Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Application of particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithms to multiobjective damage identification inverse problems with modelling errors

  • Simulation, Optimization & Identification
  • Published:
Meccanica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Structural health monitoring has become an important research topic in conjunction with the damage assessment of structures. The use of system identification approaches for damage detection using inverse methods has become more widespread in recent years and their formulation in a multiobjective framework has become more usual. Inverse problems require the use of an initial baseline model of the undamaged structure. Modelling errors in the baseline model whose effects exceed the modal sensitivity to damage are critical and make an accurate estimation of damage impossible. Artificial intelligence techniques based on genetic algorithms are used increasingly as an alternative to more classical techniques to solve this kind of problem especially due to their feasibility for managing multiobjective problems. This paper outlines an understanding of how particle swarm optimization methods operate in damage identification problems based on multiobjective FE updating procedures and takes modelling errors into account. One experimental example is used to show their performance in comparison with genetic algorithms.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB (1998) A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods. Shock Vib Dig 30:91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Yan YJ, Cheng L, Wu ZY, Yam LH (2007) Development in vibration-based structural damage detection technique. Mech Syst Signal Process 21:2198–2211

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. John EM, Michael IF, Cristinel M (1999) Method for determining model structure errors and for locating damage in vibrating systems. Meccanica 34(3):153–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ren WX, De Roeck G (2002) Structural damage identification using modal data. I: simulation verification. J Struct Eng ASCE 128:87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ren WX, De Roeck G (2002) Structural damage identification using modal data. II: test verification. J Struct Eng ASCE 128:96–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Perera R, Ruiz A (2008) A multistage FE updating procedure for damage identification in large-scale structures based on multiobjective evolutionary optimization. Mech Syst Signal Process 22:970–991

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fang SE, Perera R, De Roeck G (2008) Damage identification of a reinforced concrete frame by finite element model updating using damage parameterization. J Sound Vib 313:544–559

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Panigrahi SK, Chakraverty S, Mishra BK (2009) Vibration based damage detection in a uniform strength beam using genetic algorithm. Meccanica. doi:10.1007/s11012-009-9207-1

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Brownjohn JMW, Xia PQ, Hao H, Xia Y (2001) Civil structure condition assessment by FE model updating methodology and case studies. Finite Elem Anal Des 37:761–775

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Friswell M (2008) Damage identification using inverse methods. In: Morasi A, Vestroni F (eds) Dynamic methods for damage detection in structures. Springer, New York, pp 13–66

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Haralampidis Y, Papadimitriou C, Pavlidou M (2005) Multi-objective framework for structural model identification. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 34:665–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jaishi B, Ren WX (2007) Finite element model updating based on eigenvalue and strain energy residuals using multiobjective optimisation technique. Mech Syst Signal Process 21:2295–2317

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Perera R, Ruiz A, Manzano C (2007) An evolutionary multiobjective framework for structural damage localization and quantification. Eng Struct 29:2540–2550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yq Ni, Wang BS, Ko JM (2002) Constructing input vectors to neural networks for structural damage identification. Smart Mater Struct 11:825–833

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Parloo E, Guillaume P, Van Overmeire M (2003) Damage assessment using mode shape sensitivities. Mech Syst Signal Process 17:499–518

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Titurus B, Friswell MI, Starek L (2003) Damage detection using generic elements: Part I. Model updating. Comput Struct 81:2273–2286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Titurus B, Friswell MI, Starek L (2003) Damage detection using generic elements: Part II. Damage detection. Comput Struct 81:2287–2299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee JJ, Lee JW, Yi JH, Yung CB, Jung HY (2005) Neural-networks-based damage detection for bridges considering errors in baseline finite element models. J Sound Vib 280:555–578

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Harbor

    Google Scholar 

  20. Coello CA (2005) Recent trends in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Goldberg AJ (ed) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization: theoretical advances and applications. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks, Piscataway, NJ, pp 1942–1948

  22. Hu X, Eberhart R, Shi Y (2004) Recent advances in particle swarm. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Portland, Oregon, USA

  23. Coello CA, Pulido GT, Lechuga MS (2004) Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8:256–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3:257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eberthart RC, Shi Y (2001) Particle swarm optimization: developments, applications and resources. In: Proceedings of the 2001 congress on evolutionary computation, Seoul 1, pp 81–86

  26. Morse JN (1980) Reducing the size of the nondominated set: Pruning by clustering. Comput Oper Res 7

  27. Perera R, Ruiz A, Manzano C (2009) Performance assessment of multicriteria damage identification genetic algorithms. Comput Struct 87:120–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Structural Mechanics, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Ricardo Perera & Sheng-En Fang

  2. Department of Applied Mathematics, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Antonio Ruiz

Authors
  1. Ricardo Perera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheng-En Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Perera.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perera, R., Fang, SE. & Ruiz, A. Application of particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithms to multiobjective damage identification inverse problems with modelling errors. Meccanica 45, 723–734 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-009-9264-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-009-9264-5

Search

Navigation