Experimental Investigations and Critical Observations On The Use of Modal Parameters For Structural Damage Detection

Current Advances in Civil Engineering (CACE)
CACE Volume 2, Issue 1 Jan. 2014 PP. 6-15 www.cace.org @ American V-King Scientific Publishing
6
Experimental Investigations and Critical
Observations on the Use of Modal Parameters for
Structural Damage Detection
Sabyasachi Chandra
*1
, S. V. Barai
2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. B. C. Roy Engineering College, Durgapur, West Bengal, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
sabyasachi.c@rediffmail.com; skbarai@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in
Abstract- The global nature of the dynamic properties has
attracted much attention in the structural damage detection
from the changes in modal parameters of a structure. The
popularity behind the use of natural frequencies and mode
shapes as damage indicators is that they are easy to interpret
physically. However, both the frequency-based and mode
shape-based damage identification methods have their own set
of advantages and limitations. This paper examines natural
frequency as the diagnostic parameter in single and double
crack situations for a cantilever beam using experimental data.
It is shown that the sensitivity of natural frequency to the
severity of damage is dependent on the location of crack. It is
also shown that the changes in frequency follow a nonlinear
relation with the crack depth combinations for the double
crack situation. Finally, it incorporates some critical
observations on the vibration-based damage detection
techniques.
Keywords- Vibration-Based Damage Detection (VBDD);
Beam; Single/ Multiple Cracks; Modal Parameters
I. INTRODUCTION
Damage detection and integrity assessment of
engineering structures, such as buildings, bridges, nuclear,
mechanical and aerospace structures, is crucial for
preventing potential catastrophic failure and for the planning
and rehabilitation of these structures. Various
nondestructive damage detection techniques can be broadly
classified into local and global methods. Local methods,
collectively known as Non-Destructive Testing or
Evaluation (NDT or NDE), such as lamb wave, acoustic/
ultrasonic wave, magnetic/ thermal field techniques, etc are
either visual or localized experimental techniques which
inspect damages in the structure in a relatively small area.
These methods require that the vicinity of damage be known
a priori. In cases where the sensors/ actuators cannot be
embedded in the structure, the portion to be inspected has to
be readily accessible. Further, local methods are usually
time consuming and expensive. However, local methods are
very sensitive and able to find small defects in the structure.
On the other hand, global methods use changes in the
response characteristics of a structure as indicators of
damage. Global methods are essentially based on the
concept that presence of damage changes the local stiffness,
mass and damping distribution and has an influence on the
global behavior of the whole structure. However, global
methods are less sensitive and usually have a lower spatial
resolution compared to local methods.
Global damage detection techniques can be classified
into two categories: model-based and non-model-based or
response-based. Model-based methods employ a reliable
reference model, which is obtained, for example, by
updating an initial FE model of the structure by means of
baseline measurement data of the undamaged structure.
Based on the updated mathematical model damage detection
is performed on the basis of changes in the measured
dynamic behavior [51, 52, 12, 42]. On the other hand, non-
model-based or response-based methods aim to evaluate the
damaged state of a structure directly from the measured
response data without correlating to a reference model [36,
37, 32].
Among the global methods, vibration-based damage
detection (VBDD) techniques that utilize changes in the
dynamic properties, such as natural frequency, mode shape
and modal damping, have received major interest of the
research community [26, 47, 46, 4, 5, 22, 43] as they allow
damage detection at a relatively low cost. These methods,
based on low-frequency dynamics, operate by examining
the deviations between the dynamic properties of the
damaged structure and those of the undamaged structure to
detect damage and diagnose its location and extent.
Performance evaluation of various VBDD techniques and
the related reviews of the technical literature can be found in
[24, 44, 40, 1, 34, 33, 53, 49].
The use of natural frequency as a damage indicator was
the first to catch the attention of researchers [41, 14, 27]
because natural frequencies are easy to determine with a
high degree of accuracy. However, it has been observed that
frequency-based methods give a reasonable estimation of
damage for moderate to significant damage but problems
occur when the size of the damage is small. Due to spatial
nature of mode shapes they are generally suitable for
damage localization and many researchers have utilized
mode shape data for structural damage detection [9, 39, 15,
45, 38]. An interesting comparison between frequency-
based and mode shape-based damage detection methods can
be found in [31]. Mode shape-based approaches suffer
several shortcomings because, in practice, a large number of
measurement points (or degrees-of-freedom) on the test
structure are required to get mode shape data with sufficient
spatial resolution and accuracy. The spline fitting technique
which is generally adopted for obtaining the mode shapes
and their derivatives, often leads to false detection of
7
damage in case of limited number of measurement degrees-
of-freedom. Further, the fact that mode shapes are very
sensitive to measurement noise, seriously challenge the
efficiency of mode shapes in structural damage detection for
practical applications.
Other notable VBDD techniques include changes in
flexibility [7, 8, 48, 13, 23, 18]; changes in stiffness [17, 25];
combined flexibility and stiffness method [10]; damage
locating vector [16]; modal strain energy [28, 29, 30];
spectral strain energy [50]; modal filters [2, 3, 35].
VBDD techniques suffer a number of shortcomings as
pointed out by previous researchers. Most of them start with
various simplifying assumptions and are applicable to some
specific type of well-defined structures. Their performance
and accuracy is seriously affected by environmental factors
like temperature, humidity, soil-structure interaction and
measurement noise. For the VBDD techniques to get
widespread acceptance, particular emphasis should be given
to decoupling the method from the underlying physics based
model, the use of small number of sensors and easily
obtainable data.
Most of the VBDD techniques reported in technical
literature deal with single crack detection in some simple
one-dimensional structure. However, the problem becomes
more complicated in the presence of multiple cracks, as the
combinations of parameters characterizing the cracks are
more than the single crack case. A state-of-the-art research
review summarizing the previous studies on multi-crack
detection is provided in [11].
The present paper describes a laboratory based
experimental study to investigate how modal parameters,
particularly the natural frequency, of a simple cantilever
beam change with the number of cracks, the location of
crack and the depth of cracks. Though this kind of research
is studied in the past, due to importance of the topic on the
performance of VBDD techniques which critically depend
on the accuracy and reliability of measured modal data, this
paper takes a fresh look on the use of natural frequency as a
diagnostic parameter for structural integrity assessment. A
single open crack of varied crack depth located at two
different positions of the beam, as well as double cracks of
different crack depth combinations are considered. The
changes in natural frequencies for the first eight vibrational
modes of the beam are examined. The originality of the
paper lies in the fact that the conclusions are derived in a
clear way from the primary experimental data directly. It is
observed that the conclusions are generally consistent with
the results available in literature. Finally, the paper
concludes with few critical observations on the VBDD
techniques and their theoretical and practical limitations in
view of the presented experimental results.
II. STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS IN FREQUENCY DOMAIN
The governing equation of structural dynamics in the
time domain can be developed by applying Newtons 2
nd
law of motion for the analytical model of a structure (refer
to Fig. 1) undergoing small deformations, by equating the
internal resisting forces (inertia, damping and elasticity)
with the external excitation forces:
.. .
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) mu t c u t ku t f t + + = (1)
where m, c and k are the mass, damping and stiffness
matrices of the structures; f(t) is the external excitation and
..
( ) u t ,
.
( ) u t and u(t) are the acceleration, velocity and
displacement vectors.
k
m
c
u(t)
f(t)
Fig. 1 Single degree of freedom spring-mass-damper model
Mathematically Eq. (1) represents a system of 2
nd
order
linear differential equations whose solutions can be obtained,
in principle, by standard procedures for solving linear
differential equations with constant coefficients, assuming
mass, stiffness and damping matrices of the structure are
independent of time. However, the solution procedure
becomes very expensive if the order of the system matrices
is large. Various procedures applied to solve Eq. (1) can be
divided into two classes - the direct integration methods and
the mode superposition method. A more manageable form
for Eq. (1) can be obtained by transforming it into the
frequency domain.
.. .
( / ) ( / ) ( ) / u c m u k m u f t m + + = (2)
Using,
/ 2
n
c m e = (3)
2
/
n
k m e = (4)
Where,
n
e is the natural frequency (radian/sec) and is
the damping ratio.
Substituting Eqs. (3) and (4) into (2),
.. .
2 2
2 ( ) /
n n n
u u u f t k e e e + + = (5)
The Fourier transform may be taken for each side of Eq.
(5) to derive the steady-state transfer function for the
displacement response, which after many steps of
simplification is given in terms of mass, stiffness and
damping coefficients of the structure and as a function of
forcing frequency (), as
8
1
( )
2
H
m j c k
e
e e
=
+ +
(6)
=
2
1
n
2 2
(2 )
n n
k
j
e
e e ee +
(
(

(7)
where, j = 1
Referring to the black box model, Fig. 2, for a linear
system the frequency response function (FRF), H(), can be
defined as
X() = H().F()
H() =
( )
( )
X
F
e
e
(8)
where, X() = Output response spectra
F() = Input forcing spectra
H()
X() F()
Fig. 2 Black box model
In this case, it is called the compliance
(displacement/force) and is given by the ratio of
output/input spectra. The response of a structure can be
described by displacement, velocity or acceleration. The
corresponding FRF is termed as compliance, mobility and
accelerance, respectively. They are algebraically related to
each other:
Compliance:
( )
( )
( )
X m
H
F N
e
e
e
=
(
(

Mobility:
.
1
( )
( )
( )
X ms
M
F N
e
e
e
=
(
(

= j.H() (9)
Accelerance:
..
2
( )
( )
( )
X ms
A
F N
e
e
e
=
(
(

= (j)
2
.H() = -
2
.H() (10)
The modal parameters of all the modes within the
frequency range of interest constitute a complete dynamic
description of a structure. Hence, modal parameters
represent the inherent dynamic properties of a structure and
any changes in the mass, stiffness or damping properties,
such as in the case of damage, is reflected in the modal
parameters. Modal analysis is the process of determining the
modal parameters of a structure for all modes in the
frequency range of interest and may be carried out either
through analytical or experimental techniques. An important
property of vibration mode is that any forced or free
dynamic response of the structure can be reduced to a
discrete set of modes. However, modal analysis, which is a
linear analysis procedure, cannot be applied to predict a
catastrophic failure of a structure.
Modes of vibration of a structure can be classified into
two types: (a) normal modes characterized by the fact that
all parts of the structure are moving either in phase or 180
o
out of phase, with each other. Normal mode shapes can be
thought of as standing waves with fixed node lines, and (b)
complex modes which can have any phase relationship
between different parts of the structure. Complex mode
shapes can be considered as propagating waves with no
stationary node lines.
When a structure has very light or no damping it exhibits
normal modes. Also, when a structure exhibits proportional
damping, i.e. the damping is distributed in the same way as
the inertia and stiffness, normal modes are expected. A
structure with localized damping exhibits complex modes.
For a simple structure, such as a cantilever beam which
exhibits lightly coupled modes, the modal parameters can be
obtained from a set of frequency response functions (FRF)
measured between an excitation degree-of-freedom (DOF)
and a number of accelerometer positions.
III. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Experimental modal testing was carried out on a
cantilever steel beam, having length, L = 750 mm, depth, D
= 46 mm and thickness, t = 16 mm, in the laboratory. The
procedure consisted of first measuring the modal parameters
of the undamaged beam and then incrementally inducing
new damage states and measuring the modal properties
associated with each damage state. Damage was introduced
in the form of an open crack perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis on the top surface of the beam by a saw cut
using a blade with a thickness of 1 mm (approx). The
various damage cases, crack location, crack depth (d) and
crack depth combinations considered are given in Fig. 3 and
Table 1.
Crack
750 mm
x
Crack-1
Crack-2
750 mm
x1
x2
(a) Single crack case
(a) Double crack case
Fig. 3 Crack locations in the cantilever beam
TABLE I DAMAGE CASE, CRACK LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS
Damage
Case
Location of
crack (s)
(refer to Fig.
3)
Crack depth (s)
9
Case-1:
Single
crack
x = 375 mm.
(1) 5 mm (2) 10 mm (3) 15 mm (4) 20
mm
(5) 25 mm (6) 30 mm.
Case-2:
Single
crack
x = 100 mm.
(1) 5 mm (2) 10 mm (3) 15 mm (4) 20
mm
(5) 25 mm (6) 30 mm.
Case-3:
Double
crack
x1 = 100 mm
and x2 = 375
mm.
(1) 5 mm, 5 mm (2) 5 mm, 10 mm (3) 5
mm, 15 mm (4) 5 mm, 20 mm (5) 10 mm,
20 mm (6) 15 mm, 20 mm (7) 15 mm, 25
mm
(8) 20 mm, 25 mm (9) 25 mm, 25 mm
(10) 25 mm, 30 mm (11) 30 mm, 30 mm
To examine the effect of localized single/ multiple
cracks on the modal frequencies, experimental modal testing
was carried out using a 6 channel Pulse vibration analyzer.
Dynamic excitation was applied by an impact hammer
(Type 8206-002) at 15 uniformly placed excitation degrees-
of-freedom and five uniaxial accelerometers (Type 4507)
were mounted at uniformly distributed intervals on the beam
to measure the acceleration response, as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4 Cantilever beam with five uniaxial accelerometers
The impact hammer is available with rubber, plastic and
steel tips to excite a structure in different frequency zones.
After some preliminary experimentation, the impact
hammer with the plastic tip was found optimal for the
present investigation. For each excitation DOF, ten
measurements were recorded for spectral averaging. A
Transient time averaging window was applied to the input
excitation signal and an exponential window was used for
the acceleration response to minimize the effect of
measurement noise.
In the present study, a set of frequency response
functions (FRF) obtained in the vibration analyzer was
exported in the desired format to MEscopeVES visual
modal software, and subsequently the modal parameters
were extracted using curve fitting techniques. It should be
noted that modal frequency and damping can be found from
all FRFs of the structure except those for which the
excitation or response measurement is in a nodal position,
that is, where the displacement is zero. These two
parameters are called global parameters. However, to
accurately model the associated mode shape, frequency
response measurements must be made over a number of
degrees of freedom, to ensure a sufficiently detailed
coverage of the structure. For this reason, in the present
investigations 15 excitation degrees of freedom, uniformly
distributed along the cantilever beam, were taken. The
impact hammer was moved around and used to excite the
structure at every DOF corresponding to a DOF in the
model.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This study examines critically the suitability of the
modal frequency for structural integrity assessment.
Therefore, a sufficient number of vibration modes, i.e. the
first eight, of the beam were captured for the undamaged
state as well as for various single/ double damage states.
Table 2 shows the modal parameters associated with the
first eight vibration modes of the cantilever beam for three
different beam specimens in their undamaged state. Small
difference in the modal parameters can be observed, which
may be attributed to the differences in the support rigidity,
material heterogeneity etc, among the beam specimens.
TABLE II MODAL PARAMETERS OF THE BEAM SPECIMENS IN UNDAMAGED STATE
Mode
Modal parameters
Case-1 (Single crack) Case-2 (Single crack) Case-3 (Double cracks)
Freq. (Hz)
Damping
(%)
Freq.
(Hz)
Damping
(%)
Freq.
(Hz)
Damping
(%)
1 48.7 5.51 49 5.78 48.6 5.83
2 278 2.3 279 2.42 279 2.19
3 522 1.66 524 1.58 522 1.65
4 685 0.772 687 0.757 685 0.811
5 860 0.786 886 0.893 853 1.18
6 1100 0.68 1060 0.775 1050 0.78
7 1210 0.49 1220 0.504 1220 0.584
8 1260 0.542 1260 0.54 1260 0.585
Table 3 shows the modal parameters of the cantilever
(Case-1) with a single crack situated at the middle of the
beam for various crack depths. Table 4 shows the modal
parameters of the cantilever beam (Case-2) with a single
crack situated near the support for the various crack depths
considered. Similarly, Table 5 shows the modal parameters
of the cantilever (Case-3) for the various crack depth
combinations when double cracks were introduced
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the beam. The first
crack was situated near the support, i.e. at a distance 100
mm from the clamped end, and the second crack was
situated at the middle of the beam, i.e. at a distance 375 mm
from the clamped end.
