12

075
0 75
4 91
073
0 75
0 74
0 74

121
1 26
6 87
111
1 22
1 22
1 20

114
1 12
3 68
120
1 18
1 18
1 14

117
1 13
1 78
104
1 22
1 20
1 18

077
0 84
0 80
030
0 90
0 80
0 77

079
0 91
0 67
161
0 54
0 62
0 76

317
6 30
2 0 0 O0
3770
12 2 0
7 80
2 45

1410
8110
3110
1610
3410
6910
1610

Table 6

Identified values, parameter and m e a s u r e m e n t errors, (6 parameters)

Case

0 80

1 12

0 80

0 75

1 15

0 75

e,(%)

6 1
6 2
63
64

087
0 83
084
085

1
1
1
1

080
0 81
1 01
057

075
0 76
073
092

1 13
1 10
097
1 16

079
086
086
089

436
6 50
14 11
1697

Table 7

10
12
12
10

4
:

e,(%)
1410
8610
9110
1710

T
2
2
5

Identified values, parameter and m e a s u r e m e n t errors, (8 parameters)

Case

0 80

1 15

0 75

1 20

1 15

1 20

0 75

0 80

81
82
8 3

080
079
1 18

1 16
1 15
0 59

075
076
0 66

1 22
1 23
1 41

1 16
1 15
0 91

1 18
1 17
1 53

074
076
0 81

078
079
0 72

- -

X 1

--

X 5

------

X2

--

--

X7

......

X3

m.~

1.5

1.5
X9

1.0

" . ,.- - .. ."_ ~

. ~-. .- -~~. :- ., .. .. ~
. ~T
. E
. , _
~ ,-. ~

0 S

_.

-. . . .

-_;

._
. .

_.

o.5
o

10

C o n v e r g e n c y of parameters to the estumated values for

cases 6 l(a) and 6 3(b)

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 1

e,(%)

1 29
1 54
28 24

7 0 10
2 3 10
9 5 10

----

X5

------

x2

--._

x7

. .

x3

---~

x9

- \ ? ' ,~

~1.0

n,r

Figure5

e~(%)

X1

\;'.~.
\\
\

28

2
4

I0

hi(

2
2
3

FE models in structural dynamics: D. Capecchl and'F. Vestront

The errors were always found to be very small and
mainly affected the frequencies, more specifically, they
are slightly smaller than those of the parameters due to
the weak gradient of the relation h ( x ) between modal
quantities and parameters
On the whole, the errors of the estimated parameters
are lower than might be expected on the a priori evaluation of accuracy based on the covarlance matrix S Its
evaluation is approximated because it Is calculated in a
point x0 different from ,f and it is the covariance matrix
of the Gaussmn distribution that approximates the true
distribution around 2 Since this point seems to be
~mportant, ~t ~s investigated by a simulation process in
which 10 sets of experimental data zj are considered
Each component :~, is given by
z,, = I~,(x, ) + p,,h,*nl, J = 1 . . . . .

10

(20)

where /~,(x,) is the value furnished by the polynomial

model, n, belongs to a set of Gausslan random
numbers, p,, is the assigned c.o v equal to 0.001 for all
the quanuties and h* coincides with /~,(x,.) for the frequency, while for e~genvector components it is equal to
its maximum component
For two cases with |0 parameters (10.1 and 10.2) the
vectors x~ are estimated for each of the 10 sets of z/
using the polynomml model, so that the class of interpretatlve models contains the true structural model
Table 8 reports the mean value ,f,,, of each parameter
estimation and the relative coefficients of variation
P, = o,/~,,,, dwided by p,, to facilitate the comparison
The values of o, are given by the square roots of the
diagonal terms of
10

S = ]/10

(21)

('~' - x'")(xs --'~'")T

/

The results obtained In the two cases are substantially in

accord with one another and, in particular, the reformation on the estimation reliabihty previously discussed is
confirmed by the present analysis. Th~s means that the
problem is really ill conditioned and only a great number
of measurements can ensure a good level of approximation In the identification process

Conclusions
The accuracy of a model can be improved by using
experimental data referred to an ident~ficauon procedure. When a complicated system is being considered
and the experimental information is limited, it is convenient to adopt a finite element model which is potentially
able to correctly describe the behaviour of the structure,

Table 8

Coefficients of variation of estimated parameters

Case
101

xm

102

xm

p,/pn

p,/pn

physical quantities are assumed as parameters to be ~denufied. This allows most of the a priori knowledge of the
structural behaviour to be retained
The use of a fimte element model m identification procedures IS discussed herein. The problem of the selection of parameters and measures was tackled first For
the former, spectral analysis of the Fisher matrix furnlshed a set of independent parameters, ranking them in
decreasing order of importance The optimal set of
measures was then determined as that which minimizes
the trace of the covarlance a posteriorl matrix of
parameters.
When finite element models are used and mechanical
constants are assumed as parameters, it is generally
impossible to estabhsh a priori ldentlfiabillty conditions.
In this context useful reformation is obtained by the
covarlance matrix S evaluated in the initial estimate x0.
A numerical study to identify the model of a framed
spatial structure using different sets of pseudoexperimental data was developed To reduce the
onerousness of the ident~ficauon procedure an approximate polynomial model that fits the finite element
model in the netghbourhood of the base parameter
values was adopted Model identification has been performed in several cases with a different number of
parameters and measurements. The results were always
satisfactory with a high number of data and no notable
alteration IS observed due to the approximation of the
polynomial model used The goodness of estimation
improves when the sensitivity of the observed quantities
with respect to the different parameters is of the same
order.
When the number of data is only strictly sufficient for
identifiabmlity, the accuracy of the estimation is very
poor, mainly in cases with a higher number of
parameters_ This is because the class of interpretative
models does not contain the true model of a structure,
which is to a certain extent a typical real condition.
The estimation accuracy was derived from the
covarlance matrix S of parameters that showed a high
dispersion of results when the number of experimental
data was reduced A simulation process was therefore
performed to investigate th~s important aspect. The
results obtained are in accord with the conclusions
derived from the covarlance matrix, the identification
problem is likely to be really ill condmoned and only a
large quantity of experimental data can guarantee a
satisfactory level of accuracy

