Damage detection using response surface methodology in shear building

Response surface methodology (RSM) is a collection of mathematical and statistical techniques for
empirical model building. By careful design of experiments, the objective is to optimize a response
(output variable) which is influenced by several independent variables (input variables). An
experiment is a series of tests, called runs, in which changes are made in the input variables in order
to identify the reasons for changes in the output response .

Y= f(x1,x2,x3……)+ e

Steps

1. Parameter screening- Various factors like young’s modulus (E), density ,poisons ration and
sectional moment of inertia were taken up as input for screening experiment (Fang & Perera,
2009). Frequencies of few modes was taken as response and percentage contribution to total model
variance of each input parameters ,including interaction effect, was taken up. It was found that
stiffness (E,I) can be taken as a parameter for model generation.

2. RS modelling and updating

Modelling of design of experiment(DOE) has been done using deign expert software (MINITAB can
also be used).

FEM model considered is a six storey shear frame. Stiffness values taken up are Ko= 2X108 N/m,at
each storey and the mass at each storey = 1 X 105 Kg. (Roy & Ray-Chaudhuri, 2013)

2.1 DOE(design of experiment )

CCD (central composite design )
Factorial points are taken at Ko(+1) and 0.7Ko(-1) (Fang & Perera, 2009)
No of training samples = 2k+2k+nc= 26+2 x 6 + 10 =86
α(practical) for factors >5=6(1/4) = 1.5608.

The factorial points will be Ko= 2E+008, 0.7Ko= 1.4E+008.

The axial points in actual value are 0.616Ko and 1.084Ko.

Correlation coefficient matrix
Checking the correlation between the output responses to assure whether they can be usd for modal
generation or not .

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
F1 1
F2 0.671421 1
F3 0.66384 0.66956 1
F4 0.678746 0.678588 0.674376 1
F5 0.660046 0.655197 0.653745 0.674495 1
F6 0.62815 0.633959 0.637885 0.637197 0.634764 1

The result shows that the results are not highly correlated. Thus frequencies can be used model
formation.

ANOVA table for model fitting (adjusted sum of squares) for first natural frequency

Response 1 F1
ANOVA for Response Surface Quadratic model
Analysis of variance table [Partial sum of squares - Type III]
Sum of Mean F p-value
Source Squares df Square Value Prob > F
Model 0.315424 27 0.011682 6471.005 1.82E-91 significant
A-K1 0.000422 1 0.000422 233.8571 5.18E-22
B-K2 0.005989 1 0.005989 3317.238 6.93E-53
C-K3 0.024703 1 0.024703 13683.13 1.43E-70
D-K4 0.05821 1 0.05821 32243.37 2.46E-81
E-K5 0.096484 1 0.096484 53443.74 1.08E-87
F-K6 0.122577 1 0.122577 67897.07 1.06E-90
AB 2.54E-10 1 2.54E-10 0.000141 0.990579
AC 2.53E-07 1 2.53E-07 0.140187 0.709461
AD 1.35E-06 1 1.35E-06 0.748613 0.39048
AE 3.07E-06 1 3.07E-06 1.698324 0.197657
AF 4.41E-06 1 4.41E-06 2.442092 0.123559
BC 3.18E-06 1 3.18E-06 1.762111 0.189563
BD 1.77E-05 1 1.77E-05 9.815572 0.002713
BE 4.07E-05 1 4.07E-05 22.54791 1.39E-05
BF 5.88E-05 1 5.88E-05 32.56786 4.13E-07
CD 6.33E-05 1 6.33E-05 35.08006 1.83E-07
CE 0.000149 1 0.000149 82.4769 9.73E-13
CF 0.000217 1 0.000217 120.1071 9.34E-16
DE 0.00029 1 0.00029 160.5211 2.38E-18
DF 0.000428 1 0.000428 237.0101 3.79E-22
EF 0.000543 1 0.000543 300.5659 1.29E-24
 A^2 1.00E-06 1 1.00E-06 0.555529 0.459077
B^2 3.40E-05 1 3.40E-05 18.85281 5.74E-05
C^2 0.000138 1 0.000138 76.2154 3.71E-12
D^2 0.000284 1 0.000284 157.2003 3.72E-18
E^2 0.000424 1 0.000424 234.9818 4.63E-22
F^2 0.000544 1 0.000544 301.2022 1.23E-24
Residual 0.000105 58 1.81E-06
Lack of
Fit 0.000105 49 2.14E-06
Pure
Error 0 9 0
Cor Total 0.315528 85

The equation generated for the first natural frequency

F1 =+0.59561+ 5.41706E-011* K1 + 4.29403E-010 * K2 + 9.42676E-010 * K3 + 1.47168E-009 * K4 +

1.90342E-009 * K5 + 2.15333E-009* K6 - 2.21297E-021 * K1 * K2 + 6.98715E-020 * K1 * K3+
1.61464E-019* K1 * K4 + 2.43196E-019 * K1 * K5 + 2.91627E-019 * K1 * K6 + 2.47721E-019 * K2 *
K3+ 5.84662E-019* K2 * K4+ 8.86135E-019 * K2 * K5 + 1.06498E-018 * K2 * K6 + 1.10529E-018 *K3
* K4+1.69478E-018 * K3 * K5+ 2.04518E-018 * K3 * K6+ 2.36436E-018 * K4 * K5 + 2.87296E-018 *
K4 * K6 + 3.23532E-018 * K5 * K6 - 2.98610E-019* K1*K1- 1.73956E-018* K2*K2 - 3.49762E-018 *
K3*K3 -5.02317E-018* K4*K4-6.14142E-018 * K5*K5-6.95314E-018* K6*K6;

Model adequacy checking

R-Squared 0.9997
Adj R-Squared 0.9995
Pred R-Squared 0.9989

So model has been found ok.

Similarly for the other natural frequency relations are

F2=+1.75214+2.98181E-009* K1+6.36877E-009 * K2+ 4.31871E-009* K3 + 1.67294E-010* K4 +

1.22323E-009* K5+ 5.36902E-009* K6+ 5.22783E-018* K1 * K2+ 8.52566E-018 * K1 * K3+1.91122E-
018* K1 * K4 - 5.25643E-020* K1 * K5+ 5.26302E-018* K1 * K6
+1.53558E-017 * K2 * K3+3.80476E-018* K2 * K4- 1.31696E-018 * K2 * K5+ 7.12370E-018 * K2 *
K6+2.26926E-018 * K3 * K4-2.98693E-018* K3 * K5-2.76735E-018* K3 * K6-1.15837E-018 * K4 * K5-
4.21212E-018 * K4 * K6+1.16685E-017 * K5 * K6-1.37081E-017 * K1*K1-2.16995E-017* K2*K2 -
1.45781E-017* K3*K3-1.00662E-018* K4*K4-3.88409E-018* K5*K5-1.35595E-017* K6*K6;

F3= +2.82376+ 9.32430E-009 * K1+ 4.13811E-009 * K2+ 2.24129E-009* K3+ 9.93911E-

009*K4+4.64101E-010 * K5+6.27776E-009* K6+ 3.96669E-017* K1 * K2-1.59177E-017* K1 * K3
+2.17885E-017 * K1 * K4+ 6.27812E-018 * K1 * K5+9.38983E-018 * K1 * K6-1.22365E-017 * K2 * K3
-6.65105E-018 * K2 * K4+2.23593E-018* K2 * K5- 7.49767E-018 * K2 * K6+2.41845E-017* K3 * K4
+2.76054E-018 * K3 * K5+1.54285E-017 * K3 * K6+6.44671E-018 * K4 * K5+1.10009E-018 * K4 * K6
-1.23189E-017 * K5 * K6-4.04016E-017 * K1*K1-1.11784E-017* K2*K2-8.81642E-018* K3*K3-
3.36405E-017 * K4*K4-2.63772E-018* K5*K5-8.22528E-018* K6*K6;

F4 = +3.61852+1.10621E-008 * K1+ 1.43314E-009 * K2+1.04079E-008 * K3+3.67635E-009 *

K4+1.01625E-008 * K5+6.67748E-009* K6-3.26573E-017 * K1 * K2+5.59342E-017 * K1 * K3
-2.42676E-017* K1 * K4+3.86346E-017 * K1 * K5-1.23744E-019* K1 * K6+1.77667E-017 * K2 * K3
+2.50275E-018* K2 * K4+1.33817E-017 * K2 * K5+6.45513E-018* K2 * K6-3.15662E-017 * K3 * K4
+1.72628E-017 * K3 * K5- 1.22000E-017 * K3 * K6+ 4.10314E-017* K4 * K5+ 2.22803E-017* K4 * K6
-3.34074E-017 * K5 * K6- 2.61726E-017 * K1*K1- 4.53605E-018 * K2*K2- 3.23399E-017 * K3*K3 -
8.82918E-018* K4*K4-5.05061E-017* K5*K5+6.77435E-019* K6*K6;

F5 = +3.30527 + 1.17462E-008 * K1 + 1.63120E-008 * K2 + 5.52185E-009 * K3 + 1.14159E-008 * K4

+ 1.55953E-008 * K5 + 1.57636E-009 * K6 - 5.74180E-017* K1 * K2 - 2.90026E-017 * K1 * K3 +
4.16475E-017 * K1 * K4 - 1.42884E-017 * K1 * K5 - 1.01690E-017* K1 * K6 - 3.72934E-017 * K2 * K3
+ 8.48346E-017* K2 * K4 + 5.94655E-017 * K2 * K5 + 5.08000E-018 * K2 * K6 + 4.48256E-018 *
K3 * K4 + 3.58439E-017 * K3 * K5 + 8.27677E-018 * K3 * K6 - 8.95710E-017 * K4 * K5 - 2.27686E-
017 * K4 * K6 + 5.82109E-018 * K5 * K6 + 2.07561E-017 * K1*K1 - 4.93643E-017 * K2*K2 -
7.84289E-019 * K3*K3 - 2.73667E-017* K4*K4 - 1.48158E-017 * K5*K5 + 8.58529E-018* K6*K6;

F6 =+5.70743+4.42163E-009 * K1+8.95771E-009* K2+1.37949E-008* K3+1.02549E-008 * K4

+6.82751E-009 * K5+ 2.78068E-009* K6+ 4.18515E-017 * K1 * K2- 1.99125E-017* K1 * K3
-4.13125E-017 * K1 * K4- 3.08447E-017* K1 * K5- 4.67152E-018 * K1 * K6+ 1.21470E-017 * K2 * K3
-8.55590E-017 * K2 * K4- 7.48110E-017* K2 * K5 - 1.23234E-017* K2 * K6
-4.76629E-018 * K3 * K4- 5.52343E-017 * K3 * K5- 1.11074E-017* K3 * K6+ 3.61367E-017* K4 * K5
-4.31201E-019 * K4 * K6+ 1.77431E-017* K5 * K6+ 2.26790E-017* K1*K1+ 5.55329E-017* K2*K2
+2.82210E-017 * K3*K3+ 4.49734E-017* K4*K4+ 4.89130E-017* K5*K5-3.75597E-019* K6*K6;

Now following damage cases were considered for analysis

Stiffness K3 K3 K3 K2 K6 K2
% damage 15% 20% 10% 10 15 20

The outputs from the FEM model is obtained and that from RSM model is calculated using formula
given above.

Optimization was done using multi-objective optimization so that the result matches from both FEM
MODEL and RSM MODEL , in doing this the stiffness values are fixed in RSM model to obtain new set
of stiffness that will indicate the corresponding damage in the structure.
Multi-objective optimization to be used is as follows

Min y { F(x)-wY <

Results:

damage corresponding to damage detection for 20%

15% in the K3 damage in K2
20 25

% reduction in stiffnes
% reduction in stiffnes

15 20
15
10
10
5
5
0 0
K1 K2 K3 k4 k5 k6 K1 K2 K3 k4 k5 k6
-5
member stiffness member stiffness

damage corresponding to Damage corresponding to

10% damage in K3 10% damage in K2
15 15
% reduction in stiffness
% reductin in stiffness

10 10

5 5

0 0
K1 K2 K3 k4 k5 k6 K1 K2 K3 k4 k5 k6
-5 -5
Member stiffness member stiffness
 Damage corresponding to 15% Damage corresponding to 20 %
damage in K2 damage in K2

16 25

% reduction in the stiffness

% reduction in the stiffness

14
20
12
10 15
8
6 10
4 5
2
0 0
-2 K1 K2 K3 k4 k5 k6 K1 K2 K3 k4 k5 k6
member stiffness member stiffness