IDENTIFICATION OF COHESIVE CRACK FRACTURE PARAMETERS USING MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING
by Norbert S. Que
A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia
February, 2003
i
ABSTRACT
This thesis is concerned with the characterisation of the parameters governing the tensionsoftening relations of the cohesive crack model. Parameter identification is an important area in fracture mechanics as it enables the use of a fracture model for the simulation of fracture processes in structures. Research, however, has shown that such a task is not trivial and continues to pose challenging problems to experimentalists and analysts alike. This dissertation presents general and efficient indirect methods for the characterisation of mode I fracture parameters defining the cohesive crack model.
The identification problem is formulated as a special type of inverse problem. The formulation is in the form of a constrained optimisation problem known as a mathematical program with equilibrium constraints characterised, in the present instance, by complementarity conditions involving the orthogonality of twosign constrained vectors. The solution of such a mathematical program is computationally challenging as it is disjunctive and nonconvex by nature. A number of nonlinear programming based approaches are proposed, after appropriate reformulation of the mathematical program as an equivalent nonlinear programming problem.
Actual experimental data are used to validate and determine the most suitable algorithm for parameter identification. It was found that the smoothingbased method is by far superior than other schemes. As the problem is nonconvex and the nonlinear program can only guarantee a local or stationary point, global optimisation procedures are introduced in order to verify the accuracy of the solutions obtained by the algorithm.
Two evolutionary search methods capable of finding the global optimum are implemented for parameter identification. The results generated by the evolutionary search techniques confirm the reliability of the solutions identified by the best nonlinear programming algorithm. All computations carried out in the thesis suggest the suitability and robustness of the selected algorithm for parameter identification.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Francis TinLoi for without
his support, advice, and guidance it is likely that this thesis would not have been completed. His insights and ideas helped me overcome a number of hurdles in the course of doing this research toward the completion of this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. John Watson for his insightful discussions on the boundary element method.
I wish to thank the Department of Science and Technology for offering the
scholarship which allowed me take up doctoral studies at the University of New South
Wales, Australia. I also appreciate the support given to me by the University of the Philippines. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance extended to me by Mr. Francois Fernandes.
I am much obliged to my tennis buddies who provided me some helpful diversion from the daily grinds of research. Likewise, to all my friends in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering for their warmth and friendship.
I wish to thank my friends in the Mascot care group for their prayers. I would
also like to extend my gratitude to all my friends at the Punchbowl Baptist Memorial
Church and the Community Bible Church (formerly known as St. Matthias@UNSW).
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my brothers and sisters, most especially my mother and my inlaws in Cebu, for their encouragement.
I am deeply grateful to Carlos and Florence Ringor for their unequivocal support to my family and me. They are our family in Sydney and their friendship and love will always be cherished and remembered.
My gratitude also goes to my lovely wife, Lei, whose understanding, support and patience are instrumental in the completion of this thesis. Of course, doing research and writing this thesis would have been boring if not for my daughter, Yumi, who always knows how to cheer my day up.
Above all, I would like to dedicate this thesis to Jesus Christ for sustaining my family and me all these years. To Him be the glory.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 
i 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
iii 

NOTATION 
x 

LIST OF FIGURES 
xii 

LIST OF TABLES 
xx 

1 
INTRODUCTION 
1 
1.1 Background 
1 

1.2 Motivation for the Research 
3 

1.3 Objectives and Scope of Study 
4 

1.4 Organisation of the Thesis 
5 

1.5 Assumptions and Notations 
7 

1.6 List of Publications 
8 
2 FRACTURE MECHANICS AND THE COHESIVE CRACK MODEL – A SURVEY
11
2.1 Introduction 
11 
2.2 A Review of Fracture Mechanics and Quasibrittle Models 
12 
2.3 A Review of the Cohesive Crack Model 
20 
2.4 A Review of Direct Methods of Obtaining Cohesive Crack Parameters 
27 
2.5 A Review of Indirect Methods of Obtaining Cohesive Crack Parameters 
36 
2.6
Summary
45
iv
3 STATE PROBLEM
47
3.1 
Introduction 
47 

3.2 
Softening Laws as Complementarity Problems 
49 

3.2.1 TwoBranch Piecewise Linear Softening Law 
55 

3.2.2 ThreeBranch Piecewise Linear Softening Law 
57 

3.2.3 Power Softening Law 
59 

3.2.4 PowerExponential Softening Law 
60 

3.3 
Structural Discretisation and Modeling 
60 

3.3.1 
BEM – An Overview 
62 

3.3.2 
TwoZone BEM Formulation 
71 

3.3.3 
Elastic Analysis Using TwoZone BEM 
80 

 Example 1: cantilever beam 
81 

 Example 2: threepoint bending beam 
84 

3.4 
Formulation of the State Problem 
93 

3.4.1 MCP and the Path Solver 
95 

3.4.2 GAMS – A Modelling Environment 
97 

3.4.3 Computational Examples 
102 

 Example 1: twobranch softening law 
103 

 Example 2: power softening law 
104 

3.5 
Summary 
105 
4 PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION: FORMULATION AND NLP SOLUTION APPROACHES
107
4.1 Introduction 
107 
4.2 Formulation of the Parameter Identification Problem 
110 
4.3 MPEC – An Overview 
114 
4.3.1
MPEC with Complementarity Constraint
116
v
4.3.2 Complexity of MPECs 
117 

 Example 1: nonconvexity of MPEC 
118 

 Example 2: feasible solution set not connected 
120 

4.3.3 Approaches to Solving MPECs 
121 

4.4 
NLPBased Approaches to the Parameter Identification Problem 
122 

4.4.1 Algorithm 1: Smoothing 
124 

4.4.2 Algorithm 2: Penalty 
127 

4.4.3 Algorithm 3: Relaxation 
128 

4.4.4 Algorithm 4: Minimise Complementarity 
129 

4.5 
Validation of NLPBased Algorithms Using Pseudo Data 
130 

4.5.1 
Perfect Pseudo Data 
131 

 Data 1: threepoint bend test – ideal data 
131 

 Data 2: wedge splitting test – ideal data 
132 

4.5.2 
Computational Results 
134 

 Problem 1: parameter identification of Data 1 
134 

 Problem 2: parameter identification of Data 2 
136 

4.6 
Outliers, Noise and the Choice of Error Norm 
139 

4.6.1 Implementation of Error Norms in the Identification Problem 
140 

4.6.2 Computational Results 
142 

 Problem 1: comparison of error norms using perfect data set 
144 

 Problem 2: comparison of error norms using perturbed data set 
144 

 Problem 3: comparison of error norms using data with outlier 
147 

4.7 
Revalidation of the Proposed Algorithms Using L1 Norm 
150 
4.8
Summary
152
vi
5 IDENTIFICATION USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND OTHER METHODS
154
5.1 Introduction 
154 

5.2 Experimental Data Sets 
155 

5.2.1 Milan Data 
156 

5.2.2 LMC/EPFL Data 
158 

5.2.3 Danish 1 Data 
160 

5.2.4 Danish 2 Data 
161 

5.3 Validation of the NLPBased Algorithms Using Experimental Data 
163 

5.3.1 Validation 1: Milan Data 
163 

5.3.2 Validation 2: LMC/EPFL Data 
167 

5.3.3 Validation 3: Danish 1 Data 
172 

5.3.4 Validation 4: Danish 2 Data 
175 

5.3.5 Discussion 
178 

5.4 Identification of Parameters Characterising Other Softening Laws 
178 

5.4.1 Parameter Identification of Milan Data Using Other Softening Laws 
179 

5.4.2 Parameter Identification of LMC/EPFL Data Using Other Softening Laws 
182 

5.4.3 Parameter Identification of Danish 1 Data Using Other Softening Laws 
185 

5.4.4 Parameter Identification of Danish 2 Data Using Other Softening Laws 
188 

5.4.5 Discussion 
191 

5.5 Time Reduction Techniques for the Parameter Identification Problem 
192 

5.5.1 SmoothingTikhonov Technique 
193 

5.5.2 Aggregation Technique 
196 

5.5.3 Presolve Technique 
201 

 
Milan Data: presolve technique 
203 
vii
 
LMC/EPFL Data: presolve technique 
206 

5.5.4 
Iterative Presolve Technique 
210 

5.6 
Summary 
214 
6 EVOLUTIONARY SEARCH METHODS
216
6.1 Introduction 
216 
6.2 Heuristic Evolutionary Approaches 
218 
6.3 Genetic Algorithm 
220 
6.3.1 Solution Representation and Population Size 
221 
6.3.2 Selection 
223 
6.3.3 Crossover 
225 
6.3.4 Mutation 
227 
6.3.5 Termination 
230 
6.3.6 Validation 
230 
 Power Law 
231 
 Twobranch Law 
233 
6.4 Differential Evolution 
235 
6.4.1 Mutation 
235 
 DE/rand/1 
236 
 DE/best/1 
236 
 DE/randtobest/1 
236 
 DE/rand/2 
237 
 DE/best/2 
237 
6.4.2 Crossover 
237 
6.4.3 Selection 
238 
viii
6.4.4 Generation of a Trial Vector 
239 

6.4.5 DE Control Parameters 
239 

6.4.6 Validation 
241 

6.5 
Computational Results 
244 
6.5.1 Parameter Identification of the Milan Data Using GA and DE 
245 

 Identification of Power Law Parameters 
245 

 Identification of Twobranch Law Parameters 
247 

 Identification of Threebranch Law Parameters 
249 

6.5.2 Parameter Identification of the LMC/EPFL Data Using GA and DE 
251 

 Identification of Power Law Parameters 
251 

 Identification of Powerexponential Law Parameters 
253 

 Identification of Twobranch Law Parameters 
257 

 Identification of Threebranch Law Parameters 
258 

6.5.3 Parameter Identification of the Danish 1 Data Using GA and DE 
260 

 Identification of Power Law Parameters 
261 

 Identification of Powerexponential Law Parameters 
262 

 Identification of Twobranch Law Parameters 
265 

 Identification of Threebranch Law Parameters 
267 

6.5.4 Parameter Identification of the Danish 2 Data Using GA and DE 
270 

 Identification of Power Law Parameters 
270 

 Identification of Twobranch Law Parameters 
271 

 Identification of Threebranch Law Parameters 
273 

6.5.5 Discussion 
275 
6.6
Summary
276
ix
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
278
7.1 Concluding Remarks 
278 
7.2 Recommendations for Future Studies 
280 
REFERENCES 
282 
x
NOTATION
The following are the common symbols used in this thesis.
CR 
crossover factor used in differential evolution 

D 
size of parameter vector 

e 
vector of ones 

E 
Young’s modulus 

f 
nonnegative vector interpreted as the activation function 

f t 
tensile strength 

F 
mutation factor used in differential evolution 

G 
current generation 

G 
F 
fracture energy 
h ,h ,h
1
2
J
L
1
L
2
L
1
L
2
L
p
N
p
r
t
t
t
c
t
a
,t
b
3
actual slope of the softening branches
set of all measurements
leastabsolute norm
least square norm
norm of L _{1} and L _{2} difference
leastpower norm
size of population
point load
influence vector obtainable as a byproduct of the computational model
normal traction at the crack interface
vector of normal tractions at the crack interface
tensile strength
breakpoint strength
t
e vector of elastic tractions at the crack interface due to externally applied actions
xi
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. 
Title 
Page 

Figure 1.1 
Linear softening law 
2 

Figure 2.1 
Relative sizes of the fracture process zone for (a) brittle, (b) ductile, (c) quasibrittle materials. 
14 

Figure 2.2 
A generic nonlinear softening curve. 
16 

Figure 2.3 
Piecewise linear stressstrain curve for the crack band model. 
17 

Figure 2.4 
Definition of the twoparameter fracture model. 
18 

Figure 2.5 
Size effect law as defined in Equation (2.5). 
20 

Figure 2.6 
Dugdale’s plastic zone model. 
21 

Figure 2.7 
Stressdeformation behaviour of a quasibrittle specimen in tension. 
22 

Figure 2.8 
Definition of the cohesive crack model. 
24 

Figure 2.9 
A schematic illustration of a uniaxial tensile test. 
28 

Figure 2.10 
A schematic illustration of a tensile splitting test. 
31 

Figure 2.11 
Illustration of a threepoint bend test. 
32 

Figure 2.12 
Work of fracture as an area in the loaddisplacement (p _{} ) curve. 
33 

Figure 2.13 
Common wedge splitting shapes (a) cubical 
– mould 

fabricated, (b) and (c) cylindrical – cored from existing structures (Brühwiler and Wittmann, 1990). 
34 

Figure 2.14 
Schematic illustration of a wedge splitting test (Brühwiler and Wittmann, 1990). 
35 

Figure 3.1 
Holonomic twobranch softening law (Bolzon et al., 1994). 
51 

Figure 3.2 
Definition of a twobranch softening law using actual slopes (TinLoi and Xia, 2001). 
54 

Figure 3.3 
Definition of a nonlinear softening curve. 
55 

Figure 3.4 
Definition of a threebranch softening law using actual slopes. 
58 
Figure 3.5
Problem definition for mode I fracture.
61
xiii
Figure No. 
Title 
Page 

Figure 3.6 
Representation of a 2D body bounded by boundary . 
64 

Figure 3.7 
Definition of the displacement response due to a unit load applied in the X1 direction. 
66 

Figure 3.8 
Convention for local axis interface system. 
72 

Figure 3.9 
Node numbering scheme for zones 1 and 2. 72 

Figure 3.10 
Physical 
interpretation 
for 
the 
determination 
of 
the 
Z 

matrix. 
79 

Figure 3.11 
Cantilever beam problem. 
81 

Figure 3.12 

Figure 3.13 
Cantilever beam under transverse parabolic load at both ends. Comparison of stress results at section AA as predicted by beam theory and twozone BEM with 14 (total) quadratic elements. 
82 83 

Figure 3.14 
Comparison of stress results at section AA as predicted by beam theory and twozone BEM with 28 (total) quadratic elements. 
85 

Figure 3.15 
Geometry of a typical threepoint bending beam. 
85 

Figure 3.16 
Discretisation of a twozone BEM using 16 elements on each zone. 
88 

Figure 3.17 
Comparison of normal stresses at section AB obtained BEM(16x16x2), exact solution and approximate solution. 89 

Figure 3.18 
Illustration of local stress disturbance due to an abrupt change of length in the adjacent element. 
90 

Figure 3.19 
Comparison of normal stresses at section AB obtained from BEM(63x63x20), exact solution and approximate solution. 
91 

Figure 3.20 
Distribution of normal stresses at section AB as predicted by twozone BEM and FEM. 
92 

Figure 3.21 
GAMS coding of the state problem (3.74). 
100 

Figure 3.22 
Geometry of notched threepoint bend specimen. 
102 

Figure 3.23 
Twobranch softening law for example 1. 103 

Figure 3.24 
Softening response of example 1 using twobranch law. 
104 
Figure 3.25
Softening response of example 2 using power law.
105
xiv
Figure No. 
Title 
Page 

Figure 4.1 
Diagram of the feasible solution space for Example 4.1. 
118 

Figure 4.2 
Plot of the value of the objective function along the xaxis 
119 

Figure 4.3 
Diagram of the feasible solution space for Example 4.2. 
120 

Figure 4.4 
Smoothing of complementarity conditions. 
126 

Figure 4.5 
Threepoint bend model used to generate the pseudo data. 
131 

Figure 4.6 
Perfect pseudo data points generated from a threepoint bend model. 
132 

Figure 4.7 
Wedge splitting model used to generate the pseudo data. 
133 

Figure 4.8 
Perfect pseudo data points generated from a wedge splitting model. 
133 

Figure 4.9 
Data 
1: 
comparison 
of 
predicted 
with 
actual 
p 
– 
u 

responses. 
136 

Figure 4.10 
Data 
2: 
comparison 
of 
predicted 
with 
actual 
p 
– 
u 

responses. 
138 

Figure 4.11 
Data 2: details of p – u responses at the peak load. 
138 

Figure 4.12 
Perturbed data set. 
143 

Figure 4.13 
Data set with outlier. 
144 

Figure 4.14 
Perfect data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u response. 
145 

Figure 4.15 
Perturbed data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u response. 
146 

Figure 4.16 
Perturbed data: details of p – u responses at the peak load. 
147 

Figure 4.17 
Identified p – u response for a data with outlier using L _{1} – L _{2} norm. 
148 

Figure 4.18 
Data with outlier: comparison of predicted with actual p –u response. 
149 

Figure 4.19 

Figure 5.1 
Data with outlier: details of p – u responses at the peak load. Milan threepoint bend test showing grid points where horizontal displacements are measured. 
149 156 

Figure 5.2 
Dimensions for the structural model of Milan threepoint bend test. 
157 
Figure 5.4
Details of the LMC/EPFL wedge splitting test.
158
xv
Figure No. 
Title 
Page 
Figure 5.3 
Plot of the 48 recorded data points and the chosen subset of 32 data points for the Milan threepoint bend test. 
157 
Figure 5.5 
Plot of the 128 recorded data points of the LMC/EPFL wedge splitting test. 
159 
Figure 5.6 
Plot of the 128 recorded data points and the chosen subset of 32 data points for the LMC/EPFL wedge splitting test. 160 

Figure 5.7 
Dimensions for the structural model of Danish threepoint Data points for the threepoint bend test Danish normal 

Figure 5.8 
bend test. strength concrete. 
161 162 
Figure 5.9 
Data points for the threepoint bend test Danish high strength concrete. 
162 
Figure 5.10 
Milan data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u responses. 
165 
Figure 5.11 
Milan data: details of p –u responses at the peak load. 
166 
Figure 5.12 
Milan data: twobranch softening laws determined by the NLPbased algorithms. 
166 
Figure 5.13 
LMC/EPFL data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u responses. 
169 
Figure 5.14 
LMC/EPFL data: details of p – u responses at the peak load. 
169 
Figure 5.15 
LMC/EPFL data: twobranch softening laws determined by the NLPbased algorithms. 
170 
Figure 5.16 
LMC/EPFL data: comparison of p – u curves predicted by the smoothing and penalty algorithms. 
171 
Figure 5.17 
LMC/EPFL data: twobranch softening laws determined by smoothing and penalty algorithms. 
171 
Figure 5.18 
Danish 1 data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u responses. 
173 
Figure 5.19 
Danish 1 data: twobranch softening laws determined by the NLPbased algorithms. 
174 
Figure 5.20 
Danish 1 data: details of p –u responses at the peak load. 
174 
Figure 5.21 
Danish 2 data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u responses. 
176 
Figure 5.22
Danish 2 data: details of p –u responses at the peak load.
177
xvi
Figure No. 
Title 
Page 

Figure 5.23 
Danish 2 data: twobranch softening laws determined by the NLPbased algorithms. 
177 

Figure 5.24 
Milan data: predicted p – u responses of various softening laws. 
181 

Figure 5.25 
Milan data: details of p –u curves at the peak load. 
181 

Figure 5.26 
Milan data: identified softening curves associated with the softening laws. 
182 

Figure 5.27 
LMC/EPFL data: predicted p – u responses of various softening laws. 
184 

Figure 5.28 
LMC/EPFL data: identified softening curves associated with the softening laws. 
186 

Figure 5.29 
Danish 
1 
data: 
predicted 
p 
– 
u responses 
of 
various 

softening laws. 
187 

Figure 5.30 
Danish 1 data: details of p –u curves at the peak load. 
188 

Figure 5.31 
Danish 1 data: identified softening curves associated with the softening laws. 
189 

Figure 5.32 
Danish 2 data: identified softening curves associated with the softening laws. 
190 

Figure 5.33 
Danish 2 data: details of p –u curves at the peak load. 
191 

Figure 5.34 
Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and smoothingTikhonov algorithms for a threebranch law. 
195 

Figure 5.35 
Milan data: identified threebranch law for smoothing and smoothingTikhonov algorithms. 
196 

Figure 5.36 
Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and Aggregation techniques for a twobranch law. 
200 

Figure 5.37 
Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and Aggregation techniques for a threebranch law. 
201 

Figure 5.38 
Chosen subset in Milan data for the Presolve technique. 
203 

Figure 5.39 
Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and Presolve techniques for a threebranch law. 
205 

Figure 5.40 
Chosen 
subset 
in LMC/EPFL 
data 
for the 
Presolve 

technique. 
206 

Figure 5.41 
LMC/EPFL data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and Presolve techniques for a twobranch law. 
207 
xvii
Figure No. 
Title 
Page 
Figure 5.42 
LMC/EPFL data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and Presolve techniques for a threebranch law. 208 

Figure 5.43 
LMC/EPFL data: identified threebranch law for the smoothing algorithm and the Presolve technique. 
209 
Figure 5.44 
Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and iterative Presolve techniques for a threebranch law. 212 

Figure 5.45 
LMC/EPFL data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and iterative Presolve techniques for a twobranch law. 213 

Figure 6.1 
Pseudo data: GA iteration history of the power law. 
232 
Figure 6.2 
Pseudo data: fitness contour of the power law. 
233 
Figure 6.3 
Pseudo data: fitness landscape of the power law. 
233 
Figure 6.4 
Pseudo data: GA iteration history of the twobranch law. 
234 
Figure 6.5 
DE procedure in generating a trial vector. 
240 
Figure 6.6 
Pseudo data: iteration histories for DE/best/2/bin and DE/best/2/exp strategies using a twobranch law. 
243 
Figure 6.7 
Pseudo data: DE iteration history of the power law. 
244 
Figure 6.8 
Milan data: GA and DE iteration histories of the power law. 
246 
Figure 6.9 
Milan data: fitness contour of the power law. 
247 
Figure 6.10 
Milan data: fitness landscape of the power law. 
248 
Figure 6.11 
Milan data: GA and DE iteration histories of the two branch law. 
249 
Figure 6.12 
Milan data: identified pu responses of smoothing, GA and DE methods for a threebranch law. 
250 
Figure 6.13 
Milan data: identified threebranch law for smoothing, GA and DE methods. 
251 
Figure 6.14 

Figure 6.15 
Milan data: GA and DE iteration histories of the three branch law. LMC/EPFL data: GA and DE iteration histories of the power law. 
252 253 
Figure 6.16 
LMC/EPFL data: fitness contour of the power law. 
254 
Figure 6.17 
LMC/EPFL data: fitness landscape of the power law. 
254 
Figure 6.18 
LMC/EPFL data: fitness contour of the powerexponential law. 
255 
xviii
Figure No. 
Title 
Page 

Figure 6.19 
LMC/EPFL 
data: 
fitness landscape 
of 
the 
power 

exponential law. 
256 

Figure 6.20 
LMC/EPFL data: GA and DE iteration histories of the powerexponential law. 
256 

Figure 6.21 
LMC/EPFL data: GA and DE iteration histories of the two branch law. 
258 

Figure 6.22 
LMC/EPFL data: GA and DE iteration histories of the threebranch law. 
259 

Figure 6.23 
LMC/EPFL data: identified pu responses of smoothing, GA and DE methods for a threebranch law. 
260 

Figure 6.24 
LMC/EPFL 
data: 
identified threebranch 
law 
for 

smoothing, GA and DE methods. 
261 

Figure 6.25 
Danish 1 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the power law. 
262 

Figure 6.26 
Danish 1 data: fitness contour of the power law. 
263 

Figure 6.27 
Danish 1 data: fitness landscape of the power law. 
263 

Figure 6.28 
Danish 1 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the power exponential law. 
264 

Figure 6.29 
Danish 1 data: fitness contour of the powerexponential law. 
265 

Figure 6.30 
Danish 1 data: fitness landscape of the powerexponential law. 
265 

Figure 6.31 
Danish 1 data: identified pu responses of smoothing, GA and DE methods for a twobranch law. 
266 

Figure 6.32 
Danish 1 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the two branch law. 
267 

Figure 6.33 
Danish 1 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the three branch law. 
268 

Figure 6.34 
Danish 1 data: identified pu responses of smoothing, GA and DE methods for a threebranch law. 
269 

Figure 6.35 
Danish 1 data: identified threebranch law for smoothing, Danish 2 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the power 

Figure 6.36 
GA and DE methods. law. 
269 271 
Figure 6.37
Danish 2 data: fitness contour of the power law.
272
xix
Figure No. 
Title 
Page 
Figure 6.38 
Danish 2 data: fitness landscape of the power law. 
272 
Figure 6.39 
Danish 2 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the two branch law. 
273 
Figure 6.40 
Danish 2 data: identified pu responses of smoothing, GA and DE methods for a threebranch law. 
274 
Figure 6.41 
Danish 2 data: identified threebranch law for smoothing, GA and DE methods. 
275 
xx
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. 
Title 
Table 3.1 
Stress and displacement values of a cantilever beam obtained from beam theory and 14element twozone BEM analysis. 
Table 3.2 
Stress and displacement values of a cantilever beam obtained from refined twozone BEM discretisation. 
Table 3.3 values for the exact and the approximate solutions.
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
x
values
solutions.
obtained
using
the
exact
and
approximate
x values for BEM(16x16x2) compared with the values
predicted using the exact and approximate solutions.
Comparison of
solutions.
x values for the exact and approximate
Results
least
squares norm.
Updated results of the parameter identification of Data 1 for
different
squares norm.
algorithms using standard least
different
for
of
the
parameter
identification
using
of
Data
1
NLPbased
NLPbased
algorithms
standard
Parameter 
identification 
of 
Data 
2 
using 
different 
algorithms. 
Commonly used robust estimators.
Results of the parameter identification of perfect data using different error norms.
Results of the parameter identification of perturbed data using different error norms.
Results of the parameter identification of data with outlier using different error norms.
Results of the parameter identification of Data 1 using L _{1} norm.
Results of the parameter identification of Data 2 using L _{1} norm.
Page
83
84
87
87
89
91
134
135
137
140
145
146
148
151
151
xxi
Table No. 
Title 
Page 

Table 5.1 
Settings of NLPbased algorithms for Milan data. 
164 

Table 5.2 
Results of parameter identification of Milan data using different NLPbased algorithms. 
165 

Table 5.3 
Settings of NLPbased algorithms for LMC/EPFL data. 
168 

Table 5.4 
Results of parameter identification of LMC/EPFL data using different NLPbased algorithms. 
168 

Table 5.5 
Settings of NLPbased algorithms for Danish 1 data. 
172 

Table 5.6 
Results of parameter identification of Danish 1 data for different NLPbased algorithms. 
172 

Table 5.7 
Settings of NLPbased algorithms for Danish 2 data. 
175 

Table 5.8 
Results of parameter identification of Danish 2 data for different NLPbased algorithms. 
176 

Table 5.9 
Identified parameters 
of different softening laws using 

Milan data. 
180 

Table 5.10 
Other information related to the parameter identification of Milan data. 
180 

Table 5.11 
Identified parameters 
of different softening laws using 

LMC/EPFL data. 
183 

Table 5.12 
Information 
related 
to 
the 
parameter identification 
of 

LMC/EPLF data. 
183 

Table 5.13 
Identified parameters 
of different softening laws using 

Danish 1 data. 
186 

Table 5.14 
Information 
related 
to 
the 
parameter identification 
of 

Danish 1 data. 
187 

Table 5.15 
Identified parameters 
of different softening laws using 

Danish 2 data. 
189 

Table 5.16 
Other information related to the parameter identification of Danish 2 data. 
191 

Table 5.17 
Milan data: comparison of results for a twobranch law between smoothing and smoothingTikhonov algorithms. 194 

Table 5.18 
Milan data: comparison of results for a threebranch law between smoothing and smoothingTikhonov algorithms. 195 

Table 5.19 
Milan data: 
identification 
results using Aggregation 
technique for a twobranch law.
199
xxii
Table No. 
Title 
Page 

Table 5.20 
Milan 
data: 
identification results using Aggregation 

technique for a threebranch law. 
200 

Table 5.21 
Milan data: identification results using Presolve technique for a twobranch law. 
204 

Table 5.22 
Milan data: identification results using Presolve technique for a threebranch law. 
204 

Table 5.23 
Milan data: identification results using Presolve technique for power law. 
205 

Table 5.24 
LMC/EPFL 
data: 
identification results using 
Presolve 

technique for a twobranch law. 
207 

Table 5.25 
LMC/EPFL 
data: 
identification results using 
Presolve 

technique for a threebranch law. 
208 

Table 5.26 
LMC/EPFL 
data: 
identification results using 
Presolve 

technique for power law. 
210 

Table 5.27 
LMC/EPFL 
data: 
identification results using 
Presolve 

technique for powerexponential law. 
210 

Table 5.28 
Milan 
data: 
identification results using the 
iterative 

Presolve technique for a threebranch law. 
211 

Table 5.29 
LMC/EPFL data: identification results using the iterative Presolve technique for a twobranch law. 
213 

Table 6.1 
Settings of the crossover operators used in GAOT. 
228 

Table 6.2 
Settings of the mutation operators used in GAOT. 
229 

Table 6.3 
Pseudo data: identification of the power law using GA. 
231 

Table 6.4 
Pseudo data: identification of the twobranch law using GA. 
234 

Table 6.5 
Pseudo data: twobranch law parameters identified using different DE strategies. 
242 

Table 6.6 
Pseudo data: identification of the power law using DE. 
243 

Table 6.7 
Milan data: identification of the power law using GA and DE. 
245 

Table 6.8 
Milan data: identification of the twobranch law using GA and DE. 
248 

Table 6.9 
Milan data: identification of the threebranch law using GA and DE. 
250 
xxiii
Table No. 
Title 
Page 
Table 6.10 
LMC/EPFL data: identification of the power law using GA and DE. 
252 
Table 6.11 
LMC/EPFL data: identification of the powerexponential LMC/EPFL data: identification of the twobranch law using 

Table 6.12 
law using GA and DE. GA and DE. 
255 257 
Table 6.13 
LMC/EPFL data: identification of the threebranch law using GA and DE. 
258 
Table 6.14 
Danish 1 data: identification of the power law using GA and DE. 
261 
Table 6.15 
Danish 1 data: identification of the powerexponential law LMC/EPFL data: identification of the twobranch law using 

Table 6.16 
using GA and DE. GA and DE. 
264 266 
Table 6.17 
Danish 1 data: identification of the threebranch law using GA and DE. 
268 
Table 6.18 
Danish 2 data: identification of the power law using GA and DE. 
270 
Table 6.19 
Danish 2 data: identification of the twobranch law using GA and DE. 
272 
Table 6.20 
Danish 2 data: identification of the threebranch law using GA and DE. 
274 
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.