Artificially determining the model order is necessary for time domain modal identification, which affects the identification efficiency and accuracy. An automatic identification method is proposed to determine the best estimation of the model order. Based on the covariance-driven stochastic subspace identification method (SSI-COV), the singular value decomposition of the Toeplitz matrix is carried out to determine the range of the lower triangular matrix. The similarity coefficient and distance function are introduced to cluster the modes, and the poles of the false modes are removed to obtain the clustering stabilization diagram. The model order is taken as the number of clustering centers of the fuzzy c-means (FCM) algorithm, and all the poles of the stabilization diagram are clustered to get the modal parameters of each order. The effectiveness of the proposed method is verified by adopting a thin-walled cylindrical column, a triangular-prism truss in simulation, and a flexible beam in experiment. The robustness of the method is illustrated by adding white noise to the simulated response data. The advantage of the clustering stabilization diagram is demonstrated by comparing with the traditional stabilization diagram.
AllemangRJ (2003) The modal assurance criterion–twenty years of use and abuse. Sound and vibration37(8): 14–23.
2.
AshidaFTauchertTRNodaN (2010) A general solution technique for piezothermoelasticity of hexagonal solids of class 6mm in cartesian coordinates. ZAMM-Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics74(2): 87–95.
3.
BakirPG (2011) Automation of the stabilization diagrams for subspace based system identification. Expert Systems with Applications38(12): 14390–14397.
4.
ChandraNHSekharAS (2016) Fault detection in rotor bearing systems using time frequency techniques. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing72: 105–133.
5.
HäckellMWRolfesR (2013) Monitoring a 5 MW offshore wind energy converter—condition parameters and triangulation based extraction of modal parameters. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing40(1): 322–343.
HermanVPeetersB (2003) International research projects on structural health monitoring: an overview. Structural Health Monitoring2(4): 341–358.
8.
HongALUbertiniFBettiR (2013) New stochastic subspace approach for system identification and its application to long-span bridges. Journal of Engineering Mechanics139(6): 724–736.
9.
HuSBaoXLiH (2010) Model order determination and noise removal for modal parameter estimation. Mechanical Systems & Signal Processing24(6): 1605–1620.
10.
JiangDNieWFeiQ, et al. (2021) Free vibration analysis of composite panels considering correlations of spatially distributed uncertain parameters. Applied Mathematical Modelling98(3): 747–757.
11.
JiangHMChenJDongGM, et al. (2015) Study on hankel matrix-based SVD and its application in rolling element bearing fault diagnosis. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing52–53: 338–359.
12.
JungBKChoJRJeongWB (2015) Sensor placement optimization for structural modal identification of flexible structures using genetic algorithm. Journal of Mechanical Science&Technology29(7): 2775–2783.
13.
LiHNYangH (2007) System identification of dynamic structure by the multi-branch BPNN. Neurocomputing70(4–6): 835–841.
14.
LianJJLiHKZhangJW (2009) ERA modal identification method for hydraulic structures based on order determination and noise reduction of singular entropy. Science in China Series E-Technological Sciences52(2): 400–412.
15.
MagalhaesFCunhaACaetanoE (2009) Online automatic identification of the modal parameters of a long span arch bridge. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing23(2): 316–329.
16.
MaoQMazzottiMDevitisJ, et al. (2019) Structural condition assessment of a bridge pier: a case study using experimental modal analysis and finite element model updating. Structural Control and Health Monitoring26(1): e2273.
17.
OhBKKimDParkHS (2017) Modal response-based visual system identification and model updating methods for building structures. Computer-aided Civil & Infrastructure Engineering32(1): 34–56.
18.
RainieriCFabbrocinoG (2015) Development and validation of an automated operational modal analysis algorithm for vibration-based monitoring and tensile load estimation. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing60: 512–534.
19.
ReyndersE (2012) System identification methods for (operational) modal analysis: review and comparison. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering19(1): 51–124.
20.
ReyndersEHoubrechtsJDe RoeckG (2012) Fully automated (operational) modal analysis. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing29: 228–250.
21.
UbertiniFGentileCMaterazziAL (2013) Automated modal identification in operational conditions and its application to bridges. Engineering Structures46: 264–278.
22.
VanlanduitSVerbovenPGuillaumeP, et al. (2003) An automatic frequency domain modal parameter estimation algorithm. Journal of Sound and Vibration265(3): 647–661.
23.
VerbovenPParlooEGuillaumeP, et al. (2002) Autonomous structural health monitoring—part I: modal parameter estimation and tracking. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing16(4): 637–657.
24.
WangCHuMHJiangZN, et al. (2020) A modal parameter identification method based on improved covariance-driven stochastic subspace identification. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power-Transactions of the Asme142(6): 061005.
25.
WangJQiX (2016) Fault diagnosis for flight control systems using subspace method and adaptive two-stage Kalman filter. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control38(12): 1480–1490.
26.
WuWHWangSWChenCC, et al. (2019) Modal parameter identification for closely spaced modes of civil structures based on an upgraded stochastic subspace methodology. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering15(3): 296–313.
27.
WuWHWangSWChenCC, et al. (2016) Mode identifiability of a cable-stayed bridge under different excitation conditions assessed with an improved algorithm based on stochastic subspace identification. Smart Structures and Systems17(3): 363–389.
28.
XuJChenYTaiY, et al. (2021) New control strategy for suppressing the local vibration of sandwich beams based on the wave propagation method. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures33: 231–247.
29.
XuRWunschD (2005) Survey of clustering algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks16(3): 645–678.
30.
ZhouJXuLZhangA, et al. (2022a) Finite element explicit dynamics simulation of motion and shedding of jujube fruits under forced vibration. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture198: 107009.
31.
ZhouJXuLZhaoJ, et al. (2022b) Effective excitation conditions for the intense motion of the ginkgo seed-stem system during mechanical vibration harvesting. Biosystems Engineering215: 239–248.
32.
ZhuRFeiQJiangD, et al. (2019a) Maintaining specific natural frequency of damped system despite mass modification. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering2019: 1–11.
33.
ZhuRFeiQJiangD, et al. (2019b) Removing mass loading effects of multi-transducers using Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula in modal test. Aerospace Science and Technology93(10): 105241–105249.
34.
ZhuRFeiQGJiangD, et al. (2019c) Dynamic sensitivity analysis based on Sherman–Morrison–Woodbury formula. AIAA Journal57(11): 4992–5001.
35.
ZhuRFeiQGJiangD, et al. (2019d) Using Sherman–Morrison theory to remove the coupled effects of multi-transducers in vibration test. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering233(4): 1364–1376.
