Machine-Learning-Based Vibration Classification of Inter-Module Connector Stiffness Loss in Modular Flood-Response Structures: A Simulation-Based Proof of Concept

Authors

  • Sely Novita Sari Faculty of Engineering and Planning, National Institute of Technology Yogyakarta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0102-0148
  • Fitri Nugraheni Faculty of Engineering and Planning, Islamic University of Indonesia
  • Bagus Gilang Pratama Faculty of Engineering and Planning, National Institute of Technology Yogyakarta
  • Ignatius Adi Prabowo Built Environment and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58524/ijhes.v5i3.1456

Abstract

Ensuring the safety of modular facilities used for flood response and post-disaster sheltering requires reliable assessment of inter-module connections that may deteriorate under hydrodynamic loading, debris impact, repeated wetting, and corrosion. This study presents a simulation-based proof of concept for classifying connector residual stiffness from vibration response using machine learning. Flood-load analysis quantified hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, and debris-impact forces under five severity scenarios, which were hypothetically associated with seven prescribed connector-stiffness levels ranging from 100% to 5%. Only the stiffness-to-vibration relationship was physically simulated; the flood-exposure-to-stiffness relationship was assumed rather than experimentally validated. Finite element modal analysis in OpenSeesPy provided the first four natural frequencies and mode shapes, from which sixteen diagnostic features were derived. Gaussian perturbations generated 350 synthetic realizations from the seven deterministic stiffness states. To minimize data leakage, classifiers were evaluated using block-grouped cross-validation and compared with majority-class and second-mode-frequency baselines. Random Forest achieved the best multiclass performance, with a macro-F1 of 0.62 and balanced accuracy of 0.63, although early-stage deterioration classes remained difficult to distinguish. When reformulated as a binary severe/non-severe screening task, the model achieved 0.94 balanced accuracy with a 0.10 false-safe rate. These results demonstrate within-configuration separability under synthetic noise rather than field generalization. The proposed framework may support rapid condition screening of modular connections, but experimental validation of the degradation mapping, structural model, and sensing strategy is required before field implementation.

References

ASCE. (2022). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-22).

Chelimilla, N., Chinthapenta, V., Kali, N., & Korla, S. (2023). Review on recent advances in structural health monitoring paradigm for looseness detection in bolted assemblies. Structural Health Monitoring, 22(6), 4264–4304. https://doi.org/10.1177/14759217231158540

Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20(3), 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994018

Di Sarno, L., & Forgione, R. (2024). Innovative steel modular housing system for multiple natural hazard mitigation. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 111, 104734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104734

Eraliev, O., Lee, K.-H., & Lee, C.-H. (2022). Vibration-Based Loosening Detection of a Multi-Bolt Structure Using Machine Learning Algorithms. Sensors, 22(3), 1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22031210

Farrar, C. R., Dervilis, N., & Worden, K. (2025). The Past, Present and Future of Structural Health Monitoring: An Overview of Three Ages. Strain, 61(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/str.12495

FEMA. (2011). Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA P-55, Vol. II).

Fitzgerald, P. C., Malekjafarian, A., Bhowmik, B., Prendergast, L. J., Cahill, P., Kim, C.-W., Hazra, B., Pakrashi, V., & O’Brien, E. J. (2019). Scour Damage Detection and Structural Health Monitoring of a Laboratory-Scaled Bridge Using a Vibration Energy Harvesting Device. Sensors, 19(11), 2572. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19112572

Halabaku, E., & Bytyçi, E. (2024). Overfitting in Machine Learning: A Comparative Analysis of Decision Trees and Random Forests. Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, 39(6), 987–1006. https://doi.org/10.32604/iasc.2024.059429

Hao, J., & Ho, T. K. (2019). Machine Learning Made Easy: A Review of Scikit-learn Package in Python Programming Language. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 44(3), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998619832248

He, K., & Zhu, W. D. (2014). Detecting Loosening of Bolted Connections in a Pipeline Using Changes in Natural Frequencies. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 136(3). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4026973

Le, V. T., & Goo, N. S. (2020). Dynamic Characteristics and Damage Detection of a Metallic Thermal Protection System Panel Using a Three-Dimensional Point Tracking Method and a Modal Assurance Criterion. Sensors, 20(24), 7185. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247185

Lin, Y.-B., Lee, F.-Z., Chang, K.-C., Lai, J.-S., Lo, S.-W., Wu, J.-H., & Lin, T.-K. (2021). The Artificial Intelligence of Things Sensing System of Real-Time Bridge Scour Monitoring for Early Warning during Floods. Sensors, 21(14), 4942. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21144942

Malekloo, A., Ozer, E., AlHamaydeh, M., & Girolami, M. (2022). Machine learning and structural health monitoring overview with emerging technology and high-dimensional data source highlights. Structural Health Monitoring, 21(4), 1906–1955. https://doi.org/10.1177/14759217211036880

Mishra, V., & Sadhu, A. (2023). Towards the effect of climate change in structural loads of urban infrastructure: A review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 89, 104352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104352

Ozsarac, V., Pereira, N., Mohamed, H., Romão, X., & O’Reilly, G. J. (2025). The Built Environment Data Framework for Simulated Design and Vulnerability Modelling in Earthquake Engineering. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 54(11), 2651–2670. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4378

Pal, J., Sikdar, S., Banerjee, S., & Banerji, P. (2022). A combined machine learning and model updating method for autonomous monitoring of bolted connections in steel frame structures using vibration data. Applied Sciences, 12(21), 11107.

Prendergast, L. J., & Gavin, K. (2014). A review of bridge scour monitoring techniques. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.01.007

Rözer, V., Mehryar, S., & Surminski, S. (2022). From managing risk to increasing resilience: a review on the development of urban flood resilience, its assessment and the implications for decision making. Environmental Research Letters, 17(12), 123006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aca8bc

Sun, X., Ilanko, S., Mochida, Y., & Tighe, R. C. (2023). A Review on Vibration-Based Damage Detection Methods for Civil Structures. Vibration, 6(4), 843–875. https://doi.org/10.3390/vibration6040051

Zarafshan, A., Iranmanesh, A., & Ansari, F. (2012). Vibration-Based Method and Sensor for Monitoring of Bridge Scour. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 17(6), 829–838. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000362

Downloads

Published

2026-09-02

How to Cite

Sari, S. N., Nugraheni, F., Pratama, B. G., & Prabowo, I. A. (2026). Machine-Learning-Based Vibration Classification of Inter-Module Connector Stiffness Loss in Modular Flood-Response Structures: A Simulation-Based Proof of Concept. International Journal of Hydrological and Environmental for Sustainability, 5(3), 247-262. https://doi.org/10.58524/ijhes.v5i3.1456