Cited by 93Structural Health Monitoring TechniquesMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation

Damage detection using transmissibility compressed by principal component analysis enhanced with distance measure

Zhou, Yun-Lai, Maia, Nuno MM, Abdel Wahab, Magd·2018·Journal of Vibration and Control

Abstract

Detecting structural damage in operational conditions still encounters some difficulties, especially in early-stage, as environmental varieties impose challenges in real engineering applications and may require large computational efforts in the structural health monitoring and potential maintenance. Unlike conventional strategies employing frequency response function or response data, a damage detection methodology is addressed in this study by employing transmissibility functions that retains a strong interrelation with structural damage or deterioration, in order to avoid the measurement of excitation, together with principal component analysis that leads to reduction in computational costs. In this procedure, transmissibility is extracted from the structural responses and main features are selected by principal component analysis for less computational costs. Then, via distance measures damage indicators are constructed for both intact and damaged states, and finally a numerical simulation with a clamped-clamped beam and a four-story benchmark are adopted to verify the applicability of the proposed procedure. The results demonstrate a good performance in structural damage detection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077546316674544

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, Y.-L., Maia, N. M., & Abdel Wahab, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • Division of Computational Mechanics, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Venue
Journal of Vibration and Control
Published
2016-10-20
Volume
24
Issue
10
Pages
2001-2019
ISSN
  • 1077-5463 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2986
OpenAlex
W2537252005
Cited by
92
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 1
FWCI
20.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Vibration and Control (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Universiteit Gent
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
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 › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Keywords
structural damage detection, transmissibility function, principal component analysis, distance measures, damage index, structural health monitoring, feature selection, computational complexity reduction, clamped-clamped beam

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