Structural Damage Identification Using Artificial Neural Network and
Synthetic data
Divya Shyam Singha, GBL Chowdarya, D Roy Mahapatraa
a
Department of Aerospace, Indian Institute of Sciences, Banglore, India
Email: divya.ssingh.mec11@itbhu.ac.in

This paper presents real-time vibration based identification technique using measured frequency response functions(FRFs) under
random vibration loading. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are trained to map damage fingerprints to damage characteristic
parameters. Principal component statistical analysis(PCA) technique was used to tackle the problem of high dimensionality and
high noise of data, which is common for industrial structures. The present study considers Crack, Rivet hole expansion and
redundant uniform mass as damages on the structure. Frequency response function data after being reduced in size using PCA is
fed to individual neural networks to localize and predict the severity of damage on the structure. The system of ANNs trained
with both numerical and experimental model data to make the system reliable and robust. The methodology is applied to a
numerical model of stiffened panel structure, where damages are confined close to the stiffener. The results showed that, in all
the cases considered, it is possible to localize and predict severity of the damage occurrence with very good accuracy and
reliability.
Keywords: Damage detection, Artificial Neural Network, Principal Component Analysis

1.Introduction
Structural health monitoring to detect damages at the
earliest stage is observed as an effective technique to
improve safety and reduce cost across aerospace, civil and
mechanical industries. Many damage detection methods
have attempted to identify damage by solving an inverse
problem, which inevitably needs an analytical model.
However, often the construction of these analytical model
requires considerable effort in building a mathematical
framework with acceptable level of accuracy and reliability
which makes these approaches less attractive. In order to
circumvent this complexity, numerous artificial neural
network techniques have been applied to structural health
monitoring and damage detection[1], [2]. A summary of
literature pertaining to the various methods for damage
detection and health monitoring of structures based on
changes in their measured dynamic properties is presented
in this section. The methods are categorized based on the
type of measured data used, and/or the technique used to
identify the damage from the measured data.
Kudva [3] used a back propagation neural network to
identify damage in a plate stiffened with a 4 x 4 array of
bays. Damage was modeled by cutting holes of various
diameters in the plate at the centers of the bays. The

authors found that neural network was able to predict the
exact location of damage but the severity of damage was
more problematic. Wu, et al. (1992) [4] used a back
propagation neural network on a three-story building
driven by earthquake excitation. Spillman, et al. [5] used
feed- forward neural network to identify damage in a steel
bridge element. In a similar study Rhim and Lee (1994)[6]
used back propagation neural network to identify
delamination damage in a composite cantilever beam. A lot
of effort to train the neural network has been through the
use of Frequency response functions. Good results have
been obtained in the damage identification of numerically
modeled structures[7]. A ‘bottleneck’ limiting the use of
FRFs is the huge size of the required data set. Thus, one of
the main challenges in FRF based damage identification is
the development of algorithms that assist in the processing
of the enormous amounts of FRF data. [7]–[11] present the
use of FRF data for damage detection in different types of
numerical and experimental structures; in some cases,
techniques have been tested on real structures. The
proposed damage identification method is based on FRF
data. FRF data is one of the easiest to obtain in real time as
they require only a small number of sensors and very little
human involvement[12]. Measured FRF data are usually the
most compact form of data obtained from vibration tests of

structures. They provide an abundance of information on
the structure dynamic behavior at master degrees of
freedom over a range of frequency interest, whereas modal
data are only subsets of FRF data [13]. Compared to modal
parameter methods, FRF based damage detection
techniques do not require extensive post data analysis.
In this proposed damage identification method, the direct
FRF data is utilized as damage fingerprints to identify
defect. Pattern changes in FRF data are analyzed by ANNs
that map unique damage fingerprints to locations and
severities of damage. To obtain suitable input data for
network training and to filter uncertainties such as
measurement noise the FRFs are compressed to few PCs
using Principal Component Analysis, a statistical technique.
The random Gaussian white noise signal is used as vibration
input force signal to simulate real time conditions on the
aircraft. The number of such signals is limited to 10
numbers to limit computational time. The FRFs are fed to
their respective Neural Network to identify the location and
severity of damage. The proposed method is verified on
numerical and stiffened panel structure. An issue of limited
sensor availability is considered on the structure.
2. Dimensionality Reduction
2.1 PCA of the Frequency Response Function
Principal Component Analysis(PCA) [14], [15] is a statistical
procedure which allows identifying the principal directions
in which the data varies. A key application of PCA is to
reduce the dimensionality of the problem in the case where
eigenvalues cover a wide dynamic range. In particular it
allows identifying the principal directions in which the data
varies. Principal components are entirely equivalent to
finding the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix: each
Eigenvector gives one principal component. The
corresponding eigenvalue depicts the variance of that
principal component, and the principal components with
largest variances are the most important.
To produce damage indices that are feasible for neural
network training, the size of the damage quantities (FRFs)
must be greatly reduced. For the stiffened panel structure,
a full size FRF, which covers a frequency range of 0 to 1000
Hz, contains 2,00,000 spectral lines. This would mean
2,00,000 input nodes in the neural network for each
measurement point. Such large numbers of input points
cause severe problems in training convergence. Therefore,
PCA is applied to the damage fingerprints to reduce size

and filter noise. The ‘princomp’ function in MATLAB is
utilized to project the damage fingerprints onto their PCs.
The no of measurement points on the stiffened panel are 8,
which include four tri-axial accelerometers and 4 Unidirectional strain gauges. Tri-axial accelerometer gives
translational acceleration at the point of measurement in
all three Cartesian directions and Uni-directional strain
gauges measure strain in the direction of its length.
Therefore, the total no of measurement points summing up
to 16 (12 accelerations, 4 strains). For damage scenario, the
measurement matrix would be of dimension2,00,000 × 16.
Such huge amount of data is reduced into 100 × 1 damage
vector with use of Principal Component Analysis. The most
significant Eigen values and its Eigenvectors are considered
and remaining is discarded. The first seven principal values
contribute to 99.999% of variability in data, thus projecting
huge measurement data 2,00,000 × 16 onto 100 principal
components, where first 84 components relate to the
accelerance FRF and last 16 correspond to strain FRF.
2.2 Damage fingerprint in the reduced FRF
The main idea of data dimensionality reduction is its
easiness to train Artificial Neural Network and have good
convergence and also to filter out noise in the data. The
dimensionality reduction using PCA will fingerprint the
damage scenario to the reduced data. The figures 1 below
show principal components variation for different damage
scenarios.

Figure 1: Principal components for crack damage at different
locations

In general, the determination of the optimal number of PCs
is dependent on the quality of damage patterns embedded
in a data set as well as the level of noise pollution. As a
general guideline, indications on dominant features of a
data set are given by individual and cumulative
contributions of PCs. For example, if the first 7 PCs account
for more than 99% of the information of the original data,
then a selection of more than 7 PCs for damage
identification is probably unnecessary as the information

gained by including higher PCs is negligible.

outputs of one layer become the input to the subsequent
layer.

3. Neural Network
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are derivative of biological
neural system. This research was driven by the desire to
build better pattern recognition and information processing
system[16]. The most popular class of multi- layer feedforward neural networks is multi-layer perceptron in which
each computational unit employs either the threshold
function or the sigmoid function. Multilayer perceptron can
form arbitrarily complex decision boundaries and represent
any Boolean function. The development of the backpropagation learning algorithm to determine weights has
made these networks the most popular among the
researchers and users of neural networks. The Multi-LayerPerceptron was first introduced by [17]. The figure 2 shows
a typical 3 layer perceptron network

INPUT LAYER

Step 1: Initialize the weights are initialized a small random
values.
Step 2: A training set is randomly chosen and fed into the
neural network. For each training pair, steps 3-8 are
repeated.
Step 3: The first layer receives input signal ℎ𝑖 and sends this
to the adjacent layer(the hidden unit). Each hidden
unit(𝑧𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1, … . . 𝑚) sums its weighted input signals as
𝑧𝑖𝑛

𝑗

= 𝑤0

𝑗

+

𝑝
𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖

𝑤𝑖

(8)

𝑗

This acts as an input for the activation function to compute
its output signal, 𝑧𝑗 = 𝜃 𝑧𝑖𝑛 𝑗 and sends this signal to all
units to the next hidden layer.
Step 4: Each output unit (𝑦𝑘 , 𝑘 = 1, … . . , 𝑛) sums its
weighted input signals as

HIDDEN LAYER
OUTPUT LAYER

OUTPUT

𝑦𝑖𝑛

𝑘

= 𝑤0

𝑘

+

𝑚
𝑗 =1 𝑧𝑗

𝑤𝑗

𝑘

(9)

And applies its activation function to compute its output
signal, 𝑦𝑘 = 𝜃( 𝑦𝑖𝑛 𝑘 ).
Step 5: Each output unit (𝑦𝑘 , 𝑘 = 1, … . . , 𝑛) receives a
target pattern corresponding to the input training pattern,
compute error information term

INPUT
S

𝛿𝑘 = (𝑑𝑘 − 𝑦𝑘 )𝜃 ′ 𝑦𝑖𝑛

Figure 2. Typical 3 layer neural network
Let {(ℎ1 , 𝑑1 ), ℎ2 , 𝑑2 … … . , (ℎ𝑝 𝑑𝑝 )} be a set of p training
patterns(input-output) where ℎ𝑖 ∈ 𝑅𝑛 (the elements of FRF
matrix) is the input vector in the n-dimensional pattern
space, and 𝑑𝑖 , an output vector. The squared error cost
function most frequently used in the ANN literature is
defined as:
1

𝐸=2

𝑝
𝑖=1

𝑖

𝑦 −𝑑

𝑖 2

(7)

where 𝑦 𝑖 is the desired outputs. The backpropagation
algorithm is a gradient-decent method to minimize the
above squared error cost function. The backpropagation
algorithm falls into the class of supervised learning, where a
learning algorithm is trained on examples of desired
behavior. In a backpropagation multi-layer network, the

𝑘

(10)

Calculate its weighted and bias correction term(used to
update 𝑤𝑗𝑘 later)
∆𝑤𝑗𝑘 = 𝛼𝛿𝑘 𝑧𝑗

(11)

∆𝑤0𝑘 = 𝛼𝛿𝑘

(12)

Step 6: Each hidden unit (𝑧𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1, … . . 𝑚) sums its delta
inputs and multiplies by the derivative of its activation
function to calculate its error information term,
𝛿𝑖𝑛

=

𝑛
𝑖=1 𝛿𝑘

𝑤𝑗𝑘

(13)

𝛿𝑗 = 𝛿𝑖𝑛 𝑗 𝜃 ′ ( 𝑧𝑖𝑛 𝑗 )

(14)

𝑗

Calculate its weight and bias term
∆𝑤𝑖𝑗 = 𝛼𝛿𝑗 𝑥𝑗

(15)

∆𝑤0𝑗 = 𝛼𝛿𝑗

(16)

Step 7: Each output and hidden units (𝑦𝑘 , 𝑘 = 1, … . . , 𝑛)
update its bias and weights
𝑤𝑗𝑘

𝑢

= 𝑤𝑗𝑘

𝑜

+ ∆𝑤𝑗𝑘

(17)

𝑤𝑖𝑗

𝑢

= 𝑤𝑖𝑗

𝑜

+ ∆𝑤𝑖𝑗

(18)

Rivet 8 as locations of damage. To find the severity of the
crack at the damage location, the data is again fed to
severity neural network. The output shown in Figure 6
indicates a crack length of 10.88mm at the crack location 1
and a magnitude of 2.36 at location 2.

4. Damage Identification through Neural Networks
The neural networks presented here is used to predict the
location and severity of the damage. The compressed FRF
data is fed to its respective neural network to identify the
location and calculate the severity of damage. The stiffened
panel consists of 34 rivets. The binary vector of size 34 × 1
characterizes the location of rivet where the damage
occurred. The vector with all ‘0’ denotes healthy structure.
Bayesian Regularisation learning algorithm is used for the
above neural network. The performance graphs for the
Crack neural network is presented in Figures 3. The
performance parameter monitored is the mean squared
error, which is 0.021107 at the best network.

Figure 4 Stiffened Panel

The neural network is capable of learning the crack
localization and parameter estimation. The percentage of
misclassification on both neural networks is less than 20%.
The neural network may not pinpoint the exact location at
all times, but it is capable of directing to group of rivets as
damaged. Later, the compressed data, after damage is
localized, is keyed to severity prediction neural networks.

Figure 3 Performance graph of Crack damage localization

Figure 5 Crack damage locations on the panel

The numerical structure(Figure 4) containing crack is
subjected to random loading time signal, the time response
signal from 8 measurement locations are acquired,
transformed to frequency domain using Fast Fourier
Transform procedure to obtained frequency response
functions. The huge FRF data is compressed to vector of 100
× 1 with Principal component analysis technique. To localize
the crack damage, this FRF data is given as input to Crack
localization neural network. The bar plot of the same is
shown in the Figure 5. The neural network is unable to
pinpoint to the exact location, but able to point Rivet 7 and

Figure 6 Crack Severity at the predicted location

5. Conclusion
This paper dealt with artificial neural networks (ANNs) in
vibration based damage identification and their application
in aerospace industry. The damage identification scheme
proposed is based on frequency response functions (FRFs).
The method uses neural network techniques and principal
component analysis for damage feature extraction and
noise reduction. To verify the proposed damage
identification procedures, numerical studies were
undertaken on stiffened panel structure. Field testing
conditions were considered with limited no of sensors.
To overcome the obstacle of the large size of FRF data, the
implementation of PCA techniques was suggested. Besides
data reduction, PCA also offers the benefit of noise
reduction and damage feature extraction, which further
assists to reduce uncertainties from sources such as
measurement noise and environmental fluctuations. The
principal component analysis proved to be an efficient
technique to compress the data without any loss of
information of damage fingerprints. To investigate the
performance of the proposed FRF based damage
identification method, it was applied to the stiffened panel
structure. The proposed FRF based damage identification
method proved to be accurate and robust in the damage
identification on stiffened panel structure. Crack
localization neural networks can either pinpoint location or
guide to group of rivets indicating damage. The percentage
of misclassification is less than 15%. Exact prediction of
severity of damage is a complex problem and more training
data is required to predict accurately. The severity
prediction neural network is still good to approximate
severity of damage within an error percentage of 30-35%.
Different learning rules are used for different neural
networks to obtain better performance. The Bayesian
regularization learning rule produce good neural network
even for a small training set data, but at an expense of
computational power. It was observed that re-training
artificial neural networks several times will improve its
performance characteristics.
References
[1]
S. W. S. Doebling, C. R. C. Farrar, M. B. M. Prime,
and D. W. D. Shevitz, “Damage identification and
health monitoring of structural and mechanical
systems from changes in their vibration
characteristics: a literature review,” Los Alamos
Natl. Lab., p. 133p, 1996.

[2]

H. Sohn, C. R. Farrar, F. Hemez, and J. Czarnecki, “A
Review of Structural Health Monitoring Literature
1996 – 2001,” Third World Conf. Struct. Control, no.
DECEMBER, pp. 1–7, 2002.

[3]

N. M. and P. W. T. J N Kudva, “Damage detection in
smart structure using neural network and finite
element analysis,” Smart Mater. Struct., vol. 15, no.
5, pp. 1266–1274, 2006.

[4]

X. Wu, J. Ghaboussi, and J. H. Garrett Jr, “Use of
neural networks in detection of structural damage,”
Comput. Struct., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 649–659, 1992.

[5]

W. B. Spillman Jr, D. R. Huston, P. L. Fuhr, and J. R.
Lord, “Neural network damage detection in a bridge
element,” 1993 North Am. Conf. Smart Struct.
Mater., vol. 1918, pp. 288–299, 1993.

[6]

J. Rhim and S. W. Lee, “A neural network approach
for damage detection and identification of
structures,” Comput. Mech., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 437–
443, 1995.

[7]

Z. Wang, R. M. Lin, and M. K. Lim, “Structural
damage detection using measured FRF data,”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., vol. 147, no. 1,
pp. 187–197, 1997.

[8]

C. ZANG and M. IMREGUN, “Structural Damage
Detection Using Artificial Neural Networks and
Measured Frf Data Reduced Via Principal
Component Projection,” J. Sound Vib., vol. 242, no.
5, pp. 813–827, 2001.

[9]

K. Nuno, “Damage detection of a steel truss bridge
using frequency response function curvature
method,” no. 2, pp. 3–8.

[10]

S. J. S. Hakim and H. A. Razak, “Frequency Response
Function-based Structural Damage Identification
using Artificial Neural Networks-a Review,” Res. J.
Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 1750–
1764, 2014.

[11]

C. Zang and M. Imregun, “Combined neural network
and reduced FRF techniques for slight damage
detection using measured response data,” Arch.
Appl. Mech., vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 525–536, 2001.

[12]

[13]

[14]

X. Fang, H. Luo, and J. Tang, “Structural damage
detection using neural network with learning rate
improvement,” Comput. Struct., vol. 83, no. 25–26,
pp. 2150–2161, 2005.

Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 559–572,
1901.
[15]

D. Huynh, J. He, and D. Tran, “Damage location
vector: A non-destructive structural damage
detection technique,” Comput. Struct., vol. 83, no.
28–30 SPEC. ISS., pp. 2353–2367, 2005.

H. Hotelling, “Analysis of a complex of statistical
variables into principal components.,” J. Educ.
Psychol., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 417–441, 1933.

[16]

C. M. Bishop, “Neural networks and their
applications,” Rev. Sci. Instrum., vol. 65, no. 6, pp.
1803–1831, 1994.

K. Pearson, “On lines and planes of closest fit to
systems of points in space,” London, Edinburgh,

[17]

S. A. Papert, Perceptrons

