Time series-based SHM using PCA with application to ASCE benchmark structure

Abstract

Detecting damage at an early stage can avoid a serious catastrophic failure of structures due to inevitable cause, such as fatigue, environmental corrosion, and natural disasters. Various damage detection algorithms have been proposed based on autoregressive model using time series data, which are computationally expensive, and the selection of an optimal order of the model requires extra expertise. In this paper, computationally efficient algorithm is proposed to process the time series data using principal component analysis (PCA) in an effective way. PCA is utilized to model a feature space to compute damage sensitive features insensitive to environmental variations and measurement noise. The modeled feature space preserves the damage information along with eliminates the consequences of environmental variations and measurement noise. Furthermore, Mahalanobis squared distance is adopted to compute damage index as the severity of the damage. The proposed method is validated on analytical models of IASC–ASCE benchmark structure. The test results show that the proposed damage diagnosis method can be useful for wireless sensor network-based structural health monitoring with less computation and low data transmission rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Chang PC, Flatau A, Liu SC (2003) Review paper: health monitoring of civil infrastructure. Struct Health Monit 2(3):257–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Das S, Saha P, Patro SK (2016) Vibration-based damage detection techniques used for health monitoring of structures: a review. J Civ Struct Health Monit 6(3):477–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Neves A, González I, Leander J, Karoumi R (2017) Structural health monitoring of bridges: a model-free ANN-based approach to damage detection. J Civ Struct Health Monit 7(5):689–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Le HV, Nishio M (2015) Time-series analysis of GPS monitoring data from a long-span bridge considering the global deformation due to air temperature changes. J Civ Struct Health Monit 5(4):415–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Yan AM, Kerschen G, De Boe P, Golinval JC (2005) Structural damage diagnosis under varying environmental conditions-Part I: A linear analysis. Mech Syst Signal Process 19(4):847–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Imam B, Chryssanthopoulos M (2010) A review of metallic bridge failure statistics. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International IABMAS Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management, pp 3275–3282

  7. 7.

    Farrar CR, Worden K (2007) An introduction to structural health monitoring. Philos Trans R Soc A: Math Phys Eng Sci 365(1851):303–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cavadas F, Smith IF, Figueiras J (2013) Damage detection using data-driven methods applied to moving-load responses. Mech Syst Signal Process 39(1):409–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Figueiredo E, Park G, Farrar CR, Worden K, Figueiras J (2011) Machine learning algorithms for damage detection under operational and environmental variability. Struct Health Monit 10(6):559–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Erazo K, Sen D, Nagarajaiah S, Sun L (2019) Vibration-based structural health monitoring under changing environmental conditions using kalman filtering. Mech Syst Signal Process 117:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Salawu OS (1997) Detection of structural damage through changes in frequency: A review. Eng Struct 19(9):718–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB (1998) A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods. Shock Vibr Digest 30(2):91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Farrar CR, Worden K (2012) Structural health monitoring: a machine learning perspective. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Deraemaeker A, Worden K (2012) New trends in vibration based structural health monitoring, vol 520. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Walia SK, Patel RK, Vinayak HK, Parti R (2015) Time-frequency and wavelet-based study of an old steel truss bridge before and after retrofitting. J Civ Struct Health Monit 5(4):397–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Nair K (2007) Damage diagnosis of algorithms for wireless structural health monitoring, PhD thesis

  17. 17.

    Lynch JP (2007) An overview of wireless structural health monitoring for civil structures. Philos Trans R Soc A 365(1851):345–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Chae MJ, Yoo HS, Kim JY, Cho MY (2012) Development of a wireless sensor network system for suspension bridge health monitoring. Autom Constr 21:237–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gul M, Catbas FN (2009) Statistical pattern recognition for structural health monitoring using time series modeling: theory and experimental verifications. Mech Syst Signal Process 23(7):2192–2204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Whelan M, Zamudio NS, Kernicky T (2018) Structural identification of a tied arch bridge using parallel genetic algorithms and ambient vibration monitoring with a wireless sensor network. J Civ Struct Health Monit 8(2):315–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kumar K, Biswas PK, Dhang N (2019) Damage diagnosis of steel truss bridges under varying environmental and loading conditions. Int J Acoust Vibr 24(1):56–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Le HV, Nishio M (2019) Structural change monitoring of a cable-stayed bridge by time-series modeling of the global thermal deformation acquired by gps. J Civ Struct Health Monit 9(5):689–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Jayawardhana M, Zhu X, Liyanapathirana R, Gunawardana U (2017) Compressive sensing for efficient health monitoring and effective damage detection of structures. Mech Syst Signal Process 84:414–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Liu X, Lieven NAJ, Escamilla-Ambrosio PJ (2009) Frequency response function shape-based methods for structural damage localisation. Mech Syst Signal Process 23(4):1243–1259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Mahato S, Teja MV, Chakraborty A (2017) Combined wavelet-Hilbert transform-based modal identification of road bridge using vehicular excitation. J Civ Struct Health Monit 7(1):29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Roveri N, Carcaterra A (2012) Damage detection in structures under traveling loads by Hilbert-Huang transform. Mech Syst Signal Process 28:128–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kramer MA (1991) Nonlinear principal component analysis using autoassociative neural networks. AIChE J 37(2):233–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kumar K, Biswas PK, Dhang N (2016) Statistical damage detection approach in SHM based on error prediction model. Int J Struct Civ Eng Res 5(5):300–307

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Goi Y, Kim CW (2017) Damage detection of a truss bridge utilizing a damage indicator from multivariate autoregressive model. J Civ Struct Health Monit 7(2):153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Yao R, Pakzad SN (2012) Autoregressive statistical pattern recognition algorithms for damage detection in civil structures. Mech Syst Signal Process 31:355–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Nair KK, Kiremidjian AS, Law KH (2006) Time series-based damage detection and localization algorithm with application to the ASCE benchmark structure. J Sound Vib 291(1):349–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Nair KK, Kiremidjian AS (2007) Time series based structural damage detection algorithm using Gaussian mixtures modeling. J Dyn Syst Meas Contr 129(3):285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Shlens J (2014) A tutorial on principal component analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.1100

  34. 34.

    Pozo F, Arruga I, Mujica EL, Ruiz M, Podivilova E (2016) Detection of structural changes through principal component analysis and multivariate statistical inference. Struct Health Monit 15(2):127–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Shokrani Y, Dertimanis VK, Chatzi EN, Savoia M (2016) Structural damage localization under varying environmental conditions. In: 11th HSTAM international congress on mechanics, Athens, Greece

  36. 36.

    Posenato D, Lanata F, Inaudi D, Smith IF (2008) Model-free data interpretation for continuous monitoring of complex structures. Adv Eng Inform 22(1):135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Posenato D, Kripakaran P, Inaudi D, Smith IF (2010) Methodologies for model-free data interpretation of civil engineering structures. Comput Struct 88(7):467–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kim CW, Kitauchi S, Chang KC, McGetrick PJ, Sugiura K, Kawatani M (2014) Structural damage diagnosis of steel truss bridges by outlier detection. In: Safety, reliability, risk and life-cycle performance of structures and infrastructures. CRC Press, pp 4631–4638

  39. 39.

    Johnson EA, Lam HF, Katafygiotis LS, Beck JL (2004) Phase I IASC-ASCE structural health monitoring benchmark problem using simulated data. J Eng Mech 130(1):3–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Valle S, Li W, Qin SJ (1999) Selection of the number of principal components: the variance of the reconstruction error criterion with a comparison to other methods. Ind Eng Chem Res 38(11):4389–4401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Leskovec J, Rajaraman A, Ullman JD (2014) Mining of massive datasets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Smith SW (1997) The scientist and engineer’s guide to digital signal processing, 2nd edn. California Technical Publishing, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Abolhassani AH, Selouani S, O’Shaughnessy D (2007) Speech enhancement using PCA and variance of the reconstruction error in distributed speech recognition. In: IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition & Understanding (ASRU), IEEE, pp 19–23

  44. 44.

    Fugate ML, Sohn H, Farrar CR (2001) Vibration-based damage detection using statistical process control. Mech Syst Signal Process 15(4):707–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Dyke SJ, Agrawal AK, Caicedo JM, Christenson R, Gavin HP, Johnson EA, Nagarajaiah S, Narasimhan S, Spencer BF (2010) Database for structural control and monitoring benchmark problems. In: Dataset, Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (database)

  46. 46.

    Montgomery DC, Runger GC (2010) Applied statistics and probability for engineers. Wiley, Hoboken

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ljung L (1999) System identification: theory for the user, 2nd edn. PTR Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kundan Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, K., Biswas, P.K. & Dhang, N. Time series-based SHM using PCA with application to ASCE benchmark structure. J Civil Struct Health Monit 10, 899–911 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-020-00423-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Structural health monitoring
  • Damage detection
  • Eigenspace
  • Principal component analysis
  • Mahalanobis squared distance
  • Outlier detection