A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Damage Localization of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Extracted Modal Parameters
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6899-605X
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0340-134X
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5537-4526
This study compares the effectiveness of experimental modal analysis (EMA) and operational modal analysis (OMA) in extracting the modal parameters and damage detection of a concrete beam under different loading levels. The study used a concrete beam of 200 mm in width, 250 mm in depth, and 2200 mm in length. The results showed that the extracted natural frequencies decreased as the damage level increased, and both EMA and OMA were able to capture the modal properties of the structure. The EMA method could not capture many high frequencies in damaged conditions, leading to inaccuracies due to noise in the captured data. On the other hand, OMA tests could extract more modes. However, this method required more sensors, which could affect the cost of the tests. Overall, the OMA tests were more straightforward and practical, resulting in more reliable outcomes. Different damage detection and localization methods were utilized, and their efficiencies were investigated. These methods included modal assurance criterion (MAC), the modified total modal assurance criterion (MTMAC), the coordinate modal assurance criterion (COMAC), the mode shape curvature method (MSCM), and the modal flexibility assurance criterion (MACFA). The study found that relying solely on parameters not considering the frequency change for damage detection may not provide an accurate damage assessment method. Additional techniques such as MTMAC and MACFA can help provide a more comprehensive understanding of the overall stiffness changes in a structure due to damage. It was concluded that in OMA tests, COMAC factors might detect the changes in beam stiffness at degrees of freedom and be able to detect, locate, or quantify the damage. However, the damage localization using the above methods failed in the EMA test due to noise. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of EMA and OMA in extracting modal properties of concrete beams and the limitations of common damage detection methods.
Damage Localization of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Extracted Modal Parameters
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6899-605X
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0340-134X
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5537-4526
This study compares the effectiveness of experimental modal analysis (EMA) and operational modal analysis (OMA) in extracting the modal parameters and damage detection of a concrete beam under different loading levels. The study used a concrete beam of 200 mm in width, 250 mm in depth, and 2200 mm in length. The results showed that the extracted natural frequencies decreased as the damage level increased, and both EMA and OMA were able to capture the modal properties of the structure. The EMA method could not capture many high frequencies in damaged conditions, leading to inaccuracies due to noise in the captured data. On the other hand, OMA tests could extract more modes. However, this method required more sensors, which could affect the cost of the tests. Overall, the OMA tests were more straightforward and practical, resulting in more reliable outcomes. Different damage detection and localization methods were utilized, and their efficiencies were investigated. These methods included modal assurance criterion (MAC), the modified total modal assurance criterion (MTMAC), the coordinate modal assurance criterion (COMAC), the mode shape curvature method (MSCM), and the modal flexibility assurance criterion (MACFA). The study found that relying solely on parameters not considering the frequency change for damage detection may not provide an accurate damage assessment method. Additional techniques such as MTMAC and MACFA can help provide a more comprehensive understanding of the overall stiffness changes in a structure due to damage. It was concluded that in OMA tests, COMAC factors might detect the changes in beam stiffness at degrees of freedom and be able to detect, locate, or quantify the damage. However, the damage localization using the above methods failed in the EMA test due to noise. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of EMA and OMA in extracting modal properties of concrete beams and the limitations of common damage detection methods.
Damage Localization of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Extracted Modal Parameters
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6899-605X
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0340-134X
https://orcid.org/http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5537-4526
This study compares the effectiveness of experimental modal analysis (EMA) and operational modal analysis (OMA) in extracting the modal parameters and damage detection of a concrete beam under different loading levels. The study used a concrete beam of 200 mm in width, 250 mm in depth, and 2200 mm in length. The results showed that the extracted natural frequencies decreased as the damage level increased, and both EMA and OMA were able to capture the modal properties of the structure. The EMA method could not capture many high frequencies in damaged conditions, leading to inaccuracies due to noise in the captured data. On the other hand, OMA tests could extract more modes. However, this method required more sensors, which could affect the cost of the tests. Overall, the OMA tests were more straightforward and practical, resulting in more reliable outcomes. Different damage detection and localization methods were utilized, and their efficiencies were investigated. These methods included modal assurance criterion (MAC), the modified total modal assurance criterion (MTMAC), the coordinate modal assurance criterion (COMAC), the mode shape curvature method (MSCM), and the modal flexibility assurance criterion (MACFA). The study found that relying solely on parameters not considering the frequency change for damage detection may not provide an accurate damage assessment method. Additional techniques such as MTMAC and MACFA can help provide a more comprehensive understanding of the overall stiffness changes in a structure due to damage. It was concluded that in OMA tests, COMAC factors might detect the changes in beam stiffness at degrees of freedom and be able to detect, locate, or quantify the damage. However, the damage localization using the above methods failed in the EMA test due to noise. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of EMA and OMA in extracting modal properties of concrete beams and the limitations of common damage detection methods.
Damage Localization of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Extracted Modal Parameters
Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering
Desjardins, Serge (editor) / Poitras, Gérard J. (editor) / El Damatty, Ashraf (editor) / Elshaer, Ahmed (editor) / Kianfar, Ehsan (author) / Arjomandi, Kaveh (author) / Lloyd, Alan (author)
Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Annual Conference ; 2023 ; Moncton, NB, Canada
Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference 2023, Volume 13 ; Chapter: 20 ; 237-251
2024-09-03
15 pages
Article/Chapter (Book)
Electronic Resource
English
Damage assessment of reinforced concrete beams by modal test
| Tema Archive | 2009
Structural Damage Detection in Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Modal Damping Measurements
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2002
| DOAJ | 2023
Temperature and damage effects on modal parameters of a reinforced concrete bridge
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2002
Damage Assessment of Adhesively Bonded FRP Beams Using Modal Parameters
| British Library Online Contents | 2007