10
TABLE III MODAL PARAMETERS OF THE CANTILEVER WITH A SINGLE CRACK AT THE MIDDLE
Mode
Case-1: Crack at the middle
Crack depth (mm)
5 10 15 20 25 30
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
1 47.9 5.37 47.4 5.93 47.2 4.19 46.8 5.1 46.6 5.15 46.5 5.07
2 269 2.38 265 2.4 259 2.42 248 2.23 232 2.16 213 2.42
3 521 1.97 520 2.27 517 2.42 512 2.28 506 1.66 504 1.28
4 681 0.707 677 0.729 670 0.758 660 0.815 646 0.916 632 1.12
5 853 0.681 852 0.68 850 0.686 847 0.695 843 0.707 838 0.71
6 1100 0.63 1100 0.635 1100 0.638 1100 0.655 1100 0.662 1100 0.656
7 1210 0.493 1210 0.514 1210 0.492 1210 0.493 1210 0.497 1210 0.496
8 1260 0.542 1260 0.531 1260 0.551 1260 0.552 1280 0.557 1260 0.596
TABLE IV MODAL PARAMETERS OF THE CANTILEVER WITH A SINGLE CRACK NEAR SUPPORT
Mode
Case-2: Crack near the support
Crack depth (mm)
5 10 15 20 25 30
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
1 48.9 5.84 48.6 5.83 47 8.35 45.4 12.7 34 12.6 31.4 12.1
2 278 2.38 277 2.33 276 2.38 274 2.76 270 2.54 267 2.27
3 524 1.63 523 1.57 522 1.64 512 1.77 515 2.28 506 1.41
4 684 0.764 678 0.795 668 0.798 653 0.847 634 0.971 609 1.08
5 885 0.888 885 0.885 885 0.859 885 0.813 885 0.876 884 0.898
6 1060 0.779 1060 0.718 1060 0.75 1050 0.749 1050 0.748 1040 0.76
7 1220 0.492 1220 0.515 1220 0.49 1220 0.492 1220 0.497 1210 0.496
8 1260 0.532 1260 0.534 1260 0.56 1260 0.553 1260 0.559 1260 0.596
TABLE V MODAL PARAMETERS OF THE CANTILEVER BEAM WITH DOUBLE CRACKS
M
o
d
e
Case-3: Cantilever beam with double cracks
Crack depths (mm): Crack-1, Crack-2
5, 5 5, 10 5, 15 5, 20 10, 20 15, 20 15, 25 20, 25 25, 25 25, 30 30, 30
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
F
r
e
q
.
(
H
z
)
D
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
%
)
1 48
4.8
5
47
.8
6.3
6
47
.2
7.3
2
47
7.3
2
46
.7
8.6
46
.1
12.
2
45
.2
13.
5
40
13.
7
34
19.
4
31
.8
13.
5
31
.2
10.
4
2
27
6
2.3
3
27
2
2.3
2
26
5
2.2
3
25
5
2.2
1
25
4
2.2
1
25
3
2.2
2
23
8
2.1
1
23
7
2.1
2
23
7
2.1
4
21
6
2.4
21
6
2.3
9
3
52
1
1.8
1
52
0
1.8
7
51
7
1.9
8
51
3
2.0
9
51
0
1.9
9
50
7
1.6
8
50
4
1.2
50
0
1.2
3
49
0
1.1
8
47
8
1.0
9
43
9
1.4
7
4
68
0
0.7
85
67
5
0.7
93
66
7
0.8
13
65
6
0.8
5
64
8
0.8
8
63
8
0.9
29
62
3
1.3
3
60
8
1.1
6
59
1
1.3
1
57
9
1.5
4
56
5
1.5
7
5
85
2
1.4
85
0
1.6
3
85
0
1.7
7
85
2
1.9
8
85
3
2.2
85
5
2.4
85
8
3.0
8
85
5
3.1
2
85
0
3.1
9
85
0
3.2
6
84
6
3.3
7
6
10
50
0.8
11
10
50
0.8
45
10
50
0.8
26
10
50
0.8
06
10
50
0.8
27
10
50
0.8
23
10
50
0.9
77
10
50
0.9
76
10
40
0.9
8
10
40
0.9
84
10
30
0.9
55
7
12
20
0.5
89
12
20
0.5
87
12
20
0.5
88
12
20
0.6
17
12
20
0.6
2
12
20
0.6
24
12
20
0.6
2
12
20
0.6
28
12
10
0.6
4
12
10
0.6
37
12
10
0.6
56
8
12
60
0.6
34
12
60
0.6
22
12
60
0.6
42
12
60
0.6
52
12
60
0.6
53
12
60
0.6
54
12
60
0.6
62
12
60
0.7
1
12
60
0.6
25
12
60
0.7
12
60
0.5
97
11
The percentage change in modal frequency with respect
to the undamaged modal frequency for each vibration mode
was calculated to examine the effect of crack location and
depth. Fig. 5 shows the changes in frequency for the 1
st
vibration mode of the beam with a single crack for different
crack depths: (a) when the crack was situated at the middle
(Case-1) and (b) when the crack was situated near the
support (Case-2). It is seen that for small crack depth (~15
mm) the modal frequency is almost insensitive to local
damage. However, with increasing depth, the reduction in
frequency is larger when the crack is located near the
support, i.e. Case-2, and a reduction of 35% is observed for
a crack depth 30 mm. On the other hand, for Case-1, i.e.
when the crack was located at the middle of the beam, the
reduction in frequency remained below 5% for all the crack
depths considered. Hence, the fundamental vibration mode
of the cantilever is affected only when the crack is located
near the support or in the maximum bending stress zone.
This establishes the fact that the sensitivity of natural
frequency to the severity of damage is dependent on the
location of crack.
Fig. 5 Changes in frequency of the 1
st
vibration mode for various crack
depths
Fig. 6 shows reduction in frequency for the 2
nd
vibration
mode of the beam for different crack locations and depths. It
is seen that for Case-2, i.e. when the crack was located near
the support, the modal frequency was almost insensitive to
crack depth and remained below 5%. For Case-1, i.e. when
the crack is situated at the middle, the changes in frequency
show a linear trend with the increasing crack depth and a
maximum reduction of 23% is observed for crack depth 30
mm. So, the 2
nd
bending mode was affected significantly
when the crack was situated at the middle a result just
contrary to the observation for fundamental mode of
vibration.
nd
depths
The 3
rd
vibration mode of the cantilever beam was even
less-sensitive to the various crack depths than the first two
modes, as shown in Fig. 7. It is also seen that the maximum
reduction of frequency was around 3.5% for both the crack
locations.
rd
depths
Fig. 8 shows the reduction in frequency for 4
th
vibration
mode for different crack locations and depths. Changes in
frequency show a similar trend with the crack depth for both
the crack locations for this particular mode. However, the
severity was higher when the crack was situated near the
support (Case-2). The 5
th
vibration mode was almost
insensitive to crack depth for both the crack locations
considered in this study, as shown in Fig. 9.
th
depths
th
depths
The high frequency propagating wave modes, i.e. 6
th
, 7
th
and 8
th
mode of the cantilever were found almost unaffected
by the presence of a single crack for all the crack depths
considered, as can be seen from Tables 3 and 4.
Fig. 10 shows the changes in frequency for the 1
st
vibration mode of the cantilever with double cracks of
different crack depth combinations. The first crack was
12
situated near the support, i.e. at a distance 100 mm from the
clamped end, and the second crack was situated at the
middle of the beam, i.e. at a distance 375 mm from the
clamped end. It is seen that the maximum changes in
frequency were about 35% which is close to the value
obtained for a single crack situated near the support (Case-2,
refer to Fig. 5). So, the fundamental vibration mode of the
beam is affected dominantly by the crack located near the
support or at the zone of maximum bending stress. However,
due to the presence of a double crack, a nonlinear trend can
be observed for the changes in frequency with the various
crack depth combinations.
Fig. 10 Changes in frequency for the 1
st
mode of the cantilever with double
cracks
A similar nonlinear pattern can be observed for the
changes in frequency of the 2
nd
bending mode due to the
presence of double cracks, as shown in Fig. 11. It can be
seen that the frequency of the 2
nd
vibration mode is
dominated by the crack situated at the middle of the beam.
A maximum reduction of frequency of about 23% was
found for the crack depth combinations 25 mm, 30 mm or
30 mm, 30 mm, which is close to the value for a single
crack with a crack depth 30 mm (Case-1, refer to Fig. 6).
Fig. 11 Changes in frequency for the 2
nd
mode of the cantilever with double
cracks
From Table 2, 3 & 4, it is observed that modal damping
for the first bending mode is almost insensitive to the crack
depth when a single crack is located at the middle of the
beam. However, when the crack is situated near the support
the damping value increases significantly with the
increasing crack depth only for the first mode than the other
vibration modes. Similarly, in double crack case the
damping values of first bending mode of the beam increases
significantly with the increasing crack depth combinations,
as shown in Table 5.
V. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
This study explored the suitability of natural frequencies
as the diagnostic parameter for structural integrity
assessment by experimental modal analysis of a cantilever
beam having single/ multiple cracks of different crack
depth/ crack depth combinations. The changes in resonance
frequency for the first eight vibrational modes were
examined. Based on the results obtained the following
conclusions can be summarized:
Global bending modes of the cantilever beam were
found to be largely insensitive to small damage. The
change in frequency for the first vibration mode was
less than 5% for a crack depth of 15 mm, i.e., up to a
crack depth to beam depth ratio of 0.33. Hence, natural
frequency is unsuitable as a diagnostic parameter for
small damage since it would be necessary for a natural
frequency to change by about 5% for damage to be
detected with confidence as pointed out in [41].
For the single crack case, the fundamental vibration
mode is affected more when the crack is located near
the support, i.e. in the maximum bending zone, than
when it is situated at the middle. The changes in modal
frequency for the first mode remained below 5% for
various crack depths when the crack was located at the
middle of the beam.
On the contrary, the second vibration mode was
affected more when the crack was located at the middle
of the beam. The changes in frequency for the 2
nd
mode
remained below 5% for various crack depths considered
when the crack was situated near the support. Hence, it
is concluded that the sensitivity of natural frequency to
the severity of damage is different for different
vibration modes for a given crack location and depth.
Therefore, blind prediction of the location of damage is
difficult to determine from the changes in natural
frequencies.
The evolution of natural frequencies shows a
monotonically decreasing nature with an increase in
crack depth. This observation indicates that for severity
estimation some information about the changes in
natural frequencies would be helpful.
In double crack case, the changes in the modal
frequencies showed a nonlinear trend with the various
crack depth combinations due to the mutual interaction
between the cracks. Hence, it may be concluded that
multiple crack detection from changes in modal
parameters of a structure is a challenging open problem.
The first five bending modes were affected by the
presence of a crack. The higher frequency propagating
wave modes were insensitive to the local damage.
It was found that the damping value of the first bending
mode of the beam increased considerably with the crack
depth when a single crack is situated near the support.
However, damping of the first mode was insensitive to
a crack situated at the middle of the beam. In double
crack case the damping for the first vibration mode
13
increased significantly with the crack depth
combinations. Though the estimated damping values
showed considerable uncertainties, they were largely
insensitive to the crack depth or crack depth
combination for other vibration modes of the beam.
As closing remarks on VBDD techniques the following
general observations are noted:
o Modal parameters, especially natural frequencies and
mode shapes, characterize the state of a structure and
have been extensively examined to evaluate the
integrity of structures. The damping value, which is a
measure of energy dissipation, is not accurately
modeled at present and estimated modal damping
shows considerable uncertainties.
o One main advantage of using natural frequency as the
diagnostic parameter for structural integrity assessment
is the global nature of the natural frequency. This
allows measurement points to be chosen to suit the test
situation.
o The shift in natural frequency can only provide
information about the existence and severity of damage.
The changes in frequencies generally cannot provide
spatial information about the damage. An exception
occurs at higher frequencies, where the modes are
associated with local responses. However, in practical
dynamic testing it is always difficult to excite these
local modes of a structure as it requires high quantity of
energy.
o Due to the local nature of mode shapes, VBDD
techniques that utilize mode shape data or their
derivative can provide information about the location of
damage. However, they are unable to provide a realistic
measure of damage severity. Further, to estimate the
mode shapes with sufficient spatial resolution, a
number of measurement points are required on the test
structure, which might be impractical in real-life test
conditions.
o Model-based VBDD techniques suffer from errors
associated with the formulation of a theoretical model
(such as FE model) of the structure, variations in
material properties, inadequate modeling of the
boundary conditions and un-modeled features like
neglected nonstructural components. As only the first
few lower modes of vibration can be identified with
confidence in real-life test conditions, the number of
measured modal parameters is generally less than the
number of model parameters and this leads to non-
unique solutions. Therefore, the dependence on the
prior analytical model should be minimized or if
possible eliminated for the development of successful
VBDD technique.
o The performance of VBDD techniques is seriously
challenged by environmental factors, such as
temperature, humidity, soil-structure interaction. It has
been observed that these factors are responsible for
changes in response features of interest of the same
order of magnitude (or more) as the damage itself, and
thus making it difficult to determine whether the
structure is damaged or not. In this direction, the
concept of modal filter has shown some promises.
Modal filters can successfully differentiate between
global changes, such as due to temperature and local
changes due to stiffness variation or damage [2, 35].
o Among the non-model-based VBDD techniques, the
flexibility-based approaches [7, 8, 48, 20, 18, 23] have
been shown to be capable of in situ damage localization
and quantification. However, the damage indicators
suggested are not always physically clear and sufficient
care has to be taken in the interpretation of results. A
flexibility-based damage indicator that has a theoretical
and physical base is the damage locating vector (DLV)
technique proposed in [16].
o As frequency measurements can be quickly acquired
and are less sensitive to measurement noise among the
modal parameters, the changes in frequency provide
inexpensive information for structural integrity
assessment.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Due to importance of the topic and its relevance with
VBDD techniques which critically depends on the measured
modal data, this study examined the suitability of modal
parameters, especially natural frequency, for structural
integrity assessment by experimental modal analysis of a
cantilever beam. A single open crack of varied crack depth
located at two different positions of the beam, as well as
double cracks of different crack depth combinations were
considered.
It was observed that the global bending modes of the
beam are insensitive to small cracks and only a moderate
crack depth (~20 mm) produces a noticeable change in
natural frequencies. It was shown that the sensitivity of
natural frequencies to the severity of damage was different
for different vibration modes for a given crack location and
depth.
In the double crack cases, the changes in natural
frequencies show a nonlinear pattern with the different
crack depth combinations. This might be due the mutual
interaction between the cracks. Hence, development of a
successful multiple damage identification technique needs
to address this issue adequately and is worthy of immediate
attention. Finally, the paper ends with some critical
observations on the VBDD techniques in general which can
help researchers and practitioners of this area to identify the
important issues.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author wishes to thank the Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India
for the financial assistance supporting this research.
REFERENCES
14
A. Alvandi and C. Cremona, Assessment of vibration-based
damage identification techniques, J. Sound Vib., vol.
292, no. 1-2, pp. 179-202, 2006.
A. Deraemaeker and A. Preumont, Vibration based damage
detection using large array sensors and spatial filters,
Mech. Syst. Sig. Process., vol. 20, pp. 1615-1630, 2006.
A. Deraemaeker, E. Reynders, G. D. Roeck and J. Kullaa,
Vibration-based structural health monitoring using
output-only measurements under changing environment,
Mech. Syst. Sig. Process., vol. 22, pp. 34-56, 2008.
A. E. Aktan, D. N. Farhey, A. J. Helmicki, D. L. Brown, V. J. Hunt,
K. L. Lee and A. Levi, Structural identification for
condition assessment: experimental arts, J. Struct. Eng,
vol. 123, no. 12, pp. 16741684, 1997.
A. E. Aktan, F. N. Catbas, A. Turer and Z. F. Zhang, Structural
identification: Analytical aspects, J. Struct. Eng., vol.
124, no. 7, pp. 817829, 1998.
A. E. Aktan, F. N. Catbas, K. A. Grimmelsman and C. J. Tsikos,
Issues in infrastructure health monitoring for
management, J. Eng. Mech., vol. 126, no. 7, pp. 711-
724, 2000.
A. K. Pandey and M. Biswas, Damage detection in structures
using changes in flexibility, J. Sound Vib., vol. 169, no.
1, pp. 3-17, 1994.
A. K. Pandey and M. Biswas, Experimental verification of the
flexibility difference method for locating damage in
structures, J. Sound Vib., vol. 184, no. 2, pp. 311-328,
1995.
A. K. Pandey, M. Biswas and M. N. Samman, Damage detection
from changes in curvature mode shapes, J. Sound Vib.,
vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 321-332, 1991.
A. M. Yan and J. C. Golinval, Structural damage localization by
combining flexibility and stiffness methods, Eng.
Struct., vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1752-1761, 2005.
A. S. Sekhar, Multiple cracks effects and identification, Mech.
Syst. Sig. Process., vol. 22, pp. 845-878, 2008.
A. Teughels and G. D. Roeck, Structural damage identification of
the highway bridge Z24 by FE model updating, J.
Sound Vib., vol. 278, no. 3, pp. 589-610, 2004.
B. H. Kim, N. Stubbs and T. Park, Flexural damage index
equations of a plate, J. Sound Vib., vol. 283, no. 1-2, pp.
341-368, 2005.
B. P. Nandwana and S. K. Maity, Detection of the location and
size of a crack in stepped cantilever beams based on
measurements of natural frequencies, J. Sound Vib., vol.
203, no. 3, pp. 435-446, 1997.
C. P. Ratcliffe, Damage detection using a modified Laplacian
operator on mode shape data, J. Sound Vib., vol. 204,
no. 3, pp. 505517, 1997.
D. Bernal, Load vectors for damage localization, J. Eng. Mech.,
vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 7-14, 2002.
D. C. Zimmerman and M. Kaouk, Structural damage detection
using minimum rank update theory, J. Vib. Acoustic,
vol. 116, pp. 222-230, 1994.
E. Reynders and G. D. Roeck, A local flexibility method for
vibration-based damage localization and quantification,
J. Sound Vib., vol. 329, no. 12, pp. 2367-2383, 2010.
F. N. Catbas and A. E. Aktan, Condition and damage assessment:
issues and some promising indices, J. Struct. Eng., vol.
128, no. 8, pp. 10261036, 2002.
F. N. Catbas, D. L. Brown and A.E. Aktan, Use of modal
flexibility for damage detection and condition
assessment: case studies and demonstrations on large
structures, J. Struct. Eng., vol. 132, no. 11, pp. 1699-
1712, 2006.
F. N. Catbas, S. K. Ciloglu, O. Hasancebi, K. Grimmelsman and A.
E. Aktan, Limitations in structural identifications of
large constructed structures, J. Struct. Eng., vol. 133, no.
8, pp. 1051-1066, 2007.
H. Sohn, C. R. Farrar, F. M. Hamez, D. D. Shunk, D. W.
Stinemates and B. R. Nadler, A review of structural
health monitoring literature: 1996-2001, Los Alamos
National Laboratory Report, LA-13976-MS, 2003.
J. Li, B. Wu, Q. C. Zeng and C. W. Lim, A generalized flexibility
matrix based approach for structural damage detection,
J. Sound Vib., vol. 329, no. 22, pp. 4583-4587, 2010.
J. M. Ndambi, J. Vantomme and K. Harri, Damage assessment in
reinforced concrete beams using eigenfrequencies and
mode shape derivatives, Eng. Struct., vol. 24, no. 4, pp.
501-515, 2002.
J. Maeck, M. A. Wahab, B. Peeters, G. D. Roeck, J. D. Visscher,
W. P. D. Wilde, J. M. Ndambi and J. Vantomme,
Damage identification in reinforced concrete structures
by dynamic stiffness determination, Eng. Struct., vol.
22, no. 10, pp. 1339-1349, 2000.
J. R. Casas and A. C. Aparicio, Structural damage identification
from dynamic-test data, J. Struct. Eng., vol. 120, no. 8,
pp. 1026-1036, 1994.
J. T. Kim and N. Stubbs, Crack detection in beam-type structures
using frequency data, J. Sound Vib., vol. 259, no. 1, pp.
145-160, 2003.
J. T. Kim and N. Stubbs, Improved damage identification method
based on modal information, J. Sound Vib., vol. 252, no.
2, pp. 223-238, 2002.
J. T. Kim and N. Stubbs, Model uncertainty impact and damage
detection accuracy in plate girder, J. Struct. Eng., vol.
121, no. 10, pp. 1409-1417, 1995.
J. T. Kim and N. Stubbs, Nondestructive crack detection
algorithm for full-scale bridges, J. Struct. Eng., vol. 129,
no. 10, pp. 1358-1366, 2003.
J. T. Kim, Y. R. Ryu, H. M. Cho and N. Stubbs, Damage
identification in beam-type structure: frequency-based
method vs. mode-shape based method, Eng. Struct., vol.
25, no. 1, pp. 57-67, 2003.
J. Wang and P. Qiao, Improved damage detection for beam-type
structures using a uniform load surface, Structural
Health Monitoring, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 99-110, 2007.
J. Zhao and J. T. DeWolf, Modeling and damage detection for
cracked I-shaped steel beams, Structural Engineering
and Mechanics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 131-146, 2007.
K. H. Hsieh, M. W. Halling and P. J. Barr, Overview of
vibrational structural health monitoring with
representative case studies, J. Bridge Eng., vol. 11, no.
6, pp. 707-715, 2006.
K. Mendrok and T. Uhl, The application of modal filters for
damage detection, Smart Struct. Syst., vol. 6, no. 2, pp.
115-133, 2010.
L. J. Hadjileontiadis and E. Douka, Crack detection in plates
using fractal dimension, Eng. Struct., vol. 29, pp. 1612-
1625, 2007.
L. J. Hadjileontiadis, E. Douka and A. Trochidis, Fractal
dimension analysis for crack identification in beam
structures, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process., vol. 19, pp. 659-
674, 2005.
M. K. Yoon, D. Heider, J. W. Gillespie, C. P. Ratcliffe and R. M.
Crane, Local damage detection using two-dimensional
15
gapped smoothing method, J. Sound Vib., vol. 279, no.
1-2, 119-139, 2005.
N. Stubbs and J. T. Kim, Damage localization in structures
without baseline modal parameters, AIAA J., vol. 34, no.
8, pp. 16441649, 1996.
O. Huth, G. Feltrin, J. Maeck, N. Kilic and M. Motavalli, Damage
identification using modal data: experiences on a
prestressed concrete bridge, J. Struct. Eng., vol. 131, no.
12, pp. 1898-1910, 2005.
O. S. Salawu, Detection of structural damage through changes in
frequency: a review, Eng. Struct., vol. 19, no. 9, pp.
718-723, 1997.
O. W. Yang and J. K. Liu, Structural damage identification based
on residual force vector, J. Sound Vib., vol. 305, no. 1-2,
pp. 298-307, 2007.
P. C. Chang, A. Flatau and S. C. Liu, Review paper: health
monitoring of civil infrastructure, Structural Health
Monitoring, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 0257-267, 2003.
P. E. Cardan and P. Fanning, Vibration based condition
monitoring: a review, Structural Health Monitoring, vol.
3, no. 4, pp. 0355-377, 2004.
P. J. Cornwell, S. W. Doebling and C. R. Farrar, Application of
the strain energy damage detection method to plate-like
structures, J. Sound Vib., vol. 224, no. 2, pp. 359-374,
1999.
S. W. Doebling, C. R. Farrar and M. B. Prime, A summary review
of vibration-based damage identification methods,
Shock and Vibration Digest, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 91-105,
1998.
S. W. Doebling, C. R. Farrar, M. B. Prime and D. W. Shevitz,
Damage identification and health monitoring of
structural and mechanical systems from changes in their
vibration characteristics: a literature review, Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA-13070-MS,
1996.
T. Toksoy and A. E. Aktan, Bridge condition assessment by
modal flexibility, Exp. Mech., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 271-
278, 1994.
W. Fan and P. Qiao, Vibration-based damage identification
methods: a review and comparative study, Structural
Health Monitoring, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 83-111, 2011.
W. L. Bayissa and N. Haritos, Structural damage identification in
plates using spectral strain energy analysis, J. Sound
Vib., vol. 307, no. 1-2, pp. 226-249, 2007
W. X. Ren and G. D. Roeck, Structural damage identification
using modal data. I: simulation verification, J. Struct.
Eng., vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 87-95, 2002.
W. X. Ren and G. D. Roeck, Structural damage identification
using modal data. II: test verification, J. Struct. Eng.,
vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 96-104, 2002.
Z. Zhou, L. D. Wegner and B. F. Sparling, Vibration-based
detection of small-scale damage on a bridge deck. J.
Struct. Eng., vol. 133, no. 9, pp. 1257-1267, 2007.
Sabyasachi Chandra was born at Raghunathpur, Purulia (W.B),
India on 8
th
April 1979. He completed
Ph.D in Structural Engineering from Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
721302, India in 2011. He obtained
M.Tech in Structural Engineering from
Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati
781039, India in 2003 and B.E in Civil
Engineering from Jalpaiguri Government
Engineering College (JGEC), Jalpaiguri
735102, W.B. India in 2001. His research
interests are: structural health monitoring, structural dynamics,
signal processing techniques and structural optimization.
Presently he is Assistant Professor in the Civil Engineering
Department, BCREC Durgapur 713206, W.B. India. Previously,
he held the position of Design Engineer, DCPL Kolkata, India
during April, 2003-January, 2005 and worked on the geometric
modeling, various analysis & strength design check of the
Kudankulam nuclear reactor building using ANSYS. He also held
the position of Assistant Engineer, I & WD, Govt. of W.B. during
Aug, 2007-June, 2008 and completed a major CD structure. He
was recipient of Senior Research Fellowship (2009-2011), CSIR
New Delhi; Institute Fellowship (2005-2007), IIT Kharagpur and
GATE (2001) Scholarship.
Sudhirkumar Barai obtained Ph.D (Eng.)
from Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,
India in 1995. He received the degrees of
B.E.(Civil) and M.E.(Civil) with
specialization in Structural Engineering
from the Faculty of Engineering, M S
University of Baroda, India in 1987 and
1989, respectively. His research interests
are: computational intelligence applications,
structural health monitoring and concrete technology.
He is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721 302, India. He was
Erskine Visiting Fellow at University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand during May-June 2008. He was also visiting scientist
at National University of Singapore during May-July 2003. He was
recipient of BOYSCAST fellowship and visited Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, USA during May-November, 2000. He was a post-
doctoral fellow at Department of Solid Mechanics, Materials and
Structures, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel during February,
1997-July, 1998.
Prof. Barai has published more than 130 papers in leading
journals and conferences and a book: Concrete Fracture Models
and Applications (Springer, 2011).

Experimental Investigations and Critical Observations On The Use of Modal Parameters For Structural Damage Detection

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Experimental Investigations and Critical Observations On The Use of Modal Parameters For Structural Damage Detection

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Current Advances in Civil Engineering (CACE)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai