Zarate

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND THEIR PROBABILITIES FOR THE MODEL
UPDATING OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

By

Boris Adolfo Zrate Hernndez

Bachelor of Science
Universidad del Valle, May 27 2005

Master of Science
University of South Carolina, May 12 2007

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Civil Engineering
College of Engineering and Computing
University of South Carolina
2009
Accepted by:
Juan Caicedo, PhD, Major Professor
Dimitris Rizos, PhD, Committee Member
Paul Ziehl, PhD, Committee Member
Yong-June Shin, PhD, Committee Member
James Buggy, PhD, Dean of the Graduate School
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank his dissertation advisor, Dr. Juan M. Caicedo, for
his guidance, encouragement, and support throughout the course of this research and
graduate school. The author also would like to thank his committee members, Dr. Yong-
June Shin, Dr. Paul Ziehl, and Dr. Dimitris C. Rizos, for their valuable time and
suggestions.
Finally the author also would like to thank his family for their support throughout
his study life.

iii

ABSTRACT

Finite element models are idealistic representations of actual structures. They are
built to infer the structural behavior or performance under conditions that usually cannot
be reproduced in real structures by either physical or monetary constraints. For instance,
they can be used to study changes in existing structures, explore innovative designs, or
testing the robustness of a control system. When modeling existing structures the
numerical model should be updated to better represent the actual structural system
through a process called model updating.
This document presents the development and implementation of an innovative
model updating technique. As presented here the model updating methodology is
performed based on matching the dynamic characteristics obtained from the real
structure. Unlike traditional model updating techniques, the presented technique
recognizes that modeling errors, measurements errors, and limited number of sensors
might create multiple solutions in the model updating problem. The technique identifies
these multiple alternatives and their probabilities based on recorded data from the
structure. This dissertation uses Modeling to Generate Alternatives (MGA) to identify
physically different alternative solutions and Bayes probability theorem to calculate the
probability of each solution.
iv

The presented model updating methodology was successfully validated using two
different structures. First a finite element model of the Emerson Memorial bridge is
updated in a deterministic fashion and a family of solutions is found using MGA.
Secondly a finite element model of the ASCE Structural Health Monitoring (SHM)
Benchmark study structure is updated using data from dynamic and static tests in a
probabilistic fashion.
Results show that the proposed methodology updates the finite element model
finding a family of solutions that reduce significantly the difference between the
numerical model and the actual structure. The computation of the solutions probability in
addition with the objective function value for the solutions is given to the analyst to help
him/her to make a final decision on which parameter values to use.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................iii
LISTOFFIGURES.........................................................................................................viii
LISTOFTABLES.............................................................................................................xi
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1
CHALLENGESOFCURRENTTECHNIQUES.................................................................................7
MODELUPDATINGCOGNITIVESYSTEMS(MUCOGS)..............................................................9
RESEARCHCONTRIBUTIONS..............................................................................................12
OUTLINE.......................................................................................................................13
UNCERTAINTIESINMODELUPDATING.......................................................................14
UNCERTAINTYCLASSIFICATION..........................................................................................15
SOURCESOFUNCERTAINTY...............................................................................................15
PROBABILITYTHEORY......................................................................................................18
APPLICATIONTOMODELUPDATING....................................................................................19
Bayesianinference....................................................................................................19
Probabilityoftheparameters...................................................................................23
vi

CONCLUDINGREMARKS...................................................................................................24
OPTIMIZATIONALGORITHMS.....................................................................................26
HILLCLIMBINGALGORITHM..............................................................................................27
GENETICALGORITHMS.....................................................................................................28
TerminologyandtheoryofGeneticAlgorithms.......................................................30
GeneticAlgorithmsOperators..................................................................................30
Selection................................................................................................................31
Crossover..............................................................................................................31
Mutation...............................................................................................................32
Implementation........................................................................................................32
GAprocedure............................................................................................................33
HYBRIDOPTIMIZATION....................................................................................................33
MODELINGTOGENERATEALTERNATIVES..................................................................36
MULTIPLESOLUTIONSINMODELUPDATING.........................................................................36
MODELINGTOGENERATEALTERNATIVES............................................................................42
PROPOSEDMGAMETHODOLOGY.....................................................................................44
VERIFICATION............................................................................................................49
DYNAMICCASES.............................................................................................................49
Cablestayedbridgemodelupdating(deterministic)...............................................50
vii

ModalIdentification.............................................................................................52
Modelupdating.....................................................................................................55
Results...................................................................................................................57
IASCASCEBenchmark(probabilistic).......................................................................59
Structureandexperimentsetup...........................................................................60
Modalidentification..............................................................................................62
Modelupdating.....................................................................................................66
Results...................................................................................................................69
STATICCASE..................................................................................................................83
ASCEBenchmark(withprobabilitynumericalstudy).............................................83
Targetedstaticdisplacements..............................................................................83
Modelupdating.....................................................................................................84
Results...................................................................................................................85
VALIDATIONWITHACOMBINATIONOFSTATICANDDYNAMICDATA(PROBABILISTIC)....................94
Stiffnessdetermination.............................................................................................94
Results...................................................................................................................96
Massdetermination..................................................................................................98
Results...................................................................................................................99
CONCLUSIONSANDFUTUREWORK.........................................................................101
CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................101
FUTUREWORK.............................................................................................................105
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................107
viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the primary updating process ................................................... 5
Figure 2. MUCogS conceptual design .............................................................................. 10
Figure 3. Cartoonish representation of the Bayesian inference ........................................ 20
Figure 4. Plot of Equation (22) ......................................................................................... 41
Figure 5. Solutions in the feasible region ......................................................................... 47
Figure 6. Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge ......................................................................... 50
Figure 7. Finite element model of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge ............................ 51
Figure 8. Identified natural frequencies ............................................................................ 53
Figure 9. Master Masses at the deck ................................................................................. 55
Figure 10. Test structure of the benchmark study (courtesy of professor Ventura). ........ 59
Figure 11. Finite element model of the benchmark test structure ..................................... 61
Figure 12. Location of accelerometers and masses in a plant view of the ........................ 62
Figure 13. Typical Acceleration Record ........................................................................... 63
Figure 14. Frequencies identified at every window .......................................................... 65
Figure 15. Distribution of the 32 braces in 2, 4, 8 and 16 variables ................................. 66
Figure 16. Detail of the connections between the braces and other structural elements .. 67
Figure 17. Solutions obtained using two variables ........................................................... 71
Figure 18. Solutions obtained using four variables .......................................................... 72
ix

Figure 19. Solutions obtained using eight variables ......................................................... 73
Figure 20. Solutions 1 to 8 obtained using eight variables ............................................... 74
Figure 21. Solutions 9 to 16 obtained using eight variables ............................................. 75
Figure 22. Solutions 17 to 24 obtained using eight variables ........................................... 76
Figure 26. Typical integration path between solutions using 2 and 4 variables respectively
........................................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 27. Typical integration path between solutions using 8 and 16 variables
respectively ....................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 28. Solutions obtained for the static validation using two variables ..................... 86
Figure 29. Solutions obtained for the static validation using four variables .................... 88
Figure 30. Solutions 1 to 8 obtained for the static validation using eight variables ......... 89
Figure 31. Solutions 9 to 16 obtained for the static validation using eight variables ....... 90
Figure 32. Solutions 17 to 24 obtained for the static validation using eight variables ..... 91
Figure 33. Solutions 18 to 32 obtained for the static validation using eight variables ..... 92
........................................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 35. Structure used for validation of model updating using both static and dynamic
data .................................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 36. Static test set up ............................................................................................... 95
Figure 37. Two dof structure idealization ......................................................................... 96
x

Figure 38. Posterior PDF of the stiffness
1
and
2
for load cases 1 and 2 respectively .. 97
Figure 39. Posterior PDF of the masses m
1
and m
2
for the records of accelerations 1 and 4
respectively ..................................................................................................................... 100

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. GA operators utilized .......................................................................................... 32
Table 2. Criteria to stop optimization procedures ............................................................. 34
Table 3. Dynamic Characteristics Identified .................................................................... 54
Table 4. Model updating alternatives ................................................................................ 58
Table 5. Dynamic characteristics of the model updating alternatives .............................. 59
Table 6. Properties of the members of the test structure used in the benchmark study .... 60
Table 7. Dynamic Characteristics Identified .................................................................... 65
Table 8. Parameters used for Objective function (Equation (11)) .................................... 68
Table 9. Number of different solutions obtained according to the number of variables
used ................................................................................................................................... 69
Table 10. Static displacements obtained ........................................................................... 84
Table 11. Number of different solutions obtained according to the number of variables
used ................................................................................................................................... 86
Table 12. Displacements obtained from each load case ................................................... 95
Table 13. Stiffness values obtained for each load scenario .............................................. 96
Table 14. Mass values obtained for each acceleration record .......................................... 99

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Our economy and life style heavily relies on infrastructure, such as: bridges,
buildings, towers, etc. Recent events of falling bridges and extended blackouts have
shown the vulnerability of American infrastructure. There is a continue argument for the
need of renovating and retrofitting American infrastructure. For instance, the ASCE
infrastructure report card for 2009 gave an overall grade of D to Americas infrastructure,
and it states that a total of 2.2 trillion dollars need to be invested in the next five years
(ASCE 2009). In order to structural infrastructure to work properly, it is necessary to
assess the condition of existing structures for appropriate maintenance, to design systems
for controlling vibrations in structures, and basically to enhance our understanding of
structural systems. This research provides mathematical tools to enhance the fundamental
knowledge in model updating with the final objective of creating better numerical models
of existing structures. It is an important contribution to develop better models of existing
structures which will eventually be used to enhance the current state of our infrastructure.
Numerical models, such as finite element models are commonly used for
engineers to design new structures and to evaluate the changes in existing structures.
Numerical models of existing structures are essential for applications such as to
determine the reliability of structures under earthquake or wind excitation (Jann et al.
2

2004), detect damage (Kai et al. 2008), or study retrofit strategies (Bridge Diagnostics
2006; Edoardo and Iunio 2007). Modeling an existing civil structure is not an easy task.
The analyst is presented with many options to make, such as selecting the correct
numerical representation and the correct parameters for the model. Model updating
techniques use experimental data to assist the analyst in determining the most
appropriated numerical model of an existing structure.
The ability of a numerical model, such as a finite element model to represent a
real structure depends on the type of model and on the properties (e.g. elasticity modulus,
moment of inertia) assigned to these elements. Significant differences between the
dynamic behavior of a finite element model before updating and the corresponding real
structure are common. Zhang (2001) reported differences of up to 17.4% between the
experimental natural frequencies and those of an initial finite element model of the Kap
Shui Mun Cable-stayed Bridge. Once the final element model was updated using a
constraint optimization methodology, the difference between the fine element model and
the experimental natural frequencies results was reduced to a maximum of 9%.
Similarly, Brownjohn et al (2003) found differences of up to 23% in the dynamic
characteristics between experimental an a finite element model before updating of the
Pioneer Bridge in Western Singapore. Brownjohn and Xia (2000) showed significant
differences between the experimental and numerical modal characteristics of the Safti
Link Bridge in Singapore before updating. The finite element model of this curved
cable-stayed bridge presented differences in the first seven natural frequencies that
exceeded 10% and even reached the 40%. Jaishi and Ren (2005) reported differences
between the finite element model of the steel arch bridge Beichuan River Bridge in China
3

and the identified modal characteristics of up to 20% in the natural frequencies. In
addition, the Modal Assurance Criteria (MAC) comparing modes of vibration between
the numerical model and the actual structure were as low as 62.1% before updating.
Differences between numerical models and real structures are not limited for large
structures, relatively simpler structures, such as the case of a plate test structure also
produced differences between the experimental and a raw finite element model of up to
12% in the natural frequencies and mode shapes with MAC values of 73% (Bohle and
Fritzen 2003). These differences are caused by assumptions made in the development of
the finite element model and uncertainties in geometry, material properties or boundary
conditions (Mottershead and Friswell 1993).
Model updating is commonly carried out by minimizing the difference of some
measurement performed between the numerical model and the real structure. The
difference between the numerical model and the real structure is expressed through a
mathematical objective function. This research focuses on the optimization algorithm
used to find the minimum or maximum values of the objective function. Most of the
literature in model updating focuses in obtaining the global minima of these objective
functions. However, given that the number of variables used for the updating process is
larger than the number of equations available, and that there are several uncertain
parameters that are not considered in the updating process, more than one good solution
may exist. The aim of the proposed method is to create a set of solutions that solve the
model updating process but are physically different. Depending upon the final use of the
updated model, the analyst then makes a decision, based on his/her experience, to select
one or many models for subsequent analysis.
4

This dissertation presents a methodology for model updating that can be applied
using different type of measured parameters, such as: dynamic characteristics, static
displacements, strains, etc. Furthermore, the proposed methodology can be applied to
non-structural systems where the numerical model can be updated based on
measurements performed on the physical system. Some examples are models of chemical
reactions, traffic, electrical systems, etc.
Many model updating techniques have been proposed during the last decades. As
mentioned earlier several of these techniques are based on the optimization of structural
parameters to minimize an error function between the measured and numerical responses.
These methodologies focus in parameter selection and not in model selection. The
success of the methodology depends on having a meaningful error function, an
appropriated numerical model, an accurate identification of the experimental parameters
and using an effective optimization algorithm to find the global minima of this function.
For instance, Bridge Diagnostics Inc. uses a model updating methodology in which strain
and displacement data from a static load test on the actual bridge is used to reduce the
difference between the finite element model and the real structure through a least squares
approach (Bridge Diagnostics 2006). This deterministic model updating methodology has
been tested in numerous structures, and it has shown to be reliable when the number of
measurements from the static test is large compare to the number of variables involved on
the model updating process. Hendrik Schlune (2009) presented a deterministic model
updating methodology in which dynamic and static data obtained from the actual
structure is used to update the numerical model. The methodology was applied to the
Svinesund Bridge in Sweden using four different objectives function in which the static
5

and dynamic data were used in different configurations. Results show that an
improvement in the dynamic characteristics of the structure not necessarily leads into a
direct improvement of the static parameters, but a combination of both type of data leads
into a more valid and accurate model.
Several methodologies that involve a probabilistic approach including
uncertainties have been proposed in the literature. Among these methodologies Bayesian
approaches have become more popular in recent years. Beck and Katafygiotis (1998)
proposed a Bayesian approach to compute the updated probability distribution of the
uncertain parameters based on dynamic measurements. The predictive probability
distribution function of the model parameters is found using a weighted average of the
probability distributions of the optimal parameters in an asymptotic approximation
because the probability distribution is highly peaked at the optimal parameters.
Katafygiotis, Papadimitriou et al. (1998) expanded the general Bayesian statistical frame
to address the unidentifiable case when the number of updating parameters is large
considering the information that can be obtained from the measured data. The full
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the primary updating process
Real Structure
Measured
Ambient Vibration
FE Model (p)
Dynamic
Characteristics
[ wi i ]
Identification:
Dynamic characteristics
[ w
i

i
]
Model Updated
Objective
Function
6

Bayesian predictive response of the structure is approximated using a weighted average
of the probability distributions of the model. The methodology is applied to two
numerical examples of 2 degrees of freedom and 10 degrees of freedom structures using
noisy data. Lam et al. (2004) proposed a statistical methodology for model updating that
maximizes the posterior probability distribution function of the model parameters. The
posterior probability distribution is calculated based on the difference between the
measured and the calculated spectra. This methodology accounts for uncertainties in
measurements and modeling, possible nonuniqueness, and considers the complete
spectrum within a frequency band. The methodology was successfully implemented on
the ASCE structural health monitoring benchmark study. The benchmark structure is a
medium size steel frame used to study and compare different methodologies of structural
health monitoring. Damage detection through model updating was performed for all six
cases of phase I of the benchmark study. Fonseca, Friswell et al. (2005) proposed a
methodology to model variability in model parameters through probability distributions.
The methodology maximizes the likelihood of the measurements from experimental data.
The likelihood is computed using the Monte Carlo and Perturbation methods. The
methodology is validated using a cantilever beam that has a concentrated mass in an
uncertain location. Yuen, Beck et al. (2006) develop an extension of a Bayesian
identification approach that can handle noisy incomplete input and response. The
methodology approximates the updated probability distribution function of the updating
parameters through a conditional probability density expansion. The updated probability
distribution function is approximated by a multivariable Gaussian distribution where the
mean and covariance matrix are the most probable parameter values and their
7

uncertainties. The proposed methodology is employed as part of a probabilistic approach
for model updating and damage detection of structures. The ASCE structural health
monitoring benchmark is used for validation.
Challenges of current techniques
Despite the success of iterative model updating techniques representing the
behavior of simple structures (Link and Friswell 2003), these techniques have shown
limited success in complex structural systems due to:
i) Challenges in creating adequate models for these structures: Though, there are
different modeling strategies and procedures guidelines available (Rao 2004), the
selection of the right element types, degree of discretization, boundary conditions
and analysis method depends largely on the experience and skills of the analyst.
ii) Large amounts of data collected from the sensors: Benefits of a quick and
successful identification can be obtained only if data is analyzed efficiently.
Advances in parallel simulations (Daniel 1990), and modal identification
techniques (Basseville et al. 2001; Katayama 2005; Mevel et al. 2006) are an
important step forward in this area. However, significant progress in this area is
still to be made.
iii) Changes in the structure due to environmental factors which are not reflected by
numerical models: Cornwell et al. (1999) studied the variability of the Alamosa
Canyon Bridge (New Mexico), finding variations of up to 5% within an hour
range in the frequency of the first mode. Usually numerical models do not include
environmental factors such as temperature or humidity.
8

iv) Uncertainty in the signal coming from the sensors: Data collected from the
structure is the result of a random process which can be affected by a wide range
of factors such as input loads, environmental conditions, noise in the data
acquisition equipment, etc. The uncertainty inherited from the data and the
identification process causes the calibrated model to become uncertain as well.
The most common methodologies for measuring the uncertainty in a model are:
intervals, fuzzy models and probability distribution functions (Rios 2005).
v) Efficient and effective algorithms for the updating process: Model updating
techniques are based on changing parameters in the numerical model to match the
data obtained from the structure. This constrained optimization problem is
computationally expensive depending upon the number of variables involved and
the complexity of the objective function. In addition, the characteristics of the
updated parameters are not necessarily realistic, making difficult the use of the
updated model for retrofitting studies and damage detection, among other uses.
This research focuses on developing an efficient and effective algorithm that
allows several physically different set of solutions for the model updating problem and
their respective probabilities. In particular this research focuses in developing a
methodology that can obtain physically plausible parameters on the updated model.
Current updating methods commonly obtain one model that best matches the existing
structure by minimizing the error between experimental measurements and data produced
by the numerical model. Furthermore, the analyst is limited to the selection of one initial
model, adjusting few algorithm parameters or knobs and has little control on the
process performed by the algorithm itself. During this process, other possible solutions
9

or local minima in the objective function are discarded. One could argue that due to
modeling and measurement errors, a local minimum of the objective function may
provide a better description of the physical properties of the structure, with a slight
reduction of the performance calculated by the objective function. This improved model
would better represent structural parameters such as moment of inertia of structural
members. Chapter 5 shows numerical examples that demonstrate that multiple solutions
are plausible in the updating problem.
The methodologies developed in this research are part of the computational core
of a cooperative human-computer model updating cognitive system (MUCogS). The
ultimate goal of MUCogS is to effectively and robustly update models of complex
structural systems by synthesizing the computational power of computers and the
analytical capacity of humans.
Model Updating Cognitive Systems (MUCogS)
Despite the extraordinary processing power of todays computers and the
availability of sensors with high levels of accuracy, there are still a large number of
relatively simple human activities that are difficult or impossible for automated systems
to perform. A simple, relaxing drive through the mountains for a human driver can only
be automated by the rigorous and intricate combination of state-of-the-art systems of
sensors, real-time controllers and complex computer algorithms as shown by the Darpa
Grand Challenge in 2005. On the other hand, computerized systems have proven
themselves important for enhancing the capabilities of a human. Expert systems such as
ABS breaking and traction control use sensors and computers to enhance the capabilities
10

Experimental
data
Algorithm
Numerical
Model
Plausible
models
Statistical
data

Human
sub-system
Computational
Core
External
Interface
Figure 2. MUCogS conceptual design
Human-computer
interface
Analysts
Updatedmodel
of a driver, creating a safer and more reliable human-machine cooperative system. A
similar scheme can be applied to model updating of complex structural systems where
sophisticated computer algorithms augment the analysts capabilities creating Model
Updating Cognitive Systems (MUCogS) to develop accurate models of civil structural
systems.
The main goal of the MUCogS is to synthesize the computational power of
computers and the analytical capacity of humans to create an effectively update
numerical models of structures. The success of these human-computer cognitive systems
will depend on the capabilities of both the computer methods used and the analyst
operating these tools.
As shown in Figure 2, the MUCogS are composed on four main parts: i) the
external interface which is designed to communicate the system with the external world
including the data acquisition as well as communication with external databases and other
MUCogS. ii) The human-computer interface, which are the components that allow for the
11

synthesis of the computational core and the human sub-system iii) the computational core
which creates the alternatives and probabilistic data for the user based on the algorithms
proposed in this dissertation, and iv) the human sub-system which is composed by the
analyst. The analyst can base his decision supported by different layers of information
that will range from real-time raw sensor data to statistical information and plausible
structural systems.
This research focuses on the creation of the algorithms required for the
computational core of a MUCogS. The computational core should provide the human-
computer interface with the plausible solutions and a probability associated to each
solution. Here, a combination of Model to Generate Alternatives (MGA) and Bayesian
probability theory are used to accomplish these goals. MGA is used to identify plausible
solutions, drastically minimizing the solution space and reducing the computational time
required to calculate the probability of each solution with the Bayesian probability
theory.
MGA was developed with the goal of providing solutions to complex, incomplete
problems by coupling the computational power of computers and human intelligence
(Brill et al. 1982; Brill et al. 1990) in a human-computer cognitive system (Baugh et al.
1997). MGA creates several possible good solutions from an optimization problem by
eliminating alternatives with poor performance using a mathematical model. These
solutions are designed to be maximally physically different but provide a similar outcome
to the problem. Brill et al. (1982) presented the HSJ (Hop, Skip and Jump) approach
which is design to explore the feasible region searching for alternative solutions. The
procedure can be summarized in three simple steps: i) find a first solution optimizing the
12

objective function of the problem, ii) Obtain an alternative solution by changing the
original objective function for a measure of the change of the optimizing variables, and
iii) repeat second step up to a set of alternative solutions is found. When the alternative
solutions are searched in the second step, additional constraints are used to ensure that the
alternative solutions are close in performance to the first solution.
MGA has been previously applied to forest level planning (Campbell and
Mendoza 1988; Sprouse and Mendoza 1990), the seismic design and evaluation supports
for pipes (Gupta et al. 2005), structural optimization (Baugh et al. 1997), air quality
management problems (Loughlin et al. 2001), airline route design (Zechman and
Ranjithan 2004) and the design of wastewater-treatment plants (Uber et al. 1992). In
addition, a similar methodology was used in (Rubenstein-Montano et al. 2000) where
genetic algorithms were used to create different alternatives for policy design.
Research contributions
The contributions of this research to the field of modal updating are:
i) The development and implementation of the nonlinear variation of HSJ. The
methodology proposed in here for Modeling to Generate Alternatives finds
multiple minima for any nonlinear function, and it is independent of the
optimization algorithm used. Therefore, it has the advantages of both hill
climbing and genetic algorithm. It is described in chapter 3.
ii) The development of a model updating methodology that integrates the concept of
multiple solutions with a probabilistic model. The methodology developed in this
research recognizes the existence of multiple solutions in the model updating
13

problem. It also localizes multiple extreme points in a parameter probability
distribution, which is a measure of the uncertainties involved in the model
updating process.

Outline
This dissertation is composed of a total of 6 chapters, which are described here.
The second chapter of this dissertation presents a discussion of uncertainties in model
updating, including its sources and how to model them. Probability is used to model
uncertainty in mathematical models applying Bayesian inference. The objective function
given by the probability distribution of the model parameters is presented in this chapter
as well. The third chapter discusses the optimization algorithms: Hill Climbing (HC)
algorithms and Genetic Algorithms (GA). A hybrid optimization is introduced as a best
approach for the model updating through optimization. The fourth chapter presents
Modeling to Generate Alternatives (MGA). MGA is introduced together with a nonlinear
variation of the Hop Jump Skip (HJS) method. The equations used for parametric
structural updating are presented in this section as well. The fifth chapter presents
validation problems of the theory exposed in this dissertation. First a finite element model
of the Emerson Memorial bridge is updated in a deterministic fashion and a family of
solutions is found using MGA. Secondly a finite element model of the ASCE Structural
Health Monitoring (SHM) Benchmark study structure is updated using data from
dynamic and static tests in a probabilistic fashion. Finally the sixth chapter presents the
conclusions and the future work vision of this dissertation.
14

CHAPTER 2
UNCERTAINTIES IN MODEL UPDATING

Modeling of structures has become more popular in recent years. As a
consequence of the increase in computing power of the last decades, most of the software
packages available and models created correspond to deterministic approaches. However,
as stated by Hasselman (2001), the deterministic approaches have the inability to
incorporate variability into the model. For instance, due to excessive vibrations in flexible
structures the variance of the vibration response is a major concern, and large amount of
resources are expended in their identification and reduction.
Uncertainties in structural models come from different sources. It is necessary to
identify these sources before trying to reduce them. For instance, some engineers believe
that accuracy in structural modeling can be improved merely by increasing the density of
the model mesh. Refining the mesh of the model enhances the geometry, the distribution
of stiffness and mass of the model, but the errors caused by the uncertainty in the model
parameters would not be reduced with this strategy. The only way to address this problem
is by using a nondeterministic model that incorporates uncertainty in the parameters, and
allows obtaining the uncertainty of the prediction.
15

This chapter describes the problem of the model parameter uncertainty. The
probability distribution of the model parameters is computed using Bayesian inference as
presented in the following sections.
Uncertainty classification
Uncertainty arises every time that a prediction is attempted to be done.
Uncertainty stems from a combination of lack of knowledge and randomness, and it is
classified in two types: random and epistemic. It is important to identify the type of
uncertainty in our models before making an effort to reduce it.
Random uncertainty is also known as irreducible uncertainty, because it is random
by nature and cannot be reduced or modified. It is associated with the innate variability of
basic information and it is a measure of the heterogeneity in a population (Ang and Tang
2007). An example of random uncertainty is the uncertainty in the flip of a coin, which is
completely aleatory and cannot be reduced.
Epistemic uncertainty is also known as reducible uncertainty, because it can be
reduced by further research. It is associated with lack of knowledge of the real world and
can be reduced by the application of better models or improved experiments (Ang and
Tang 2007). An example of epistemic uncertainty is the uncertainty in the mechanical
properties of a material, which is reduced by using better experiments and improved
models. In this study random uncertainties are neglected and only epistemic uncertainties
are considered, being possible to reduce them.
Sources of uncertainty
16

In a general form, mathematical models are used to predict the outcome of a
process that exists in nature. It is done by using a set of laws that describe the behavior of
the process. Then, the general prediction problem can be written as:

) ( y f =

(1)
where = [
1

2

3

n
] represent model parameters, and y = [y
1
y
2
y
3
y
n
] the
desired predicted values. In structural modeling, the parameters may represent
mechanical, geometric and mass properties (stiffness, area, momentum of inertia, mass
distribution, boundary conditions, etc) of the structural elements. The response
parameters y represents any physical behavior of the structure such as static or dynamic
displacements, natural frequencies, mode shapes, etc.
Assuming that some of the parameters are known, model updating is performed
by measuring the outcome of the process y through experimentation, and then finding the
unknown parameters that best satisfy Equation (1). For instance, assuming that the
stiffness of some structural elements from an existing structure are known, we may find
the unknown stiffness of the remaining structural elements based on static displacements
obtained from a controlled experiment.
The uncertainty of the unknown parameters is a function of the errors in the
measurement of the parameters y during the experiment (random uncertainty), how well
the model f() in Equation (1) represents reality, and how good were the estimations for
the known parameters (epistemic uncertainty). In terms of structural model updating,
the uncertainty of the unknown elements stiffness are function of the error in the
measurement of the displacements, the uncertainty in the finite element model, and the
uncertainty in the known elements stiffness.
17

Mathematical models represented by f() in Equation (1) are idealizations of
nature made to simplify the behavior of a physical phenomenon. For instance, in
structural modeling, the behavior of the structure is represented by a set of Ordinary
Differential Equations (ODEs). Assumptions are made in terms of mechanical behavior
of the material, boundary, and load conditions. These assumptions are cause of errors in
the model. After the set of ODEs is formulated, numerical solutions are usually employed
to solve them. Discretization methods such as finite elements, finite differences or
boundary elements are used for this purpose, introducing additional error into the model.
Therefore, model uncertainty is result of the error in the assumptions made in the
mathematical equations and the numerical method used to solve them (Lam 1998).
Modeling error has a bias behavior that produces a skewed response (Masoud Sanayei
2001).
Once a mathematical model is selected from an entire class of models, it is
necessary to choose the values of the parameters that compose the model. In other
words, values for the elasticity modulus, cross section areas, momentums of inertia,
damping coefficients, etc have to be selected. The error in these values characterizes the
parametric uncertainty. Similarly to the case of the model error, the parametric error is
bias (Masoud Sanayei 2001).
To obtain the response y it is necessary to design and implement an experiment
that involves the physical phenomenon of interest. For instance, if y represents a quantity
from a structural response like strain, displacements, accelerations or velocities; it would
be necessary to select the appropriated load excitation sources, magnitudes and locations,
the correct type of sensors, data acquisition and data processing. The measurement
18

uncertainty results from the error involved in obtaining and processing the data (Beck et
al. 2001). Different from model and parametric errors, the measurement error is not bias
(Masoud Sanayei 2001).
Probability theory
Probability is used in this research to incorporate uncertainty in the mathematical
model. There are several other uncertainty models available in literature such as interval
methods, fuzzy logic, random fields or evidence theory, which can perform equally well
that probability distributions (Rios 2005). Different from probabilistic approaches,
implementation of other uncertainty models may involve major changes in the original
mathematical model. Probabilistic models have good performance when there is
sufficient information available to define the probability distributions (Fonseca et al.
2005). Probability can be interpreted of two different forms based on the nature of the
uncertainty: frequencist or Bayesian.
In frequencist interpretation, probability is seen as the ratio of the number of times
that an event occurs over the total number of occurrences when the experiment is
repeated infinitely. A frequencist interpretation of the model described by Equation (1)
assumes that the parameters and y are realizations of the random variables and Y,
which have probability distributions P() and P(Y) respectively. The frequencist
interpretation is best suited for random uncertainty, in which an experiment can be
repeated several times with different possible outcomes, like flipping of a coin or drawing
cards from a deck of cards.
19

