E3S Web of Conferences 434, 02020 (2023) [Link]

1051/e3sconf/202343402020
ICECAE 2023

Structural Damage Identification Methods in Truss Bridge

Structures Using Vibration Analysis: A Review
Dita Kamarul Fitriyah1*, D Irawan1, Budi Suswanto1, and AB Habieb1
1
Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, 60111 Surabaya, Indonesia

Abstract. Developing countries will always engage in infrastructure development in various regions, and one
notable aspect of this development is the construction of steel frame bridges. Bridges are complex structures
with a myriad of challenges. The increasing number of cases of steel frame bridge collapses has prompted
humans to become more conscious of Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) activities. In order to implement
this, the development of a straightforward structural damage detection method has been pursued, suitable for
both simple and highly complex structures, commonly referred to as Vibration-Based Damage Detection
(VBDD). Various algorithms have been proposed to achieve the goal of identifying structural damage, enabling
prompt and accurate decision-making in handling such situations. This article delves into the discussion of
several proposed algorithms for achieving this objective.

1. Introduction
The Developing countries will always engage in infrastructure development across various regions. One of the key
projects in this development is the construction of steel frame bridges[1]. Bridges are integral parts of infrastructure,
and as such, bridge collapses can have significant impacts on both the economy and human safety [2][3]. For instance,
the collapse of the Silver Bridge in Ohio in 1967 resulted in 46 deaths, and the failure of the I-35W bridge in Minnesota
in 2007 due to overload during repairs and gusset plate failure[4][5] led to 13 deaths and 145 severe injuries. This
resulted in a loss of $26 billion for the United States from 2007 to 2008. The U.S. reported 503 cases of bridge collapse
causing substantial losses to the country between 1989 and 2000[3]. In 2007, a steel frame bridge in Japan was found
to have corrosion in some of its sections[6]. In Indonesia, there were two cases of steel frame bridge collapses in 2018,
namely the Ponulele bridge in Palu, which collapsed due to an earthquake and tsunami, and the collapse of a steel
frame bridge on the Tuban - Lamongan border due to excessive load[1].
The increasing number of bridge collapses has prompted researchers to seek detailed information about the causes and
mechanisms of bridge failure[3] A research study indicates that there are two main factors causing bridge collapses:
natural factors and human factors. Natural factors include floods, earthquakes, landslides, storms, hurricanes, extreme
conditions, and others. Human factors encompass design flaws, incorrect construction methods, collisions,
overloading, fires, inadequate inspection and maintenance, and others. These factors contribute to the deterioration and
collapse of bridge structures [3][7].
As a consequence, engineers are researching optimal methods for detecting bridge damage to provide early information
about deterioration, thus minimizing bridge collapse incidents that can result in fatalities and economic losses for the
country [8]. Visual inspection methods are considered less effective. Visual methods provide valuable information
when monitoring protocols are in place, but their weakness lies in the dependence on the skills and experience of
inspection operators to identify damage[9]. Consequently, the concept of structural health, also known as Structural
Health Monitoring (SHM), has been developed in the field of Structural Engineering[10]. SHM involves observing the
structure or system's behavior over time through periodic measurements, extracting measurements that are sensitive to
damage, and conducting static analysis to determine the health status of the system[11]. SHM is also used to validate
design assumptions, enabling decision-making regarding maintenance issues and maintenance management [12]. SHM
can contribute to assessing five levels of damage [11][13][14]:
1) Existence: Is there damage to this system?
2) Location: Where is the damage in this system?


*
Corresponding author: [Link]@[Link]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 ([Link]
E3S Web of Conferences 434, 02020 (2023) [Link]
ICECAE 2023

3) Type: What type of damage?

4) Size: How severe is the damage?
5) Prognosis: How much remaining service life does this system have?
To achieve these contributions, various studies are being developed, and a vibration-based damage detection (VVDB)
method has been proposed. This method has gained prominence due to the increasing complexity of structural damage
cases [15]. Essentially, the idea behind vibration-based damage identification is that damage is caused by changes in
the physical properties of the object. These physical properties, such as mass, damping, and stiffness, can be indicated
by changes in natural frequencies, modal damping, and mode shapes [16]. Damage can also be defined by changes in
geometric or material characteristics that adversely affect the performance, safety, and reliability of the structure [17].
Assessing structural conditions based on vibrations (VVDB) is considered effective in detecting structural damage
using modal parameters such as natural frequencies, mode shapes, damping ratios, curvature mode shapes, and others
[18][19]. The VVDB method is highly effective for use in short and medium-span bridges, as well as complex
structures with easily modeled finite elements [20]. Several formulations for applying vibration-based damage
detection (VVDB) methods are being developed.

2. Comparative Study of Literature and Methods

Research related to the development of vibration-based damage detection (VVDB) methods has been conducted by
numerous researchers. Among them, Moradipour [15] developed the MSE method and tested it on a numerical and
experimental steel frame bridge structure model. The results showed that the MSECR method can be proposed for the
monitoring of complex bridge health and accurately identifying damage in the steel frame bridge structure model. Zhou
[20] conducted a comparison of algorithms for identifying and locating damage in a detached box girder test model
from a bridge. All algorithms were able to detect and localize damage using six uniformly distributed accelerometers
[20][21] (as seen in Figure 1), but they were susceptible to errors when detecting damage located in the support area.
From the comparison, the CMS interpolation method showed the highest accuracy in locating damage for broader
damage cases. Frigui [22] tested algorithms for detecting and locating damage in building structures using the Finite
Element Method (FEM). In their research, damage detection methods using Eigenfrequencies and the Modal Assurance
Criterion (MAC) were applied, followed by localization using the Modal Strain Curvature (MSC) and Cross Modal
Assurance Criterion (CDF) methods. The results indicated that the MAC method could detect damage in the 16th
mode, while the MSC method could localize damage in low modes. Chang [21] applied the MAC and COMAC
methods for damage identification in a steel frame bridge using the FEM. The results showed that the MAC method
was effective in detecting damage because it was sensitive to specific damage scenarios. Rucevskis [23] conducted a
comparative test of the MSC, MSCS, and MSCSM algorithms to identify damage in an experimental beam. The beam
structure was prepared in both intact and damaged conditions with various damage locations. The results showed that
the MSC and MSCS damage index methods, as well as the proposed MSCSM damage index method, successfully
indicated the size and location of damage. The advantage of the MSCS method was that it only required data from the
damaged structure to detect damage in the studied damaged beam structure.

Fig. 1. The Uniform distribution of accelerometer sensors [20][21]

From the various comparative studies discussed in the previous paragraphs, each researcher has formulated several
algorithms for vibration-based damage detection (VVDB), which are commonly used to detect structural damage.
These include the following methods: Change in Mode Shape (CMS) method [20], modal assurance criterion (MAC)
method [22][21], mode shape curvature (MSC) method [20], modal strain energy change ratio (MSECR) method [15],
and mode shape curvature square (MSCS) method [23]. The detailed formulations provided in the literature are as
follows:

2
E3S Web of Conferences 434, 02020 (2023) [Link]
ICECAE 2023

2.1. Change in Mode Shape Method (CMS): This method calculates the simple difference values between the mode
shapes of the damaged and intact structures.
∆𝜙𝜙 = |𝜙𝜙 ∗ | − |𝜙𝜙 |
Where the evaluation result is represented by the symbol of the absolute value, indicating the evaluation of the
absolute values of each component of the damaged and intact structural vectors [20].

2.2. Modal assurance criterion (MAC)

2
𝑛𝑛 [𝜓𝜓 ] 𝑗𝑗 [𝜓𝜓 ]𝑗𝑗
(Σ𝑖𝑖=1 𝑢𝑢 𝑖𝑖 𝑑𝑑 𝑖𝑖 )
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 = 2
𝑛𝑛
Σ𝑖𝑖=1 ([𝜓𝜓𝑢𝑢 ]𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗 ) ([𝜓𝜓𝑑𝑑 ]𝑗𝑗𝑖𝑖 )2
Where [𝜓𝜓𝑢𝑢 ] and [𝜓𝜓𝑑𝑑 ] represent the respective mode shapes of the intact and damaged structures. 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 is a
factor that indicates the relationship between the 𝑗𝑗𝑡𝑡ℎ and 𝑘𝑘 𝑡𝑡ℎ modes, and n is the number of measurement nodes
[22].

2.3. Mode shape curvature (MSC)

∆𝜐𝜐𝑖𝑖" = |𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖"𝑑𝑑 − 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖" |
In this algorithm, the indication of damage location can be assessed by the difference in curvature shapes between
the nodes of the intact structure and the damaged structure. The curvature shape of the mode is calculated from
the measured experimental mode shape or numerically using the central difference approximation approach [23],
as follows:
(𝜐𝜐𝑖𝑖+1 − 2𝜐𝜐𝑖𝑖 + 𝜐𝜐𝑖𝑖−1 )
𝜐𝜐𝑖𝑖" =
ℎ2
The number of damage indices for each mode is determined by the following formula:
𝑁𝑁
1
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 = ∑(∆𝜐𝜐𝑖𝑖" )𝑛𝑛
𝑁𝑁
𝑛𝑛=1

2.4. Modal strain energy change ratio (MSECR)

Modal strain energy ratio can detect damage location by applying calculations (2.4a) and (2.4b).
𝑑𝑑
|𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 −𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖|
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗 = (2.4a)
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
1 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 = 5 ∑5𝑖𝑖=1 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (2.4b)
𝑖𝑖,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Where i is the mode; j is the element dan 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 is the average value of the sum of 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑗𝑗 for the first five
modes, taken in absolute value for the 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖,𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 value in each mode.

2.5. Mode shape curvature square (MSCS)

The damage index is determined by this formula:
∆𝜐𝜐𝑖𝑖"2 = |𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖"𝑑𝑑2 − 𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖"2 |
For multiple modes, the index formula is used as follows:
𝑁𝑁
1
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 = ∑(∆𝜐𝜐𝑖𝑖"2 )𝑛𝑛
𝑁𝑁
𝑛𝑛=1
Some methods require data from the intact structure; therefore, this method can be used to detect damage location
in the damaged structure. This method is proposed because it only requires damage indices from the damaged
structure [23]. Based on the previously researched formulations, the explanation is as follows (Table 1).

Table 1. Application of the VBDD method to be able to contribute to SHM

SHM Countribution
Algorithm Parameter input
Level 1 Level 2 Others
CMS Mode shape Yes - -
Mode shape and natural
MAC Yes Yes -
frequency
Mode shape and natural
MSC Yes Yes -
frequency
MSECR Mode shape and stiffness matrix Yes Yes -

3
E3S Web of Conferences 434, 02020 (2023) [Link]
ICECAE 2023

MSCS Mode shape Yes Yes Yes

Explanation:
Level 1 contribution of SHM is to identify the presence of damage in the structure.
Level 2 contribution of SHM is to detect the location of damage in the structure.
Other contributions imply SHM capabilities beyond levels 1 and 2.

In the comparison of the literature studies, it is also necessary to assess the algorithm's ability to detect damage for the
modeled scenarios of damage in the research object. This can be observed in Table 2.

Table 2. Algorithm Comparison for Damage Detection

Single damage Multiple damage Noise
Algorithm
detection detection immunity
CMS Yes No N/A
MAC Yes Yes N/A
MSC Yes Yes Excelent
MSECR Yes Yes Excelent
MSCS Yes Yes Excelent
The explanations provided in the two tables above will be discussed in point 3 as a reference for designing a structural
monitoring system for easy damage identification and localization.

3. Results and Discussion

Based on the literature review study conducted earlier and referring to Tables 1 and 2, the following points can be
discussed:

• Change in Mode Shape Method (CMS): CMS requires mode shape data from both intact and damaged structures
to detect damage in the researched object. Unfortunately, CMS is effective in detecting damage for scenarios where
the damage is close to the vibration measurement devices. Thus, implementing the CMS algorithm necessitates a
sufficient number of vibration measurement devices placed adequately close (as shown in Figure 1) to provide optimal
information.

• Modal Assurance Criterion (MAC): MAC utilizes mode shape and natural frequency data from intact and damaged
structures. This algorithm excels in identifying and localizing damage in complex structures. MAC is proficient in
representing various damage scenarios. It requires mode shape and natural frequency data from both intact and
damaged structures as input.

• Mode Shape Curvature (MSC): MSC is also proficient in effectively detecting and localizing damage in complex
structures with low noise.

• Modal Strain Energy Change Ratio (MSECR): MSECR employs several features as parameters and also requires
data from an intact structural model for comparison. However, this algorithm is capable of accurately identifying and
localizing damage even with 3 to 5% noise present.

• Mode Shape Curvature Square (MSCS): MSCS was proposed by previous researchers as it requires minimal data,
specifically mode shapes generated from the damaged structure. MSCS is effective in representing various damage
scenarios in complex structures with low noise.

These observations emphasize the strengths and limitations of each algorithm in detecting and localizing damage in
different scenarios. Depending on the specific requirements of the structural monitoring project, such as the degree of
damage localization needed, the availability of data, and the complexity of the structure, engineers and designers can
make informed choices about which SHM method to employ. The comparison and insights provided by the tables help
guide the selection of an appropriate algorithm for effective and accurate damage detection and localization.

4. Conclusions
1. The increasing number of structural failures, particularly in bridge structures, has prompted engineers to
investigate the root causes of these collapses. Studies derived from various research efforts have categorized these
structural failures into two main factors: human-related factors and natural factors.

4
E3S Web of Conferences 434, 02020 (2023) [Link]
ICECAE 2023

2. Vibration-Based Damage Detection (VBDD) has been extensively proposed by researchers for identifying
damage. This method is considered effective and cost-efficient, making it suitable for application to structures
with high levels of complexity.
3. In order to implement the concept of vibration-based damage detection, research has been conducted on various
algorithms aimed at identifying and localizing damage in a simple and cost-effective manner.
4. Among the algorithms explored through literature study, some of them require data from intact structures as input
for comparison with the analysis of damaged structures.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi (Center for Higher
Education Funding-BPPT) and Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP) of Indonesian Government.

References
1. A. Rochim, D. Iranata, B. Piscesa, and N. A. Refani, “Analisa Tidak Linier Mekanisme Keruntuhan Jembatan
Busur Rangka Baja (A-Half Through Arch),” J. Apl. Tek. Sipil, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 19, 2019, doi: 10.12962/j2579-
891x.v17i1.4764.
2. A. Fatah, U. Ungkawa, M. M. Barmawi, J. T. Informatika, F. T. Industri, and F. Alami, “Implementasi Algoritma
Fast Fourier Transform Pada Monitor Getaran Untuk Analisis Kesehatan,” vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 48–57, 2020, doi:
10.32897/infotronik.2020.5.2.414.
3. L. Deng, D. Ph, M. Asce, W. Wang, and Y. Yu, “State-of-The-Art Review on the Causes and Mechanisms of
Bridge Collapse State-of-the-Art Review on the Causes and Mechanisms of Bridge Collapse,” no. April 2019,
2015, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000731.
4. A. Astaneh-Asl, “Progressice collapse of steel truss bridges, the case of I-35W collapse,” 7th Int. Conf. Steel
Bridg., pp. 1–10, 2008.
5. S. S. Jorfi and F. A. Gandomkar, “Investigation Progressive Collapse of K-Model Steel Truss Bridge under
Additional Live Load Following Bridge Repairs,” vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 191–204, 2022, doi:
10.22060/ajce.2022.20830.5781.
6. E. Yamaguchi, R. Okamoto, and K. Yamada, “Post-Member-Failure Analysis Method of Steel Truss,” Procedia
Eng., vol. 14, pp. 656–661, 2011, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2011.07.083.
7. H. S. Birajdar, P. R. Maiti, and P. K. Singh, “Failure of Chauras bridge,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 45, pp. 339–346,
2014, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2014.06.015.
8. Purnomo, W. A. N. Aspar, W. Barasa, S. M. Harjono, P. Sukamdo, and T. Fiantika, “Initial Implementation of
Structural Health Monitoring System of a Railway Bridge,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1200, no. 1, p.
012019, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/1200/1/012019.
9. L. Bernardini and M. Carnevale, “applied sciences Damage Identification in Warren Truss Bridges by Two
Different Time – Frequency Algorithms,” 2021.
10. P. Suprobo, Faimun, and A. Febry, “Infrastructure Health Monitoring System ( SHM ) Development , a Necessity
for Maintenance and Investigation,” vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1–4, 2013.
11. C. R. Farrar and K. Worden, “An introduction to structural health monitoring,” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math.
Phys. Eng. Sci., vol. 365, no. 1851, pp. 303–315, 2007, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2006.1928.
12. J. Kuckartz and P. Collier, “A User-Centric Approach to the Design of Structural Health Monitoring Systems,”
2011.
13. C. Comisu, N. Taranu, G. Boaca, and M. Scutaru, “ScienceDirect ScienceDirect ScienceDirect Structural health
health monitoring monitoring system system of of bridges bridges Structural,” Procedia Eng., vol. 199, pp. 2054–
2059, 2017, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2017.09.472.
14. A. Malekloo, E. Ozer, M. Alhamaydeh, and M. Girolami, Machine learning and structural health monitoring
overview with emerging technology and high-dimensional data source highlights, vol. 0, no. 0. 2021. doi:
10.1177/14759217211036880.
15. P. Moradipour, T. H. T. Chan, and C. Gallage, “Benchmark Studies for Bridge Health Monitoring Using an
Improved Modal Strain Energy Method,” Procedia Eng., vol. 188, pp. 194–200, 2017, doi:
10.1016/[Link].2017.04.474.
16. W. Fan and P. Qiao, “Vibration-based damage identification methods: A review and comparative study,” Struct.
Heal. Monit., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 83–111, 2011, doi: 10.1177/1475921710365419.
17. O. Avci, O. Abdeljaber, S. Kiranyaz, M. Hussein, M. Gabbouj, and D. J. Inman, “A review of vibration-based
damage detection in civil structures: From traditional methods to Machine Learning and Deep Learning
applications,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., vol. 147, 2021, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2020.107077.

5
E3S Web of Conferences 434, 02020 (2023) [Link]
ICECAE 2023

18. X. Lei, L. Sun, Y. Xia, and T. He, “Vibration-based seismic damage states evaluation for regional concrete beam
bridges using random forest method,” Sustain., vol. 12, no. 12, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12125106.
19. A. Furukawa and J. Kiyono, “Identification Of Structural Damage Based On Vibration Responses,” no. 132, 2004.
20. Z. Zhou, L. D. Wegner, and B. F. Sparling, “Structural Health Monitoring of Precast Concrete Box Girders Using
Selected Vibration-Based Damage Detection Methods,” vol. 2010, 2010, doi: 10.1155/2010/280685.
21. K. Chang and C. Kim, “Modal-parameter identification and vibration-based damage detection of a damaged steel
truss bridge,” Eng. Struct., vol. 122, pp. 156–173, 2016, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.04.057.
22. F. Omar et al., “Global methodology for damage detection and localization in civil engineering structures,” Eng.
Struct., vol. 171, pp. 686–695, 2018, doi: 10.1016/[Link].2018.06.026.
23. S. Rucevskis and M. Wesolowski, “Identification of damage in a beam structure by using mode shape curvature
squares,” Shock Vib., vol. 17, no. 4–5, pp. 601–610, 2010, doi: 10.3233/SAV-2010-0551.