Compensation of piezoceramic bonding layer degradation for structural health monitoring

Abstract

The compensation of the degradation of the bonding layer of piezoceramics used in structural health monitoring is addressed in this article. A simple admittance model is first used to measure and extract the variation of admittance parameters using the same acquisition chain which is used by the structural health monitoring system for damage monitoring. More precisely, the method uses measurable changes in physical transducer modal damping at frequencies around piezoceramic resonance to estimate the extent of degradation. Then, a finite element model is used to obtain calibration curves linking the variations in transducer modal damping to amplitude and phase of the ultrasonic signals generated or measured by the piezoceramics. Such calibration curves are obtained by simulating with the FEM the effect of varying the bonding layer coverage area and Young’s modulus on (a) admittance and (b) amplitude and phase of the ultrasonic signals. From this, a signal correction factor is developed for the dominant bonding layer coverage area degradation failure mode to compensate for the changes in amplitude and phase of guided waves generated and measured by degraded piezoceramic transducers. The measured modal damping determines the amount of bonding layer degradation from the simulated modal damping calibration curves and then the quantified bonding layer degradation amount selects the amplitude and phase correction to be applied to measured signals from the calibration curves. The benefits of the signal correction factor are demonstrated below piezoceramic resonance to improve damage imaging and localization using the Embedded Ultrasonic Structural Radar algorithm (delay and sum method) when a single transducer in a sparse array of transducers fixed to an aluminum plate is damaged due to the close proximity of drop-weight impacts. Up to a certain damage extent, the signal correction factor could allow an extension of the service life of the structural health monitoring system.

Keywords

Structural health monitoring bonding layer degradation impact damage damage imaging Embedded Ultrasonic Structural Radar

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Staszewski

Mahzan

Traynor

. Health monitoring of aerospace composite structures—active and passive approach. Compos Sci Technol 2009; 69(11–12): 1678–1685.

Giurgiutiu

Bao

. Embedded-ultrasonics structural radar for in situ structural health monitoring of thin-wall structures. Struct Health Monit 2004; 3(2): 121–140.

Quaegebeur

Masson

Langlois-Demers

. Dispersion-based imaging for structural health monitoring using sparse and compact arrays. Smart Mater Struct 2010; 20(1): 1–12.

Tomblin

Lacy

Smith

. Review of damage tolerance for composite sandwich airframe structures. Technical Report DOT/FAA/AR-99/49, August 1999. Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Research, Federal Aviation Administration.

Guida

Marulo

Meo

. Certification by birdstrike analysis on C27J fullscale ribless composite leading edge. Int J Impact Eng 2013; 54: 105–113.

Mulligan

Quaegebeur

Ostiguy

P-C

. Comparison of metrics to monitor and compensate for piezoceramic degradation in structural health monitoring. Struct Health Monit 2013; 12(2): 153–168.

Gupta

Iqbal

Sekhon

. Experimental and numerical studies on the behavior of thin aluminum plates subjected to impact by blunt- and hemispherical-nosed projectiles. Int J Impact Eng 2006; 32(1): 1921–1944.

Ostiguy

P-C

Quaegebeur

Mulligan

. In-situ mechanical characterization of isotropic structures using guided wave propagation. Smart Mater Struct 2012; 21(1): 1–9.

Mulligan

Quaegebeur

Masson

. Correction of data gathered by degraded transducers for damage prognosis in composite structures. In: Annual conference of the prognostics health management society, Minneapolis, MN, 23–27 September 2012.

10.

Friswell

Inman

. Sensor validation for smart structures. J Intel Mat Syst Str 2000; 10(1): 973–982.

11.

Lee

Sohn

. Piezoelectric transducer self-diagnosis under changing environmental and structural conditions. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr 2010; 57(9): 2017–2027.

12.

Park

Yun

C-B

. Sensor self-diagnosis using a modified impedance model for active sensing-based structural health monitoring. Struct Health Monit 2009; 8(1): 71–82.

13.

Tawie

Lee

. Piezoelectric-based non-destructive monitoring of hydration of reinforced concrete as an indicator of bond development at the steel-concrete interface. Cement Concrete Res 2010; 40(1): 1697–1703.

14.

Chan

Zhang

Qing

. Automatic sensor-fault detection system for comprehensive structural health monitoring system. In: Society for experimental mechanics, Portland, OR, 7–9 June 2005.

15.

Giurgiutiu

Zagrai

Bao

. Piezoelectric wafer embedded active sensors for aging aircraft structural health monitoring. Struct Health Monit 2002; 1(1): 41–61.

16.

Mason

(ed.). Electromechanical transducers and wave filters. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1948.

17.

Krimholtz

Leedom

Matthaei

. New equivalent circuits for elementary piezoelectric transducers. Electron Lett 1970; 6(1): 398–399.

18.

Desilets

Fraser

Kino

. The design of efficient broad-band piezoelectric transducers. IEEE T Son Ultrason 1978; 25(3): 115–125.

19.

Giurgiutiu

. Tuned Lamb wave excitation and detection with piezoelectric wafer active sensors for structural health monitoring. Struct Health Monit 2005; 16(4): 291–305.

20.

Mulligan

Ostiguy

P-C

Masson

. Assessment of PZT transducer bonding techniques under drop-weight impact loading in composites. In: Proceedings of SPIE, San Diego, CA, 6–10 March 2011.

21.

Galliot

Rousseau

Verchery

. Drop weight tensile impact testing of adhesively bonded carbon/epoxy laminate joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 2012; 35: 68–75.

22.

Islam

Chan

. Effect of drop impact energy on contact resistance of anisotropic conductive adhesive film joints. J Mater Res 2004; 19(6): 1662–1668.

23.

Sugaya

Obuchi

Chiaki

. Influences of loading rates on stress-strain relations of cured bulks of brittle and ductile adhesives. J Solid Mech Mater Eng 2011; 5(12): 921–928.

24.

Qing

Chan

H-L

Beard

. Effect of adhesive on the performance of piezoelectric elements used to monitor structural health. Int J Adhes Adhes 2006; 26(8): 622–628.

25.

Kim

Grisso

Kim

. Electrical modeling of piezoelectric ceramics for analysis and evaluation of sensory systems. In: IEEE sensors applications symposium, Atlanta, GA, 12–14 February 2008.

26.

Hosten

Castaings

. Finite elements methods for modeling the guided waves propagation in structures with weak interfaces. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 117(3): 1108–1113.

27.

Lee

Michaels

. In situ PZT diagnostics using linear reciprocity under environmental and structural variations. In: Proceedings of SPIE: health monitoring of structural and biological systems, Atlanta, GA, 12–16 May 2010.

28.

Raghavan

Cesnik

. Finite-dimensional piezoelectric transducer modeling for guided wave based structural health monitoring. Smart Mater Struct 2005; 14(6): 1448–1461.

29.

Matt

Bartoli

Salamone

. Automated damage detection in UAV wing skin-to-spar joints based on outlier analysis of guided wave energy. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European workshop on structural health monitoring, Granada, Spain, 5–7 July 2006.

30.

Giurgiutiu

Zagrai

. Damage detection in thin plates and aerospace structures with the electro-mechanical impedance method. Struct Health Monit 2005; 4(2): 99–118.

31.

Quaegebeur

Masson

Micheau

. Broadband generation of ultrasonic guided waves using sub-band decomposition. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr 2012; 59(5): 928–938.

32.

ASTM D7136/D7136M-07:2007. Standard test method for measuring the damage resistance of a fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite to a drop-weight impact event. American Society for Testing and Materials.