Bridge structural damage identification model based on data preprocessing and real-time monitoring data

Abstract

With the rapid advancement of the social economy and the rapid increase in the number of transportation vehicles, bridge health monitoring has become increasingly important. Using information technology to analyze data and identify damage to bridge structures can effectively ensure bridge safety, thereby avoiding traffic accidents. The current data analysis and damage identification methods have limitations, including poor real-time performance and low accuracy. An improved support vector machine algorithm is developed, in this study, for real-time monitoring data classification. Moreover, a bridge structure damage identification model is proposed based on improved support vector machine and data preprocessing. When compared and analyzed alongside other algorithms, it was found that the accuracy and precision of the improved support vector machine algorithm were 97.4% and 95.7% respectively, outperforming the other algorithms. Subsequently, a performance comparison analysis was conducted between the proposed recognition model and other models. Results denoted that the mean running time of the model was 38.1 s, outperforming the comparison models. The results demonstrated that the improved support vector machine algorithm and recognition model proposed in the study are effective and can help improve the analysis efficiency of bridge monitoring data and the accuracy of identifying bridge structural damage, providing a theoretical basis for bridge structural damage identification.

Keywords

PCA SVM PSO bridge structure damage identification

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Zhang

Liu

, et al. Causes and statistical characteristics of bridge failures: a review. J Traffic Transport Eng 2022; 9(3): 388–406.

Figueiredo

Brownjohn

. Three decades of statistical pattern recognition paradigm for SHM of bridges. Struct Health Monit 2022; 21(6): 3018–3054.

Hajializadeh

. Deep learning-based indirect bridge damage identification system. Struct Health Monit 2023; 22(2): 897–912.

Huang

Ling

Sun

, et al. Two-stage damage identification for bridge bearings based on sailfish optimization and element relative modal strain energy. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, An Int'l Journal 2023; 86(6): 715–730.

Daneshvar

Saffarian

Jahangir

, et al. Damage identification of structural systems by modal strain energy and an optimization-based iterative regularization method. Eng Comput 2023; 39(3): 2067–2087.

Mousavi

Zhang

Masri

, et al. Structural damage detection method based on the complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise: a model steel truss bridge case study. Struct Health Monit 2022; 21(3): 887–912.

Pham

Thai

Kim

. A novel procedure for cable damage identification of cable-stayed bridge using particle swarm optimization and machine learning. Struct Health Monit 2025; 24(2): 714–737.

Corbally

Malekjafarian

. A deep‐learning framework for classifying the type, location, and severity of bridge damage using drive‐by measurements. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 2024; 39(6): 852–871.

Kurani

Doshi

Vakharia

, et al. A comprehensive comparative study of artificial neural network (ANN) and support vector machines (SVM) on stock forecasting. Ann Data Sci 2023; 10(1): 183–208.

10.

Zhou

Yang

Peng

, et al. Performance evaluation of rockburst prediction based on PSO-SVM, HHO-SVM, and MFO-SVM hybrid models. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 2023; 40(2): 617–635.

11.

Daffertshofer

Lamoth

CJC

Meijer

, et al. PCA in studying coordination and variability: a tutorial. Clin Biomech 2004; 19(4): 415–428.

12.

Zheng

Chen

Jiao

. Chatter detection in milling process based on the combination of wavelet packet transform and PSO-SVM. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2022; 120(1): 1237–1251.

13.

Zhang

Tian

Fan

. Forecasting sales using online review and search engine data: a method based on PCA–DSFOA–BPNN. Int J Forecast 2022; 38(3): 1005–1024.

14.

Gheisari

Hamidpour

Liu

, et al. Data mining techniques for web mining: a survey. Artif Intell Appl 2023; 1(1): 3–10.

15.

Karimi

Mirza

. Damage identification in bridge structures: review of available methods and case studies. Aust J Struct Eng 2023; 24(2): 89–119.

16.

Hoque

Billah

Debnath

, et al. Heart disease prediction using SVM. Int J Sci Res Arch 2024; 11(2): 412–420.

17.

Harrison

Dieu Nguimfack-Ndongmo

Alombah

, et al. Robust nonlinear MPPT controller for PV energy systems using PSO-Based integral backstepping and artificial neural network techniques. Int J Dyn Control 2024; 12(5): 1598–1615.

18.

Yan

Sun

, et al. A real-time intelligent lithology identification method based on a dynamic felling strategy weighted random forest algorithm. Pet Sci 2024; 21(2): 1135–1148.

19.

Zhang

Liu

, et al. Comparison of LR, 5-CV SVM, GA SVM, and PSO SVM for landslide susceptibility assessment in Tibetan Plateau area, China. J Mt Sci 2023; 20(4): 979–995.

20.

Yuming

Jiaohong

Zhenguo

, et al. On combined PSO-SVM models in fault prediction of relay protection equipment. Circ Syst Signal Process 2023; 42(2): 875–891.

21.

Honghua

Ziqiang

Yong

, et al. Assessment of radial loosening state in transformer windings based on FBG signals and DECE-PCA-BHOSVM. J Electr Eng 2024; 19(2): 381–390.

22.

Zhao

Wei

, et al. Comparison of debris flow susceptibility assessment methods: support vector machine, particle swarm optimization, and feature selection techniques. J Mt Sci 2024; 21(2): 397–412.