Bayesian structural damage identification using fraction function regularisation model based on natural frequency and mode shape curvature
Source abstract
Abstract
The existing models based on Bayesian inference and L1 regularisation provide a feasible scheme to the uncertainty problem in structural damage identification. However, L1 regularisation cannot accurately describe the sparsity of damage due to excessive punishment of large damage parameters, and the mode shape data used by such models are insensitive to the damage. This compromises the accuracy of damage identification. Compared with L1 regularisation, the fraction function regularisation avoids excessive punishment for larger elements in the damage parameters, resulting in a more accurate sparse solution. The mode shape curvature is more sensitive to damage because it can be viewed as the differential form of the mode shape. Inspired by this, a fraction function regularisation model based on natural frequency and mode shape curvature data is proposed in this paper to further improve the accuracy of Bayesian damage identification. In addition, an improved cuckoo search algorithm is proposed to solve the model by introducing a ranking-based mutation strategy. The results obtained from both the numerical investigation and the experimental study consistently indicate that the proposed method can provide accurate and reliable identification results.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Chang’an University
Funding
the Natural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi · the Special Fund for Basic Scientific Research of Central Colleges in Changan University
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Rytter A. Vibrational based inspection of civil engineering structures [dissertation]. Denmark: Department of building technology and structural engineering Aalborg University; 1993.
2. 10.1088/1361-665X/ab99da10.1088/1361-665X/ab99da ↗
3. 10.1142/S021945542450146310.1142/S0219455424501463 ↗
4. 10.1080/10589759.2024.232999410.1080/10589759.2024.2329994 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.10964710.1016/j.measurement.2021.109647 ↗
6. 10.1080/10589759.2022.207793810.1080/10589759.2022.2077938 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.10707710.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107077 ↗
8. 10.1002/stc.237810.1002/stc.2378 ↗
9. 10.1080/10589759.2023.227401710.1080/10589759.2023.2274017 ↗
10. 10.1080/10589759.2023.227400010.1080/10589759.2023.2274000 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.11048310.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110483 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.jsv.2020.11574110.1016/j.jsv.2020.115741 ↗
13. 10.1115/1.400212510.1115/1.4002125 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.10717710.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107177 ↗
15. 10.1007/s00158-022-03316-810.1007/s00158-022-03316-8 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.cma.2022.11536810.1016/j.cma.2022.115368 ↗
17. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:7(738)10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:7(738) ↗
18. 10.1016/j.measurement.2022.11093910.1016/j.measurement.2022.110939 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.06.00710.1016/j.ymssp.2016.06.007 ↗
20. 10.1177/1475921722111426210.1177/14759217221114262 ↗
21. Hu Q, Lam HF, Zhu HP, et al. Bayesian ballast damage detection utilizing a modified evolutionary algorithm. Smart Struct Syst. 2018;21(4):435–448.
22. Chen ZP, Yu L. A novel pso-based algorithm for structural damage detection using Bayesian multi-sample objective function. Struct Eng Mech. 2017;63(6):825–835.
23. 10.1080/17415977.2017.131085510.1080/17415977.2017.1310855 ↗
24. Ghiasi R, Ghasemi MR. Optimization-based method for structural damage detection with consideration of uncertainties-a comparative study. Smart Struct Syst. 2018;22(5):561–574.
25. 10.1142/S021945541850157210.1142/S0219455418501572 ↗
26. 10.1088/1361-665X/aaeb7a10.1088/1361-665X/aaeb7a ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.06.02910.1016/j.ymssp.2019.06.029 ↗
28. 10.1016/0022-460X(91)90595-B10.1016/0022-460X(91)90595-B ↗
29. 10.1214/09-AOS72910.1214/09-AOS729 ↗
30. 10.1109/TNNLS.2015.251256310.1109/TNNLS.2015.2512563 ↗
31. 10.1109/TNNLS.2019.292140410.1109/TNNLS.2019.2921404 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.measurement.2018.05.00410.1016/j.measurement.2018.05.004 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.cam.2018.09.03610.1016/j.cam.2018.09.036 ↗
34. 10.1177/1369433222115101710.1177/13694332221151017 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.ins.2017.07.01110.1016/j.ins.2017.07.011 ↗
36. 10.1007/s13349-018-0317-010.1007/s13349-018-0317-0 ↗
37. 10.1177/136943321663012810.1177/1369433216630128 ↗
38. 10.1002/stc.252210.1002/stc.2522 ↗
39. 10.1177/1369433222108537210.1177/13694332221085372 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.10946410.1016/j.measurement.2021.109464 ↗
41. 10.1111/0885-9507.0020910.1111/0885-9507.00209 ↗
42. 10.1177/136943321879531010.1177/1369433218795310 ↗
43. 10.1109/TIT.2005.86208310.1109/TIT.2005.862083 ↗
44. 10.1002/stc.210710.1002/stc.2107 ↗
45. 10.1029/2011GL04922310.1029/2011GL049223 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.jsv.2018.02.06410.1016/j.jsv.2018.02.064 ↗
47. 10.1504/IJMMNO.2010.03543010.1504/IJMMNO.2010.035430 ↗
48. 10.1103/PhysRevE.49.467710.1103/PhysRevE.49.4677 ↗
49. 10.1109/TCYB.2013.223998810.1109/TCYB.2013.2239988 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.11742810.1016/j.eswa.2022.117428 ↗
51. 10.1109/TSP.2016.258509610.1109/TSP.2016.2585096 ↗
52. 10.5267/j.ijiec.2015.8.00410.5267/j.ijiec.2015.8.004 ↗
53. 10.1080/0305215X.2017.136739210.1080/0305215X.2017.1367392 ↗
54. 10.1177/147592172092125610.1177/1475921720921256 ↗