Sensitivity‐Based Weighted‐Average in Structural Damage Assessment
Publication: Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 8, Issue 4
Abstract
To quantify the global damageability of a structure, the weighted‐average function defined in terms of damage condition and the importance or weightages of structural elements has generally been used in literature. Judgment of structural importance of a structural element is a difficult task. The opinion provided by experts could have different perspective or bias, which may reflect in the overall assessment process. Structural analysis being precise these days, structural importance of a member could be realistically estimated using standard structural procedures. In this paper it is proposed that the weightage computation could be linked to damage sensitivity of the element response. It is argued that the weighted‐average computation based on damage sensitivity is a more realistic index for integrity assessment. In this perspective, the concept of damage sensitivity and its computational aspects based on the finite‐element method are also presented. Finally, examples of weighted‐average computation comprising fuzzy sets and importance factor obtained from normalized damage sensitivity are illustrated.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Barai, S. V., and Pandey, P. C. (1992). “Numerical evaluation of fuzzy functions in the context of expert system development,” Proc., ICC‐92, Tata McGraw‐Hill, New Delhi, India, 309–322.
2.
Barthelemy, B., Haftka, R. T., and Cohen, G. A. (1989). “Physically‐based sensitivity derivatives for structural analysis programs.” Computational Mech., Vol. 4, 465–476.
3.
Brown, C. B., and Yao, J. T. P. (1983). “Fuzzy sets and structural engineering.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 109(5), 1211–1225.
4.
Chen, J. L., and Ho, J. S. (1992). “Direct variational method for sizing design sensitivity analysis of beam and frame structures.” Comp. and Struct., 42(4), 503–509.
5.
Choi, K. K., Santos, J. L. T., and Frederick, M. C. (1987). “Implementation of design sensitivity analysis with existing finite element codes.” J. Mechanisms, Transmissions and Automation in Design, Vol. 109, 385–391.
6.
Dems, K., and Mróz, Z. (1985). “Variational approach to first and second‐order sensitivity analysis of elastic structures.” Int. J. Numerical Methods in Engrg., 21(4), 637–661.
7.
Dong, W., and Shah, H. C. (1987). “Vertex method for computing functions of fuzzy variables.” J. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 24, 65–78.
8.
Dong, W. M., Shah, H. C., and Wong, F. S. (1988). “Condensation of the knowledge base in expert systems with applications to seismic risk evaluation: chapter 9.” Expert Systems in Construction and Structural Engineering, Adeli, Hojjat, Chapman, and Hall, eds., London, England.
9.
Dubois, D., and Prade, H. (1980). Fuzzy sets and systems: theory and applications. Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
10.
El‐Sayed, M. E. M., and Zumwalt, K. W. (1991). “Efficient design sensitivity derivatives for multiload case structures as an integrated part of finite‐element analysis.” Comp. and Struct., 40(6), 1461–1467.
11.
Hadipriono, F. C. (1988). “Fuzzy sets concepts for evaluating performance of constructed facilities.” J. Perf. of Constr. Fac., 2(4), 209–225.
12.
Haftka, R. T., and Mróz, Z. (1986). “First‐ and second‐order sensitivity analysis of linear and nonlinear structures.” AIAA J., 24(7), 1187–1192.
13.
Haftka, R. T., and Adelman, H. M. (1989). “Recent developments in structural sensitivity analysis.” Struct. Optimization, Vol. 1, 137–151.
14.
Kibsgaard, S. (1992). “Sensitivity analysis—the basis for optimization.” Int. J. Numerical Methods in Engrg., 34(3), 901–932.
15.
Ross, T. J., Sorensen, H. C., Savage, S. J., and Carson, J. M. (1990). “DAPS: expert system for structural damage assessment.” J. Comp. Civ. Engrg., 4(4), 327–348.
16.
Tee, A. B., Bowman, M. D., and Sinha, K. C. (1988). “Fuzzy mathematical approach for bridge condition evaluation.” Civ. Engrg. Systems, 5(March), 17–24.
17.
Tee, A. B., Bowman, M. D., and Sinha, K. C. (1988). “The development of optimal strategies for maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of highway bridges.” Final Rep., Vol. 2, A system for bridge structural condition assessment, FHWA/IN/JHRP‐89/9, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
18.
Wang, S., Sun, Y., and Gallagher, R. H. (1985). “Sensitivity analysis in shape optimization of continuum structures.” Comp. and Struct., 20(5), 855–867.
19.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). “Fuzzy sets.” Information and Control, Vol. 8, 338–353.
20.
Zhang, X. J., and Yao, J. T. P. (1986). “The development of SPERIL expert systems for damage assessment.” Tech. Rep. CE‐STR‐86‐29, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Volume 8 • Issue 4 • November 1994
Pages: 243 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 16, 1993
Published online: Nov 1, 1994
Published in print: Nov 1994
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.