Anda di halaman 1dari 14

Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Structural health monitoring for exible bridge structures


using correlation and sensitivity of modal data
B.H. Koh
a

a,*,1

, S.J. Dyke

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dongguk University, 3-26 Pil-dong, Chung-gu, Seoul 100-715, South Korea
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA
Received 5 August 2005; accepted 16 September 2006
Available online 28 November 2006

Abstract
This study investigates the use of correlation-based damage detection methods for long-span, cable-stayed bridges. The proposed
approach is based on the multiple damage location assurance criterion (MDLAC), which combines a correlation-based technique with
a forward-type estimation of damage-sensitive structural parameters. Observing the level of correlation between the variations in the
measured and analytically synthesized natural frequencies enables damage localization. The sensitivity matrix, developed from the nite
element model, further accommodates multiple damage detection. The locations of damage are determined by iteratively searching for
the combination of structural parameters that maximizes the correlation coecient through the application of genetic algorithms. It is
demonstrated that correlation-based modal analysis is successful for damage detection and localization using a numerical model of a fullscale cable-stayed bridge.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Structural health monitoring (SHM); Cable-stayed bridge; Multiple damage location assurance criterion (MDLAC); Sensitivity matrix;
Genetic algorithm (GA)

1. Introduction
Large civil structures such as long-span bridges must be
periodically inspected to ensure structural integrity [1]. The
conventional approach, typically visual inspection, tends to
be labor-intensive, tedious, expensive, inconsistent and
subjective. The last few decades have seen enormous
resources dedicated to the development of reliable structural health monitoring (SHM) techniques [2]. Among
the variety of damage detection methods, modal-based
techniques have been the most widely investigated due to
their global nature and simplicity. Modal-based methods
exploit the observable variation in modal parameters
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2260 8591; fax: +82 2 2263 9379.
E-mail addresses: bkoh@dongguk.edu (B.H. Koh), sdyke@seas.wustl.
edu (S.J. Dyke).
1
The work performed while a postdoctoral researcher at Washington
University in St. Louis.
0045-7949/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.09.005

before and after the presence of defects in the structure.


Unlike local methods such as visual inspection, ultrasonic,
and acoustic techniques, modal-based SHM approaches
can readily accommodate automated damage localization
and result in consistent damage assessment. The nature
of damage-sensitive modal properties, i.e., natural frequencies and mode shapes, can be used to further categorize the
damage detection algorithms methodologies.
Although complete information regarding the mode
shapes and natural frequencies of a structure facilitates reliable judgments regarding the location and extent of damage, obtaining complete modal data is far from a reality
due to restrictions regarding the characteristics of the excitation, as well as the presence of unreachable DOFs
(degrees-of-freedom), measurement noise, modeling errors
and environmental inuences. Thus, a challenge encountered by modal-based SHM techniques is how to reliably
extract a sucient amount of damage-sensitive parameters
given limited and incomplete modal data measured from a

118

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

real structure. Sohn et al. provides a comprehensive literature review regarding recent research eorts on vibrationbased damage detection method [2]. Palacz and Krawczuk
also present a comparative investigation toward various
damage detection methods employing natural frequencies,
mode shapes, and frequency response functions [3].
Correlation-based methods have been widely employed
for damage detection. One of the earliest attempts in using
the correlation of the natural frequencies as a damage metric was a study by Cawley and Adams [4]. Lew later proposed a coherence-based method that exploits parameter
changes in the transfer functions for determining the damage type and location [5]. Geometrically, the correlation
coecient represents the angle between two vectors, one
of which is the vector of measured frequencies and transfer
function coecients of a potentially damaged structure,
and the other is the parameter vector predicted for various
damage scenarios. The coecient value becomes unity if
the measured frequency change vector precisely matches
the paired hypothesis vector, indicating the hypothesis vector corresponds to the correct location of damage. The correlation coecient becomes zero if the two vectors do not
have a linear relationship. Koh and Ray used coherencebased methods to localize damage in a cantilevered beam
through enhanced sensitivity of the closed-loop natural frequencies in a smart structure framework [6]. Armon presents a rank-ordering of modal frequency changes as a
discrete signature for characterizing damage in a cantilevered beam [7]. The study shows that the rank-ordering
of frequency shifts is only a function of damage location
and is insensitive to the severity of damage. Messina
et al. proposed the DLAC (damage location assurance criterion) which is similar to the concept of a MAC (modal
assurance criterion) [8]. Later, they further developed the
MDLAC (multiple damage location assurance criterion)
that accommodates multiple damage locations. The advantage that the MDLAC oers over the DLAC is that the
sensitivity matrix is incorporated into the correlation equation [9]. By including the derivatives of the natural frequencies with respect to the damaged parameters, the
correlation problem evolves into an optimization problem.
However, the main disadvantage of using only natural frequencies for damage detection is that natural frequency
changes are not unique, i.e., there could exist a number
of damage combinations that generate exactly the same
natural frequency variations [10].
Mode shapes retain the spatial prole of exibility at
each measured DOF, which could be directly or indirectly
used for locating damage. However, in practice, identied
mode shape information tends to be less accurate than natural frequency identication [11]. Extracting high-delity
mode shape information requires a large number of sensors
combined with signicant post-measurement analysis. The
simplest way to compare mode shapes between the damaged and healthy structures is by calculating the MAC
value of the paired modes [12]. The MAC value (ranging
from 0 to 1) quanties the extent of linear correlation

between the two mode shape vectors. Therefore, having a


MAC value that is less than one for paired modes indicates
the existence of damage-induced disparity. MAC-based
damage detection techniques are discussed by Kim et al.
[13] who proposed several dierent versions of a MAC in
solving a damage localization problem. Ndambi et al.
showed that the MAC and Coordinate MAC value can
be used as an indication of damage through a study of a
reinforced concrete beam structure [14]. The study found
MAC values to be less sensitive to structural defects than
natural frequencies. Similar discussions regarding the low
sensitivity of MAC values to structural damage can be also
found in other studies [15]. Shi et al. proposed an extended
method of MDLAC, which exploits mode shape data
instead of natural frequencies. The study investigates a
multiple damage localization problem in planar truss structure using incomplete mode shape information [16].
Genetic algorithms (GA) has been one of the most successful search algorithms since its advent in 1970s [17].
Essentially, GA follows the theories of Darwin governing
the biological world to solve optimization problems.
Recently, GA has received increased attention in structural
health monitoring research [18,19]. The nature of damage
detection and optimization problems are closely related
in the sense that detecting damage is equivalent to nding
a set of design (damage) variables that best represent the
current state of damaged structure. Moslem and Nafaspour presented a two-stage damage detection process
[20]. The rst stage focuses on screening possible damage
locations using a modal residual vector. The next stage
determines the extent of damage through GA. This numerical study deals with an 8-bay planar truss structure given
measured natural frequency and mode shape data. Mares
and Surace also presented a GA-based damage detection
method using the modal force error [21] while Krawczuk
and Ostachowicz investigated a damage detection method
using only changes in the natural frequencies [22]. The latter study exploits the DLAC value as an objective function,
which varies from 0 to 1 depending on the level of correlation. Friswell et al. considered GA-based optimization
problem that minimizes the weighted sum of the squares
of the dierences in natural frequencies [23].
There is particular interest in advancing SHM methods
that are specically applicable to exible structures such as
long-span bridges [24]. In this paper, we investigate the feasibility of SHM techniques for long-span civil engineering
structures using a numerical model of the Bill Emerson
Memorial Bridge located in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
The bridge spans the Mississippi river connecting Missouri
and Illinois and was the subject of two phases of a benchmark problem on the control of cable-stayed bridges [25
27]. The bridge has been open to the public since its completion in December 2003. The seismic risk to the bridge
was a critical design consideration due to its proximity to
the New Madrid seismic zone. Previously, the Emerson
Bridge has been studied by several researchers. Gattulli
investigated the dynamic interactions between the cables,

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

deck, and towers of the bridge [28]. Caicedo successfully


implemented a damage detection technique based on a
least-squares solution of the characteristic equation [29].
Caicedo and Dyke also constructed a scaled laboratory test
specimen representing half of the bridge and successfully
implemented a least-squares damage identication method
[27]. That study shows that the elemental stiness matrix
can be systematically parameterized for estimating Youngs
modulus of each of the elements, given modal frequencies
and mode shapes.
This paper intends to illustrate the practical aspects of
damage detection methods that exploit the correlation of
natural frequencies and mode shapes. Several approaches
are discussed such as least-squares, frequency-error, and
sensitivity-based correlation method (MDLAC). Instead
of using inverse-type algorithms, this study demonstrates the performance of forward-type, sensitivity-based
MDLAC methods when applied to a model of a cablestayed bridge. To avoid performing an exhaustive search
of the parameter space, GA is adopted to rapidly and eciently identify multiple damage locations using only natural frequencies. Local damage is modeled as a reduction of
the Youngs modulus of particular combinations of elements in the structural model. Although damage is a nonlinear phenomenon, this approach is adopted because the
structural behavior before and after damage occurs, for relatively small disturbances, is linear. Stacked mode shape
correlation is also suggested as a viable tool for damage
localization.

2. Theory and approach


2.1. Single damage detection using natural frequencies
Determining the level of correlation between the measured and predicted (hypothesis) modal frequencies provides a simple statistical tool for locating damage. The
parameter vectors used for evaluating correlation coecients consist of the ratios of the rst n modal frequency
changes due to damage to the modal frequencies, i.e.,
Dx = (xh  xd)/xh. Here, xh and xd denote the natural
frequency vectors of the healthy and damaged structures,
respectively. Likewise the corresponding hypothesis vector,
predicted from an analytic model is denoted dx. Given a
pair of parameter vectors, one can estimate the level of correlation in several ways. The easiest way to estimate correlation is to calculate the angle between the two parameter
vectors. A damage localization method using the pair comparison tries to nd linear correlation of modal frequency
variation vectors, as in
Cj

DxT dxj
:
jDxjjdxj j

Here, the subscript j indicates the hypothesized location of


damage (j = 1,2, . . . , r). Another correlation-based metric

119

called the damage location assurance criterion (DLAC) is


expressed in the following form [8]:
 T

Dx  dxj 2
:
2
DLACj
DxT  Dxj  dxTj  dxj
Similar to Eq. (1), the DLAC compares two frequency
change vectors, one based on measurements obtained from
the test structure, the other from the jth hypothesis of an
analytical model of the structure [30]. Both Eqs. (1) and
(2) evaluate the level of correlation between the two parameter vectors. Another correlation-based technique called
the rank-ordering method also exploits the relationship between the modal frequency shift and the location of damage [7]. However, instead of applying the actual value of
modal frequency change, the rank of this ratio is used.
2.2. Multiple damage detection using natural frequencies
All the aforementioned methods employing natural frequencies are in general only capable of detecting a single
damage location. Because a unique pattern of modal frequency changes only holds for a single damage case, the
algorithm becomes impractical for structures that have
multiple defects, or an unknown number of defects. To
accommodate multiple damage locations, a sensitivity
matrix derived from the analytic model of the structure
can be incorporated into Eq. (1). The sensitivity matrix is
composed of the rst-order derivatives of the modal frequencies with respect to each damage variable. An example
of a damage variable could be the ratio of stiness reduction in each element. Typically, the sensitivity matrix is
derived either from nite-dierences or modal-based methods [31]. In this regard, Messina et al. introduced the
MDLAC (multiple damage localizing assurance criterion)
[9].
Because dx = Sdz,
 T

Dx  Sdzj 2

;
MDLACj
3
DxT  Dxj  Sdzj T  Sdzj 
where the sensitivity matrix S contains the rst-order derivatives of m natural frequencies (x) with respect to r damage
variables (z), as in
3
2
ox1 ox1
ox1

6 oz1
oz2
ozr 7
7
6
7
6 ox
6 2 ox2    ox2 7
7
6
oz
oz2
ozr 7:
4
S6
7
6 1
6 ..
.. 7
..
..
6 .
. 7
.
.
7
6
4 oxm oxm
oxm 5

oz1
oz2
ozr
The only dierence between the previously discussed correlation methods and the MDLAC is the presence of the sensitivity matrix. Although incorporating the sensitivity matrix
into the correlation expression enables the identication of

120

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

multiple damage locations, it also introduces challenges in


nding the appropriate combination of damage variables
dzi. The objective is to nd a damaged variable vector dzi that
makes the MDLAC equal to one. However, evaluating all
possible combinations of damage variables that maximizes
the MDLAC is prohibitive even for a simple problem. For
example, considering an identication model having 10 damage locations (elements) with ve possible levels of damage
severity produces 510 potential combinations of damage
variables. Thus, an ecient searching algorithm such as
GA is needed to determine the correct set of damage
variables.
2.3. Genetic algorithms
GA exploits the mechanisms of biological evolution to
perform optimization without information regarding the
derivative of the objective function. The search strategy
in GA is based on survival of the ttest; the global optimum can be sought by evolution in a series of generations.
The initial population or trial set of solutions (chromosomes) repeatedly evolve throughout generations until convergence to a desired solution occurs. The key actions in
GA are encoding, selection, crossover, and mutation. First,
a set of solutions or a chromosome (a string of DNA) is
encoded to a string of binary code, which is an ecient
way of representing design variables in the search space.
The selection process determines a pair of superior parents
(best solutions) and reproduces their child as a member of
the next generation. The members of the chromosomes that
give the best value of the objective function are chosen as
the ttest. A portion of the parents chromosome is also
combined and inherited into the next generation through
crossover. Typically, the range of the chromosome that will
be combined is randomly chosen. Although there are several dierent techniques available for the selection process,
elitism has good results in many problems. Elitism allows
the parents to survive through the generations as long as
they are the best among the population. This technique
eliminates the possibility of extinction of dominant chromosomes. Mutation is another key action in GA to reduce
inbreeding and prevent premature convergence to a local
minimum. Crossover and mutation are obvious advantages
GA have over conventional algorithms such as the conjugate gradient method. Thus, GA is particularly ecient
for highly complex optimization problems with many
nested local minima. Subsequently, GA is used herein for
searching for the damage variable vector that maximizes
the correlation coecient of natural frequency change
ratios.
2.4. Multiple damage detection using mode shapes
Most of the existing correlation-based methods use the
vector of damage-inuenced modal frequency changes. In
methods employing mode shape data in the damage detection problem, the use of MAC values between paired

modes, i.e., healthy and damaged, has been the approach


most widely studied. More specically, a set of structural
parameters or damage variables is determined to make
the MAC value for paired modes equal to one. Thus, the
number of available MAC values equals the number of
measured modes. Instead of individually evaluating the
MAC value for each mode shape, a single vector of stacked
mode shapes can be used for evaluating linear correlation.
Originally, the idea of using mode shape data as a parameter of MDLAC is proposed by Shi et al. [16]. Unlike natural frequencies, mode shapes retain spatial information
regarding exibility at each DOF. Thus, correlation
between stacked mode shapes can directly indicate damage
locations. Because we are only interested in identifying the
locations of damage, relative change in each mode shape
between healthy and damaged states can be used for calculating correlation coecients. The change of mode shapes
DU(m r) due to damage is transformed to a single vector,
vec[DU](mr 1) by stacking r columns (or modes) of the
matrix DU.
T

SMSCj

vecDU vecdUj 
:
jvecDUjjvecdUj j

Here, vec[DU] and vec[dU] represent stacked vectors for the


variation of the identied and predicted mode shapes,
respectively. The correlation coecient between vec[DU]
and vec[dU] is denoted herein as SMSC (stacked mode
shape correlation). The obvious benet of using stacked
mode shapes instead of natural frequencies is the capability
of detecting and localizing multiple damage locations
without incorporating the sensitivity information. Thus, a
searching algorithm is not required for identifying multiple
damage locations in SMSC method. However, the prole
of this correlation coecient does not reveal information
regarding the extent of damage.
3. Illustrative example: cantilevered beam
In this section we demonstrate the performance of the
damage detection algorithms using modal sensitivity and
correlation through a simple numerical example. A nite
element (FE) model of a cantilevered beam having 15
elements is the example structure as shown in Fig. 1.
The length, thickness and width are 2.74, 0.00635, and
0.0760 m, respectively. For comparative investigations,
three dierent damage detection algorithms, including iterative least-squares, frequency-error, and MDLAC methods
are individually tested. Each method exploits the natural
frequency data obtained from the same cantilevered beam
model. And, later in the section, another damage detection
algorithm that uses the correlation of stacked mode shape
is investigated for comparison. The penalty function for the
iterative least-squares and frequency-error methods is the
change in the natural frequencies due to the variation of
damage variables, while the objective function for the
MDLAC method is the coecient in Eq. (2). Both the fre-

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

121

12

Fig. 1. Cantilevered beam model having 15 elements. The length, thickness and width are 2.74, 0.00635, and 0.0760 m, respectively. Two damages are
located at element numbers 4 and 12.

quency-error and the MDLAC method use GA to nd an


optimal solution.
3.1. Iterative least-squares method
The sensitivity-based, least-squares or penalty function
method exploits a truncated Taylor series expansion of natural frequencies for iteratively updating the damage variables that minimize a penalty function [32]. The change
in natural frequency dx = xh  xd is expressed as a function of the dierence in the damage variable vector dz =
zh  zd. Here, the damage variable vector zh represents
the healthy state of the structural parameters, whose elements should each be one (or 100%). First, the sensitivity,
or Jacobian matrix S, is developed using the nite-dierence method. The dierences between the predicted and
the identied natural frequencies, dx, are computed and
pre-multiplied by the pseudo-inverse of the sensitivity
matrix S+ yielding the updated damage variable vector
z(new) as in
dz S dx;
znew zold dz:

6
7

These updated damage variables are again used to compute


the current state of the sensitivity matrix S
new and to obtain
the natural frequencies from the FE model. Likewise,
damage variables are iteratively updated by projecting
the dierence between the current and identied natural
frequencies. The strength of the iterative least-squares
method is its convergence speed. However, depending on
the available modes and parameter uncertainties, the sensitivity matrix can easily be ill-conditioned, and small errors
can be amplied by the use of the pseudo-inverse of the
sensitivity matrix. Moreover, the resulting solution may
end up with values for the damage variables that do not
have any physical meaning. Thus, extra constraints are
commonly imposed to regulate the stability of convergence
[33].
3.2. Frequency error method
The goal of GA in damage detection problem is to nd
an optimal set of damage parameters that accurately reproduces the identied modal frequencies from the damaged
structure. Typically, an FE model provides predicted
modal frequencies and the sum of the square of the natural
frequency dierences between the identied and predicted

values becomes an objective function to be minimized


[23] as in

2
m
X
xj  xaj
J
Wj
:
8
xj
j1
Here, Wj denotes a weight applied to the jth natural frequency, which is often considered as unity. xj and xaj are
the jth identied and predicted natural frequencies of a
structure, respectively. However, the eigenvalues of the
FE model need to be computed to evaluate the objective
function. This computation could be prohibitive if the
dimension of the FE model is relatively large.
3.3. Multiple damage location assurance criterion
(MDLAC)
The coecient of the MDLAC in Eq. (3) can be used as
an objective function. Since the value of the MDLAC
varies between 0 and 1, the set of damage variables that
produces the maximum objective function, i.e., 1, will
indicate the correct location of damage. Unlike the frequency-error method, the sensitivity matrix is already
incorporated into the objective function. Thus, evaluating
the eigenvalues of the FE model is not required during
the search process. The question arises as to how to obtain
an accurate sensitivity matrix for calculating a reliable
MDLAC. Because all elements in the variable vector in
Eq. (3) are expressed in a ratio, the MDLAC should have
the same value, regardless of the damage severity, as long
as the ratios of the damage variables are identical. However, the absolute severity of damage can be estimated
through the use of a scaling coecient, as described in reference [9].
3.4. Simulation results
In this study, the rst ve natural frequencies are used
for damage detection. Damage is induced at elements 4
and 12 of the cantilevered beam as shown in Fig. 1. Three
dierent damage detection methods are tested and the identied damage variables are expressed in ratios of Youngs
modulus (E) reduction as shown in Fig. 2. The vertical
solid bars indicate the true location and the extent of damage induced in the model, while the hollow bars show the
identied damage variables for each element. In each
graph, identied damage ratios are given (e.g. 0.3 indicates
a 30% reduction of E of the beam element). Although the

122

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

Fig. 2b and c, respectively. The population size for each


generation is set to p = 20, the crossover probability is
Pc = 0.1, and the mutation probability is Pm = 0.01. The
best solution of the current generation is replicated to the
next generation, adopting the elitism strategy. Although
the same GA parameters are used with both methods, the
MDLAC (Fig. 2c) has better results in terms of accuracy
and computing time.

0.4

Damage Ratio

0.3

0.2

0.1

3.5. Stacked mode shape correlation (SMSC)

0.1
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

10

11

12

13

14

15

10

11

12

13

14

15

Damage Ratio

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.4

Damage Ratio

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

Element Number
Fig. 2. Damage localization results: (a) iterative least squares, (b)
frequency-error, (c) MDLAC. Solid bar indicates location and amount
of damage induced. Hollow bar shows the value of identied damage
variable.

solution of least-squares method has converged in less than


20 iterations (Fig. 2a), signicant leakage is observed in
some of the undamaged elements. The other two methods
produced relatively reliable damage localization results.
The same GA parameters are used for both the frequency-error and the MDLAC methods as shown in

This section demonstrates the performance of correlation-based method, SMSC, as an eective tool for damage
localization which is introduced in the study of Shi et al.
[16]. Rather than using a vector of natural frequency ratios,
stacked mode shape vectors are used for computing the
correlation coecients. As mentioned previously, correlation-based methods that do not incorporate a sensitivity
matrix are not generally capable of localizing multiple
damage locations. This limitation is due to the fact that
natural frequencies are global properties of the structure,
and they do not directly provide information on the location of structural defects. However, mode shapes exhibit
spatial proles of exibility between each DOF in a structure. The dierence in the mode shapes between the healthy
and damaged structures reveals points of discontinuity or
damage. For numerical demonstration, the cantilevered
beam used previously is employed (Fig. 1). However, the
FE model here is rened such that a total of 50 beam elements are used rather than the original 15 elements to
increase the complexity of the problem and demonstrate
the ecacy of the technique.
Reducing Youngs modulus of elements 15 and 25 by
10% simulates the eects of damage in the beam. Fig. 3a
shows a stacked vector of mode shape dierences for the
rst six modes. Here, due to practical diculties involved
in accurately measuring rotational components, the mode
shapes include only translational DOFs of the beam model.
Thus, the stacked mode shape has a total of 300 data
points. The easiest way of locating damage using mode
shape dierences is by graphically nding discontinuities
caused by structural defects. However, noise-corrupted
mode shape data (2% standard deviation) as shown in
Fig. 3b make it dicult to visually distinguish damageinduced peaks from noise. Interestingly, even with noisecorrupted mode shape dierences, the correlation
coecient, i.e., Eq. (5), successfully detects multiple damage locations as shown in Fig. 3c. In the gure, the vertical
bar indicates the true locations of damage while the peaks
of SMSC curve indicate potential locations of damage.
Note that uncorrelated random values have been individually imposed on the mode shapes of both the healthy and
damaged state to simulate measurement noise. Fig. 4 also
illustrates similar localization result for a dierent scenario,
i.e., with elements 8 and 35 damaged. Because Eq. (5) represents the level of linear correlation between two sets of
discrete measurements, it provides a robust parameter for

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

123

x 10
5
0

Stacked Mode Shape

Mode 1

Mode 5

10
0
3
x 10

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

1
0.5
0
0.5
1
0
0.8
0.6

SMSC

0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Element Number
Fig. 3. Damage localization results from stacked mode shape correlation: (a) noise-free stacked mode shape dierence, (b) noise-polluted stacked mode
shape dierence, (c) correlation value of SMSC. Vertical bars indicate the correct locations of damage induced.

scattered and noisy data points. Moreover, mode shapes


have more data points than natural frequencies, making
them eective for uniquely locating damage as compared
to the previous frequency-based correlation methods. In
summary, one can detect multiple damage locations using
the correlation coecient of stacked mode shape dierences, although the extent of damage is not readily identied in this study.
4. Case study: cable-stayed bridge
4.1. Description of the long-span bridge
Fig. 5 provides a schematic drawing of the Bill Emerson
Memorial Bridge. Although the total length of the bridge is
1205.8 m, only the span between Bent 1 and Pier 4 (636 m)
is considered in this study because the dynamic eect of the
Illinois approach is known to be negligible. Previously, a
three-dimensional FE model of this bridge was developed
to address control issues of cable-stayed bridges under seismic excitation [25,26]. The FE model developed for that
study is used here. The model is composed of beam, cable,
lumped mass and rigid elements to fully represent the
bridges dynamic characteristics. The bridge model has a
total of 579 nodes, 420 rigid links, 162 beam elements
and 128 cable components. As shown in Fig. 6, cables that

connect two towers located at Pier 2 and 3 hold most of the


weight of the bridge. Each tower has 50 nodes, 43 beam elements and 74 rigid links. Boundary conditions at Bent 1
and Pier 4 only allow translation in X and rotation in Y
and Z directions. Additionally, Pier 2 and 3 only restrict
translational movement in Y direction.
It is well known that cable-stayed bridges exhibit a signicant amount of nonlinear behavior due to tensioning
and sag in the cables, beam-column interaction, and large
deformation resulting from the bridges self-weight. To
faithfully represent the realistic aspects of cable-stayed
bridges, FE analysis uses the post-deformed geometry of
the bridge based on the results of nonlinear static analysis.
Further details regarding the nonlinear static analysis of
this model can be found in references [25,26]. Representative mode shapes from this model are shown in Fig. 7.
4.2. Results and discussion
In total, 66 beam elements are used to model the deck of
the bridge. Reducing E (Youngs modulus) of an individual
beam element simulates a structural defect in the deck.
Considering the total number of DOFs, the frequencyerror function (Eq. (4)) is not appropriate damage detection metric for the bridge structure. Thus, the MDLAC
combined with GA is used here for locating damage.

124

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130


4

x 10
10

Stacked Mode Shape

5
0
5
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

250

300

x 10
3
2

Mode 1

Mode 5

1
0
1
0

50

100

150

200

SMSC

0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Element Number
Fig. 4. Damage localization results from stacked mode shape correlation: (a) noise-free stacked mode shape dierence, (b) noise-polluted stacked mode
shape dierence, (c) correlation value of SMSC. Vertical bars indicate the correct locations of damage induced.

Fig. 5. Schematic drawing of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge.

Y
X

Deck 15

Pier 4
Pier 3

Deck 52

Damage case A: (Deck 10, 20)


B: (Deck 15, 52)
Pier 2
Bent 1

Deck 20

Deck 10
Fig. 6. Finite element model of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge.

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

125

Fig. 7. Representative mode shapes of the Emerson Bridge.

Two damage cases, denoted A and B, are considered to


evaluate the technique for long-span bridges. Each case has
arbitrarily chosen dual damages. For damage case A, E of
beam elements 10 and 20 were reduced by 50%, as depicted
in Fig. 6. Likewise, case B considers the same extent of
damage at deck elements 15 and 52. Although a real bridge
exhibits a mixture of axial, bending and torsional motions,
only the bending modes are used herein for calculating the
MDLAC. Apparently, the bending modes are considered
to be the most sensitive to this type of damage and thus will
provide the best results.
Fig. 8 shows the damage localization results for case A
using the rst 28 modes (ranging from 0.29 to 3.90 Hz).
In previous studies researchers have readily obtained 23
modes from a similar bridge with a limited number of sensors. Using optimal sensor placement techniques combined
with appropriate modal analysis methods, 28 modes is not
beyond current capabilities [34]. Fig. 8a depicts the search
process to nd the best set of damage variables over 5000
generations. The hollow bars in Fig. 8b indicate the identied damage variable, i.e., ratio of E for the damaged structure to that of the healthy structure for the corresponding
element. On the other hand, the solid bars show the true

locations and corresponding extent of damage induced


in the model (0.5 means 50% reduction of E). The
MDLACGA method successfully locates the damage,
although their true magnitudes are not correctly captured.
Relatively small leakage is present in some of the locations
in which no damage occurs. This behavior is common in
most damage detection techniques. Figs. 813 also illustrate the convergence speed of the GA in terms of number
of generations. The search prole shows that convergence
occurs very fast at the beginning and slows down as the
objective function approaches steady-state value, which is
a typical characteristic of GA.
Fig. 9 shows the localization results for damage case B
demonstrating a level of accuracy similar to the results of
case A. Figs. 10 and 11 indicate the localization results of
cases A and B, respectively, using only the rst 20 natural
frequencies. Interestingly, reducing the number of available
modes from 28 to 20 specically deteriorates the results
when the damage is in a particular region. Damage case
A (Fig. 10) is more signicantly aected by number of
modes than damage case B (Fig. 11). Damage detection
results for case A using the data set of noise-corrupted
(2% standard deviation) natural frequencies are illustrated

126

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130


1

Objective Function

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0
10

10

10
Generations

10

10

Damage Ratio

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Element Number
Fig. 8. Damage localization results of MDLACGA using rst 28 modes: (a) performance of GA, (b) identied damage variables (hollow bar), damage
case A (solid line).

Objective Function

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0
10

10

10

10

10

Generations
1

Damage Ratio

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10

20

30
40
Element Number

50

60

Fig. 9. Damage localization results of MDLACGA using rst 28 modes: (a) performance of GA, (b) identied damage variables (hollow bar), damage
case B (solid line).

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

127

Objective Function

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8
0
10

10

10

10

10

Generations
1

Damage Ratio

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Element Number
Fig. 10. Damage localization results of MDLACGA using rst 20 modes: (a) performance of GA, (b) identied damage variables (hollow bar), damage
case A (solid line).

Objective Function

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0
10

10

10
Generations

10

10

Damage Ratio

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Element Number
Fig. 11. Damage localization results of MDLACGA using rst 20 modes: (a) performance of GA, (b) identied damage variables (hollow bar), damage
case B (solid line).

128

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130


0.6

Objective Function

0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0
10

10

10

10

10

Generations
1

Damage Ratio

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Element Number
Fig. 12. Damage localization results of MDLACGA using noise-corrupted rst 28 modes: (a) performance of GA, (b) identied damage variables
(hollow bar), damage case A (solid line).

Objective Function

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0
10

10

10

10

10

Generations
1

Damage Ratio

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Element Number
Fig. 13. Damage localization results of MDLACGA using the last 18 modes: (a) performance of GA, (b) identied damage variables (hollow bar),
damage case A (solid line).

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

in Fig. 12. Note that the objective function (MDLAC) in


the noise-corrupted case only reaches 0.55, while all other
noiseless cases exceed 0.9. Although the results wrongly
indicate false-positive outcomes in undamaged elements
34 and 53 as potential damage locations, no false negative
outcomes occurred.
It is notable that while damage in a cantilevered beam
model has been successfully localized using only ve natural frequencies (Fig. 2c), for the more complex bridge
model, we require up to 28 natural frequencies to achieve
similar results (Fig. 8b). To explain this conclusion, recall
that the number of parameters (potential damage locations) is quite dierent between the two models. The cantilevered beam has 15 variables while the cable-stayed bridge
model has 66 variables. Additionally, the cable-stayed
bridge exhibits a completely dierent pattern of natural frequencies than the cantilevered beam, i.e., the dominant low
frequencies are closely-spaced in a exible structure such as
a long-span bridge. Thus, locating the damage, which is
more sensitive to higher modes, is more challenging.
Fig. 13 illustrates a localization result that uses only the
upper 18 natural frequencies out of the rst 28, i.e., modes
1128 (ranging 1.263.90 Hz). Obviously, Fig. 13 (using 18
modes) shows less accurate damage detection than the
results shown in Fig. 8 which used 28 modes. It is concluded that the set including modes 1128 contains more
unique information regarding damage locations than the
set including modes 120. An important observation can
also be made from the results in Figs. 10 and 13. For the
same damage case the results are signicantly dierent
from the rst 20 modes (Fig. 10) and the last 18 modes
(Fig. 13), showing that the success of the MDLAC-based
method heavily depends on particular set of natural
frequencies rather than simply the number of modes
employed. Thus, for a given application it may be necessary to nd a suitable set of measurable modal frequencies
that is successful for a broad set of damage cases when the
suspected locations of damage are not known in advance.
Alternatively one might weight sets of modes that are more
successful for damage cases with a higher likelihood of
occurrence.
5. Conclusions
This paper discusses the capabilities and limitations of
several correlation-based damage detection algorithms,
and evaluates their performance through two numerical
examples. First, a cantilevered beam model is used for a
comparative study, i.e., iterative least squares, frequencyerror, and MDLAC methods. It is also shown that the correlation of stacked mode shape dierences serves as an
eective tool for locating damage in civil structures, particularly when multiple damage locations are present. Finally,
a cable-stayed bridge model is used for simulating localization of damage, given the MDLAC as the cost function for
the optimization. The damage variable set that best represents the modal properties of the damaged bridge structure

129

is obtained through genetic algorithms. Numerical simulation shows that the MDLACGA approach yields successful localization of multiple damage locations presented in a
cable-stayed bridge structure. Future studies will consider
experimental validation of this approach.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted with partial support from
the US National Science Foundation (Grant No. CMS
02-45402). The authors would like to acknowledge the support and advise of Prof. Juan M. Caicedo (University of
South Carolina) in providing and using the model of the
Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge.
References
[1] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, vol. 1, April 1, 2002.
[2] Sohn H, Farrar CR, Hemez FM, Shunk DD, Stinemates DW, Nadler
BR. A review of structural health monitoring literature: 19962001.
Technical reports LA-13976-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
2003.
[3] Palacz M, Krawczuk M. Vibration parameters for damage detection
in structures. J Sound Vib 2002;249(5):9991010.
[4] Cawley P, Adams RD. The localization of defects in structures from
measurements of natural frequencies. J Strain Anal 1979;14:4957.
[5] Lew J-S. Using transfer function parameter changes for damage
detection of structures. AIAA J 1995;33(11):218993.
[6] Koh BH, Ray LR. Feedback controller design for sensitivity-based
damage localization. J Sound Vib 2004;273(12):31735.
[7] Armon D, Ben-Haim Y, Braun S. Crack detection in beams by rankordering of eigenfrequency shifts. Mech Systems Signal Process
1994;8(1):8191.
[8] Messina A, Jones IA, Williams EJ. Damage detection and localisation
using natural frequency changes. In: Proc. conf. identication in
engineering systems, Swansea, UK, 1996. p. 6776.
[9] Messina A, Williams EJ, Contursi T. Structural damage detection by
a sensitivity and statistical-based method. J Sound Vib
1998;216(5):791808.
[10] Abdo MA-B, Hori M. A numerical study of structural damage
detection using changes in the rotation of mode shapes. J Sound Vib
2002;251(2):22739.
[11] Friswell MI, Penny JET. The practical limits of damage detection and
location using vibration data. 11th VPI & SU symposium on
structural dynamics and control. Virginia: Blacksburg; 1997. May.
[12] Salawu OS, Williams C. Damage location using vibration mode
shapes. In: Proc. 12th int. modal analysis conf. Honolulu, Hawaii,
February, 1994. p. 9339.
[13] Kim J-H, Jeon H-S, Lee C-W. Application of the modal assurance
criteria for detecting and locating structural faults. In: Proc.10th int.
modal analysis conf. San Diego, CA, February, 1992. p. 53640.
[14] Ndambi J-M, Vantomme J, Harri K. Damage assessment in
reinforced concrete beams using eigenfrequencies and mode shape
derivatives. Eng Struct 2002;24:50115.
[15] Fox CHJ. The location of defects in structures: a comparison of the
use of natural frequency and mode shape data. In: Proc.10th int.
modal analysis conf. San Diego, CA, February, 1992. p. 5228.
[16] Shi ZY, Law SS, Zhang LM. Damage localization by directly using
incomplete mode shapes. J Eng MechASCE 2000;126(6):65660.
[17] Holland JH. Adaptation in natural and articial systems. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 1975.
[18] Rao MA, Srinivas J, Murthy BSN. Damage detection in vibrating
bodies using genetic algorithms. Comput Struct 2004;82(1112):
9638.

130

B.H. Koh, S.J. Dyke / Computers and Structures 85 (2007) 117130

[19] Pawar PM, Ganguli R. Genetic fuzzy system for damage detection in
beams and helicopter rotor blades. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
2003;192(1618):203157.
[20] Moslem K, Nafaspour R. Structural damage detection by genetic
algorithm. AIAA J 2002;40(7):1395401.
[21] Mares C, Surace C. An application of genetic algorithms to identify
damage in elastic structures. J Sound Vib 1996;195(2):195215.
[22] Ostachowicz W, Krawczuk M. Identication of delamination in
composite beams by genetic algorithm. Sci Eng Compos Mater
2002;10:14755.
[23] Friswell MI, Penny JET, Garvey SD. A combined genetic and
eigensensitivity algorithm for the location of damage in structures.
Comput Struct 1998;69(5):54756.
[24] Farrar CR, Doebling SW. Lessons learned from applications of
vibration-based damage identication methods to large bridge
structures. In: Proc. int. workshop on structural health monitoring.
Stanford, CA, September, 1997. p. 35170.
[25] Dyke SJ, Caicedo JM, Turan G, Bergman LA, Hague S. Phase I
benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed
bridge. J Struct EngASCE 2003;129(7):85772.
[26] Caicedo JM, Dyke SJ, Moon SJ, Bergman LA, Turan G, Hague S.
Phase II benchmark control problem for seismic response of cablestayed bridges. J Struct Control 2003;10(July):13768.

[27] Caicedo JM, Dyke SJ. Experimental validation of structural health


monitoring for exible bridge structures. Struct Control Health
Monitor 2005;12(34):42543.
[28] Gattulli V. Dynamic interactions in cable-stayed bridges. In: 4th int.
workshop on structural control. Columbia University, New York,
USA, 2004. p. 27281.
[29] Caicedo JM. Structural health monitoring of exible civil structures,
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Washington
University in St. Louis, August, 2003.
[30] Clayton EH, Koh BH, Xing G, Fok CL, Dyke SJ, Lu C. Damage
detection and correlation-based localization using wireless mote
sensors. In: 2005 int. sympos. intelligent control 13th mediterranean
conf. control and automation, Cyprus, June, 2005.
[31] Fox RL, Kapoor MP. Rates of change of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. AIAA J 1968;6:24269.
[32] Lew SJ, Juang J-N. Structural damage detection using virtual passive
controller. J Guidance, Control, Dynam 2002;25(2):41924.
[33] Ahmadian H, Mottershead JE, Friswell MI. Regularisation methods
for nite element model updating. Mech Systems Signal Process
1998;12(1):4764.
[34] Nagayama T, Abe M, Fujino Y, Ikeda K. Structural Identication of
a nonproportionally damped system and its application to a full-scale
suspension bridge. J Struct Eng 2005;131(10):153645.