4.7 Article

From Cognitive Bias Toward Advanced Computational Intelligence for Smart Infrastructure Monitoring

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.846610

Keywords

cognitive bias; infrastructure health monitoring; bridge monitoring; artificial intelligence; safety

Funding

  1. Universiti Malaya [IIRG007A-2019, IIRG007B-2019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper explores the relationship between the use of advanced computational intelligence and the development of Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) solutions. It develops Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms for damage assessment using a lab-scale composite bridge deck structure.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available