Physics-Informed Framework for Impact Identification in Aerospace Composites
Organizations: Engineering Technology Faculty, Department of Mechanics of Solids, Surfaces and Systems, Dynamics Based Maintenance (DBM) Group, University of Twente (UT), Enschede, NL · Department of Aerospace Vehicles Integrity and Life Cycle Support (AVIL), Royal Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR), Marknesse, NL
Abstract
This paper introduces a novel physics-informed impact identification (Phy-ID) framework. The proposed method integrates observational, inductive, and learning biases to combine physical knowledge with data-driven inference in a unified modelling strategy, achieving physically consistent and numerically stable impact identification. The physics-informed approach structures the input space using physics-based energy indicators, constrains admissible solutions via architectural design, and enforces governing relations via hybrid loss formulations. Together, these mechanisms limit non-physical solutions and stabilise inference under degraded measurement conditions. A disjoint inference formulation is used as a representative use case to demonstrate the framework capabilities, in which impact velocity and impactor mass are inferred through decoupled surrogate models, and impact energy is computed by enforcing kinetic energy consistency. Experimental evaluations show mean absolute percentage errors below 8% for inferred impact velocity and impactor mass and below 10% for impact energy. Additional analyses confirm stable performance under reduced data availability and increased measurement noise, as well as generalisation for out-of-distribution cases across pristine and damaged regimes when damaged responses are included in training. These results indicate that the systematic integration of physics-informed biases enables reliable, physically consistent, and data-efficient impact identification, highlighting the potential of the approach for practical monitoring systems.
Figures & tables
| Parameter | Displacement network, | Mass network, |
|---|---|---|
| fully connected layer size, | 32, 64, 128, 256 | 16, 32, 64 |
| number of hidden layers, | 2, 3, 4 | 2, 3 |
| learning rate, | , | , |
| activation function | Sigmoid, Softplus, Tanh | Sigmoid, Softplus, Tanh |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Displacement network | |
| architecture | FCNN, 3 hidden layers of size 256, activation |
| output | impact velocity, |
| learning rate | |
| loss function | |
| weighting factors | , and |
| ID | Coordinates [mm] | |
|---|---|---|
| x | y | |
| PZT1 | 255 | 428 |
| PZT2 | 252 | 818 |
| PZT3 | 250 | 945 |
| PZT4 | 187 | 945 |
| PZT5 | 125 | 945 |
| Number of unique targets | 73 |
|---|---|
| Minimum energy [J] | 3.74 |
| Maximum energy [J] | 80.95 |
| Mean energy [J] | 35.92 |
| Median energy [J] | 29.83 |
| Standard deviation [J] | 24.04 |
| Case a,b | Description | Impact data | Training scenario | Samples | |
| Data avail. [%] | Noise [%] | Energy range c [J] | |||
| P1 | Predictive analytics | 100 | 1.0 | 4–80 | 146 |
| R1 | Data availability sweep | 25–100 | 0.0 | 4–80 | variable |
| R2 | Noise sweep | 100 | 0–5 | 4–80 | 73 |
| R3 | Combined availability and noise | 25–100 | 0–5 | 4–80 | variable |
| G1 | Out-of-distribution training ranges | 100 | 1.0 | variable | 146 |
| Domain | Group | ID | evaluation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | T1 | RMS | 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.57 | / |
| T2 | TE | 0.59 | 0.95 | 0.56 | / | |
| T3 | PA | 0.61 | 0.99 | 0.60 | / | |
| T4 | EPR | 0.61 | 0.95 | 0.58 | / | |
| T5 | RA | 0.34 | 0.80 | 0.28 | / | |
| Frequency | F1 | PCR | 0.34 | 0.81 | 0.28 | / |
| Criterion | Data-driven | Physics-based | Probabilistic | Physics-informed (Phy-ID) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Low–Medium ( Malekloo et al., 2021 ; Azimi et al., 2020 ; Jia and Li, 2023 ) | Low–Medium ( Kralovec and Schagerl, 2020 ; Fan et al., 2021 ) | Medium ( Blakseth et al., 2022 ; Arias Chao et al., 2022 ) | High |
| Robustness | Low ( Azimi et al., 2020 ; Nicassio et al., 2025 ) | Low–Medium ( Fan et al., 2021 ; Hassani et al., 2021 ) | Medium ( Blakseth et al., 2022 ; Arias Chao et al., 2022 ) | High |
| Generalisation | Low ( Azimi et al., 2020 ; Nicassio et al., 2025 ) | Low–Medium ( Fan et al., 2021 ; Malekloo et al., 2021 ) | Medium ( Blakseth et al., 2022 ; Arias Chao et al., 2022 ) | Medium |
| Interpretability | Low ( Azimi et al., 2020 ; Nicassio et al., 2025 ) | High ( Fan et al., 2021 ; Malekloo et al., 2021 ) | Low–Medium ( Blakseth et al., 2022 ; Arias Chao et al., 2022 ) | High |
Structural Health Monitoring
Structural Health Monitoring uses sensor data and computational models to detect, locate, and assess damage in infrastructure and engineered systems.
See all 80 papers