Deriving mechanical structures in physical coordinates from data-driven state-space realizations

In this article, the problem of deriving a physical model of a mechanical structure from an arbitrary state-space realization is addressed. As an alternative to finite element formulations, the physical parameters of a model may be directly obtained from identified parametric models. However, these methods are limited by the number of available sensors and often lead to poor predictive models. Additionally, the most efficient identification algorithms retrieve models where the physical parameters are hidden. This last difficulty is known in the literature as the inverse vibration problem. In this work, an approach to the inverse vibration problem is proposed. It is based on a similarity transformation and the requirement that every degree of freedom should contain a sensor and an actuator (full instrumented system) is relaxed to a sensor or an actuator per degree of freedom, with at least one co-located pair (partially instrumented system). The physical parameters are extracted from a state-space realization of the former system. It is shown that this system has a symmetric transfer function and this symmetry is exploited to derive a state-space realization from an identified model of the partially instrumented system. A subspace continuous-time system identification algorithm previously proposed by the authors in [1] is used to estimate this model from the IO data.

[1]  K. Park,et al.  Second-order structural identification procedure via state-space-based system identification , 1994 .

[2]  Richard W. Longman,et al.  Extracting Physical Parameters of Mechanical Models From Identified State-Space Representations , 2002 .

[3]  M. S. Agbabian,et al.  System identification approach to detection of structural changes , 1991 .

[4]  P. Lopes dos Santos,et al.  A note on the state-space realizations equivalence , 2011 .

[5]  Richard W. Longman,et al.  Constructing Second-Order Models of Mechanical Systems from Identified State Space Realizations. Part I: Theoretical Discussions , 2003 .

[6]  Andrew W. Smyth,et al.  Surveillance of Mechanical Systems on the Basis of Vibration Signature Analysis , 2000 .

[7]  C. Yang,et al.  Identification, reduction, and refinement of model parameters by theeigensystem realization algorithm , 1990 .

[8]  Alex Berman,et al.  Mass Matrix Correction Using an Incomplete Set of Measured Modes , 1979 .

[9]  D. J. Ewins,et al.  Modal Testing: Theory and Practice , 1984 .

[10]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Model Updating In Structural Dynamics: A Survey , 1993 .

[11]  J. Beck,et al.  Updating Models and Their Uncertainties. I: Bayesian Statistical Framework , 1998 .

[12]  Guillaume Mercère,et al.  Identifying second-order models of mechanical structures in physical coordinates: An orthogonal complement approach , 2013, 2013 European Control Conference (ECC).

[13]  M. Baruch Optimal correction of mass and stiffness matrices using measured modes , 1982 .

[14]  Paulo J. Lopes dos Santos,et al.  Indirect continuous-time system identification—A subspace downsampling approach , 2011, IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference.