Journal of Sound and Vibration (1995) 185(5), 845–866

ON SUBSTRUCTURE SYNTHESIS WITH

FRF DATA
Y. R
School of Mechanical and Production Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore


C. F. B
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of Science,
Technology and Medicine, Prince Consort Road, London, England

(Received 20 July 1993, and in final form 13 September 1994)

A new physically and mathematically generalized receptance coupling method is presented

in this paper. This new method overcomes some shortcomings of the commonly used
receptance coupling methods. There are two modified formulae: one completes the
substructure synthesis in a single step, and the other couples two joint co-ordinates at each
step, and implements the coupling process in several steps. The second formula is of more
interest. It is computationally efficient and very simple to program. It is also very effective
in detecting the linearly dependent co-ordinate pairs. This is particularly attractive, because
if these linearly dependent coordinate pairs are not deleted in the coupling process, the
accuracy of the substructure synthesis can deteriorate.
7 1995 Academic Press Limited

1. INTRODUCTION
The ability to predict the dynamic properties of an assembly from the properties of its
components, or to predict the effects of a modification on a structure when some points on
the structure are clamped together is often desirable. The techniques to deal with this type
of problems are usually referred to as substructure synthesis or coupling techniques. The
coupling methods can be divided into two groups, in one modal data is used (see, e.g.,
references [1–3]), while in the other the measured response data (FRF) is used directly (see,
e.g., references [1, 4, 5]). In this paper, coupling methods in which FRF data is used are
studied. First, commonly used coupling methods are reviewed, and some severe
shortcomings of these methods are identified. To overcome these problems, a new FRF
coupling method, which also possesses the prime advantages of the available coupling
methods, is developed.
The accuracy of substructure synthesis is significantly affected by levels of noise in the
measured data. It is demonstrated that commonly used modal analysis techniques alone may
not be enough to yield accurate results. It is very important to detect any linearly dependent
coordinate pairs in the substructure synthesis process. The application of the new method
in detecting linearly dependent joint co-ordinate pairs is demonstrated.
845
0022–460X/95/350845+22 $12.00/0 7 1995 Academic Press Limited
846 .   . . 
2. BASIC CONDITIONS FOR FRF COUPLING
The basic conditions in the coupling process are compatibility and equilibrium. As shown
in Figure 1, the conditions of compatibility and equilibrium are such that if co-ordinate A on
the assembled structure corresponds to n co-ordinates (i=1, 2, . . . , n) on the substructure,
the displacements and forces on the assembly and the substructure must have the relation

n
xA=x1=x2=· · ·=xn and f A = s fi , (1, 2)
i=1

where x and f represent displacement and force respectively, subscript A refers to the
co-ordinate on the assembly and subscripts 1, 2, . . . , n refer to the co-ordinates on the
substructure (a list of nomenclature is given in Appendix C) the conditions of compatibility
and equilibrium can also be written in their matrix forms as
{xS }=[T]{xA } and { fA }=[T]T{ fS } (3, 4)
where subscript s refers to the co-ordinates on the substructure.
The purpose of coupling is to find the relationship between displacement {xA } and force
{ fA } of the assembly: i.e., to find the receptance matrix [HA ] in the equation
{xA }=[HA ]{ fA }, (5)
from the properties of the substructure system
{xS }=[HS ]{ fS } (6)
and the conditions of compatibility and equilibrium (equations (3) and (4)).

3. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF AN FRF COUPLING METHOD

Mathematically, if no optimization such as the least squares algorithm is involved in the
coupling process, the final result of substructure synthesis is unique. In other words, the
result is independent of the method used to implement the coupling process. In practice, due
to computation errors, the results from different coupling methods can be different. Coupling

2 n–1
1 n
Substuctures

a
Assembly
Figure 1. The substructures and assembly.
      847
methods are also different in terms of the formulation, computation speed and occupied
computation memory; there can also be restrictions on some FRF coupling methods in their
applications. The coupling methods may be evaluated by considering the following:

(1) Accuracy: the predicted characteristics of the coupled structure should not be sensitive
to computation errors (e.g., rounding off errors).
(2) Efficiency; which has two aspects: (i) the amount of computation memory and
computation time required to implement the coupling process should be small; and (ii) the
amount of time spent by the user in preparing the computing code and data should be small.
(3) Simplicity: all kinds of problem can be solved by using the same formulae so that once
a computation code is made it can be used to solve different coupling problems without large
modifications.
(4) Generality: there should be no severe restriction on the applications of the coupling
methods; in other words, there should be no severe restrictions on the substructure
receptance matrix [HS ]. The generality can have two aspects. One is physical generality,
which means that the method can predict the response of an assembled structure generated
from (i) grounding some co-ordinates of a structure, or (ii) coupling several coordinates
together on one structure, or (iii) coupling several substructures. The other aspect is the
mathematical generality, which means that application of the method should not be
restricted due to numerical properties of the receptance matrix (e.g., singularity), if the
substructures can be coupled physically.

Accuracy, efficiency, simplicity and generality are the four criteria which can be used to
evaluate a coupling method. With respect to the problem to be solved and the computational
resources available, different weightings should be given to these criteria. The mathematical
generality should be considered for all the coupling problems. The physical generality is also
of particular importance. For example, it is often necessary to know the properties of the
structure when two points on it are clamped together.

4. THE IMPEDANCE COUPLING METHOD

The first coupling method developed is the Impedance Coupling Method (the IC method;
see, e.g. reference [4]). The basic strategy of the IC method is as follows. For the substructure
system

{xS }=[HS ]{ fS }. (7)

Multiplying both sides of equation (7) by the inverse of the matrix [HS ] yields

{ fS }=[HS ]−1{xS }. (8)

Substituting equations (3) and (4) into equation (8) leads to { fA }=[T]T[HS ]−1[T]{xA } and
hence

{xA }=([T]T[HS ]−1[T])−1{ fA }. (9)

Therefore

[HA ]=([T]T[HS ]−1[T])−1 . (10)

If the substructure system has several components which are independent of each other, the
inversion of the matrix [HS ] can be completed by inverting the substructure receptance
848 .   . . 
matrices separately and then assembling these inverted matrices. The column number matrix
[T] corresponds to the assembly co-ordinates and the row number corresponds to the
substructure co-ordinates. If the ith co-ordinate in the substructure corresponds to the jth
co-ordinate of the assembly, then T(i, j)=1; otherwise, T(i, j)=0.
The IC method satisfies the criterion of physical generality. It is also very simple to
implement. However, this method is computationally inefficient, since two inversions of the
full size matrices are required. Because the full size matrix inversion is required, the numerical
error levels can be significant (especially when the full size receptance matrix is rank
deficient). When the full size receptance matrix is singular, the IC method will collapse; in
other words, the method is not mathematically generalized.
In summery, the IC method is a physically generalized method, but not a mathematically
generalized one.

5. TWO SUBSTRUCTURE RECEPTANCE COUPLING METHOD

There is another FRF coupling method. It is for coupling two independent substructures
only (see, e.g., reference [5]). This method is called the Receptance Coupling method (RC
method) in this paper.
Write the receptance matrices of substructures a and b in partitioned form as

$ % $ %
aHmm a Hmi Hmm
b Hmi
b
[aH]= , [b H]= . (11, 12)
aHim Hii
a Him
b Hii
b

Then the receptance of the assembled structure is [5]

& '& '& ' & '

T
Hnn
a aHnj Hnn
ab aHii aHim 0 aHim aHim

aHjn Hjj bHjn = aHmi aHmm 0 − aHmm ([aHmm+bHmm ]) aHmm , (13)

abHnn bHjn bHnn 0 0 bHii −bHim −bHim

where subscripts m and i represent the coordinates to be coupled (master co-ordinates) and
not to be coupled (internal co-ordinates) on the substructures. Subscripts j and n represent
the joint co-ordinates (corresponding to master co-ordinates in the substructures) and
non-joint co-ordinates (corresponding to internal co-ordinates in the substructures)
on the assembly respectively. aH, bH and abH represent the receptance sub-matrices
corresponding to the co-ordinates on a, b and between co-ordinates on substructures a and
b respectively.
This method requires only one matrix inversion. The size of the matrix to be inverted (i.e.,
[aHmm+bHmm ]) is determined by the number of the joint co-ordinates on the assembly and
is usually much smaller than the size of the full FRF matrix. Therefore, it is computationally
more efficient and accurate than the IC method. In addition, because the matrix to be
inverted is a summation of two receptance sub-matrices and is much smaller than the whole
receptance matrix in size, it is more likely to be a well conditioned matrix. In other words,
the RC method is mathematically more general than the IC method.
The major limitation of the RC method is that it can only be applied to couple two (groups
of) substructures. In the formula derivation, it is assumed that, before coupling, the two
substructures are independent of each other. The RC method is not applicable to cases in
which two co-ordinates to be coupled are located on the same structure as shown in Figure 2.
      849

a b
c

Substructure

n j

Assembly
Figure 2. The substructure and assembly systems. Q, Rigid connection.

6. DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW GENERALIZED FRF COUPLING METHOD

6.1.  
The IC and RC methods are two of the most commonly used coupling methods. Both
have some severe shortcomings. If the whole receptance matrix of the substructure is singular
and the two co-ordinates to be coupled are located on the same structure, both methods will
fail. Clearly, a new coupling method, which is both physically and mathematically
generalized, is required.
In this section, such a new generalized coupling method is developed. The new method
retains the efficiency of the RC method. This method will be called the Generalized
Receptance Coupling method (GRC).
To be physically general, we treat all the substructures as a substructure system. For this
substructure system, the receptance matrix is partitioned in such a way that the relationships
between response and excitation are

89& '8 9
xa Haa Hab Hac fa
xb = Hba Hbb Hbc fb . (14)
xc Hca Hcb Hcc fc

For the assembled system, the relationships between response and excitation are

67$ %6 7
xn H Hnj fn
= nn , (15)
xj Hjn Hjj fj

where subscripts a and n represent the internal co-ordinates on the substructure and
assembly, and subscripts b, c and j represent the joint co-ordinates. Substructure joint
co-ordinates xb and xc are so arranged that conditions of equilibrium and compatability
yield
{ fb }+{ fc }={ fj } and {xb }={xc }={xj }. (16, 17)
Non-joint co-ordinates are not changed after the coupling process, and hence
{ fa }0{ fn } and {xa }0{xn }. (18, 19)
From equations (14) and (17),
{xb }=[Hba ]{ fa }+[Hbb ]{ fb }+[Hbc ]{ fc }=[Hca ]{ fa }+[Hcb ]{ fb }+[Hcc ]{ fc }. (20)
850 .   . . 
Substituting equations (16) and (18) into equation (20) yields
([[Hbb ]+[Hcc ]−[Hcb ]−[Hbc ]){ fb }={([Hca ]−{Hba ]){ fn }+([Hcc ]−[Hbc ]){ fj }}. (21)
If matrix ([[Hbb ]+[Hcc ]−[Hcb ]−[Hbc ]) is non-singular, then
{ fb }=([[Hbb ]+[Hcc ]−[Hcb ]−[Hbc ])−1{([Hca ]−{Hba ]){ fn }
+([Hcc ]−[Hbc ]){ fj }} and { fc }={ fj }−{ fb }. (22, 23)
Substituting equations (22) and (23) into equation (14) and comparing with equation (15)
yields
[Hnn ]=[Haa ]−([Hab ]−[Hac ])([Hbb ]+[Hcc ]−[Hbc ]−[Hcb ])−1([Hba ]−[Hca ]), (24)
[Hnj ]=[Hac ]−([Hab ]−[Hac ])([Hbb ]+[Hcc ]−[Hbc ]−[Hcb ])−1([Hbc ]−[Hcc ]), (25a)
−1
=[Hab ]−([Hac ]−[Hab ])([Hbb ]+[Hcc ]−[Hbc ]−[Hcb ]) ([Hcb ]−[Hbb ]), (25b)
[Hjn ]=[Hnj ]T, (26)
−1
[Hjj ]=[Hcc ]−([Hcb ]−[Hcc ])([Hbb ]+[Hcc ]−[Hbc ]−[Hcb ]) ([Hbc ]−[Hcc ]) (27a)
=[Hbb ]−([Hbc ])([Hbb ])[Hbb ]+[Hcc ]−[Hbc ]−[Hcb ])−1([Hcb ]−[Hbb ]). (27b)
Equations (24)–(27) can be arranged in a more concise form as

$ %$ %$ % $ %
T
Hnn Hnj H Hac (Hab−Hac ) (Hab−Hac )
= aa − [Hbb+Hcc−Hbc−Hcb ]−1 ,
Hjn Hjj Hca Hcc (Hcb−Hcc ) (Hcb−Hcc )

(28a)

$ %$ % $ %
T
Haa Hab (Hac−Hab ) (Hac−Hab )
= − [Hbb+Hcc−Hbc−Hcb ]−1 .
Hba Hbb (Hbc−Hbb ) (Hbc−Hbb )

(28b)
The GRC method is very similar to the RC method in its formulation. Actually, the RC
method is a special case of the GRC method [6, 7]. The GRC method retains all the
advantages of the RC method, but it is physically more generalized. The GRC method can
also be used to couple some co-ordinates on one structure or to couple several substructures
together in a single step without any difficulty. If some co-ordinates are to be grounded, one
can consider the ground as a structure with infinite mass. To ground a structure at some
co-ordinates is the same as coupling the structure at these co-ordinates to another structure
with infinite mass. The FRFs of the infinite mass structure are zero. The formulae for
grounding co-ordinates are obtained simply by setting sub-matrices [Hac ], [Hbc ], [Hcc ], [Hcb ]
and [Hca ] in equation (28) to zero.

6.2.      

If each joint co-ordinate couples only with another joint co-ordinate, the coupling process
can be implemented in a single step by using equation (28) directly. If several co-ordinates
(more than two) are to be coupled into one co-ordinate, then coupling can be implemented
in several steps. One example for coupling three co-ordinates together is shown in Figure 3.
However, it is not impossible to complete the coupling in a single step.
To complete the coupling in a single step, a new concept of Pseudo Co-ordinate Coupling
(PCC) is used. Suppose one wants to couple three co-ordinates together as shown in Figure 3.
Instead of considering point 1 as a single co-ordinate, one can consider that there are two
      851
2
1
3

2
1
3

α
2 2
1 1
3 β 3

Two-step coupling Single-step coupling using PCC

Figure 3. One example of using two-step coupling and pseudo co-ordinate coupling.

co-ordinates a and b which are located an infinitestimal distance from point 1 (hence they
have exactly the same response as point 1). The coupling is completed in a single step by
coupling point 2 with point a, and point 3 with point b.

6.3. -  -  ()

The PCC method was originally developed for simplicity in programming [7]. Later, it
was realized [7, 8] that the coupling can be implemented by coupling two co-ordinates at one
time and repeating the two co-ordinate coupling process until all the co-ordinates are
coupled together. Because at each step there are always two co-ordinates to be coupled, the
multi-step two co-ordinates coupling method can be programmed systematically. The
computer program is surprisingly simple (a FORTRAN subroutine for MTC is listed in
Appendix A).
From equation (28), it can be noted that the assembly from coupling co-ordinates i and
j is
1
[HA ]=[HS ]− −({hsj }−{hsi })({hsj }−{hsi })T, (29)
hii+hjj−2hij

Figure 4. A schematic diagram for MTC.

852 .   . . 
where {hsi } and {hsj } represent the ith and the jth columns in the substructure receptance
matrix [HS ], and [HA ] is the receptance matrix of the assembly. A schematic diagram for two
co-ordinate coupling is shown in Figure 4.

7. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE EFFECTS OF MEASUREMENT ERRORS

The measured data from experiments usually contains some errors from different
experimental stages. Mass loading, interaction between shaker and structure, windowing
and aliasing are some common sources of measurement errors. Because of these errors, the
measured data are shifted from their true values.
The most severe problems caused by measurement errors are model inconsistency; in other
words, measured FRFs have slightly different natural frequencies and damping. This can
make the substructure synthesis inaccurate [4]. The most commonly used and also the most
effective method to reduce the effects of model inconsistency is the modal analysis technique
[4]. It has been suggested [9] that use of the singular value decomposition (SVD) algorithm
is also effective. However, our experiences with substructure synthesis tend to disagree with
this suggestion. Whenever possible, the modal analysis technique should be applied to
extract the modal data and then the FRFs are regenerated from these modal data.
The effects of measurement errors are greatly reduced after the modal analysis technique
has been applied. However, if the matrix [Hbb+Hcc−Hbc−Hcb ] happens to be ill conditioned,
the inversion of [Hbb+Hcc−Hbc−Hcb ] can be very sensitive to numerical and measurement
errors, which subsequently results in a poor accuracy in substructure synthesis even if the
modal analysis technique has been applied.
Urgueira [1] pointed out that singular or ill-conditioned matrices may occur for the
following reasons: (1) the receptance matrix is regenerated from a set of modal data which
has fewer modes than the size of the receptance matrix to be inverted, (2) the receptance
matrix is dominated by one mode at resonance, and (3) some interface co-ordinates are
situated on a locally rigid region.
Actually, the first type of singular problem should never be allowed. The number of modes
used to regenerate the receptance matrix effectively means the DOF of the receptance matrix.
Generally, coupling two co-ordinates means imposing a restriction on the system. If the
restrictions are independent, imposing one restriction means the system will have a reduction
of one in the DOF. Imposing more coupling than the DOF will certainly lead to zero response
of the assembly.
In the second case, because of the effects of other modes, the receptance matrix will not
be singular. If the modal analysis technique is applied, the effects of the remaining
measurement errors are not usually significant.
The worst rank-deficient problem is the third. Usually, use of the modal analysis technique
only is not effective in reducing the effects of measurement errors. A common technique for
solving the singular or rank-deficient problem is to calculate the matrix inverse by using a
threshold SVD algorithm [1, 9]. However, this technique is time-consuming. It is also very
difficult to determine the proper threshold for the SVD.
Actually, if several pairs of joint co-ordinates are situated in a relatively rigid region of
the structure, when the members of one pair of these co-ordinates in each direction are
coupled, the responses at other pairs of co-ordinates will be very close to each other (exactly
the same if these co-ordinates are situated in an absolutely rigid region). Therefore, it is only
necessary to couple one pair of co-ordinates in one direction.
Urgueira [1] suggested that the third case of rank-deficiency can be avoided by eliminating
the linearly dependent co-ordinate pairs in the coupling process; a technique based on the
QR factorization was developed for this purpose. However, only simple cases have been
      853
tested and there is no mathematical proof to guarantee that the algorithm will work for more
complicated cases. The process itself can also be time-consuming.
By using the MTC method, it is possible to couple two co-ordinates on the same structure
together. Synthesis of substructures is implemented by coupling two joint co-ordinates at
each step and coupling all the joint co-ordinates in several steps. It will be shown in the
following parts of this paper that this procedure can be used effectively to detect the linearly
dependent co-ordinates.
If the responses at two pairs of joint co-ordinates are linearly dependent or nearly linearly
dependent, then, once the members of one pair of co-ordinates have been coupled, the
responses at the other co-ordinate pair will be very similar (exactly the same if they are exactly
linearly dependent).
If two co-ordinates are nearly linearly dependent, the responses at these two co-ordinates
will be very close, and hence
hii1hjj1hij . (30)
The dependency of two co-ordinates can be investigated by using a parameter
a=(=hii−hjj =+=hii−hij =+=hij−hjj =)/(=hii =+=hjj =+=hij =). (31)
The value of a should be very small if co-ordinates i and j are linearly dependent. Then
a threshold MTC formulae can be developed based on this idea as

8 9
1
, aqe
[Ha ]=[HS ]−b({hsj }−{hsi })({hsj }−{hsi })T, where b= hii+hjj−2hij .
0 , aWe

(32, 33)
The linear dependency between the co-ordinates is automatically checked by using the MTC
method; no additional checking is required.
There is, however, a small problem with this method. Experience indicates that the a value
can be very large at the anti-resonance of hii , hjj or hij , even if the co-ordinate pair is linearly
dependent. If the a value is set to be large enough so that the rigid joint pair is deleted at
all the frequencies, some other joint co-ordinate pairs can be deleted too, which results in
an erroneous prediction.
A better way is to divide the coupling process into two steps. First, all the co-ordinate
pairs are coupled with a values calculated over the frequency range of interest. These a values
are checked over the frequency range to determine if some pairs of the co-ordinates should
be deleted. The coupling process is carried out again with the exclusion of the linearly
dependent joint co-ordinate pairs.
Using MTC to detect the linearly dependent coordinate pairs is physically more significant
than any other available methods.

8. NUMERICAL CASE STUDIES

8.1.  :  8  
The purpose of this case study is to validate various coupling methods. The total DOF
is eight with co-ordinate 1 grounded, and co-ordinates 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 coupled together.
Therefore, the final assembly is a 3 DOF system. The diagram for the substructure and
assembly systems is shown in Figure 5.
854 .   . . 
x5 x8
k4
x2 x3 m5
k2
x1 m3 x6
k1 k5
m1 m2 x4 m6 m8
k3
m4 x7
k6
m7
Substucture system
k4 x8
x2 x3 m5
k2
x1 m3
k1 k5
m1 m2 m6 m8
k3
m4
k6
m7
Assembly system
Figure 5. The substructures and assembly of Case A. Q, Rigid coupling. mi values (kg): m1 , 1; m2 , 4; m3 , 2;
m4=m5=1; m6 , 3; m7 , 2; m8 , 5. ki values (N/m): k1 , 1. E6; k2 , 2. E6; k3 , 4. E6; k4 ; 5. E6; k5 , 2.E6; k6 , 1. E6;
[D]=0·001[k].

For the PCC method, the following five co-ordinate pairs are assumed, (x3 , x6 )(x3 , x4 ),
(x4 , x7 ), (x5 , x6 ) and (x1 , x0 ), where the co-ordinate x0 refers to a co-ordinate on the ground.
The RC method is not applicable directly, but it can be used to couple co-ordinate pairs
(x3 , x6 ) and (x4 , x7 ). The remaining co-ordinate pairs are coupled by using the MTC method.
The coupled results are shown in Figure 6(a); two curves are from noise-free substructure
FRFs, and from FRFs polluted by 5% random errors (an FRF is polluted by 5% random

–80
(a)
H(2,2) (dB)

–180
–80
(b)

–180
10 300
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6. The predicted and the exact assembly point receptance (Case A). (a) Effects of random errors;
—w—, exact; —Q—, 5% noise. (b) Effects of consistent errors; —w—, exact; —Q—, consistent errors.
      855
x6
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
k1 k2 k3 k4 k5
m1 m2 m3 m4 m5 k6
x11 x10 x9 x8 x7 m6
k11 k10 k9 k8 k7
m11 m10 m9 m8 m7

Substructure system
x6
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
k1 k2 k3 k4 k5
m1 m2 m3 m4 m5 k6
k11 k10 k9 k8 k7 m6
m11 m10 m9 m8 m7

Assembly system (five pairs)

x6
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
k1 k2 k3 k4 k5
m1 m2 m3 m4 m5 k6
k11 k10 k9 k8 k7 m6
m11 m10 m9 m8 m7

Effectively coupled system (three pairs)

Figure 7. The substructures and assembly of Case B. Q, Rigid coupling. mi values (kg): m1 , 1; m2 , 2; m3 , 3; m4 ,
4; m5 , 5; m6=m7=m8=m9=m10=m11=1. Ki values (N/m): k2=k3=k5=k6=k7=k9=k10=1.E 6;
k1=k4=k8=k11=1.E9; [D]=0·001[k].

noise if its real and imaginary parts are multiplied by two independent random numbers from
0·95 to 1·05). When the FRFs are noise-free, exact results are obtained from all the coupling
methods. When the FRFs are polluted, although the results from all of the coupling methods
are not exact, they are the same. This demonstrates that the final results of substructure
synthesis are independent of the coupling methods if numerical errors are insignificant.
The deterioration of the accuracy of the substructure synthesis clearly indicates the effects
of measurement errors.
Some peaks which do not represent real resonance frequencies can be found in the coupled
receptance data. Further investigation indicates that the frequencies of these peaks
correspond to the natural frequencies of the substructures. The reasons for these peaks are

–80
H(6,6) (dB)

–170
10 200
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 8. The assembly receptance by coupling five and three co-ordinate pairs (error free). —w—, Five pairs;
—Q—, three pairs (+1 dB).
856 .   . . 
–80
(a)

H(6,6) (dB)
–180
–80
(b)

–180
10 200
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9. The assembly receptance by coupling three co-ordinate pairs (with consistent error). (a) —w—, Exact;
—Q—, five pairs; (b) —w—; —Q—, three pairs.

that the substructure matrix at these frequencies tends to be ill-conditioned. Consequently,

the errors in the measurement data are significantly magnified. In addition, the magnitudes
of the substructure FRFs are much greater than the magnitude of the assembly at the
substructure resonance. From equation (28), it can be noted that the assembly FRF matrix
is a subtraction between the substructure FRF matrix and a product of three matrices. These
two matrices must have similar magnitudes so that the assembly response will be much
smaller than the substructure response. Therefore, the results are sensitive to errors in the
FRFs even if these errors are not magnified in the matrix inversion.
At frequencies other than the substructure natural frequencies, the errors in the coupled
results are much smaller.
If the modal analysis technique is applied, a consistent model can be obtained. The
receptance matrix can be regenerated from
[H]=[f](vr2−v 2+ihr vr2 )−1 [f]T. (34)
To simulate the effects of the remaining errors in the regenerated RFRs, the mode shape
matrix [f], natural frequencies vr (r=1, . . . , n) and damping hr (r=1, . . . , n) are polluted
by 5%, 1% and 1% random errors, respectively. The coupled results with modal analysis
techniques applied to measured substructure data are shown in Figure 6(b). It can be seen
that the results are much smoother, the pseudo-resonant peaks having disappeared. This
indicates that by eliminating inconsistent errors in the measured data, the effects of
measurement errors on the coupled results can be reduced.
However, the elimination of inconsistent errors does not mean that the coupled results
are bound to be accurate. Applying modal analysis cannot eliminate all the measurement
errors, and indeed some errors may be introduced during the application of modal analysis.
It can be noted from Figure 6(b) that there are some shifts between the predicted and real
      857
natural frequencies of the assembly. The effects of this kind of error are further demonstrated
in the next numerical example.

8.2.  :   7- 

The FRFs regenerated from modal data still contain some errors. The effects of these
errors can sometimes be very significant on the substructure synthesis. This kind of situation
occurs when more joint co-ordinates than necessary are used.
To illustrate this, consider the 11-DOF system shown in Figure 7. Co-ordinates 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5 are coupled to co-ordinates 10, 9, 8, 7 and 6 respectively. k1 , k4 , k8 and k11 are 1000
times greater than the other springs. Therefore, the responses at the co-ordinates connected
through these springs (e.g., co-ordinates 1 and 2) are approximately the same at low
frequencies. Physically, it is known that once co-ordinates 1 and 11 are coupled, the
responses at co-ordinates 2 and 10 are very close; further, coupling co-ordinates 2 and 10
together has little effect on the properties of the assembly. Consequently, it is not necessary
to couple co-ordinates 2 and 10. Similarly, it is only necessary to couple one pair of
co-ordinates in the co-ordinate pairs (4, 8) and (5, 7).

–80
(a)

–180
–80
(b)
H(6,6) (dB)

–180
–80
(c)

–180
10 200
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 10. The assembly receptance from SVD related coupling. —w—, exact —Q—, SVD threshold.
(a) threshold 0·001; (b) threshold 0·01; (c) threshold 0·05.
858 .   . . 
–70
(a)

–170

–70
(b)
H(6,6) (dB)

–170

–70
(c)

–170
10 200
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 11. The assembly receptance from MTC coupling with threshold. —w—, Exact; —Q—, MTC theshold
(a) threshold 0·05; (b) threshold 0·1; (c) threshold 0·3.

In Figure 8 is shown the predicted receptance from coupling three pairs of co-ordinates
((1, 11), (3, 9) and (5, 7)), from coupling five pairs of co-ordinates ((1, 11), (2, 10), (3, 9), (4, 8)
and (5, 7)). It is noted that the differences between the resuslts are negligible. Therefore, it
is only necessary to couple three pairs of co-ordinates.
In Figure 9 is shown the predicated assembly data obtained by using simulated modal
analysis data (with 5%, 1% and 1% errors in mode shape, natural frequency and modal
damping). It is noted that the predicted results with five pair coupling form a smooth curve,
but they are quite different from the real assembly response. The second resonance frequency
is significantly shifted. However, the results from coupling three co-ordinate pairs ((1, 11),
(3, 9) and (4, 8)) yield very high accuracy.
The results obtained with the commonly used threshold SVD algorithm are shown in
Figure 10. If e=0·01, very good results are found; however, if e is too large (0·05) or too
small (0·001), the results at some frequencies are very poor. Because the proper value of e
depends on the size of the matrix to be inverted and the frequency increment, it is very difficult
to determine the threshold of the SVD. Indeed, if a very fine frequency increment is chosen,
it is possible that no threshold is available to yield the accurate results at all the frequencies.
      859
–60
(a)

Receptance (dB)
–175
1
(b)
log10(α)

–4
10 200
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 12. Receptance and a values (error-free). (a) Receptance at co-ordinates 2 and 5 before they are
coupled (b) a values for different co-ordinate pairs; —w— (1, 11); —Q—, (2, 10); —q—, (3, 9) —r—, (4, 8);
—W—, (5, 7).

–60
(a)
Receptance (dB)

–170
1
(b)
log10(α)

–4
10 200
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 13. Receptance and a values (with consistent error). (a) Receptance at co-ordinates 2 and 5 before they
are coupled. (b) a values for different co-ordinate pairs: —w—, (1, 11) —Q—, (2, 10); —q—, (3, 9); —r—, (4, 8);
—W—, (5, 7).
860 .   . . 
To avoid the dependency of the threshold on the size of the coupling, the threshold MTC
method is used. The results obtained by using the threshold MTC method are shown in
Fig. 11. It is noted that when e=0·3 the accuracy of the results is improved significantly;
however, at some frequency points, the results are poor (which coincides with the results
of four or five pair coupling).
In order to obtain a more accurate assembly response, the problem of linearly dependent
coordinate pairs should be dealt with systematically. The a values over the frequency
range are shown in Figure 12(b) for the error-free case in Figure 13(b) for the case with
errors. It can be clearly noted that the overall a values for co-ordinate pairs (2, 10)
and (5, 7) are smaller than the a values for the other pairs, which clearly indicates
that co-ordinate pairs (2, 10) and (5, 7) tend to be dependent on other joint co-ordinate
pairs.
The peaks of the a values for the co-ordinate pairs (2, 10) and (5, 7) in Figure 12(b) and
Figure 13(b) correspond to the anti-resonance of these co-ordinates when they are to be
coupled. The point receptance curves at co-ordinates 2 and 5 just before they are coupled
(i.e., the receptance at co-ordinate 2 after coupling the co-ordinate pair (1, 11) 5 after
coupling co-ordinate pairs (1, 11), (2, 10), (3, 9) and (4, 8)) for the error-free case and the
case with consistent errors are shown in Figures 12(a) and 13(a).

8.3.  :  26-  

In cases A and B, the essence of the new coupling method has been demonstrated. In
both cases, lumped mass-stiffness models were assumed. In this case study, a finite element
(FE) model is used instead. FE models are more representative of real structures, and hence
the applicability of the coupling method to real structures can be evaluated.
In Figure 14 is shown the diagram of an FE system. It consists of two two-dimensional
finite element beams with a total DOF of 26. Two beams are coupled at three co-ordinate
pairs, (9, 15), (11, 17) and (13, 19) respectively. It can be noted that the beam ends where
two beams are coupled are twice as thick as the rest of the beam. Hence these thicker parts
are effectively rigid at low frequencies (covering the first few modes). Accordingly, the
difference between the results from coupling three pairs (i.e., (9, 15), (11, 17) and (13, 19))
and from coupling just two pairs (i.e., (9, 15) and (13, 19)) is insignificant as can be noted
in Figure 15.
Random errors were used to simulate measurement errors in cases A and B for simplicity.
In this case study, more realistic inconsistent and consistent error models are used to simulate
errors in measured FRF data and in regenerated FRF data, respectively. The description
of these error models is given in Appendix B.
To simulate FRF data from measurement, an inconsistent error model with 10% errors
on mode shape and modal damping and 1% on natural frequency is used to represent
inconsistent systematic errors. In addition, a 1% random error is applied to the real and
imaginary parts of the FRFs to simulate the effects of noise.
The synthesis results from ‘‘measured’’ FRFs are shown in Figure 16: one from coupling
two co-ordinate pairs (i.e., (9, 15) and (13, 19)), and the other from coupling three pairs (i.e.,
(9, 15), (13, 19) and (11, 17)). Clearly, the results from coupling two co-ordinate pairs (see
Figure 16(b)) are more accurate than those from coupling all three pairs (see Figure 16(a)).
In Figure 16(c), the linear dependency of the co-ordinate pair (11, 17) on the other two pairs
is obvious because the corresponding a values at most frequencies are much lower. However,
although more accurate than three-pair coupling, the results from coupling two co-ordinate
pairs at some frequencies are still inaccurate and reading peaks exist. Again, these reading
peaks coincide with the resonance frequencies of the substructures. However, unlike those
caused solely by random errors, the reading peaks due to inconsistent systematic errors are
      861
9,10 13,14
1.27 1,2 3,4 5,6 7,8 11,12
2.54
10 10 10 4 3 3

15,16 19,20
17,18 21,22 23,24 25,26
2.54
3 3 4 10 10 1.27

Substructure

9,10 13,14
1,2 3,4 5,6 7,8 11,12

17,18 21,22 23,24 25,26

15,16 19,20

Assembly
Figure 14. A diagram of the FE beam system. Q, Rigid connection; dimensions in cm. Beam width 2·54 cm;
Young’s modulus 6·55×1090 N/m2; density 2661 kg/m3.

much more difficult to identify, because the FRF curve in these frequency regions can be
smooth and the shape of a reading peak may look like a real resonance peak. In other words,
both inconsistent errors and random errors can cause reading peaks, and some reading peaks
can be difficult to detect. As a result, modal analysis becomes essential to remove the
inconsistent errors.
The synthesis results obtained by using FRFs regenerated from modal data are shown
in Figure 17. It is assumed that the FRFs are measured in a frequency range of 100–3000 Hz.
In this frequency range, there are six modes (out of a total of 26 modes of the substructure
system). The modal data of these six modes are assumed available. To compensate the effects
of the modes outside the measured frequency range, two residue terms are used. The lower

–50

–75
H(1,1) (dB)

–100

–125

–150

–175
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 15. The assembly receptance by coupling two pairs and from coupling three pairs. —w—, Exact
(three pairs); —Q—, two pairs.
862 .   . . 
–50
(a)
–75

H(1,1) (dB)
–100

–125

–150

–175

–50
(b)
–75
H(1,1) (dB)

–100

–125

–150

–175

103
(c)
102

101

100
α

10–1

10–2

10–3
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 16. Results from data with inconsistent measurement errors. (a) Results from coupling three pairs;
—w—, exact. (b) Results from coupling two pairs; —w—, exact. (c) The corresponding a values: —Q—, pair
(9, 15); —R—, pair (13, 19); —w—, pair (11, 17).

and higher residue frequencies are assumed to be at 1 Hz and 4000 Hz, and the magnitudes
of the residue terms are determined from the FRFs at 110 Hz and 2900 Hz respectively. To
simulate the remaining errors in the regenerated FRF data, the consistent error model is used
with mode shape, natural frequency damping being polluted by 10%, 1% and 10%
respectively.
It can be noted in Figure 17 that reading peaks are effectively removed by using consistent
FRF data. Even if the modal data are not exact and only a few modes are measured, accurate
prediction is achieved by coupling just two co-ordinate pairs. However, coupling additional
linearly dependent co-ordinate pairs leads to poor prediction. Therefore, they must not be
used in the coupling process. Fortunately, this linear dependency of the co-ordinate pair
(11, 17) on the other two pairs can be easily detected from the corresponding a values
(see Figure 17(c)) by using the MTC method. As a result, this co-ordinate pair can be
removed.
      863
9. CONCLUSIONS
A new generalized coupling method (GRC) method is proposed, which is physically more
general than the RC method and is computationally more efficient than the IC method. The
GRC method includes the advantages from both the IC and RC methods and is superior
to both of these methods.
By using the GRC method, the coupling procedure can be implemented in either a single
step or in several steps by coupling two co-ordinates at each step. This leads to two modified
versions of GRC; i.e., PCC and MTC.
The MTC method is particularly attractive. Not only is it computationally more efficient
and easier to program, but it can be used to detect the linearly dependent joint co-ordinate
pairs as well. Using MTC to detect linearly dependent joint co-ordinate pairs is simpler and
also more effective than other methods such as the SVD algorithm.
It also has been demonstrated that by removing linearly dependent co-ordinate pairs by
using the MTC method, and by removing random and inconsistent systematic errors by
using the modal analysis techniques, accurate synthesis results can be achieved.

–50
(a)
–75
H(1,1) (dB)

–100

–125

–150

–175

–50
(b)
–75
H(1,1) (dB)

–100

–125

–150

–175

103
(c)
102

101

100
α

10–1

10–2

10–3
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 17. Results from data with consistent errors. (a) —Q—, Results from coupling three pairs; —w—, exact.
(b) —Q—, Results from coupling two pairs; —w—, exact. (c) The corresponding a values: —Q—, pair (9, 15);
—R—, pair (13, 19); —w—, pair (11, 17).
864 .   . . 
REFERENCES
1. A. P. V. U 1989 Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine,
University of London. Dynamic analysis of coupled structures using experimental data.
2. W. C. H 1965 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal 3(4), 678–685.
Dynamic analysis of structural systems using component modes.
3. S. H 1969 Shock and Vibration Bulletin 40(4), 25–39. Review of modal synthesis techniques and
a new approach.
4. M. I, D. A. R and D. J. E 1987 Proceedings of the 5th International Modal Analysis
Conference, London, 1136–1141. Structural modification and coupling dynamic analysis using
measured FRF data.
5. J. S. T and Y. F. C 1988 Journal of Sound and Vibration 125, 487–502. The identification
of dynamic characteristics of a single bolt joint.
6. Y. R and C. F. B 1993 Proceedings of the 11th International Modal Analysis Conference,
Florida, U.S.A., 868–871. A generalised receptance coupling technique.
7. Y. R 1992 Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of
London. The analysis and identification of friction joint parameters in the dynamic response of
structures.
8. Y. R and C. F. B 1993. Proceedings of the 11th International Modal Analysis Conference,
Florida U.S.A., 872–876. A new multi-step two coordinate coupling technique and its application
for detecting linearly dependent coordinates.
9. D. O, J. L, D. V, H. G and R. A 1990 Proceedings of the 8th
International Modal Analysis Conference, Florida, 213–220. Coupling of structures using measured
FRFs by means of SVD based data reduction techniques.

APPENDIX A: FORTRAN PROGRAM FOR THE GENERALIZED COUPLING

METHOD
SUBROUTINE MTC(h, v, alpha, beta, ind, n, m, n0, m0)
c***************************************************************************
c * --- input contains the substructure receptance *
c * output contains the assembly receptance *
c * v- - - vector=hsi−hsj in the paper *
c * alpha- - - parameter alphas in the paper *
c * beta- - - threshold of MTC method *
c * beta=0 for indirect solution *
c * ind- - - indicator for the position of joint coordinates *
c * i.e., if the two coordinates of the n’th pair are *
c * i & j, then ind(n,1)=1 & ind(n,2)=j *
c * n- - - DOF of the receptance matrix *
c * m- - - number of coordinate pairs to be coupled *
c * n0- - - the column size of matrix h *
c * m0- - - the column size of matrix ind *
c***************************************************************************
integer ind(m0,2),n1,n2
real*8 alpha(m0),beta
complex*16 h(n0,n),v(n),hh,hii,hij,hjj
do 1 i=1,m
n1=ind(i,1)
n2=ind(i,2)
hii=h(n1,n1)
hjj=h(n2,n2)
      865
hij=h(n1,n2)
do 2j=1,n
v(j)=h(j,n1)−h(j,n2)
2 continue
hh=hii+hjj−2.*hij
alpha(i)=(cdabs(hii−hjj)+cdabs(hii−hij)+cdabs(hij−hjj))
+ /(cdabs(hii)+cdabs(hij)+cdabs(hjj))
if(alpha(i).gt.beta) then
do 3j=1,n
do 3k=1,n
h(k,j)=h(k, j)−v(j)*v(k)/hh
3 continue
end if
1 continue
return
end

APPENDIX B: SIMULATION OF MEASUREMENT ERRORS

Apart from measurement errors of a random nature, measured FRF data are often more
significantly polluted by inconsistent systematic errors (for example, errors due to mass
loading, shaker-structure interaction). The overall effects of the systematic errors cause
measured properties such as natural frequencies, mode shapes and damping values to be
shifted from their true values. Because FRFs are not measured simultaneously, different
FRFs can be independently polluted.
FRF data can be represented by the corresponding modal data as

N
ca n cb N
Cn
Hab= s n
=s , (B1)
n=1
(1+ihn )vn −v2 n=1 (1+ihn )vn2−v 2
2

where ca and cb are the elements in the mode shape vector, vn is the natural frequency and
h is the damping value; subscript n refers to the nth resonance, and N is the DOF of the
system. Then the FRFs from measurement can be simulated as

Hab=Real(E(1, a, b, v)H'ab )+iImag(E(2, a, b, v)H'ab ), (B2)

where

nca E(3, a, b, n) ncb E(3, b, a, n)

N
H'ab= s 2. (B3)
n E(5, a, b, n))vn E (4, a, b, n)−v
2 2
n=1
(1+ih

E is a random number within a range of 12e, and e is the magnitude of the corresponding
error. Each random number depends only upon the values and sequence of the variables
inside the parenthesis. For example, E(3, a, b, n) is related to co-ordinates a, b and mode
number n, but it is independent of frequency v, and also E(3, a, b, n)$E(3, b, a, n).
For FRF data regenerated from modal data, because FRFs can be measured only in a
limited frequency range, the modal data for modes outside that range are usually not
available. To compensate the effects of modes outside the measured frequency range, residue
866 .   . . 
terms can be used. The following formula can be used to calculate the regenerated FRFs
from modal data:

nc a n c b
n2
Crl Crh
Hab= 2+ s + . (B4)
v −v n=N 1 (1+ihn )vn2−v 2 vrh2 −v 2
2
rl

Here n=N1 , . . . , N2 represents modes in the measured frequency range, Cr and vr refer to
the modal constant and natural frequency of the residual terms, and the second subscripts
l and h represent the lower and higher frequency residue terms respectively. When vrl and
vrh are selected, equation (B4) is a linear equation with Crl and Crh being the only unknowns;
hence they can be easily determined from Hab at two different frequencies.
In real cases, modal data extracted from measured FRFs inevitably contains errors.
However, because the same set of modal data is used, regenerated FRFs are consistent. To
simulate a regenerated FRF with consistent errors, the following formula can be used:

nca E(6, a, n) ncb E(6, b, n)

N2
Crl Crh
Hab= 2+ s + . (B5)
v −v n=N 1 (1+ihn E(8, n))vn2 E 2(7, n)−v 2 vrh2 −v 2
2
rl

APPENDIX C: NOMENCLATURE
f force
h receptance element
x displacement
{f } force vector
[H] receptance matrix
{x} displacement vector
[T] matrix related to the conditions of equilibrium and compatibility
a threshold of the MTC method
v angular frequency
Subscripts
A assembly
s substructure
a non-joint region on substructure system
b joint region on substructure system
c joint region on substructure system
n non-joint region on assembly system
j joint region on assembly system; also quantities related to joint