6

Frequency Domain
System Identification
Gang Jin 6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 1069
Ford Motor Company, 6.2 Frequency Domain Curve-Fitting ........................................................... 1069
Dearborn, Michigan, USA 6.2.1 M a t r i x Fraction Parameterization • 6.2.2 Polynomial Matrix Parameterization •
6.2.3 Least Squares O p t i m i z a t i o n A l g o r i t h m s
6.3 State-Space System Realization ............................................................... 1074
6.3.1 M a r k o v Parameters Generation • 6.3.2 The ERA M e t h o d
6.4 Application Studies .............................................................................. 1075
6.4.1 Identification o f a 16-Story Structure • 6.4.2 Identification o f the Seismic-Active Mass
Driver B e n c h m a r k Structure
6.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 1078
References .......................................................................................... 1078

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Frequency Domain Curve-Fitting

A general procedure for the frequency domain identification of
multiple inputs/multiple outputs (MIMO) linear time invari-
ant systems is illustrated in Figure 6.1. Typically, one starts
with the experimental frequency response function (FRF) of
the test system. These FRF data may either be computed from
the saved input/output measurement data or measured dir-
ectly online by a spectrum analyzer. Based on these data, the
matrix fraction (MF) or the polynomial matrix (PM) curve-
fitting technique is applied to find a transfer function matrix
(TFM) that closely fits into the FRF data. Detailed algorithms
for the curve-fitting are introduced in Section 6.2. Frequently,
for the purposes of simulation and control, one needs a state-
space realization of the system. This may be achieved by
various linear system realization algorithms. In particular,
the eigensystem realization algorithm (ERA) is presented in
Section 6.3 for this purpose, thanks to its many successes in
previous application studies. The Markov parameters, based
on the parameters from which the state-space model will be
derived, can be easily generated from the identified transfer
function matrix. Finally, as a measure of performance, the
model FRF is computed and is compared to the experimental
FRE This is illustrated in Section 6.4 by means of two experi-
mental application examples.
Frequency domain curve-fitting is a technique to fit a TFM
closely into the observed FRF data. Like other system identifi-
cation techniques, this is a two-step procedure: model struc-
ture selection and model parameter optimization. In this
context, the first step is to parameterize the TFM in some
special forms. Two such forms are introduced in the following:
the matrix fraction (MF) parameterization and the polynomial
matrix (PM) parameterization. This is always a critical step in
the identification because it will generally lead to quite differ-
ent parameter optimization algorithms and resulting model
properties. In particular, this section shows that for the MF
form, the parameters can be optimized by means of linear least
squares (LLS) solutions. As for the PM parameterization,
one has to resort to some nonlinear techniques; specifically,
this section introduces the celebrated Gauss-Newton (GN)
method. On the other hand, the PM parameterization offers
more flexibility in the sense that it allows the designer to
specify certain properties of the identified model (e.g., fixed
zeros in any input/output channels). This feature may be quite
desirable as shown by the application studies in Section 6.4.
Before starting the discussion, it is important to make clear
the notations that will be used throughout this section.
Assume the test system has r input excitation channels and

Copyright© 2005 by AcademicPress. 1069

MI rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
 1070 Gang fin

/ \
/ \
/ Experimental \ I--
I input-output ~- -- ..~.1 FRF MF/PM
,,measurement/ IL__ Calculation Curve-fitting
\ /
\
\
\
X
Model Markov param-
evaluation eters generation

@ ~ ~ ModelFRF ERA System

generation realization

FIGURE 6.1 GeneralProcedure of Frequency Domain System Identification. Bolded components imply critical steps; dashed components
imply steps may be excluded.

m output measurement channels. U s e {~((Oi)}i_l,...1 to denote Substituting the Q(z -1) and R(z 1) polynomials in equations
the observed FRF data based on which the TFM G(z 1) will be 6.2 and 6.3 and vectorizing the summation, equation 6.4 is
estimated. To evaluate G(z 1) at discrete frequencies coi, use changed into the form:
the map z(coi)= ej%~#w', with ws being the sampling fre-
quency. The curve-fitting error is measured by Frobenius G*(z-1) = arg min
G=Q-IR
llano ÷, IIF, (6.5)
norm ]]-]]F for matrices and by Z-norm ]]. ][2 for vectors.
Use I, to denote an identity matrix of dimensions n × n. where:
-Z I(OJ1)GT(o)I) .. z P(COl)GT((DI) --Ir --z-l(oJ1)Ir ... --Z P(COI)/r]
6.2.1 Matrix Fraction Parameterization
The matrix fraction (MF) parameterization of a TFM takes
~=
:
-Z-I(o~i)~T("~t)
i i i
z-P(toI){~T(toI)--It --Z-l(tOl)Ir ... --Z P((ol)IrJ
i /
the following form:
(6.6)
G(z-1) = Q l(z-1)R(z 1), (6.1) TT = [G(tOl)..-G(o~l)]. (6.7)

where: ®T = [Q,... qpRo RI'"Rp]. (6.8)

Q(z -1) =Im + QIz 1 + Q z z - 2 + . . . + Qqz-q, (6.2) Thus, the MF curve-fitting has been reduced to a standard
LLS problem, which can be solved by various efficient algo-
R ( z 1) = Ro + R1 z-1 + R2z - 2 + - ' ' + Rpz -p. (6.3) rithms (e.g., the QR factorization approach quoted in
algorithm of equations 6.29 through 6.31).
The constant matrices Q1 . . . . . Qq and R0, R1. . . . . Rp are re-
ferred to as observer Markov parameters in ]uang (1994). 6.2.2 Polynomial Matrix Parameterization
From the same reference, the reader may find more detailed
material for the MF curve-fitting discussed here and the ERA The polynomial matrix (PM) parameterization of a TFM has
realization algorithm discussed in a later section. To simplify the form:
the notation, without loss of generality, assume p = q.
To fit the TFM G(z 1) as in equation 6.1 into the observed C(z_l) _ B(z-')
~x(z-') ' (6.9)
FRF data {G(coi)}i=1,..., l, one may solve the following parameter
optimization problem: where:
1 B(Z - 1 ) = Bo + B1 z-1 ÷ BzZ -2 ÷ "'" -}- BpZ -p. (6.10)
G*(z 1) = arg min Z IlQ(z-l(~°'))G(~°i) - R(z l(co,))ll~. (6.4)
G=Q- R i=1 ot(z -1) = 1 + alz -1 ÷ a2 z - 2 + . . . + aqz -q. (6.11)
6 Frequency Domain System Identification 1071

These equations are the numerator polynomial matrix and the Finally, the right-hand side of equation 6.18 is vectorized for
minimal polynomial of the TFM, respectively. Assume that standard optimizations:
the orders of the numerator and denominator are equal
(i.e., p = q). The goal of parameter optimization is to find F(0) = IIW(a)(y - Ho)ll~, (6.19)
G*(z -~) with a prespecified order p such that the estimation
error is minimized: where 0 = [b~ , b~, .... bmr,
-W aT] T, y is a vector containing
the measured FRF data, and W(a) is a weighting function
l
G*(z 1) = argmin ~'w2(o3i)llG(toi) _ G(z 1( o ))1l 2 (6.12) with variate a.
G z.....a
i=1
Readers should have no difficulties to derive the detailed
expressions of W(a) and H. For the special case when there is
Here, an additional term w( • ) is included to allow desirable no fixed zeros (i.e., t~Yb = 1 in equation 6.14), the results are
frequency weighting on the estimation error. In the following, given in Bayard (1992). It is important to point out that W(a)
G(z -1) in equation 6.12 will be parametized in a way that and H have the following structure:
allows the inclusion of the fixed zeros. This is done first for
the single input/single output (SISO) case; then, it is general- - W(a) 0 • •" 0
ized to the MIMO case.
Let the numerator polynomial of the SISO system be the 0 W(a)
following: W(a) = (6.20)

B ( z -1) = B ( z 1). ~ ( z - 1 ) (6.13) ". 0

= t~Tb • t~Tb, (6.14) 0 o W(a)
- XItl 1 0 0 (Dll
where b = [b0, bl . . . . . [Jps]w is the numerator parameter
vector corresponding to the fixed zeros; b--[b0, bl . . . . .
0 ~t12 : (I)12
~p_p,]T is the to-be-estimated numerator parameter vector; H = (6.21)
and ~ = [1, z 1. . . . . z-Ps] T and t~ = [1, z -1 . . . . . z (P p,)]T
o i
are the corresponding z-vectors. Similarly, the denominator
polynomial is as follows: 0 . . • 0 ~mr qbmr
cx(z-1) = 1 + ~bTa, (6.15)
These structures enable the design of an efficient optimization
where a = [al . . . . . at,] w and ~b = [z -1 . . . . . z-P] T. The esti- algorithm. This will be discussed in the next section.
mation error to be minimized is then:
6.2.3 Least Squares Optimization Algorithms
- 1 + ~bT(coi)a / (6.16) This section serves two purposes. First, it gives a brief (but
general) account on a few of the most important parameter
optimization algorithms, namely the linearleast squares (LLS)
=/_~l w+( t °qbr(eoi)a
i)l (~(~°i)-[~r(°~i)b'~T(°~i) method, the Newton's method, and the Gauss-Newton's (GN)
method. Second, the discussion applies some of the methods to
the parameter optimization problems arising from the curve-
__~((oi) . (bT(03i)] i i l ) 2, (6.17) fitting process. In particular, this section presents a fast algo-
rithm based on the GN method to the minimization of equation
6.19. Excellent textbooks in this field are abundant, and this
where for simplicity t~ and ~ are written as functions of coi.
discussion only refers the reader to a few of them: Gill et al.,
For the MIMO case, equation 6.17 is generalized to (recall
(1981), Dennis and Schnabel (1996), and Stewart (1973).
that m and r denote the numbers of output and input channels
respectively):
General Algorithm Development
Let F(O) be the scalar-valued multivariate objective function to
~-~ l 1 W(~i) ( be minimized• If the first and second derivatives of F are
F= ~ + +~(~oi)a Gik(~o~)
j=l k=l i=1
2 available, a local quadratic model of the objective function
may be obtained by taking the first three terms of the Taylor-
- [*jk(~Oi)bjk • %k(o~i) - Gjk(O~i) . ~bT(~ol)] (6.18) series expansion about a point Ok in the parameter vector
space:
1072 Gang ]in

where Q has orthonormal columns and where R is upper

F(Ok + p) ~ Fk + g~p + ~pTGkp, (6.22)
triangular with positive diagonal elements. The unique solu-
tion of the LLS problem:
where p denotes a step in the parameter space and where
Fk, gk, and Gk denote the value, gradient, and Hessian of the min ]lAx
xERn
- £1122, (6.30)
objective function at Ok. Equation 6.22 indicates that to find a
local minimum of the objective function, an iterative searching is given by:
procedure is required. The celebrated Newton's method is
defined by choosing the step p = p k so that Ok+Pk is a x* = R 1QTy. (6.31)
stationary point of the quadratic model in 6.22. This amounts
to solving the following linear equation: Application to the Curve-Fitting Problems
This discussion now returns to the PM curve-fitting problem in
GkPk=--gk . (6.23) equation 6.19. By letting f = W(a)(y-HO), the Gauss-
Newton method in equation 6.28 may be applied. It turns
In the system identification case, the objective function F(O) is
often in the sums of squares form, as in equation 6.19:

1 n
F(O)-- ~ Z ) ~ ( 0 ) 2 = llf(O)ll , (6.24)
i=1

where 1~ is the ith component of the vector fi To implement

the Newton's method, the gradient and Hessian of F are calcu-
lated as:

g(O)=l(O)Tf(o) (6.25)

G(O)=J(O)rJ(O)+Q(O), (6.26)

where l(0) is the Jacobian matrix of f and where Q ( 0 ) =

}-~=ly~(0)Gi(0), with Gi(O) being the Hessian of)q(0). The
Newton's equation 6.23 thus becomes as follows:

(l(Ok))Tj(Ok)+Q(Ok))Pk=--J(Ok)Tf(Ok). (6.27)

When [[f(0k)[I is small, ]]Q(0k)[] is usually small and is often

omitted from equation 6.27. If this is the case, then solving Pk
from 6.27 is equivalent to solving the following linear least
squares (LLS) problem:

Pk = arg rn~n IIJ(0k/P + f(Ok/l122• (6.28)

Equation 6.28 gives the Gauss-Newton method. The LLS

problem is often solved by the QR factorization method
given in the following algorithm.

Algorithm 1 (QR Factorization and LLS Solution)

Let A E R mxn have full column rank. Then A can be uniquely
factorized into the form:

A = QR, (6.29)
FIGURE 6.2 Picture of the 16-Story Structure
6 Frequency Domain System Identification 1073

TABLE 6.1 Key Identification Parameters min

x2ERq
IlA.2x2 yl12~.
- (6.32)
Curve-fitting Systemrealization
Test structure Type p q a ~ n min
x] c RP
IlAlXl- (y - A=.~)II==. (6.33)

16-Story MF 16
Benchmark PM 8 8
out that the ]acobian matrix I(0 k) of f has an identical structure
as H in equation 6.21. Thus, instead of solving equation 6.28
directly, the following decomposition of LLS problems may be
applied.
Algorithm 2 (Decomposition of LLS Problem)
Let A E R m×n have full column rank. Decompose A into
A = [At, A2], with Al C R mxp and A2 C R mxq. Let the unique
QR factorization of A1 be A1 = Q1R~. Then the unique solu-
tion x* of the LLS problem of equation 6.30 has the form
x* = [x~T, x~ T] r, with xq and x~ being the unique solutions
of the following LLS problems:
16 32 32 10
12 30 8 In these equations, ]~2 = (I - Q1QT)A2.
In practice, ](Ok) is divided into ](Ok) = [h(0k), h(0k)],
with ll(Ok) corresponding to the block-diagonal terms and
12(0k) the last block matrix column in ](Ok). Solving the LLS
problems with 12(0 k) and 11(0 k) thus corresponds to updating
the denominator a and the numerators bjk estimations. More-
over, due to its block-diagonal structure, the LLS problem with
11(Ok) should be further decomposed (i.e., the LLS solutions of
bjk are independently solved for each j and k). Thus, the
computational cost of the optimization algorithm is signifi-
cantly reduced.
To complete the discussion of the algorithm, note that the
initial values for the Gauss-Newton iteration may be generated
by the classical Sanathanan-Koerner (SK) iteration composed
of a sequence of reweighted LLS problems:

f16 f12 f8 f4
-40 :. ! • ..... 40[~ -- 1 -40 • : : I[ z • I

8o
-60 • : i -60
-60 : • :. . . . : -60
- 8 o ~ -80
-100 -100
-,OOl y: V f ,1 1 -,oo _120i : , \f j-120
-120 L . . . . . . " .... " ....... ~ -120
20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60

-60 : i :. . . . 60 ~ ~ .... ": i

-60 -60
-80

-100
-80
-100 ook,
-80

-12orry ....
.... : :

Y
-80 i : ....

-120
- 1 4 0 F ; F ....... -120I " ¢" "', --" i l~ 1
-120
20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60

x,0 -6o 60 : : : -6o i i .... i.... -6o •.•:.. ~. :

,oo
• . i . . . . . ....
-80 i . i. . -80 i . i. . . .

-'°°I, .... V -Y1 : .... 1 _12ot, ~ , , , j-,2Ol, i it _-v

-'~vt ] -140t . . . . J
20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60

-60[i t '~ 1 -60 ' .... • -60t -60" ! i..... i ¸

-80 • i i -80 -80 . . . . . •

x -100 -100

_1oo _12o|-,., ~ ~Y1 -12o i -12°I ~. " ~-:','1

-120 -140 ~ , ..... ~ • , ~ -140t --~ - " , ; .1
20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60
F r e q u e n c y (Hz) F r e q u e n c y (Hz) F r e q u e n c y (Hz) F r e q u e n c y (Hz)

FIGURE 6.3 Comparison of Experimental and Model FRF for the 16-Story Structure: Magnitude Plot. ~ denotes the input force on the jth
floor; xj denotes the output displacement of the jth floor; dotted lines are for measurement data; solid lines are for model output.
1074 Gang fin

0k+a = arg rnoin][W(ak)(y-- H0)[[~, (6.34) tem realization algorithm (ERA), is selected to construct a
model in the state space form. First presented are the formulas
to generate the Markov parameters from the TFM, which are
with initial condition 00 = 0.
the starting point for the ERA method.

6.3 State-Space System Realization 6.3.1 Markov Parameters Generation

System realization is a technique to determine an internal To calculate the Markov parameters Y0, Y1, Y2. . . . from the
system TFM, first note that:
state-space description for a system given with an external
description, typically its TFM or impulse response. The name
reflects the fact that if a state-space description is available, an G(Z-1) = ~ yi Z i. (6.35)
electronic circuit can be built in a straightforward manner to i=o
realize the system response. There is a great amount of litera-
ture on this subject both from a system theoretical point of For the case when G(z-1) is parameterized in the MF form
view (Antsaklis and Michel, 1997) and from a practical system (i.e., G(z 1) = Q - l ( z 1)R(z-1)) ' the system Markov param-
identification point of view (]uang, 1994). In the following, a eters can be determined from:
well-developed method in the second category, the eigensys-

f16 f12 f8 f4
0 0

-50 . . . . . 100 t ........................... -200

-200 '.L..#
-100 . . . . 200 -400
-400 .....
-150IU -300 -600

20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60

n
0
lOO~ -.! ........ i ........ i ....
-ioo -50 ...... o~ i- i.... i. - -200

ool= -qN -lOOL~

¢,i

-1 O0 ........ ......

-2°°vqF 73 iN -400
-+OlLjL
. . . .

-300[ ..... ~ U - U L -300I .... ~ - - - - U L _

20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60

oI +: : -200 i.
0i ... : ~........~ i ....... 0
-50 . . . . . . . i ...i..... -200
~

-lOO ...... i .... i ..... -4oo

-4o0I ..................~ - 6 o o ::+.. +. . . . i+ -150 -600

20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60

-200
O'

-2001~,
0 ~ ...... ; ..... ~ ...... ~ .....

-1O0
-400 i : : :, -1 O0
=g -400 -200
-600'
-600 -300 -200
-800
20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60
Frequency(Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

FIGURE 6.4 Comparison of Experimental and Model FRF for the 16-Story Structure: Phase Plot. Same notations are used as in Figure 6.3.
6 Frequency Domain System Identification 1075

T A B L E 6.2 PM Iteration Record

Iteration Iteration FRF c~ Step 13 Step

type index residue norm norm

1 651.47 100% 100%

S 2 159.46 1.91% 14.8%
K 3 156.75 0.16% 1.36%
4 156.74 0.24% 0.84%

1 137.03 10.9% 21.8%

2 133.47 4.23% 8.31%
G 3 128.03 0.56% 2.15%
N 4 123.81 0.21% 0.50%
5 123.34 0.40% 1.07%
6 123.48 0.15% 0.37%

6.3.2 The ERA Method

To solve for a state-space model (A, B, C, D) using the ERA
method, first form the generalized Hankel matrices:

Yk Yk+ l •. Yk+f3 1 ]
!
Yk+l Yk+2 • • Yk+f3 ] .
H(k- 1) = (6.39)

Yk+~ ~ Yk+~ •• Yk+c~+13-2 _l

r
Note that in general, c~ and [3 are chosen to be the smallest
numbers such that H(k) has as large row and column ranks
are possible. Additional suggestions to determine their optimal
values are given in Juang (1994). Let the singular value decom-
position of H(0) be H(0) = U~,V r, and let n denote the index
where the singular values have the largest drop in magnitude.
Then, H(0) can be approximated by:

FIGURE 6.5 Picture of the Seismic-AMD Benchmark Structure

H(0) ~ U ~ V T, (6.40)

where U, and V, are the first n columns of U and V, respec-

tively, and 1i;~ is the diagonal matrix containing the largest n
Qi=~OQiZ i)(i=~o yi Z i)Pi~_o Ri Z i, (6.36) singular values of H(0). Finally, an nth order state-space real-
ization (A, B, C, D) can be calculated by:

by the following iterative calculations starting from Y0 = R0: a = ~ 1 / 2 U r N ( l ) gn~nl/2, X"-~n

' I / 2 v Tn E r ,
B =
(6.41)
for k = 1. . . . . p. C = Em
r U n~n
,;1/2 ' D = Yo,
Rk - ~ - - 1 QiYk i,
(6.37)
gk = --~Pi 1 Qi gk-i, for k = p + 1. . . . . oc. where Er and E~ are the elementary matrices that pick out
the first r (the number of system inputs) columns and first m
If the TFM is parameterized in the PM form, the derivation (the number of system outputs) rows of their multiplicands,
of the system Markov parameters is almost the same: one starts respectively.
with Y0 = B0, and continues with the following iterative pro-
cedure:
6.4 Application Studies
Yk
f Bk - 2~=1aigk i, for k = 1. . . . . p.
(6.38) This section presents two experimental level application
for k = p + l . . . . . oc. studies conducted in the Structural Dynamics and Control/
1076 Gangfin

Um XgddOt
40
.~ 20 20
-o 0
"(3 0
-20
-20
-40,
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 .... ' " i ' i .... i .... '. ' 40
20
0
-20
-40 iiiiiiiiiiiii IIYIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -40
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

20
"5
"0 0
"(3 0
x~ - 2 0 -20
-40
-40
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
20

~5
"0
0
"(3 -20
E
X
-40

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
10

E -50
X

0
-100
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
F r e q u e n c y (Hz) F r e q u e n c y (Hz)

FIGURE 6.6 Comparison of Experimental and Model FRF for the Seismic-AMD Benchmark Structure: Magnitude Plot. Um denotes the input
command to the AMD; xg ddot denotes the input ground acceleration to the structure; xjddot denotes the output acceleration of the jth floor;
xmddot denotes the output acceleration of the AMD; Xm denotes the output displacement of the AMD; dotted lines are for measurement data;
solid lines are for model output.

Earthquake Engineering Laboratory (SDC/EEL) at University
of Notre Dame. This section only presents the results perti-
nent to identification studies discussed so far in this chapter.
For detailed information about these experiments, includ-
ing experimental setups and/or control developments, the
reader may refer to Jin et al. (2000), Jin (2002), and Dyke
et aL (1994), respectively.
6.4.1 Identification of a 16-Story Structure
The first identification target is a 16-story steel structure model
shown in Figure 6.2. The system is excited by impulse
force produced by a PCB hammer and applied individually
at the 16th, 12th, 8th, and 4th floors. The accelerations of
these floors are selected as the system measurement outputs
and are sensed by PCB accelerometers. The goal of the identi-
fication is to capture accurately the first five pairs of the
complex poles of the structure. For this purpose, a DSPT
Siglab spectrum analyzer is used to measure the FRF data.
The sampling rate is set at 256 Hz, and the frequency reso-
lution is set at 0.125 Hz. The experimental FRF is precondi-
tioned to eliminate the second order direct current (dc) zeros
from acceleration measurement. The MF parameterization
is chosen for the curve-fitting, which is complemented by
the ERA method for state-space realization. The key identifi-
cation parameters are given in Table 6.1. The final discrete-
time state-space realization has 10 states. The magnitude
and phase plots of its transfer functions are compared to
the experimental FRF data in Figures 6.3 and 6.4. Excellent
agreements are found in all but the very high frequency
range. The mismatch there is primarily due to the unmodeled
high-frequency dynamics.
6 Frequency D o m a i n System Identification 1077

Um xgddot
0
-1 O0 -200
"0o
% -200
x -400 ! i i .... i ! l
-300
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

t
-100
-200
-300
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
-200
-400
-100
-600
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

× -lOO
_4oot ..... ...... t
-200
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

...... . iiiiiiii iiiiiiiill

-200 L ~ ,; . . . . " :
-400 I- U . . . . : . ~'~w~-,,~.,,,~Z.~
-600 t . . . . ~r."
-120I . . . . . . . . . -800 ~ : ..... .... ~,
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

FIGURE 6.7 Comparison of Experimental and Model FRF for the Seismic-AMD Benchmark Structure: Phase Plot. Same notations are used
as in Figure 6.6.

6.4.2 Identification of the Seismic-Active
Mass Driver Benchmark Structure
The second identification target of this discussion is a three-
story steel structure model, with an active mass driver (AMD)
installed on the third floor to reduce the vibration of the
structure due to simulated earthquakes. A picture of the
system is given in Figure 6.5. This system has been used
recently as the ASCE first-generation seismic-AMD bench-
mark study. The benchmark structure has two input excita-
tions: the voltage command sent to the AMD by the control
computer and the ground acceleration generated by a seismic
shaker. The system responses are measured by four accelerom-
eters for the three floors and the AMD and one linear variable
differential transformer (LVDT) for the displacement of
the AMD. The sampling rate is 256 Hz, and the frequency
resolution is 0.0625Hz. Due to noise and nonlinearity,
only the frequency range of 3 to 35Hz of the FRF data is
considered to be accurate and, thus, this range is used for the
identification.
A preliminary curve-fitting is carried out using the MF
parameterization. The identified model matches the experi-
mental data accurately in all but the low-frequency range of
channels corresponding to the AMD command input and the
acceleration outputs. A detailed analytical modeling of the
system reveals that there are four (respectively two) fixed dc
zeros from AMD command input to the structure (respectively
AMD) acceleration outputs:
lira Gx~um(S) -- ki, i = 1, 2, 3. (6.42)
s-e0 S4
lim G~um ( S) - kin. (6.43)
s-*O S2
The G~,~ and G~,,u,~ are the transfer functions from
AMD command input u m to structure and AMD acceleration
outputs, respectively. The ki and km are the static gains of
these transfer functions with the fixed dc zeroes
removed. These fixed zeros dictate the use of the PM curve-
fitting technique to explicitly include such a priori informa-
tion.
Again, key identification parameters are presented in Table
6.1. The outputs of the parameter optimization iterations are
1078
documented in Table 6.2. The final discrete-time state-space
realization has eight states as predicted by the analytical mod-
eling. The magnitude and phase plots of its transfer functions
are compared to the experimental FRF data in Figures 6.6
and 6.7. All the input output channels are identified accurately
except for the (5,2) element, which corresponds to the ground
acceleration input and the displacement output of the AMD.
The poor fitting there is caused by the extremely low signal-to-
noise ratio.
6.5 Conclusion
This chapter discusses the identification of linear dynamic
systems using frequency domain measurement data. After
outlining a general modeling procedure, the two major
computation steps, frequency domain curve-fitting and
state-space system realization, are illustration with detailed
numerical routines. The algorithms employ TFM models in
the form of matrix fraction or polynomial matrix and re-
quire respectively linear or nonlinear parameter optimiza-
tions. Finally, the proposed identification schemes are
validated through the modeling of two experimental test
structures.
Gang Jin
References
Antsaklis, P., and Michel, A. (1997). Linear systems. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bayard, D. (1992). Multivariable frequency domain identification via
two-norm minimization. Proceedings of the American Control Con-
ference, 1253-1257.
Dennis, Jr., J.E., and Schnabel, R.B. (1996). Numerical methods for
unconstrained optimization and nonlinear equations. Philadelphia:
SIAM Press.
Dyke, S., Spencer, Jr., B., Belknap, A., Ferrell, K., Quast, E, and Sain,
M. (1994). Absolute acceleration feedback control strategies for the
active mass driver. Proceedings of the World Conference on Structural
Control 2, TPh51-TPI:60.
Gill, EE., Murray, W., and Wright, M.H. (1981). Practical optimiza-
tion. New York: Academic Press.
Jin, G., Sain, M.K., and Spencer, Jr., B.E (2000). Frequency domain
identification with fixed zeros: First generation seismic-AMD
benchmark. Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
981-985.
Jin, G. (2002). System identification for controlled structures in civil
engineering application: Algorithm development and experimental
verification. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame.
Juang, J.N. (1994). Applied system identification. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Stewart, G.W. (1973). Introduction to matrix computations. New York:
Academic Press.