A Comparison Between the Accuracy of Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Strain Measurements

被引:1
|
作者
Desai, Niranjan [1 ]
Poling, Joel [1 ]
Fischer, Gregor [2 ]
Georgakis, Christos [3 ]
机构
[1] Purdue Univ Northwest, Dept Mech & Civil Engn, 1401 US 421, Westville, IN 46391 USA
[2] Tech Univ Denmark, Dept Civil Engn, Brovej 118, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
[3] Aarhus Univ, Dept Engn Struct Monitoring & Dynam, Inge Lehmanns Gade 10, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
关键词
D O I
10.1115/1.4038731
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
This investigation determined the effect of specimen out-of-plane movement on the accuracy of strain measurement made applying two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) measurement approaches using the representative, state-of-the-art digital image correlation (DIC)-based tool ARAMIS. DIC techniques can be used in structural health monitoring (SHM) by measuring structural strains and correlating them to structural damage. This study was motivated by initially undetected damage at low strains in connections of a real-world bridge, whose detection would have prevented its propagation, resulting in lower repair costs. This study builds upon an initial investigation that concluded that out-of-plane specimen movement results in noise in DIC-based strain measurements. The effect of specimen out-of-plane displacement on the accuracy of strain measurements using the 2D and 3D measurement techniques was determined over a range of strain values and specimen out-of-plane displacements. Based upon the results of this study, the 2D system could measure strains as camera focus was being lost, and the effect of the loss of focus became apparent at 1.0mm beam out-of-plane displacement while measuring strain of the order of magnitude of approximately 0.12%. The corresponding results for the 3D system demonstrate that the beam out-of-plane displacement begins to affect the accuracy of the strain measurements at approximately 0.025% strain for all magnitudes of out-of-plane displacement, and the 3D ARAMIS system can make accurate strain measurements at up to 2.5mm amplitude at this strain. Finally, based upon the magnitudes of strain and out-of-plane displacement amplitudes that typically occur in real steel bridges, it is advisable to use the 3D system for SHM of stiff structures instead of the 2D system.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A comparison between the two-dimensional and three-dimensional lattices
    Dolocan, A
    Dolocan, VO
    Dolocan, V
    [J]. MODERN PHYSICS LETTERS B, 2004, 18 (25): : 1301 - 1309
  • [2] Accuracy of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound in uterus volume measurements;: Comparison with two-dimensional ultrasound
    Yaman, C
    Jesacher, K
    Pölz, W
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2003, 29 (12): : 1681 - 1684
  • [3] Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional echocardiographic strain in children with CHD
    Wisotzkey, Bethany L.
    Soriano, Brian D.
    Buddhe, Sujatha
    [J]. CARDIOLOGY IN THE YOUNG, 2017, 27 (08) : 1557 - 1565
  • [4] Comparison Between Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Dynamic Stall
    Kaufmann, K.
    Gardner, A. D.
    Costes, M.
    [J]. NEW RESULTS IN NUMERICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL FLUID MECHANICS X, 2016, 132 : 315 - 325
  • [5] A comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional measurements of wear in a laboratory investigation
    Rodriguez, Jose M.
    Bartlett, David W.
    [J]. DENTAL MATERIALS, 2010, 26 (10) : E221 - E225
  • [6] Comparison between two-dimensional and midsagittal three-dimensional cephalometric measurements of dry human skulls
    Damstra, Janalt
    Fourie, Zacharias
    Ren, Yijin
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2011, 49 (05): : 392 - 395
  • [7] Field of View Comparison Between Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Endoscopy
    Van Gompel, Jamie J.
    Tabor, Mark H.
    Youssef, A. Samy
    Lau, Tsz
    Carlson, Andrew P.
    van Loveren, Harry R.
    Agazzi, Siviero
    [J]. LARYNGOSCOPE, 2014, 124 (02): : 387 - 390
  • [8] Comparison of standard two-dimensional and three-dimensional corrected glenoid version measurements
    Budge, Matthew D.
    Lewis, Gregory S.
    Schaefer, Eric
    Coquia, Stephanie
    Flemming, Donald J.
    Armstrong, April D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2011, 20 (04) : 577 - 583
  • [9] Palatal surface area of maxillary plaster casts - A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional measurements
    Darvann, Tron A.
    Hermann, Nuno V.
    Ersboll, Bjarne K.
    Kreiborg, Sven
    Odont, D.
    Berkowitz, Samuel
    [J]. CLEFT PALATE-CRANIOFACIAL JOURNAL, 2007, 44 (04): : 381 - 390
  • [10] A comparison between three-dimensional and two-dimensional grain boundary plane analysis
    Randle, V
    Davies, H
    [J]. ULTRAMICROSCOPY, 2002, 90 (2-3) : 153 - 162