3.9 Article

Eigenfrequency-Based Bayesian Approach for Damage Identification in Catenary Poles

期刊

INFRASTRUCTURES
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/infrastructures6040057

关键词

catenary poles; vibration-based damage identification; damage localization; damage severity; Bayesian inference

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through the Research Training Group 1462
  2. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes an efficient Bayesian, frequency-based damage identification approach to identify damages in cantilever structures with an acceptable error rate, even at high noise levels. The integration of Bayesian inference in the proposed approach allows for data fusion to increase the quality and accuracy of results, providing decision-makers with the information needed for maintenance, repair, or replacement procedures.
This study proposes an efficient Bayesian, frequency-based damage identification approach to identify damages in cantilever structures with an acceptable error rate, even at high noise levels. The catenary poles of electric high-speed train systems were selected as a realistic case study to cover the objectives of this study. Compared to other frequency-based damage detection approaches described in the literature, the proposed approach is efficiently able to detect damages in cantilever structures to higher levels of damage detection, namely identifying both the damage location and severity using a low-cost structural health monitoring (SHM) system with a limited number of sensors; for example, accelerometers. The integration of Bayesian inference, as a stochastic framework, in the proposed approach, makes it possible to utilize the benefit of data fusion in merging the informative data from multiple damage features, which increases the quality and accuracy of the results. The findings provide the decision-maker with the information required to manage the maintenance, repair, or replacement procedures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据