In the Bayesian interpretation, probability is seen as the degree of belief, based on
prior information. In other words, the probability p of an event can be interpreted as the
willingness to pay p dollars in order to receive 1 dollar if the event does occur (Rios
2005). The Bayesian interpretation appeals to the Bayes theorem in which the
probability of an event (prior probability distribution) can be updated (posterior) when
new evidence is obtained (likelihood probability distribution). Therefore, Bayesian
interpretation is more appropriated than the frequencist interpretation for dealing with
epistemic uncertainty. For instance, if Equation (1) refers to the elasticity modulus of a
concrete cylinder as a function of the concrete strength, it is possible to find the
probability distribution of the elasticity modulus based on the probability distribution of
the concrete strength. Once a better knowledge of the phenomena is obtained (more
cylinders are tested), it is possible to reduce uncertainty by refining the probability
distributions of the cylinders strength and the elasticity modulus.
Application to model updating
BAYESIAN INFERENCE
The Bayes theorem presents a relationship between the prior probability and the
likelihood or conditional probability of two events A and B. The Bayes theorem in its
basic form is written as

) (
) ( ) (
) (
B P
A P A B P
B A P =

(2)
where ) ( A P is the prior probability of event A, ) ( A B P is the likelihood of A
given the evidence B, ) ( B A P is the posterior probability or updated probability of A, and
20

Figure 3. Cartoonish representation of the Bayesian inference
) (B P is the probability of event B. The importance of the Bayesian theorem lies in the
fact that it allows to update the prior probability of an event ) ( A P on the face of new
evidence ) ( A B P . Figure 3 shows a cartoonish representation of the Bayesian inference
presented. A Bayesian approach to the model updating process is presented as follows.
Consider the case of model updating based on the measured response of the real
structure. Let, , represent a chosen model (e.g. finite element model from a real
structure), which is a function of some structural parameters O (i.e. elasticity modulus,
moment of inertia of a concrete cracked section, etc), and D represents the experimental
information obtained from the real structure (i.e. strain, displacements, natural
frequencies, vibration mode shapes, etc). The Bayes theorem can be written in model
updating context, as

) ( ) , ( ) , ( M P M D P M D P O O O

(3)
where, ) , ( M D P O corresponds to the probability density function (PDF) of O for
21

the chosen model M after being updated with the observation D, or posterior PDF,
) ( M P O is the PDF of the parameters Ofor the chosen model M before updating, or prior
PDF, and ) , ( M D P O is the likelihood of occurrence of the measurement D given the
vector of parameters Oand the model M, and symbolizes proportionality. For
convenience Bayes theorem is rewritten as:

) ( ) ; ( ) ; ( O O = O
p p p
h D g c D f

(4)
where f
p
, g
p
and h
p
are the posterior, likelihood and prior probability density
functions respectively and c is normalization constant and is given by:

O O O =
}
O
d h D g c
S
p p
) (
1
) ( ) ; (

(5)
The likelihood probability distribution is defined as a Gaussian distribution of the
error in the numerical model, given by

|
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
O
2
) ; (
2
1
exp
1
) ; (
error
g
p
D
Z
D g
o
c

(6)
where, c , is the error of the model which includes the error of the numerical model and
the measurements,
error
o , is the standard deviation of the error, and Z
g
is calculated as
}
O
O O =
) (
) ; (
s
p g
d D g Z

(7)
Notice that the error is a function of the measurements, D, and the parameters, O
.
It is calculated as the difference between the measurements performed on the real
structure and the response of the numerical model. For instance, the likelihood
distribution for the case of dynamic measurements is calculated as
22

|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
O
= O

= = =
n
j
m
i
error
i j
fe
i j
id
i j
n
j
error w
j
fe
j
id
j
g
p
w w
Z
D g
1 1
2
.
. ,
1
2
) (
2
1
) (
2
1
exp
1
) ; (
|
o
| |
o

(8)
where, n is the number of identified modes of vibration, m is the number of modal
coordinates,
id
j
e
is the j-th identified natural frequency,
) (O
fe
j
e
is the j-th natural
frequency of the finite element model,
id
i j,
| is the i-th modal coordinate of the j-th
identified mode shape, ) (
,
O
fe
i j
| is the i-th modal coordinate of the j-th mode shape of the
finite element,
error w
j
o is the standard deviation of the error of the j-th identified natural
frequency,
error
i j
|
o
.
is the standard deviation of the error of the i-th modal coordinate that
corresponds to the j-th identified mode shape, and Z
g
is

}

O
= = =
O
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
O
=
) (
1 1
2
.
. ,
1
2
) (
2
1
) (
2
1
exp
s
n
j
m
i
error
i j
fe
i j
id
i j
n
j
error w
j
fe
j
id
j
g
d
w w
Z
|
o
| |
o

(9).
The evaluation of the likelihood (Equation (8)) is usually computationally
expensive depending upon the complexity of the model, because it involves several
matrix computations such as assembling, inverting, and determination of eigenvalues and
eigenvectors.
The prior PDF ( ) (O
p
h ) is a probability representation the engineering judgment
on the structural parameters. In this study, the prior is defined as a Uniform distribution
that covers the feasible region of the parameters to update. In other words, any value
inside of the feasible region has equal probability and any value outside of this region has
probability zero, as presented in the following:
23

otherwise
cp h
u l p
0
) (
=
O < O < O = O

(10)
Replacing Equation (8) and Equation (10) into Equation (4), the posterior
probability can be calculated as

otherwise
w w
Z
cp c
D f
u l
n
j
m
i
error
i j
fe
i j
id
i j
n
j
error w
j
fe
j
id
j
g
p
0
) (
2
1
) (
2
1
exp ) ; (
1 1
2
.
.
,
1
2
=
O < O < O
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
O
= O

= = =
|
o
| |
o
(11)
where,
l
O and
u
O

are the lower and upper bounds of the parameter O . This
equation represents the probability of the structural parameters O given a set of
experimental modal parameters D. One interesting characteristic of this PDF that has
been virtually unexplored in the context of model updating is the fact that the posterior
PDF can have multiple local maxima. Each of these maxima could be a solution of the
model updating problem. The values of high probability on the solution space can be
found using the modeling to generate alternatives methodology described in the
following chapters.
PROBABILITY OF THE PARAMETERS
The values of the structural parameters O, represent a realization of Equation
(11). Therefore, the probability for all possible values of O in the interval
2 1
O < O < O is
calculated as (Ang and Tang 2007)
}
O
O
O O = O < O < O
2
1
) ; ( ) ( d D
p
f
u l
P

(12).
24

Structural models used now days are very complex. It is almost impossible to
obtain an analytical solution for Equation (11), hence the Monte Carlo integration method
is commonly employed to solve Equation (12).
In the classical Monte Carlo integration methodology a series of samples of the
structural parameters O
i
, are randomly generated from a uniform distribution. Then the
integral, I, is calculated as (Robert and Casella 2004)

)
1
(
) ; (
1
i
n
O
n
D f
V I
n
i
p
+
O
=

=

(13)
where, V, is the volume of the m-dimensional hypercube, n, is the number of
samples used in the calculation, and )
1
(
n
O represents the error in the integral
estimation. Notice that the error is of fixed order
n
1
, independently of the dimension of
the vector of structural parameters O.
Concluding remarks
This chapter presents a discussion of uncertainties in numerical models. Two
different types of uncertainties are introduced: random and epistemic. Epistemic
uncertainty is found more appropriate for numerical models, because of its possibility of
reduction when a better knowledge of the structural system is obtained. Probability is
presented as a methodology to model uncertainty in numerical models. The Bayes
theorem is presented as a tool that allows updating the prior probability distribution of an
event when new information about the event is obtained. In the context of model
25

updating Bayesian inference is used to calculate the posterior probability distribution of
the unknown parameters of the model, using measurements form the actual structure.
This posterior probability function is used as objective function, which allows finding the
parameters that most likely represent the real structure.

26

CHAPTER 3
OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS

A key component of the model updating process is calculating the values of the
parameters that best represent the model of the structure with the information obtained
from the identification of the real structure. This process involves the minimization or
maximization of a function using an optimization algorithm. The function to optimize is
known as objective function or fitness function. In model updating context this function
represents the difference between the structural model and the real structure. In the
particular case of this dissertation, calculating the point of maximum probability can give
us an estimation of the parameters. Because of the complexity of structural models,
objective functions are commonly large systems of equations that can be solved only
using numerical methods. Therefore, for most model updating strategies it is necessary to
use numerical methods to find the minimum or maximum values of the objective
function. Two different optimization algorithms: hill climbing and genetic algorithms are
implemented in Matlab using the genetic algorithm and optimization toolbox for solving
the model updating methodology proposed in this dissertation. The posterior PDF of the
parameters used as fitness function is highly peaked at isolated regions and flat in most of
the feasible region. Genetic algorithms are more appropriated for this type of functions
and it is used to explorer this fitness function finding the regions of highest probability.
27

Once the regions are identified hill climbing algorithms are used to refine the exact
location of the maxima. Both optimization techniques are presented bellow.
Hill climbing algorithm
Hill Climbing Algorithms (HCA) are a group of methodologies that optimizes
constraint smooth nonlinear functions. The methodology is based on the Taylor series
(Coleman and Li 1994):

2
) (
2
1
) ( ) ( ) ( x x f x x f x f x x f A ' ' + A ' + = A +
(14)
where, f(x) is the function to optimize evaluated at the point x, f(x) is the first
derivate of the function evaluated at the point x, f(x) is the second derivative of the
function evaluated at the point x, and x A is the distance from the point x to the optimal
solution. Differentiating with respect to x A , the maximum value of the function is
reached when:

0 ) ( ) ( = A ' ' + ' x x f x f

(15)
and f(x) is positive. Therefore, the optimal solution can be found by iterating the
equation:

) (
) (
1
x f
x f
x x
i i
' '
'
=
+
(16)
where x x x
i i
A =
+1
. For a function of several variables (Coleman and Li 1994) this can
be written as
28

| | ) ( ) (
1
1 n n n n
f Hf x x x x V =

+

(17)
where, ) (
n
f x V is the gradient of the function evaluated at the point x
n
, ) (
n
Hf x is the
Hessian matrix composed of the second derivatives of the function related to all its
variables evaluated at the point x
n
.
The value of the variable x
n
is updated at each iteration, approaching the optimum
solution. The iteration procedure is stopped when a predetermined maximum number of
iterations is reached or when the change in the variable x is negligible. This methodology
requires and initial estimation (x
0
) of the solution to start iterating from. The function to
optimize should be continuous, convex and its first and second derivative should exist at
least in the feasible region.
Different types of hill climbing algorithms have been implemented in the context
of model updating. For instance, Bakir et al. (2008) used the Sequential Quadratic
Programming (SQP) algorithm, the Coupled Local Minimizers, Gauss-Newton, and the
Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm for model updating. All methodologies successfully
updated the finite element models of frame type structures. The SQP algorithm available
in Matlab is used in this dissertation (Coleman and Li 1994; Gill et al. 1981).
Genetic algorithms
Genetic Algorithms (GA) are a powerful tool for solving large scaled nonlinear
optimization problems. Similarities between the complexities of the processes in natural
systems and the computational problems in many fields led researchers in the 1950s and
1960s to study evolutionary systems. Holland invented genetic algorithms in the 1970s
29

based on the idea that any optimization problem could be solved using an evolutionary
strategy by transforming it into a set genetic characteristics. Holland (1975) incorporated
features of natural evolution into an algorithm and used it to solve different complex
optimization problems.
GAs have been successfully implemented for the purpose of model updating in
different fields. For instance: Ayra (2000) used GAs as part of an optimization strategy
to estimate the parameters of an existing structure. A grid-type steel structure that
represented a bridge deck was built at the University of Cincinnati Infrastructure
Institute. Nondestructive data gathered from the structure was used, together with an error
function based on the modal flexibility of the structure for this condition assessment.
Istadi and Amin (2007) utilized GAs as part of a hybrid neural network-genetic
algorithm to model and optimize a complex chemical reactor.
GA presents several advantages over other optimization techniques: i) GA move
from population to population in a stochastic fashion not from point to point, and
therefore it does not converge to local maxima or minima as conventional HCA.
Additionally this feature allows for an extensive search in the entire feasible region, ii)
GA uses only evaluations of the objective a function, no other type of calculations such
as gradients are necessary. Therefore, there are not special requirements for the fitness
function such as convexity or continuity, iii) GA can be easily paralyzed allowing
multiple processors work at the same time in a specific optimization problem. However,
it has the disadvantage of requiring an evaluation of the fitness function for each
individual of the population.
30

TERMINOLOGY AND THEORY OF GENETIC ALGORITHMS
As stated by Sivanandam and Deepa (2007) GAs convert an optimization problem
into an evolutionary process where a set of feasible solutions or population of individuals
(chromosomes) lives in an constraint environment determined by the fitness function.
Generally the individuals are represented by a string of binary digits or any other finite
set of symbols. Each one of the digits in the string represents a gene in the chromosome
as shown below:
(
(
= =
(
(
= =

n 3 2 1
n 3 2 1
Y Y Y Y
n 3 2 1
X X X X
n 3 2 1
Y ] Y , ... , Y , Y , [Y Y
X ] X , ... , X , X , [X X
11110111 ... 01000111 10000100 11101011
10010110 ... 11010101 00100101 10101010

where, the strings X and Y represent 2 individuals and X
1
, X
2
, X
n
, Y
1
, Y
2
and Y
n

are real numbers and represent different components of the potential solutions X and Y.
The strings are decoded in real numbers and evaluated in the fitness function to
determine its fitness. The optimal solution is determined after several iterations and
corresponds to the string that best fits the fitness or objective function. A set of strings in
an iteration is called generation, and the number of individuals or strings in a generation
is known as population size.
GENETIC ALGORITHMS OPERATORS
GA perform a set of operations over the population of individuals in each
generation in order to find the optimal solution: i) selection of the individuals based on
their fitness, ii) crossover to produce a new population, and iii) random mutation of the
individuals (Sivanandam and Deepa 2007).
31

Selection
This operator selects individuals from the population for reproduction. The
selected individuals are known as parents. The selection process is based on the fitness of
each individual, as fitter the individual as more likely is to be chosen for reproduction.
The selection function stochastic uniform was implemented in here. This function
creates a line for the entire population. Each individual has a portion of the line which is
proportional to the score of the individual in the fitness function. Then, the selection
operator moves along the line in equal size steps and every time it lands, it chooses the
individual correspondent to that portion of the line.
Crossover
The crossover operator creates children or new individuals using the parents
chosen by the selection operator. The scatter crossover function was implemented in here.
In this crossover function the children are created by using a set of random binary strings
that determines which parent transfers the specific portion of the genetic material to the
new individual. For instance, assuming two parents X and Y, and a binary string B, then
the child C is obtained by taken information from the parent X when there is a 1 in the
string B and from parent Y when there is 0 in the string B. An example below shows the
methodology.
| |
| |
| |
| | h g 6 5 4 c b a C
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Y
1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 B
h g f e d c b a X
=
=
=
=

32

Mutation
This operator randomly mutates a portion of the population to ensure that the new
generation is diverse enough to search a large portion of the feasible region. A custom
mutation function was implemented in here. Because of the nature of the fitness function
in probabilistic model updating, a small portion of the population is created randomly
from a uniform distribution. The idea in here is to guaranty that localized regions of high
probability are explored in the feasible region. Therefore, the solutions obtained are
guaranty to represent the most fitted solutions.
IMPLEMENTATION
The GA toolbox of Matlab is used in this dissertation. The GA toolbox is a set of
function that allows for a flexible utilization of the GA algorithms. The Matlab platform
allows for the addition or incorporation of any modification in the Selection, Crossover
and Mutation operators. For the implementation of the GA, the operators were set as
shown in Table 1. The default Matlab mutation operator was modified to work as
previously described in the mutation section. The idea in here was to guaranty that there
is in every generation a portion of the population which is randomly generated from a
uniform distribution. The population in each generation is composed as Table 1 shows.
Table 1. GA operators utilized
Computationalparameters Values
Fitnessscalingfunction @fitscalingrank
Selectionfunction @selectionstochunif
Crossoverfunction @crossoverscatter
Mutationfunction custom
Elitefraction 10%oftotalpopulation
Crossoverfraction 65%oftotalpopulation
Mutationfraction 25%oftotalpopulation
33

GA PROCEDURE
Mitchell (1996) presents the GA procedure as in the following steps:
i) Starts with a random population of strings in the feasible region.
ii) Evaluates each individual in the fitness function.
iii) Repeat the following steps up to all the individuals for the next generation
a. Select a pair of individuals to be considered parents for the children or
individuals of the next generation (selection operator).
b. Crossover the couple of parents selected obtaining the children.
c. Mutates a portion of the population to ensure diversity.
iv) Replace the old generation for the children previously generated.
v) Repeat from step 2, up to the maximum number of generations is reached
or best suitable individual does not improve when compare to previous
generation.
A complete set of generations is known as a run. Because of the stochastic nature
of the algorithm, the results from different runs are not always the same. Usually the
results are presented in the form of statistics, showing the results from several runs.
Hybrid optimization
Hybrid optimization is used to join the strengths of two optimization techniques.
For example, because of the random nature of the GA, the solution obtained is located
34

close to the optimal solution, but it is not necessarily the optimal solution. However, GAs
performs an exhaustive search of the feasible region. On the other hand, HCAs work very
well when a good initial solution is provided, but it can get trapped in a local minimum if
the initial value is not appropriate. Therefore, best performance is achieved when the
result from GA is used as starting point for the HCA. The hybrid optimization here
proposed uses GA to explore the fitness function (posterior PDF of the parameters)
finding the regions of highest probability, then the points of maximum probability are
refined using a HCA. The criteria stop of both algorithms: SQP and GA were set to
ensure that an optimal solution was obtained after each run, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Criteria to stop optimization procedures
Number
of
iterations
Numberof
generations
Tolerance
objective
function
Time
limit
Stall
generations
Stall
time
limit
CHA 1000 1e10 Infinite Infinite
GA 50 1e10 Infinite 5 Infinite

Concluding remarks
The third chapter presents a discussion on the optimization algorithms: Hill Climbing
(HC) algorithms and Genetic Algorithms (GA). The HC algorithms are based on the
Newton method to find the minimum or the maximum of a function. The objective
function should be continuous and the first and second derivative should exist in the
feasible region. Additionally, a starting point is required. GA is an optimization
methodology based on the evolution theory. The methodology has the advantage of not
having any special requirement about the objective function, and it does not move from
point to point, but from generation to generation avoiding the possibility of getting stuck
35

at a local maximum or minimum. However, it requires a large number of evaluations of
the objective function. A hybrid optimization is proposed as a best approach for the
solution of the model updating problem. The posterior PDF of the parameters is chosen
as objective function. In the hybrid optimization proposed here, first GA fully explores
the objective function finding the regions of highest probability, and then the parameters
of highest probability are refined.

36

CHAPTER 4
MODELING TO GENERATE ALTERNATIVES

Model updating can be summarized in two simple steps: i) identification of the
structural system using data gathered from the real structure, and ii) calibration of the set
of equations used to model the structural system based on the identification results. Once
the model has been updated the remaining question is: is the solution found unique? And
if that is not the case, how is it possible to find alternative solutions? The problem of
nonuniqueness is addressed in this chapter. A simple structure with incomplete data is
used to explore non-uniqueness and the identification of multiple alternatives.
Multiple solutions in model updating
A number of studies (Franco et al. 2006; Hjelmstad 1996; Katafygiotis and Beck
1998; Katafygiotis et al. 1998) have focused on the uniqueness of the solution within the
context of model updating. The problem of determining the uniqueness of the solution is
known as global identifiability. There is not a specific rule of thumb to determine the
uniqueness of the solution found in model updating, however it is well known that it
depends on several factors such as the complexity of the structural system and the
completeness of the information obtained from the identification.
37

Franco et al. (2006) defines that a linear system with transfer function ) , ( O s G ,
which depends on the set of parameters O is global identifiable, if ) , ( ) , (
-
O O s G s G
implying that
-
O = O

for all value of complex frequency s. Franco developed a
methodology to answer the identifiability problem for a simple structural system of N
degrees of freedom. The transfer function of the system is developed based on the input
force applied using actuators at some specific degrees of freedom, and the sensor
observations (outputs) at another set of degrees of freedom. In this specific problem the
damping ratios are assumed known and the stiffness and mass distributions correspond to
the unknown parameters of the transfer function. Once the transfer functions are
calculated, a new set of parameters is used to calculate the same transfer functions,
forming a nonlinear set of equations. The solution of this system of nonlinear equations
defines the global identifiability of the structural system.
In this section, a two degrees of freedom structure with incomplete information is
developed to show that even for simple structural system it is possible to obtain several
solutions in the updating problem. Real problems will be larger, include more complex
systems, and have less known information, creating even higher possibilities of finding
multiple solutions to the updating problem.
Let define a two degrees of freedom structural system with stiffness matrix K, and
mass matrix M,

m N
k k
k k k
/
2 2
2 2 1
(
+
= K

(18)

kg
(
=
20 0
0 20
M

(19)
38

where the parameters k
1
and k
2
represent the stiffness distribution and are unknown. The
goal of the updating process is to find the values of the parameters k
1
and k
2
that best
represent the information obtained from the identification (wo
1
and wo
2
). Solving the
eigenvalue problem from the mass M and stiffness K matrices the natural frequencies w
of the structural system are calculated as:

0 I w K M =
2 1

(20).
Therefore,

(
(
(
(
(
+
+
+
+ +
=
(
(
40
4
40 20
40
4
40 20
2
1
2
2 1 2
2
1
2
2 1 2
2
2
2
1
k k k k
k k k k
w
w

(21)
Assuming the parameters k
1
and k
2
are real numbers with a prior uniform
distribution, the posterior probability distribution according to Equation (11) is given by:

c
wo w wo w
k k f
error error
p
|
|
.
|
\
|

|
|
.
|
\
|

=
2
2 2
2
2
2
1
2 2
1
2
1
2 1
2
) (
exp
2
) (
exp ) , (
o o

(22)
where
1
error

and
2
error
correspond to the standard deviation of the error between
the numerical model and the real structure in the natural frequencies, wo
1
, and wo
2
, are
the identified natural frequencies. Then, the posterior probability distribution of the
parameters can be written as:

|
|
.
|
\
|

=
error error
p
wo w wo w
c k k f
2
2 2
2
2
2
1
2 2
1
2
1
2 1
2
) (
2
) (
exp ) , (
o o

(23).
where, c, is a normalization constant.
The posterior probability distribution is highest when
39

0
) , (
0
) , (
2
2 1
1
2 1
=
c
c
=
c
c
k
k k f
k
k k f
p p

(24).
Let define

) ( ) , ( ) ( ) , (
2
2
2
2 2 1 2
2
1
2
1 2 1 1
wo w k k f wo w k k f = =
(25)
Therefore,

) , (
2
) , (
) , ( 2
2
) , (
) , ( 2
) , (
) , (
2
) , (
) , ( 2
2
) , (
) , ( 2
) , (
2 1
2
2
2 1 2
2 1 2
1
2
2 1 1
2 1 1
2
2 1
2 1
2
1
2 1 2
2 1 2
1
1
2 1 1
2 1 1
1
2 1
k k f
k
k k f
k k f
k
k k f
k k f
k
k k f
k k f
k
k k f
k k f
k
k k f
k k f
k
k k f
p
p
p
p
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
=
c
c
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
=
c
c
o o
o o

(26)
where
1
2 1
) , (
k
k k f
p
c
c
, and
2
2 1
) , (
k
k k f
p
c
c
are zero if

0
) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
0
) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
2
2 1 2
2
2 1 2
2
2 1 1
1
2 1 1
1
2 1 2
2
2 1 2
1
2 1 1
1
2 1 1
=
c
c
+
c
c
=
c
c
+
c
c
k
k k f k k f
k
k k f k k f
k
k k f k k f
k
k k f k k f
o o
o o

(27)
This can be written in matrix form as:

0 =
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
2
2 1 2
1
2 1 1
2
2 1 2
2
2 1 1
1
2 1 2
1
2 1 1
) , (
) , (
) , ( ) , (
) , ( ) , (
o
o
k k f
k k f
k
k k f
k
k k f
k
k k f
k
k k f

(28).
Equation (27) is equal to zero if

0 =
(
) , (
) , (
2 1 2
2 1 1
k k f
k k f

(29)
Resulting in the nonlinear set of equations:
40

0
40
4
40 20
0
40
4
40 20
2
2
2
1
2
2 1 2
2
1
2
1
2
2 1 2
=
+
+
=
+
+ +
wo
k k k k
wo
k k k k

(30)
Solving for k
1
and k
2
, the following two solutions are found:

4
1
2
1
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
2 2
4
1
2
1
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
2 1
4
1
2
1
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
2 2
4
1
2
1
2
2
4
2
2
1
2
2 1
6 5 5 5
6 10 10 10
6 5 5 5
6 10 10 10
wo wo wo wo wo wo k
wo wo wo wo wo wo k
wo wo wo wo wo wo k
wo wo wo wo wo wo k
+ + =
+ + + =
+ + + =
+ + =

(31)
This means that there are two different solutions that maximize the parametric
posterior probability distribution of the structural system.
Numerically this can be demonstrated by assuming values for the identified
natural frequencies wo
1
2
and wo
2
2
of 0.3948 (rad/sec)
2
and 9.8696 (rad/sec)
2
respectively
with a standard deviation of 1 (rad/sec)
2
for both identified natural frequencies, the
parameters k
1
and k
2
correspond to
m N k
m N k
m N k
m N k
/ 3 . 8
/ 8 . 188
/ 4 . 94
/ 5 . 16
2
1
2
1
=
=
=
=
.

Figure 4 shows a plot of Equation (22) for the values previously mentioned,
showing that even in simple structural systems, it is possible to have multiple solutions,
due to the incompleteness of the information available.
In a general case where there are, n, identified natural frequencies, m, modal
coordinates, and p, parameters to update . Equation (28) is rewritten as
41

Figure 4. Plot of Equation (22)

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
0 =
(
(
(
(
O
O
O
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
c
O c
c
O c
c
O c
c
O c
c
O c
c
O c
c
O c
c
O c
c
O c
+
+ + +
m n
p
m n m n m n
p
p
f
f
f
f f f
f f f
f f f
2
1
2 1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
u u u
u u u
u u u

(32).
Resulting in the following system of equations

( )
( )
( )
0 =
(
(
(
(
O
O
O
+m n
f
f
f
2
1

(33)
where, there are n+m equations (total number of dynamic identified parameters), and p
variables (number of parameters to update). Because the resulting system of equations
42

is nonlinear (in most cases high order polynomial equations), it is not possible to know a
priori the number of solutions available for this system of equations. However, it is
obvious that the number of solutions will be reduced if the order of the resulting
polynomial system of equations is reduced, or if the number of equations available is
increased. In other words, it is clear there is a relationship between the complexity of the
numerical model, the incompleteness of the data available, and the number of solutions
available.
Modeling to Generate Alternatives
It is recognized among the operational research community that mathematical
models should not provide the answer to every problem, but to serve as a guidance to
the decision maker (Brill et al. 1990). The idea is that decision makers should not be
replaced entirely by mathematical models, but work together in a joint cognitive system.
Both elements (machine and human) bring different capabilities to the solution of
problems. For instance, machines programmed with mathematical models can search for
several different solutions that satisfy the conditions of the problem, while humans can
make a final decision based on experience or intuition that cannot currently be
incorporated into the model.
Methodologies utilizing the concept of MGA have been previously applied in
different fields. For instance, Gupta, Kripakaran et al. (2005) used MGA to obtain
alternative solutions for seismic design and performance enhancements of water
distribution systems. A methodology that implemented genetic algorithms together with
finite element models was used, for evaluating the trade-off between number of supports
43

and cost. Baugh, Caldwell et al. (1997) used an MGA approach for finding alternative
solutions to the problem of structural design. The methodology proposed searched for a
set of different solutions that produced a similar outcome and allowed to explore
unmodelled issues. A truss optimization problem was used for implementing the
methodology. Zechman and Ranjithan (2004) implemented a similar concept to MGA
using evolutionary algorithms. The methodology allowed finding several different
solutions for an airline network design. In all previous applications MGA was
implemented maximizing the sum of the positive value of the difference among
alternatives subjected to the problems constraints and an additional constraint given by a
target value in the objective function. In addition, a similar concept was used in
(Rubenstein-Montano et al. 2000) where genetic algorithms were used to create different
alternatives for policy design. In this methodology alternative solutions were obtained by
running several times a genetic algorithm where a parameter of the problem was
modified every time. The different values of the changing parameter and the optimal
result obtained were used to construct a set of graphs to help the decision maker.
Modeling to Generate Alternatives (MGA) is a joint cognitive system that was
developed with the goal of providing solutions to complex, incomplete problems by
coupling the computational power of computers and human intelligence (Baugh et al.
1997; Brill et al. 1990). MGA creates several possible good solutions from a problem by
eliminating alternatives with poor performance using a mathematical model. These
solutions are designed to be physically different but provide a similar outcome to the
problem. MGA is based in two main assumptions:
44

i) For complex and incomplete problems, the global optimal solution obtained from
a mathematical model is seldom the solution that best represents the real world.
For instance, in stochastic model updating where the mathematical model
describes the probability of a set of parameters in a model, different parameter
values can hold similar probabilities. In this case it is best to identify all different
values that are likely to represent the real world.
ii) The ability of the human to formulate a final decision is affected by the attributes
of the solutions obtained. For instance, the final decision is best when the
difference among solutions obtained is greatest (Brill et al. 1990).
Brill, Chang et al. (1982) proposed the methodology Hop, Skip, and Jump (HSJ)
that maximizes the differences among alternatives for linear objective functions. The
methodology is summarize in three simple steps: i) a first solution is found using any
optimization technique, ii) an alternative solution is searched by minimizing the sum of
the absolute values of the first solution and the alternatives found, subjected to the
original constraints of the problem together with an additional constraint that target the
value of the objective function, and iii) the iterative procedure is repeated up to a set of
alternatives is obtained. This methodology has the problem of not considering the sign in
case that there is a variable that has positive and negative values. Additionally it is
affected by the scale of variables. For instance, in case that there is a variable that has
larger values than the others, that variable dominates the alternative solutions process. A
methodology that solves these obstacles is implemented and described below.
Proposed MGA methodology
45

Zrate and Caicedo (2008) proposed the use of MGA for model updating. The
goal of this methodology is to identify several possible solutions but physically different.
In the classical updating process, either global or local optimum that minimizes
the difference between the analytical and real model could be found. Objective functions
are usually defined as a measure of the error in the model. In probabilistic model
updating the posterior PDF of the updating parameters, Equation (11) repeated here for
convenience is chosen as objective function

otherwise
w w
cp c D f
u l
n
j
m
i
error
i j
fe
i j
id
i j
n
j
error w
j
fe
j
id
j
p
0
) (
2
1
) (
2
1
exp ) ; (
1 1
2
.
.
,
1
2
=
O < O < O
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
O
= O

= = =
|
o
| |
o

Constraints are applied to ensure that the variation of the parameters is not higher
than reasonable limits.
One of the challenges with this classical method is that other minima with a
performance similar to the solution found in the global optimization might exist and will
not be identified. One of these solutions might represent the optimal solution for the
problem, if the number of non-quantifiable variables that were not enlisted in the original
objective function, or the plain uncertainty in the model, are now considered. Depending
upon the final application of the finite element model, all the models obtained can be
considered or only one model chosen as the best solution. For instance, when updating
a model for studies in structural control all the models can be considered to test the
stability of the controller; or in damage detection, a single model can be selected based on
additional observations or the experience of the inspector.
A nonlinear variation of the Hop, Skip and Jump method (HSJ) proposed by (Brill
et al. 1982) and used for a land use planning problem is used in this study and it has two
46

main parts: i) find a solution based on the base finite element model (i.e. traditional
solution described before), and ii) obtain alternative solutions. These two steps are
explained as follows:
i) The first part of the updating process consists of finding an initial solution
that will be a start point in the search of additional solutions. The objective
function is described by the Equation (8).
ii) The hypothesis in this study is that the results obtained from the first
optimization will provide a solution to the problem but this solution might
not be unique. To find additional solutions a search in a perpendicular
direction of the original solution is performed. A process similar to HSJ is
used where a new objective function is minimized to obtain the l+1
solution. This function is defined as

[
= +
+
+
O O
O O
= O
l
j l j
l j
l
g
1 1
1
1
arccos ) (

(34)
where O
j
is the j-th solution, ) ( denotes dot product and denotes the norm.
The value of this function is high if the dot product between the current solution and
previous solutions is close to one and is low if the new solution is perpendicular to any
other solution found before (i.e. dot product is zero).
47

Given that any orthogonal vector does not always provide a good fit for the finite
element model, constraints are used to assure that the new solution has a similar
performance to the first solution found. The constraint used for this optimization are
described by the equation

( )
l l
f f O s O
+
o ) (
1

(35)
where ( )
1
f O is the value of the objective function shown in Equation (11) for the
first solution found, ( )
1 +
O
l
f
is the value of Equation (11) for the current solution and o is
a constant. The result from this second step provides solutions to the problem that are
significantly different but have a similar performance.
Once a set of alternative solutions is found, it is possible to include a third step in
which a new optimization process is performed using a hill climbing algorithm that starts
at the solutions just found. It guarantees that the resulting alternative solutions are
different local maxima.
Concluding remarks
Figure 5. Solutions in the feasible region

48

This chapter presents a discussion on Modeling to Generate Alternatives (MGA)
in the context of model updating. MGA is introduced together with a nonlinear variation
of the Hop Jump Skip (HJS) method. MGA is used to explore the feasible region of the
objective function, looking for local maxima. The idea in here is that the solution to the
problem of model updating is not unique because of all the uncertainties involve in the
problem. A set of solutions that satisfy the model updating problem but are physically
different are found using the proposed nonlinear HSJ methodology. A three step MGA
methodology is proposed: i) an initial solution is found by maximizing the objective
function, ii) alternative solutions are found by minimizing Equation (34), and iii) a local
maxima is located in the vicinity of the alternative solution.

49

CHAPTER 5
VERIFICATION

This chapter presents a series of validations of the methodology described in
previous chapters using real structures. Two different structures are used: a cable-stayed
bridge and a medium size steel frame scale model structure. Both structures are updated
using dynamic information obtained from ambient vibration tests. On a second
verification the medium size steel frame scale structure is updated using simulated static
data obtained from its updated numerical model.
Dynamic cases
This section introduces two validation problems for the methodology described in
previous chapters. The main differences between the two examples are: i) the type of
structure, the first example is a cable-stayed bridge and the second is a medium size
frame steel scale model structure; and ii) the objective function used to calibrate the
model. The first problem uses the difference between the identified characteristics and
the numerical results, while the second problem uses a probability distribution as stated in
chapter 4.

50

CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE MODEL UPDATING (DETERMINISTIC)
This section presents a validation of part of the model updating methodology
described in previous chapters. In particular the HSJ used to search for multiple solutions
of the structural parameters is used. In this application an objective function that
measures the difference between the numerical model and the real structure, as detailed
bellow. The structure selected for validation is the Bill Emerson Memorial cable-stayed
bridge. The Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge opened to traffic on December of 2003. The
bridge crosses the Mississippi river on Cape Girardeau Missouri, USA and it is composed
of two towers, 128 stay cables and 4 main piers. The bridge has a main span of 350.6 m
and two side spans of 142.7 m, for a total length of 1205.8 m, as shown in Figure 6. The
deck has a width of 29.3 m and is composed by girders of ASTM A709 grade 50W steel
and prestressed concrete slabs with a fc of 41.4 Mpa. Additionally the bridge deck has
sixteen shock transmission devices at the connection with the towers and bent. The
purpose of those devices is to restrain the longitudinal movement during seismic
excitation, becoming extremely stiff, but to permit the longitudinal expansion of the deck
caused by changes in temperature. Moreover earthquake restrainers are used in the
transverse direction at the connections between the deck and the towers, the deck is

Ben t 1
(1150) (468) (1870)
Pier 2 Pier 3 Pier 4
(468)
Illinois approach
x
g
33 32 1 64
1 Cabl e Number
142.7m 350.6m 142.7m 570.0m
Figure 6. Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge
51

restrained on the vertical direction at the towers.
The cables are made of high-strength, low-relaxation steel (ASTM A882 grade
270) and covered with a polyethylene piping to prevent corrosion. The area of the cables
varies between 28.5 cm
2
and 76.3 cm
2
. The towers are H-shaped with a height of 102.4 m
at pier 2 and 108.5 m at pier 3. The towers are of reinforced concrete with a resistance fc
of 37.9 Mpa.
The finite element model shown in Figure 7 is composed of 575 nodes, 156 beam
elements, 512 cable elements and 418 rigid links. The movements of the deck in lateral
and vertical direction as well as the rotation with respect to the X axis at bent 1 and piers
2, 3 and 4 are restricted by applying constraint equations. At pier 1 only displacement in
the X axis and rotations about the Y and Z axis are allowed. The model of the structure
does not include the Illinois approach as shown in Figure 7, because neither the
displacements nor the rotations about the X axis are restrained at pier 4 disconnecting the
dynamics of the two systems. Cables are modeled using the Elastic Catenary models
(Chang 1992) subdivided in 4 elements per cable. This cable model was chosen to better
Figure 7. Finite element model of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge
52

represent the cable-deck dynamics. The soil structure effects are considered negligible in
this study and the structure is assumed directly fixed to the foundation. The finite element
model of the bridge was first developed in Abaqus for the benchmark problem of control
of cable-stayed bridges under earthquake excitation (Caicedo et al. 2003; Dyke et al.
2003b) and later converted to Matlab for studies in structural health monitoring.
The Emerson Bridge is permanently instrumented with acceleration sensors
distributed along the structure and surrounding soil (elebi 2006). A total of 84
acceleration channels of Kinemetrics EpiSensor have been installed in the bridge.
Additionally the bridge is equipped with Q330 digitizers and data concentrator, and mass
storage devices (Balers) with wireless units. The acquisition system has the ability to
either acquire data in case of a special event as an earthquake using a trigger algorithm,
or to acquire long records of low frequency ambient vibrations in a schedule way. The
analog signal from the accelerometers is digitalized at the bridge and then sent by
wireless communication to a Central Recording System (CRS). Once at the CRS, the data
are transmitted to the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), and it is
finally broadcasted through the internet.
Modal Identification
A modal identification of the Emerson Bridge is performed using the Stochastic
Subspace Identification (SSI) (Andersen P. 1999; Giraldo et al. 2006b; Van Overschee
and De Moor 1996; Zrate and Caicedo 2008). A total of 25 acceleration channels were
used, 17 of these acceleration channels are located on the deck in the vertical direction
and 8 acceleration channels located on the towers oriented in the longitudinal direction.
The sensor locations were chosen to identify the dynamic characteristics of the structure
53

corresponding to the vertical mode shapes. Song et al (2006) previously performed
identification of the bridge using ARMAV models. In his paper the first 5 natural
frequencies and vertical mode shapes were identified, using 16 vertical channels of
acceleration corresponding to the sensors on the deck.
Six hours of acceleration data were used for the system identification. The first
three hours on November 2, 2005 and the last three were obtained on December 5, 2005.
Data was originally collected at 200 Hz, and resampled to 2 Hz to capture the
fundamental modes of the structure which are lower than 1 Hz. The data was divided in
36 windows of 10 minutes for a total of 1200 data points per channel per window. SSI
was performed in each window, so that a set of 36 natural frequencies, mode shapes and
damping rations are obtained for the complete record. The Hankel matrices used had a
total of 750 rows and 1170 columns.
In cable-stayed bridges it is challenging to differentiate non-physical poles from
the physical poles because mode shapes are closely-spaced. Stabilization diagrams were
Figure 8. Identified natural frequencies
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Frequency (Hz)
W
i
n
d
o
w
54

used to identify for this purpose (Brincker and Andersen. 2006). One set of poles was
calculated for each data window and plotted in Figure 8. True frequencies are detected
based on the consistency through all the windows. An automated recognition system was
used to detect the true poles from those created by noise and numerical errors was used
(Giraldo 2006; Giraldo et al. 2006a). True poles are recognized by identifying
parameters within some specific characteristics. Here, acceptable modes of vibration
should be identified at least five times in different data windows with a maximum
variation of the natural frequency of 30%, have damping value lower than 5%, and MAC
values between the identified modes higher than 0.98. The circles in Figure 8 show the
raw identified modes and the stars indicate the acceptable modal parameters. The
standard deviation of each remaining natural frequencies (stars in Figure 8) and the mean
MAC value of the corresponding mode shapes are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 summarizes the identified modal parameters of the Emerson Bridge. The
natural frequencies and damping ratios are calculated as the average of the identified
parameters for each mode in all the data sets. The standard deviations for each parameter
are also shown. The first 4 mode shapes targeted have a low standard deviation in terms
of the natural frequencies, damping ratios and mode shapes indicating a small variation of
the parameters for all the data records. This indicates that the system is behaving linearly
for ambient vibrations.
Table 3. Dynamic Characteristics Identified
Mode Hits
Frequency
Hz
Std.Dev.
Frequency
Hz
Damping
%
Std.Dev.
damping
%
MAC
Std.Dev.
MAC
1 31 0.324 0.0036 1.05 0.37 0.9977 0.0019
2 16 0.413 0.0026 0.64 0.09 0.9967 0.0023
3 25 0.635 0.0041 0.67 0.20 0.9983 0.0009
4 21 0.706 0.0032 0.73 0.51 0.9962 0.0046
55

Model updating
Properties of the numerical model were updated such that its modal characteristics
would match as close as possible the identified natural frequencies and mode shapes.
Three different types of parameters were considered for updating: i) mass of the deck, ii)
the rotational stiffness of the connection between the deck and the towers, and iii)
moment of inertia of the spine beam. These parameters were chosen because of their
influence in the overall dynamic behavior of the structure. Additional parameters such as
rotational springs located at the connections of deck and towers were explored but found
to have little effect in the dynamic characteristics of the structure. All the parameters
were lumped into a total of six variables divided in three distinctive groups.
A total of 66 translational lumped masses are used in the bridge decks model.
Assuming that the mass distribution is symmetric due to the symmetry of the bridge this
can be reduced to 33 parameters. Given that it is unlikely to have a sudden change in the
mass along the deck the number of parameters was reduced to 3 master masses at 3
locations along the deck. The other 30 masses were calculated using a spline function.
The masses at the mid span between bent 1 and pier 2, and one quarter and one half the
main span were selected as the location for the 3 master masses (Figure 9). The masses
were constrained to be in the range of -5% to 5% of the mass calculated from the blue
prints.
Figure 9. Master Masses at the deck
Master mass
56

The degree of connection between the deck and the towers is highly uncertain
because of the shock absorbers and the restrainers installed at these locations. The
stiffness of the 4 springs used to model these connections constitute the second set of
parameters to update. One parameter was used for bent I and Pier IV and a second
parameter was used for the connection at the towers due to the symmetry of the bridge.
The springs stiffness are constraint to be in the range of -100% and 100% of the higher
stiffness found in the stiffness matrix.
The variation of the moment of inertia is assumed to be constant along the deck,
so that only one parameter was used to update the decks stiffness. The moment of inertia
is constrained to be in the range of -5% to 5% of the moment of inertia calculated from
the blue prints.
The difference between the finite element model and the real structure was
measured using the error function

( ) | |
i id
i fe i id
n
i
i fe i id
f
,
, ,
1
, ,
) (
) ( , MAC 1 ) (
e
e e
| |
O
+ O = O

=
(36)
where n is the number of identified modes, MAC(
i id ,
|
,
) (
,
O
i fe
|
) is the modal
assurance criteria (Allemang 2003) between the i-th identified mode shape (
i id ,
|
) and the
i-th mode shape of the finite element model
) (
,
O
i fe
|
,
i id,
e is the i-th identified natural
frequency,
) (
,
O
i fe
e
is the i-th natural frequency of the finite element model, O is the
vector of parameters to be minimized.
In order to obtain multiple solutions the two first steps of the methodology
exposed in chapter 5 was here implemented. In step two the following equation was used
as objective function.
57

= +
+
+
O O
O O
= O
l
j l j
l j
l
g
1 1
1
1
) (
(37)
where O
j
is the j-th solution, ) ( denotes dot product and denotes the norm.
Results
The starting point for this first optimization was the original numerical model as
calculated from design drawings. The value of Equation (36) for the original model is
(f(p)= 0.524). Table 4 shows the parameters for all the four solutions found. As
described previously in the dissertation, the first solution was obtained using the SQP
algorithm to minimize Equation (36). The solution found suggests that the mass between
bent 1 and location 1 should be unchanged while the mass at the main span should be
decreased. In addition, the moment of inertia of the deck and at the connection between
the deck and bent 1 are increased, while the stiffness at the connection between the deck
and the main towers is decreased. These changes create an improvement of 28.6% in the
objective function. The alternative models are obtained by running the second
optimization process up to the point where no additional solutions are found. The process
was repeated with different starting points of the optimization algorithm to explore the
completeness of the found solutions. All analysis resulted in the same solutions. The
alternative solutions are physically different to this first solution. The second solution
increases the stiffness at the connection between the bent and the deck, while the other
parameters remain constant. The third solution decreases the mass between Bent 1 and
the mid span of the first span, while the other parameters remain constant. Finally,
solution four increases the stiffness of the connection between the towers and the deck.

58

Table 4. Model updating alternatives
Solution
Mass(%) Inertia
(%)
Stiffness(%) f(p)
Eq(6) Loc1 Loc2 Midspan Bent Tower
Original 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.524
p1 0.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 100.00 27.36 0.375
p2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.73 0.00 0.451
p3 4.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.492
p4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.495

Table 4 shows the first four natural frequencies identified experimentally in
addition to those of the updated models. Table 4 also shows the MAC values between the
identified mode shapes and the numerical modes in percentage. The frequencies
improved in all the solutions found, when compared to the original finite element model
while keeping the MAC values in good agreement with the measured data.
The selection of the final model using the proposed technique is dependent of its
use and the experience of the analyst. Furthermore, the analyst could choose more than
one model for subsequent analysis. For example, if a seismic reliability analysis were to
be performed with the updated model, the analyst could decide to perform the reliability
analysis with more than one alternative and draw conclusions about the reliability of the
structure from this subsequent analysis. For this particular bridge it is unlikely that the
mass, moment of inertia and stiffness of the connection between deck and tower reach
their maximum limits simultaneously. For this reason the second solution could be a
more physically meaningful solution than the first one and it is selected for the updated
model.

59

Table 5. Dynamic characteristics of the model updating alternatives
Solution
(Hz)
(Hz)
(Hz)
(Hz)
MAC

) , (
4 , 4 , fe id
| |
Exp. 0.32 0.41 0.63 0.71
Original 0.29 0.39 0.60 0.63 4.9 5.4 3.1 10.4
1 0.31 0.41 0.61 0.63 4.3 5.9 4.1 7.5
2 0.31 0.40 0.61 0.63 4.3 6.1 3.9 10.8
3 0.30 0.40 0.62 0.63 4.4 6.0 5.1 14.6
4 0.30 0.40 0.61 0.63 4.7 5.6 3.5 10.1

IASC-ASCE BENCHMARK (PROBABILISTIC)
This section presents a validation of the updating methodology, which includes
searching for multiple solutions using a probability distribution of the structural
parameters. The structure used for validation corresponds to the test structure for the
benchmark study used for Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) by the International
Association for Structural Control (IASC a branch of the ASCE). The benchmark
problem was originally designed to improve the understanding of SHM techniques and it
1
e
2
e
3
e
4
e
) , (
1 , 1 , fe id
| | ) , (
2 , 2 , fe id
| | ) , (
3 , 3 , fe id
| |
Figure 10. Test structure of the benchmark study (courtesy of professor Ventura).
60

is used here within the model updating context only (i.e. update a numerical model, not
identify the current state of the structure). The idea for the benchmark problems is to
allow researchers to compare results, capabilities and limitations from different SHM
methodologies. These benchmark studies are based on a scale model structure built at the
Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory of the University of British Columbia.
Structure and experiment setup
The scale model shown in Figure 10 is a steel frame structure with 4 stories (3.6
m tall), 2 bay by 2 bay (2.5 m x 2.5 m plan) (Johnson et al. 2001). The members are hot
rolled grade 300W steel (nominal yield stress 300 MPa (42.6 kpsi)) and have the
geometric characteristics presented in Table 6. The model has a slab per bay per floor for
a total of 4 slabs per story. The slabs have a total mass of 1000 kg per floor in the levels
one to three and 750 kg in the last level. The masses are distributed identically
asymmetric at each floor so that some of the translational and rotational mode shapes are
coupled.
Table 6. Properties of the members of the test structure used in the benchmark study
Properties Columns FloorBeams Braces
Sectiontype
B100x9 S75x11 L25x25x3
CrosssectionalareaA[m
2
] 1.133x10
3
1.43x10
3
0.141x10
3
Momentofinertia(strongdirection)I[m
4
] 1.97x10
6
1.22x10
6
0
Momentofinertia(weakdirection)I[m
4
] 0.664x10
6
0.249x10
6
0
St.VenanttorsionconstantJ[m
4
] 8.01x10
9
38.2x10
9
0
ModulusofelasticityE[Pa] 2x10
11
2x10
11
2x10
11
Massperunitlength[kg/m] 8.89 11.0 1.11

A finite element model of the structure was built in Matlab. 132 beam elements
were used with the material and geometric characteristics presented in Table 6. Both
61

braces moment of inertias: weak and strong used in the finite element model were
assumed as zero, for considering only axial stiffness in these structural elements. The
masses of the slabs were considered as lumped at their center of geometry in each floor,
and the masses of the beam elements were considered consistent. All displacements and
rotation with respect to the vertical axis of the nodes at each floor were assumed equal,
but allowed to rotate about the y and x axis independently. The boundary conditions were
considered as completely restraint at every direction of the nodes located at the base of
the structure for a total of 88 degrees of freedom.
As described by Dyke, Bernal et al. (2003a) the structure was placed outdoors,
where it was excited by wind load, and ground vibration produced by pedestrians and
traffic. The ambient vibration was measured using a total of fifteen accelerometers, three
at each floor and three at the base. The accelerometers were located two at the y axis at
each side of the structure and one at the x axis at the center of the floor. Figure 12 shows
the location of the accelerometers in a plant view of the structure. Data obtained from the
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0
1
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
X
Y
Z
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
X
Y
Figure 11. Finite element model of the benchmark test structure
62

ambient vibration test, and additional information of the structure and the experiment
setup can be found at http://mase.wustl.edu/wusceel/asce.shm/benchmarks.htm.
Modal identification
The benchmark structure has been object of study by different authors. Modal
identification has been performed by different methodologies to identify the limitations
and capabilities of these methodologies. For instance, Giraldo (2006) identified the first 7
natural frequencies, mode shapes and damping ratios using ambient vibration test with
the Stochastic Subspace Identification (SSI), and hammer test with the Eigensystem
Realization Algorithm with data correlations.
In this study modal identification was performed through the SSI (Andersen P.
1999; Giraldo et al. 2006b; Van Overschee and De Moor 1996; Zrate and Caicedo
2008). Data obtained from the ambient vibration test was used to identify the modal
Figure 12. Location of accelerometers and masses in a plant view of the
benchmark structure (Dyke et al. 2003a)
63

characteristics of the structure. Because solution nonuniqueness arises in complex and
incomplete problems, here was chosen to use for modal identification only information
obtained from four sensors. These sensors correspond to the sensor located at the x
direction of the second floor, and all three sensors located at the fourth floor.
The record of accelerations coming from the sensors located at the y direction in
the fourth floor was used to create an equivalent rotational register denoted by y
r
and a
translational register denoted by y
c
at the y direction located at the center of the floor, as
presented in the following equations:

l
y y
y
r
2 1

=

(38)

2
2 1
y y
y
c
+
=

(39).
Figure 13. Typical Acceleration Record
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
-2
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
x 10
-3
Time [Sec]
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

~

V
o
l
t
a
g
e
Accelerometer at First Floor Y Direction
64

Where, y
1
and y
2
are the accelerations register at each side of the structure at the
fourth floor, and l is the distance between y
1
and y
2
, which corresponds to 2.5 m.
Therefore, a total of four channels were used for identification: translation at the x
direction at the second floor, rotation around the z axis of the fourth floor, as well as
translation at the x and y direction of the fourth floor.
The records have an original length of 5 minutes and a sample rate of 200 Hz. For
identification purposes the records were sampled down to 60 Hz and divided in 45
windows of 400 data points. The, SSI was performed 45 times, and natural frequencies,
mode shapes and damping ratios were identified for each window. Plots similar to
stabilization diagrams were used for this purpose (Brincker and Andersen. 2006). Two
sets of frequencies were identified for each data window and plotted in Figure 14. The
first plot in Figure 14 shows the frequencies (stars) identified through the 45 windows
and the second plot shows a histogram of the frequencies identified through the 45
windows. True frequencies were detected based on the consistency through all the
windows. The same automated recognition system presented in the previous validation
problem was applied in here. The identification process was executed with the rotation
angle in degrees and then repeated with the rotation angle in radians. The results from
both: degrees and radians were combined, for allowing a complete identification of
structures torsional modes. In case of obtaining the same frequencies in both radians and
degrees, the one with more hits was chosen.
65

Table 7 summarizes the identified modal parameters of the benchmark structure.
The first seven natural frequencies and damping ratios are calculated as the average of the
identified parameters for each mode in all the data sets. The standard deviations for each
parameter are also shown.
Table 7. Dynamic Characteristics Identified
Mode Hits
Frequency
Hz
Std.Dev.
Frequency
Hz
Damping
%
Std.Dev.
damping
%
MAC
Std.Dev.
MAC
1 39 7.481 0.036 0.956 0.737 0.967 0.035
2 38 7.775 0.035 0.787 0.540 0.971 0.032
3 44 14.490 0.035 0.210 0.189 0.970 0.033
4 44 19.891 0.002 0.005 0.006 0.960 0.037
5 45 21.016 0.018 0.086 0.107 0.986 0.026
6 26 22.692 0.065 0.790 0.568 0.968 0.031
Figure 14. Frequencies identified at every window
5 10 15 20 25
0
10
20
30
40
50
Frequency [Hz]
W
i
n
d
o
w
5 10 15 20 25
0
10
20
30
40
50
Frequency [Hz]
W
i
n
d
o
w
66

The identified dynamic characteristics obtained here are similar to the results
reported by different authors. For instance, Giraldo (2006) identified a total of 7 natural
frequencies with results from ambient vibration test and a hammer test combined. The
frequencies obtained here match very closely the first six frequencies reported by Giraldo
(2006).
Model updating
Characteristics of the finite element model were calibrated to match the identified
structural properties. The axial stiffness of the braces was chosen for updating, because of
the unknown degree of connection between the braces and the other structural elements.
Figure 16 shows a detail of the connection between the braces and the other structural
Eight Variables Sixteen Variables
Figure 15. Distribution of the 32 braces in 2, 4, 8 and 16 variables
Two variables
Four Variables
67

elements. The 32 braces or diagonals were divided in sets of 16, 8, 4 and 2 elements.
Assuming that the axial stiffness of the elements were constant for each group, then a
total of 2, 4, 8 and 16 variables were obtained respectively. The variables are distributed
according to the plane and floor in which the braces are located in the structure. For
instance, in the case of 2 variables the braces are grouped according to the plane in which
they are located (either Y-Z or X-Z plane). Figure 15 shows the distribution of the braces
in the structure for all cases: 2, 4, 8 and 16 variables. In order to vary the axial stiffness of
the braces, the elasticity modulus of the element was allowed to change in proportion to
the elasticity modulus of the steel in a range of 0 (no axial stiffness) to 2.5 (high axial
stiffness). The parameter u, is used as constant of proportionality, therefore the elasticity
modulus of the brace correspond to u times the original elasticity modulus of the steel
(200x10
9
Pa). The original model (no calibrated) had a value of u = 1 for every brace in
Figure 16. Detail of the connections between the braces and other structural
elements
68

the structure, with a value of 0.556 of the objective function (evaluation of Equation (11)
with the parameters in Table 8.
The identified dynamic characteristics were used to calibrate the unknown
stiffness of the braces. Because the objective of this example is to show that the proposed
methodology is suitable for finding alternative solutions when limited information is
available, only the first identified mode shape and natural frequency were used to update
the fine element model. The other dynamic parameters are assumed unknown.
The posterior probability distribution of the diagonals stiffness represented in
Equation (11) (repeated bellow for convenience), was maximized for finding the
diagonals axial stiffness that most likely represent the real structure.

otherwise
w w
Z
cp c
D f
u l
n
j
m
i
error
i j
fe
i j
id
i j
n
j
error w
j
fe
j
id
j
g
p
0
) (
2
1
) (
2
1
exp ) ; (
1 1
2
.
.
,
1
2
=
O < O < O
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
O
= O

= = =
|
o
| |
o
(11)
The standard deviation of the error between measured and modeled natural
frequencies,
error w
j
o , and mode shapes,
error
i j
|
o
.
, is assumed proportional to the standard
deviation of the identified dynamic characteristics. The constant of proportionality was
assumed as 10. Table 8 shows the identified dynamic parameters used for Equation (11).
Table 8. Parameters used for Objective function (Equation (11))
Frequency
Hz
Modal
Coordinate
1x
Modal
Coordinate
4x
Modal
Coordinate
4y
Modal
Coordinate
4rz
Mean 7.481 0.513 0.819 0.234 0.009
Errorstd 0.36 0.142 0.209 1.026 0.044

In order to find all the plausible solutions in the feasible region, the three step
procedure described in chapter 4 was applied in here: i) an initial solution was found by
69

maximizing Equation (11) using genetic algorithms, ii) alternative solutions were found
by using Equation (34) constraint to a value of the objective function in the range of the
85% of the original solution, and iii) a local maxima was located in the vicinity of the
alternative solution just found by using a climbing hill algorithm with the alternative
solution starting point. Steps two and three were repeated as many times as variables
were used and the entire procedure (from steps one to three) were repeated four times to
guarantee repeatability of the results. Therefore, for two variables 8 solutions are
obtained, for four variables 16 solutions, for eight variables 32 solutions, and for sixteen
variables 64 solutions.
Results
Alternative solutions for 2, 4, 8 and 16 variables were obtained and grouped
according to their similitude. Table 9 shows the number of times that steps two and three
were repeated according to the number of variables used and the number of different
solutions obtained. Notice that the number of alternative solutions obtained increases as
the number of variables increases.
Table 9. Number of different solutions obtained according to the number of variables used
Numberof
variables
Numberof
solutions
found
Numberof
differentsolutions
obtained
2 8 2
4 16 6
8 32 8
16 64 44

Figure 17 to Figure 25 show the solutions found for the 2, 4, 8, and 16 variables.
The solutions were grouped according to their similitude and plotted in bar graphs. The
70

variable number is presented in the horizontal axis and its corresponding value in the
vertical axis. The number of bars for each variable represents the number of times that a
solution was found. For instance, in the case in which two variables were used (Figure
17) the first plausible solution was found seven times, and the second solution only once.
The mean value of the objective function (evaluation of Equation (11)) and the mean
values of the integrals with limits of integration of u - 0.05 and u + 0.05 for each set of
solutions are presented in the figure as well.
The mean values of the objective function presented in Figure 17 shows that the
family of 2 different solutions found greatly improves the behavior of the model, when
compare to the 0.556 value of objective function of the original model. It is interesting to
notice that the value of the objective function indicates that the second solution is the
global maxima of the objective function. However, the first solution has a larger
probability when the probability distribution is integrated around an interval of the same
size. The first solution was found 7 times while the second solution only once. It can be
taken as an indication of the larger likelihood of the first solution.
Figure 18 present the different solutions found when 4 variables are used. From a
total of 16 times that the procedure was repeated, six different solutions were obtained. In
this case the First solution has a largest value of objective function of 1 and the largest
probability of than the other 5 alternative solutions.
71

Figure 19 show the solutions obtained when 8 variables were used. In this case a
total of 8 different solutions were found from the 32 times that the program was run. In
this case the highest value of objective function of 1 is presented from the first to the
seventh solution, but the first solution has the highest probability when compare to the
other alternative solutions found in this case.
Figure 20 to Figure 25 present the solutions obtained when 16 variables were
used. In this case were obtained a total of 48 different solutions and all of them have an
objective value of 1. However the solution that presents the highest probability is the
second solution.
Figure 17. Solutions obtained using two variables
1 2
0
1
2
3
Mean F( u): 0.94703 Mean integral: 50%
V
a
l
u
e
1 2
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
72

Figure 18. Solutions obtained using four variables
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
Mean F( u): 0.99985 Mean integral: 19.6%
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
73

Figure 19. Solutions obtained using eight variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
74

Figure 20. Solutions 1 to 8 obtained using eight variables
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
75

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
76

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
77

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
78

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
79

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
80

Notice that traditional model updating algorithms might have selected the solution
with a largest objective value as the solution of the structure. However the proposed
methodology identifies the solution with the highest probability, which is not necessarily
the highest objective value, such as in the cases in which 2, 8 and 16 variables were used.
It is interesting to notice that as the number of variables used increases the value of the
objective function increases as well, up to a point in which the value of the objective
function stabilizes. This indicates that as the number of variables increases, the difference
between the numerical model and the real structure decreases. The probability presents a
different trend. As the number of variables increases the probability decreases. This is
because although the numerical model and the real structure present a better match as the
number of variables increases, the dimension (of the region) of the probability
distribution increases as well.
In order to show that the solutions do not belong to a region of infinite solutions,
the path in between all the different solutions obtained (for a constant number of
variables) was integrated. Figure 26 to Figure 27 show typical integration paths for the
cases of 2, 4, 8 and 16 variables.
Figure 26 shows the integration path between solutions 1 and 2 for the cases of 2
and 4 variables. Figure 27 shows the integration path between solutions 4 and 7 for 8
variables and between solutions 2 and 14 for the case of 16 variables. For the cases of 4,
8 and 16 variables it is clear that the solutions obtained are two different peaks in the
probability distribution. However, the case of 2 variables it is clear that the first solution
is a clear global maximum in the probability distribution.

81


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
x 10
-4
1/10 of the distance between solutions
o

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
4 Variables, Solutions 1 & 2
0 5 10 15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
x 10
-4
o

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
82

respectively
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
x 10
-9
o

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
x 10
-24
o

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
83

Static case
ASCE BENCHMARK (WITH PROBABILITY - NUMERICAL STUDY)
As mentioned before, the methodology proposed in this research is not only
applicable to dynamic data, but also to static data. Static data can be available in bridges
or other structures by using load controlled tests. In bridges this is commonly performed
using loaded trucks located at different positions on the bridge. This section presents a
validation of the updating methodology proposed using static data, and in particular force
and displacement data. Other data, such as strain could also be used, although the
numerical models being updated should be appropriated to represent this type of data.
The ASCE benchmark structure previously used for validation with dynamic data was
used here for the static validation. Since experimental data for force-displacement curves
were not available, numerical simulations of the numerical model were used for the
validation. A static load was applied to the numerical load, and the corresponding
displacement at different locations was used as the data for updating. Bayes inference,
using MGA to identify the high points on the probability distribution function were used
here.
Targeted static displacements
The original goal of the ASCE benchmark experimental tests did not include any
static test. The 88 degrees of freedom original finite element model previously described
was used to obtain the displacements of the structure. Loads of 1000 N in the X and Y
direction were applied at the center of mass of the fourth floor of the structure. The
displacements obtained at the center of mass of the second floor in the X direction and
84

fourth floor in the X and Y directions were used as data to update the finite element
model. The standard deviation of the error of the displacements was assumed to be
proportional to the displacements itself. The constant of proportionality was assumed as
0.5. Table 10 shows the displacements obtained from the original finite element model for
this load condition.
Table 10. Static displacements obtained
SecondfloorX
direction
FourthfloorX
direction
FourthfloorY
direction
Mean 2.62x10
5
5.54x10
5
4.90x10
5
Errorstd 1.31x10
5
2.77x10
5
2.45x10
5

Model updating
Similar to the dynamic validation, the elasticity modulus of the diagonals of the
structure was multiplied by a constant changing in a range of 0 (no axial stiffness) to 2.5
(high axial stiffness) to match the static displacements obtained. Given that this is a
numerical example, we know that the correct value to update the structure is equal to 1.
The braces were grouped in 2, 4 and 8 variables as shown in Figure 15. The posterior
probability distribution of the diagonals stiffness was constructed using the static
displacements obtained and a uniform distribution for the prior PDF as follows

otherwise
d d
k D f
u l
n
j
error d
j
fe
j
id
j
p
0
) (
2
1
exp ) ; (
1
2
=
O < O < O
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
O
= O

=
o

(40)
where, n is the number of obtained static displacements,
id
j
d
is the j-th static
displacement,
) (O
fe
j
d
is the j-th static displacement of the finite element model,
error d
j
o
is the standard deviation of the error of the j-th static displacement, and k is a
85

normalization constant the guaranties that the total integral in the parameters domain is
equal to 1.
Equation (40) was maximized to find the different alternatives to the modulus of
elasticity of the diagonal members that most likely represent the real structure. Table 10
shows the identified static parameters used for Equation (40). The methodology
proposed in this research for model updating was followed in this static validation
including all three steps presented in chapter 4: i) an initial solution was found by
maximizing Equation (40) using genetic algorithms, ii) alternative solutions were found
by using Equation (34) constraint to a value of the objective function in the range of the
85% of the original solution, and iii) a local maxima was located in the vicinity of the
alternative solution just found by using a climbing hill algorithm with the alternative
solution as starting point. Steps two and three were repeated to ensure a complete
exploration of the feasible region. The MGA procedure was repeated 4 times for the 2
variable case, 16 times for the 4 variables scenario, and 32 times for the 8 variables
scenario.
Results
Alternative solutions for 2, 4 and 8 variables were obtained and grouped
according to their similitude. Table 11 shows the number of times that steps two and three
were repeated according to the number of variables used and the number of different
solutions obtained. Notice that similar to the dynamic case, and as one might expect, the
number of alternative solutions obtained increases as the number of variables increases.

86

Table 11. Number of different solutions obtained according to the number of variables used
Numberof
variables
Numberof
solutions
found
Numberof
differentsolutions
obtained
2 8 1
4 16 6
8 32 29

Figure 28 to Figure 33 show the solutions found for 2, 4, and 8 variables. Similar
to the dynamic validation, the solutions were grouped according to their similitude and
plotted in bar graphs. The numbers on the horizontal axis correspond to variable number,
and the vertical axis contains the value of that variable (multiplier of the modulus of
elasticity). Each bar corresponds to the solutions found. The mean value of the objective
function (evaluation of Equation (40)) and the mean values of the integral of Equation
(40) (probability) with limits of integration of u - 0.05 and u + 0.05 for each set of
Figure 28. Solutions obtained for the static validation using two variables
1 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Mean F( u): 1 Mean integral: 100%
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
87

solutions are presented in the form of percentage in the figures as well.
Figure 28 presents the solutions found when two variables are used. In this case a
single solution was found. The solution has an objective value of f(u) = 1, and it has a
probability of a 100 %.
Figure 29 presents the alternative solutions found when 4 variables are used.
From a total of 16 times that the procedure was repeated, six different solutions were
obtained including the exact solution u = 1. In this case all six solutions have the same
objective value f(u) = 1, but the fifth solution u = 1 has the highest probability 17.102 %.
Figure 30 to Figure 33 show the different solutions obtained for the case in which
eight variables were used. From a total of 32 times that the procedure was repeated, 29
alternative solutions were found including a solution similar to the exact solution u = 1.
In this case all 29 solutions have the same objective value f(u) = 1, but the first solution
has the highest probability 3.5 %.
Similar to the dynamic validation, the path in between all the different solutions
obtained was integrated. Figure 34 shows the integration path between solutions 3 and 6
for the case of 4 variables, as well as the integration path between solutions 2 and 10 for
the scenario in which 8 variables are used. It is clear that in both cases, the two solutions
are two different peaks in the posterior probability distribution, indicating that the
solutions obtained do not belong to a region of infinite solutions.

88

Figure 29. Solutions obtained for the static validation using four variables
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
Mean F( u): 1 Mean integral: 16.7%
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
89

Figure 30. Solutions 1 to 8 obtained for the static validation using eight variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
92

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
1
2
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
V
a
l
u
e
Variable
93

respectively
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
9.45
9.46
9.47
9.48
9.49
9.5
9.51
9.52
9.53
9.54
9.55
x 10
-8
o

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-12
o

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
94

Validation with a combination of static and dynamic data (probabilistic)
The model updating methodology proposed in this dissertation was validated with
a flexible 2 floors building using a combination of static data obtained from a load test
and dynamic data (random vibration) obtained in a continuous pseudo real-time fashion.
The structure is 980 mm tall and 305 by 108 mm in plan. The structure is attached to a
uniaxial earthquake simulator (shake table) located at the structural laboratory at the
University of South Carolina. The structure and the shake table were manufactured by
Quanser Consulting Inc.
STIFFNESS DETERMINATION
The lateral stiffness of the structure was determined by using two load tests.
Strings were attached to each degree of freedom of the structure, passed through pulleys
Figure 35. Structure used for validation of model updating using both static
and dynamic data
95

and then attached to known weights as shown in Figure 36. The displacement was
determined by measuring the rotation of the pulleys. A rotary motion sensor PS-2120
manufactured by PASCO scientific that measures the angle of rotation of the pulleys was
used. The rotation of the pulleys can easily be converted to displacement by considering
the radius of the pulleys. The standard deviation of the error was calculated as the
minimum displacement that could be measured by the motion sensor (3.75 mm). Table
12 shows the displacements and the standard deviation of the error for both load cases.
Table 12. Displacements obtained from each load case
Load
case
LoadDof
1(N)
LoadDof
2(N)
Displacement
Dof1(m)
Std.Dev.
Dof2(m)
Displacement
Dof2(m)
Std.Dev.
Dof2(m)
1 6.42 5.88 0.034 0.004 0.049 0.004
2 6.42 9.01 0.045 0.004 0.084 0.004

The 2 floors building was idealized as 2 degrees of freedom (dof) structure,
Figure 36. Static test set up
weights
sensor 1
dof 2
dof 1
sensor 2
96

because the floors of the structure are much stiffer than the columns (Figure 37). The
numerical model of the structure was built in Matlab, where the stiffness
1
and
2
are the
variables to update. Similarly to Equation (40) the likelihood of the parameters
1
and
2

is given by

|
|
.
|
\
|
O
= O
=
n
j
error d
j
fe
j
id
j
p
d d
k D g
1
2
) (
2
1
exp ) ; (
o

(41)
The posterior PDF for the first load case is calculated assuming a uniform prior
PDF. The posterior PDF for the second test is computed using the posterior PDF obtained
from the first load case as prior PDF. This methodology allows the updating of the
posterior PDF when new data or information is available.
Results
The posteriors PDF for both first and second load cases are shown in Figure 38,
where regions of low probability are blue and high probability green. The values of the
parameters
1
and
2
that maximizes the posterior PDF at each load case are presented in
Table 13.
Table 13. Stiffness values obtained for each load scenario
Loadcase
1
(N/m)
2
(N/m)
1 362.47 389.13
2 356.03 256.47
Figure 37. Two dof structure idealization
2
m
2
m
1
97

Figure 38. Posterior PDF of the stiffness
1
and
2
for load cases 1 and 2
respectively
Stiffness 1 [N/m]
S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

2

[
N
/
m
]

200 250 300 350 400 450 500
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Stiffness 1 [N/m]
S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

2

[
N
/
m
]

200 250 300 350 400 450 500
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
98

MASS DETERMINATION
The mass of the structure was determined using continuously obtained dynamic
data. Each set of data is recorded and processed to identify the dynamic characteristics of
the structure, and then the masses of the structure are updated based on the identified
dynamic characteristics. The entire process is repeated every time that a new set of data is
available in a pseudo real-time form.
The structure was excited with the shake table with a random motion, simulating
ambient vibration. Accelerometers attached to each one of the degrees of freedom of the
structure were used to obtained acceleration records. The records of acceleration obtained
from both degrees of freedom are 15 seconds long and were acquired at 200 Hz and
resampled to 15 Hz. The resultant data record is divided in 2 windows and Stochastic
Subspace Identification (SSI) was performed to each window to identify the first two
natural frequencies of the structure.
The numerical model of the structure was built in Matlab with the stiffness values
obtained previously and it was used to update the value of the masses m
1
and m
2
. The
likelihood of the masses m
1
and m
2
is given by

|
|
.
|
\
|
O
= O
=
n
j
error w
j
fe
j
id
j
p
w w
k D g
1
2
) (
2
1
exp ) ; (
o

(42)
where
id
j
w
correspond to the j-th identified natural frequency,
) (O
fe
j
w
is the j-th
natural frequency of the numerical model, and
error w
j
o
the standard deviation of the error
in the natural frequency. First the posterior PDF of the masses was computed assuming a
uniform prior PDF. The uniform PDF represents the lack of knowledge about the masses
distribution. Once a new record of acceleration was obtained the posterior PDF obtained
99

from the previous record of accelerations was used as prior PDF. Therefore, the posterior
PDF of the masses is updated every time that new information is obtained. In other words
the knowledge of the mass distribution is updated every time that a new measurement is
performed.
Results
The posterior PDF of the masses m
1
and m
2
obtained with the first and fourth
records of acceleration are shown in Figure 39. Regions of low probability are blue and
high probability green. Figure 39 shows two solutions or regions of high probability. The
MGA methodology proposed in this dissertation is used to find these solutions. Table 14
shows the updated masses for all four records of accelerations obtained from the
structure.
Table 14. Mass values obtained for each acceleration record
Acceleration
record
Solution1 Solution2
m
1
(g) m
2
(g) Probability
50g
m
1
(g) m
2
(g) Probability
50g
1 1649.6 364.7 2.0% 706.2 846.7 2.1%
2 1661.3 365.1 3.3% 702.2 863.8 3.5%
3 1738.5 360.1 4.3% 709.2 863.3 4.8%
4 1660.7 369.8 5.5% 711.1 863.6 6.1%

The first and second floors of the structure are similar as Figure 35 shows.
Therefore, the mass and stiffness of the structure at each degree of freedom should be
similar as appears in solution 2. Notice that the area of high probability decreases as new
acceleration records are obtained, showing that the uncertainties in the mass distribution
decreases as a better knowledge is gained.
100

Figure 39. Posterior PDF of the masses m
1
and m
2
for the records of
accelerations 1 and 4 respectively
Mass 1 [gr]
M
a
s
s

2

[
g
r
]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Mass 1 [gr]
M
a
s
s

2

[
g
r
]

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
101

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Conclusions
This dissertation discusses a new methodology for model updating of complex
structural systems. Traditional model updating techniques minimize an objective
function of the error between a numerical model and the actual structure. The current
state of the art in model updating assumes that the global minimum of this objective
function will provide the best physical representation of the structure. In contrast, the
proposed methodology recognizes that a local minimum could be a better physical
representation of the structure due to incomplete data and identification and modeling
errors. The proposed method is based on Modeling to Generate Alternatives (MGA), and
it is used to calculate physically different solutions, while obtaining a relative good
performance in the objective function. Three validation examples are discussed: the Bill
Emerson Memorial Bridge, the Structural Health Monitoring Benchmark Structure, and a
flexible 2 floors structure. The model of the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge was updated
deterministically, while the other two examples were updated probabilistically. The
probabilistic validations were performed using dynamic and static data. Bayes inference
provides the framework for the probabilistic methodology.
102

According to the results obtained, probabilistic model updating has a better
performance than deterministic model updating because it considers both: the behavior of
the objective function and the probability of the solution. In addition a probabilistic
framework gives the analyst more information than the deterministic procedure. It was
found that the solution with the best performance in terms of the objective function is not
necessarily the solution with highest probability. Results show that the proposed
methodology is appropriate for working with either dynamic or static data.
A deterministic version of the proposed methodology was applied for updating a
finite element model of the Bill Emerson memorial Bridge. The methodology consisted
on the minimization of the difference between the dynamic characteristics of the finite
element model and the identified dynamic characteristics of the real structure. The
methodology found a first solution which presented an improvement of the 28.6% in the
objective function. Alternative models were obtained by running a second optimization
process iteratively up to the point where no additional solutions are found. All alternative
solutions are physically different and represent significant improvements of the numerical
model when compared with the non-updated model.
The probabilistic model updating methodology proposed in this dissertation was
first validated using a 4 floors steel structure. The structure used for validation was the
ASCE benchmark structure of the International Association for Structural Control
(IASC). The structure was originally built to study different structural health monitoring
methodologies. Several dynamic tests were performed by the IASC-ASCE benchmark
task group and were available for this research. The validation was performed using
dynamic data: natural frequencies and mode shapes. Modal identification of the structure
103

was performed using the Stochastic Subspace Identification technique. The modulus of
elasticity of the braces of the structure was chosen as updating parameter because of their
unknown stiffness at the connection with the other structural elements. The 32 braces
were group in four different cases in which 2, 4, 8 and 16 variables were used. The
posterior probability distribution of the braces stiffness was built based on the identified
dynamic characteristics. The probability distribution was maximized to obtain the most
likely Elasticity modulus of the braces. The number of solutions searched was set to the
number of variables of the problem, and then the entire methodology was repeated 4
times to ensure repeatability of the results. Therefore, a total of 8, 16, 32 and 64 solutions
are searched for the methodology. The solutions obtained were grouped according to
their similitude. In the case of 2 variables, 2 different solutions were obtained, for 4
variables, 6 different solutions, for 8 variables, 8 different solutions and for 16 variables
44 different solutions. As expected, the number of alternative solutions obtained
increases as the number of variables increases. However it was found that more data is
needed for the case of 16 variables.
All alternative solutions obtained enhance the behavior of the finite element
model when compare to the value of the original finite element model. The probability of
the solutions was found by integrating the probability distribution in a small region on the
surroundings of all solutions found. It was surprising to find that the solutions with the
best performance of the objective function do not necessarily have the highest
probability. Traditional model updating algorithms might have selected the solution with
a largest objective value as the solution of the structure.
104

A method to numerically check if the current problem has infinite solutions was
proposed and tested. This was achieved by integrating the path between two solutions,
and checking that this does not correspond to a flat plot. The path in between all
solutions of a same number of variables was integrated to guaranty that the solutions
found do not belong to a region where there are infinite solutions. The solutions obtained
in all the updated finite element models shown in this thesis are isolated probability peaks
of the probability distribution.
The proposed methodology was also validated using static displacements data.
Numerical simulations were used to simulate the displacement data due to the lack of
static tests on the ASCE benchmark structure. Similarly to the dynamic validation, the
Elasticity modulus of the braces was updated using 2, 4, and 8 variables. For the case of 2
variables a single solution was obtained, in the case of 4 variables, 6 different solutions,
and in the case of 8 variables, 29 different solutions were found. In all cases: 2, 4, and 8
variables the original modulus of elasticity of the braces was found, and for the cases of
2, and 4 variables the solution with the original modulus of elasticity has the highest
probability.
The probabilistic model updating methodology proposed in this dissertation was
validated using a small 2 floors structure as well. The stiffness of the structure was first
updated by using data from static displacements obtained from two different load
conditions. For the first load condition a uniform prior PDF was assumed, for the second
load condition the posterior PDF obtained from the first test was used as prior PDF. A
single solution was obtained in each case. Once the lateral stiffness of the structure was
determined, the mass distribution was updated. Dynamic data obtained continuously in a
105

pseudo real-time fashion was used for updating the mass distribution. A low frequency
and low amplitude random excitation was used. Records of acceleration from both floors
were obtained continuously every 15 seconds. Each set of data was processed to identify
the natural frequencies of the structure, and then the mass distribution of the structure
was updated every time that a new record of acceleration was available. A uniform prior
PDF was assumed for the first set of data. The posterior obtained PDF was used as prior
PDF for the next record of accelerations. Two solutions were obtained in each case. A
visual inspection of the structure shows similar masses in the first and second floors,
which coincides with the second solution obtained. A reduction of the width of the area
of plausible solutions was obtained every time that a new record of accelerations was
considered, showing that uncertainty is reduced as more data is available.
Future work
The proposed methodology was successful in identifying the areas of high
probability of the posterior probability distribution function used to update a numerical
model. The methodology can be used in a large number of applications such as
earthquake engineering, validation of innovative designs, damage identification and
prognosis among others. However, further research can be performed to enhance the
capabilities of the proposed technique in several areas, such as:
a. A better estimation of the standard deviation of the error of the parameters is
needed. These values were selected as a function of the standard deviation of
the measured parameters in the dynamic case, and as a fraction of the
displacement on the static tests. The estimation of this standard deviation
106

could have a significant role in the identification of multiple solutions.
Currently, there is not an easy way to estimate this error because it includes
modeling errors as well as experimental errors.
b. It became clear through the development of this research that the higher the
number of parameters to be updated, and the lower the number of measured
parameters, more alternative solutions can be found. Techniques allowing
the identification of higher density of modal coordinates can minimize the
number of alternative solutions found, providing the analyst with a more
meaningful result of the updated process.
c. The optimization techniques used during this research including genetic
algorithms and other minimization procedures can be easily programmed in a
parallel processing fashion. This will significantly reduce the computational
time when more complex numerical models, with a higher number of
parameters are updated.

107

REFERENCES

Allemang, R. J. (2003). "The Modal Assurance Criterion - Twenty Years Of Use And
Abuse." Sound and Vibration, 37(8), 14-23.
Andersen P., B. R. "Estimation Of Modal Parameters And Their Uncertainties."
Proceedings of The 17th International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC),
Kissimmee,Florida, 323-329.
Ang, A. H. S., and Tang, W. H. (2007). Probability Concepts In Engineering Planning
And Design, John Wiley & Sons.
ASCE. (2009). "Report Card for America's Infrastructure." American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE).
Ayra, B., Dept. of Civil, E., and Tufts, U. (2000). "Structural Identification for Condition
Assessment Using Modal Non-destructive Test Data," Tufts University.
Bakir, P. G., Reynders, E., and Roeck, G. D. (2008). "An Improved Finite Element
Model Updating Method By The Global Optimization Technique Coupled Local
Minimizers." Computers and Structures, 86(11-12), 1339-1352.
Basseville, M., Benveniste, A., Goursat, M., Hermans, L., Mevel, L., and Van der
Auweraer, H. (2001). "Output-Only Subspace-Based Structural Identification:
From Theory To Industrial Testing Practice." Journal of Dynamic Systems
Measurement and Control-Transactions of the Asme, 123(4), 668-676.
Baugh, J. W., Caldwell, S. C., and Brill, E. D. (1997). "A Mathematical Programming
Approach for Generating Alternatives in Discrete Structural Optimization."
Engineering Optimization, 28, 1-31.
Beck, J. L., Au, S. K., and Vanik, M. V. (2001). "Monitoring Structural Health Using A
Probabilistic Measure." Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
16(1), 1-11.
Beck, J. L., and Katafygiotis, L. S. (1998). "Updating Models and Their Uncertainties. I:
Bayesian Statistical Framework." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 124(4),
455-461.
Bohle, K., and Fritzen, C.-P. (2003). "Results Obtained by Minimising Natural
Frequency and MAC-Value Errors of a Plate Model." Mechanical Systems and
Signal Processing, 17(1), 55-64.
108

Bridge Diagnostics, I. (2006). "Integrated Approach to Load Testing Instruction Manual."
Brill, E. D., Chang, S.-Y., and Hopkins, L. D. (1982). "Modeling To Generate
Alternatives: The HSJ Approach And An Illustration Using A Problem In Land
Use Planning." Management Science, 28(3), 221-235.
Brill, E. D., Flach, J. M., Hopkins, L. D., and Ranjithan, S. (1990). "MGA: A Decision
Support System For Complex, Incompletely Defined Problems." IEEE
Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 20(4), 745-757.
Brincker, and Andersen. "Understanding Stochastic Subspace Identification." IMAC, St.
Louis, Missouri.
Brownjohn, J. M. W., Moyo, P., Omenzetter, P., and Lu, Y. (2003). "Assessment of
Highway Bridge Upgrading by Dynamic Testing and Finite-Element Model
Updating." Journal of Bridge Engineering, 8(3), 162-172.
Brownjohn, J. M. W., and Xia, P.-Q. (2000). "Dynamic Assessment of Curved Cable-
Stayed Bridge by Model Updating." Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(2),
252-260.
Caicedo, J. M., Dyke, S. J., Moon, S. J., Bergman, L. A., Turan, G., and Hague, S.
(2003). "Phase II Benchmark Control Problem for Seismic Response of Cable-
Stayed Bridges." Journal of Structural Control and Monitoring, 10, 137-168.
Campbell, G. E., and Mendoza, G. A. (1988). "Adapting Modeling to Generate
Alternatives (Mga) Techniques to Forest Level Planning." Journal of
Environmental Management, 26(2), 151-161.
elebi, M. (2006). "Real-Time Seismic Monitoring of the New Cape Girardeau Bridge
and Preliminary Analyses of Recorded Data: An Overview." Earthquake Spectra,
22(3), 609-630.
Chang, S. P., and Park, Y. Y. . "Dynamic Analysis Of The Cable-suspended Roof System
By Using The Three-Dimensional Cable Element." Proceedings of the second
Japan-Korea Joint Seminar on Steel Bridges, Tokyo, Japan, 203216.
Coleman, T. F., and Li, Y. (1994). "On the Convergence of Reflective Newton Methods
for Large-Scale Nonlinear Minimization Subject to Bounds." Mathematical
Programming, 67(2), 189-224.
Cornwell, P., Farrar, C. R., Doebling, S. W., and Sohn, H. (1999). "Environmental
Variability Of Modal Properties." Experimental Techniques, 23(6), 45-48.
Daniel, R. G. (1990). "Parallel simulated annealing techniques." Phys. D, 42(1-3), 293-
306.
Dyke, S. J., Bernal, D., Beck, J., and Ventura, C. "Experimental Phase Ii Of The
Structural Health Monitoring Benchmark Problem." 16th ASCE Engineering
Mechanics Conference, Seattle, WA, July.
Dyke, S. J., Caicedo, J. M., Turan, G., Bergman, L. A., and Hague, S. (2003b). "Phase I
Benchmark Control Problem for Seismic Response of Cable-Stayed Bridges."
Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(7), 857-872.
109

Edoardo, C., and Iunio, I. (2007). "Case Study: Seismic Retrofitting of a Medieval Bell
Tower with FRP." Journal of Composites for Construction, 11(3), 319-327.
Fonseca, J. R., Friswell, M. I., Mottershead, J. E., and Lees, A. W. (2005). "Uncertainty
identification by the maximum likelihood method." Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 288(3), 587-599.
Franco, G., Betti, R., and Longman, R. W. (2006). "On the Uniqueness of Solutions for
the Identification of Linear Structural Systems." Journal of Applied Mechanics,
73, 153.
Gill, P. E., Murray, W., and Wright, M. H. (1981). Practical Optimization, Academic
Press, London.
Giraldo, D. (2006). "A Structural Health Monitoring Framework For Civil Structures,"
Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis.
Giraldo, D., Caicedo, J. M., Song, W., Mogan, B., and Dyke, S. J. (2006a). "Modal
Identification Through Ambient Vibration: A Comparative Study." 24th
International Modal Analysis Conference, Saint Louis, Missouri.
Giraldo, D., Dyke, S. J., and Caicedo, J. M. (2006b). "Damage Detection
Accommodating Varying Environmental Conditions." Structural Health
Monitoring, 5(2), 155-172.
Gupta, A., Kripakaran, P., Mahinthakumar, G. K., and Jr., J. W. B. (2005). "Genetic
Algorithm-Based Decision Support for Optimizing Seismic Response of Piping
Systems." Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(3), 389-398.
Hasselman, T. (2001). "Quantification of Uncertainty in Structural Dynamic Models."
Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 14, 158.
Hendrik Schlune, M. P., Kent Gylltoft. (2009). "Improved Bridge Evaluation Through
Finite Element Model Updating Using Static And Dynamic Measurements."
Engineering Structures, In Press.
Hjelmstad, K. D. (1996). "On The Uniqueness Of Modal Parameter Estimation." Journal
of Sound and Vibration, 192(2), 581-598.
Holland, J. H. (1975). "Adaptation In Natural And Artificial Systems, University of
Michigan press." Ann Arbor, MI.
Istadi, I., and Amin, N. A. S. (2007). "Modelling And Optimization Of Catalytic
Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma Reactor For Methane And Carbon Dioxide
Conversion Using Hybrid Artificial Neural NetworkGenetic Algorithm
Technique." Chemical Engineering Science, 62(23), 6568-6581.
Jaishi, B., and Ren, W.-X. (2005). "Structural Finite Element Model Updating Using
Ambient Vibration Test Results." Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(4), 617-
628.
Jann, N. Y., Anil, K. A., Bijan, S., and Jong-Cheng, W. (2004). "Benchmark Problem for
Response Control of Wind-Excited Tall Buildings." Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 130(4), 437-446.
110

Johnson, E. A., Lam, H. F., Katafygiotis, L. S., and Beck, J. L. "A Benchmark Problem
For Structural Health Monitoring And Damage Detection."
Kai, H. H., Marvin, W. H., Paul, J. B., and Marc, J. R. (2008). "Structural Damage
Detection Using Dynamic Properties Determined from Laboratory and Field
Testing." Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 22(4), 238-244.
Katafygiotis, L. S., and Beck, J. L. (1998). "Updating Models and Their Uncertainties.
II: Model Identifiability." Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 124(4), 463-467.
Katafygiotis, L. S., Papadimitriou, C., and Lam, H. F. (1998). "A Probabilistic Approach
To Structural Model Updating." Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
17(7-8), 495-507.
Katayama, T. (2005). Subspace methods for system identification, London.
Lam, H. F. (1998). "Structural Model Updating And Health Monitoring In The Presence
Of Modeling Uncertainties," Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
Hong Kong.
Lam, H. F., Katafygiotis, L. S., and Mickleborough, N. C. (2004). "Application Of A
Statistical Model Updating Approach On Phase I Of The IASC-ASCE Structural
Health Monitoring Benchmark Study." Journal of Engineering Mechanics-Asce,
130(1), 34-48.
Link, M., and Friswell, M. (2003). "Working group 1: Generation of Validated Structural
Dynamic Models -- Results of a Benchmark Study Utilising the Garteur SM-
AG19 Test-bed." Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 17(1), 9-20.
Loughlin, D. H., Ranjithan, S. R., Brill, E. D., and Baugh, J. W. (2001). "Genetic
Algorithm Approaches For Addressing Unmodeled Objectives In Optimization
Problems." Engineering Optimization, 33(5), 549-569.
Masoud Sanayei, B. A. E. M. S. S. W.-F. (2001). "Significance of Modeling Error in
Structural Parameter Estimation." Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 16(1), 12-27.
Mevel, L., Benveniste, A., Basseville, M., Goursat, M., Peeters, B., Van der Auweraer,
H., and Vecchio, A. (2006). "Input/Output Versus Output-Only Data Processing
For Structural Identification - Application To In-Flight Data Analysis." Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 295(3-5), 531-552.
Mitchell, M. (1996). An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, Bradford Books.
Mottershead, J. E., and Friswell, M. I. (1993). "Model Updating in Structural Dynamics:
A Survey." Journal of Sound and Vibration, 167(2), 347-375.
Rao, S. S. (2004). The Finite Element Method In Engineering, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rios, J. M. (2005). "Uncertainty in Structural Dynamic Models," University of Wales
Swansea, Swansea.
Robert, C. P., and Casella, G. (2004). Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, Springer.
111

Rubenstein-Montano, B., Anandalingam, G., and Zandi, I. (2000). "A Genetic Algorithm
Approach To Policy Design For Consequence Minimization." European Journal
of Operational Research, 124(1), 43-54.
Sivanandam, S. N., and Deepa, S. N. (2007). Introduction to Genetic Algorithms,
Springer Verlag.
Song, W., Giraldo, D., Clayton, E. H., Dyke, S. J., and Caicedo, J. M. (2006).
"Application of ARMAV for Modal Identification of the Emerson Bridge." Third
International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management, Porto,
Portugal.
Sprouse, W. L., and Mendoza, G. A. (1990). "Modeling to Generate Alternatives - a
Shawnee-National-Forest Example." Computers Environment and Urban
Systems, 14(3), 203-211.
Uber, J. G., Brill, E. D., and Pfeffer, J. T. (1992). "Use of Mathematical-Programming
Methods for Complex-Systems." Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management-Asce, 118(3), 281-294.
Van Overschee, P., and De Moor, B. (1996). Subspace Identification for Linear Systems:
Theory - Implementation - Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Yuen, K. V., Beck, J. L., and Katafygiotis, L. S. (2006). "Unified Probabilistic Approach
For Model Updating And Damage Detection." Journal of Applied Mechanics-
Transactions of the Asme, 73(4), 555-564.
Zrate, B. A., and Caicedo, J. M. (2008). "Finite Element Model Updating: Multiple
Alternatives." Engineering Structures.
Zechman, E. M., and Ranjithan, S. R. (2004). "An Evolutionary Algorithm To Generate
Alternatives (EAGA) For Engineering Optimization Problems." Engineering
Optimization, 36(5), 539-553.
Zhang, Q. W., Chang, T. Y. P., and Chang, C. C. (2001). "Finite-Element Model
Updating for the Kap Shui Mun Cable-Stayed Bridge." Journal of Bridge
Engineering, 6(4), 285-293.

Zarate

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Zarate

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS AND THEIR PROBABILITIES FOR THE MODEL

UPDATING OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen