Non-negative constrained inverse eigenvalue problems – Application to damage identification

Abstract Damage identification using eigenvalue shifts is ill-posed because the number of identifiable eigenvalues is typically far less than the number of potential damage locations. This paper shows that if damage is defined by sparse and non-negative vectors, such as the case for local stiffness reductions, then the non-negative solution to the linearized inverse eigenvalue problem can be made unique with respect to a subset of eigenvalues significantly smaller than the number of potential damage locations. Theoretical evidence, numerical simulations, and performance comparisons to sparse vector recovery methods based on l 1 -norm optimization are used to validate the findings. These results are then extrapolated to the ill-posed nonlinear inverse eigenvalue problem in cases where damage is large, and linearization induces non-negligible truncation errors. In order to approximate the solution to the non-negative nonlinear least squares, a constrained finite element model updating approach is presented. The proposed method is verified using three simulated structures of increasing complexity: a one-dimensional shear beam, a planar truss, and a three-dimensional space structure. For multiple structures, this paper demonstrates that the proposed method finds sparse solutions in the presence of measurement noise.

[1]  E. Candès,et al.  Sparsity and incoherence in compressive sampling , 2006, math/0611957.

[2]  Eric M. Hernandez,et al.  Detection of spatially sparse damage using impulse response sensitivity and LASSO regularization , 2019 .

[3]  Charles R. Farrar,et al.  Structural Health Monitoring: A Machine Learning Perspective , 2012 .

[4]  Patrick Paultre,et al.  Consistent regularization of nonlinear model updating for damage identification , 2009 .

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

[6]  D. Donoho,et al.  Sparse nonnegative solution of underdetermined linear equations by linear programming. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Hui Li,et al.  Structural damage identification based on substructure sensitivity and l1 sparse regularization , 2013, Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring.

[8]  Eric M. Hernandez,et al.  Identification of isolated structural damage from incomplete spectrum information using l1-norm minimization , 2014 .

[9]  C. Farrar,et al.  Damage detection algorithms applied to experimental modal data from the I-40 Bridge , 1996 .

[10]  C. Vogel Computational Methods for Inverse Problems , 1987 .

[11]  Rik Pintelon,et al.  Uncertainty bounds on modal parameters obtained from stochastic subspace identification , 2008 .

[12]  Branislav Titurus,et al.  Regularization in model updating , 2008 .

[13]  Charles R. Farrar,et al.  Estimation of Statistical Distributions for Modal Parameters Identified From Averaged Frequency Response Function Data , 2001 .

[14]  X. Y. Li,et al.  Adaptive Tikhonov regularization for damage detection based on nonlinear model updating , 2010 .

[15]  Michael Elad,et al.  On the Uniqueness of Nonnegative Sparse Solutions to Underdetermined Systems of Equations , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[16]  Natalia Sabourova,et al.  Sensitivity-based model updating for structural damage identification using total variation regularization , 2016, 1602.08137.

[17]  Ryan J. Link,et al.  Structural damage diagnosis using frequency response functions and orthogonal matching pursuit: theoretical development , 2015 .

[18]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Convex Optimization , 2004, Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook.

[19]  Michael Elad,et al.  Optimally sparse representation in general (nonorthogonal) dictionaries via ℓ1 minimization , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Shun Weng,et al.  L1 regularization approach to structural damage detection using frequency data , 2015 .

[21]  Laurent Mevel,et al.  Uncertainty quantification for modal parameters from stochastic subspace identification on multi-setup measurements ☆ , 2013 .

[22]  Joel A. Tropp,et al.  Greed is good: algorithmic results for sparse approximation , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[23]  Mohamed Kaouk,et al.  Structural damage assessment using a generalized minimum rank perturbation theory , 1993 .

[24]  Michael Link,et al.  DAMAGE IDENTIFICATION USING CHANGES OF EIGENFREQUENCIES AND MODE SHAPES , 2003 .

[25]  R. Fox,et al.  Rates of change of eigenvalues and eigenvectors. , 1968 .

[26]  Charles R. Farrar,et al.  The fundamental axioms of structural health monitoring , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[27]  Guirong Yan,et al.  Experimental validation of a damage detection approach on a full-scale highway sign support truss , 2012 .

[28]  Eric M. Hernandez,et al.  Identification of Localized Structural Damage from Highly Incomplete Modal Information: Theory and Experiments , 2016 .

[29]  Ao Tang,et al.  A Unique “Nonnegative” Solution to an Underdetermined System: From Vectors to Matrices , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[30]  B. Kaltenbacher Some Newton-type methods for the regularization of nonlinear ill-posed problems , 1997 .

[31]  Yu-Ping Wang,et al.  Imposing uniqueness to achieve sparsity , 2016, Signal Process..