Y contain 50 , is assumed77 , the 3rd, the 7.85 ten kg/m , and 0.three, respectively.
Y include 50 , is assumed77 , the 3rd, the 7.85 10 kg/m , and 0.three, respectively. The damage situation 70 , 60 , that and 82 15th, 29th,stiffness. Plus the position of broken bars have already been markedand 82 residual residual 30th, and 48th bars respectively include 50 , 70 , 60 , 77 , with study circle in stiffness. 9. Figure And the position of broken bars have already been marked with study circle in Figure 9.Figure 9. Space truss and bars number. Figure 9. Space truss and bars number.four.two.2. Harm Identification In this section, taking into consideration the complexity with the space truss, the non-parameter Gaussian kernel regression model is adopted. The first frequency in the 51 virtual structures below actual harm circumstance, which is constructed by respectively adding 1.two kg virtual mass on every single bar, is chosen to optimize the harm variables. The results of OMP and IOMP method are shown in Table 3.Table 3. Identification results of space truss by OMP and IOMP technique.Form Broken substructures Residual stiffnessOMP [3, 29, 15, 30, 48, 1, 6] [49.87 , 60.44 , 69.40 , 79.06 , 80.59 , 93.01 , 92.81 ]IOMP [3, 29, 15, 30, 48] [49.92 , 60.50 , 69.50 , 79.09 , 80.62 ]As identified from Table three, the identification benefits of IOMP system is more accurate than OMP technique. Either the selected broken substructures or the residual stiffness of OMP process has additional error, which may well be caused by the complexity of space truss or the non-parameter regression model. 5. Verification of Frame Experiment 5.1. Model and Damage Scenario The experimental three-layer plane frame structure was produced of Q235 steel, shown in Figure 10a. Its elastic modulus was two.ten GPa, and its density was 7.85 103 kg/m3 . TheOMP technique has more error, which could be caused by the complexity of space truss or the non-parameter regression model. five. Verification of Frame ExperimentAppl. Sci. 2021, 11,five.1. Model and Damage Scenario15 ofThe experimental three-layer plane frame structure was GLPG-3221 Data Sheet created of Q235 steel, shown in Figure 10a. Its elastic modulus was 2.ten GPa, and its density was 7.85 ten kg/m . The height and span of every layer were identical, which is 0.3 m. The cross-section dimension height 0.005span 0.06 m. The frame contained nine substructures and 36 elements, with every and m of every single layer were identical, which can be 0.three m. The cross-section dimension is is 0.005 m 0.06 m. The frame contained nine substructures andin Figure 10b. with every substructure possessing four units. The finite element model is shown 36 elements, substructure possessing 4 units. The finite element model is shown in Figure 10b.SubstructureSubstructureSubstructureSubstructureSubstructure(a)Figure ten. Frame model. (a) (a) experimental picture;(b) FEM. Figure 10. Frame model. experimental image; (b) FEM.Substructure(b)The The experimental frame model harm wasachieved by MAC-VC-PABC-ST7612AA1 Protocol producingaa11cm deep, 1 experimental frame model damage was accomplished by making cm deep, 1 mm wide,1 cm1spacing incision on substructure two. Underthis situation, the stiffness mm wide, and and cm spacing incision on substructure 2. Below this situation, the stiffness of substructure 2 decreased by 33 , indicating that the harm factor was 0.67. In addition, an incision of 1.5 cm depth, 1 mm width, and 1 cm spacing was created on substructure 9. Its stiffness decreased by 50 , showing that the damage aspect was 0.5. In the course of the experimental tests, the load and structural acceleration responses had been measured. The expected equipment included a modal force hammer, acceleration se.