Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Accurate post-fire assessment requires a direct connection between measured structural response, finite element model fidelity, and quantitative damage indicators. This study develops a data-driven structural health monitoring framework that integrates Bi-LSTM: bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) regression with finite element model updating and Bi-LSTM–based damage identification for composite beams. Acceleration time histories are used to infer five continuous updating parameters, E , D s , K 1 , K 2 , and K 3 from a database of 48,000 simulated samples. The updated finite element model is then used together with fire exposure time and reduction factors for post-fire damage assessment. The maximum parameter error in the numerical model updating tests is 7.4%, and the maximum fire exposure time error in the independent numerical damage cases is 5.8%. The six fire-test specimens are excluded from neural network training and hyperparameter selection. Across these specimens, the absolute relative errors are 9.91 ± 3.05% for fire exposure time, 5.05 ± 1.23% for the stiffness reduction factor β t , and 3.24 ± 1.26% for the bearing capacity reduction factor K t (mean ± sample standard deviation). The updated finite element model also reproduces the measured temperature, deflection, and fundamental frequency attenuation trends. The results support a simulation-trained sequence modeling framework with fixed preprocessing and experimental finite element verification for post-fire assessment of composite beams.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: