Cited by 65Structural Health Monitoring TechniquesMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesModel Reduction and Neural Networks

Deep Convolutional Neural Network‐Based Structural Damage Localization and Quantification Using Transmissibility Data

Open access
Cofre-Martel, Sergio, Kobrich, Philip, Lopez Droguett, Enrique, Meruane, Viviana·2019·Shock and Vibration

Abstract

Damage diagnosis has become a valuable tool for asset management, enhanced by advances in sensor technologies that allows for system monitoring and providing massive amount of data for use in health state diagnosis. However, when dealing with massive data, manual feature extraction is not always a suitable approach as it is labor intensive requiring the intervention of domain experts with knowledge about the relevant variables that govern the system and their impact on its degradation process. To address these challenges, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been recently proposed to automatically extract features that best represent a system’s degradation behavior and are a promising and powerful technique for supervised learning with recent studies having shown their advantages for feature identification, extraction, and damage quantification in machine health assessment. Here, we propose a novel deep CNN‐based approach for structural damage location and quantification, which operates on images generated from the structure’s transmissibility functions to exploit the CNNs’ image processing capabilities and to automatically extract and select relevant features to the structure’s degradation process. These feature maps are fed into a multilayer perceptron to achieve damage localization and quantification. The approach is validated and exemplified by means of two case studies involving a mass‐spring system and a structural beam where training data are generated from finite element models that have been calibrated on experimental data. For each case study, the models are also validated using experimental data, where results indicate that the proposed approach delivers satisfactory performance and thus being an appropriate tool for damage diagnosis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2019/9859281

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. K. Worden, L. Cheung, and J. Rongong, "Damage detection in an aircraft component model," in Proceedings of the In- ternational Modal Analysis Conference IMAC XIX, pp. 1234-1241, Orlando, FL, USA, February 2001.
  2. R. P. C. Sampaio, N. M. M. Maia, A. M. R. Ribeiro, and J. M. M. Silva, "Transmissibility techniques for damage de- tection," in Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering, pp. 1524-1527, San Diego, CA, USA, August 2001.
  3. Z. Lai and R. Perera, "Transmissibility based damage as- sessment by intelligent algorithm," in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014, pp. 2443-2448, Porto, Portugal, July 2014.
  4. D. Lee, V. Siu, R. Cruz, and C. Yetman, "Convolutional neural net and bearing fault analysis," in Proceedings of the In- ternational Conference on Data Mining DMIN'16, pp. 194- 200, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 2016.
  5. A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, "ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks," in Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1-9, Lake Tahoe, NV, USA, December 2012.
  6. Y. N. Dauphin, H. De Vries, J. Chung, and Y. Bengio, "RMSProp and equilibrated adaptive learning rates for non- convex optimization," in Proceedings of the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1-10, Montreal, Canada, December 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cofre-Martel, S., Kobrich, P., Lopez Droguett, E., & Meruane, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Chile (CL)
Venue
Shock and Vibration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01
Volume
2019
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1070-9622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1875-9203
OpenAlex
W2971966787
Cited by
65
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
6.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Shock and Vibration (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (1160494, 1170535)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Machine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Model Reduction and Neural Networks
Keywords
structural damage localization, damage quantification, transmissibility function, convolutional neural networks, automatic feature extraction, damage diagnosis, multilayer perceptron, mass-spring system, structural beams, finite element model updating, structural health monitoring

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review