See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234470341

Field Verification of a Nondestructive Damage Localization and Severity

Estimation Algorithm

Article  in  Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering · March 1995

CITATIONS READS
250 1,733

3 authors:

Norris Stubbs Jeong-Tae Kim

Texas A&M University Pukyong National University
91 PUBLICATIONS   3,253 CITATIONS    253 PUBLICATIONS   3,941 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Charles Farrar
Los Alamos National Laboratory
441 PUBLICATIONS   26,193 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Health Monitoring of Cable-stayed Bridge View project

Acoustic Wavenumber Spectroscopy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeong-Tae Kim on 27 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FIELD VERIFICATION OF A NONDESTRUCTIVE DAMAGE LOCALIZATION AND
SEVERITY ESTIMATION ALGORITHM
Norris Stubbs and Jeong-Tae Kim
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843, USA
ABSTRACT
An experiment to field-test an existing methodology
for nondestructive damage localization in bridges is
described. he-damage and post-damage modal data are
extracted from a 1300 A span bridge located in New
Mexico. The data are fed into the damage detection
algorithm and the damage localized. Results of the
analysis indicate that the methodology accurately localizes
the damage.
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper deals with the problem of developing
nondestructive damage detection methods that work on
full scale bridges. Nondestructive damage detection is an
important subproblem of damage assessment and should
form the basis of any decision to repair, rehabilitate, or
replace a bridge. During the past decade, a significant
amount of research has been conducted in the area of
damage detection via changes in the modal response of a
structure. For example, research studies have related
changes in eigenfrequencies to changes in beam
properti&*l, located defects in beam elements from
changes in eigenfrequencies13-51, detected faults in
mechanical stmctores161, attempted to monitor the
integrity of offshore platf~rmsl~~~l, attempted to monitor
the structural integrity of bridge@“1, and investigated
the feasibility of damage detection in space structures
using changes in modal pammeterslL21.
Despite this modest combined research effort, several
problems remain to be solved before damage detection in
real stnxtores becomes a routine activity. A need remains
to develop more robust theories of damage detection to
simultaneously include changes in all modal parameters.
A need also remains to circumvent the reality of being
capable of measuring only a few modes, particularly in
large stmctores. In addition, a need remains to account for
omnipresent experimental errors in measured modal
parameters. Furthermore, even if the damage detection
210
Charles R Farrar
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
theories were perfect, many modal parameters were
available, and experimental error were insignificant, the
need still exists to account for the uncertainty associated
with modeling the properties and boundary conditions of
real structures.
The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the
practicality of a scheme to localize damage in a full-scale
structure. To meet this objective, we utilize the following
approach: first, we describe the structure under study;
second, we provide a summary of aspects of the theory for
damage localization that relates to the type of structure
being studied;’ third, we summarize the design of the
damage localization experiment; fourth, we summarize the
actual collection of the data and summarize the results of
the modal analysis; finally, we use the scheme and the
field data to localize damage in the stroctore.
2. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE
The structure is located in Bemalillo County, New
Mexico, USA. It is designated I-40 (i.e., US Interstate
Highway 40) and passes over the Rio Grande river which
runs in a North-South direction at the point of crossing.
The structure was built circa 1963 under the jurisdiction of
the New Mexico Standards and Specifications (1954
Edition).
Fig. l(a) shows an elevation view of the portion of the
bridge that was tested. The tested portion spans 423 feet:
two spans of approximately 130 feet and a span of
approximately 163 feet. Fig. l(b) shows boundary
conditions between spans of the bridge. As schematized in
Fig. l(c), the superstructure of the bridge consists of the
deck, the deck supporting system and the bents. The deck
consists of a seven-inch deep, 44-feet-wide reinforced
concrete deck. The deck supporting system consists of two,
lo-feet-deep steel plate girders and a system of 21 WF 62
stringers. The stringers are supported by a system of 36
WF 182 (or 36 WF 150) floor beams which frame into the
girders. The girder system is X-braced horizontally by 5 in
x 5 in x 5/S in angles. The girders are supported by bents.
Each bent consists of a 35 feet beam and two 4-f&-10-
inch-diameter hexagonical piers which vary in length from
39 feet to 56 feet. Both the beam and the piers are made of
reinforced concrete.
The substructure consists of a footing which supports the
bents and acts simultaneously as a pile cap for a bank of
piles. The substructure is in a soil environment which
consists of typically a 3 feet layer of clay at the river bed, a
5 feet layer of sand, a 10 feet layer of gravel in sand, a 5
feet layer of compacted clay, and at least a 20 feet layer of
quick or compacted sand. The footing is typically at an
elevation of 4942 feet in the compacted sand layer with
dimensions of 36 A x 12 A x 3 ft. Each reinforced concrete
footing also functions as a pile cap for a typical bank of 35
piles, the outer 20 of which are battered. The piles are
typically 16 inch diameter steel pipes filled with concrete.
@) l?oundaq Condition3
Fig. 1. Schematic of the Test Bridge
211
3. DAMAGE LOCALIZATION ALGORITHM IN
BEAMS
3.1 Theory
The damage localization scheme described below
utilizes the paradigm of pattern recognition. In the
problem at band, the dynamic response of the structure in
the time domain represents the physical world data and the
modal parameters represent the pattern space. We develop
a feature space by forming indicators that are a function of
measurable pre-damage and post-damage modal
parameters. These indicators are selected in such a manner
that they reflect internal structure in the data. The decision
algorithm is a means by which the data space is
partitioned into C “decision regions”. In our case C=2 and
corresponds to the cases: (a) a structore is not damaged at
a given location, and (b) a structure is damaged at a given
location. Each instance of OUT indicator will fall into one
of the categories.
We first develop indicators of damage that represent the
feature space. The structure of interest here will be
modeled as a beam, therefore, for this paper, the theory of
damage localization will be limited to beams. The
approach presented here can be routinely extended to
plates or other arbitrary three-dimensional structures.
Consider an arbitrary homogeneous 1-D beam with NE
members (in the finite element sense) and N nodes.
Assume that the beam behaves linearly. On solving the
eigenvalue problem, the P modal stiffness, K,, of the
beam is given by
where 4!(x) is the mode shape of i* modal vector, k(x) is
the bending stiffness of the beam (i.e. the product of
Young’s modulus and the second moment of area). The
contribution of the j” member of the % modal stiffness,
C, , is given by
where k, is the stiffness of the j’” member.
The fraction of the modal stiffness (element sensitivity)
for the i mode that is concentrated in i” member is given
by
5 =C,fK, (3)
Let the corresponding modal parameters in Eqs. 1 to 3
associated with damaged structure be characterized by
asterisks. Then for the damaged stroctore
 c=q/K;= F,(l+~&z,+H.O.T.)
I-3
where scalars C; and K; are given by
c; = k;lJ~~(+fx (5)
K; = jk.[+y(x)f& (6)
D DEN,
The constants 4 represent a set of coefficients associated
with the mode i and location k; rx, =(k;-k,)/k* is the
fraction of stiffness loss at location k in the structure; and
H.O.T. stands for higher order terms.
In Eqs. 1-6, note that, for any mode i, the terms 5 and
F; have the following pro&?xtk:
F,<<l, I$<<1 (7)
Therefore, an expression which connects the behavior of
the damaged and undamaged structure may be developed
from the approximation:
l+F,sl+F; (8)
(Note that for a beam divided into tifly (50) elements, the
average value of Fg and F; is 0.02). Eq. 8 is used to derive
a consistent indicator of damage localization. The validity
of using Eq. 8 to derive a consistent indicator of damage
localization is examined in the next section.
Substituting into E$ 8 for F;; and F;i using Eqs. 3 and 4
yields
(9)
Utilizing expressions for Cu and C; in Eqs. 2 and 5 and
the Mean Value Theorem of Calculus, l?q. 9 is
transformed to
By approximating k(i) g k’(i), we obtain
212
2?2!x (11)
There are hvo important featores of the indicator p#:
first, the expression attempts to express the changes in
stiffness at a specific location in terms of predamage and
post damage mode shapes; and second, the terms on the
right band side of F& 10 can be measured. Thus for each
damage location j, there are as many pfl, available as there
are mode shapes. The later values of fiJ define the feature
space.
To account for all available modes we form a single
indicator for each location as
c NcJM 6
(12)
‘, =c i DENJ’
We then inormalize the values of the indicator according to
the rule
z, = t/J, -##fi)/u# (13)
Our next problem is to develop an algorithm that would
classify the z~, into damaged and undamaged locations. A
solution to this problem can be obtained in several ways
which include., but are not limited to, techniques from
statistical hypothesis testing1131, signal detection[‘41, and
