2019
DOI: 10.1080/15502287.2019.1569174
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sub-Structural Parameter Identification Including Cracks of Beam Structure Using PZT Patch

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A plane frame with nine structural members is considered in this example which was solved by Jinesh and Shankar. 17 The global structure of the frame is supported at two nodes as shown in Figure 8(a). The structure is modeled with nine frame elements with six nodes, and each has three DOFs.…”
Section: Example 2: Ss Of a Frame With Crackmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A plane frame with nine structural members is considered in this example which was solved by Jinesh and Shankar. 17 The global structure of the frame is supported at two nodes as shown in Figure 8(a). The structure is modeled with nine frame elements with six nodes, and each has three DOFs.…”
Section: Example 2: Ss Of a Frame With Crackmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In STMC method, the same crack depth is identified with an absolute error of 1.01% and 4.11% with complete and incomplete sets of responses without noise, respectively. The same structure was used in crack damage detection using PZT patches by Jinesh and Shankar, 17 identified the crack parameters of smallest depth of j = 0:05 with an absolute error of 11.6% without noise and 17.1% with 5% noise. The STMC identified the same crack depth with an error (incomplete set of responses) of 4.11% without noise and 8.35% with 5% noise.…”
Section: Example 2: Ss Of a Frame With Crackmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A large number of existing research studies in the broader literature have examined the effectiveness of EMI-based SHM of concrete due to several degradation causes, including the corrosion of steel bars in RC elements [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], concrete cover loss [ 18 ], the influence of the heating time [ 19 ], artificial cracks, and mass loss [ 20 , 21 ]. Furthermore, real-scale members of RC structures have been examined, such as beams [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ], frames [ 31 ], and joints [ 32 , 33 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditional structural crack detection mostly relies on human vision inspection, which is time and labor consuming. Some nondestructive test (NDT) methods, such as piezoelectricity transducer (PZT) sensors [1,2] and eddy current-based technologies [3] etc., are also effective to detect structural cracks given that the proximate positions of potential cracks are known as a priori. Recently, with fast development of (unmanned aerial vehicle) UAV and computer vision recognition technologies [4], the surface images of large civil structures can be more easily collected and be more efficiently processed to quickly detect structural cracks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%