Health Monitoring Based on Dynamic Flexibility Matrix: Theoretical Models versus &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;In-Situ&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; Tests

Schommer, Sebastian; Mahowald, Jean; Nguyễn, Việt Hà; Waldmann, Danièle; Maas, Stefan; Zürbes, Arno; Roeck, Guido De

doi:10.4236/eng.2017.92004

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Schommer et al used experimentally derived modal characteristics (frequencies, shapes, and modal masses) to calculate the so‐called flexibility matrix. Although easier to extract from dynamic measurements, the flexibility matrix may not be linked to damage quantification and localization in a manner that is as straightforward as the stiffness.…”

Section: Recent Progress On Damage Identification Methods For Beam Brmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent progress and future trends on damage identification methods for bridge structures

Chatzi

Sim

et al. 2019

Struct Control Health Monit

233

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Damage identification forms a key objective in structural health monitoring. Several state‐of‐the‐art review papers regarding progress in this field up to 2011 have been published. This paper summarizes the recent progress between 2011 and 2017 in the area of damage identification methods for bridge structures. This paper is organized based on the classification of bridge infrastructure in terms of fundamental structural systems, namely, beam bridges, truss bridges, arch bridges, cable‐stayed bridges, and suspension bridges. The overview includes theoretical developments, enhanced simulation attempts, laboratory‐scale implementations, full‐scale validation, and the summary for each type of bridges. Based on the offered review, some challenges, suggestions, and future trends in damage identification are proposed. The work can be served as a basis for both academics and practitioners, who seek to implement damage identification methods in next‐generation structural health monitoring systems.

show abstract

Section: Recent Progress On Damage Identification Methods For Beam Brmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent progress and future trends on damage identification methods for bridge structures

Chatzi

Sim

et al. 2019

Struct Control Health Monit

233

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A promising approach for damage identification is the changes in flexibility or local stiffness [17][18][19][20][21]. e flexibility matrix is most sensitive to changes in the lower frequency modes because of the inverse relationship to the square of the modal frequencies, and usually, the lower vibration modes are the only ones that can be identified during an experimental survey due to practical difficulties in measuring the higher modes.…”

Section: Damage Identification Approaches and Vibration-based Shm Of Reinforced Concrete Framesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vibration‐Based Damage Evaluation of a Reinforced Concrete Frame Subjected to Cyclic Pushover Testing

Güneş

2021

Shock and Vibration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigated the changes in vibration characteristics of a simple reinforced concrete (RC) frame subjected to incremental cyclic pushover testing as a basis for detection, quantification, and localization of damage in RC frames using vibration data obtained before and after a seismic event. A half-scale one-story one-bay plane frame was subjected to progressive damage through cyclic lateral loading to incrementally increasing drift ratios. Ambient and impact vibration tests were performed at each increment of drift ratio, and modal analyses of the acceleration responses obtained at seven locations on the frame were carried out with the acceleration responses measured at seven different locations on the frame to track changes in the dynamic characteristics. Linear degradation of the lowest two vibration frequencies was identified with increasing drift ratio, which was regarded as a promising result towards detection and quantification of damage. For localization, a flexibility-based damage localization procedure, the damage locating vector (DLV) approach, was explored. Localization results mostly agreed with the observed damage, and the approach was found to have potential for use in prioritizing the suspected damage locations in the structure for detailed inspections.

show abstract

“…Experimental modal analysis (EMA) is traditionally based on measurement of input (forces) and output signals (displacement, velocity, or acceleration) at discrete points or degrees of freedom (DOF), in order to extract the modal parameters: eigenvalues, mode‐shapes, and modal masses. In principle, a full set of modal parameters ( n ‐modes for an n ‐DOF‐system) may be used to deduce the stiffness matrix, or at least to its inverse, the so‐called flexibility matrix as detailed for instance in Reference . Thus stiffness loss may—in principle—be detected, localized, and quantified based on EMA which indeed is an indicator for damage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of different excitation‐ and data sampling‐methods in structural health monitoring

Maas

Nguyễn

Kebig

et al. 2019

Civil Engineering Design

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structural Health Monitoring with analysis of dynamic characteristics intends to detect stiffness changes caused by damage. It can be performed by vibrational tests resulting to modal parameters, that is, eigenfrequencies, damping, modeshapes, or modal masses. Those parameters are themselves informational and even allow often deducing the stiffness matrix. Based on that, it is possible to identify and to localize changes in the stiffness matrix due to damage, that is, localization and quantification of damage. However, changing test conditions, like ambient temperature or excitation force or existing nonlinearities of concrete, show important influence on damage indicators and hence need compensation prior to damage detection. Considering this background, this article focuses on comparing ambient excitation to forced excitation including appropriate exciters. Furthermore, continuous monitoring is discussed vs discrete testing in distinct time-intervals. The intention of the comparison is to give an overview, that is, helpful for choosing appropriate measurement technique for the sake of correct damage detection subsequently. K E Y W O R D S ambient excitation, dynamic damage indicators, forced excitation, modal analysis, structural health monitoring

show abstract

Health Monitoring Based on Dynamic Flexibility Matrix: Theoretical Models versus <i>In-Situ</i> Tests

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Recent progress and future trends on damage identification methods for bridge structures

Recent progress and future trends on damage identification methods for bridge structures

Vibration‐Based Damage Evaluation of a Reinforced Concrete Frame Subjected to Cyclic Pushover Testing

Comparison of different excitation‐ and data sampling‐methods in structural health monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About