PSI - Issue 37

Andrzej Katunin et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 37 (2022) 292–298 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

297

6

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. The obtained damage identification results for all considered damage scenarios: SDIs (a), and curvelet coefficients (b).

4. Conclusions In this study, a comparison of two post-processing algorithms, namely the algorithm based on damage indices estimation and based on the curvelet transform, were presented. Both algorithms demonstrated high sensitivity to damage and an ability of its extraction of their location from mode shapes as well as good filtering abilities. The performed comparative study shows that the algorithm based on curvelet transform presented better identification ability, which resulted in less noisy maps (less false-positive indications) as well as more clear representation of damage shapes, which was especially visible in the multi-damage case. However, the application of the algorithm based on curvelet transform is less computationally efficient comparing to the presented algorithm based on damage indices. According to the advantages and good filtration abilities demonstrated in this study, it is planned to combine both algorithms in further studies to further improve the effectiveness of damage identification. Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Curvelet.org team for sharing the CurveLab Toolbox. The second author would like to acknowledge the support of the European Regional Development Fund within the Activity 1.1.1.2 “Post - doctoral Research Aid” of the Specific Aid Objective 1.1.1 “To increase the research and innovative capacity of scientific institutions of Latvia and the ability to attract external financing, investing in human resources and infrastructure” of the Operational Programme “Growth and Employment” (No.1.1.1.2/VIAA/3/19/414).