Structural Engineering and Mechanics

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Experimental validation of FE model updating based on multi-objective optimization using the surrogate model

  • Hwang, Yongmoon (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Jin, Seung-seop (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Jung, Ho-Yeon (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Kim, Sehoon (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University) ;
  • Lee, Jong-Jae (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sejong University) ;
  • Jung, Hyung-Jo (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2017.12.15
  • Accepted : 2017.12.18
  • Published : 2018.01.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this paper, finite element (FE) model updating based on multi-objective optimization with the surrogate model for a steel plate girder bridge is investigated. Conventionally, FE model updating for bridge structures uses single-objective optimization with finite element analysis (FEA). In the case of the conventional method, computational burden occurs considerably because a lot of iteration are performed during the updating process. This issue can be addressed by replacing FEA with the surrogate model. The other problem is that the updating result from single-objective optimization depends on the condition of the weighting factors. Previous studies have used the trial-and-error strategy, genetic algorithm, or user's preference to obtain the most preferred model; but it needs considerable computation cost. In this study, the FE model updating method consisting of the surrogate model and multi-objective optimization, which can construct the Pareto-optimal front through a single run without considering the weighting factors, is proposed to overcome the limitations of the single-objective optimization. To verify the proposed method, the results of the proposed method are compared with those of the single-objective optimization. The comparison shows that the updated model from the multi-objective optimization is superior to the result of single-objective optimization in calculation time as well as the relative errors between the updated model and measurement.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT)

References

  1. Brownjohn, J.M.W., Xia, P.Q., Hao, H. and Xia, Y. (2001), "Civil structure condition assessment by FE model updating: Methodology and case studies", Fin. Elem. Analy. Des., 37(10), 761-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-874X(00)00071-8
  2. Catbas, F.N., Kijewsk-Correa, T.L., Aktan, A.E. and Structural Engineering Institute (2013), Committee on Structural Identification of Constructed Systems, Structural Identification of Constructed Systems: Approaches, Methods, and Technologies for Effective Practice of St-Id.
  3. Deb, K. (2008), Introduction to Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization, Springer
  4. Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S. and Meyarivan, T. (2002), A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-2, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6, 182-197. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017
  5. Eamon, C.D. and Nowak, A.S. (2004), "Effect of secondary elements on bridge structural system reliability considering moment capacity", Struct. Safety, 26(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(03)00020-1
  6. Erdogan, S.Y., Gul, M., Catbas, F.N. and Bakir, P.G. (2013a), "Quantification of parametric model uncertainties in finite element model updating problem via fuzzy numbers", Proceedings of the 31st Conference on International Modal Analysis, 5, 67-74.
  7. Erdogan, S.Y., Gul, M., Catbas, F.N., M.ASCE. and Bakir, P.G. (2013b), "Investigation of the effect of model uncertainties on structural response using structural health monitoring data", J. Struct. Eng., 11, 1-14.
  8. Forrester, A.I.J., Sobester, A.S. and Keane, A.J. (2008), Engineering Design via Surrogate Modeling: A Practical Guide, J. Wile, Chichester, West Sussex, England, Hoboken, NJ.
  9. Goulet, J.A. and Smith, I.F.C. (2013), "Structural identification with systematic errors and unknown uncertainty dependencies", Comput. Struct., 128, 251-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2013.07.009
  10. Goulet, J.A., Texier, M., Michel, C., Smith, I.F.C. and Chouinard, L. (2014), "Quantifying the effects of modeling simplifications for structural identification of bridges", J. Brid. Eng., 19(1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000510
  11. Jeong, I.K. (1996), "Adaptive simulated annealing genetic algorithm for system identification", Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 9(5), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/0952-1976(96)00049-8
  12. Jin, S.S., Cho, S.J., Jung, H.J., Lee, J.J. and Yun, C.B. (2014), "A new multi-objective approach to finite element model updating", J. Sound Vibr., 333(11), 2323-2338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2014.01.015
  13. Jin, S.S. and Jung, H.J. (2016a), "Self-adaptive sampling for sequential surrogate modeling of time-consuming finite element analysis", Smart Struct. Syst., 17(4), 611-629. https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2016.17.4.611
  14. Jin, S.S. and Jung, H.J. (2016b), "Sequential surrogate modeling for efficient finite element model updating", Comput. Struct., 168, 30-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2016.02.005
  15. Jones, D.R. (2001), "A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces", Glob. Optim., 21(4), 345-383. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012771025575
  16. Kennedy, M.C. and O'Hagan, A. (2001), "Bayesian calibration of computer models", J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B, 63(3), 425-450. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00294
  17. Kim, G.H. and Park, Y.S. (2004), "An improved updating parameter selection method and finite element model update using multi-objective optimization technique", Mech. Syst. Sign. Proc., 18(1), 5978.
  18. Marwala, T. (2004), "Finite element model updating using response surface method", Proceedings of the Collection of Technical Papers-AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 7, 5165-5173.
  19. Ren, W.X. and Chen, H.B. (2010), "Finite element model updating in structural dynamics by using the response surface method", Eng. Struct., 32(8), 2455-2465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.019
  20. Steenackers, G. and Guillaume, P. (2006), "Finite element model updating taking into account the uncertainty on the modal parameters estimates", Sound Vibr., 296(4), 919-934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2006.03.023
  21. Vrugt, J.A. (2016), Multi-criteria Optimization Using the AMALGAM Software Package: Theory, Concepts, and MATLAB Implementation.
  22. Vrugt, J.A. and Robision, B.A. (2007), "Improved evolutionary optimization from genetically adaptive multimethod search", Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 104(3), 708-711. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610471104
  23. Zitzler, E. and Thiele, L. (1999), "Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength pareto approach", IEEE, 3(4), 257-271.

Cited by

  1. Finite element model updating of long-span cable-stayed bridge by Kriging surrogate model vol.74, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2020.74.2.157
  2. Characterization of a carbon black rubber Poisson's ratio based on optimization technique applied in FEA data fit vol.76, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2020.76.5.653
  3. Markov Chain Monte Carlo-based Bayesian method for nonlinear stochastic model updating vol.520, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2021.116595