classification analysisI”*t61. Here we will classify the
damage pattern a a statistical pattern recognition
technique. We use the proposed technique at this time
because it is well known and easy to apply.
Statistical pattern-recognition systems map randomly
sampled patterns X eff to pattern k decision classes
D,cf?. The decision classes (0,) partition the pattern
space ff:
R-=(jD,, D,17Ds=+i/i#j (14)
/-I
Pattern recognition is supervised if the decision classes are
known. The technique we will we here to classify a
member is hypothesis testing. We assume that there are
two hypotheses concerning the value Z, The first of these,
the ““II hypothesis, Ho, assumes that the value of Z,
consists of only noise so that Z, = N. in the second
hypothesis, HI, the location is assumed to be damaged so
that Z, = N + D. We let Do denote the choice of the Ho
hypothesis and D1 denote the choice of the HI hypothesis.
Four outcomes based on a set of samples of Z, are
possible:
1. We correctly identify the presence of damage. The
probability of this outcome is called the
probability of detection (PD) denoted by P(Dl/Hl);
2. We incorrectly declare that damage is present when
in fact there is no damage present. This is the
probability of a false alarm (Pfa) denoted by
my&J;
3 . We incorrectly declare that there is no damage
present. This is denoted by P(D&l); and
4 . We correctly declare that the location is
undamaged. This case is denoted by P@&).
In our damage detection examples, we Qo not have &@x?.L!
probabilities P(Ho) and P(H1) neither do we assign costs to
the possible four wtcomes of the experiment. Therefore if
we assume a knowledge of the density functions of the
““damaged a” damaged Z,,, we can use the Neyman-
Pearson (NP) criterion as a classification algorithm[131.
Note that this criterion maximizes PD for a specified Pfa
The NP detector uses a likelihood ratio test of the
followi”g form:
A =A(l)ty (15)
r P,(Z)
where ,L, is the test statistic; z is the single observation of
damage; p,(t) is the pdfof z given that H1 is tme; p,(r) is
the pdf of z given that Ho is true; and y is a number
which depends upon the significance level of the test. The
decision role for the NP detector is
ChwscH1:whenL,>r
Choose Ho: otherwise.
A” equivalent decision rule is
ChooseHI: whenz>K
Choose Ho: otherwise
Thus damage localization is accomplished in five steps:
(1) Compute fractional modal stiffness for each member;
(2) Compute p,; (3) Compute p,; (4) Compute Z,; (5)
Select K; and (6) Classify location j.
As will be demonstrated below, this method has several
appealing features which include the following items: only
mode shapes are needed in the analysis (See e.g., Eq. 1 l),
damage may be detected “sing few modes, frequency and
damping information are not needed, damage is detected
213
without solving a system of equations, and damage may be
localized in structures containing many elements.
3.2 Numerical Validation of the Theory
The objective here is to evaluate the feasibility of the
proposed theory (i.e., to examine the validity that Eq. 8
derive a consistent indicator of damage localization). We
meet this objective in four steps: firstly, a test structure is
defined; secondly, modal parameters of a” undamaged
state and two damaged states (with different magnitudes of
damage at a fixed location) of the test structure are
generated “sing the software package ABAQUS[“l; and
finally, the theory is used to localize damage inflicted in
the test structure.
A finite element (FE) model of a continuous beam was
selected as the test stmcture. As shown in Fig. 2, the FE
model consisted of 50 beam members and three linear
axial springs modeling supports of the beam. In this
hypothetical example we assumed that only vertical
motion is measured at each nodal point. Values for the
material properties of the beam elements and springs were
assigned as follows: (1) the elastic modulus E = 10 Y 106psi
(70 Gpo); (2) Poisson’s ratio u=O.33; and (3) the linear
mass density p=2.536x10“lb~s1/in’ (2710 kg/m’). Vahes
for the geometric properties were assigned as follows: (1)
for beam elements, the cross-sectional area A = 1.625 in’
(l.OSxlO”m’) and the second moment of area Z=1.2in4
(5.0x 10.‘m’); (2) for Spring 1 member, A =7.7x10Jin’
(4.96x10dm’) and 1~0; and (3) for Spring 2 member,
,4=1.3x10-*in” (8.4xiOdm~)a”d Z=O.
Fig. 2. Schematic of the Test Structure
Next, we measured, via numerical simulation, modal
parameters of an ““damaged state and three damaged
states. Here the three damage cases were limited to the FE
model damaged at a fixed location (i.e., Element 39 shown
in Fig. 2) with different magnitudes of damage (i.e., 1
percent (Case 1) and 25 percent (Case 2) reductions in the
second moment of area of Element 39). Typical
nunwically generated mode shapes and frequencies of the reliable damage localization indicator for beams.
first three modes are shown in Fig. 3 and Table 1. especially when the damage is small

Table 1. Pre-Damage and Post-Damage Frequencies (Hz)

of the FF. Model

ttefermfe 32.381 46.377 1 L8.77

I 32.375 46.371 118.77
2 31.782 45.847 118.76

(a) Damage Case One

(b) Damage Case Two

Fig. 3. Mode Shapes of the FE Modei
Fig. 4. The Comparison of I+ F;, and 1 + F;y
Finally, we localized the damage in the beam for the two
damage cases described previously. Firstly, we obtained
pre-damage and post-damage mode shapes of the three
modes of the FE model. The instantaneous curwares of
the mode shapes at the 51 nodes of the FE model were
estimated by using cubic-spline interpolation functions.
Secondly, we computed the element sensitivities (i.e., Eq.
3 for the undamaged state and Eq. 4 for the damaged
states). For each corresponding undamaged and damaged
casc,l50valuesof1+F;,andl+~~(fori=l,2,3;andj=
1, 2, . . . . 50) wc~e computed. The resulting plot of (1 +K,,
1 +I$) pairs is shown in Fig. 4 along with the unity slope
line. Thirdly, we established the criterion for the damage
localization indicator as follows: (1) select H, (i.e., no
damage at location j) if Z, < 2 or (2) select the alternate H,
if Z, 2 2 (i.e., Pfa = 0.0228). The resulting damage
locali7ations for the two damage cases are shown in Fig. 5.
For Damage Case One (See Figs. 4(a) and 5(a)), all 150
sensitivity points fall on the unity slope line and damage is t .I
8
indicated at Element 39 which is the correct damage -2
1 6 $1 ‘“E,ege”,‘;$,‘L,‘” .1 66
location. For Damage Case Two (See Figs. 4(b) and 5(b)),
except two points, 148 points fall on or very near to the
(b) Damage Case Two
unity slope line and damage is indicated at Element 39.
Fig. 5. Damage Localization Results in the FE Model
From these results, we conclude that Eq. 8 provides a

214
4. EXPERlMENTAL DESIGN
Here we demonstrate, for the I-40 bridge, the
practicality and effectiveness of utilizing the referenced
damage detection scheme. To meet this objective we (i.e.,
TAMU & NMSU) agreed upon the following strategy:
1. TAMU will specify what modal parameters are
required as input to the damage detection;
2. NMSU will instrument the bridge, take predamage
and post-damage dynamic measurements, and
determine the mode shapes and resonant
frequencies;
3. NMSU will transmit the modal information to
TAMU;
4. TAhKl will perform the damage localization and
severity estimation; and
5. TAMU will report the results to Nh4SU.
To meet the first subobjective above, we specified the
following data to be provided.
1. Mode shapes and their corresponding frequencies
for at least three modes are required;
2. The above modal information is required before
damage is inflicted and after at least two instances
of damage;
3. Nh4SU should utilize appropriate averaging
techniques to lessen the occurrence of noise in the
modal information;
4. Sensor readings normal to the longitudinal axis of
the girder should be taken on the girder to be
damaged;
5. A sensor reading should be taken directly over each
support; and
6. Subsequent readings should be taken at intervals of
at least one-tenth the span.
5. SUMMARY OF DATA GATHERING
The following discussion summarizes the data-gathering
at the project site:
W e s t - North Plate Girder
n II
1. The data gathering and modal analysis were
performed by the Advanced Engineering Division,
Los Alamos National Laboratory;
2. The tests were performed on the bridge from 31
August to 2 September, 1993. The modal analysis
was performed subsequent to the test;
3. Pre-damage and post-damage mode shapes were
provided for three modes (two bending modes and
a torsional mode);
4. The location and arrangements of the
accelerometers are shown in Fig. 6;
5. Four levels of damage were inflicted upon the
structure near X-6 of the girder shown in Fig. 6:
a) A two-foot-long cut in the web (approximately
318-i” wide) centered at midheight of the girder;
b) The cut was extended down 4 feet to the bottom
flange;
c) The bottom flange was cut halfway in from either
side directly below the cut in the web; and
tillally,
d) The bottom flange was cut completely through
leaving only the top 4 ft. of the web and top
flange to carry the load.
6. Pm-damage and post-damage accelerometer
readings were taken for each damaging episode.
Each mode shape reported in the next section represents
the average of 30 readines! In summary, the
measurements by Los Alamos surpassed the requirements
specified by TAMU.
6. RESULTS OF MODAL ANALYSIS
The results of the modal analyses performed by Los
Alamos personnel are summarized in Tables 2-6. The
tables are derived from the more complete data provided
by the Los Alamos Team. Here we neglected the phase
angle, which was typically near zero or *180”, and
retained only the magnitude of the mode shapes. Note also
that the tables do not represent the sequence of damage
described in the last &on. Note that accelerometer
locations X-l to X-l 1 are indicated in Fig. 6.
& easl
I
Table 2. Modal Amplitudes (&lo”) for Reference Case Table 5. Modal Amplitudes for Damage Case 3

R Mode,:2.J00~zMode2:*.969~Mode3:3.~62Hr Pt. Mode 1 : 2.531 Hz Mode 2 :3.000 Hz Mode 3 : 3.594 Hz

Z2.02 32. t9 to.10 x1 16.72 27.03 16.84

282.70 378.90 107.40 x2 218.W 314.50 136.00
569.80 758.20 179.00 x3 438.90 625.70 228.50
805.10 ,084.W 169.70 x4 619.60 893.70 208.70
976.40 1306.00 LW.70 x5 750.80 10,400 L10.60
IW4.oil t351.00 t-t.02 X6 779.,0 1 I t7.00 16.92
947.80 t256.00 76.86 x7 732.20 1034.00 136.20
793.30 1059.00 147.80 X8 612.40 869.70 223.60
582.70 787.20 168.20 x9 448.70 644.60 240.80
264.70 364.30 90.43 HO 203.90 298.90 130.60
25.50 40.64 15.55 XL, L9.2, 32.05 19.31

Table 3. Modal Amplitudes for Damage Care 1 Table 6. Modal Amplitudes for Damage Case 4

pt. Mode1:2.469HrMode*:2.938H2MOde3:3.J00Hz R. MC& 1 : 2.312 Hz Mode 2 : 2.844 Hz Mode 3 :3.x4 Hz

L6.04 36.U 7.30 XL 1.23 9.11 3.86

195.10 422.50 65.24 x2 L5.7, 107.90 38.66
390.70 850.60 105.90 x3 32.52 222.80 65.35
556.00 t*2t.o0 to3.50 x4 49.38 341.70 62.5,
678.70 1480.00 59.86 x5 65.09 444.50 38.70
7W.10 t53mo 8.32 X6 73.50 503.50 8.48
656.90 1427.00 51.29 x7 64.7, 436.30 26.4,
549.30 1196.00 93.88 X8 JO.9 340.50 50.48
403.10 884.20 104.50 x9 35.08 238.80 57.70
182.40 406.20 56.56 X10 15.04 105.90 31.71
18.5, 42.29 8.89 x11 1.35 11.72 4.45

Table 4. Modal Amplitudes for Damage Case 2

7. DAMAGE LOCALIZATION
pt. Mode 1 : 2.53, Hz Mode 2 : 3.000 Hz Mode 3 : 3.531 Hz
We selected the Euler-Bernoulli beam model as the
x1 2.25 10.96 4.84 damage detection model of the girder for two reasons:
x2 27.57 t24.70 36.67 firstly, the girder is essentially a beam and secondly, the
x3 55.04 251.10 62.63 accelerometers measure only vertical motion and thus the
x4 79.t5 1338.40 59.41 data collected provide information that could be utilized by
x5 96.36 L431.40 35.33 a one-dimensional beam. The damage detection model of
X6 99.41 t447.00 5.96 the bridge span includes 160 beam elements of equal size.
x7 93.46 t‘it4.20 27.70 Note that each element is a damage location and
X8 78.26 L346.20 51.62 represents a spacing of approximately 1 foot. In other
x9 57.39 256.80 57.98 words, the resolution of our damage algorithm for this
X10 26.21 I18.60 31.34 problem is one foot or 0.6 percent (i.e., (l/160) x 100) of
XI1 2.55 13.50 5.t2 the span. We justify the use of a one-foot wide beam
element by interpolating & sensor readings at the
locations of the 161 nodes (See Fig. 7) of the damage
detection model obtained via the use of spline fonctions

216
 and the clement modal amplitude values (normalized)
from Tables 24. Using the interpolated modal coordinates
for the beam for each of the pm-damage and post-damage
mode shapes, we generate functions K(X), where x is the
coordinate along the axis of the beam. From K(x) we
estimate the instantaneous curvature F(X).
We next establish the criterion for the damage
localization indicator as follows: select Ho (i.e., no damage
at location j) if Z, < 2 or (2) select the alternate Hl if Z, 2
2 (i.e., Pfa = 0.0228). The resulting damage localization
for the 4 damage cases arc shown in Fig. 8(a) to 8(d). Note
that the damage was inflicted in clement 82 which is
highlighted on Fig. 8. Note also that the combined damage
index is greater than 2 in the region near to and including
clement 82. In the Figures, about 10 damage locations are
effected (i.e., approximately locations 73 to 84). This
smeared damage behavior is expected since the strain
energy in the region adjacent to the cut is very small or
zero. According to our damage algorithm, there is no
damage in any other part of the span.
A comparison between the inflicted and predicted
location of damage is presented in Table 7. The accuracy
of the localization scheme presented here is evaluated by
the so called localization error e:
e=(Ax/L)loo (16)
in which Ax is the spacing behwco the inflicted and
predicted location and L is the reference span. These
values are listed in the last column of Table 7. Note that
the maximum localization error is 2.5 percent of the span
(i.e., 4 ft in a span of 163 ft.) and the minirimm
localization error is 0.6 percent of the span (i.e. just less
than one foot).
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The objective. of this paper was to demonstrate the
practicality of a nondestructive damage localization
scheme on a full-scale stnxture. To meet this objective, we
217
utilized the following approach: first, we described the
bridge under study; second, we provided a summary of
aspects of the localization theory that related to steel girder
bridges; third, we summarized the design of the entire
damage localization experiment; fourth, we described the
actual collection of the data and summarized the results of
the modal analysis; finally, we used the scheme and the
field data to localize damage in the bridge. Using only
three modes of vibration and with no knowledge of the
material properties of the bridge, we accurately located
damage in the structure.
9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was partially supported by
New Mexico State University under Agreement No. 01-3-
4439x1 and was conducted at the Center for Mechanics
and Materials at Texas A&M University The authors
would like to thank especially Drs. Larry1 Matthews and
Ken White of NMSU for the invitation to participate in
this project.
10. REFERENCES
[l] Gudmunson, P. Eigenfrequency Changes of Structures
Due to Cracks. Notches or Other Geometrical Changes, J.
Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 339-353, 1982.
[2] Gudmunson, P. The Dynamic Behavior of Slender
Structures with Cross-Sectional Cracks, J. Mech. Phys.
Solids, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 329-345, 1983.
[3] Adams, RD., Cawley, P., Pye, C.J. and Stone, B.J.
A Vibration Technique for Non-Deshuctively Assessing
the lntegriry of Structures, J. Mcch. Engr. Science, Vol.
20, pp. 93-100, 1978.
[4] Cristides, S., and Barrs, A.D.S. On-Orbit Damage
Assessment fir Large Space Stmctwes, AMA Journal,
Vol. 26,No. 9, pp. 1119-1126, 1984.
[5] Stubbs, N . , aad Osegueda, R G l o b a l Non-
Destructive Damage Evaluation in sOli& ht. J. Anal.
Exp. Modal Analysis, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 67-19, 1990.
[6] Natke, E.G., aad Yao, J.T.P. System Identification
Methods for Fault Detection and Diagnosis, Int. Conf on
Stroctoml Safety and Reliability, ASCE, New York, pp.
1387-1393,199O
[7] Kenley, RM., and Dodd& C.J. West Sole WE
Platfom: Detection of Damage by SYructural Response
A4eamrements, offshore Tech. Goof., Houston, Texas, pp.
111-118, 1980.
[8] Kummer, E., Yang, J.C.S., and Dagalakis, N.G.
Detection of Fatigue Cracks in Structural Members, 2nd
American Society of Civil Engineerin@EMD Specialty
Conference, Atlanta, Georgiq pp. 445-460,1981.
[9] Biswas, M., Pandey, AX., and Samman, M.M.
Model Technology for Damage Detection of Bridges,
NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Bridge
Evaluation, Repair and Rehabilitation, ed. A. Nowak,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Maryland, pp. 161-174,
1990.
[lo] Flesch, RG., aad Keraichler, K Bridge Inspection
by Dynamic Tests and Calculations Dynamic
Investigations of Lovent Bridge, Workshop on Structural
Safety Evaluation Based on System Identification @) Damage Case 2
Approaches, eds. H.G. Natke and J.T.P. Yao, Vieweg &
Sons, LambrechtiPfalz, Germany, pp. 433-459, 1988.
Ill] Maaarek, D.F., and DeWolf, J.T. Experimental
Study of Bridge Monitoring Technique, J. of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 9, pp. 2532-2549,
1990.
[12] Cbeo, J, and Garba, J.A. On-Orbit Damage
Assessment for Large Space Structures, AIAA Journal,
Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 1119-l 126, 1988.
1131 Gibson, J.D., and Melsa, J.L. Introduction to
Nonporametn’c Detection with Applications, Academic
Press, New York, 1975.
[14] Nielson, RO. Sonor Signa/ Processing, Artech
House, London, 1991.
[15] Kosko, B. Neural Networks for Signal Processing,
Prentice hall, New Jersey, 1992.
[16] Zimmermann, E.J. Fuq Set Theory and its
Applications, 2nd Ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston, 1992.
[17] ABAQUS User Manual, Hibbitt, Karlsson &
Sorensen, Inc., 1987.

Fig. 7. Damage Localization Results in the Bridge

218

View publication stats