A method for structural damage identification based on cuckoo search algorithm is presented. The nonlinear objective function for the damage identification problem is established by utilizing modal assurance criteria and structural natural frequencies. Then, the cuckoo search algorithm is adopted to detect local damages by solving the objective function. Two numerical examples are studied to investigate the efficiency and correctness of the proposed method. Meanwhile, a laboratory work is conducted for further verification. The simulation and experiment results show that the present method can produce more accurate damage identification results even under measurement noise, comparing with genetic algorithm.
BegambreOLaierJE (2009) A hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization—Simplex algorithm (PSOS) for structural damage identification. Advances in Engineering Software40: 883–891.
2.
BrehmMZabelVBucherC (2010) An automatic mode pairing strategy using an enhanced modal assurance criterion based on modal strain energies. Journal of Sound and Vibration329(25): 5375–5392.
3.
DackermannUSmithWARandallRB (2014) Damage identification based on response-only measurements using cepstrum analysis and artificial neural network. Structural Health Monitoring13(4): 430–444.
4.
DoeblingSWFarrarCRPrimeMB (1998) A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods. Shock and Vibration Digest30(2): 91–105.
5.
FanWQiaoPZ (2011) Vibration-based damage identification methods: a review and comparative study. Structural Health Monitoring10(1): 83–111.
6.
FrancoGBettiRLusH (2004) Identification of structural systems using an evolutionary strategy. Journal of Engineering Mechanics: ASCE130(10): 1125–1139.
7.
FriswellMIPennyJETGarveySD (1998) A combined genetic and eigensensitivity algorithm for the location of damage in structures. Computers & Structures69(5): 547–556.
8.
FuYZLuZRLiuJK (2013) Damage identification in plates using finite element model updating in time domain. Journal of Sound and Vibration332: 7018–7032.
9.
GandomiAHYangXSAmirH (2013) Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems. Engineering with Computers29(1): 17–35.
10.
GelmanL (2010) The new frequency response functions for structural health monitoring. Engineering Structures32(12): 3994–3999.
11.
GhaforyMGhasemiM (2013) System identification method by using inverse solution of equations of motion in frequency domain. Journal of Vibration and Control19(11): 1633–1645.
12.
HaoSHilmiLRaimondoB (2013) Identification of structural models using a modified Artificial Bee Colony algorithm. Computers & Structures116: 59–74.
13.
HinterdingR (1995) Gaussian mutation and self-adaption for numeric genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, Perth, WA, Australia, 29 November–1 December, vol. 1, pp. 384–389. New York: IEEE Publication.
14.
KangFLiJJXuQ (2012) Damage detection based on improved particle swarm optimization using vibration data. Applied Soft Computing12(8): 2329–2335.
15.
KimJTRyuYSChoHM (2003) Damage identification in beam-type structures: frequency-based method vs mode-shape-based method. Engineering Structures25(1): 57–67.
16.
LuXBLiuJKLuZR (2013) A two-step approach for crack identification in beam. Journal of Sound and Vibration332(2): 282–293.
17.
LuZRLawSS (2007) Features of dynamic response sensitivity and its application in damage detection. Journal of Sound and Vibration303(1): 305–329.
18.
NarkisY (1994) Identification of crack location in vibrating simply supported beams. Journal of Sound and Vibration172(4): 549–558.
19.
OwolabiGMSwamidasASJSeshadriR (2003) Crack detection in beams using changes in frequencies and amplitudes of frequency response functions. Journal of Sound and Vibration265(1): 1–22.
20.
PandeyAKBiswasM (1994) Damage detection in structures using changes in flexibility. Journal of Sound and Vibration169(1): 3–17.
21.
PandeyAKBiswasMSammanMM (1991) Damage detection from changes in curvature mode shapes. Journal of Sound and Vibration145(2): 321–332.
22.
RenWXDe RoeckG (2002) Structural damage identification using modal data. I: simulation verification. Journal of Structural Engineering: ASCE128(1): 87–95.
23.
ShiZYLawSSZhangLM (2000) Structural damage detection from modal strain energy change. Journal of Engineering Mechanics: ASCE126(12): 1216–1223.
24.
TomaszewskaA (2010) Influence of statistical errors on damage detection based on structural flexibility and mode shape curvature. Computers & Structures88(3): 154–164.
25.
WaltonSHassanOMorganK (2011) Modified cuckoo search: a new gradient free optimisation algorithm. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals44(9): 710–718.
26.
WangLYYangSPZhaoWG (2013) Structural damage identification of bridge erecting machine based on improved cuckoo search algorithm. Journal of Beijing Jiaotong University37(4): 168–173.
27.
WangXJZhouXQXiaY (2013) Comparisons between modal-parameter-based and flexibility-based damage identification methods. Advances in Structural Engineering16(9): 1611–1620.
28.
YangQW (2011) A new damage identification method based on structural flexibility disassembly. Journal of Vibration and Control17(7): 1000–1008.
29.
YangXSDebS (2009) Cuckoo search via Levy flights. In: Proceedings of the world congress on nature and biologically inspired computing (NaBIC 2009), Coimbatore, India, 9–11 December, pp. 210–214. New York: IEEE Publication.
30.
YangXSDebS (2010) Engineering optimization by cuckoo search. International Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation1(4): 330–343.
YuLXuP (2011) Structural health monitoring based on continuous ACO method. Microelectronics Reliability51(2): 270–278.
33.
ZouYTongLStevenGP (2000) Vibration-based model-dependent damage (delamination) identification and health monitoring for composite structures—a review. Journal of Sound and Vibration230(2): 357–378.
