Unique Identification of Damage Mode and Damage Parameters in Structures using Daubechies Wavelets with Spectral Element Method

Summary: The current study aims at developing an analytical tool for damage detection to reduce maintenance costs. For this purpose unique identification of mode of failure and its quantification in isotropic and layered media, including composite materials, is done using Daubechies' compactly supported wavelets and spectral methods. 1. Introduction Structural health monitoring can be defined as the acquisition, validation and analysis of technical data to facilitate life cycle management decisions [1]. The analysis techniques for dynamic response integrate: (a) Either of frequency analysis, modal analysis, finite element analysis (FEA), spectral analysis among other methods [2] and (b) Neural networks or optimization algorithms such as evolutionary algorithms(EA) or genetic algorithms(GA). Extensive literature is available and several methods have been developed over time for damage detection. Ryter, 1992 [3] defined four levels of damage identification: (a) Verification of presence of damage, (b) Locating the geometric position of damage, (c) Quantification of severity of damage, (d) Estimation of remaining service life of structure. The aim of this study is to computationally evaluate the differences in response of a specimen to specific forcing conditions. The difference in response and the variation of response in time are then studied to obtain geometric location of the damage along with its type, size and intensity. Although, such studies have been performed for different modes of damage/failure individually, we look to present a comprehensive work that uniquely determines the properties of mode of failure with efficiency. 2. Methodology Daubechies compactly supported wavelets coupled with the spectral element method are chosen for our formulation. 2.1 Formulation for an undamaged rod Taking the elementary example of a one-dimensional rod with density and cross-sectional area having a Young's modulus and a damping ratio . The response of the rod to an end displacement , is given by the wave equation,
Ue

E, A,

Figure 1: Illustration of division of rod into sections. Shaded region marks the damage zone

(2.1) | |

(2.2)

where (2.1) gives the boundary conditions for this particular case considered. Following the Daubechies scaling function approximation for time dependent axial displacement(2.3)-(2.7), decoupling of governing equations using eigenvalue analysis(2.8)-(2.11), wavelet implementation and spectral element formulation as in [4], the required transient solution can be obtained. Non-periodic time boundary conditions [5] are used to resolve the non-periodic forced end-displacement. Following standard derivations [4], the equation can be simplified to, { } ( , , -) * + (2.7)

Using eigenvalue analysis for the matrix , we can write the matrix as, , where is the eigenvector matrix of and is a diagonal matrix containing corresponding eigenvalues of . This gives . Hence, ( ) (2.9)

Boundary conditions transform to, or, (2.10)

The spatial part is approximated as the exact solution of (2.9) ( ) where, ( )

( )

(2.12) (2.13)

2.2 Analysis for a Damaged rod We use a simple model for introduction of a damage in the rod with a damage of intensity . We assume its effect on the local stiffness as ( ) ( ). Assuming the damage zone begins at and ends at , the size of the damage is said to be ( ). We shall vary the intensity and location of this imperfection along the length of the rod and observe its effect on response of the rod. Using these responses, we will analyze on how to accomplish the goal of detection of damage location, type, intensity, etc.

Ue E, A, E',
Figure 2: Illustration of division of rod into sections. Shaded region marks the damage zone

The damaged part is considered as a separate material with a new stiffness modulus upto the damage zone. We will be obtaining responses for two damage zones. Thus, as seen in fig. 2, the ( ). rod is divided into three sections. In our case, we have Now, our ( ) from (2.12) is written in the pth domain as: ( )( )
( )

(2.14a)

Using boundary conditions and additional continuity constraints at the 'nodes', i.e. the displacement continuity and the displacement derivative continuity, we solve the system of equations. ( ) ( )| ( ) ( )| ( ) ( )| ( ) ( )| (2.15a)

Similarly, this study will encompass the analysis of response behavior of an ideal beam, layered beam. In-house codes have been developed and results have been presented using MATLAB. 3. Preliminary results 3.1 Validation case The response of an Aluminum rod (E=70 GPa, =2700 kg/m3, cross sectional area=0.01*0.01 m2, length=1 m) to a time-varying forced displacement at the tip is given in fig. 3 and the response in fig. 4. All results are produced for the undamped case, i.e. .

Figure 3: Transient forced rod tip-displacement

(a) (b) Figure 4: Axial displacement of undamaged rod at (a) 5 0 s (b) 100 s

(a) (b) (c) Figure 5: Axial displacement of the rod for damage at 0.6m from root, d=0.5, L2-L1=4mm, at (a) 50 s (b) 90.625 s (c) 100 s

3.2 Verification of presence of damage The first level of damage identification as described by Ryter [3] is the verification of presence of damage. The knowledge that there is a difference is the response of two different rods with the same material and geometric properties to the same impulse under the exact same conditions can be treated as conclusive proof that damage is present in one of the rods. Fig.5 shows response of damaged rod with time and fig. 6 shows the difference in response of an undamaged and damaged rod with time thereby corroborating presence of damage. The damage is of intensity 50% and its size is 4mm in length, located at 0.6m from the root.

Figure 6: Difference in response of undamaged and damaged rod, for damage at 0.6m from root, d=0.5, L2-L1=4mm at (a) 50 s, (b) 100 s

3.3 Locating the geometric position of damage When the impulse travels along the rod, it produces a change in response when it interacts with the damaged zone. The interaction produces a pulse which travels in the opposite direction as can be seen by looking at figs. 5a, 5b, 5c, in that order. Since this reflected pulse is observed as soon as the travelling impulse reaches the damage zone, we can easily locate the geometric position of

damage and are automatically registered analytically and successfully reach the second level of damage identification 3.4 Quantification of severity of damage The intensity of the damage in the case of a rod can be determined by amplitude of the reflected pulse. As expected, the higher the difference in elastic modulus of the undamaged and damaged zones, the higher the amplitude. This is also verified as shown in fig. 7.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7: Axial displacement of the rod at 100 s for damage at 0.6m from root, L2-L1=4mm, (a) d=0.5, (b) d=0.7

The size of the damage is quantified by the size of the pulse in the axial direction. It is observed that as damage size increases, the pulse begins to separate. Depending on the duration of the impulse, we have a critical size above which both reflections from the two edges of the damage zone are clearly visible as shown in fig. 8.

(a)

(b)

Figure 8: Axial displacement of the rod at 100 s for damage at 0.6m from root, d=0.5, (a) L2-L1=4mm, (b) L2-L1=20mm

4. Scope of our study This study entails the detection of damage parameters of a rod with multiple damages as well. The parameters for each damage are captured in a very similar manner as the case of multiple damages. Results for response of composites and layered media such as a bi- and tri-material strips with and without damage have not been included in this abstract. The work is being extended to encompass anisotropic. 5. Conclusions The Spectral Element Method and Daubechies wavelets work well in tandem to capture the response of undamaged as well as the damaged rod. Differences in response can be used to determine the location of damage as well as damage parameters such as type, intensity and extent. References [1] Kessler S.S., Spearing S. M., Damage Detection in built-up composite structures using Lamb wave methods, submitted to Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Dec 2001 [2] Doebling, S.W., Farrar, C.R., Prime, M.B., Shevitz, D.W., 1995, Report LA-13070-MS, Los Alamos, NM, Damage Identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibrational characteristics: A literature review [3] Rytter, A., Vibration based inspection of civil engineering structures, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Building Technology and Structural Engineering, Aalborg University, Denmark [4] Gopalakrishnan, S., Mitra, M., Wavelet methods for dynamical problems: With application to metallic, composite, and nano-composite structures, CRC Press, 2010 [5] Williams, J.R., Amaratunga, K., A discrete wavelet transform without edge effects using wavelet extrapolation, Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications Vol. 3, No. 4, 1997 435449