The detection of damage with model-based methods is a constrained nonlinear optimization problem. Conventional optimization approaches usually lead to local minima. Furthermore, they are highly sensitive to experimental noise or numerical errors. Genetic algorithms (GAs) provide an attractive alternative since they can potentially explore the entire solution space and reach the global optimum. However, GAs are inherently slow when they work with complicated or time consuming objective functions. To overcome this problem parallel GAs are proposed, and they are particularly easy to implement and provide a superior numerical performance. In this study, a real-coded parallel GA is implemented to detect structural damage. The objective function is based on operational modal data; it considers the initial errors in the numerical model. False damage detection is avoided by using damage penalization. The algorithm is verified with two experimental cases. First, a test structure of an airplane subjected to three increasing levels of damage. Second, a multiple cracked reinforced concrete beam that is subjected to a nonsymmetrical increasing static load to introduce cracks. In both cases, the detected damage has a good correspondence with the experimental damage.
Salawu, O. ( 1997). Detection of structural damage through changes in frequency: A review. Engineering Structures, 19, 718-723.
2.
Carden, E. and Fanning, P. ( 2004). Vibration based condition monitoring: A review. Structural Health Monitoring, 3, 355-377.
3.
Modak, S., Kundra, T. and Nakra, B. ( 2000). Model updating using constrained optimization. Mechanics Research Communications, 27, 543-551.
4.
Allemang, R.J. and Brown, D.L. ( 1982). A correlation coefficient for modal vector analysis. In: Proceedings of the First International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando, Florida, pp. 110-116.
5.
Lieven, N. and Edwins, D. ( 1988). Spatial correlation of modes: The coordinate modal assurance criterion (COMAC). In: Proceedings of the 6th International Modal Analysis Conference, Kissimmee, Florida, USA, pp. 1063-1070.
6.
Heylen, W. and Janter, T. ( 1988). Applications of the modal assurance criterion in dynamic model updating. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Seminar on Modal Analysis, Leuven, Belgium.
7.
Jaishi, B. and Ren, W. ( 2007). Finite element model updating based on eigenvalue and strain energy residuals using multiobjective optimization technique. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 21, 2295-2317.
8.
Jaishi, B. and Ren, W. ( 2006). Damage detection by finite element model updating using modal flexibility residual. Journal of Sound and Vibration , 290, 369-387. 9. Liu , P. (1995). Identification and damage detection of trusses using modal data. Journal of Structural Engineering, 121, 599-608.
9.
Asce, H. and Xia, Y. ( 2002). Vibration-based damage detection of structures by genetic algorithm. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 16, 222.
10.
Titurus, B. , Friswell, M. and Starek, L. (2003). Damage detection using generic elements: PartI. Model updating. Computers and Structures , 81, 2273-2286.
11.
Srinivas, M. and Patnaik, L. (1994). Genetic algorithms: A survey. Computer, 27, 17-26.
12.
Mares, C. and Surace, C. ( 1996). An application of genetic algorithms to identify damage in elastic structures. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 195, 195-215.
13.
Rao, M. , Srinivas, J. and Murthy, B. (2004). Damage detection in vibrating bodies using genetic algorithms. Computers and Structures , 82, 963-968.
14.
Ruotolo, R. and Surace, C. (1997). Damage assessment of multiple cracked beams: Numerical and experimental validation. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 206, 567-588.
15.
Friswell, M. , Penny, J. and Garvey, S. (1998). A combined genetic and eigensensitivity algorithm for the location of damage in structures. Computers and Structures, 69, 547-556.
16.
He, R. and Hwang, S. ( 2006). Damage detection by an adaptive realparameter simulated annealing genetic algorithm. Computers and Structures, 84, 2231-2243.
17.
Gomes, H. and Silva, N. ( 2008). Some comparisons for damage detection on structures using genetic algorithms and modal sensitivity method. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 32, 2216-2232.
18.
Haupt, R. and Haupt, S. ( 2004). Practical Genetic Algorithms, New York: Wiley-Interscience.
19.
Chou, J. and Ghaboussi, J. ( 2001). Genetic algorithm in structural damage detection. Computers and Structures, 79, 1335-1353.
20.
Borges, C., Barbosa, H. and Lemonge, A. ( 2007). A structural damage identification method based on genetic algorithm and vibrational data. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 69, 2663-2686.
21.
Perera, R., Ruiz, A. and Manzano, C. ( 2009). Performance assessment of multicriteria damage identification genetic algorithms. Computers & Structures, 87, 120-127.
22.
Punch, W. ( 1998). How effective are multiple populations in genetic programming . Genetic Programming, 98, 308-313.
23.
Alba, E. and Troya, J. ( 1999). A survey of parallel distributed genetic algorithms. Complexity, 4, 31-52.
24.
Doebling, S., Farrar, C. and Prime, M. ( 1998). A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods. The Shock and Vibration Digest, 30, 91.
25.
Meruane, V. and Heylen, W. (2009). An hybrid real genetic algorithm to detect structural damage using modal properties. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing (submitted after revision).
26.
Tang, K., Man, K., Kwong, S. and He, Q. ( 1996). Genetic algorithms and their applications. Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE, 13, 22-37.
27.
Miyagi, H. and Nakamura, M. ( 2008). A parallel genetic algorithm and its variance analysis for a new multiple knapsack problems. In: The 23rd International Technique Conference on Cicuits/Systems, Computers and Communications, Shimonoseki City, Japan.
28.
Cantú-Paz, E. and Goldberg, D. (1997). Modeling idealized bounding cases of parallel genetic algorithms. In: Genetic Programming 1997: Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference, pp. 353-361, San Francisco, California: Morgan Kaufmann.
29.
Cantú-Paz, E. and Goldberg, D. (1997). Predicting speedups of idealized bounding cases of parallel genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms , East Lansing, Michigan, USA, pp. 113-121.
30.
Cantu-Paz, E. (2007). Parameter setting in parallel genetic algorithms. Intelligence (SCI), 54, 259-276.
31.
Tanese, R. ( 1987). Parallel genetic algorithms for a hypercube. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Application, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp. 177-183.
32.
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, 9-20.
33.
Yan, A. , De Boe, P. and Golinval, J. (2004). Structural damage diagnosis by Kalman model based on stochastic subspace identification. Structural Health Monitoring, 3, 103.
34.
Teughels, A. ( 2003). Inverse modelling of civil engineering structures based on operational modal data. PhD Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
35.
Meruane, V. and Heylen, W. ( 2008). Damage detection on a multi-cracked beam by parallel genetic algorithms using modal characteristics. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering, ISMA 2008, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 3319-3332.
36.
Teughels, A., Maeck, J. and De Roeck, G. ( 2002). FEM Updating of a reinforced concrete beam using damage functions. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Structural Dynamics Modelling, Madeira Island, Portugal.
