0
Research Papers

Damage Classification and Feature Extraction in Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Using Time-Varying Autoregressive Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Lavish Pamwani, Vikram Agarwal

Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,
Guwahati 781039, Assam, India

Amit Shelke

Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,
Guwahati 781039, Assam, India
e-mail: amitsh@iitg.ernet.in

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received December 5, 2018; final manuscript received March 3, 2019; published online March 25, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Shiro Biwa.

ASME J Nondestructive Evaluation 2(2), 021002 (Mar 25, 2019) (10 pages) Paper No: NDE-18-1047; doi: 10.1115/1.4043122 History: Received December 05, 2018; Accepted March 05, 2019

In this paper, the time-varying autoregressive (TVAR) model is integrated with the K-means—clustering technique to detect the damage in the steel moment-resisting frame. The damage is detected in the frame using nonstationary acceleration response of the structure excited using ambient white noise. The proposed technique identifies and quantifies the damage in the beam-to-column connection and column-to-column splice plate connection caused due to loosening of the connecting bolts. The algorithm models the nonstationary acceleration time history and evaluates the TVAR coefficients (TVARCs) for pristine and damage states. These coefficients are represented as a cluster in the TVARC subspace and segregated and classified using K-means—segmentation technique. The K-means—approach is adapted to simultaneously perform partition clustering and remove outliers. Eigenstructure evaluation of the segregated TVARC cluster is performed to detect the temporal damage. The topological and statistical parameters of the TVARC clusters are used to quantify the magnitude of the damage. The damage is quantified using the Mahalanobis distance (MD) and the Itakura distance (ID) serving as the statistical distance between the healthy and damage TVARC clusters. MD calculates a multidimensional statistical distance between two clusters using the covariance between the state vectors, whereas ID measures the dissimilarity of the autoregressive (AR) parameter between reference state and unknown states. These statistical distances are used as damage-sensitive feature (DSF) to detect and quantify the initiation and progression of the damage in the structure under ambient vibrations. The outcome of both the DSFs corroborate with the experimental investigation, thereby improving the robustness of the algorithm by avoiding false damage alarms.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Topics: Damage , Algorithms , Steel
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Bruneau, M., Uang, C.-M., and Whittaker, A., 1998, Ductile Design of Steel Structures, Vol. 389, McGraw-Hill, New York.
AISC, 1999, “Specification for Structural Steel Buildings,” Chicago, p. 27.
AISC, 2010, “Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings,” Chicago.
AISC, 2010, “Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications,” Chicago.
ASCE, 2010, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10,” Reston, VA.
Amezquita-Sanchez, J. P., and Adeli, H., 2016, “Signal Processing Techniques for Vibration-Based Health Monitoring of Smart Structures,” Arch Comput. Methods Eng., 23(1), pp. 1–15. [CrossRef]
Doebling, S. W., Farrar, C. R., and Prime, M. B., 1998, “A Summary Review of Vibration-Based Damage Identification Methods,” Shock Vib. Dig., 30(2), pp. 91–105. [CrossRef]
Farrar, C. R., and Worden, K., 2007, “An Introduction to Structural Health Monitoring,” Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A, 365(1851), pp. 303–315. [CrossRef]
Wang, D., and Haldar, A., 1997, “System Identification With Limited Observations and Without Input,” J. Eng. Mech., 123(5), pp. 504–511. [CrossRef]
Hayes, M. H., 2009, Statistical Digital Signal Processing and Modeling, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Yang, J. N., Lei, Y., Lin, S., and Huang, N., 2004, “Hilbert-Huang Based Approach for Structural Damage Detection,” J. Eng. Mech. 130(1), pp. 85–95. [CrossRef]
Huang, N. E., Shen, Z., Long, S. R., Wu, M. C., Shih, H. H., Zheng, Q., Yen, N.-C., Tung, C. C., and Liu, H. H., 1998, “The Empirical Mode Decomposition and the Hilbert Spectrum for Nonlinear and Non-Stationary Time Series Analysis,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, London, UK, Mar. 8, pp. 904-995.
Taha, M. R., Noureldin, A., Lucero, J. L., and Baca, T. J., 2006, “Wavelet Transform for Structural Health Monitoring: A Compendium of Uses and Features,” Struct. Health Monit. 5(3), pp. 267–295. [CrossRef]
Lakshmi, K., Rao, A. R. M., and Gopalakrishnan, N., 2017, “Singular Spectrum Analysis Combined With ARMAX Model for Structural Damage Detection,” Struct. Control Health Monit., 24(9), p. e1960. [CrossRef]
Lu, Y., and Gao, F., 2005, “A Novel Time-Domain Auto-Regressive Model for Structural Damage Diagnosis,” J. Sound Vib., 283(3–5), pp. 1031–1049. [CrossRef]
Bodeux, J.-B., and Golinval, J.-C., 2001, “Application of ARMAV Models to the Identification and Damage Detection of Mechanical and Civil Engineering Structures,” Smart Mater. Struct., 10(3), pp. 479. [CrossRef]
Omenzetter, P., and Brownjohn, J. M. W., 2006, “Application of Time Series Analysis for Bridge Monitoring,” Smart Mater. Struct., 15(1), p. 129. [CrossRef]
Sohn, H., Czarnecki, J. A., and Farrar, C. R., 2000, “Structural Health Monitoring Using Statistical Process Control,” J. Struct. Eng., 126(11), pp. 1356–1363. [CrossRef]
Yao, R., and Pakzad, S. N., 2012, “Autoregressive Statistical Pattern Recognition Algorithms for Damage Detection in Civil Structures,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 31, pp. 355–368. [CrossRef]
Sohn, H., Farrar, C. R., Hunter, N. F., and Worden, K., 2001, “Structural Health Monitoring Using Statistical Pattern Recognition Techniques,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, 123(4), pp. 706–711. [CrossRef]
Worden, K., Farrar, C. R., Haywood, J., and Todd, M., 2008, “A Review of Nonlinear Dynamics Applications to Structural Health Monitoring,” Struct. Control Health Monit. 15(4), pp. 540–567. [CrossRef]
Farrar, C. R., and Worden, K., 2012, Structural Health Monitoring: a Machine Learning Perspective, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Yang, J. N., and Huang, H., 2007, “Sequential Non-Linear Least-Square Estimation for Damage Identification of Structures With Unknown Inputs and Unknown Outputs,” Int. J. Nonlin. Mech., 42(5), pp. 789–801. [CrossRef]
Smyth, A. W., Masri, S. F., Kosmatopoulos, E. B., and Chassiakos, A. G., 2002, “Development of Adaptive Modeling Techniques for Non-Linear Hysteretic Systems,” Int. J. Nonlin. Mech., 37(8), pp. 1435–1451. [CrossRef]
Ling, X., and Haldar, A., 2004, “Element Level System Identification With Unknown Input With rayleigh Damping,” J. Eng. Mech., 130(8), pp. 877–885. [CrossRef]
Wang, D., and Haldar, A., 1994, “Element-Level System Identification With Unknown Input,” J. Eng. Mech., 120(1), pp. 159–176. [CrossRef]
Namdeo, V., and Manohar, C., 2007, “Nonlinear Structural Dynamical System Identification Using Adaptive Particle Filters,” J. Sound Vib., 306(3–5), pp. 524–563. [CrossRef]
Chatzi, E. N., and Smyth, A. W., 2009, “The Unscented Kalman Filter and Particle Filter Methods for Nonlinear Structural System Identification With Non-Collocated Heterogeneous Sensing,” Struct. Control Health Monit., 16(1), pp. 99–123. [CrossRef]
Rajan, J. J., and Rayner, P. J., 1996, “Generalized Feature Extraction for Time-Varying Autoregressive Models,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 44(10), pp. 2498–2507. [CrossRef]
Krishnan, M., Bhowmik, B., Hazra, B., and Pakrashi, V., 2018, “Real Time Damage Detection Using Recursive Principal Components and Time Varying Auto-Regressive Modeling,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 101, pp. 549–574. [CrossRef]
Musafere, F., Sadhu, A., and Liu, K., 2016, “Time-Varying System Identification Using a Hybrid Blind Source Separation Method,” Structural Health Monitoring, Damage Detection & Mechatronics, Wicks Alfred, and Niezrecki Christopher, eds., Springer, New York, pp. 99–104.
Kopsaftopoulos, F. D., and Fassois, S. D., 2013, “A Functional Model Based Statistical Time Series Method for Vibration Based Damage Detection, Localization, and Magnitude Estimation,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 39(1–2), pp. 143–161. [CrossRef]
Jain, A. K., 2010, “Data Clustering: 50 Years Beyond K-Means,” Pattern Recognit. Lett., 31(8), pp. 651–666. [CrossRef]
Chawla, S., and Gionis, A., 2013, “k-Means—: A Unified Approach to Clustering and Outlier Detection,” Proceedings of the 2013 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Austin, TX, May 2, pp. 189-197.
Nair, K. K., and Kiremidjian, A. S., 2007, “Time Series Based Structural Damage Detection Algorithm Using Gaussian Mixtures Modeling,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, 129(3), pp. 285–293. [CrossRef]
Gul, M., and Catbas, F. N., 2011, “Structural Health Monitoring and Damage Assessment Using a Novel Time Series Analysis Methodology With Sensor Clustering,” J. Sound Vib., 330(6), pp. 1196–1210. [CrossRef]
Pamwani, L., and Shelke, A., 2018, “Damage Detection Using Dissimilarity in Phase Space Topology of Dynamic Response of Structure Subjected to Shock Wave Loading,” ASME J. Nondestr. Eval. Diagn. Progn. Eng. Syst., 1(4), p. 041004.
Zheng, H., and Mita, A., 2009, “Localized Damage Detection of Structures Subject to Multiple Ambient Excitations Using Two Distance Measures for Autoregressive Models,” Struct. Health Monit., 8(3), pp. 207–222. [CrossRef]
Musafere, F., Sadhu, A., and Liu, K., 2015, “Towards Damage Detection Using Blind Source Separation Integrated With Time-Varying Auto-Regressive Modeling,” Smart Mater. Struct., 25(1), p. 015013. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, D. P., Wilson, M. A., Brown, E. N., and Barbieri, R., 2009, “Measuring Instantaneous Frequency of Local Field Potential Oscillations Using the Kalman Smoother,” J. Neurosci. Methods, 184(2), pp. 365–374. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grenier, Y., 1983, “Time-Dependent ARMA Modeling of Nonstationary Signals,” IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process., 31(4), pp. 899–911. [CrossRef]
Linde, Y., Buzo, A., and Gray, R., 1980, “An Algorithm for Vector Quantizer Design,” IEEE Trans. Commun., 28(1), pp. 84–95. [CrossRef]
De Maesschalck, R., Jouan-Rimbaud, D., and Massart, D. L., 2000, “The Mahalanobis Distance,” Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst., 50(1), pp. 1–18. [CrossRef]
Kong, X., Thakor, N., and Goel, V., 1995, “Characterization of EEG Signal Changes via Itakura Distance,” Proceedings of 17th International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Sept. 20–23.
Muthuswamy, J., and Thakor, N. V., 1998, “Spectral Analysis Methods for Neurological Signals,” J. Neurosci. Methods, 83(1), pp. 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kong, X., Goel, V., and Thakor, N., 1995, “Quantification of Injury-Related EEG Signal Changes Using Itakura Distance Measure,” 1995 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Detroit, MI, May 9–12.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Pictorial representation of K-means—clustering approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Demonstrates inefficient clustering while adopting the K-means approach due to the presence of outliers and (b) tighter clusters are obtained as outliers are removed while adopting the K-means—approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Flowchart of the steps involved in the novel damage detection algorithm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Experimental setup and (b) schematic sketch of steel frame

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Enhanced image of the beam-to-column connection and (b) enhanced image of the column-to-column connection

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Acceleration time history of the base excitation subjected to the frame structure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Acceleration time history of (a) first floor and (b) second floor of two-story frame structure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Frequency spectra of dynamic response at (a) first-floor beam and (b) second-floor beam of the steel frame subjected to white noise base excitation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Time history representation of time series model coefficients: (a) TVAR coefficient a1(t), (b) TVAR coefficient a2(t), and (c) TVAR coefficient a3(t)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Polar plot of damage feature (α12) for (a) coefficient cluster Xc1=[XhXd1] and (b) coefficient cluster Xc2=[XhXd2]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Representation of model coefficients in TVAR coefficient subspace for (a) coefficient cluster Xc1=[XhXd1] corresponding to damage-1 and (b) coefficient cluster Xc2=[XhXd2] corresponding to damage-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The K-means—clustering approach-assigned labels to the clusters for (a) damage case-1 and (b) damage case-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The final output after the clusters are processed by K-means—approach for (a) damage case-1 and (b) damage case-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Graphical representation of the (a) DSF based on the Mahalanobis distance and (b) DSF based on the Itakura distance evaluated for all the damage states

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In