Issue 58

S. Khatir et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 58 (2021) 416-433; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.58.30

  1 N i

Measured

Calculated



 i



 i

OF

(26)

where is extracted from Eqn. 5 For a fair comparison, we used a population of 50 solutions and a maximum number of iterations equal to 100. Fig. 5 depicts the fitness convergence for the three damages cases. The WHO algorithm presents an obvious better performance in all cases, converging toward a value of 1E-10 in the first and second case, 1E-5 in the last case. We also notice that the convergence speed is much higher in the case of single damage than in the cases where there are multiple damages. The case of four damages corresponds to the highest computational time. On the other hand, the HHO algorithm presents a good result in the single damage case, but it is outperformed in the other cases. Lastly, AOA algorithm presents the weakest performance on the three algorithms in these cases of damage detection.  Calculated i

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 3: Damage case 2 – CCCC plate. (a) Element mesh numbers, (b) damage Index, and (c) Comparison of   4,8 H before and after damage.

425