Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ymssp

A Successive Selection Method for nite element

model updating
Baiyong Gou a, Weijie Zhang a,b,n, Qiuhai Lu a, Bo Wang a
a
b

Applied Mechanics Laboratory, School of Aerospace, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Technology Development Center, Changan Ford Automobile Co., Ltd., Chongqing 401122, China

a r t i c l e in f o

abstract

Article history:
Received 4 November 2013
Received in revised form
30 July 2015
Accepted 1 October 2015
Available online 23 October 2015

Finite Element (FE) model can be updated effectively and efciently by using the Response
Surface Method (RSM). However, it often involves performance trade-offs such as high
computational cost for better accuracy or loss of efciency for lots of design parameter
updates. This paper proposes a Successive Selection Method (SSM), which is based on the
linear Response Surface (RS) function and orthogonal design. SSM rewrites the linear RS
function into a number of linear equations to adjust the Design of Experiment (DOE) after
every FE calculation. SSM aims to interpret the implicit information provided by the FE
analysis, to locate the Design of Experiment (DOE) points more quickly and accurately, and
thereby to alleviate the computational burden. This paper introduces the SSM and its
application, describes the solution steps of point selection for DOE in detail, and analyzes
SSM's high efciency and accuracy in the FE model updating. A numerical example of a
simply supported beam and a practical example of a vehicle brake disc show that the SSM
can provide higher speed and precision in FE model updating for engineering problems
than traditional RSM.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Successive Selection Method
Model updating
Response Surface Method
Finite Element

1. Introduction
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) software is currently an important tool not only for engineering design and analysis, but
also sometimes for replacing physical tests or prototypes. Compared with experimental tests, FEA has many advantages
including lower costs, fewer restrictions, higher efciency, more degrees of freedom and easier to modify parametric
models. However, due to the difculty of assuring the correctness of Finite Element (FE) models and meeting the demand of
analysis precision, FEA is often only a reference tool and can hardly substitute experimental analysis completely. Therefore,
the FE model updating based on experimental results is a signicant step towards a successful FE modeling regarding
improving the dynamical response of the FE model.
FE model updating techniques can be classied into two categories: direct methods and indirect methods. Mottershead
and Friswell [1] presented a comprehensive review of FE model updating techniques before 1993, and they concluded that
the capability of handling industrial problems is vital for the development of model updating techniques. There are various
methods for FE model updating, and Response Surface Method (RSM) [2,3], in particular, has recently spawned new discussions and ideas in both industry and academia. However, a conventional RSM for FE model updating does not pay much
n
Corresponding author at: Technology Development Center, Changan Ford Automobile Co., Ltd., No. 1, ChangFu West Road, Yuan Yang Town, New
Northern Zone, Chongqing 401122, China. Tel.: 86 13983988430.
E-mail address: rodgerzhang@163.com (W. Zhang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.10.005
0888-3270/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

321

attention to Response Surface (RS) functions or DOE based on the characteristics of model updating (e.g. multiple characteristic parameters as outputs, the design parameters are not Gaussian random variables, etc.), so its model updating
efciency and accuracy might be limited. Marwala [4] used a multi-layer perceptron as a RS function to update the FE model,
and his example showed that the computational speed of RSM was much higher than that of Genetic Algorithm (GA) and
Simulated Annealing. Deng and Cai [5] implemented model updating on an existing bridge FE model using a quadratic RS in
conjunction with GA methods. Their results implied that the accuracy of GA was higher than that of the Least Square
Method (LSM), and that a quadratic RS should be substituted by third-order polynomials to achieve sufcient accuracy.
Ren et al. [6] constructed a quadratic RS by using a uniform design. Structural static responses were used as characteristic
parameters for FE model updating, and RS was then reconstructed by a parameter scope shrinking technique with a
shrinking coefcient to improve convergence and stability. Shahidi and Pakzad [7] proposed a procedure for designing the
levels of input parameters and constructing the RS model. In their paper, the RS model was iteratively optimized in order to
enhance both its efciency and accuracy.
RSM is also widely used for reliability analysis, and many effective improvements have been made to increase the
efciency and accuracy of RSM. In Bucher and Bourgund's work [8], a quadratic RS without mixed terms and advanced
Monte Carlo simulation techniques were utilized for reliability analysis. Linear interpolation was used to guarantee that the
new center point was sufciently close to the exact limit state, and an estimate of the design point was obtained based on
the assumption of uncorrelated Gaussian variables. Kim and Na [9] pointed out that Bucher and Bourgund's selection of a
new center point might not guarantee a consistent convergence, so they proposed to obtain new center points using vector
projected sampling points. Linear RS functions, instead of quadratic functions, and RackwitzFiessler algorithm were used in
Kim and Na's paper. Wong et al. [10] proposed an adaptive RSM based on quadratic RS functions without mixed terms and
the 2n 1 axial-point design, which can improve the estimation of the peak load. Besides, they conducted the selection of
the parameter evaluation range in a better way, compared to traditional ways, to avoid any unrealistic Design of Experiment
(DOE) points. Kaymaz and McMahon [11] used a weighted regression method to form RS functions, which assigned heavier
weights for the points closer to the limit state so that the RS closer to the limit state can have a higher accuracy. Nguyen
et al. [12] modied Kaymaz and McMahon's weighted regression method to avoid denominator equal or close to zero. In
addition, a double weighted regression technique was proposed to enhance the weighting effect, but it might still encounter
ill-conditioned numerical problems. Gupta and Manohar [13] obtained a global RS to avoid convergence problems by
translating the origin along one of the axis by a prescribed distance, which is especially effective in the case of multiple
design points. In Allaix and Carbone's [14] study, the grid of sampling points was rotated according to the sensitivity vector
of the limit state function and an iterative strategy is used to determine a RS that is able to t the limit state function within
the neighborhood of the design point.
In most recent researches on RSM, DOE is pre-determined instead of being selected adaptively according to FEA results.
For example, Deng and Cai [5] used Central Composite Designs (CCD) [15] as DOE; Ren et al. [6] used uniform design; Wong
et al. [10] used 2n 1 axial-point design. Although these may guarantee the uniformity of the DOE, it cannot quickly locate
the real value of design parameters and requires relatively high computational cost for FE model updating. In order to better
interpret the implicit information within every FE calculation, this paper proposes a Successive Selection Method (SSM)
based on linear RS function and orthogonal design. Using SSM, DOE points are selected adaptively after every FE calculation,
so that they can successively approach the optimal updating value. These points are then used for RS tting and therefore
the tting accuracy of the RS is improved compared with the ones tted using uniform DOE points, which is the common
approach.

2. Response surface method for nite element model updating

Using RSM for FE model updating consists in the approximation of the explicit relationship between characteristic
parameters and design parameters by tting the RS function in order to quickly obtain the updated values of the design
parameters.
Main steps of RSM are as follows: (i) determine DOE; (ii) run FE program; (iii) dene RS function; (iv) t RS; (v) solve the
updated values of design parameters; (vi) check updating error; (vii) generate a new RS iteratively.
Traditional scheme for updating the FE model by RSM is:
(i) using Central Composite Designs (CCD) as DOE, which consists of three parts: (a) one center point, the origin of
experiment; (b) 2Nx axial points, i.e. xi 7a (i1,2,,Nx) and xj 0 (jai); (c) 2Nx factorial design points, a two-level (7b)
Nx-factor design. So the total number of DOE points is
N 1 2Nx 2Nx

where Nx is the number of design parameters, and a and b are DOE values; (ii) using a quadratic polynomial as RS function,
i.e.
yk k

Nx
X
i1

ki xi

Nx X
Nx
X
i1ji

kji xi xj

322

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

where k , ki and kji are coefcients of the RS, xi(i 1,2,,Nx) and xj (j 1,2,,Nx) are the design parameters to be updated, yk
(k 1,2,,Ny) is the characteristic parameter, and Ny is the number of the characteristic parameters; (iii) using LSM to solve
the coefcients of the RS, i.e.
A XT X  1 XT Y

where A is an M  Ny matrix of RS coefcients, and ,

1
M 1 2Nx Nx Nx 1
2

is the number of regression coefcients, X is an N  M matrix of the design parameters, and Y is an N  Ny matrix of
characteristic parameters; (iv) using LSM to obtain the updated values of design parameters iteratively, and the objective
function is
Ny
X

yek  yk 2

k1

where yk (k 1,2,,Ny) is an estimation of the characteristic parameter using the tted RS function and yk (k 1,2,,Ny) is
the target value of the characteristic parameter.

3. Successive Selection Method

3.1. Principle of SSM
Many papers [912], which used linear polynomials as RS function, demonstrated that linear RS had high tting
efciency and sufcient accuracy on the area close to the target updated values. Therefore, in order to reduce the number of
FEA runs as much as possible, the rst stage of SSM point selection is based on linear RS.
Marwala [4] mentioned that the DOE points with high error could be replaced by new optimized points when tting
accuracy was insufcient, but in his paper there were no detailed discussions on updating conditions or methods. Based on
this thought, the second stage of SSM point selection utilizes the method of successively updating DOE points to avoid the
need of a new set of DOE points so as to decrease the computational cost.
3.2. Derivation of SSM
In the rst stage of SSM point selection, the explicit relationship between a characteristic parameter and a design
parameter is obtained by rewriting the linear RS function, given by,
yk ki 0 ki 1 xi

i 1; 2; ; Nx ; k 1; 2; ; N y

where ki0, ki1 are the regression coefcients, xi is the design parameter to be updated, and yk is the characteristic
parameter. Eq. (6) can be expressed as
8
y k10 k11 x1
>
>
> k
>
< yk k20 k21 x2
7

>
>
>
>
: yk kN 0 kN 1 xN
x
x
x
Adding both sides of the equations, we have
Nx yk

Nx
X

ki0

i1

Nx
X

ki1 xi

i1

Multiplying both sides by 1/Nx, we have

yk

Nx
Nx
X
1 X
1
ki0
ki1 xi
Nx i 1
N
i1 x

Nx
1 X
;
Nx i 1 ki0

Let
ki

Nx ki1

10

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

323

Therefore,
yk k

Nx
X

ki xi

11

i1

Eq. (11) is the expression of a linear RS function, where k and ki are the regression coefcients. Therefore, Eq. (11) can
be derived from Eq. (6), i.e. Eq. (6) can be used to estimate the relationship between a characteristic parameter and a design
parameter.
Eq. (7) has a total number of 2Nx regression coefcients, but some relationships exist among them. So there are only
Nx 1 independent regression coefcients, equal to the number of linear RS function reference to Eq. (11).
In addition, ki1 in Eq. (6) represents the sensitivity of the characteristic parameter yk with respect to the design parameter xi.
3.3. Computational cost and tting accuracy
Compared with complex FE program, especially that with large FE models, the computational time of RSM is negligible.
Therefore, in this paper, the number of runs performed by the FE program Nc is dened as the computational cost of FE
model updating.
For traditional RSM, CCD is used as DOE, and its computational cost is
Nc 1 2Nx 2Nx  n 1

12

where n is the number of RS iterations. On the other hand, the minimum computational cost of SSM is 2Nx 2. Therefore,
compared to traditional RSM, SSM usually has higher computational efciency. Especially when there are a large number of
design parameters to be updated (e.g. greater than 5), the computational cost of RSM will be extremely high.
To check whether the RS tting accuracy is high enough or whether the error is within the allowable range, this paper
uses the average relative error of the characteristic parameter, i.e.


Ny  
yk  ybk 
1 X

  100%
N y k 1  yk 

13

where yk is the target value of the characteristic parameter, and y^k is the value of the characteristic parameter calculated by
the FE program.
3.4. Solution steps for SSM

(1) Determine the vector of origins of experiment (the initial values of the design parameters) x(1) and the vector of the
range of the design parameters x.
(2) Run FE program with x(1) to get y(1) and calculate (1) by Eq. (13), where x(1) is the vector of the design parameters of
the 1st DOE point, y(1) is the vector of the characteristic parameters with respect to x(1), and (1) is the average relative
error of the characteristic parameter corresponding to the 1st DOE point.
(3) Let i 1 and l 1.
(l 1)
(l)
(l 1)
(l)
(4) Let xm xm xm (m i) and xm xm (m ai).
(l 1)
(l 1)
(5) Run FE program with x
to get y
and calculate (l 1) by Eq. (13).
(6) Calculate the regression coefcients in Eq. (6) with DOE points (x(l), y(l)) and (x(l 1), y(l 1)), and get equations of yk
(k1,2,,Ny) with respect to xi.
(l 2)
(l 2)
(l)
(7) Based on the equations calculated at step (6), calculate xi
by LSM (Eq. (5)), and let xm xm (m ai).
(8) To avoid unreasonable equations, the maximum and minimum values of the lth DOE point can be dened. If
(1)
(l 2)
(1)
(l 2)
(l 2)
(l 2)
(1)
(l 2)
(1)
xi  xi rxi
rxi axi, where a A(0,1), then let xi
xi
; if xi
o xi xi, then let xi
xi  xi; if
(l 2)
(1)
(l 2)
(1)
4xi axi, then let xi
xi axi. In this paper, let a0.8.
xi
(9) Run FE program with x(l 2) to get y(l 2) and calculate (l 2) by Eq. (13).
(10) If iaNx, proceed to step (11); if iNx, go to step (13).
(11) Let (li) min{(l), (l 1), (l 2)} where li l, l 1 or l 2, to minimize the average relative error of the lith DOE point.
After that, swap the data of the lith and l 2th DOE points, so as to let (l 2) be the minimum value among original (l),
(l 1) and (l 2). Then proceed to next step with the data of the l2th DOE point.
(12) Let i i1 and l l 2, and repeat steps (4)(11) until i Nx.
(13) Let ll 3. At this time, iNx, l2Nx 2, and there are totally 2Nx 1 DOE points. This can be considered as an
improved DOE scheme of 2n 1 axial-point design, which makes the DOE points closer to the target point.
(14) Fit a quadratic RS without mixed terms with 2Nx 1 DOE points.
(15) Obtain the updated values of the design parameters by LSM.
(16) Run FE program with x(l) to get y(l) and calculate (l) by Eq. (13).

324

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

Determine origins of experiment

x(1) and the range x

Get y(1) with x(1) by FEA and get (1)

i=1, l=1

xm(l+1)= xm(l)+ xm (m=i);

xm(l+1)= xm(l) (mi)

Get y(l+1) with x(l+1) by FEA and get (l+1)

i=i+1, l=l+2
Calculate coefficients in Eq. (6)
with (x(l), y(l) ) and (x(l+1), y(l+1))

Calculate xi(l+2) by LSM;

xm(l+2)= xm(l) (mi)

(li)=min{(l), (l+1), (l+2)};

swap the data of the lith
and l+2th ED points

If xi(1)-xixi(l+2)xi(1)+0.8xi, let xi(l+2)=xi(l+2);

if xi(l+2)<xi(1)-xi, let xi(l+2)=xi(1)-xi;
if xi(l+2)>xi(1)+0.8xi, let xi(l+2)= xi(1)+0.8xi
iNx

Get y(l+2) with x(l+2) by FEA and get (l+2)

i=Nx
l = l+3

l = l+1

Fit an RS with 2Nx+1 ED points

Remove not x(l)

Remove the data
with maximum (l)

Remove x(l)

(l) > *

x(l) =0.5(x(l)+x(1))

Calculate x(l) by LSM

Get y(l) with x(l) by FEA and get (l)

(l) *

End
Fig. 1. Flowchart of SSM.

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

325

(17) If the error is not within the allowable range, i.e. (l) 4*, proceed to step (18); if the error is within the allowable range,
i.e. (l) r*, go to step (20).
(18) Adding the DOE point (x(l), y(l)), there are totally 2Nx 2 DOE points. Remove one DOE point which has maximum
average relative error among all points, and then re-t a new RS. If (x(l), y(l)) is not the one that has maximum ,
proceed to step (19); if (x(l), y(l)) is the one that has maximum , then let x(l) 0.5(x(l) x(1)) and repeat steps (16) to (18).
(19) Let l l 1 and repeat steps (14)(18).
(20) End solving. The vector of the updated values of the design parameters is x(l), and the computational cost is Nc l.
For clarity, owchart in Fig. 1 illustrates the process of the SSM.
3.5. Techniques to improve convergence
To better ensure the convergence of SSM, it is feasible to add one step before Step (8) by using similar technique in [10]:
(l 2)
(l 2)
(min)
(min)
(7b) let xi
(1  1) xi
1xi
, where 1 A [0, 1] and xi
is the ith design parameter which has minimum
(min)
average relative error between the lth and l 1th DOE points. This means xi
has minimum error among all calculated
(l 2)
points, because from the procedure the lth point has minimum error for rst l points. The smaller 1 is, the closer xi
is to
the estimated value of linear equations.
To improve the convergence speed and to ensure the convergence, it is feasible to modify Step (18) to be: adding the DOE
point (x(l), y(l)), there are totally 2Nx 2 DOE points. Remove one DOE point which has maximum average relative error
among all points, and then re-t a new RS. If (x(l), y(l)) is not the one that has maximum , proceed to step (19); if (x(l), y(l)) is
the one that has maximum , then let x(l) (1  2)x(l) 2x(min), where 2 A (0,1) and x(min) is the vector of the design
parameters which has minimum average relative error among all points, and repeat steps (16)(18).

4. Examples
4.1. Simply supported beam
To illustrate the proposed SSM, a numerical example of a simply supported beam is presented here. The length, cross
section, density, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of the beam are respectively 6 m, 0.2 m  0.2 m, 2500 kg/m3, 30 GPa
and 0.3. As shown in Fig. 2, the beam's FE model is consisted of 15 BernoulliEuler beam elements, and Young's modulus of
Element 3, 8 and 9 are dened as the design parameters to be updated while the rst four natural frequencies are dened as
characteristic parameters.
The target values of Young's modulus of Element 3, 8 and 9 are dened as 21 GPa, 43 GPa and 27 GPa, respectively. Based
on the given information, the target values of the rst four natural frequencies which can be calculated by FE program are
8.7606 Hz, 33.911 Hz, 76.507 Hz and 133.1 Hz.
4.1.1. DOE points and responses
Let the range of the design parameters be 50%, i.e. the minimum and maximum Young's modulus of the DOE points are
respectively 15 GPa and 45 GPa. For traditional RSM, DOE points in Table 1 are obtained by CCD and FEA. In Table 1, Young's
modulus of Element 3, 8 and 9 are represented by x1, x2 and x3, and the rst four frequencies are represented by y1, y2, y3
and y4.
For traditional RSM, all DOE points in Table 1 are used for FE model updating; but for SSM, only Point 1 and 3 are used as
original DOE points, and other necessary data will be determined by each step of the point selection process.
4.1.2. Steps with SSM
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Let x(1) (30, 30, 30)T GPa, x (15, 15, 15)T GPa, and allowable error range * 0.01%.
Run FE program, so y(1) (8.7104, 34.652, 77.284, 135.8)T Hz, (1) 1.45%.
Let x(2) (45, 30, 30)T GPa.
Run FE program, so y(2) (8.7597, 35.233, 79.019, 138.19)T Hz, (2) 2.754%.
Linear equations of yk (k1, 2, 3, 4) with respect to x1 are as Eqs. (14)(17).
y1 8:6118 0:003287x1

14

y2 33:49 0:038733x1

15
6m

0.2 m

10 11 12 13 14 15
0.2 m

Fig. 2. A simply supported beam.

326

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

Table 1
DOE points and responses.
No.

x1 (GPa)

x2 (GPa)

x3 (GPa)

y1 (Hz)

y2 (Hz)

y3 (Hz)

y4 (Hz)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

30
15
45
30
30
30
30
17.8
42.2
17.8
42.2
17.8
42.2
17.8
42.2

30
30
30
15
45
30
30
17.8
17.8
42.2
42.2
17.8
17.8
42.2
42.2

30
30
30
30
30
15
45
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
42.2
42.2
42.2
42.2

8.7104
8.5658
8.7597
8.1843
8.9092
8.2046
8.9003
7.9484
8.0584
8.4139
8.5453
8.3916
8.5231
8.9434
9.1043

34.652
33.066
35.233
34.593
34.671
34.273
34.797
33.206
34.854
33.257
34.919
33.639
35.231
33.700
35.291

77.284
73.246
79.019
73.246
79.025
74.480
78.443
70.293
74.174
73.794
77.823
72.178
76.574
76.764
81.550

135.80
131.05
138.19
134.96
136.08
131.87
137.59
128.58
134.45
129.34
135.41
133.28
138.69
134.23
139.53

Table 2
Comparison of results using SSM and traditional RSM.

(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)

Characteristic parameters

Target

RSM

SSM

y1 (Hz)
y2 (Hz)
y3 (Hz)
y4 (Hz)
Average error
Computational cost (Nc)

8.7606
33.911
76.507
133.1

8.7906
33.982
76.916
133.32
0.31%
16

8.7596
33.915
76.514
133.1
0.0093%
9

y3 73:814 0:11567x1

16

y4 131:02 0:15933x1

17

Get x1 16.386 GPa by LSM, so x(3) (16.386, 30, 30)T GPa.

Run FE program, so y(3) (8.59, 33.318, 73.826, 131.68)T Hz, (3) 2.07%.
Compared (1) with (2) and (3), the 1st DOE point has minimum error, so use x1 30 GPa to proceed.
Let x(4) (30, 45, 30)T GPa.
y(4) (8.9092, 34.671, 79.025, 136.08)T Hz, (4) 2.37%.
Fit linear equations of yk (k 1, 2, 3, 4) with respect to x2 with the 1st and 4th DOE points (specic equations are not
shown here).
Get x2 19.94 GPa by LSM, so x(5) (30, 19.94, 30)T GPa.
y(5) (8.4329, 34.622, 75.057, 135.38)T Hz, (5) 2.36%.
Compared (1) with (4) and (5), the 1st DOE point has minimum error, so use x2 30 GPa to proceed.
x(6) (30, 30, 45)T GPa.
y(6) (8.9003, 34.797, 78.443, 137.59)T Hz, (6) 2.53%.
Fit linear equations of yk (k 1, 2, 3, 4) with respect to x3 with the 1st and 6th DOE points (specic equations are not
shown here).
(1)
Get x3 11.013 GPa by LSM. Because x3 o x3  x3 15 GPa, let x(7) (30, 30, 15)T GPa.
(7)
T
(7)
y (8.2046, 34.273, 74.48, 131.87) Hz, 2.747%.
Fit a quadratic RS without mixed terms with the 1st to 7th DOE points, so the RS functions are as Eqs. (18)(21).
y1 5:6189 0:06531x1 0:01917x2 0:0678x3  0:0007x21  0:000212x22  0:000727x23

18

y2 29:325 0:04867x1 0:20623x2 0:007933x3  0:00052x21  0:00223x22 0:00009x23

19

y3 49:279 0:3514x1 0:4995x2 0:4989x3 0:003656x21  0:005118x22  0:005104x23

20

y4 111:7 0:476x1 0:5527x2 0:112x3 0:004756x21  0:00524x22 0:00124x23

21

(21) Get x(8) (21.904, 42.418, 26.478)T GPa by LSM.

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

327

Table 3
Comparison of results using SSM (only 1st stage) and RSM without mixed terms.
Characteristic parameters

Target

RSM without mixed terms

SSM (only 1st stage)

y1 (Hz)
y2 (Hz)
y3 (Hz)
y4 (Hz)
Average error
Computational cost (Nc)

8.7606
33.911
76.507
133.1

8.7452
34.022
76.652
133.32
0.21%
8

8.7516
33.996
76.632
133.28
0.16%
8

Fig. 3. Brake disc FE model.

(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)

y(8) (8.7516, 33.996, 76.632, 133.28)T Hz, (8) 0.16%.

The 2nd DOE point has the maximum among all point, so remove the 2nd DOE point and t a new RS.
Get x(9) (21.057, 43.023, 26.92)T GPa by LSM.
y(9) (8.7596, 33.915, 76.514, 133.1)T Hz, (9) 0.0093%.
End solving due to (9) o*. Therefore, the updated values of x1, x2 and x3 are 21.057 GPa, 43.023 GPa and 26.92 GPa
respectively, and the computational cost is Nc 9.

4.1.3. Comparison of results using different methods

The comparison of results using SSM and traditional RSM is shown in Table 2. The results in Table 2 demonstrate that
compared with traditional RSM, SSM not only signicantly improves the accuracy of FE model updating but also remarkably
reduces the computational cost.
In order to verify the effectiveness of SSM point selection in the rst stage, the 1st to 7th DOE points (i.e. 2n 1 axialpoint design) in Table 1 are utilized to t a quadratic RS without mixed terms. Thus, we have the updated values of x1, x2
and x3 of 22.221 GPa, 42.184 GPa and 26.184 GPa respectively, and the corresponding rst four natural frequencies are
8.7452 Hz, 34.022 Hz, 76.652 Hz and 133.32 Hz. These results are compared with the rst stage results of SSM (i.e. the 8th
DOE point) in Table 3, which demonstrates that even the rst stage point selection of SSM can effectively improve the
accuracy of FE model updating.
4.2. Brake disc
To illustrate the proposed SSM, a practical example of a vehicle brake disc is presented here. An FE model is built using
commercial FEA software. The FE model has 105427 second-order tetrahedral elements and the number of degrees of
freedom is 502191, as shown in Fig. 1. The material of the brake disc is steel, and its density and Young's modulus, provided
by the brake disc manufacturer, are respectively 7200 kg/m3 and 122 GPa. Modal analysis is conducted under free-free
condition, and the rst four natural frequencies are 1134 Hz, 2051 Hz, 2558 Hz and 2645 Hz, while the modes having similar
mode shapes and same frequencies are ignored (Fig. 3).
In modal test, the brake disc is constraint by three soft rubbers as shown in Fig. 4, which makes the frequencies of rigid
body modes lower than 10 Hz. So the boundary condition can be considered as free-free. With a frequency resolution of
1 Hz, the rst four measured natural frequencies are: 1093 Hz, 2053 Hz, 2443 Hz and 2550 Hz.
Initially, the differences between FEA and test are 3.8%,  0.1%, 4.7% and 3.7%. These differences may result from coarse FE
model, inaccurate material properties, problematic production process, or experimental error. In this paper the example of
brake disc is to demonstrate the effectiveness and efciency of the proposed SSM, instead of obtaining the real and precise
material properties or FE model. Therefore, for further comparison of SSM and traditional RSM using practical test data as
reference, density and Young's modulus E are chosen as the design parameters to be updated while the rst four natural
frequencies f1, f2, f3 and f4 as characteristic parameters. And the target of the total error is set to be t o2%.

328

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

Fig. 4. Test photo of brake disc.

Fig. 5. FE-1st mode shape.

4.2.1. FE and Test results of mode shapes

FE results of mode shapes of the rst four modes are shown in Figs. 5, 7, 9 and 11, while the test results are shown in
Figs. 6, 8, 10 and 12.
4.2.2. FE model updating using RSM
Let the range of the design parameters be 20%, i.e. the minimum and maximum density of the DOE points are respectively 5760 kg/m3 and 8640 kg/m3. For traditional RSM, DOE points in Table 4 are obtained by CCD and FEA.
Based on the DOE points in Table 1, updated values of design parameters calculated by RSM are respectively  11412 kg/
m3 and 198 GPa. Obviously, both density and Young's modulus cannot be negative values. It means this FE model updating
leads to a numerical problem.
In this case, the second natural frequency of FE results is smaller than that of test results, but the other three natural
frequencies are exactly the reverse, so the conict leads to this numerical problem. For most cases of engineering problems,
due to the test error and the production variation, it is hardly possible to obtain test results (characteristic parameters)
which are fully consistent with FE results after updated.
Therefore, using traditional RSM to update FE model for engineering problems may easily lead to numerical problems.
4.2.3. FE model updating using SSM
Because initially most FE results are larger than test results, it is useful to increase the density or decrease the Young's
modulus to improve the updating efciency. At the beginning, density is increase by 20% in order to estimate the updated
value. After running FE program, we have two DOE points No. 1 No. 2 in Table 5. Then the following four linear equations
(Eq. (22) to Eq. (25)) of fk (k 1, 2, 3, 4) with respect to are calculated by SSM.
f 1 1629  0:06875

22

f 2 2946  0:1243

23

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

Fig. 6. Test-1st mode shape.

Fig. 7. FE 2nd mode shape.

Fig. 8. Test 2nd mode shape.

329

330

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

Fig. 9. FE 3rd mode shape.

Fig. 10. Test 3rd mode shape.

Fig. 11. FE 4th mode shape.

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

331

Fig. 12. Test 4th mode shape.

Table 4
DOE points, responses and total error by RSM.
No.

(kg/m3)

E (GPa)

f1 (Hz)

f2 (Hz)

f3 (Hz)

f4 (Hz)

t (%)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

7200
5760
8640
7200
7200
6182
8218
6182
8218

122
122
122
98
146
105
105
139
139

1134
1268
1035
1014
1242
1134
983
1307
1134

2051
2293
1872
1835
2247
2051
1779
2365
2051

2558
2859
2335
2288
2802
2558
2218
2949
2558

2645
2957
2414
2366
2897
2645
2294
3049
2645

3.06
18.53
7.28
9.60
15.69
4.05
14.14
24.91
4.05

Table 5
DOE points, responses and total error by SSM.
No.

(kg/m3)

E (GPa)

f1 (Hz)

f2 (Hz)

f3 (Hz)

f4 (Hz)

t (%)

1
2
3
4
5

7200
8640
7710
7710
7710

122
122
122
97.6
123

1134
1035
1096
980
1100

2051
1872
1982
1773
1990

2558
2335
2472
2211
2482

2645
2414
2556
2286
2566

3.06
7.28
1.38
14.36
1.61

f 3 3673 0:1549

24

f 4 3800 0:1604

25

Let the weighting factors w1 w2 w3 w4 1, so the density estimation is 7710 kg/m3. Among DOE points No. 1  No. 3,
the 3rd DOE point has minimum total error, so use 7710 kg/m3 to further estimate the updated value of Young's modulus.
Based on DOE points No. 3 No. 4, the Young's modulus estimation, 123 GPa, can be obtained by SSM.
Among DOE points No. 1  No. 5, the 3rd DOE point has minimum total error t 1.38% which is smaller than target value
2%, so solution end. The computational cost is Nc 5.

332

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

Fig. 13. 2D slice of response surface.

4.2.4. Conclusions of the results

In this example, the computational cost of RSM is Nc 9 while that of SSM is Nc 5. And the minimum total error of RSM
is t 3.06% while that of SSM is t 1.38%. Therefore, SSM not only reduces the computational cost but also improves the
accuracy of FE model updating.
For engineering problems, traditional RSM is not an effective way to update FE model due to practical conditions.
However, unlike RSM, SSM makes DOE points closer to the target point after every FE run, so the probability of encountering
numerical problem is lower. This brake disc example shows that SSM can effectively complete model updating.
A 2D slice of the actual RS in this example is shown in Fig. 13. It indicates that the linearity between the rst natural
frequency and Young's Modulus or density is high. Therefore, a more complicated example should be introduced in
further study.

5. Conclusions
The examples illustrate that the proposed Successive Selection Method (SSM) can be effectively applied to Finite Element
model updating.
Compared with the traditional response surface method, the proposed method signicantly increases the accuracy and
computational speed of model updating, which is an advantage for practical engineering problems.
From the procedure of SSM, it is possible that the accuracy of model updating obtained after the rst stage of point
selection will not be sufcient because only two DOE points are used to t a linear RS function. But the results in Table 3
shows that the rst stage of SSM makes DOE points closer to the target, when compared with RSM without mixed terms,
and thereby ts the RS more accurately than the traditional 2n 1 axial-point design.

References
[1] J.E. Mottershead, M.I. Friswell, Model updating in structural dynamics: a survey, J. Sound. Vib. 167 (2) (1993) 347375.
[2] G.E.P. Box, N.R. Draper, Empirical Model Building and Response Surfaces, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1987.
[3] R.H. Myers, D.C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, second ed. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 2002.
[4] T. Marwala, Finite element model updating using response surface method Collection Tech. papersAIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC, structures, structural
dynamics and materials conference, 7, 2004, pp. 51655173.
[5] L. Deng, C.S. Cai, Bridge model updating using response surface method and genetic algorithm, J. Bridge Eng. 15 (5) (2010) 553564.
[6] W.X. Ren, S.E. Fang, M.Y. Deng, Response surface-based nite-element-model updating using structural static responses, J. Eng. Mech. 137 (4) (2011)
248257.
[7] S.G. Shahidi, S.N. Pakzad, Generalized response surface model updating using time domain data, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (8) .
[8] C.G. Bucher, U. Bourgund, A Fast and efcient response surface approach for structural reliability problems, Struct. Saf. 7 (1) (1990) 5766.
[9] S.H. Kim, S.W. Na, Response surface method using vector projected sampling points, Struct. Saf. 19 (1997) 319.
[10] S.M. Wong, R.E. Hobbs, C. Onof, An adaptive response surface method for reliability analysis of structures with multiple loading sequences, Struct. Saf.
27 (2005) 287308.
[11] I. Kaymaz, C.A. McMahon, A response surface method based on weighted regression for structural reliability analysis, Probab. Eng. Mech. 20 (2005)
1117.
[12] X.S. Nguyen, A. Sellier, F. Duprat, G. Pons, Adaptive response surface method based on a double weighted regression technique, Probab. Eng. Mech. 24
(2) (2009) 135143.

B. Gou et al. / Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 70-71 (2016) 320333

333

[13] S. Gupta, C.S. Manohar, An improved response surface method for the determination of failure probability and importance measures, Struct. Saf. 26
(2004) 123139.
[14] D.L. Allaix, V.I. Carbone, An improvement of the response surface method, Struct. Saf. 33 (2) (2011) 165172.
[15] D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1991.