Hybrid probabilities and error-domain structural identification using ambient vibration monitoring

For the assessment of structural behaviour, many approaches are available to compare model predictions with measurements. However, few approaches include uncertainties along with dependencies associated with models and observations. In this paper, an error-domain structural identification approach is proposed using ambient vibration monitoring (AVM) as the input. This approach is based on the principle that in science, data cannot truly validate a hypothesis, it can only be used to falsity it. Error-domain model falsification generates a space of possible model instances (combination of parameters), obtains predictions for each of them and then rejects instances that have unlikely differences (residuals) between predictions and measurements. Models are filtered in a two step process. Firstly a comparison of mode shapes based on MAC criterion ensures that the same modes are compared. Secondly, the frequencies from each model instance are compared with the measurements. The instances for which the difference between the predicted and measured value lie outside threshold bounds are discarded. In order to include “uncertainty of uncertainty” in the identification process, a hybrid probability scheme is also presented. The approach is used for the identification of the Langensand Bridge in Switzerland. It is used to falsify the hypothesis that the bridge was behaving as designed when subjected to ambient vibration inputs, before opening to the traffic. Such small amplitudes may be affected by low-level bearing-device friction. This inadvertently increased the apparent stiffness of the structure by 17%. This observation supports the premiss that ambient vibration surveys should be cross-checked with other information sources, such as numerical models, in order to avoid misinterpreting the data.

[1]  I. R. Stubbs,et al.  Ambient Vibration of Two Suspension Bridges , 1971 .

[2]  I Lira,et al.  The generalized maximum entropy trapezoidal probability density function , 2008 .

[3]  P. Welch The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms , 1967 .

[4]  Panagiotis Kotronis,et al.  Full‐scale dynamic response of an RC building under weak seismic motions using earthquake recordings, ambient vibrations and modelling , 2007, 0710.1205.

[5]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Model Updating In Structural Dynamics: A Survey , 1993 .

[6]  Ramon E. Moore Methods and applications of interval analysis , 1979, SIAM studies in applied mathematics.

[7]  Jacques Perret Déformations des couches bitumineuses au passage d'une charge de trafic , 2003 .

[8]  Kari Sentz,et al.  Probabilistic bounding analysis in the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties , 2011, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[9]  J. Beck,et al.  Model Selection using Response Measurements: Bayesian Probabilistic Approach , 2004 .

[10]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Model Identification of Bridges Using Measurement Data , 2005 .

[11]  Ahmet E. Aktan,et al.  Limitations in Structural Identification of Large Constructed Structures , 2007 .

[12]  J. Beck,et al.  Updating Models and Their Uncertainties. I: Bayesian Statistical Framework , 1998 .

[13]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Overcoming the limitations of traditional model-updating approaches , 2011 .

[14]  Keith Beven,et al.  A manifesto for the equifinality thesis , 2006 .

[15]  Kent Gylltoft,et al.  Improved bridge evaluation through finite element model updating using static and dynamic measurements , 2009 .

[16]  Keith Beven,et al.  Environmental Modelling , 2007 .

[17]  C. Maresa,et al.  Stochastic model updating : Part 1 — theory and simulated example , 2006 .

[18]  Sébastien MousseauS. Mousseau,et al.  Assessment of the frequency domain decomposition technique by forced-vibration tests of a full-scale structure , 2008 .

[19]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  Updating robust reliability using structural test data , 2001 .

[20]  Maurice G. Cox,et al.  The use of a Monte Carlo method for evaluating uncertainty and expanded uncertainty , 2006 .

[21]  Ahmed Mansour Abdel-Ghaffar Dynamic analyses of suspension bridge structures , 1976 .

[22]  James M. W. Brownjohn,et al.  Dynamic Assessment of Curved Cable-Stayed Bridge by Model Updating , 2000 .

[23]  Lambros S. Katafygiotis,et al.  Unified Probabilistic Approach for Model Updating and Damage , 2006 .

[24]  Dan M. Frangopol,et al.  Structural Health Monitoring and Reliability Estimation: Long Span Truss Bridge Application With Environmental Monitoring Data , 2008 .

[25]  Randall J. Allemang,et al.  A Correlation Coefficient for Modal Vector Analysis , 1982 .

[26]  M. Friswell,et al.  Perturbation methods for the estimation of parameter variability in stochastic model updating , 2008 .

[27]  Raghu N. Kacker,et al.  Rectangular distribution whose end points are not exactly known: curvilinear trapezoidal distribution , 2010 .

[28]  Dean S. Carder,et al.  Observed vibrations of bridges , 1937 .

[29]  Philip B. Stark,et al.  A Primer of Frequentist and Bayesian Inference in Inverse Problems , 2010 .

[30]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[31]  A. Tarantola Popper, Bayes and the inverse problem , 2006 .

[32]  Rune Brincker,et al.  Modal identification of output-only systems using frequency domain decomposition , 2001 .

[33]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Dependence in Dempster-Shafer theory and probability bounds analysis* , 2004 .

[34]  Clotaire Michel,et al.  Dynamic parameters of structures extracted from ambient vibration measurements : An aid for the seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings in moderate seismic hazard regions , 2007, 0710.1210.

[35]  J. Mottershead,et al.  Mode-shape recognition and finite element model updating using the Zernike moment descriptor , 2009 .

[36]  Carlos E. Ventura,et al.  Damping estimation by frequency domain decomposition , 2001 .

[37]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Improving Knowledge of Structural System Behavior through Multiple Models , 2008 .

[38]  Antonino Morassi,et al.  Dynamic Testing for Structural Identification of a Bridge , 2008 .

[39]  S. Standard GUIDE TO THE EXPRESSION OF UNCERTAINTY IN MEASUREMENT , 2006 .

[40]  Ian E. Smith,et al.  Finding the right model for bridge diagnosis , 1998, AI in Structural Engineering.

[41]  Bo Chen,et al.  Monitoring temperature effect on a long suspension bridge , 2009 .

[42]  Bart Peeters,et al.  COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MODAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR BRIDGE DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS , 2003 .

[43]  Masoud Sanayei,et al.  Damage Localization and Finite-Element Model Updating Using Multiresponse NDT Data , 2006 .

[44]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Multimodel Structural Performance Monitoring , 2010 .

[45]  Guido De Roeck,et al.  Finite element model updating and structural damage identification using OMAX data , 2010 .

[46]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Extended Uniform Distribution Accounting for Uncertainty of Uncertainty , 2011 .

[47]  Ramon E. Moore,et al.  Methods and Applications of Interval Analysis (SIAM Studies in Applied and Numerical Mathematics) (Siam Studies in Applied Mathematics, 2.) , 1979 .

[48]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Hybrid probabilities and error-domain structural identification using ambient vibration monitoring , 2013 .

[49]  J. Beck,et al.  Bayesian Model Updating Using Hybrid Monte Carlo Simulation with Application to Structural Dynamic Models with Many Uncertain Parameters , 2009 .