2018
DOI: 10.1007/s13349-018-0317-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sensitivity-based damage detection algorithm for structures using vibration data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The damage is represented as a crack of depth d c that causes an exponential decrease in the flexural stiffness away from the crack location 39 . The stiffness reduction factor (SRF) is adopted as an appropriate damage indicator 40 . If δ K b represents the change in global stiffness matrix of the bridge due to the damage and δk e gives the SRF for each individual finite elements, the following relation holds: rightδKb=leftfalsefalsee=1mδke×[Ke]rightrightKbdamaged=leftKbundamaged+δKb where m is the number of elements and [ K e ] represents the beam element stiffness matrix.…”
Section: The Damage Identification Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The damage is represented as a crack of depth d c that causes an exponential decrease in the flexural stiffness away from the crack location 39 . The stiffness reduction factor (SRF) is adopted as an appropriate damage indicator 40 . If δ K b represents the change in global stiffness matrix of the bridge due to the damage and δk e gives the SRF for each individual finite elements, the following relation holds: rightδKb=leftfalsefalsee=1mδke×[Ke]rightrightKbdamaged=leftKbundamaged+δKb where m is the number of elements and [ K e ] represents the beam element stiffness matrix.…”
Section: The Damage Identification Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The final evaluation result of Figure 26 was very good since the true damage was correctly detected in element 9. For comparisons, the damage detection results reported by Krishnanunni et al [8] and Hao et al [38] are presented in Figure 27, obtained by Cuckoo Search algorithm (CSA) and Genetic algorithm (GA), respectively. Meanwhile, the result of Figure 26 is also shown in Figure 27 for easy comparison.…”
Section: Experimental Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the computational complexity of the ESVT method was significantly lower compared to the other methods because both CSA and GA needed many iterations for good convergence. For example, the computation process using CSA reported by Krishnanunni et al [8] was iterated 65,000 times for good convergence. Note that the proposed ESVT method only needed five calculations and the complexity of each calculation decreased gradually.…”
Section: Experimental Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations