4.7 Article

Applying robust variant of Principal Component Analysis as a damage detector in the presence of outliers

期刊

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING
卷 50-51, 期 -, 页码 467-479

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2014.05.032

关键词

Damage detection; Robust PCA; Outliers

资金

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion in Spain [DPI2011-28033-C03-03]
  2. Formacion de Personal Investigador FPI doctoral scholarship
  3. Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
  4. Universidad Politecnica de Madrid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) has received considerable attention over the past few years. PCA has been used not only as a direct method to identify, classify and localize damages but also as a significant primary step for other methods. Despite several positive specifications that PCA conveys, it is very sensitive to outliers. Outliers are anomalous observations that can affect the variance and the covariance as vital parts of PCA method. Therefore, the results based on PCA in the presence of outliers are not fully satisfactory. As a main contribution, this work suggests the use of robust variant of PCA not sensitive to outliers, as an effective way to deal with this problem in SHM field. In addition, the robust PCA is compared with the classical PCA in the sense of detecting probable damages. The comparison between the results shows that robust PCA can distinguish the damages much better than using classical one, and even in many cases allows the detection where classic PCA is not able to discern between damaged and non-damaged structures. Moreover, different types of robust PCA are compared with each other as well as with classical counterpart in the term of damage detection. All the results are obtained through experiments with an aircraft turbine blade using piezoelectric transducers as sensors and actuators and adding simulated damages. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据