Cited by 103Structural Health Monitoring TechniquesSeismic Performance and AnalysisControl Systems and Identification

Bayesian optimal estimation for output-only nonlinear system and damage identification of civil structures

Open access
Ebrahimian, Hamed, Astroza, Rodrigo, Conte, Joel P., Papadimitriou, Costas·2018·Structural Control and Health Monitoring

Abstract

This paper presents a new framework for output-only nonlinear system and damage identification of civil structures. This framework is based on nonlinear finite element (FE) model updating in the time-domain, using only the sparsely measured structural response to unmeasured or partially measured earthquake excitation. The proposed framework provides a computationally feasible approach for structural health monitoring and damage identification of civil structures when accurate measurement of the input seismic excitations is challenging (e.g., buildings with significant foundation rocking and bridges with piers in deep water) or the measured seismic excitations are erroneous and/or distorted by significant measurement error (e.g., malfunctioning sensors). Grounded on Bayesian inference, the proposed framework estimates the unknown FE model parameters and the ground acceleration time histories simultaneously, using the sparse measured dynamic response of the structure. Two approaches are presented in this study to solve the joint structural system parameter and input identification problem: (a) a sequential maximum likelihood estimation approach, which reduces to a sequential nonlinear constrained optimization method, and (b) a sequential maximum a posteriori estimation approach, which reduces to a sequential iterative extended Kalman filtering method. Both approaches require the computation of FE response sensitivities with respect to the unknown FE model parameters and the values of base acceleration at each time step. The FE response sensitivities are computed efficiently using the direct differentiation method. The two proposed approaches are validated using the seismic response of a 5-story reinforced concrete building structure, numerically simulated using a state-of-the-art mechanics-based nonlinear structural FE modeling technique. The simulated absolute acceleration response time histories of 3 floors and the relative (to the base) roof displacement response time histories of the building to a bidirectional horizontal seismic excitation are polluted with artificial measurement noise. The noisy responses of the structure are then used to estimate the unknown FE model parameters characterizing the nonlinear material constitutive laws of the concrete and reinforcing steel and the (assumed) unknown time history of the ground acceleration in the longitudinal direction of the building. The same nonlinear FE model of the structure is used to simulate the structural response and to estimate the dynamic input and system parameters. Thus, modeling uncertainty is not considered in this paper. Although the validation study demonstrates the estimation accuracy of both approaches, the sequential maximum a posteriori estimation approach is shown to be significantly more efficient computationally than the sequential maximum likelihood estimation approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/stc.2128

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Ebrahimian, H., Astroza, R., Conte, J. P., & Papadimitriou, C.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Universidad de Los Andes, Chile (CL)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Thessaly (GR)
Corresponding author
Conte, Joel P.
Venue
Structural Control and Health Monitoring
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-01-24
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
e2128
ISSN
1545-2255 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2790730374
Cited by
103
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
9.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Structural Control and Health Monitoring (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Thessaly Institutional Repository (University of Thessaly) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universidad de los Andes, Chile
  • Fondo de Ayuda a la Investigación (FAI)
  • Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT)
  • FONDECYT-Iniciación (11160009)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Seismic Performance and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
Keywords
output-only modal identification, damage detection, civil engineering structures, measurement noise, maximum a posteriori estimation, maximum likelihood estimation, extended Kalman filter, direct differentiation method, response sensitivity, reinforced concrete buildings, structural health monitoring

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review