asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 Finite Element Model Calibration of Engineering Structures

2
3 Abstract
4 Developing a reliable finite element model for engineering structures is very important to estimate the
5 real static and dynamic behavior of the structures. But it is difficult because of the challenges in
6 accurate representation of irregular geometry, complex material behavior and complicated boundary
7 conditions, etc. Therefore, the finite element models need to be calibrated according to the
8 experimental results by a process named as finite element model calibration. As experimental results,
9 the dynamic characteristics such as natural frequencies, mode shapes and modal damping ratios, are
10 preferred due to providing good agreement between real and simulated static and dynamic behavior.
11 In this study, finite element model calibrations of bridge and dam models are presented in detail. The
12 calibration process mainly consists of three steps. In the first step, the initial finite element model is
13 developed by taking into consideration the project information, such as geometry, material, boundary
14 conditions, and the initial dynamic characteristics are calculated. In the second step, the experimental
15 measurement is carried out on the structure and the exact dynamic characteristics are identified. In
16 the final step, the initial numerical and the experimental results are compared and the initial finite
17 element model is calibrated to reflect the real behavior of the structure. It is observed from this study
18 that the calibrated dynamic characteristic of the bridge and dam models match with the experimental
19 values perfectly.

20 Key words: Bridge, Dam, Finite element modeling, Model calibration, Operational Modal Analysis,
21 System Identification.

22 1 Introduction
23 Today, the finite element (FE) modeling and analysis of engineering structures are preferred to
24 estimate the static and dynamic behavior of structures. The adequacy of the FE method for various
25 structural analysis problems has been confirmed and widely accepted. However, the accuracy of an
26 FE analysis depends on the accuracy of its input parameters and definitions. In some case, analyzing
27 with inadequate definitions and unknown structural parameters result in accurate structural
28 identification and irreversible damages to the structure.
29 Model calibration refers to correcting the inherent structural parameters in the finite element model.
30 Model calibration produces more reliable numerical models and helps in the economical management
31 and maintenance of the structures. The main idea in model calibration is to reduce the differences
32 between the finite element and experimental dynamic characteristics by changing uncertain structural
33 parameters [1-3]. It is important to recognize the sources and types of uncertainty. With respect to
34 variability, it is useful to understand how small variations in input parameter propagate through the
35 structure and manifest itself in the output. Uncertainty in simulation results manifests itself in two main
36 classes: physical uncertainty and numerical uncertainty [4]. The physical uncertainties are namely the
37 boundary and initial conditions, material properties (modulus of elasticity, yield stress, local
38 imperfections, etc.), and geometry (shape, thickness, manufacturing and assembly tolerances, etc.).
39 The main numerical uncertainties are conceptual modeling uncertainty (lack of data on the physical
40 process involved, lack of system knowledge), mathematical modeling uncertainty (accuracy of the
41 mathematical model validity), discretization error uncertainties (the choice of element types, mesh
42 density, level of geometrical detail), numerical solution uncertainty (rounding-off, convergence

2/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 tolerances, integration step), and human mistakes (programming errors in the code or wrong utilization
2 of the software, mistakes in data or units) [4-6].
3 Bayraktar et al. described the model calibration of an arch type steel footbridge, its analytical
4 modeling, modal testing and finite element model calibration [7]. The modal testing was performed on
5 the footbridge deck under natural excitation such as human walking and traffic loads. The finite
6 element model of the footbridge was calibrated to minimize the differences between analytically and
7 experimentally estimated modal properties by changing material properties. It was stated that
8 maximum differences in the natural frequencies were reduced from 22% to only %5. Zarate and
9 Caicedo presented a study which focuses on model updating of complex structural systems. It was
10 stated that traditional techniques optimize an objective function to calculate one single optimal model.
11 It was also investigated the numerical and identification errors [8]. A methodology was proposed to
12 identify physically different local minima, giving the analyst the power to decide what model would
13 better describe the system base on experience and engineering judgment. A two-phase model
14 updating approach was presented to develop a baseline model for the Runyang Suspension Bridge
15 (RSB) [9]. The model updating process was divided into two phases of freestanding tower phase and
16 full-bridge phase according to the construction procedure, so that the model updating of the long-span
17 suspension bridge can be greatly simplified. The structural model was updated by modifying the
18 parameters of design, and validated by structural natural vibration characteristics and static
19 responses. After ambient vibration measurements were carried out to obtain the eigenfrequencies,
20 damping ratios and mode shapes of RSB based on the monitored acceleration records, the FE model
21 was then updated by using the measurements come from field tests during construction of the bridge
22 and after the completion of the bridge. It was introduced that the calibrated FE model was proved to
23 have a good correlation with the static and dynamic measurements. Sevim et al. presented the finite
24 element calibration of the Berke Arch Dam by using the vibration characteristics obtained from both
25 analytical and experimental methods [10]. An initial three-dimensional finite element model was
26 developed in the ANSYS software and the ambient vibration tests were conducted on the dam to
27 obtain the exact dynamic characteristics. The initial analytical model of the dam was calibrated to
28 minimize the difference between natural frequencies by changing material properties. Dynamic
29 parameters, frequency, and damping of masonry arches were determined by experimental modal
30 analysis and finite element methods. Experimental tests were compared with numerical modelling in
31 order to verify adequacy of physical models [11]. Mechanical properties of a masonry building were
32 identified by using the results from finite element analysis and ambient vibration test. Real modulus of
33 elasticity of the masonry was corrected through dynamic identification by updating finite element
34 model [12].
35 Finite element model calibration is a very effective process in the estimation of exact structural
36 behavior. In this study, finite element model calibration of a bridge and a dam model was presented in
37 three steps: initial finite element modeling, experimental testing and finite element model calibration by
38 considering the boundary conditions and material properties as uncertain parameters. It was
39 concluded that the calibrated dynamic characteristic of the bridge and dam models had a good
40 agreement with the experimental values.

41 2 Model Calibration
42 Model calibration is defined as a process of quantifying the differences between finite element
43 dynamic characteristics and corresponding experimental data, and then modifying the numerical

3/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 values of the input parameters, such as elasticity modulus, mass density, boundary condition, in the
2 model to obtain a valid model. Uncertainty is caused mainly by the lack of knowledge and may exist in
3 all aspects of the modeling process. In practice, physical element properties (material, geometry) are
4 selected as updating parameters to improve accuracy. They may also be used as indicators for
5 stiffness or mass modifications that are required because of deficiencies in the model caused by
6 inadequate meshing or level of detail. Variability, which can be considered as a specific type of
7 uncertainty, refers to the variation of the physical input parameters that is mainly caused by
8 manufacturing tolerances or in-service operation conditions [4, 13]. Model calibration process consists
9 of many steps which are defined below:
10 Step 1: Creating initial finite element model.
11 Step 2: Matching the nodes of experimental and analytical models.
12 Step 3: Comparing the experimental and numerical natural frequencies and mode shapes.
13 Step 4: Defining convergence criteria for the natural frequencies and mode shapes.
14 Step 5: Selecting parameters for model calibration and defining the limit values.
15 Step 6: Sensitivity analysis of the selected parameter.
16 Step 7: Step by step solution until the convergence criteria is achieved.

17 3 Applications
18 In this study, a bridge model and a dam model were selected for investigation. The bridge model is
19 made of reinforced concrete and has box type cross-section and two piers. The section of the bridge is
20 constant over the whole length. The dam model is an arch type and made of concrete. Finite element
21 model calibrations of these models were carried out in the three steps: initial finite element modeling,
22 modal testing and calibration. The modeling of the structures was made by using SAP2000 finite
23 element analysis software (SAP2000, 2008), the experimental test was performed by the Operational
24 Modal Analysis method using PULSE and OMA softwares [14-15] and model calibration was
25 examined by the Femtools software [16].
26
27 3.1 The Bridge Model
28 The bridge model has 6m long and 1.5m height. The main span of this model is 3m and it has console
29 in each side with 1.5m length. The reinforced model also has a box cross-section as shown in Figure
30 1.
31

32
33 Figure 1. The dimension and cross-section properties of the bridge model
34
35 The initial finite element model was developed in SAP2000 software by using beam elements as
36 shown in Figure 2 [17]. The elements have six degrees of freedom at each node, thus the model has
37 the ability to translate and rotate in three axes. The connection of the piers to the ground was

4/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 assumed to be semi rigid and it was modeled by spring elements. The spring stiffness values in each
2 degree of freedom were estimated as given in Table 1 for the initial analytical model.
3

4
5 Figure 2. The initial finite element model of the bridge
6
7 Table 1. The spring stiffness on the piers for the initial finite element model of the bridge
Spring Stiffness (N/m)
kx= 2.0*109 rx= 2.0*107
Left Side ky= 2.0*109 ry= 4.0*1011
kz= 4.0*1011 rz= 2.0*109
kx= 2.0*109 rx= 2.0*107
Right Side ky= 2.0*109 ry= 4.0*1011
kz= 4.0*1011 rz= 2.0*109
8
9 The initial finite element model was divided into many parts to reflect real behavior of the bridge. The
10 number of parts was decided by considering mesh convergence. The material properties and sectional
11 properties of the column and deck are given in Table 2.
12
13 Table 2. The material and sectional properties of the bridge model
Columns Deck
2
Elasticity Modulus (N/m ) 2.5*1010 2.5*1010
3
Mass Density (kg/m ) 2550 2550
2
Cross Section Area (m ) 8.0*10-2 10.38*10-2
4 Primary 2.667*10-4 1.023*10-3
Inertia Moment (m )
Secondary 1.067*10-3 2.519*10-3
2 Primary 6.67*10-2 5.12*10-2
Shear Area (m )
Secondary 6.67*10-2 7.85*10-2
14
15 By the defined initial values, the modal analysis of the bridge was carried out and the natural
16 frequencies and mode shapes were calculated. The first six natural frequencies of the bridge model
17 were attained in the 26-51Hz frequency range as shown in Table 3. Also, the corresponding modal
18 behavior of the bridge is plotted in Figure 3.
19
20
21
22
23

5/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 Table 3. The initial natural frequencies and modal behavior of the bridge model
Mode Number Natural Frequencies (Hz) Modal Behavior
1 26.035 Lateral mode
2 31.037 Torsional mode
3 43.050 Vertical mode
4 43.197 Vertical mode
5 51.399 Lateral mode
2

3
4 First Mode Second Mode Third Mode

5
6 Fourth mode Fifth mode
7 Figure 3. The initial mode shapes of the bridge model
8
9 After the initial finite element analysis, the experimental test was conducted on the model which built in
10 the laboratory condition. The test was performed under ambient vibrations and the responses of the
11 bridge model were recorded by Pulse software. The measurement was made on the deck and totally
12 fourteen single axis seismic accelerometers were used to record the response in lateral and vertical
13 directions. A simple apparatus was used to connect the accelerometer in the lateral direction as
14 shown in Figure 4. The figure also demonstrates the measurement setup used for the bridge model.
15

16
17 Figure 4. The accelerometer connections and the measurement setup for the bridge model
18
19 It was aimed to identify the first five natural frequencies and modal damping ratios. By considering the
20 initial numerical values, the frequency range for the measurement was selected as 0-100Hz and the
21 signals from accelerometers were recorded through 10 minutes. A simple model was created to
22 represent measured model and sensors were placed in the model as in the laboratory measurement
23 as given in Figure 5.
24

6/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1
2 Figure 5. The measurement configuration for the bridge model on PULSE program
3
4 The modal parameters were extracted from the measured signals by the Stochastic Subspace
5 Identification method. Firstly, the vibration modes were observed on the stability diagram as peaks.
6 The diagram demonstrates the first five modes perfectly as seen in Figure 6. After that, the natural
7 frequencies, mode shapes and corresponding modal damping ratios were identified from the spectral
8 density plot for each singular values as given in Figure 7.
9

10 Frequency (Hz)
11 Figure 6. The stability diagram for the bridge model
12

13 Frequency (Hz)
14 Figure 7. The spectral density plots of each singular values for the bridge model
15
16 The first five natural frequencies of the bridge model were identified from the experimental
17 measurement as given in Table 4. Also, the corresponding modal damping ratios of each mode are
18 presented in this table. The first five mode shapes are demonstrated in Figure 8.
19
20
21

7/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 Table 4. The first five natural frequencies and modal damping ratios of the bridge model

Mode Number Natural Frequency (Hz) Modal Damping Ratios (%)

1 23.637 2.386
2 27.238 1.954
3 40.086 0.766
4 51.655 3.640
5 53.809 0.582
2

3
4 First Mode (Lateral Translation) Second Mode (Torsion) Third Mode (Vertical Bending)

5
6 Fourth Mode (Vertical Bending) Fifth Mode (Lateral Bending)
7 Figure 8. The first five mode shapes of the bridge model
8
9 It was observed that the initial numerical modal behavior had a good agreement with the experimental
10 modal behavior. However, the numerical frequencies were bigger than the experimental frequencies.
11 The minimum difference was 4.48% while the maximum difference was 16.37% for the first five natural
12 frequencies as seen in Table 5.
13
14 Table 5. The comparison of the experimental and initial numerical natural frequencies of the bridge
15 model
Natural Frequencies (Hz)
Mode Modal Assurance
Initial Difference
Number Experimental Criteria
Numerical (%)
1 23.637 26.035 10.14 0.992
2 27.238 31.037 13.95 0.995
3 40.086 43.050 7.40 0.945
4 51.655 43.197 16.37 0.950
5 53.809 51.399 4.48 0.900
16
17 It was assumed that this caused by inadequate definition of spring properties on the piers. Therefore,
18 the initial finite element model of the bridge was calibrated by considering the spring constants as
19 variable parameters. In the calibration process, it was aimed that the maximum difference between the
20 finite element and numerical values was 1% for both the natural frequencies and the mode shapes.
21 For this purpose, the iterative solutions were started by taking into consideration the maximum change

8/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 in the spring values as 10%. After the iterative solutions, the natural frequencies were attained and
2 compared with the experimental values in Table 6.
3 It can be seen from Table 6 that the differences are decreased considerably by the calibration
4 process. Therefore, it can be stated that the calibrated model well reflects the real behavior of the
5 laboratory model. In the calibrated finite element model, the calibrated spring constant values are
6 given in Table 7.
7
8 Table 6. The experimental and calibrated natural frequencies of the bridge model
Natural Frequencies (Hz) Modal Assurance
Mode Number
Experimental Calibrated Difference (%) Criteria
1 23.637 23.621 0.07 0.996
2 27.238 27.246 0.03 0.993
3 40.086 40.087 0.00 0.972
4 51.655 --- --- ---
5 53.089 53.805 0.01 0.987
9
10 Table 7. The calibrated spring constant values for the bridge model
Spring Constant (N/m)
kx= 2.756*108 rx= 1.956*107
Left Pier ky= 2.756*108 ry= 3.913*1011
kz= 3.975*1011 rz= 1.987*109
kx= 7.606*107 rx= 2.320*107
Right Pier ky= 7.606*107 ry= 4.640*1011
kz= 3.905*1011 rz= 1.953*109
11
12 3.2 The Dam Model
13 The dam model is a prototype of an arch type dam. The model has 60cm height and the average
14 length of the crest is 165.67cm. The plan and front views and the dimensions are given in Figure 9.
15

16
17 Figure 9. The arch type dam model and its dimensions
18
19 The web thickness of the dam model is constant and it is 6mm. The length of the bottom is 40cm. The
20 initial finite element model was created on SAP2000 software by using solid elements. As boundary
21 conditions, the border of the dam body was considered as fully fixed. A refined mesh distribution was
22 developed on the initial model as given in Figure 10.

9/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1
2 Figure 10. The initial finite element model of the dam
3
4 In the initial finite element model, the elasticity modulus and mass density of the concrete was
5 considered as constant on the whole of the model. The initial values of these parameters are given in
6 Table 8.
7
8 Table 8. The initial values for the material properties of the dam model
Elasticity Modulus (N/m2) 2.8*1010
Mass Density (kg/m3) 2300
Poisson Ratio 0.2
9
10 The first five natural frequencies of the initial finite element model were obtained 423-867Hz frequency
11 range as given in Table 9. Also, the mode shapes of the dam model are demonstrated in Figure 11.
12 The modes were bending modes in the transverse direction.
13
14 Table 9. The first five natural frequencies of the dam model from the initial finite element model
Mode Number Natural Frequencies (Hz)
1 423.09
2 432.92
3 594.46
4 730.43
5 867.64
15

16
17 First Mode Second Mode Third Mode

18
19 Fourth Mode Fifth Mode
20 Figure 11. The mode shapes of the dam model from the initial finite element analysis

10/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 After initial finite element modeling, the model was constructed in the laboratory. Huge side walls and
2 a heavy foundation were created to provide fixed boundary conditions as shown in Figure 12.
3 Specialized concrete mixing ratios were used to attain smooth and non-cracked dam body.
4

5
6 Figure 12. The laboratory model of the arch dam
7
8 The modal parameters were identified by the ambient vibration test by Operational Modal Analysis
9 method. Single axis accelerometers were used in the measurement. Totally eleven accelerometers
10 were employed. The accelerometers were placed in the crest level of the dam in the normal direction
11 of each point. The measurement configuration used in the test is given in Figure 13.
12

13
14 Figure 13. A typical view from the accelerometer connection and direction on the dam model
15
16 The measurement was performed on a simple model, which reflects the crest line of the dam model,
17 by Pulse software as shown in Figure 14. The accelerometer points and directions were defined as a
18 laboratory case so that the mode shapes were accurately attained. In that measurement, the
19 frequency range was selected by considering the initial finite element results as 0-800Hz. The
20 responses of the dam model were recorded during 10 minutes.
21

22
23 Figure 14. The measurement configuration for the dam model on the PULSE program
24
25 The recorded signals were analyzed by the Stochastic Subspace Identification method and the
26 stability diagram and the spectral density plot for each singular value were attained as given in Figures
27 15-16, respectively.

11/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1
2 Figure 15. The stability diagram for the dam model
3

4
5 Figure 16. The spectral density plots of each singular values for the dam model
6
7 The first five modal parameters were extracted from these spectra. The natural frequencies are given
8 in Table 10 and the mode shapes are demonstrated in Figure 17.
9
10 Table 10. The experimental natural frequencies and modal damping ratios of the dam model
Mode Number Natural Frequency (Hz) Modal Damping Ratio (%)
1 315.1 1.442
2 341.3 1.538
3 501.9 1.119
4 573.1 0.961
5 683.1 1.482
11

12
13 First Mode Second Mode Third Mode

14
15 Fourth Mode Fifth Mode
16 Figure 17. The first five mode shapes of the dam from the experimental measurement
17

12/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 It was observed that there were big differences between the experimental and numerical natural
2 frequencies. The maximum difference was occurred in the first mode on the order of 34.27% as in
3 Table 11.
4
5 Table 11. The comparison of the experimental and initial numerical natural frequencies of the dam
6 model
Natural Frequencies (Hz)
Mode Modal Assurance
Initial Difference
Number Experimental Criteria
Numerical (%)
1 315.1 423.09 34.27 0.995
2 341.3 432.92 26.85 0.937
3 501.9 594.46 18.44 0.949
4 573.1 730.43 27.45 0.988
5 683.1 867.64 27.02 ----
7
8 To decrease the differences, the initial finite element model was calibrated by considering the elasticity
9 modulus of each member as variable parameters. In the calibration process, it was aimed that the
10 differences between the natural frequencies and mode shapes were smaller than 1%. For this
11 purpose, the iterative solutions were started by considering the change of elasticity values as 10%.
12 After the iterative solutions, the initial finite element model was calibrated and the natural frequencies
13 were calculated in this case as given in Table 12.
14
15 Table 12. The calibrated natural frequencies of the dam model
Natural Frequencies (Hz)
Mode Number
Experimental Calibrated Difference (%)
1 315.1 315.09 0.00
2 341.3 341.27 0.01
3 501.9 501.86 0.01
4 573.1 573.08 0.00
5 683.1 683.07 0.00
16
17 It was attained good correlations between the experimental and calibrated numerical natural
18 frequencies. The differences were completely put away. For the calibrated case, the distribution of
19 elasticity modulus changes is plotted in Figure 18.
20

21
22 Figure 18. The distribution of the elasticity modulus changes on the dam model

13/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 Figure 18 showed that the maximum changes were occurred in the mid of the crest level. It was
2 expected because of the segregation of the aggregates in the concrete.

3 4 Conclusions
4 The applications of finite element model calibration were presented in this study on the bridge and
5 dam models. These models were selected to represent main civil engineering structures.
6 It is observed that selecting of variable parameter very important in the calibration process. The
7 parameter should be determined according to the real case. If unsuitable parameter is selected, a
8 good correlation cannot be achieved. For the investigated structural models, the boundary conditions
9 were selected for the bridge model because of the semi rigid connection on the piers and the material
10 properties as variable parameters were selected for the dam model because of the possible
11 segregation in the concrete. It was also stated that for these models the first five natural frequencies
12 provide sufficient accuracy to calibrate the initial finite element models.
13 It can be generally said that the calibration of engineering structures is inevitable because the initial
14 models contains many assumptions and the values are very different from experimental results in
15 some case.

16 Acknowledgements
17 This research was supported by the TUBITAK and Karadeniz Technical University under Research
18 Grant No. 106M038 and 2005.112.001.1, respectively.

19 REFERENCES
20 [1] Roy, N., Girard, A., Bugeat, L., Brica, L., 1990. A Survey of Finite Element Model Updating Methods.
21 Proceedings of the international Symposium on Environmental Testing for Space Programs - Test Facilities and
22 Methods, ESTEC Noordwijk, June.
23 [2] Imregun, M.I. and Visser, W.J., 1991. A Review of Model Updating Techniques. Shock and Vibration Digest,
24 1, 23, 9-20.
25 [3] Modak, S.V., Kundra, T.K., Nakra, B.C., 2002. Comparative Study of Model Updating Methods Using
26 Simulated Experimental Data. Computers and Structures, 80, 5, Pergamon Press, 437-447.
27 [4] Dascotte, E., 2007. Model Updating for Structural Dynamics: Past, Present and Future Outlook. Presented
28 at International Conference on Engineering Dynamics (ICED), April 16-18, Carvoeiro, Algarve, Portugal.
29 [5] Friswell, M.I. and Mottershead, J.E., 1995. Finite element updating in structural dynamics. Dordrecht, Kluwer
30 Academic Press.
31 [6] Ewins, D.J., 2000. Adjustment or Updating of Models. Sadhana, 25, 3, 235-245.
32 [7] Bayraktar, A., Altunk, A.C., Sevim, B., Trker, T., 2007. Modal Testing and Finite Element Model
33 Calibration of an Arch Type Steel Footbridge, Steel and Composite Structures, 7, 6, 487-502.
34 [8] Zarate, B.A. and Caicedo, J.M., 2008. Finite element model updating: Multiple alternatives. Engineering
35 Structures, 30, 3724-3730.
36 [9] Wang, H., Li, A., and Li, J., 2010. Progressive Finite Element Model Calibration of a Long-Span Suspension
37 Bridge Based on Ambient Vibration and Static Measurements, Engineering Structures, 32, 2546-2556.
38 [10] Sevim, B., Bayraktar, A., Altunk, A.C., 2011. Finite Element Model Calibration of Berke Arch Dam using
39 Operational Modal Testing, Journal of Vibration and Control, 17, 7, 10651079.
40 [11] Cakir, F.: Determination of dynamic parameters of double-layered brick arches, GRAEVINAR 67 (2015) 2,
41 pp. 123-130.

14/15
 asopis GRAEVINAR Paper ID: 1705-2016 Journal CIVIL ENGINEER

1 [12] Aras, F., Altay, G.: Investigation of mechanical properties of masonry in historic buildings, GRAEVINAR 67
2 (2015) 5, pp. 461-469.
3 [13] Femtools, 2003a. Femtools Model Updating Theoretical Manual, Version 3.3, Dynamic Design Solutions,
4 Leuven, Belgium.
5 [14] PULSE, 2006. Analyzers and Solutions, Release 11.2. Bruel and Kjaer, Sound and Vibration Measurement
6 A/S, Denmark.
7 [15] OMA, 2006. Operational Modal Analysis, Release 4.0. Structural Vibration Solution A/S, Denmark.
8 [16] Femtools, 2003b. Femtools Software, Version 3.3, Dynamic Design Solutions, Leuven, Belgium.
9 [17] SAP2000, 2008. Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of Structures, Computers and Structures
10 Inc, Berkeley, California, USA.

15/15