Journal of Sound and Vibration (1995) 186(4), 567587

IDENTIFICATION OF JOINT PROPERTIES OF

A STRUCTURE USING FRF DATA
Y. R
School of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore

C. F. B
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine, Prince Consort Road, London, England
(Received 20 July 1993, and in final form 10 October 1994)
The connections between structural components, i.e., joints, are extremely difficult to
model accurately by using a pure analytical approach. Alternatively, joint properties can be
extracted from experimental data. A method for identifying (extracting) joint properties from
the measured frequency response function (FRF) data is presented in this paper. One of
the major difficulties in accurate identification of joint properties is that the identification
results can be significantly affected by various errors in the measured data. Even if errors in
the measured data are at an insignificantly low level (say, 5% in FRFs), their effects on the
identification can be severe enough so that in some cases the predicted joint properties can
be completely irrelevant to the true properties of joints. Apart from the accuracy of the data
used for the identification, the accuracy of the identification also significantly depends upon
the mathematical formulae used for the identification. Even with the same experimental data,
the accuracies of the identification by different methods can be significantly different.
Therefore, developing methods that are insensitive to measurement errors is of utmost
importance for the identification of joint properties from experimental data. In this paper,
techniques for improving the accuracy of joint identification are discussed. It is demonstrated
that by using all available information effectively, the accuracy of the identification can be
much improved. Both numerical and experimental examples are presented.
7 1995 Academic Press Limited

1. INTRODUCTION

Finite element analysis has become a routine practice in many industries. However, it is
well known that a finite element model can be erroneous due to mis-modelling of some
parts of a structure. These parts are often complicated in their configurations, and little
knowledge of these parts is available. After numerous frustrating attempts in deriving
accurate theoretical models for these parts, a sad truth emerges: that is, it may not always
be possible to derive accurate theoretical models of complicated parts of a structure, such
as joints, by using a purely analytical approach.
This paper presents a new FRF based joint identification method. Identifying or extracting
a theoretical model of a complicated part of a structure from experimental data is an
attractive and promising alternative to the approach of purely analytical modelling.
Although the word joint is used, the method is also applicable for the identification of
567
0022460X/95/390567+21 $12.00/0

7 1995 Academic Press Limited

568

. . .

properties of many other structural components such as lumped masses attached to a

structure.
Several FRF-based joint identification methods have been developed since the early 1980s.
The advantages of using FRF data over using other types of data (e.g., spatial and/or modal
data) have been discussed in many previous publications [15]; the major advantage is that
FRF data are accurate and can be measured easily. The first FRF based joint identification
method was probably mentioned by Okubo and Miyazaki [1] in 1984, and arguably more
advanced methods have been developed by Tsai and Chou [2] in 1988, Wang and Liou [3]
in 1989 and by Hong and Lee [4] in 1991. Results of early development of the method
presented in this paper have been reported in 1991 [5].
The basic idea used in almost all FRF based joint identification techniques is the same:
that is, the joint properties can be determined from the properties of the assembled
structure and its structural components. In the formulation, the conditions of equilibrium
and compatibility at the connections between joints and other structural components
are used either implicitly or explicitly. The final goal is to find a theoretical model for
each joint to minimize the difference between the measured assembly FRFs and the
predicted assembly FRFs from the properties of the structural components and the
identified joints. Because of this, the basic formulae of most FRF-based joint identification
methods are similar or even the same, and it is often possible to deduce the identification
formulae of a method from the formulae of a different one by just a few matrix operations
and/or by imposing additional constraints. However, for practical applications, these
methods are different. This is not only because the formulae used are different, but, more
importantly, because the accuracy of the identification can be very different even if the same
FRF data are used. Although all these methods are correct (exact) in the sense that if
exact FRF data are used, exact results can be identified (hence the same results are
obtained from different methods), when input data are not exact (because of measurement
errors), there is usually no exact solution for the identification formulae. As a result, a best
solution is obtained instead. However, in what sense is it best? Clearly, the best should
be the solution that closely represents the physical properties of joints. Unfortunately,
in solving the identification equations, the best can only mean the best solution with
respect to some pre-set mathematical criteria (amongst which the least squares criterion
is most commonly used). Use of different criteria leads to different solutions. Although
each solution is the best with respect to the criterion used, the accuracy of these
solutions with respect to the physical properties of joints is certainly different. Therefore,
how to make the best in the sense of mathematics to coincide with the best in the sense
of physics is of utmost importance in this joint identification issue. This is a question that
most previous publications on this subject (e.g., references [14]) have neglected or failed
to answer.
In this paper, a joint identification method is presented. Most of this paper is devoted to
reducing the effects of the measurement errors by introducing a proper criterion for the
best solution. It is found that the accuracy of the identification can be improved by using
the new method.
Apart from being accurate, the proposed method is also generalized. That is, unlike
in some previous methods in which massless lumping spring-damper models are
assumed for joints, in the proposed method it is assumed only that the dynamic
characteristics of the joints are linear and can be represented in the form of stiffness, mass
and damping matrices. In addition, in contrast to methods with applications limited to
one-jointtwo-substructures type assembly configuration, the new method can be applied
to identify many joints of a structure assembled from many substructural components
simultaneously.

569

2. DERIVATION OF FORMULAE

2.1.
For many joint identification methods, it is assumed that the assembled structure (i.e., the
assembly) consists of only two structural components (i.e., substructures) and one joint,
and it is also often assumed that the joint is massless and can be represented by a series
of springs and viscous dampers. Although these assumptions are reasonable for some
cases, they may not be realistic for many other engineering applications. For example,
an engineering structure is often assembled from many structural components, and a
joint can be an actual component (e.g., a bearing) which has a non-negligible mass.
In addition, it is always arguable if it is appropriate to model joints simply by springs and
dampers.
In this paper, a systematic approach is used. Three systems are involved: the first is the
substructure system consisting of all the substructures, the second is the joint system
comprised of all joints, and the third is the assembly system which is assembled from the
substructure and joint systems. The three systems are illustrated in Figure 1.
Two regions are distinguishable in the substructure system: the region connected to joints
and the region not connected to joints. The co-ordinates in the corresponding regions are
referred to as joint co-ordinates and non-joint co-ordinates and are represented by
subscripts b and a, respectively. The regions on the assembly system corresponding to the
non-joint and joint regions of the substructure system are represented by subscripts n and
j. The joint system is represented by subscript c.
The relationships between the displacement vectors and the force vectors for the assembly
and the substructure systems are

67$

xn
H
= nn
xj
Hjn

%6 7

Hnj
Hjj

fn
fj

and

67$

xa
H
= aa
xb
Hba

%6 7

Hab
Hbb

fa
,
fb

(1, 2)

where H, x and f represent the receptance, displacement and force, respectively.

The subscripts of H, x and f denote the regions in which H, x and f are related: e.g., Hab
is the receptance matrix with response at region a and excitation at region b.
The characteristics of a joint system can be represented by a dynamic stiffness matrix [Zj ],
and corresponding forcedisplacement relationship:
[Zj ]{xc }={ fc }.

(3)

The non-joint co-ordinates on the substructure and assembly systems are identical, and
hence
{ fa }={ fn }

and

{xa }={xn }.

(4, 5)

Figure 1. Three systems in joint identification <, non-joint region a on the substructure system; +, joint region
..... , joint region c on the joint system; ;, non-joint region n on the assembly system;
b on the substructure system; q
<, joint region j on the assembly system; Q, rigid connection.
;

. . .

570

The conditions of compatibility and equilibrium at the joint co-ordinates are

{ fb }+{ fc }={ fj }

{xj }={xb }={xc }.

and

(6, 7)

Rearranging equation (6) as

{ fb }={ fj }{ fc }

(8)

and substituting equation (8) into equation (2) yields

{xb }=[Hba ]{ fa }+[Hbb ]({ fj }{ fc }).

(9)

Substituting equations (3)(5) and (7)(9) into equation (2) and deleting { fc } and {xb }
leads to
{ fb }=[[I][Zj ][Hbb ]]1 ({ fj }[Zj ][Hab ]{ fn }).

(10)

Substituting equations (5), (7) and (10) into equation (2) yields

67$

xn
[Haa ][Hab ]([I]+[Zj ][Hbb ])1 [Zj ][Hba ]
=
xj
[Hba ][Hbb ]([I]+[Zj ][Hbb ])1[Zj ][Hba ]

[Hab ]([I]+[Zj ][Hbb ])1

[Hbb ]([I]+[Zj ][Hbb ])1

%6 7

fn
.
fj

(11)

Comparing equation (11) with equation (1) yields

[Hnn ]=[Haa ][Hab ]([I]+[Zj ][Hbb ])1 [Zj ][Hba ],

[Hnj ]=[Hab ]([I]+[Zj ][Hbb ])1 ,

(12, 13)

[Hjn ]=[Hba ][Hbb ]([I]+[Zj ][Hbb ])1 [Zj ][Hba ],

[Hjj ]=[Hbb ]([I]+[Zj ][Hbb ])1 .

(14, 15)

Substituting equations (13) and (15) into equations (12) and (14) and rearranging equations
(13) and (15) leads to
[Hnj ][Zj ][Hba ]=[Haa ][Hnn ],
[Hjj ][Zj ][Hba ]=[Hba[Hjn ],

[Hnj ][Zj ][Hbb ]=[Hab[Hnj ],

(16, 17)

[Hjj ][Zj ][Hbb ]=[Hbb ][Hjj ].

(18, 19)

Equations (16)(19) are the four basic formulae for the identification of the joint dynamic
stiffness matrix [Zj ].
Distinguishing joint and non-joint co-ordinates is advantageous. The joint co-ordinates
are fixed and must be measured, while the non-joint co-ordinates can be chosen more freely.
Therefore, distinguishing joint and non-joint co-ordinates gives a clearer view of the data
required in the identification (than given in reference [4], say).
Some FRF data (e.g., [Hjj ]) may be difficult to measure in practical applications. To use
the above formulae, sub-matrices [Haa ], [Hnn ], [Hab ] and [Hnj ] must be measured (so that
at least equation (16) can be used). It is assumed here that sub-matrices [Haa ], [Hnn ], [Hab ]
and [Hnj ] are all available. The problem of joint identification when [Hnj ] is not available has
been discussed in reference [6] and an iterative algorithm was suggested.
2.2.
Equations (16)(19) have the form
[A]MN [Zj ]NN [B]NL=[C]ML ,

(20)

where [A], [B] and [C] are coefficient matrices and M, N and L represent the size of the
corresponding matrix. If M, LeN and matrices [A] and [B] are non-singular, equation (20)

571

becomes determined or over-determined. Hence [Zj ] can be solved uniquely. The least
squares solution [7, 8] of equation (20) is
[Zj ]=[A]+[C][B]+,

(21)

where the superscript plus sign denotes the pseudo-inverse [7] of the matrix. Equation (20)
can also be re-written as a series of linear equations
[E](M L)(N 2 ) {z}(N 2 )1={g}(M L)1 ,

(22)

and
where
E((m1)L+1, (i1)N+j)=A(m, i)B(j, 1),
z((i1)N+j)=Zj (i, j)
g((m1)L+l)=C(m, l),
(m=1, . . . , M, l=1, . . . , L, i=1, . . . , N, j=1, . . . , N).
Equation (22) is the basic formula of the joint identification method. This equation is
attractive, because it consists of a set of linear equations which are numerically easy to solve.
More importantly, the equation is accurate. It is noted that any element in matrix [E] is
a product of two FRFs and any element in vector {g} is the subtraction of two FRFs.
The multiplication operation does not cause magnification of errors in the FRF data, while
the subtraction operation can cause severe magnification of errors only when the difference
between the corresponding two FRFs is insignificant. When the joint effects are significant,
the two FRFs in the subtraction operation are also significantly different. Therefore, the
coefficients in equation (22) are accurate. The basic formulae of some identification method
(e.g., that of reference [2]) are also in the form of a set of linear equations. However, the
coefficients are less accurate because they are obtained after a series of matrix operations
(including the matrix inversion operation in which the effects of measurement errors can
be significantly magnified). Consequently, the identification results are very sensitive to
measurement errors for those methods.
The least squares solution of equation (22) is
{z}=[E]+{g}.

(23)

Both equations (21) and (23) are least squares solutions of equation (20), and hence they
are exactly the same. In terms of computational efficiency, equation (21) is more attractive.
However, direct solution from equation (20) has some severe drawbacks, which makes
equation (22) preferable in most practical applications:
(i) Due to the effects of measurement errors in the FRF data, the results from equations
(16)(19) are different. Equation (22) can be used to combine equations (16)(19) into a set
of linear equations and the least squares solution with respect to all these equations can be
obtained.
(ii) Direct solution from equation (20) uses only a small portion of the available
information for identification at a time. By contrast, equation (22) at different frequencies
can be combined to increase the total amount of information for the identification. This leads
to a more accurate solution.
(iii) Equation (20) can be solved uniquely only when matrices [A] and [B] are not
rank-deficient and M, LeN, while equations (22) at different frequencies can be used
together; hence the above conditions are not essential.
(iv) Some knowledge about joints is available. In some cases, they must be retained in
the identified joint properties. If equation (20) is used directly, such constraints cannot be
applied. However, if equation (22) is used, the constraints can be incorporated into the
process for the solution by imposing a restriction matrix.
For these reasons (i)(iv), equation (22) is used in what follows here. Because measured
FRF data are contaminated, efforts must be made to reduce the effects of the measurement

. . .

572

Figure 2. A 2-DOF joint.

errors on the accuracy of the identification. The basic strategy to improve the accuracy of
the identification is to impose all the available constraints and make the best use of the
available information.
{z} in equation (22) is frequency dependent. In order to use all available information
and impose restrictions on joints, this frequency dependent vector must be transferred
into a frequency independent vector {x}. This is achieved by using two linear transformations.
{z}=[Tv ][T ]{x},

(24)

where [Tv ] converts {x} into a frequency independent vector, and [T] imposes further
restrictions on the frequency independent vector. Vector {x}={{k}T, {m}T, {c}T, {d}T}T,
where {k}, {m}, {c} and {d} are vectors containing the corresponding elements in the
stiffness, mass, viscous and hysteretic damping matrices, respectively. For example, the
dynamic stiffness vector of a 2-DOF joint as shown in Figure 2 can be converted into a
frequency independent vector as
{z}=[Tv ][T]{x},

(25a)

where
{z}={z11 , z21 , z12 , z22 }T

[Tv ]=[[I]

v [I]

iv[i] i[I]]

{x}={k, m, c, d}T,

and

and

(25b, c)

[0]
K
[0]
[0] L
1]
G[T
G
[0] [T2 ] [0]
[0]
[T]=G
G, (25d, e)
[0] [T3 ] [0]
[0]
G
k [0] [0] [0] [T4 ]G
l

[T1 ]=[T3 ]=[T4 ]={1, 1, 1, 1}T

and

[T2 ]={1, 0, 0, 1}T.

(25f, g)

Substituting equations (24) into equation (22) yields

[E][Tv ][T]{x}={g}.

(26)

A problem with the transformation matrix [Tv ] is that the magnitudes of elements
corresponding to stiffness and mass (and also viscous damping) properties are different by
a factor of v 2 (and v for viscous damping), which may lead to numerical difficulties in solving
the equation (26). This difficulty is overcome by using a scaling matrix [Tf ]: i.e.,
{x}=[Tf ]{y},

(27a)

where
[Tf ]=[[I]

(1/v02 )[I]

i(1/v0 )[I]

i[I]]

and

{y}={{k}, v02 {m}, v0 {c}, {d}}.

(27b, c)

v0 is a reference angular frequency, which should be selected so that elements in {y} have
similar magnitudes. The maximum measured frequency can often be used as the reference
frequency.

573

Substituting equation (27a) into equation (24) yields

[E][Tv ][T][Tf ]{y}={g}.

(28)

The vector {y} is frequency-independent, and thus equation (28) can be used for
combination of equations at different frequencies. However, it has been shown that the
least squares solution from these combined equations is often sensitive to measurement
errors [9]. This is because the magnitudes of FRFs vary significantly at different frequencies and at different co-ordinates. If equation (28) is used directly, the solution
is dominated by the information at resonance frequencies of substructure or assembly
systems and at the co-ordinates which have large vibration magnitudes; hence information
effectively used in the identification is very limited. In order to use available information
effectively, weighting techniques should be applied. Applying weighting means multiplying both sides of equation (28) by a diagonal matrix [W]; this is equivalent to multiplying
both sides of each equation in equation (28) by a constant. After weighting, equation (28)
becomes
[E'(v)]{y}={g'(v)},

(29a)

where
[E'(v)=[W(v)][E(v)][Tv ][T ][Tf ]

{g'(v)}={W(v)]{g(v)}.

and

(29b, c)

More details on weighting techniques are discussed in section 2.3.

{y} consists of real variables, but [E'] and {g'} are complex. Therefore, equation (29) is
equivalent to
[E0 (v)]{y}={p(v)},

(30a)

where
[E0 (v)]=

Real ([E'(v)])
Imag ([E'(v)])

and

{p(v)}=

Real ({g'(v)})
.
Imag ({g'(v)})

(30b, c)

Equation (30a) is a set of real linear equations at frequency v.

Sometimes, some parameters of the joint (e.g., the joint mass) are known. Moving all terms
with known parameters to the right side of equation (30a) yields
[E1 (v)]{y1 }={p1 (v)}.

(31)

Combining equation (31) at different frequencies yields

[A]{y1 }={b},

(32a)

where

F
G
G[E1 (v1 )]J
G[E1 (v2 )]G
G .. G
[A]=g . h
G [E1 .vi )] G
G .. G
G
j
f[E1 (vn )]G

and

F
G{p1 (v1 )}J
G
G{p1 (v2 )} G
G .. G
.
{b}=g
h.
{p
(v
1
G . i )}G
G .. G
G
f{p1 (vn )}G
j

(32b, c)

. . .

574

vi (i=1, . . . , n) denotes frequencies at which FRFs are measured. The least squares solution
of equation (32a) is
{y1 }=([A]T[A])1[A]T{b}

i=1

i=1

= s [E1 (vi )]T[E1 (vi )]1 s ([E1 (vi )]T{p1 (vi )} .

(33)

Instead of having the matrix [A] and vector {b}, the matrix Sni=1 [E1 (vi )]T[E1 (vi )] and the
vector Sni=1 [E1 (vi )]T{p1 (vi )} should be calculated in programming. Hence the computer
memory required is insignificant.
For this identification method, there is no limit on the number of joints to be
identified. Many joints can be identified simultaneously. This is attractive for engineering applications because a real structure usually possesses several joints. However,
although mathematically applicable, one should not try to identify too many joints
simultaneously, because more joints mean more unknowns in equation (32a); the accuracy
of the identification tends to decrease when there are too many unknowns. In practice,
it may be more appropriate to break the whole structure into some smaller components,
and identify the properties of joints from the properties of these small components
instead.
2.3.
As mentioned before, one of the major difficulties in joint identification is to find
an accurate joint model when FRF data are contaminated by measurement errors.
Measurement errors at a very low level can still affect the accuracy of identification
significantly for some methods [9]. The effects of errors on the accuracy of identification are
different for different methods because different best solution criteria are used. Use of
appropriate criterion for the best solution is of utmost importance in accurate
identification of the joint properties.
Equation (33) presents a best solution for equation (32a) with respect to the criterion
of least squares: i.e.,
g

>[A]{y1 }{b}>=>{b0 }{b}>= s >b0 (i)2b(i)2>

is minimum

i=1

where {b0 }=[A]{y1 } and g is the size of vector {b}. The best solution depends not only
upon the input data (i.e., FRFs) but it is also significantly affected by the weighting [W(v)]
matrix applied. At the heart of the weighting technique is how information at different
frequencies is weighted. FRF magnitudes vary greatly at different frequencies and at
different locations. Without weighting, the least squares solution is dominated by the
equations with large coefficients. In other words, the solution is dominated by the equations
at only a few frequencies (and probably also at a few locations where vibration magnitudes
are significant); the information in all other equations is ignored. This is not desirable,
because a good solution should be good at all frequencies and at all locations. On the other
hand, if a solution is good at all frequencies and at all locations, the chances are that the
solution does represent the physical properties of joints. Therefore, weighting is necessary
to scale equations so that the solution is obtained with proper consideration of information
at all frequencies and at all locations.
A straightforward weighting method was suggested in reference [5] which sets
[W(vi )]=a(vi )[I] so that the magnitude of the maximum element of matrix [E1 (vi )] in

575

equation (31) is unity. The aim of this weighting method is to use information at all
frequencies effectively and the accuracy of the joint identification can often be improved
compared with those without any weighting. However, sometimes the aim of weighting
information at each frequency with the same importance cannot be achieved by using
this weighting method.
[E1 (vi )] is generated by multiplying the coefficient matrix [E(vi )] with the
transformation and restriction matrices [T], [Tv ] and [Tf ], and by partitioning the matrix
to distinguish the real unknowns from the independent variables. Consequently,
elements of the resultant matrix [E1 (vi )] do not always reflect the magnitudes of the
elements in matrix [E(vi )]. In other words, it is not always true that if the FRFs have
large magnitudes, the matrix [E1 (vi )] must have large elements, or vice versa, especially
when the matrix [E(vi )] is an ill-conditioned matrix or the magnitudes of the elements
in the transformation matrix change greatly at different frequencies. Therefore, it is
more appropriate to impose weighting before any transformation and restriction, i.e.,
to select scaling factors to make the maximum element (or the maximum sum of a row
or a column) in the matrix [W(vi )][E(vi )] unity. This weighting method is referred to
as the Weighting-Before method (WB). The first weighting method is referred to as the
Weighting-After method (WA).
In addition to variations occurring in FRFs at different frequencies, FRFs at different
co-ordinates also vary. As a result, the elements of different equations at the same
frequency can be significantly different in magnitude. When equations with small
magnitude elements are combined with equations with large ones, the effects of the
equations with small elements on the least squares solution will be overshadowed by
those of the equations with large elements; in other words, the information in these
small magnitude equations is wasted. To overcome this problem, independent weighting
can be imposed on each of the equations according to their magnitudes: i.e., multiply
both sides of an equation in equation (22) by a scaling factor so that the maximum
coefficient (or the sum of the coefficient squares) in the resultant equation is unity. This
weighting method is called the Weighting-Before (transformation)-Single (equation)
method (WBS).
Initially, the WBS method looks perfect because all the equations accumulated at
all the co-ordinates and frequencies are considered to be of the same importance.
However, it is questionable if all the equations should be so considered. The error
levels in different equations can be significantly different even if all the FRFs have
the same levels of error. This is because the [C] matrix in equation (20) is a subtraction
between two matrices (say, [C]=[C1 ][C2 ]). If the corresponding elements in these
two matrices have similar magnitudes (i.e., c1 (i, j) and c2 (i, j) are similar), the resultant
[C] matrix (or some elements in the matrix [C]) can have very high error levels. The
effects of these erroneous equations on identified joint parameters are often insignificant
because the magnitudes of c1 (i, j)c2 (i, j) of these equations are usually very small.
However, if the WBS method is used, the magnitudes of these erroneous equations can
be significantly magnified. Accordingly, the effects of these equations on the solution
become significant.
To overcome this shortcoming of the WBS method, these erroneous equations must be
deleted before the identification process. One can delete these equations simply by deleting
those equations with
2=c1 (i, j)c2 (i, j)=/(=c1 (i, j)=+=c2 (i, j)=)ED,

(34)

where D is a small positive number in the range 2qDe0. When D=0, no equation is deleted.
When D=2, all equations are deleted. When using equations (34), not only

576

. . .

the erroneous equations are deleted, but other equations with low error levels as
well. Consequently, some information is rejected. However, this small sacrifice can be
worthwhile and can often be compensated for by the reduction of the total error levels and
effective use of information in the remaining equations. Deleting an equation in a computer
program can be achieved by setting the corresponding element in the weighting matrix [W]
to zero.
The choice of the D value is determined both by error levels in the measured data and
by the amount of measured data. If the error levels are high and the measured data
are sufficient, a large D value may be appropriate; if error levels are low and the measured
data are limited, a small D should be chosen. The requirement on the accuracy of the
right side element c1c2 should not be set too high; otherwise, too many equations will
be deleted. If the errors in c1 and c2 are c1 d1 and c2 d2 , then the error level in c1c2 is
=c1 d1c2 d2 =/=c1c2 =, and the worst possible case is d1 d2Q0 (let d1=d2q0); then the error
level is =c1+c2 =d1 /=c1c2 =. If the maximum error level in c1c2 should be less than m, i.e.,
=c1+c2 =d1 /=c1c2 =Qm.

(35a)

D=2=c1c2 =/=c1+c2 =q2d1 /m.

(35b)

Then

For example, if the error in c1c2 must be less than 5%, then Dq2 from equation
(35b), which means all the equations should be deleted. Clearly, this requirement is not
achievable.
An alternative to the WBS method is to divide equations obtained at each frequency
into several groups and weight these groups separately. Provided that equations are
properly grouped, the erroneous equations will not be over-magnified. This is because an
erroneous equation can be over-magnified only if c1c2 is much smaller than the
magnitudes of c1 and c2 , and the coefficients on the left side of the equation must have
the same order as c1c2 . When the equations are grouped and weighted, all the equations
in the group are weighted by the same factor, which is determined by the equation with
the largest coefficients. Therefore, over-magnifying erroneous equations is prevented. This
weighting method is referred to as the Weight-Before (transformation)-Group (equations)
method (WBG).
Both the WB and WBS methods are actually two special cases of the WBG method; if
all equations from equations (16)(19) are treated as one group, the WBG method becomes
the WB method; if each equation in equations (16)(19) is considered as a single group, the
WBG method becomes the WBS method.

Figure 3. A schematic of dividing equations into two groups.

577

Figure 4. A 14-DOF system.

Here, the following WBG method for grouping equations is proposed. From the
discussion in section 2.2, it is known that each equation in equations (16)(19) is generated
from one row of matrix [A] and one column from matrix [B]. If all equations which involve
one row of matrix [A] are considered as one group, then the equations obtained at each
frequency are divided into several groups. A schematic example is shown in Figure 3.
3. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

3.1.
The system considered is very similar to that used in a preceding paper [5]. The system
consists of two finite element beams with a total of 14 DOFs, as shown in Figure 4.
The beam element of the substructure has the following physical properties: length L=03 m,
thickness h=0012 m, width w=005 m, density r=7547 kg/m3 and Youngs modulus
E=2071011 N/m2. The stiffness and mass matrices of a beam element are

K
12
G 6L
EI
[K]= 3 G
L
12
G
k 6L

6L
12
4L 2 6L
12
6L
2L 2 6L

662 400
99 360
K
G 99 360
19 872
=G
662 400 99 360
G
9936
k 99 360
156
K
G 22L
mL
[M]=
G 54
420
G
k13L

6L L
G
2L 2
G
6L
G
4L 2 l
662 400
99 360L
G
99 360
9936
G,
662 400 99 360
G
99 360
19 872l

22L
54
4L 2
13L
156
13L
3L 2 22L

(36)

13LL
G
3L2
G
22L
G
4L2 l

0021
01746 00126 L
K 0.5
G 0021
G
0001
00126 000087
=G
G,
01746
00126
05
0021
G
G
0001 l
k00126 000087 0021

(37)

where m=rhw and I=wh 3/12. The damping of the beam element is hysteretic and
proportional to the stiffness matrix; i.e.,
[D]=0001[K].

(38)

The joint element is exactly the same as a beam element. Therefore, the joint has a total of
48 unknowns (16 stiffness elements, 16 mass elements and 16 damping elements). Based on

. . .

578

T 1
(RJCF, ARVF) pair for the stiffness identified by using equations (16)(19)
WA
WB
WBG
WBS

D=0

D=002

D=005

D=01

D=002

D=03

D=04

D=05

100, 093
100, 098
100, 100
100, 099

100, 093
100, 099
100, 10
100, 099

100, 093
100, 099
100, 100
100, 099

100, 093
100, 100
100, 100
100, 099

100, 093
100, 099
100, 100
100, 099

100, 093
100, 099
100, 100
100, 099

100, 093
100, 099
100, 100
100, 100

100,4093
100, 099
100, 100
100, 100

the geometric symmetry of the joint element, it is assumed that the stiffness, mass and
damping matrices have the following form:

K
e
d L
Gac bc d
G
f
(K, M, D)=G
G.
e d a c
G
G
kd f c b l

(39)

Hence, each of the stiffness, mass and damping matrices have six independent unknowns
and the total number of independent unknowns is 18.
The identification formulae (equations (16)(19)) have been verified and the effects of
combining information at different frequencies and imposing restrictions (i.e., imposing the
[T] matrix) on the accuracy of joint identification have been studied in reference [5]. In the
following sections, effects of weighting are illustrated. The FRF data in a frequency range
1001000 Hz with a frequency increment of 30 Hz are used.
3.2.
For clarity, two parameters are used to evaluate the accuracy of the identification.
Upper triangular elements of an identified matrix (e.g., a stiffness matrix) can be listed into
a vector V={v1 , v2 , . . . , vn }T and those of the exact results as V0={v10 , v20 , . . . , vn0 }, and then
a Relative-Joint-Correlation-Factor (RJCF) is defined as
RJCF=(UTU0 )2/>U> >U0 >,

(40)

where U={v1 /v10 , v2 /v20 , . . . , vi /vi0 , . . . , vn /vn0 }T and U0={1, 1, . . . , . . . , 1}T. When there
are some very small elements in the joint matrix, the RJCF value can be significantly affected,
because these small elements are difficult to identify as accurately as large elements.
However, because small elements in the joint matrix usually have little effect on the assembly
property, they can be ignored. When small elements are excluded from U and U0 , RJCF
values give a good indication about the correlation between the identified and exact results.
A good correlation between the identified and exact results often indicates an accurate
identification. However, if the identified results are proportional to the exact results, the
T 2
(RJCF, ARVF) pair for the mass properties stiffness identified by using equations (16)(19)
WA
WB
WBG
WBS

D=0

D=002

D=005

D=01

D=002

D=03

D=04

D=05

099, 100
100, 098
100, 099
100, 098

099, 100
100, 099
100, 099
100, 098

099, 100
100, 100
100, 100
100, 098

099, 100
100, 100
100, 098
100, 098

099, 100
100, 100
100, 098
100, 098

099, 100
100, 100
100, 098
100, 098

099, 099
100, 100
100, 098
100, 095

099, 099
100, 099
100, 098
100, 098

579

T 3
(RJCF, ARVF) pair for the damping properties identified by using equations (16)(19)
WA
WB
WBG
WBS

D=0

D=002

D=005

D=01

D=002

D=03

D=04

D=05

090, 098
097, 088
088, 108
055, 175

090, 098
084, 095
087, 106
057, 174

090, 098
086, 096
091, 113
096, 084

090, 098
086, 099
090, 112
096, 097

090, 098
082, 093
090, 112
096, 097

090, 098
082, 093
089, 112
096, 091

091, 096
086, 095
093, 110
096, 096

091, 096
086, 096
093, 111
093, 096

RJCF value will be 1 even if the identified results are not correct. To take this into account,
another Average-Relative-Value Factor (ARVF) is defined as
1 n v
ARVF= s i .
n i=1 vi0

(41)

If the identified results are accurate, the ARVF should be close to 1. The RJCF and ARVF
are treated as a pair (RJCF, ARVF) to evaluate the accuracy of the identified results.
3.3.
The identified results in the (RJCF, ARVF) pair by using equations (16)(19) are shown
in Tables 13. The RJCF values for stiffness and mass matrices are higher than 98% (for
WBS and WBG, values of RJCF are higher than 995%) and ARVF values for stiffness and
mass fall in a range {099, 101}. Therefore, all the weighting methods yield very satisfactory
results for stiffness and mass. The accuracy of the identified damping matrices is not as good
as those of stiffness and mass, especially for the damping matrices when using the WBS
method with DQ005. However, when a proper D is chosen (e.g., 005 or 01), the damping
values identified are more accurate. The effects of D on the accuracy of the damping matrices
when using other weighting methods are not as significant as those for WBS methods.
Therefore, when the measured data are sufficient, a proper choice of D can improve the
accuracy of the identified results slightly. However, since very good results have been
obtained even when using the WA or WB method, the choice of weighting methods is not
critical.
If measured data are insufficient, however, different weighting methods lead to
significantly different results. In Tables 46 are shown the identified results using equation
(16) only, the best results for each method are written in bold type. The relative values of
the best identified results (the case shown in bold type in Tables 46) with respect to the exact
results obtained by using different weighting methods are shown in Table 7. The exact values
of the joint parameters are listed in the last column of Table 7 for comparison. It is obvious
that the weighting methods (especially WBG and WBS) have clear advantages over the WA

T 4
(RJCF, ARVF) pair for the stiffness identified by using equations (16)(19)
WA
WB
WBG
WBS

D=0

D=002

D=005

D=01

D=002

D=03

D=04

D=05

070, 028
064, 043
091, 110
064, 079

0.70, 028
064, 042
092, 112
069, 078

070, 028
064, 043
091, 110
099, 098

070, 028
061, 041
089, 109
099, 089

069, 027
061, 041
089, 109
099, 089

070, 028
065, 043
09, 111
099, 087

062, 025
065, 043
088, 066
098, 073

071, 030
067, 044
088, 065
097, 060

. . .

580

T 5
(RJCF, ARVF) pair for the mass properties identified by using equation (16) only
WA
WB
WBG
WBS

D=0

D=002

D=005

D=01

D=002

D=03

D=04

D=05

076, 064
025, 012
097, 101
054, 081

076, 064
024, 012
097, 103
0554083

076, 063
025, 012
097, 105
099, 093

076, 062
018, 010
097, 100
099, 086

076, 061
017, 009
097, 100
099, 084

076, 061
012, 008
097, 101
099, 084

075, 060
009, 007
098, 067
098, 068

074, 056
088, 008
098, 066
094, 056

T 6
(RJCF, ARVF) pair for the damping properties identified by using equation (16) only
WA
WB
WBG
WBS

D=0

D=002

D=005

D=001

D=002

D=003

D=004

D=005

012, 015
052, 039
071, 121
004, 618

012, 016
052, 038
057, 108
004, 659

011, 016
051, 039
074, 132
065, 064

011, 016
054, 037
072, 132
055, 100

061, 015
054, 037
071, 131
057, 099

010, 016
057, 039
074, 132
05, 099

009, 013
056, 039
030, 089
023, 085

011, 015
056, 040
030, 089
019, 074

and WB methods. When D=0, the WBG method yields the best results. However, if D is
correctly chosen (e.g., D=005), the results from the WBS method are the best.
From Tables 46, it can also be noted that D has little effect on the identified results for
WA, WB and WBG methods for DQ03, which indicates that the effects of equations with
DQ03 on WA, WB and WBG methods are negligible. This means that the information of
many equations is not used efficiently for these weighting methods.
For the WBS method, it is clear that there is an optimum D; if D is too small, the error
levels in the accumulated equations can be high; if D is too large (Dq04), much useful
information is rejected, and hence the results are poor. The identified results relative to the
exact results are shown in Table 8.
T 7
The relative values of the results identified by using different weighting methods
kj (1, 1)
kj (1, 2)
kj (1, 3)
kj (1, 4)
kj (2, 2)
kj (2, 4)
mj (1, 1)
mj (1, 2)
mj (1, 3)
mj (1, 4)
mj (2, 2)
mj (2, 4)
hj (1, 1)
hj (1, 2)
hj (1, 3)
hj (1, 4)
hj (2, 2)
hj (2, 4)

WA (D=0)

WB (D=0)

WBG (D=0)

029
049
038
039
008
008

044
075
039
057
016
068

079
132
156
074
103
170

102
091
092
104
101
095

010
029
035
021
028
023

116
096
123
076
107
103

088
100
078
099
095
093

062
061
035
086
003
036

087
087
324
049
127
184

067
066
070
136
035
036

007
086
125
081
0545
074
027
054
100
028
012
035

WBS (D=005)

Exact values
662 400
99 360
662 400
99 360
19 872
9 936
050450
002130
017470
001260
000116
000090
662400
99360
662400
99360
19872
9936

581

T 8
The relative values of the results with different D values identified by using WBS method
D=00

D=002

D=005

D=010

D=030

D=050

Exact values

kj (1, 1)
kj (1, 2)
kj (1, 3)
kj (1,4)
kj (2,2)
kj (2, 4)

054
155
143
041
004
149

062
145
131
047
006
137

102
091
092
104
101
095

086
094
094
091
084
094

084
091
091
088
081
093

064
068
063
067
038
060

662 400
99 360
662 400
99 360
19 872
9 936

mj (1, 1)
mj (1, 2)
mj (1, 3)
mj (1, 4)
mj (2, 2)
mj (2, 4)

154
042
075
080
162
035

154
042
089
078
164
041

088
100
078
099
095
093

080
091
083
087
089
090

076
090
089
080
086
091

030
067
050
063
061
063

05045
00213
01747
00126
00012
00009

hj (1, 1)
hj (1, 2)
hj (1, 3)
hj (1, 4)
hj (2, 2)
hj (2, 4)

4179
2593
3624
2466
1348
996

4502
2847
3882
2710
1422
1099

067
066
070
136
035
036

170
006
014
216
123
156

187
018
009
218
123
012

235
1.08
128
234
094
046

66240
9936
66240
9936
1987
994

Figure 5. RJCF (a) and ARVF (b) curves for the identified stiffness. D values: w, 00; Q, 005;
W, 05.

582

. . .

Figure 6. As Figure 5, but for the identified mass.

The relation between D and the accuracy of the identified results can be further understood
by studying the change of identified results with the frequencies. As shown in
Figures 5 and 6, the identified results change dramatically at some frequencies if D is
small (e.g., D=0), while the changes are less severe after the first few frequency points when D
is large. The dramatic change of (RJCF, ARVF) pair values at a single frequency point
indicates the effects of over-magnified erroneous equations. When erroneous equations are
deleted (by choosing a greater D value), the change of the (RJCF, ARVF) pair becomes less
significant. When the D is too large (of course this depends on the total available data, in
this case D=05), the change of the (RJCF, ARVF) pair is insignificant. However, the (RJCF,
ARVF) pair does not converge to (1,1) in the frequency range measured.

Figure 7. Diagrams of experimental rig. (a) Substructures; (b) assembly. Lengths in cm.

583

When a proper D value is chosen, the WBS method yields the most accurate results.
However, WBG should certainly have its applications in joint identification. This is
because the identified results from the WBG method are accurate if a reasonable amount
of the measured data are available and the results are not so sensitive to the D value (in
other words, the WBG method is more stable than the WBS method). These properties are
useful, because the real results are unknown in practice. If the identified results from both
the WBG and WBS methods yield close agreement, the identified results are likely to be
accurate.
4. EXPERIMENTAL EXAMPLES

4.1.
Diagrams of the substructure and the assembly system are shown in Figure 7. The test
rig consisted of two aluminium beams with a rectangular cross-section of 254127 cm2
(112 in2 ). One beam had a length of 102 cm; the other was 91 cm long. The joint consisted
of two aluminum pieces and a steel shell element cut from a 05 inch nut. The steel shell
element was used to introduce flexibility of the joint. The shell thickness was about 2 mm.
The structure was suspended by using two soft strings to simulate the freefree boundary
condition. A standard hammer testing was carried out to measure the FRFs of both
substructures and the assembly. A schematic diagram for the experimental set-up is shown
in Figure 8. Measurements were made at twelve co-ordinates on the assembly, as shown in
Figure 7. The inertance data measured were converted to receptance data by multiplying
the inertance by 1/v 2.
Because of the symmetry of the beam structure and excitation, the structure could vibrate
only in one translational direction and one rotational direction (Y and a in Figure 7). The
joint was assumed to have four translational DOFs, two connected to the long beam and
the other two connected to the short beam (i.e., co-ordinates 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Figure 7(a)).
Because the mass of the joint was insignificant (124 g), the effects of the joint mass were
ignored.
4.2.
Unlike the theoretical case study, the exact properties of a joint to be identified are not
known in an experimental study. Therefore, the accuracy of the identified results can be
evaluated only by means of deduction.
If the joint properties are accurately identified, the response of the assembly must be
accurately predicted from the substructure FRFs and the identified joint parameters.

Figure 8. The experimental set-up

584

. . .
T 9
Identified stiffness and damping matrices of the joint

Case A:
153 193 198L
K 274
G 153
G
289 218 233
[K]=G
G106 N/m
193 218
257
148
G198 233
G
148
288l
k

K 244
164 121 156L
G 164
G
261 230 234
[D]=G
G105 N/m
121 230
214
156
G156 234
G
146
267l
k
Case B:

K 278
177 129 112L
G 177
G
311 242 244
G106 N/m
[K]=G
229 242
286
151
G
G
151
318l
k212 244
K
188 185 186L
G 219
G
188
233 230 221
[D]=G
G105 N/m
185 130
243
146
G
G
179
133l
k186 288
Case C:
303
168 179 239L
K
G 168
G
268 244 202
[K]=G
G106 N/m
179 244
252
165
G
G
165
270l
k239 222
310
192 312 107L
K
G 192
G
324 864 388
[D]=G
G105 N/m
312 864
221
179
G
G
179
233l
k107 388

Figure 9. The assembly response predicted by using the substructure coupling technique. w, Predicted;
Q, measured.

585

Figure 10. The assembly response predicted from the substructures and the joint. Key as Figure 9.

In addition, the results identified by using different data sets should be close to each other;
and because the joint is approximately symmetric in its geometry, the stiffness and damping
matrices should be close to the form

K
GA
B
[K]=G
C
G
kD

B
A
D
C

C
D
A
B

DL
G
C
G.
B
G
Al

(42)

Three cases were studied by using different data sets. In Case A, all the data were used (i.e.,
12 coordinates and frequency range 961696 Hz) and equations (16)(19) were used; in
Case B, all the coordinates were used, but only the FRFs within the frequency range
8001696 Hz were used; in Case C, only parts of the data were used (i.e., equation (19) was
used). Measured FRFs were used directly for joint identification, but regenerated FRFs from
a modal analysis process were used to predict the assembly FRFs. Using FRFs regenerated
from modal data may lead to inaccurate results and is not recommended for joint
identification, but the regenerated FRFs should be used for substructure synthesis as stated
in reference [9].
Different weighting methods have been applied, and it was found that all the weighting
techniques yield similar results (because sufficient data are available); this indicates that the
measured data are sufficient. However, if no weighting is applied, the results are of poor
accuracy.
Because of the similarity of the identified results obtained by using different weighting
techniques, only the identified results from the WBG method are presented. The
identified results are shown in Table 9. The condition of the geometrical symmetry of
the joint (equation (42)) is roughly satisfied. The results from different data sets are
similar.
Shown in Figure 9 are the FRFs of the assembly predicted by using a substructure synthesis technique [10]. The results from the prediction and experiment are
significantly different. This indicates that overall properties of the assembly are significantly affected by the properties of the joint. Therefore, the effects of joints cannot be
ignored.
If the joint effects are considered, the predicted assembly FRFs are much more accurate;
the predicted FRFs of the assembly with its experimental counterpart are shown in Figure 10.
Not only are the resonance frequencies accurately predicted, but the overall shape of the
predicted FRFs also matches the measured one accurately.

586

. . .

The accurate prediction of the resonance frequencies means that the stiffness matrix is
accurately predicted. However, it is probably worth mentioning that a nice fit to the
measured FRFs may not necessarily mean that the damping properties of the joint are
accurately identified. This is because an exponential window was applied to the measured
response signal, which effectively introduces artificial damping into the FRFs. Since the
damping information in the FRFs of both substructures and assembly is not correct, the
damping identified cannot be correct.
5. CONCLUSIONS

A generalized joint identification method has been presented and a comprehensive

discussion of joint identification has been given. One of the major advantages of the
method is that accurate identification can be achieved even with contaminated experimental
data.
Information obtained at one frequency may not be enough to extract an accurate joint
model from contaminated experimental data. In order to identify the accurate results, all
the available information, including available data and available knowledge on joints,
should be used together. This can be achieved by using a series of linear transformation
matrices ([T], [Tv ], [Tf ]).
The equations obtained at different frequencies and different co-ordinates should be
properly weighted. Four weighting techniques are tested. The WA and WB methods tend
to weight the FRFs at different frequencies with same importance while the WBG and WBS
methods not only weight the FRFs at different frequencies, but at different co-ordinates as
well. When the measured data are limited, it is strongly suggested that the WBS method
and/or WBG method be used. The use of WBS method must be incorporated with an
elimination process to delete erroneous equations.
The joint identification technique has been applied to a numerical simulated case and a
real structure. Satisfactory results were obtained for stiffness and mass. For the real
structure, however, due to the effects of artificial damping introduced during the
measurement, joint damping may not have been identified accurately.
REFERENCES
1. N. O and M. M 1984 Proceedings of International Modal Analysis Conference,
Florida, U.S.A., 11941200. Development of uncoupling technique and its application.
2. J. S. T and Y. F. C 1988 Journal of Sound and Vibration 125, 487502. The identification
of dynamic characteristics of a single bolt joint.
3. J. H. W and C. M. L 1989 International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal
Analysis 5(1), 112. Experimental substructure synthesis with special consideration of joint effect.
4. S. W. H and C. W. L 1991 Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 5(4), 267277.
Identification of linearised joint structural parameters by combined use of measured and computed
frequency responses.
5. Y. R and C. F. B 1991 Proceedings of Florence Modal Analysis Conference, Florence, Italy,
663669. A new method for the identification of joint properties using FRF data.
6. Y. R and C. F. B 1993 Proceedings of 11th International Modal Analysis Conference,
Florida, U.S.A., 11331139. An iterative FRF joint identification technique.
7. R. P 1955 Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 51, 406413. A generalized
inverse for matrices.
8. R. P 1956 Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 52, 1719. On best
approximate solutions of linear matrix equations.
9. Y. R 1992 Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of
London. The analysis and identification of friction joint parameters in the dynamic response of
structures.

587

10. Y. R and C. F. B 1993 Proceedings of 11th International Modal Analysis Conference,

Florida, U.S.A., 872876. A new multi-step two-coordinate coupling technique and its application
for detecting linearly-dependent coordinates.