COMPLEX MODES - ORIGINS AND LIMITS
M. Imregun and D. J. Ewins
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Mechanical EngineeringDqmtment
Exhibition Road, London SW7 2BX, UK
Abstract. This paper investigates the origins of
modal complexity and aims at distinguishing
between various cases that lead to complex
modes. Non-linear structural behaviour,
experimental noise, aerodynamic damping, non-
proportional structural damping and gyroscopic
effects are discussed in some detail in order to
observe, quantify and explore the limits of
complex modal behaviour. Two new parameters,
the so-called modal complexity factors, have been
introduced to quantify the amount of complexity in
the mode shapes. The findings suggest that, in the
case of general non-proportionally damped
systems, significantly complex modes occur only
for a very narrow range of system parameters, or
those with close modes. The complexity was also
investigated for aeroelastic modes occurring in the
case of systems subjected to non-linear
aerodynamic loads. Fmally, it was shown that
complex modes could also arise because of
analysis and measurement errors,
1. INTRODUCTION
The dynamic behaviour of a structure is often
described in terms of complex modes of vibration
but the mechanisms that are responsible for the
complexity of this behaviour are still under
investigation (Caughey and O’Kelly 1965, Lang
1989 and Mitchell 1990). The subject is still not
very well developed in the sense that
mathematical models can only be used for the
simulation, but not for the prediction, of complex
modal behaviour.
The problem of dealing with complex modes is
further compounded by the existence of a
496
number of critical applications, such as the
correlation and updating of finite element models
using measured vibration test data. As the use of
real mode shapes is an advantage in such cases,
there is a great deal of interest in understanding
the origins and limits of complex modes in order
to start contemplating a complex-to-real
conversion of the mode shapes, a process
described as redisution in (Imregun and Ewins
1993) but previously discussed by Asher (1958)
Ibrahim (1983), Niedbal (1984) and Wei et al.
(1987).
While it is customary to attribute modal
complexity to non-proportional damping, most
non-proportionally damped systems exhibit
modes that are almost real, the amount of
complexity being dependent on the system
characteristics rather than the actual damping
values. Indeed, it may be difficult to find systems
with significantly complex modes by increasing
the damping unless close or double modes exist.
In any case, several other factors can give rise to
complex modes. Some are due to analysis and/or
measurement limitations such as measurement
errors and linear modal analysis of non-linear
frequency function response data. Others
originate from asymmetric system matrices which
may include gyroscopic or similar terms.
In almost all cases, it is possible to express the
terms that are giving rise to complex modes into
an additional damping matrix which is not
necessarily symmetrical. This way, one can
conduct parametric studies to determine the
origins and limits of complex modes as a function
of the system characteristics. Such an approach is
the focal point of this paper.
2. THEORY
2.1 Whys and Wherefores of Complex Modes
From a mathematical standpoint, there are several
characteristics of a dynamic system which dictate
whether its eigenvectors or mode shapes are real
or complex. Let us first consider systems whose
governing equations of motion are represented by
the equation:
Ml {K I + [Cl {* 1 + M 64 = { 0 1 (1)
It is well-known that this system will possess both
complex eigenvalues and complex eigenvectors
unless the matrix [C] has certain special
properties, generally referred to as proportionality
to [M] and/or [K]. Under this special condition,
OdY t h e eigenvahres a r e complex, the
eigenvectors retaining the same (real) values as
the corresponding system with all damping
removed. However, this damping distribution
feature leads to the most common type of
complex modes: namely, those which exist
when/because the damping has a non-proportional
distribution within the structure.
If the dynamics of the structure are described in,
terms of structural or hysteretic damping effects,
then the equation of motion is of the form:
IMI (2 I +( WI +i PI) f4 = { 0 1 (2)
Equation (2) also has complex eigenvahtes and
complex eigenvectors unless the damping [D]
matrix is again proportional to one of the other
two system matrices.
While complex modes are generally associated
with damped structures, there are other situations
in which they can exist in systems without
damping.
One such situation in which the eigenvectors will
be complex arises when the velocity-dependent
system matrix, [Cl, is itself not symmetric. This
497
situation occurs, for example, in structures whose
motion is affected by gyroscopic forces since
these give rise to skew-symmetric [C] matrices.
Even if there is no damping as such, and only
gyroscopic terms in the [C] matrix, the
eigenvalues are real but the eigenvectors will be
complex.
There is yet another situation in which a complex
mode may exist, or be observed in a test, and that
relates to an undamped structure which has two
(or more) identical eigenvalues. Axisymmetric
structures fall directly into this classification, most
of their modes existing as identical-eigenvalue
pairs. In structures which possess repeated
eigenvalues, there is a degree of degeneracy in the
mode shapes, it being possible to define a mode
shape as any linear combination of the
eigenvectors which are obtained from a numerical
solution of the equations of motion. While the
eigenvectors which are produced for a
conservative system are generally real, and not
complex, it is of course possible to form a mode
shape from the summation of components of each
of the eigenvectors, including combinations where
the contributions of the two constituent vectors
are not in phase with each other.
When such structures are subjected to
aerodynamic loads, the dynamic behaviour is
altered signiticantly as the fluid pressure effects
the structural motion and vice-versa. The
structural modes with double eigenvahtes split,
yielding in aeroelastic modes which are almost
always complex.
Thus, we see that there are several genuine
sources of complex mode shapes, based on a fairly
general consideration of the basic mathematics.
Although it may appear that some of the cited
causes of modal complexity are rather extreme
cases, this is detinitely not the case. Complex
modes, including heavily complex modes, can
readily be created from any of the above origins,
as will be shown in the case studies below.
2.2 Quantification of Modal Complexity
The task of quantifying the amount of complexity
in a given mode shape vector is not a trivial task
and merits research in its own right. The usual
procedure is to plot individual mode shape
elements as vectors, the length of each being the
magnitude of the individual element, with the
angle with the X axis representing its phase. The
almost-real modes are those with vectors tending
to form a straight line, the complex modes are
those with vectors following a random pattern.
Although this approach is a useful visual
representation of the modal complexity, it is
somewhat inadequate for comparison purposes.
Given an eigenvector, a first ditsculty lies in
defining the corresponding maximum possible
complex shape. Once an appropriate definition
can be found, the quantification of complexity is
relatively straightforward. Two such modal
complexity criteria, the so-called modal
complexity factors (MCF), will be discussed
next.
2.3 Modal Complexity Factors
2.3.1 Phase MCF (MCFl)
One possibility for defining the amount of modal
complexity is to consider any two consecutive
elements in the eigenvector and to make them
90” degrees apart in phase. The most complex
shape would then be that having a 90 ’ phase lag
between its odd and even numbered elements.
Another way of defining modal complexity is to
define the maximum complexity angle between
adjacent elements as 360/N, where N is the
number of elements in the eigenvector.
The first parameter to be proposed as a measure
of modal complexity is one which takes into
account only the phase of each eigenvector
element, and not its magnitude. The phase modal
complexity factor (MCFl) is calculated as
follows:
498
(i) compute the phase of each eigenvector
element;
(ii) compute the phase differences between each
eigenvector element and each other element.
Adjust to measure the relative phases up to a
maximum value of 90”. (A phase difference of
135” between elements 1 and 2 of a system would
register as a complexity of only 45”, for obvious
reasons.);
(iii) compute the mean (oe alternatively the root-
mean-square) of the inter-element phases
differences;
(iv) compute the modal complexity factor (MCFI)
as the percentage ratio between this mean or RMS
quantity and the maximum complexity angle
which is defmed above.
The mean value based MCFl will be used in the
following examples.
2.3.2 Amplitude-weighted MCF (MCF2)
MCFl takes no account of the amplitude of each
eigenvector element. This means that very small
mode shape amplitudes cany as much weight in
the measurement of complexity as do very large
elements, and such a definition is thought to be
unreasonable in some cases. Another way of
defining modal complexity is to consider the area
that is generated by constructing the envelop
around the extremities of the tips of the
eigenvector elements, with only obtuse angles
permitted outside the resulting polygon. The
maximum complexity can then be defined the
area of the circle whose radius is the magnitude
of the largest eigenvector element. The
amplitude-weighted modal complexity factor
(MCF2), defined as the ratio of the current to
maximum area, will then take account of both the
phase angles & the moduli of the model shape
elements. MCF2 can be calculated as follows:
(i) calculate the phase angle for each eigenvector
element in turn, working in the [o”,lSo”] interval
only. If the phase angle is in the [-1 SW, O”]
interval, use its absolute value.
(ii) re-order the eigenvector elements according
to the phase value computed in (i).
(iii) join the tips of the vectors and calculate the
area bounded by these lines, the first vector and
last vector.
(iv) normaliie this value with respect to the half-
area of the circle whose radius is the magnitude
of the largest eigenvector element.
3. CASE STUDIES
3.1 Complex Modes Arising from Noo-
proportional Damping
3.1.1 General Case
While there is little doubt that the use of non-
proportional damping will yield complex modes,
it is usually accepted that the amount of
complexity will be small in the general case.
Referring to the 3 degree-of-freedom system
shown in Fig. 1 and using the reference data m, =
0.5 kg, m7= 1.0 kg, m,=l.S kg; k,= kz= k3= k=
k 5= k6 =lOOO N/m; h, = 300 N/m, h2 = h3 = hd =
hs = & =0, one obtains the modal parameters
listed in Table @ins, 1984).
Table 1
Modal model for 3 DoF reference system
499
3.1.2 Effect of stiffness changes
Although it is possible to increase the amount of
complexity by increasing the amount of damping,
another less obvious possibility lies in modifying
the stiffness properties of the system. To this
end, it is proposed to use the eigenstructure
assignment method (Imnan and Minas, 1990).
Given an initial set of spatial properties and a
target set of modal properties, the technique
allows the determination of an updated set of
mass and stiffness matrices that will produce a
the target modal properties. For the particular
case under study, it was decided to keep the
mass matrix constant and to modify the stifhtess
matrix. The target modal parameters was chosen
such that consecutive modeshape elements had
the same magnitude as before but were separated
by a phase angles of 60”, 90” and 120”. The
natural frequencies and damping factors were
unchanged.
In spite of a large number of attempts, a
physically realizable system yielding a such
modal model could not be identified but it was
possible to find a set of spring values (k, = 485
N/m, kz= 485, k,= 2700 N/m, k4= 355 N/m, ks=
1820 N/m k, = 2030 N/m) for which MCF2 was
more than double for the second mode (Table 2).
Table 2
Modal model for modified stiffness matrix
3.1.3 Effect of close natural frequencies
It has long been known that non-proportionai
damping generally results in signiticantly complex
modes only when there some of these modes have
close natural frequencies. This characteristic has
been reported in the past and here we revisit a
case study which illustrates the extent of the effect
(Ewins, 1984). In order to obtain close modes, the
3 masses have values of 1.0, 0.95 and 1.05 kg; the
stiffnesses and dampers being the same as in the
previous case. The modal parameters for this new
system are given in Table 3, together with the
two complexity factors proposed above.
Table 3
Modal model for modified mass matrix
We now consider some 10 variants of this basic
model in which two of the masses are varied
slightly in such a way as to increase and decrease
the closeness of the natural frequencies of the two
modes which are markedly complex, namely
modes 2 and 3. By keeping the total mass of m,
plus mz constant, but adjusting its distribution
between the two elements, it is found that the
natural frequency separation can be varied from
0.09% up to 12%. Mode 1 retains a small
complexity of the order of 6% (MCFl)
throughout these diierent cases. Modes 2 and 3,
however, develop complexity levels of up to
100% for much of the range covered. A detailed
description of the relationships observed is shown
in Fig 2a.
The picture is somewhat more complicated than
the illustrations above would suggest because the
closeness of two modes depends on more factors
than the separation of the natural frequencies.
Amongst the other aspects, the modal damping is
also relevant and there is a practical rule-of-thumb
used in some situations to decide whether two
500
modes are close, and that is by the ratio of the
frequency separation to the modal damping factor.
When the two modes have different damping
levels, as is the case here, it is not clear what the
precise definition for this factor should be but still
it is possible to provide an indication of the
closeness. In the cases illustrated above, Fig. Zb,
we see that the demarcation between cases which
are tidly complex and those where the complexity
is reduced, is near a frequency separation of about
2% and this corresponds also to the region where
the two modes’ damping factors are also close, at
about 2.5%.
It is clear that the underlying mechanics is not
simple, but it is also clear that there is a very
definite characteristic at work.
3.2 Complex modes Arising from Gyroscopic
Effects
This source of complex modes is very
straightforward and can also be illustrated with a
simple system - this time a 2DOF system
representing the basic mechanics of a rotor with a
disc whose vibration involves its rotation about
two axes simultaneously. The system is governed
by the following equation of motion:
Even without the inclusion of damping, this
system can be shown to possess complex
eigenvectors to accompany its real eigenvalues.
The characteristic equation for the above equation
of motion is:
04-02(2w~+azClz)+004=0 (4)
where .o,’ = W I, and a = VI,. Equation (4) has
the following roots (eigenvalues):
w,,~ = on?KaC2, where an2 = o?+(y,aQ)’ (5)
It should be noted that even though the non-
rotating system may have two equal eigenvalues
(if the x- and y-direction stiffnesses are identical),
when the rotor is turning, the two natural
frequencies are different. If these eigenvalues are
substituted back into the original equations, we
obtain two unique eigenvectors which have the
form:
i) 0
1
i ; 1
i between adjacent blades, the aeroelastic
Clearly, these two mode shapes are completely
complex, and they represent motions which are (i)
a forward whirl orbit and (ii) a backward whirl
orbit. In this case, there is no partial modal
complexity.
3.3 Complex Modes Arising from
Aerodynamic Effects
In coupled fluid-structure applications, such as
the vibration of turbomachinery blades, the
additional damping due to the aerodynamic
forces plays a crucially important role in the
system’s flutter stability. As shown in Fig. 3, the
bladed disc assembly is discretized via a hybrid
model which uses the original lumped parameter
representation of Dye and Hem-y and the isolated
aerofoil of Theodorsen. The blade is represented
as a two degree-of-freedom rigid oscillator for
which the inertial coupling of bending and
torsion is modelled through an offset distance
between the centre of twist and the centre of
gravity.
In matrix form, the aeroelastic equations of
motion can be written as:
WI In I+ W+ =I Cd= PI (6)
where (F} represents the load due to the
aerodynamic forces. In order to be able to
perform a frequency domain analysis, it was
decided to employ the linearized unsteady
aerodynamic theory of Smith (I 972) for subsonic
501
flow where the blades are represented as flat
plates of small thickness and the flow is
unstalled, isentropic and irrotational
Assuming that the blades undergo simple
harmonic motion with small amplitude at zero
mean incidence and that they all vibrate with the
same amplitude and a constant phase angle
equations of motion can be rewritten as:
= &,,)I (4 = &,J (7)
where the right hand side term, (F,}, represents
the force due to the wakes and [Z] is the
dynamic stiffness matrix of the aeroelastic
system. The matrix [A] contains the contribution
from the (linearized) unsteady aerodynamics and
its (complex) elements depend on the cascade
geometry and the flow conditions. Equation (7)
is not a standard eigenproblem since the matrix
[A] is a function of the frequency as well as
being c o m p l e x . T h e m a t t e r i s further
compounded by the fact that the [A] matrix is
not symmetric since the aeroelastic structure
distinguishes between forward and backward
travelling waves, a feature totally ignored by its
structural counterpart. However, the loss of
symmetry does not affect the natural frequencies
and the damping factors since the eigenvalues are
global system properties.
The aeroelastic frequency response functions of
the system can be obtained by simply inverting
the dynamic sttiess matrix [Z].
=[[Kw-ra2+~+A(ca)]]-’ (8)
As discussed above, a characteristic feature of
the aeroelastic FRFs is the lack of reciprocity
when the response and excitation co-ordinates
are interchanged. Such a situation is plotted in such as the global rational fraction polynomial
Fig. 4 for M=1.4 where the excitation and method which was used in this study.
response co-ordinates are the tirst blade torsion
and bending for the tirst FRF and the other way The structural (i. e. no aerodynamic load) and
round for the second FRF. As expected, the aeroleastic (at M=O.8) mode shapes of the
shape of the aeroelastic response is significantly double 4/8 nodal-diameter mode are given in
different, due to the fact that the left- and the Table 4. For comparison purposes, the mode
right-hand eigenvectors are different for such shapes have been normalised to 100 and the
systems. mass-normalisation factor is also given at the
bottom of the table. The effect of the
Table 4 aerodynamic load is to split the double mode
A comparison of the structural and with a real mode shape into two single ones with
aeroelastic mode shapes complex mode shapes, on one of which is
unstable because of negative damping.
Double 4/S ND Unstable SND Stable 4ND
structaral mode aeroelastic mode aeroelastic mode 3.4 Complex Modes Arising from Non-linear
o = 285.2 Hz 0=291.7Hz co = 294.3 Hz Structural Behaviour
q=OS% 1 q=-1.5% I ‘1= 4.5%
x 1 Mod 1 Phase 1 Mod 1 Phase 1 Mod 1 Phase
8.21 0 I 8.71 15 I 7.21 -67 The purpose of this case study is to demonstrate
the possibility of obtaining false indications of
complex modes when the structural behaviour is
non-linear. When the modal analysis of a
structure yields complex modes, it is customary
to assume that the system is non-proportionally-
damped. However, almost all analytical
identification tools are geared towards the
analysis of linear systems and it is not altogether
certain if the identified complex modes indicate
non-proportional damping or whether they are
due to non-linearities inherently present in the
system, or to a combination of both (Ozguven
and Imregun, 1993).

It is proposed to generate a set of frequency

Once a column (or row) of the aeroelastic
response function matrix is computed, the
aeroelastic modes can be identified using
standard experimental modal analysis techniques
response tunctions for the non-linear four-
degree-of-freedom system of Fig. 5 using the
harmonic balance method described in Tamikulu
et al (1994). The damping parameters of the
system were adjusted to provide proportional
damping and a cubic stiffness term was added
to stiffness parameter kg. The amount of non-
linearity was controlled by increasing either the
amplitude of the external force or the cubic
stiIIhess constant. Direct receptance response
functions for co-ordinate 4 are plotted in Fig. 6
for increasing force levels. In all cases, the modal

502
parameters for the first mode were extracted
using the standard circle-fit algorithm
The modal constants, listed in Table 5, indicate
that the identified modes are significantly
complex and there is no direct relationship
between the amount of complexity (quantified by
the phase of the modal constant) and the force
levels or the value of the cubic stitlhess constant.
Table 5.
Modal Parameters for the first mode
b: cubic stiffness constant, F: excitation force,
co, q, A, 8: modal parameters
3.5 Complex Modes Arising from
Experimental Noise
The last case study is conducted using a tiee-free
plate for which a finite element model was
constructed. The plate dimensions were adjusted
until two close modes were obtained: the fist
torsional mode at 730 Hz and the second
bending mode at 737 Hz. Considering only the
motion in the direction normal to the plate’s
surface, 12 response functions were generated
using a frequency resolution of 0.5 Ha and 1%
proportional structural damping.
Measurement errors were simulated by adding
3% random noise to the generated FRFs and
several frequency-domain modal analysis
techniques were applied to the resulting polluted
response model. As the system is proportionally-
damped, its modes are real and any complexity
arising from the identification process can be
503
directly attributed to the effect of the added
random noise. In other words, both MCFl and
MCF2 should be zero for all cases considered.
However, the phase angles associated with small
magnitude elements where found to be
unrealistically large, especially for the torsional
mode. This results in unrepresentative values of
MCFl, which does not take into account the
magnitude of the eigenvector elements. The
results for MCF2 are smnmarised in Table 6. As
expected, in the presence of noise, the circle-fit
algorithm tends to produce significantly complex
modes since only one FRF is considered at a
time. The multi-FRF techniques appear to be
more robust since the effects of noise are
averaged while extracting the modal parameters.
Table 6
Modal complexity factors for identified mode
shapes of a proportionally-damped system
L
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
(i) Two parameters, the so-called modal
complexity factors MCFl and MCF2, have been
introduced to assess the amount of modal
complexity. The case studies suggest that both
parameters are reasonably good indicators,
although the amplitude-weighted parameter,
MCF2, is probably more useful when dealing
with large systems
(ii) Systems with non-proportional damping and
gyroscopic effects have genuinely complex
modes and so do systems subjected to
aerodynamic loads.
(iii) When linear modal analysis techniques are
used, structural non-linearities seem to be able to
influence the values of the extracted modal
parameters, the worst affected quantity being the
phase of the modal constant. Hence, when using
measured response functions, it is possible to
identify false complex modes, a feature that must
be considered duly if the structure under study
exhibits non-linear characteristics,
(iv) Similarly, when the measured FRFs are
polluted by noise, the modal analysis methods,
especially those applying SDOF algorithms to
single FRFs, yield complex modes which are
computational, and not physical, in origin.
5. REFERENCES
Asher, G. W.
A Method of Normal Mode Excitation Ulilising
Admittatrce Measurements, Proc. of National
Specialists’ Meeting in Dynamics and
Aeroelasticity, Inst. of Aeronautical Sciences, pp.
69-76, I958
Caughey, T. K. and O’Kelly, M. M. J.
C k.c:vical Normal Modes in Damped Linear
/Dynamic Systems, J. Applied Mech., Trans.
ASME, Vol. 32, pp. 583-588, 1965
Ewins, D. J.
~4odul 7k~ting: Weary and Applications
Research Studies Press, 1984
Kielb, R. E. and Kaza, K. R. V.
A erot~ltr~lic C ‘haruc ferislics of u Gscude of
kli.vlmred Nlodes in Subsonic and Supersonic
IY0W.S. ASME P a p e r N o 81-DET-1222,
September 198 1
Lang, G. F.
I)emy,vi!fyirq C Complex Modes
J. Sound and Vibration, Vol 23, pp 36-40, 1989
504
Mitchell, L.
C ‘omplex Modes: A Review
Proc. IMAC 8, pp 89 l-899, Florida, I990
Wei, M. L., Allemang, R. J. and Brown, D. L.
Real Normalisa f iota of Mea..vured C Complex
Modes, Pro. IMACS, pp 708-712, London, 1987
Ibrahim, S. R
Compukzfion of Normal Modes, fkom Idenr$ed
Complex Modes
AAIA J., Vol21, No 3, pp 446-451, 1983
Imregun, M and Ewins, D. J.
Realisation of Complex Modes
Proc. IMAC I I, 1993
Inman, D. J. and Minas, C.
Matching Analytical Models with Experimenful
Data in Mechanical Sy.stem.7
Control and Dynamic Systems, Vol37, pp 327.
363, ed. C. T. Leondes, Academic Press, 1990
Niedhal, N.
Analytical Ikterminotiotz of Reul Normal Modes
from Measured Complex Responses, Proc. of the
25th Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conf., pp 292- 295, CA, May 1984
Ozguven, H. N. and Imregun, M.
Complex Modes Arising ,from I,inear
Iden f$catiotr of Non-linear ,Sy.Qem.Y
IJAEMA, Vol 8 (2) April 1993
Ozguven, H. N., 0 Tanrikulu, B. Kuran and
Imregun, M.
Pierced Harmonic Re.spon.se Ana1y.si.s of Non-
I,inear Slructure.s Ilsing Describing I’itrzcliotu
AIAA J., Vol. 31 (7), pp1313-1320, July 1993
Smith, S. N.
IXscrele Frequency Ckneruliot~ in Axirrl blow
7itrbomtrchine.s, ARC R & M 3709, March I972
 118.

Fig.1 The 3 DoF system

0.

Fig. 2n Variation ofMCF1 with natural frequency separation

Fig. 3 The lumped parameter model of a hladed-disk assembly

Fig. 2b Variation of modal damping with frequency separation

..- ,^ ,_, -_ . _;-

 Fig. 4 Lack of reciprocity for aeroelastic response functions

F&t )=F4sinwt
Fig. 5 The 4 DoF non-linear system

i -150 I,, , , I I I I, I III 1I I I I I ’ 1” I ” ” I ““I”

500 525 550 575 600 625 050
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 6. Variation of non-linear FRFs with increasing force levels

506