Damage Detection of RC Moment Frame Structure Based on Multi-Objective Nonlinear Model Updating Under Earthquake Excitation
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper aims to propose a method of evaluating seismic damage on reinforced concrete moment frame structures with nonlinear finite element (FE) model updating. The proposed model simulates the nonlinear behavior of structures with Modified Ibarra–Medina–Krawinkler (MIMK) model and searches the parameters of the MIMK model with FE model updating. To reflect nonlinear local seismic behavior into the model updating, local structural response as well as global structural response are considered in the objective functions. To minimize two objective functions that are discrepancies of local strain and global displacement response between model and acquired data, multi-objective optimization algorithm is employed. To select the optimal solution among multiple solutions derived from model updating, an equation including a weight factor is proposed. The response of the updated model, which corresponds to the optimal solution selected by the equation including a weight factor, is validated by comparing it with the measured response, and the damage is evaluated using the hinge propagation and drift ratio of the updated model. In addition, the effectiveness of the proposed model is validated by using the high-intensity earthquakes that have not been used in the model updating procedure through nonlinear seismic response prediction and damage state identification.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Seismic Performance and Analysis · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. Altabey, W. A. (2022). The damage identification in laminate composite plate under fatigue load using wavelet packet energy curvature difference transform. Composites Part c: Open Access, 9, Article 100304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2022.10030410.1016/j.jcomc.2022.100304 ↗
2. Asgarieh, E., Moaveni, B., & Stavridis, A. (2014). Nonlinear finite element model updating of an infilled frame based on identified time-varying modal parameters during an earthquake. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 333(23), 6057–6073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2014.04.06410.1016/j.jsv.2014.04.064 ↗
3. Astroza, R., & Alessandri, A. (2019). Effects of model uncertainty in nonlinear structural finite element model updating by numerical simulation of building structures. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 26(3), Article e2297. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.229710.1002/stc.2297 ↗
4. Chen, P.-Y., & Guan, X. (2023). A multi-source data-driven approach for evaluating the seismic response of non-ductile reinforced concrete moment frames. Engineering Structures, 278, Article 115452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.11545210.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115452 ↗
5. de Borst, R., Crisfield, M. A., Remmers, J. J. C., & Verhoosel, C. V. (1991). Nonlinear finite element analysis of solids and structures. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/978111837593810.1002/9781118375938 ↗
6. Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2), 182–197.10.1109/4235.996017 ↗
7. Ebrahimi, M., & Karami Mohammadi, R. (2020). Damage detection of steel moment frames under earthquake excitation. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 27(10), Article e2599. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.259910.1002/stc.2599 ↗
8. FEMA 356 (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. https://nehrpsearch.nist.gov/static/files/FEMA/PB2009105376.pdf
9. Foti, D., Gattulli, V., & Potenza, F. (2014). Output-only identification and model updating by dynamic testing in unfavorable conditions of a seismically damaged building. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 29(9), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.1207110.1111/mice.12071 ↗
10. Haselton, C. B., & Center, P. E. E. R. (2008). Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. https://peer.berkeley.edu/publications/2007-03
11. Jayawickrema, U., Herath, H., Hettiarachchi, N., Sooriyaarachchi, H., & Epaarachchi, J. (2022). Fibre-optic sensor and deep learning-based structural health monitoring systems for civil structures: A review. Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2022.11154310.1016/j.measurement.2022.111543 ↗
12. Ji, X., Gao, X., Zhuang, Y., & Qu, Z. (2023). Enhanced measurements of structural inter-story drift responses in shaking table tests. Engineering Structures, 278, Article 115508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.11550810.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115508 ↗
13. Kamariotis, A., Chatzi, E., & Straub, D. (2022). Value of information from vibration-based structural health monitoring extracted via Bayesian model updating. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 166, Article 108465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.10846510.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108465 ↗
14. Li, S., & Chen, S. (2022). Field monitoring and prediction on temperature distribution of glass curtain walls of a super high-rise building. Engineering Structures, 250, Article 113405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.11340510.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113405 ↗
15. Liel AB. Assessing the collapse risk of California’s existing reinforced concrete frame structures: Metrics for seismic safety decisions. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 2008. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55cba7dbe4b07ca3d73c39af/t/55ce83d3e4b0c22f9be0bdf1/1439597523575/Abbie+Liel+-+Thesis.pdf
16. Lignos, D. G., & Krawinkler, H. (2010). Deterioration modeling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(11), 1291–1302. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.000037610.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000376 ↗
17. Long, J.-h, Hu, X.-y, & Zhang, L. (2008). Improved Newton’s method with exact line searches to solve quadratic matrix equation. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 222, 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2007.12.01810.1016/j.cam.2007.12.018 ↗
18. Luo, H., & Paal, S. G. (2019). A locally weighted machine learning model for generalized prediction of drift capacity in seismic vulnerability assessments. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 34(11), 935–950. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.1245610.1111/mice.12456 ↗
19. Meyer, S., & Link, M. (2003). Modelling and updating of local non-linearities using frequency response residuals. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 17(1), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1006/mssp.2002.156310.1006/mssp.2002.1563 ↗
20. Mizon, F., Birrell, M., Abell, J., & Astroza, R. (2023). Probabilistic time-variant linear finite element model updating for nonlinear structural systems. Experimental Vibration Analysis for Civil Engineering Structures. Springer.
21. Oh, B. K., & Park, H. S. (2022). Urban safety network for long-term structural health monitoring of buildings using convolutional neural network. Automation in Construction, 137, Article 104225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.10422510.1016/j.autcon.2022.104225 ↗
22. OpenSEES. (2002). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (PEERS), University of California, Berkeley, CA. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.99601710.1109/4235.996017 ↗
23. Seventekidis, P., & Giagopoulos, D. (2023). Model error effects in supervised damage identification of structures with numerically trained classifiers. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 184, Article 109741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.10974110.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109741 ↗
24. Shiradhonkar, S. R., & Shrikhande, M. (2011). Seismic damage detection in a building frame via finite element model updating. Computers & Structures, 89(23–24), 2425–2438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.06.00610.1016/j.compstruc.2011.06.006 ↗
25. Shokravi, H., Shokravi, H., Bakhary, N., Rahimian Koloor, S. S., & Petrů, M. (2020). Health monitoring of civil infrastructures by subspace system identification method: An overview. Applied Sciences, 10(8), Article 2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/app1008278610.3390/app10082786 ↗
26. Song, W., Dyke, S., & Harmon, T. (2013). Application of nonlinear model updating for a reinforced concrete shear wall. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 139(5), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.000051910.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000519 ↗
27. Tamuly, P., Chakraborty, A., & Das, S. (2021). Nonlinear finite element model updating using constrained unscented Kalman filter for condition assessment of reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 11(4), 1137–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-021-00496-710.1007/s13349-021-00496-7 ↗
28. Tian, W., Weng, S., & Xia, Y. (2022). Model updating of nonlinear structures using substructuring method. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 521, Article 116719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2021.11671910.1016/j.jsv.2021.116719 ↗
29. Whyte, C., Wotherspoon, L., Kim, H., Stojadinovic, B., & Ma, Q. (2010). Time step optimization for distributed hybrid simulation between University of California—Berkeley and University of Auckland. 9th US Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, ON. https://www.caee.ca/10CCEEpdf/2010EQConf-000484.pdf
30. Yu, E., & Chung, L. (2012). Seismic damage detection of a reinforced concrete structure by finite element model updating. Smart Structures and Systems, 9(3), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2012.9.3.25310.12989/sss.2012.9.3.253 ↗
31. Yuan, P.-P., Wang, Z., -C., Ren, W. X., & He, W.-Y. (2017). Nonlinear joint model updating of strong column-weak beam type frames based on instantaneous characteristics of the responses under earthquake excitations. Advances in Structural Engineering, 20(5), 682–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433217698310.1177/13694332176983 ↗