Developing numerical models of existing structural systems is challenging because of the uncertainty inherent on the development of the numerical model and the estimation of the structural parameters. This uncertainty is a combination of lack of knowledge (epistemic uncertainty) and inherent randomness on the system. This paper introduces a Model Updating Cognitive Systems (MUCogS) as a new paradigm for model updating of structural systems with incomplete data. MUCogS seeks to merge the computational power of computers with the analytical power of the analyst. In most cases, the posterior probability density function (PDF) within a Bayesian framework has one region of high probability. However, several regions of high probability can be obtained on the likelihood when data is incomplete. These areas can be considered by the analyst to enhance his/her knowledge about the structure. This paper discusses a methodology used to identify these regions of high probability without the need of calculating the complete likelihood using Modeling to Generate Alternatives (MGA).
AngA.H.S. and TangW.H. (2007). Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, John Wiley & Sons.
2.
BassevilleM.BenvenisteA.GoursatM.HermansH.MevelL. and Van der AuweraerH. (2001). “Output-only subspace-based structural identification: From theory to industrial testing practice”, Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control, Vol. 123, No. 4, pp. 668–676.
3.
BaughJ.W.CaldwellS.C. and BrillE.D.Jr. (1997). “A mathematical programming approach for generating alternatives in discrete structural optimization”, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 28, No. 1–2, pp. 1–31.
4.
BeckJ.L. and KatafygiotisL.S. (1998). “Updating models and their uncertainties. Part I: Bayesian statistical framework”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 455–461.
5.
BohleK. and FritzenC.P. (2003). “Results obtained by minimising natural frequency and MAC-value errors of a plate model”, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 55–64.
6.
Bridge Diagnostics Inc. (2006). Integrated Approach to Load Testing Instruction Manual.
7.
BrillE.D.Jr.ChangS.Y. and HopkinsL.D. (1982). “Modeling to generate alternatives: The HSJ approach and an illustration using a problem in land use planning”, Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 221–235.
8.
BrownjohnJ.M.W.MoyoP.OmenzetterP. and LuY. (2003). “Assessment of highway bridge upgrading by dynamic testing and finite-element model updating”, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 162–172.
9.
BrownjohnJ.M.W. and XiaP.Q. (2000). “Dynamic assessment of curved cable-stayed bridge by model updating”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 2, pp. 252–260.
10.
ColemanT.F. and LiY. (1994). “On the convergence of reflective Newton methods for large-scale nonlinear minimization subject to bounds”, Mathematical Programming, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 189–224.
11.
EdoardoC. and IunioI. (2007). “Case study: Seismic retrofitting of a medieval bell tower with FRP”, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 319–327.
12.
FrancoG.BettiR. and LongmanR.W. (2006). “On the uniqueness of solutions for the identification of linear structural systems”, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 153–162.
13.
GiraldoD. (2006). A Structural Health Monitoring Framework for Civil Structures, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Saint Louis, Washington University in St. Louis.
14.
GuptaA.KripakaranP.KumarM.G. and BaughJ.W. (2005). “Genetic algorithm-based decision support for optimizing seismic response of piping systems”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 3, pp. 389–398.
15.
HjelmstadK.D. (1996). “On the uniqueness of modal parameter estimation”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 192, No. 2, pp. 581–598.
16.
HollandJ.H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan press, Ann Arbor, MI.
17.
HsiehK.H.HallingM.W.BarrP.J. and RobinsonM.J. (2008). “Structural damage detection using dynamic properties determined from laboratory and field testing”, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 238–244.
18.
JaishiB. and RenW.X. (2005). “Structural finite element model updating using ambient vibration test results”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 617–628.
19.
KatafygiotisL.S. and BeckJ.L. (1998). “Updating models and their uncertainties. II: Model identifiability”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 463–467.
20.
KatafygiotisL.S.PapadimitriouC. and LamH.F. (1998). “A probabilistic approach to structural model updating”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 7–8, pp. 495–507.
21.
LamH.F.KatafygiotisL.S. and MickleboroughN.D. (2004). “Application of a statistical model updating approach on phase I of the IASC-ASCE structural health monitoring benchmark study”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp. 34–48.
22.
LombaertG.MoaveniB.HeX. and ConteJ.P. (2009). “Damage identification of a seven-story reinforced concrete shear wall building using bayesian model updating”, Proceedings of the International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC) XXVII, Orlando, FL.
23.
MottersheadJ.E. and FriswellM.I. (1993). “Model updating in structural dynamics: A survey”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 167, No. 2, pp. 347–375.
24.
RiosJ.M. (2005). Uncertainty in Structural Dynamic Models, PhD Thesis, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea, UK.
25.
RobertC.P. and CasellaG. (2004). Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, Springer Verlag.
26.
Rubenstein-MontanoB.AnandalingamG. and ZandiI. (2000). “A genetic algorithm approach to policy design for consequence minimization”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 43–54.
27.
Van OverscheeP. and de MoorB.L.R. (1996). Subspace Identification for Linear Systems: Theory, Implementation, Applications, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28.
YangJ.N.AgrawalA.K.SamaliB. and WuJ.C. (2004). “Benchmark problem for response control of wind-excited tall buildings”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 437–446.
29.
YuenK.V.BeckJ.L. and KatafygiotisL.S. (2006). “Unified probabilistic approach for model updating and damage detection”, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 555–564.
30.
ZechmanE.M. and RanjithanS.R. (2004). “An evolutionary algorithm to generate alternatives (EAGA) for engineering optimization problems”, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 539–553.
31.
ZhangQ.W.ChangT.Y.P. and ChangC.C. (2001). “Finite-element model updating for the Kap Shui Mun Cable-Stayed Bridge”, Journal of Bridge Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 285–293.
32.
ZárateB.A. and CaicedoJ.M. (2008). “Finite element model updating: Multiple alternatives”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 30, No. 12, pp. 3724–3730.
33.
ZárateB.A. (2009). Alternative Solutions and Their Probabilities for the Model Updating of Structural Systems, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
