4.7 Article

Adaptive regularization parameter optimization in output-error-based finite element model updating

Journal

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 563-579

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2008.05.002

Keywords

Finite element (FE) model updating; Tikhonov regularization; Adaptive regularization parameter optimization; Minimum product criterion (MPC)

Funding

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [PolyU 5253/06E]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In finite element (FE) model updating, regularization methods are required to alter the ill-conditioned system of equations towards a well-conditioned one. The present study addresses the regularization parameter determination when implementing the Tikhonov regularization technique in output-error-based FE model updating. As the output-error-based FE model updating results in a nonlinear least-squares problem which requires iteration for solution, an adaptive strategy that allows varying value of the regularization parameter at different iteration steps is formulated, where the optimal regularization parameter at each iteration step is determined based on the computationally efficient minimum product criterion (MPC). The performance of MPC in output-error-based FE model updating is examined and compared with the commonly used L-curve method (LCM) and the generalized cross validation (GCV) through numerical studies of a truss bridge using noise-free and noise-corrupted modal data. It is shown that MPC is effective and robust in determining the regularization parameter compared with the other two methods, especially when noise-corrupted data are used. The adaptive strategy is more efficient than the fixed strategy that uses a constant value of the regularization parameter throughout the iteration process. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available