MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081964984 · doi:10.1115/smasis2014-7486

Structural Health Monitoring of Truss Type Structures Using Statistical Approach

2014· article· en· W2081964984 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdi Saffari, Ramin Sedaghati, Ion Stiharu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineTrussStructural health monitoringFeature vectorSensitivity (control systems)Pattern recognition (psychology)AccelerationFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceStandard deviationVibrationStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsAcousticsPhysicsElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes an effective statistical based vibration health monitoring technique using Auto Regressive (AR) parameters and Support Vector Machine (SVM) for truss type structures. The finite element method has been utilized to obtain acceleration response signals of a space truss structure under random excitations. The signals are then processed to extract their AR parameters as the feature vectors in which the AR parameters of the healthy structure are considered to be the reference baseline data. A Damage Index is then defined to be the standard deviation of the feature vectors from the baseline data. The proposed index provides an effective tool to detect the damage in the structure. It is shown that using only one sensor, it is still possible to accurately detect the damage. To locate the damage, data classification technique based on Support Vector Machine (SVM) has been employed. It is shown that SVM can successfully classify different signals extracted from the structure. Finally extensive sensitivity analysis has been performed to study the effect of different parameter such as crack size, number of sensors and AR parameter numbers on the accuracy of detection and localization processes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207