Tutorial

Frequency domain decomposition

Output-only modal analysis asks what a structure is doing when only its vibration is measured. This page derives frequency domain decomposition from first principles: energy, the equation of motion, eigenvalues, transfer functions, power spectra, and the singular value decomposition. It then derives enhanced FDD for damping. Every approximation is stated where it enters, together with the assumption that licenses it.

Assumptions we use

The derivation is exact under A0–A6 and A8. A7 is an estimation assumption; A9 and A10 are the FDD and EFDD approximations. Each is used where noted and revisited in §9.

Model

A0
Output-only. Only y(t)y(t) is measured; x(t)x(t) is unknown and modeled as random.
A1
Linear, time-invariant, finite-dimensional. nn coordinates, rr inputs, pp sensors; small displacements about equilibrium; M,C,KM,C,K constant.
A2
Viscous damping. Constant symmetric CC. General damping makes the modes complex; the residue derivation still applies.
A3
Linear input and output maps. Forces enter as BxBx, sensors read LqLq; no sensor dynamics, delays, or nonlinearities.
A4
Matrix properties. M=MT≻0M=M^T\succ0, K=KT⪰0K=K^T\succeq0, C=CT⪰0C=C^T\succeq0; K≻0K\succ0 if restrained. Derived from energy in §2.4.
A5
Simple, stable eigenvalues. The 2n2n eigenvalues are distinct, stable, and in conjugate pairs; every pole is simple. Repeated or defective roots are excluded.

Excitation and measurement

A6
Stationary random excitation. xx is zero-mean, wide-sense stationary, with finite variance and a spectral density matrix; ergodicity lets time averages estimate ensemble averages.
A7
Accurate estimate. G^y\widehat G_y is close to GyG_y; finite-record errors are treated in Appendix D.
A8
Clean, synchronized measurements. Noise is zero or uncorrelated with the response; channels are synchronized and calibrated.
A9
One dominant mode in the band. Gx(f)≈QxG_x(f)\approx Q_x, and the residual EmE_m is small relative to the selected term. Made precise in §6.
A10
One mode in the bell. The EFDD bell contains one mode and its correlation decays as a single exponential.

Conventions

A11
Fourier and spectral conventions. j2=−1j^2=-1; Fourier transform e−j2πfte^{-j2\pi ft}; GyG_y two-sided unless marked +^+; one-sided spectra double interior bins but not DC or Nyquist; ff in hertz, ω=2πf\omega=2\pi f; displacement PSD in unit2/Hz\text{unit}^2/\text{Hz}.
A12
Scale and phase are not identified. The shape is fixed only up to a complex scale; modal mass is not identifiable.

Notation

A dot is a time derivative, an overbar complex conjugation, and H^H the conjugate transpose. Scalar examples use uu for displacement and FF for force. H(s)H(s) is the transfer matrix; H^H is an operation.

tt
Time; seconds.
f, ωf,\ \omega
Frequency in hertz; ω=2πf\omega=2\pi f in radians per second.
jj
Imaginary unit, j2=−1j^2=-1.
s=σ+jωs=\sigma+j\omega
Complex Laplace variable.
q(t)∈Rnq(t)\in\mathbb R^n
Displacements from equilibrium; metres.
x(t)∈Rrx(t)\in\mathbb R^r
Force inputs; newtons.
y(t)∈Rpy(t)\in\mathbb R^p
Measured outputs; sensor units.
n, r, pn,\ r,\ p
Coordinates, inputs, sensors.
M, C, KM,\ C,\ K
Mass, damping, stiffness; n×nn\times n.
B, LB,\ L
Input n×rn\times r and output p×np\times n matrices.
Z(s)Z(s)
Dynamic stiffness s2M+sC+Ks^2M+sC+K.
T(s)\mathcal T(s)
Force-to-coordinate transfer Z(s)−1BZ(s)^{-1}B; H=LTH=L\mathcal T.
H(s)H(s)
Transfer matrix LZ(s)−1BLZ(s)^{-1}B; p×rp\times r. HikH_{ik} maps input kk to sensor ii.
λm\lambda_m
Eigenvalue (pole); inverse seconds.
ϕm\phi_m
Mode shape at the nn coordinates; complex in general.
vm=Lϕmv_m=L\phi_m
Measured shape; p×1p\times1.
γm\gamma_m
Input-coupling vector; r×1r\times1.
Rm=vmγmTR_m=v_m\gamma_m^T
Residue matrix; p×rp\times r, rank one.
αm, ωd,m, ωn,m, ζm\alpha_m,\ \omega_{d,m},\ \omega_{n,m},\ \zeta_m
Decay rate, damped frequency, natural frequency, damping ratio.
Gy(f), Gx(f)G_y(f),\ G_x(f)
Output and input PSD matrices; p×pp\times p, r×rr\times r.
YT(f)Y_T(f)
Fourier transform of a finite record of yy.
U, S, sk, ukU,\ S,\ s_k,\ u_k
Eigendecomposition or SVD: vectors, values, value kk, vector kk.
MAC⁡(u,v)\operatorname{MAC}(u,v)
Modal assurance criterion, in [0,1][0,1].
δ, Td, Rm(τ)\delta,\ T_d,\ \mathcal R_m(\tau)
Log decrement, damped period, autocorrelation at lag τ\tau.
E[⋅]\mathbb E[\cdot]
Expectation over records.
∥⋅∥, ∥⋅∥2\|\cdot\|,\ \|\cdot\|_2
Euclidean norm; matrix spectral norm.

The argument in one page

Each link uses only the link before it and the assumptions above.

Energy gives the equations of motion. Free vibration gives poles and mode shapes. Forcing makes each pole a rank-one residue. Random forcing makes the response PSD a sum of those rank-one terms. When one term dominates, the leading eigenvector of the PSD is the measured shape. The width of that term gives the damping.
ResultComes fromUses
Mq¨+Cq˙+Kq=BxM\ddot q+C\dot q+Kq=BxEnergy balance or LagrangeA1–A4
λm, ϕm\lambda_m,\ \phi_m(s2M+sC+K)ϕ=0(s^2M+sC+K)\phi=0A1, A5
H(s)=LZ(s)−1BH(s)=LZ(s)^{-1}BLaplace transform of the EOMA1, zero initial conditions
Rm=vmγmTR_m=v_m\gamma_m^TResidue at a simple poleA5
Gy=HGxHHG_y=H G_x H^HY=HXY=HX and stationarityA6
Gy≈dmvmvmHG_y\approx d_m v_m v_m^HModal sum and white forcingA9
u1≈ejθvm/∥vm∥u_1\approx e^{j\theta}v_m/\|v_m\|Eigendecomposition of a rank-one matrixA7, A9, spectral gap
ζm\zeta_m from δ\deltaBell and single-mode decayA10

FDD is PCA at every frequency. Gy(f)G_y(f) is Hermitian positive semidefinite, so diagonalizing it is PCA on the sensor channels without centering. The first eigenvector is the dominant spatial direction; FDD identifies it with the mode shape near a resonance.

Part IThe model

1The measurement problem

Sensors record the response y(t)y(t); the forces x(t)x(t) are unknown. We want the frequencies at which the structure vibrates, the relative motion of the sensors at those frequencies, and the decay rate. A mode shape is a fixed pattern of relative amplitude and phase: with one mode, every record is a scalar multiple of one vector, so the ratio between two sensors does not change with time. With several modes the ratio varies, and the pattern is visible only in a narrow band around a resonance.

FDD estimates the cross-spectral matrix Gy(f)G_y(f) and decomposes it at each frequency; the dominant direction at a peak is the shape. EFDD selects a band around a peak, inverse-transforms it, and fits the correlation decay to get damping. Because the inputs are not measured, the shape is determined only up to a complex scale; §6 shows why.

2Energy and the equation of motion

FDD relies on symmetry and positive semidefiniteness, which come from energy. We derive the equation of motion from energy and check it with Lagrange’s equations.

2.1Energy of a vibrating structure

Let q(t)∈Rnq(t)\in\mathbb R^n collect displacements from static equilibrium. For a linear structure,

T=12q˙TMq˙,V=12qTKq,D=12q˙TCq˙.T=\tfrac12\dot q^TM\dot q,\qquad V=\tfrac12q^TKq,\qquad D=\tfrac12\dot q^TC\dot q.
(2.1)

M,K,CM,K,C are the mass, stiffness, and viscous damping matrices. External forces do virtual work

δW=(Bx)Tδq=xTBTδq,\delta W=(Bx)^T\delta q=x^TB^T\delta q,

where BB is n×rn\times r; BxBx is the generalized force. Sensors read

y=Lq,y=Lq,

with LL of size p×np\times n. The quadratic forms follow from a Taylor expansion about equilibrium: the linear term vanishes at a stationary point, the constant can be taken as zero, and the quadratic term dominates for small displacements (A1). The matrices are second derivatives of the energy, hence symmetric.

2.2One degree of freedom

Take a mass μ>0\mu>0, spring k>0k>0, damper b≥0b\ge0, force F(t)F(t), and displacement u(t)u(t). The energies and virtual work are

T=12μu˙2,V=12ku2,D=12bu˙2,δW=F δu.T=\tfrac12\mu\dot u^2,\qquad V=\tfrac12ku^2,\qquad D=\tfrac12b\dot u^2,\qquad \delta W=F\,\delta u.
(2.2)

Energy balance equates the rate of stored energy to the supplied power minus the dissipated power:

ddt(T+V)=Fu˙−bu˙2.\frac{d}{dt}(T+V)=F\dot u-b\dot u^2.
(2.3)

Differentiate and factor:

μu˙u¨+kuu˙=Fu˙−bu˙2⟹u˙(μu¨+bu˙+ku−F)=0.\mu\dot u\ddot u+ku\dot u=F\dot u-b\dot u^2\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\dot u\bigl(\mu\ddot u+b\dot u+ku-F\bigr)=0.

When u˙≠0\dot u\ne0, divide. When u˙=0\dot u=0, continuity of u¨\ddot u and FF makes the bracket vanish as a limit. Hence

μu¨+bu˙+ku=F.\mu\ddot u+b\dot u+ku=F.
(2.4)

Each term is a force. Dividing by μ\mu gives the normalized form

u¨+bμu˙+kμu=Fμ.\ddot u+\frac{b}{\mu}\dot u+\frac{k}{\mu}u=\frac{F}{\mu}.

Lagrange’s equations give the same result and generalize to matrices. With Lagrangian T−VT-V, dissipation DD, and generalized force QQ,

ddt∂(T−V)∂u˙−∂(T−V)∂u+∂D∂u˙=Q.\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial (T-V)}{\partial\dot u}-\frac{\partial (T-V)}{\partial u}+\frac{\partial D}{\partial\dot u}=Q.
(2.5)

Here T−V=12μu˙2−12ku2T-V=\tfrac12\mu\dot u^2-\tfrac12ku^2, D=12bu˙2D=\tfrac12b\dot u^2, and Q=FQ=F. The derivatives are

∂(T−V)∂u˙=μu˙,ddt∂(T−V)∂u˙=μu¨,∂(T−V)∂u=−ku,∂D∂u˙=bu˙.\frac{\partial (T-V)}{\partial\dot u}=\mu\dot u,\qquad \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial (T-V)}{\partial\dot u}=\mu\ddot u,\qquad \frac{\partial (T-V)}{\partial u}=-ku,\qquad \frac{\partial D}{\partial\dot u}=b\dot u.

Substitution returns (2.4).

2.3Many degrees of freedom

For the full structure, energy balance is

ddt(12q˙TMq˙+12qTKq)=q˙TBx−q˙TCq˙.\frac{d}{dt}\left(\tfrac12\dot q^TM\dot q+\tfrac12q^TKq\right)=\dot q^TBx-\dot q^TC\dot q.
(2.6)

With M,KM,K constant and symmetric,

ddt(12q˙TMq˙)=q˙TMq¨,ddt(12qTKq)=q˙TKq.\frac{d}{dt}\left(\tfrac12\dot q^TM\dot q\right)=\dot q^TM\ddot q,\qquad \frac{d}{dt}\left(\tfrac12q^TKq\right)=\dot q^TKq.

Collecting terms gives

q˙T(Mq¨+Cq˙+Kq−Bx)=0.\dot q^T\bigl(M\ddot q+C\dot q+Kq-Bx\bigr)=0.

This holds for every q˙\dot q. Taking q˙=ei\dot q=e_i for each ii makes every component of the bracket zero, so

Mq¨+Cq˙+Kq=Bx,y=Lq.M\ddot q+C\dot q+Kq=Bx,\qquad y=Lq.
(2.7)

2.4What the matrices mean

Symmetry. qTAq=qTATqq^TAq=q^TA^Tq, so only the symmetric part contributes; take M,K,CM,K,C symmetric. For M,KM,K this follows from energy; for CC it is A2.

Definiteness. AA is positive semidefinite if xTAx≥0x^TAx\ge0, positive definite if strict for x≠0x\ne0. T≥0T\ge0, with equality only at q˙=0\dot q=0, so M≻0M\succ0 and invertible. V≥0V\ge0; a restrained structure has K≻0K\succ0, a free-free structure has K⪰0K\succeq0 with rigid-body Kϕ=0K\phi=0. D≥0D\ge0, so C⪰0C\succeq0, possibly singular.

Units. qq in metres and xx in newtons give MM in kilograms, CC in newton-seconds per metre, KK in newtons per metre; each term of (2.7) is a force. BB absorbs input units and LL sensor units.

Two masses. Masses m1,m2m_1,m_2 are joined by springs k1,k2,k3k_1,k_2,k_3 and dampers c1,c2,c3c_1,c_2,c_3, with k1,c1k_1,c_1 from the wall to m1m_1, k2,c2k_2,c_2 between the masses, and k3,c3k_3,c_3 from m2m_2 to the wall. With q=[q1,q2]Tq=[q_1,q_2]^T,

M=[m100m2],K=[k1+k2−k2−k2k2+k3],C=[c1+c2−c2−c2c2+c3].M=\begin{bmatrix}m_1&0\\0&m_2\end{bmatrix},\qquad K=\begin{bmatrix}k_1+k_2&-k_2\\-k_2&k_2+k_3\end{bmatrix},\qquad C=\begin{bmatrix}c_1+c_2&-c_2\\-c_2&c_2+c_3\end{bmatrix}.
(2.8)

The off-diagonal entries are negative because the middle spring and damper pull the masses together. The energies are

V=12[k1q12+k2(q2−q1)2+k3q22],D=12[c1q˙12+c2(q˙2−q˙1)2+c3q˙22].V=\tfrac12\left[k_1q_1^2+k_2(q_2-q_1)^2+k_3q_2^2\right],\qquad D=\tfrac12\left[c_1\dot q_1^2+c_2(\dot q_2-\dot q_1)^2+c_3\dot q_2^2\right].

Each bracket is a sum of squares with positive coefficients, so V,D≥0V,D\ge0. K≻0K\succ0 when k1+k2>0k_1+k_2>0 and k1k2+k1k3+k2k3>0k_1k_2+k_1k_3+k_2k_3>0, which holds for positive springs. A force on m1m_1 gives B=[1,0]TB=[1,0]^T; measuring both displacements gives L=IL=I.

2.5Lagrange’s equations for the matrix case

With qq as the generalized coordinate and Q=BxQ=Bx,

ddt∂(T−V)∂q˙−∂(T−V)∂q+∂D∂q˙=Q.\frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial (T-V)}{\partial\dot q}-\frac{\partial (T-V)}{\partial q}+\frac{\partial D}{\partial\dot q}=Q.
(2.9)

Since T=12q˙TMq˙T=\tfrac12\dot q^TM\dot q and VV does not depend on q˙\dot q,

∂T∂q˙=Mq˙,ddt∂T∂q˙=Mq¨,\frac{\partial T}{\partial\dot q}=M\dot q,\qquad \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial T}{\partial\dot q}=M\ddot q,

because MM is constant. Since V=12qTKqV=\tfrac12q^TKq, component ii of its gradient is

∂V∂qi=12∑j,kKjk∂(qjqk)∂qi=12∑kKikqk+12∑jKjiqj=(Kq)i,\frac{\partial V}{\partial q_i}=\frac12\sum_{j,k}K_{jk}\frac{\partial(q_jq_k)}{\partial q_i}=\frac12\sum_kK_{ik}q_k+\frac12\sum_jK_{ji}q_j=(Kq)_i,

using Kji=KijK_{ji}=K_{ij} and renaming the index. Also ∂D/∂q˙=Cq˙\partial D/\partial\dot q=C\dot q. Substituting into (2.9) with ∂(T−V)/∂q=−∂V/∂q\partial(T-V)/\partial q=-\partial V/\partial q gives

Mq¨+Kq+Cq˙=Bx,M\ddot q+Kq+C\dot q=Bx,

which is (2.7). Lagrange’s form holds for any generalized coordinates and allows MM to be non-diagonal.

3Modal analysis: free vibration

Free vibration is the motion with no force. Its solutions are the modes: fixed spatial patterns that evolve at a single complex rate.

3.1The exponential ansatz and the quadratic eigenproblem

Set x=0x=0 in (2.7):

Mq¨+Cq˙+Kq=0.M\ddot q+C\dot q+Kq=0.

This linear constant-coefficient equation has exponential solutions; polynomial factors occur only for repeated eigenvalues, excluded by A5. Seek

qc(t)=ϕeλt,q˙c=λϕeλt,q¨c=λ2ϕeλt.q_c(t)=\phi e^{\lambda t},\qquad \dot q_c=\lambda\phi e^{\lambda t},\qquad \ddot q_c=\lambda^2\phi e^{\lambda t}.
(3.1)

Here cc marks the complex auxiliary solution, ϕ≠0\phi\ne0 is the spatial pattern, and λ\lambda is the complex rate. Substitution gives

(λ2M+λC+K)ϕ eλt=0.\left(\lambda^2M+\lambda C+K\right)\phi\,e^{\lambda t}=0.

Cancel the exponential and define

Z(s)=s2M+sC+K,Z(λ)ϕ=0,det⁡Z(λ)=0.Z(s)=s^2M+sC+K,\qquad Z(\lambda)\phi=0,\qquad \det Z(\lambda)=0.
(3.2)

Nonzero ϕ\phi makes Z(λ)Z(\lambda) singular; a zero determinant gives a null vector. The scale of ϕ\phi is arbitrary; only its direction matters. This is a quadratic eigenvalue problem. det⁡Z(s)\det Z(s) has degree 2n2n because its leading term is det⁡(M)s2n\det(M)s^{2n}, so there are 2n2n roots, and real matrices give conjugate pairs. A numerical solver uses the 2n×2n2n\times2n state form z=[q;q˙]z=[q;\dot q], whose eigenvectors stack ϕm\phi_m on λmϕm\lambda_m\phi_m (Appendix A).

3.2Real motion from complex modes

qcq_c is complex, but the physical qq is real. Real matrices give λˉ\bar\lambda and ϕˉ\bar\phi; combine the pair:

qm(t)=c ϕeλt+cˉ ϕˉeλˉt=2Re⁡ ⁣(c ϕeλt).q_m(t)=c\,\phi e^{\lambda t}+\bar c\,\bar\phi e^{\bar\lambda t}=2\operatorname{Re}\!\left(c\,\phi e^{\lambda t}\right).
(3.3)

by z+zˉ=2Re⁡zz+\bar z=2\operatorname{Re}z. Each coordinate is real, and the 2n2n real constants in the nn coefficients cmc_m match the initial conditions. Write λ=σ+jωd\lambda=\sigma+j\omega_d:

λ=σ+jωd,eλt=eσt[cos⁡(ωdt)+jsin⁡(ωdt)].\lambda=\sigma+j\omega_d,\qquad e^{\lambda t}=e^{\sigma t}\left[\cos(\omega_d t)+j\sin(\omega_d t)\right].
(3.4)

Stability means σ<0\sigma<0. Choose ωd>0\omega_d>0 and write λ=−α+jωd\lambda=-\alpha+j\omega_d with α>0\alpha>0: α\alpha is the decay rate, ωd\omega_d the damped angular frequency. For C=0C=0 or proportional damping, ϕ\phi can be real; for general CC it is complex and records relative phases, not a complex displacement.

3.3The equivalent single-degree-of-freedom oscillator

Natural frequency and damping ratio come from a scalar oscillator. With mass μ>0\mu>0, spring k>0k>0, damper b≥0b\ge0, set F=0F=0 in (2.4) and divide by μ\mu:

u¨+bμu˙+kμu=0.\ddot u+\frac{b}{\mu}\dot u+\frac{k}{\mu}u=0.
(3.5)

With b=0b=0, u¨+(k/μ)u=0\ddot u+(k/\mu)u=0, so ωn2=k/μ\omega_n^2=k/\mu and fn=ωn/(2π)f_n=\omega_n/(2\pi). Restoring the damper and substituting u=estu=e^{st}:

μs2+bs+k=0,s=−b±b2−4μk2μ.\mu s^2+bs+k=0,\qquad s=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4\mu k}}{2\mu}.
(3.6)

The discriminant decides: b2<4μkb^2<4\mu k gives complex roots and oscillation, b2>4μkb^2>4\mu k gives real negative roots and no oscillation, and equality gives a double root. The boundary is bcrit=2μkb_{\mathrm{crit}}=2\sqrt{\mu k}, so

bcrit2−4μk=0⟹bcrit=2μk,ζ≡bbcrit=b2μk.b_{\mathrm{crit}}^2-4\mu k=0\quad\Longrightarrow\quad b_{\mathrm{crit}}=2\sqrt{\mu k},\qquad \zeta\equiv\frac{b}{b_{\mathrm{crit}}}=\frac{b}{2\sqrt{\mu k}}.

The dimensionless ζ\zeta is <1<1 underdamped, =1=1 critical, >1>1 overdamped; the factor 2 comes from (3.6). Since b/μ=2ζωnb/\mu=2\zeta\omega_n, dividing (2.4) by μ\mu gives

u¨+2ζωnu˙+ωn2u=0,s2+2ζωns+ωn2=0.\ddot u+2\zeta\omega_n\dot u+\omega_n^2u=0,\qquad s^2+2\zeta\omega_ns+\omega_n^2=0.

For ζ<1\zeta<1, s=−ζωn±jωn1−ζ2s=-\zeta\omega_n\pm j\omega_n\sqrt{1-\zeta^2}. Comparing with λ=−α±jωd\lambda=-\alpha\pm j\omega_d gives α=ζωn\alpha=\zeta\omega_n and ωd=ωn1−ζ2\omega_d=\omega_n\sqrt{1-\zeta^2}. Matching the full polynomial,

(s−λ)(s−λˉ)=(s+α)2+ωd2=s2+2αs+(α2+ωd2),(s-\lambda)(s-\bar\lambda)=(s+\alpha)^2+\omega_d^2=s^2+2\alpha s+(\alpha^2+\omega_d^2),

so ζmωn,m=αm\zeta_m\omega_{n,m}=\alpha_m, ωn,m2=αm2+ωd,m2\omega_{n,m}^2=\alpha_m^2+\omega_{d,m}^2, and

ωn,m=∣λm∣=αm2+ωd,m2,ζm=αmωn,m,ωd,m=ωn,m1−ζm2.\omega_{n,m}=|\lambda_m|=\sqrt{\alpha_m^2+\omega_{d,m}^2},\qquad \zeta_m=\frac{\alpha_m}{\omega_{n,m}},\qquad \omega_{d,m}=\omega_{n,m}\sqrt{1-\zeta_m^2}.
(3.7)

These are the modal parameters. ωn,m=∣λm∣\omega_{n,m}=|\lambda_m| is the equivalent-oscillator parameter, not necessarily an undamped structural frequency (§3.5).

3.4Interactive: damping regimes

Release the oscillator from u(0)=1u(0)=1, u˙(0)=0\dot u(0)=0. For ζ<1\zeta<1, u=e−αt(C1cos⁡ωdt+C2sin⁡ωdt)u=e^{-\alpha t}(C_1\cos\omega_dt+C_2\sin\omega_dt); the conditions give C1=1C_1=1 and C2=α/ωdC_2=\alpha/\omega_d. For ζ=1\zeta=1, u=(C1+C2t)e−ωntu=(C_1+C_2t)e^{-\omega_nt} gives C1=1C_1=1, C2=ωnC_2=\omega_n. For ζ>1\zeta>1, β=ωnζ2−1\beta=\omega_n\sqrt{\zeta^2-1}, λ1,2=−α±β\lambda_{1,2}=-\alpha\pm\beta, and the two conditions give the coefficients below:

u(t)={e−αt[cos⁡(ωdt)+αωdsin⁡(ωdt)],0≤ζ<1,(1+ωnt)e−ωnt,ζ=1,−λ2eλ1t+λ1eλ2tλ1−λ2,ζ>1.u(t)=\begin{cases}e^{-\alpha t}\left[\cos(\omega_dt)+\dfrac{\alpha}{\omega_d}\sin(\omega_dt)\right],&0\le\zeta<1,\\(1+\omega_nt)e^{-\omega_nt},&\zeta=1,\\\dfrac{-\lambda_2e^{\lambda_1t}+\lambda_1e^{\lambda_2t}}{\lambda_1-\lambda_2},&\zeta>1.\end{cases}
(3.8)

The critical case is the limit of the underdamped case; the overdamped case reduces to it as β→0\beta\to0. The figure shows the poles and the response.

The pole-plane scale keeps both roots visible. Below critical damping they form a conjugate pair; at critical damping they coincide; above it they separate along the negative real axis. The response starts from the same displacement and zero velocity.

3.5Two meanings of natural frequency

“Remove the damping” has two meanings. For the equivalent oscillator, set its ζ\zeta to zero while keeping ωn,m=∣λm∣\omega_{n,m}=|\lambda_m|. For the structure, set C=0C=0 in (2.7) and solve

Mq¨+Kq=0,Kψr=Ωr2Mψr.M\ddot q+Kq=0,\qquad K\psi_r=\Omega_r^2M\psi_r.

For one mass and spring both give k/μ\sqrt{k/\mu}. Under proportional damping C=aM+bKC=aM+bK, the damped modes are the undamped modes with an added decay; Appendix A shows ωn,r=Ωr\omega_{n,r}=\Omega_r and ζr=(a/Ωr+bΩr)/2\zeta_r=(a/\Omega_r+b\Omega_r)/2. For general damping, modes can mix undamped shapes and ∣λm∣|\lambda_m| need not equal any Ωr\Omega_r. Here ωn,m=∣λm∣\omega_{n,m}=|\lambda_m|.

The next part connects these modes to forced measurements through the transfer matrix.

Part IIFrom forces to spectra

4The transfer matrix and its residues

Free vibration gives the poles; the transfer matrix gives their residues. It maps forces to measurements in the frequency domain.

4.1The Laplace transform

For a signal q(t)q(t) on t≥0t\ge0,

Q(s)=L{q}(s)=∫0∞q(t)e−st dt,s=σ+jω.Q(s)=\mathcal L\{q\}(s)=\int_0^\infty q(t)e^{-st}\,dt,\qquad s=\sigma+j\omega.
(4.1)

This is a Fourier transform of q(t)e−σtq(t)e^{-\sigma t}; choosing σ\sigma large enough makes it converge. The derivative rule follows from integration by parts with u=e−stu=e^{-st}, dv=q˙ dtdv=\dot q\,dt:

∫0∞q˙(t)e−st dt=[q(t)e−st]0∞+s∫0∞q(t)e−st dt=sQ(s)−q(0).\int_0^\infty\dot q(t)e^{-st}\,dt=\bigl[q(t)e^{-st}\bigr]_0^\infty+s\int_0^\infty q(t)e^{-st}\,dt=sQ(s)-q(0).

The upper limit vanishes by the choice of σ\sigma; the lower limit gives −q(0)-q(0). Applying the rule again,

L{q˙}(s)=sQ(s)−q(0),L{q¨}(s)=s2Q(s)−sq(0)−q˙(0).\mathcal L\{\dot q\}(s)=sQ(s)-q(0),\qquad \mathcal L\{\ddot q\}(s)=s^2Q(s)-sq(0)-\dot q(0).
(4.2)

With zero initial conditions each derivative is multiplication by ss; the initial-condition response can be added separately. On the imaginary axis, s=jω=j2πfs=j\omega=j2\pi f, this is the stationary frequency response.

4.2From the equation of motion to H(s)H(s)

Transform (2.7) with zero initial conditions:

(s2M+sC+K)⏟Z(s)Q(s)=BX(s),Y(s)=LQ(s).\underbrace{(s^2M+sC+K)}_{Z(s)}Q(s)=BX(s),\qquad Y(s)=LQ(s).
(4.3)

Where Z(s)Z(s) is invertible,

Q(s)=Z(s)−1BX(s),Y(s)=LZ(s)−1BX(s),Q(s)=Z(s)^{-1}BX(s),\qquad Y(s)=LZ(s)^{-1}BX(s),

so

Y(s)=H(s)X(s),H(s)=LZ(s)−1B.Y(s)=H(s)X(s),\qquad H(s)=LZ(s)^{-1}B.
(4.4)

HH is p×rp\times r; HikH_{ik} maps input kk to sensor ii. Its entries share the denominator det⁡Z(s)\det Z(s). ZZ is singular exactly at the eigenvalues, so the poles of HH are eigenvalues unless cancelled by LL or BB.

4.3Partial fractions at a simple pole

For one entry with a simple pole at λm\lambda_m,

Hik(s)=rik,ms−λm+gik,m(s),H_{ik}(s)=\frac{r_{ik,m}}{s-\lambda_m}+g_{ik,m}(s),
(4.5)

where gik,mg_{ik,m} is finite at λm\lambda_m. This is exact. Multiply by s−λms-\lambda_m and take the limit:

lim⁡s→λm(s−λm)Hik(s)=lim⁡s→λm[rik,m+(s−λm)gik,m(s)]=rik,m.\lim_{s\to\lambda_m}(s-\lambda_m)H_{ik}(s)=\lim_{s\to\lambda_m}\left[r_{ik,m}+(s-\lambda_m)g_{ik,m}(s)\right]=r_{ik,m}.
(4.6)

The second term vanishes, so the limit isolates the residue. Entrywise this gives a matrix RmR_m and a remainder:

H(s)=Rms−λm+Hrest,m(s),Rm=lim⁡s→λm(s−λm)H(s).H(s)=\frac{R_m}{s-\lambda_m}+H_{\mathrm{rest},m}(s),\qquad R_m=\lim_{s\to\lambda_m}(s-\lambda_m)H(s).

RmR_m is p×rp\times r; Hrest,mH_{\mathrm{rest},m} contains the conjugate pole and all other modes. A simple pole (A5) makes the principal part one term.

4.4Why the residue is rank one

Separate the force-to-coordinate transfer from the sensor map:

T(s)=Z(s)−1B,Q(s)=T(s)X(s),H(s)=LT(s).\mathcal T(s)=Z(s)^{-1}B,\qquad Q(s)=\mathcal T(s)X(s),\qquad H(s)=L\mathcal T(s).

Let WmW_m be the residue of T\mathcal T at λm\lambda_m:

Wm=lim⁡s→λm(s−λm)T(s).W_m=\lim_{s\to\lambda_m}(s-\lambda_m)\mathcal T(s).

Multiply Z(s)T(s)=BZ(s)\mathcal T(s)=B by s−λms-\lambda_m and take the limit:

Z(λm)Wm=lim⁡s→λm(s−λm)B=0.Z(\lambda_m)W_m=\lim_{s\to\lambda_m}(s-\lambda_m)B=0.
(4.7)

Each column of WmW_m lies in the nullspace of Z(λm)Z(\lambda_m), the set of vectors mapped to zero. At a simple eigenvalue that nullspace is one-dimensional, so every column is a multiple of ϕm\phi_m. If input kk has scalar γm,k\gamma_{m,k},

Wm=[ϕmγm,1⋯ϕmγm,r]=ϕmγmT,γmT=[γm,1⋯γm,r].W_m=\begin{bmatrix}\phi_m\gamma_{m,1}&\cdots&\phi_m\gamma_{m,r}\end{bmatrix}=\phi_m\gamma_m^T,\qquad \gamma_m^T=\begin{bmatrix}\gamma_{m,1}&\cdots&\gamma_{m,r}\end{bmatrix}.

Apply LL, which is constant and passes through the limit:

Rm=lim⁡s→λm(s−λm)H(s)=Llim⁡s→λm(s−λm)T(s)=LWm=(Lϕm)γmT=vmγmT.R_m=\lim_{s\to\lambda_m}(s-\lambda_m)H(s)=L\lim_{s\to\lambda_m}(s-\lambda_m)\mathcal T(s)=LW_m=(L\phi_m)\gamma_m^T=v_m\gamma_m^T.
(4.8)

The residue is rank one: every column is a multiple of the measured shape vmv_m. If vm=0v_m=0 the sensors do not see the mode; if γm=0\gamma_m=0 the inputs do not excite it.

For two inputs with coefficients 22 and −3-3, and vm=[1,−2]Tv_m=[1,-2]^T,

Rm=[2vm−3vm]=[2−3−46]=[1−2][2−3].R_m=\begin{bmatrix}2v_m&-3v_m\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}2&-3\\-4&6\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}1\\-2\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}2&-3\end{bmatrix}.

Both columns keep the ratio 1:−21:-2; an input vector combines them into vm(2X1−3X2)v_m(2X_1-3X_2). The full HH need not be rank one, because it contains the other modes. The rank-one statement is about one residue.

4.5The full modal sum

For real matrices the conjugate pole has residue Rˉm\bar R_m. Summing the nn pairs,

H(s)=∑m=1n(Rms−λm+Rˉms−λˉm),Rm=vmγmT.H(s)=\sum_{m=1}^{n}\left(\frac{R_m}{s-\lambda_m}+\frac{\bar R_m}{s-\bar\lambda_m}\right),\qquad R_m=v_m\gamma_m^T.
(4.9)

This is exact under A5, not a one-mode assumption. A zero vmv_m, zero γm\gamma_m, or cancellation removes a term from HH; the mode still exists.

5The response spectral matrix

Operational forces are unknown and vary between records. We average products of Fourier coefficients, not the response itself; that average is the spectral matrix.

5.1From records to a spectral matrix

Let TT be the record duration and y(t)y(t) the pp-channel measurement. Define

YT(f)=∫−T/2T/2y(t)e−j2πft dt,Gy(f)=lim⁡T→∞1TE ⁣[YT(f)YT(f)H].Y_T(f)=\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}y(t)e^{-j2\pi ft}\,dt,\qquad G_y(f)=\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\mathbb E\!\left[Y_T(f)Y_T(f)^H\right].
(5.1)

YTY_T is random; E\mathbb E averages over records. The (i,k)(i,k) entry of YTYTHY_TY_T^H is YiYˉkY_i\bar Y_k. The factor 1/T1/T converts squared transform (amplitude squared times time squared) to a density (amplitude squared per hertz). Integrating a diagonal entry over all frequencies gives that channel’s mean square, equal to its variance because the mean is zero.

The matrix is two-sided. For real signals the negative frequencies mirror the positive ones; a one-sided spectrum, marked +^+, doubles interior positive bins and keeps DC and Nyquist unchanged. The definition assumes wide-sense stationarity (A6): expected products depend only on time separation, so the limit exists. Ergodicity lets a time average estimate the ensemble average; estimation details are in Appendix D.

5.2Hermitian positive semidefiniteness

For any YY,

(YYH)H=(YH)HYH=YYH.\left(YY^H\right)^H=\left(Y^H\right)^HY^H=YY^H.

A matrix equal to its conjugate transpose is Hermitian; expectation preserves this, so GyG_y is Hermitian. Its diagonal entries are averages of ∣Yi∣2|Y_i|^2, hence real and nonnegative. For any complex weight vector aa, ∣aHYT∣2≥0|a^HY_T|^2\ge0, and averaging gives

GyH=Gy,aHGya=lim⁡T→∞1TE ⁣[∣aHYT∣2]≥0.G_y^H=G_y,\qquad a^HG_ya=\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\mathbb E\!\left[|a^HY_T|^2\right]\ge0.
(5.2)

So GyG_y is Hermitian positive semidefinite. The spectral theorem gives an orthonormal eigenbasis and real eigenvalues; positive semidefiniteness makes them nonnegative. With unitary UU and diagonal Λ\Lambda,

Gy=UΛUH,UHU=I,Λ=diag⁡(λ1,…,λp),λk≥0.G_y=U\Lambda U^H,\qquad U^HU=I,\qquad \Lambda=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_p),\quad \lambda_k\ge0.

For such a matrix the singular values are the eigenvalues and the left singular vectors are the eigenvectors. The rank is the number of nonzero eigenvalues; a rank-one matrix has one eigenvector and a one-dimensional nullspace.

5.3The input–output relation

At a fixed frequency, the stationary output transform is the transfer matrix on the imaginary axis times the input transform:

YT(f)=H(j2πf)XT(f).Y_T(f)=H(j2\pi f)X_T(f).

This is (4.4) at s=j2πfs=j2\pi f, for the forced part after the transient has decayed. Substitute into the outer product:

YTYTH=(HXT)(HXT)H=HXTXTHHH.Y_TY_T^H=\left(HX_T\right)\left(HX_T\right)^H=HX_TX_T^HH^H.

At fixed frequency HH is constant across realizations, so it passes through the expectation. Applying (5.1),

Gy(f)=H(j2πf) Gx(f) H(j2πf)H.G_y(f)=H(j2\pi f)\,G_x(f)\,H(j2\pi f)^H.
(5.3)

GxG_x is r×rr\times r and Hermitian positive semidefinite; GyG_y is p×pp\times p. The force spectrum describes the excitation, HH the response and the sensors.

5.4Conventions and estimation

This page defines entry (i,k)(i,k) as YiYˉkY_i\bar Y_k. Some software uses YˉiYk\bar Y_iY_k, the transpose and conjugate; the estimated shape is then conjugated. Do not mix conventions. A one-sided spectrum keeps f≥0f\ge0 and doubles interior bins so that integrating over f≥0f\ge0 matches the two-sided mean square; DC and Nyquist are not doubled. The Welch estimator, its normalization, and the resolution–variance tradeoff are in Appendix D.

Part IIIFinding modes in data

6When one mode dominates

The response matrix is an exact sum of rank-one terms. FDD uses the band where one term dominates and the others are a perturbation. This section isolates that term and bounds the remainder.

6.1Isolating one pole

On the imaginary axis, s=jωs=j\omega with ω=2πf\omega=2\pi f, separate mode mm:

H(jω)=Rmjω−λm+Em(jω),Rm=vmγmT.H(j\omega)=\frac{R_m}{j\omega-\lambda_m}+E_m(j\omega),\qquad R_m=v_m\gamma_m^T.
(6.1)

EmE_m contains the conjugate pole and every other mode and is finite at ωd,m\omega_{d,m} (A5). The selected denominator is

jω−λm=αm+j(ω−ωd,m),∣jω−λm∣2=αm2+(ω−ωd,m)2.j\omega-\lambda_m=\alpha_m+j(\omega-\omega_{d,m}),\qquad |j\omega-\lambda_m|^2=\alpha_m^2+(\omega-\omega_{d,m})^2.

At ω=ωd,m\omega=\omega_{d,m} its magnitude is αm\alpha_m, so the selected term grows like 1/αm1/\alpha_m. The remainder has no such denominator.

6.2The exact four-term expansion

With P=Rm/(jω−λm)P=R_m/(j\omega-\lambda_m) and E=EmE=E_m, substitute into (5.3):

Gy=(P+E)Gx(P+E)H=PGxPH+PGxEH+EGxPH+EGxEH.G_y=(P+E)G_x(P+E)^H=PG_xP^H+PG_xE^H+EG_xP^H+EG_xE^H.
(6.2)

This is exact. The first term has the selected pole twice; the middle terms mix it with the remainder; the last has the remainder twice. Since PH=RmH/(−jω−λˉm)P^H=R_m^H/(-j\omega-\bar\lambda_m),

PGxPH=RmGxRmH∣jω−λm∣2.PG_xP^H=\frac{R_mG_xR_m^H}{|j\omega-\lambda_m|^2}.

With RmH=γˉmvmHR_m^H=\bar\gamma_mv_m^H,

RmGxRmH=vmγmTGxγˉm vmH=(γmTGxγˉm)vmvmH.R_mG_xR_m^H=v_m\gamma_m^TG_x\bar\gamma_m\,v_m^H=\left(\gamma_m^TG_x\bar\gamma_m\right)v_mv_m^H.

Define the scalar weight

Gy≈dm vmvmH,dm(f)=γmTGx(f)γˉmαm2+(2πf−ωd,m)2≥0.G_y\approx d_m\,v_mv_m^H,\qquad d_m(f)=\frac{\gamma_m^TG_x(f)\bar\gamma_m}{\alpha_m^2+(2\pi f-\omega_{d,m})^2}\ge0.
(6.3)

The numerator is (γˉm)HGx(γˉm)≥0(\bar\gamma_m)^HG_x(\bar\gamma_m)\ge0 because GxG_x is positive semidefinite. The direction vmv_m is fixed; only dmd_m varies with frequency. For constant Gx≈QxG_x\approx Q_x,

dm(f)=γmTQxγˉmαm2+(2πf−ωd,m)2,d_m(f)=\frac{\gamma_m^TQ_x\bar\gamma_m}{\alpha_m^2+(2\pi f-\omega_{d,m})^2},

a Lorentzian peaked at ωd,m\omega_{d,m}, with height set by the numerator and width by αm\alpha_m.

6.3The residual bound

Dropping the last three terms of (6.2) is legitimate when they are small. Weight selected term and remainder by the excitation; let Gx1/2G_x^{1/2} be the PSD square root and

Pw=PGx1/2,Ew=EGx1/2.P_w=PG_x^{1/2},\qquad E_w=EG_x^{1/2}.

Then PwPwH=PGxPHP_wP_w^H=PG_xP^H, PwEwH=PGxEHP_wE_w^H=PG_xE^H, EwPwH=EGxPHE_wP_w^H=EG_xP^H, EwEwH=EGxEHE_wE_w^H=EG_xE^H, so

Gy=PwPwH+PwEwH+EwPwH+EwEwH.G_y=P_wP_w^H+P_wE_w^H+E_wP_w^H+E_wE_w^H.

With ∥⋅∥2\|\cdot\|_2 the spectral norm, the triangle inequality and ∥AB∥2≤∥A∥2∥B∥2\|AB\|_2\le\|A\|_2\|B\|_2 give

∥Gy−PwPwH∥2≤2∥Pw∥2∥Ew∥2+∥Ew∥22.\left\|G_y-P_wP_w^H\right\|_2\le2\|P_w\|_2\|E_w\|_2+\|E_w\|_2^2.
(6.4)

If ∥Ew∥2≤ε∥Pw∥2\|E_w\|_2\le\varepsilon\|P_w\|_2, then

∥Gy−PwPwH∥2≤(2ε+ε2)∥Pw∥22.\left\|G_y-P_wP_w^H\right\|_2\le(2\varepsilon+\varepsilon^2)\|P_w\|_2^2.

ε\varepsilon depends on the force spectrum, modal visibility, and pole separation, not on damping alone. A lightly damped mode can have large ε\varepsilon near a strongly excited mode; a heavily damped mode can have small ε\varepsilon if it is alone in the band. Appendix C repeats the bound.

6.4What the assumption really says

It does not say the structure has one mode, or that damping is small. It says that in this band the selected mode dominates the response that is actually excited and observed. A mode can be invisible because vmv_m is small (sensors near a node) or γm\gamma_m is small (forces do not excite it), even if it is lightly damped. Close modes make EE large; colored forcing distorts the weight and can shift the peak; correlated inputs matter when several modes contribute; noise adds a full-rank term.

6.5Worked example: two sensors

Suppose one mode moves sensor 1 by 11 mm and sensor 2 by −2-2 mm. With a(t)a(t) the first displacement,

y(t)=[a(t)−2a(t)]=v a(t),v=[1−2].y(t)=\begin{bmatrix}a(t)\\-2a(t)\end{bmatrix}=v\,a(t),\qquad v=\begin{bmatrix}1\\-2\end{bmatrix}.
(6.5)

Let A(f)A(f) be the Fourier coefficient of aa. Linearity gives Y1=AY_1=A, Y2=−2AY_2=-2A, so

∣Y1∣2=∣A∣2,∣Y2∣2=4∣A∣2,Y1Yˉ2=−2∣A∣2.|Y_1|^2=|A|^2,\qquad |Y_2|^2=4|A|^2,\qquad Y_1\bar Y_2=-2|A|^2.

The separate power spectra lose the sign; the cross product preserves the opposite motion. Averaging and normalizing,

Gy(f)=Sa(f) vvT=Sa(f)[1−2−24],G_y(f)=S_a(f)\,vv^T=S_a(f)\begin{bmatrix}1&-2\\-2&4\end{bmatrix},
(6.6)

where SaS_a is the PSD of aa. For Sa>0S_a>0 the matrix is rank one, and

Gyv=5Sa(f) v,Gy[21]=0.G_yv=5S_a(f)\,v,\qquad G_y\begin{bmatrix}2\\1\end{bmatrix}=0.
(6.7)

The eigenvalue depends on excitation strength; the eigenvector gives 1:−21:-2 regardless. The null vector [2,1]T[2,1]^T is orthogonal to vv. The shape is defined only up to scale and phase, and where Sa=0S_a=0 there is no preferred direction. FDD therefore estimates shapes at peaks.

7Frequency domain decomposition

FDD diagonalizes the measured spectral matrix at each frequency. The decomposition is exact; reading the leading vector as a mode shape uses the approximation of §6.

7.1The SVD at each frequency

At frequency fif_i, diagonalize the estimate G^y\widehat G_y:

G^y(fi)=UiSiUiH=∑k=1psk(fi) uk(fi)uk(fi)H,s1≥s2≥⋯≥sp≥0.\widehat G_y(f_i)=U_iS_iU_i^H=\sum_{k=1}^{p}s_k(f_i)\,u_k(f_i)u_k(f_i)^H,\qquad s_1\ge s_2\ge\cdots\ge s_p\ge0.
(7.1)

The columns of UiU_i are orthonormal eigenvectors; SiS_i is diagonal. For a Hermitian positive-semidefinite matrix the SVD and eigendecomposition coincide: the singular values are the eigenvalues, and the left singular vectors are the eigenvectors. The ordering makes the first term largest.

An exact rank-one matrix has only s1≠0s_1\ne0. The estimate is generally full rank because of other modes, noise, and finite-record errors. The question is whether s2s_2 is small enough that u1u_1 is close to the physical shape (Appendix E).

7.2The leading singular vector

For G≈d vvHG\approx d\,vv^H with v≠0v\ne0,

(d vvH)v=d ∥v∥2 v,\left(d\,vv^H\right)v=d\,\|v\|^2\,v,
(7.2)

so vv is an eigenvector with eigenvalue d∥v∥2d\|v\|^2. Normalizing,

u1≈ejθv∥v∥,s1≈d ∥v∥2.u_1\approx e^{j\theta}\frac{v}{\|v\|},\qquad s_1\approx d\,\|v\|^2.
(7.3)

The phase θ\theta is arbitrary, and multiplying vv by a constant while adjusting dd leaves d vvHd\,vv^H unchanged. Neither phase nor scale is physical; this is why modal mass is not identifiable. For G=G0+EG=G_0+E with G0=d vvHG_0=d\,vv^H, the leading vector is close to v/∥v∥v/\|v\| when ∥E∥2\|E\|_2 is small relative to the spectral gap; the bound is in Appendix E. A large s1/s2s_1/s_2 supports a well-defined direction; a ratio near one does not. For the two-sensor example, u1=[1,−2]T/5u_1=[1,-2]^T/\sqrt5 and s1=5Sas_1=5S_a.

7.3Peak frequency is not pole frequency

Even a single oscillator distinguishes the spectral peak from ωn\omega_n and ωd\omega_d. With subscripts omitted, the force-to-displacement transfer function is

h(jω)=1ωn2−ω2+j2ζωnω,h(j\omega)=\frac{1}{\omega_n^2-\omega^2+j2\zeta\omega_n\omega},

so

∣h(jω)∣2=1(ωn2−ω2)2+4ζ2ωn2ω2.\left|h(j\omega)\right|^2=\frac{1}{(\omega_n^2-\omega^2)^2+4\zeta^2\omega_n^2\omega^2}.
(7.4)

Under white forcing the displacement PSD has the same frequency dependence. Minimize the denominator D(ω)D(\omega):

D′(ω)=2(ωn2−ω2)(−2ω)+8ζ2ωn2ω=4ω[ω2−ωn2+2ζ2ωn2].D'(\omega)=2(\omega_n^2-\omega^2)(-2\omega)+8\zeta^2\omega_n^2\omega=4\omega\left[\omega^2-\omega_n^2+2\zeta^2\omega_n^2\right].

The stationary points are ω=0\omega=0 and ω2=ωn2(1−2ζ2)\omega^2=\omega_n^2(1-2\zeta^2). For ζ<1/2\zeta<1/\sqrt2 the positive root is a minimum of DD, hence a maximum of ∣h∣2|h|^2; for ζ≥1/2\zeta\ge1/\sqrt2 the maximum is at ω=0\omega=0. Therefore

ωpeak=ωn1−2ζ2(ζ<1/2),ωpeak=0(ζ≥1/2).\omega_{\mathrm{peak}}=\omega_n\sqrt{1-2\zeta^2}\quad(\zeta<1/\sqrt2),\qquad \omega_{\mathrm{peak}}=0\quad(\zeta\ge1/\sqrt2).
(7.5)

For light damping the three frequencies are close; for 0<ζ<1/20<\zeta<1/\sqrt2, ωpeak<ωd<ωn\omega_{\mathrm{peak}}<\omega_d<\omega_n. Colored forcing, acceleration measurement, and finite resolution shift the observable peak; an acceleration PSD carries an extra ω4\omega^4, biasing it upward.

7.4Two modes in one band

For two modes,

Gy=d1v1v1H+d2v2v2H.G_y=d_1v_1v_1^H+d_2v_2v_2^H.
(7.6)

If v1Hv2=0v_1^Hv_2=0, the eigenvectors are exactly v1,v2v_1,v_2, with eigenvalues d1∥v1∥2,d2∥v2∥2d_1\|v_1\|^2,d_2\|v_2\|^2. Otherwise

Gyv1=d1∥v1∥2v1+d2v2(v2Hv1),G_yv_1=d_1\|v_1\|^2v_1+d_2v_2\left(v_2^Hv_1\right),
(7.7)

and the second term points away from v1v_1, so v1v_1 is not an eigenvector. The leading vector is a mixture. What survives is the span: if d1,d2>0d_1,d_2>0 and v1,v2v_1,v_2 are independent, GyG_y maps into their two-dimensional span, and the first two singular vectors recover that span but not the individual shapes. Orthogonal measured shapes are special; they are not the same as mass-orthogonal physical modes, because LL does not preserve the mass inner product. Equal singular values leave the basis within the subspace undetermined.

The modal assurance criterion measures agreement:

MAC⁡(u,v)=∣uHv∣2(uHu)(vHv)∈[0,1].\operatorname{MAC}(u,v)=\frac{|u^Hv|^2}{(u^Hu)(v^Hv)}\in[0,1].
(7.8)

By Cauchy–Schwarz it lies in [0,1][0,1]; it is one for proportional vectors, zero for orthogonal vectors, and invariant to a common complex scale. MAC decides whether the direction at a neighboring frequency is the same mode.

Two measured shapes

At 90∘90^\circ the shapes are orthogonal; reduce the angle and the gap to mix them. Mode 1 is at 3 Hz, mode 2 at 3+gap3+\text{gap}, both with damping ζ\zeta; independent white forces give (7.6) with

dm(f)=∣11−(f/fn,m)2+j2ζ(f/fn,m)∣2.d_m(f)=\left|\frac{1}{1-(f/f_{n,m})^2+j2\zeta(f/f_{n,m})}\right|^2.

With v1=[1,0]Tv_1=[1,0]^T, v2=[cos⁡β,sin⁡β]Tv_2=[\cos\beta,\sin\beta]^T, the readout gives s1/s2s_1/s_2 and the MAC with each physical shape. Equal singular values mean no unique MAC.

— First singular value– – Second singular valueVertical line: inspected frequency

Computed example, not measured data. The axis is logarithmic in the PSD singular values, in arbitrary units. Both modal transfer functions have unit static gain. The vertical line marks the inspected frequency.

7.5The algorithm

FDD, step by step

  1. Acquire. Record pp synchronized channels with known units and orientations; choose segment length, window, and overlap.
  2. Estimate. Compute G^y(fi)\widehat G_y(f_i) for every bin, using the same segments and window for all channel pairs and enough independent segments.
  3. Decompose. Diagonalize at each fif_i (7.1); store the singular values and leading vectors.
  4. Find peaks. Plot s1(f)s_1(f); a local maximum is a candidate resonance.
  5. Read the shape. At a peak take u1u_1; check that s1/s2s_1/s_2 is large and u1u_1 is stable across bins by MAC.
  6. Estimate damping. If needed, select the bell around the peak by MAC and fit its correlation decay (§8).

Output. Damped frequency fd,mf_{d,m}, shape u1u_1 up to scale and phase, and, with EFDD, ζm\zeta_m.

The eigendecomposition costs O(Nfp3)O(N_fp^3) for NfN_f bins and pp channels, small when pp is small. The spectral estimate costs O(Nlog⁡N)O(N\log N) per segment. In practice the hard part is sensor placement and spectral settings, not the linear algebra.

8Estimating damping: EFDD

FDD gives shape and frequency. Damping comes from the width of the spectral peak: select the part belonging to one mode, inverse-transform it, and fit the decay of its correlation.

8.1Selecting the spectral bell

Take the leading vector near a peak as the reference v^m\hat v_m. At each neighboring frequency, compute MAC⁡(uk(f),v^m)\operatorname{MAC}(u_k(f),\hat v_m) and keep the bin if it exceeds a threshold; the kept set is the spectral bell. A threshold of 0.80.8 is a common starting point: high enough to reject a neighboring mode, low enough to keep the flanks. Track the direction by MAC, not by vector index, because the first and second singular vectors can cross. Zero the rejected bins and inspect the bell: an asymmetric or rough bell indicates contamination.

The selected spectrum is one-sided, b+(f)b^+(f), with b+[k]b^+[k] at kΔfk\Delta f. The +^+ scaling is defined in Appendix D: interior bins are doubled, DC and Nyquist are not.

8.2From the bell to a correlation decay

By Wiener–Khinchin, the inverse transform of the PSD is the autocorrelation. For a real even correlation the result is a cosine integral:

Rm(τ)=∫0∞b+(f)cos⁡(2πfτ) df≈Δf∑k=0N/2b+[k]cos⁡ ⁣(2πkℓN),τ=ℓfs.\mathcal R_m(\tau)=\int_0^\infty b^+(f)\cos(2\pi f\tau)\,df\approx\Delta f\sum_{k=0}^{N/2}b^+[k]\cos\!\left(\frac{2\pi k\ell}{N}\right),\qquad \tau=\frac{\ell}{f_s}.
(8.1)

Here fsf_s is the sampling rate, NN an even transform length, Δf=fs/N\Delta f=f_s/N, and ℓ\ell the lag index. The cosine comes from mirroring the negative frequencies. For a single mode, the correlation oscillates with envelope am(τ)=A0e−αmτa_m(\tau)=A_0e^{-\alpha_m\tau}, A0>0A_0>0, and period Td=2π/ωd,mT_d=2\pi/\omega_{d,m}:

Rm(τ)∝am(τ)cos⁡(ωd,mτ),Td=2πωd,m.\mathcal R_m(\tau)\propto a_m(\tau)\cos(\omega_{d,m}\tau),\qquad T_d=\frac{2\pi}{\omega_{d,m}}.

8.3From log decrement to damping ratio

At two times separated by kk periods, the envelope ratio is e−αmkTde^{-\alpha_mkT_d}. Its logarithm per period is the logarithmic decrement:

δ=1kln⁡am(τ)am(τ+kTd)=αmTd.\delta=\frac{1}{k}\ln\frac{a_m(\tau)}{a_m(\tau+kT_d)}=\alpha_mT_d.
(8.2)

Substitute αm=ζmωn,m\alpha_m=\zeta_m\omega_{n,m} and Td=2π/(ωn,m1−ζm2)T_d=2\pi/(\omega_{n,m}\sqrt{1-\zeta_m^2}); the natural frequency cancels:

δ=2πζm1−ζm2.\delta=\frac{2\pi\zeta_m}{\sqrt{1-\zeta_m^2}}.

Square and solve for ζm\zeta_m:

δ2(1−ζm2)=4π2ζm2⟹ζm2=δ24π2+δ2⟹ζm=δ4π2+δ2,\delta^2(1-\zeta_m^2)=4\pi^2\zeta_m^2\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\zeta_m^2=\frac{\delta^2}{4\pi^2+\delta^2}\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\zeta_m=\frac{\delta}{\sqrt{4\pi^2+\delta^2}},

taking the positive root. Then

ζm=δ4π2+δ2,fn,m=fd,m1−ζm2.\zeta_m=\frac{\delta}{\sqrt{4\pi^2+\delta^2}},\qquad f_{n,m}=\frac{f_{d,m}}{\sqrt{1-\zeta_m^2}}.
(8.3)

Fit several peaks: ln⁡am(τj)=ln⁡A0−αmτj\ln a_m(\tau_j)=\ln A_0-\alpha_m\tau_j is a line; its slope gives αm\alpha_m. Same-sign peaks are one period apart, alternating extrema half a period. Exclude the initial distorted part and the late noisy part.

8.4Practical bias

A nearby mode produces beating and biases a single-exponential fit. A bell that is too narrow truncates the peak; one that is too wide admits neighbors and noise. Leakage changes the bell shape, and nonstationary excitation changes its height. Compute the damping for several bell widths and fitting intervals. If the result moves, the bell is not isolating one mode; compare the EFDD frequency with (3.7) before reporting it.

Part IVPractice

9Using the method on measurements

The calculation is short; the checks decide whether the result means anything.

9.1Before the measurement

  • Sensor placement. A sensor at a node records none of that mode. Place sensors where the target modes are large, and use enough to distinguish the shapes; vm=Lϕmv_m=L\phi_m is limited by LL.
  • Units and directions. Record the measured quantity, units, and positive direction. Arbitrary rescaling changes the geometry seen by the SVD; apply rotations before the spectral estimate.
  • Synchronization. All channels need one time base. A constant offset adds a frequency-dependent phase shift and corrupts the cross-spectra.
  • Stationarity. The excitation must be stationary over the record or each segment; transients, gusts, and operating changes violate A6.

9.2During spectral estimation

  • Same segments and window. Use them for every entry of G^y\widehat G_y; otherwise the cross-channel phase is destroyed.
  • Enough averages. One segment gives a noisy estimate with artificially low rank. Overlap adds segments but not independent averages.
  • Resolution. Segment length sets resolution; zero-padding only densifies the grid. A peak narrower than the resolution cannot be separated from its neighbor.
  • Check stability. Plot s1(f)s_1(f) and s1/s2s_1/s_2; a peak that moves with segment length or averaging is not stable.

9.3Interpreting the decomposition

  • Stable direction. The leading vector should be stable by MAC across the peak; rapid rotation means a mixture.
  • Rank one. A large s1/s2s_1/s_2 supports the interpretation; a ratio near one leaves the direction undetermined.
  • Harmonic forcing. A sinusoid also gives a narrow rank-one peak. Check whether the frequency matches a known forcing frequency and whether the shape is structural.
  • Visibility. An absent peak does not prove an absent mode; it may be weakly excited or invisible at the sensors.
  • Nonlinearity. Harmonics, combination frequencies, and amplitude-dependent shapes violate the linear model.

9.4Reporting

Report sensor coordinates and directions, measured quantity and units, shape normalization and phase convention, cross-spectrum convention, segment length, window, overlap, number of averages, and resolution. For EFDD also report the bell, MAC threshold, and fitted interval. State whether reported frequencies are damped fdf_d or natural fnf_n; they differ by 1−ζ2\sqrt{1-\zeta^2}. When a check fails, report the mixture or bias rather than presenting the leading vector as a mode shape.

AState-space linearization

The quadratic eigenvalue problem (3.2) can be written as an ordinary eigenproblem by including velocity in the state. Let zz be the 2n2n-component state vector and II the n×nn\times n identity. With zero blocks of the same size, the free equation Mq¨+Cq˙+Kq=0M\ddot q+C\dot q+Kq=0 becomes

z=[qq˙],z˙=Az,A=[0I−M−1K−M−1C].z=\begin{bmatrix}q\\\dot q\end{bmatrix},\qquad \dot z=Az,\qquad A=\begin{bmatrix}0&I\\-M^{-1}K&-M^{-1}C\end{bmatrix}.
(A.1)

The upper block of z˙=Az\dot z=Az is q˙=q˙\dot q=\dot q, an identity. The lower block is q¨=−M−1Kq−M−1Cq˙\ddot q=-M^{-1}Kq-M^{-1}C\dot q, which is the free equation multiplied by M−1M^{-1}. The matrix AA is 2n×2n2n\times2n, so it has 2n2n eigenvalues counted with multiplicity. They are the same eigenvalues as the quadratic problem, as the next calculation shows.

Seek a state solution z=Ψeλtz=\Psi e^{\lambda t}. Then z˙=λΨeλt\dot z=\lambda\Psi e^{\lambda t}, and cancelling the exponential gives AΨ=λΨA\Psi=\lambda\Psi. Write the upper and lower nn-component blocks of Ψ\Psi as Ψ1\Psi_1 and Ψ2\Psi_2. The two block equations are

λΨ1=Ψ2,−M−1KΨ1−M−1CΨ2=λΨ2.\lambda\Psi_1=\Psi_2,\qquad -M^{-1}K\Psi_1-M^{-1}C\Psi_2=\lambda\Psi_2.
(A.2)

The first equation gives Ψ2=λΨ1\Psi_2=\lambda\Psi_1. Substitute into the second and multiply by MM:

−KΨ1−λCΨ1=λ2MΨ1⟹(λ2M+λC+K)Ψ1=0.-K\Psi_1-\lambda C\Psi_1=\lambda^2M\Psi_1\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\left(\lambda^2M+\lambda C+K\right)\Psi_1=0.

Thus Ψ1\Psi_1 is a null vector of Z(λ)Z(\lambda), so it is a mode shape ϕm\phi_m, and the state eigenvector is

Ψm=[ϕmλmϕm],Z(λm)ϕm=0.\Psi_m=\begin{bmatrix}\phi_m\\\lambda_m\phi_m\end{bmatrix},\qquad Z(\lambda_m)\phi_m=0.

Conversely, every nonzero solution of the quadratic problem produces a state eigenvector by stacking ϕm\phi_m and λmϕm\lambda_m\phi_m. The correspondence is exact:

Z(λm)ϕm=0⟺A[ϕmλmϕm]=λm[ϕmλmϕm].Z(\lambda_m)\phi_m=0\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad A\begin{bmatrix}\phi_m\\\lambda_m\phi_m\end{bmatrix}=\lambda_m\begin{bmatrix}\phi_m\\\lambda_m\phi_m\end{bmatrix}.

In the quadratic problem, λm\lambda_m selects the matrix Z(λm)Z(\lambda_m) and ϕm\phi_m lies in its nullspace; ϕm\phi_m does not satisfy Z(λm)ϕm=λmϕmZ(\lambda_m)\phi_m=\lambda_m\phi_m. To recover a displacement mode shape from a state eigenvector, take its first nn entries.

The two problems have the same 2n2n eigenvalues, counting repeated roots according to multiplicity. Real matrices give conjugate pairs of nonreal roots. A defective eigenvalue has fewer independent eigenvectors than its multiplicity and requires polynomial factors in time; the simple-pole expansion used in this page excludes that case. The state form also explains why the exponential ansatz is sufficient: the solution of z˙=Az\dot z=Az is a matrix exponential, and the matrix exponential is a combination of eλte^{\lambda t} terms (with polynomial factors in the defective case).

A.1Damped modal parameters and undamped structural frequencies

There are two different meanings of “remove the damping.” For the equivalent scalar oscillator, we set its damping ratio to zero while keeping its frequency parameter ωn,m=∣λm∣\omega_{n,m}=|\lambda_m|. For the whole structure, we set C=0C=0 in (2.7) and solve a new eigenproblem. Let Ωr\Omega_r and ψr\psi_r denote an undamped angular frequency and its displacement shape. Substituting q=ψejΩtq=\psi e^{j\Omega t} into the undamped equation gives

Mq¨+Kq=0,Kψr=Ωr2Mψr.M\ddot q+Kq=0,\qquad K\psi_r=\Omega_r^2M\psi_r.
(A.3)

This is a generalized symmetric eigenproblem. The matrix M−1KM^{-1}K is not symmetric in the ordinary inner product, but it is symmetric in the MM-inner product, and its eigenvalues are real and nonnegative when M≻0M\succ0 and K⪰0K\succeq0. For a single mass and spring, (A.3) and the scalar oscillator both give k/μ\sqrt{k/\mu}.

They also agree mode by mode under proportional damping, C=aM+bKC=aM+bK with constants a,ba,b. To see this, apply Z(λ)Z(\lambda) to an undamped mode ψr\psi_r and use Kψr=Ωr2MψrK\psi_r=\Omega_r^2M\psi_r:

Z(λ)ψr=(λ2M+λaM+λbK+K)ψr=[λ2+aλ+Ωr2(1+bλ)]Mψr.Z(\lambda)\psi_r=\left(\lambda^2M+\lambda aM+\lambda bK+K\right)\psi_r=\left[\lambda^2+a\lambda+\Omega_r^2(1+b\lambda)\right]M\psi_r.
(A.4)

Since Mψr≠0M\psi_r\ne0, the bracket must vanish. It is a quadratic in λ\lambda,

λ2+(a+bΩr2)λ+Ωr2=0.\lambda^2+(a+b\Omega_r^2)\lambda+\Omega_r^2=0.

Comparing with λ2+2ζrΩrλ+Ωr2\lambda^2+2\zeta_r\Omega_r\lambda+\Omega_r^2 gives ωn,r=Ωr\omega_{n,r}=\Omega_r and ζr=(a/Ωr+bΩr)/2\zeta_r=(a/\Omega_r+b\Omega_r)/2. The damped mode is the undamped mode with an added decay, and the two notions of natural frequency coincide. For general damping this is not true: the damped modes can combine several undamped shapes, and ∣λm∣|\lambda_m| need not equal any Ωr\Omega_r. In this page, “natural frequency of mode mm” always means the equivalent-oscillator parameter ωn,m=∣λm∣\omega_{n,m}=|\lambda_m|.

BThe residue formula via the adjugate

Section 4.4 shows that the residue is rank one, but it leaves the input-coupling vector γm\gamma_m in terms of a limit. This appendix evaluates that limit explicitly. The result is the formula used in implementations, and it shows exactly when a mode disappears from the transfer matrix.

The cofactor at row ii, column jj of a square matrix is (−1)i+j(-1)^{i+j} times the determinant after deleting row ii and column jj. The adjugate adj⁡Z\operatorname{adj}Z is the transpose of the cofactor matrix. It remains defined at singular matrices and satisfies

Zadj⁡Z=adj⁡Z Z=(det⁡Z)I.Z\operatorname{adj}Z=\operatorname{adj}Z\,Z=(\det Z)I.
(B.1)

Wherever ZZ is invertible, Z−1=adj⁡Z/det⁡ZZ^{-1}=\operatorname{adj}Z/\det Z. The transfer matrix is therefore

H(s)=Ladj⁡Z(s)det⁡Z(s)B.H(s)=L\frac{\operatorname{adj}Z(s)}{\det Z(s)}B.

At a simple root λm\lambda_m, the determinant has a simple zero and the adjugate has rank one. The rank statement follows from (B.1): at the root, det⁡Z=0\det Z=0, so Zadj⁡Z=0Z\operatorname{adj}Z=0. Every column of the adjugate lies in the nullspace of Z(λm)Z(\lambda_m), which is one-dimensional, and the adjugate is not the zero matrix because the root is simple. Therefore

adj⁡Z(λm)=cm ϕmℓmH,\operatorname{adj}Z(\lambda_m)=c_m\,\phi_m\ell_m^H,
(B.2)

where cm≠0c_m\ne0 is a constant, ϕm\phi_m is the right null vector, and ℓmH\ell_m^H is the left null vector, satisfying Z(λm)ϕm=0Z(\lambda_m)\phi_m=0 and ℓmHZ(λm)=0\ell_m^HZ(\lambda_m)=0. The two null vectors are nonzero because the root is simple.

Near the root, expand the determinant in a Taylor series. Let dm′d'_m be its derivative at λm\lambda_m. Then

det⁡Z(s)=(s−λm)dm′+O ⁣((s−λm)2).\det Z(s)=(s-\lambda_m)d'_m+O\!\left((s-\lambda_m)^2\right).
(B.3)

The symbol O((s−λm)2)O((s-\lambda_m)^2) denotes a remainder bounded by a constant times ∣s−λm∣2|s-\lambda_m|^2 near the root. The derivative is given by Jacobi’s identity, which is valid also at singular matrices:

dm′=tr⁡ ⁣(adj⁡Z(λm)Z′(λm)),Z′(s)=2sM+C.d'_m=\operatorname{tr}\!\left(\operatorname{adj}Z(\lambda_m)Z'(\lambda_m)\right),\qquad Z'(s)=2sM+C.

Substituting (B.2) into the trace gives dm′=cmℓmH(2λmM+C)ϕmd'_m=c_m\ell_m^H(2\lambda_mM+C)\phi_m. Now form the residue limit. The factors s−λms-\lambda_m cancel, as do the constants cmc_m:

Rm=lim⁡s→λm(s−λm)H(s)=Ladj⁡Z(λm)Bdm′=(Lϕm)(ℓmHB)ℓmH(2λmM+C)ϕm=vmγmT.R_m=\lim_{s\to\lambda_m}(s-\lambda_m)H(s)=\frac{L\operatorname{adj}Z(\lambda_m)B}{d'_m}=\frac{(L\phi_m)(\ell_m^HB)}{\ell_m^H(2\lambda_mM+C)\phi_m}=v_m\gamma_m^T.
(B.4)

Thus the input-coupling vector is

γmT=ℓmHBℓmH(2λmM+C)ϕm.\gamma_m^T=\frac{\ell_m^HB}{\ell_m^H(2\lambda_mM+C)\phi_m}.

The denominator is nonzero at a simple root. If it were zero, the derivative of the determinant would vanish, and the root would not be simple. The residue vanishes precisely when the mode is unobserved, Lϕm=0L\phi_m=0, or unexcited, ℓmHB=0\ell_m^HB=0. In a minimal state realization every state direction is reachable from the inputs and observable in the outputs, so no state pole is lost from the transfer matrix; individual entries can still omit modes.

For force-to-velocity and force-to-acceleration matrices, denote the transfer matrices by Hy˙H_{\dot y} and Hy¨H_{\ddot y}. With zero initial conditions, differentiation becomes multiplication by ss, so Hy˙=sHH_{\dot y}=sH. For acceleration, differentiating twice gives Hy¨=s2HH_{\ddot y}=s^2H. Its high-frequency limit is the feedthrough LM−1BLM^{-1}B; equivalently, Hy¨=LM−1B+H~(s)H_{\ddot y}=LM^{-1}B+\tilde H(s) with H~(s)→0\tilde H(s)\to0 as s→∞s\to\infty. The residues acquire factors λm\lambda_m and λm2\lambda_m^2, and the feedthrough adds a constant term that has no pole. Real or repeated roots require a different expansion; truncating the modal sum to a few modes leaves a residual.

Inverse expansion: [1], §3.5, equation (3.11). Factorized residues: [3], equations (2)–(3). The adjugate calculation supplies the intermediate steps.

CA bound on the omitted response

This appendix repeats the bound of §6.3 with the same notation, so that the main text and the proof can be read side by side. Assume the force spectral matrix GxG_x is constant across the band and denote it by QxQ_x. Let Qx1/2Q_x^{1/2} be its Hermitian positive-semidefinite square root. Define the excitation-weighted selected term and remainder

P=vmγmTjω−λm,E=Em(jω),Pw=PQx1/2,Ew=EQx1/2.P=\frac{v_m\gamma_m^T}{j\omega-\lambda_m},\qquad E=E_m(j\omega),\qquad P_w=PQ_x^{1/2},\qquad E_w=EQ_x^{1/2}.
(C.1)

Expanding (5.3) gives

Gy=PwPwH+PwEwH+EwPwH+EwEwH.G_y=P_wP_w^H+P_wE_w^H+E_wP_w^H+E_wE_w^H.

Let ∥⋅∥2\|\cdot\|_2 be the matrix spectral norm. The triangle inequality and the submultiplicative property ∥AB∥2≤∥A∥2∥B∥2\|AB\|_2\le\|A\|_2\|B\|_2 give

∥Gy−PwPwH∥2≤2∥Pw∥2∥Ew∥2+∥Ew∥22.\left\|G_y-P_wP_w^H\right\|_2\le2\|P_w\|_2\|E_w\|_2+\|E_w\|_2^2.

If ∥Ew∥2≤ε∥Pw∥2\|E_w\|_2\le\varepsilon\|P_w\|_2, then

∥Gy−PwPwH∥2≤(2ε+ε2)∥Pw∥22,∥Pw∥22=∥PwPwH∥2.\left\|G_y-P_wP_w^H\right\|_2\le(2\varepsilon+\varepsilon^2)\|P_w\|_2^2,\qquad \|P_w\|_2^2=\left\|P_wP_w^H\right\|_2.
(C.2)

The second equality says that the bound is relative to the size of the selected term itself, not to an unrelated scale. The number ε\varepsilon is a sufficient condition for an accurate rank-one approximation. It is not necessary: a matrix can be close to rank one even when this particular bound is loose. What the bound makes clear is the dependence on the excitation. A small ε\varepsilon requires the omitted response, weighted by the force spectrum, to be small compared with the selected response, also weighted by the force spectrum. Light damping alone does not produce that condition.

DSpectral conventions and estimation

The main text uses one convention for the cross-spectrum and one normalization for the spectral density. This appendix states both precisely, derives the normalization, and records the pitfalls that change a shape or a damping estimate.

D.1Conjugation order

Some sources define the cross-spectral matrix with YˉYT\bar YY^T instead of YYHYY^H. Denote that matrix by G~y\widetilde G_y. Since YH=YˉTY^H=\bar Y^T,

G~y=YˉYT=GyT=Gˉy.\widetilde G_y=\bar YY^T=G_y^T=\bar G_y.
(D.1)

Under this convention, the rank-one term becomes G~y≈dmvˉmvmT\widetilde G_y\approx d_m\bar v_mv_m^T. The leading vector estimates vˉm\bar v_m, so it must be conjugated to recover the shape convention used here. Both conventions are valid; mixing them within one calculation is not. SciPy’s csd(a, b) uses conjugate-first ordering. If y[i] contains channel ii, the entry (i,j)(i,j) of this page’s matrix is obtained with csd(y[j], y[i]). [6]

D.2Welch’s estimate

Welch’s method divides a record into possibly overlapping segments, applies the same window to every channel, and averages the spectral products. Detrending removes a fitted mean or trend. A window assigns a real weight to each sample to control the spectral spreading caused by a finite record.

Let NbN_b be the number of segments, NwN_w their length in samples, and w[ν]w[\nu] the window at within-segment index ν\nu. Indices bb and kk label segments and frequency bins. Write Yb[k]Y_b[k] for the vector of unnormalized discrete Fourier transform (DFT) coefficients after detrending and windowing. A fast Fourier transform (FFT) computes the DFT efficiently. The one-sided factor ηk\eta_k is 22 at interior positive-frequency bins and 11 at DC and Nyquist, when present. At sampling rate fsf_s, the estimate is

G^y+[k]=ηkNbfs∑ν=0Nw−1w[ν]2∑b=1NbYb[k]Yb[k]H.\widehat G_y^+[k]=\frac{\eta_k}{N_b f_s\sum_{\nu=0}^{N_w-1}w[\nu]^2}\sum_{b=1}^{N_b}Y_b[k]Y_b[k]^H.
(D.2)

The normalization is easiest to check on white noise. Suppose a channel is white with variance σ2\sigma^2 and sampling rate fsf_s. Its two-sided PSD is constant, G=σ2/fsG=\sigma^2/f_s, because integrating a constant over the Nyquist band [−fs/2,fs/2][-f_s/2,f_s/2] gives Gfs=σ2Gf_s=\sigma^2. For one segment, the expected squared magnitude of the windowed DFT coefficient is E∣Yb[k]∣2=σ2∑νw[ν]2\mathbb E|Y_b[k]|^2=\sigma^2\sum_\nu w[\nu]^2. Substituting G=σ2/fsG=\sigma^2/f_s gives

E∣Yb[k]∣2=G fs∑ν=0Nw−1w[ν]2.\mathbb E|Y_b[k]|^2=G\,f_s\sum_{\nu=0}^{N_w-1}w[\nu]^2.

Dividing by fs∑w2f_s\sum w^2 therefore gives an unbiased estimate of GG, and averaging over NbN_b segments reduces its variance. The factor ηk\eta_k converts the two-sided density to the one-sided convention. For a colored signal the window convolves the spectrum, so the estimate is a smoothed version of the true density; the normalization preserves the integral, not the exact shape.

Using identical segments and windows preserves the Hermitian positive-semidefinite structure. Each segment contributes at most one independent direction to the average, so the estimated rank cannot exceed NbN_b. This is a finite-data rank, not a physical one. Averaging reduces variability between estimates, but it does not eliminate a persistent noise or forcing spectrum. Longer segments improve frequency resolution; more effectively independent segments improve averaging. Overlap does not make segments independent. Appending zeros before the DFT only samples the same windowed spectrum more densely; it does not improve the resolution set by the segment duration and window. [5]

D.3Density units and the inverse transform

The spectra here are densities per hertz. With superscripts (f)(f) and (ω)(\omega) labeling density per hertz and per radian per second, the change of variables dω=2π dfd\omega=2\pi\,df gives

G(ω)(ω)=12πG(f) ⁣(ω2π).G^{(\omega)}(\omega)=\frac{1}{2\pi}G^{(f)}\!\left(\frac{\omega}{2\pi}\right).
(D.3)

For the EFDD inverse transform, the one-sided spectrum must be mirrored to negative frequencies before the inverse DFT. Halve the one-sided interior positive bins, copy them to the corresponding negative bins, and keep the DC and Nyquist endpoint weights from (D.2). With the inverse DFT normalization 1/N1/N, the correlation is fsf_s times the inverse DFT of the mirrored spectrum, because the frequency spacing is Δf=fs/N\Delta f=f_s/N and the inverse transform sums Δf G[k]ej2πkℓ/N\Delta f\,G[k]e^{j2\pi k\ell/N}. Normalizing by Rm(0)\mathcal R_m(0) removes an overall scale but does not repair incorrect mirroring or incorrect endpoint weights. An incorrect one-sided scaling is a common cause of a biased damping estimate. [5]

D.4Additive sensor noise

Let η(t)\eta(t) denote sensor noise and GηG_\eta its PSD. If the noise and structural response have zero cross-covariance at every lag, their spectra add:

Gy+η=Gy+Gη.G_{y+\eta}=G_y+G_\eta.
(D.4)

Correlated noise introduces additional cross terms. A large singular value can therefore reflect the measurement process as well as the structure. Noise raises all singular values, but it affects the smaller ones proportionally more, so it reduces the ratio s1/s2s_1/s_2 that the rank-one interpretation relies on.

EA perturbation bound for the leading singular vector

Section 7.2 claims that the leading singular vector is close to the physical shape when the perturbation is small. This appendix makes that statement precise. The argument is short and gives the main dependence; a sharper version with the spectral gap is the Davis–Kahan theorem. [11]

Let G=G0+EG=G_0+E be Hermitian, with G0=d vvHG_0=d\,vv^H, ∥v∥=1\|v\|=1, and d>0d>0. Let uu be a unit eigenvector of GG for its largest eigenvalue λ1\lambda_1, and assume λ1>0\lambda_1>0. Decompose uu into a component along vv and a component orthogonal to it:

u=αv+βw,w⊥v,∥w∥=1,∣α∣2+∣β∣2=1.u=\alpha v+\beta w,\qquad w\perp v,\qquad \|w\|=1,\qquad |\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1.

The angle θ\theta between uu and vv satisfies sin⁡θ=∣β∣\sin\theta=|\beta|. Because uu is an eigenvector, Gu=λ1uGu=\lambda_1u. Take the inner product with ww:

λ1β=wHGu=wH(G0+E)u.\lambda_1\beta=w^HGu=w^H(G_0+E)u.

The unperturbed term vanishes: wHG0u=d wHv(vHu)=0w^HG_0u=d\,w^Hv(v^Hu)=0, because w⊥vw\perp v. Therefore λ1β=wHEu\lambda_1\beta=w^HEu, and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality gives

∣β∣≤∥E∥2λ1,sin⁡θ≤∥E∥2λ1.|\beta|\le\frac{\|E\|_2}{\lambda_1},\qquad \sin\theta\le\frac{\|E\|_2}{\lambda_1}.
(E.1)

This is the basic bound. It says that the angular error is controlled by the perturbation relative to the leading eigenvalue. Since λ1\lambda_1 is approximately dd, and s1s_1 estimates λ1\lambda_1, a large s1s_1 relative to the perturbation is favourable.

A sharper form replaces λ1\lambda_1 by the gap between the first and second eigenvalues. If the leading eigenvalue is simple and the perturbation does not close the gap, the Davis–Kahan theorem gives

sin⁡θ≤∥E∥2λ1−λ2.\sin\theta\le\frac{\|E\|_2}{\lambda_1-\lambda_2}.

When the second eigenvalue is close to the first, the denominator is small and the bound is weak, which is the quantitative version of the statement that a ratio s1/s2s_1/s_2 near one leaves the direction undetermined. When the gap is large, the direction is stable even if the absolute perturbation is not tiny. The bound is sufficient, not necessary: a direction can be stable for reasons this inequality does not capture.

FSources for the derivations

The references below distinguish source results from algebra developed here. The numerical examples and interactive figures are computed from the displayed equations. Equation numbers are section-based, so they remain stable when a derivation is inserted into a section.

DerivationSource
Energy and equation of motion (2.1)–(2.9)Derived here from the stated quadratic energy forms and Lagrange’s equations. The matrix symmetry and definiteness arguments are worked out in §2.4.
Quadratic eigenproblem (3.1)–(3.2), state form (A.1)–(A.4)[1], introduction and §§3.4–3.6. Substitution, block calculation, and the proportional-damping reduction shown here.
Pole parameters (3.7), free response (3.8)[9], §2, for the scalar oscillator; [3], §2, for modal parameters. Coefficient matching and initial-condition solutions shown here.
Laplace transform (4.1)–(4.2), transfer matrix (4.4)[10] for the transform; [2] for transfer functions and minimal realizations. Integration by parts and the matrix inversion shown here.
Residues (4.5)–(4.9), adjugate proof (B.1)–(B.4)[1], §3.5; [3], equations (2)–(3). The adjugate calculation supplies the intermediate steps.
PSD (5.1)–(5.3), Welch estimate (D.2)[5] and [6]. Matrix positivity, normalization, and the one-sided scaling worked out here.
Rank-one approximation (6.1)–(6.4), residual bound (C.1)–(C.2)[3], §§2–3. The four-term expansion and the norm bound are derived here.
FDD (7.1)–(7.8), perturbation bound (E.1)[3], §3; [4], close-mode examples; [11] for the gap form. Eigenpair, peak location, and two-mode calculations derived here.
EFDD (8.1)–(8.3)[4], p. 699; [7]. Correlation scaling and decrement algebra shown here; leakage discussed in [8].

References

  1. Tisseur, F. & Meerbergen, K. (2001). The Quadratic Eigenvalue Problem. SIAM Review, 43(2), 235–286. DOI.University repository full text. §§3.4–3.6 cover linearization, the inverse and repeated/defective eigenvalues.
  2. Åström, K. J. & Murray, R. M. Feedback Systems — Transfer Functions. Author-hosted chapter draft, 22 October 2016.Transfer-function/state-space relationship and the reachable/observable part of the Kalman decomposition; see also exercise 9.8.
  3. Brincker, R., Zhang, L. & Andersen, P. (2000). Output-Only Modal Analysis by Frequency Domain Decomposition. Proceedings of ISMA25, vol. 2, 717–723.Full-text conference source used for the equation references here. Related journal article: Modal identification of output-only systems using frequency domain decomposition, Smart Materials and Structures 10 (2001), 441–445.
  4. Brincker, R., Ventura, C. E. & Andersen, P. (2001). Damping Estimation by Frequency Domain Decomposition. Proceedings of IMAC XIX, 698–703.Bell tracking, correlation decay, extrema regression, and examples with close modes, nonorthogonal shapes and correlated input.
  5. SciPy documentation. Signal Processing — Spectral Analysis.Fourier normalization, spectral densities, windowing and the resolution/variance tradeoff.
  6. SciPy documentation. scipy.signal.csd.See Notes for conjugate-first cross spectra and window scaling; cites Welch’s original 1967 paper.
  7. Structural Vibration Solutions. ARTeMIS Modal Help — Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition.Implementation guidance: branch matching, a starting MAC threshold of 0.8, and choosing a valid regression interval.
  8. Zhang, L., Tamura, Y., Yoshida, A., Cho, K., Nakata, S. & Naito, S. (2002). Ambient Vibration Testing & Modal Identification of an Office Building. Proceedings of IMAC XX.See the damping-estimation discussion and Table 2/Figure 9 for the influence of PSD resolution and leakage.
  9. MIT OpenCourseWare (2017). Damped Oscillations. Lecture 4, Introduction to Oscillations and Waves.§2 derives the scalar oscillator equation, exponential roots, and damping regimes. The damping ratio here is the notes’ decay parameter divided by the undamped angular frequency.
  10. MIT OpenCourseWare (2018). Topic 12: Laplace Transform. Complex Variables with Applications.Transform definition, convergence, and the derivative rule obtained by integration by parts.
  11. Davis, C. & Kahan, W. M. (1970). The rotation of eigenvectors by a perturbation. III. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 7(1), 1–46.Eigenvector perturbation bounds. The gap form used in Appendix E is the sin θ theorem.

All explanatory figures on this page are computed specifically for this tutorial; no paper figures are reproduced.