Damage Assessment of Structure Using Incomplete Measured Mode Shapes PDF

STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING
Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007; 14:808829

Published online 9 October 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/stc.183
Damage assessment of structure using incomplete

measured mode shapes
A. Rahai1,z, F. Bakhtiari-Nejad2,} and A. Esfandiari1,*,y

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave., Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Ave., Tehran, Iran
SUMMARY
A global algorithm for damage detection and assessment of structures based on parameter estimation
method using nite element analysis and measured modal response of the structure is presented. Damage is
considered as a change in the structural stiness parameters. Modal displacements (eigenvector) of a
structure are characterized as a function of structural parameter that yields an indeterminate set of
equations. Elemental damage equations which relate partially measured mode shape of the damaged
structure to the change of structural parameter are developed using incomplete measured mode shapes.
Based an optimization method these equations are solved to nd changes of the structural parameters.
Subsequently, Monte Carlo simulation is applied to study the sensitivity of this method to noise in
measured modal displacements. The algorithm is tested in numerical simulation environment using a truss
and a frame model. Results show the high capability of this method to detect damages of the structures
when noise is present. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: structure; damage; linear; mode shape; optimization
INTRODUCTION
Many aerospace, civil, and mechanical engineering systems continue to be used despite of aging
and the associated potential for damage accumulation. Therefore, parameter identication of
structures has become very important as researchers attempt to correlate changes in test data to
the changes in the structural element properties. Using this approach, deteriorations in cross-
sectional property of important structures, such as aircrafts, space stations, nuclear power plans,
oshore drilling platforms, buildings and bridges can be detected. Current damage detection
*Correspondence to: A. Esfandiari, Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez
Ave., Tehran, Iran.
y
E-mail: A esfandiari@aut.ac.ir
z
E-mail: A Rahai@aut.ac.ir
}
E-mail: Baktiari@aut.ac.ir
Received 12 December 2005

Revised 26 July 2006
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 20 August 2006
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURE USING INCOMPLETE MEASURED MODE SHAPES 809
methods are either visual or experimental (example: acoustic or ultrasonic, magnet eld,
radiographs, eddy-current or thermal eld). All of these experimental techniques require that
the vicinity of the damage is known a priori and the portion of the structure being inspected is
readily accessible. Subjected to these limitations, these experimental methods can detect damage
on or near the surface of the structure.
The need for additional global damage detection methods that can be applied to complex
structures has led to the development of methods that examine changes in the response of the
structure. Any localized damage in a structure reduces its stiness; this reduction is generally
associated with structural characteristic. Structural damage is considered as a change in the
structural parameters that adversely aects its performance. Damage may also be dened as any
deviation in the original geometric of structure or material properties that may cause
undesirable stresses, displacements, or vibrations of the structure.
Generally, existing identication methods can be classied into two major categories: the
dynamic or static methods, using corresponding test data. Both techniques are based on the
nite element method utilizing experimental test data. The purpose of the parameter
identication is to update the parameters of the nite element model (FEM) to match the
analytical and measured data. Structural damage identication through changes in structural
characteristics, provide a global approach to evaluate the structural state. Detailed literature
review on vibration-based techniques has been provided by Doebling [1]. References cited in
these reviews proposed many dierent methods for identifying and localizing damage from
vibration response measurements. The majority of the cited references rely on the nite element
modelling process and/or linear modal properties for damage diagnosis.
Modal frequencies and mode shapes are the most popular parameters used in damage
identication. Salawu [2] presents a review on the use of modal frequency changes for damage
diagnostics. In practice the measured modal frequencies are more accurate than the mode
shapes, but changes in natural frequencies cannot provide spatial information about the
structural damage or they are not sensitive to the local damage. Therefore, other measured
information, such as the mode shapes, should therefore be included to have a better result in
damage detection. However, a large number of measurement locations can be required to
accurately characterize the mode shape vectors and to provide sucient resolution for
determining the damage location. As an alternative for obtaining spatial information, Sidhu and
Ewins [3] presented the error matrix method, minimizing the error matrices of the stiness and/
or the system mass between the analytical model and the experimental model to detect structural
damage. Kabe [4] developed a method for stiness matrix adjustment using modal test data and
preserved structural connectivity information of a massspring system. Lim [5] proposed a
systematic method that provides precise identication of damage location and the extent when
the exact measured modes at every nite element DOF are used. Also, a procedure was
presented to perform damage detection with inaccurate, incomplete measured modes.
Zimmerman and Kaouk [6] referred to a damage vector to locate the damage site rst, and
to assess the magnitude of damage using a minimum rank update theory. Aktan and coworkers
[7, 8] proposed the use of exibility. Changes in strain energy are also used as an indicator to
represent damage by Cornwell et al. [9] and Yu et al. [10], while Pandey et al. [11] introduced the
curvature mode shapes. Modal curvatures seem to be much more sensitive to the local damage
than modal displacement. However, accurate estimation of the modal curvatures from
experimental data remains very dicult. Farhat and Hemez [12] developed sensitivity-based
element-by-element method for updating the nite FEM. Sensitivity-based FE model updating
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007; 14:808829
DOI: 10.1002/stc
810 A. RAHAI, F. BAKHTIARI-NEJAD AND A. ESFANDIARI
techniques has been successfully used for damage assessment by Link [13] and Brownjohn [14].
The book of Mottershead and Frisswell [15] represents a comprehensive study of the most
relevant techniques. Link [16] provides a clear overview of the sensitivity-based updating
methods. Messina et al. [17] presented the sensitivity- and statistical-based method called the
multiple damage location assurance criterion (MDLAC) to localize structural damage. It is
formulated on the same basis as the modal assurance criterion (MAC) for quantifying
consistence correspondence between related vectors. Kim and Stubbs [18] proposed the damage
index method for a structure. The damage index is computed by using mode shape before and
after the structural damage. Doebling [19] proposed a minimum rank optimal update method
for correlation of dynamic structures FEMs with modal data.
Based on the work done by Araujo dos Santos [20], Ren et al. [21, 22] proposed a mode-based
damage identication method to predict location and severity of damage. In this work, it was
demonstrated, when damaged eigenvalue equations are multiplied with the damaged or
undamaged modes, the results is more equations than the strain energy-based method which will
guarantees the damage localization. They veried their method by a simple support beam and a
continuous beam with numbers of simulated damage scenarios. The proposed damage
identication scheme is applied to the experimental data and results are compared. It is also
demonstrated that an adaptation of the initial FEM is required to give the best agreement with
the reference measurements.
As a drawback of the FEM-update techniques, the requirement of reducing FEM degrees of
freedom or extending the measured modal parameters may result in the loss of physical
interpretability and the errors due to the stiness diusion that smears the damage-induced
localized changes in stiness matrix into the entire stiness matrix. To overcome this drawback
Bakhtiari-Nejad et al. [23] proposed a damage detection method using incomplete measured
mode shape. They expressed mode shape as a function of stiness by assuming one of the modal
displacements to be equal one and derived a set of equations which related modal displacement
of the damaged structure to the changes of structural parameters. Using an optimization
criterion derived equation solved to obtain changes of structural parameters. The proposed
method was applied to a frame and a truss structure using noisy simulated data.
In the present, work modal displacement (eigenvector) of a structure is expressed as a
function of frequency (eigenvalue), structural parameters and mass matrix of the structure.
Based on the work of Ren et al. [21] an element level damage equation was characterized using
mode shapes of intact and damaged structure. Shortcoming of incomplete measurement of
mode shapes of damaged structure has been removed by portioning each mode shapes and
replacing unmeasured part by presented function of eigenvector. To overcome the problem of
undetermined equations, an optimization criterion is used to solve the equations for estimating
the structural parameters. Noise in the measurement is simulated by adding a proportional
random error to the exact data obtained from the FEM of the damaged structure.
THEORY
Mode shape equation

For an undamaged structure, the modal characteristic is described by the eigenvalue equation:
K o2i Mfi 0 1
DOI: 10.1002/stc
where K(n n) and M(n n) are stiness and mass matrices of the structure respectively, oi and
fi are the ith eigenvalue and mode shape of the structure and n is the number of degrees of
freedom. The mode shapes can be scaled so that the modal displacement of the jth degree of
freedom is unity, therefore Equation (1) can be written as:
% f# i f% i
K% o2i M 2
% are obtained by omitting the jth row and column of K and M, and f# i is the rest
where, K% and M
% i is a vector computed by
of the modal eigenvector, and f
% i QKj o2i Mj
f 3
Here Q is a matrix that omits the jth row of matrices K and M. In Equation (3), Kj and Mj are
the jth column of stiness and mass matrix, respectively. K% and M % can be mathematically
expressed as
K% QKQT ; M % QMQT 4
With the above denitions, the matrix Bi can be introduced as
%
Bi K% o2i M 5
# i is computed by
So, the vector f
f# i B1 %
i fi 6
* i are extracted from the
The measured and/or unmeasured partition of the modal eigenvector, f
rest of modal eigenvector using a Boolean matrix Q; # as follows:
# f# i
f* i Q 7
Due to damage, the stiness matrix of a structure changes by dK; and the mass matrix of the
structure before and after damage is considered to be unchanged. Therefore, in the case of the
damaged structure, modal eigenvector is given by
# 1 f# id
f* id QB 8
id
in which
f# id QKj dKj o2id Mj
and
%
Bid K% dK o2id M
where, subscript d indicates a damaged case. Equation (8) characterizes the relationship between
the modal characteristic of the damaged structure and the change in the structural parameter at
the elemental level.
Element damage equations

The eigenvalue problem of lth mode shape of the damaged structure can be described as
K dK o2ld Mfld 0 9
Pre-multiplying Equation (9) by fi, transposing and rearranging it yields:
fTld K dKfi o2ld fTld Mfi 10
DOI: 10.1002/stc
Using the eigenvalue problem of an intact structure as given by Equation (1) and substituting
Mfi by 1=o2i Kfi in the right-hand side of Equation (10) results in
o2ld T
fTld K dKfi f Kfi 11
o2i ld
expanding the left-hand side of Equation (11) and rearranging it, yields:
2
old
fTld dKfi 1 fTld Kfi 12
o2i
Equation (12) expresses the relation between the measured modal parameter of the damaged
structure and the change in the stiness matrix of the structure. This equation requires a
complete measured mode shapes of the structure which is time consuming and expensive for
most structures. Also in structures which have translational and rotational degrees of freedom,
measurement of rotational degrees of freedom needs expensive equipment. The degrees of
freedom of a structure can be divided into measured and unmeasured parts. Therefore, the
stiness and the mass matrices of the structure can be rewritten as
" # " #
Kaa Kab Maa Mab
K ; M 13
Kba Kbb Mba Mbb
where subscripts a and b indicate the degrees of freedom associated with the measured and
unmeasured locations of the structure, respectively. By using Equation (13), Equation (12) can
be rewritten as
" #" # " #" #
T T
dKaa dKab fia o2ld T T
Kaa Kab fia
flda fldb 1 flda fldb 14
dKba dKbb fib o2i Kba Kbb fib
Equation (14) can be transposed, expanded and rearranged as
fTia dKaa flda fTib dKba flda fTia dKab fldb fTib dKbb fldb
2
old
1 fTia Kab fldb fTib Kbb fldb
o2i
2
old
1 fTia Kaa flda fTib Kba flda Rli l 1; . . . nm i 1; . . . nu 15
o2i
where Rli is vector of residual. Using Equation (8), the unmeasured portion of the mode shapes
of the damaged structure can be extracted from fld by using Q # b : Therefore, Equation (15) can be
rewritten as
2
old # ld Rli
# b B1 f
fTia dKaa flda fTib dKba flda fTia dKab fTib dKbb 1 f T
ia K ab fT
ib Kbb Q ld
o2i
16
Solving the elemental damage equations for unknowns, allows locating and quantifying the
damage. These two types of damage equations expressed by Equations (8) and (16) can be used
either independently or combined. The advantage of combining these two types of equations is
that more equations would be available for damage detection.
DOI: 10.1002/stc
OPTIMIZATION FUNCTION
Using Fox formulation [24], changes in the mode shape of the structure can be expressed as a
linear combination of mode shapes of intact structure as
X n
dfl alk fl 17
k1
where
fTk dKfl
alk ; k=l and all 0 18
o2l o2k
Then the eigenvalue problem of the damaged structure can be described by
K dK o2l do2l Mfld 0 19
Imposing Equation (17) into Equation (19) yields:
El K dK o2l do2l Mfl dfl 20
where El is a vector of errors due to approximation of Equation (17). There is some error due to
approximated expression used for computing mode shape change. Equation (20) can be
simplied as
El K o2l Mdfl dK do2l Mfl dfl 21
Summing these errors over the number of measured modes nm provides the error produced by
all nm equations as
X
nm X
nm
g0 jjEl jj2 jjK o2l Mdfl dK do2l Mfl dfl jj2 22
l1 l1
For the stiness matrix of the damaged structure to be close to the stiness matrix of intact
structure, resulting error from Equation (22) must be minimized; therefore the introduced
objective functions can be expressed as
Xnm
g jjK o2l Mdfl dK do2l Mfl dfl jj2 dPT dP 23
l1
T
where dP dP is the norm of vector of parameters change which will be described later. Since
change in the structural stiness parameter is always negative, an inequality constraint is
introduced as
dP50 24
The optimization problem can now be stated as
Min gfdPg 25
subjected to the nonlinear equality constraints given in Equation (16) and inequality constraints
of Equation (24), which can be solved by the MATLAB optimization toolbox using the
FMINCON routine. This routine implement sequential quadratic programming (SQP) to
minimize the nonlinear cost function subjected to linear and nonlinear equality and inequality
constraints. SQP converts a nonlinear minimization to a linear minimization using a Hessian
DOI: 10.1002/stc
matrix of cost function and gradient of nonlinear constraints. The presented damage detection
algorithm is programmed as a nonlinear constrained optimization problem. Hence, this problem
must be solved iteratively and, like any iterative algorithm, the estimators need initial values for
unknown parameters to start the iteration. The choice of initial value controls the convergence
of the algorithm and dictates, to some extent, the computational eort required to achieve a
solution. In these paper origin (dP 0) is considered as an initial trial for the optimization
problem. This assumption may increase the required number of iterations, but it does not
inuence the uniqueness of the results, since, inequality constrained of Equation ( 24) bound the
search domain of optimization criteria and therefore the results is unique. Examination of other
random initial trials indicates that the initial trials do not inuence the results of this study.
Selection of measurement locations

Selection of measurement locations has an important inuence on the result of the damage
detection algorithm. The selected location must be sensitive to any change in the structural
parameters and insensitive to noise in measurement. Here, rst, a base point must be selected. It
must be noted removing of one degree of freedom is similar to addition of a constraint to the
structure. Therefore an imaginary structure has been produced where its stiness and mass
matrix is K% and M:
% If eigenvalues of this imaginary structure is the same as the intact structure,
Bi converts to singular or ill-condition and matrix inversion become impossible. Based on this
fact, one of the degree of freedoms which eignvalues of its imaginary structure are far away from
the eigenvalue of the intact structure, has been selected as the base point. In this paper
measurement locations has been selected based on a trial and error algorithm. First, several
candidate set of measurement location has been considered. Second, the intact structure has
been identied using noise polluted data. Then, candidate set that has near zero result (since
there is no damage) is considered as the best set.
PARAMETERIZED STIFFNESS MATRIX
The stiness matrix of the structure can be described as follows [25]:

K APAT 26
where (nd np) matrix of [A] is dened as the stiness connectivity matrix and the (nd np)
diagonal matrix of [P] have the elemental stiness parameters of the (np 1) vector{P}, as its
diagonal entries mathematically dened as
diagP fPg 27
The formulation of Equation (26) arises from the generalized form of the elemental stiness
matrix, presented as
Z
K e BT DB dV 28
Ve
where [D] is a function of the material properties (elasticity matrix) and [B] is a function of the
elemental straindisplacement relation, and Ve is elemental volume. For linear isotropic
elements, Equation (28) can be rewritten in the form of Equation (26). The global stiness
matrix is a linear function of the elemental stiness parameters and [A] is independent of [P],
DOI: 10.1002/stc
therefore Equation (26) can be perturbed to get:

K dK AP dPAT 29
Expanding Equation (29) and subtracting Equation (26) from it, yields a parameterized form of
the perturbed global stiness matrix [dK] as
dK AdPAT 30
NUMERICAL RESULTS
A two-dimensional truss as shown in Figure 1 is used to evaluate the eectiveness of the present
damage detection method. The unknown parameters are the axial stiness of elements, EA
where A is the cross-sectional area of the truss element and E is the Youngs modules. Cross-
sectional areas of truss members are given in Table I.
Four damage cases are considered to study the inuence of location, severity and number of
damaged elements on the results. In the rst case, the stiness of elements 4 and 11 was reduced
by 15 and 30 per cent respectively. In the second case, the stiness of elements 13 and 20 were
reduced by 30 per cent. In the third case, the stiness of elements 3, 9 and 17 were reduced by 30
per cent and nally in the fourth case, the stiness of elements 3 and 9 were reduced by 30 per
cent and the stiness of elements 17 and 25 were reduced by 40 per cent.
Two rst mode shapes were considered in the process of damage detection and fourth degree
of freedom (vertical displacement of node number 4) was considered as datum point.
Measurement locations were selected by practical experience and engineering judgement.
Degrees of freedom of the investigated truss are shown in Figure 2 and degrees of freedom 7, 11,
17, and 19 considered as measurement locations. By using exact data, the simulated damage
cases can be predicted as shown in Figures 36.
Figure 1. Geometry of bowstring truss.
Table I. Cross-sectional area of truss members.

Member Area (cm2)
16 18
712 15
1317 10
1825 12
DOI: 10.1002/stc
Figure 2. Degrees of freedom of bowstring truss.
0.4
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Element Number
Figure 3. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 1 (noise free data).
0.4
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
As shown in results, the severity and location of damaged elements can be detected exactly
using noise free data. It should be noted that these results cannot be obtained without using
elemental damage equation, expressed by Equation (16).
Frame example
A one-storey-one-bays frame as shown in Figure 7 is used to verify the damage identication
method described in this paper. The FEM analysis was carried out to simulate the experimental
DOI: 10.1002/stc
0.4
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
0.5
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.4
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
Figure 7. 2D frame structure.
data by using two-node beam elements. The number of nodes and elements are 21 and 22,
respectively. The unknown parameters are exural rigidity of elements EI, where I is the
moment of inertia of the cross-section of the beam elements.
DOI: 10.1002/stc
0.6 Actual Damage

Predicted Damage
0.5
0.4
dP
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
Figure 8. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 1 (noise free data).
0.6
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.5
0.4
dP
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
0.5
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.4
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Element Number
Two rst mode shapes was considered in damage detection process and it was assumed that
only translational degrees of freedom could be measured. Translational displacement of Node 4
was considered as datum degrees of freedom and nodes 6, 10, 15, 11 and 19 are selected as
measurement locations to measure the translational degree of freedom. Predicted damages of
frame are shown in Figures 811.
DOI: 10.1002/stc
0.6
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.5
0.4
dP
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
Results of damage process conrm that damage can be predicted exactly using a few of noise
free incomplete modal displacements.
NOISY MEASUREMENTS
For experimental modal testing, it is expected that there would be some deviations of results due
to the noisy measurement. In the numerical examples, noise is simulated by adding a series of
pseudo-random numbers to the theoretically calculated frequencies and mode shapes. There are
many types of error that can be introduced into mathematical model to simulate noisy
measurements. Due to the complexity of the measurement process, any single type of random
errors may be experienced in the eld. Therefore, two types of simple random errors were used
to model measurement noise, uniform error; with equal probability at any one time, normal
distribution; with higher probability of a noise level closer to the mean value and a lower
probability of a larger noise. In this study, 1 per cent proportional uniform noise applied to
model displacement and natural frequencies have been considered noise frees [21]. Next, in order
to investigate the eect of input error on the parameter estimation, the kth component of the lth
noisy measured eigenvector fm lk ; can be computed using the lth simulated noise free eigenvector
f0lk ; as follows:
0
fm k
lk flk 1 zl 31
zkl
where is a random number. The results of Monte Carlo analysis for simulated examples are
given in Figures 1219.
As results indicate, this method is capable of detecting the magnitude and location of
damaged elements while considering noisy data. The damaged elements are identied with
acceptable accuracy, but an additional slight damage is appeared in the intact element due to the
presence of noise in the mode shapes measurements. Results presented in this work are obtained
by using the rst two incomplete mode shapes of the damaged structure (measured at ve
degrees of freedom), along with the rst ve mode shapes of the intact structure. In order to
obtain same results without using element damage equation, a minimum of the three rst mode
shapes of the damaged structure (measured at six degrees of freedom) is required, which need
more experimental eort, as shown in Figures 2023 [23]. Results of the damage detection
DOI: 10.1002/stc
0.4
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
Figure 12. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 1 (noisy data).
0.4
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
0.4
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
DOI: 10.1002/stc
0.5
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.4
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
0.6
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.5
0.4
dP
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
Figure 16. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 1 (noisy data).
0.6
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.5
0.4
dP
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
DOI: 10.1002/stc
0.6
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.5
0.4
dP
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
0.6
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.5
0.4
dP
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
0.4
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
Figure 20. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 1 (using mode shape equations).
process on the frame were obtained using the two rst mode shapes. These are measured
at the ve translational degrees of freedom. To obtain reliable results using the mode shape
equation at least two mode shapes, which is measured at six degree of freedom, is required
DOI: 10.1002/stc
0.4
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
0.4
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
0.5
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.4
0.3
dP
0.2
0.1
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
Element Number
DOI: 10.1002/stc
0.6 Actual Damage

Predicted Damage
0.45
dP
0.3
0.15
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
Figure 24. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 1 (using mode shape equations).
0.6
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.45
dP
0.3
0.15
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
0.6
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.45
dP
0.3
0.15
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
Figures 2427 [23]. Since the amplitude of the mode shape decreases at higher mode,
measurements of higher mode involve more noise which adversely aect results of the damage
detection. Eciency of the proposed method can become more signicant by increasing the
DOI: 10.1002/stc
0.6
Actual Damage
Predicted Damage
0.45
dP
0.3
0.15
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Element Number
number of unknowns in a large structure. Also by expressing the unmeasured part of a mode
shape as a function of structural stiness parameters, noise free natural frequencies and mass
matrix, the bad eect of noisy measurements can be reduced.
CONCLUSION
This paper presents an approach for damage detection in structures utilizing incomplete
measured mode shapes and natural frequencies. Mode shapes of a structure are characterized as
a function of structural stiness parameters. More equations were obtained using elemental
damage equation which requires complete mode shapes. This drawback is resolved by
presenting mode shape equations and dividing structural degrees of freedom to measured and
unmeasured parts. An optimization criterion is used to solve these two sets of equations.
Simulation of bowstring truss and a planer frame represents the ability of this method to
evaluate the severity and location of any damage using noise free and noise polluted data. By
comparing the results obtained using this method and the mode shapes equation method, it was
shown that this method is capable of detecting damage with the same high level of accuracy with
less measurement and experimental eorts.
APPENDIX A
In general, it is necessary to decompose the elemental stiness matrix [Ke] into its eigenvalues
and eigenvectors so that:
Ke Ae Pe Ae T A1
in which, [Ae] is the matrix of the eigenvectors of the stiness matrix, and [Pe] is a diagonal
matrix containing non-zero parts of the eigenvalues of the stiness matrix. Physically, columns
of [Ae] are the distinct, statically equilibrated deformation shapes of the element in which have
DOI: 10.1002/stc
non-zero strain energy. These mode shapes are normalized to have unit magnitude, such that:
ATe Ae I A2
Based on nite element method, the stiness matrix of the structure is obtained by assembling of
elemental stiness matrices as
Xne
K TTa Ke a Ta A3
a1
where [T]a is a transformation matrix which includes co-ordinate rotations from the local co-
ordinate to the global co-ordinate. The decomposed form of Equation (A1) can be substituted
into Equation (A3) to get
Xne
K TTa Ae a Ta Pe a Ae T Ta A4
a1
This expression can be further simplied to

K APAT A5
where the stiness connectivity matrix [A] is a sparse matrix dened by
h i
A TT1 Ae 1 TT2 Ae 2 . . . TTne Ae ne A6
and [P] is a (np np) diagonal matrix of the assembled elemental stiness eigenvalues as:
8 9 8 9
> fPg1 > > P1 >
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> > >P > >
< fPg2 >
> = > < 2> =
fPg
.. > > .. > A7
>
> > > >
>
> . >
> >
> . >
>
>
> >
> > >
: ; > : >
;
fPgnp Pnp
As an example, consider a truss element with the stiness k, connecting two nodes as shown in
Figure A1. For this element, the stiness matrix is
" #
k k
Ke A8
k k
Figure A1. Spring (truss) element.
DOI: 10.1002/stc
Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of this element are as follows:

2 1 1 3
p p ( )
6 2 27 2k
6 7
F6 7 O A9
4 1 1 5 0
p p
2 2
Therefore [Ae] and [Pe] can be dened as
2 1 3
p
6 2 7
6 7
Ae 6 7 Pe 2k A10
4 1 5
p
2
The stiness matrix of a spring element can be rewrite as
2 1 3 2 1 3T
p p " #
6 27 6 2 7 k k
T 6 7 6 7
Ke Ae Pe Ae 6 72k6 7 A11
4 1 5 4 1 5 k k
p p
2 2
APPENDIX B: NOMENCLATURE
K stiness matrix of structure

Ke stiness matrix of a element
M mass matrix of structure
K% stiness matrix of structure after omitting a row and column
M % mass matrix of structure after omitting a row and column
A connectivity matrix
Ae connectivity matrix of an element
P elemental stiness parameters matrix
Pe elemental stiness parameter (eigenvalue of elemental stiness matrix)
K axial stiness if truss element
Ve element volume
F,O eigenvector and eigenvalue of elemental stiness matrix
T transformation matrix
I identity matrix
R, E vector of residuals
# Q
Q; boolean matrix
g objective function of optimization criteria
f# portion of mode shape
f* measured part of mode shape
f mode shape of structure
o natural frequency of structure
n number of degrees of freedom
DOI: 10.1002/stc
nu, nm number of undamaged and damaged mode shape

np number of stiness parameters
e magnitude of noise
z random number
akl combination constant (change of eigenvectors)
B% operational matrix
D elasticity matrix
B elemental straindisplacement relation matrix
d subscript which indicates a damaged case
d prex which represent change of a variable
i,j,k,l index
REFERENCES
1. Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB, Shevitz DW. Damage identication and health monitoring of structural and
mechanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: a literature review. Research Report No.
LA-13070-MS, ESA-EA, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM, 1996.
2. Salawu OS. Detection of structural damage through changes in frequency: a review. Engineering Sructures 1997;
19(9):718723.
3. Sidhu J, Ewins DJ. Correlation of nite and modal test studies of a practical structure. Proceedings of 2nd
International Modal Analysis Conference, Society for Experimental Mechanics, U.S.A., 1984; 756762.
4. Kabe AM. Stiness matrix adjustment using mode data. AIAA Journal 1985; 23(9):14311436.
5. Lim TW. A sub matrix approach to stiness matrix correction using modal test data. AIAA Journal 1990;
28(6):11231130.
6. Zimmerman DC, Kaouk M. Structural damage detection using a minimum rank update theory. Journal of Vibration
and Acoustics 1994; 116(2):222231.
7. Aktan AE, Lee KL, Chuntavan C, Aksel T. Modal testing for structural identication and condition assessment of
constructed facilities. Proceedings of 12th International Modal Analysis Conference, 1994; 462468.
8. Necati Catbas F, Aktan AE. Modal analysis for damage identication: past experiences and Swiss Z-24 bridge.
Proceedings of 20th International Modal Analysis Conference, 2002; 448456.
9. Cornwell P, Doebling SW, Farrar CR. Application of the strain energy damage detection method to platelike
structures. Proceedings of 15th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, FL, 1997; 13121318.
10. Yu L, Law SS, Link M, Zhang LM. Damage detection in bolted joint structures using element contribution on
modal strain energy. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Identication in Engineering System, Swansea,
1999; 516526.
11. Pandey AK, Biswas M, Samman MM. Damage detection from changes in curvature mode shapes. Journal of Sound
and Vibration 1991; 145(2):321332.
12. Hemez FM, Farhat C. Structural damage detection via a nite element model updating methodology. Modal
Analysis: The International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis 1995; 10(3):152166.
13. Link M, Rohrmann RG, Pietrzko S. Experience with automated procedures for adjusting the nite element model of
a complex highway bridge to experimental modal data. Proceedings of 14th International Modal Analysis Conference,
Dearborn, Michigan, 1996.
14. Brownjohn JMW, Xia P-Q, Hao H, Xia Y. Civil structure condition assessment by FE model updating:
methodology and case studies. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 2001; 37:761775.
15. Friswell MI, Mottershead JE. Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995.
16. Link M. Updating of analytical modelsreview of numerical procedures and application aspects. Proceedings of the
Structural Dynamics Forum SD2000, Los Alamos, 1999.
17. Messina A, Williams EJ, Contursi T. Structural damage detection by a sensitivity and statistical-based method.
Journal of Sound and Vibration 1998; 216(5):791808.
18. Kim J-T, Stubbs N. Assessment of the relative impact of model uncertainty on the accuracy of global nondestructive
damage detection in structures. Report prepared for New Mexico State University, 1993.
19. Doebling SW. Minimum-rank optimal update of elemental stiness parameters for structural damage identication.
AIAA Journal 1996; 34(12):26152621.
DOI: 10.1002/stc
20. Araujo dos Santos JV, Mota Soares CM, Mota Soares CA, Pina HLG. Development of a numerical model for the
damage identication on composite plate structures. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Composite
Science and Technology, Durban, South Africa, 1998; 476483.
21. Ren WX, De Roeck G, Structural damage identication using modal data I: simulation verication. Journal of
Structural Engineering 2001; 128:8795.
22. Ren WX, De Roeck G. Structural damage identication using modal data I: test verication. Journal of Structural
Engineering 2001; 128:96104.
23. Bakhtiari-Nejad F, Rahai A, Esfandiari A. Structural damage detection and assessment using incomplete
measured eigenvectors and eigenvalue. 7th MOVIC Conference, Washington University St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.,
2004.
24. Fox RL, Kapoor MP. Rates of change of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. AIAA Journal 1968; 6(12):24262429.
25. Doebling SW, Peterson LD, Alvin KF. Experimental determination of local structural stiness by disassembly of
measured exibility matrices. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 1998; 120:949957.
DOI: 10.1002/stc

Damage Assessment of Structure Using Incomplete Measured Mode Shapes PDF

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

Damage Assessment of Structure Using Incomplete Measured Mode Shapes PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND HEALTH MONITORING

Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007; 14:808829

Damage assessment of structure using incomplete

A. Rahai1,z, F. Bakhtiari-Nejad2,} and A. Esfandiari1,*,y

KEY WORDS: structure; damage; linear; mode shape; optimization

Received 12 December 2005

Mode shape equation

Element damage equations

Selection of measurement locations

PARAMETERIZED STIFFNESS MATRIX

The stiness matrix of the structure can be described as follows [25]:

therefore Equation (26) can be perturbed to get:

Figure 1. Geometry of bowstring truss.

Table I. Cross-sectional area of truss members.

Figure 2. Degrees of freedom of bowstring truss.

Figure 3. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 1 (noise free data).

Figure 4. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 2 (noise free data).

Figure 5. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 3 (noise free data).

Figure 6. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 4 (noise free data).

Figure 7. 2D frame structure.

0.6 Actual Damage

Figure 8. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 1 (noise free data).

Figure 9. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 2 (noise free data).

Figure 10. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 3 (noise free data).

Figure 11. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 4 (noise free data).

Figure 12. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 1 (noisy data).

Figure 13. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 2 (noisy data).

Figure 14. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 3 (noisy data).

Figure 15. Predicted damage of truss, Scenario 4 (noisy data).

Figure 16. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 1 (noisy data).

Figure 17. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 2 (noisy data).

Figure 18. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 3 (noisy data).

Figure 19. Predicted damage of frame, Scenario 4 (noisy data).

0.6 Actual Damage

This expression can be further simplied to

Figure A1. Spring (truss) element.

Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of this element are as follows:

K stiness matrix of structure

nu, nm number of undamaged and damaged mode shape

Anda mungkin juga menyukai