See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/2315625

Damage Detection on a Prestressed Concrete Bridge and RC Beams Using

Dynamic System Identification

Article in Key Engineering Materials · June 1999

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.167-168.320 · Source: CiteSeer

CITATIONS READS

32 544

2 authors:

J. Maeck Guido De Roeck

Belgian Road Research Centre KU Leuven
39 PUBLICATIONS 1,863 CITATIONS 396 PUBLICATIONS 19,687 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Maeck on 10 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

)$&8/7(,772(*(3$67(:(7(16&+$33(1
'(3$57(0(17%85*(5/,-.(%28:.81'(
$)'(/,1*%28:0(&+$1,&$
:'(&52</$$1
%+(9(5/((

.$7+2/,(.(
81,9(56,7(,7
/(89(1

6WDWXV

-0$(&.*'( 52(&. 'DPDJHGHWHFWLRQRQDSUHVWUHVVHGFRQFUHWHEULGJHDQG

5& EHDPV XVLQJ G\QDPLF V\VWHP LGHQWLILFDWLRQ 3URFHHGLQJV RI '$0$6 
'XEOLQ,UHODQGSS7UDQV7HFK3XEOLFDWLRQV/WG-XQH

,5-0$(&.

7(/   )$;  

(PDLOMRKDQPDHFN#EZNNXOHXYHQDFEH
Damage detection on a prestressed concrete bridge and RC beams
using dynamic system identification
J. Maeck1, G. De Roeck1
1
Department of Civil Engineering, division Structural Mechanics, K.U.Leuven
W. de Croylaan 2, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium

Keywords: dynamics, stiffness decrease, reinforced concrete

Abstract. In the framework of developing a health monitoring system for civil engineering
structures, vibration analysis has proven to be a useful tool. Vibration monitoring of civil
engineering structures (e.g. bridges, buildings, dams) has gained a lot of interest over the past few
years, due to the relative ease of instrumentation and the development of new powerful system
identification techniques. The damage assessment step consists of relating the dynamic
characteristics to a damage pattern of the structure. The presented technique makes use of the
calculation of modal bending moments and curvatures to derive the bending stiffness at each
location. The basic assumption is that damage can be directly related to a decrease of stiffness in the
structure. Eigenfrequencies are sensitive damage indicators. Modal curvatures seem to be more
sensitive to local damage than the modal displacements. The technique is validated on a prestressed
concrete bridge and on reinforced concrete beam, which were both gradually damaged and tested
extensively.

Introduction
Service loads, environmental and accidental actions may cause damage to structures. Regular
inspection and condition assessment of engineering structures are necessary so that early detection
of any defect can be made and the structures updated safety and reliability can be determined. Early
damage detection and location allows maintenance and repair works to be properly programmed.
As an alternative for damage identification by updating of a finite element model, a method of
damage detection and quantification is developed, called direct stiffness determination. The direct
stiffness calculation is based on the relation that the bending stiffness in each section of a structure
can be written as the quotient of the bending moment to the corresponding curvature. Besides
experimental eigenfrequencies, also modeshapes are needed to calculate the curvatures.
The method is shortly explained and then applied to experimental data. For a more in-depth
explanation of the direct stiffness calculation technique is referred to [1],[2].
In the framework of Brite Euram project SIMCES [3] (System Identification to Monitor Civil
Engineering Structures), the technique is applied to a prestressed concrete bridge in Switzerland to
detect, localise and quantify artificially applied damage. After a description of the test set-up, the
solution procedure and experimental validation results are presented.

Test program

Bridge Z24
In the SIMCES project a full scale test was performed on the Z24 bridge in Switzerland. Several
damage scenarios were performed to prove that changes in dynamic properties are large enough (i.e.
statistically relevant) and can be linked to damage in a particular part of the structure. The bridge
was located in the Canton Bern near Solothurn. The bridge was a highway overpass of the A1,
linking Bern and Zürich. The posttensioned two box cell girder of 14, 30 and 14 meters span rested
2

on four piers. The two central piers were stiffly connected to the girder, while the two triplets of
columns at both ends were connected via concrete hinges to the girder.

Figure 1 Top view, cross-section, elevation of Z24 [4]

The progressive damage tests (PDT) are summarised in Table 1 and described in detail in [4]. After
each damage step the next measurement was performed. The measurements consisted of a full
ambient and a full forced vibration test. The complete structure was measured in 9 setups of 33
accelerometers. Time signals of 8 series of 8192 samples were recorded at 100 Hz.

# Date Scenario # Date Scenario

1 04.08.98 1st Reference measurement 10 26.08.98 Spalling of concrete 24 m2
2 09.08.98 2nd Reference measurement 11 27.08.98 Landslide
3 10.08.98 Settlement of pier, 20 mm 12 31.08.98 Concrete hinges
4 12.08.98 Settlement of pier, 40 mm 13 02.09.98 Failure of anchor heads
5 17.08.98 Settlement of pier, 80 mm 14 03.09.98 Anchor heads #2
6 18.08.98 Settlement of pier, 95 mm 15 07.09.98 Rupture of tendons #1
7 19.08.98 Tilt of foundation 16 08.09.98 Rupture of tendons #2
8 20.08.98 3rd Reference measurement 17 09.09.98 Rupture of tendons #3
9 25.08.98 Spalling of concrete 12 m2

Table 1 PDT scenarios and vibration test dates

The settlement and tilt scenario were simulated by cutting the Koppigen pier completely, removing
about 0.4m of concrete. Lowering and lifting was done by 6 hydraulic jacks. During the
measurements the pier rested on steel sections, which were designed to provide similar stiffness as
for the uncut concrete section. The second reference measurement was done after having cut the
pier, the third after undoing the settlement and tilt.
 3

Reinforced concrete beam

The direct stiffness calculation technique is also applied to a beam test. In the laboratory test
program, a reinforced concrete beam of 6 meter length is subjected to an increasing static load to
produce cracks. The test beam is subjected in a first phase to a point load at 4m, in a second phase at
2m. After each loadstep (Table 2), an experimental modal analysis is performed on the beam. The
load of 54kN corresponds with yielding of reinforcement.

# Load at 4m [kN] # Load at 2m [kN]

1 0 7 8
2 8 8 10
3 10 9 13
4 13 10 19
5 19 11 25
6 25 12 35
13 54

Table 2 Static load program

A free-free set-up for the beam is established by using very flexible springs to support the beam.
Accelerometers are placed each 20cm at both longitudinal edges of the upper side of the beam (62
measurement points in total). The experimental set-up is given in Figure 2.

hinge support

roller support
Fdyn

hydraulic jack

Figure 2 Static (phase 1) & dynamic set-up

The stochastic subspace identification technique is applied to the dynamic response of the bridge
and the beam in order to extract the modal parameters [5],[6].

Direct stiffness calculation

The direct stiffness calculation uses the experimental eigenfrequencies and modeshapes in deriving
the dynamic stiffness. The method makes use of the basic relation that the dynamic bending
stiffness (EI) in each section is equal to the bending moment (Mb) in that section divided by the
corresponding curvature (second derivative of bending mode ϕb ).
Mb
EI = (Eq. 1)
d ϕb
2

dx 2
4

Firstly the moment in each section of the structure has to be determined. The eigenvalue problem
for the undamped system can be written as:

Kϕ =ω2 Mϕ (Eq. 2)

in which K is the stiffness matrix, M the (analytical) mass matrix, ϕ the measured modeshape and ω
the measured eigenpulsation. This can be seen as a pseudo static system: for each mode internal
(section) forces are due to inertial forces which can be calculated as the product of local mass and
local acceleration (= ω2.ϕ). The mass distribution is assumed to be known. A lumped mass matrix is
used in (Eq. 2). As the measurement mesh is rather dense, this is acceptable.
To calculate the modal internal forces (i.e. modal bending moments) needed to evaluate (Eq. 1),
a hyperstatic analysis with the pseudo-static forces from (Eq. 2) as load has to be carried out e.g.
with a finite element package. In the case of a static structure, internal forces are calculated
analytically from static equilibrium.
The next step in deriving the dynamic bending stiffness consists of the calculation of the
curvatures along the beam for each modeshape. Direct calculation of curvatures from measured
modeshapes e.g. by using the central difference approximation, results in oscillating and inaccurate
values. A smoothing procedure, which accounts for the inherent inaccuracies of the measured
modeshapes, should be applied. Therefore a weighted residual penalty-based technique is adopted
which closely resembles the finite element approach.
The structure is divided in a number of elements separated by nodes that correspond to the
measurement points. Each node has 3 degrees of freedom: the modal displacement v, the rotation ψ
and the curvature κ, which are approximated independently. The objective function, which has to be
minimised, contains the difference between approximate and measured modeshapes. Two penalty
terms are added to enforce continuity of rotations and curvatures in a mean, smeared way.
(v − ϕ mb ) 2 /e 2 /e 4
∫ ∫ ∫(
dv 2 d 2
= dx + ( − ) dx + − ) dx (Eq. 3)
2 2 dx 2 dx
ϕm denotes the measured modeshape, and Le is the length of a finite element. Elements are chosen
in such way that nodes coincide with measurement points. The first term expresses that the average
difference between approximation and measurement has to be minimised. In order to obtain a
filtering of experimental errors and so a smoothing of the deflection, two extra terms are added.
Differences between the independent approximations of rotations and curvatures with respectively
the first derivatives of displacements and rotations are minimised. The coupling between the
independently approximated unknowns is established by these constraint conditions. The weight of
these extra conditions is set by the dimensionless penalty factors α and β.
Deriving Eq. 3 to the unknown modal variables v, ψ and κ gives a system of dimension three
times the number of nodes. As α and β are penalty terms, they are not unknowns in the system but
must be chosen by the user.
Advantages of this approach are that directly curvatures are available and that boundary
conditions can be imposed. A drawback is that penalty factors must be chosen in an allowable
range: large enough to be effective and not too large to avoid numerical difficulties (locking of the
system).
 5

Experimental results

Bridge Z24
The EI distribution is calculated using the first bending mode of the bridge. Figure 3 shows the first
mode of Z24 for the 2nd reference measurement.

Figure 3 First modeshape of Z24

In the visualisation of the bending stiffness the inaccurate zones due to zero by zero division
(see Eq. 1) are omitted. For the first mode four inaccurate zones are present: at the bridge abutments
and at two points in the central span, close to the bridge piers.
The direct stiffness calculations for damage scenarios are compared with the scenarios without any
damage. Also the bending stiffness from an ANSYS [7] finite element model of the undamaged
bridge is given.
Firstly the 2nd reference test carried out after cutting the Koppigen pier and installing the steel
plates but before the settlement, is compared to the settlement scenarios. The dynamic bending
stiffness distribution for the 2nd reference test and the scenario with 40mm settlement (Figure 4)
correspond well along the length of the bridge. Curvatures are rather small in the side spans, which
causes numerical difficulties to calculate the bending stiffness. Also the higher stiffness at the
girder-pier connections, due to the increased thickness of the bottom slab, is clearly detectable from
the direct stiffness determination. Another observation is that the Koppigen pier seems to be
initially slightly stiffer than the Utzenstorf pier.
3.0E+10 3.0E+10

2.8E+10 2.8E+10

2.6E+10 2.6E+10

2.4E+10 2.4E+10
bending stiffness EI
bending stiffness EI

2.2E+10 2.2E+10

2.0E+10 2.0E+10

1.8E+10 1.8E+10

1.6E+10 1.6E+10

1.4E+10 Ansys 1.4E+10 Ansys

Reference 2 Reference 2
1.2E+10 1.2E+10
Settlement 40mm Settlement 80mm

1.0E+10 1.0E+10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 4 EI for 2nd reference and settlement of 40mm-80mm

From Figure 4, the stiffness degradation due to the settlement of 80mm is clearly visible. It seems
that the largest decrease of stiffness is localised in the mid-span, although it remains difficult to
6

conclude something from the side span calculations. Also the stiffness of the box girder at the pier-
bridge connection of the Koppigen side has substantially changed (17%).
When considering the results for the settlement of 95mm (Figure 5), the stiffness degradation is
even more pronounced. Also the extension of the affected zone of the girder in the mid-span is
higher. A maximum stiffness decrease of about 30% is noticed.
3.0E+10 3.0E+10

2.8E+10 2.8E+10

2.6E+10 2.6E+10

2.4E+10 2.4E+10
bending stiffness EI

bending stiffness EI
2.2E+10 2.2E+10

2.0E+10 2.0E+10

1.8E+10 1.8E+10

1.6E+10 1.6E+10

1.4E+10 Ansys 1.4E+10 Ansys

Reference 2 Reference 2
1.2E+10 1.2E+10
Settlement 95mm Reference 3
1.0E+10 1.0E+10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 5 EI for settlement 95mm and 2nd-3rd reference

After the settlement is reversed and the bridge is brought back in its initial position, a new reference
measurement is carried out. The bending stiffness should be again the initial one (as in 2nd
reference) as the cracks close by removing the settlement. This is illustrated by Figure 5, which
proves that cracks can only be detected when they are opened.

Reinforced concrete beam

The same procedure is followed for the beam tests. In the first part of the test program, the beam is
loaded by a point load at 4m (with a maximum of 25kN), in a second phase the pointload is applied
at 2m, until yielding of the steel. After calculating the modal internal forces and curvatures, the
dynamic bending stiffness for the first three modeshapes is obtained. The results for the first
modeshape are shown in Figure 6 (static preload at 4m (left) and 2m (right)).
8.0E+06 8.0E+06

7.0E+06 7.0E+06

6.0E+06 6.0E+06

5.0E+06 5.0E+06
EI (N/mm2)

EI (N/mm2)

4.0E+06 4.0E+06

3.0E+06 3.0E+06

2.0E+06 2.0E+06
0 kN 8 kN 10 kN 0 kN 8 kN 10 kN
1.0E+06 1.0E+06 13 kN 19 kN 25 kN
13 kN 19 kN 25 kN 35 kN 54 kN
0.0E+00 0.0E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
(m) (m)

Figure 6 EI distribution (1st mode)

From Figure 6 (left) the decrease of stiffness is clearly visible at the side of the static preload. The
average initial bending stiffness is 6.51 E6 Nm2, which corresponds well to the precalculated
analytical stiffness 6.46 E6 Nm2. However a lower initial stiffness is calculated in the middle
compared to at the beam ends. The gradual decrease is already visible from the first static loadstep.
The major decrease is detected after the loadstep 19kN.
 7

From Figure 6 (right) it is clear that the damage is now increasing at the left side of the beam.
However there are some anomalies: stiffness after preload of 13kN and 35kN has irregularities at
the left side of the beam.
The higher modeshapes give similar plots for the stiffness. The information for the first three
bending modes is combined to an average result (Figure 7). The inaccurate zones of stiffness
estimation due to zero by zero division are omitted for each modeshape.

8.0E+06 8.0E+06

7.0E+06 7.0E+06

6.0E+06 6.0E+06

5.0E+06 5.0E+06
EI (N/mm2)

EI (N/mm2)
4.0E+06 4.0E+06

3.0E+06 3.0E+06

2.0E+06 2.0E+06
0 kN 8 kN 10 kN 0 kN 8 kN 10 kN
1.0E+06 1.0E+06 13 kN 19 kN 25 kN
13 kN 19 kN 25 kN 35 kN 54 kN
0.0E+00 0.0E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
(m) (m)

Figure 7 EI distribution (averaged)

The ultimate stiffness after applying both series of static loads is 58% at 2m and 56% of the initial
stiffness at 4m.
The direct stiffness makes localisation as well as quantification of damage possible. It makes use
of the determination of curvatures along the structure. Also the curvatures for the different loadsteps
already give an indication of the occurrence of damage, as they are sensitive to local damage. As
shown in Figure 8, the modal curvatures are clearly affected by the damage introduced at the right
part of the beam (static load at 4m). Curvatures increase in the damaged zone and the curvatures are
not anymore symmetric.
7.E-01
0 kN
6.E-01 8 kN
10 kN
5.E-01
13 kN
curvature (/m)

4.E-01 19 kN
25 kN
3.E-01

2.E-01

1.E-01

0.E+00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
(m)

Figure 8 Modal curvatures (1st mode)

Conclusions
A damage assessment technique is presented that is able to detect, localise and quantify damage. It
makes use of eigenfrequencies and modal curvatures, calculated from modal displacements.
The technique was validated on a prestressed concrete bridge that was gradually damaged by
different scenarios and a reinforced concrete beam that was asymmetrically loaded in two phases.
Advantage of the method is that different damage zones can be detected without making
assumptions on the number or location of damage zones. By using mode information detection of
8

asymmetric damage in a symmetric structure is possible. Also no numerical model is needed in

order to find the stiffness reduction in contrast to classical updating techniques. The cost of the
method is the need for accurate experimental modal displacements along the structure.

Acknowledgements
The research has been carried out in the Brite EuRam Programme CT96 0277 SIMCES with a
financial contribution of the European Commission. Partners in the project were:
− K.U. Leuven (Department Civil Engineering, Afdeling Bouwmechanica)
− Aalborg University (Institut for Bygningsteknik)
− EMPA (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Material Testing and Research, Section Concrete
Structures)
− LMS (Leuven Measurement and Systems International N.V.; Engineering and Modelling)
− WS Atkins Consultants Ltd (Science and Technology)
− Sineco Spa (Ufficio Promozione e Sviluppo)
− Technische Universität Graz (Structural Concrete Institute).
The beam tests were carried out in the framework of FKFO-project No. G.0243.96, supported by the
Fund for Scientific Research.

References
[1] Maeck J., De Roeck G. Dynamic bending and torsion stiffness derivation from modal
curvatures and torsion rates, J. Sound & Vibration, accepted March 1999, to be published July
1999.
[2] Maeck J., M. Abdel Wahab, De Roeck G. Dynamic Localization in Reinforced Concrete Beams
by Dynamic Stiffness Determination, Proceedings of IMAC XVII, pp.1289-1295, Kissimmee,
Florida, USA, Feb.1999.
[3] Brite-EuRam BE96-3157-SIMCES Project programme, 1996.
[4] Krämer C., De Smet C.A.M., De Roeck G. Z24 Bridge Damage Detection Tests. Proceedings
of IMAC XVII, pp.1223-1229, Kissimmee, Florida, USA, Feb.1999.
[5] Peeters B., De Roeck G., The performance of time domain system identification methods
applied to operational data, Proc. of DAMAS '97, pp.377-386, Sheffield, UK, 1997.
[6] SIMCES Task B1 report. Stochastic subspace identification applied to progressive damage test
vibration data from the Z24 bridge, KUL, Leuven, Belgium, Dec.1998.
[7] ANSYS revision 5.3. Swanson Analysis System, 1994.

View publication stats