可靠性评价：从无损检测到结构健康监测

doi:10.7527/S1000-6893.2024.31442

Abstract

Abstract:

The engineering applications of Structural Health Monitoring （SHM） methods have become more and more popular， and their application in the aerospace field has been gradually developed. However， but there is still no widely recognized standard on how to evaluate their reliability. In recent years， both academia and industry have made many explorations on how to develop SHM reliability evaluation methods， and the Non-Destructive Testing （NDT） reliability evaluation method has been used as a starting point for SHM reliability evaluation. However， SHM is significantly different from NDT both in terms of system realization and application mode， and the reliability evaluation of SHM has yet to be thoroughly studied. This paper reviews the reliability evaluation methods from NDT to SHM. The development of NDT reliability evaluation method， the application of NDT evaluation method on SHM， the difference between SHM and NDT reliability evaluation， and the development of the SHM reliability evaluation method are discussed with the current research status. Based on this， a condition control-based dual-reliability evaluation for SHM is proposed， and concludes with a summary and prospect.

Key words: reliability evaluation, structural health monitoring, non-destructive testing, condition control, accuracy and uncertainty evaluation, evaluation data sources

CLC Number:

V219

Shenfang YUAN, Qiuhui XU, Jian CHEN. Reliability evaluation: From non-destructive testing to structural health monitoring[J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2025, 46(5): 531442.

Figures/Tables 25

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Table 1

Fig.7

Table 2

Table 3

Reliability evaluation considering SHM application models

研究目的	参考文献	传感器及系统	结构材料	监测对象	数据来源	评价指标	特点
应用可靠性评价指标优化SHM系统设计	Chen等^［68］	压电导波	铝板	疲劳裂纹损伤报警	试验	POD曲线	利用POD曲线确定导波SHM最优激励频率
应用可靠性评价指标优化SHM系统设计	Ameyaw等^［69］	应变计和加速度计振动监测	弹性钢梁	振动试验中附加质量	试验	POD曲线	利用POD结果来确定多个传感器的决策信息融合策略
不同监测对象可靠性评价	Moriot等^［71］	压电导波	铝板	粘弹性圆盘模拟损伤报警和定位	试验+ 仿真	POD曲线、POL曲线	SHM损伤定位准确度评价，但缺乏不确定度的评价能力
不同监测对象可靠性评价	Aldrin等^［72-73］					归一化定位准确度、表征误差	损伤定位、尺寸定量可靠性评价，然而未在真实结构和损伤上进行验证
服役条件下的可靠性评价	Kuhn和Soni^［74］	压电导波	狗骨状铝板	疲劳裂纹	试验	POD曲线	考虑长时间服役载荷下传感器退化的影响，引入传感器退化系数
	Leung和Corcoran^［60］	体波超声波传感器和电位降传感器	三点和四点疲劳弯曲矩形梁	仿真的方形缺陷	仿真	POD和PDL map	考虑服役损伤位置的不确定性对可靠性的影响
	Gao等^［76］	压电导波	铝板	疲劳裂纹报警及定量	试验	定量误差 POD曲线	考虑服役损伤扩展、模型选择的不确定影响
	Giannakeas等^［77］	压电导波	复合材料平板	仿真的冲击损伤报警	试验+ 仿真	POD曲线	考虑温度变化、振动噪声、电气噪声等影响，试图涵盖SHM应用中的所有因素，服役中大量因素混淆在一起，忽视可靠性评价时评价条件的统一控制及标准化问题
SHM可靠性评价框架及条件控制标准研究	袁等^［3］	压电导波	航空连接耳片结构	疲劳裂纹损伤报警及尺寸定量	试验	POD曲线、定量误差、定量标准偏差及置信区间	参考仪器可靠性评价的ISO国际标准，考虑到SHM特殊性，提出基于条件控制的双可靠性评价方法

Table 3

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

Fig.18

Fig.19

Fig.20

Fig.21

Fig.22

References 81

1	袁慎芳. 结构健康监控［M］. 北京：国防工业出版社， 2007： 1-18.
	YUAN S F. Structural health monitoring and damage control［M］. Beijing： National Defense Industry Press， 2007： 1-18 （in Chinese）.
2	孙侠生，肖迎春.飞机结构健康监测技术的机遇与挑战［J］.航空学报， 2014， 35（12）： 3199-3212.
	SUN X S， XIAO Y C. Opportunities and challenges of aircraft structural health monitoring［J］. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica， 2014， 35（12）： 3199-3212 （in Chinese）.
3	袁慎芳，任元强，邱雷. 导波结构健康监测方法与实践［M］. 北京：科学出版社， 2024：315-359.
	YUAN S F， REN Y Q， QIU L. Guided wave structural health monitoring methods and practices［M］. Beijing： Science Press， 2024： 315-359 （in Chinese）.
4	SAE. Guidelines for writing IVHM requirements for aerospace systems： SAE ARP6883‍［R］. Warrendale：SAE International， 2019.
5	SAE.Perspectives on integrating structural health monitoring systems into fixed-wing military aircraft： SAE AIR6245-2019 ［R］. Warrendale： SAE International， 2019.
6	SAE. Structural health monitoring considerations and guidance specific to rotorcraft： AIR6892-2020‍［R］. Warrendale： SAE International， 2020.
7	LINDGREN E. SHM reliability and implementation overview-A personal military aviation perspective［C］‍∥Structural Health Monitoring， 2015.
8	CAWLEY P. Structural health monitoring： Closing the gap between research and industrial deployment‍［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2018， 17（5）： 1225-1244.
9	SWINDELL P， STEPHENS D. Federal aviation administration’s probability of detection testing results for structural health monitoring （SHM）［C］‍∥Proceedings of 2021 48th Annual Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation， 2022.
10	BAYOUMI A， VOGT T， MUELLER I. New approach for reliability assessment of guided wave-based structure health monitoring system on a pipe application［C］‍∥8th International Workshop on Reliability of NDT/NDE. 2023.
11	SAE. Guidelines for implementation of structural health monitoring on fixed wing aircraft： SAE ARP6461A［R］. Warrendale： SAE International， 2021.
12	Department of Defense. Nondestructive evaluation system reliability assessment： MIL-H ［S］. Washington， D.C.： United States Air Force， 2009.
13	YEE B G， CHANG F H， COUCHMAN J C， et al. Assessment of NDE reliability data： NASA-CR-134991 ［R］. Washington， D.C.： NASA， 1976.
14	LEWIS W H， SPROAT W， DODD B D， et al. Reliability of nondestructive inspections-Final report： Report SA-ALC/MME 76-6-38-1［R］. Georgia： United States Air Force， Air Logistics Center， Kelly Air Force Base， 1978.
15	薛小锋，赵淼龑，杜倩宜，等. 基于人员和环境因素定量化的检测可靠性［J］. 航空学报， 2024， 45（6）： 228859.
	XUE X F， ZHAO M Y， DU Q Y， et al. Detection reliability based on quantification of human and environmental factors［J］. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica， 2024， 45（6）： 228859 （in Chinese）.
16	KEPRATE A， RATNAYAKE R M C. Probability of detection as a metric for quantifying NDE capability： The state of the art［J］. The Journal of Pipeline Engineering， 2015， 14（3）： 199-209.
17	林富甲，黄玉珊. 裂纹检测概率曲线的统计测定［J］. 航空学报， 1982， 3（4）： 21-27.
	LIN F J， HUANG Y S. Statistical determination of a flaw detection probability curve［J］. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica， 1982， 3（4）： 21-27 （in Chinese）.
18	BERENS A P. NDE reliability data analysis［M］. Materials Park： American Society of Metals International， 1989： 1386-1470.
19	UNDERHILL P R， KRAUSE T W. Quantitative fractography for improved probability of detection （POD） analysis of bolt hole eddy current［J］. Research in Nondestructive Evaluation， 2011， 22（2）： 92-104.
20	ANNIS C， GANDOSSI L， MARTIN O. Optimal sample size for probability of detection curves‍［J］. Nuclear Engineering and Design， 2013， 262： 98-105.
21	CARBONI M， CANTINI S. Advanced ultrasonic “Probability of Detection” curves for designing in-service inspection intervals‍［J］. International Journal of Fatigue， 2016， 86： 77-87.
22	GEORGE A G. Probability of detection （POD） curves derivation， application and limitations［R］. Merseyside： Health and Safety Executive， 2006.
23	SINGH R. Three decades of NDT reliability assessment and demonstration： Karta-3510-99-01［R］. San Antonio： AF NDI Office， 2000.
24	SCHNEIDER C A， RUDLIN J R. Review of statistical methods used in quantifying NDT reliability［J］. Insight - Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring， 2004， 46（2）： 77-79.
25	MOSKOVCHENKO A， ŠVANTNER M， VAVILOV V， et al. Analyzing probability of detection as a function of defect size and depth in pulsed IR thermography［J］. NDT & E International， 2022， 130： 102673.
26	BODE M D， ASHBAUGH D M， BOYCE K L， et al. Corrosion structured experiment‍［C］‍∥AIP Conference Proceedings. American Institute of Physics， 2002， 615（1）： 1779-1786.
27	YUSA N， CHEN W X， HASHIZUME H. Demonstration of probability of detection taking consideration of both the length and the depth of a flaw explicitly［J］. NDT & E International， 2016， 81： 1-8.
28	宋凯，张弛，晏晨辉，等. 基于双参数表征的航空发动机轮盘模型辅助涡流检测可靠性［J］. 航空学报， 2023， 44（13）： 227866.
	SONG K， ZHANG C， YAN C H， et al. Reliability of aero-engine wheel model assisted eddy current testing based on two-parameter representation‍［J］. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica， 2023， 44（13）： 227866 （in Chinese）.
29	NOCKEMANN C， HEIDT H， THOMSEN N. Reliability in NDT： ROC study of radiographic weld inspections［J］. NDT & E International， 1991， 24（5）： 235-245.
30	SULTAN A A， WASHER G. A pixel-by-pixel reliability analysis of infrared thermography （IRT） for the detection of subsurface delamination‍［J］. NDT & E International， 2017， 92： 177-186.
31	VISSER W G. POD/POS curves for non-destructive examination ［R］. Merseyside： Health and Safety Executive， 2002.
32	SPENCER R， TODOROV E， WHITE P， et al. Advanced technologies and methodology for automated ultrasonic testing systems quantification［R］.Washington，D.C.：U.S. Department of Transportation Pipe and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Pipline Safety， 2011.
33	NATH S K. Estimates of probability of detection and sizing of flaws in ultrasonic time of flight diffraction inspections for complex geometry components with grooved surfaces［J］. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation， Diagnostics and Prognostics of Engineering Systems， 2021， 4（2）： 021003.
34	SUBAIR S M， BALASUBRAMANIAM K， RAJAGOPAL P， et al. Finite element simulations to predict probability of detection （PoD） curves for ultrasonic inspection of nuclear components［J］. Procedia Engineering， 2014， 86： 461-468.
35	WIRDELIUS H， PERSSON G. Simulation based validation of the detection capacity of an ultrasonic inspection procedure‍［J］. International Journal of Fatigue， 2012， 41： 23-29.
36	BATO M R， HOR A， RAUTUREAU A， et al. Experimental and numerical methodology to obtain the probability of detection in eddy current NDT method［J］. NDT & E International， 2020， 114： 102300.
37	KUDVA J N， GRAGE M J， ROBERTS M M， et al. Aircraft structural health monitoring and other smart structures technologies-perspectives on development of future smart aircraft［C］∥Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring， 1999： 106-119.
38	KESSLER S S. Certifying a structural health monitoring system： Characterizing durability， reliability and longevity［C］∥Proceedings of the 1st International Forum on Integrated Systems Health Engineering and Management in Aerospace， 2005： 7-10.
39	DESIMIO M， OLSON S， DERRISO M. Decision uncertainty in a structural health monitoring system［C］‍∥SPIE Proceedings， Smart Structures and Materials 2005： Smart Structures and Integrated Systems. 2005.
40	LU Y H， MICHAELS J E. A methodology for structural health monitoring with diffuse ultrasonic waves in the presence of temperature variations‍［J］. Ultrasonics， 2005， 43（9）： 717-731.
41	NICHOLS J M， TRICKEY S T， SEAVER M， et al. Using ROC curves to assess the efficacy of several detectors of damage-induced nonlinearities in a bolted composite structure［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2008， 22（7）： 1610-1622.
42	LU Y H， MICHAELS J E. Feature extraction and sensor fusion for ultrasonic structural health monitoring under changing environmental conditions［J］. IEEE Sensors Journal， 2009， 9（11）： 1462-1471.
43	STULL C J， HEMEZ F M， FARRAR C R. On assessing the robustness of structural health monitoring technologies‍［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2012， 11（6）： 712-723.
44	FLYNN E B， TODD M D， CROXFORD A J， et al. Enhanced detection through low-order stochastic modeling for guided-wave structural health monitoring［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2012， 11（2）： 149-160.
45	COBB A C， MICHAELS J E， MICHAELS T E， et al. Ultrasonic structural health monitoring： A probability of detection case study［C］‍∥AIP Conference Proceedings. 2009.
46	COBB A C， FISHER J， MICHAELS J E. Model-assisted probability of detection for ultrasonic structural health monitoring［C］‍∥Proceedings of the 4th European-American Workshop on Reliability of NDE， 2009： 24-26.
47	ALDRIN J C， MEDINA E A， LINDGREN E A， et al. Protocol for reliability assessment of structural health monitoring systems incorporating model-assisted probability of detection （MAPOD） approach‍［C］‍∥Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring， 2011： 13-15.
48	MUELLER I， JANAPATI V， BANERJEE S， et al. On the performance quantification of active sensing SHM systems using model-assisted POD methods‍［C］‍∥Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring， 2011.
49	LIU B， CHANG F K. Generating damage probability-of detection curves in structural health monitoring transducer networks： US8069011B2 ［P］. 2008-10-16.
50	YAN J， LAFLAMME S， LEIFSSON L. Computational framework for dense sensor network evaluation based on model-assisted probability of detection［J］. Materials Evaluation， 2020， 78（5）： 573-583.
51	SBARUFATTI C， GIGLIO M. Performance qualification of an on-board model-based diagnostic system for fatigue crack monitoring［J］. Journal of the American Helicopter Society， 2017， 62（4）： 1-10.
52	TSCHOKE K， MUELLER I， MEMMOLO V， et al. Feasibility of model-assisted probability of detection principles for structural health monitoring systems based on guided waves for fiber-reinforced composites‍［J］. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics， Ferroelectrics， and Frequency Control， 2021， 68（10）： 3156-3173.
53	FALCETELLI F， YUE N， ROSSI L， et al. A model-assisted probability of detection framework for optical fiber sensors［J］. Sensors， 2023， 23（10）： 4813.
54	GIANNEO A， CARBONI M， GIGLIO M. Feasibility study of a multi-parameter probability of detection formulation for a Lamb waves-based structural health monitoring approach to light alloy aeronautical plates［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2017， 16（2）： 225-249.
55	LIU C， DOBSON J， CAWLEY P. Efficient generation of receiver operating characteristics for the evaluation of damage detection in practical structural health monitoring applications‍［J］. Proceedings Mathematical， Physical， and Engineering Sciences， 2017， 473（2199）： 20160736.
56	JANAPATI V， KOPSAFTOPOULOS F， LI F， et al. Damage detection sensitivity characterization of acousto-ultrasound-based structural health monitoring techniques［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2016， 15（2）： 143-161.
57	YUE N， ALIABADI M H. Hierarchical approach for uncertainty quantification and reliability assessment of guided wave-based structural health monitoring‍［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2021， 20（5）： 2274-2299.
58	SCHUBERT KABBAN C M， GREENWELL B M， DESIMIO M P， et al. The probability of detection for structural health monitoring systems： Repeated measures data‍［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2015， 14（3）： 252-264.
59	MUELLER I， MEMMOLO V， TSCHÖKE K， et al. Performance assessment for a guided wave-based SHM system applied to a stiffened composite structure［J］. Sensors， 2022， 22（19）： 7529.
60	LEUNG M S H， CORCORAN J. Evaluating the probability of detection capability of permanently installed sensors using a structural integrity informed approach‍［J］. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation， 2021， 40（3）： 82.
61	FALCETELLI F， YUE N， DI SANTE R， et al. Probability of detection， localization， and sizing：The evolution of reliability metrics in structural health monitoring［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2022， 21（6）： 2990-3017.
62	FLYNN E B， TODD M D. A Bayesian approach to optimal sensor placement for structural health monitoring with application to active sensing‍［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2010， 24（4）： 891-903.
63	COLOMBO L， TODD M D， SBARUFATTI C， et al. On statistical multi-objective optimization of sensor networks and optimal detector derivation for structural health monitoring‍［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2022， 167： 108528.
64	MARKMILLER J F C， CHANG F K. Sensor network optimization for a passive sensing impact detection technique‍［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2010， 9（1）： 25-39.
65	YAO Y， GLISIC B. Sensing sheets： Optimal arrangement of dense array of sensors for an improved probability of damage detection‍［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2015， 14（5）： 513-531.
66	YADAV S K， MISHRA S， KOPSAFTOPOULOS F， et al. Reliability of crack quantification via acousto-ultrasound active-sensing structural health monitoring using surface-mounted PZT actuators/sensors‍［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2021， 20（1）： 219-239.
67	MALLARDO V， ALIABADI M H， SHARIF KHODAEI Z. Optimal sensor positioning for impact localization in smart composite panels［J］. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures， 2013， 24（5）： 559-573.
68	CHEN C D， CHIU Y C， HUANG Y H， et al. Assessments of structural health monitoring for fatigue cracks in metallic structures by using lamb waves driven by piezoelectric transducers‍［J］. Journal of Aerospace Engineering， 2021， 34（1）： 04020091.
69	AMEYAW D A， ROTHE S， SÖFFKER D. A novel feature-based probability of detection assessment and fusion approach for reliability evaluation of vibration-based diagnosis systems‍［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2020， 19（3）： 649-660.
70	FALCETELLI F， CRISTIANI D， YUE N， et al. Qualification of distributed optical fiber sensors using probability of detection curves for delamination in composite laminates‍［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2023， 22（5）： 2972-2986.
71	MORIOT J， QUAEGEBEUR N， LE DUFF A， et al. A model-based approach for statistical assessment of detection and localization performance of guided wave–based imaging techniques［J］. Structural Health Monitoring， 2018， 17（6）： 1460-1472.
72	ALDRIN J C， MEDINA E A， LINDGREN E A， et al. Model-assisted probabilistic reliability assessment for structural health monitoring systems‍［C］‍∥AIP Conference Proceedings. 2010.
73	ALDRIN J C， ANNIS C， SABBAGH H A， et al. Assessing the reliability of nondestructive evaluation methods for damage characterization‍［C］‍∥AIP Conference Proceedings. 2014.
74	KUHN J D， SONI S R. Estimating changes in SHM performance using probability of detection degradation functions［J］. Structural Longevity， 2009， 2（1）： 1-10.
75	WU W， CANTERO-CHINCHILLA S， PRESCOTT D， et al. A general approach to assessing SHM reliability considering sensor failures based on information theory［J］. Reliability Engineering & System Safety， 2024， 250： 110267.
76	GAO C J， FANG Z W， LIN J， et al. Model averaging and probability of detection estimation under hierarchical uncertainties for Lamb wave detection‍［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2022， 165： 108302.
77	GIANNAKEAS I N， SHARIF KHODAEI Z， ALIABADI M H. Digital clone testing platform for the assessment of SHM systems under uncertainty［J］. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing， 2022， 163： 108150.
78	ISO. Accuracy （trueness and precision） of measurement methods and results-Part 1： General principles and definitions： ‍［S］. Geneva： International Standards for Organization， 2023.
79	ISO. Accuracy （trueness and precision） of measurement methods and results-Part 2： Basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method：［S］. Geneva：International Standards for Organization， 2019.
80	ISO/IEC. Uncertainty of measurement-Part 3： Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement （GUM：1995）： Guide 98-3：2008［S］. Geneva：International Standards for Organization， 2008.
81	ISO/IEC. International vocabulary of metrology-basic and general concepts and associated terms： Guide 99：2007［S］. Geneva：International Standards for Organization， 2007.

参考文献	传感器及系统	结构材料	监测对象	数据来源	评价指标	特点
Lu和Michaels^［40］	散射超声波	铝板	人工切割裂纹及孔洞损伤报警	试验	POD （hit/miss）	SHM POD和PFA的较早讨论
Nichols等^［41］	应变监测	复合材料与金属螺栓连接结构	接头连接性	试验	ROC曲线	考虑了随着监测阈值变化时，POD与PFA之间关系的ROC曲线
Lu和Michaels^［42］	散射超声波	铝板	人工钻切孔洞损伤报警	试验	ROC曲线
Stull等^［43］	加速度传感器振动监测	望远镜的驱动结构	绞盘的磨损	试验	ROC曲线
Flynn等^［44］	压电导波	加筋铝板	钻孔损伤	试验	BCROC曲线
Cobb等^［45］	散射超声波	铝板	孔边疲劳裂纹报警	试验	POD曲线（â vs a）	考虑了与损伤大小相关的连续信号响应数据，然而评价数据仅来源于单个试件

参考文献	传感器及系统	结构材料	监测对象	数据来源	评价指标	特点
Mueller等^［48］	压电导波	铝板	粘性贴片模拟损伤报警	仿真	POD曲线（â vs a）	以数值仿真代替试验获取足够的可靠性评价数据，降低试验成本但是仿真过程中涉及到很多过于理想、严格的假设，真实结构、损伤及监测过程很难完全满足
Yan等^［50］	软弹性电容器的应变监测	悬臂梁	仿真的弯曲刚度折损	仿真	POD曲线（â vs a）
Giglio和Sbarufatti^［51］	光纤布拉格光栅	直升机的尾梁纵梁和机身面板结构	疲劳裂纹报警	仿真	POD曲线
Tschoke等^［52］	压电导波	复合材料的汽车部件	仿真为刚度变化的分层损伤	仿真	POD曲线（â vs a）
Falcetelli等^［53］	分布式光纤传感器	复合材料悬臂梁	仿真的分层损伤报警	仿真	POD曲线
Gianneo等^［54］	压电导波	铝板	切割裂纹报警	试验+仿真	POD曲线（â vs a）	试验和仿真融合，在减少实验的同时提升仿真准确性
Liu等^［55］	超声导波	金属管道	仿真的腐蚀损伤报警	试验+仿真	ROC曲线	试验和仿真融合，在减少实验的同时提升仿真准确性
Janapati等^［56］	压电导波	铝板	孔边切割裂纹报警	试验	POD曲线（â vs a）	评价结果更加符合实际应用场景，但是试验耗时长、费用高
Aliabadi和Yue^［57］	压电导波	复合材料	冲击损伤报警及定位	试验	ROC、定位误差和精度	评价结果更加符合实际应用场景，但是试验耗时长、费用高

[1]	Xiaofeng XUE, Miaoyan ZHAO, Qianyi DU, Yunwen FENG, Junling FAN, Ting JIAO. Detection reliability based on quantification of human and environmental factors [J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2024, 45(6): 228859-228859.
[2]	Lingcai HUANG. Review of nondestructive testing methods for fiber⁃reinforced polymer composites [J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2024, 45(5): 529697-529697.
[3]	Fangli WANG, Kai LIU, Wei PAN, Mingbo TONG. Application and development of green structure maintenance for civil aircraft [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2023, 44(11): 25851-025851.
[4]	ZHENG Hui, QIU Lei, YUAN Shenfang, YANG Xiaofei, LU Xulong, XUE Zhaopeng. Experimental method of guided wave monitoring for high temperature airflow damage of C/C thermal protection structures [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2022, 43(8): 225659-225659.
[5]	WANG Yupeng, LYU Shuaishuai, YANG Yu, LI Jiaxin, WANG Yezi. Damage recognition of composite structures based on domain adaptive model [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2022, 43(6): 526752-526752.
[6]	XIA Kailong, HE Qing, ZHANG Yusheng. Measurement method of turbine blade film aperture based on infrared thermal imaging and shrinkage law [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2022, 43(12): 426271-426271.
[7]	QU Shuxuan, GONG Wenbin, SUN Xiaozhu, ZHANG Dongxing, LIANG Zhiqiang, GAO Limin, LYU Weibang. On-line damage monitoring of composites based on carbon nanotube films [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2022, 43(1): 424949-424949.
[8]	CHEN Jian, YUAN Shenfang, WANG Hui, QIU Lei. Using Gaussian weighting-mixture proposal distribution particle filter for fatigue crack growth prediction [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2017, 38(11): 220925-220925.
[9]	TONG Anshi, XIE Liyang, BAI Enjun, BAI Xin, ZHANG Shijian, WANG Bowen. Test and prediction model of statics property of fiber metal laminates [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2017, 38(11): 221193-221193.
[10]	QIU Lei, QIAN Weifeng, YUAN Shenfang, MEI Hanfei. A Two-step Decision Logic Based Miniaturized Impact Region Monitoring System [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2014, 35(9): 2551-2558.
[11]	LIU Bin, QIU Lei, YUAN Shenfang. Structure Impact Localization Method Based on 2D Linear Array and Spatial Filter Without Wave Velocity [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2014, 35(6): 1633-1642.
[12]	SUN Xiasheng, XIAO Yingchun. Opportunities and Challenges of Aircraft Structural Health Monitoring [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2014, 35(12): 3199-3212.
[13]	YUAN Shenfang, ZHANG Hua, QIU Lei, YANG Weibo. A Fatigue Crack Growth Prediction Method Based on Particle Filter [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2013, 34(12): 2740-2747.
[14]	LIU Guoqiang, XIAO Yingchun, LI Ming, JIA Shuhong. An Index Method of Monitoring Composite Debonding [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2012, 33(7): 1275-1280.
[15]	Qiu Lei;Yuan Shenfang;Su Yongzhen;Zhang Xiaoyue. Multiple Impact Source Imaging and Localization on Composite Structure Based on Shannon Complex Wavelet and Time Reversal Focusing [J]. ACTA AERONAUTICAET ASTRONAUTICA SINICA, 2010, 31(12): 2417-2424.

Reliability evaluation: From non-destructive testing to structural health monitoring

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 25

References 81

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments