Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 649–659 | Cite as

Transmissibility-based damage detection using angular velocity versus acceleration

  • Samer Al-Jailawi
  • Salam RahmatallaEmail author
Original Paper


This work presents a new damage-detection approach for structural systems that uses the transmissibility and coherence functions of the output angular velocity between two points on the structure, at locations where damage may occur, to generate a damage index as a metric of the changes in the dynamic integrity of the structure. The efficacy of the proposed damage index as compared to that based on the traditional transmissibility of acceleration was tested on straight beams. The experimental and numerical results showed that the new damage index outperformed that based on acceleration by multiple levels in terms of detecting and localizing damage. The experimental results also showed that the proposed damage index using gyroscopes was much less sensitive to the environmental acoustic noises under consideration (65–85 dB) when compared with the damage index based on the acceleration.


Damage index Vibration Gyroscope Accelerometer Acoustic noise Coherence 




Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Chang P, Flatau A, Liu S (2003) Review paper: health monitoring of civil infrastructure. Struct Health Monit 2(3):257–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Inventory NB (2012) Deficient bridges by highway system 2012. US Department of Transportation. Accessed 26 Sept 2016
  3. 3.
    Rytter A (1993) Vibrational based inspection of civil engineering structures. Thesis (doctoral)—Aalborg University, 1993Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fan W, Qiao P (2011) Vibration-based damage identification methods: a review and comparative study. Struct Health Monit. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB (1998) A summary review of vibration-based damage identification methods. Shock Vib Digest 30(2):91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen J-C, Garba JA (1988) On-orbit damage assessment for large space structures. AIAA J 26(9):1119–1126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hajela P, Soeiro FJ (1990) Structural damage detection based on static and modal analysis. AIAA J 28(6):1110–1115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crema LB, Castellani A, Coppotelli G (1995) Damage localization in composite material structures by using eigenvalue measurements. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sampaio RPC, Maia NMM, Silva JMM (1999) Damage detection using the frequency-response-function curvature method. J Sound Vib 226(5):1029–1042. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ratcliffe CP (2000) A frequency and curvature based experimental method for locating damage in structures. J Vib Acoust 122(3):324–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cawley P, Adams RD (1979) A vibration technique for non-destructive testing of fibre composite structures. J Compos Mater 13(2):161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vantomme J (1992) Evaluation of structural joints in composites with modal parameters. Compos Struct 22(4):201–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chang K, Shen Z, Lee G (1995) Modal analysis technique for bridge damage detection. In: Nondestructive testing methods for civil infrastructure. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 1–16.
  14. 14.
    Worden K (1997) Structural fault detection using a novelty measure. J Sound Vib 201(1):85–101MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson T, Adams DE, Schiefer M (2002) An analytical and experimental study to assess structural damage and integrity using dynamic transmissibility. In: SPIE proceedings series. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation EngineersGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maia NM, Almeida RA, Urgueira AP, Sampaio RP (2011) Damage detection and quantification using transmissibility. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(7):2475–2483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson TJ, Adams DE (2002) Transmissibility as a differential indicator of structural damage. J Vib Acoust 124(4):634–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li J, Hao H (2013) Damage detection of shear connectors based on power spectral density transmissibility. In: Key engineering materials. Trans Tech Publ, pp 1241–1248Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schallhorn C, Rahmatalla S (2015) Crack detection and health monitoring of highway steel-girder bridges. Struct Health Monit 14(3):281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller R (1973) Factors influencing accelerometer measurement capabilities—a practical measurement guide. David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, BethesdaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Castro S, Dean R, Roth G, Flowers GT, Grantham B (2007) Influence of acoustic noise on the dynamic performance of mems gyroscopes. In: ASME 2007 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 1825–1831Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dean RN, Castro ST, Flowers GT, Roth G, Ahmed A, Hodel AS, Grantham BE, Bittle DA, Brunsch JP (2011) A characterization of the performance of a mems gyroscope in acoustically harsh environments. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 58(7):2591–2596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu Z, Li S (2007) Two-level damage detection strategy based on modal parameters from distributed dynamic macro-strain measurements. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 18(7):667–676MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sung SH, Lee JH, Park JW, Koo KY, Jung HJ (2014) Feasibility study on an angular velocity-based damage detection method using gyroscopes. Meas Sci Technol 25(7):075009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Al-Jailawi S, Rahmatalla S (2017) Damage detection in structures using angular velocity. J Civil Struct Health Monit 7(3):359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liao Y, Kiremidjian AS, Rajagopal R, Loh C-H (2016) Angular velocity-based structural damage detection. In: Sensors and smart structures technologies for civil, mechanical, and aerospace systems 2016. International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 98031NGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sung S, Park J, Nagayama T, Jung H (2013) A multi-scale sensing and diagnosis system combining accelerometers and gyroscopes for bridge health monitoring. Smart Mater Struct 23(1):015005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Podder P, Khan TZ, Khan MH, Rahman MM (2014) Comparative performance analysis of Hamming, Hanning and Blackman window. Int J Comput Appl 96(18):1–7Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xsens N (2010) Mti and Mtx user manual and technical documentationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Center for Computer-Aided DesignThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of Iowa, 4121 Seamans Center for the Engineering Arts and SciencesIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations