Proceedings of the IMAC-XXVII

February 9-12, 2009 Orlando, Florida USA

2009 Society for Experimental Mechanics Inc.

Crack Detection in a Cantilever Beam using Harmonic Probing and Free

Vibration Decay

Animesh Chatterjee
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
Nagpur
INDIA-440011
Email: achatterjee@mec.vnit.ac.in

Nomenclature
x(t )
f (t )
x n (t )
hn ( 1 ,..., n )
H np,q ( )
k2
k3
X (n )

System response
Excitation force
nth order response component
nth order Volterra kernels
Higher order FRFs
Square nonlinear parameter
Cubic nonlinear parameter
nth harmonic response amplitude
Bilinear parameter

ABSTRACT
Vibration testing forms one of the most effective and recent technique of non-destructive testing of structures and
various engineering components. There are mainly two approaches to crack detection through vibration testing;
open crack model and breathing crack model. The present study is based on breathing crack model, in which the
bilinear stiffness characteristic of a cracked cantilever beam is approximated by a polynomial series and a
nonlinear dynamic model of the cracked structure is developed using higher order Frequency Response
Functions. Effect of crack severity is investigated through measurement of response harmonic amplitudes and a
procedure is suggested to estimate the crack severity through nonlinear response analysis.
1.

Introduction

Failures in structures and machine elements can be prevented through early detection of fatigue cracks using
various non-destructive testing methods. Traditional non-destructive testing methods such as dye-penetrant test,
magnetic particle inspection, ultrasonic test etc have their own limitations and are often very expensive and
inconclusive. Vibration testing forms one of the most effective and recent technique of non-destructive testing of
structures and various engineering components. There are mainly two approaches to crack detection through
vibration testing; open crack model and breathing crack model. In the first approach, crack is considered to be
always open and the focus is on the changes in natural frequency and other modal parameters.[1-3]. However,
the changes in natural frequency have been found to be significant only for a large crack size [4]
Recently, researchers have shown that a structure with a breathing crack behaves more like a nonlinear
system, similar to that of a bilinear oscillator and the nonlinear response characteristics can very well be
investigated to identify the presence of the crack (Shen and Chu [5], Rivola and White [6], Chondros and

Dimarogonas [7]). The effect of crack on a continuous structure, have been modeled as a local change in the
stiffness matrix by Kisa and Brandon [8], Saavedra and Cuitino [9]. These research works mainly provide
qualitative understanding of the nonlinear response characteristics of a cracked beam and very few have
attempted quantitative assessment of the crack.
The present work investigates both forced response and free vibration decay of the nonlinear model of a
cracked beam. In the forced response analysis, harmonic excitation is used and Volterra series response
representation is employed for developing a quantitative damage assessment technique. Volterra series [10]
represents a nonlinear system through a set of first and higher order frequency response functions (FRFs). The
bilinear restoring force function of a cracked cantilever beam is approximated by a finite term polynomial series
and the response amplitudes under harmonic excitation are obtained using Volterra series response
representation. A procedure is then suggested for estimating the structural damage through measurement of the
first and second harmonic amplitudes. In free vibration analysis, the response decay of the bilinear stiffness
model is investigated in each half cycle and the stiffness degradation due to a crack is estimated through
measurement of the asymmetric amplitude decay parameters.
2

Volterra Series Response Representation

Volterra series represents the input-output mapping of a physical system, with f (t ) as input excitation and x(t ) as
output response, in a form of functional series given by

h1 ( 1 ) f (t 1 )d 1 +

x(t ) =
+

h2 ( 1 , 2 ) f (t 1 ) f (t 2 )d 1d 2
(1)

h3 ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) f (t 1 ) f (t 2 ) f (t 3 )d 1d 2 d 3 + ....

= x1 (t ) + x 2 (t ) + ... + x n (t ) + ...
h1 ( 1 ) , is the familiar impulse response function of a linear system and hn ( 1 ,..., n ) are the nth order Volterra
kernels. Higher Order Frequency Response Functions or Volterra kernel transforms can be defined as the multidimensional Fourier transforms of the higher order Volterra kernels as

H n (1 , 2 ,..., n ) =

i =1

... hn ( 1 , 2 ,..., n ) e ji i d 1d 2 ...d n

For a system with polynomial form of stiffness nonlinearity, given by the equation of motion
m&x&(t ) + cx& (t ) + k1 x(t ) + k 2 x 2 (t ) + k 3 x 3 (t ) + ... = f (t )
with harmonic excitation
A j t A j t
f (t ) = A cos t =
e
+ e
,
2
2
the response, using Volterra series (1), is obtained as

x(t ) =

A
n =1 p + q =n

2 n C q H np,q ( ) e

j p , q t

(2)

(3)
(4)

(5)

Where H np ,q ( ) are the higher order FRFs given by

H np,q ( ) = H n (
,
,...,
3
)
1,...,
23
14
24
p times

p,q = ( p q )

(6)

q times

Response amplitude for the first three harmonics, ,2 and 3 , from Eqn. (5), can be expressed as
3 A3
H 3 ( , , ) + higher order terms
4
A2
A4
X (2 ) =
H 2 ( , ) +
H 4 ( , , , ) + higher order terms
2
2
A3
X (3 ) =
H 3 ( , , ) + higher order terms
4
X ( ) = AH 1 ( ) +

(7a)
(7b)
(7c)

The higher order FRFs can be synthesized [11] from the first order FRFs as
H 2 ( , ) = k 2 H 12 ( ) * H 1 (2 )
H 3 ( , , ) =

H 13 ( ) * H 1 (3 ) *

2k 22 H 1 (2 ) k 3

(8a)

(8b)

H 3 ( , , ) = H13 ( ) H1 (- ) k 22 {H1 (2 ) + 2 H1 (0)} k 3

3

2 H 1 ( ) H 3 ( , , ) + 6 H 1 ( ) H 3 ( , , )
k 2


+ 4 H 2 ( , ) H 2 ( , )
H (2 )

H 4 ( , , , ) = 1

4
+ k 3 6 H 12 ( ) H 2 ( , ) + 6 H 1 ( ) H 1 ( ) H 2 ( , )

(8c)

(8d)

3. Modeling of a cracked cantilever beam as bilinear oscillator

A cantilever beam with a breathing edge crack (Fig. 1) exhibits bilinear stiffness characteristics depending on
whether the crack is open or closed. Using Finite Element method, the equation of motion can be expressed in
terms of the mass, stiffness and damping matrices as
[M ]{u&&(t )} + [C ]{u& (t )} + [K ]{u (t )} = {F (t )} when the crack is closed
(9)
and
[M ]{u&&(t )} + [C ]{u& (t )} + [K K ]{u (t )} = {F (t )} when the crack is open
(10)
Using the coordinate transformation {u (t )} = [ ]{q (t )} and modal analysis, one can obtain the single-degree-offreedom equation for the fundamental mode of vibration as
q&&1 (t ) + 2 1 1q&1 (t ) + 12 q1 (t ) = f1 (t )
(11)
where 1 and 1 are respectively modal damping and natural frequency of the un-cracked beam in the first
mode and

1T [K K ]1

when the crack is open and = 1 , when the crack is closed.

12
The term K in above equation represents the reduction in the stiffness matrix due to the crack and is a function
of the crack size as well as of crack location
Eq. (11) for the cracked beam is similar to that of a bilinear oscillator (Fig. 2) given by
m&x&(t ) + cx& (t ) + g[ x(t )] = f (t )
(12)
where,
g[ x(t )] = kx(t )
with

= 1 for x (t ) p 0
and p 1 for x(t ) 0
Thus the nonlinear vibration response of a beam with breathing crack be very well obtained through analyzing the
response of an equivalent bilinear oscillator.

Crack

f(t)
u
c
(1-) k
m

L
Figure 1: A cantilever beam with an edge
crack

k
Figure 2: Bilinear oscillator model of a
spring mass damper system

4. Crack severity assessment through forced vibration analysis

To obtain the response harmonic amplitudes through Volterra series, restoring force g[ x (t )] due to the bilinear
stiffness of the cracked beam is approximated with a polynomial form

g [ x(t )] given as

g [ x(t )] = g 0 + k1 x(t ) + k 2 x (t ) + k 3 x (t ) + ...

2

(13)

For the sake of simplicity here, the polynomial is considered up to the cubic power term and the coefficients,
k1 , k 2 , k 3 are computed by minimizing the error function E , given as
E (k1 , k 2 , k 3 ) =

{g[ x(t )] g[ x(t )]}

dx .

(14)

E
= 0, for i = 1,2,3 the coefficients are obtained as
k i
(1 + )
15(1 )
k1 =
k , k2 =
k ,
k3 = 0
(16)
2
32 X
The first and second harmonic response amplitude, following Eqs. (8a-d), then can be expressed as
A3 2
X ( ) = AH 1 ( ) +
k 2 {H 1 (2 ) + 2 H 1 (0)}H 13 ( ) H1 (- ) +
higher
order
terms
(17a)
2
A2
(17b)
X (2 ) =
k 2 H 12 ( ) H 1 (2 ) + higher order terms
2
As decreases for a growing crack, the nonlinear parameter k 2 increases (Eq. 16) and thus the harmonic

Applying

amplitude X (2 ) which is directly related to k 2 (Eq. 17b ) also increases. Thus 1- can be used as an indicator
of the crack severity and is termed as Crack Severity Index (C.S.I). Fig. 3 shows the variation in the first and
second harmonic amplitudes for different crack depth depicted by crack severity index varying between 0.01 to
0.10 for typical excitation frequencies, / k / m = 0 .3 and 0.4 . It can be seen that the second harmonic
amplitude X (2 ) is much smaller than the first harmonic amplitude X ( ) when the index 1- is small. In such
cases an excitation frequency close to half the bilinear natural frequency, such as / k / m = 0.4 will give higher
signal strength X (2 ) than an excitation frequency, / k / m = 0.3 . The bilinear frequency is defined as
2 01
2
(18)
=
0
0 + 1 1 +
where 0 and 1 are respectively the natural frequency of the beam in un-cracked and cracked conditions.

b =

10

Freq. = 0.4
Freq. = 0.3
First harmonic
0

Response Amplitude

10

-1

10

Second harmonic

-2

10

-3

10
0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

Crack Severity Index

Figure 3: Harmonic amplitudes at different damage levels.

Fig. 4 shows the variation in spectral amplitude ratio X (2 ) / X ( ) for different crack depth for a typical excitation
frequency, / k / m = 0.3 . It is significant to note that the ratio is almost proportional to the severity index and
thus can be potentially used as a measure of the damage. Neglecting the higher order terms in the Eqs. (17a,b)
an expression for the crack severity index can be obtained as
1 =

64 X (0) X (2 )
15 X ( ) X * (2 )

(19)

where X (0) is the static deflection which can be experimentally obtained with a static load. The value of the
Crack Severity Index (CSI), i.e., 1 , can be easily estimated from experimental measurements using above Eq.
(19). Figure 5 shows the accuracy of estimation of the crack severity index by the proposed technique, through
measurement of first and second harmonic amplitudes.
0.05

Response amplitude ratio

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Crack Severity Index

Figure 4: Amplitude ratio X (2 ) / X ( ) for different damage levels

with / k / m = 0.3

Exact value
Estimated value

0.1
0.09

Estimated value

0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

Crack Severity Index

Figure 5: Estimation of crack severity with / k / m = 0.3

5. Crack severity assessment through free vibration analysis

Free vibration response of a general harmonic oscillator is given by

x& (0)
x(t ) = e nt x(0) cos d t +
sin d t
d

Starting with x(0) = 0 , the response will be given by

(20)

x& (0)

x(t ) = e nt
sin d t
(21)

First cycle of decay can be considered in two halves; positive half and the negative half. Natural frequency will be
different in positive half and negative half.
k
k
when x f 0 and n 2 =
, when x 0
(22)
n1 =
m
m
If X 1 , X 2 and X 3 respectively represent the free vibration peak amplitudes in first positive half, first negative half
and the second positive half, then one can obtain
X 1 n 2 / 1 2
X 2 n1 / 1 2
=
e
and
=
e
(23)
X 2 n1
X 3 n2
Which gives

2
X 22
= n1 =
X 1 X 3 n22
The crack severity index thus can be obtained as
1 = 1

X 22
X1 X 3

(24)

(25)

6 Conclusion
The nonlinear response of a cracked beam under both forced and free vibration is investigated for assessment of
crack severity. The bilinear restoring force due to crack open and crack closed modes is approximated by a
polynomial series and the first and second order Frequency Response Functions are developed in terms of the
bilinear parameter. It is shown that the crack severity can be estimated through measurement of the first and
second harmonic amplitudes. The stiffness degradation induced by a crack can also be estimated through
measurement of asymmetric response amplitude decay in a free vibration test.

Reference
[1] Chondros T G, Dimarogonas A D, Vibration of a cracked cantilever beam, J Vibration Acoustics, 120: 742746, 1998.
[2] Chinchalkar S, Determination of crack location in beams using natural frequencies, J.Sound Vib., 247(3),
417-429, 1998.
[3] Panteliou S D, Chandros T G, Argyrakis V C, Dimaragonas A D, Damping factor as an indicator of crack
severity, J. Sound Vib., 241, 235-245, 2001.
[4] Cheng S M, Wu X J, Wallace W, Vibrational response of a beam with a breathing crack, J. Sound Vib.,
225(1), 201-208, 1996.
[5] Shen M.-H.H, Chu Y C, Vibrations of beam with a fatigue crack, Compt. Struct., 45(1), 79-93, 1992.
[6] Rivola A, White P R, Bispectral analysis of the bilinear oscillator with application to the detection of fatigue
cracks, J. Sound Vib., 216(5): 889-910, 1998.

[7] Chondros T G, Dimarogonas A D, Vibration of a beam with a breathing crack, J. Sound Vib., 239 (1): 57-67,
2001
[8] Kisa M, Brandon J A, The effects of closure of cracks on the dynamics of a cracked on the dynamics of a

cracked cantilever beam, J. Sound Vib. ; 238 (1): 1-18, 2000.

[9] Saavedra P N, Cuitino L A, Crack detection and vibration behavior of cracked beams, Comp. Struct.; 79,
1451-1459, 2001.
[10] Schetzen M, The Volterra and Wiener Theories of Nonlinear Systems, John Wiley and Sons, New York,1980.
[11] Chatterjee, A. and Vyas, N.S., Nonlinear Identification through Structured Response Component Analysis
using Volterra Series, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 15(2), pp. 323-336, 1999.