Next Article in Journal
A Comparison Survey Study on RFID Based Anti-Counterfeiting Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of Radio Frequency Path Loss Models in Soil for Wireless Underground Sensor Networks
Open AccessArticle

Data-Interpretation Methodologies for Practical Asset-Management

1
Applied Computing and Mechanics Laboratory, School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
2
ETH Zurich, Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH Centre, 1 CREATE Way, CREATE Tower, Singapore 138602, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2019, 8(2), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan8020036
Received: 23 April 2019 / Revised: 7 June 2019 / Accepted: 11 June 2019 / Published: 22 June 2019
  |  
PDF [1338 KB, uploaded 22 June 2019]
  |  

Abstract

Monitoring and interpreting structural response using structural-identification methodologies improves understanding of civil-infrastructure behavior. New sensing devices and inexpensive computation has made model-based data interpretation feasible in engineering practice. Many data-interpretation methodologies, such as Bayesian model updating and residual minimization, involve strong assumptions regarding uncertainty conditions. While much research has been conducted on the scientific development of these methodologies and some research has evaluated the applicability of underlying assumptions, little research is available on the suitability of these methodologies to satisfy practical engineering challenges. For use in practice, data-interpretation methodologies need to be able, for example, to respond to changes in a transparent manner and provide accurate model updating at minimal additional cost. This facilitates incremental and iterative increases in understanding of structural behavior as more information becomes available. In this paper, three data-interpretation methodologies, Bayesian model updating, residual minimization and error-domain model falsification, are compared based on their ability to provide robust, accurate, engineer-friendly and computationally inexpensive model updating. Comparisons are made using two full-scale case studies for which multiple scenarios are considered, including incremental acquisition of information through measurements. Evaluation of these scenarios suggests that, compared with other data-interpretation methodologies, error-domain model falsification is able to incorporate, iteratively and transparently, incremental information gain to provide accurate model updating at low additional computational cost. View Full-Text
Keywords: probabilistic data-interpretation; Bayesian model updating; error-domain model falsification; iterative asset-management; practical applicability; computation time probabilistic data-interpretation; Bayesian model updating; error-domain model falsification; iterative asset-management; practical applicability; computation time
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Pai, S.G.S.; Reuland, Y.; Smith, I.F.C. Data-Interpretation Methodologies for Practical Asset-Management. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2019, 8, 36.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
J. Sens. Actuator Netw. EISSN 2224-2708 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top