Home Original page

Design of a Large-Scale Piezoelectric Transducer Network Layer and Its Reliability Verification for Space Structures - PubMed

Design of a Large-Scale Piezoelectric Transducer Network Layer and Its Reliability Verification for Space Structures

Yuanqiang Ren et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

As an effective structural health monitoring (SHM) technology, the piezoelectric transducer (PZT) and guided wave-based monitoring methods have attracted growing interest in the space field. When facing the large-scale monitoring requirements of space structures, a lot of PZTs are needed and may cause problems regarding to additional weight of connection cables, placement efficiency and performance consistency. The PZT layer is a promising solution against these problems. However, the current PZT layers still face challenges from large-scale lightweight monitoring and the lack of reliability assessment under extreme space service conditions. In this paper, a large-scale PZT network layer (LPNL) design method is proposed to overcome these challenges, by adopting a large-scale lightweight PZT network design method and network splitting-recombination based integration strategy. The developed LPNL offers the advantages of being large size, lightweight, ultra-thin, flexible, customized in shape and highly reliable. A series of extreme environmental tests are performed to verify the reliability of the developed LPNL under space service environment, including extreme temperature conditions, vibration at different flying phases, landing impact, and flying overload. Results show that the developed LPNL can withstand these harsh environmental conditions and presents high reliability and functionality.

Keywords: extreme environment; large-scale lightweight PZT network; reliability verification; space structures; structural health monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

A small section of a developed LPNL. (a) The designed FPC. (b) The manufactured layer with PZT.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Example of a developed LPNL. (a) Schematic diagram of the recombination process. (b) The manufactured LPNL.

Figure 3
Figure 3

The adopted LPNL and its placement. (a)The surface mounted LPNL, (b) Placement of the PZT network.

Figure 4
Figure 4

Experimental setup of temperature test.

Figure 5
Figure 5

Implementation process of temperature variation.

Figure 6
Figure 6

Acquired 8 GW signals of paths 2-6 at different temperatures. (a) Low temperature 50 °C. (b) High temperature 150 °C.

Figure 7
Figure 7

Amplitude plot of direct waves at different temperatures. (a) Low temperature –50 °C. (b) High temperature 150 °C.

Figure 8
Figure 8

GW signals of different paths before and after temperature tests. (a) Path 2-6. (b) Path 3-6.

Figure 9
Figure 9

Relative signal change of all the paths after temperature tests. (a) Relative amplitude change. (b) Relative phase change.

Figure 10
Figure 10

Experimental setup of vibration test. (a) Experimental setup. (b) Definition of vibration direction.

Figure 11
Figure 11

Profile of the two high frequency random vibrations. (a) High frequency random vibration 1. (b) High frequency random vibration 2.

Figure 12
Figure 12

Signal comparison results of paths 2-6 and paths 3-5. (a) Paths 2-6. (b) Paths 3-5.

Figure 13
Figure 13

Relative signal change of all the paths after vibration tests. (a) Relative amplitude change. (b) Relative phase change.

Figure 14
Figure 14

Experimental setup of impact test. (a) Experimental setup. (b) The impact response spectrum. (c) The half sinusoid spectrum.

Figure 15
Figure 15

GW signals of different paths before and after impact tests. (a) Path 1-2. (b) Path 2-3.

Figure 16
Figure 16

Relative signal change of all the paths after impact tests. (a) Relative amplitude change. (b) Relative phase change.

Figure 17
Figure 17

Experimental setup of overload tests.

Figure 18
Figure 18

Signal comparison results of path 2-5 and 1-4 before and after overload tests. (a) Path 2-5. (b) Path 1-4.

Figure 19
Figure 19

Relative signal change of all the paths after overload tests. (a) Relative amplitude change. (b) Relative phase change.

Figure 20
Figure 20

Imaging result of Damage 1.

References

    1. Ghoshroy S. The X-37B: Backdoor weaponization of space? Bull. Atom. Scient. 2015;71:19–29. doi: 10.1177/0096340215581360. - DOI
    1. Zagrai A., Campisi M., Anderson M., Hunter D. Structural diagnostics, prognostics and health management for future space vehicles: Development, implementation and testing; Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference; Big Sky, MT, USA. 2–9 March 2019.
    1. Enciu D., Ursu I., Toader A. New results concerning structural health monitoring technology qualification for transfer to space vehicles. Struct Control. Health Monit. 2017;24:e1992. doi: 10.1002/stc.1992. - DOI
    1. Pieczonka L., Ambroziński L., Staszewski W., Barnoncel D., Peres P. Damage detection in composite panels based on mode-converted Lamb waves sensed using 3D laser scanning vibrometer. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2017;99:80–87. doi: 10.1016/j.optlaseng.2016.12.017. - DOI
    1. Yuan S., Lai X., Zhao X., Xu X., Zhang L. Distributed structural health monitoring system based on smart wireless sensor and multi-agent technology. Smart Mater. Struct. 2006;15:1–8. doi: 10.1088/0964-1726/15/1/029. - DOI