Substructural Identi®cation Using Neural Networks: Chung-Bang Yun, Eun Young Bahng
Substructural Identi®cation Using Neural Networks: Chung-Bang Yun, Eun Young Bahng
Substructural Identi®cation Using Neural Networks: Chung-Bang Yun, Eun Young Bahng
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc
Abstract
In relation to the problems of damage detection and safety assessment of existing structures, the estimation of the
element-level stiness parameters becomes an important issue. This study presents a method for estimating the
stiness parameters of a complex structural system by using a backpropagation neural network. Several techniques
are employed to overcome the issues associated with many unknown parameters in a large structural system. They
are the substructural identication and the submatrix scaling factor. The natural frequencies and mode shapes are
used as input patterns to the neural network for eective element-level identication particularly for the case with
incomplete measurements of the mode shapes. The Latin hypercube sampling and the component mode synthesis
methods are adapted for ecient generation of the patterns for training the neural network. Noise injection
technique is also employed during the learning process to reduce the deterioration of the estimation accuracy due to
measurement errors. Two numerical example analyses on a truss and a frame structures are presented to
demonstrate the eectiveness of the present method. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Substructuring identication; Neural networks; Modal data; Noise injection learning; Latin hypercube sampling; Component mode synthesis
1. Introduction
Structural identication has become increasingly an
important research topic in connection with damage
assessment and safety evaluation of existing structures
[14]. The stiness parameters such as axial and exural rigidities can be identied based on the measured
responses and excitations using various system identication techniques. Such inspection approaches provide
nondestructive means of safety assessment. Recent
development in this area is made possible by rapid
advances in computer technology for data acquisition,
0045-7949/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 9 9 - 6
42
into several substructures and the identication is carried out on a substructure at a time. In the present
study, the substructure to be identied is called as the
internal substructure, while the others as the external
substructures as shown in Fig. 2. Since the parameters
to be estimated are limited to an internal substructure,
it is expected that the numerical problems such as
divergence or falling into local minima may be
avoided. Another advantage is that this approach
requires measurement data only on the substructure of
interest, instead of on the whole structure.
The two-stage identication is another idea to
reduce the number of variables. The two-stage identication was also studied by the present authors [22]. In
the study, Topole and Stubbs's damage index method
[23] was employed to select probable damaged members in the rst stage identication. Then the damage
severities of the selected members were estimated using
the neural network technique in the second stage
identication. However, there may be many cases
where we can estimate which region shall be investigated through visual inspection or knowledge of
experts without carrying out the rst stage identication. Then the substructural identication can be
performed on the interested part of the structure, while
the parameters of the other parts are still unknown. In
the worst case any information may not be obtained to
determine the substructure to be identied, then the
substructuring technique can be applied to each substructure in turn.
2.2. Submatrix scaling factors
The number of the parameters to be estimated shall
be kept reasonably small for successful identication
of a structure. Reduction of parameters will improve
the results of the identication and minimize the
required measurement data. For the purpose of ecient parameterization of the structure, the submatrix
scaling technique is adopted in this study [16]. Using
the technique, the stiness matrix of the system can be
described by introducing the submatrix scaling factors
(SSF) corresponding to the element level stiness
matrices as
K
q
q
X
X
Kj
sj K0j
j1
j1
43
44
FL1
4
F FL2
FL3
3
FH
1
5
FH
2
FH
3
jTi K0j ji 1
jTi Mji o2i
Since the neural network-based structural identication is highly dependent on the training patterns, it
is very important to prepare well-examined data sets.
The number of training patterns must be large enough
to represent the structural system properly. However,
for the computational eciency, it must be limited to
be reasonably small, because most of the computational time for this approach is required for preparing the training patterns and training the networks.
When the number of the unknown parameters is P
and each parameter has L sampling points, the size of
the whole population is L P. This size increases exponentially, as the number of the unknown parameters
does. To reduce the number of training patterns eectively, a sparse sampling algorithm such as Latin
hypercube technique [18] is employed in this study,
which makes the required number of samples reduced
from L P to L.
The training patterns for the proposed neural network-based method consist of the modal data as input
and the corresponding SSFs as output. To generate
training patterns, a series of eigenanalyses are to be
performed. However, repeated computations of eigenvalue problems for a complex structure can be very expensive. Thus, the xed-interface-component-modesynthesis (CMS) method [19] incorporating the substructuring technique is employed. In the component
mode synthesis method, each substructure is analyzed
independently for local mode shapes. Then, the component mode shapes are assembled to construct Ritz
vectors, which are subsequently used to compute the
mode shapes for the whole structure. When the number of DOFs is large, the computational eciency of
the CMS method becomes more signicant.
