Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6



Lars Aigner
Volvo Car Corporation
Complete Vehicle
Dept: 98255, PV4A2
S-405 08 Gothenburg

ABSTRACT MACw modal assurance criteria with a weighting matrix

Mi i1h mass in the mass-spring system
Clearly modal vectors are orthogonal over the mass matrix,
Ki i1h stiffness in the mass-spring system
assuming proportional damping. Two identical modal vectors
(mass normalized) yield a unity value, two orthogonal modal ['mr,] diagonal matrix with modal/effective mass
vectors yield a zero value. ['kr,] diagonal matrix with modal/effective stiffness
x,y,z translational degrees of freedom/coordinates
The modal assurance criteria (MAC) value for two orthogonal
modal vectors will generally not be zero. However if the mass 8,, 8y, 8z rotational degrees of freedom/coordinates
(or stiffness) matrix is introduced as weighting matrix when m mass per unit length of beam
defining the modal assurance criteria the value will be zero. L length of beam

Very often the selected points for a set of modal vectors are 1. INTRODUCTION
evenly spread over the structure and they represent nearly
the same amount of mass. Hence the diagonal elements of The modal assurance criteria (MAC) was first presented in
the mass matrix are nearly equal and the MAC value will be 1980 [1] by Allemang and Brown. In general it measures the
low for two orthogonal modal vectors. degree of proportion between two modal vectors in the form
of a correlation coefficient. MAC is defined in equation 1.
However how sensitive is the MAC value between two ortho-
gonal modal vectors if the diagonal elements in the mass ma-
trix are unequal?

This paper will investigate the impact of a mass matrix with

unequal diagonal elements on the MAC value for two orthog-
onal modal vectors. First for a mass-spring system and then
for a beam with non-uniform property distribution. Simple ru- If {'If} r and {\If} s are estimates from the ~ physical
les of thumb on how to overcome the matter will be shown. mode shape the MAC value should be close to un1ty. If {\If} r
and {\II} s are estimates of different physical mode shape the
NOMENCLATURE MAC value should be low [2][3]. This last statement is based
{'If} r r1h mode shape/ eigenvector on the orthogonality condition of mode shapes where the mo-
{\If} ext extended mode shape/ eigenvector dal vectors taken over the mass/stiffness matrix will yield zero
value if the modal vectors are orthogonal, see equation 2 be-
{\If} *
complex conjugate and transponate
\If IJ i1h mode shape, j:th coordinate location
[ 't'] mode shape/ eigenvector matrix ['I'] t [M] ['I'] = ['mr,]
[M] system mass matrix
['I'] t [K] ['I'] = ['kr,] (2)
[K] system stiffness matrix
[W] weighting matrix
MAC modal assurance criteria

Therefore if the mass (or stiffness) matrix is introduced as a 2.1 Mass matrix with equal masses
weighting matrix into the definition of the MAC value as in
equation 3, the MAC value will be zero. Assume that all masses have the same weight: M1, ..... ,Ms =
2kg. The stiffness of the springs are also the same: K1, ..... ,Ks
= 1 N/m. This will yield the following mass and stiffness matri-

2 0 0 0 0 2 -1 0 0 0
If the measured or calculated points represent equal amount 0 2 0 0 0 -1 2 -1 0 0
of mass the mass matrix will be proportional to an identity ma- [M] [K]= 0 -1
0 0 2 0 0 2 -1 0
trix and the definition of MAC with the weighting matrix will be
identical with the correct definition given in equation 1. Hence 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 -1 2 -1
for two orthogonal modal vectors the MAC value will be zero. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 -1 2
However if the points do not represent equal amount of mass
the mass matrix will not be proportional to an identity matrix
and the MAC value will not be zero even if the two modal vec- The result from calculation of MAC matrix and modal mass
tors are orthogonal. matrix is given below;

A matter of interest is if two modal vectors are compared and

give values in between zero and unity. Are the vectors linear
but with some error. Or are they orthogonal but with selected 1 0 0 0 0 20000
points that yield a non zero MAC value? 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
MAC = o0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
2. MAC versus mass orthogonality for simple mass-
spring model. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0
00 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
A mass-spring system with 5 degrees of freedom will be used
to simply show the use of MAC and mass orthogonality. The
Since the correlation is carried out with the~ set of modal
system used is shown in figure 1. Two cases will be covered.
vectors the MAC values on the diagonal will be a correlation
In the first case all masses: M1, ... ,M 5 have equal amount of
between identical modal vectors, with bascially no pratical
mass and hence the mass matrix will have equal elements
use. The off-diagonal values will be between different and ort-
along diagonal. In the second case M1 has increased weight.
hogonal modal vectors. It is clearly seen that all off-diagonal
For both examples the mass and stiffness matrix are shown.
terms in the MAC matrix are zero. The modal mass matrix
The system eigenvalues and eigenvectors were solved using
shows twos on the diagonal which is the modal mass for each
MA TLAB c with mass and stiffness matrices as input. By cal-
of the five modes. The off-diagonal terms in the modal mass
cu-lating MAC values, according to equation 1, for all combi-
matrix are of course zero.
nations of modal vectors a MAC matrix is achieved. The
modal mass matrix is calculated according to equation 2.
2.2 Mass matrix with unequal masses

In this second case the system will be modfied to achieve a

non-uniform mass matrix. Let one of the masses have a hig-
her weight, M1= 10 kg. i.e. increased with a factor of five. The
mass and stiffness matrices are then as follows;


10 0 0 0 0 2 -1 0 0 0
Figure 1: Mass-spring model with 5 degrees of freedom. 0 2 0 0 0 -1 2 -1 0 0
[M] 0 0 2 0 0 [K]= 0 -1 2 -1 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 -1 2 -1
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 -1 2

The result from calculation of MAC matrix and modal mass

matrix is given below;

3. MAC and mass orthogonality for a beam with non-uni-
3,60 0 0 0 0 form properties
t 0 2,79 0 0 0
['1'] [M] ['1'] 0 0 2, 12 0 0 A beam with non-uniform properties is investigated for in-pla-
0 0 0 2,03 0 ne flexural modes. The beam is an Euler-Bernoulli beam with
0 0 0 rectangular cross-section and free boundary conditions. The
0 2,00
beam is divided into 100 linear finite elements (4], i.e. 101 no-
des, equally spaced,with 2 dofs (z, 8 ). This gives a mass and
The modal mass matrix will still have off-diagonal terms that stiffness matrix of size 202 *202. Al in the previous example
are zero. The modal masses on the diagonal have changed with the mass-spring system MATLAB c is used to calculate
values which reflect the new system. eigenvalues and eigenvectors. For the calculation of MAC
only translational degrees of freedom are used, the rotational
degrees of freedom are not included.

0, 32 0, 05 0, 01 0 In the first example the mass per unit length of the material is
0,32 1 0, 02 0, 01 0 varied, this only affect the mass matrix and not the stiffness
MAC= 0,05 0,02 1 0 0 matrix for the beam. In the second example the cross-section
0,01 0,01 0 0 height is varied, this affect both the mass and stiffness matrix
0 for the beam. The variation is carried out in two dimensions;
0 0 0 1
variable ratio of mass/height as a function of the beam length.
The MAC values for all configurations is calculated for the first
three modes.
For the MAC matrix the off-diagonal terms are ll.Q1 zero as in
the previous case with a mass matrix with equal diagonal The considered beam has the following basic input data:
terms. It is seen that the highest value for these terms is 0.32 Youngs modulus= 210 GPa, density=7800 kg/m 3 , thickness=
and is between the two lowest modes: mode 1 and 2. 2 mm and length = 1meter.

Further calculation of MAC values for just mode 1 and 2 is 3.1 A beam with non-uniform mass-distribution
carried out on the mass-spring model. The weight of mass M1
is continuously varied between 2 kg and 20 kg, i.e. by a factor In the first example the ratio of the mass per unit length:m2/
of 1 to 10. The result is given in figure 2. It is seen that the m1 of the beam is varied as a function of beam length, see fi-
MAC value is zero at factor 1 (M 1 =2kg) ) which is the case gure 3. The initial mass per unit length of the beam is m 1 . The
where all masses in the system have equal weight. As the mass per unit length m2(x) is a factor of 1 to 10 greater than
weight of mass M 1 increases the MAC value will deviate from m 1 and will cover a certain percentage part of the beam
zero and gradually increase. At a factor of 5 (M 1=10kg) the length: x in the range 0% to 100%. The stiffness of the cross-
MAC value is 0.32 as calculated in the previous example. At section is kept constant.
a factor of 10 the MAC value is 0.5

m 1 (l-x)
0 45

0 4
I ~X
(/) 0 35 L
"0 03 ... 1. .
E 0 25

E 02
Figure 3: Beam with non-uniform mass distribution.
::J 0 15
./ . . . . . . . . 1. . .

0 1
> The MAC values between mode 1 and 2, i.e. the first and se-
() 05
cond free bending modes, is given in figure 4. It is seen that
~ 0
1 the MAC value will in general increase for increased mass ra-

tio. The increase of MAC value is however emphasized aro-

und configurations when 30% and 90% of the beam length
has increased mass per unit length. At the most a MAC value
Figure 2: MAC value for mode 1 versus mode 2 as a function of 0.6 is obtained.
of weight for the first mass in the ratio range 1 to 10.
Note along the plot edges where variable x (percentage part
of the beam) is 0% or 100% and along the plot edge where
the mass per unit length ratio is 1. The MAC values along the-

se plot edges are zero since these configurations represent 3.2 A beam with non-uniform cross-section
beams that have uniform mass distribution.
In this second example the beam cross-section is varied as
Figure 5 shows MAC values between modes 1 and 3 and fi- function of beam length, see figure 7. Both the mass and stiff-
gure 6 between modes 2 and 3.The increase of MAC value is ness matrix are now affected compared to the previous case,
somewhat less than between modes 1 and 2 in figure 4 and where a beam with non-uniform mass distribution only affects
mostly at the configuration when 90% of the beam has in- the mass matrix.
creased mass per unit length.
In this example the ratio of the height: h1/h 2 of the beam is va-
ried as a function of beam length, see figure 7. The initial
height of the beam is 2 mm. The height: h2 is a factor of 1 to
10 greater than h1 and will cover a certain percentage part of
the beam length: x in the range 0% to 100%.

h 1 (L-x)

I .. X
mass per unit l&ngth ratio[-)
1 ... ~I
p9rcentage part of the beoam [%]

Figure 4: MAC value for mode 1 and 2 as function of mass per Figure 7: Beam with non-uniform cross-section
unit length ratio and percentage part of the beam length
The mass matrices in the examples are identical: a beam with
non-uniform height and, as in previous example, non-uniform
mass ratio for a given parameter of property ratio (mass/
height) and percentage part of beam The stiffness matrices
will only be identical for property ratio equal one, as the ratio
increases the stiffness matrix for a beam with non-uniform
height will deviate.

The MAC values between modes 1,2 and 3 respectively are

given in figures 8-10. Comparison with the previous example,
shows the same tendency; as the property (height) increases
the MAC value will increase, especially as before around 30%
mass per unit l9ngth ratio[-]
pere9ntage part of the beam (%]
and 90% of beam length. However the shapes of the surfaces
are different.
Figure 5: MAC value for mode 1 and 3 as function of mass per
unit length ratio and percentage part of the beam length


nass per unn l101ngth ratto [-) 0 0

~rcentage part of the ~am (%) height rat1o (-] percentage part of the beam (%)

Figure 6: MAC value for mode 2 and 3 as function of mass per Figure 8: MAC value for mode 1 and 2 as function of height
unit length ratio and percentage part of the beam length ratio and percentage part of the beam length

1'~'*11 'I' 21 + '1'*12 'I' 22 + ... + '1'*15 'I' 251

( {ljl} ~ {ljl} J {ljl} ~ {ljl} 2)

Equation 4 will not be zero since the mass matrix does lli21
have equal diagonal masses. If a weighting matrix is introdu-
ced which is similar to the mass matrix a zero value will be ac-
hieved independent of the ratio between the diagonal

perc~ntage pan of the beam (%1

Figure 9: MAC value for mode 1 and 3 as function of height '1'21
ratio and percentage part of the beam length
['~'*11 '1'*12 '1'*13 '1'*14 '1'*15] [MJ '~'23

'I' 22
'I' 23

M55 '1'25
Figure 10: MAC value for mode 2 and 3 as function of height
ratio and percentage part of the beam length

4. Extension of the modal vector

In this section it will be shown that if the coordinates of the l'~'*11 M11 'I' 21 + 'I'*12M22'~'22 + + 'I'*15M55'~'251 (5)
system are selected in a certain way a zero MAC value will be ( {ljl}*~ {lji}J {ljl}*~ {lj/}2)
obtained between two orthogonal modal vectors. This even if
the mass matrix has unequal masses associated to the selec-
ted coordinates. If all masses equal M, the following expression is then obtai-
In the following equations a closer look at the calculation of
MAC will be taken. As an example the first system in section
2 with 5 degrees of freedom will be used. Assume that M 1 is 2 2
a factor of four in relation to the other masses: M2 ... M5 . The
M / ('-* 11 '" 21 + '"* 12'- 22 + + '"* 15'- 25) /
0 (6)
MAC value between the first two (orthogonal) modes 1 and 2 ( {\V}*~ {o/}1)( {\V}*~ {o/}2)
can written as in equation 4;

Disregarding the mass M in the numerator equation 6 is iden-

2 tical to equation 4 and hence to the definition of MAC. It is
shown that the MAC value is zero for two orthogonal modes
if the selected points represent a mass matrix with uniform
['~'11 '1'*12 '1'13 '1'*14 '1'1s] '~'23 masses on the diagonal.
In this example the mass matrix does not have equal masses
c( ! lj/1 l l lj/2 l ) = '--.,---------,-).,-----___:~...=..!
<A A along the diagonal. However the values are known, M 11 =
( {ljl}*~ {ljl} 1 ( {ljl}*~ {lj/}2) 4*M. Equation 5 would then have the following expression;

4. Concluding remarks
_ M 1( 4 ( '* 11 ' 21) + '* 12' 22 + . + '* 15' 25 t
- ({IV} i {IV},)( {IV}~ {IV} 2)
It has been shown that if MAC is calculated from two modal
vectors that are orthogonal the value could deviate greatly
from zero. This is so if the mass matrix exhibits large ratio dif-
ferences along the diagonal in conjunction with certain geo-
metry of the structure.

If two sets of modal vectors are to be compared it is clear that

the mass matrix should be used. However for some problems
In equation 7 the product ('-* 11 '- 21 ) appears 4 times. The the mass matrix is not available. If MAC is used it is preferable
other products; ('-* 12 '- 22 + ... + '-* 15 '- 25 ) appear only on- to have as low MAC values as possible for orthogonal modes.
ce. The equation is compareable to equation 6. This will avoid confusion with the MAC values for modal vec-
tors that are almost identical.
Hence by extending the modal coordinates in proportion to
the physical mass at the coordinate location a zero MAC va- A way to do this is to select the coordinates on the structure
lue can be achieved. I.e specific for our example: if the 1:st in such a way that they represent equal amount of mass. If the
coordinate in the original modal vector is repeated 4 times (re- modal information is obtained through experimental modal
measured/copied), see equation 8, a new modal vector is ob- analysis then either select the points closer at areas that have
tained that will give zero MAC value for all orthogonal modes, great mass or just copy/remeasure the frequency response
see equation 9. function at the point.

5. References

(8) [1) Allemang R.J and Brown, "A Correlation Coefficient for
Modal Vector Analysis", Proceedings 1st IMAC, pp 110-116,

(9) [2) Heylen W, Lammens S, Sas P, "Modal Analysis Theory

and Testing", Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Dept of Mech
Eng Celestijnenlaan 300B B-3001 Leuven Belgium, ISBN 90-
73802-46-6, page A.4.3, July 1995.
Below in figure 11 the MAC values for extended modal vec-
tors 1 and 2 is shown. The modal coordinates have been re- [3) Ewins D.J. "Modal Testing: Theory and Pratice", Research
peated in proportion to the mass ratio at each modal Studies Press Ltd, pp 224- 226, 1986
coordinate. It is seen that the MAC value is zero for all confi-
gurations of the beam The beam with non-uniform cross-sec- [ 4] Michel Lalanne, Patrick Berthier Johan Der Hagopian
tion is used, compare figure 11 with figure 8. "Mechanical Vibrations for Engineers", John Wiley and Sons
Ltd. page 153, 1983.


<'<I 0.5
E 0.4
~E 0.2

height ratio(-) 0 0
percentage part of the beam {%)

Figure 11: MAC value for mode 1 and 2 for the case when the
modal vectors is extended.