A hybrid particle swarm-Nelder-Mead optimization method for crack detection in cantilever beams

  • Authors:

  • M. T. Vakil Baghmisheh;Mansour Peimani;Morteza Homayoun Sadeghi;Mir Mohammad Ettefagh;Aysa Fakheri Tabrizi

  • Affiliations:

  • ICT Research Center, Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran;ICT Research Center, Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran;Research Laboratory of Vibration and Modal Analysis, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran;Research Laboratory of Vibration and Modal Analysis, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran;ICT Research Center, Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

  • Venue:
  • Applied Soft Computing
  • Year:
  • 2012

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

The estimation of a crack location and depth in a cantilever beam is formulated as an optimization problem and the optimal location and depth are found by minimizing the cost function which is based on the difference of the first four measured and calculated natural frequencies. Calculated natural frequencies are obtained using a rotational spring model of the crack, and measured natural frequencies are obtained by using cracked beam frequency response and modal analysis. A hybrid particle swarm-Nelder-Mead (PS-NM) algorithm is used for estimating the crack location and depth. The hybrid PS-NM is made-up of a modified particle swarm optimization algorithm (PSO), aimed to identify the most promising areas, and a Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm (NM) for performing local search within these areas. The PS-NM results are compared with those obtained by the PSO, a hybrid genetic-Nelder-Mead algorithm (GA-NM) and a neural network (NN). The proposed PS-NM method outperforms other methods in terms of speed and accuracy. The average estimation errors for crack location and depth are (0.06%, 0%) for the PS-NM, however, (0.09%, 0%), (0.46%, 0.54%) and (0.39%, 1.66%) for the GA-NM, the PSO and the NN methods, respectively. To validate the proposed method and investigate the modeling and measurement errors some experimental results are also included. The average values of experimental location and depth estimation errors are (9.24%, 8.56%) for the PS-NM, but (9.64%, 9.50%), (10.89%, 10.89%), (11.53%, 11.64%) for the GA-NM, the PSO and the NN methods, respectively.