Damage Evaluation in Consideration of Distance Decay and Frequency Characteristics of Elastic Wave

  • T. Shiotani
  • Y. Takada
  • H. Ohtsu
  • T. Watanabe
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 158)


Such parameters in the conventional elastic wave method, as frequency and velocity, connected to the damage so far, did not take the influence of the attenuation of propagation distance into consideration so that they were not able to directly connect to the index of degradation. This research studies the quantitative damage evaluation of heterogeneous materials by using frequency response characteristics of elastic waves according to the propagation distance for the purpose of establishment of the elastic wave degradation index which is not influenced by the propagation distance and frequency. Several mortar specimens, which were given by two types of styrene material simulating false cavity, were prepared for examination, and elastic waves were excited and propagated through the specimen. As a result, it was clarified that the quantitative damage evaluation of heterogeneous materials could be performed by comparing two detected waveforms in combination with the ratio of a frequency response.


Elastic Wave Propagation Distance Damage Parameter Frequency Response Characteristic Intact State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    T. Shiotani, D.G. Aggelis, Wave propagation in cementitious material containing artificial distributed damage. Mater. Struct. 42, 377–384 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.G. Aggelis, T. Shiotani, Effect of inhomogeneity parameters on wave propagation in cementitious material. ACI Mater. J. 105, 187–193 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.I. Futterman, Dispersive body wave. J. Geophys. Res. 67(13), 5279–5290 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.G. Aggelis, T. Shiotani, T.P. Philippidis, D. Polyzos, Stress wave scattering: Friend or enemy of non destructive testing of concrete?. J. Solid Mech. Mater. Eng. 2(4), 397–408 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Polyzos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, T. Shiotani, D.G. Aggelis, Dependence of AE Parameters on the Propagation Distance, Progress in Acoustic Emission XV (The Japanese society for NDI, 2010), pp. 43–48 (2019)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Ohtsu, Sensor and instrument. in Acoustic Emission Testing, ed. by C.U. Grosse, M. Ohtsu (Springer, 2008), pp. 37–38Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K.E. Loland, Continuous damage model for load—response estimation of concrete. Cement Concr. Res. 10, 395–402 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Suzuki, M. Ohtsu, M. Shigeishi, Relative damage evaluation of concrete in a road bridge by AE rate-process analysis. Mater. Struct. 22, 30–38 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban ManagementKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Institute of Technology and ScienceThe University of TokushimaTokushimaJapan

Personalised recommendations