Seismic response prediction for nonlinear isolation bridges using output only

Abstract

In earthquake-prone regions, the rapid post-earthquake evaluation of numerous bridges poses a significant challenge, further exacerbated by infrastructure aging. While monitoring technologies are actively being developed to address this issue, sensor placement and measurement selection remain critical obstacles, as bridges often feature unique design conditions that require generalized analysis methods and exhibit strong nonlinear behavior during earthquakes. Such behavior restricts the applicability of methods relying on linear indicators and typically necessitates direct measurement of earthquake accelerations. This study proposes a method for predicting the seismic response of nonlinear isolation bridges without measured earthquake accelerations, using only a limited number of sensors installed on the bridge (formulated as an output-only joint state–input estimation problem). The approach integrates nonlinear observability analysis of the structure–sensing system with Bayesian state estimation. A case study on a typical seismic isolation bridge demonstrates the applicability and effectiveness of the method. Results show that, when observability conditions and appropriate estimator settings are satisfied, nonlinear structural responses and input seismic accelerations can be reliably reconstructed. The proposed method enhances the cost efficiency of sensing technologies and provides valuable insights for broader practical implementation.

Keywords

Isolation bridge / Structural monitoring / Sensor placement / Nonlinear observability / Output-only nonlinear state estimation

References

[1] Bhatta S, Dang J. Use of IoT for structural health monitoring of civil engineering structures: a state-of-the-art review. Urban Lifeline, 2024, 2(1 17

[2] Ameri Fard Nasrand M, Mahsuli M, Ghahari SF, Taciroglu E. Bayesian model selection considering model complexity using stochastic filtering. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn, 2023, 52(10): 3120-3148

[3] Li B, Der Kiureghian A, Au S. A gibbs sampling algorithm for structural modal identification under seismic excitation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn, 2018, 47(14): 2735-2755

[4] Li D, Zhang J. Stochastic finite element model updating through Bayesian approach with unscented transform. Struct Control Health Monit, 2022, 29(8 e2972

[5] Ebrahimian H, Astroza R, Conte JP, de Callafon RA. Nonlinear finite element model updating for damage identification of civil structures using batch Bayesian estimation. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2017, 84: 194-222

[6] Han C, He X, Wang Z, Fu Y. A self-adaptive physics-informed neural network for real-time prediction of structural damage. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2025, 239 113322

[7] Hou S, Li Y, Wu G, Wu D, Dong Y, Zhang S, et al.. A method for visualizing urban road events using distributed acoustic sensing. Urban Lifeline, 2024, 2(1 6

[8] Xie Z, Zhou Z, He X, Fu Y, Gu J, Zhang J. Methodology for object-level change detection in post-earthquake building damage assessment based on remote sensing images: OCD-bda. Remote Sens, 2024, 16(22 4263

[9] Fujino Y, Siringoringo DM, Ikeda Y, Nagayama T, Mizutani T. Research and implementations of structural monitoring for bridges and buildings in Japan. Engineering, 2019, 5(6): 1093-1119

[10] Ikeda Y, Kurata M, Xie J. Verification of multi-degree-of-freedom building modelling for seismic response prediction based on microtremor measurement. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn, 2022, 51(7): 1610-1635

[11] Hoult R. A computationally-effective method for rapidly determining the seismic structural response of high-rise buildings with a limited number of sensors. Bull Earthquake Eng, 2022

[12] Shen W, Fu Y, He X, Zhang F. Multi-band spectral-temporal deep learning network for structural dynamic data forecasting aided by signal decomposition and bandpass filtering. Adv Eng Inform, 2025, 65 103204

[13] Hernandez EM, Erazo K. Lower bound of structural damage to achieve practical identifiability of nonlinear models in seismic structural health monitoring. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn, 2024

[14] Li D, Zhang J. Finite element model updating through derivative-free optimization algorithm. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2023, 185 109726

[15] Calabrese A, Quaglini V, Strano S, Terzo M. Online estimation of the friction coefficient in sliding isolators. Struct Control Health Monit, 2020, 27(3 e2459

[16] Erazo K, Sen D, Nagarajaiah S, Sun L. Vibration-based structural health monitoring under changing environmental conditions using Kalman filtering. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2019, 117: 1-15

[17] Cheng M, Becker TC. Performance of unscented Kalman filter for model updating with experimental data. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn, 2021, 50(7): 1948-1966

[18] Song M, Astroza R, Ebrahimian H, Moaveni B, Papadimitriou C. Adaptive Kalman filters for nonlinear finite element model updating. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2020, 143 106837

[19] Yang Y, Nagayama T, Xue K. Structure system estimation under seismic excitation with an adaptive extended Kalman filter. J Sound Vib, 2020, 489 115690

[20] Xin Y, Li J, Hao H, Yang N, Li C. Time-varying system identification of precast segmental columns subjected to seismic excitations. J Bridge Eng, 2022, 27(4): 4022013

[21] Impraimakis M, Smyth AW. An unscented Kalman filter method for real time input-parameter-state estimation. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2022, 162 108026

[22] Lei Y, Xia D, Erazo K, Nagarajaiah S. A novel unscented Kalman filter for recursive state-input-system identification of nonlinear systems. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2019, 127: 120-135

[23] He X, Unjoh S, Li D. Unscented kalman filter with performance recovery strategy for parameter estimation of isolation structures. Struct Control Health Monit, 2022, 29(12 e3116

[24] Ramancha MK, Astroza R, Madarshahian R, Conte JP. Bayesian updating and identifiability assessment of nonlinear finite element models. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2022, 167 108517

[25] Chatzis MN, Chatzi EN, Smyth AW. On the observability and identifiability of nonlinear structural and mechanical systems. Struct Control Health Monit, 2015, 22(3574-593

[26] Shi X, Williams MS, Chatzis MN. A robust algorithm to test the observability of large linear systems with unknown parameters. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2021, 157 107633

[27] He X, Li D, Unjoh S. Joint state–parameter estimation for structures with seismic isolation and damping systems: theoretical observability and experimental verification. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2023, 203 110733

[28] Shi X, Chatzis MN. Lie symmetries of nonlinear systems with unknown inputs. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2023, 188 110027

[29] He X, Lin Y, Li D, Unjoh S. Enhancing operational performance assessment of structures with seismic response modification devices: the role of observability and symmetry analysis under limited sensor deployment. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn, 2024, 53(15): 4581-4603

[30] He X, Li D, Gu J, Dang J, Unjoh S. Enhanced inferable capability in state estimation of dynamic systems exhibiting hysteresis/inelastic behavior under the limit of minimal sensor. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2025

[31] Pan Y, Ventura CE, Li T. Sensor placement and seismic response reconstruction for structural health monitoring using a deep neural network. Bull Earthquake Eng, 2022

[32] Ercan T, Papadimitriou C. Bayesian optimal sensor placement for parameter estimation under modeling and input uncertainties. J Sound Vib, 2023

[33] Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS. Updating models and their uncertainties. I: Bayesian statistical framework. J Eng Mech, 1998, 124(4): 455-461

[34] Katafygiotis LS, Beck JL. Updating models and their uncertainties. Part II: model identifiability. J Eng Mech, 1998, 124(4): 463-467

[35] Yuen KV, Kuok SC. Online updating and uncertainty quantification using nonstationary output-only measurement. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2016, 6662–77

[36] Ebrahimian H, Astroza R, Conte JP, Papadimitriou C. Bayesian optimal estimation for output-only nonlinear system and damage identification of civil structures. Struct Control Health Monit, 2018, 25(4 e2128

[37] He X, Kusano D, Unjoh S, Fujikura S, Makino T, Nagao C et al (2025) Performance assessment of friction pendulum bearings in bridges via data assimilation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 54(19) 2172-2193. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4356

[38] Yang YH, Becker TC, Sone T, Yoneda H, Kinoshita T. Lumped mass models for use in predicting collapse of an isolated building. Eng Struct, 2023

[39] Maes K, Chatzis MN, Lombaert G. Observability of nonlinear systems with unmeasured inputs. Mech Syst Signal Process, 2019, 130: 378-394

[40] Isidori A (1995) Nonlinear Control Systems, 3rd edition. NJ, USA: Springer-Verlag New York Inc, Secaucus. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-84628-615-5

[41] Li D, Wang Y. Parameter identification of a differentiable Bouc-Wen model using constrained extended Kalman filter. Struct Health Monit, 2021, 20(1): 360-378

[42] JRA (2017) JRA Design Specification for Highway Bridges, Part V Seismic Design. Maruzen. https://www.road.or.jp/english/publications

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science(25K17671)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)