33rd Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference 1992
DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-2264
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Underlying modal data issues for detecting damage in truss structures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This body of data from the DSMT test has been widely disseminated and used for many different damage-detection studies. Kashangaki, et al (1992) use the DSMT data in their examination of some issues inherent in the use of modal data for detecting damage in truss structures. They conclude that damage detection is feasible for members that contribute significantly to the strain energy of the measured modes.…”
Section: Trussesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This body of data from the DSMT test has been widely disseminated and used for many different damage-detection studies. Kashangaki, et al (1992) use the DSMT data in their examination of some issues inherent in the use of modal data for detecting damage in truss structures. They conclude that damage detection is feasible for members that contribute significantly to the strain energy of the measured modes.…”
Section: Trussesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…w(x, w) = wrpe + wree + wipe' + wlee (2) where Iv = ./A2/EI. The solution at each frequency is a combination of two propagating and two near field, or evanescent, waves.…”
Section: Wave Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kashangaki et al 25 found out that the damage detection is feasible for truss members that contribute significantly to the strain energy of measured modes and also depends upon the accuracy of the measured modes and frequencies. Usually 5% measurement errors should be expected and this severely hinders damage identification.…”
Section: Damage Detection With Limited Number Of Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%