MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Novel Sensor Clustering–Based Approach for Simultaneous Detection of Stiffness and Mass Changes Using Output-Only Data

2014· article· en· W2095434576 on OpenAlexafffund
Qipei Mei, Mustafa Gül

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCluster analysisBenchmark (surveying)Autoregressive modelStiffnessOutlierAutoregressive–moving-average modelAnomaly detectionPosition (finance)Series (stratigraphy)Computer scienceAnomaly (physics)Data miningAlgorithmMathematicsStructural engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceStatisticsPhysicsGeologyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel sensor clustering-based time series approach for anomaly detection. The basic idea of this approach is that localized change in the properties of a structure may affect the relationship between the accelerations around the position where the damage occurs. Therefore, for both healthy and damaged (or unknown state) structures, autoregressive moving average models with eXogenous inputs (ARMAX) are created for different clusters using the data from the sensors in these clusters. The difference of the ARMAX model coefficients are employed as damage features (DFs) to determine the existence, location, and severity of the damage. To verify this approach, it is first applied to a 4-DOF mass spring system and then to the shear type IASC-ASCE numerical benchmark problem. It is shown that the approach performs successfully for different damage patterns. It is also demonstrated that the approach can not only accurately determine the location and severity of the damage, but can also distinguish between changes in stiffness and mass.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207