Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01511-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An effective damage identification procedure using model updating

technique and multi‑objective optimization algorithm for structures
made of functionally graded materials
D. Dinh‑Cong1,3 · T. Nguyen‑Thoi2,3

Received: 23 April 2021 / Accepted: 9 September 2021 / Published online: 26 September 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The application of multi-objective optimization algorithms in the field of structural damage identification has gained increas-
ing attention in the past few years. Nevertheless, their application to the damage detection problems of composite structures
is still very limited. In this regard, the article presents the first attempt to implement a multi-objective optimization frame-
work based on multi-objective cuckoo search (MOCS) algorithm for identifying the locations and extent of multi-damages
in structures made of functionally graded materials. First, we cast the structural damage identification procedure into an
optimization-based FE model updating problem, where two sub-objective functions, namely, flexibility matrix change (Flex)
and modal assurance criterion (MAC), are established for the multi-objective optimization purpose. Then, the MOCS as an
effective optimizer is adopted to solve the multi-objective optimization, which results in a set of Pareto-optimal solutions
for damage identification. Subsequently, a decision-making process is made for finding the most preferred solution in the
Pareto-optimal set. Finally, numerical simulation studies on a two-span continuous FGM beam and a cantilever FGM plate
are conducted to investigate the feasibility and accuracy of the proposed damage identification procedure. According to the
obtained identification results, the proposed procedure can yield good predictions for the damage locations and corresponding
severities in both single and multi-damage cases of the FGM structures using spatially incomplete measurement data with
noise contamination. In addition, the results also show that the MOCS algorithm provides a better damage prediction than
two other well-known algorithms, including Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) and Multi-objective
Grey Wolf Optimizer (MGWO).

Keywords Damage identification · Multi-objective optimization · Multi-objective cuckoo search (MOCS) · Model
updating · Functionally graded material structures

1 Introduction

Over the last 30 years, numerous structural health monitor-

ing (SHM) approaches have been established and proposed
* T. Nguyen‑Thoi for various kinds of structures. Among them, the vibration-
nguyenthoitrung@tdtu.edu.vn based SHM (VBSHM) approach has been widely used
D. Dinh‑Cong and proven to be a useful and effective way for addressing
dinhcongdu@tdtu.edu.vn problems in both basic and complex engineering structures.
1
The underlying principle and applications of this kind of
Division of Construction Computation, Institute approach have been given in detail in comprehensive lit-
for Computational Science, Ton Duc Thang University,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam erature reviews [1–3]. An emphasis on the applications of
2 the VBSHM approach to composite structures has also been
Division of Computational Mathematics and Engineering,
Institute for Computational Science, Ton Duc Thang reported by Montalvao [4] and Gomes et al. [5]. It should
University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam be noted here that in the above literature reviews, there is
3
Faculty of Civil Engineering Ton Duc Thang University, almost no publication on the utilization of the VBSHM
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1230
approach for identifying the damage sites and severities in
structures made of functionally graded materials (FGMs).
The FGMs regarded as advanced heterogeneous compos-
ite materials are fabricated by continuously changing the
material properties along certain dimensions in a function-
ally desirable fashion. Typically, FGM structures are a mix-
ture of metal-ceramic material phases with the variation of
the volume fraction of the constituent materials through their
thickness according to a power-law distribution. In company
with the creasing application of FGMs, many computational
models for predicting mechanical behaviors and perfor-
mance of FGM structures have been developed and attracted
many investigations [6–17]. Until quite recently, some
research works have been performed on numerical investiga-
tions for damage detection of FGM beam-like structures [18,
19]. Lu et al. [18] introduced a sensitivity-model updating
procedure for damage localization and quantification of axi-
ally FGM beams using structural dynamic responses. Yang
et al. [19] presented a damage identification method based
on the element modal strain energy sensitivity and Tikhonov
regularization algorithm for FGM Euler–Bernoulli beams.
Finite element (FE) model updating, one of the most
popular techniques for solving the structural damage detec-
tion and quantification problem, has been received extensive
attention in the SHM research community. The model updat-
ing process aims to modify the reference FE model of the
monitored structure to reproduce the measured experimental
data from the current status of the structure. In the conven-
tional FE model updating process, an optimization technique
is employed to minimize the value of a suitable objective
function that measures the fit between the model-predicted
and experimental data [20, 21]. Many great efforts have been
devoted to present powerful and reliable meta-heuristic opti-
mization algorithms for finding the optimal solution of the
problem [22–28]. Often, it is advisable to aggregate two
different objective functions into one combined objective
function to improve the performance of the model updating
process for tracking the damage, which is normally referred
to as a single-objective optimization problem. The aggre-
gated objective function balances the residual of each objec-
tive function using weighting factors. Nevertheless, it is not
a simple task to seek the best weighting factors.
In contrast to the single-objective optimization scheme
that gives a unique optimum solution, the multiple-objec-
tive optimization scheme explores the considered objective
functions independently without assigning arbitrary weight-
ing factors to give a set of alternative solutions named as
Pareto-optimal solutions. Once the Pareto set representing
the trade-offs solution between the different objectives is
achieved, a decision-maker is finally implemented to select
the most desirable solution for the given damage identifi-
cation problem. In previous studies [29, 30], it was found
that the latter scheme can produce more accurate damage
13
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247
identification solutions. Perera et al. [31] introduced an
application of the multi-objective particle swarm optimi-
zation (MOPSO) method for solving the damage detection
problem of 2D reinforced concrete frame structures using
vibration data. Their study revealed that the performance
of the MOPSO was more superior to that of the strength
pareto genetic algorithm (SPGA). Shabbir et al. [29] used
the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-2) for
damage detection in a simply supported isotropic beam. Jin
et al. [20] proposed a multi-objective approach based on
the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II for the FE
model updating of a highway bridge through modal vibra-
tion testing. Cha and Buyukozturk [32] used a hybrid multi-
objective optimization algorithm (abbreviated as NS2-IRR
GA) based on an integration of the implicit redundant repre-
sentation (IRR) genetic algorithm and NSGA-2 for detecting
damages in 3D steel frame structures. Alkayem et al. [33]
studied a combination of MOPSO, Lévy flights (LFs) and
multiple attribute decision-making method to identify the
damage locations and corresponding extents in a 3D frame
structure using complete mode shapes. Santos et al. [34]
applied the direct multi-search (DMS) algorithm for damage
identification of the isotropic beams using the first five com-
plete mode shapes. The literature survey on the application
of multiple-objective optimization schemes shows that no
work has yet been conducted to detect damages in struc-
tures made of functionally graded materials. Moreover, there
are very limited studies on exploring the feasibility of the
multi-objective cuckoo search (MOCS) algorithm [35] for
structural damage localization and quantification. Therefore,
the focus of the present research work is to address these
limitations.
It is also noted that, in most of the existing multi-objec-
tive optimization-based damage detection procedures men-
tioned above, the mode shapes measured with full compo-
nents were required. This is impractical in real engineering
applications due to the restricted number of sensors installed
on a monitored structure for data acquisition or missing
measurement data. Difficulties certainly arise when these
damage detection procedures are applied for structures with
limited and spatially incomplete measurement data. On the
other hand, the uncertainties caused by measurement errors
and environmental impacts inevitably exist, which can sig-
nificantly contribute to large errors in the prediction of struc-
tural damage status. Thus, it is particularly important to take
these challenging issues into consideration, which makes a
damage identification procedure applicable in reality.
Basing on the research gaps mentioned above, this article
proposes a multi-objective optimal framework based on the
MOCS algorithm to determine the locations and extent of
multiple damages in structures made of functionally graded
materials, taking limited, spatially incomplete measure-
ment data with noise contamination into account. First, the
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247
structural damage identification procedure is treated as an
optimization-based FE model updating process, in which
two single-objective functions, namely, the flexibility matrix
change (Flex) and modal assurance criterion (MAC), are
established for multi-objective optimization purpose. Then,
the MOCS algorithm is utilized to find out the global Pareto
set (a compromised solution set). Subsequently, a decision-
maker is implemented to choose the most desirable solution
in the context of structural damage localization and quan-
tification. Finally, to demonstrate the feasibility and accu-
racy of the proposed damage identification procedure, two
numerical examples of a two-span continuous FGM beam
and a cantilever FGM plate subjected to various hypothetical
damage scenarios are considered.
2 Model updating‑based structural damage
identification using multi‑objective
optimization
To track the structural damage, a model updating-based
damage identification method that defines a credible finite
element (FE) model of the monitored structure and dam-
age variables are set equally for all elements in the FE
model. The global stiffness matrix of a healthy structure
∑Ne
can be defined as K h = e khe , where Ne denotes the total
number of discrete elements and khe represents the eth
element stiffness matrix at the healthy status. Assuming
that the damage of the eth element is only caused by a
Fig. 1  The overall procedure of
the model updating-based dam-
age identification using MOCS
algorithm
1231
homogeneous reduction of stiffness, then the global stiff-
ness matrix related to different
� h damage situations can be
∑ �
given as K d = Ne e
1 − 𝛆e ke , where 𝜺e is the damage
ratio ranged from 0 to 1 for the eth element. The model
updating-based damage identification method can obtain
the damage ratios by minimizing the multi-objective func-
tions based on the difference between the experientially
measured and the numerically predicted modal properties.
In the current research, two dynamic characteristic-based
objective functions, namely, flexibility matrix change
(Flex) and modal assurance criterion (MAC), are adopted.
To consider simultaneous optimizations of the objective
functions, the element stiffness matrices of the damage-
simulated structure are dynamically modified based on the
fitness of two objective functions using multi-objective
cuckoo search (MOCS) algorithm. The multi-objective
optimization process is stopped and the Pareto front is
obtained when the stop criterion (i.e., maximum iteration)
is reached. Based on the Pareto front, a decision-making is
implemented to select a leading solution in the context of
damage localization and quantification. The overall pro-
cedure of the model updating-based damage identification
using the MOCS algorithm is resumed in the flowchart as
presented in Fig. 1.
In what follows, the spatial incompleteness and noise
problems that make the proposed damage identification
procedure more challenging will be considered. Subse-
quently, a description of two objective functions and the
details of the MOCS algorithm applied for structural dam-
age identification will be provided.
13
1232 Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247

2.1 Spatial incompleteness and noise problems derivations. Several typical objective functions can be
listed as the mode shape residual [43], modal assurance
Consideration of some practical issues in real-world imple- criterion (MAC) [44, 45], modal train energy residual [32],
mentation of the proposed damage identification method is modal flexibility residual [46, 47], and combinations of
indeed important in understanding its applicability. There them [48, 49]. Among numerous objective functions avail-
are generally two major issues that certainly bring more able in the literature, the residual functions based on the
challenges in the structural damage identification problem modal flexibility and residual functions based on MAC
including spatial incompleteness and measurement errors. have been most commonly applied for the structural dam-
The spatial incompleteness problem is due to the limited age diagnosis purpose. In addition to this, many investiga-
sensor availability, and the inaccessibility of some positions tions [22, 23, 49] have highlighted that the use of different
for measurement and the missing measurement data, which combinations of residual functions would provide a better
results in the mode shapes only measured at a subset of the chance of finding the true solution of damage identifica-
degrees of freedom (DOFs) of the FE model. Meanwhile, the tion. In our previous works in Refs [48, 50], a combined
presence of measurement errors is inevitable due to meas- residual function using suitable weighting coefficients of
urement corruption and sensor noise. two single-objective functions related to the modal flex-
To remedy the first issue, we can utilize either modal ibility residual and MAC residual was utilized in the con-
expansion schemes [36, 37] or model reduction schemes text of single-objective minimization problems. In the
[38–40]. In the present research, the iterative order reduc- present research, the same two single-objective functions
tion (IOR) method [39], a well-developed reduction and are also employed but extended for the multi-objective
expansion scheme, is adopted to predict the mode shapes at optimization purpose. The multi-objective optimization is
unmeasured nodes of the monitored structure according to to simultaneously minimize the objectives with the aim of
the following equation: capturing better solutions. To find the values of the dam-
{ d } age ratios 𝜀e fulfilling the considered objective functions,
d 𝚽r, m
= T IOR 𝚽dr, m , the multi-objective optimization problem can be cast as
𝚽r = (1)
𝚽dr, s [ ( )]
Minimize F(𝜺e ) = Flex(𝜺e ) , MAC 𝜺e
where T IOR is the IOR transformation matrix presented in {
(K −( 𝜆M)Φ = 𝟎 (3)
detail in Refs [39, 41]; 𝚽dr, s represents the rth mode shape subject to: ),
0 ≤ 𝜺e ≤ 1 , 𝜺e = 𝜀1 , 𝜀2 , … , 𝜀Ne
of the damaged structure at the unmeasured (slave) DOFs
denoted by s; and 𝚽dr, m represents the rth mode shape of the where M and K are the global mass and stiffness matrices
damaged structure at measured (master) DOFs denoted by of simulated target structure, respectively; Flex(𝜺e ) and
( )
m. MAC 𝜺e are two residual functions expressed by two fol-
To be more compatible with the second issue, the simu- lowing equations:
lated modal data are polluted with an artificial noise using
� d � �� 2
the zero-mean Gaussian distribution as follows [25, 42] �sc ⎛ �Fn − Fhn 𝜺e � ⎞
Flex(𝜺e ) =
1 ⎜� �Fro ⎟
, (4)
datanoise = data(1 + 𝛾.𝜂), (2) sc n=1 ⎜ � d� ⎟
⎝ �Fn � ⎠
� �Fro
where datanoise and data are the polluted and correspond-
�
ing noise-free components of the eigenvectors or eigenval- ⎛ �
� �� d �T h � ��2 ⎞
� � 1 �⎜
nmod � � 𝚽r 𝚽r 𝜺e � ⎟
ues matrices; 𝜂 is the intensity of additive noise; and 𝛾 is a �
1 − � �� � � �
��� � ��T � �� ⎟,
nmod r=1 ⎜⎜
MAC 𝜺e =
Gaussian random number having the mean 0 and standard d T d
𝚽r 𝚽r 𝚽r 𝜺e 𝚽r 𝜺e ⎟
h h
⎝ ⎠
deviation 1.
(5)
2.2 Formulation of the multi‑objective function for in which sc and nmod are, respectively, the sum of column
damage identification of the flexible matrix
( )and the number of considered mode
shapes; Fdn and Fhn 𝜺e represent the nth column of the flex-
As mentioned earlier, the objective functions for model ibility matrix of the damaged and simulated structures,
updating-based damage identification procedure are gener- respectively; ‖ ∙ ‖Fro denotes the operator norm formulated
ally formulated in terms of the errors between the modal by Frobenius norm (F-norm).
parameters obtained from the analytically predicted model For the success of the multi-objective optimization process,
and experimentally measured model. In this manner, there the research capability of the chosen multi-objective algo-
are different alternatives to construct an objective func- rithm is particularly important to encounter the challenging
tion, depending on the type of modal properties and their issues mentioned in Sect. 2.1. In this article, we utilize the

