Data-Driven Approach to Structural Health Monitoring Using Statistical Learning Algorithms

Chapter
Part of the Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering book series (ISCA, volume 92)

Abstract

Condition assessment and prediction of existing infrastructure systems is a major objective in civil engineering. Structural health monitoring (SHM) achieves this goal by continuous data acquisition from an array of sensors deployed on the structure of interest. SHM constructs ubiquitous damage features from the acquired data, ensuring maximum sensitivity to the onset of damage and robustness to noise and variability in environmental and operational conditions. Traditionally, SHM has used a model-based approach, wherein a high-fidelity model of a structure is constructed and studied in detail to aid engineers in detecting the onset of damage based on deviations from an undamaged model of the system. However, given the complexity of structures and the inability to perfectly model all aspects of a system, a data-driven approach becomes an attractive alternative. In data-driven approaches, a surrogate model, constructed using acquired data from a system, is substituted for a real model. Although such models do not necessarily capture all the physics of a system, they are efficient for damage detection purposes. Statistical learning algorithms aid in the construction of such surrogate models, and their use has now been extensively documented in the literature. This chapter provides a brief review of applications of statistical learning algorithms, both supervised and unsupervised, in SHM for real-time condition assessment of civil infrastructure systems.

References

  1. 1.
    Farrar C, Worden K (2007) An introduction to structural health monitoring. Philos Trans Roy. Soc. A 365:303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farrar CR, Lieven NAJ (2007) Damage prognosis: the future of structural health monitoring. Philos Trans Roy. Soc. A 365:632–632Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Park KC, Reich GW (1999) Model-based health monitoring of structural systems: progress, potential and challenges. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on structural health monitoring, pp. 82–95Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farrar CR, Worden K (2012) Structural health monitoring: a machine learning perspective. WileyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barthorpe RJ (2010) On model-and data-based approaches to structural health monitoring. PhD thesis, University of SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gopalakrishnan S (2009) Modeling aspects in finite elements. In: Encyclopedia of structural health monitoring. WileyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagarajaiah S, Yang Y (2017) Modeling and harnessing sparse and low-rank data structure: a new paradigm for structural dynamics, identification, damage detection and health monitoring. Struct Control Health Monit 24(1). http://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1851
  8. 8.
    Rytter A (1993) Vibration based inspection of civil engineering structures. PhD thesis, Aolborg UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Prediction. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bousquet O, Boucheron S, Lugosi G (2004) Introduction to statistical learning theory. Lect Notes Artif Intel 3176:169–207MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2013) An introduction to statistical learning. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Worden K, Manson G (2006) The application of machine learning to structural health monitoring. Proc R Soc A 365:515–537Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Addin O, Sapuan SM, Mahdi E, Othman M (2007) A naïve-bayes classifier for damage detection in engineering materials. Mater Des 28:2379–2386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muralidharan V, Sugumaran V (2012) A comparative study of naïve bayes classifier and bayes net classifier for fault diagnosis of monoblock centrifugal pump using wavelet analysis. Appl Soft Comp 12:2023–2029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farrar CR, Nix DA, Duffey TA, Cornwell PJ, Pardoen GC (1999) Damage identification with linear discriminant operators. In: Proceedings of the international modal analysis conference. 599–607Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaudenzi P, Nardi D, Chiapetta I, Atek S, Lampani L, Sarasini F, Tirillo J, Valente T (2015) Impact damage detection in composite laminate plates using an integrated piezoelectric sensor and actuator couple combined with wavelet based features extraction approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th ECCOMAS thematic conference on smart structures and materialsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    He H-X, Yan W-M (2007) Structural damage detection with wavelet support vector machine: introduction and applications. Struct Control Health Monit 14:162–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shimada M, Mita A, Feng MQ (2006) Damage detection of structures using support vector machines under various boundary conditions. In: Proceedings of SPIE, 6174(61742K-1)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bulut A, Singh AK, Shin P, Fountain T, Jasso H, Yan L, Elgamal A (2004) Real-time nondestructive structural health monitoring using support vector machines and wavelets. In: Technical report, University of California, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chattopadhyay A, Das S, Coelho CK (2007) Damage diagnosis using a kernel-based method. Insight-Non-Destr Test Cond Monit 49:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bornn L, Farrar CR, Park G, Farinholt K (2009) Structural health monitoring with autoregressive support vector machines. J Vibr Acoust 139:021004Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Worden K, Lane AJ (2001) Damage identification using support vector machines. Smart Mater Struct 10:540–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kilundu B, Dehombreux P, Letot C, Chiementin X (2009) Early detection of bearing damage by means of decision trees. J Autom Mob Robot Intel Syst 3(3):70–74Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vitola J, Tibaduiza M, adn Anaya D, Pozo F (2016) Structural damage detection and classification based on machine learning algorithms. In: 2016 Proceedings of the 8th european workshop on structural health monitoring EWSHMGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pan Y (2012) Linear regression based damage detection algorithm using data from a densely clustered sensing system. Master’s thesis, Lehigh UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shahidi SG, Nigro MB, Pakzad SN, Pan Y (2015) Structural damage detection and localisation using multivariate regression models and two-sample control statistics. Struct Infrastruct Eng 11(10):1277–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang CD, Xu YL (2016) Comparative studies on damage identification with tikhonov regularization and sparse regularization. Struct Control Health Monit 23:560–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yang Y, Nagarajaiah S (2014) Structural damage identification via a combination of blind feature extraction and sparse representation classification. Mech Syst Sig Process 45(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yang Y, Nagarajaiah S (2013) Output-only modal identification with limited sensors using sparse component analysis. J Sound Vibration 332:4741–4765. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2013.04.004
  30. 30.
    Zang C, Imregun M (2001) Structural damage detection using artificial newral networks and measured frf data reduced via principal component projection. J Sound Vib 242(5):813–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yan A-M, Kerschen G, De Boe P, Golinval J-C (2005) Structural damage diagnosis under varying environmental conditions-part I: a linear analysis. Mech Syst Sig Process 19:847–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yan A-M, Kerschen G, De Boe P, Golinval J-C (2005) Structural damage diagnosis under varying environmental conditions-part II. Mech Syst Sig Process 19:865–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tibaduiza DA, Mujica LE, Rodellar J (2013) Damage classification in structural health monitoring using principal component analysis and self-organizing maps. Struct Control Health Monit 20:1303–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tibaduiza DA, Mujica LE, Anaya M, Rodellar J, Güemes A (2012) Principal component analysis vs independent component analysis for damage detection. In: Proceedings of the 6th European workshop on structural health monitoringGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zang C, Friswell MI, Imregun M (2004) Structural damage detection using independent component analysis. Struct Health Monit 3(1):69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yang Y, Nagarajaiah S (2014), Blind identification of damage in time-varying systems using independent component analysis with wavelet transform. Mech Syst Signal Process 47:3–20. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2012.08.029
  37. 37.
    da Silva S, Júnior MD, Junior VL, Brennan MJ (2008) Structural damage detection by fuzzy clustering. Mech Syst Sigl Process 22:1636–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Park S, Lee J-J, Yun C-B, Inman DJ (2008) Electro-mechanical impedance-based wireless structural health monitoring using pca-data compression and k-means clustering algorithms. J Intel Mater Syst Struct 19:509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Santos A, Silva M, Santos R, Figueiredo E, Sales C, Costa JCWA (2016) Output-only structural health monitoring based in mean shift clustering for vibration-based damage detection. In: Proceedings of the 8th European workshop on structural health monitoringGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nair KK, Kiremidjian AS (2007) Time series based structural damage detection algorithm using gaussian mixtures modeling. J Dyn Syst Measur Control 129:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sen D, Nagarajaiah S (2016) Damage detection in steel pipes using a semi-supervised statistical learning algorithm. In: ASNT annual conference. Long Beach, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations