| Literature DB >> 35408107 |
Han Yang1,2, Bin Wang2, Stephen Grigg1, Ling Zhu3,4, Dandan Liu1,2, Ryan Marks1.
Abstract
One of the most significant benefits of Acoustic Emission (AE) testing over other Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) techniques lies in its damage location capability over a wide area. The delta-T mapping technique developed by researchers has been shown to enable AE source location to a high level of accuracy in complex structures. However, the time-consuming and laborious data training process of the delta-T mapping technique has prevented this technique from large-scale application on large complex structures. In order to solve this problem, a Finite Element (FE) method was applied to model training data for localization of experimental AE events on a complex plate. Firstly, the FE model was validated through demonstrating consistency between simulated data and the experimental data in the study of Hsu-Nielsen (H-N) sources on a simple plate. Then, the FE model with the same parameters was applied to a planar location problem on a complex plate. It has been demonstrated that FE generated delta-T mapping data can achieve a reasonable degree of source location accuracy with an average error of 3.88 mm whilst decreasing the time and effort required for manually collecting and processing the training data.Entities:
Keywords: Acoustic Emission; Hsu-Nielsen sources; Non-Destructive Evaluation; Structural Health Monitoring; complex plate; delta-T mapping; finite element; source location
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35408107 PMCID: PMC9002672 DOI: 10.3390/s22072493
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1‘Cosine bell’ source characteristic.
Figure 2Schematic layout of the sensors and H-N source (units: mm).
Coordinates of sensors and H-N source (units: mm).
| X Coordinate | Y Coordinate | |
|---|---|---|
| Sensor 1 | 35 | 465 |
| Sensor 2 | 265 | 465 |
| Sensor 3 | 35 | 35 |
| Sensor 4 | 265 | 35 |
| H-N source | 150 | 400 |
Figure 3FE model and mesh in ABAQUS.
Figure 4AE sensors mounted on 10 × 10 mm spaced grid specimen and connected to the AE systems.
AE acquisition settings.
| Threshold | Sample Length | Sample Rate | Pre-Trigger | Rearm Time | Duration Discrimination Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45 | 1.6 | 5 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
Figure 5Experimental signal at sensor 1 and corresponding WT diagram with superimposed dispersion curves from: (a) −30 to 10 µs (scale was altered to make the S0 visible); (b) −30 to 40 µs.
Figure 6Numerical signal at sensor 1 and corresponding WT diagram with superimposed dispersion curves from: (a) −30 to 10 µs (scale was altered to make the S0 visible); (b) −30 to 40 µs.
Figure 7An example of arrival time estimation using AIC and threshold crossing on (a) high amplitude and (b) low amplitude AE signals.
Delta-T for sensor 1 and sensor 3 in the experiment and FE modelling (units: µs).
| Threshold Crossing | AIC | WT Analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment | 48.4 | 46.8 | 47.2 |
| FE modelling | - | 46.74 | 46.57 |
| Difference | - | 0.06 | 0.63 |
Figure 8Procedural steps of implementing delta-T mapping technique [5].
Figure 9Schematic layout of the sensors on a complex plate model with 20 mm spacing grid (unit: mm).
Figure 10Complex geometry plate modelled in ABAQUS.
Actual locations of H-N sources and results calculated by TOA-TC, TOA-AIC, numerical delta-T and experimental delta-T (units: mm).
| H-N Source 1 | H-N Source 2 | H-N Source 3 | H-N Source 4 | H-N Source 5 | H-N Source 6 | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X | Y | Error | X | Y | Error | X | Y | Error | X | Y | Error | X | Y | Error | X | Y | Error | |
| Actual | 70 | 70 | - | 70 | 210 | - | 130 | 90 | - | 170 | 390 | - | 230 | 230 | - | 250 | 430 | - |
| TOA-TC | 74.42 | 59.19 | 11.68 | 83.04 | 207.21 | 13.34 | 134.54 | 79.42 | 11.51 | 168.99 | 397.51 | 7.58 | 213.60 | 223.92 | 17.49 | 244.54 | 438.59 | 10.18 |
| TOA-AIC | 77.13 | 61.63 | 11.00 | 81.29 | 210.88 | 11.32 | 133.89 | 83.19 | 7.84 | 167.79 | 393.18 | 3.87 | 222.44 | 224.29 | 9.47 | 246.58 | 434.70 | 5.81 |
| Numerical | 74.82 | 67.80 | 5.30 | 73.99 | 211.46 | 4.25 | 132.26 | 91.41 | 2.66 | 169.33 | 386.67 | 3.40 | 225.27 | 229.86 | 4.73 | 251.17 | 432.7 | 2.94 |
| Experimental delta-T | 71.54 | 66.80 | 3.55 | 67.39 | 210.13 | 2.61 | 132.89 | 90.03 | 2.89 | 169.93 | 390.35 | 0.36 | 231.13 | 230.45 | 1.22 | 248.96 | 433.33 | 3.49 |
Figure 11Euclidian distance errors of source location results.
Figure 12Actual locations of H-N sources and results calculated by TOA-TC, TOA-AIC, numerical delta-T and experimental delta-T (units: mm).