Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

A System Identification Methodology to monitor construction activities

using structural responses
Ranjith K. Soman, Benny Raphael ⁎, Koshy Varghese
BTCM Division, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a methodology to use structural responses to monitor the progress of construction processes.
Received 23 May 2016 The methodology was implemented on a launching girder used for viaduct construction of a metro rail project. A
Received in revised form 6 December 2016 strain-based wireless sensor network was used for data acquisition. Structural responses from the launching
Accepted 12 December 2016
girder were used to identify the state of construction. A conventional System Identification Methodology was
Available online xxxx
tested for this application but was not accurate in inferring the stage of construction. Therefore a modified system
Keywords:
identification strategy using derived features and heuristics was used to infer the state of construction. The mod-
System identification ified methodology was found to be significantly more accurate than the conventional methodology and is well
Model falsification suited for applications in unstructured construction environments. Results from the case study confirm that
Construction progress monitoring the use of structural responses is feasible for measuring the progress of construction activities.
Heuristics © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Wireless sensor network

1. Introduction timely fashion which leads to delays in the implementation of control

The global construction industry contributes to around 11% of the
global GDP in 2011 and it is predicted to cross 13.2% by the year 2020
[1]. The share of the construction industry in the global economy in 2015
is US$8.5 trillion which is expected to climb to US$10.3 trillion by 2020.
A significant portion of this development comes from the construction
projects of emerging economies which show a higher rate of growth [2].
Increasing population, growing economy and urbanization in these na-
tions necessitate investments in various infrastructure projects. The overall
success of these projects depends heavily on completion of construction
within planned time and cost. To ensure this, the productivity and progress
of the project have to be monitored and controlled on a continuous basis.
Although, theoretical frameworks for project monitoring and control are
available with which precise project performance indices can be computed
[3], massive amounts of accurate data need to be continuously generated
for such computations. While manual monitoring is conventionally
utilized, it is slow and inaccurate [4]. Further, there are overheads for
manual monitoring, it is reported that 2% of the work in construction is
committed to tracking and recording progress data manually [5].
Construction supervisors spend about 30–50% of their time
interpreting and analyzing field data. In many situations, data for correct
analysis is not available, and the supervisors resort to optimistic
reporting [6]. As a result of these inefficiencies in data collection and in-
terpretation, appropriate corrective actions are not implemented in a
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: benny@iitm.ac.in (B. Raphael).
measures. Hence, accurate monitoring is required for proper execution
of a construction project within the planned cost and time.
One solution to the above challenge is collecting the data automati-
cally. Automated data collection has already been employed in con-
struction for productivity and progress monitoring. This is achieved
using technologies such as imaging [7–10], RFID [11,12], distributed
sensor networks [13], LIDAR [14] for progress monitoring, material
tracking, safety monitoring, etc. These technologies have inherent limi-
tations such as lack of mobility. For instance, an imaging technique for
progress monitoring is constrained by its location and cannot be used
for monitoring projects such as viaduct construction. Joshua and
Varghese have addressed this issue to an extent by integrating a wear-
able sensor on workers to track productivity [15]. Although this ap-
proach is suitable for productivity assessment, this might not be
suitable to track progress, especially in large projects since it is challeng-
ing to consolidate a large amount of data from all the workers and final-
ly evaluate progress from these data. These limitations could be tackled
if the monitoring system is employed on equipment or supporting
structure. Therefore, as the construction progresses, the monitoring sys-
tem travels with the equipment/supporting structure without the re-
quirement of any other mobility arrangement.
A monitoring system that makes use of structural responses is one
such technology which can be employed in an equipment or temporary
structure. However, construction progress monitoring using the re-
sponses from structural responses of temporary structures and con-
struction equipment is an area that has not been explored yet.
Employing sensors which could detect the structural state of equip-
ment or a temporary structure and in turn mapping it to the extent of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.12.006
0926-5805/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
80 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90
construction would enable collection of data which could later be used
for analysis of productivity or progress. This study explores the feasibil-
ity of using structural responses from construction equipment to assess
the productivity and progress of construction as shown in Fig. 1.
Although the objective of the study is to monitor the progress and pro-
ductivity of the viaduct construction, this paper focuses on monitoring the
progress alone by employing a strain-based sensor network on a launching
girder, an equipment used in viaduct construction. Structural responses
during the different operations of viaduct construction are collected
using a wireless sensor network based data acquisition setup. The data
(structural responses) are analyzed to identify the state of viaduct con-
struction using a model based system identification technique. System
identification is the process of interpreting the physical characteristics of
the system from indirect observations like stresses and strains. Although
the process may seem simple, there are several uncertainties associated
with the structural configuration of the equipment in a construction site,
which has to be addressed in the framework.
The paper is organized into nine sections. Section 2 evaluates the
feasibility of applying common system identification technologies to
construction. Section 3 discusses the operations of launching girder in
detail. Section 4 gives a brief outline of the problem statement, the
scope of the work and the methodology followed. Section 5 discusses
in detail the system identification algorithm used in the study and
Section 7 deals with the implementation of the current system on an ac-
tive launching girder and Section 8 presents the results from this imple-
mentation. Section 9 presents the conclusion of the study.
2. System identification concept and practices
System identification is the process of interpreting the physical char-
acteristics of the system from the observations. Model calibration is one
of the system identification approaches used to find the right model by
minimizing the difference between the observations and predictions.
This method is still being widely used. One of the recent applications of
this method involves the prediction of the lifetime reliability of a bridge
by calibrating the Young's modulus [16]. Similarly, field measurements
were used to update the baseline model of a multi-girder bridge in its con-
struction phase [17]. The same approach has also been used to update and
calibrate FEM models of masonry bridges from ambient vibration data
[18]. A weakness of this method is that a single answer to an inverse prob-
lem is rarely found; it is possible to get same responses at the sensor loca-
tions from many different combinations of parameter values [19,20]. Also,
the values of the parameter calibrated by model calibration may not have
a physical interpretation outside the model structure within which it was
Fig. 1. Research question.
calibrated [21]. Hence, these parameters can only be used for interpola-
tion and not extrapolation. In addition, it may provide wrong values of
system parameters which compensate modelling and measurement er-
rors at sensor locations. Also, it is not suitable to use this method where
model simplification or systematic bias is present [20,22–25]. These limi-
tations of the model calibration method were demonstrated analytically
by Ben-Haim and Hemez [26]. They showed that increasing the depen-
dency of the model on the test data would reduce the robustness of un-
derstanding the process.
Another widely adopted method is the Bayesian approach. Bayesian
statistical framework is a rational and powerful tool for model updating
that is capable of managing measurement errors, incomplete experimen-
tal data, non-unique solutions and modelling errors [27,28]. Bayesian in-
ference uses Bayesian conditional probability to update the prior
knowledge of model parameters from measurements and other evi-
dences using a likelihood function [29]. Likelihood function is a probabil-
ity distribution which represents the likelihood of observing data when
the model is parameterized by a factor. It has the advantage that it can as-
sign relative weights to the model parameters contributing to the likeli-
hood function. Initially, prior distribution is used for characterizing
initial knowledge/behavior for calculating the relative weights. Subse-
quently, the prior distributions can be updated by using experimental
data to improve classification [28]. This method has been used extensively
in different applications since 1960 [30]. Its first application in structural
identification dates back to the 1990's [31]. Since then, Bayesian approach
has been used to solve several complex model updating problems with
great efficiency. Bayesian methods have been used to solve higher dimen-
sion model updating problems using Monte Carlo simulations and its ef-
fectiveness was tested on structural dynamic problems [32]. Bayesian
uncertainty quantification has been applied to calibrate complex mathe-
matical models related to turbulence modelling to predict quantities of in-
terest [33]. Bayesian statistical framework was used to update models in
order to improve the match between experimental and corresponding
model output in structural identification [34]. If the relation between
model parameter and the available data is complex, it is difficult to formu-
late the likelihood function. This issue has been addressed using two stage
approaches where the second stage is usually performed using heuristics
[35,36]. Recent studies have avoided the use of heuristics by developing a
fundamental theory for Bayesian two stage problem. An equation is de-
rived to express the posterior distribution of model parameters identified
[37]. This framework has been tested on ambient vibration data and
found that the resulting posterior distribution to be in strict concordance
with Bayesian logic [38]. The System Identification Methodology based on
Bayesian approach has been extensively used in laboratory experiments,
 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90
stochastic damage accumulation studies [39], model updating with un-
certainty [40], structural damage detection [41], updating models using
incomplete model data [42], etc. Even though Bayesian updating is exten-
sively used, a drawback of this methodology is that it requires the proba-
bility distributions, which represent modelling and measurement
uncertainties at the sensor locations. It is challenging to generate such
probability distributions for applications with complex uncertainties
such as in construction. Also, simplification of probability distribution
will lead to over conditioning of parameter values [19]. Therefore, Bayes-
ian inference requires complete knowledge of all errors correlations be-
tween measurement locations in order to avoid bias [22,43].
In 1930, Popper asserted that in science, models can only be falsified
and not validated by data [44]. This concept has then been used in dif-
ferent studies. One of the pioneering researchers in this area, Albert
Tarantola has stated “use all available a priori information to create se-
quentially models of the system, potentially an infinite number of them.
For each model, solve the forward modelling problem, compare the predic-
tions to the actual observations and use some criterion to decide if the fit is
acceptable or unacceptable, given the uncertainties in the observations and,
perhaps, in the physical theory being used. The unacceptable models have
been falsified, and must be dropped. The collection of all the models that
have not been falsified represents the solution” [45]. Discrete popula-
tion-based multiple model approach helps in solving inverse problems
that have non-unique solutions.
In this approach, multiple models are generated by assigning differ-
ent combinations of values of variables that are not known precisely.
Models whose predictions match observations within estimated thresh-
olds are selected as candidates. Raphael and Smith [46] first proposed
the use of discrete population-based multiple model approach to bridge
diagnosis. Later, the concept of error domain model falsification was de-
veloped by Goulet et al. [43,47,48] in which the idea that models can
only be falsified was formally applied. It was shown that candidate
models can be identified from the measurement data better than
using model calibration and Bayesian inference [43]. Similar ideas can
be found in other domains such as environmental monitoring [49].
Discrete population-based system identification has been used for
bridge diagnosis, leakage detection, environmental monitoring, etc.
[19,22,43]. The use of discrete population-based system-identification
has not been explored for productivity measurement or progress mon-
itoring in construction. Although the principle of system identification
can be similar to previous works, the process for the same will have to
be made specific for construction progress monitoring. For example,
the process of modelling population for the system identification for
construction progress monitoring is different from that used for bridge
diagnosis. It is also essential to know what indicators should be identi-
fied to evaluate the progress. This paper evaluates the feasibility of ap-
plying this approach to monitor the launching girder operations. The
conventional approach was modified in this work to improve the accu-
racy of system identification by incorporating heuristics and derived
features, instead of using only direct measured data.
3. Launching girder operations
This section describes the operations of a basic box type launching gird-
er. It is observed that the overall progress of metro rail viaduct construction
can be ascertained by monitoring the operations of the launching girder.
Launching girder (LG) is an equipment used in metro rail construction to
lift and assemble prefabricated concrete segments, which are then joined
to create the span of the viaduct. The LG is fabricated as a plate girder
(box) and spans continuously over four supports as shown in Fig. 2.
Launching girder is involved in several operations including the lifting
of segments, pre-stressing, post-tensioning and loading of the span.
Therefore, monitoring the state of this equipment should give direct infor-
mation related to the progress of metro rail construction. Completion of
each cycle of the launching girder operations can be considered as a mile-
stone activity in the schedule of metro rail viaduct construction. The LG
81
consists primarily of five parts. Steel plate girder, front support, middle
support, rear support and rear trolley as shown in Fig. 2. The different
stages (or state of launching girder) for the construction of a span and
its associated bending moment diagram (BMD is for illustration purpose
and may not be accurate on schematic) are as shown in Fig. 3.
3.1. Auto launching
Auto-launching is the process when the launching girder is moved
from the ‘constructed span’ to the ‘next to be constructed’ span of the via-
duct as shown in Fig. 3:1. In this process, the front support of the
launching girder is released and launching girder is supported by remain-
ing supports. Launching girder is launched to the subsequent span by
pushing the plate girder forward to the next pier. Counterweight placed
at the rear side of the LG balances cantilever moment created by the
front portion until the front support reaches the next pier. The support
is then rested on the pier which marks the end of Autolaunching opera-
tion. The BMD of the operation is shown in Fig. 3:1 and characterized by
the high negative moment at the cantilever support.
3.2. Segment lifting
This operation takes place after the auto-launching. It involves lifting
each prefabricated segment from the ground sequentially and assembling
it along the span to form the viaduct as shown in Fig. 3:2. Once all the seg-
ments are lifted, they are then aligned and moved into position to be
joined and placed on the piers. All the segments lifted remain suspended
on the front portion of LG. Typical BMD of the operation is shown in Fig.
3:2. There is a positive moment on the front side of the LG while having
a negative moment on the rear side. Please note that the BMD doesn't cor-
respond accurately to the schematic of the operation shown.
3.3. Post-tensioning
This process, which takes place after the segment lifting involves
joining all the segments through a post-tensioning process as shown
in Fig. 3:3. Cables are run through the segments and then tensioned to
the designed stress with a hydraulic jack while the segments are
suspended on the front portion of LG. Once the stressing is done, the as-
sembled segments together act as a single structure. Load of the seg-
ments is still borne by the front portion of the LG. State of the system
during this process is depicted in Fig. 3:3. The bending moment is sim-
ilar to segment lifting. However, the moment on the front side is partly
negative in this case since the launching girder is fully loaded.
3.4. Span loading
The post-tensioned span is lowered onto the piers in this process.
Once the span rests on the pier, Segments are released from the
launching girder. The span transfers its self-weight to the piers. LG is
free from the load of the segments. Once this process is done, LG is
ready for auto launch to the next to be constructed span. Schematic of
this stage is shown in Fig. 3:4. The bending moment during this stage
is similar to that during the beginning of segment lifting but with a
higher magnitude of the negative moment on the rear side.
The bending moment changes continuously with respect to the op-
eration. It starts with a BMD similar to span lowering as shown in Fig.
3:4. When the support is released during launching, BMD on the front
span will have a negative moment which increases with the increase
in the distance launched. Finally, when front support rests on the girder,
BMD corresponds to the one at the start of launching. Then, during the
start of launching front side of the launching girder will have a positive
moment which gradually shifts to negative moment as segment lifting
progress. Also, post-tensioning and the end of segment lifting would
have the maximum negative moment on the front span of the LG. How-
ever, these can be differentiated since the end of segment lifting will
82 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90

Fig. 2. Different parts of launching girder.

have a sudden change in slopes of BMD while that of Post-tensioning
would have gradual changes. Once the span is lowered onto piers, the
BMD changes to the initial state before the launch.
These changes in stress patterns can be identified in real time by mea-
suring the structural parameters using sensors such as strain gauges, load
cells, etc. Once the strain pattern is obtained, the state of the LG can be rec-
ognized based on the strain pattern across the length of the LG. However,
the operations of LG has its uncertainties such as support settlement, var-
iations in counter weights, variations in the weight of segments, etc. Due
to these field uncertainties, the results from the base analytical model will
not be the same as the field measurements. For example, a segment
weight is generally around 20 tons, but for some spans, the segments
might weigh close to 16 tons only. In such cases, the response diagram
might correspond to a different state of construction and reduces the ac-
curacy of identification. In addition, uncertainties in measurements and
errors in sensing may arise due to the nature of field conditions such as
a change in temperature, variations in structural parameter values, etc.
The system identification algorithm should cater to these uncertainties
while identifying the state of the launching girder.
4. Problem statement and evaluation methodology
Ideally, System Identification Methodology as mentioned in Section 2
should cater to the monitoring of launching girder. However, from Section
3, it can be understood that launching girder operations has inherent
uncertainties, and the System Identification Methodology should
address these while inferring the state of operations. Therefore, it is essen-
tial that the model falsification methodology used for the study should
enable provisions to include these uncertainties yet predict the state of
construction accurately for monitoring the progress and productivity.
This study aims at evaluating the feasibility of using discrete popula-
tion-based system identification methodologies, or in other words falsi-
fication methodologies, to effectively monitor the state of operation of
the launching girder. Ideally, the System Identification Methodology
should be powerful enough to identify the sub-activities (refer Table
1) from the sensor data. However, the scope of this paper is limited to
identifying the four major operations of the launching girder as men-
tioned in Section 3. The proposed system identification algorithm
matches the observed readings to one of the simulated cases which cor-
respond to a sub-activity (as shown in Table 1). However, the algorithm
maps the observation to the major operation under which the matched
sub-operation is identified. For example, the major operation
‘Autolaunching’ contains 16 sub-activities under it (Major operations
and their sub-activities are shown in Table 1). Although the proposed
System Identification Methodology maps the observed reading to one
of the 16 sub activities, the output is shown as ‘Autolaunching’. In
other words, the sub-activities are not reported as output in the pro-
posed System Identification Methodology.

Fig. 3. Launching girder operations (schematic) and associated bending moments: 1. Auto launching; 2. Segment lifting; 3. Post-tensioning; 4. Span loading.
 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90
To monitor the state of the launching girder, a custom designed sen-
sor network is deployed on the equipment. Responses from the
launching girder are analyzed using the above-said system identifica-
tion methodologies to arrive at the state of operation. In this study, im-
portant launching girder stages include auto launching, segment lifting,
post-tensioning, and span lowering as pointed out in Section 5.
The evaluation methodology followed in this work is as follows.
• A strain-based data acquisition setup is deployed on an actual working
launching girder.
• The construction operations at the site are physically observed during
a period of 2 months and the data from the acquisition setup is record-
ed during this period. Site activities are manually recorded in a log
book for comparison.
• System identification is performed using the data recorded in the ac-
quisition system using three methodologies.
• The accuracy of system identification is calculated by comparing the
inference made with the recorded observations in the log book for
each time step.
5. System identification methodologies
Three approaches to system identification are used and compared in
this study, which is as follows.
• The System Identification Methodology adopted from Goulet et al.
[50], termed as ‘System Identification Methodology A’ uses raw mea-
surement data. Modifications are made to the System Identification
Methodology A in the presumption to increase the accuracy of
inference.
• A modified methodology termed ‘System Identification Methodology
B’, uses derived features for identifying candidates.
• A further modified methodology termed as ‘System Identification
Methodology C’, is an improvement of the System Identification
Methodology B by using domain-specific heuristics.
Inferences made using system identification methodologies A, B and
C are evaluated by comparing it with the records in the log book and
their accuracies are compared.
5.1. System Identification Methodology A
The System Identification Methodology used in the present study is
built upon the framework developed by Goulet et al. [25]. In the context
of construction progress monitoring, the objective of system identifica-
tion is to identify the state of operation of an equipment which could be
linked to the progress of the entire construction. A typical falsification
process is shown in Fig. 4. The system identification process starts
with defining a set of model classes representing different possible
states of the system. Each model class contains a number of parameters
which correspond to the system properties such as geometry, material
characteristics, loading, boundary conditions, support conditions, etc.
Each combination of model parameters leads to a model instance
which is analyzed using finite element method in order to get a set of
predictions (which can be measured), for example, strain values at
each location.
The model prediction differs from the correct structural response at
a location by an amount equal to the modelling error. The measured
value also differs from the actual response by the value of the measure-
ment error. However, neither correct values nor the error values are
known precisely [26]. Therefore, a probability density function describ-
ing possible errors needs to be estimated. In the absence of more de-
tailed information, a uniform probability density function might be
used in which the minimum and maximum possible values for errors
are defined. The probability density function will have the errors from
the measurement as well as the errors from the modelling. The
83
thresholds of possible values of actual responses are defined by the fol-
lowing equations:
Upper threshold bound ¼ Predicted Value þ errorðδÞ
Lower threshold bound ¼ Predicted Value−errorðδÞ
A model instance is falsified if the difference between its predicted re-
sponse and the measured value is outside the threshold bounds at any
sensor location. This system identification strategy based on model falsifi-
cation has been proved to be efficient in various experiments [22,27].
5.2. System Identification Methodology B
System Identification Methodology A with its strict limits on errors
may not be suitable for an unstructured environment like construction.
Uncertainties are inherent in construction processes which result in er-
rors that cannot be modelled/simulated prior to the operations Strict
limits on error bounds will influence the rejection of candidate models
and increase chances of Type 2 error. Type 2 errors are the errors
which fail to represent an effect that is actually present. For example,
if auto-launching is taking place and the algorithm fails to report it,
the error can be termed Type 2. Even when measurement errors are
present, the general trends in the structural response do not change.
Hence, system identification based on identifying the trends in structur-
al responses is likely to be more reliable.
The current work uses slopes between measurements at adjacent loca-
tions in addition to the measured readings and predictions. Even if the
strain values have errors, trends such as increase or decrease in their values
are likely to match the predictions of models. Therefore, in this methodol-
ogy, a model is falsified if the predicted slope between the readings at ad-
jacent locations is outside the threshold of the measured slope.
However, in this case, the threshold is computed differently. Consid-
er Fig. 5. Let y be the true value at a location A and δ be the combined
error. Then,


Upper threshold A0 ¼ y þ δ
 
Lower threshold A″ ¼ y−δ
Similarly at B,
 
Upper threshold B″ ¼ y þ h þ δ


Lower threshold B0 ¼ y þ h−δ
Let the distance between A and B be of unit value. Hence, the slope of
line segment AB is (h). Similarly, the slope of the line A′B′ is (h − 2 δ)
and the slope of line A″B″ is (h + 2δ). Therefore, the threshold bounds
of slope in this framework is as follows,
Upper threshold bound ¼ Predicted Slope Value þ 2  errorðδÞ
Lower threshold bound ¼ Predicted Slope Value−2  errorðδÞ
The steps involved in System Identification Methodology B are as
follows:
i. Import the data from the server
ii. Determine the slopes at the critical locations and compare it with
slopes from simulated cases
iii. If a set of matching slopes are found, proceed to step (iv), else report
an anomaly
iv. Try the first set of matching slopes
v. Predict the intermediate readings by following the pattern from
matching simulated case
84 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90

Measure responses
from actual case

Falsify
Generate Simulate each simulated
population case to get cases which Report cases
of cases by measurable lie outside which are not
varying responses for error falsified
parameters each case threshold of
the measured
response

Fig. 4. Falsification methodology.

vi. Compare the properties/patterns of the intermediate points with the
simulated case, if it matches, report the state corresponding to that
case. Else try the next set of matching slopes from step (iii) and re-
peat steps (v) and (vi). If no more matching slopes are available, re-
port anomaly.
5.3. System Identification Methodology C
System Identification Methodology B is further modified by using do-
main-specific heuristics. The inference from System Identification Meth-
odology B is evaluated using domain-specific knowledge, such as
precedence relationships. For example, if the construction operation con-
sists of 5 activities which should be performed sequentially, Activity 5
can only take place after activity 4, and activity 4 after activity 3. Therefore,
System Identification Methodology evaluates the current inference with
the previous inference and eliminates inferences that are impossible ac-
cording to the construction sequence adopted. These heuristics, when inte-
grated with System Identification Methodology B, has the potential to
eliminate Type 1 error or false positives which might arise in System Iden-
tification Methodology B. Evaluation based on heuristics are performed as
a final check after the falsification based on slopes is done.
The first step in the system identification framework is to generate a
population of model instances. The model instances represent different
stages of operation of the equipment as well as possible faults that could
happen due to human error, environmental effects, etc. The next step is
to quantify the errors associated with modelling and measurement.
Then, for each model instance, the slopes between readings at sensor lo-
cations is calculated and stored in the database. Upper and lower
threshold bound for slopes at each location are computed and stored
in the database (DB-B) as shown in Fig. 6. Similarly, another database
(DB-A) stores the slope data of the critical locations.
The process of falsification in System Identification Methodology C is
shown as a sequence of blocks in Fig. 6. The sequence is as follows:
vii. Check whether the matching property is either the previous infer-
ence or the state following the previous state. If yes, report the in-
ference. Else proceed to step (viii). This is shown in Blocks 9, 10,
11 of Fig. 6. For example, Segment lifting happens after the
Autolaunching. During Autolaunching, ‘previous inference’ will be
set to ‘Autolaunching’ because the inference was reported as
‘Autolaunching’ in the previous observation/reading. In step (vii),
the inference from step (vi) is checked whether it is ‘Autolaunching’
or ‘segment lifting’. If it is either of those, that state is reported.
viii. Set the inference to the state following the previous inference and
repeat steps (v) to (vii). For example, if the previous state was
‘auto launching’ and the current state is reported as ‘span lowering’,
this step sets the state as ‘segment lifting’. The inference is again
inspected by going through steps (v) to (vii).
6. Uncertainties in system identification
Reliability of the system identification methodologies is dependent
on different types of errors. In many cases, various errors compensate
for each other such that model predictions match the measured values
[20]. Two main categories of errors are measurement error and model-
ling error.
Measurement error (emeas) is the difference between the measured
and actual values in a single measurement. This is dependent on the
precision of the sensor, temperature dependencies for the sensor,

i. Import the data from the server (Block 1)

ii. Determine the slopes at the critical locations and compare it with
slopes from simulated cases. This step is represented by Blocks 2
& 3 in Fig. 6.
iii. If a set of matching slopes are found, proceed to step (iv), else re-
port an anomaly. Block 4 represents this step in Fig. 6
iv. Try the first set of matching slopes. This step is represented by
Block 5 in Fig. 6
v. Predict the intermediate readings by following the pattern from
matching simulated case. Block 6 represents this step in Fig. 6.
vi. Compare the properties/patterns of the intermediate points with
the simulated case, if it matches, proceed to step (vii). Else try the
next set of matching slopes from Step (iii) and repeat steps (v)
and (vi). If no more matching slopes are available, report anom-
aly as shown in Blocks 7,8,14 & 15 of Fig. 6. Fig. 5. Evaluation of slope error.
 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90 85

Fig. 6. Methodology for system identification C.

precision in the installation etc. Modelling error (emod) is the difference
in the responses between an ideal model that represents the activities
and the predicted responses of the simulation model. Modelling error
can be divided into three components e1, e2, and e3. The component e1
is the error due to the deviation in the behavior between mathematical
and the real model whereas e2 is the error which is introduced during
the computation of solutions of the mathematical model. The error e3
is the component of error introduced due to incorrect assumptions

Table 2
Variation of parameters for creating the population of models.

Parameter Range

Counterweight Min 0 kg
Max 66,000 kg
Segment weight Min 15,690 kg
Max 20,594 kg
Front support settlement-right Min 0 mm
Max 28 mm
Front support settlement-left Min 0 mm
Max 28 mm
Rear trolley settlement right Min 0 mm
Max 28 mm
Rear trolley settlement left Min 0 mm
Fig. 7. (a): Strain gauge (magnified image); (b): Amplifier board with XBee (ZigBee
Max 28 mm
module).
86 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90

made during the simulation of the numerical model such as boundary
conditions, material properties, support conditions, etc. [20].
ThecombinederrorðeÞ ¼ Measurementerrorðemeas Þ
þ modellingerrorðe1 þ e2 þ e3 Þ
In this study, the primary objective is to illustrate and test a System
Identification Methodology based on derived features and heuristics in
construction. The error component e3 is reduced to an extent by incor-
porating a range of values for material properties, support conditions,
etc. as shown in Table 2, which are the variables used in system identi-
fication. Candidate models are selected such that the error between pre-
dictions and measurements are reduced. The error component e2 is
expected to be small because of the use of discrete elements. It is a gen-
eral thumb rule to take the combined modelling error component to be
4% [20] for linear elastic beam members. Also, it can be noted that
proposed methodology will have better accuracy than the existing
methodologies if the modelling error component is increased to a
higher value. This is because, by increasing the estimate of error, more
candidate models will have predictions matching the measurements
within the error threshold. Using heuristics, many of these models
might be eliminated, thereby showing improvements in the accuracy
of system identification using the proposed methodology.
7. Implementation and evaluation
This section discusses the implementation of the methodologies
discussed in Section 5 on a launching girder (LG) in operation. The
steel plate girder is loaded during all the operations of the launching
girder. Hence, the responses from the plate girder can be used to distin-
guish between different model instances. Deploying sensors on the
plate girder would enable us to identify various operations of the
launching girder such as auto-launching, segment lifting, post-tension-
ing and span loading.
To monitor the state of the launching girder, a custom designed
wireless sensor network (WSN) was deployed on the equipment. Sen-
sors were placed according to the measurement system design. A 120-
Ω resistance strain gauge with gauge factor of 2.03 was selected to min-
imize the drift, since the sensor needed to be deployed for several days
on the LG. It has a precision of ± 0.042 Ω. Fig. 7(a) shows the strain
gauge used and Fig. 7(b) shows the ZigBee module which is connected
to the strain gauge to transmit data to the data acquisition system. The
amplifier module along with the ZigBee transmitter has a 10-bit resolu-
tion i.e. it could detect a change of 3 mv/V.
As per the methodology discussed in Section 3, a population of
models was created from the model classes. Initially, 33 base cases
(Table 1) were made which simulates the actual launching girder
operations.
These constitute the four operations, namely, auto-launching, seg-
ment lifting, post-tensioning and span lowering. Around 152,656
model instances were generated by varying the different parameters
in Table 2. The variation of parameters was decided from site studies
and design data. The simplified linear static base model consisted of
357 nodes and 356 elements. These models were then analyzed using
FELT, a lightweight open source finite element analysis software.
For each case, responses at 356 locations (Average strain/response
over each of the 356 elements) from the output of finite element analy-
sis were tabulated. Entropy at each measurement point is computed
from the predicted responses of models. For the sensor placement, a
measurement system was designed which is based on Shannon's entro-
py [51] as described in Soman et al. [52]. Positions and priority of the
sensors placement are as shown in Fig. 8.
Data from the WSN is automatically transmitted to a web server.
This data is then downloaded to a client computer in which all the sys-
tem Identification methodologies are implemented. Modelling error

Table 1
Base cases to create model class.

Case Major operation Sub-activity Remarks

1 Autolaunching Start
2 Release middle support
3 Middle support to S7
4 Rear support to old middle support position
5 Middle support to S1
6 launch till rear trolley reaches rear support Launching – 0 m
7 launch till rear trolley reaches rear support Launching – 5 m
8 launch till rear trolley reaches rear support Launching – 10 m
9 launch till rear trolley reaches rear support Launching – 15 m
10 launch till rear trolley reaches rear support Launching – 20 m
11 launch till rear trolley reaches rear support Launching – 20.75 m
12 Move the rear support Launching – 20.75 m
13 Launch till next support Launching – 25 m
14 Launch till next support Launching – 30 m
15 Launch till next support Launching – 31 m
16 Front supported on the pillar
17 Segment lifting Segment trolleys on to the launching part
18 Attaching the lifting beam
19 Lifting segment
20 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 1
21 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 2
22 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 3
23 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 4
24 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 5
25 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 6
26 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 7
27 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 8
28 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 9
29 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 10
30 Lifting segment + transfer to segment trolley Segment 11
31 Transfer to segment trolley Segment 12
32 Post-tensioning
33 Span lowering End
 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90
was limited to an upper bound of 4%. Each observed set of readings was
matched to one of the four model classes. The four model classes consid-
ered in this study are auto launching, segment lifting, post-tensioning,
and span lowering. The interpretations obtained from the system iden-
tification algorithm, for a time stamp is compared with the log book
entry, which records the activity on the site, for the same time stamp.
The percentage of correctly matching readings is reported for all the
cases. Also, the percentages of wrong and zero matches are also
documented.
8. Results and discussion
This section discusses the results of the implementation of the three
system identification methodologies on the launching girder. The sys-
tem identification algorithm outputs either the state of the system or
an anomaly. An anomaly is a zero match to the model predictions.
These results are compared with the log book details of that particular
time and checked for consistency. The data from the Wireless Sensor
Network was transmitted to the server once every minute. However,
the log book entries were updated manually only once every hour.
Therefore, some of the data recorded from the WSN was ignored since
there was no log book entry for that time stamp. Furthermore, the con-
struction site did not operate every day during the period the data was
collected. Effectively, 19,724 readings collected over a period of
2 months were used for the comparison. The percentage of match be-
tween the inferences and the actual recorded values is used as a metric
to quantify the accuracy of the System Identification Methodology. Fig. 9
shows the percentage of match between the inferred and actual values
for the three system identification methodologies.
Table 3 represents the data in Fig. 9 in terms of precision and recall.
Precision, also called positive predictive value, is the fraction of inferred
observation that are relevant (accurate), while recall, also known as
sensitivity, is the fraction of relevant observations that are inferred. Pre-
cision can be seen as a measure of exactness or quality, whereas recall is
a measure of completeness or quantity. In other words, high precision
means that the methodology returned substantially more accurate re-
sults than inaccurate ones, while high recall means that a methodology
returned most of the accurate results.
When the modelling error is not considered, the System Identifica-
tion Methodology B has a higher correct match of 82.30% compared to
60.98% for methodology A. In other words, System Identification Meth-
odology B has a recall of 0.82 while System Identification Methodology
A has a recall of 0.61. This is mainly because System Identification Meth-
odology B uses the trends instead of direct observations to falsify the
models. However, it can be seen that the number of wrong interpreta-
tions is higher for the methodology B. With modelling error included
in the analysis, System Identification Methodology B has 26.20% of the
observations interpreted incorrectly whereas for System Identification
Methodology A, it is 8.21%. In other words, System Identification Meth-
odology A has a precision of 0.97 while System Identification
Fig. 8. Sensor locations on launching girder.
87
Methodology B has a lesser precision of 0.89. With modelling error ex-
cluded from the analysis, System Identification Methodology B gave
10.72% incorrect interpretations while System Identification Methodol-
ogy A interpreted 2.01% observations wrong, i.e. System Identification B
has a precision of 0.71 while System Identification A has a higher preci-
sion of 0.86. This is because slope trends happen to match even for some
wrong situations. For example, slope trends of the bending moments at
the end of segment lifting and the beginning of span lowering are sim-
ilar. Hence, end of the segment lifting may be interpreted as beginning
of span lowering.
In short, Methodology B has higher Type 1 error and methodology A
has higher Type 2 error. Both the methodologies have a significant re-
duction in the accuracy of falsification when the modelling error is con-
sidered. This is because more candidate models will have predictions
matching the measurements within the error threshold. Hence, more
than one classification will be identified as the state of launching girder
resulting in higher magnitudes of Type 1 and Type 2 error.
System identification based on derived features and heuristics (Sys-
tem Identification Methodology C) shows better performance than the
others and has an accuracy of 92.2% when modelling error is ignored
and an accuracy of 88.13% when the modelling error is considered. In
other words System Identification Methodology has a recall of 0.92
when modelling error is ignored and a recall of 0.88 when modelling
error is considered. It could filter out the Type 1 error from System Iden-
tification Methodology B by using heuristics. Also, this methodology
could eliminate the influence of modelling error to an extent. The Sys-
tem Identification Methodology C filters out the candidate models
which have predictions inside the error threshold but doesn't satisfy
the conditions based on the heuristics.
Fig. 10 shows the detailed analysis of percentage of match between
the inferences with the log book entries for System Identification Meth-
odology C, i.e. accuracy at the operations level. The system identification
accuracy is more than 80% for all the operations except for span lower-
ing. This is because of the low sample size of observations since span
lowering activities will take only 10% of the total time on an average.
Hence, the number of observations for these activities would be less
than half when compared to rest of the operations.
The total accuracy of identification for all the operations is 88.13%.
Several factors contribute to the 11.87% error in identification. Errors
in the installation of the strain gauge and the assumption of initial con-
ditions as well as modelling errors have an influence on the final error
percentage. However, it is difficult to control such errors at a construc-
tion site.
The Type 1 error (wrong match) in this System Identification Meth-
odology is less than 1.5% and it can be considered insignificant. Howev-
er, the Type 2 error or in other words zero matches contribute to 10.64%.
In the context of progress monitoring, the Type 2 error might not con-
tribute to a serious misinterpretation since the effect is that the schedule
doesn't get updated for that entry. Still, the frequency of updating is sig-
nificantly higher than the conventional monitoring and therefore this
88 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90
