This is a repository copy of Structural health monitoring using magnetostrictive sensors.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/140510/

Version: Accepted Version

Proceedings Paper:
Zhaoyuan, L., Chan, L., Walters, N. et al. (4 more authors) (2018) Structural health
monitoring using magnetostrictive sensors. In: 2018 IEEE International Magnetic
Conference (INTERMAG). 2018 IEEE International Magnetics Conference (INTERMAG),
23-27 Apr 2018, Singapore, Singapore . IEEE . ISBN 9781538664254

https://doi.org/10.1109/INTMAG.2018.8508360

© 2018 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be
obtained for all other users, including reprinting/ republishing this material for advertising or
promotional purposes, creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers
or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted components of this work in other works. Reproduced
in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.

Reuse
Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless
indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by
national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of
the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record
for the item.

Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

[email protected]
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
 Structural Health Monitoring using Magnetostrictive Sensors
LEONG Zhaoyuan1, Louise CHAN1, Nicholas WALTERS1, James CLARKE1, William HOLMES1, Simon HAYES1
and Nicola A. MORLEY1, Member, IEEE,
1
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK

Polymer composites are used in a wide range of applications including aerospace and automotive. Although they possess good
structural properties, they are subjected to complicated modes of failure. This damage is often barely visible, so structural health
monitoring of the composite is required to determine when this barely visible damage occurs. This paper presents results on the design
and testing of a magnetostrictive actuator for detecting barely visible damage in aircraft composite. Computer modelling was used to
design and optimise the actuator. FeSiB ribbon and wires were used as the actuator, co-cured either onto the composite surface or
between the composite layers to investigate composite sensitivity to different forms of damage. The actuators were tested for uniform
strain, barely visible impact damage, and composite delamination, by measuring the change in magnetisation using a HMC5883L
AMR sensor. It was found that the magnetostrictive actuator-AMR sensor together were able to detect all these forms of composite
damage.

Index Terms— Magnetostrictive sensors, Composite damage detection, Non-destructive testing

composite. The optical fibre sensors size range from 40 µm to

I. INTRODUCTION 125 µm for the Bragg gratings. Strain sensitivity and

C ARBON FIBRE reinforced polymer composites are being

utilised within aircrafts such as Airbus A350 XWB, due to
resolution strongly depends upon the operation frequency and
the interrogation method. For example, fibre Bragg gratings
their good structural properties including high strength to have a strain sensitivity range and resolution of 2000  1
weight ratio, low relative cost compared to substitute µstrain [8, 9]. The main limitations of the optical fibres are
materials, high corrosion resistance and complex shape they are delicate and so break easily - requiring trained
manufacture [1, 2]. Unfortunately one of their main specialists to attach them to the composite, and furthermore
disadvantages is that they are subject to complicated modes of needing extra wiring and hardware when being used [8]. For
failure, which are difficult to detect and if left too long can the piezoelectric sensors, the size range is 200 – 840 µm, so
lead to irreparable damage [3]. are the largest of the SHM sensors. They have a strain
Within the composite, there are three damage mechanisms sensitivity and resolution of 150  5 µstrain [10]. Their main
that occur at different length scales, which are micro-level, limitations are the additional weight, along with the sensors
macro-level and coupled [4]. The micro-level damage depoling over time, such that they have a life-cycle of 5 years.
mechanisms focus on the fibre and matrix behaviour and Thus, new SHM techniques are being investigated, such as
include: fibre fracture, buckling, bending, splitting, and matrix magnetostrictive wires [11, 12] and ribbons, which can be
cracking either parallel or perpendicular to the fibre direction. monitored using handheld sensors, therefore reducing the
At the macro-level damage mechanisms include weight added to the composite. This paper presents research
manufacturing defects and transverse stress through loading, carried out on the viability of amorphous magnetostrictive
leading to delamination [5]. All these failure mechanisms will ribbons and wires as SHM actuators, via both computer
reduce the structural integrity of composite and in the end lead simulations and experimental procedures. Actuator readings
to failure of the part. It is therefore important to monitor (and thus, efficacy) were obtained using both an inductance
composites to detect these failures early enough, so that repair coil and an AMR sensor, with both methods used to evaluate
is possible. To do this, sensors which can detect small changes and ensure actuator sensitivity and reproducibility.
in strain within the composite are required as all the different
failure mechanisms lead to an area of increased strain within II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
the composite (which can be detected).
For the design of the magnetostrictive actuator, FEM
To detect damage within the composite early, structural
modelling was employed using the COMSOL Multiphysics
health monitoring (SHM) is undertaken. There are a range of
different SHM techniques which have been developed to software to determine the strain detection range of
detect damage within composites, these include both contact magnetostrictive ribbons and wires when placed on the
and non-contact methods [6]. Non-contact methods include composite surface. This work also investigated different
visual inspection, radiography, and ultrasonic inspection, magnetostrictive materials and the difference between wires
while contact methods include eddy currents, piezoelectric and ribbons for the actuator. Table 1 gives the parameters used
materials, and optical fibres [7]. Although techniques such as in the modelling. The wires had a diameter of 129 µm, while
piezoelectric sensors and optical fibres have been shown to the ribbons were 20 µm thick and 3mm wide. Fig. 1a shows
detect the different damages within a lab environment, they the basic design of the actuator within the COMSOL model. A
have limitations for aircraft use, due to the additional weight mesh survey was carried out to determine the optimum mesh
that occurs by mounting the sensors and wires on the size to computational time required for the model. This was a
composite components, which can cause further damage to the variable mesh, with the smallest elements being 17 µm in size

978-1-5386-6425-4/18/$31.00©2018 IEEE
around the ribbons and the wires, and increasing in size over they were 3952µH (ribbons) and 2612µH (wires). Thus
the rest of the composite. This meant that the mesh elements there was good repeatability between the actuators. Also the
were smaller than the ribbon thickness and wire diameter. ribbons gave a larger overall inductance compared to the
wires. The inductance measurement depends on the volume of
TABLE I
COMSOL MODELING PARAMETERS the magnetic sample, such that the larger the volume, i.e. for a
0o, 90oCarbon 15cm length, wire = 1.96 mm3 and ribbon = 9 mm3, the larger
Parameter FeSiB CoSiB Fibre/Epoxy the inductance response, as observed. It also depends on the
Composite permeability and domain structure, which differ between wires
Relative 45000 290000 1
permeability and ribbons. The domain structure of the magnetic ribbon or
Electrical 6.6e5 6.4e5 0.004 wire depends on the magnetoelastic and magnetostatic energy,
Conductivity and can be manipulated using post-fabrication heat treatment
(S/m)
Thermal 7.6e-6 12e-6 2.15e-6 to achieve the “ideal” domain structure for the largest changes
expansion (1/K) in inductance.
Youngs’ 167 137 70 Tests were performed to determine if the magnetostrictive
Modulus (GPa)
Magnetisation 1.56 0.6 0
actuators could detect composite damage, strain in different
(T) conditions and composite delamination. Two methods were
Density (kg/m3) 7180 7590 1600 used to determine the strain response in the fabricated
samples: 1) via inductance measurements using a pick-up coil,
Composite samples were fabricated from a 2 × 2mm twill and 2) magnetic measurements via an AMR sensor.
weave pre-impregnated carbon fibre epoxy system The uniform strain sensitivity of the magnetostrictive
(VTC401®) from SHD Composites. Four layers/plies of 400 × actuator was tested using the inductance methodology [12].
450 mm pre-preg (fibre volume fraction between 50-60% and These were done by straining the composite samples over a
a void content of <1% post cure) were placed on top of each range of known bend radii, to determine the change in
other. The Fe77.5Si7.5B15 (FeSiB) magnetostrictive ribbons and inductance as a function of strain. The inductance was
wires were mounted on both the surface and within the measured before the composite was strained and under strain,
composite with different grid spacings as sensing elements for and the difference taken to give a change in induction due to
the actuator. The epoxy within the pre-preg was used to co- the applied strain. This allows for the sensitivity of the
cure the ribbons/wires onto/between the composite layers. The magnetostrictive method to be investigated. Further
samples were then vacuumed packed and cured for 45 minutes investigations into the magnetostrictive actuator strain
at 120oC. Post-curing, the prepared samples were cut into response at different temperatures were also carried out. This
samples of dimensions 150 × 50 × 1mm for the different involved measuring the uniform strain sensitivity at three
damage experiments. different temperatures: 21, -18 and -24oC. The composite was
cooled down to the temperature, and uniform strain
measurements were taken using the bend radii and the LCR45
analyser.
For the barely visible impact damage (BVID) experiments,
a point drop test was carried out, which induced 1.57J of
impact damage onto the composite. Both the pick-up coil and
the AMR sensor were used to determine the magnetic
response before and after impact damage. The inductance
along the composite was also measured as a function of
distance, to determine the profile of the damage.
Fig. 1a. COMSOL image of the magnetostrictive sensor: scale mm. b & Delamination was detected using a HMC5883L AMR
c. Images of the magnetostrictive ribbon sensors co-cured onto the sensor controlled by an Arduino microcontroller. In order to
composite surface and d. image of the ribbon embedded in the
composite
verify the usability of the sensor, magnetic readings were
taken of Type B samples for comparison when strained on
bending rigs of different radii. The change in magnetisation
From COMSOL modelling, two designs of magnetostrictive (where the change is defined as the difference between pre-
actuator where produced (Fig. 1b): Type A had a spacing of strain and post-strain readings) was detected, with each data
20mm between the ribbons/wires; while Type B had a spacing point representing the mean of 16 repeats. Delamination was
of 10mm between the ribbons/wires. For each design at least 4 simulated through the addition of diethylenetriamine as a
different panels were made up with the actuators attached. To hardener to a secondary epoxy resin layer joining two
check for repeatability between actuators, the average composite layers fabricated according to the methods outlined
inductance of each sample was measured using a 112 turn above. For these samples, magnetostrictive actuators were co-
pick-up coil connected to an Atlas LCR45 analyser [12]. The cured between two composite layers. This procedure ensures
average inductance for type A ribbons were measured as that the secondary epoxy layer is weaker than the pre-
3452µH (ribbons) and 259.30.5µH (wires), while for type B fabricated samples and so will cause delamination between
both composite layers first, before failure of the pre-fabricated structures arise due to the magnetoelastic and magnetostatic
samples. The composites were tested on an Instron mechanical energies, this means each sample will have a different
testing machine in three-point bending set-up to obtain stress- hysteresis loops, which leads to differences in the
strain curves concomitantly with the change in magnetisation. permeability.
Change in magnetisation is measured with an AMR sensor The comparison between wires and ribbons, along with
placed on the surface of the composite sample, with three spacing between adjacent wires/ribbons is seen in Fig. 2. The
repeats performed for each sample. spacing is important as a balance between strain sensitivity
and additional weight has to be achieved. It is observed that
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION the average induction across the composite decreases as the
spacing increases for both wires and ribbons. For spacings
A. COMSOL Modelling
<2mm, the wires have a higher induction compared to ribbons,
but this is difficult to achieve experimental, due to wires being
129µm in diameter and thus difficult to place accurately on the
composite. At this spacing, the weight of the wire to be added
to a 1 × 1m area composite is 52g, which would affect the
composite’s mechanical properties. For spacings >2mm,
ribbons have a higher induction across the composite, which
confirms the preliminary experimental results, due to
increased surface area being covered vis-à-vis wires.
B. Experimental Results – Inductance coil sensor

Fig. 2. Magnetic induction as a function of distance between the

magnetostrictive wires/ribbons determined from COMSOL modelling

From COMSOL modelling it was determined that for a

spacing of 6 mm between adjacent FeSiB wires, the average
induction across the surface was 0.012T, while for CoSiB wire
the average induction across the surface was 0.006T. The
results suggest that the FeSiB wires should have higher strain
sensitivity, which is in agreement with experimental results
[12]. One of the main differences between FeSiB and CoSiB
wires and ribbons is the permeability, which is the change in Fig. 3. Applied strain detected via an inductance pick-up coil (data points
magnetic induction with applied magnetic field, and is in black), as well as utilising a Hall-effect sensor (data points in blue).The
lines function as a guide for the eye.
strongly dependant upon the magnetic hysteresis loop. For
amorphous magnetic materials, the hysteresis loop is For the uniform strain measurements it is observed that
dominated by the shape anisotropy, magnetoelastic anisotropy there is an increase in the change in inductance with strain
and their associated domains. For amorphous wires, the (Fig. 3), with the type B design having a larger change
domain structure depends on whether the material has a compared to the type A design. From this data, the strain
positive (FeSiB) or negative (CoSiB) magnetostriction sensitivity for each design was determined. For the type A
constant, as it is a competition between the magnetoelastic and design the strain sensitivity resolution was 25 µstrain and for
magnetostatic energies. FeSiB wires have a core-shell domain the type B design, the strain sensitivity resolution was 17
arrangement [13], which consists of an inner core, where the µstrain. Thus as would be expected the design with the smaller
magnetisation points along the wires and an outer shell ribbons spacing on the composite, had the greater strain
consisting of closure domains, which gives rise to a radial resolution. Comparing this to the FeSiB wires previously
magnetisation. While for CoSiB wires, the inner core is the studied [12], the strain resolution of the ribbons is a factor 10
same, but the magnetisation in the outer shell is better than the FeSiB wires (strain resolution = 500 µstrain).
circumferential [14]. For the FeSiB ribbon, the domain This will be due to the increase in the ribbon surface area on
structure strongly depends on the stress state within the the composite compared to the wires. This also confirms the
ribbon, as under tensile stress, large wide domains with in- modelling results, which showed that the ribbons should have
plane anisotropy form, while under compressive stress fine a better strain resolution. This strain resolution for
closure domain form with perpendicular anisotropy [15]. Thus magnetostrictive actuators is now only an order of magnitude
for magnetostrictive wires and ribbons, different domain larger than optical fibres and piezoelectric sensors, so are a
real alternative for SHM. giving confidence that the sensor might be used as a method
For the temperature measurements, it was determined that for the detection of composite BVID and delamination.
the magnetostrictive actuator sensitivity decreased as the To further confirm the capabilities of the sensor, impact
temperature decreased, but a change in inductance was still damage measurements were carried out on the type B design
measured as a function of strain. At -24oC, for the type A also utilising this sensor, with the ribbons sandwiched between
design, the strain sensitivity resolution was 32 µstrain and for plies 2 and 3. For an impact of 1.63J, the average change in
type B design was 24 µstrain. Therefore, the resolution was magnetisation was 14µT and for an impact of 3.13J, the
reduced by ~1.35 compared to sensitivity at 21oC. It was also average change in magnetisation was 28µT. The measured
determined that the reduction in the inductance with change in magnetisation is indicative of damage detection
temperature was smaller for ribbon actuators, as compared to utilising the sensor.
wires.

Fig. 5. Overplot of a stress vs. strain curve (in blue) of composite

Fig. 4. BVID impact response profile for inductance against distance to sample, with magnetostrictive ribbons attached and corresponding
impact point. FeSiB ribbons Type A (damage between ribbons) and B magnetisation vs. time data (in black) measured simultaneously with
(damage on ribbon) configuration. Closed shapes are for no damage the stress-strain curve.
and open shapes are for damaged samples.
One main damage-type that takes part in composite failure
For the BVID experiments (Fig. 4), it is observed that both is through delamination. As such, it is important that any
designs detected the damage induced. Before BVID, for the sensor design is capable of not only detecting BVID, but also
undamaged composite (solid shapes), the variation in the delamination. In order to push sensor capability to its limits,
inductance was ±2 µH across the length of the composite. For delamination experiments were conducted following the
type A orientation, the damage was inflicted between the procedure outlined in the methods section. The stress-strain
ribbons, while for type B the damage was inflicted on one of curve of the composite was measured concomitantly with the
the ribbons. For an impact damage of 1.57J, the change in magnetisation of the magnetostrictive actuator (Fig. 5). It is
inductance for the type A design was 6 µH for 1.57J and for observed from the stress-strain curve that delamination occurs
type B design was 14 µH, showing that both designs were able at a strain of 0.004, which corresponds to a change in the
to detect BVID. For type A designs, the BVID was ~1cm magnetisation gradient at ~140s. At 0.014 strain the sample
away from each of the ribbons – this damage was detected by experiences failure, and this is observed as a large positive
the sensor, demonstrating that a spacing of 2cm between jump in the magnetisation. The results were found to be
ribbons is sufficient to detect BVID on the composite surface. consistent with repeat experiments, demonstrating the ability
This is advantageous, as it means that less ribbon will be of a magnetostrictive actuator with an AMR sensor to pick-up
required to be co-cured onto the composite, so lowering the and detect a measurable change in magnetisation that
additional weight added, hence providing a trade-off for the corresponds to composite delamination.
required detection level.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
C. Experimental Results – AMR sensor Magnetostrictive actuators made from FeSiB ribbons have
From Section III-B, the higher sensitivity type B design was been shown to be an effective method of measuring different
forms of damage to aircraft composite, including impact and
employed to test the capabilities of the AMR sensor. The data
points obtained following the procedure outline above is layer delamination (demonstrating good response to
measurements via both inductance and AMR sensors). Using
presented as an overplot in Fig. 3, shown in blue. The change
magnetostrictive ribbons rather than wires improved the strain
in magnetisation of the tested samples was found to increase
as a function of strain, and the obtained results are found to be resolution by a factor 10. One issue with the inductance coil
sensor is the requirement that the composite sample be within
comparable to the inductance values obtained previously,
the coil. The ability of an AMR sensor to pick up strain,
impact damage and delamination is shown here, plus the
sensor is used flush against the composite surface. Thus
providing a practical method for detecting strain when used in
conjunction with magnetostrictive ribbon actuators. These
results make them a real alternative to existing structural
health monitoring techniques.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Part of this research was funded under the Cleansky2
scheme, for the project SHERLOC JTI-CS-2009-01-GRA-01-
005

REFERENCES
[1] B. F. Backman, Composite structures, design, safety and innovation,
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005
[2] V. Giurgiutiu, Structural Health Monitoring of Aerospace Composites,
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2013
[3] C. Soutis "Fibre reinforced composites in aircraft construction",
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, pp. 143-151, 2005
[4] R. Talreja, "Damage development in composites: Machanisms and
modelling" Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, vol 24, 2,
pp 215-222, 1989
[5] A. C. Garg, "Delamination - a damage mode in composite structures",
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol 29, 5, pp 557-584, 1998
[6] S. Gholizadeh, "A review of Non-destructive testing methods of
composite materials", Procedia Structural Integrity, pp 50-57, 2016
[7] W. Staszewski, S. Mahzan and R. Traynor, "Health monitoring of
aerospace composite structures - Active and passive approach",
Composite Science and Technology, vol. 69, pp. 1678-1685, 2009
[8] R. Di Sante, "Fibre Optic sensors for structural health monitoring of
aircraft composite structures: recent advances and applications",
Sensors, vol. 15, pp. 18666-18713, 2015
[9] H Tsutsui, A. Kawamata, T. Sanda and N. Takeda, "Detection of impact
damage of stiffened composite panels using embedded small-diameter
optical fibers." Smart Material Structures vol 13,. pp 1284-1290 2004
[10] S. G. Taylor, G. Park, K. M. Farinholt and M. D. Todd, "Diagnostics for
piezoelectric transducers under cyclic loads deployed for structural
health monitoring applications". Smart Material Structures. pp 11. 2013
[11] A. Christopoloulos, E. Hristoforou, I Koulalis and G Tsamasphyros,
"Inductive stain sensing using magnetostrictive wires embeded in fibre
laminates", Smart Material Structures, vol 23, pp 085035, 2014
[12] A. Al-Taher, R. W. Reiss, A. D. Lafferty, S. A. Hayes, N. Lupu, I.
Murgulescu and N. A. Morley, "Magnetostrictive materials for
aerospace applications", Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol 903,
pp. 012010, 2017
[13] P. T. Squire and D. Atkinson “Magnetostrictive and Magnetoelastic
properties of rapidly quenched wires”, IEEE Trans. Magn. vol. 31, No 2,
pp. 1239 – 1248, 1995
[14] P. T. Squire, D. Atkinson, M. R. J. Gibbs and S. Atalay, “Amorphous
wires and their applications”, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. vol. 132, pp. 10-21
1994
[15] O. Zivotsky, A. Titov, Y. Jiraskova, J. Bursik, J. Kalbacova, D.
Janickovic, and P. Svec, “Full-scale magnetic, microstructural and
physical properties of bilayered CoSiB/FeSiB ribbons” Journal of Alloys
and Compounds, vol 581, pp. 685-692, 2013