Multi-Input Multi-Output Swept Sine Control: A Steepest Descent Solution for a Challenging Problem

  • Umberto MusellaEmail author
  • Bart Peeters
  • Francesco Marulo
  • Patrick Guillaume
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) swept sine is nowadays acknowledged to be one of the best excitation techniques in applications where testing time is a constraint and high-quality Frequency Response Functions are compulsory. This is the case, for example, of testing large aerospace structures for model validation and updating. The high levels that can be reached during these tests can require a reliable MIMO closed-loop control strategy in order to guarantee that the response spectra will follow safe reference profiles (within defined tolerance limits). The development of a dedicated algorithm for these applications is however very challenging, especially due to the transient nature of the sweeps and the robustness of the MIMO controller. This paper proposes a steepest descent solution for the control of multiple inputs during a continuous sine-sweep, in order to simultaneously match specific response spectra for multiple control channels.


MIMO Vibration control Continuous sweep Environmental testing Steepest descent 



The financial support of VLAIO is gratefully acknowledged (research grant ADVENT: ADvanced Vibration ENvironmental Testing).


  1. 1.
    Heylen, W., Lammens, S., Sas, P.: Modal Analysis Theory and Testing. K.U. Leuven, Leuven (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pauwels, S., Michel, J., Robijns, M., Peeters, B., Debille, J.: A new MIMO sine technique for accelerated, high quality FRF measurements. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, Leuven (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orlando, S., Peeters, B., Coppotelli, G.: Improved FRF estimators for MIMO sine sweep data. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, Leuven (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gloth, G., Synapius, M.: Analysis of swept-sine runs during modal identification. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 18, 1421–1441 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peeters, B., Hendricx, W., Debille, J.: Modern solutions for ground vibration testing of large aircrafts. Sound Vib. 43(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fortescue, P., Swinerd, G., Stark, J.: Spacecraft Systems Engineering, 4th edn. Wiley, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Waimer, S., Gentile, E., Manzato, S., Peeters, B., Wagner, M., Guillaume, P.: Modelling and experimental validation of a coupled electrodynamic shaker and test structure simulation model. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, Leuven (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waimer, S., Manzato, S., Peeters, B., Wagner, M., Guillaume, P.: Modelling and simulation of a closed-loop electrodynamic shaker and test structure model for spacecraft vibration testing. Adv. Aircr. Spacecr. Sci. 5, 205–223 (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Musella, U., Zanellati, L., Grottoli, M., Celiberti, F., Peeters, B., Marulo, F., Guillaume, P.: Driving a motion platform with a vibration control software for multi-axis environmental testing: challenges and solutions. In: Proceedings of the XXXVI IMAC, Orlando (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Musella, U., D’Elia, G., Carrella, A., Peeters, B., Mucchi, E., Marulo, F., Guillaume, P.: A minimum drives automatic target definition procedure for multi-axis random control testing. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 107, 452–468 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pintelon, R., Schoukens, J.: System Identification: A Frequency Domain Approach. Wiley, Hoboken (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bendat, J., Piersol, A.G.: Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures, vol. 729. Wiley, New York (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Underwood, M.: Multi-exciter testing applications, theory and practice. In: Proceedings of Institute of Environmental Sciences (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Musella, U., Longo, A., Vettori, S., Waimer, S., Di Lorenzo, E., Peeters, B., Marulo, F., Guillaume, P.: Recent advances in swept sine controlled excitation and processing for multi-input multi-output FRFs estimation. In: Proceedings of ISMA 2018 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elliot, S.: Signal Processing for Active Control. Academic, London (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siemens Industry Software N.V.: LMS Test.Lab Environmental, User Manual (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kreutz-Deglado, K.: The complex gradient operator and the \(\mathbb {C}\mathbb {R}\)-calculus, Preprint, ArXiv (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sorber, L., van Barel, M., de Lathauwer, L.: Unconstrained optimization of real functions in complex variables. SIAM J. Optim. 22(33), 879–898 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Musella, U., Manzato, S., Peeters, B., Guillaume, P.: \(\mathbb {C}\mathbb {R}\)-calculus and adaptive array theory applied to MIMO random vibration control tests. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. IOP Science 744(1), 012175 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meyer, C.D.: Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Umberto Musella
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Bart Peeters
    • 1
  • Francesco Marulo
    • 3
  • Patrick Guillaume
    • 2
  1. 1.Siemens Industry Software NVLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Acoustics and Vibration Research GroupElseneBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations