MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020687046 · doi:10.1117/12.597758

Application of artificial neural networks in vibration based damage detection

2005· article· en· W2020687046 on OpenAlexaff
Hongpo Xu, J. L. Humar

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVibrationArtificial neural networkFinite element methodA priori and a posterioriModalAlgorithmStructural engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringAcousticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vibration based damage identification (VBDI) techniques rely on the fact that damage in a structure reduces its stiffness and alters its global vibration characteristics. Measurement of changes in the vibration characteristics can therefore be used to determine the damage in the structure. The VBDI technique does not depend on a-priori information about the damage site; the vicinity of the damage need not be accessible; and often a limited number of sensors can be used to localize and quantify the damage. Unfortunately, most of the available damage identification algorithms fail when applied to practical structures due to the effect of measurement errors, uncertainties induced by environmental and boundary condition, the need to use incomplete mode shapes, mode truncation, and the non-unique nature of the solutions. Damage detection based on changes in modal characteristics can be treated as a pattern recognition problem. Artificial neural networks provide an ideal means of obtaining a solution to such a problem. This paper presents a new robust two-step algorithm for detecting the location and magnitude of damage. The technique uses principles of structural dynamics and artificial neural networks. A modal energy based vibration property, known as the damage index vector, is used as the input to the network. The proposed algorithm is used to detect simulated damage in a simple finite element model of a slab and girder bridge. The result shows that the proposed algorithm is quite effective in identifying the location and magnitude of damage, even in the presence of measurement errors in the input data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207