ArticleScientific reports2025
Structural damage detection using voting ensemble of fine-tuned convolutional neural networks and time-frequency images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigating the recorded response of a structure to dynamic loads is an efficient method for understanding and describing its current status. In the present paper, the ability of different Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) algorithms using time-frequency images and the performance of a voting ensemble of the models have been investigated in classifying various types of structural damage. The time-frequency images fed into CNNs were generated from acceleration responses obtained from undamaged and damaged conditions of experimental and real-world structures. The structural damages considered in the case studies encompassed various types, severities, and locations, highlighting the variation in the damaged conditions. The findings indicated that employment of a soft voting ensemble learning method, with an average prediction accuracy of 98.5%, Yielded appropriate outcomes. Moreover, in the evaluation of different CNN architectures assessed, DenseNet-based models exhibited superior performance in three distinct considered structures, while VGG-based models exhibited the highest performance across all CNNs in one specific case study focused on the location of damages, respectively. Additionally, an examination was carried out to evaluate the impact of factors that could influence the prediction accuracy of the algorithms. The results showed that increasing the duration of each acceleration record led to an improvement in the final accuracy by about 4% in the investigated structure. Furthermore, the usage of Bump mother wavelet gave rise to the highest performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.