The neural-network approach is an approximation
technique that handles non-unique cases by either
returning one of the possible solutions or an average
taken over all possible solutions [6]. Although the
input information to the neural network is limited to
the components of the mode vectors for an internal
substructure by applying the substructuring technique
to the structural identication, most of the information
regarding the stiness parameters of the internal substructure is included in the components of the mode
vectors of the internal substructure, rather than those
of the external substructures. Thus, those stiness parameters may be estimated with a reasonable accuracy
from the components of mode vectors of the internal
substructure as the input to the neural network. On
the other hand, as the range of the submatrix scaling
factors in the external substructure reduces, the estimation accuracy increases. If possible, the uncertainties
of the unknowns in the external substructure shall be
reduced by using all the available information.
~ Tj j2
j j~ T
i j
~ i kj~ Tj j~ j j
j j~ T
i j
n
i
fi 1 vi
j~ nji j~ ji 1 vji
7
8
45
55
X
sj K0j
j1
Then, the problem is to identify 55 unknown submatrix scaling factors, sj, j = 1, . . . , 55, based on the
measured modal data. Instead of identifying the whole
SSFs simultaneously, the structure was subdivided into
three substructures; an internal substructure and two
external substructures as shown in Fig. 3. It was
assumed that the unknown SSFs for the elements in
the internal substructure were between 0.3 and 1.7,
while those for the external substructures were between
0.5 and 1.5. The mode shapes were assumed to be
measured only at 10 test DOFs, which include the displacements in the x- and y-directions at ve nodes in
the internal-substructure.
3.1.1. Modal data for input to BPNN
For ecient training process, appropriate modal
data shall be selected as the input vector. It was
assumed that the rst ve modes of the internal-substructure were available at the test DOFs. The natural
frequencies and mode shapes of the reference structure,
in which all the SSFs are unity, are shown in Fig. 4.
The rst, second and fth modes are found to be vertical, i.e., exural modes, the third is a mixed mode with
the vertical and horizontal motions, and the fourth is a
horizontal mode. The MSE distribution in the rst ve
modes of the reference structure is shown in Fig. 5. It
shows that the Elements 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10 are carrying large fractions of the strain energy in most of
46
47
Fig. 5. Modal strain energy distribution for internal substructure of a truss structure.
Table 1
One example of training patterns
(a) Input pattern without noise
5.352
7.594
10.415
12.913
0.362
0.045
0.347
0.032
0.340
0.080
0.345
0.242
0.050
0.076
0.321
0.358
0.268
0.064
0.418
0.637
0.113
0.071
0.468
0.591
0.002
0.187
0.121
0.208
0.299
0.386
0.175
0.086
0.290
0.374
0.196
0.022
0.495
0.572
0.283
0.036
0.497
0.571
0.317
0.071
0.050
0.074
0.318
0.334
0.268
0.064
0.430
0.615
0.105
0.069
0.485
0.622
0.003
0.207
0.122
0.212
0.299
0.357
0.159
0.075
0.279
0.371
0.209
0.021
0.496
0.576
0.305
0.034
0.511
0.581
0.295
0.067
0.3
0.9
1.1
0.6
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.6
0.358
0.049
0.327
0.028
0.333
0.080
0.328
0.259
1.5
1.7
48
Table 2
One example of test outputs
NN Input
( fj, j~ ji )
NN output sIj )
Target output
Relative error (%)a
a
5.28
8.01
10.63
11.92
0.35
0.03
0.24
0.15
0.33
0.14
0.28
0.12
0.03
0.07
0.27
0.20
0.22
0.11
0.56
0.76
0.12
0.07
0.59
0.52
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.04
0.30
0.30
0.05
0.06
0.29
0.27
0.07
0.20
0.50
0.62
0.20
0.02
0.50
0.61
0.23
0.09
1.47
1.60
7.65
0.89
0.90
0.26
1.44
1.40
2.98
0.90
0.90
0.22
1.13
1.10
3.06
0.37
0.40
5.32
0.35
0.30
19.67
1.27
1.20
5.89
0.45
0.50
8.10
0.62
0.60
4.79
1.52
1.70
10.44
output
Relative error 100 j NN outputTarget
j.
Target output
Fig. 6. Average estimation errors for dierent modes used in input patterns (for testing data set without noise).
49
Table 3
Average estimation errors (%) for dierent noise injection
levels
Noise levels in RMS
In training data
0%
3%
5%
7%
In testing data
0%
3%
5%
7%
8.9
9.7
10.4
12.0
12.8
11.1
11.4
12.6
18.3
14.0
13.5
13.7
22.4
15.8
14.8
14.7
50
Table 4
Baseline parameters for frame examplea
Beams
Columns
a
Shape
Area (m2)
I (m4)
Density (kg/m3)
W24 15
W14 145
1.04 102
2.78 102
5.62 104
7.12 104
7850
7850
4. Conclusions
A neural network-based substructural identication
was presented for the estimation of the stiness parameters of a complex structural system, particularly
for the case with noisy and incomplete measurement of
the modal data. The proposed approach does not
require any complicated formulation for model reduction of the system, which is indispensable to the
conventional approaches for substructural identication. On the other hand, this approach requires generation of enough training patterns which can
adequately represent the relationship between the stiness parameters and the modal information. The Latin
hypercube sampling and the component-mode-synthesis methods were used for the ecient generation of
such training patterns.
The numerical example analyses were carried out
on a two-span truss and a multi-storey frame, and
the results were summarized as follows: (1) The substructuring technique and the concept of the subma-
51
52
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank to the Korea
Earthquake Engineering Research Center and the
Korea Science and Engineering Foundation for their
nancial support for this study.
[12]
[13]
[14]
References
[1] Natke HG, Yao JT-P. System identication approach in
structural damage evaluation. In: Proceedings of ASCE
Structural Congress '86, Preprint 17-1, 1986.
[2] Hong K-S, Yun C-B. Improved method for frequency
domain identication of structures. Engng Struct
1993;15(3):17988.
[3] Ghanem R, Shinozuka M. Structural-system identication I: theory. J Engng Mech ASCE 1995;121(2):255
64.
[4] Yun C-B, Lee H-J, Lee C-G. On sequential prediction
error method for structural identication. J Engng Mech
ASCE 1997;123(2):115122.
[5] Wu X, Ghaboussi J, Garrett Jr JH. Use of neural networks in detection of structural damage. Comput Struct
1992;42(4):64959.
[6] Szewczyk Z, Hajela P. Neural network based damage
detection in structures. ASCE Journal of Computing and
Civil Engineering 1994;8(2):16378.
[7] Manning RA. Structural damage detection using active
members and neural networks. AIAA Journal
1994;32(6):13313.
[8] Tsou P, Shen M-HH. Structural damage detection and
identication using neural networks. AIAA Journal
1994;32(1):17683.
[9] Yagawa G, Matsuda A, Kawate H, Yoshimura S.
Neural network appoach to estimate stable crack growth
in welded specimens. International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping 1995;63:30318.
[10] Yoshimura S, Matsuda A, Yagawa A. New regularization by transformation for neural network based inverse
analyses and its application to structure identication.
International Journal of Numerical Methods in
Engineering 1996;39:395368.
[11] Okuda H, Miyazaki H, Yagawa G. A neural network
approach for modeling of viscoplastic material behaviors.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
Advanced
Computer
Applications,
ASME/PVP
1994;274:1415.
Pandey PC, Barai SV. Multilayer perceptron in damage
detection of bridge structures. Comput Struct
1995;54(4):597608.
Koh CG, See LM, Balendra T. Estimation of structural
parameters in the time domain: a substructure approach.
Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1991;20:787801.
Oreta AWC, Tanabe T-A. Element identication of
member properties of framed structures. J Struct Engng
ASCE 1994;120(7):196176.
Yun C-B, Lee H-J. Damage estimation of structures
incorporating
substructural
identication.
In:
Proceedings of Asian-Pacic Symposium on Structural
Reliability and its Applications (APSSRA), Tokyo
Japan, 1995. pp. 220228.
Lim TW. Submatrix approach to stiness matrix correction using modal test data. AIAA Journal
1990;28(6):112330.
Lim TW. Structural damage detection using modal test
data. AIAA Journal 1991;227174.
Press W, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP. In:
Numerical recipes in C The art of scientic computing. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. pp.
315.
Craig Jr RR, Bampton MCC. Coupling of substructures
for dynamic analysis. AIAA Journal 1968;6(7):13139.
Haykin S. Neural networks A comprehensive foundation. New York: Macmillan, 1994.
Hush DR, Horne BG. Progress in supervised neural networks. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 1993. p. 839.
Yun C-B, Bahng EY. Neural network approach to
damage assessment of civil structure. In: Proceedings of
the Structural Engineers World Congress (SEWC '98),
San Francisco, California, USA, 1923 July 1998, Paper
reference: T1312, 1998.
Topole KG, Stubbs N. Non-destructive damage evaluation of a structure from limited modal parameters.
Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1995;24:142736.
Ewins DJ. In: Modal testing: theory and practice.
England: Research Studies Press, 1986. pp. 2245.
Matsuoka K. Noise injection into inputs in back-propagation learning. IEEE Trans Systems, Man and
Cybernetics 1992;22(3):43640.
Holmstrom L, Koistinen P. Using additive noise in backpropagation training. IEEE Trans Neural Networks
1992;3(1):2438.