Mechanical Vibrations Applied to Nondestructive Evaluation of Materials and Structures
View this Special IssueResearch Article  Open Access
L. Collini, R. Garziera, K. Riabova, "Vibration Analysis for Monitoring of Ancient TieRods", Shock and Vibration, vol. 2017, Article ID 7591749, 11 pages, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7591749
Vibration Analysis for Monitoring of Ancient TieRods
Abstract
This paper presents an application of vibration analysis to the monitoring of tierods. An algorithm for the axial load estimation based on experimentally measured natural frequencies is introduced and its application to a case study is reported. The proposed model of a tierod incorporates elastic bedtype boundary conditions that represent the contact between stonework and the tierod. The weighed differences between experimentally and numerically determined frequencies are minimized with respect to the parameters of the model, the main being the axial load and the stiffness at the tierod/wall interface. Thus, the multidimensional optimization problem is solved. Results are analysed in comparison to a model with simple fixedend boundary conditions. In addition, the analytical formulation of the problem is delivered.
1. Introduction
The present paper reviews the applications of vibration analysis to the monitoring of the socalled “tierods.” Tierods are metal beams used in a wide range of civil constructions. The main purpose of these structural elements is to provide support for masonry arches and vaults in ancient buildings, like churches, cathedrals, and castles, which are known to lurch and founder in course of time. Tierods are subjected to axial tension and, thus, help the building resist lateral loads exerted by walls and facades. Figure 1 pictures a typical layout of tierods supporting arches of the first floor terrace in the medieval Castello di Torrechiara (Castle of Torrechiara) in the province of Parma, Italy.
Over the years, deformations of masonry walls and eventual displacements in the building may cause significant changes in the axial loads of tierods. In the extremes, this can lead to either of two scenarios: failure in structural integrity of tierods (damages and cracks) or loss of loads and subsequent performance decline, a phenomenon referred to as the “laziness” of tierods. Both of the scenarios are dangerous for the safety and integrity of buildings and can lead to irretrievable harm to the precious historical heritage of the human race. For this reason regular monitoring of tierods’ condition is of a great importance.
Health monitoring of tierods includes two major steps. The first one is identification of axial load and the second one is damage identification. As for the first one, multiple methods have been developed to accomplish this task and the details on the state of art are provided in the next section. Such experimental techniques should be as less invasive as possible and at the same time provide sufficient data on the beam condition. Generally this type of testing is referred to as “nondestructive.”
In particular, nondestructive testing (NDT) is the process of investigating structures and elements for characteristics, discontinuities, changes in properties, and so forth without harming the continuity and usability of the part under testing. One of the relatively cheap, easily executable, and reliable NDT techniques is vibration analysis (VA). This way of health monitoring of the structures can be applied to testing whole buildings as well as its smallest parts depending on the scope and approach used. VA is based on investigation of dynamics of a structure under a certain excitation: it can be an impact hammer or a shaker. The response to the excitation is registered via sensors: accelerometers, optic sensors, laser, and so forth. Vibrational response contains information about the main structural characteristics of the system: mass and stiffness. Based on the knowledge of modal parameters, conclusions are drawn on the loading and structural integrity of the elements.
A reliable experimental technique helps to validate analytical and numerical models used for prediction of cracked beam dynamics. The purpose of this research is to develop a VA procedure based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of frequency response functions.
The further sections describe a method for axial load identification in tierods developed by the Department of Industrial Engineering of the University of Parma. This approach combines in situ dynamic tests and computations that make use of a beam model with complex boundary conditions. The method was tested and improved throughout some years since it was applied for multiple case studies of monitoring such famous Italian historic buildings as Duomo di Parma (Cathedral of Parma), Basilica della Madonna dell’Umiltà in Pistoia (Church of Our Lady of Humility), Rocca Sanvitale di Fontanellato (Sanvitale Fortress of Fontanellato), and Casa Romei (Romeì House) in Ferrara, as reported by the authors Collini et al. in [1–7].
2. State of the Art in Axial Load Identification in TieRods
The structural characterization of tierods is crucial for the safety assessment of historical buildings. The main parameters that characterize the behaviour of tierods are the tensile force, the modulus of elasticity of the material, and the rotational stiffness at both restraints. In the last decades several techniques for an indirect nondestructive evaluation of such parameters have been proposed. The nondestructive procedures currently available for the structural characterization of tierods can be grouped in static, staticdynamic, and pure dynamic approaches. Pioneering static methods presented, for instance, in works of Pozzati [8] and in [9, 10], in spite of minor differences, are based on measures of displacement and/or strain at few crosssections of the tierod due to applied static loads. Bati and Tonietti introduced a static approach for force identification that consisted of measuring three vertical displacements and strains variations at three sections of the tierod under a concentrated load [10]. Even if the data postprocessing is quite straightforward, these methods are extremely sensitive to the experimental error in the measures of displacement. In addition, since tierods are usually positioned at considerable heights, the need of measuring vertical deflections with respect to a reference fixed base makes static methods difficult in practice.
Mixed approaches try to identify the unknown parameters by combining static and dynamic measures. Blasi and Sorace [11–13] modelled tierods as simply supported Euler beams with rotational springs of similar stiffness added on each edge. The stiffness of the spring and the force were the two unknowns obtained from the system of equations, built with a static equation for deflection and a dynamic equation for natural frequencies. Thus, this method required data from two separate experiments, that is, in situ measurements of the central deflection under static load and of the fundamental natural frequency, which can be obtained by hammer impact testing and Fourier transforming the recorded accelerations. Testing of this method in laboratory conditions showed good results; however, measurement errors can cause significant deviation in results for the two unknowns. Even though staticdynamic methods can exploit additional dynamic information for the characterization, they are still affected by the shortcomings related to deflection measurements.
Such drawbacks are avoided in pure dynamic procedures [14–28], where, in general, the difference between the experimental and the calculated natural frequencies of vibration is minimized in order to identify the unknown parameters.
Lagomarsino and Calderini [14] developed an algorithm to identify the axial tensile force in ancient tierods by using the first three natural frequencies. The tierod was modelled as an Euler beam of uniform crosssection, neglecting the shear deformation and rotary inertia, and was assumed to be simply supported at the ends with additional rotational springs.
Recently Maes et al. introduced a method that enables definition of axial loads in slender beams with unknown boundary conditions, taking into account effects of rotational inertia of the beam and masses of sensors [15]. However, it requires data from five or more sensors along the length of the beam to determine all the introduced unknowns of the inverted problem. A similar technique of the axial force identification was developed by Li et al. [16], focusing on studies of Euler–Bernoulli beams and takes into account bending stiffness effects.
Rebecchi et al. established an analytical method of processing experimental data from five instrumented sections of a prismatic slender beam, which showed excellent results in estimation of the axial load in tierods [17]. The method does not require any exact value of effective length of the beam but neglects both rotary inertia and shear deformations effects in the solution for beam vibrations. For cases of similar beams their colleagues Tullini et al. proposed a static method of axial force identification [18–20]. The analytical algorithm makes use of any set of experimental data represented by flexural displacements or curvatures measured at five crosssections of the beam subjected to an additional concentrated lateral load. Gentilini et al. developed in [21] a procedure that combines dynamical testing with FEM simulations using added masses. The method was tested out for tierods of various lengths and load intensity, showing reliable results.
Livingston et al. identified the tensile force in prismatic beams of uniform section by using modal data and assuming rotational and vertical springs at each end of the beam [22]. Shear deformation and rotary inertia were neglected (according to the Euler beam model).
Another fully dynamic procedure has been proposed by Kim and Park [23]. It allows identifying the tension force and flexural and axial stiffness of the cable from measured natural frequencies. Anyway this technique is not immediately applicable to tierods since they cannot be modelled as cables and present uncertain constraints due to the portion of the rod inserted into the masonry wall or column.
Amabili et al. [1–6] developed a twostep method consisting of in situ measurements of tierods’ natural frequencies and further elaboration of the data via an optimization algorithm based on the RayleighRitz method [7]. Varying certain parameters, the main of which was the sought axial load, this algorithm matched estimated sets of frequencies with those determined from experiments. The considered numerical models allowed analysis of ancient tierods affected by nonperfect constraints, added masses, discontinuities, irregular crosssections, and complex boundary conditions. Different importance of the natural frequencies can be as well taken into account. The technique is of simple execution and allows minimizing the measurement error. Its functionality and reliability have been proved as it has been applied with success to many case studies.
3. Dynamic Method for Load Identification
The first step of the method is the in situ experimental identification of natural frequencies of the tierods by measuring the frequency response functions (FRFs) via instrumented hammer excitation. Precisely the testing technique used for the investigation of tierods in Casa Romei located in the city of Ferrara, EmiliaRomagna, Italy, was described in [1–3]. The first four to six natural frequencies, which can be extracted with high precision, were in the focus. Subsequently, an axially loaded tierod was modelled in finite element method (FEM) software Abaqus 6.13 as a general case of a Timoshenko beam, using threedimensional beam elements retaining shear deformation and rotational inertia. The parametric model enabled considering nonuniform crosssections of rods, since this is often the case for handmade tierods in old buildings.
The interface tierod/wall was assumed to be a continuous elastic bed; that is, extremities of tierods inserted inside masonry walls were modelled as resting on Winklertype foundation. This type of boundary has been used in dynamics of particular cases, for example, for beams or rails subjected to travelling loads, as reported by Farghaly and Zeid [29], Ruge and Birk [30], and Koroma et al. [31]. In our case we discretized the elastic bed into separate springs equispaced along the length of the bed , each of a stiffness (see Figure 2).
Clearly, the foundation may have a nonuniformly distributed stiffness, which would result in different assigned to each spring. The advantage of the Winkler bed compared to other types of boundaries generally used for tierods is that a number of springs placed closely exhibit more complex behaviour than linear and/or rotational springs attached to a single node. Hence, it is a reliable way of modelling a real wallrod contact condition. The optimization parameters in this case were the unknown axial load, the stiffness of the foundation, and the length of the rod inside the wall. In real cases the lengths of the extremities inserted into the masonry and the stiffness of the foundation most likely differ for each end of the tierod. This complication has been avoided in the reported case study; however, the method proposed hereby is capable of taking into account other desired parameters of the model.
3.1. Analytical Formulation of the Problem
As shown in Figure 2, tierod was divided into three sections of length , section I; l, section II; and again , section III, where identifies the portion inserted into the wall and is the measured “free” length. At the tips of the rod freeend boundary conditions were applied and between the sections, correspondingly, the conditions of congruence.
Assuming the hypotheses of BernoulliEuler beam theory for the analytical formulation, we chose to neglect the shear deformation and rotational inertia, because the subject of this study was a slender rod, for which the ratio of linear dimensions of crosssections to length is a very small number.
The energy approach was used to obtain the equations of motion via Lagrangian of the system [1]. Thus, the energy functionals were given by (1)–(4) as follows.
Kinetic energy isPotential energy of elastic strain isPotential energy associated with the axial load isPotential energy associated with the elastic foundation isTotal potential energy isThe Heaviside function in (4) allows us to write down a single expression for the whole tierod, taking into account different conditions for its parts.
We proceeded defining the Lagrangian of the system, which is equal to the difference between the overall kinetic and potential energy:Applying Hamilton’s principle, we obtained the system of Lagrange equations of motion (7), where indicated every generalized coordinate (degree of freedom) and the number of differential equations was equal to the number of dofs. In our case the degree of freedom was represented by the function .Sequentially substituting (1)–(5) into (6) and then differentiating the Lagrangian as shown in (7), we obtained the equation of natural vibrations of the rod:As stated above, the ends of tierods (where and ) were considered free and between parts III and IIIII eight conditions of continuity emerged; this provides twelve conditions that were expressed in form of the following:The shearing force and the bending moment were defined by For each section of the tierod (see Figure 2 for the reference system), a separate function was introduced: , ,. The differential equation of motion (8) was solved by means of the Fourier method (11), where is the form function, is the time function, and takes on a value from 1 to 3 according to each section of the rod.It is evident that the parts vibrate with the same time frequency; thus, we could get rid of the index in . For the time function we obtained (12) for all three sections of the rod, with being a natural frequency in rad/s and and being coefficients defining the phase. After the substitution of (12) and (11) into (8), the form of (13) for parts I, III, and II was delivered.Ordinary differential equations (13) were solved using the general solution given asFurther, the algebraic equations (15) in coefficients were obtained throughout substitution of the general solution (14) into the differential equations (13).Each of equations in (15) provided correspondingly four solutions for : two complex and two real roots for the first equation and four complex roots for the second one. All of the parameters in a certain form contain , , and . Still, to keep our expressions simplified, we used parameters in the form functions for the natural modes of the tierod:Substituting the forms (16) into twelve conditions (9), we hence obtained a homogeneous system of twelve equations containing twelve unknowns , which in a matrix form is expressed as In order to provide a nontrivial solution the determinant of the matrix in (17) was supposed to be equal to zero (18), which resulted in a characteristic equation of the eigenvalue problem.Equation (18) is to be solved for the natural frequencies ω by means of, for instance, the NewtonRaphson method. Furthermore, the dispersion between analytically and experimentally determined frequencies can be minimized with respect to parameters and , following the optimization procedure described in the next sections. This approach in a closed form delivers solution for the sought axial load in tierod.
3.2. Numerical Model and Optimization Procedure
Tierods were modelled in FEM software using beam elements. In this case the beam is represented with a onedimension body, that is, a wire (line, curve, polyline), and crosssection shapes and dimensions are assigned to this body as one of the properties, which allowed taking into account irregular crosssections, added masses, elastic supports, and so forth. The beam model shows good results for analyses of long slender beams. For beam elements there is an option of modelling the axial tensile load as a bolt pretension load. Tierods were modelled using 50–60 B31 2node linear beam elements in 3D space implying Timoshenko’s beam theory.
The FEM simulation was divided into two steps: as a first step a pretension load was applied to the beam and as a second step the modal analysis was performed. The FEM model was parametric, since the tensile load and elastic foundation parameters were unknown. The idea here was to “tune” these parameters in order to match results of physical tests and FEM simulations. Optimization criterion given by (19) represented a residual error between natural frequencies defined via experimental modal analysis and numerically . The error function contained weight coefficients arbitrary assigned to each natural mode. Hence, the minimum of the multiparameter function delivered the optimal solution. By using a parametric FEM model the representation of a tierod became flexible and first 6 natural frequencies were matched with overall accuracy up to 1%. Parameterisation of the FEM model was achieved by direct coding of the analysis input file, since parametric analysis is not enabled inside the graphical interface of Abaqus. Afterwards the script was executed automatically inside the optimization program coded in C. The latter program automatically extracted the required results from the text files with analysis outputs created by Abaqus.
As a first iteration we analytically investigated the function (19) for a tierod with fixed and/or simply supported conditions, with length and axial load being optimization parameters. On a reasonable range of optimization parameters the residual error (19) had only a forced minimum at the minimal value of the length parameter. The found absolute minimum was lying, however, below the measured length of a tierod. This behaviour proved the necessity of modelling more complex boundary conditions. However, this first iteration provided a rough idea of the sought axial load and we could set the range for around this value.
Subsequently we modelled the elastic bed boundaries, representing a general condition of translational and rotational stiffness acting for the length , as in the sketch displayed in Figure 2. Elastic bed consists of equispaced linear elastic springs each of stiffness . Further the optimization has been done with respect to the sought axial load and the parameters of elastic foundation. We needed to provide sets of experimentally obtained frequencies, ranges, and step sizes of optimization parameters and sets of weight coefficients to the code in C that(i)forms a matrix of parameters;(ii)launches the FEM analysis for each nod of the grid, extracts and filters natural frequencies from the output;(iii)calculates the value of residual error (19) for each step;(iv)finds the local minimum of the function (19) and the corresponding combination of parameters including the sought tensile load;(v)refines the grid of parameters and repeats the procedure again.
3.3. Application to a Case Study
The method described hereby was applied to investigation of tierods installed in “Casa Romei” located in Ferrara, Italy (see Figures 3 and 4). Romeì House is a perfect example of a 15th century palace, in which you can see rich gothic decoration of the Late Middle Ages combine with elements of the Early Renaissance. Tierods have been placed in this building in different times along its existence, differing in dimensions and crosssection shapes.
First, measurements of geometrical characteristics and of natural frequencies were performed for each tierod. Then experimental acquisition was carried out to determine the natural frequencies from the analysis of response to dynamical excitation applied to tierods in horizontal plane; as an example, a frequency response function (FRF) for a ground floor tierod is shown in Figure 5.
For further analysis, first four to six natural frequencies were identified for each tierod. Six eigenmodes were considered sufficient, since identification of higher modes might appear inaccurate due to larger possible measurement errors.
Having performed multiple experimental studies of tierods, the authors concluded that the variation of the material was less significant than in the boundary conditions. Thus, the material properties were kept constant in this case study: material was assumed to be general iron with characteristics: GPa, , kg/m^{3}.
3.4. Load Identification Results
Table 1 summarizes the data on crosssection A, free length , and natural frequencies of the ground floor tierods (see Figure 4 for layout). Some of the frequencies in Table 1 are missing, due to the eventual position of the accelerometer over a modal node; in these cases higher frequencies were considered in the optimization process.

A typical graphic scenario of the optimization process is depicted in Figure 6. Here several values of the function (19) were plotted versus axial load and distributed stiffness of the elastic bed , for the tierod PT2. The length of elastic bed (see Figure 2) was kept constant. It is notable that many minima are present in correspondence to certain  couples and one of them is a local minimum. The grid of parameters and was then reduced around it, in order to refine the search of the optimal values.
Naturally, the sodefined minima of the residual error (19) were not independent; nevertheless, once the main parameter (axial load ) was optimized, the influence of stiffness of constraints on the first parameter was nearly negligible.
The model with elastic foundation boundaries delivered improvement of results as illustrated in Figure 7. The plot shows residual error curves for the tierod PT4 at different values of stiffness compared to the clamped boundaries. It indicates that the minimum of the error (19) decreases from 6.59 (encastré BCs) to 0.77 for the optimal stiffness N/m^{2}. The corresponding optimal value of the axial load in this tierod increases by 20% from 32.20 kN (encastré BCs) to 38.70 kN (elastic bed). We presume that a model with simple clamped boundaries underestimated the axial load; thus, the proposed method reveals to be conservative for the load estimation.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the computation process of the reported case study.

3.5. Analysis of the Results
Tensile loads cause normal stresses that need to be estimated for evaluation of reliability and integrity of tierods. This safety assessment can be carried out based on the values of average axial stress , to which each tierod is subjected. The stress was calculated with respect to the optimal axial load and the minimum crosssection area :This stress (20) is average since it assumes a uniform section without taking into consideration such local effects as screws, fillets, holes, joints, and so forth that tierods might incorporate. However, these stress concentrators should be considered, if present, for correct local strength verification, eventually via FEM analysis.
In Figure 8 the stresses in rods PT1–PT14 are plotted. Apart from PT5, all tierods worked properly and below the allowable stress of 120 MPa for ancient iron. Rod PT5 was evidently unloaded, which indicated that there was either some damage or malfunction at the anchorages; the issue has been stated in the appropriate technical report of the case study. For comparison, Figure 8 reports also average stresses calculated for the case of encastré boundary conditions: safety improvement was definitely confirmed.
In Section 3.2 we introduced the residual error (19) to compute “distance” between experimental and numerical frequencies. In the formula the difference (in Hz) between each couple of frequencies is multiplied by a weight coefficient in order to attribute higher or lower importance to some frequencies rather than others. The set of weight coefficients was arbitrary chosen, but generally higher importance has been given to the first frequencies.
A sensitivity analysis has been conducted to evaluate the influence of weight coefficients on our results. The plot in Figure 9 shows three residual error functions for the tierod PT4 corresponding to three different sets of weight coefficients. The sets taken into consideration were , , and . We see that each set generated a different interpolated surface; however, the error reached minimum around the same value of the sought axial load, as reported in Table 3. Many other reasonable sets of weight coefficients have been tested, confirming their low influence on the resulting axial load, which proved the stability of our model with respect to these arbitrary assigned parameters.

4. Conclusions
In this paper a procedure for axial load identification in structural tierods was demonstrated and approved via an experimental study of an ancient mansion. The method is based on a tierod model represented by a beam with ends supported by an elastic Winklertype foundation. The elastic bed was used to simulate the contact condition between a tierod and a masonry wall. The proposed method consisted of an experimental and a computational stage. The experimental part was a relatively simple vibrational test for natural frequencies identification. The computational part was an optimization procedure for axial load estimation based on finite element modelling. The optimization has been done with respect to two parameters: the sought axial load and the distributed stiffness of the elastic bed at the boundaries. The technique provided a solution for uncertain boundary conditions and is capable of identifying axial load with high accuracy.
Investigation of the behaviour of natural frequencies depending on the parameters showed that axial load tends to shift the set of frequencies (the higher the load the higher the frequencies), while the elastic foundation stiffness changes the “distance” between natural frequencies.
As a result, consideration of elasticity at anchorages exhibited increase in axial load by up to 40%. This means that assumption of simple boundary conditions is not sufficient for modelling a tierod dynamic response. The sensitivity analysis has proved that the optimization result was stable to variation of weight coefficients and was converging to the same axial load. Thus, the method has been approved in practice and is suitable for in situ identification of axial load in ancient tierods.
Nomenclature
A:  Crosssection area of the tierod 
, :  Coefficients in the time function of the solution for tierod deflection 
C:  Coefficient of the general solution for the form function 
:  Coefficients of the solution for tierod deflection that satisfy the specific boundary conditions 
C:  Constant equal to the ratio 
E:  Elastic modulus of the tierod material 
F:  Axial load acting on the tierod 
:  Natural frequency number determined experimentally 
:  Natural frequency number determined from FEM 
:  Heaviside function 
I:  Moment of inertia of the crosssection about axis 
:  Distributed stiffness of the elastic bed 
:  Stiffness of the separate springs that discretize the elastic bed 
:  Real constants used in the expressions for 
L:  Total length of the tierod 
:  Lengths of the tierod portion inserted into the wall, sections I and III 
L:  “Free” length of the tierod, section II 
M:  Matrix of the system of linear algebraic equations for the unknowns 
N:  Poisson’s ratio 
:  Total potential energy 
:  Weight coefficient of a frequency number 
R:  Residual error between two sets of natural frequencies 
P:  Density of the tierod material 
Coefficients in the exponent of the solution for tierod deflection  
T:  Kinetic energy 
, :  Time function in the Fourier solution for tierod deflection 
U:  Potential energy of elastic strain 
:  Potential energy associated with the axial load 
:  Potential energy associated with the elastic foundation 
:  Natural frequency in rad/s 
:  Tierod deflection in xOy plane 
:  Deflection for each section of the tierod 
:  Form function of the tierod deflection 
:  Form functions for each section of the tierod. 
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
References
 M. Amabili, S. Carra, L. Collini, R. Garziera, and A. Panno, “Estimation of tensile force in tierods using a frequencybased identification method,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 329, no. 11, pp. 2057–2067, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Garziera, M. Amabili, and L. Collini, “A hybrid method for the nondestructive evaluation of the axial load in structural tierods,” Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 197–208, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Collini, R. Fagiani, R. Garziera, K. Riabova, and M. Vanali, “Load and effectiveness of the tierods of an ancient dome: technical and historical aspects,” Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 597–601, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Collini and R. Garziera, “Measurement of the tensile force in the hoop tierods of an historical dome,” in Proceedings of PROHITECH14  2nd International Conference on Protection of Historical Constructions, SYKORA, Antalya, Turkey, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
 K. Riabova, L. Collini, and R. Garziera, “Numerical method for the estimation of tensile load in tierods,” in Proceedings of the 14th Youth Symposium on Experimental Solid Mechanics, vol. 3, Traunkirchen Monastery, Austria, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Collini, R. Garziera, and K. Riabova, “Experimental and numerical determination of the axial load in structural tierods with complex boundary conditions,” in Proceedings of the XXXVI Iberian Latin American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering, SWGE Sistemas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, November 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Amabili and R. Garziera, “A technique for the systematic choice of admissible functions in the RayleighRitz method,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 224, no. 3, pp. 519–539, 1999. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Pozzati, Teoria e Tecnica delle Strutture (Theory and Technique of Structures), UTET, Turin, Italy, 1977.
 M. L. Beconcini, “Un metodo pratico per la determinazione del tiro nelle catene (a practical method for the determination of tensile load in tierods,” Costruire in Laterizio 54/96, pp. 299–301, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
 S. B. Bati and U. Tonietti, “Experimental methods for estimating in situ tensile force intierods,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 127, no. 12, pp. 1275–1283, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Blasi and S. Sorace, Sulla determinazione del "tiro" nelle catene mediante prove statiche e dinamiche, Atti III Congresso Nazionale ASS.I.R.CO, Catania, Italy, November 1988.
 C. Blasi and S. Sorace, “Determining the axial force in metallic rods,” Structural Engineering International (IABSE), vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 241–246, 1994. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Sorace, “Parameter models for estimating insitu tensile force in tierods,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 122, no. 9, pp. 818–825, 1996. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Lagomarsino and C. Calderini, “The dynamical identification of the tensile force in ancient tierods,” Engineering Structures, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 846–856, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. Maes, J. Peeters, E. Reynders, G. Lombaert, and G. De Roeck, “Identification of axial forces in beam members by local vibration measurements,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 332, no. 21, pp. 5417–5432, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Li, E. Reynders, K. Maes, and G. De Roeck, “Vibrationbased estimation of axial force for a beam member with uncertain boundary conditions,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 332, no. 4, pp. 795–806, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. Rebecchi, N. Tullini, and F. Laudiero, “Estimate of the axial force in slender beams with unknown boundary conditions using one flexural mode shape,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 332, no. 18, pp. 4122–4135, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Tullini, “Bending tests to estimate the axial force in slender beams with unknown boundary conditions,” Mechanics Research Communications, vol. 53, pp. 15–23, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Tullini, G. Rebecchi, and F. Laudiero, “Bending tests to estimate the axial force in tierods,” Mechanics Research Communications, vol. 44, pp. 57–64, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Tullini and F. Laudiero, “Dynamic identification of beam axial loads using one flexural mode shape,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 318, no. 12, pp. 131–147, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Gentilini, A. Marzani, and M. Mazzotti, “Nondestructive characterization of tierods by means of dynamic testing, added masses and genetic algorithms,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 332, no. 1, pp. 76–101, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. Livingston, J. G. Béliveau, and D. R. Huston, “Estimation of axial load in prismatic members using flexural vibrations,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 179, no. 5, pp. 899–908, 1995. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. H. Kim and T. Park, “Estimation of cable tension force using the frequencybased system identification method,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 304, no. 3–5, pp. 660–676, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Urbano, “Sulla determinazione del tiro nelle catene degli archi: considerazioni teoriche ed applicazioni sperimentali (on the determination of tensile load in tierods of arcs: theoretical considerations and experimental applications),” Costruzioni Metalliche, vol. 5, pp. 315–323, 1967. View at: Google Scholar
 M. Arduini, R. Carli, and P. Cesari, “Tecniche di identificazione dello sforzo e del grado di vincolo nei tiranti strutturali con metodi dinamici (identification techniques of stress and the degree of constraint in the structural tierods with dynamic methods),” Ingegneri Architetti Costruttori (INARCOS), vol. 563, pp. 493–496, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
 E. Viola, M. Dilena, and E. Artioli, “Identification of metallic rods by frequency estimation on the historical church tower in S.Vito al Tagliamento (PN)Italy,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Restoration, Recycling and Rejuvenation Technology for Engineering and Architecture Application, pp. 173–179, Cesena, Italy, June 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 W.X. Ren, G. Chen, and W.H. Hu, “Empirical formulas to estimate cable tension by cable fundamental frequency,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 363–380, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Park, S. Choi, S.T. Oh, N. Stubbs, and H.C. Song, “Identification of the tensile force in hightension bars using modal sensitivities,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 3185–3196, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. H. Farghaly and K. M. Zeid, “An exact frequency equation for an axially loaded beammassspring system resting on a Winkler elastic foundation,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 185, no. 2, pp. 357–363, 1995. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Ruge and C. Birk, “A comparison of infinite Timoshenko and EulerBernoulli beam models on Winkler foundation in the frequency and timedomain,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 304, no. 35, pp. 932–947, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. G. Koroma, M. F. M. Hussein, and J. S. Owen, “Vibration of a beam on continuous elastic foundation with nonhomogeneous stiffness and damping under a harmonically excited mass,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 333, no. 9, pp. 2571–2587, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 L. Collini et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.