<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>L.N. Virgin</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>M.D. Todd</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>J.D. Nichols</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>J.M. Nichols</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2003</dc:date>
  <dc:description>Recent works in the vibration-based structural health monitoring community have emphasised the use of correlation dimension as a discriminating statistic in seperating a damaged from undamaged response.  This paper explores the utility of attractor dimension as a 'feature' and offers some comparisons between different metrics reflecting dimension.  This focus is on evaluating the performance of two different measures of dimension as damage indicators in a structural health monitoring context.  Results indicate that the correlation dimension is probably a poor choice of statistic for the purpose of signal discrimination.  Other measures of dimension may be used for the same purposes with a higher degree of statistical reliability.  The question of competing methodologies is placed in a hypothesis testing framework and answered with experimental data taken from a cantilivered beam.</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1006/mssp.2002.1521</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:title>On the use of attractor dimension as a feature in structural health monitoring</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>