Adhesive joints are prone to various types of damage sources, which may not be identifiable with current non-destructive tests (NDTs). Structural health monitoring techniques, such as those based on electromechanical impedance spectroscopy (EMIS), aim to outperform NDTs in damage detection, by continuously monitoring structures. Although the EMIS-based algorithmic performance of damage detection has been evaluated on metallic and composite components, integrity monitoring of adhesive joints is yet to be fully determined. Therefore, this article investigates the use of multidimensional scaling (MDS) to cluster and visualize experimental impedance measurements of bonded joints in a three dimensional space. With these results, an Euclidean distance damage metric is used to try and classify the type of damage. The results show that damage detection is easily performed with the MDS algorithm, but effectiveness is dependent on the spectral measurement conditions. Furthermore, reduced dimensional spaces can yield information regarding the size and location of the damage in the adhesive layer, yielding increased knowledge on the integrity of structural adhesive joints.
GiurgiutiuV. Structural health monitoring with piezoelectric wafer active sensors. 2nd ed.Oxford, UK: Academic Press, 2014.
2.
GuemesAFernandez-LopezAPozoAR, et al. Structural health monitoring for advanced composite structures: a review. J Compos Sci2020; 4(1): 13.
3.
JuMDouZLiJW, et al. Piezoelectric materials and sensors for structural health monitoring: fundamental aspects, current status, and future perspectives. Sensors2023; 23(1): 543.
4.
TenreiroAFGLopesAMda SilvaLFM, et al. Effect of mechanical properties and geometric dimensions on electromechanical impedance signatures for adhesive joint integrity monitoring. Mech Adv Mater Struct2023; 30(7): 1437–1452.
5.
AnnamdasVGMYangY. Practical implementation of piezo-impedance sensors in monitoring of excavation support structures. Struct Control Health Monit2012; 19(2): 231–245.
6.
BorgesCSPAkhavan-SafarATsokanasP, et al. From fundamental concepts to recent developments in the adhesive bonding technology: a general view. Discover Mech Eng2023; 2(1): 8.
7.
TenreiroAFGLopesAMda SilvaLFM. A review of structural health monitoring of bonded structures using electromechanical impedance spectroscopy. Struct Health Monit2022; 21(2): 228–249.
8.
LiangCSunFPRogersCA.Coupled electro-mechanical analysis of adaptive material systems-determination of the actuator power consumption and system energy transfer. J Intell Mater Syst Struct1997; 8(4): 335–343.
9.
TenreiroAFGLopesAMDa SilvaLFMD. Damage metrics for void detection in adhesive single-lap joints. Mathematics2023; 11(19): 4127.
10.
KumariNMongaSArifM, et al. Higher permittivity of Nidoped lead zirconate titanate, Pb[(Zr0.52Ti0.48)(1−x) Nix]O3, ceramics. Ceramics Int2019; 45(4): 4398–4407.
11.
FarrarCRWordenK.Structural health monitoring: a machine learning perspective. Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2013.
12.
LoreiroVRamalhoGTenreiroA, et al. Feature extraction and visualization for damage detection on adhesive joints, utilizing lamb waves and supervised machine learning algorithms. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2022; 236(16): 8842–8855.
13.
GiurgiutiuVKropas-HughesCV. Comparative study of neural network damage detection from a statistical set of electro-mechanical impedance spectra. In: Proceedings Volume 5047, smart nondestructive evaluation and health monitoring of structural and biological systems II, volume 5047. San Diego, CA, USA, p. 108. SPIE.
14.
SelvaPCherrierOBudingerV, et al. Smart monitoring of aeronautical composites plates based on electromechanical impedance measurements and artificial neural networks. Eng Struct2013; 56: 794–804.
15.
De OliveiraMMonteiroAVieira FilhoJ. A new structural health monitoring strategy based on PZT sensors and convolutional neural network. Sensors2018; 18(9): 2955.
16.
HeCYangSLiuZ, et al. Damage localization and quantification of Truss structure based on electromechanical impedance technique and neural network. Shock Vibr2014; 2014: 1–9.
17.
ParkGRutherfordACSohnH, et al. An outlier analysis framework for impedance-based structural health monitoring. J Sound Vibr2005; 286(1–2): 229–250.
18.
RabieiMSheldonJPalmerC. An impedance-based approach for detection and quantification of damage in cracked plates and loose bolts in bridge structures. In: Proceedings Volume 8348, health monitoring of structural and biological systems 2012, volume 8348, San Diego, CA, USA, p. 834828. SPIE.
19.
GonsalezCGda SilvaSBrennanMJ, et al. Structural damage detection in an aeronautical panel using analysis of variance. Mech Syst Signal Process2015; 52–53: 206–216.
20.
HeilmannLHoffmannM.On the sensitivity of bondline control specimens with respect to the detection of adhesion defects. J Adhes2023; 992(6): 988–1015.
21.
da SilvaLFMÖchsnerAAdamsRD. Handbook of adhesion technology. 2nd ed.New York, NY, USA: Springer International Publishing AG, 2018.
22.
BorgesCBrandãoRAkhavan-SafarA, et al. Influence of water and surfactant contamination on the mechanical and chemical properties of a silicone adhesive, before and after curing. J Adhes2021; 99(6): 1071–1098.
23.
SousaFCAkhavan-SafarAGoyalR, et al. Fatigue life estimation of single lap adhesive joints using a critical distance criterion: an equivalent notch approach. Mech Mater2021; 153: 103670.
24.
TenreiroAFGRamalhoGMFLopesAM, et al. Structural monitoring of adhesive joints using machine learning, ch. 28. 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA, USA: Woodhead Publishing, 2023. pp. 909–949.
25.
TailladeFQuiertantMBenzartiK, et al. Shearography and pulsed stimulated infrared thermography applied to a nondestructive evaluation of FRP strengthening systems bonded on concrete structures. Constr Build Mater2011; 25(2): 568–574.
26.
JasiūnieneEMažeikaLSamaitisV, et al. Ultrasonic nondestructive testing of complex titanium/carbon fibre composite joints. Ultrasonics2019; 95: 13–21.
27.
RamalhoGMFLopesAMSilvaLFM.Structural health monitoring of adhesive joints using Lamb waves: a review. Struct Control Health Monit2022; 29(1).
28.
TenreiroAFGLopesAMDa SilvaLF, et al. Influence of void damage on the electromechanical impedance spectra of single lap joints. NDT E Int2023; 138: 102865.
29.
ZhuangYKopsaftopoulosFDugnaniR, et al. Integrity monitoring of adhesively bonded joints via an electromechanical impedance-based approach. Struct Health Monit2018; 17(5): 1031–1045.
30.
NaSTawieRLeeHK.Electromechanical impedance method of fiber-reinforced plastic adhesive joints in corrosive environment using a reusable piezoelectric device. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2012; 23(7): 737–747.
31.
BhallaSSurendraASohCK. Influence of structure-actuator interactions and temperature on piezoelectric mechatronic signatures for NDE. In: Proceedings Volume 5062, smart materials, structures, and systems, volume 5062, Bangalore, India. SPIE.
32.
RautelaMBijudasC.Electromechanical admittance based integrated health monitoring of adhesive bonded beams using surface bonded piezoelectric transducers. Int J Adhes Adhes2019; 94: 84–98.
33.
BorgIGroenenPJF. Modern multidimensional scaling: theory and applications. 2nd ed. Springer series in statistics, New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2005.
34.
SoaresCTenreiro MachadoJLopesAM, et al. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy characterization of beverages. Food Chem2020; 302: 125345.
35.
Tenreiro MachadoJLopesAM. Multidimensional scaling locus of memristor and fractional order elements. J Adv Res2020; 25: 147–157.
36.
MataMMachadoJ. Entropy analysis of monetary unions. Entropy2017; 19(6): 245.
37.
ASTM D 3933-98 -Standard guide for preparation of aluminum surfaces for structural adhesives bonding (Phosphoric Acid Anodizing). Standard, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004.
