pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.02592 · v4 · submitted 2024-12-17 · 💻 cs.CE

A Paradigm Shift to Assembly-like Finite Element Model Updating

Gabriele Dessena , Alessandro Pontillo , Dmitry I. Ignatyev , James F. Whidborne , Luca Zanotti Fragonara This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 07:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE
keywords finite element model updatingassembly-like approachsubassembly modelscomputational efficiencyflexible wingmodal analysisexperimental validationaeronautics
0
0 comments X

The pith

An assembly-like finite element model updating method reduces computational effort by about 28% while retaining accuracy within 1% of the global approach.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes updating finite element models incrementally as subassemblies are formed rather than updating the full assembled structure in one step. On a flexible wing with experimental data, this shifts about 95% of the solves onto smaller subassembly models. The result is lower overall workload measured by solver model size and memory use. A sympathetic reader cares because accurate models are required for aircraft development, especially flexible-wing designs, yet repeated full-model updates remain expensive.

Core claim

The assembly-like finite element model updating framework updates the model as parts are assembled. Benchmarking against the classical global one-shot approach shows the new method achieves about 28% lower overall effort on a normalised workload proxy, with 95% of solves performed on lower-fidelity subassembly models, yet fidelity remains within 1% on a joint natural frequencies and modal shapes index.

What carries the argument

The assembly-like updating framework that performs incremental parameter updates on subassembly models before they are combined into the full structure.

If this is right

  • Approximately 95% of the required solves can be performed on subassembly models with smaller equation counts and memory requirements.
  • Overall computational effort drops by about 28% relative to the global one-shot method.
  • Fidelity on the joint natural frequencies and modal shapes index stays within 1% of the global approach.
  • The method is demonstrated on real experimental data from a flexible wing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Design teams working on modular aircraft components could iterate models more quickly during early assembly stages.
  • The same incremental logic might apply to other assembled engineering structures such as vehicle frames or bridge segments.
  • Future extensions could test whether the efficiency gain holds when subassembly boundaries are chosen differently.

Load-bearing premise

Independently updating subassembly models and then assembling them produces results equivalent to updating the full assembled model without systematic bias from the choice of subassemblies or assembly sequence.

What would settle it

Application of both methods to the same flexible-wing experimental dataset yields more than 1% difference on the joint natural frequencies and modal shapes index.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02592 by Alessandro Pontillo, Dmitry I. Ignatyev, Gabriele Dessena, James F. Whidborne, Luca Zanotti Fragonara.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: XB-2: Top views of the full wing (Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FEMs of the spar (top), torque box (middle) and full wing (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FEMU workflow: Figure 3a shows the optimisation workflow (in the red box the rEGO implementation) and Figure 3b the assembly-like structure and relative optimisation variables. A total of fifteen parameters are identified across all the specimens for the FEMU process. For the assembly-like approach, the parameters are assigned to a given part or sub-assembly. For the spar FEMU, eight parameters are updated… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mode shapes identified from the experimental data (Exp.), the preliminary FEM (FEM) and the updated FEMs (FEMU_1-2) for the spar. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mode shapes identified from the experimental data (Exp.), the preliminary FEM (FEM) and the updated FEMs (FEMU_1-2) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mode shapes identified from the experimental data (Exp.), the preliminary FEM (FEM) and the updated FEMs (FEMU_1-2) for the XB-2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MTMAC complement value vs iteration. In terms of model mass, the assembly-like method, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In general, there is a mismatch between a finite element model {(FEM)} of a structure and its real behaviour. In aeronautics, this mismatch must be small because {FEM}s are a fundamental part of the development of an aircraft and of increasing importance with the trend to more flexible wings in modern designs. Iterative finite element model updating can be computationally expensive for complex structures, and surrogate models can be employed to reduce the computational burden. A novel approach for FEM updating, namely assembly-like, is proposed and validated using real experimental data from a flexible wing. The assembly-like model updating framework implies that the model is updated as parts are assembled. Benchmarking against the classical global, or one-shot, approach demonstrates that the proposed method is more computationally efficient, since a normalised workload proxy based on solver-reported model size and memory footprint indicates about 28\% lower overall effort. Aapproximately 95\% of the required solves are performed on lower-fidelity subassembly models with smaller equation counts and memory requirements. Despite the reduced reliance on full-wing evaluations, the new approach retains the fidelity, within 1\% of a joint natural frequencies and modal shapes index, of the global approach.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an 'assembly-like' finite element model updating (FEMU) framework in which the model is updated incrementally as subassemblies are formed, rather than via a single global update on the fully assembled structure. Validated on real experimental data from a flexible wing, the method is claimed to be more efficient than the classical one-shot global approach (28% lower normalized workload proxy derived from solver-reported model size and memory footprint, with ~95% of solves performed on lower-fidelity subassemblies) while retaining fidelity (within 1% on a joint natural-frequencies-and-modal-shapes index).

Significance. If the central equivalence claim holds, the approach could meaningfully lower the computational cost of iterative FEMU for large aeronautical structures by exploiting smaller subassembly solves. The use of real experimental data is a positive feature. However, the practical significance hinges on whether the converged parameters (stiffness/mass corrections) are demonstrably independent of partitioning and ordering; agreement on a post-assembly modal index alone does not establish this.

major comments (2)
  1. [Validation / benchmarking discussion (abstract and corresponding results section)] The efficiency and fidelity claims rest on the premise that independent subassembly updates followed by assembly produce results equivalent (in parameter space) to a monolithic global update. No demonstration is provided that the converged correction parameters are insensitive to subassembly choice or assembly sequence; the reported 1% agreement on the joint modal index does not rule out systematic bias when the subassembly objective functions are non-convex.
  2. [Efficiency comparison (abstract and corresponding results section)] The 28% workload reduction is quantified via a normalized proxy based on solver-reported model size and memory. This proxy is only informative for the claimed advantage if the final updated model lies at the same point in parameter space as the global solution; otherwise the efficiency gain may reflect a different (potentially biased) optimum.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Typo in abstract: 'Aapproximately' should read 'Approximately'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address the two major comments point by point below, clarifying that our claims concern fidelity on the modal index rather than parameter-space equivalence.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Validation / benchmarking discussion (abstract and corresponding results section)] The efficiency and fidelity claims rest on the premise that independent subassembly updates followed by assembly produce results equivalent (in parameter space) to a monolithic global update. No demonstration is provided that the converged correction parameters are insensitive to subassembly choice or assembly sequence; the reported 1% agreement on the joint modal index does not rule out systematic bias when the subassembly objective functions are non-convex.

    Authors: The manuscript does not claim that the converged correction parameters are identical or insensitive to partitioning and ordering. The reported result is that the assembly-like procedure produces a final model whose fidelity to the experimental data, as measured by the joint natural-frequencies-and-modal-shapes index, lies within 1% of the model obtained via the classical global update. Because the engineering objective of FEMU is to reproduce observed dynamic behavior, agreement on this index is the relevant success metric. While non-convexity could in principle yield different local minima, the validation on real flexible-wing data shows that the resulting models are practically equivalent for the intended purpose. A dedicated sensitivity study across alternative partitionings would require additional experiments outside the scope of the present work, which employs a physically motivated assembly sequence. revision: no

  2. Referee: [Efficiency comparison (abstract and corresponding results section)] The 28% workload reduction is quantified via a normalized proxy based on solver-reported model size and memory. This proxy is only informative for the claimed advantage if the final updated model lies at the same point in parameter space as the global solution; otherwise the efficiency gain may reflect a different (potentially biased) optimum.

    Authors: The normalized workload proxy aggregates the computational effort of the model solves performed during the iterative updating process. Because approximately 95% of these solves occur on subassembly models with smaller equation counts and memory footprints, the proxy correctly records the reduction in total effort. Both procedures are applied to the same experimental dataset and terminate at comparable levels of modal fidelity; the efficiency comparison is therefore between two methods that achieve the same engineering objective via different computational routes. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; validation uses external experimental data and direct solver metrics against global benchmark.

full rationale

The paper introduces an assembly-like FEM updating method and validates it by direct comparison to the classical global approach on real wing experimental data. Efficiency claims rely on solver-reported model size and memory proxies, while fidelity is assessed via an independent joint natural frequencies and modal shapes index (within 1%). No equations or steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citation chains; the derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract relies on standard domain assumptions in finite element analysis and structural dynamics; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced or fitted in the provided text.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Finite element models of structures can be iteratively updated using experimental modal data to reduce mismatch with real behavior.
    Invoked in the opening statement about mismatch and the need for updating in aeronautics.
  • domain assumption Subassembly models can be solved independently and assembled to approximate full-structure behavior for updating purposes.
    Central to the assembly-like framework description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5751 in / 1432 out tokens · 26001 ms · 2026-05-23T07:20:56.605018+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z. Cao, H. Wei, D. Liang, Z. Jia, J. Yao, D. Jiang, A non-intrusive dynamic sensitivity-based substructure model updating method for nonlinear systems, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 248 (July 2022) (2023) 108218.doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108218. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0020740323001200 20

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108218 2022

  2. [2]

    Y . Tao, Q. Guo, J. Zhou, J. Ma, W. Ge, A two-step variational Bayesian Monte Carlo approach for model updating under observation uncertainty, Acta Mechanica Sinica 41 (5) (2025) 524224.doi:10.1007/ s10409-024-24224-x. URLhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10409-024-24224-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10409-024-24224-x 2025

  3. [3]

    N. F. Alkayem, M. Cao, Y . Zhang, M. Bayat, Z. Su, Structural damage detection using finite element model updating with evolutionary algorithms: a survey, Neural Computing and Applications 30 (2) (2018) 389–411. doi:10.1007/s00521-017-3284-1. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00521-017-3284-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00521-017-3284-1 2018

  4. [4]

    Dessena, D

    G. Dessena, D. I. Ignatyev, J. F. Whidborne, L. Zanotti Fragonara, A Kriging Approach to Model Updating for Damage Detection, in: P. Rizzo, A. Milazzo (Eds.), EWSHM 2022 (LNCE 254), Springer, Singapore, 2023, Ch. 26, pp. 245–255.doi:10.1007/978-3-031-07258-1_26. URLhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-07258-1{_}26

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-07258-1_26 2022

  5. [5]

    X. Yang, X. Guo, H. Ouyang, D. Li, A kriging model based finite element model updating method for damage detection, Applied Sciences 7 (10) (2017) 1039.doi:10.3390/app7101039. URLhttp://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/7/10/1039

    work page doi:10.3390/app7101039 2017

  6. [6]

    Dessena, D

    G. Dessena, D. I. Ignatyev, J. F. Whidborne, L. Zanotti Fragonara, A global–local meta-modelling technique for model updating, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 418 (2024) 116511.doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2023.116511. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045782523006357

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2023.116511 2024

  7. [7]

    Mottershead, M

    J. Mottershead, M. Friswell, Model Updating In Structural Dynamics: A Survey, Journal of Sound and Vibration 167 (2) (1993) 347–375.doi:10.1006/jsvi.1993.1340. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022460X83713404

    work page doi:10.1006/jsvi.1993.1340 1993

  8. [8]

    M. I. Friswell, J. E. Mottershead, Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics, V ol. 38 of Solid Mechanics and its Applications, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1995.doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8508-8. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-015-8508-8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8508-8 1995

  9. [9]

    Marwala, Finite-element-model Updating Using Computional Intelligence Techniques, Springer London, London, 2010.doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-323-7

    T. Marwala, Finite-element-model Updating Using Computional Intelligence Techniques, Springer London, London, 2010.doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-323-7. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-84996-323-7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-323-7 2010

  10. [10]

    Shadan, F

    F. Shadan, F. Khoshnoudian, D. J. Inman, A. Esfandiari, Experimental validation of a FRF-based model updating method, Journal of Vibration and Control 24 (8) (2018) 1570–1583.doi:10.1177/1077546316664675. URLhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077546316664675 21

    work page doi:10.1177/1077546316664675 2018

  11. [11]

    Forouzesh, H

    F. Forouzesh, H. Ahmadian, M. Navidbakhsh, A 3D finite element model updating of spinal lumber segment applying experimental modal data and particle swarm optimization algorithm, Journal of Vibration and Control 29 (19-20) (2023) 4673–4686.doi:10.1177/10775463221123202. URLhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10775463221123202

    work page doi:10.1177/10775463221123202 2023

  12. [12]

    Y . Lu, X. Chang, Z. Zhang, H. Liu, Y . Zhou, H. Li, A body-fitted adaptive mesh and Helmholtz-type filter based parameterized level-set method for structural topology optimization, Acta Mechanica Sinica 41 (5) (2025) 424119.doi:10.1007/s10409-024-24119-x. URLhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10409-024-24119-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10409-024-24119-x 2025

  13. [13]

    L. Peri, M. Pagano, L. Dozio, P. Nali, A Virtual Testing Simulation Environment for the ESA ’ s Mi- cro Vibrations Measurement System, Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio 104 (1) (2025) 3–13.doi:10.1007/ s42496-024-00216-6. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s42496-024-00216-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s42496-024-00216-6 2025

  14. [14]

    De Florio, Airworthiness, Elsevier, 2011.doi:10.1016/C2010-0-65567-2

    F. De Florio, Airworthiness, Elsevier, 2011.doi:10.1016/C2010-0-65567-2. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/C20100655672

    work page doi:10.1016/c2010-0-65567-2 2011

  15. [15]

    Malik, S

    S. Malik, S. Ricci, L. Riccobene, Aeroelastic analysis of a slender wing, CEAS Aeronautical Journal 11 (4) (2020) 917–927.doi:10.1007/s13272-020-00459-6. URLhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13272-020-00459-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s13272-020-00459-6 2020

  16. [16]

    Di Leone, F

    D. Di Leone, F. L. Balbo, A. De Gaspari, S. Ricci, Model updating and aeroelastic correlation of a scaled wind tunnel model for active flutter suppression test, Aerospace 8 (11) (2021).doi:10.3390/aerospace8110334. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/8/11/334

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace8110334 2021

  17. [17]

    Mihaila-Andres, P.-V

    M. Mihaila-Andres, P.-V . Rosu, C. Larco, M. Demsa, L. Constantin, R. Pahonie, Preliminary design of aeroe- lastically tailored wing box structures with bend-twist coupling, ITM Web of Conferences 24 (2019) 2010. doi:10.1051/itmconf/20192402010. URLhttps://www.itm-conferences.org/10.1051/itmconf/20192402010

    work page doi:10.1051/itmconf/20192402010 2019

  18. [18]

    Y . Wang, A. Wynn, R. Palacios, Nonlinear Aeroelastic Control of Very Flexible Aircraft Using Model Updating, Journal of Aircraft 55 (4) (2018) 1551–1563.doi:10.2514/1.C034684. URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.C034684

    work page doi:10.2514/1.c034684 2018

  19. [19]

    Chiodi, G

    C. Chiodi, G. Coppotelli, J. V . Covioli, Identification of the static and dynamic numerical model of a jet aircraft wing from experimental tests, in: AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, no. January, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2021, pp. 1–21.doi:10.2514/6.2021-1498. URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2021-1498 22

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2021-1498 2021

  20. [20]

    J. Cecrdle, Updating of jet trainer aircraft dynamic model to results of ground vibration test, in: 33rd Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS 2022, no. 2, International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, 2022, pp. 1–9. URLhttps://www.icas.org/ICAS{_}ARCHIVE/ICAS2022/data/papers/ ICAS2022{_}0044{_}paper.pdf

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    W. Wang, X. Zhang, D. Hu, D. Zhang, P. Allaire, A novel none once per revolution blade tip timing based blade vibration parameters identification method, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 33 (7) (2020) 1953–1968. doi:10.1016/j.cja.2020.01.014. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1000936120300959

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cja.2020.01.014 2020

  22. [22]

    A. Das, S. Bansal, Hierarchical Bayesian Model Updating Using Modal Data Based on Dynamic Con- densation, Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies 12 (3) (2024) 4265–4286.doi:10.1007/ s42417-023-01119-9. URLhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s42417-023-01119-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s42417-023-01119-9 2024

  23. [23]

    Dessena, M

    G. Dessena, M. Civera, L. Zanotti Fragonara, D. I. Ignatyev, J. F. Whidborne, A Loewner-Based System Iden- tification and Structural Health Monitoring Approach for Mechanical Systems, Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2023 (2023) 1–22.doi:10.1155/2023/1891062. URLhttps://www.hindawi.com/journals/schm/2023/1891062/

    work page doi:10.1155/2023/1891062 2023

  24. [24]

    Dessena, M

    G. Dessena, M. Civera, D. I. Ignatyev, J. F. Whidborne, L. Zanotti Fragonara, B. Chiaia, The Accuracy and Computational Efficiency of the Loewner Framework for the System Identification of Mechanical Systems, Aerospace 10 (6) (2023) 571.doi:10.3390/aerospace10060571. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/10/6/571

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace10060571 2023

  25. [25]

    Z. R. Lu, D. Yang, L. Huang, L. Wang, Covariance regression for operational modal analysis, JVC/Journal of Vibration and Control 28 (11-12) (2022) 1295–1310.doi:10.1177/1077546321990144. URLhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1077546321990144

    work page doi:10.1177/1077546321990144 2022

  26. [26]

    M. H. Jalali, D. G. Rideout, Frequency-based decoupling and finite element model updating in vibration of cable–beam systems, Journal of Vibration and Control 28 (11-12) (2022) 1520–1535.doi:10.1177/ 1077546321996936. URLhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077546321996936

    work page doi:10.1177/1077546321996936 2022

  27. [27]

    Coppotelli, F

    G. Coppotelli, F. D. Giandomenico, C. Groth, S. Porziani, A. Chiappa, M. E. Biancolini, On the structural updat- ing using operational responses of a realistic wing model: The ribes test article, in: 8th IOMAC - International Operational Modal Analysis Conference, Proceedings, International Operational Modal Analysis Conference 23 (IOMAC), Copengahen Denm...

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    R. J. Allemang, D. L. Brown, A correlation coefficient for modal vector analysis, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Modal Analysis Conference, Union College, Schenectady, NY , 1982, pp. 110–116. URLhttps://web.archive.org/web/20151018074821/http://sdrl.uc.edu/sdrl/ referenceinfo/documents/papers/imac1982-mac.pdf

    work page arXiv 1982

  29. [29]

    S. M. O. Tavares, J. A. Ribeiro, B. A. Ribeiro, P. M. S. T. de Castro, Aircraft Structural Design and Life-Cycle Assessment through Digital Twins, Designs 8 (2) (2024) 29.doi:10.3390/designs8020029. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2411-9660/8/2/29

    work page doi:10.3390/designs8020029 2024

  30. [30]

    Sharqi, C

    B. Sharqi, C. E. Cesnik, Finite Element Model Updating for Very Flexible Wings, in: AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2022, pp. 1–23.doi:10.2514/ 6.2022-1185. URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2022-1185

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2022-1185 2022

  31. [31]

    Sharqi, C

    B. Sharqi, C. E. S. Cesnik, Finite Element Model Updating for Very Flexible Wings, Journal of Aircraft 60 (2) (2023) 476–489.doi:10.2514/1.C036894. URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.C036894

    work page doi:10.2514/1.c036894 2023

  32. [32]

    W. Zhao, N. Muthirevula, R. K. Kapania, A. Gupta, C. D. Regan, P. J. Seiler, A Subcomponent-based Fi- nite Element Model Updating for a Composite Flying-wing Aircraft, in: AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, no. January, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Grapevine, Texas, 2017, p. 30. doi:10.2514/6.2017-1393. URLhttps://arc.aia...

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2017-1393 2017

  33. [33]

    W. Zhao, A. Gupta, C. D. Regan, J. Miglani, R. K. Kapania, P. J. Seiler, Component data assisted finite element model updating of composite flying-wing aircraft using multi-level optimization, Aerospace Science and Tech- nology 95 (2019) 105486.doi:10.1016/j.ast.2019.105486. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1270963819304572

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2019.105486 2019

  34. [34]

    McCrum, M

    D. McCrum, M. Williams, An overview of seismic hybrid testing of engineering structures, Engineering Struc- tures 118 (2016) 240–261.doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.039. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0141029616300748

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.039 2016

  35. [35]

    C. Yang, X. Cai, Z. Lai, Y . Yuan, Hybrid Test on a Simply Supported Bridge With High-Damping Rubber Bearings, Frontiers in Built Environment 6 (September) (2020) 1–9.doi:10.3389/fbuil.2020.00141. URLhttps://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00141/full 24

    work page doi:10.3389/fbuil.2020.00141 2020

  36. [36]

    Wilson, G

    J. Wilson, G. Manson, P. Gardner, R. J. Barthorpe, Hierarchical verification and validation in a forward model-driven structural health monitoring strategy, Structural Health Monitoring (nov 2023).doi:10.1177/ 14759217231206698. URLhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14759217231206698

    work page doi:10.1177/14759217231206698 2023

  37. [37]

    S. Weng, Y . Xia, Y .-L. Xu, H.-P. Zhu, Substructure based approach to finite element model updating, Computers & Structures 89 (9-10) (2011) 772–782.doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.02.004. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004579491100037X

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.02.004 2011

  38. [38]

    Dessena, D

    G. Dessena, D. I. Ignatyev, J. F. Whidborne, A. Pontillo, L. Zanotti Fragonara, Ground vibration testing of a flexible wing: A benchmark and case study, Aerospace 9 (8) (2022) 438.doi:10.3390/aerospace9080438. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/9/8/438

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace9080438 2022

  39. [39]

    Dessena, Data supporting: Ground Vibration Testing of a Flexible Wing: A Benchmark and Case Study (2022).doi:10.17862/cranfield.rd.19077023

    G. Dessena, Data supporting: Ground Vibration Testing of a Flexible Wing: A Benchmark and Case Study (2022).doi:10.17862/cranfield.rd.19077023. URLhttps://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/22471

    work page doi:10.17862/cranfield.rd.19077023 2022

  40. [40]

    Perera, R

    R. Perera, R. Torres, Structural Damage Detection via Modal Data with Genetic Algorithms, Journal of Structural Engineering 132 (9) (2006) 1491–1501.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:9(1491). URLhttps://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:9(1491)

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2006)132:9(1491 2006

  41. [41]

    Pontillo, D

    A. Pontillo, D. Hayes, G. X. Dussart, G. E. Lopez Matos, M. A. Carrizales, S. Y . Yusuf, M. M. Lone, Flexible High Aspect Ratio Wing: Low Cost Experimental Model and Computational Framework, in: 2018 AIAA At- mospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2018, pp. 1–15.doi:10.2514/6.2018-1014....

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2018-1014 2018

  42. [42]

    S. Y . Yusuf, D. Hayes, A. Pontillo, M. A. Carrizales, G. X. Dussart, M. M. Lone, Aeroelastic Scaling for Flexible High Aspect Ratio Wings, in: AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia, 2019, pp. 1–14.doi:10.2514/6.2019-1594. URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2019-1594

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2019-1594 2019

  43. [43]

    Hayes, A

    D. Hayes, A. Pontillo, S. Y . Yusuf, M. M. Lone, J. Whidborne, High aspect ratio wing design using the minimum exergy destruction principle, in: AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Kissimmee, FL, 2019, p. 21.doi:10.2514/6.2019-1592. URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2019-1592

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2019-1592 2019

  44. [44]

    Pontillo, High Aspect Ratio Wings on Commercial Aircraft: a Numerical and Experimental approach, Phd thesis, Centre for Aeronautics, Cranfield University (2020)

    A. Pontillo, High Aspect Ratio Wings on Commercial Aircraft: a Numerical and Experimental approach, Phd thesis, Centre for Aeronautics, Cranfield University (2020). URLhttps://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/20266 25

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    S. Y . Yusuf, On Scaling and System Identification of Flexible Aircraft Dynamics, Phd thesis, Centre for Aero- nautics, Cranfield University (2019). URLhttps://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/20037

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Dessena, M

    G. Dessena, M. Civera, A. Pontillo, D. I. Ignatyev, J. F. Whidborne, L. Zanotti Fragonara, Noise-robust modal parameter identification and damage assessment for aero-structures, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Tech- nology 96 (11) (2024) 27–36.doi:10.1108/AEAT-06-2024-0178. URLhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AEAT-06-2024-0178/full/html

    work page doi:10.1108/aeat-06-2024-0178 2024

  47. [47]

    Dessena, Identification of flexible structures dynamics, Ph.D

    G. Dessena, Identification of flexible structures dynamics, Ph.D. thesis, Centre for Autonomous and Cyber- Physical Systems, Cranfield University (2023). URLhttps://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/20261

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    N. P. Macdonald, J. M. Cabot, P. Smejkal, R. M. Guijt, B. Paull, M. C. Breadmore, Comparing microfluidic performance of three-dimensional (3D) printing platforms, Analytical Chemistry 89 (7) (2017) 3858–3866.doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136. URLhttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.7b00136 2017

  49. [49]

    A. J. Keane, A. Sóbester, J. P. Scanlan, Small Unmanned Fixed-wing Aircraft Design, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2017.doi:10.1002/9781119406303. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781119406303

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119406303 2017

  50. [50]

    D. M. J. Dykstra, S. Janbaz, C. Coulais, The extreme mechanics of viscoelastic metamaterials, APL Materials 10 (8) (aug 2022).arXiv:2204.01375,doi:10.1063/5.0094224. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0094224https://pubs.aip.org/apm/article/10/8/080702/ 2834983/The-extreme-mechanics-of-viscoelastic

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0094224 2022

  51. [51]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks

    A. Bossart, D. M. J. Dykstra, J. van der Laan, C. Coulais, Oligomodal metamaterials with multifunctional mechanics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (21) (may 2021).doi:10.1073/pnas. 2018610118. URLhttps://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2018610118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas 2021

  52. [52]

    F. Dezi, F. Gara, D. Roia, Dynamic Characterization of Open-ended Pipe Piles in Marine Environment, in: Applied Studies of Coastal and Marine Environments, InTech, 2016, Ch. 8, pp. 169–204.doi:10.5772/62055. URLhttps://www.intechopen.com/chapters/49784

    work page doi:10.5772/62055 2016

  53. [53]

    F. R. Spitznogle, A. H. Quazi, Representation and Analysis of Time-Limited Signals Using a Complex Exponential Algorithm, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 47 (5A) (1970) 1150–1155. doi:10.1121/1.1912020. URLhttps://pubs.aip.org/jasa/article/47/5A/1150/716351/Representation-and-Analysis-of-Time-Limited 26

    work page doi:10.1121/1.1912020 1970

  54. [54]

    F. R. Spitznogle, J. M. Barrett, C. I. Black, T. W. Ellis, W. L. LaFuze, Representation and analysis of sonar signals. V olume I. Improvements in the Complex Exponential signal analysis computational algorithm., Tech. rep., Office of Naval Research- Contract No. NOOO14-69-C0315,1971 (1971). URLhttps://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0885563

    work page 1971

  55. [55]

    Dessena, D

    G. Dessena, D. I. Ignatyev, J. F. Whidborne, A. Pontillo, L. Zanotti Fragonara, L. Fragonara, Ground vibration testing of a high aspect ratio wing with revolving clamp, in: 33rd Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS 2022, V ol. 6, International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, 2022, pp. 4169–4181....

    work page doi:10.17862/cranfield.rd.20486229 2022

  56. [56]

    Dessena, A

    G. Dessena, A. Pontillo, D. I. Ignatyev, J. F. Whidborne, L. Zanotti Fragonara, Identification of Nonlinearity Sources in a Flexible Wing, Journal of Aerospace Engineering 38 (5) (2025) 04025060.doi:10.1061/JAEEEZ. ASENG-5508. URLhttps://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/JAEEEZ.ASENG-5508

    work page doi:10.1061/jaeeez 2025

  57. [57]

    Dessena, rEGO - A tutorial on the rEGO for model updating (2023).doi:10.5281/zenodo.8406030

    G. Dessena, rEGO - A tutorial on the rEGO for model updating (2023).doi:10.5281/zenodo.8406030. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8406030

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8406030 2023

  58. [58]

    D. R. Jones, M. Schonlau, W. J. Welch, Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions, Jour- nal of Global Optimization 13 (4) (1998) 455–492.doi:10.1023/A:1008306431147. URLhttps://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008306431147

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1008306431147 1998

  59. [59]

    A. I. J. Forrester, A. Sóbester, A. J. Keane, Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling, Wiley, 2008.doi: 10.1002/9780470770801. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470770801

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470770801 2008

  60. [60]

    A. J. Keane, J. P. Scanlan, Design search and optimization in aerospace engineering, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 365 (1859) (2007) 2501–2529.doi: 10.1098/rsta.2007.2019. URLhttps://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2007.2019

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2019 2007

  61. [61]

    A. I. Forrester, A. Sóbester, A. J. Keane, Multi-fidelity optimization via surrogate modelling, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 463 (2088) (2007) 3251–3269.doi: 10.1098/rspa.2007.1900. URLhttps://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2007.1900 27

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1900 2088