Comparison of neural networks based on accuracy and robustness in identifying impact location for structural health monitoring applications. (January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Balasubramanian, Prabakaran; Kaushik, Vikram; Altamimi, Sumaya Y; Amabili, Marco; Alteneiji, Mohamed
• Is Part Of: Structural health monitoring. Volume 22:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: 417
• Page End: 432
• Publication Date: 2023-01
• Subjects: Supervised machine learning -- structural health monitoring -- impact location identification -- Artificial Neural Network -- Convolutional Neural Network -- Long Short-Term Memory network -- robustness -- accuracy; Structural health monitoring -- Periodicals; Structural stability -- Periodicals; Strength of materials -- Periodicals; Nondestructive testing -- Periodicals; Constructions -- Stabilité -- Périodiques; Résistance des matériaux -- Périodiques; Contrôle non destructif -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 624.17
• DOI: 10.1177/14759217221098569
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1475-9217

Abstract

Structural health monitoring systems must provide accuracy and robustness in predicting the structure's health using the minimum intervention to ensure commercial viability. Characterization of impact is useful in assessing its severity, deciding if detailed damage analysis is necessary, and re-evaluating the present health of the structure under monitoring with better confidence. In this characterization process, the impact location is significant since some positions within a structure are more sensitive to damage. The inherent noise and uncertainties present in the sensor response pose a substantial hurdle to estimating the external impact correctly. This paper quantitatively compares three of the widely used neural networks, namely, Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), and Long Short-Term Memory network (LSTM), to estimate impact location from the lead zirconate titanate (PZT) sensor response. For this purpose, a square aluminum plate of 500 × 500 mm was equipped with four PZT sensors; each placed 100 mm away in both the plate directions from a corner and impact loads were given on a grid covering the whole plate. The PZT responses were used to train the three neural networks under study here, and their estimations were compared based on the Mean Absolute Error (MAE). In addition, increasing Gaussian noise was added to the PZT responses, and the robustness of the three neural networks was monitored. It was found that the ANN gives better accuracy with a Mean Absolute Error of 22 mm compared to Convolutional Neural Network (MAE = 31 mm) and Long Short-Term Memory (MAE = 25 mm). However, CNN is more robust when encountering noise with a 2% reduction in accuracy, while LSTM and ANN lost 7% and 11% accuracy, respectively.