Probabilistic identification of simulated damage on the Dowling Hall footbridge through Bayesian finite element model updating

Summary This paper presents a probabilistic damage identification study on a full-scale structure, the Dowling Hall footbridge, through a Bayesian finite element (FE) model updating. The footbridge is located at Tufts University and is equipped with a continuous monitoring system that measures its ambient acceleration response. A set of data is recorded once every hour or when triggered by large vibrations. The modal parameters of the footbridge are extracted from each set of data and are used for FE model updating. In this study, effects of physical damage are simulated by loading a small segment of the footbridge deck with concrete blocks. The footbridge deck is divided into five segments in an FE model of the test structure, and the added mass on each segment is considered as an updating parameter. Overall, 72 sets of data are collected during the loading period, and different subsets of these data are used to find the location and extent of the damage (added mass). The adaptive Metropolis–Hastings algorithm with adaption on the proposal probability density function is successfully used to generate Markov Chains for sampling the posterior probability distributions of the five updating parameters. Effects of the number of data sets used in the identification process are investigated on the posterior probability distributions of the updating parameters. The probabilistic model updating framework accurately predicts the simulated damage and the level of confidence on the obtained results. The maximum a-posteriori estimates of damage in the probabilistic approach are found to be in good agreement with their corresponding deterministic counterparts. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Qiusheng Li,et al.  Finite element model updating for a high-rise structure based on ambient vibration measurements , 2004 .

[2]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  Bridge health monitoring system based on vibration measurements , 2008 .

[3]  S. Alampalli,et al.  EFFECTS OF TESTING, ANALYSIS, DAMAGE, AND ENVIRONMENT ON MODAL PARAMETERS , 2000 .

[4]  Babak Moaveni,et al.  Effects of changing ambient temperature on finite element model updating of the Dowling Hall Footbridge , 2012 .

[5]  Stefan Hurlebaus,et al.  Special issue on real-world applications of structural identification and health monitoring methodologies , 2013 .

[6]  J. Beck,et al.  Bayesian Updating of Structural Models and Reliability using Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulation , 2002 .

[7]  J. Ching,et al.  Transitional Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method for Bayesian Model Updating, Model Class Selection, and Model Averaging , 2007 .

[8]  James L. Beck,et al.  Monitoring Structural Health Using a Probabilistic Measure , 2001 .

[9]  J. Beck,et al.  Entropy-Based Optimal Sensor Location for Structural Model Updating , 2000 .

[10]  John W. Wallace,et al.  Parameter identification of framed structures using an improved finite element model‐updating method—Part II: application to experimental data , 2007 .

[11]  Sang-Hyeok Gang,et al.  Report Card for America's Infrastructure , 2012 .

[12]  Christophe Andrieu,et al.  A tutorial on adaptive MCMC , 2008, Stat. Comput..

[13]  J. Rosenthal,et al.  Optimal scaling for various Metropolis-Hastings algorithms , 2001 .

[14]  Gerhart I. Schuëller,et al.  Evidence-Based Identification of Weighting Factors in Bayesian Model Updating Using Modal Data , 2012 .

[15]  James L. Beck,et al.  Structural damage detection and assessment by adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation , 2004 .

[16]  E. Peter Carden,et al.  Vibration Based Condition Monitoring: A Review , 2004 .

[17]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  The Observed Wander of the Natural Frequencies in a Structure , 2006 .

[18]  W. K. Hastings,et al.  Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications , 1970 .

[19]  P. Moser,et al.  Design and deployment of a continuous monitoring system for the dowling hall footbridges , 2013, Experimental Techniques.

[20]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  The sensitivity method in finite element model updating: A tutorial (vol 25, pg 2275, 2010) , 2011 .

[21]  Masoud Sanayei,et al.  PARAMETER ESTIMATION INCORPORATING MODAL DATA AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS , 1999 .

[22]  Rune Brincker,et al.  Vibration Based Inspection of Civil Engineering Structures , 1993 .

[23]  Costas Papadimitriou,et al.  Optimal sensor placement methodology for parametric identification of structural systems , 2004 .

[24]  P. G. Bakir,et al.  Damage identification on the Tilff bridge by vibration monitoring using optical fiber strain sensors , 2005 .

[25]  James L. Beck,et al.  New Bayesian Model Updating Algorithm Applied to a Structural Health Monitoring Benchmark , 2004 .

[26]  Glauco Feltrin,et al.  Damage Identification Using Modal Data: Experiences on a Prestressed Concrete Bridge , 2005 .

[27]  Hoon Sohn,et al.  A Bayesian Probabilistic Approach for Structure Damage Detection , 1997 .

[28]  G. Roeck,et al.  Structural damage identification of the highway bridge Z24 by FE model updating , 2004 .

[29]  J. Beck,et al.  UPDATING MODELS AND THEIR UNCERTAINTIES. II: MODEL IDENTIFIABILITY. TECHNICAL NOTE , 1998 .

[30]  Charles R. Farrar,et al.  Damage identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: A literature review , 1996 .

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

[32]  H. Haario,et al.  An adaptive Metropolis algorithm , 2001 .

[33]  Lambros S. Katafygiotis,et al.  Efficient model updating and health monitoring methodology using incomplete modal data without mode matching , 2006 .

[34]  Joel P. Conte,et al.  Uncertainty Quantification in the Assessment of Progressive Damage in a 7-Story Full-Scale Building Slice , 2013 .

[35]  Guido De Roeck,et al.  REFERENCE-BASED STOCHASTIC SUBSPACE IDENTIFICATION FOR OUTPUT-ONLY MODAL ANALYSIS , 1999 .

[36]  B. Moor,et al.  Subspace identification for linear systems , 1996 .

[37]  Guido De Roeck,et al.  Damage detection and parameter identification by finite element model updating , 2005 .

[38]  Joel P. Conte,et al.  Damage identification study of a seven-story full-scale building slice tested on the UCSD-NEES shake table , 2010 .

[39]  F. Hemez,et al.  Updating finite element dynamic models using an element-by-element sensitivity methodology , 1993 .

[40]  Babak Moaveni,et al.  Environmental effects on the identified natural frequencies of the Dowling Hall Footbridge , 2011 .

[41]  François M. Hemez,et al.  Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of Damage Identification Results Obtained Using Finite Element Model Updating , 2009, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..

[42]  Theodore Bartkowicz,et al.  DAMAGE DETECTION AND HEALTH MONITORING OF LARGE SPACE STRUCTURES , 1993 .

[43]  John E. Mottershead,et al.  Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics , 1995 .

[44]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.

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

[46]  S. Chib,et al.  Understanding the Metropolis-Hastings Algorithm , 1995 .