12.07.2015 Views

application of frequency-domain system identification techniques in ...

application of frequency-domain system identification techniques in ...

application of frequency-domain system identification techniques in ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

8.5. Conclusions 2398.5 ConclusionsIn this Chapter, the results were presented from damage <strong>identification</strong> experimentsperformed on a lightweight alum<strong>in</strong>um beam specimen, suffer<strong>in</strong>g from fatigue<strong>in</strong>duced crack propagation. Four <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g levels <strong>of</strong> damage were obta<strong>in</strong>edby subsequent dynamic load<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the beam <strong>in</strong> its previous (damage) condition.Special attention was paid to the effect <strong>of</strong> changes <strong>in</strong> boundary conditions, thatoccurred due to a repeated assembly/disassembly <strong>of</strong> the diagnostic measurementsetup, <strong>in</strong> between the damage stages. For this purpose, two different experimentalsetups were compared: a classic <strong>in</strong>put-output setup, that <strong>in</strong>cluded a mechanicalshaker, and an output-only setup were the excitation was provided acoustically. Aseries <strong>of</strong> repeated measurements were performed, <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g the reproducibility <strong>of</strong>the experimental setups. Based on this <strong>in</strong>formation, together with vibration measurementson the beam <strong>in</strong> each <strong>of</strong> its damage cases, the presence <strong>of</strong> damage wasdetected on a statistical basis. The results showed a higher detection resolution(all 4 levels <strong>of</strong> damage) for the output-only setup than for the classic <strong>in</strong>put-outputsetup (2 most severe levels <strong>of</strong> damage). This result could be expected due to thepresence <strong>of</strong> the shaker connection <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>put-output setup.In addition, a number <strong>of</strong> damage localization <strong>techniques</strong> (discussed <strong>in</strong> Chapter 7)were applied to both the <strong>in</strong>put-output and output-only damage <strong>identification</strong> experimentsperformed on the cracked test specimen. The sensitivity-based damagelocalization results were <strong>in</strong> agreement with the statistically-based damage detectionverdicts: the use <strong>of</strong> the output-only setup enabled a correct <strong>identification</strong> <strong>of</strong>all considered damage levels, whereas the <strong>in</strong>put-output setup only allowed a successful<strong>identification</strong> <strong>of</strong> the two most severe damage cases. In order to <strong>in</strong>creasethe objectivity <strong>of</strong> the experimental f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs, other damage localization <strong>techniques</strong>(that require similar <strong>in</strong>formation: natural <strong>frequency</strong> and mode shape estimates)were applied to the experiments as well. Although not all damage cases couldbe correctly identified on a basis <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> these methods (i.e., changes <strong>in</strong> modalflexibility method for the output-only setup), the deteriorat<strong>in</strong>g effect <strong>of</strong> additionalboundary changes – caused by the <strong>in</strong>put-output setup – on the damage <strong>identification</strong>performance, was confirmed by all <strong>of</strong> the methods.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!