Sparse regularization-based damage detection in a bridge subjected to unknown moving forces

  • Chudong Pan
  • Ling YuEmail author
Original Paper


Output-only structural damage detection (SDD) is an important issue in the field of structural health monitoring (SHM). As an attempt, this study aims to propose a sparse regularization-based method for detecting the structural damage using structural responses caused by unknown moving forces. First, a transmissibility matrix between two sensor sets is constructed using a known bridge model and least square-based moving force identification algorithm. Second, the measured responses are used as inputs to estimate the reconstructed responses with the help of the transmissibility matrix. Then, the damage detection procedure can be regarded as an optimization problem trying to find a possible damage vector, which makes the difference between the measured and reconstructed responses minimum. Lp-norm (0 < p ≤ 1) sparse regularization is adopted to improve the ill-conditioned SDD problem. To assess the feasibility of the proposed method, damaged bridges subjected to moving forces are taken as examples for numerical simulations. Differences between finite element model (FEM) used for model updating and the one applied to simulate the true damage conditions are considered. The illustrated results show that the proposed method can identify structural damages with a strong robustness. Some related issues, such as regularization parameters, finite element models, Lp-norm (0 < p ≤ 1) penalty terms, noise levels and damage patterns, are discussed as well.


Structural health monitoring (SHM) Structural damage detection (SDD) Sparse regularization Unknown moving force 



This work was jointly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China with Grant numbers 51678278 and 51278226.


  1. 1.
    Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB et al (1996) Damage identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: a literature review. Los Alamos National Laboratory report, (LA-13070-MS)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fan W, Qiao P (2011) Vibration-based damage identification methods: a review and comparative study. Struct Health Monit 10(1):83–111Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ou J, Li H (2010) Structural health monitoring in mainland China: review and future trends. Struct Health Monit 9(3):219–231Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang Y, Yang JP (2018) State-of-the-art review on modal identification and damage detection of bridges by moving test vehicles. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 18(02):1850025Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhu XQ, Law SS (2016) Recent developments in inverse problems of vehicle–bridge interaction dynamics. J Civil Struct Health Monit 6(1):107–128Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jamali S, Chan THT, Nguyen A et al (2018) Modelling techniques for structural evaluation for bridge assessment. J Civil Struct Health Monit 8(2):1–13Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hosseini M, Khoshnoudian F, Esfandiari A (2017) Improved data expansion method used in damage detection method. J Civil Struct Health Monit 7(1):15–27Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pan CD, Yu L, Chen ZP et al (2016) A hybrid self-adaptive Firefly–Nelder–Mead algorithm for structural damage detection. Smart Struct Syst 17(6):957–980Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pedram M, Esfandiari A, Khedmati MR (2017) Damage detection by a FE model updating method using power spectral density: numerical and experimental investigation. J Sound Vib 397:51–76Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neves AC, González I, Leander J et al (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
  11. 11.
    Yu L, Zhu JH (2015) Nonlinear damage detection using higher statistical moments of structural responses. Struct Eng Mech. 54(2):221–237MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu XQ, Law SS (2015) Structural health monitoring based on vehicle-bridge interaction: accomplishments and challenges. Adv Struct Eng 18(12):1999–2015Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feng D, Feng MQ (2016) Output-only damage detection using vehicle-induced displacement response and mode shape curvature index. Struct Control Health Monit 23(8):1088–1107Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al-Jailawi S, Rahmatalla S (2017) Damage detection in structures using angular velocity. J Civil Struct Health Monit 7(3):359–373Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu L, Su Y, Zhu J et al (2016) Data fusion based EKF-UI for real-time simultaneous identification of structural systems and unknown external inputs. Measurement 88:456–467Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pan S, Xiao D, Xing S et al (2016) A general extended Kalman filter for simultaneous estimation of system and unknown inputs. Eng Struct 109:85–98Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang QX, Jankowski L, Duan ZD (2010) Identification of coexistent load and damage. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(2):243–253Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu ZR, Law SS (2007) Identification of system parameters and input force from output only. Mech Syst Signal Process 21(5):2099–2111Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang K, Li H, Duan ZD et al (2011) A probabilistic damage identification approach for structures with uncertainties under unknown input. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(4):1126–1145Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhu HP, Mao L, Weng S (2014) A sensitivity-based structural damage identification method with unknown input excitation using transmissibility concept. J Sound Vib 333(26):7135–7150Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sun H, Feng D, Liu Y et al (2015) Statistical regularization for identification of structural parameters and external loadings using state space models. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng. 30(11):843–858Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pan CD, Yu L (eds) (2014) Simultaneous identification of structural damages and moving forces from output-only measurements. In: The 13th international symposium on structural engineering, 2014, Hefei, Anhui, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang CD, Xu YL (2016) Comparative studies on damage identification with Tikhonov regularization and sparse regularization. Struct Control Health Monit 23(3):560–579Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hou R, Xia Y, Zhou X (2018) Structural damage detection based on l 1 regularization using natural frequencies and mode shapes. Struct Control Health Monit 25(3):e2107Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou X, Xia Y, Weng S (2015) L 1 regularization approach to structural damage detection using frequency data. Struct Health Monit. 14(6):571–582Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pan CD, Yu L (2016) Simultaneous identification of moving force and structural damage by L 1/2 regularization method. In: Australasian conference on the mechanics of structures and materials, 2016, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feng D, Feng MQ (2017) Identification of structural stiffness and excitation forces in time domain using noncontact vision-based displacement measurement. J Sound Vib 406:15–28Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu L, Xu P (2011) Structural health monitoring based on continuous ACO method. Microelectron Reliab 51(2):270–278Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sun H, Büyüköztürk O (2015) Identification of traffic-induced nodal excitations of truss bridges through heterogeneous data fusion. Smart Mater Struct 24(7):075032Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc B 58(1):267–288MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xu Z, Chang X, Xu F et al (2012) L 1/2 regularization: a thresholding representation theory and a fast solver. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. 23(7):1013–1027Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xu Z, Zhang H, Wang Y et al (2010) L 1/2 regularization. Sci China Inf Sci 53(6):1159–1169MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Law SS, Chan THT, Zeng QH (1997) Moving force identification: a time domain method. J Sound Vib 201(1):1–22Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pan CD, Yu L, Liu HL (2017) Identification of moving vehicle forces on bridge structures via moving average Tikhonov regularization. Smart Mater Struct 26(8):085041Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pan CD, Yu L, Liu HL et al (2018) Moving force identification based on redundant concatenated dictionary and weighted l 1-norm regularization. Mech Syst Signal Process. 98:32–49Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liddle AR (2010) Information criteria for astrophysical model selection. Mon Not R Astron Soc Lett. 377(1):L74–L78Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringGuangzhou UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.MOE Key Laboratory of Disaster Forecast and Control in Engineering, School of Mechanics and Construction EngineeringJinan UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations