A Simple Correlation Factor as an Effective Tool for Detecting Damage

In previous works [1–3] the authors proposed the generalization of some well-known methods from mode shapes to operational deflection shapes, and their respective spatial derivatives. Such a generalization and necessary normalization of the maximum occurrences proved to be effective in the task of locating the damage with the additional advantage of avoiding the modal identification process. In previous papers [4, 5] the authors proposed a new method, the Detection and Relative damage Quantification indicator, DRQ, based upon a simplified form of the Frequency Domain Assurance Criterion [6–8], the Response Vector Assurance Criterion [9]. This method aims at detecting damage, not locating it, simply identifying its existence. The advantage is that is very simple, just using the measured frequency response functions without any need for identification of natural frequencies or mode shapes. In this paper new assessments are made concerning the ability of the indicator to detect and relatively quantify damage. Numerical and experimental work is presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the indicator.


Mode Shape Damage Level Damage Detection Frequency Response Function Structural Health Monitoring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sampaio RPC, Maia NMM, Silva JMM (1999) Damage detection using the frequency-response-function curvature method, Journal of Sound and Vibration 226(4), 1029–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maia NMM, Silva JMM, Sampaio RPC (1997) Localization of damage using curvature of the frequency-response-functions, Proceedings of IMAC XV, Orlando, FL, 942–946.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sampaio RPC, Maia NMM, Silva JMM, Almas EAM (2003) Damage detection in structures: from mode shape to frequency response function methods, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 17(3), 489–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sampaio RPC, Maia NMM, Silva JMM (2003) The frequency domain assurance criterion as a tool for damage detection, Key Engineering Materials 245(3), 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sampaio RPC, Maia NMM (2004) On the detection and relative damage quantification, 2nd European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Munich, Germany, 757–766.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pascual RJC, Golinval J-C, Razeto M (1997) A frequency domain correlation technique for model correlation and updating, Proceedings of IMAC XV, Orlando, FL, 587–592.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pascual RJC, Golinval J-C, Razeto M (1999) On-line damage assessment using operating deflection shapes, Proceedings of IMAC XVII, Kissimmee, FL, 238–243.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fotsch D, Ewins DJ (2000) Application of MAC in the frequency domain, Proceedings of IMAC XVIII, San Antonio, TX, 1225–1231.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heylen W, Lammens S, Sas P (1998) Modal Analysis Theory and Testing (Section A.6), K. U. Leuven — PMA, Belgium.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Av. Eng턨 Bonneville Franco, Paço d'ArcosPaço D'ArcosPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Engineering MechanicsIDMEC/IST, Technical University of LisbonPaisPortugal

Personalised recommendations