Cited by 58Structural Health Monitoring TechniquesStructural Engineering and Materials AnalysisInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring

Model updating for structural health monitoring using static and dynamic measurements

Open access
Schommer, Sebastian, Nguyen, Viet Ha, Maas, Stefan, Zürbes, Arno·2017·Procedia Engineering

Abstract

Structural health monitoring is tracking static or dynamic characteristics of a structure to identify and localize stiffness reductions for damage detection. Different damage indicators are used and any indicator presents advantages and drawbacks. Hence the idea comes up to combine them in a model-updating procedure using a finite element model. In a first step, a model is fit to match the healthy reference state of the examined structure. Therefore it relies on minimizing a special objective function adding and weighting the differences between measured and calculated static and dynamic structural characteristics. For doing structural health monitoring the measurements are repeated in distinct time intervals and the finite element model is updated again, using the same objective function and minimization procedure. Damage can be identified and localized by highlighting reductions in the stiffness matrix of the model compared to the initial model. The efficiency of the method is illustrated by in-situ tests, where a single beam is examined that was part of a real prestressed concrete bridge. For static tests, 8 displacement transducers were disposed along the length of 40m, while the beam was mass-loaded and the deflection line is analyzed. Modal analysis was performed with swept sine excitation with constant force amplitude to identify eigenfrequencies and mode shapes. Stepwise artificial damage was provoked by cutting multiple prestressed tendons inside the concrete beam. A finite element model with a mapped mesh was created, allowing a variation of Young’s modulus in grouped sections. On real bridges temperature is neither homogenous nor constant over time, which often has a considerable influence on measured static and dynamic characteristics as the stiffness of asphalt and/or bearings can be affected. The proposed methods show their efficiency when temperature effects were excluded or compensated after measurement, which is a topic on its own and not discussed here.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.156

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mass loadings, such as traffic, can introduce challenges to SHM techniques as an operational variable.

    “Mass loadings, such as traffic, can introduce challenges to SHM techniques as another operational variable.Several papers on SHM have studied the effects of mass loading on the measured signals from SHM systems [127,128].”

    From Effects of Environmental and Operational Conditions on Structural Health Monitoring and Non-Destructive Testing: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [127]

    Section 3.1 (p. 4) describes traffic-like mass loads applied to the beam, and Section 3.3 (p. 5) reports differences in measured deflection between loaded and unloaded states. This supports the point that mass loading affects SHM measurements, but the paper uses controlled loading as part of its tests; it does not characterize traffic loading as an operational variable that challenges SHM techniques. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schommer, S., Nguyen, V. H., Maas, S., & Zürbes, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Luxembourg (LU)
  • TH Bingen University of Applied Sciences (DE)
Venue
Procedia Engineering
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017
Volume
199
Pages
2146-2153
ISSN
1877-7058 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2754543393
Cited by
58
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
10.77
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Procedia Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Structural Engineering and Materials Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Keywords
structural health monitoring, model updating, damage detection, damage localization, stiffness degradation, static measurement, dynamic measurement, finite element model, prestressed concrete bridges, beam deflection, natural frequencies, mode shapes, temperature effects, Young's modulus variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review