On Stationarity and the Interpretation of the ADF Statistic

  • K. Worden
  • I. IakovidisEmail author
  • E. J. Cross
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


The paper considers the nature of stationarity of a time series or signal, and how it may be quantified. It is argued that a subjective assessment is as effective as one based on mathematical definitions, if one actually has finite samples of data, and that such an assessment is fundamentally based on the number of cycles of the dominant periodic component visible in the sample. It is shown by dimensional analysis that one of the most often-used measures of stationarity – the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) statistic – supports this hypothesis. The paper should be of interest not just to engineers, but also to econometricians, or anyone concerned with time series analysis and the impact of nonstationarity.


Time series Stationarity Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) statistic Dimensional analysis 



KW would like to acknowledge the support of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) through grant reference numbers EP/J016942/1 and EP/K003836/2.


  1. 1.
    Ellis, A.K.: Teaching and Learning Elementary Social Studies, 9th edn. Pearson, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Worden, K., Tomlinson, G.R.: Nonlinearity in Structural Dynamics: Detection, Identification and Modelling. Institute of Physics Press, Philadelphia (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fuller, W.A.: Introduction to Statistical Time Series. Wiley Interscience, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farrar, C.R., Worden, K.: Structural Health Monitoring: A Machine Learning Perspective. Wiley, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cross, E.J., Worden, K., Chen, Q.: Cointegration: a novel approach for the removal of environmental trends in structural health monitoring data. Proc. R. Soc. Ser. A 467, 2712–2732 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cross, E.J., Manson, G., Worden, K., Pierce, S.G.: Features for damage detection with insensitivity to environmental and operational variations. Proc. R. Soc. Ser. A 468, 4098–4122 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dickey, D.A., Fuller, W.A.: Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74, 427–431 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dickey, D.A., Fuller, W.A.: Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica J. Econ. Soc. 49, 1057–1072 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silverman, B.W.: Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Chapman and Hall, London (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scott, D.: Multivariate Density Estimation: Theory, Practice and Visualization. Wiley, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montgomery, D.C.: Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hurd, H.L., Miamee, A.: Periodically Correlated Random Sequences: Spectral Theory and Practice. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kramer, C., de Smet, C.A.M., de Roeck, G.: Z24 Bridge damage detection tests. In: Proceedings of IMAC 17, the International Modal Analysis Conference, Kissimmee, pp. 1023–1029 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Phillips, P.C., Perron, P.: Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 72, 335–346 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P.C., Schmidt, P.C.: Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: how sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? J. Econ. 54, 159–178 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perman, R.: Cointegration: an introduction to the literature. J. Econ. Stud. 18, 3–30 (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeJong, D., Nankervis, J., Savin, N., Whiteman, C.: Integration versus trend-stationarity in macroeconomic time series. Technical report working paper, Department of Economics, University of Iowa (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nelson, C.R., Prosser, C.R.: Trends and random walks in macroeconomic time series: some evidence and implications. J. Monet. Econ. 10, 139–162 (1982)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hakkio, C.S., Rush, M.: Cointegration: how short is the long run? J. Int. Money Financ. 10, 571–581 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Otero, J., Smith, J.: Testing for cointegration: power versus frequency of observation-further Monte Carlo results. Econ. Lett. 67, 5–9 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shiller, R.J., Perron, P.: Testing the random walk hypothesis: power versus frequency of observation. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van den Berg, H., Jayaretti, S.C.: A novel test of the monetary approach using black market exchange rates and the Johansen-Juselius cointegration method. Econ. Lett. 41, 413–418 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hooker, M.A.: Testing for cointegration: power versus frequency of observation. Econ. Lett. 41, 359–362 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lahiri, K., Mamingi, N.: Testing for cointegration: power versus frequency of observation – another view. Econ. Lett. 49, 121–124 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palmer, A.C.: Dimensional Analysis and Intelligent Experimentation. World Scientific Publishing Co., New Jersey (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dao, P.B., Staszewski, W.J.: Data normalisation for lamb wavebased damage detection using cointegration: a case study with single-and multiple-temperature trends. J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 25, 845–857 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dynamics Research Group, Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations