Machine Learning Based Frequency Modelling

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 160 (2021) 107915
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ymssp
Machine learning based frequency modelling

Ayush Thada a, Shreyash Panchal b, Ashutosh Dubey b, Lokavarapu Bhaskara Rao b,⇑
a
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai Campus, Vandalur - Kelambakkam Road, Chennai 600127, Tamil Nadu, India
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai Campus, Vandalur - Kelambakkam Road, Chennai 600127, Tamil Nadu, India
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Detection of cracks in structures has always been an important research topic in the indus-
Received 19 December 2020 trial domain closely associated with aerospace, mechanical, marine and civil engineering.
Received in revised form 9 February 2021 The presence of the cracks alters the dynamic response properties. Hence, it becomes cru-
Accepted 25 March 2021
cial to locate these cracks in the structures to avoid any catastrophic failures and maintain
Communicated by John E. Mottershead
structural integrity and performance. The study’s objective is to propose two distinct sta-
tistical procedures for conducting the machine learning experiment for modelling the fre-
quency and show the effect of experiment design on the results. In the study, the predictive
Keywords:
Machine learning
performance of machine learning models and their ensembles is compared within each
Non-parametric statistics experiment design and between two experimental designs for the task of prediction of first
Frequency six natural frequencies of a fixed ended cracked beam. The study highlights the significance
Cracked beam of more than one experimental design to reduce the confirmation bias in the research and
Design of experiment discusses the proposed methods’ generalizability over the different modelling constraints
Experimental bias and modelling parameters. The study also discusses a real-world implementation of the
learned machine learning models from the perspective of Bayesian optimization.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introductions
Identifying, localizing, assessing and addressing the state of structures are always crucial. Presence of cracks and damage
leads to local stress concentration regions and thus increases the flexibility of the structure. It leads to a decrease in the
structure’s natural frequencies of vibration, which in turn alters the mode-shapes as well. Thus, it is vital to facilitate early
detection of cracks. Carrying out such a study enables us to measure the health of the structure, its life expectancy and pos-
sible further damage or degradation if left untreated. For these reasons, methods which allow fast discovery and localization
of cracks have been the topic of intensive research over the last two decades. As a result, a variety of numerical, experimental
and analytical studies exist currently for those problems. Andrew D. Dimarogonas published a review of the state of the art of
vibration-based methods [1] for testing cracked structures in 1996. However, since then, many changes have occurred in the
domain of Computer Science which directly affected the field of Computational Sciences. One of these changes is the devel-
opment in the field of Machine Learning. It is a 60 years idea whose name was coined in 1959 by an American Computer
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bhaskarlokavarapu@gmail.com (L. Bhaskara Rao).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.107915
0888-3270/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Thada, S. Panchal, A. Dubey et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 160 (2021) 107915
Scientist Arthur Samuel [2]. Although it is associated with the field of Computer Science, it shares numerous ideas from
Statistics. Over the years this field has struggled due to low computational capabilities of the computers, but the recent
advancement in the computer-based hardware industry has shown the immense potential of the field. Today’s machine
learning algorithms are above to solve the problem associated with images and voice classification or any domain, machine
translation [3], generative modelling [4] and even challenging against the world champions of a board game like Go [5]
which one of the most challenging games ever developed by human. The capabilities can be harnessed for anomaly detection
in the mechanical structures as well as understanding their properties. The ability of machine learning algorithms to deal
with the nonlinearity of the data helps to learn the underlying pattern in the data without any human supervision. Hence
it becomes vital to learn about how to design experiment with the framework of Machine Learning and perform the analysis
of the results of the experiments if one want to harness this power to solve the problem of any given domain like frequency
analysis or any other domain. The success of the experiment will help to partially or fully automate the analysis of structure
with the help of small computing devices like Raspberry Pi along with cloud-based technology. It enables the continuous
monitoring of the system, which can reduce the chance of any failure or catastrophe.
The presence of cracks in the structure induces the local flexibility, which in turn affects the dynamic behaviour of the
whole structure to a significant extent. It lowers the natural frequencies and changes in mode shapes of vibrations. By study-
ing the change in frequency, these cracks can be localized. Many authors have studied the effect of cracks on the dynamic
behaviour of cracked beams. Chondros et al. [6] modelled the crack as local flexibility computed with fracture mechanics
methods and measured experimentally. They developed a spectral method to identify cracks in various structures relating
the crack depth to the change in natural frequencies of the first three harmonics of the structure for a known crack position.
Rizos et al. [7] used the vibrational amplitude at two random positions of a beam and with the use of non-linear relation
estimated the crack depth ratio and the location of the crack. Avcar and Saplioglu [8] has conducted a study on natural fre-
quencies of the prismatic steel beams with and presented discussed the Bernoulli-Euler beam theory. They estimated the
natural frequencies under the four different boundaries using artificial Neural Network as well as compared the different
activation function. Hein and Jaanuska [9] have compared the performance of Neural Network and Random Forest methods
for localizing the cracks with the help of Haar wavelet transformation of natural frequencies. Ahmed M. Ibrahim et al. [10]
has studied the effects of crack depth, and its location on the static and dynamic stability of the cracked multi-bay structure
under the periodic loading. They have employed Finite Element Analysis (FEA) method and shown that the crack is located
near the roots or corners of the frames causes the higher drops in the in-plane natural frequency, with zero or no effect of the
crack on the in-plane natural frequency when the crack is located at the nodal points of the mode shape. Chasalevris and
Papadopoulos [11] study the dynamic behaviour of a cracked beam with two transverse surface cracks where each crack
is parameterized by its depth, position and relative angle. In this study, the authors determined s the crack position using
D3 wavelets as well as discuss the dynamics of a shaft with multiple cracks with crack modelling. Mishra and Sahu [12] stud-
ies the parametric instability of the beams with traverse cracks when subjected to the harmonic in plate loading using the
finite element method. Viola et al. [13] proposed a procedure for identifying cracks in structures using modal test data. Kisa
et al. [14] studies the vibrational characteristics of a cracked Timoshenko beam. The study integrates the finite element
method and component mode synthesis methods. Das and Sahu [15] studied the free vibrations of cracked woven eight lay-
ered fiberglass/epoxy composite beam. The study shows the effect of fiber orientation, crack location, and crack depth on the
beam’s natural frequency with a single crack. As an extension of the previous study, Sahu and Das [16] present the Exper-
imental and numerical studies on the vibration of laminated composite beam with multiple transverse cracks. Mustapha
et al. [17] presents the multiclass support vector machine-based framework for surface crack detection and assessment in
steel pipes based on measured vibration responses collected using a network of piezoelectric wafers. Saad and Mustapha
[18] conduct a study to assess the structural conditions in the steel pipeline under various operational conditions. The study
used the support vector machine to classify pressure, flow rate, leakage size, and leakage location. The study also comments
on the placement of the sensors in several locations in the pipe to improve the underlying classification algorithm’s accuracy.
Huynh et al. [19] studies the paint condition assessment on the Sydney Harbour Bridge using hyperspectral imaging. The
study uses multiclass Support Vector Machines (SVM) classifier to assess the grading of the paint from hyperspectral signa-
tures automatically.
Although the results look promising, there are some issues which need to be addressed. The first issue with most of the
work is that they neither compared the different way to design the experiment, not justify the choice in the design of the
experiment which they adopted for the study. This study will propose two different ways to conduct the experiments
and statistically prove that both formulations of the problem statements are different. The second issue was there that there
is scarcity of works where different machine learning methods, along with their ensemble models, were compared and the
shortcomings of both methods are discussed. It introduces a confirmation bias in the study where the author priors to study,
assume that a one or the other method works best for the problem statement. In realty the real world problems are multi-
faceted and it is important to address the fact that with different models are we addressing to the same facets. To showcase
this issue, this study compares ten different machine learning models are compared to their performance with respect to
each other corresponding to three different evaluation metrics, across two different formulations of the problem statement
and shows how can we reach to a conclusion in those scenarios. In addition to this, we have also discussed how to use
learned machine learning models in the real world from the perspective of bayesian optimization.
2
2. Background
2.1. Machine learning
Machine Learning is a subclass of Artificial Intelligence, and it refers to the set of algorithms which learns the underlying
pattern of structure in data. It is used for several tasks like knowledge discovery, pattern recognition and knowledge gener-
ation. It has three broad classes which are supervised learning, unsupervised learning and reinforcement learning [20]. In
this study, the problem statements are formulated according to supervised learning algorithms; hence algorithms belong
to the class were employed. These algorithms are as follow:
Linear Regression: In this algorithm, a linear model is fitted on the input values against the output data. This algorithm
tries to minimize the mean squared error between the predicted and real values.
Xn
Model : y ¼ i¼1
wi xi þ b ð1Þ
Xn 2
Loss Function : L ¼ y wx b
i¼1 i i
ð2Þ
where n is number of data points, w represent the weight corresponding to individual feature and b represents the bias.
LASSO Regression: LASSO stands for ‘‘Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator”. It is a linear model, and it tries to
optimize the mean squared error loss function along with the L1 penalty. The L1 penalty is the sum of the parameters of
the models. It has a regularization effect; it causes the model to become sparser by forcing the parameters of the model to
attain zero value [21].
Xn
Model : y ¼ i¼1
wi xi þ b ð3Þ
Xn 2 X
n
Loss Function : L ¼ y i¼1
wi x i b þ k wi ð4Þ
i¼1
where n is number of data points, w represent the weight corresponding to individual feature, b represents the bias and k
represents strength of L1 regularization.
Ridge Regression: This algorithm falls under the class of linear model. It optimizes the mean squared error loss function
along with the L2 penalty. The L2 penalty is the sum of the squared parameters of the models. The regularization effect
forces model parameters to attain the values closes to zero [21–23].
Xn
Model : y ¼ i¼1
wi xi þ b ð5Þ
Xn 2 X
n
Loss Function : L ¼ y i¼1
wi x i b þ k w2i ð6Þ
i¼1
where n is number of data points, w represent the weight corresponding to individual feature, b represents the bias and k
represents strength of L2 regularization.
Support Vector Machines: It is a learning algorithm which is based on VC theory [24]. This learning algorithm fits a hyper-
space in the data with an objective to maximize the margins over the hypersurface. Although it is a linear model, by using
the kernel trick [25], we can achieve non-linearity in the model. A kernel function transforms the data domain in high
dimensional feature space such that, there exist a linear hypersurface in the transformed domain. When data is retrans-
formed in original domain, the model gains the non-linearity. This can be observed in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively.
Model : y ¼ wT K ðxÞ þ b; x; wRM ð7Þ
1X X
n 2 n
b
LossFunction : L ¼ w2i þ þ C ni þ ni ð8Þ
2 i¼1 2 i¼1
IConstraint : yi wT Kðxi Þ b e þ ni ; i ¼ 1; ; N ð9Þ
IIConstraint : wT K ðxi Þ þ b yi e þ ni ; i ¼ 1; ; N ð10Þ
3
Fig. 1. Model of the Cracked Beam and its Vibration in First Six Modes.
IIIConstraint : ni ; ni 0; i ¼ 1; ; N ð11Þ
where n is number of data points, M represents number of features, w represent the weight corresponding to individual fea-
ture, b represents the bias, K represents kernel function, C represents strength of regularization, e represents the width over
the hypersurface, n represents the slack variables which act as guard against outliers.
4
Fig. 2. Definition of Experiment 1 and Experiment 2.
Decision Trees: This learning algorithm recursively splits the data domain it bins based on decision criteria. These criteria
depend on the algorithms, which are used to create the tree. For example, in Iterative Dichotomiser 3 (ID3) algorithm, the
decision criterion is information gain [26].
Feed-Forward Neural Networks: It is a class of learning algorithm, in which computing units called neuron is stacked in
layers and fully or partially connected with the previous and next layers. A neural is small computing unit which per-
formed a weighted sum of the input with its parameters followed by addition of bias [24]. By transforming due to an acti-
vation function, a neuron achieves the non-linearity. Due to the interconnected structure of the neural networks and the
presence of an activation function, they are good at generalizing any function mapping. With an initial random initiation
of the parameters of neural networks, the parameters are updated by backpropagation algorithm [27] during the training
phase with the help of data which helps the neural networks to approximate the data on which it is trained. By universal
approximation theorem [28], it can be proved that neural networks are universal function approximator.

Single Neuron : y ¼ f ðxÞ ¼ r wT x þ b ð12Þ

Neural Network : NN ðxÞ ¼ f <output> f <hiddenm1 > f <hidden1 > f <input> ðxÞ ð13Þ
X
m
Loss Function : L ¼ ðy NN ðxÞÞ2 þ k khi k ð14Þ
i¼1
@L
Parameter Update : h ¼ h a ð15Þ
@h
@L @h<hðkþ1Þ > @h<hðkþ2Þ > @h<hðoÞ > @L

Backpropagation : ¼ : : ð16Þ
@h<h k> @h<hk > @h<hðkþ1Þ > @h<hðo1Þ > @h<ho >
where hr represent parameter of a rth layer, m represents number of layers in neural network, w represent the weight cor-
responding to individual feature, b represents the bias, a represents the learning rate of the model, and k represents strength
of L2 regularization.
2.2. Ensemble learning
It is a class of learning algorithm, in which rather than creating a single model, several models are created and fitted over
partial or complete data, and the outcome of the algorithm is some aggregate measure of the outcome of each model. It
enables us to bind the result learning algorithms of different working principle. In the worst-case scenario, these models per-
form at least sound as the base estimators. These algorithms are robust toward the noisy data, relative to the independent
earning algorithms. Some of these algorithms are Stacking, Bagging and Boosting along with its variants.
2.3. Two sided mann-whitney U test
It is a non-parametric test of the null hypothesis [29], and it is used to test whether two samples are sample from the
same population or not. This test is suitable when the data does not distribute according to standard probability distribution
like Normal Distribution and T distribution. The hypothesis corresponding to this test is as follow:
H 0 : l1 ¼ l2
5
H1 : k 1 < l 1 l 2 < k 2
The test statistic is shown in equation (17).
X
n X
n
U¼ j¼0
SðX i ; Y i Þ ð17Þ
i¼1
where
8
< 1:0 if X > Y
>
SðX; Y Þ ¼ 0:5 if X ¼ Y ð18Þ
>
:
0 if X < Y
3. Methodology
3.1. Data collection
The aim of the study is the find the mapping between the depth of the crack and distances of the cracks relative to the
length of the crack with the first six modal frequencies. For data collection, computer based simulations method using was
employed. The fixed ended beam with two cracks was modelled on 3D CAD software, Solidworks. A total of 206 models were
made to make a dataset of considerable weight. The Design Table feature in Solidworks generated these models. The dimen-
sions of the beam that were constant throughout were length, breadth, thickness, and the values are 1000 mm, 100 mm and
10 mm, respectively. The parameters varied were the depth of the cracks and the position of the cracks along the length of
the beam. The software chosen to carry out the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) analysis was ANSYS. The analysis type chosen
was modal analysis as the output values needed were the natural frequencies. The material chosen was structural steel. The
element type employed in the ANSYS simulation is SOLID186 which is a higher order 3-D 20-node solid element with three
degrees of freedom per node. Since the beam is chosen was of the fixed ended type the necessary boundary conditions, and
the loading conditions were applied. Distances of the crack were taken with respect to length of the beam hence these are
dimensionless quantities. The unit of the frequency used in this experiment is Hertz (Hz). A Python-based robot was written
to perform all the simulation and gather data. A total of 1236 data points were collected and used for training and validation.
Here validation refers to the step in machine learning model training, where model is evaluate on a subset of unseen data
and on the basis of evaluation hyperparameters are updated. The structure of the beam with cracks is shown in Fig. 1A and B.
In the subplots, from Fig. 1C to H, images represents the vibration of a beam with crack corresponding to first six modes in its
natural frequency.
3.2. Design of experiments
The two experiments were designed based on how the data is to be used. In the first experiment (Fig. 2A), the input data
included distance of the first crack, distance of the second crack, depth of crack and mode for which frequency has to be esti-
mated. The output of this model is the frequency corresponding to the mode which was passed. In the second experiment
(Fig. 2B), the input values were the distance of the first crack, distance of second crack and the depth of the crack. The output
of the model is all six modal frequencies. In each of these experiments, machine learning algorithms mentioned in the pre-
vious section were trained and tested.
The metrics which is used for further analysis are explained variance score (EVS), mean absolute error (MAE) and mean
squared error (MSE) and their respective equations are Eqs. (19) to (21) respectively.

Var y<true> y<predicted>
EVR y<true> ; y<predicted> ¼ 1 ð19Þ
Var ½y<true>
n
1X <true>
MAE y<true> ; y<predicted> ¼ yi y<predicted>
i ð20Þ
n i¼1
n 2
1X
MSE y<true> ; y<predicted> ¼ yi<true> y<predicted>
i ð21Þ
n i¼1
Each experiment is divided into three phases, namely training, validation and testing. The data which is collected for the
model is divided into 9:1 ratio. The 90% part of the collected data was dedicated for the training purpose, and the remaining
10% is dedicated for validation. The validation phase is used to adjust the non-trainable parameters or hyperparameters of
the model. All the models were tested and validated on the same data. This was achieved by keeping the same seed for the
training and validation data sampling process from the pool of data across each model and for both formulations of problem
statement. The sampling process in software packages is dependent on pseudo random number generators and seed allow us
6
to ensure the reproducibility of the same samples. It can be used to ensure that all the models are fed same data. Once the
model gets trained and hyperparameters were adjusted, 180 new data points were randomly generated. Then using the
machine learning model the frequency corresponding to the each data point is predicted. To test the prediction of the
machine learning model, simulations were performed in ANSYS for the same data points where machine learning models
were evaluated. The output of the simulation is treated as ground truth and the performance of models are evaluated against
these values. Hence we can say that the testing data for all the models across both formulation of the problem is same.
The training across the all models in both experiments was done on the standardized datasets. To standardize each col-
umn nominal values, the mean of the column is subtracted, followed by the division by the standard deviation of the column
values. In the first experiment, the ‘‘Mode” attribute is treated as a categorical variable, hence passed in the one-hot encoded
form. All the experiments are conducted using a Python language based machine learning module name Scikit-Learn [30],
version 0.22.2.
3.3. Comparison of the experiments
In the last paragraph, we have devised two ways to conduct the experiments. Once both experiments are done, it has to be
ensured that both formulations of problem statement are not identical and there is no redundancy. To check whether the
results of the model are identical or not, we can use a two-sided non-parametric statistical test. For the testing purpose,
we can assume that these two experiments are the treatment which is applied to data. Our aim here is to test whether these
two treatments are identical or not. The evaluation metric can be considered as a response here. Since we are testing differ-
ent algorithm under both experiments, the experiment here can serve as a blocking variable. It also ensures that responses
are independent of each other. The experiment has three evaluation metrics and two evaluation phases (validation and test-
ing). It allows testing the difference in experiments across six different combinations of metrics and modelling phase. It helps
us to understand if the experiment nature changes during the validation or training phase. The hypothesis testing is carried
out using a Python based module name Scipy [31], version 1.4.
4. Results & discussion
The convergence study is carried out for the first six natural frequencies of the cracked beam with two cracks at distant
location against the mesh divisions. We start with the baseline model that has 100 elements in the mesh. The results of the
study are as shown in Fig. 3. The tables used for plotting the graphs are provide in Appendix section. The difference between
the converged values and the values at the initial guess are as presented in the Table 1.
Fig. 3. The Convergence plot of Frequency against number of elements in mesh for first six modes of vibration.
7
Table 1
Precision between the baseline model and converged model across each mode.
Mode Frequency with Baseline Model (Hz) Frequency with Converged Model (Hz) % Difference
1 52.613 52.434 0.34022
2 144.79 144.42 0.25554
3 283.54 282.94 0.21161
4 322.53 321.91 0.19223
5 468.26 467.62 0.136676
6 489.25 488.41 0.171691
The model is converging on mesh with 10,335,453 elements. But the difference between the frequencies of the model
with 100 elements and the converged model is less than 0.35% across all modes. The mesh with 10,335,453 elements takes
significant amount of computation time relative to the mesh with only 100 elements and improves precision by less than
0.35%. Hence by taking computation-precision tradeoff into consideration, we felt that it is economical to go with the mesh
of 100 elements. Hence in the study, for all simulation based tasks mesh of 100 elements is used.
To check the validity of the proposed method with the previous study, the work of Prabhakar [32] is taken as reference.
Since the modelling parameters of study [32] like material type and beam constraint were different from our work, a sep-
arate model was constructed in ANSYS. The experimental details in the study [32] were followed to reproduce the author’s
work. The prediction for some data point from the study and the prediction according to the method proposed in this study
corresponding to two experimental designs are shown in Table 2 and 3. Since the work of Prabhakar used Neural Network
model, we decided to use the prediction corresponding to the Neural Network for comparison. The results of our work are in
good agreement with the results in the study [32]. It also exhibits the generalizability of our proposed method. The valida-
tion of the results obtained from the present method has been done with experimental and analytical work by Prabhakar
[32] and the comparison of the present results with experimental and analytical results are presented in Table 2 and 3.
The frequencies corresponding to the first mode, second mode and the third mode are denoted by f1, f2, and f3 in Tables 2
and 3.
The following table contains the performance of the metrics for different models across different evaluation phases in the
experiment 1. In the column header, EVS represents Explained Variance Score, MAE represents Mean Absolute Error, and
MSE represents Mean Squared Error. The results of the first experiment are shown in Table 4.
In the first experiment, we can observe that the linear models are not performing well under the MAE and MSE metric
during both validation and testing phase. The tree-based models and their ensembles performed well under all three eval-
uation metrics, and they have also outperformed the Neural Networks in this case. The one crucial thing to notice in the first
experiment is that with this type of problem formulation, simple linear models have achieved very high explained variance
score. The baseline for the model was started with 96.81% under EVS metric. The reason for very high MAE and MSE metric is
that fact in first experiment’s formulation of the problem, the spread of frequencies is considerable since it included small
frequencies like first modal frequency and high frequency like sixth modal frequencies. The reason the decision tree and their
ensembles overcome this problem because of the working principle of the decision trees. Decision trees split the domain in
bins, which indeed helped the models to lower down the MAE and MSE metrics value.
The next part of the section contains the visualizations of the result. To reduce the cluttering in plots, we decide to use the
abbreviation for the names of model/algorithms in place of full names. In the visualization Linear Regression in represented
as LR, Lasso Regression as LS, Ridge Regression as RR, Support Vector Regressor as SVR, Decision Trees as DT, Random Forest
as RF, Gradient Boosted Trees as GBT, Adaptive Boosting as AB, Extreme Gradient Boosted Trees as XGBT and Neural Net-
works as NN. In the plots, EVS metric values lie between 0 and 1. Since MSE and MAE metrics were not bounded above
Table 2
Comparison of the prediction of the proposed method with existing experimental work.
Cracks Depth Crack 1 Distance Crack 2 Distance Prabhakar [32] xperimen- Our Work Experiment 1 based Our Work Experiment 2 based
tal Results Formulation Neural Network Formulation Neural Network
Model Model
D L1 L2 f1 f2 f3 f1 f2 f3 f1 f2 f3
mm cm cm Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz
0.3 4 8 7.8668 49.293 138.04 7.8996 49.3033 137.988 7.9028 49.2935 138.0003
0.6 8 12 7.8594 49.284 138.04 7.8868 49.3048 137.9956 7.8912 49.3085 138.0043
0.9 12 16 7.8497 49.287 137.99 7.7961 49.2829 138.0084 7.7966 49.3115 138.0058
1.2 16 20 7.8431 49.303 137.84 7.7844 49.3064 137.8092 7.7978 49.3302 137.8066
1.5 20 24 7.8351 49.278 137.49 7.7853 49.3019 137.5014 7.7947 49.2974 137.4935
1.8 24 28 7.8306 49.188 137.20 7.7915 49.2040 137.1916 7.7978 49.2075 137.2072
2.1 28 32 7.8254 49.000 137.13 7.7898 48.9960 137.0945 7.8009 48.9935 137.1027
2.4 32 36 7.8251 48.736 137.46 7.7884 48.7010 137.5107 7.8070 48.7024 137.497
2.7 36 40 7.8246 48.372 137.86 7.7942 48.4043 137.9201 7.7898 48.4019 137.8954
3.0 40 44 7.8288 48.031 137.75 7.7928 47.9962 137.7934 7.8169 47.9967 137.8047
8
Table 3
Comparison of the prediction of the proposed method with existing analytical work.
Cracks Depth Crack 1 Distance Crack 2 Distance Prabhakar [32] nalytical Our Work Experiment 1 based Our Work Experiment 2 based
Results Formulation Neural Network Formulation Neural Network
Model Model
D L1 L2 f1 f2 f3 f1 f2 f3 f1 f2 f3
mm cm cm Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz
0.3 4 8 7.7828 49.214 137.976 7.8996 49.3033 137.988 7.9028 49.2935 138.0003
0.6 8 12 7.7634 49.232 137.980 7.8868 49.3048 137.9956 7.8912 49.3085 138.0043
0.9 12 16 7.7547 49.22 137.912 7.7961 49.2829 138.0084 7.7966 49.3115 138.0058
1.2 16 20 7.7501 49.263 137.764 7.7844 49.3064 137.8092 7.7978 49.3302 137.8066
1.5 20 24 7.7491 49.222 137.441 7.7853 49.3019 137.5014 7.7947 49.2974 137.4935
1.8 24 28 7.7446 49.108 137.123 7.7915 49.2040 137.1916 7.7978 49.2075 137.2072
2.1 28 32 7.7424 48.940 137.062 7.7898 48.9960 137.0945 7.8009 48.9935 137.1027
2.4 32 36 7.7331 48.695 137.401 7.7884 48.7010 137.5107 7.8070 48.7024 137.4970
2.7 36 40 7.7406 48.330 137.813 7.7942 48.4043 137.9201 7.7898 48.4019 137.8954
3.0 40 44 7.7458 47.984 137.687 7.7928 47.9962 137.7934 7.8169 47.9967 137.8047
Table 4
Evaluation Metrics Values for Validation and Testing Phase in Experiment 1.
Model/Algorithm Validation Phase Test Phase

EVS MAE MSE EVS MAE MSE
Linear Regression 96.811641 24.428965 722.322224 97.068895 24.43139 731.292950
Lasso Regression 97.245322 24.56247 724.346169 97.069110 24.458957 731.166072
Ridge Regression 97.234629 24.582736 727.149854 97.067778 24.458680 731.419378
Support Vector Regressor 98.359531 18.537348 436.732919 98.327803 18.568716 426.369932
Decision Tree 99.993384 0.836446 1.749041 99.982955 0.986388 4.513830
Random Forest 99.982665 0.477217 0.708926 99.982665 0.808188 4.450163
Gradient Boosted Trees 99.997698 0.485179 0.605646 99.984101 0.822720 4.055265
Adaptive Boosting 99.987408 1.295023 3.422645 99.979577 1.460819 6.130821
XG-Boosted Trees 99.997004 0.573368 0.787848 99.983327 0.906741 4.260458
Neural Networks 99.991066 0.933841 2.378634 99.978453 1.206223 5.830658
and there were large differences between the MSE and MAE scores of Linear and nonlinear models, we deiced to use the log-
arithmic scale for the plots of MAE and MSE metric in all visualizations.
The visualization of the results of experiment 1 is shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, [A], [B] and [C] represents the scores corre-
sponding to the EVS, MAE and MSE metric across different machine learning models.
Experiment 2 incorporates the mode information in the input domain; therefore, the result was calculated across each
mode. To compare the experiment 2 with experiment 1 on same grounds, the result across each mode is aggregated using
the mean operation in experiment 2, and it is shown in Table 5. The visualization of the aggregate results of experiment 2
across each mode is shown in Fig. 5. The mean function is used to aggregate the scores of models across different modes.
The results of the second experiments are represented as bar plots in Figs. 6–8. In these images subplot [A] represents
validation phase and subplot [B] represents testing phase.
In the second experiment, we have separated all the modes Due to we can observe that the MAE and MSE metrics value in
both validation phase and testing phase is not very large like in the case of the first experiment. This indeed proves that our
inference regarding the inflation of MAE and MSE metric is valid. Also, an exciting pattern appeared in the results of the sec-
ond experiment. If we consider the first experiment as the baseline for each modal frequency, we could see that initial values
for EVS metric are not high as compared to the first experiment. Across each mode, all the metrics have improved signifi-
cantly with a much more significant difference, and this difference was very same in the first experiment. It has happened
Fig. 4. Results of Experiment 1 across Different Evaluation Metrics.
9
Table 5
Aggregated Evaluation Metrics Values using mean method for Validation and Testing Phase in Experiment 2.
Model/Algorithm Validation Phase (Mean of All Modes) Test Phase (Mean of All Modes)
Decision Tree 83.257099 0.351388 0.299912 30.852542 0.935718 4.447345
Random Forest 89.879015 0.316960 0.324106 48.088931 0.796859 4.245079
XG-Boosted Trees 94.701382 0.271477 0.206950 56.298541 0.746547 3.891026
Neural Networks 92.008302 0.317709 0.246011 48.043098 0.783105 3.847979
Fig. 5. Aggregated Result for Experiment 2 over Mode across different Evaluation Metrics.
Fig. 6. Performance of Models in Experiment 2 under EVS metric across all modes.
10
Fig. 7. Performance of Models in Experiment 2 under MAE metric across all modes.
Fig. 8. Performance of Models in Experiment 2 under MSE metric across all modes.
11
because in the first, the first experiment mode was one of the input and its interaction with other covariates directly or indi-
rectly across all models helped the models to improve. This relation is evident from the data itself on which these models
were trained. For example, if we see the first modal frequency, it near similar even when depth size was varied or displaced
slightly. Moreover, it is valid for other modal frequencies as well. It means that if we learned something for the first modal
frequency, that behaviour will help the model slightly for other frequencies as well. In the second experiment, since the
mode input was not used because of the specific formulation of the problem statement, the baseline model turned out to
exhibit poor performance across the EVS metric.
Another striking pattern which can be observed in the second experiment is that across each mode is that there is vari-
ation in the performance of each model across each mode of the frequency. For example, for the first mode, support vector
regressor is performing very well, but it is not the case in different modes. It turns out to be the best evaluation ground to
compare these different algorithms and their ability to generalise the underlying pattern in the data. If we observe across all
modes, then Gradient boosting and Extreme Gradient (XG) boosting in Decision Trees, and the feed forward Neural Network
turns out to be the only models which has performed overall better than other models in for all modes and under different
evaluation metrics and in both validation and testing phase. It can be verified again by the aggregated result of the second
experiment.
The two formulations of the problem statement showcase some of the pitfalls of machine learning modelling. The same
models which are trained on same data shows different outcomes on the basis of design of experiment. In Figs. 6–8, we can
see that how the performance of models fluctuates between different modes across different evaluation metrics in the exper-
iment 2. On the other hand, in case of experiment Fig. 4, there are fluctuations in results of evaluation metrics, but clearly
there are a few models which are better than rest of the models across all metric. This shows that out definition of best mod-
els is conditioned on the which design of experiment and evaluation metric we choose. So clearly it becomes important to
take the design of experiment into consideration. On the basis of studying the results of both formulation of problem state-
ment we can decide for which modes of frequency which models should be used. It helps to reduce the confirmation bias in
our study. The crux is that there is no silver bullet solution in machine learning. The concepts of the best metric or best mod-
els are entangled with the modelling choices, and these entanglements are observed when we design our experiments in
several ways. So if there exist some universal conclusion with respect to our problem statement based on data, it will be
observed no matter how we design the experiment that can be a valid conclusion about the experiment.
The results of two formulation of problem statement seem to be different. But, the final question arises that is these some
method to show that these formulations are different or not. To answer this question, we can employ the method of statis-
tical hypothesis testing. The result that we can observe does not follow any standard distributions like standard normal or
standard t distribution. Hence it is an excellent choice to move to non-parametric statistics. The results for both experiments
are independently obtained, and the data is ordinal. This allows us to use the two-sided Mann-Whitney U test.
For hypothesis testing, we need an aggregate measure of the evaluation metrics across modal frequencies corresponding
to each model in the second experiment. Hence we can aggregate the values corresponding to each model for each evalua-
tion metric across each phase into a single table of observations and these results are shown in in Table 5.
In this test, we are using the level of significance to be 0.05, which is commonly referred to as alpha (a) or the probability
of type I error in the literature of statistical inference. The null hypothesis of the test there is no difference in between both
experiments. The result of the hypothesis testing is shown in Table 6.
We can observe that the P-values are smaller than the alpha across all six Phase-Metric combinations. Hence we can
reject the null hypothesis for all six cases. It shows that all tests are significant, hence proves that both of the experiments
are different from each other from the perspective of each metric in both validation and testing phase.
The design of the experiment which is presented in the paper with respect to a fixed ended beam with an isotropic mate-
rial and two cracks but is generalizable across different type of beams like cantilever, simply supported etc. as well as for
different beam parameters like type of material, dimension of beam and number of cracks. From the algorithmic perspective,
we can say that the design of experiment that we have discussed in the paper is a Meta algorithm. A Meta algorithm is an
algorithm which inputs an algorithm or algorithms and output an algorithm or algorithms. If we observe the hierarchy here
we can see that at a base level there is data generating mechanism, above it we have data, on top of it we have mathematical
modelling algorithms and on the highest hierarchy we have design of experiment methodology. So if we change the data
generating process which in CAD model, it will change the data which in turn could change the choice of our machine learn-
ing algorithms or mathematical modelling algorithms in general, but since design of experiment methodology lies in the
Table 6
Hypothesis Testing Results for Two Tailed Mann–Whitney U Test.
Phase Metric Test Statistic P Value Null Hypothesis

Validation EVS 0 0.000091335895555 Rejected
Validation MAE 12 0.002293196040127 Rejected
Validation MSE 11 0.001805257156165 Rejected
Testing EVS 0 0.000091335895555 Rejected
Testing MAE 19 0.010566964064581 Rejected
Testing MSE 24 0.026951278584694 Rejected
12
Table 7
Convergence study table for all modes.
Mode Frequency Change Nodes Elements

1 52.613 0 883 100
1 52.817 0.38617 5923 3220
1 52.528 0.54688 39,263 24,822
1 52.455 0.13961 284,917 195,703
1 52.434 0.04028 2,165,397 1,553,276
1 52.434 0 14,389,366 10,335,453
2 144.79 0 883 100
2 145.45 0.45102 5923 3220
2 144.66 0.53923 39,263 24,822
2 144.47 0.13499 284,917 195,703
2 144.42 0.03514 2,165,397 1,553,276
2 144.42 0 14,389,366 10,335,453
3 283.54 0 883 100
3 285.31 0.62247 5923 3220
3 283.47 0.64567 39,263 24,822
3 283.05 0.1485 284,917 195,703
3 282.94 0.04043 2,165,397 1,553,276
3 282.94 0 14,389,366 10,335,453
4 322.53 0 883 100
4 324.95 0.75121 5923 3220
4 322.41 0.78314 39,263 24,822
4 322.01 0.12462 284,917 195,703
4 321.91 0.03182 2,165,397 1,553,276
4 321.91 0 14,389,366 10,335,453
5 468.26 0 883 100
5 472.07 0.81066 5923 3220
5 468.51 0.75758 39,263 24,822
5 467.79 0.15364 284,917 195,703
5 467.62 0.03732 2,165,397 1,553,276
5 467.62 0 14,389,366 10,335,453
6 489.25 0 883 100
6 490.01 0.15525 5923 3220
6 488.89 0.22868 39,263 24,822
6 488.53 0.07339 284,917 195,703
6 488.41 0.02456 2,165,397 1,553,276
6 488.41 0 14,389,366 10,335,453
Table 8
Evaluation Metrics Values for Validation and Testing Phase for Mode 1 in Experiment 2.
Model/Algorithm Validation Phase (Mode 1) Test Phase (Mode 1)

Decision Tree 87.083997 0.082159 0.015290 35.915304 0.156473 0.076081
Random Forest 92.735330 0.065978 0.008528 73.345757 0.101547 0.031619
XG-Boosted Trees 96.698984 0.053411 0.004559 79.752797 0.095267 0.024064
Neural Networks 93.729926 0.067676 0.007451 74.164477 0.104052 0.030827
higher hierarchy than the modelling algorithms it will not get affected by the change in data generating process as long as
the general structure of problem statement remains same.
For the real-world implementation of the solution, we first have to fix the machine learning algorithm and its formulation
under one of two methodologies. A system will continuously monitor the structure to change in the baseline frequencies. If
the difference between the observed frequency/frequencies and the baseline frequency/frequencies is above the specific
threshold/thresholds, the method should be able to locate the distance of the cracks and its depth. Since several combina-
tions of crack lengths and crack depth can produce a similar change in baseline frequency/frequencies, the method will pro-
vide all such combination. We can also assume that the machine learning model is located in the cloud, which is a common
practice nowadays. Hence an additional constraint comes up to reduce the no of contact with the machine learning algo-
rithms in the cloud, to save the power of the system deployed to monitor the structure. It is quite a practical scenario,
and for such scenarios, Bayesian Optimization [33] is one of the best strategies to solve the problem. Here the objective is
13
Table 9

Decision Tree 90.328308 0.198467 0.066610 36.367515 0.632033 0.871664
Random Forest 94.755027 0.147562 0.036938 54.173986 0.492630 0.633372
XG-Boosted Trees 95.029565 0.162269 0.036902 66.154606 0.411449 0.475904
Neural Networks 93.395706 0.190480 0.046239 47.651591 0.539527 0.716351
Table 10

Decision Tree 91.255976 0.442016 0.302005 38.081959 1.095324 3.462311
Random Forest 90.888069 0.445262 0.319253 37.111316 1.054137 3.538315
XG-Boosted Trees 92.725610 0.398664 0.261943 48.076453 0.973660 2.947697
Neural Networks 90.199288 0.442622 0.335774 36.150699 1.069157 3.519392
Table 11

Decision Tree 54.849822 0.323360 0.251394 13.690979 0.871339 4.331974
Random Forest 84.236779 0.182467 0.091466 14.629780 0.753633 4.325312
XG-Boosted Trees 97.222312 0.090905 0.018115 18.840932 0.673066 4.119188
Neural Networks 92.766888 0.171908 0.048991 17.664509 0.714190 4.203602
Table 12

Decision Tree 87.627130 0.812792 0.954785 23.641562 2.265943 16.399470
Random Forest 82.388479 0.890671 1.377831 24.818071 2.074957 16.557224
XG-Boosted Trees 89.047104 0.762963 0.871603 31.450071 2.052464 15.620439
Neural Networks 88.573577 0.780934 0.912029 34.426696 1.878107 14.078689
14
Table 13

Decision Tree 88.397363 0.249531 0.209388 37.417931 0.593197 1.542567
Random Forest 94.270407 0.169819 0.11062 84.454676 0.30425 0.384631
XG-Boosted Trees 97.484717 0.160652 0.04858 93.516386 0.273375 0.158863
Neural Networks 93.384427 0.252631 0.125584 78.200615 0.393597 0.539014
to find the crack depth and crack lengths correspond to which the difference between the predicted frequency the observed
frequency is least.
5. Conclusion
We can conclude by stating that the formulation of the problem statement as the first experiment is beneficial if the
covariates have some higher level interactions. The formulation of the problem statement as the second experiment is help-
ful in finding the best algorithm which works well across all the frequency modes. Although, similar inferences can be drawn
from the formulation similar to the first experiment, but since the evaluation is aggregated over all the frequency modes, it is
hard to say under which frequency modes, model struggles to predict the correct outcomes.
On the basis of comparison of machine learning algorithms, across different modes, we can conclude that Neural Net-
works, Gradient Boosted Decision trees and Extreme Gradient Boosted (XGB) Decision trees have exhibited the best perfor-
mance across the different formulation of the problem statement corresponding to three different evaluation metrics. Hence,
we can conclude that ensemble learning method outperforms the single estimator based solutions. In neural network the
ensemble method used is stacking, and the XGB Decision Trees ensemble method used is boosting. The study also highlights
the point that there is no silver bullet solution in machine learning. The concepts of the best metric or best models are entan-
gled with the modelling choices, and these entanglements are observed when we design our experiments in several ways.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ayush Thada: Software, Investigation, Writing - original draft. Shreyash Panchal: Resources, Formal analysis, Writing -
original draft. Ashutosh Dubey: Resources, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Lokavarapu Bhaskara Rao: Conceptu-
alization, Methodology, Visualization, Investigation, Validation, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A
Data
Training + Validation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11IK2Xla-rhCDp5ShacXmpS2law74-6u3/
Testing Data: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CVlwM40bGHw9WuRfkjmZDMGECyUbtia8/
The data table for the convergence plots of the frequency is shown in Table 7.
The results of the second experiment for each mode are shown in Table 8–13.
References
[1] A.D. Dimarogonas, Vibration of cracked structures: a state of the art view, Eng. Fract. Mech. 55 (5) (1996) 831–857.
[2] A.L. Samuel, Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers, IBM J. Res. Dev. 3 (3) (1959) 210–229.
[3] F. Stahlberg, Neural machine translation: a review, J. Artif. Intell. Res. 69 (2020) 343–418.
[4] G.M. Harshvardhan, M.K. Gourisaria, M. Pandey, S.S. Rautaray, A comprehensive survey and analysis of generative models in machine learning,
Comput. Sci. Rev. 38 (2020) 100285.
15
[5] D. Silver, J. Schrittwieser, K. Simonyan, I. Antonoglou, A. Huang, A. Guez, T. Hubert, L. Baker, M. Lai, A. Bolton, Y. Chen, T. Lillicrap, F. Hui, L. Sifre, G. van
den Driessche, T. Graepel, D. Hassabis, Mastering the game of go without human knowledge, Nature 550 (7676) (2017) 354–359.
[6] T.G. Chondros, A.D. Dimarogonas, J. Yao, A continuous cracked beam vibration theory, J. Sound Vib. 215 (1) (1998) 17–34.
[7] P.F. Rizos, N. Aspragathos, A.D. Dimarogonas, Identification of crack location and magnitude in a cantilever beam from the vibration modes, J. Sound
Vib. 138 (3) (1990) 381–388.
[8] M. Avcar, K. Saplioglu, An artificial neural network application for estimation of natural frequencies of beams, Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 6 (6) (2015)
94–102.
[9] H. Hein, L. Jaanuska, Comparison of machine learning methods for crack localization, Acta et Comment. Univers. Tartuensis Mathemat. 23 (1) (2019)
125–142.
[10] H. Ozturk, A. Yashar, M. Sabuncu, Dynamic stability of cracked multi-bay frame structures, Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct. 23 (6) (2016) 715–726.
[11] A.C. Chasalevris, C.A. Papadopoulos, Identification of multiple cracks in beams under bending, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 20 (7) (2006) 1631–1673.
[12] U.K. Mishra, S.K. Sahu, Parametric instability of beams with transverse cracks subjected to harmonic in-plane loading, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 15 (01)
(2015) 1540006, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219455415400064.
[13] E. Viola, L. Federici, L. Nobile, Detection of crack location using cracked beam element method for structural analysis, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 36 (1)
(2001) 23–35.
[14] M. Kisa, J. Brandon, M. Topcu, Free vibration analysis of cracked beams by a combination of finite elements and component mode synthesis methods,
Comput. Struct. 67 (4) (1998) 215–223.
[15] P. Das, S.K. Sahu, Experimental and numerical study on free vibration of cracked woven fiber glass/epoxy composite beam, Mater. Today Proc. 33
(2020) 5505–5510.
[16] S.K. Sahu, P. Das, Experimental and numerical studies on vibration of laminated composite beam with transverse multiple cracks, Mech. Syst. Sig.
Process. 135 (2020) 106398.
[17] S. Mustapha, A. Braytee, L. Ye, Multisource data fusion for classification of surface cracks in steel pipes, J. Nondestruct. Eval. Diagnost. Prognost. Eng.
Syst. 1 (2) (2018).
[18] M. Saade, S. Mustapha, Assessment of the structural conditions in steel pipeline under various operational conditions–A machine learning approach,
Measurement 166 (2020) 108262.
[19] C.P. Huynh, S. Mustapha, P. Runcie, F. Porikli, Multi-class support vector machines for paint condition assessment on the Sydney Harbour Bridge using
hyperspectral imaging, Struct. Monitor. Maint. 2 (3) (2015) 181–197.
[20] R.S. Sutton, A.G. Barto, Introduction to reinforcement learning, Vol. 135, MIT press, Cambridge, 1998.
[21] A.Y. Ng, Feature selection, L1 vs. L2 regularization, and rotational invariance, in: In Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine
learning, 2004, p. 78.
[22] D.J.C. MacKay, A practical Bayesian framework for backpropagation networks, Neural Comput. 4 (3) (1992) 448–472.
[23] A. Krogh, J.A. Hertz, A simple weight decay can improve generalization, Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. (1992) 950–957.
[24] V. Vapnik, The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, Springer science & business media, 2013.
[25] T. Hofmann, B. Schölkopf, A.J. Smola, Kernel methods in machine learning, Ann. Statist. (2008) 1171–1220.
[26] JOHN.T. KENT, Information gain and a general measure of correlation, Biometrika 70 (1) (1983) 163–173.
[27] D.E. Rumelhart, G.E. Hinton, R.J. Williams, Learning representations by back-propagating errors, Nature 323 (6088) (1986) 533–536.
[28] G. Cybenko, Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Math. Control Signals Syst. 2 (4) (1989) 303–314.
[29] P.E. McKnight J. Najab I.B. Weiner W.E. Craighead The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ, USA 10.1002/
9780470479216.corpsy0524
[30] F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, J. Vanderplas, Scikit-learn,, Machine learning in Python, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12
(2011) 2825–2830.
[31] P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T.E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, S.J. van der Walt, SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific
computing in Python, Nat. Methods 17 (3) (2020) 261–272.
[32] M.S. Prabhakar, Vibration Analysis of Cracked beam, M-Tech thesis, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, India (2009)
[33] B. Shahriari, K. Swersky, Z. Wang, R.P. Adams, N.D. Freitas, Taking the human out of the loop: a review of Bayesian optimization, Proc. IEEE 104 (1)
(2015) 148–175.
16

Machine Learning Based Frequency Modelling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machine Learning Based Frequency Modelling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 160 (2021) 107915

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing

Machine learning based frequency modelling

2.1. Machine learning

Model : y ¼ wT K ðxÞ þ b; x; wRM ð7Þ

IConstraint : yi wT Kðxi Þ b  e þ ni ; i ¼ 1;    ; N ð9Þ

IIConstraint : wT K ðxi Þ þ b yi  e þ ni ; i ¼ 1;    ; N ð10Þ

IIIConstraint : ni ; ni  0; i ¼ 1;    ; N ð11Þ

Fig. 2. Definition of Experiment 1 and Experiment 2.

@L @h<hðkþ1Þ > @h<hðkþ2Þ > @h<hðoÞ > @L

2.2. Ensemble learning

2.3. Two sided mann-whitney U test

3.1. Data collection

3.2. Design of experiments

3.3. Comparison of the experiments

4. Results & discussion

Model/Algorithm Validation Phase Test Phase

Fig. 4. Results of Experiment 1 across Different Evaluation Metrics.

Phase Metric Test Statistic P Value Null Hypothesis

Mode Frequency Change Nodes Elements

Model/Algorithm Validation Phase (Mode 1) Test Phase (Mode 1)

Model/Algorithm Validation Phase (Mode 2) Test Phase (Mode 2)

Model/Algorithm Validation Phase (Mode 3) Test Phase (Mode 3)

Model/Algorithm Validation Phase (Mode 4) Test Phase (Mode 4)

Model/Algorithm Validation Phase (Mode 5) Test Phase (Mode 5)

Model/Algorithm Validation Phase (Mode 6) Test Phase (Mode 6)

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of Competing Interest

You might also like

IConstraint : yi wT Kðxi Þ b e þ ni ; i ¼ 1; ; N ð9Þ

IIConstraint : wT K ðxi Þ þ b yi e þ ni ; i ¼ 1; ; N ð10Þ

IIIConstraint : ni ; ni 0; i ¼ 1; ; N ð11Þ