Fig. 9. Comparison of accuracies represented as percentage of Correct, Wrong and Zero Matches.
error has the least impact. However, for productivity or safety monitor-
ing, the presence of Type 2 error would result in ambiguous interpreta-
tions and false alarms (in cases no alarms for an actual case). From a
productivity perspective, failure to update the completion may result
in decreased productivity of that activity which in turn leads to incorrect
decision support.
Although the sensor data was matched to one of the 33 cases (sub-
activities), results are identified into one of the four operations only.
This is done so due to two reasons. The level of detail in which record-
ings were made in the log book was at a macro level and hence the
evaluation of sub-activities is not possible. In addition, there are uncer-
tainties in the installation, errors in measurement, etc. which decrease
the resolution of measurement which is a limitation of this study.
Although the study is limited to these constraints, the System Identifica-
tion Methodology has the potential to identify even the sub-activities
provided the perfect installation of the measurement system and reduc-
tion in interference with the measurement.
9. Summary & conclusions
This paper explored the feasibility of using structural responses from
a launching girder to monitor the progress of construction. Viaduct
construction for a metro rail project was used as a case study to evaluate
the feasibility. Strain sensors were deployed at different locations of
the launching girder and their values were transmitted to a base station.
Table 3
Comparison of accuracies (precision and recall).
Precision Recall
System Identification Methodology With 4% modelling error 0.86
A Without modelling 0.97
error
System Identification Methodology With 4% modelling error 0.71
B Without modelling 0.89
error
System Identification Methodology With 4% modelling error 0.99
C Without modelling 0.99
error
The strain readings were used to infer the stages of construction. This is
a novel concept that has never been explored before.
An existing System Identification Methodology from the literature
was evaluated and tested on the actual data from a metro rail construc-
tion site to infer the state of operation of a launching girder. However,
this methodology yielded an accuracy of 49.32% with 8% Type 1 error
and 42.4% Type 2 error. To explore improvements, a new system identi-
fication strategy based on derived features was developed, and this
showed an accuracy of 63.26% with 26.2% Type 1 error and 10.54%
Type 2 error. This methodology was further improved by incorporating
heuristics and domain knowledge which yielded an accuracy of 88.13%
with 1.23% Type 1 error and 10.64% Type 2 error. Based on the results, it
can be concluded that the System Identification Methodology C is supe-
rior to System Identification Methodologies A and B in terms of accura-
cy. Also, the results show that heuristics and domain knowledge are
important for reliable system identification using noisy data from actual
construction sites. The addition of the domain knowledge and heuristics
to the System Identification Methodology eliminates a significant por-
tion of Type 1 error and also filters out the negative impact of the model-
ling error.
The current study was able to infer the state of operation of a
launching girder from its strain readings during different operations
with reasonable accuracies. Since the completion of each cycle of the
launching girder operations acts as a milestone activity in the schedule
for metro rail viaduct constructions, this monitoring system can be used
to monitor the progress of the project.
Although the case study used was in metro rail viaduct construction,
the outcome from this study provides valuable information related to
the practicality of implementing the proposed system for monitoring
other equipment/temporary structures such as moving formwork,
tower cranes etc. These data could be potentially used to monitor the
progress of the construction, productivity, investigate opportunities to
0.49 automate, as a feedback response for automation controls etc. The
0.61 system identification algorithms developed in this study provides
guidelines for inferring the state of the construction activity from
0.63
0.82
structural responses of temporary structure/equipment for these
applications. Overall, the framework proposed can be a sub-system
0.88 within a larger sensor-based construction automation system which
0.92 can monitor, analyze and control different aspects of construction in
real-time.
 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90
Fig. 10. Detailed accuracy of System Identification Methodology C.
Acknowledgements
Authors wish to thank the help provided by Larsen and Toubro Con-
struction and Hyderabad Metro Rail Ltd. in enabling the field testing of
the methodologies. The post graduate study of the first author was sup-
ported by the scholarship from Ministry of Human Resource Develop-
ment (MHRD), India
References
[1] G. Roumeliotis, S. Fenton, Global Construction Growth to Outpace GDP This Decade,
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-55293920110303 2011 (accessed July 18, 2015).
[2] Global Construction Industry Outlook 2020, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-re-
leases/global-construction-outlook-2020-300040813.html 2015 (accessed July 18,
2016).
[3] R. Navon, Automated project performance control of construction projects, Autom.
Constr. 14 (2005) 467–476, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.09.006.
[4] I.N. Davidson, M.J. Skibniewski, Simulation of automated data collection in buildings,
J. Comput. Civ. Eng 9 (1995) 9–20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-
3801(1995)9:1(9).
[5] G.S. Cheok, W.C. Stone, R.R. Lipman, C. Witzgall, J. Uisod, Ladars for construction as-
sessment and update, Autom. Constr. 9 (2000) 463–477.
[6] E.M. Goldratt, J. Cox, The goal: a process of ongoing improvement, North River Press,
Great Barrington, MA, 2004, ISBN 978-0-88427-178-9.
[7] A. Dimitrov, M. Golparvar-Fard, Vision-based material recognition for automated
monitoring of construction progress and generating building information modeling
from unordered site image collections, Adv. Eng. Inform. 28 (2014) 37–49, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2013.11.002.
[8] I. Brilakis, M.-W. Park, G. Jog, Automated vision tracking of project related entities,
Adv. Eng. Inform. 25 (2011) 713–724, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2011.01.003.
[9] M. Memarzadeh, M. Golparvar-Fard, J.C. Niebles, Automated 2D detection of con-
struction equipment and workers from site video streams using histograms of ori-
ented gradients and colors, Autom. Constr. 32 (2013) 24–37, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.autcon.2012.12.002.
[10] V. Pătrăucean, I. Armeni, M. Nahangi, J. Yeung, I. Brilakis, C. Haas, State of research in
automatic as-built modelling, Adv. Eng. Inform. 29 (2015) 162–171, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.001.
[11] E.J. Jaselskis, T. El-Misalami, Implementing radio frequency identification in the con-
struction process, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 129 (2003) 680–688, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:6(680).
[12] W.-S. Jang, M.J. Skibniewski, Cost-benefit analysis of embedded sensor system
for construction materials tracking, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 135 (2009) 378–386,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:5(378).
[13] X.W. Ye, Y.Q. Ni, Y.X. Xia, Distributed strain sensor networks for in-construction
monitoring and safety evaluation of a high-rise building, Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Net-
works 2012 (2012) 1–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/685054.
[14] M. Golparvar-Fard, J. Bohn, J. Teizer, S. Savarese, F. Peña-Mora, Evaluation of image-
based modeling and laser scanning accuracy for emerging automated performance
monitoring techniques, Autom. Constr. 20 (2011) 1143–1155, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.autcon.2011.04.016.
[15] L. Joshua, K. Varghese, Automated recognition of construction labour activity using
accelerometers in field situations, Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 63 (2014)
841–862, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-05-2013-0099.
[16] N.M. Okasha, D.M. Frangopol, A.D. Orcesi, Automated finite element updating using
strain data for the lifetime reliability assessment of bridges, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 99
(2012) 139–150, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.007.
89
[17] M. Sanayei, B.R. Brenner, E. Santini-Bell, J.D. Sipple, J.E. Phelps, Lefebvre. Base-
line model updating during bridge construction using measured strains, Pro-
ceedings of the 2010 Struct. Congr. 2010, pp. 717–728, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/41130(369)66.
[18] B. Sevim, A. Bayraktar, A.C. Altunişik, S. Atamtürktür, F. Birinci, Finite element model cal-
ibration effects on the earthquake response of masonry arch bridges, J. Eng. Mech. 47
(2009) 621–634, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2010.12.011.
[19] K.J. Beven, Environmental modelling: an uncertain future?: an introduction to tech-
niques for uncertainty estimation in environmental prediction, Routledge, London,
2009, ISBN 0415457599.
[20] Y. Robert-Nicoud, B. Raphael, I.F. Smith, System identification through model com-
position and stochastic search, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 19 (2005) 239–247, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2005)19:3(239).
[21] K.J. Beven, Uniqueness of place and process representations in hydrological model-
ling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 4 (2000) 203–213, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-4-
203-2000.
[22] J.-A. Goulet, S. Coutu, I.F.C.C. Smith, Model falsification diagnosis and sensor place-
ment for leak detection in pressurized pipe networks, Adv. Eng. Inform. 27 (2013)
261–269, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2013.01.001.
[23] X. Jiang, S. Mahadevan, Bayesian validation assessment of multivariate compu-
tational models, J. Appl. Stat. 35 (2008) 49–65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02664760701683577.
[24] J. McFarland, S. Mahadevan, Multivariate significance testing and model calibration
under uncertainty, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197 (2008) 2467–2479,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2007.05.030.
[25] R. Rebba, S. Mahadevan, Validation of models with multivariate output, Reliab. Eng.
Syst. Saf. 91 (2006) 861–871, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.09.004.
[26] Y. Ben-Haim, F.M. Hemez, Robustness, fidelity and prediction-looseness of models,
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 468 (2012) 227–244, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1098/rspa.2011.0050.
[27] L.S. Katafygiotis, J.L. Beck, Updating models and their uncertainties. II: model
identifiability, J. Eng. Mech. 124 (1998) 463–467, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-
9474(68)90693-3.
[28] B. Goller, J.L. Beck, G.I. Schuëller, Evidence-based identification of weighting factors
in Bayesian model updating using modal data, J. Eng. Mech. 138 (2012) 430–440,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889. 0000351.
[29] M. Aghagholizadeh, F.N. Catbas, A review of model updating methods for civil infra-
structure systems, Comput. Tech. Civ. Struct. Eng 83–99 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/
10.4203/csets.38.4.
[30] A.P. Dempster, A generalization of Bayesian inference, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat
Methodol. 30 (1968) 205–268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-44792-4_4.
[31] K. Alvin, Finite Element Model Update via Bayesian Estimation and Minimization of
Dynamic Residuals, AIAA J. 35 (5) (1997) 879–886, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/2.7462.
[32] S.H. Cheung, J.L. Beck, Bayesian model updating using hybrid Monte Carlo simula-
tion with application to structural dynamic models with many uncertain parame-
ters, J. Eng. Mech. 135 (2009) 243–255, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-
9399(2009)135:4(243).
[33] S.H. Cheung, T.A. Oliver, E.E. Prudencio, S. Prudhomme, R.D. Moser, Bayesian uncertainty
analysis with applications to turbulence modeling, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96 (2011)
1137–1149, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.09.013.
[34] B. Goller, G.I. Schueller, Investigation of model uncertainties in Bayesian structural
model updating, J. Sound Vib. 330 (2011) 6122–6136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsv.2011.07.036.
[35] J.L. Beck, S.K. Au, M.W. Vanik, Monitoring Structural Health Using a Probabilistic
Measure, Comput. Aided Civ. Inf. Eng. 16 (2001) 1–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
0885-9507.00209.
[36] K. Christodoulou, E. Ntotsios, C. Papadimitriou, P. Panetsos, Structural model
updating and prediction variability using Pareto optimal models, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng. 198 (2008) 138–149, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2008.04.010.
90 R.K. Soman et al. / Automation in Construction 75 (2017) 79–90
[37] F.L. Zhang, S.K. Au, Fundamental two-stage formulation for Bayesian system identi-
fication, Part I: General theory, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. (2016) 43–61, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.04.024.
[38] F. Zhang, S. Au, Fundamental two-stage formulation for Bayesian system identifica-
tion, part II: application to ambient vibration data, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 66–67
(2016) 43–61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.04.024.
[39] X. Jiang, Y. Yuan, X. Liu, Bayesian inference method for stochastic damage accumu-
lation modeling, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 111 (2013) 126–138, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ress.2012.11.006.
[40] E. Simoen, G. De Roeck, G. Lombaert, Dealing with uncertainty in model updating for
damage assessment: a review, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 56 (2015) 123–149,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2014.11.001.
[41] A.H. Alavi, H. Hasni, N. Lajnef, K. Chatti, F. Faridazar, Automation in construction an
intelligent structural damage detection approach based on self-powered wireless
sensor data, Autom. Constr. 62 (2016) 24–44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.
2015.10.001.
[42] H. Sun, O. Büyüköztürk, Probabilistic updating of building models using incomplete
modal data, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 75 (2016) 27–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ymssp.2015.12.024.
[43] J.-A. Goulet, C. Michel, I.F.C. Smith, Hybrid probabilities and error-domain structural
identification using ambient vibration monitoring, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 37
(2013) 199–212, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2012.05.017.
[44] K.R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1959, ISBN
0091117216.
[45] A. Tarantola, Popper, Bayes and the inverse problem, Nature Physics 2 (2006)
492–494, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys375.
[46] B. Raphael, I. Smith, Finding the right model for bridge diagnosis, Artificial Intelli-
gence in Structural Engineering Lecture Notes in Computer Science 308–319
(1998). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bfb0030459.
[47] J.-A. Goulet, I. Smith, Probabilistic Model Falsification for Infrastructure Diagnosis,
thesis submitted to École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, 2012.
[48] J. Goulet, I. Smith, Performance-driven measurement-system design for structural
identification, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 427–436 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CP.1943-5487. 0000250.
[49] K. Beven, A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, J. Hydrol. 320 (2006) 18–36, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007.
[50] J. Goulet, P. Kripakaran, I.F.C. Smith, Multimodel structural performance monitoring,
J. Struct. Eng. 136 (2010) 1309–1318, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0000232.
[51] C.E. Shannon, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27
(1948) 379–423.
[52] R.K. Soman, B. Raphael, K. Varghese, Sensor placement to monitor launching girder
operations in segmental construction, Proceedings of 32nd Int. Symp. Autom. Robot.
Constr. Min., Oulu, Finland, 2015.