P. 1
Parameter Identification in Plate Structures from Incomplete, Noisy Static Test Data

Parameter Identification in Plate Structures from Incomplete, Noisy Static Test Data

|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by Swarnava Ghosh
Paper published in the Proceedings of International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation. Dec 2012 Hyderabad INDIA
Paper published in the Proceedings of International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation. Dec 2012 Hyderabad INDIA

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Swarnava Ghosh on May 29, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/19/2014

pdf

text

original

International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS), IIT Hyderabad, 10-12 December 2012

Parameter Identification in Plate Structures from Incomplete, Noisy Static Test Data
Debasish Bandyopadhyay† Swarnava Ghosh
*Department of Construction engineering, Jadavpur University, Salt Lake Campus, Kolkata 700098. †Department of Construction engineering, Jadavpur University, Salt Lake Campus, Kolkata 700098.

Presenting authors email: dban65@yahoo.com Abstract
Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) is becoming a significantly important area of civil and environmental engineering. However most research is being pursued with dynamic techniques incorporating sophisticated instrumentation and intricate mathematical treatment. Use of static techniques is an alternative and attractive proposal due to its simplicity and feasibility for practical implementation. Selection of measurement locations plays a vital part in accurate prediction using static data. A two stage damage identification method incorporating MDOF selection and parameter identification from noisy static test data is proposed. Input noise is assumed to vary randomly within certain limits and its effect on the algorithm is studied in detail.

1. Introduction
Damage or reduction of stiffness in structures during their design life occurs commonly and results in changes in material and geometric properties. At times accurate identification and estimation of very fine damage is essential for ensuring structural safety, future usefulness, economic and effective restoration. [1] Damage detection can be performed by both static and dynamic methods. Most research has been pursued with dynamic measurements due to some of its inherent advantages. Static measurements are simple and economical. For a large, complex structure, static identification technique is constrained with the requirement of large amount of measurements. Also the effect of damage at a particular location may be concealed in the responses at another location due to the limitation of load paths. Nonetheless static measurements can be used to evaluate any changes in stiffness parameters [2, 3, 4, and 5]. There is limited availability of literature on structural parameter identification incorporating static responses. The earlier work by Sheena, Unger and Zalmanovich [6] minimized the difference between the actual and analytical stiffness matrices by adjusting the elements of stiffness matrices. Displacement measurements were taken at certain locations and spline functions were used for evaluating the displacements where measurements were not taken. Sanayei and Scamolpi [7] and Sanayei and Nelson [8] had estimated structural stiffness using a least square minimization of the difference between the analytical stiffness and the difference between the measured stiffness matrices. In this method, the displacement degrees of freedom (DDOF) from which measurements are taken, and the force degrees of freedom (FDOF) must coincide, which does not seem to be feasible in practice. Hajela and Soeiro [3] used a combination of static and modal responses to evaluate stiffness change on an element to element basis. Hjelmstad, Wood and Clark [9] performed parameter estimation on a complex linear structure using an error measure. Influence of noisy measurements was also examined using Monte Carlo simulation. A method for parameter identification using static condensation technique with incomplete displacement data was successfully developed and applied to truss and frame structures by Sanayei and Onipede. [4] This method used a force matrix based error estimating function for identifying structural changes. However problem with this approach is that measurements taken from arbitrary selection of DOFs do not give accurate estimation of parameters and hence proper selection of DOFs must be made before actual tests. [1,10] A two stage analysis procedure incorporating sensitivity analysis for proper selection of MDOF and then damage identification using static test data from the selected MDOF to damage detection in frame structures was developed using force matrix based error estimator by Bandyopadhyay and Roy [1]. Further enhancement in formulation were carried out using a displacement matrix error estimator [10]. In [11] the two stage analysis procedure incorporating Sensitivity Analysis for MDOF selection and Parameter Identification using a displacement matrix based error estimating function is extended to damage identification in plate type structures from incomplete static responses. Ideal noise free measurements were used in the study. However in practice any

Page 1 of 8

International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS) IIT Hyderabad. Theoretical Formulation In a structure. the force and displacement vectors can be concatenated horizontally in (1) and the resulting equation is: [ ] [ ][ ] Where [ ]is the force matrix and [ ]is the displacement matrix. Substitution of equation (2) in equation (1) and multiplication by [K]-1 on both sides gives: [ ] { } { } Sensitivity analysis for stiffness parameter with application of jth set of force { } at respective FDOFs is performed by perturbing by and calculating the changed measurable displacement vector { } from the static equilibrium equation (3) as: [ ] { } { } { } ) are The degrees of freedom corresponding to which there are no measurable changes in displacement ( the insensitive degrees of freedom for stiffness parameter and a particular set of force { }. Sensitivity analysis can be carried out on the model using forward problem analysis from the equation: { } [ ]{ } In this equation the stiffness matrix [ ] is a function of stiffness parameters and can be expressed as: [ ] Where [ ] is the kth stiffness parameter and n is the total number of stiffness parameters in the model. change in particular stiffness parameter produce measurable changes in displacements only at some DOFs. Sensitivity analysis can also be designed with an aim to determine the minimum variation in stiffness parameter by inverse analysis. Hence measurements from insensitive DOFs will not give accurate estimation of that parameter . partially overlap or not overlap at all. Page 2 of 8 . The objective of this present work is to extend Damage Identification method for plate structures to incomplete and noisy measurements. Inverse analysis technique can be used to calculate any changes in the material properties (Parameters) of the structure from the calculated stiffness matrix from known sets of forces and measured sets of displacements. 2. Sanayei & Onepede [4] proposed a method for parameter identification using static condensation technique. parameter identification can be carried out by applying sets of static forces at one subset of degrees of freedom (FDOF) and measuring displacements at another subset of degrees of freedom (DDOF). The applied force degree of freedom and the measured displacement degree of freedom may completely overlap. Noise in applied forces or measured responses are known as input error. Sensitivity analysis is a study on how the variation in output (displacements) of the model can be attributed to the variations in the inputs (forces and stiffness) and must be carried out for determining the sensitive locations to be taken for measurement. The main advantage of this method is that displacement measurements need not be taken at all DOFs. 10-12 December 2012 mechanical or electronic device has a certain range of measurements beyond which measurements are uncertain. Nearly all measurements have some amount of input error. Using this technique. Sensitivity analysis for a particular stiffness parameter and jth set of force { } should be carried out with various increments or decrements of . However it is impractical to measure displacements at all degrees of freedom in the entire structure for all sets of forces. For more than one set of forces. with applied set of force at certain DOFs.

The Force Error Function matrix is of size NMD X If all the parameters are undamaged. [Fa] and [Fb] from equations (7a) and (7b) as: [ ] [[ ] [ ][ ] [ ]] [[ ] [ ][ ] [ ]] A displacement matrix based error estimating function is defined as the difference between analytical displacement matrix calculated from equation (8) and the measured displacement matrix corresponding to measured DDOFs and is given by: [ ] [[ ] [ ][ ] [ ]] [[ ] [ ][ ] [ ]] [ ] ] reduces to zero. [Ub] is the measured displacement matrix of size Number of Unmeasured Displacement (NUD) X Number of Sets of Applied Forces (NSF) and [Fa] and [Fb] are the force matrices corresponding to [Ua] and [Ub] of sizes NMD X NSF and NUD X NSF respectively.International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS). [ NSF and is a nonlinear function of the parameters p due to the inversion of the stiffness matrix. it is eliminated and [Ua] is represented in terms of [Kaa]. it follows: [ ] and [ ] [ ][ ] [ ][ ] [ ][ ] [ ][ ] As [Ub] is the matrix containing unmeasured displacements. In order to ] is vectorized by concatenating all its columns vertically linearize the Force Error matrix in equation (6). 10-12 December 2012 The stiffness matrix. [Kba]. From equation (6). [Kab]. The parameters can be adjusted by linearization using a first order Taylor series expansion }: of { { Where [ ] is the sensitivity matrix given by [ ] [ { } } { } [ ]{ } (10) ] (11) Evaluating the sensitivity matrix in equation (11) requires the differentiation of the error matrix with respect to each parameter ( ) to form [ ̅ ] of size NMD x NSF Page 3 of 8 . [Kbb]. [ } of size NM x 1 where NM is the number of measurements and is numerically producing an error vector { equal to NMD by NSF. IIT Hyderabad. force matrix and the displacement matrix in equation (5) can be partitioned into sets of sub matrices corresponding to measured and unmeasured DDOFs as: [ ] [ ][ ] Where [Ua] is the measured displacement matrix of size Number of measured displacement (NMD) X Number of Sets of Applied Forces (NSF).

International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS) IIT Hyderabad. 10-12 December 2012 [ ] ] [ ][ ] [ ]] [ [ ] [ ] [ ̅( )] [[ [ [ [[ [[ ][ ] ] ] ] [[ [ [ ] ] ][ ][ [ [ ] [ ][ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]] [ ]] [ ] [ ][ ] [ [ ] [ ] ] [ ][ [ ] ] [ ]] ] [ ] ]] [[ ] ][ ] [ ] [ ̅( )] is vectorized similar to the vectorization of [E(p)] into { ̅( )} { ̅( )} is then evaluated for j=1 to NSF to form the full sensitivity matrix [ } is reduced to a scalar performance error function The error function { norm of the error vector as: { } { } ] of size NM x NUP by taking the Euclidean Change in stiffness can be identified by minimizing the scalar performance error function from equation (13) with respect to stiffness parameter of each element by taking the stationary of the scalar performance error function: { } { } (14) Equation (10). maximum changes in scalar performance error function J(p). If NUP is less than NIM. In such case direct inversion technique can be used to solve equation (15): { } [ ] { } (16a) In second case. an iterative process is used for parameter { } { } { } (17) With the new parameters from equation (17). the number of independent measurements (NIM) maybe different from the number of unknown parameters (NUP). maximum value of the error vector { parameters {Δp} or maximum relative change in the parameters compared to their previous value {Δp}/{pi}. In first case. the system is unsolvable.(13) and (14) yields: [ ] [{ } [ ]{ }] { } (15) Two cases arise out of equation (15). the parameter identification algorithm is repeated untill it converges. Convergence of the parameter identification algorithm can be checked by many criteria such as change in the }. the number of independent measurements (NIM) is same as the number of unknown parameters (NUP). Page 4 of 8 . ] is not a square matrix and least square method is used to solve equation (15): then [ { After evaluating the vector { identification as: } } [[ ] [ ]] [ ]{ } (16b) from equation (16a) or (16b). Additional upper bounds and lower bounds must also be set for each parameter. In such cases if NUP if greater than NIM. The algorithm is said to converge when the tolerance limit of any criteria is reached.

The applied set of forces and the measured Page 5 of 8 . = measured displacement and applied force DOF. IIT Hyderabad. Figure 2 shows a particular case where application of force at position 11 (in Figure 1) and displacement measurement at position 38 will not be able to detect change in elastic modulus of element number 21 as there is no variation in displacement with change in damage percent of the elastic modulus. Redundancy may arise due to symmetry in the matrix of measured displacements [Ua].25 unit length and elastic modulus of 2000 unit force/unit length2. Number of measured displacements (NMD) in such case is 4. NMD was increased to 8 and for third case NMD was further increased to 12 by taking additional set of displacement measurements from sensitive degrees of freedom in second case (marked as 2 in circle in Figure 1) and third case (marked as 3 in circle in Figure 1). = applied force DOF (no displacements measured). 3. Results and Discussion To illustrate the proposed method a numerical experiment was conducted with an isotropic square plate of side length 20 units. For single load cases. Figure 1. NIM can be mathematically expressed as: (18) Where = measured displacement DOF (no forces applied). Finite element model was prepared by discretizing the problem geometry with four noded isoparametric type plate elements of size 2.The DDOFs which were capable of detecting changes in stiffness parameter of all elements and were also common to the maximum number of sets of forces were taken for the first set of measurements (marked as 1 in circle in Figure 1). The plate was modeled considering fixed support on all sides.International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS). 10-12 December 2012 The number of independent measurements (NIM) is the total number of non-redundant measurements taken. For second case. sensitivity analysis was performed only in the lower left quadrant (16 elements) in the present example. Element number 21 (hatched in Figure 1) was damaged with 10% reduction of elastic modulus.5 by 2. Similar cases must be considered for all other cases of FDOFs. thickness of 0. Due to symmetric nature of the problem geometry. DDOFs and elements. = no applied forces and no measured displacement DOF Identification of a unique set of structural parameters from a set of measurements require the number of independent measurements (NIM) to be greater than or equal to the number of unknown parameters (NUP). Force of 1 unit was applied at each FDOF (marked as crosses in Figure 1) and the number of sets of forces (NSF) in this case was 40.5 unit length2 and were numbered from 1 to 64 (shown in Figure 1).Geometry and FE model of the plate Figure 3 shows the case where force at position 11 and displacement measured at position 31 will be able to detect change in elastic modulus of element number 21 as there is variation in displacement with change in damage percent of the elastic modulus.

Hence no decrease in error due to matrix inversion can be correlated to increase in NMD from 8 to 12. Mean CN is seen to decrease with increase in NMD. it can be seen that prediction of % Error.8212 1. Signifying decrease in error related to matrix inversion by 1 digit. Figure 6 shows the mean of average Numerical Undamaged parameter (PN) for the three cases of NMD and it’s upper and lower bound confidence levels. : Insensitive MDOF at 38 for FDOF at 11 (Damaged Element 21) Figure 3.0000 σ 1.1624 0. the mean and standard deviation (for 20 simulations) of Percentage Error. NMD = 8 and NMD = 12).26075 σ(10-13) 6.1369 0. 10-12 December 2012 set of displacements were used as inputs in the parameter identification algorithm and was evaluated for the three cases (NMD = 4. 5 and 7.5164 0. Figure 2.1964 0.5684 PN Mean(103) 1. there is a decrease in CN but not by the order of a decimal.7811 1. average numerical undamaged parameter (PN) and damaged parameter (PD) is shown in Table 1. Condition Number (CN). The decrease of one decimal is observed when NMD is increased from 4 to 8.9948 2.4636 3. mean and standard deviation of Avg. The estimation of PD is less accurate when NMD is increased from 4 to 8 but accuracy increases with increase in NMD from 8 to 12.50890 0.International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS) IIT Hyderabad. Figure 5 shows the mean of Condition Number (CN) of Sensitivity Matrix.1362 PD Mean(103) 1.37375 0. it’s upper and lower bounds at 95% confidence intervals.% Error. Figure 7 shows the mean of estimated average damaged parameter (PD) and it’s upper and lower bound confidence levels . Estimation with NMD = 8 is better than estimation with NMD = 4 both in terms of accuracy of mean PN and level of confidence.0002 2.CN. NMD 4 8 12 Average % error Mean σ 2.7921 σ 3.0833 4. However when NMD is further increased from 8 to 12.1101 CN Mean(103) 1.3007 0. Average Percentage Errror is observed to decrease with increase in NMD.2103 0. CN and PD is affected by Page 6 of 8 .3893 0. PN and PD for three sets of measurements Figure 4 shows the average percentage error in parameter estimation and it’s upper and lower bounds at 95% confidence intervals. The level of confidence in CN is also very high as upper and lower bound confidence level coincides with the mean. Higher confidence is also achieved with increase in NMD.01 percent of original input data. Thus CN is almost unaffected by random noise in displacement data.8395 1. Sensitive MDOF at 31 for FDOF at 11 (Damaged Element 21) Input noise is assumed to be distributed randomly between +0.0177 Table 1. From the estimated parameters.7856 1. From Figures 4. Mean of PN estimated with NMD=12 is same as that estimated with NMD =8 but the level of confidence is higher.

Summary Static displacements are the primary and simple responses which can be used to identify the present state of a structure. pp. noisy static test data at selected MDOF with sensitivity analysis may be able to identify damage in plate structures with sufficient accuracy.” M. Bandyopadhyay and S.J. Sanayei and O. AIAA Journal vol. 28. Estimation of PN with NMD Figure 7. 1991. 1110-16 [4] M. “Member Stiffness Estimation in Linear Elastic Structures from Static and Vibrational Response.1990. Condition Number of Sensitivity Matrix Figure 6. It may be inferred that limited. [3] P. 5. 1989. Additional input measurements increase the accuracy. Avg. UIUC. IIT Hyderabad. Estimation of PD with NMD 4. Hajela and F. Roy. Clark.S. 1174-79 Page 7 of 8 . 29.” International Symposium on Engineering under Uncertainty: Safety Assessment and Management. Identification technique proposed in this paper and studied with a numerical example shows that the inverse analysis performed with data from sensitive locations and some amount of random input noise is capable of predicting Average Percent Error.pp. References [1] D. Onipede. Figure 4. Average Numerical Undamaged Parameter and Average Numerical Damaged Parameter with satisfactory degree of confidence. “Structural Damage Detection Based on Static and Modal Analysis”. Thesis. January 4-6. [2] S. “System Identification of Structures from Limited Measured Data Based on Inverse Static Approach. ”Damage Assessment of Structures Using Static Test Data” AIAA Journal vol. Condition Number of sensitivity Matrix is almost unaffected by random input noise in displacement data. 10-12 December 2012 random input noise in the displacement data but increase in number of measurements results in higher confidence in estimation.J. Soeiro. % Error in Estimation with NMD Figure 5.International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS). 2012.

Sheena. of Automotive Engg. Engg. vol. “Mutual residual energy method for parameter estimation in structures “Structural Engineering.” ICTACEM. Zalmanovich. “Structural Damage Identification of Truss from Simple Static Test Data by Sensitivity Analysis. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division.B. vol 118(1).”Soc. “Structural element stiffness identification from static test data”. Clark. vol 117. 10-12 December 2012 [5] M. Sanayei and M. 1996. pp. “Identification of structural element stiffness from incomplete static test data. pp. 2012 Page 8 of 8 . 1991(EM5) [8] M.International Congress on Computational Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS) IIT Hyderabad. 555-61 [6] Z. 223-42 [10] D. Saletnik. Hjelmstad.L. S. 245-53 [7] M. Bandyopadhyay and S. Nelson. Technical Paper. Roy.”Parameter Estimation of Structures from Static Strain Measurements I: Formulation” J. 1982. vol. Sanayei and R. ASCE. Unger and A. A.Struct. 122. Ghosh. Scamolpi. Sanayei and S. pp. ”Parameter Identification of Plate Structures using sensitivity analysis and Inverse Static Approach incorporating Displacement Matrix Error Function” Third Asian Conference on Mechanics of Functional Materials and Structures. 20. “Theoretical stiffness matrix correction by using static test results”Israel Journal of Technology.J. ASCE.J.D. 1992.SAE-861783 [9] K. Bandyopadhyay and S. 2010 [11] D. Wood and S.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->