Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 903–910

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Interpretation of concrete dam behaviour with artificial neural network and

multiple linear regression models
J. Mata ∗
Monitoring Division, Concrete Dams Department, National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Av. do Brasil 101, 1700-066, Lisbon, Portugal

article info abstract

Article history: The safety control of large dams is based on the measurement of some important quantities that
Received 15 July 2010 characterize their behaviour (like absolute and relative displacements, strains and stresses in the concrete,
Received in revised form discharges through the foundation, etc.) and on visual inspections of the structures. In the more important
9 November 2010
dams, the analysis of the measured data and their comparison with results of mathematical or physical
Accepted 1 December 2010
Available online 11 January 2011
models is determinant in the structural safety assessment.
In its lifetime, a dam can be exposed to significant water level variations and seasonal environmental
Keywords:
temperature changes. The use of statistical models, such as multiple linear regression (MLR) models,
Concrete dam in the analysis of a structural dam’s behaviour has been well known in dam engineering since the
Dam behaviour 1950s. Nowadays, artificial neural network (NN) models can also contribute in characterizing the normal
Ceteris paribus structural behaviour for the actions to which the structure is subject using the past history of the structural
Artificial neural network behaviour. In this work, one important aspect of NN models is discussed: the parallel processing of the
Multiple linear regression information.
This study shows a comparison between MLR and NN models for the characterization of dam
behaviour under environment loads. As an example, the horizontal displacement recorded by a pendulum
is studied in a large Portuguese arch dam. The results of this study show that NN models can be a powerful
tool to be included in assessments of existing concrete dam behaviour.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction as the result of time effects. The uncertainty of the model is

The main objective of the safety control of a concrete dam is
to guarantee the functions for which it was built by maintaining
its functionality and its structural integrity. The safety control is
supported by monitoring activities and is based on models.
The ultimate purpose of the models is to predict the behaviour
of a concrete dam and to identify whether the behaviour of the
structure is still similar to past behaviour under the same loads or if
there is any difference. If indeed the evolution is divergent between
the model prediction and actual behaviour, then the assumptions
of the models have changed and the reason for the change should
be identified to assess the consequences.
Models based on mechanical principles are often difficult to
construct and it is necessary to deal with the uncertainty in the
parameters. In general, it is interesting to find out how changes in
the input variables affect the values of the response variables. An
empirical formulation for structural response is usually obtained as
the sum of three terms: the temperature variation, the hydrostatic
pressure variation and other unexpected unknown causes such
represented by the residual term of the model. Some structural
identification techniques have been successfully obtained by De
Sortis and Paoliani [1] and Léger and Leclerc [2], although using
a very complex procedure. On the other hand, with a large amount
of observation data it is possible to define the characterization of
a normal dam’s behaviour by using statistical models without the
knowledge of mechanical principles [3]. Nowadays, there is great
experience in using MLR model methods for the characterization
of a concrete dam’s behaviour.
The NN models have been applied in different areas, including
dam engineering. Some works related to this subject can be
mentioned such as Perner et al. [4], Gomes and Awruch [5], Fedele
et al. [6], Feng and Zhou [7], Bakhary et al. [8], Wang and He [9],
Wen et al. [10], Liu et al. [11], Joghataie and Dizaji [12] and Yi
et al. [13].
Both MLR and NN approaches have potential value for assessing
the behaviour of the control variables that support the safety
assessment of the concrete dam as is shown with a ceteris paribus1
analysis in this study. In the period of normal operation of a

∗ Tel.: +351 218443372; fax: +351 218443026. 1 Ceteris paribus is a Latin phrase, that can be translated as ‘‘all other things being
E-mail address: jmata@lnec.pt. equal’’.

0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.011
904 J. Mata / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 903–910
concrete dam, the main actions and the structural response are
well characterized and there is a strong correlation between these
two. The study of a structural response of horizontal displacements
with ceteris paribus analysis for the temperature effect is presented
for different water levels. In the same way, a similar study for
the hydrostatic pressure effect is carried out for different levels of
temperature.
2. Statistical models
The variations of hydrostatic pressure and temperature are the
main actions to be taken into account when analysing the results
of the concrete dam observations.
The simultaneous effects of hydrostatic pressure and temper-
ature variations create an observed effect which is the result of
both loads. It is also important to take in account any effects of the
loads separately in interpreting a concrete dam’s behaviour. Such
isolation can be promptly obtained when the variation of only one
load appears between seasons. However, the most general way to
separate their effects is the use of statistical methods. These meth-
ods use simultaneous consideration of a large number of observa-
tions, allowing the establishment of the correlations between the
observed behaviour and corresponding loads.
The MLR model is one of the statistical techniques most widely
used for analysing multifactor effects. A MLR model is a statistical
technique for investigating and modeling the relationship between
variables [14,15]. In dam engineering, MLR models have a
long history and were initially known as quantitative analysis
models [16]. A MLR model does not imply a cause effect
relationship between the variables and in almost all applications
of regression, the regression equation is only an approximation to
the true relationship between the variables.
In recent years, the field of Artificial Intelligence has introduced
some tools that are able to perform cognitive tasks such as pattern
recognition and function approximation [17]. This is the case of the
Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) models that were used in this work.
Generally, MLR and NN models are valid only within the region
of the observed data.
2.1. Multiple linear regression
A MLR model is a method used to model the linear relationship
between a dependent variable and one or more independent
variables. The dependent variable is sometimes also called the
predictand or response, and the independent variables the
predictors.
These models consider that the effects associated with a limited
time period at a specific point can be approximated by Eq. (1).
E (h, θ, t ) = Eh + Eθ + Et (1)
where E (h, θ , t ) is the observed effect; Eh is the elastic effect
of hydrostatic pressure; Eθ is the elastic effect of temperature,
depending on the thermal conditions; Et is the effect function of
time, considered irreversible.
Eq. (1) is based on several simplifying assumptions concerning
the behaviour of materials, such as: (i) the analysed effects refer
to a period in the life of a concrete dam, for which there is
no relevant structural changes; (ii) the effects of the normal
structural behaviour for normal operating conditions can be
represented by two parts. A part of the elastic nature (reversible
and instantaneous, resulting from the variations of the hydrostatic
pressure and the temperature) and another part of inelastic nature
(irreversible) such as a time function; (iii) the effects of the
hydrostatic pressure and temperature changes can be studied
separately.
The effects of hydrostatic pressure variation, Eh (h), are usually
represented by polynomials, depending on the height of water in
the reservoir h, Eq. (2).
Eh (h) = β1 h + β1 h2 + β2 h3 + β4 h4 . (2)
The effect of the temperature changes can be considered as a
proportional attenuation of the air temperature changes with a
phase shift with depth along section.
Very simple MLR models usually do not use temperature
measurements because it is assumed that the thermal effect
Eθ (d) can be represented by the sum of sinusoidal functions with
one-year period and six-month period [18,2]. Thus, the effect
of temperature variations is defined by a linear combination of
sinusoidal functions, which only depends on the day of the year,
Eq. (3).
Eθ (d) = β5 sin(d) + β6 cos(d) + β7 sin2 (d) + β8 sin(d) cos(d) (3)
2π·j
where d = 365 and j represents the number of days between
the beginning of the year (January 1) until the date of observation
(0 ≤ j ≤ 365).
To represent the time effects, Et (t ), it is usual to consider the
functions presented in Eq. (4), where t is the number of days since
the beginning of the analysis.
Et (t ) = β9 t + β10 e−t . (4)
Suppose that there are p independent variables and n observa-
tions, (X1 , . . . , Xp , Y ) where Y represents the observed effect and
X are the functions of water level height, temperature and time,
respectively.
The model relating the independent variable to the dependent
variable is Y = β0 + β1 X1 + β2 X2 + · · · + βj Xj + · · · + βp Xp + ϵ .
The model is obtained by a system of n equations that can
be expressed in a matrix notation as Y = Xβ + ϵ , where Y is
a (n × 1) vector of the dependent variable or response, X is a
(n ×(p + 1)) matrix of the levels of the p independent variables, β is
a ((p + 1)× 1) vector of the regression coefficients, and ϵ is a (n × 1)
vector of random errors. This method assumes that the expected
value of the error term is zero, which is E (ϵ) = 0; the variance
V (ϵ) = σ 2 and that the errors are uncorrelated [14,19,20].
MLR models are based on least squares: the model is fit such
that the sum-of-squares of differences of observed and predicted
ϵ ϵ ϵ = (Y − Xβ)T (Y − Xβ), is minimized.
∑n 2 T
values, L = i =1 i =
The regression coefficient estimator, β̂ , is the solution for β in the
∂L
equation ∂β = 0.
In matrix notation, the least squares estimator of β is β̂ =
(XT X)−1 XT Y, the fitted model is Ŷ = Xβ̂ and the vector of the
residuals is denoted by ϵ̂ = Y − Ŷ.
2.2. Multilayer Perceptron
The NN model is a simplified mathematical model of a natural
neural network. NN models are inspired on the efficiency of
the brain process. Many of the important issues concerning the
application of artificial neural networks can be introduced in the
simpler context of polynomial curve fitting [17,21].
NN models have been employed successfully to solve complex
problems in various fields of application including classification,
pattern recognition, prediction, optimization, function approxima-
tion and control systems [22,23]. The increasing interest for this
area derives from the learning ability of these models, which re-
late the variables without imposing relationships between them.
A neuron is the main element of an artificial neural network. It
is an operator with inputs and outputs, associated with a transfer
function, f , interconnected by synaptic connections or weights, w .
Fig. 1 illustrates how information is processed through a single
neuron.
 J. Mata / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 903–910
Fig. 1. Neuron.
Fig. 2. Multilayer Perceptron.
Different NN models have been proposed since its conception in
the 1940s, but the MLP is the most widely used. A MLP has neurons
arranged in layers. The first layer receives the inputs and the last
layer produces the outputs. The middle layers have no connection
with the external world and are called hidden layers. Each neuron
in one layer is connected to every neuron in the next layer. The
information is constantly fed forward from one layer to the next
layer. The incoming connection has two values associated with it,
an input value and a weight.
MLP models learn by an iterative process, by adjusting the
weights so as to be able to correctly learn the training data and
hence, after the testing phase, to predict unknown data. Knowledge
is usually stored as a set of connecting weights.
Fig. 2 illustrates a generic example of a MLP, with an input layer
having N input parameters, one hidden layer, l, with Q neurons and
an output layer, L, with one output.
p
The parameters have the following meaning: xi is the input
network i, from pattern p; L is the output layer; l is the hidden
layer number; N is the number of inputs in the input layer; Q is the
number of neurons in the hidden layer l; wijl is the synoptic weight
between input network i from layer l − 1 at processing element
l ,p
j; sj is the activation value at neuron j from layer l, from pattern
l ,p
p; and, yj is the output of the neuron j from layer l, from pattern p.
l ,p
The output yj , from a hidden layer, is the input from the following
l ,p
layer and is calculated by yj = fjl (slj,p ) and the calculation of the
l ,p l ,p ∑N l−1,p l
activation value, was defined as sj =
sj , i=1 yi wij .
p p p
The set of patterns can be written as (x1 , . . . , xi , . . . , xN , dp )
with p = 1, . . . , P, where d is the desired target from pattern p.
p
Training is the process of modifying the connection weights in
some orderly fashion using a suitable learning method. The NN
model uses a learning mode in which an input is presented to
905
Fig. 3. Learning and prediction sets.
Fig. 4. Cross validation criteria.
the network along with the output, and the weights are adjusted
so that the network attempts to produce the desired output.
Weights after training contain meaningful information whereas
before training they are random and have no meaning.
The backpropagation algorithm, one of the most famous
training algorithms for the MLP, is a gradient descent technique
intended to minimize the error or cost function, in which it
adjusts the weights by a small amount at a time. The generalized
backpropagation delta learning rule algorithm was adopted. The
cost function usually considered, C ,is defined by the mean square
∑P  1 L,p
error, as C = P1 p=1 2 (y − d p
) .
The period analysed is usually separated in two data sets,
(Fig. 3). The first set, designated as learning set {t0 , t1 }, is used
for the model to learn the behaviour in this time. The second
set, designated as predicting set {t2 , t3 }, is used to evaluate the
prediction capabilities of the model obtained from the learning set.
The cross validation is the stopping criteria used. A randomiza-
tion of the learning set is previously done, which made it possible
to define the training set, the cross validation set and the test set,
with a number of examples equal to 65%, 15% and 20% of the learn-
ing set, respectively.
The test set is used as an auxiliary element that makes it
possible to carry out the evaluation of the quality of the NN model
for the learning set.
First, a NN model is trained with a small number of processing
elements in the hidden layer and the performance over the cross
validation set and the test set is determined. Then, the procedure
is repeated with one more processing element in the hidden layer
and the performance is again calculated. After a sufficient number
of architectures are trained, the best architecture is chosen.
In each iteration, the performance for the training set is usually
better than before, but if at any time the error for the cross
validation set increases, the NN model may lose its generalization
capacity (Fig. 4). The training stops when the error for the cross
validation set begins to increase, a better generalization thus being
ensured.
Each initialization of the weights can lead to a different
local minimum. Therefore, several random initializations were
established for each NN architecture.
3. Case study
The Alto Rabagão dam (Fig. 5) is located in Portugal and has as
its main water line the Rabagão River in the Cávado hydrographical
basin. The Alto Rabagão dam consists of three main structures:
906 J. Mata / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 903–910
Fig. 5. Alto Rabagão dam.
Fig. 6. Maximum and minimum daily air temperature between 1980 and 2005.
the central structure that consists of a double curvature arch
which is supported on two artificial abutments and two gravity
sections that are located on the prolongation of each abutment. The
construction began in 1961 and the completion date was 1964. The
dam started operating in 1964 and the maximum reservoir water
level was achieved in March 1966.
The maximum dam height is 94 m in the double curvature
arch and the total crest length is 1897 m. The minimum reservoir
water level for hydropower operation is 829 m and the maximum
reservoir water level is 880 m, with a total capacity of 569 × 106 m3 .
The monitoring system of the Alto Rabagão dam consists of
several devices which make it possible to observe and to measure
quantities such as: concrete and air temperatures, reservoir water
level, horizontal and vertical displacements, rotations, movements
of joints, strain, stress, uplift pressure, foundation displacements
and seepage.
Among the different loads acting on concrete dams, it is usual
to distinguish, as the most important ones for structures in normal
operation, the hydrostatic pressure and the temperature variation
(Fig. 6).
The structural response, for instance, the displacement in any
point of the dam, is strongly related to the corresponding variation
in the water level in the reservoir. Fig. 7 shows this strong
correlation for the displacements measured at block KJ of the crest
arch. The observations presented in Fig. 7 will be used for the
computation of the MLR and NN models presented in this work.
Signs (+) indicate displacements towards downstream and signs
(−) towards upstream.
3.1. Multiple linear regression model
Through semi-empirical knowledge, the wide knowledge in
analysing the behaviour of concrete dams provides a functional re-
lationship between the independent variables and the dependent
variable.
In this case study, the MLR model with the best performance
for the upstream–downstream crest displacement of the FP1
pendulum yMLR FP1 was obtained as the sum of the hydrostatic
pressure term β4 × h4 (where h is the reservoir water level height
and can vary between 0 and 94 m) and the temperature terms
β5 × sin(d) + β6 × cos(d).
The time effect did not seem to have a significant importance
in the period examined by this study. Mention must be made of
the fact that if any effect of time exists, it can be easily detected
through a graph of the evolution of the residuals over time.
The data used to determine the model parameters comprised
the period from January 1980 to December 2002 (914 observa-
tions) and the data considered for prediction comprised the period
from January 2003 to September 2005 (69 observations), Fig. 7.
 J. Mata / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 903–910 907

Fig. 7. Horizontal upstream–downstream crest displacement recorded by the FP1 pendulum at KJ block.

Fig. 10. Displacement by NN model for the horizontal upstream–downstream crest

Fig. 8. Displacement by MLR model for the horizontal upstream–downstream crest displacement at KJ block.
displacement at KJ block.

Table 1
Performance parameters for MLR and NN models.
Learning set Prediction set
|ϵ|Max E (|ϵ|) r |ϵ|Max E (|ϵ|) r

MLR 5.7 1.3 0.97 4.3 1.3 0.98

NN 5.7 1.2 0.98 4.3 1.4 0.98

A hyperbolic tangent transfer function having been chosen to

Fig. 9. Architecture of proposed NN model.
The least squares method was applied, the solution presented
in Eq. (5) being obtained, so the horizontal upstream–downstream
crest displacement at KJ block can be computed by Eq. (5).
FP1 (h, d) = 3.33 × 10 h + 2.40 cos(d)
−7 4
yMLR
+ 4.55 sin(d) − 1.47.
Fig. 8 shows the good agreement between the model and the
data set.
3.2. Multilayer Perceptron model
The NN model considered consists of an input layer with
3 input parameters (to represent the hydrostatic pressure and
the temperature effects), an output layer (to represent the
upstream–downstream crest displacement of the FP1 pendulum)
and one hidden layer, as can be seen in Fig. 9. Every neuron in
the network is fully connected with each neuron of the next layer.
be the activation function for the hidden layer and the linear
function for the output layer. The generalized backpropagation
delta learning rule algorithm was used in the training process.
The chosen network architecture was the best for all networks,
from 3 until 30 neurons, at the hidden layer. To find out
the optimum result, 5 initializations of random weights and
a maximum of 5000 iterations were performed for each NN
architecture.
In this case study the NN model with best performance was a
(5) 3-12-1 MLP (less error for the cross validation set) and the good
results are illustrated in Fig. 10.
4. Model comparison
Table 1 presents some performance parameters such as the
mean absolute error, E (|ϵ|), the maximum absolute error, |ϵ|Max ,
and the correlation coefficient, r. MLR and NN models have good
performances for both learning and prediction sets.
Both methods proved to be adequate for predicting the ob-
served values, each model, however, having its own peculiarities,
as can be seen in Fig. 11.
908 J. Mata / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 903–910

Fig. 11. Observed data, MRL and NN model comparison for the horizontal crest displacements on FP1.

Fig. 12. Residuals produced by MLR and NN models.

The residuals obtained make it possible to estimate the disper-
sion in results. These residuals are due to factors contributing to the
measured effect, which are not included in the magnitudes con-
cerned.
The residual analysis shows a more uniform error distribution
for the NN model than the MLR model. The MLR model has greater
errors from August to October and in the period from March to
May, Fig. 12.
If the hypotheses that support the MLR models are true, the
separation of effects is valid, which is advantageous to quantify the
contribution that a particular action has on the structural response.
Furthermore, in MLR models, functions are selected based on
a semi-empirical knowledge of the behaviour of the structure,
such as the allocation of a polynomial function h4 to provide the
effect of the variation in the water level height on the horizontal
displacements of arch dams. The NN models themselves identify
the influence that each variable has on the structural response,
by taking advantage of parallel processing in the interaction of
inputs. The effect that each variable has on the output of the NN
model can also be obtained from ceteris paribus analysis. This study
was carried out on the ceteris paribus analysis for the effect of the
hydrostatic pressure changes and the effect of the temperature
changes on the horizontal crest displacement at the KJ block.
The ceteris paribus analysis for horizontal displacements due to
the effect of the hydrostatic pressure was obtained by establishing
the day and by presenting the domain of the reservoir water
level height. In this study, the analyses were performed on the
20th,100th,180th and 260th day of the year. As can be seen in
Fig. 13, the two models show a similar evolution.
The ceteris paribus analysis for horizontal displacements due to
the effect of the temperature was achieved for several reservoir
water level heights previously established, covering the entire field
for the temperature variation. This process was repeated several
times for various reservoir water level heights (74 m, 79 m, 84 m
 J. Mata / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 903–910
Fig. 13. Ceteris paribus of the water level effect for days equal to 20, 100, 180 and 260 of the year.
Fig. 14. Ceteris paribus of the temperature effect for water levels equal to 860, 865, 870 and 875 m.
and 89 m that correspond to a water level equal to 860 m, 865 m,
870 m and 875 m, respectively). The results illustrated in Fig. 14
show that the effect of the temperature changes on the structural
response is practically independent from the reservoir water level
variation.
The effects for both models are similar. In the MLR model, the
effect of the temperature changes is given by a sinusoidal curve
with an amplitude and a well defined phase. However, it seems
that in the NN model, the response due to the thermal effect has a
wave with smaller opening in the warm months than in the cold
months and consequently is better adapted to the observed values
than the MLR model. This flexibility is an advantage that the NN
models have over MLR models.
One of the advantages of MLR and NN models, within the
safety control of concrete dams, is that they make it possible to
establish a functional relationship between the loading actions and
the structural response. MLR models use empirical functions to
quantify the effect of the independent variables on the structural
response. In NN models, the relationship between variables is
established by the architecture and the synaptic weights of the
network by taking advantage of the parallel processing of input
variables, hence it only being necessary to know the inputs and the
outputs.
909
It is considered that the two models have identified the
same type of relationship between the structural response to the
temperature and the reservoir water level variation. However, the
NN model has more capacity of learning this kind of scenario
because of the parallel processing of the information.
One of the disadvantages is that it is sometimes suggested
that it is not based on the principles of mechanics but only
the knowledge of statistical nature. Although this may be true,
the physical behaviour is intrinsic to the value observed, i.e. the
observations are statistical data but are still governed by the actual
behaviour of the structure.
Since data is available in sufficient quantity, the models
presented can quickly obtain estimates of the relationship between
variables, and also estimate the response of the structure for a new
load.
5. Conclusions
In this paper MLR and NN models are generated and calibrated
on the basis of experimental data of time histories (over about
25 years) of reservoir level and external temperature and of
structural responses (specifically crest displacements). Deviations
of monitored dam behaviour from the above results give rise to
alert of possible damage. The main limitation of the methodology
910 J. Mata / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 903–910
presented here is that it does not take mechanical properties and
possible damage directly into account. Once an alert is given,
additional analysis is required for detailed diagnoses, which should
rely on the results of non-destructive tests (statical and dynamical),
computational mechanical modeling and inverse analysis.
In the MLR model, the variables are assumed to be independent,
the overlapping effects being valid, and it is possible to identify
the contribution of each loading action to the structural response.
The NN models simultaneously process the inputs and, therefore,
the contribution of each load to the output model depends on
the value of the other inputs. Thus, the contribution of each input
variable to the structural response can be achieved through the
implementation of a ceteris paribus analysis, as shown in this work.
NN models showed flexibility and proved to be more adequate
for months with extreme temperatures than the MLR models
with the same variables. The two methods have the advantage of
being easily implemented and of being simultaneously used, which
increases the confidence in the use of these models. Finally, the
results of this study reinforce the notion that statistical models
are useful for establishing relations between loads and structural
responses for the behaviour analysis in the safety control of
concrete dams.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the company EDP-Energias de Portu-
gal that provided the data for the statistical procedures addressed
in this paper. The author is also grateful to the colleagues of the
Concrete Dams Department of the National Laboratory for Civil
Engineering of Portugal and of the Instituto Superior Técnico—
Technical University of Lisbon for their support of the work.
References
[1] De Sortis A, Paoliani P. Statistical analysis and structural identification in
concrete dam monitoring. Eng Struct 2007;29(1):110–20.
[2] Leger P, Leclerc M. Hydrostatic, temperature, time-displacement model for
concrete dams. J Eng Mech 2007;133(3):267–77.
[3] ICOLD. Methods of analysis for the prediction and the verification of dam
behaviour. Tech. rep. Swiss Committee on Dams; 2003.
[4] Perner F, Koehler W, Obernhuber P. Interpretation of Schlegeis dam crest
displacement. In: Sixth benchmark workshop on numerical analysis of dams.
International commission of large dams. Salzburg. 2001. p. 10.
[5] Gomes HM, Awruch AM. Comparison of response surface and neural network
with other methods for structural reliability analysis. Struct Saf 2004;26(1):
49–67.
[6] Fedele R, Maier G, Miller B. Health assessment of concrete dams by overall
inverse analyses and neural networks. Int J Fract 2006;137(1):151–72.
[7] Feng X, Zhou J. Structural health monitoring using artificial neural network
and statistical process control in a changing environment. In: Ou JP, Li H,
Duan ZD, editors. Structural health monitoring and intelligent infrastructure.
Proceedings and monographs in engineering, water and earth sciences, vols. 1
and 2. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.; 2006. p. 737–43.
[8] Bakhary N, Hao H, Deeks AJ. Damage detection using artificial neural network
with consideration of uncertainties. Eng Struct 2007;29(11):2806–15.
[9] Wang BS, He ZC. Crack detection of arch dam using statistical neural network
based on the reductions of natural frequencies. J Sound Vibration 2007;
302(4–5):1037–47.
[10] Wen CM, Hung SL, Huang CS, Jan JC. Unsupervised fuzzy neural networks
for damage detection of structures. Struct Control Health Monit 2007;14(1):
144–61.
[11] Liu J, Wang G, Chen Y. Research and application of GA neural network model
on dam displacement forecasting. ASCE conf. proc., vol. 323. Long Beach (CA):
ASCE; 2008. p. 69.
[12] Joghataie A, Dizaji MS. Nonlinear analysis of concrete gravity dams by neural
networks. In: Ao SI, Gelman L, Hukins DWL, Hunter A, Korsunsky AM,
editors. World congress on engineering 2009. Lecture notes in engineering
and computer science, vols. I and II. Hong Kong: Int. Assoc. Engineers; 2009.
p. 1022–7.
[13] Yi XD, Xu F, Jiang CK. Research on dam deformation forecast model based
on genetic algorithm neural network. In: Wen TD, editor. ISTM/2009: 8th
international symposium on test and measurement, vols. 1–6. Hong Kong:
International Academic Publishers Ltd.; 2009. p. 1536–9.
[14] Montgomery DC, Runger GC. Applied statistics and probability for engineers.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1994.
[15] Draper NR, Smith H. Applied regression analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1981.
[16] Rocha M, Serafim J, Silveira A. A method of quantitative interpretation of
the results obtained in the observation of the dams. R.84, Q.21. In: VI ICOLD
congress. vol. II. New York. 1958. p. 927–60.
[17] Bishop CM. Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford: Clarendon Press;
1995.
[18] Willm G, Beaujoint N. Les méthodes de surveillance des barrages au service
de la production hidraulique déléctricité de france. Problémes anciens et
solutions nouvelles. R.30, Q.34. In: IX ICOLD congress. vol. III. Istanbul. 1967.
p. 529–50.
[19] Johnson RA, Wichern DW. Applied multivariate statistical analysis. 4th ed.
Prentice Hall; 1998.
[20] Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Neter J, Li W. Applied linear statistical models. 5th
ed. McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2004.
[21] Rocha M, Cortez P, Neves J. Evolution of neural networks for classification and
regression. Neurocomputing 2007;70(16–18):2809–16.
[22] Patterson DW. Artificial neural networks: theory and applications. Singapore:
Prentice Hall; 1996.
[23] Almeida LB. Section C.1.2—multilayer perceptron. Handbook of neural
computation. Oxford. 1997. p. 34.