journal article·2016-05

A comparative numerical study between the adaptive finite-impulse-response and Fourier transform techniques to monitor structural integrity

Matthew J Lamb, Vincent Rouillard

Publisher page

Abstract

It is often desirable to describe the rate and manner in which structures deteriorate when subjected to random excitation. Oftentimes, structural deterioration is reflected by variations in the system’s stiffness or equivalently, natural frequency. This paper compares the performance of two continuous structural integrity assessment techniques in monitoring variations in the natural frequency of single degree-of-freedom systems when subjected to random loads. The first technique makes use of the Fourier transform and the second is an adaptive finite-impulse-response technique developed by the authors. The effectiveness and limitations of the techniques are evaluated using numerically simulated single degree-of-freedom vibratory systems subjected to random base excitation. The influence of damping, noise, and damage progression type (sudden and gradual) is evaluated and the results compared. The results show that, despite a greater sensitivity to noise and damping ratio, the digital finite-impulse-response technique is able to more precisely determine the natural frequency of the system and the time at which any changes occurred for a range of damage scenarios and extraneous noise levels when compared to the more conventional Fourier-based analysis techniques. This is significant as it allows for the accurate measurement of stiffness for systems that undergo rapid structural deterioration under random loading.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design · Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

College of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1111/j.1747-1567.2006.00086.x10.1111/j.1747-1567.2006.00086.x ↗
2. Bendat J · 2000
3. 10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.11.00510.1016/j.compstruc.2004.11.005 ↗
4. 10.1002/eqe.46010.1002/eqe.460 ↗
5. 10.1006/mssp.2000.132210.1006/mssp.2000.1322 ↗
6. Dieter G (1986) Engineering Design: A Materials and Processing Approach, First Metric ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 135.
7. 10.2172/24929910.2172/249299 ↗
8. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.7-8.15910.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.7-8.159 ↗
9. 10.1109/PROC.1978.1083710.1109/PROC.1978.10837 ↗
10. Haykin S (1996) Adaptive Filter Theory, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, pp. 432–439.
11. 10.1098/rspa.1998.019310.1098/rspa.1998.0193 ↗
12. 10.1006/jsvi.2002.513210.1006/jsvi.2002.5132 ↗
13. Lamb M · Journal of Vibrational Acoustics · 2012 · 134
14. Lamb MJ (2011) Monitoring the structural integrity of packaging materials subjected to sustained random loads . PhD Thesis, Victoria University, Australia.
15. Newland DE (1993) An Introduction to Random Vibrations, Spectral and Wavelet Analysis, 3rd ed. New York: Longman Scientific & Technical, pp. 137–295.
16. Norwood C and Wood L (1990) The use of vibration techniques in non-destructive testing. In: Australian vibration and noise conference , no. 90. Barton: Engineers Australia, pp. 270–275.
17. Randall RB · 1987
18. Rao S · 2005
19. Rouillard V, Sek M and Lamb M (2007) Monitoring fatigue progression in cushions subjected to random loads. In: Proceedings of the 5th Australasian congress on applied mechanics . Brisbane, Australia: Engineers Australia, pp. 331–336.
20. 10.1016/S0141-0296(96)00149-610.1016/S0141-0296(96)00149-6 ↗
21. Sek M (2007) Numerical simulation of impacts involving a collapsible nonlinear multilayer structure. In: Proceedings of the world conference on engineering , London, UK. Hong Kong: Newswood Limited, pp. 1367–1372.
22. 10.1016/S0142-1123(02)00140-810.1016/S0142-1123(02)00140-8 ↗
23. 10.1520/STP11739S10.1520/STP11739S ↗
24. Thrane N · 1984
25. 10.1115/1.325634110.1115/1.3256341 ↗