The structure of a high-performance engine is becoming more and more complex, so it is very important to accurately and quickly locate the faults to ensure its operation safety. The acoustic emission (AE) signal which is caused by the structural damage of engines contains important structural integrity information; however, the accuracy of existing AE location methods is affected by complex structures, such as stiffeners, holes, variable wall thickness, and interface coupling. Therefore, this paper proposes a new AE source location method that combines the two-step Akaike information criterion (AIC) based on the dispersion curve and the time difference matrix (TDM). This method can precisely locate the faults of complex structures without considering the wave velocity. Through theoretical calculation and numerical simulation, this paper intends to show that the proposed method is superior to the traditional AIC and can track the arrival time of the AE signal more accurately. In addition, experiments on different structures illustrate that the proposed method has higher location accuracy in complex structures. This paper also analyzes the location sensitivity to the number and array of sensors in a complex structure and puts forward an optimal scheme of sensor layout on the condition of high location accuracy. The results show that the proposed method can be used as a reliable tool for AE source location and fault monitoring of complex structures. It will have a wide application prospect in the engine and other fields.
LiHWuZXueK, et al. Research on aero-engine bearing fault using acoustic emission technique based on wavelet packet decomposition and support vector machine. In: 2nd IEEE advanced information technology, electronic and automation control conference, 25-26 March 2017, pp. 1444–1448. New York: IEEE.
2.
FuTZhangZLiuY, et al. Development of an artificial neural network for source localization using a fiber optic acoustic emission sensor array. Struct Health Monit2015; 14(2): 168–177.
3.
PolimenoUMeoMAlmondDP. Smart nonlinear acoustic based structural health monitoring system. Adv Sci Technology2008; 56: 426–434.
4.
NiriEDFarhidzadehASalamoneS. Determination of the probability zone for acoustic emission source location in cylindrical shell structures. Mech Syst Signal Pr2015; 60–61: 971–985.
5.
LiRHeD. Rotational machine health monitoring and fault detection using EMD-based acoustic emission feature quantification. IEEE T Instrum Meas2012; 61(4): 990–1001.
6.
ZhouJMathewsVJAdamsDO. Acoustic emission-based impact location estimation on composite structures. Struct Health Monit2019; 18(5–6): 1652–1668.
7.
MichalcovaLBelskyPPetrusovaL. Composite panel structural health monitoring and failure analysis under compression using acoustic emission. J Civ Struct Health2018; 8(4): 607–615.
8.
MccroryJPPearsonMRPullinR, et al. Optimisation of acoustic emission wavestreaming for structural health monitoring. Struct Health Monit2020; 19(6): 2007–2022.
9.
TobiasA. Acoustic-emission source location in two dimensions by an array of three sensors. Non-Destructive Test1976; 9(1): 9–12.
NiriEDFarhidzadehASalamoneS. Adaptive multisensor data fusion for acoustic emission source localization in noisy environment. Struct Health Monit2013; 12(1): 59–77.
12.
MostafapourADavoodiSGhareaghajiM. Acoustic emission source location in plates using wavelet analysis and cross time frequency spectrum. Ultrasonics2014; 54(8): 2055–2062.
13.
NuceraCWhiteSChenZM, et al. Impact monitoring in stiffened composite aerospace panels by wave propagation. Struct Health Monit2015; 14(6): 547–557.
14.
JiaoJPHeCFWuB, et al. Application of wavelet transform on modal acoustic emission source location in thin plates with one sensor. Int J Pres Ves Pip2004; 81(5): 427–431.
JiangYXuFXuB. Acoustic emission tomography based on simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique to visualize the damage source location in Q235B steel plate. Mech Syst Signal Pr2015; 64–65: 452–464.
17.
JonesMRRogersTJWordenK, et al. A Bayesian methodology for localising acoustic emission sources in complex structures. Mech Syst Signal Pr2022; 163(1): 108143.
18.
MclaskeyGCGlaserSDGrosseCU. Beamforming array techniques for acoustic emission monitoring of large concrete structures. J Sound Vib2010; 329(12): 2384–2394.
19.
XiaoPHuQTaoQ, et al. Acoustic emission location method for quasi-cylindrical structure with complex hole. IEEE ACCESS2020; PP(99): 1–1.
20.
ZhouZRuiYCaiX, et al. A closed-form method of acoustic emission source location for velocity-free system using complete TDOA measurements. Sensors-Basel2020; 20(12): 3553.
21.
ScholeyJJWilcoxPDLeeCK, et al. Acoustic emission in wide composite specimens. Adv Mater Res2006; 13–14: 325–332.
22.
KalafatSSauseMGR. Acoustic emission source localization by artificial neural networks. Struct Health Monit2015; 14(6): 633–647.
23.
SedlakPHiroseYEnokiM. Acoustic emission localization in thin multi-layer plates using first-arrival determination. Mech Syst Signal Pr2013; 36(2): 636–649.
24.
SvitekTRudajevVPetruzalekM. Determination of P-wave arrival time of acoustic events. Acta Montan Slovaca2010; 15(2): 145–151.
25.
BaiFGagarDFooteP, et al. Comparison of alternatives to amplitude thresholding for onset detection of acoustic emission signals. Mech Syst Signal Pr2017; 84: 717–730.
26.
LeonardM. Comparison of manual and automatic onset time picking. Bull Seismological Soc America2000; 90(6): 1384–1390.
27.
LokajicekTKlimaK. A first arrival identification system of acoustic emission (AE) signals by means of a high-order statistics approach. Meas Sci Technol2006; 17(9): 2461–2466.
28.
DaiHMacBethC. Automatic picking of seismic arrivals in local earthquake data using an artificial neural network. Geophys J Int1995; 120(3): 758–774.
29.
BaerMKradolferU. An automatic phase picker for local and teleseismic events. Bull Seismological Soc America1987; 77(4): 1437–1445.
30.
KurzJHGrosseCUReinhardtHW. Strategies for reliable automatic onset time picking of acoustic emissions and of ultrasound signals in concrete. Ultrasonics2005; 43(7): 538–546.
31.
ZhuZXiaoXWangW, et al. Development of ultrasonic guided wave testing system based on SB-RIO. Eng J Wuhan Univ2018; 51(10): 936–940.
32.
CarpinteriAXuJLacidognaG, et al. Reliable onset time determination and source location of acoustic emissions in concrete structures. Cement Concrete Comp2012; 34(4): 529–537.
33.
KitagawaGAkaikeKH. A procedure for the modeling of non-stationary time series. Ann Stat Math1978; 30(1): 351–363.
34.
MaedaN. A method for reading and checking phase time in auto-processing system of seismic wave data. Zisin (Journal of the Seismological Society of Japan. 2nd ser) 1985; 38(3): 365–379.
35.
AllenR. Automatic phase pickers: their present use and future prospects. Bull Seismological Soc America1982; 72(6): S225–S242.
36.
BaxterMGPullinRHolfordKM, et al. Delta T source location for acoustic emission. Mech Syst Signal Pr2007; 21(3): 1512–1520.
37.
DuDJiaXWangZ. Fault model identification method for aero engines based on fault color picture. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Syst2018; 24(9): 2297–2305.
38.
HanCYangGWangJ, et al. The research on propagation characteristics of acoustic emission signals in stiffened plates based on the multipath propagation model. Ultrasonics2020; 108: 106–177.
39.
DemmaACawleyPLoweM, et al. The reflection of guided waves from notches in pipes: a guide for interpreting corrosion measurements. Ndt E Int2004; 37(3): 167–180.
40.
MoserFJacobsLJQuJ. Modeling elastic wave propagation in waveguides with the finite element method. Ndt E Int1999; 32(4): 225–234.
41.
WangCAuYHJLiL, et al. Guided wave mode dispersion of transient acoustic emission on copper pipes-Its visualisation and application to source location. Mech Syst Signal Pr2016; 70–71: 881–890.