Acknowledgment
This research was partially supported by Italian Mlmstry
of Education, funds MPI-40% 1988. The collaboration
of Dr G. Sllvano IS gratefully acknowledged

0800
316

1 119
728

0799
616

1 155
11 48

0750
700

1 193
1740

1 147
9_05

1 195
11 78

0750
678

0799
1005

0802
1752

1 119
2804

0804
3596

1 151
6533

0753
1396

1 198
2227

1 133
5096

1.205
3768

0759
3427

0787
95.36

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 1

29

FE models m structural dynamics: D Capecchi and F Vestrom

References
I
2
3
4
5
6

8
9

10
11

12

13
14

15

30

Harth. G C and Yao, J P T "System Identification m structural

dynamics', J Eng Mech Div ASCE 1977, 103, 1089-1104
Natke, H G (Ed) Identification of vibrating structures, SprmgerVerlag, Udme, 1982
Ewms, D J Modal testing, theory and practice, Research Studies
Press Ltd , John Wiley. New York, 1985
Allemang, R J 'Experimental modal analysis', W/nterAnnuaIMeet
Amer Soc Mech Engram, Boston, 1983
Ibrahlm, S R 'Dynamic modelhng of structures from measured
complex modes', AIAA J , 1983. 21, 898-799
Werner, S D , Beck, J L and Levme. M B 'Seismic response
evaluation of Medland road overpass during 1979 Imperml Valley
earthquake records', Earthqual, e Eng Struct D v n , 1987, 15,
249-274
Torkamam, M A M and Ahmad], A K 'Stiffness Identification of
a tall budding during construction period using ambient tests', Earthqual~e Eng Strut D~'n, 1988, 16, 1177-1188
Colhns, J D , Hart. G C , Hasselman, T K and Kennedy, B
"Statistical identification of structures', AIAA J , 1974, 12, 185- 190
Sprangdel, J K 'Structural parameter identification of member
characteristics m a fimte-element model'. Ph D Dtss, Purdue
UmversJty, 1979
Douglas, B M and Reid, W H 'Dynamic tests and system Identification of bridges', J Struct Dry ASCE 1982, 108, 2295-2312
Mash, S F and Werner, S D 'An evaluation of a class of practical
optimization techmques for structural dynamics apphcat~on, Earthquake Eng Struct D~n , 1985, 13, 635-649
Stephen, R M , Wdson, E L and Stander, N 'Dynamic properties
of a thirty-story condomlmum tower budding', Rep EERC-85/03,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Umverslt3, of California,
Berkeley, CA , 1985
Leonard, J W and Khour=, B R 'System ]dentlficaUon using a standard finite element program', Engng Strut , 1985, 7, 190-197
Vestrom, F and Capecchl, D , "System identification In the dynamic
analysis of a piping structure' (In Itahan), Lit AIOM Cong , 1986,
Venezm, 337-345
Panzerl, P and Pezzoh, P "Experimental evaluation of seismic
response of a present budding by means of forced vibrations' (m
Italian), lngegnerta Stsm~a, 1987, 2. 18-32

Eng. Struct. 1993, Vol. 15, No 1

16 Sorenson. H W Parameter e~tunatlon, Marcel Dekker, New York

1988
17 Udwadla, F E 'Optimal sensor location for geotechmcal and structural identification', 8th WCEE, 1984, San Francisco, 315-322
18 Jackson, D D 'Interpretation of inaccurate, insufficient and inconsistent data', Geophvs J R Astr Soc , 1972, 28, 9 7 - 109
19 Udwad]a. F E , Sarma, D K and Sham P C 'Umqueness ol damplng and stiffness distributions m the identification of sod and structural systems, A S M E J Appl Mesh , 1978, 45, 181-187
20 Capecchl, D , Sllvano, G and Vestrom, F 'Identification of structural systems by F E M ' (In Italian). Rep 2, Dip of Ingegnena delle
Strutture, Acque e Terreno, Umverslty of L'Aquda, 1988

Appendix
Let normahzed measures z' and sensitlwty matrix H ' be
introduced
Z' = S,~-I/2 [z - h(x0)]

H' = S,?I'2H

Smce
H ' r H ' = A = V d i a g [;~,]V r

the singular value of d e c o m p o s m o n of H ' results

H' = UFV r

where 1" = dlag [ X,~/2l, V are the eigenvector of A and

U~sapxqmatrlx
such that u r u = !
It can b e w n t ten
z* = UTz ' = UTH'(x

Xo) = F ~

according to which the component o f z' along the direction o f vector U, depends only on one parameter c~,