Finite Element Modelling and Updating

of Medium Span Road Bridges

Case study of lfus bridge in Iceland

Guni Pll Plsson

M.Sc. Thesis
Department of Civil Engineering
2012

DTU Civil Engineering

August 2012

Finite Element Modelling and Updating of Medium

Span Road Bridges
Case study of lfus suspension bridge in Iceland
Written by:
Guni Pll Plsson

Guni Pll Plsson

Supervisor:
Associate Professor Christos T. Georgakis
Co-supervisors:
Assistant Professor Einar r Inglfsson DTU Byg
Department of Civil Engineering
Section of structural engineering
Technical University of Denmark
Brovej, Building 118
2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

DTU-BYG

Tel: (+45) 45 25 17 00
Fax: (+45) 45 88 32 82
email: byg@byg.dtu.dk
www.byg.dtu.dk
Release date:
October 8, 2012
Comment:
This report is written as a master thesis at the Technical University of Denmark and
represents 32,5 ECTS points.
Cover photo by Pll Jkull Ptursson
Copyright Guni Pll Plsson 2012
All rights reserved

Preface
The work presented in this thesis was carried out at the Department of Civil Engineering
in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). This project is a cooperation between
DTU, the University of Iceland (H), EFLA engineering firm and the Icelandic Road
Administration (Vegagerin). Two other M.Sc projects were also a part of this cooperation
done by Kristjn Uni skarsson and Jens Fogh Andersen.
I would like to thank my supervisor Einar r Inglfsson both for his guidance and
supervision during this thesis work and for his work in the field measurements. I would
also like to thank Gumundur Valur Gumundsson and Kritjn Uni skarsson from
EFLA engineering firm for providing measurement equipment and taking part in the
measurements. Special thanks to Christian Peter Rasmussen and Keld Plougmann from
the laboratory and workshop at DTU for there help on designing and building a measuring
device used in the project.
I would also like to thank Fjalar Hauksson for encouraging me to study engineering.
Last but not least I would like to thank Helga Smundsdttir for moving with me to
Denmark and supporting me through my masters education.

Abstract
This thesis focuses on Finite Element (FE) modelling and updating of the lfus suspension
bridge in Iceland. This project is part of an ongoing research project undertaken by the
Icelandic Road Administration (Vegagerin) concerning the condition of lfus bridge.
The bridge is almost 70 years old and the main cables are not galvanised and showing
signs of deterioration. In 1992 the bridge deck was renovated, the new deck is around 50%
heavier than the old one and has an unsymmetrical cross section unlike the old one. This
lead to increased loading and a change in the distribution of forces in the main cables. To
add to all this, the traffic loading has also increased dramatically over the last 70 years.
The objective is therefore to determine the current condition of the bridge by updating a
FE model.
Measurements were performed on the bridge where the modal properties, cable- and
hanger forces and deflections were measured. The measurements are presented in chapter
5. The measured modal properties were used to update the FE model and the deflections
and forces were compared with the corresponding values from the FE model.
The average frequency error between the initial FE model and the measured frequencies
was 12% and the modes were not in the correct order. Using manual updating this
difference was reduced down to 4,2% and the order of the modes corrected. The FE
model was then subjected to automatic updating which lead to an average frequency error
of 3%.
In the original design the safety factor of the cables was calculated by taking the
characteristic strength divided by the characteristic axial force. The safety factor calculated
in this way should be around 4. In the design documents the safety factor is determined
as 3,93. The safety factor of the main cables for the current state of the bridge calculated
using simple hand calculation is 2,49. Using non-linear static analysis of the FE model the
safety factor is determined as 2,60. The safety factor is also calculated using the updated
FE model which lead to a value of 2,46. These values of the cable safety factor are much
to low, but with careful maintenance and monitoring of the bridge, it could still serve as
the important link it is for the next couple of decades.

Contents
Preface

Abstract

1 Introduction
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Main objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15
15
15

2 Background theory
2.1 SDOF system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1 Response to harmonic excitation . . . . . . . . .
2.2 MDOF system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Modal analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Shallow cable theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Dynamic behaviour of a cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 Anti-symmetric modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Symmetric modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3 Taut string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.4 Effect of bending stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.5 Effect of support conditions . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Cable-deck interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Fourier transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 Power Spectrum and Welchs method . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8 Modal Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.1 Input-output method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.2 Output-only method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9 FE Model updating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9.1 Complex modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9.2 Modal Assurance Criterion - MAC . . . . . . . .
2.9.3 Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion - COMAC

16
16
17
19
19
20
22
23
24
25
25
27
27
28
29
29
30
30
31
33
34
34

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3 Bridge over lfus

3.1 Dimensions of the bridge . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1 Cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2 Hangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.3 Bridge deck . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.4 Stiffening girder . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.5 Pylons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Cable deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Design Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Preliminary calculations . . . . .
3.3.2 Estimation of natural frequencies
4 Finite element model of lfus bridge
4.1 Cables and hangers . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Pylons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Bridge deck and stiffening girder . . . .
4.4 Non-structural elements . . . . . . . .
4.5 Self weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Computational results . . . . . . . . .
4.6.1 Non-linear static analysis . . . .
4.6.2 Modal analysis . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

35
36
36
36
37
38
39
39
40
41
42

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

43
44
44
44
46
46
46
46
50

5 Measurements
5.1 Modal Identification measurements . . . . . . . .
5.2 Forces in main cables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Hanger forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Load Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5 Cable forces from load test . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Cable elongation measurements . . . . . . . . . .
5.7 Hanger forces from load test . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8 Strain measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.8.1 Application of strain gauges . . . . . . . .
5.8.2 Results from strain measurements . . . . .
5.9 Comparison between measurements and FE model
5.9.1 Cable forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.2 Hanger forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.9.3 Deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

55
56
57
59
61
62
63
65
67
69
70
71
72
73
75

6 Modal Identification using ARTeMIS

6.1 Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 SVS Configuration File . . . .
6.1.2 Data transformation . . . . .
6.2 Output data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

76
76
76
77
78

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3

Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stochastic Subspace Identification - Principal Components . . . . .
Comparison between the methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 FE Model updating
7.1 Initial FE model compared with measurements .
7.2 Manual tuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.1 Sensitivity of parameters . . . . . . . . .
7.3 Automatic FE model updating . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.1 Testing the algorithm . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.2 Updating parameters . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.3 Results from automatic updating . . . .
7.4 Updated FE model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

78
82
86
87
87
89
90
96
96
98
98
102

8 Conclusions

103

Bibliography

103

Appendix A Cable forces for characteristic load

106

Appendix B Cable forces for design load

110

Appendix C Moment of inertia of bridge girder

114

Appendix D Analytical frequency calculations

117

Appendix E ARTeMIS input file description

120

Appendix F Data transformation

123

Appendix G Sensitivity based model updating - Matlab code

125

Appendix H Model updating using fminsearch - Matlab code

133

List of Notations
i

Natural angular frequency of mode i

Strain

Mode shape vector of mode i

Cross sectional area

Sag of a cable

Elastic modulus

fi

Natural cyclic frequency of mode i

GF

Gauge factor of a strain gauge

Cable force

Lc

Cable length

Ls

Span length between cable supports

Ti

Natural period of mode i

VSig

Signal voltage

VSup

Supply voltage

COMAC Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion

DFT Discrete Fourier Transform
DOF Degrees Of Freedom
EFDD Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition
FDD Frequency Domain Decomposition
FFT Fast Fourier Transform
8

MAC Modal Assurance Criterion

MDOF Multiple Degrees Of Freedom
OMA Operational Modal Analysis
PSD Power Spectral Density
SDOF Single Degree Of Freedom
SHM Structural Health Monitoring
SSI

Stochastic Subspace Identification

SVD Singular Value Decomposition

List of Figures
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

A schematic figure of an SDOF system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dynamic amplification and phase angle for different damping ratios . . . .
A schematic figure of n-DOF system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A uniformly loaded shallow cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A shallow cable loaded with a point load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
First anti-symmetric vibration mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Symetric mode shapes of a cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Left and right side of equation (2.40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Frequency progress of taut string, and real cable for pinned and clamped
boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.10 Acceleration time history and corresponding power spectral density graph .

16
18
19
21
22
24
24
25

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10

Location of the bridge (north is up) . . . . .

Schematic figure of lfus bridge . . . . . .
Typical cross section of a locked coil strand .
Hanger fastening to the cable . . . . . . . .
Hanger fastening to the truss . . . . . . . .
Old(upper) and new(lower) bridge deck . . .
View of the stiffening girder . . . . . . . . .
Hinge at the base of the pylon . . . . . . . .
Rust on the surface of a cable . . . . . . . .
Broken thread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

35
36
37
37
37
38
39
39
40
40

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11

Bridge model constructed in SAP2000 . . . . .

Optional caption for list of figures . . . . . . . .
Hanger forces for dead load . . . . . . . . . . .
Hanger forces for crane at midspan upstream . .
Hanger forces for crane at mid span downstream
Mode 1: f = 1,0247 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 2: f = 1,5121 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 3: f = 1,7957 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 7: f = 2,5283 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 9: f = 3,1553 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 10: f = 3,1590 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

43
44
47
48
49
52
52
52
52
52
52

10

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

26
29

4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15

Mode 13: f = 4,1574 Hz . . . . . . . . . .

Mode 16: f = 4,8809 Hz . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 28: f = 6,4127 Hz . . . . . . . . . .
MAC for mode shapes from the FE model

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14

5.21

GeoSIG tri-axial accelerometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Dytran uni-axial accelerometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Original plan for the Modal ID measurements at lfus . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Modal ID measurements performed at lfus (due to damaged censor) . . 57
Acceleration and power spectrum for one of the back stays. . . . . . . . . . 58
Spreader clamp on back stay south side, downstream . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Cable forces for empty bridge upstream (left) and downstream (right) . . . 59
Numbering of hangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Measured hanger forces upstream (left) and downstream (right) . . . . . . 61
Crane used for load test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Device to measure cable elongation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Springs to eliminate the slip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Device on the cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Hanger forces upstream (left) and downstream (right) for crane at quarter
point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Hanger forces upstream (left) and downstream (right) for crane at mid span 67
Strain gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Wheatstone bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Practical set up for a full bridge strain gauge measurement . . . . . . . . . 70
Forces in hangers as truck drove to mid span upstream(left) and downstream(right) 71
Forces in hangers as truck drove to quarter point downstream(left) and
across the bridge downstream(right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Average error in axial forces for different lengths of hangers . . . . . . . . . 74

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14

Overview of lfus ARTeMIS model. . . . . . . . . . . .

Power spectrum for the EFDD with selected modal peaks
Mode 1, f = 1, 078 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 2, f = 1, 611 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 3, f = 1, 709 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 4, f = 2, 073 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 5, f = 2, 791 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 6, f = 3, 328 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 7, f = 4, 502 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 8, f = 5, 223 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 9, f = 7, 216 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power spectrum for the SSI with determined modes . . .
Mode 1, f = 1, 078 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mode 2, f = 1, 588 Hz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20

11

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

53
53
53
54

77
78
79
79
79
80
80
80
81
81
81
82
83
83

6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
6.21
6.22

Mode 3, f = 1, 705 Hz
Mode 4, f = 2, 090 Hz
Mode 5, f = 2, 793 Hz
Mode 6, f = 3, 328 Hz
Mode 7, f = 4, 509 Hz
Mode 8, f = 5, 215 Hz
Mode 9, f = 7, 200 Hz
Modified mode 2 using

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8

MAC for the initial FE model vs experimental modes . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Visual comparison between the initial FE model and measured frequencies
89
Effect of cable parameters on frequencies of the first four modes . . . . . . 90
Effect of deck parameters on frequencies of the first four modes . . . . . . . 91
Effect of steel mass on the frequencies of the four first modes . . . . . . . . 91
Effect of lower chord parameters on frequencies of the first four modes . . . 92
Effect of rotational stiffness at support on frequencies of the first four modes 92
Effect of wind bracing cross section area on the frequencies of the four first
modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Visual comparison between the manually updated FE model and measured
frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
MAC for the manually updated FE model vs the measured modes . . . . . 95
Algorithm convergence using one parameter and two responses . . . . . . . 97
Convergence of the sensitivity based algorithm with 5 parameters and 5
responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Visual comparison between the automatically updated FE model and measured
frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
MAC for the automatically updated FE model vs the measured modes . . 101
Cross bracing fallen apart at the support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15

. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
linear interpolation

12

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

83
84
84
84
85
85
85
86

List of Tables
3.1
3.2
3.3

Length of the hangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Design load model for a two lane bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analytical natural frequencies for vertical modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37
40
42

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12

Longitudinal I-girder section properties . . . . . . . .

Longitudinal truss girder section properties . . . . . .
Cross girder section properties . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Self weight of the suspended span . . . . . . . . . . .
Deflections and axial forces in members at mid span .
Hanger forces [kN] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deflections and cable forces from dead load and crane
Hanger forces from dead load and crane [kN] . . . . .
Deflections and forces for design load case . . . . . .
Modal analysis results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Modal participation mass ratios . . . . . . . . . . . .
MAC for the mode shapes from the modal analysis .

45
45
45
46
47
47
48
48
49
50
51
54

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17

Overview of the measurements performed on lfus bridge . . . . . . . . .

Cable forces for empty bridge assuming no bending stiffness and pinned b.c.
Hanger forces for empty bridge assuming no bending stiffness . . . . . . . .
Hanger forces for empty bridge, corrected [kN] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deflections from crane load test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cable forces for crane at quarter span downstream, no bending stiffness . .
Cable forces for crane at mid span downstream, no bending stiffness . . . .
Cable forces for crane at mid span upstream, no bending stiffness . . . . .
Cable forces from elongation measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hanger forces with crane at quarter point downstream, no bending stiffness
Hanger forces with crane at mid point downstream, no bending stiffness . .
Hanger forces for crane at quarter span downstream, corrected [kN] . . . .
Hanger forces for crane at mid span downstream, corrected [kN] . . . . . .
Increase in hanger force measured with strain gauges . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of back stay forces for dead load only . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of back stay forces from load test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of hanger forces for dead load only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

55
59
60
60
62
62
63
63
64
65
65
66
67
70
72
72
73

5.18 Comparing changes of hanger forces from the load test with crane at midspan
downstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.19 Comparison of deflections from load test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74
75

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5

Contents of a cfg-file written for ARTeMIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pseudo code on how to transform data from LabVIEW to ARTeMIS.
Modes from ARTeMIS EFDD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Experimentally determined modes by SSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MAC between the EFDD and SSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

76
77
78
82
86

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11

Initial FE model compared with measured modal parameters . . . . . .

MAC between the initial FE model and measured modes . . . . . . . .
Parameter changes in manual updating of FE model . . . . . . . . . . .
Manually tuned FE model compared with measured modal parameters
MAC between the manual FE model and measured modes . . . . . . .
Iteration algorithm test with one parameter and two responses . . . . .
Automatically tuned FE model using sensitivity based algorithm . . . .
Parameters selected for automatic updating with sensitivity algorithm .
Automatically tuned FE model using a search algorithm . . . . . . . .
MAC between the automatic FE model and measured modes . . . . . .
Parameters selected for automatic updating with search algorithm . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

. 88
. 89
. 93
. 94
. 95
. 97
. 98
. 99
. 100
. 101
. 101

14

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1

Background

This thesis is part of a research project concerning the suspension bridge over lfus in
Iceland. The Icelandic road administration started this project in order to find out more
about the current condition of the bridge, and investigate the possibilities and necessity of
structural health monitoring of the bridge. The bridge over lfus is a suspension bridge
built in 1945 with a main span of 84 m suspended by the main cables, and three simple
I-girder supported side spans.
lfus bridge serves as an important link in the Icelandic road system, it carries
substantial traffic load on an Icelandic scale. In the year 2011 an average summer daily
traffic of 10827 vehicles was recorded. Since the bridge was opened nearly 70 years ago the
traffic loading has increased dramatically, far beyond the loading considered in the design.
In addition the bridge deck was completely renovated in 1992, the new deck was wider and
around 50% heavier than the old one. The new deck was also designed so that the cross
section was unsymmetrical, leading to a change in the force distribution between the two
cable planes. All this along with the fact that the main cables must have suffered from
some deterioration after all these years lead to the beginning of this research project.

1.2

Main objectives

The main objective of this thesis is to create a Finite Element model of a suspension bridge,
and then to validate and update the model to correlate with measurements done on the
structure. Performing and processing the measurements is also a large part of this project.
The factor of safety for the main cable is also considered both with simple hand calculation,
and using the FE model.

15

Chapter 2
Background theory
In this chapter the theory behind the work done in this thesis is presented. To begin
with the theory of basic dynamics is covered as this is essential to anyone who wishes to
understand the dynamic behaviour of a structure. The static and dynamic theory of cables
is also covered, and the dynamic behaviour of a system with a cable and a stiffening girder,
such as a suspension bridge, is covered. Finally the main concepts of Operational Modal
Analysis and Finite Element model updating are covered.

2.1

SDOF system

The dynamic response x(t) of a linear system with a single degree of freedom (SDOF) is
described by the second order differential equation
m x + c x + k x = F (t)

(2.1)

The overdot denotes differentiation with respect to time t, so x and x represent the velocity
and acceleration respectively. The physical system parameters are as follows: the mass m,
the viscous damping coefficient c, and the spring stiffness k. The load history is denoted
as F (t).

x(t)
k

F(t)

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 2.1: A schematic figure of an SDOF system

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

A second order differential equation requires two initial conditions to get a specific
result. The initial displacement and initial velocity are the initial conditions in this case.
16

Equation (2.1) is usually normalized by dividing with the mass m. This leads to the
following equation.
x + 2 0 x + 02 x = f (t)

(2.2)

Where the natural angular frequency 0 and the damping ratio are written as
s

k
m

(2.3)
2 km
And f (t) = F (t)/m is the normalized load. The period of the system is the time it
takes to complete one cycle, written as
0 =

2
0

T =

(2.4)

The damped natural frequency takes into account the damping of the system by [1] [2]
q

d = 0 1 2

2.1.1

(2.5)

Response to harmonic excitation

Harmonic excitation refers to a sinusoidal external force of a single frequency applied to the
system. This type of loading causes excessive vibration amplitudes if the driving frequency
is close to the natural frequency, this phenomena is called resonance. Harmonic loading
is induced by e.g. rotating machinery and pedestrians walking in a correlated way. The
equation of motion of an SDOF system undergoing forced vibrations can be written as.
x + 2 0 x + 02 x = f0 cos(t)

(2.6)

Here the equation has been normalized by m as before. A particular solution can be
found if a solution is sought in the form
x = Re[X0 eit ]

(2.7)

using the complex exponential representation for the load

f0 cos(t) = Re[f0 eit ]

(2.8)

Substituting these into the equation of motion leads to



2 + 2i0 + 02 X0 eit = f0 eit

17

(2.9)

Where the complex amplitude X0 = A0 ei contains the real amplitude A0 and the
phase angle . Solution for the complex amplitude is then given by

X0 = H()f0 =

02

f0
+ 2i0

(2.10)

This defines the frequency response function, representing the response from a unit
force as

H() =

02

1
+ 2i0

(2.11)

The response amplitude for a unit force is then given by

A = |H()| = q

(2.12)

(02 2 )2 + (20 )2

And the phase angle is the complex argument of H()

= Arg[H()] tan =

20
02 2

(2.13)

10

180
=0

Phase angle [deg]

Dynamic amplification Ak/F0

The dynamic amplitude and phase angle are shown as functions of the frequency ratio
for several values of damping ratio in figure 2.2. The frequency ratio is the ratio between
the frequency of the load and the natural frequency of the system.

6
= 0.1

= 0.2

2
0
0

=0
= 0.1
= 0.2
= 0.5

90

=1

= 0.5
=1

0.5
1
1.5
2
Frequency ratio /0

2.5

0.5
1
1.5
2
Frequency ratio /0

2.5

Figure 2.2: Dynamic amplification and phase angle for different damping ratios

18

When the frequency ratio is /0 < 1 the mass moves in phase with the force and the
response is governed by the stiffness of the system. When the frequency ratio is /0 > 1
the mass moves out of phase with the force and the response is governed by the inertia
term. At the resonance frequency however /0 = 1 the inertia and stiffness terms cancel
each other and the response is governed by the damping of the system. If there is no
damping, the amplitude will go to infinity.[2]

2.2

MDOF system

The number of degrees of freedom in a system is determined by the number of moving

parts and the number of directions in which these parts can move or rotate. The equation
of motion of multiple degree of freedom (MDOF) system is written as
Mx
+ C x + Kx = f (t)

(2.14)

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

x2(t)

k1

F1(t)

F2(t)

k2

kn

m1
c1

xn(t)

m2
c2

Fn(t)
mn

cn

Figure 2.3: A schematic figure of n-DOF system

Modal analysis

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

2.2.1

x1(t)

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Where M is the mass matrix, C is the damping matrix, K is the stiffness matrix, x
is the displacement vector and f (t) is the load vector. Note that vectors and matrices are
represented in bold font.

Free vibration occurs when a system moves without any dynamic excitation, external forces
or support motion. This means that there is no damping in the system and no external
load. Free vibration is initiated by disturbing the system from its equilibrium position by
some initial displacement or velocity. Every structural system undergoing free vibrations
has its own natural modes of vibration, also called mode shapes. The number of modes
for each system is directly related to the number of DOF.
The natural period Ti is the time it takes for the structure to complete one cycle of
vibration in mode i. This can also be represented as the angular frequency i and the
natural cyclic frequency fi . The relations between these values are:

19

2
1
,
fi =
(2.15)
i
Ti
When considering free vibration the damping and loading terms are omitted and the
equation of motion simplifies to:
Ti =

Mx
+ Kx = 0

(2.16)

It has the solution in the the form of simple harmonic motion

x = i sin(i t)
x
= i2 i sin(i t)

(2.17)

Substituting these solutions into equation(2.16) gives

Ki = i2 M i

(2.18)

[K i2 M ]i = 0

(2.19)

Which can be rewritten as

This equation represents an eigenvalue problem where the natural frequencies i are
the eigenvalues and the mode shapes i are the eigenvectors. This equation obviously has
a solution of i = 0 which is trivial because it implies no motion. It has a non-trivial
solution if [1]
det [K i2 M ] = 0
(2.20)
The modal mass and modal stiffness for each mode can be calculated by
mi = Ti M i

ki = Ti Ki

(2.21)

The modal analysis method has been implemented into many commercial structural
programs, so the modal analysis of a complex structural model can be easily performed
with the help of a computer.

2.3

Shallow cable theory

Figure 2.4 shows a cable hanging between two supports and loaded with a uniformly
distributed load q. The span length is Ls and the sag of the cable is d. The shallow cable
theory is applicable to cables where the sag is small compared to the span length. The
requirement of a small sag is fulfilled when d < 81 Ls but in practice the theory can be
applied to values of d/Ls up to 0.2 0.3. When the assumption of a shallow cable is made,
the formulation becomes somewhat simplified where the sag, span length, load and cable
force (H) are connected with the relation [9]
20

d
1 Ls q
'
Ls
8 H
The length of the cable itself can be calculated with
Lc = Ls +

(2.22)

8 d2
3 Ls

(2.23)

Figure 2.4: A uniformly loaded shallow cable

Flexibility of the supports can affect the span length. This is the case for a suspension
bridge, because the back stays will deform as the cable is loaded between the pylons. The
pylons could also contribute to the stiffness, but in most cases they are not designed to
take up lateral forces. This can be accomplished either by installing a hinge at the base of
the pylon or a saddle at the top, so the cable is free to slide over the pylon. Introducing
flexibility of the supports leads to a more complex formulation for the cable force. Now the
span length is dependant on the stiffness of the support and the cable force. The actual
span is calculated as
1
1
+
H
(2.24)
k1 k2
Where k1 and k2 represent the lateral stiffness at each support. An expression involving
the cable force can then be written as
Ls,actual = Ls,0

"

Lc,0

1
1
1
1+
+
+
H
EA Lc,0 k1 Lc,0 k2

"

= Ls,0

1 Ls,0 q
1+
24
H


2 #

(2.25)

Where E and A are the elastic modulus and cross sectional area of the cable respectively.
This equation can not be solved directly, but by simple iteration the cable force can be
calculated. Once the cable force has been found, the strain can be calculated using Hookes
Law
H
(2.26)
EA
So far the effect of a uniformly distributed load has been covered, but when the cable
is subjected to a point load the shape of the cable changes and the formulation is a little
different. A simple cable loaded with a point load P at mid span can be seen in figure 2.3.
c =

21

Figure 2.5: A shallow cable loaded with a point load

It is convenient to introduce the force component h as the resulting force from the point
load. H is then the force in the cable before it was loaded by the point load. The total
force in the cable is then H + h. To determine the ratio of h/H this cubic equation in
(2.27) in used [9]
h
H

!3

"

2
+ 2+
24

h
H

!2

"

2
+ 1+
12

h
H

2
F = 0
2

(2.27)

Where the force parameter F is given by

F =

P
Ls q

P
1+
Ls q

1
4

(2.28)

and 2 is the stiffness parameter given by

1
=
2

1
1
Le H 3
1
+
+
EA Le k1 Le k2 Ls (Ls q)2


(2.29)

Where Le = 3Lc 2Ls is the equivalent length of the cable. By iteration of equation
(2.27) the cable force can be determined. The strain is then obtained in the same way as
before using equation (2.26). [9]
This theory can be used to measure the force in supporting cables of a suspension
bridge. If the strain in the supporting cable could be measured while the bridge was
subjected to a point load, the force in the cable could be calculated. This requires that
the dead load is known, which can be obtained from the drawings and information from
designers. The method of measuring the strain in the cable is covered in chapter 5

2.4

Dynamic behaviour of a cable

Cables are structural elements which carry load as tensile forces only. The equation of
motion for such a cable can be written in the form
2v
m 2v
mg h

=
(2.30)
2
2
x
H t
H H
Where H is the static tensile force as before, h is the time varying part of the cable
force, m is the mass per unit length and v(x, t) is the motion of the cable as a function of
22

time and the spatial coordinate. In a harmonic vibration problem such as this, a solution
is sought in the form
cos(t)
h(t) = h

v(x, t) = v cos(t) ,

(2.31)

Substituting the solution into the equation of motion leads to the following differential
equation

2 v
mg h
2
(2.32)
+

=
x2
H H
Where is a parameter involving the natural frequency
2 =

m 2
H

(2.33)

that
The differential equation (2.32) must be solved for the dynamic cable force h
satisfies

H 1ZL
1 h
v dx
(2.34)
=
2 H
lmg l2 0
By looking at equation (2.34) one can see that if the integral becomes zero, the change
is also zero. This means that for anti-symmetric modes the change
in the horizontal force h

of cable force will be h = 0. [9]

2.4.1

Anti-symmetric modes

= 0 and equation (2.32) simplifies to.

For anti-symmetric modes h
2 v
+ 2 v = 0
(2.35)
2
x
This is the well known equation of motion for a taut string. A taut string is a theoretical
string which has no bending stiffness, a small sag and pinned support conditions at both
ends. When the supports are fixed vertically and the anti-symmetric modes are
v = Cn sin(n

2
x) ,
L

n = 1, 2, ...

(2.36)

The angular frequencies n can be calculated as

2
= n
L

H
m

n = 1, 2...

(2.37)

The first anti-symmetric mode shape is shown in figure 2.6. While the curvature is
reduced on one side when the cable is lifted, the curvature is increased by the same amount
on the other side where the cable is lowered. This means that the mode of deformation
does not involve stretching the cable.
23

Figure
2.6: First anti-symmetric vibration mode
2
3

2.4.2

Symmetric modes
6

The symmetric solution to the differential equation (2.32) with vertically fixed boundary
conditions v(0) = 0 and v(L) = 0 is

cos[(x 21 L)
1 mg h
1
v = 2
H H
cos( 12 L)
"

(2.38)

Figure 2.7: Symetric mode shapes of a cable

Substituting this equation

into the2 cable equation
(2.34)4 and carrying
out the integral
6
4
0
2
6
leads to the equation
1
(L)2
=
1

tan( 12 L)
1
2
L
2

(2.39)

This equation can be used to determine the natural frequencies n using (2.33). It is
conveniently rewritten in the form
tan( 21 L) = ( 12 L)

4 1
( L)3
2 2

(2.40)

The frequency equation is illustrated in figure 2.8 where the blue solid lines represent
the left side of the equation, while the red dashed line represents the right side. For an
inextensible cable with rigid supports 1/2 = 0 and the frequency equation is simplified to
the linear relation
tan( 21 L) = ( 12 L)

(2.41)

As the cable flexibility increases, the negative cubic term containing 2 increases, leading
to lower natural frequencies. [9]
24

10

5
2 /2 =
10
0

0.5

1.5
L/2

10
2

2.5

Figure 2.8: Left and right side of equation (2.40)

2.4.3

Taut string

A string without bending stiffness and pinned supports is called a taut string. When
measuring cable frequencies to determine cable forces it is convenient to consider the cable
as a taut string to begin with and then use correction formulas for bending stiffness and
stiffness of supports. The relation between the force in such a string and the natural
frequencies is written as
s

i H
(2.42)
fi =
2L m
This equation accounts for both symmetric and anti-symmetric mode shapes, which is
more convenient since the mode shapes of the cable are generally not determined during
frequency measurements.

2.4.4

Effect of bending stiffness

A real cable does not have zero bending stiffness. The effect of bending stiffness in the
cable is that the natural frequencies of the higher modes are higher than those for the
taut string. This is due to the fact that the higher modes involve much more curvature
than the lower ones. Which means that the bending stiffness is much more relative for
the higher modes. This difference between a taut string and a real cable with bending
stiffness is shown in figure 2.9. This figure shows how the first 3-4 modes follow the linear
relation relatively well, but the higher modes deviate much from the ones obtained for a
taut string.

25

Natural Frequency [Hz]

8
6

Taut string
Real cable pinned B.C.
Real cable clamped B.C.

4
2
0
0

4 5 6 7
Mode number

10

Figure 2.9: Frequency progress of taut string, and real cable for pinned and clamped
boundary conditions
To calculate the natural frequencies of a string with bending stiffness EI and pinned
boundary conditions the following modification to equation (2.42) can be used. [12]
fi =

i
2L

H
1 +
m

!2 12

(2.43)

Where accounts for the bending stiffness of the cable [12]

s

= L

H
EI

(2.44)

This is all very well, but the determination of bending stiffness in the cable is not
straight forward. The bending stiffness can be considered to lie between two values. The
lower bound of the moment of inertia of the cable is found when the cable wires are
considered not to interact with each other. Meaning that when the cable is bent, there is
no friction between the wires and they can slide freely. This leads to the moment of inertia
of the whole cable to be simply the combined moment of inertia for the individual wires.
Imin =

n
X

4
dj
j=1 64

(2.45)

Where n is the number of wires in the cable and dj is the diameter of wire j. The upper
limit of the moment of inertia is found when all the wires are considered fixed together
and do not slide when the cable is bent.
Imax =

n 
X
j=1

4
dj + Aj x2j
64

26

(2.46)

Where Aj is the cross sectional area of wire j and xj is the distance between the centroid
of the wire and the centroid of the whole cable. The true value lies somewhere in between
these two extremes.

2.4.5

Effect of support conditions

Another complication in the dynamic behaviour of a cable are the support conditions. The
previous expression for the cable frequency assumes pinned support conditions. In the case
of a real cable with fixed support conditions the free vibration length or effective length
of the cable is reduced, this lead to an increase in the frequencies. If the supports are
considered fixed at both ends, equation (2.43) becomes [12]
i N
fi =
2L m


 12 "

2
+
1 +

i2 2
4+
2

1
2

(2.47)

The fixed support conditions are compared with the pinned and a taut string in figure
2.9. In reality the supports are usually neither pinned nor fixed, but somewhere in between.

2.5

Cable-deck interaction

When considering the cable-deck interaction the load is assumed to be directly transmitted
from the deck to the cable, i.e. the hangers are completely stiff. For static load the
equilibrium for the cable is given by
H

y 2
= mg
x2

(2.48)

for dynamic response of the cable in free vibrations the equilibrium becomes
2
2v
(H + h) 2 (y + v) = mg + m 2
x
t

(2.49)

Combining equation (2.48) and (2.49) using the relation for the sag of the cable from
(2.22) leads to the following differential equation for the cable.
2v
2v m
8dh

=
2
2
x
t H
HL2

(2.50)

The bridge girder can be represented by the differential equation

2v
4
m 2
(EI) = 0
t
x4

27

(2.51)

Where EI is the girder rigidity. Combining equation (2.50) and (2.51) results in a
differential equation for the whole bridge
2v
4
8dh
2v m
1

(EI)
(2.52)
2
2
4
x
t H
x
H
HL2
This equation can be solved in a similar manner as the cable equation before. The
solution can be written as

8dh
(2.53)
v(x) = A cosh(p1 x) + B sinh(p1 x) + C cos(p2 x) + D sin(p2 x)
(L)2 H
Where p1 and p2 are written as
"

p1

(1 + )1/2 + 1
=
2

#1/2

"

(1 + )1/2 1
p2 =
2

#1/2

(2.54)

Where = EI/H and = 4 2 . The natural frequencies can then be determined by

[14]

f=
2

2.6

H
m

(2.55)

Fourier transform

The Fourier transform is named after the French mathematician Joseph Fourier. It is a
mathematical transform used to express a function in the time domain as a function in the
frequency domain. The Fourier transform for a continuous function can be expressed as.
f() =

f (x)e2ix dx

(2.56)

For every real number . Here f (x) is a function in the time domain, and f() is the
corresponding function in the frequency domain. The inverse of a Fourier transform can
be used to transform a function from the frequency domain to the time domain, this is
represented as.
f (x) =

f()e2ix d

(2.57)

For every real number x. If the function in question is not continuous, e.g. measured
acceleration of a structure, the Discrete Fourier Transform can be used. The DFT is the
discreet counterpart of the Fourier transform for continuous function. Consider a discrete
function f (t) where t = k and k = 0, ..., N 1. The DFT is then defined as the sum
f() =

N
1
X

f (t)e2ik/N

(2.58)

k=0

The DFT can be computed very efficiently using the Fast Fourier Transform algorithm.
This reduces the number of computations needed for N points from 2N 2 to 2N log2 (N ).
For example, if N = 210 = 1024 the FFT algorithm only requires 0.5% of the computational
operations necessary for the standard method.[1] [3]
28

2.7

Power Spectrum and Welchs method

The power spectrum measures the frequency content of a signal, that is it shows which
frequencies are dominating in the signal. This is widely used to determine the frequency
patterns in measured signals. Welchs method is one of the methods used to obtain the
power spectrum. In short Welchs method divides the data into short segments, applies
a filtering window to each, then performs a Fourier transform on each segment and takes
the average of each transform. The squared magnitude of the transforms is then used to
construct the power spectrum. In this thesis the Welchs method is used to determine the
power spectral density for acceleration measurements of cables, this was done using the
built in Matlab function pswelch. An example of a power spectral density graph obtained
from an acceleration time history using Welchs method can be seen in figure 2.10.
3

8
Amplitude [dB/Hz]

Acceleration [m/s2 ]

2
1
0
1
2
3
4
0

10
Time [s]

15

20

6
4
2
0
2
0

10

20
30
40
Frequency [Hz]

50

Figure 2.10: Acceleration time history and corresponding power spectral density graph

2.8

Modal Identification

Modal Identification, also called experimental modal analysis, is a method used to obtain
the dynamic characteristics of an existing structure. Finite Element based computer models
play a great role in modern structural engineering, especially in large structures. It is
therefore of great interest and importance for the designing engineer to be able to verify
these models. Furthermore the testing of old structures who have deteriorated badly is of
vital importance. This method is also an important link in developing Structural Health
Monitoring(SHM) systems. For these reasons engineers have sought a way to determine
the properties of an existing structure. There are two main types of Modal Identification,
input-output method and output-only method. [4]

29

2.8.1

Input-output method

The input-output method is based on applying a known periodic force (input) on the
structure, and measuring the response (output). Estimation of a set of frequency response
functions obtained by applying this periodic load leads to the determination of the modal
parameters. The frequency of the periodic input force is altered, and the exciting device
is moved around the structure in several steps so that the structure is excited over a range
of periods and spatial coordinates. Due to resonance behaviour the structure will give
higher amplitude at its own natural frequencies, which is the basis on which this method is
established. This method requires some kind of structural excitation which can be of many
different sorts. In small structures the excitation can be done with an impulse hammer, but
for large structures the use of a large shaking device is necessary. These shaking devices
can be quite expensive and inconveniently bulky. In case of a bridge this also means that
the structure has to be closed during the measurements, which in some cases is nearly
impossible. [4]

2.8.2

Output-only method

The main advantage of this method is to use ambient vibrations, such as wind, traffic
and minor tremors, to excite the structure. This means that no shaking device or impulse
hammer is required to start the motion, the method is simply based on using motion
that is already there. This method is also called Operational Modal Analysis (OMA)
because the analysis can be done while the structure is in operation. Since the input
forces of the structure are not measured, special care must be taken to separate harmonic
components of the loading from structural modes. Harmonic components are mostly
relevant in mechanical engineering, where rotating machinery is the most common source,
but harmonic vibration can also be found in structures. Harmonic components which lie
close to a structural mode may be mistaken for a mode, and should therefore be considered
in the modal identification process.
In this project the bridge was closed during the measurements because it is rather
flexible, and the traffic is not uniform enough to provide a random signal. This decreases the
chance of having harmonic components in the input force. The wind however is stochastic,
which means that it is almost random. The motion induced by the wind is measured
using accelerometers, which are placed strategically around the bridge deck. From the
acceleration measurements the Power Spectral Density (PSD) can be constructed. The
PSD shows the amplitude of an excitation as a function of frequency of the input force. By
this method it is possible to pick out the peaks in the PSD graph and thereby the natural
frequencies of the structure. Since the wind is stochastic, the input force is regarded as a
zero mean Gaussian white noise. The frequency spectrum of a white noise is flat so the
input force excites all frequencies equally. Since all frequencies are excited equally, the
peaks in the response can only be the result of resonance frequencies in the structure.
There are two main types of output-only modal identification methods: one of them is
based on analysing the structure in the frequency domain, the other in the time domain.
30

The simplest frequency-domain based method is the Peak-Picking method. It involves

picking out the peaks of a power spectral density graph constructed from the measurements.
The frequencies at which the extreme values occur are a good estimate for the natural
frequencies of the system. An improvement of this method called the Frequency Domain
Decomposition (FDD) method is based on taking Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)
of the matrix of response spectra. This results in the power spectral densities of a
set of SDOF systems. This method was further systematized and improved to obtain
modal damping factors. This improved method is called Enhanced Frequency Domain
Decomposition (EFDD). The EFDD uses the SDOF power spectral density functions
identified around a resonance peak and takes it back to the time domain by Inverse Fourier
Transformation. The damping is then estimated from the logarithmic decrement of the
SDOF correlation function. An example of a method in the time domain is the Stochastic
Subspace Identification (SSI). The advantage of analysing the results in the time domain
is that the leakage due to Fourier Transformation is prevented.[4] [5]
These methods can be used to form so called structural health monitoring systems,
which can alert the owner or supervisor of the structure to any changes in the structural
system during operation. This technique is used in chapter 6 where the commercial modal
identification program ARTeMIS is used to obtain the modal parameters. These modal
parameters can be used to update a finite element model so that it has the same dynamic
properties as the existing structure. This can then be used to estimate the current condition
of the structure which is of great interest to the designers and the owner. Later on this
model can be used to develop a structural health monitoring system.

2.9

FE Model updating

FE model updating is a process in which a FE model is updated so that it captures

the behaviour of the real structure. The updating process has four phases: initial FE
model, modal testing, manual tuning of the FE model and automatic updating. The FE
model is constructed using information from structural drawings and material properties
from designers or producers. The modal testing is done by measuring the response of the
structure either from forced or ambient vibration as discussed in section 2.8. The manual
tuning involves manual changes to the geometry and parameters of the structure using trial
and error method and engineering judgement to improve the correlation between the model
and the measured data. It should be noted that the geometry of the structure has to be
well defined before entering the automatic updating phase. The manual updating step is in
most cases essential as the difference between the initial FE model and measured behaviour
may be to large for the automatic updating process to converge towards a reasonable result.
In the automatic updating process a set of parameters is selected for fine tuning and the
model is updated using iterative procedures towards some target response.
The most common target responses are the natural frequencies due to the accuracy
with which they can be determined. Mode shapes can also be used as target responses.
FE model updating has been used with success in mechanical and aerospace engineering
31

where prototyping is part of a normal design process. In structural engineering prototyping

is not common, for obvious reasons, so one might say that FE model updating is pointless
in this field. However this is not the case, as the knowledge obtained from updating models
of existing structures can be used in the design of future structures. Updating a FE model
leads to some complications due to the many degrees of freedom in the model and a limited
number of transducers used to measure the response of the structure. Inaccuracies in the
FE model, especially the fact that most FE models do not include damping, also lead
to complications. This theses focuses on updating FE models with respect to dynamic
characteristics of the existing structure.[6]
In general there are two groups of updating methods: direct methods and iterative
methods. The direct methods are based on altering the mass- and stiffness matrices directly
to obtain the correct output compared with measured values. This procedure is not related
to the physical parameters of the structure. The iterative or parametric method is based
on changing the parameters used as input to the model, and thus indirectly altering the
mass- and stiffness matrices. Although the iterative method takes more time it is more
widely used because the results can be expressed as physical parameters, which is of great
importance. Also many FE programs do not support direct changes in the system matrices
which makes the direct method hard to use with existing FE models.
The iterative methods are sensitivity based, therefore a sensitivity matrix S is defined
to monitor the the changes of the target response related to a certain parameter change.
The sensitivity matrix is defined as
"

S = [Sij ] =

Ri
Pj

(2.59)

Here Sij is the sensitivity of the target response Ri to a change in parameter Pj . This
could e.g. be the sensitivity of the natural frequency to a change in the elastic modulus of
the material. The values of the sensitivity matrix can be calculated numerically by
Sij =

Ri (Pj + Pj ) Ri (Pj )
(Pj + Pj ) Pj

(2.60)

Where Ri (Pj ) is the value of response number i for the current state of the parameter
Pj and Ri (Pj + Pj ) is the value of the same response number i for the next state where
the parameter Pj is increased by Pj . Each value in the sensitivity matrix represents the
change of a certain response from the change of one parameter, while all other parameters
are unchanged. Therefore the sensitivity matrix has to be calculated for each parameter
in every iteration. The targeted experimental response vector Re can be approximated by
the equation [6]
Re R0 + S(Pu P0 )

(2.61)

Where P0 and R0 are the starting parameters and response vectors respectively and Pu
is the vector of updated parameters in the current iteration. Now if the measured responses
32

are known from modal identification, this equation can be solved for the unknown updated
parameters Pu by
Pu = P0 + S 1 (Re R0 )

(2.62)

The updated parameter vector cannot be calculated in a single step since the relation
between the parameters and the target responses is non-linear. Therefore an iteration
method is needed to determine the parameters. The target responses can be either natural
frequencies or mode shapes obtained from measurements. The natural frequencies are more
reliable as they can be determined with more accuracy than the mode shapes. To account
for the difference in accuracy and reliability, weighting coefficient are introduced. These
coefficients can be used to give certain target responses more weight in the calculation than
others. This method is also used for the updating parameters. The diagonal matrices CR
and CP contain one parameter for each response or parameter in the updating process.
Higher values of these confidence coefficients lead to more sensitivity and more accurate
tuning involving that parameter or response. The confidence coefficients can be taken into
account by the use of a matrix G defined so that
G = (CP + S T CR S)1 S T CR
G =

CP1 S T (CR1

SCP1 S T )1

for nR > nP
for nP > nR

(2.63)

Where nR and nP are the number of responses and parameters respectively. Now the
updated set of parameters Pu can be calculated by
Pu = P0 + G(Re R0 )

(2.64)

Where P0 and R0 are the given state parameters and responses respectively. The Re
is a vector containing the experimental values for the target responses. The new vector of
updated parameters is then used to calculated new responses through modal analysis, and
the process is repeated until the responses have reached the desired value. [6]

2.9.1

Complex modes

A complex mode is a mode represented by complex numbers as opposed to real modes

which are represented by real numbers. Complex modes appear in experimental data
because the actual damping may not be represented by proportional viscous damping. For
proportional viscous damping, the modes for the undamped and damped system are the
same. Most FE models do not include damping, so the comparison between the FE modes
and the experimentally determined modes is not straight forward. The complex modes
have to be expressed as equivalent real modes. The most common way to obtain real
modes from complex ones is to multiply the modulus of each element of the complex mode
vector by the sign of the cosine of its phase angle. [7]

33

2.9.2

Modal Assurance Criterion - MAC

The Modal Assurance Criterion(MAC) is a statistical indicator of the coherence of two

vectors, that is it tells how much two vectors resemble. Although this method is mainly
used to estimate the coherence of different modes within the same model, the procedure
can be used for any two vectors. The MAC of two mode shapes A and B is calculated
by
M AC =

|TA B |2
(TA A ) (TB B )

(2.65)

The MAC of two vectors is a scalar and takes a value between 0 and 1, depending on
how well the vectors correlate. The MAC is also used to pair matching mode shapes from
two different sources, e.g. experimental modes and mode from a FE model. In this case
the MAC is a matrix with the correlation factors for the two sets of mode shapes. [8]

2.9.3

Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion - COMAC

The Coordinate Modal Assurance Criterion(COMAC) is used to determine the correlation

between mode shape vectors similar to MAC. The difference is that COMAC calculates
the correlation between mode shapes at individual points or degrees of freedom in the
mode shape. The COMAC can therefore indicate where in the structure the correlation
is good, and where it is poor. This can be used for damage detection in structural health
monitoring systems. The COMAC of two sets of modes A and B is calculated by
N
P

COM AC(i) =

!2

(A )in (B )in

n=1
N
P

(A )2in

n=1

N
P

(2.66)
(B )2in

n=1

Where i is the degree of freedom or point on the mode shape and N is the number of
correlated mode pairs to be compared. The COMAC then returns a vector with one value
for each degree of freedom or point on the mode shape. [8]

34

Chapter 3
Bridge over lfus
The first bridge over lfus was constructed in 1891, it was a single lane suspension bridge.
In the year 1944 the bridge had deteriorated considerably and the authorities put up signs
saying that only one truck could pass at a time. During the night of September the 6th a
truck was towing another truck across the bridge with the result that the upstream cable
failed and both vehicles fell into the river. Luckily both drivers were unharmed and the
bridge still hung on one cable.[15] The current bridge over lfus was built in the same
place and was opened on December 21st 1945. It is a cable supported suspension bridge
with a concrete deck supported and stiffened by a steel truss. It has a total length of 132m
and a main span of 84m. Only the main span is suspended by the cables. The bridge was
designed by the British engineering firm Dorman Long & Co. The bridge is located in the
town of Selfoss which is around 60 km south-east of Reykjavk and is an important link in
the road system of Iceland, carrying highway 1 into the town of Selfoss. The bridge over
lfus is subjected to substantial traffic load, on Icelandic scale, with an average annual
daily traffic of 8462 vehicles and an average summer daily traffic of 10827 vehicles in the
year of 2011. [16]

Figure 3.1: Location of the bridge (north is up)

35

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

3.1

Dimensions of the bridge

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

3.1.1

North tower

South tower
Sag
10.5m

25m

84m

Figure 3.2: Schematic figure of lfus bridge

18.5m

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Only the main span is suspended by the cables, which are anchored in concrete blocks on
either bank. The maximum cable sag is 10,5m and the height of the towers is 10,2m. The
total width of the concrete deck is 8,7m and the depth of the steel truss is 1,687m. A
sketch of the bridge along with some key dimensions can be seen in figure 3.1. The south
tower is closer to Selfoss, and the river flows from east to west under the bridge.

Cables

The bridge has a total of 12 cables, 6 on either side. Each of these cables is a locked coil
strand, made up of 96 wires arranged as shown in figure 3.3. The core of the cable is made
from wires with circular cross section. The outer layers are made of z-shaped wires which
interlock to seal the cable and prevent moisture getting inside. Locked coil strands are
usually galvanized to protect them from corrosion. The cables in this bridge however are
not galvanised, so they have to be painted regularly to prevent corrosion and deterioration.
Each cable has the diameter of 60,1 mm, an active steel cross sectional area of 2174 mm2
and a breaking strength of 270 tons. The cables are anchored on either side in a large
concrete block. The anchoring is not symmetric, the anchor on the south side is lower and
further away, leading to different inclination of the back stays. The north back stay has
an inclination of 34,8from horizontal while the south one has an inclination of 32,7. The
six cables on either side are fastened together using steel clamps.
These cables are the primary structural elements in the bridge and failure of one cable
could lead to complete failure of the structure. Therefore these cables are designed with
a safety factor of 4 meaning that the characteristic bearing capacity is four times the
characteristic load. Another reason for this high factor of safety is that deterioration in
the cables is expected and accounted for in some way with this high factor of safety.
PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

3.1.2

Hangers

The bridge deck is suspended from the main cable by circular solid steel bars with diameter
of 50,8 mm. There are 20 hangers on either side placed with four meters interval. The
length of the hangers can be seen in table 3.1, here only a quarter of the hangers is shown
36

Figure 3.3: Typical cross section of a locked coil strand

as the bridge is symmetric with respect to the cable system. The hangers are fastened
to the main cables with a clamp and a steel loop as shown in figure 3.4. The hangers
are fastened to the steel girder below in a similar manner, as shown in figure 3.5. These
connections appear to act as hinged supports for the hangers, but further investigation is
required to reveal the true nature of these connections.

Hanger
Length[m]

1
10,03

Table 3.1: Length of the hangers

2
3
4
5
6
7
8,30 6,76 5,43 4,29 3,35 2,60

Figure 3.4: Hanger fastening to the cable

3.1.3

8
2,03

9
1,66

10
1,47

Figure 3.5: Hanger fastening to the truss

Bridge deck

Originally the deck was designed with a 6m wide roadway, and a 1m walking lane on either
side. In 1992 the bridge deck was completely renovated since the old one had deteriorated
badly. The deck now has a total width of 8,7m where the roadway is 6,2m wide and
only one walking lane of 1,8m. This leads to unsymmetrical loading of the bridge. In
the case of an empty bridge the upstream cable plane is loaded more. On the other hand
37

Figure 3.6: Old(upper) and new(lower) bridge deck

the downstream cable plane is more heavily loaded for heavy traffic. The self weight of
the concrete deck increases form 39,5 kN/m to 57,2 kN/m due to this renovation which is
about 45% increase. The bridge deck is fixed to the stiffening girder by use of shear studs
to ensure that the bridge girder acts as a composite girder.

3.1.4

Stiffening girder

The bridge deck is supported by four longitudinal I-beams connected to a steel girder which
is suspended from the cables by the hangers. This girder consists of three longitudinal
trusses, and a transverse truss positioned every 4 meters where the hangers are connected.
The two primary longitudinal trusses are vertical with a height of 1,687 m between centroids
of the chords. A wind stiffening truss connects these two at the bottom of the girder.
The transverse trusses are 1,176 m high over the span but 1,496 at each end. The two
longitudinal I-beams which make up the bottom chords of the girder are tilted 90 degrees
and fitted with additional flange plate to increase the stiffness of the girder. A view of the
stiffening girder can be seen on figure 3.7.
38

3.1.5

Pylons

The bridge pylons are made from two I-beams riveted together by a steel plate and filled
with concrete. The pylons rise about 10,2 m above the bridge deck where the cables are
connected in a saddle. At the base the pylon is hinged, so that it is free to rotate about
the transverse direction of the bridge. The hinge can be seen in figure 3.8.

Figure 3.7: View of the stiffening girder

3.2

Figure 3.8: Hinge at the base of the pylon

Cable deterioration

The bridge was first painted in the summer of 1946 a few months after it was opened.
Even in the following years there were signs of deterioration of the cables, which are not
galvanized as these types of cables usually are. A report made by rni Plsson from 1950
tells how the paint has fallen off in some place of the cables, and that severe corrosion can
be seen underneath. rni emphasises in his report the need to prevent this development
as soon as possible. The bridge has been painted many times since and with better and
more resisting paint, the latest of which was in 1994.
In June 2011 EFLA engineering firm performed a visual inspection of the bridge cables.
During this inspection around 70-80% of the cables were considered. The results were that
the paint appears to be withstanding the elements rather well, although there were definite
signs of deterioration, especially around connections, clamps and anchors. In some places
the cable looked as if it had expanded which could mean that there is corrosion on the
inside also. In one place there was one broken thread in the outermost layer. [10]

39

Figure 3.9: Rust on the surface of a cable

3.3

Figure 3.10: Broken thread

Design Load

In the original design the dead load of the suspended span was found to be 56,2 kN/m
while the live load comprised of a uniformly distributed load of 2 kN/m2 and concentrated
load from a 31 ton truck with a 25% addition for impact load resulting in a 39 ton truck
load. The calculated maximum cable force in the original design was 4042 kN in the back
stays on the north side. The combined minimum breaking strength of 6 cables is given as
15900 kN, corresponding to an ultimate stress of 1214 MPa. This leads to a safety factor
of
15900kN
FRk
=
= 3, 93
FEk
4042kN
Safety factor for locked coil strands is commonly taken as 4 so this is an acceptable
value for the safety against failure.
In modern design standards the rules are both more demanding and more complex. In
Eurocode 1: part 2, the design load model for a two lane bridge such as this one requires
that the load should be applied as explained in table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Design load model for a two lane bridge
Location Axle load Q [kN] UDL q [kN/m2 ]
Lane 1
600
9
Lane 2
400
2,5
The lanes referred to in table 3.2 should be defined so that the lane 1 is the lane that
causes the worst type of loading for the structure. And in case of a multi span bridge, the
uniformly distributed load should only be applied where it is unfavourable. The ultimate
limit state is defined by introducing partial safety factors to the characteristic loads

40

g gk + Q (Q Qk + q qk )

(3.1)

Where gk is the characteristic dead load, Qk is the characteristic axle load and qk is the
characteristic uniformly distributed live load. The partial safety factors g for self weight
and q for the live load are both taken as 1,35. The reduction factors Q and q are both
taken as 1.[11] This load model is applied to the FE model of the bridge as shown in section
4.6.1

3.3.1

Preliminary calculations

By using the theory from section 2.3 the cable forces can be approximated for the current
configuration of the bridge. Firstly the cable force will be calculated only for dead load
of the main span, and secondly the cable force will be determined according to design
standards for the ultimate limit state. For the first case with dead load of the bridge taken
as 77,9 kN/m, the cable force is found to be 3176 kN. Note that here the bride deck is
considered symmetric so that both cable planes are loaded equally, which is not the case in
the real structure. For these simple calculations, where the bridge is considered symmetric,
the average of the loading for the two lanes in table 3.2 is used. This results in a uniformly
distributed load of 5,75 kN/m2 over a 6 m wide roadway and a point load of 1000 kN at
mid span, the dead load is 77,9 kN/m as before. First the safety factor for the cable is
calculated using the characteristic values for the load and resistance, as was done in the
original design. The maximum cable force occurring at the north tower is then 6376 kN
which results in a safety factor of
15900kN
FRk
= 2, 49
=
FEk
6376kN
Which is very low compared to the original value of 3,93. If partial safety factors are
used for the loads and materials the requirement is that FEd /FRd < 1. Taking =1,5 as
a reduction factor for the cables strength and q =1,35 as the partial safety factor for the
dead load and live load leads to
FEd
8483kN
=
= 0, 80
FRd
15900/1, 5kN
Which means that the design is safe according to modern standards. Here it must be
mentioned again that the cable planes are assumed to be equally loaded, and the cables
are assumed to have their original strength. On the other hand, these calculations do not
account for the stiffness of the bridge girder which is an unfavourable assumption as the
bridge girder also provides some resistance to the load. The stiffness of the bridge girder is
of course accounted for in the FE model. The safety factor calculations from the FE model
can be seen in section 4.6.1. The calculations in this section were done using Mathcad and
can be seen in appendices A and B.
41

3.3.2

Estimation of natural frequencies

The natural frequencies can be estimated for the bridge using the theory covered in section
2.5. This can provide rough estimates to the actual natural frequencies. Some of the
frequency equations are not so easily solvable, therefore they were solved graphically using
Matlab. The girder rigidity and other values required to calculate the frequencies were
calculated by hand or with the assistance of Mathcad. The boundary conditions are
assumed to be pinned on both sides, the calculated frequencies can be seen in table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Analytical natural frequencies for vertical modes
Mode
Frequency [Hz]
st
1 symmetric
1,068
1st anti-symmetric
1,238
nd
2 anti-symmetric
4,808
nd
2 symmetric
7,941
The natural frequencies presented in table 3.3 can at least give an estimate on the
magnitude of the frequencies of the structure. Although the uncertainties with the boundary
conditions and the connection between the cable and the deck are not taken into account
here. The girder rigidity calculations can be seen in appendix C and the frequency
calculations can be seen in appendix D.

42

Chapter 4
Finite element model of lfus bridge
A three dimensional finite element model of the bridge was created using the commercial
structural program SAP2000. The model utilizes frame, cable and shell elements to capture
the characteristics of the structure. Both static- and modal-analysis were performed with
the model. The static analysis was done using non-linear analysis, taking into account the
large displacements of the structure. The modal analysis was then done using the stiffness
matrix at the end of the non-linear static analysis.

Figure 4.1: Bridge model constructed in SAP2000

43

4.1

Cables and hangers

The cables, which are made from locked coil strands were modelled using cable elements.
The real structure is supported by two groups of cables on either side. In the model the two
groups of cables are represented as two cable elements using the combined cross sectional
area of the group of cables. The cables were modelled as cold drawn steel with density of
8000 kg/m3 elastic modulus of 135 GPa, Poissons ratio of 0,3 and a cross sectional area
of 0,0131 m2 . The cables are pre tensioned so that the bridge deck is hogging under dead
load. The pre tensioning was applied in the form of initial strain of 2,15. The hangers
which are made of solid steel with circular cross section with a diameter of 50,8 mm were
modelled as frame elements simply supported at either end. The hangers were given the
same density of 8000 kg/m3 and a Poissons ratio of 0,3.

4.2

Pylons

The built-up cross section of the pylons was made with the section designer in SAP2000.
The elastic modulus Poissons ratio and density of the steel are selected as 210 GPa, 0,3
and 8000 kg/m3 respectively. For the concrete fill the elastic modulus, Poissons ratio and
density are selected as 32 GPa, 0,2 and 2500 kg/m3 .

4.3

Bridge deck and stiffening girder

The concrete deck was modelled as thin shell four node elements. Thickness modifiers and
offset was used to accurately capture the shape and position of the deck. Automatic mesh
was used to reduce the size of elements to a desired size. The density, modulus of elasticity
and Poissons ratio were selected as 2500 kg/m3 , 32 GPa , and 0,2 respectively

Figure 4.2: Model view of the deck and stiffening girder

The stiffening girder was modelled using frame elements of various shapes and sizes.
The cross sections are listed in tables 4.1 to 4.3.
The elastic modulus and Poissons ratio were selected as 210 GPa and 0,3 respectively.
To account for the large and bulky connections, and the number of rivets in the steel girder,
44

the density of the steel was chosen as 9000 kg/m3 . Although this value is much to high for
regular steel this lead to a total weight of the steel structure similar to the value given in
the original design documents.
Table 4.1: Longitudinal I-girder section properties
Section
Plate
A
Iy
[in]
[in]
[mm2 ]
[mm4 ]
Inner top chord
15" x 6" x 45#
8514
1,8E+08
Outer top chord(end) 14" x 8" x 40#
7996
1,6E+08
Outer top chord(mid) 14" x 8" x 40# 10x3/8 (web)
12743 1.9E+06
Bottom chord
14" x 8" x 70#
13068 2,6E+08
Bottom chord(mid)
14" x 8" x 70# 8x3/8(flanges) 16708 2,9E+08

Table 4.2: Longitudinal truss girder section properties

Section
A
Iy
2
[in]
[mm ]
[mm4 ]
Diagonals(end)
2L 4" x 4" x 5/8"
5949
5,5E+08
Diagonals(mid)
2L 4" x 4" 3/8"
3691
3,6E+08
Vertical angles 2,6,10m...
L 3.5" x 2.5" x 3/8"
2814
4.0E+06
Vertical angles 4,8,12m...
14" x 8" x 70#
12916
2,6E+08
Wind bracing
14" x 8" x 70#
16708
2,9E+08

Top angle
Bottom angle
Diagonals(inn)
Diagonals(out)
Cross bracing
Vertical angles

Table 4.3: Cross girder section properties

Section
Plate
A
Iy
2
[in]
[in]
[mm ]
[mm4 ]
2L 4" x 4" x 7/16"
4" x 1/2"
4161
4,1E+06
2L 4" x 4" 7/8"
4" x 1/2"
8243
7,4E+06
2L 3,5" x 2,5" x 3/8"
2814
8.9E+05
2L 3,5" x 3,5" x 3/8"
3,5" x 1/2"
3125
2,3E+06
L 3,5" x 2,5" x 3/8"
2814
4,0E+06
2L 3,5" x 2,5" x 3/8"
2814
8.9E+05

45

Iz
[mm4 ]
7,7E+06
1,5E+07
1,1E+07
2,5E+07
2,6E+07

Iz
[mm4 ]
1,1E+07
6,7E+08
9,2E+07
2,5E+07
2,6E+07

Iz
[mm4 ]
8,0E+06
1,6E+07
4,6E+06
4,6E+06
9,2E+06
4,6E+06

4.4

Non-structural elements

The weight of non-structural elements is added to the model as applied loading. These
non-structural elements are, the railings, beams supporting a gondola under the bridge,
and six pipes which sit beneath the deck.

4.5

Self weight

The self weight of the bridge carried by the main span is extracted from the FE model and
compared with the values provided by the designer. This comparison can be seen in table
Table 4.4: Self weight of the suspended span
Original design Present configuration
[kN]
[kN/m]
[kN]
[kN/m]
Concrete deck
3314
39,5
4806
57,2
Steel structure
1334
15,9
1334
15,9
Parapets
69
0,8
126
1,5
Gondola beams
25
0,3
Pipelines
375
4,5
Total load
4718
56,2
6540
77,9

4.6

Computational results

In this section the results from the initial FE model will be presented. The results are
divided into two groups, one with static results, i.e. forces and deflections, and the other
with modal properties of the model.

4.6.1

Non-linear static analysis

The static analysis was done using non-linear analysis with p-delta effects and large
displacements allowed. This is necessary because the stiffness of the cable is highly related
to the cable force.
Dead load only
In this section results from the static analysis of the model under dead load only is
presented. The dead load includes the weight of all structural and non-structural components
of the bridge, a documentation of the dead load can be seen in table 4.4.
Table 4.5 shows deflections and axial forces of primary structural members in the model.
The hanger forces for the whole bridge are listed in table 4.6 and shown in figure 4.3. The
hangers are numbered from 1 to 20, one being the southernmost hanger.
46

Table 4.5: Deflections and axial forces in members at mid span

Deflection
[mm]
Upstr.
5
Downstr.
18

Cables
[kN]
3345
3204

Hangers
[kN]
152
145

Bottom chord
[kN]
-63
-79

Top Chord
[kN]
31
28

Positive deflection is upwards

Table 4.6: Hanger forces [kN]

Hanger
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Upstr.
157 163 160 160 156 155 154 153 153 152 152 153 153 154 156 155 159 160 163 157
Downstr. 150 156 153 152 148 148 147 146 146 145 145 146 146 147 148 148 152 152 156 150

Axial force [kN]

170
Upstream
Downstream

165
160
155
150
145
140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Hanger number (from south to north)

Figure 4.3: Hanger forces for dead load

Live load from crane
The behaviour of the bridge under a concentrated load from a 60 ton crane is covered in
this section. This was done to compare with the measurements performed on the bridge.
For measurements results and comparison with the FE model see chapter 5. A load test is
a good way to verify the finite element model. Table 4.7 shows the deflection and back stay
forces for three cases, dead load only and crane at midspan downstream and upstream.
Note that the cases with the crane also include the dead load. The load from the crane
was modelled as a set of uniformly distributed loads over small areas, each representing
the load of one tire of the crane. The crane had 5 axles with even load distribution. The
hanger forces from the FE model loaded with the 60 ton crane can be seen in table 4.8.
These results are also plotted for better understanding in figures 4.4 and 4.5.

47

Table 4.7: Deflections and cable forces from dead load and crane
Dead load only
Deflection Cables North Cables South
[mm]
[kN]
[kN]
Upstr.
5
4009
3878
Downstr.
18
3838
3714
Crane at mid span upstream
Upstr.
-57
4414
4269
Downstr.
-37
4172
4036
Crane at mid span downstream
Upstr.
-40
4243
4104
Downstr.
-56
4347
4205

Table 4.8: Hanger forces from dead load and crane [kN]
Crane at mid span upstream
Hanger
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Upstr.
172 180 177 176 172 172 171 170 172 172 172 171 170
Downstr. 163 170 167 166 162 162 161 160 161 161 161 160 160
Crane at mid span downstream
Hanger
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Upstr.
166 174 170 169 166 166 165 163 164 162 163 163 163
Downstr. 169 176 174 173 169 169 168 167 169 171 171 168 167

14 15 16 17 18 19 20
171 172 172 176 177 180 172
161 162 162 166 167 170 163
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
164 166 165 169 170 174 166
167 167 169 173 173 177 169

Axial force [kN]

185
180

Upstream
Downstream

175
170
165
160
155

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Hanger number (from south to north)

Figure 4.4: Hanger forces for crane at midspan upstream

48

Axial force [kN]

185
Upstream
Downstream

180
175
170
165
160
155

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Hanger number (from south to north)

Figure 4.5: Hanger forces for crane at mid span downstream

Design Load
The design load case introduced in section 3.3 was assigned to the model. The downstream
lane is loaded with a uniformly distributed load of 9 kN/m2 and an axle load of 600 kN.
The upstream lane is loaded with a uniformly distributed load of 2,5 kN/m2 and an axle
load of 400 kN. Partial safety factors for both the dead load and live load are taken as
1,35. The resulting cable forces in the back stay and deflections at mid span are shown in
table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Deflections and forces for design load case
Deflection
[mm]
Upstr.
-315
Downstr.
-396

Back stay north

[kN]
7168
8169

Back stay south

[kN]
6933
7898

Hangers
[kN]
292
347

Positive deflection is upwards

The safety factor for the cable can be calculated by taking the characteristic values
for forces and material strengths, this was done in the original design. The safety factor
calculated in this way should be around four FRk /FEk 4.
FRk
15900kN
=
= 2, 60
FEk
6123kN
This value for the cable safety factor is well under the desired value of 4. In modern
standards the strength design criteria is that FEd /FRd < 1 here the strength of the material
is reduced by a factor of 1,5 leading to

49

FEd
8169kN
=
= 0, 77 < 1
FRd
15900kN/1, 5
Here it should also be noted that even though these calculation take into account the
stiffness of the bridge girder and the unsymmetric loading, the cables are assumed to have
their original strength. As the bridge is almost 70 years old, it is safe to say that the cables
must have deteriorated to some degree leading to a further decrease in the already far to
low safety factor.

4.6.2

Modal analysis

Modal analysis is a method of extracting modal parameters from a structural model. The
theory behind modal analysis is presented in section 2.2. SAP2000 has two algorithms for
modal analysis, one using eigenvectors and the other using Ritz-vectors. The eigenvector
method is preferable when the user needs to determine the modal parameters, but for
response spectrum and time history analysis the Ritz-vector method is more suitable. So
the eigenvector method is used here. Table 4.10 lists some of the mode shapes determined
and their frequencies.

Mode nr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
28

Table 4.10: Modal analysis results

Frequency [Hz] Period [s]
Shape
1,0247
0,9759
Vertical symmetric
1,5121
0,6613
Vertical anti-symmetric
1,7957
0,5569
Horizontal symmetric
2,3149
0,4320
Cables
2,3563
0,4244
Cables
2,4863
0,4022
Cables
2,5283
0,3955
1st torsion
2,5426
0,3933
Cables
nd
3,1553
0,3169
2 vertical symmetric
3,1590
0,3166
2nd torsion
3,5612
0,2808
Cables
3,6327
0,2753
Cables
nd
4,1578
0,2405
2 vertical anti-symmetric
4,1789
0,2393
Cables
4,2761
0,2339
Cables
rd
4,8809
0,2049
3 torsion
rd
6,4127
0,1559
3 vertical anti-symmetric

Notice that many of the modes are labelled as cable modes, since they are dominated
by cable movements. It can also be seen that some of the modes are very closely spaced
50

with respect to their frequencies. This could prove troublesome in the model updating
process later on.
The modal mass participation ratio is a number which indicates how much of the
structural mass is participating in the current mode. Therefore modes who only involve
movement in the vertical direction have a relatively high modal mass participation ratio
in that direction, but zero in the other two. The modal mass participation ratios of the
modes can be seen in table 4.11. It can be seen that the cable modes have very low ratios
compared with the other modes, although the second and third torsional modes are also
very low. The directions X, Y and Z refer to the longitudinal-, transverse- and vertical
directions respectively.
Table 4.11: Modal
Mode nr UX [%] UY [%]
1
0,0
0,0
2
1,8
0,0
3
0,0
51,0
4
0,0
1,6
5
0,0
2,3
6
0,0
0,0
7
0,0
23,0
8
0,0
0,0
9
0,0
0,0
10
0,0
0,0
11
0,0
0,6
12
0,0
0,4
13
13,0
0,0
14
0,0
0,0
15
0,0
0,0
16
0,0
0,0
28
46,0
0,0

participation mass ratios

UZ [%]
Shape
69,0
Vertical symmetric
0,0
Vertical anti-symmetric
0,0
Horizontal symmetric
0,0
Cables
0,0
Cables
0,0
Cables
0,0
1st torsion
0,0
Cables
12,0
2nd vertical symmetric
0,0
2nd torsion
0,0
Cables
0,0
Cables
nd
0,0
2 vertical anti-symmetric
0,0
Cables
0,0
Cables
rd
0,0
3 torsion
0,0
3rd vertical anti-symmetric

The 9 modes involving motion of the bridge deck are shown in figures 4.6 to 4.14.

51

Figure 4.6: Mode 1: f = 1,0247 Hz

Figure 4.7: Mode 2: f = 1,5121 Hz

Figure 4.8: Mode 3: f = 1,7957 Hz

Figure 4.9: Mode 7: f = 2,5283 Hz

Figure 4.10: Mode 9: f = 3,1553 Hz

Figure 4.11: Mode 10: f = 3,1590 Hz

52

Figure 4.12: Mode 13: f = 4,1574 Hz

Figure 4.13: Mode 16: f = 4,8809 Hz

Figure 4.14: Mode 28: f = 6,4127 Hz

Not only are some of the modes closely spaced, but they are also very similar in shape.
The modal assurance criterion indicates how well two mode shapes correlate, if the MAC
is equal to 1 the mode shapes are identical. The MAC values for the mode shapes obtained
from the modal analysis of the FE model can be seen in table 4.12 and graphically in
figure 4.15. Here only the motion of the bridge deck is included in the modes shape, this
coincides with the modal identification measurements which were only performed on the
bridge deck. It should be noted that the values in table 4.12 have been rounded up. This
similarity in the modes can lead to troubles later on in the FE model updating process
as the MAC is often used to pair mode shapes with their counterparts from the measured
mode shapes. This problem will be addressed further in the updating chapter.

53

1
0.9

MAC

0.8
0.7

0.5

0.6
0

0.5

17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
FE modes

0.4
0.3
0.2

12
9 1011
6 7 8
5
4
1 2 3
FE modes

131415

1617

0.1
0

Figure 4.15: MAC for mode shapes from the FE model

Table 4.12: MAC for the mode shapes from the modal analysis
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
28

1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

3
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

4
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

5
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0

7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.2
1.0
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0

54

9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.8
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.0

11
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0

12
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0

13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

14
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.0

15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.0
0.0
0.0

16
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0

28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0

Chapter 5
Measurements
The measurements were done at the end of May 2012. To get to know the equipment and
the procedure involved in the measurements the team took a trip to the west of Iceland to
measure the bridge over Mjifjrur. These measurements were done on the 22nd and 23rd
of May. On this trip modal ID was performed on the bridge and the frequencies of the
hangers were measured. The traffic over this bridge is very little which provided excellent
conditions to practice with the measurements.
The measurements on lfusa were then done on the 29th and 30th of May. The strain
gauges were applied on the 29th , and the modal ID was performed during the night.
The measurements were done over night because the bridge had to be closed while the
measurements were done. The bridge was closed for 20 min at a time, and then the traffic
was led over the bridge before the next closure. This led to some delay, but the drivers
showed patients and understanding of the work that was being done. On the 30th of may
the strain gauges were connected and tested. In the evening a contractor with a heavy
crane was hired to drive across the bridge several times and stop at certain locations.
The strain was measured in each set up along with the frequency of the hangers and the
back stays. Only the hangers that could be reached from the deck were measured. The
deflection of the bridge deck was also measured.
For a better overview, the measurements performed on lfus bridge are listed in table
5.1 along with the objective of each measurement task. The acceleration measurements of
the cables and hangers were performed both for the empty bridge end during the load test.

Table 5.1: Overview of the measurements performed on lfus bridge

Measurements
Objective
Modal Identification
Determine modal parameters
Acc. measurements of members
Determine axial forces
Load test with a crane
Determine change of deflections and forces
Strain measurements
Verify hanger forces
Cable elongation measurements
Verify cable forces
55

5.1

Modal Identification measurements

The modal identification measurements were done using a total of 7 accelerometers, four
uni-axial (Dytran) and three tri-axial (GeoSIG). Two of the accelerometers, one uni-axial
and one tri-axial were used as reference censors, while the other 5 were moved strategically
over the bridge in several steps.

Figure 5.2: Dytran uni-axial accelerometer

Figure 5.1: GeoSIG tri-axial accelerometer

The measurements had been carefully planed, and 8 set-ups were to be measured. Set
up plan can bee seen in figure 5.3. The accelerometers were placed on the edge of the
bridge deck at each hanger. This was a convenient way to quickly and accurately place
them without having to measure there exact location. Each censor was placed and adjusted
so that it was completely levelled. The amplifier and computer for data collection were
located in a van in the middle of the bridge. The data was collected for 20 minutes at a
sampling rate of 2048 Hz. During this time the bridge was closed at either end so that no
traffic was on the bridge during the measurements. This was done because the bridge is
rather flexible, and the traffic would have corrupted the stochastic vibration of the bridge.
1

D3

REF
D4

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

GeoSIG
Dytran

S8

SX Setup No.
D1

G1

D2

S7
G2

D1

G1

D2

S6

S5

G2

D3

D1

G1

D2

G2

D3

D1

G1

D2

G2

D3

G2

D3

D1

G1

D2

G2

D3

D1

G1

D2

G2

D3

West (W)

CAR
East (E)
D1

G1

D2

x
y

S1

G2

D3

G3
REF

D1

G1

D2

S2

S3

S4

84 m

Figure 5.3: Original plan for the Modal ID measurements at lfus

During the measurements however, one of the plugs to a uni-axial accelerometers was
damaged. This accelerometer is labelled D2 in figure 5.3. The original plan was altered
56

D3

REF
D4

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

GeoSIG
Dytran

S8

SX Setup No.
D1

G1

S7
G2

D1

G1

S6
G2

D3

D1

G1

G2

D3

D1

G1

S5
G2

D3

D1

G1

G2

D3

G2

D3

D1

G1

G2

D3

West (W)

CAR
East (E)
D1

G1

D2

x
y

S1

G2

D3

G3
REF

D1

G1

D2

S2

D2

S3

S4

84 m

Figure 5.4: Modal ID measurements performed at lfus (due to damaged censor)

slightly, and the locations assigned for the damaged censor were skipped. This lead to the
final measurement set up shown in figure 5.4.
The acceleration time histories along with the simple geometry of the bridge deck were
loaded into the commercial operational modal analysis software ARTeMIS. The software
returns the natural frequencies of the structure with their corresponding mode shapes and
an estimate of modal damping values. The results are presented in chapter 6.

5.2

Forces in main cables

The simplest way of measuring the force in a cable is to find the natural frequencies and
plug them into equation (2.42). The same method can be used to determine the forces in
the hangers. To find the natural frequencies the acceleration of the back-stays is measured
and procedure explained in section 2.8 is used to obtain the frequencies. The acceleration
was measured with a convenient portable system, consisting of an accelerometer and a
laptop with a software to read the data. The cable was set into motion both by shaking
and striking it by hand and measured for 20 seconds with a sampling rate of 2048 Hz.
The manner of excitation, that is striking or shaking, did not seem to have much effect
on the data. An example of the acceleration measured can be seen in figure 5.5. The
corresponding power spectrum can be seen in the same figure, where the peaks have been
picked out and marked with red circles.
Calculation of the cable force from the determined frequencies requires the free length
of the cable. This is not readily determined in this case. The clamps fixing the group
of cables together were removed on the south side. But the spreading clamp could not
be removed, simply because it would be very difficult to refasten that clamp. The spread
clamp can be seen on figure 5.6.
The measured back stay forces for an empty bridge can be seen in table 5.2. The
cables are numbered so that the cable closest to the bridge is number one. The bending
stiffness of the cable and the possible stiffness of supports was taken into account by
using equations (2.43) and (2.47). The resulting forces for three different cases of bending
57

8
Amplitude [dB/Hz]

Acceleration [m/s2 ]

2
1
0
1
2
3
4
0

10
Time [s]

15

20

6
4
2
0
2
0

10

20
30
40
Frequency [Hz]

50

Figure 5.5: Acceleration and power spectrum for one of the back stays.

Figure 5.6: Spreader clamp on back stay south side, downstream

stiffness and boundary condition assumptions can be seen in figure 5.7. Here the minimum
and maximum moment of inertia Imin and Imax are calculated using formulas (2.45) and
(2.46). The true bending stiffness of the cable lies somewhere between those values.
It is interesting to see how the force in the outer cables is less then the force in the
inner cables. The most loaded cable is carrying about 25% more than the least loaded
cable. This could be due to the fact that the hangers are fastened in the middle of the
cable group, and might therefore act more on the middle cables. But whatever the cause of
this uneven force distribution, the effect is that the inner cables are more likely to fail than
the outer ones. This further increases the uncertainty regarding the safety of the cables.

58

Table 5.2: Cable forces for empty bridge assuming no bending stiffness and pinned b.c.
Upstream
Cable
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Frequency [Hz] 3,80 3,95 4,05 4,10 4,20 3,75
Force [kN]
579 626 658 674 707 564 3808

Cable
Frequency [Hz]
Force [kN]
750
700

1
3,75
564

Downstream
2
3
4
3,95 3,95 4,00
626 626 641
750

Simply supported
Clamped Imin

700

Clamped I

650
600
550
500
450

6
Total
3,60
520 3571

Simply supported
Clamped Imin
Clamped I

max

Axial force [kN]

Axial force [kN]

max

5
3,85
594

650
600
550
500
450

1
2
3
4
5
6
Cable number (1 is closest of the bridge)

1
2
3
4
5
6
Cable number (1 is closest of the bridge)

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 5.7: Cable forces for empty bridge upstream (left) and downstream (right)

Hanger forces

The forces in the hangers were determined by measuring the acceleration and finding the
natural frequencies. This was done for all the hangers that could be reached from the deck,
both for an empty bridge, and for the crane load test. The results from the empty bridge
measurements are covered first. Table 5.3 shows the measured natural frequencies of the
hangers along with the length and the calculated force. Here the force is determined only
by using the simple formula for a taut string (2.42) with no bending stiffness.
North tower

South tower
H1

H20
H2

H19
H3

H4

H5

H6

H7

H8

H9

H14 H15
H10 H11 H12 H13

H16

Figure 5.8: Numbering of hangers

59

H17

H18

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

5.3

Table 5.3: Hanger forces for empty bridge assuming

Upstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16
Frequency[Hz] 5,35 6,15 8,55 10,8 13,35 13,05
Length[m]
10,03 8,30 6,76 5,43 4,29 4,29
Force[kN]
185
167 214 220
210
201
Downstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16
Frequency[Hz] 4,60 5,85 8,40 10,8 12,95 13,05
Length[m]
10,03 8,30 6,76 5,43 4,29 4,29
Force[kN]
136
151 207 220
198
201

no bending stiffness
17
18
19
11,1 8,00 6,85
5,43 6,76 8,30
233 188 207

20
5,35
10,03
185

17
18
19
10,9 7,75 6,25
5,43 6,76 8,30
224 176 172

20
4,95
10,03
158

The effect of bending stiffness and boundary conditions is considered in table 5.4. Here
the forces for both pinned and clamped boundary conditions are calculated. This is done
by using the force calculated from the taut string formula as an initial guess in the iteration
formulas (2.43) and (2.47). The comparison of these three sets of hanger forces are shown
in figure 5.9. These figures show how much the force measurements are dependant on
the stiffness of the member and especially the boundary conditions. It is noted that the
bending stiffness and clamped boundary conditions have much greater effect on the shorter
hangers than on the longer ones. This is one of the reasons that only the longer hangers
were measured, because there are more uncertainties involved in the shorter ones. The fact
that the shorter hangers are really hard to reach, made it even less appealing to measure
them.
Table 5.4: Hanger forces for empty bridge,
Upstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16
Pinned B.C. 182 164 210 213 199 190
Clamped B.C. 143 117 145 128 85 78
Downstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16
Pinned B.C. 134 148 202 213 187 190
Clamped B.C. 100 103 138 128 75 78

60

corrected [kN]
17 18 19 20
226 183 204 182
138 121 153 143
17 18 19 20
217 171 169 156
131 111 122 119

300

200
150
100
50

No correction
Simply supported
Clamped

250
Axial force [kN]

250
Axial force [kN]

300

No correction
Simply supported
Clamped

200
150
100

50

2 3 4 5 16 17 18 19 20
Hanger number (from south to north)

2 3 4 5 16 17 18 19 20
Hanger number (from south to north)

Figure 5.9: Measured hanger forces upstream (left) and downstream (right)

5.4

Load Test

A load test of the bridge was performed late on the 30th of May. A heavy mobile crane
was positioned in various places along the bridge while the measurements were done.
The frequencies of the main cables and hangers were measured for each position of the
crane. The strain in 4 hangers was also measured for comparison with the frequency
measurements. The deflection of the bridge was measured before the measurements and
during each set up of the crane. The mass of the crane, measured earlier that day, proved to
be 60,1 ton fairly evenly distributed over its 5 axles. The result from these measurements
are covered in the following sections.

Figure 5.10: Crane used for load test

The results from the deflection measurements can be seen in table 5.5. The values
presented in the table are changes in deflection from the unloaded state. Some of the
values are missing as they could not be obtained because the crane blocked the measuring
device.
61

Table 5.5: Deflections from crane load test

Crane at mid span downstream
Deflection [mm] 1/4 North Middle 1/4 South
Downstream
-42
Upstream
-16
-29
-16
Crane at mid span upstream
Deflection [mm] 1/4 North Middle 1/4 South
Downstream
-54
-25
Upstream
-26
-49
-24
Crane at south quarter span downstream
Deflection [mm] 1/4 North Middle 1/4 South
Downstream
-9
-38
Upstream
-3
-17
-23

5.5

Cable forces from load test

The cable forces were also measured for the load test. The cable forces are measured on
individual cables of the back stays on the south side as before. The measured frequencies
along with the calculated force values can be seen in tables 5.6 to 5.8 where H represents
the increase in force from the empty bridge case.
Table 5.6: Cable forces for crane at quarter span
Upstream
Cable
1
2
3
4
f[Hz]
3,90 4,05 4,2 4,2
H[kN]
610 658 707 707
H[kN] 31
32
49
33

Cable
1
f[Hz]
3,95
H[kN]
626
H[kN] 62

downstream, no bending stiffness

5
4,25
724
17

6
Total
3,85
594 4002
30
194

Downstream
2
3
4
5
4,10 4,15 4,20 4,10
674 691 707 674
48
65
65
80

6
Total
3,80
579 3952
59
380

62

Table 5.7: Cable forces for crane at mid span downstream, no bending stiffness
Upstream
Cable
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
f[Hz]
4,00 4,10 4,20 4,15 4,25 3,90
H[kN]
642 674 707 691 724 610 4049
H[kN] 63
48
49
17
17
46
241

Cable
1
f[Hz]
4,05
H[kN]
658
H[kN] 121

Downstream
2
3
4
5
4,25 4,25 4,30 4,15
724 724 742 691
98
98
100
97

6
Total
3,90
610 4149
90
577

Table 5.8: Cable forces for crane at mid span upstream, no bending stiffness
Upstream
Cable
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
f[Hz]
4,05 4,20 4,25 4,25 4,35 4,00
H[kN]
658 707 724 724 759 642 4215
H[kN] 79
81
66
50
52
78
407

Cable
1
f[Hz]
3,95
H[kN]
626
H[kN] 62

5.6

Downstream
2
3
4
5
4,15 4,15 4,20 4,05
691 691 707 658
65
65
65
64

6
Total
3,80
579 3952
59
380

Cable elongation measurements

The cable forces can also be estimated by measuring the cable elongation from a certain
load. However there are several complications, first of all the cable is made up of several
strands of wires wound together in a spiral so a strain gauge is not guaranteed to measure
the strain of the whole cable. This can be solved by clamping a measuring device onto the
cable and measuring the displacement over the device. This kind of device was developed
and built at DTU for this project mainly as an attempt to verify the forces determined
by the frequency measurements. When designing a measuring set up it is important to
realize the magnitude of the quantities to be measured. In this case the strain was roughly
estimated using the theory presented in section 2.3. The calculation are the same as the
ones used for the cable force determination in appendix A. An overview of the measuring
device can be seen in figure 5.11
The device is clamped onto the cable and fixed with two bolts on either end. At the
ends the device is fitted with piston rod eyes to prevent bending moment in the device
63

Piston
rod eye

Clamp

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Steel bar
Box profile

Measuring device

Cable
Figure 5.11: Device to measure cable elongation

The device should have a total length of 1 m between the clamps.

Linear sliding bearings should be installed into the box profile, which allow
the bar to move freely in and out as the cable is stretched. These linear
Table 5.9: Cable forces from elongation measurements
bearings are seated on a rail which can be bolted through the bottom of the
box profile.
Crane position
The piston rod eyes prevent
the device
taking up bending
moment,
Quarter
pointfrom
downstr.
Mid point
donwstr. Mid
but care should be taken that no slip is in the rod eyes, as this will influence
Force
[kN]
13,2
16,1
theincrease
measurements.

point upstr.
84,1

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

from the curvature of the cable. The measuring device mounted on the box profile was
calibrated by measuring the voltage output while measuring displacement with a digital
calliper. The output and displacement were plotted to yield the linear connection between
the two. This was repeated three times to ensure accurate conversion. While testing the
setup in the laboratory at DTU a slip was discovered in the device. After consideration
it was concluded that the slip must be in the piston rod eyes, so springs were added to
reduce or eliminate the slip. These springs can be seen in figure 5.12. However, when the
device was to be tested again after installing the springs the hydraulic press broke down
so the functionality of the springs could not be tested.

Figure 5.12: Springs to eliminate the slip

Figure 5.13: Device on the cable

Only one cable was measured with this method, the first cable on the upstream side.
The measured force increase for the three load tests with the crane can be seen in table
5.9. Figure 5.13 shows the device mounted on the back stay of lfus bridge.

64

5.7

Hanger forces from load test

The frequencies of the hangers and main cable back stays were also determined while the
bridge was loaded by the crane. The forces determined in the hangers are presented in
this section. As before the forces are determined by assuming no bending stiffness first,
and then corrected for the effect of bending stiffness and boundary conditions. The forces
assuming no bending stiffness can be seen in tables 5.10 and 5.11 for the crane positioned
at quarter-point and mid-span downstream. The corrected values accounting for bending
stiffness and either pinned or clamped boundary conditions can be seen in tables 5.12 and
5.13. The hanger forces are also shown in figures 5.14 and 5.15. The increase in force from
the unloaded bridge is also shown in the tables.
Table 5.10: Hanger forces with crane at quarter point downstream,
Upstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16
17
Frequency[Hz] 5,65 6,55 9,10 11,50 14,83 14,78 11,65
Force[kN]
206 189 243
250
260
260
256
Increase[kN]
21
22
29
30
50
59
23
Downstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16
17
Frequency[Hz] 5,15 6,70 9,15 11,70 14,90 14,90 11,55
Force[kN]
171 198 245
259
262
262
252
Increase[kN]
35
47
38
39
64
61
28

Table 5.11: Hanger forces with crane at mid point

Upstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
Frequency[Hz] 5,60 6,80 9,10 11,60 14,83
Force[kN]
202 204 243
254
260
Increase[kN]
17
37
29
34
50
Downstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
Frequency[Hz] 5,20 6,80 9,25 11,75 14,92
Force[kN]
174 204 251
261
263
Increase[kN]
38
53
44
41
65

65

no bending stiffness
18
8,65
219
31

19
7,05
219
12

20
5,7
209
25

18
8,65
219
43

19
7,00
216
44

20
5,55
199
41

downstream, no bending stiffness

16
14.85
260
59

17
11,60
254
21

18
8,70
222
34

19
7,10
222
15

20
5,75
213
28

16
14,92
263
62

17
11,65
256
32

18
8,80
227
51

19
7,15
225
53

20
5,75
213
55

Table 5.12: Hanger forces for crane at quarter span downstream,

Upstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16 17 18
Pinned B.C. 202 184 235 239 242 240 245 212
Clamped B.C. 149 120 144 117 70 68 123 125
Downstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16 17 18
Pinned B.C. 168 193 238 247 244 244 241 212
Clamped B.C. 118 127 147 125 73 73 119 125

350

250
200
150
100
50

19 20
214 206
146 152
19 20
211 195
143 142

No correction
Simply supported
Clamped

300
Axial force [kN]

300
Axial force [kN]

350

No correction
Simply supported
Clamped

corrected [kN]

250
200
150
100

50

2 3 4 5 16 17 18 19 20
Hanger number (from south to north)

2 3 4 5 16 17 18 19 20
Hanger number (from south to north)

Figure 5.14: Hanger forces upstream (left) and downstream (right) for crane at quarter
point

66

Table 5.13: Hanger forces for crane at mid span downstream, corrected [kN]
Upstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16 17 18 19 20
Pinned B.C. 199 199 235 243 242 243 243 215 217 210
Clamped B.C. 146 132 144 121 75 75 121 127 148 155
Downstream
Hanger
1
2
3
4
5
16 17 18 19 20
Pinned B.C. 171 199 244 250 245 245 245 220 221 210
Clamped B.C. 121 132 151 127 74 74 123 131 151 155

350

250
200
150
100
50

No correction
Simply supported
Clamped

300
Axial force [kN]

300
Axial force [kN]

350

No correction
Simply supported
Clamped

250
200
150
100

50

2 3 4 5 16 17 18 19 20
Hanger number (from south to north)

2 3 4 5 16 17 18 19 20
Hanger number (from south to north)

Figure 5.15: Hanger forces upstream (left) and downstream (right) for crane at mid span

5.8

Strain measurements

Strain is the amount of deformation resulting from an applied force. Strain is usually
represented by and can be written as
=

L
L

(5.1)

Where L is the original length and L is the deformation caused by the applied force.
Strain is usually defined as positive when the sample is stretched. The strain of a sample
under loading can be measured using strain gauges. The most common type of a strain
gauge is made from an insulating flexible material with a metallic foil pattern. The gauge is
attached to the sample using a strong adhesive. When the sample is deformed the electrical
resistance of the gauge changes. Tension causes the metallic foil to shrink, which leads to
higher resistance, compression has the opposite effect. This difference in resistance can
67

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Isolating back foil

Soldering
pads

Metallic foil pattern

Figure 5.16: Strain gauge

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

be measured to determine the strain of the sample. To convert the change of resistance
into strain, the gauge factor (GF ) is used. The gauge factor is usually provided by the
manufacturer of the strain gauge and is defined as
GF =

R/RG

(5.2)

Where R is the change is resistance due to the strain and RG is the original resistance
in the strain gauge. Usually more than one strain gauge are connected together forming a
so called Wheatstone bridge shown in figure 5.17. The Wheatstone bridge is an electrical

R1

+
VSup
-

R4

VSig

R2

R3

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 5.17: Wheatstone bridge

circuit used to determine an unknown resistance by balancing the two legs of the bridge.
The signal voltage of the bridge can be calculated by.


VSig =

R2
R3

VSup
R3 + R4
R1 + R2


(5.3)

From this equation it is obvious that if all the resistors are the same, the signal voltage will
be zero. A change in one of the resistors will result in a nonzero signal. So by replacing
e.g. R4 in figure 5.17 by an active strain gauge, any changes in the gauges resistance will
cause unbalance in the bridge and produce a nonzero signal voltage. The strain can then
68

be calculated as
=

4VSig
8VSig GF + VSup GF

(5.4)

Where VSig is the difference in signal voltage from the unstrained state and VSup is the
supply voltage. This set up is called a quarter-bridge where one gauge is on the sample
and the other three are connected to the bridge but are not active. This is a simple way
of measuring, but the error due to temperature difference on the sample and the inactive
gauges can be significant. This can be taken care of by adding more gauges to the sample
so that they have exactly the same temperature. By placing all four gauges on the sample
a stronger signal is produced. This set up is called a full-bridge circuit. The strain can
then be calculated by [13]
=

5.8.1

VSig
VSup GF

(5.5)

Application of strain gauges

The hangers are made of solid steel, the strain in the hangers can therefore be measured
using strain gauges. The strain gauges were applied to the five outermost hangers on the
south-side upstream. These hangers were selected because they were easily accessible from
the side walk which is only on the upstream side.
Firstly the paint was ground off and the surface polished with sandpaper until it was
smooth. The surface was then cleaned with paint thinner to leave the surface perfectly free
of dirt and grease. The strain gauges were then glued on to the hanger, two vertical and
two horizontal, as shown in figure 5.18. Soldering pads were also glued to the hanger, and
then the strain bridge was completed by soldering wires from the gauges to the soldering
pads as shown in figure 5.18. The strain bridge was then connected by soldering a data
cable onto the soldering pads, which was then connected to a data logger. The conditions
were very good, no precipitation and a slow wind. Even so it proved a challenge both to
apply the strain gauges and to do the soldering. The bridge is very lively so with every
passing truck, the hangers started vibrating which made it harder to work on the strain
gauges. The application took some 9 hours in total, where the soldering was the most
time consuming part. This was mostly due to the authors lack of experience with the
soldering iron. The strain measurements are mainly to calibrate and verify the dynamic
measurements. But the time history obtained with the strain measurements is also of
interest.
Even though the strain gauges were applied with care and a lot of patients, one of them
proved to be damaged when they were tested. The most likely reason is that one of the
strain gauges was damaged from the heat of the soldering.

69

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

VSup+

VSup-

VSig+

VSig-

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

Figure 5.18: Practical set up for a full bridge strain gauge measurement

5.8.2

Results from strain measurements

The strain gauges were applied to the five southernmost hangers on the upstream side,
but only four of them proved to be functioning. The results obtained from the strain
measurements are covered in this section. The strain was measured for three different
positions of the crane, at the mid point downstream and upstream, and at the quarter
point downstream. The resulting forces can be seen in table 5.14
Table 5.14: Increase in hanger force measured with strain gauges
Crane at mid point upstream
Hanger
1
3
4
5
H[kN] 12,87 12,97 12,07 12,94
Crane at mid point downstream
Hanger
1
3
4
5
H[kN]
5,74 7,60 7,12 7,44
Crane at quarter point downstream
Hanger
1
3
4
5
H[kN]
6,79 6,47 6,38 7,09
The time history of the force development in these three cases along with one case
where the crane drove across the bridge can be seen in figures 5.19 and 5.20.

70

15

10

10

Force [kN]

Force [kN]

5
H1
H3
H4
H5

0
0

50

100
Time [sec]

6
4
H1
H3
H4
H5

2
0

150

50

100
Time [sec]

150

10

10

Force [kN]

Force [kN]

Figure 5.19: Forces in hangers as truck drove to mid span upstream(left) and
downstream(right)

4
H1
H3
H4
H5

2
0
0

50

100
Time [sec]

H1
H3
H4
H5

4
2
0

150

50

100
Time [sec]

150

200

Figure 5.20: Forces in hangers as truck drove to quarter point downstream(left) and across
the bridge downstream(right)

5.9

Comparison between measurements and FE model

In this section, the measured forces and deflections will be compared with corresponding
values obtained from the FE model. Firstly the forces in the main cables are covered,
then the forces in the hangers and finally the deflections from the load test. The modal
parameters are covered in chapter 6 and compared with the FE model in section 7.1.

71

5.9.1

Cable forces

The forces in the cables have been determined mainly in two ways, with an FE model and
by measuring the acceleration of the cables. The cable elongation measurements are only
relative for the load test. A comparison of the cable forces for dead load only can be seen
in table 5.15. The correlation is very good as the difference ranges from 1 to 4%. Although
there is some uncertainty in the measured values for instance the boundary conditions here
are considered pinned at both ends. The free length of the cables is also uncertain, on the
south side the cables were tested individually, so the free length in that case was taken as
the length from the spreader clamp to the saddle at the top of the tower. For the north
side all six cables were measured as a whole, here the free length was chosen as the whole
length from saddle to anchor. Further investigation on the effect of the spreader clamps
and stiffness of the supports is being done at EFLA engineering firm. The results from the
load test are compared in table 5.16, here the difference is similar ranging from 3 to 10 %.
Table 5.15: Comparison of back stay forces for dead load only
FE-model [kN] Measured [kN] Difference [%]
North South North South North South
4009
3878
4041
3808
-0,8
1,84
Upstream
Downstream
3838
3714
3773
3571
1,72
4,0

Table 5.16: Comparison of back stay forces from load test

Crane at mid span upstream
FE-model [kN] Measured [kN] Difference [%]
North South North South North South
4414
4269
4041
4215
9,23
1,14
Upstream
Downstream
4172
4036
4508
3952
3,37
2,13
Crane at mid span downstream
Upstream
4243
4104
4412
4049
-3,83
1,36
Downstream
4347
4205
4508
4149
-3,57
1,35
The forces determined from the cable elongation are rather unreliable when compared
to the acceleration measurements and the FE model. The elongation measurements were
only done on one cable as previously mentioned. For the case with the crane at mid
span upstream, the cable elongation gave an increase of 84 kN while the acceleration
measurements reveal an increase of 79 kN. The fact that the elongation measurements give
a higher value is not what was expected as it was believed that there was some slip in the
device. Another thing that might explain this difference is a drop in the elastic modulus
of the cable from the assumed value of 135 GPa. But it is clear that further calibration
and investigation is needed if this method of measuring cable force is to be used.
72

5.9.2

Hanger forces

The hanger forces compared in this section were determined by measuring the acceleration
and obtained from the FE model. The increase in hanger forces was also determined with
the use of strain gauges for four hangers. The purpose of the strain measurements was
mainly to calibrate and verify the acceleration measurements. A comparison between the
hanger forces from the FE model and the acceleration measurements can be seen in table
5.17. The difference represents how much the FE model deviates from the measured values,
not that the measured values are necessarily correct. Here the boundary conditions are
assumed pinned and the bending stiffness of the hangers is accounted for. The difference
between the FE model and the measurements is up to 30 % and is slightly higher for the
shorter hangers. Here it should be noted that the true nature of the boundary conditions
is not clear, but the pinned boundary conditions are assumed because that is how they
appear to be.
Table 5.17: Comparison of hanger forces for dead load only

Hanger
FE-Model [kN]
Measured [kN]
Difference [%]

1
157
182
-13,7

FE-model [kN]
Measured [kN]
Difference [%]

150
134
11,9

Upstream
2
3
4
5
16
17
18
19
163
160
160
156
155
159
160
163
164
210
213
199
190
226
183
204
-0,61 -23,8 -24,9 -21,6 -18,4 -29,6 -12,6 -20,1
Downstream
156
153
152
148
148
152
152
156
148
202
213
187
190
217
172
169
5,4 -24,3 -28,6 -20,9 -22,1 -30,0 -11,6 -7,7

20
157
182
-13,7
150
156
-3,8

The increase in hanger forces form the load test was measured using strain gauges,
and also with the acceleration measurements. The measured values can be compared
with the increase in forces obtained from the FE model. Here only the four hangers that
were measured with the strain gauges are used for the comparison. This comparison is
shown in table 5.18. This comparison shows how much uncertainty there is regarding the
hanger forces. The FE model and the strain measurements are comparable in the sense
that they show force increase of the same magnitude. The Acceleration measurements
however are not really comparable, especially for the shortest hanger where the strain
measurements and FE model yield values around five times lower. This emphasises the
already known weakness of acceleration measurements that is short members with unknown
bending stiffness and boundary conditions. Here the boundary conditions of the hangers
are considered pinned and bending stiffness is accounted for.

73

Table 5.18: Comparing changes of hanger forces from the load

downstream
Hanger nr
1
3
[kN] [kN]
Strain measurements
5,7
7,6
Acceleration measurements 17
25
FE model
9
10

test with crane at midspan

4
[kN]
7,1
30
9

5
[kN]
7,4
43
9

40
35

Average error [%]

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
4

7
8
Length [m]

10

Figure 5.21: Average error in axial forces for different lengths of hangers
If the error between the FE model and the hanger forces determined with acceleration
measurements is compared with the length of the hangers, it can be seen that the error
is higher for the shorter hangers. Figure 5.21 shows a plot of the average error in hanger
forces both for empty bridge and the load test versus the length of the hanger. From this
it is clear that the error is higher in the shorter hangers.

74

5.9.3

Deflections

In this section the changes in deflection of the bridge when loaded with a 60 ton crane are
compared. The deflections were simulated using the FE model and measured on the actual
bridge.
Table 5.19: Comparison of deflections from load test
Crane at mid span upstream
FE model [mm] Measurements [mm] Difference [%]
Upstream
57
49
16,3
Downstream
37
54
-31,5
Crane at mid span downstream
Upstream
40
29
37,9
Downstream
56
The difference in measured and calculated deflections is up to nearly 40% which is
rather high. The measured deflections also indicate that when the crane is positioned in
the upstream lane, the deflection is more in the downstream lane. This is very improbable
and suggests that something may have gone wrong in the measurements. Nevertheless the
FE model appears to capture the stiffness of the structure as the deflections are comparable.

75

Chapter 6
Modal Identification using ARTeMIS
The modal identification was done using the commercial program ARTeMIS. Preparation
and analysis of the measurements was done in collaboration with Jens Fogh Andersen. The
methods used by the program are briefly covered in section 2.8. As this was the focus of
the thesis done by Jens it is not covered in detail here. [18]

6.1
6.1.1

Input Data
SVS Configuration File

Using Artemis, a SVS (Structural Vibration Systems) configuration file must be created.
The file is called a .cfg-file, and its contents are explained in Table 6.1.

Name
Header
T
Nodes
Lines
Surfaces
Setups
Equations

Table 6.1: Contents of a cfg-file written for ARTeMIS.

Description
Defines the project title.
Defines the sampling interval.
Defines the geometry, node numbers and their coordinates in Cartesian coordinates.
Defines the trace lines to be drawn between nodes in the geometry displays.
Defines the surfaces to be drawn between nodes in the geometry displays.
Defines the DOF information of the data sets (setups) and the location of the data.
Defines any linear combination of measured motions in terms of slave node equations.

A model of lfus Bridge was built in ARTeMIS, the model is illustrated in Fig. 6.1.
The construction of the configuration file for lfus is explained in appendix E. Each of the
contents are explained by an example consisting of parts of the cfg-file used for analysing
lfus Bridge.

76

Figure 6.1: Overview of lfus ARTeMIS model.

6.1.2

Data transformation

The data retrieved from the measurements in Iceland were binary files, given by the
program LabVIEW. However, these werent directly compatible with ARTeMIS, and therefore
had to be altered. Using Matlab, a transforming script was written. The binary data had
to be altered into an ASCII-file, the pseudo code in table 6.2 explains the transformation
script. The actual transformation script is included in appendix F
Define path of setups.
Name setups.
Define sample rate, measuring time and number of channels.
Define output rate.
LOOP over setups.
Read data for setup.
Extract parameters of data from first 100 rows.
Reshape data, from all setups in one row to 13 rows with the different channels.
IF output rate 6= sample rate
Resample data to output rate.
END IF
Transpose matrix to give columns instead of rows.
IF setup > 3
Remove column 2 containing data from Dytran 2.
END IF
Save data from setup as ASCII-file.
END LOOP
Table 6.2: Pseudo code on how to transform data from LabVIEW to ARTeMIS.

77

6.2

Output data

Two different methods were used to determine the modal parameters from the measured
acceleration data. The Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition (EFDD) in the frequency
domain, and Stochastic Subspace Identification (SSI) in the time domain. For the SSI the
Principal Component (PC) algorithm was used. The results from using both of these
methods are presented below and then compared.

6.2.1

Enhanced Frequency Domain Decomposition

The EFDD is a method in the frequency domain, used to determine the modal parameters
of a structure from a measured response.

Figure 6.2: Power spectrum for the EFDD with selected modal peaks

Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Frequency
[Hz]
1,078
1,611
1,709
2,073
2,791
3,328
4,502
5,223
7,216

Std. dev
[Hz]
0,00325
0,02574
0,00542
0,03814
0,02698
0,01654
0,03774
0,02703
0,05397

Damping ratio
[%]
0,5712
0,3438
0,9380
0,6486
1,5040
1,0210
1,2380
0,9979
0,4458

Std. dev
[%]
0,1535
0,2066
0,2029
0,2136
0,6383
0,3941
0,6724
0,7460
0,3979

Table 6.3: Modes from ARTeMIS EFDD

78

Shape
1st Vertical
1 Horizontal
2nd Vertical
1st Torsion
2nd Torsion
3rd Vertical
3rd Torsion
4th Vertical
5th Vertical
st

Figure 6.3: Mode 1, f = 1, 078 Hz

Figure 6.4: Mode 2, f = 1, 611 Hz

Figure 6.5: Mode 3, f = 1, 709 Hz

79

Figure 6.6: Mode 4, f = 2, 073 Hz

Figure 6.7: Mode 5, f = 2, 791 Hz

Figure 6.8: Mode 6, f = 3, 328 Hz

80

Figure 6.9: Mode 7, f = 4, 502 Hz

Figure 6.10: Mode 8, f = 5, 223 Hz

Figure 6.11: Mode 9, f = 7, 216 Hz

81

6.2.2

Stochastic Subspace Identification - Principal Components

The SSI is a method in the time domain used to determine the modal parameters of a
structure from measured responses.

Figure 6.12: Power spectrum for the SSI with determined modes

Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Table 6.4: Experimentally determined modes by SSI

Frequency Std. dev Damping ratio Std. dev
[Hz]
[Hz]
[%]
[%]
1,078
0,00307
0,4406
0,1876
1,588
0,01001
1,8640
0,2335
1,705
0,01233
1,1380
0,8492
2,090
0,00614
0,6606
0,3305
2,793
0,02905
1,9690
0,3274
3,328
0,01998
1,1080
0,3190
4,509
0,04142
1,6390
0,3152
5,215
0,04670
1,7100
0,2511
7,200
0,05865
1,1460
0,4766

82

Shape
1st Vertical
1st Horizontal
2nd Vertical
1st Torsion
2nd Torsion
3rd Vertical
3rd Torsion
4th Vertical
5th Vertical

Figure 6.13: Mode 1, f = 1, 078 Hz

Figure 6.14: Mode 2, f = 1, 588 Hz

Figure 6.15: Mode 3, f = 1, 705 Hz

83

Figure 6.16: Mode 4, f = 2, 090 Hz

Figure 6.17: Mode 5, f = 2, 793 Hz

Figure 6.18: Mode 6, f = 3, 328 Hz

84

Figure 6.19: Mode 7, f = 4, 509 Hz

Figure 6.20: Mode 8, f = 5, 215 Hz

Figure 6.21: Mode 9, f = 7, 200 Hz

85

6.2.3

Comparison between the methods

The two methods used for modal identification EFDD and SSI are compared using the
MAC. The result of this can bee seen in table 6.5.
Table 6.5: MAC between the EFDD and SSI

SSI

Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1
0,9993
0,0022
0,0014
0,0008
0,0010
0,0021
0,0045
0,0081
0,0224

2
0,0008
0,4390
0,3741
0,0183
0,0169
0,0073
0,0019
0,0157
0,0033

3
0,0023
0,0270
0,9889
0,0010
0,0009
0,0000
0,0011
0,0058
0,0039

4
0,0011
0,0124
0,0001
0,9971
0,0076
0,0007
0,0038
0,0002
0,0053

EFDD
5
0,0023
0,0328
0,0033
0,0091
0,9835
0,0163
0,0092
0,0025
0,0050

6
0,0061
0,0004
0,0005
0,0005
0,0140
0,9839
0,0077
0,0009
0,0010

7
0,0022
0,0021
0,0000
0,0035
0,0015
0,0070
0,9153
0,1180
0,0175

8
0,0044
0,0036
0,0202
0,0019
0,0163
0,0072
0,0760
0,7170
0,0024

9
0,0058
0,0004
0,0011
0,0027
0,0018
0,0077
0,0042
0,0035
0,8620

The correlation of the two methods is generally very good concerning the mode shapes
of the structure as seen in table 6.5. However the second mode shape is not very comparable
with a MAC value of only 0,439. It is also noted that this mode seems to be slightly coupled
with the third mode which can also bee seen from the MAC values between the second
and third mode. This is due to difficulties in determining the second mode in some of the
test setups. As seen in figure 6.14 the third and fourth setups are not shown in the mode
shape. In an attempt to obtain the second mode shape and improve the MAC between
the methods, linear interpolation was used over the missing values. This attempt did not
yield the expected results, as the second mode could not be detected in the EFDD method
after this modification. The mode shape found from SSI is shown below for demonstration
of the linear interpolation made.

Figure 6.22: Modified mode 2 using linear interpolation

86

Chapter 7
FE Model updating
In this chapter the FE model updating process used for this project is documented. Firstly
the initial model is compared with the modal parameters determined from the modal
identification, then the sensitivity of a few key parameters is investigated. The model is
then manually updated using a simple trial and error approach along with engineering
judgement. The model is then fine tuned to minimize the average frequency error. This
minimization is done in two different ways, first using a sensitivity based algorithm and
then by using a search algorithm.

7.1

Initial FE model compared with measurements

Comparison of frequencies and mode shapes from the initial FE model and the measured
values can be seen in table 7.1. The error in frequency is calculated as the difference
between the FE model and measured value divided by the measured value. The difference
varies from 5 to 21% which is not to bad, but the order of the modes is inconsistent. It
would of course improve the correlation between the two sets of modes greatly if the order
of the modes was the same. This issue is covered in the next section. The MAC values for
mode pairs can also be seen in table 7.1. The MAC matrix for the two sets of modes can
be seen in table 7.2 and figure 7.1. Most of the values are acceptable ranging from 0,58 to
0,98. Two of the modes however seem to be wrongly paired as their MAC values are very
low. The pairing of these modes is only done by comparing the shapes visually. During the
measurements only the deck was measured so some of the modes obtained experimentally
might be dominated by cable movements. Therefore the cable modes determined from the
FE model cannot be disregarded during the model updating process. The MAC can be
utilised to pair the modes based on a criteria set to the MAC value between corresponding
modes. The average frequency error in table 7.1 is calculated by taking the average of the
absolute values of the frequency error in each mode. The modal parameters here are the
ones obtained using the SSI method in ARTeMIS.

87

0.9
1

MAC

0.8
0.7

0.5

0.6
0.5

0.4

9
8

0.3

7
6
5

0.2
4
3
2
1

Experimental modes

0.1
0

FE modes

Figure 7.1: MAC for the initial FE model vs experimental modes

Table 7.1: Initial FE model compared with measured modal parameters

Exp. mode Modal testing FE mode Initial FEM difference MAC
#
[Hz]
#
[Hz]
[%]
[]
1
1,078 (1VS)
1
1,0247
-4,9
0,98
2
1,588 (1HS)
3
1,796
13,1
0,58
3
1,705 (1VA)
2
1,512
-11,3
0,91
4
2,090 (1T)
7
2,528
21,0
0,61
5
2,793 (2T)
10
3,159
13,1
0,70
6
3,328 (2VS)
9
3,155
-5,2
0,89
7
4,509 (3T)
16
4,881
8,3
0,67
8
5,215 (2VA)
13
4,158
-20,3
0,27
9
7,200 (3VS)
28
6,413
-10,9
0,07
Average
12,0
0,63

88

Table 7.2: MAC between the initial FE model and measured modes
ARTeMIS modes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0,98 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,02
3 0,00 0,58 0,05 0,22 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
2 0,00 0,01 0,91 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
7 0,02 0,40 0,00 0,61 0,02 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01
FE modes 10 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,70 0,02 0,03 0,00 0,01
9 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,89 0,00 0,02 0,00
16 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,67 0,19 0,00
13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,27 0,01
28 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,03 0,13 0,07
Figure 7.2 shows a plot of the frequencies obtained from the initial FE model versus
the measured frequencies. If the two models were perfectly correlated, the points would lie
on a straight line. A straight line with the inclination of one is also shown to show how
the values deviate from the linear behaviour.
8
Measured frequency [Hz]

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

3
4
5
FE frequency [Hz]

Figure 7.2: Visual comparison between the initial FE model and measured frequencies

7.2

Manual tuning

It is important to be able to pair the modes between the FE model and the measured
values correctly. Failure to do so might lead to problems in the updating process. Therefore
manual tuning of the model to improve the correlation with the measured values is applied.
Manual tuning of a FE model involves some guess work along with engineering experience
and intuition. To begin with the effect of changing some of the key parameters in the
model is observed and sensitivity graphs are plotted.
89

7.2.1

Sensitivity of parameters

It is important to realise how sensitive the model is to changes in the input parameters.
This investigation is part of the process to select which parameters should be used in the
updating process and to give insight into the model behaviour for manual updating of the
initial FE model.

10

10

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

Change of frequency [%]

Change of frequency [%]

20

10

20
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40
Change of cable cross section area [%]

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

10
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30
Change of cable mass [%]

50

40

50

Figure 7.3: Effect of cable parameters on frequencies of the first four modes
The sensitivity of the model to changes in the main cable cross section area can be
seen in figure 7.3(a). Here the change of frequency represents the percentage change from
the original frequencies with the original cross section for the cables. By looking at figure
7.3(a) it can be seen that the change of cable cross section area does not have the same
effects on the four modes shown. The effect is greatest on the vertical symmetric mode, but
smallest on the vertical anti-symmetric one. This is because the symmetric mode involves
stretching of the cable which is not the case with the anti-symmetric mode. The influence
on the horizontal symmetric and torsion modes is similar.
The change of frequencies for changes in the cable mass can bee seen in figure 7.3(b).
Changing the mass of the cable does not seem to have much effect on the frequencies. The
mass of the cables is after all a small portion of the whole bridge mass so this does not
come as a surprise. The torsional mode however is greatly effected as the cable mass is
increased above 10% this indicates that this mode also involves large amplitude vibration
in the main cable.
The properties of the deck have a great influence on the natural frequencies as can be
seen in figure 7.4. The cross section area of the deck has the most effect on the horizontal
mode, although it also affects the other modes. The mass of the concrete deck is perhaps
the parameter to which the model is most sensitive. Changing this parameter leads to
considerable changes in the first four frequencies, the torsional mode however is not greatly
influenced by this parameter.
The mass of the steel in the structure is somewhat uncertain, especially because of the
bulky riveted connections and plates used in connections. The effect of changing the mass
90

30

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

20

Change of frequency [%]

Change of frequency [%]

30

10
0
10

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

20
10
0
10

20

20

30
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Change of concrete deck cross section area [%]

30
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30
Change of concrete deck mass [%]

40

50

Figure 7.4: Effect of deck parameters on frequencies of the first four modes
of the steel on the natural frequencies can be seen in figure 7.5. The steel mass has less
effect than the concrete mass, because the steel mass is a smaller portion of the total mass.
The steel mass seems to affect the horizontal and torsional mode more than the concrete
mass did. This might be explained by the fact that the centroid of the steel girder is much
lower than that of the concrete deck. Since the horizontal and torsion modes involve the
deck swinging from the cables, the mass located further from the point of rotation has
greater effect.

Change of frequency [%]

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

4
2
0
2
4

6
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30
Change of steel mass [%]

40

50

Figure 7.5: Effect of steel mass on the frequencies of the four first modes
The effect of changing the stiffness in the lower chords in the stiffening girder can be
seen in figure 7.6. The anti-symmetric mode is most affected by this parameter, this is
due to the fact that this mode involves more bending of the steel girder than the others.
Here a diagram for only one moment of inertia, corresponding to bending in the vertical
direction, is given. The moment of inertia in the other direction has very little effect on
the frequencies.
91

10

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

10

Change of frequency [%]

Change of frequency [%]

20

10

20
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Change of cross section area of bottom chords [%]

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

10
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Change of Moment of inertia I2 of bottom chords [%]

Figure 7.6: Effect of lower chord parameters on frequencies of the first four modes
The supports at either end are hinged so that rotation is allowed. However seeing as
this bridge is nearly 70 years old, the rotation might well be prevented in reality. The effect
of rotational stiffness on the natural frequencies can be seen in figure 7.7. It can be seen
that the frequencies are much more affected by changes in the stiffness about the y-axis
than the z-axis, note that the scale of the figures is not the same. The z-axis is vertical,
while the y-axis is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the bridge. It is interesting
to see how rapidly the frequencies change from pinned supports to fixed supports.

6
5

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

4
3
2

0.5
Change of frequency [%]

Change of frequency [%]

0.4

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

0.3
0.2
0.1

1
0
0 1E2 1E4 1E6 1E8 1E101E121E141E161E181E20
Rotational stiffness of support about yaxis [Nm/rad]

0
0 1E2 1E4 1E6 1E8 1E101E121E141E161E181E20
Rotational stiffness of support about zaxis [Nm/rad]

Figure 7.7: Effect of rotational stiffness at support on frequencies of the first four modes
The L-profiles under the steel girder provide the bridge with lateral stiffness these have
been called wind bracing since the wind is the main factor inducing lateral deflections.
The effect of changing the cross section area of the wind bracing is shown in figure 7.8. As
expected the effect is greatest on the lateral mode, and the torsional mode is also affected.
The two horizontal modes are not really affected.
92

Change of frequency [%]

6
4

Mode 1: VS
Mode 2: VA
Mode 3: HS
Mode 4: T

2
0
2
4
6
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Change of wind bracing cross section area [%]

Figure 7.8: Effect of wind bracing cross section area on the frequencies of the four first
modes
After considering the sensitivity graphs, the FE model was updated manually using a
simple method of trial and error. The conclusion was that the boundary conditions were not
as simple as they were initially modelled, so a rotational spring stiffness of 11011 N/rad
was added at both ends. Furthermore the axial stiffness of the cables and cross bracing
under the bridge were decreased by 20% and 50% respectively. The axial stiffness of the
lower chords was increased by 50%. The changes of parameters in the manual updating
can be seen in table 7.3. The frequencies of the manually updated model are presented in
table 7.4 along with the MAC values and the difference in frequency. It is clear that this
manual updating has improved the correlation between the two models considerably. The
frequency error is now ranging between 1 and 10% with most values below 5%. The MAC
has also improved although the two last modes are still rather low. The MAC value for
the second mode is the only one that decreases but this mode was also very difficult to
find in the experimental data, and the two methods used for the modal identification had
rather different mode shapes. Therefore the MAC of the second mode should not be taken
to seriously.
Table 7.3: Parameter changes in manual updating of FE model
Parameter
Original Change [%] Manual
2
Cable cross section area [m ]
0,0131
-20
0,01048
Wind bracing cross section area [mm2 ]
2814
-50
1407
2
Bottom chord cross section area [mm ]
16708
50
25062
Spring stiffness at support [N/rad]
0
11011

93

Table 7.4: Manually tuned FE model compared with measured modal parameters
Exp. mode Modal testing FE mode Manual FEM difference MAC
#
[Hz]
%
[]
#
[Hz]
1
1,078 (1VS)
1
1,062
1,5
0,98
2
1,636
-3,0
0,45
2
1,588 (1HS)
3
1,705 (1VA)
3
1,653
3,0
0,91
4
2,234
-6,9
0,93
4
2,090 (1T)
5
2,793 (2T)
9
2,915
-4,4
0,66
11
3,474
-4,4
0,89
6
3,328 (2VS)
14
4,460
1,1
0,51
7
4,509 (3T)
8
5,215 (2VA)
16
5,050
3,2
0,31
27
6,475
10,1
0,46
9
7,200 (3VS)
Average
4,2
0,68

8
Measured frequency [Hz]

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

3
4
5
FE frequency [Hz]

Figure 7.9: Visual comparison between the manually updated FE model and measured
frequencies

94

Table 7.5: MAC between the manual FE model and measured modes
Measured modes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0,98 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,02
2 0,00 0,41 0,05 0,39 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
3 0,00 0,01 0,91 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
4 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,93 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,03
FE modes 9 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,66 0,03 0,04 0,00 0,01
11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,89 0,00 0,03 0,00
14 0,00 0,03 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,01 0,51 0,34 0,11
16 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,03 0,51 0,31 0,02
27 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,05 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,46

0.9
1

MAC

0.8
0.7

0.5

0.6
0.5

0.4

9
8

0.3

7
6
5

0.2
4
3
2
1

Experimental modes

0.1
0

FE modes

Figure 7.10: MAC for the manually updated FE model vs the measured modes

95

7.3

Automatic FE model updating

Automatic FE model updating has been implemented in several commercial programs but
in this thesis it was decided to develop an updating algorithm in Matlab. This algorithm
and the resulting updated model are presented in this section.
The basis of this algorithm is presented in section 2.9. The updating algorithm is
written in Matlab and the modal analysis is done by calling SAP2000 from Matlab for
every change of parameter. The application programming interface of SAP2000 is used to
communicate between Matlab and SAP2000. The modes are paired using the MAC after
each change of parameters. The sensitivity matrix is then used to calculate the parameters
for the next step. The Matlab code can be seen in appendix.G

7.3.1

Testing the algorithm

The algorithm is first tested on a trivial case of a simply supported beam where simulated
experimental results and simulated modal analysis can be preformed with a simple frequency
equation. The natural angular frequencies of a simply supported beam can be calculated
from


n =

n
L

2 s

EI
A

(7.1)

For convenience all the parameters of the equation are set to 1 except for the length
which is set to . This means that the natural frequencies are simply the mode number
in the power of two. The elastic modulus is chosen as an updating parameter. The
iteration process can be seen in table 7.6 and in figure 7.11. Firstly the the equivalence of
experimental frequencies Re can be calculated from the original value of E = 1. Then to
represent the FE model some value for E is chosen and the response calculated again. Now
an initial guess is required to start the iteration process, this guess does not have to be very
good or even in the right direction as can be seen in figure 7.11. The algorithm then uses
the sensitivity matrix to calculate updated parameters and the iteration is continued until
the error has reached an acceptable value. If the number of responses used for calculating
the updated parameters in every step is increased the algorithm converges even faster.
When the number of updating parameters is increased to two the system no longer has
a unique solution. If the elastic modulus and density of the beam are selected as updating
parameters there are infinitely many solutions where the ratio of the two parameters is the
same as in the original configuration. The algorithm has no way of telling what the original
parameters were, but only their ratio. This problem of multiple solutions can of course also
occur when updating a real FE model. For that reason it is necessary to check whether
the solution found is physically possible and perhaps to put restraints on the parameters
to keep them within reasonable limits.

96

Table 7.6: Iteration algorithm test with one parameter and two responses
Structure
Pe
1
Re
1
4
Inital FEM P0
1,3
R0 1,1402 4,5607
Initial guess P1
1,35
R1 1,1619 4,6476
Iteration 1
P 1,0540
R 1,0266 4,1066
Iteration 2
P 1,0736
R 1,0361 4,1445
Iteration 3
P 1,0100
R 1,0050 4,0200
Iteration 4
P 1,0143
R 1,0071 4,0286
Iteration 5
P 1,0019
R 1,0010 4,0038
Iteration 6
P 1,0027
R 1,0014 4,0055
Iteration 7
P 1,0004
R 1,0002 4,0007

Updated parameter
Corret parameter

Elastic modulus

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8

Start Guess 1

2
3
4
Iteration step

Figure 7.11: Algorithm convergence using one parameter and two responses

97

7.3.2

Updating parameters

The selection of updating parameters is crucial for a successful automatic updating of a

finite element model. The selection can be based on investigation of the sensitivity of
the parameters, where the most sensitive parameters are best suited for automatic model
updating. The sensitivity of parameters is important, but not the only thing one needs
to consider when choosing updating parameters. The uncertainty of a parameter is also
important, a parameter that is determined with much accuracy in the original model should
not be selected as an unknown parameter for the model updating process. It is important
to keep the number of parameters as low as possible, so only the parameters which are
uncertain should be selected. Keeping the number of parameters at a minimum leads to
a more robust updating process with less chance of the algorithm converging to a local
minimum. [19]
The parameters are altered using modification factors in SAP2000 which allow changes
of certain properties of selected members. This means that the modification of the concrete
deck cross section area is simply modification of the axial stiffness of the deck.

7.3.3

Results from automatic updating

The updating algorithm was used to update a simple beam model without any complications
regarding robustness and convergence. When updating the bridge model however the
algorithm was rather unstable and sensitive to the input parameters. The cause of this
is not really clear, although the complexity of the model is the most likely cause. Due to
these stability problems the model was updated using 5 parameters and 5 responses. The
algorithm converges rather fast toward a solution when there are no stability problems. The
spring stiffness of the support could not be updated as this parameter caused instability
in the algorithm.
The parameter changes are from 20 to 70% which is rather high, but this is the result
of using to few parameters for the updating process and no restraint to the parameter
changes. If there were more parameters, the changes could be distributed between more
parameters. The absence of the spring supports is especially inconvenient.
Table 7.7: Automatically tuned FE model using sensitivity based algorithm
Exp. mode Modal testing FE mode Auto. FEM difference MAC
#
[Hz]
#
[Hz]
%
[]
1
1,078 (1VS)
1
1,078
0
0,98
2
1,588 (1HS)
2
1,588
0
0,22
3
1,705 (1VA)
3
1,705
0
0,92
4
2,090
0
0,89
4
2,090 (1T)
5
2,793 (2T)
9
2,793
0
0,67
Average
0
0,74

98

Table 7.8: Parameters selected for automatic updating with sensitivity algorithm
Parameter
Manual FE model Change [%] Updated
2
Cable cross section area [m ]
0,01048
-26%
0,00776
2
Deck cross section area [m ]
2,2845
67%
3,8151
Deck mass [kg/m3 ]
2500
-20%
2000
2
Wind bracing cross section area [mm ]
1407
-73%
380
Bottom chord cross section area [mm2 ]
25062
-22%
19548
4.5

Average frequency error [%]

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Start Guess 1

3
4
Iteration

Figure 7.12: Convergence of the sensitivity based algorithm with 5 parameters and 5
responses
Even though this method successfully reduces the average frequency error for the first
five modes down to zero the resulting updated parameters are rather unrealistic. In an
attempt to update the model with more realistic parameter changes a search algorithm
was used to minimize the average frequency error. Here the built in Matlab function
fminsearch is used with 9 parameters and 9 responses. The average frequency error goes
from 4,2% down to 3% and the parameter changes are more realistic. The average frequency
error is used as the objective for minimization. The fminsearch function uses a Nelder-Mead
simplex algorithm, a direct search method that does not involve the use of gradients. [20]
The resulting frequencies can be seen in table 7.9. The frequency error is greatly
improved for most of the modes, but increases for some of them. This is due to the fact
that only the average frequency error was used to update the model, not the error of each
mode. The error for individual modes now ranges from 0 to 11%. The MAC can be seen
in table 7.10 and figure 7.14. The changes in the MAC values are rather small, although
the last two modes are improved considerably. The average MAC for the nine modes is
now 0,71.

99

Table 7.9: Automatically tuned FE model using a search algorithm

Exp. mode Modal testing FE mode Auto. FEM difference
#
[Hz]
#
[Hz]
%
1
1,078 (1VS)
1
1,079
0,10
2
1,587
-0,07
2
1,588 (1HS)
3
1,705 (1VA)
3
1,703
-0,10
4
2,321
11,0
4
2,090 (1T)
5
2,793 (2T)
9
2,795
0,08
11
3,382
1,63
6
3,328 (2VS)
7
4,509 (3T)
14
4,302
-4,58
8
5,215 (2VA)
16
4,706
-9,76
27
7,201
0,01
9
7,200 (3VS)
Average
3,0

MAC
[]
0,98
0,43
0,92
0,87
0,65
0,87
0,62
0,54
0,54
0,71

8
Measured frequency [Hz]

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

3
4
5
FE frequency [Hz]

Figure 7.13: Visual comparison between the automatically updated FE model and
measured frequencies
The 9 selected updating parameters for the search algorithm can be seen in table 7.11.
The updated parameters are more reasonable in this case where the changes range from 5
to 25% with the exception of the support spring stiffness. Although the average frequency
error is still 3% the automatic updating is considered a success, as the parameters changes
are reasonable.

100

Table 7.10: MAC between the automatic FE model and measured modes
Measured modes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0,98 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,02
2 0,00 0,43 0,05 0,36 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01
3 0,00 0,01 0,92 0,01 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
4 0,02 0,08 0,00 0,87 0,03 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,02
FE modes 9 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,00 0,65 0,05 0,03 0,00 0,01
11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,87 0,01 0,03 0,00
14 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,62 0,26 0,00
16 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,16 0,54 0,01
27 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,07 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,54

0.9
1

MAC

0.8
0.7

0.5

0.6
0.5

0.4

9
8

0.3

7
6
5

0.2
4
3
2
1

Experimental modes

0.1
0

FE modes

Figure 7.14: MAC for the automatically updated FE model vs the measured modes
Table 7.11: Parameters selected for automatic updating with search algorithm
Parameter
Manual FE model Change [%] Updated
Cable cross section area [m2 ]
0,01048
8,9
0,0114
3
Cable mass [kg/m ]
8000
-2,8
7776
2
Deck cross section area [m ]
2,2845
-8,5
2,0903
Deck mass [kg/m3 ]
2500
6,9
2673
3
Steel mass [kg/m ]
9000
-16,1
7551
2
Wind bracing cross section area [mm ]
1407
-16,8
1171
Bottom chord cross section area [mm2 ]
25062
25,7
31503
Top chord cross section area [mm2 ]
12743
5,9
13495
Spring stiffness of support [N/rad]
11011
-72,6
2,741010
101

7.4

Updated FE model

The initial FE model differs from the updated model in several ways. First of all, the
updated model has rotational springs at the supports and reduced axial stiffness of the
main cables. The axial stiffness of the cables decreases 12,9% from the initial value. The
steel mass decreases, but the concrete mass increases so the self weight does not change
much. The stiffness of the truss increases while the longitudinal stiffness of the concrete
deck decreases. There is also a large drop in the axial stiffness of the cross bracing under
the bridge. This might be partly due to the fact that at least one of them is severed in
two as can be seen in figure 7.15.
When this updated model is subjected to the design load introduced in section 3.3 the
characteristic cable force is found to be 5636 kN as opposed to 6123 kN in the initial model.
This means that the truss is carrying more of the weight. Assuming that the decrease in
stiffness of the cables stems from deterioration of the cross section, the ultimate strength
of the cables is reduced to 159000.871 = 13849 kN. The safety factor for the cable is then
13849kN
FRk
= 2, 46
=
FEk
5636kN
Which is lower than the value of 2,60 obtained from the initial model. But here it must
be said that the reduction in axial stiffness of the cable might also originate from a drop
in the elastic modulus of the cable.

Figure 7.15: Cross bracing fallen apart at the support

102

Chapter 8
Conclusions
The measurements performed on the bridge show that even a detailed FE model varies
up to 15% from the measured values, with the exception of the hanger forces which vary
up to 30%. This large variation in hanger forces is mostly due to uncertainties regarding
the stiffness of the supports. The measurements of the hanger forces also showed how the
error is higher for the shorter hangers. The cable forces showed the best correlation with
error ranging from 1 to 10%.
The model was updated from an initial average frequency error of 12% down to 3%
with reasonable changes to the parameters of the bridge. Therefore it can be said that the
updating was successful even though it was not optimal.
The most significant changes to the model in the updating process are the 12,9%
decrease in axial stiffness of the main cables, and rotational springs at the end supports of
the truss. This decrease in axial stiffness of the main cables could arise from two different
sources. Either the cross section of the cables has deteriorated, or the elastic modulus has
changed or was wrongly assigned in the initial model. The most likely explanation is a
combination of the two.
It should be noted that the updating problem has many solutions, one could obtain
exactly the same average frequency error with a completely different set of parameters.
Therefore is is important to evaluate and criticise the physical meaning of the updating
parameters.
The safety factor of the main cables is calculated in several different ways in this thesis,
the lowest of which is for the updated FE model, assuming a 12,9% reduction of the cable
strength. This safety factor of 2,46 is much to low as the common value for this kind of
cables is 4. But even so the bridge can easily serve its purpose for a few more decades
with careful maintenance and monitoring. Although constant monitoring is not considered
necessary at this stage.
A new bridge over lfus has already been proposed and approved by the ministry of
transportation and construction is scheduled to start in the year 2014. The new bridge is
to be a cable-stayed bridge with a single pylon on an island in the middle and two main
spans suspended by the cables. The old bridge will still serve the local traffic of Selfoss,
but the main traffic stream will go over the new bridge. [21]
103

Bibliography
[1] Anil K. Chopra Dynamics of structures - Theory and applications to earthquake
engineering, Third edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,
2007.
[2] Daniel J. Inman Engineering Vibrations, Third edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, 2009.
[3] Weisstein, Eric W. "Discrete Fourier Transform." From MathWorldA Wolfram Web
Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiscreteFourierTransform.html
[4] Alvaro Cunha, Elsa Caetano, Filipe Magalhaes, Carlos Moutinho From input-output
to output-only Modal Identification of Civil Engineering Structures, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal, 2006
[5] R. Brincker, P. Andersen N-J. Jacobsen, Using Enhanced Frequency Domain
Decomposition as a Robust Technique to Harmonic Excitation in Operational Modal
Analysis, 2006 http://ftp.svibs.com/Download/Literature/Papers/2006/2006_
6.pdf
[6] Stana Zivanovic, Aleksandar Pavic, Paul Reynolds. Finite element modelling and
updating of a lively footbridge: The complete process. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
2007
[7] Mottershead, J.E. and Friswell, M.I. Finite Element Model Updating in Structural
Dynamics,Kluwer Academic Publisher, AH Dordrecht, The netherlands, 1995.
[8] Randall J. Allemang, The Modal Assurance Criterion - Twenty Years of Use and Abuse.
Sound and Vibration, August 2003
[9] Steen Krenk. Mechanics and analysis of beams, columns and cables, 1st Edition,
Polyteknisk Press, Anker Engelunds Vej 41 - Lyngby - Denmark, 2000
[10] Gumundur Valur Gumundsson. Br lfus - Mat standi kapla, Verkfristofan
Efla, Reykjavk, 2011.

104

[11] CEN: European Committee for Standardization. (2003b). Eurocode 1: EN

1991-1:2002. Actions on structures - Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. Brussels:
European Committee for Standardization.
[12] Helmut Wenzel, Dieter Pichler. Ambient Vibration Monitoring, 1st Edition, John Wiley
& Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex P019 8SQ, England,
2005.
[13] National Instruments. Application Note
12921011/NI-Strain-Gauge-Tutorial

078.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/

[14] J. M. W. Brownjohn. Vibration characteristics of a suspension footbridge. Journal of

Sound and Vibration (1997) 202(1), 29-46.
[15] Morgunbladid September 6th 1994, Icelandic newspaper article http://www.mbl.is/
greinasafn/grein/153143/
[16] Icelandic road administration http://www.vegagerdin.is/Vefur2.nsf/Files/
Bruaskra-a-thjodv/\protect\T1\textdollarfile/Bruaskra-a-tjodvegum.pdf
[17] Robert D. Cook Finite Element Modeling for Stress Analysis, 1st Edition, John Wiley
& sons, inc, University of Wisconsin - Madison, 1995.
[18] Jens Fogh Andersen, Output-Only Modal Identification of Bridges, Department of
Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2012
[19] Michael I Friswell, John E Mottershead Physical understanding of structures by model
updating, International Conference on Structural System Identification, 5-7 September
2001, Kassel, Germany, http://michael.friswell.com/PDF_Files/K2.pdf
[20] Mathworks webpage, visited 03-08-2012, http://www.mathworks.se/help/techdoc/
ref/fminsearch.html#bqvgx79-1
[21] Morgunblai, Icelandic newspaper, http://mbl.is/frettir/innlent/2012/07/
31/bruarframkvaemdir_hefjast_eftir_tvo_ar/

105

Appendix A
Cable forces for characteristic load
,

Start by defining variables

ls := 84m

Span length

d := 10.5m

Sag of the cable

q d := 77.9
q L := 5.75

kN

Dead load of the bridge and cable

m
kN

6 m = 34.5

kN

Uniformly distributed live load of the bridge

kN
q := q d + q L = 112.4
m
3

Uniformly distributed design load

3

Point load from a heavy truck

P := 102 10 kg g = 1 10 kN

Modulus of elasticity of the cable

E := 135GPa
2

Ac := 3.373in 12 = 2.611 10 mm

Cross sectional area of the cables

Now we calculate the initial length of the cable

2

8 d
Lc.0 := ls +
= 87.5 m
3 ls

Average angle between the back stay and

the ground

:= 33.75deg

k1 := 8

Ac E ( cos( ) )
ls

= 232.114

MN
m

Lateral stifness of the top of the pylon, considering

no bending stiffness.

106

k2 := k1
Now we can iterate to find the cable force
Initial value

H0 := 0
1

H1 :=

Lc.0

1
24 ls

ls q

2
3

= 9.442 10 kN

H2 :=

Lc.0

1 +
24 ls

ls q

1 + 1 + 1 H 1
E A
1
c Lc.0 k1 Lc.0 k2

2
3

= 9.043 10 kN

H3 :=

Lc.0

1 +
24 ls

ls q

1 + 1 + 1 H 1
E A
2
c Lc.0 k1 Lc.0 k2

2
3

= 9.058 10 kN
1

H4 :=

Lc.0

1 +
24 ls

ls q

1 + 1 + 1 H 1
E A
3
c Lc.0 k1 Lc.0 k2

2
3

= 9.058 10 kN

The length of the elongated cable is then

H4

Lc.1 := Lc.0 1 +
= 87.725 m
E Ac

So the strain in the cable from dead load is

c.d :=

H4
E Ac

= 2.569 10

Now we calculate the force and strain from a concentrated load

a :=

ls

position of the load (mid span)

2
2

P
P a
Fp :=
1+
= 0.029
ls q
ls q 2

ls

Force parameter (Krenk, box 4.2)

107

Equivalent cable length

Le := 3 Lc.0 2 ls = 94.5 m

H4
1
1
1 Le

:=
+
+

E Ac Le k1 Le k2 Lc.1 L q 2
( c.1 )

= 18

Stiffness parameter

Relative cable force for stiff supports and no elasticity in the cable:
0 :=

1 + 12 Fp 1 = 0.163
3

h 0 := 0 H4 = 1.472 10 kN
iteration :
3

1 :=

02 Fp
24
2

= 0.155
2

1 +
12

0 + 2 +

2
12 Fp
24
2

= 0.156
2

1 +
12

1 + 2 +
2 :=

h 1 := 2 H4 = 1.414 10 kN
4

Htot := h 1 + H4 = 1.047 10 kN
H tot
2

Hbackstay :=
= 6.376 10 kN
cos( 34.8deg)
The length of the elongated cable is then
Htot

Lc.2 := Lc.0 1 +
= 87.76 m
E Ac

108

Maximum cable force at the north tower

So the strain in the cable from dead load and point load in the middle is

c.tot :=

Lc.2 Lc.0
Lc.0

= 2.97 10

The strain from the point load only will then be

4

p := c.tot c.d = 4.011 10

109

Appendix B
Cable forces for design load
,

Start by defining variables

ls := 84m

Span length

d := 10.5m

Sag of the cable

q d := 77.9
q L := 5.75

kN

Dead load of the bridge and cable

m
kN

6 m = 34.5

kN

Uniformly distributed live load of the bridge

kN
q := q d 1.35 + q L 1.35 = 151.74
m
3

P := 102 10 1.35kg g = 1.35 10 kN

Point load from a heavy truck

Modulus of elasticity of the cable

E := 135GPa
2

Ac := 3.373in 12 = 2.611 10 mm

Cross sectional area of the cables

Now we calculate the initial length of the cable

2

8 d
Lc.0 := ls +
= 87.5 m
3 ls

:= 33.75deg

Average angle between the back stay and

the ground

110

Ac E ( cos( ) )

k1 := 8

= 232.114

ls

MN

Lateral stifness of the top of the pylon, considering

no bending stiffness of the pylon.

k2 := k1
Now we can iterate to find the cable force
Initial value

H0 := 0
1

H1 :=

ls q
24

Lc.0

ls

2
4

= 1.275 10 kN

H2 :=

Lc.0

1 +
24 ls

ls q

1 + 1 + 1 H 1
E A
1
c Lc.0 k1 Lc.0 k2

2
4

= 1.203 10 kN

H3 :=

Lc.0

1 +
24 ls

ls q

1 + 1 + 1 H 1
E A
2
c Lc.0 k1 Lc.0 k2

2
4

= 1.207 10 kN
1

H4 :=

Lc.0

1 +
24 ls

ls q

1 + 1 + 1 H 1
E A
3
c Lc.0 k1 Lc.0 k2

The length of the elongated cable is then

H4

Lc.1 := Lc.0 1 +
= 87.8 m
E Ac

So the strain in the cable from dead load is

c.d :=

H4
E Ac

= 3.424 10

111

2
4

= 1.207 10 kN

Now we calculate the force and strain from a concentrated load

a :=

ls

position of the load (mid span)

2
2

P
P a
Fp :=
1 +
= 0.029
ls q
ls q 2

ls

Force parameter (Krenk, box 4.2)

Equivalent cable length

Le := 3 Lc.0 2 ls = 94.5 m

H4
1
1 Le
1

:=
+
+

E Ac Le k1 Le k2 Lc.1
2
(Lc.1q)

= 15.819

Stiffness parameter

Relative cable force for stiff supports and no elasticity in the cable:
0 :=

1 + 12 Fp 1 = 0.163
3

h 0 := 0 H4 = 1.962 10 kN
iteration :
3

1 :=

2
12 Fp
24
2

= 0.154
2

1 +
12

1 + 2 +
2 :=

2
02 Fp
24
2

= 0.152
2

1 +
12

0 + 2 +

h 1 := 2 H4 = 1.863 10 kN
4

Htot := h 1 + H4 = 1.393 10 kN
H tot
2

Maximum cable force at the North tower

Hbackstay :=
= 8.483 10 kN
cos( 34.8deg)

The length of the elongated cable is then

112

Htot

E Ac

Lc.2 := Lc.0 1 +

= 87.846 m

So the strain in the cable from dead load and point load in the middle is

c.tot :=

Lc.2 Lc.0
Lc.0

= 3.952 10

The strain from the point load only will then be

4

p := c.tot c.d = 5.283 10

113

Appendix C
Moment of inertia of bridge girder
,

First we determine the moment of inertia of individual members

Outer Top beams: 14 x 8 x 40 + 10x3/8 Web
h top := 0.3556m
b top := 0.2032m
tw.top := 0.01m
tf.top := 0.02m

Atop := 2 2 b top tw.top + htop tf.top = 0.022 m

1
3
Itop.out := 2 tw.top h top +
12

htop tw.top
1
3
2 btop tf.top + b top tf.top

2
12
2

4 4

Itop.out = 5.609 10

d top := 0.1905m

Distance from centeroid to underside of concrete deck

Inner Top beams: 15 x 6 x 45#

h top.in := 0.381m
b top.in := 0.1524m
ttop.in := 0.01m

Atop.in := 2 2 btop ttop.in + h top ttop.in = 0.015 m

114


1
3
Itop.in := 2 ttop.in h top.in +
12

htop.in ttop.in
1
3
2 b top.in ttop.in + btop.in ttop.in

2
12
2

4 4

Itop.in = 3.02 10

Distance from centeroid to underside of concrete deck

d top.in := 0.1905m
Botom Beam:
h bot := 0.152m
b bot := 0.254m
tbot := 0.01m

Abot := 2 2 h bot tbot + bbot tbot = 0.011 m

1
1
3
3
5 4
Ibot := 2 2 tbot b bot +
b t
= 5.467 10 m
12 bot bot
12
Distance from centeroid to underside of concrete deck

d bot := 1.877m
Concrete deck:
b c := 8.7m
h c := 0.263m
2

Ac := h c b c = 2.288 m

1
3
4
Ic :=
b h = 0.013 m
12 c c
d c :=

hc
2

= 0.132 m

Distance from centeroid to underside of concrete deck

Composite section:
2

As := Atop + Abot = 0.034 m

Esteel := 210GPa
Econcrete := 32GPa
:=

Esteel
Econcrete

= 6.563

1
2
Atrans := Ac + As = 0.382 m

Transformed area

115

1
3
St := Ac dc + Atop d top + Abot d bot = 0.071 m

d trans :=

St
Atrans

Distance from underside of concrete deck

to centeroid of the whole cross section

= 0.186 m

4 4

Itop := Itop.in + Itop.out = 8.629 10

The moment of inertia of the composite bridge girder is then

1
2
2
4
Itrans := Ic + Ac d c + d trans + Itop + Atop d trans d top ... = 0.0699725 m

+ Ibot + Abot d bot dtrans

116

Appendix D
Analytical frequency calculations
,
kg
mb := 8000
m

Mass per meter of the bridge

Lb := 84m

Length of the bridge

d := 10.5m

Sag of the cable

Lb

Ht := mb g
8
d

Tension in the cable

= 6.59 10 kN

Elastic modulus (here we use the steel because it is

the reference material in the inertia calculation)

E := 210GPa

I := 0.068m

:=

E I
Ht

3 2

= 2.167 10 m

For anti-symmetric modes with pinned supports

n 1 := 1
p 1.2 :=

2 n 1
Lb

= 0.075

1
m
2

1 :=

2 p 2 + 1 1
1.2
1

= 0.271
4

117

1
Ht
f1 :=

= 1.238 Hz
2 mb
n 2 := 2
p 2.2 :=

2 n 2
Lb

= 0.15

1
m
2

2 :=

2 p 2 + 1 1
2.2
1

= 1.052
4

2
Ht
f2 :=

= 4.808 Hz
2 mb
For symmmetric modes with pinned supports
is found by solving the equations graphically using Matlab
n 3 := 1
1
3 := 0.2339
m
3
Ht
f3 :=

= 1.068 Hz
2 mb
n 4 := 2
1
4 := 1.7384
m
4
Ht
f4 :=

= 7.941 Hz
2 mb

118

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

% S o l v i n g t h e f r e q u e n c y e q u a t i o n f o r symmetric modes
clear a l l
close a l l
clc
E = 135E9 ;
I = 0.068;
H = 6590E3 ;
b
a
e
L

=
=
=
=

0:0.00001:3;
E I /H;
4 a b ;
84;

P1 = (((1+ e ) . ^ 0 . 5 + 1 ) / ( 2 a ) ) . ^ 0 . 5 ;
P2 = (((1+ e ) . ^ 0 . 5 1 ) / ( 2 a ) ) . ^ 0 . 5 ;
% % Symmetric s i m p l y s u p p o r t e d
Ls = 2 5 ;
Le = 9 4 . 5 ;
o =0.593;
La = 6 2 0 . 5 7 ;
L e f t = ( ( bL) . ^ 2 / La ) (1+(2 Ls ) / ( cos ( oLe ) ) ^2) ;
Right = 1 (2./P2/L) . ( ( tan ( P2L/ 2 ) +(P2 . / P1 ) . ^ 3 . . . .
tanh ( P1L/ 2 ) ) . / ( 1 + ( P2 . / P1 ) . ^ 2 ) ) ;
figure ( )
hold on
plot ( b , L e f t )
plot ( b , Right , r )

119

Appendix E
ARTeMIS input file description
Header
Header
lfus Bridge
T
With a sampling rate of 512Hz, the sampling interval is 0.001953125 seconds.
T
0.001953125000000
Nodes
Node 1 is illustrated as the coordinate 1W in figure 5.3. It is given the coordinates (0,0,0).
All 22 nodes on the western row are spaced with 4 meters in between, and named nodes
1-22. The nodes on the eastern side are placed in y = 8, but with the same spacing as on
the western side. The node numbers are 23-44. The node definition consists of four parts;
the node number, and the x-, y- and z-coordinate, respectively.
Nodes
1
2
..
.
23
24
..
.

0 0
4 0
.. ..
. .
0 -8
4 -8
.. ..
. .

120

0
0
..
.
0
0
..
.

Lines
With all nodes, there are lines orthogonally both going in the longitudinal and transverse
direction. The line definition consists of two parts; the numbers of the start node and end
node, respectively.
Lines
1
2
2
3
..
..
.
.
1
23
2
24
..
..
.
.
Surfaces
The surfaces are triangular. There are two in each of the rectangles that appear between
four points. E.g. there is a surface between nodes 1, 2 and 24, and between 1, 23 and 24.
The surface definition consists of three parts; the node numbers of the three corners of the
surface.
Surfaces
1
1
..
.

2
23
..
.

24
24
..
.

Setups
8 setups were measured, and all the data was transformed using the script explained in
6.1.2. First off, the definition of the setup needs the name of the setup and the actual
filename. Then there are 8 components; node number, x-direction, y-direction, z-direction,
sensitivity, unit, type of response, and the name of the channel.

121

Setups
Setup 1
Setup_01.asc
24
26
29
..
.

0
0
0
..
.

7
7
7
..
.

-1
0
0
..
.

0
0
0
..
.

1 1.00000E-06
1 1.00000E-06
1 1.00000E-06
.. ..
. .
0 0 1.00000E-06
-1 0 1.00000E-06
0 1 1.00000E-06
..
.. ..
.
. .

mm/s2
mm/s2
mm/s2
..
.
mm/s2
mm/s2
mm/s2
..
.

Acceleration D1
Acceleration D2
Acceleration D4 (REF)
..
..
.
.
Acceleration G31 (REF)
Acceleration G32 (REF)
Acceleration G33 (REF)
..
..
.
.

Equations
Equations had to be written for the nodes that where without measurements for one or
more DOFs. This was done both for the missing nodes because of the damaged Dytran
accelerometer, but also due to only the GeoSIG measuring triaxially. The nodes at the end
(1, 22, 23 and 44) were assumed to be zero in all directions. Linear interpolation was used.
The definition of an equation is simply just a mathematical equation. When referring to a
node, the first index is the node number, and the second index is the direction.
Equations
node(4,3)
node(10,3)
..
.

= (node(3,3) + node(5,3))/2
= (node(9,3) + node(11,3))/2
..
.

node(12,2)
node(13,2)
..
.

= (2*node(11,2) + node(14,2))/3
= (node(11,2) + 2*node(14,2))/3
..
.

node(2,1)
node(4,1)

= node(3,1)/2
= (node(3,1) + node(5,1))/2

122

Appendix F
Data transformation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

clear a l l
close a l l
clc
fname {1} = Setup_7 . b i n ;
f f o l d = [ C: \ bindata \ ] ;
numberofchannels = 13;
samplingrate = ones ( 8 , 1 ) 512;
t t o t = ones ( 8 , 1 ) 1200;
nch_save = [ 1 : 1 3 ] ;
t s t a r t = 10 o n e s ( s i z e ( t t o t ) ) ;
tend = 1200 t s t a r t ;
fs_out = 512;
f o r j j = [ 1 : length ( fname ) ] ;
% t o t a l t i m e = TT( j j ) ;
f i d = fopen ( [ f f o l d , fname { j j } ] , r ) ;
Min = fread ( f i d , d o u b l e ) ;
fclose ( f i d ) ;
ind_start = t s t a r t ( j j ) samplingrate ( j j ) + 1;
ind_end = tend ( j j ) s a m p l i n g r a t e ( j j ) ;
par=Mpar_OAB( Min ( 1 : 1 0 0 ) ) ;
Mmes = reshape ( Min ( 1 0 1 : end ) , par . Nch+1, par . Ndata ) ;
i f f s _ o u t ~= s a m p l i n g r a t e ( j j ) ;
Md = zeros ( length ( nch_save ) , f s _ o u t t t o t ( j j ) ) ;
f o r kk =1: length ( nch_save )
Md( kk , : ) = r e s a m p l e (Mmes( nch_save ( kk ) + 1 , : ) , fs_out , s a m p l i n g r a t e ( j j ) ) ;
end

123

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52

s a m p l i n g r a t e ( j j )=f s _ o u t ;
ind_start = t s t a r t ( j j ) samplingrate ( j j ) + 1;
ind_end = tend ( j j ) s a m p l i n g r a t e ( j j ) ;
M = Md( : , i n d _ s t a r t : ind_end ) ;
else
M = Mmes( nch_save +1, i n d _ s t a r t : ind_end ) ;
end
M = Mmes ( 2 : end , : ) ;
Y = M mean(M, 2 ) o n e s ( 1 , s i z e (M, 2 ) ) ;
t = 0 : 1 / par . f s : par . Ttot 1/par . f s ;
Y = Y ;
save ( s p r i n t f ( Setup_ %02.0 f . a s c , j j ) , ASCII , Y ) ;
end

124

Appendix G
Sensitivity based model updating Matlab code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

% FEmodel u p d a t i n g u s i n g s e n s i t i v i t y approach
clear a l l
close a l l
clc
% E x p e r i m e n t a l r e p o n s e s ( T a r ge t r e s p o n s e s )
Re = [ 1 . 0 7 8 0 1 . 5 8 8 0 1 . 7 0 5 2 . 0 9 0 2 . 7 9 3 ] ;
Artemis_Modes
n_art = 5 ;
% Number o f modes used
P0 = [ 1 1 1 1 1 ]
% Modification parameters in the beginning
[ R0 , Sap0 ] = RunSAP( P0 ) ;
% Responses i n t h e b e g i n n i n g from t h e FEmodel
[ R0 , Sap0 ] = ModePair ( Art , Sap0 , R0 , Re ) ;
R0
np = length ( P0 ) ;
nr = length (R0) ;

% Number o f p a r a m e t e r s
% Number o f r e s p o n s e s

% Average f r e q u e n c y e r r o r i n t h e b e g i n n i n g
F_Error ( : , 1 ) = mean( abs ( ( R0Re ) . / Re ) )
P1 = [ 0 . 9 6

1.02

1.03 0.95

0 . 9 8 ] % F i r s t change o f p a r a m e t e r s

%
% 2) C a l c u l a t e t h e s e n s i t i v i t y m a t r i x S f o r t h e g i v e n s t a t e o f p a r a m e t e r s
% P0 and r e s p o n s e s R0
for k = 1:14
tic
f o r j = 1 : np

125

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

P = P0 ;
P( j ) = P1 ( j ) ;
[ R, Sap ] = RunSAP(P) ;
[ R, Sap ] = ModePair ( Art , Sap , R, Re ) ;
f o r i =1: n_art
S ( i , j ) = (R( i )R0( i ) ) / ( P1 ( j )P0 ( j ) ) ;
end
end
[ R1 , Sap ] = RunSAP( P1 ) ;
[ R1 , Sap ] = ModePair ( Art , Sap , R1 , Re ) ;

F_Error ( k+1) =mean( abs ( (RRe ) . / Re ) )

Pu = P0 + S \ ( ReR0)
P0 = P1 ;
R0 = R;
P1 = Pu ;
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

% S e t c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e p a r a m e t e r s ( not used h e r e )
f o r i = 1 : l e n g t h (P1)
i f P1( i ) < 0 . 7
P1( i ) = 0. 7;
e l s e i f P1 ( i ) > 1 . 3
P1( i ) = 1 . 3 ;
end
i f P1( i ) == P0 ( i )
i f P1( i ) == 0 . 7
P1( i ) = 0 . 7 1 ;
e l s e i f P1 ( i ) == 1 . 3
P1( i ) = 1 . 2 9 ;
end
end
end
P1
toc

end
beep
% Artemis_Modes .m
% Reads mode s h a p e s from o u t p u t t e x t f i l e from ARTeMIS and c o n v e r t them
% i n t o r e a l modes .
[ b , a ] = f i l e a t t r i b ( C: \ Artemis \ . t x t ) ;
n = length ( a ) 4;
num_nodes = 4 4 ;

% Number o f modes
% Number o f nodes

126

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ArtX = zeros ( num_nodes , n ) ;

ArtY = zeros ( num_nodes , n ) ;
ArtZ = zeros ( num_nodes , n ) ;
Art = zeros ( num_nodes 3 , n ) ;
cnt = 0 ;
for i = [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
c n t = c n t +1;
f i l e = a ( i ) . Name ;
f i d = fopen ( f i l e ) ;
C = t e x t s c a n ( f i d , %d8%f %f %f %f %f %f ) ;
fclose ( f i d ) ;
Pkt = C{ 1 } ;
Xabs = C{ 2 } ;
Xang = C{ 3 } ;
Yabs = C{ 4 } ;
Yang = C{ 5 } ;
Zabs = C{ 6 } ;
Zang = C{ 7 } ;
ArtX ( : , c n t ) = Xabs . sign ( cos ( Xang ) ) ;
ArtY ( : , c n t ) = Yabs . sign ( cos ( Yang ) ) ;
ArtZ ( : , c n t ) = Zabs . sign ( cos ( Zang ) ) ;
Art ( : , c n t ) = [ ArtX ( : , c n t ) ; ArtY ( : , c n t ) ; ArtZ ( : , c n t ) ] ;
end
% RunSAP t a k e s i n a v e c t o r w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n f a c t o r s and r e t u r n s a v e c t o r
% w i t h a l l f r e q u e n c i e s and a m a t r i x w i t h a l l mode s h a p e s
function [ R, SapModes ] = RunSAP(P)
f e a t u r e ( COM_SafeArraySingleDim , 1 ) ;
f e a t u r e ( COM_PassSafeArrayByRef , 1 ) ;
SapObject = a c t x s e r v e r ( Sap2000 . SapObject ) ;
SapObject . A p p l i c a t i o n S t a r t ;
SapModel = SapObject . SapModel ;
SapObject . Hide ;
SapObject . SapModel . F i l e . OpenFile ( C: \ SAP_API\ Olfusa_Manual . sdb ) ;
% U n l oc k s t h e model , b u t g i v e s an e r r o r i f t h e model i s a l r e a d y u n l o c k e d .
Lock_ret = SapModel . SetModelIsLocked ( 0 ) ;
%
% CABLES
% Value ( 1 ) = Cross s e c t i o n a l a rea m o d i f i e r

127

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

% Value ( 2 ) = Mass m o d i f i e r
% Value ( 3 ) = Weight m o d i f i e r
Group = 1 ;
Name = A l l ;
%C l e a r p r e v i o u s v a l u e s
Value = o n e s ( 3 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
CAB_clear = SapObject . SapModel . CableObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;

% S e t new v a l u e s
Name = Cables_downstream ;
Value ( 1 ) =P( 1 ) 0 . 8 ;
Value ( 2 : 3 ) =P( 2 ) ;
CABret = SapObject . SapModel . CableObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;

% S e t new v a l u e s
Name = Cables_upstream ;
Value ( 1 ) = P( 1 ) 0 . 8 ;
Value ( 2 : 3 ) = P( 2 ) ;
CABret = SapObject . SapModel . CableObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;
%
%AREA
% % Area m o d i f i e r s
% % Value ( 1 ) = Membrane 11
% % Value ( 2 ) = Membrane 22
% % Value ( 3 ) = Membrane 21
% % Value ( 4 ) = Bending 11
% % Value ( 5 ) = Bending 22
% % Value ( 6 ) = Bending 21
% % Value ( 7 ) = Shear 13
% % Value ( 8 ) = Shear 23
% % Value ( 9 ) = Mass m o d i f i e r
% % Value ( 1 0 ) = Weight m o d i f i e r
Name = ALL ;
Value = o n e s ( 1 0 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
Group = 1 ;
Area_Clear = SapModel . AreaObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;
Value ( 1 ) = P( 3 ) ;
Value ( 9 ) = P( 4 ) ;
Value ( 1 0 ) = P( 4 ) ;
Area_ret = SapModel . AreaObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;
%
% FRAME
% Value ( 1 ) = Cross s e c t i o n a l a rea m o d i f i e r

128

73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123

%
%
%
%
%
%
%

Value ( 2 )
Value ( 3 )
Value ( 4 )
Value ( 5 )
Value ( 6 )
Value ( 7 )
Value ( 8 )

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Shear ar ea i n l o c a l 2 d i r e c t i o n
Shear ar ea i n l o c a l 3 d i r e c t i o n
Torsional constant modifier
Moment o f i n e r t i a a b o u t l o c a l 2
Moment o f i n e r t i a a b o u t l o c a l 3
Mass m o d i f i e r
Weight m o d i f i e r

modifier
modifier
axis modifier
axis modifier

Name = A l l ;
Value = o n e s ( 8 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
Group = 1 ;
Frame_Clear_All = SapModel . FrameObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;
%
Value ( 7 : 8 ) = P( 5 ) ;
Frame_All = SapModel . FrameObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;
Name = Wind_Bracing ;
Value = o n e s ( 8 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
Value ( 1 ) = P( 6 ) 0 . 5 ;
Group = 1 ;
Frame_wind = SapModel . FrameObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;
%
%
Name = Low_Chords ;
Value = o n e s ( 8 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
Value ( 1 ) =P( 7 ) 1 . 5 ;
Group = 1 ;
Frame_low = SapModel . FrameObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;

%%
Name = Up_Chords ;
Value = o n e s ( 8 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
Value ( 1 ) =P( 8 ) ;
Group = 1 ;
Frame_up = SapModel . FrameObj . S e t M o d i f i e r s (Name , Value , Group ) ;

%
% % SPRINGS
r e t = SapObject . SapModel . PointObj . D e l e t e S p r i n g ( 44 ) ;
r e t = SapObject . SapModel . PointObj . D e l e t e S p r i n g ( 86 ) ;
r e t = SapObject . SapModel . PointObj . D e l e t e S p r i n g ( 130 ) ;
r e t = SapObject . SapModel . PointObj . D e l e t e S p r i n g ( 172 ) ;
%
% % % Value ( 1 ) = U1 [ F/L ]
% % % Value ( 2 ) = U2 [ F/L ]
% % % Value ( 3 ) = U3 [ F/L ]
% % % Value ( 4 ) = R1 [ FL/ rad ]

129

124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174

% % % Value ( 5 ) = R2 [ FL/ rad ]

% % % Value ( 6 ) = R3 [ FL/ rad ]
%%
Object = 0 ;
k = zeros ( 6 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
k ( 5 ) = 110^(11P( 9 ) ) ;
S pr in gR et 1 = SapObject . SapModel . PointObj . S e t S p r i n g (
S pr in gR et 2 = SapObject . SapModel . PointObj . S e t S p r i n g (
S pr in gR et 3 = SapObject . SapModel . PointObj . S e t S p r i n g (
S pr in gR et 4 = SapObject . SapModel . PointObj . S e t S p r i n g (

44 ,
86 ,
130
172

k , Object ) ;
k , Object ) ;
, k , Object ) ;
, k , Object ) ;

%
SapObject . SapModel . Analyze . RunAnalysis ( ) ;
%%
%%
% c l e a r a l l c a s e and combo o u t p u t s e l e c t i o n s
SapObject . SapModel . R e s u l t s . Setup . DeselectAllCasesAndCombosForOutput ;
%
% s e t c a s e and combo o u t p u t s e l e c t i o n s
SapObject . SapModel . R e s u l t s . Setup . S e t C a s e S e l e c t e d F o r O u t p u t ( MODAL ) ;
% Set values
NumberResults = 4 ;
ACase = c e l l s t r ( ) ;
StepType = c e l l s t r ( ) ;
StepNum = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
P e r i o d = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
Frequency = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
C i r c F r e q = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
EigenValue = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
% g e t modal p e r i o d
[ ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , Period , Frequency , CircFreq , EigenValue ] = . . .
SapObject . SapModel . R e s u l t s . ModalPeriod ( NumberResults , ACase ,
StepType , StepNum , Period , Frequency , CircFreq , EigenValue ) ;
% Set values
NumberResults = 0 ;
ACase = c e l l s t r ( ) ;
StepType = c e l l s t r ( ) ;
StepNum = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
Obj = c e l l s t r ( ) ;
Elm = c e l l s t r ( ) ;
GroupElm= 2 ;
U1 = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
U2 = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
U3 = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
R1 = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
R2 = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;

130

...

175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

R3 = zeros ( 1 , 1 , d o u b l e ) ;
n=30;
%Number o f modes
% Get modeshapes
SapObject . SapModel . R e s u l t s . Setup . SetOptionModeShape ( 1 , n , f a l s e ( ) ) ;
[ ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , U1u , U2u , U3u , ~ , ~ , ~ ] = . . .
SapObject . SapModel . R e s u l t s . ModeShape ( Top_Nodes_Upstream , . . .
GroupElm , NumberResults , Obj , Elm , ACase , StepType , StepNum , . . .
U1 , U2 , U3 , R1 , R2 , R3) ;
[ ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , U1d , U2d , U3d , ~ , ~ , ~ ] = . . .
SapObject . SapModel . R e s u l t s . ModeShape ( Top_Nodes_Downstream , . . .
GroupElm , NumberResults , Obj , Elm , ACase , StepType , StepNum , . . .
U1 , U2 , U3 , R1 , R2 , R3) ;
R = Frequency ( 1 : 3 0 ) ;
SapObject . A p p l i c a t i o n E x i t ( f a l s e ( ) ) ;
SapModel= 0 ;
SapObject= 0 ;
Up = [ U1u ; U2u ; U3u ] ;
Down = [ U1d ; U2d ; U3d ] ;
num_nodes = 4 4 ;
SapX = zeros ( num_nodes , n ) ;
SapY = zeros ( num_nodes , n ) ;
SapZ = zeros ( num_nodes , n ) ;
cnt = 0 ;
for i =1:22:22n
c n t = c n t +1;
SapX ( : , c n t ) = [ Up( i : i +21 ,1) ; Down( i : i +21 ,1) ] ;
SapY ( : , c n t ) = [ Up( i : i +21 ,2) ; Down( i : i +21 ,2) ] ;
SapZ ( : , c n t ) = [ Up( i : i +21 ,3) ; Down( i : i +21 ,3) ] ;
end
SapModes = [ SapX ; SapY ; SapZ ] ;
end
% Pair modes u s i n g t h e MAC and f r e q u e n c y l i m i t s
% The f u n c t i o n t a k e s i n a r e s p o n s e v e c t o r and r e t u r n s i t w i t h t h e modes
% p a i r e d t o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n t h e measurements .
function [ R, Sap ] = ModePair ( Art , Sap , R, Re )
[ ~ , n_art ] = s i z e ( Art ) ;
mac = MAC( Art , Sap ) ;

131

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

R_sort = zeros ( 1 , n_art ) ;

Sap_sort = zeros ( length ( Sap ) , n_art ) ;
f o r m = 1 : n_art
[ ~ , i d ]= sort ( mac ( : ,m) , d e s c e n d ) ;
for p = 1 : 5
f _ e r = (R( i d ( p ) )Re (m) ) /Re (m) ;
i f abs ( f _ e r ) < 0 . 4
R_sort (m) = R( i d ( p ) ) ;
Sap_sort ( : ,m) = Sap ( : , i d ( p ) ) ;
break
else
continue
end
end
end
R = R_sort ;
Sap = Sap_sort ;
end

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

% Modal Assurance C r i t e r i o n

%
%
%
%

Frequency e r r o r
Deny mode i f t o h i g h e r r o r
Sorted frequencies
S o r t e d mode s h a p e s

% Takes i n v e c t o r s and r e t u r n s t h e Modal Assurence C r i t e r i o n

% Or t a k e s i n a m a t r i c e s where t h e columns , or t h e l a r g e r dimensions , a r e
% compared and t h e o u t p u t i s a m a t r i x o f MAC v a l u e s
function A = MAC(B, C)
[ rovB , colB ] = s i z e (B) ;
[ rovC , colC ] = s i z e (C) ;
i f rovB < colB
B = B ;
end
i f rovC < colC
C = C ;
end
i f i s v e c t o r (B) | | i s v e c t o r (C)
A = ( abs (B C) ) ^ 2 / ( (B B) (C C) ) ;
e l s e i f i s m a t r i x (B) | | i s m a t r i x (C)
f o r i = 1 : s i z e (C, 2 )
f o r j = 1 : s i z e (B, 2 )
A( i , j ) = ( abs (B ( : , j ) C ( : , i ) ) ) ^ 2 / ( (B ( : , j ) . . .
B ( : , j ) ) (C ( : , i ) C ( : , i ) ) ) ;
end
end
end
end

132

Appendix H
Model updating using fminsearch Matlab code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

% Search_update u s e s t h e b u i l t i n f u n c t i o n f m i n s e a r c h t o minimize t h e
% average frequency error
function Search_update
clear a l l
clc
P0 = [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ] ;
o p t i o n s = o p t i m s e t ( D i s p l a y , F i n a l , TolFun , 1 e 3, TolX , 1 e 3 , . . .
PlotFcns , @optimplotfval ) ;
[ P]= f m i n s e a r c h ( @(P)minSAP(P) , P0 , o p t i o n s )
function d f=minSAP(P)
Artemis_Modes
Re = [ 1 . 0 7 8 0 1 . 5 8 8 0 1 . 7 0 5 2 . 0 9 0 2 . 7 9 3 3 . 3 2 8 4 . 5 0 9 5 . 2 1 5 7 . 2 0 0 ] ;
[ R, Sap ] = RunSAP(P) ;
[ R, Sap ] = ModePair ( Art , Sap , R, Re ) ;
d f = mean( abs ( (RRe ) . / Re ) ) ;

133

DTU Civil Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering
Technical University of Denmark
Brovej, Building 118
2800 Kgs. Lyngby
Telephone 45 25 17 00
www.byg.dtu.dk