0
Research Papers

Damage Detection in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Beams by Using a Bayesian Fusion Method

[+] Author and Article Information
U. Baneen

e-mail: z3229637@student.unsw.edu.au

J. E. Guivant

e-mail: j.guivant@unsw.edu.au
School of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering,
University of New South Wales,
Sydney 2052, Australia

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Vibration and Acoustics. Manuscript received October 16, 2012; final manuscript received March 20, 2013; published online June 19, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Marco Amabili.

J. Vib. Acoust 135(6), 061008 (Jun 19, 2013) (11 pages) Paper No: VIB-12-1288; doi: 10.1115/1.4024096 History: Received October 16, 2012; Revised March 20, 2013

This paper presents a method for the detection of damage present in composite beam-type structures. The method, which successfully detected damage in steel beams, is applied to a glass fiber-reinforced beam in order to verify its suitability for composite structures as well. The damage indices were obtained using the gapped-smoothing method (GSM), which does not require a baseline model in order to detect damage. Despite the advantage of avoiding the need for a reference model altogether, unavoidable measurement errors make GSM rather ineffective. The proposed method uses the damage indices that GSM provides for synthesizing a set of likelihood functions that is processed under a Bayesian approach in order to reduce the effect of the noise and other uncertainty sources. The quality of the damage detection was examined by investigating an optimal sampling size analytically, and it was demonstrated through numerical simulation. This paper details the theory of the noise suppression method based on Bayesian data fusion, includes an analysis of the optimal sampling size, and presents the experimental results for two glass fiber-reinforced composite beams with a narrow and wide delamination, respectively. A noise-addition process was applied to the simulated data considering two different noise distributions. The composite beam was modeled in ANSYS, and harmonic analysis was used to obtain the frequency response functions at different beam locations. The results were obtained by adding 5, 10, and 15% noise in the simulated data, and they were then validated from the experimental results.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Damage indices generated by the first five modes using the gapped-smoothing method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Damage indices after the pruning stage of the noise suppression process, for the cases K = 1 to K = N

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Plots of (a) h & hm and (b) E(h) and max(u″(x)) against number of samples for ε = 0.001

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Optimal sample size for one unit length of beam against different sampling intervals

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Delaminated GFRP beam model in ANSYS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

A typical simulated FRF with a 5% noise level of (a) Gaussian distribution and (b) non-Gaussian distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Damage indices from (a) mode 1, (b) mode 2, (c) mode 3, and (d) mode 4, considering a 5% noise level (non-Gaussian) (SS: sample size)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Damage indices from (a) mode 1, (b) mode 2, (c) mode 3, and (d) mode 4, considering a 10% noise level (non-Gaussian) (SS: sample size)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Damage indices from (a) mode 1, (b) mode 2, (c) mode 3, and (d) mode 4, considering a 15% noise level (non-Gaussian) (SS: sample size)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Estimated damage indices (a) for K = 2, N = 2, (b) for K = 3, N = 3, and (c) for K = 4, N = 4, considering a 5% noise level (non-Gaussian) (SS: sample size)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Estimated damage indices (a) for K = 2, N = 2, (b) for K = 3, N = 3, and (c) for K = 4, N = 4, considering a 10% noise level (non-Gaussian) (SS: sample size)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Estimated damage indices (a) for K = 2, N = 2, (b) for K = 3, N = 3, and (c) for K = 4, N = 4, considering a 15% noise level (non-Gaussian) (SS: sample size)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Damage indices from the gapped-smoothing method applied to a 150-mm long delamination

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Damage indices from the proposed estimation method applied for a 150-mm long delamination

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Damage indices from the gapped-smoothing method applied to a 50-mm long delamination

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Damage indices from the proposed estimation method applied for a 50-mm long delamination

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In