Cited by 41Structural Health Monitoring TechniquesInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications

Model-based vs. Data-driven Approaches for Anomaly Detection in Structural Health Monitoring: a Case Study

Open access
Moallemi, Amirhossein, Burrello, Alessio, Brunelli, Davide, Benini, Luca·2021·2021 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC)

Abstract

Modern Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) systems are becoming of pervasive use in civil engineering because they can track the structural condition and detect damages of critical and civil infrastructures such as buildings, viaducts, and tunnels. Although noticeable work has been done to improve anomaly detection for ensuring public safety, algorithms that can be executed on low-cost hardware for long-term monitoring are still an open issue to the community. This paper presents a new framework that exploits compression techniques to identify anomalies in the structure, avoiding continuous streaming of raw data to the cloud. We used a real installation on a bridge in Italy to test the proposed anomaly detection algorithm. We trained three compression models, namely a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), a fully-connected autoencoder, and a convolutional autoencoder. Performance comparison is also provided through an ablation study that analyzes the impact of various parameters. Results demonstrate that the model-based approach, i.e., PCA, can reach a better accuracy whereas data-driven models, i.e., autoencoders, are limited by training set size.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/i2mtc50364.2021.9459999

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moallemi, A., Burrello, A., Brunelli, D., & Benini, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • University of Trento (IT)
Venue
2021 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2021-05-17
Pages
1-6
ISSN
2642-2069 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3175295277
Cited by
41
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
FWCI
17.89
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (publishedVersion)
  • PORTO@Iris (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Keywords
structural health monitoring, anomaly detection, data compression, principal component analysis, autoencoder, convolutional autoencoder, bridge monitoring, low-cost hardware, cloud data transmission, damage detection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review