NeuralSI: Structural Parameter Identification in Nonlinear Dynamical Systems

Structural-system identification (SI) [39, 22, 3, 15, 35, 41] refers to methods for inverse calculation of structural systems using data to calibrate a mathematical or digital model. The calibrated models are then used to either estimate or predict the future performance of structural systems and, eventually, their remaining useful life. Non-linear structural systems with spatial and temporal variations present a particular challenge for most inverse identification methods [21, 4, 14]. In dynamic analysis of civil structural systems, prior research efforts primarily focused on matching experimental data with either mechanistic models (i.e., known mechanical models) [31, 38] or with black box models with only input/output information (i.e., purely data-driven approaches), [34, 13, 10]. Examples of these approaches include eigensystem identification algorithms[37], frequency domain decomposition [7], stochastic optimization techniques [30], and sparse identification[8]. A majority of these approaches, however, fail to capture highly non-linear behaviors.

In this paper, we consider the class of non-linear structural problems with unknown spatially distributed parameters (see Fig.1 for an overview). The parameters correspond to geometric and material variations and energy dissipation mechanisms, which could be due to damping or other system imperfections that are not typically captured in designs. As an instance of this problem class, we consider forced vibration responses in beams with spatially varying parameters. The primary challenges in such problems arise from the spatially variable nature of the properties and the distributed energy dissipation. This is typical for built civil structures, where energy dissipation and other hard-to-model phenomena physically drive the dynamic response behavior. In addition, it is very common to have structural systems with unknown strength distributions, which can be driven by geometric non-linearities or indiscernible/hidden material weaknesses. Finally, a typical challenge in structural systems is the rarity of measured data, especially for extreme loading cases.

We propose a framework, dubbed NeuralSI, for nonlinear dynamic system identification that allows us to discover the unknown parameters of partial differential equations from measured sensing data. The developed model performance is compared to conventional PINN methods and direct regression models. Upon estimating the unknown system parameters, we apply them to the differential model and efficiently prognosticate the time evolution of the structural response. We also investigate the performance of NeuralSI under a limited training data regime across different input beam loading conditions. This replicates the expected challenges in monitoring real structures with limited sensors and sampling capabilities.

NeuralSI contributes to the fields of NeuralPDEs, structural identification, and health monitoring:

1. NeuralSI allows us to learn unknown parameters of fundamental governing dynamics of structural systems expressed in the form of PDEs.

2. We demonstrate the utility of NeuralSI by modeling the vibrations of nonlinear beams with unknown parameters. Experimental results demonstrate that NeuralSI achieves two-to-three orders of magnitude lower error in predicting displacement distributions in comparison to PINN-based baselines.

3. We also demonstrate the utility of NeuralSI in temporally extrapolating displacement distribution predictions well beyond the training data measurements. Experimental results demonstrate that NeuralSI achieves four-to-five orders of magnitude lower error compared to PINN-based baselines.

Significant efforts have been directed toward physics-driven discovery or approximation of governing equations [15, 26, 21]. Such studies have further been amplified by the rapid development of advanced sensing techniques and machine learning methods [16, 17, 19, 32]. Most of the work to date has mainly focused on ordinary differential equation systems [21, 40]. Neural ODEs [9] have been widely adopted due to their capacity to learn and capture the governing dynamic behavior from directly collected measurements [2, 40, 28]. They represent a significant step above the direct fitting of a relation between input and output variables. In structural engineering applications, Neural ODEs generally approximate the time derivative of the main physical attribute through a neural network.

More recently, data-driven discovery algorithms for the estimation of parameters in differential equations are introduced. These methods typically referred to as physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) include differential equations, constitutive equations, and initial and boundary conditions in the loss function of the neural network and adopt automatic differentiation to compute derivatives of the network parameters [20, 29]. Variational Autoencoders were also learned to build baseline behavioral models, which were then used to detect and localize anomalies [23]. Many other applications have employed Neural ODE for dynamic structure parameter identification in both linear and nonlinear cases [21, 2, 40]. On the other hand, few studies have explored Neural PDEs in other fields such as message passing [6], weather and ocean wave data [11], and fluid dynamics [5]. In [18], a Graph Neural Network was used to solve flow phenomena, and a NeuralPDE solver package was developed in Julia [42] based on PINN.

The evaluation of NeuralSI is divided into two parts. In the first part, we evaluate predictions of the parameters $P$ and $C$ from the trained neural network. We assume that each structure has a unique response. To determine how well the model is predicting the parameters, Fréchet distance [12] is employed to estimate the similarity between the ground truth and predicted functions. In this case, the predicted $P$ and $C$ are compared to the original $P_0$ and, $C_0$ respectively.

The second part of our evaluation is the prediction of the dynamic responses, which is achieved by solving the PDE using the predicted parameters. The metric to determine the performance of the prediction is the mean average error (MAE) between the predicted and ground truth displacement distribution. The prediction can be extrapolated by solving the PDE for a longer time span and compared with the extrapolated ground truth. The MAE is also calculated from the extrapolated data to examine the extrapolation ability of NeuralSI. Moreover, the dynamic response can be visualized on different elements separately (i.e., separate spatial locations $x$) for a more fine-grained comparison of the extrapolation results.

The NeuralSI framework is compared with traditional deep neural networks (DNN) and PINN methods. The tested DNN has 5 dense layers and a Tanh activation. The inputs are the spatial and temporal coordinates $x$ and $t$, respectively, of the displacement response, and the output is the beam deflection $u(x,t)$ at that spatio-temporal position. The optimizer is LBFGS and the learning rate is 1.0. With a random choice of 20% samples, the loss stabilizes after 500 epochs.

The PINN method is defined with a similar strategy to existing solutions [20, 29]. The Neural network consists of 5 dense layers with Tanh activation function. The loss is defined as a weighted aggregate of the boundary condition loss (second derivative of input $x$ at the boundaries), governing equation loss (fourth-order derivative of $x$ and second-order derivative of the $t$), and loss between the prediction and ground truth displacement response. We used LBFGS as the optimizer with a learning rate of 1.0. The training was executed for 3700 epochs.

The prediction of the dynamic deformation responses for the two baseline methods and NeuralSI and the corresponding displacement distribution errors are shown in Fig. 9. In NeuralSI, we used ImplicitEulerExtrapolation solver for a $4\times$ faster inference. We further optimized the PDE function with ModelingToolkit [25], which provides another $10\times$ speedup, for a total of $40\times$ speedup over the RK4 solver used for training. Due to a limited amount of data for training, the DNN fails to predict the response. With extra information from the boundary conditions and equation, the PINN method results in an MAE loss of 0.344, and the prediction fits the true displacement distribution well. Most of the values in the displacement distribution error are small, except for some corners. But both methods fail to extrapolate the structural behavior temporally. The extrapolation of DNN predictions produces large discrepancies compared to the ground truth. Similarly, the PINN method fails to match the NeuralSI performance, while fairing much better than the predictions from the DNN, as expected due to the added domain knowledge. The MAE errors were computed and compared with the proposed method trained with 20% data as shown in Fig. 10.

In this paper, we proposed NeuralSI, a framework that can be employed for structural parameter identification in nonlinear dynamic systems. Our solution models the unknown parameters via a learnable neural network and embeds it within a partial differential equation. The network is trained by minimizing the errors between predicted dynamic responses and ground truth measurement data. A major advantage of the method is its versatility and flexibility; thus, it can be successfully extended to any PDEs with high-order derivatives and nonlinear characteristics. The trained model can be used to either explore structural behavior under different initial conditions and loading scenarios, which is vital for structural modeling or to determine high-accuracy extrapolation, also essential in systems’ response prognosis. An example beam vibration study case was analyzed to demonstrate the capabilities of the framework. The estimated structural parameters and the dynamic response variations match well with the ground truth (MAE of ${10}^{-4}$). The performance of NeuralSI is also shown to outperform direct regression significantly through deep neural networks and PINN methods by three to five orders of magnitude.