Proceedings of CIVIL2011@UNILORIN

3 Annual Conference of Civil Engineering

rd

6 - 8 July, 2011

Crack Detection in Wall Prism Adapted to Wavelet (Symlet) Packet

I.Yahya and A.A. Adedeji Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ilorin, PMB 1515, Ilorin Nigeria
Abstract The wavelet analysis was carried out on the static deflection profile obtained by measuring deflection at the damage point in the modelled walls for various locations of a concentrated load along the length of the wall. This static deflection profile was used as the input signal for wavelet (Symlet) analysis. Due to variation in deflection at some points, compared to their adjacent points, peaks are seen in the wavelet coefficient (WC) plot. These peak points were identified as damage points along the length of the walls. With parametric study in form of varying the damage, location of damage, intensity of load, flexural rigidity, and length of the beam, the change in specification for the modelled walls and that of the beam with which the generalized wavelet coefficient curve (used in this study for quantifying crack effects) was produced by considering the correction factors required for transforming the walls specification to fit in well on the curve. It has been observed that the WCs change with variations in damage, location of damage, intensity of load, flexural rigidity, and length of the structural member. A generalized curve adopted to quantify the crack intensity requires taking envelop of all maximum WCs of the deflection response measured at damage points. Keywords: Wavelet packet transforms deflection, parametric study, symlet. 1. Introduction

Cracks emerge due to various forces or stresses. After discerning the cracks preferably by non-destructive techniques, there is a need to find the reason for their appearance. With very exact analysis of the shape, form and dimension of the cracks and their location on the structural elements, we can deduce the reason for their formation. This makes, proposing a suitable solution for preventing the expansion of cracks possible. Cracks are a sign of weakness in the structure of buildings and in severe cases can even result in their collapse. The diagnosis of cracks or defects even in the internal parts of buildings is detectable by many existing methods. Utilizing machines and tools are far better than the older destructive method of laboratory tests on specimens taken by the removal of prisms or cores from the structure. According to the required data one or some techniques can be applied. Some are survey tests for qualitative measurements and some are minimally intrusive in-situ test methods to provide reliable information on masonry quality. The preferred methods are those which are non-destructive. The real diagnosis of cracks is to state the reason or reasons for the formation of such a crack. Finding the cause of cracks is not possible without a proper typology of cracks. Then proposing appropriate strengthening action is possible both to prevent the growing of cracks as well as repairing them.

30

Proceedings of CIVIL2011@UNILORIN

3 Annual Conference of Civil Engineering

rd

6 - 8 July, 2011

2.

Review

Clayford (1988) explains that for a given type of structure and material, the location, pattern, and width often provide clues to the cause. Cracks result from strain which induces stress in excess of strength in compression, tension, or shear. In most cases it is not possible to determine just one reason for each crack; different reasons may come together to generate a specific crack. A variety of problems can cause cracking: differential settlement of foundations, drying shrinkage, expansion and contraction due to ambient thermal, moisture variations, improper support over openings, the effects of freeze-thaw cycles, the corrosion of iron and steel wall reinforcement, differential movement between building materials, expansion of salts, and the bulging or leaning of walls. Fatemeh (2008). Diagnosis of cracks is not possible without knowledge about crack patterns. To achieve this type of crack classification is required. Clayford, (1988) proposed that masonry cracks may be classified by: 1) structure type; 2) masonry type; 3) location; 4) pattern; 5) width; and 6) cause. The first factor to investigate is whether the movement has stopped and the crack has ceased to open. The type of crack movement can indicate the reason for the crack forming. Cyclic cracks are a sign of cyclic movement while continual cracking indicates continual movement. Specifying the rate of cracking is also an important factor to determine whether cracks are steady or accelerating. Predicting a time when cracks will be dangerous for the structure is possible in the case of steady cracks, but anticipating the future of the crack is not easy for accelerating cracks. In the last decade, wavelet theory has been one of the emerging and fast-evolving mathematical and signal processing tools (Jiang and Adeli, 2003). An important feature of the wavelet transform is the ability to characterize the local irregularity of a function and to react to subtle changes of the signal structure. A crack in a structure introduces singularities to the displacement mode shapes or the static deflection curve. These small defects cannot be identified directly from the structure response, but observed on wavelet transforms because local abnormalities in the signal result in large wavelet coefficients (WCs) in the neighborhood of the damage (Ovanesova and Suarez, 2004; Quek et al., 2001). The main advantage of the continuous wavelet transform (CWT) is its ability to provide information simultaneously in time and scale with adaptive windows. An application of wavelet theory in the spatial domain crack identification of structures was proposed by Liew and Wang (1998). The wavelet in the spatial domain is calculated based on finite difference solutions of a mathematical representation of the structure in question.The crack location is indicated by a peak in the variations of the WCs along the length of the beam.Wang and Deng (1999) proposed that the wavelet transform be directly applied to spatially distributed structural response signals, such as surface profile, displacement, strain, or acceleration measurements. The CWT of the fundamental mode shape and its Lipschitz exponent was used to detect the damage location and extent in a beam by Hong et al. (2002), Gentile and Messina (2003), Douka et al. (2003), and Chang and Chen (2003). The wavelet packet transform (WPT) is an extension of the WT, which provides a complete level-by-level decomposition of signal. This transform is formed by the linear combination of the wavelet. So, the wavelet packet transform can indicate the permanent and temporary features of a signal with the desired frequency- time separation (Han et al., 2005). 3. Methodology 3.1 Field Measurement Physical assessment of the state and service condition of sampled buildings were first carried out to ascertain the types and degree of defects they suffer, this gave us the impression about

31

Proceedings of CIVIL2011@UNILORIN

3 Annual Conference of Civil Engineering

rd

6 - 8 July, 2011

the use to which the buildings have been subjected and seemingly likened the possible defects acknowledged to those in the literature for adequate assessment and analysis. Heavy loads and volume changes are among other factors that were diagnosed causing strain in structural element especially building walls. Volume change was found to be caused by temperature, moisture, water or salt crystallization, or the corrosion of embedded metals in the masonry. Stress cracking also was caused by movements of foundations, structural frames, vibrations, or fire. External cracks on walls found on the wall surface of buildings. Figure 3.1 (a - c) shows the pictorial images of sampled buildings with their specific crack pattern. The sample buildings are located at Pakata, and Gaa Akanbi area in Ilorin, kwara state, being the intended area of interest chosen for the study.

(a)

(a) Type of failure: Crack Position of failure: Bottom edge of window Width of failure: 12mm Age characteristic of failure: Old crack Possible cause of failure: Faulty craftsmanship & foundation settlement.

(b)

(b) Type of failure: Crack Position of failure: Through window opening Width of failure: 12mm Age characteristic of failure: Old crack Possible cause of failure: Faulty craftsmanship, settlement of foundation

(c) Type of failure: Crack Position of failure: Bottom edge of window Width of crack: 8m Age characteristic of crack: New crack Possible cause of failure: Poor jointing, Environmental effect, Excessive banging of window

Fig. 3.1. Cracks on external structural earth walls . Source: (Pakata, Gaa Akanbi, Oke odo in Ilorin

32

Proceedings of CIVIL2011@UNILORIN

3 Annual Conference of Civil Engineering

rd

6 - 8 July, 2011

3.2 Crack Rating and Their Structural Effect In order to categorize cracks on their dimension it become incumbent to rate them based on their sizes (width). In this study, the cracks are categorised into two, taken after pynford classification of visible damage to building wall, Table 3.1. Typical Example of Structural Effects Based on Crack Ratings
Categories Origin of cracks Class of Cracks Cracks size in mm. Visibilit y of the faults or cracks Very difficult to see Hairline cracks Can be seen Closely Effects of cracks on the structure Physical maximum width in mm. (full scale)

First category (no effect on the structure, other than aesthetic

These are caused by initial shrinkage in new materials or thermal expansion and contraction over a long period

P0

P1 P2

Less than 0.1 0.1 to 0.3 0.3 to 1.0

No effect

Not serious In large numbers will have aesthetic effect Aesthetic effect

P3

1.0 to 2.0

Can be seen in clear light from a few meters

Source: Fatemeh (2008) 3.3 Specifications for the (Modelled) Walls

The specifications for the modelled prismatic walls for the purpose of wavelet analysis in this study is as shown in Table 3.2 Table 3.2 Modelled wall elements for validation of this study Sample Lengths Breadths Depth Load E (Nm- no (mm) (mm) (mm) (KN) 2) (Kgm3 ) 9 W1 3000 230 500 300 7.7x10 2000 W2 2000 230 350 200 7.7x109 2000 W3 2500 230 400 250 7.7x109 2000 The concentrated load was assumed to be applied at different locations along the wall at interval of 0.2l, symlet wavelet with vanishing moment of 4 and scale of 6 (sym4, 6) was proposed after Loutridis et al (2004) for a clear vision of any discontinuity or crack in the member. The load positions are each considered as different load cases. Deflection profile for each wall was obtained as shown in figure 3.2 to 3.6 and maximum deflections occur were found at the damage location (0.6L).

33

Proceedings of CIVIL2011@UNILORIN

3 Annual Conference of Civil Engineering

rd

6 - 8 July, 2011

3.4 Algorithm for Wavelet Analysis Using Deflection Curve as Signal The new wavelet coefficient (NWC) for the modelled walls were analysed following the algorithm below; Get the deflection values for the wall using equation (1), each for the load cases along the span of the wall length.

(1)

Plot the deflection profile using excel plot tools Link the plot signal to MATLAB software to generate the corresponding wavelet coefficients Obtain the coefficient at the damage positioned defined by the discontinuity characteristic in the wavelet transform The value of the wavelet coefficient for the damage position is taken as the new wavelet coefficient (NWC) for the wall in question Compute the correction factors using appropriate equations. The Modified wavelet coefficient is obtained by using equation (2). The deflection profiles showing the relationship between the load positions and the corresponding deflection values for each of the modelled walls are as indicated in Figure 2 to 4.

Fig. 2

Load position Vs Deflection for wall 1

Fig. 3

Load position Vs Deflection for wall 2

34

Proceedings of CIVIL2011@UNILORIN

3 Annual Conference of Civil Engineering

rd

6 - 8 July, 2011

Fig. 4

Load position Vs Deflection for wall 3

From Figure 5a and 5b, the new wavelet coefficients (NWC) were obtained by comparing the corresponding wavelet coefficient for the similar deflection pattern which was taken after the experimental results of Umesha et al (2009)

Fig. 5a Deflection profile of a fixed beam Source: Umesha et al (2009)

New Wavelet Coefficient (NWC) Wall 1: 4.788/11 = x/(-0.017) Wall 2: 1.17/11 = x/(- 0.017) Wall 3: 1.9/11 = x/(-0.017)

Fig. 5b Corresponding wavelet transform Source: Umesha et al

> x = -0.007 > x = -0.002 > x = -0.003

After the computation of the correction factors, the modified wavelet coefficients were obtained as follows: Modified Wavelet Coefficient (MWC) MWC = NWC x CI x CL x CP Wall 1, MWC = -0.007 x 2.78 x 1 x 1.67 = -0.03 (2)

35

Proceedings of CIVIL2011@UNILORIN

3 Annual Conference of Civil Engineering

rd

6 - 8 July, 2011

Wall 2, MWC = -0.002 x 1.4 x 2 x 2.5 = -0.014 Wall 3, MWC = -0.003 x 1.8 x 1.6 x 2 = -0.02 The modified wavelet coefficient values for the walls were obtained in the generalized wavelet curve Figure 6 to obtain the actual crack depth ratio of the wall indicating the severity of the crack in the wall and subsequently giving adequate impression about the structural state of the wall both in term of ultimate limit and serviceability limit state.

Fig. 6 Generalized wavelet envelope. Source: (Umesha et al., 2009) 4. Results and Discusion Table 4.1 Results for the Wavelet Transform Analysis Damage Crack locations (CP) (CI) (CL) NWC MWC depth (mm) ratio 900 1.67 2.78 1 -0.0074 -0.03 0.33 1200 2.5 1.4 2 -0.0018 -0.01 0.10 1500 2 1.8 1.6 -0.0029 -0.02 0.30

Sample no W1 W2 W3

Crack depths (mm) 165 35 120

In the present study, a method for crack detection and quantification in beams based on Symlet wavelet analysis is presented. The static deflection measurements at sparse intervals are relatively easier and cost-effective compared to dynamic response measurements. Keeping this point in view, a new method has been proposed in the present work. In which the static deflection is measured at a particular point along the length of a real damaged structural member. The deflection response of (modelled) cracked walls (in form of a partially fixed beam) is analyzed using the continuous wavelet transform (CWT). For this purpose, a Symlet wavelet with four vanishing moments is utilized. The wavelet coefficient (WC) was used as an indicator to locate the damage and to quantify the damage. Partially fixed wall with a single damage were used to demonstrate the devised methodology and the general wavelet envelope proposed by Umesha et al (2009) was used to determine the actual wavelet coefficients for the wall. 5. Conclusion and Recommendation

In this study, an analytical method has been proposed for locating and quantifying the damage (crack) in a modelled (prismatic) wall using wavelet packet analysis. The wavelet

36

Proceedings of CIVIL2011@UNILORIN

3 Annual Conference of Civil Engineering

rd

6 - 8 July, 2011

analysis has been carried out on the static deflection profile obtained by measuring deflection at a particular point while changing the locations of loads. The location of damage point is determined as the position of the peak in the curve of wavelet coefficient (WC) versus normalized length. The generalized curve/envelop of maximum WCs has been extracted to quantify the damage. The quantity of the damage was evaluated by mapping the modified wavelet coefficient (MWC) onto the generalized curve. Wavelet analysis has demonstrated its suitability for quantifying the damage (crack) in walls, beams and beam - like structures without a prior knowledge of the deflection corresponding to undamaged structure. Also this method can be extended to identify multiple damages in structural members of multiple spans. Hence, it can be adopted as a Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) tool for civil engineering infrastructures, most especially in bridge structures. So it can be recommended as an effective tool for preventive measure against excessive building failures and subsequent sudden collapse. References Adeli, H. & Ghosh-Dastidar, S. (2004), Mesoscopic-wavelet freeway work zone flow and congestion feature extraction model, Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, 130(1), 94103. Atkinson, R. H., Noland, J. L., Kingsley, G.R., .Application of NDE to masonry structures: Current Technology and Future Needs., in Baer, N.S., et al (Eds.) Conservation of historic brick structures, Donhead Publishing Ltd, Dorset, 1998. Douka, E., Loutridis, S. & Trochidis, A. (2003), Crack identification in beams using wavelet analysis, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 40, 355769. Gentile, A. and Messina, A. (2003), On the continuous wavelet transforms applied to discrete vibrational data for detecting open cracks in damaged beams, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 40, 295315. Hinks, J. and Cook, G., .The technology of building defects., E & FN Spon, London, 1997 J.G. Han., W.X Ren., Z.S. Sun., (2005). Wavelet packet based damage identification of beam structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures. Vol. 42, pp. 6610-6627. Mehdizadeh Saraj, F., Unreinforced masonry domed buildings in regions of high seismic risk of Iran: a procedure for selecting historic buildings for protection and repair. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Sheffield, 2005 P.K. Umesha, R. Ravichandran, K. Sivasubramanian (Article first published online: 14 SEP 2009) Salawu, O. S. (1997), Detection of structural damage through changes in frequency: a review, Engineering Structures, 19(9), 71823. Zhu, X. Q. & Law, S. S. (2006), Wavelet-based crack identification of bridge beam from operational deflection time history, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 43, 2299317.

37