Original Article

Structural Health Monitoring

1–15

Multimodal structural health Ó The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
monitoring based on active and passive DOI: 10.1177/1475921717699375
journals.sagepub.com/home/shm
sensing

Amir Nasrollahi1, Wen Deng2, Zhaoyun Ma3 and Piervincenzo Rizzo1

Abstract
We present a structural health monitoring system based on the simultaneous use of passive and active sensing. The pas-
sive approach is based on acoustic emission, whereas the active approach uses the electromechanical impedance and the
guided ultrasonic wave methods. As all these methods can be deployed with the use of wafer-type piezoelectric transdu-
cers bonded or embedded to the structure of interest, this article describes a unified structural health monitoring sys-
tem where acoustic emission, electromechanical impedance, and guided ultrasonic wave are integrated in the same
hardware/software unit. We assess the feasibility of this multimodal monitoring in a large flat aluminum plate instrumen-
ted with six transducers. Acoustic emission events are simulated by exciting a tone burst or by using the conventional
pencil lead break test, and the detected signals are processed with a source localization algorithm to identify the position
of the source. For the active sensing, damage is simulated by adding a small mass to the plate: the raw waveforms are
processed with a delay-and-sum algorithm to create an image of the plate, whereas the electrical admittance of each
transducer is analyzed using the statistical index of the root-mean-square deviation. The results presented in this article
show that the proposed system is robust, mitigates the weaknesses of each method considered individually, and can be
developed further to address the challenges associated with the structural health monitoring of complex structures.

Keywords
Acoustic emission, electromechanical impedance method, guided ultrasonic waves, structural health monitoring, damage
detection

Introduction sensors different than the commercial AE transducers

A wide body of literature proved that structural health
monitoring (SHM) methods based on acoustic emission
(AE),1–9 electromechanical impedance (EMI),10–18 and
guided ultrasonic waves (GUWs)19–31 are able to assess
the health of simple waveguides and a certain number
of complex structures.
AE method exploits the propagation of transient
elastic waves generated by the rapid release of energy
from a localized or multiple sources within the material
being monitored. The energy propagates as a stress
wave in the structure and is detected by one or more
AE sensors. Typically, commercial dedicated systems
are used to run AE. These systems perform, for exam-
ple, parametric analysis by quantifying features, such
as counts, amplitude, rise time, and energy, and these
parameters are correlated to the source that has gener-
ated the transient wave.32,33 Some researchers proposed
alternative platforms,34,35 whereas others36–39 used
including wafer-type lead zirconate titanate (PZT).37,38
GUW-based SHM methods rely on the active gener-
ation and detection of ultrasonic signals such as tone
bursts, chirps, or continuous waves. GUWs are very
attractive as they enable the inspection of large areas
from a single or a few positions. When the method is
1
Laboratory for Nondestructive Evaluation and Structural Health
Monitoring Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
2
School of Automation, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an,
China
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of South Carolina
Corresponding author:
Piervincenzo Rizzo, Laboratory for Nondestructive Evaluation and
Structural Health Monitoring Studies, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 3700 O’Hara Street,
Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
Email: pir3@pitt.edu
2 Structural Health Monitoring
targeted for permanent monitoring, PZT patches are
used.39–42 The EMI technique exploits instead the rela-
tionship between the electrical impedance of a PZT and
the mechanical impedance of the host structure to
which the PZT is bonded or embedded.10,43–48
It is known that AE, EMI, and GUW have advan-
tages and limitations. The method of the AE assumes
that all kinds of defect emit sounds (or ultrasounds)
when they occur or when they grow. However, there
are still some disputes about the ability to monitor/
detect corrosion, about the repeatability of the AE sig-
nals, and the ability to use this technique in noisy envir-
onments. Another concern about AE is that past
history or damage, that is, damage that has occurred
before implementing an AE monitoring system, is not
‘‘seen’’ unless the damage grows. Methods based on the
propagation of GUWs may be insensitive to the pres-
ence of cracks or other kinds of defect oriented along
the direction of the wave propagation. The ability to
detect defects is related to the wavelength of the waves.
The smaller the wavelength, the smaller is the defect
potentially detectable; however, this comes at the
expense of the propagation distance. Moreover, in com-
plex structures, GUWs are scattered by bends, elbows,
edges, or fasteners (bolts, rivets, welds, etc.) leading to
possible false positives/negatives. Finally, the EMI tech-
nique is very effective at probing a region that is close
(in some cases only a few inches) to the probing ele-
ment, that is, it is a local approach. The EMI method is
also sensitive to many variables including the geometric
and electrical properties of the PZT.
To boost the advantages and null the shortcomings
of the each method, we present, in this article, a multi-
modal SHM system where the three methods are driven
by a single hardware/software.
Owing to the widespread use of AE, EMI, and
GUW considered individually, an exhaustive review
of the past literature exceeds the scope of this article.
However, it is interesting to report those researchers
who have succeeded at integrating two techniques at
least. Some authors49–58 used the impedance and the
wave propagation methods separately utilizing differ-
ent and disjointed hardware, software, and sensing.
Park et al.53,54 utilized two PZTs to monitor rail-
roads. Zagrai et al.55 integrated the acoustoelastic
effect and the EMI to assess bolted structures, and
for the EMI measurement, a conventional impedance
analyzer was used. Other authors executed pulse-echo
measurements by adding hardware55 or by placing
two transducers close to each other acting as trans-
mitter and receiver.59–61
In previous works,43,56,62–66 the GUW-based and the
EMI-based methods were employed together. Zhu and
Rizzo43 designed a low-cost circuit coupled to a
National Instruments (NI)-PXI driven by an user
interface coded in LabVIEW. Two piezoelectric trans-
ducers were used; the first PZT transmitted a constant
amplitude 30-cycle sine wave across a range of frequen-
cies and also enabled EMI measurements. At the same
time, the digitizer sampled the signal from the second
PZT at predefined actuation frequencies, giving rise to
the pitch–catch configuration typical of many guided
wave testing. The system was successfully tested on a
plate and on a pipe, but each measurement required
several minutes and therefore was not feasible for the
field applications. An et al.56,62 built an integrated
impedance and guided wave system made of an arbi-
trary waveform generator (AWG), a two-channel digiti-
zer, and two multiplexers. The multiplexers allowed for
the selection of GUW generation or EMI sensing. An
algorithm was developed to compensate any effect
associated with temperature variation; moreover, they
combined the two indices relative to the two methods
into a single damage index. Gulizzi et al.66 improved
the approach presented in43 by (1) designing a more
efficient hardware, (2) changing the monitoring scheme,
and (3) using an advanced signal processing to perform
damage detection. For the actuation, a chirp signal
x(c)[n], defined as
  
(c) 2p f2  f1
x ½n = Aw½n sin n n + f1 , n = 0, . . . , N  1
fs 2N
ð1Þ
was used. In equation (1), w[n] is a window function, fs
is the sampling frequency, A is the amplitude, and f1
and f2 are the start and end frequencies. N/fs is the
duration of the chirp signal, where N is related to the
number of cycles (Nc) of the signal itself N = 2Nc fs/( f1
+ f2). Two PZTs were used to monitor an aluminum
plate. The SHM paradigm exploited the broadband
characteristics of chirp signals to obtain, from a single
measurement, the response associated with pitch–catch
and pulse-echo configurations as well as the electrome-
chanical response of the actuator. One advantage of
using a chirp over a tone burst is the availability of a
large number of tone bursts with a single measurement
and the ability to select a virtually infinite number of
frequency ranges for the EMI analysis.
In the study presented in this article, we transformed
the monitoring scheme introduced in66 by: (1) adding
the passive method of AE; (2) using an array of six
PZTs instead of two; (3) processing the ultrasonic data
to map the area of the structure bounded by the array;
(4) implementing a source localization algorithm in
LabVIEW; and (5) quantifying the repeatability of the
EMI method. The long-term vision is a system that
runs the passive AE mode, in which n transducers listen
to any burst emitted by the onset of new damage or the
growth of existing ones. When a burst is detected, the
Nasrollahi et al. 3

Table 1. Distance from each damage location to each PZT.

Damage Distance (mm)

P1 (762, 874) P2 (914, 610) P3 (762, 345) P4 (457, 345) P5 (305, 610) P6 (457, 874)

d1 305 305 305 305 305 305

d2 255 152 255 400 445 400
d3 405 405 330 220 210 315
d4 152 405 550 550 405 152
d5 210 210 510 687 687 510
d6 560 625 520 280 40 345

PZT: lead zirconate titanate.

The green cells denote the closest PZT to the damage, and the orange cells refer to the farthest one. The numbers in parenthesis represent the x, y
coordinates of the PZTs. All numbers are expressed in mm.

unit processes the AE data and then runs the active

sensing. Here, the EMI probes the region nearby the
actuators, whereas the GUWs create the image of the
plate in search of defects in the far field.
The article is structured as follows: section
‘‘Materials and test setup’’ describes the experimental
setup. Section ‘‘Data processing’’ explains the metho-
dology used for the signal processing. Section
‘‘Experimental results’’ presents the results. Section
‘‘Conclusion’’ ends the article with some concluding
remarks.

Materials and test setup

We tested a 1219 mm 3 1219 mm 3 2.54 mm alumi-
num plate with an array of six 10 mm 3 10 mm 3
2 mm PSI-5A4E transducers labeled P1, ..., P6 and
bonded to the plate at the location indicated in
Table 1. Each PZT was located 305 mm away from the
centroid of the plate. To avoid permanent damage on
the specimen, the passive monitoring was proven by
simulating the occurrence of an event with ultrasonic
bursts emitted by a commercial ultrasonic transducer
(Olympus V103) connected to a function generator and
a linear amplifier EP-104 and with the conventional
pencil lead break (PLB) test. The ultrasonic bursts were
used to compare the information provided by our inte-
grated unit with the information provided by the para-
metric analysis of a commercial AE hardware/software.
The comparison included the location of the event and
the quantitative evaluation of AE parameters such as
number of counts, number of events, and AE energy.
For the sake of space and owing to the scope of this
article, the findings of this comparison are not pre-
sented here. The use of the PLB is instead a conven-
tional approach to mimic real AE events and to
Figure 1. Experimental setup. Location of the PZTs and
simulated damage. The coordinates are expressed in mm.
calibrate the sensitivity of the AE transducers deployed
in real structures.
For the active sensing, damage was mimicked by
gluing two 25.4 mm 3 25.4 mm 3 1.27 mm aluminum
strips on the same side of the plate. The strips were
sequentially detached and glued at six different loca-
tions (d1, ..., d6) in order to assess the reliability of the
active monitoring scheme. Figure 2 displays the case
relative to the strip at position d6. The Euclidean dis-
tance between the simulated damage and the PZTs is
presented in Table 1. The shortest and the longest dis-
tances are highlighted for convenience. The PZTs were
driven by a NI-PXI unit running under LabVIEW. The
4 Structural Health Monitoring

presented later in section ‘‘Sound source localization

(AE approach),’’ two graphical user interfaces (GUIs)
were created. The software included a digital bandpass
filter, 50–550 kHz, to remove unwanted noise. The trig-
ger of the digitizer was arbitrarily set to Channel 1 and
the threshold was equal to 10 mV, which is a common
value adopted in AE commercial systems used in a
laboratory setting. Each channel was pre-triggered by
40% of the data sample length to avoid any truncation
of the real signals.

Figure 2. Photo of the test specimen when the damage was

located at position d6, very close to PZT 5.
PXI included an AWG NI PXI-5412, an eight-channel
digitizer NI PXI-5105, and a controller NI PXIe-8108.
Hardware design: passive sensing (AE)
In the passive AE approach, six PZTs sensed the Lamb
waves x1(t) to x6(t) triggered by any AE event. A con-
trol panel was coded in LabVIEW to digitize and pro-
cess the detected signals in order to locate the event.
With the purpose of implementing the algorithm
Hardware design: active sensing (EMI and GUW)
The EMI and the guided wave methods were unified
using the NI-PXI unit, and the auxiliary circuit is
shown in Figure 3(a). The overall scheme of the active
sensing mechanism is presented in Figure 3(b), which
refers to the case where P2 served for the EMI sensing
and for the excitation of the guided waves, and the
remaining transducers acted as GUW sensors. The
AWG produced an user-defined chirp signal x0(t) that
was 8 ms long, 2000 cycles, 24 Vpp, frequency range
90–200 kHz, and duration N/fs equal to 100 ms. The
chirp reached the circuit and the Channel 0 of the digi-
tizer where the signal was sampled at 2 MHz rate and

Figure 3. (a) Auxiliary circuit used to perform the active sensing approaches and (b) schematics of the hardware used to perform
ultrasonic monitoring and EMI measurements. In the figure, r1 and r2 represent the electrical resistances of the cables and Zin is the
impedance of the digitizer.
Nasrollahi et al.
Figure 4. (a) Acoustic emissions detected by the array when a
300-kHz tone-burst event occurred at location d3 and
(b) corresponding Hilbert transforms. Owing to the position of
d3 with respect to the sensors, the S0 mode and any other
trailing waves hit the transducers P4 and P5 first.
0.5 ms pre-trigger. In the circuit, x0(t) passed through a
resistor Rs = 1967 O in order to run the EMI measure-
ments and then was split into the xa(t) signal to excite
the transmitter and the xi(t) signal sent to the channel
of the digitizer associated with the actuator. The resis-
tor enabled the EMI measurements because it distribu-
ted the input voltage between itself and the PZT.
Data processing
Sound source localization (AE approach)
Typical commercial AE systems embed algorithms to
perform source localization. When the structure being
monitored is a plate-like structure, these localization
techniques are sometimes referred to as planar localiza-
tion,67 and their accuracy is strongly dependent on the
knowledge of the group velocity (cg) of the Lamb
waves. Typically, only the S0 and A0 Lamb wave
modes are detected because of the frequency–thickness
range associated with the AE events.
In this study, we used the hyperbola method68–71
that is sometimes referred to as ‘‘Classical source locali-
zation method.’’72
In this study, the position of the AE event was identi-
fied by considering the arrival of the S0 mode because it
is non-dispersive in the frequency range of the expected
bursts and faster than the dispersive A0. Figure 4(a)
5
shows the experimental waveforms detected by sensor
P1 when a 300-kHz tone burst was emitted at location
d3, and Figure 4(b) shows the corresponding Hilbert
transform.
These transforms were used to determine the arrival
of the first arrival73 that was then used to calculate the
difference Dtij of the first signal that hit PZTs i and j.
From Dtij and the known group velocity of the S0
mode, the difference Ddij = Dtij 3 cg of the path dis-
tances between the source and the receivers i and j was
computed. The dominant frequency of the first arrival
was determined with the fast Fourier transform (FFT)
and used to retrieve the appropriate value of cg from a
library of Lamb wave dispersion curves integrated in
the unit. These dispersion curves were created using the
SAFE (semi-analytical finite element) approach.74,75
With the value of Ddij, the two coefficients
 
Ddij di  dj 
aij = = ð2aÞ
2 2
and
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
bij = c2ij  a2ij ð2bÞ
were calculated. In equation (2), di and dj are the
unknown sources to PZTs i and j distance, respectively,
and cij is the known half distance between the two
PZTs. Finally, these coefficients were used to find the
equation of the hyperbola
x20 y20
 =1 ð2cÞ
a2ij b2ij
For each pair of PZTs, two branches of the hyper-
bola exist. For illustrative purposes, Figure 5 presents
the branches associated with sensor pairs (P1, P3) and
(P2, P5). The four intersections identify the possible
location of the AE event. To identify the true location,
the area within the array was virtually divided into four
quadrants. Upon the occurrence of an AE event, the
two smallest arrival times ti and tj identified the quad-
rant affected by the event and selected automatically
the pairs of transducers to compute the hyperbolas. If
quadrant Q1 or Q4 was identified, the sensor pairs
(P1, P3) and (P2, P5) were selected; otherwise, the pairs
(P4, P6) and (P2, P5) were considered. Note that the
pair (P2, P5) was always chosen because both sensors
lie on the boundary of two quadrants. Combining the
information about the quadrant and the intersection of
the hyperbolas, the location of the AE event was deter-
mined. The example of Figure 5 illustrates the case of
an event occurring in third quadrant.
6 Structural Health Monitoring
( h i
Aw½m sin 2pf mfs m = 0, 1, . . . , N  1
x(tb)
0 ½m = ð5Þ
0 m = N, . . . , M  1

where w[m] is the modulating window function, f is the

central frequency, A is the amplitude, and N is equal to
Ncfs/f where Nc is the number of tone-burst cycles.
Then, we calculated the FFT Xi(tb)[k] of the response
signals to the tone-burst signal

Xi(tb) ½k = Hi0(c) ½kX0(tb) ½k, i = 1, 2, . . . , NT ð6Þ

This FFT was then used to calculate the response
xi(tb)[m] to the tone burst with the inverse FFT of equa-
tion (6), that is
 (tb)
x(b)
i ½m = IFFT Xi ½k , i = 1, 2, . . . , NT ð7Þ

The sensor PZTj, where j = 1, 2, ..., NT j 6¼ i (i is

the actuator), captured the guided waves propagating
Figure 5. AE localization algorithm. along the plate. The response of PZT as if a tone burst
was excited by the transducer PZTi was obtained using
Waveform reconstruction algorithm the transfer function Hi0[k] associated with the chirp.
The FFT Xsj[k] of xsj[k] at the sensor’s electrodes was
For the active sensing part, we used the approach pro-
related to the FFT Xj[k] of the output signal xj[k] using
posed by Moll and Fritzen76 and Michaels et al.77 to
the relationship as follows
extract the narrowband components of the detected
GUWs and to derive the electromechanical response of r2 + jZjin ½k
the actuators within a certain frequency range. The Xsj ½k = Xj ½k, j = 1, 2, . . . , NT j j 6¼ i ð8Þ
jZjin ½k
parameters Nc, f1, f2, and fs were set through one of the
user-friendly panels. Then, the FFT of the transmitted If r2 \\ Zin
and detected chirps was computed as follows
Xsj(tb) ½k’Xj(tb) ½k = Hj0(c) ½kX0(tb) ½k, j = 1, 2, . . . , NT j j 6¼ i
X0 ½k = FFT fx0 ½mg ð3aÞ
ð9Þ
Xi ½k = FFT fxi ½mg, i = 1, . . . , NT ð3bÞ
and
where m = 0, 1, ..., M 2 1 (M is the length of the sig- n o
nal, M = fsttotal), NT is the number of the transducers, Xsj(tb) ½m = IFFT Xsj(tb) ½k , j = 1, 2, . . . , NT j j 6¼ i
that is, 6 in this study, and subscript 0 refers to the chirp
generated by the AWG. The frequency response func- ð10Þ
tion (FRF) Hi0[k] was then calculated as the ratio of the Using the above algorithm, the FRFs were used in
FFT of each signal to the FFT X0[k], that is the EMI processing. In addition, the pitch–catch
responses of the PZTs were obtained and applied to
Xi(c) ½k damage localization algorithm based on a delay-and-
Hi0(c) ½k = , i = 1, . . . , NT ð4Þ
X0(c) ½k sum algorithm.
The superscript (c) indicates that the FRFs were
obtained by measuring the responses associated with EMI analysis
the excitation of the chirp. The overall system, includ- In general, the conductance Zi,PZT of the ith transducer
ing the circuit and the waveguide, could be assumed is related to its FRF response through the following
linear and time invariant. As such, the FRFs enabled relationship66
to find the response of the sensors to any input, pro-
vided that the frequency content of such input falls Zin ½kZi, PZT ½k
between the frequency range f1–f2 of the chirp. Hi0(c) ½k = ,
ðRs + r1 Þðr2 + Zin ½kÞ + Zi, PZT ½kðRs + r1 + r2 + Zin ½kÞ
To reconstruct the tone-burst (tb) response from the
i = 1, 2, . . . , NT
sensed chirps, an input tone burst was defined first as
ð11Þ
Nasrollahi et al. 7

Table 2. The results of commercial transducers and the corresponding errors.

Location d1 d2 d3 d4
x (mm) y (mm) x (mm) y (mm) x (mm) y (mm) x (mm) y (mm)

Detected 607 610 756 609 512 558 610 853

Damage 610 610 755 610 510 560 610 874
Error (mm) 3 1 3 21
Error ratio (%) 0.49 0.16 0.49 3.44

The numbers for each detected damage are the average of nine measurements.

Solving equation (11) for Zi,PZT, we obtained

Hi0(c) ½kZin ½kRS

Zi, PZT ½k = , i = 1, 2, . . . , NT
Zin ½k  Hi0(c) ½kðRS + Zin ½kÞ
ð12Þ

The resistances r1 and r2 were neglected because

they were much smaller than RS. Once the Zi,PZT was
determined for both the pristine and faulty condi-
tions, the root-mean-square deviation (RMSD)78,79
defined as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uP
u
G ½i  G ½i2
n
u p d
ui = 1
RMSD(%) = u P n
2 3100 ð13Þ
t
Gp ½i
i=1

was calculated. In equation (13), Gp[i] and Gd[i] repre-

sent the conductance of the PZT in the pristine and
the undamaged states, respectively, and n is the num-
ber of the sampled points in the considered frequency
range. The analysis was conducted in the frequency
range of 91–94 kHz as this range was sufficiently far
from the PZT resonances and had many peaks that
serve as indicators of the vibration modes of the host
structure.66 Figure 6. Delay-and-sum algorithm: (a) general principle of an
ultrasonic wave scattered by damage and (b) virtual grid
overlapped with the test specimen.
Delay-and-sum imaging algorithm
The delay-and-sum technique80–85 was applied to the 2. Calculate the expected arrival time (t = t1 + t2)
reconstructed tone bursts in order to create a tomo- associated with each point (x, y) of the grid using
graphic image of the plate. The technique is schema-
tized in Figure 6(a). The presence of damage scatters tði, j, x, yÞ
the waveform emitted by PZT i. The scattered signal is qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2
2ffi
received by PZT j at the time required for the wave to ðx  xi Þ2 + ðy  yi Þ2 + x  xj + y  yj
travel from the transmitter to the scatterer (t1) and from = + toff
cg
the scatterer to the receiver (t2). The following steps
ð14Þ
were implemented:
where (xi, yi) and (xj, yj) are the coordinates of the ith
1. Create a virtual grid of points on the plate actuator and the jth receiver, respectively, and toff is the
(Figure 6(b)) located at coordinate (x, y). offset time.
8 Structural Health Monitoring

3. Scale the amplitude of the received signal to remove

the effect of signal attenuation due to the path
distance
0 11=2
S ði, j, mÞ B d0 C
S^ði, j, mÞ = @
2
2 1=2 A
Aij
xi  xj + xi  xj
ð15Þ
where S(i, j, m) is the signal transmitted by PZT ith
and received by sensor jth, d0 is the unit distance (e.g.
1 m in this study), and Aij is the maximum amplitude
of S(i, j, m).

4. Compute the difference of the scaled signals Figure 7. Acoustic emissions detected by the array under the
between the pristine (p) and the damaged state pencil lead break test.

^ j, m)  S^p (i, j, m)
U (i, j, m) = S(i,
5. Calculate the Hilbert transform of the signal differ-
ence and the corresponding modulus
C(i, j, m) = Hilbert ðU (i, j, m)Þ = U (i, j, m) + ð1Þ0:5 V (i, j, m)
ð17Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
D(i, j, m) = j C(i, j, m) j = ðU (i, j, m)Þ2 + ðV (i, j, m)Þ2
where V(i, j, m) is the harmonic conjugate of U (i, j, m).
6. Calculate the image intensity value E(x, y) for each
point of the grid
X X
1 NT1 NT
E(x, y) = Dði, j, mt Þ
NP i = 1 j = i + 1
where NP=NT(NT 2 1)/2 is the number of the trans-
ducer pairs and mt=fst(i, j, x, y). The image value is
expected to be large when the grid point overlaps with
the location of damage, that is, when the wave is scat-
tered by damage as part of its energy reaches the
sensor.
Experimental results
AE monitoring
One Olympus V103 ultrasonic transducer was fixed at
the locations d1–d4 shown in Figure 1. At each loca-
tion, a five-cycle sine wave from 100 to 500 kHz at
50 kHz step was excited. Thus, nine signals were
detected at each location. Table 2 summarizes the
ð16Þ
results of the localization algorithm for each simu-
lated event. The small relative error between the true
and the estimated locations of the event proves the
effectiveness of the algorithm under the case of nar-
rowband signals. The error is the difference in the
Euclidean distance of the true and the estimated dam-
age from the origin of the reference system, located at
the bottom left corner of the plate. The error ratio is
instead the ratio between the error and the farthest
ð18Þ distance (610 mm) between two PZTs of the array.
The results relative to the PLB test are instead pre-
sented in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7 displays the wave-
forms received when the event was simulated at point
d3. The waveforms mainly contain the A0 mode; how-
ever, the amplitude of the S0 mode was sufficient to be
considered for the analysis. The wave hits PZT 5 first
and PZT 2 last. Figure 8 shows the estimated location
of the PLB. The hollow circles represent the estimated
ð19Þ
locations, while the green asterisks represent the true
locations. Despite the challenge associated with the low
amplitude of the symmetric mode and the broadband
nature of the excitation, the algorithm was able to
detect the location of the event very precisely. To quan-
tify the relative inaccuracies, the results of Figure 8 are
also presented in Table 3 where the coordinates of the
true and the estimated damage are presented along
with the error and the error ratio. The fact that the
maximum error is only 2.13% demonstrates the accu-
racy of the passive system.
EMI measurements
In the literature, the use and the analysis of multiple
PZTs were rarely considered. To the best of the
authors’ knowledge, typical EMI experimental
Nasrollahi et al. 9

Table 3. The results of PLB and the corresponding errors.

Location d1 d2 d3 d4
x (mm) y (mm) x (mm) y (mm) x (mm) y (mm) x (mm) y (mm)

Detected 611 609 756 602 512 548 598 868

Damage 610 610 755 610 510 560 610 874
Error (mm) 1 8 12 13
Error ratio (%) 0.16 1.31 1.96 2.13

PLB test: pencil lead break test.

monitoring is conducted using one PZT. When two or

Figure 8. Results of the AE localization under pencil lead break
test.
more PZTs were used, there was no direct cross-
comparison among the values of the conductance and
susceptance of the PZTs. Moreover, damage detection
was performed by comparing the conductance and
eventually the susceptance of each PZT with their cor-
responding baseline values. In this study, we began by
comparing the responses of the six PZTs under free
boundary conditions and after bonding them to the
pristine plate. The results are presented in Figure 9.
The signatures of the free PZTs (Figure 9(a)) show that
the transducers were approximately identical in terms
of amplitude and resonant frequency. As expected, the
amplitudes at resonance were significantly smaller
when the PZTs were bonded to the plate (Figure 9(b)).
As discussed earlier, the quantitative analysis of the
conductance was restricted to the 91- to 94-kHz fre-
quency range. To quantify the differences in this range,
the RMSD of the conductance with respect to PZT 5
was computed and is presented in Figure 10(a). PZT 5
was selected as its distance to P6 and P1 was identical

Figure 9. Conductance as a function of the excitation frequency of the six transducers under (a) free conditions and (b) glued to
the pristine plate.
10 Structural Health Monitoring

Figure 10. (a) RMSD of the conductance of the transducers prior and after bonding them to the pristine plate. The conductance
associated with PZT 5 was considered as reference. (b) RMSD of the conductance for all transducers and for all damage scenarios.
In this case, for each PZT, the baseline data are those collected under pristine condition and measured by each transducer.

to its distance to transducers P4 and P3, respectively. Ultrasonic imaging

Moreover, its location with respect to the plate edges Figure 11 presents the waveforms reconstructed when
was identical to the location of PZT 2. The plot sug- P1 was probing the pristine plate. The waveforms refer
gests that the differences among the PZTs were mainly to the reconstruction of a five-cycle 100- and 170-kHz
due to manufacturing. In fact, if the PZTs were identi- tone bursts. The electromagnetic crosstalk (emc),
cal, the RMSD under free conditions should have
almost identical for all PZTs, is followed by the arrival
returned a value equal to zero. Once bonded to the
of the S0 and A0 modes, respectively. The wave packets
plate, these differences remain similar.
traveling along the line of sight between the transmitter
The comparative analysis suggests that some differ-
and each receiver are labeled along with some of the
ences may exist among the PZTs of an array. As such,
waves reflected from the edges.
the absolute value of the conductance may not be effec-
The reconstructed waveforms were used in the
tive at revealing the presence of damage. To prove it,
delay-and-sum algorithm described earlier. The results
Figure 10(b) shows the RMSD associated with each
relative to the localization of damage 2 are presented in
transducer and for all six damage scenarios. The index
Figure 12 for six different reconstructed tone bursts.
was computed by comparing the conductance of the
The figure demonstrates that the frequency to be con-
damaged case to the conductance taken under pristine
sidered should be close to the resonant frequency of the
condition with the same PZT. The bar relative to the
PZTs which Figure 9 proved to be ;170 kHz. Below
undamaged case refers to two consecutive measure-
150 kHz, the damage was not localized partially
ments; ideally, this value should have been zero.
because the propagating wavelength is larger than the
Overall, the values of the statistical index are smaller
size of added mass, and therefore the signal-to-noise
than those presented in Figure 10(a) but they are all
ratio (SNR) of the scattered signal is too small, and
above 0.3% which is the RMSD relative to the pristine
mainly because the SNR of the transmitted and propa-
condition. This means that the EMI method could
gating signals was small due to the resonant character-
detect the presence of the added mass, provided each
istics of the PZTs, as shown in Figure 11. For example,
PZT was compared to its own baseline value. Notably,
at 150 kHz, the wavelength of the S0 mode is approxi-
for each transducer, the highest RMSD corresponds
mately 33 mm. It should be noted that the SNR is also
with the closest damage scenario, labeled as C in the
small because the resonance of the PZTs is close to
figure, and vice versa. When the added mass was only
170 kHz, as shown in Figures 9 and 11. For this rea-
40 mm from PZT 5, the RMSD was the largest.
son, any frequency higher than the resonant frequency
Overall, the data presented in Figure 10(b) seem to indi-
of the PZT is also detrimental for the detection of
cate that the RMSD is inversely proportional to the
damage.
Euclidean distance of the added mass to the sensors.
Nasrollahi et al.
Figure 11. Reconstructed pitch–catch signals for the actuation
frequency of (a) 100 kHz and (b) 170 kHz. Note the vertical
scale. The latter signals are 10 times larger.
Figure 12. Tomographic images of the plate when the added mass was located at d2 using the reconstructed tone burst centered
at (a) 90 kHz, (b) 110 kHz, (c) 130 kHz, (d) 150 kHz, (e) 170 kHz, and (f) 190 kHz.
11
In the future, the chirp signal should be tailored to
include only those frequencies of interests for the mea-
surements of the sensors electrical impedance and the
Lamb waves with the highest SNR.
Finally, Figure 13 shows the ultrasonic images rela-
tive to damage scenario 6 and 170 kHz frequency. The
images demonstrate that when the damage was very
close to a transducer, the delay-and-sum algorithm
failed to detect it. When the damage is close to a PZT
and far from the other sensors, the amplitude of the
scattered wave attenuates below the noise floor before
reaching the sensors or it is masked by the amplitude
of the direct transmitter–receiver signal. Moreover, the
presence of the PZT itself masks any small defect
located nearby. This circumstance proves that the inte-
gration of EMI and GUW methods enables the locali-
zation of damage regardless of the damage position
with respect to the transducers.
Conclusion
This article presented an integrated SHM system based
on an array of wafer transducers and smart data acqui-
sition system able to run passive sensing based on AE,
and active sensing based on EMI and propagation and
detection of GUWs. The system was tested on a large
aluminum plate subjected to simulated damage by glu-
ing a small mass on the surface of the specimen (active
sensing) and by exciting narrowband and broadband
12
Figure 13. Tomographic images of the plate when the added
mass was located at d6 using the reconstructed tone burst
centered at 170 kHz.
signals (passive sensing). We found that the system can
efficiently integrate the three sensing approaches and
can effectively locate the simulated AE events and
detect the presence of the added mass, which was as
small as less than 1% of the area of the plate. This arti-
cle demonstrated that the integrated system could be
used synergistically using the array to passively detect
any burst generated by damage onset or growth (AE
approach) and then using the array to actively measure
the electrical impedance of the transducers and to sense
the guided waves sensed by the array. Using the three
methods altogether, the structure can be monitored in a
fraction of the time that would occur to run the three
methods individually using separate instruments.
Moreover, the integrated system maintains, if not
enhances, the advantages and overcomes the limitations
that each method possesses when considered individu-
ally. As such, we expect that the proposed multimodal
system can be applied to anisotropic materials as well
as can detect defects located outside the area within the
array of transducers. For the latter, the image process-
ing or the passive localization algorithms may need to
be modified to improve the outcomes.
We want to emphasize that the GUWs can also be
processed in a pulse-echo mode, like a radar system, in
which the same PZT excites the tone burst and detects
any echo reflected from a defect, and in a pitch–catch
mode where two PZTs communicate with each other
such that one PZT transmits the signal and the other
receives the same signal and a comparison is made
between current situation and some baseline data; using
imaging algorithms as done in this article. As such, the
multimodal integrated system can exploit up to five dif-
ferent methodologies.
Future studies shall consider more complex struc-
tures and test the effect of temperature and moisture.
Structural Health Monitoring
Moreover, the hardware/software can be improved to
take into account the fact that the different methods
may have different frequency ranges. In the experiment
presented in this study, the data associated with the
EMI and the GUW were analyzed at different ranges.
In the future, the use of the chirp to drive the active
modes may be refined in order to reduce the computa-
tion time associated with the EMI and GUW
approaches. For the AE setup, instead the frequency
range is strongly dependent on the geometry and the
material of the structure under investigation, and there-
fore, the multimodal system would need to be adapted
to the specific application. We do not exclude that
more sophisticated AE localization algorithms should
be implemented into our integrated system when more
complex geometries are to be monitored.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Mr Vincenzo Gulizzi at the University of
Palermo, Italy for many fruitful discussions. W.D. conducted
this research as a visiting scholar at the University of
Pittsburgh under a sponsorship from the China Scholarship
Council. Z.M. conduct this research at the University of
Pittsburgh as part of her M.S.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This study was supported by the American Society for
Nondestructive Testing through a graduate research fellow-
ship awarded to the A.N., the first author.
References
1. McCrory JP, Al-Jumaili SK, Crivelli D, et al. Damage
classification in carbon fibre composites using acoustic
emission: a comparison of three techniques. Compos Part
B: Eng 2015; 68: 424–430.
2. Al-Jumaili SK, Pearson MR, Holford KM, et al. Acous-
tic emission source location in complex structures using
full automatic delta T mapping technique. Mech Syst Sig-
nal Pr 2016; 72: 513–524.
3. Crivelli D, Guagliano M, Eaton M, et al. Localisation
and identification of fatigue matrix cracking and delami-
nation in a carbon fibre panel by acoustic emission. Com-
pos Part B: Eng 2015; 74: 1–12.
4. Clark G and Knott J. Acoustic emission and ductile
crack growth in pressure-vessel steels. Met Sci 2013; 11:
531–536.
5. Barile C, Casavola C, Pappalettera G, et al. Analysis of
crack propagation in stainless steel by comparing
Nasrollahi et al.
acoustic emissions and infrared thermography data. Eng
Fail Anal 2016; 69: 35–42.
6. Agletdinov E, Pomponi E, Merson D, et al. A novel
Bayesian approach to acoustic emission data analysis.
Ultrasonics 2016; 72: 89–94.
7. Babu MN, Mukhopadhyay C, Sasikala G, et al. Study of
fatigue crack growth in RAFM steel using acoustic emis-
sion technique. J Constr Steel Res 2016; 126: 107–116.
8. Prem PR and Murthy AR. Acoustic emission and flexural
behaviour of RC beams strengthened with UHPC over-
lay. Construct Build Mater 2016; 123: 481–492.
9. Ohtsu M. Elastic wave methods for NDE in concrete
based on generalized theory of acoustic emission. Con-
struct Build Mater 2016; 122: 845–854.
10. Park G, Sohn H, Farrar CR, et al. Overview of piezoelec-
tric impedance-based health monitoring and path for-
ward. Shock Vib Digest 2003; 35: 451–463.
11. Peairs DM, Park G and Inman DJ. Improving accessibil-
ity of the impedance-based structural health monitoring
method. J Intel Mat Syst Str 2004; 15: 129–139.
12. Bhalla S and Soh C. Electro-mechanical impedance tech-
nique. In: Soh CK, Yang Y and Bhalla S (eds) Smart
materials in structural health monitoring, control and bio-
mechanics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2012, pp. 17–51.
13. Gulizzi V, Rizzo P and Milazzo A. On the repeatability
of electromechanical impedance for monitoring of
bonded joints. AIAA J 2015; 53: 3479–3483.
14. Na S, Tawie R and Lee H-K. Electromechanical impe-
dance method of fiber-reinforced plastic adhesive joints
in corrosive environment using a reusable piezoelectric
device. J Intel Mat Syst Str 2012; 23: 737–747.
15. Gulizzi V, Rizzo P and Milazzo A. Electromechanical
impedance method for the health monitoring of bonded
joints: numerical modeling and experimental validation.
Struct Durab Health Monit 2014; 10: 19–54.
16. Lim YY and Soh CK. Electro-mechanical impedance
(EMI)-based incipient crack monitoring and critical crack
identification of beam structures. Res Nondestruct Eval
2014; 25: 82–98.
17. Selva P, Cherrier O, Budinger V, et al. Smart monitoring
of aeronautical composites plates based on electromecha-
nical impedance measurements and artificial neural net-
works. Eng Struct 2013; 56: 794–804.
18. Talakokula V, Bhalla S and Gupta A. Corrosion assess-
ment of reinforced concrete structures based on equivalent
structural parameters using electro-mechanical impedance
technique. J Intel Mat Syst Str 2014; 25: 484–500.
19. Adams D. Health monitoring of structural materials and
components: methods with applications. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
20. Giurgiutiu V. Structural health monitoring: with piezoelec-
tric wafer active sensors. New York: Academic Press, 2007.
21. Balageas D, Fritzen C-P and Güemes A. Structural health
monitoring. New Port Beach, CA, USA: John Wiley &
Sons, 2010.
22. Farrar CR and Worden K. Structural health monitoring:
a machine learning perspective. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 2012.
13
23. Alleyne DN and Cawley P. The interaction of Lamb
waves with defects. IEEE T Ultrason Ferr 1992; 39:
381–397.
24. Rose JL. Ultrasonic waves in solid media. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
25. Niethammer M, Jacobs LJ, Qu J, et al. Time-frequency
representations of Lamb waves. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;
109: 1841–1847.
26. Giurgiutiu V. Tuned Lamb wave excitation and detection
with piezoelectric wafer active sensors for structural
health monitoring. J Intel Mat Syst Str 2005; 16:
291–305.
27. Rizzo P and di Scalea FL. Ultrasonic inspection of multi-
wire steel strands with the aid of the wavelet transform.
Smart Mater Struct 2005; 14: 685.
28. Su Z, Ye L and Lu Y. Guided Lamb waves for identifica-
tion of damage in composite structures: a review. J Sound
Vib 2006; 295: 753–780.
29. Raghavan A and Cesnik CE. Review of guided-wave
structural health monitoring. Shock Vib Digest 2007; 39:
91–116.
30. Rizzo P, Han J-G and Ni X-L. Structural health monitor-
ing of immersed structures by means of guided ultrasonic
waves. J Intel Mat Syst Str 2010; 21: 1397–1407.
31. Rizzo P and Lanza di Scalea F. Effect of frequency on
the acoustoelastic response of steel bars. Exp Techniques
2003; 27: 40–43.
32. Rizzo P, Spada A, Degala S, et al. Acoustic emission
monitoring of chemically bonded anchors. J Nondestruct
Eval 2010; 29: 49–61.
33. Degala S, Rizzo P, Ramanathan K, et al. Acoustic emis-
sion monitoring of CFRP reinforced concrete slabs. Con-
struct Build Mater 2009; 23: 2016–2026.
34. Wang C, Au YJ, Li L, et al. Guided wave mode disper-
sion of transient acoustic emission on copper pipes—its
visualisation and application to source location. Mech
Syst Signal Pr 2016; 70: 881–890.
35. Murasawa G, Takahashi R, Morimoto T, et al. Inhomo-
geneous deformation twinning measurement using digital
image correlation and acoustic emission. Exp Mech 2015;
55: 65–76.
36. LédecziÁ, Hay T, Volgyesi P, et al. Wireless acoustic
emission sensor network for structural monitoring. IEEE
Sens J 2009; 9: 1370–1377.
37. Maji A and Shah S. Process zone and acoustic-emission
measurements in concrete. Exp Mech 1988; 28: 27–33.
38. Perelli A, De Marchi L, Marzani A, et al. Acoustic emis-
sion localization in plates with dispersion and reverbera-
tions using sparse PZT sensors in passive mode. Smart
Mater Struct 2012; 21: 025010.
39. Giurgiutiu V, Bao J and Zhao W. Piezoelectric wafer
active sensor embedded ultrasonics in beams and plates.
Exp Mech 2003; 43: 428–449.
40. Zhu X, Hao H and Fan K. Detection of delamination
between steel bars and concrete using embedded piezo-
electric actuators/sensors. J Civ Struct Health Monit
2013; 3: 105–115.
14
41. Zhu X and Rizzo P. Sensor array for the health monitor-
ing of truss structures by means of guided ultrasonic
waves. J Civ Struct Health Monit 2014; 4: 221–234.
42. Giurgiutiu V and Santoni-Bottai G. Structural health
monitoring of composite structures with piezoelectric-
wafer active sensors. AIAA J 2011; 49: 565–581.
43. Zhu X and Rizzo P. A unified approach for the structural
health monitoring of waveguides. Struct Health Monit
2012; 11: 629–642.
44. Wang Q and Wang C. Optimal placement and size of
piezoelectric patches on beams from the controllability
perspective. Smart Mater Struct 2000; 9: 558.
45. Baptista FG, Vieira Filho J and Inman DJ. Sizing PZT
transducers in impedance-based structural health moni-
toring. IEEE Sens J 2011; 11: 1405–1414.
46. Bhalla S and Soh CK. Electromechanical impedance
modeling for adhesively bonded piezo-transducers. J Intel
Mat Syst Str 2004; 15: 955–972.
47. Park G and Inman DJ. Structural health monitoring
using piezoelectric impedance measurements. P Roy Soc
A: Math Phy 2007; 365: 373–392.
48. Koo K-Y, Park S, Lee J-J, et al. Automated impedance-
based structural health monitoring incorporating effec-
tive frequency shift for compensating temperature effects.
J Intel Mat Syst Str 2008; 20: 367–377.
49. Li Y, Jiang Z, Chonan S, Feng G and Wen B. Impe-
dance-based technique and wave propagation measure-
ment for non-destructive evaluation. Proceedings of
international conference on vibration engineering. Dalian,
China: Northeastern University Press, 1998, pp. 476–481.
50. Kabeya K, Jiang Z and Cudney H. Structural health
monitoring by impedance and wave propagation mea-
surement. In: Proceedings of the international motion and
vibration control, Zurich, 25–28 August 1998.
51. Jiang Z, Kabeya K and Chonan S. Longitudinal wave
propagation measuring technique for structural health
monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 1999 symposium on
smart structures and materials, Newport Beach, CA, 1
March 1999, pp. 343–350. Bellingham, WA: International
Society for Optics and Photonics.
52. Giurgiutiu V, Zagrai A and Bao JJ. Piezoelectric wafer
embedded active sensors for aging aircraft structural
health monitoring. Struct Health Monit 2002; 1: 41–61.
53. Park S, Lee J-J, Yun C-B, et al. A built-in active sensing
system-based structural health monitoring technique
using statistical pattern recognition. J Mech Sci Technol
2007; 21: 896–902.
54. Park S, Inman DJ, Lee J-J, et al. Piezoelectric sensor-
based health monitoring of railroad tracks using a two-
step support vector machine classifier. J Infrastruct Syst
2008; 14: 80–88.
55. Zagrai A, Doyle D, Gigineishvili V, et al. Piezoelectric
wafer active sensor structural health monitoring of space
structures. J Intel Mat Syst Str 2010; 21: 921–940.
56. An Y-K and Sohn H. Integrated impedance and guided
wave based damage detection under temperature varia-
tion. In: Proceedings of the SPIE smart structures and
materials + nondestructive evaluation and health
Structural Health Monitoring
monitoring, San Diego, California, USA, 6 March 2011,
p. 79811Q. Bellingham, WA: International Society for
Optics and Photonics.
57. Cuc A, Giurgiutiu V, Joshi S, et al. Structural health
monitoring with piezoelectric wafer active sensors for
space applications. AIAA J 2007; 45: 2838–2850.
58. Sharif Khodaei Z, Ghajari M, Aliabadi M, et al. SMART
platform for structural health monitoring of sensorised
stiffened composite panels. Key Eng Mater 2013;
525–526: 581–584.
59. Yang M and Qiao P. Modeling and experimental detec-
tion of damage in various materials using the pulse-echo
method and piezoelectric sensors/actuators. Smart Mater
Struct 2005; 14: 1083.
60. Raghavan A and Cesnik CE. Guided-wave signal pro-
cessing using chirplet matching pursuits and mode corre-
lation for structural health monitoring. Smart Mater
Struct 2007; 16: 355.
61. Shen Y and Giurgiutiu V. WaveFormRevealer: an
analytical framework and predictive tool for the simula-
tion of multi-modal guided wave propagation and inter-
action with damage. Struct Health Monit 2014; 13:
491–511.
62. An Y-K, Giurgiutiu V and Sohn H. Integrated impedance
and guided wave based damage detection. Mech Syst Sig-
nal Pr 2012; 28: 50–62.
63. An YK, Kim MK and Sohn H. Airplane hot spot moni-
toring using integrated impedance and guided wave mea-
surements. Struct Control Hlth 2012; 19: 592–604.
64. Park H-J, Sohn H, Yun C-B, et al. Wireless guided wave
and impedance measurement using laser and piezoelectric
transducers. Smart Mater Struct 2012; 21: 035029.
65. Providakis CP, Stefanaki KD, Voutetaki ME, et al.
Damage detection in concrete structures using a simulta-
neously activated multi-mode PZT active sensing system:
numerical modelling. Struct Infrastruct E 2014; 10:
1451–1468.
66. Gulizzi V, Rizzo P, Milazzo A, et al. An integrated struc-
tural health monitoring system based on electromechani-
cal impedance and guided ultrasonic waves. J Civ Struct
Health Monit 2015; 5: 337–352.
67. Kurz HJ, Köppel S, Linzer ML, et al. Source localization.
In: Grosse C and Ohtsu M (eds) Acoustic emission testing:
basics for research—applications in civil engineering. Ber-
lin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008, pp. 101–147.
68. Kalafat S and Sause MG. Acoustic emission source loca-
lization by artificial neural networks. Struct Health Monit
2015; 14: 633–647.
69. Fendzi C, Mechbal N, Rebillat M, et al. A general Baye-
sian framework for ellipse-based and hyperbola-based
damage localization in anisotropic composite plates. J
Intel Mat Syst Str 2016; 27: 350–374.
70. Rossi P, Robert JL, Gervais JP, et al. Acoustic emission
applied to study crack propagation in concrete. Mater
Struct 1989; 22: 374–384.
71. Dunn F, Hartmann W, Campbell D, Fletcher N and
Rossing T. Springer handbook of acoustics. New York:
Springer Science+Business Media LLC, 2015.
Nasrollahi et al.
72. Kalafat S and Sause MG. Localization of acoustic emis-
sion sources in fiber composites using artificial neural net-
works. 31st Conference of the European working group on
acoustic Eeission. DGZIP, 2014, pp. 1–8.
73. Sedlak P, Hirose Y and Enoki M. Acoustic emission loca-
lization in thin multi-layer plates using first-arrival deter-
mination. Mech Syst Signal Pr 2013; 36: 636–649.
74. Marzani A, Viola E, Bartoli I, et al. A semi-analytical
finite element formulation for modeling stress wave pro-
pagation in axisymmetric damped waveguides. J Sound
Vib 2008; 318: 488–505.
75. Sale M, Rizzo P and Marzani A. Semi-analytical formu-
lation for the guided waves-based reconstruction of elas-
tic moduli. Mech Syst Signal Pr 2011; 25: 2241–2256.
76. Moll J and Fritzen C. Advanced aspects of mode-selec-
tive excitation of ultrasonic guided waves. 24th Confer-
ence on noise and vibration engineering, Leuven, Belgium,
2010, pp. 969–984. ISMA.
77. Michaels JE, Lee SJ, Croxford AJ, et al. Chirp excitation
of ultrasonic guided waves. Ultrasonics 2013; 53: 265–270.
78. Giurgiutiu V and Rogers CA. Recent advancements in
the electromechanical (E/M) impedance method for
structural health monitoring and NDE. In: Proceedings
of the 5th annual international symposium on smart struc-
tures and materials, San Diego, CA, 1 March 1998,
pp. 536–547. Bellingham, WA: International Society for
Optics and Photonics.
79. Annamdas VGM and Soh CK. Application of electrome-
chanical impedance technique for engineering structures:
15
review and future issues. J Intel Mat Syst Str 2010; 21:
41–59.
80. Michaels JE. Detection localization and characterization
of damage in plates with an in situ array of spatially dis-
tributed ultrasonic sensors. Smart Mater Struct 2008; 17:
035035.
81. Flynn EB, Todd MD, Wilcox PD, et al. Maximum-likeli-
hood estimation of damage location in guided-wave
structural health monitoring. P Roy Soc A: Math Phy.
Epub ahead of print 6 April 2011. DOI: 10.1098/
rspa.2011.0095.
82. Salmanpour M, Sharif Khodaei Z and Aliabadi M.
Transducer placement optimisation scheme for a delay
and sum damage detection algorithm. Struct Control
Hlth. Epub ahead of print 21 June 2016. DOI: 10.1002/
stc.1898.
83. Michaels JE. 9-sparse array imaging with guided waves
under variable environmental conditions. In: Yuan F-G
(ed.) Structural health monitoring (SHM) in aerospace
structures. Duxford: Woodhead Publishing, 2016, pp.
255–284.
84. Michaels JE, Croxford AJ and Wilcox PD. Imaging algo-
rithms for locating damage via in situ ultrasonic sensors.
In: Proceedings of the IEEE sensors applications sympo-
sium, 2008 (SAS 2008), Atlanta, GA, 12–14 February
2008, pp. 63–67. New York: IEEE.
85. Liu G, Xiao Y, Zhang H, et al. Baseline signal recon-
struction for temperature compensation in Lamb wave-
based damage detection. Sensors 2016; 16: 1273.