Project Report on

HARDWARE A D SOFTWARE ISSUES

USI G PIEZO-TRA SDUCERS
CED 310
Mini Project

Submitted by:
SAHIL BA SAL
2005CE10285

Under the Guidance of:

DR. SURESH BHALLA

Department of Civil Engineering,

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
April 2008
i

CERTIFICATE
________________________________________________________________

I do certify that this report explains the work carried out by me in the
courses CED310 Mini-Project, under the overall supervision of Dr. Suresh
Bhalla. The contents of the report including text, figures, tables, computer
programs, etc. have not been reproduced from other sources such as books,
journals, reports, manuals, websites, etc. Wherever limited reproduction
from another source had been made the source had been duly acknowledged
at that point and also listed in the References.

SAHIL BA SAL
Date: April 20th 2008

ii

CERTIFICATE
_____________________________________________________________________

This is to certify that the report submitted by Mr. Sahil Bansal describes the
work carried out by him in the courses CED310 Mini-Project, under my
overall supervision.

Dr. Suresh Bhalla

Assistant professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
Date: April 24th 2008

iii

ACK OWLEDGEME T
_____________________________________________________________________

I would like to express my sincere thanks & gratitude to Dr. Suresh Bhalla
for his continuous and unfailing support, guidance and help, which have
been invaluable during the course of this project. His knowledge, insight and
constant motivation at each step of the project has been instrumental in its
completion.

I would also like to thank Mr. Ramashankar for his full co-operation.

I would also like to thank SSDL, for their co-operation.

Sahil Bansal

iv

ABSTRACT
______________________________________________________________________________________

This paper presents a new low cost alternative for structural health
monitoring (SHM) and non destructive evaluation (NDE) of structures using
smart material technologies. The basic principle behind this method is to
use high frequency structural excitation (>30 KHz) using surface bonded
piezoelectric to detect any damage. Conventionally, LCR/impedance
analyzers which are employed in EMI technique are very expensive. The
alternative cost effective approach that is suggested in this paper uses
wave propagation based method and employee an array of surface
bonded piezoelectric patches which act as actuator and sensor of elastic
wave through the monitored structure and a combination of Function
generator and Digital Multimeter for applying and measuring voltage.
Application of the proposed technique is successfully demonstrated to
detect damage on structural component.

TABLE OF CO TE TS
PAGE
CERTIFICATES0000000000000000000000000..ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT0000000000000000000000.iv
ABSTRACT000000000000000000000000000.v
TABLE OF CONTENTS...0000000000000000000.0..vi
LIST OF FIGURES00000000000000000000000..viii

CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION................................1
1.1 Project Objective...............................................................................2
1.2 Report Organization00....0000000000000. 0.00..2

CHAPTER 2: Principle and Method of application.3

2.1 Principle of EMI method00000000000000000......3
2.2 Wave propagation method00000000000000000..4
2.3 Proposed cost effective approach00000000000000..4

CHAPTER 3: TESTS, RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..6

3.1 Experimental Details000.. 0000000000000000.6
3.2 Results using proposed approach00000000000000..9
3.3 Results using EMI method0000000000000000...09
3.4 Results using Peairs Low cost method00000000000011
3.5 Comparisons0000000000000000000000012

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .. 14

4.1 Conclusions00000000000000000000000..14
4.2 Limitations and Sources of Error0.000000000000 014

REFERENCES .. ..15

vi

APPENDIX16
A1: Readings using Proposed Low cost method000000000..16
A2: Readings using EMI method0000000000000000.17
A3: Readings using Peairs Low Cost method (Before and after
Damage)000000000000000000000000018
A4: Damage Metric Calculations0000000000000000.19

vii

List of Figures
Figure 2.3(a) Circuit for approximating PZT admittance (Peairs et al.
2004)
Figure 2.3(b) Setup for proposed approach
Figure 3.1(a) Specimen before Damage
Figure 3.1(b) Specimen after Damage
Figure 3.2

Variation of Gain vs. Frequency (Proposed approach)

Figure 3.3(a) Variation of Conductance vs. Frequency (EMI method)

Figure 3.3(b) Variation of Susceptance vs. Frequency (EMI method)
Figure 3.3(c) Variation of Admittance vs. Frequency (EMI method)
Figure 3.4(a) Variation of Admittance vs. Frequency (Peairs low cost)
Figure 3.4(b) Admittance before damage by EMI and (Peairs low cost
method)
Figure 3.4(c) Admittance after damage by EMI and Peairs low cost
method
Figure 3.5

Comparison b/w different methods

viii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
There is a great interest in the engineering community, in development of
real-time in service health monitoring techniques to reduce cost and
improve safety, based on a preventive inspection schedule.
The crucial factors that are of concern when any Non destructive
evaluation (NDE) technique is considered are:

The principle behind these techniques is preventive inspection, i.e.,

inspect the structure in question at frequent intervals in an attempt to
detect damage in the early stages.

The capability of the technique to perform on-line health monitoring, i.e.,

monitoring the integrity if the structure while it is in service.

An NDE technique should rely on usage of small, non-intrusive sensors

and actuators.

Current NDE techniques, such as ultrasonic, X-radiography passive

thermography and laser Doppler vibrometry can provide significantly many
details about the nature of damage. How ever, they often require clear
access to the structure and involve bulky and costly equipments and take
the structure out of service.
However, extensive analysis and investigation have been carried out on
integrating smart material technology (e.g. piezoelectric materials) into
health monitoring of structures. This is due to the fact that smart materials
possess an important property that they can serve as sensor as well as
actuators and do no contain any natural frequency. Furthermore, they
come in variety of sizes and abilities, allowing them to be placed
everywhere, even in remote and inaccessible locations to actively monitor
the condition of various types of structures.

1.1 Project Objective

The main objectives of this project were:

To propose a new low cost and efficient approach for non destructive
health monitoring of structures by modifying the existing NDE
techniques.

To verify the results obtained from the new proposed approach and
compare them with results obtained from existing methods.

1.2 Report organization

This report consists of a total of four chapters including this introductory
chapter. Chapter 2 provides a theoretical background on various aspects.
It provides information regarding existing NDE methods and their features,
EMI technique, wave propagation method, proposed low cost method and
hardware details. Chapter 3 includes the test results. It discusses the
experimental

details

and

observations

and

comparison.

Finally,

conclusions and sources of error are presented in Chapter 4, which is

followed by a list of references.

Chapter 2
Principle and Method of application
The new NDE structural health monitoring technique studied presently
relies on small patches of piezoelectric (PZT) materials, surface bonded or
embedded onto the structure. The basic principle behind this technique is
the use of high frequency (typically >30 kHz) to detect changes in structure
due to surface cracks, internal cracks etc. At this high frequency because
of very small wavelength the ability to detect very fine changes increases,
but at the cost of limited sensing area. Another important factor that is of
concern is the voltage level. It is observed that with decrease in voltage the
ability to detect damage also decrease. This reflects on the sensing region
of PZT, with decrease in voltage there is a corresponding decrease in
sensing region. At very low voltage (<0.1V) the frequency response is well
into the noise region and varying the voltage improves the signal to noise
ratio. This improvement in signal to noise ratio with increase in voltage
levels improves to ability to detect damage (F.P. Sun et al). EMI and Wave
propagation technique are discussed in the following sections.

2.1 Principle of EMI method:

EMI technique has been widely established as an SHM/NDE technique
(Sun el al. 1995). This technique makes use of piezoelectric patch as
admittance transducer by utilizing their direst and converse piezoelectric
properties simultaneously. Physical changes such as mass, stiffness or
damping causes a change in the mechanical admittance of the structure
and all other PZT properties remain constant. Due to electromechanical
coupling of the piezo transducer this change in the mechanical admittance
causes a change in the electrical admittance of the piezo electric material.
Hence by monitoring the change in electrical admittance signature with
respect to baseline measurement we can know if any damage has

occurred in a structure. It has been observed that real part of admittance

i.e. conductance-G is more reactive to the structural change than the
imaginary part i.e. susceptance-B.

2.2 Wave Propagation Method

In Wave Propagation approach for NDE (Bhalla et al. 2004), a pair of PZT
patches is permanently bonded to the structure to be monitored using high
strength epoxy adhesive. One of the patch which acts as actuator is
electrically excited by applying harmonic voltage at high frequencies of
order 100 kHz. Due to converse piezoelectric effect (production of
mechanical stress on application of potential difference), the excited patch
transmits its vibration to the monitored structure, generating stress waves
propagating away from the patch. The resulting stress waves are picked
up by other PZT patch, which via direct piezoelectric (production of
electricity when stress is applied) effect develops alternating voltage
signals across its terminals thus acting as a sensor. A plot of voltage gain
(voltage across sensor / voltage applied at actuator) as a function of
frequency serves as frequency transfer function. This function transfer
function is unique for a path between the actuator and sensor. Usually
structural damage leads to loss of mass and stiffness and increase in
damping. Any structural change in the path of the traveling wave causes a
significant change in transfer function, indicating damage.

2.3 Proposed Cost effective hardware system

Conventionally EMI technique discussed above employs impedance
analyzer or LCR meter, which typically cost in the range of $20,000 to
$40,000 for its application for SHM/NDE.
Peairs et al (2004) proposed a low cost electrical admittance measurement
technique based on FFT analyzer, which is much less expensive as

compared to LCR meter. Figure 2.3(a) shows the electrical circuit

employed by Peairs and co-workers. It essentially consisted of a small
resistance (10-20) connected in series with the PZT patch bonded to the
structure to be monitored. Upon applying the input voltage Vi and
measuring the output voltage Vo the total admittance can be calculated
using the relation given by:
A=Vo/ViR

Figure 2.3(a) Circuit for approximating PZT admittance (Peairs et al. 2004)

Typically an FFT analyzer costs in excess of $10,000 and the above

relation gave total admittance which is not much sensitive to damage.
Conventionally used LCR meter gave the values of Real admittance-G and
imaginary admittance separately and as stated above it is observed that
the real admittance is more sensitive to damage. By using the total
admittance
considerably

the

change

which

have

in

frequency

been

response

successfully

function

demonstrated

reduces
in

the

experiment conducted.

In this work, wave propagation method has been employed and rendered
more cost effective. For the application of potential difference across the
actuator PZT patch, a Function generator was employed which typically
cost around $2000. Further to obtain the output voltage a Digital
Multimeter was used which costs less than $1500. Hence the total
hardware costs only around $3500. Figure 2.3(b) shows the setup for the

proposed

approach.

The

frequency

of

the

imposed

signal

was

incrementally varied and the output was received by Digital Multimeter

which was connected to a personal computer. Software, Agilent
VEEPRO8.5 was programmed to automatically obtain the data from DMM.
Figure 2.3(c) shows the sample program used.

Figure 2.3(b) Setup for proposed

approach

Figure 2.3(c) Programming Code (Agilent VeePro 8.5)

Chapter 3
Tests Results and Analysis
3.1 Experimental Details
The test specimen consisted of an aluminum beam having dimensions
600*25*5. Two PZT patches were bonded to the sample using standard
araldite epoxy adhesive. One of the PZT patch was used as actuator and
other as sensor. The actuator PZT was excited by applying a sinusoidal
voltage of RMS 5V by means of a function generator FG-702C (-TEC
Electronic Measuring Instruments). The excitation frequency was varied
from 150 kHz to 160 kHz. Due to converse piezoelectric effect the vibration
was passed to the monitored specimen. The resulting vibration was picked
by the sensor patch, which developed a voltage across its terminals
because of direct piezoelectric effect and was measured using a Digital
Multimeter (Agilent 34411A Digital Multimeter). Measurements were made
at an interval of 200Hz. A plot of voltage gain served as frequency
response function. Damage was introduced by drilling a hole of diameter
5mm in the middle of the specimen. After inducing the damage the
frequency transfer function was recorded again. To quantify the deviation
in the transfer function, damage metric was defined as follow:

M =

(G G )
G
2

2
1

100%

M = damage metric (Root Mean Square Deviation)

G1 = Baseline measurement
G2 = After Damage measurement
In order to verify the new low cost measuring method the test specimen
was also tested using EMI (Electro Mechanical Impedance) method and
Peairs low cost electrical admittance technique (Peairs et al 2004). The
7

same PZT patch used as sensor in the wave propagation method was
employed for measuring the admittance. Due to electromechanical
coupling of the piezo transducer any change in the mechanical admittance
causes a change in the electrical admittance of the piezoelectric material.
Hence by monitoring the change in electrical admittance of a sensor with
respect to baseline measurement we can know if any damage has
occurred in a structure. Real and imaginary Admittance signatures of the
specimen were recorded using EMI methods and the admittance signature
was recorded using Peairs low cost method before and after the damage
and comparison was made by computing the damage metric.

Figure 3.1(a) Specimen before Damage

Figure 3.1(b) Specimen after Damage

3.2 Proposed low cost method

Fig.2 shows a typical frequency transfer function before and after damage.
The transfer function shows an observable change as there is a lateral and
vertical shift in the peaks because of induced damage. A Function
generator and a Digital Multimeter were employed in this case.

Wave Propagation Method

0.14
0.12

Gain

0.1
0.08

Undamaged
Damaged

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
150.0

152.0

154.0

156.0

158.0

160.0

Frequency(KHz)

Figure 3.2 Variation of Gain vs. Frequency (Proposed approach)

The root mean square deviation was computer as 67.27

3.3 EMI method

Figures 3.3(a), 3.3(b) show the real admittance and imaginary admittance
signatures obtained from the undamaged and the damaged case. There is
a significant shift in the curve after the damage as compared to the
baseline curve. The damage metric was computed for the different cases.
The two response signatures were obtained using a LCR meter (Agilent
E4980A) and the total admittance was calculated using the relation:
A-admittance, G= real admittance, B=imaginary admittance A = G 2 + B 2

Real Admittance (G)

EMI Method
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0
150.0

Undamaged
Damaged

152.0

154.0

156.0

158.0

160.0

Freq(KHz)

Figure 3.3(a) Variation of Conductance vs. Frequency (EMI method)

Imaginary Admittance (B)

EMI Method
0.0049
0.0048
0.0047
0.0046

Undamaged

0.0045

Damaged

0.0044
0.0043
0.0042
0.0041
150.0

152.0

154.0

156.0

158.0

160.0

Freq(KHz)

Figure 3.3(b) Variation of Susceptance vs. Frequency (EMI method)

10

Admittance(A)

EMI Method
0.005
0.0049
0.0048
0.0047
0.0046
0.0045
0.0044
0.0043
0.0042
0.0041
150.0

Undamaged
Damaged

152.0

154.0

156.0

158.0

160.0

Freq(KHz)

Figure 3.3(c) Variation of Admittance vs. Frequency (EMI method)

3.4 Peairs Low cost method

The damage metric for the specimen was also computed using Peairs low
cost electrical admittance technique. In this method the voltage was
applied using function generator and the output voltage was measured
using a Digital Multimeter. Measurements are shown in figure 3.4(a).
Figures 3.4(a), 3.4(b) show the readings before and after damage obtained
using EMI method and Peairs low cost method. The admittance signature
obtained for the two cases is similar.
Peairs Low Cost Method

Admittance (A)

0.005
0.0045
Undamaged

0.004

Damaged

0.0035
0.003
150.0

152.0

154.0

156.0

158.0

160.0

Freq(KHz)

Figure 3.4(a) Variation of Admittance vs. Frequency (Peairs low cost)

11

Before Damage (Comparison)

Admittance

0.005
0.0045
Peairs

0.004

LCR

0.0035
0.003
150.0

152.0

154.0

156.0

158.0

160.0

Frequency

Figure 3.4(b) Admittance before damage by EMI and Peairs low cost
method

After Damage (Comparison)

Admittance

0.005
0.0045
Peairs

0.004

LCR

0.0035
0.003
150.0

152.0

154.0

156.0

158.0

160.0

Frequency

Figure 3.4(c) Admittance after damage by EMI and Peairs low cost
method

3.5 Comparisons
The damage metric for each method was calculated and the results are
shown in Figure 3.5

12

RMSD in %

Damage Metric Chart

80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

67.27

34.35

Gain
Proposed
Approach

2.52

2.55

4.47

EMI Technique

Peairs Low
Cost Method

Figure 3.5 Comparison b/w different methods

The results clearly indicate that the new proposed approach for damage
detection is much better than the previous followed techniques in terms of
Damage metric. Moreover the total cost of the hardware is reduced from
$20,000 to just $3,500.

13

Chapter 4
Conclusions

4.1 Conclusion
This report proposes a new low-cost technique for non destructive health
monitoring of structures suitable for widespread industrial applications.
This technique makes use of a function generator and a Digital Multimeter,
which are commonly available in structural laboratories, and is much more
cost-effective as compared to the conventionally employed impedance
analyzers/LCR meters as well as the FFT analyzers. The test result
indicates that the new proposed approach is more able to detect any
damage as compared to traditional methods.

4.2 Limitations and Sources of error

One of the limitations in the test technique was the use of old function
generator which did not connect to a computer. There fore the frequency at
function generator had to be set manually which made the process time
consuming and slow. Though the limitation of function generator the use of
Digital Multimeter which has inbuilt storage capacity was able to record the
readings both frequency and output voltage and reduced the error. Errors
because of noise were inevitable.
The testing process can be made more time efficient by employing a digital
function generator and programming the two equipments together so that
the whole procedure is made automatic and faster.

14

References:

Agilent Technologies (2008). http://www.agilent.com

Bhalla, S., Soh, C. K. And Liu, Z. (2005) Wave propagation

approach for NDE using surface bonded piezoceramics. NDT & E
International 38, 143-150.

Bhalla, S. and Soh, C. k. (2004) Structural health monitoring by

piezo-admittance transducers. II: Applications. Journal of Aerospace
Engineering ASCE 17, 154-165.

Daniel M. Peairs, Gyuhae Park, and Daniel J. Inman Low Cost

Admittance Monitoring Using Smart Materials

Peairs, D., Park, G., Inman, D.J. (2002a) Self-Healing Bolted Joint
Analysis, Proceedings of 20th International Modal Analysis
Conference, February 4-7, Los Angles, CA.

Peairs, D. M., Park, G. and Inman, D. J. (2004). Improving

accessibility of the 17 impedance-based structural health monitoring
method. Journal of Intelligent Material 18 Systems and Structures,
15, 129-39.

Raju, V., (1998) Implementing Impedance-Based Health Monitoring

Technique, Masters thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.

Soh, C. K. and Bhalla, S. (2005) Calibration of piezo-admittance

transducers for strength prediction and damage assessment of
concrete. Smart Materials and Structures 14, 671-684.

15

APPE DIX
A1. Wave Propagation Readings (Proposed Method)
4/4/2008
Actuator-Sensor
V-in = 5V (all rms)
UNDAMAGED(V)
DAMAGED(V)
FREQ(KHz) V-out
Gain
Freq(KHz) V-out

150.0
150.2
150.4
150.6
150.8
151.0
151.2
151.4
151.6
151.8
152.0
152.2
152.4
152.6
152.8
153.0
153.2
153.4
153.6
153.8
154.0
154.2
154.4
154.6
154.8
155.0
155.2
155.4
155.6
155.8
156.0
156.2
156.4
156.6
156.8
157.0
157.2
157.4
157.6
157.8
158.0
158.2

0.185199
0.201812
0.215235
0.245223
0.189
0.187625
0.171818
0.164371
0.222499
0.2535
0.183308
0.174143
0.173985
0.171269
0.182654
0.16416
0.191677
0.280811
0.271462
0.210609
0.18801
0.210044
0.225936
0.242234
0.256144
0.26951
0.266496
0.487871
0.165369
0.157541
0.163839
0.150517
0.133023
0.124608
0.250924
0.204913
0.193522
0.201321
0.203222
0.229124
0.180933
0.230721

0.03704
0.040362
0.043047
0.049045
0.0378
0.037525
0.034364
0.032874
0.0445
0.0507
0.036662
0.034829
0.034797
0.034254
0.036531
0.032832
0.038335
0.056162
0.054292
0.042122
0.037602
0.042009
0.045187
0.048447
0.051229
0.053902
0.053299
0.097574
0.033074
0.031508
0.032768
0.030103
0.026605
0.024922
0.050185
0.040983
0.038704
0.040264
0.040644
0.045825
0.036187
0.046144

150.0
150.2
150.4
150.6
150.8
151.0
151.2
151.4
151.6
151.8
152.0
152.2
152.4
152.6
152.8
153.0
153.2
153.4
153.6
153.8
154.0
154.2
154.4
154.6
154.8
155.0
155.2
155.4
155.6
155.8
156.0
156.2
156.4
156.6
156.8
157.0
157.2
157.4
157.6
157.8
158.0
158.2

16

0.079422
0.069291
0.074579
0.067458
0.055229
0.094153
0.125094
0.06415
0.023126
0.073863
0.101979
0.08326
0.083175
0.122628
0.064668
0.095375
0.11033
0.094813
0.091824
0.06535
0.066412
0.054987
0.048622
0.02666
0.056389
0.326386
0.444519
0.584022
0.289261
0.173812
0.147603
0.212551
0.149136
0.037381
0.022623
0.058914
0.061482
0.066138
0.071446
0.039389
0.031281
0.043239

Gain

0.015884
0.013858
0.014916
0.013492
0.011046
0.018831
0.025019
0.01283
0.004625
0.014773
0.020396
0.016652
0.016635
0.024526
0.012934
0.019075
0.022066
0.018963
0.018365
0.01307
0.013282
0.010997
0.009724
0.005332
0.011278
0.065277
0.088904
0.116804
0.057852
0.034762
0.029521
0.04251
0.029827
0.007476
0.004525
0.011783
0.012296
0.013228
0.014289
0.007878
0.006256
0.008648

RMSD
(G2G1)^2
0.000448
0.000702
0.000791
0.001264
0.000716
0.000349
8.73E-05
0.000402
0.00159
0.001291
0.000265
0.00033
0.00033
9.46E-05
0.000557
0.000189
0.000265
0.001384
0.001291
0.000844
0.000591
0.000962
0.001258
0.001859
0.001596
0.000129
0.001268
0.00037
0.000614
1.06E-05
1.05E-05
0.000154
1.04E-05
0.000304
0.002085
0.000853
0.000697
0.000731
0.000695
0.00144
0.000896
0.001406

G1^2
0.001372
0.001629
0.001853
0.002405
0.001429
0.001408
0.001181
0.001081
0.00198
0.00257
0.001344
0.001213
0.001211
0.001173
0.001335
0.001078
0.00147
0.003154
0.002948
0.001774
0.001414
0.001765
0.002042
0.002347
0.002624
0.002905
0.002841
0.009521
0.001094
0.000993
0.001074
0.000906
0.000708
0.000621
0.002519
0.00168
0.001498
0.001621
0.001652
0.0021
0.001309
0.002129

158.4
158.6
158.8
159.0
159.2
159.4
159.6
159.8
160.0

0.250758
0.255124
0.187873
0.150828
0.189096
0.298602
0.529479
0.400724
0.358569

0.050152
0.051025
0.037575
0.030166
0.037819
0.05972
0.105896
0.080145
0.071714

158.4
158.6
158.8
159.0
159.2
159.4
159.6
159.8
160.0

0.042229
0.054185
0.161286
0.290041
0.164949
0.097594
0.083091
0.084586
0.094885

0.008446
0.010837
0.032257
0.058008
0.03299
0.019519
0.016618
0.016917
0.018977

0.001739
0.001615
2.83E-05
0.000775
2.33E-05
0.001616
0.00797
0.003998
0.002781
0.051675

0.002515
0.002604
0.001412
0.00091
0.00143
0.003567
0.011214
0.006423
0.005143
0.114188

RMSD=

67.27121

A2: Readings using EMI method (Before and after Damage)

4/4/2008
EMI
Freq(KHz)
150.0
150.2
150.4
150.6
150.8
151.0
151.2
151.4
151.6
151.8
152.0
152.2
152.4
152.6
152.8
153.0
153.2
153.4
153.6
153.8
154.0
154.2
154.4
154.6
154.8
155.0
155.2
155.4
155.6
155.8
156.0

Before Damage
G
B

0.00017
0.000132
0.000126
0.000145
0.000165
0.000229
0.000463
0.000297
0.000271
0.000275
0.0002
0.00015
0.000145
0.000174
0.000216
0.000231
0.000265
0.000293
0.000288
0.000216
0.000246
0.000304
0.000231
0.000211
0.000188
0.000243
0.000681
0.000701
0.000287
0.000257
0.000221

0.004191
0.00426
0.004319
0.004382
0.004418
0.004499
0.0045
0.004248
0.004299
0.004333
0.00427
0.004336
0.004401
0.004457
0.004465
0.004474
0.004489
0.004476
0.004447
0.004431
0.004536
0.004441
0.004458
0.004491
0.004579
0.004729
0.004867
0.004341
0.004219
0.004356
0.00439

0.004187
0.004258
0.004318
0.00438
0.004415
0.004494
0.004476
0.004237
0.004291
0.004324
0.004265
0.004334
0.004399
0.004454
0.00446
0.004468
0.004481
0.004466
0.004437
0.004425
0.004529
0.004431
0.004452
0.004486
0.004575
0.004723
0.004819
0.004284
0.004209
0.004349
0.004384

After Damage
Freq(KHz) G
150.0
150.2
150.4
150.6
150.8
151.0
151.2
151.4
151.6
151.8
152.0
152.2
152.4
152.6
152.8
153.0
153.2
153.4
153.6
153.8
154.0
154.2
154.4
154.6
154.8
155.0
155.2
155.4
155.6
155.8
156.0

17

0.000156
0.000143
0.00017
0.000213
0.000269
0.000329
0.000242
0.000235
0.000206
0.000276
0.000177
0.000168
0.000227
0.000249
0.000199
0.000268
0.000327
0.000273
0.000278
0.000203
0.000288
0.000245
0.000221
0.0002
0.000262
0.000569
0.000615
0.000622
0.000317
0.000216
0.000265

0.00432
0.004381
0.004441
0.004453
0.00454
0.004348
0.00436
0.004364
0.004436
0.004393
0.004401
0.004478
0.004519
0.004455
0.00453
0.00455
0.004539
0.004509
0.004452
0.004523
0.004585
0.004514
0.004569
0.00465
0.004797
0.004713
0.004627
0.004213
0.004287
0.004427
0.004542

0.004323
0.004384
0.004445
0.004458
0.004548
0.00436
0.004367
0.00437
0.00444
0.004402
0.004404
0.004482
0.004524
0.004462
0.004534
0.004558
0.004551
0.004517
0.00446
0.004527
0.004594
0.00452
0.004574
0.004654
0.004804
0.004747
0.004667
0.004259
0.004298
0.004432
0.00455

156.2
156.4
156.6
156.8
157.0
157.2
157.4
157.6
157.8
158.0
158.2
158.4
158.6
158.8
159.0
159.2
159.4
159.6
159.8
160.0

0.000211
0.000165
0.000191
0.000224
0.000201
0.000352
0.000234
0.000241
0.000334
0.000237
0.00033
0.000249
0.000295
0.000476
0.000555
0.000276
0.000332
0.000244
0.000168
0.000189

0.004399
0.00446
0.004544
0.004504
0.004591
0.004583
0.004508
0.004603
0.004584
0.004585
0.004582
0.0046
0.004707
0.004636
0.004487
0.004443
0.004575
0.004405
0.004525
0.004608

0.004404
0.004463
0.004548
0.00451
0.004596
0.004596
0.004514
0.004609
0.004596
0.004591
0.004594
0.004606
0.004716
0.004661
0.004521
0.004451
0.004587
0.004412
0.004528
0.004612

156.2
156.4
156.6
156.8
157.0
157.2
157.4
157.6
157.8
158.0
158.2
158.4
158.6
158.8
159.0
159.2
159.4
159.6
159.8
160.0

RMSD(%)

0.000427
0.000243
0.00018
0.000203
0.000308
0.000225
0.000229
0.000322
0.000241
0.000194
0.000196
0.000237
0.000422
0.000507
0.000269
0.000166
0.000154
0.000178
0.000255
0.000239

0.004499
0.004386
0.004493
0.004581
0.004583
0.004529
0.004613
0.004616
0.004533
0.004601
0.004666
0.004751
0.004792
0.004593
0.004403
0.004541
0.004631
0.004711
0.004723
0.004708

G
B
A

34.3533
2.520366
2.546461

0.004519
0.004393
0.004496
0.004585
0.004593
0.004534
0.004619
0.004627
0.004539
0.004605
0.00467
0.004757
0.004811
0.004621
0.004411
0.004544
0.004634
0.004714
0.004729
0.004714

A3: Readings using Peairs Low Cost method (Before and after
Damage)
PEAIRS LOW COST METHOD
V-in = 5V
R=21.97
Before Damage
Freq(KHz)
V-out
A=Vo/RVi

150.0
150.2
150.4
150.6
150.8
151.0
151.2
151.4
151.6
151.8
152.0
152.2
152.4
152.6
152.8
153.0
153.2
153.4

0.449678
0.457099
0.462233
0.467011
0.470398
0.475911
0.463349
0.452596
0.455258
0.456645
0.456905
0.463354
0.469174
0.472618
0.471515
0.47202
0.4728
0.470281

0.004094
0.004161
0.004208
0.004251
0.004282
0.004332
0.004218
0.00412
0.004144
0.004157
0.004159
0.004218
0.004271
0.004302
0.004292
0.004297
0.004304
0.004281

After Damage
V-out
A=Vo/RVi

0.454642
0.460104
0.463673
0.464046
0.469669
0.4525
0.453311
0.454949
0.463313
0.459571
0.458697
0.465963
0.469025
0.462317
0.46635
0.467991
0.469078
0.465115

18

0.004139
0.004188
0.004221
0.004224
0.004276
0.004119
0.004127
0.004142
0.004218
0.004184
0.004176
0.004242
0.00427
0.004209
0.004245
0.00426
0.00427
0.004234

RMSD
(G2G1)^2
2.04E-09
7.48E-10
1.72E-10
7.29E-10
4.4E-11
4.54E-08
8.35E-09
4.59E-10
5.38E-09
7.09E-10
2.66E-10
5.64E-10
1.83E-12
8.79E-09
2.21E-09
1.35E-09
1.15E-09
2.21E-09

G1^2
1.67573E-05
1.73149E-05
1.77061E-05
1.8074E-05
1.83371E-05
1.87695E-05
1.77917E-05
1.69755E-05
1.71757E-05
1.72806E-05
1.73002E-05
1.7792E-05
1.82418E-05
1.85106E-05
1.84243E-05
1.84638E-05
1.85249E-05
1.8328E-05

153.6
153.8
154.0
154.2
154.4
154.6
154.8
155.0
155.2
155.4
155.6
155.8
156.0
156.2
156.4
156.6
156.8
157.0
157.2
157.4
157.6
157.8
158.0
158.2
158.4
158.6
158.8
159.0
159.2
159.4
159.6
159.8
160.0

0.468035
0.470993
0.478969
0.470138
0.471673
0.476013
0.484593
0.49742
0.481553
0.443338
0.450546
0.462911
0.467733
0.467823
0.474685
0.481158
0.476072
0.485056
0.478445
0.478011
0.48592
0.479877
0.48642
0.483272
0.48683
0.494638
0.476219
0.457072
0.468708
0.476558
0.469137
0.481023
0.488465

0.004261
0.004288
0.00436
0.00428
0.004294
0.004333
0.004411
0.004528
0.004384
0.004036
0.004101
0.004214
0.004258
0.004259
0.004321
0.00438
0.004334
0.004416
0.004355
0.004351
0.004423
0.004368
0.004428
0.004399
0.004432
0.004503
0.004335
0.004161
0.004267
0.004338
0.004271
0.004379
0.004447

0.46135
0.466385
0.452765
0.465315
0.450866
0.453153
0.466085
0.46119
0.445355
0.407091
0.42243
0.434996
0.444187
0.44163
0.430397
0.462524
0.45493
0.449767
0.4402
0.451083
0.454944
0.444571
0.447245
0.479142
0.453028
0.459895
0.464079
0.447008
0.463459
0.477088
0.486737
0.482326
0.484441

0.0042
0.004246
0.004122
0.004236
0.004104
0.004125
0.004243
0.004198
0.004054
0.003706
0.003846
0.00396
0.004044
0.00402
0.003918
0.004211
0.004141
0.004094
0.004007
0.004106
0.004142
0.004047
0.004071
0.004362
0.004124
0.004187
0.004225
0.004069
0.004219
0.004343
0.004431
0.004391
0.00441

RMSD

A4. Damage Metric Calculation

RMSD %
Proposed Approach
EMI Technique

Peairs Low Cost Method

67.27
34.35
2.52
2.55
4.47

Gain
G
B
A
A

19

3.7E-09
1.76E-09
5.69E-08
1.93E-09
3.59E-08
4.33E-08
2.84E-08
1.09E-07
1.09E-07
1.09E-07
6.55E-08
6.46E-08
4.59E-08
5.69E-08
1.63E-07
2.88E-08
3.7E-08
1.03E-07
1.21E-07
6.01E-08
7.95E-08
1.03E-07
1.27E-07
1.41E-09
9.47E-08
1E-07
1.22E-08
8.39E-09
2.28E-09
2.33E-11
2.57E-08
1.41E-10
1.34E-09
1.88E-06
4.4704

1.81534E-05
1.83835E-05
1.90115E-05
1.83169E-05
1.84366E-05
1.87775E-05
1.94605E-05
2.05044E-05
1.92171E-05
1.62881E-05
1.6822E-05
1.7758E-05
1.81299E-05
1.81369E-05
1.86729E-05
1.91856E-05
1.87821E-05
1.94977E-05
1.89699E-05
1.89354E-05
1.95673E-05
1.90836E-05
1.96076E-05
1.93546E-05
1.96406E-05
2.02757E-05
1.87937E-05
1.73129E-05
1.82056E-05
1.88205E-05
1.82389E-05
1.91748E-05
1.97728E-05
0.000941056