[1] Zhou, L., Guo, J., Wen, X., Ma, J., Yang, F., Wang, C., & Zhang, D. (2020). Monitoring and analysis of dynamic characteristics of super high-rise buildings using GB-RAR: A case study of the WGC under construction, China. Applied Sciences, 10(3), 808. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030808 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[2] Yu, Z., Xia, H., Goicolea, J.M., & Xia, C. (2016). Bridge damage identification from moving load induced deflection based on wavelet transform and Lipschitz exponent. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 16(1), 1550003. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219455415500032 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[3] Qiao, L., & Esmaeily, A. (2011). An overview of signal-based damage detection methods. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 94–96, 834–851. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.94-96.834 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[4] Cardini, A.J., & DeWolf, J.T. (2009). Implementation of a long-term bridge weigh-in-motion system for a steel girder bridge in the interstate highway system. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 14(6), 418–423. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000023 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[5] Cantero, D., Karoumi, R., & González, A. (2015). The virtual axle concept for detection of localised damage using bridge weigh-in-motion data. Engineering Structures, 89, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.036 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[6] Gonzalez, I., & Karoumi, R. (2015). BWIM aided damage detection in bridges using machine learning. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 5(5), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-015-0136-4 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[7] Kalyankar, R., & Uddin, N. (2017). Axle detection on prestressed concrete bridge using bridge weigh-in-motion system. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring, 7(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13349-017-0214-1 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[8] Shokravi, H., Shokravi, H., Bakhary, N., Heidarrezaei, M., Koloor, S.R.K., & Petru, M. (2020). Application of the subspace‐based methods in health monitoring of civil structures: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Applied Sciences, 10(10), 3606. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10103606 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[9] Song, G., Wang, C., & Wang, B. (2017). Structural health monitoring (SHM) of civil structures. Applied Sciences, 7(8), 789. https://doi.org/10.3390/app7080789 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[10] Reynders, E. (2012). System identification methods for (operational) modal analysis: Review and comparison. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 19(1), 51–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-012-9069-x (accessed May 23, 2025).
[11] Van Overschee, P., & De Moor, B.L. (1996). Subspace identification for linear systems: Theory—Implementation—Application. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2504-0 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[12] Peeters, B., & De Roeck, G. (1999). Reference-based stochastic subspace identification for output-only modal analysis. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 13(6), 855–878. https://doi.org/10.1006/mssp.1999.1249 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[13] Chang, C.-M., & Loh, C.-H. (2015). Improved stochastic subspace system identification for structural health monitoring. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 628, 012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/628/1/012010 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[14] Kim, J., & Lynch, J.P. (2012). Subspace system identification of support-excited structures—Part I: Theory and black-box system identification. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 41(14), 2235–2251. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2184 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[15] Mellinger, P., Döhler, M., & Mevel, L. (2016). Variance estimation of modal parameters from output-only and input/output subspace-based system identification. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 379, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2016.04.009 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[16] Xin, J., Sheng, J., & Sui, W. (2012). Study on the reason for difference of data‐driven and covariance‐driven stochastic subspace identification method. Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Computer Science and Electronics Engineering, Hangzhou, China, March 23–25, pp. 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSEE.2012.269 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[17] Shokravi, H., Shokravi, H., Bakhary, N., Koloor, S.R.K., & Petru, M. (2020). Health monitoring of civil infrastructures by subspace system identification method: An overview. Applied Sciences, 10(8), 2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10082786 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[18] Ettouney, M.M., & Alampalli, S. (2016). Infrastructure Health in Civil Engineering: Theory and Components (Vol. 1). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19009 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[19] Brincker, R., Zhang, L., & Andersen, P. (2001). Modal identification of output-only systems using frequency domain decomposition. Smart Materials and Structures, 10(3), 441. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/10/3/303 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[20] Khalilinia, H., Zhang, L., & Venkatasubramanian, V. (2015). Fast frequency-domain decomposition for ambient oscillation monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 30(4), 1631–1633. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2014.2365696 (accessed May 23, 2025).
[21] Guillaume, P., Verboven, P., Vanlanduit, S. (1998). Frequency-domain maximum likelihood identification of modal parameters with confidence intervals. International Seminar on Modal Analysis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, 1(1), 359–366.
[22] Kim, J., Lynch, J.P. (2011). Comparison study of output-only subspace and frequency-domain methods for system identification of base excited civil engineering structures. In Civil Engineering Topics, Springer, New York, NY, Vol. 4, pp. 305–312.
[23] Cunha, A., Caetano, E., Magalhães, F., Moutinho, C. (2013). Recent perspectives in dynamic testing and monitoring of bridges. Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 20, 853–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1535
[24] James, G.H., Carne, T.G., Lauffer, J.P. (1993). The Natural Excitation Technique (NExT) for Modal Parameter Extraction from Operating Wind Turbines. Sandia National Labs, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
[25] Juang, J.-N., Pappa, R.S. (1985). An eigensystem realization algorithm for modal parameter identification and model reduction. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 8(5), 620–627. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.20031
[26] Juang, J.-N., Cooper, J.E., Wright, J.R. (1988). An eigensystem realization algorithm using data correlations (ERA/DC) for modal parameter identification. Control Advanced Technology, 4, 5–14.
[27] Zhang, L., Yao, Y., Lu, M. (1987). An improved time domain polyreference method for modal identification. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 1(4), 399–413.
[28] Zhang, L. (2004). An overview of major developments and issues in modal identification. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC), Detroit, MI, USA, 12 August 2004, pp. 1–8.
[29] Ljung, L. (1999). System Identification: Theory for the User. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[30] Larimore, W.E. (1990). Canonical variate analysis in identification, filtering, and adaptive control. In Proceedings of the 29th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Honolulu, HI, USA, 5–7 December 1990; pp. 596–604.
[31] Akaike, H. (1975). Markovian representation of stochastic processes by canonical variables. SIAM Journal on Control, 13(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1137/0313012
[32] Kurata, M., Kim, J., Lynch, J.P., et al. (2013). Internet‐Enabled Wireless Structural Monitoring Systems: Development and Permanent Deployment at the New Carquinez Suspension Bridge. Journal of Structural Engineering, 139, 1688–1702. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943‐541X.0000609
[33] Kim, J., Lynch, J.P. (2012). Autonomous Decentralized System Identification by Markov Parameter Estimation Using Distributed Smart Wireless Sensor Networks. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 138, 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943‐7889.0000359
[34] Nozari, A., Behmanesh, I., Yousefianmoghadam, S., et al. (2017). Effects of variability in ambient vibration data on model updating and damage identification of a 10‐story building. Engineering Structures, 151, 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.044
[35] Shabbir, F., Omenzetter, P. (2015). Particle Swarm Optimization with Sequential Niche Technique for Dynamic Finite Element Model Updating. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30, 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12100
[36] Foti, D., Gattulli, V., Potenza, F. (2014). Output‐Only Identification and Model Updating by Dynamic Testing in Unfavorable Conditions of a Seismically Damaged Building. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 29, 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12071
[37] Chen, J.D., Loh, C.H. (2017). Tracking modal parameters of building structures from experimental studies and earthquake response measurements. Structural Health Monitoring, 16(5), 551–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921717696339
[38] Li, P.J., Xia, Q., Zhang, J. (2017). Subspace Flexibility Identification Adaptive to Different Types of Input Forces. International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 18, 1850067. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219455418500670
[39] Dai, K., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., et al. (2017). Development of a modified stochastic subspace identification method for rapid structural assessment of in‐service utility‐scale wind turbine towers. Wind Energy, 20, 1687–1710. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2117
[40] Zhang, G., Tang, B., Tang, G. (2012). An improved stochastic subspace identification for operational modal analysis. Measurement, 45, 1246–1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2012.01.034
[41] Priori, C., De Angelis, M., Betti, R. (2018). On the selection of user‐defined parameters in data‐driven stochastic subspace identification. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 100, 501–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.07.045
[42] Pioldi, F., Rizzi, E. (2017). Earthquake‐induced structural response output‐only identification by two different Operational Modal Analysis techniques. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 47, 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2947
[43] Park, S.K., Noh, H.Y. (2017). Updating Structural Parameters with Spatially Incomplete Measurements Using Subspace System Identification. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 143, 04017040. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943‐7889.0001226
[44] Tarinejad, R., Pourgholi, M. (2016). Modal identification of arch dams using balanced stochastic subspace identification. Journal of Vibration and Control, 24, 2030–2044. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546316670417
[45] Soria, J., Díaz, I.M., García‐Palacios, J.H., Ibán, N. (2016). Vibration Monitoring of a Steel‐Plated Stress‐Ribbon Footbridge: Uncertainties in the Modal Estimation. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 21, C5015002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943‐5592.0000830
[46] Loh, C.H., Chao, S.H., Weng, J.H., Wu, T.H. (2015). Application of subspace identification technique to long‐term seismic response monitoring of structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 44, 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2475
[47] Lardies, J. (2015). Modal Parameter Identification from Output Data Only: Equivalent Approaches. Shock and Vibration, 2015, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/124932
[48] Cho, S., Park, J.W., Sim, S.H. (2015). Decentralized system identification using stochastic subspace identification for wireless sensor networks. Sensors, 15, 8131–8145. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150408131
[49] Kim, J., Kim, K., Son, H. (2014). Subspace model identification of guided wave propagation in metallic plates. Smart Materials and Structures, 23, 035006. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/23/3/035006
[50] Yu, K., Yang, K., Bai, Y. (2014). Experimental investigation on the time‐varying modal parameters of a trapezoidal plate in temperature‐varying environments by subspace tracking‐based method. Journal of Vibration and Control, 21, 3305–3319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546314521445
[51] Ubertini, F.; Gentile, C.; Materazzi, A.L. Automated modal identification in operational conditions and its application to bridges. Eng. Struct. 2013, 46, 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.031
[52] Döhler, M.; Lam, X.-B.; Mevel, L. Uncertainty quantification for modal parameters from stochastic subspace identification on multi-setup measurements. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2013, 36, 562–581.
[53] Döhler, M.; Mevel, L. Efficient multi-order uncertainty computation for stochastic subspace identification. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2013, 38, 346–366.
[54] Moaveni, B.; He, X.; Conte, J.P.; Restrepo, J.I.; Panagiotou, M. System identification study of a 7-story full-scale building slice tested on the UCSD-NEES shake table. J. Struct. Eng. 2010, 137, 705–717.
[55] Zhang, G.; Tang, B.; Tang, G. An improved stochastic subspace identification for operational modal analysis. Measurement 2012, 45, 1246–1256.
[56] Lardies, J.; Minh-Ngi, T. Modal parameter identification of stay cables from output-only measurements. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2011, 25, 133–150.
[57] Weng, J.-H.; Loh, C.-H. Recursive subspace identification for on-line tracking of structural modal parameter. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2011, 25, 2923–2937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2011.05.013
[58] Carden, E.P.; Mita, A. Challenges in developing confidence intervals on modal parameters estimated for large civil infrastructure with stochastic subspace identification. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2011, 18, 53–78.
[59] Brownjohn, J.M.W.; Carden, E.P.; Goddard, C.R.; Oudin, G. Real-time performance monitoring of tuned mass damper system for a 183 m reinforced concrete chimney. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2010, 98, 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2009.10.013
[60] Hu, W.-H.; Cunha, Á.; Caetano, E.; Magalhães, F.; Moutinho, C. LabVIEW toolkits for output-only modal identification and long-term dynamic structural monitoring. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2010, 6, 557–574.
[61] Marchesiello, S.; Bedaoui, S.; Garibaldi, L.; Argoul, P. Time-dependent identification of a bridge-like structure with crossing loads. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2009, 23, 2019–2028.
[62] Deraemaeker, A.; Reynders, E.; De Roeck, G.; Kullaa, J. Vibration-based structural health monitoring using output-only measurements under changing environment. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2008, 22, 34–56.
[63] Alıcıoğlu, B.; Luş, H. Ambient vibration analysis with subspace methods and automated mode selection: Case studies. J. Struct. Eng. 2008, 134, 1016–1029.
[64] He, X.; Moaveni, B.; Conte, J.P.; Elgamal, A.; Masri, S.F. Modal identification study of Vincent Thomas Bridge using simulated wind-induced ambient vibration data. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2008, 23, 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8667.2008.00544.x
[65] Loh, C.H.; Liu, Y.C.; Ni, Y.Q. SSA-based stochastic subspace identification of structures from output-only vibration measurements. Smart Struct. Syst. 2012, 10, 331–351.
[66] Attig, M.; Abdelghani, M.; Kahla, N. Output-only modal identification of tensegrity structures. Eng. Struct. Technol. 2016, 8, 52–64.
[67] Reynders, E.; Pintelon, R.; De Roeck, G. Uncertainty bounds on modal parameters obtained from stochastic subspace identification. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2008, 22, 948–969.
[68] Zhang, Z.; Fan, J.; Hua, H. Simulation and experiment of a blind subspace identification method. J. Sound Vib. 2008, 311, 941–952.
[69] Carden, E.P.; Brownjohn, J.M.W. Fuzzy clustering of stability diagrams for vibration-based structural health monitoring. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2008, 23, 360–372.
[70] Döhler, M.; Mevel, L.; Hille, F. Subspace-based damage detection under changes in the ambient excitation statistics. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2014, 45, 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2013.10.023
[71] Basseville, M.; Bourquin, F.; Mevel, L.; Nasser, H.; Treyssède, F. Handling the temperature effect in vibration monitoring: Two subspace-based analytical approaches. J. Eng. Mech. 2010, 136, 367.
[72] Balmes, E.; Basseville, M.; Mevel, L.; Nasser, H.; Zhou, W. Statistical model-based damage localization: A combined subspace-based and substructuring approach. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2008, 15, 857–875. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.223
[73] Zhou, W.; Li, S.; Li, H. Damage detection for SMC benchmark problem: A subspace-based approach. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2016, 16, 1640025. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219455416400253
[74] Sun, C.; Zhang, Z.; Luo, X.; Guo, T.; Qu, J.; Li, B. Support vector machine-based Grassmann manifold distance for health monitoring of viscoelastic sandwich structure with material ageing. J. Sound Vib. 2016, 368, 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2016.01.021
[75] Ren, W.X.; Lin, Y.Q.; Fang, S.E. Structural damage detection based on stochastic subspace identification and statistical pattern recognition: I. Theory. Smart Mater. Struct. 2011, 20, 115009.
[76] Zarbaf, E.; Norouzi, M.; Allemang, R.J.; Hunt, V.J.; Helmicki, A.; Nims, D.K. Stay force estimation in cable-stayed bridges using stochastic subspace identification methods. J. Bridge Eng. 2017, 22, 04017055. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001091
[77] Reynders, E.; Maes, K.; Lombaert, G.; De Roeck, G. Uncertainty quantification in operational modal analysis with stochastic subspace identification: Validation and applications. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2016, 66, 13–30.
[78] Wu, W.H.; Wang, S.W.; Chen, C.C.; Lai, G. Application of stochastic subspace identification for stay cables with an alternative stabilization diagram and hierarchical sifting process. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2016, 23, 1194–1213. https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.1836
[79] Karami, K.; Akbarabadi, S. Developing a smart structure using integrated subspace-based damage detection and semi-active control. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 31, 887–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12231
[80] Khan, I.U.; Shan, D.S.; Li, Q.; He, J.; Nan, F.L. Data interpretation and continuous modal parameter identification of cable stayed bridge. Open Civ. Eng. J. 2015, 9, 577–591.
[81] Guo Y, Kwon DK, Kareem A. Near‐real‐time hybrid system identification framework for civil structures with application to Burj Khalifa. J Struct Eng. 2015;142(2):4015132. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943‐541X.0001402.
[82] Ben Mekki O, Siegert D, Toutlemonde F, Mevel L, Goursat M. A new composite bridge: Feasibility validation and vibration monitoring. Mech Adv Mater Struct. 2015;22(10):850–863. doi:10.1080/15376494.2013.864432.
[83] Tondreau G, Deraemaeker A. Numerical and experimental analysis of uncertainty on modal parameters estimated with the stochastic subspace method. J Sound Vib. 2014;333(18):4376–4401.
[84] Dohler M, Hille F, Mevel L, Rucker W. Structural health monitoring with statistical methods during progressive damage test of S101 Bridge. Eng Struct. 2014;69:183–193. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.03.010.
[85] Hong AL, Ubertini F, Betti R. New stochastic subspace approach for system identification and its application to long‐span bridges. J Eng Mech. 2013;139(5):724–736. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943‐7889.0000524.
[86] Döhler M, Mevel L. Modular subspace‐based system identification from multi‐setup measurements. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 2012;57(11):2951–2956.
[87] Chauhan S. Using the unified matrix polynomial approach (UMPA) for the development of the stochastic subspace identification (SSI) algorithm. J Vib Control. 2012;19(13):1950–1961. doi:10.1177/1077546312450045.
[88] Whelan MJ, Gangone MV, Janoyan KD, Jha R. Real‐time wireless vibration monitoring for operational modal analysis of an integral abutment highway bridge. Eng Struct. 2009;31(10):2224–2235. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.03.022.
[89] Akçay H. Frequency domain subspace‐based identification of discrete‐time singular power spectra. Signal Process. 2012;92(9):2075–2081.
[90] Urgessa GS. Vibration properties of beams using frequency‐domain system identification methods. J Vib Control. 2010;17(9):1287–1294. doi:10.1177/1077546310378431.
[91] Gandino E, Garibaldi L, Marchesiello S. Covariance‐driven subspace identification: A complete input–output approach. J Sound Vib. 2013;332(26):7000–7017. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2013.08.025.
[92] Verhaegen M, Hansson A. N2SID: Nuclear norm subspace identification of innovation models. Automatica. 2016;72:57–63.
[93] Marchesiello S, Fasana A, Garibaldi L. Modal contributions and effects of spurious poles in nonlinear subspace identification. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2016;74:111–132. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2015.05.008.
[94] Shi Y, Li Z, Chang CC. Output‐only subspace identification of structural properties and unknown ground excitation for shear‐beam buildings. Adv Mech Eng. 2016;8:1687814016679908. doi:10.1177/1687814016679908.
[95] Zhong K, Chang CC. Recursive combined subspace identification technique for tracking dynamic characteristics of structures under earthquake excitation. J Eng Mech. 2016;142(2):4016092. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943‐7889.0001156.
[96] Al‐Gahtani O, El‐Gebeily M, Khulief Y. Output‐only identification of system parameters from noisy measurements by multiwavelet denoising. Adv Mech Eng. 2014;6:218328. doi:10.1155/2014/218328.
[97] Weng JH, Loh CH, Yang JN. Experimental study of damage detection by data‐driven subspace identification and finite‐element model updating. J Struct Eng. 2009;135(12):1533–1544. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943‐541X.0000079.
[98] Kurka PRG, Cambraia HN. Application of a multivariable input–output subspace identification technique in structural analysis. J Sound Vib. 2008;312(3):461–475. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2007.07.089.
[99] Rainieri C, Fabbrocino G. Automated output‐only dynamic identification of civil engineering structures. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2010;24(3):678–695. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2009.10.003.
[100] Giraldo DF, Song W, Dyke SJ, Caicedo JM. Modal identification through ambient vibration: Comparative study. J Eng Mech. 2009;135(8):759–770.
[101] Magalhães F, Reynders E, Cunha Á, De Roeck G. Online automatic identification of modal parameters of a bridge using the p‐LSCF method. In: Proc IOMAC’09–3rd Int Operational Modal Analysis Conf, Ancona, Italy; 2009 May 4–6.
[102] Moaveni B, He X, Conte JP, Restrepo JI, Panagiotou M. System identification study of a 7‐story full‐scale building slice tested on the UCSD‐NEES shake table. J Struct Eng. 2010;137(6):705–717.
[103] Prowell I, Elgamal A, Luco JE, Conte JP. In‐situ ambient vibration study of a 900‐kW wind turbine. J Earthq Eng. 2019:1–22. doi:10.1080/13632469.2019.1662344.
[104] Li W, Vu V‐H, Liu Z, Thomas M, Hazel B. Extraction of modal parameters for identification of time‐varying systems using data‐driven stochastic subspace identification. J Vib Control. 2018;24(22):4781–4796.
[105] Júnior JSS, Costa EBM. Fuzzy modelling methodologies based on OKID/ERA algorithm applied to quadrotor aerial robots. In: Intelligent Systems: Theory, Research and Innovation in Applications. Berlin: Springer; 2020. p. 295–317.
[106] Dautt‐Silva A, De Callafon RA. Optimal input shaping with finite resolution computed from step‐response experimental data. In: Proc 2018 Annu Amer Control Conf (ACC), Milwaukee, WI; 2018 Jun 27–29. p. 6703–6708.
[107] Wang SQ, Zhang YT, Feng YX. Comparative study of output‐based modal identification methods using measured signals from an offshore platform. In: Proc ASME 2010 29th Int Conf Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Eng, Shanghai, China; 2010 Jun 6–11. New York: ASME; 2010. p. 561–567.
[108] Kim J, Lynch JP. Comparison study of output‐only subspace and frequency‐domain methods for system identification of base excited civil engineering structures. In: Civil Engineering Topics. Berlin: Springer; 2011. Vol. 4, p. 305–312.
[109] Cunha A, Caetano E, Ribeiro P, Müller G. Vibration‐based SHM of a centenary bridge: A comparative study between two different automated OMA techniques. Preservation. 2011;1:12.
[110] Liu CW, Wu JZ, Zhang YG. Review and prospect on modal parameter identification of spatial lattice structure based on ambient excitation. In: Appl Mech Mater. Stafa-Zurich: Trans Tech Publications Ltd.; 2011. Vol. 94, p. 1271–1217.
[111] R. Ceravolo and G. Abbiati, "Time domain identification of structures: Comparative analysis of output‐only methods," J. Eng. Mech., vol. 139, pp. 537–544, 2012.
[112] L. Mevel, M. Basseville, A. Benveniste, and M. Goursat, "Merging sensor data from multiple measurement set‐ups for non‐stationary subspace‐based modal analysis," J. Sound Vib., vol. 249, pp. 719–741, 2002.
[113] F. Magalhães, E. Caetano, and Á. Cunha, "Challenges in the application of stochastic modal identification methods to a cable-stayed bridge," J. Bridge Eng., vol. 12, pp. 746–754, 2007.
[114] B. Moaveni, X. He, J. P. Conte, J. I. Restrepo, and M. Panagiotou, "System identification study of a 7-story full-scale building slice tested on the UCSD-NEES shake table," J. Struct. Eng., vol. 137, pp. 705–717, 2010.
[115] F. Magalhães, E. Reynders, Á. Cunha, and G. De Roeck, "Online automatic identification of modal parameters of a bridge using the p-LSCF method," in Proc. IOMAC, Ancona, Italy, May 4–6, 2009.
[116] S. Q. Wang, Y. T. Zhang, and Y. X. Feng, "Comparative study of output-based modal identification methods using measured signals from an offshore platform," in Proc. ASME 2010 29th Int. Conf. Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Eng., New York, NY, USA: ASME, 2010, pp. 561–567.
[117] A. Cunha, E. Caetano, P. Ribeiro, and G. Müller, "Vibration-based SHM of a centenary bridge: A comparative study between two different automated OMA techniques," Preservation, vol. 1, p. 12, 2011.
[118] R. Ceravolo and G. Abbiati, "Time domain identification of structures: Comparative analysis of output-only methods," J. Eng. Mech., vol. 139, pp. 537–544, 2012.
[119] M. Döhler, P. Andersen, and L. Mevel, "Variance computation of modal parameter estimates from UPC subspace identification," Irnia, vol. 16, pp. 416–432, 2017.
[120] Y. Zhou et al., "Structural Identification Study of a Steel Multi-Girder Bridge Based on Multiple Reference Impact Test," Int. Symp. Innov. Sustain. Struct. Civ. Eng., vol. 12, pp. 315–356, 2013.
[121] W.-H. Hu, Á. Cunha, E. Caetano, F. Magalhães, and C. Moutinho, "LabVIEW toolkits for output-only modal identification and long-term dynamic structural monitoring," Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., vol. 6, pp. 557–574, 2010.
[122] M. Chang, S. N. Pakzad, and R. Leonard, "Modal identification using smit," in Topics on the Dynamics of Civil Structures, vol. 1, New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2012, pp. 221–228.
[123] M. Goursat and L. Mevel, "COSMAD: Identification and diagnosis for mechanical structures with Scilab," in Proc. 2008 IEEE Int. Conf. Comput.-Aided Control Syst. Design, San Antonio, TX, USA, Sep. 3–5, 2008, pp. 353–358.
[124] F. Potenza et al., "Long‐term structural monitoring of the damaged Basilica, S. Maria di Collemaggio through a low‐cost wireless sensor network," J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit., vol. 5, pp. 655–676, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s13349-015-0146-3.
[125] D. Bauer, "Asymptotic properties of subspace estimators," Automatica, vol. 41, pp. 359–376, 2005.
[126] A. Chiuso and G. Picci, "Asymptotic variance of subspace methods by data orthogonalization and model decoupling: A comparative analysis," Automatica, vol. 40, pp. 1705–1717, 2004.
[127] D. Bauer and L. Ljung, "Some facts about the choice of the weighting matrices in Larimore type of subspace algorithms," Automatica, vol. 38, pp. 763–773, 2002.
