PSI - Issue 78

Pasquale Guarino et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1561–1568

1566

material parameters (Table 3). It’s notable that the actual Young’s Modulus and material density values used in the benchmark model were identified, with a deviation of 0.1% for the elastic modulus and approximately 0.5% for the material density.

(a) (b) Fig. 4. Calibration output: (a) convergence of the fitting parameter multipliers with the number of iteration, (b) cost function value during the iteration. Finally, if a modal geometry file is present in the work folder, mode shape displacements will be represented in an HTML window, such as the ones in Fig. 6. Table 2. Experimental Frequencies and Calibration Results Mode n. Exp. Fr. (Hz) Unc. Fr. (Hz) Error (%) MAC values Cal. Fr. (Hz) Error (%) MAC values 1 5.3228 5.3268 0.07515 0.999392 5.322800 0.000000 0.999395 2 11.16 11.164 0.03584 0.999311 11.155000 -0.044803 0.999307 3 11.376 11.384 0.07032 0.994610 11.377000 0.008790 0.994712 4 13.206 13.213 0.05301 0.999873 13.207000 0.007572 0.999874

Table 3. Calibrated material properties

Nominal value Altered material Calibrated results

E (Gpa)

2500000

1800000

2497043 1406.62

Dens (kg / m 3 )

1400

1100

Fig. 5. MAC matrix of the calibrated frequencies of the model.