In the present paper, a comparison is made between the Coupled Local Minimizers (CLM) method and the Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm to perform FE model updating for the damage detection in a cracked beam. CLM method is a gradient-based method with multiple local optimization runs. DE algorithm is a direct search approach which uses a population of solution vectors collecting the design parameters. Two benchmark examples of damage assessment are considered, i.e., beams under flexural vibrations with one crack and two cracks, with unknown position and depth. The effectiveness of the two methods to obtain the set of unknown parameters has been verified by performing a number of optimization processes starting from initial values of parameters selected randomly. Both exact and pseudo-experimental input data are used. A statistical analysis of the optimization results is presented. Both methods give results much better than the classical gradient optimization method. Better performances in term of speed rate and precision have been obtained by CLM when the number of identified parameters is limited. On the other hand, DE shows good efficiency when the number of parameters increases or in the case of pseudo-experimental input data.

Comparison between Coupled Local Minimizers method and Differential Evolution algorithm in dynamic damage detection problems / Vincenzi, Loris; De Roeck, G.; Savoia, M.. - In: ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING SOFTWARE. - ISSN 0965-9978. - STAMPA. - 65:(2013), pp. 90-100. [10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.06.001]

Comparison between Coupled Local Minimizers method and Differential Evolution algorithm in dynamic damage detection problems

VINCENZI, Loris;
2013

Abstract

In the present paper, a comparison is made between the Coupled Local Minimizers (CLM) method and the Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm to perform FE model updating for the damage detection in a cracked beam. CLM method is a gradient-based method with multiple local optimization runs. DE algorithm is a direct search approach which uses a population of solution vectors collecting the design parameters. Two benchmark examples of damage assessment are considered, i.e., beams under flexural vibrations with one crack and two cracks, with unknown position and depth. The effectiveness of the two methods to obtain the set of unknown parameters has been verified by performing a number of optimization processes starting from initial values of parameters selected randomly. Both exact and pseudo-experimental input data are used. A statistical analysis of the optimization results is presented. Both methods give results much better than the classical gradient optimization method. Better performances in term of speed rate and precision have been obtained by CLM when the number of identified parameters is limited. On the other hand, DE shows good efficiency when the number of parameters increases or in the case of pseudo-experimental input data.
2013
65
90
100
Comparison between Coupled Local Minimizers method and Differential Evolution algorithm in dynamic damage detection problems / Vincenzi, Loris; De Roeck, G.; Savoia, M.. - In: ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING SOFTWARE. - ISSN 0965-9978. - STAMPA. - 65:(2013), pp. 90-100. [10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.06.001]
Vincenzi, Loris; De Roeck, G.; Savoia, M.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ADES_1932_pre_print.pdf

Accesso riservato

Descrizione: Articolo
Tipologia: Versione dell'autore revisionata e accettata per la pubblicazione
Dimensione 447.31 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
447.31 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/971894
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 19
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact