pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.26257 · v1 · pith:VQ6D4WDCnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 📡 eess.SP · cs.SY· eess.SY

International Space Station operational modal analysis via iterative pole relocation

Marco Civera , Gabriele Dessena , Marina C\'ozar Alc\'azar , Saray Undiano Ech\'aniz , Oscar E. Bonilla-Manrique This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 20:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP cs.SYeess.SY
keywords operational modal analysissystem identificationinternational space stationvector fittingoutput-only identificationstructural health monitoringvibration modesNExT
0
0 comments X

The pith

NExT paired with iterative vector fitting identifies reliable vibration modes from output-only acceleration data on the ISS.

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

The paper develops an operational modal analysis technique that merges the Natural Excitation Technique with the Fast and Relaxed Vector Fitting algorithm, which relies on iterative least-squares optimisation to estimate modal parameters when only output measurements are available. It first checks the approach against analytical solutions on a numerical beam model and against two established methods, then applies it to real acceleration recordings collected by the Space Acceleration Measurement Systems on the International Space Station. The new combination produces consistent mode estimates under added noise where the benchmarks degrade, and on the flight data it recovers repeated, physically plausible modes while one benchmark method identifies almost none.

Core claim

The NExT-FRVF procedure, which embeds an iterative least-squares optimisation inside the vector fitting framework, yields highly reliable modal parameter estimates on both a noisy numerical system and real experimental data from the International Space Station, matching or exceeding the performance of NExT-ERA while SSI fails to recover most modes.

What carries the argument

The Fast and Relaxed Vector Fitting (FRVF) algorithm with iterative least-squares optimisation, applied after the Natural Excitation Technique to convert output-only data into an equivalent input-output identification problem.

If this is right

  • Structural health monitoring of space assets can proceed without measured excitation signals.
  • Modal parameters extracted under operational conditions become usable for damage detection when noise levels are high.
  • The method supplies a practical alternative to NExT-ERA when the data contain significant measurement noise.
  • SSI is shown to be unsuitable for the ISS acceleration records examined here.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same pipeline could be applied to other orbiting platforms or ground-based structures where only ambient responses are recorded.
  • Automated mode-tracking across successive data windows might enable near-real-time health assessment without additional sensors.
  • Because the approach avoids explicit input measurement, it lowers the cost of routine modal surveys for large civil or aerospace systems.

Load-bearing premise

That repeated occurrence of the same modes across different data segments together with their physical interpretability after processing is sufficient evidence that the identifications are accurate and superior to the benchmark methods.

What would settle it

A controlled test on the same ISS structure or an equivalent laboratory model in which known forced inputs are applied and the natural frequencies and damping ratios obtained from the input-output reference method diverge from those reported by NExT-FRVF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26257 by Gabriele Dessena, Marco Civera, Marina C\'ozar Alc\'azar, Oscar E. Bonilla-Manrique, Saray Undiano Ech\'aniz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Output-only SI and vibration-based SHM process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Numerical model and I-beam cross-section geometry used in the validation study: (a) Euler-Bernoulli 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FRVF approximation in noiseless case. After this preliminary evaluation, the modal parameters are extracted from the numerical dataset. To this end, higher-order realisations of FRVF, and the benchmark method ERA, are considered, with stabilisation diagrams used to identify physically meaningful and stable modes. Stabilisation diagrams display recurrent poles that represent physical modes across model orde… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Noise effect on identified modal parameters relative to the analytical solution: (a, d) natural frequency error, (b, e) damping ratio error, and (c, f) MAC values for NExT-ERA and NExT-FRVF, respectively. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: RMSE evolution across iterations for each noise scenario considered in the numerical case study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sensor layout on the ISS. Yellow markers indicate the SAMS sensor locations (adapted from [52]). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example of original and interpolated acceleration signals: The three measurement channels of the triaxial sensor 121f02. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NExT-derived FRF from the fifteen output channels of the five triaxial ISS SAMS sensors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Location of the ISS at the four acquisition instants considered in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ISS NExT-FRVF-identified mode shapes represented in three dimensions against the structural geometry: (a–e) first five mode shapes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NExT-FRVF modal parameter comparison between Cases 2, 3, and 4, with Case 1 as the reference: Natural frequency percentage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In recent years, increasing aerospace safety requirements have intensified the demand for reliable structural damage detection. This work presents an Operational Modal Analysis approach for accurate modal parameter estimation, with an application to space structure monitoring. The proposed System Identification (SI) method innovatively combines the Natural Excitation Technique (NExT) with the Fast and Relaxed Vector Fitting (FRVF) algorithm, which uses an iterative least-squares optimisation. A preliminary validation is first carried out on a numerical beam model, comparing results with analytical solutions and the established Natural Excitation Technique with Eigensystem Realisation Algorithm (NExT-ERA) and Stochastic Subspace Identification with Canonical Variate Analysis (SSI) methods. Then, operational validation is performed on real acceleration data from the Space Acceleration Measurement Systems aboard the International Space Station. Identified vibration modes from NExT-FRVF and NExT-ERA show comparable results after signal processing, with mode consistency assessed by repeated occurrence and physical interpretation, while SSI fails to identify most. The output-only algorithm proves to be highly reliable, outperforming benchmark methods under noisy conditions on a numerical system and offering reliable identifications on the experimental data.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an output-only operational modal analysis method (NExT-FRVF) that combines the Natural Excitation Technique with Fast and Relaxed Vector Fitting for iterative pole relocation. It reports a preliminary validation on a numerical beam model against analytical poles and two benchmarks (NExT-ERA, SSI), followed by application to real acceleration data from the ISS Space Acceleration Measurement System. The central claim is that NExT-FRVF is highly reliable, outperforms the benchmarks under noise on the numerical example, and yields reliable mode identifications on the experimental data where it matches NExT-ERA while SSI identifies fewer modes.

Significance. If the quantitative superiority on the numerical case and the robustness claims on real data hold after proper error metrics, the approach could contribute to improved structural health monitoring for space structures under operational conditions. The combination of NExT with an iterative least-squares fitting procedure is a reasonable technical direction, but the current validation strategy limits the strength of the reliability conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / numerical validation] Abstract and § on numerical validation: the claim of outperformance under noisy conditions is stated without any reported quantitative metrics (e.g., pole error norms, MAC values, or tables comparing identified vs. analytical frequencies/damping across noise levels), making the superiority assertion impossible to assess from the given material.
  2. [Experimental validation / ISS data] § on experimental ISS validation: mode quality is assessed solely by repeated occurrence across data segments and physical plausibility after signal processing; because no independent ground-truth modal parameters exist for the real structure, this criterion does not quantitatively demonstrate either superior accuracy or robustness relative to NExT-ERA (which the text states produces comparable results).
  3. [Benchmark comparisons] Comparison with SSI: the statement that SSI 'fails to identify most' modes is presented without details on the specific implementation parameters (e.g., model order, stabilization criteria) or any cross-validation that would allow the reader to judge whether the difference is methodological or due to tuning.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for the FRVF iteration and the precise definition of the 'relaxed' vector-fitting cost function should be expanded with at least one equation block to allow reproducibility.
  2. [Figures / tables] Figure captions for the numerical and experimental mode tables should explicitly state the noise levels used and the exact consistency metric (e.g., frequency tolerance) applied to count 'repeated occurrence'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and will make revisions to improve the quantitative support for our claims and the transparency of our comparisons.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / numerical validation] Abstract and § on numerical validation: the claim of outperformance under noisy conditions is stated without any reported quantitative metrics (e.g., pole error norms, MAC values, or tables comparing identified vs. analytical frequencies/damping across noise levels), making the superiority assertion impossible to assess from the given material.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit quantitative metrics weakens the outperformance claim. The manuscript currently presents results primarily through figures without tabulated error norms, MAC values, or direct comparisons of identified versus analytical parameters at each noise level. We will add a dedicated table (and associated discussion) reporting frequency and damping errors, pole error norms, and MAC values for NExT-FRVF, NExT-ERA, and SSI across the tested noise levels to enable objective assessment. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental validation / ISS data] § on experimental ISS validation: mode quality is assessed solely by repeated occurrence across data segments and physical plausibility after signal processing; because no independent ground-truth modal parameters exist for the real structure, this criterion does not quantitatively demonstrate either superior accuracy or robustness relative to NExT-ERA (which the text states produces comparable results).

    Authors: We acknowledge that, without independent ground-truth parameters for the ISS, quantitative accuracy or robustness claims relative to NExT-ERA cannot be made. The validation follows common practice for real operational data by using cross-segment consistency and physical plausibility. We will revise the relevant section and abstract to explicitly note this limitation, remove any implication of superiority on the experimental data, and state that NExT-FRVF and NExT-ERA yield comparable identifications while SSI identifies fewer modes. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Benchmark comparisons] Comparison with SSI: the statement that SSI 'fails to identify most' modes is presented without details on the specific implementation parameters (e.g., model order, stabilization criteria) or any cross-validation that would allow the reader to judge whether the difference is methodological or due to tuning.

    Authors: We agree that the lack of implementation details for SSI prevents readers from evaluating whether the observed difference is due to the method itself or to parameter choices. We will add a subsection describing the SSI implementation, including the model-order range, stabilization criteria, and any cross-validation steps used, so that the comparison can be reproduced and assessed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation or validation chain

full rationale

The paper combines the established NExT technique with the FRVF algorithm for operational modal analysis and validates it first against analytical solutions on a numerical beam model, then via repeated mode occurrence and physical consistency on real ISS acceleration data. No equations, fitting procedures, or self-citation chains are presented in the abstract or description that reduce any claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The numerical validation uses independent analytical poles as reference, while the experimental assessment relies on external physical expectations rather than tautological re-derivation. This constitutes a standard application and benchmarking workflow with no detectable self-definitional, fitted-input, or uniqueness-imported circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5759 in / 1061 out tokens · 25473 ms · 2026-06-29T20:13:17.697530+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chakraborty, H

    R. Chakraborty, H. Jain, G.-S. Seo, A review of active probing-based system identification techniques with applications in power systems, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 140 (September 2021) (2022) 108008.doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2022.108008. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142061522000539

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2022.108008 2021

  2. [2]

    A. J. Elliott, A. Nakhaeezadeh Gutierrez, L. Felicetti, L. Zanotti Fragonara, In-orbit system identification of a flexible satellite with variable mass using dual Unscented Kalman filters, Acta Astronautica 226 (P2) (2025) 71–86.doi:10.1016/j. actaastro.2024.11.014. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S009457652400660X

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2025

  3. [3]

    Sabatini, P

    M. Sabatini, P. Gasbarri, G. B. Palmerini, R. Monti, Operational modal analysis via image based technique of very flexible space structures, Acta Astronautica 89 (2013) 139–148.doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.04.005. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576513001173

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.04.005 2013

  4. [4]

    H. Djojodihardjo, Structural integrity of spacecraft structures subject to motion, thermo-structural dynamics and environmen- tal effects - An overview, Acta Astronautica 222 (December 2023) (2024) 219–243.doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2024. 05.034. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576524002881

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2024 2023

  5. [5]

    M. Yang, W. Hu, Z. Han, H. Hou, Z. Deng, Dynamic modeling and global modal analysis of symmetric/asymmetric flexible spatial structures, Acta Astronautica 245 (2026) 529–553.doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2026.03.001. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576526001554

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2026.03.001 2026

  6. [6]

    Iannelli, F

    P. Iannelli, F. Angeletti, P. Gasbarri, M. Panella, A. Rosato, Deep learning-based Structural Health Monitoring for damage detection on a large space antenna, Acta Astronautica 193 (July 2021) (2022) 635–643.doi:10.1016/j.actaastro. 2021.08.003. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576521004082

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro 2021

  7. [7]

    Avitabile, Modal Testing: A Practitioner’s Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2017.doi:10.1002/ 9781119222989

    P. Avitabile, Modal Testing: A Practitioner’s Guide, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 2017.doi:10.1002/ 9781119222989. URLhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781119222989

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119222989 2017

  8. [8]

    Magalhães, Á

    F. Magalhães, Á. Cunha, Explaining operational modal analysis with data from an arch bridge, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 25 (5) (2011) 1431–1450.doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.08.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.08.001 2011

  9. [9]

    Dessena, M

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

    work page doi:10.1155/2023/1891062 2023

  10. [10]

    Sibille, M

    L. Sibille, M. Civera, L. Zanotti Fragonara, R. Ceravolo, Automated Operational Modal Analysis of a Helicopter Blade with a Density-Based Cluster Algorithm, AIAA Journal 61 (3) (2023) 1411–1427.doi:10.2514/1.J062084. URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.J062084

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j062084 2023

  11. [11]

    E. Reynders, System Identification Methods for (Operational) Modal Analysis: Review and Comparison, Archives of Com- putational Methods in Engineering 19 (1) (2012) 51–124.doi:10.1007/s11831-012-9069-x. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11831-012-9069-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11831-012-9069-x 2012

  12. [12]

    G. H. James III, T. G. Carne, J. P. Lauffer, The Natural Excitation Technique (NExT) for Modal Parameter Extraction From Operating Wind Turbines, Tech. rep., Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM (1993). URLhttp://energy.sandia.gov/download/23492/

    1993

  13. [13]

    Lefteriu, A

    S. Lefteriu, A. C. Antoulas, A new approach to modeling multiport systems from frequency-domain data, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 29 (1) (2010) 14–27.doi:10.1109/TCAD.2009.2034500. URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5356286/

    work page doi:10.1109/tcad.2009.2034500 2010

  14. [14]

    Dessena, M

    G. Dessena, M. Civera, A. Yousefi, C. Surace, NExT-LF: A Novel Operational Modal Analysis Method via Tangential Interpolation, International Journal of Mechanical System Dynamics 5 (3) (2025) 401–414.doi:10.1002/msd2.70016. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msd2.70016 25

    work page doi:10.1002/msd2.70016 2025

  15. [15]

    Dessena, M

    G. Dessena, M. Civera, O. E. Bonilla-Manrique, Operational Modal Analysis of Aeronautical Structures via Tangential Interpolation, Aerospace 13 (4) (2026) 378.doi:10.3390/aerospace13040378. URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/13/4/378

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace13040378 2026

  16. [16]

    P. J. Schimid, Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 656 (2010) 5–28.doi:10.1017/S0022112010001217. URLhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/abs/ dynamic-mode-decomposition-of-numerical-and-experimental-data/AA4C763B525515AD4521A6CC5E10DBD4

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112010001217 2010

  17. [17]

    Saito, T

    A. Saito, T. Kuno, Data-driven experimental modal analysis by Dynamic Mode Decomposition, Journal of Sound and Vibra- tion 481 (2020) 115434.doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115434. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022460X20302662

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115434 2020

  18. [18]

    C. Wu, Z. Yang, S. He, Efficient modal parameter identification using DMD-DBSCAN and rank stabilization diagrams, Aerospace Science and Technology 161 (March) (2025) 110112.doi:10.1016/j.ast.2025.110112. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S127096382500183X

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2025.110112 2025

  19. [19]

    C. Wu, S. He, B. Yuan, Z. Yang, An improved NExT-DMD for efficient automated operational modal analysis, Applied Mathematical Modelling 156 (February) (2026) 116823.doi:10.1016/j.apm.2026.116823. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2026.116823

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apm.2026.116823 2026

  20. [20]

    C. R. Farrar, N. Dervilis, K. Worden, The Past, Present and Future of Structural Health Monitoring: An Overview of Three Ages, Strain 61 (1) (feb 2025).doi:10.1111/str.12495. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/str.12495

    work page doi:10.1111/str.12495 2025

  21. [21]

    R. S. Pappa, Independent Analysis of the Space Station Node Modal Test Data, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 22 (1) (1999) 22–27.doi:10.2514/2.4366. URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/2.4366

    work page doi:10.2514/2.4366 1999

  22. [22]

    R. S. Pappa, G. H. James, D. C. Zimmerman, Autonomous Modal Identification of the Space Shuttle Tail Rudder, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 35 (2) (1998) 163–169.doi:10.2514/2.3324. URLhttps://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/2.3324

    work page doi:10.2514/2.3324 1998

  23. [23]

    Civera, G

    M. Civera, G. Calamai, L. Zanotti Fragonara, System identification via Fast Relaxed Vector Fitting for the Structural Health Monitoring of masonry bridges, Structures 30 (January) (2021) 277–293.doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.073. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352012420307979

    work page doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.073 2021

  24. [24]

    Hong-ping, H

    Z. Hong-ping, H. Bo, C. Xiao-qiang, Detection of structural damage through changes in frequency, Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 10 (6) (2005) 1069–1073.doi:10.1007/BF02832469. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02832469

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02832469 2005

  25. [25]

    Porcu, D

    M. Porcu, D. Patteri, S. Melis, F. Aymerich, Effectiveness of the FRF curvature technique for structural health monitoring, Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 173–187.doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.123. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0950061819317957

    work page doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.123 2019

  26. [26]

    Balageas, Introduction to Structural Health Monitoring, in: D

    D. Balageas, Introduction to Structural Health Monitoring, in: D. Balageas, C. Fritzen, A. Güemes (Eds.), Structural Health Monitoring, Wiley, 2006, Ch. 1, pp. 665–674.doi:10.1002/9780470612071. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470612071

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470612071 2006

  27. [27]

    Gustavsen, Improving the pole relocating properties of vector fitting, in: 2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, V ol

    B. Gustavsen, Improving the pole relocating properties of vector fitting, in: 2006 IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, V ol. 21, IEEE, 2006, p. 1 pp.doi:10.1109/PES.2006.1708940. URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1708940/

    work page doi:10.1109/pes.2006.1708940 2006

  28. [28]

    Civera, G

    M. Civera, G. Calamai, L. Zanotti Fragonara, Experimental modal analysis of structural systems by using the fast relaxed vector fitting method, Structural Control and Health Monitoring 28 (4) (2021) 1–23.doi:10.1002/stc.2695. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/stc.2695

    work page doi:10.1002/stc.2695 2021

  29. [29]

    Civera, G

    M. Civera, G. Dessena, B. Chiaia, Fast and relaxed vector fitting: an application to a fighter jet aircraft, in: M. Döhler, A. Mélot, M. López Aenlle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Operational Modal Analysis Conference (IOMAC 2025), International Group of Operational Modal Analysis, Rennes, France, 2025, pp. 74–80. URLhttps://hal.science/ha...

    2025

  30. [30]

    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 Technology 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

  31. [31]

    D. M. Siringoringo, Y . Fujino, System identification of suspension bridge from ambient vibration response, Engineering Structures 30 (2) (2008) 462–477.doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.03.004. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0141029607001253

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.03.004 2008

  32. [32]

    Van Overschee, B

    P. Van Overschee, B. De Moor, Subspace Identification for Linear Systems, no. November 2014, Springer US, Boston, MA, 1996.doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0465-4. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4613-0465-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0465-4 2014

  33. [33]

    Moncayo, J

    H. Moncayo, J. Marulanda, P. Thomson, Identification and Monitoring of Modal Parameters in Aircraft Structures Using the Natural Excitation Technique (NExT) Combined with the Eigensystem Realization Algorithm (ERA), Journal of Aerospace Engineering 23 (2) (2010) 99–104.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000011. URLhttps://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%...

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)as.1943-5525.0000011 2010

  34. [34]

    Laible, K

    M. Laible, K. Fitzpatrick, M. Grygier, International Space Station 2A Array Modal Analysis, in: Topics in Nonlinear Dy- namics, V olume 1, V ol. 1, River Publishers, New York, 2025, pp. 1–14.doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6570-6_1. URLhttps://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9788743802426/chapters/10.1007/978-1-4614-6570-6_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6570-6_1 2025

  35. [35]

    Fitzpatrick, M

    K. Fitzpatrick, M. Grygier, M. Laible, S. Sugavanam, International Space Station Modal Correlation Analysis, in: Con- ference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series, V ol. 5, 2013, pp. 221–242.doi:10.1007/ 978-1-4614-6564-5_22. URLhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-6564-5_22

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6564-5_22 2013

  36. [36]

    N. Sáez, J. Gavaldà, X. Ruiz, V . Shevtsova, Detecting accelerometric nonlinearities in the international space station, Acta Astronautica 103 (2014) 16–25.doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.06.025. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0094576514002240

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.06.025 2014

  37. [37]

    Sanathanan, J

    C. Sanathanan, J. Koerner, Transfer function synthesis as a ratio of two complex polynomials, IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control 8 (1) (1963) 56–58.doi:10.1109/TAC.1963.1105517. URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1105517/

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.1963.1105517 1963

  38. [38]

    Gustavsen, A

    B. Gustavsen, A. Semlyen, Rational approximation of frequency domain responses by vector fitting, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery 14 (3) (1999) 1052–1061.doi:10.1109/61.772353. URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/772353/

    work page doi:10.1109/61.772353 1999

  39. [39]

    Figueiredo, G

    E. Figueiredo, G. Park, J. Figueiras, C. Farrar, K. Worden, Structural health monitoring algorithm comparisons using standard data sets, Tech. rep., Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States) (mar 2009).doi:10.2172/ 961604. URLhttps://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/961604/

    2009

  40. [40]

    Farrar, Phillip J

    Charles R. Farrar, Phillip J. Cornwell, Scott W. Doebling, Michael B. Prime, Structural Health Monitoring Studies of the Alamosa Canyon and I-40 Bridges, Tech. rep., Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (jul 2000). doi:10.2172/766805. URLhttp://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/766805-jldfA2/webviewable/

    work page doi:10.2172/766805 2000

  41. [41]

    Verboven, E

    P. Verboven, E. Parloo, P. Guillaume, M. Van Overmeire, Autonomous structural health monitoring - Part I: Modal parameter estimation and tracking, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 16 (4) (2002) 637–657.doi:10.1006/mssp.2002. 1492. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888327002914925

    work page doi:10.1006/mssp.2002 2002

  42. [42]

    M. H. Richardson, D. L. Formenti, Global curve fitting of frequency response measurements using the rational fraction polynomial method., Proceedings of the 3rd International Modal Analysis Conference & Exhibit 1 (1985) 390–397. URLhttp://papers.vibetech.com/Paper05.pdf 27

    1985

  43. [43]

    Civera, B

    M. Civera, B. Chiaia, The fast relaxed vector fitting (FRVF) method and its applications for dynamic identification and structural health monitoring, Proceedings of XXVI AIMETA Conference 2024. AIMETA 2024. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering (2026) 440–446.doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17231-0_56. URLhttps://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-032-17231-0_56

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17231-0_56 2024

  44. [44]

    Deschrijver, M

    D. Deschrijver, M. Mrozowski, T. Dhaene, D. De Zutter, Macromodeling of multiport systems using a fast implementation of the vector fitting method, IEEE Microwave and Wireless Components Letters 18 (6) (2008) 383–385.doi:10.1109/LMWC. 2008.922585. URLhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4530747/

    work page doi:10.1109/lmwc 2008

  45. [45]

    Peeters, G

    B. Peeters, G. De Roeck, Reference-based stochastic subspace identification for output-only modal analysis, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 13 (6) (1999) 855–878.doi:10.1006/mssp.1999.1249. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0888327099912499

    work page doi:10.1006/mssp.1999.1249 1999

  46. [46]

    Scionti, J

    M. Scionti, J. Lanslots, Stabilisation diagrams: Pole identification using fuzzy clustering techniques, Advances in Engineering Software 36 (11-12) (2005) 768–779.doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.03.029. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0965997805001250

    work page doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.03.029 2005

  47. [47]

    Gustavsen, User’s Guide for vectfit3.m (Fast, Relaxed Vector Fitting) for Matlab, Tech

    B. Gustavsen, User’s Guide for vectfit3.m (Fast, Relaxed Vector Fitting) for Matlab, Tech. rep., SINTEF Energy Research, Trondheim, Norway (2008). URLhttps://www.sintef.no/en/software/vector-fitting/downloads/vfit3/#menu

    2008

  48. [48]

    McPherson, K

    K. McPherson, K. Hrovat, E. Kelly, J. Keller, A Researcher’s Guide to: Acceleration Environment, Tech. rep., National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2015). URLhttps://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/acceleration-environment-iss-mini-book_ detail-508c.pdf

    2015

  49. [49]

    URLhttps://gipoc.grc.nasa.gov/pims/pub/pad/

    NASA Glenn Research Center, Power and Attitude Determination (PAD) System (2024). URLhttps://gipoc.grc.nasa.gov/pims/pub/pad/

    2024

  50. [50]

    Pereira, E

    S. Pereira, E. Reynders, F. Magalhães, Á. Cunha, J. P. Gomes, The role of modal parameters uncertainty estimation in automated modal identification, modal tracking and data normalization, Engineering Structures 224 (2020) 111208.doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111208. URLhttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S026772612030612X

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111208 2020

  51. [51]

    Pereira, F

    S. Pereira, F. Magalhães, J. P. Gomes, Á. Cunha, Modal tracking under large environmental influence, Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring 12 (2022) 179–190.doi:10.1007/s13349-021-00536-2. URLhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13349-021-00536-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s13349-021-00536-2 2022

  52. [52]

    M. R. Laible, K. Fitzpatrick, J. Hodge, M. Grygier, International Space Station Model Correlation Analysis, in: Proceedings of the International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC), Society for Experimental Mechanics, Orlando, FL, USA, 2018. URLhttps://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20180002013/downloads/20180002013.pdf

    arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    McPherson, J

    K. McPherson, J. Kenol, R. DeLombard, K. Hrovat, N. Lugasy, International Space Station PIMS Acceleration Data File Description Document, Tech. rep., NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH (2002). URLhttps://web.archive.org/web/20140404000001/http://pims.grc.nasa.gov/reports/PIMS-ISS-101_ revBaseline.pdf 28

    arXiv 2002