Because the operating conditions of high dams are becoming increasingly complex, these dams are prone to the generation of anomalous monitoring data caused by the coupling of structural damage and sensor faults. If a fault is not found and eliminated, it will induce monitoring data distortion and compromise data reliability, which will affect the assessment of dam safety in a data-driven manner. Therefore, this study presents a multisource information fusion method for sensor fault diagnosis and faulty data reconstruction that considers the structural characteristics of arch dams. By utilizing the correlations of the deformation response between the same elevation measurement points of the arch dam, the similarity characteristics of the sensor group are established to obtain threshold lines for sensor faults. The probability of a sensor fault is determined by whether the temporally similar features exceed the threshold lines. A new Tanimoto evidence similarity measurement is subsequently introduced to resolve evidence conflicts to comprehensively evaluate the probability of structural damage to a dam. Once the faulty sensor is identified, Bayesian–Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)–Gibbs sampling is used to quickly identify the corresponding fault types, and the faulty monitoring data are more accurately reconstructed through the posterior distributions of the parameters obtained by the model. A case study of a proposed DGS project shows that there is a 91.41% probability that the project has a sensor fault, and it is determined that sensor PL10-1 has a fault based on multisource information. By comparing the Bayesian–MCMC model with the traditional statistical regression model for reconstruction inversion, the effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated.
LiuJZangCTianS, et al. Water conservancy projects in China: achievements, challenges and way forward. Glob Environ Change2013; 23: 633–643.
2.
WangLYiSYuY, et al. Automated ultrasonic-based diagnosis of concrete compressive damage amidst temperature variations utilizing deep learning. Mech Syst Signal Process2024; 221: 111719.
3.
LiuWCarlingPAHuK, et al. Outburst floods in China: a review. Earth Sci Rev2019; 197: 102895.
4.
WangBChenYWuC, et al. Empirical and semi-analytical models for predicting peak outflows caused by embankment dam failures. J Hydrol2018; 562: 692–702.
5.
PisanielloJDDamTTTingey-HolyoakJL.International small dam safety assurance policy benchmarks to avoid dam failure flood disasters in developing countries. J Hydrol2015; 531: 1141–1153.
6.
LiBYangJHuD.Dam monitoring data analysis methods: a literature review. Struct Control Health Monit2020; 27: e2501.
7.
LeeJHShinJRealffMJ.Machine learning: overview of the recent progresses and implications for the process systems engineering field. Comput Chem Eng2018; 114: 111–121.
Naranjo-PérezJInfantesMJiménez-AlonsoJF, et al. A collaborative machine learning-optimization algorithm to improve the finite element model updating of civil engineering structures. Eng Struct2020; 225: 111327.
10.
ParidaSSBoseSButcherM, et al. SVD enabled data augmentation for machine learning-based surrogate modeling of non-linear structures. Eng Struct2023; 280: 115600.
11.
Praveen KumarDAmgothTAnnavarapuCSR. Machine learning algorithms for wireless sensor networks: a survey. Inf Fusion2019; 49: 1–25.
12.
SaadallahAFinkeldeyFBußJ, et al. Simulation and sensor data fusion for machine learning application. Adv Eng Inf2022; 52: 101600.
13.
LiaoXYanQSuL, et al. Automatic assessment of freeze-thaw damage in concrete structures using piezoelectric-based active sensing approach and deep learning technique. Eng Struct2024; 302: 117453.
14.
HeYMaYHuangK, et al. Abnormal data detection and recovery of sensors network based on spatiotemporal deep learning methodology. Measurement2024; 228: 114368.
15.
BelhadjAChouichaKKahloucheS, et al. Multi-sensor data fusion with AI-RBFN in settlement surveillance of embankment dams: application to a rockfill dam in Algeria. J Civ Struct Health Monit2023; 13: 1151–1170.
16.
RenQLiMKongT, et al. Multi-sensor real-time monitoring of dam behavior using self-adaptive online sequential learning. Autom Constr2022; 140: 104365.
17.
JiangTLiLSamaliB, et al. Lightweight object detection network for multi-damage recognition of concrete bridges in complex environments. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2024; 39: 3646–3665.
18.
FanGLiJHaoH.Lost data recovery for structural health monitoring based on convolutional neural networks. Struct Control Health Monit2019; 26: e2433.
19.
XuYHuangHLiY, et al. A three-stage online anomaly identification model for monitoring data in dams. Struct Health Monit2021; 21: 1183–1206.
XuXHuangQRenY, et al. Systems AIJ. Sensor fault diagnosis for bridge monitoring system using similarity of symmetric responses. Sensors Syst2019; 23: 279–293.
22.
ZhouYShuXBaoT, et al. Dam safety assessment through data-level anomaly detection and information fusion. Struct Health Monit2022; 22: 2002–2021.
23.
AlamdariMMDang KhoaNLWangY, et al. A multi-way data analysis approach for structural health monitoring of a cable-stayed bridge. Struct Health Monit2019; 18: 35–48.
24.
YuYHoshyarANSamaliB, et al. Corrosion and coating defect assessment of coal handling and preparation plants (CHPP) using an ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks and decision-level data fusion. Neural Comput Appl2023; 35: 18697–18718.
25.
ShuXBaoTZhouY, et al. Unsupervised dam anomaly detection with spatial–temporal variational autoencoder. Struct Health Monit2022; 22: 39–55.
26.
MataJGomesJPPereiraS, et al. Analysis and interpretation of observed dynamic behaviour of a large concrete dam aided by soft computing and machine learning techniques. Eng Struct2023; 296: 116940.
27.
YuanDGuCWeiB, et alA high-performance displacement prediction model of concrete dams integrating signal processing and multiple machine learning techniques. Appl Math Model2022; 112: 436–451.
28.
SalazarFToledoMAOñateE, et al. An empirical comparison of machine learning techniques for dam behaviour modelling. Struct Saf2015; 56: 9–17.
29.
ZhangPLiTWangG, et al. Multi-source information fusion based on rough set theory: a review. Inf Fusion2021; 68: 85–117.
30.
LiXDunkinFDezertJ.Multi-source information fusion: progress and future. Chin J Aeronaut2023.
31.
DasarathyBV.Industrial applications of multi-sensor multi-source information fusion. Proc IEEE Int Conf Ind Technol2000; 5–11.
32.
HuangMLiuZTaoY.Mechanical fault diagnosis and prediction in IoT based on multi-source sensing data fusion. Simul Model Pract Theory2020; 102: 101981.
33.
CastanedoF.A review of data fusion techniques. Sci World J2013; 2013: 704504.
34.
BowenWZhaoxingLDongyangY.Optimized deformation monitoring models of concrete dam considering the uncertainty of upstream and downstream surface temperatures. Eng Struct2023; 288: 115950.
35.
LiZYinCChenR, et al. A novel deformation monitoring model for high arch dams using impulse response-based equivalent temperature and machine learning-aided separate modeling. Expert Syst Appl2024; 238: 122328.
36.
ShaoCZhengSGuC, et al. A novel outlier detection method for monitoring data in dam engineering. Expert Syst Appl2022; 193: 116476.
37.
LiCWangRGuD, et al. Temperature and ice form effects on mechanical behaviors of ice-rich moraine soil of Tianmo valley nearby the Sichuan-Tibet Railway. Eng Geol2022; 305: 106713.
38.
LiZWuZChenJ, et al. Inverse analysis of deformation moduli for high arch dams using the displacement reconstruction technique and multi-objective optimization. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng2023; 39: 1507–1529.
39.
LiJWuZChenJ.An advanced Bayesian parameter estimation methodology for concrete dams combining an improved extraction technique of hydrostatic component and hybrid response surface method. Eng Struct2022; 267: 114687.
40.
ChenRWuZ. Construction and selection of deformation monitoring model for high arch dam using separate modeling technique and composite decision criterion. Struct Health Monit2023: 14759217231203243.
41.
WangZ-fYuY-fWangJ, et al. Convolutional neural-network-based automatic dam-surface seepage defect identification from thermograms collected from UAV-mounted thermal imaging camera. Constr Build Mater2022; 323: 126416.
42.
PanJLiuWLiuC, et al. Convolutional neural network-based spatiotemporal prediction for deformation behavior of arch dams. Expert Syst Appl2023; 232: 120835.
43.
YuYRashidiMSamaliB, et al. Crack detection of concrete structures using deep convolutional neural networks optimized by enhanced chicken swarm algorithm. Struct Health Monit2022; 21: 2244–2263.
44.
KiranyazSAvciOAbdeljaberO, et al. 1D convolutional neural networks and applications: a survey. Mech Syst Signal Process2021; 151: 107398.
45.
WangXMaoDLiX.Bearing fault diagnosis based on vibro-acoustic data fusion and 1D-CNN network. Measurement2021; 173: 108518.
46.
LiWWuZ.A methodology for dam parameter identification combining machine learning, multi-objective optimization and multiple decision criteria. Appl Soft Comput2022; 128: 109476.
47.
XuBChenZWangX, et al. Combined prediction model of concrete arch dam displacement based on cluster analysis considering signal residual correction. Mech Syst Signal Process2023; 203: 110721.
48.
LiYMinKZhangY, et al. Prediction of the failure point settlement in rockfill dams based on spatial-temporal data and multiple-monitoring-point models. Eng Struct2021; 243: 112658.
49.
DuY-WZhongJ-J.Generalized combination rule for evidential reasoning approach and Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. Inf Sci2021; 547: 1201–1232.
50.
DengZWangJ.A new evidential similarity measurement based on Tanimoto measure and its application in multi-sensor data fusion. Eng Appl Artif Intell2021; 104: 104380.
51.
BiWZhangAYuanY.Combination method of conflict evidences based on evidence similarity. J Syst Eng Electron2017; 28: 503–513.
52.
YiT-HHuangH-BLiH-N.Development of sensor validation methodologies for structural health monitoring: a comprehensive review. Measurement2017; 109: 200–214.
53.
KullaaJ.Detection, identification, and quantification of sensor fault in a sensor network. Mech Syst Signal Process2013; 40: 208–221.
54.
BabaeiMShiJAbdelwahedS.A survey on fault detection, isolation, and reconfiguration methods in electric ship power systems. IEEE Access2018; 6: 9430–9441.
55.
KapoorANukalaEChandraR.Bayesian neuroevolution using distributed swarm optimization and tempered MCMC. Appl Soft Comput2022; 129: 109528.
56.
GelfandAE.Gibbs sampling. J Am Stat Assoc2000; 95: 1300–1304.
57.
BarkerRJLinkWA.Bayesian multimodel inference by RJMCMC: a Gibbs sampling approach. Am Stat2013; 67: 150–156.
