Comparative study of active and passive sensing with AE and PWAS transducers

Lingyu Yu; Victor Giurgiutiu; Jianguo Yu; Paul Ziehl; Liuxian Zhao

doi:10.1117/12.915670

4 April 2012 Comparative study of active and passive sensing with AE and PWAS transducers

Lingyu Yu, Victor Giurgiutiu, Jianguo Yu, Paul Ziehl, Liuxian Zhao

Proceedings Volume 8347, Nondestructive Characterization for Composite Materials, Aerospace Engineering, Civil Infrastructure, and Homeland Security 2012; 834720 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.915670
Event: SPIE Smart Structures and Materials + Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring, 2012, San Diego, California, United States

Abstract

Monitoring of fatigue cracking in bridges using a combined passive and active scheme has been approached by the authors. Passive Acoustic Emission (AE) monitoring has shown to be able to detect crack growth behavior by picking up the stress waves resulting from the breathing of cracks while active ultrasonic pulsing can quantitatively assess structural integrity by sensing out an interrogating pulse and receive the structural reflections from the discontinuity. In this paper, we present a comparative study of active and passive sensing with two types of transducers: (a) AE transducers, and (b) embeddable piezoelectric wafer active sensors (PWAS). The study was performed experimentally on steel plates. Both pristine and damaged (notched) conditions were considered. For active sensing, pitchcatch configuration was examined in which one transducer was the transmitter and another transducer acted as the receiver. The ping signal was generated by the AE hardware/software package AEwin. For passive sensing, 0.5-mm lead breaks were executed both on top and on the edge of the plate. The comparative nature of the study was achieved by having the AE and PWAS transducers placed on the same location but on the opposite sides of the plate. The paper presents the main findings of this study in terms of (a) signal strength; (b) signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio; (c) waveform clarity; (d) waveform Fourier spectrum contents and bandwidth; (e) capability to detect and localize AE source; (f) capability to detect and localize damage. The paper performs a critical discussion of the two sensing methodologies, conventional AE transducers vs. PWAS transducers.

Citation Download Citation

Lingyu Yu, Victor Giurgiutiu, Jianguo Yu, Paul Ziehl, and Liuxian Zhao "Comparative study of active and passive sensing with AE and PWAS transducers", Proc. SPIE 8347, Nondestructive Characterization for Composite Materials, Aerospace Engineering, Civil Infrastructure, and Homeland Security 2012, 834720 (4 April 2012); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.915670

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available