Journal Pre-proofs

Missing measurement data recovery methods in structural health Monitoring:

The State, challenges and case study

Jianwei Zhang, Minshui Huang, Neng Wan, Zhihang Deng, Zhongao He, Jin
Luo

PII: S0263-2241(24)00413-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114528
Reference: MEASUR 114528

To appear in: Measurement

Received Date: 4 July 2023

Revised Date: 18 September 2023
Accepted Date: 18 March 2024

Please cite this article as: J. Zhang, M. Huang, N. Wan, Z. Deng, Z. He, J. Luo, Missing measurement data
recovery methods in structural health Monitoring: The State, challenges and case study, Measurement (2024),
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2024.114528

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version
will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are
providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors
may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Missing Measurement Data Recovery Methods in Structural
Health Monitoring: The State, Challenges and Case Study

Author: Jianwei Zhang a,b, Minshui Huang a,b,*, Neng Wan a,b, Zhihang Deng a,b,
Zhongao He a,b, Jin Luo c
a School
of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan Institute of Technology,
Wuhan 430074, China
b HubeiProvincial Engineering Research Center for Green Civil Engineering
Materials and Structures, Wuhan 430073, China
c School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China

 Corresponding author:

Minshui Huang, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan Institute of

Technology, Wuhan 430074, China.

Email: huangminshui@tsinghua.org.cn

Missing Measurement Data Recovery in Structural

Health Monitoring: The State and Challenges

Abstract

In the field of structural health monitoring (SHM), the sensor measurement signals collected from
the structure are the foundation and key of the SHM system. However, the loss of sensor
measurement signals can result in incomplete monitoring data, which in turn affects the accurate
assessment of the structural health. The restoration of missing measurement signals in SHM is a
multidisciplinary research field. Therefore, analyzing the features of the restoration measurement
signals from multiple perspectives, establishing appropriate mathematical models, and selecting
efficient algorithms is crucial to solving this problem. This article briefly reviews the latest
research progress on restoring missing sensor measurement signals in SHM, using mathematical
models as classification criteria, including finite element method, sparse representation method,
probabilistic and statistical method, and machine learning algorithm. At the end of this article, the
development trend and challenges of restoring missing measurement sensor signals in SHM are
presented from multiple perspectives in-depth.
Keywords: Measurement data recovery, Structural health monitoring, Sensor science, Algorithm,
Deep learning

1. Introduction

With the rapid development of industrialization and urbanization, the safety and reliability of
structures have become an increasingly important issue. Structural health monitoring (SHM)
technology as an effective means can provide real-time monitoring and evaluation of structures to
ensure their safety and reliability. However, in practical applications, there are often signal losses
in monitoring data due to sensor aging, circuit faults, unstable power supply, and other reasons.
These losses may be random, periodic, or continuous. The measurement data acquisition system is
often the foundation and most important part of SHM. The loss of data may cause the damage
identification system to be unable to accurately determine the health status of various parts of the
structure. If the missing signal involves critical parts of the structure, it may even affect the overall
health assessment of the structure. Therefore, to ensure the accuracy and effectiveness of SHM, it
is necessary to solve the problem of sensor measurement signal loss, reconstruct and complete the
missing measurement signals to obtain complete and accurate monitoring data.

In recent years, many SHM measurement signal restoration techniques have emerged and have
been applied to various structures such as buildings [1], TV towers [2], bridges [3], dams [4],
swimming pools [5], and shield tunnel concrete segments [6]. These techniques can recover
missing measurement signals from existing monitoring data, thereby improving the completeness
and accuracy of monitoring data. Before establishing a signal restoration model, it is essential to
have a sufficient understanding of the basic characteristics of the measurement signals to be
restored. In SHM, the types of signals collected by sensors involve structural response signals
(acceleration [7], displacement [8], stress [2], strain [9], crack width [4]) and environmental
parameter signals (temperature [10] and wind speed [11]). Different types of data have different
characteristics: acceleration data has time-varying; stress data has randomness, nonlinearity, and
high-dimensionality; earthquake wave measurement data has high-frequency randomness,
instantaneous variability, and time-varying; temperature data has periodic; humidity data typically
changes with the season; crack width measurement data has periodic and time-evolving; stress
measurement data typically have random processes and nonlinearity; wind speed data usually
exhibit non-stationary sequences. In addition, in different scenarios, the data distribution of the
same type of signal is also different. Therefore, it is necessary to fully understand the spatial and
temporal distribution of the missing measurement signals and select appropriate restoration
methods accordingly.

Establishing an accurate mathematical model and selecting appropriate algorithms are critical to
solving the problem of reconstructing missing sensors signals in SHM. In current research, SHM
signal restoration methods can be classified from the perspective of mathematical model types and
roughly divided into numerical analysis method, optimization method, random process modeling
probability estimation, and end-to-end regression model:

(a) Finite element-based methods as an indirect numeric analysis means of SHM measurement
signal restoration aim to transform the structure's response recovery problem into an
estimation problem of unknown inputs. The estimated input is applied to the finite element
model of the structure, and the complete response of the structure is calculated through finite
element computation. Hong et al. [12] use the acceleration measured at high sampling rates
and the displacement measured at very low sampling rates. The reconstructed control
equations and boundary conditions are derived using variational formulations for inverse
problems to minimize the error between the measured responses and reconstructed responses.
Li et al. [13] proposed two multiscale finite element models for reconstructing structural
responses.

(b) Sparse representation methods can be regarded as a type of optimization model. Bao et al. [5]
explored a new compressed sensing method for wireless sensor networks in SHM. Sawant et
al. [14] presented an orthogonal matching pursuit algorithm to recover lost data in ultrasound-
based SHM applications. Yang et al. [15] used prior knowledge of data structures (intra-
channel sparsity or inter-channel low-rank) to propose a method that minimizes sparse
recovery and nuclear norm for low-rank matrix completion. This method can recover
structurally random lost or damaged vibration response measurement data.

(c) Probability and statistical methods can be regarded as a type of random process modeling
probability estimation model. Zhang et al. [9] brought forward a Bayesian dynamic regression
(BDR) method to reconstruct missing SHM measurement data. Niu et al. [16] designed a state
and input estimator based on the Kalman filtering scheme, which can estimate unknown inputs
and system states within one sampling time. Lin et al. [17] designed a data reconstruction
method based on Kriging sequential interpolation (KSI) combined with probability distribution
correction.

(d) Machine learning-based data reconstruction methods can be regarded as a type of end-to-end
regression model. Oh et al. [1] puts forward a structural response restoration method based on
convolutional neural network. Jiang et al. [18] studied a new data-driven generative
adversarial network (GAN) for recovering missing strain measurement responses. In addition,
Chen et al. [19] researched a strain reconstruction method that combines a nonlinear deep
learning module with a linear autoregressive (AR) module.

Furthermore, measurement noise (sensor noise, measurement system-induced noise, and noise
caused by environmental factors) is one of the unavoidable issues in SHM processes.
Measurement noise can greatly affect the accuracy of SHM signal restoration, making the signal
itself contain parts that are unrelated to the desired signal. Peng et al. [20] proposed a modal
Kalman filtering method based on excitation identification Kalman filtering, which uses noisy
acceleration and measured strain for structure response reconstruction and excitation estimation.
 The remaining parts of this article are organized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of
indirect methods for SHM missing measurement data recovery based on the finite element
method. Section 3 summarizes and investigates the application of sparse representation methods in
SHM missing measurement data recovery. It is divided into two parts: compressed sensing
algorithm and matrix analysis method according to their respective implementation principles;
Section 4 introduces probabilistic and statistical method for SHM missing measurement signal
recovery models, which is subdivided into three sub-sections based on the degree of assumption
about the data distribution of the model (parameter model, nonparametric model, and hybrid
model). It elaborates on three commonly used signal recovery methods in parameter models
(Bayesian method, Kalman filtering, and principal component analysis), as well as other
parameter model methods; In section 5, a review of SHM missing signal recovery models based
on machine learning algorithm is presented. As machine learning algorithm are currently a hot
research topic in this field, this section focuses on 7 types of machine learning methods
(traditional machine learning algorithm, deep neural networks, convolutional neural networks,
generative adversarial networks, recurrent neural networks, autoencoder, and graph neural
networks) with specific network types as the classification indicator. Furthermore, at the end of
each chapter, the advantages and drawbacks of various algorithms are compared in the form of
text descriptions or tables. In the conclusion section, this article presents the development trend
and challenges of SHM missing signal recovery from various perspectives based on an in-depth
analysis of existing research. The missing measurement signal recovery methods for structural
health monitoring are summarized in Fig. 1.
 Finite element
method

Compressed
sensing algorithm
Sparse
representation
method Bayesian method
Matrix analytic
method

Kalman filtering
SHM missing
measurement data Parametric model
recovery method
Principal
Probability and component analysis
Non-parametric
statistical model
methods
Other parameter
Hybrid model models

Deep neural
Traditional network
machine learning (DNNs)
algorithms
Convolutional
Machine neural network
learning (CNNs)

Generative
adversarial
Deep learning networks (GANs) Gated recurrent unit
(GRU)
Recurrent neural
network (RNNs)
Long short-term
memory (LSTM)
Autoencoder (AE)

Graph neural
network (GNNs)

Fig. 1. Summary of missing measurement signal recovery methods for structural

health monitoring.
2. Finite element-based method

Finite element-based method as an indirect numeric analysis means of SHM signal restoration
aim to transform the structure's response recovery problem into an estimation problem of
unknown inputs. The estimated input is applied to the finite element model of the structure, and
the complete response of the structure is calculated through finite element computation. Fig. 2
shows the technical route of SHM missing measurement signal recovery based on finite element
method. Hong et al. [12] proposed a displacement reconstruction scheme that utilizes acceleration
measurements at high sampling rates and displacement measurements at very low sampling rates.
The control equation and boundary conditions for the reconstruction are derived through a
variational formulation of an inverse problem which minimizes the error between measured and
reconstructed responses. The transfer function of the control equation is constant throughout the
frequency domain. Li et al. [13] presented two multi-scale finite element models for
reconstructing structural responses. The first model is a simplified model of the original structure
that utilizes only beam elements as internal elements. This model is used for rapid estimation of
external inputs and reconstruction of displacement responses. The second model uses finite
elements with both internal and upper elements (beam and shell elements), which can reconstruct
displacement and detailed strain-stress responses. Finally, numerical simulation was conducted on
a complex bridge finite element, demonstrating high accuracy of the method under various loading
cases, including vehicle loads, impulsive loads, and random loads. Field experiments also
confirmed the suitability of the developed framework for quasi-static and dynamic loading cases.
A new strategy for time-domain reconstruction was proposed by Yang et al. [21]. The modal
synthesis-based reconstruction method significantly improves computational efficiency while
ensuring calculation accuracy.

The finite element method provides a new approach for obtaining complete structural
measurement responses. This method first estimates external inputs, which are then applied to the
finite element model of the structure, and the complete measurement response of the structure is
calculated through finite element computations. The finite element method has a certain
universality regarding the properties, shapes, and types of loads of structural systems. Moreover,
this method focuses more on the physical problems when performing measurement signal
recovery, and has strong engineering and physical significance. Therefore, the finite element-
based SHM missing signal recovery method has a wide range of applications. However, the
calculation accuracy and result reliability of the finite element method are closely related to the
accuracy of the model. If the model is inaccurately established, it will affect the recovery effect.
Therefore, a considerable amount of work and resources are needed for fine model construction.
In addition, the parameters involved in the established model include material properties and
geometric shapes, and the accuracy and error of these parameters will affect the analysis results of
the model and the recovery effect of the lossing measurement signal.
 Material
properties,
geometry,
structure and
load type

Real signal
updating
Initial finite Updating finite Lossing signal
element model element model recovery

Models for
estimating external
inputs

Modeling

Unknown external
inputs

Fig. 2. Technical route of SHM missing measurement signal recovery based on

finite element method.

3. Sparse representation-based method

3.1. Compressed sensing algorithm

Compressive sensing (CS) is a method for efficient data compression and reconstruction by
representing signals sparsely. It was first introduced by D.L. Donoho in 2006 [22]. In compressive
sensing, the measurement signal can be sampled at a lower sampling rate. The mathematical
model of CS considering noise effects can be represented as follows
) )
y = Fx + e (1)

) )
where, y represents the measured signal, F is the measurement matrix, x is the original signal,
and e is the noise vector.

CS algorithm are commonly used to recover missing measurement data in wireless transmission
of SHM sensor signals. Bao et al. [5] explored a new CS method for use in SHM wireless sensor
networks based on accelerometer time series collected from on-site experiments of the Jinzhou
west bridge and the Beijing national aquatics center SHM system. The basic idea for missing
measurement data recovery in SHM based on CS can be summarized as follows: assuming that the
sensors installed on the structure are working normally, the complete response signal of the
structure collected over a period of time is x , with a signal length of m . Before signal
transmission, the measurement matrix F is generated to compress the complete response signal
x using the Eq. (1), and the measurement vector y is obtained. During signal transmission,

missing data occurs, and the signal received by the base station is yl , which contains missing
measurement data. The missing sensor data is treated as an unknown variable for data recovery,

decoding vector yl , and determining the decoding measurement matrix Fl according to the

missing data case. The generated measurement matrix needs to ensure that the random matrix has
sufficient sparsity and randomness to ensure the performance of the CS algorithm. The sparse
representation data model can be represented during the measurement and transmission process

yl = Ql a + e (2)

where, Ql represents a matrix after sparse representation, and a represents basis coefficients

(reconstruction coefficients). In the CS method, the measurement matrix needs to meet certain
conditions to ensure that the sparse performance of the signal can be effectively utilized, thereby
achieving better reconstruction results. Under the following conditions, the optimal basis

coefficients â can be accurately recovered from yl to restore the source signal x : the collected

signal x is sufficiently sparse; the matrix Ql follows the restricted isometry property, that is the

norm of each row vector of the measurement matrix is equal, and there is a certain relationship
between the measurement matrix and the sparse representation matrix of the original signal. The
missing sensor measurement data can be estimated by minimizing the reconstruction error and
solving the convex optimization problem to obtain the optimal solution of the basis coefficients a

aˆ = arg min a 1 such that Fl a - y 2 „e (3)

where, e represents the upper bound of measurement error, g 1 represents the L1-norm, g 2

represents the L2-norm, â represents the optimal basis coefficients, and y represents the
measurement vector obtained after compressing the complete signal x . Then, the source signal of
the sensor is recovered using the following equation

x = Yaˆ (4)

where, Y represents the basis matrix, which is a set of bases for the sparse representation matrix
and is used to describe the linear combination of signals in the sparse representation domain. The
selection of the basis matrix is a crucial step, and commonly used methods include PCA, K-SVD,
OMP, and random sampling methods. Through the above methods, an estimated value of the
missing response can be obtained, thereby achieving missing response recovery in SHM. In this
process, the relevant parameters are adjusted according to the specific situation to obtain the best
recovery effect. In practical applications, factors such as sensor placement and sampling frequency
need to be considered for data recovery. In addition, there are various situations of measurement
signal loss, and this article only describe the general method of using CS technology for SHM
missing signal recovery. The flowchart of the CS method is shown in Fig. 3.
 Sensor

Complete response signal

Measurement matrix x = Yaˆ

(compression) Recover the source signal

Compression Convex
optimization

Measurement vector
aˆ = arg min a 1 such that Fl a - y 2 „e
Data lossing Optimization equation of
basis coefficient convex

Continuous Random Continuous Continuous

lossing case lossing case lossing case lossing case

Measurement matrix Establish signal

yl = Ql a + e reconstruction
(decompression) Sparse equation
representation

Fig. 3. A schematic presentation of CS.

Klis et al. [23] combined the leader node with compressive sensing paradigm, proposing and
verifying a framework for wireless sensor network dynamic response signal recovery based on
synchronous estimation of recovery error bounds. In compressive sensing, the calculation of the
measurement matrix is the highlight of the compressive sensing encoding process. However, the
calculation process of the random measurement matrix is relatively complicated and consumes a
lot of memory. To address this problem, Thadikemalla et al. [24] puts forward the use of
interleaving techniques for direct transmission in SHM applications. This technique can
effectively receive random non-coherent measurement data and help to reconstruct the original
signal effectively. In order to further reduce the computational complexity required to use the
deinterlacer and improve the robustness of missing data recovery, this team [25] based on CS
proposed a method using the perturbed identity matrix to encode the signal. Surakanti et al. [26]
studied the applicability of Kronecker-based CS recovery to seismic signals, introducing
Kronecker technology to compress the signal to a smaller size, and the compressive system will be
more efficient in terms of the required computational complexity and compression time.
Simulation results show that this technology can significantly improve the quality of the recovered
signal, and sensors can compress the signal to the minimum size. The application of Kronecker
technology in recovery can accurately recover the original seismic signal with high precision up to
7 dB. Talkhouncheh et al. [27] used an improved algorithm based on a random demodulator (RD)
to solve the problem of data loss dependence on the single-chip microcontroller in traditional
algorithms. The sampling matrix in the missing measurement data recovery algorithm uses the
new sensitivity theory based on random demodulator compression. Moreover, the compressive
sensing model for interleaving transmission of raw acceleration data without any encoding
processing can also effectively reconstruct the original signal [28].

Spatial CS uses a nonlinear measurement matrix to compress and measure the original image,
enabling high-fidelity image reconstruction at low sampling rates. Special measurement matrices
are typically used in spatial CS. Traditional image restoration method often require a large number
of sampling points or measurement data to ensure the accuracy of the restoration result. In
contrast, CS-based methods usually require only a small amount of measurement data to
accurately restore the image. Yang et al. [29] proposed an efficient and robust data transmission
and image data recovery method based on CS. The inherent sparsity characteristics of structural
monitoring images and the random undersampling scheme of CS theory are utilized. Sabeti et al.
[30] designed a CS-based waveguides retrieval method for two-dimensional ultrasonic
waveguides model, which can reconstruct the under-sampled wave field in the time and space
domains. Jana et al. [31] researched a CS technology that accurately estimates the full-field
response of a structural system using several contact/non-contact sensors randomly placed on the
structural system. Fig. 4 shows the presented data recovery method.

In the decoding (signal reconstruction) process of the CS algorithm, the core step is sparse
representation, which is a signal representation method based on vector space. It is an important
link to recover the original signal in the CS algorithm. It uses a small amount of data linearly
combined in a dictionary (or basis) to represent the signal, thereby achieving the purpose of
compressing data and extracting features. Most vibration signals of civil infrastructure have sparse
features (i.e., only a few modes contribute to the vibration of the structure), so vibration data
usually have sparse representation. After sparse representation, it is often necessary to use
optimization algorithms to obtain the optimal sparse representation coefficients. The commonly
used optimization methods are divided into three categories: greedy algorithms, convex
optimization algorithms, and sparse Bayesian statistical optimization algorithms.
 Fig. 4. Compressive sensing is used to obtain dense responses from randomly
distributed sensor responses [31].

The orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP) algorithm is a classic method for sparse representation
in the CS field, and it is the basis of many commonly used efficient algorithms for solving linear
regression problems. The algorithm repeatedly selects the column vector in the sample matrix that
is most relevant to the current residual and adds it to the sparse coefficient vector until the pre-set
sparsity is achieved. Due to its simplicity and efficiency, the OMP algorithm has gradually been
tried and applied in the recovery of missing signals in SHM. A data recovery method based on the
OMP algorithm was used in the recovery of missing response measurement signal data for
aviation anti-rust aluminum plates [32]. Li et al. [6] studied an approach that uses convex
optimization theory and the OMP algorithm to achieve CS-based electromechanical admittance
data recovery. Sawant et al. [14] brought forward a method that uses the OMP algorithm in the
recovery of missing measurement data in SHM based on ultrasonic sensors. Sawant et al. [33]
investigated the feasibility of using the OMP algorithm to estimate the damage index (DI) of the
honeycomb composite material laminated structure (HCSS) ultrasonic wave test recorded by
missy sensors. The OMP algorithm has been proven to be efficient and accurate for signal
reconstruction [34]. In addition, to address the problem of low signal accuracy and uncertainty in
sparsity in traditional structural damage identification methods, Liu et al. [35] proposed a
structural damage identification method based on extended Kalman filter and response
reconstruction technology.

Another sparse representation method is sparse dictionary learning, which usually refers to a set
of orthogonal or approximately orthogonal basis vectors that are used to sparsely represent signals
for compression, denoising, and recovery operations. Amini et al. [36] applied CS to the feedback
channel of a closed-loop control system, such as the displacement and velocity profile of a
building, using the state vector. The encoded measurement vectors are first packaged and then
transmitted through an unreliable communication channel. At the controller end, dictionary
learning is used to train a sparse dictionary through a specific application data set. In addition, the
smoothed (SL-0) algorithm is used to solve the underdetermined linear equations in the decoding
stage.

Group sparse representation is a data dimensionality reduction method based on low-rank

decomposition and sparse representation. By solving a low-rank and sparse decomposition
problem, the algorithm can represent the original data as two parts, low-rank and sparse, in order
to achieve dimensionality reduction. In SHM, when a missing response vector needs to be
recovered, the vector can be first decomposed into several smaller groups, each corresponding to
one or more features. Then, these groups are processed as a whole in order to obtain a group
sparse linear representation. In this way, when recovering missing measurement data, the entire
group sparse representation can be constructed using only a portion of the known data, and the
missing data values can be inferred from this representation. Bao et al. [37] proposed a CS-based
wireless sensor group sparse optimization algorithm. Unlike the Nyquist sampling theorem, this
method first uses a non-uniform low-rate random sampling method to obtain data based on CS
theory. Then, a group sparse optimization algorithm is developed to reconstruct the original data
from incomplete measurements. The effectiveness of the method was verified through on-site
testing of wireless sensors on the Xiamen Haicang bridge. In this method, the original signal
matrix U can be represented as

U = ΨF + ε (5)
ée i 2p t1 / T
e i 4p t1 / T
L e i 2 M p t1 / T
ù
ê i 2p t 2 / T i 2 M p t2 / T ú
e e i 4p t 2 / T L e
Ψ=ê ú (6)
ê M M O M ú
ê i 2p t M / T ú
êëe e i 4p t M / T
L e i 2 M p tM / T
úû

where, Ψ is the Fourier matrix, and F Î C M ´ K represents the Fourier coefficients of the original
signal, which has only a few non-zero rows. ε Î R M ´ K is the Gaussian noise matrix. The
augmented Lagrangian multiplier (ALM) method is used to solve a constrained problem by

iteratively solving a series of unconstrained problems. Firstly, Q0 = Z 0 = 0 is set, and a parameter

value t is chosen. Then, the following iteration is performed until the solution converges.

Qk
F k +1 = S1/ t (Ψ -1 ( Z k + PWU + )) (7)
k
Qk
W k +1 = ΨF k +1 - PWU - (8)
k
m
Z k +1 = W k +1 - PWW k +1 (9)
m+t
Qk +1 = Qk - t(ΨF k +1 - Z k +1 - PWU ) (10)

where, S1/ t ： R M ´ K ® R M ´ K is a shrink operator, W is a matrix of M ´ K , W Î C k , where t is

a parameter in the ALM algorithm, Z is an auxiliary variable introduced in ALM, and Q refers
to the penalty parameter in ALM. Only FFT, inverse FFT, and simple shrink operator are used,
which make this algorithm quite efficient.

Sparse Bayesian learning for CS is a probabilistic model-based sparse representation method

that can better handle noise and missing data while maintaining good estimation accuracy. Huang
et al. [38] presented a new Bayesian CS algorithm that explores robust handling of uncertain
parameters. The performance of the new CS algorithm was studied using compressed data from
accelerometers installed on space frame structures and cable-stayed bridges. Compared with other
the most advanced CS methods and Bayesian methods with maximum a posteriori predictive error
accuracy parameters, the new algorithm showed superior performance in terms of reconstruction
robustness and posterior uncertainty quantification.

The introduction of blind source separation mainly improves the signal reconstruction step in
CS. After introducing blind source separation (BSS) technology, multiple source signals in the
mixed signal can be decoupled and each source signal can be reconstructed independently, thereby
avoiding excessive assumptions about signal structure and unnecessary sampling of the entire
signal. Jana et al. [39] used CS algorithm to reconstruct data lost due to grouping. Subsequently,
the reconstructed responses from multiple sensors were synthesized using BSS technology to
estimate real-time frequency changes. Since the cable response due to environmental vibrations
contains a large number of modes, a variant of BSS technology called sparse component analysis
was used to estimate the main mode response or corresponding main frequency with few
measurements. The tension of the cable was estimated from the frequency changes using string
theory.

3.2. Matrix analysis method

The core step in SHM missing measurement signal reconstruction based on matrix analysis
methods is matrix decomposition. Matrix decomposition is the process of decomposing a matrix
into multiple submatrices or vector products, which is commonly used for tasks such as data
dimensionality reduction, feature extraction, and model simplification. Methods based on matrix
decomposition use a low-rank matrix to approximate the original missing data matrix, thereby
recovering missing data and accurately extracting common feature information for further

analysis. Assuming X ij is the sensor signal collected with partially missing measurement data,

where m ´ n is the size of the matrix, the following formula is used to recover the missing signal
in the matrix

1
min
U ,V
å ( X ij - U iV jT )2 + ar (U ) + br (V )
2 i, j
(11)

Y = UV T (12)

where, U represents the k dimensional approximation of the row space of the original matrix

X ij , where k is the pre-specified rank, and the matrix size is m ´ k . V represents the k

dimensional approximation of the column space of the original matrix X ij , where the matrix size

is n ´ k . a and b are regularization parameters, r (U ) and r (V ) are regularization penalty terms.

By minimizing the error between the original matrix X ij and the decomposed matrix, fitting U

and V are found, and the complete source signal is recovered as according to the Eq. (12).

Based on matrix decomposition, Zhao et al. [40] proposed a new encoder signal recovery
method called improved low-rank approximation (ILRA). In this method, the phase space
representation (PSR) was first introduced to transform one-dimensional encoder signals into
matrices for low-rank detection. Then, a bi-directional concentration method based on cumulative
energy ratio is puts forward to identify and extract the principal components embedded in the
phase space. Finally, the improved low-rank approximation method is used to iteratively recover
the missing values. Zhu et al. [41] brought forward a new algorithm for reconstructing structural
responses under conditions of unknown input and rank-deficient feedforward matrices. This
algorithm eliminates one of the major constraints of existing filters (i.e., the requirement for full-
rank matrices), reducing the number of accelerometers needed for practical applications. The
unified linear input and state estimator (ULISE) is first introduced into the reconstruction of
structural responses. ULISE does not require pre-assumptions on the time history of unknown
inputs. The direct feedforward matrix can be rank-deficient or full column rank. Moreover, ULISE
eliminates the time delay problem in input reconstruction based on displacement measurements.
The effectiveness of the structural response reconstruction algorithm based on ULISE is evaluated
and verified through numerical simulations and laboratory tests. This algorithm can achieve
reasonable joint input-state estimation even under conditions of rank-deficient feedforward
matrices. Yang et al. [15] puts forward a method that utilizes prior knowledge of data structure
(channel intra-sparsity or inter-channel low-rank) to minimize sparse recovery and nuclear norm
minimization for low-rank matrix completion, which can recover randomly missing or damaged
structural vibration response data. Taking earthquake responses of Canton tower and acceleration
data from real large cable-stayed bridges as examples, the recovery accuracy and computation
time of these two methods under different data missing rates were studied.

The load estimation method of the Penrose-Moore pseudoinverse (generalized inverse) obtains
the minimal length equivalent nodal force vector among all possible force vectors that satisfy
deformation constraints [42]. The estimated force is equivalent nodal force, as it only satisfies
finite deformation constraints. By multiplying the affecting line matrix and equivalent force vector
with the estimated nodal force, the static response of the entire structure can be easily calculated.
Truncated singular value decomposition is used to handle the affecting line matrix calculated by
the finite element model, in order to avoid the overfitting effect caused by measurement noise.
Furthermore, Zhou et al. [43] proposed a new architecture, where high-speed trains act as mobile
receivers to assist data collection. To ensure high probability recovery of monitoring data under
unreliable transmission conditions, a data packing and reconstruction method called PackTrix is
studied. Additionally, in matrix analysis methods, the idea of merging multiple subspaces into one
large subspace can also achieve the recovery of missing signals. Berger et al. [44] designed a
subspace union and model to characterize practical nonlinear data sets. In this model, each data
point belongs either to one of several low-dimensional subspaces, or to the sum of a subset of
subspaces.
3.3. Summary

This section introduces models based on sparse representation methods to address the problem
of missing measurement signal recovery in SHM, mainly including two categories: CS algorithms
and matrix analysis methods. CS algorithms are commonly used for recovering missing SHM
sensor signals during wireless transmission. The core idea is to apply sparse representation to the
measurement vector with the missing signal, making it closely approximate the measurement
vector with the complete signal, thus achieving the purpose of signal recovery. The choice of
coding method, sparse representation method, and optimization algorithm is crucial for solving the
problem of missing measurement signal recovery. Among the many improved algorithms
presented based on CS, the combination of precursor nodes and CS paradigms improves sparse
expression, improves quantization errors and decoding accuracy. Kronecker-based CS methods
improve sampling efficiency and decoding accuracy. However, Kronecker product is a special
matrix operation, and different dictionary selections may have a significant impact on the
performance of algorithm, and higher requirements on data structure. The CS model without any
coding processing has the advantages of being highly resistant to interference and having high
processing efficiency. The orthogonal matching pursuit algorithm has the advantages of fast
convergence speed and high accuracy. Compared with traditional CS methods, improved
algorithms based on random demodulator have the advantages of faster speed, higher compression
ratio, higher reconstruction accuracy, and better robustness. Group-sparsity-based representation
achieves signal reconstruction with less sampling using the number of group sparsity, reducing
data acquisition time and cost. In addition, this method can also solve the problem of
reconstructing non-sparse signals and low-dimensional data, which has a wider range of
applications. However, in this method, if an appropriate grouping method cannot be found, it may
lead to poor algorithm performance, and choosing suitable dictionaries is also a challenging
problem. Sparse Bayesian learning for compressive sensing can adaptively construct the sensing
matrix based on data characteristics, thus being able to adapt to changing data signals without the
need for a complete sensing matrix.

Matrix decomposition methods decompose the original data matrix into a product form of a
low-rank matrix and a sparse matrix for missing signal recovery in SHM. The low-rank matrix
contains the most important and prominent information in the original data matrix, while the
sparse matrix contains noise and small fluctuations in the data matrix. For any matrix, it can be
represented as the sum of a low-rank matrix and a sparse matrix. Therefore, by performing low-
rank decomposition on the data matrix, an approximate low-rank part of the original matrix can be
constructed, and the missing information can be supplemented using the sparse matrix part. Unlike
CS methods, matrix analysis methods can directly recover missing signals, or perform pre-
interpolation on missing signals before optimization. In the researched methods, improved low-
rank approximation methods can use the spatial and temporal correlations of data to more
accurately recover lost data and better handle missing data and noise, with stronger robustness.
However, improved low-rank approximation methods require setting a threshold for low-rank
constraints, and how to accurately set the threshold is a problem in practical applications. The
introduction of linear input combined with state estimator can handle nonlinear systems and adapt
to dynamic systems. The Penrose-Moore pseudoinverse algorithm can handle the inverse
operation of non-square and singular matrices, making it more versatile in practical applications.
In contrast, ordinary matrix decomposition methods can only handle square and full-rank matrices,
and this method can obtain the least squares solution, which can make the recovery result more
accurate. The subspace intersection and union method can handle the recovery of incomplete data
compared to ordinary matrix decomposition methods. However, the subspace intersection and
union method need to estimate the subspace dimension of the data in advance, which increases the
difficulty of the method. In addition, this method is not suitable for high-density data.

4. Probability and statistical-based method

4.1. Parametric model

4.1.1. Bayesian method

In the task of SHM measurement signal recovery, an unknown data value can be inferred using
a Bayesian model, which utilizes known data and prior knowledge. Firstly, a prior probability
distribution needs to be established to describe the distribution of unknown data. Then, the prior
probability distribution is updated by observing known data to obtain the posterior probability
distribution, which can be used to estimate and predict unknown data. Sun et al. [45] established a
hierarchical probabilistic model based on matrix decomposition by inducing prior sparsity using
spatio-temporal factors in a fully Bayesian framework. By establishing a spatio-temporal
correlation model for monitoring data, the monitoring data matrix can be reconstructed to achieve
missing measurement data recovery. Ren et al. [46] presented an incremental Bayesian
matrix/tensor learning scheme for effective input and prediction of long-term SHM structural
responses. Specifically, a spatio-temporal tensor is first constructed, and a Bayesian tensor
decomposition is performed to extract the latent features of missing data. To achieve structural
response prediction based on long-term and incomplete sensed data, an incremental learning
scheme is developed to effectively update the Bayesian temporal decomposition model. In this
study, the Bayesian matrix decomposition is extended to probability higher-order tensor learning,
with its element expressed as

yi , j ,t ~ N (å P =1 ui , p v j , p xt , p , te-1 ),
P
(i, j,t ) Î W (13)

where, W is a third-order indicator set for observed elements, ui , p is a prior distribution on spatial

feature vectors, xt , p represents the time factor, te represents the precision parameter, and factor

v j , p assumes a multivariate Gaussian prior distribution. Wan et al. [2] puts forward a moving

window strategy to significantly reduce the size of training data, allowing for a reduced-order
Gaussian process model that effectively alleviates the high computational cost. Ni et al. [47]
developed a novel likelihood-free Bayesian inference method for structural parameter
identification. An adaptive Gaussian surrogate model (GSM) is combined with the transitional
Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method for Bayesian inference. The GSM is used to
approximate the log-likelihood function, while the transitional MCMC method generates posterior
distribution samples. The response reconstruction technique is combined with the likelihood-free
Bayesian inference method for parameter identification.
 Bayesian dynamic regression (BDR) is a specific application of the Bayesian method in time
series modeling. Data recovery can be regarded as a regression task by modeling the correlation
between sensors. Zhang et al. [9] studied a BDR method to reconstruct missing SHM data. The
BDR model assumes that the linear form is only locally applicable, and the regression variables
change according to random walks. Multivariate BDR models can simultaneously reconstruct
missing measurement data from different sensors, and the Kalman filter and expectation-
maximization (EM) algorithm are used to estimate state variables and parameters. Gaussian
process regression (GPR) is another specific application of the Bayesian method in regression
problems. Table 1 summarizes the reconstruction methods of SHM missing measurement signals
based on Bayesian method.

Table 1
Review of SHM missing measurement signal reconstruction based on Bayesian method.

Input Estimation
Proposed Restoring Prior method of
Method Structure
by signal distribution posterior
signal distribution

Sun et Bayesian matrix Cable-stayed Gaussian

Deflection Deflection MCMC
al.[45] factorization bridge distribution

Incremental Concrete Gaussian-

Ren et Bridge in Stress+ Wishart
Stress MCMC
al.[46] Bayesian tensor Wanzhou Temperature
learning (China) distribution

Bayesian
Canton Maximum a
Wan et Modeling with Gaussian
tower Stress Stress posteriori
al.[2] Gaussian distribution
(China) estimation
Processes

Adaptive
8 story shear
Ni et Uniform
building Acceleration Acceleration MCMC
al.[47] Gaussian distribution
structure
surrogate model

Sutong
Bayesian cable-stayed Inverse-
Zhang et bridge
dynamic Strain Strain gamma MCMC
al.[9]
regression distribution
(China)

4.1.2. Kalman filter

Kalman filter is an algorithm used for state estimation, which can estimate the state of a system
from observed data. In SHM, sensors are typically used to collect vibration data of a structure,
which is then processed using the Kalman filter algorithm to estimate the state of the structure. If
there are missing measurement signals in the observed data, Kalman filter can treat the missing
signals as unknowns and estimate them based on the observed data and model. The state equation
of the Kalman filter is represented as follows

x   = Ax 
k -1
+ Xu
k -1
+ w
k k -1
(14)

where, x k  represents the state vector at time k , A represents the state transition matrix, X

represents the input matrix, uk -1 represents the control vector at time k - 1 , and w k -1 represents

the process noise at time k - 1 . Zhang et al. [48] studied the pattern selection method for optimal
reconstruction of structural response in Kalman filter. The modal signal-to-noise ratio (MSNR) is
defined as the ratio of the estimated modal response variance to the corresponding estimation error
variance. Only modes with MSNR values higher than the analytical-derived threshold are selected.
Numerical studies are conducted on a beam structure to examine the effects of excitation
amplitude and frequency, measurement noise, and sensor number on adaptive mode selection for
optimal response reconstruction. The efficacy of the researched method in response reconstruction
using various types of sensors, including strain gauges, displacement sensors, and accelerometers,
is also confirmed by experimental studies on a simply supported cantilever. Zhang et al. [49]
conducted research on the dual-response reconstruction of a moving window Kalman filter
(MWKF) with unknown measurement noise covariance (MNC). First, the weighted average value
of MNC was estimated using moving window estimation technique. Subsequently, the
measurements of strain and displacement were fused together to reconstruct the structural
response at unmeasured locations. Peng et al. [20] proposed a modal Kalman filter method for
response reconstruction and excitation estimation of structures using noisy measurements of
acceleration and strain. An integrated approach [50] optimizes the placement of multiple types of
sensors on high-rise buildings and uses information from optimized position sensors to reconstruct
structural responses and excitations. By fusing the structure response measured by multiple
sensors using a Kalman filter, the complete state of the building in modal coordinates is estimated,
which allows the reconstruction of structural responses at unmeasured locations and ground
motion induced by earthquakes. The optimal placement of multiple types of sensors is achieved by
minimizing the overall estimation error of structural responses at the target level of interest while
achieving the optimal sensor layout. Niu et al. [16] designed a state and input estimator based on
Kalman filter scheme that can estimate the unknown inputs and system states within one sampling
time. He et al. [51] presented a multi-scale response reconstruction method under unknown inputs
(MSRR-UI) based on Kalman filter. The recursive analytical solution of the method was derived
based on the principles of Kalman filter. A modified version of the observation equation was
obtained by using projection matrix. The response reconstruction of multiple locations with
multiple types of measurements is fused together to estimate unknown loads using a least squares
method. Zhang et al. [52] addressed the problem of online structural response reconstruction based
on Kalman filter in the presence of observation outliers. An outlier-robust Kalman filter (OKF)
was used to replace the Kalman filter for online dynamic response reconstruction, where the
outliers were identified and iteratively re-weighted to achieve generalized maximum-likelihood
estimation. Table 2 summarizes the reconstruction method of SHM missing measurement signal
based on Kalman filter.
Table 2
Review of SHM missing measurement signal reconstruction based on Kalman filter.

Proposed Process Measurement

Method Structure Restoring signal
by noise noise

Kalman filter Simply supported

Zhang et combined with overhanging steel Strain, displacement
al. [48] adaptive mode beam in the and acceleration
selection laboratory

Simply supported
Zhang et Moving window overhanging steel Strain and
al. [49] Kalman filter beam in the displacement
laboratory

Strain, displacement,
Excitation
Peng et velocity,
identification Cantilever beam
al. [20] acceleration and
Kalman filter
excitation

Displacement,
Zero-mean Zero-mean
Hu et al. Kalman filter inclination,
High-rise building Gaussian Gaussian white
[50] integrated method acceleration and
white noise noise
excitation

Acceleration,
Niu et al. equivalent
Kalman filter Canton tower
[16] fluctuating lateral
loads and moments

Simply supported Displacement,

He et al.
Kalman filter planar truss model velocity, strain and
[51]
and cantilever beam excitation

5-story frame
structure and simply
Zhang et Outlier-robust Acceleration and
supported
al. [52] Kalman filter strain
overhanging steel
beam

4.1.3. Principal component analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a commonly used multivariate analytical method that
can reduce high-dimensional data to low-dimensional data while retaining the main information of
the data. In SHM, if there are missing measurement signals in the observed data, they can be
treated as unknowns and replaced with their estimated values in the dimensionality reduction
process. Thus, in the interpolation process, the estimated values of the unknowns can be used to
calculate the principal component scores, thereby recovering the missing signal. Chen et al. [53]
proposed a robust coarse outlier removal method called the Hankel robust principal component
analysis (HRPCA) to remove coarse outliers in structural dynamic response monitoring data.
HRPCA is a fast integrated data cleaning method that can perform outlier detection, outlier
identification, and restoration of faulty data. Li et al. [54] constructed a correlation matrix and
extended the PCA-based truncation method to reconstruct the matrix. Magán-Carrión et al. [55]
introduced a detection and measurement data recovery method that relies on a spatial density-
based multivariate statistical analysis method. To evaluate the method, a wireless sensor network
scenario based on temperature sensors was considered. The results show that the mechanism based
on multivariate technology improves the robustness of wireless sensor networks in recovering lost
data.

4.1.4. Other parametric methods

In addition to the three main stream parameterized SHM missing signal recovery methods
mentioned above, there are several parameterized methods designed by scholars. Choi et al. [56]
derived the analytical relationship between measured strains to recover data lost due to unexpected
errors during long-term measurement in the construction process. Zhang et al. [57] studied the
correlation between stress changes at monitoring points based on long-term monitoring data of the
steel structure of the Hangzhou Olympic center stadium and proposed an interpolation method for
missing stress data. Chen et al. [58] studied the estimation of probability density function in data
recovery of SHM based on interpolation method. Inspired by the warped transform of distributions
in functional data analysis, a distribution regression method for missing related probability density
function input is puts forward. The warped transform is a mapping operation that deforms one
probability density function into another probability density function by using a warp function to
transform the original probability density function. Using a distortion function can well
characterize the shape mapping between probability density functions. Given the covariate
probability density function, the warp function is first estimated by using a kernel regression
model. Then, the missing probability density function is interpolated using the estimated distortion
function to transform the covariate probability density function. To address the issue of poor
performance when the covariate probability density function is contaminated, a hybrid method
that integrates the interpolation result obtained by the warp transform method with traditional
distribution-distribution regression method is presented.

4.2. Non-parametric model

The nonparametric model is a model that does not require assumptions to be made about the
distribution of the data and is commonly used in the reconstruction of missing signals in SHM.
The signal recovery performance of nonparametric model methods may be affected by factors
such as the number of missing values, sampling frequency, and signal noise. Chen et al. [59]
proposed the use of nonparametric copula to flexibly describe the dependence structure and link
marginal distributions to form a joint distribution, capturing the sensor relationships of random
strain responses. In contrast to traditional SHM methods, temperature-induced strain is treated as
functional data; modeled separately for phase and amplitude components using distortion
functions and a segmented linear mapping model based on phase-amplitude separation
technology; Then, the phase model and the amplitude model are combined to form the final
sensor-to-sensor mapping model. Chen et al. [60] studied the uncertainty quantification of the
distribution-warping function regression method in reconstructing missing measurement data
distributions. As both the predictive function and the response function are continuous functions,
the distribution-warping function regression method belongs to the framework of functional data
analysis. The challenge in quantifying the uncertainty of the distribution-warping function
regression method arises not only from the functional properties of the warping function, but also
from their inherent constraints. To address this, the warping function is transformed into a vector
space using functional transforms, and confidence estimation of the regression operator is
performed based on functional principal component analysis and bootstrapping in the vector
space. The confidence region for the conditional expectation of the missing distribution (caused by
data miss) can then be further estimated and visualized. In addition, a calibration processing
procedure is also considered to obtain improved confidence interval estimates with better coverage
accuracy under expected probabilities. Chen et al. [61] presented a new indirect distribution-
distribution regression method to recover the distribution of missing SHM data using functional
data analysis. The probability density function is transformed into a logarithmic quantile density
(LQD) transformation and expressed as an ordinary function. First, the representation function of
the missing distribution is recovered from a function regression model constructed from the
reconstructed reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) by solving an optimization problem.
Then, the missing distribution is mapped back to density space through logarithmic-quantile-
density inverse transformation.

Ma et al. [62] proposed a framework for probabilistic data reconstruction of missing

measurement data using spatio-temporal correlation of synchronous sensors. High-dimensional
features are projected into an optimally discriminative visual vector space to detect faulty sensors
in a multi-sensor network. GPR machine learning is developed to reconstruct the dynamic
nonlinear response of structures by integrating time and space information. Bayesian posterior
probabilities are used to quantify inherent uncertainty caused by non-stationary stochastic
processes, instead of point estimates. In addition, the multi-task Gaussian process regression
(mGPR) paradigm can be used to obtain correlations among various sensors to reconstruct missing
data of faulty sensors from a holistic perspective [4]. In this study, the usefulness of the puts
forward paradigm was demonstrated by collecting three measurement items, including air
temperature, dam displacement, and crack opening displacement, from two long-term used dams.
Wan et al. [10] presented a new method for SHM data recovery based on Bayesian multi-task
learning using multidimensional Gaussian process priors. The proposed method advocates
modeling a series of tasks simultaneously, rather than independently modeling each task, while
explicitly encoding the correlation between tasks, which enables efficient learning from the data.
Fig. 5 shows the modeling paradigm of single-task Gaussian process model (STGPM) and multi-
task Gaussian process model (MTGPM).
 Single-task Gaussian process model Multi-task Gaussian process model

Training data 1 Training data i Training data k Training data 1 Training data i Training data k

Task 1 ę Task i ę Task k Task 1 ę Task i ę Task k

Fig. 5. Modeling paradigms of single-task Gaussian process model (STGPM) and

multi-task Gaussian process model (MTGPM).

4.3. Hybrid model

A hybrid model is a method that combines parametric and non-parametric models. Sun et al.
[63] established a cross-building response reconstruction model using the response demands of
188 buildings affected by 25 earthquakes. They developed a structural response prediction model
(SRPM) based on a modern ground motion model with an added "building response" term.
Kriging algorithm was used to interpolate the residual within-event, which, together with SRPM,
formed a generalized cross-building response reconstruction (CBRR) model. Given the recorded
response of an instrumented building subset in a cluster, the demand in uninstrumented buildings
can be reconstructed by combining the median generated by SRPM and the estimated within-event
residual obtained from the Kriging model of the given site. Lin et al. [17] proposed a data
reconstruction method combining Kriging-based sequential interpolation (KSI) with probability
distribution correction. Firstly, a global interpolation result can be obtained by KSI. Secondly, the
probability density functions (PDFs) of missing points can be reconstructed through KSI and
subsequently used to correct the primary interpolation result. The method was verified through
simulation and field monitoring data, and the results indicated a significant improvement in
computational efficiency compared to common methods. The fusion of data reconstruction and
PDF reconstruction is a novel method, and its effectiveness is verified through structural dynamic
response analysis. The root mean square value of the structural displacement response caused by
reconstructed wind loads is almost identical to the actual wind load. Lin et al. [64] used Kriging-
based sequential interpolation for raw data reconstruction and PDF reconstruction. As for missing
scattered data, the reconstructed PDF has a high accuracy and is used to calculate the standard
deviation to correct the raw reconstructed data and obtain satisfactory performance. Regarding
continuous data miss, the first correction is not enough since too much information has been lost.
Additionally, there exists a fuzzy mapping relationship between precise standard deviation and
extremum of the wind speed series. Therefore, a method combining quantile regression and deep
neural network is proposed to reconstruct extremum. The reconstruction data with the first
correction is subjected to the second correction based on point estimation. The effectiveness of the
method and the second correction strategy has been verified through structural verification
dynamic response analysis.
4.4. Summary

This section introduces a model for missing signal recovery in SHM based on probability and
statistical methods. The model is mainly divided into three categories: parametric model, non-
parametric model, and hybrid model. Table 3 lists the advantages and drawbacks of various
algorithms for a more intuitive examination of their performances. Of course, these algorithms
may have some common advantages and drawbacks, and their characteristics are highlighted in
this table.

Table 3
Advantages and drawbacks of SHM missing signal recovery model based on probability and
statistical methods.

Method Advantages Drawbacks

1. In SHM, acquiring prior information

1. Effective in handling uncertainty may be limited due to data complexity
and diversity
2. Improve the accuracy and reliability of missing
signal recovery by utilizing prior information 2. It involves large computational
Bayesian method and observation data complexity

3. Capable of processing nonlinear systems 3. There is a problem of parameter

selection

1. Suitable for high-dimensional systems 1. Sensitive to noise interference

2. Estimation can be performed under uncertainty 2. Limited in handling missing data

Kalman filter
3. Linear systems can be handled effectively 3. Poor adaptability to nonlinear systems

1. Good adaptability to multi-dimensional missing

1. Information miss issue exists
data
Principal
component 2. Strongly affected by initial conditions
2. Can effectively remove noise
analysis
3. Improve algorithm computational efficiency

1. Weak assumptions about data

distribution
Non-parametric
1. No assumptions are made about the data 2. Overfitting problem exists
model
3. Poor adaptability to high-dimensional
data

1. Sensitive to parameter selection

Hybrid model 1. Better adaptability to different types of data
2. The assumption of data distribution is
 2. Capable of processing multi-modal data strong

3. It can improve the computational efficiency of 3. Sensitive to noise interference

the algorithm

5. Machine learning algorithm

5.1. Traditional machine learning algorithms

In SHM, a large amount of sensor data is usually collected, and significant achievements have
been made in resolving the issue of sensor signal miss based on machine learning method [65].
Machine learning algorithm have the ability to process large amounts of data and adaptively learn
from it, and can also infer and estimate missing data patterns and rules based on known data,
thereby filling in missing data. The process of recovering missing measurement data in SHM
based on traditional machine learning algorithms is shown in Fig. 6.

Ye et al. [66] studied a bridge health monitoring data reconstruction method based on wavelet
multi-resolution analysis and support vector machines. This method is based on the data
interpolation of recorded data, which has been applied to the health monitoring system of
prestressed concrete cable-stayed bridges. Kuok et al. [67] proposed a model-free data-driven
machine learning method, in which the data reconstruction is performed sequentially in a moving
time window. This learning algorithm uses the latest developed generalized learning system
(BLS). Compared with deep learning, deep learning requires too much computational cost when
training a layered stack, while BLS is built on a widely scalable network and can be incrementally
modified based on the inheritance results of the previously trained architecture. Ni et al. [68]
studied the neural network technology for wind pressure monitoring of a 600-meter-tall super
high-rise structure during a strong typhoon period and compared the data reconstruction
performance of backpropagation neural network (BPNN) and generalized regression neural
network (GRNN). To improve the generalization ability of the BPNN, early stopping technology
and Bayesian regularization technology were introduced. The results showed that the neural
network model had satisfactory reconstruction effect on missing data, and the BP neural network
model with Bayesian regularization (BR-BPNN) performed the best. In addition, a method
combining machine learning with CS was used to solve the problem of data reconstruction [69].
By treating the calculation process as a data flow, the solution process based on CS data
reconstruction was formalized as a standard supervised learning task. Thanks to the property of
multi-neuron layers, multiple signal channels can be reconstructed simultaneously. At the same
time, the use of large-scale basis decomposition makes this method have a high memory
efficiency.
 Traditional ML

Generalized
SVM Neural network
Learning System

Data recovery

Model
evaluation

Fig. 6. Flowchart of SHM missing data recovery based on traditional machine

learning algorithms.
5.2. Deep neural networks

Deep neural networks (DNNs) can learn advanced abstract features of data for missing
measurement data recovery in SHM. Compared to traditional neural networks, DNNs have more
layers and parameters, thus they can better model complex nonlinear function relationships.

Assuming a complete signal X = [ X 1 , X 2 , X 3 ,L , X i ,L , X n ]T is collected by the sensors, X i

represents the i -th measurement value, and when the signal is missing, the sensor signal input to

the model is Xinput = [ X1 , X 2 , X 3 ,L, X i ,L, X m ] . Building a deep neural network model, the
T

relationship between input X input and output Y can be described as follows

Y = f DNN ( X input , θ ) (15)

where, f DNN represents the DNN model, and θ represents the model parameters. DNNs are

typically trained using backpropagation algorithms, which can effectively update the weights and
biases in the model to minimize the difference between the predicted output and the true label.

In engineering-based research, Wang et al. [11] proposed a long-term missing wind data
recovery framework based on deep neural networks, utilizing a freely accessible database
(European centre for medium-range weather forecasts, ECMWF). Low-resolution wind data
(average hourly value) is upsampled to high-resolution wind data (average value every 10
minutes). The U-net architecture provides a foundation for the two tasks in this approach. The
time-frequency crossover miss function is used for training, and an innovative spectrum amplitude
balance strategy is adopted to enhance the reconstruction of high-frequency wind speed signals.
The feasibility and effectiveness of the researched framework were verified through a case study
of long-term continuous missing wind data recovery in the SHM system of the Sutong bridge.
Huang et al. [70] proposed a data recovery method based on correlation analysis and machine
learning (ML). Firstly, correlation analysis is used to select the appropriate input for the ML
model, and then the missing wind pressure is recovered using the ML model and the selected
appropriate input. Based on the proposed data recovery method, four ML data recovery models
including deep neural networks (DNNs), particle swarm optimization-DNN (PSO-DNN), extreme
learning machines (ELMs), and support vector regression (SVR) are developed. The performance
of the developed data recovery models is validated using non-Gaussian wind pressure time series
collected by the multi-point synchronous monitoring system for a 600 m high skyscraper during
the super typhoon Mangkhut. Pan et al. [71] used a new attention-based DNN for missing
measurement data recovery. The model is trained to use structural displacement at measurement
locations as input and structural displacement at interested unmeasured locations as output.

5.3. Convolutional neural networks

In 1998, LeCun et al. [72] presented the LeNet-5 convolutional neural network (CNN)
structure, which initiated the development history of CNN. CNN is a special neural network
structure mainly used for classification and recognition tasks of two-dimensional or multi-
dimensional data such as images and audios. It uses convolution layers to extract features from
images, reduces the dimension of features through pooling operations, and finally maps features to
the label space through fully connected layers to achieve classification. CNN has features such as
parameter sharing and local connection, which can fully utilize the local information of images,
improve the efficiency and accuracy of the models. Furthermore, as CNN can automatically learn
features through the backpropagation algorithm, it is also widely used in various tasks in the
computer vision field, such as object detection, semantic segmentation, etc.

For the problem of missing sensor data recovery in SHM, the input of CNN is a time series data
containing several sensors. If some sensors have not collected data, the input will have missing
values. The goal of CNN is to predict the values of missing sensors. The convolution operation
can be expressed as follows

Y = f ( w Ä X + bˆ) (16)

where, X represents the input vibration signal matrix, Y represents the output feature map, w

represents the convolution kernel weight parameters, b̂ represents the bias term, Ä represents the
convolution operation, and f represents the activation function. Using complete data with known
sensor values as training data, some sensor data are randomly set as missing values as test data.
The backpropagation algorithm is used to update the weight parameters of CNN to produce more
accurate prediction results. Fig. 7 shows the applicable scenario of SHM missing data recovery
based on deep learning methods.
 Recovery Single sensor signal missing Using other types of signal recovery
Other sensor signals
Random missing Recovery
Consecutively missing Missing signal

Multiple sensor signal missing Full-field response reconstruction

Recovery
Complete signal
Partial signal loss of Recovery
multiple sensors
Missing signal type 1
Recovery
One sensor signal missing
in multiple sensors Missing signal type 2

ę ę
Multiple sensor signal
missing in multiple sensors Missing signal type N

Fig. 7. The applicable scenario of SHM missing measurement data recovery based
on convolutional neural network.

Lin et al. [73] proposed a missing measurement data recovery algorithm based on signal
decomposition, convolutional neural networks (CNN), and sequential interpolation based on the
Kriging method (KSI). Before data transmission, non-stationary wind speed is decomposed into a
set of uniformly frequency sub-signals through wavelet transform (WT) and empirical wavelet
transform (EWT). Then, cubic spline interpolation (CSI) is used to supplement low-frequency
sub-signals. Due to the randomness and complexity of high-frequency sub-signals, CNN is used to
establish a recovery model to achieve preliminary recovery results. Usually, there are many
extreme points in high-frequency sub-signals. Due to the strong randomness of extreme points, the
recovery error may be large. Therefore, an extreme value estimation based on KSI is presented for
high-frequency sub-signals to estimate the extreme value curve, which is then used to modify the
preliminary recovery results. Moeinifard et al. [74] brought forward a CNN-based data recovery
algorithm, which was verified in the case of the Alamosa Canyon bridge. Considering three
different CNN models, one and two faulty sensors are predicted through finding the correlation
between other sensors. Oh et al. [1] used strain monitoring data of stable measurements before
data miss occurred to construct a CNN model for data recovery. Assuming that there are specific
sensors failure among multiple sensors installed on the structure, the structure response excluding
these specific sensors is intentionally excluded and the remaining structure response is set as the
input data of the CNN. Deflection is an important indicator for evaluating the operational status of
a bridge, but is difficult to measure due to the need for a fixed reference point. Ni et al. [75] puts
forward an indirect measurement method for displacement time history. A CNN is used to
approximate the mapping relationship between bridge responses to reconstruct the required
deflection from other types of measurements. Li et al. [76] developed a deep learning-based
framework to reconstruct multiple types of full-field responses. The architecture used is a
convolutional neural network with an autoencoder structure and skip connections. Oh et al. [77]
researched a CNN-based response estimation model for high-rise building SHM. In this model,
wind-induced response is estimated by CNN using previously measured sensor signals, which
enables the SHM system to operate stably even in case of sensor failure or data miss. Jiang et al.
[78] designed a new perceptual miss function that allows the network to effectively integrate data
miss patterns. The network can be end-to-end trained in a self-supervised manner and perform
efficient inference.

Improvement schemes have been studied by scholars on the basis of convolutional neural
networks. Compared to traditional convolutional neural networks, fully convolutional neural
networks have shown better performance and broader application prospects in retaining spatial
information, being applicable to inputs of any size, and supporting dense predictions. Fan et al.
[79] proposed a method for recovering lost vibration data in SHM based on a convolutional neural
network. The network used is a fully connected convolutional neural network with a bottleneck
structure and skip connections, which builds a nonlinear relationship between incomplete signals
measured by sensors with transmission misses and complete real signals that have lost data. The
trained network uses a compression layer to extract robust feature representations of the
incomplete signals measured and gradually expands these features in the reconstruction layer to
recover and obtain the complete real signals. Fan et al. [80] also presented a response
reconstruction method based on a specially designed deep learning model, namely, the fully
convolutional neural network. It is characterized by skip connections and dense connection blocks
to improve information flow. In addition, a new method was introduced in a study [81] using fully
feedforward convolutional neural networks with residual connections to recover lost measurement
data.

In order to reduce network parameters and computational complexity, and improve

computational efficiency, convolutions neural networks with group sparsity are considered to be
applicable to the recovery of missing measurement data in SHM. Tang et al. [82] proposed a
convolutions neural network with group sparsity to perform simultaneous restoration of multi-
channel data. The CS based data recovery process is expressed as a regression problem and
implemented in the neural network. The basis matrix is used as input and the incomplete data
matrix as output to provide partial information for approximation. The basis coefficient
optimization is achieved through convolutional operations. Group sparsity regularization is
applied while updating the convolutional layer kernel. After optimization (training), recovery can
be easily obtained without further validation and testing. This method does not require preparation
of complete training data beforehand; it can also handle scattered data miss and make full use of
interrupted information. The recovery performance evaluation of comprehensive materials, field
test data, and seismic response monitoring data showed that the method has good recovery
performance, but with high miss rate and continuous data loss. The architecture of group sparse
sensing CNN and the node speed recovery results of cable-stayed bridge based on GS-aware CNN
are shown in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.
Fig. 8. Architecture of group sparse sensing CNN [82].
 Fig. 9. Node velocity recovery results of cable-stayed bridge based on GS-aware
CNN [82].

To improve the efficiency of neural network information flow and gradient propagation
performance from another perspective, Fan et al. [83] proposed a dynamic response reconstruction
method for SHM based on densely connected convolutional networks. Skip connection and dense
block techniques are carefully applied in the designed network architecture, which greatly
facilitate the flow of information and improve the training efficiency and accuracy of feature
extraction and propagation with fewer parameters in the network. The network uses sub-pixel
transformation and dropout techniques to reduce computational complexity and improve training
efficiency. The network is trained in a supervised manner where the input and output are the
available channels at available positions of the response and the expected channels at unavailable
positions of the response.

5.4. Generative adversarial networks

Generative adversarial networks (GANs) [84] are deep learning models consisting of two neural
networks: generator and discriminator. The generator attempts to create realistic new data from
random noise, while the discriminator attempts to distinguish between fake data generated by the
generator and real data. During training, they compete with each other, continually improving
their performance, ultimately enabling the generator to generate samples that are very similar to
real data. GANs are widely used in various fields, such as image, audio, and text data generation
tasks. In the recovery of missing data in SHM, the generation capability of GAN can be utilized to
fit the distribution of real signals.

Lei et al. [85] presented a deep convolutional generative adversarial network that includes a
generator with an encoder-decoder architecture and an adversarial discriminator. The developed
GAN model needs to understand the content of the complete signal and generate realistic
hypotheses for the missing signal. Given data that was stably measured before data miss occurred,
the generator is trained to extract the preserved features from the dataset and reconstruct the
missing signal using only the response of the remaining functional sensors. The discriminator
gives error feedback to the generator to improve its reconstruction accuracy. The model is trained

with a reconstruction loss Lrec and an adversarial loss Ladv to better handle the low and high

frequency characteristics of the signal.

Lrec ( x) = Mˆ e ( c - G ((1 - Mˆ ) e c )) (17)

2

Ladv = max E[log D( x) + log(1 - D(G ((1 - Mˆ ) e x)))] (18)

D

where, c represents the real signal, x represents the input signal, G (g) represents the generator

output, D(g) represents the discriminator output, M̂ represents the binary mask corresponding to

the missing signal area, E represents the expected output signal, with lost data as 1 and healthy

data as 0, e represents pixel-level multiplication, and g 2

represents the Euclidean (L-2) norm.

Jiang et al. [18] proposed a new data-driven GAN for input-missing strain response. Unlike the
traditional method explicitly modeling the correlation between strains, this method directly
estimates missing measurement data based on remaining observed data and considering the
spatiotemporal relationship with other strain sensors. In addition, even a complete dataset is not
needed during the training process, which is another huge advantage of the model-based
interpolation method.

Although generative adversarial networks (GANs) have strong generation capabilities, there are
several issues encountered in its training process, such as mode collapse phenomenon, difficulty in
quantifying the quality of generated samples, and a need for a large number of samples and
computing resources. To address these problems, Hu et al. [86] propose a fault feature recovery
strategy for the wasserstein generative adversarial interpolation network with gradient penalty
(WGAN-GP). The generative adversarial training strategy can help capture the distribution of the
original monitoring signal. The masking mechanism ensures that the fault feature recovery method
can be conducted in an unsupervised manner, and directly interpolating the original missing signal
to recover the fault feature. Finally, the introduction of the wasserstein distance miss function and
gradient penalty further guarantees a relatively high fault feature recovery accuracy and low
probability of mode collapse. Fan et al. [87] propose a segmented conditional generative
adversarial network (SegGAN) for pixel-to-pixel tasks, implemented in structural vibration
response reconstruction. The network consists of a bottleneck generator and a segment-based
discriminator. The generator improves feature extraction with skip and dense connections, while
the segment-based discriminator uses conditional input to facilitate generator in learning detailed
and robust features. This method provides a more targeted control method for the generator model
by introducing conditional information, resulting in more refined, accurate, and consistent
generated samples. The objective function of SegGAN for response reconstruction under
conditional input is expressed as follows
 LSegGAN = arg min max Ea ,t [log D(a, t )] + Ea [log(1 - D(a, G (a)))] (19)
G D

where a and t represent available and real responses, respectively. The generator G attempts to
minimize the objective function, while the discriminator D attempts to maximize the objective
function. The generator and discriminator engage in a minimax game according to the objective
function. Li et al. [88] propose a data-driven structural response reconstruction method based on
the complex design generative adversarial network (UAGAN). Advanced deep learning
techniques, including U-shape dense blocks, self-attention, and custom miss functions, are
embedded into UAGAN to improve the generalization and representational feature extraction and
to establish generalized response mapping. The generator miss function researched in their study
is expressed as follows

å (y - x ) å
N N
1 i =1 i i
2
1 i =1
( fft ( yi ) - fft ( xi )) 2
Gloss = + + E[1 - D(G ( z ))] (20)
N N
å (y ) å i =1 ( fft ( yi ))2
N 2 N
i =1 i

where N is the number of samples in each batch, z represents the generated samples, fft

represents the fast Fourier transform, and yi and xi are the real and reconstructed responses of the

i th element, respectively. Furthermore, Fan et al. [89] propose a Self-Attentional generative

adversarial network (SAGAN) enhanced by self-attention mechanism to learn the intrinsic
correlation between responses and to reconstruct missing data based on accurate measurements.
SAGAN innovatively embeds the self-attention mechanism into the computation flow to facilitate
the extraction of spatial and even temporal correlations between structural responses. Fig. 10
shows the generator architecture of SegGAN.

Fig. 10. Generator architecture of SegGAN. [87]

5.5. Recurrent neural networks

Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are a class of neural network architecture that performs well
in processing sequential data. Its main feature is the presence of feedback connections, which
allow information to circulate within the network, and enable predicting the next output based on
previous inputs. This capability makes RNNs popular in applications such as speech recognition,
natural language processing, and image description. In RNNs, the hidden state stores the past
information and is updated at each time step. This allows the network to remember previous
computations and incorporate them into the current ones. This continuous recurrent structure
enables RNNs to naturally handle variable-length sequence data, and can be efficiently trained
through the backpropagation algorithm.

Jeong et al. [90] consider the spatiotemporal correlation between sensor data and propose a
data-driven bidirectional recurrent neural network (BRNN) for sensor data reconstruction. An
echo state network (ESN) model with external feedback is adopted to enhance the accuracy and
efficiency of sensor data reconstruction [91], for measuring the dynamical response of structures.
The model exploits spatial correlation instead of spatiotemporal correlation and explicitly feeds
back previously reconstructed time series of defective sensor channels to the input data set. Due to
the properties of spatial correlation, the proposed method yields robust and accurate results
regardless of how the hyperparameters are set in the RNN model.

5.5.1. Gated recurrent unit

Gated recurrent unit (GRU) is an improved type of recurrent neural network model that
introduces two important gate controllers, the update gate and the reset gate, into the traditional
RNN. These gate controllers behave like switches that control the degree to which neurons receive
or output information. Compared to traditional RNN models, GRU performs better in learning
long sequences and handling gradient vanishing problems.

In the context of SHM and missing data recovery, GRU has been widely used as a time-series
prediction tool. Liu et al. [92] propose an empirical mode decomposition (EMD) combined with
bidirectional GRU (BiGRU) to recover measurement data. The EMD-BiGRU method converts the
missing data task into a time-series prediction task. The core of this method is to use the original
data and the decomposed sub-sequences to predict the missing data, where the decomposed sub-
sequences can improve the prediction accuracy. Furthermore, compared to traditional artificial
neural networks, the BiGRU in the hybrid model can extract the front-back correlation of sub-
sequences. Deng et al. [93] develop a novel framework for anomalous data recovery. The main
innovative point of this framework is the optimization of the input-output configuration of the
GRU model. In addition, bidirectional prediction is used to fully utilize the forward-backward
information of anomalous data sequences and improve the prediction accuracy. This framework is
applied to the recovery of anomalous monitoring data from a 600-year-old city wall in Beijing.
Moreover, Ju et al. [94] propose an abnormal data recovery framework based on GRU and time
correlation. The abnormal data recovery framework can be independent of other sensors. The
input and output configurations of the GRU model are optimized. Bidirectional prediction that
includes forward and backward prediction is used to improve the model prediction accuracy. Chen
et al. [19] propose a strain reconstruction method that combines the nonlinear deep learning
module with the linear autoregression (AR) module. This method also uses BiGRU and CNN in
deep learning to better capture the long-term and short-term patterns of SHM data, as well as the
correlation between the two types of data. Jiang et al. [95] propose a structure dynamic response
reconstruction and virtual sensing method based on a sequence-to-sequence modeling framework
with soft attention mechanism (Seq2Seq) for SHM. This framework explicitly utilizes the
potential spatiotemporal correlation in the sequence data to promote efficient information flow
within the network, and significantly improves reconstruction performance. In addition, a
reconstruction error estimation and uncertainty quantification method based on signal entropy
features is researched. Chen et al. [96] presented a hybrid deep learning and autoregressive model
with the attention mechanism (DL-AR-ATT) framework for accurate reconstruction of structural
responses considering data correlation.

5.5.2. Long short-term memory neural network

Long short-term memory (LSTM) is a variant of recurrent neural network that is designed to
address the issue of "vanishing gradients" in traditional recurrent neural networks. By controlling
the flow of information using structures called "gates" and by "remembering" information through
storing and accessing unit states, LSTM has shown promising performance in handling sequence
data. As such, LSTM has been widely applied to various fields such as natural language
processing and speech recognition.

Similarly, LSTM has a strong ability for time-series prediction, and many researchers have
made valuable breakthroughs in this area. Vedavalli et al. [97] propose a missing measurement
data recovery method based on spatiotemporal correlation among IoT nodes in a network. This
method has two phases, the clustering phase and the data recovery phase. Lu et al. [98] propose a
structural acceleration response reconstruction method based on bidirectional LSTM network,
which can better capture the complex spatiotemporal correlation among sensor data. The accuracy
and effectiveness of the designed reconstruction method are verified by numerical studies on a
large-span cable-stayed bridge and actual monitoring data of the Z24 bridge. Liu et al. [99]
propose a structural temperature missing measurement data recovery method based on LSTM
network using monitoring data of Nanjing Dashengguan Yangtze River Bridge as an example. By
comparing the prediction results of LSTM network, support vector machine (SVM), and wavelet
neural network (WNN) for temperature data, the advantages of LSTM network in predicting time-
series data, such as structural temperature are verified. Xin et al. [100] propose a bridge
monitoring data recovery method based on time-varying filter empirical mode decomposition
(TVFEMD), encoder-decoder (ED), and LSTM neural network. This hybrid method can transform
the data recovery problem into a series of prediction tasks. Fig. 11 shows the functional block
diagram of the missing data recovery method based on the spatio-temporal correlation between
IoT nodes in the network.
 Fig. 11. Functional block diagram of missing data recovery method based on
spatio-temporal correlation between IoT nodes in network [97].

Li et al. [3] combined empirical mode decomposition with long short-term memory neural
network for signal data recovery. This hybrid method transforms the missing data input task into a
time-series prediction task and solves it using a "divide and conquer" strategy. The recovery
results of the measured signal data demonstrate the excellent performance of the designed hybrid
method from two perspectives. Li et al. [101] propose a sensor missing data completion
framework based on various deep learning techniques and transfer learning. It captures the time-
dependency of the original sensor data using stacked, bidirectional long short-term memory neural
networks with self-attention mechanisms. The experimental results show that the framework can
handle various missing data scenarios in a dam SHM system with different missing rates and has
high accuracy and robustness. The generalization ability of the framework has been validated in
multiple sensor groups of two highly representative dams. The proposed framework can be
equipped with an automated dam SHM system to handle large-scale data miss problems. Table 4
summarizes the missing measurement data recovery method of SHM based on recurrent neural
network from many aspects. Fig. 12 summarizes the input format of the SHM missing
measurement data recovery framework based on recurrent neural network.
Table 4
Overview of SHM missing measurement data recovery framework based on recurrent neural
network.

Signal Loss
Propose Optimizatio
Method Advantages Restoring signal correlatio functio
d by n method
n n

Improve Spatio-
Jeong et performance temporal
BRNN Acceleration MSE Adam
al. [90] and correlatio
robustness ns

Overcome
gradient
Spatial
Shin et disappearanc
ESN Acceleration correlatio MAE Adam
al.[91] e and
n
gradient
explosion

Improvemen
Temporal
Liu et t of
EMD+BiGRU EMD of acceleration correlatio MSE Adam
al.[92] prediction
n
accuracy

Enhancemen Temporal
Deng et
GRU t of recovery Temperature correlatio MSE Adam
al.[93]
precision n

Enhancemen Temporal
Ju et Displacement+inclinati
GRU t of recovery correlatio RMSE Adam
al.[94] on angle
precision n

Chen et Improvemen
AR+BiGRU Temperature+strain Temporal MSE Adam
al.[19] t of
correlatio
prediction
 +CNN accuracy n

Spatio-
Elevation of
Jiang et temporal
Seq2Seq reconstructio Acceleration MRE Adam
al.[95] correlatio
n accuracy
ns

Enhancemen Temporal
Chen et
DL-AR-ATT t of recovery Temperature+strain correlatio MSE Adam
al.[96]
performance n

Spatio-
Vedaval Higher
ST-hierarchical Temperature, pressure temporal
li et al. algorithm MSE SGD
LSTM and volume flow correlatio
[97] reliability
ns

Data can be Spatio-

Lu et al. reconstructe temporal
BiLSTM Acceleration RMSE Adam
[98] d with high correlatio
accuracy ns

Spatio-
Achieving
Liu et temporal
LSTM higher Temperature MSE Adam
al. [99] correlatio
accuracy
ns

Data can be Spatio-

Xin et TVFEMD+ED+LST reconstructe temporal
Cable force MSE Adam
al. [100] M d with high correlatio
accuracy ns

Higher Spatio-
Li et al. accuracy temporal
EMD+LSTM Acceleration MSE Adam
[3] and correlatio
adaptability ns

High Spatio-
Li et al. Deep-stacked accuracy temporal
Dam displacement MSE Adam
[101] BiLSTM and correlatio
robustness ns
  x11 L x1n L x1N 
 
 M O M M  n
Jeong et al. [90] X =  xt1 L xtn L xtN  where xt denote the measurements at time t for an input sensor
 
 M M O M 
 x1 L xTn L xTN 
 T

 yn -a L yn -1 
 c 
x L xnc-1  yn denotes the n-th element of the yt channel
Shin et al.[91] X =  n -a
 M O M 
 1 
 xn -a L x1n -1 

where X denotes the decomposed feature data and imf i is

Liu et al.[92] X = imf1 , imf 2 ,L , imf n -1 , res
the i-th IMF components

Deng et al.[93] X = T1 , T2 ,L , Tn  Ti denote temperature monitoring sequence

T
[94]
Forward: X f = éë X i f- 2 , X i f-1 ùû X f denotes a normal monitoring sequence
Ju et al.
T
Backward: X b = éë X ib+ 2 , X ib+1 ùû X bdenotes a abnormal monitoring sequence

 F1,t -T +1 F2,t -T +1 L Fm,t -T +1 e1,t -T +1 e 2,t -T +1 L e n,t -T +1 

 
F1,t -T F2,t -T L Fm,t -T e1,t -T e1,t -T L e n,t -T 
Chen et al.[17] X =
 M M O M M M O M 
 
 F1,t F2,t L Fm,t e1,t e 2,t L e n,t 

where Fi , j and ei , j represent the i-th loading and response signal at the j-th time step,
respectively, and T is the time window length.

Jiang et al.[95] X =  x1 , x2 , x3 ,L , xT  , xi Î  m xi represents a value in the input time series

 F1,t -T +1 F2,t -T +1 L Fm,t -T +1 e1,t -T +1 e 2,t -T +1 L e n,t -T +1 
 
F1,t -T F2,t -T L Fm,t -T e1,t -T e1,t -T L e n,t -T 
Chen et al.[96] X =
 M M O M M M O M 
 
 F1,t F2,t L Fm,t e1,t e 2,t L e n,t 
where Fi , j and ei , j represent the i-th loading and response signal at the j-th time step,
respectively, and T is the time window length.

 R11 R12 R13 L R1b 

 
R R22 R23 L R2b 
Vedavalli et al. [97] X =  21 Rij represents the degree of each node
 M M M O M 
 
 Ra1 Ra2 Ra3 L Rab 

Liu et al. [99] X = (T1 , T2 ,L , Ti ,L , Tn ) time series

xi represents the acceleration data of the available

X =  xt -T +1 , xt -T + 2 ,L , xt 
T
Lu et al. [98] sensors at a time step, where T is the length of the
acceleration response time series
Xin et al. [100] X =  x1 , x2 ,L , xk  time series

Li et al. [3] X = ( x1 , x2 ,L , xn ) time series

Li et al. [101] X = ( x1 , x2 ,L , xn ) time series

Fig. 12. Input format of SHM missing measurement data recovery framework
based on recurrent neural network.
5.6. Autoencoder

Autoencoder is an unsupervised learning algorithm that aims to encode input data and
reconstruct an output that is similar to the original data. Autoencoders usually consist of an
encoder and a decoder, where the encoder compresses the input into a low-dimensional
representation and the decoder transforms this low-dimensional representation back into the
output in the original space. By comparing the error between original data and reconstructed data,
autoencoders can be used for tasks such as denoising, data compression, and feature extraction.
Similarly, autoencoders can also be applied to missing measurement data recovery tasks in SHM.
Fig. 13 shows the basic framework of SHM missing signal response prediction based on
autoencoder model. Du et al. [102] propose a heterogeneous structural response recovery method
based on multi-modal fusion autoencoder, which can consider the temporal and spatial correlation
as well as the correlation between heterogeneous structural responses. At the same time, a parallel
optimization method is developed to optimize the parameters of the deep fusion network. Lei et al.
[8] studied a method to estimate bridge displacement response under multiple loads using a
residual autoencoder model. The proposed method was verified by collecting monitoring data of
the cable-stayed bridge, which included a comprehensive measurement of various loads and
displacement responses. Inputs including temperature, wind, and vehicle load characteristics, and
the displacement response of the main span and the top of two towers were considered as outputs.
The results indicate that the researched method's effectiveness is higher than 95%, and its
accuracy and efficiency are significantly better than other models such as long short-term memory
network.

Signal Signal Signal

acquisition denoising normalization

Training Validation Testing

dataset dataset dataset

Autoencoder
training

Trained AE
model

Signal
reconstruction

Fig. 13. Basic framework of SHM missing signal response prediction based on
autoencoder model.

5.7. Graph neural networks

Graph Neural Network (GNN) is a deep learning model designed to work with graph data
originally used to address image classification problems. GNN can be used for missing
measurement data recovery tasks in SHM. The SHM data can be represented as a graph where
nodes indicate different measurement points, and edges represent the dependency between the
measurement points. GNN can be used to train this graph and predict the missing measurement
data values. Niu et al. [103] puts forward a spatiotemporal graph attention network for missing
measurement data recovery, considering the inherent spatiotemporal correlation in sensor
networks. The developed model consists of graph convolutional layers stacked with several
spatiotemporal blocks, composed of spatiotemporal layers with attention mechanisms modeling
the spatial correlation of sensors and the time-dependent correlation. The extracted spatiotemporal
features are assembled through fully connected layers to reconstruct the missing signal. In this
study, homogeneous and heterogeneous monitoring projects were used to calculate spatial
attention coefficients. The data recovery accuracy was discussed with or without multi-source data
fusion. Application of the spatiotemporal attention model for recovering missing cable tension
signals on a large cable-stayed bridge showed that it achieved satisfactory recovery accuracy
without any prior analysis.

5.8. Summary

In this section, machine learning-based models for recovering missing measurement signals in
SHM were classified and introduced. Although the machine learning methods are effective in
addressing the SHM missing signal recovery, there are different methods with their advantages
and drawbacks, and they do not necessarily address the same signal recovery problems. Therefore,
Table 5 was used to compare the advantages and drawbacks of different machine learning
algorithms in SHM missing signal recovery, and to fully analyze the applicable scenarios of
various methods. In future research, novel, improved, or hybrid algorithms need to be proposed
for overcoming the problems currently exposed.
Table 5
Advantages and drawbacks of SHM missing signal recovery model based on machine learning.

Method Advantages Drawbacks

1. Weak ability to process high-

dimensional data
1. The algorithm theory and
mathematical foundations are mature 2. Weak ability to process nonlinear
and easy to explain monitoring data
Traditional machine
learning algorithms
2. The computational speed is fast, and 3. Low accuracy in data recovery
(Traditional ML)
it performs well with small data sets
4. Weak real-time processing capability
for monitoring data

1. It can extract richer data features

1. Overfitting problems exist
2. Better adapt to complex data
2. High computational complexity
distributions
Deep neural networks
3. Limited ways of dealing with missing
3. Stronger generalization ability
data
(DNNs)
4. Better adapt to different data recovery
4. Long-term dependence issues in data
tasks

1. Automatically learn features in the 1. Different abilities to recover different

Convolutional neural
data types of missing measurement signals
networks (CNNs)
2. Convolutional kernels can share 2. Limited interpretability of the data
 parameters, reduce the number of recovery model
model parameters, and improve
training efficiency

3. Local connections improve the

model's training speed

1. Generating high-quality missing

signals by learning data distributions 1. Instability in training

2. Capable of processing complex 2. Require a large amount of training data

nonlinear relationships to learn data distribution
Generative adversarial
networks
3. Capable of processing high- 3. The generated signals may not be
dimensional data accurate
(GANs)
4. improving the robustness of the 4. Complex model structure
model

1. Capable of processing sequence data

1. Long-term dependence issues arise
2. Handling multiple types of signals when processing long sequences
Recurrent neural
networks 3. Handling unevenly distributed 2. High computational complexity 3. The
missing data effectiveness of RNN is limited when
dealing with unevenly distributed
(RNNs) missing data
4. Handling multiple types of missing
data

1. The prediction accuracy of auto-

1. Strong generalization ability,
unsupervised learning does not
Autoencoder require data labeling
(AE) 2. Effectively avoid overfitting cases
encoders is greatly affected when there
is a large amount of missing data
2. For anomaly detection scenarios,
training data needs to be normal data
3. Layer-by-layer training leads to long
model training times

1. Sensors are typically distributed in

1. Adaptively learn to predict missing
different locations of the structure,
node information
leading to sparsity issues in the data
Graph neural networks
2. Capable of processing non-Euclidean
2. Noise or errors may be introduced
structured data
(GNNs) during data recovery
3. Capable of processing high-
3. Graph neural networks have high
dimensional data
complexity
6. Conclusion

In SHM, missing sensor measurement signals may have a significant impact on the accuracy of
damage identification and health assessment of structures. Therefore, accurately recovering
missing SHM sensor signals has significant practical significance and engineering application
value. This paper reviews the research progress in the recovery of missing measurement signals in
SHM and draws the following conclusions:

1. The finite element method provides a new approach to obtaining complete structural
responses. Its core idea is to convert the problem of structural response recovery into an
estimation problem of unknown inputs. The finite element method has a certain universality
for the properties, shapes, and types of loads of structural systems. Moreover, this method
pays more attention to the physical problems themselves in signal recovery and has strong
engineering physical significance. Therefore, the finite element-based recovery method for
missing signals in SHM has a wide range of applications. However, the accuracy of the
current external input estimation methods still needs to be improved. The calculation
accuracy and result reliability of the finite element model directly affect the accuracy of
recovering missing data. The parameters involved in the established model include material
properties and geometric shape, and the accuracy and errors of these parameters will affect
the analysis results of the model and the recovery effect of the missing signal. In addition, the
calculation of the structural response by the finite element model requires a long time. If real-
time data recovery is required, it may not meet the real-time requirements. In the future,
optimization can be sought from the above problems.

2. A review of the sparse representation-based method for recovering missing measurement

signals in SHM was conducted, and the study found that the application of CS algorithms for
missing signal recovery is limited. When a sensor fails or is damaged and cannot collect the
original signal, i.e., signal miss occurs at the source, the measurement vector of the original
signal cannot be obtained in the CS method, or there is already data missing in the
measurement vector of the original signal. In this scenario, the CS method is powerless and
needs to rely on other methods to solve the problem. Moreover, this method depends to some
extent on the correlation and trend between the previous and subsequent data. In matrix
decomposition algorithms, it is usually necessary to determine the rank of the matrix or the
dimension of the decomposition, which are often manually adjusted and may not always
achieve optimal results. Since matrix decomposition algorithms are based on the assumption
 that the original matrix can be represented by a lower-dimensional matrix, this assumption
may not always be met when applied to practical problems. For sparse matrices, matrix
decomposition algorithms may cause overfitting or underfitting problems, which can affect
the accuracy of inference. In addition, when dealing with nonlinear SHM signal relationships,
matrix decomposition algorithms may fail to capture the relationships between nonlinear
features, which can affect the accuracy of inference results. The signal reconstruction effect
based on matrix analysis methods is highly dependent on the quality of the low-rank matrix,
and further research is needed to address the above issues in the future.

3. Based on existing research, the missing measurement data recovery models based on
probability and statistical methods are classified into parameter models, non-parameter
models, and hybrid models. However, in practical applications, the reliability and accuracy of
prior knowledge are limited, which may lead to inaccurate or unreasonable prior
distributions, thereby affecting the results of posterior inference and the accuracy and
robustness of signal recovery. In addition, signal recovery algorithms based on parameter
probability models require the calculation of many probability distributions and integrals, and
the calculation process is complex, requiring high computational resources and time. Non-
parameter probability models assume that the posterior distribution is a continuous function
and require dense sampling of the data to ensure the accuracy of the posterior distribution. In
addition, different hyperparameter settings of non-parameter models can affect the shape and
smoothness of the posterior distribution, thereby affecting the accuracy and robustness of the
recovery results. Furthermore, non-parameter probability models require a large amount of
data to accurately estimate the posterior distribution. Therefore, dimension reduction and
other data preprocessing techniques are needed to improve recovery accuracy and robustness.
Although mixed models integrate the advantages of both methods, they also have
shortcomings that need to be improved in the future.

4. The machine learning algorithm is the most popular and widely used SHM missing
measurement data recovery method. However, for SHM data, appropriate model structures
and parameters need to be selected based on actual situations, which not only require a solid
theoretical foundation but also experience and experimentation. In addition, the physical
meaning of the currently designed deep learning models is not clear and interpretability is
weak. The deep learning models currently designed often require large amounts of data for
training, but it is possible that enough data cannot be obtained for training in actual data
collection, leading to overfitting or underfitting, thereby reducing the model's generalization
ability. Therefore, addressing the problem of small sample learning is an important direction
for the development of deep learning-based missing signal recovery. Also, it is necessary to
use optimization methods to select suitable hyperparameters and adjust and optimize them
based on experimental results. In addition, there is little research on indirect data recovery
and full-field response recovery based on deep learning method. Current research mostly
focuses on supervised learning methods, but future research can be expanded to semi-
supervised or even unsupervised fields, which pose significant challenges.
 In contrast to the novelty and complexity of the presented algorithms, researchers and designers
pay more attention to the ability of various methods to solve practical engineering problems.
Although many SHM missing measurement data recovery methods have been proposed, there are
still some issues worth exploring and thinking about in terms of the physical problems being
solved, the establishment of comprehensive evaluation models, and the applicability of algorithm
engineering:

1. Physical problems to be solved. The basic idea of existing signal recovery methods can be
summarized as using healthy signals to recover missing signals. However, in actual
monitoring processes, there are two situations where the signals that have not been lost exist:
normal signals and abnormal signals. Only the normal signals can be used, and most current
research neglects the treatment of this issue, leading to unrealistic data recovery. The current
signal recovery scenarios mostly focus on recovering the missing part of the same type of
data (e.g., recovering the missing part of accelerometer signals from their complete parts),
and there is little research on whole-field response recovery. In the future, restoring different
types of missing response signals through in-depth research on the correspondence between
various types of signals will be the trend. In the current developed methods, the model's
accuracy is impacted when there are few healthy signals collected from the sensors,
especially in machine learning-based data recovery models, which rely entirely on end-to-end
learning. Therefore, addressing missing signal recovery under small samples is also critical.
In most current research, the proposed methods only recover missing measurement signals,
whereas in practical engineering, the measurement signals collected by sensors often contain
noise. However, it is also essential to restore missing signals without noise, because noise-
free missing signals reflect purely the physical quantity changes in the real structure response
without additional disturbance and noise influence. At the technical level, restoring missing
signals without noise is more difficult and challenging than restoring signals with noise.

2. Establishment of comprehensive evaluation model. Various missing signal recovery

methods have been presented and achieved ideal effects. However, due to the different
methods used, the different structures targeted, and the different types and distributions of the
recovered signals, there is a lack of uniform evaluation criteria between studies. This lack of
consistency makes it difficult for different researchers to maintain consistency in research,
resulting in research results that are difficult to compare and verify. It is challenging to judge
whether a new data recovery method has made a breakthrough, despite the existence of
evaluation indexes such as RMSE, MSE, MAE, R2, etc. as data recovery accuracy metrics.
The error indexes between different data sets are not comparable precisely. While solving
this problem is of great significance, it is also difficult to achieve. Additionally, current
research mainly focuses on the accuracy and robustness of the model, and most recovery
results are demonstrated through error values in the time domain and frequency domain and
the MAC value. However, conventional evaluation metrics cannot fully describe the
precision and accuracy of recovery results, especially concerning the degree of influence on
damage identification. The evaluation index system is still not comprehensive enough, and
future consideration should be given to computation efficiency and model complexity, design
 new indexes for evaluating data recovery effects.

3. Engineering applicability of the algorithm. The current research is mainly focused on high-
rise buildings and bridge structures in terms of structural types, and there is less research on
water conservancy and hydropower structures such as dams, tunnels, river embankments,
flood walls, and transmission towers. In addition, future research should be more oriented
towards complex structures. Furthermore, the current data recovery models have significant
limitations. Specifically, the datasets used are specific, and the accuracy of data recovery is
highly influenced by the type, distribution, stationarity, and frequency characteristics of the
signal. Therefore, future research should develop data recovery models that are more
adaptive and have stronger generalization capabilities. Future SHM data recovery research
should focus on solving practical engineering problems and design suitable solutions that are
guided by practical engineering problems. The presented solutions should have
characteristics such as high accuracy, high reliability, strong scalability, high computational
efficiency, ease of implementation, and strong interpretability, rather than measuring novelty
and complexity of the methods used. These issues need to be addressed in future research.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.52178300)

Innovation Foundation for Postgraduate Education of Wuhan Institute of Technology (No.

CX2022175)

References
[1] B.K. Oh, B. Glisic, Y. Kim, H.S. Park, Convolutional neural network–based data recovery method for
structural health monitoring, Structural Health Monitoring, 19 (2020) 1821-1838.

[2] H. Wan, Y. Ni, Bayesian modeling approach for forecast of structural stress response using structural health
monitoring data, Journal of Structural Engineering, 144 (2018) 04018130.

[3] L. Li, H. Zhou, H. Liu, C. Zhang, J. Liu, A hybrid method coupling empirical mode decomposition and a long
short-term memory network to predict missing measured signal data of SHM systems, Structural Health
Monitoring, 20 (2021) 1778-1793.

[4] Y. Li, T. Bao, Z. Chen, Z. Gao, X. Shu, K. Zhang, A missing sensor measurement data reconstruction
framework powered by multi-task Gaussian process regression for dam structural health monitoring systems,
Measurement, 186 (2021) 110085.

[5] Y. Bao, H. Li, X. Sun, Y. Yu, J. Ou, Compressive sampling–based data loss recovery for wireless sensor
networks used in civil structural health monitoring, Structural Health Monitoring, 12 (2013) 78-95.

[6] H. Li, D. Ai, H. Zhu, H. Luo, Compressed sensing–based electromechanical admittance data loss recovery for
concrete structural health monitoring, Structural Health Monitoring, 20 (2021) 1247-1273.

[7] F. Amini, Y. Hedayati, H. Zanddizari, Exploiting the inter-correlation of structural vibration signals for data
loss recovery: A distributed compressive sensing based approach, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing,
152 (2021) 107473.

[8] X. Lei, D.M. Siringoringo, Z. Sun, Y. Fujino, Displacement response estimation of a cable-stayed bridge
subjected to various loading conditions with one-dimensional residual convolutional autoencoder method,
 Structural Health Monitoring, (2022) 14759217221116637.

[9] Y. Zhang, H. Wang, Y. Bai, J. Mao, Y. Xu, Bayesian dynamic regression for reconstructing missing data in
structural health monitoring, Structural Health Monitoring, 21 (2022) 2097-2115.

[10] H. Wan, Y. Ni, Bayesian multi-task learning methodology for reconstruction of structural health monitoring
data, Structural Health Monitoring, 18 (2019) 1282-1309.

[11] Z. Wang, A. Li, W. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Long-term missing wind data recovery using free access databases and
deep learning for bridge health monitoring, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 230
(2022) 105201.

[12] Y.H. Hong, S.G. Lee, H.S. Lee, Design of the FEM-FIR filter for displacement reconstruction using
accelerations and displacements measured at different sampling rates, Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 38 (2013) 460-481.

[13] Y. Li, H. Huang, W. Zhang, L. Sun, Structural full-field responses reconstruction by the SVD and pseudo-
inverse operator-estimated force with two-degree multi-scale models, Engineering Structures, 249 (2021)
112986.

[14] S. Sawant, S. Banerjee, S. Tallur, Compressive sensing based data-loss recovery enables robust estimation of
damage index in ultrasonic structural health monitoring, 2020 IEEE SENSORS, IEEE, 2020, pp. 1-4.

[15] Y. Yang, S. Nagarajaiah, Harnessing data structure for recovery of randomly missing structural vibration
responses time history: Sparse representation versus low-rank structure, Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 74 (2016) 165-182.

[16] Y. Niu, C.P. Fritzen, H. Jung, I. Buethe, Y.Q. Ni, Y.W. Wang, Online simultaneous reconstruction of wind
load and structural responses—Theory and application to Canton Tower, Computer ‐ Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 30 (2015) 666-681.

[17] Q. Lin, C. Li, Kriging based sequence interpolation and probability distribution correction for gaussian wind
field data reconstruction, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 205 (2020) 104340.

[18] H. Jiang, C. Wan, K. Yang, Y. Ding, S. Xue, Continuous missing data imputation with incomplete dataset by
generative adversarial networks–based unsupervised learning for long-term bridge health monitoring,
Structural Health Monitoring, 21 (2022) 1093-1109.

[19] C. Chen, L. Tang, Y. Lu, Y. Wang, Z. Liu, Y. Liu, L. Zhou, Z. Jiang, B. Yang, Reconstruction of long-term
strain data for structural health monitoring with a hybrid deep-learning and autoregressive model considering
thermal effects, Engineering Structures, 285 (2023) 116063.

[20] Z. Peng, K. Dong, H. Yin, A modal-based kalman filter approach and Osp method for structural response
reconstruction, Shock and Vibration, 2019 (2019).

[21] J. Yang, Z. Fu, Y. Zou, X. He, X. Wei, T. Wang, A response reconstruction method based on empirical mode
decomposition and modal synthesis method, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 184 (2023) 109716.

[22] D.L. Donoho, Compressed sensing, IEEE Transactions on information theory, 52 (2006) 1289-1306.

[23] R. Klis, E.N. Chatzi, Data recovery via hybrid sensor networks for vibration monitoring of civil structures,
International Journal of Sustainable Materials and Structural Systems, 2 (2015) 161-184.

[24] V.S.G. Thadikemalla, A.S. Gandhi, A simple and efficient data loss recovery technique for SHM applications,
Smart Structures and Systems, An International Journal, 20 (2017) 35-42.

[25] V.S.G. Thadikemalla, A.S. Gandhi, A data loss recovery technique using compressive sensing for structural
health monitoring applications, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22 (2018) 5084-5093.

[26] S.R. Surakanti, S.A. Khoshnevis, H. Ahani, V. Izadi, Efficient Recovery of Structrual Health Monitoring
Signal based on Kronecker Compressive Sensing, International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 14
(2019) 4256-4261.

[27] R.G. Talkhouncheh, S.A. Khoshnevis, S.A. Aboutalebi, S.R. Surakanti, Embedding wireless intelligent
 sensors based on compact measurement for structural health monitoring using improved compressive sensing-
based data loss recovery algorithm, International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology, 5
(2019).

[28] S. Kanhere, K.S. Chouthankar, S. Hastey, V.S.G. Thadikemalla, A. Gandhi, A Performance Study of Random
Interleaver Based Data Loss Recovery Technique for Structural Health Monitoring, 2018 9th International
Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1-6.

[29] Y. Yang, S. Nagarajaiah, Robust data transmission and recovery of images by compressed sensing for
structural health diagnosis, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 24 (2017) e1856.

[30] S. Sabeti, J.B. Harley, Spatio-temporal undersampling: Recovering ultrasonic guided wavefields from
incomplete data with compressive sensing, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 140 (2020) 106694.

[31] D. Jana, S. Nagarajaiah, Physics-Guided Real-Time Full-Field Vibration Response Estimation from Sparse
Measurements Using Compressive Sensing, Sensors, 23 (2023) 384.

[32] S. Ji, Y. Sun, J. Shen, A method of data recovery based on compressive sensing in wireless structural health
monitoring, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014 (2014).

[33] S. Sawant, S. Banerjee, S. Tallur, Performance evaluation of compressive sensing based lost data recovery
using OMP for damage index estimation in ultrasonic SHM, Ultrasonics, 115 (2021) 106439.

[34] Y. Sun, F. Gu, S. Ji, L. Wang, Composite plate phased array structural health monitoring signal reconstruction
based on orthogonal matching pursuit algorithm, Journal of Sensors, 2017 (2017).

[35] M. Liu, Z. Peng, Q. Dong, Structural Damage Identification Based on Extended Kalman Filter and Response
Reconstruction, Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, (2023) 1-15.

[36] F. Amini, Y. Hedayati, S.M. Javadi, Compressive sensing‐based data loss recovery in the feedback channel of
the structural vibration control systems, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 29 (2022) e2982.

[37] Y. Bao, Z. Shi, X. Wang, H. Li, Compressive sensing of wireless sensors based on group sparse optimization
for structural health monitoring, Structural Health Monitoring, 17 (2018) 823-836.

[38] Y. Huang, J.L. Beck, S. Wu, H. Li, Robust Bayesian compressive sensing with data loss recovery for
structural health monitoring signals, arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.08272, (2015).

[39] D. Jana, S. Nagarajaiah, Y. Yang, S. Li, Real-time cable tension estimation from acceleration measurements
using wireless sensors with packet data losses: Analytics with compressive sensing and sparse component
analysis, Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, (2021) 1-19.

[40] M. Zhao, Y. Li, S. Chen, B. Li, Missing value recovery for encoder signals using improved low-rank
approximation, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 139 (2020) 106595.

[41] Z. Zhu, S. Zhu, Y.-W. Wang, Y.-Q. Ni, Structural dynamic response reconstruction with multi-type sensors,
unknown input, and rank deficient feedthrough matrix, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 187
(2023) 109935.

[42] Y. Li, L. Sun, Structural deformation reconstruction by the Penrose–Moore pseudo-inverse and singular value
decomposition–estimated equivalent force, Structural Health Monitoring, 20 (2021) 2412-2429.

[43] Z. Zhou, R. Du, C. Chen, B. Yang, X. Guan, Packtrix: From data packing to reconstruction for a sensor
network based structural health monitoring system, 2013 IEEE Global Communications Conference
(GLOBECOM), IEEE, 2013, pp. 450-455.

[44] M. Berger, L.M. Seversky, Missing Data Recovery for High-dimensional Signals with Nonlinear Low-
dimensional Structures.

[45] S. Sun, S. Jiao, Q. Hu, Z. Wang, Z. Xia, Y. Ding, L. Yi, Missing Structural Health Monitoring Data Recovery
Based on Bayesian Matrix Factorization, Sustainability, 15 (2023) 2951.

[46] P. Ren, X. Chen, L. Sun, H. Sun, Incremental Bayesian matrix/tensor learning for structural monitoring data
imputation and response forecasting, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 158 (2021) 107734.
[47] P. Ni, Q. Han, X. Du, X. Cheng, Bayesian model updating of civil structures with likelihood-free inference
approach and response reconstruction technique, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 164 (2022)
108204.

[48] X. Zhang, Z. Zhu, G. Yuan, S. Zhu, Adaptive Mode Selection Integrating Kalman Filter for Dynamic
Response Reconstruction, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 515 (2021) 116497.

[49] X. Zhang, Z. Wu, Dual-type structural response reconstruction based on moving-window Kalman filter with
unknown measurement noise, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 32 (2019) 04019029.

[50] R. Hu, Y. Xu, X. Lu, C. Zhang, Q. Zhang, J. Ding, Integrated multi ‐ type sensor placement and response
reconstruction method for high‐rise buildings under unknown seismic loading, The Structural Design of Tall
and Special Buildings, 27 (2018) e1453.

[51] J. He, X. Zhang, B. Xu, KF-based multiscale response reconstruction under unknown inputs with data fusion
of multitype observations, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 32 (2019) 04019038.

[52] C. Zhang, J. Li, Y. Xu, Online Dynamic Response Reconstruction in the Presence of Observation Outliers,
International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 21 (2021) 2150182.

[53] S. Chen, Y. Wang, Y. Ni, Gross outlier removal and fault data recovery for SHM data of dynamic responses
by an annihilating filter ‐ based Hankel ‐ structured robust PCA method, Structural Control and Health
Monitoring, 29 (2022) e3144.

[54] L. Li, H. Liu, H. Zhou, C. Zhang, Missing data estimation method for time series data in structure health
monitoring systems by probability principal component analysis, Advances in Engineering Software, 149
(2020) 102901.

[55] R. Magán-Carrión, J. Camacho, P. García-Teodoro, Multivariate statistical approach for anomaly detection
and lost data recovery in wireless sensor networks, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 11
(2015) 672124.

[56] S.W. Choi, E. Kwon, Y. Kim, K. Hong, H.S. Park, A practical data recovery technique for long-term strain
monitoring of mega columns during construction, Sensors, 13 (2013) 10931-10943.

[57] Z. Zhang, Y. Luo, Restoring method for missing data of spatial structural stress monitoring based on
correlation, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 91 (2017) 266-277.

[58] Z. Chen, Y. Bao, H. Li, B.F. Spencer Jr, A novel distribution regression approach for data loss compensation
in structural health monitoring, Structural Health Monitoring, 17 (2018) 1473-1490.

[59] Z. Chen, H. Li, Y. Bao, Analyzing and modeling inter-sensor relationships for strain monitoring data and
missing data imputation: a copula and functional data-analytic approach, Structural Health Monitoring, 18
(2019) 1168-1188.

[60] Z. Chen, X. Lei, Y. Bao, F. Deng, Y. Zhang, H. Li, Uncertainty quantification for the distribution-to-warping
function regression method used in distribution reconstruction of missing structural health monitoring data,
Structural Health Monitoring, 20 (2021) 3436-3452.

[61] Z. Chen, Y. Bao, H. Li, B.F. Spencer Jr, LQD-RKHS-based distribution-to-distribution regression
methodology for restoring the probability distributions of missing SHM data, Mechanical Systems and Signal
Processing, 121 (2019) 655-674.

[62] Y. Ma, Y. He, L. Wang, J. Zhang, Probabilistic reconstruction for spatiotemporal sensor data integrated with
Gaussian process regression, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 69 (2022) 103264.

[63] H. Sun, H.V. Burton, J.P. Stewart, J.W. Wallace, Development of a Generalized Cross-Building Structural
Response Reconstruction Model Using Strong Motion Data, Journal of Structural Engineering, 148 (2022)
04022053.

[64] Q. Lin, C. Li, Nonstationary wind speed data reconstruction based on secondary correction of statistical
characteristics, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 28 (2021) e2783.

[65] Y. Bao, Z. Chen, S. Wei, Y. Xu, Z. Tang, H. Li, The state of the art of data science and engineering in
 structural health monitoring, Engineering, 5 (2019) 234-242.

[66] X. Ye, Y. Su, P. Xi, H. Liu, Structural health monitoring data reconstruction of a concrete cable-stayed bridge
based on wavelet multi-resolution analysis and support vector machine, Computers and Concrete, An
International Journal, 20 (2017) 555-562.

[67] S.C. Kuok, K.V. Yuen, Model-free data reconstruction of structural response and excitation via sequential
broad learning, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 141 (2020) 106738.

[68] Y. Ni, M. Li, Wind pressure data reconstruction using neural network techniques: A comparison between
BPNN and GRNN, Measurement, 88 (2016) 468-476.

[69] Y. Bao, Z. Tang, H. Li, Compressive-sensing data reconstruction for structural health monitoring: a machine-
learning approach, Structural Health Monitoring, 19 (2020) 293-304.

[70] J. Huang, Q. Li, X. Han, Recovery of missing field measured wind pressures on a supertall building based on
correlation analysis and machine learning, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 231
(2022) 105237.

[71] Y. Pan, C.E. Ventura, T. Li, Sensor placement and seismic response reconstruction for structural health
monitoring using a deep neural network, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 20 (2022) 4513-4532.

[72] Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, P. Haffner, Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition,
Proceedings of the IEEE, 86 (1998) 2278-2324.

[73] Q. Lin, X. Bao, C. Li, Deep learning based missing data recovery of non-stationary wind velocity, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 224 (2022) 104962.

[74] P. Moeinifard, M.S. Rajabi, M. Bitaraf, Lost vibration test data recovery using convolutional neural network:
a case study, arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05440, (2022).

[75] P. Ni, Y. Li, L. Sun, A. Wang, Traffic-induced bridge displacement reconstruction using a physics-informed
convolutional neural network, Computers & Structures, 271 (2022) 106863.

[76] Y. Li, P. Ni, L. Sun, W. Zhu, A convolutional neural network ‐ based full ‐ field response reconstruction
framework with multitype inputs and outputs, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 29 (2022) e2961.

[77] B.K. Oh, B. Glisic, Y. Kim, H.S. Park, Convolutional neural network ‐ based wind ‐ induced response
estimation model for tall buildings, Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 34 (2019) 843-858.

[78] K. Jiang, Q. Han, X. Du, Lost data neural semantic recovery framework for structural health monitoring based
on deep learning, Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 37 (2022) 1160-1187.

[79] G. Fan, J. Li, H. Hao, Lost data recovery for structural health monitoring based on convolutional neural
networks, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 26 (2019) e2433.

[80] G. Fan, J. Li, H. Hao, Using deep learning technique for non-model based vibration response reconstruction,
Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Life-Cycle Sustainability and Innovations, CRC Press, 2021, pp.
2332-2336.

[81] G. Fan, J. Li, H. Hao, Using deep learning technique for recovering the lost measurement data, EASEC16:
Proceedings of The 16th East Asian-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, 2019,
Springer, 2021, pp. 229-237.

[82] Z. Tang, Y. Bao, H. Li, Group sparsity-aware convolutional neural network for continuous missing data
recovery of structural health monitoring, Structural Health Monitoring, 20 (2021) 1738-1759.

[83] G. Fan, J. Li, H. Hao, Dynamic response reconstruction for structural health monitoring using densely
connected convolutional networks, Structural Health Monitoring, 20 (2021) 1373-1391.

[84] I.J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, Y. Bengio,
Generative Adversarial Nets, stat, 1050 (2014) 10.

[85] X. Lei, L. Sun, Y. Xia, Lost data reconstruction for structural health monitoring using deep convolutional
 generative adversarial networks, Structural Health Monitoring, 20 (2021) 2069-2087.

[86] W. Hu, T. Wang, F. Chu, Fault feature recovery with wasserstein generative adversarial imputation network
with gradient penalty for rotating machine health monitoring under signal loss condition, IEEE Transactions
on Instrumentation and Measurement, 71 (2022) 1-12.

[87] G. Fan, J. Li, H. Hao, Y. Xin, Data driven structural dynamic response reconstruction using segment based
generative adversarial networks, Engineering Structures, 234 (2021) 111970.

[88] J. Li, Z. He, G. Fan, Structural health monitoring response reconstruction based on UAGAN under structural
condition variations with few-shot learning, SMART STRUCTURES AND SYSTEMS, 30 (2022) 687-701.

[89] G. Fan, Z. He, J. Li, Structural dynamic response reconstruction using self-attention enhanced generative
adversarial networks, Engineering Structures, 276 (2023) 115334.

[90] S. Jeong, M. Ferguson, R. Hou, J.P. Lynch, H. Sohn, K.H. Law, Sensor data reconstruction using bidirectional
recurrent neural network with application to bridge monitoring, Advanced engineering informatics, 42 (2019)
100991.

[91] Y.S. Shin, J. Kim, Sensor Data Reconstruction for Dynamic Responses of Structures Using External
Feedback of Recurrent Neural Network, Sensors, 23 (2023) 2737.

[92] D. Liu, Y. Bao, Y. He, L. Zhang, A data loss recovery technique using EMD-BiGRU algorithm for structural
health monitoring, Applied Sciences, 11 (2021) 10072.

[93] Y. Deng, H. Ju, Y. Li, Y. Hu, A. Li, Abnormal Data Recovery of Structural Health Monitoring for Ancient
City Wall Using Deep Learning Neural Network, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, (2023) 1-19.

[94] H. Ju, Y. Deng, W. Zhai, A. Li, Recovery of Abnormal Data for Bridge Structural Health Monitoring Based
on Deep Learning and Temporal Correlation, Sensors and Materials, 34 (2022) 4491-4505.

[95] K. Jiang, Q. Han, X. Du, P. Ni, Structural dynamic response reconstruction and virtual sensing using a
sequence to sequence modeling with attention mechanism, Automation in Construction, 131 (2021) 103895.

[96] C. Chen, L. Tang, Y. Lu, L. Zhou, Z. Liu, Y. Liu, Z. Jiang, B. Yang, Temperature-induced response
reconstruction method based on DL-AR model and attention mechanism, Structures, Elsevier, 2023, pp. 359-
372.

[97] P. Vedavalli, D. Ch, A Deep Learning Based Data Recovery Approach for Missing and Erroneous Data of
IoT Nodes, Sensors, 23 (2022) 170.

[98] Y. Lu, L. Tang, C. Chen, L. Zhou, Z. Liu, Y. Liu, Z. Jiang, B. Yang, Reconstruction of structural long-term
acceleration response based on BiLSTM networks, Engineering Structures, 285 (2023) 116000.

[99] H. Liu, Y. Ding, H. Zhao, M. Wang, F. Geng, Deep learning-based recovery method for missing structural
temperature data using LSTM network, Structural Monitoring and Maintenance, 7 (2020) 109-124.

[100] J. Xin, C. Zhou, Y. Jiang, Q. Tang, X. Yang, J. Zhou, A signal recovery method for bridge monitoring
system using TVFEMD and encoder-decoder aided LSTM, Measurement, (2023) 112797.

[101] Y. Li, T. Bao, H. Chen, K. Zhang, X. Shu, Z. Chen, Y. Hu, A large-scale sensor missing data imputation
framework for dams using deep learning and transfer learning strategy, Measurement, 178 (2021) 109377.

[102] B. Du, L. Wu, L. Sun, F. Xu, L. Li, Heterogeneous structural responses recovery based on multi-modal Deep
learning, Structural Health Monitoring, 22 (2023) 799-813.

[103] J. Niu, S. Li, Z. Li, Restoration of missing structural health monitoring data using spatiotemporal graph
attention networks, Structural Health Monitoring, 21 (2022) 2408-2419.
Declaration of interests

☒ 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.

☐ The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests: