Piezoelectric-based Active Sensing of a Bolted Joint: Diagnosis of
Sensor Defects
Thanh-Canh HUYNH1,2*, Duc-Duy HO3,4, and Tran Huu Tin LUU3,4
Keywords: piezoelectric, active sensing, bolted joint, sensor defects, structural health monitoring
Introduction
Piezoelectric-based active sensing technique has
shown the promising prospect for structural health
monitoring of critical members in civil structures (Na
and Baek 2018). Piezoelectric sensors, when bonded
to a monitored structure, can be damaged under the
effects of severe environment and overloading,
leading to inaccurate results. This study presents an
experimental investigation on the effect of sensor
defects on piezoelectric-based active sensing of a
bolted joint through a smart interface. Structural
damage and typical sensor defects (i.e., sensor
debonding and breakage) are simulated for the bolted
joint and the changes in electromechanical impedance
are analyzed. An impedance feature, the change in
root-mean-square (RMS) of the EM impedance, is
proposed to distinguish the sensor defects from the
structural damage. The results show that the sensor
defects can cause significant variations in the EM
impedance signatures, and they can be well
distinguished from the structural damage of the
bolted joint by using the RMS method.
Lab-scale Experiment
A 8-bolts joint of a steel beam was selected as the test
structure. The impedance response of the joint was
measured through a PZT-interface device. The
experimental setup follows the previous study
(Huynh et al. 2018), see Fig. 1. The smart interface
has dimensions of 33105 mm. The sensor was
bonded to the interface via a bonding layer (Loctite
401). The PZT sensor has sizes of 25250.51 mm.
HIOKI 3532 analyzer was used to generate 1 V
excitation and to obtain the impedance responses.
Three cases were carried out for the
experimental investigation, including the sensor
debonding, the sensor breakage, and the structural
damage tests. The sensor debonding test was
1
Institute of Research and Development, Duy Tan
University, 03 Quang Trung, Hai Chau, Danang,
Vietnam
2
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Duy Tan University,
03 Quang Trung, Hai Chau, Danang, Vietnam
3
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City
University of Technology (HCMUT), 268 Ly Thuong
Kiet Street, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
4
Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City,
Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh
City, Vietnam
2021 International Conference on Disaster Mitigation
performed by reducing the bonding area of the
adhesive layer. Four debonding cases of the sensor
were investigated, including no debonding (i.e., an
intact state), 39.2% debonding, 66.4% debonding,
and 84% debonding cases. The sensor breakage test
was simulated by reducing the size of the PZT. Four
breakage cases of the PZT were studied, including no
breakage (i.e., an intact state), 36% breakage, 64%
breakage, and 84% breakage cases. The structural
damage test was conducted by reducing the torque of
Bolt 2 (see Fig. 1) from 160 Nm to 110 Nm, 60 Nm,
and 0 Nm. During the experimental tests, the room
temperature was controlled at 21oC to avoid any
effect of temperature changes on the measurements.
Bonding Area
2525 mm2
PZT Sensor
2525 mm2
Interface
Impedance
Analyzer Bolt 1
Laptop
Bolt 2
Bolt 3
Bolt 4
Fig. 1. Experimental setup for the bolted girder
connection
Diagnosis of Sensor Defects
The real impedance signatures in 10-50 kHz
measured under the sensor debonding cases are
shown in Fig. 2a. The signatures show two clear
resonant peaks under the intact state of the PZT (i.e.,
a perfect bonding condition). The frequency ranges
10-20 kHz and 30-40 kHz are damage-sensitive
ranges (i.e., clear resonant ranges) while the
remainders are non-resonant ranges. When the
debonding level of the PZT was increased up to 84%,
the magnitude of the resonant impedance peaks was
reduced. The real impedance signatures in 10-50 kHz
for different levels of the sensor breakage are shown
in Fig. 2b. The sensor breakage caused upward shifts
in the real impedance signature. The shifting effect
was found to be more considerable for lower
frequencies. For the structural damage cases, the real
impedance signatures in 10-50 kHz are shown in Fig.
2c. The reduction in bolt torque caused leftward
shifts in the real impedance at the resonances.
Fig. 3 presents the change in RMS of the
imaginary admittance signature (1/impedance) for
the two resonant bands, including 20-30 kHz and
Technology for Smart Infrastructure 26-27 Jan 2021/ 1
 40-50 kHz. It is found that the RMS values were References
increased with the level of sensor debonding while
decreased with the level of sensor breakage and W.S. Na, and J. Baek (2018): A Review of the
remained unchanged with the level of structural Piezoelectric Electromechanical Impedance
damage. By using the rule of these changes, it is Based Structural Health Monitoring Technique
possible to distinguish the sensor defects from the for Engineering Structures. Sensors, 18(5), pp.
structural damage. 1307.
T.C. Huynh, N.L. Dang, and J.T. Kim (2018): Preload
800
monitoring in bolted connection using
700
Intact
39.2% Debonding
piezoelectric-based smart interface. Sensors,
66.4% Debonding
18(9), pp. 2766.
Real Impedance (Ohm)

600 84% Debonding

500

400

300

200

100

0
10 20 30 40 50
Frequency (kHz)
(a) Sensor debonding (b) Sensor breakage

(c) Structural damage

Fig. 2. Effect of sensor defects on real EM
impedance

Non-resonant : 20-30 kHz Non-resonant : 40-50 kHz

1.00E-03 3.00E-03

5.00E-04 2.00E-03

0.00E+00
structural damage
1.00E-03
Change in RMS

Change in RMS

0 20 40 60 80 100
-5.00E-04 0.00E+00
structural damage
0 20 40 60 80 100
-1.00E-03 -1.00E-03

-1.50E-03 -2.00E-03

-2.00E-03 -3.00E-03
Severity (%) Severity (%)

nt : 20-30 kHz Non-resonant : 40-50 kHz

3.00E-03

2.00E-03
structural damage
1.00E-03
Change in RMS

60 80 100
0.00E+00
structural damage
0 20 40 60 80 100
-1.00E-03

-2.00E-03

-3.00E-03
verity (%) Severity (%)

Fig. 3. Assessment method of sensor defects using

the change in RMS of imaginary admittance non-
resonant frequency ranges

2021 International Conference on Disaster Mitigation Technology for Smart Infrastructure 26-27 Jan 2021/ 1