PSI - Issue 37

Gabriel Vivas et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 37 (2022) 344–350 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

348

5

on the type of damage considered. It determines the general health state of the structure, not the local damage nor the source of the health degradation.

a

b

0.96 0.91 0.94 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.87 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.96 0.95 0.93 0.94 0.79 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.94 0.97 0.99 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.88 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.90 0.99 0.96 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.90 1.00 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.92 0.96 0.95 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.87 0.94 0.96 0.91 1.00 0.92 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.89 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.91 0.99 0.78 0.78 0.72 0.74 0.63 0.66 1.00 0.88 0.71 0.82 0.89 0.88 0.79 0.88 0.81 0.87 0.85 0.92 0.94 0.99 0.91 0.73 0.90 0.91 0.71 0.84 0.61 0.91 1.00 0.93 0.77 0.64 0.77 0.82 0.77 0.70 0.70 0.94 0.91 0.83 0.85 0.71 0.80 0.86 0.95 0.86 0.64 0.89 0.84 0.82 0.99 0.94 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.78 0.87 0.88 0.86 0.70 0.54 0.82 0.73 0.63 0.76 0.94 0.94 0.87 0.93 0.87 0.88 0.78 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.72 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.84 0.86 0.81 0.91 0.96 0.91 0.68 0.77 0.76 0.83 0.83 0.94 0.84 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.81 0.69 0.81 0.78 0.88 0.69 0.64 0.93 0.85 0.77 0.88 0.86 0.97 0.80 0.87 0.88 0.69 0.89 0.81 0.84 0.86 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.79 1.00 0.89 0.97 0.68 0.74 0.67 0.66 0.85 0.84 0.91 0.93 0.76 0.81 0.90 0.60 0.85 0.81 0.92 0.92 0.60 0.92 0.83 0.96 0.82 0.89 0.91 0.84 0.88 0.96 0.77 0.90 0.89 0.93 0.77 0.80 0.83 0.82 0.66 0.67 0.85 0.89 0.85 0.98 0.86 0.84 0.88 0.83 0.81 0.92 0.64 0.92 0.79 0.96 0.99 0.86 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.73 0.81 0.96 0.96 0.74 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.93 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.91

0.86 0.90 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.92 0.97 0.92 0.90 0.95 0.88 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.91 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.90 0.93 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.93 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.85 0.89 0.95 0.90 0.97 0.88 0.92 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.89 0.96 0.98 0.93 0.92 0.96 0.91 1.00 0.93 0.97 0.89 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.99 0.90 0.98 0.89 0.89 0.98 0.88 1.00 0.85 0.91 0.89 0.97 0.95 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.99 0.93 0.90 0.97 0.94 0.99 0.88 0.94 0.67 0.69 0.71 0.82 0.59 0.67 0.80 0.72 0.83 0.53 0.79 0.81 0.78 0.70 0.96 0.86 0.67 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.71 0.75 0.82 0.86 0.54 0.95 0.57 0.90 0.68 0.94 0.73 0.93 0.64 0.80 0.85 0.73 0.83 0.98 0.83 0.84 0.71 0.75 0.51 0.92 0.89 0.91 0.60 0.92 0.69 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.79 0.82 0.93 0.92 0.76 0.79 0.86 0.83 0.67 0.73 0.79 0.69 0.80 0.73 0.87 0.94 0.74 0.91 0.87 1.00 0.82 0.93 0.79 0.80 0.74 0.84 0.79 0.95 0.86 0.96 0.75 0.76 0.89 0.86 0.67 0.82 0.88 0.80 0.85 0.81 0.73 0.80 0.93 1.00 0.76 0.86 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.73 0.72 0.69 0.67 0.98 0.72 0.93 0.60 0.72 1.00 0.80 0.79 1.00 0.82 0.94 0.91 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.47 0.96 0.69 0.81 0.81 0.75 0.78 0.63 0.69 0.94 0.90 0.71 0.87 0.92 0.80 0.68 0.76 0.78 0.57 0.85 1.00 0.80 0.67 0.86 0.73 0.91 0.74 0.84 0.91 0.82 0.88 0.95 0.84 0.86 0.96 0.89 0.45 0.91 0.87 0.78 0.59 0.76 0.90 0.89 0.78 0.86 0.85 0.82 0.68 0.84 0.87 0.76 0.65 0.96 0.77 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.74 0.88 0.87 0.89 0.75 0.84 0.79 0.80 0.71 0.87 0.82 0.83 0.82 0.88 0.88 0.82 0.82 0.89

c

d

e

f

Fig. 3. Set of DoH matrices obtained every 15 days after the Round-Robin tests carried out on the aluminum structure, from (a) initial state to (f) final state.

There is a second approach to the health state of the structure when the average of the coefficients of the DoH matrix is calculated. Because of the progressive and sudden damage applied to the structures, the average decreases with time, no matter the type of tests (figure 4). Note that temperature affects the measurements taken in the tests. Not only the average but also some other statistics will be analyzed as truncated mean, harmonic mean, median, standard deviation, etc. 5. Conclusions The proof of concept for impact and flaw detection has been introduced. The methodology to perform guided-wave ultrasound tests has been detailed. The tests have been carried out on aluminum, CFRP, and a real-world leading edge. Round Robin and beamforming techniques have been applied to the tests. The effects of sudden and progressive damages on the health and integrity of the structures were analyzed. Three approaches to analyze the data from the acquired signals have been introduced: calculation of DoH matrix, calculation of the average of DoH matrix, and comparison of acquired signals. The results show that the monitoring system SHMUS not only detects impacts and flaws satisfactorily but also measures the damage as a decrease of the health of the structure under test.