1

Dynamic Model Updating Using Particle
Swarm Optimization Method
Tshilidzi Marwala (t.marwala@ee.wits.ac.za)
School of Electrical and Information Engineering
University of the Witwatersrand
P/Bag 3, Wits, 2050, South Africa
This paper proposes the use of particle swarm optimization method (PSO) for finite element (FE)
model updating. The PSO method is compared to the existing methods that use simulated annealing
(SA) or genetic algorithms (GA) for FE model for model updating. The proposed method is tested on an
unsymmetrical H-shaped structure. It is observed that the proposed method gives updated natural
frequencies the most accurate and followed by those given by an updated model that was obtained
using the GA and a full FE model. It is also observed that the proposed method gives updated mode
shapes that are best correlated to the measured ones, followed by those given by an updated model that
was obtained using the SA and a full FE model. Furthermore, it is observed that the PSO achieves this
accuracy at a computational speed that is faster than that by the GA and a full FE model which is
faster than the SA and a full FE model.

Introduction
Finite Element (FE) model updating entails tuning the model
so that it can better reflect the measured data from the physical
structure being modeled [1]. One fundamental characteristic of
an FE model is that it can never be a true reflection of the
physical structure but will forever be an approximation. In
other words, FE updating fundamentally implies that we are
identifying a better approximation of the physical structure
than the original model. The aim of this paper is to introduce
updating of finite element models using Response Surface
Method (PSO) [2]. Thus far, the PSO method has not been
used to solve the FE updating problem [1]. This new approach
is compared with a method that uses simulated annealing (SA)
or genetic algorithms together with a full FE model for
updating. FE updating methods have been implemented using
different types of optimization methods such as genetic
algorithm (GA) and conjugate gradient method [3-5]. Levin
and Lieven [5] proposed the use of simulated annealing (SA)
and genetic algorithms (GA) for FE updating.
PSO is an approximate optimization method that looks at
various design variables and their responses and identify the
combination of design variables that give the best response. In
this paper, the best response is defined as the one that gives the
minimum distance between the measured data and the data
predicted by the FE model. PSO attempts to replace implicit
functions of the original design optimization problem with an
approximation model, which traditionally are polynomials and
are less expensive to evaluate. This makes PSO very useful to
FE model updating because optimizing the FE to match
measured data is a computationally expensive exercise.
Furthermore, the calculation of the gradients that are essential
when traditional optimization methods, such as conjugate
Associate Professor
Copyright © 2004 by Tshilidzi Marwala.

gradient methods, are used is computationally expensive and
often encounters numerical problems such as ill-conditioning.
PSO tends to be immune to such problems when used for FE
model updating. This is largely because PSO solves a crude
approximation of the FE model rather than the full FE model
which is of high dimensional order. In this paper we use the
multi-layer perceptron (MLP) [6] to approximate the response
equation. The PSO is particularly useful for optimizing
systems that are evolving as a function of time, a situation that
is prevalent in model-based fault diagnostics in the
manufacturing sector. To date, PSO has been used extensively
to optimize complex models and processes [7, 8].
In summary, the PSO is used because of the following
reasons: (1) the relative ease of implementation that includes
low computational time when compared to other methods; (2)
the suitability of the approach to the manufacturing sector
where model-based methods are often used to monitor
structures that evolve as a function of time.
Finite element model updating has been used widely to detect
damage in structures [9]. When implementing FE updating
methods for damage identification, it is assumed that the FE
model is a true dynamic representation of the structure. This
means that changing any physical parameter of an element in
the FE model is equivalent to introducing damage in that
region. There are two approaches used in FE updating: direct
methods and iterative methods [1]. Direct methods, which use
the modal properties, are computationally efficient to
implement and reproduce the measured modal data exactly.
Furthermore, they do not take into account the physical
parameters that are updated. Consequently, even though the FE
model is able to predict measured quantities, the updated
model is limited in the following ways: it may lack the
connectivity of nodes - connectivity of nodes is a phenomenon
that occurs naturally in finite element modeling because of the

2
physical reality that the structure is connected; the updated
matrices are populated instead of banded - the fact that
structural elements are only connected to their neighbors
ensures that the mass and stiffness matrices are diagonally
dominated with few couplings between elements that are far
apart; and there is a possible loss of symmetry of the systems
matrices. Iterative procedures use changes in physical
parameters to update FE models and produce models that are
physically realistic. In this paper, iterative methods that use
modal properties for FE updating are implemented in the
context of the PSO. In this paper, FE models are updated so
that the measured natural frequencies match the natural
frequencies predicted by the FE model. The mode shapes are
then used to cross-validate the accuracy of the model. The
proposed PSO updating method is tested on an unsymmetrical
H-structure.
Mathematical Background
In this paper, modal properties, i.e. natural frequencies
and mode shapes, are used as a basis of FE model updating.
For this reason these parameters are described in this section.
Modal properties are related to the physical properties of the
structure. All elastic structures may be described in terms of
their distributed mass, damping and stiffness matrices in the
time domain through the following expression [10]:

[ M ]{ X ' ' } + [ C ]{ X ' } + [ K ]}{ X } = { F }
(1)
where [M], [C] and [K] are the mass, damping and stiffness
matrices respectively, and {X}, {X′} and {X′′} are the
displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors respectively
while {F} is the applied force vector. If equation 1 is
transformed into the modal domain to form an eigenvalue
equation for the ith mode, then [10]:
2

( −ω i [ M ] + jω i [ C ] + [ K ]){ φ }i = { 0 }
th

where j = − 1 , ω i is the i

(2)

complex eigenvalue, with its

imaginary part corresponding to the natural frequency ωi, and
{ φ }i is the ith complex mode shape vector with the real part
corresponding to the normalized mode shape {φ}i. The
introduction of damage in structures changes the mass and
stiffness matrices. From equation 2 it may be deduced that
changes in the mass and stiffness matrices cause changes in the
modal properties of the structure.
The frequency response functions (FRFs) are defined as
the ratio of the Fourier transformed response to the Fourier
transformed force. The FRFs may be expressed in receptance
and inertance form. On the one hand, receptance expression of
the FRF is defined as the ratio of the Fourier transformed
displacement to the Fourier transformed force. On the other
hand, inertance expression of the FRF is defined as the ratio of
the Fourier transformed acceleration to the Fourier
transformed force. The inertance FRF (H) may be written in
terms of the modal properties by using the modal summation
equation as follows [10]:
N
− ω 2φkiφli
H kl ( ω ) = ∑
(3)
2
2
i =1 − ω + 2ζ i ω i ωj + ω i
Equation 3 is FRF due to excitation at k and measurement at l,
N is the number of modes and ζi is the damping ratio of mode

i. Using the excitation and response of the structure and
Fourier transform the FRFs may be calculated and using
equation 3 and a technique called modal analysis [10], the
natural frequencies and mode shapes can be indirectly
calculated. The modal properties of a dynamic system depend
on the mass and stiffness model of the system as indicated in
equation 2. Therefore, the measured modal properties can be
reproduced by the model if the mass and stiffness matrices are
correctly identified. The mass and stiffness matrices can be
manipulated by the manipulation of the modulus of elasticity
[1]. In this paper we use the modulus of elasticity of the system
as parameters that are used for finite element updating. In this
paper the cost function that is minimized is as follows:
2

N
 f m − f calc 
(4)
error = ∑ γ i  i m i 
fi
i =i


Here m is for measured, calc is for calculated and N is the
number of modes. Here γ i is the weighting factor that
measures the relative distance between the initial estimated
natural frequency for a mode i and the target frequency of the
same mode. The updated model will be evaluated by
comparing the natural frequencies and mode shapes before
updating and after updating. The mode shapes are used for
cross-validation as they were not directly linked to equation 4.
Cross-validation is an important statistical technique that has
proven to be useful in the area of system identification such as
neural network modeling [6].

Surface Response Method (PSO)
PSO is an evolutionary programming method that was
developed by Kennedy and Eberhart [***]. This procedure was
inspired by algorithms that model the "flocking behavior" seen
in birds. The PSO approach has the advantages in that it is
computationally efficient, simple to implement and is able to
adapt to the local and global exploratory ability. When
implementing the PSO the simulation is initialized with a
population of random candidates, conceptualized as particles.
Each particle is assigned a random velocity and is iteratively
moved through the parameter space. At each step, the particle
is attracted towards a region of the best fitness function by the
location of the best fitness achieved so far in the population.
On implementing the standard PSO, each particle is
represented by two vectors: p i ( k ) the position and vi ( k ) the
velocity at step k. Initial positions and velocities of particles
are randomly generated and the subsequent positions and
velocities are calculated while remembering the position of the
best solution that the particle has encountered pbest i ( k ) and

gbest( k ) is the best particle in the swarm. The subsequent
velocity and position of a particle i can be calculated using
these equations:
v i ( k + 1 ) = wv i ( k ) + c1 r1 ( pbest i ( k ) − p i ( k ))
+ c 2 r2 ( gbest( k ) − pi ( k ))
p i ( k + 1 ) = p i ( k ) + vi ( k + 1 )

(2)

(1)

3
Here w is the weight that is to control the impact of the previus
velocity of the particle on the current velocuty; c1 and c 2 are
parameters that emphasize individual and group experiences,
respectively; and r1 and r2 are random numbers that
determine the degree in which the simulation explore the
space.
Genetic Algorithms
GA was inspired by Darwin’s theory of natural evolution.
Genetic algorithm is a simulation of natural evolution where
the law of the survival of the fittest is applied to a population
of individuals. In this paper, this natural optimization method
is used to optimize either the response surface approximation
equation or the error between the FE model and the measured
data. GA is implemented by generating a population and
creating the new population by performing the following steps:
(1) crossover; (2) mutation; (3) and reproduction. The details
of these steps can be found in Holland [20] and Goldberg [21].
The crossover operator mixes genetic information in the
population by cutting pairs of chromosomes at random points
along their length and exchanging over the cut sections. This
has a potential of joining successful operators together.
Arithmetic crossover technique [21] is used in this paper.
Arithmetic crossover takes two parents and performs an
interpolation along the line formed by the two parents. For
example if two parents p1 and p2 cross-over, then a random
number a which lies in the interval [0,1] is generated and the
new off-springs are p1(a-1) and pa. The mutation is a process
that introduces to the population new information. In this paper
non-uniform mutation [21] is used and it changes one of the
parameters of the parent based on a non-uniform probability
distribution. The Gaussian distribution starts with a high
variance and narrows to a point distribution as the current
generation approaches the maximum generation. Reproduction
takes successful chromosomes and reproduces them in
accordance to their fitness functions. In this paper normalized
geometric selection method is used [21]. This method is a
ranking selection function which is based on the normalized
geometric distribution. Using this method the least fit members
of the population are therefore gradually driven out of the
population. The basic genetic algorithm implemented in this
paper is implemented as follows:
1) Randomly create an initial population of a certain size.
2) Evaluate all of the individuals in the population using the
objective function in equation 4.
3) Use the normalized geometric section method to select a
new population from the old population based on the
fittness of the individuals as given by the objective
function.
4) Apply some genetic operators, non-uniform mutation and
arithmetic crossover, to members of the population to
create new solutions.
5) Repeat steps 2-6, which is one generation, until a certain
fixed number of generations has been achieved
The next section describes simulated annealing which is
used to update an FE model using the full FE model.

Simulated Annealing
Simulated Annealing is a Monte Carlo method that is used to
investigate the equations of state and frozen states of n degree
of freedom system [22]. SA is inspired by the process of
annealing where objects, such as metals, recrystalize or liquids
freeze. In the annealing process the object is heated until it is
molten, then it is slowly cooled down such that the metal at
any given time is approximately in thermodynamic
equilibrium. As the temperature of the object is lowered, the
system becomes more ordered and approaches a frozen state at
T=0. If the cooling process is conducted insufficiently or the
initial temperature of the object is not sufficiently high, the
system may become quenched forming defects or freezing out
in metastable states. This indicates that the system is trapped
in a local minimum energy state.
The process that is followed to simulate the annealing
process was proposed by Metropolis et al. [22] and involves
choosing the initial state at energy E (see equation 6) and
temperature T and holding T constant and perturbing the initial
configuration computing E at the new state. If E at the new
state is lower than E at the previous state, then accept the new
state, otherwise if the opposite is the case then accept this state
with a probability of exp -(dE/T) where dE is the change in
energy. This process can be mathematically represented as
follows:

if E new < E old accept state E new
(7)
 E − E old 
else accept E new with probability exp new

T


This processes is repeated such that the sampling statistics
for the current temperature is adequate, and then the
temperature is decreased and the process is repeated until a
frozen state where T=0 is achieved.
SA was first applied to optimization problems by
Kirkpatrick, et al. [23]. In this paper, the current state is the
current updating solution, the energy equation is the objective
function in equation 4, and the ground state is the global
optimum solution.
Example: Asymmetrical H-structure

4
output unit corresponding to the error in equation 4. As
described before, the MLP had a hyperbolic tangent activation
function in the hidden layer and linear activation function in
the output layer. The PSO functional approximation via the
MLP was evaluated 10 times (iterations) each time using the
GA to calculate the optimum point and storing the previous
optimum point in the data set for the current functional
approximation. The scaled conjugate gradient method was
used to train the MLP, primarily because of its computational
efficiency [26]. The initial functional approximation was
obtained by training the MLP on 200 training cycles and on a
subsequent functional approximation, where the data had the
previous optimum solution, had 5 training cycles. On using the
PSO the MLP was only initialized once. The GA was
implemented on a population size of 600 and 100 generations.
The normalized geometric distribution was implemented with a
probability of selecting the best candidate being 8%.
When SA and a full FE model was implemented for FE
updating, the scale of the cooling schedule was set to 4 and the
number of individual annealing runs was set to 3. When the
simulation was run, the first run involved 7008 FE model
calculations, in the second run 6546 FE model calculations and
in the third run 5931 FE model calculations were made.
On implementing the GA and a full FE model, the same
options as those that were used in the implementation of the
PSO were used.

An unsymmetrical H-shaped aluminum structure shown in
Figure 3 was used. This structure was also used by Marwala
and Heyns [4] and by Marwala [25]. This structure had three
thin cuts of 1mm that went half-way through the cross-section
of the beam. These cuts were introduced in elements 3, 4 and
5. The structure with these cuts was used so that the initial FE
model gives data that are far from the measured data and
thereby test the proposed procedure a difficult FE updating
process. The structure was suspended using elastic rubber
bands. The structure was excited using an electromagnetic
shaker and the response was measured using an accelerometer.
The structure was divided into 12 elements. It was excited at a
position indicated by double-arrows in Figure 3 and
acceleration measurements were made in 15 positions
indicated by single-arrows. The structure was tested freelysuspended, and a set of 15 frequency response functions were
calculated. A roving accelerometer was used in the testing. The
mass of the accelerometer was found to be negligible
compared to the mass of the structure. The number of
measured coordinates was 15, and the number of unmeasured
coordinates was 24.
Thereafter, the finite element model was constructed using
the Structural Dynamics Toolbox [24]. The FE model used
Euler-Bernoulli beam elements. The FE model contains 12
elements. The moduli of elasticity of these elements were used
as parameters to be updated. When the FE updating was
implemented the moduli of elasticity was restricted to vary
from 600MPa to 800MPa. The weighting factors in equation 4
were calculated for each mode as the square of the error
between the measured natural frequency and the natural
frequency calculated from the initial model. When the PSO,
SA and GA were implemented for model updating the results
shown in Table 1 were obtained.

A
200mm

400mm
B

600mm
y
Cross-section indicated by line AB
9.8mm
x
32.2mm

Figure 3. Irregular H-shaped structure
On implementing the proposed PSO the FE model was run
150 times to generate the data for functional approximation.
The MLP implemented had 12 input variables corresponding
to the 12 elements in the FE model, 8 hidden units and one

5

Table 1. Results showing measured frequencies, the initial
frequencies and the frequencies obtained when the FE model is
updated using the PSO, SA and GA
Measured Initial
Frequencies Frequencies Frequencies
from GA
Freq
Freq
from PSO
from SA
Updated
(Hz)
(Hz)
Updated
Updated
Model (Hz) Model (Hz) Model (Hz)
53.9
56.2
53.9
53.9
54.0
117.3
127.1
117.8
118.4
122.0
208.4
228.4
208.5
209.9
213.2
254.0
263.4
253.8
253.4
254.5
445.1
452.4
438.5
437.0
434.9
between the third natural frequencies between the measured
data and the initial model obtained when the standard modulus
of elasticity was assumed for the initial model is 9.60%. When
the PSO was used, this error was reduced to 0.38% while using
SA it was reduced to 0.38% and using the GA and a full FE
model was reduced to 4.65%. The error between the fourth
measured natural frequency and that from the initial model was
3.70%. When the PSO was used for FE updating, this error
was reduced to 2.91% while using the SA increased it to
4.81% and using the GA and a full FE model was reduced to
2.44%. The error between the fourth measured natural
frequency and that from the initial model was 1.64%. When
the PSO was used, this error was increased to 4.11% while
using SA it increased to 6.70% and using the GA and a full FE
model was increased to 4.49%. Overall, the PSO gave the best
results with an average error, calculated over all the five
natural frequencies, of 1.95%, followed by the GA with an
average error of 3.23% and then finally the SA with an average
error of 3.49%. All the three methods improved when
compared to the average error between the initial FE model
and the measured data of 5.51%.
The updated models implemented in this paper were crossvalidated on the mode shapes they predicted. To make this
assessment possible the coordinate modal assurance criterion
(COMAC) [27] was used. The COMAC is a measure of the
correlation between two sets of mode shapes of the same
dimension. The COMAC reduces the dimension of the mode

shapes to be equal to the number of degrees of freedom
measured. When two sets of mode shapes are perfectly
correlated then the COMAC for all degrees of freedom is 1.
Otherwise, when perfectly uncorrelated, the COMAC for all
degrees of freedom is 0. In this paper, the mean of the
COMAC vector is used to compare the FE model predicted
mode shapes before and after updating by the three methods.
The average COMAC calculated between the mode shapes
from an initial FE model and the measured mode shapes was
0.79. When the average COMAC was calculated between
measured data and data obtained from the FE models that were
updated using the PSO, SA and GA, the resulting averages of
calculated from the respective COMAC vectors were 0.79,
0.9207 and 0.8650, respectively. This indicates that the PSO
gives the best results for the current application, followed by

Modulus of Elasticity (e10)

The results obtained, when the PSO, SA and GA were used
for FE model updating, are shown in Table 1 are obtained. The
results showing the moduli of elasticity of the initial model,
PSO updated FE model, SA updated FE model and GA
updated FE model are shown in Figure 4. Table 1 shows the
measured natural frequencies, initial natural frequencies and
natural frequencies obtained by the PSO, SA and GA updated
FE models. The error between the first measured natural
frequency and that from the initial FE model, which was
obtained when the modulus of elasticity of 700 MPa was
assumed, is 4.0%. When the PSO was used for FE updating,
this error is reduced to 0.5% while using SA it is worsened to
4.5% and using the GA approach it is improved to 2.8%. The
error between the second measured natural frequency and that
from the initial model was 8.4%. When the PSO was used, this
error was improved to 1.8% while using SA it was improved to
0.9% and using the GA it was improved 1.8%. The error

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
Initial

2

3

4

5

6

7

Element
PSO

8

9
GA

10

11

12
SA

Figure 4. Graph showing the initial moduli of elasticity and the
moduli of elasticity obtained when the FE model is updated
using the PSO, GA and SA. Here e10 indicates 10 to the power
10.

the SA and then the GA.
The computational time taken to run the complete PSO
method was 19 CPU minutes, while the SA and a full FE
model took 21 CPU minutes to run and the GA and a full FE
model took 17 CPU minutes. The PSO was found to be faster
than the GA which was in turn much faster than the SA.
Conclusion
In this paper, PSO is proposed for FE model updating. The
proposed PSO was implemented within the framework of the
MLP for functional approximation and GA for optimization of
the MLP function. This procedure was compared to the GA
and SA that were implemented independently in conjunction
with the FE models. When these techniques were tested on the
unsymmetrical H-shaped structure, it was observed that the
PSO performed the best from both the accuracy of prediction
of the modal properties and the computational load, followed
by the GA which was in turn better than the SA. However, on
the correlation of mode shapes it was observed that the PSO
gave the best correlation between the measured mode shapes
and the mode shapes predicted by updated FE models followed
by the SA and then followed by the GA.
Acknowledgment

6
The author would like to thank Stefan Heyns, the now
National Research Foundation as well as the AECI, Ltd for
their assistance in this work.
References
1

Friswell, M.I., and Mottershead, J.E., Finite element model updating in
structural dynamics, Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Norwell, MA,
1995, pp. 1-286.
2
Montgomery, D.C., Design and analysis of experiments, 4th Edition,
John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1995, Chapter 14.
3
Marwala, T., “Finite element model updating using wavelet data and
genetic algorithm” Journal of Aircraft, 39(4), 2002, pp. 709-711.
4
Marwala, T., and Heyns, P.S., “A multiple criterion method for detecting
damage on structures” AIAA Journal, 195(2), 1998, pp. 1494-1501.
5
Levin, R.I. and Lieven, N.A.J, “Dynamic finite element model updating
using simulated annealing and genetic algorithms” Mechanical Systems and
Signal Processing, 12(1), pp. 91-120.
6
Bishop, C.M., Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1996.
7
Lee, S.H., Kim, H.Y., and Oh, S.I., “Cylindrical tube optimization using
response surface method based on stochastic process” Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 130-131(20), 2002, pp. 490-496.
8
Edwards, I.M., and Jutan, A., “Optimization and control using response
surface methods” Computers & Chemical Engineering, 21(4), 1997, pp. 441453.
9
Doebling, S.W., Farrar, C.R., Prime, M.B., and Shevitz, D.W., “Damage
identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems
from changes in their vibration characteristics: a literature review” Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-13070-MS, 1996.
10
Ewins, D.J., Modal testing: theory and practice, Research Studies Press,
Letchworth, U.K, 1995.
11
Sacks, J., Welch, W.J., Mitchell, T.J., and Wynn, H.P., “Design and
analysis of computer experiments” Statistical Science, 4(4), 1989, pp. 409435.
12
Varaajan, S., Chen, W., and Pelka, C.J., “Robust concept exploration of
propulsion systems with enhanced model approximation” Engineering
Optimization, 32(3), 2000, pp. 309-334.
13
Giunta, A. A., and Watson, L. T., “A Comparison of Approximation
Modeling Techniques: Polynomial Versus Interpolating Models,” AIAA-98-

4758, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 1998,
pp.392-401.
14
Koch, P. N., Simpson, T. W., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F., 1999,
“Statistical Approximations for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: The
Problem of Size,” Journal of Aircraft, 36(1), 1999, pp. 275-286.
15
Jin, R., Chen, W., and Simpson, T., 2000, “Comparative Studies of
Metamodeling Techniques under Multiple Modeling Criteria,” 8th
AIAA/NASA/USAF/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and
Optimization, Long Beach, CA, September 6-8, 2000.
16
Lin, Y., Krishnapur, K., Allen, J. K., and Mistree, F., 2000, “Robust
Concept Exploration in Engineering Design: Metamodeling Techniques and
Goal Formulations,” Proceedings of the 2000 ASME Design Engineering
Technical Conferences, DETC2000/DAC-14283, September 10-14, 2000,
Baltimore, Maryland.
17
Wang, G.G., 2003, “Adaptive response surface method using inherited
Latin hypercube design points,” Transactions of the ASME, Journal of
Mechanical Design,125, pp. 210-220.
18
Simpson, T. W., Peplinski, J. D., Koch, P. N., and Allen, J. K.,
“Metamodels for Computer-based Engineering Design: Survey and
Recommendations,” Engineering with Computers, 17, 2001, pp. 129-150.
19
Fletcher, R., Practical Methods of Optimization. 2nd edition, New York:
Wiley, 1987.
20
Holland, J, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1975.
21
Goldberg, D.E., Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine
learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.
22
Metropolis, N, Rosenbluth, A.W., Rosenbluth, M.N., Teller, A.H., and
Teller, E., “Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines,”
Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 1953, pp. 1087-1092.
23
Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D., and Vecchi, M.P., “Optimization by
simulated annealing,” Science, 220, 1983, pp. 671-680.
24
Balmès, E., Structural Dynamics Toolbox User’s Manual Version 2.1,
Scientific Software Group, Sèvres, France, 1997.
25
Marwala, T, A multiple criterion updating method for damage detection
on structures. University of Pretoria Masters Thesis, 1997.
26
Møller, M. “A scaled conjugate gradient algorithm for fast supervised
learning” Neural Networks, vol. 6, 1993, pp. 525-533.
27
Lieven, N.A.J. and Ewins, D.J., “Spatial correlation of mode shapes, the
co-ordinate modal assurance criterion” Proceedings of the 6th International
Modal Analysis Conference, 1988, pp. 690-695.

