Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3724–3730

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Finite element model updating: Multiple alternatives

Boris A. Zárate, Juan M. Caicedo ∗
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Carolina, 300 Main, Columbia, SC 29208, United States

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper focuses on the model updating of complex structural systems. Traditional model updating
Received 22 January 2008 techniques optimize an objective function to calculate one single optimal model that behaves similarly
Received in revised form to the real structure and represents the physical characteristics of the structure. One can argue that
17 June 2008
due to numerical and identification errors, and the limited number of sensors in structures, a local
Accepted 18 June 2008
Available online 26 July 2008
minimum rather than the global minimum could be a better representation of the physical properties
of the structure. The methodology proposed in this paper identifies physically different local minima,
Keywords:
giving the analyst the power to decide what model would better describe the system base on his/her
Model updating experience and engineering judgment. Two examples are used in the paper to explore the capabilities
Modeling to generate alternatives of the technique. First, a simple numerical example is used to demonstrate the existence and correct
Modal identification identification of local minima in a model updating objective function. The second problem identifies
model updating alternatives for a finite element model of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge. Acceleration
records from the bridge’s permanent instrumentation are used to update the model.
© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Accuratefinite element models are needed for a large num-
ber of applications such as validating innovative structural
designs, evaluating the effects of earthquake or strong winds on
in-service structures, and the implementation of structural con-
trol and structural health monitoring strategies. The accurate rep-
resentation of the structure depends on the type of finite ele-
ment model used to represent the structural members, and on the
properties (e.g. elasticity modulus, moment of inertia) assigned to
these elements. Significant differences between the dynamic be-
havior of a finite element model before updating and the corre-
sponding real structure are common. Zhang [1] reported differ-
ences of up to 17.4% between the experimental natural frequen-
cies and those of an initial finite element model of the Kap Shui
Mun cable-stayed bridge. Similarly, Brownjohn et al. [2] found dif-
ferences of up to 23% between the experimental dynamic charac-
teristics and those of a finite element model of the Pioneer Bridge
in Western Singapore. Brownjohn and Xia [3] showed significant
differences between the experimental and numerical modal char-
acteristics of a curved cable-stayed bridge before updating, while
Jaishi and Ren [4] reported large differences on a steel arch bridge.
Modeling of relatively simpler structures, such as the case of a plate
test structure, also produced differences between the experimen-
tal values and a raw finite element model of up to 12% in the natural
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 803 777 1925; fax: +1 803 777 0670.
E-mail address: caicedo@engr.sc.edu (J.M. Caicedo).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.06.012
frequencies and Modal Assurance Criteria (MAC) values of 73% [5].
These differences can be caused by assumptions made in the de-
velopment of the finite element model and uncertainties in ge-
ometry, material properties or boundary conditions. In order to
reduce these discrepancies, the numerical model should be cali-
brated based on information from the real structure [6].
Many model updating techniques have been tested and
published. Most techniques are based on the minimization of
structural parameters to minimize an error function between
the measured and numerical responses. The success of these
methodologies depends on having a meaningful error function,
an appropriated numerical model, an accurate identification of
the experimental parameters and using an effective optimization
algorithm to find the global minimum of this function. This paper
focuses on the optimization algorithm. Given that the number of
variables used for the updating process is usually larger than the
number of equations available, and that there are several uncertain
parameters that are not considered in the updating process, more
than one good solution may exist. The aim of the proposed method
is to create a set of models that hold similar dynamic characteristics
but are physically different. Depending upon the final use the
analyst then makes a decision, based on his/her experience, to
select one or many models for subsequent analysis.
The proposed methodology is based on Modeling to Generate
Alternatives (MGA). MGA was developed with the goal of provid-
ing solutions to complex, incomplete problems by coupling the
computational power of computers and human intelligence [7,8].
MGA creates several possible good solutions for a problem by elim-
inating bad alternatives using a mathematical model. These so-
lutions are designed to be as different physically as possible but
 B.A. Zárate, J.M. Caicedo / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3724–3730 3725

provide a similar outcome to the problem. MGA has been previ- Bayesian spectral-density approach, and Yang et al. [29] applied a
ously applied to forest level planning [9,10], the seismic design and technique to decompose the signal into the frequency domain, and
evaluation supports for pipes [11], structural optimization [12], air then calculated the natural frequencies and damping ratios.
quality management problems [13], airline route design [14] and Identification algorithms such as the Eigensystem Realization
the design of wastewater-treatment plants [15]. In addition, a sim- Algorithm (ERA) [30,31], and the Prediction Error Method Through
ilar methodology was used in [16], where genetic algorithms were Least Squares [32] are based on common assumptions: (i)
used to create different alternatives for policy design. Here, MGA the structure or system behaves linearly, (ii) the structure is
is used to provide solutions for the model updating of the cable- time invariant, and (iii) the input loads are a realization of a
stayed bridge. In particular a nonlinear variation of the Hop, Skip Gaussian white noise stochastic process uncorrelated with the
and Jump method (HSJ) proposed by Brill et al. [7] and used for a system response [33]. Subspace identification algorithms have
land use planning problem is used in this paper. the same assumption and obtain a state space representation
Both a numerical and an experimental example are included
of the system as the outcome of the identification procedure.
here to explore the capabilities of the methodology. A simple
Natural frequencies, mode shapes and damping rations can
numerical example, where two variables are updated, is used to
then be calculated from the identified system matrices. In this
validate the successful identification of local and global minima in
paper stochastic subspace identification (SSI) is used. A common
the objective function, while acceleration records from the cable-
mathematical background for subspace algorithms for linear
stayed Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge are used to investigate the
systems is presented by Overschee and De Moor [34]. The
capabilities of the proposed methodology in a real structure. A
algorithm is called Stochastic Subspace Identification (SSI) when
numerical model of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge previously
used for structural control [17,18] and later used for structural the input of the system is stochastic and cannot be measured.
health monitoring studies [19] is updated based on acceleration This methodology has gained popularity among researchers in
records from the bridge’s permanent instrumentation system [20]. the last few years due to its relatively simple application. Giraldo
et al. [35] compared the SSI with other output only identification
methodologies, finding that the SSI performs as well as or better
2. Modal identification
than other well known algorithms and requires fewer parameters
In order to obtain a dynamically realistic numerical model of a and less experience to set up. Consider a time-invariant system
structure, it is necessary to: (i) identify the dynamic characteristics described by the equations
of the real structure (e.g. natural frequencies, mode shapes and z (k + 1) = Az (k) + Bu (k) (1)
damping ratios) and (ii) develop a numerical model that can
emulate that dynamic behavior [21]. The first issue is part of what y (k) = Cz (k) + Du (k) (2)
is known as modal identification.
where the matrices A, B, C and D are the system matrices, y is the
Modal identification can be performed based on different types
vector of outputs, u is the vector of inputs and z is the state vector
of test, including: (i) forced vibration, (ii) free vibration, and
at the k-th step. The SSI identifies the system matrices A and C
(iii) ambient vibration tests. Typically, forced vibration and free
from which modal parameters can be calculated. This methodology
vibration tests are difficult to perform in full-scale civil structures
requires the creation of the block Hankel matrix
under normal operation because they are large systems where
external loads are difficult to control and measure. Furthermore,  y (0) y (1) ··· y (p − 1) 
the use of known excitation methods requires the temporary
y (1) y (2) ··· y (p)
closing of the structure while tests are performed, significantly .. ..
..
 
.
 
increasing the cost related with each test. The current state of  . . 
Y0:q−1
 
 y (q − 1) y (i) y (q + p − 2) 
 
the art in ambient vibration tests allows the identification of ···
= (3)
modal parameters with good agreement with those calculated Yi:2q−1
 y (q) y (q + 1) y (q + p − 1) 
 
from forced or free vibration tests. Boroschek et al. [22] determined
···
 .. .. .. 
the modal characteristics of a dock at the harbor of Ventanas . . .
 
(Chile) by performing both free and ambient vibration tests. A y (2q − 1) y (2q) y (2q + j − 2)
static force of 50 tons was applied to the structure for the free
vibration test using a specially designed steel fuse. This force where y (k) is the vector of measured responses at the k-th step.
created an initial displacement on the structure, and allowed free Then, the orthogonal projection L of the row space of the upper
vibration after braking. The Stochastic Subspace Identification (SSI) part of the Hankel matrix Yi:2i−1 (future) onto the row space of the
methodology was used for ambient vibration tests in the same lower part of the Hankel matrix Y0:i−1 (past) is calculated using
structure. Ambient vibration was primarily due to the sea weaves
striking the dock. Comparison of the results shows good agreement

−1
L = Yq:2q−1 YT0:q−1 Y0:q−1 YT0:q−1 Y0:q−1 . (4)
between both types of test. Basseville et al. [23] investigated
theoretical and experimental issues in output only methodologies Using singular value decomposition, the matrix L is decom-
such as robustness related to no stationary loads and handling posed as
of measured data from multiple sensor setups. Mevel et al. [24]
found that output only identification has similar results when L = U S VT (5)
compared with input–output identification for in-flight airplane
structures. Chang et al. [25] identified the main natural frequencies where the matrices U and V are square unitary matrices that
and damping ratios of the Kap Shui Mun cable-stayed bridge in represent the output and input basis vector directions for L, and the
Hong Kong, China, using a Peak Peaking method and an ARMA matrix S is diagonal positive. The predicted observability matrix Ô,
model. Additionally the SHM ASCE group has performed system representing a set of estimated free response for each measured
identification in the benchmark problem, using a large variety of output, is calculated as
output only identification methodologies. For instance, Caicedo
et al. [26] used the Eigensystem Realization Algorithm, Yuen Ô = U S1/2 . (6)
et al. [27] utilized the MODE-ID method, Lam et al. [28] used a
3726 B.A. Zárate, J.M. Caicedo / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3724–3730

The matrix Ô can be rewritten in terms of the estimated

matrices  and Ĉ as
   
Ô0 Ĉ
 Ô1   Ĉ Â 
Ô =  .  =  .. (7)
   
. .

 .   
q −1
Ôq−1 Ĉ Â

where Ôi corresponds to the i-th block submatrix of Ô. Therefore,

the estimated matrices  and Ĉ are calculated using the equations

T
 T
−1
 = Ô1:q−1 Ô0:q−2 Ô0:q−2 Ô0:q−2
Ĉ = Ô0 .
The natural frequencies and damping ratios of the structure
can be calculated from the eigenvalues of  [36], and the output
shapes can be calculated as Φid = ĈΦ, where Φ is the matrix
of eigenvectors of  and Φid is the matrix of identified mode
shapes. The matrix Φid will have as many rows as sensors are in
the structure and as many columns as modes are identified. The
coordinate of the mode shape is identified at the location of the
sensor.
(8)
Fig. 1. Feasible region of a two-variable nonlinear programming problem.
(9)
solution and previous solutions are orthogonal, and low if the
two vectors are parallel. Fig. 1 provides a graphical representation
of this concept, showing two solutions for a problem with two
variables, x1 and x2 . Given that any orthogonal vector does not
provide a good fit for the finite element model, a constraint is used
to assure that the new solution has a similar performance to the
first solution found. This constraint is described by the equation
f (pl+1 ) + 1 ≤ α (f (p1 ) + 1) (12)

3. Model updating
The objective of the finite element model updating process is
to adjust the parameters of the finite element model such that
the error between the identified dynamic parameters and those
of the numerical model is minimized. Classical methods focus
on identifying the global minimum of this objective function,
not identifying other minima with similar performance. One
can argue that one of these local minima might represent the
optimal solution for the problem, if the number of non-quantifiable
variables that were not enlisted in the original objective function,
or the uncertainties in the model, are now considered. In this paper
we present a methodology that determines a family of possible
solutions to the model updated process. A new method, based on
the Hop, Skip and Jump method (HSJ) [7] which was originally
used for a land use planning problem is proposed to generate
the multiple alternatives. The first part of the proposed updating
process consists of finding an initial solution by minimizing the
objective function:
n 
ωid,i − ωfe,i (p)
X

f (p) = 1 − MAC φid,i , φfe,i (p)


+
(10)
i=1
ω id,i
where kk denotes absolute value, n is the number of identified
modes, MAC(φid,i , φfe,i (p)) is the modal assurance criteria [37]
between the i-th identified mode shape (φid,i ) and the i-th mode
shape of the finite element model φfe,i (p), ωid,i is the i-th identified
natural frequency, ωfe,i (p) is the i-th natural frequency of the
finite element model and p is the vector of parameters to be
optimized. Constrains are applied to the procedure to assure that
the variations of the parameters are not higher than reasonable
limits.
The next step consists in performing a search in a perpendicular
direction of the original solution by minimizing a new objective
function
l
p ·p
where f (p1 ) is the value of the objective function shown in Eq.
(6) for the first solution and α is a constant assigned by the
analyst depending on the structure being updated. Large complex
structures with a limited number of sensors are expected to
have multiple solutions with similar performance of the objective
function and require a lower value of α than problems with a large
number of sensors. The analyst can run the analysis with different
values of α and determine the most appropriated value for his/her
respective problem based on the performance and number of
alternative solutions. The analyst should also determine an upper
value of α depending on the final use of the updated model because
the value of α limits acceptable values of the objective function
for the alternative solutions. Higher values of α will increase the
feasible region in which the solutions are searched. A value of α =
1.3 was used in this paper. The Sequential Quadratic Programming
(SQP) algorithm for non-linear programming [38,39] was used to
minimize the objective functions shown in Eqs. (6) and (7). The
result from this second step provides physically different alternate
solutions but with a similar performance.
4. Numerical verification
Numerical verification of the methodology was performed on
the rectangular 3D frame structure shown in Fig. 2. Rectangular
columns of 0.3 × 0.3 m and 0.4 × 0.4 m, having a lateral
stiffness of 1555 kN/m and 49 152 kN/m, respectively, are used
in the model. Each floor was modeled rigid with a total lumped
mass of 15 480 kg located in the middle of each floor. Only two
parameters, x1 and x2 , are considered in this example to facilitate
the verification of the methodology by plotting the objective
function and visually identifying local minima. The parameters to
be updated correspond to factors multiplying the original stiffness
of columns 1 and 7. In equation form this is
k1 = x1 k1 and k7 = x2 k7 (13)
where the values of k1 and k7 are the original values of the stiffness
 j   l +1 
X
g (pl+1 ) = (11)
pj  pl+1  and k1 and k7 are the updated stiffness values. The exact solution
j =1
will lead to values of x1 = 1 and x2 = 1. Modeling errors and errors
where pj is the j-th solution, (·) denotes dot product and || denotes in the identification of the modal parameters are not considered
norm. The value of this function is high if the vector of the current in this example. Therefore, the global minimum is expected to
 B.A. Zárate, J.M. Caicedo / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3724–3730
Fig. 2. Numerical model for validation.
Fig. 3. Objective function.
Table 1
Numerical example results
Solution x1 x2
p1 1.000 1.000
p2 0.130 3.308
coincide with the exact solution. This is not necessarily the case
when considering modeling and measurement errors.
The first and sixth modal parameters corresponding to frequen-
cies of 7.45 Hz and 52.78 Hz are used to update the model. Fig. 3
shows the objective function for this problem. Darker colors in-
dicate high values of the objective function while lighter colors
correspond to lower values of the objective function. Two local
minima can be observed at (1, 1) and (0.13, 3.3). The solutions of
the proposed methodology are shown in Table 1. Here is important
to mention that the SQP algorithm minimizing the objective func-
tion shown in Eq. (6) obtains either (1, 1) or (0.13, 3.3) depending
on the initial values for x1 and x2 . The methodology is successful
finding the two local minima independently of which minimum is
obtained first.
5. Experimental implementation on the Bill Emerson Memorial
Bridge
The Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge opened to traffic in
December 2003. The bridge crosses the Mississippi River on Cape
Girardeau, Missouri, USA, and it is composed of two towers, 128
stay cables and 4 main piers. The bridge has a main span of 350.6 m
and two side spans of 142.7 m, for a total length of 1205.8 m, as
shown in Fig. 4. The deck has a width of 29.3 m and is composed
by girders of ASTM A709 grade 50W steel and prestressed concrete
slabs with an fc’ of 41.4 MPa. Additionally the bridge deck has 16
shock transmission devices in the connection with the towers and
bent. The purpose of those devices is to restrain the longitudinal
movement during seismic excitation, becoming extremely stiff, but
3727
to permit the longitudinal expansion of the deck caused by changes
in temperature. Moreover, earthquake restrainers are used in the
transverse direction at the connections between the deck and
the towers. The deck is restrained in the vertical direction at the
towers.
The cables are made of high-strength, low-relaxation steel
(ASTM A882 grade 270) and covered with a polyethylene piping to
prevent corrosion. The area of the cables varies between 28.5 cm2
and 76.3 cm2 . The towers are H-shaped with a height of 102.4 m at
pier 2 and 108.5 m at pier 3. The towers are of reinforced concrete
with a resistance fc’ of 37.9 MPa.
The finite element model shown in Fig. 5 is composed of 575
nodes, 156 beam elements, 512 cable elements and 418 rigid links.
The movements of the deck in the lateral and vertical directions
as well as the rotation with respect to the X axis at bent 1 and
piers 2, 3 and 4 are restricted by applying constraint equations.
At pier 1 only displacement in the X axis and rotations about the
Y and Z axis are allowed. The model of the structure does not
include the Illinois approach as shown in Fig. 5, because neither the
displacements nor the rotations about the X axis are restrained at
pier 4, disconnecting the dynamics of the two systems. Cables are
modeled using the Elastic Catenary models [40] subdivided into
four elements per cable. This cable model was chosen to better
represent the cable–deck dynamics. The soil structure effects are
considered negligible in this study and the structure is assumed
directly fixed to the foundation. The finite element model of the
bridge was first developed in ABAQUS for the benchmark problem
of control of cable-stayed bridges under earthquake excitation [17,
18] and later converted to Matlab for studies in structural health
monitoring.
The Emerson Bridge is permanently instrumented with ac-
celeration sensors distributed along the structure and surround-
ing soil [20]. A total of 84 accelerations channels of Kinemetrics
f (pi ) Eq. (6) EpiSensor have been installed in the bridge. Additionally the bridge
0.000 is equipped with Q330 digitizers and a data concentrator, and mass
0.184 storage devices (Balers) with wireless units. The acquisition system
has the ability to either acquire data in case of a special event as
an earthquake using a trigger algorithm, or to acquire long records
of low frequency ambient vibrations in a scheduled way. The ana-
log signal from the accelerometers is digitalized at the bridge
and then sent by wireless communication to a Central Recording
System (CRS). Once at the CRS, the data are transmitted to the In-
corporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), and finally
broadcasted through the Internet.
5.1. Modal identification
A modal identification of the Emerson Bridge was performed
using the SSI. A total of 25 acceleration channels were used;
17 of these acceleration channels are located on the deck in
the vertical direction and 8 acceleration channels are located
on the towers oriented in the longitudinal direction. The sensor
locations were chosen to identify the dynamic characteristics of
the structure corresponding to the vertical mode shapes. Song
et al. [41] previously performed identification of the bridge using
ARMAV models. In his paper the first 5 natural frequencies and
vertical mode shapes were identified, using 16 vertical channels
of acceleration corresponding to the sensors on the deck.
Six hours of acceleration data were used for the system
identification. The first three hours of data were obtained on 2
November 2005 and the last three were obtained on 5 December
2005. Data were originally collected at 200 Hz, and resampled to
2 Hz to capture the fundamental modes of the structure which are
lower than 1 Hz. The data were divided in 36 windows of 10 min
for a total of 1200 data points per channel per window. SSI was
performed in each window, so that a set of 36 natural frequencies,
3728 B.A. Zárate, J.M. Caicedo / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3724–3730
Fig. 4. Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge.
Fig. 5. Finite element model of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge.
mode shapes and damping rations are obtained for the complete
record. The Hankel matrices used had a total of 750 rows and 1170
columns.
In cable-stayed bridges it is challenging to differentiate non-
physical poles from the physical poles because the mode shapes are
closely spaced. Stabilization diagrams were used for identification
for this purpose [42]. One set of poles was calculated for each
data window and plotted in Fig. 6. True frequencies are detected
based on the consistency through all the windows. An automated
recognition system was used to detect the true poles from
those created by noise and numerical errors [35,43]. True poles
are recognized by identifying parameters within some specific
characteristics. Here, acceptable modes of vibration should be
identified at least five times in different data windows with a
maximum variation of the natural frequency of 30%, have damping
value lower than 5%, and MAC values between the identified modes
higher than 0.98. The circles in Fig. 6 show the raw identified
modes and the stars indicate the acceptable modal parameters. The
standard deviation of each remaining natural frequencies (stars in
Fig. 6) and the mean MAC value of the corresponding mode shapes
are also shown in this table.
Table 2 summarizes the identified modal parameters of the
Emerson Bridge. The natural frequencies and damping ratios are
calculated as the average of the identified parameters for each
mode in all the data sets. The standard deviations for each
parameter are also shown. The first four mode shapes targeted
have a low standard deviation in terms of the natural frequencies,
damping ratios and mode shapes, indicating a small variation of the
parameters for all the data records. This indicates that the system
is behaving linearly for ambient vibrations.
5.2. Model updating
The properties of the numerical model were updated such that
its modal characteristics would match as close as possible the
identified natural frequencies and mode shapes. Three different
Fig. 6. Identified natural frequencies.
Fig. 7. Master masses.
types of parameters were considered for updating: (i) mass of
the deck, (ii) the rotational stiffness of the connection between
the deck and the towers, and (iii) moment of inertia of the spine
beam. These parameters were chosen because of their influence in
the overall dynamic behavior of the structure. Other parameters
such as rotational springs located at the connections of deck and
towers were also considered but they had a very small effect in
the dynamic characteristics of the structure. All the parameters
considered in this study were lumped into a total of six variables
divided into three distinctive groups.
A total of 66 translational lumped masses are used in the bridge
deck’s model. Assuming that the mass distribution is symmetric
due to the symmetry of the bridge, this can be reduced to 33
parameters. Because a sudden change in the mass along the deck
is unlikely the number of parameters was reduced to three master
masses at three locations along the deck. The other 30 masses were
calculated using a spline function. The masses at the mid span
between bent 1 and pier 2, and one quarter and one half the main
span were selected as the locations for the three master masses
(Fig. 7). The masses were constrained to be in the range of −5% to
5% of the mass calculated from the blueprints.
The degree of connection between the deck and the towers is
highly uncertain because of the shock absorbers and the restrainers
installed at these locations. The stiffnesses of the four springs used
to model these connections constitute the second set of parameters
to update. One parameter was used for bent I and pier IV and a
second parameter was used for the connection at the towers due to
the symmetry of the bridge. The springs’ stiffnesses are constrained
 B.A. Zárate, J.M. Caicedo / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3724–3730 3729

Table 2
Dynamic characteristics identified
Mode Hits Frequency (Hz) Std. dev. Frequency (Hz) Damping (%) Std. dev. damping (%) MAC Std. dev. MAC

1 31 0.324 0.0036 1.05 0.37 0.9977 0.0019

2 16 0.413 0.0026 0.64 0.09 0.9967 0.0023
3 25 0.635 0.0041 0.67 0.20 0.9983 0.0009
4 21 0.706 0.0032 0.73 0.51 0.9962 0.0046

Table 3
Model updating alternatives
Solution Mass (%) Inertia (%) Stiffness (%) f (p)
Loc1 Loc2 Mid-span Bent Tower Eq. (6)
Original 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.524

p1 0.00 −5.00 −5.00 5.00 100.00 27.36 0.375

p2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.73 0.00 0.451
p3 −4.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.492
p4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.495

Table 4
Dynamic characteristics of the model updating alternatives
Solution ω1 (Hz) ω2 (Hz) ω3 (Hz) ω4 (Hz) 100*(1-MAC)
(φid,1 , φfe,1 ) (φid,2 , φfe,2 ) (φid,3 , φfe,3 ) (φid,4 , φfe,4 )
Exp. 0.32 0.41 0.63 0.71 – – – –
Original 0.29 0.39 0.60 0.63 4.9 5.4 3.1 10.4
1 0.31 0.41 0.61 0.63 4.3 5.9 4.1 7.5
2 0.31 0.40 0.61 0.63 4.3 6.1 3.9 10.8
3 0.30 0.40 0.62 0.63 4.4 6.0 5.1 14.6
4 0.30 0.40 0.61 0.63 4.7 5.6 3.5 10.1

to be in the range of −100% and 100% of the highest stiffness found
in the stiffness matrix.
The variation of the moment of inertia is assumed to be constant
along the deck, so that only one parameter was used to update the
deck’s stiffness. The moment of inertia is constrained to be in the
range of −5% to 5% of the moment of inertia calculated from the
blueprints.
5.3. Results
The starting point for this first optimization was the original
numerical model as calculated from design drawings. The value
of Eq. (6) for the original model is (f (p) = 0.524). Table 3
shows the parameters for all the four solutions found. As described
previously in the paper, the first solution was obtained using the
SQP algorithm to minimize Eq. (6). The solution found suggests that
the mass between bent 1 and location 1 should be unchanged while
the mass at the main span should be decreased. In addition, the
moment of inertia of the deck and the stiffness of the connection
between the deck and bent 1 are increased, while the stiffness
at the connection between the deck and the main towers is
decreased. These changes create an improvement of 28.6% in the
objective function. The alternative models are obtained by running
the second optimization process until no additional solutions are
found. The process was repeated with different starting points
of the optimization algorithm to explore the completeness of
the solutions found. All analyses resulted in the same alternative
solutions. All solutions found are physically different to this
first solution. The second solution increases the stiffness at the
connection between the bent and the deck, while the other
parameters remain constant. The third solution decreases the mass
between bent 1 and the mid-span of the first span, while the
other parameters remain constant. Finally, solution 4 increases the
stiffness of the connection between the towers and the deck.
Table 4 shows the first four natural frequencies identified
experimentally in addition to those of the updated models. This
table also shows the residual MAC values between the identified
mode shapes and the numerical modes in percentage. The
frequencies improved in all the solutions found, when compared
to the original finite element model, while keeping the MAC values
in good agreement with the measured data.
The selection of the final model using the proposed technique
is dependent on its use and the experience of the analyst.
Furthermore, the analyst could choose more than one model for
subsequent analysis. For example, if a seismic reliability analysis
were to be performed with the updated model, the analyst could
decide to perform the reliability analysis with more than one
alternative and draw conclusions about the reliability of the
structure from this subsequent analysis. For this particular bridge
it is unlikely that the mass, moment of inertia and stiffness of the
connection between deck and tower reach their maximum limits
simultaneously. For this reason the second solution could be a
more physically meaningful solution than the first one, and it is
selected as the updated model.
6. Conclusions
This paper discusses a new methodology for model updating
of complex structural systems. Traditional model updating tech-
niques minimize an objective function to minimize the error be-
tween a numerical model and the actual structure. Most model
updating techniques assume that the global minimum of this ob-
jective function will provide the best physical representation of
the structure. In contrast, the proposed methodology recognizes
that a local minimum could be a better physical representation
of the structure due to incomplete data and identification and
modeling errors. The proposed method is based on Modeling to
Generate Alternatives (MGA), and it is used to calculate physically
different solutions, while obtaining a relative good performance in
the objective function. Two examples are included to show the ca-
pabilities of the technique. The first example is a simple numerical
3730 B.A. Zárate, J.M. Caicedo / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 3724–3730
example used to numerically validate the methodology. The sec-
ond example updates a model of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge
with acceleration data used from its permanent instrumentation.
Final results show four physically different solutions for the model
updating problem.
Acknowledgments
The first author would like to thank the University of South
Carolina Graduate Research Fellowship for the partial financial
support for this paper. The writers would like to thank Mr.
Bryan Hartnagel of the Missouri Department of Transportation
for pertinent information and data records on the Bill Emerson
Memorial Bridge and Dr. Atanu Dutta for his help in including
linear springs in the Emerson Bridge’s finite element model.
References
[1] Zhang QW, Chang TYP, Chang CC. Finite-element model updating for the Kap
Shui Mun cable-stayed bridge. J Bridge Eng 2001;6:285.
[2] Brownjohn JMW, Moyo P, Omenzetter P, Lu Y. Assessment of highway bridge
upgrading by dynamic testing and finite-element model updating. J Bridge Eng
2003;8:162.
[3] Brownjohn JMW, Xia P-Q. Dynamic assessment of curved cable-stayed bridge
by model updating. J Struct Eng 2000;126:252.
[4] Jaishi B, Ren W-X. Structural finite element model updating using ambient
vibration test results. J Struct Eng 2005;131:617.
[5] Bohle K, Fritzen C-P. Results obtained by minimizing natural frequency and
MAC-value errors of a plate model. Mech Syst Signal Process 2003;17:55.
[6] Mottershead JE, Friswell MI. Model updating in structural dynamics: A survey.
J Sound Vibration 1993;167:347.
[7] Brill ED, Chang S-Y, Hopkins LD. Modeling to generate alternatives: The HSJ
approach and an illustration using a problem in land use planning. Manage Sci
1982;28:221.
[8] Brill ED, Flach JM, Hopkins LD, Ranjithan S. MGA: A decision support system for
complex, incompletely defined problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1990;
20:745.
[9] Campbell GE, Mendoza GA. Adapting modeling to generate alternatives (Mga)
techniques to forest level planning. J Environ Manag 1988;26:151.
[10] Sprouse WL, Mendoza GA. Modeling to generate alternatives — a Shawnee-
National-Forest example. Comput Environ Urban Syst 1990;14:203.
[11] Gupta A, Kripakaran P, Mahinthakumar Jr GK. JWB. Genetic algorithm-based
decision support for optimizing seismic response of piping systems. J Struct
Eng 2005;131:389.
[12] Baugh JW, Caldwell SC, Brill ED. A mathematical programming approach for
generating alternatives in discrete structural optimization. Eng Optim 1997;
28:1.
[13] Loughlin DH, Ranjithan SR, Brill ED, Baugh JW. Genetic algorithm approaches
for addressing unmodeled objectives in optimization problems. Eng Optim
2001;33:549.
[14] Zechman EM, Ranjithan SR. An evolutionary algorithm to generate alternatives
(EAGA) for engineering optimization problems. Engi Optim 2004;36:539.
[15] Uber JG, Brill ED, Pfeffer JT. Use of mathematical-programming methods for
complex-systems. J Water Resour Planning Manag-Asce 1992;118:281.
[16] Rubenstein-Montano B, Anandalingam G, Zandi I. A genetic algorithm
approach to policy design for consequence minimization. European J Oper Res
2000;124:43.
[17] Dyke SJ, Caicedo JM, Turan G, Bergman LA, Hague S. Phase I benchmark control
problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. J Struct Eng 2003;129:
857.
[18] Caicedo JM, Dyke SJ, Moon SJ, Bergman LA, Turan G, Hague S. Phase II
benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges.
J Struct Control Monit 2003;10:137.
[19] Caicedo JM. Structural health monitoring of flexible civil structures. Civil
engineering, vol. D.Sc.. Saint Louis, Missouri: Washington University in Saint
Louis; 2003. p. 160.
[20] Çelebi M. Real-time seismic monitoring of the new Cape Girardeau bridge and
preliminary analyses of recorded data: An overview. Earthq Spectra 2006;22:
609.
[21] Zhang QW, Chang CC, Chang TYP. Finite element model updating for structures
with parametric constraints. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29:927.
[22] Boroschek RL, Baesler H, Valdés PT, Vega C. Determinación Experimental De
Propiedades Modales Del Puerto De Ventanas. Congreso Chileno de Sismología
e Ingeniería Antisísmica IX Jornadas. Concepción, Chile; 2005.
[23] Basseville M, Benveniste A, Goursat M, Hermans L, Mevel L, Van der
Auweraer H. Output-only subspace-based structural identification: From
theory to industrial testing practice. J Dyn Syst Meas Control-Trans Asme 2001;
123:668.
[24] Mevel L, Benveniste A, Basseville M, Goursat M, Peeters B, Van der Auweraer H,
Vecchio A. Input/output versus output-only data processing for structural
identification — Application to in-flight data analysis. J Sound Vibration 2006;
295:531.
[25] Chang CC, Chang TYP, Zhang QW. Ambient vibration of a long-span cable-
stayed bridge. Bridge Eng ASCE 2001;6:46.
[26] Caicedo JM, Dyke SJ, Johnson EA. Natural excitation technique and eigensys-
tem realization algorithm for phase I of the IASC-ASCE benchmark problem:
Simulated data. J Eng Mech 2004;130:49.
[27] Yuen KV, Au SK, Beck JL. Two-stage structural health monitoring approach for
phase I benchmark studies. J Eng Mech-Asce 2004;130:16.
[28] Lam HF, Katafygiotis LS, Mickleborough NC. Application of a statistical model
updating approach on phase I of the IASC-ASCE structural health monitoring
benchmark study. J Eng Mech-Asce 2004;130:34.
[29] Yang JN, Lei Y, Lin S, Huang N. Hilbert-Huang based approach for structural
damage detection. J Eng Mech-Asce 2004;130:85.
[30] Juang J-N, Pappa RS. An eigensystem realization algorithm for modal
parameter identification and model reduction. J Guid 1985;8:620.
[31] Juang J-N, Pappa RS. Effects of noise on modal parameters identified by the
eigensystem realization algorithm. Journal of Guidance 1986;9:294.
[32] Andersen P. Identification of civil engineering structures using ARMA models.,
vol. Doctoral: Aalborg University; 1997.
[33] Andersen PBR. Estimation of modal parameters and their uncertainties. In:
Proceedings of the 17th international modal analysis conference. 1999. p. 323.
[34] Van Overschee P. Moor BLRd. Subspace identification for linear systems:
Theory, implementation, applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers;
1996.
[35] Giraldo D, Caicedo JM, Song W, Mogan B, Dyke SJ. Modal identification through
ambient vibration: A comparative study. In: 24th international modal analysis
conference. 2006.
[36] Arici Y, Mosalam KM. Modal identification of bridge systems using state-space
models. Struct Control Health Monit 2005;12:381.
[37] Allemang RJ. The modal assurance criterion — Twenty years of use and abuse.
J Sound Vibration 2003;37:14.
[38] Gill PE, Murray W, Wright MH. Practical optimization. London: Academic
Press; 1981.
[39] Coleman TF, Li Y. On the convergence of reflective Newton methods for large-
scale nonlinear minimization subject to bounds. Math Programm 1994;67:
189.
[40] Chang SP, Park YY. Dynamic analysis of the cablesuspended roof system by
using the three-dimensional cable element. In: Proceedings of the second
Japan–Korea joint seminar on steel bridges. 1992. p. 203–16.
[41] Song W, Giraldo D, Clayton EH, Dyke SJ, Caicedo JM. Application of ARMAV for
modal identification of the Emerson Bridge. In: Third international conference
on bridge maintenance, safety and management. 2006.
[42] Brincker Andersen. Understanding stochastic subspace identification. In:
IMAC. 2006.
[43] Giraldo D. A structural health monitoring framework for civil structures.
Department of Civil Engineering, vol. D.Sc. Saint Louis, Missouri: Washington
University in St. Louis; 2006. p. 157.