Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 34

International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics Vol. 9, No.

1 (2009) 1143 c World Scientic Publishing Company

BRIDGE INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT BY CONTINUOUS WAVELET TRANSFORMS

A. ALVANDI , J. BASTIEN, E. GREGOIRE and M. JOLIN Research Center on Concrete Infrastructure (CRIB) Department of Civil Engineering, Universit Laval e Quebec, G1V0A6, Canada alireza.alvandi@gci.ulaval.ca Received 9 January 2008 Accepted 16 May 2008 The potential of continuous wavelet transforms for damage assessment of existing bridges is investigated herein. Dierent types of continuous wavelet transforms have been under investigation and the most eective ones have been introduced in a toolbox to automate the damage assessment procedure. In this paper, the performance of the wavelet approach and the inuence of dierent parameters in the damage assessment procedures are studied through two examples: a simply supported beam and a three-span concrete bridge. Applying the wavelet transforms to a structures static and/or dynamic response showed promising results with regard to localization of structural modication or damage. This paper underlines the high sensitivity of the wavelet analysis to damage intensity and its ability to be applied directly to the damaged data. These key characteristics could lead to this approach becoming one of the best for structural health monitoring of existing bridges in the near future. Keywords: Wavelet analysis; damage assessment; structural health monitoring; dynamic test; bridges.

1. Introduction Structures suer from age eects, climate and often-growing trac (for the case of bridges). All in-service structures require some form of maintenance for monitoring their integrity and condition to prolong their service life. To ensure structural safety, structural health monitoring (SHM) has emerged as a reliable, ecient and economical approach to monitoring structural performance, detecting damage and making corresponding maintenance decisions. Some SHM techniques are based on a structures dynamic property variations (frequencies and mode shapes) before and after damage.1 For most existing structures, the initial dynamic test has never been realized, and therefore reference dynamic properties are not available. The aforementioned inconvenience leads to the development of methods that can be directly applied to a structures in situ response. Most of these methods are based on Fourier transforms, which break down a signal into constituents of dierent frequencies. The Fourier transforms convert
11

12

A. Alvandi et al.

the signal from a time-based or space-based domain to a frequency-based domain. Unfortunately, in the transformation to the frequency domain, the time or space information is lost and it is impossible to determine when or where a particular event took place. Fourier transforms should thus be used for nonstationary signals, when the interest lies in what spectral components exist in the signal, and not at which locations these occur. To overcome these diculties, the short-time Fourier transform (STFT) was proposed.2 This windowing technique analyzes only a small portion of the signal at a time or space. In the STFT, the signal is divided into small-enough segments, so these segments of the signals can be assumed to be stationary. For this purpose, a window function, w, is chosen in such a way that its width is equal to the stationary segments of the signal. The disadvantage of this procedure is that the precision of the time or space and frequency is governed by a unique window size for the entire signal. Therefore, a more exible method making use of multiple window sizes would be required to determine with greater precision any particular features of a signal in time or space as a function of frequency. The wavelet transform oers this exibility and is therefore perceived as a new way to analyze signals that overcomes drawbacks that other signal processing techniques exhibit. The wavelet analysis is done in a similar way to the STFT analysis, in the sense that the signal is multiplied by a function similar to the window function dened in the STFT, and the transform is computed separately for dierent segments of the time domain signal. Recently, there have been intense research activities in the application of wavelets in various elds of science and engineering, including timefrequency analysis, system identication and damage detection.3,4 Early studies, primarily devoted to fault diagnosis in machinery, have shown the capability of the wavelet transforms to detect abnormal transient signals generated by the damaged gears.5,6 Based on these preliminary results, wavelet analysis has been extended to damage detection of structural components. For example, based on the wavelet analysis of a cracked and a noncracked beam, Tian et al.7 identied crack locations by recognizing the arrival time of waves exhibiting dierent velocities. Yam et al.8 presented an integrated method for damage detection of composite structures based on their dynamic responses and combining the wavelet approach and the articial neural networks. Furthermore, Sung et al.9 showed that damage in composite laminates that were indistinguishable in conventional analysis of acoustic emission waves could be decomposed and identied by the wavelet transform. For beam damage detection, the wavelet transform applied to the static displacement responses or vibration mode shapes is most commonly used.10 Liew and Wang11 were among the rst to apply the wavelet transform to the numerical mode shapes of a singlecracked beam for crack detection and demonstrated that the maximum variations in the spatial wavelet transform along the beams length corresponded to the crack location. Hong et al.12 have provided further insight into the existing correlation between damage and the maximum variation in the wavelet transform based on

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

13

mode shapes. Their results have been conrmed by Douka et al.,13 who have applied the wavelet transform to mode shapes of cracked cantilever beams. Furthermore, Chang and Chen14 applied the wavelet transform to the mode shapes of a multicracked beam for crack determination and used the experimental natural frequencies to predict crack depths. Chang and Chen have also pointed out that the wavelet transform may exhibit maximum variation at the beam ends, even if no damaged sections were located near the beam extremities. To counteract this problem, Gentile and Messina15 have proposed eliminating boundary local maxima by applying the wavelet transform on the windowed vibration mode shapes, which decay to zero at the beam ends. Obviously, in this manner, the wavelet transform is not able to detect any damaged sections located near the beam extremities (if they existed). As modal parameters, notably frequencies and mode shapes, are a function of the physical properties of the structure (mass, stiness); any variation in the physical properties will result in variation of the structures modal properties. For this reason and because of the fact that mode shapes may reveal a lot of information about a structures global behavior, methods based on dynamic responses have become preferable to those based on static responses. Nevertheless, some contributions may be found in the literature in this regard, such as the one by Wang and Deng16 and Quek et al.17 showing that damage-related maximum variations occur in the wavelet transform of the numerical displacement of beams with vertical embedded cracks featuring dierent orientations and widths. Zue and Law18 showed that beam damage can be located using the wavelet transform of the operational displacement time history when the beam structure is subjected to the action of a moving load. Bayissa et al.19 presented the implementation of wavelet analysis on experimental data of a bridge structure. By using modal data of the I-40 Bridge subjected to various damage scenarios, the robustness of the technique for real-world application was veried. Grabowska et al.20 conducted experimental tests on an aluminum bar by adding dierent masses to the rod. According to these results, the maximum dierence between the measured and calculated values of wavelet decomposition coecients and energy rates is only 6% of the value range. Ren and Sun21 presented a wavelet entropy-based structural damage identication method. By applying this approach to a 1:3 scaled bridge with dierent damage scenarios, they conrmed the eciency of the proposed techniques for damage identication. Li et al.,22 for the identication of structural response variation, presented a method based on the combination of empirical mode decomposition (EMD) and wavelet analysis. This technique has been applied to experimental laboratory mode shapes of a beam and a plate. According to this study, the continuous wavelet transform (CWT) is more suitable than the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) for damage detection and the modulus and gradient of the adopted two-dimensional wavelet transform are good indices of the damage localization. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, some issues of wavelet transforms for damage assessment of beams have already been discussed in the scientic literature. Nevertheless, in the literature, there is little contribution regarding the usage of

14

A. Alvandi et al.

wavelets for bridge damage assessment. In this context, this paper aims to study the potential of CWTs for structural health monitoring of existing bridges. As it is the rst time that this technique is being used for bridge integrity assessment, before its direct application to experimental data, the authors believe that some features of this technique still have to be discussed through a numerical model of a bridge. For this purpose, after reviewing the theory behind this technique, the performance and applicability of the technique will be investigated through its application to the numerical model of a beam and an existing concrete bridge found in the province of Quebec in Canada. Once these results are presented, the experimental in situ modal parameter of the bridge will be used for its integrity evaluation. The inuence of the CWT and its parameters transformation, scale and vanishing moment will be studied. The eciency of static and dynamic responses as input data will be investigated and compared. Other factors, like the number of used mode shapes and the eect of the damage quantity and type on detection results, will be studied. In order to automate the evaluation procedure, all the aforementioned parameters were introduced in a toolbox that allows them to be easily modied. Based on the results, a discussion on the eectiveness of the CWTs for structural assessment of existing bridges will follow. 2. Continuous Wavelet Transforms The CWTs are dened as the product of an analyzed signal x(t) and the basic wavelet function ,s (t) as follows: CWT (, s) = x
x(t) ,s (t)dt,

(1)

where the basic wavelet function is dened as t 1 . ,s (t) = s s

(2)

As is seen in the above equation, the transformed signal is a function of two variables, and s, which are respectively called the transformation and the scale para meter. ,s is the complex conjugate of the wavelet, and it is generally called the mother wavelet. The term mother implies that the wavelet functions are derived from one main function. All the wavelet functions (windows that are used) are the dilated or compressed and shifted versions of the mother wavelet. The transformation term is related to the location of the window along the original signal that covers the time or space length in the series (Fig. 1). For more rened or general analysis, the step can be modied to a smaller or larger value. The scale parameter s, which is dened as 1/frequency (period), is similar to the scale in maps; high scales correspond to a nondetailed global view of the signal, and low scales correspond to a detailed view (Fig. 2). Both and s are parameters used to modify scale and transformation axes. The CWT is the sum over all time or space of the signal multiplied by a scaled and shifted version of a mother wavelet. The results of transforms are wavelet

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

15

Fig. 1.

Transformation step throughout the signal.

Fig. 2.

Schematic wavelet function at scales (a) s = 1, (b) s = 1.5, (c) s = 2.

coecients that show how well a wavelet function correlates with the analyzed signal. If a signal and the wavelet function match closely, the resulting wavelet coecient will be high. A high negative value for a wavelet coecient denotes a close match, but in an inverse direction, meaning that the shape of the wavelet is the mirror image of the original signal. More details about the CWT can be found in Refs. 2325. For better comprehension, Fig. 3(a) presents schematically wavelet coecients obtained from a wavelet function applied to a signal. The gure illustrates well

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. Wavelet coecients: (a) for dierent scales and transformations; (b) in a bar graph for a given scale.

16

A. Alvandi et al.

the dependence of the wavelet coecients on the corresponding scales and transformations. In this study, for a better demonstration of the inuence of scales (s) on wavelet coecients, the wavelet coecients for a given scale (s) are presented in two-dimensional graphs. As an example, Fig. 3(b) presents one of these results where the wavelet coecients have been normalized and are shown in bars. In order to be able to cover all the measurement points, a unit step for the transformation was used ( = 1). In this way, a transformation axis can be replaced by the measurement point axis. It is important to note that the transformation variable is and not itself; changes the wavelet interval on the measurement points. Using a unit interval, all measurement points are scanned and multiplied by the wavelet function.

3. Wavelet Transform Properties The two important wavelet properties are admissibility and regularity, which will be explained in the following paragraphs. 3.1. Admissibility
It can be shown that the square integrable wavelet function ,s (t) must satisfy the 26 admissibility condition :

|()|2 d < +, ||

(3)

where () stands for the Fourier transform of ,s (t). The admissibility condi tion implies that the Fourier transform of the wavelet ,s (t) vanishes at the zero frequency:

|()|2 =0 = 0.

(4)

This zero value at the zero frequency also means that the average value of the wavelet in the time domain must be zero:
,s (t)dt = 0,

(5)

i.e. the wavelet function must be oscillatory. In other words, ,s (t) must be a wave.

3.2. Regularity condition The time bandwidth product of the wavelet transform is the square of the input signal, and for most practical applications this is not a desired property. Therefore one imposes some additional conditions on a wavelet function in order to make the wavelet transform decrease rapidly with a decreasing scale s. These are the regularity conditions and they state that the wavelet functions should have some smoothness and concentration in both time and frequency domains. In the following

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

17

paragraph, we will explain the regularity condition using the vanishing moment concept. Let us consider the following Taylor series at x = 0: f (x) = f (0) + f (0) 2 f (0) 3 f n (0) n f (0) x+ x + x + + x . 1! 2! 3! n! (6)

Using the presented Taylor series, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as 1 CWT (0, s) = x(0) x s + x (0) 2 x 2! t x (0) dt + x s 1! t dt s t dt + . s (7)

x (0) 3 t dt + x s 3!

Considering the wavelet moment as Mp : Mp = xp (t)dt, (8)

and substituting Eq. (8) in Eq. (7), the latter can be rewritten as follows: 1 x (0) x (0) M 1 s2 + M 2 s3 CWT (0, s) = x(0)M0 s + x s 1! 2! + + xn (0) Mn sn+1 + , n! (9)

where p varies from 0 to n, and xp stands for the pth derivative of x. From the admissibility condition we already know that the zeroth moment equals zero as M0 = 0 [Eq. (5)]. Therefore, the rst term of Eq. (9) equals zero. If we manage to make other moments up to Mn equal to zero as well, the CWT coecients CWT (0, s) will decay as fast as sn+2 . In this way, Eq. (9) can be written for a x dierent number of wavelet moments, which is known in the literature as a number of vanishing moments.27 As the smoothness and concentration of the wavelet functions depend on the number of vanishing moments, the wavelet functions are dened and identied by their numbers of vanishing moments.23,28 In other words, the wavelet transform can be considered as the nth derivative of the signal x(t) smoothed by a wavelet moment (M ) at the scale s. If a signal has a singularity at a certain point x, meaning that it is not dierentiable at x, then the wavelet transform coecients will have relatively large values at this point.29 By using a large scale, the convolution of the signal x(t) with M removes small signal uctuations, and consequently detection of only large signal variations is possible.30 As an example, Fig. 4 illustrates a Gaussian wavelet function found in Matlab Toolbox,31 where the digits 2, 4 and 6 represent the number of vanishing moments.

18

A. Alvandi et al.

Fig. 4.

Wavelet functions: (a) gauss 2, (b) gauss 4, (c) gauss 6.

4. Wavelet Transform Selection The selection of an appropriate wavelet transform and the choice of its vanishing moments are also key elements for eective use of the wavelet analysis in damage detection. Hong et al.12 proved that for beam crack detection the number of vanishing moments should be at least 2. As the wavelet coecient represents the correlation between the wavelet and the spatial signal, in the absence of damage the best wavelet will be the one that exhibits a zero (or near-zero) wavelet coecient value. In other words, wavelets that are more similar to the signal shape will present better results. For the signals used in this study (mode shape and deection) based on various simulations, it was concluded that wavelets with four vanishing moments better guarantee the zero values at undamaged areas. Obviously, for structural responses that are similar to the polynomial of order higher than 4, the use of wavelets with a higher number of vanishing moments is necessary. Based on simulation on numerical and experimental data obtained from the most commonly used wavelets, it was concluded that the Symlet (Sym) and Gaussian (Gauss) wavelets with four vanishing moments were the most powerful wavelets in detecting structural singularities while using mode shape and/or deection. The advantage of Gaussian wavelets has also been discussed by others.4,15

5. Damage Assessment Using CWTs The main idea supporting the use of wavelets for structural assessment is based on the fact that structural modications introduce discontinuities in a structure response.32 The measured mode shape or deection of a structure can be treated as a spatially distributed signal. Once a signal or its derivatives is available, it can be analyzed through the wavelet transforms. A sudden change or peak in the analyzed wavelet coecient may indicate the location of the damage or possible structural modication. Spatial data is ideally recorded on the entire length of the structure and, for structures with a signicant width, it can be recorded according to more than one measuring line. In this study, in order to compare the eciency of the dynamic

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

19

and static responses, the rst three mode shapes and the static deections of a structure have been used for damage assessment purposes. In order to automate the evaluation procedure and be able to verify the inuence of the wavelet function, the number of vanishing moments and the scale (s) in the assessment procedure, the CWT toolbox was developed.

6. CWT Toolbox The CWT toolbox was created to automate the damage assessment procedure. A variety of wavelet functions with dierent vanishing moments were introduced in the toolbox. As seen in Fig. 3, the resulting wavelet coecient depends on the wavelet function, scale (s) and transformation step ( ) parameters. With the help of the CWT toolbox interface, the wavelet function and the two parameters can easily be modied and their inuence on the detection results evaluated. The program can be applied to one or two sets of recorded data, respectively presented here as damage identication through damaged and undamaged data, and damage identication through damaged data. The following paragraphs give more details about the CWT toolbox. 6.1. Damage identication through damaged data In practice, the in situ response of existing bridges can be registered, but seldom is a previous set of records available for comparison purposes (reference state). In such cases, damage assessment should be based on one data set representing the current state of the structure, called in this study the damaged data. One of the key characteristics of the CWT in contrast to similar existing methods1 is that it can make an evaluation using the damaged data only. In this case, the maximal amplitude of the wavelet coecient localizes the modied or damaged zones. In this study this wavelet coecient has been normalized regarding its maximum value. 6.2. Damage identication through damaged and undamaged data By using the CWT toolbox, the CWT can also be applied to two data sets usually recorded at two dierent times in a structures life, called in this study the undamaged and damaged data. Figure 5 shows the program user interface with the resulting wavelet coecients at about 30 dierent measurement points along a structure length, herein a simply supported beam. One can see that the damage area has been located near the 8th measurement point. For a given scale (s) and unit transformation step ( = 1), the detection results are shown on a twodimensional graph. In Fig. 5, the two wavelet coecient graphs (a healthy state and an unknown damaged state) are being compared and the wavelet coecients are given in the y-axis. As these graphs are obtained from the same wavelet functions with identical scales (s) and transformation step ( ),their maximum variation

20

A. Alvandi et al.

Fig. 5.

Interface of the continuous wavelet transform toolbox.

is assumed to be the quantity of damage in the localized zone. In this study, the variation of the wavelet coecient before and after damage has been calculated and normalized to its maximum value and presented as a wavelet coecient variation.

6.3. Important issues of the CWT toolbox 6.3.1. Scale parameter One important issue with the wavelet transform techniques is the choice of the appropriate scale (s). Results show that the selection depends on data quality and damage type. As the structure assessment procedure is precisely conducted to identify damage type and localization, it is obvious that the selection of the scales parameters may represent a challenge. Recall that inappropriate scale selection will result in inaccurate damage detection. In order to counteract this problem, the CWT toolbox presents the possibility of determining the wavelet coecient for the entire sum of the dened scale. It is particularly useful when the damage and/or quality of the recorded data are not known. In this case, the damage will be scanned through all possible scales.

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

21

6.3.2. False detection at extremities The CWT is dened as the integration of the product of a wavelet and the signal of innite length, i.e. x , + . Since the mode shape or deection of a structure treated as a spatially distributed signal has a nite length, i.e. x 0, L , a border distortion problem appears. Owing to this discontinuity at structure extremities, the wavelet coecients achieve an extremely high value.33 As previously mentioned, one of the outstanding features of the CWT is the possibility of its direct application to the damaged data. Hence, false detections, which are sometimes more important than the damage itself, are often observed at the boundaries. The inuence of boundary eects can be reduced by extending the signal beyond the boundary. It is obvious that the length of the extended signal depends on the scale of the used wavelet function. There are dierent ways to extend the signal: extension by zeros, by reection, by periodicity and by extrapolation.34,35 Extension by zeros assumes that the signal is zero outside the domain; this method creates articial discontinuities at the border. Another method is signal extension by reection, which assumes recovery of the signal outside its original support by symmetric boundary value replication. Reection generally introduces discontinuities in the rst derivative at the border. It is also possible to recover the signal by its periodic extension. This method also creates discontinuities at the border. In this study, after examining all presented potential methods, it was concluded that the spline extrapolation based on three neighboring points36 provides better results. For example, a beam deection line signal with 20 measurement points is used for extrapolation purposes: see Fig. 6. This gure compares linear, cubic and spline extrapolation with ten extrapolated measurement points at each extremity.

Fig. 6. Extrapolation applied to a beam deection response: cubic extrapolation, spline extrapolation.

linear extrapolation,

22

A. Alvandi et al.

As shown, the linear and cubic extrapolations are closer to the initial curve. However, due to its curvature, the rst and second derivatives of the spline are continuous and therefore provide better results. As articial extensions at extremities will be taken o at the end of the procedure, they do not have any inuence on the nal detection results. The toolbox allows the number of extension points to be easily modied and their inuence on results to be evaluated. This goes to show that when two data sets are used and the wavelet coecients dierence is calculated, the repeated false detections at extremities vanish, though the extrapolation procedure is not needed.

7. Application of CWTs to Structures In the following section, the performance of direct application of the CWTs to one data set (damaged data) and of application to two data sets (undamaged and damaged data) will be studied through two practical examples. Here, all detection results were obtained from Gauss 4 with a unit transformation step ( = 1), and scale 2. It should be noted that all wavelet coecients obtained from direct application of CWTs to the damaged data were extrapolated by the spline extrapolation with 10 extending measurement points at each extremity.

7.1. Simply supported beam The feasibility and performance of the CWTs are rst examined via a numerical example representing the structure of a simply supported beam (Fig. 7). The beam was equally divided into 30 two-dimensional plane 42 elements in the ANSYS environment.37 All elements were assumed to be made of the same material, with the following characteristics: modulus of elasticity E = 32 GPa, mass density = 2400 kg/m3 and Poisson ratio = 0.25. The beam was subjected to a static load of 1.5 kN at midspan. For the dynamic behavior, the beams free vibration was considered. The vibration mode shapes and deections were evaluated at 31 nodes along the beam length, as shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 7.

Numerical model of a simply supported beam.

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

23

Fig. 8. Mode shapes and deections of the simply supported beam: second mode shape, third mode shape, static deection.

rst mode shape,

7.1.1. Damage scenarios To show the potential of the CWTs for damage assessment, the structure was subjected to two damage scenarios by reduction of the rigidity (EI): (1) in the 8th element and (2) in both the 8th and the 22nd element. In order to examine the damage quantity eect on the detection results, for both damage scenario, the rigidity of the selected elements was reduced to 20%, 10% and 7% of their original values (Fig. 9). Since visual inspection of the damaged and undamaged mode shapes does not permit to distinguishing one from the other (Fig. 8), the damaged mode shapes are not illustrated here. Next, the CWT toolbox will rst be applied directly to the damaged data and then to both the damaged and the undamaged data. 7.1.2. Damage identication through damaged data For damage identication through damaged data, the CWT toolbox is applied directly to the mode shapes and deections of the beam after each damage scenario. Figure 10 presents the detection results for the rst damage scenario (20%

Fig. 9.

Introducing damage into the beam elements.

24

A. Alvandi et al.

Fig. 10. Detection results for the rst damage scenario (20% damage in element 8): (a) rst mode shape, (b) second mode shape, (c) third mode shape.

damage in element 8). As seen in this gure, for the rst two mode shapes, the wavelet coecient shows some structural modications at or near the damaged element. However, such modications are not seen in the third mode shape (Fig. 10). Figure 11 presents the detection results for the second damage scenario, with 20% damage in elements 8 and 22. According to this gure, some modications are seen in the wavelet coecient at or near the damaged elements (elements 8 and 22). However, in contrast to the rst two mode shapes, the third does not show important sensitivity to such rigidity reductions. It should be noted that for the rst and second damage scenarios with 10% damage the same results were obtained. Regarding static response, for both damaged scenarios important detections were seen at the load location, which were more important than the damage itself. Here, these results are not presented, but further results in this regard will be presented in the next subsection (concrete bridge results).

Fig. 11. Detection results for the second damage scenario (20% damage in elements 8 and 22): (a) rst mode shape, (b) second mode shape, (c) third mode shape.

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

25

7.1.3. Damage identication through damaged and undamaged data Figure 12 presents wavelet coecient variations for the rst damage scenario (20% and 10% damage in element 8) based on the rst mode shape. According to this gure, for both damage intensities (20% and 10%) the predened damaged element was localized. As results obtained from the second and third mode shapes showed similar trends, they are not presented here. For the same damage scenario, Fig. 13 presents the detection results based on static responses. In this case, for both of the damage intensities 10% and 7%, some false detections were seen in the central part of the beam. In this case, 10% damage in element 8 was successfully localized, but, in reducing the damage to 7%, the maximum wavelet variation was not located at damaged element 8. In order to verify the potential of the wavelet transform for simultaneous damage, the second damage scenario (rigidity reduction in elements 8 and 22) was studied. Figure 14 presents the detection results using the rst mode shape regarding

(a)

(b)

Fig. 12. Detection results for the rst damage scenario (damage in element 8, based on the rst mode shape): (a) 20% damage, (b) 10% damage.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 13. Detection results for the rst damage scenario (damage in element 8, based on the static response): (a) 10% damage, (b) 7% damage.

