In this article, a novel methodology for damage localization is introduced. The approach is based on a multiactuator system. This means that the system itself has the ability of both exciting the specimen and measuring its response at different points in a pitch-catch mode. Once one of its actuators excites the specimen, the damage affects the normal travel of the guided wave, and this change is mainly detected by sensors in the direct route to the excitation point. In previous works by the authors, it can be observed that the progression using data-driven statistical models (multivariable analysis based on principal component analysis) of all recorded signals to determine whether the damage is present. However, the main contribution of this article is the demonstration of the possibility of localizing damages by analyzing the contribution of each sensor to this index which have detected it (T2-statistic and Q-statistic). The proposed methodology has been applied and validated on an aircraft turbine blade. The results indicate that the presented methodology is able to accurately locate damages, analyzing the record signals from all actuation phases and giving a unique and reliable region.
FarrarCRWordenK.An introduction to structural health monitoring. Philos T R Soc A2007; 365(1851): 303–315.
2.
SuZYeL.Identification of damage using lamb waves (lecture notes in applied and computational mechanics). London: Springer-Verlag, 2009.
3.
WoldSGeladiPEsbensenKet al. Multi-way principal component and PLS-analysis. J Chemometr1987; 1: 41–56.
4.
NomikosPMacGregorJF.Monitoring batch processes using multiway principal component analysis. AIChE J1994; 40(8): 1361–1375.
5.
KourtiT.Process analysis and abnormal situation detection: from theory to practice. IEEE Contr Syst Mag2002; 22(5): 10–25.
6.
MujicaLRodellarJFernándezAet al. Q-statistic and T2-statistic PCA-based measures for damage assessment in structures. Struct Health Monit2011; 10(5): 539–553.
7.
RuizMMujicaLEBerjagaXet al. Partial least square/projection to latent structures (pls) regression to estimate impact localization in structures. Smart Mater Struct2013; 22(2): 025028.
8.
MujicaLERuizMPozoFet al. A structural damage detection indicator based on principal component analysis and statistical hypothesis testing. Smart Mater Struct2014; 23(2): 025014.
9.
MujicaLERodellarJVehJ.A review of impact damage detection in structures using strain data. Int J COMADEM2010; 13(1): 3–18.
10.
ParkKDarsonoDTorbolM.Damage localization using modal submatrix scaling factor and neural network. In: Proceedings of 8th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring (EWSHM 2016), Bilbao, 5–8 July 2016. Bad Breisig: NDT.net.
11.
LimongelliMPMorassiA.Experimental verification of the interpolation method on a real damaged bridge. J Phys Conf Ser2015; 628(1): 012045.
12.
WangXTsePWMechefskeCKet al. Experimental investigation of reflection in guided wave-based inspection for the characterization of pipeline defects. NDT & E Int2010; 43(4): 365–374.
13.
JiaoJPDrinkwaterBWNeildSAet al. Low-frequency vibration modulation of guided waves to image nonlinear scatterers for structural health monitoring. Smart Mater Struct2009; 18(6): 065006.
14.
MichaelsJEMichaelsTE.Guided wave signal processing and image fusion for in situ damage localization in plates. Wave Motion2007; 44(6): 482–492.
15.
LiBLiuYGongKet al. Damage localization in composite laminates based on a quantitative expression of anisotropic wavefront. Smart Mater Struct2013; 22(6): 065005.
16.
DaiDHeQ.Structure damage localization with ultrasonic guided waves based on a time–frequency method. Signal Process2014; 96(Part A): 21–28.
17.
WangCSWuFChangFK.Structural health monitoring from fiber-reinforced composites to steel-reinforced concrete. Smart Mater Struct2001; 10(3): 548.
18.
OstachowiczWKudelaPMalinowskiPet al. Damage localisation in plate-like structures based on PZT sensors. Mech Syst Signal Pr2009; 23(6): 1805–1829.
19.
FlynnEBToddMDWilcoxPDet al. Maximum-likelihood estimation of damage location in guided-wave structural health monitoring. P R Soc Lond A: Mat2011; 467(2133): 2575–2596.
20.
MollJ.Guided wave-based damage localization in isotropic structures with smoothly varying thickness. In: Proceedings of 8th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring (EWSHM 2016), Bilbao, 5–8 July 2016. Bad Breisig: NDT.net
21.
MollJSchulteRTHartmannBet al. Multi-site damage localization in anisotropic plate-like structures using an active guided wave structural health monitoring system. Smart Mater Struct2010; 19(4): 045022.
22.
MollJTorres-ArredondoMAFritzenCP.Computational aspects of guided wave based damage localization algorithms in flat anisotropic structures. Smart Struct Syst2012; 10(3): 229–251.
23.
BhuyanMDHDöhlerMMevelL.Statistical damage localization with stochastic load vectors using multiple mode sets. In: Proceedings of 8th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring (EWSHM 2016), Bilbao, 5–8 July 2016. Bad Breisig: NDT.net.
24.
JohansenJUlriksenMDamkildeL.DELORES: a system for detection and localization of structural damages. In: Proceedings of 8th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring (EWSHM 2016), Bilbao, 5–8 July 2016. Bad Breisig: NDT.net.
25.
KopsaftopoulosFFassoisS.A functional model based statistical time series method for vibration based damage detection, localization, and magnitude estimation. Mech Syst Signal Pr2013; 39(1): 143–161.
26.
SakarisCSSakellariouJSFassoisSD.Vibration-based damage precise localization in three-dimensional structures: single versus multiple response measurements. Struct Health Monit2015; 14(3): 300–314.
27.
EreminAGlushkovEGlushkovaNet al. Analytically based time-reversal technique for damage localization and characterization in laminate composite structures. In: Proceedings of 8th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring (EWSHM 2016), Bilbao, 5–8 July 2016. Bad Breisig: NDT.net.
28.
LiuKMaSWuZet al. A novel probability-based diagnostic imaging with weight compensation for damage localization using guided waves. Struct Health Monit2016; 15(2): 162–173.
29.
KosanovichKPiovosoMDahlKet al. Multi-way PCA applied to an industrial batch process. In: Proceedings of American control conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, 29 June–1 July 1994. New York: IEEE.
30.
DuchesneCKourtiTMacGregorJF (eds.). Multivariate monitoring of startups, restarts and grade transitions using projection methods. In: Proceedings of American control conference, Denver, CO, USA, 4–6 June 2003. New York: IEEE.
31.
WesterhuisJAKourtiTMacGregorJF.Comparing alternative approaches for multivariate statistical analysis of batch process data. J Chemometr1999; 13: 397–413.
32.
ChambersJM.Computational methods for data analysis/John M. Chambers. New York: Wiley, 1977.
33.
HotellingH.Analysis of a complex of statistical variables with principal components. J Educ Psychol1933; 24: 417–441.
34.
WilkinsonJH.The algebraic eigenvalue problem (monographs on numerical analysis). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
35.
WoldH.Estimation of principal components and related models by iterative least squares. In: KrishnaiahKR (ed.) Multivariate analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1966, pp. 391–420.
36.
JolliffeIT.Principal component analysis (Springer series in statistics). New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
37.
QinSJ.Statistical process monitoring: basics and beyond. J Chemometr2003; 17(8–9): 480–502.
38.
WiseBMGallagherNBWattsSet al. A comparison of PCA, multiway PCA, trilinear decomposition and parallel factor analysis for fault detection in a semiconductor etch process. J Chemometr1999; 13: 379–396.
39.
MillerPSwansonRHecklerC.Contribution plots: a missing link in multivariate quality control. Appl Math Comp Sci1998; 8(4): 775–792.
40.
KourtiTMacGregorJF.Multivariate SPC methods for process and product monitoring. J Qual Technol1996; 28: 409–428.
