In the present work, two issues that can complicate a damage detection process are considered: the uncertainties and the intrinsically nonlinear behavior. To deal with these issues, a stochastic version of the Volterra series is proposed as a baseline model, and novelty detection is applied to distinguish the condition of the structure between a reference baseline state (presumed “healthy”) and damaged. The studied system exhibits nonlinear behavior even in the reference condition, and it is exposed to a type of damage that causes the structure to display a nonlinear behavior with a different nature than the initial one. In addition, the uncertainties associated with data variation are taken into account in the application of the methodology. The results confirm that the monitoring of nonlinear coefficients and nonlinear components of the system response enables the method to detect the presence of the damage earlier than the application of some linear-based metrics. Besides that, the stochastic treatment enables the specification of a probabilistic interval of confidence for the system response in an uncertain ambient, thus providing more robust and reliable forecasts.
FarrarCRWordenK. An introduction to structural health monitoring. Philos T R Soc A2007; 365(1851): 303–315.
2.
FarrarCRWordenK. Structural health monitoring: a machine learning perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2012.
3.
DongLShanJ. A comprehensive review of earthquake-induced building damage detection with remote sensing techniques. ISPRS J Photogramm2013; 84: 85–99.
4.
LiDHoSCMSongG, et al. A review of damage detection methods for wind turbine blades. Smart Mater Struct2015; 24(3): 033001.
5.
WordenKCrossEJDervilisN, et al. Structural health monitoring: from structures to systems-of-systems. IFAC-papersonline2015; 48(21): 1–17.
6.
DasSSahaPPatroSK. Vibration-based damage detection techniques used for health monitoring of structures: a review. J Civ Struct Health Monitor2016; 6(3): 477–507.
7.
MitraMGopalakrishnanS. Guided wave based structural health monitoring: a review. Smart Mater Struct2016; 25(5): 053001.
8.
BornnLFarrarCRParkG. Damage detection in initially nonlinear systems. Int J Eng Sci2010; 48(10): 909–920.
9.
SohnH. Effects of environmental and operational variability on structural health monitoring. Philos T Roy Soc A2007; 365(1851): 539–560.
10.
WordenKCrossE. On switching response surface models, with applications to the structural health monitoring of bridges. Mech Syst Signal Pr2018; 98: 139–156.
11.
WordenKFarrarCRHaywoodJ, et al. A review of nonlinear dynamics applications to structural health monitoring. Struct Control Hlth2008; 15(4): 540–567.
12.
MandalDDWadadarDBanerjeeS. Health monitoring of stiffened metallic plates using nonlinear wave interaction and embedded PZT transducers. In: SinhaJK (ed.) Vibration engineering and technology of machinery. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 629–638.
13.
GhribMRébillatMdes RochesGV, et al. Automatic damage type classification and severity quantification using signal based and nonlinear model based damage sensitive features. J Process Contr. Epub ahead of print 24 October 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jprocont.2018.08.002.
14.
TangHLiaoYCaoJ, et al. Fault diagnosis approach based on Volterra models. Mech Syst Signal Pr2010; 24(4): 1099–1113.
15.
ZengMYangYZhengJ, et al. Normalized complex Teager energy operator demodulation method and its application to fault diagnosis in a rubbing rotor system. Mech Syst Signal Pr2015; 50: 380–399.
16.
XiaXZhouJXiaoJ, et al. A novel identification method of Volterra series in rotor-bearing system for fault diagnosis. Mech Syst Signal Pr2016; 66-67: 557–567.
17.
AndreausUBaragattiP. Experimental damage detection of cracked beams by using nonlinear characteristics of forced response. Mech Syst Signal Pr2012; 31: 382–404.
18.
LimHJSohnHDeSimioMP, et al. Reference-free fatigue crack detection using nonlinear ultrasonic modulation under various temperature and loading conditions. Mech Syst Signal Pr2014; 45(2): 468–478.
19.
RébillatMHajryaRMechbalN. Nonlinear structural damage detection based on cascade of Hammerstein models. Mech Syst Signal Pr2014; 48(1): 247–259.
20.
KerschenGWordenKVakakisAF, et al. Nonlinear system identification in structural dynamics: current status and future directions. In: 25th international modal analysis conference, Orlando, 1 December2007, pp 2413–2438.
21.
SoizeC. Stochastic models of uncertainties in computational mechanics. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2012.
22.
SoizeC. Stochastic modeling of uncertainties in computational structural dynamics—recent theoretical advances. J Sound Vib2013; 332(10): 2379–2395.
23.
SoizeC. Uncertainty quantification: an accelerated course with advanced applications in computational engineering. Cham: Springer, 2017.
24.
SohnHAllenDWWordenK, et al. Structural damage classification using extreme value statistics. J Dyn Syst Meas Control2005; 127(1): 125–132.
25.
RébillatMHmadOKadriF, et al. Peaks over threshold-based detector design for structural health monitoring: application to aerospace structures. Struct Health Monit2017; 17: 71–107.
26.
PavlopoulouSWordenKSoutisC. Novelty detection and dimension reduction via guided ultrasonic waves: damage monitoring of scarf repairs in composite laminates. J Intel Mat Syst Str2016; 27(4): 549–566.
27.
DervilisNWordenKCrossE. On robust regression analysis as a means of exploring environmental and operational conditions for SHM data. J Sound Vib2015; 347: 279–296.
28.
WordenKStaszewskiWJHensmanJJ. Natural computing for mechanical systems research: a tutorial overview. Mech Syst Signal Pr2011; 25(1): 4–111.
29.
Vamvoudakis-StefanouKSakellariouJFassoisS. Vibration-based damage detection for a population of nominally identical structures: unsupervised multiple model (MM) statistical time series type methods. Mech Syst Signal Pr2018; 111: 149–171.
30.
Avendaño-ValenciaLDFassoisSD. Gaussian mixture random coefficient model based framework for SHM in structures with time–dependent dynamics under uncertainty. Mech Syst Signal Pr2017; 97: 59–83.
31.
Avendaño-ValenciaLDFassoisSD. Damage/fault diagnosis in an operating wind turbine under uncertainty via a vibration response Gaussian mixture random coefficient model based framework. Mech Syst Signal Pr2017; 91: 326–353.
32.
PoulimenosAGSakellariouJS. A transmittance-based methodology for damage detection under uncertainty: an application to a set of composite beams with manufacturing variability subject to impact damage and varying operating conditions. Struct Health Monit2019; 18(1): 318–333.
FigueiredoEToddMFarrarC, et al. Autoregressive modeling with state-space embedding vectors for damage detection under operational variability. Int J Eng Sci2010; 48(10): 822–834.
35.
MaoZToddM. Statistical modeling of frequency response function estimation for uncertainty quantification. Mech Syst Signal Pr2013; 38(2): 333–345.
36.
VillaniLGGda SilvaSCunhaAJr. Damage detection in uncertain nonlinear systems based on stochastic Volterra series. Mech Syst Signal Pr2019; 125: 288–310.
37.
ShikiSBda SilvaSToddMD. On the application of discrete-time Volterra series for the damage detection problem in initially nonlinear systems. Struct Health Monit2017; 16(1): 62–78.
38.
VillaniLGGda SilvaSCunhaAJr, et al. Damage detection in an uncertain nonlinear beam based on stochastic Volterra series: an experimental application. Mech Syst Signal Pr2019; 128: 463–478
39.
SchetzenM. The Volterra and Wiener theories of nonlinear systems. Melbourne, FL: Krieger Publishing Co., Inc, 2006.
40.
VillaniLGGda SilvaSCunhaAJr. Damage detection in an uncertain nonlinear beam. Procedia Engineer2017; 199: 2090–2095.
41.
KautzWH. Transient synthesis in the time domain. Trans IRE Prof Circt Theor1954; CT-1(3): 29–39.
42.
HeubergerPSVan den HofPMWahlbergB. Modelling and identification with rational orthogonal basis functions. Cham: Springer, 2005.
43.
RubinsteinRYKroeseDP. Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. 3rd ed.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2016.
44.
ParkSLeeJJYunCB, et al. Electro-mechanical impedance-based wireless structural health monitoring using PCA-data compression and k-means clustering algorithms. J Intel Mat Syst Str2008; 19(4): 509–520.
45.
JolliffeI. Principal component analysis. In: LovricM (ed.) International encyclopedia of statistical science. Cham: Springer, 2011, pp. 1094–1096.
46.
DatteoALucàFBuscaG. Statistical pattern recognition approach for long-time monitoring of the G.Meazza stadium by means of AR models and PCA. Eng Struct2017; 153: 317–333.
47.
WordenKMansonGAllmanD. Experimental validation of a structural health monitoring methodology: part I. novelty detection on a laboratory structure. J Sound Vib2003; 259(2): 323–343.
48.
HardinJRockeDM. The distribution of robust distances. J Comput Graph Stat2005; 14(4): 928–946.
49.
YeagerMGregoryBKeyC, et al. On using robust Mahalanobis distance estimations for feature discrimination in a damage detection scenario. Struct Health Monit2019; 18(1): 245–253.
50.
GrimmettGWelshD. Probability: an introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
51.
EwinsD. Modal testing: theory and practice. Letchworth: Research Studies Press, 1984.
52.
RébillatMHennequinRCorteelE, et al. Identification of cascade of Hammerstein models for the description of nonlinearities in vibrating devices. J Sound Vib2011; 330(5): 1018–1038.
53.
SilvermanBW. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis, vol. 26. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1986.
