| Literature DB >> 28862666 |
Qian Feng1,2, Qingzhao Kong3, Jian Jiang4,5, Yabin Liang6,7, Gangbing Song8.
Abstract
Rubber-steel-layered structures are used in many engineering applications. Laminated rubber-steel bearing, as a type of seismic isolation device, is one of the most important applications of the rubber-steel-layered structures. Interfacial debonding in rubber-steel-layered structures is a typical failure mode, which can severely reduce their load-bearing capacity. In this paper, the authors developed a simple but effective active sensing approach using embedded piezoceramic transducers to provide an in-situ detection of the interfacial debonding between the rubber layers and steel plates. A sandwiched rubber-steel-layered specimen, consisting of one rubber layer and two steel plates, was fabricated as the test specimen. A novel installation technique, which allows the piezoceramic transducers to be fully embedded into the steel plates without changing the geometry and the surface conditions of the plates, was also developed in this research. The active sensing approach, in which designed stress waves can propagate between a pair of the embedded piezoceramic transducers (one as an actuator and the other one as a sensor), was employed to detect the steel-rubber debonding. When the rubber-steel debonding occurs, the debonded interfaces will attenuate the propagating stress wave, so that the amplitude of the received signal will decrease. The rubber-steel debonding was generated by pulling the two steel plates in opposite directions in a material-testing machine. The changes of the received signal before and after the debonding were characterized in a time domain and further quantified by using a wavelet packet-based energy index. Experiments on the healthy rubber-steel-layered specimen reveal that the piezoceramic-induced stress wave can propagate through the rubber layer. The destructive test on the specimen demonstrates that the piezoceramic-based active sensing approach can effectively detect the rubber-steel debonding failure in real time. The active sensing approach is often used in structures with "hard" materials, such as steel, concrete, and carbon fiber composites. This research lays a foundation for extending the active sensing approach to damage detection of structures involving "soft" materials, such as rubber.Entities:
Keywords: active sensing; interfacial debonding; piezoceramic transducers; rubber–steel-layered structures
Year: 2017 PMID: 28862666 PMCID: PMC5621352 DOI: 10.3390/s17092001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic of the active sensing approach in the application of the detection of the rubber–steel bond failure.
Figure 2PZT transducer installation: (a) A steel plate with four pre-machined cavities; (b) PZT transducer installed in the cavities with epoxy; (c) the specimen with embedded PZT transducers; (d) schematic of the PZT transducer installation.
Properties for the test specimen.
| Materials | Parameters | Values | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steel plate | Dimension | 20 × 20 × 0.6 | cm |
| Young’s modulus | 206 | GPa | |
| Density | 7.9 | g/cm3 | |
| Poisson’s ratio | 0.25 | - | |
| Rubber layer | Dimension | 20 × 20 × 0.5 | cm |
| Young’s modulus | 0.0078 | GPa | |
| Density | 1.27 | g/cm3 | |
| Poisson’s ratio | 0.47 | - | |
| PZT-transducer | Dimension | φ18 × 3 | mm |
| Piezoelectric strain coefficients | 2450 | pC/N |
Figure 3Experimental setup.
Figure 4Excitation signal: (a) one period of the excitation signal; (b) one section of one period of the excitation signal.
Figure 5Loading results. (a) Load vs. Time. (b) Displacement vs. Time.
Figure 6Signal received by PZT 2 (PZT1–PZT2 pair): Stage 0 to Stage 3 from left to the right. (a) Stage 0 ; (b) Stage 1; (c) Stage 2; (d) Stage 3.
Figure 7Signal received by PZT 4 (PZT3–PZT4 pair): Stage 0 to Stage 3 from left to the right. (a) Stage 0; (b) Stage 1; (c) Stage 2; (d) Stage 3.
Figure 8Signal received by PZT 6 (PZT5–PZT6 pair): Stage 0 to Stage 3 from left to the right. (a) Stage 0; (b) Stage 1; (c) Stage 2; (d) Stage 3.
Figure 9Signal received by PZT 8 (PZT7–PZT8 pair): Stage 0 to Stage 3 from left to the right. (a) Stage 0; (b) Stage 1; (c) Stage 2; (d) Stage 3.
Figure 10Wavelet packet-based energy indices.