## 6 Numerical Simulation
### Simulation of the Cantilever Plate
Keeping the frequency range from 11 Hz to 240 Hz unchanged, the following three scenarios were simulated for Case 4 of the cantilever plate (adding 3% noise): (1) Taking points at equal intervals of 2 Hz for a total of 115 frequency points. (2) Taking points at equal intervals of 4 Hz for a total of 58 frequency points. (3) Taking points at equal intervals of 8 Hz for a total of 29 frequency points. The damage identification results are shown in Figure 23, and the target damage unit identification results are shown in Table 10. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Noise Level/\%**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Damage Unit Number/Degree of Damage\%**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **GA** & **RGA** & **INFO** \\ \hline
2 & 4/8.48\%, 7/13.16\%, 12/13.31\% & 4/8.62\%, 7/15.45\%, 12/11.67\% & 4/10.10\%, 7/15.71\%, 12/13.13\% \\
4 & 4/8.99\%, 7/10.78\%, 12/14.01\% & 4/8.68\%, 7/13.02\%, 12/13.06\% & 4/9.62\%, 7/14.43\%, 12/13.82\% \\
8 & 4/7.34\%, 7/10.89\%, 12/13.62\% & 4/7.21\%, 7/15.08\%, 12/11.90\% & 4/8.57\%, 7/15.68\%, 12/12.59\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Identification results for the target damage units of the cantilever plate with different frequency-point spacings (Case 4). Figure 22: Damage identification results for each plate unit under 10% noise (Case 4). From Figure 23, it can be observed that under the influence of the same noise, the three algorithms can identify the damage location of the cantilever plate for three kinds of taking-point spacings, and the three algorithms obtained slightly worse damage identification results for each plate unit at the 2 Hz spacing than the results of the aforementioned 1 Hz spacing (Figure 21), but there is no obvious advantage in comparison with the identification results obtained at the 4 Hz spacing, while identification results for the 4 Hz spacing are better than those for the 8 Hz spacing. Table 10 shows that under the influence of the same noise, when equally spaced at 2 Hz, the mean errors of the target damage units identified for the GA, RGA, and INFO are 17.34%, 16.08%, and 7.95%, while they are 19.26%, 17.67%, and 10.31% when equally spaced at 4 Hz, and 24.50%, 20.22%, and 13.55%, when equally spaced at 8 Hz, respectively. It can be seen that the identification accuracy of the three algorithms becomes lower and lower with the gradual increase in  
identification accuracy. Under various conditions without noise, the recognition accuracy of INFO is almost 100%, while the error of the GA is about 2% and the error of the RGA is about 1.5%. 2. Under the same case, as the noise level gradually increases, the accuracy of damage identification by the algorithms will gradually become lower. For INFO, under the influence of 1% and 3% noise levels, the identification error of the damage degree of the target unit is below 3% and 8%, while under the influence of a 10% noise level, the error is above 30%. 3. Within the same frequency range and with a gradual increase in the frequency-point spacing, the accuracy of the algorithm damage identification gradually decreases, but there is no significant increase in the error for the part of the identification results obtained after the increase in the spacing of the point spacing, and the error is still within an acceptable range. In conclusion, the INFO algorithm has emerged as a powerful tool for structural damage identification, offering a balance of accuracy, robustness, and efficiency. Its performance surpasses that of the RGA and the GA, making it a promising candidate for further research and practical implementation in structural health monitoring systems. Future work may focus on applying the INFO algorithm to more complex structures, exploring its scalability, and integrating it with other damage identification techniques to enhance its applicability in real-world scenarios. Conceptualization, J.M. and Z.Y. ; methodology, Z.Y. and J.M. ; software, Z.Y. and J.M. ; writing--review and editing, Z.Y., J.M. and Y.Q. ; supervision, J.M. and Y.Q.