PSI - Issue 22

Sophia Metaxa et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 22 (2019) 369–375 Sophia Metaxa/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

375

7

7. Conclusion In general, the development of successful SHM methods depends on two key factors, namely, sensing technology [6] and the associated signal analysis and interpretation algorithm. Due to the current economic developments in all areas of our society there is an attempt to maximize the cost-effectiveness ratio, while maintaining the originally planned-designed lifetime. The effort to monitor structural integrity / health monitoring has thus appeared in the area of modern day engineering. A major problem in the predictive and fault tracking process in one construction is the measurement of field parameters capable of being associated with any occurring failure and yielding the characteristics of the failure. Of course, the process of linking a failure to field parameters depends directly on the monitoring technique used and the desired result. The SHM information gathered could be used in a condition based maintenance program in order to minimize the time needed for inspection of components, prevent unnecessary replacement of components, Prevent failures and Allow utility companies to be confident of power availability. In such value added, large structures, algorithms are utilized, capable of processing the harvested signals from the sensors for SHM, and can be further extended to the prediction of failure, estimation of the remaining service life so as to determine the actions required. In order to develop a general-purpose algorithm for the designated applications, efforts are needed to ensure that the whole system does not become complex in defining the relationship between subsystems, components and subassemblies [8]. A fault prediction algorithm has the primary function of this system which allows early warnings of structural defects to prevent major component failures. Many faults can be detected while the defective component is still operational In this way, the engineer is given the opportunity to reduce the uncertainty encountered during the initial design phase of construction (and thus the safety factors - and the added cost). In addition, he is able to diagnose any construction errors (failure to meet material specifications, poor construction, etc.) in time (immediately after loading), which could then evolve into factors of premature construction failure. And all this, without the need to withdraw the construction from use, as in the case of Non Destructive Testing techniques, and with relatively low direct costs. Thus, necessary repair actions can be planned for the most appropriate time without the need to bring an immediate halt to the system at the point of total failure. [9]. References [1] G. Tsamasphyros & G. Kanterakis, 2005 Damage Tolerance Design Philosophy NTUA/SAS [2] Structural Health Monitoring — An Introduction and Definitions. Christian Boller,DOI: 10.1002/9780470061626.shm204. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. All rights reserved. [3] Smart Structures Theory, Inderjit Chopra, Jayant Sirohi, Cambridge University Press, 2013 [4] Dhingra R, Overly JG, Davis GA. Life-cycle environmental evaluation of aluminum and composite intensive vehicles. Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, University of Tennessee; 1999. [5] Das S. The cost of automotive polymer composites: a review and assessment of DOE’s lightwei ght materials composites research. Energy Division, Oak Ridge National University; 2001. [6] Kasai J. Life cycle assessment, evaluation method for sustainable development. JSAE Rev 1999;20:387 – 93. [7] Graedel TE, Allenby BR. Industrial ecology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2003. [8] J.M. Henshaw, Recycling and disposal of polymer – matrix composites, in: D.B. Miracle, S.L. Donaldson (Eds.), ASM Handbook, Volume 21: Composites, ASM International®, 2001, pp. 1006 – 1012. [9] S. Pimenta, S.T. Pinho, Recycling carbon fibre reinforced polymers for structural applications: Technology review and market outlook, Waste Management 31 (2011) 378 – 392. [10] K.Kalkanis1, G. J. Tsamasphyros , G. N. Kanderakis , N. Pantelelis , G. Maistros and A. El. Tsovolos, 2011 Experimental Control of Curing & Structural Health Monitoring for Composite Patch Repairs, Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review.