Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
L. M. Trautwein
L. C. Almeida
C. S. Barbosa
1 INTRODUCTION
The inspection of a structure (pathologies,
destructive
testing
and
non-destructive
characterization of materials) provides important
information about its structural integrity, guiding
decisions related to the need for repairs and
reinforcements. However, the high cost of a full
inspection reduces the frequency of its adoption and
can even motivate the complete abandonment of the
practice.
The interest in the ability of monitoring a structure
and detecting damage as soon as possible has
permeated the aerospace, civil and mechanical
engineering community (FARRAR 2001 [4]).
Methods of detection of usual, experimental or
visual damage require detailed knowledge of the
damaged area and easy access to the local to be
inspected.
According to NOBREGA 2004 [5], the dynamic test
are an adequate procedure because of its nondestructive character, which allows the collection of
generalized information on the stiffness and
structural damping, because of its comparability to a
computer numerical model, and because it can be
repeated and compared over time.
Three-dimensional numerical models that are
developed in finite element are able to represent, in a
reliable mannered, the current structure. For this, the
physical parameters of the structure (rigidity, mass,
damping, natural frequencies and mode shapes) must
be obtained by testing the materials, conducting
Columns
fck (MPa)
E (MPa)
30
36800*
0,2
Deck
fck (MPa)
E (MPa)
30
36800*
0,2
U1 (kN/cm)
U2 (kN/cm)
U3 (kN/cm)
Fixed
0
0
Links
R1 (kN.cm/rad)
0
R2 (kN.cm/rad)
0
R3 (kN.cm/rad)
0
*It is considered the dynamic modulus of elasticity
being 20% higher than the static modulus of elasticity
(5600*(fck)1/2).
4 RESULTS
Mode 6:
f = 341,8 Hz
Damping = 3,0%
Mode 7:
f = 451,5 Hz
Damping = 2,3%
Mode 1:
f = 10,9 Hz;
Damping = 11,1%
Mode 2:
f = 46,4 Hz
Damping = 12,6%
Mode 3:
f = 50,0 Hz
Damping = 7,5%
Mode 4:
f = 101,7 Hz
Damping = 5,9%
Mode 5:
f = 162,9 Hz
Damping = 0,9%
Columns
Deck
E (MPa)
18403*
E (MPa)
26071*
U1 (kN/cm)
Fixed
U2 (kN/cm)
10000*
U3 (kN/cm)
10000*
Links
R1 (kN.cm/rad)
0*
R2 (kN.cm/rad)
1000*
R3 (kN.cm/rad)
1000*
* Values obtained in the calibration performed by
comparing the numerical model with the modal
frequencies and deformed experimental model .
Mass Participation
Ratios (%)*
Experimen
tal
Numerical
1- Trans.
10,9
12,0
91
2-Trans.
50,0
45,1
3- Long.
46,4
48,2
91
4-Vert.
101,7
116,9
33
5-Trans.
162,9
164,8
6-Vert.
341,8
346,5
7-Trans.
451,5
453,4
Mode 1:
f = 12,0 Hz
Mode 2:
f = 45,1 Hz
5 CONCLUSION
The calibration of numerical models is a crucial
factor in the representation of the structural
behavior. Destructive Testing and Load Testing are
not always possible, due to security and operational
factors conditions. These factors make nondestructive techniques, such as dynamic monitoring,
an excellent alternative to calibrate models and
monitor the structural integrity throughout the
service life of the structure.
The experimental model that was used was cracked,
providing a challenge to calibrate the numerical
model. However, with the dynamic test and the
acceleration transducers positioned at key points, it
was possible to obtain the modal deformed with the
help of ARTeMIS Modal software [2], in addition to
the natural frequencies. Modal deformed allowed
different comparisons of the experimental numerical
models, in which the structural behavior of the
numerical model was observed, not only due the
similarity of the natural frequencies, but also due the
similarity of the modal deformed, giving more
certainty to the calibration parameters.
In order to accurately represent the cracked
condition and simply supported structure, it was
required to change the specific modulus of elasticity
and support conditions. Finally, by comparing the
modal deformed of Figure 8 (experimental) with
those of Figure 9 (numeric) and by analyzing the
natural frequencies of each vibration mode (Table 3),
it is possible to conclude that the structural behavior
of the numerical model, after calibration, reliably
represents the real structural.
For future studies in the use of dynamic tests, it is
intended to focus on the use of experimental analysis
for the detection and location of structural damage.
6 REFERENCES
Mode 3:
f = 48,2 Hz
Mode 4:
f = 116,9 Hz
Mode 5:
f = 164,8 Hz
Mode 6:
f = 346,5 Hz
Mode 7:
f = 453,4 Hz