010 NExT and ERA for Phase I of the IASC-ASCE Benchmark Problem: Simulated Data

Natural Excitation Technique and Eigen-system

Realization Algorithm for Phase I of the IASC-ASCE
Benchmark Problem: Simulated Data
Juan Martin Caicedo; Shirley J. Dyke; and Erik A. Johnson
(ASCE 0733 – 9399 (2004) 130:1(49)
Outline of the Method

1. NExT
Assumptions
i.) Linear, damped, forced vibration
ii.) Proportional damping (modal analysis used)
iii.) Zero initial conditions
iv.) {f(t)} is white noise
v.) 𝑿, 𝑿, 𝑿 etc. are stationary (at least weakly stationary)
2. ERA
Assumptions
i.) Mass (or at least proportions) distribution is known
ii.) Shear building – no torsional mode
iii.) Uses least square fit for solving Eigen value problem
⇒ Solves for undamped frequency
Attractions of the Method
I. Very good results under laboratory conditions
II. Identifies the presence of damage (Level 1 identification)
III. Identifies the Location of damage (Level 2 identification)
IV. Quantifies the damage (Level 3 identification)
V. Good results with limited number of sensors (even 2 sensors will do!)
VI. Not necessary that all the measurements should be taken simultaneously.
We can relocate the sensors and collect data and use all of them to
calculate the parameters
VII. Results are not affected by the presence of torsional modes (if precautions
are taken.)
VIII. Not affected by the window size.
IX. Even with limited sensor data, damages are hardly overlooked ⇒ safe.

010 -1
010 NExT and ERA for Phase I of the IASC-ASCE Benchmark Problem: Simulated Data

Drawbacks of the Method

I. Assumptions like Linear structure, white noise input, etc.
II. It is assumed that the input is given only in one DOF. How good this
method will be when there are inputs at multiple points? ⇒ for a real
structure, there will be input all over the structure – in 3 dimensions.
III. Unable to detect damages which are not resulting in considerable
reduction is lateral stiffness.
a. Eg: A loosened beam was overlooked for a 2 bay structure.
b. Suppose for a large real structure, even if one of the beams collapse
completely, its contribution to storey stiffness may be very low ⇒
we may not be able to identify that damage.
c. Seeing the results, it looks like only very large changes in stiffness
are identified like complete removal of braces.
IV. ERA method seems to overlook the damping factor.
Details of the Method are Given Below
NExT (Natural Excitation Technique)
Click here for Theoretical Development of NExT

Cross correlation function ⇒ a sum of decaying sinusoids (Same characteristics as the

impulse response function ⇒ Cross-correlation functions can be used as impulse response
functions in time domain modal parameter estimation schemes.

 Cross-correlation function and the cross-spectral density function form a Fourier

Transform pair (Cross-correlation function = ifft (Cross Spectral Density Function))
 Data  Cross spectral density  IFFT (CSD) = Rxxi
 Reference Signal: select one (say storey 4) as reference signal
o Reference Signal should be from a point which is not a node for any of the
modes of the structure.

Eigensystem Realization Algorithm (ERA)

 𝛤 = 𝐶 𝛷 where, Γ = matrix of o/p shapes and 𝛷 ⇒ matrix of Eigen
vectors of the state matrix 𝐴
 Details of ERA
Least Square Solution of Eigen Value problem
 The mass / mass distribution is assumed to be known
 Calculate the stiffness matrix using,
Where,

010 -2
010 NExT and ERA for Phase I of the IASC-ASCE Benchmark Problem: Simulated Data

Summary of Implementation Study

Note: Computer simulated model
 Increase in the window width ⇒ reduced averaging ⇒ noisy PSD
 Sampling frequency of 125Hz, 90s data with 1024 points wide frame with
75% overlapping ⇒ perfect.
 Take the average floor acceleration to eliminate the coupling / torsional
mode
Dealing with Limited Sensor Data
 Start with the mode shape matrix of the undamaged system
 Insert known values from the identified eigenvectors into mode shape
matrix (Optional)

 Using calculate the stiffness

 Calculate the corresponding Mode shapes
 Use this evaluated mode shapes as initial guess and repeat the procedure
Notes:
 Correct damage pattern identification not assured
 However good results are obtained under laboratory conditions.
 Small damage, such as that associated with the loosened beam, was not
detected because the stiffness loss was significantly smaller than the
modelling errors

010 -3
010 01 NExT – Theoretical Development
1. Derivation in SANDIA Report
2. Derivation in paper in ASCE (Easier)

1. NExT (Natural Excitation Technique)

Theoretical Development of NExT
(SANDIA Report, The NExT for Modal Parameter Extraction From Operating Wind
Turbines – George H. James III, Thomas G. Carne, James P. Lauffer)

Derivation/ Assumptions: start with standard matrix equations of motion

 x= Φ q Assuming general {f} and zero initial conditions
 solution using Duhamel integral (for q r) (note: g = h(t))
 solution for x(t) as Σ of modes (r=1 to n)
 for o/p at ith DOF due to i/p at jth DOF

 when i/p is a Dirac delta function at τ =0

 due to a white-noise i/p at at k, the cross correlation between o/p at i and o/p at j is
given by Rijk(T) = E[xij(t+T) xjk(t)]
 since fk(t) is the only Random variable,

 If f(t) is white noise, Autocorrelation function of f becomes R ffk = αk δ(τ - σ) and

putting λ = τ - σ

 Using the definition of g(t) (or h(t)) the integral reduces to

comparing with

Cross correlation function ⇒ a sum of decaying sinusoids (Same characteristics as the

impulse response function ⇒ Cross-correlation functions can be used as impulse response
functions in time domain modal parameter estimation schemes.
 Ultimately simplifies to

010 01 -1
010 01 NExT – Theoretical Development

2. Natural Excitation Technique and Eigen-system

Realization Alogorithm for Phase I of the IASC-
ASCE Benchmark Problem: Simulated Data
Juan Martin Caicedo; Shirley J. Dyke; and Erik A. Johnson
(ASCE 0733 – 9399 (2004) 130:1(49)

 Start with the basic matrix equation

 Post multiply with Xi(s) and taking expected values,


 Now assuming that X is stationary and using the result we have,

010 01 -2
 Eigensystem Realization Algorithm (ERA)
Theoretical Development

 State-variable equations ⇒
o x(k+1) = A x(k) + B u(k)
o y(k) = C x(k) where
 x ⇒ n×1 state vector
 u ⇒ m×1 control input
 y⇒ p × 1 output/ measurement vector.
 A ⇒ characterizes dynamics (Transition matrix)
 B⇒n×m
 C⇒p×n
 Click for Derivation
 Y(k) = C Ak-1B for k≠0
 For initial state response,
o Y(k) = C Ak-1[x1(0), x2(0), x3(0),............ xm(0)]

System Realization: Given Y(k), construct [A],[B] and [C] in terms of Y(k)

 Algorithm begins with Hankel matrix of r × s size

Vr ⇒ Observability matrix (rp × n) ⇒ r number of p × n matrices ([C]s)

Ws⇒ controllability matrix (n × ms) ⇒ s number of n × m matrices ([B]s)
 If there exists an H# such that WsH#Vr = In
 Then, H# is the pseudo inverse of Hrs(0) ⇒ Hrs(0) H# Hrs(0) = Hrs(0)
 Solving for H#
o Find P and Q such that Hrs(0) = PDQT; Prp × n and Q ms × n
o D = diagonal matrix with d1, d2, d3.... as diagonal terms
o Pd = PD
o ⇒ TU = I = UT ⇒

o
o ⇒
 o
Where
EpT = [Ip, 0p,.....0p ], E mT = [I m, 0m,.....0m]
 The triple [D -1/2PTHrs(1)QD-1/2], [D 1/2QTEm] and [EpTPD1/2] are important

Say

En⇒ Ep

 𝛤 = 𝐶𝛷 where, Γ = matrix of o/p shapes and 𝛷 ⇒ matrix of Eigen vectors

of the state matrix 𝐴

Or in another way,