See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326500780

Structural Health Monitoring as a Big-Data Problem

Article in Structural Engineering International · July 2018

DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2018.1461536

CITATIONS READS
3 407

2 authors:

Christian Cremona João Pedro Santos

Bouygues Construction National Laboratory for Civil Engineering
248 PUBLICATIONS 1,476 CITATIONS 30 PUBLICATIONS 119 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Health Monitoring in Civil Engineering Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by João Pedro Santos on 04 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structural Engineering International

ISSN: 1016-8664 (Print) 1683-0350 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsei20

Structural Health Monitoring as a

Big-Data Problem

Christian Cremona & Joao Santos

To cite this article: Christian Cremona & Joao Santos (2018) Structural Health
Monitoring as a Big-Data Problem, Structural Engineering International, 28:3, 243-254, DOI:
10.1080/10168664.2018.1461536
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2018.1461536

Published online: 19 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 36

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsei20
Introduction: The Value of Health Monitoring in Structural
Performance Assessment
Structural health monitoring (SHM)
comprises a wide range of activities,
which—through different technologies
and algorithms—can provide exten-sive
information about the perform-ance of
existing and new structures over their life
cycle. Despite the wide acceptance of
SHM as a useful aid to infrastructure risk
and integrity man-agement, its value is
seldom quantified and communicated to
infrastructure owners and operators. This
special issue aims to rectify this by
offering an overview of the latest
scientific advancements and professional
activi-ties in the field of SHM
technologies and algorithms.
The special issue starts out by analys-ing
big-data principles, demonstrating that
the challenges inherent to big data share
much in common with those of SHM and
concluding that there is great potential
for making sig-nificant advances in both
fields through the interchange of
information and experience. The value of
SHM is addressed in the second
contribution,
which demonstrates how analyses of the
value of damage detection infor-mation
can be utilised for determining optimal
condition assessment and intervention
times throughout the service life of a
bridge. In the third con-tribution, a
decision process on how to implement
and optimise SHM is pro-posed and its
effectiveness is demon-strated through its
application to a stadium roof prone to
heavy snowfall accumulations.
These contributions are followed by a
series of six scientific papers that present
SHM technologies and algorithms related
to a diverse range of challenges
surrounding bridge per-formance,
comprising: (a) a framework for
evaluating the fatigue performance of
concrete bridges, (b) a temperature
deformation model for ensuring pas-
senger comfort on high-speed trains,
(c) an investigation into the combined
effects of scour and seismic actions,
(d) an enhanced damping estimation
procedure for cable-supported bridges,
(e) a process for the life-cycle
assessment of concrete bridges exposed
to spatially distributed chlor-ide ingress,
and (f) the correlation assessment of
masonry bridge building quality and its
ageing process.
The special issue concludes with novel
utilisations of digital image correlation
systems for documenting shear failure
mechanisms in concrete beams and
assessing the performance of the
expansion joints on a major bridge. This
contribution encompasses novel digital
image correlation analysis for the
purpose of long-term monitoring and
assessment in relation to bridge risk and
integrity management.
In addition, the role of SHM in facili-
tating suspension-bridge management is
reported, and curvature measure-ment is
proposed as an indirect way of
monitoring prestressing forces.
Ana Mandic´ Ivankovic´, SEI Editorial
Board; Sebastian Thöns, Technical
University of Denmark; José Matos,
University of Minho, Portugal.

Structural Health Monitoring as a Big-Data Problem

Christian Cremona, Director, Technical Division, Bouygues TP, Guyancourt, France; Joao Santos, Researcher, Structures Deptartment, LNEC,
Lisbon, Portugal. Contact: c.cremona@bouygues-construction.com DOI: 10.1080/10168664.2018.1461536

Abstract Introduction
Structural health monitoring (SHM) has evolved over decades of continuous progress Civil-engineering structures are con-
in measuring, processing, collecting and storing massive amounts of data that can tinuously exposed to aggressive
provide valuable information for owners and managers in order to control and manage environmental and operational con-
the integrity of their structures. The data sets acquired from SHM systems are ditions, including extreme weather events
undoubtedly of the “big data” type due to their sheer volume, complexity and and damage due to accidents, all of
diversity, and conducting relevant analyses of their content can help to identify which results in wear to their
damage or failure during operation through the relationships between the components and constitutive materials, as
measurements taken by multiple sensors. A great deal can be learned from these large well as potential unexpected struc-tural
pools of data, resulting in significant advances in efficient integrity control. From changes. The thorough quantitat-ive
banking to retail, many sectors have already embraced big data, which is often assessment of the performance and
synonymous with “big expectations”; in the present case, it offers opportunities to integrity of any structure is thus of
apply data-processing research to the development of more efficient SHM systems paramount importance. This is the core
with real-time capabilities. By presenting various examples of bridge monitoring objective of structural health monitoring
systems, this paper contributes to the ongoing cross-disciplinary efforts in data (SHM): to determine and monitor the
science for the utilization and advancement of SHM. serviceability and safety of structures.
This can be expressed as activities
wherein conditions and par-ameters are
Keywords: big data; structural health monitoring; forward techniques; pattern observed, measured, recorded and
recognition; artificial intelligence; advanced statistics
processed.1 This disci-pline has been
addressed, for many

Structural Engineering International Nr. 3/2018 Scientific Paper 243

years, by designers, contractors and
owners with almost identical objec-tives:
to check that the structures behave as
intended. This focus has gen-erated a
fast-growing body of research on a wide
variety of structures.1–6
During the 1990s, SHM underwent major
changes due to advances in com-puting
and information technology. Highly
accurate sensors, sophisticated signal
conditioning units, optical and wireless
networks, global positioning systems and
other technologies have all contributed to
the development of more accurate, cost-
efficient measuring and monitoring
systems. As a conse-quence, the volume
of data sets has increased tremendously,
at rates of millions of measurements per
sensor, per hour.7 These new, richer data
sets offer the ability to characterize struc-
tural behaviour in unprecedented ways,
leading to international enthu-siasm for
implementing large monitor-ing systems
on structures. Figure 1 shows the
exponential increase in the number of
sensors installed on some major new
bridges worldwide during the past 20
years—and it actually under-estimates
the quantity of measure-ments, since
sensors usually gather measurements
across several channels, and this does not
take into account the measurement rate
itself. SHM has thus emerged as a high-
tech discipline that is mostly driven by
technological capa-bilities rather than
clear objectives and expectations.
However, an optimal cost–benefit ratio is
still far from the reach of those who
operate the vast majority of SHM
systems worldwide, and numerous
research groups are focused on finding
ways to better utilize the large amounts
of acquired data, either by optimizing the
number of deployed sensors or by
developing
Fig. 1: Evolution of the number of sensors during the past 10 years in major monitored
bridges
244 Scientific Paper
strategies for dealing with greater
amounts of information in real time.1
In past decades, the stakeholders of
structures have been sceptical regard-ing
the advantages of SHM because it was
seen as a generator of huge data sets of
information without practical use.1 This
issue has hampered the development and
application of this discipline in the past,
but the ever-decreasing cost of digital
systems for processing, transporting and
storing data has contributed to the
popularity of SHM to the extent that
some researchers are using the term “data
deluge” and promoting the need to go
beyond the data in order to extract
meaningful information.8,9 This has led
to an important breakthrough in pattern
recognition10–14 and motivated the
expansion of computing platforms with
the aim of extracting value from large
amounts of complex data in real time.
Understanding the contribution of big
data to SHM requires the clarification of
both of these concepts. The present paper
therefore addresses this objec-tive and
attempts to understand the connection
between them. For this purpose, several
bridge SHM systems are used as
examples of proof-of-concept in order to
provide clear infor-mation that can be
used for research and practical purposes
in the realm of SHM. The next section
addresses and describes the major
challenges for the fields of big data and
SHM, after which the several examples
of moni-tored bridges are presented in
order to show the data-processing stages
and challenges associated with SHM.
Finally, the most important ideas are
summed up and discussed, and several
conclusions are drawn.
Structural Engineering International
Big Data and Structural
Health Monitoring (SHM)
Big Data: Overview and Challenges
The term “big data” is so popular today
that it is overused without a clear
understanding of its meaning.15 It not
only refers to a specific volume of data
sets that is considered vast,16 but also to
a wide range of data sets that cannot be
handled with traditional data-
management tools and conven-tional
data-processing hardware and software
frameworks. The main reason for this is
not only the data’s size but also its
complexity, since these data sets are
usually unstruc-tured, distributed and
multifa-
ceted.15,16 The term “big data” is usually
defined by the “3 Vs”16,17:
. Volume, i.e. the quantity of stored
data.
. Variety, i.e. the type and nature of the
data.
. Velocity, i.e. the speed at which the
data is generated and processed.
Two other “Vs” are often added to the
description of big data18,19:
. Variability, i.e. the inconsistency of the
data set.
. Veracity, i.e. the quality of the cap-
tured data.
The value added by big data can lead to
more confident decision-making,
greater operational efficiency, improved
cost reduction and reduced risk regarding
any action, process or business. Despite
these potential benefits however, many
technical chal-lenges must be
addressed.16 The most significant
challenges relating directly to the data
include analysis, capture, curation,
searching, sharing, storage, transfer,
visualization, querying and information
privacy,15–19 while the per-ipheral
challenges include the comput-ing
architecture, redundancy, failsafe
processes, collaborative and auto-mated
coding and meta-data model-ling, among
others.20 These challenges have been at
the heart of the trends in the big-data
field, not only for man-agement and
computing power but also—and most
importantly—for data analytics and
pattern recognition.10–14 The use of
sophisticated algorithms on big-data sets
has resulted in the development of
distributed computing
platforms, the mapping of data onto a
large number of nodes (computing
Nr. 3/2018
clusters) and the use of the massive
computing power of graphical proces-
sing units (GPUs).
SHM: Overview and Challenges
SHM can be simplified into the process
of implementing a damage detection and
characterization strategy for civil-
engineering structures.21–23 Damage is
defined as the modification of material
and/or its geometric prop-erties, as well
as changes to the bound-ary conditions
and system connectivity. Said differently,
damage is anything that affects a
system’s per-formance. SHM involves
the scoring of performance indicators
using visual or measured data and
analytical simu-lations combined with
engineering experience, the final result of
which is the development of a health
profile consisting of performance profiles
that allow the “future health” of a
structure to be accurately predicted.
SHM is therefore not limited to a single
type of instrumentation or process of data
acquisition, but rather aims at extracting
features (indicators) to determine the
current (diagnosis) and future (prognosis)
operating con-ditions of a structure.3
The SHM pipeline starts with on-site
data acquisition, which consists of
periodically sampling dynamic response
measurements from an array of sensors.
This is generally followed by the
extraction of damage-sensitive features
from these measurements and the
classification of these features to
determine the current state of the system.
The most important aspect of
any SHM framework is its capacity to
provide data that can update the health
profile; in other words, the infor-mation
acquired on-site—with its uncertainties
and multiple data formats—must be
incorporated into either the numerical
models (inverse strategies) or the
statistical and pattern recognition
methods (forward analysis).3 Since the
data flow may orig-inate from an array of
different sensors which capture distinct
phenomena at
different sampling rates under varying
conditions, an additional challenge con-
sists of supressing the effects of environ-
mental and operational actions on the
structural responses—a process referred
to in the SHM literature as
“normalization”.1
In SHM today, health profiles for both
diagnosis and prognosis generally rely on
inverse strategies. Usually referred
Structural Engineering International
to as model updating or system identi-
fication, these strategies consist in finding
the parametric physical models which
best fit the structural responses obtained
from the sensors to infer information that
cannot be directly measured on-site.
They are therefore generally enforced to
use optimization or stochastic search
tech-niques for computational efficiency,
leading to true mathematical but non-
physical solutions.1,24,25
Forward (data-driven) approaches are the
opposite of inverse ones and their use has
recently increased both in the SHM
literature and in practice. They do not
require the development of numerical or
analytical models to be fitted with in situ
data. In relation to SHM, forward
methodologies poten-tially present a
more flexible and inex-pensive solution,
since they do not require the
development of specific models for each
system.6 These tech-niques aim at
extracting sensitive information from a
time series on-site using statistical and
analytical methods; the recent SHM
literature reports their applications to
structures that are subjected to
operational and environmental
effects,26,27 showing that data-based
algorithms can more easily reproduce
these effects when compared to
numerical or analytical models.
Moreover, their compu-tational
simplicity situates them as the most
suitable solution for carrying out real-
time analyses of the data gen-erated by
the SHM of large-scale structures.28
Big Data vs. SHM
The review of the latest literature related
to SHM and big data reveals that the
forward strategies for SHM exhibit the
same pipelines and chal-lenges of big
data. Table 1 compares the different
blocks or conceptual steps of big data
and SHM pipelines, while Table 2
synthesizes the different
Pipeline Big data
Recording
Cleansing
Aggregation
Modelling
Interpretation
Table 1: Pipelines for big data and forward approaches to SHM
Nr. 3/2018
challenges in both fields.1,16–18 This
double matching suggests that forward
approaches to big data can easily be
transferred to SHM, offering greater
capabilities for integrity control and
structural management compared to
inverse strategies for SHM.
The field of big data promotes sol-utions
for dealing with the kinds of large-scale
data sets that are generated by SHM. For
instance, the volume and dimensionality
of the data requires storage across
multiple machines and decentralized
learning with parallel GPU computing;
thus, SHM as a big-data problem needs
to account for storage, access,
communication and privacy (as it relates
to the details of structures and
infrastructure that must be kept secret or
secure). In addition, the challenges
inherent to big data include navigating
huge data sets, detecting new phenomena
and “learning”, which is where the
current topics and trends of the field are
most valuable in relation to SHM; ample
opportunities are available to SHM
researchers and practitioners to find
solutions to the technical and data-
processing challenges which are not only
the subject of study and prac-tice in the
realm of SHM but are also situated in the
frameworks of the numerous different
activities and actors surrounding the use
of big data worldwide.
Common Big Data and SHM
Data-Processing Challenges
and Solutions
As mentioned in the previous section,
forward approaches are generally pre-
ferred over inverse ones in modern SHM
systems and frameworks. In addition,
they exhibit the important advantage of
sharing most of the data-processing
challenges with the big-data-specific
domain. In this section, the various parts
of forward
Forward SHM
Acquisition
Normalization
Data fusion
Prediction
Classification
Scientific Paper 245

Big data SHM
Volume Data flow
Variety Data types
Velocity High-frequency sampling
Variability Uncertainties
Veracity Corrupting noise
Table 2: Main challenges for big data and
forward approaches to SHM
data-driven approaches to SHM (Table 1)
are described and solved as parts of a
big-data processing pipeline with the
objective of showing that numerous
solutions of this type are already in use in
SHM, while also reinforcing that the
present and future solutions developed
for big data can also be simi-larly applied
to SHM. The exception to this is
recording, which is highly specific for
each application and there-fore it is not
possible to obtain generic conclusions for
it.
Cleansing
The process of data cleansing—using
feature selection to determine whether to
pass on or reject data— can be divided
into two steps. The first step consists in
detecting and removing corrupt or
inaccurate records from a record set.29
Used mostly in databases, the term
“cleans-ing” refers to the process of
identifying irrelevant or missing parts of
the acquired data and then modifying or
deleting this dirty or coarse data. After
cleansing, the data set will be consistent
with other similar data sets in an existing
system, or has been modified to fulfil the
preset require-ments for the relevant
application. The cleansing process is
generally based on defining hard limits
outside of which the data makes no sense
for the application at hand, or discarding
fields with missing values or unex-pected
types of data (for example where a text
string has been entered into a numeric
field).
The second step, normalization, is the
process of suppressing changes related to
phenomena which are not relevant to the
application at hand or to the analyses to
be conducted. After performing the tasks
associated with this step, the data is
expected to be “normalized” in the sense
that the changes observed in all samples
246 Scientific Paper
(future, past and present) can be ana-
lysed in the same way.1,23,27
Depending on the application, the data
normalization strategies may have to deal
with two types of influen-cing factor:
those which are known to occur and
influence the data in relation to the
chosen application, and those which may
or may not occur. The first type is
generally included in the true distribution
of the acquired data, while the second
may or may not gen-erate different data
distributions, so its objects are therefore
generally known as outliers.1,28 Outliers
are records or samples belonging to
different true statistical distributions, and
their removal from data analysis is
generally conducted before feature
extraction by applying statistical tests
through the use of appropriate robust
measures of expected values and scatters
with high breakdown values (the number
of values belonging to different distri-
butions which cause a certain statisti-cal
measure to produce an incorrect
estimation regarding the distribution
under analysis).1 Forward applications
also require this type of data cleansing;
the most well-known multivariate robust
estimators—which consist of the
minimum volume ellipsoid (MVE) and
the minimum covariance determinant
(MCD)30—are used for the estimation of
the covariance and median values.28 Due
to the large size of SHM data sets,
efficient ver-sions of these algorithms are
generally used.
An example of the cleansing of data
generated by different unexpected
sources is shown in Fig. 2 for the Inter-
national Guadiana Bridge, which is
located in the south-west of the Iberian
Peninsula and connects the Portuguese
region of the Algarve to the Spanish
region of Andalusia. The bridge is being
monitored for multiple phenomena using
approximately 50 sensors sampled at 100
Hz (Fig. 2a), whose data is compressed
into one measurement per hour, per
sensor. Figure 2b presents a time series
of the rotation at the top of pylon P3,
showing the influence of temperature as
well as multiple outliers related to
incorrect heavy traffic filtering (high-
lighted in green) and sensor malfunc-tion
(highlighted in red). These values were
correctly identified as belonging to
different distributions by: (a) using the
structural response along with the
structural temperature to compute the
Mahalanobis distance describing the
Structural Engineering International
covariance between the two variables,
(b) conducting statistical hypothesis
tests on the location of the expected
value of the Mahalanobis distance (with
a 99% confidence level) using the chi-
squared statistical distribution, and (c)
applying a Kolmogorov– Smirnov
hypothesis test to the data set before and
after the outlier removal to check if it
consists of the same data distribution.
The results of this process are shown in
Fig. 2c and 2d for the first and second
statistical tests, respectively, wherein it
can be observed that each test identified a
different unexpected source of variation.
The normalization strategies for the
variability generated by “regular” and
permanent factors are generally dealt
with in SHM big-data applications using
either regression models or latent-
variable statistical algorithms. Regular
variability in SHM appli-cations is
usually caused by environ-mental and
operational factors such as temperature,
wind, humidity and traffic,22,23,31 and
may actually be much greater than the
variability gen-erated by novel behaviour
or even damage, especially at its
onset.26,31,32 An SHM strategy that does
not include a data normalization pro-
cedure for regular variability in its
workflow is therefore unlikely to detect
novel behaviour, and will cer-tainly be
prone to generating false detections when
unexpected environ-mental and
operational conditions occur.
The regression-based approach consists
in measuring the variations in oper-
ational and environmental actions along
with the structural responses and then
establishing regression models between
the two data sets. Multivariate linear
regression (MLR) models or
nonparametric nonlinear models such as
multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural
networks23,31,33—which are capable of
defining, by themselves, the relations
which provide the function between
actions and responses—are the most
popular techniques. The defi-nition of
such models for normalization in SHM is
exemplified herein using the case study
of the viaduct located at PK075 + 317 of
the south-east high-speed French railway
line (Fig. 3a), which was the subject of
retrofitting (Fig. 3b) with the aim of
increasing the value of the frequency of
the first natural mode in order to avoid
reson-ance problems during the passage
of
Nr. 3/2018
 (a)
CL2 CL5
NL6 NL7
Spain NL3 NL8 Tsc NL11 Portugal
NL2 NL12
NL1 NL13
Td
DH1 DH2

CL3, CL4

CL1
P1 CL6, CL7
P2 P3 P4 CL8
Tp

(c)
Distance
(b) Outliers
200

MVE

0e+00 4e+14 8e+14

(segsex)
100
0

50 100 150 200 250

–300 –200 –100

(d)
Rotation

Distance

8e+12
Outliers

MVE

50 100 150 200 250 4e+12

0e+00

Time Index (days)

50 100 150 200 250
Time Index (days)

Fig. 2: International Guadiana Bridge: (a) overview of the monitoring system, (b) rotation on the top of P3 pylon, (c) first removal of outliers,
(d) second removal of outliers.
*CL = tilt meter; DH = horizontal relative displacement; NL = vertical displacement sensor; P = pylon; T = thermometer.

TGV trains. The bridge was monitored
before, during and immediately after the
retrofitting, and then again approxi-
mately two years later, at a rate of 500
samples per second across 10 acceler-
ometers during the passage of trains.34,35
As each train crossed the
viaduct, the values of the frequency of the frequency is strongly non-linear, and
the first natural mode were obtained that the MLP is more capable of
along with the structural temperature and capturing it than linear regression. As a
then modelled using linear regression and consequence, the differences between the
MLP non-linear regression. Figure 3c data acquired and the MLP estimations
shows that the relation between the can be considered free of the effect of the
temperature and temperature,

(c) Experimental
46.

Lin. Regression
MLP
mode (Hz)
26. 36.
natu
Frequency– 1st ral

(a)
0 16.6. 95.

0 10 20 30
(b) Temperature (°C)

Fig. 3: Examples of MLR and MLP models: (a) monitoring of the dynamic response of a high speed track railway bridge; (b) retrofitting device;
8
(c) relation between 1st frequency and temperature

Structural Engineering International Nr. 3/2018 Scientific Paper 247

while the differences obtained from the by temperature, whereas the average Aggregation
linear models show evidence of the strain measurements are slightly influ-
The rising complexity and volume of
influence of the temperature. enced by the concrete rheology. Thus, data presents new opportunities and
The latent-variable approach to normal- the most effective normalization method challenges for both visualization and
izing regular variability in SHM data should be capable of produ-cing residual
analysis tools that are required to capture
relies on the well-known principal com- ACFs with the highest expected values
global patterns and structural
ponent analysis (PCA)—or non-linear and variances for strain and the smallest
information. This is a common problem
versions of it such as auto-associative ones for stay cable tension. The residuals
in big data and SHM and is divided into
neural networks (AANNs)—and can obtained from the MLP and PCA dimensionality reduction (the number of
characterize the influence, in a set of approaches (Figs. 4b,c, respectively)
variables considered for visualization and
measured structural responses, of the reveal that both methods are effective at
analysis) and length reduction (the
effects generated by operational and removing the temperature effects but are
number of samples per variable).
environmental actions without the need not capable, as expected, of removing the
to measure them.1,32,36 This offers an effects of creep and shrinkage: the stay
cable forces exhibit ACF distri-butions Vibrational SHM is a good example of
advantage when studying complex
close to zero while those obtained from big-data aggregation in terms of both
structural responses that can be gener-
the strain are located between 0.7 and dimensionality reduction and length
ated by actions whose appropriate
0.95. reduction. This type of monitoring aims
quantification and characterization may
at assessing the health of a
be both difficult and expensive.
Regardless of the method used, the
objective of normalizing the regular
(a) SC33
variability is to suppress any trends SC36
related to known actions along the time Santarém S10 Almeirim
series of the structural responses. Trends S2 S4
SC24 SC29
P1 P2 P3 P6 P7 P8
are completely removed when the P4 P5
corresponding differences between the
measured and estimated data exhibit 40.5 42.0 78.0 246.0 78.0 42.0 40.5
570.0
seemingly random distributions and thus
exhibit a null auto-correlation function Section S10 T7
C3
(ACF). Hence, if fully effective T1 C1 T2 T4 T5 T8 T10 T12 T13 C5 T15
T3 C2 T6 T9 T11 C4 T14
estimation models are applied to a time T16 T17

series acquired from unchanged and Upstream C6 C7 C8 Downstream

undamaged structures, the ACF of the T18 T19 T20

resulting residuals must exhibit null Sections S2 and S4

expected values and variability. As an T1 T2 T3 Legend:
example, the monitoring system of the C1 C2 C3
Strain gauge
Santarém Almeirim
Salgueiro Maia Bridge is considered.1,36
T4 T5 T6 T7
Thermometer
C4 C5 C6 Stay-cable load cell
As depicted in Fig. 4a, the tension of the T8 T9 T10

four stay cables highlighted in red is con- (b)

1.0

tinuously monitored using single-strand

load cells. In addition, numerous sec-
Correlation

tions of the deck and pylons are moni-

tored with thermal probes and embedded
strain gauges.
0.6
Auto

The data set used for the MLP approach

0.
2
-

consists of the average (T2m and T10m)

and differential (T2d and T10d)
0.2
–

temperatures of sec-tions S2 and S10 as

the measured influ-encing factors, along C2m C4m C10m SC24 SC29 SC33 SC36
with the average strain obtained from (c)
01.

sections S2, S4 and S10 (C2m, C4m and

Auto- Correlation

C10m) as well as the tension of the four

stay cables (SC24, SC29, SC33 and
SC36). For the PCA, only the strain and
60.

tension data was used.

0.
2

After 15 years in service, creep and

0.
–

shrinkage are shown to have a near null

C2m C4m C10m SC24 SC29 SC33 SC36
influence on all structural responses with
the exception of strain, for which the 36
Fig. 4: The Salgueiro Maia Bridge : (a) monitoring system and box-and-whiskers plots of the
influence is mild to small. Hence, the auto-correlation function for the differences obtained from the (b) multilayer perceptron and the
variability of the stay cable forces is (c) principal component analysis.
mostly influenced *C = strain gauge; P = pylon; S = section; SC = stay cable; T = thermometer.

248 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 3/2018

structure by measuring its vibrational
response, which is assumed to change in
relation to mass and/or stiffness vari-
ations.31,34 Signals are usually acquired
at a rate of hundreds or even thousands
of samples per channel per second,
resulting in data sets that can easily
become unmanageable if they are not
processed in real time using oper-ational
modal analysis. This is achieved through
the use of a set of signal pro-cessing
techniques capable of translat-ing the
millions of measurements comprising the
acquired data into the structural dynamic
features, which consist of a set of
frequencies, damping ratios and model
shape coor-dinates. As an example, a
monitoring system with 100 channels
producing 1024 values per channel per
second generates a total of 102 400
values per second, which exceeds 368
000 000 values per hour. However, using
20 natural vibration modes, the same
information is reduced to 2040 values
(20 frequencies, 20 damping ratios and
2000 modal coordinates). The data
aggregation conducted for Pi-57 of the
French A1 motorway, which
(a)
(c)
100
[mg]
travels over the River Oise (Fig. 5a),31 is
a good example of dynamic SHM big-
data aggregation, as it was continuously
monitored at a rate of 250 samples per
second across 18 accel-eration sensors
over a period of several months, thus
generating a large volume of data. This
data was, however, com-pressed into
eight natural vibration modes, whose
frequencies are shown in Fig. 5d using
black dots over the fre-quency spectrum.
The shapes of the first four natural
vibration modes are shown in Fig. 5b,
where the vertices represent the 18
sensor locations. Thus, from the 18
acceleration sensor time series
comprising 250 values per second, the
big-data aggregation pro-cedure results
in 34 time series (8 fre-quencies, 8
damping ratios and 18 modal
displacements) with infor-mation
updated every 3 h.
In addition to operational modal analy-
sis, other big-data aggregation methods
are already being used for SHM appli-
cations. A good alternative, bearing in
mind the same principles and objec-tives
of modal analysis, is the extraction
(b) 1st mode 2nd mode
3rd mode 4th mode
Time series (vertical accelerations)
of auto-regression or wavelet coeffi-
cients. Rather different in terms of
concept and objectives but also effec-tive
are strategies such as the definition of
symbolic data objects, which can
generally be applied as a second layer of
data aggregation to further com-press
modal, auto-regressive or wavelet
information. Symbolic data objects can
be defined as richer, less voluminous and
less specific types of information when
compared to measurements acquired on-
site.2,21,34 While classical data mining
focuses on detecting groups or patterns in
sets of acquired data, symbolic data deals
with concepts that must be properly
defined for the application at hand to
statistically describe the analysed data.
For instance, a set of hourly modal data
acquired from 15 sensors and 20 natural
modes over the period of one week can
be described by 57 120 values or can
consist of a single symbolic object
named “one week of modal information
acquired from a target structure”. This
object must be described by statistical
quantities such as histograms or
interquartile intervals, providing data
compression without significant loss of
generality or infor-mation32,34,37,38 and
allowing for a
simple quantification of the four stat-
istical moments (expected value, scatter,
symmetry and flatness). In the case of
interquartile intervals, the week of modal
data is reduced to only 680 values (20
intervals for each frequency, damping
ratio and modal coordinates). The
effectiveness of sym-bolic data analysis
in SHM relies heavily on the definition of
statistical and pattern-recognition
algorithms that can be specifically
applied to this type of data in the same
way that single values and measurements

are analysed by the methods applied to

50
big-data sets.37,39
Amplitud

0
e

–50

–100
Modelling
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 In the realm of SHM, data modelling is
Time [s] strongly related to the construction of
Spectrum of the AV13 time series feature vectors and their extraction from
(d) 80 2.2 HZ data. Feature vectors usually consist of
Specturm

60 multivariate outputs com-posed of values

40 12 HZ 14.2 HZ 15.9 HZ
that are directly corre-lated with the
4.88 HZ 11 HZ relevant phenomena being monitored or
20
6.84 HZ 19 HZ
controlled, which in the case of SHM
0
applications consist of damage and
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 structural integ-rity loss. The lengths and
Frequency [Hz] dimensional-ities of these vectors must
31
be lower than those of the original
Fig. 5: Modal identification of the Oise bridge : (a) overview of the structure, (b) first four
data.1,5,38 Consequently, feature
natural mode shapes, (c) signals acquired on site, (d) spectrum and natural mode shapes'
frequencies extraction must

Structural Engineering International Nr. 3/2018 Scientific Paper 249

include some form of data aggregation, strategies consist of modelling the data
which is the reason that the aggrega-tion before any normalization takes place;
and modelling pipeline blocks are operational modal analysis, auto-
frequently addressed simul-taneously regressive modelling and wavelet
using identical methods. Hence, the analysis are all good examples of this.
operational modal analysis presented in Pattern-level modelling usually takes
the previous section (Fig. 5) is an place after normalization and immedi-
interesting example of data fusion—as is ately before the final step of interpret-
the use of symbolic data objects, which ation—cluster analysis is a good
has the advantage of allowing the example. Big-data applications in the
combination of differ-ent types of data realm of SHM are generally composed of
(variety). a combination of both centralized and
Modelling for feature extraction can be pattern-level modelling.
conducted in two stages along the big-
1 Both types are used in the big-data
0
0
/
clustering symbolic data objects over
time that was applied to the Samora
Machel Bridge in Tete, Mozambique
during the retrofitting works carried out
in 2009 (Fig. 6). The rotations of the
bridge’s transverse beams were
monitored in three phases, during which
two retrofitting actions took place: the
first changed the structural system and
was carried out between monitoring
phases 1 and 2, and the second did not
generate any changes to the structural
system and was con-ducted between
phases 2 and 3. The acquired rotation
signals were first con-verted into

data processing pipeline.1,5 Centralized modelling pipeline consisting of symbolic objects, each
e
c
s

)
a

c
(

rR
P

o
n
e
a

s
t

t
i

(c)
(a) (b) 150 Phase 1
Phase 2
100

Phase 3
Phase 3

50

Phase 2
0

–50

Phase 1
–150
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Time
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Index (min)

(d)
1
Standardized Ward Linkage

0.8

0.6 Dendrogram Cut: 2 Clusters

0.4

0.2

0
017
034
013
030
009
043

007
035
047
107
078

113
097
058
063
131
128
065
070
075
083
081
076
084

109
104
068
090
121
117

126
020
067
089
049
019022

069130

066088

103106

042003092

Symbolic Object Index

(e)
100
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
[Rot. TM2] (arc sec) / 100

Cluster 1
80 Cluster 2

60

40

20

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131

Symbolic Object Index
38
Fig. 6: Detection of structural changes in the Samora Machel Bridge : (a) view of the bridge, (b) rotations acquired on site, (c) dissimilarity
matrix, (d) dendrogram and (e) clusters’ allocations

250 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 3/2018

representing 5 min of data, and then
described by a set of each rotation’s
interquartile intervals; Fig. 6e shows that
the clear changes between phases 1 and 2
remain, along with the clear resemblance
between phases 2 and 3 (when compared
to the signals shown in Fig. 6b).
The symbolic objects were analysed
using a clustering method, which is a
common technique for statistical data
analysis used in many different
fields40,41 to model data as subgroups by
analysing its density. Put differently,
clustering can be described as the parti-
tioning of a data set into subsets (clus-
ters) so that the data in each subset shares
some common properties. To achieve
appropriate clustering it is necessary to
minimize the within-cluster variation to
obtain the most homogeneous clusters
possible and, as a natural consequence, to
maximize the between-cluster variation
to obtain the most dissimilar clusters
among each other. To define these clus-
ters and determine the proximity (or
similarity) among the tests it is necess-
ary to first define suitable dissimilarity
measures, which are shown in Fig. 6c for
the Samora Machel Bridge. The lower
the values, the more similar the objects—
and thus these objects are gathered into
the same cluster. Conver-sely, the objects
allocated into different clusters are the
ones which have greater distances
between them. Dis-similarity measures
can take a variety of forms, and some
applications might require specific
ones.32,39
Two bright areas can be observed in the
dissimilarity matrix shown in Fig. 6c—
one located in phase 1 and the other
located in phases 2 and 3. These bright
areas indicate small dissimilari-ties
according to the chosen data model,
while the darker areas indicate larger
dissimilarities between phase 1 and
phases 2 and 3. This matrix reveals that
the modelling suggests two distinct
groups in the data. Apply-ing a
hierarchical agglomerative clus-tering
method—which is the most commonly
used method for big-data analysis, along
with the popular k-means—produces the
dendrogram plot shown in Fig. 6d. This
plot makes it possible to obtain, in a fully
auto-matic manner, the structure of the
multivariate data in a single tree-like
shape, according to the chosen data
model. In Fig. 6d, two clusters can be
readily identified. When these clusters
are observed on a symbolic objects
Structural Engineering International
time series (Fig. 6e), it can be readily
concluded that the chosen data model has
identified, in a fully automatic manner
and without the need for user judgement,
two distinct structural behaviours
monitored in the Samora Machel
Bridge—the first observed, as expected,
during phase 1, and the second during
phases 2 and 3.
Data Interpretation
Data interpretation involves a wide
variety of methodologies, from the many
types of quantitative and objec-tive
philosophies and algorithms to simple
human judgement and subjec-tive
thinking. However, the most com-monly
used approach consists of classifying
previously extracted fea-tures using
single or multiple variables or criteria.
Feature classification con-sists of
labelling data features in terms of
anything that may be relevant to the task
at hand, such as a certain group, pattern,
time frame, structural condition, damage
state, etc. Two main families of
classification tech-nique can be found in
the data ana-lytics literature,40–42
depending on the pre-existence of
labelled features. Supervised
classification is applied in cases in which
there is a previously acquired baseline set
consisting of arrays of relevant features
(normally, all those considered possible
for the chosen analysis) along with their
corre-sponding classes or labels.40 In the
specific case of SHM applications, this
methodology establishes the relations
between the monitoring data and the
corresponding structural conditions or
health (known or novel, damaged or
undamaged). When no labels are avail-
able, the big-data strategies resort instead
to unsupervised classifi-cation,41,43
which does not rely on a-priori
knowledge and is capable of finding any
number of labels between 1 (all features
assigned to the same class) and n, where
n is the number of features existent in the
data set (one class per feature).
Feature classification in SHM is a direct
application of the feature classification
techniques found in big-data appli-
cations and therefore has been reported
following three major approaches, of
which the first two are supervised and the
third is unsupervised.
The first approach1 consists of defining
boundaries around features with known
labels, such as the default unda-maged or
stable structural condition.
Nr. 3/2018
The features extracted afterwards are
then compared with the boundaries and
classified either as inliers belong-ing to
the same label (the structural condition)
or as outliers belonging to a different
unknown structural con-dition (probably
corresponding to damage).22,23 The
second approach consists of defining
boundaries between features belonging to
the different labels, such as different
known structural conditions corre-
sponding to different damage scen-
arios.2,44,45 Newly acquired features can
then be placed in the feature space to
assess which label should be used to
classify them. The third approach
consists of finding clusters that
correspond to one or more unknown
structural behaviours that may or may
not be present in the feature set.2,46,47
This unsupervised approach is generally
preferred when no data or feature
baselines are avail-able, such as in old
structures or post-accident situations.1,38
Supervised feature classification is gen-
erally conducted in two phases: train-ing,
which consists of defining the boundaries
dividing the feature space, and
prediction, which consists of mod-elling
newly acquired features and assessing the
labels that are used to classify them.
Statistical hypothesis tests, statistical
process control and one-class support
vector machines are good examples of
supervised methods that use the first
approach (boundaries around features),
and neural networks, multi-class support
vector machines and decision trees are
good examples of supervised
classification algorithms that use the
second approach (bound-aries between
features).2 Unsuper-vised cluster analysis
(the third classification approach) can be
con-ducted using partitioning algorithms
such as the popular k-means, its robust
and fuzzy versions k-medians and c-
means, hierarchical agglomera-tive or
divisive methods, or even density-based
methods such as DBSCAN and
OPTICS.1
An example comprising both multi-label
supervised and unsupervised approaches
is found in the PK075 + 317 viaduct
shown in Fig. 3. As detailed earlier, this
viaduct was monitored before, during
and after a retrofitting programme. After
the centralized-level aggregation and
modelling, the features were analysed
using classifi-cation algorithms to
assess—in a fully quantitative and
objective manner—
Scientific Paper 251
 neural-network technique that can only
Feature Label* Hierarchical clustering (%) Neural network (%) allocate new values to classes used in its
Raw data B 0 18 training. The clustering tech-nique is
more effective than the neural network
D 0 69 for the application in this case, since it is
A 0 13 capable of detecting new structural
conditions.
Other 100 0
In addition to the unsupervised or
Frequency B 46 0 supervised nature of classification
D 17 100 approaches, feature labelling methods
can also be developed as fixed or adap-
A 0 0 tive over time, or with any other chan-
Other 37 0
ging parameter. Depending on the
application, the requirements for adap-
Mode shape B 0 0 tive classification can be low or high, due
to environmental and operational
D 0 100
variability, and due to the fact that mul-
A 0 0 tiple damage phenomena may occur in
Other 100 0 the same structural system.23,38 This is
easy to implement in classification strat-
*A = after; B = before; D = during.
egies based on defining boundaries
Table 3: Labelling of features by hierarchical clustering and neural network around one type of labelling and in clus-
tering methods because of the compu-
tational simplicity compared to neural
the effect of changes in the structural concluded that the neural network networks, support vector machines and
stiffness over time during the two years assigned most of the features to the decision trees. In general, these adaptive
following the strengthening process. structural behaviour of the bridge cor- classification algorithms are based on
Three training sets of dynamic tests were responding to the D-state (during retro- hypothesis testing defined under moving
considered as labels: before (B), during fitting) and not to the A-state (after time-window processes, in order to allow
(D) and after (A) strength-ening. These retrofitting), as would be expected. This for real-time oper-ation. The monitoring
were used in the training of neural result shows that the neural network system used during the retrofitting of the
networks, along with the corresponding identified a loss in the strength-ening Samora Machel Bridge (Fig. 6) is an
features. Cluster ana-lyses were also effect during the two years fol-lowing the example of this type of strategy; a
applied to the same data set, but since retrofitting. The results of the clustering moving time-window process was
this type of algorithm is unsupervised no method are even more interesting, since implemented with the objective of
training was con-ducted. The results it highlights the exist-ence of a new measuring both how long it takes to
comparing the effectiveness of the neural cluster (denoted as “Other” in Table 3), detect structural changes after they are
networks and clustering are shown in which seems to suggest the existence of a imposed on the structural system and
Table 3 for three features modelled for newly observed structural behaviour that how long it takes for the monitoring
this specific problem: the raw is different from the three labels already system to be ready to detect new
accelerations acquired on-site, the modal defined. The inconsistencies between the changes. This strat-egy relies on
frequencies and the mode shape results for the different features and statistically testing the location of the
coordinates. The assignment of features techniques clearly highlight the fact that expected value of the average distance
acquired during the two years following the current structural behav-iour cannot between clusters
the strengthening is shown in the two be assigned to a predefined state. This is — the Novelty Index38 (NI)—using
right-most columns, from which it can be the major drawback of a robust estimators of locations and scat-
ters; its usage resulted in the

NI
5 CB 99.9%

3
NI

0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

100 200 300 400 500 600

Time Index (min)
38
Fig. 7: Adaptive real-time detection of structural changes in the Samora Machel Bridge using adaptive confidence boundaries
*Red circles indicate instants where the NI surpasses the CB: the robust confidence boundary.

252 Scientific Paper Structural Engineering International Nr. 3/2018

conclusion, once more and as expected,
that only the retrofitting between phases
1 and 2 changed the structural behaviour.
However, instead of needing the entire
data set to obtain this conclusion, this
strategy was capable of unambiguously
obtaining it only 3 min after its
imposition, with a confidence level of
99.9% (Fig. 7). In addition, it was also
observed that only 90 min after this
change the SHM data-processing
framework was ready to detect new
changes with the same sensitivity as
before.
Conclusions
Through different examples of the
application of SHM to bridges, this paper
has shown how closely the prin-ciples of
big data match the needs of SHM.
Therefore, learning from this field is
expected to bring about signifi-cant
advances in SHM. The compari-son
between the two fields has shown that
numerous common aspects and
challenges exist, and while efforts to
progress data science will certainly
enhance the state of SHM, the big-data
community may also benefit from the
developments taking place in the field of
SHM.
Although this paper encompasses a range
of topics, it is far from a com-prehensive
examination of big data and SHM—for
instance, novelty detection using
supervised and unsu-pervised learning
methods4 is only very superficially
sketched. Technical challenges such as
data storage and communication are not
within the scope of this paper either, but
their impact on SHM development
cannot be underestimated. Neverthe-less,
the main intention of this paper is to
bridge the gap between two different
fields, showing that big data and SHM
are not restricted to the manipulation of
large volumes of data, but rather can
provide value when using the appropriate
data-processing techniques.
References
[1] Santos JP. Smart structural health monitoring
techniques for novelty identification in civil
engineering structures. PhD Thesis, Instituto
Superior Técnico – University of Lisbon, 2014.
[2] Cury A. Téchniques D’Anormalité Appliquées
a la Surveillance de Santé Structurale. Université
Paris-Est, Champs-sur-Marne, 2010.
Structural Engineering International
[3] Mata J. Structural Safety Control of Concrete
Dams Aided by Autmated Monitoring Systems.
Univerisidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, 2013.
[4] Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB, Shevitz
DW. Damage Identification and Health Monitoring
of Structural and Mechanical Systems from
Changes in Their Vibration Characteristics: A
Literature Review. Los Alamos, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, NM, 1996.
[5] Worden K, Staszewski WJ, Hensman JJ.
Natural computing for mechanical systems
research: A tutorial overview. Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 2011; 25(1): 4–111.
[6] Magalhães F. Operational Modal Analysis for
Testing and Monitoring of Bridges and Special
Structures. University of Porto, Faculty of
Engineering, Porto, 2010.
[7] Santos J, Mata J, Cremona C, Silveira P.
Detection of structural changes using symbolic
representations of stochastic subspace identifi-
cation estimates. In 8th Workshop on Structural
Health Monitoring, Bilbao, 2016: 1–10.
[8] Bell G, Hey T, Szalay A. Beyond the data
deluge. Science. 2009; 323(5919): 1297–1298.
[9] Faniel IM, Zimmerman A. Beyond the data
deluge : A research agenda for large-scale data
sharing and reuse. Int. J. Digit. Curation. 2011;
6(1): 58–69.
[10] Sarkar S, Reddy KK, Giering M, Gurvich
MR. Deep learning for structural health monitor-
ing: A damage characterization application. In
Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health
Management Society 2016, Denver, CO: PHM
Society, 2016: 1–7.
[11] Fonseca A, Cabral B. Prototyping a GPGPU
neural network for deep-learning Big data analysis.
Big Data Res. 2017; 8: 50–56.
[12] Cha Y-J, Choi W, Büyüköztürk O. Deep
learning-based crack damage detection using
convolutional neural networks. Comput. Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 2017; 32(5): 361–378.
[13] Salazar F. A Machine Learning Based
Methodology for Anomaly Detection in Dam
Behaviour. Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya,
Barcelona, 2016.
[14] Salazar F, Toledo MÁ, González JM, Oñate
E. Early detection of anomalies in Dam perform-
ance: A methodology based on boosted regression
trees. Struct. Control Heal. Monit. 2017; 24(11): 1–
16.
[15] Wu Z, Chin OB. From Big data to data
science: A multi-disciplinary perspective. Big Data
Res. 2014; 1: 1–1.
[16] Jagadish HV. Big data and science: Myths and
reality. Big Data Res. 2015; 2(2): 49–52.
[17] Laney D. 3D data management: Controlling
data volume, velocity and variety. META Group:
Stamford, CT. 2001.
[18] Hilbert M. Big data for development: A
review of promises and challenges. Dev. Policy
Rev. 2016; 34(1): 135–174.
[19] Huang T, Lan L, Fang X, An P, Min J, Wang
F. Promises and challenges of Big data computing
in health sciences. Big Data Res. 2015; 2(1): 2–11.
Nr. 3/2018
[20] Brunswicker S, Bertino E, Matei S. Big data
for open digital innovation – A research roadmap.
Big Data Res. 2015; 2(2): 53–58.
[21] Cury A, Crémona C. Assignment of struc-
tural behaviours in long-term monitoring:
Application to a strengthened railway bridge.
Struct. Heal. Monit. 2012; 11(4): 422–441.
[22] Santos JP, Cremona C, Silveira P, Calado L.
Real-Time damage detection based on pattern
recognition. Struct. Concr. 2016; 17(3): 338–354.
[23] Santos J, Crémona C, Calado L, Silveira P,
Orcesi A. On-Line unsupervised detection of early
damage. Struct. Control Heal. Monit. 2015; 23(7):
1047–1069.
[24] Glaser SD, Tolman A. Sense of sensing: From
data to informed decisions for the built
environment. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2008; 14(1): 4–14.
[25] Posenato D. Model-Free Data Interpretation
for Continuous Monitoring of Complex Structures.
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
Lausanne, 2009.
[26] Zhou HF, Ni YQ, Ko JM. Constructing input
to neural networks for modelling tempera-ture-
caused modal variability: Mean tempera-tures,
effective temperatures, and principal components of
temperatures. Eng. Struct. 2010; 32(6): 1747–1759.
[27] Cury A, Crémona C. Pattern recognition of
structural behaviors based on learning algor-ithms
and symbolic data concepts. Struct. Control Heal.
Monit. 2012; 19(2): 161–186.
[28] Santos J, Silveira P. A SHM framework
comprising real time data validation. In IALCCE
2012 – 3rd International Symposium on Life Cycle
Civil Engineering, vol. ii, Abingdon: Taylor &
Francis, 2012.
[29] Tang N. Big data cleaning. Web Technol.
Appl. 2014; 8709: 13–24.
[30] Rousseuw P, Driessen K. A fast algorithm for
the minimum covariance determinant estima-tor. J.
Am. Stat. Assoc. 1999; 41(3): 212–223.
[31] Cury A, Cremona C, Dumoulin J. Long-Term
monitoring of a PSC Box girder bridge: Operational
modal analysis, data normalization and structural
modification assessment. Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 2012; 33: 13–37.
[32] Santos J, Crémona C, Orcesi AD, Silveira P.
Multivariate statistical analysis for early damage
detection. Eng. Struct. 2013; 56: 273–285.
[33] Mata J. Interpretation of concrete Dam be-
haviour with artificial neural network and mul-tiple
linear regression models. Eng. Struct. 2011; 33(3):
903–910.
[34] Cury A, Crémona C, Diday E. Application of
symbolic data analysis for structural modifi-cation
assessment. Eng. Struct. 2010; 32(3): 762–775.
[35] Santos J, Crémona C, Orcesi A, Silveira P.
Baseline-Free real-time novelty detection using
vibration-based symbolic features. In EVACES’13,
University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, 2013: 1–8.
[36] Santos J, Calado L, Silveira P, Crémona C.
Baseline-Based detection of structural changes:
Scientific Paper 253
Drawbacks and an alternative approach. In
EWSHM – European Workshop of Structural
Health Monitoring, Bilbao, 2014: 1357–1364.
[37] Diday E, Noirhomme-Fraiture M. Symbolic
Data Analysis and the SODAS Software. John
Wiley and Sons: Chicester, 2008.
[38] Santos J, Orcesi AD, Crémona C, Silveira P.
Baseline-Free real-time assessment of structural
changes. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. Maintenance,
Manag. Life-Cycle Des. Perform. 2015;11
(2):145–161.
[39] Billard L, Diday E. Symbolic Data Analysis.
vol. 52, no. 2. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester,
2006.
254 Scientific Paper
View publication stats
[40] Bishop CM. Pattern Recognition and Machine [45] Lautour OR, Omenzetter P. Damage classi-
Learning. Springer: Berkeley, 2006. fication and estimation in experimental struc-tures
using time series analysis and pattern recognition.
[41] Theodoridis S, Koutroumbas K. Pattern
Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2010; 24
Recognition. 4th edn. Elsevier: London, 2009.
(5): 1556–1569.
[42] Hastie T. The Elements of Statistical
[46] Krishnan Nair K, Kiremidjian AS. Time series
Learning, Data Mining, Inference and Prediction.
2nd edn. Springer: New York, 2011. based structural damage detection algor-
ithm using Gaussian mixtures modeling. J. Dyn.
[43] Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ. Finding Groups in Syst. Meas. Control. 2007; 129(3): 285– 293.
Data. An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. 2nd ed.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc: New York, NY, 1990.
[47] Kesavan KN, Kiremidjian AS. A wavelet-
[44] Kim Y, Chong JW, Chon KH, Kim J.
based damage diagnosis algorithm using princi-pal
Wavelet-Based AR–SVM for health monitoring of
component analysis. Struct. Control Heal. Monit.
smart structures. Smart Mater. Struct. 2013; 22(1):
2012; 19(8): 672–685.
3–15.
Structural Engineering International Nr. 3/2018