You are on page 1of 8

Third International Conference on

Advances in Control and Optimization of Dynamical Systems


March 13-15, 2014. Kanpur, India

Detection of Cracks in Structures Using


Two Crack Transfer Matrix
P.Nandakumar K.Shankar

Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600036, India.
(e-mail: ppnkumar74@gmail.com).

Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600036, India.
(e-mail: skris@iitm.ac.in)

Abstract: A novel damage detection scheme for multiple crack detection in a beam like
structures is presented, based on a transfer matrix (TM) derived from the beam element with
two cracks. Based on Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) principles, a crack is modelled
as a hinge which provides an additional flexibility to the element. Each element is assumed
to have two open edge cracks and a new TM called Two Crack Transfer Matrix (TCTM) is
developed using the Finite Element method. Using an inverse approach, the TCTM is used
to predict cracks in a beam. The state vector at a node includes displacements, forces and
moments at that node; when it is multiplied with the TM the state vector at the adjacent node
can be obtained. The state vector formed at the starting node, known as initial state vector
needs to be estimated, from which state vectors at adjacent nodes are predicted using the
TM. Displacement responses are measured at a few adjacent nodes in the structure. The mean
square error (MSE) between measured and predicted responses is minimized using a heuristic
optimization algorithm, with crack depth and location in each element as the optimization
variables. Two numerical examples, a cantilever and a sub-structure (SS) of a frame with nine
members are solved with two cracks in each element. The damage detection method is also
validated experimentally by local identification of a SS of a fixed beam where the initial state
vector is measured using strain gauges and accelerometers. Using this method, maximum of two
cracks per element were successfully identified. The TCTM method is suitable for local damage
identification in large structures.

Keywords: Two crack Transfer Matrix, Successive Identification, Particle Swarm Optimization,
State Vector, Crack Detection

1. INTRODUCTION procedure was applied with suitable boundary conditions


at the crack with two different polynomial functions. Viola
The process of detecting damage and monitoring the con- et al. (2002) developed a new prismatic Timoshenko beam
dition of the structure is known as structural health moni- element with crack and the effect of crack in the stiffness
toring. It is very important for civil, mechanical, aerospace and mass matrices were investigated. Khiem and Lien
structures, since they undergo repeated cyclic loading (2001) determined natural frequencies of cantilever with
which may cause an unexpected fatigue failure even if there multiple cracks using TM approach. Gounaris et al. (1996)
is a small crack. Generally, the crack detection process formulated compliance matrix for Timoshenko cracked
such as ultrasonic methods, optical methods, radiography, beam element by which identified crack in a cantilever
magnetic field methods, eddy-current methods and ther- by measuring coupled response. However, it is suitable
mal field methods are used for damage detection. They are for only one edge crack in the beam and requires many
highly expensive and require that the vicinity of the dam- nomograms for each frequency of vibration. Krawczuk
age is known a priori. Further, the structural element to (2002) detected the crack in beam like structures using
be inspected is accessible. Hence, the vibration based crack wave propagation method using Genetic Algorithm (GA)
detection methods deserve further investigation. Crack in and gradient search technique.
a structural element increases the local flexibility which
is the function of crack depth and location. Gounaris Tee et al. (2009) identified crack on 50 degree of free-
and Dimarogonas (1988) developed elemental compliance dom (DOF) shear model using Observer Kalman filter
matrix for cracked beam element by assuming the crack Identification and Eigen Realisation Algorithm (OKID/
increases the flexibility of the element. From that compli- ERA) based Condensed Model Identification and Recov-
ance matrix, elemental stiffness and mass matrices have ery (CMIR) technique with global and sub-structural ap-
been developed and the forced vibrational behaviour of a proach using GA. It has been proved that the SS approach
cantilever with open crack was studied. Krawczuk et al. identifies crack with more accuracy than global structure
(2000) developed new finite element matrices for cracked approach. Prashanth and Shankar (2010) detected damage
beam elements using elasto-plastic fracture mechanics. FE

978-3-902823-60-1 2014 IFAC 1084 10.3182/20140313-3-IN-3024.00073


2014 ACODS
March 13-15, 2014. Kanpur, India

P1 A
a1 a2
P2 h
a a
l1 b d
h
l2
le
A b
Fig. 1. Beam element with two cracks Section - AA

on structures using a two stage artificial neural network


Fig. 2. Cross section at the crack
technique. Damage on a six story shear building, a nine
member frame structure and thirty member frame were
identified. Varghese and Shankar (2014) identified cracks w1 (x) w2 (x) w3 (x)
in SS of cantilever using multi-objective optimization ap- 2 (x)
c1 c2
proach with combined acceleration matching and transient 1 (x) 1 2 3 (x)
power flow balance matching. In the above algorithms,
for each iteration, the large system matrices need to be l1
l2
solved which consumes more computational effort. As an
alternative, TM and state vectors are introduced in this le
paper. The size of the TM does not increase with the
total DOF of the model, thus reducing the computational Fig. 3. Equivalent model of cracked beam element
effort. In the best of Authors knowledge, Nandakumar
and Shankar (2012) were the first to propose using TM the second and third modes are neglected. Substituting
as an inverse problem for local identification in structures. (2) in (1),
!2
They used TMs to identify parameters of beam structures. 2
1 2 2
Z X
Later Nandakumar and Shankar (2013) extended the work cij = KI,k dA (3)
to damped TMs and experimentally verified the TM based E Pj Pi A
k=1
identification strategy. The novelty of the present work is, The stress
intensity factor at any crack depth is given
(a) The above TM method is extended to crack identifi- by KI = f (/h), where is bending stress at the
cation. (b) A formulation is derived to identify two cracks cracked section. For a rectangular section which is shown
per element which is hitherto not reported in literature. in Fig.2, the bending stress is = 6M
bh2 , where M be the
bending moment. f (/h) is geometric correction function
2. BEAM ELEMENT WITH TWO CRACKS (Lee and Chung, 2000).
s
A beam element of cross section b h and length le is tan(/2h) 0.923 + 0.199[1 sin(/2h)]4
f (/h) =
considered with two cracks located at a distance of l1 /2h cos(/2h)
and l2 from its left end node as shown in Fig. 1. Let (4)
a1 and a2 be the depth of the cracks measured from Let be the crack depth at the section varies from zero
the top of the element. The normalised crack depth () to a, the normalised crack depth = /h, (3) becomes,
and location () are defined as 1 = a1 /h, 2 = a2 /h,
1 = l1 /le and 2 = l2 /le . P1 and P2 are the transverse Z
6h(1 2 )((1 )le )2
force and moment respectively applied at the right node c11 = f ()2 d (5)
EI
on the cracked element. The flexibility due to the crack 0
in the beam element can be obtained by the Castiglianos 3

theorem by applying LEFM theory ignoring plasticity at where I = bh12 is area moment of inertia of the section.
the crack tip: If the element is applied with only force P1 , c12 and c22
2U vanishes and hence c = c11 .
cij = (1)
Pi Pj
for i = 1, 2 and j = 1, 2, where U is the strain energy in 2.1 Finite Element Formulation
the cracked element and Pi is nodal forces applied on the
element. Strain energy U is given by the relation, The stiffness and mass matrices of the beam element
2
!2 with two cracks can be obtained by FE procedure. The
1 2
Z X cracked beam element which is shown in Fig. 1 is consider
U= KI,k dA (2)
E A
into three segments connected by two massless hinges
k=1
with flexibility c1 and c2 respectively as shown in Fig. 3.
where A is crack area and is the Poissons ratio and E Let w(x) and (x) are the transverse displacement and
is the Youngs modulus of the beam material. k is DOF at angular displacement about an axis perpendicular to the
the node and KI is stress intensity factor corresponds to plane containing the element respectively. Three different
the first mode of the crack formation. Since the bending polynomials are assumed for the field variables of this
moment(BM) causes an important change in the crack, element since it has three different segments.
the effect of first mode of the crack is predominant and

1085
2014 ACODS
March 13-15, 2014. Kanpur, India

w1 (x) = a1 + a2 x + a3 x2 + a4 x3 ; 0 x l1
     
Dc13 Dc14 Dc31 Dc32 Dc33 Dc34
, [D3 ] = , [D4 ] = ,
w2 (x) = a5 + a6 x + a7 x2 + a8 x3 ; l1 x l2 (6) Dc23 Dc24 Dc41 Dc42 Dc43 Dc44
   
2 3 M (t) w(t)
w3 (x) = a9 + a10 x + a11 x + a12 x ; l2 x le F (t) = and x(t) = ; then (11) is written
V (t) (t)
as,
   1   
where a1 - a12 are the constants. The angular displace- x2 (t) [D2 ] [0] [D1 ] [I] x1 (t)
ments are 1 (x) = w10 (x), 2 (x) = w20 (x) and 3 (x) = = (12)
F2 (t) [D4 ] [I] [D3 ] [0] F1 (t)
w30 (x). The following are the nodal values and conditions
The TCTM is given by,
applied to the cracked beam element.  1  
[D2 ] [0] [D1 ] [I]
[Tc ] = (13)
w1 (0) = W1 ; 1 (0) = 1 ; w3 (le ) = W2 ; 3 (le ) = 2 [D4 ] [I] [D3 ] [0]
w1 (l1 ) = w2 (l1 ); w100 (l1 ) = w200 (l1 ); w1000 (l1 ) = w2000 (l1 ) TM for multiple elements is calculated from elemental
TMs. The state vector is estimated across n elements and
w2 (l2 ) = w3 (l2 ); w200 (l2 )
= w300 (l2 ); w2000 (l2 )
= w3000 (l2 )(7)
state vector at node 1 {X1 } is known, then the internal
1 response vector at the (n + 1)th node {Xn+1,i } is given by
EIw200 (l1 ) = (2 (l1 ) 1 (l1 ));
c1
1 n
!
EIw300 (l2 ) = (3 (l2 ) 2 (l2 ))
Y
c2 {Xn+1,i } = [T(n+1k),(n+2k) ] {X1,i } +
where w1 , w2 , 1 and 2 are the displacement and slope at k=1
n+1j
n
!
the nodes 1 and 2 respectively. The stiffness matrix and X Y
mass matrix for the two crack beam element is obtained [T(n+1k),(n+2k) ] {Xj,e } (14)
as follows. ! j=1 k=1
Z l1 Z l2 Z le
[K e ] = EI B1T B1 dx + B2T B2 dx + B3T B3 dx where {Xj,e } is external force vector at j th node.
0 l1 l2
(8) 3. CRACK DETECTION BY TCTM METHOD
2 2 2
where B1 = d [N 1 (x)]
dx2 , B2 = d [N 3 (x)]
dx2 , B3 = d [N 5 (x)]
dx2 and
N1 (x), N3 (x), N5 (x) are the respective row vectors of the Cracks in a structure are identified by using the newly de-
shape function matrix. The crack in the beam element has veloped TCTM by assuming the mass and flexural rigidity
more influence in reduction of its stiffness but it does not of the beam are known and two open cracks are present in
affect the mass distribution appreciably. Hence the mass each element. The unknown parameters are the normalized
matrix for intact beam element can also be used for TM crack depths () and their locations (). The structure is
formulation. excited by a known harmonic force at a node. At a node on
the structure where the identification is to begin, the state
2.2 Transfer Matrix Formulation vector is estimated (i.e. initial state vector). This requires
both accelerometers and strain gauges. Additionally, ac-
The second order differential equation for the two crack celerations need to be measured at a few adjacent nodes
beam element shown in Fig.3. and converted into displacement.
[M e ]{q(t)} + [C e ]{q(t)} + [K e ]{q(t)} = {f (t)} (9)
where [M e ], [K e ] and [C e ] are elemental mass, stiffness After formation of the initial state vector, the state vectors
and damping matrices of the two crack beam element are obtained at adjacent locations by successive multi-
respectively, {q(t)}, {q(t)}, {q(t)} and {f (t)} are accelera- plying with elemental TCTM using (14). Since the crack
tion, velocity, displacement and force vectors respectively parameters in the TMs are unknown, they are searched by
at element nodes. Assume the material of the structure Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm within the
is lightly damped, the damping force is negligible when feasible range of 0 to 1. The successive identification strat-
compared with other force. For a harmonic excitation egy (Nandakumar and Shankar, 2012, 2013) is followed
force, the acceleration q(t) = 2 q(t) where is circular to identify crack parameters, where cracks are estimated
frequency of excitation. Then (9) becomes, progressively from starting node to end node. The crack
([K e ] 2 [M e ]){q(t)} = {f (t)} (10) parameters for which the MSE between measured and pre-
dicted responses is minimum are the identified parameters
Let [Dc ] = [K e ] 2 [M e ] is dynamic stiffness matrix for
of the crack. The error function is given by
the cracked beam element. The matrix form of the (10) is, PL 2
j=1 |wm (j) we (j)|

M1 (t) Dc11 Dc12 | Dc13 Dc14 w1 (t)
= (15)
V1 (t) Dc21 Dc22 | Dc23 Dc24 1 (t)

L
=

where wm (j) and we (j) are measured and predicted dis-
M2 (t) c31 Dc32 | Dc33 Dc34
D w (t)
placement respectively at j th time step. L is the total

2
V2 (t) Dc41 Dc42 | Dc43 Dc44 2 (t)

number of time steps. The parameters are identified suc-
(11) cessively from the starting node to the end node using
state vector at node 1 {X1 } = {w1 (t), 1 (t), M1 (t), V1 (t)}T both complete and incomplete measurements. Complete
which can be obtained by rearranging  force and displace- measurement requires that translational acceleration re-
Dc11 Dc12 sponses are measured at all nodes. However, the complete
ment vectors of (11). Let [D1 ] = , [D2 ] =
Dc21 Dc22 measurement is not possible for large structures in practice

1086
2014 ACODS
March 13-15, 2014. Kanpur, India

F (t) 1 1

Normalized crack location


Normalized crack depth
0.8 0.8
C1 C2 C3C4 0.6 0.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.4 0.4
l1 =120mm
0.2 0.2
l2 =150mm
0 0
l3 =380mm
l4 =395.2mm 1 1
2 2
L=520mm 3 Elements 3
Elements 4 4
5 5
6 Crack 2 6 Crack 2
Fig. 4. FE model of cantilever with multiple cracks Crack 1 Crack 1

due to non-availability of large number of sensors. Hence, (a) Crack depth(Noise free) (b) Crack location(Noise free)
in practice parameters are identified with a few sensors
1 1
at selected nodes only, though the accuracy is less than

Normalized crack location


Normalized crack depth
0.8 0.8
that of complete measurements, the errors are within the
0.6 0.6
acceptable limit.
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
4. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
0 0

1 1
The damage detection method using TCTM is applied on 2 2
Elements 3 3
two examples which are based on numerically simulated 4 Elements 4
5
experiments. A cantilever with four cracks and a SS of 6 Crack 2
5
6 Crack 2
Crack 1
a nine member structure which contains four cracks are Crack 1

identified by TCTM method. All measured responses are (c) Crack depth(5% Noise) (d) Crack location(5% Noise)
numerically simulated using Newmarks constant accel-
eration method with a time step of 0.001s for a time Fig. 5. Identified crack parameters of cantilever with
length of 3s. Gaussian white noise of 5% of RMS value complete measurements
of the numerically simulated response is added with all
measurements to simulate experimental errors. of element 6. The MSE between measured and predicted
responses is minimized by PSO with a swarm size of 50
4.1 Example-1: Cantilever and number of iterations 50 in each cycle of identification.
Thus the identification cycle is repeated for all elements.
The identified parameters with complete measurement are
A uniform slender cantilever of cross section 505 mm and shown in Fig.5 and the percentage of absolute error in
length of 520 mm which was used by Viola et al. (2001) identified parameters of each crack is shown in Fig.6. The
is considered here with multiple cracks. The Youngs small crack of depth =0.05 is identified with an absolute
modulus of the beam material (E) is 206 GPa and its error of 0.87% with noise free measurement and 5.87%
density is 7850 kg/m3 . Four cracks of depth 0.5 mm, 1.5 with 5% noise in measurements. The global location of
mm, 0.4 mm and 2.5 mm are located at 120 mm, 150 mm, the same crack is identified with error of 0.016% with out
380 mm and 395.2 mm respectively from the fixed end noise and 0.86% with 5% noise in measurements. The total
of the cantilever as shown in Fig.4. The normalized crack time taken for the convergence is 14 s.
depths are c1 = 0.1, c2 = 0.3, c3 = 0.08 and c4 = 0.5
and their global locations are c1 = 0.23, c2 = 0.288,
c3 = 0.73 and c4 = 0.76 respectively. The first natural The cracks are identified with responses measured only at
frequency of the cracked beam is 15.07 Hz. The cantilever nodes 2, 4, 6 and 7. The elements between the starting
is divided into six elements. Cracks C1 and C2 are located node and the adjacent measured node (node 6) is con-
in element 2, C3 and C4 are located in element 5 . The sidered. The MSE between the measured and predicted
normalized crack locations in the element 2 with respect responses is minimized by PSO with 50 swarm size, 100
to left end node of the element 2 are e21 =0.384 and iterations in each cycle. The identified parameters are
e22 =0.73 and the same in the element 5 are e51 =0.384 shown in Fig.7 and the absolute percentage of error is
and e52 =0.56. (e21 represents crack 1 in element 2 - i.e., shown in Fig.8. In this case, the crack depth of =0.05 is
C1). identified with an error of 4.44% with noise free and 9.87%
at 5% noise level in measurements. The error in its location
is 0.07% without noise and 0.65% with 5% noise. The
The free end of the cantilever is subjected to a harmonic time taken for incomplete measurement case is 19 s. The
excitation of F (t) = 10sin(210t) N. Acceleration re- percentage of error is comparatively high at cracks with
sponses are measured at all nodes and angular acceleration small magnitudes since they show very small change in
response is measured at free end node only. The initial the dynamic responses. Hence, it is concluded that TCTM
state vector {X7 } = {w7 (t), 7 (t), 0, 0}T + {0, 0, 0, F (t)}T method is identifying crack with good accuracy and speed.
is formed at the node 7 since BM and shear force (SF)
is zero at that node. The crack parameters are searched
between the values 0 and 1 by PSO. State vector at the The results are compared with other methods of damage
node 6 is calculated by multiplying initial state vector detection. Viola et al. (2001) identified a single crack of
with TCTM with predicted values of crack parameters depth of 50% of beam height, as located in this problem

1087
2014 ACODS
March 13-15, 2014. Kanpur, India

10 14 Noise free
Noise free 5% Noise
5% Noise
12
8
10 9.87

% of abs. Error
% of abs. Error

5.87 8.25
6 8
5.17 7.18
4.83
6
4
4.44
4
2.4 2.36
2 2 1.68
0.87 0.87 0.37
0.58 0.45
0.21 0
0 C1 C2 C3 C4
C1 C2 C3 C4 Cracks
Cracks
(a) Depth
(a) Depth
1.39
1.2 1.4 Noise free
Noise free 5% Noise
5% Noise 1.2
1
0.86 1

% of abs. Error
0.88
0.8
% of abs. Error

0.8 0.75
0.63 0.65
0.6
0.6 0.53
0.48

0.4 0.37 0.38 0.4


0.25
0.21 0.2 0.14
0.2 7 102
4.2 102 0
1.6 102 C1 C2 C3 C4
0
C1 C2 C3 C4 Cracks
Cracks (b) Location
(b) Location
Fig. 8. Absolute error in identified parameters of cantilever
Fig. 6. Absolute error in identified parameters of cantilever with incomplete measurements
with complete measurements

1 1
Normalized crack location
Normalized crack depth

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 using a frequency domain method from experimentally


0.4 0.4
obtained measurements of unspecified noise content. The
0.2 0.2
percentage of error in identification was 2.5% in crack
0 0
depth and 0.53% in absolute crack location. The crack
1 1
parameters identified by TCTM method for the same
2 2 depth and location have an error of 0.21% in depth
3 Elements 3
Elements 4 4 and 0.04% in absolute crack location using noise free
5
6 Crack 2
5
6 Crack 2
measurement. The errors are 0.87% in depth and 0.38%
Crack 1 Crack 1
in location in the case of 5% noisy measurement. The
(a) Crack depth(Noise free) (b) Crack location(Noise free) method proposed by Viola et al. (2001) is capable of
detecting only one crack, whereas TM method can able to
1 1
detect multiple cracks in the structure. The same problem
Normalized crack location
Normalized crack depth

0.8 0.8
was also solved by Varghese and Shankar (2012) using
0.6 0.6
combined acceleration and power flow matching method.
0.4 0.4 They have reported percentage of error in identified crack
0.2 0.2 depth and location was 0.92% and 0.5% respectively
0 0 without noise and 1.72% and 2.8% respectively with 5%
1 1 Noise. The TCTM method identified crack of depth of 0.5
2 2
3 Elements 3
of beam height with an error of 0.87% in depth and 0.38%
Elements
4
5
4
5
in absolute crack location with 5% noisy measurement.
6 Crack 2
Crack 1
6 Crack 2
Crack 1
The CPU time required by the method proposed by
Varghese and Shankar (2012) is about 3000 s whereas
(c) Crack depth(5% Noise) (d) Crack location(5% Noise)
the TCTM method requires 14 s. This shows that the
TCTM method identified multiple cracks in the cantilever
Fig. 7. Identified crack parameters of cantilever with and performs better than the other two damage detection
incomplete measurements methods in terms of accuracy and speed.

1088
2014 ACODS
March 13-15, 2014. Kanpur, India

4 1 1

Normalized crack location


Normalized crack depth
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
2 5 9
1m 3 7 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
1 6 8 1 1
F (t) 2
3
2
3
1m 1m 1m Elements 4 Elements 4
5 5
6 6
(a) Global structure 7 Crack 2 7 Crack 2
Crack 1 Crack 1

C1,C2 C3,C4 (a) Crack depth(Noise free) (b) Crack location(Noise free)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(b) Sub-structure of member 4 with 8 nodes 1


1

Normalized crack location


0.8

Normalized crack depth


0.8
Fig. 9. Frame Structure 0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4
Bending Strain gauge
0.2
0.2
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3 Elements 4
Elements 4
5
Shear Strain gauge 5
6
6
7 Crack 2
7 Crack 2 Crack 1
Crack 1
Fig. 10. Strain gauge arrangements at starting node (c) Crack depth(5% Noise) (d) Crack location(5% Noise)
4.2 Example-2: Sub-Structure of Frame
Fig. 11. Identified crack parameters of SS of frame struc-
A frame structure with nine slender beam members is ture
supported as shown in Fig.9(a). The cross section of each where M (t) and V (t) are BM and SF respectively, B (t)
member is 12 6 mm. The density of the frame material and S (t) are strain due to bending and shear respectively.
is 7800 kg/m3 and its Youngs modulus (E) is 200 GPa. The initial state vector {X8 } = {w8 (t), 8 (t), M8 (t), V8 (t)}T
The flexural rigidity of the each member is 43.2 N.m2 . is formed at the node 8 of the SS. Translational acceler-
The first natural frequency of the structure is 11.87 Hz. ation is measured at all nodes while angular acceleration,
Four open edge cracks of depth 0.3 mm, 1.5 mm, 3 mm BM and SF responses are measured at starting node 8 only.
and 2 mm are considered at a distance of 362.5 mm, 387.5 Dynamic strain due to bending B (t) at the starting node
mm, 600 mm and 650 mm respectively from the left end of is mean of the strain measured at the top and bottom
the member 4 as shown in Fig. 9(b). The normalized crack of the node 8. The crack parameters are identified with
depth for the above cracks are c1 =0.05, c2 =0.5, c3 =0.25 responses measured only at the nodes 1, 3, 5 and 8. The
and c4 =0.33 and their normalized locations from the left crack parameters are searched by PSO with swarm size
end of the member 4 are c1 =0.3625, c2 =0.3875, c3 =0.6 of 50 and 200 iterations per cycle as explained in the
and c4 =0.65. It is proposed to detect the cracks locally previous example. The identified parameters using incom-
in the SS of frame (member 4) which is shown in side the plete measurements are shown in Fig. 11. and the absolute
dotted box in Fig. 9(a). The SS considered is the middle error in those parameters are shown in Fig. 12. The crack
portion of member 4 which has a length of 875 mm and with smallest depth (=0.05) is identified with an absolute
is divided into seven finite elements. First two cracks lie error of 8.75% without noise and 15% with 5% noise in
on the element 3 and the remaining two cracks lie on the measurement. The location of this crack is identified with
element 5. The normalized locations of them from the left an absolute error of 0.2% and 0.27% without and with 5%
end of the respective elements are e3.1 =0.3, e3.2 =0.4, noise in measurement respectively. The total time required
e5.1 =0.6 and e5.2 =0.7(e3.1 means that crack 1 is in the for the convergence is 38 s. In this example also, the crack
element 3). Rayleighs damping with damping ratio of 1% with less depth is identified with more error. However, the
is used. The structure is excited by a harmonic force of percentage error is with in the acceptable limit. It is clear
10sin(2 10t) N at the midpoint of the member 6 which that the TCTM is capable of identifying cracks in any
is outside of the SS considered. Hence the measurement of SS with good accuracy and speed. Hence it is suitable
input force is not required for identification. In a general for identifying local crack parameters of any SS without
structure of this type, the BM and SF in the initial state modelling its global structure.
vector have to be obtained by strain measurements using
the relations and procedure discussed in Nandakumar and 5. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION:
Shankar (2012, 2013). SUB-STRUCTURE OF FIXED BEAM
2EIB (t)
M (t) = (16) The TCTM method is experimentally validated by a SS
h of a fixed beam. The beam made of acrylic material with
4EIS (t) cross sectional dimension of 25 12 mm and length of
V (t) = 2 (17)
h (1 + ) 671 mm was fixed at both ends as shown in Fig.13(a). The

1089
2014 ACODS
March 13-15, 2014. Kanpur, India

20
Noise free Starting node(Initial state vector) F(t)
18
5% Noise
16 C1C2 C3C4
15
14
145mm 400mm 126mm
% of abs. Error

12
(a) Global structure
10
8.75
8 1 2 3 4 5
6.55 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 Element number
4
Node number
2.63
2.08 (b) Sub-structure
2 1.3 1.15
0.23
0
C1 C2 C3 C4
Fig. 13. Experimental model of fixed beam
Cracks

(a) Depth
1.6
Noise free
1.4 5% Noise

1.2
% of abs. Error

1
0.88
0.83
0.8
0.69
0.64
0.6

0.4 0.37
0.27 (a) Complete set-up
0.2
0.2
4 102
0
C1 C2 C3 C4
Cracks

(b) Location

Fig. 12. Absolute error in identified parameters in SS of


frame

Youngs modulus (E) was estimated to be 3.7 GPa from


a simple bending test and the density was measured to
be 1190 kg/m3 . The area moment of inertia of the beam
section is calculated as I = 3.6 109 m4 . The flexural
(b) Strain gauge and accelerometer arrangement at initial node
rigidity (EI) of the beam is 13.32 N.m2 . The Poissons
ratio () of the beam material is 0.37. Four cracks of
depth 6 mm, 2 mm, 1.5 mm and 3 mm were introduced Fig. 14. Experimental set up of fixed beam
on the beam at a distance of 265 mm, 278.3 mm, 331.7
of 107 mV/g was fixed at each node to measure trans-
mm and 358.3 mm from the left end of the beam. The
lational acceleration and two accelerometers were fixed
normalized crack depth for the above cracks are c1 = 0.5,
at the initial node 1 with center to center distance of 7
c2 = 0.1667, c3 = 0.125 and c4 = 0.25 respectively. The
mm. The strain gauges and accelerometers arrangement
corresponding normalized crack locations from the left end
at the starting node to estimate the initial state vector
support are c1 = 0.395, c2 = 0.4148, c3 = 0.4943 and
is shown in Fig. 14(b). The structure is excited by a
c4 = 0.534 respectively. The natural frequencies for the
sinusoidal force of 2.4sin(280t) N at the node 6 by a
first two modes of the structure was calculated as 47.27
LDS modal shaker. In this experiment the initial state
Hz and 131.06 Hz. A SS of the beam portion of length
vector is measured at a location away from the applied
400 mm at a distance of 145 mm from the left end of
the beam is considered for damage identification which force; this eliminates the requirement of force sensor. A
is shown in Fig.13(b). The SS is divided into five finite 16 channel DEWE 1201 data acquisition card (DAQ) was
elements each of length 80 mm. The first two cracks C1 and used for acquiring data with a sampling frequency of 1000
C2 lie on element 2 and other two cracks C3 and C4 lie on Hz. From the acquired data, a portion of data length of
element 3. The element wise normalized crack locations are 3s is considered for parameter identification. The angular
e2.1 = 0.5, e2.2 = 0.667, e3.1 = 0.33 and e3.2 = 0.667 acceleration at the starting node 1 is calculated using the
measured from the left end node of the respective element. central difference formula. Both translational and angular
accelerations were converted into respective displacement
responses. The BM and SF responses at the starting node
The experimental set up of fixed beam is shown in 1 were calculated from the measured bending and shear
Fig. 14(a). To measure dynamic response, one DYTRAN strain responses using (16) and (17) and the state vec-
miniature accelerometer of 2 gm mass with sensitivity tor at the node 1, {X1 } = {w1 (t), 1 (t), M1 (t), V1 (t)}T

1090
2014 ACODS
March 13-15, 2014. Kanpur, India

cracks. The typical error in identified crack parameters


1
1 ranging from 0.05%(without noise) to 15%(with 5% noise).

Normalized crack location


0.8
The TCTM method is validated experimentally by iden-
Normalized crack depth

0.8

0.6
0.6
tifying crack parameters of varying depth and location in
0.4
0.4 a SS of a fixed beam with good accuracy. Further, this
0.2
0.2 method is suitable for local damage detection in a large
0
0 structure, where the initial state vector can be estimated.
1
1
2
2
Elements 3
REFERENCES
Elements 3
4
4
5 Crack 2 Gounaris, G. and Dimarogonas, A. (1988). A finite element
5 Crack 2
Crack 1
Crack 1
of a cracked prismatic beam for structural analysis.
(a) Crack depth (b) Crack location Computers & Structures, 28(3), 309313.
Gounaris, G.D., Papadopoulos, C.A., and Dimarogonas,
Fig. 15. Experimentally identified crack parameters of SS A.D. (1996). Crack identification in beams by coupled
of fixed beam response measurements. Computers & Structures, 58(2),
10
299305.
Depth Khiem, N.T. and Lien, T.V. (2001). A simplified mehtod
Location for natural frequaency analysis of a multiple cracked
8 beam. Jounal of Sound and Vibration, 245(4), 737
751.
Krawczuk, M. (2002). Application of spectral beam finite
% of abs. Error

6
5.45
element with a crack and iterative search technique for
4.55
damage detection. Finite Elements in Analysis and
4
Design, 38(6), 537 548.
Krawczuk, M., Zak, A., and Ostachowicz, W. (2000).
2 1.53 Elastic beam finite element with a transverse elasto-
1.15
plastic crack. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design,
0.28 0.19 6.7 10 2
4 102 34(1), 61 73.
0
C1 C2 C3 C4 Lee, Y.S. and Chung, M.J. (2000). A study on crack
Cracks
detection using eigenfrequency test data. Computers &
Structure, 77(3), 327 342.
Fig. 16. Error in identified parameters of SS of fixed beam Nandakumar, P. and Shankar, K. (2012). Estimation of
was formed. The crack parameters were searched by PSO structural parameters using transfer matrices and state
with 50 swarm size, 100 iterations for each identification vectors. International Journal of Applied Science and
cycle as explained in the previous numerical examples. Engineering, 10(3), 181207.
The values of identified parameters are shown in Fig. 15. Nandakumar, P. and Shankar, K. (2013). Structural
The percentage of error in identified crack depth in the parameter identification using damped transfer matrix
order of cracks shown in Fig. 13 is 1.53%, 5.45%, 4.55% and state vector. International Journal of Structural
and 1.15% respectively and the corresponding error in Stability and Dynamics, 13(4), 1250076 (27 pages).
identified global location are 0.28%, 0.19%, 0.067% and Prashanth, P. and Shankar, K. (2010). A hybrid neural
0.01% respectively which are shown in Fig. 16. The total network strategy for identification of structural param-
CPU time required for convergence is 14 s. The strategy of eters. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 6(3),
applying TCTM method any where in a structure by mea- 379391.
suring the initial state vector using strain gauges is proved Tee, K.F., Koh, C.G., and Quek, S.T. (2009). Numerical
here. This illustrates the suitability of TCTM method for and experimental studies of a substructural identifica-
local identification in a large structure. tion strategy. Structural Health Monitoring, 8(5), 397
410.
6. CONCLUSION Varghese, C.K. and Shankar, K. (2012). Crack identi-
fication using combined power flow and acceleration
A new TM method is proposed in this paper to detect matching technique. Inverse Problems in Science and
multiple cracks in beam like structures. The TCTM is Engineering, 20(8), 12391257.
developed from the FE theory of beam element with two Varghese, C.K. and Shankar, K.K. (2014). Damage iden-
cracks. In simple structures like cantilever, the initial state tification using combined transient power flow balance
vector is readily formed at a starting node by measuring and acceleration matching technique. Structural Control
displacements, BM and SF responses. However in a general and Health Monitoring, 21(2), 135155.
structure, like the nine member frame studied here, the Viola, E., Federici, L., and Nobile, L. (2001). Detection of
initial state vector has to be obtained by acceleration and crack location using cracked beam element method for
strain measurements. Two cracks are assumed in each el- structural analysis. Theoretical and Applied Fracture
ement and the successive identification strategy of TCTM Mechanics, 36(1), 23 35.
method is adopted here since, it is fast and accurate. Two Viola, E., Nobile, L., and Federici, L. (2002). Formulation
numerical examples were studied with complete and in- of cracked beam element for structural analysis. Journal
complete set of measurements. They are a cantilever with of Engineering Mechanics, 128(2), 220230.
multiple cracks and a nine member structure with multiple

1091