Received: 4 September 2017 Revised: 3 April 2018 Accepted: 11 April 2018

DOI: 10.1002/qre.2318

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Fault detection via nonlinear profile monitoring using

artificial neural networks

Mahmoud I. Awad1 | Mohammad AlHamaydeh2 | Ahmed Faris3

1
Industrial Engineering Department,
American University of Sharjah, Sharjah,
UAE
2
Civil Engineering Department, American
University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE
3
Industrial Engineering Department,
American University of Sharjah, Sharjah,
UAE
Correspondence
Mahmoud I. Awad, Industrial
Engineering Department, American
University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Email: miawad@aus.edu
Abstract
Fault detection is the characterization of a normal behavior of a system using a
response function or profile of interest and the identification of any deviation
from such normal behavior. As system complexity grows, predicting the under-
lying structure or form of response function becomes challenging if not impos-
sible. This article presents a data‐driven approach for fault detection of
complex systems using multivariate statistical process control based on artifi-
cial neural network (ANN) characterization. In this approach, the quality of
a system is characterized where one explanatory variable is adequately
explained as a function of the other variables using an ANN model. The vector
of weights and biases of the ANN model is monitored by using Hotelling T2
through control charts. The proposed method is tested and compared with
existing methods such as polynomial and sum of sine function regression for
3 cases from the literature. Moreover, it is applied to a 4‐story reinforced con-
crete building that uses continuous monitoring to avoid potentially cata-
strophic failures. The proposed ANN approach outperforms the existing
methods for small shifts (deviations) from healthy states. For large and
medium shifts, it provides comparable results that are on the conservative side.

KEYWORDS
fault detection, neural networks, profile monitoring, structural damage

1 | INTRODUCTION Several fields are associated with fault detection

Fault detection is a key strategy used by system
designers to monitor the health of systems, avoid major
field failures, improve maintenance, and decrease the
total cost of ownership of these systems. The process of
fault detection starts with system data collection, charac-
terizing the system using a linear or nonlinear function,
defining healthy state, and finally detecting any devia-
tion from the healthy state. Early detection of faulty sys-
tems has many benefits including health and
environmental risk mitigation, avoiding expensive fail-
ures, satisfying governmental regulations, and increasing
system availability.
approaches for health management such as data mining,
machine learning, signal processing, and statistical pro-
cess control (SPC), among others. In SPC, the quality of
a system characterized by a relationship between a
response and 1 or more explanatory variables referred to
as profile.1
In profile monitoring, it is assumed that random sam-
ples of size n are collected for each jth profile over time of
a response variable y and explanatory variables x. The
observations can be summarized as (xij, yij), i = 1, 2, …
n, j = 1, 2, …, q, where xij represents an ith observation
within a jth profile. It is also assumed that a linear or
nonlinear model, such as the 2‐variable second‐order

Qual Reliab Engng Int. 2018;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/qre Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 AWAD ET AL.

model shown in Equation (1), can be adequately repre- monitoring using ANN fault detection. Because of the
sented for each jth profile. multidisciplinary nature of this approach, the review
covers SPC methods used for profile monitoring, ANN,
yj ¼ β0 þ β1 x 1 þ β2 x 2 þ β12 x 1 x 2 þ β11 x 21 þ β22 x 22þ εj ; (1) and structural damage assessment.

where β are the model coefficients and εj is a random 2.1 | Statistical process control
variable representing model error. For the purpose of
The relationships or profiles among explanatory and
fault detection, model coefficients or error terms or both
response variables can be linear7,8 or nonlinear.9-12
are monitored and only small differences between these
Woodall et al13 provides an excellent review of the litera-
indicators are allowed to declare healthy state. A faulty
ture on SPC profile monitoring and discusses some gen-
system is flagged when major differences are detected.
eral issues with using profile SPC. One of the most
Since monitoring several parameters simultaneously is
common statistics used in SPC profile monitoring is the
difficult and more prone to decision errors, the vector
T 2B;p Hotelling‐based charts proposed by Brill14 defined
of profile parameters is usually transferred into statistics
such as T2 Hotelling that can sufficiently describe the in Equation (2):
state of the profile. The T2 Hotelling statistic is then
′

T 2B;p ¼ bp −b S−1
B bp −b ; (2)
monitored by using control chart where faults are
defined as T2 values are outside the calculated upper
control limits (UCLs). where bp is the vector of the model parameters estimates
Because of the complexity of modern systems, the for pth profile and SB is the sample variance‐covariance of
majority of systems/profiles are nonlinear with unknown b estimated by using Equation (3):
or hard to predict structures, ie, polynomial, sum of sines. 2 2 3
S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16
As a result, the need for a generic method to model com- 6 S S2 S S S S 7
6 21 22 23 24 25 26 7
plex profiles with unknown system underlying function is 6 7
S2B fbg ¼ 6
6 : 7 :
7 (3)
considerably important and useful. The purpose of this 6 7
article is to present a new data‐driven approach that can 4 : 5
be used to detect faulty complex systems. The proposed S61 S62 S63 S64 S25 S266
approach uses the power of artificial neural networks
(ANNs) to model complex systems, such as structural The components S211 , S222 ; S233 ; S244 ; S255 ; and S266 are the
ones. Structural systems such as buildings, bridges, and estimated variances of estimated parameters
tunnels are load‐resisting systems where loads from users b
β0 ; b
β1 ; b
β2 ; b
β12 ; b
β11 ; and b
β22 , respectively, while Sij is
and surrounding environment (wind, shocks from earth-
the estimated covariance between i and j coefficients. In
quakes, snow, … etc.) are transferred through intercon-
the case of having q profiles and k coefficients, Tracy
nected elements or members. Structural systems are
et al15 proposed an approximation for UCL for T 2B;p chart
prone to damage and catastrophic consequences under
as shown in Equation (4):
serious faults.
The rest of the article is organized as follows: section 2 ðq−1Þ2
provides a review of the literature related to available UCLB ¼ B1−α;k2 ; ðq−k−1Þ=2; (4)
q
SPC's methods, ANN, and structural damage assessment.
The proposed ANN methodology is presented in section
where α represents the significance level, such as 0.05 or
3 followed by proof of concept in section 4. Analysis and
0.1, and B is the beta distribution with k/2 and
results of a 4‐story reinforced concrete (RC) building data
(q − k − 1)/2 degrees of freedom.
set are discussed in section 5. Finally, conclusions and rec-
Holmes and Mergen16 pointed out that the previous
ommendations for future work are presented in section 6.
method does not take into account the sequential sam-
pling structure of the data and proposed another
2 | L I T E R A T U R E RE V I E W Hotelling‐based control chart shown in Equation (5):

′

Fault detection has been applied successfully in several T 2H;p ¼ bp −b S−1
H bp −b ; (5)
fields, including aerospace,2 electronics,3 medicine,4 auto-
motive,5 and vertical density profiles (VDPs) of wood where the variance‐covariance matrix SH is calculated
boards,6 among others. This section provides a literature based on successive difference of coefficient values from
review on the problem of finding new nonlinear profile one profile to the other. Since T 2H;p relies on the
AWAD ET AL.
successive difference in coefficients estimates, it is more
robust than T 2B;p in detecting sustained shifts in the mean
vector in phase I.17 Scholz and Tosch18 provide an
approximation to the UCL of T 2H;p in Equation (6):
ðq−1Þ2
UCLH ¼ B1−α;k2 ; ðf −k−1Þ=2; (6)
q
2ðq−1Þ2
where f ¼ : as a function of speed in revolutions per minute.
3q−4
Williams et al19 proposed an approximation of T 2H;p
for a large sample size, where q > k2 + 3k as shown in
Equation (7):
UCLH ¼ χ 21−α;k (7)
Literature is rich of examples of using profile monitor-
ing for fault detection. For example, Kang and Albin20
presented 2 examples by using linear profiles: dissolving
of Aspartame in water under different temperature and
semiconductor manufacturing application involving cali-
bration of a mass flow controller. They propose the use
of linear equation parameters (slope and intercept) or
residual to monitor the Aspartame and mass flow
controller.
In general, most physical and chemical phenomena
are better described by a nonlinear relationship than a
linear one. For example, Fan et al12 used nonlinear pro-
files to monitor the reflow step in the surface mount tech-
nology (SMT) process (see Figure 1). They proposed using
the sum of 2‐sine functions, shown in Equation (8), to
model the nonlinear profiles,
FIGURE 1 Surface mount technology process reflow profiles32
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
3




f x ij ; βi ¼ a1i sin b1i x ij þ a2i sin b2i x ij þ c2i þ εij ; (8)
where j = 1, 2…, n and i = 1, 2, …, m.
Alternatively, Jen and Fan11 proposed change point
analysis with second‐order polynomial approximation to
monitor the same SMT reflow process originally intro-
duced by Fan et al.12 Similarly, Amiri et al10 used a sec-
ond‐order polynomial profile to monitor engine torque
Williams et al21 used the data from Winistorfer et al6
to monitor the VDPs of wood boards as a function of
depth. Figure 2 shows the nonlinear relationship between
the density and depth. Williams et al21 used a “bathtub”
shape function to model the boards from the VDP data
with the function shown in Equation (9):
(
a1 ðx i −dÞb1 þ c ; x i > d
f ðx i ; βÞ ¼ ; (9)
a2 ðx i −dÞb2 þ c ; x i ≤ d
where β = [a1, a2, b1, b2, c, d]′
Then, the researchers used 3 types of Hotelling T2 to
detect the outliers: sample covariance matrix T 21 , succes-
sive differences T 22 , and intraprofile pooling T 23 . T 21 and T 22
provided comparable results in detecting sustained shifts
in the bathtub equation parameters while T 23 was less sen-
sitive in detecting these shifts. Finally, Awad22 proposed
the use of polynomial regression residuals by using count
of nonconformity c‐charts to detect anomalies of smart
fuel systems. Although c‐charts are traditionally used to
monitor count of nonconformities or defects such as
cracks, pinholes, and mistakes,1 the author used large
residual values as nonconformities. Residual is the differ-
ence between actual system response and predicted one
FIGURE 2 Vertical density profile relationship between the
density and the depth6
4 AWAD ET AL.

using polynomial function developed by using healthy 2.2 | Artificial neural networks (ANN)
profiles only. The results of the proposed method show
Artificial neural network (ANN) is an oversimplified rep-
an improvement in detecting known faulty profiles over
resentation of the neuron interconnections in the human
the traditional T2–based control charts.
brain. It has been used in many applications due to its
In some cases, relationships are complex with numer-
universal flexibility in modeling highly nonlinear
ous parameters needed to describe the response as a
responses, robustness against noisy data, and ability of
function of input variables. Therefore, under certain con-
learning and working around erroneous data. In the
ditions, a nonparametric method becomes a more rea-
ANN, activation functions read data inputs (xi) from
sonable and effective substitute since it offers flexibility
upstream neurons and produce nonlinear responses (y)
in modeling responses. Examples of nonparametric
based on a combination function such as the sigmoid.
methods are Kernel density, nonparametric regression,
Next, the response is channeled downstream to other
K‐Nearest Neighbors algorithm, wavelet transforma-
neurons. Figure 3 depicts the architecture of ANN and
tion,23 Fourier transformation,24 Kernel smoothing, and
the feed‐forward single direction nature of data propaga-
neural networks. For example, Jeong et al23 used wavelet
tion. In this network, a 2‐stage regression or classification
transformation with adaptive thresholds method to mon-
with 1 hidden layer is used to model 1 response using 3
itor plasma etching in semiconductor manufacturing
input variables. The output response Z is the output layer
process using spectroscopy. The proposed method
coded variable, while the derived features Ak are created
extracts several significant coefficients from original
based on activation function of the linear combinations
functional data in the wavelet domain and monitors
of the input variables Xi, bias term, and weights. The
“in” and “out of control events”. Similarly, Winistorfer
input variable weights are represented by wij and bias
et al6 used cubic spline regression technique to model
term feeds into every unit in the hidden and output layers
the VDP‐oriented strand board panels mentioned earlier.
with weights w0j as shown in Equation (10):
Finally, Walker and Wright25 used new additive models
to fit complex curves to monitor VDP density in a non-  
parametric way and assess the differences between Am ¼ f w0m þ wTij X i ; m ¼ 1; …; M: (10)
curves using parametric terms.
Although a nonparametric approach is useful, the The activation function f is usually chosen to be the
output is usually difficult if not impossible to interpret sigmoid function10,37-39 due to its flexibility in capturing
and typically provides lower “power” (in type II error nearly linear, curvilinear, and constant behavior depend-
sense) than parametric methods. Similar to the paramet- ing on input variables. The sigmoid function takes real‐
ric approach, the nonparametric approach also requires valued input and returns 0 to 1 values as shown in
a prior knowledge of the best fitting technique such as Equation (11):
polynomials, splines, or wavelets. As a result, the need
for a generic approach to model complex profiles without 1
f ðv Þ ¼ : (11)
prior knowledge of system underlying function is consid- ð1 þ e−v Þ
erably useful. In this article, we propose the use of ANN
modeling, which is very flexible in modeling different The number of input nodes depends on the number of
underlying structures and can almost accommodate any predictors. A back‐propagation supervised learning tech-
number of variables. nique is usually used to select the optimal values of the

FIGURE 3 Schematic of a single

hidden layer, feed forward NN [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]
AWAD ET AL.
weights such that the sum of squares of errors is mini-
mized. Several researchers used ANN in modeling SPCs.
For example, Kim et al26 proposed the use of ANN to
model structure acceleration signals to detect damage
magnitude and location. Similarly, Park et al27 used
sequential approaches to detect damage in beams using
both time‐modal features as well as ANN.
3 | PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
Data‐driven approaches for fault detection are very useful
for complex systems where system physics of failure is
challenging. The proposed ANN fault detection method
consists of the following 5 major steps:
1. Data collection: data are collected either remotely in
real‐time fashion during operation or off‐line at fixed
intervals. Data obtained consist of all potential input
variables and output performance data. Verified and
validated simulation models capable of reliably mim-
icking the system can also be used as well as a cheap
and feasible way to collect data.
2. Feature selection: to ease calculations and processing
time, a subset of collected data might be sufficient
for fault detection where few vital variables provide
a good representation to the phenomenon under
study. The selection of these vital variables, also
called features, can be done by using statistical tools
such as correlation matrix or principal component
analysis, or a mix of both techniques.
3. Building ANN model: 1 or more of the variables is
mathematically described as a function of other vari-
ables. Since the underlying structure of such relation-
ship is unknown, ANN is used due to its flexibility.
Artificial neural network models are developed by
using minimum number of parameters (weights/
biases) and reasonable accuracy, ie, coefficient of
determination R2 ≥ 80%. One important step in
ANN is data normalization and standardization
where ANN network input and output variables are
scaled between 0 and 1. Normalization and standard-
ization usually make training faster and increases
chances of getting optimal values of weights and
biases instead of near‐optimal ones, ie, getting stuck
in local optimal instead of global one. As a result,
normalization and standardization enhance the pre-
diction capabilities of the ANN model
4. Hotelling T2 statistic estimation: the weights and biases
of the ANN models developed for each profile in the
previous step are used to form a weight matrix W sim-
ilar to coefficient matrix b discussed earlier. Next, the
mean vector and sample variance‐covariance matrix
5
are generated from the W weight matrix and a
Hotelling T 2B statistic is calculated for each profile.
5. Charting: Hotelling statistics calculated earlier are
charted after estimating UCL proposed by Tracy
et al15 as shown in Equation (4) above and flag any
profiles above UCL as “faulty.”
The power of the proposed method will be assessed by
using average run length (ARL) and false positives rate.
Average run length reflects the ability of the method to
detect shifts in the profile location and/or shape.
4 | P R O O F O F CO N C E PT
To validate the ability of the proposed method in detect-
ing faults, 2 case studies reported in literature are exam-
ined by using proposed method. The 2 cases are VDP
presented in previous studies,6,21,25 and SMT process
reflow presented in previous works.10-12
4.1 | Vertical density profile (VDP) case
Vertical density is recorded for 24 specimens of wood
across depth D of specimens21 as shown in Figure 2. Arti-
ficial neural network layout used in the proposed method
is shown in Figure 4 where W1 and W2 are the input
weights, b1 and b2 are input biases, and WL1, WL2, and
bLare the output layer weights and bias, respectively.
For each ith profile, 61 VDP points were recorded at
different depths D = 0, 0.01, 0.02, …, 0.6. The VDP point
at jth depth for ith profile VDPij is predicted by using
the 2 neurons one layer ANN model shown in Figure 4
and using Equation (12):
1
VDPij ¼ WL1i (12)
−αðW1i Dij þb1i Þ
1þe
1
þ WL2i þ bLi:
−αðW 2i Dij þb2i Þ
1þe
The number of neurons and layers is selected by the
user. Several alternatives of ANN layout were investi-
gated, and a final one is selected such that the resulted
prediction model has accurate prediction (R2 ≥ 80 % )
and has minimum number of neurons and layers. Usu-
ally, the user starts with the simplest network with 1
input layer and 1 hidden layer and adds more layers or
neurons if R2 threshold is not achieved. Starting with a
complex network may lead to “overfitting,” where model
is forced to go through every actual data point, which
results into a complicated network with a compromised
prediction power. There are some empirically derived
6 AWAD ET AL.

FIGURE 4 Vertical density profile

artificial neural network layout [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]

TABLE 1 VDP case ANN weights and biases

Profile W1 b1 W2 b2 WL1 WL2 bL

1 −0.5964 −0.0480 1.1546 0.8274 0.4927 −1.5305 −0.9064

2 −0.6545 −0.1645 1.3516 1.0133 0.6495 −1.4843 −0.5676
3 −0.5895 −0.0538 1.1578 0.8422 0.4922 −1.4941 −0.8651
4 −0.5712 −0.0222 1.0498 0.7564 0.4264 −1.4885 −0.9822
5 −0.5882 −0.0579 1.1664 0.8510 0.4946 −1.4868 −0.8494
6 −0.5891 −0.0439 1.1303 0.8168 0.4750 −1.5188 −0.9233
7 −0.5255 −0.0377 0.9902 0.7942 0.3646 −1.3493 −0.9076
8 −0.5703 −0.0500 1.1168 0.8284 0.4571 −1.4534 −0.8749
9 −0.5061 −0.0134 0.8615 0.7286 0.3000 −1.3176 −0.9875
10 −0.4796 −0.0682 0.8885 0.7951 0.3118 −1.1567 −0.7834
11 −0.6582 −0.0758 1.2899 0.8968 0.6145 −1.6437 −0.8355
12 −0.5501 −0.0971 1.1256 0.8866 0.4557 −1.3252 −0.7185
13 −0.5553 −0.0732 1.1194 0.8668 0.4524 −1.3778 −0.7897
14 −0.5276 −0.0723 1.0538 0.8501 0.4027 −1.3073 −0.7906
15 −0.4787 0.0050 0.6755 0.6770 0.2100 −1.2574 −1.0581
16 −0.5087 −0.0358 0.9397 0.7845 0.3289 −1.3039 −0.9116
17 −0.5125 −0.0917 1.0293 0.8509 0.3916 −1.2202 −0.7139
18 −0.5536 −0.0048 0.9621 0.7032 0.3718 −1.4723 −1.0566
19 −0.4487 0.0155 0.4220 0.5416 0.3032 −0.9325 −0.7045
20 −0.4841 −0.0304 0.8392 0.7585 0.2747 −1.2276 −0.9162
21 −0.6336 −0.1082 1.2877 0.9453 0.5969 −1.5267 −0.7164
22 −0.5842 −0.0588 1.1584 0.8503 0.4866 −1.4780 −0.8507
23 −0.6891 −0.1091 1.3681 0.9691 0.6786 −1.6675 −0.7443
24 −0.4800 −0.0049 0.7307 0.7019 0.2295 −1.2438 −1.0089
_
W −0.5556 −0.0542 1.0362 0.8140 0.4275 −1.3860 −0.8526

Abbreviations: ANN, artificial neural network; VDP, vertical density profile.

AWAD ET AL.
rules of thumb regarding the optimal number of layers
and neurons, which can be used as a starting point.28
It is critical to use the same initial solution for each
profile so the fitting algorithm converges to similar final
weights and biases. Weights and biases resulted from
fitting all 24 profiles are summarized in Table 1.
The Brill Hotelling T2 is estimated by using Equa-
tion (13) shown as follows:

′

T 2B;p ¼ W p −W S−1
W W p −W ; (13)
where Wp is the weights matrix of all profiles with a size
of 7 rows and 24 columns, W is the weight averages, and
SW is the variance‐covariance matrix of the weights
matrix.
Figure 5A shows the Hotelling chart as developed by
Walker and Wright25 using additive model, while
Figure 5B depicts the results of the ANN proposed
method. Walker and Wright25 method detected 2 faulty
profiles out of 24, namely, profiles 15 and 18, while our
proposed ANN method detected 3 faulty ones: profiles
4, 15, and 18. The T2 value of profile 4 was very close in
FIGURE 5 (A) Vertical density profile case developed by Walker
and Wright25 and (B) proposed artificial neural network method
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
7
Walker and Wright chart but did not pass the UCL. In
general, the overall pattern of the 2 charts were compara-
ble; however, the ANN proposed method individual T2
were slightly higher.
4.2 | SMT reflow process
Surface mount technology reflow process is a common
step in electronics industry. The input variable in the pro-
cess reflow is time, while the output variable is tempera-
ture. Each profile consists of 48 measurements as shown
in Figure 1. Several authors used this process to demon-
strate the effectiveness of their T2‐based proposed
methods using the ARL metric.10-12
Figure 6 depicts Hotelling chart results for the 16 pro-
files fitted by using the sum of 2‐sine functions12 and pro-
posed ANN method. Similar to the VDP example, the
proposed method used 1 layer and 2 neurons ANN archi-
tecture. Both methods flagged the first profile as “faulty.”
In addition, the proposed ANN method identified 3 more
faulty profiles, namely, 12, 15, and 16. It is worth
(A)
(B)
(B)
FIGURE 6 Surface mount technology process reflow results: (A)
sum of sine method12 and (B) artificial neural network method
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
8 AWAD ET AL.

mentioning here that the polynomial regression T2 and release it to the customer with high risk of failure
method proposed by Jen and Fan11 shows profiles 12, and potential severe consequences. Alternatively, a false
15, and 16 very close to the UCL. positive decision leads to declaring a healthy system as
faulty and triggering an additional inspection steps.
When compared with traditional methods, the T2
4.3 | Method comparison Hotelling statistic generated by the proposed method is,
Comparing the results for both VDP and SMT cases, it is on average, higher. Figures 7 and 8 plot the traditional
evident that the proposed ANN is more conservative in T2 Hotelling statistic against the ANN one along with
detecting faulty profiles. In the VDP case, traditional the 45° equivalency line for the VDP and SMT,
methods detected 2 faulty profiles out of 24, while the respectively.
proposed ANN method detected 3 faulty ones. Similarly,
in the SMT process reflow case, traditional methods
detected 1 faulty profile out of 16 while proposed ANN
method classified 4 as faulty. Moreover, the automotive
case presented by Amir et al,10 who used a linear mixed
model to investigate the health of 26 engines, was also
investigated by using the ANN proposed method.
Although ANN method T2 is higher than the traditional
linear model one proposed by Amir et al,10 both methods
declared all engines as healthy. Table 2 summarizes the
results of the 3 cases based on the false positive rate of
ANN method assuming that number of faulty profiles
detected by traditional methods is accurate.
The results above indicate a positive false rate range FIGURE 7 Vertical density profile case Hotelling statistic
of 0% to 19% depending on the complexity of the underly- comparison [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
ing structure of the model between response and input com]
variables. This is evident by comparing the models of
the 3 cases above; the automotive case has a slight non-
linear model with one deflection point, VDP is a pure
parabolic model, and finally, the SMT model is highly
nonlinear profile as shown by Figure 1. Although false
positives are not generally a desirable outcome, the con-
sequences are occasionally not that severe. This is of
course case dependent. For example, in the SMT case, 4
boards would be sent for investigation instead of 1, which
adds a little more inspection time and cost. In other cases,
this could be much more expensive especially when
inspection is destructive or time‐consuming. The bright
side here, the proposed ANN method resulted in zero
false negatives in all 3 cases investigated above, which is FIGURE 8 Surface mount technology case Hotelling statistic
more critical than false positives. A false negative deci- comparison [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
sion leads to declaring a faulty profile/system as healthy com]

TABLE 2 Result comparison

Number of Faulty Number of Faulty ANN False Positive

Profiles Detected by Profiles Detected by nANN− nt
Rate = ×100%
Case Traditional Model Used Traditional Method nt Proposed Method nANN No:of Profiles
25
VDP Additive model 2 out of 24 profiles 3 out of 24 4.17%
12
SMT reflow Sum of sines, fourth‐order 1 out of 16 4 out of 16 18.75%
polynomial
Automotive10 Modified linear 0 out of 26 0 out of 26 0%
AWAD ET AL.
To investigate the sensitivity of the polynomial regres-
sion method in detecting sustained shifts, Jen and Fan11
performed ARL evaluation under diverse shifts in the 5
parameters by using 200 simulation profiles for each
experiment. The maximum run length is limited to 200
as carried out by other researchers.10 The same method
of ARL calculation was carried out for the proposed
ANN method, and results are summarized in Table 3
along with polynomial and sum of sine results.
The ARL analysis started with generating response
data using the sum of sine model shown in Equation (8)
due to its accuracy in predicting output (the coefficient
of determination R2 ≥ 0.99 for all profiles). The average
parameter estimates based on the healthy profiles only
were treated as the true estimates and were used to sim-
ulate samples for the simulation study. The shifts are per-
formed in a one‐parameter‐at‐a‐time manner and
estimated as a multiple of the parameter's standard devi-
ation. The multiplier λ ranges from 0.5 to 3.0 standard
deviations. This type of shift affects the parameter loca-
tion only and causes the response output values and/or
shape of curve to change. The error term in Equation (8)
is simulated by using a normally distributed random var-
iable with zero mean and constant variance. The constant
variance is assumed to be equivalent to the mean squared
error obtained from the fitted results in the model build-
ing stage as reported in Fan et al.12 For example, and in
the case of shifting a1 parameter, the shifted responses
are generated by using Equation (8) as follows:




f x ij ; βi ¼ ða1i þ λσ a1 Þ sin b1i x ij þ a2i sin b2i x ij þ c2i þ εij :
Assuming λ = 0.5 and using the average and standard
deviation of a1 and mean squared error of fitted results
reported by Fan et al,12 which are 221.9940, 2.4593, and
14.197, respectively, the response will be
 


bf x ij ; β ¼ ð221:9940 þ ð0:5Þð2:4593ÞÞ sin b b1i x ij
i
   pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a2i sin b
þb b2i x ij þ bc2i þ N e 0; 14:197Þ:
The resulted response data are fitted by using the
ANN model, then the Hotelling T2 statistic is estimated
by using the weights matrix representing the healthy pro-
files only, ie, all profiles except the 4 faulty ones. Based on
the T2 value, the simulated model is declared either
healthy or faulty. This process is repeated, and the ARL
is averaged across 1000 simulation cycles.
A MATLAB28 code is developed to introduce 3 levels
of shifts in the 5 parameters of the sum of sine function
using λ = 0.5, 1.5, and 5, respectively. The ARL results
summarized in Table 2 indicate that overall the pro-
posed ANN method detects out‐of‐control ARL shifts
9
faster than the other 2 traditional methods especially
for small shifts, ie, λ = 0.5 − 1.5 . However, the sum
of sine functions and polynomial regression methods
detects bigger shifts in a1 faster than the proposed
method. For other parameters such as a2, b1, b2,and c2,
ANN results were comparable if not slightly faster than
the other 2 traditional methods.
5 | S T R UC T UR AL D AM AG E C AS E
STUDY
In this section, the proposed ANN method is applied to
damage detection in structural systems. Structural sys-
tems are generally rather complex with several parame-
ters that influence its response, such as material
properties, geometry, and applied loads. A common prac-
tice for structural health monitoring (SHM) is the deploy-
ment of various sensors to detect different indications of
damages such as cracks, excessive deflections, and/or
accelerations. Such monitoring systems are typically
expensive installations that require continuous operation.
Implementing a robust fault detection method is of a par-
amount value since it enhances occupants' safety and
maintenance cost reduction. Reliance on cumbersome
and expensive expert inspections can be complemented,
if not significantly reduced. Data‐driven methods provide
a strong candidate for faster and more cost‐effective alter-
native solutions.
Structural damage may be caused by earthquake
effects, among many types of loading conditions.
Researchers tried different methods to detect damage.
These methods can be grouped into 4 major groups:
SHM, crack identification, displacement and deflection
identification, and finally acceleration measurement.
In SHM, Kaya and Safak29 proposed monitoring
vibrations and extracting critical features influencing
damage initiation and location. Nazarko and
Ziemiański30 also discussed SHM and proposed investi-
gating elastic wave propagation in solid phenomena and
describe it quantitatively and qualitatively. Monajemi
et al31 used the damaging locating vector method where
flexibility matrix is dynamically measured to identify
and localize the damage in a structure.
Other researchers focused on crack identification and
localization. For example, Toan and Khiem32 proposed a
numerically and experimentally validated way to detect
the number of cracks in a beam using its natural frequen-
cies. They derived a nonlinear expression of the natural
frequency and used it along with crack scanning method
to quantify beam cracks. Similarly, Barada et al33 studied
crack detection by using natural frequencies to detect the
location and size of the crack. Kuang34 used graded‐index
10 AWAD ET AL.

TABLE 3 ARL comparison results for SMT reflow case

ARL Values in a1 + λσa1 (maximum in control ARL = 200)

Method λ
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Proposed ANN method 6.4 4.1 4.8 3.7 3.0 3.4
Sum of sine functions 141.39 65.95 11.073 2.59 1.257 1.01
Polynomial regression 96.151 21.963 4.899 1.835 1.191 1.02
ARL values in a2 + λσa2 (maximum in control ARL = 200)
ARL T2 λ
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Proposed ANN method 16 1.2 1 1 1 1
Sum of sine functions 45.898 5.546 1.654 1.072 1.003 1
Polynomial regression 47.558 6.737 2.036 1.161 1.013 1
ARL values in b1 + λσb1 (maximum in control ARL = 200)
ARL T2 λ
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Proposed ANN method 9.10 3 1.40 1.20 1.00 1.00
Sum of sine functions 114.74 30.17 5.90 1.83 1.14 1.01
Polynomial regression 141.34 123.29 88.70 51.74 26.00 12.85
ARL values in b2 + λσb2 (maximum in control ARL = 200)
ARL T2 λ
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Proposed ANN method 5.7 3.2 2.3 1.5 1 1
Sum of sine functions 85.35 15.957 3.47 1.263 1.007 1
Polynomial regression 151.796 137.381 109.027 66.479 37.282 17.84
ARL values in c2 + λσc2 (maximum in control ARL = 200)
ARL T2 λ
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Proposed ANN method 3.2 1.0 1.0 1 1 1
Sum of sine functions 2.524 1.002 1 1 1 1
Polynomial regression 198.784 23.792 1.049 1 1 1

Abbreviations: ANN, artificial neural network; ARL, average run length; SMT, surface mount technology.

per fluorinated plastic optical fiber to detect position and
growth of cracks in steel structures. Finally, Asnaashari
and Sinha35 used operational deflection shape and resid-
ual operational deflection shape to study the dynamic
behavior of structures; however, it does not identify the
location of the crack.
In displacement and deflection, Sładek et al36 used 2‐
point images and homograph mapping to analyze dis-
placement and calculate structure deflection field. A
more advanced vision–based method discussed by Guo
and Zhu37 involved using a high‐speed camera capable
of capturing hundred frames per second. Then, the
frames are processed by using Lucas‐Kanade template
tracking algorithm to measure accurate displacements of
structures.
The last group of researchers focused on acceleration
detection. For example, Liao et al38 used an open source
wireless infrastructural monitoring system (SnowFort) to
test the damage detection aimed at defining the nonlinear
behavior of steel frames during several severe earth-
quakes. Similarly, Huh et al39 proposed using vibratory
power of the damaged structures by measuring accelera-
tion to identify damage. More specifically, the historical
record of the instant power in the damaged area is traced
and analyzed by using the spatial distribution and trans-
formed it into a damage index. Recently, some unconven-
tional SHM techniques have been adopted form
mechanical systems into structural systems.40-42 Almost
all of the above mentioned methods for structural integrity
monitoring require either cutting‐edge technology for data
AWAD ET AL. 11

collection or signal processing, which mandates high ini-

Damage (OSD)
tial implementation cost.

Structural
Overall Structural damage results from nonlinear and inelas-
tic structural response. Capturing these effects (inelastic

0.9
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.0
deformation demands) during seismic events is a routine
exercise. It has been the focus of a great number of inves-
Velocity

tigations. Because of recent improvements to the compu-

Story

Drift

tational power and modeling capabilities, profound

0.6
−0.4
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.5
0.9
1.0
insights into these phenomena are reached on a daily
basis. Consequently, structures with superior seismic
Acceleration

behavior and response are designed.47-55

In this section, the proposed ANN method is applied
to a 4‐story RC structure. Since acquiring real‐time data
0.7
−0.4
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.5
1.0
for structural acceleration and displacement is expensive
and time‐consuming, high‐fidelity nonlinear simulations
Velocity

are used at this proof‐of‐concept stage. The modeling

and analyses of the 4‐story structure is done by the
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.9
1.0

IDARC‐2D software platform.43-45 The structural system

details are omitted for brevity purposes. The reader is
Displacement

referred to the original source for full details.46

Seventeen input variables were initially considered as
potential input factors affecting structural damage while
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
1.0

TABLE 5 Structural case profiles

Story
Drift

4‐Story Fc, ksi

0.6
−0.4
0.8
0.6
1.0
1.0

Profile Number Profile Actual Status

1 4.430 Healthy
Ratio, %

2 2.300 Faulty
Drift

0.6
−0.4
0.8
0.6
1.0

3 5.014 Healthy
4 4.329 Healthy
5 4.462 Healthy
Col‐Wall

6 4.485 Healthy
0.3
−0.3
0.2
1.0

7 5.065 Healthy
8 4.292 Healthy
Beam‐Slab

9 7.130 Faulty
Four‐story building variable correlation matrix

0.6
−0.4
1.0

10 4.853 Healthy
11 2.500 Faulty
Story

12 4.742 Healthy
0.1
1.0

13 5.106 Healthy
14 4.255 Healthy
Peak Ground

15 3.910 Faulty
16 4.825 Healthy
Acc., g

17 5.170 Healthy
1.0

18 7.958 Faulty
Peak ground Acc., g

19 4.492 Healthy
Story velocity drift

20 4.180 Healthy
Displacement
Drift ratio, %

Acceleration

21 4.973 Healthy
Beam‐slab

Story drift
TABLE 4

Col‐wall

Velocity

22 3.956 Faulty
Story

OSD

23 4.637 Healthy
12 AWAD ET AL.

responses of interest are overall structural damage (OSD), cumbersome, and model inputs should be independent,
beam slab damage, and col‐wall damage. Since dealing a correlation study between input variables is carried
with too many variables will make the model handling out first to reduce the size of input matrix. Table 4 below

FIGURE 9 Structural case artificial

neural network layout [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 6 4‐story structure artificial neural network weights and T2 values

Profile FC W12 W22 b2 WL1 bL T2

1 4.43 −6.212 0.003 7.576 24.450 76.742 1.96

2 2.3 33.956 −1.306 32.177 137.103 −2.355 22.92
3 5.014 −6.327 −0.005 7.239 24.450 53.227 15.01
4 4.329 −6.395 0.002 7.657 24.450 78.608 1.01
5 4.462 −6.211 0.002 7.576 24.450 78.607 1.02
6 4.485 −5.955 0.003 7.460 24.450 76.739 1.21
7 5.065 −3.374 0.005 5.567 24.450 35.454 12.08
8 4.292 −6.941 0.002 7.887 24.450 78.826 2.84
9 7.13 1.462 0.006 −1.323 17.550 −0.699 25.35
10 4.853 −3.388 0.005 5.821 24.450 45.630 7.3
11 2.5 −12.812 0.000 9.618 24.450 85.813 24.68
12 4.742 −3.513 0.005 5.996 24.450 50.748 6.55
13 5.106 −4.125 0.001 6.205 24.450 47.564 4.06
14 4.255 −7.425 0.004 7.970 24.450 71.999 5.63
15 3.91 −0.255 −0.001 3.346 24.450 86.127 21.78
16 4.825 −5.943 −0.002 7.586 24.450 85.869 6.14
17 5.17 −3.656 0.001 6.577 24.450 86.470 19.16
18 7.958 211.337 1.845 2.025 1.068 −2.715 26.17
19 4.492 −6.073 0.002 7.450 24.450 71.995 1.33
20 4.18 −6.337 0.005 7.762 24.450 86.272 4.97
21 4.973 −5.740 −0.008 7.458 24.450 86.389 14.48
22 3.956 −6.480 0.002 7.800 24.450 86.390 19.93
23 4.637 −5.159 0.003 7.265 24.450 86.399 5.28
AWAD ET AL.
shows part of the correlation matrix where cell entries
represent Pearson correlation coefficient ρ between col-
umn and raw variables. Some of these inputs are horizon-
tal g acceleration, beam‐slab, col‐wall, drift ratio, story
drift, displacement, velocity, acceleration, story velocity
drift, and OSD. The majority of input variables were
highly correlated (ρ > 0.75). As a result, only 3 factors
are selected: peak ground acceleration, story level, and
story acceleration.
To generate known healthy and known faulty profiles,
simulation with dynamic waves is applied on the 4‐story
structure with diverse concrete properties. From physics
of failure, it is well known that concrete compression
strength (Fc) is a critical factor affecting structural integrity
significantly. The normal range of concrete strength
(4.6412 ± 13%) is used to generate 17 healthy profiles, ie,
within Fc normal range, in addition to 6 faulty ones beyond
Fc limits. The faulty profiles consist of 4 profiles with low
concrete strengths, (2.3, 2.5, 3.91, and 3.956 ksi) and
another 2 with high concrete strength values (7.13 and
7.958 ksi). The known 6 faulty profiles were used to vali-
date the proposed ANN method ability of faulty profile
detection. Table 5 shows all structure profile classification.
Next, OSD was modeled by using ANN as a function
of earthquake peak ground acceleration, story level, and
story acceleration. The ANN layout used is shown in
Figure 9 below where Wij are the inputs weights, i repre-
sents input neuron, j represents output neuron, b1 and b2
are the input biases, and WL1, WL2, and bL are the layer's
weights and bias, respectively.
Table 6 below shows the weights and biases along
with the T2 of the 4‐story building OSD resulted from
ANN model fitting, while Figure 10 shows the Hotelling
chart accordingly. The chart flagged 5 of the 6 known
faulty profiles (Fc = 2.3, 7.13, 2.5, 3.91, and 7.958 ksi).
The sixth known faulty profile (Fc = 3.956 ksi) had T2
value slightly below UCL but beyond the median. Keep
in mind that the sixth profile of Fc = 3.956 has a concrete
FIGURE 10 4‐story building Hotelling chart [Colour figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
13
compression strength value very close to the lower speci-
fication limit of 4.037 ksi. Examining the relationship
between T2 value and compressive concrete strength indi-
cates a strong correlation between the 2 variables. The
further the compressive strength from the nominal value,
the higher the T2 value.
In summary, the results suggest that the proposed
method is capable of accurately detecting faulty profiles
except for the marginal 3.956 one. The main advantage
of the proposed method is that it does not need a previous
knowledge about the response curve's shape or the behav-
ior of physical properties in the system, which other non-
linear‐based methods require. Other traditional methods
assume that the system behavior can be described by
using a polynomial or sum of sine function before using
Hotelling method. Such assumption might not be valid
in many applications.
6 | C ON C L U S I ON S
The current research presents a data‐driven methodology
for fault detection of complex arrays such as structural
systems via multivariate SPC and use of ANNs. The pro-
posed method is based on modeling the system outputs
using ANN as a function of input variables such as the
earthquake signal in the structural system case. The
Hotelling T2 technique is then used to identify any shifts
of ANN weights and biases from the healthy state. The
validity of the proposed method was verified by using 3
cases found in the literature and showed comparable if
not better results than traditional methods. The proposed
method detected small‐to‐medium shifts in profile
parameters faster than traditional ones, ie, lower ARL.
Lastly, the proposed method is used to monitor
faults in a structural system (4‐story RC building). The
proposed method was successful in detecting 5 out of
6 known faulty profiles and missed a marginal one.
Data for the structural case were collected by using sim-
ulations of the structural damage caused by an increas-
ing‐intensity earthquake. A successful real‐time SHM
implementation of the proposed method will increase
safety and reduce potential maintenance and opera-
tional costs. It will also provide significant financial
and customer competitive edge since it gives decision‐
makers lead‐time and flexibility to manage structural
systems' conditions. The methodology presented in this
research is scalable and can be applied to a wide range
of systems to assess their health from an inspection
check to anticipate and avoid failures. The optimal
number of neurons, hidden layers, and the impact on
accuracy of the proposed method is an area that is
worth studying in the future.
14
ORCID
Mohammad AlHamaydeh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
5004-0778
R EF E RE N C E S
1. Montgomery DC. Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. 7th
ed. New York: Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2015.
2. Vichare N, Pecht M. Prognostics and health management of
electronics. IEEE Trans Compon Packag Technol.
2006;29(1):222‐229.
3. Ferrell B. JSF prognostics and health management. In: IEEE
Aerospace Conference, 1999.
4. Pepe M. The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classifica-
tion and Prediction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2003.
5. Gusikhin O, Rychtyckyj N, Filev D. Intelligent systems in the
automotive industry: applications and trends. Knowl Inf Syst.
2007;12(2):147‐168.
6. Winistorfer PM, Young TM, Walker E. Modeling and comparing
vertical density profiles. Wood Fiber Sci. 1996;29(1):133‐140.
7. Kang L, Albin SL. On‐line monitoring when the process yields a
linear profile. J Qual Technol. 2000;32(4):418‐426.
8. Mahmoud M. Phase I analysis of multiple regressionlinear pro-
files. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2008;37(10):2106‐2130.
9. Ding Y, Zeng L, Zhou S. Phase I analysis for monitoring nonlin-
ear profiles in manufacturing processes. J Qual Technol.
2006;38(3):199‐216.
10. Amiri A, Jensen W, Kazemzadeh R. A case study on monitoring
polynomial profiles in the automotive industry. Qual Relib Eng
Int. 2010;26:509‐520.
11. Jen C‐H, Fan S‐KS. Profile monitoring of reflow process using
approximations of mixture second‐order polynomials. J
Chemometr. 2014;28(12):815‐833.
12. Fan S‐KS, Chang Y‐J, Aidara N. Nonlinear profile monitoring of
reflow process data based on the sum of sine functions. Qual
Reliab Eng Int. 2013;29(5):743‐758.
13. Woodall WH, Sptizner DJ, Montgomery DC, Gupta S. Using
control charts to monitor process and product profiles. J Qual
Technol. 2004;36(3):309‐320.
14. Brill RV. A case study for control charting a product quality
measure that is a continuous function over time. In: 45th
Annual Fall Technical Conference, Toronto, Ontario, 2001.
15. Tracy ND, Young J, Mason R. Multivariate control charts for
individual observations. J Qual Technol. 1992;24:88‐95.
16. Holmes D, Mergen A. Improving the performance of the T2 con-
trol chart. Qual Eng. 1993;5(4):619‐625.
17. Sullivan JH, Woodall WH. A comparison of multivariate quality
control charts for individual observations. J Qual Technol.
1996;28(4):398‐408.
18. Scholz FW, Tosch TJ. Small sample uni‐ and multivariate con-
trol charts for means. In: Proceedings of the American
Statistical Association, Quality andProductivity Section. 1994.
AWAD ET AL.
19. Williams J, Woodall W, Birch J, Sullivan J. Distribution of
Hotelling's T2 statistic based on the successive differences esti-
mator. J Qual Technol. 2006;38(3):217‐229, 2006.
20. Kang L, Albin S. On‐line monitoring when the process yields a
linear profile. J Qual Technol. 2000;35(4):317‐328.
21. Williams JD, Woodall WH, Jeffrey BB. Phase I monitoring of
nonlinear profiles. In: Quality and Productivity, Yorktown
Heights, New York, 2003.
22. Awad M. Fault detection of fuel systems using polynomial
regression profile monitoring. Qual Reliab Eng Int.
2017;33(4):905‐920.
23. Jeong Y‐S, Kim B, Ko Y‐DK. Exponentially weighted moving
average‐based procedure with adaptive thresholding for moni-
toring nonlinear profiles: monitoring of plasma etch process in
semiconductor manufacturing. Expert Syst Appl.
2013;40(14):5688‐5693.
24. Oppenheim AW, Willsky AS, Nawab SH. Signals and Systems.
2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.; 1997.
25. Walker E, W. SP. Comparing curves using additive models. J
Qual Technol. 2002;34(1):118‐129.
26. Kim J‐T, Park J‐H, Koo K‐Y, Lee J‐Y. Acceleration‐based neural
networks algorithm for damage detection in structures. Smart
Systems and Structures. 2008;4(5):583‐604.
27. Park JH, Kim JT, Hong DS, Ho DD, Yi JH. Sequential damage
detection approaches for beams using time‐modal features and
artificial neural networks. J Sound Vib. 2009;323(2):451‐474.
28. [Online]. Available: https://www.mathworks.com/. [Accessed
25 8 2017].
29. Kaya Y, Safak E. Chapter 2 Real‐time structural health monitor-
ing and damage detection. In: Topics in Dynamics of Civil
Structures. Vol.4 New York: Springer‐Verlag; 2013.
30. Nazarko P, Ziemiański L. Application of the elastic waves and
neural networks as a tool of damage detection and health moni-
toring in aircraft's structures. Procedia Eng. 2015;114(1):393‐400.
31. Monajemi H, Abdul Razak H, Ismail Z. Damage detection in
frame structures using damage locating vectors. Measurement.
2013;46(9):3541‐3548.
32. Toan L, Khiem N. A novel method for crack detection in beam‐
like structures by measurements of natural frequencies. J Sound
Vib. 2014;333(18):4084‐4103.
33. Barada KH, Sharmaa D, Vyas V. Crack detection in cantile-
ver beam by frequency based method. Procedia Eng.
2013;51(3):770‐775.
34. Kuang K. Distributed damage detection of offshore steel struc-
tures using plastic optical fibre sensors. Sens Actuators A Phys.
2015;229:59‐67.
35. Asnaashari E, Sinha JK. Development of residual operational
deflection shape for crack detection in structures. Mech Syst Sig-
nal Process. 2014;43(1–2):113‐123.
36. Sładek J, Ostrowska K, Kohut P, Holak K, Gąskab A, Uhl T.
Development of a vision based deflection measurement
system and its accuracy assessment. Measurement. 2013;
46(3):1237‐1249.
AWAD ET AL.
37. Guo J, Zhu C. Dynamic displacement measurement of large‐
scale structures based on the Lucas–Kanade template tracking
algorithm. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2015;66‐67(1):425‐436.
38. Liao Y, Balafas K, Kiremidjian A, Rajagopal R, Loh C‐H. Appli-
cation of acceleration‐based damage detection algorithms to
experimental data from multi‐story steel structures.
39. Huh YC, Chung TY, Moon SJ, Kil HG, Kim JK. Damage detec-
tion in beams using vibratory power estimated from the
measured accelerations. J Sound Vib. 2011;330(15):3645‐3665.
40. AlHamaydeh M, Wong K, Fernandes R, Seok J, Abdel‐Rahman
E, El‐Borgi S. Structural health monitoring using time‐delay
embedding and phase‐space warping. In: The 5th International
Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering (COMPDYN2015), May 25–27,
2015: 2568–2575.
41. Kijewski‐Correa T, Kwon DK, Kareem A, et al. SmartSync: An
Integrated Real‐Time Structural Health Monitoring and
Structural Identification System for Tall Buildings. Journal of
Structural Engineering. 2013;139(10):1675‐1687. http://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943‐541X.0000560
42. Jindal A, Liu M. Networked computing in wireless sensor net-
works for structural health monitoring. IEEE/ACM Trans
Networking. 2012;20(4):1203‐1216.
43. Reinhorn AM, Roh H, Sivaselvan M, Kunnath SK, Valles RE,
Madan A, Li C, Lobo R, Park YJ. IDARC2D Version 7.0: a pro-
gram for the inelastic damage analysis of structures, user's
guide. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (MCEER), http://civil.eng.buffalo.edu/idarc2d50/,
Buffalo, New York, 2010.
44. AlHamaydeh M, Najib M, Alawnah S. INSPECT: a graphical
user Interface software package for IDARC‐2D. SoftwareX.
2016;5:243‐251.
45. AlHamaydeh M, Najib M, Elayyan L. INSPECT‐Lite: a GUI pre‐
processor package for IDARC‐2D Ver 7.0. In: The 2015 World
Congress on Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics
(ASEM15), August 25–29, 2015.
46. Awad M, AlHamaydeh M, Mohamed A. Structural damage
fault detection using artificial neural networks profile monitor-
ing. In: 7th International Conference on Modeling, Simulation
and Applied Optimization (ICMSAO'17), Sharjah, UAE, April
4–6, 2017.
47. AlHamaydeh M, Aly N, Galal K. Impact of seismicity on perfor-
mance and cost of RC shear wall buildings in Dubai, UAE.
ASCE J Perform Constr Facil. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.1943‐5509.0001079
48. AlHamaydeh M, Aly N, Galal K. Effect of diverse seismic hazard
estimates on design and performance of RC shear wall buildings
in Dubai, UAE. In: The 2015 World Congress on Advances in
Structural Engineering and Mechanics (ASEM15), August 25–
29, 2015.
49. AlHamaydeh M, Galal K, Yehia S. Impact of lateral force‐
resisting system and design/construction practices on seismic
performance and cost of tall buildings in Dubai, UAE. Earthq
Eng Eng Vib. 2013;12(3):385‐397.
50. AlHamaydeh M, Al‐Shamsi G. Development of analytical fragil-
ity curves for representative buildings in Dubai, United Arab
15
Emirates. In: The International Conference on Earthquake
Engineering; Skopje Earthquake ‐ 50 Years of European Earth-
quake Engineering (SE‐50EEE), May 29–31, 2013..
51. Al Satari M, Anderson J. Nonlinearity effects on the seismic
behavior of RC framed structures. In: The 76th SEAOC Annual
Convention, September 26–29, 2007.
52. Al Satari M. Estimation of Seismic Response Demands for R/C
Framed Structures: An Insight Into The Nonlinear Seismic Behav-
ior. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag; 2008.
53. AlHamaydeh M, Abdalla J, Abdalla S, Al‐Rahma A. Inelastic
seismic demands for reinforced concrete frames In Dubai. In:
The 14th European Earthquake Engineering Conference
(14EEEC), Aug. 30‐Sept. 3, 2010.
54. Al Satari M, Anderson J. Estimating inelastic seismic demands
by elastic analysis for reinforced concrete (RC) framed struc-
tures. In: The 75th SEAOC Annual Convention, September 13‐
16, 2006: 153–167.
55. Elnashai AS, Sarno LD. Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineer-
ing. 1st ed. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd; 2008.
Mahmoud Awad is an assistant professor in the
Department of Industrial Engineering at the Ameri-
can University of Sharjah. He holds a PhD in Indus-
trial Engineering from Wayne State University, USA.
He is a certified Six Sigma Black Belt from American
Society of Quality (ASQ) and Ford Motor Company
since 2002. Prior to his academic career, he worked
in the industry for several companies like
Schlumberger Technology Incorporation (Houston,
USA), Case New Holland (Chicago, USA), and Ford
Motor Company (Dearborn, USA). His areas of
research and teaching interest are Six Sigma, Quality
and Reliability Engineering, and Reliability Centered
Maintenance.
Dr Mohammad AlHamaydeh is an associate profes-
sor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the
American University of Sharjah. He holds a PhD in
Structural/Earthquake Engineering from University
of Southern California, USA. Mohammad
AlHamaydeh teaches several structural engineering
courses, such as Statics, Structural Steel Design, Fun-
damentals of Structural Dynamics, Computer
Methods in Structural Analysis and Design, at the
undergraduate level. At the graduate level, Dr
AlHamaydeh teaches Analysis and Design of Tall
Buildings, as well as Structural Earthquake Engineer-
ing. His area of research and expertise includes non-
linear structural dynamic response analysis and
modeling, passive control and supplemental damping
devices, computer‐aided design and simulation, non-
linear finite element methods, and soil‐structure
16
interaction. Prior to his academic career, he was an
active member of the SEAOC as a consultant engineer
in Los Angeles, California.
Ahmed Fares Mohamed holds a Bachelor's degree
of Science in Electronics and Communication Engi-
neering with magna cum laude honors from Ameri-
can University of Ras Al Kahimah and Master'ps
degree of Science in Engineering Systems and Man-
agement from American University of Sharjah
(AUS). He worked as a teaching and research assistant
AWAD ET AL.
at AUS before moving to Dubai Road and Transport
Agency where he is working as a senior controller in
the Planning and Development Department.
How to cite this article: Awad MI, AlHamaydeh
M, Faris A. Fault detection via nonlinear profile
monitoring using artificial neural networks. Qual
Reliab Engng Int. 2018;1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1002/qre.2318