Advertisement

Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 172–180 | Cite as

Probabilistic Damage Identification of Structures with Uncertainty Based on Dynamic Responses

  • Xiaojun Wang
  • Chen Yang
  • Lei Wang
  • Zhiping Qiu
Article

Abstract

The probabilistic damage identification problem with uncertainty in the FE model parameters, external-excitations and measured acceleration responses is studied. The uncertainty in the system is concerned with normally distributed random variables with zero mean value and given covariance. Based on the theoretical model and the measured acceleration responses, the probabilistic structural models in undamaged and damaged states are obtained by two-stage model updating, and then the Probabilities of Damage Existence (PDE) of each element are calculated as the damage criterion. The influences of the location of sensors on the damage identification results are also discussed, where one of the optimal sensor placement techniques, the effective independence method, is used to choose the nodes for measurement. The damage identification results by different numbers of measured nodes and different damage criterions are compared in the numerical example.

Key Words

damage identification model updating uncertainty probabilistic approach dynamic response 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ma, H.W. and Yang, G.T., Methods and advance of structural damage detection. Advances in Mechanics, 1999, 29(4): 513–527. (in Chinese)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lim, T.W., Structural damage detection using constrained eigenstructure assignment. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 1995, 18(3): 411–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abo, M., Structural damage detection by natural frequencies. In: AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference and Exhibit, 37th. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Paper, Salt Lake City, 1996: 1064–1069.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parloo, E., Guillaume, P. and Overmeire, M.V., Damage assessment using mode shape sensitivities. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2003, 17(3): 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee, U. and Shin, J., A structural damage identification method for plate structures. Engineering Structures, 2002, 24: 1177–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feng, X., Fing, Y.F. and Zhou, J., A flexibility-based method for damage localization of truss structures. Chinese Journal of Computational Mechianics, 2006, 23(5): 563–568.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elishakoff, I., Three versions of the finite element method based on concepts of either stochasticity, fuzziness or anti-optimization. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 1998, 51(3): 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papadopoulos, L. and Garcia, E., Structural damage identification: a probabilistic approach. AIAA Journal, 1998, 36(11): 2137–2144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xia, Y. and Hao, H., Statistical damage identification of structures with frequency changes. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2003, 263: 853–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, X.Y. and Law, S.S., Damage identification of structures including system uncertainties and measurement noise. AIAA Journal, 2008, 46(1): 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meo, M. and Zumpano, G., On the optimal sensor placement techniques for a bridge structure. Engineering Structures 2005, 27: 1488–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lu, Z.R. and Law, S.S., Features of dynamic response sensitivity and its application in damage detection. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2007, 303(1–2): 305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kammer, D.C. and Brillhart, R.D., Optimal sensor placement for modal identification using system-realization methods. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 1996, 19: 729–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heo, G., Wang, M.L. and Satpathi, D., Optimal transducer placement for health monitoring of long span bridge. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1997, 16: 495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Imamovic, N., Model Validation of Large Finite Element Model Using Test Data. Ph.D. dissertation, Imperial College London, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doebling, S.W., Measurement of structural flexibility matrices for experiments with incomplete reciprocity. Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado University, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larson, C.B., Zimmerman, D.C. and Marek, E.L., A comparison of modal test planning techniques: excitation and sensor placement using the NASA8-bay truss. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Modal Analysis Conference, 1994, 205–211.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics and Technology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaojun Wang
    • 1
  • Chen Yang
    • 2
  • Lei Wang
    • 1
  • Zhiping Qiu
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Solid MechanicsBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.QIAN-Xuesen Laboratory of Space TechnologyChina Accademy of Space TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations