Combined Model-Free Data-Interpretation Methodologies for Damage Detection during Continuous Monitoring of Structures

Despite the recent advances in sensor technologies and data-acquisition systems, interpreting measurement data for structural monitoring remains a challenge. Furthermore, because of the complexity of the structures, materials used, and uncertain environments, behavioral models are difficult to build accurately. This paper presents novel model-free data-interpretation methodologies that combine moving principal component analysis (MPCA) with each of four regression-analysis methodsrobust regression analysis (RRA), multiple linear analysis (MLR), support vector regression (SVR), and random forest (RF)for damage detection during continuous monitoring of structures. The principal goal is to exploit the advantages of both MPCA and regression-analysis methods. The applicability of these combined methods is evaluated and compared with individual applications of MPCA, RRA, MLR, SVR, and RF through four case studies. Result showed that the combined methods outperformed noncombined methods in terms of damage detectability and time to detection. (C) 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.

[1]  Dan M. Frangopol,et al.  Automated finite element updating using strain data for the lifetime reliability assessment of bridges , 2012, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[2]  Mia Hubert,et al.  ROBPCA: A New Approach to Robust Principal Component Analysis , 2005, Technometrics.

[3]  Piotr Omenzetter,et al.  Identification of unusual events in multi-channel bridge monitoring data , 2004 .

[4]  Antanas Verikas,et al.  Mining data with random forests: A survey and results of new tests , 2011, Pattern Recognit..

[5]  Dan M. Frangopol,et al.  System identification in structural dynamics , 2014 .

[6]  Ian E. Smith,et al.  Finding the right model for bridge diagnosis , 1998, AI in Structural Engineering.

[7]  Piotr Omenzetter,et al.  Application of time series analysis for bridge monitoring , 2006 .

[8]  Dan M. Frangopol,et al.  Use of monitoring extreme data for the performance prediction of structures: Bayesian updating , 2008 .

[9]  Theodoros H. Loutas,et al.  Intelligent health monitoring of aerospace composite structures based on dynamic strain measurements , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[10]  C. G. Koh,et al.  Challenges and Strategies in using Genetic Algorithms for Structural Identification , 2009 .

[11]  Mustafa Gul,et al.  Structural health monitoring and damage assessment using a novel time series analysis methodology with sensor clustering , 2011 .

[12]  Branko Glisic,et al.  Fibre Optic Methods for Structural Health Monitoring , 2007 .

[13]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[14]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Methodologies for model-free data interpretation of civil engineering structures , 2010 .

[15]  Karl Pearson F.R.S..  LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space , 1901 .

[16]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Data mining techniques for improving the reliability of system identification , 2005, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[17]  Mario Chica-Olmo,et al.  An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for land-cover classification , 2012 .

[18]  Mohammad Noori,et al.  Wavelet-Based Approach for Structural Damage Detection , 2000 .

[19]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Feature Selection Using Stochastic Search: An Application to System Identification , 2010, J. Comput. Civ. Eng..

[20]  Jesse D. Sipple,et al.  Long-Term Thermal Performance of a CFRP-Reinforced Bridge Deck , 2008 .

[21]  Gaëtan Kerschen,et al.  Structural damage diagnosis under varying environmental conditions—Part I: A linear analysis , 2005 .

[22]  A. Emin Aktan,et al.  CONDITION AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENT: ISSUES AND SOME PROMISING INDICES , 2002 .

[23]  James M. W. Brownjohn,et al.  DETECTION OF ANOMALOUS STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOUR USING WAVELET ANALYSIS , 2002 .

[24]  F. Lanata,et al.  Damage detection and localization for continuous static monitoring of structures using a proper orthogonal decomposition of signals , 2006 .

[25]  Yi-Qing Ni,et al.  Correlating modal properties with temperature using long-term monitoring data and support vector machine technique , 2005 .

[26]  James T. P. Yao,et al.  Structural Identification Concept , 1978 .

[27]  Zhi Sun.  Wavelet packet based structural health monitoring and damage assessment , 2003 .

[28]  Johan A. K. Suykens,et al.  Least Squares Support Vector Machines , 2002 .

[29]  Shizhong Qiang,et al.  Analytical Solution to Temperature Variations in Highway Concrete Bridges Due to Solar Radiation , 2007 .

[30]  Wei-Xin Ren,et al.  Finite element model updating in structural dynamics by using the response surface method , 2010 .

[31]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Multimodel Structural Performance Monitoring , 2010 .

[32]  Guido De Roeck,et al.  Finite element model updating and structural damage identification using OMAX data , 2010 .

[33]  Gaëtan Kerschen,et al.  Structural damage diagnosis under varying environmental conditions - Part II: local PCA for non-linear cases , 2005 .

[34]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Model Identification of Bridges Using Measurement Data , 2005 .

[35]  Jie Zeng,et al.  Genetic algorithm-support vector regression for high reliability SHM system based on FBG sensor network , 2012 .

[36]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Model-free data interpretation for continuous monitoring of complex structures , 2008, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[37]  Ian F. C. Smith,et al.  Evaluating two model-free data interpretation methods for measurements that are influenced by temperature , 2011, Adv. Eng. Informatics.

[38]  V. Vapnik.  Pattern recognition using generalized portrait method , 1963 .

[39]  H. Hotelling.  Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. , 1933 .

[40]  Sang-Hyeok Gang,et al.  Report Card for America's Infrastructure , 2012 .

[41]  C Koh,et al.  Output-only substructural identification for local damage detection , 2010 .