26

A. Alvandi et al.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 14. Detection results for the second damage scenario (damage in elements 8 and 22, based on the rst mode shape): (a) 10% damage, (b) 7% damage.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 15. Detection results for the second damage scenario (10% damage in elements 8 and 22): (a) second mode shape, (b) third mode shape.

two predened damage intensities (10% and 7%). As seen in this gure, for both damage intensities the two damaged elements were successfully identied. Figure 15, for the same damage scenario, presents the results of the second and third mode shapes, and once more the damaged elements were localized. Simultaneous damage assessment was also performed through static responses. Results for two damage intensities (10% and 7%) are shown in Fig. 16. It can be seen that, in the case of 10% damage, the two damaged elements were localized; nevertheless, when the damage was reduced to 7%, one of the damaged elements (element 22) was better localized than the other (element 8). The above results tend to conrm the higher performance of dynamic responses for simultaneous damage compared to static responses. 7.1.4. Multiscale results In this study, all results were obtained using scale 2. In order to better understand the inuence of scale on detection results, Fig. 17 presents the beam results for

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

27

(a)

(b)

Fig. 16. Detection results for the second damage scenario (damage in elements 8 and 22, based on the static response): (a) 10% damage, (b) 7% damage.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 17. Detection results for the second damage scenario, using dierent scales based on the rst mode shape: (a) 7% damage in element 8, (b) 7% damage in elements 8 and 22.

7% damage based on dierent scales. As seen in this gure, scale variation has an important impact on detection results. For example, for both damage scenarios [Figs. 17(a) and 17(b)], an increasing scale causes some false detections at the beams center. Nevertheless, the scale parameter is an important issue in the wavelet analysis and more investigation by the authors is in progress. 7.2. Concrete bridge In this subsection, the performance of the wavelet transforms for damage assessment of existing bridges will be examined. For this purpose, some damage scenarios were introduced into the numerical model of the studied bridge. Before presenting the results, a brief description of the bridge is given below. 7.2.1. Bridge description The studied bridge, built in the 1960s, consists of a prestressed concrete box over three continuous spans with variable moment inertia (Fig. 18). It has an overall

28

A. Alvandi et al.

Fig. 18.

Elevation view of a three-span concrete bridge.

Fig. 19.

Bridge geometry.

length of 161.2 m, with a central span of 80.8 m and side spans of 40.4 m. The geometry of the bridge is shown in Fig. 19. A full description of this bridge can be found in Refs. 38 and 39. 7.2.2. Numerical model of the bridge A nite element model of the bridge was developed with the help of the ANSYS nite element program. The SHELL99 elements dened by eight nodes with six degrees of freedom at each node (translations in the nodal x-, y- and z-directions and rotations about the nodal x-, y- and z-axes) were used.37 Here, the rst three numerical mode shapes (Fig. 20) and the static responses of the bridge, measured in three measurement lines along the deck shown in Fig. 21, were used for evaluation purposes. In order to verify the eect of the static load location, the bridges

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

29

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 20. Dynamic behavior of the bridge in exion: (a) rst mode shape, (b) second mode shape, (c) third mode shape.

Fig. 21.

Three measurement lines dened on the deck.

(a) Fig. 22.

(b)

Static load locations: (a) in the center; (b) in the right span.

deection was calculated by applying a static load at two dierent positions along the centerline of the deck (Fig. 22).

7.2.3. Damage scenarios Two damage scenarios were introduced into the numerical model: (1) element rigidity reduction in the decks middle part [Fig. 23(a)], (2) settlement of a column of the bridge [Fig. 23(b)]. In the rst scenario, the rigidity of elements located at the middle span was reduced to 50%, 20%, 5% and 2% of their original values [Fig. 23(a)]. In the second scenario, a settlement of 40 cm and 10 cm of a column was simulated [Fig. 23(b)]. In both scenarios, the bridge response was registered at 101 measurement points along the deck. As previously done for the

30

A. Alvandi et al.

(a) Fig. 23.

(b)

Damage scenarios: (a) rigidity reduction in the middle span, (b) settlement of a column.

beam, for example, the CWT toolbox will rst be applied to the damaged data and subsequently to both the damaged and the undamaged data. 7.2.4. Damage identication through damaged data 7.2.4.1. First damage scenario (damage in the decks middle part) (i) Detection results based on dynamic data Figure 24 presents the results obtained from the CWT toolbox applied directly to the dynamic damaged data of the rst damage scenario with a rate of 50% damage. According to this gure, by using the rst three mode shapes the damaged zone was successfully localized. However, in the case of the second mode shape some detection was seen at the bridges northern extremity. In order to verify the eciency of the technique for a reduced rate of deciencies, in the same damage scenario the damage rate was reduced to 5% and 2%. Figure 25 shows the results, which conrm the successful localization of the damage with the rst mode shape. Although not presented here, by using the second and third mode shapes the damage was successfully localized. However, by using the second mode shape some detection was seen at the bridges northern extremity that was already seen for the 50% damage (Fig. 24). In order to verify the eect of the number of measurement points on the detection results, Fig. 26 illustrates the same results presented in Fig. 25, using 21 measurement points. It is to be noted that 21 measurement points was a real number of sensors used in the experimental in situ test. As the gure shows, by reducing the number of measurement points to 21 for both damage intensities (5% and 2% rigidity reduction), the damaged area was successfully localized. These results conrm that the 21 measurement points used in the experimental test were sucient for wavelet analysis. However, wavelet analysis is very sensitive to the number of measurement points, and increasing this number by interpolation may have an important inuence on the detection results. (ii)Detection results based on static response For the same damage scenario (50% damage in the decks middle part), in order to verify the eciency of the static response for damage detection, a static load was

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

31

(a)

(b)

(c) Fig. 24. Detection results for the rst damage scenario (50% damage): (a) rst mode shape, (b) second mode shape, (c) third mode shape.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 25. Detection results for the rst damage scenario, using the rst mode shape: (a) 5% damage, (b) 2% damage.

applied at two dierent positions along the bridge deck (Fig. 22). The corresponding detection results are shown in Fig. 27. This gure illustrates well the eect of the load location. In Fig. 27(a), as the damage and load were both located in the decks middle part, their inuence acts concurrently. In Fig. 27(b), due to the

32

A. Alvandi et al.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 26. Detection results for the rst damage scenario with 21 measurement points, using the rst mode shape: (a) 5% damage, (b) 2% damage.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 27. Detection results for the rst damage scenario, based on static response: (a) static force in the center, (b) static force in the right span (x = 122 m).

static load, the distinct inuence of the load and damage can be noticed. Although not presented here, the same observations were made for a reduced rate of damage (10%). These results show the eectiveness of the wavelet transforms for damage assessment by their direct application to the damaged static responses. Nevertheless, particular attention must be paid to the load location.

7.2.4.2. Second damage scenario (settlement) (i)Detection results based on dynamic and static data Figure 28 presents the detection results for both dynamic and static data of the second damage scenario, where a 10 cm settlement was introduced at the right column. As these results show, by using dynamic and static damaged data, the settlement zone (x = 122 m) was successfully localized. For all three used mode shapes, some wavelet coecient variation is observed in the decks middle part (80 m). This phenomenon could be attributed to the structural behavior modications caused by

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

33

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 28. Detection results for the second damage scenario (settlement 10 cm), based on dynamic and static responses: (a) rst mode shape, (b) second mode shape, (c) third mode shape, (d) deection.

the settlement itself. In the case of the static response, the settlement zone was successfully localized [Fig. 28(d)]. However, prior to extrapolation the false detections were always observed at extremities. The conclusions for a 40 cm settlement were the same as those for a 10 cm column settlement. These results are not presented here. 7.2.5. Damage identication through damaged and undamaged data In this subsection, using the CWT toolbox, the wavelet transform will be applied to both damaged and undamaged dynamic and static data, and the results will be compared and discussed. 7.2.5.1. First damage scenario (damage in the decks middle part) (i)Detection results based on dynamic data Figure 29 presents wavelet coecient variations of the rst damage scenario for a 50% damage rate. According to this gure, for rst and second mode shapes

34

A. Alvandi et al.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 29. Detection results for the rst damage scenario (50% damage, based on dynamic data): (a) rst mode shape, (2) second mode shape.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 30. Detection results for the rst damage scenario, based on the rst mode shape for low damage intensities: (a) 5% damage, (b) 2% damage.

the predened damage zone (i.e. central portion of the middle span) was precisely localized. To verify the performance of the technique for low damage intensities, the damage rate was reduced to 5% and 2%. Figure 30 presents these results. One can see that the damage zone is well detected but its localization is dened with less precision compared with the results of Fig. 29. (ii)Detection results based on static data As previously seen, the static load location has an impact on the detection results. Figure 31(a) presents the wavelet coecients before and after damage in the central measurement line. It can be seen from this gure that, before introducing damage, due to the static load some modications are observed in the central part of the deck. However, introducing damage in the center adds some more modications to this area [Fig. 31(a)]. Figure 31(b), for all three measurement lines shown in Fig. 21, presents the normalized wavelet coecient variation. Although the damaged zone

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

35

(a)

(b)

Fig. 31. Detection results based on static force in the decks center for 50% damage: (a) wavelet coecient comparison before and after damage in the central measurement line; before damage, after damage; (b) wavelet coecient variation throughout the deck.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 32. Detection results based on the static load at x = 122 m: (a) wavelet coecient comparison in the central measurement line; before damage; after damage; (b) wavelet coecient variation before and after settlement in three measurement lines throughout the deck.

is well localized, some modications are seen at the extremities. As these modications at extremities are not exactly the same before and after damage, it can be concluded that they are due to the structural modications caused by the damage itself. Figure 32(a) presents the same results, where the static load was applied at x = 122 m. It illustrates well the inuence of load location on both damaged and undamaged response at x = 122 m. Nevertheless, for undamaged response, some modications are seen in the decks central part, which are attributed to the rigidity variation (thickness) of the deck in that area. As false detections at the extremities were exactly the same for both undamaged and damaged wavelet coefcients [Fig. 32(a)], they disappear while one is calculating the wavelet coecient variation [Fig. 32(b)].

36

A. Alvandi et al.

7.2.5.2. Second damage scenario (settlement) (i)Detection results based on dynamic data Figure 33 presents the detection results using the rst mode shape for the 10 cm settlement that was simulated at the bridges right column. Although not presented here, similar results were obtained for the second and third mode shapes. In other words, the settlement zone was successfully localized; however, some important detections are seen at extremities. These modications at extremities are due to the introduced settlement, which has inuence in these areas. As results for the 50 cm settlement were similar, they are not presented. (ii)Detection results based on static data (settlement 10 cm) Figure 34(a) compares two wavelet coecients before and after settlement at the central measurement line, with the static load at the decks center. As this gure

Fig. 33. Detection results for the second damage scenario (10 cm settlement), based on the rst mode shape.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 34. Detection results based on static force applied in the deck center: (a) comparison of the wavelet coecients in the central measurement line; before damage, after damage; (b) comparison of wavelet coecients in three measurement lines throughout the deck.

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

37

shows, owing to the settlement and static load, some structural modications are seen in the damaged and undamaged response. Because of the settlement, the load eect and the modications at the bridge extremities are not the same before and after settlement. Figure 34(b) shows the nal detection results based on wavelet coecient variations in the three measurement lines along the deck. This gure localizes the settlement zone. However, as discussed in Fig. 34(a), some modications are also seen at the load position and at the extremities. Concerning the static charge, it is to be noted that the uniform load was replaced by the concentrated one and the same results were obtained. 8. Bridge Integrity Evaluation Dynamic tests under ambient trac were carried out in 2004 with the mobile laboratory of the Quebec Ministry of Transport. Eight accelerometers measuring vertical vibration were installed and xed in a concrete caisson in two measurement lines along the bridge.38 These two measurement lines, at deck extremities, are shown in Fig. 21. The rst three identied mode shapes were used for bridge evaluation purposes. Wavelet analysis based on experimental mode shapes was compared to that based on the nite element mode shapes. Before applying wavelets to these data, experimental and numerical mode shapes were compared using modal assurance criteria (MAC)40 ; an average correlation of 95.61% was obtained. In fact, this close correlation conrms the performance of nite element mode shapes as reference data for comparison purposes. Wavelet parameters applied to experimental and numerical data are as follows: Wavelet: gauss 4. Scale (s): 2; transformation step ( = 1): 1. Number of measurement points: 21. Bridge evaluation results interpolated on the deck are presented in Fig. 35. According to this gure, by using the rst three mode shapes, the structural modications were detected in the central part of the deck. Furthermore, structural modications are located in the western part of the deck. Although not presented here, this behavior dierence between two deck sides was not visible while comparing mode shapes. 9. Numerical Noise Simulation In order to study the reliability of wavelet transforms regarding environmental parameters called noise in this study, a numerical model of a continuous beam was considered. This model consisted of 20 elements (2-node linear elements with 3 degrees of freedom per node). For better demonstration these elements are presented in two dimensions (Fig. 36). Values for material properties of beam elements were assigned as follows: (1) elastic modulus E = 210 109 kg/m2 ; (2) linear mass

38

A. Alvandi et al.

(a)

(b)

(c) Fig. 35. Bridge evaluation by wavelet analysis, using the rst three mode shapes.

Fig. 36.

Test model: random force applied on the simply supported beam.

density = 798.1 kg/m3 . Values for geometric properties were: (1) cross-sectional area A = 0.02 m2 ; moment of area I = 666.7 108 m4 . Applying a random force at node 6, a linear dynamic analysis was performed and the signals at each nodal point were measured. The analysis time was 15 s, with a sampling time of 0.002 s. Dierent levels of damage (1%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 30% rigidity reduction)

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

39

were introduced in element 5. After initial investigations, it was determined that an additional 4% noise level could be considered as a high level of noise. In consequence, the following noise levels were added to signals: 0.1%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, 3% and 4%. For each noise simulation, the noise percentage was multiplied to the standard deviation value of the signal in each measuring channel, and it was randomly added to the other component of the current channel (multiplying to random numbers between 1 and 1). The noisy signals (before and after damage) were treated by the random decrement technique41 a modal identication method developed in the Matlab c 42 environment. The triggering condition in this procedure was a positive point and the sampling time was 0.002 s. A total of 50 simulations were generated and 50 series of modal parameters before and after damage were obtained. By undertaking 50 noise simulations, the total probability results were stabilized. After signal treatment, the identied noisy modal parameters, before and after damage, were used as entrance data for wavelet analysis. The rst three identied frequencies were 5.88, 23.52 and 52.2 Hz. Only the rst mode shape corresponding to the rst frequency was considered. Detection probabilities corresponded to dierent damage, and noise ratios are presented in Fig. 37. In fact, these probabilities represent the number of times that wavelet analysis was able to detect the damaged element out of all 50 simulations. These results illustrate clearly the dependence of detection probabilities on the damage intensity and noise ratio. As seen in this gure, for low damage intensities (less than 10% rigidity reduction), the detection probabilities are inuenced to some extent by noisy data. These results underline the importance of environmental parameters for detection results, especially regarding low damage intensities. It must be mentioned that in this study, scale 2 was used. However, for noisy data the scale parameter plays an important role and further investigation is needed.

Fig. 37.

Detection probability for dierent noise/damage ratios.

40

A. Alvandi et al.

10. Conclusions Damage causes perturbations in the dynamic and/or static responses of a structure; however, such perturbations may not always be directly detectable through the recorded responses. Applying the wavelet transform technique to the dynamic mode shapes and static deections of a beam and a bridge with dierent damage intensities showed promising results in localizing these perturbations. For the bridge structure, damage scenarios similar to the practical ones were introduced into its numerical model. The high sensitivity of the proposed technique to damage intensity and type suggests that it may prove to be a high performance tool for structural health monitoring of existing bridges. Comparing wavelet coecients through experimental and numerical mode shapes revealed structural modication areas, situated in the decks center. An important outstanding feature of this technique that distinguishes it from other existing structural health monitoring techniques1 is its damage assessment capability using only one data set. The damage detection technique based on wavelet analysis is in a very early stage of development. This study is the rst approach to use this technique for damage assessment of a bridge structure. Therefore, more features of the technique should be examined. This approach has to be applied to more complex and experimental data; in particular, its performance regarding noisy eld data must be investigated. Nevertheless, the current study of wavelet analysis for damage assessment leads to the following conclusions and suggestions: (1) By applying the continuous wavelet transform toolbox to the static or dynamic responses of a structure, its current state can be evaluated in a few minutes. (2) For nonsignicant or simultaneous damage, owing to its higher resolution dynamic responses usually provide better results than static ones. Nevertheless, important modications can be scanned through the static responses. (3) Some damage can be scanned better through some mode shapes than through others. Therefore, in using dynamic data, at least a few mode shapes have to be considered (Figs. 10 and 11). (4) In using static response, particular attention must be paid to the load location; detections are always seen at this location. This becomes more critical for nonsignicant damage. (5) For local or concentrated damage, for the same signal length, small scales provide precise detection, but for nonlocalized damage (when damage is spread throughout the structure) or for noisy data, higher scales provide better detection. However, when there is no knowledge of these parameters, in order not to miss any detection, a wavelet coecient for the entire sum of the dened scales is recommended (this option is available in the continuous wavelet transform toolbox). (6) For local or concentrated damage, where damage does not have any inuence on global structural behavior, the comparison of two data sets (before and after

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

41

damage) provides more precise results than direct application of the technique to the damaged data. (7) The extrapolation procedure at structure extremities has been proven to be able to overcome the false detection at the boundaries. It is strongly recommended when one is applying the continuous wavelet transforms directly to the damaged data. (8) Using a few mode shapes and/or deections, Symlet (Sym4) and Gaussian (Gauss4) wavelet functions with the four vanishing moments were recognized as the best candidates for structural evaluation. (9) The number of measurement points is a key element of wavelet analysis; a sucient number interpolated measurement points is needed. However, more investigation in this regard is required.

Acknowledgment The authors are grateful to the Quebec Ministry of Transportation and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada for their assistance and support.

References
1. S. W. Doebling, C. R. Farrar, M. B. Prime and D. W. Shevitz, Damage identication and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: a literature review. Report LA-13070-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (1996). 2. S. Qian and D. Chen, Joint TimeFrequency Analysis: Method and Application (Prentice-Hall PTR, NJ, 1996). 3. C. K. Chui, An Introduction to Wavelets (Academic Press, San Diego, 1992). 4. S. Mallat, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing, 2nd edn. (Academic Press, San Diego, 1999). 5. W. J. Wang and P. D. McFadden, Application of orthogonal wavelets to early gear damage detection, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 9 (1995) 497507. 6. W. J. Staszewski and G. R. Tomlinson, Application of the wavelet transform to fault detection in a spur gear, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 8 (1994) 289307. 7. J. Tian, Z. Li and X. Su, Crack detection in beams by wavelet analysis of transient exural waves, J. Sound Vib. 261 (2003) 715727. 8. L. H. Yam, Y. J. Yan and J. S. Jiang, Vibration-based damage detection for composite structures using wavelet transform and neural network identication, Compos. Struct. 60 (2003) 403412. 9. D. U. Sung, C. G. Kim and C. S. Hong, Monitoring of impact damages in composite laminates using wavelet transform, Composites, Part B 33 (2002) 3543. 10. P. D. Spanos, G. Failla, A. Santini and M. Pappatico, Damage detection in Euler Bernoulli beams via special wavelet analysis, Struct. Contr. Health Monitoring 13 (2006) 472487. 11. K. M. Liew and Q. Wang, Application of wavelet theory for crack identication in structures, J. Eng. Mech. 124 (1998) 152157.

42

A. Alvandi et al.

12. J. C. Hong, Y. Y. Kim, H. C. Lee and Y. W. Lee, Damage detection using the Lipschitz exponent estimated by the wavelet transform: application to vibration modes of a beam, Int. J. Solids Struct. 39 (2002) 18031816. 13. E. Douka, S. Loutridis and A. Trochidis, Crack identication in beams using wavelet analysis, Int. J. Solids Struct. 40 (2003) 35573569. 14. C. C. Chang and L. W. Chen, Detection of the location and size of cracks in the multiple cracked beams by spatial wavelet based approach, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 19 (2005) 139155. 15. A. Gentile and A. Messina, On the continuous wavelet transforms applied to discrete vibrational data for detecting open cracks in damaged beams, Int. J. Solids Struct. 40 (2003) 295315. 16. Q. Wang and X. Deng, Damage detection with spatial wavelets, Int. J. Solids Struct. 36 (1999) 34433468. 17. S. T. Quek, Q. Wang, L. Zhang and K. K. Ang, Sensitivity analysis of crack detection in beams by wavelet technique, J. Mech. Sci. 43 (2001) 28992910. 18. X. Q. Zhu and S. S. Law, Wavelet-based crack identication of bridge beam from operational deection time history, Int. J. Solids Struct. 43 (2006) 22992317. 19. W. L. Bayissa, N. Haritos and S. Thelandersson, Vibration-based structural damage identication using wavelet transform, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 22 (2008) 11941215. 20. J. Grabowska, M. Palacz and M. Krawczuk, Damage identication by wavelet analysis, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. (2008), doi:10. 1016/j.ymssp. 21. W.-X. Ren and Z.-S. Sun, Structural damage identication by using wavelet entropy, Eng. Struct. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.engstruct. 22. H.-L. Li, X.-Y. Deng and H.-L. Dai, Structural damage detection using the combination method of EMD and wavelet analysis, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 21 (2007) 298306. 23. I. Daubechies, Ten Lectures on Wavelets (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Pennsylvania, 1992). 24. B. B. Hubbard, The World According to Wavelets (A. K. Peters, Natick, MA, 1998). 25. P. Wojtaszczyk, A Mathematical Introduction to Wavelets (Cambridge University Press, 1997). 26. Y. Sheng, Wavelet transforms, in The Transforms and Applications Handbook, ed. A. D. Poularikas (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1996). 27. T. W. Korner, Fourier Analysis (Cambridge University Press, UK, 1996). 28. C. S. Burrus, R. A. Gopinath and H. Guo, Introduction to Wavelets and Wavelet Transforms: A Primer (Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1998). 29. M. Rucka and K. Wilde, Application of continuous wavelet transform in vibration based damage detection method for beams and plates, J. Sound Vib. 297 (2006) 536550. 30. S. Mallat and S. Zhong, Characterization of signals from multiscale edges, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 14 (1992) 710732. 31. Matlab Wavelet Toolbox, http://www. mathworks. com, release 2.0. 32. A. V. Ovanesova and L. E. Suarez, Applications of wavelet transforms to damage detection in frame structures, Eng. Struct. 26 (2004) 3949. 33. M. Rucka and K. Wilde, Crack identication using wavelets on experimental static deection proles, Eng. Struct. 28 (2006) 279288. 34. M. Misiti, Y. Misiti, G. Oppenheim and J. Poggi, Wavelet Toolbox (The MathWorks Inc., 2000).

Bridge Integrity Assessment by Continuous Wavelet Transforms

43

35. G. Strang and T. Nguyen, Wavelet and Filter Banks (Wellesley-Cambridge Press, Wellesley, USA, 1996). 36. MathWorks Inc., Help les on Pchip and Spline, MATLAB 7.1 (2005). 37. ANSYS, Robust Simulation and Analysis Software, http://www.ansys.com/release 8.1 (2005). 38. M. Talbot, J. F. Laamme and M. Savard, Experimental and numerical approach for dynamical analysis of a road bridge, Revue Europenne de Genie Civil 9 (2005) 12 e (in French). 39. J. F. Laamme, M. Savard and M. Talbot, Comparison of two identical twin bridges, in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Short Medium Bridges, Montreal, Canada (2006). 40. R. J. Allemang and D. L Brown, A correlation coecient for modal vector analysis, in Proc. 1st IMAC, Orlando, Florida, USA (1982), pp. 110116. 41. J. C. Asmussen, Modal analysis based on the random decrement technique applications to civil engineering structures. PhD thesis, Aalborg University (1997). 42. F. S. Barbosa and C. Cremona, Identication modal de structures sous sollicitation ambiante, Final report, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses (LCPC), Vols. 1 & 2 (2002).