1 Structural Damage Detection Employing Best Achievable Eigenvectors in

2 Bayesian Framework

3 Kanta Prajapat1 and Samit Ray-Chaudhuri, M., ASCE 2

4 ABSTRACT

5 Efficiency of a Bayesian model updating algorithm is greatly affected by the choice of vari-

6 ance of prediction error models of different data points (evidence) used for model updating. A

7 sensitivity based novel approach is proposed in this work to find these variances without increas-

8 ing the dimensionality of the model updating problem. Well-established relations of modal data

9 sensitivity towards structural parameters are incorporated in Bayesian framework to evaluate the

10 prediction error variances. A high rise shear building is considered for the numerical illustration

11 of the approach. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation technique is employed using

12 Metropolis-Hastings algorithm to simulate the samples from the posterior distribution. Results are

13 presented as a comparison of unknown parameters obtained using the present approach and an

14 approach in which all prediction error variances are assumed to be equal. The study shows that the

15 proposed approach is highly efficient in extracting information from the data appropriately. It is

16 also illustrated that damage locations also play an important role in selection of variances of pre-

17 diction error model . Each data point in the evidence can be very effective in estimation of model

18 parameters if the information it contains is exploited effectively.

19 Keywords: Bayesian statistics; Modal parameters; Damage; Eigen sensitivity; MCMC

1
PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur, Kanpur, UP-208016, India
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng., Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, U.P. - 208016, India.

1
20 THEORETICAL FORMULATION

21 Best achievable eigenvector (BAE) in damage detection

22 For an n − DOF structural dynamic system the equation of motion can be given as:

M ẍ + Kx = f (t) (1)

23 where K and M are the n × n stiffness and mass matrix of the structure, respectively, and x

24 and f (t) represent the displacement and applied force vectors respectively. The associated eigen-

25 value problem with Equation 1 is given by:

Kφ = M φ∧ (2)

26 where φ is the n × r eigenvector matrix and ∧ is the diagonal matrix (n × r) consisted

27 of eigenvalues of the system. If Ki and Mi represent the element stiffness and mass matrix

28 respectively for the ith element. Then, for a system of p number of total elements the system

29 stiffness and mass matrices can be written as:

p p
X X
K= Ki and M= Mi (3)
i=1 i=1

30 Now, for a damaged system with damage confined to the loss of stiffness only (i.e. system

31 mass matrix is intact) the modified stiffness matrix can be written as:

p
X
Kd = Ku + ai K i (4)
i=1

2
32 here, subscripts d and u are used to represent the damaged and undamaged states of the

33 structure respectively. It is clear from Equation 4 that the system stiffness in damaged state is

34 the sum of system stiffness in undamaged state and the reduced stiffness due to the damage. The

35 reduced stiffness of the structure is calculated by imposing a stiffness reduction factor on each

36 of the structural element. The value of stiffness reduction factor varies between 0 to −1 for no

37 damage to complete damage in an element.

38 Now, for a damaged structure Equation 2 can be written as:

p
X
ai Ki φt = M φt ∧t −Ku φt (5)
i=1

39 where, subscript t denotes the measured data. For a j th measured mode Equation 5 can be

40 rewritten as:

p
X
ai Ej−1 Ki φtj = φtj (6)
i=1

41 where,

2
Ej = (ωtj M − Ku ) (7)

2
42 In Equation 6 φtj represents the eigenvector and ωtj in Equation 1 represents the eigenvalue
2
43 of the damaged structure. It is to be noted that for ωtj ≈ ωj2 (frequency of the intact structure)

44 matrix Ej may appear as ill-conditioned and application of the algorithm may become limited.

45 Alternatively Equation 6 can be written as:

3
 p
X
ai Aij φtj = φtj (8)
i=1

46 being

Aij = Ej−1 Ki (9)

47 Now, if a matrix Sj is introduced such that

 
Pp {1} Pp {2} Pp {n}
Sj = i=1 ai {Aij } i=1 ai {Aij } ... i=1 ai {Aij }
(10)

48 here, superscript of{Aij } represent the corresponding column of matrix Aij . Equation 8 now

49 can be written as:

Sj φtj = φtj (11)

50 Equation 11 shows that φtj is a linear combination of columns of matrix Sj that means φtj lies

51 in the subspace defined by the columns of matrix Sj . Further, for similar reasons it can be observed

52 from Equation 10 that each k th column of matrix Sj , k = 1...n spans in a subspace which includes

53 the k th column of each matrix Aij . Therefore, each independent column out of these p number

54 of columns will serve as the basis for that subspace. Further, it can be concluded that φtj lies in

55 a subspace which is formed by the union of all the subspaces in which each column of matrix Sj

56 spans. It is to be noted that this united subspace is independent of the value of stiffness reduction

57 factors ai i = 1...p. Therefore, if out of p number of elements, let us assume, for example, that 2th

58 5th and 9th elements are damaged, p >= 9, then the subspace to which φtj belongs is formed by

59 the columns of the augmented matrix X given below:

4
  
Xj = A2j |A5j |...|A9j (12)

60 It is to be noted further that owing to the rank deficiency of matrix Aij (being the element

61 stiffness matrix), each column of matrix Xj is not an independent column. This may result in

62 a repeating subspace for one or more columns of matrix Sj . However, the resulting union of all

63 these subspaces will be indifferent of any repetition of any of these subspaces.

64 The above discussion draws to the conclusion that if damage in a structure is caused by loss of

65 the stiffness in some of the elements and if each of these stiffness loss is reflected in the measured

66 mode φtj , then φtj will lie exactly in the subspace defined by the columns of augmented matrix

67 Xj . This augmented matrix Xj consists of all Aij , where subscript i belongs to only damaged

68 elements of the structure. The best achievable eigenvector of a subspace occupied by columns of

69 matrix X corresponding to considered φtj can be obtained using:

φatj = X X̂φtj (13)

70 The superscriptˆof matrix X represents its pseudoinverse. Therefore, if considered damaged

71 elements, while forming the matrix X matches exactly with the actual damaged elements in the

72 structure, φatj will be identical to φtj . However, if this is not the case, then the achieved φatj for the

73 considered subspace will not match with the measured φtj . This fact makes the foundation of dam-

74 age localization algorithm discussed in this work. The following subsection describes the Bayesian

75 framework for the best achievable eigenvector based damage localization algorithm adopted in this

76 work.

5
77 Bayesian statistical framework

78 Bayesian statistical framework allows to update the probability of a belief or hypothesis about

79 a physical system based on some observation from the considered system itself employing Bayes’

80 theorem. For this purpose, first the physical system is mathematically modelled with some pa-

81 rameters, each unique combination of these parameters defines a unique model for the system. If

82 there is some specific reason to give priority to a particular model over others it can be achieved

83 by assigning a higher prior probability to that model over others. To know which of these models

84 represents the physical system at the best, a response collected from the system is used to compare

85 the different models according to Bayes’ theorem as discussed below.

86 Mathematically, let D is the available data from the system and each model M θ is defined by

87 a parameter vector θ. Then, the probability of each belief of M θ is given using Bayes’ theorem

88 as:

θ p D|M θ p(M θ )


p M |D = (14)
p(D)

89 Here, expression p(M θ ) represents the belief of M θ without knowing the evidence and


90 known as prior distribution of M θ . Expression p D|M θ represents the probability of data D

91 when a belief of M θ is taken as true and called as the likelihood of data D for that belief. It is

92 to be noted that the total probability of data D is a constant, which is nothing but the sum of the

93 likelihood of data D for each and every belief of M θ and represented by p(D) (evidence). The left

94 side expression in Equation 14 is known as the posterior distribution of M θ . As p(D) is a constant,

95 the shape of the posterior distribution is independent of p(D). The posterior distribution gives the

96 updated probability distribution of M θ based on data D. A comparatively higher probability of

6
97 a belief in posterior distribution represents its ability to produce the response at a comparatively

98 less deviation from the data D. The next subsection describes how to form likelihood function of

99 Bayesian framework for best achievable eigenvectors based damage localization algorithm.

100 Likelihood function for best achievable eigenvector based damage localization algorithm

101 As discussed in section 1 the concept of best achievable eigenvector of a space or subspace

102 can be used to determine the location of damage in a structure. This needs at first the modal data

103 (frequencies and mode shapes) of a structure for which the damage identification (localization) is

104 required. This can be achieved easily owing to the recent advancements in extracting modal data

105 of a system from its dynamic response and then applying any of the available modal identification

106 algorithms. Now, let us assume that for a model M θ , where parameter vector θ differs in terms of
Mθ
107 number and location of damaged elements for each model, the best achievable eigenvector is φtj a

108 corresponding to the measured eigenvector φtj of the system for j th mode. Then, the relationship
Mθ
109 between the the best achievable eigenvector φtj a for model M θ and the measured eigenvector φtj

110 can be given as:

Mθ
φtj = φtj a + e(M θ ) (15)

111 Here, e(M θ ) is the deviation of model output from the system output and often called as

112 prediction error. The likelihood of Y is expected to attain maximum for a realization of M θ when

113 e(θ) is minimum. Also, considering the fact that e(θ) can be spread on both positive and negative

114 sides of the number scale, a normal distribution with zero mean (µ) vector and a covariance matrix

115 (V ∈ Rn×n ) gives the maximum entropy for the choice of prediction error model [? ]. Therefore,

116 the likelihood of a measured mode φtj for a realization of model M θ can be written as:

7
  
θ

1 1 Maθ T −1 Maθ
p φtj |M , V φtj = 1/2
exp − (φtj − φtj ) V φtj (φtj − φtj ) (16)
(2π)n/2 V φtj 2

117 V φi represents the covariance matrix of the prediction errors in the ith mode shape vector

118 components. Now, if the available data D from the system contains m measured modes and s sets

119 of data then the likelihood of data D can be written as:

s Y
Y m
p(D/θ) = p(φqr |θ, Vφqr ) (17)
q=1 r=1

120 In writing Equation 17, it is assumed that the different data sets are statically independent, in-

121 formatively. Further, it is assumed that various modes are also statically independent informatively

122 to each other. Now, to evaluate the covariance matrix V φi , mode shape components are taken as

123 uncorrelated to each other, resulting V φi to be a diagonal matrix. It is shown in Section 2 that how

124 matrix V φi has been formed in this study for different modes.

125 Choice of prior distribution

126 The term p(M θ ) in Equation 14 is known as the prior distribution for unknown models M θ .

127 The choice of prior distribution for unknown parameters or models facilitates to incorporate all

128 the available information about unknown parameters in Bayesian updating algorithm. This helps

129 to achieve a less scattered and more concentrated posterior distribution near the true value of un-

130 known parameter. In this work prior distribution of unknown model is also evaluated using the best

131 achievable eigenvector concept. In BAE based damage localization approach comparing models

132 with different number of damaged elements simultaneously can mislead the damage localization

133 in structure. This is because the BAE approach works on finding a subspace which has its best

8
134 achievable eigenvector same as the measured eigenvector of the structure. However, it is to be

135 noted that once the correct damaged elements has been identified then the BAE of a subspace

136 formed by the damaged elements and any extra element other than the damaged elements will

137 also match the measured eigenvector of the structure. This issue has been resolved in subsequent

138 sections to identify the correct location of damage. However, the damage algorithm adopted in

139 this work considers the same number of damaged elements model at a time to find out the best

140 model out of these. Therefore, let us assume that out of p number of elements, a model class is

141 considered with only r number of damaged elements. The total number of unique combinations of

142 these scenario can be given as:

p!
Crp = (18)
r! (p − r)!

143 Now, for these Crp number of unique combinations, all possible unique damage locations are

144 considered. It is to be noted that in each of these combination the number of damaged elements is

145 same and these combinations are unique in regard of the damage locations. Each of these unique

146 combination forms a unique model whose posterior probability is to be determined based on the

147 available modal data from the structure. To get the prior probability of each model, firstly, the

148 likelihood of available data for each damage location is found out separately using Equation 17.

149 Then, the prior probability of each unique model is evaluated by multiplying the likelihood of

150 available data for each damage location in a combination and then normalizing it. For example, if

151 out of p number of elements, let us assume, that 2th 5th and 9th elements are damaged, p >= 9.

152 Then the joint likelihood of available data for model M θ , where θ ∈ {2, 5, 9} is evaluated as:

9
 p(D/M θ ) = p(D/M {2} ) × p(D/M {5} ) × p(D/M {9} ) (19)

153 While evaluating Equation 19, statistical independence is assumed between different terms

154 on the left hand side. To form the prior distribution it is assumed that prior probability of a model

155 M θ is proportional to the joint likelihood of the available data for the model M θ as evaluated in

156 Equation 19. Finally the prior distribution is evaluated as:

p(D/M θ )
p(M θ ) = (20)
Crp
P
p(D/M θi )
i=1

157 Damage localization algorithm

158 This section describes the algorithm adopted in this work for damage localization using best

159 achievable eigenvector under Bayesian framework.

160 • Evaluate Ej for each measured frequency from Equation

161 • Evaluate total number of combinations for considered number of damaged elements in the

162 structure using Equation 18

163 • Form all the unique combinations for the considered number of damaged elements then

164 assign a unique number to each unique combination for identification purpose of this com-

165 bination

166 • Evaluate the prior probabilities of each combination according to Equation 20

167 • For each combination evaluate the best achievable eigenvector using Equation ?? corre-

168 sponding to each measured mode.

169 • Evaluate the likelihood of the available data for each unique combination using Equation ??

10
170 • Get the posterior probability of each combination according to Equation ??

171 • Repeat point 2to6 for each number of damaged elements i.e. for i=1...p.

172 • Collect the most probable combination from posterior distribution of each number of dam-

173 aged elements.

174 • Plot the likelihood of each most probable combination against the number of damaged

175 elements in that combination

176 • A sharp change in the above plot shows the exact number of damaged elements in the

177 structure and the associated combination shows the location of damage.

178 NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION

179 To study the efficiency of the proposed approach in damage localization, a 12-storey shear

180 building frame adopted from ? ] is considered. Figure ?? provides a schematic diagram of the

181 adopted shear building. For the intact structure the value of mass and stiffness parameters are

182 adopted as 1.0 × 105 kg and 2.0 × 108 N/mm, respectively [? ] for each of the element. In

183 damaged model it is assumed that the mass parameters associated with each degree-of-freedom

184 of the structure mi (with i = 1, 2, ...12) is known and invariable. However, stiffness of some of

185 the elements of the intact structure are degraded using a stiffness reduction factor as discussed in

186 Section 1 (Equation 4). These damaged elements are then found using the BAE approach discussed

187 in this work under Bayesian inference. For this purpose, modal data of the damaged structure is

188 found out using Eigenvalue analysis to simulate the evidence in the Bayesian framework. To

189 represent a realistic scenario, the data are contaminated with different noise levels. For example

190 to represent 5% noise level, the data are contaminated by a noise of coefficient of variation 5%. A

191 total of 15 such data sets are taken from this noisy data to localize damage in the structure.

11
192 Three different noise levels namely 0%, 2% and 5% for two levels of damage in the structure

193 are considered. The two levels of damage in the structure are defined as 20% and 40% reduction in

194 the stiffness of structural elements. The example presented here considers damage in four elements

195 of a 12-storey shear building frame. The damage is considered in the second, third, fourth and sixth

196 storey of 12-storey shear building frame for illustration purpose. Only fundamental mode shape

197 data is used to localize damage in the structure. At first, 0% noise case is considered to see the

198 working of present algorithm in localizing damage under idealistic conditions. Since, both the

199 number of damaged elements in the structure and its location is unknown, so, it is necessary first

200 to evaluate the exact number of damaged elements and then finding the most probable damage

201 combination for this number. Figure ?? shows the normalized likelihood (normalized with respect

202 to maximum likelihood) versus number of elements plot for 0% noise case for five most probable

203 damage locations combinations of each considered number of damaged elements. The considered

204 number of damaged elements ranges from 1 to p − 1 (p being the number of elements). Although,

205 it can be easily extended up to p but there is no gain to apply the present algorithm when all

206 elements are damaged in a structure so this case has been excluded here. Figure ??(a) refers to the

207 case of 20% damage in the elements, whereas, Figure ??(b) shows the case of 40% damage in the

208 elements. To evaluate the exact number of damaged elements it is assessed that for which least

209 number of damaged elements the normalized likelihood becomes one for most probable damage

210 combination of that number.

211 Damage detection using a single mode

212 Damage detection using multiple modes

213 CONCLUSIONS

12
TABLE 1. The unique number associated to the unique combination of 4 damaged
elements
No. Comb. No. Comb. No. Comb. No. Comb.
1 9 10 11 12 41 2 4 11 12 81 1 2 10 12 121 4 5 8 12
2 8 10 11 12 42 1 4 11 12 82 7 8 9 12 122 3 5 8 12
3 7 10 11 12 43 2 3 11 12 83 6 8 9 12 123 2 5 8 12
4 6 10 11 12 44 1 3 11 12 84 5 8 9 12 124 1 5 8 12
5 5 10 11 12 45 1 2 11 12 85 4 8 9 12 125 3 4 8 12
6 4 10 11 12 46 8 9 10 12 86 3 8 9 12 126 2 4 8 12
7 3 10 11 12 47 7 9 10 12 87 2 8 9 12 127 1 4 8 12
8 2 10 11 12 48 6 9 10 12 88 1 8 9 12 128 2 3 8 12
9 1 10 11 12 49 5 9 10 12 89 6 7 9 12 129 1 3 8 12
10 8 9 11 12 50 4 9 10 12 90 5 7 9 12 130 1 2 8 12
11 7 9 11 12 51 3 9 10 12 91 4 7 9 12 131 5 6 7 12
12 6 9 11 12 52 2 9 10 12 92 3 7 9 12 132 4 6 7 12
13 5 9 11 12 53 1 9 10 12 93 2 7 9 12 133 3 6 7 12
14 4 9 11 12 54 7 8 10 12 94 1 7 9 12 134 2 6 7 12
15 3 9 11 12 55 6 8 10 12 95 5 6 9 12 135 1 6 7 12
16 2 9 11 12 56 5 8 10 12 96 4 6 9 12 136 4 5 7 12
17 1 9 11 12 57 4 8 10 12 97 3 6 9 12 137 3 5 7 12
18 7 8 11 12 58 3 8 10 12 98 2 6 9 12 138 2 5 7 12
19 6 8 11 12 59 2 8 10 12 99 1 6 9 12 139 1 5 7 12
20 5 8 11 12 60 1 8 10 12 100 4 5 9 12 140 3 4 7 12
21 4 8 11 12 61 6 7 10 12 101 3 5 9 12 141 2 4 7 12
22 3 8 11 12 62 5 7 10 12 102 2 5 9 12 142 1 4 7 12
23 2 8 11 12 63 4 7 10 12 103 1 5 9 12 143 2 3 7 12
24 1 8 11 12 64 3 7 10 12 104 3 4 9 12 144 1 3 7 12
25 6 7 11 12 65 2 7 10 12 105 2 4 9 12 145 1 2 7 12
26 5 7 11 12 66 1 7 10 12 106 1 4 9 12 146 4 5 6 12
27 4 7 11 12 67 5 6 10 12 107 2 3 9 12 147 3 5 6 12
28 3 7 11 12 68 4 6 10 12 108 1 3 9 12 148 2 5 6 12
29 2 7 11 12 69 3 6 10 12 109 1 2 9 12 149 1 5 6 12
30 1 7 11 12 70 2 6 10 12 110 6 7 8 12 150 3 4 6 12
31 5 6 11 12 71 1 6 10 12 111 5 7 8 12 151 2 4 6 12
32 4 6 11 12 72 4 5 10 12 112 4 7 8 12 152 1 4 6 12
33 3 6 11 12 73 3 5 10 12 113 3 7 8 12 153 2 3 6 12
34 2 6 11 12 74 2 5 10 12 114 2 7 8 12 154 1 3 6 12
35 1 6 11 12 75 1 5 10 12 115 1 7 8 12 155 1 2 6 12
36 4 5 11 12 76 3 4 10 12 116 5 6 8 12 156 3 4 5 12
37 3 5 11 12 77 2 4 10 12 117 4 6 8 12 157 2 4 5 12
38 2 5 11 12 78 1 4 10 12 118 3 6 8 12 158 1 4 5 12
39 1 5 11 12 79 2 3 10 12 119 2 6 8 12 159 2 3 5 12
40 3 4 11 12 80 1 3 10 12 120 1 6 8 12 160 1 3 5 12
13
TABLE 2. The unique number associated to the unique combination of 4 damaged
elements
No. Comb. No. Comb. No. Comb. No. Comb.
161 1 2 5 12 201 1 2 10 11 241 4 5 8 11 281 1 2 5 11
162 2 3 4 12 202 7 8 9 11 242 3 5 8 11 282 2 3 4 11
163 1 3 4 12 203 6 8 9 11 243 2 5 8 11 283 1 3 4 11
164 1 2 4 12 204 5 8 9 11 244 1 5 8 11 284 1 2 4 11
165 1 2 3 12 205 4 8 9 11 245 3 4 8 11 285 1 2 3 11
166 8 9 10 11 206 3 8 9 11 246 2 4 8 11 286 7 8 9 10
167 7 9 10 11 207 2 8 9 11 247 1 4 8 11 287 6 8 9 10
168 6 9 10 11 208 1 8 9 11 248 2 3 8 11 288 5 8 9 10
169 5 9 10 11 209 6 7 9 11 249 1 3 8 11 289 4 8 9 10
170 4 9 10 11 210 5 7 9 11 250 1 2 8 11 290 3 8 9 10
171 3 9 10 11 211 4 7 9 11 251 5 6 7 11 291 2 8 9 10
172 2 9 10 11 212 3 7 9 11 252 4 6 7 11 292 1 8 9 10
173 1 9 10 11 213 2 7 9 11 253 3 6 7 11 293 6 7 9 10
174 7 8 10 11 214 1 7 9 11 254 2 6 7 11 294 5 7 9 10
175 6 8 10 11 215 5 6 9 11 255 1 6 7 11 295 4 7 9 10
176 5 8 10 11 216 4 6 9 11 256 4 5 7 11 296 3 7 9 10
177 4 8 10 11 217 3 6 9 11 257 3 5 7 11 297 2 7 9 10
178 3 8 10 11 218 2 6 9 11 258 2 5 7 11 298 1 7 9 10
179 2 8 10 11 219 1 6 9 11 259 1 5 7 11 299 5 6 9 10
180 1 8 10 11 220 4 5 9 11 260 3 4 7 11 300 4 6 9 10
181 6 7 10 11 221 3 5 9 11 261 2 4 7 11 301 3 6 9 10
182 5 7 10 11 222 2 5 9 11 262 1 4 7 11 302 2 6 9 10
183 4 7 10 11 223 1 5 9 11 263 2 3 7 11 303 1 6 9 10
184 3 7 10 11 224 3 4 9 11 264 1 3 7 11 304 4 5 9 10
185 2 7 10 11 225 2 4 9 11 265 1 2 7 11 305 3 5 9 10
186 1 7 10 11 226 1 4 9 11 266 4 5 6 11 306 2 5 9 10
187 5 6 10 11 227 2 3 9 11 267 3 5 6 11 307 1 5 9 10
188 4 6 10 11 228 1 3 9 11 268 2 5 6 11 308 3 4 9 10
189 3 6 10 11 229 1 2 9 11 269 1 5 6 11 309 2 4 9 10
190 2 6 10 11 230 6 7 8 11 270 3 4 6 11 310 1 4 9 10
191 1 6 10 11 231 5 7 8 11 271 2 4 6 11 311 2 3 9 10
192 4 5 10 11 232 4 7 8 11 272 1 4 6 11 312 1 3 9 10
193 3 5 10 11 233 3 7 8 11 273 2 3 6 11 313 1 2 9 10
194 2 5 10 11 234 2 7 8 11 274 1 3 6 11 314 6 7 8 10
195 1 5 10 11 235 1 7 8 11 275 1 2 6 11 315 5 7 8 10
196 3 4 10 11 236 5 6 8 11 276 3 4 5 11 316 4 7 8 10
197 2 4 10 11 237 4 6 8 11 277 2 4 5 11 317 3 7 8 10
198 1 4 10 11 238 3 6 8 11 278 1 4 5 11 318 2 7 8 10
199 2 3 10 11 239 2 6 8 11 279 2 3 5 11 319 1 7 8 10
200 1 3 10 11 240 1 6 8 11 280 1 3 5 11 320 5 6 8 10
14
TABLE 3. The unique number associated to the unique combination of 4 damaged
elements
No. Comb. No. Comb. No. Comb. No. Comb.
321 4 6 8 10 361 2 4 5 10 401 2 4 7 9 441 4 5 6 8
322 3 6 8 10 362 1 4 5 10 402 1 4 7 9 442 3 5 6 8
323 2 6 8 10 363 2 3 5 10 403 2 3 7 9 443 2 5 6 8
324 1 6 8 10 364 1 3 5 10 404 1 3 7 9 444 1 5 6 8
325 4 5 8 10 365 1 2 5 10 405 1 2 7 9 445 3 4 6 8
326 3 5 8 10 366 2 3 4 10 406 4 5 6 9 446 2 4 6 8
327 2 5 8 10 367 1 3 4 10 407 3 5 6 9 447 1 4 6 8
328 1 5 8 10 368 1 2 4 10 408 2 5 6 9 448 2 3 6 8
329 3 4 8 10 369 1 2 3 10 409 1 5 6 9 449 1 3 6 8
330 2 4 8 10 370 6789 410 3 4 6 9 450 1 2 6 8
331 1 4 8 10 371 5789 411 2 4 6 9 451 3 4 5 8
332 2 3 8 10 372 4789 412 1 4 6 9 452 2 4 5 8
333 1 3 8 10 373 3789 413 2 3 6 9 453 1 4 5 8
334 1 2 8 10 374 2789 414 1 3 6 9 454 2 3 5 8
335 5 6 7 10 375 1789 415 1 2 6 9 455 1 3 5 8
336 4 6 7 10 376 5689 416 3 4 5 9 456 1 2 5 8
337 3 6 7 10 377 4689 417 2 4 5 9 457 2 3 4 8
338 2 6 7 10 378 3689 418 1 4 5 9 458 1 3 4 8
339 1 6 7 10 379 2689 419 2 3 5 9 459 1 2 4 8
340 4 5 7 10 380 1689 420 1 3 5 9 460 1 2 3 8
341 3 5 7 10 381 4589 421 1 2 5 9 461 4 5 6 7
342 2 5 7 10 382 3589 422 2 3 4 9 462 3 5 6 7
343 1 5 7 10 383 2589 423 1 3 4 9 463 2 5 6 7
344 3 4 7 10 384 1589 424 1 2 4 9 464 1 5 6 7
345 2 4 7 10 385 3489 425 1 2 3 9 465 3 4 6 7
346 1 4 7 10 386 2489 426 5 6 7 8 466 2 4 6 7
347 2 3 7 10 387 1489 427 4 6 7 8 467 1 4 6 7
348 1 3 7 10 388 2389 428 3 6 7 8 468 2 3 6 7
349 1 2 7 10 389 1389 429 2 6 7 8 469 1 3 6 7
350 4 5 6 10 390 1289 430 1 6 7 8 470 1 2 6 7
351 3 5 6 10 391 5679 431 4 5 7 8 471 3 4 5 7
352 2 5 6 10 392 4679 432 3 5 7 8 472 2 4 5 7
353 1 5 6 10 393 3679 433 2 5 7 8 473 1 4 5 7
354 3 4 6 10 394 2679 434 1 5 7 8 474 2 3 5 7
355 2 4 6 10 395 1679 435 3 4 7 8 475 1 3 5 7
356 1 4 6 10 396 4579 436 2 4 7 8 476 1 2 5 7
357 2 3 6 10 397 3579 437 1 4 7 8 477 2 3 4 7
358 1 3 6 10 398 2579 438 2 3 7 8 478 1 3 4 7
359 1 2 6 10 399 1579 439 1 3 7 8 479 1 2 4 7
360 3 4 5 10 400 3479 440 1 2 7 8 480 1 2 3 7
15
TABLE 4. The unique number associated to the unique combination of 4 damaged
elements
No. Comb. No. Comb. No. Comb. No. Comb.
481 3456 485 1356 489 1 2 4 6 493 1245
482 2456 486 1256 490 1 2 3 6 494 1235
483 1456 487 2346 491 2 3 4 5 495 1234
484 2356 488 1346 492 1345

16