This study presents a novel structural health monitoring (SHM) approach for a composite panel-type structure, with a focus on damage localization and quantification. The approach leverages advanced fuzzy logic systems optimized through meta-heuristic algorithms, with a particular emphasis on the Fuzzy-Harris Hawk Optimization (Fuzzy-HHO) system, which serves as the foundation of the proposed SHM framework. A comparative analysis with the Fuzzy-Genetic Algorithm (Fuzzy-GA) system was conducted to evaluate their performance under various conditions. To validate the methodology, a physical model of a laminated composite panel was fabricated, and its vibration responses were analyzed through experimental modal analysis under fixed and pinned support conditions. The experimental data were utilized to update a finite element model, providing a reliable baseline for detecting structural damage. Damage scenarios were introduced by applying local mass changes, and the resulting frequency variations were used as critical input features for the fuzzy systems. The results demonstrated that the proposed Fuzzy-HHO system achieved superior performance in accurately identifying the location and magnitude of damage under both fixed and pinned support conditions. Its success rate surpassed that of the Fuzzy-GA system, particularly under challenging scenarios with added noise, showcasing its robustness and precision. The study highlights the efficiency and adaptability of the Fuzzy-HHO-based SHM framework, marking a significant advancement in the monitoring and maintenance of composite structures, particularly in challenging operational environments.
GiannakeasINSharif KhodaeiZAliabadiMH.An up-scaling temperature compensation framework for guided wave–based structural health monitoring in large composite structures. Struct Health Monit2023; 22(2): 777–798.
2.
ChaupalPRajendranP.A review on recent developments in vibration-based damage identification methods for laminated composite structures: 2010–2022. Compos Struct2023; 311: 116809.
3.
DolbachianLHariziWAbouraZ.Experimental linear and nonlinear vibration methods for the structural health monitoring (SHM) of polymer-matrix composites (PMCs): a literature review. Vibration2024; 7(1): 281–325.
4.
SaadatmoradMJafari-TalookolaeiRAPashaeiMH, et al. Damage detection in rectangular laminated composite plate structures using a combination of wavelet transforms and artificial neural networks. J Vibration Eng Technol2022; 10(5): 1647–1664.
5.
LiYSharif-KhodaeiZ.Accuracy of distributed strain sensing with single-mode fibre in composite laminates under thermal and vibration loads. Struct Control Health Monit2023; 2023(1): 9269987.
6.
GovindasamyMKamalakannanGKesavanC, et al. Damage detection in glass/epoxy laminated composite plates using modal curvature for structural health monitoring applications. J Compos Sci2020; 4(4): 185.
7.
RubinoFNisticòATucciF, et al. Marine application of fiber reinforced composites: a review. J Marine Sci Eng2020; 8(1): 26.
8.
DaviesP.Evaluation of new composite materials for marine applications. Appl Compos Mater2024; 31: 1933–1954.
9.
TalrejaR. (2022). Damage and failure of composite materials In: AltenbachHGanczarskiA. (eds) Advanced theories for deformation, damage and failure in materials. Springer, Cham: CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences.
10.
Sharif KhodaeiZFerri AliabadiMH. Damage detection and characterization with piezoelectric transducers: Active sensing. Struct Health Monit Adv Compos Struct2018; 1–46.
11.
Noori HoshyarARashidiMLiyanapathiranaR, et al. Algorithm development for the non-destructive testing of structural damage. Appl Sci2019; 9(14): 2810.
12.
HassaniSDackermannU.A systematic review of advanced sensor technologies for non-destructive testing and structural health monitoring. Sensors2023; 23(4): 2204.
13.
BourchakMFarrowIRBondIP, et al. Acoustic emission energy as a fatigue damage parameter for CFRP composites. Int J Fatigue2007; 29(3): 457–470.
14.
SaeedifarMZarouchasD.Damage characterization of laminated composites using acoustic emission: a review. Compos Part B: Eng2020; 195: 108039.
15.
MianAHanXIslamS, et al. Fatigue damage detection in graphite/epoxy composites using sonic infrared imaging technique. Compos Sci Technol2004; 64(5): 657–666.
16.
BastianiniFDi TommasoAPascaleG.Ultrasonic non-destructive assessment of bonding defects in composite structural strengthenings. Compos Struct2001; 53(4): 463–467.
17.
LiangTRenWTianGY, et al. Low energy impact damage detection in CFRP using eddy current pulsed thermography. Compos Struct2016; 143: 352–361.
18.
KourehliSS.Gaussian process regression model for damage localization in plates based on modal data. J Rehab Civil Eng2022; 10(2): 68–78.
19.
KourehliSS.Damage assessment in structures using incomplete modal data and artificial neural network. Int J Struct Stability Dynami2015; 15(06): 1450087.
20.
AlexandrinoPDSLGomesGFCunhaSSJr.A robust optimization for damage detection using multiobjective genetic algorithm, neural network and fuzzy decision making. Inverse Problems Sci Eng2020; 28(1): 21–46.
21.
AzadMMCheonYRaoufI, et al. Intelligent computational methods for damage detection of laminated composite structures for mobility applications: a comprehensive review. Archives Comput Methods Eng2025; 32: 441–469.
22.
KhatirSDekemeleKLoccufierM, et al. Crack identification method in beam-like structures using changes in experimentally measured frequencies and particle swarm optimization. Comptes Rendus Mécanique2018; 346(2): 110–120.
23.
KourehliSS.Damage quantification method using artificial neural network and static response with limited sensors. J Vibroeng2015; 17(3): 1317–1325.
24.
ZenzenRKhatirSBelaidiI, et al. A modified transmissibility indicator and artificial neural network for damage identification and quantification in laminated composite structures. Compos Struct2020; 248: 112–130.
25.
Nguyen-NgocLTranHBui-TienT, et al. Damage detection in structures using particle swarm optimization combined with artificial neural network. Smart Struct Syst2021; 28(1): 1–12.
26.
AshoryMRGhasemi-GhalebahmanAKokabiMJ.Damage detection in laminated composite plates via an optimal wavelet selection criterion. J Reinforced Plast Compos2016; 35(24): 1761–1775.
27.
PlevrisVPapazafeiropoulosG.AI in structural health monitoring for infrastructure maintenance and safety. Infrastructures2024; 9(12): 225.
28.
HarleSMBhagatAIngoleR, et al. Artificial intelligence and data analytics for structural health monitoring: a review of recent developments. Arch Comput Methods Eng2025. (in press).
29.
SahuSJenaSP.Application of hybrid fuzzy technique for damage estimation in structural member. Jordan J Mech Indus Eng2023; 17(2): 195–204.
30.
PawarPMGanguliR.Genetic fuzzy system for online structural health monitoring of composite helicopter rotor blades. Mech Syst Signal Process2007; 21(5): 2212–2236.
31.
SawyerJPRaoSS.Structural damage detection and identification using fuzzy logic. AIAA J2000; 38(12): 2328–2335.
32.
PawarPMGanguliR.Structural health monitoring using genetic fuzzy systems. London: Springer-Verlag, 2011.
33.
HakimSJSRazakHA. Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) for structural damage identification. Struct Eng Mech2013; 45(6): 779–802.
34.
MojtahediAHokmabadyHAbyanehSSZ, et al. Establishment of a hybrid Fuzzy–Krill Herd approach for novelty detection applied to damage classification of offshore jacket-type structures. J Marine Sci Technol2019; 24: 812–829.
35.
MojtahediADadashzadehMKouhiM.Developing a predictive method based on the vibration behavior of a naval ship hull model using hybrid fuzzy meta-heuristic algorithms. Ocean Eng2024; 311: 118994.
36.
XuXCaoDZhouY, et al. Application of neural network algorithm in fault diagnosis of mechanical intelligence. Mech Syst Signal Process2020; 141: 106625.
37.
KhatirSWahabMATiachachtS, et al. Damage identification in steel plate using FRF and inverse analysis. Frattura e Integrita Strutturale2021; 58: 416–433.
38.
DNV GL. Rules for classification high speed and light craft. Structures, equipment. Hull structural design, fibre composite and sandwich constructions. Part 3, Chapter 4, 2015.
39.
GkoktsiKGiaralisA.Assessment of sub-Nyquist deterministic and random data sampling techniques for operational modal analysis. Struct Health Monit2017; 16(5): 630–646.
40.
KhanMAMcCrumDPPrendergastLJ, et al. Laboratory investigation of a bridge scour monitoring method using decentralized modal analysis. Struct Health Monit2021; 20(6): 3327–3341.
41.
VijayanDSSivasuriyanADevarajanP, et al. Development of intelligent technologies in SHM on the innovative diagnosis in civil engineering—a comprehensive review. Buildings2023; 13(8): 1903.
42.
CaiCWangBYinW, et al. A new algorithm to generate non-uniformly dispersed representative volume elements of composite materials with high volume fractions. Mater Des2022; 219: 110750.
43.
BanerjeeSSankarBV.Mechanical properties of hybrid composites using finite element method based micromechanics. Compos Part B: Eng2014; 58: 318–327.
44.
Abdel-BassetMAbdel-FatahLSangaiahAK. Metaheuristic algorithms: a comprehensive review. In SangaiahA. K.ShengM.ZhangZ. (eds.) Intelligent data-centric systems: computational intelligence for multimedia big data on the cloud with engineering applications. Academic Press, 2018, pp. 185–231.
45.
ElsayedSMSarkerRAEssamDL.A comparative study of different variants of genetic algorithms for constrained optimization. In: Simulated evolution and learning: 8th international conference, SEAL 2010, Kanpur, India, 1–4 December 210. Proceedings 8. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 177–186.
46.
HeidariAAMirjaliliSFarisH, et al. Harris hawks optimization: algorithm and applications. Fut Generation Comput Syst2019; 97: 849–872.
47.
AmabiliM. Geometrically nonlinear vibrations of rectangular plates carrying a concentrated mass. J Sound Vibration2010; 329(21): 4501–4514.
48.
ZhouK.Effects of the concentrated mass and elastic support on dynamic and flutter behaviors of panel structures. Int J Mech Mater Design2024; 20(2): 373–392.
49.
MojtahediAHokmabadyHKouhiM, et al. A novel ANN-RDT approach for damage detection of a composite panel employing contact and non-contact measuring data. Composite Struct2022; 279: 114794.
50.
LeeYKimHMinS, et al. Structural damage detection using deep learning and FE model updating techniques. Sci Rep2023; 13(1): 18694.
51.
KongXCaiCSHuJ.The state-of-the-art on framework of vibration-based structural damage identification for decision making. Appl Sci2017; 7(5): 497.
