Cited by 87Structural Health Monitoring TechniquesControl Systems and IdentificationSeismic Performance and Analysis

HIERARCHICAL SPARSE BAYESIAN LEARNING FOR STRUCUTRAL HEALTH MONITORING WITH INCOMPLETE MODAL DATA

Open access
Huang, Yong, Beck, James L.·2015·International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification

Abstract

For civil structures, structural damage due to severe loading events such as earthquakes, or due to long-term environmental degradation, usually occurs in localized areas of a structure.A new sparse Bayesian probabilistic framework for computing the probability of localized stiffness reductions induced by damage is presented that uses noisy incomplete modal data from before and after possible damage.This new approach employs system modal parameters of the structure as extra variables for Bayesian model updating with incomplete modal data.A specific hierarchical Bayesian model is constructed that promotes spatial sparseness in the inferred stiffness reductions in a way that is consistent with the Bayesian Ockham razor.To obtain the most plausible model of sparse stiffness reductions together with its uncertainty within a specified class of models, the method employs an optimization scheme that iterates among all uncertain parameters, including the hierarchical hyper-parameters.The approach has four important benefits: (1) it infers spatially sparse stiffness changes based on the identified modal parameters; (2) the uncertainty in the inferred stiffness reductions is quantified; (3) no matching of model and experimental modes is needed, and (4) solving the nonlinear eigenvalue problem of a structural model is not required.The proposed method is applied to two previously studied examples using simulated data: a ten-story shear-building and the three-dimensional braced-frame model from the Phase II Simulated Benchmark problem sponsored by the IASC-ASCE Task Group on Structural Health Monitoring.The results show that the occurrence of false-positive and false-negative damage detection is clearly reduced in the presence of modeling error (differences between the real structural behavior and the model of it).Furthermore, the identified most probable stiffness loss ratios are close to their actual values.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1615/int.j.uncertaintyquantification.2015011808

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, Y., & Beck, J. L.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification
Publisher
Begell House
Published
2015
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
139-169
ISSN
2152-5080 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023965427
Cited by
87
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0941374)
  • California Institute of Technology
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (51308161)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Seismic Performance and Analysis
Keywords
structural health monitoring, sparse Bayesian learning, Bayesian hierarchical model, incomplete modal data, Bayesian model updating, damage detection, spatial sparsity, uncertainty quantification, hyperparameter optimization, model error, shear buildings, braced frames

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