Received: 3 July 2016 Revised: 8 November 2016 Accepted: 10 November 2016

DOI: 10.1002/stc.1972

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Damage detection in beam and truss structures by the inverse

analysis of the static response due to moving loads
Nadir Boumechra

Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of

Technology, EOLE Laboratory, Tlemcen
University, Tlemcen, Algeria
Correspondence
Nadir Boumechra, Civil Engineering Department,
Faculty of Technology, EOLE Laboratory,
Tlemcen University, Tlemcen, Algeria.
Email: n_boumechra@yahoo.fr;
n_boumechra@mail.univ‐tlemcen.dz
Summary
The detection and the localization of damages in a bridge have been always one of
the major concerns of infrastructure managers, engineers, and researchers. In addi-
tion to the dynamic techniques that were well imposed in the diagnosis of bridges,
several static methods have been developed. The idea of this work is to exploit the
measurement results about a bridge deflection submitted to a moving load. By
using the displacements response, important data about the displacement of a
structural point could be gathered. When the structure's geometry and the material
characteristics are known, a finite element model, supposed to be the most similar,
could be developed. The numerical structural model and the static displacements
data are used to develop an equilibrium equations system where unknowns are
the possible stiffness changes in the finite element model. Thus, the global stiff-
ness matrix of the studied structure is a polynomial matrix. The equilibrium equa-
tions system is a static inverse problem requiring resolution. To facilitate the
mathematical development, the inverse of the global stiffness matrix is expressed
by a Neumann series. Then, the resolution of the system is done by a code devel-
oped in Matlab. To confirm the good convergence of the developed mathematical
method, numerical tests are carried out by considering beams and a 3D truss
bridge subjected to a moving load. Thereafter, an analysis concerning the influence
of the noise in the displacements data on the accuracy of the inverse analysis and
the convergence of the results is made. It has been shown that the large number of
data reduces the noises effect and the damages detection can be ensured.

K E Y WO R D S

bridge, damage detection, inverse analysis, moving load, static response

1 | IN T RO D U C T IO N or localized change of the structural properties or eventually

The bridge's heritage in the world is very important and is not
stopping increasing. The worry of managers about their
strength is constant; for this, the monitoring, diagnosis, and
maintenance of bridges become fundamental to lengthen
their life while ensuring their normal use. Over the past three
decades, the nondestructive structural testing (ultrasound,
radiography, radar, accelerometer, load testing, etc.) has been
widely developed in engineering and scientific research. The
general idea is to monitor the physical and mechanical char-
acteristics of the bridge that must not in any way diminish
globally or locally less than a conventional limit. The global
the appearance of damages leads to a modification of the
bridge behavior and its response, and thus to a reduction in
its stiffness.
Nowadays, the most widely used technique in structural
health monitoring is the dynamic testing using accelerome-
ters or using Global Positioning System (GPS) sensors. The
wind, the vehicle's movement on a bridge, or an artificial
excitation can be the source for the dynamic test. The analysis
of the real structural dynamic characteristics (natural frequen-
cies, mode shapes, and damping ratios) can give information
about the real structural properties (stiffness, mass, and
damping).[1,2] Using an elaborate mathematical tool, the

Struct Control Health Monit. 2017;24:e1972. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/stc Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 of 10
https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1972
2 of 10
natural frequencies and the measured curvatures of the modal
shapes of the structure are used to detect structural dam-
ages.[3–5] The periodic or continuous monitoring can be a
good indicator of the good health, the deterioration, or the
presence of damages in the structure.
The static loading tests have been performed mainly on
bridges. It is performed by using a predetermined number
of standard vehicles. By calibrating with numerical models,
this test assesses the bearing capacity of the bridge and its
safety factor. This test is a standard procedure after the bridge
construction to confirm and ensure the correct execution of
the construction works. Since the last decades, many
researchers have tried to use the static loading tests to assess
or identify the properties of the bridge. Sanayei et al.[6] used
the technique of the matrix errors of stiffness parameters to
evaluate the difference between the analytical and the mea-
sured nodal displacements of a system subjected to
predefined loads. From these results, it was possible to detect
the position of the damage and the stiffness parameter, which
is indicative of the damage rate in a numerical model. Other
researchers have derived the equilibrium equation of a beam
that is discretized by finite elements.[7] From the deformation
measurements data in several sections of a beam, the minimi-
zation of the error functions of the equilibrium equation per-
mit to identify the damaged areas. The theorem of the elastic
damage load is a method to evaluate damages in a beam that
is based on the monitoring of the elastic load (ratio of bend-
ing moment to the flexural rigidity) from the analysis of the
beam's deformation variation for different positions of con-
centrated load.[8] In general, the identification of damages,
cracks, or section changes in a beam subjected to a static
loading is resumed to the explicit resolution of the inverse
problem. Bakhtiari‐Nejad et al.[9] developed an interesting
approach for the detection of damages in an elastic structure
by applying an optimization criterion of the error vector equal
to the difference between the damaged beam loading vector
and the undamaged beam loading vector. From the expres-
sion of the transverse displacement of the Euler–Bernoulli
beam with local singularities, Caddemi et al.[10] were able
to identify these singularities or cracks by analyzing the
experimental noise sensitivity of the measured deflection.
This method allows locating the positions of the different sin-
gularities and their intensities. Truman et al.[11] used a
Lagrangian minimization method of the overall stiffness of
the beam, modeled by finite elements, in order to detect the
damages. Wang et al.[12] were the first to be interested to
the information collected on the properties of a bridge when
a vehicle moves without considering the dynamic effect.
Their method is based on the influence line of a structural
point under a slow moving load. The identification of the
damage is made by examining the first and the second
derivative of the influence line on which the irregularities
are detected. Casciati[13] developed an approach to detect
damages in a structure by a statistical comparison of models
performed from the response time histories collected during
BOUMECHRA
the lifetime the studied structure. Linear response surface
models are developed by Casicati[14] to detect structural
damages by analyzing measurements taken at sensors placed
in the structure. The structural damages were located by the
variation analysis between the statistics of the sum of the
squares of the error obtained at each sensor. By analyzing a
beam deflection curvature under a static loading by the grey
system theory, Abdo[15] was able to locate simple or multiple
damages in beams and evaluate their severity. Obrien et al.[16]
used an optimization method to identify the moving force
histories in a bridge by the comparison between measured
and theoretical deflections. It is shown that the analysis of
the identified force histories can be useful to detect the bridge
damage. Nagarajaiah et al.[17] developed output only modal
identification and structural damage detection using wavelet
techniques, short‐time Fourier transform, empirical mode
decomposition, and Hilbert transform for decomposition of
structural vibration response into their modal components.
Performance and ease of this method have been proven using
measured free vibration and forced vibration (white noise)
response. Montanari et al.[18] studied the minimum number
of sampling intervals of displacements occurring in deformed
structures necessary for optimal damage detection. Treating
several examples of cracked beams, it has been shown that
it is possible to calculate the optimal number of sampling
intervals sufficient to detect the smallest crack using spatial
continuous wavelet transform.
Using the influence line principle with a static moving
load, Boumechra[19] used a new technique to drive an inverse
analysis on an isostatic beam defined by a finite element
numerical model. The inverse analysis can locate the
damaged area and gives an approximate value of the damage
rates. This mathematical method is refined and improved in
this work, and validated by numerical examples of more
elaborate structures.
2 | T HE IN VE RS E M ETH O D O F T HE
R E S P O N S E I N D I S P L AC E M E N T D U E T O
M OV I NG STAT IC L OA D
First, the idea starts from the initial knowledge of the struc-
ture such as a beam or a bridge like geometrical dimensions,
physical properties, and supports conditions. This structure is
assumed undamaged. It is modeled by appropriate finite
elements. Therefore, a numerical model of the undamaged
bridge is built.
Second, subjected to a movable static load, the real
structure is deformed and the deflection in any structural
point can be measured and recorded. From these results,
research is done to identify the real stiffness of each structural
elements of the structure. It may be greater or smaller than
the initial or undamaged structure. If this rigidity is smaller,
then we can say that it is damaged.
BOUMECHRA 3 of 10

The mathematical method developed in this work is an determine the movement of the section wS(x0) by the matrix
inverse analysis of the displacement's response of one or [N] defining the displacement of the studied section.
several points of the structure due to a moving static load.
The inverse analysis developed on a finite element model of
wS ðx0 Þ ¼ ½N :fδðx0 Þg ¼ ½N :½K −1 :fF ðx0 Þg: (2)
the structure allows the evaluation of the real stiffness matrix
of each finite element. For this, the numerical modeling of the
structure must be the most appropriate. After the assembly of the global stiffness matrix of the
The hypotheses of the developed method are structure, we have

n
• the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the ½K ¼ ½K0  þ ∑ αi :½Ki : (3)
undamaged structure are assumed to be known, i¼1

• the structure is elastic and linear,

• the intensity of the moving load is known, The matrix [K0] is the global stiffness matrix of the
• the dynamic effect of the moving load is neglected. undamaged structure. The global matrix [K0] and the ele-
mentary matrices [Ki] are assumed to be known on the basis
Let us assume a beam with a known initial rigidity K of the initial information about the apparent geometrical
(Figure 1). The real beam stiffness to be identified is noted dimensions of the structure and the mechanical characteris-
((1 + α(x)).K), where α(x) is the rigidity correction factor. tics of the material such as E and ν. Therefore, the matrix
In this work, it is supposed that the correction factor α(x) is [K] is function of variables (αi) that are unknown and to be
the same for axial rigidity, torsional rigidity, and bending determined. Note that the inverse of the algebraic matrix
rigidity. For the damaged section, the factor α(x) is negative [K] is difficult to obtain for medium and large systems, even
and it is positive if the section has an additional rigidity. with powerful software such as Maple, Mathematica,
This beam is subjected to a static moving load P where its Maxima, or Xcas.
position is noted x0. The displacement ws(x0) of the point S The idea under this work is the use of the Neumann series
varies according to the position (x0) of the load P. It is called to inverse the global stiffness matrix [K][20]:
the static displacement response due to a moving load and
n
−1
−1
noted as SDRML in this article. ½K  ¼ ½K 0  þ ∑ αi :½K i 
The numerical modeling of the beam allows to subdivide q !
i¼1
T


n
−1
it into n finite elements. For each stiffness [Ki] of the finite ¼ ∑ −½K 0  : ∑ αi :½K i  :½K 0 −1 ; (4)
element (i) corresponds a correction coefficient (αi). If this q¼0 i¼1
coefficient is negative, it is said that there is damage on the
finite element and it is referred to us as a coefficient of reduc- where T is the maximum order of the Neumann series. It must
tion. If this coefficient is positive, it is said that there is an be chosen great enough to ensure convergence of the series.
additional rigidity. From this, the static equilibrium equation So the inverse matrix of [K] is a multivariable polynomial
system is developed when subjected to the moving load. matrix (αi=1,n) of a degree T. It is a matrix whose elements
In linear analysis, the static equilibrium equation is are multivariate polynomials of degree T in n variables αi.
defined in the matrix form as The Neumann series converges to the following condition:

n 
 
½K :fδðx0 Þg ¼ fF ðx0 Þg: ½K 0 −1 : ∑ αi :½K i  <1: (5)
(1)  
i¼1

The structural stiffness matrix [K] is the assembly of the This indicates that the difference of rigidity, due to a
stiffness matrices of each finite element. The load vector reduction or an excess, must be small. After substitution of
{F(x0)} varies according to the position of the moving load Equations 2 and 4, the displacement wS(x0) is rewritten as
(x0). So from the global displacement vector {δ(x0)}, we can follows:

FIGURE 1 Static displacement response of a real

beam subjected to a quasi‐static moving load in
point (s). (a) Real beam representation; (b) finite
element model
4 of 10

T

n q !
−1
wS ðx0 Þ ¼ ½N : ∑ −½K 0  : ∑ αi :½K i  :½K 0 −1 :fF ðx0 Þg:
q¼0 i¼1
(6)
Equation 6 defines an algebraic relationship with n
unknowns (αi). It is a multivariate polynomial equation of
(αi=1,n) variables and of T degree. A set of m loading vectors
({F}i = {F(x0)}) can be developed corresponding to m posi-
tions of the moving load P. For these m loading vectors cor-
respond m displacements of the selected point (wS,
i = wS(x0)). The data of the SDRML thus allows the develop-
ment of a system of m nonlinear equations (polynomial) and
n unknowns, which is as follows:
T


n
q !
f ðαi Þi¼1;m ¼ wS;i −½N : ∑ −1
−½K 0  : ∑ αi :½K i  :½K 0 −1 :fF gi ¼ 0:
q¼0 i¼1
(7)
Solving this system of nonlinear equations to find the
correction coefficients (αi) consists of an optimization
problem. As we have an overdetermined system of nonlinear
equations, several algorithms can serve to find the optimal
solution in the least‐squares sense, like Gauss–Newton or
Levenberg–Marquardt algorithms. The Levenberg–
Marquardt algorithm is the most used and efficient technique
to solve this type of nonlinear functional.
From this mathematical development, a Matlab code has
been written for the inverse analysis of the SDRML on a
beam or a bridge numerical model. The finite element models
are discretized by 3D frame finite elements with 6 degrees of
freedom (DOF) per node. The developed code, called
IAFEM, determines the correction coefficients (αi) corre-
sponding to each structural finite element. These coefficients
enable the detection of the damage rate or the eventually
additional rigidity in the elements of the structure. Some
examples are treated to validate the convergence and effec-
tiveness of this method. It is noteworthy that for the following
different applications, the displacements data of SDRML are
taken from calculations carried out by the Castem
software[21] using the same finite elements typology.
All the next numerical applications will follow the next
steps:
1. Definition of the geometric and structural characteristics
and the applied moving load,
2. Adopt a predefined stiffness correction coefficients (αi)
of some selected finite elements by modifying the mate-
rial elastic modulus or the dimensions of the cross‐
sections,
3. Finite elements modeling of the structure with the
Castem software,
4. Calculate SDRML in predefined sections or nodes, and
selected DOF,
BOUMECHRA
5. Execute the inverse analysis of the displacements
resulting from the last step using the IAFEM code.
3 | C O N V E RG E NCE A N D O R D E R O F TH E
NE UMA NN SER IES
It is important to know the maximum Neumann series order
(T) to be used in next applications to ensure a good conver-
gence of Equation 4. For this purpose, a pinned–pinned beam
discretized in 10 beam finite elements is analyzed with two
cases: the first one has an overall decrease of flexural stiff-
ness of 50% (αi=1,10 = −0.50) and the second with a localized
decrease flexural strength of 50% (αi=7 = −0.50) at the sev-
enth finite element (Figure 2). The studied beam has the fol-
lowing data: 10 m length, a square cross‐section of
(0.40 × 0.40 m), and an elastic modulus of 2.107 kN/m2. It
is subjected to a moving concentrated load of 10 kN whose
moving steps are 1.00, 0.50, and 0.25 m. This variation of
steps generates 11, 21, and 41 displacements data, respec-
tively. The calculation of SDRML is done at mi‐span (the
node 6). It is made by the Castem software (Figure 3).
From these results, the inverse analysis is performed by
the IAFEM code to determine the correction coefficients
(αi) of each finite element by varying the order of the
Neumann series and calculating the signal‐to‐noise ratio
(SNR) between the calculated (αi,C) and the exact values
(αi,E). It is observed in Figure 4 that the convergence
increases quickly when increasing the Neumann series order
(T) for the beam having an overall stiffness reduction. For
the second case, the beam having a localized stiffness reduc-
tion, the convergence increases with the increase of the
Neumann series order (T) and is stabilized from T = 8. These
results have a better convergence if the SDRML data is more
important. For the following applications, the Neumann
series order (T) is taken equal to 12.
4 | C O NV ERGENCE A ND COEF FICIEN TS
OF CO R REC TI O N ( α i )
It is necessary to verify the convergence condition defined in
Equation 5 by numerical examples. The two previously
treated examples are considered (beam with an overall stiff-
ness reduction and beam with a localized stiffness reduction).
The correction coefficients (αi) vary from −0.90 to +1.20.
From these parameters, the SDRML are calculated at mid‐
span. The inverse analysis allows to notice that the conver-
gence is acquired for αi = −0.70 to 0.70 (Figure 5). Outside
of this range, the SNR on the calculated correction coeffi-
cients vector can be significant. It is also observed that the
SNR increases with dense monitored SDRML data, that is,
the step of moving load is small.
BOUMECHRA 5 of 10

FIGURE 2 Beam subjected to a moving

concentrated load. (a) beam with an overall
stiffness reduction; (b) Beam with a localized
stiffness reduction

FIGURE 3 The static displacements response due to a moving load at mid‐span of a beam. (a) Beam with an overall stiffness reduction; (b) beam with a
localized stiffness reduction

FIGURE 4 Accuracy of the displacement results depending on the order of the Neumann series. (a) Beam with an overall stiffness reduction; (b) beam with a
localized stiffness reduction

FIGURE 5 Inverse analysis convergence for variable correction coefficients (αi). (a) Beam with an overall stiffness reduction; (b) beam with a localized
stiffness reduction

5 | TH E EF FEC T O F NO I S E I N T HE others. To investigate this problem, some simulations are

D IS P L AC E M E NT R E S P ON S E S
During a real loading test on a beam or a bridge, the measure of
deflection or displacement is contaminated by various noises
in the recorded data. These noises can have various causes
such as measuring equipment, measure readings, and so forth.
Generally, this problem is quite serious in the area of damage
detection in civil engineering, mechanics, aeronautics, and
carried out on SDRML data. The idea is to intentionally affect
the displacements data of SDRML by a bounded noise with a
uniform distribution in a first step. In the second step, the
inverse analysis is run using the IAFEM code.
The studied beam is a steel European I‐beam (IPE100)
with the following characteristics: length L = 20 m; moment
of inertia Iy = 171 cm4; modulus of elasticity
E = 21.107 kN/m2. It is pinned–pinned simply supports.
6 of 10
The amplitude of the moving load is 1 kN. The analysis is
made with different moving steps with 4.00, 2.00, 1.00,
0.50, 0.25, 0.125, and 0.05 m. The beam is modeled by 20
beam finite elements. The 15th finite element is assigned a
20% reduction of its stiffness (αi = 15 = −0.20). The SDRML
are calculated by the Castem software. The SDRML data are
modified by a bounded random function (Figure 6). This noise
is added to the output displacements wS,i in the following form:
(wS,i × (1 ± (rand × Δ)), with an applied noise level Δ.
In the inverse analysis, two cases are considered. The first one
treats SDRML data at mid‐span (L/2). The second case treats
SDRML data at the sections: L/4, L/2, and 3.L/4. For this study,
200 simulations for each case are analyzed by the developed code.
We are interested by noise level Δ of 1.10−4, 1.10−5, and 1.10−6.
It is easy to observe in Figure 7 that a large noise level of
the SDRML data decreases the convergence of the inverse
analysis, and large SDRML data lead to a better precision
FIGURE 6 Noise‐contaminated displacements responses due to a moving load at mid‐span. (a) A global view of static displacement response due to a moving
load; (b) zoom window view
BOUMECHRA
in the inverse analysis and reduces the dispersion of the
results. The treatment of three SDRML data instead of one
increases also the precision by a factor of 2 to 4. This means
that a larger number of data reduces the uncertainties effect
although the time computing analysis is longer.
6 | N UM E RI CAL EX AM P L E
To verify the performance of the developed method, a 3D
steel truss bridge is simulated and studied using an inverse
analysis by the IAFEM code. Its finite element model is mod-
ified in some finite elements to perform predefined damages.
From the numerical model, the SDRML are calculated by the
Castem software. With the SDRML data being recovered, the
inverse analysis is performed by the IAFEM code to locate
and assess damages.
FIGURE 7 Convergence of IAFEM for 200 data
simulations. (a) With static displacement response
due to a moving load at mi‐span (L/2); (b) with
static displacement response due to a moving load
at L/4, L/2, and 3.L/4
BOUMECHRA 7 of 10

FIGURE 8 The geometric description of the steel truss bridge and the cross‐sections of its elements

FIGURE 9 The static displacement response due to a moving load results of displacements by global directions X, Y, and Z, respectively, for the nodes 2, 3, 4,
7, 8, 9 (bottom deck), 23, 25, 26, and 28 (top deck)
8 of 10 BOUMECHRA

6.1 | Definition of the system

The 3D steel truss bridge rests on four supports (two hinged

supports and two movable supports), with a length of 16 m,
a width of 10 m, and a height of 4 m (Figure 8). The steel
used has the following characteristics: elasticity modulus of
195.106 kN/m2 and a Poisson's ratio of 0.30. The finite
element model is built by the frame finite elements with 6
DOF per node. It is performed by the Castem software: 31
nodes, 69 frame finite elements, and 172 DOF. The study
assumes damages or low rigidity in the following finite
elements: αi = −0.60 for the right‐end post (finite element
n°8), αi = −0.60 for the top chord (finite element n°19),
and αi = −0.30 for the stringer (finite element n°38) as shown
in red color in Figure 8. The moving load is a draisine (a light
auxiliary rail vehicle) with a total load of 200 kN composed
of four wheels (50 kN per wheel). The two axles are distant
by 3.00 m. The taken moving step for the rail vehicle is of
1.00 m. Using Castem software, the calculation of SDRML
was made for some nodes assumed as best indicators for the
bridge response. The SDRML calculated are those of nodes
2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 (bottom deck), 23, 25, 26, and 28 (upper
deck), and this in the global directions X, Y, and Z
(Figure 9). Finally, the inverse analysis is executed by the
IAFEM code.

6.2 | Results of inverse analysis by IAFEM code

In a first test, we treated only vertical displacements (Z) of six
nodes (2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9) of the lower part of the bridge. With
a vehicle movement step of 0.80 m, the IAFEM code treats 120
displacement's data thus a system of 120 nonlinear equations.
The results presented in (Figure 10a) show a good conver-
gence for the element 38 but not yet for the elements 8 and
19. The finite elements near these elements have some distur-
bances with a correction coefficients αi = −0.05 to −0.15.
When the SDRML horizontal displacements (X, Y) of
nodes mentioned above are considered, the convergence of
the correction coefficient bars 8 and 19 increases
(αi = 8 = −0.49 and αi = 19 = −0.37). It should be noted that FIGURE 10 Inverse analysis of the truss bridge from a diverse number of
the signal noise ratio increases from SNR = 0.747 to 3.595 static displacement response due to a moving load (SDRML). (a)
(Figure 10b). Because the finite elements 8 and 19 are con- Considering SDRML—Z displacement of nodes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9; (b)
considering SDRML—X, Y, and Z displacement of nodes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9;
nected to the upper nodes of the structure, it was interesting
(c) considering SDRML—Z displacement of nodes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 23, 25, 26,
to exploit their SDRML information. For this, the SDRML and 28; (d) considering SDRML—X, Y, and Z displacement of nodes 2, 3, 4,
of the nodes 23, 25, 26, and 28 are added to the previous data. 7, 8, 9, 23, 25, 26, and 28. SNR = signal‐to‐noise ratio
Taking into account the SDRML data concerning only verti-
cal displacement about the nodes (2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 23, 25, 26, nonlinear polynomial equations and 69 unknowns. By vary-
and 28), the results have improved and remarkable conver- ing the step of vehicle movement of 8.00, 4.00, 2.00, 1.00,
gence is seen (Figure 10c). Considering the SDRML data 0.50, 0.25, and 0.125 m, the number of data to be analyzed
of the last nodes in the three directions X, Y, and Z, the increases too. For the four cases considered above, it is inter-
IAFEM treatment allows to correctly determine the correc- esting to see in Figure 11 that a good selection of the nodes
tion coefficients (αi = 8 = −0.6005, αi = 19 = −0.6005, and the corresponding DOF to be controlled in the SDRML
αi = 38 = −0.3001; Figure 10d). This good convergence is ensure the good convergence of the inverse analysis and thus
illustrated by a SNR = 17.285. This was obtained by the the detection of damages or changes in rigidity of structural
inverse analysis of the data defined by a system of 600 elements. It is important to select correctly the nodes and
BOUMECHRA
FIGURE 11 Inverse analysis convergence of the truss bridge from a diverse
number of static displacement response due to a moving load (SDRML). (a)
Considering SDRML—Z displacement of nodes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9; (b)
considering SDRML—X, Y, and Z displacement of nodes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9;
(c) considering SDRML—Z displacement of nodes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 23, 25, 26,
and 28; (d) considering SDRML—X, Y, and Z displacement of nodes 2, 3, 4,
7, 8, 9, 23, 25, 26, and 28
the DOF of nodes in the structure in the order to estimate the
overall stiffness of the structure and not to focus on one part
of the structure supposed to be the most significant.
6.3 | Effect of the noise in displacements data
The bridge's measured displacements are supposed being
tainted by various noises (measurement's faults, imperfec-
tions in bridge characteristics, and applied loadings). This
problem is very serious in the structural monitoring and dam-
ages detection domain in civil engineering. To investigate
this problem, some simulations are made on the SDRML.
The idea is to assign the SDRML data by a bounded uniform
FIGURE 12 Inverse analysis convergence for the noise contamination in the displacements data. RVNE: Relative Vector Norm Error of the 200 simulations
9 of 10
distribution noise and perform an inverse analysis by the
IAFEM code.
The SDRML calculated by Castem are those of nodes 2,
3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 (bottom deck), 23, 25, 26, and 28 (upper
deck), and all these in the global directions X, Y, and Z
(Figure 9). The SDRML data are affected by a bounded
uniform random function. This affected uncertainty is
performed as follows: each displacement wS,i is changed to
(wS,i × (1 + (rand × Δ)), with −1 rand +1 and a defined
noise level Δ. For this study, 200 simulations for each
SDRML are analyzed by the developed code. We are inter-
ested in a noise level Δ of 1.10−3, 1.10−4, 1.10−5, and
1.10−6. In Figure 12, the results of the inverse analysis of
these simulations are illustrated by the extreme values (upper
and lower) of the SNR of the “reduction factor of the
structure” vector.
It is easy to observe in Figure 12 that a low noise level in
SDRML data gives a better accuracy of the inverse analysis.
For a greater noise level, the accuracy of the results
decreases. But the reduction in the moving load step or so
the increasing of the number of data to be processed by the
inverse analysis leads to an improved convergence of the
results as well as the reduction of their dispersion. For exam-
ple, for a maximum uncertainty rate Δ = 1.10−4, the SNR is
of −2.993 to 3.783 for 90 equations, 0.662 to 9.336 for 600
equations, and 6.036 to 17.461 for 9,150 equations. Thus,
increasing the number of data to be processed by the inverse
analysis improves the convergence of the inverse analysis
results. This is well illustrated in Figure 12 by the maximum
results in a (150 equations), b (1,170 equations), and c (4,590
equations) corresponding of Δ = 1.10−4.
10 of 10
7 | C O NC LUS I O N S
The static displacement response due to a moving load in a
bridge provides a great number of information of the real
structure behavior by simply measuring the displacement of
one or more points of the structure. This behavior reflects
the structural health of the bridge, that is, its damaged regions
and strong regions. The measurement of the variable dis-
placements due to a moving load defined statically requires
cheap and not sophisticated measuring equipment. The devel-
oped mathematical method was able to detect changes or
reductions in stiffness from a finite element model of the
structure by an inverse analysis of the displacements data. It
is based mainly on simplifying the inverse of the algebraic
stiffness matrix by the Neumann series. Thus, the develop-
ment of the polynomial equilibrium equations was facilitated.
This nonlinear system is solved by the widely used and effi-
cient Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm. To ensure a better
convergence, the finite element model should be as faithful
as possible and therefore the most approached of the real
structural behavior. Several numerical examples have shown
stability and convergence of the method. Also, the effect of
uncertainties that appeared in the measured displacements
has been studied. It has been shown that the multiplicity of
displacements data eliminates the divergence of results.
This method allows the detection of damages or rigidity
changes in all parts of the structure. It also permits to check
the actual structure of the built bridge compared to the
numerical model used in the engineering design project. It
can be adopted to identify damages in bridges as well as
buildings and dams. Using the same principle developed in
this work, it is possible to use a similar algorithm to analyze
the measurement of the strain or stress by using the strain
gauges placed in the appropriate parts of the structure. For
the near future, it is necessary to validate the performance
of this method by some laboratory tests and especially tests
on real bridge structures.
BOUMECHRA
REFERENCES
[1] D. N. Farhey, Struct. Health Monit. 2005, 4(4) (December 1), 301.
[2] K. H. Hsieh, M. W. Halling, P. J. Barr, J. Bridg. Eng. 2006, 11(6), 707.
[3] R. D. Adams, P. Cawley, C. J. Pye, B. J. Stone, J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 1978,
20(2), 93.
[4] Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB, Shevitz DW. Los Alamos National
Laboratory report LA‐13070‐MS, 1996.
[5] W. Fan, P. Qiao, Struct. Health Monit. 2011, 10(1), 83.
[6] M. Sanayei, O. Onipede, J. Eng. Mech. 1991, ASCE 117(5), 1021.
[7] P.‐L. Liu, H.‐t. Lin, Int. J. Solids Struct. 1996, 33(19), 2775.
[8] I.‐Y. Choi, J. S. Lee, E. Choi, H.‐N. Cho, Comput. Struct. 2004, 82, 2483.
[9] F. Bakhtiari‐Nejad, A. Rahai, A. Esfandiari, Eng. Struct. 2005, 27, 1784.
[10] S. Caddemi, A. Greco, Comput. Struct. 2006, 84, 1696.
[11] K. Truman, G. Terlaje, Adv. Eng. Struct. Mech. Constr. Solid Mech. Appl.
2006, 140, 685.
[12] Wang CY, Huang CK, Zeng YT, Chen CS, Chen MH. Proceedings of 10th
International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Osaka, Japan,
2009, 803–809.
[13] S. Casiati, Smart Struct. Syst. 2010, 6(1), 17.
[14] S. Casiciati, J. Eng. Mech. 2010, 136(9), 1131.
[15] M. A. B. Abdo, Eng. Struct. 2012, 34, 124.
[16] E. J. OBrien, C. Carey, J. Keenahan, Struct. Control Health Monit. 2015, 22,
1396.
[17] S. Nagarajaiah, B. Basu, Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2010, 8(4), 583.
[18] L. Montanari, A. Spagnoli, B. Basu, B. Broderick, J. Sound Vib. 2015, 345,
233.
[19] Boumechra, N. EACS 2012: 5th European Conference on Structural Control,
Genoa, Italy, 18–20 June.
[20] C. D. Meyer, Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. (SIAM) 2001, 126.
[21] CAST3M, http://www‐cast3m.cea.fr, 2013.
How to cite this article: Boumechra N. Damage
detection in beam and truss structures by the inverse
analysis of the static response due to moving loads.
Struct Control Health Monit. 2017;24:e1972. https://
doi.org/10.1002/stc.1972