Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 117–136 | Cite as

Ant lion optimisation algorithm for structural damage detection using vibration data

  • Mayank MishraEmail author
  • Swarup Kumar Barman
  • Damodar Maity
  • Dipak Kumar Maiti
Original Paper


Structural damage assessment is crucial for structural health monitoring to evaluate the safety and residual service life of the structure. To solve the structural damage detection problem, various optimisation techniques have been in use. However, they fail to identify damage and are prone to converge to local optima for improper tuning of algorithm-specific parameters, which are problem specific. In this study, the recently proposed ant lion optimiser, which is a population-based search algorithm, mimicked the hunting behaviour of antlions, was used for assessing structural damage. The objective function for damage detection was based on vibration data, such as natural frequencies and mode shapes. The effectiveness of the proposed technique was evaluated against several benchmark problems with different damage settings. The results indicate that the proposed algorithm required fewer parameters than other metaheuristic algorithms to identify the location and extent of damage.


Damage assessment Ant lion optimisation Stiffness reduction Natural frequency Inverse problem 



This research work was financially supported by ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) IIT Kharagpur cell. The authors are grateful to ISRO cell for their financial support for carrying out the research work at the Departments of Aerospace and Civil Engineering, IIT, Kharagpur.


  1. 1.
    Salawu OS (1997) Detection of structural damage through changes in frequency: a review. Eng Struct 19(9):718–723Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Das S, Saha P, Patro SK (2016) Vibration-based damage detection techniques used for health monitoring of structures: a review. J Civil Struct Health Monit 6(3):477–507Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adams RD, Cawley P, Pye CJ, Stone BJ (1978) A vibration technique for non-destructively assessing the integrity of structures. J Mech Eng Sci 20(2):93–100Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hassiotis S, Jeong GD (1995) Identification of stiffness reductions using natural frequencies. J Eng Mech 121(10):1106–1113Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Messina A, Williams EJ, Contursi T (1998) Structural damage detection by a sensitivity and statistical-based method. J Sound Vib 216(5):791–808Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maity D, Tripathy RR (2005) Damage assessment of structures from changes in natural frequencies using genetic algorithm. Struct Eng Mech 19(1):21–42Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beena P, Ganguli R (2011) Structural damage detection using fuzzy cognitive maps and hebbian learning. Appl Soft Comput 11(1):1014–1020Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vakil-Baghmisheh MT, Peimani M, Homayoun-Sadeghi M, Ettefagh MM (2008) Crack detection in beam-like structures using genetic algorithms. Appl Soft Comput 8(2):1150–1160Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kao CY, Chen XZ, Jan JC (2016) Locating damage to structures using incomplete measurements. J Civil Struct Health Monit 6(5):817–838Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ding ZH, Huang M, Lu ZR (2016) Structural damage detection using artificial bee colony algorithm with hybrid search strategy. Swarm Evol Comput 28:1–13Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gharechahi A, Ketabdari MJ (2017) A novel method for selecting measurement points in structural model updating and damage detection. J Civil Struct Health Monit 7(4):471–482Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ercolani GD, Felix DH, Ortega NF (2018) Crack detection in prestressed concrete structures by measuring their natural frequencies. J Civil Struct Health Monit 8(4):661–671Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee U, Shin J (2002) A frequency response function-based structural damage identification method. Comput Struct 80(2):117–132Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohan SC, Maiti DK, Maity D (2013) Structural damage assessment using FRF employing particle swarm optimization. Appl Math Comput 219(20):10387–10400MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li H, Yang H, Hu SLJ (2006) Modal strain energy decomposition method for damage localization in 3D frame structures. J Eng Mech 132(9):941–951Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seyedpoor SM (2012) A two stage method for structural damage detection using a modal strain energy based index and particle swarm optimization. Int J Non Linear Mech 47(1):1–8MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grande E, Imbimbo MJ (2014) A multi-stage data-fusion procedure for damage detection of linear systems based on modal strain energy. J Civil Struct Health Monit 4(2):107–118Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li Y, Wang S, Zhang M, Zheng C (2016) An improved modal strain energy method for damage detection in offshore platform structures. JMSA 15(2):182–192Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pal J, Banerjee S (2015) A combined modal strain energy and particle swarm optimization for health monitoring of structures. J Civil Struct Health Monit 5(4):353–363Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ashory MR, Ghasemi-Ghalebahman A, Kokabi MJ (2017) An efficient modal strain energy-based damage detection for laminated composite plates. Adv Compos Mater 27(2):147–162Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stutz LT, Castello DA, Rochinha FA (2005) A flexibility-based continuum damage identification approach. J Sound Vib 279(3):641–667Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li J, Wu B, Zeng QC, Lim CW (2010) A generalized flexibility matrix based approach for structural damage detection. J Sound Vib 329(22):4583–4587Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zare-Hosseinzadeh A, Ghodrati AG, Seyed Razzaghi SA, Koo KY, Sung SH (2016) Structural damage detection using sparse sensors installation by optimization procedure based on the modal flexibility matrix. J Sound Vib 381:65–82Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chandrashekhar M, Ganguli R (2009) Structural damage detection using modal curvature and fuzzy logic. Struct Health Monit 8(4):267–282Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Banerji P, Chikermane S (2012) Condition assessment of a heritage arch bridge using a novel model updation technique. J Civil Struct Health Monit 2(1):1–16Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mishra M (2013) Bayesian approach to NDT data fusion for St. Torcato. MSc Thesis University of Minho, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ramos LF, Miranda T, Mishra M, Fernandes FM, Manning E (2015) A Bayesian approach for NDT data fusion: the Saint Torcato church case study. Eng Struct 84:120–129Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Na C, Kim SP, Kwak HG (2011) Structural damage evaluation using genetic algorithm. J Sound Vib 330(12):2772–2783Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mares C, Surace C (1996) An application of genetic algorithms to identify damage in elastic structures. J Sound Vib 195(2):195–215Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sinha JK, Friswell MI, Edwards S (2002) Simplified models for the location of cracks in beam structures using measured vibration data. J Sound Vib 251(1):13–38Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hong H, Yong X (2002) Vibration-based damage detection of structures by genetic algorithm. J Comput Civil Eng 16(3):222–229MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee J (2009) Identification of multiple cracks in a beam using natural frequencies. J Sound Vib 320(3):482–490Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Majumdar A, Maiti DK, Maity D (2012) Damage assessment of truss structures from changes in natural frequencies using ant colony optimization. Appl Math Comput 218(19):9759–9772zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nanda B, Maity D, Maiti DK (2014) Crack assessment in frame structures using modal data and unified particle swarm optimization technique. Adv Struct Eng 17(5):747–766Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kang F, Li JJ, Xu Q (2012) Damage detection based on improved particle swarm optimization using vibration data. Appl Soft Comput 12(8):2329–2335Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wei Z, Liu J, Lu Z (2018) Structural damage detection using improved particle swarm optimization. Inverse Probl Sci Eng 26(6):792–810MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li J, Zhang X, Xing J (2015) Optimal sensor placement for long-span cable-stayed bridge using a novel particle swarm optimization algorithm. J Civil Struct Health Monit 5(5):677–685Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ding Z, Lu Z, Huang M, Liu J (2017) Improved artificial bee colony algorithm for crack identification in beam using natural frequencies only Inverse. Probl Sci Eng 25(2):218–238MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chou JH, Ghaboussi J (2001) Genetic algorithm in structural damage detection. Comput Struct 79(14):1335–1353Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Laier JE, Morales JDV (2009) Improved genetic algorithm for structural damage detection. In: Yuan Y, Cui J, Mang HA (eds) Computational structural engineering. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 833–839Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Silva M, Santos A, Figueiredo E, Santos R, Sales C, Costa JCWA (2016) A novel unsupervised approach based on a genetic algorithm for structural damage detection in bridges. Eng Appl Artif Intell 52:168–180Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Meruane V, Heylen W (2011) An hybrid real genetic algorithm to detect structural damage using modal properties. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(5):1559–1573Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang FL, Chan THT, Thambiratnam DP (2013) Damage diagnosis for complex steel truss bridges using multi-layer genetic algorithm. J Civil Struct Health Monit 3(2):117–127Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tsou P, Shen MHH (1994) Structural damage detection and identification using neural networks. AIAA J 32(1):176–183zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Neves AC, González I, Leander J (2017) Structural health monitoring of bridges: a model-free ANN-based approach to damage detection. J Civil Struct Health Monit 7(5):689–702Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Miguel LFF, Miguel LFF, Kaminski J, Riera JD (2012) Damage detection under ambient vibration by Harmony search algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 39(10):9704–9714Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kourehli SS, Bagheri A, Amiri GG, Ghafory-Ashtiany M (2013) Structural damage detection using incomplete modal data and incomplete static response KSCE. J Civil Eng 17(1):216–223Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Seyedpoor SM, Montazer M (2015) A damage identification method for truss structures using a flexibility-based damage probability index and differential evolution algorithm. Inverse Probl Sci Eng 24(8):1303–1322MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhu JJ, Huang M, Lu ZR (2017) Bird mating optimizer for structural damage detection using a hybrid objective function. Swarm Evol Comput 35:41–52Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kaveh A, Zolghadr (2015) A an improved CSS for damage detection of truss structures using changes in natural frequencies and mode shapes. Adv Eng Softw 80(2015):93–100Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kaveh A, Dadras A (2018) Structural damage identification using an enhanced thermal exchange optimization algorithm. Eng Optim 50(3):430–451Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Alkayem NF, Cao M, Zhang Y, Bayat M, Su Z (2018) Structural damage detection using finite element model updatingcwith evolutionary algorithms: a survey. Neural Comput Appl 30(2):389–411Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sahoo B, Maity D (2007) Damage assessment of structures using hybrid neuro-genetic algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 7(1):89–104Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Begambre O, Laier JE (2009) A hybrid particle swarm optimization-simplex algorithm (PSOS) for structural damage identification. Adv Eng Softw 40(9):883–891zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nobahari M, Seyedpoor SM (2011) Structural damage detection using an efficient correlation-based index and a modified genetic algorithm. Math Comput Model 53(9):1798–1809zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vakil-Baghmisheh MT, Peimani M, Sadeghi MH, Ettefagh MM, Tabrizi AF (2012) A hybrid particle swarm-nelder-mead optimization method for crack detection in cantilever beams. Appl Soft Comput 12(8):2217–2226Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Villalba JD, Laier JE (2012) Localising and quantifying damage by means of a multichromosome genetic algorithm. Adv Eng Softw 50:150–157Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kang F, Li J, Xu Q (2009) Structural inverse analysis by hybrid simplex artificial bee colony algorithms. Comput Struct 87(13):861–870Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sandesh S, Shankar K (2010) Application of a hybrid of particle swarm and genetic algorithm for structural damage detection. Inverse Probl Sci Eng 18(7):997–1021zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zhu JJ, Li H, Liu JK (2015) A two-step approach for structural damage localization and quantification using static and dynamic response data. Adv Struct Eng 9:1415–1426Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Barman SK, Maiti DK, Maity D (2017) A new hybrid unified particle swarm optimization technique for damage assessment from changes of vibration responses. In: International conference on theoretical, applied, computational and experimental mechanics, IIT Kharagpur, 28–30 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Das S, Saha P (2018) Structural health monitoring techniques implemented on IASC–ASCE benchmark problem: a review. J Civil Struct Health Monit 8(4):689718Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zapico JL, González MP, Friswell MI, Taylor CA, Crewe AJ (2003) Finite element model updating of a small scale bridge. J Sound Vib 268(5):993–1012Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Catbas FN, Brown DL, Aktan AE (2006) Use of modal flexibility for damage detection and condition assessment: case studies and demonstrations on large structures. J Struct Eng 132(11):1699–1712Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nazarian E, Ansari F, Azari H (2016) Recursive optimization method for monitoring of tension loss in cables of cable-stayed bridges. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 27(15):2091–2101Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Talebinejad I, Fischer C, Ansari F (2011) Numerical evaluation of vibration based methods for damage assessment of cable stayed bridges. Comput Aided Civ Inf Eng 26:239–251Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Abdel Wahab MM, De Roeck G (1999) Damage detection in bridges using modal curvatures: application to a real damage scenario. J Sound Vib 226(2):217–235Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Wu X, Ghaboussi J, Garrett JH (1992) Use of neural networks in detection of structural damage. Comput Struct 42(4):649–659zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mirjalili S (2015) The ant lion optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 83:80–98Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Neural Networks, 1995 Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, vol 4, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Parsopoulos KE, Vrahatis MN (2005) Unified particle swarm optimization for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Adv Nat Comput ICNC 3612Z:582–591Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Nanda B, Maity D, Maiti DK (2014) Modal parameter based inverse approach for structural joint damage assessment using unified particle swarm optimization. Appl Math Comput 242:407–422MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Nanda B, Maity D, Maiti DK (2014) Damage assessment from curvature mode shape using unified particle swarm optimization. Struct Eng Mech 52(2):307–322Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jebieshia TR, Maity D, Maiti DK (2015) Vibration characteristics and damage detection of composite structures with anisotropic damage using unified particle swarm optimization technique. In: Proceedings of the American society for composites, 13th technical conference, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 28–30 Sept, 1569–1589Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jebieshia TR, Maity D, Maiti DK (2015) Damage assessment of composite structures using Particle Swarm Optimization. Int J Aerosp Syst Eng 2(2):24–28Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Jebieshia TR, Maity D, Maiti DK (2015) Damage detection of laminated composite shellsusing unified particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of ICTACEM 2017 international conference on theoretical, applied, computational and experimental mechanics, 28–30 Dec 2017, IIT KharagpurGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Talatahari S (2016) Optimum design of skeletal structures using ant lion optimzer. Int J Optim Civil Eng 6(1):13–25Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ali ES, Abd Elazim SM, Abdelaziz AY (2016) Ant lion optimization algorithm for renewable distributed generations. Energy 116(1):445–458Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Subhashini KR, Satapathy JK (2017) Development of an enhanced ant lion optimization algorithm and its application in antenna array synthesis. Appl Soft Comput 59:153–173Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kanimozhi G, Kumar H (2018) Modeling of solar cell under different conditions by Ant Lion Optimizer with LambertW function. Appl Soft Comput 71:141–151Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    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(4):970–991Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Allemang RJ, Brown DL (1982) A correlation coefficient for modal vector analysis. In: IMAC, vol.-I, pp 110–116Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mottershead JE, Friswell MI (1993) Model updating in structural dynamics: a survey. J Sound Vib 167(2):347–375zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Friswell MI, Mottershead JE (1995) Finite element model updating in structural dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wang W, Mottershead JE, Mares C (2009) Mode-shape recognition and finite element model updating using the Zernike moment descriptor. Mech Syst Signal Process 23:2088–2112Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    MATLAB. Version 7.10.0 (R2010a) (2010) Natick. The MathWorks Inc., MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Parsopoulos KE, Vrahatis MN (2010) Particle swarm optimization and intelligence: advances and applications. Information Science Reference (IGI Global), HersheyGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Majumdar A, Nanda B, Maiti DK, Maity D (2014) Structural damage detection based on modal parameters using continuous ant colony optimization. Adv Civil Eng 174185(14):14Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Yang JCS, Tsai T, Pavlin V, Chen J, Tsai WH (1985) Structural damage detection by the system identification technique. Shock Vib Bull 3:57–66Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Dahak M, Touat N, Benseddiq N (2017) On the classification of normalized natural frequencies for damage detection in cantilever beam. J Sound Vib 402:70–84Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Kyon YW, Bang H (2000) The finite element method using matlab. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gao W, Zhang N (2000) Optimal active random vibration control for smart structures based on reliability. MIT Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations