Comparison of Two Software Tools for Damage Identification: Gradient-Based vs. Case-Based Approach

Przemysław Kołakowski; Luis E. Mujica; Josep Vehí

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.293-294.103

Paper Titles

A Biological Immunity-Inspired Novelty Detection Algorithm for Rotor System Monitoring
p.71

Gearbox Fault Detection Using Hilbert and TT-Transform
p.79

Frequency-Demodulated Analysis Based on Cyclostationarity for Local Fault Detection in Gears
p.87

Gearbox Fault Diagnosis Using Adaptive Redundant Second Generation Wavelet
p.95

Comparison of Two Software Tools for Damage Identification: Gradient-Based vs. Case-Based Approach
p.103

Identification of Impact Force for Base on Higher Order Wigner Distribution
p.111

Damage Identification of a Mechanical Structure with a Non-Minimum Phase Based on Singular Value Decomposition
p.119

Wavelet Transform Domain Filter and Its Application in Incipient Fault Prognosis
p.127

Classification Using Radial Basis Function Networks with Uncertain Weights
p.135

HomeKey Engineering MaterialsKey Engineering Materials Vols. 293-294Comparison of Two Software Tools for Damage...

Comparison of Two Software Tools for Damage Identification: Gradient-Based vs. Case-Based Approach

Abstract:

Two alternative software tools for damage identification are presented. The first tool, developed on the basis of the Virtual Distortion Method (VDM), takes advantage of an analytical formulation of the damage identification problem. Consequently, gradient-based optimization method is applied to solve the resulting dynamic inverse problem in time domain. Finite element model of the structure is necessary for the VDM approach. The second tool utilizes the Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) for damage identification. This method consists in i) extracting principal features of the response signal by wavelet transform, ii) creating a base of representative damage cases, iii) organizing and training the base by neural networks, and finally iv) retrieving and adapting a new case (possible damage) by similarity criteria. Basic description of both approaches is given. A comparison of numerical effectiveness, in terms of accuracy and computational time, is provided for a simple beam structure. Advantages and weaknesses of each approach are highlighted.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 293-294)

Pages:

103-110

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.293-294.103

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

September 2005

Authors:

Przemysław Kołakowski, Luis E. Mujica, Josep Vehí

Keywords:

Damage Identification, Inverse Dynamic Problem, Software Tools

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

Citation:

References

[1] M.A. Akgun, J.H. Garcelon, R.T. Haftka: International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering Vol. 50 (2001), p.1587.

Google Scholar

[2] J. Holnicki-Szulc, J.T. Gierlinski: Structural Analysis, Design and Control by the Virtual Distortion Method (J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, U.K. 1995).

Google Scholar

[3] P. Kolakowski, T.G. Zielinski, J. Holnicki-Szulc: Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures Vol. 15(6) (2004), p.479.

DOI: 10.1177/1045389x04042279

Google Scholar

[4] L.E. Mujica, J. Vehi, J. Rodellar, O. Garcia., P. Kolakowski: Proc. of the 2nd European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring (7-9 July, Munich, Germany 2004).

Google Scholar

[5] N.K. Bose, P. Liang: Neural Networks Fundamentals with Graphs, Algorithms, and Applications (McGraw-Hill, Inc., U. S 1996).

Google Scholar

[6] S. Mallat: A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing (2nd ed Academic Press 1999).

Google Scholar