A structural damage detection indicator based on principal component analysis and statistical hypothesis testing

A comprehensive statistical analysis is performed for structural health monitoring (SHM). The analysis starts by obtaining the baseline principal component analysis (PCA) model and projections using measurements from the healthy or undamaged structure. PCA is used in this framework as a way to compress and extract information from the sensor-data stored for the structure which summarizes most of the variance in a few (new) variables into the baseline model space. When the structure needs to be inspected, new experiments are performed and they are projected into the baseline PCA model. Each experiment is considered as a random process and, consequently, each projection into the PCA model is treated as a random variable. Then, using a random sample of a limited number of experiments on the healthy structure, it can be inferred using the ?2 test that the population or baseline projection is normally distributed with mean ?h and standard deviation ?h. The objective is then to analyse whether the distribution of samples that come from the current structure (healthy or not) is related to the healthy one. More precisely, a test for the equality of population means is performed with a random sample, that is, the equality of the sample mean ?s and the population mean ?h is tested. The results of the test can determine that the hypothesis is rejected (?h????c and the structure is damaged) or that there is no evidence to suggest that the two means are different, so the structure can be considered as healthy. The results indicate that the test is able to accurately classify random samples as healthy or not.

[1]  M. Degroot,et al.  Probability and Statistics , 2021, Examining an Operational Approach to Teaching Probability.

[2]  David A. Nix,et al.  Vibration–based structural damage identification , 2001, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[3]  Hoon Sohn,et al.  Statistical Damage Classification Under Changing Environmental and Operational Conditions , 2002 .

[4]  K. Worden,et al.  Statistical Damage Classification Using Sequential Probability Ratio Tests , 2002 .

[5]  Spilios D Fassois,et al.  Time-series methods for fault detection and identification in vibrating structures , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[6]  Keith Worden,et al.  An introduction to structural health monitoring , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[7]  Charles R Farrar,et al.  Damage prognosis: the future of structural health monitoring , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[8]  Hoon Sohn,et al.  Statistical Pattern Recognition , 2009 .

[9]  J. Michaels,et al.  Feature Extraction and Sensor Fusion for Ultrasonic Structural Health Monitoring Under Changing Environmental Conditions , 2009, IEEE Sensors Journal.

[10]  Spilios D. Fassois,et al.  Statistical Time Series Methods for SHM , 2009 .

[11]  Luis Eduardo Mujica,et al.  Q-statistic and T2-statistic PCA-based measures for damage assessment in structures , 2011 .

[12]  Jyrki Kullaa,et al.  Distinguishing between sensor fault, structural damage, and environmental or operational effects in structural health monitoring , 2011 .

[13]  Charles R. Farrar,et al.  Structural Health Monitoring: A Machine Learning Perspective , 2012 .

[14]  G. Wergen,et al.  Records in stochastic processes—theory and applications , 2012, 1211.6005.

[15]  Ekhi Zugasti,et al.  NullSpace and AutoRegressive damage detection: a comparative study , 2012 .