6 views

Uploaded by LuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola

detection o f crack in structure using two crack transfer matrix

- Transportation and Assignment Problem
- 1980 Sachdeva Interface Friction
- o2515
- Richards Antenna Pattern Synthesis Based on Optimization in a Probabilistic Sense
- More Exercises
- Making Efficient Connections With RBE2 RBE3 Constraint Equations and CBUSH Elements
- No lineal
- robust synthesis
- Derivation of Novel Estimation Formulas for Distribution Feeder Reconfiguration
- A Novel Six-component Force Sensor of Good Measurement Isotropy and Sensitivies
- patjawit2005
- 51060242
- 10.1.1.12.6763
- Cloud Radio Access Networks-Simeone
- Viscous damping for the domain finite element analysis – Nghiem Manh Hien & Nien-Yin Chang
- w Engineers Need Know About Fem
- The Misfortunes of a Trio of Mathematicians
- Chapter 8 - Two Dimensional Arrays
- CBBD2C3Cd01
- damping optimization.pdf

You are on page 1of 8

March 13-15, 2014. Kanpur, India

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

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

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

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 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 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

0.25

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

0.4 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 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

1

0.8

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

frame

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

1

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

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

- Transportation and Assignment ProblemUploaded byrashmijagga
- 1980 Sachdeva Interface FrictionUploaded byeholmes80
- o2515Uploaded byyoki_triwahyudi
- Richards Antenna Pattern Synthesis Based on Optimization in a Probabilistic SenseUploaded bykris7o2
- More ExercisesUploaded byexams_sbs
- Making Efficient Connections With RBE2 RBE3 Constraint Equations and CBUSH ElementsUploaded byjejep4
- No linealUploaded byAndres
- robust synthesisUploaded byioncopae
- Derivation of Novel Estimation Formulas for Distribution Feeder ReconfigurationUploaded byapi-3697505
- A Novel Six-component Force Sensor of Good Measurement Isotropy and SensitiviesUploaded byArthur Cunha
- patjawit2005Uploaded byAnonymous b5e3wqzLEJ
- 51060242Uploaded byKhwezi Toni
- 10.1.1.12.6763Uploaded byXalo Niño Travieso
- Cloud Radio Access Networks-SimeoneUploaded byJian Du
- Viscous damping for the domain finite element analysis – Nghiem Manh Hien & Nien-Yin ChangUploaded byHiep Hoang
- w Engineers Need Know About FemUploaded bytitolenny
- The Misfortunes of a Trio of MathematiciansUploaded bytahach
- Chapter 8 - Two Dimensional ArraysUploaded byAhmadali
- CBBD2C3Cd01Uploaded byItalo Chiarella
- damping optimization.pdfUploaded byFredy Picauly
- Short MatlabUploaded byapi-3824811
- Mech Dynamics 14.5 WS01 IntroUploaded byShaheen S. Ratnani
- Matrix Sharing AlgorithmUploaded bytomtom1000
- Pipe RacksUploaded byWilson
- Lambert 2018Uploaded byJamsranjav Enkhbayar
- 06 - The Critical Reasoning Guide 4th EditionUploaded byHassam Ahmad
- Kalman FilterUploaded byrajkamal_e
- 05 Chapter earth quakeUploaded byRaghavendra Gowda
- Finite Elements Methods . PHD.pdfUploaded by9290894
- IFEM.Ch21Uploaded byPaulo Fidelis

- tesina especialidad.pdfUploaded byNoé Ramón Valadez Ramos
- tesina especialidad.pdfUploaded byNoé Ramón Valadez Ramos
- reporte sismo vallegrande scz BolUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- Norma Sct de Cargas VehicularesUploaded byGerardo Santos
- comsoltunnel.pdfUploaded byPauSillero
- Bocinas Logitech THX 2Uploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- 00-normasUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- Convocatoria_CartelesUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- 00 Curso Basico AnippacUploaded byLURO250206
- 00 Curso Basico AnippacUploaded byLURO250206
- SIAT IMTUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- Convocatoria Carteles Expo Ingenieria Civil 2018_V4.1[2].pdfUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- Convocatoria Carteles Expo Ingenieria Civil 2018_V4.1[2].pdfUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- Calendario08IPN.pdfUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- I-02 Criterios y Acciones de Diseño Estructural-2017Uploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- ReadMeUploaded byAnish Gupta
- 40. DISPAV-5-Versión 3.0. Actualización Del SistemaUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- CBH_87Uploaded bySergio Mauricio Inchausti
- NTC-DF-1 2004Uploaded byErics Cabezudo García
- Dialnet-EscuchandoLaLuz-2735606Uploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- doc9383-1bUploaded byJuan Carlos Quispe Alcantara
- DeadlineUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- Reglamento de control para proyectos de hormigónUploaded byLuis Ricardo Chavez Rivera
- Beam Stiffness With a HingeUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- AISC - Design Guide 20 - Steel Plate Shear WallsUploaded bywilliam robinson
- 35. Recomendaciones Para Diseno Estructural de Pavimentos FlexiblesUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- 200 Questions and Answers on Practical Civil Engineering WorksUploaded byVijay
- Importancia de La SoldaduraUploaded byLuiSilvestre Vaca Oyola
- Manual de GavionesUploaded byAngeles S Tapia

- Active Struc Control Theory & PracticeUploaded bywchane71
- 2 Marks Dynamics of MachineryUploaded byMartin De Boras Pragash
- Noise reduction in axial piston pumps.pdfUploaded bybee140676
- IEM58syllUploaded byShruchet Jayatheerth
- CQC vs SRSS.pdfUploaded byAnonymous xo6Pe1
- Braking ResistorUploaded byJoa Quispe
- Simple Harmonic MotionUploaded byMclawry Angway
- FOUNDATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL MACHINES AND EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS - K.G. Bhatia - ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 495, Vol. 45, No. 1-2, March-June 2008, pp. 13–29Uploaded byR Mani Murugan
- Chapter 14 and 15 HomeworkUploaded byFatboy91
- Damped Pendulum EquationUploaded byDhruv Agrawal
- Chp 15-1 IG Types of WavesUploaded bynoteelle
- Machine Foundation PPTUploaded bySuvankar
- Discrete ControlUploaded bycontrol_613
- Power System Studies.odtUploaded byJeya Kannan
- CDNA14153ENC_001-no.pdfUploaded byeros
- Prob05 n4w Direct FrequencyUploaded bygirish_n19848345
- Balendra, T., Wang, C. M., _ Rakesh, G. (1999)Uploaded byAkshay Kumar
- 2. Mems PresentationUploaded byAshish Mogra
- Thermal Deformation Analysis of Automotive Disc Brake SquealUploaded byNg Guo Liang
- Full Text 01Uploaded bySreeraj Ramachandran
- 120-1305-1-PBUploaded byAurica Daniel
- 9749_2017Uploaded bypauljkt1
- Unit-5 Topic-6 Oscillations Answers (End-of-chapter & Examzone)Uploaded byAvrinox
- Floor VibrationUploaded byrajedmaglinte
- Calculation Static Equivalent Force by Indonesian Code 1726 2012Uploaded byJody Setiawan
- Dynamic Soil Properties -6thUploaded byAlMahmud
- TAMU, MEEN 364, 2014, ExamUploaded byAndrea Spencer
- 250bookSprings.pdfUploaded byByron Manthey
- Syllabus BSc Physics Cucbss Ug 2014Uploaded byAmeen Ahsan
- Mechanical Engineering Full Paper 2007Uploaded byRaghib Shakeel