2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2023.117598
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Unsupervised learning-based framework for indirect structural health monitoring using adversarial autoencoder

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is because the size of the damage is equated to the element size for modeling damage through element stiffness loss. In this study, the chosen size for the damaged element is 0.5 m, a dimension commonly employed in the literature [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Consequently, a total of 50 elements constitute the 25 m simply supported beam.…”
Section: Numerical Validation Of the Residual Cp Responsementioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…This is because the size of the damage is equated to the element size for modeling damage through element stiffness loss. In this study, the chosen size for the damaged element is 0.5 m, a dimension commonly employed in the literature [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Consequently, a total of 50 elements constitute the 25 m simply supported beam.…”
Section: Numerical Validation Of the Residual Cp Responsementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, a total of 50 elements constitute the 25 m simply supported beam. In addition, a simulation time step of 0.001 s is also a common choice in VBI studies [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. The first third frequencies of the bridge are ω b1 = 3.80 Hz, ω b2 = 15.22 Hz, and ω b3 = 34.24 Hz, respectively.…”
Section: Numerical Validation Of the Residual Cp Responsementioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Gradually, Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) methods, such as Acoustic Emission (AE) [9], ultrasonic [10], X-ray [11], magnetic particle inspection [12], eddy current [13], and other detection methods, are frequently utilized for monitoring the key component of the structure [13]. Currently, the most commonly used SHM methods are vibration-based SHM [14][15][16][17][18], AEbased SHM [9,19,20], Guided Wave (GW) based SHM [21][22][23][24][25], and Electro-Mechanical Impedance (EMI) based SHM [26,27]. Among them, vibration-based SHM is the most popular one by analyzing the relationship between vibration characteristics and damage states.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%