MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209160804 · doi:10.1017/dce.2022.28

Digital twinning of self-sensing structures using the statistical finite element method

2022· article· en· W3209160804 on OpenAlexaff
Eky Febrianto, Liam Butler, Mark Girolami, Fehmi Cirak

Bibliographic record

VenueData-Centric Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsFinite element methodBridge (graph theory)Structural health monitoringFiber Bragg gratingStructural engineeringComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Digital dataCalibrationEngineeringData transmissionOptical fiberMathematicsTelecommunicationsGeometryComputer hardwareStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The monitoring of infrastructure assets using sensor networks is becoming increasingly prevalent. A digital twin in the form of a finite element (FE) model, as commonly used in design and construction, can help make sense of the copious amount of collected sensor data. This paper demonstrates the application of the statistical finite element method (statFEM), which provides a principled means of synthesizing data and physics-based models, in developing a digital twin of a self-sensing structure. As a case study, an instrumented steel railway bridge of $ 27.34\hskip1.5pt \mathrm{m} $ length located along the West Coast Mainline near Staffordshire in the UK is considered. Using strain data captured from fiber Bragg grating sensors at 108 locations along the bridge superstructure, statFEM can predict the “true” system response while taking into account the uncertainties in sensor readings, applied loading, and FE model misspecification errors. Longitudinal strain distributions along the two main I-beams are both measured and modeled during the passage of a passenger train. The statFEM digital twin is able to generate reasonable strain distribution predictions at locations where no measurement data are available, including at several points along the main I-beams and on structural elements on which sensors are not even installed. The implications for long-term structural health monitoring and assessment include optimization of sensor placement and performing more reliable what-if analyses at locations and under loading scenarios for which no measurement data are available.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations61
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData-Centric EngineeringSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207