Finite Element Modelling and Updating of Cable-Stayed Bridges: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 1 by Thomas Sharry and Version 2 by Beatrix Zheng.

Finite element (FE) model updating is a well-recognised approach for Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) purposes, as an accurate model serves as a baseline reference for damage detection and long-term monitoring efforts. One of the many challenges is the development of the initial FE model that can accurately reflect the dynamic characteristics and the overall behaviour of a bridge. Given the size, slenderness, use of long cables, and high levels of structural redundancy, precise initial models of long-span cable-stayed bridges are desirable to better facilitate the model updating process and to improve the accuracy of the final updated model. To date, very few studies offer in-depth discussions on the modelling approaches for cable-stayed bridges and the methods used for model updating. As such, this article presents the latest advances in finite element modelling and model updating methods that have been widely adopted for cable-stayed bridges, through a critical literature review of existing research work.

  • cable-stayed bridge
  • structural health monitoring
  • finite element modelling
  • model updating
Please wait, diff process is still running!

References

  1. Hambly, E.C. Bridge Deck Behaviour; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA , 1991.
  2. Kanok-Nukulchai, W.; Yiu, P.K.A.; Brotton, D.M. Mathematical modelling of cable-stayed bridges. Struct. Eng. Int. 1992, 2, 108–113.
  3. Walther, R. Cable Stayed Bridges; Thomas Telford Ltd: London, UK , 1999.
  4. Fu, C.C.; Wang, S. Computational Analysis and Design of Bridge Structures; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014.
  5. Adams, A.; Galindez, N.; Hopper, T.; Murphy, T.; Ritchie, P.; Storlie, V.; Weisman, J. Manual for Refined Analysis in Bridge Design and Evaluation; United States, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Infrastructure: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
  6. Xu, Y.-L. Wind Effects on Cable-Supported Bridges; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
  7. Xu, Y.-L.; Xia, Y. Structural Health Monitoring of Long-Span Suspension Bridges; CRC Press: Oxford, UK, 2011.
  8. Xu, Y.; Ko, J.; Zhang, W. Vibration studies of Tsing Ma suspension bridge. J. Bridge Eng. 1997, 2, 149–156.
  9. Ernst, J. Der E-Modul von Seilen unter berucksichtigung des Durchhanges. Der Bauing. 1965, 40, 52–55.
  10. Gazzola, F. Mathematical Models for Suspension Bridges; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany , 2015.
  11. Bas, S. Structural Identification (St-Id) Concept for Performance Prediction of Long-Span Bridges. In Bridge Engineering; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017.
  12. Pipinato, A. Innovative Bridge Design Handbook: Construction, Rehabilitation and Maintenance; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2015.
  13. Ereiba, H. The Dynamic Behaviour of Cable-Stayed Bridges; University of Sheffield: Sheffield, UK, 1980.
  14. Zhang, S. The Finite Element Analysis of Thin-Walled Box Spine-Beam Bridges; City University London: London, UK, 1982.
  15. Wilson, J.C.; Gravelle, W. Modelling of a cable‐stayed bridge for dynamic analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1991, 20, 707–721.
  16. Yiu, P.; Brotton, D. Mathematical modelling of cable-stayed bridges for computer analysis. Presented at the International Conference on Cable-Stayed Bridges, Bangkok, Thailand, 18–20 November 1987 .
  17. Cheng, S.; Han, D-J.; Wang, L.W. The establishment of 3-D finite element dynamic models for long-span cable-stayed bridges. J. South China Univ. Technol. Nat. Sci. 1999, 27, 51–56.
  18. Zhu, L.; Xiang, H.; Xu, Y. Triple-girder model for modal analysis of cable-stayed bridges with warping effect. Eng. Struct. 2000, 22, 1313–1323.
  19. Brownjohn, J.M.W.; Lee, J.; Cheong, B. Dynamic performance of a curved cable-stayed bridge. Eng. Struct. 1999, 21, 1015–1027.
  20. Ren, W.-X.; Peng, X.-L. Baseline finite element modeling of a large span cable-stayed bridge through field ambient vibration tests. Comput. Struct. 2005, 83, 536–550.
  21. Ding, Y.; Li, A.; Du, D.; Liu, T. Multi-scale damage analysis for a steel box girder of a long-span cable-stayed bridge. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2010, 6, 725–739.
  22. Dyke, S.J.; Caicedo, J.M.; Turan, G.; Bergman, L.A.; Hague, S. Phase I benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed bridges. J. Struct. Eng. 2003, 129, 857–872.
  23. Caicedo, J.; Dyke, S.; Turan, G.; Bergman, L. Comparison of modeling techniques for dynamic analysis of a cable-stayed bridge. Presented at the Engineering Mechanics Conference, ASCE, Austin, TX, USA, 21–24 May 2000 ; pp. 21–23.
  24. Schemmann, A.G.; Smith, H.A. Vibration control of cable‐stayed bridges—Part 1: Modeling issues. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1998, 27, 811–824.
  25. Caetano, E.; Cunha, A.; Taylor, C.A. Investigation of dynamic cable–deck interaction in a physical model of a cable‐stayed bridge. Part I: Modal analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2000, 29, 481–498.
  26. Wu, Q.; Takahashi, K.; Okabayashi, T.; Nakamura, S. Response characteristics of local vibrations in stay cables on an existing cable-stayed bridge. J. Sound Vib. 2003, 261, 403–420.
  27. Chang, C.; Chang, T.; Zhang, Q. Ambient vibration of long-span cable-stayed bridge. J. Bridge Eng. 2001, 6, 46–53.
  28. Song, W.; Giraldo, D.; Clayton, E.; Dyke, S.; Caicedo, J. Application of ARMAV for modal identification of the Emerson Bridge. Presented at the Third international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management, Porto, Portugal, 16–19 July 2006 .
  29. Domaneschi, M.; Limongelli, M.P.; Martinelli, L. Damage detection and localization on a benchmark cable-stayed bridge. Earthq. Struct. 2015, 8, 1113–1126
  30. Lin, Y.Y.; Lieu, Y.L. Geometrically nonlinear analysis of cable‐stayed bridges subject to wind excitations. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2003, 26, 503–511.
  31. Nazmy, A.S.; Abdel‐Ghaffar, A.M. Non‐linear earthquake‐response analysis of long‐span cable‐stayed bridges: Theory. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1990, 19, 45–62.
  32. Asadollahi, P.; Huang, Y.; Li, J. Bayesian finite element model updating and assessment of cable-stayed bridges using wireless sensor data. Sensors 2018, 18, 3057.
  33. Torkamani, M.A.; Lee, H.E. Dynamic behavior of steel deck tension-tied arch bridges to seismic excitation. J. Bridge Eng. 2002, 7, 57–67.
  34. Hu, J.; Harik, I.E.; Smith, S.W.; Gagel, J.; Campbell, J.E.; Graves, R.C. Baseline Modeling of the Owensboro Cable-Stayed Bridge over the Ohio River; University of Kentucky Transportation Center: Lexington, KY, USA , 2006.
  35. Ren, W.-X.; Zhao, T.; Harik, I.E. Experimental and analytical modal analysis of steel arch bridge. J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130, 1022–1031.
  36. Park, W.; Kim, H.-K.; Park, J.-C. Finite element model updating for a cable-stayed bridge using manual tuning and sensitivity-based optimization. Struct. Eng. Int. 2012, 22, 14–19.
  37. Brownjohn, J.M.W.; Xia, P.-Q.; Hao, H.; Xia, Y. Civil structure condition assessment by FE model updating:: Methodology and case studies. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2001, 37, 761–775.
  38. Macdonald, J.H.; Daniell, W.E. Variation of modal parameters of a cable-stayed bridge identified from ambient vibration measurements and FE modelling. Eng. Struct. 2005, 27, 1916–1930.
  39. Zhong, R.; Zong, Z.; Niu, J.; Liu, Q.; Zheng, P. A multiscale finite element model validation method of composite cable-stayed bridge based on Probability Box theory. J. Sound Vib. 2016, 370, 111–131.
  40. Abozeid, E.H.; Fayed, M.; Mourad, S.; Khalil, A. Cable-Stayed Bridge Model Update using Dynamic Measurements. Presented at the International Conference on Bridge Management Systems-Monitoring, Assessment and Rehabilitation, Giza, Egypt, 21–23 March, 2006 .
  41. Kanev, S.; Weber, F.; Verhaegen, M. Experimental validation of a finite-element model updating procedure. J. Sound Vib. 2007, 300, 394–413.
  42. Yuan, Z.X.; Yu, K.P. Finite element model updating of damped structures using vibration test data under base excitation. J. Sound Vib. 2015, 340, 303–316.
  43. Rezaiee‐Pajand, M.; Entezami, A.; Sarmadi, H. A sensitivity‐based finite element model updating based on unconstrained optimization problem and regularized solution methods. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2020, 27, e2481.
  44. Chhipa, S.M.; Kumar, P.; Bagha, A.K.; Bahl, S. Removing uncertainty in the boundary condition of five degree of freedom spring mass vibratory system using direct updating method. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 41, 251–255.
  45. Friswell, M.; Mottershead, J.E. Finite Element Model Updating in Structural Dynamics; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995; Volume 38.
  46. Mottershead, J.E.; Link, M.; Friswell, M.I. The sensitivity method in finite element model updating: A tutorial. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2011, 25, 2275–2296.
  47. Pepi, C.; Gioffré, M.; Grigoriu, M.D.; Matthies, H.G. Bayesian updating of cable stayed footbridge model parameters using dynamic measurements. Presented at the 7th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Crete, Greece, 24–26 June 2019; pp. 330–342.
  48. Baisthakur, S.; Chakraborty, A. Modified Hamiltonian Monte Carlo‐based Bayesian finite element model updating of steel truss bridge. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2020, 27, e2556.
  49. Mao, J.; Wang, H.; Li, J. Bayesian Finite Element Model Updating of a Long-Span Suspension Bridge Utilizing Hybrid Monte Carlo Simulation and Kriging Predictor. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 24, 569–579.
  50. Marwala, T. Finite Element Model Updating Using Computational Intelligence Techniques: Applications to Structural Dynamics; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany , 2010.
  51. Deng, L.; Cai, C. Bridge model updating using response surface method and genetic algorithm. J. Bridge Eng. 2010, 15, 553–564.
  52. Jung, D.-S.; Kim, C.-Y. Finite element model updating on small-scale bridge model using the hybrid genetic algorithm. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2013, 9, 481–495.
  53. Astroza, R.; Nguyen, L.T.; Nestorović, T. Finite element model updating using simulated annealing hybridized with unscented Kalman filter. Comput. Struct. 2016, 177, 176–191.
  54. Tran-Ngoc, H.; Khatir, S.; De Roeck, G.; Bui-Tien, T.; Nguyen-Ngoc, L.; Abdel Wahab, M. Model updating for Nam O bridge using particle swarm optimization algorithm and genetic algorithm. Sensors 2018, 18, 4131.
  55. Nguyen, A.; Kodikara, K.T.L.; Chan, T.H.; Thambiratnam, D.P. Deterioration assessment of buildings using an improved hybrid model updating approach and long-term health monitoring data. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 18, 5–19.
  56. Naranjo-Pérez, J.; Infantes, M.; Jiménez-Alonso, J.F.; Sáez, A. A collaborative machine learning-optimization algorithm to improve the finite element model updating of civil engineering structures. Eng. Struct. 2020, 225, 111327.
  57. Wang, F.-Y.; Xu, Y.-L.; Sun, B.; Zhu, Q. Updating multiscale model of a long-span cable-stayed bridge. J. Bridge Eng. 2018, 23, 04017148.
  58. Ching, J.; Chen, Y.-C. Transitional Markov chain Monte Carlo method for Bayesian model updating, model class selection, and model averaging. J. Eng. Mech. 2007, 133, 816–832.
  59. Cheung, S.H.; Beck, J.L. Bayesian model updating using hybrid Monte Carlo simulation with application to structural dynamic models with many uncertain parameters. J. Eng. Mech. 2009, 135, 243–255.
  60. Behmanesh, I.; Moaveni, B.; Lombaert, G.; Papadimitriou, C. Hierarchical Bayesian model updating for structural identification. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2015, 64, 360–376.
  61. Trucano, T.G.; Swiler, L.P.; Igusa, T.; Oberkampf, W.L.; Pilch, M. Calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis: What's what. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2006, 91, 1331–1357.
  62. Aughenbaugh, J.M.; Herrmann, J.W. Updating uncertainty assessments: A comparison of statistical approaches. Presented at the International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4–7 September 2007 ; pp. 1195–1209.
  63. Ma, T.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, X. A novel approach for stochastic finite element model updating and parameter estimation. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2014, 228, 3329–3342.
  64. Marwala, T. Finite-element-model Updating Using the Response-surface Method. In Finite-Element-Model Updating Using Computional Intelligence Techniques: Applications to Structural Dynamics; Springer: London, UK , 2010; pp. 103–125.
  65. Ren, W.-X.; Chen, H.-B. Finite element model updating in structural dynamics by using the response surface method. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 2455–2465.
  66. Yin, T.; Zhu, H.P. An efficient algorithm for architecture design of Bayesian neural network in structural model updating. Comput. ‐Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 35, 354–372.
  67. Sung, H.; Chang, S.; Cho, M. Efficient Model Updating Method for System Identification Using a Convolutional Neural Network. AIAA J. 2021, 59, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J059964 .
  68. Yang, X.; Guo, X.; Ouyang, H.; Li, D. A Kriging model based finite element model updating method for damage detection. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 1039.
  69. Qin, S.; Zhou, Y.-L.; Cao, H.; Wahab, M.A. Model updating in complex bridge structures using kriging model ensemble with genetic algorithm. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 22, 3567–3578.
  70. Adhikari, S.; Friswell, M. Distributed parameter model updating using the Karhunen–Loève expansion. Mech. Syst. Signal Processing 2010, 24, 326–339.
  71. Huang, B.; Chen, H. A new approach for stochastic model updating using the hybrid perturbation-Garlekin method. Mech. Syst. Signal Processing 2019, 129, 1–19.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback