| Literature DB >> 29762483 |
Jicheng Zhang1, Yongshui Huang2, Yu Zheng3.
Abstract
In recent years, piezoelectric-based transducers and technologies have made significant progress towards structural health monitoring and damage evaluation for various metal and concrete structures. Timber is still commonly used as a construction material in practical engineering; however, there is a lack of research on the health monitoring of timber-based structures using piezoelectric-based transducers and methods. This paper conducts a feasibility study on timber damage detection using surface-mounted piezoelectric patches, which enable the stress-wave-based active sensing approach. Typical damage modes in timber frame structures, such as surface cracks and holes, were investigated in this study. In the active sensing approach, one piezoceramic transducer is used as an actuator to generate stress waves, which propagate along the surface of the timber structure, and other piezoceramic transducers function as sensors to detect the propagating stress waves. Defects, such as a crack or a hole, induce additional attenuation to the propagating stress wave. Based on this attenuation, the proposed method can detect the defects using the wavelet-packet-based damage index, demonstrating its implementation potential for real-time timber damage detection.Entities:
Keywords: active sensing approach; piezoelectric transducer; timber damage detection; wavelet-packet-based damage index
Year: 2018 PMID: 29762483 PMCID: PMC5982473 DOI: 10.3390/s18051563
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Stress-wave-based active sensing approach for timber damage detection (unit: mm). (a) Timber damage with a crack; (b) timber damage with a hole.
Figure 2Timber specimens for different groups. (a) Specimen of Group A; (b) specimen of Group B; (c) specimen of Group C.
Test cases of specimens in Groups A, B, C.
| Group A | Case | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Crack depth (mm) | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 20 | 40 | |
| Group B | Case | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Hole depth (mm) | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 20 | 40 | |
| Group C | Case | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| Hole diameter (mm) | 0 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 |
Figure 3Experimental setup.
Figure 4Sensor signal response for Group A. (a) Specimen 1; (b) Specimen 2.
Figure 5Sensor signal response for Group B. (a) Specimen 3; (b) Specimen 4.
Figure 6Sensor signal response for Group C. (a) Specimen 5; (b) Specimen 6.
Figure 7Damage indices of timber with different crack depths.
Figure 8Damage indices of timber with different hole depths.
Figure 9Damage indices of timber with different hole diameters.