IOP PUBLISHING SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES

Smart Mater. Struct. 16 (2007) 14891499 doi:10.1088/0964-1726/16/4/064

Macro-ber composite piezoelectric
rosettes for acoustic source location in
complex structures
Howard M Matt
1
and Francesco Lanza di Scalea
2
NDE & Structural Health Monitoring Laboratory, Department of Structural Engineering,
University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0085, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085,
USA
E-mail: hmatt@ucsd.edu and anza@ucsd.edu
Received 19 January 2007, in nal form 19 April 2007
Published 17 July 2007
Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/16/1489
Abstract
An approach based upon the employment of piezoelectric transducer rosettes
is proposed for passive damage or impact location in anisotropic or
geometrically complex structures. The rosettes are comprised of rectangular
macro-ber composite (MFC) transducers which exhibit a highly directive
response to ultrasonic guided waves. The MFC response to exural (A
0
)
motion is decomposed into axial and transverse sensitivity factors, which
allow extraction of the direction of an incoming wave using rosette
principles. The wave source location in a plane is then simply determined by
intersecting the wave directions detected by two rosettes.
The rosette approach is applicable to anisotropic or geometrically
complex structures where the conventional time-of-ight source location is
challenging due to the direction-dependent wave velocity. The performance
of the rosettes for source location is validated through pencil-lead breaks
performed on an aluminum plate, an anisotropic CFRP laminate and a
complex CFRP-honeycomb sandwich panel.
(Some gures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)
1. Introduction
The ability to locate damage or impacts in structural materials
with waveguide geometries (plates, rods, pipes, etc) is one of
the attractions of structural health monitoring (SHM) systems
based on guided ultrasonic waves (GUWs).
Damage location can be achieved by either an active
passive approach or by a passive-only approach. In the
activepassive approach, diffractions of piezoelectrically
actuated waves can be used to locate existing damage thus in
a post-mortem mode (Lastari and Qiao 2005, Diamanti et al
2004, Su and Ye 2004, Giurgiutiu and Jingjing 2004, Paget
et al 2003, Valdes and Soutis 2002, Blaise and Chang 2002,
Wang and Chang 2000, Lemistre and Balageas 2001). In the
1
Present address: ATA Engineering, San Diego, CA.
E-mail: hmatt@ata-e.com.
2
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
passive-only approach, growing damage or sudden impacts
can be located by monitoring acoustic emissions in a real-time
mode (Mal et al 2005, Banerjee et al 2005, Prosser et al 1995).
Traditionally, damage or impact location is based on time-of-
ight triangulation of wave measurements taken at multiple
receiving points.
One problem with time-of-ight triangulation is the
dispersive nature of the exural mode which makes it difcult
to identify an accurate arrival time from, for example, the
conventional rst-threshold crossing. This concern remains
despite the proposed improvements over the rst threshold
crossing, such as cross-correlation techniques for extracting
the phase of a single frequency component (Ziola and Gorman
1991). The measurement of the less dispersive extensional
mode can theoretically help identify a correct arrival time
(Gorman and Ziola 1991). However, the extensional mode
can be highly attenuated in composites or generally large
structures, in which cases triangulation of the exural mode
0964-1726/07/041489+11$30.00 2007 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 1489
H M Matt and F L di Scalea
Figure 1. Macro-ber composite transducer (type P2) with geometrical reference.
often remains the only realistic option. Another reason
for preferential use of the (fundamental) exural mode is
the lower phase velocity compared to the (fundamental)
extensional mode at the same frequency. This results in smaller
wavelengths, and thus higher sensitivity to small damage.
The second, more severe, problem with time-of-ight
triangulation is the required knowledge of the wave velocity in
the test material. The velocity is required to translate arrival
time measurements into source location. This requirement
is a fundamental limitation when monitoring anisotropic
or geometrically complex structures (e.g. aerospace panels),
where the velocity is dependent upon propagation direction,
v = v(). Model-based approaches (Chang and Markmiller
2006, Park and Chang 2005, Seydel and Chang 2001) have thus
been required for impact location and identication in simple
composite structures. In these methods the location and type
of impact in a model are iteratively changed until the predicted
responses match the measured responses. For damage/impact
location in more complex structures, where accurate model-
based predictions may not be possible, articial neural
networks have been proposed (Staszewski et al 2000, Jones
et al 1997, Schindler et al 1995). However, neural networks
require an extensive number of training observations prior to
deployment, and they cannot provide deterministic locations.
Optimization methods based on genetic algorithms to locate
impacts in composite plates (Coverley and Staszewski 2003)
are still based on time-of-ight wave information requiring
prior knowledge of the v = v() curve.
This paper presents an approach for acoustic source
location based on piezoelectric rosettes. The rosettes exploit
the highly directional response of macro-ber composite
(MFC) rectangular patches to determine the direction of an
incoming wave independently of the wave velocity in the
medium. Since no wave velocity information or complex
modeling is required, the proposed technique can improve
source location in anisotropic and geometrically complex
structures. The response of individual MFC patches to exural
waves is derived rst. The theory of MFC rosettes is then
presented in analogy with known electrical resistance strain
gage rosette theory. Finally, proof-of-principle source location
is demonstrated on isotropic, anisotropic and geometrically
complex specimens.
The general idea of using rosettes for the detection of
ultrasonic waves is not new. However, the use of piezoelectric
rosettes for extracting the direction of incoming waves, thus
allowing real-time source location, is novel. A previous
study demonstrated damage detection in a thin plate by
monitoring changes in the plates frequency response functions
(FRFs) recorded by piezoelectric transmitterreceiver rosette
pairs (Kawiecki and Jesse 2002). In this work, the rosettes
were employed to increase the FRF data set to feed to
a neural network algorithm. Wave direction determination
was, instead, the focus of more recent works employing
rosettes of Bragg grating ber-optic strain sensors (Thursby
et al 2004, 2006). However, current technology for Bragg
grating detection of ultrasound requires manual tuning of the
laser to a high-sensitivity wavelength specic to each grating.
Consequently, ultrasonic measurements cannot be taken from
all three gratings of the rosette simultaneously, which limits
the technique to locating existing defects only, rather than
growing damage or impacts in real time. In addition, the
periodicity of the Bragg grating response requires sophisticated
data reduction steps, such as genetic algorithms (Thursby et al
2004), to identify unequivocally the wave incoming angle.
These issues are avoided with piezoelectric, rather than optical,
wave sensing.
2. Fundamental response of macro-ber composite
sensors to exural Lamb waves
2.1. MFC transducers
MFC transducers, developed at NASA Langley Research
Center, are gaining increasing interest for built-in SHM
systems applied to structural control (Schoenecker et al 2005,
Sodano et al 2004, Bevan and Mei 2001, Wilkie et al 2000)
and, more recently, to ultrasonic wave transduction (Lanza di
Scalea et al 2007a, Thien et al 2005).
MFCs are comprised of very thin, Pb(ZrTi)O
3
(PZT)
bers that are unidirectionally aligned and sandwiched
between two sets of electrode patterns printed on a polyimide
lm (gure 1). Compared to monolithic PZT transducers,
MFCs offer increased exibility and durability. The MFC
sensors used in this study were rectangular, type P2 devices
(Smart Material Corporation, Sarasota, FL) with overall
dimensions of 25.5 mm 12.2 mm 0.3 mm (1

0.48

0.01

) and operating according to the d

31
/d
32
electromechanical coupling mechanism.
1490
Piezoelectric rosettes for wave source location
2.2. Strain sensitivity of MFC transducers
Consider a thin rectangular MFC transducer (type P2) acting
as a sensor and having an effective length, l, width, b, and
thickness, t , along the coordinates 1, 2 and 3, respectively
(gure 1). The Cartesian reference system (x, y, z) is aligned
with the transducers geometrical axes (1, 2, 3).
The MFC transducer can be modeled as an orthotropic
lamina in plane stress conditions. Under these assumptions,
the constitutive relation of the sensor (direct piezoelectric
effect) poled along its thickness direction, 3, can be written
as (Azzouz et al 2001):
D
3
= [ d
31
d
32
0 ]
_
Q
11
Q
12
0
Q
12
Q
22
0
0 0 Q
66
_

__

11

22

12
_
E
3
_
d
31
d
32
0
__
+ e

33
E
3
(1)
where D
3
, e

33
and E
3
are the charge density, the dielectric
permittivity and the electric eld, respectively, along the poling
direction. The terms d
31
and d
32
are the piezoelectric constants,
and
11
,
22
and
12
are the normal and shear strain components
in the sensor. The reduced stiffness matrix of an MFC
transducer is:
[Q] =

E1
12112
12 E2
12112
0
12 E2
12112
E2
12112
0
0 0 G
12

(2)
where E
1
and E
2
are the Youngs moduli of the transducer
along 1 and 2,
12
and
21
are the respective Poissons
ratios, and G
12
is the in-plane shear modulus. Expanding
equation (1), the charge density becomes:
D
3
= (d
31
Q
11
+ d
32
Q
12
)
11
+ (d
31
Q
12
+ d
32
Q
22
)
22

_
d
2
31
Q
11
+ 2d
31
d
32
Q
12
+ d
2
32
Q
22
e

33
_
E
3
. (3)
Considering the electrical boundary conditions of the MFC
sensor to be an open circuit, the total charge over the electrode
area is zero, thus
_ _
D
3
dx dy = 0 (Tzou 1993). In this case,
the voltage can be calculated as:
V =
_ _ _
E
3
dx dy dz
lb
. (4)
Solving equation (3) for E
3
and integrating according to
equation (4) the following voltage expression is obtained:
V =
_
t
_ _
[(d
31
Q
11
+ d
32
Q
12
)
11
+ (d
31
Q
12
+ d
32
Q
22
)
22
]dx dy
_
{lb[e

33
(d
2
31
Q
11
+ 2d
31
d
32
Q
12
+ d
2
32
Q
22
)]}
1
(5)
where it is assumed that all variables are uniform through the
thickness, t (thin sensor).
Substitution of the reduced stiffness matrix of equation (2)
into equation (5) results in the following expression of the
voltage response of the MFC sensor as a function of the two
in-plane strains,
11
and
22
:
V =
_
t
_ _
[(d
31
E
1
+ d
32

12
E
2
)
11
+ (d
31

12
E
2
+ d
32
E
2
)
22
]dx dy
_
{lb[(1
21

12
)e

33
(d
2
31
E
1
+ 2d
31
d
32

12
E
2
+ d
2
32
E
2
)]}
1
. (6)
Figure 2. Rectangular MFC sensor subjected to Lamb waves in
general oblique incidence.
The sensors response to Lamb ultrasonic waves will
be examined in the following section by considering the
appropriate strain elds in equation (6). It is assumed that the
wave elds are not signicantly affected by the presence of the
sensor.
2.3. Response of MFC sensors to exural Lamb waves
Consider a rectangular MFC sensor bonded to the upper
surface of an isotropic plate of thickness 2d and subjected to
a harmonic strain eld associated to antisymmetric (exural)
Lamb waves propagating in the plane (x

, z) along direction x

(gure 2). This wave mode is commonly used for the detection
and location of damage or impacts, as discussed in section 1.
The wave propagation direction x

forms an angle with the

lengthwise direction of the sensor. The origin of the thickness
coordinate, z = 0, is at the mid-plane of the plate. The Lamb
wave in-plane displacement can be expressed in one of the
classical formulations as:
u
x
= Ak
_
sinhr z
coshrd

2rs
k
2
+ s
2
sinh sz
cosh sd
_
e
i(kx

2
)
(7)
where A is an arbitrary constant which depends on the
magnitude of the wave and the parameters r and s are dened
as:
r =
_
k
2

2
c
2
L
, s =
_
k
2

2
c
2
T
(8)
where is the frequency, k is the wavenumber, and c
L
and
c
T
are the bulk longitudinal and shear velocities in the plate,
respectively.
For plane waves (
y

y
= 0), the only strain relevant to the
surface-mounted sensor is the in-plane component in the wave
propagation direction given by:

x
|
z=d
=
u
x

z=d
= i k
2
A
_
tanhrd
2rs
k
2
+ s
2
tanh sd
_
e
i(kx

2
)
. (9)
The in-plane strain
x

x
can be transformed into the lengthwise
and widthwise axes of the sensor using the following strain
transformation:

11
=
x

x
cos
2

22
=
x

x
sin
2
.
(10)
1491
H M Matt and F L di Scalea
Ignoring shear lag effects, the voltage expression in
equation (6) can be written as:
V =
H
lb
_ _

x

x
dx dy (11)
where H is the following frequency-independent constant:
H = {t [(d
31
E
1
+ d
32

12
E
2
) cos
2
+ (d
31

12
E
2
+ d
32
E
2
) sin
2
]}{[(1
21

12
)e

33
(d
2
31
E
1
+ 2d
31
d
32

12
E
2
+ d
2
32
E
2
)]}
1
. (12)
Thus, H depends on the electromechanical properties and
thickness of the sensor, as well as on the wave propagation
direction relative to the sensor geometrical axes.
Substituting equation (9) into (11), performing the
variable transformation x

= x cos + y sin , and further

utilizing Eulers formulae (e
i
= cos + i sin ; e
i

e
i
= 2i sin ) and prosthaphaeresis formulae, the following
expression is obtained for the sensors voltage response to
antisymmetric Lamb waves:
V = iVe
i(t +

2
)
(13)
where the amplitude is:
V =
4H A
lb sin cos
_
tanhrd
2rs
k
2
+ s
2
tanh sd
_
sin
_
kb sin
2
_
sin
_
kl cos
2
_
. (14)
It should be noted that the above expression is formally
equivalent to that previously obtained by the authors for
monolithic PZT sensors (Lanza di Scalea et al 2007b), with
the constant H accounting for the differences in properties
between the isotropic PZT device and the anisotropic MFC
device.
Similarly to what was found by Lanza di Scalea et al
(2007b), wavelength tuning effects emerge through the terms
sin(kb sin /2) and sin(kl cos /2). For parallel incidence
( = 0

) recalling that lim

0
(sin )/ = 1, equation (14)
simplies to:
V

=0

=
2H Ak
l
_
tanhrd
2rs
k
2
+ s
2
tanh sd
_
sin
_
kl
2
_
(parallel incidence). (15)
Because sin(kl/2) = sin(l/), the response will be large
at = 2l/(2n 1) for n = 1, 2, 3, . . . corresponding to
sensor lengths equal to an odd multiple of half the wavelength.
Contrary to what was established for piezoelectric actuators
(Giutgiutiu 2005), these conditions do not necessarily
correspond to local maxima of the sensor response due to the
factor multiplying the sinusoidal term. The response will be
zero, instead, at = l/n for n = 1, 2, 3, . . . corresponding to
sensor lengths equal to an integer multiple of the wavelength.
Furthermore, from the term l in the denominator, the response
will generally increase with decreasing sensor length.
In order to eliminate the arbitrary term A in equations (14)
and (15), the response can be normalized by the Lamb wave
power ow expressed as:
N =
_
_
+d
d
P
x
dz (16)
Table 1. Electromechanical constants of the MFC sensors (direction
1 is along the piezoelectric bers).
E
1
E
2
d
31
d
32
e

33
(GPa) (GPa) (pC N
1
) (pC N
1
)
12

21
(nF m
1
)
30
a
16
a
370
a
370
b
0.31
a
0.16
c
16.37
b
a
From Schoenecker et al (2005).
b
From Smart Material Corporation, Sarasota, FL.
c
Calculated as
21
=
12
(E
2
/E
1
).
where P
x
is the x

component of the wave Poynting

vector which, in turn, is calculated from the relevant stress
components and particle velocities as:
P
x
=
1
2
Re
_

_
u
x

t
_

+
x

z
_
u
z
t
_

_
(17)
where Re indicates the real part and * indicates complex
conjugate.
The MFC sensor response to antisymmetric Lamb waves
was validated experimentally on a 1.2 m 1.2 m 1.5 mm
(4

0.06

) aluminum plate and on a 0.3 m 0.3 m

1.5 mm (12

12

0.06

) [0/45]
2S
CFRP plate.
A rectangular MFC sensor with active area of 25.5 mm
12.2 mm (1

0.48

) was permanently bonded to the surface

of each plate. For the CFRP plate, the sensor was bonded with
its widthwise direction parallel to the 0

ber axis. Flexural

excitation was performed by pencil lead breaks (HsuNielsen
sources) normal to the plates surface. The distance between
source and receiver was maintained at 76.2 mm (3

).
The predicted sensor responses were computed as V/N
from equations (14) and (16). For the calculation of the k =
k() dispersion solutions in these equations, a semi-analytical
nite element (SAFE) method discussed at length in a previous
work (Bartoli et al 2006) was employed for both the aluminum
plate and the CFRP plate. The SAFE analysis of the composite
plate modeled each lamina individually and then accounted for
the lay-up when assembling the global nite element matrix.
The electromechanical properties of the sensor employed to
calculate the constant H are given in table 1.
The theoretical and experimental frequency responses of
the sensors are shown in gure 3 for both plates and for
wave incident angles = 0

, 45

and 90

. The general
behavior seen in gure 3 is, again, similar to what was
found for monolithic PZT sensors (Lanza di Scalea et al
2007b). The largest response in all cases is seen at low
frequencies. This conrms that the sensor behaves as an ideal
strain detector when it is small compared to the wavelength.
At higher frequencies, where the wavelength is comparable
to the sensors dimensions, tuning effects, discussed earlier,
govern the response. The comparison between predictions and
measurements is rather satisfactory in terms of both relative
amplitude and spectral shape. The overestimation of the
predicted responses seen at higher frequencies can be attributed
to the assumption of at frequency content of the excitation
strain used in the harmonic model. Wave attenuation losses,
not considered in the study, will contribute to altering the
frequency content of the wave generated by a broadband
source.
1492
Piezoelectric rosettes for wave source location
Figure 3. Theoretical and experimental response amplitude spectra of rectangular MFC sensor subjected to antisymmetric Lamb waves in an
aluminum plate ((a)(c)) and in a [0/45]
2S
CFRP plate ((d)(f)). Waves propagating at 0

((a) and (d)), at 45

((b) and (e)) and at 90

((c) and (f)) from the lengthwise direction of the sensor.

3. Directivity of the MFC response
The sensors response amplitude spectrum can be expressed in
terms of a frequency-dependent sensitivity factor, S, and the
amplitude spectrum of the surface strain, as:
V = S
x

x
. (18)
From equations (9) and (14), the sensitivity factor for
antisymmetric waves is:
S =
4H
lbk
2
sin cos
sin
_
kb sin
2
_
sin
_
kl cos
2
_
. (19)
It can be demonstrated that, for l (sensor smaller
than wavelength), the sensitivity can be decomposed into a
longitudinal sensitivity factor, S
1
, and a transverse sensitivity
factor, S
2
, as:
S S
1
cos
2
+ S
2
sin
2
(20)
where is the usual wave propagation direction relative to the
sensors lengthwise direction. The longitudinal and transverse
sensitivity factors are dened for waves propagating along
the sensors lengthwise and widthwise directions, respectively.
Thus:
S
1
= S|
=0
= {2t (d
31
E
1
+ d
32

12
E
2
) sin(kl/2)}
{lk[(1
21

12
)e

33
(d
2
31
E
1
+ 2d
31
d
32

12
E
2
+ d
2
32
E
2
)]}
1
S
2
= S|
=90
= {2t (d
31

12
E
2
+ d
32
E
2
) sin(kb/2)}
{bk[(1
21

12
)e

33
(d
2
31
E
1
+ 2d
31
d
32

12
E
2
+ d
2
32
E
2
)]}
1
.
(21)
It can be further demonstrated numerically that the error
associated with the approximation in equation (20) tends to
zero for width to length (b/l) sensor ratios equal to 0.57.
Figure 4 demonstrates the validity of the approximation in
equation (20). The exact and approximate sensitivity factors
are plotted according to equations (19) and (20), respectively.
The results were calculated for the 25.5 mm 12.2 mm MFC
sensor bonded to the 1.5 mm thick aluminum plate subjected
to an a
0
wave eld at incident angles of = 30

, 45

and
60

. It is clear from the gure that equation (20) provides

an accurate approximation of the sensitivity provided that the
frequencies of interest generate wavelengths larger than the
sensor dimension, i.e. l.
By substituting equation (20) into (18) and recalling
the strain transformation equation (10), the sensors response
becomes:
V S
1

11
+ S
2

22
(22)
1493
H M Matt and F L di Scalea
Figure 4. Comparison of exact and approximate sensitivity factors of
an MFC sensor subjected to a
0
waves incident at = 30

, 45

and
60

in an aluminum plate.
where the wave strain components along the longitudinal and
the transverse sensor directions are explicitly indicated.
Equation (22) makes the MFC response formally
equivalent to that of conventional electrical resistance strain
gages. This equation also emphasizes that the response is
highly dependent on the wave propagation direction, and
thus signicant directivity behavior is expected at certain
frequencies. Figure 5 shows the longitudinal ( = 0

) and
the transverse ( = 90

) sensitivity factors for the MFC

sensor examined in the previous gure. Also shown is the
exact sensitivity factor from equation (19) for = 45

. The
expected wavelength tuning effects are seen, with the zeros
and maxima of the longitudinal response occurring at lower
frequencies compared to the transverse response, owing to the
larger lengthwise dimension. More importantly, signicant
directivity behavior is apparent. At = l, for example,
the transverse sensitivity S
2
is large, whereas the longitudinal
sensitivity S
1
is zero. At frequencies lower than the =
l point, the sensitivity at = 45

is the average of the

longitudinal and the transverse sensitivities. Such directivity
behavior enables the use of rosettes for wave source location.
4. MFC rosettes for the wave source location
4.1. Evaluation of the principal strain angle
Let us consider three rectangular MFC sensors A, B and C
arranged in an arbitrary rosette conguration and subjected to
antisymmetric waves as shown in gure 6(a). Considering
waves such that l and using equation (22), the sensors
responses can be written as:
V
A
= S
1

A
11
+ S
2

A
22
V
B
= S
1

B
11
+ S
2

B
22
V
C
= S
1

C
11
+ S
2

C
22
(23)
Figure 5. Longitudinal, transverse and 45

sensitivity factors for an

MFC sensor subjected to a
0
waves in an aluminum plate.
where
i
11
and
i
22
(i = A, B, C) indicate, respectively, the
strain components in the longitudinal and in the transverse
direction of the i th sensor, and all sensors are assumed equal in
electromechanical and geometrical properties.
Dividing equation (23) by the longitudinal sensitivity
factor yields:
V
i
S
1
=
i
11
+ K
T

i
22
for i = A, B, C (24)
where K
T
is a transverse sensitivity ratio dened as:
K
T
=
S
2
S
1
=
l (d
31

12
E
2
+ d
32
E
2
) sin (kb/2)
b (d
31
E
1
+ d
32

12
E
2
) sin (kl/2)
. (25)
Let us assume that the lengthwise direction of the i th
sensor is oriented at an angle
i
from the global coordinate
axis x (gure 6(b)). In analogy with electrical resistance strain
gages, strain transformation relations can be used to determine
the Cartesian strain components from the response of the three
sensors:
_

xx

yy

x y
_
= [T]
1

V
A
S1
V
B
S1
V
C
S1

(26)
where
[T] =
_
cos
2

A
+ K
T
sin
2

A
sin
2

A
+ K
T
cos
2

A
cos
2

B
+ K
T
sin
2

B
sin
2

B
+ K
T
cos
2

B
cos
2

C
+ K
T
sin
2

C
sin
2

C
+ K
T
cos
2

C
(1 K
T
) sin
A
cos
A
(1 K
T
) sin
B
cos
B
(1 K
T
) sin
C
cos
C
_
. (27)
The principal strain angle of the wave, , measured from
the global axis x (gure 6(b)), can be nally computed as:
tan 2 =

x y

xx

yy
=
Num
Den
. (28)
1494
Piezoelectric rosettes for wave source location
Figure 6. (a) Concept of piezoelectric rosettes for the wave source location in a plane. (b) Reference system for the calculation of the
Cartesian strains of the wave from the sensors response.
The 90

uncertainty affecting due to the arctan function

can be resolved based on the signs of the numerator (Num) and
the denominator (Den), according to:
if Num > 0, 0

< < 90

;
if Num < 0, 90

< < 0

;
if Num = 0 and
Den > 0, = 0

;
Den < 0, = 90

Den = 0, is indeterminate.
4.2. Determination of the wave source location
Evaluation of the source location in a plane is readily achieved
by the intersection of the principal directions determined by
two rosettes (gure 6(a)). The principal angles calculated
from the two rosettes,
1
and
2
, dene the equations of the
straight lines connecting the wave source to each of the rosette
centroids according to:
y
SOURCE
= (x
SOURCE
x
1
) tan
1
+ y
1
y
SOURCE
= (x
SOURCE
x
2
) tan
2
+ y
2
(29)
where (x
SOURCE
, y
SOURCE
) represent the coordinates of the
wave source in the (x, y) Cartesian system, and (x
1
, y
1
),
(x
2
, y
2
) represent the coordinates of the centroids of the two
rosettes, respectively.
The linear system of equations can nally be solved for
the coordinates of the wave source:
x
SOURCE
=
y
2
y
1
+ x
1
tan
1
x
2
tan
2
tan
1
tan
2
y
SOURCE
= (x
SOURCE
x
1
) tan
1
+ y
1
.
(30)
5. Validation of the source location
5.1. Test specimens and experimental procedure
Three test specimens were employed for the validation tests.
Shown in gure 7, these consisted of the 1.2 m 1.2 m
1.5 mm aluminum plate, the 0.3 m 0.3 m 1.5 mm [0/
45]
2S
CFRP plate, and a 0.8 m 0.3 m 5.2 mm (31.5

11.8

0.2

) curved [0/ 45/0

2
/ 45/0/honeycomb/0/
45/0
2
/ 45/0] CFRP sandwich panel. The latter specimen
was a scaled representation of a honeycomb sandwich wing
skin of a typical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.
Two, three-element P-2 MFC rosettes, each arranged
in a delta conguration (120

between adjacent sensors

gure 7(d)), were surface-bonded to each specimen. Due to
geometric limitations in the CFRP plate, the MFC sensors
bonded upon this specimen were cut into active dimensions of
12.2 mm 6.2 mm. For the other two specimens, the sensors
were maintained at their original dimensions of 25.5 mm
12.2 mm. During testing, the wave sources were generated
by pencil lead breaks at systematic grid locations. For each
sensor, the fast Fourier transform amplitude was computed
at a narrow frequency band, near the point = l. For
anisotropic structures, the frequency at which = l is clearly
direction dependent. Therefore, for all specimens, the response
magnitude was computed at the maximum frequency such that
optimal directivity response was ensured while meeting the
requirement l for all sensors within a rosette. These
conditions translated into chosen frequency bands of 22 to
26 kHz for the aluminum plate, 7476 kHz for the CFRP plate
and 1825 kHz for the sandwich panel.
A National Instruments LabVIEW program was written
to acquire the sensor data, calculate the principal angles and
provide real-time source location. A screen shot of the users
interface is shown in gure 8 where the source is successfully
located in the upper left portion of the specimen.
5.2. Source location results
The results of the location tests are summarized in gures 9(a)
(c). A 127 mm (5

) and a 50.8 mm (2

) test grid spacing was

adopted for the aluminum specimen and for the two composite
specimens, respectively. Note that the scales are different
between gures 9(a)(c). At each grid location, ve lead
breaks were conducted for statistical signicance. The mean
evaluated location for the ve breaks is represented on each
gure by a cross symbol (X). The actual source location is
shown as an open circle (). An interconnecting line between
the predicted and actual locations is indicated for clarity.
The minimum and maximum standard deviations in evaluated
positions over the ve breaks are also summarized in table 2.
The location results in gure 9 are satisfactory outside
specic regions. Signicant errors are seen along the line
connecting the two rosette positions. This is expected, as in
1495
H M Matt and F L di Scalea
Figure 7. Test specimens for source location tests. (a) Aluminum plate, (b) [0/ 45]
2S
CFRP plate, (c) honeycomb sandwich wing panel,
(d) one of the MFC delta rosettes.
Figure 8. Screen shot of the LabVIEW program for the real-time source location from MFC rosette measurements.
these shadow areas, the two principal directions
1
and
2
are
close to parallel. Thus the determination of their intersection
point is unstable. This problem can be corrected by the use
of a third rosette providing a redundant principal angle. Other
signicant errors are seen at the edges of the specimens, due
to end reections and attenuation losses. Tight time gates to
isolate the rst exural arrival would be required in practice if
edge regions are to be covered.
In general, slightly larger errors are seen in the sandwich
panel compared to the composite plate. The main reason
1496
Piezoelectric rosettes for wave source location
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Plate
Width
(in.)
Plate
Width
(in.)
Plate
Width
(in.)
Plate Length (in.) Plate Length (in.)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Plate Length (in.)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Figure 9. Results of the wave source location (pencil lead breaks) from MFC rosette measurements in (a) the aluminum plate,
(b) the [0/ 45]
2S
CFRP plate and (c) the curved honeycomb sandwich CFRP panel (X = predicted locations, O = actual locations).
Table 2. Minimum and maximum standard deviations in evaluated
positions over the ve breaks.
Sandwich
Aluminum CFRP CFRP
plate plate panel
Standard deviation 0.5 (min) 1.3 (min) 0.5 (min)
(x position, mm) 7.9 (max) 20.3 (max) 78.7 (max)
Standard deviation 1.8 (min) 0.7 (min) 1.8 (min)
(y position, mm) 200 (max) 27.9 (max) 200.7 (max)
for this is the severe attenuation loss in the honeycomb core.
Severe attenuation can generate differences in wave amplitude
detected by the individual sensors comprising the same rosette.
This problem could be alleviated by using co-located sensors,
as done in electrical resistance strain gage rosettes, as well as
a denser array of rosettes. Another source of increased error
in the sandwich panel is the use of larger sensor dimensions,
resulting in inaccuracies when approximating the circularly
crested waves with planar wavefronts.
6. Discussion and conclusions
This paper proposes a method for locating wave sources
based upon the use of piezoelectric transducer rosettes. The
location procedure is based upon the computation of the wave
strain principal angle, and it does not require knowledge
of the wave speed in the medium, in contrast to time-
of-ight-based location. Consequently, no need exists for
the complex modeling or optimization routines otherwise
required for time-of-ight source location in anisotropic or
geometrically complex structures. The rosette concept is based
on highly directional MFC sensors whose response to exural
guided waves has been computed. The directivity of such
sensors results from both their anisotropic electromechanical
properties and their geometrical dimensions. A key step
for principal angle determination is the decomposition of
the sensors response into a longitudinal and a transverse
sensitivity factor, which is appropriate for wavelengths larger
than the sensor dimension.
Source location tests (pencil lead breaks) showed
satisfactory results using two rosettes attached to isotropic
and CFRP anisotropic specimens, including a realistic curved
sandwich panel. The coverage area for the two rosettes was
found to be at least 1.5 and 0.3 m
2
for the aluminum and for
the CFRP specimens, respectively. These tests were conducted
for proof-of-principle purposes only. Realistic damage/impact
location applications would require the use of a third rosette
to eliminate the shadowing problem along the direction
connecting two rosettes. A denser array of rosettes would also
be benecial to cover large areas in highly damped specimens
such as the sandwich panel examined in this study.
Although the study was focused on exural modes, which
are predominant for impact location and desirable for damage
detection, the rosette concept can also, in principle, be applied
to locating sources of extensional modes. This can be
concluded by looking at the s
0
response spectra derived for
monolithic PZT sensors (Lanza di Scalea et al 2007b), where
the desired directivity behavior is apparent.
1497
H M Matt and F L di Scalea
No attempt was made in this study to design the
appropriate sensor dimensions for the pencil lead break
tests. However, the customization of the sensor dimensions,
which affect the directivity behavior, would allow for the
isolation of specic frequency ranges known to be excited by
certain damage or impact sources. Thus the system could
target particular types of damage or impacts. Owing to
the requirement l, the general rule of thumb should
be the use of smaller sensors for locating higher-frequency
sources. A smaller sensor will also help alleviate problems
associated with nonplanar wavefronts, which would result in
inaccurate locations (due to the plane wave assumption) if
omni-directional sources are located very close to the sensor.
The robustness of the method will be preserved in the
presence of changing temperature. This is concluded based
upon the fact that the relative response magnitude is used in
the location prediction algorithm. Changes in the absolute
response magnitude of a sensor due to temperature effects
should not introduce errors. More formal tests need to be
conducted to verify the robustness of the approach to a variety
of sources and changing environmental conditions. In addition,
more challenging complex structures, such as T- or L-shaped
parts where the thickness may change, should be examined.
Acknowledgments
This project was funded by the Los Alamos/UCSD Education
Collaboration Task 2 Structural Integrity Monitoring of UAV
Composite Wings and by the UCSD/Los Alamos Cooperative
Agreement on Research and Education (CARE). The CFRP
plate and the sandwich panel were built in collaboration
with Professor Kosmatka and graduate student Joseph Oliver
at UCSD. Thanks are extended to Dr Charles Farrar and
Dr Gyuhae Park of the Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Engineering Institute, for the useful technical discussions
throughout this study.
References
Azzouz M S, Mei C, Bevan J S and Ro J J 2001 Finite element
modeling of MFC/AFC actuators and performance of MFC
J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 12 60112
Banerjee S, Prosser W and Mal A 2005 Calculation of the response
of a composite plate to localized dynamic surface loads using a
new wave number integral method J. Appl. Mech. 72 1824
Bartoli I, Marzani A, Lanza di Scalea F and Viola E 2006 Modeling
wave propagation in damped waveguides of arbitrary
cross-section J. Sound Vib. 295 685707
Bevan J S and Mei C 2001 Piezoceramic actuator placement for
structural acoustic and vibration control of at and curved
panels Proc. SPIE 4327 698708
Blaise E and Chang F-K 2002 Built-in damage detection system for
sandwich structures under cryogenic temperatures Proc. SPIE
4701 97107
Chang F-K and Markmiller J F C 2006 A new look in design of
intelligent structures with SHM Proc. 3rd Europ. Workshop on
SHM (Granada, July 2006) pp 520
Coverley P T and Staszewski W J 2003 Impact damage location in
composite structures using optimized sensor triangulation
procedure Smart Mater. Struct. 12 795803
Diamanti K, Hodgkinson J M and Soutis C 2004 Detection of
low-velocity impact damage in composite plates using Lamb
waves Struct. Health Monit. 3 3341
Giurgiutiu V 2005 Tuned Lamb wave excitation and detection with
piezoelectric wafer active sensors for structural health
monitoring J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 16 291305
Giurgiutiu V and JingJing B 2004 Embedded-ultrasonics structural
radar for in situ structural health monitoring of thin-wall
structures Struct. Health Monit. 3 12139
Gorman M R and Ziola S M 1991 Plate waves produced by
transverse matrix cracking Ultrasonics 29 24551
Jones R T, Sirkis J S and Friebele E J 1997 Detection of impact
location and magnitude for isotropic plates using neural
networks J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 7 909
Kawiecki G and Jesse S 2002 Rosette piezotransducers for damage
detection Smart Mater. Struct. 11 196201
Lanza di Scalea F, Matt H M, Bartoli I, Coccia S, Park G and
Farrar C 2007a Health monitoring of UAV wing skin-to-spar
joints using guided waves and macro ber composite
transducers J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 18 37388
Lanza di Scalea F, Matt H M and Bartoli I 2007b Response of
rectangular piezoelectric sensors to Rayleigh and Lamb
ultrasonic waves J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121 17587
Lastari W and Qiao P 2005 Experimental investigation of damage
detection on composite plates using wave analysis Proc. SPIE
5767 819
Lemistre M and Balageas D 2001 Structural health monitoring
system based on diffracted Lamb wave analysis by
multiresolution processing Smart Mater. Struct. 10 50411
Mal A K, Ricci F, Banerjee S and Shih F 2005 A conceptual
structural health monitoring system based on vibration and
wave propagation Struct. Health Monit. 4 28393
Paget C A, Grondel S, Levin K and Delebarre C 2003 Damage
assessment in composites by Lamb waves and wavelet
coefcients Smart Mater. Struct. 12 393402
Park J and Chang F-K 2005 System identication method for
monitoring impact events Proc. SPIE 5758 189200
Prosser W, Jackson K E, Kellas S, Smith B T, McKeon J and
Friedman A 1995 Advanced waveform based acoustic emission
detection of matrix cracking in composites Mater. Eval. 53
10528
Schindler P M, May R G, Claus R O and Shaw J K 1995 Location of
impacts on composite panels by embedded bre optic sensors
and neural network processing Proc. SPIE 2444 48190
Schoenecker A J, Gebhardt S E, R odig T, Keitel U, Bruckner B,
Schnetter J and Daue T 2005 Piezocomposite transducers for
smart structures applications Proc. SPIE 5764 3441
Seydel R and Chang F-K 2001 Impact identication of stiffened
composite panels: I. System development Smart Mater. Struct.
10 35469
Sodano H A, Park G and Inman D J 2004 An investigation into the
performance of macro-ber composites for sensing and
structural vibration applications Mech. Syst. Signal Process.
18 68397
Staszewski W J, Worden K, Wardle R and Tomlinson G R 2000
Fail-safe sensor distribution for impact detection in composite
materials Smart Mater. Struct. 9 298303
Su Z and Ye L 2004 Fundamental Lamb mode-based delamination
detection for CF/EP composite laminates using distributed
piezoelectrics Struct. Health Monit. 3 4368
Thien A B, Chiamori H C, Ching J T, Wait J R and Park G 2005
Piezoelectric active sensing for damage detection in pipeline
structures Proc. 23rd Int. Modal Analysis Conf. (Orlando, FL,
Feb. 2005) pp 32336
Thursby G, Sorazu B, Betz D and Culshaw B 2004 Comparison of
point and integrated ber optic sensing techniques for
ultrasound detection and location of damage Proc. SPIE
5768 31322
Thursby G, Sorazu B, Betz D and Culshaw B 2006 Fibre optic
sensors for lamb wave detection Proc. 3rd Europ. Workshop on
SHM (Granada, July 2006) pp 8917
Tzou H S 1993 Piezoelectric Shells: Distributed Sensing and Control
of Continua (Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic)
1498
Piezoelectric rosettes for wave source location
Valdes S D and Soutis C 2002 Real-time nondestructive evaluation of
ber composite laminates using low-frequency Lamb waves
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111 202633
Wang C S and Chang F-K 2000 Diagnosis of impact damage in
composite structures with built-in piezoelectrics network Proc.
SPIE 3990 139
Wilkie W K, Bryant R G, High J W, Fox R L, Hellbaum R F,
Jalink A, Little B D and Mirick P H 2000 Low-cost
piezocomposite actuator for structural control applications Proc.
SPIE 3991 32334
Ziola S M and Gorman M R 1991 Source location in thin plates
using cross-correlation J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90 25516
1499