13
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247
multi-objective cuckoo search (MOCS) algorithm to solve the
multi-objective optimization problem defined in Eq. (3) and
obtain the true solution of damage identification.
2.3 Implementation procedure of multi‑objective
cuckoo search algorithm
The Cuckoo search (CS) algorithm, firstly introduced by Yang
and Deb [51], imitates the life of cuckoo birds and their eggs.
The principle idea of CS is formed on laying the cuckoo eggs
in their chosen host nest built by other species of bird. Under
this condition, these alien eggs will either be thrown away or
the nest is abandoned with a probability value, Pa [0, 1]. The
process of CS algorithm applies Lévy flight that is a category
of random walk that produces the better search space com-
pared with the standard Gaussian process [52]. For solving
multi-objective optimization problems, Yang and Deb [35]
extended CS and formulated a multi-objective cuckoo search
(MOCS) algorithm. In the MOCS, three following rules are
utilized for the multi-objective optimization problem with N
different objectives:
• Each cuckoo visits a randomly chosen nest to put n eggs.
• The nests with good-quality eggs will survive to the next
generations.
• Each nest will be destroyed/abandoned with a fraction (Pa).
In this manner, the host bird can either throw the alien eggs
or just abandon the nest and make a completely new nest
with n eggs.
Mathematically, the first rule is simulated using a random
process, where a new solution xi for cuckoo ith can be ran-
t+1
domly generated by Levy flight distribution
t+1 t
( t t
) the damage status of monitored structure, a decision-making
xi = xi + 𝛼0 ⊗ xj − xi ⊗ Levy(𝛽),́ (6)
( )
where xj − xi is the difference of randomly selected solu-
t t
tions; 𝛼0 , ⊗, 𝛽 are entry-wise multiplication, and step size
scaling factor and Lévy flight exponent β, respectively.
Using Lévy flights, the generation of step size, s, discussed
in detail in Ref [35] can be summarized as follows
( t ) ( t ) solutions. Among these selected solutions, the most pre-
t
s = 𝛼 ⊗ xj − xi ⊗ Levy(𝛽)
́ = 0.01 xj − xi
t u
, ferred solution as the final solution is determined according
1 (7)
|v| 𝛽
where the parameters u and v can be determined from the
normal distributions given by
u ∼ N(0, 𝜎u2 ) , v ∼ N(0, 𝜎v2 ), (8)
in which 𝜎u and 𝜎v are defined as
1233
� � 𝛽1
⎛ 𝜋𝛽 ⎞
⎜ G(1 + 𝛽)sin 2 ⎟
𝜎u = ⎜ � � � 𝛽−1 � ⎟ , 𝜎v = 1, (9)
⎜ G (1+𝛽) 𝛽 2 ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
where G is the standard Gamma function.
In essence, the second rule can be considered as an elitism
strategy that aims to ensure the best solutions to be passed
to the next generation. The strategy helps the algorithm to
increase its convergent performance. Finally, in the third
step, the worst solutions are discarded with a fraction (Pa)
and a new one xi is created using the following equation
t+1
( ) ( t )
t+1 t t
xi = xi + 𝛼0 ⊗ H Pa − 𝜀 ⊗ xj − xk , (10)
where 𝜀 represents a random number distributed in the range
[0, 1]; H is the Heaviside function; xj and xk are the new
t t
random solutions different from xi.
t
The main steps of the MOCS algorithm are summarized
in the flowchart shown in Fig. 2.
3 Decision‑maker on the solution
of multi‑objective optimization problems
By solving Eq. (3) using the MOCS optimizer, a set of non-
dominated solutions known as Pareto-optimal set that rep-
resents the trade-offs amongst two different objectives (Flex
and MAC residuals) can be obtained. It should be mentioned
that the Pareto-optimal set is not the final solution of the
model updating-based damage identification for the struc-
tures made of FGMs. To choose a reliable conclusion on
process is made to determine the most preferred solution in
the Pareto-optimal set. In our study, instead of examining
the whole Pareto-optimal solutions, four types of solutions
with respect to typical points in this Pareto-optimal set are
considered for comparisons. Figure 3 illustrates an example
of the Pareto-optimal set with the Flex and MAC functions,
where the markers with red circles represent four selected
to the following expressions: (1) Min MAC, (2) Min Flex,
(3) Knee point, (4) Min (Flex + MAC).
The first (Min MAC) and the second (Min Flex) solu-
tions correspond to the points that have the minimum val-
ues using only the MAC function and using only the Flex
function, respectively. Whereas the third solution (Knee
point) corresponds to the point at which the curvature of
the fitting curve of the Pareto front with maximum curva-
ture is observed. For a complete description of the Knee
point located in the Pareto front, the interested reader
13
1234
Fig. 2  The flowchart for the
main steps of MOCS algorithm
Fig. 3  Pareto-optimal front with two objective functions
can be referred to Bechikh et al. [53]. Finally, the fourth
solution (Min (Flex + MAC)) corresponds to the point at
which the summation of both the objective functions is
minimum. The quality of these selected solutions is evalu-
ated based on the mean and maximum percentage errors.
These errors are defined, respectively, as follows
1 ∑| t
Nt
Mean error = 𝜺 − 𝜺ce || × 100%,
Nt e | e (11)
( )
Maximum error = Max ||𝜺te − 𝜺ce || × 100% ,
where 𝜺ce and 𝜺te are, respectively, the computed and true
values of the real damaged locations at the eth element;
Nt represents the total number of real damaged elements.
13
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247
4 Numerical example
In this section, a two-span continuous FGM beam and a can-
tilever FGM plate are used as illustrative examples to inves-
tigate the feasibility and accuracy of the proposed model
updating-based damage identification procedure, in which
both spatial incompleteness and noise problems are taken
into consideration. In the numerical studies, the simulated
modal data are polluted with 1% and 5% noise to natural
frequencies and mode shapes, respectively, by means of Eq.
(2). On account of the random nature of noise, ten independ-
ent runs are performed for each damage detection problem
to produce the mean and standard deviation results reported
in graphical forms.
To validate the selection of MOCS algorithm, the perfor-
mance of the MOCS algorithm in damage identification of
the FGM beam and plate structures is compared to two other
well-known algorithms: Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm II (NSGA-II) [54] and Multi-Objective Grey Wolf
Optimizer (MOGWO) [55]. To perform a fair comparison,
the common parameter settings such as the population size,
200, and a maximum number of generations (used as stop
criterion), 1000, are the same for all three multi-objective
algorithms. While the remaining controller parameters of the
NSGA-II, MOGWO and MOCS algorithms are, respectively,
taken from Deb et al. [54], Yang and Deb [51] and Mirjalili
et al. [55]. More specifically, for NSGA-II, the probability of
crossover and mutation are 0.9 and 0.1, respectively, while
the distribution indexes for mutation and crossover operators
are set to 20 and 20, respectively. For MOWO, the number
of grid inflation per dimension is 0.1, the leader and dele-
tion pressure parameters are set to 4 and 2, respectively. For
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247 1235

MOCS, the discovery probability is 0.25, the Lévy flights Table 2  Four damage scenarios of the two-span continuous FGM
exponent is 1.5, and the step-size scaling factor is 0.1. All beam
the numerical computations and simulations involved in this Scenario Description Damaged elements (degradation of stiff-
article are conducted in MATLAB environment. ness)

A Single damage 1 (20%)

4.1 A two‑span continuous FGM beam B Double damage 1 (20%) and 15 (20%)
C Triple damage 7 (20%) and 8 (15%) and 32 (20%)
The first example is a two-span continuous FGM beam com-
D Multi-damage 1 (30%) and 7 (15%) and 8 (30%) and 22
posed of a mixture of aluminum (Al) (as metal) and alumina (20%) and 32 (20%)
­(Al2O3) (as ceramic) whose material properties are listed in
Table 1 [12]. The material properties of the FGM beam vary of one to four damaged elements are created. Details of the
continuously in the thickness direction in accordance with a four scenarios are described in Table 2. The goal of this
power-law distribution as example is to apply the proposed damage identification pro-
( ) cedure to locate and quantify the given damage scenarios
E(z) = Ec − Em Vf (z) + Em , using spatially incomplete measured data polluted by noise.
( ) (12)
𝜌(z) = 𝜌c − 𝜌m Vf (z) + 𝜌m , For the measured data, only the first five eigenvalues and
partial mode shapes on the 24 translational DOFs at nodes
where the subscripts “c” and “m” stand for the ceramic and marked with red circles (shown in Fig. 4) are required to be
metal constituents, respectively; and Vf is the volume frac- available.
tion distribution of two material constituents calculated The model updating-based damage identification is
according to the power-law index k as follows solved by the MOCS algorithm and two other well-known
( )k algorithms (NSGA-II and MOGWO). Subsequently, the
Vf (z) = z∕h + 1∕2 (13) optimal results obtained after applying a decision-making
process are compared to evaluate their performance in iden-
For the considered FGM beam, the gradient index is tifying damage locations and corresponding severities.
taken as 0.3. The geometrical dimensions are given as width Figures 5, 6, 7, 8 exhibit the comparison results of three
b = 0.1 m, h = 0.05 m and length L = 1.5 m, as depicted in multi-objective optimization algorithms applied in the dam-
Fig. 4. The FE model of the FGM beam structure is uni- age identification procedure for scenarios A to D of two-
formly discretized into 32 Timoshenko beam elements and span continuous FGM beam under spatial incompleteness
33 nodes with 99 DOFs. and noise problems. As already observed in the figures, the
To investigate the feasibility and accuracy of the proposed damage identification procedure using these multi-objective
model updating-based damage identification procedure, four optimization algorithms can yield good predictions for the
hypothetical damage scenarios corresponding to the cases real damaged locations in both single and multi-damage
cases of the FGM beam. Also from the figures, it is seen that
Table 1  The material properties of FGM components [12] the selection of the fourth (Min (Flex + MAC)) solution and
the third (Knee point) solution will obtain a lower number
Material Properties
of false warnings than those of the selection of the first (Min
Young’s modu- Poisson’s ratio Mass den- MAC) and the second (Min Flex) solutions.
lus (E) (MPa) sity (𝜌) (kg/ For further investigation, Table 3 reports the average
m3 )
and maximum percentage errors as defined in Eq. (11) for
Aluminum (Al) 70 0.3 2700 the “Min Flex”, “Min (Flex + MAC)” and “Knee point”
Alumina ­(Al2O3) 380 0.3 3800 solutions obtained by using three multi-objective optimi-
zation algorithms. The results in the table demonstrate
that except for scenario A, these errors obtained by the

Fig. 4  Schematic of two-span

continuous FGM beam

13
1236 Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247

Actual Actual
NSGA-II - Min (Flex+MAC) NSGA-II - Min (Flex+MAC)
NSGA-II - Knee point NSGA-II - Knee point
0.3 NSGA-II - Min Flex 0.3 NSGA-II - Min Flex

Damage ratio
NSGA-II - Min MAC NSGA-II - Min MAC
0.25 0.25
Damage ratio

0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0

1 1
3 3
5 5
7 7
9 9
11 11
13 13
15 15
17
Elem17 19 Elem 19
ents 21 ents 21 23
23 25
25 27
27 29
29 31
31
(a) NSGA-II (a) NSGA-II

Actual
MOGWO - Min (Flex+MAC)
Actual MOGWO - Knee point
MOGWO - Min (Flex+MAC) MOGWO - Min Flex
MOGWO - Knee point MOGWO - Min MAC
0.3 MOGWO - Min Flex 0.3
MOGWO - Min MAC
Damage ratio

0.25
Damage ratio
0.25
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0

1 1
3 3
5 5
7 7
9 9
11 11
13 13
15 15
Elem17 19 Ele
17
ents 21 23 men 19 21
25 ts 23
27 25
29 27
31 29
31
(b) MOGWO (b) MOGWO

Actual
Actual
MOCS - Min (Flex+MAC)
MOCS - Min (Flex+MAC)
MOCS - Knee point MOCS - Knee point
0.3 MOCS - Min Flex MOCS - Min Flex
MOCS - Min MAC 0.3
0.25 MOCS - Min MAC
0.25
Damage ratio

0.2
Damage ratio

0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0 0
1 1
3 3
5 5
7 7
9 9
11 11
13 13
15 15
Elem17 19 Elem 17 19
ents 21 23 ents 21
25 23
27 25
29 27
31 29
31
(c) MOCS (c) MOCS
Fig. 5  Comparison of damage predictions obtained by different
Fig. 6  Comparison of damage predictions obtained by different
multi-objective optimization algorithms for scenario A of the FGM
multi-objective optimization algorithms for scenario B of the FGM
beam: a NSGA-II, b MOGWO, c MOCS
beam: a NSGA-II, b MOGWO, c MOCS

13
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247 1237

(a) NSGA-II (a) NSGA-II

(b) MOGWO (b) MOGWO

(c) MOCS (c) MOCS

Fig. 7  Comparison of damage predictions obtained by different Fig. 8  Comparison of damage predictions obtained by different
multi-objective optimization algorithms for scenario C of the FGM multi-objective optimization algorithms for scenario D of the FGM
beam: a NSGA-II, b MOGWO, c MOCS beam: a NSGA-II, b MOGWO, c MOCS

13
1238 Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247

Table 3  Statistical results of damage assessment in the FGM beam with measurement noise
Scenario Multi-objec- Min (Flex + MAC) Knee point Min flex
tive algorithm
Mean error (%) Max error (%) Mean error (%) Max error (%) Mean error (%) Max error (%)

1 (Single damage) NSGA-II 43.9 – 40.9 – 44.3 –

MOGWO 3.7 – 2.4 – 3.7 –
MOCS 4.6 – 0.4 – 9.1 –
2 (Double damage) NSGA-II 53.8 58.4 50.2 52.8 54.2 59.4
MOGWO 16.3 22.2 14.3 19.6 16.3 22.1
MOCS 6.6 11.0 0.9 1.2 16.1 19.0
3 (Triple damage) NSGA-II 20.4 23.0 18.2 19.3 23.7 31.5
MOGWO 12.3 32.7 12.0 31.4 12.8 34.5
MOCS 2.8 4.8 2.8 5.8 6.0 8.7
4 (Multi-damage) NSGA-II 36.5 58.9 35.3 55.9 38.7 66.1
MOGWO 20.0 47.5 20.0 48.2 20.0 47.4
MOCS 10.1 31.7 8.4 25.0 6.4 9.2

The smallest values of the errors are written in bold

MOCS algorithm are much less than corresponding errors
obtained by other algorithms. Herein, because the “Min
Flex” solution outputs a higher number of false warnings
than the two other solutions, we focus on evaluating the
quality of the “Min (Flex + MAC)” and “Knee point” solu-
tions. From this observation, it is obvious that except for
scenario C, the smallest values of the errors are obtained
with the solution corresponding to the Knee point of the
Pareto front. Thus, the Knee point is recommended as the
best solution for damage detection and quantification of
the FGM beam structures. In addition, the standard devia-
tion of the four selected solutions using the MOCS algo-
rithm is also compared and plotted in Fig. 9. As can be
seen in the figure, the standard deviation of the “Knee
point” solution is small and almost the same as the “Min
(Flex + MAC)” solution, and is always lower than those
of the “Min MAC” and the “Min Flex” solutions for all
considered scenarios.

(a) Scenario A (a) Scenario B

(b) Scenario C (b) Scenario D

Fig. 9  The standard deviation of damage ratios obtained by MOCS algorithm for each scenario of the FGM beam: a Scenario A, b Scenario B, c
Scenario C, d Scenario D

13
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247 1239

4.2 A cantilever FGM plate
For the second example, a cantilever FGM plate previ-
ously investigated in Ref. [56] is considered. The dimen-
sions of the FGM plate shown in Fig. 10 are given by length
a = 1 m, width b = 1 m and uniform thickness h = 0.1 m.
The mechanical properties of constituent materials ­(Al2O3
and Al) employed in the cantilever FGM plate structure are
the same as those of the first example. The FE model of
the FGM structure consists of 64 four-node quadrilaterals
Reissner–Mindlin plate elements and 81 nodes with total
DOFs of 405.
To demonstrate again the feasibility and accuracy of
the proposed model updating-based damage identification
procedure, the cantilever FGM plate structure is subjected
to different simulated damage scenarios involving single-
damage and multiple-damage elements. Details of these
scenarios (different positions and magnitudes of damage)
are collectively shown in Table 4. For damage identification,
only the first five eigenvalues and mode shapes with partial
DOFs at nodes marked with red circles (shown in Fig. 10)
are assumed to be measured.
For comparison purposes, the model updating-based
damage identification for the cantilever FGM plate is solved
by the selected algorithm (MOCS algorithm) and two other
well-known algorithms (NSGA-II and MOGWO). Fig-
ures 11, 12, 13, 14 show the damage identification results
obtained by three multi-objective optimization algorithms
for scenarios A–D of the cantilever FGM plate under spatial
incompleteness and noise problems. It is evident that the
NSGA-II is unable to found the truly damaged locations for
the considered scenarios (except for scenario D) as there
are large false warnings in its predictions. Meanwhile, the
MOGWO and MOCS algorithms yield good predictions of
the real damaged locations in both single and multi-damage
scenarios. Also from the figures, it is found that the “Min
(Flex + MAC)” and “Knee point” solutions give more accu-
rate predictions of damage sites than the “Min MAC” and
“Min Flex” solutions.
For further investigation, the quality of the “Min
(Flex + MAC)” and “Knee point” solutions obtained using
the MOGWO and MOCS algorithms are evaluated for
each damage scenario. According to Table 5, the average
and maximum percentage errors obtained by the MOCS
algorithm are much smaller than those obtained by the
MOGWO algorithm, which validates the selection of the
multi-objective optimization algorithm, MOCS in the model
updating-based damage identification procedure. Similar to
the previous example, it is also revealed that the solution
corresponding to the Knee point of the Pareto front obtains

Fig. 10  a Schematic of FGM plate structure; b node and element numbering in FE model

Table 4  Four damage scenarios
of the FGM plate
Scenario Description
A Single damage
B Double damage
C Triple damage
D Multi-damage
Damaged elements (degradation of stiffness)
1 (20%)
27 (20%) and 28 (20%)
1 (20%) and 2 (15%) and 28 (40%)
1 (30%) and 5 (20%) and 28 (40%) and 37 (30%)

13
1240 Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247

(a) NSGA-II (a) NSGA-II

(b) MOGWO (b) MOGWO

(c) MOCS
Fig. 11  Comparison of damage predictions obtained by different
multi-objective optimization algorithms for scenario A of the FGM
plate: a NSGA-II, b MOGWO, c MOCS
(c) MOCS
Fig. 12  Comparison of damage predictions obtained by different
multi-objective optimization algorithms for scenario B of the FGM
plate: a NSGA-II, b MOGWO, c MOCS

13
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247 1241

(a) NSGA-II (a) NSGA-II

(b) MOGWO (b) MOGWO

(c) MOCS (c) MOCS

Fig. 13  Comparison of damage predictions obtained by different Fig. 14  Comparison of damage predictions obtained by different
multi-objective optimization algorithms for scenario C of the FGM multi-objective optimization algorithms for scenario D of the FGM
plate: a NSGA-II, b MOGWO, c MOCS plate: a NSGA-II, b MOGWO, c MOCS

13
1242 Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247

Table 5  Statistical results of Scenario Multi-objec- Min (Flex + MAC) Knee point
damage assessment in the FGM tive algorithm
plate with measurement noise Mean error (%) Max error (%) Mean error (%) Max error (%)

A (Single damage) MOGWO 28.5 – 27.7 –

MOCS 13.0 – 7.6 –
B (Double damage) MOGWO 20.9 21.9 19.3 21.3
MOCS 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.3
C (Triple damage) MOGWO 16.3 28.6 15.2 24.8
MOCS 6.0 15.9 1.9 4.1
D (Multi-damage) MOGWO 12.5 23.8 11.0 21.1
MOCS 5.4 8.3 3.5 5.8

The smallest values of the errors are written in bold

the smallest values of the errors for most damage cases. Fig-
ure 15 presents the standard deviation of the four selected
solutions for each damage scenario using the MOCS algo-
rithm. It can be seen that for all considered scenarios, the
standard deviation of the “Knee point” solution is small and
is always lower than those of the “Min MAC” and the “Min
Flex” solutions.
To compare the model updating-based damage iden-
tification procedures by single-objective and multiple-
objective optimization
( ) schemes, two residual functions
( Flex(𝛆e ) and MAC 𝛆e ) are recalculated using a combined
residual function (Min (Flex + MAC)) for damage identi-
fication by the CS algorithm. The damage identification
procedure based on the CS algorithm for four hypothetical
damage scenarios is carried out again. The procedure is
also executed 10 times and the CS parameters are the same
as those in the MOCS algorithm. The outcomes of the
damage identification process are reported in Fig. 16 and
compared with those by the “Min (Flex + MAC)” solu-
tion obtained using the MOCS algorithm. The outcomes
indicate that the CS algorithm fails to track the structural
damage(s) in all assumed scenarios. Thus, the performance
of the “Min (Flex + MAC)” solution obtained using the
MOCS algorithm is better than that obtained using the CS
algorithm. In other words, the proposed damage identifica-
tion procedure is more efficient in predicting the damage
locations and their severities in the FGM plate.

(a) Scenario A (a) Scenario B

(b) Scenario C (b) Scenario D

Fig. 15  The standard deviation of damage ratios obtained by MOCS algorithm for each scenario of the FGM plate: a Scenario A, b Scenario B,
c Scenario C, d Scenario D

13
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247
(a) Scenario A
(c) Scenario C
Fig. 16  Comparison of damage predictions obtained by MOCS and CS algorithms for four damage scenarios of the FGM plate: a Scenario A,
b Scenario B, c Scenario C, d Scenario D
Next, the performance of the proposed damage identifica-
tion procedure under the refinement of FE meshes is studied.
For this purpose, two different FE meshes (sizes of 7 × 7
and 9 × 9) of the FGM plate are considered. For collect-
ing measurement information, a set of measurement points
for each of the mesh sizes are selected to install on nodes
of the monitored plate. Particularly, the sensor installation
positions for the mesh 7 × 7 are 11, 17, 22, 24, 27, 39, 42,
44, 46, 52, 58 and 63, whereas for the mesh 9 × 9, there are
12, 25, 26, 29, 33, 37, 38, 52, 64, 66, 70, 78, 92, 94, 97 and
99. The proposed damage identification procedure is carried
out on damage scenarios A, B and C of the FGM plate with
two meshes using the first five incomplete modes with noise
contamination (5%). The solution corresponding to the Knee
point of the Pareto front for all three scenarios is reported
as the final solution of structural damage identification, as
shown in Figs. 17 and 18. It is observed from the figures
1243
(b) Scenario B
(d) Scenario D
that regardless of varying the sizes of structural damage or
changing the damage positions, the proposed procedure can
still achieve satisfactory identified results for the two cases
of discretization.
5 Conclusions
In this article, a first attempt has been made to implement
a model updating-based damage identification procedure
posed in a multi-objective optimization framework for dam-
age detection and quantification of structures made of func-
tionally graded materials. In the multi-objective optimiza-
tion framework, the damage identification is accomplished
by the simultaneous optimization of two single-objective
functions, namely, the flexibility matrix change (Flex) and
modal assurance criterion (MAC), which is solved using the
13
1244 Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247

(a) Scenario A (a) Scenario A

(b) Scenario B (b) Scenario B

(c) Scenario C (c) Scenario C

Fig. 17  Damage predictions obtained by the proposed procedure for Fig. 18  Damage predictions obtained by the proposed pro-
damage scenarios A, B and C of the FGM plate with mesh 7 × 7: cedure for damage scenarios A, B and C of the FGM plate
a Scenario A, b Scenario B, c Scenario C with mesh 9 × 9: a Scenario A, b Scenario B, c Scenario C

13
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247
multi-objective cuckoo search (MOCS) algorithm. The fea-
sibility and accuracy of the proposed damage identification
procedure are evaluated by numerical simulation studies on
a two-span continuous FGM beam and a cantilever FGM
plate. The following is the concluding remarks of the present
research work:
• The performances of three multi-objective optimization
algorithms (NSGA-II, MOGWO and MOCS) have been
compared for all the studied structures. Among them, the
MOCS algorithm has proved to be more effective in pro-
viding the damage locations and corresponding severities
in both single and multi-damage cases. Therefore, it is
highly recommended and promoted to the utilization of
the MOCS algorithm for solving such kind of problem.
• Four typical solutions selected from the Pareto-optimal
set are analyzed and compared to draw a reliable conclu-
sion on the damage status of the monitored structures.
Among the four selected solutions, the “Knee point”
solution exhibits the best damage quality of damage
localization and quantification.
• The proposed damage identification procedure is capable
of properly detecting the damage sites and their damage
severities even under spatial incompleteness and meas-
urement errors. This is an important feature that makes
the proposed procedure practically possible.
Acknowledgements This research is funded by Vietnam National
Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED)
under grant number 107.02-2019.330.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known com-
peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have ap-
peared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1. Carden EP (2004) Vibration based condition monitoring: a review.
Struct Heal Monit 3:355–377. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​14759​
21704​047500
2. Fan W, Qiao P (2011) Vibration-based damage identification
methods: a review and comparative study. Struct Heal Monit
10:83–111. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​14759​21710​365419
3. Kong X, Cai C, Hu J (2017) The state-of-the-art on framework
of vibration-based structural damage identification for decision
making. Appl Sci 7:497. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​app70​50497
4. Montalvao D (2006) A review of vibration-based structural health
monitoring with special emphasis on composite materials. Shock
Vib Dig 38:295–324. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 177/0​ 58310​ 24060​ 65898
5. Gomes GF, Alí Y, Mendéz D et al (2018) The use of intelligent
computational tools for damage detection and identification with
an emphasis on composites: a review. Compos Struct 196:44–54.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truct.​2018.​05.​002
1245
6. Liu GR, Han X, Lam KY (1999) Stress waves in functionally gra-
dient materials and its use for material characterization. Compos
Part B Eng 30:383–394. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1359-​8368(99)​
00010-4
7. Dai KY, Liu GR, Lim KM et al (2004) A meshfree radial point
interpolation method for analysis of functionally graded material
(FGM) plates. Comput Mech 34:213–223. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
s00466-​004-​0566-0
8. Phung-Van P, Nguyen-Thoi T, Tran LV, Nguyen-Xuan H (2013) A
cell-based smoothed discrete shear gap method (CS-DSG3) based
on the C0-type higher-order shear deformation theory for static
and free vibration analyses of functionally graded plates. Comput
Mater Sci 79:857–872. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ ommat​ sci.2​ 013.​
06.​010
9. Phung-Van P, Nguyen-Thoi T, Luong-Van H, Lieu-Xuan Q (2014)
Geometrically nonlinear analysis of functionally graded plates
using a cell-based smoothed three-node plate element (CS-
MIN3) based on the C0-HSDT. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
270:15–36. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cma.​2013.​11.​019
10. Sina SA, Navazi HM, Haddadpour H (2009) An analytical method
for free vibration analysis of functionally graded beams. Mater
Des 30:741–747. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matdes.​2008.​05.​015
11. Mahesh V, Harursampath D (2020) Nonlinear vibration of func-
tionally graded magneto-electro-elastic higher order plates rein-
forced by CNTs using FEM. Eng Comput. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
s00366-​020-​01098-5
12. Zhao X, Lee YY, Liew KM (2009) Free vibration analysis of
functionally graded plates using the element-free kp-Ritz method.
J Sound Vib 319:918–939. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jsv.​2008.​06.​
025
13. Mahesh V, Harursampath D (2020) Nonlinear deflection analysis
of CNT/magneto-electro-elastic smart shells under multi-physics
loading. Mech Adv Mater Struct. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15376​
494.​2020.​18050​59
14. Vinyas M (2020) On frequency response of porous functionally
graded magneto-electro- elastic circular and annular plates with
different electro-magnetic conditions using HSDT. Compos Struct
240:112044. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truct.​2020.​112044
15. Mahesh V (2021) Porosity effect on the nonlinear deflection of
functionally graded magneto-electro-elastic smart shells under
combined loading. Mech Adv Mater Struct. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​15376​494.​2021.​18750​86
16. Mahesh V, Harursampath D (2021) Large deflection analysis of
functionally graded magneto-electro-elastic porous flat panels.
Eng Comput. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00366-​020-​01270-x
17. Nguyen-Xuan H, Tran LV, Nguyen-Thoi T, Vu-Do HC (2011)
Analysis of functionally graded plates using an edge-based
smoothed finite element method. Compos Struct 93:3019–3039.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truct.​2011.​04.​028
18. Lu ZR, Lin XX, Chen YM, Huang M (2017) Hybrid sensitivity
matrix for damage identification in axially functionally graded
beams. Appl Math Model 41:604–617. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
apm.​2016.​09.​008
19. Yang D, Kang C, Hu Z et al (2019) On the study of element
modal strain energy sensitivity for damage detection of function-
ally graded beams. Compos Struct 224:110989. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​comps​truct.​2019.​110989
20. Jin SS, Cho S, Jung HJ et al (2014) A new multi-objective
approach to finite element model updating. J Sound Vib
333:2323–2338. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jsv.​2014.​01.​015
21. Kaveh A, Dadras A (2018) Structural damage identification using
an enhanced thermal exchange optimization algorithm. Eng Optim
50:430–451. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03052​15X.​2017.​13188​72
22. Alkayem NF, Cao M, Zhang Y et al (2018) Structural damage
detection using finite element model updating with evolutionary
13
1246
algorithms: a survey. Neural Comput Appl 30:389–411. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00521-​017-​3284-1
23. Du D-C, Vinh H-H, Trung V-D et al (2018) Efficiency of Jaya
algorithm for solving the optimization-based structural damage
identification problem based on a hybrid objective function. Eng
Optim 50:1233–1251. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03052​15X.​2017.​
13673​92
24. Mishra M, Barman SK, Maity D, Maiti DK (2020) Performance
studies of 10 metaheuristic techniques in determination of dam-
ages for large-scale spatial trusses from changes in vibration
responses. J Comput Civ Eng 34:04019052. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1061/​(ASCE)​CP.​1943-​5487.​00008​72
25. Dinh-Cong D, Pham-Toan T, Nguyen-Thai D, Nguyen-Thoi T
(2019) Structural damage assessment with incomplete and noisy
modal data using model reduction technique and LAPO algo-
rithm. Struct Infrastruct Eng 15:1436–1449. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​15732​479.​2019.​16247​85
26. Kaveh A, Rahmani P, Dadras Eslamlou A (2021) Damage detec-
tion using a graph-based adaptive threshold for modal strain
energy and improved water strider algorithm. Period Polytech
Civ Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3311/​PPci.​17903
27. Kaveh A, Hosseini SM, Zaerreza A (2020) Boundary strat-
egy for optimization-based structural damage detection prob-
lem using metaheuristic algorithms. Period Polytech Civ Eng
65:150–167. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3311/​PPci.​16924
28. Dinh-Cong D, Pham-Duy S, Nguyen-Thoi T (2018) Damage
detection of 2D frame structures using incomplete measure-
ments by optimization procedure and model reduction. J Adv
Eng Comput 2:164–173. https://​doi.​org/​10.​25073/​jaec.​201823.​
203
29. Shabbir F, Omenzetter P (2012) Application of multi-objective
optimization to structural damage estimation via model updat-
ing. In: Kundu T (ed) Health monitoring of structural and bio-
logical systems. International Society for Optics and Photonics,
Washington
30. Wang M, Brigham JC (2014) Assessment of multi-objective
optimization for nondestructive evaluation of damage in struc-
tural components. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 25:1082–1096.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10453​89X13​494933
31. Perera R, Fang S-E, Ruiz A (2010) Application of particle
swarm optimization and genetic algorithms to multiobjec-
tive damage identification inverse problems with model-
ling errors. Meccanica 45:723–734. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
s11012-​009-​9264-5
32. Cha Y-J, Buyukozturk O (2015) Structural damage detection
using modal strain energy and hybrid multiobjective optimiza-
tion. Comput Civ Infrastruct Eng 30:347–358. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/​mice.​12122
33. Alkayem NF, Cao M, Ragulskis M (2018) Damage diagnosis
in 3D structures using a novel hybrid multiobjective optimiza-
tion and fe model updating framework. Complexity 2018:1–13.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2018/​35416​76
34. Araújo dos Santos JV, Madeira JFA, Lopes H, Moreno-García
P (2019) Application of multiobjective optimization based on
differences of modal displacements and modal rotations for
damage quantification in beams. In: Ch M (ed) EngOpt 2018
proceedings of the 6th international conference on engineer-
ing optimization. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp
1009–1019
35. Yang XS, Deb S (2013) Multiobjective cuckoo search for design
optimization. Comput Oper Res 40:1616–1624. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​cor.​2011.​09.​026
36. Chen Y, Logan P, Avitabile P, Dodson J (2019) Non-model
based expansion from limited points to an augmented set of
points using chebyshev polynomials. Exp Tech 43:521–543.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40799-​018-​00300-0
13
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247
37. Tarpø M, Nabuco B, Georgakis C, Brincker R (2020) Expansion
of experimental mode shape from operational modal analysis
and virtual sensing for fatigue analysis using the modal expan-
sion method. Int J Fatigue 130:105280. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​
1016/j.​ijfat​igue.​2019.​105280
38. Friswell MI, Garvey SD, Penny JET (1995) Model reduc-
tion using dynamic and iterated IRS techniques. J Sound Vib
186:311–323. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​jsvi.​1995.​0451
39. Xia Y, Lin R (2004) A new iterative order reduction (IOR)
method for eigensolutions of large structures. Int J Numer Meth-
ods Eng 59:153–172. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​nme.​876
40. Boo S-H, Lee P-S (2017) An iterative algebraic dynamic con-
densation method and its performance. Comput Struct 182:419–
429. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truc.​2016.​12.​011
41. Weng S, Zhu AZ, Zhu HP et al (2014) Dynamic condensation
approach to the calculation of eigensensitivity. Comput Struct
132:55–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truc.​2013.​10.​012
42. Perera R, Torres R (2006) Structural damage detection via
modal data with genetic algorithms. J Struct Eng 132:1491–
1501. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 061/​( ASCE)​0 733-​9 445(2006)​1 32:​
9(1491)
43. Vo-Duy T, Ho-Huu V, Dang-Trung H et al (2016) Damage
detection in laminated composite plates using modal strain
energy and improved differential evolution algorithm. Procedia
Eng 142:182–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2016.​02.​030
44. Tan D, Lu Z, Liu J (2018) A two-step method for damage iden-
tification in beam structures based on influence line difference
and acceleration data. Adv Mech Eng 10:168781401878740.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​16878​14018​787404
45. Zare Hosseinzadeh A, Ghodrati Amiri G, Jafarian Abyaneh M
et al (2020) Baseline updating method for structural damage
identification using modal residual force and grey wolf optimi-
zation. Eng Optim 52:549–566. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03052​
15X.​2019.​15934​00
46. Zare Hosseinzadeh A, Bagheri A, Ghodrati Amiri G, Koo K-Y
(2014) A flexibility-based method via the iterated improved
reduction system and the cuckoo optimization algorithm for
damage quantification with limited sensors. Smart Mater Struct
23:045019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​0964-​1726/​23/4/​045019
47. Dinh-Cong D, Vo-Duy T, Nguyen-Thoi T (2018) Damage
assessment in truss structures with limited sensors using a two-
stage method and model reduction. Appl Soft Comput 66:264–
277. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asoc.​2018.​02.​028
48. Dinh-Cong D, Nguyen-Thoi T, Nguyen DT (2020) A FE model
updating technique based on SAP2000-OAPI and enhanced SOS
algorithm for damage assessment of full-scale structures. Appl
Soft Comput 89:106100. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asoc.​2020.​
106100
49. Huang M, Li X, Lei Y, Gu J (2020) Structural damage identifi-
cation based on modal frequency strain energy assurance crite-
rion and flexibility using enhanced Moth-Flame optimization.
Structures 28:1119–1136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2020.​
08.​085
50. Dinh-Cong D, Nguyen-Thoi T, Vinyas M, Nguyen DT (2019)
Two-stage structural damage assessment by combining modal
kinetic energy change with symbiotic organisms search. Int J
Struct Stab Dyn 19:1950120. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 142/​S 0219​
45541​95012​07
51. Yang X-S, Suash D (2009) Cuckoo search via Lévy flights. In:
2009 World Congress on Nature & Biologically Inspired Com-
puting, IEEE, pp 210–214
52. Yang XS, Deb S (2014) Cuckoo search: recent advances and
applications. Neural Comput Appl 24:169–174. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s00521-​013-​1367-1
53. Bechikh S, Ben Said L, Ghédira K (2010) Searching for knee
regions in multi-objective optimization using mobile reference
Engineering with Computers (2023) 39:1229–1247 1247

points. Proc ACM Symp Appl Comput. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​ multi-damage identification of FGM and FG-CNTRC plates. Eng
17740​88.​17743​25 Comput. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00366-​021-​01312-y
54. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and
elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Evol Comput 6:182–197. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​4235.​996017 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
55. Mirjalili S, Saremi S, Mirjalili SM, Coelho LDS (2016) Multi-
objective grey wolf optimizer: a novel algorithm for multi-cri-
terion optimization. Expert Syst Appl 47:106–119. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​eswa.​2015.​10.​039
56. Dinh-Cong D, Truong TT, Nguyen-Thoi T (2021) A comparative
study of different dynamic condensation techniques applied to

13