A DATA DRIVEN APPROACH FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE

DETECTION
A MASTERS THESIS
in
Civil Engineering
Atilim University
by
AHMED S. MOHAMED
JANUARY 2005
A DATA DRIVEN APPROACH FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE
DETECTION
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
ATILIM UNIVERSITY
BY
AHMED S. MOHAMED
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
JANUARY 2005
Approval of the Graduate School of Civil Engineering.
_____________________
Prof. Dr. brahim Akman
Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Science/Arts.
_____________________
Prof. Dr. S. Erol Ulu
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science/Arts.
_____________________
Asst. Prof. Dr. Burcu Gne
Supervisor
Examining Committee Members
Prof. Dr. Seluk Soyupak _____________________
Prof. Dr. S. Erol Ulu _____________________
Asst. Prof. Dr. Tolga Ak _____________________
Asst. Prof. Dr. Burcu Gne _____________________
Asst. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Yakut (METU, C.E.) _____________________
iii
ABSTRACT
A DATA DRIVEN APPROACH FOR EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE
DETECTION
MOHAMED,Ahmed
M.S., Civil Engineering Department
Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Burcu. GNES
JANUARY 2005, 85 pages
In the aftermath of recent major destructive earthquakes, there is increased awareness
for the need to assess the state of the critical and conventional civil structures.
Several methods have been proposed to assess structural health using changes in
vibration characteristics. Most of these methods require a refined finite element
model of the structure and assume that the structure remains linear both before and
after damage. This thesis, however, investigates a data-driven method for post-
earthquake damage detection that is based solely on the recorded seismic data. The
damage is identified by estimating the degree of non-linearity present within the
measured response measurements. The difference between the recorded data and the
predicted response under the premise of linear behavior is used as the detection
criteria for detecting the damage. The methodology adopted here employs the
Eigensystem Realization Algorithm with Observer/Kalman filter approach to identify
and predict the response of the linear system.
The method is applied to a simulated case study of 2-D model of a four-storey shear
building subjected to actual earthquake records with members having a Bouc-Wen
type restoring force-displacement relationship and the method is found promising as
an initial screening process for assessing the health of structural systems after an
extreme event.
iv
Keywords: Non-linearity, Eigensystem Realization Algorithm, Vibration based
damage detection, System identification, Earthquake damage.
v
Z
VER KULLANIMLI DEPREM HASAR TESPT YNTEM
MOHAMED, Ahmed
Yksek Lisans, Insaat Mhendisligi Blm
Tez Yneticisi: Yrd. Do. Dr. Burcu GNES
Ocak 2005, 85 sayfa
Son zamanlarda meydana gelen yikici depremlerin neticesinde, zellikle kritik
yapilar iin durum tesbiti ihtiyaci nem kazanan bir konu olarak ortaya ikmaktadir.
Bu nedenledir ki titresim karakterlerindeki degisiklikleri kullanarak hasar tahmini
yapan birok metot nerilmistir. Bu metodlarin bir ogunda yapinin detayli sonlu
eleman modeline ihtiya duyulmakta ve buna ek olarak da yapinin hem hasardan
nce hem de hasardan sonra dogrusal elastik davranis gsterdigi varsayilmaktadir.
Bu tez alismasinda ise sadece deprem esnasinda kaydedilen veriler kullanilarak
yapilabilecek hasar tespit yntemi incelenmektedir. Yntem, dogrusal elastik
davranis nermesi ile sistemin verecegi tahmin edilen ivme tepkisi ile hareket
esnasinda alinan ivme kayitlarinin karsilastirilmasi ve aradaki farkin lineer
davranistan ne kadar uzaklasildiginin gstergesi olacagi esasina dayanmaktadir. Bu
lineer davranistan sapma derecesi de hasar tespit kriteri olarak incelenmistir. Bu
incelemede Eigensistem Realizasyon Algoritmasi Gzlemci/Kalman Filtresi ile
birlikte lineer sistemin ivme tepkisini tahmin etmek icin kullanilmistir.
nerilen yntem Bouc-Wen tipi tersinir davranis modeline sahip drt katli bir perde
ereve sistemiyle nmerik simlasyonlar yapilarak test edilmis ve yapisal hasar
arttika lineer davranistan uzaklasildigi bunun da depremin hemen akabinde zellikle
vi
yapi stogunun ilk tasnifi esnasinda hasarsiz binalari ayirmakta etkili olabilecegi
gzlenmistir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Lineer olmayan; Eigensistem Realizasyon Algoritmasi; Titresim
bazli hasar tespiti; Sistem tanimlamasi; Deprem hasari.
vii
To my mother and father
my brothers and sisters
and my wife and daughter
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Asst. Prof. Dr. Burcu GNES for
her continuous support throughout my graduate career and during the completion of
this thesis. She offered me so much advice, patiently supervising me, and always
guiding me in the right direction. I have learned alot from her, without her help I
could not have finished my research successfully.
I also express my appreciation to the committe members, Prof. Dr. Seluk Soyupak,
Prof. Dr. S. Erol Ulug, Asst. Prof. Dr. Tolga Akis, and Asst. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Yakut,
for thier valuable comments and for the time they have spent applying their expert
knowledge to the examination of this thesis .
I wish to thank my friends for encouraging me during my whole research. Special
thanks go to my friends who have attended the presentation of my thesis.
Finally, I wish to thank my family for the support they provided me through my
entire life and in particular, I must acknowledge my wife, Ghada, without her love,
encouragement and editing assistance, I would not have finished this thesis. I thank
my daughter, Munira, for all the happy time she gives.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
Z .......................................................................................................................... v
DEDICATION.......................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xii
LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Vibration Based Damage Detection ............................................................. 1
1.2 Objective and Scope .................................................................................... 6
1.3 Thesis Organization ..................................................................................... 7
2. EIGENSYSTEM REALIZATION ALGORITHM WITH OBSERVER
KALMAN FILTER IDENTIFICATION ......................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 9
2.2 State Space Representation .......................................................................... 9
2.3 Eigensystem Realization Algorithm .......................................................... 11
2.3.1 Basic Formulations .......................................................................... 12
x
2.3.2 Extraction of Modal Parameters from System Realization .............. 16
2.4 Observer Kalman Filter Identification ....................................................... 19
2.4.1 Modifications on basic ERA formulations ...................................... 19
2.5 Illustrative Example ................................................................................... 23
3. NON-LINEARITY AS A DAMAGE INDICATOR ..................................... 32
3.1 Hysteretic behavior .................................................................................... 32
3.2 Bouc-Wen Model ....................................................................................... 34
3.3 Damage Indicators ..................................................................................... 37
3.3.1 Maximum Deformation Damage Indices ......................................... 38
3.3.2 Cumulative Damage Indices ............................................................ 39
3.3.3 Combined Indices: Maximum Deformation and
Cumulative Damage ........................................................................... 39
3.4 Proposed Approach .................................................................................... 40
4. STRUCTURAL DAMAGE IDENTIFICATION PROBLEM ........................ 41
4.1 System Description .................................................................................. 41
4.2 Modal Identification ................................................................................. 43
5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ...................................................... 60
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 60
5.2 Recommendations for Future Work ......................................................... 62
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX
MATLAB CODES ................................................................................................... 68
A. 1 A Matlab Code for the Simulation ............................................................... 68
A. 2 A Matlab Code for non-linear modeling (Dash3dx.m) ................................ 73
A. 3 A Matlab Code works with Dash3dx code ................................................. 84
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
2.1 True Modal Parameters .......................................................................................24
2.2 Identified modal damping ratios and frequencies for cases 1, 2, and 3 .............27
2.2 Identified modal damping ratios and frequencies for cases 4 ............................27
4.1 Earthquake ground motion records .................................................................... 43
4.2 Data set of earthquake ground motions ............................................................. 48
4.3 Identified modal damping ratios and frequencies (with 4 sensors) ................... 50
4.4 Identified modal damping ratios and frequencies (with 2 sensors) ................... 52
4.5 Results of case 1 (4 sensors) for the records at different levels
of the ground motion ............................................................................................. 57
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
2.1 Flowchart for the ERA (Juang, 1994) ................................................................18
2.2 Flow Chart for OKID (Juang, 1994) ............................................................... 22
2.3 Structural model used for system identification .................................................23
2.4 Acceleration Records .........................................................................................25
2.5 Singular values of Hankel matrix for case 1 (8 sensors) .................................. 26
2.6 Singular values of Hankel matrix for case 2 (4 sensors) .................................. 26
2.7 Mode shapes of structural and identified model for case 1 ............................... 28
2.8 Computed vs predicted acceleration responses .................................................30
2.9 Absolute errors in response predictions of the identified models
(8-storey shear building with four sensors) .......................................................31
3.1 The effect of shaping parameters on the hysterestic loop
(a) linearly elastic systems .................................................................................36
(b) softening systems with different degree of hysteresis ..................................36
(c) hardening systems with different degree of energy dissipation ...................36
4.1 Structural model of a 4-story shear building ......................................................41
4.2 Earthquake ground motions ...............................................................................42
4.3 Force-displacement curves at different levels of the ground
motion of the Northridge Earthquake (Whitter Narrows record) ......................45
4.4 Flow chart of the approach (Burcu and Bernal, 2004) ......................................46
xiii
4.5 Ground motions recorded at the Whitter Narrows station during
the Northridge Earthquake (1994) .....................................................................48
4.6 Hankel matrix singular values and identified system with 8 sensors
(Whiter Narrows record, undamaged case) .......................................................49
4.7 Hankel matrix singular values and identified system with 8 sensors
(Cape Campbell earthquake, level 4 of damage) .................................................49
4.8 Computed vs. predicted acceleration response for the Whitter Narrows record
(level 1)
(a) the initial segment of the record ...................................................................55
(b) the entire duration of the record ...................................................................55
4.9 Computed vs. predicted acceleration response for the Whitter Narrows record
(level 3)
(a) the initial segment of the record ...................................................................56
(b) the entire duration of the record ...................................................................56
4.10 Percent error in the predicted response of the first floor versus
damage index .....................................................................................................58
xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
- Ratio of post-yielding to pre-yielding stiffness
- Eigenvalue matrix containing squared natural frequencies

`
- a diagonal matrix containing the identified eigenvalues
A - Discrete time state matrix
A, , ,a - Parameters describing shape and amplitude of hysteresis
C B A
`
,
`
,
`
- Estimates of the state-space matrices for the discrete-time
structural model
A - Observer state matrix
c
A - Continuous-time state matrix
2
b - Spatial distribution of the loading
B - Discrete-time input-influence matrix
B - Observer input-influence matrix
c
B - Continuous-time input-influence matrix
m
B
`
- Input matrix in modal coordinates
rx
B - a non-square matrix mapping the displacements to the relative
deformations
C - Output-influence matrix
m
C
`
- Output matrix in modal coordinates
- Damping matrix
D - Direct-transmission matrix
xv
dE - Incremental absorbed energy
DMI - Damage Index
DOF - Degree-of-Freedom
dt - Sampling period
i
- Maximum interstory displacement
ERA - Eigensystem Realization Algorithm
ERA/DC - Eigensystem Realization Algorithm with Data Correlation
) (t E
H
- Hysteretic energy
) (t E
S
- Maximum elastic stored energy
- Eigenvectors of the system matrix
c
A
) (t F
g
- Ground acceleration at time t
FDR - Flexural Damage Ratio
R
F - Total restoring force
E
F - Nonhysteretic restoring force
H
F - Hysteretic restoring force
G - Gain matrix
h - Story height
H - Hankel matrix
i
I - Identity matrix of order i
- Mode shapes
k - Time index
0
k - Initial stiffness of the inelastic system
T
k - Pre-yielding stiffness
xvi
K - Stiffness matrix
E
K - Nonhysteretic stiffness
H
K - Hysteretic stiffness
l - Data length
i

`
- Identified eigenvalues
m - Number of outputs
M - Mass matrix
MAC - Modal Amplitude Coherence
MIMO - Multi-Input Multi-Output
MSV - Mode Singular Value
R
- Ductility ratio
n - Order of the state-space model
N - Number of degree-of-freedom
NCD - Normalized Cumulative Deformation
NHE - Normalized Cumulative Dissipated Energy
OKID - Observer Kalman Filter Identification
0i - Zero-square matrix of order i
p - Integer determining maximum order of system
P - Observability matrix
Q - Controllability matrix
r
Q - Yield strength
r - Number of inputs
RMS - Root Mean Squares
s - an integer that determines the size of such a matrix
xvii
S - Singular-value matrix
SVD - Singular Value Decomposition
i
- Drift ratio
t - Time
u(k) - Inputs vector at time index k
m
u - Maximum deformation
y
u - Yield deformation
U - Left singular matrix
V - Matrix contains the input vectors for different time steps
arranged in an upper-triangular form.
V - Right singular matrix
- Modal angular frequency
w - Displacements vector
w& - Velocities vector
w& & - Accelerations vector
x(k) - State vector at time index k
) ( ), (
2 1
t x t x - The state variable
x(t) , ) (t x& - Displacements and velocities patitions of the state variable
- Damping ratios
y - Output measurement vector
y(k) - Output-measurement vector at time index k
y - Matrix whose columns are the output vectors for the l time steps
Y - System Markov parameters
Y(k) - Markov parameters Matrix
xviii
Y - Observer Markov parameters
z(t) - Vector containing the corresponding hysteretic information
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Vibration Based Damage Detection
The interest in the ability to monitor a structure and detect damage at the earliest
possible stage is recognized as an important objective of structural engineering. An
earthquake, an unpredictable and unpreventable event, is regarded as one of the most
destructive natural disasters on earth. Hence, assessing the health of structural
systems after a major earthquake is vital because structural safety has to be reassured
before the structures are reoccupied.
Current methods of detecting post-earthquake damage in civil structures are manual,
visual inspection performed by experienced engineers. However, visual inspections
reveal significant problems sometimes. These inspections are time consuming, labor
intensive, and expensive. Because it is not possible to access all members of
structure, it is very hard to make a final decision if inspectors have not enough
information about that particular structure. Two different types of methodologies are
available to assess the health of structures, localized and global techniques. Localized
techniques are used to identify the health of a structural member using technology
such as X-rays and ultrasound. To utilize these techniques previous knowledge of the
location of damage and direct access to the structural member are required.
Additionally, none of these techniques provide a quantitative assessment of the
damage magnitude. Subjected to these limitations, these experimental methods can
detect damage on or near the surface of the structure. Global techniques, on the other
hand, use the vibration data of the structure to identify damage, its approximate
location and its severity. Global techniques are very attractive to civil engineers
because they can be used without direct access to the structural components and
without a priori knowledge of damage of the structure which as a result reduce the
2
time and cost of assessing damage of the structure.
In the most general terms, damage can be defined as changes introduced into a
system that adversely affects its current or future performance. The effects of damage
on a structure can be classified as linear or nonlinear. A linear damage situation is
defined as the case when the initially linear-elastic structure remains linear-elastic
after damage. The changes in modal properties are the result of changes in geometry
and/or material properties of the structure, but the structural response can still be
modeled using linear equations of motion.
Nonlinear damage is defined as the case when the initially linearly-elastic structure
behaves in a nonlinear manner after the damage has been introduced. One example
of nonlinear damage is the formation of a fatigue crack that subsequently opens and
closes under the normal operating vibration environment.
Another classification system for damage-identification methods, defines four levels
of damage identification, as follows Rytter (1993)
- Level 1: Identification of damage presence in a structure,
- Level 2: Localization of damage,
- Level 3: Quantification of damage severity, and
- Level 4: Prediction of the remaining service life of the structure.
Level 1 techniques determine whether or not damage exists in a structure. Level 2
techniques determine the existence of damage, as well as its location. Level 3
techniques identify the existence, location and severity of damage. Level 4
techniques identify the existence, location and severity of damage, as well as
characterizing the remaining life of the structure. Each damage identification method
can also be classified by the type of data and numerical technique used. Doebling et
al. (1996) made an extensive survey and classification of different damage
identification and health monitoring methods.
In civil engineering structures, numerous methods have been applied to assess
structural health using changes in vibration characteristics. The vibration-based
damage identification methods rely on the fact that occurrence of damage or loss of
3
integrity in a structural system leads to changes in the dynamic properties of the
structure (eigenfrequencies, modal damping rates, mode shapes). The changes in
structural dynamic characteristics, if properly identified and classified, can be used as
quantitative measures that provide the means for assessing the state of damage of the
structure. The literature on vibration based damage detection is vast and growing,
and therefore a complete review of the subject is beyond the scope of this study and a
brief review is summarized below.
The concept of tracking natural frequency changes for damage detection was first
reported by Adams et al. (1978). Damage is characterized based on the ratio of
frequency changes for two modes. Cawley and Adams (1979) focus on damage
detection using the information of natural frequency changes. Based on the work of
Cawley and Adams, Stubbs and Osegueda (1990) propose a damage detection
method using the sensitivity of modal frequencies change. Farrar et al. (1994) used
natural frequency shifts to identify damage in a highway bridge. A review of using
frequency changes for damage detection is compiled by Salawu (1997).
Mode shape changes have also been monitored to detect and locate damage. West
(1984) proposes using the modal assurance criteria (MAC), correlating mode shapes
between damaged and undamaged structures, to characterize damage. Srinivasan and
Kot (1992) find that changes in mode shapes, for a shell structure, are a more
sensitive indicator of damage than changes in resonant frequencies. Mayes (1992)
presents a method for model error localization based on mode shape changes known
as structural translational and rotational error checking. Natke (1997) uses changes in
natural frequencies and mode shapes to detect damage in a finite element model of
the cable-stayed steel bridge. Doebling and Farrar (1997) examine changes in the
frequencies and mode shapes of a bridge as a function of damage. Yuen (1985),
Rizos et al. (1990), Osegueda et al. (1992), Kam and Lee (1992), Kim, et al. (1992),
Ko et al. (1994), Salawu and Williams (1994, 1995), Lam et al. (1995), and Salawu
(1995) provide examples of other studies that examine changes in mode shapes,
primarily through MAC and coordinate MAC (or COMAC) values, to identify
damage.
4
Mode shapes curvature is also investigated as a means of identifying and localizing
damage. Pandey et al. (1991) demonstrate that absolute changes in mode shape
curvature can be a good indicator of damage for the FEM beam structures they
consider. Ho and Ewins (1999) proposes a damage index method using the quotient
squared of a structures modal curvature in the undamaged state to the structures
corresponding modal curvature in its damaged state. Ho and Ewins (2000) state that
higher derivatives of mode shapes are more sensitive to damage and they propose
changes in the mode shape slope squared as a feature.
Damping properties, when compared to frequencies and mode shapes, have not been
used as extensively as frequencies and mode shapes for damage diagnosis. Modena
et al. (1999) show that visually undetectable cracks cause very little change in
resonant frequencies and require higher mode shapes to be detected, while these
same cracks cause larger changes in the damping.
Another class of vibration-based damage identification methods uses the dynamically
measured flexibility matrix to estimate changes in the static behavior of the structure.
Aktan et al. (1994) propose the use of measured flexibility as a condition index to
indicate the relative integrity of a bridge. Pandey and Biswas (1994) present a
damage-detection and location method based on changes in the measured flexibility
of the structure. Mayes (1995) uses measured flexibility to locate damage from the
results of a modal test on a bridge. Peterson et al. (1995) propose a method for
decomposing the measured flexibility matrix into elemental stiffness parameters for
an assumed structural connectivity. This decomposition is accomplished by
projecting the flexibility matrix onto an assemblage of the element-level static
structural eigenvectors. Bernal and Gunes (2000) propose a damage locating vector
approach that uses the synthesized flexibility matrix at sensor locations. The
technique is applied to a 4 story steel building for a variety of damage patterns. Reich
and Park (2000) focus on the use of localized flexibility properties for structural
damage detection. Topole (1997) discusses the use of the flexibility of structural
elements to identify damage.
Strain energy is another parameter examined for the purpose of damage detection.
Stubbs et al. (1992) present a method based on the decrease in modal strain energy
5
between two structural DOF, as defined by the curvature of the measured mode
shapes. Zhang, Qiong, and Link (1998) propose a structural damage identification
method based on element modal strain energy, which uses measured mode shapes
and modal frequencies from both damaged and undamaged structures as well as a
finite element model to locate damage. Worden et al. (1999) present another strain
energy study using a damage index approach. Carrasco et al. (1997) discuss using
changes in modal strain energy to locate and quantify damage within a space truss
model.
Vibration based damage detection which provides a global means for detecting
damage has recently received significant attention by researchers. These vibration
methods allow the engineer to use sensing of the structural responses in conjunction
with appropriate data analysis and modeling techniques to monitor the condition of a
structure. After extreme events, such as an earthquake or blast loading, the vibration
data can be utilized for condition screening in the hope of providing reliable
information regarding the integrity of the structure.
The problem most commonly considered in vibration based damage detection is that
where data is recorded at two different times and it is of interest to determine if the
structure suffered damage in the time interval between the two observations. The
behavior of the system during the data collection is typically assumed linear and the
damage, which may result from an extreme event occurring inside the time segment,
is characterized as changes in the parameters of a linear model. Hence, linear
methods are utilized to analyze the two signals, namely before and after the damage.
In civil engineering applications, however, the assumption of linearity is hardly ever
satisfied. The problem for the non-linear behavior of the system becomes a major
difficulty in a lot of cases. In general, any structure contains nonlinearities stemming
from the nonlinear material behavior, geometric nonlinearities, nonlinearities in the
supports or the connections. In many cases this results in strongly non-linear
behavior which cannot be approximated by a linear response. The introduction of
damage (defect) in a structure can be regarded as an additional non-linearity. The
introduction of a new non-linearity as well as its growth changes the vibrational
response of the structure and is expected to influence its non-linear dynamic behavior
6
Using system identification algorithms that are based on the assumption of linearity
cannot account for the non-linear effects of such damage scenarios. The review
articles by Billings (1980) and Imregun (1998) reveal a survey of nonlinear system
identification algorithms. However, because of their specialized nature and limited
applicability, there seems to be some consensus that selection of a particular
algorithm depends on the objectives of the analysis.
An alternative for damage detection associated with response to extreme events is to
assess damage by estimating the degree of non-linearity present within a given
response measurement. To be more specific, if the system is characterized during a
non-damaging event in which the behavior of the system remains linear and a model
is obtained for the healthy state of the structure, response prediction can be obtained
for any other input based on the identified model of the structure (Gunes and Bernal,
2004). The difference between the recorded data and the predicted response under
the premise of linear behavior can then be used as a criterion to estimate the state of
the structure. In obtaining the model of the nominally healthy system, the measured
signals from small events can be utilized. An alternative to this, which we have
employed in this study, is to treat the initial segment of the data recorded during an
earthquake ground motion as the data obtained from a small event. This initial data
segment is then processed using eigensystem realization algorithm with observer
Kalman filter (ERA-OKID) for identifying the system matrices of the healthy state.
Based on the obtained realization, responses at the sensor locations can be predicted
for the entire duration of the ground motion. The residuals of the difference between
the recorded and the predicted values can then be used to extract information on the
damage state of the structure.
1.2 Objective and Scope
This research aims to provide a method for the detection of damage by estimating the
degree of non-linearity present within the given response measurement. The initial
segment of the data recorded during an earthquake ground motion is used to identify
the nominally healthy system. This thesis focuses on the eigensystem realization
7
algorithm with observer Kalman filter (ERA-OKID) for identifying the system
matrices of the healthy state.
The fundamental objective of this study is to investigate the effect of nonlinearities in
the response of the system on the system parameters identified by ERA-OKID
algorithm. In this investigation the hysteretic behavior is based on Bouc-Wen model,
which is mathematically convenient and can provide a good approximation to the
conditions found in practice.
1.3 Thesis Organization
This thesis consists of five chapters and one appendix:
Chapter 1 is an introduction to the work completed and a brief description of the
problems addressed.
Chapter 2 presents an overview of the state space formulation followed by a
description of the observer kalman filter. The methodology presented herein uses the
Eigensystem Realization Algorithm (ERA) to identify the natural frequencies and
mode shapes of the structure. Using these natural frequencies and mode shapes it is
possible to determine the stiffness coefficients of structural members through a least
squares solution of the eigenvalue problem. The eigensystem realization algorithm
(ERA) is adopted because it is quite effective for identification of lightly damped
structures and is applicable to multi-input/multi-output systems.
Chapter 3 presents the fundamentals of non-linearity as a damage index. The first
part of this chapter presents the basics of Bouc-Wen Model that is used for general
random response analysis of hysteretic systems. The next part of the chapter reviews
the literature on possible damage indicators and presents the one employed herein
this study.
The modeling and identification of linear and nonlinear dynamic systems through the
use of measured experimental data is given in Chapter 4. Here, MATLAB programs
are used to perform the system identification. The performance of the method is
examined with simulated data on a 4 degree-of-freedom system; the response of a
8
four-story, steel moment resisting structure is analyzed to show the application of the
adopted approach. Ten real ground motions with moment magnitude between 5.7 and
7.5 are considered. The adopted method is successfully applied to detect damage in
the structure.
Chapter 5 contains some concluding remarks and recommendations for future
research.
Finally, the appendix provides some of the MATLAB codes that were used to
simulate the dynamic response of the structure. These codes correspond to the
discussion of the experimental results in chapter four.
9
CHAPTER 2
EIGENSYSTEM REALIZATION ALGORITHM WITH
OBSERVER KALMAN FILTER IDENTIFICATION
2.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the application of a two-step methodology that consists of,
first, finding a first order minimal state space realization of the system using only
input-output measurements, and then, extracting the modal parameters (i.e. natural
frequencies, damping, and mode shapes) of the underlying second-order system.
Initially, it is assumed that the structure (model) under investigation is subjected to
measured dynamic excitations (inputs), and that concurrently measurements, in the
form of either displacements, velocities, and/or accelerations, are obtained at various
locations on the structure (outputs). These input and output measurements are then
used in the Observer/Kalman filter Identification (OKID) algorithm (Juang et al.,
1993) to identify the so called observer Markov parameters, and the system Markov
parameters that are required to build the Hankel matrix for the realization algorithm
are later retrieved from these observer Markov parameters.
2.2 State Space Representation
The dynamic behavior of an N degree-of-freedom (DOF) linear dynamic system can
be represented by the second-order vector differential equation as
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2
t u b t w K t w t w M + + & & & (2-1)
where w, w& and w& & are the displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors,
respectively, u(t) are generally externally applied forces, t is the time index, and M,
and K, are the mass, damping and stiffness matrices ( N N ), respectively, while
2
b
10
indicates the spatial distribution of the loading.
The 2
nd
order differential equation (2-1) can be represented as a system of a first-
order differential equations. The state space formulation of the dynamic system
requires n = 2N states (the model order) to equivalently represent the second-order
system of eqn. (2-1). By defining the displacement and velocity as the states of this
2
nd
order differential equations, the state variable is written as
) ( ) (
1
t w t x (2-2)
) ( ) (
2
t w t x & (2-3)
Inserting eqns. (2-2) and (2-3) into eqn. (2-1), one gets:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2 1 2 2
t u b t x K t x t x M + & (2-4)
Comparing eqns. (2-2) and (2-3), one can write
) ( ) (
2 1
t x t x & (2-5)
Multiplying eqn. (2-4) by
1
M , one gets:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
t u b M t x M t x K M t x

+ & (2-6)
Writing eqns. (2-5) and (2-6), in matrix format we get
) (
0 0
2
1
2
1
1 1
2
1
t u
b M x
x
M K M
I
x
x
]
]
]

'

'

]
]
]

'

'

&
&
(2-7)
or in a compact form as
) ( ) ( ) ( t u B t x A t x
c c
+ & (2-8)
The output vector which is a linear combination of states and inputs can be written as
) ( ) ( t u D t x C y + (2-9)
11
where
n n c
A

is the square matrix called the system matrix and n = 2N,
r n c
B

is the
input-state influence matrix,
n m
C

is the state-output influence matrix, and
r m
D

is the
matrix which represents any direct connection between the input and output, y is the
m1 output vector (measurements) such as displacement, velocity or acceleration
and m is the number of outputs, x(t) and ) (t x& are the r1 state vector and its first
derivative with respect to time, respectively, where r is the number of independent
input functions, u(t) are generally externally applied forces.
Since the input and output signals are recorded in a digitized manner, it is convenient
to work in discrete time domain so the discrete counterpart of the continuous state-
space model can be expressed as
) ( ) ( ) 1 ( k u B k x A k x + + (2-10)
) ( ) ( ) ( k u D k x C k y + (2-11)
where the integer k denotes the time-step number, x(k), u(k) and y(k) are the vectors
of states, inputs and outputs respectively, and A, B, C and D and are the system
matrices.
2.3 Eigensystem Realization Algorithm
Eigensystem Realization Algorithm (ERA) is a time domain technique proposed by
Juang and Pappa (1985). It is an extended version of the Ho-Kalman algorithm (Ho
and Kalman, 1965) and has become an accepted and widely used method. This
method was first proposed for modal parameter identification from measured
responses. Some modifications were later considered to improve the ERA method.
Juang et al. (1988) introduced a modification to ERA algorithm, using response data
correlations (ERA/DC) rather than the pulse response values in the formulation of
the Hankel matrix. The ERA/DC modified method was found to reduce measurement
noise bias without model over-specification. However, when over-specification is
permitted and singular value decomposition is used to obtain a minimum order
realization, both old and modified methods give equally good results for the data
12
used. Here the eigensystem realization algorithm (ERA) is adopted because it is
applicable to multi-input/multi-output systems, and especially those that are lightly
damped. This algorithm uses impulse response functions to obtain modal
properties of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) systems.
The ERA method uses a singular-value decomposition to derive the basic
formulation for a minimum-order realization. First, a block Hankel matrix is obtained
by arranging the pulse response data into the blocks of the Hankel matrix. By
examining the singular values of the Hankel matrix, the order of the system is
determined. A minimum-order realization (A, B, and C state-space matrices) is
constructed using a shifted block Hankel matrix. By finding the eigensolution of the
realized state matrix, modal damping rates and frequencies may be obtained. The
method then evaluates coherence and co-linearity accuracy parameters to separate
system modes from noise modes. Based on these accuracy parameters, the system
model is determined and the Hankel matrix based on identified state space matrices
is reconstructed and compared with the measurement data.
2.3.1 Basic Formulations
To present, in a brief form, the fundamental theoretical principles of ERA and
ERA/DC, consider a system with r input and m outputs. The system response, ) (k y
j
at time step k due to unit impulse
j
u can be written as
,...... 2 , 1 , )] ( ... ) ( ) ( [ ) (
2 1
k k y k y k y k Y
r
(2-12)
and the rs ms Hankel matrix is formed as
1)) - 2( Y( ... ) Y( 1) - Y(
: :
) Y( ... 2) Y( 1) Y(
1) - Y( ... 1) Y( ) Y(
) 1 (
]
]
]
]
]
]

+ + +
+ + +
+ +

s k s k s k
s k k k
s k k k
k H (2-13)
where Y(k) is the pulse response matrix at the k
th
time step, and s is an integer that
determines the size of such a matrix. By definition, the sub-matrices Y(k)
13
correspond to the system Markov parameters. The first Markov parameter, i.e. D, can
be readily identified by considering that
D Y ) 0 ( (2-14)
Having identified the D matrix, the triplet (A, B, C) that will reproduce the data
sequence Y(k), k=1,2, is considered. If the data permits a realization, then the full
data sequence can be generated from the triplet (A, B, C) via the following equation:
,... 2 , 1 , ) (
1


k B A C k Y
k
(2-15)
Substituting eqn. (2-15) into eqn. (2-13) leads to the following representation of the
Hankel matrix:
... 0,1, i ,
B CA ... B CA B CA
: :
B CA ... B CA B CA
B CA ... B CA B CA
i H
S 2 i S i 1 S i
S i 2 i 1 i
1 S i 1 i i
S

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

+ + +
+ + +
+ +
) 1 (
) ( (2-16)
A realization is a set of A, B, C, and D matrices that describe the behavior of the
structure. The minimum realization is the realization with the minimum number of
states required to describe the behavior of the system. Ideally, the modal parameters
(natural frequencies and mode shapes) of a minimum realization model of the
structure will be the same as the modal parameters of the structure (Juang, 1994).
Once the systems Markov parameters have been determined and the corresponding
Hankel matrix has been built, let the singular value decomposition (SVD) of Hs(0)
be denoted by
| }
T
T
T
T
V S U
V
V S
U U V S U H
1 1
2
1
2 1
0 0
0
) 0 (
]
]
]

]
]
]

(2-17)
where S is a square diagonal matrix with the singular values in the diagonal, and the
rs ms
U

and
rs rs
V

are unitary matrices that contain the left and right eigenvectors of
H(0). The matrices S
N
, U
N
and V
N
are then obtained by eliminating the rows and
14
columns corresponding to small singular values produced by computational modes.
Since S
N
is a diagonal matrix, eqn. (2-17) can be expressed as
) ( ) ( ) 0 (
2 / 1 2 / 1 T
N N N N
V S S U H (2-18)
Using the discrete-time state space form of the equation and the Markov parameters,
eqn. (2-13) becomes
} | B A B A B A
CA
CA
C
Q A P k H
r k
p
k
...
.
. ) 1 (
1 1
1
1

]
]
]
]
]
]

(2-19)
where A, B, and C are the matrix coefficients of a state space realization of the
system, P and Q are controllability and observability matrices respectively. For k=1
PQ H ) 0 ( (2-20)
From eqns. (2-18) and (2-20), both P and Q could be balanced as
T
N N N N
V S Q and S U P
2 / 1 2 / 1
(2-21)
For k=2
PAQ H ) 1 ( (2-22)
Combining eqns. (2-19), (2-21) and (2-22), the estimates of the state-space matrices
for the discrete time dynamic model are found using
2 / 1 2 / 1
) 1 (

N N
T
N N
S V H U S A (2-23)
r
T
N N
E V S B
2 1

(2-24)
2 1

S U E C
N
T
m
(2-25)
15
where
T
m
E is [I
m
0
m
0
m
] and
r
E is [I
r
0
r
0
r
] and 0
i
is a null matrix of, I
i
is an
identity matrix of order i. This is the basic ERA formulation.
The realized discrete-time model represented by the matrices C B A

,

and D can be
transformed to the continuous-time model. The system frequencies and damping may
then be computed from the eigenvalues of the estimated continuous-time state
matrix. The eigenvectors allow a transformation of the realization to modal space
and hence the determination of the complex (or damped) mode shapes and the initial
modal amplitudes (or modal participation factors).
With the matrix D identified directly (as shown in eqn.(2-14)), all the discrete time
system matrices belongs to a first order model with the smallest state space
dimension. A major benefit of this approach is that there is no requirement for an a
priori knowledge of the order of the system. If the data comes from an n
th
order
controllable and observable model and is noise free, then the singular value
decomposition of H(0) reveals exactly n non-zero singular values, and therefore the
order of the system can be picked after the decomposition has been done. Even when
the measurements are polluted by noise, the magnitude of the singular values reveal
the true order of the system, since the noise modes usually correspond to very small
singular values. A detailed presentation of the ERA and ERA/DC procedures can be
found in Juang (1994).
The identified discrete-time model in modal coordinates can be expressed as
) (

) (

) 1 ( k u B k x k x
m m m
+ + (2-26)
) ( ) (

) ( k Du k x C k y
m m
+ (2-27)
with r inputs and m outputs, where

is a diagonal matrix containing the

identified eigenvalues,
i

(i = 1,2, ...,n), of the system, and

m
B

and
m
C

are the input and output matrices in modal coordinates, respectively. Because
the measurement vector y is real, all complex quantities in eqns. (2-26)
and (2-27) including the eigenvalues occur as complex conjugate pairs.
16
2.3.2 Extraction of Modal Parameters from System Realization
The system generated by the ERA is transformed to the corresponding continuous-
time equivalent one using the relation
) ( ln dt A A
c
(2-28)
It is then possible to extract the modal frequencies and damping ratios of the
identified dynamic system. The complex eigenvalues are given by;
2
,
1
i i i i n i i
i
+
m (2-29)
where, n is the number of identified modes. Expressing eqn. (2-29) as;
i i i
i + (2-30)
The modal angular frequency and damping ratios are given by
2 2
i i i
+ (2-31)
and
2 2
i i
i
i

(2-32)
The corresponding mode shapes can then be computed as
h
C

(2-33)
where h = 0, 1 or 2 for displacement, velocity or acceleration sensing respectively,
while is eigenvectors of the system matrix
c
A .
To distinguish true modes from noise modes, Juang and Pappa (1985) develop two
indicators, (i) the modal amplitude coherence (MAC) and (ii) the mode singular
values of the Hs(0) matrix. The first indicator, Modal Amplitude Coherence (MAC),
17
gives a measure of how well a computed mode shape and frequency reproduce the
measured system response. A value of 1.0 indicates perfect reproduction. The second
indicator, Mode Singular Value (MSV), gives a measure of the contribution of each
mode to the identified pulse response time history. The measure is normalized such
that the strongest responding mode has an MSV value of 1.0.
The computational steps of ERA shown in Figure 2.1 are summarized as follows:
1) Construct a block Hankel matrix H(0) by arranging the Markov parameters
(pulse response samples) into blocks.
2) Decompose H(0) using singular value decomposition (SVD).
3) Determine the order of the system by examining the singular values of
the Hankel matrix H(0).
4) Construct a minimum order realization [ C B A

,

] using a shifted block

Hankel matrix H(l).
5) Find the eigensolution of the realized state matrix and transform the
realized model to modal coordinates to calculate the system damping and
frequencies.
6) Calculate the modal amplitude coherence and mode singular values to
quantify the system and noise modes.
7) Determine the reduced system model based on the accuracy indicators
computed in step 6, reconstruct Markov parameters
k
Y and compare with the
measured Markov parameters.
18
Figure 2.1: Flowchart for the ERA (Juang, 1994)
Mode shapes
Right singular vectors
Input-output
data
Pulse response matrix
(Markov parameters)
Singular values
State matrix,
A
Eigensolution of A
Natural frequencies and
modal damping
Eigenvectors
Shifted Hankel
matrix, H(1)
H(0)
Hankel matrix,
H(0)
Output matrix,
C
Eigenvalues
Eigenvectors
Reduced model
Reconstruction and comparison with data
Left singular vectors
Modal amplitudes
Input matrix,
B
19
2.4 Observer Kalman Filter Identification
The ERA-OKID is used to identify the Markov parameters of the system, which are
in turn used in the Eigensystem Realization Algorithm (ERA) (Juang and Pappa,
1985) to realize the discrete time first-order system matrices. To reduce the number
of Markov parameters needed to adequately model a system, an observer is
introduced into the OKID technique. The observer Markov parameters will become
identically zero after a finite number of terms. For lightly damped systems, this
means that the system can be described by a reduced number of observer Markov
parameters. Furthermore, an unstable system can be represented using this technique.
2.4.1 Modifications on Basic ERA Formulations
The basic idea of the OKID approach consists of re-writing eqns. (2-10) and (2-11)
by adding and subtracting the term Gy(k) in the state equation, so that a new
system can be formulated as
) ( ) ( ) 1 ( k v B k x A k x + + (2-34)
) ( ) ( ) ( k u D k x C k y + (2-35)
where
GC A A + ; ] [ G GD B B + ; | }
T
T T
k y k u k v ) ( ) ( ) ( (2-36)
and G is an m n arbitrarily chosen gain matrix to make the system as stable as
desired. Although the systems in eqns. (2-34) and (2-10) are mathematically
identical, the equations in (2-34) can be viewed as observer equations, and the
Markov parameters of this new system are called the observer's Markov parameters.
If the matrix G is chosen in such a way that A is asymptotically stable, then
0 B A C
h
for p k , and the input/output relations can be written as
l r p m r r p m r m
Y y
+ + + +

) ) (( ) ) ((
V (2-37)
20
where
} | ) 1 ( . . . ) ( . . . ) 2 ( ) 1 ( ) 0 ( l y p y y y y y (2-38 a)
} | B A C B A C B C D Y
p 1
. . .

(2-38 b)
and the matrix V contains both input and output data, i.e.
1) - p - ( ... (0) ...
: :
2) - ( ... 1) - (p ... (1) ) 0 (
1) - ( ... (p) ... (2) ) 1 ( (0)
V
]
]
]
]
]
]

l v v
l v v v v
l u u u u u
(2-39)
The important thing to note is that a small number of observer Markov parameters
are sufficient to describe the mapping in eqn. (2-37). The so called observer Markov
parameters are the block partitions of the matrixY , and they are obtained by finding
the least squares solution to eqn. (2-37) as
t
y Y V (
t
V = pseudo inverse of V).
Through manipulation, system Markov parameters Y can then be recovered from the
observer Markov parameters through partition of Y as:
| }
P
Y Y Y Y Y . . .
2 1 0
(2-40)
where
D Y
0
(2-41 a)
B A C Y
k
k
) 1 (
(2-41 b)
The observer Markov parameter
0
Y is readily identified as the first block partition of
Y and has a smaller dimension than the remaining Markov parameters. Once the
observer Markov parameters are obtained, the system Markov parameters can then
be retrieved from the observer Markov parameters via back substitution as
21
D Y Y D CG GD B C CB Y
) 2 (
1
) 1 (
1 1
) ( ) ( + (2-42)
To obtain the Markov parameter CAB, first consider the product
) 1 (
2
Y
) 2 (
2
) 2 (
1 2
) 1 (
2
) ( ) ( Y Y Y GD B GC A C Y + + (2-43)
Hence,
D Y Y Y Y CAB Y
) 2 (
2 1
) 2 (
1
) 1 (
2 2
(2-44)
and so on.
According to the above derivation, the general relationship between the actual
system Markov parameters and the observer Markov parameters is
0 0
Y Y D (2-45)

k
i
i k i k k
p k for Y Y Y Y
1
) (
) 2 ( ) 1 (
....., , 1 (2-46)
+

......., , 1
1
) (
) 2 (
p k for Y Y Y
p
i
i k i k
(2-47)
Once the systems Markov parameters have been identified, they can be used in the
previous ERA formulation for the identification of the dynamic structural
characteristics as mentioned before. Further details omitted in this presentation can
be found in the works of Juang et al. (1993), Lus et al. (1999), and Lus (2001).
The computational steps of OKID, shown in Figure (2.2) are summarized as follows:
1) Compute the observer Markov parameter. Choose a value of p of eqn. (2-37)
which determine the number of Markov parameter to be identified from the
given set of input and output data. In general, p is required to be sufficiently
larger (at least four or five times) than the effective order of the system for
identification of the Kalman filter gain with accuracy.
22
2) Recover system and observer gain Markov parameters.
3) Realize a state-space model of the system and corresponding observer gain
from the recovered sequence of the system and observer gain Markov
parameters by using ERA or ERA/DC.
4) Find the eigensolution of the realized state matrix and transform
the realized model to modal coordinates for modal parameter identification.
The modal parameters include frequencies, damping, and mode shapes at the
sensor locations.
Figure 2.2: Flowchart for OKID (Juang, 1994)
Input and Output Time Histories
Observer Markov Parameter
Observer Gain Markov
Parameters
System Markov
Parameters
System Matrices A, B, C, D & Observer Gain
Matrix
23
2.5. Illustrative Example
In order to illustrate the application of the ERA/OKID identification scheme, a
simple numerical example is presented. The structure selected, shown in Figure 2.3,
is a two-dimensional eight-story shear building, with a floor weight of 345.6 tons and
floor stiffness equal to 340 400 kN/m. The damping ratios and the modal frequencies
are displayed in Table 2.1. The input is an ambient excitation at each floor in the
horizontal direction, while the output measurements are the simulated floor
accelerations in the same direction. The noise is simulated by adding to the
analytically computed acceleration response of all floors white noise having a root-
mean-squared (RMS) equal to 5% of the response measured on the sensor located at
the first floor. Figure 2.4 shows the accelerations records simulated for the structural
model.
Figure 2.3: Structural model used for system identification
24
Table 2.1: True Modal Parameters
Mode Damping ratio Natural frequency
Number ( %) (Hz)
1 5 0.92
2 5 2.73
3 5 4.45
4 5 6.02
5 5 7.38
6 5 8.49
7 5 9.31
8 5 9.82
The effect of the number of sensors used in the identification is considered with four
cases:
Case 1. There is a sensor at each floor,
Case 2. There is a sensor at each other floor starting from the second floor,
Case 3. There is a sensor at the fourth and eighth floor, and
Case 4. There is one sensor at (the first floor or the fourth floor or the roof).
The initial step consists of identifying the order of the system model. For all cases,
varying the number and the location of sensors used in the identification, 16
significant singular values corresponding to 8 modes were identified. Figures 2.5 and
2.6 show typical plots of the singular values of the Hankel matrix for case 1 and case
2 respectively.
It is important to mention that when there is no noise in the measurements, the
system can be identified (for all the numbers of sensors investigated) with perfect
accuracy for any p (the number of observer Markov parameters) such that n p m
where m is the number of outputs and n is the order of the system (Juang, 1994).
However, when there is noise present in the measurements, one needs to have a value
for p large enough so that more data points are employed, leading to a better
identification of modal characteristics. The value for p is arbitrarily selected as p =
20 in case 1 to make the maximum system order pm = 160, which is higher than the
25
Figure 2.4 Acceleration Records
26
Figure 2.5: Singular values of Hankel matrix for case 1 (8 sensors)
Figure 2.6: Singular values of Hankel matrix for case 2 (4 sensors)
27
anticipated system order of n = 8. By looking at the singular value plots of the initial
models, the order is then reduced to 16
th
.
The identified modal frequencies and damping ratios for all cases are given in Tables
2.2 and 2.3 and a sample of the corresponding mode shapes for case 1 (8 sensors) are
shown in Figure 2.7. Examination of the identified frequencies and dampings and
mode shapes shows that the algorithm is very robust in the presence of noise and the
modal frequencies and damping rates are identified accurately for the four different
sensor configurations examined here.
Table 2.2: Identified modal damping ratios and frequencies for cases 1, 2, and 3.
CASE 1: 8 sensors CASE 2: 4 sensors CASE 3: 2 sensors Mode
No.
(%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz)
1 4.99 0.92 4.99 0.92 4.99 0.92
2 5.01 2.73 5.03 2.73 5.12 2.73
3 5.00 4.45 5.00 4.45 5.01 4.45
4 5.00 6.02 5.00 6.02 5.00 6.02
5 5.00 7.38 5.00 7.38 5.01 7.38
6 5.00 8.49 5.00 8.49 5.00 8.49
7 5.00 9.31 5.00 9.31 5.00 9.32
8 5.00 9.82 5.00 9.82 4.99 9.82
Table 2.3: Identified modal damping ratios and frequencies for case 4
CASE 4: 1 sensor
at the first floor at the forth floor at the roof
Mode
No.
(%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz)
1 5.03 0.92 5.05 0.92 4.89 0.92
2 4.89 2.73 5.00 2.74 5.05 2.73
3 4.98 4.45 5.02 4.45 5.00 4.45
4 4.98 6.02 5.00 6.02 5.02 6.02
5 5.03 7.38 5.02 7.38 5.02 7.38
6 5.02 8.49 4.99 8.49 5.00 8.50
7 5.08 9.32 5.01 9.37 5.02 9.30
8 4.93 9.82 4.96 9.82 4.97 9.82
28
Figure 2.7 Mode shapes of structural and identified model for case 1
29
It should also be mentioned that when there is only one sensor that is placed at the
roof, the modal properties can still be identified accurately as shown in Table (2-3).
The natural frequencies can be identified accurately as long as the sensor is placed at
a point that is observable, and the frequency resolution has to capture the frequencies
of the system.
Once the identification process has been completed and system realization is
obtained, it is essential to test the accuracy of the identified modes in predicting the
response time histories when subjected to different ground motions. In this case, the
structure is excited with a recorded time history from the El-Centro (1940)
earthquake. The response of the system is predicted using the result of the realization
with the identified modes for the case of four sensors. Figure 2.8 shows the
acceleration time histories for the predicted and the actual accelerations of the
second, fourth, sixth, and eighth floor, respectively. Figure 2.9 shows the time
histories of the actual and the predicted relative accelerations on the eighth floor and
confirms that the predicted response of such an identified model is very close to the
actual response (with the maximum relative error less than 10 percent).
30
Figure 2.8 Computed vs predicted acceleration responses
31
Figure 2.9 Absolute errors in response predictions of the identified models (8-storey
shear building with four sensors)
32
CHAPTER 3
NON-LINEARITY AS A DAMAGE INDICATOR
When a structure is subjected to an extreme event such as an intense ground shaking
it will deform into its inelastic range. During an earthquake, structures undergo
oscillatory motion with reversal of deformation and the force-deformation plots show
hysteresis loops because of inelastic behavior. The force-deformation relation would
be linear at small deformation but would become nonlinear at large deformation. In
this study, any deviation from linearly-elastic behavior is regarded as an anomaly and
considered as a result of the extreme event and hence as damage. So the first part of
this chapter discusses the general characteristics of a mathematical model called the
Bouc-Wen model providing an analytical expression for the hysteretic behavior of an
inelastic system. This will be used in the next chapter to simulate the measured
vibration data of an inelastic system. The next part of the chapter reviews the
literature on possible damage indicators and presents the one employed herein this
study.
3.1 Hysteretic Behavior
Over the years considerable attention has been given to the identification of linear
systems. However, most real-life systems inherently show nonlinear dynamic
behavior. Consequently, the use of linear models has its limitations. When
performance requirements are high, the linear model is no longer accurate enough,
and nonlinear models have to be used.
To describe the behavior of hysteretic processes several mathematical models have
been proposed (Baber and Noori 1985; Baber and Noori 1986). As stated earlier,
structures under severe loading usually become inelastic and exhibit nonlinear
hysteretic behavior. When the restoring force is plotted against the structural
33
deformation, inelastic behavior often manifests itself in the form of hysteresis loops.
Hysteresis depicts the hereditary nature of an inelastic system, in which the restoring
force depends not only on instantaneous deformation, but also on the past history of
the deformation. As a result, the hysteretic restoring force cannot be expressed by an
algebraic function of the instantaneous displacement and velocity. The history-
dependence makes the hysteretic systems more difficult to model and analyze than
other nonlinear systems.
Consider a structure idealized by an N degree-of-freedom system under a one-
dimensional earthquake ground motion. The equation of motion for the system can
be expressed as:
{ ] ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( t F t u l M t z K t x K t x t x M
g g H E
+ + + & & & & & (3-1)
in which x(t) is a vector containing the displacement of each degree of freedom
relative to the ground, and z(t) is a vector containing the corresponding hysteretic
information for each element. M is the mass matrix,
E
K is the non-hysteretic
stiffness,
H
K is the hysteretic stiffness and is the viscous damping matrix. The
ground motion,
g
F , is found by mapping the horizontal ground acceleration,
g
u& & , to
the horizontal degrees of freedom through the vector { ] l and multiplying by M. As in
the single element case, the elastic (
E
F ) and hysteretic components (
H
F ) of the
structural restoring force can be separated such that:
) ( ) ( t z K t x K F F F
H E H E R
+ + (3-2)
so that the restoring force is a function of both x(t) and z(t). The equation of motion
for the system can be written in a nonlinear state-space format, as follows:
| }
) (
0
0
) (
) (
) (
0 / 0
0 0
) (
) (
) (
1
1 1 1
t F M
t z
t x
t x
dx dz
K M M K M
I
t z
t x
t x
g
H E
]
]
]
]

'

'

]
]
]
]

'

'

& & &
&
(3-3)
where | } dx dz / is a non-square matrix function found by
34
| } | }
rx
B dr dz dx dz / / (3-4)
and | } dr dz / is a diagonal matrix function of ) (t x& and ) (t z with entries
i i
dr dz /
found in Equation (3-7), and
rx
B is a non-square matrix mapping the displacements
x(t) to the relative deformations r(t). The system can now be solved using any of a
number of numerical algorithms.
3.2 Bouc-Wen Model
Various hysteretic models for the restoring force of an inelastic structure have been
developed in recent years. The model used in this study is the Bouc-Wen (Wen,
1976) an approximate method for general random response analysis of hysteretic
systems. This model, widely used in structural and mechanical engineering, gives an
analytical description of a smooth hysteretic behavior. It represents a smooth
transition between elastic and yield states and includes a number of parameters,
allowing a mathematically tractable state-space representation capable of expressing
several hysteretic properties. The restoring force and the deformation are connected
through a nonlinear differential equation containing unspecified parameters. By
choosing the parameters suitably, it is possible to generate a large variety of different
shapes of the hysteresis loops.
As mentioned before, the restoring force,
i R
F ) ( for a single nonlinear element i
decomposed into two parts can be written as
) ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( t z k x x k t z K t x K F F F
h b a T H E H E R
+ + + (3-5)
where is the ratio of post-yielding to pre-yielding stiffness and
T
k is the pre-
yielding stiffness. The variable x(t) is the relative deformation,
a
x and
b
x are the
absolute displacements at coincident end nodes a and b respectively, and z(t) is the
corresponding variable introduced to describe the hysteretic component. The force-
deformation curve is described by
35
] ) ) sgn( ( A [
a
z z x x
dr
dz
x z & & & & + (3-6)
where A, , , and a are shaping parameters (Wen, 1976) and the term in square
brackets, dr dz / , describes the hysteretic curve. Since we require dr dz / to be unity
at small values of z, then A = 1. The yield displacement
a
Y
/ 1
) (

+ ; taking and
as equal, Equation (3.2) can now be written as:
]
]
]
]

+
a
Y
z
z x x z ) ) sgn( 1 ( 5 . 0 1 & & & (3-7)
The resulting hysteretic behavior described above is a stable force-deformation
curve. The use of constant strain-hardening with the stable hysteretic loop ignores the
presence of cyclic hardening and does not permit modeling of deterioration due to
local instabilities. These effects could be captured through modification of the above
equations.
Eqn. (3-2) can be integrated in close form which one can show that a hysteretic
relationship exists between z and x. The shape and scale of the hysteresis loop are
governed by the combination of the shaping parameters A, , and while the
smoothness of the force-displacement curve is controlled by a. Therefore by
adjusting these parameters, one can construct a variety of restoring forces, such
hardening or softening, narrow or wide-band systems (Wen, 1976). For example, for
a=1, the z-x curve is of the exponential type; restoring forces under periodic
displacement for A=1.0 and several combinations of the values of and are
shown in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1(a) clearly depicts softening systems with different
degree of hysteresis. The case =0.5, =0.5, can be used as a model for an
elastoplastic system with smooth transition. Figure 3.1(b) describes, on the other
hand, hardening systems with different degree of energy dissipation. It should be
mentioned that when = =0 the relation between z and x, as shown in Figure
3.1(a), is linear.
36
Figure 3.1: The effect of shaping parameters on the hysterestic loop
(a) linearly elastic systems
(b) softening systems with different degree of hysteresis.
(c) hardening systems with different degree of energy
dissipation
37
3.3 Damage Indicators
In analyzing a structure, performing a damage evaluation in detail at every point of
the structure is impossible. Several methods to determine an indicator of damage at
the global level have been presented in literature. Generally, these methods can be
divided into four categories of structural demand parameters (Luciana R. Barroso,
1999):
1. Strength demands (elastic and inelastic): If strength demands remain below the
yield capacity of the structure, the structural damage will be small. However, if
demands approach or exceed the ultimate strength of the structure, the damage to
structure may also be severe. Once yield is exceeded, strength capacity may become
reduced in future cycles into the inelastic range.
2. Ductility demand: Ductility is the ability of an element to deform inelastically
without total fracture. It is usually expressed in terms of a ratio between the
maximum deformation incurred during loading and the yield deformation. Any
deformation quantity may be used to determine the ductility demand.
3. Energy dissipation: Energy dissipation is the capacity of member to dissipate
energy through hysteretic behavior. An element has a limited capacity to dissipate
energy in this manner prior to failure. As a result, the amount of energy dissipated
serves as an indicator of how much damage has occurred during loading.
4. Stiffness degradation: Damage suffered during loading may result in a loss of
stiffness, and consequently longer natural periods. As determination of the
fundamental period is easily accomplished, this parameter can also be used as a
damage indicator.
An alternative way to classify damage indices is based on the response parameter
that can be used in determining the level of damage that the structure suffers during a
ground motion. The maximum deformation, the cumulative damage, and the
combination of maximum deformation and the cumulative damage can be used as the
response parameter of interest
38
3.3.1 Maximum Deformation Damage Indices
Maximum deformation damage indices are based on the peak value of a specified
deformation, such as element rotation or member displacement. Two of the earliest
and simplest forms of a damage index were the ductility and interstory drift.
Ductility Ratios
Ductility is defined as ability to deform inelastically without total fracture and
substantial loss of strength. In literature, it is commonly expressed as a ductility ratio,
R
, as defined below:
y
m
R
u
u
(3-8)
where
m
u is the maximum deformation experienced and
y
u is the yield deformation.
Interstory Drift
Interstory drift is defined as the relative interstory displacement of a story. Toussi
and Yao (1983) proposed a damage index defined as the ratio between the maximum
interstory displacement,
i
, and the story height, h , as given below, and provided
guidelines for interpretation of results. This drift ratio,
i
, has been widely used in a
variety of structural systems as an indicator of the deformation demands on a
structure.
h
i
i

(3-9)
As with ductility ratios, peak interstory drift measures cannot take into account the
effects of repeated cycling, which can be a significant source of damage to structural
members.
39
3.3.2 Cumulative Damage Indices
Cumulative damage indices also are proposed. To capture the accumulation of
damage sustained during dynamic loading, the energy absorbed by the system during
loading is calculated. Banon and Veneziano, (1982) normalized the cumulative
deformations and proposed the ratio of the sum over all half-cycles of all the
maximum plastic deformations to the deformation at yield as a damage index.

m
i y
pi
u
u
NCD
1
(3-10)
where NCD is the normalized cumulative deformation,
pi
u is the maximum plastic
deformations, and
y
u is the deformation at yield. Another index proposed by the
same researcher is the normalized cumulative dissipated energy (NHE) as a damage
index. The NHE is defined as the ratio of the total energy dissipated in inelastic
deformation to the elastic energy that would be stored in a member.
3.3.3 Combined Indices: Maximum Deformation and Cumulative Damage
An alternative to the previously mentioned two classes of damage indices is to have a
combined index of maximum deformation and cumulative damage. Park and Ang
(1985) defined a local damage index which combines the influence of the normalized
maximum deformation and absorbed hysteretic energy. The damage index is
expressed as the following linear combination:

+ dE
u Q u
u
D
u r u
i PA

max
,
(3-11)
where
max
u is the maximum deformation,
u
u is the ultimate deformation under
monotonic loading,
r
Q is the yield strength, dE is the incremental absorbed energy,
and is a non-negative strength deteriorating parameter.
40
3.4 Proposed Approach
In this study we have used the hysteretic energy (E
H
) normalized with respect to the
maximum elastic stored energy (E
S
) as the damage index, DMI
S
H
E
E
DMI (3-12)
The hysteretic energy dissipation, represented by the cumulative area of the force-
displacement hysteresis loops, indicates how much of the input seismic energy is
dissipated through various inelastic mechanisms associated with the member. Since
inelastic mechanisms such as formation of cracks and plastic hinges induce overall
structural degradation of the member, the amount of energy dissipated has been
frequently used in quantifying the damage of the member (Park et.al, 1985).
The input energy imparted to an inelastic system by an earthquake dissipated by
yielding. ) (t E
H
can be expressed as
) ( ) , ( ) (
0
t E dt u u f u t E
S
t
R H

]
]
]

& & (3-13)

where ) (t E
S
is the recoverable strain energy of the linear system and given by
| }
0
2
2
) (
) (
k
t f
t E
S
S
(3-14)
where
0
k is the initial stiffness of the inelastic system
41
CHAPTER 4
STRUCTURAL DAMAGE IDENTIFICATION PROBLEM
This chapter presents the application and results of the adopted approach assessing
damage by estimating the degree of nonlinearity present within a given response
measurement. Numerical simulation of a four-story structure subjected to ten strong
ground motion records in the presence of noise and nonlinearity was carried out for
each ground motion to simulate the measured vibration data. Four levels of damage
for each ground motion record are considered in this study.
4.1 System Description
A numerical example is presented herein to show the application of the adopted
approach. The structure is a two-dimensional four-story shear building, with a floor
mass and floor stiffness as shown in Figure 4.1. The modal parameters of such a
k = 7.5 10
4
kN/m
m = 45.6 tons
Mode
No.
Damping
(%)
Frequency
(Hz)
1 5 2.24
2 5 6.45
3 5 9.89
4 5 12.13
Figure 4.1: Structural model for numerical study
42
Figure 4.2: Earthquake ground motions
43
system also shown in the figure is used as benchmark for comparing the various
identification attempts. The restoring force relationship for the first floor is assumed
to be of the Bouc-Wen (Wen, 1976) type with parameters that result in a smooth
transition from elastic to plastic behavior. Other floors are assumed to remain
linearly elastic.
4.2 Modal Identification
Ten different earthquake ground motion records described in Table 4.1 and displayed
in Figure 4.2 have been used in this study. Since smaller events are not expected to
cause significant structural damage to engineered structures, priority in selection of
ground motions was given to records from events with moment magnitude as large as
possible. These time histories are applied only in one direction (the horizontal
direction) as the input excitation.
Table 4.1: Earthquake ground motion records
No.
Earthquake
Name
Station Name Date Mag
1 Anza Alpine - Fire Station 30-Oct-2001 5.1
2 Cape Campbell GNS: Wellington 18-Jan-1977 6.0
Reserve Bank A
3 San Simeon Cambria -Hwy 1 22-Dec-2003 6.5
Caltrans Bridge Grnds
4 Imperial Valley Aeropuerto Mexicali 15-Oct-1979 6.53
5 Superstition Hills Westmorland - Fire Station 24-Nov-1987 6.6
6 Big Bear Silent Valley 28-Jun-1992 6.6
7 Northridge Whitter Narrows 17-Jan-1994 6.7
8 Northridge Alhambra 17-Jan-1994 6.7
9 Marmara Region Duzce 17-Aug-1999 6.7
10 Landers Amboy, 1-Story Bldg 28-Jun-1992 7.5
44
These input ground motions are scaled to represent four different states of the
structural response and hence four different damage states: Level 1 represents the
elastic range with slight non-linearity, level 2 represents the transition stage from
elastic to plastic range before yielding, level 3 represents the yielding stage and
finally at level 4 significant inelastic action takes place and the ductility demand
imposed by the ground motion exceeds the allowable ductility. These four levels are
used to estimate four different damage states: no damage, slight damage, moderate
damage, and severe damage. In addition to the four level states, we also consider the
no damage state in the linearly elastic range when the values of shaping parameter of
the Bouc-Wen model are taken as , 0 and 0 . Figure 4.3 shows the force-
deformation curves corresponding to each level of the Northridge Earthquake
(Whitter Narrows record). The ductility demand for each ground motion-calculated
as the ratio of the maximum lateral displacement of the first floor under the premise
of linearly elastic behavior during the ground motion to the yield displacement is also
displayed in the figure. For each case sensor noise is simulated by contaminating the
analytically computed acceleration response of all four floors with white noise
having an RMS equal to 5% of the initial segment of the record.
Figure 4.4 shows a flowchart of the adopted approach for the detection of damage.
For each of the earthquake ground motion, the initial segments representing small
vibration amplitude were used for identifying the linear systems. The specified initial
segment of the recorded inputs and the responses is then processed with the ERA-
OKID approach to obtain the realizations of the system. Based on the obtained
realization, responses at sensor locations can be predicted for the entire duration of
the ground motion. The residual of the difference between the recorded data and the
predicted response under the premise of linear behavior can be used to extract useful
information on the damage state of the structure using
100
) (
%
2 / 1
1
2
2

]
]
]
]

N
i
recorded
predicted recorded
u
u u
err
& &
& & & &
(4-1)
45
Figure 4.3: Force-displacement curves at different levels of the ground motion of the
Northridge Earthquake (Whitter Narrows record)
46
Figure 4.4 Flowchart of the approach (Gunes and Bernal, 2004)
2 / 1
2
2
) (
]
]
]
]

m
p m
y
y y

u
t
1 0
s
1 s
2
y
m
u
y
m
Use m a p p i n g s
t o
pr edict out put
f or S
2
R e s i d u a l
For mulat ion of
Mappings
+
y
p
_
47
Initial examination of the earthquake ground motion data shown in Figure 4.5
suggests that for the Whitter Narrows record (dt=0.02 sec, N=2000 points), the initial
300 sample points, i.e. 6 seconds of recorded data can be used to represent the small
event data to identify the system matrices and the modal properties of the healthy
system. Table 4.2 displays the set of earthquake ground motion records used in this
study for the numerical simulations. For each of these records, the initial segment
used for identifying the healthy system is tabulated in the last column of the table.
The first step of realization is determination of the system order. For all damaged and
undamaged states of each of the examined earthquakes except the Cape Campbell
earthquake, 8 significant singular values corresponding to 4 modes were identified.
Figures 4.6 and 4.7 display two sample plots of the Hankel matrix singular values for
the no damage state of the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake and for the level 4 state
for the Cape Campbell earthquake respectively. The singular value decomposition of
the Hankel matrix for the 1994 Northridge earthquake indicates the order of the
system as 8 (4 modes). On the other hand, the singular value decomposition of the
Hankel matrix for the Cape Campbell earthquake indicates the order of the system as
6 (3 modes).
It should be mentioned that because of the presence of noise in the measurement, the
value for p (the number of observer Markov parameters) is required to be sufficiently
larger (at least four or five times) than the effective order of the system for
identification of the Kalman filter gain with accuracy (Juang, 1994). The value for p
is arbitrarily selected as p=20 when there is sensor at each floor to make the
maximum system order pm=80, which is higher than the anticipated system order of
n=4.
For each record at each level of scaling the ERA-OKID approach is carried out with
the specified initial segments of the recorded inputs and the responses and system
realizations are obtained. Table 4.3 displays the identified values of the natural
frequencies and the damping ratios for each of these cases when there is one sensor
at each floor. Comparison of these results with the exact ones indicates that the
maximum error in the identified frequencies is 7.53% and the maximum error in the
identified damping is 98%.
48
Figure 4.5: Ground motions recorded at the Whitter Narrows station during the
Northridge Earthquake (1994)
Table 4.2: Data set of earthquake ground motions
No.
Earthquake
Name
Station Name
Sampling
dt
No of
Steps
Identification
Steps
1 Anza Alpine - Fire Station 0.01 3699 500
2 Cape Campbell
GNS: Wellington
Reserve Bank A
0.02 2724 600
3 San Simeon
Cambria - Hwy 1
Caltrans Bridge
0.02 8063 1510
4 Imperial Valley Aeropuerto Mexicali 0.01 1955 280
5 Superstition Hills
Westmorland-
Fire Station
0.02 2999 180
6 Big Bear Silent Valley 0.02 1999 280
7 Northridge Whitter Narrows 0.02 2000 300
8 Northridge Alhambra 0.02 2999 200
9 Marmara Region Duzce 0.005 5437 1400
10 Landers Amboy 0.02 3999 550
49
Figure 4.6: Hankel matrix singular values and identified system with 8 sensors
(Imperial Valley earthquake, no damage case).
Figure 4.7: Hankel matrix singular values and identified system with 8 sensors
(Cape Campbell earthquake, level 4 of damage).
50
Table 4.3 Identified modal damping ratios and frequencies (with 4 sensors)
Anza Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.13 2.24 5.18 2.24 5.85 2.23 7.98 2.21 11.10 2.19
2 5.11 6.45 5.16 6.45 5.43 6.43 6.07 6.37 6.68 6.26
3 5.26 9.91 5.29 9.91 5.43 9.91 5.71 9.91 5.89 9.92
4 5.32 12.18 5.36 12.20 5.43 12.20 5.50 12.19 5.23 12.18
Cape Campbell Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.03 2.24 5.28 2.24 6.32 2.22 9.90 2.15 2.57 2.10
2 4.93 6.46 5.23 6.43 6.33 6.47 5.55 6.62 3.96 6.90
3 5.11 9.92 5.10 9.91 5.91 9.85 - - 6.85 10.63
4 5.87 12.26 5.82 12.31 6.11 12.13 - - - -
San Simeon Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.03 2.24 5.00 2.24 5.04 2.24 5.02 2.24 5.03 2.24
2 5.08 6.45 5.28 6.46 5.32 6.46 5.26 6.46 5.22 6.45
3 5.34 9.90 5.76 9.92 5.78 9.93 5.70 9.92 5.58 9.91
4 5.48 12.16 6.03 12.19 6.06 12.20 5.97 12.20 5.76 12.19
Imperial Valley Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 4.72 2.25 4.85 2.25 5.08 2.25 5.42 2.24 6.11 2.23
2 5.15 6.47 5.13 6.47 5.22 6.47 5.41 6.46 5.71 6.45
3 5.55 9.92 5.54 9.91 5.57 9.91 5.67 9.89 5.77 9.86
4 5.39 12.09 5.42 12.09 5.42 12.08 5.50 12.07 5.66 12.04
Superstition Hills Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.44 2.24 5.41 2.24 5.45 2.24 5.57 2.24 5.69 2.24
2 5.14 6.46 5.11 6.46 5.17 6.46 5.17 6.46 5.22 6.45
3 4.94 9.89 4.99 9.88 4.97 9.89 4.96 9.89 4.98 9.89
4 4.71 12.16 4.81 12.16 4.79 12.17 4.74 12.17 4.75 12.18
51
Table 4.3 (cont.)
Big Bear Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 4.98 2.24 5.14 2.24 5.86 2.23 8.20 2.21 11.52 2.18
2 5.03 6.46 5.04 6.45 5.14 6.43 5.80 6.37 7.29 6.31
3 5.12 9.89 5.13 9.88 5.12 9.85 4.99 9.78 4.80 9.71
4 5.21 12.14 5.17 12.14 4.99 12.12 4.54 12.06 4.11 11.98
Northridge Earthquake (Whitter Narrows Station)
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.04 2.24 5.08 2.24 5.19 2.24 5.61 2.23 6.20 2.23
2 5.09 6.46 5.14 6.45 5.11 6.45 5.18 6.43 5.27 6.41
3 5.10 9.87 5.13 9.87 5.13 9.87 5.24 9.86 5.38 9.84
4 5.23 12.19 5.29 12.20 5.28 12.19 5.32 12.19 5.31 12.20
Northridge Earthquake (Alhambra Station)
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.10 2.24 5.11 2.24 5.19 2.24 5.38 2.24 5.70 2.23
2 4.95 6.46 4.98 6.46 4.96 6.46 4.99 6.46 4.96 6.45
3 5.25 9.88 5.32 9.88 5.18 9.88 5.11 9.88 5.04 9.87
4 5.88 12.15 6.23 12.17 6.13 12.16 6.32 12.18 6.48 12.21
Marmara Region Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.10 2.24 5.14 2.24 5.38 2.24 6.23 2.20 9.57 2.14
2 4.94 6.46 4.94 6.45 5.24 6.42 6.02 6.34 5.10 6.38
3 5.38 9.90 5.26 9.89 5.47 9.87 6.74 9.96 5.47 10.04
4 8.23 12.32 8.64 12.43 8.88 12.39 9.54 12.28 7.96 12.49
Landers Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 4.99 2.24 5.08 2.24 5.41 2.23 6.73 2.22 9.00 2.19
2 5.08 6.46 5.06 6.46 4.95 6.44 4.93 6.40 5.17 6.36
3 5.11 9.90 5.16 9.90 5.16 9.89 5.63 9.88 6.12 9.88
4 7.81 12.50 7.90 12.51 7.42 12.43 7.62 12.44 7.33 12.39
52
Table 4.4 Identified modal damping ratios and frequencies (with 2 sensors)
Anza Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.35 2.24 5.41 2.24 6.12 2.23 8.33 2.22 11.45 2.19
2 5.25 6.44 5.31 6.43 5.60 6.41 6.34 6.35 7.04 6.24
3 6.83 10.02 9.90 10.02 7.27 10.02 8.90 10.13 11.29 10.42
4 6.35 12.23 6.40 12.22 6.60 12.22 7.72 12.26 10.49 12.34
Cape Campbell Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.02 2.24 5.26 2.24 6.38 2.22 10.45 2.16 - -
2 5.07 6.46 5.40 6.44 5.92 6.46 3.28 6.87 - -
3 4.86 9.92 5.09 9.95 6.36 9.92 - - - -
4 5.87 12.09 6.22 12.07 6.30 11.83 - - - -
San Simeon Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.01 2.24 4.94 2.24 5.02 2.25 4.99 2.24 5.00 2.24
2 5.14 6.45 5.35 6.46 5.40 6.46 5.35 6.45 5.30 6.45
3 5.66 9.91 6.24 9.93 6.30 9.94 6.10 9.93 5.99 9.92
4 5.46 12.15 6.05 12.17 6.02 12.18 5.92 12.18 5.74 12.16
Imperial Valley Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.86 2.25 5.96 2.25 6.21 2.25 6.53 2.24 7.24 2.23
2 5.21 6.47 5.20 6.47 5.29 6.47 5.48 6.46 5.76 6.45
3 6.08 9.86 6.03 9.86 6.08 9.85 6.00 9.83 5.73 9.78
4 5.96 12.14 5.98 12.14 6.00 12.13 6.12 12.12 6.35 12.11
Superstition Hills Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.58 2.25 5.48 2.25 5.58 2.25 5.74 2.25 5.87 2.25
2 5.18 6.45 5.15 6.46 5.20 6.46 5.21 6.45 5.25 6.45
3 5.21 9.90 5.23 9.90 5.22 9.91 5.21 9.90 5.23 9.90
4 5.37 12.14 5.40 12.13 5.41 12.15 5.37 12.16 5.44 12.16
53
Table 4.4 (cont.)
Big Bear Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.00 2.24 5.15 2.24 5.88 2.23 8.19 2.21 11.46 2.18
2 5.02 6.46 5.02 6.45 5.10 6.43 5.67 6.37 7.12 6.30
3 5.17 9.86 5.15 9.84 5.09 9.81 4.99 9.71 5.21 9.64
4 5.19 12.17 5.13 12.17 4.99 12.15 4.62 12.10 4.43 12.05
Northridge Earthquake (Whitter Narrows Station)
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.19 2.24 5.23 2.24 5.33 2.24 5.75 2.23 6.37 2.23
2 5.06 6.46 5.11 6.46 5.10 6.45 5.22 6.43 5.36 6.41
3 5.53 9.87 5.57 9.87 5.57 9.87 5.73 9.85 5.90 9.83
4 5.44 12.18 5.49 12.18 5.49 12.18 5.62 12.18 5.60 12.16
Northridge Earthquake (Alhambra Station)
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.09 2.24 5.11 2.24 5.19 2.24 5.38 2.24 5.71 2.23
2 5.00 6.47 5.03 6.47 5.00 6.47 5.07 6.46 5.15 6.45
3 5.15 9.90 5.22 9.90 5.09 9.90 4.97 9.89 4.97 9.88
4 6.12 12.17 6.43 12.19 6.28 12.19 6.35 12.20 6.51 12.22
Marmara Region Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.12 2.24 5.09 2.24 5.20 2.24 5.67 2.23 6.54 2.22
2 5.23 6.46 5.26 6.45 5.19 6.45 5.04 6.43 4.23 6.41
3 6.21 9.93 5.87 9.92 6.38 9.90 6.83 9.87 6.58 10.00
4 7.99 12.42 7.89 12.45 7.77 12.48 6.78 12.38 7.57 12.13
Landers Earthquake
No Damage Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Mode
No. (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f (Hz) (%) f(Hz)
1 5.02 2.24 5.12 2.24 5.44 2.23 6.76 2.21 9.02 2.18
2 5.35 6.45 5.33 6.45 5.22 6.44 5.06 6.38 5.48 6.33
3 5.28 9.99 5.30 9.99 5.28 9.96 5.47 9.91 5.40 9.95
4 8.70 12.53 8.74 12.52 8.00 12.41 6.90 12.19 6.67 12.12
54
For comparative purposes, the results for the case where there are sensors at the
second and fourth floors are also computed and the results of identified values of the
natural frequencies and the damping ratios are displayed in Table 4.4. Comparison of
these results with the exact ones indicates that the maximum error in the identified
frequencies is 7.65% and the maximum error in the identified damping is 129%.
As can be seen, for the case of full sensors the accuracy of the identification (at least
in frequency) is excellent. Even with only two sensors, the frequencies values are
identified quite successfully, which highlights the efficiency of the adopted
approach. These results clearly indicate that while the estimates of frequency remains
almost constant, nonlinearity manifests itself with high damping ratio estimates. The
estimation of damping is more problematic than that of system frequencies. This is a
well-known problem in system identification. A large number of data are typically
required to extract damping information accurately. Unfortunately, earthquake
response data is often short in duration, making the identification of this parameter
more difficult.
After the identification is carried out with the initial segments of the response, the
response of the system for the rest of the duration is predicted using the result of the
realization with the identified modes. Figure 4.8 and 4.9 show a sample of the
acceleration time histories for the predicted and the actual accelerations of the roof
when the structure is subjected to Whiter-Narrows record at different levels. The
predicted response is very close and almost identical to the actual response as long as
the response remains linear as shown in Figure 4.7. As the response changes from
linear to nonlinear, the realization is no more capable of predicting the structural
response as shown in Figure 4.8.
Table 4.5 summarizes the results of the simulations for the ten earthquake records
scaled at different levels of peak ground acceleration. The maximum lateral
displacement of the first floor in the case of linearly elastic force-deformation
relationship ) (
ml
u , ductility demand ) (
d
, damage index (DMI), and percent error in
the predicted response (%err) are tabulated below. An examination of the table
indicates that the damage index increases with the increase of damage level. It can be
55
Figure 4.8: Computed vs. predicted acceleration response for the Whitter Narrows
record (level 1). (a) the initial segment of the record
(b) the entire duration of the record
56
Figure 4.9: Computed vs. predicted acceleration response for the Whitter Narrows
record (level 3). (a) the initial segment of the record
(b) the entire duration of the record
57
Table 4.5: Results of case 1 (4 sensors) for the records at different levels of the
ground motion
Anza Earthquake Cape Campbell Earthquake
Ground
Motion
Level
u
ml (cm)
d
DMI % err u
ml (cm)
d
DMI % err
1 0.20 0.10 0.01 3.79 0.23 0.10 0.014 8.78
2 1.25 0.60 1.04 7.77 1.20 0.60 1.64 29.57
3 4.00 2.00 24.92 15.58 4.00 2.00 59.06 65.83
4 9.00 4.50 132.07 21.02 9.00 4.50 388.06 69.23
San Simeon Earthquake Imperial Valley Earthquake
Ground
Motion
Level
u
ml (cm)
d
DMI % err u
ml (cm)
d
DMI % err
1 0.25 0.10 0.02 9.06 0.20 0.10 0.01 7.02
2 1.20 0.60 1.64 38.09 1.10 0.60 1.18 22.37
3 4.10 2.00 42.64 81.96 4.00 2.00 35.94 52.88
4 9.00 4.50 207.74 108.42 9.00 4.50 223.10 74.77
Superstition Hills Earthquake Big Bear Earthquake
Ground
Motion
Level
u
ml (cm)
d
DMI % err u
ml (cm)
d
DMI % err
1 0.20 0.10 0.011 10.86 0.23 0.10 0.0162 7.07
2 1.20 0.60 0.76 33.95 1.20 0.60 1.52 25.82
3 4.00 2.00 20.39 80.16 4.15 2.10 45.88 56.82
4 9.00 4.50 138.91 111.51 9.00 4.50 194.33 60.81
Whitter Narrows Station Alhambra Station
Ground
Motion
Level
u
ml (cm) d
DMI % err u
ml (cm) d
DMI % err
1 0.23 0.10 0.018 10.35 0.27 0.10 0.0149 11.58
2 1.10 0.60 1.39 39.91 1.25 0.60 1.47 47.48
3 4.20 2.10 49.44 85.93 4.10 2.10 44.31 96.00
4 9.00 4.50 186.55 102.92 9.00 4.50 240.69 115.93
Marmara Region Earthquake Landers Earthquake
Ground
Motion
Level
u
ml (cm) d
DMI % err u
ml (cm) d
DMI % err
1 0.21 0.10 0.01 9.32 0.25 0.10 0.02 9.67
2 1.12 0.60 0.89 37.42 0.12 0.60 1.69 35.10
3 4.10 2.10 31.47 88.27 4.20 2.10 47.45 70.06
4 9.00 4.50 207.38 99.42 9.00 4.50 256.04 83.77
58
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
% e rror
D
M
I
Anza Cape Cambell San Simon Imper ial V alley Supers tition Hills
Big Bear Whitter Narr ow s Alhambra Duz ce Landers
Figure 4.10: Percent error in the predicted response of the first floor versus damage
index
59
seen that as the maximum lateral displacement of the first floor increases the ductility
demand, the damage index, and the relative error increase, indicating a larger
dissipation of input energy through action.
The relation between the prediction error of the acceleration response of the first
floor and the hysteretic energy normalized with respect to the maximum elastic
stored energy are depicted in Figure 4.10. Note that even for the level 1 of damage
state (DMI is around zero) which means there is no damage in the structure, the
cumulative error on the prediction error on the prediction estimates can get as much
as 11.58 % in the case of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake (Alhambra record). This is
mainly due to the presence of noise in the measurements. When the data length is
sufficiently long, the ERA/OKID approach provides excellent estimates of the modal
parameters. Since only the initial segment of the data is used which is a relatively
short duration to identify the healthy system, the error in the predicted response is
within the expected level of accuracy. Furthermore, although for ground motion level
1 one operates with a ductility demand of 10% since transition from the linearly
elastic range to the plastic range is a smooth one in the Bouc-Wen model. Hence, a
very mild nonlinear behavior that the identification procedure is not taking into
account. As the non-linearity increases and inelastic action grows, percent error in
the predicted response grows exponentially with the damage index.
60
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
5.1 Conclusions
Currently, vibration-based damage detection is an area of significant research activity.
Several methods have been proposed to assess structural health using changes in
vibration characteristics. In these methods, the structure is assumed to behave linearly
both before and after damage. The research presented in this thesis, however, adopts
an alternative approach to assess the state of the system for post-earthquake damage
detection. The early segment of the recorded data is used to identify the nominally
healthy system. The relative error can be used as a good criterion in assessing the
state of the structure. The main reason for considering this approach is the fact that it
does not rely on the assumption of linearity of the structure, while most of the
existing vibration-based methods do, although most real structures demonstrate
nonlinear behaviour. In the context of damage detection technology this technique
provides an initial screening methodology which can tell whether damage is present
in the structure or not. The amount of the input energy dissipated through hysteretic
action is used as the response parameter for determining the level of damage. This
damage index and the relation between the residual can be used to quantify the level
of damage. The Bouc-Wen model, widely used to have a mathematical description of
hysteretic patterns appearing in structural engineering systems, is instrumented for
modeling the hysteretic behavior of the structural system in the numerical
simulations.
This proposed approach was employed to a finite element model of a 2-dimensional
four-story shear building excited with earthquake ground motions. Ten earthquake
records have been selected such that each ground motion has initial low-vibration
amplitude and a proceeding strong motion segment. The first floor is assumed to
61
display hysteretic behavior of the Bouc-Wen type with parameters that result in a
smooth transition from elastic to plastic behavior. Other floors are assumed to remain
linearly elastic. Various issues relevant to the implementation of this methodology are
investigated. The first issue considered in this study is the accuracy of the
methodology when different sensors were used in calculating the modal parameters.
The results are computed for the case when there is sensor at each floor and also for
the case when there are sensors at the second and fourth floors. Comparison of the
estimate of the modal parameters with the exact ones indicate that while the
estimates of frequency remain almost constant, the nonlinearity manifests itself with
increased damping ratio estimates. The estimation of damping is more problematic
than that of system frequencies and this is a well-known problem in system
identification. In fact, a large number of data are typically required to extract
damping information accurately. Unfortunately, earthquake response data is often
short in duration, and with this methodology one is using the initial segment of the
earthquake which is even short, or which makes the identification of the modal
parameter more difficult. Damage detection was accurately carried out even with
two sensors one on the second floor and one on the roof.
In conclusion, a new technique for detecting damage is proposed and experimentally
validated through numerical simulations. The results of the numerical simulations
have shown that the system realization methodology (ERA-OKID) is robust to noise
and nonlinearities reflect themselves with the artificially high damping estimate
especially for the fundamental vibration mode. The percent error in the predicted
response grows exponentially with the damage index as the non-linearity grows. It is
also shown that the realized model mimics the behavior of the healthy system very
well during the linear portion of the response when subjected to a different ground
excitation. However, as nonlinear action takes place, the realization is no more
capable of predicting the structural response. The discrepancy between this predicted
response on the premise of linear behavior and the measured response data is then
used to predict whether the system has suffered any damage or not.
62
5.2 Recommendations for Future Work
Based on the conclusions presented herein, the following suggestions for future
research are made:
The model presented in this thesis is based on observations made regarding
the hysteretic behavior of steel buildings. The hysteretic behavior of
reinforced concrete buildings has not been studied. To apply the approach
implemented here to reinforced concrete buildings, future study has to be
performed with a model that accurately represents the hysteretic behavior of
reinforced concrete type of structure.
The numerical simulations in this thesis assumed only the first floors getting
damage. The methodology can be tested for multiple damage scenarios and as
damage progresses to the other floors.
In this thesis, the damage index (DMI) is used only to predict whether the
structure has suffered any damage or not. In order to characterize the damage
that is to locate and if possible to quantify the severity, an additional criterion
has to be implemented to the proposed methodology.
Finally, the approach adopted here providing a means of identifying the
existence of damage although is tested with numerical simulations with
realistic level of noise still awaits validation using measured data.
63
REFRENCES
1. Adams, R. D., Cawley, P., Pye, C. J. and Stone B. J. (1978). A Vibration
Technique for Non-Destructively Assessing the Integrity of Structures,
Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, vol. 20, pp. 93-100.
2. Aktan, A. E., Lee, K. L., Chuntavan, C., and Aksel, T. (1994). Modal
Testing for Structural Identification and Condition Assessment of
Constructed Facilities, in Proc. of 12
th
International Modal Analysis
Conference, pp. 462-468.
3. Baber, Thomas T. and Mohammad N. Noori. (1985). Random Vibration of
Degrading and Pinching Systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics vol.
111, no.8, pp.1010-1026.
4. Baber, Thomas T. and Mohammed N. Noori. (1986). Modeling General
Hysteresis Behavior and Random Vibration Application, Journal of
Vibration, Acoustics, Stress, and Reliability in Design 108, 411-420.
5. Banon, H. and Veneziano, D. (1982). Seismic Safety of Reinforced Concrete
Members and Structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
vol.10, pp.179-193.
6. Barroso, L. R. (1999). Performance Evaluation of Vibration Controlled Steel
Structures Under Seismic Loads, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Chase, J. G.,
and Smith, H. A.
7. Bernal, D. and Gunes, B. (2001). A flexibility based approach for the
localization and quantification of damage: Application in a benchmark
structure, 3rd International Workshop in Structural Health Monitoring.
8. Billings. S. A. (1980). Identification of non-linear systems: A survey. IEE
Proc. vol.127, no.6, pp.272-285.
9. Carrasco, C., Osegueda, R., Ferregut, C., and Grygier, M. (1997).
Localization and Quantification of Damage in a Space Truss Model Using
Modal Strain Energy, Smart Systems for Bridges, Structures, and Highways,
Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 3,043, pp. 181-192.
64
10. Cawley, P. and Adams, R.D. (1979). The location of defects in structures
from measurements of natural frequencies, Journal of Strain Analysis, vol.
14, pp. 49-57.
11. Doebling, S. W., Farrar C. R., Prime, M. B., and Shevitz, D. W. (1996).
Damage Identification and Health Monitoring of Structural and Mechanical
systems from Changes in Their Vibration Characteristics: A Literature
Review. LA-13-70-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
12. Doebling, S. W., Farrar, C. R., and Goodman, R. S. (1997a). Effects of
Measurement Statistics on the Detection of Damage in the Alamosa Canyon
Bridge, Proceedings 15th International Modal Analysis Conference,
Orlando, FL, pp. 919-929.
13. Farrar, C. R., Baker, W. E., Bell, T. M., Cone, K. M., Darling, T. W., Duffey,
T. A., Eklund, A., and Migliori, A. (1994). Dynamic Characterization and
Damage Detection in the I-40 Bridge over the Rio Grande, Los Alamos
National Laboratory report LA-12767-MS.
14. Gunes, B. and Bernal, D. (2004). A Data-Driven Approach for Earthquake
Damage Detection, Sixth International Conference on Advances in Civil
Engineering, vol.1, pp. 364-373. Bogazici University, stanbul, Turkey.
15. Ho, B.L. and Kalman, R.E. (1965). Effective construction of linear state-
variable models from input/output functions, in Proceedings of the 3rd
Annual Allerton Conference on Circuit and System Theory (Monticello,
Illinois, Oct. 1965) (M.E. Van Valkenburg, ed.), pp. 449-459.
16. Ho, Y.K., and Ewins, D.J. (1999). Numerical Evaluation of the Damage
Index, Structural Health Monitoring 2000, Stanford University, Palo Alto,
California, pp. 995-1,011.
17. Imregun. M (1998). A Survey of Nonlinear Analysis Tools for Structural
Systems, The Shock and Vibration Digest, vol.30, no.5, pp.363-369.
18. Juang J.-N., Phan M.Q., Horta L.G. and Longman R.W. (1993): Identification
of observer/Kalman filter Markov parameters: Theory and experiments. J.
Guid. Contr. Dyn., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 320-329.
19. Juang, J.-N. and Pappa, R.S. (1985). An Eigensystem Realization Algorithm
for Model Parameter Identification and Model Reduction, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol.8, no.4, pp.620-627.
20. Juang, J. -N., Cooper, J. E., and Wright, J. R. (1988). An Eigensystem
Realization Algorithm Using Data Correlations (ERA/DC) for Model
Parameter Identification. Control Theory and Advanced Technology, vol.4,
no.1, pp.5-14.
65
21. Juang. J. N. (1994). Applied System Identification. Prentice-Hall. New
Jersey.
22. Kam, T. Y. and Lee, T. Y. (1992). Detection Of Cracks In Structures Using
Modal Test Data, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 381-
387.
23. Kim, J.-H., Jeon, H.-S., and Lee, C.-W. (1992) Application of the Modal
Assurance Criteria for Detecting and Locating Structural Faults, in Proc.
10th International Modal Analysis Conference, pp. 536540.
24. Ko, J. M., Wong, C. W., and Lam, H. F. (1994). Damage Detection In Steel
Framed Structures By Vibration Measurement Approach, in Proc. of 12th
International Modal Analysis Conference, pp. 280286.
25. Lam, H. F., Ko, J. M., and Wong, C. W. (1995). Detection of Damage
Location Based on Sensitivity Analysis, in Proc. of the 13th International
Modal Analysis Conference, pp. 1499-1505.
26. Lus, H., Betti, R., and Longman, R.W. (1999). Identification of Linear
Structural Systems Using Earthquake-Induced Vibration Data, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28, pp.1449-1467.
27. Lus, H. (2001). Control Theory Based System Identification. Ph.D. Thesis,
Columbia University, New York.
28. Mayes, R. L. (1992). Error localization using mode shapesan Application
to a two link robot Arm, in Proc. 10th International Modal Analysis
Conference, pp. 886891.
29. Mayes, R. L. (1995). An Experimental Algorithm For Detecting Damage
Applied To The I-40 Bridge Over The Rio Grande, in Proc. 13th
International Modal Analysis Conference, pp. 219-225.
30. Modena, C., Sonda, D., and Zonta, D. (1999). Damage Localization in
Reinforced Concrete Structures by Using Damping Measurements, Damage
Assessment of Structures, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Damage Assessment of Structures (DAMAS 99), Dublin, Ireland, pp. 132-
141.
31. Natke, H.G., and Cempel, C.(1997). Model-Aided Diagnosis Based on
Symptoms, Structural Damage Assessment Using Advanced Signal
Processing Procedures, Proceedings of DAMAS 97, University of Sheffield,
UK, pp. 363-375.
32. Concrete Structures under Seismic Excitation, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 11, pp.435-443.
66
33. Osegueda, R. A., Dsouza, P. D., and Qiang, Y. (1992). Damage Evaluation
Of Offshore Structures Using Resonant Frequency Shifts, Serviceability of
Petroleum, Process, and Power Equipment, ASME PVP239/MPC33, pp. 31-
37.
34. Pandey, A. K., Biswas, M., and Samman, M. M. (1991). Damage Detection
from Changes in Curvature Mode Shapes, Journal of Sound and Vibration,
vol. 145, No. 2, pp. 321-332.
35. Pandey, A. K., and Biswas, M. (1994). Damage Detection In Structures
Using Changes In Flexibility, Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 169, no.
1, pp. 3-17.
36. Park, Y. J. and A. H.-S. Ang. (1985). Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model
for Reinforced Concrete, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, vol.111,
no.4, pp. 722-739.
37. Peterson, L. D., Doebling, S. W. and Alvin, K. F. (1995). Experimental
determination of local structural stiffness by disassembly of measured
flexibility matrices, in Proc. of 36
th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA-95-1090-CP, pp.
2756-2766.
38. Reich, G.W., and Park, K.C. (2000). Experimental Applications of a
Structural Health Monitoring Methodology, Smart Structures and Materials
2000: Smart Systems for Bridges, Structures, and Highways, Proceedings of
SPIE, vol. 3,988, Newport Beach, California, pp. 143-153.
39. Rizos, P. F., Aspragathos, N., and Dimarogonas, A. D. (1990). Identification
of Crack Location and Magnitude in A Cantilever from the Vibration
Modes, Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 381-388.
40. Rytter, A. (1993). Vibration Based Inspection of Civil Engineering
structures, PhD Dissertation, Department of Building Technology and
Structural Engineering, University of Aalborg, Denmark.
41. Salawu, O. S. and Williams, C. (1994). Damage Location Using Vibration
Mode Shapes, in Proc. of 12th International Modal Analysis Conference,
pp. 933-939.
42. Salawu, O. S. and Williams, C. (1995). Bridge Assessment Using Forced-
Vibration Testing, Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 121, no. 2, pp.
161-173.
43. Salawu, O. S. (1997a). Detection of Structural Damage through Changes in
Frequency: A Review, Engineering Structures, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 718-723.
67
44. Srinivasan, M. G. and Kot, C. A. (1992). Effects of Damage on The Modal
Parameters of A Cylindrical Shell, in Proc. of the 10th International Modal
Analysis Conference, pp. 529-535.
45. Stubbs, N. and Osegueda, R. (1990). Global non-destructive damage
evaluation in solids, Modal Analysis: The International Journal of
Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, vol. 5, no.2, pp. 67-80.
46. Stubbs, N., Kim, J.-T., and Topole, K. (1992). An Efficient and Robust
Algorithm for Damage Localization in Offshore Platforms, in Proc. ASCE
Tenth Structures Congress, pp. 543546.
47. Topole, K. (1997). Damage Evaluation via Flexibility Formulation, Smart
Systems for Bridges, Structures, and Highways, Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 3,
pp. 145-154.
48. Toussi, S. and J. P. T. Yao. (1983). Hysteresis Identification of Existing
Structures, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol.16, pp.1177-1188.
49. Wen, Y. K. (1976). Method for Random Vibration of Hysteretic Systems,
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. Proceedings of ASCE. vol.
102, pp. 249-263.
50. Worden, K., and Fieller, N.R.J. (1999). Damage Detection Using Outlier
Analysis, Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 229, no. 3, pp. 647667.
51. Yuen, M. M. F. (1985). A numerical study of the Eigenparameters of A
damaged cantilever, Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 103, pp. 301-310.
52. Zhang, L., Quiong, W., and Link, M. (1998). A Structural Damage
Identification Approach Based on Element Modal Strain Energy,
Proceedings of ISMA23, Noise and Vibration Engineering, Leuven, Belgium.
68
APPENDEX
MATLAB CODES
This appendix contains Matlab codes for simulating the response of hysteretic
structures when subjected to earthquake ground motions. The first code is a sample
which is used to demonstrate the steps related to the approach. The code uses the
ERA-OKID for modal parameter identification. In addition, it uses the other two
codes for nonlinear modeling. The second and third codes are used for a nonlinear
shear building model with element of Bouc-Wen type.
A.1 A Matlab Code for the Simulation
clear;
% time step and number of steps in the analysis
s=[1 2]';
nsteps=2000;
load whitter1 % Northridge EQ Whitter Narroes Record
px=1*(whitter1(1:nsteps+1))';
dt=0.02;
% Integration time step
dti=0.0;
m=[45600 45600 47776 45600 45600 47776 45600 45600 47776 45600 ...
45600 47776];
% scaling factors to convert mass to weights for p-delta computations
pd=[386.4*0]; % applies to all levels;
% radius of gyration for p-delta
rg=[0]; % uses the values of the radius of gyration for the mass
% interstory heights
69
h=[144]; % same in every level
% global coordinates of the centers of mass
ccm=[0 0;0 0;0 0;0 0];
% modal damping ratios
mdr=0.05*ones(1,12);
% elements
aw=0;
bw=0;
fy=7.5*10^7*0.02;
elp1=[0 0 0 1 aw bw 1 7.5*10^7 fy;-120 0 90 1 0 0 1 100 fy;...
120 0 90 1 0 0 1 50 fy];
elp2=[0 0 0 2 0 0 1 7.5*10^7 fy;-120 0 90 2 0 0 3 100 fy;...
120 0 90 2 0 0 3 50 fy];
elp3=[0 0 0 3 0 0 1 7.5*10^7 fy;-120 0 90 3 0 0 3 100 fy;...
120 0 90 3 0 0 3 50 fy];
elp4=[0 0 0 4 0 0 1 7.5*10^7 fy;-120 0 90 4 0 0 3 100 fy;...
120 0 90 4 0 0 3 50 fy];
elp=[elp1;elp2;elp3;elp4];
% Deterioration
deter1=3*ones(12,1);
deter2=1*ones(12,1);
deter3=1*ones(12,1);
deter=[deter1 deter2 deter3];
% load is base excitation
pe=[0;0;0];
% applied loads
p=zeros(12,nsteps+1);
pl1=-m(1:3:12)'*px;
p(1,:) =pl1(1,:);
p(4,:) =pl1(2,:);
p(7,:) =pl1(3,:);
p(10,:)=pl1(4,:);
% displacement and rotation limits to terminate the run
70
maxd=20;
maxr=0.5;
term=[maxd maxr 10000];
% Run
[tt,d,v,ac,f,drift,bu,bum,per,msh,worki,ENERGY]=dash3dx(m,pd,rg,h,...
ccm,mdr,elp,deter,dt,dti,pe,p,nsteps,term);
%Evaluate the floor drifts
drift(:,1)=d(:,1);
drift(:,2)=d(:,4)-d(:,1);
drift(:,3)=d(:,7)-d(:,4);
drift(:,4)=d(:,10)-d(:,7);
[DRIFT,i]=max(max(abs(drift))*100);
max(abs(d(:,1)));
input=p(1:3:10,:);
output=ac(:,1:3:10)';
% Define output noise
randn('state',s);
noiseout=randn(size(output));
noiseout=noiseout*std(output(1,1:300))*0.05;
% Define input noise
randn('state',s);
noisein=randn(size(input));
noisein=noisein*std(input(1,:))*0.0;
% Add noise
inputt=input+noisein;
outputt=output+noiseout;
%Do the identification with the linear portion
nsteps=300;
input2=inputt(:,1:nsteps+1);
input2=input2';
output2=outputt(:,1:nsteps+1);
output2=output2';
[A,B,C,D]=okid(4,4,dt,input2,output2,'lq',20);
71
%Prediction
lamda=eig(Ac);
n=length(pl1);
t=[0:n-1]*dt;
pll=pl1';
Y=dlsim(A1,B1,C,D,pll);
Y=Y';
[w_es,zai_es]=ceig(lamda);
f_es=sort(w_es(1:2:7))/2/pi;
%error
et=(outputt(1,:)-Y(1,:)).^2;
et2=sqrt(sum(et)./sum((outputt(1,:)).^2))*100;
%damage index
DMI=max(worki(:,1))*6;
hysteret=max(worki(:,1))
fre=1./per;
fex=fre(9:12);
error_fre=(f_es-fex)./fex*100;
error_zai=(zai_es-0.05)/0.05*100;
%plot the measured vs predicted acceleration responses using the
% initial segment of the record
figure(2)
plot(t,outputt(1,:))
hold on
plot(t,Y(1,:),'r')
xlabel('Time (sec)')
ylabel('a1')
legend('measured','predicted')
%plot the measured vs predicted acceleration responses using the
% entire duration
72
figure(3)
plot(t(1:300),outputt(1,1:300),':')
hold on
plot(t(1:300),Y(1,1:300),'r')
xlabel('Time (sec)')
ylabel('a1')
legend('measured','predicted')
% plot the restoring force vs drift of the first floor
figure(4)
plot(drift(:,1),f(:,1))
xlabel('Displacement (m)')
ylabel('Restoring Force (N)')
title('Force-displacement curve')
73
A.2 A Matlab Code for non-linear modeling (Dash3dx.m)
% **********************************
% * DASH3DX.m *
% * *
% * *
% * *
% **********************************
% DESCRIPTION
% Dynamic response of 3D shear buildings. An arbitrary number of resisting
% elements per level - each with a potentially different restoring force relationship
% can be considered. The restoring force relationships may be elastic (either linear,
% nonlinear softening or nonlinear hardening) or hysteretic. Deterioration of
%strength, stiffness, or both, as a function of the hysteretic energy dissipated, can be
%considered in the analysis.
% The current version assumes damping to be classical with damping ratios for each
%of the 3*N modes provided by the user,(modes are computed using the initial
tangent stiffness of the elements). A more general damping model can be easily
%considered by blocking the appropriate section of the program and reading the
%damping matrix directly. Translational and torsional secondary effects can be
%considered. The formulation allows for arbitrary location of the center of mass in
%each level (i.e. - the centers of mass need not be on a common vertical axis).
% An arbitrary 3 component ground acceleration plus arbitrarily defined loads at
%each one of the 3*N dof of the model can be considered in a single run.
% INTEGRATION OF THE EQUATIONS OF MOTION
% The equations are integrated by casting them in state form and envoking the built
%in MATLAB integrator ODE23. Two options are
% available, see description of dti in the input list.
% ****************************** USERS GUIDE *****************
% The program is a MATLAB function with the input output entries shown
% function [tt,d,v,ac,f,drift,bu,bum,per,msh,worki]=
% dash3d(m,pd,rg,h,ccm,mdr,elp,deter,dt,dti,pe,p,nsteps,term)
% The DOF are ordered X, Y, ZETA starting at the first level.
% Counterclockwise rotation is positive.
% The origin of the global coordinates located arbitrarily.
% The X-Y plane is horizontal.
% N = number of stories.
% NE = number of elements (total in all stories).
74
% INPUT DATA
% m = diagonal of the mass matrix (3Nx1);
% pd = scaling factor applied to the masses to compute weights for P-delta effects -
% level#1 is the first element (Nx1).
% If a single value is input it is assumed to apply to all masses. Input [0] to
% neglect P-delta.
% rg = radius of gyration for p-delta calculations (N x 1). If a single (nonzero) value
% is input it is assumed to apply to all levels. Input rg=[0] to make the values of rg %
the same as the mass radius of % gyration of the stories.
% Definition: Consider Rj and hj as the total axial force and the interstory height in
% level j. If the diaphragm in level j is rotated a unit about an axis that coincides with
% Rj the p-delta torque generated in level j = (Rj/hj)*rgj^2.
% h = story heights - level#1 first (Nx1)(used only for p-delta computations). If a
% single value is given it is assumed to be the same at all levels. When p-delta is not
% considered one can input any (nonzero) value for h.
% ccm = coordinates of the centers of mass (N x 2) (X in column #1,Y in column#2);
% mdr = modal damping ratios (first mode first) (3Nx1);
% elp = element description matrix (NE x9). Each row refers to one element; the
% entries in each row are: [X Y Fi LV alw bew nw k0 Zc], where:
%
% X and Y = coordinates of a point in the line of action of the force in the element.
% Fi = angle from the positive global X axis to the line of action of the force in the
% element (measure counterclockwise) (in degrees).
% LV = level at the upper side of the element.
% alw, bew and nw = parameters in Bouc-Wen's model (see next section for a quick
% guide on how to specify these parameters).
% k0 = initial element stiffness.
% Zc = force used to scale the restoring force. Equal to the strength in
% softening models and to the force when the stiffness is twice of
% the stiffness at the origin in hardening models.
%
% deter = matrix providing information on the deterioration of strength, stiffness
% or both, as a function of the dissipated hysteretic energy. Each row
% corresponds to one element (in the order of elp).
% Column #1 - ductf = coefficient used to compute the hysteretic energy at which
% the element deterioration levels off.
% In particular, the hysteretic energy is normalized by
% Zc^2*(ductf)/k0. One can readily show that "ductf" can
% be interpreted as an "effective ductility at failure". A
% number in the order of two to 3 times the ductility at
% failure for monotonic loading is reasonable.
%
% Column #2 - FCL = fraction of original strength when the normalized
% dissipated energy is >=1. For no strength deterioration
% input FCL=1.
%
% Column #3 - FSL = fraction of original stiffness at zero force when the
% normalized dissipated energy is >=1. For no stiffness
75
% deterioration input FSL=1.
%
% ** Notes on deter **
% 1) The reduction of stiffness is applied only to the loading branch.
% 2) The function used to modify the strength or the stiffness has
% been taken as
% f(wb)=1-(3wb^2-2*wb^3)*(1-F)
% where wb is the normalized hysteretic energy and
% F = FCL for strength and FSL for stiffness.
%
% dt = time discretization of the prescribed loading.
% dti = integration time step. Input dti=0 to perform a variable time step
% solution. In the option dti=0 the time step is adjusted automatically
% during the solution - the execution time in this option is typically
% significantly longer than when a constant time step is used. If there
% is uncertainty about the size of the time step needed to attain
% sufficient accuracy use dti=0;
% pe = time history of earthquake accelerations (3 x ns1). First two rows
% are the X and Y translational components and the third is a
% rotational input (any or all can be zero).
% p = time history of applied loads (3*N x ns2).
% nsteps = the solution is obtained from t= 0 to t = nsteps*dt
% (nsteps <= to the largest of ns1-1 or ns2-1).
% term = termination criteria (1x3). The entries are [maxd maxr maxw]:
% maxd - maximum displacement - program stops if the displacement at any DOF
% response reaches this value.
% maxr - rotation of a floor slab that terminates the analysis.
% maxw - normalized hysteretic energy that terminates the analysis.
%
% RESTORING FORCE CHARACTERISTICS
%
% Softening bew = +1 Zc = Strength
% Elastic Behavior (alw = 0) Linear bew = 0 Zc = Any value
% Hardening bew = -1 Zc = Force when kt = 2ko
%
% Softening (alw+bew) = + Zc = Strength
% Loading Linear (alw+bew) = 0 Zc = Any value
% Hardening (alw+bew) = - Zc = Force when kt =2ko
% Inelastic Behavior (alw ~=0)
% Softening (alw-bew) = +
% Unloading Linear (alw-bew) = 0
% Hardening (alw-bew) = -
%
% The values of +1 and -1 are specified for convenience, any positive or negative
% values will lead to the same results. nw affects the smoothness of the restoring
% curves. A typical choice to represent stable steel elements that undergo inelastic
% response is
% alw = bew = 0.5 and nw = 3 or 5.
%
76
% OUTPUT
% The dynamic response is ordered in columns with the rows being subsequent time
% steps.
% tt = time - note that the time interval is dt when dti=0 and dti when dti ~= 0.
% d = displacements of the diaphragms at the center of mass.
% v = velocities of the diaphragms at the center of mass.
% ac = absolute accelerations of the diaphragms at the center of mass (the
% accelerations are absolute even when the loading is only base excitation).
% f = shear forces in the elements (same order as input).
% drift = relative displacement at the various resisting elements (in same order as f).
% bu = fundamental buckling eigenvalue (scaling of vertical loads to attain elastic
% instability).
% bum = fundamental buckling eigenvector.
% per = natural periods for initial tangent stiffness (no geometric stiffness).
% msh = mass normalized mode shapes for initial tangent stiffness
% (no geometric stiffness).
% worki = normalized hysteretic energy in each of the elements (see
% description of "deter" Column #1 for the normalizing value).
% ENERGY = a matrix containing the history of several energy quantities see
% listing.
%
% ****************************************************************
function [tt,d,v,ac,f,drift,bu,bum,per,msh,worki,ENERGY]=dash3dx...
(m,pd,rg,h,ccm,mdr,elp,deter,dt,dti,pe,p,nsteps,term);
% Extract the termination criteria
maxd=term (1);
maxr=term (2);
maxw=term (3);
% Form the transformation matrix and evaluate the initial stiffness
N=max(elp (:,4));
[NE,dum]=size(elp);
k0=elp (:, 8);
TS=zeros (NE, 3*N);
for j=1:NE;
lv=elp(j,4);
xt=elp(j,1)-ccm(lv,1);
yt=elp(j,2)-ccm(lv,2);
fi=elp(j,3)*pi/180;
dtt=[cos(fi) sin(fi) (xt*sin(fi)-yt*cos(fi))];
if lv~=1;
xb=elp(j,1)-ccm((lv-1),1);
yb=elp(j,2)-ccm((lv-1),2);
db=[cos(fi) sin(fi) (xb*sin(fi)-yb*cos(fi))];
dd=[-db dtt];
n1=(lv-2)*3+1;
n2=n1+5;
77
else;
dd=dtt;
n1=1;
n2=3;
end;
TS(j,n1:n2)=dd;
end;
% Initial Stiffness
K=TS'*diag(k0)*TS;
% Mass matrix.
M=diag(m);
% Eigensolution and Damping (damping taken as modal damping - if an arbitrary
% [C] is desired block the line that defines C and enter it directly.
[aa,bb]=eig(K,M);
mn=aa'*M*aa;
mn=sqrt(mn);
aa=aa*inv(mn);
[bb,I]=sort(diag(bb));
aar=[];
for j=1:3*N;
aar(:,j)=aa(:,I(j));
end;
D=2*sqrt(bb).*mdr';
C=M*aar*diag(D)*aar'*M;
C=real(C);
per=real(2*pi./sqrt(bb));
msh=real(aar);
% Geometric Stiffness.
npd=length(pd);
nh=length(h);
nrg=length(rg);
if npd==1;
pd=pd*ones(1,N);
end;
% perform calculations only if gravity load is prescribed
if cumsum(pd)~=0;
if nh==1;
h=h*ones(1,N);
end;
count=0;
mm=[];
J=[];
for j=1:3*N
78
count=count+1;
if count==1;
mm=[mm m(j)];
count=-2;
J=[J m(j+2)];
else
end;
end;
pd1=mm.*pd;
R=fliplr(cumsum(fliplr(pd1)));
r2=J./mm;
if nrg==1;
rg=rg*ones(1,N);
end;
if sum(rg)==0;
rg=sqrt(r2);
end;
% global cordinates of the total vertical load at a given level.
for j=1:N;
myy=sum(pd1(j:N).*ccm(j:N,1)');
mxx=sum(pd1(j:N).*ccm(j:N,2)');
xpd(j)=myy/R(j);
ypd(j)=mxx/R(j);
end;
for j=1:N;
if R(j)==0;
disp(' zero total load detected at level')
j
break
end;
end;
for j=1:N;
if h(j)<=0;
disp(' the height of level');
j
disp(' has been input as zero or negative');
disp(' change to positive');
break;
end;
end;
% initialize
KG=[];
79
% assemble
for j=1:N;
AB=[];
jj=j+1;
if jj==N+1;
R(jj)=0.0;
h(jj)=1;
xpd(jj)=1;
ypd(jj)=1;
rg(jj)=0;
ccm(jj,:)=[1 1];
else
end;
kg11=(R(j)/h(j)+R(jj)/h(jj));
kg12=0;
kg13=-(R(j)*(ypd(j)-ccm(j,2))/h(j)+R(jj)*(ypd(jj)-ccm(j,2))/h(jj));
kg14=-R(jj)/h(jj);
kg15=0;
kg16=R(jj)*(ypd(jj)-ccm(jj,2))/h(jj);
kg21=kg12;
kg22=(R(j)/h(j)+R(jj)/h(jj));
kg23=(R(j)*(xpd(j)-ccm(j,1))/h(j)+R(jj)*(xpd(jj)-ccm(j,1))/h(jj));
kg24=0;
kg25=-R(jj)/h(jj);
kg26=-R(jj)*(xpd(jj)-ccm(jj,1))/h(jj);
kg31=kg13;
kg32=kg23;
kg33=R(j)/h(j)*((ypd(j)-ccm(j,2))^2+(xpd(j)-ccm(j,1))^2+rg(j)^2);
kg33=kg33+R(jj)/h(jj)*((ypd(jj)-ccm(j,2))^2+(xpd(jj)-ccm(j,1))^2+rg(jj)^2);
kg34=R(jj)*(ypd(jj)-ccm(j,2))/h(jj);
kg35=-R(jj)*(xpd(jj)-ccm(j,1))/h(jj);
kg36=(ypd(jj)-ccm(j,2))*(ypd(jj)-ccm(jj,2))+(xpd(jj)-ccm(j,1))*(xpd(jj)-ccm(jj,1));
kg36=-R(jj)/h(jj)*((kg36+rg(jj)^2));
A=[kg11 kg12 kg13;kg21 kg22 kg23;kg31 kg32 kg33]*0.5;
B=[kg14 kg15 kg16;kg24 kg25 kg26;kg34 kg35 kg36];
AB=[A B];
if j==1;
li=0;
else
li=(j-1)*3;
end;
80
if j==N;
ui=0;
AB=AB(:,1:3);
else
ui=3*N-li-6;
end;
comp1=zeros(3,li);
comp2=zeros(3,ui);
strip=[comp1 AB comp2];
KG=[KG;strip];
end;
KG=KG+KG';
% if gravity is not prescribed
else
KG=zeros(3*N);
bu=' p-delta not considered'
bum=bu;
end;
% Calculate the fundamental buckling eigenvalue
if cumsum(pd)~0;
[bum,bu,flag]=eigs(K,KG,1,0);
if flag==1;
disp(' buckling eigensolution did not meet specified tolerance ');
end
if bu<=1;
disp(' structure is statically unstable - check data');
return %break
end;
end;
% Extract remaining vectors from elp
alw=elp(:,5);
bew=elp(:,6);
nw=elp(:,7);
Zc=elp(:,9);
% Check that the number of steps does not exeed the load duration
t0=0.0;
[dum,nc1]=size(pe);
[dum,nc2]=size(p);
nc=max(nc1,nc2);
pe=[pe zeros(3,(nc-nc1+1))];
p=[p zeros(dum,(nc-nc2+1))];
if nc<nsteps+1;
disp('longest temporal load must be defined for at least nsteps+1')
81
return; %break
else;
end;
% Calculate G.
for jj=1:NE;
yt=abs(alw(jj)+bew(jj));
if yt==0;
G(jj)=1;
else
G(jj)=k0(jj)/(yt*(Zc(jj)^nw(jj)));
end;
end;
% Time span and effective load
if dti~=0;
ddt=dti;
else
ddt=dt;
end
R=[];
ts=0:ddt:nsteps*dt;
tt=ts;
rr=[1 0 0;0 1 0;0 0 1];
for j=1:N;
R=[R;rr];
end;
pp=p-M*R*pe;
% Create the system matrix
invm=inv(M);
y1=-invm*(-KG);
y2=-invm*C;
y3=-invm*TS';
nul=zeros(3*N);
nul1=zeros(3*N,NE);
nul2=zeros(NE);
AAA=[nul eye(3*N) nul1 nul1;y1 y2 y3 nul1;nul1' nul1' nul2 nul2;...
nul1' nul1' nul2 nul2];
unk=6*N+2*NE;
% Compute the "hysteretic work at failure"
workf=(Zc.^2).*deter(:,1)./k0;
% Numerical integration
% Select the integration strategy
if dti==0;
options=odeset('Events','on');
82
else
options=odeset('Events','on','AbsTol',100,'NormControl','on', 'MaxStep',dti,...
'InitialStep',dti);
end
[T,y,te,ye,ie]=ode23('oddash3dx',ts,zeros(1,unk),options,pp,AAA,N, NE,dt,alw,...
bew,nw,unk,invm,TS,G,maxd,maxr,maxw,deter,workf,k0);
nt=length(T);
nsteps=nt-1;
XX=isempty(ie);
if XX==1;
ie=100;
end;
if ie==1;
disp(' Maximum displacement exceeded at time ');
te
tt=0:ddt:nsteps*ddt;
elseif ie==2;
disp(' Maximum rotation exceeded at time ');
te
tt=0:ddt:nsteps*ddt;
elseif ie==3;
disp(' Maximum normalized hysteretic energy exceeded at time ');
te
tt=0:ddt:nsteps*ddt;
else;
end;
% Extract the solution;
d=y(:,(1:3*N));
v=y(:,(3*N+1):(6*N));
f=y(:,(6*N+1):(6*N+NE));
worki=y(:,(6*N+NE+1):unk);
% Normalize the hystertic energy dissipated
for j=1:NE;
worki(:,j)=worki(:,j)/workf(j);
end;
% Obtain local drifts (used to plot hysteresis loops the elements);
drift=[];
for i=1:nsteps+1;
drifti=TS*d(i,:)';
drift=[drift drifti];
end;
drift=drift';
% Calculate the acceleration vector;
83
ac=[];
nm=dt/ddt;
if nm-round(nm)~=0
disp(' the time interval of the loading divided by the integration time step');
disp(' must be an integer for the computation of accelerations');
break
else
ppa=[];
for j=1:3*N;
ppai=interp(p(j,:),nm,1,0.0001);
ppa=[ppa;ppai];
end;
p=ppa;
end;
for i=1:nsteps+1;
aci=invm*(p(:,i)-C*v(i,:)'-TS'*f(i,:)'-(-KG)*d(i,:)');
ac=[ac aci];
end;
ac=ac';
% Some energy quantities - the strain energy is correct only for elastic response
for j=1:nsteps;
SE(j)=0.5*d(j,:)*(K-KG)*d(j,:)';
DF(j)=v(j,:)*C*v(j,:)';
KE(j)=0.5*v(j,:)*M*v(j,:)';
TF(j)=v(j,:)*M*ac(j,:)';
end
DE=(cumtrapz(DF))*ddt;
Total=(cumtrapz(TF))*ddt;
for j=1:nsteps;
RIE(j)=Total(j)-KE(j);
end;
ENERGY=[SE' KE' DE' RIE'];
84
A.3 A Matlab Code works with the Dash3dx code
% **************************************
% * ODDASH3DX.m *
% * *
%
% **************************************
%
% ODE file that works with DASH3DX.m
function varargout = oddash3dx(T,X,flag,pp,AA,N,NE,dt,alw,bew,nw,unk,invm, ...
TS,G,maxd,maxr,maxw,deter,workf,k0);
switch flag
case ' '
varargout{1}=f(T,X,pp,AA,N,NE,dt,alw,bew,nw,unk,invm,TS,G,maxd, maxr,...
maxw,deter,workf,k0);
case 'events'
[varargout{1:3}]=events(T,X,N,NE,unk,maxd,maxr,maxw,workf);
otherwise
error(['unknown flag'])
% error(['unknown flag'''flag'''.'])
end;
function [xd]=f(T,X,pp,AA,N,NE,dt,alw,bew,nw,unk,invm,TS,G,maxd,...
maxr,maxw,deter,workf,k0);
ind=round(T/dt+1);
x1=X(1:3*N);
x2=X((3*N+1):(6*N));
x3=X((6*N+1):6*N+NE);
x4=X((6*N+NE+1):(unk));
% Normalized hysteretic energy (set a maximum of one to impose limit on
% reductions).
wb=x4./workf;
wb=min(wb,ones(NE,1));
% Define the functions used to account for deterioration
F=3*wb.^2-2*wb.^3;
fs=1-F.*(1-deter(:,2));
qs=1-F.*(1-deter(:,3));
% Adjust qs to 1 if the element is unloading
vv=sign((TS*x2)./(x3+0.000001));
v1=(vv+ones(NE,1))/2;
qs=qs.*v1+(ones(NE,1)-vv)/2;
z1=zeros(3*N,1);
85
z2=invm*pp(:,ind);
z3=-alw.*(abs(TS*x2)).*(abs(x3.^(nw-1)).*x3)-bew.*(TS*x2).*(abs(x3.^nw));
z3=z3.*G'.*(1./fs).^nw+k0.*(TS*x2);
z3=z3.*qs;
z4=x3.*(TS*x2);
xd=AA*X+[z1;z2;z3;z4];
% Subtract the rate of elastically stored energy.
ku=k0-(bew-alw).*G'.*(abs(x3).^nw);
xd((6*N+NE+1):unk)=xd((6*N+NE+1):unk)-(x3.*xd((6*N+1):(6*N+NE)))./ku;
% ********************************************
function[value,isterminal,direction]=events(T,X,N,NE,unk,maxd,maxr,maxw,workf)
x4=X((6*N+NE+1):(unk));
wb1=x4./workf;
rota=resample(X(3:3*N),1,3,0);
value1=[maxd-max(abs(X(1:3*N)))];
value2=[maxr-max(abs(rota))];
value3=[maxw-max(wb1)];
value=[value1;value2;value3];
isterminal=[1;1;1];
direction=[0;0;0];