2018
DOI: 10.3390/aerospace5020045
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uncertainty Evaluation in the Design of Structural Health Monitoring Systems for Damage Detection†

Abstract: Abstract:The validation of structural health monitoring (SHM) systems for aircraft is complicated by the extent and number of factors that the SHM system must demonstrate for robust performance. Therefore, a time-and cost-efficient method for examining all of the sensitive factors must be conducted. In this paper, we demonstrate the utility of using the simulation modeling environment to determine the SHM sensitive factors that must be considered for subsequent experiments, in order to enable the SHM validatio… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[10][11][12][13] and its structural health states (impact, crack, etc.). [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Therein, structural health monitoring (SHM) is one of the key technologies of flexible smart skin, which plays a crucial role in structural response analysis, 21 fatigue monitoring, 22 damage prevention, 23 and other safety issues. Furthermore, the synchronous monitoring of structural health status and aerodynamic characteristics has gradually become the research highlights, 24 which puts forward new requirements and challenges for ultra-thin designing and large-area monitoring of SHM technology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[10][11][12][13] and its structural health states (impact, crack, etc.). [14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Therein, structural health monitoring (SHM) is one of the key technologies of flexible smart skin, which plays a crucial role in structural response analysis, 21 fatigue monitoring, 22 damage prevention, 23 and other safety issues. Furthermore, the synchronous monitoring of structural health status and aerodynamic characteristics has gradually become the research highlights, 24 which puts forward new requirements and challenges for ultra-thin designing and large-area monitoring of SHM technology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Memmolo et al [ 17 ] determined the POD based on a scalar damage metric and numerical simulations. More recently, Schubert Kabban et al [ 18 ] described how to reduce the experimental effort by combining efficient statistical design and numerical simulations. In addition, Tschöke and Gravenkamp [ 19 ] worked on advanced fast simulation methods that can support a model-based POD.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many researchers examined the effectiveness of systems by using various methods, including simulations, analytical calculations, computational workflows, and various factors-based and model-assisted approaches, with the goal of validating the systems' economic advantages in practice. Kabban et al (2018) proposed a simulation model by using a time-and cost-efficient method to determine sensitive factors of a structural health monitoring (SHM) system in order to enable SHM validation [17]. Madni et al (2019) proposed a methodological framework for analyzing investments in and potential gains from satellites, considering system complexity, environmental complexity and regulatory constraints, and system lifespan [18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Li et al (2018) focused on the assessment of the coverage effectiveness of remote sensing satellites and proposed a multi-index evaluation method based on index weight using an entropy weight method and AHP [24]. In the mentioned papers [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24], commercial profit is not within the index system, which means the authors cannot measure the economic value of the task scheduling for satellites. Additionally, the effects of weather uncertainties on different observation targets were not considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%