Problems in using experimental data for dynamic

substructuring of a lumped parameter system

A. Culla
1
, W. DAmbrogio
2
, A. Fregolent
1
, A. Schiavone
1
1
Universit` a di Roma La Sapienza, Dipartimento di Meccanica e Aeronautica,
Via Eudossiana, 18, I-00184, Roma, Italy
e-mail: antonio.culla@uniroma1.it, annalisa.fregolent@uniroma1.it, alessandro.schiavone@uniroma1.it
2
Universit` a dellAquila, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Energetica e Gestionale,
Via G. Gronchi 18, I-67100, LAquila (AQ), Italy
e-mail: walter.dambrogio@univaq.it
Abstract
In experimental dynamic substructuring two main problems are dened: addition of substructures (coupling)
and subtraction of substructures (decoupling). Decoupling can be important in built-up structures where
some components (critical subsystems or joints) cannot be removed or accessed easily. Whilst addition of
substructures often leads to satisfactory results even in relatively complex cases, subtraction of substructures
is a source of problems even in apparently trivial applications. Some critical issues of decoupling (such as ill-
conditioning around a discrete number of frequencies) have been highlighted and veried by using simulated
data corrupted by random noise. In this paper, experimental data acquired on a lumped parameter benchmark
system are used to check previously highlighted problems both in coupling and decoupling, and to look for
additional issues (systematic errors, inconsistencies, etc.) that can not be observed from simulated data.
1 Introduction
In experimental dynamic substructuring two main problems can be dened: addition of substructures (cou-
pling) and subtraction of substructures (decoupling). Coupling is important to nd out the dynamic behaviour
of complex structures from a dynamic description of their components. Decoupling can be important in
built-up structures where some components (critical subsystems or joints) cannot be removed or accessed
easily. Decoupling involves the identication of the dynamic behaviour of a structural subsystem, starting
from information about the remaining part of the structural system (residual subsystem) and from the known
dynamic behaviour of the complete system.
Addition of substructures (coupling) can be seen as a structural modication problem [1]. Similarly, the
decoupling problem can be seen as a structural modication problem with negative modication.
Due to modal truncation problems, in experimental dynamic substructuring, the use of FRFs (Frequency
Based Substructuring) is preferred with respect to the use of modal parameters. The main algorithm for
frequency based substructuring is the improved impedance coupling [2] that involves just one matrix inver-
sion with respect to the classical impedance coupling technique that requires three inversions. A general
framework for dynamic substructuring is provided in [3, 4]: an interesting formulation is the so called dual
domain decomposition that allows to retain the full set of global DoFs by ensuring equilibriumat the interface
between substructures.
Whatever be the used approach, the dynamic behaviour at all the coupling DoFs must be determined. There-
fore, if coupling involves transmission of moments, rotational measurements are required. Lack of or bad
information about rotational DoFs is always a problem.
1851
Whilst addition of substructures often leads to satisfactory results even in relatively complex cases, sub-
traction of substructures is a source of problems, mainly due to ill-conditioning, even in apparently trivial
applications. There are several different reasons leading to ill-conditioning: inertia ratios at interface [5],
different stiffnesses at interface [6], internal resonances of the residual subsystem with xed interface [7, 8].
Some critical issues of decoupling (such as ill-conditioning around a discrete number of frequencies) have
been highlighted and veried by using simulated data corrupted by random noise.
In this paper, experimental data acquired on a lumped parameter benchmark system with translating masses
are used to check previously highlighted problems both in coupling and decoupling, and to look for additional
issues (systematic errors, inconsistencies, etc.) that can not be observed from simulated data. The use of a
lumped parameter benchmark allows to avoid two series of problems: problems due to rotational DoFs and
modal truncation problems which may appear even using an FRF based approach because of curve tting.
Substructuring is performed using the dual domain decomposition: the coupling problem can be directly
formulated from [3], while a similar formulation for the decoupling problem is developed and discussed
in [9, 10].
In the coupling problem, the FRF matrix of the component subsystems is assumed to be known at the cou-
pling DoFs. With regard to the decoupling problem, the FRF matrix of the coupled system is assumed to
be known at the coupling DoFs (standard interface). Information about the residual subsystem can consist
either of measured FRFs or of a physical model. Here, the rst assumption is considered. To circumvent
ill-conditioning due to internal resonances of the residual subsystems with xed interface, FRFs at some
internal DoFs of the residual subsystem are used (extended interface) [7, 8, 10].
Since FRFs are curve-tted from experimental tests, errors due to measurement inaccuracies and to identi-
cation can be expected.
2 Addition and subtraction of subsystems
The coupled structural system AB is assumed to be made by two subsystems (A and B) joined through a
number of couplings (see Fig. 1). The degrees of freedom (DoFs) of the coupled system can be partitioned
into internal DoFs (not belonging to the couplings) of subsystem A (a), internal DoFs of subsystem B (b),
and coupling DoFs (c).
If addition of subsystems (coupling problem) is considered, subsystems A and B are assumed to be known
whilst the FRF of the coupled system AB is unknown.
If subtraction of subsystems (decoupling problem) is considered, the coupled structural system AB and a
residual subsystem B are assumed to be known whilst the FRF of subsystem A is unknown.
2.1 Addition of subsystems
In the frequency domain, the equation of motion of a linear time-invariant subsystem r may be written as:
_
Z
(r)
()
_ _
u
(r)
()
_
=
_
f
(r)
()
_
+
_
g
(r)
()
_
(1)
where:
[Z
(r)
] is the dynamic stiffness matrix of subsystem r;
{u
(r)
} is the vector of degrees of freedom of subsystem r;
{f
(r)
} is the external force vector;
{g
(r)
} is the vector of connecting forces with other subsystems (constraint forces associated with compati-
bility conditions).
1852 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

COUPLEDSYSTEM
INTERNAL
DOFS SUBSYSTEM
COUPLING
DOFS
SUBSYSTEM
INTERNAL
DOFS
A B
FRFSATCOUPLINGDOFS
NOISE+IDENTIFICATIONERRORS
Figure 1: Scheme of substructuring problem
For the sake of simplicity, the explicit frequency dependence will be omitted.
The equation of motion of the subsystems to be coupled can be written in a block diagonal format as:
[Z] {u} = {f} + {g} i.e.
_
_
Z
A

[0]
[0]
_
Z
B

__
_
u
A
_
_
u
B
_
_
=
_
_
f
A
_
_
f
B
_
_
+
_
_
g
A
_
_
g
B
_
_
(2)
The compatibility condition at the interface DoFs implies that any pair of matching DoFs u
A
l
and u
B
m
, i.e.
DoF l on subsystem A and DoF m on subsystem B must have the same displacement, that is u
A
l
u
B
m
= 0.
This condition can be generally expressed as:
[B] {u} = {0} i.e.
_
_
B
A
_
B
B

_
_
_
u
A
_
_
u
B
_
_
= 0 (3)
where each row of [B] corresponds to a pair of matching DoFs. Note that [B] is, in most cases, a signed
Boolean matrix and it can be written by distinguishing the contribution of the different subsystems.
The equilibrium condition for constraint forces associated with the compatibility conditions implies that,
when the connecting forces are added for a pair of matching DoFs, their sum must be zero, i.e. g
A
l
+g
B
m
= 0:
this holds for any pair of matching DoFs. Furthermore, if DoF k on subsystem A (or B) is not a connecting
DoF, it must be g
A
k
= 0: this holds for any non-interface DoF.
Overall, the above conditions can be expressed as:
[L]
T
{g} = {0} (4)
where the matrix [L] is a Boolean localisation matrix. Note that the number of rows of [L]
T
is equal to the
number of non-interface DoFs plus the number of pairs of interface DoFs.
Eqs. (2-4) can be put together to obtain the so called 3-eld formulation [3]:
_
_
_
[Z] {u} = {f} + {g}
[B] {u} = {0}
[L]
T
{g} = {0}
(5)
EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMIC SUBSTRUCTURING 1853
2.1.1 Dual formulation in the frequency domain [3, 11]
In the dual formulation, the total set of DoFs is retained, i.e. each interface DoF is present as many times
as there are substructures connected through that DoF. The equilibrium condition g
A
l
+ g
B
m
= 0 at a pair of
interface DoFs is ensured by choosing, for instance, g
A
l
= and g
B
m
= . Due to the construction of [B],
the overall interface equilibrium can be ensured by writing the connecting forces in the form:
{g} = [B]
T
{} (6)
where {} are Lagrange multipliers corresponding to connecting force intensities.
The interface equilibrium condition (4) is thus written:
[L]
T
{g} = [L]
T
[B]
T
{} = {0} (7)
Because [B]
T
is the nullspace of [L]
T
(see for instance [10]), Eq. (7) is always satised and the system of
equations (5) becomes:
_
[Z] {u} + [B]
T
{} = {f}
[B] {u} = {0}
(8)
In matrix notation:
_
[Z] [B]
T
[B] [0]
__
{u}
{}
_
=
_
{f}
{0}
_
i.e.
_

_
_
Z
A

[0]
_
B
A

T
[0]
_
Z
B
_
B
B

T
_
B
A
_
B
B

[0]
_

_
_

_
_
u
A
_
_
u
B
_
{}
_

_
=
_

_
_
f
A
_
_
f
B
_
{0}
_

_
(9)
Note that [B
A
] and [B
B
] extract the coupling DoFs among the full set of DoFs.
By eliminating {}, it is possible to obtain a relation in the form {u} = [H]{f}, which provides the FRF of
the coupled system AB [10]:
{u} =
_
[Z]
1
[Z]
1
[B]
T
_
[B] [Z]
1
[B]
T
_
1
[B] [Z]
1
_
{f} (10)
In expanded notation:
_
_
u
A
_
_
u
B
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
Z
A

[0]
[0]
_
Z
B

_
1

_
_
Z
A

[0]
[0]
_
Z
B

_
1
_
_
B
A

T
_
B
B

T
_

_
_
_
_
B
A
_
B
B

_
_
_
Z
A

[0]
[0]
_
Z
B

_
1
_
_
B
A

T
_
B
B

T
_
_
_
1

_
_
B
A
_
B
B

_
_
_
Z
A

[0]
[0]
_
Z
B

_
1
_
_
_
_
f
A
_
_
f
B
_
_
(11)
i.e., by introducing the FRFs [H
A
] and [H
B
] at the full set of DoFs instead of [Z
A
]
1
and [Z
B
]
1
:
1854 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010

COUPLEDSYSTEM
INTERNAL
DOFS
UNKNOWN
SUBSYSTEM
COUPLING
DOFS
RESIDUAL
SUBSYSTEM
INTERNAL
DOFS
FRFSATCOUPLINGDOFS+
FRFSATSOMEINTERNALDOFS
NOISE+IDENTIFICATIONERRORS
A B
Figure 2: Scheme of the decoupling problem
_
H
AB

=
_
_
H
A

[0]
[0]
_
H
B

_
_
H
A

[0]
[0]
_
H
B

__
_
B
A

T
_
B
B

T
_

_
_
_
B
A
_
B
B

_
_
_
H
A

[0]
[0]
_
H
B

__
_
B
A

T
_
B
B

T
__
1
_
_
B
A
_
B
B

_
_
_
H
A

[0]
[0]
_
H
B

_
(12)
With the dual formulation, the rows and columns corresponding to the coupling DoFs appear twice in [H
AB
].
Obviously, only independent entries are retained.
2.2 Subtraction of subsystems using the dual domain decomposition
The coupled structural system is assumed to be made by an unknown subsystem (A) and a residual subsystem
(B) joined through a number of couplings (see Fig. 2).
It is required to nd the FRF of the unknown substructure A starting from the FRF of the coupled system
AB. The subsystem A can be extracted from the coupled system AB by cancelling the dynamic effect
of the residual subsystem B. This can be accomplished by adding to the coupled system AB a ctitious
subsystem with a dynamic stiffness opposite to that of the residual subsystem B and satisfying compatibility
and equilibrium conditions. According to this point of view, the interface between the coupled system
AB and the ctitious subsystem should not only include the coupling DoFs between subsystems A and B,
but should as well include the internal DoFs of subsystem B. However, by taking into account that most
substructuring techniques consider only coupling DoFs, two options for interface DoFs can be considered:
standard interface, including only the coupling DoFs (c) between subsystems A and B;
extended interface, including also some internal DoFs (i b) of the residual substructure.
In the framework of the dual formulation in the frequency domain (see Section 2.1.1), the union between the
coupled system AB and the ctitious subsystem can be written (see Eq. 9) as:
_

_
_
Z
AB

[0]
_
B
AB

T
[0]
_
Z
B
_
B
B

T
_
B
AB
_
B
B

[0]
_

_
_

_
_
u
AB
_
_
u
B
_
{}
_

_
=
_

_
_
f
AB
_
_
f
B
_
{0}
_

_
(13)
EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMIC SUBSTRUCTURING 1855
Following the same procedure used in Section 2.1.1, it is possible to obtain the FRF of the unknown subsys-
tem A.
_
H
A

=
_
_
H
AB

[0]
[0]
_
H
B

_
_
H
AB

[0]
[0]
_
H
B

__
_
B
AB

T
_
B
B

T
_

_
_
_
B
AB
_
B
B

_
_
_
H
AB

[0]
[0]
_
H
B

__
_
B
AB

T
_
B
B

T
__
1
_
_
B
AB
_
B
B

_
_
_
H
AB

[0]
[0]
_
H
B

_
(14)
Note that [H
AB
] and [H
B
] are the FRFs at the full set of DoFs of the coupled system and the residual
subsystem.
With the dual formulation, when using an extended interface, [H
A
] contains some meaningless rows and
columns: those corresponding to the internal DoFs of the residual substructure B. Furthermore, the rows
and columns corresponding to the coupling DoFs appear twice. Obviously, only meaningful and independent
entries are retained.
3 Application
The decoupling technique is tested on an experimental benchmark, chosen in order to be quite simple, at
least theoretically, easy to modify, and free from problems due to rotational degrees of freedom. Therefore, a
benchmark that can be modelled as a lumped parameter system is selected. The model is shown in Figure 3:
the coupled system are a 4 DoFs system and the two subsystems, denoted by letters A and B, have 3 DoFs.
m
1
m
4
m
5
m
2
m
3
m
6
B A
k
1
k
2
k
3
k
5
k
6
k
4
Figure 3: Lumped model benchmark
3.1 Experimental benchmark
A rst version of the benchmark is shown in Figure 4. It consists of 2 rail guides bolted on an horizontal
table and eight guide carriages. Mass m
1
consists of two rigidly connected guide carriages lying on different
rails, as mass m
4
. Each lumped stiffness consists of two springs in parallel.
1856 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010
Figure 4: Benchmark: version 1 Figure 5: Benchmark: version 2 Figure 6: Subsystem B
However, sliding of the carriages within the guides proves to be quite difcult due to several problems, as
for instance the fact that the rail guides are not perfectly parallel.
Therefore a second version of the benchmark is built without using the guides. In this case the motion occurs
along a vertical direction, as shown in gure 5. However, without the guides, small displacements orthogonal
to the vertical direction may occur, as well as small rotations.
The nominal system parameters are shown in Table 1.
i 1 2 3 4 5 6
m [kg] 0.822 0.414 0.407 0.867 0.443 0.452
k [N/m] 1046 2000 460 1411 709 1059
Table 1: Mass values and spring constants of the benchmark
3.2 Tests
The FRFs of both the coupled system and the subsystems need to be measured either to apply coupling
procedure (FRF of the components) and to check the results (FRF of the coupled system), or to apply the
decoupling procedure (FRF of the coupled system and FRF of the residual subsystem) and to check the
results (FRFs of the unknown subsystem).
The measured FRFs are curve tted using a polyreference least square frequency domain identication tech-
nique in order to regenerate FRFs from a consistent modal model.
The complete FRF matrix of the coupled system is measured. Figures 7, 8 show the measured raw and tted
point FRFs at the connections between the two subsystems.
With regard to the subsystems, the used tension springs can not work in compression, so additional springs
are needed to have a traction preload (Fig. 6). Therefore, the measured FRFs will be affected by the additional
springs. The complete FRF matrix of both modied subsystems is measured. Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 show
the measured raw and tted point FRFs at the coupling DoFs.
EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMIC SUBSTRUCTURING 1857
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
0 5 10 15
15
10
5
0
Frequency [Hz]
P
h
a
s
e

[
r
a
d
]
Figure 7: Inertance H
22
of the coupled system: mea-
sured raw (blue) and tted (red)
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
0 5 10 15
10
5
0
Frequency [Hz]
P
h
a
s
e

[
r
a
d
]
Figure 8: Inertance H
33
of the coupled system: mea-
sured raw (blue) and tted (red)
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
0 5 10 15
5
0
5
Frequency [Hz]
P
h
a
s
e

[
r
a
d
]
Figure 9: Inertance H
22
of subsystem B: measured
raw (blue) and tted (red)
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
0 5 10 15
6
4
2
0
Frequency [Hz]
P
h
a
s
e

[
r
a
d
]
Figure 10: Inertance H
33
of subsystemB: measured
raw (blue) and tted (red)
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
0 5 10 15
10
5
0
Frequency [Hz]
P
h
a
s
e

[
r
a
d
]
Figure 11: Inertance H
55
of subsystem A: measured
raw (blue) and tted (red)
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
0 5 10 15
10
5
0
Frequency [Hz]
P
h
a
s
e

[
r
a
d
]
Figure 12: Inertance H
66
of subsystem A: measured
raw (blue) and tted (red)
1858 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010
k

s k
A
5
k
A
6
k
B
2
k
B
3
[N/m] 361 268 218 274
Table 2: Additional springs used to preload subsystems A and B
The stiffness values of the additional springs are shown in Table 2.
To cancel the effect of the additional springs from the FRFs of the subsystems, a local structural modication
procedure is used. Results are shown in Figs. 13 and 14.
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
Figure 13: Inertance H
22
of subsystemB before and
after cancelling the effect of additional springs: be-
fore (blue) and after (red) spring cancellation.
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
Figure 14: Inertance H
55
of subsystem A before and
after cancelling the effect of additional springs: be-
fore (blue) and after (red) spring cancellation.
To have an idea about the theoretical natural frequencies of the different (sub)systems, the physical parame-
ters shown in Table 1 are used . In Table 3, these values are compared with those obtained by curve tting the
experimental measurements and (in case of subsystems A and B) removing the effects of additional springs.
It can be noticed that the largest relative error occurs for the third frequency of the subsystem B.
Systems f
model
[Hz] f
exp
[Hz] f [%]
A f
1
4.016 3.861 3.86
f
2
6.912 6.787 1.81
f
3
11.360 11.330 0.26
B f
1
3.612 3.705 -2.57
f
2
6.538 6.445 1.42
f
3
14.260 11.860 16.83
AB f
1
3.892 3.985 -2.39
f
2
6.663 6.476 2.81
f
3
10.240 10.900 -6.45
f
4
12.700 12.330 2.91
Table 3: Theoretical and experimental natural frequencies
Moreover, additional frequencies can be recognised in the experimental coupled system, but not in the 4
DoFs lumped model. This is due to lateral motion not controlled by the benchmark version 2 (without rail
guides).
EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMIC SUBSTRUCTURING 1859
3.3 Results
Starting from the FRFs of subsystems A and B after spring cancellation, the FRFs of the coupled system is
computed using the procedure outlined in Section 2.1. Results at the coupling DoFs are shown in Figs. 15
and 16. The rst two natural frequencies are satisfactorily located. The errors in the third and fourth natural
frequencies are probably due to inaccuracies in the identication of the subsystem B (see Table 3).
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
m

s

2
/
N
]
Figure 15: Inertance H
22
of the coupled system: t-
ted (blue); from coupling (red)
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
m

s

2
/
N
]
Figure 16: Inertance H
33
of the coupled system: t-
ted (blue); from coupling (red)
Starting from the FRFs of coupled systems AB and residual subsystem B (after spring cancellation), the
FRFs of the unknown subsystem A is computed using the procedure outlined in Section 2.2. Results at the
coupling DoFs are shown in Figs. 17 and 18.
As expected, the result is worse than the one obtained for structure addition. A spurious frequency seems to
appear around 5 Hz. Having used an extended interface, it can not be explained as an internal resonance of
the residual subsystem with interface DoFs grounded [10]. It might be ascribed to inconsistencies between
the FRFs of the coupled system and the FRFs of the residual subsystem.
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
Figure 17: Inertance H
55
of the unknown subsystem
A: tted (blue); after decoupling (red)
0 5 10 15
10
2
10
0
10
2
Frequency [Hz]
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

[
(
m
/
s
2
)
/
N

]
Figure 18: Inertance H
66
of the unknown subsystem
A: tted (blue); after decoupling (red)
1860 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010
4 Discussion
In this paper, FRFs acquired on a lumped parameter benchmark system with translational DoFs are used to
check coupling and decoupling procedures and to look for additional issues (systematic errors, inconsisten-
cies, etc.) that are not observed when using simulated data.The use of a lumped parameter benchmark should
avoid problems due to unmeasured coupling DoFs and problems due to modal truncation. In practice, the
used benchmark (version 2) allows small transverse motion: therefore, some coupling DoFs are not mea-
sured; furthermore, due to the transverse sensitivity of the accelerometers, additional modes are observed in
the measured FRFs which can produce inconsistencies and modal truncation problems.
Further investigation is required to improve the experimental benchmark, and to introduce the assumed
inconsistencies and systematic errors into a physical model in order to verify the origin of the observed
inaccuracies.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by grants from Universit` a di Roma La Sapienza and from Universit` a dellAquila.
References
[1] W. DAmbrogio, A. Sestieri, A unied approach to substructuring and structural modication prob-
lems, Shock and Vibration, Vol. 11, No. 3-4, 2004, pp. 295-310.
[2] B. Jetmundsen, R. Bielawa, W. Flannelly, Generalised frequency domain substructure synthesis, Jour-
nal of the American Helicopter Society, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1988, pp. 55-64.
[3] D. de Klerk, D. J. Rixen, S. Voormeeren, General framework for dynamic substructuring: History,
review, and classication of techniques, AIAA Journal, Vol. 46, No. 5, May 2008, pp. 1169-1181.
[4] D. de Klerk, Dynamic Response Characterization of Complex Systems through Operational Identica-
tion and Dynamic Substructuring, PhD thesis, TU Delft, 2009.
[5] P. Kalling, T. Abrahamsson, T. McKelvey, Subsystem state-space model identication and its sensitivity
to test variability, in Proceedings of ISMA 2004, Leuven (Belgium), Sept. 2004, pp. 2729-2744.
[6] P. Ind, D. Ewins, Impedance based decoupling and its application to indirect modal testing and com-
ponent measurement: a numerical investigation, in Proc. 21st IMAC, Kissimmee (USA), Feb. 2003.
[7] W. DAmbrogio, A. Fregolent, Promises and pitfalls of decoupling procedures, in Proceeding of 26th
IMAC, Orlando (U.S.A.), Feb. 2008.
[8] P. Sj ovall, T. Abrahamsson, Substructure system identication from coupled system test data, Mechan-
ical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2008, pp. 15-33.
[9] W. DAmbrogio, A. Fregolent, Decoupling procedures in the general framework of frequency based
substructuring, in Proceedings of 27th IMAC, Orlando (U.S.A.), Feb. 2009.
[10] W. DAmbrogio, A. Fregolent, The role of interface dofs in decoupling of substructures based
on the dual domain decomposition, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Sept. 2010,
doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.05.007.
[11] D. de Klerk, D. J. Rixen, J. de Jong, The frequency based substructuring (FBS) method reformulated
according to the dual domain decomposition method, in Proc. 24th IMAC, St. Louis, Missouri (U.S.A.),
Feb. 2006.
EXPERIMENTAL DYNAMIC SUBSTRUCTURING 1861
1862 PROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2010 INCLUDING USD2010