Composite Structures 94 (2012) 438–445

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Low energy impact damage monitoring of composites using dynamic strain

signals from FBG sensors – Part I: Impact detection and localization
Jeannot Frieden, Joël Cugnoni, John Botsis, Thomas Gmür ⇑
Faculté des sciences et techniques de l’ingénieur, Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Bâtiment ME, Station No. 9, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fiber reinforced composite materials risk to suffer from subsurface, barely visible, damage induced by
Available online 25 August 2011 transverse relatively low energy impacts. This two-paper series presents a method for the localization
of an impact and identification of an eventual damage using dynamic strain signals from fiber Bragg grat-
Keywords: ing (FBG) sensors. In this paper, the localization method allowing to predict the impact position based on
Low energy impact interpolation of a reference data set is developed and validated. The data utilized in the method are the
FBG sensor arrival times of the asymmetric zero order Lamb waves at the different sensors. A high rate interrogation
CFRP composite
method based on intensity modulation of the Bragg wavelength shift is used to acquire the FBG signals.
Wave propagation
Impact localization
The localization method allows to predict the impact position with a good accuracy and therefore the
inspection of the laminate can be limited to this region.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction triangulation techniques are employed to locate the source of the

Fiber reinforced polymer structures are very susceptible to
barely visible impact damage. In the efforts to characterize such
eventual damage, knowledge of the existence and position of an
impact event on a composite structure can be useful information.
When the position of the impact event is known with a certain pre-
cision, the inspection of the laminate can be limited to this region
and may significantly reduce the complexity of a damage identifi-
cation problem. Localization of an impact event based on acoustic
wave propagation in plate-type structures is continuously studied
in the literature and has evolved with the use of miscellaneous
sensors, signal processing methods and triangulation methods.
In experimental impact and/or damage detection methods, pie-
zoelectric (e.g. PZT [1] and PVDF [2]) sensors and Doppler laser
velocimetry are used for sensing acoustic waves in structures.
More recently, fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensors are shown to have
sufficiently high sensitivity for sensing acoustic waves [3–9]. How-
ever, the orientation of the sensor with respect to the propagation
direction of the wave is of concern. The dependence of the FBG ori-
entation on the wave propagation direction has been studied and
its sensitivity turned out to be sufficient when the incident angle
of the wave is within an angle of ±45° to ±60° to the optical fiber
orientation [10–12].
Impact localization methods based on wave propagation gener-
ally rely on the arrival time of waves at the sensors. Once the arri-
val times of the waves at different sensor positions are known,
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 21 6932924; fax: +41 21 6937340.
E-mail address: thomas.gmuer@epfl.ch (T. Gmür).
waves. The early triangulation methods are valid for isotropic
materials only because a uniform wave propagation velocity is as-
sumed [13], but they are also adapted to anisotropic wave propa-
gation. Based on a priori knowledge of the wave speed profile,
the impact position is identified by solving a minimization scheme
problem [14]. The proposed objective function often presents sev-
eral local minima and a Simplex or gradient-descent optimization
algorithm may not converge to its absolute minimum. Modifica-
tions to the objective function and customized minimization algo-
rithms, however, allow for a prediction of the impact position. The
impact position can also be predicted from arrival time delays and
other features obtained from the signals by using an artificial neu-
ral network (ANN) [15,16]. An inherent issue of this method is the
optimal design of a network with an appropriate amount of layers
and neurons to obtain a good generalization and regularization of
the problem. Moreover, it needs a large set of reference data for
training the ANN.
In most of the reported studies for impact localization, the
acoustic emission source is emulated by a lead break or by a piezo-
electric transducer and thereby, mainly high frequencies are ex-
cited. During a low-velocity impact, however, the excitation
frequencies are generally low [16]. In a few works only, the local-
ization and especially the signal processing methods are validated
with real transverse impact tests [7,17,18].
The objective of this work is to develop an easy to implement
technique allowing for the detection and localization of real low-
velocity transverse impacts on laminated composite plates with
the use of short FBG sensors. A high speed FBG interrogation meth-
od based on intensity modulation [19] is modified to obtain signals

0263-8223/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2011.08.003
 J. Frieden et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 438–445 439

from the optical sensors at a rate of 1 GHz. The interpolation-based

(a) S0
localization method presented herein can be easily adapted to dif-
ferent anisotropic components and does not need the knowledge of
the wave propagation profile. The error caused by the data interpo-
lation is evaluated and the necessary number and position of the A0
reference data points and sensors are studied. For validation pur-
pose, the method is tested using data from piezoelectric acceler-
ometers and intensity signals from FBG sensors. Finally, the (b) 4.0

method is applied to localize the position of a low energy destruc- 3.5

tive impact event.
3.0
S0
2.5

c / cT [-]
2. Background on wave propagation
2.0
The analysis of wave propagation caused by a low energy im-
1.5
pact is complex because of the different kinds of waves that may
be initiated during this event. Conventionally, Lamb waves are con- 1.0
sidered to be the main wave types in plates and their usage in the A0
0.5
field of damage detection has been studied with the main goal to
identify the type of waves initiated during a transverse impact 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
and to estimate their velocity. A detailed formulation of the wave
f · h [Hz m]
propagation problem in thin composite plates can be found in [20].
Fig. 1. (a) Mode shapes of the fundamental Lamb wave modes S0 and A0. (b)
2.1. Lamb waves Normalized phase velocities of first order symmetric (S0) and antisymmetric (A0)
Lamb waves.
The equations for Lamb waves are obtained from the elastody-
namic differential equations of a solid. An eigenvalue problem is
derived by considering a general harmonic displacement solution Table 1
for waves propagating in an in-plane direction and accounting Theoretical longitudinal and transverse wave propagation velocities along the 0° and
90° directions of the CFRP plate.
for the free lower and upper boundary conditions. The dispersion
equations of Lamb waves are obtained by decomposing the dis- cL (m/s) cT (m/s)
placement field into the sum of the gradient of a potential and 0°-direction 6731 1326
the rotational of a divergence-free vector field 90°-direction 5595 1323

2
tanðqhÞ 4k p tanðphÞ
þ 2
¼0
q ðk  q2 Þ2
2
impact on a plate, the range of the excited frequencies is relatively
ðk  q2 Þ2 tanðphÞ low and does not exceed the cut-off frequency of higher-order
q tanðqhÞ þ 2
¼0 ð1Þ
4k p modes [21]. In case of a transverse impact, most of the energy is
transported by the asymmetric Lamb wave mode and conse-
where k ¼ xc is the wave number, x = 2pf the angular frequency, c
quently the amplitude of S0 wave modes is considerably lower than
the Lamb wave velocity in the propagation direction, h the plate
the one of the A0 modes [20]. The propagation time of S0 waves
thickness and p and q are given by
from the excitation source to a sensor is considerably smaller com-
x2 2 pared to the one of A0 waves, since they propagate approximately
p2 ¼ k
c2L four times faster in the low frequency range. Therefore, the S0
x2 modes are easily distinguished from the A0 ones when they are
2
q2 ¼ k ð2Þ present in a signal and are excited at sufficient amplitude. It is re-
c2T
ported in [21] and also noticed throughout the impact testing in
where cT and cL are the propagation speeds of the transverse shear this work that the signal of the faster symmetric Lamb waves can-
and longitudinal waves, respectively. Eq. (1) govern symmetric and not, or with extreme difficulty, be distinguished from the noise le-
antisymmetric mode shapes, respectively, where the shapes of the vel in the measurements because of their low amplitude.
fundamental symmetric and antisymmetric modes S0 and A0 are
illustrated in Fig. 1a. The phase velocity of such Lamb waves de- 2.2. Group velocity
pends on frequency x and plate thickness h and an infinite number
of symmetric and antisymmetric modes can exist. The dispersion The group velocity cg is the velocity with which the overall
curves of the fundamental Lamb wave modes S0 and A0 are given shape of a wave impulse propagates through a plate. It is the actual
for the laminate investigated herein as a function of the fre- velocity captured in experiments and the velocity of wave energy
quency–thickness product in Fig. 1b, where the velocities are nor- transportation [20]. Note that the shape of the impulse may vary
malized by the propagation speed cT. The theoretical values of the with time due to the dispersive character of the Lamb wave prop-
wave propagation speeds cT and cL in the present material are given agation. Parameter c is the propagation speed of the phase of a
in Table 1. wave with a given frequency x, related to the wavelength kwave by
The reason why only the fundamental Lamb wave modes are
kwave
considered in this theoretical analysis is substantiated by some c¼x ð3Þ
2p
preliminary experimental results and findings from other research-
2p
ers [1]. At a frequencies–thickness product below 1000 Hz m, The wave number k is related to kwave by k ¼ kwave and the group
called the cut-off frequency of higher-order modes, only the funda- velocity cg is calculated from the phase velocity by the formula [20]
mental modes S0 and A0 propagate. During a transverse low-energy
440 J. Frieden et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 438–445

1.0
A0
0.8
cg/cT [-]

0.6 accelerometers

0.4

260 mm

300 mm
0.2

0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
f · h [Hz m]
240 mm
Fig. 2. Normalized group velocity of first order antisymmetric (A0) Lamb waves.

@x 180 mm
cg ¼ ð4Þ
@k
where the wave number k can be substituted by xc . The group veloc-
ity is dependent on the central frequency f ¼ 2xp and plate thickness Fig. 3. Picture of the clamped CFRP plate with four accelerometers for impact
h [22] as follows: localization.

 1
dc
cg ðf  hÞ ¼ c2 c  ðf  hÞ ð5Þ
dðf  hÞ
FBG 4 FBG 3

60 mm
It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the group velocity of the fundamental
antisymmetric mode A0 is almost constant over a large range of fre-
quencies and has an upper bound that is slightly higher than the
Clamping surface

Clamping surface
45°
shear wave velocity. In this work, the determination of the arrival

300 mm
time of the wave front relies on the first detection of the fundamen-
180 mm
tal antisymmetric Lamb wave A0.
150 mm
3. Materials and methods

3.1. Materials
The impact localization method is tested for the case of trans-
verse impacts on a carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) plate.
The cross-ply plate is made of 28 unidirectional (UD) prepreg lam-
inae with a symmetric stacking sequence
[0°2, 90°2, 0°2, 90°2, 0°2, 90°2, 0°2]s resulting in a nominal thickness
of 4.2 mm. The through-the-thickness homogenized material prop-
erties of the cross-ply (CP) and UD plates are determined using
modal identification [23] and are listed in Table 2.
The size of the plate is 300 mm  300 mm and it is clamped on
two sides with a span of 240 mm. The method proposed hereafter
is based on acoustic wave propagation and is experimentally vali-
dated with two types of sensors, i.e. accelerometers and FBG sen-
sors. The impacts are non-destructive and carried out using an
instrumented hammer from Brüel & Kjær (type 8206; weight:
100 g) and the acquisition is triggered by the signal of the load cell.
Four highly sensitive accelerometers from Brüel & Kjær (type
4517-C) are pasted on the CFRP plate with a thin layer of wax in
each corner of the plate at a distance of 20 mm to the free edge
and at a distance of 30 mm to the clamping so that they delimit
a domain of 180 mm  260 mm (Fig. 3). The acquisition of the
accelerometer signal is carried out with a sampling rate of 1 MHz
using a 300 MHz bandwidth oscilloscope from Agilent (Type DSO
6034A) and a 4-channel charge amplifier from B&K (type 2692).
FBG 1 240 mm FBG 2
300 mm
Fig. 4. Schematic of the clamped CFRP plate with four surface-glued FBG sensors for
impact localization.
The FBG sensors are glued on the lower side of the plate as
shown in Fig. 4. The gratings are orientated in the 45° direction
in order to have sufficient sensitivity to incident bending waves
originating from a rectangular domain of 180 mm  150 mm
(Fig. 4). The present configuration allows the waves emitted within
this domain to arrive on all four sensors at an angle between ±45°.
The interrogation of the FBG sensors is carried out with intensity
modulation of the Bragg wavelength shift [19] with a Fabry–Pérot
(FP) filter. The Bragg reflection peak from the grating is split into a
measurement arm comprising the FP filter and a reference arm.
The acquisition of the modulated and total reflected intensity in
the measurement and reference arm, respectively, is achieved with
a Lecroy Wavesurfer 434 oscilloscope at a rate of 1 GHz. The refer-
ence intensity measurement allows to partially subtract the noise
from the modulated intensity signals. An AC acquisition of the var-
iable intensity signal is made and a small analog input range is

Table 2
Mechanical properties of UD plies and CP plates.

E1 (GPa) E2 (GPa) E3 (GPa) m23 (–) m31 (–) m12 (–) G23 (GPa) G31 (GPa) G12 (GPa)
UD 96.00 8.67 8.70 0.30 0.03 0.38 2.24 3.59 4.04
CP 65.89 44.93 8.70 0.03 0.03 0.12 2.55 2.54 4.23
 J. Frieden et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 438–445 441

chosen to optimize the sensitivity of the measurements. Due to the
small input range, the analog input might saturate and the signals
be truncated. The recorded signals are digitally low-pass filtered
and decimated to a rate of 1 MHz. Only two optical channels with
sufficient sensitivity are available and therefore each non-destruc-
tive impact test is carried out separately for each pair of sensors.
3.2. Experimental characterization of acoustic waves
Prior to the development of the localization method, the wave
propagation in the CFRP plates is characterized and compared to
theory. The wave speed is measured as a function of propagation
direction using a pair of accelerometers (Brüel & Kjær type 4517-
C) aligned at an angle varying from 0° to 90° to the longitudinal
direction of the plate. The impact position for each of the propaga-
tion directions is aligned with the sensors and located beyond the
two sensors, in the way that the same wave front passes by the two
sensors. The wave speed can though be easily determined as the
ratio of the distance between the sensors (120 mm) and the time
of propagation between the sensors. This time of propagation is
called arrival time delay.
In addition, classical PZT sensors are used to characterize the
frequency content of the propagating waves. Therefore, two
Nano-30 PZTs from Physical Acoustics Corporation (PAC) are con-
nected to a 1220A PAC preamplifier having a built-in band-pass fil-
ter and the acquisition is made with an oscilloscope from Agilent
(model DSO 6034A). In comparison to standard accelerometers
which have a frequency range of 1 Hz–50 kHz, the signal from
PZT sensors are amplified in a frequency range between 100 and
300 kHz.
3.2.1. Wave signals observed with classical sensors
Fig. 5a shows the signals measured by two accelerometers and
Fig. 5b the ones by PZT sensors. Due to the dispersive character of
antisymmetric Lamb waves, the shape of the wave impulse
changes while propagating through the plate. The signal arriving
at accelerometer 2 or PZT 2 is smaller in amplitude as compared
to the one measured on the sensor close to the impact point. This
attenuation is partially due to internal damping of the material and
to the fact that the circular wave front is increasing in radius. It can
be noticed from the temporal signals that, if symmetric S0 Lamb
waves propagate, the amplitude measured by the sensors is smal-
ler than the noise level. Otherwise accelerometer 2 and PZT 2
would feature a non-zero signal far ahead of 105 ls. The frequency
content of the PZT signals is largely different from the one obtained
by accelerometers because of the built-in band-pass filter in the
PZT’s preamplifiers and the reduced sensitivity of the accelerome-
ters to frequencies beyond 50 kHz.
3.2.2. Wave signal observed with FBG sensors
Fig. 6a shows typical signals of two FBG sensors (FBG 3 and FBG
4 in Fig. 4) recorded over a duration of 4.5 ms after a hammer exci-
tation at a distance of 80 mm to FBG 3 and 150 mm to FBG 4. In
general, the signals observed on different sensors immediately
after the impact are not similar due to the dispersive behavior of
Lamb waves and the different reflections from the edge or clamp-
ing fixture close to the sensors. Note that a few milliseconds after
the impact, the signals resemble a superposition of modal
responses.
3.2.3. Signal processing method
The following method is based on the assumption that only the
fundamental antisymmetric A0 Lamb waves are dominant in the re-
corded signals and that the frequencies of these waves are low. As
presented in Section 2.2, the theoretical group velocity of antisym-
metric Lamb waves has an upper bound almost equal to the shear
wave velocity. The wave arrival time tk of a wave at a sensor Sk is
based on the first appearance of the impulse at a sensor. A commonly
used signal processing method for the identification of the wave ar-
rival time in commercially available acoustic emission equipment is
the threshold method. Here, the appearance of an impulse is de-
tected whenever the amplitude of the signal exceeds a value higher
than the noise level. The threshold is defined as a fraction of the

(a) 150
FBG 3 FBG 4 threshold
100 (a) 150
voltage [mV]

50 100
0
50
voltage [mV]

−50
0
−100
accelerometer 1 50
−150 accelerometer 2
100
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
-150

-200
(b) 200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
time [µs]

100
(b)
voltage [mV]

20
0
voltage [mV]

−100 0

PZT 1
−200 PZT 2 −20
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
0 50 100 150 200
time [µs]
Fig. 5. Signal originating from a wave propagating in the 45° direction and
measured by (a) two accelerometers and (b) two PZT sensors. Each pair of sensors is Fig. 6. Signals from synchronous acquisition of two FBG sensors during a transverse
separated by a distance of 120 mm. non-destructive impact. (a) Acquisition during 4.5 ms. (b) Zoom-in on first 200 ls.
442 J. Frieden et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 438–445
maximum amplitude of the signal. It is verified that, throughout a
range of threshold levels reaching from 2% to 5% of the maximum
amplitude, the arrival time delay results in approximately the same
value (Fig. 6b). In order to reduce the noise in the signals and elimi-
nate quasi-static deformations or low-frequency vibrations, a digital
band-pass filter with a range of 1.5–50 kHz is applied to the signals
prior to the threshold method.
The arrival time delay between two sensors Sk and Sl is defined
by
Dtkl ¼ t k  tl
At each impact, an array [Dtkl] is obtained, with k = 1, . . . , nS and
l = 1, . . . , nS, where nS is the number of sensors. During the experi-
ment, the non-destructive impacts are repeated three or four times
at each location in order to check the repeatability and the accuracy
at which the arrival time delay can be determined.
3.3. Prediction of impact location
A localization method based on interpolation of a known data
set is proposed. This method does not require the knowledge of
the wave propagation velocity as a function of propagation angle.
However, a reference data set denoted by
    ployed. The reference data set for interpolation is produced on a
DtRkl ; xR1 ; xR2
 
which consists of nR arrays of arrival time delays Dt Rkl and nR

R R
known locations x1 ; x2 is required for the interpolation. Thus, an
interpolated response surface denoted by D ct R ðx1 ; x2 Þ is created as
kl
a function of the impact position for each arrival time delay over
 R R
the domain defined by the reference points x1 ; x2 .
For the prediction of the impact location, the array of arrival
 
time delays DtPkl is required as an input for the localization meth-
od. The isolines Lkl are the lines where the interpolated response
surfaces D ct R ðx1 ; x2 Þ take the values of the arrival time delays Dt P .
kl
The intersection between two isolines Lkl and Lrs is denoted
(x1, x2)klrs. The intersections between different pairs of isolines
may be distinct due to interpolation or experimental errors. The
 
predicted impact location xP1 ; xP2 is therefore calculated as a geo-
metrical average of the intersections (x1, x2)klrs. Without any errors,
the intersections of all isolines would coincide.
When the vector defined by the positions of the two sensors Sk
and Sl is parallel to the vector defined by the positions of another
couple of sensors Sr and Ss, the corresponding isolines Lkl and Lrs
risk to be almost parallel. In this case it may happen that no inter-
section is found or that it may be far away from the exact location.
Therefore the intersections of two isolines is only computed when
these isolines are nearly perpendicular.
3.4. Validation of the impact localization method
The localization method described in the previous section is val-
idated by means of numerical and experimental data. The pre-
dicted impact location is therefore compared to the exact
location and the error is expressed in terms of the distance be-
tween the exact and predicted position. The prediction error re-
lated to the interpolation is evaluated using numerically
generated data for the reference set as well as for the prediction.
The interpolation error is evaluated in case of isotropic and aniso-
tropic wave propagation profiles. In experimental tests the loca-
tions of non-destructive impacts on a CFRP plate are predicted
using the described method. This experiment is first carried out
using accelerometers and, second, using surface-glued FBG sen-
sors. By means of these validation tests, the error is decomposed
in a proportion relative to a characteristic size and an absolute con-
tribution independent from the plate size.
3.4.1. Numerical evaluation of the interpolation error
The localization method is tested with a numerically generated
   
data set Dt Rkl ; xR1 ; xR2 which does not comprise  any errors re-
lated to the determination of arrival time delays DtRkl or inexact
 
reference positions xR1 ; xR2 . The time of propagation tk of a wave
initiated at a position (x1, x2) and arriving at a sensor Sk at the posi-
tion ðx1 ; x2 ÞSk is defined by
kðx1 ; x2 Þ  ðx1 ; x2 ÞSk k
tk ¼ ð8Þ
cðhk Þ
ð6Þ
where k  k is the Euclidean norm and c(hk) is the wave velocity in
the propagation direction hk defined by the impact location (x1, x2)
and the position of sensor Sk. The arrival time delay Dtkl between
two sensors Sk and Sl is defined by Eq. (6). No reflections at the bor-
der of the domain are taken into account. Also in case of an aniso-
tropic wave velocity, the fastest way for a wave to propagate from
its source to a sensor is considered to be the shortest one.
3.4.2. Experimental validation of the localization method
The previously described localization method is used to predict
the known location of a non-destructive impact using signals ob-
tained from accelerometers and FBG sensors. For the experimental
test with accelerometers, the sensor configuration of Fig. 3 is em-
ð7Þ
grid of 3  3 points. On each location of the reference data set,
the array of arrival time delays is calculated from an average of
three hits. The impact locations are predicted on 45 different
points, with three hits at each location. Thus the error as well as
the repeatability can be evaluated over the whole region. Then
the four surface-glued FBG sensors (cf. Fig. 4) are used for localiz-
ing a non-destructive impact. Again, a reference data set is pro-
duced on a grid of 3  3 points and serves for the prediction of
five randomly selected impact locations. At each of these five loca-
tions, the impact is performed twice to test the repeatability of the
kl
method.
4. Results of the validation and discussion
4.1. Signal processing
The arrival time delays obtained from the accelerometer/FBG
signals have a maximum standard deviation at one location of
10.3/12.4 ls and an average standard deviation for all measure-
ments of 2.3/3.2 ls, respectively. Considering a wave speed of
1300 m/s, this uncertainty in arrival time delay corresponds to a
maximum uncertainty in position of 16 mm and an average uncer-
tainty of 4.2 mm. Note that an uncertainty in location of approxi-
mately 2 mm can be attributed to a lack of precision during the
manual excitation with the hammer. The relatively higher impreci-
sion of the arrival time delays obtained from FBG signal is due to
the higher noise level. Larger deviations are due to a bad choice
of the threshold value and a relatively high noise level in the sig-
nals. However, throughout the experiments, the sensitivity of the
FBG sensors was found to be largely sufficient when the incident
waves arrived at an angle within ±60°.
4.2. Wave speed measurements
In the tested CFRP plates, the propagation speed has an average
value of 1300 m/s (±100 m/s) and is almost independent of the
propagation direction. The maximum relative standard deviation
for three repeated tests in one propagation direction is 5%. In addi-
tion, the wave speed as a function of propagation direction, shown
in Fig. 7, agrees very well with the theoretical group velocity of the
zero-order antisymmetric A0 Lamb waves determined in Table 1.
 J. Frieden et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 438–445 443

1500 sensors exact locations

1250 reference data location predictions
velocity [m/s]

1000
150
750

500 125
250
100
0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90

x2 [mm]
propagation direction θ [degree] 75

Fig. 7. Experimentally measured wave velocity as a function of propagation

direction. The error bars indicate the standard deviation of the measurements. 50

4.3. Numerical evaluation of interpolation error

The interpolation error is evaluated over the whole domain and
is expressed in terms of a radius between the exact position and
the predicted position. It is shown that the interpolation error de-
pends on the distance between the reference data points. A regular
positioning of the sensors is preferred and the sensors should deli-
mit the boundary of the region to be monitored. Beyond the do-
main delimited by the sensors a prediction of the location is
possible.
h However, i for each pair of sensors (Sk, Sl), the response sur-
face D ct R ðx1 ; x2 Þ takes a constant value on the semi-infinite long
kl
lines aligned with both sensors Sk and Sl and located outside the
segment delimited by the two sensors. When the impact is located
outside the region delimited by the sensors, the predicted location
might not be unique or can be less accurate. A maximum error of
8.4 mm and an average error of 3.3 mm over the considered do-
main are obtained with a reference grid of 3  3 points and a rect-
angular arrangement of four sensors at the corners of the region.
The interpolation method can also give accurate predictions under
the condition of anisotropic wave speed profile which can be
slightly improved by using a finer reference grid.
exact locations
sensors location predictions reference data
300
32 mm
250
16 mm
200
25
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
x1 [mm]
Fig. 9. Experimentally predicted impact locations using four FBG sensors and
interpolation-based localization method.
4.4. Experimental validation of the localization method
Accelerometers are used to experimentally validate the locali-
zation method. Fig. 8 shows the predicted locations compared to
the exact positions. The average prediction error is 6 mm and can
mainly be attributed to the interpolation error which is related
to the spacing between the reference points. The maximum predic-
tion error of 32 mm is due to an outlier whose arrival time delay
determination is erroneous because of abnormally noisy signals
attributed to an electrical disturbance. The average prediction error
in the experiment with the FBG sensors is 10.1 mm and the maxi-
mum error is 15.5 mm (Fig. 9). The difference in the prediction
accuracy between results obtained from FBG signals and acceler-
ometer signals is attributed to a relatively higher uncertainty in
determining the arrival time delays in case of FBG measurements.
If errors are present in the reference data set either in terms of
imprecise arrival time delays or inaccurate reference positions,
these are directly translated into the impact location prediction.
Therefore, particular care must be taken when the reference data
set is produced. To identify erroneous data and reduce errors, it
is suggested to repeat and average over 2–4 hits the reference mea-
surements on each position.

5. Predicting the location of a destructive impact

x2 [mm]

150 5.1. Test configuration

A CFRP plate with dimensions of 300 mm  140 mm is pro-

duced. Two FBG sensors are embedded between the ultimate and
100
penultimate ply in the direction of the reinforcement fibers. Two
other FBG sensors are glued on the surface of the plate in an obli-
que direction. The plate is clamped on the basis of an impact tower
50 with the embedded optical fibers on the lower side. The configura-
tion of the clamped plate with FBG sensors is illustrated in Fig. 12.

5.2. Reference measurements

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
During the reference measurements for the interpolation-based
x1 [mm]
impact localization method, the excitation
 is carried out using
Fig. 8. Experimentally predicted impact locations using accelerometer signals and
hammer impact on a grid of nine points xR1 ; xR2 . This reference data
interpolation-based localization method. set allows to compute the interpolated response surfaces for each
444 J. Frieden et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 438–445

Table 3
40
Reference measurements of wave arrival time delays. FBG 1
20 FBG 2
Point Position (mm) Arrival time delays (ls) FBG 3
xR1 xR2 Dt R12 Dt R23 DtR34 DtR41 0 FBG 4

Voltage [mV]
1 80 50 144 29 27 127
−20
2 5 50 16 37 26 60
3 90 50 149 73 79 46 −40
4 80 50 102 24 61 25
5 5 0 12 4 41 22 −60
6 90 0 110 7 153 13
7 80 0 57 5 143 95 −80
8 5 50 8 27 11 53
9 90 50 65 50 159 17 −100

−120
couple of sensors. Note here that only two optical channels with 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
sufficient sensitivity are available for the low amplitude signal
due to the configuration of the equipment. Therefore, the reference
Fig. 11. Intensity signals from FBG sensors.
measurements are performed individually for each of four different
couples of sensors. The arrival times of the waves at the sensors are
determined
 R using a threshold method. The arrival time delays
Table 4
Dt 12 ; DtR23 ; Dt R34 ; DtR41 of four different couples of sensors as a func-
Arrival time delays determined in the case of the impact with an energy of 3.4 J.
tion of the reference position (x1, x2)R are shown in Table 3. It can
be noticed that the sum of the four arrival time delays is not equal Position (mm) Arrival time delays (ls)

to zero as it would be theoretically expected. This is due to the fact x1 x2 Dt P12 DtP23 DtP34 DtP41
that the signals are not recorded synchronously and that the arrival 50.0 20.0 78 20 91 7
time delays are subject to errors.

5.3. Low velocity impact predicted impact position arrival time delay isolines
exact impact position reference measurements grid
The plate is impacted at the position (50 mm, 20 mm) with an FBG 4 (embedded) FBG 3 (surface-glued)
energy of 3.4 J. During the impact, two different FBG interrogation 60 L34
7 8 9
modes are used and the four FBG sensors are interrogated simulta-
clamping surface

40

clamping surface
neously. The different acquisition modes allow to obtain calibrated
and high rate measurements. Calibrated measurements of the 20
x2 [mm]

4 5 6
strain signals [19] are carried out at a rate of 100 kHz to have an 0
L41
indication on the amplitude of the impact. The first 20 ms of the −20 L23
strain signals of all four sensors are shown in Fig. 10. It can be seen −40 1 2 3
that the signal of sensor FBG 1 is out of range during the first mil- L12
−60
liseconds of the impact. Maximum strain levels of up to 1000 le
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
are reached during the first 5 ms of the impact and the high spec-
tral content of the signals may indicate the initiation and propaga- FBG 1 (embedded) x1 [mm] FBG 2 (surface-glued)
tion of damage. After 5 ms, the response obviously consists of a
Fig. 12. Isolines of equal arrival time delays and predicted impact location.
superposition of modal vibrations.

5.4. Impact localization

used to predict the impact location. The isolines L12, L23, L34 and
L41, indicated in Fig. 12, are the lines where the interpolated re-
Fast and highly sensitive intensity measurements are done for ct R ðx1 ; x2 Þ; D
ct R ðx1 ; x2 Þ; D
ct R ðx1 ; x2 Þ; D
ct R ðx1 ; x2 Þ
sponse surfaces D 12 23 34 41
the localization of the impact. Fig. 11 shows the first 700 ls of the
take the values of arrival time delays given in Table 4. From such
intensity signal acquired during the impact. This signal allows to
data, the intersections of the pairs of isolines (L12, L23), (L23, L34),
determine the arrival time delays of the waves at the four different
  (L34, L41) and (L41, L12) are calculated and the predicted impact
sensors. Table 4 gives the arrival time delays DtP12 ; Dt P23 ; DtP34 ; Dt P41
location corresponds to the average of these four intersections.  
The resulting coordinates of the predicted location are xl1 ; xl2 ¼
600
ð52:95 mm;  24:69 mmÞ. Note that the distance between the pre-
400 dicted and exact location is 5.5 mm which is very small compared
200 to the plate size.
0
6. Conclusion
−200
−400 FBG sensors can be used to determine the arrival time of waves
FBG 1
−600 FBG 2 initiated by a low velocity impact and such data allow to predict
FBG 3 the location of a non-destructive impact. The presented interpola-
−800 FBG 4 tion-based localization method is versatile, easily implemented
−1000 and does neither require the knowledge of the wave propagation
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
profile nor the exact positions of the sensors. The FBG sensors
Time [ms]
should be placed at the periphery of the region monitored for im-
Fig. 10. Strain signals during impact with energy of 3.4 J. pacts. Outside the domain delimited by the sensors, the accuracy of
 J. Frieden et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 438–445
the impact location prediction diminishes. A distance of a couple of
centimeters should be kept to the edge of the plate or the fixture.
Close to this discontinuities, the wavefront originating from the
impact may interfere with reflections from the boundary and the
arrival time of the wave is difficult to determine.
Regarding the impact location, an average/maximum prediction
error of 10 mm/16 mm is obtained and it is shown that this error is
mostly independent of the plate size. Part of the error is due to the
interpolation error and is relative to the spacing in the reference
data set. If the size of the plate is larger, more reference points
are needed to keep the same order of error. Another part of the er-
ror is due to uncertainties in determining the arrival time of a wave
at the sensors. This contribution to the error depends on the signal
processing. It is independent of the plate size and presents a sub-
stantial fraction of the error when the localization is based on
FBG signals. The accuracy of the prediction may be enhanced by
further improving the sensitivity of the optical FBG interrogation
channels and thereby the signal-to-noise ratio.
In Part II [24] of this work, the damage size and position is iden-
tified using an inverse numerical–experimental optimization
method. The predicted impact location will serve as an initial guess
for the damage identification.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
from the Swiss National Science Foundation, Grant No. 200020-
127183.
References
[1] Jeong H, Jang YS. Wavelet analysis of plate wave propagation in composite
laminates. Compos Struct 2000;49(4):443–50.
[2] Ciampa F, Meo M. Acoustic emission source localization and velocity
determination of the fundamental mode A(0) using wavelet analysis and a
Newton-based optimization technique. Smart Mater Struct
2010;19(4):045027–114.
[3] Betz DC, Thursby G, Culshaw B, Staszewski WJ. Advanced layout of a fiber
Bragg grating strain gauge rosette. J Lightwave Technol 2006;24(2):1019–26.
[4] Betz DC, Thursby G, Culshaw B, Staszewski WJ. Identification of structural
damage using multifunctional Bragg grating sensors: I. Theory and
implementation. Smart Mater Struct 2006;15(5):1305–12.
[5] Betz DC, Staszewski WJ, Thursby G, Culshaw B. Structural damage
identification using multifunctional Bragg grating sensors: II. Damage
detection results and analysis. Smart Mater Struct 2006;15(5):1313–22.
445
[6] Kosters E, Van Els TJ. Structural health monitoring and impact detection for
primary aircraft structures. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 7677, Orlando, Florida,
USA; 2010. p. 1–3.
[7] Kirkby E. Active sensing and repair composites. PhD thesis, École
polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne N° 4409; 2009.
[8] Tsuda H. Ultrasound and damage detection in CFRP using fiber Bragg grating
sensors. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66(5):676–83.
[9] Tsutsui H, Kawamata A, Sanda T, Takeda N. Detection of impact damage of
stiffened composite panels using embedded small-diameter optical fibers.
Smart Mater Struct 2004;13(6):1284–90.
[10] Takeda N, Okabe Y, Kuwahara J, Kojima S, Ogisu T. Development of smart
composite structures with small-diameter fiber Bragg grating sensors for
damage detection: quantitative evaluation of delamination length in CFRP
laminates using Lamb wave sensing. Compos Sci Technol 2005;65(15–
16):2575–87.
[11] Betz DC, Thursby G, Culshaw B, Staszewski WJ. Structural damage location
with fiber Bragg grating rosettes and Lamb waves. Struct Health Monit
2007;6(4):299–308.
[12] Chen BL, Shin CS. Fiber Bragg gratings array for structural health monitoring.
Mater Manuf Process 2010;25(4):255–8.
[13] Tobias A. Acoustic-emission source location in two dimensions by an array of
three sensors. Non-Destruct Test 1976;9(1):9–12.
[14] Kundu T, Das S, Jata KV. Detection of the point of impact on a stiffened plate by
the acoustic emission technique. Smart Mater Struct 2009;18(3):035006–9.
[15] Worden K, Staszewski WJ. Impact location and quantification on a composite
panel using neural networks and a genetic algorithm. Strain 2000;36(2):61–8.
[16] Haywood J, Coverley PT, Staszewski WJ, Worden K. An automatic impact
monitor for a composite panel employing smart sensor technology. Smart
Mater Struct 2005;14(1):265–71.
[17] LeClerc JR, Worden K, Staszewski WJ, Haywood J. Impact detection in an
aircraft composite panel – a neural-network approach. J Sound Vib
2007;299(3):672–82.
[18] Ratcliffe C, Heider D, Crane R, Krauthauser C, Yoon MK, Gillespie Jr JW.
Investigation into the use of low cost MEMS accelerometers for vibration
based damage detection. Compos Struct 2008;82(1):61–70.
[19] Frieden J, Cugnoni J, Botsis J, Gmür T, Coric D. High-speed internal strain
measurements in composite structures under dynamic load using embedded
FBG sensors. Compos Struct 2010;92(8):1905–12.
[20] Su Z, Ye L. Identification of damage using Lamb waves: from fundamentals to
applications. Lecturer notes in applied and computational mechanics, vol.
48. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009.
[21] Kundu T, Das S, Jata KV. Point of impact prediction in isotropic and anisotropic
plates from the acoustic emission data. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;122(4):2057–66.
[22] Rose JL. Ultrasonic waves in solid media. New York: Cambridge University
Press; 2004.
[23] Matter M, Gmür T, Cugnoni J, Schorderet A. Numerical–experimental
identification of the elastic and damping properties in composite plates.
Compos Struct 2009;90(2):180–7.
[24] Frieden J, Cugnoni J, Botsis J, Gmür T. Low energy impact damage monitoring
of composites using dynamic strain signals from FBG sensors – Part II: Damage
identification. Compos Struct 2012;94:593–600.