Performance of three transducer mounting methods in impedance-based structural health monitoring applications
Source abstract
Abstract
Piezoelectric transducers are widely used in many nondestructive methods for damage detection in structural health monitoring applications. Among the various methods for detecting damage, the electromechanical impedance technique is known for using thin and small piezoelectric ceramics operating simultaneously as actuators and sensors. The basic method of installing these piezoelectric ceramics in the host structure is using a high-stiffness adhesive such as epoxy or cyanoacrylate glue. However, some studies have proposed alternative methods of transducer mounting, therein aiming to reuse the transducer or allowing for the monitoring of structures under adverse conditions under which the direct installation of the sensor would not be possible. Thus, the objective of this study is to analyze and compare the performance of three main mounting methods for metal structures for applications based on the electromechanical impedance technique: magnetic mounting, metal-wire-based mounting, and conventional mounting using adhesives. Tests were conducted on aluminum beams, and the performances of the three transducer mounting methods were compared using basic damage indices and the pencil-lead-break test. The experimental results indicate that the mounting method has a significant effect on the frequency response and sensitivity for damage detection.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Smart Materials for Construction
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Engenharia, Bauru, Brasil
Funding
Fundação de Amparo 0à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1177/1045389X1664253410.1177/1045389X16642534 ↗
2. Annamdas VGM, Annamdas KK (2009) Different types of piezoceramic-structure interaction models using electro mechanical impedance technique: a review. In: Proceedings of the SPIE 7292, sensors and smart structures technologies for civil, mechanical, and aerospace systems, San Diego, CA, pp. 1–12. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.81749710.1117/12.817497 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.sna.2015.02.01810.1016/j.sna.2015.02.018 ↗
4. ASTM (2010) Standard Guide for Determining the Reproducibility of Acoustic Emission Sensor Response (ASTM standard E976-10). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/E0976-1010.1520/E0976-10 ↗
5. 10.1007/978-3-319-17843-1_1010.1007/978-3-319-17843-1_10 ↗
6. 10.1109/TIM.2009.201869310.1109/TIM.2009.2018693 ↗
7. 10.1109/JSEN.2010.204403710.1109/JSEN.2010.2044037 ↗
8. 10.1109/TUFFC.2010.149710.1109/TUFFC.2010.1497 ↗
9. 10.3390/s14010120810.3390/s140101208 ↗
10. 10.1109/JSEN.2010.209886510.1109/JSEN.2010.2098865 ↗
11. 10.1177/1045389X0810119610.1177/1045389X08101196 ↗
12. 10.1109/JSEN.2015.246159110.1109/JSEN.2015.2461591 ↗
13. 10.1177/147592171246116310.1177/1475921712461163 ↗
14. 10.1109/JSEN.2014.235217110.1109/JSEN.2014.2352171 ↗
15. Farrar CR · 2013
16. 10.1016/j.sna.2015.11.03110.1016/j.sna.2015.11.031 ↗
17. 10.1007/978-94-007-0723-8_13810.1007/978-94-007-0723-8_138 ↗
18. Kamas T · 2016
19. 10.1007/s40799-016-0097-610.1007/s40799-016-0097-6 ↗
20. 10.1177/1045389X1560440610.1177/1045389X15604406 ↗
21. 10.1177/1045389X940050010210.1177/1045389X9400500102 ↗
22. 10.1080/10589759.2015.105837610.1080/10589759.2015.1058376 ↗
23. 10.5028/jatm.v7i3.44710.5028/jatm.v7i3.447 ↗
24. Meitzler AH, Tiersten HF, Berlincourt D, et al. (1988) IEEE Standard on Piezoelectricity: An American National Standard (Standard 176). New York: IEEE-ANSI, 66 pp.
25. 10.1177/1045389X1452385810.1177/1045389X14523858 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.10.04610.1016/j.compstruct.2012.10.046 ↗
27. 10.1177/1045389X1244075410.1177/1045389X12440754 ↗
28. 10.1177/1045389X1664586610.1177/1045389X16645866 ↗
29. 10.1177/1045389X1559248010.1177/1045389X15592480 ↗
30. Ohtsu M, Enoki M, Mizutani Y, et al. (2016) Principles of the acoustic emission (AE) method and signal processing. In: Practical Acoustic Emission Testing. Tokyo, Japan: Springer, pp. 5–34. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55072-3_2.10.1007/978-4-431-55072-3_2 ↗
31. 10.1109/JSEN.2009.201835110.1109/JSEN.2009.2018351 ↗
32. 10.1177/0583102403035600110.1177/05831024030356001 ↗
33. 10.1177/1045389X1667273210.1177/1045389X16672732 ↗
34. 10.1007/s10921-015-0299-310.1007/s10921-015-0299-3 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.12.00310.1016/j.ymssp.2010.12.003 ↗
36. Waugh RC (2016) Non-destructive evaluation. In: Waugh RC (ed.) Development of Infrared Techniques for Practical Defect Identification in Bonded Joints (Springer theses). Cham: Springer, pp. 21–37. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22982-9_310.1007/978-3-319-22982-9_3 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.sna.2015.02.01710.1016/j.sna.2015.02.017 ↗