Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

IDENTIFICATION OF COHESIVE CRACK

FRACTURE PARAMETERS USING


MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING

by
Norbert S. Que

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the


requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering


The University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia

February, 2003
i

ABSTRACT

This thesis is concerned with the characterisation of the parameters governing


the tension-softening relations of the cohesive crack model. Parameter identification is
an important area in fracture mechanics as it enables the use of a fracture model for
the simulation of fracture processes in structures. Research, however, has shown that
such a task is not trivial and continues to pose challenging problems to
experimentalists and analysts alike. This dissertation presents general and efficient
indirect methods for the characterisation of mode I fracture parameters defining the
cohesive crack model.

The identification problem is formulated as a special type of inverse problem.


The formulation is in the form of a constrained optimisation problem known as a
mathematical program with equilibrium constraints characterised, in the present
instance, by complementarity conditions involving the orthogonality of two-sign
constrained vectors. The solution of such a mathematical program is computationally
challenging as it is disjunctive and nonconvex by nature. A number of nonlinear
programming based approaches are proposed, after appropriate reformulation of the
mathematical program as an equivalent nonlinear programming problem.

Actual experimental data are used to validate and determine the most suitable
algorithm for parameter identification. It was found that the smoothing-based method
is by far superior than other schemes. As the problem is nonconvex and the nonlinear
program can only guarantee a local or stationary point, global optimisation procedures
are introduced in order to verify the accuracy of the solutions obtained by the
algorithm.

Two evolutionary search methods capable of finding the global optimum are
implemented for parameter identification. The results generated by the evolutionary
search techniques confirm the reliability of the solutions identified by the best
nonlinear programming algorithm. All computations carried out in the thesis suggest
the suitability and robustness of the selected algorithm for parameter identification.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Francis Tin-Loi for without


his support, advice, and guidance it is likely that this thesis would not have been
completed. His insights and ideas helped me overcome a number of hurdles in the
course of doing this research toward the completion of this thesis. I would also like to
thank Dr. John Watson for his insightful discussions on the boundary element method.

I wish to thank the Department of Science and Technology for offering the
scholarship which allowed me take up doctoral studies at the University of New South
Wales, Australia. I also appreciate the support given to me by the University of the
Philippines. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance extended to me by Mr.
Francois Fernandes.

I am much obliged to my tennis buddies who provided me some helpful


diversion from the daily grinds of research. Likewise, to all my friends in the School
of Civil and Environmental Engineering for their warmth and friendship.

I wish to thank my friends in the Mascot care group for their prayers. I would
also like to extend my gratitude to all my friends at the Punchbowl Baptist Memorial
Church and the Community Bible Church (formerly known as St. Matthias@UNSW).

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my brothers and sisters, most
especially my mother and my in-laws in Cebu, for their encouragement.

I am deeply grateful to Carlos and Florence Ringor for their unequivocal


support to my family and me. They are our family in Sydney and their friendship and
love will always be cherished and remembered.

My gratitude also goes to my lovely wife, Lei, whose understanding, support


and patience are instrumental in the completion of this thesis. Of course, doing
research and writing this thesis would have been boring if not for my daughter, Yumi,
who always knows how to cheer my day up.

Above all, I would like to dedicate this thesis to Jesus Christ for sustaining my
family and me all these years. To Him be the glory.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

NOTATION x

LIST OF FIGURES xii

LIST OF TABLES xx

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Motivation for the Research 3

1.3 Objectives and Scope of Study 4

1.4 Organisation of the Thesis 5

1.5 Assumptions and Notations 7

1.6 List of Publications 8

2 FRACTURE MECHANICS AND THE COHESIVE


CRACK MODEL – A SURVEY 11

2.1 Introduction 11

2.2 A Review of Fracture Mechanics and Quasibrittle Models 12

2.3 A Review of the Cohesive Crack Model 20

2.4 A Review of Direct Methods of Obtaining Cohesive Crack


Parameters 27

2.5 A Review of Indirect Methods of Obtaining Cohesive Crack


Parameters 36

2.6 Summary 45
iv

3 STATE PROBLEM 47

3.1 Introduction 47

3.2 Softening Laws as Complementarity Problems 49

3.2.1 Two-Branch Piecewise Linear Softening Law 55

3.2.2 Three-Branch Piecewise Linear Softening Law 57

3.2.3 Power Softening Law 59

3.2.4 Power-Exponential Softening Law 60

3.3 Structural Discretisation and Modeling 60

3.3.1 BEM – An Overview 62

3.3.2 Two-Zone BEM Formulation 71

3.3.3 Elastic Analysis Using Two-Zone BEM 80

- Example 1: cantilever beam 81

- Example 2: three-point bending beam 84

3.4 Formulation of the State Problem 93

3.4.1 MCP and the Path Solver 95

3.4.2 GAMS – A Modelling Environment 97

3.4.3 Computational Examples 102

- Example 1: two-branch softening law 103

- Example 2: power softening law 104

3.5 Summary 105

4 PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION: FORMULATION


AND NLP SOLUTION APPROACHES 107

4.1 Introduction 107

4.2 Formulation of the Parameter Identification Problem 110

4.3 MPEC – An Overview 114

4.3.1 MPEC with Complementarity Constraint 116


v

4.3.2 Complexity of MPECs 117

- Example 1: nonconvexity of MPEC 118

- Example 2: feasible solution set not connected 120

4.3.3 Approaches to Solving MPECs 121

4.4 NLP-Based Approaches to the Parameter Identification Problem 122

4.4.1 Algorithm 1: Smoothing 124

4.4.2 Algorithm 2: Penalty 127

4.4.3 Algorithm 3: Relaxation 128

4.4.4 Algorithm 4: Minimise Complementarity 129

4.5 Validation of NLP-Based Algorithms Using Pseudo Data 130

4.5.1 Perfect Pseudo Data 131

- Data 1: three-point bend test – ideal data 131

- Data 2: wedge splitting test – ideal data 132

4.5.2 Computational Results 134

- Problem 1: parameter identification of Data 1 134

- Problem 2: parameter identification of Data 2 136

4.6 Outliers, Noise and the Choice of Error Norm 139

4.6.1 Implementation of Error Norms in the Identification Problem 140

4.6.2 Computational Results 142

- Problem 1: comparison of error norms using perfect data


set 144

- Problem 2: comparison of error norms using perturbed data


set 144

- Problem 3: comparison of error norms using data with


outlier 147

4.7 Revalidation of the Proposed Algorithms Using L1 Norm 150

4.8 Summary 152


vi

5 IDENTIFICATION USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA


AND OTHER METHODS 154

5.1 Introduction 154

5.2 Experimental Data Sets 155

5.2.1 Milan Data 156

5.2.2 LMC/EPFL Data 158

5.2.3 Danish 1 Data 160

5.2.4 Danish 2 Data 161

5.3 Validation of the NLP-Based Algorithms Using Experimental Data 163

5.3.1 Validation 1: Milan Data 163

5.3.2 Validation 2: LMC/EPFL Data 167

5.3.3 Validation 3: Danish 1 Data 172

5.3.4 Validation 4: Danish 2 Data 175

5.3.5 Discussion 178

5.4 Identification of Parameters Characterising Other Softening Laws 178

5.4.1 Parameter Identification of Milan Data Using Other Softening


Laws 179

5.4.2 Parameter Identification of LMC/EPFL Data Using Other


Softening Laws 182

5.4.3 Parameter Identification of Danish 1 Data Using Other


Softening Laws 185

5.4.4 Parameter Identification of Danish 2 Data Using Other


Softening Laws 188

5.4.5 Discussion 191

5.5 Time Reduction Techniques for the Parameter Identification Problem 192

5.5.1 Smoothing-Tikhonov Technique 193

5.5.2 Aggregation Technique 196

5.5.3 Presolve Technique 201

- Milan Data: presolve technique 203


vii

- LMC/EPFL Data: presolve technique 206

5.5.4 Iterative Presolve Technique 210

5.6 Summary 214

6 EVOLUTIONARY SEARCH METHODS 216

6.1 Introduction 216

6.2 Heuristic Evolutionary Approaches 218

6.3 Genetic Algorithm 220

6.3.1 Solution Representation and Population Size 221

6.3.2 Selection 223

6.3.3 Crossover 225

6.3.4 Mutation 227

6.3.5 Termination 230

6.3.6 Validation 230

- Power Law 231

- Two-branch Law 233

6.4 Differential Evolution 235

6.4.1 Mutation 235

- DE/rand/1 236

- DE/best/1 236

- DE/rand-to-best/1 236

- DE/rand/2 237

- DE/best/2 237

6.4.2 Crossover 237

6.4.3 Selection 238


viii

6.4.4 Generation of a Trial Vector 239

6.4.5 DE Control Parameters 239

6.4.6 Validation 241

6.5 Computational Results 244

6.5.1 Parameter Identification of the Milan Data Using GA and DE 245

- Identification of Power Law Parameters 245

- Identification of Two-branch Law Parameters 247

- Identification of Three-branch Law Parameters 249

6.5.2 Parameter Identification of the LMC/EPFL Data Using GA


and DE 251

- Identification of Power Law Parameters 251

- Identification of Power-exponential Law Parameters 253

- Identification of Two-branch Law Parameters 257

- Identification of Three-branch Law Parameters 258

6.5.3 Parameter Identification of the Danish 1 Data Using GA and


DE 260

- Identification of Power Law Parameters 261

- Identification of Power-exponential Law Parameters 262

- Identification of Two-branch Law Parameters 265

- Identification of Three-branch Law Parameters 267

6.5.4 Parameter Identification of the Danish 2 Data Using GA and


DE 270

- Identification of Power Law Parameters 270

- Identification of Two-branch Law Parameters 271

- Identification of Three-branch Law Parameters 273

6.5.5 Discussion 275

6.6 Summary 276


ix

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 278

7.1 Concluding Remarks 278

7.2 Recommendations for Future Studies 280

REFERENCES 282
x

NOTATION

The following are the common symbols used in this thesis.

CR crossover factor used in differential evolution


D size of parameter vector
e vector of ones
E Young’s modulus
f nonnegative vector interpreted as the activation function

ft tensile strength

F mutation factor used in differential evolution


G current generation
GF fracture energy

h1 , h2 , h3 actual slope of the softening branches

J set of all measurements


L1 least-absolute norm

L2 least square norm

L1 − L2 norm of L1 and L2 difference

Lp least-power norm

N size of population
p point load

r influence vector obtainable as a by-product of the


computational model
t normal traction at the crack interface
t vector of normal tractions at the crack interface

tc tensile strength

ta , tb breakpoint strength

te vector of elastic tractions at the crack interface due to


externally applied actions
xi

w crack width
w vector of displacement discontinuities at the crack interface

wc critical crack width

z nonnegative vector interpreted as crack opening


displacements
Z influence matrix interpreted as the normal tractions caused
by unit crack openings in the otherwise unloaded structure
Γ boundary surface

Γc locus of potential crack discontinuity

σ (w) nonlinear softening curve equation

σu modulus of rupture

υ Poisson’s ratio
ω objective function, error norm or identified error
ω̂ real error
Ω boundary domain
xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Title Page

Figure 1.1 Linear softening law 2

Figure 2.1 Relative sizes of the fracture process zone for (a) brittle, (b)
ductile, (c) quasibrittle materials. 14
Figure 2.2 A generic nonlinear softening curve. 16
Figure 2.3 Piecewise linear stress-strain curve for the crack band
model. 17
Figure 2.4 Definition of the two-parameter fracture model. 18
Figure 2.5 Size effect law as defined in Equation (2.5). 20
Figure 2.6 Dugdale’s plastic zone model. 21
Figure 2.7 Stress-deformation behaviour of a quasibrittle specimen in
tension. 22
Figure 2.8 Definition of the cohesive crack model. 24
Figure 2.9 A schematic illustration of a uniaxial tensile test. 28
Figure 2.10 A schematic illustration of a tensile splitting test. 31
Figure 2.11 Illustration of a three-point bend test. 32
Figure 2.12 Work of fracture as an area in the load-displacement (p-δ)
curve. 33
Figure 2.13 Common wedge splitting shapes (a) cubical – mould
fabricated, (b) and (c) cylindrical – cored from existing
structures (Brühwiler and Wittmann, 1990). 34
Figure 2.14 Schematic illustration of a wedge splitting test (Brühwiler
and Wittmann, 1990). 35

Figure 3.1 Holonomic two-branch softening law (Bolzon et al., 1994). 51


Figure 3.2 Definition of a two-branch softening law using actual
slopes (Tin-Loi and Xia, 2001). 54
Figure 3.3 Definition of a nonlinear softening curve. 55
Figure 3.4 Definition of a three-branch softening law using actual
slopes. 58
Figure 3.5 Problem definition for mode I fracture. 61
xiii

Figure No. Title Page

Figure 3.6 Representation of a 2D body bounded by boundary Γ. 64


Figure 3.7 Definition of the displacement response due to a unit load
applied in the X1 direction. 66
Figure 3.8 Convention for local axis interface system. 72
Figure 3.9 Node numbering scheme for zones 1 and 2. 72
Figure 3.10 Physical interpretation for the determination of the Z
matrix. 79
Figure 3.11 Cantilever beam problem. 81
Figure 3.12 Cantilever beam under transverse parabolic load at both
ends. 82
Figure 3.13 Comparison of stress results at section A-A as predicted by
beam theory and two-zone BEM with 14 (total) quadratic
elements. 83
Figure 3.14 Comparison of stress results at section A-A as predicted by
beam theory and two-zone BEM with 28 (total) quadratic
elements. 85
Figure 3.15 Geometry of a typical three-point bending beam. 85
Figure 3.16 Discretisation of a two-zone BEM using 16 elements on
each zone. 88
Figure 3.17 Comparison of normal stresses at section A-B obtained
BEM(16x16x2), exact solution and approximate solution. 89
Figure 3.18 Illustration of local stress disturbance due to an abrupt
change of length in the adjacent element. 90
Figure 3.19 Comparison of normal stresses at section A-B obtained
from BEM(63x63x20), exact solution and approximate
solution. 91
Figure 3.20 Distribution of normal stresses at section A-B as predicted
by two-zone BEM and FEM. 92
Figure 3.21 GAMS coding of the state problem (3.74). 100
Figure 3.22 Geometry of notched three-point bend specimen. 102
Figure 3.23 Two-branch softening law for example 1. 103
Figure 3.24 Softening response of example 1 using two-branch law. 104
Figure 3.25 Softening response of example 2 using power law. 105
xiv

Figure No. Title Page

Figure 4.1 Diagram of the feasible solution space for Example 4.1. 118
Figure 4.2 Plot of the value of the objective function along the x-axis 119
Figure 4.3 Diagram of the feasible solution space for Example 4.2. 120
Figure 4.4 Smoothing of complementarity conditions. 126
Figure 4.5 Three-point bend model used to generate the pseudo data. 131
Figure 4.6 Perfect pseudo data points generated from a three-point
bend model. 132
Figure 4.7 Wedge splitting model used to generate the pseudo data. 133
Figure 4.8 Perfect pseudo data points generated from a wedge splitting
model. 133
Figure 4.9 Data 1: comparison of predicted with actual p – u
responses. 136
Figure 4.10 Data 2: comparison of predicted with actual p – u
responses. 138
Figure 4.11 Data 2: details of p – u responses at the peak load. 138
Figure 4.12 Perturbed data set. 143
Figure 4.13 Data set with outlier. 144
Figure 4.14 Perfect data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u
response. 145
Figure 4.15 Perturbed data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u
response. 146
Figure 4.16 Perturbed data: details of p – u responses at the peak load. 147
Figure 4.17 Identified p – u response for a data with outlier using L1 –
L2 norm. 148
Figure 4.18 Data with outlier: comparison of predicted with actual p – u
response. 149
Figure 4.19 Data with outlier: details of p – u responses at the peak
load. 149

Figure 5.1 Milan three-point bend test showing grid points where
horizontal displacements are measured. 156
Figure 5.2 Dimensions for the structural model of Milan three-point
bend test. 157
Figure 5.4 Details of the LMC/EPFL wedge splitting test. 158
xv

Figure No. Title Page

Figure 5.3 Plot of the 48 recorded data points and the chosen subset of
32 data points for the Milan three-point bend test. 157
Figure 5.5 Plot of the 128 recorded data points of the LMC/EPFL
wedge splitting test. 159
Figure 5.6 Plot of the 128 recorded data points and the chosen subset
of 32 data points for the LMC/EPFL wedge splitting test. 160
Figure 5.7 Dimensions for the structural model of Danish three-point
bend test. 161
Figure 5.8 Data points for the three-point bend test Danish normal
strength concrete. 162
Figure 5.9 Data points for the three-point bend test Danish high
strength concrete. 162
Figure 5.10 Milan data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u
responses. 165
Figure 5.11 Milan data: details of p – u responses at the peak load. 166
Figure 5.12 Milan data: two-branch softening laws determined by the
NLP-based algorithms. 166
Figure 5.13 LMC/EPFL data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u
responses. 169
Figure 5.14 LMC/EPFL data: details of p – u responses at the peak
load. 169
Figure 5.15 LMC/EPFL data: two-branch softening laws determined by
the NLP-based algorithms. 170
Figure 5.16 LMC/EPFL data: comparison of p – u curves predicted by
the smoothing and penalty algorithms. 171
Figure 5.17 LMC/EPFL data: two-branch softening laws determined by
smoothing and penalty algorithms. 171
Figure 5.18 Danish 1 data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u
responses. 173
Figure 5.19 Danish 1 data: two-branch softening laws determined by
the NLP-based algorithms. 174
Figure 5.20 Danish 1 data: details of p – u responses at the peak load. 174
Figure 5.21 Danish 2 data: comparison of predicted with actual p – u
responses. 176
Figure 5.22 Danish 2 data: details of p – u responses at the peak load. 177
xvi

Figure No. Title Page

Figure 5.23 Danish 2 data: two-branch softening laws determined by


the NLP-based algorithms. 177
Figure 5.24 Milan data: predicted p – u responses of various softening
laws. 181
Figure 5.25 Milan data: details of p – u curves at the peak load. 181
Figure 5.26 Milan data: identified softening curves associated with the
softening laws. 182
Figure 5.27 LMC/EPFL data: predicted p – u responses of various
softening laws. 184
Figure 5.28 LMC/EPFL data: identified softening curves associated
with the softening laws. 186
Figure 5.29 Danish 1 data: predicted p – u responses of various
softening laws. 187
Figure 5.30 Danish 1 data: details of p – u curves at the peak load. 188
Figure 5.31 Danish 1 data: identified softening curves associated with
the softening laws. 189
Figure 5.32 Danish 2 data: identified softening curves associated with
the softening laws. 190
Figure 5.33 Danish 2 data: details of p – u curves at the peak load. 191
Figure 5.34 Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and
smoothing-Tikhonov algorithms for a three-branch law. 195
Figure 5.35 Milan data: identified three-branch law for smoothing and
smoothing-Tikhonov algorithms. 196
Figure 5.36 Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and
Aggregation techniques for a two-branch law. 200
Figure 5.37 Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and
Aggregation techniques for a three-branch law. 201
Figure 5.38 Chosen subset in Milan data for the Presolve technique. 203
Figure 5.39 Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and
Presolve techniques for a three-branch law. 205
Figure 5.40 Chosen subset in LMC/EPFL data for the Presolve
technique. 206
Figure 5.41 LMC/EPFL data: identified p–u responses of smoothing
and Presolve techniques for a two-branch law. 207
xvii

Figure No. Title Page

Figure 5.42 LMC/EPFL data: identified p–u responses of smoothing


and Presolve techniques for a three-branch law. 208
Figure 5.43 LMC/EPFL data: identified three-branch law for the
smoothing algorithm and the Presolve technique. 209
Figure 5.44 Milan data: identified p–u responses of smoothing and
iterative Presolve techniques for a three-branch law. 212
Figure 5.45 LMC/EPFL data: identified p–u responses of smoothing
and iterative Presolve techniques for a two-branch law. 213

Figure 6.1 Pseudo data: GA iteration history of the power law. 232
Figure 6.2 Pseudo data: fitness contour of the power law. 233
Figure 6.3 Pseudo data: fitness landscape of the power law. 233
Figure 6.4 Pseudo data: GA iteration history of the two-branch law. 234
Figure 6.5 DE procedure in generating a trial vector. 240
Figure 6.6 Pseudo data: iteration histories for DE/best/2/bin and
DE/best/2/exp strategies using a two-branch law. 243
Figure 6.7 Pseudo data: DE iteration history of the power law. 244
Figure 6.8 Milan data: GA and DE iteration histories of the power law. 246
Figure 6.9 Milan data: fitness contour of the power law. 247
Figure 6.10 Milan data: fitness landscape of the power law. 248
Figure 6.11 Milan data: GA and DE iteration histories of the two-
branch law. 249
Figure 6.12 Milan data: identified p-u responses of smoothing, GA and
DE methods for a three-branch law. 250
Figure 6.13 Milan data: identified three-branch law for smoothing, GA
and DE methods. 251
Figure 6.14 Milan data: GA and DE iteration histories of the three-
branch law. 252
Figure 6.15 LMC/EPFL data: GA and DE iteration histories of the
power law. 253
Figure 6.16 LMC/EPFL data: fitness contour of the power law. 254
Figure 6.17 LMC/EPFL data: fitness landscape of the power law. 254
Figure 6.18 LMC/EPFL data: fitness contour of the power-exponential
law. 255
xviii

Figure No. Title Page

Figure 6.19 LMC/EPFL data: fitness landscape of the power-


exponential law. 256
Figure 6.20 LMC/EPFL data: GA and DE iteration histories of the
power-exponential law. 256
Figure 6.21 LMC/EPFL data: GA and DE iteration histories of the two-
branch law. 258
Figure 6.22 LMC/EPFL data: GA and DE iteration histories of the
three-branch law. 259
Figure 6.23 LMC/EPFL data: identified p-u responses of smoothing,
GA and DE methods for a three-branch law. 260
Figure 6.24 LMC/EPFL data: identified three-branch law for
smoothing, GA and DE methods. 261
Figure 6.25 Danish 1 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the power
law. 262
Figure 6.26 Danish 1 data: fitness contour of the power law. 263
Figure 6.27 Danish 1 data: fitness landscape of the power law. 263
Figure 6.28 Danish 1 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the power-
exponential law. 264
Figure 6.29 Danish 1 data: fitness contour of the power-exponential
law. 265
Figure 6.30 Danish 1 data: fitness landscape of the power-exponential
law. 265
Figure 6.31 Danish 1 data: identified p-u responses of smoothing, GA
and DE methods for a two-branch law. 266
Figure 6.32 Danish 1 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the two-
branch law. 267
Figure 6.33 Danish 1 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the three-
branch law. 268
Figure 6.34 Danish 1 data: identified p-u responses of smoothing, GA
and DE methods for a three-branch law. 269
Figure 6.35 Danish 1 data: identified three-branch law for smoothing,
GA and DE methods. 269
Figure 6.36 Danish 2 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the power
law. 271
Figure 6.37 Danish 2 data: fitness contour of the power law. 272
xix

Figure No. Title Page

Figure 6.38 Danish 2 data: fitness landscape of the power law. 272
Figure 6.39 Danish 2 data: GA and DE iteration histories of the two-
branch law. 273
Figure 6.40 Danish 2 data: identified p-u responses of smoothing, GA
and DE methods for a three-branch law. 274
Figure 6.41 Danish 2 data: identified three-branch law for smoothing,
GA and DE methods. 275
xx

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page

Table 3.1 Stress and displacement values of a cantilever beam


obtained from beam theory and 14-element two-zone BEM
analysis. 83
Table 3.2 Stress and displacement values of a cantilever beam
obtained from refined two-zone BEM discretisation. 84
Table 3.3 β values for the exact and the approximate solutions. 87

Table 3.4 σ x values obtained using the exact and approximate


solutions. 87

Table 3.5 σ x values for BEM(16x16x2) compared with the values


predicted using the exact and approximate solutions. 89

Table 3.6 Comparison of σ x values for the exact and approximate


solutions. 91

Table 4.1 Results of the parameter identification of Data 1 for


different NLP-based algorithms using standard least-
squares norm. 134
Table 4.2 Updated results of the parameter identification of Data 1 for
different NLP-based algorithms using standard least-
squares norm. 135
Table 4.3 Parameter identification of Data 2 using different
algorithms. 137
Table 4.4 Commonly used robust estimators. 140
Table 4.5 Results of the parameter identification of perfect data using
different error norms. 145
Table 4.6 Results of the parameter identification of perturbed data
using different error norms. 146
Table 4.7 Results of the parameter identification of data with outlier
using different error norms. 148
Table 4.8 Results of the parameter identification of Data 1 using L1
norm. 151
Table 4.9 Results of the parameter identification of Data 2 using L1
norm. 151
xxi

Table No. Title Page

Table 5.1 Settings of NLP-based algorithms for Milan data. 164


Table 5.2 Results of parameter identification of Milan data using
different NLP-based algorithms. 165
Table 5.3 Settings of NLP-based algorithms for LMC/EPFL data. 168
Table 5.4 Results of parameter identification of LMC/EPFL data
using different NLP-based algorithms. 168
Table 5.5 Settings of NLP-based algorithms for Danish 1 data. 172
Table 5.6 Results of parameter identification of Danish 1 data for
different NLP-based algorithms. 172
Table 5.7 Settings of NLP-based algorithms for Danish 2 data. 175
Table 5.8 Results of parameter identification of Danish 2 data for
different NLP-based algorithms. 176
Table 5.9 Identified parameters of different softening laws using
Milan data. 180
Table 5.10 Other information related to the parameter identification of
Milan data. 180
Table 5.11 Identified parameters of different softening laws using
LMC/EPFL data. 183
Table 5.12 Information related to the parameter identification of
LMC/EPLF data. 183
Table 5.13 Identified parameters of different softening laws using
Danish 1 data. 186
Table 5.14 Information related to the parameter identification of
Danish 1 data. 187
Table 5.15 Identified parameters of different softening laws using
Danish 2 data. 189
Table 5.16 Other information related to the parameter identification of
Danish 2 data. 191
Table 5.17 Milan data: comparison of results for a two-branch law
between smoothing and smoothing-Tikhonov algorithms. 194
Table 5.18 Milan data: comparison of results for a three-branch law
between smoothing and smoothing-Tikhonov algorithms. 195
Table 5.19 Milan data: identification results using Aggregation
technique for a two-branch law. 199
xxii

Table No. Title Page

Table 5.20 Milan data: identification results using Aggregation


technique for a three-branch law. 200
Table 5.21 Milan data: identification results using Presolve technique
for a two-branch law. 204
Table 5.22 Milan data: identification results using Presolve technique
for a three-branch law. 204
Table 5.23 Milan data: identification results using Presolve technique
for power law. 205
Table 5.24 LMC/EPFL data: identification results using Presolve
technique for a two-branch law. 207
Table 5.25 LMC/EPFL data: identification results using Presolve
technique for a three-branch law. 208
Table 5.26 LMC/EPFL data: identification results using Presolve
technique for power law. 210
Table 5.27 LMC/EPFL data: identification results using Presolve
technique for power-exponential law. 210
Table 5.28 Milan data: identification results using the iterative
Presolve technique for a three-branch law. 211
Table 5.29 LMC/EPFL data: identification results using the iterative
Presolve technique for a two-branch law. 213

Table 6.1 Settings of the crossover operators used in GAOT. 228


Table 6.2 Settings of the mutation operators used in GAOT. 229
Table 6.3 Pseudo data: identification of the power law using GA. 231
Table 6.4 Pseudo data: identification of the two-branch law using GA. 234
Table 6.5 Pseudo data: two-branch law parameters identified using
different DE strategies. 242
Table 6.6 Pseudo data: identification of the power law using DE. 243
Table 6.7 Milan data: identification of the power law using GA and
DE. 245
Table 6.8 Milan data: identification of the two-branch law using GA
and DE. 248
Table 6.9 Milan data: identification of the three-branch law using GA
and DE. 250
xxiii

Table No. Title Page

Table 6.10 LMC/EPFL data: identification of the power law using GA


and DE. 252
Table 6.11 LMC/EPFL data: identification of the power-exponential
law using GA and DE. 255
Table 6.12 LMC/EPFL data: identification of the two-branch law using
GA and DE. 257
Table 6.13 LMC/EPFL data: identification of the three-branch law
using GA and DE. 258
Table 6.14 Danish 1 data: identification of the power law using GA
and DE. 261
Table 6.15 Danish 1 data: identification of the power-exponential law
using GA and DE. 264
Table 6.16 LMC/EPFL data: identification of the two-branch law using
GA and DE. 266
Table 6.17 Danish 1 data: identification of the three-branch law using
GA and DE. 268
Table 6.18 Danish 2 data: identification of the power law using GA
and DE. 270
Table 6.19 Danish 2 data: identification of the two-branch law using
GA and DE. 272
Table 6.20 Danish 2 data: identification of the three-branch law using
GA and DE. 274