[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Application of a Bayesian hierarchical model to system identification of structural parameters

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

System identification (SI) is a key step in the process of evaluating the status or condition of physical structures and of devising a scheme to sustain their structural integrity. SI is typically carried out by updating the current structural parameters used in a computational model based on the measured responses of the structure. In the deterministic approach, SI has been conducted by minimizing the error between calculated responses (using the computational model) and measured responses. However, this brought about unexpected numerical issues such as the ill-posedness of the inverse problem, which likely results in non-uniqueness of the solutions or non-stability of the optimization operation. To address this issue, Bayesian updating enhanced with an advanced modeling technique such as a Bayesian network (BN) was introduced. However, it remained challenging to construct the quantitative relations between structural parameters and responses (which are placed in conditional probability tables: CPTs) in a BN setting. Therefore, this paper presented a novel approach for conducting the SI of structural parameters using a Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM) technique. Specifically, the BHM was integrated into the Bayesian updating framework instead of utilizing a BN. The primary advantage of the proposed approach is that it enables use of the existing relations between structural parameters and responses. This can save the computational effort needed to construct CPTs to relate the parameter and response nodes. The proposed approach was applied to two experimental structures and a realistic soil-slope structure. The results showed that the proposed SI approach provided good agreement with actual measurements and also gave relatively robust estimation results compared to the traditional approach of maximum likelihood estimation. Hence, the proposed approach is expected to be utilized to address SI problems for complex structural systems and its computational model when integrated with a statistical regression approach or with various machine learning algorithms.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Farrar CR, Worden K (2012) Structural health monitoring: a machine learning perspective. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Annamdas VGM, Bhalla S, Soh CK (2017) Applications of structural health monitoring technology in Asia. Struct Health Monit 16(3):324–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nelles O (2013) Nonlinear system identification: from classical approaches to neural networks and fuzzy models. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Ladeveze P, Rougeot P (1997) New advances on a posteriori error on constitutive relation in FE analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 150(1–4):239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Louf F, Charbonnel PE, Ladeveze P, Gratien C (2008) An updating method for structural dynamics models with unknown excitations. J Phys Conf Ser 135(1):12065 (IOP Publishing)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weaver J (2015) The self-optimizing inverse methodology for material parameter identification and distributed damage detection. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Akron, US

  7. Thoft-Christensen P, Murotsu Y (2012) Application of structural systems reliability theory. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Benjamin JR, Cornell CA (1970) Probability. Statistics, and decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ang AHS, Tang WH (1984) Probability concepts in engineering planning and design. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS (1998) Updating models and their uncertainties. I: Bayesian statistical framework. J Eng Mech 124(4):455–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Au SK, Beck JL (2001) Estimation of small failure probabilities in high dimensions by subset simulation. Probab Eng Mech 16(4):263–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Straub D, Papaioannou I (2014) Bayesian updating with structural reliability methods. J Eng Mech 141(3):04014134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beven K (2010) Environmental modelling: an uncertain future?. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  14. Weber P, Medina-Oliva G, Simon C, Iung B (2012) Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas. Eng Appl Artif Intell 25(4):671–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bensi M, Kiureghian AD, Straub D (2014) Framework for post-earthquake risk assessment and decision making for infrastructure systems. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A: Civil Eng 1(1):04014003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kwag S, Gupta A (2016) Bayesian network technique in probabilistic risk assessment for multiple hazards. In: Proceedings of 24th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE 24), 26–30 June 2016, Charlotte, NC, US

  17. Kwag S, Gupta A (2017) Probabilistic risk assessment framework for structural systems under multiple hazards using Bayesian statistics. Nucl Eng Des 315:20–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kwag S, Oh J, Lee JM, Ryu JS (2017) Bayesian-based seismic margin assessment approach: application to research reactor system. Earthq Struct. 12(6):653–663

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kwag S, Gupta A, Dinh N (2018) Probabilistic risk assessment based model validation method using Bayesian network. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 169:380–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwag S, Oh J, Lee JM (2018) Application of Bayesian statistics to seismic probabilistic safety assessment for research reactor. Nucl Eng Des 328:166–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kwag S, Oh J (2019) Development of network-based probabilistic safety assessment: a tool for risk analyst for nuclear facilities. Prog Nucl Energy 110:178–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Richard B, Adelaide L, Cremona C, Orcesi A (2012) A methodology for robust updating of nonlinear structural models. Eng Struct 41:356–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ma Y, Wang L, Zhang J, Xiang Y, Liu Y (2014) Bridge remaining strength prediction integrated with Bayesian network and In situ load testing. J Bridg Eng 19(10):04014037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee SH, Song J (2016) Bayesian-network-based system identification of spatial distribution of structural parameters. Eng Struct 127:260–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2014) Bayesian data analysis (vol 2). Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Bolstad WM, Curran JM (2016) Introduction to Bayesian statistics. Wiley, New York

  27. Kruschke J (2014) Doing Bayesian data analysis: a tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Academic Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Plummer M (2013) rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R package version, 3

  29. Wartman J, Seed RB, Bray JD (2005) Shaking table modeling of seismically induced deformations in slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(5):610–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wilson RC, Keefer DK (1983) Dynamic analysis of a slope failure from the 6 August 1979 Coyote Lake, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73(3):863–877

    Google Scholar 

  31. Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 15(2):139–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jibson RW (2011) Methods for assessing the stability of slopes during earthquakes—a retrospective. Eng Geol 122(1):43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jibson RW (2007) Regression models for estimating coseismic landslide displacement. Eng Geol 91(2):209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ambraseys NN, Menu JM (1988) Earthquake-induced ground displacements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 16(7):985–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science, and ICT) (NRF-2017M2A8A4015290 and NRF-2017R1C1B1002855). These supports are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon, South Korea

    Shinyoung Kwag

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, KyungHee University, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea

    Bu Seog Ju

Authors
  1. Shinyoung Kwag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bu Seog Ju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bu Seog Ju.

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

Kwag, S., Ju, B.S. Application of a Bayesian hierarchical model to system identification of structural parameters. Engineering with Computers 36, 455–474 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00708-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-019-00708-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation