Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Since its original development in the early eighties, the modal assurance criterion (MAC) has become a
major tool in modal analysis. This measure of the degree of linearity (consistency) between two modal
vectors provides an invaluable means of comparing and contrasting modal vectors from different origins.
However, to the authors knowledge, its extension to complex vectors has not been addressed thoroughly.
Such situations occur when the system under study does not comply with the classical assumptions of structural dynamics. This paper proposes a generalization of the MAC criterion that is applicable to any types
of vectors. It also introduces an enhanced version of this criterion that tremendously improves its ability to
discriminate modes when few measurements are available.
1 Introduction
The Modal Assurance Criterion (MAC) is an essential tool in modal analysis. Its use to perform the pairing
between two sets of modal vectors is now widespread. The great success of the MAC has fostered the
emergence of numerous derivative criteria designed to deal with more specific situations.
However a rigorous treatment of the complex case still seems to be lacking. Such situations are relatively
frequent and occur for systems that do not fully comply with the classical assumptions of structural dynamics.
The analysis of the aeroelastic behaviour of an aircraft is a typical example of such a situation. The other
drawback of the MAC criterion resides in its limitation to discriminate efficiently the modes when only a
few measurements are available. Again, the in-flight analysis of an aircraft structure is an illustration of this
problem since the number of sensors is sometimes limited.
The development of criterions that are both appropriate to complex modes and to situations with few measurements constitutes the topic of this paper. It is composed of four main sections. The first one briefly
reviews the classical assumptions in structural dynamics and the definition of the MAC criterion. It also
introduces notations used in the paper. The following section deals with the definition of a degree of complexity which quantifies how much a vector differs from a real-valued one. This analysis is important because
it establishes the basic principle which shows why the MAC criterion is not quite appropriate to process complex vectors. The third section of the paper is devoted to an extension dubbed MACX of the MAC criterion
to complex vectors. This extension is constructed from the physical interpretation of the modal contributions
on the measurements of a system. Finally the last section addresses the enhancement of the MACX criterion
for situations with a limited number of measurements. This improved version named MACXP integrates
the information about the modal frequencies and dampings in order to increase the discrimination between
modes.
2713
2714
Conventional hypotheses
Mechanical models are based on the fundamental equations of dynamics. They are composed of a set of
second order differential equations on the generalized displacements of a structure. These displacements are
gathered in a vector denoted q. A modeling of the damping which quantifies the dissipation of the energy in
the structure is also necessary. The most common practice is to use a viscous damping model which leads to
linear equations which have the following form:
M q + D q + K q = B U
Y = C0 q + C1 q + C2 q
(1)
M, D and K designate the matrices of mass, damping and stiffness. The last equation of the model describes
how the vector of measurements Y is connected to the displacements q. The form adopted here encompasses
the various types of measurements used in structural analysis: displacements, velocities, accelerations.
Two additional hypotheses are formulated for modeling the dynamics of a structure:
the matrices M, D et K are positive symmetric matrices
they are diagonalizable in the same basis.
With such conditions, the eigenvectors of the system 1 are identical to those of the associated undamped
system (D = 0). If moreover the damping matrix D is composed of small components, the poles of the
systems k are complex and stable.
With these hypotheses, each pair of conjugate poles (k , k ) shares a common eigenvector k and this
vector is real-valued. The mode defined by the quantities k , k and k is said to be real. When the above
hypotheses are not complied with, each pole k is associated to a complex eigenvector k . The mode is
said to be complex. It is characterized by the pair of conjugate poles (k , k ) and the pair of conjugate
eigenvectors (k , k ).
| 1 2 |
k 1 k k 2 k
2
= cos2 (1 , 2 )
(4)
2715
where designate the conjugate transpose of a complex vector. The product 1 2 is called the Hermitian
inner product between two vectors.
This definition can be interpreted geometrically since the MAC criterion depends on the angle between two
vectors. This criterion can be applied to both real-valued and complex-valued vectors. It is insensitive to the
modulus and the phase of the vectors 1 and 2 . For this reason, it is well-suited to the analysis of monophase
vectors. On the other hand, we can notice the value of the MAC is sensitive to conjugate operations on the
vectors 1 and 2 .
As recommended by Allemang [1], this criterion is appropriate to compare two sets of modes and perform
pairing between these sets. One should however be aware of a few limitations. First the value of the MAC
is sensitive to the large components in the vectors 1 and 2 . If this difference on the amplitude of the
associated measurements is systematic, one could possibly applied scalings on the vectors in order to equalize
their contributions in the computation of the MAC. For instance, on aircraft, sensors installed on the wing
tips produce larger values than those at the center of the fuselage.
The other defect of the MAC criterion is its reduced sensitivity when the number of components in the
vectors 1 and 2 is small. Few spatial information is then available to differentiate mode shapes. This
phenomenon is illustrated by the figures 1 and 2 where the modes of two aeroelastic models are compared
with the MAC criterion. In the first case, only 18 measurements are considered. We can notice that modes
quite apart exhibit significant MAC values. The situation is much clearer in figure 2 with 123 measurements.
In practice [2], two vectors are considered correlated when the MAC is greater than 0.9 which correspond to
an angle lower than 18 degrees. They are judged uncorrelated when the MAC is lower than 0.6 which means
that they are separated by an angle greater than 39 degrees.
18 measurements
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0
30
0.2
30
20
20
10
Model 1
10
0
0.1
0
Model 2
Complexity criterion
In practical situations, the actual mode shapes of a physical system are not exactly monophase vectors even
if the aforementioned hypotheses for structural modeling are supposed fulfilled. It is therefore necessary to
define a criterion to quantify how distant a complex vector is from a monophase one.
2716
123 measurements
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0
30
0.2
30
20
20
10
10
0
Model 1
0.1
0
Model 2
In the literature, several indicators of the complexity of a vector are available. The thesis by Purekar
[3] presents several of them. For illustrative purposes, we begin this section by a graphical approach of
complexity. We then concentrate on a criterion called Modal Phase Collinearity (MPC) developed by
Pappa, Elliott, and Schenk [4]. A geometrical interpretation of the complexity of a vector is also presented
and its connection with the MAC criterion is established.
Imag. part
Imag. part
Mode 1
Real part
Real part
3.2
2717
In order to quantify the complexity of a vector , Pappa et al. [4] defined a criterion that makes use of the
real part r and the imaginary part i of . The variance and the covariance of these parts are computed
according to
Sxx = >
r r
Syy = >
i i
Sxy =
>
r
(5)
p
Sxx + Syy
Sxy 2 + 1
2
with
Syy Sxx
2 Sxy
(6)
1 2
1 + 2
2
(7)
This phase normalization process is illustrated in figure 4 which depicts the rotation by the angle e applied to
the components of a vector in the complex plane. The angle e maximizes the alignment of the components
with the real axis.
It can be show that the optimum value e is equal to
(> )
e =
2
mod
(8)
where (z) designates the phase of the complex scalar z and > is the transpose operation. If we denote
e
e
j
imag. axis
imag. axis
2718
real axis
real axis
k
er k2 k
ei k2
k
er k2 + k
ei k2
!2
(10)
This quantity lies between 0 and 1. It is equal to 1 in when is monophase and to 0 when k
ei k = k
er k.
By substituting the relations 9 in the expression of C(), we come upon a very simple form of this criterion
which directly depends on the vector
C() =
> !2
=
> !2
k k2
(11)
| |
kk kk
2
(12)
where is the conjugate of . Comparing with the definition 4 of the MAC criterion, we deduce that
MPC() is nothing mere than the MAC computed for the vector and its conjugate :
MPC() = MAC (, )
(13)
This result shows that, when the vector is not monophase, the angle between a complex vector and its
conjugate is non-zero.
2719
4.1
When complex modes are considered, each mode is characterized by a pair of complex-conjugate mode
shapes. If we want to compute a degree of similarity between two modes using the MAC criterion, we might
wonder, as illustrated by the diagram 5, which vector in each pair of conjugate vectors, we might select
for computing the MAC criterion. When one of the mode shapes 1 or 2 is monophase, this choice has
absolutely no incidence on the value of the MAC. But if the two vectors are complex then two values are in
fact possible since the associations of the same color in the diagram 5 produce identical results.
_
2
_
1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0
0.5
0.2
1
30
30
20
0.4
20
10
10
0
0.6
2720
to select the two vectors which are associated with poles 1 et 2 with imaginary parts of the same sign.
However logic this solution may be, it bears no relation with the underlying physical phenomenons. The
contribution of a complex mode on the measurements is in fact the combination of the two complex-conjugate
mode shapes associated to this mode. The value of the output vector Y (t) at time t is given by
Y (t) =
nm
X
nm
X
k xk (t) + k xk (t) = 2
Re k xk (t)
k=1
(14)
k=1
(17)
In this situation, the MAC criterion clearly gives an underestimated value of the similarity between the two
mode shapes because it indicates completely dissimilar vectors whereas the contributions of these modes will
be orthogonal only for two specific values of the sum 1 + 2 on the interval [ 0 2 [. Finally, for complex
vectors, the fact that 1>(1 ) 2 (2 ) = 0 for all values of 1 and 2 is equivalent to MAC(1 , 2 ) = 0 and
MAC(1 , 2 ) = 0.
This result shows that, to decide on the full orthogonality of the contribution of two complex modes, i.e. for
all values of 1 and 2 , we must consider simultaneously the two associations in diagram 5. This explains
why the conventional MAC formulation is not sufficient for complex vectors.
2721
15
imag. part
imag. part
10
5
0
real part
real part
real part
15
imag. part
imag. part
10
5
0
real part
real part
real part
(>
)
b1 =
2
2
1
1
2
The optimum value of the scalar product is given by
i
1 h
(>
)
+
(
)
b2 =
2
2
1
1
2
>
|
b>
b
|
=
|
|
+
2
r1 r2
1 2
1
with
br1 = 1 (b1 )
br2 = 2 (b2 )
(18)
(19)
This quantity involves both the Hermitian product and the scalar product between 1 and 2 . We can connect this result with the analysis of the previous subsection by noting that
b>
br2 = 0 is equivalent to
r1
MAC(1 , 2 ) = 0 and MAC(1 , 2 ) = 0.
The criterion MACX defined below makes use of this quantity. A first idea would be to define the MACX
criterion as the MAC criterion between the two real parts
br1 and
br2 . However this choice is not acceptable
because b1 and b2 can be quite different from the angles 2 e1 and e2 defined by equation 8 which individually
maximize the norm of 1 (1 ) and 2 (2 ) as depicted in figure 7. In such a case, we might conclude to a high
similarity between two mode shapes based on the linearity of the vectors
br1 and
br2 whereas the dominant
real parts
er1 and
er2 could be quite different or even orthogonal. Therefore we must impose that the MACX
criterion could only be equal to 1 if b1 = e1 mod and b2 = e2 mod .
(b1 , b2 ) = arg max 1>(1 ) 2 (2 )
ei = arg max k i (i ) k
b1 = 1 ej 1 =
br1 + j
bi1
e1 = 1 ej 1 =
er1 + j
ei1
b2 = 2 ej 2 =
br2 + j
bi2
e2 = 2 ej 2 =
er2 + j
ei2
1 , 2
b
e
e
|
b>
br2 |
r1
k
br1 k k
br2 k
k
br1 k
k
er1 k
k
br2 k
k
er2 k
!2
2722
By using equations 9 and 19, we can derive a simpler expression that can be computed directly from the
vectors 1 and 2
2
| 1 2 | + >
2
1
MACX(1 , 2 ) =
2 2 + >
1 1 + >
2 2
1 1
(20)
This formulation is quite similar to the classical MAC since we only need to perform the following substitution in the expression 4 of the MAC:
1
| 1 2 |
| 1 2 | + >
(21)
2
1
2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
30
20
10
0
Model 1
10
15
20
Model 2
25
30
2723
5.1
Pole weighting consist in integrating, in the MACX criterion, the information about the poles associated
to the mode shapes for a better mode differentiation. Instead of computing the criterion on the sole mode
shapes, the idea is to use the free-decay responses realted to each pole.
Given the pole and the associated mode shape , the expression of the free-decay response at time t is
given by
d(t) = x(t) = x0 e t
(22)
were x0 is the initial complex state associated to this pole. For each pole we can form a vector V by
concatenating the free-decay response at several equispaced instants (0, t, 2 t, , nr t) where t
is a constant period. Such a vector is defined by
e t
(23)
V = .
.
enr t
The pole weighted version of the MACX criterion is nothing mere than the application of the MACX formulation to two of these vectors
MACXp. w. (1 , 2 ) = MACX(V1 , V2 )
(24)
We can notice incidentally that, even if the mode shape is monophase, the vector V will not be monophase
as soon as nr > 1. Thus, even for real modes, the use of a complex version of the MAC is unavoidable.
Pole-weighted versions of the MAC have already been worked out in the literature. This approach was used
by Juang [5] at NASA to evaluate the quality of modes identified with the ERA algorithm (Eigensystem
Realization Algorithm). This concept was also studied more recently by Phillips and Allemang [6] who
named it pwMAC (Pole-Weighted MAC). Anyhow the complex nature of the vectors V in equation 23 was
not addressed.
lim
t 0
nr
MACX(V1 , V2 )
(25)
2724
It can be shown that the Hermitian and scalar products between vectors V1 and V2 in the expression of the
MACX criterion have the following limits
Z
Z
d1 (t)> d2 (t) dt
(26)
d1 (t) d2 (t) dt
lim V1> V2 t =
lim V1 V2 t =
t 0
nr
t 0
nr
where d1 (t) and d2 (t) are the free-decay responses of the poles 1 and 2 as defined in 22. Under the
assumption that these poles are stable, the integrals in these equations are given by
Z
Z
1
1
d1 (t) d2 (t) dt =
d1 (t)> d2 (t) dt =
2
(27)
1 2
1 + 2 1
1 + 2
0
0
Substituting for these results in the definition 25 we obtain the following formulation of the MACXP criterion:
2
| >
| 1 2 |
1 2 |
+
| 1 +2 | | 1 +2 |
MACXP(1 , 2 ) =
(28)
| >
| >
2 2
1 1
1 1 |
2 2 |
2 | Re 1 | + 2 | 1 |
2 | Re 2 | + 2 | 2 |
As compared to the basic MACX formulation 20, we clearly see in the above expression the influence of
pole weighting. The MACXP criterion can be interpreted in terms of the correlation function between the
real decay responses associated to two modes: it can be shown that the square root of this criterion is quite
close to the maximum value of the modulus of this correlation function normalized by the L2 -norm of these
free-decay responses.
The application of this criterion for the comparison of the aeroelastic models with few measurements appears
in figure 9. We can see that the situation is tremendously improved as compared to figure 1. For instance,
this latter criterion clearly reveals an exchange between modes 24 and 26.
18 measurements
1
0.9
1
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
0
30
0.5
0.4
0.3
20
0.2
10
Model 1
0
10
15
20
25
30
Model 2
0.1
0
2725
6 Conclusion
This paper is devoted to the study of criterions so as to compare complex modes when a small number of
measurements are available. This study explains why the utilization of the MAC criterion is limited to real
modes. Two extensions of this criterion are proposed.
The first one called MACX enlarges the application of the MAC criterion to complex modes. Moreover this
criterion is strictly equivalent to the MAC when real modes are considered. The second criterion named
MACXP dramatically betters the analysis of modes when few measurements are available.
One can think of several applications in modal analysis that can take advantage of these criterions:
mode matching in stabilization diagrams
association of identified modes in various experimental situations (for instance, different flight conditions for the aeroelastic testing of an aircraft)
comparison of results between several identification algorithms
mode pairing between a model of the physical system and the identification results for this system.
...
Acknowledgements
The authors greatly thank Stephane Leroy, Aurelien Cordeau, Adrien Pavie and Adrien Berard at Airbus for
their technical support on the aeroelastic models.
References
[1] Randall J. Allemang. The modal assurance criterion: Twenty years of use and abuse. Sound and vibration
Magazine, 37(8):1423, 2003.
[2] Etienne Balm`es, Jean-Philippe Bianchi, and Jean-Michel Lecl`ere. Structural Dynamics Toolbox - FEMLink, Users Guide. SDTools, Vibration Software and Consulting, version 6.1 edition, Septembre 2009.
[3] Dhanesh M. Purekar. A Study of Modal Testing Measurement Errors, Sensor Placement and Modal
Complexity on the Process of FE Correlation. Master of science, University of Cincinnati, Department
of Mechanical Engineering of the College of Engineerring, 2005.
[4] Richard S. Pappa, Kenny B. Elliott, and Axel Schenk. Consistent-mode indicator for the eigensystem
realization algorithm. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 16(5):852858, SpetemberOctober
1993.
[5] Jer-Nan Juang. Applied System Identification. PTR Prentice Hall, 1994.
[6] Allyn W. Phillips and Randall J. Allemang. Data presentation schemes for selection and identification
of modal parameters. In 23th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, 2005.
2726