Damage identification of adhesive bonded structures based on ultrasonic guided waves and neural network
Source abstract
Abstract
Adhesive bonded structures are widely used in aerospace and other industries due to their lightweight and high-strength properties. However, interfacial debonding remains a critical failure mode that compromises structural integrity. Although ultrasonic guided waves can detect such damage, existing methods lack robust quantitative analysis capabilities. To address this limitation, we propose a deep neural network – based framework for precise debonding identification using guided wave signals. A validated finite element model generates training data covering various debonding scenarios, enabling the system to map wave signals to structural images. The results indicate that this method can accurately identify debonding damage, achieving an accuracy rate of 0.9977 on the test set. Upon verification, it has been confirmed that the maximum localisation error for debonding damage does not exceed 3.16 mm. Additionally, concerning size recognition, the Dice coefficient for circular debonding damage is found to be no less than 0.8950, while for rectangular debonding damage, it stands at no less than 0.7820. Tests on three adhesive structures confirm its diagnostic reliability, demonstrating significant progress in debonding identification for structural health monitoring.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Geophysical Methods and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Dalian University of Technology
Jiangnan University
Funding
National Key Research and Development Program of China · National Natural Science Foundation of China · Aeronautical Science Foundation of China
References (49)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/S0143-7496(00)00006-310.1016/S0143-7496(00)00006-3 ↗
2. 10.1016/B978-0-12-819954-1.00007-110.1016/B978-0-12-819954-1.00007-1 ↗
3. Ashforth C, Momm GG, Seneviratne W, et al. Aerospace structural bonding: qualification, quality control, substantiation, and risk mitigation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2023.
4. 10.1108/IJSI-11-2022-013510.1108/IJSI-11-2022-0135 ↗
5. 10.1080/00218464.2021.194190310.1080/00218464.2021.1941903 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ultras.2021.10642910.1016/j.ultras.2021.106429 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.ultras.2017.02.02010.1016/j.ultras.2017.02.020 ↗
8. 10.1080/10589759.2024.232414910.1080/10589759.2024.2324149 ↗
9. 10.1111/mice.1258010.1111/mice.12580 ↗
10. 10.1007/s11831-020-09471-910.1007/s11831-020-09471-9 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ultras.2023.10701410.1016/j.ultras.2023.107014 ↗
12. 10.1080/19475411.2022.205487810.1080/19475411.2022.2054878 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.10956210.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109562 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12974210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129742 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.10677810.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.106778 ↗
16. 10.1088/1361-665X/ac5a7710.1088/1361-665X/ac5a77 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.10999010.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109990 ↗
18. 10.1109/TIM.2021.312764110.1109/TIM.2021.3127641 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ultras.2021.10648610.1016/j.ultras.2021.106486 ↗
20. 10.1007/978-3-319-92810-410.1007/978-3-319-92810-4 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2022.10275310.1016/j.ndteint.2022.102753 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11657110.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116571 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.finel.2022.10389410.1016/j.finel.2022.103894 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.jsv.2023.11820210.1016/j.jsv.2023.118202 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2020.10267510.1016/j.ijadhadh.2020.102675 ↗
26. 10.1080/10589759.2022.213436510.1080/10589759.2022.2134365 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.11184010.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111840 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.optlastec.2023.10911910.1016/j.optlastec.2023.109119 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.11593010.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115930 ↗
30. 10.3390/math1119412710.3390/math11194127 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12443110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124431 ↗
32. 10.1080/10589759.2023.227401910.1080/10589759.2023.2274019 ↗
33. Huang X, Qu W, Xiao L, et al. A subharmonic modulation-based approach for debonding damage detection of composite stiffened plates. Nondestr Test Eval. 2023;1–30.
34. 10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2023.10454110.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2023.104541 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.infrared.2024.10524110.1016/j.infrared.2024.105241 ↗
36. 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.336296510.1109/ACCESS.2024.3362965 ↗
37. 10.1115/1.406461210.1115/1.4064612 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.01.00510.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.01.005 ↗
39. 10.1088/1361-665X/ad38a010.1088/1361-665X/ad38a0 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2021.10254310.1016/j.ndteint.2021.102543 ↗
41. 10.1088/0964-1726/25/5/05300110.1088/0964-1726/25/5/053001 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.ultras.2023.10714410.1016/j.ultras.2023.107144 ↗
43. Yacoubi A, Jabiri A, Azkour M, et al. Wavelet analysis of ultrasonic lamb wave displacements in three-layer adhesive plates: continuous wavelet transform (cwt) versus the semi-analytical finite element method (safem). Eng Trans. 2024;72(2):203–224.
44. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2025.11278510.1016/j.ymssp.2025.112785 ↗
45. 10.1109/CVPR.2016.9010.1109/CVPR.2016.90 ↗
46. Kingma DP, Ba JL. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In: International Conference on Learning Representations, San Diego; 2015.
47. Loshchilov I, Hutter F. SGDR: stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. In: International Conference on Learning Representations, Toulon; 2017.
48. 10.1088/0964-1726/23/7/07500710.1088/0964-1726/23/7/075007 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11242010.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112420 ↗