| Literature DB >> 35401342 |
Meisam Gordan1,2, Ong Zhi Chao3, Saeed-Reza Sabbagh-Yazdi2, Lai Khin Wee4, Khaled Ghaedi1, Zubaidah Ismail1.
Abstract
Visual inspections have been typically used in condition assessment of infrastructure. However, they are based on human judgment and their interpretation of data can differ from acquired results. In psychology, this difference is called cognitive bias which directly affects Structural Health Monitoring (SHM)-based decision making. Besides, the confusion between condition state and safety of a bridge is another example of cognitive bias in bridge monitoring. Therefore, integrated computer-based approaches as powerful tools can be significantly applied in SHM systems. This paper explores the relationship between the use of advanced computational intelligence and the development of SHM solutions through conducting an infrastructure monitoring methodology. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms, i.e., Artificial Neural Network (ANN), hybrid ANN-based Imperial Competitive Algorithm, and hybrid ANN-based Genetic Algorithm, are developed for damage assessment using a lab-scale composite bridge deck structure. Based on the comparison of the results, the employed evolutionary algorithms could improve the prediction error of the pre-developed network by enhancing the learning procedure of the ANN.Entities:
Keywords: artificial intelligence; bridge monitoring; cognitive bias; infrastructure health monitoring; safety
Year: 2022 PMID: 35401342 PMCID: PMC8990332 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.846610
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1(A) Experimental test of the lab-scale bridge deck, (B) Damage locations, and (C) Damage severities.
The detailed explanation of structural damage scenarios.
| Damage case | Description | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Damage type | Damage location | Damage severity | Damage width | |
| Healthy state | No damage (Reference) | – | – | – |
| Damaged state | Notch cutting | One-quarter span of beam 1 and three-quarter span of beam 3 | 3–75 mm | 5 mm |
Figure 2Experimental natural frequency reduction in all damage states of the bridge in 4 modes.
Figure 3Comparison of results of networks in their training and testing segments, (A) ANN, (B) ANN-GA, and (C) ANN-ICA results.
Figure 4Comparison between the performance of networks.
Figure 5(A) Smart sensing technologies for SHM, (B) components of a remote sensing system, and (C) the concept of IoT.