Correlation Topics 122901 1

Test-Analysis
Correlation-Updating
Considerations
Peter Avitabile
Modal Analysis and Controls Laboratory
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Analysis & Controls Laboratory
The Overall Correlation and Updating Process

MAC AND ORTHOGONALITY
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

1
0.9
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
MODEL
IMPROVEMENT
REGIONS
MAC
GUYAN
1.2
[U n ] , [ ]
+
g
[Tu ] = [Un ] [U a ]
[M] , [K]
RVAC
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
IRS
FRAC
SEREP
COMBINING ANALYTICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA
FINITE ELEMENT
EXPERIMENTAL
DOF CORRELATION
FINITE ELEMENT
VECTOR CORRELATION
MAC
DOF CORRELATION
CoMAC
EXPERIMENTAL MODAL MODEL

[En ] = [T u ] [E a ]
MODE
SWITCHING
VECTOR CORRELATION
CORTHOG
Experimental Analytical
OR
1
FEM 5
0.8
FEM 4
0.6
0.4
0.2
POC
VECTOR CORRELATION
FEM 3
FEM 2
0
EXP1 EXP 2
FEM 1
EXP 3 EXP 4
EXP 5
DOF CORRELATION
FINITE ELEMENT
EXPERIMENTAL
EXPERIMENTAL
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Test-Analysis Correlation-Updating Considerations

Objectives of this lecture:
Briefly describe the different correlation tools
available
Conceptually, overview the correlation process

Briefly overview the model updating process
A significant amount of effort is required to
completely describe all the techniques and tools

available
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Correlation Techniques
Correlation between analytical and experimental
data is an important part of the structural
dynamic characterization and updating of systems
FINITE ELEMENT
CoMAC
MAC
COORDINATE
MODAL
ASSURANCE
CRITERIA
MODE
SWITCHING
MODAL
ASSURANCE
CRITERIA
MATRIX
CORTHOG
COORDINATE
ORTHOGONALITY
CRITERIA
OR
OR
FEM 5
0.8
FEM 4
0.6
0.4
VECTOR CORRELATION
Experimental
FEM 3
0.2
Analytical
FEM 2
PSEUDO
ORTHOGONALITY
CRITERIA
MATRIX
EXP1
FEM 1
EXP 2
EXP 3
EXP 4
EXP 5
DOF CORRELATION
POC
RVAC
FINITE ELEMENT
EXPERIMENTAL
RESPONSE
VECTOR
ASSURANCE
CRITERIA
EXPERIMENTAL
FRAC
FREQUENCY
RESPONSE
ASSURANCE
CRITERIA
FINITE ELEMENT
EXPERIMENTAL
DOF CORRELATION
VECTOR CORRELATION
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Overview of Correlation Techniques

Vector correlation provides global indicator:
Modal Assurance Criteria
Orthogonality Checks
DOF correlation provides spatial indicator:

Coordinate Modal Assurance Criteria
Coordinate Orthogonality Check
Frequency Response Assurance Criteria
Other tools:
MAC Contribution
Force Unbalance
Dr. Peter Avitabile


Two basic levels of correlation are considered:
Modal vector correlation provides a
global indicator of the level of

correlation achieved
Degree of freedom (dof) correlation
provides an indicator as to how the

individual dofs contribute to the overall
modal vector correlation
Dr. Peter Avitabile


Vector Correlation Techniques:
Modal Assurance Criteria (MAC):
Simple dot product
independent of mass weighting
Orthogonality Checks (POC):
Performed at n space or a space

mass reduced for a space calc
shape expanded for n space calc
reduction/expansion has an effect
Dr. Peter Avitabile


DOF Correlation Techniques:
Coordinate Modal Assurance Criteria (CoMAC):
Simple dot product
correlation on dof basis for correlated
mode pairs
independent of mass weighting
Enhanced Coordinate Modal Assurance Criteria:

Extension of CoMAC
Dr. Peter Avitabile


DOF Correlation Techniques:
Frequency Response Assurance Criteria (FRAC):
simple dot product
correlation of FEM and Test FRFs
Coordinate Orthogonality Check (CORTHOG)

Identified correlation on a dof basis
mass matrix used for weighting
similar to CoMAC in concept except
correlated mode pairs not required
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Assurance Criteria - MAC

Originally formulated for the test engineer to
determine the degree of correlation between
vectors from different tests, MAC between two
vectors is defined as:
(
{V } {V })
MAC =
({V } {V })({V } {V })
2
ij
values range between 0 and 1

approaching zero indicates no similarity
approaching one indicates high similarity
10
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Assurance Criteria - MAC

MAC was extended to allow an assessment
between analytical and experimental modal
vectors:
MACij
MAC
[
{u } {e }]
=
[{u } {u }][{e } {e }]
2
MODAL
ASSURANCE
CRITERIA
MATRIX
FINITE ELEMENT
MODE
SWITCHING
VECTOR CORRELATION
low values - not similar

1
high values - very similar
FEM 5
0.8
FEM 4
0.6
0.4
FEM 3
0.2
FEM 2
0
EXP1
FEM 1
EXP 2
EXP 3
EXP 4
EXP 5
EXPERIMENTAL
11
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Orthogonality Check
For modal vectors scaled to unit modal mass, the
vectors must satisfy the orthogonality condition:
[ U ]T [M ] [ U ] = [I]
[ U ]T [K ] [ U] = [ 2 ]
12
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Pseudo Orthogonality Check - POC

The Pseudo Orthogonality Check relating the
correlation between the analytical and
experimental modal vectors with the analytical
mass matrix is
?
POC = [E ] [M ][U ] = [I]

T
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
MAC
GUYAN
IRS
SEREP
Typically, most people feel the smaller the POC

off-diagonal terms the better correlation that
exists. However, these terms may be small
and vectors may still be relatively uncorrelated
13
Dr. Peter Avitabile


The Pseudo Orthogonality Check is an assessment
as to how close the experimental vectors are
aligned with the analytical vectors
?
[E ] [M ] [ U ] = [I]
T
[E ] [K ] [ U ] = [ 2 ]
T
These equations can be evaluated at:

FEM Space - requires expansion
Reduced Space - requires reduction
Intermediate space - requires both
Substantial numerical advantages using SEREP!

14
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Expansion to
Full Space
may smear
and distort
mode shapes
Reduction to
Test Space
may result
in distorted
mass and
stiffness
matrices
15
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Cross Orthogonality Check

The Cross Orthogonality Check is also used for
correlation purposes
?
[E ] [M ] [E ] = [I]
T
[E ] [K ] [E ] = [ 2 ]
T
These equations can be evaluated at:

FEM Space - requires expansion
Reduced Space - requires reduction
Similar to POC (off-diagonal terms are squared)
16
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Coordinate Modal Assurance Criteria - CoMAC

The CoMAC gives an indication of the contribution
of each dof to the MAC for a given mode pair
(c)
(c)
u k e k
c=1
CoMAC(k ) =
(u ) (e )
c=1
Low values of CoMAC

indicate little correlation
whereas high values of
CoMAC indicate very
high correlation
(c) 2
k
c=1
CoMAC
COORDINATE
MODAL
ASSURANCE
CRITERIA
17
Experimental
Analytical
DOF CORRELATION
FINITE ELEMENT
(c) 2
k
EXPERIMENTAL
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modulus Difference
The Modulus Difference was developed to
supplement the results from CoMAC
ModulusDifference( k ) = u (kc ) e (kc )
Assists in identifying
discrepancies
between analytical
and experimental
vectors
DOF CORRELATION
FINITE ELEMENT
18
EXPERIMENTAL
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Enhanced CoMAC - ECoMAC

The CoMAC gives an indication of the contribution
of each dof to the MAC for a given mode pair
m (c) (c)
u k e k
ECoMAC(k ) = c=1
2m
Low values of ECoMAC indicate high correlation

whereas high values of CoMAC indicate very low
correlation
Very sensitive to phasing of vectors - which
makes it more sensitive
19
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Frequency Response Assurance Criteria - FRAC

The FRAC is used to identify similarity between a
measured and analytical FRF - formed like MAC
{H( ) } {H( ) }
FRAC( j) =
({H( ) } {H( ) } ) ({H( ) } {H( ) } )
a
i j
a
i j
2
x *
i j
a *
i j
x
i j
Low values of FRAC

indicate little
correlation whereas
high values of FRAC
indicate very high
correlation
x *
i j
FRAC
FREQUENCY
RESPONSE
ASSURANCE
CRITERIA
FINITE ELEMENT
EXPERIMENTAL
DOF CORRELATION
20
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Response Vector Assurance Criteria - RVAC

The RVAC is used to identify the degree of
similarity that exists at a particular frequency
RVAC() = MAC({E test ()}, {U fem ()})
Low values of RVAC

indicate little
correlation whereas
high values of RVAC
indicate very high
correlation
RVAC
RESPONSE
VECTOR
ASSURANCE
CRITERIA
FINITE ELEMENT
EXPERIMENTAL
VECTOR CORRELATION
21
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Coordinate Orthogonality Check - CORTHOG

The Coordinate Orthogonality Check helps to
identify the contribution of individual dofs to
each of the off-diagonal terms of the POC
matrix
Identifies which dof are most discrepant between
the analytical and experimental vectors on a mass
weighted basis
POC
Orthogonality
ORTHOG ijk = u ki m kp u pj
POC ijk = e ki m kp u pj
22
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Coordinate Orthogonality Check - CORTHOG

The Coordinate Orthogonality Check is simply the
comparison of what should have been obtained
analytically for each dof in an orthogonality check
to what was actually obtained for each dof in a
pseudo-orthogonality check from test
SD = CORTHOG ijk = e ki m kp u pj u ki m kp u pj
p
Variety of different
formulations with
different scaling
approaches
-4
-3
-2
dof 3
23
emu
umu
dof 1
dof 2
-1
emu
Experimental
Analytical
umu
umu
emu
Dr. Peter Avitabile

MAC Contribution
The MAC Contribution is a relatively simple and
straightforward technique to determine the degree
of contribution of each dof to the MAC value
achieved
pick a mode pair of interest
select a target MAC value
delete dof until target MAC value achieved
24
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Force Unbalance
The Force Balance is a simple calculation to
determine the inequality that exists in the
equation of motion
?
[[K ] [M ]]{x}={0}
uses the FEM mass and stiffness matrices

uses experimental frequencies and mode shapes
compute the inequality that exists
25
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Model Updating Topics

Model Updating techniques can be broken down
into two categories:
Direct Techniques
Indirect Techniques (Sensitivity based)
Modal Based Techniques

Response Based Techniques
Some basic theory of analytical model
improvement and localization of model change are
described
26
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Model Improvement Terminology
27
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Analytical Model Improvement - AMI
28
Dr. Peter Avitabile

29
Dr. Peter Avitabile

30
Dr. Peter Avitabile

31
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Analytical Model Improvement - SSO
32
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Analytical Model Improvement - MSSO
33
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Model Updating - Sensitivity Approaches
34
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Comments on Direct Techniques

Direct Techniques
Usually a one step process that does not require iteration
to obtain a solution
Usually based on equation of motion and orthogonality
conditions
Exact results obtained (in the sense that the target modes
are reproduced
Generally updated matrices are difficult to interpret and
smearing of results occurs
Skyline approaches attempt to retain the original topology

of the system assembly
Reduction and expansion have a dramatic effect on results
35
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Comments on Direct Techniques

Skyline containment
Matrix smearing
36
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Model Updating - Sensitivity Approaches

Differences that are typically minimized:
Frequency differences
Mode shape differences
Frequency response differences
Parameters that may be updated:
mass/stiffness of individual elements

mass/stiffness of groups of elements
parameters associated with individual elements
parameters associated with groups of elements
37
Dr. Peter Avitabile

Comments on Indirect Techniques

Indirect Techniques - Sensitivity approach
Modal Based Techniques
Shape differences
Response differences
38
Dr. Peter Avitabile


Indirect Techniques -Sensitivity -Modal Approach
Likely to be the most accurate parameter
measured
No spatial information needed
Relatively simple calculations
No reduction/expansion problems
39
Dr. Peter Avitabile


Indirect Techniques -Sensitivity -Modal Approach
Shape differences
Less accurate on a dof basis

Spatial information included
Mode pairing necessary
Calculations more complicated
Reduction/expansion is a problem
40
Dr. Peter Avitabile


Indirect Techniques - Sensitivity approach
Response Based Techniques
Contains complete information in frequency range
No need to estimate modal parameters
FRFs are more accurate than modal parameters
Response may be item of interest
Damping may be difficult to determine
Selection of certain spectral lines may cause
numerical difficulties
Using only a few FRFs may distort the results
Difficult to identify parameters for change
Measured FRFs must be acquired with high accuracy
41
Dr. Peter Avitabile

General Comments
42
Dr. Peter Avitabile

General Comments
Use of all the correlation tools necessary to
interpret the data available
Both modal and response based techniques should be
used together for the updating
One technique alone may not be sufficient to
adequately update the model
Once updated, the model should be perturbed both

analytically and experimentally and the correlation
process repeated to assure that meaningful
parameters have been obtained from the updating
process
43
Dr. Peter Avitabile

General Comments
Model Updating requires extreme care in order to

obtain reliable results
A firm understanding of the modeling techniques
employed are necessary in order to adequately adjust
the finite element model
A thorough understanding of the experimental data
used for the updating process is critical
A clear definition of what is meant by an improved
model is necessary
The analyst has a tremendous responsibility in
identifying which areas of the model are to be
updated and which sets of modes are the best modes
to use in the updating process
44
Dr. Peter Avitabile


Correlation Topics 122901 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Correlation Topics 122901 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Test-Analysis

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

The Overall Correlation and Updating Process

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

COMBINING ANALYTICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA

EXPERIMENTAL MODAL MODEL

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Test-Analysis Correlation-Updating Considerations

Conceptually, overview the correlation process

A significant amount of effort is required to

completely describe all the techniques and tools

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Overview of Correlation Techniques

DOF correlation provides spatial indicator:

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Overview of Correlation Techniques

global indicator of the level of

Degree of freedom (dof) correlation

provides an indicator as to how the

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Overview of Correlation Techniques

Orthogonality Checks (POC):

Performed at n space or a space

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Overview of Correlation Techniques

Enhanced Coordinate Modal Assurance Criteria:

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Overview of Correlation Techniques

Coordinate Orthogonality Check (CORTHOG)

correlated mode pairs not required

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Assurance Criteria - MAC

values range between 0 and 1

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Modal Assurance Criteria - MAC

low values - not similar

high values - very similar

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Pseudo Orthogonality Check - POC

POC = [E ] [M ][U ] = [I]

Typically, most people feel the smaller the POC

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Pseudo Orthogonality Check - POC

These equations can be evaluated at:

Substantial numerical advantages using SEREP!

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Pseudo Orthogonality Check - POC

Test/Analysis Correlation/Updating Considerations

Dr. Peter Avitabile

Cross Orthogonality Check

These equations can be evaluated at:

Similar to POC (off-diagonal terms are squared)