Journal of Mechanics, 2024, 40, 11–18

https://doi.org/10.1093/jom/ufad047
Advance access publication 22 December 2023
Regular Article

Structural damage identification using an optimization

technique based on generalized flexibility matrix
1,∗
Qianhui Gao1 , Zhu Li1 , Yongping Yu1 and Shaopeng Zheng
1
College of Construction Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun, Republic of China

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jom/article/doi/10.1093/jom/ufad047/7492277 by guest on 07 July 2024

∗ Corresponding author: zhengsp0428@jlu.edu.cn

A B ST R A C T
A generalized flexibility matrix-based objective function utilized for structure damage identification is firstly constructed. After transforming the
damage identification into a constrained nonlinear least squares optimization problem, the trust-region algorithm is applied to find the solution
of the inverse problem in multiple damage cases. Thereinto, the sensitivity analysis of the objective function with respect to the design variables
is derived using the Nelson’s method. At last, two numerical examples with several damage cases are investigated, including a steel truss bridge
model as well as a drilling rig derrick model. Based on the computational results, it is evident that the presented approach provides excellent
validity and reliability for the large and complicated engineering structures.

KEY WOR DS: generalized flexibility matrix, damage identification, constrained nonlinear least squares, trust-region algorithm

1. IN TRODUCTION Compared with the natural frequency, the vibration mode

Due to influences of working environment, material aging and
overloading, structural deterioration will occur in various types
of structures such as civil engineering, mechanical engineering,
marine engineering and so on. Once the structure is unstable
and failure, casualties and financial losses will follow. Therefore,
damage identification for engineering structures during the early
stage is very necessary [1]. In actual projects, damage identifica-
tion methods are classified into two types of methods as destruc-
tive and non-destructive methods [2].
As one of the non-destructive methods, the use of vibration-
based methods has drawn wide attention. This kind of meth-
ods generally uses variations in dynamic properties of damaged
and undamaged structures, especially in utilization of natural
frequency, mode shapes and modal flexibility [3]. For exam-
ple, Maity et al. evaluated the differences in natural frequen-
cies with genetic algorithm (GA) method to estimate structural
damage extents [4]. For dealing with damage regions of com-
plex shapes, a level set model was proposed to depict the dam-
age regions by Zhang et al. [5]. Based on frequency response
data, Guo et al. developed an objective function with constitu-
tive relation error, and transformed the damage detection into a
nonlinear optimization problem [6]. According to relative nat-
ural frequency change curves, Sha et al. [7] presented a new
probabilistic damage metric via the use of Bayesian data fusion.
By using discrepancies in natural frequencies as frequency shift
coefficient (FSC), Dubey et al. [8] utilized the minimization
of FSC to access a roughly quantitative damage extent. How-
ever, the natural frequency is easy to be effected by working
temperature, ambient humidity and other external environment
factors [9].
could provide more abundant information about structures with
less sensitive to environmental changes. Li et al. [1] used the sen-
sitivity and changes of the generalized flexibility matrix (GFM)
for predicting location and extent of damage. An improved form
of the curvature mode shape was applied in beam structures for
detecting multiple damage cases by Cao et al. [10]. Based on the
eigen-sensitivity analysis, Yan et al. [11] developed a closed-form
solution for modal flexibility sensitivity to determine the dam-
age position as well as its severity. For multiple damage cases of
truss structures, Seyedpoor [12] developed a damage identifica-
tion approach by utilizing flexibility-based damage indicator and
differential evolution method. The trust-region (TR) restriction
was employed to improve the response sensitivity method for
structural damage detection by Lu et al. [13]. In consideration
of high sensitivity for strain modes, Cui et al. utilized eigensys-
tem realization algorithm based on strain response to develop
a novel damage identification method [14]. Dahak et al. moni-
tored variations of natural frequency and curvature mode shapes
of measured structures to detect structural damage condition
[15]. Pooya et al. [16] used the discrepancies between the modal
curvature obtained from the impaired structure and the com-
puted modal curvature as an indicator to detect damage loca-
tions. In addition, modal strain energy has been employed for
analyzing the damage condition of complex bridges [17] and a
jacket offshore platform [18].
The definition of GFM [19] was firstly introduced by Li et al.
in 2010. In comparison with the initial flexibility matrix method
[20], the effect of high-order modes in GFM is decreased rea-
sonably and only few low-order natural modes and frequen-
cies are required. Therefore, the GFM has received widespread

Received: 17 September 2023; Revised: 9 December 2023; Accepted: 21 December 2023

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Republic of China, Taiwan. This is an Open Access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
12 • Journal of Mechanics, 2024, Vol. 40

attention. Masoumi et al. presented an objective function on the eigenvectors, and satisfy the mass-normalized condition, such
basis of GFM for solving a constrained optimization problem that
in damage detection procedure via imperialist competitive algo-
T K  =  (3)
rithm [21]. Considering the non-negativity of the damage in-
dex, an improved GFM approach without and with noises was and
proposed by Liu et al. [22]. Later, the improved GFM is applied
to deal with incomplete mode shape data of structural damage T M = I , (4)
problem [23]. A damage identification process for a jacket-type where I is the identity matrix with dimension n × n. As the flex-
offshore platform structure was presented by using GFM and ibility matrix F is the inverse matrix of K in Eq. (3), F can be
optimal GA by Aghaeidoost et al. [24]. expressed by
The article is organized as follows. Primarily, the damage iden-
tification problem is constructed and the GFM is reviewed in 
n
ϕ j ϕTj
−1 −1
F =K =   = .

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jom/article/doi/10.1093/jom/ufad047/7492277 by guest on 07 July 2024

T
Section 2. In Section 3, an optimized mathematical framework (5)
j=1
ω2j
for structure damage identification is established, and an ob-
jective function is developed by using the changes in the GFM
Note that the flexible matrix described above contains com-
of the structures before and after damaged. For solving the op-
plete mode shapes of a structure. However, its application in ac-
timized problem by TR algorithm, the derivation for sensitiv-
tual operation has indicated that only a few low-order modes
ity analysis of the objective function with related design vari-
could be obtained accurately during the modal identification
ables is then given in this section. To verify the validity of the
procedure.
proposed method, two numerical examples are investigated in
With the combination of the mass-normalized condition
Section 4, including a steel truss bridge model and a drilling rig
and Eq. (5), the GFM F g is defined as [19]
derrick model. At last, the conclusions are given in Section 5.
 L
F g = F (MF )L = −1 T M−1 T = −1−L T .
2. THE GENER A LIZED FLE X IBILIT Y M ATR IX (6)
2.1 Formulation
Compared with flexibility matrix in Eq. (5), it demonstrates
In this article, only the reduction of structural stiffness for each that the GFM has a greater impact by several lower-order modes.
element is assumed to be the main cause of the structural damage In particular, when L = 0, the Eq. (6) becomes flexibility matrix
and the mass matrix before and after damage keep unchanged, F in Eq. (5). For L = 1, the GFM F g is expressed as
as well as the number of degree of freedoms (DOFs). Based on
this assumption, the stiffness matrix of the damaged structure is F g = −2 T . (7)
described as

Ne
In this paper, only L = 1 is considered.
K d (α) = K u − α j K eu j , (1)
j=1

where Kd and Ku represent overall stiffness matrix of the dam- 3. THE PROPOSED M ETHOD
aged prediction model with dimension n × n and the one of 3.1 Objective function
the undamaged structure, respectively. K eu j describes the stiff- On the basis of GFM, an optimization model is employed as a
ness matrix of the jth element in an undamaged structure with damage detection problem for searching a series of damage ex-
expended dimension n × n. α j (0 ≤ α j ≤ 1.0) denotes the di- tents 0 ≤ α j ≤ 1.0 (j = 1, 2, …, Ne ), i.e.
mensionless damage index of corresponding jth element stiff-
g
ness matrix, and α j = 0 indicates that the corresponding element f (α) = F gexp − F d (α), (8)
has not been harmed. α j can be interpreted as any geometric or g g
physical parameter of the prediction model, such as moment of where F exp is the n × n experimental measured GFM, i.e. F exp =
inertia, stiffness, boundary condition and so on. Ne is the count exp −2exp exp , exp and exp are eigenvector matrices and
T

of finite elements. Therefore, the damage identification problem
becomes the problem of finding a set of values α j (j = 1, 2, …,
Ne ).
2.2 The generalized flexibility matrix
The GFM is reviewed in this section. First, consider the free vi-
bration of structural eigenproblem with the expression
K  = M, (2)
where K and M are structural stiffness and mass matrix
with dimension n × n.  = diag(λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λn ) and  =
[ϕ1 ,ϕ2 ,…, ϕn ] are matrices of eigenvalues and corresponding
eigenvalue matrices of the actual damaged structure, respec-
g
tively. F d (α) is the analytical GFM which corresponds to global
stiffness matrix Kd of the damaged prediction model, expressed
by
F d (α) = d (α)−2
g T
d (α)d (α) , (9)
where d (α) and d (α) are matrices of eigenvalues and the
corresponding eigenvectors for the damage prediction model.
The issue is to find a set of values 0 ≤ α j ≤ 1.0 (j = 1, 2,
…, Ne ) through minimizing the discrepancy between data from
experimental measurement and data from the analytical dam-
aged model. When 2-norm is applied to analyze the discrepancy
 Structural damage identification using an optimization technique • 13

quantitatively, the objective function becomes

 2 For solving the NLS with constraint conditions, the framework
o (α) = vec( f (α)) 2
(10) of TR algorithm is given in Algorithm 1.
and
⎡ ⎤ Algorithm 1: Trust-Region (TR) algorithm for constrained nonlinear
f1 least squares problem
⎢ f2 ⎥
vec( f (α)) = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ... ⎦ , (11) Step 1. Given initial iterative point x1 ∈ Rm ,
J(xk ) ∈ Rn ×Ne , 1 > 0, 0 < ε < 1, η > 0,
2
fn
0 < τ 3 < τ 4 < 1 < τ 1 , 0 ≤ τ 2 < 1 and set k := 1;
where vec(f(α)) is a vector with dimension n2 × 1 by stacking
columns of f(α), and fi (i = 1, 2, …, n) is the ith column. Step 2. if J(xk )T G(xk )2 ≤ ε then stop; otherwise,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jom/article/doi/10.1093/jom/ufad047/7492277 by guest on 07 July 2024

In order to avoid erroneous estimates that would be induced by get sk from solving (14);
very small values of 2-norm, Eq. (10) is modified with dividing Are sk
by the initial estimate. Step3. Compute rk = ;
Pre sk
The final minimization problem is formulated as
xk , if rk < η, go to step 1
  xk+1 = ;
vec( f (α))2 xk + sk , if rk ≥ η, go to step 4
min  =  2
α vec( f (α0 ))2 , (12) [τ3 sk 2 ,τ4 k ], if rk < τ2
2 k+1 = ;
[k ,τ1 k ], if rk ≥ τ2
s.t. 0 ≤ α j ≤ 1 ( j = 1, 2, . . . , Ne )
Step 4. Compute a new function (xk + sk ),
where the vector α0 is set to be zero. k: = k + 1 and go to step 2.

3.2 Optimization algorithm Significantly, the TR algorithm requires the Jacobian matrix of
The optimization model above is actually a nonlinear least the objective function with related design variable α j (j = 1,
squares problem (NLS) with constraint conditions and can be 2,…,Ne ), i.e.
solved by TR algorithm. For this propose, the TR algorithm is
firstly reviewed [25, 26]. The general formulation of the ques- J (α) = [J (α1 ),J (α2 ), . . . ,J (αNe )] (18)
tion is expressed by and
 2  2 
min G(x)2 = y − A(x)2 ∂f
, (13) J (α j ) = vec
x
∂α j
s.t. li ≤ xi ≤ ui , i = 1, 2, . . . m  T
∂ −2 T −3 ∂ T −2 ∂
where A ∈ Rm , x ∈ Rm and y ∈ Rm . The TR algorithm provides the = vec −   + 2  −
∂α j ∂α j ∂α j
principle idea of transforming Eq. (13) into the kth step iterative
TR sub-problem j = 1, 2, . . . ,Ne , (19)
 2
min k (sk ) = G(xk ) + J (xk )sk  where J(α) is the Jacobian matrix with size n × Ne . The sen-
2
x 2
sitivities of eigenvalues and eigenvectors to the model updating
, (14)
sk 2 ≤ k parameter α j (j = 1, 2,…,Ne ) will be deduced below by Nelson’s
s.t.
li ≤ xi ≤ ui , i = 1, 2, . . . m method [27].
where xk represents the current point, sk denotes the solution 3.3 Sensitivity analysis
of Eq. (14), κ represents trust-region area at kth step. J(xk ) is In this paper, it is supposed that the itheigenvalue λi is simple so
the Jacobian matrix of A(x). Then the actual reduction is defined that the corresponding eigenvector ϕi is unique. Directly differ-
as entiation Eq. (2) with respect to α j yields
Are sk = G(xk ) − G(xk + sk ) (15) 
∂ϕi ∂K ∂M ∂λi
( K − λi M ) + − λi − M ϕi = 0
∂α j ∂α j ∂α j ∂α j
the predicted reduction is described as
j = 1, 2, . . . ,Ne . (20)
Pre sk = (xk ) − (xk + sk ). (16)
Premultiplying Eq. (20) by ϕTi and combining with Eq. (2), the
and the ratio of actual reduction to predicted one is defined as sensitivity of the ith eigenvalue λi can be achieved

rk =
Are sk
, ∂λi ∂K ∂M
(17) = ϕi T
− λi ϕi , j = 1, 2, . . . ,Ne . (21)
Pre sk ∂α j ∂α j ∂α j
14 • Journal of Mechanics, 2024, Vol. 40

Note that coefficient matrix K − λi M in Eq. (22) has a rank of

n − 1, and ordinary methods cannot be directly used to solve
the equation. Based on Nelson method, the maximum absolute
value in ϕi needs to be firstly determined, and its location is
recorded as k. After that, a new coefficient matrix Ai is formed
by taking the kth row and column of K − λi M to be zero, while
the kth diagonal elements of the matrix to 1. Setting the kth row
Figure 1 A steel truss bridge. of the coefficient matrix on the right side of Eq. (22) be zero to
form Bi . The particular solution xi of Eq. (22) can be obtained
Table 1 Simulated damage scenarios in example 1. ∂ϕi
by solving Ai xi = Bi , and the eigenvector derivative ∂α j
can be
Damage scenarios Damage element number Damage extents defined as
Scenario Ⅰ No. 8 20% ∂ϕi

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jom/article/doi/10.1093/jom/ufad047/7492277 by guest on 07 July 2024

No. 9 25% = x i + ci j ϕ i . (23)
∂α j
Scenario Ⅱ No. 9 20% Considering the derivative of Eq. (4) with related α j and
No. 35 25%
No. 36 20% Eq. (23), one obtains
Scenario Ⅲ No. 15 15% ci j = −ϕTi Mxi . (24)
No. 34 20%
No. 61 25% As a result, the sensitivities of eigenvalues and eigenvectors can
No. 83 30% be given
⎧ 
⎪ ∂λi ∂K ∂M
⎪
⎨ ∂α = ϕ T
− λ i ϕi
For obtaining the sensitivity of the ith eigenvector ϕi , the expres- j
i
∂α j ∂α j
sion in Eq. (20) becomes ⎪
⎪ ∂ϕ , (25)
⎩ i = xi ci j − ϕTi Mxi ϕi
 ∂α j
∂ϕi ∂K ∂M ∂λi
(K − λi M ) =− − λi − M ϕi . (22) i = 1, 2, . . . , NR, j = 1, 2, . . . , Ne
∂α j ∂α j ∂α j ∂α j
where NR is the number of obtained modes in Eq. (5).

Figure 2 Damage presets of the steel truss bridge structure for all scenarios in Table 1. (a) Scenario Ⅰ, (b) scenario Ⅱ and (c) scenario Ⅲ.
 Structural damage identification using an optimization technique • 15

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jom/article/doi/10.1093/jom/ufad047/7492277 by guest on 07 July 2024

Figure 4 A drilling rig derrick structure.

Table 2 Simulated damage scenarios in example 2.

Damage scenarios Damage element number Damage extents
Scenario Ⅰ No. 153 25%
No. 207 30%
Scenario Ⅱ No. 152 20%
No. 154 30%
No. 160 25%
Scenario Ⅲ No. 18 15%
No. 112 10%
No. 126 10%
No. 178 20%

Figure 3 Simulation results of the steel truss bridge structure for all
scenarios in Table 1. (a) Scenario Ⅰ, (b) scenario Ⅱ and (c) scenario
Ⅲ.
4. NUM ER IC A L E X A M PLES
In this part, two simulation models are illustrated to show the
validity of the proposed method. Each of the two examples takes
account of three damage scenarios. All the simulated damage sce-
narios only result in reducing stiffness of specified elements. If
the calculated extent of damage is less than 5%, the related el-
ement is considered to be undamaged [19]. All NLS with con-
straint conditions problems included in the examples are imple-
mented by the trnlspbc command in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel
Library.
Example 1: A steel truss bridge is presented in Fig. 1. The
bridge is 12 m wide, 10.5 m high and 90 m long. The material
properties are listed below: elasticity modulus E = 210 Gpa,
mass density ρ = 7800 kg/m3 and Poisson’s ratio ν = 0.31. The
structural finite element model has 94 elements and 40 nodes.
The boundary conditions are defined as all displacement con-
straints at two points on the left side and two horizontal displace-
ment constraints at two points on the right side at the bottom.
Therefore, the number of total DOFs is 230.
In this example, damage condition can be ascertained sim-
ply by the use of the first frequency and the related vibration
shape. The damage positions for the scenarios given in Table 1
are labeled in Fig. 2. The corresponding computational results
16 • Journal of Mechanics, 2024, Vol. 40

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jom/article/doi/10.1093/jom/ufad047/7492277 by guest on 07 July 2024

Figure 5 Damage presets of the drilling rig derrick structure for all
scenarios in Table 2. (a) Scenario Ⅰ, (b) scenario Ⅱ and (c) scenario
Ⅲ.
Figure 6 Simulation results of the drilling rig derrick structure for all
scenarios in Table 2. (a) Scenario Ⅰ, (b) scenario Ⅱ and (c) scenario
Ⅲ.
 Structural damage identification using an optimization technique
using the presented approach are illustrated in Fig. 3. For dam-
age scenario Ⅰ, the predefined damage positions are mapped ex-
actly on element 8 with damage extents 0.1831, and element 9
with stiffness reduction 0.2321. In scenario Ⅱ, the damage ex-
tents and locations calculated are 0.1960, 0.2388 and 0.1901 for
elements No. 9, No. 35 and No. 36, respectively. From the cal-
culation results of the damage scenario Ⅲ shown in Fig. 3c, it
is observed that damage locations occurred in element 15, el-
ement 34, element 61 and element 83, and the values of cor-
responding reduction in stiffness are 0.1565, 0.1931, 0.2543
and 0.3250, respectively. All these results indicate that this ap-
proach has the capability of precise identification of the damaged
elements.
Example 2: A drilling rig derrick model is introduced in Fig. 4.
The elasticity modulus of material is E = 210 Gpa, the mass
density is ρ = 7850 kg/m3 and the Poisson’s ratio is ν = 0.288.
The width and height of the structure are 10 and 57 m. The
corresponding finite element model has 219 elements and 100
nodes. Each node of the model has 6 DOFs and the bottom
four nodes are constrained so that the number of total DOFs is
576. Three damage cases presented in Table 2 are preset for this
example.
Herein, just the first two low-order frequencies as well as the
corresponding mode shapes have been utilized for determining
the location and extent of damage in example 2. Three preset
damage locations are revealed in Fig. 5. The scenario Ⅰ shown in
Fig. 5a depicts the damage locations occurring on element 153
and 207, and the corresponding result is listed in Fig. 6a. It is ev-
ident that the damage locations have been found exactly, and the
extents have also been excellently expressed, i.e. the relative er-
rors to the preset values are 1.2% and 3.2%, respectively. Note
that there exists a relatively mild perturbation on element 152
which should be of no damage occurrence. Figure 5b indicates
the triple damage occur in element 152, 154 and 160. The re-
sult for scenario Ⅱ shown in Fig. 6b expresses that the estima-
tion is fairly accurate, i.e. the relative errors to the preset values
are 3.9%, 5.8% and 1.7%, respectively. In Fig. 5c, the preset dam-
age elements are 18, 112, 126 and 178. Figure 6c shows the situ-
ations of preset damage in scenario Ⅲ also can be excellently ex-
pressed, i.e. the relative errors to the preset values are 1.8%, 2.7%,
7.4% and 4.9%, respectively. These results demonstrate that the
approach mentioned can achieve good approximations to the
preset values.
5. CONCLUSION
This article presents a new way to detect structural damage via
solving constrained NLS optimized problem. It is proposed on
the basis of GFM to construct an objective function and Nelson’s
method is utilized to calculate the objective function gradient
for each design variable. The proposed method has been veri-
fied by two complex engineering structures with different dam-
age scenarios, i.e. a steel truss bridge structure and a drilling rig
derrick structure. It is concluded from computational results that
the proposed approach provides accurate location and extent of
damage with only several low-order eigenpairs. As a result, the
method could be applied to other large engineering structures
for damage detection or health monitoring.
• 17
FUNDING
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China under Grant No. 42372356 and 41972323.
CONFLICT OF IN TER E ST
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jom/article/doi/10.1093/jom/ufad047/7492277 by guest on 07 July 2024
R EFER EN CE S
1. Li J, Li Z. Structural damage detection using generalized flexi-
bility matrix and changes in natural frequencies. AIAA Journal
2012;50(5):1072–1078.
2. Seyedpoor SM, Ahmadi A, Pahnabi N. Structural damage detection
using time domain responses and an optimization method. Inverse
Problems in Science & Engineering 2019;27(5):669–688.
3. Feng D, Feng M. Computer version for SHM of civil infrastructure:
from dynamic response measurement to damage detection—a re-
view. Engineering Structures 2018;156:105–117.
4. Maity D, Tripathy RR. Damage assessment of structures from
changes in natural frequencies using genetic algorithm. Structural En-
gineering & Mechanics 2005;19(1):21–42.
5. Zhang W, Du Z, Sun G, Guo X. A level set approach for damage iden-
tification of continuum structures based on dynamic responses. Jour-
nal of Sound and Vibration 2017;386:100–115.
6. Guo J, Wang L, Takewaki I. Frequency response-based damage iden-
tification in frames by minimum constitutive relation error and
sparse regularization. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2019;443:270–
292.
7. Sha G, Radziehski M, Cao M, Ostachowicz W. A novel method
for single and multiple damage detection in beams using relative
natural frequency changes. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing
2019;132:335–352.
8. Dubey A, Denid V, Serra R. Sensitivity and efficiency of the fre-
quency shift coefficient based on the damage identification al-
gorithm: modeling uncertainty on natural frequencies. Vibration
2022;5(1):59–79.
9. Kim J, Park J, Lee B. Vibration-based damage monitoring in model
plate-girder bridges under uncertain temperature conditions. Engi-
neering Structures 2018;29(7):1354–1365.
10. Cao M, Radzienski M, Xu W, Ostachowica W. Identification of mul-
tiple damage in beams based on robust curvature mode shapes. Me-
chanical Systems and Signal Processing 2014;46(2):468–480.
11. Yan W, Ren W. Closed-form modal flexibility sensitivity and
its application to structural damage detection without modal
truncation error. Journal of vibration and control 2014;20(12):
1816–1830.
12. Seyedpoor S, M, Montazer M. A damage identification method for
truss structures using a flexibility-based damage probability index
and differential evolution algorithm. Inverse Problems in Science and
Engineering 2016;24(8):1303–1322.
13. Lu Z, Wang L. An enhanced response sensitivity approach
for structural damage identification convergence and perfor-
mance. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
2017;111(13):1231–1251.
14. Cui H, Xu X, Peng W, Zhou Z, Hong M. A damage detection method
based on strain modes for structures under ambient excitation. Mea-
surement 2018;125:438–446.
15. Dahak M, Touat N, Kharoubi M. Damage detection in beam through
change in measured frequency and undamaged curvature mode
shape. Inverse Problems in Science & Engineering 2019;27(1):89–114.
16. Pooya SMH, Massumi A. A novel and efficient method for damage
detection in beam-like structures solely based on damaged structure
18 • Journal of Mechanics, 2024, Vol. 40
data and using mode shape curvature estimation. Applied mathemat-
ical modelling 2021;91:670–694.
17. Najafabadi AA, Daneshjoo F, Ahmadi HR. Multiple damage detec-
tion in complex bridges based on strain energy extracted from sin-
gle point measurement. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering
2020;14(3):722–730.
18. Liu G, Zhai Y, Leng D, Tian X, Mu W. Research on structural dam-
age detection of offshore platforms based on grouping modal strain
energy. Ocean Engineering 2017;8:43–49.
19. Li J, Wu B, Zeng QC, Lim CW. A generalized flexibility matrix based
approach for structural damage detection. Journal of Sound and Vibra-
tion 2010;329(22):4583–4587.
20. Yang QW, Liu JK. Damage identification by the eigenparameter de-
composition of structural flexibility change. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 2009;78(4):444–459.
21. Masoumi M, Jamshidi E, Bamdad M. Application of generalized flex-
ibility matrix in damage identification using Imperialist Competitive.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 2015;19(4):994–1001.
Received: 17 September 2023; Revised: 9 December 2023; Accepted: 21 December 2023
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Republic of China, Taiwan. This is an Open Access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
22. Liu H, Li Z. An improved generalized flexibility matrix approach for
structural damage detection. Inverse Problems in Science and Engineer-
ing 2020;28(6):877–893.
23. Liu H, Wu B, Li Z. The generalized flexibility matrix method for
structural damage detection with incomplete mode shape data.
Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering 2021;29(12):2019–
2039.
24. Aghaeidoost V, Afshar S, Tajaddod NZ, Asgarian B, Shokrgozar
HR. Damage detection in jacket-type offshore platforms via general-
ized flexibility matrix and optimal genetic algorithm (GFM-OGA).
Ocean Engineering 2023;281:114841.
25. Zhang J, Wang Y. A new trust region method for nonlinear equations.
Mathematical Methods of Operations Research 2003;58(2):283–
298.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jom/article/doi/10.1093/jom/ufad047/7492277 by guest on 07 July 2024
26. Yuan Y. Recent advances in trust region algorithms. Mathematical
Programming 2015;151(1):249–281.
27. Nelson RB. Simplified calculation of eigenvector derivatives. AIAA
Journal 2012;14(9):1201–1205.