coatings

Review
Structural Damage Detection Based on Static and Dynamic
Flexibility: A Review and Comparative Study
Xi Peng 1,2,3 , Qiuwei Yang 2, *, Fengjiang Qin 4, * and Binxiang Sun 5, *

1 College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China;
[email protected]
2 School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Ningbo University of Technology, Ningbo 315211, China
3 Ningbo Roaby Technology Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Ningbo 315800, China
4 Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area, Ministry of Education,
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China
5 School of Architectural Engineering, Shaoxing University Yuanpei College, Shaoxing 312000, China
* Correspondence: [email protected] (Q.Y.); [email protected] (F.Q.); [email protected] (B.S.)

Abstract: Material damage in structures must be detected in a timely manner to prevent engineering
accidents. Damage detection based on structural flexibility has attracted widespread attention in
recent years due to its simplicity and practicality. This article provides a detailed overview of damage
detection methods based on structural flexibility. Depending on the calculation method and data
used, flexibility-based methods can be divided into the following categories: flexibility difference,
flexibility derivative index, flexibility sensitivity, flexibility decomposition, static flexibility, and
combinations of flexibility with other methods. The basic principles and main calculation formulas
of various flexibility methods are explained, and their advantages and disadvantages are analyzed.
For the method using flexibility difference, the advantage is that the calculation is very simple and
does not require the construction of a finite element model of the structure. The disadvantage is
that it requires the measurement of modal data of the intact structure, and this method cannot
quantitatively assess the degree of damage. For the method using the flexibility derivative index,
the advantage is that it only requires the modal data of the damaged structure to locate the damage,
but this method is particularly sensitive to noise in the data and is prone to misjudgment. For
methods based on flexibility sensitivity and flexibility decomposition, the advantage is that they can
Citation: Peng, X.; Yang, Q.; Qin, F.;
simultaneously obtain the location and degree of damage in the structure, but the disadvantage is
Sun, B. Structural Damage Detection
that they require the establishment of accurate finite element models in advance. Static flexibility
Based on Static and Dynamic
methods can compensate for the shortcomings of dynamic flexibility methods, but they usually affect
Flexibility: A Review and
the normal use of the structure during static testing. Combining flexibility-based methods with
Comparative Study. Coatings 2024, 14,
31. https://doi.org/10.3390/
advanced intelligent algorithms and other methods can further improve their accuracy and efficiency
coatings14010031 in identifying structural damage. Finally, this article discusses the challenges that have not yet been
solved among damage detection methods based on structural flexibility.
Academic Editor: Paolo Castaldo

Received: 28 November 2023 Keywords: damage detection; static flexibility; dynamic flexibility; vibration mode;
Revised: 21 December 2023 intelligent algorithm
Accepted: 25 December 2023
Published: 26 December 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
All kinds of engineering structures, such as buildings, bridges, biomimetic structures,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. spacecraft, and mechanical equipment, will inevitably be damaged during their service
This article is an open access article life due to environmental corrosion, aging of the material, excessive loads, and other
distributed under the terms and adverse effects. Local damage in the structure may lead to the rapid destruction of the
conditions of the Creative Commons whole structure, thus leading to serious engineering accidents. Therefore, it is an inevitable
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// requirement to evaluate the damage to engineering structures during their use. Because
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the static and dynamic responses of a structure are functions of the physical structural
4.0/). parameters (such as the elastic modulus and cross-sectional area), structural damage (a

Coatings 2024, 14, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14010031 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/coatings

Coatings 2024, 14, 31 2 of 25

reduction in the elastic modulus or cracking) will inevitably lead to changes in the structural
response parameters. Therefore, by measuring the static or dynamic response parameters
of the structure, it is possible to evaluate whether damage has occurred, the location of
damage, and the severity of damage. In recent decades, many structural damage assessment
methods using changes in the static or dynamic response have been developed [1–9].
Among the existing methods, flexibility-based damage assessment methods have been
widely studied because of their outstanding advantages: the structural flexibility matrix
can be obtained accurately through dynamic or static testing of the structure; structural
flexibility is more sensitive to structural damage than other response parameters, such as
vibration frequencies and mode shapes; and sensitivity analyses of structural flexibility
are simpler than those of other dynamic parameters. At present, there is no report of a
review specifically targeting flexibility-based damage assessment methods. In view of this,
a thematic review of flexibility-based damage identification methods published in the last
few decades is presented in this work. The existing damage assessment methods based
on flexibility are divided into six categories, and the basic principles of each category are
expounded in detail. Moreover, this work also provides a concise comparative study of the
various flexibility-based methods through several numerical examples to further validate
the advantages and disadvantages of these flexibility-based methods. At the same time,
the problems existing in the damage assessment methods based on structural flexibility are
also pointed out, which will provide a reference for future research.

2. Definition of Structural Flexibility and Testing Methods

It is known that the stiffness matrix K and mass matrix M of a structure with n degrees
of freedom (DOFs) can be easily obtained from structural finite element model (FEM). The
flexibility matrix F of a structure is defined in Equation (1) as the inverse of the stiffness
matrix; that is [4],
F = K −1 (1)
In engineering practice, structural flexibility F can be obtained through two methods:
static testing or dynamic testing. The basic principles of the two methods are explained as
follows. For static testing, the displacement d of a structure under a certain static load l can
be calculated by Equations (2) or (3) as [10]

K·d = l (2)

d = F·l (3)
When the load vector l is taken as a single-point load l = (0, 0, · · · , 1, · · · , 0, 0) T ,
Equation (3) becomes
d = [ f1 , · · · , fi , · · · fn ] · l = fi (4)
where n is the number of DOFs of structural FEM. From Equation (4), the i-th column vector
f i in the flexibility matrix F = [ f 1 , · · · , f i , · · · , f n ] is the displacement generated when a
unit force is applied at the i-th DOF in the structure. In practice, the displacement d can be
easily measured in a static experiment by the displacement meters. As a result, structural
flexibility F can be obtained through a series of static single-point loading tests. Figure 1
shows the process of obtaining the flexibility matrix through static testing using a beam
structure as an example. In Figure 1, the static concentrated load is sequentially moved to
each node, and then the corresponding static displacement data of all nodes are measured.
These static displacement data can be combined to obtain the flexibility matrix F.
Coatings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 26

Coatings 2024, 14, 31

nodes are measured. These static displacement data can be combined to obtain the flexi-
3 of 25
bility matrix F .

Figure 1. Process
Figure of obtaining
1. Process the the
of obtaining flexibility matrix
flexibility through
matrix static
through testing.
static testing.

On On
thethe other
other hand,structural
hand, flexibility FFcancan
structural flexibility alsoalso
be approximately obtained
be approximately through
obtained
structural free-vibration tests. Using the system matrices K and M, the free-vibration
through structural free-vibration tests. Using the system matrices K and M , the free- modes
can be computed through the following generalized eigenvalue problem
vibration modes can be computed through the following generalized eigenvalue problemas [11]:
as [11]:
(K − λr M)ϕr = 0 , r = 1 ∼ n (5)
( K − r M )Tr = 0 , r = 1 ~ n (5)
ϕr Mϕr = 1 (6)
where λr is the r-th eigenvalue (i.e., rTangular
M r = 1frequency, λ1 ≤ λ2 ≤ · · · ≤ λn(6) ) and
ϕr is the mass-normalized eigenvector (i.e., mode shape). In practice, the eigenvalue
where r the
λr and is the r -th eigenvalue
eigenvector ϕr can be measured
(i.e., 1  free-vibration
by the structural
angular frequency, 2   n ) and r is
experiment.
Equations (5) and (6) can be rewritten for n vibration modes as [12]:
the mass-normalized eigenvector (i.e., mode shape). In practice, the eigenvalue r and
the eigenvector r KΨ structural
can be measured by the = MΨΛ free-vibration experiment. Equa- (7)
tions (5) and (6) can be rewritten for n vibration
T modes as [12]:
Ψ MΨ = I (8)
K  = M  (7)
where I is an n-dimensional identity matrix. In Equations (7) and (8), Ψ is the mode shape
matrix and Λ is the angular frequency matrix, as follows:
T
 M = I (8)

where I is an n -dimensional identityΨmatrix.

= [ϕ1 , ·In· ·Equations
, ϕn ] (7) and (8),  is the mode (9)
shape matrix and  is the angular frequency matrix, as follows:
 
λ1
==[1 , .,.. n ] 
Λ

 (9)(10)
λn
From Equation (8), one obtains 1 

 =  −1 
(10)
Ψ = ΨT M  (11)
 n 
−1
(Ψ T ) = MΨ (12)
From Equation (8), one obtains
From Equations (7) and (11), one obtains
−1
 = M
T
(11)
T
K = MΨΛΨ M (13)
(T )−1 = M  (12)
Using Equation (13), the flexibility matrix F can be expressed as:
From Equations (7) and (11), one obtains
−1
F = K −1 = (Ψ T M) T Λ−1 ( MΨ)−1 (14)
K = M  M (13)
From Equations (11), (12) and (14), one has

F = K −1 = ΨΛ−1 Ψ T (15)
 Using Equation (13), the flexibility matrix can be expressed as:
−1
F = K = ( M )  −1 (M )−1
T −1
(14)

From Equations (11), (12) and (14), one has

Coatings 2024, 14, 31 F = K −1 =  −1T (15) 4 of 25

Using Equations (9) and (10), Equation (15) can be expressed as [13]:
n
1(15) Tcan be expressed as [13]:
Using Equations (9) andF(10), −1
= KEquation
=  
r =1
r r (16)
r
n
1
1 1 1 F=K = ∑ −1
ϕr ϕr T
(16)
Due to    λ
r =1 Fr can be approximated from
, structural flexibility
1 2 n
1 1 1
EquationDue
(16) to λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ λn , structural flexibility F can be approximated from
as [12,13]:
Equation (16) as [12,13]: m
1 m T1
F  rr ϕ ϕT
r =1 r ∑ λr
F≈ (17) (17)
r r
r =1
where
wherem mdenotes
denotes thethe
number of the
number ofmeasured modes.modes.
the measured EquationEquation
(17) shows(17)
thatshows
the that the
structural flexibility F can be approximated when the first few vibration modes
structural flexibility F can be approximated when the first few vibration modes( r and (λr and ϕr ,
r ,r =
r =1 1∼~ m)
m )are
are measured through
measured through a structural
a structural dynamic
dynamic experiment.
experiment. FigureFigure
2 shows2 shows the
theprocess
process of obtainingthe
of obtaining theflexibility
flexibility matrix
matrix through
through dynamic
dynamic testingtesting
using ausing
beam astruc-
beam structure
asasananexample.
ture example.

Figure 2. Process
Figure of obtaining
2. Process a flexibility
of obtaining matrix through
a flexibility dynamic dynamic
matrix through testing. testing.

3. Flexibility-Based
3. Flexibility-Based Damage
Damage Assessment
Assessment
After
After obtaining
obtaining the structural
the structural flexibility
flexibility throughthrough static or tests,
static or dynamic dynamic tests, the potential
the potential
damage
damagein the
in structure can becan
the structure evaluated on the basis
be evaluated on theof basis
the changes
of theinchanges
or the inherent
in or the inherent
characteristics of the
characteristics ofstructural flexibility.
the structural In recent
flexibility. Inliterature reviews [1–9],
recent literature the damage
reviews [1–9], the damage
identification methods
identification have have
methods usually been classified
usually according
been classified to the type
according toofthe
data used
type ofand
data used and
thethe
Coatings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEWalgorithm used for processing the data. According to this principle, flexibility-based
algorithm used for processing the data. According to this principle, flexibility-based 5 of 26
damage assessment methods can be divided into six types, as shown in Figure 3.
damage assessment methods can be divided into six types, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure3.3. Classification
Figure Classificationof
offlexibility
flexibilitymethods.
methods.

3.1. Localizing Damage Using Differences in the Flexibility

Pandey and Biswas [14,15] first proposed a method for identifying the locations of
damage by utilizing changes in the flexibility matrices before and after damage. Meng et
al. [16] used the method of the differences in the dynamic flexibility for detecting damage
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 5 of 25

3.1. Localizing Damage Using Differences in the Flexibility

Pandey and Biswas [14,15] first proposed a method for identifying the locations of dam-
age by utilizing changes in the flexibility matrices before and after damage. Meng et al. [16]
used the method of the differences in the dynamic flexibility for detecting damage in
suspension bridge cables. Xi et al. [17] used the changes in the diagonal elements of the
flexibility matrix to identify damage in crane girders. Wang et al. [18] used the difference
in the modal flexibility for identifying damage in the pile foundations of a high-piled
wharf. Lu et al. [19] made a scale model of a masonry pagoda and conducted dynamic
testing to obtain the flexibility matrix, and then they used the differences in the flexibility
to identify damage in the tower’s structure. For the undamaged and damaged structures,
Equation (17) can be rewritten as
m
1
Fu = ∑ λ ur
T
ϕur ϕur (18)
r =1

m
1
Fd = ∑ λ dr
T
ϕdr ϕdr (19)
r =1

where Fu and Fd denote the undamaged and damaged flexibility matrices, λur and ϕur
denote the r-th vibration mode of the undamaged structure, λdr and ϕdr denote the r-th
vibration mode of the damaged structure, and m is the number of the measured modes.
From Equations (18) and (19), the flexibility change ∆F can be obtained as
m m
1 1
∆F = ∑ λ
T
ϕdr ϕdr −∑
λ ur
T
ϕur ϕur (20)
r =1 dr r =1

After ∆F is calculated by Equation (20), the element with the highest absolute value
in each column vector of ∆F is taken to locate the damage. Pandey and Biswas validated
the feasibility of the flexibility change method for damage localization through numerical
and experimental analyses of cantilever beams, simply supported beams, and free beams.
Toksoy and Aktan [20,21] used the flexibility matrix obtained from the measured modes to
evaluate the state of bridge structures. Through numerical and experimental research on a
three-span, concrete bridge, Raghavedrachar and Aktan [22] verified that the structural
flexibility was more sensitive to local damage than the vibration frequencies and mode
shapes. The research conducted by Zhao and Dewolf [23] also reached the same conclusion.
Ko [24] studied a multi-stage method for identifying structural damage using the rate
of changes in the diagonal elements of the flexibility matrix. The rate of changes in the
diagonal elements of the flexibility matrix before and after damage can be calculated
through Equation (21), as follows:

η = diag(∆F )./diag( Fu ) (21)

Catbas et al. [25] found that modal flexibility can be obtained by measuring the fre-
quency response function of the structure. Random errors and modal truncation can
have adverse effects on the results of assessing the damage. Tomaszewska [26] discussed
the impact of data noise on the modal flexibility and the curvature of the mode shape.
Koo et al. [27] and Sung et al. [28] used the modal flexibility measured through environ-
mental vibration to estimate deflection in the interlayer caused by damage. Hu et al. [29]
extracted a damage indicator by calculating the local modal flexibility before and after
damage to wood. Altunışık et al. [30] compared the accuracy of localizing the damage
between the modal flexibility method and the modal curvature method. They found that
the method using the change in the modal flexibility was superior to the modal curvature
method for estimating a crack’s location on the basis of a small amount of experimental
data. Meng et al. [31] applied the method using the change in the modal flexibility to detect
damage to a suspension bridge’s suspension rods. Wickramasinghe et al. [32] developed
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 6 of 25

a vertical damage index and a lateral damage index from the modal flexibility to detect
and locate damage in the main cables and hangers of suspension bridges. It was found
that the proposed vertical damage index could accurately detect actual damage to the
suspension bridge using only the first few modes. For large-scale structures, the use of
manual excitation in a structural dynamic test is time-consuming and labor-intensive, and,
in some cases, it is completely impossible. Online monitoring of these structures can only
obtain the modal data of structural vibrations under environmental excitation. In this case,
the structural flexibility matrix cannot be directly obtained because only non-normalized
vibration modes can be obtained under environmental excitation. To solve this problem,
Doebling et al. [33] studied a method for calculating the structural flexibility matrix using
modal data under environmental excitation and discussed four methods of modal normal-
ization. Duan et al. [34,35] used the proportional flexibility matrix to solve problems of
detecting damage under environmental excitation.
These methods using changes in the flexibility can be divided into three categories:
(1) those using the element with the highest absolute value in each column vector of ∆F to
locate the damage, (2) those using the absolute values of the diagonal elements to locate
the damage, and (3) those using the rate of change in the diagonal elements in ∆F to locate
the damage. From the published research results, it can be seen that the recognition effect
of using the rates of change in diagonal elements of ∆F is relatively good. Overall, the
advantages of this type of method are that (1) the process of finite element modeling can
be avoided because ∆F is directly obtained from structural dynamic tests before and after
damage, (2) the accuracy of recognition is only affected by the accuracy of the modal testing,
and (3) incompletely measured vibration modes can be directly used in calculations without
the need for expansion of the mode. The disadvantages of this type of method are that (1)
only the location of the damage can be determined by using this method, and the extent of
the damage cannot be quantitatively determined, and (2) the results of recognition depend
strongly on the number and location of the measurement points. Damage in areas without
measurement points is prone to be missed in the diagnosis.

3.2. Localization of Damage Using Flexibility-Derived Indices

The flexibility-derived indices used for localizing damage mainly include flexibil-
ity curvature, strain flexibility, proportional flexibility, virtual displacement, and so on.
Zhang and Aktan [36] proposed the flexibility curvature method to locate structural dam-
age. According to the central differencing method, the flexibility curvature of the damaged
structure can be calculated through Equation (22) as follows:

Fdi = ( Fdi,j+1 − 2Fdi,j + Fdi,j−1 )/(∆x )2

′′
(22)

where Fdi,j represents the (i, j) element in the flexibility matrix Fd of the damaged structure
and ∆x is the distance between the adjacent calculation points. From a mathematical per-
spective, the curvature reflects the degree of the function’s variation with the independent
variable. Generally, the flexibility curvature in the damaged area is greater than that of the
undamaged area. Thus, the local peaks of the flexibility curvature indicate the locations of
damage. Zhang and Aktan found that structural flexibility curvature is a very sensitive
damage indicator. Lu et al. [37] further used the flexibility curvature to determine the loca-
tion of damage in a beam structure when multiple damages had occurred. The curvature
method only requires information from a modal test of the damaged structure to determine
the location of the damage, without the need for information on the undamaged structure.
Therefore, the curvature method is more suitable for engineering applications because many
engineering structures lack data from tests in an undamaged state. The main drawback of
the flexibility curvature method is its poor robustness, because the results strongly depend
on the accuracy of modal testing and the density of measurement points. Zhang et al. [38]
developed two flexibility-based damage indices named the uniform load surface (ULS) and
the curvature of ULS for detecting structural damage. Their method can be applied without
knowing the mass of the structure. Hsu et al. [39] proposed a method for detecting damage
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 7 of 25

for rotating wind turbine blades, which used a local flexibility method based on dynamic
strain signals measured via long-gauge fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensors. Lee and Eun [40]
extended incomplete measurement data to construct the flexibility matrix of a damaged
structure. They found that the updated flexibility matrix could extract more information
about the structural health status. Using output-only data, Bernagozzi et al. [41] developed
a proportional modal flexibility method for detecting damage in buildings. Their method
was based on the principle that the estimation of modal flexibility based on the deflection
of buildings is necessarily proportional to the corresponding true deflection. Li et al. [42]
proposed a virtual curvature method based on modal flexibility to determine the location
of damage in beam structures. The virtual displacement dv was first generated by applying
a virtual force lv to the structure as follows:

dv = Fd · lv (23)

In Equation (23), the virtual force lv is assumed based on the support conditions of the
structure. Li et al. provided the specific forms of the virtual forces for a simply supported
beam, a cantilevered beam, and a free beam. Based on the virtual displacement, the virtual
curvature was defined by Li et al. [43] as

cv = (dv,j+1 − 2dv,j + dv,j−1 )/(∆x )2 (24)

In Equation (24), cv represents the virtual curvature, dv,j represents the j element of
dv , and ∆x denotes the distance between the adjacent calculation points. Using changes
in strain flexibility, Liu et al. [44] proposed an optimized placement algorithm for strain
sensors and identified damage on a plate structure. Tang et al. [45] proposed a norm
difference index based on the curvature of the flexibility matrix for locating damage in a
three-span, continuous beam. The authors of [46] also discussed the impact of normalizing
the mode on the flexibility curvature index of damage. Li et al. [47] combined the improved
reduction method based on the Guyan model with two indicators—namely, the difference
in the flexibility curvature and the rate of change in the flexibility curvature—to successfully
locate the damage in a truss structure. Wang and Zhao [48] developed an index combining
the differences in and the rate of change in the flexibility curvature for identifying damage
in the suspenders and stiffening beams of a suspension bridge. He et al. [49] proposed
a method for detecting damage in beam structures based on the deflection estimated via
the modal flexibility. The change in the deflection curvature was defined as the damage
index for locating the damage. Aulakh and Bhalla [50] developed a method based on
the strain of modal flexibility for detecting structural damage with only the output data.
The modal flexibility was measured using piezo sensors with operational modal analysis.
Liu [51] developed an index based on the difference in the area of flexibility curvature for
assessing the damage in a continuous, three-span beam structure with a variable cross-
section. The results indicated that their method has good resistance to interference and
could successfully determine the location of structural damage.
A variable cross-section beam, as shown in Figure 4, is employed as an example
to compare the flexibility difference method, flexibility curvature method, and virtual
curvature method mentioned above. The elastic modulus and density of the structure are
200 GPa and 7800 kg/m3 , respectively. The total length of this beam is 2.4 m, and each
element length is 0.1 m. The cross-sectional height of this beam is 2 mm. Without loss of
generality, the elastic modulus of element 12 is reduced by 20% to simulate the damage
scenario. Using the first two modes with no noise or a 3% error level, Figures 5–7 show the
damage localization results obtained through the flexibility difference method, flexibility
curvature method, and virtual curvature method, respectively. Tables 1–3 provide the
corresponding data sources for Figures 5–7, calculated using these three methods. The
tolerable error is simulated by adding an evenly distributed random number to the initial
value as follows:
ϕri∗ = ϕri × [1 + 3% × uni f rnd(−1, 1)] (25)
 φrii** = φrii × [1 + 3% × unifrnd (−1,1)] (25)
φr = φr × [1 + 3% × unifrnd (−1,1)] (25)
In Equation (25), φ and φ i are the i -th coefficients of φ
i*
with and without er-
In Equation (25), φrri* and φrri are the i -th coefficients of φrr
with and without er-
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 ror, and unifrnd (−1,1) represents a random number between −1 and 1. 8 of 25
ror, and unifrnd (−1,1) represents a random number between −1 and 1.

Figure 4.AAvariable
Figure 4. variablecross-section
cross-section beam.
beam.
Figure 4. A variable cross-section beam.

Coatings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 26

Figure 5. Damage localization results obtained using the flexibility difference method using two modes.
Figure 5. Damage localization results obtained using the flexibility difference method using two
Figure
modes.5. Damage localization results obtained using the flexibility difference method using two
modes.

Figure 6.6.Damage
Figure Damage localization results
localization obtained
results using the
obtained flexibility
using curvature curvature
the flexibility method using two modes.
method using two
modes.
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 Figure 6. Damage localization results obtained using the flexibility curvature method using two
9 of 25
modes.

Figure 7.
Figure Damage localization
7. Damage localization results
results obtained
obtained using
using the
the virtual
virtualcurvature
curvaturemethod
methodusing
usingtwo
twomodes.
modes.
Table 1. Calculation results obtained using the flexibility difference method (×10−3 ).
Table 1. Calculation results obtained using the flexibility difference method (×10−3).
Flexibility Change
DOF Number Flexibility Change
DOF Number No Noise With Noise
No Noise With Noise
1 0 0
1 0 0
2 0.038 0.065
2 0.038 0.065
33 0.154
0.154 0.191
0.191
44 0.352
0.352 0.353
0.353
5 0.639
0.639 0.847
0.847
66 1.021
1.021 1.606
1.606
77 1.501
1.501 2.363
2.363
8 2.078 2.928
8 2.078 2.928
9 2.744 3.795
9 2.744 3.795
10 3.485 4.655
10 3.485 4.655
11 4.279 5.416
11
12 4.279
5.099 5.416
6.467
12
13 5.099
5.133 6.467
5.982
13 5.133 5.982
14 4.378 4.954
15 3.642 4.059
16 2.947 4.419
17 2.314 3.286
18 1.754 1.951
19 1.274 1.584
20 0.875 1.289
21 0.555 0.917
22 0.311 0.578
23 0.138 0.208
24 0.035 0.051
25 0 0
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 10 of 25

Table 2. Calculation results obtained using the flexibility curvature method.

Flexibility Change
DOF Number
No Noise With Noise
1 0 0
2 0.057 0.069
3 0.109 0.114
4 0.156 0.131
5 0.197 0.189
6 0.231 0.247
7 0.260 0.281
8 0.282 0.267
9 0.298 0.303
10 0.307 0.315
11 0.310 0.297
12 0.345 0.381
13 0.341 0.332
14 0.302 0.294
15 0.299 0.240
16 0.290 0.368
17 0.275 0.292
18 0.255 0.207
19 0.229 0.231
20 0.199 0.207
21 0.163 0.165
22 0.122 0.138
23 0.076 0.065
24 0.026 0.024
25 0 0

In Equation (25), ϕri∗ and ϕri are the i-th coefficients of ϕr with and without error, and
uni f rnd(−1, 1) represents a random number between −1 and 1.
As shown in Figure 5, using data without or containing noise, the flexibility difference
method can determine the presence of damage in element 12, as the flexibility difference
curves peak between DOFs 12 and 13. From Figure 6, the flexibility curvature method
can determine the presence of damage in element 12 when using noiseless data, as the
flexibility curvature peaks between DOFs 12 and 13. However, when using noisy data, the
flexibility curvature method cannot determine that element 12 is the only damaged unit, as
the flexibility curvature curve exhibits two local peaks. From Figure 7, the virtual curvature
method cannot determine that element 12 is the only damaged element, as multiple local
peaks also appear on the virtual curvature curve. These results indicate that the flexibility
difference method has a greater ability to resist data noise interference, while the flexibility
curvature and virtual curvature methods are both sensitive to data noise and prone to
misjudgment. In addition, the number of modes used in the calculation has a significant
impact on the virtual curvature method, but it has a relatively small impact on the flexibility
curvature method. Because only the first two modes are used in this example, the peak of
the curve in Figure 7 obtained using the virtual curvature method is not as obvious as that
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 11 of 25

of the curve in Figure 6 obtained using the flexibility curvature method. This is the reason
for the different behavior, as observed in Figures 6 and 7.

Table 3. Calculation results obtained using the virtual curvature method.

Flexibility Change
DOF Number
No Noise With Noise
1 0 0
2 0.023 0.028
3 0.046 0.048
4 0.068 0.057
5 0.088 0.085
6 0.108 0.115
7 0.125 0.135
8 0.140 0.133
9 0.153 0.156
10 0.162 0.167
11 0.169 0.162
12 0.194 0.214
13 0.194 0.189
14 0.169 0.165
15 0.163 0.130
16 0.154 0.196
17 0.144 0.163
18 0.154 0.133
19 0.169 0.169
20 0.183 0.197
21 0.196 0.205
22 0.209 0.224
23 0.222 0.221
24 0.234 0.238
25 0 0

3.3. Assessing Damage Using Flexibility Sensitivity

The methods in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 can only determine the location of the damage
because these methods do not use the FEM of the structure. However, it is necessary to
quantitatively determine the extent of the damage in a structure to evaluate the remaining
life of the structure. To achieve this goal, the flexibility sensitivity methods were developed
to simultaneously determine the location and severity of structural damage with the help of
FEM. According to different calculation methods, the flexibility sensitivity can be roughly
divided into two categories. The first type of flexibility sensitivity [52,53] is derived from
the sensitivity of the frequency and vibration mode, as follows:

∂Fr 1 ∂λr 1 ∂ϕr T 1 ∂ϕ T

=− 2 ϕr ϕrT + ϕr + ϕr r (26)
∂αi λr ∂αi λr ∂αi λr ∂αi

1
Fr = ϕr ϕrT (27)
λr
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 12 of 25

In Equations (26) and (27), Fr is defined as the r-th modal flexibility and αi is the
damage parameter of the i-th element. The damage parameter αi is a proportional coefficient
used to measure various types of damage, such as the reduction of the elastic modulus
caused by fatigue and the reduction of the inertia moment of the cross-section caused by
cracks. Yan and Ren [54] developed a closed-form modal flexibility sensitivity method
to eliminate errors in modal truncation to improve the accuracy of damage assessments.
Sarmadi et al. [55] developed the derivative of the eigenvalue and then established a more
relevant flexibility sensitivity function for assessing damage.
The second type of flexibility sensitivity [56,57] is derived via Neumann series expan-
sion as follows:
N
∂F
∆F = ∑ αi (28)
i =1
∂α i

∂F
= Fu Ki Fu , i = 1 ∼ N (29)
∂αi
where N is the number of elements in the structural FEM. By solving Equation (28), the
damage parameter αi of each element can be obtained for assessing damage. Compared
with Equation (26), Equation (29) is more convenient and requires less calculation to obtain
flexibility sensitivity. In order to reduce the modal truncation error, Li et al. [58,59] proposed a
generalized flexibility sensitivity method and derived the corresponding formula as follows:
y y −1
Fg = Fg MF (30)

y y −1
∂Fg ∂Fg y −1 ∂F
= MF + Fg M (31)
∂αi ∂αi ∂αi
y
In Equations (30) and (31), Fg denotes the y-th generalized flexibility. The numerical
examples show that this method can effectively reduce the computational errors caused
by the high-order modal truncation and significantly improve the computational accuracy
of the flexibility sensitivity method. Katebi et al. [60] extended the generalized flexibility
sensitivity method to identify the damage in an airplane’s truss and frame structures.
Liu et al. [61,62] further improved the generalized flexibility sensitivity method by reducing
the number of unknowns and optimizing the calculation process. Peng and Yang [63] used
the generalized flexibility for placing sensors and assessing damage under environmental
excitation. They proposed a formula to estimate the number of accelerometers used in
dynamic testing based on the number of elements in the FEM, as follows:
√
µ≈ 2N (32)

In Equation (32), µ denotes the amount of accelerometers. Li et al. [64] found that
the diagonal index of the curvature matrix of generalized flexibility was very sensitive
to structural damage. Hanumanthappa [65] presented a generalized flexibility quotient
difference method for detecting damage in cantilevered beam structures, which only
required the first vibration mode. Tang et al. [66] developed a method for identifying
damage to a truss by combining the reciprocal variable and the generalized flexibility
matrix. The results showed that their method performed better than the original generalized
flexibility matrix method. Liu et al. [67] proposed a generalized index of the information
on the entropy of the flexibility curvature and applied it to identify the damage in a slab
track void. Cao et al. [68] proposed a frequency-shift flexibility sensitivity method that can
significantly reduce the adverse impact of high-order modal truncation on assessments of
damage. The frequency-shift of flexibility and its sensitivity are calculated as follows:
m
1
F≈ ∑ λ r − µ
ϕr ϕrT (33)
r =1
 quired the first vibration mode. Tang et al. [66] developed a method for identifying dam-
age to a truss by combining the reciprocal variable and the generalized flexibility matrix.
The results showed that their method performed better than the original generalized flex-
ibility matrix method. Liu et al. [67] proposed a generalized index of the information on
the entropy of the flexibility curvature and applied it to identify the damage in a slab track
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 void. Cao et al. [68] proposed a frequency-shift flexibility sensitivity method that can sig- 13 of 25
nificantly reduce the adverse impact of high-order modal truncation on assessments of
damage. The frequency-shift of flexibility and its sensitivity are calculated as follows:

∂F m 1
F ≈=∑(K − µM φr)φ−rT 1 Ki (K − µM)−1 (33) (34)
∂αi r =1 λr − µ
In Equations (33) and (34), F is the frequency-shift flexibility and µ is the frequency-
shift distance. Overall,∂ F the= K − µ M ) −1 Kof
(advantage i (K − µ M )
−1
the flexibility sensitivity method(34) is that this
∂ α
method can be used for both localization and quantification of the damage, and the in-
i

complete vibration modes can be directly used without the need for mode expansion or
In Equations (33) and (34), F is the frequency-shift flexibility and µ is the fre-
model condensation. The disadvantage is that the flexibility sensitivity depends greatly
quency-shift distance. Overall, the advantage of the flexibility sensitivity method is that
on the accuracy of
this method can be used for both the structural FEM,
localization andand high-order
quantification sensitivity
of the damage, and or iterative
the computa-
incomplete vibration modes can be directly used without the need for mode expansion or
tion are required in the case of significant damage, which will significantly increase the
model condensation.costs.
computational The disadvantage is that the flexibility sensitivity depends greatly
on the accuracy
A beam, of the structuralinFEM,
as shown Figureand 8,high-order
is employed sensitivity
as anor iterative
example computation
to compare the conven-
aretional
required in the case of significant damage, which will significantly
flexibility sensitivity, generalized flexibility sensitivity, and frequency-shift increase the com- flexibility
putational costs.
sensitivity methods mentioned above. The elastic modulus and density of the structure
A beam, as shown in Figure 8,3 is employed as an example to compare the conven-
are flexibility
tional 193 GPa sensitivity,
and 7850 generalized
kg/m , respectively. Withoutand
flexibility sensitivity, loss of generality,
frequency-shift the elastic modulus
flexibil-
of elements 3 and 10 are reduced by 8% and 12%, respectively,
ity sensitivity methods mentioned above. The elastic modulus and density of the structure to simulate the damage
arescenario.
193 GPa and The7850FEMkg/mtechnology
3, respectively. isWithout
used toloss of generality,
perform modal thetruncation
elastic modulus for simulating in-
of complete
elements 3 measurements.
and 10 are reducedUsing by 8%the andfirst
12%,two respectively,
modes with to simulate the damage
no errors and a 3% error level,
scenario.
Figures The FEM10
9 and technology
show the is used
damage to perform modal truncation
assessment for simulating
results obtained through incom-
conventional flexi-
plete measurements. Using the first two modes with no errors and a 3% error level, Fig-
bility sensitivity, generalized flexibility sensitivity, and frequency-shift flexibility sensitivity
ures 9 and 10 show the damage assessment results obtained through conventional flexi-
methods, respectively. The tolerable error is also simulated by Equation (25). From Figure 9,
bility sensitivity, generalized flexibility sensitivity, and frequency-shift flexibility sensitiv-
ityitmethods,
can be seen that when
respectively. The a modelerror
tolerable errorisisalso
notsimulated
considered, both the
by Equation generalized
(25). From flexibility
Figure 9, it can and
sensitivity be seen that when a model
frequency-shift error is not
flexibility considered,
sensitivity both thecan
methods generalized
identify the presence
flexibility
of damage sensitivity and frequency-shift
in elements 3 and 10 because flexibilitythesensitivity
calculated methods
damagecan identify
parametersthe for elements
presence
3 and of 10damage
are very in elements
large, while 3 andthe10 because the calculated
conventional damage
flexibility parametersmethod
sensitivity for cannot de-
elements
termine 3 and
the10presence
are very large, while thein
of damage conventional
element 3flexibility
becausesensitivity methoddamage
the calculated can- parameter
not determine the presence of damage in element 3 because the calculated damage pa-
for element 3 is very small. This indicates that both the generalized flexibility sensitivity
rameter for element 3 is very small. This indicates that both the generalized flexibility
and frequency-shift
sensitivity and frequency-shift flexibility
flexibilitysensitivity
sensitivity methods
methods can can effectively
effectively overcome
overcome the the adverse
effects
adverse of modal
effects of modal truncation
truncation on damage
on damage assessment.
assessment. From From
Figure Figure
10, it can10, it can be seen that
be seen
that whenconsidering
when considering data dataerrors,
errors, thethe
calculation results
calculation of the of
results generalized flexibilityflexibility
the generalized sen- sensitivity
sitivity
and and frequency-shiftflexibility
frequency-shift flexibility sensitivity
sensitivity methods
methodsare notareideal,
not as manyas
ideal, elements
many elements have
have relativelylarge
relatively largedamage
damage parameters,
parameters, making
making it difficult to determine
it difficult that only
to determine ele-only elements 3
that
ments 3 and 10 have damage. This indicates that all methods based on flexibility sensitiv-
and 10 have damage. This indicates that all methods based on flexibility sensitivity are
ity are highly dependent on the accuracy of the used data. It is necessary to use algorithms
highly dependent on the accuracy of the used data. It is necessary to use algorithms with
with strong anti-noise ability to further improve the accuracy of damage identification.
strong anti-noise ability to further improve the accuracy of damage identification.
Coatings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 15 mm 14 of 26
3 mm
20×50 mm=1000 mm Cross section

Figure 8. A 8.
Figure uniform beam. (The
A uniform beam.number
(The in the beam
number indenotes the element
the beam denotesnumber of FEM).number of FEM).
the element

Figure
Figure 9. Damage
9. Damage extentsextents obtained
obtained through conventional
through conventional flexibility
flexibility sensitivity, sensitivity,
generalized generalized flexibility
flexibil-
ity sensitivity,
sensitivity, and
andfrequency-shift flexibility
frequency-shift sensitivity
flexibility methodsmethods
sensitivity without model errors.
without model errors.
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 Figure 9. Damage extents obtained through conventional flexibility sensitivity, generalized flexibil-
14 of 25
ity sensitivity, and frequency-shift flexibility sensitivity methods without model errors.

Figure 10. Damage extents obtained through conventional flexibility sensitivity, generalized flexibility
Figure 10. Damage extents obtained through conventional flexibility sensitivity, generalized flexi-
sensitivity,
bility andand
sensitivity, frequency-shift flexibility
frequency-shift sensitivity
flexibility methods
sensitivity with
methods model
with errors.
model errors.
3.4. Assessing Damage by Decomposing the Flexibility
3.4. Assessing Damage by Decomposing the Flexibility
The inherent relationship between changes in structural flexibility and structural dam-
The
age caninherent
be betterrelationship between
revealed through the changes in structural
decomposition flexibilitymatrix.
of the flexibility and structural
Bernal [69]
damage
proposed a damage-locating vector (DLV) method based on single-value matrix.
can be better revealed through the decomposition of the flexibility Bernal of
decomposition
[69]the
proposed a damage-locating vector (DLV) method
changes in the flexibility matrix, as follows: based on single-value decomposi-
tion of the changes in the flexibility matrix, as follows:
  T 
 S 0 V
∆F = U1 U0 S 1 0≈ 0 VV1T1T

(35)

F = U 1 U 0   10 S 2
 T 0 (35)
0 S 2  0 V
According to Equation (35), the column vectors inthe 0 
matrix V0 are applied to the
structure
According to Equation (35), the column vectors in the matrix elements
as the static loads. Under these specific static loads, the with antointernal
V0 are applied the
force of 0 in the structure are the possible damage elements. Gao [70] improved the DLV
structure as the static loads. Under these specific static loads, the elements with an internal
method with traditional acceleration testing. Spencer et al. [71] conducted an experimental
force of 0 in the structure are the possible damage elements. Gao [70] improved the DLV
verification of the DLV method based on wireless sensor networks. Bernal [72] validated
method with traditional acceleration testing. Spencer et al. [71] conducted an experimental
the DLV method with actual statistical data. Gao et al. [73] validated the DLV method
verification of the DLV method based on wireless sensor networks. Bernal [72] validated
through several experiments. Bernal [74] and Gao [75] both studied the DLV method for
locating damage under environmental excitation. Sim et al. [76] proposed a multi-scale DLV
method, which simultaneously used the acceleration signals and dynamic strain signals to
locate the structural damage.
Yang and Liu [77] proposed a new method based on matrix decomposition to de-
termine the number, location, and degree of the damaged elements. They derived a
decomposition formula for the change in the global stiffness matrix before and after dam-
age by using decomposition and a combination of the elements of the stiffness matrices,
as follows:
∆K = C∆PC T (36)
 
α1
 α2 
∆P =  (37)
 
 . .. 

αN
In Equation (36), C is used as the stiffness connection matrix, which remains unchanged
before and after damage. In Equation (37), ∆P is a diagonal matrix composed of stiffness
perturbation parameters. They also proved that the rank of the stiffness change ∆K equals
the rank of the flexibility change ∆F, which is shown in Equation (38) as

Rank (∆K ) = Rank (∆F ) (38)

Coatings 2024, 14, 31 15 of 25

Using similar operations, Yang [78] developed a new flexibility disassembly perturba-
tion (FDP) formula:
∆F = E∆BE T (39)
T
E = (C + ) (40)
∆B = diag( β 1 , β 2 , · · · , β N ) (41)
In Equations (39) and (40), E is called the flexibility connection matrix and C + denotes
the generalized inverse matrix of C. In Equation (41), β i is the flexibility-perturbed parame-
ter of the i-th element. The relationship between the stiffness-perturbed parameter αi and
the flexibility-perturbed parameter β i is shown in Equation (42) as

βi
αi = (42)
1 + βi

Based on the variation in the flexibility, the intermediate variable β i can be calculated
first, and then the perturbed stiffness parameter αi (i.e., the parameter of damage) can be
obtained using the relationship above. The proposed method is fundamentally different
from the existing flexibility sensitivity methods and can be applied to both large and small
amounts of damage. Especially in cases of large amounts of damage, this method only
requires one round of calculation to obtain good results, while the existing sensitivity
methods must use high-order sensitivity or iterative computation to obtain results with
the same accuracy. Weng et al. [79] proposed a damage assessment method based on the
decomposition of the substructure’s flexibility and found that the characteristic param-
eters obtained from decomposition of the substructure’s flexibility were more sensitive
to structural damage. Yang et al. [80] improved the method based on the perturbation
of flexibility by using spectral decomposition and obtained more accurate results from
the model corrected through the method of using multiple feedback and truncation of
singular values. Qi et al. [81] constructed a damage localization index based on lower and
upper (LU) decomposition of the proportional flexibility matrix and applied it to detect
damage in composite beams. Li et al. [82] applied the quickly orthogonal and right (QR)
decomposition to the proportional flexibility matrix of a structure under environmental
excitation to construct the indicators for the localization of the damage. They used model
condensation technology to overcome the problem of incomplete measurement of the
flexibility matrix. By decomposing the flexibility, Sun et al. [83] first determined the number
of damaged elements through rank analysis of the matrices, then they determined the
location of damage via gradual screening, and, finally, they revealed the extent of the
damage through sensitivity analysis.
A spatial truss structure, as shown in Figure 11, is used to illustrate the DLV and FDP
methods mentioned above. The elastic modulus and density of the structure are 80 GPa and
2800 kg/m3 , respectively. The cross-sectional area of all bars is 1.256 × 10−3 m2 . Without
loss of generality, the elastic modulus of bar 15 is reduced by 20% to simulate the damage
scenario. Using the complete modal data, Table 4 and Figure 12 present the internal force
values of all bars calculated using the DLV method. From Table 4 and Figure 12, it can be
seen that only bar 15 corresponds to an internal force value of 0, indicating that only bar 11
is damaged. This demonstrates the correctness of the DLV method for damage localization.
Furthermore, the rank of the flexibility change ∆F can be calculated as Rank (∆F ) = 1. This
once again confirms that only one bar has damage, which is consistent with the judgment
result of the DLV method. The damage extent of bar 15 can be obtained using the FDP
method as α15 = 0.2, which is the same as the assumed value (0.2). This demonstrates the
correctness of the FDP method for damage quantification.
 11 is damaged. This demonstrates the correctness of the DLV method for damage locali-
zation. Furthermore, the rank of the flexibility change ∆F can be calculated as
Rank (∆F ) = 1 . This once again confirms that only one bar has damage, which is con-
sistent with the judgment result of the DLV method. The damage extent of bar 15 can be
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 obtained using the FDP method as α15 = 0.2, which is the same as the assumed value16 of 25
(0.2). This demonstrates the correctness of the FDP method for damage quantification.

1 3
10 5 9 1m
13
2 8
6 12
17
11 14 7 18

16 1m
26
15
23 22 21

24 19 25
20

Coatings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26

1m
1m
Figure
Figure4.11.
Table 11.AAspatial
Internal
spatialtruss
force
trussstructure.
values (The
obtained
structure. number
through
(The in
inthe
numberthe thetruss
DLV denotes
method
truss the
using
denotes element
thethe number
complete
element of
modes
number (×102,
of FEM).
FEM).N).
Unit:
2
Bar4. Internal force values obtained through the DLV method using the complete modes (×10 ,
Table
Unit: N). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number
Internal
Bar
1.097 2.365
1 0.480
2 32.429 40.1365 0.2476 4.489 7 1.207 8 3.225 9 2.46710 1.74511 0.91712 0.109
13
force
Number
Bar force 1.097 2.365 0.480 2.429 0.136 0.247 4.489 1.207 3.225 2.467 1.745 0.917 0.109
Internal
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
number Bar
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
number
Internal
0.515 0.515
Internal force 0.000 0.000
2.0212.021
4.2534.253
1.687 1.317
1.687 5.796
1.317 5.7960.618
0.6183.366
3.3660.166
0.1660.260
0.2600.541
0.5411.497
1.497
force

600

500

400
Internal force

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Bar number

Figure12.
Figure Internalforce
12.Internal forcehistogram
histogramobtained
obtainedthrough
throughDLV
DLV using
using the
the complete
complete modes
modes (Unit:
(Unit: N).
N).

3.5. Assessing Damage Using Static Flexibility

3.5. Assessing Damage Using Static Flexibility
The flexibility methods above all utilize the modal data of structural vibration; there-
The flexibility
fore, they belong tomethods above
the class all utilize
of dynamic the modal
methods. data of structural
Currently, vibration;
the dynamic methodsthere-
for
fore, they belong to the class of dynamic methods. Currently, the dynamic methods for
identifying damage still have the following shortcomings. (1) Most dynamic methods ig-
nore the influence of structural damping on the structural vibrations. (2) For huge civil
engineering structures, it is often difficult to obtain accurate vibration modes. In contrast,
static testing costs less and is more accurate than dynamic testing. Therefore, in recent
years, methods for detecting structural damage based on data from static tests have begun
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 17 of 25

identifying damage still have the following shortcomings. (1) Most dynamic methods
ignore the influence of structural damping on the structural vibrations. (2) For huge civil
engineering structures, it is often difficult to obtain accurate vibration modes. In contrast,
static testing costs less and is more accurate than dynamic testing. Therefore, in recent
years, methods for detecting structural damage based on data from static tests have begun
to receive renewed attention. Sanayei et al. [84,85] proposed an iterative method for cor-
recting the structural stiffness parameters using data from static tests. Banan et al. [86,87]
classified optimization methods based on static data into two types, depending on their
objectives—namely, force error and displacement error—and discussed the influence of
the initial parameters’ values and grouping on the optimization of the results of the cal-
culation. Hjelmstad et al. [88] proposed an adaptive method of static damage detection
based on Banan’s research. Byung et al. [89] used a combination of data from static test
and modal data to construct error functions for identifying damage. Numerical examples
and experimental results showed that this combined method improved the accuracy of
identification. Wang et al. [90] proposed a two-stage method for identifying damage, which
first used the ratio of the difference in static displacement to the difference in the frequency
for determining the location of the damage and then used the iterative optimization method
to calculate the extent of the damage. Chou et al. [91] used data from static tests to establish
an error function and then used the genetic algorithm to solve the parameter of damage
for each element. Hu et al. [92] proposed a method to identify the location and degree of
structural damage by utilizing changes in the structural strain under a dead load. They
discussed the impact of damage areas exceeding the area of the element grid on the results
of this identification. Shinae Jang [93] validated the DLV method on the basis of data from
a static strain test. Overall, the static method still has the following main problems: (1) the
normal working state of the structure needs to be temporarily interrupted during static
loading, so online monitoring cannot be implemented; (2) some static loading schemes may
have blind spots during identification; and (3) the number of measurement points in static
testing is relatively small due to the limitations of the equipment. Bakhtiari Nejad et al. [94]
studied the static loading scheme and arrangement of measurement points for assessing
damage. They defined the static strain energy of each element as

seir = diT Kr di (43)

In Equation (43), seir denotes the r-th elementary strain energy under the i-th static
load. Then, the distribution variance of static strain energy for all elements is calculated
through Equations (44) and (45), as follows:
v
uN
1 u
sei r∑
γi = t (seir − sei )2 (44)
=1

1 N
N r∑
sei = seir (45)
=1
The static loading scheme corresponding to the smaller variance γi can be selected
to assess the damage. However, their methods may still theoretically have blind spots in
recognition. In addition, the complete static displacement vector ui used to calculate the
static strain energy of the elements is also difficult to obtain in practice. Yang and Sun [95]
introduced a formula for decomposing the flexibility into the static response equation
and proposed a new criterion for selecting the static loading scheme. Their method first
introduced an energy vector for the ith static load li as follows:

θ i = E T li (46)
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 18 of 25

From Equation (46), the ratio of the minimum and maximum absolute values of the
coefficients in the energy vector θi is defined as the deviation index (DI) for judging the
quality of the static loading scheme, that is

min(|θi |)
DI = (47)
max(|θi |)

Based on Equation (47), the static loading scheme corresponding to the larger DI
can be selected for damage assessment. The advantage of their method is that: (1) it can
theoretically completely avoid ineffective static loading methods (as long as DI ̸= 0 is
met); and (2) only the static load vector is required during the calculation process, so
it can be implemented even in the case of incomplete measurement. Chen et al. [96]
proposed a static method for identifying damage based on grey correlation theory, which
only requires a small amount of data from static tests. Kouchmeshky et al. [97] used
static equations to establish an objective function and then used coevolutionary algorithms
to solve the parameters of damage for each element. Zhao and Shenton [98] used data
from static tests of structures under a dead load to identify structural damage based on
the nearest approximation theory. Ma et al. [99] combined wavelet analysis with static
flexibility to locate damage using the maximum line of the wavelets and then evaluated
their severity on the basis of the damage index obtained from the wavelets’ coefficients
along the corresponding maximum line. Fang et al. [100] used the static flexibility method
for detecting damage to stay cables in a cable-stayed bridge. The advantage of their
proposed method is that it did not require specialized static loading. Peng and Yang [101]
developed a method for redistributing the static strain energy for locating damage in beam
structures. From the perspective of data statistics, the location of the strain energy of
mutation is the location where the damage occurs. Xiao et al. [102] used the static flexibility
method to identify damage in semi-rigid frames with slender beams. The proposed method
could successfully identify damage to structural nodes as well as damage to combinations
of the nodes and components of the structure. Yang et al. [103,104] used technology for
the decomposition of the flexibility matrix to quickly calculate the sensitivity of static
displacement and applied it in combination with the sensitivity of the mode shape for
identifying structural damage. They found that the combination of static and dynamic
sensitivity could obtain more reliable assessments of damage.

3.6. Combinations of Flexibility Methods and Other Methods

Many researchers combine flexibility methods with other methods, such as using
changes in the flexibility to roughly determine the location of damage, and then use
other methods to accurately locate and solve the extent of damage. The combination of
flexibility methods and other methods can fully leverage the advantages of each method
and overcome the shortcomings of using a particular method alone. Yan and Golival [105]
combined the flexibility and stiffness methods to determine the location of damage by
utilizing the changes in the flexibility and stiffness matrices before and after damage.
Jaishi et al. [106] used test data under environmental excitation to modify the structural
finite element model by using the structural flexibility as one of the objective functions.
Grande and Imbimbo [107] proposed a multi-stage method based on the Dempster–Shafer
evidence theory, with modal flexibility as the main objective function for assessing damage.
Yan et al. [108] used the method based on the differences in the flexibility for locating the
damage and then used a Bayesian FEM updating algorithm to evaluate the severity of
the damage.
Recently, intelligent optimization algorithms, represented by genetic algorithms and
artificial neural networks, have been introduced for identifying structural damage [109–112].
A genetic algorithm (GA) is based on the evolutionary laws of organisms in nature. It
is a computational model that simulates the natural selection and genetic mechanisms
of Darwin’s biological evolution theory, and it is a method for searching for the optimal
solutions by simulating the process of natural evolution. Perera et al. [113] constructed a
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 19 of 25

multi-objective function based on modal correlation and flexibility correlation and then
used a GA to find the parameters of damage. Case studies have shown that their method
improved the accuracy of the identifications made by the flexibility method. The authors
of [114] further validated the method for identifying damage by using data from the modal
test of a real bridge. Na et al. [115] developed a new method for assessing damage based
on a GA, which utilized a structural flexibility matrix and dynamic analysis to identify
structural damage in shear buildings. Greco et al. [116] used data from static tests as
the objective function and used the GA to identify damage caused by multiple cracks
in beam structures. Aghaeidoost et al. [117] used the generalized flexibility matrix as
the objective function and utilized the optimal GA to evaluate the damage in jacket-type
offshore platforms.
In addition to genetic algorithms, the biomimetic intelligent algorithms also include
particle swarm optimization (PSO), ant colony optimization (ACO), the artificial fish al-
gorithm, and so on. Liu et al. [118] proposed a method for identifying damage to bridges
using modal flexibility and PSO neural networks. Their method consisted of two stages:
determining the location of damage with modal flexibility and identifying the severity of
the damage by using PSO neural networks. Amiri et al. [119] developed a democratic PSO
algorithm for assessing structural damage, which had generalized flexibility as the objective
function. Hosseinzadeh et al. [120] utilized the democratic PSO algorithm to optimize
the model to evaluate structural damage, with modal flexibility as the objective function.
Wei et al. [121] proposed an improved PSO algorithm for detecting damage in a beam, a
truss, and a plate structure. Nadjafi et al. [122] evaluated the damage in a beam structure
using the PSO algorithm with the curvature of modal flexibility as the objective function.
Minh et al. [123] proposed a variable velocity strategy particle swarm optimization (VVS-
PSO) algorithm, which further improved the computational efficiency and accuracy of the
PSO method for identifying structural damage. Daei and Mirmohammadi [124] proposed
a continuous ACO algorithm for identifying structural damage with modal flexibility as
the objective function. Majumdar and Nanda [125] compared the computational efficiency
and accuracy of the ACO and PSO methods for identifying structural damage. It was
found that the ACO algorithm had a faster computational speed, but the PSO method
had higher computational accuracy. Yang et al. [126] first utilized the curvature of the
difference in flexibility to locate damage and then used an improved whale algorithm to
determine the severity of the damage. Khatir et al. [127] constructed an enhanced damage
index function based on modal flexibility and used two optimization techniques, atomic
search optimization and the salp swarm optimizer, to resolve the damage parameters for
identifying damage.
Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are nonlinear and adaptive information processing
systems composed of a large number of interconnected processing units. They were
proposed on the basis of the results of modern neuroscientific research, and they attempt
to process information by simulating the processing and memory of the brain’s neural
networks. Kourehli [128] proposed a method for identifying structural damage using
the static response and ANN, which took the static response as the input parameter of
the back-propagation ANN. Tran-Ngoc et al. [129] proposed a new method for detecting
damage in composite structures based on ANN and the cuckoo search (CS) algorithm.
The results indicated that compared with the ANN-GA algorithm, ANN-CS was more
accurate and required less computational time for the localization and quantification
of structural damage. Ahmadi-Nedushan et al. [130] proposed a two-stage structural
method for detecting damage that utilized the modal flexibility, the strain energy, and a
modified teaching–learning optimization algorithm. Mei et al. [131] combined the improved
differential evolution algorithm (IDE) and back-propagation ANN to identify structural
damage, which further improved the accuracy of assessments of damage by the traditional
back-propagation neural network.
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 20 of 25

4. Conclusions
In recent years, flexibility-based methods for assessing damage have been the subject
of ongoing and in-depth research. The advantage of these methods is that the flexibility
of the structure can be obtained by using static and dynamic tests, and they are very
sensitive to damage to the structure. According to the type of the data and algorithm,
flexibility-based damage assessment methods can be divided into six types: differences in
flexibility, flexibility-derived indices, flexibility sensitivity, the decomposition of flexibility,
static flexibility, and the combination of a flexibility method and other methods. These
flexibility-based methods of assessing damage can be summarized as follows. The calcula-
tion involved in methods based on the differences in flexibility is very simple, and it does
not need an FEM of the structure, but it needs the data from tests of the structure in the
undamaged state. The methods based on the differences in flexibility can only be used
to determine the location of the structural damage but cannot quantitatively evaluate the
degree of damage. Flexibility-derived index methods, represented by flexibility curvature
and virtual curvature, can locate the damage only by using the experimental data of the
structure in the damaged state, but this kind of method is particularly sensitive to noise in
the data and is prone to misjudgment. The flexibility sensitivity methods can accomplish
the tasks of locating and quantifying the damage at the same time, but there is a need to
establish an accurate FEM in advance. The generalized flexibility sensitivity method and
frequency-shift-based flexibility sensitivity method can effectively reduce the errors caused
by higher-order modal truncation. Various methods for identifying damage based on de-
composing the flexibility reflect the internal relationship between changes in flexibility and
structural damage from different sides. Through use of the DLV method, it was found that
when certain single-value vectors of the matrix of the differences in flexibility are applied
to an undamaged structure, the internal force of the damaged element is 0. Through use of
the FDP method, it was found that the number of elements with structural damage can
be determined from the rank of the matrix of the differences in flexibility. The three-stage
strategy of first determining the number of damaged units, then determining the location
of damage, and finally solving the degree of damage, is helpful for improving the accuracy
and efficiency of assessments of damage. A static test can make up for the deficiencies
of dynamic tests, so methods for identifying damage based on static flexibility have also
been widely used in engineering practice. However, static experiments usually need to
interrupt the normal use of the structure, which is not conducive to online monitoring of
its health. In contrast, dynamic testing using environmental excitation does not usually
interfere with the normal use of the structure. Combining flexibility methods with other
methods, such as intelligent optimization algorithms, is helpful for improving the accuracy
and reliability of assessments of damage. However, intelligent optimization algorithms
generally need a large amount of calculation, which is not conducive to assessing damage
to large-scale structures.
The directions of future research into flexibility-based methods for assessing damage
mainly include the following: (1) developing more advanced experimental flexibility anal-
ysis techniques, such as machine vision displacement measurement and laser vibration
measurement, to obtain structural flexibility more quickly and accurately, (2) developing
more sensitive flexibility-derived indicators to evaluate minor damage (where the parame-
ter of damage is less than 10%), (3) improving the anti-noise ability of the flexibility-based
methods, which can be realized by using the experimental data of the damaged structure
only, (4) improving the computational efficiency of biomimetic intelligent optimization al-
gorithms for application in identifying damage to large-scale structures, and (5) developing
nonlinear flexibility methods for analyzing the nonlinear responses caused by relatively
extensive structural damage.

Funding: This work is supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (52008215, 52192663), the
Chongqing Transportation Science and Technology Project (Grant No. 2022-01), the Zhejiang public
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 21 of 25

welfare technology application research project (LGF22E080021), and the major special science and
technology project (2019B10076) of “Ningbo science and technology innovation 2025”.
Conflicts of Interest: Xi Peng was employed by the company Ningbo Roaby Technology Industrial
Group Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Ciang, C.C.; Lee, J.R.; Bang, H.J. Structural health monitoring for a wind turbine system: A review of damage detection methods.
Meas. Sci. Technol. 2008, 19, 122001. [CrossRef]
2. Li, D.; Ho, S.C.M.; Song, G.; Ren, L.; Li, H. A review of damage detection methods for wind turbine blades. Smart Mater. Struct.
2015, 24, 033001. [CrossRef]
3. Das, S.; Saha, P.; Patro, S.K. Vibration-based damage detection techniques used for health monitoring of structures: A review. J.
Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2016, 6, 477–507. [CrossRef]
4. Moughty, J.J.; Casas, J.R. A state of the art review of modal-based damage detection in bridges: Development, challenges, and
solutions. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 510. [CrossRef]
5. Feng, D.; Feng, M.Q. Computer vision for SHM of civil infrastructure: From dynamic response measurement to damage
detection–A review. Eng. Struct. 2018, 156, 105–117. [CrossRef]
6. Du, Y.; Zhou, S.; Jing, X.; Peng, Y.; Wu, H.; Kwok, N. Damage detection techniques for wind turbine blades: A review. Mech. Syst.
Signal Process. 2020, 141, 106445. [CrossRef]
7. Sun, L.; Shang, Z.; Xia, Y.; Bhowmick, S.; Nagarajaiah, S. Review of bridge structural health monitoring aided by big data and
artificial intelligence: From condition assessment to damage detection. J. Struct. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020073. [CrossRef]
8. Azimi, M.; Eslamlou, A.D.; Pekcan, G. Data-driven structural health monitoring and damage detection through deep learning:
State-of-the-art review. Sensors 2020, 20, 2778. [CrossRef]
9. Avci, O.; Abdeljaber, O.; Kiranyaz, S.; Hussein, M.; Gabbouj, M.; Inman, D.J. A review of vibration-based damage detection in
civil structures: From traditional methods to Machine Learning and Deep Learning applications. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2021,
147, 107077. [CrossRef]
10. Peng, X.; Tian, C.; Yang, Q. Structural Damage Identification Using the Optimal Achievable Displacement Variation. Materials
2022, 15, 8440. [CrossRef]
11. Yang, Q.W.; Peng, X. A highly efficient method for structural model reduction. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 2023, 124, 513–533.
[CrossRef]
12. Doebling, S.W.; Farrar, C.R.; Prime, M.B.; Shevitz, D.W. Damage Identification and Health Monitoring of Structural and Mechanical
Systems from Changes in Their Vibration Characteristics: A Literature Review; Los Alamos National Laboratory: Los Alamos, NM,
USA, 1996.
13. Stutz, L.T.; Castello, D.A.; Rochinha, F.A. A flexibility-based continuum damage identification approach. J. Sound Vib. 2005,
279, 641–667. [CrossRef]
14. Pandey, A.K.; Biswas, M. Damage detection in structures using changes in flexibility. J. Sound Vib. 1994, 169, 3–17. [CrossRef]
15. Pandey, A.K.; Biswas, M. Experimental verification of flexibility difference method for locating damage in structures. J. Sound Vib.
1995, 184, 311–328. [CrossRef]
16. Meng, F.; Yu, J.; Ma, W. Cable damage detection of a suspension bridge in terms of dynamically measured flexibility matrix. J. Vib.
Shock 2019, 38, 267–275.
17. Xi, H.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, Y.; Li, X. Damage identification of crane girder based on diagonal element change of flexibility matrix. J.
Test Meas. Technol. 2020, 34, 208–214.
18. Wang, Q.; Zhu, R.; Wang, N.; Luo, M.; Che, Y. Damage detection of pile foundation in high-pile wharf based on modal flexibility.
Port Waterw. Eng. 2020, 10, 46–51.
19. Lu, J.; Qiao, L.; Zhang, C.; Li, Z.; Tian, Y. Research on damage identification of masonry pagodas based on modal flexibility
curvature. Chin. J. Comput. Mech. 2023. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/21.1373.o3.20230412.1046.004.html
(accessed on 13 April 2023).
20. Toksoy, T.; Aktan, A.E. Bridge-condition assessment by modal flexibility. Exp. Mech. 1994, 34, 271–278. [CrossRef]
21. Aktan, A.E.; Lee, K.L.; Chuntavan, C.; Aksel, T. Modal testing for structural identification and condition assessment of constructed
facilities. In Proceedings of the 12th International Modal Analysis Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 31 January–3 February 1994;
pp. 462–468.
22. Raghavendrachar, M.; Aktan, A.E. Flexibility by multireference impact testing for bridge diagnostics. J. Struct. Eng. 1992,
118, 2186–2203. [CrossRef]
23. Zhao, J.; DeWolf, J.T. Sensitivity study for vibrational parameters used in damage detection. J. Struct. Eng. 1999, 125, 410–416.
[CrossRef]
24. Ko, J.M.; Sun, Z.G.; Ni, Y.Q. Multi-stage identification scheme for detecting damage in cable-stayed Kap Shui Mun bridge. Eng.
Struct. 2002, 24, 857–868. [CrossRef]
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 22 of 25

25. Catbas, F.N.; Brown, D.L.; Aktan, A.E. Use of modal flexibility for damage detection and condition assessment: Case studies and
demonstrations on large structures. J. Struct. Eng. 2006, 132, 1699–1712. [CrossRef]
26. Tomaszewska, A. Influence of statistical errors on damage detection based on structural flexibility and mode shape curvature.
Comput. Struct. 2010, 88, 154–164. [CrossRef]
27. Koo, K.Y.; Sung, S.H.; Park, J.W.; Jung, H.J. Damage detection of shear buildings using deflections obtained by modal flexibility.
Smart Mater. Struct. 2010, 19, 115026. [CrossRef]
28. Sung, S.H.; Koo, K.Y.; Jung, H.J. Modal flexibility-based damage detection of cantilever beam-type structures using baseline
modification. J. Sound Vib. 2014, 333, 4123–4138. [CrossRef]
29. Hu, C.; Xiao, M.; Zhou, H.; Wen, W.; Yun, H. Damage detection of wood beams using the differences in local modal flexibility. J.
Wood Sci. 2011, 57, 479–483. [CrossRef]
30. Altunışık, A.C.; Okur, F.Y.; Karaca, S.; Kahya, V. Vibration-based damage detection in beam structures with multiple cracks:
Modal curvature vs. modal flexibility methods. Nondestruct. Test. Eval. 2019, 34, 33–53. [CrossRef]
31. Meng, F.; Yu, J.; Alaluf, D.; Mokrani, B.; Preumont, A. Modal flexibility based damage detection for suspension bridge hangers: A
numerical and experimental investigation. Smart Struct. Syst. 2019, 23, 15–29.
32. Wickramasinghe, W.R.; Thambiratnam, D.P.; Chan, T.H.T. Damage detection in a suspension bridge using modal flexibility
method. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2020, 107, 104194. [CrossRef]
33. Doebling, S.W.; Farrar, C.R. Computation of structural flexibility for bridge health monitoring using ambient modal data. In
Proceedings of the 11th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 20–22 May 1996; pp. 1114–1117.
34. Duan, Z.D.; Yan, G.R.; Ou, J.P.; Spencer, B.F. Damage localization in ambient vibration by constructing proportional flexibility
matrix. J. Sound Vib. 2005, 284, 455–466. [CrossRef]
35. Duan, Z.D.; Yan, G.R.; Ou, J.P.; Spencer, B.F. Damage detection in ambient vibration using proportional flexibility matrix with
incomplete measured DOFs. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2007, 14, 186–196. [CrossRef]
36. Zhang, Z.; Atkan, A.E. The damage indices for constructed facilities. In Proceedings of the 13th International Modal Analysis
Conference, Nashville, TN, USA, 13–16 February 1995; pp. 1520–1529.
37. Lu, Q.; Ren, G.; Zhao, Y. Multiple damage location with flexibility curvature and relative frequency change for beam structures. J.
Sound Vib. 2002, 253, 1101–1114. [CrossRef]
38. Zhang, J.; Xu, J.C.; Guo, S.L.; Wu, Z.S. Flexibility-based structural damage detection with unknown mass for IASC-ASCE
benchmark studies. Eng. Struct. 2013, 48, 486–496. [CrossRef]
39. Hsu, T.Y.; Shiao, S.Y.; Liao, W.I. Damage detection of rotating wind turbine blades using local flexibility method and long-gauge
fiber Bragg grating sensors. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2017, 29, 015108. [CrossRef]
40. Lee, E.T.; Eun, H.C. Damage detection approach based on the second derivative of flexibility estimated from incomplete mode
shape data. Appl. Math. Model. 2017, 44, 602–613. [CrossRef]
41. Bernagozzi, G.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Betti, R.; Landi, L.; Diotallevi, P.P. Output-only damage detection in buildings using
proportional modal flexibility-based deflections in unknown mass scenarios. Eng. Struct. 2018, 167, 549–566. [CrossRef]
42. Li, C.H.; Yang, Q.W.; Sun, B.X.; Liang, C.F. A Virtual Load Method for Damage Identification of Beam Structures. Recent Pat. Eng.
2018, 12, 117–126. [CrossRef]
43. Li, C.H.; Yang, Q.W.; Liang, C.F.; Lu, C. Study on damage assessment for beam type structures by virtual load method. J. Mech.
Strength 2019, 45, 1194–1200.
44. Liu, M.; Lv, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, F. Research on optimal placement of strain sensor and damage detection based on strain flexibility.
J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. 2019, 41, 99–108.
45. Tang, S.; Luo, C.; Fang, Z.; Su, B.; Zhang, X.; Chu, J. Structural damage identification method based on curvature norm difference
of modal flexibility matrix. Chin. J. Appl. Mech. 2020, 37, 982–989.
46. Tang, S.; Luo, C.; Fang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Chu, J. Influence of mode shape normalization on flexibility curvature damage index of
beam structure. Chin. J. Comput. Mech. 2020, 37, 340–348.
47. Li, G.; Luo, S.; Zhang, L. Damage diagnosis of modal flexibility based on degree of freedom reduction. Chin. Q. Mech. 2020,
41, 554–561.
48. Wang, X.; Zhao, Q. Analysis of damage identification of suspension bridges based on variation rate of flexibility curvature
difference. J. Lanzhou Inst. Technol. 2021, 28, 5–8.
49. He, W.Y.; Ren, W.X.; Cao, L.; Wang, Q. FEM free damage detection of beam structures using the deflections estimated by modal
flexibility matrix. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2021, 21, 2150128. [CrossRef]
50. Aulakh, D.S.; Bhalla, S. Piezo sensor based multiple damage detection under output only structural identification using strain
modal flexibility. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2023, 194, 110272. [CrossRef]
51. Liu, R. Damage identification method of variable cross-section continuous beam bridge based on flexibility curvature area
difference. J. Jiamusi Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2023, 41, 113–116.
52. Wu, D.; Law, S.S. Model error correction from truncated modal flexibility sensitivity and generic parameters. I: Simulation. Mech.
Syst. Signal Process. 2004, 18, 1381–1399. [CrossRef]
53. Wu, D.; Law, S.S. Eigen-parameter decomposition of element matrices for structural damage detection. Eng. Struct. 2007,
29, 519–528.
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 23 of 25

54. Yan, W.J.; Ren, W.X. Closed-form modal flexibility sensitivity and its application to structural damage detection without modal
truncation error. J. Vib. Control 2014, 20, 1816–1830. [CrossRef]
55. Sarmadi, H.; Entezami, A.; Ghalehnovi, M. On model-based damage detection by an enhanced sensitivity function of modal
flexibility and LSMR-Tikhonov method under incomplete noisy modal data. Eng. Comput. 2022, 38, 111–127. [CrossRef]
56. Yang, Q.W. A mixed sensitivity method for structural damage detection. Commun. Numer. Methods Eng. 2009, 25, 381–389.
[CrossRef]
57. Yang, Q.W. A flexibility-based method for structural damage identification using ambient modal data. Int. J. Space Struct. 2009,
24, 153–159. [CrossRef]
58. Li, J.; Wu, B.; Zeng, Q.C.; Lim, C.W. A generalized flexibility matrix based approach for structural damage detection. J. Sound Vib.
2010, 329, 4583–4587. [CrossRef]
59. Li, J.; Li, Z.; Zhong, H.; Wu, B. Structural damage detection using generalized flexibility matrix and changes in natural frequencies.
AIAA J. 2012, 50, 1072–1078. [CrossRef]
60. Katebi, L.; Tehranizadeh, M.; Mohammadgholibeyki, N. A generalized flexibility matrix-based model updating method for
damage detection of plane truss and frame structures. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2018, 8, 301–314. [CrossRef]
61. Liu, H.; Li, Z. An improved generalized flexibility matrix approach for structural damage detection. Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng. 2020,
28, 877–893. [CrossRef]
62. Liu, H.; Wu, B.; Li, Z. The generalized flexibility matrix method for structural damage detection with incomplete mode shape
data. Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng. 2021, 29, 2019–2039. [CrossRef]
63. Peng, X.; Yang, Q.W. Sensor placement and structural damage evaluation by improved generalized flexibility. IEEE Sens. J. 2021,
21, 11654–11664. [CrossRef]
64. Li, J.; Pang, D.; Zhang, J.; Du, G. Structural damage identification of beam bridges based on diagonal index of generalized
flexibility curvature matrix. J. Railw. Sci. Eng. 2022, 19, 722–732.
65. Hanumanthappa, S. A new structural damage detection method for cantilever beam using generalized flexibility quotient
difference method. J. Vib. Eng. Technol. 2023, 11, 1525–1533. [CrossRef]
66. Tang, G.; Wu, B.; Tang, P. Truss damage identification based on reciprocal variable and generalized flexibility matrix. Chin.
J. Appl. Mech. 2023. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail//61.1112.O3.20230223.1334.006.html (accessed on
23 February 2023).
67. Liu, Y.; Zhao, P.; Xu, T.; Liu, W.; Yao, L. Void damage identification of slab track based on generalized flexibility curvature
information entropy. Railw. Stand. Des. 2023. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2987.u.20230314.1441.018.
html (accessed on 15 March 2023).
68. Cao, S.S.; Yang, Q.W.; Peng, X. Structural Damage Identification Using the First-Order Vibration-Mode-Based Frequency-Shift
Flexibility Sensitivity Algorithm. Axioms 2023, 12, 551. [CrossRef]
69. Bernal, D. Load vectors for damage localization. J. Eng. Mech. 2002, 128, 7–14. [CrossRef]
70. Gao, Y. Structural Health Monitoring Strategies for Smart Sensor Networks; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Champaign,
IL, USA, 2005.
71. Spencer, B.F., Jr.; Nagayama, T. Smart sensor technology: A new paradigm for structural health monitoring. In Proceedings of the
Asia-Pacific Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Yokohama, Japan, 7–9 December 2006.
72. Bernal, D. Flexibility-based damage localization from stochastic realization results. J. Eng. Mech. 2006, 132, 651–658. [CrossRef]
73. Gao, Y.; Spencer, B.F.; Bernal, D. Experimental verification of the flexibility-based damage locating vector method. J. Eng. Mech.
2007, 133, 1043–1049. [CrossRef]
74. Bernal, D.; Gunes, B. Damage localization in output-only systems: A flexibility based approach. In Proceedings of the International
Modal Analysis Conference IMAC-XX, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 4–7 February 2002; pp. 1185–1191.
75. Gao, Y.; Spencer, B.F. Damage localization under ambient vibration using changes in flexibility. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. (Engl.
Version) 2002, 1, 136–144. [CrossRef]
76. Sim, S.H.; Spencer, B.F., Jr. Multi-scale smart sensing for monitoring civil infrastructure. In Proceedings of the World Forum on
Smart Materials and Smart Structures Technology, Chongqing/Nanjing, China, 22–27 May 2008.
77. Yang, Q.W.; Liu, J.K. Damage identification by the eigenparameter decomposition of structural flexibility change. Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 2009, 78, 444–459. [CrossRef]
78. Yang, Q.W. A new damage identification method based on structural flexibility disassembly. J. Vib. Control 2011, 17, 1000–1008.
[CrossRef]
79. Weng, S.; Zhu, H.P.; Xia, Y.; Mao, L. Damage detection using the eigenparameter decomposition of substructural flexibility matrix.
Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2013, 34, 19–38. [CrossRef]
80. Yang, Q.W.; Sun, B.X.; Lu, C. An improved spectral decomposition flexibility perturbation method for finite element model
updating. Adv. Mech. Eng. 2018, 10, 1687814018814920. [CrossRef]
81. Qi, X.; Yang, T.; Du, Y. Damage detection of composite beams based on proportional flexibility matrix. Compos. Sci. Eng. 2021,
3, 33–37.
82. Li, G.; Luo, S.; Su, R.; Wang, Z.; Wang, C. Research on Damage Diagnosis Based on Flexibility Matrix Decomposition. Appl. Math.
Mech. 2021, 42, 292–298.
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 24 of 25

83. Sun, Y.; Yang, Q.W.; Peng, X. Structural Damage Assessment Using Multiple-Stage Dynamic Flexibility Analysis. Aerospace 2022,
9, 295. [CrossRef]
84. Sanayei, M.; Scampoli, S.F. Structural element stiffness identification from static test data. J. Eng. Mech. 1991, 117, 1021–1036.
[CrossRef]
85. Sanayei, M.; Onipede, O. Damage assessment of structures using static test data. AIAA J. 1991, 29, 1174–1179. [CrossRef]
86. Banan, M.R.; Banna, M.R.; Hjelmstad, K.D. Parameter estimation of structures from static response, I: Computational aspects. J.
Struct. Eng. 1994, 120, 3243–3258. [CrossRef]
87. Banan, M.R.; Banna, M.R.; Hjelmstad, K.D. Parameter estimation of structures from static response, II: Numerical simulation
studies. J. Struct. Eng. 1994, 120, 3259–3283. [CrossRef]
88. Hjelmstad, K.D.; Shin, S. Damage detection and assessment of structures from static response. J. Eng. Mech. 1997, 123, 568–576.
[CrossRef]
89. Oh, B.H.; Jung, B.S. Structural damage assessment with combined data of static and modal tests. J. Struct. Eng. 1998, 124, 956–965.
[CrossRef]
90. Wang, X.; Hu, N.; Fukunaga, H.; Yao, Z.H. Structural damage identification using static test data and changes in frequencies. Eng.
Struct. 2001, 23, 610–621. [CrossRef]
91. Chou, J.H.; Ghaboussi, J. Genetic algorithm in structural damage detection. Comput. Struct. 2001, 79, 1335–1353. [CrossRef]
92. Hu, X.F.; Shenton, H.W., III. Structural damage identification using static dead load strain measurements. In Proceedings of the
15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, New York, NY, USA, 2–5 June 2002.
93. Jang, S.A.; Sim, S.H.; Spencer, B.F., Jr. Structural health monitoring using static strain. In Proceedings of the World Forum on
Smart Materials and Smart Structures Technology, Chongqing/Nanjing, China, 22–27 May 2008.
94. Bakhtiari-Nejad, F.; Rahai, A.; Esfandiari, A. A structural damage detection method using static noisy data. Eng. Struct. 2005,
27, 1784–1793. [CrossRef]
95. Yang, Q.W.; Sun, B.X. Structural damage localization and quantification using static test data. Struct. Health Monit. 2011,
10, 381–389. [CrossRef]
96. Chen, X.Z.; Zhu, H.P.; Chen, C.Y. Structural damage identification using test static data based on grey system theory. J. Zhejiang
Univ. Sci. A 2005, 6, 790–796. [CrossRef]
97. Kouchmeshky, B.; Aquino, W.; Bongard, J.C.; Lipson, H. Co-evolutionary algorithm for structural damage identification using
minimal physical testing. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 2007, 69, 1085–1107. [CrossRef]
98. Zhao, L.; Shenton, H.W., III. Structural damage detection using best approximated dead load redistribution. Struct. Health Monit.
2005, 4, 319–339. [CrossRef]
99. Ma, Q.; Solís, M.; Galvín, P. Wavelet analysis of static deflections for multiple damage identification in beams. Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 2021, 147, 107103. [CrossRef]
100. Fang, R.; Wu, Y.; Wei, W.; Na, L.; Biao, Q.; Jiang, P.; Yang, Q. An improved static residual force algorithm and its application in
cable damage identification for cable-stayed bridges. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2945. [CrossRef]
101. Peng, X.; Yang, Q.W. Damage detection in beam-like structures using static shear energy redistribution. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
2022, 16, 1552–1564. [CrossRef]
102. Xiao, F.; Meng, X.; Zhu, W.; Chen, G.S.; Yan, Y. Combined joint and member damage identification of semi-rigid frames with
slender beams considering shear deformation. Buildings 2023, 13, 1631. [CrossRef]
103. Yang, Q.W.; Peng, X. A Fast Calculation Method for Sensitivity Analysis Using Matrix Decomposition Technique. Axioms 2023, 12,
179. [CrossRef]
104. Yang, Q.W.; Qin, F.J.; Peng, X. Structural Fault Diagnosis Based on Static and Dynamic Response Parameters. Coatings 2023,
13, 920. [CrossRef]
105. Yan, A.; Golinval, J.C. Structural damage localization by combining flexibility and stiffness methods. Eng. Struct. 2005,
27, 1752–1761. [CrossRef]
106. Jaishi, B.; Ren, W.X. Structural finite element model updating using ambient vibration test results. J. Struct. Eng. 2005, 131, 617–628.
[CrossRef]
107. Grande, E.; Imbimbo, M. A multi-stage approach for damage detection in structural systems based on flexibility. Mech. Syst.
Signal Process. 2016, 76, 455–475. [CrossRef]
108. Yan, T.; Zhou, G.; Wu, Z.; Wang, W. Research on structural damage identification of the offshore platform based on modal
flexibility and FEM updating. J. Mach. Des. 2021, 38, 14–21.
109. Hakim, S.J.S.; Razak, H.A. Modal parameters based structural damage detection using artificial neural networks-a review. Smart
Struct. Syst. 2014, 14, 159–189. [CrossRef]
110. Gomes, G.F.; Mendéz, Y.A.D.; Alexandrino, P.D.S.L.; da Cunha, S.S., Jr.; Ancelotti, A.C., Jr. The use of intelligent computational
tools for damage detection and identification with an emphasis on composites—A review. Compos. Struct. 2018, 196, 44–54.
[CrossRef]
111. Gomes, G.F.; Mendez, Y.A.D.; da Silva Lopes Alexandrino, P.; da Cunha, S.S.; Ancelotti, A.C. A review of vibration based inverse
methods for damage detection and identification in mechanical structures using optimization algorithms and ANN. Arch. Comput.
Methods Eng. 2019, 26, 883–897. [CrossRef]
Coatings 2024, 14, 31 25 of 25

112. Das, M.; Sahu, S.; Parhi, D.R. Composite materials and their damage detection using AI techniques for aerospace application: A
brief review. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 44, 955–960. [CrossRef]
113. Perera, R.; Ruiz, A.; Manzano, C. An evolutionary multiobjective framework for structural damage localization and quantification.
Eng. Struct. 2007, 29, 2540–2550. [CrossRef]
114. Perera, R.; Ruiz, A. A multistage FE updating procedure for damage identification in large-scale structures based on multiobjective
evolutionary optimization. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2008, 22, 970–991. [CrossRef]
115. Na, C.; Kim, S.P.; Kwak, H.G. Structural damage evaluation using genetic algorithm. J. Sound Vib. 2011, 330, 2772–2783. [CrossRef]
116. Greco, A.; Pluchino, A.; Cannizzaro, F.; Caddemi, S.; Caliò, I. Closed-form solution based genetic algorithm software: Application
to multiple cracks detection on beam structures by static tests. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 64, 35–48. [CrossRef]
117. Aghaeidoost, V.; Afshar, S.; Tajaddod, N.Z.; Asgarian, B.; Shokrgozar, H.R. Damage detection in jacket-type offshore platforms
via generalized flexibility matrix and optimal genetic algorithm (GFM-OGA). Ocean Eng. 2023, 281, 114841. [CrossRef]
118. Liu, H.; Song, G.; Jiao, Y.; Zhang, P.; Wang, X. Damage Identification of Bridge Based on Modal Flexibility and Neural Network
Improved by Particle Swarm Optimization. Math. Probl. Eng. 2014, 2014, 640925. [CrossRef]
119. Amiri, G.G.; Hosseinzadeh, A.Z.; Razzaghi, S.A.S. Generalized flexibility-based model updating approach via democratic particle
swarm optimization algorithm for structural damage prognosis. Int. J. Optim. Civ. Eng. 2015, 5, 445–464.
120. Hosseinzadeh, A.Z.; Amiri, G.G.; Razzaghi, S.S.; Koo, K.Y.; Sung, S.H. Structural damage detection using sparse sensors
installation by optimization procedure based on the modal flexibility matrix. J. Sound Vib. 2016, 381, 65–82. [CrossRef]
121. Wei, Z.; Liu, J.; Lu, Z. Structural damage detection using improved particle swarm optimization. Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng. 2018,
26, 792–810. [CrossRef]
122. Nadjafi, S.; Ghodrati Amiri, G.; Zare Hosseinzadeh, A.; Seyed Razzaghi, S.A. An effective approach for damage identification in
beam-like structures based on modal flexibility curvature and particle swarm optimization. J. Rehabil. Civ. Eng. 2020, 8, 109–120.
123. Minh, H.L.; Khatir, S.; Rao, R.V.; Abdel Wahab, M.; Cuong-Le, T. A variable velocity strategy particle swarm optimization
algorithm (VVS-PSO) for damage assessment in structures. Eng. Comput. 2023, 39, 1055–1084. [CrossRef]
124. Daei, M.; Mirmohammadi, S.H. A flexibility method for structural damage identification using continuous ant colony optimization.
Multidiscip. Model. Mater. Struct. 2015, 11, 186–201. [CrossRef]
125. Majumdar, A.; Nanda, B. A comparative study on inverse vibration based damage assessment techniques in beam structure
using ant colony optimization and particle swarm optimization. Adv. Sci. Eng. Med. 2020, 12, 918–923. [CrossRef]
126. Yang, Y.; Cheng, X.; Zhu, Z.; Luo, J.; Huang, M. Two stage structural damage identification method based on improved whale
algorithm and modal flexibility. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2021, 38, 71–77.
127. Khatir, S.; Tiachacht, S.; Le Thanh, C.; Tran-Ngoc, H.; Mirjalili, S.; Wahab, M.A. A new robust flexibility index for structural
damage identification and quantification. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2021, 129, 105714. [CrossRef]
128. Kourehli, S.S. Damage quantification method using artificial neural network and static response with limited sensors. J. Vibroeng.
2015, 17, 1317–1325.
129. Tran-Ngoc, H.; Khatir, S.; De Roeck, G.; Bui-Tien, T.; Wahab, M.A. An efficient artificial neural network for damage detection in
bridges and beam-like structures by improving training parameters using cuckoo search algorithm. Eng. Struct. 2019, 199, 109637.
[CrossRef]
130. Ahmadi-Nedushan, B.; Fathnejat, H. A modified teaching–learning optimization algorithm for structural damage detection
using a novel damage index based on modal flexibility and strain energy under environmental variations. Eng. Comput. 2022,
38, 847–874. [CrossRef]
131. Mei, J.; Wu, L.; Chen, E.; Xiao, W.; Zhong, L.; Guo, J.; Li, W. A novel structural damage detection method using a hybrid IDE–BP
model. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2023, 273, 110606. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.