MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310424628 · doi:10.58286/27311

Detecting Changes in Boundary Conditions based on Sensitivity-based Statistical Tests

2022· article· en· W4310424628 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Mendler, Michael Döhler, Falk Hille

Bibliographic record

Venuee-Journal of Nondestructive Testing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Parametric statisticsComputer scienceStructural health monitoringReliability (semiconductor)Boundary (topology)Beam (structure)StiffeningAlgorithmStructural engineeringData miningEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural health monitoring is a promising technology to automatically detect structural changes based on permanently installed sensors. Vibration-based methods that evaluate the global system response to ambient excitation are suited to diagnose changes in boundary conditions, i.e. changes in member prestress or imposed displacements. In this paper, these changes are evaluated based on sensitivity-based statistical tests, which are capable of detecting and localizing parametric structural changes. The main contribution is the analytical calculation of sensitivity vectors for changes in boundary conditions (i.e., changes in prestress or support conditions) based on stress stiffening, and the combination with a numerically efficient algorithm, i.e. Nelson’s method. One of the main advantages of the employed damage diagnosis algorithm is that, although it uses physical models for damage detection, it considers the uncertainty in the data-driven features, which enables a reliability-based approach to determine the probability of detection. Moreover, the algorithm can be trained and the probability of detecting future damages can be predicted based on data from the undamaged structure—in an unsupervised learning mode—making it particularly relevant for unique structures, where no data from the damaged state is available. For proof of concept, a numerical case study is presented. The study assesses the loss of prestress in a two-span reinforced concrete beam and showcases suitable validation approaches for the sensitivity calculation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuee-Journal of Nondestructive TestingSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207