Comparison of PZT, PZT Based 1–3 Composite and PMN–PT Acoustic Emission Sensors for Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastics

  • Geonwoo Kim
  • Mu-Kyung Seo
  • Namkyoung Choi
  • Yong-Il Kim
  • Ki-Bok KimEmail author
Regular Paper


Glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP) have been widely used for wind turbine blades because of the relative ease of manufacturing them into complex shapes, and their excellent fatigue and corrosion resistance. Acoustic emission (AE) testing has become a primary method for monitoring fiber reinforced plastic structures. However, commercial PZT based AE sensors for general usage may not be useful for GFRP wind-turbine blades because of the acoustic mismatching between GFRP and AE sensors. The objective of this study is to develop high sensitive AE sensors for use on GFRP. To accomplish it, PZT based 1–3 composite and PMN–PT single crystal AE sensors were fabricated and their performances were compared with PZT AE sensor. As results, the PZT based 1-3 composite and PMN–PT AE sensors showed better performance than the PZT AE sensor. PZT based 1-3 composite and PMN–PT AE sensors will be promising alternatives to PZT AE sensors for GFRP materials.


Acoustic emission KLM model PZT PZT 1–3 composite PMN–PT single crystal GFRP 



This research was carried out with the support of the project development of rail-damage detection inspection and monitoring system for advanced prevention railway obstruction (18RTRP-B113566-03) among the railroad technology research projects supported by the Korea Agency for infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA).

Supplementary material (1.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (ZIP 1831 kb)


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Ciang, C. C., Lee, J. R., & Bang, H. J. (2008). Structural health monitoring for a wind turbine system a review of damage detection methods. Measurement Science & Technology, 19(12), 122001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chou, J. S., & Tu, W. T. (2011). Failure analysis and risk management of a collapsed large wind turbine tower. Engineering Failure Analysis, 18(1), 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chou, J. S., Chiu, C. K., Huang, I. K., & Chi, K. N. (2013). Failure analysis of wind turbine blade under critical wind loads. Engineering Failure Analysis, 27, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brøndsted, P., Lilholt, H., & Lystrup, A. (2005). Composite materials for wind power turbine blades. Annual Review of Materials Research, 35, 505–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beattie, A. (1997). Acoustic emission monitoring of a wind turbine blade during a fatigue test. In: 35th Aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit (pp. 958).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghoshal, A., Sundaresan, M. J., Schulz, M. J., & Pai, P. F. (2000). Structural health monitoring techniques for wind turbine blades. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 85(3), 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Dam, J., & Bond, L. J. (2015). Acoustic emission monitoring of wind turbine blades. Smart Materials and Nondestructive Evaluation for Energy Systems, 9439, 94390C.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, R., & McIntire, P. (1987). Nondestructive testing handbook second edition, vol. 5: Acoustic emission testing (pp. 12–19). Columbus, Ohio: American Society for Nondestructive Testing.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, K. B., Hsu, D. K., Ahn, B., Kim, Y. G., & Barnard, D. J. (2010). Fabrication and comparison of PMN–PT single crystal, PZT and PZT-based 1-3 composite ultrasonic transducers for NDE applications. Ultrasonics, 50(8), 790–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim, Y. I., Kim, G., Bae, Y. M., Ryu, Y. H., Jeong, K. J., Oh, C. H., et al. (2015). Comparison of PMN–PT and PZN–PT single-crystal-based ultrasonic transducers for nondestructive evaluation applications. Sensors and Materials, 27(1), 107–114.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun, P., Wang, G., Wu, D., Zhu, B., Hu, C., Liu, C., et al. (2010). High frequency PMN–PT 1-3 composite transducer for ultrasonic imaging application. Ferroelectrics, 408(1), 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gibiansky, L. V., & Torquato, S. (1997). Optimal design of 1–3 composite piezoelectrics. Structural Optimization, 13(1), 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chan, H. L. W., & Unsworth, J. (1989). Simple model for piezoelectric ceramic/polymer 1–3 composites used in ultrasonic transducer applications. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 36(4), 434–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kossoff, G. (1966). The effects of backing and matching on the performance of piezoelectric ceramic transducers. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 13(1), 20–30.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kino, G. S. (1987). Acoustic waves: Devices, imaging, and analog signal processing (Prentice-Hall Signal Processing Series). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krimholtz, R., Leedom, D. A., & Matthaei, G. L. (1970). New equivalent circuits for elementary piezoelectric transducers. Electronics Letters, 6(13), 398–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Castillo, M., Acevedo, P., & Moreno, E. (2003). KLM model for lossy piezoelectric transducers. Ultrasonics, 41(8), 671–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ASTM Standard E1106-86. (1986). Standard method for primary calibration of acoustic emission sensors. West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: ASTM.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Kervel, S. J. H., & Thijssen, J. M. (1983). A calculation scheme for the optimum design of ultrasonic transducers. Ultrasonics, 21(3), 134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Precision Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geonwoo Kim
    • 1
  • Mu-Kyung Seo
    • 2
  • Namkyoung Choi
    • 1
  • Yong-Il Kim
    • 2
  • Ki-Bok Kim
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Science of MeasurementUniversity of Science and TechnologyDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Division of Technology ServicesKorea Research Institute of Standards and ScienceDaejeonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations