4.4 Article

Dynamics-based damage detection of composite laminated beams using contact and noncontact measurement systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS
卷 41, 期 10, 页码 1217-1252

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0021998306067306

关键词

damage detection; dynamic response; curvature mode shapes; scanning laser vibrometer; piezoelectric sensors; delamination; laminated beams

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A reliable and effective damage detection technique is one of the significant tools to maintain the safety and integrity of structures. A dynamic response offers viable information for the identification of damage in the structures. However, the performance of such dynamics-based damage detection depends on the quality of measured data and the effectiveness of data processing algorithms. In this article, the experimentally measured data of two sensor systems, i.e., a surface-bonded piezoelectric sensor system and a noncontact scanning laser vibrometer (SLV) system, are studied, and their effectiveness in damage identification of composite laminated beams is compared. Three dynamics-based damage detection algorithms are evaluated using the data acquired from these two measurement systems. The curvature mode shape is selected as a parameter to locate damage due to its sensitivity. The piezoelectric sensors directly acquire the curvature mode shapes of the structures, while the SLV measures the displacement mode shapes. The difference in the measurement characteristics of these systems and their influence in the damage identification performance are addressed. The beam specimens are made of E-glass/epoxy composites, and several different types of damages are introduced in the beams (i.e., delaminations, and impact and saw-cut damages). This study provides a thorough assessment of the two sensor systems in damage detection of composite laminated beams and verifies the validity of dynamics-based damage detection methodology in locating the local defects in composite structures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据