A Model of Uncertainty Quantification in the Estimation of Noise-Contaminated Transmissibility Measurements for System Identification

  • Zhu Mao
  • Michael Todd
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


System identification via techniques applied in the frequency domain is a very common activity across many applications in engineering. Among many forms of frequency domain system identification, transmissibility estimation has been regarded as one of the most practical tools for its clear physical interpretation, its compatibility with output-only data, and its sensitivity to structural parameters. Due to operational variability, estimation errors, and extraneous noise, the computation of transmissibility may contain significant uncertainty, and this will affect the system identification quality. In this paper, a probability density function for transmissibility estimates is derived analytically via a Chi-square bivariate approach, and validated with Monte Carlo simulation.


Frequency Response Function Structural Health Monitoring Extraneous Noise Clear Physical Interpretation Operate Deflection Shape 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ljung L, Aspects on the system identification problem. Signal Processing 4(1982):445-456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB, A Summary Review of Vibration-Based Damage Identification Methods. The Shock and Vibration Digest 30(2)(1998):91-105Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brincker R, Zhang L, Andersen P, Modal identification of output-only systems using frequency domain decomposition. Smart Materials and Structures 10(2001):441-445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devriendt C, Steenackers G, De Sitter G, Guillaume P, From operating deflection shapes towards mode shapes using transmissibility measurements. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 24(2010):665-677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson TJ, Adams DE, Transmissibility as a Differential Indicator of Structural Damage. Transactions of the ASME: Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 124(2002):634-641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Worden K, Manson G, Fieller NRJ, Damage detection using outlier analysis. Journal of Sound and Vibration 229(3)(2000):647-667Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bendat JS, Piersol AG, Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures (2nd Edition), John Wiley & Sons (New York), 1986Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bendat JS, Piersol AG, Engineering Applications of Correlation and Spectral Analysis (2nd Edition), John Wiley & Sons (New York), 1993Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bendat JS, Statistical Errors in Measurement of Coherence Function and Input/Output Quantities. Journal of Sound and Vibration 59(3) (1978):405-421Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Welch PD, The Use of Fast Fourier Transform for the Estimation of Power Spectra: A Method Based on Time Averaging Over Short, Modified Periodograms. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 15(1967):70-73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hagedorn M, Smith PJ, Bones PJ, Millane RP, Pairman D, A trivariate Chi-squared distribution derived from the complex Wishart distribution. Journal of Multivariate analysis 97(2006):655-674MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Structural EngineeringUniversity of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations