SIGNAL VERSUS NOISE IN DAMAGE DETECTION BY EXPERIMENTAL

MODAL ANALYSIS

By Sreenivas Alampalli; Member, ASCE, Gongkang Fu/ Member, ASCE,

and Everett W. Dillon3

ABSTRACT: Remote bridge-monitoring systems based on measured structural vibration have been perceived
to be able to assist in bridge inspection for future. Sensitivity of measured modal properties to potential damage
is very critical for their practical application, which is examined here. Modal tests were conducted on a one-
sixth scale multiple steel-girder model bridge and a fracture critical field bridge, including both intact and
simulated damage states. Sensitivity of modal parameters to changes of structural condition was studied using
statistical methods (for frequencies, damping ratios, mode shapes, and their derivatives). Results show that, even
though modal frequencies and mode shapes may be used to identify the existence of commonly observed bridge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aliah University on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

damage with certain sensitivity, it is difficult to identify their locations.

INTRODUCTION DeWolf (1990) conducted tests on a bridge model under am-

Currently, bridge inspection relies mainly on visual inspec-
tion to detect deficiencies and estimate bridge condition includ-
ing section-loss determination, crack detection, structural dete-
rioration identification, and so on. Its quality is affected by
inspection personnel's experience and knowledge. Therefore,
areas obscured from direct observation and elements not readily
accessible present a continuing difficulty for bridge-condition
evaluation. For example, bridges with blast-protected primary
steel components and prestressing strands have critical elements
concealed and cannot be evaluated reliably. In addition, the time
needed for some deficiencies to develop and cause serious con-
sequences could be much less than the minimum inspection
interval of two years (National 1987). The near failure of a
viaduct in Rhode Island (Castelluci 1988) and other recent
bridge failures in various states similar to Schoharie Creek
Bridge in New York State (Highways 1988) prompted research-
ers to look for new tools for inspection. Developing new meth-
ods for inspection and evaluation of bridges have received no-
table attention recently (Mazurek and DeWolf 1990; Biswas et
al. 1990; Pandey et al. 1991; Hearn and Testa 1991).
It has been well understood that in free vibration, structures
vibrate at inherent frequencies and mode shapes if their con-
dition does not change with time. Theoretically, this concept
can be used for bridge diagnosis for damage or deterioration.
It would involve experimentally obtaining the modal param-
eters including the frequencies and mode shapes for before and
after conditions, and comparing these parameters for practical
diagnosis. This application of modal testing technique is com-
monly referred to as vibration monitoring, dynamic monitor-
ing, and so on.
Experimental modal analysis (Ewins 1984), referred to here-
after as modal testing, lately received intensive attention due
to the availability of Fourier analyzers. Several researchers in-
vestigated changes in modal parameters due to simulated dam-
ages using laboratory models and field bridges. Mazurek and
bient vibration induced by simulated vehicular traffic to detect
introduced damage by measured vibration. Biswas et al.
(1990) and Pandey et al. (1991) investigated the behavior of
modal frequencies and Modal Assurance Criterion (MAC) fac-
tors (Wolf and Richardson 1989) under introduced structural
deficiencies. Hearn and Testa (1991) investigated the change
in natural frequencies and damping values to structural dam-
age by laboratory tests on intact and damaged steel frames.
Efforts have been made to correlate measured modal param-
eters to observed damage. Note that reported studies, similar
to those previously cited, focused on relatively severe damages
as a first step of demonstrating the concept. Little attention has
been paid to sensitivity of the modal parameters to typically
interested damages or deteriorations, which is critical in real-
world application to bridge inspection. The major issue is that
modal testing, like other experimental techniques, produces
variable results when repeated because of inevitable noise at-
tributable to such causes as environment, electrical distur-
bance, and/or test-procedure variation among operators. This
variation of results may be higher than the changes in the
modal parameters due to interested damages or deteriorations,
resulting in incorrect diagnosis.
The present work is aimed at investigating the feasibility of
measured vibration for bridge inspection and evaluation. Sen-
sitivity of measured modal parameters to commonly observed
damage in bridges was a major focus. The impact test method
was used in the study because its reliability is widely accepted.
This technique was applied using commercially available in-
strumentation. Baselines of measurable and stable modal pa-
rameters were identified for a scaled model bridge and field
bridge, including their random variation. Several commonly
observed types of damage were simulated. At each stage of
damage, modal testing was repeatedly performed to include
variation of the measured modal parameters. Statistical anal-
ysis techniques were used for diagnosis of the simulated dam-
age cases.

'Acting Head, Struct. Res. Transp. R&D Bureau, New York State Dept.
of Transp., 7A-600, 1220 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12232.
'Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Wayne State Univ. Detroit, MI
48202; formerly, Head, Struct. Res. Transp. R&D Bureau, New York
State Dept. of Transp.
'Civ. Engr. I (retired), Transp. R&D Bureau, New York State Dept. of
Transp.,7A-6oo, 1220 Washington Ave., Albany, NY.
Note. Associate Editor: James M. Nau. Discussion open until July 1,
1997. To extend the closing date one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on October 20, 1994.
This paper is part of the JournoJ of Structural Engineering, Vol. 123,
No.2, February, 1997. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/97/0002-0237-0245/
$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. 9455.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1997/237
TEST STRUCTURES
Model Bridge
The prototype bridge consists of five steel girders with a
single span of 21.95 m supporting a 21.59 em thick reinforced-
concrete slab. The girders are standard W36 X 150 (Manual
1980) spaced at 2.7 m, with cover plates of 3.81 cm thick,
20.64 cm wide, and 14.6 m long. MC18 X 58 (Manual 1980)
diaphragms are located near the bearings and at one-third
points. The test structure was a one-sixth scale model of the
prototype bridge, as shown in Fig. 1. It had five girders over
a span of 3.72 m, made composite using shear studs with a

J. Struct. Eng., 1997, 123(2): 237-245

 3.65 cm concrete deck reinforced by No. 12 gauge wire in 15 14 13 12 II 10 9 I 7 6 5 4 3
2 JJ.. Oirder2
both the longitudinal and transverse directions. The girders
were made of standard M6 X 4.4 (Manual 1980) and spaced
at 46.51 cm with cover plates 6.3 mm thick, 3.33 cm wide,
and 2.48 m long. The diaphragms were connected at each end 3. 37 36 35 34 33 32 31
with two bolts to stiffeners welded to the girders. All bolts
connecting the girders with the diaphragms were tightened to
a uniform torque of 27.12 N· m. The structure rested on the 1::
supports made of heavy steel girders anchored to the floor. 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 &. 5.26m
One end of the bridge girders had a hinge support and the ""
IS

other a roller. Total mass of the test structure was estimated at '"
5,292 kg. A total of 65 measurement points were chosen, as
shown in Fig. 1, to obtain modal testing measurements. The 54 53 52 51 50 49 4. 47

model was constructed such that a scaling factor of about 6

was maintained for critical dimensions. It can be shown that,
by using a beam model, its bending modal frequencies are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aliah University on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

approximately six times greater than those of the prototype. 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 II ~

30 29 21 27
~
Field Bridge Oirder 1
6.76m
A fracture critical bridge with two steel girders of span 6.76 FIG. 3. Field Bridge Data-Measurement Points
m was also included in the test program. Located over the
Mud Creek on Van Duesen Road in Claverack, N.Y., the SIGNAL
AMPLIFIERS
bridge was built in 1930 and was closed to service in 1988.
Plan View A
5"3"'" 5"4""" '55···· ·56.. ·· 'sr'" ·S8""·· 'SI1'" .l)(l .... '61"" fi;' "lJj'" ··64··" 6~ GI
COMPUTER

~-..--.;; Dia~~43 44 45 46 47 48! 49 50 51 5d 02 REFERENCE

! TRANSDUCER
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 i 36 37 38 3!l OJ STRUCTURE
PLOTTER~
14
/ Girder
15,/ . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
I
i 23 24 25 2r'~k -{
.04
i FIG. 4. General Test Setup for Impact Hammer Test
2 4 7 9 : 10 11 12 1~ os
...................................................... ········k~··················,
It had two W18 X 64 (Manual 1980) steel beams supporting
Elevation steel floor beams and a reinforced concrete deck, as shown in
: ~Ic;.
Fig. 2. The main beams appeared to be embedded in the con-
Z
-=
mIder
crete abutments at both ends. A total of 54 data points were
Roller Support HingedS'!~rt chosen, as shown in Fig. 3, for modal testing measurements.
If-- I I
0.45 m 3.72m 0.45 m
TEST SETUp, METHOD, AND INSTRUMENTATION
Section A-A
The general test setup is shown in Fig. 4. It consists of an
impact hammer, a dynamic signal analyzer, signal condition-
'·?I········;I·······;r········;I·······;r··: ers, transducers, and a microcomputer. An impulse force ham-
mer (PCB Model 086B50 for the field bridge and Model
)----!--
1.86m
/ / 086B03 for the model bridge) with a plastic tip was used to
O.l7m 0.17m
excite the test structure, and the excitation induced was mea-
FIG. 1. Tested Model Bridge and Data-Measurement Points sured using a PCB load cell (with 10 mVllbf sensitivity) at-
tached to the hammer tip. Acceleration responses of the struc-
B
Elevation '- Railinll
ture were measured using a PCB accelerometer (Flexcel Model
Roadwav 336A04 with 100 mV/g sensitivity). The accelerometer was
:~olir ::BoltJ ::Bo~;' fixed to the structure by a magnet supplied by PCB Peizo-
Abutment
\;:.r tronics. A Tektronix dynamic signal analyzer (Model 2630)
Abutment
--------------; was used to obtain time-domain data, transfer functions, power
6.76 m
spectra, and coherence functions.
The locations of the data points (Figs. 1 and 3) were chosen
Water
to obtain the behavior of the structure for the modes of inter-
Section A-A
est. The location of the stationary accelerometer (point 49 in
Section B-B
Fig. 1 and point 23 in Fig. 3) was perceived and verified not

:~
Roadway
Railing
},.m to be a modal node within the frequency range of interest.
Only the vertical vibration response perpendicular to the plane
r-- ~ of the concrete deck was measured. The excitation input was
: JI.24'"

r sm given at every data point (Figs. 1 and 3) by the hammer, and

the frequency response function (FRF) was obtained by mea-
\:.
ascia Girder
/---------/
5.26 m

Water
\ack Arch

FIG. 2.
r 9m

Field Steel Bridge

suring the force input and response output at the stationary
accelerometer

where Gyif) = cross power spectrum of output and input sig-

(1)

238/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1997

J. Struct. Eng., 1997, 123(2): 237-245

 =
Cl'~"L 1tf»J\litf»BJYI
nals; Gx,,(f) auto power spectrum of the input signal; and!
= frequency variable. The exponential window was used on COMAC(i) =
the structural vibration response, and the force window was
used on the hammer excitation. Mode shapes were extracted
using global curve-fitting techniques (Richardson and For-
menti 1985). CI'~"L Itf»t l-J~ LItf»~k)
.• (4)
This test procedure was repeated several times for the same where the summation is carried out over the L modes; and IcI»J\I
point, and an average of FRFs was stored as the input-output and IcI»SJ have been defined previously in (3). Note that if cl»A
transfer function, when coherence 'Y (Ewins 1984) was con- and cl»s are identical, COMAC for all the measurement points
firmed to be satisfactory (i = I, 2, ... , n) will be theoretically in unity, indicating no
difference (damage).
(2)
RANDOM VARIATION OF MEASURED STRUCTURAL
where Gxy(f) = cross power spectrum of input and output sig- SIGNATURES
nals; and Gyy(f) = auto power spectrum of the output signal.
The coherence function indicates consistency of the obtained Practically, instrumentation systems possess only certain de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aliah University on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

data, being 1.0 for perfect consistency and zero for no consis- grees of accuracy, test environments may add noise to mea-
tency. For all the data collected, almost perfect coherence val- sured physical quantities, and required manual operations may
ues (greater than 0.95) were recorded in the frequency range introduce fluctuation to test results. These uncontrolled and
of interest. Reciprocity was also confirmed by comparing uncontrollable factors all contribute to variation of test results.
FRFs with interchanged input and output locations. The re- To quantify such variation, which could be critical to practical
quired analyses were performed using the software developed applications, efforts were made initially to understand these
by Structural Measurement Systems to obtain modal frequen- effects on modal parameters from the environment (tempera-
cies, modal damping values, and mode shapes. The interested ture fluctuations, mechanical vibration noise, etc.), signal anal-
reader is referred to Ewins (1984) for more details on modal ysis consistency, and random differences in operation.
testing. Eighteen impact tests were conducted on the model bridge
over a period of six months, using a 0-500 Hz base band with
0.3125 Hz resolution to evaluate variation in the measured
CANDIDATES OF STRUCTURAL SIGNATURE modal parameters. Similarly, 10 impact tests were conducted
on the field bridge over a period of two months, using a 0-
The following structural signatures were used in this study 200 Hz frequency base band with 0.125 Hz resolution, ex-
for damage detection based on their measured values: (1) mo- pecting that the frequency range of interest would be smaller
dal frequencies; (2) modal damping ratios; (3) mode shapes; than that of the model bridge. Modal frequencies, modal
(4) MAC factors; and (5) Coordinate Modal Assurance Cri- damping ratios, and MAC and COMAC values, along with
terion factors (COMAC). The first three are inherent modal their means, standard deviations (SID), and coefficients of
parameters of the structure, and the other two are derived from variation (COY) (standard deviation divided by mean) were
the mode shapes as inherent structural indices. estimated (Alampalli et al. 1995). MAC and COMAC values
MAC (Wolf and Richardson 1989) indicates correlation be- were calculated with the first set of test data as reference.
tween two measured mode shapes from two different tests. Let The maximum standard deviation and COY values observed
<PA and <Ps be the first and the second set of measured mode are presented in Table I. These results indicate that frequen-
shapes in matrix form of sizes n X mA and n X ms, respec- cies, mode shapes, and MAC and COMAC values can be es-
tively, where mA and ms = numbers of modes in the respective timated with relatively higher consistency. Hence, it was de-
sets; and n = number of coordinates (data points) included. cided that they were to be used as candidates for fundamental
For example, n = 65 for the model bridge, and n = 54 for the structural signature. Their sensitivity to damage was the focus
field bridge here. MAC is then defined for modes j and k as of the present study to detect existence of damage and identify
follows: its location. These results have also demonstrated that changes
in structural condition will not be detectable if they result in
small deviations in structural signatures within the observed
random variation ranges. In other words, sensitivity of a dy-
namic monitoring system could be limited, at least, by the
observed random variation due to uncontrolled factors related
j= 1,2, ., ., mA; and k = 1,2, ... ,mB (3) to environment and instrumentation.
where IcI»J\I = ith coordinate of the jth column (mode) of cl»A; TABLE 1. Observed Variation In Modal Parameters during
and IcI»Bk = ith coordinate of the kth column (mode) of cl»s. Repeated Tests
MAC indicates the degree of correlation between the jth mode
of the first set and the kth mode of the second set. MAC values Model Bridge Field Bridge
vary from 0 to I, with 0 for no correlation and 1 for full Maximum Maximum
correlation. If eigenvectors cl»J\I and cl»Sk are identical (e.g., for Maximum coefficient Maximum coefficient
the same model), then (3) will be unity indicating full corre- Modal standard of variation standard of variation
lation. Theoretically, mode shapes are invariable if the struc- parameter deviation (%) deviation (%)
ture is not altered. Thus, MAC was used in this study to detect (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5)
existence of damage by identifying MAC values altered from Frequencies 0.804 Hz 0.881 0.876 Hz 0.343
their original values near 1 for individual modes [Le., j =k = Damping ratios 0.605 25.2 0.301 9.92
I, 2, 3, ... , in (3)]. MAC 0.102 12.4 0.025 2.95
COMAC' 0.027 2.74 0.055 6.29
COMAC (Lieven and Ewins 1988) is intended to identify
locations where mode shapes from two sets of test data do not "Excludmg data pomts at supports, showmg little movement and re-
agree, potentially indicating damage locations. For location i sulting in high noise-to-signal ratios and high coefficients of variation for
COMAC.
and including a total of L modes, COMAC is defined as
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I FEBRUARY 1997/239

J. Struct. Eng., 1997, 123(2): 237-245

 TABLE 2. Damage Scenarios and Teat Program for Model common damage, fatigue cracks were simulated in this study
Bridge by introducing sawcut to the model bridge. The saw cuts do
Damage Details Number not replicate fatigue cracks exactly. They are intended to sim-
of ulate reduction in stiffness caused by fatigue cracks or other
Sce- Length, I Depth, d repeated damage, which are relevant to modal properties used here as
narlo Case Location- (mm) (mm) tests structural signatures.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Three scenarios of damage were considered in testing the
1 1 03, MS, point 33 5.08 1.59 4 model bridge. Scenario 1 simulates a crack initiated at the
1 2 03, MS, point 33 10.16 3.18 3 interface of gusset plate and the bottom flange. Scenario 2
1 3 03, MS, point 33 10.16 4.76 3 simulates a crack initiated at a weld connecting a horizontal
1 4 03, MS, point 33 15.24 4.76 3 stiffener to the web at one-third of its height. Scenario 3 sim-
1 5 03, MS, point 33 21.59 11.11 10
2 6 02, MS, point 46 5.08 1.59 3 ulates a crack initiated at a cover-plate weld toe. Each scenario
2 7 02, MS, point 46 12.70 3.18 3 of damage was introduced progressively in five steps as the
2 8 02, MS, point 46 19.05 3.18 3 cases defined in Table 2 and Fig. 5. The damage progress was
2 9 02, MS, point 46 25.40 3.18 3 intended to model successive stiffness loss due to damage
2 10 02, MS, point 46 50.80 3.18 10 rather than the crack propagation process. Thus, it is not crit-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aliah University on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 11 04, ECPW, point 16 10.16 1.59 3

3 12 04, ECPW, point 16 12.70 3.18 3 ical that the fatigue prone details for scenarios 1 and 2 were
3 13 04, ECP, point 16 10.16 1.59 3 actually not present in the model bridge. A minimum of three
3 14 04, ECP, point 16 12.70 3.18 3 modal tests were conducted for each damage case (see Table
3 15 04, ECP, point 16 15.24 4.76 10 2). Ten or more tests were conducted for the intact case and
aMS = midspan; ECP = end of cover plate; ECPW = weld at end of the final case of each scenario, such that data from these tests
= =
cover plate; 02 girder 2; 03 girder 3; and 04 = girder 4. Locations could serve as respective reference baseline for the next sce-
are identified in Fig. 1. nario.
Modal testing was also conducted on the field bridge to
TEST PROGRAM confirm the results obtained in the laboratory and to gain field
experience. Three simulated damage scenarios (Table 3) were
Fatigue damage has been widely observed in steel bridges introduced by sawcut, simulating flange damage at midspan,
and was responsible for several cases of bridge collapse in this flange damage at one-third span, and web damage at midspan,
country. To study sensitivity of the structural signatures to respectively. These simulated damages were introduced pro-
Damage Scenario 1
(Point 33 In Figure 1)
Girder 3, Midspan
Case Depth (d) Length (w)
1 1.59 moo 5.08 moo
2 3.18 moo 10.18 moo
3 4.78 moo 10.18 moo
4 4.78 moo 15.24 moo
5 11.1 moo 21.59 moo

Damage Scenario 2
Scenario 2
(Point 46 In Figure 1) I
Girder 2, Midspan
Case Depth (I) Length (L)
6 1.59 moo 5.08 moo
7 3.10 moo 12.70 moo
8 3.18 moo 19.05 moo 4.76 mm
9 3.18 moo 25.40 moo 6.3 mm
10 3.18 moo 50.80 moo
11.06 m

Damage Scenario 3
(Point 16 In Figure 1)
Girder 4, End of Cover Plate
Case Depth (d') Length (w')
11 1.590000 10.180000
12 3.18 moo 12.70 moo
13 1.59 moo 10.18 moo
14 3.18 moo 12.70 moo
15 4.78 moo 15.24 moo

FIG. 5. Damage Scenarios for Model Bridge

240 I JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I FEBRUARY 1997

J. Struct. Eng., 1997, 123(2): 237-245

 TABLE 3. Damage SCenarios and Test Program for Field values, calculated with the first set of test data as reference
Bridge (Alampalli et al. 1995). Hence, no conclusive observations can
Damage Details Number be made by visual observation. Thus statistical techniques
of were used to analyze the obtained data accounting for such
See- Length, I Depth, d repeated variation. SAS, a statistical software package, was used in
nario Case Location- (mm) (mm) tests these analyses.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) The two-sample t-test (Box et al. 1978) was used to quantify
1 1 01. MS. point 23 207.65 8.71 4 the changes in the measured structural signatures for damage
(FFW) (HFf) diagnosis. It tests if the means of two populations are identical,
1 2 01. MS. point 23 207.65 17.42 1 using the means and standard deviations of two samples from
(FFW) (FFT) respective populations. This hypothesis test was used here to
1 3 02, MS, point 8 207.65 8.71 3 evaluate probability of damage, also interpreted as damage de-
(FFW) (HFf)
10
tectability, using two samples of the structural signatures mea-
1 4 02, MS, point 8 207.65 17.42
(FFW) (FFT) sured before and after the damage. It was intended to deter-
2 5 01. & 02, 1I3S. 207.65 8.71 3 mine whether the damage introduced was significant enough
points 5 and 20 (FFW) (HFf) to be detected or if the random variation was even more dom-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aliah University on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 6 01 & 02, 1I3S. 207.65 17.42
points 5 and 20 (FFW) (FFT)
3 7 01 & 02, MS. 10.24 152.40
(FWT) (HWD)
points 8 and 23
aMS = midspan; 1I3S = one-third span; FFW = full flange width; FWT
= full web thickness; HFf = half flange thickness; FFT = full flange
thickness; HWD = half web depth; 01 = upstream girder; and 02 =
downstream girder. Locations are identified in Fig. 2.
gressively in steps as indicated in Table 3. A minimum of three
modal tests were conducted for each case except for case 2,
which included only one test. Data were obtained above freez-
ing temperatures for these cases. These simulated damage
cases are more severe than those simulated in the laboratory
study. The intention was to confirm the conclusions derived
from the laboratory testing for cases of more critical and ex-
tensive damage, especially for damage location identification.
TEST RESULTS
Model Bridge
The structural signatures based on the first 12 modes were
obtained, and their behavior is discussed here. Mean modal
frequencies were estimated and are given in Table 4 for the
intact and each damage case. These mean values are not ad-
equate for damage diagnosis, because of the random variation
observed and discussed earlier. The frequency changes from
the intact state indicate no definite trend. For example, Table
4 shows the means of the first modal frequency for scenario
3 (cases 11-15), both increasing and decreasing from case 10,
although the damage was increased monotonically. The same
phenomenon was observed in the mean MAC and COMAC
3 inant so that the damage could not be diagnosed.
This statistical test was applied to modal frequencies at the
3
various damage cases, resulting in the probability that the two
samples from different structural conditions indeed had differ-
ent mean values of population. as shown in Table 5. Every
scenario was treated as a separate damage, and the modal fre-
quencies obtained at the end of each scenario (cases 5 and 10)
were taken as a reference baseline for the next scenario. Table
5 essentially gives the probability of damage diagnosis or the
detectability for each damage case with reference to the end
state of the previous scenario. For example. columns 1 through
5 give the probabilities that cases 1 through 5 were indeed
damaged states with respect to the intact state. for all modal
frequencies. Similarly, columns 6 through 10 give the proba-
bilities that cases 6 through 10 can be diagnosed to be dam-
aged states, assuming case 5 (end of scenario 1) to be the intact
state. The probability values are expected to increase from left
to right within each scenario for any given row (i.e., modal
frequency), because the damage severity increased in this di-
rection. This trend existed for scenario 1 (cases 1-5), appar-
ently because it represents the most severe damage scenario.
This table also indicates that cases 5, 10, and 15 (as the last
cases of scenario) could be consistently detected as damage
states with probabilities higher than 95% for at least six out
of 12 modes. On the other hand, the initial damage states may
not be detectable because of lower probabilities. For example,
case 15 of mode 2 indicates that this damage case could be
detected with a 99.4% probability (with reference to case 10).
However, detectability for case 11 was 70.3%, being notice-
ably lower than 99.4% and indicating difficulty for reliable
detection. Further, for only three of 12 modes, detectability of
case 1 (column 1) was higher than 95%. The detectability was

TABLE 4. Mean Modal Frequencies (Hz) for Model Bridge

Mode
Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 ) (12) (13)
Intact 21.07 22.75 46.60 75.39 83.35 91.92 105.63 112.81 117.50 122.02 166.22 182.24
1 20.88 22.52 46.53 75.73 83.68 91.70 105.84 112.76 117.38 122.16 165.69 182.31
2 20.80 22.40 46.27 74.92 83.52 91.24 105.79 112.72 117.30 121.72 164.57 181.21
3 20.71 22.28 46.12 74.63 83.01 91.37 105.71 112.78 117.18 121.79 165.05 181.59
4 20.59 22.08 45.66 74.50 82.59 91.21 105.81 112.74 117.10 120.97 164.69 181.16
5 20.58 22.13 45.89 75.04 82.80 91.35 105.85 112.76 117.23 121.20 165.02 181.31
6 20.30 21.79 45.18 75.66 82.87 91.13 105.91 112.64 117.27 120.28 164.62 180.73
7 20.23 21.68 44.93 74.21 82.49 91.02 105.85 112.49 117.26 119.91 164.54 180.73
8 20.25 21.78 45.15 73.53 81.86 91.13 105.89 112.49 117.22 120.31 164.97 181.13
9 20.25 21.84 45.26 73.90 82.08 90.96 105.89 112.58 117.37 120.37 164.49 180.64
10 20.22 21.72 45.06 73.71 82.37 91.15 105.90 112.72 117.59 121.17 165.05 180.97
11 20.28 21.78 45.44 73.75 82.04 91.44 105.87 112.63 117.82 121.45 165.79 181.51
12 20.29 21.77 45.34 73.36 81.93 91.46 105.89 113.04 117.90 121.79 165.68 181.35
13 20.21 21.74 45.09 74.04 82.56 91.01 105.87 112.54 117.56 122.20 164.67 180.57
14 20.30 21.89 45.55 74.77 82.46 91.24 105.91 112.50 117.50 121.84 165.26 181.18
15 20.40 21.96 45.98 74.00 82.28 91.71 105.84 112.60 117.58 122.10 166.37 182.03

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1997/241

J. Struct. Eng., 1997, 123(2): 237-245

 TABLE 5. Damage Detectability In Percentage Using Modal Frequencies for Model Bridge
Damage Case with Respect to Intact Damage Case with Respect to Case 5 Damage Case with Respect to Case 10
Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
1 99.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 97.8 100 100 79.7 88.2 11.9 93.5 99.0
2 99.6 100 100 100 100 100 100 97.2 100 100 70.3 79.5 28.3 100 99.4
3 36.2 98.1 100 100 100 100 99.3 92.3 99.0 100 96.8 88.5 11.9 86.8 100
4 90.7 99.0 95.0 98.5 77.6 94.5 63.3 100 99.9 100 18.5 94.9 85.7 99.5 72.3
5 83.1 58.4 53.4 100 99.9 34.5 60.5 87.4 89.0 90.0 78.4 73.7 37.9 16.5 21.1
6 47.9 99.9 100 100 100 94.2 99.2 65.6 99.1 87.6 95.4 75.8 82.9 25.6 99.0
7 99.8 99.8 92.9 100 100 97.8 0.0 97.6 79.2 98.7 90.3 73.6 81.2 36.6 98.4
8 60.2 92.9 60.3 99.2 85.5 100 100 98.5 76.8 54.0 77.6 93.2 99.2 99.5 96.8
9 85.7 100 100 100 100 60.2 65.4 58.6 59.5 99.9 87.1 99.5 11.2 56.8 8.4
10 31.2 83.2 81.8 100 100 99.9 99.9 87.6 99.0 10.3 82.8 91.4 84.3 97.0 99.9
11 44.4 100 100 100 99.9 81.9 90.2 6.1 87.3 6.9 96.6 72.4 70.8 21.0 98.7
12 7.3 99.1 98.9 100 99.7 96.9 96.9 29.4 96.2 79.3 90.2 58.6 94.1 30.2 98.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aliah University on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

TABLE 6. Damage Detectablllty In Percentage Using MAC for Model Bridge

Damage Case with Respect to Intact Damage Case with Respect to Case 5 Damage Case with Respect to Case 10
Mode 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 ) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
1 57.7 92.5 100 39.5 99.8 85.2 99.5 94.1 99.3 99.9 93.9 98.4 10.6 98.7 97.4
2 67.4 17.0 28.4 88.6 100 89.6 100 97.3 100 100 93.8 99.5 22.5 95.2 98.3
3 97.9 98.4 98.0 92.3 77.7 86.5 80.2 72.2 97.3 94.2 72.7 27.8 71.2 59.5 99.6
4 93.1 60.4 35.0 97.4 95.7 99.3 100 69.7 92.0 99.9 80.1 91.6 3.6 99.6 98.0
5 61.1 95.1 99.9 100 100 100 100 82.7 96.6 100 47.4 52.2 26.9 65.5 97.0
6 84.8 87.8 87.0 100 100 99.5 100 95.8 86.7 100 62.1 50.1 40.4 99.2 98.2
7 98.4 100 100 100 100 65.0 100 100 97.0 100 97.5 100 96.4 100 100
8 99.7 100 100 100 100 80.1 50.3 67.3 81.8 97.9 7.7 0.1 96.5 97.5 97.3
9 97.2 99.1 95.9 100 100 97.1 100 93.3 95.4 99.7 9.7 60.8 47.6 94.5 6.3
10 99.2 98.5 97.7 100 100 100 97.6 98.8 98.4 100 14.5 80.2 66.7 10.0 35.1
11 34.5 59.5 11.4 2.2 61.8 84.8 88.9 48.0 49.6 9.4 81.5 13.2 40.7 99.0 79.5
12 85.4 89.3 95.7 82.1 100 100 91.3 91.5 93.6 100 97.6 99.5 67.1 74.1 86.4

TABLE 7. Damage Detectablllty In Percentage Using COMAC for Model Bridge

Damage Case with Respect to Intact Damage Case with Respect to Case 5 Damage Case with Respect to Case 10
Point
number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 ) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
15 97.8 99.9 100 100 100 99.8 37.5 95.8 98.1 100 87.1 99.8 46.7 93.5 36.1
16 93.7 97.7 100 100 100 98.0 80.5 97.3 100 100 65.9 89.3 61.8 95.4 75.2
17 84.6 99.6 99.9 100 100 67.2 92.2 100 95.9 100 53.5 97.4 50.5 22.6 51.7
32 92.6 99.3 100 99.8 100 93.4 99.8 85.0 91.5 100 28.5 35.3 85.4 97.9 95.1
33 80.2 99.5 99.6 98.6 100 79.4 100 100 91.6 100 89.7 55.6 81.1 0.60 13.9
34 99.2 96.5 100 100 100 40.8 99.5 99.2 95.6 100 83.1 17.3 100 94.5 99.1
45 93.9 68.0 97.0 100 100 89.1 99.3 96.6 80.4 99.3 11.7 60.4 52.5 93.8 82.1
46 63.2 14.9 64.9 85.7 100 87.7 98.5 99.8 70.9 98.3 15.9 14.5 95.4 93.7 78.6
47 78.6 38.0 99.7 99.9 100 81.3 14.7 87.3 86.2 97.6 45.6 88.0 42.2 29.8 70.6
Note: Points 33, 46, and 16 are the damage locations for damage scenarios I, 2, and 3, respectively.

increased to nine out of 12 modes at case 2 (column 2). Note
that case 2 represents a sawcut of 0.318 X 1.016 cm, com-
pared to case 1 with a sawcut of 0.159 X 0.508 cm in a bottom
flange of a 0.318 X 4.763 cm cross section.
Also note that the damage detectabilities in Table 5 are gen-
erally higher for cases in scenario 1 than for scenario 2, which
are higher than for scenario 3. This shows that the first damage
scenario caused more changes of the modal frequencies. This
was attributed to the fact that scenario 1 damage was more
critical and significant to the bridge stiffness, being in a bottom
flange at midspan. Similarly, scenarios 2 and 3 were not
equally detectable as they did not equally alter the structural
condition. Hence, it was concluded that even though major
damage (such as the last case of each scenario) can be detected
with high probabilities, minor damage may not be detectable
with high confidence.
Similar conclusions were reached based on damage detect-
ability for MAC values shown in Table 6. Cases 5, 10, and 15
could be consistently detected as damage states with proba-
242/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1997
bilities higher than 95% for at least eight out of 12 modes.
These detectabilities are consistent to those of frequencies in
Table 5. Thus detection based on MAC values can be used to
supplement that based on the frequencies for diagnosis deci-
sions.
Since modal frequencies and MAC refer to individual
modes of vibration, diagnosis using these structural signatures
can only answer to if the damage or deterioration exists. Prac-
tically, when this question is answered positively, the next step
is to identify where the damage is or at least in which area
the damage has occurred. Without this information, the diag-
nosis may be regarded as incomplete. Mode shapes and their
derivatives (e.g., COMAC) as structural signatures are natural
choices for this purpose because they provide information on
vibration patterns for individual points in a structure.
Table 7 shows damage detectability of typical data points
on the structure using COMAC by the two-sample t-test.
Points 33, 46, and 16 were the damage locations for scenarios
1, 2, and 3, respectively. The rest of the measurement points

J. Struct. Eng., 1997, 123(2): 237-245

 TABLE 8 . Damage Detectablllty In Percentage Using Mode Shape for Model Bridge
Mode
1 Case Number with Respect to Intact Case Number with Respect to Case 5 Case Number with Respect to Case 10
Point
number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11 ) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
16 100 100 99.6 86.0 79.3 91.7 93.1 93.7 99.9 98.8 81.4 93.1 17.6 70.8 94.3
33 73.3 56.6 94.8 94.6 99.5 72.9 99.9 94.1 99.9 94.4 31.3 15.8 21.1 67.8 66.5
46 99.4 100 53.2 95.6 99.5 92.7 99.8 93.6 99.9 99.9 67.5 88.5 31.3 91.7 94.9
Note: Points 33,46, and 16 are the damage locations for damage scenanos I, 2, and 3, respectively.

0.2 -- points show detectabilities higher than 80.2% (Alampalli et al.

1 75th Perce
Medi
1995).
25th Perce He Case 2, a more severe damage than case 1 and at the same
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aliah University on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

location, shows a damage detectability of 99.5% for point 33.

0.15
§. However, there were still 26 of the 64 remaining points with
.c
ell
detectabilities greater than 99.5% for the damage location of
point 33. Even case 5, the end of damage scenario 1, had 54
j
'0 0.1
of 64 points having the same detectability of 100% as point
33. Similar behavior is also observed for scenarios 2 and 3,
~
INTACT
j with points 46 and 16 being the respective damage location.
------- CASE 5 For any of the damage cases in scenario 3, it is interesting to

t 0.")/ Damage Location

o ~·--12--+--+--I---I-....-:3~--,-34I----=3*5-=+36=----::c3b----:1:--±---l
Test Point
(a)
FIG. 6(a). Variation In Mode Shape Due to Damage for Model
Bridge
Damage Location
2 girder). Fig. 6(a) highlights the change in the median value of
(b)
FIG. 6(b). Variation In Normalized Mode Shape Due to Damage
tor Model Bridge (All Mode Shapes Are Normalized by Intact Me-
dian Mode Shape)
are shown in Alampalli et al. (1995) due to the limitation on
space here. Intact states, cases 5 and 10 were used as reference
in damage detection for these scenarios, in the same manner
as Tables 5 and 6. For example, the first column shows damage
detectability of case 1 (with reference to the intact state). Point
33 was the location of damage for the first scenario, showing
a damage detectability of 80.2%. Unfortunately, these results
are inconclusive and cannot lead to identification of damage
location point 33 because 46 points out of the remaining 64
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1997/243
note that damage location point 16 never showed the highest
detectabilities among all the data points [see Alampalli et al.
(1995)], showing a high probability of false identification (i.e.,
the actual damage location missed and wrong location iden-
tified).
Damage detectability by the two-sample t-test directly using
mode shapes is shown in Table 8 for all three damage locations
in the same format of Tables 5- 7. Only typical data points for
first modes are included here because the space limitation pro-
hibits presentation for all the points. For mode 1 under sce-
nario 1 (cases 1 through 5), damage location point 33 never
had a higher detectability than all the other points shown. The
damage location point 46 for scenario 2 (cases 6 through 10)
is a little better. Nevertheless, these results still present diffi-
culty for definite damage-location identification for several
damage cases because there were other points showing higher
or equal damage probabilities (cases 7, 8, and 9). Similar con-
clusions were drawn from the data for all the 12 modes (Alam-
palli et al. 1995).
Besides existence of noise in the obtained data possibly ad-
versely affecting damage location identification, this behavior
is also attributed to compatible mode shape changes at various
data points caused by localized damages (points 33, 46, and
16, respectively). This can be illustrated more intuitively using
results in Fig. 6(a). It shows variation of a typical mode of
girder 3 (mode 1) before and after a damage case (case 5),
described by the median, 25th percentile, and 75th percentile
values. The damage was at point 33 (i.e., midspan point of the
the mode shape before and after damage. For better visuali-
zation the same figure is redrawn in Fig. 6(b) by normalizing
all the mode shapes by the intact median mode shape. These
curves show that the mode shape changed comparably at all
locations on the girder. This indicates that the damage affected
the mode shape not only at the damage vicinity but also at
other locations. This was observed also in other modes and
damage cases.
Using mode shapes or their derivatives for damage-location
identification is essentially based on an assumption that a local
damage would change mode shapes more significantly at the
damage location or vicinity than other areas. Figs. 6(a) and
6(b) show that this assumption is not verified, and demonstrate
comparable changes of the mode shape at various locations.
This is attributed to the fact that, on experiencing local dam-
age, adjacent structural elements autogenously distribute load

J. Struct. Eng., 1997, 123(2): 237-245

 effects through an altered load path system, and effects of the TABLE 10. Damage Detectability In Percentage Using Modal
local damage are thus distributed to other elements of the frequencies for Field Bridge
structure. This self-adjustment capability is believed to have Damage Case with Respect to Intact
been provided by intentional and unintentional redundancy.
Mode 1 3 4 5 6 7
The laboratory model bridge represents a one-sixth model
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
of the prototype bridge, as explained earlier. Using a simple
beam model, the prototype bridge's frequencies would be one- 1 100 85.2 100 99.3 100 100
sixth of the corresponding model frequencies for bending 2 37.3 98.1 100 100 100 100
3 53.0 99.0 100 96.7 100 100
modes. As discussed earlier, Table 5 indicated a minimum de- ..
tectable crack size (the larger dimension of the depth and Note: Detectablhty was not estimated for case 2, as only one test was
length) of 1 cm (0.4 in.) for the crack at a critical section conducted.
(midspan) using a 95% probability of damage as detection
criterion. This detectability for existence of damage was ob-
TABLE 11. Damage Detectablllty In Percentage Using MAC for
tained using a frequency resolution of 0.3125 Hz for a fre- Field Bridge
quency change of about 1.5 Hz in the first frequency of 21
Hz. Using the theory of similitude, a similar minimum de- Damage Case with Respect to Intact
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aliah University on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tectability for the prototype bridge would be obtained for a 6 Mode 1 3 4 5 6 7

cm (2.4 in.) crack, requiring a frequency resolution of 0.0521 (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Hz for an expected frequency change of 0.25 Hz in the first
I 37.6 96.2 67.2 10.8 80.7 90.8
frequency of 3.5 Hz. These required features of instrumenta- 2 92.5 73.5 59.9 52.6 5.2 5.4
tion are achievable using current commercially available 3 0.5 68.8 99.5 100 97.8 100
equipment. ..
Note: Detectablhty was not estimated for case 2, as only one test was
conducted.
Field Bridge
The first three modes of the field bridge were used here for -- Medj~--.-i5th Percentile---
damage diagnosis. Mean modal frequencies for the intact and
each damage case are given in Table 9. Corresponding mean 1.: f- ---- - - ~/'" \ (-75th-Percentile --

".='"i,'i'~~/II
MAC and COMAC values were also estimated for each dam- 1.6
age case (Alampalli et a1. 1995). As discussed earlier, these
mean values are not adequate for damage diagnosis because 8-
~1.4
"",-,if,
of the random variation observed. Statistical techniques were
similarly used to analyze the data obtained.
"8 1.2 ~•. _\:~j-'
~
These tables also indicated a tendency of frequency shift ] 1
with progressive damage cases. The two-sample t-test was thus
used to quantify this tendency, estimating the probability of 10.8
Z
damage detection using the modal frequencies, as shown in
Table 10. This gives the detectability of all the damage cases INTACT
with reference to the intact condition except for case 2, which -------- CASE 4 I
0.4 \'<: ~- -
had only one measured data point and thus was not eligible
for the statistical analysis. Except for modes 2 and 3 under 0.2 ~~~,~ ,.-~-----,--;--~-~J
o 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 1l 12 13 14 15 16
case 1 and for mode 1 under case 3, detection probabilities Test Point
are higher than 95% for all damage cases and all modes, in- FIG. 7. Variation In Normalized Mode Shape Due to Damage
dicating that most of the simulated damage can be detected for Field Bridge (All Mode Shapes Are Normalized by Intact Me-
with high confidence. In addition, not all the modes possess dian Mode Shape)
the same sensitivity to damage. All the damage cases intro-
duced are much more significant than those of the model
bridge, as shown in Table 3. Table 11 shows damage detect- damage probability. Supplemented by Table 11 using MAC,
ability using MAC values for all damage cases. Most detect- this diagnosis can be made with higher confidence because an
abilities in Table 11 are lower than those for frequencies in additional mode (mode 2) shows a higher damage probability
Table 10, indicating lower sensitivity of MAC to damage for of 92.5%. This example also shows that a limited number of
this bridge. But the detectability based on MAC values can be modes may be inadequate for damage diagnosis with high con-
used to supplement diagnostic decisions. For example, case 1 fidence. This is because either certain modes are not signifi-
damage would not be diagnosed using only the modal fre- cantly affected by the damage, or random variation in obtained
quencies in Table 10 because only one mode showed high data is too high, both resulting in difficulty of diagnosis based
on a limited number of modes.
TABLE 9. Mean Modal Frequencies (Hz) for Field Bridge Damage detectabilities obtained using COMAC and the
mode shapes by the two-sample t-test were unable to pinpoint
Mode the damage location and led to false identification (Alampalli
Case 1 2 3 et a1. 1995), as observed in the model bridge. Similarly, this
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) is due to comparable changes of mode shapes at all locations
Intact 10.90 20.21 36.79
as shown in Fig. 7 for a typical damage case. The damage
1 10.57 20.23 36.67 was at points 8 and 23, and point 23 is transversely at the
2 10.78 20.15 36.70 same location (midspan) as point 8 but on the other girder (see
3 10.63 20.31 37.16 Fig. 2). It is observed that the mode shape changed at all
4 10.00 19.69 35.24 locations along the girder (including the damage location),
5 10.07 19.64 35.30 with points 2 and 11 changed most, which are 2.9 and 1.45
6 9.94 19.63 34.89 m away longitudinally from the damage location points. These
7 9.49 18.56 34.01
results confirm those obtained in the laboratory study, indi-
244/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1997

J. Struct. Eng., 1997, 123(2): 237-245

 cating that mode shapes were affected comparably at points
both out of and within the damage vicinity.
CONCLUSIONS
Modal frequencies may be used to detect the existence of
damage or deterioration for highway bridges. Cross diagnosis
using multiple signatures such as mode shapes and MAC is
warranted for such detection because a single signature may
not be conclusive due to inevitable variation of measured data.
Sensitivity of such detection may be limited (for example, a
minimum of 6 cm long crack in a 21.95 m long bridge as
shown here). Criteria for warning triggering using these sig-
natures need to be determined by taking into account their
random variation affecting sensitivity of detection.
Damage location may be difficult to identify using mode
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Aliah University on 10/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
shapes or their derivatives. This can be mainly attributed to
the fact that mode shapes at undamaged locations are com-
parably affected by the damage resulting in the difficulty to
differentiate damaged from undamaged areas. Due to this ob-
servation, modal testing may not be appropriate for damage
diagnosis in routine inspection of typical short to medium span
highway bridges in which damage location identification is
often required if damage existence is known or suspected.
A limited number of modes may be inadequate for damage
diagnosis with high confidence because certain modes may be
less sensitive to the damage or may include higher noise ef-
fecting false diagnosis.
For complete damage diagnosis including existence and lo-
cation, improved instrumentation is needed for lower noise and
more extensive simultaneous coverage, with cost-effectiveness
considered.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Trans-
portation. Many New York Department of Transportation personnel con-
tributed to completion of this study. Julie Tarter, Sherif Boulos, and Wil-
fred J. Deschamps assisted in construction of the model bridge. Thanks
are extended to Idris Aziz and Wilfred J. Deschamps for their assistance
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 1997/245
J. Struct. Eng., 1997, 123(2): 237-245
in data collection and analysis. Discussions with John Minor, Raymond
Steive, Abbas Sanobari, Sherif Boulos, Deniz Sandhu, and Amita Agar-
wal were very helpful, and their efforts are appreciated.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Alampalli, S., Fu, G., and Dillon, E. W. (1995). "Measured bridge vi-
bration for damage detection." Res. Rep.• FHWAlNYIRR-951165, En-
gineering Research and Development Bureau, New York State Depart-
ment of Transportation, Albany, N.Y.
Biswas, M., Pandey, A. K., and Samman, M. M. (1990). "Diagnostic
experimental spectraVmodal analysis of a highway bridge." Int. J. An-
alytical and Experimental Modal Anal., 5(1), 33-42.
Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., and Hunter, J. S. (1978). Statistics for
experiments. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Castelluci, J. (1988). "Crack in bridge shuts down Rte. 95." Providence
J. Bull., Providence, R.I.
Ewins, D. J. (1984). Modal testing: theory and practice. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Hearn, G., and Testa, R. B. (1991). "Modal analysis for damage detection
in structures." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(10),3042-3063.
Highways Accident Rep. (1988). "Collapse of New York Thruway (1-90)
bridge over the Schoharie Creek near Amsterdam, New York, April 5,
1987." National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C.
Lieven, N. A. J., and Ewins, D. J. (1988). "Spatial correlation of mode
shapes, the Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion (COMAC). " Proc.,
6th Int. Modal Anal. Conj., Society for Experimental Mechanics,
Bethel, Conn., 690-695.
Manual of steel construction. (1980). American Institute of Steel Con-
struction Inc., 8th Ed., Chicago, Ill.
Mazurek, D. F., and DeWolf, J. T. (1990). "Experimental study of bridge
monitoring technique." J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 116(9), 2532-2549.
National bridge inspection standards: frequency of inspection and inven-
tory. (1987). Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Admin-
istration, Federal Register, Washington, D.C.
Pandey, A. K., Biswas, M., and Samman, M. M. (1991). "Damage de-
tection from changes in curvature mode shapes." J. Sound and Vibra-
tion, 145(2), 321-332.
Richardson, M. H., and Formenti, D. L. (1985). "Global curve fitting of
frequency response measurements using the rational fraction polyno-
mial method." Proc.• 3rd Int. Modal Anal. Con!, Society for Experi-
mental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, Conn., 390-397.
Wolf, T., and Richardson, M. (1989). "Fault detection in structures from
changes in their modal parameters." Proc., 7th Int. Modal Anal. Conf.,
Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc., Bethel, Conn., 87-94.