Finite Element–Based Machine-Learning Approach to Detect Damage in Bridges under Operational and Environmental Variations
Publication: Journal of Bridge Engineering
Volume 24, Issue 7
Abstract
In the last decades, the long-term structural health monitoring of civil structures has been mainly performed using two approaches: model based and data based. The former approach tries to identify damage by relating the monitoring data to the prediction of numerical (e.g., finite-element) models of the structure. The latter approach is data driven, where measured data from a given state condition are compared to the baseline or reference condition. A challenge in both approaches is to make the distinction between the changes of the structural response caused by damage and environmental or operational variability. This issue was tackled here using a hybrid technique that integrates model- and data-based approaches into structural health monitoring. Data recorded in situ under normal conditions were combined with data obtained from finite-element simulations of more extreme environmental and operational scenarios and input into the training process of machine-learning algorithms for damage detection. The addition of simulated data enabled a sharper classification of damage by avoiding false positives induced by wide environmental and operational variability. The procedure was applied to the Z-24 Bridge, for which 1 year of continuous monitoring data were available.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Barthorpe, R. J. 2010. “On model- and data-based approaches to structural health monitoring.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Sheffield.
Box, G. E. P., G. M. Jenkins, and G. C. Reinsel. 2008. Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Catbas, F. N., H. B. Gokce, and D. M. Frangopol. 2013. “Predictive analysis by incorporating uncertainty through a family of models calibrated with structural health-monitoring data.” J. Eng. Mech. 139 (6): 712–723. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000342.
Charles, R. F., S. W. Doebling, and D. A. Nix. 2001. “Vibration–based structural damage identification.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 359 (1778): 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2000.0717.
Dempster, A. P., N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. 1977. “Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm.” J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Method. 39 (1): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x.
EMPA. 1999. Long term monitoring and bridge tests. Rep. No. 168349/20e. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Project SIMCES.
Figueiredo, E., and E. Cross. 2013. “Linear approaches to modeling nonlinearities in long-term monitoring of bridges.” J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 3 (3): 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-013-0038-3.
Figueiredo, E., I. Moldovan, and M. B. Marques. 2013. Condition assessment of bridges: Past, present, and Future—A complementary approach. Lisboa, Portugal: University Católica Editora.
Figueiredo, E., G. Park, C. R. Farrar, K. Worden, and J. Figueiras. 2011. “Machine learning algorithms for damage detection under operational and environmental variability.” Struct. Health Monit. 10 (6): 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921710388971.
Grätsch, T., and K. Bathe. 2005. “A posteriori error estimation techniques in practical finite element analysis.” Comput. Struct. 83 (4–5): 235–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.08.011.
Gresil, M., B. Lin, Y. Shen, and V. Giurgiutiu. 2011. “Predictive modelling of space structures for SHM with multiple PWAS transducers.” In Proc., ASME 2011 Conf. on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems. Scottsdale, AZ: ASME.
Liu, Y., and S. Zhang. 2017. “Probabilistic baseline of finite element model of bridges under environmental temperature changes.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 32 (7): 581–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12268.
Malekzadeh, M., G. Atia, and F. N. Catbas. 2015. “Performance-based structural health monitoring through an innovative hybrid data interpretation framework.” J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 5 (3): 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-015-0118-7.
Masciotta, M.-G., L. F. Ramos, P. B. Lourenço, M. Vasta, and G. de Roeck. 2016. “A spectrum-driven damage identification technique: Application and validation through the numerical simulation of the Z24 Bridge.” Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 70–71: 578–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.08.027.
McLachlan, G. J., and D. Peel. 2000. Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mirzaee, A., R. Abbasnia, and M. Shayanfar. 2015. “A comparative study on sensitivity-based damage detection methods in bridges.” Shock Vib. 2015: 120630. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/120630.
Neves, C. 2017. “Structural health monitoring of bridges: Model-free damage detection method using machine learning.” Licentiate thesis in structural engineering and bridges, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and the Built Environment.
Peeters, B. 2000. “System identification and damage detection in civil engineering.” Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Univ. Leuven.
Peeters, B., and G. de Roeck. 1999. “Reference-based stochastic subspace identification for output-only modal analysis.” Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 13 (6): 855–878. https://doi.org/10.1006/mssp.1999.1249.
Peeters, B., and G. de Roeck. 2001. “One-year monitoring of the Z24-Bridge: Environmental effects versus damage events.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 30 (2): 149–171.
Santos, A., E. Figueiredo, and J. Costa. 2015. “Clustering studies for damage detection in bridges: A comparison study.” In Proc., 10th Int. Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, 1165–1172. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Santos, A., E. Figueiredo, M. F. M. Silva, C. S. Sales, and J. C. W. A. Costa. 2016. “Machine learning algorithms for damage detection: Kernel-based approaches.” J. Sound Vib. 363: 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2015.11.008.
Smith, I. F., and S. Saitta. 2008. “Improving knowledge of structural system behavior through multiple models.” J. Struct. Eng. 134 (4): 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(553).
Sohn, H. 2007. “Effects of environmental and operational variability on structural health monitoring.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 365 (1851): 539–560. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2006.1935.
Watson, D. K., and R. K. N. D. Rajapakse. 2000. “Seasonal variation in material properties of a flexible pavement.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 27 (1): 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1139/l99-049.
Wursten, E. R. G., and G. D. Roeck. 2014. “Output-only structural health monitoring in changing environmental conditions by means of nonlinear system identification.” Struct. Health Monit. 13 (1): 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921713502836.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., R. L. Taylor, and J. Zhu. 2013. The finite element method: Its basis and fundamentals. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 25, 2018
Accepted: Feb 4, 2019
Published online: May 1, 2019
Published in print: Jul 1, 2019
Discussion open until: Oct 1, 2019
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.