MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179494462 · doi:10.2316/j.2021.206-0705

VIBRATION-BASED DAMAGE IDENTIFICATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE ARCH BRIDGES USING KALMAN–ARMA–GARCH MODEL

2021· article· en· W3179494462 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuchang Zhou, Yan Jiang, Xiaoqing Li, WU Qing-liang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Robotics and Automation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsArchStructural engineeringIdentification (biology)Kalman filterAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityExtended Kalman filterAmbient vibrationReinforced concreteComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsEconometricsArtificial intelligenceFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To ensure safe operations of bridges, it is necessary to carry out the structural damage identification and safety assessment. To this end, this paper proposes a novel damage identification method based on structural health monitoring data, which is the combination of Kalman filter, autoregressive moving average (ARMA) model and generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model. Firstly, the correlation between the system characteristics and the time series model is verified through the theoretical derivation of the system vibration equation. Secondly, Kalman filtering is used to preprocess the acceleration data and reduce the noise disturbance, by which a linear recursive ARMA model can be established to identify the structural damage. Then, a nonlinear recursive GARCH model is introduced to further improve the identification accuracy. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed method is verified using the time history data obtained from the accelerated corrosion damage dynamic test of the reinforced concrete arch. The results show that: (1) the system vibrations are correlated with the time series model, whose residual variance ratio is demonstrated to be effective in identifying structural damage; (2) in the state of loading damage and corrosion damage, the identification accuracies of Kalman-ARMA are 32.8% and 75.8%, while those of the proposed method can reach 89.1% and 85.5%, respectively and (3) GARCH model can explain the heteroskedasticity hidden in the monitoring data, thereby further improving the accuracy of damage identification. Therefore, the proposed method may provide an innovative measure to assess the bridge structural condition in practice.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Robotics and AutomationSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207