Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automated, strain-based, output-only bridge damage detection

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a framework for automated damage detection using a continuous stream of structural health monitoring data. The study utilized measured strains from an optimized sensor set deployed on a double track, steel, railway, truss bridge. Stringer–floor beam connection deterioration, a common deficiency, was the focus of this study; however, the proposed methodology could be used to assess the condition of a wide range of structural elements and details. The framework utilized Proper Orthogonal Modes (POMs) as damage features and Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) as an automated approach to infer damage location and intensity from the POMs. POM variations, which are traditionally input (load) dependent, were ultimately utilized as damage indicators. Input variability necessitated implementing ANNs to help decouple POM changes due to load variations from those caused by deficiencies, changes that would render the proposed framework input independent, a significant advancement. To develop an automated and efficient output-only damage detection framework, data cleansing and preparation were conducted prior to ANN training. Damage “scenarios” were artificially introduced into select output (strain) datasets recorded while monitoring train passes across the selected bridge. This information, in turn, was used to train ANNs using MATLABs Neural Net Toolbox. Trained ANNs were tested against monitored loading events and artificial damage scenarios. Applicability of the proposed, output-only framework was investigated via studies of the bridge under operational conditions. To account for the effects of potential deficiencies at the stringer–floor beam connections, measured signal amplitudes were artificially decreased at select locations. It was concluded that the proposed framework could successfully detect artificial deficiencies imposed on measured signals under operational conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Phares BM, Rolander DD, Graybeal BA, Washer GA (2001) Reliability of visual bridge inspection. Publ Roads 64(5):22–29

    Google Scholar 

  2. Farrar CR, Worden K (2012) Structural health monitoring: a machine learning perspective. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Achenbach JD (2009) Structural health monitoring—what is the prescription? Mech Res Commun 36(2):137–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shokrani Y, Dertimanis VK, Chatzi EN, Savoia MN (2018) On the use of mode shape curvatures for damage localization under varying environmental conditions. Struct Control Health Monit 25(4):e2132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Moaveni B, Conte JP, Hemez FM (2009) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of damage identification results obtained using finite element model updating. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 24(5):320–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Moaveni B, He X, Conte JP, Restrepo JI (2010) Damage identification study of a seven-story full-scale building slice tested on the UCSD-NEES shake table. Struct Saf 32(5):347–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Taciroglu E, Ghahari SF, Abazarsa F (2017) Efficient model updating of a multi-story frame and its foundation stiffness from earthquake records using a timoshenko beam model. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tan ZX, Thambiratnam DP, Chan T, Razak HA (2017) Detecting damage in steel beams using modal strain energy based damage index and artificial neural network. Eng Fail Anal 79:253–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ashory M, Ghasemi-Ghalebahman A, Kokabi M (2017) An efficient modal strain energy-based damage detection for laminated composite plates. Adv Compos Mater 27(2):147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. He X, Kawatani M, Hayashikawa T, Furuta H, Matsumoto T (2011) A bridge damage detection approach using train-bridge interaction analysis and GA optimization. Procedia Eng 14:769–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim C, Morita T, Oshima Y, Sugiura K (2015) A Bayesian approach for vibration-based long-term bridge monitoring to consider environmental and operational changes. Smart Struct Syst 15(2):395–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bellino A, Fasana A, Garibaldi L, Marchesiello S (2010) PCA-based detection of damage in time-varying systems. Mech Syst Signal Process 24(7):2250–2260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moaveni B, Behmanesh I (2012) Effects of changing ambient temperature on finite element model updating of the Dowling Hall Footbridge. Eng Struct 43:58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu W, Cunha Á, Caetano E, Rohrmann R, Said S, Teng J (2017) Comparison of different statistical approaches for removing environmental/operational effects for massive data continuously collected from footbridges. Struct Control Health Monit 24(8):e1955. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Abazarsa F, Nateghi F, Ghahari SF, Taciroglu E (2015) Extended blind modal identification technique for nonstationary excitations and its verification and validation. J Eng Mech 142(2):04015078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghahari SF, Abazarsa F, Taciroglu E (2017) Blind modal identification of non-classically damped structures under non-stationary excitations. Struct Control Health Monit 24(6):e1925. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Moaveni B, He X, Conte JP, Restrepo JI, Panagiotou M (2010) System identification study of a 7-story full-scale building slice tested on the UCSD-NEES shake table. J Struct Eng 137(6):705–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moaveni B, Barbosa AR, Conte JP, Hemez FM (2014) Uncertainty analysis of system identification results obtained for a seven-story building slice tested on the UCSD-NEES shake table. Struct Control Health Monit 21(4):466–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Worden K, Manson G, Fieller NR (2000) Damage detection using outlier analysis. J Sound Vibrat 229(3):647–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Connor SM, Zhang Y, Lynch JP, Ettouney MM, Jansson PO (2017) Long-term performance assessment of the Telegraph Road Bridge using a permanent wireless monitoring system and automated statistical process control analytics. Struct Infrastruct Eng 13(5):604–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dervilis N, Choi M, Taylor SG, Barthorpe RJ, Park G, Farrar CR et al (2014) On damage diagnosis for a wind turbine blade using pattern recognition. J Sound Vib 333(6):1833–1850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thiene M, Galvanetto U (2015) Impact location in composite plates using proper orthogonal decomposition. Mech Res Commun 64:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. El Kadi M, Blom J, Wastiels J, Aggelis DG (2017) Use of early acoustic emission to evaluate the structural condition and self-healing performance of textile reinforced cements. Mech Res Commun 81:26–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ou Y, Chatzi EN, Dertimanis VK, Spiridonakos MD (2017) Vibration-based experimental damage detection of a small-scale wind turbine blade. Struct Health Monit 16(1):79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim Y-S, Eun H-C (2017) Comparison of damage detection methods depending on frfs within specified frequency ranges. Adv Mater Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5821835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Glisic B, Inaudi D (2008) Fibre optic methods for structural health monitoring. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  27. Glisic B, Inaudi D (2012) Development of method for in-service crack detection based on distributed fiber optic sensors. Struct Health Monit 11(2):161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harmanci YE, Spiridonakos MD, Chatzi EN, Kübler W (2016) An autonomous strain-based structural monitoring framework for life-cycle analysis of a novel structure. Front Built Environ 2:13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Glisic B, Hubbell DL, Sigurdardottir DH, Yao Y (2013) Damage detection and characterization using long-gauge and distributed fiber optic sensors. Opt Eng 52(8):087101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tondreau G, Deraemaeker A (2014) Automated data-based damage localization under ambient vibration using local modal filters and dynamic strain measurements: experimental applications. J Sound Vib 333(26):7364–7385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Eftekhar Azam S, Rageh A, Linzell D. Damage detection in structural systems utilizing artificial neural networks and proper orthogonal decomposition. Struct Control Health Monit (Accepted)

  32. Haghani R, Al-Emrani M, Heshmati M (2012) Fatigue-prone details in steel bridges. Buildings 2(4):456–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rageh A, Linzell D (2018) Optimized health monitoring plans for a steel, double-track railway bridge (Master's thesis). Available from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln digital common

  34. Imam B, Righiniotis TD, Chryssanthopoulos MK (2005) Fatigue assessment of riveted railway bridges. Steel Struct 5(5):485–494

    Google Scholar 

  35. Al-Emrani M (2005) Fatigue performance of stringer-to-floor-beam connections in riveted railway bridges. J Bridge Eng 10(2):179–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Buljak V, Maier G (2012) Identification of residual stresses by instrumented elliptical indentation and inverse analysis. Mech Res Commun 41:21–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Eftekhar Azam S, Mariani S, Attari N (2017) Online damage detection via a synergy of proper orthogonal decomposition and recursive Bayesian filters. Nonlinear Dyn 89(2):1489–1511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Azam SE, Mariani S (2018) Online damage detection in structural systems via dynamic inverse analysis: a recursive Bayesian approach. Eng Struct 159:28–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bishop CM (2012) Pattern recognition and machine learning, 2006. 60(1):78

  40. MacKay DJ (1992) Bayesian interpolation. Neural Comput 4(3):415–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nguyen, D, Widrow B (1990) Improving the learning speed of 2-layer neural networks by choosing initial values of the adaptive weights. International joint conference on neural networks, Stanford University, Stanford. IEEE, pp 21–26

  42. Waszczyszyn Z (1999) Fundamentals of artificial neural networks. Neural Net Anal Design Struct 404:1–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hagan MT, Menhaj MB (1994) Training feedforward networks with the Marquardt algorithm. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5(6):989–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jenkins WM (1999) Genetic algorithms and neural networks. Neural Net Anal Des struct 404:53–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015) Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Foresee FD, Hagan MT (1997) Gauss-Newton approximation to Bayesian learning. Proceedings of the 1997 international joint conference on neural networks. IEEE, pp 1930–1935

  47. Zhang T, Yu B (2005) Boosting with early stopping: convergence and consistency. Annal Stat 33(4):1538–1579

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Schueller W (2008) Building support structures, analysis and design with SAP2000 software. Computer and Structures Inc., Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge support provided by NSF Award #1636805 BD Spokes, Planning, Midwest: Big Data Innovations for Bridge Health. The authors also gratefully acknowledge assistance, access, computing resources, data and expertise provided by the University of Nebraska Lincoln's Holland Computing Center, Union Pacific and Bridge Diagnostics Inc. in association with this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

    Ahmed Rageh, Daniel G. Linzell & Saeed Eftekhar Azam

Authors
  1. Ahmed Rageh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel G. Linzell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saeed Eftekhar Azam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Rageh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rageh, A., Linzell, D.G. & Eftekhar Azam, S. Automated, strain-based, output-only bridge damage detection. J Civil Struct Health Monit 8, 833–846 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-018-0311-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-018-0311-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation