Rotation-Based Multi-Particle Collision Algorithm with Hooke–Jeeves Approach Applied to the Structural Damage Identification

  • Reynier Hernández Torres
  • Haroldo Fraga de Campos VelhoEmail author
  • Leonardo Dagnino Chiwiacowsky


A hybrid metaheuristic combining the Multi-Particle Collision Algorithm (MPCA) with the Hooke–Jeeves (HJ) method is applied to identify structural damage. A new version of the MPCA is formulated with the rotation-based learning mechanism to the exploration search. The inverse problem of damage identification is formulated as an optimization problem assuming the displacement time history as experimental data. The objective function is the square difference between the measured displacement and the displacement calculated by the forward model. The approach was tested on a cantilevered beam structure. Time-invariant damages were assumed to generate the synthetic displacement data. Noiseless and noisy data were considered. Finite element method was used for solving the direct problem. The comparison with standard MPCA-HJ and the new version of the hybrid method are reported. The use of these hybrid algorithms allows to obtain good estimations using a full set of data, or using a reduced dataset with a low level of noise in data.



The authors acknowledge the support from the National Council for Research and Development (CNPq) under grants numbers 159547/2013-0 and 312924/2017-8.


  1. 1.
    Arafa, M., Youssef, A., Nassef, A.: A modified continuous reactive tabu search for damage detection in beams. In: 36th Design Automation Conference, Parts A and B, vol. 1, pp. 1161–1169. ASME (2010).
  2. 2.
    Blum, C., Puchinger, J., Raidl, G., Roli, A.: A brief survey on hybrid metaheuristics. In: 4th International Conference on Bioinspired Optimization Methods and Their Applications, pp. 3–16 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boonlong, K.: Vibration-based damage detection in beams by cooperative coevolutionary genetic algorithm. Adv. Mech. Eng. 6, 1–13 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borges, C.C.H., Barbosa, H.J.C., Lemonge, A.C.C.: A structural damage identification method based on genetic algorithm and vibrational data. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 69(13), 2663–2686 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braun, C.E., Chiwiacowsky, L.D., Gomez, A.T.: Variations of ant colony optimization for the solution of the structural damage identification problem. Proc. Comput. Sci. 51, 875–884 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campos Velho, H.F., Chiwiacowsky, L.D., Sambatti, S.B.: Structural damage identification by a hybrid approach: variational method associated with parallel epidemic genetic algorithm. Scientia Interdiscip. Stud. Comput. Sci. 17(1), 10–18 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, Z., Yu, L.: An improved PSO-NM algorithm for structural damage detection. In: Advances in Swarm and Computational Intelligence, pp. 124–132. Springer (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chiwiacowsky, L.D., Campos Velho, H.F., Gasbarri, P.: A variational approach for solving an inverse vibration problem. Inverse Prob. Sci. Eng. 14(5), 557–577 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chou, J.H., Ghaboussi, J.: Genetic algorithm in structural damage detection. Comput. Struct. 79(14), 1335–1353 (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ergezer, M., Simon, D., Du, D.: Oppositional biogeography-based optimization. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2009, pp. 1009–1014. IEEE, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritzen, C.P., Kraemer, P.: Self-diagnosis of smart structures based on dynamical properties. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 23(6), 1830–1845 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fu, Y.M., Yu, L.: A DE-based algorithm for structural damage detection. Adv. Mater. Res. 919, 303–307 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gomes, H.M., Silva, N.R.S.: Some comparisons for damage detection on structures using genetic algorithms and modal sensitivity method. Appl. Math. Model. 32(11), 2216–2232 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    He, R.S., Hwang, S.F.: Damage detection by an adaptive real-parameter simulated annealing genetic algorithm. Comput. Struct. 84(31–32), 2231–2243 (2006). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hernández, R., Scarabello, M.C., Campos Velho, H.F., Chiwiacowsky, L.D., Soterroni, A.C., Ramos, F.M.: A hybrid method using q-gradient to identify structural damages. In: Dumont, N.A. (ed.) Proceedings of the XXXVI Iberian Latin-American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering, Rio de Janeiro (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hernández, R., Chiwiacowsky, L.D., Campos Velho, H.F.: Multi-particle collision algorithm with Hooke-Jeeves for solving a structural damage detection problem. In: Araújo, A.L., Correia, J.R., Soares, C.M.M. (eds.) 10th International Conference on Composite Science and Technology, Lisbon (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hooke, R., Jeeves, T.A.: “Direct Search” solution of numerical and statistical problems. J. ACM 8(2), 212–229 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kokot, S., Zembaty, Z.: Damage reconstruction of 3d frames using genetic algorithms with Levenberg–Marquardt local search. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 29(2), 311–323 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kourehli, S.S., Bagheri, A., Amiri, G.G., Ghafory-Ashtiany, M.: Structural damage detection using incomplete modal data and incomplete static response. KSCE J. Civil Eng. 17(1), 216–223 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, H., Wu, Z., Li, H., Wang, H., Rahnamayan, S., Deng, C.: PRICAI2014: trends in artificial intelligence. In: 13th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Rotation-Based Learning: A Novel Extension of Opposition-Based Learning, pp. 511–522. Springer International Publishing (2014). Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Majumdar, A., Maiti, D.K., Maity, D.: Damage assessment of truss structures from changes in natural frequencies using ant colony optimization. Appl. Math. Comput. 218(19), 9759–9772 (2012). zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mares, C., Surace, C.: An application of genetic algorithms to identify damage in elastic structures. J. Sound Vib. 195(2), 195–215 (1996). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohan, S., Maiti, D., Maity, D.: Structural damage assessment using FRF employing particle swarm optimization. Appl. Math. Comput. 219(20), 10387–10400 (2013). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newmark, N.M.: A method of computation for structural dynamics. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 85(3), 67–94 (1959)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nichols, J.M., Murphy, K.D.: Modeling and Estimation of Structural Damage. Wiley, New York (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ooijevaar, T.H.: Vibration based structural health monitoring of composite skin-stiffener structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pawar, P.M., Ganguli, R.: Genetic fuzzy system for online structural health monitoring of composite helicopter rotor blades. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 21(5), 2212–2236 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rahnamayan, S., Tizhoosh, H.R., Salama, M.: Quasi-oppositional differential evolution. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2007. CEC 2007, pp. 2229–2236. IEEE, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rytter, A.: Vibrational based inspection of civil engineering structures. Ph.D. thesis, Aalborg University (1993)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sacco, W.F., Oliveira, C.R.E.: A new stochastic optimization algorithm based on a particle collision metaheuristic. In: Proceedings of 6th WCSMO (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sandesh, S., Shankar, K.: Application of a hybrid of particle swarm and genetic algorithm for structural damage detection. Inverse Prob. Sci. Eng. 18(7), 997–1021 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seyedpoor, S.: 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), 1–8 (2012). MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seyedpoor, S.M., Yazdanpanah, O.: Structural damage detection by differential evolution as a global optimization algorithm. Iran. J. Struct. Eng. 1(1), 52–62 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Seyedpoor, S.M., Shahbandeh, S., Yazdanpanah, O.: An efficient method for structural damage detection using a differential evolution algorithm-based optimisation approach. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 1–21 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tabrizian, Z., Afshari, E., Amiri, G.G., Ali Beigy, M.H., Nejad, S.M.P.: A new damage detection method: big bang-big crunch (BB-BC) algorithm. Shock Vib. 20(4), 633–648 (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ting, T.O., Yang, X.S., Cheng, S., Huang, K.: Hybrid Metaheuristic algorithms: past, present, and future. In: Yang, X.-S. (ed.) Recent Advances in Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary Computation. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 585, pp. 71–83. Springer International Publishing (2015). Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tizhoosh, H.R.: Opposition-based learning: a new scheme for machine intelligence. In: International Conference on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent Agents. Web Technologies and Internet Commerce (CIMCA-IAWTIC’06), vol. 1, pp. 695–701. IEEE, New York (2005).
  38. 38.
    Tizhoosh, H.R., Ventresca, M.: Oppositional Concepts in Computational Intelligence. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Worden, K., Dulieu-Barton, J.M.: An overview of intelligent fault detection in systems and structures. Struct. Health Monit. 3(1), 85–98 (2004). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Xu, Q., Wang, L., Wang, N., Hei, X., Zhao, L.: A review of opposition-based learning from 2005 to 2012. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 29, 1–12 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yu, L., Li, C.: A global artificial fish swarm algorithm for structural damage detection. Adv. Struct. Eng. 17(3), 331–346 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yu, L., Wan, Z.: An improved PSO algorithm and its application to structural damage detection. In: 2008 Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation, vol. 1, pp. 423–427. IEEE (2008).
  43. 43.
    Yu, L., Xu, P.: Structural health monitoring based on continuous ACO method. Microelectron. Reliab. 51(2), 270–278 (2011). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu, L., Xu, P., Chen, X.: A SI-based algorithm for structural damage detection. In: Advances in Swarm Intelligence, pp. 21–28. Springer (2012). Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zembaty, Z., Kokot, S., Bobra, P.: Application of rotation rate sensors in measuring beam flexure and structural health monitoring, pp. 65–76. Springer International Publishing (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reynier Hernández Torres
    • 1
  • Haroldo Fraga de Campos Velho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leonardo Dagnino Chiwiacowsky
    • 2
  1. 1.Associated Laboratory for Computing and Applied Mathematics (LAC)National Institute for Space Research (INPE)São José dos CamposBrazil
  2. 2.Graduate Program in Industrial Engineering (PPGEP)University of Caxias do Sul (UCS)Bento GonçalvesBrazil

Personalised recommendations