Case1238469531 PDF

FAULT DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS PROCESS FOR CRACKED
ROTOR VIBRATION SYSTEMS USING MODEL-BASED APPROACH

by
CAPT. ARSIT BOONYAPRAPASORN

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dissertation Advisor: Prof. Kenneth A. Loparo

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

May 2009
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of

_____________________________________________________

candidate for the ______________________degree *.

(signed)_______________________________________________
(chair of the committee)

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

(date) _______________________

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any
proprietary material contained therein.
Capt. Arsit Boonyaprapasorn
Ph.D.
Kenneth A. Loparo
Dario Gasparini
Robert L. Mullen
Maurice L. Adams
02/26/2009

To my parents who support and encourage me
with
love and everything.

iv
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................1
1.1 Importance of Study...........................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives ..........................................................................................................2
1.3 Organization of the Thesis.................................................................................2
Chapter 2. Literature Review and Background.........................................................3
2.1 Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Cracked Rotor Vibration Systems................3
2.2 Definition of a Crack .........................................................................................9
Chapter 3. Mathematical Model of the Cracked Rotor Vibration System............11
3.1 Literature Review for Mathematical Model Representing the Cracked Rotor
Vibration System.............................................................................................11
3.2 Mathematical Model Representing the Cracked Rotor Vibration System and
Breathing Cracks..............................................................................................14
3.2.1 The Finite Element Model Representing the Cracked Rotor Vibration
Systems ...................................................................................................15
3.2.2 Flexibility Matrices for the Cracked and Uncracked Elements ..............18
3.2.3 Modeling the Behavior of Breathing Cracks ..........................................29
3.2.4 Flexibility and Stiffness Matrices ...........................................................32
3.2.5 Complete Mathematical Model Representing the Cracked Rotor
Vibration System....................................................................................35
3.2.6 Newmarks Method for Solving the Mathematical Model of Cracked
Rotor Vibration Systems.........................................................................41
3.3 State Space Representation........................................................................45
v
Chapter 4. Kalman Filter Design and Fault Detection and Diagnosis for Cracked
Rotor Vibration System...........................................................................47
4.1 Kalman Filter Design for Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Cracked Rotor
Vibration Systems............................................................................................47
4.1.1 Discretization..........................................................................................48
4.1.2 Kalman Filter Algorithm.........................................................................51
4.1.3 Updating a Discrete-Time State Space matrix, [ ]
dk
A ............................52
4.2 Model-Based Technique for Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Cracked Rotor
Vibration Systems............................................................................................53
4.2.1 Problem Formulation ..............................................................................54
4.2.2 Fault Detection and Diagnosis Using Model-Based Technique with
Filter Bank Approach..............................................................................55
4.3 Voting Algorithm.............................................................................................58
4.3.1 Statistical Information of Residual Vector and Output Vector of
Observer..................................................................................................59
4.3.2 Score Calculation....................................................................................62
4.4 Period of Evaluation ........................................................................................64
Chapter 5. Implementation and Evaluation of the Model-Based Fault
Detection and Diagnosis Process Using a Voting Algorithm...............65
5.1 Implementation ................................................................................................65
5.2 Simulation of the Cracked Rotor Vibration System........................................68
5.2.1 Parameters of the Cracked Rotor Vibration System...............................68
5.2.2 Simulation of Three Cases of Cracked Rotor Vibration Systems ..........70
vi
5.3 Performance Testing of Fault Detection and Diagnosis
Process for Cracked Rotor Vibration Systems.................................................84
5.3.1 Properties of the Real (model) System and the Fault Observers ............84
5.3.2 Test Plan .................................................................................................89
5.3.3 Sign and Color Conventions for the Performance Scores ......................90
5.4 Test Results......................................................................................................92
5.4.1 Test 1: To evaluate the effects of SNR and differences crack
position and depth between the real system and the observers...............92
5.4.2 Test 2 : Testing the effects of the unbalance mass ...............................124
5.4.3 Test 3: Testing the effect of angular velocity .......................................129
5.4.4 Test 4: Crack Propagation.....................................................................133
5.4.5 Test 5: Difference in initial conditions
between the real system and the observers ...........................................138
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Future Works ............................................................149
6.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................149
6.2 Future Works .................................................................................................151
Appendix ..................................................................................................................153
Appendix A :The Sign Convention for the Stress Intensity ......................................153
Appendix B : Results of Test 1 to Test 5...................................................................155
Appendix B.1 : All Score Arrays and Surface Plots of Test 1 in Chapter 5 .........155
a_m = 0.1D ......................................................................155
a_m = 0.2D ......................................................................168
a_m = 0.3D ......................................................................182
vii
Appendix B.2 : All Score Arrays and Surface
Plots of Test 2 in Chapter 5..........................................................195
Appendix C : Natural Frequencies of the Uncracked Shaft ...........................................222
Bibliography...................................................................................................................225

viii
List of Tables
Table 4.1: The fault parameters assigned to the filter bank. ..........................................57
Table 5.1: MATLAB file name corresponding to each part of the test. ........................66
Table 5.2: The numeric values of system parameters. ...................................................69
Table 5.3: Observer parameters. ....................................................................................86
Table 5.4: All combinations of fault parameters of the observers. ................................86
Table 5.5a: Indications of the scores by colors................................................................91
Table 5.5b: The corresponding value of _ ec o to the value of _ ec m............................91
Table 5.6: Parameters of the real system and observers in test 1...................................93
Table 5.7: Score arrays for each observer......................................................................93
Table 5.8: Score arrays and corresponding surface
plots for illustrative example 5.4. .................................................................97
Table 5.9: The scores arrays and corresponding
surface plots for illustrative example 5.5......................................................99
Table 5.10: Score arrays and corresponding surface
plots for illustrative example 5.6. ............................................................101
Table 5.11a: Score arrays for each observer with SNR 100 = ,
_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ......................................................103
Table 5.11b: Score arrays for each observer with SNR 100 = ,

_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ......................................................103
Table 5.11c: Score arrays for each observer with

SNR 100 = ,
_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ......................................................104
ix
Table 5.12: Predictions of the occurrence, position, and depth
of the crack when _ 1, 2,....,12 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . ........................109
of the crack, when _ 1, 2,....,12 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ......................110
of the crack, when _ 1, 2,....,12 ec m= , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ......................111
Table 5.15: Summary of the Predictions.....................................................................112
Table 5.16: Crack detection performance. ..................................................................114
Table 5.17: Performance of crack diagnosis for location and depth...........................116
Table 5.18: Performance of crack localization. ..........................................................117
Table 5.19: Performance of crack depth prediction. ...................................................118
Table 5.20: Values of ( _ , _ ) a m ec m and predicted ( _ , _ ) a o ec o for case 2. ...........119
Table 5.21: Values of ( _ , _ ) a m ec m and predicted
( _ , _ ) a o ec o of prediction case3. ...........................................................119
Table 5.22: Values of ( _ , _ ) a m ec m and predicted
( _ , _ ) a o ec o of prediction case4. ............................................................119
Table 5.23: Values of ( _ , _ ) a m ec m and predicted ( _ , _ ) a o ec o for case 5. ...........120
Table 5.24: Parameters assigned in test 2. ..................................................................124
Table 5.25: Score arrays for test 2. .............................................................................126
x
Table 5.27: Score arrays of each observer for the real system
with crack location _ 8 ec m = , crack depth _ 0.3 a m D = ,
and
1 1 1 1
, 2 ,10 ,100 e e e e e = . ....................................................................130
Table 5.29: Scores arrays for each observer with crack location ,
_ 8 ec m = and crack depth _ _ 1, _ 2, _ 3 a m a m a m a m = . .....................135
Table 5.31: Score arrays and phase lag of the signal before and
after constraining initial conditions when _ 60 sel shift =

. .....................140
Table 5.32: Maximum values of _ matrix lagT representing
the determined phase difference and corresponding
_ sel shift representing the actual phase difference. ...............................147
Table A.1: The sign conventions for stress intensity factors for each mode. ...............153
Table B.1: Score arrays for each observer with
SNR 100 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . .....................................155

SNR 100 = , _ 3, 6,9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . ....................................158
SNR 100 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . ....................................160

SNR 60 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . .....................................162
xi

SNR 60 = , _ 3, 6,9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . ......................................164

SNR 60 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= ,and _ 0.1 a m D = . ......................................166
SNR 100 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ....................................168
SNR 100 = , _ 3, 6,9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ....................................171

SNR 100 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ...................................173

SNR 60 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . .................................175

SNR 60 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . .................................177
SNR 60 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . .................................180
SNR 100 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m = , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ................................182

SNR 100 = , _ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ................................185

SNR 100 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ................................187
xii

SNR 60 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m = , and _ 0.3 a m D = . .................................189
SNR 60 = , _ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.3 a m D = . .................................191
SNR 60 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and _ 0.3 a m D = . .................................193
Table B.19: Score arrays for Test 2. ............................................................................195
Table B.20: Score arrays of each observer for the real system
with crack location _ 8 ec m = , crack depth
_ 0.3 a m D = and
1 1 1 1
, 2 ,10 ,100 e e e e e = . ............................................197
Table B.21: Scores arrays for each observer with crack
location , _ 8 ec m = and
_ _ 1, _ 2, _ 3 a m a m a m a m = ...................................................................199
Table B.22: Score arrays and phase lag of the signal before
and after constraining the initial conditions
when _ 60 sel shift =

. .............................................................................201

. ..........................................................................208

. ..........................................................................215
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: The stage of model-based fault detection and diagnosis. ...............................6
Figure 2.2: Basic principle of fault detection and diagnosis using state estimation. ........7
Figure 2.3: Fault detection and diagnosis employing the filter bank using
residual analysis. .............................................................................................7
Figure 3.1a: Cracked element with the nodal loads. .........................................................16
Figure 3.1b: Crack surface with local coordinates. ...........................................................17
Figure 3.1c: The cracked shaft with the disk on the simple supports. ..............................17
Figure 3.2: The approximation of the cracked circular shaft is shown as composed
of thin plates with a crack. ............................................................................30
Figure 3.3: The signs of
0
I
K for each divided area on the crack surface. .......................30
Figure 3.4: The component of the nodal vector, { }
s
q , at each node. .............................40
Figure 3.5: Flowchart of Newmark integration and the procedure of updating
the global stiffness matrix, [ ]
s
K ...................................................................44
Figure 4.1: The flow chart of the discrete time-varying Kalman filter. ..........................50
Figure 4.2: The concept of the fault detection and diagnosis for the cracked rotor
vibration system using a filter bank. .............................................................57
Figure 4.3: Residual analysis part in the fault detection and diagnosis using voting
algorithm. ......................................................................................................58
Figure 5.1: Flow chart shows the simulation of the test..................................................67
Figure 5.2: Time responses of the mid node of the
uncracked rotor vibration system for 10 cycles. ...........................................71
xiv
Figure 5.3: Frequency spectrum of the mid node of the
uncracked rotor vibration system for 10 cycles. ...........................................71
Figure 5.4: Y-Z orbit of the mid node of the uncracked
rotor vibration system for 10 cycles. ............................................................72
Figure 5.5: Behavior of breathing crack represented by the
sign of total SIF that corresponds to crack mode I. ......................................73
Figure 5.6: Time responses of the mid node of the cracked rotor vibration
system with _ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , for 10 cycles. ..................................75
Figure 5.7: Frequency spectrum of the mid node of the cracked rotor
vibration system with _ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , for 10 cycles. ....................76
Figure 5.8: Y-Z orbit of the mid node of the cracked rotor vibration
system with _ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , for10 cycles. ....................................76
Figure 5.9: Behavior of breathing crack represented by the
sign of total SIFs corresponding to crack mode I. ........................................77
Figure 5.10: Time responses of the mid node of the cracked rotor
vibration system for 3 cycles with crack propagation. ..............................79
Figure 5.11: Frequency spectrum of the mid node of the cracked rotor
Figure 5.12: Y-Z plane orbit of the mid node of the cracked rotor
Figure 5.13: Breathing crack represented by the
sign of total SIFs for crack mode I.............................................................83
xv
Figure 5.14: Comparison between the indices of displacements at
each node of the 12-element shaft model (real system)
and 4-element shaft model (observers). .....................................................88
Figure 5.15: Crack positions for the real system and the observers. ..............................94
Figure 5.16: Crack positions in the real system and
in the observer for illustrative example 5.4. ..............................................96
Figure 5.17: The crack positions in the real system and those
in the observer for illustrative example 5.5. ..............................................98
Figure 5.18: The crack positions in the real system and those
in the observer for illustrative example 5.6. ............................................100
Figure 5.19a: Surface plots for each observer withSNR 100 = ,

_ 2,5,8,11 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ......................................................105
Figure 5.19b: Surface plots for each observer with SNR 100 = ,
_ 3,6,9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ......................................................106
Figure 5.19c: Surface plots for each observer with SNR 100 = ,

_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ......................................................107
Figure 5.20: Ratio of correct crack detections and missed crack detections................114
Figure 5.21: Ratio of correct diagnosis and total number of test cases. .......................116
Figure 5.22: Ratio of correct localization and total number of cases. ..........................117
Figure 5.23: Ratio of correct depth prediction and total number of cases. ..................118
Figure 5.24: Surface plots for the score arrays with
increased unbalance mass and _ me o me = . ...........................................127
xvi
Figure 5.25: Surface plots for score arrays for _ 8 ec m = ,
_ 0.3 a m D = and
1 1 1 1
, 2 ,10 ,100 e e e e e = ..............................................131
Figure 5.26: Surface plots for each observer with crack
location _ 8 ec m = and _ _ 1, _ 2, _ 3 a m a m a m a m = . ...........................136
Figure 5.27: Surface plots before and after constraining
initial conditions when _ 60 sel shift =

. .................................................141
Figure 5.28: Plots of corresponding state estimates and measurements
for all degrees of freedom at node 1 when _ 60 sel shift =

. ....................142

. ....................143

. ....................144

. ....................145

. ....................146
Figure B.1: The surface plots for each observer withSNR 100 =
,

_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . ........................................................157
,

_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . ........................................................159
,

_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . ........................................................161
xvii
Figure B.4: The surface plots for each observer with SNR 60 =
,

_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . .........................................................163
,

_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . .........................................................165
,

_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= , and _ 0.1 a m D = . .......................................................167
,

_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ........................................................170
,

_ 3, 6,9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ........................................................172
,

_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ......................................................174
,

_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . .....................................................176
Figure B.11: The surface plots for scores of each observer with SNR 60 =
,

_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ....................................................179
,

_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = . ....................................................181
,

_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m = , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ...................................................184
xviii
,

_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ...................................................186
,

_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ....................................................188
,

_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m = , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ....................................................190
,

_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ...................................................192
,

_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and _ 0.3 a m D = . ....................................................194
Figure B.19: Surface plots for the score arrays with increased
unbalance mass and _ me o me = . ...........................................................196
Figure B.20: Surface plots for score arrays for _ 8 ec m =

_ 0.3 a m D =

and
1 1 1 1
, 2 ,10 ,100 e e e e e = . .............................................198
Figure B.21: Surface plots for each observer with crack location
_ 8 ec m = and _ _ 1, _ 2, _ 3 a m a m a m a m = ...........................................200
Figure B.22: Surface plots before and after constraining initial
conditions when _ 60 sel shift =

..............................................................202
Figure B.23: Plots of corresponding state estimation signals and
signals from the real system of all degree of freedoms
at node 1 when _ 60 sel shift =

................................................................203
xix
Figure B.24: Plots of corresponding state estimates and measurements

. .................204

. ..................205

. ...................206

. ....................207
conditions when _ 120 sel shift =

...........................................................209

..................210

. .................211

. ................212

. ................213

. ...............214
conditions when

_ 180 sel shift =

...........................................................216
xx

.......................... 217

. .................218

.. ...............219

. ................220

. .................221

xxi
Acknowledgment
First, I want to acknowledge my gratitude to my advisor Professor Kenneth A.
Loparo for his guidance, encouragement, kindness and supports. Under his supervision, I
have benefited a lot of knowledge in the area of the fault detection and diagnosis process
for cracked rotor vibration and learn how to be a good researcher. Also, I really
appreciate his patience and time that he spend with me to give advices and answer many
questions that I have. I feel really respect him not only as my professor but also my guru.
It is an honor for me to have a chance to be one of his advisee.
Then, I would like to thank my academic advisor Professor Maurice L. Adams
who accept me as one of his advisee in the department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering at Case Western Reserve University teaches about the background rotating
machinery and provide me a chance to be his teaching assistance.
Next, I would like to thank Prof. Robert L. Mullen for spending his time and help
me about the finite element background and implementation of the mathematical model
representing the cracked rotor vibration in this research based on the literature.
Also, I would like to thank Professor Dario Gasparini for helping me understand
the crucial parts in the solid mechanic are.
Again I would like to thank Professor Loparo, Professor Adams, Professor
Mullen, and Professor Gasparini for being on my committee and reviewing my
dissertation.
Then, I wish like to thank Professor Vira Chankong who give me a chance to be a
student at Case Western Reserve University as a master student and encourage me to
continue Ph.D. program at Case Western Reserve Univerity.
xxii
Also, I would like to thank to Professor Panaskaltsis who always answer me a lot
of questions in solid mechanics and finite element method.
I wish to thanks Dr.Tinakorn Kumsaen whom I respect as an older brother
sacrifices the time and take care of me as my older brother for both studying and life
since I was master student. I really his appreciate his help and time.
Then, I would like to thank another person whom I respect as my older brother,
Col. Sawake Sirirattanapong who provided the tutoring and take care of me as his brother
when I was an undergraduate student. He has taught me not only the knowledge in
mechanical engineering but also many of his experiences. Also I would like to thank his
family for scarifies their time to allow Col. Sawake to teach me for three years when I
was an undergrad student.
Next, I would like to thanks the officers of Royal Thai Army for different ways of
their helps. All of them are: Col. Somneuk Anakewat for many ways of supports and
introducing me to my American parents to gain a great experience in U.S.. This
motivated me to study aboard in Engineering in the U.S., Col. Tawiwat Veeraklaew for
helping me in many things since I was a master student, and Col. Anurat Ingun for
providing me concepts and backgrounds of signal processing area.
I wish to thank my American parents Clyde and Mary Anderson and all members
of Anderson s family for their love and care since the first time I was in my second home
at Charleston South Carolina.
I would like to thank followings Thai students in Cleveland for their helps in
different ways. All of them are: Dr. Danthai Thongphiew for all his helps and being my
best friend here in Cleveland since we know each other, Mr. Adirak Kanchanaharuthai
xxiii
for his kindly helps and sharing many ideas and experiences in both academic and life,
Mr. Suriya Natsupakpong, for helping me about computer issues and answering me a lot
of questions in programming and working together when we took the same class, Mr.
Pathom Chareonngam for his help during we took the same class and give me a ride to
many places, Dr.Zeng Lertmanorat for his time spending with me which allows me to
learn concept of programming, Dr. Suparerk Janjarasjit for all his help during the
research ,and both Mr. Thunyaseth Sethaputr and Mr. Sorne Simatrang for their helps for
preparing my dissertations in different ways. Mr. Wanchat Teeranaew for his helps about
answering my programming questions.
I would like to thank my American friend Mr. Michael Fu, for helping me correct
and do proof reading of my dissertation and supporting each other when we took classes
together.
I am grateful to thank my grandparents, grandmother Mrs.Somchoa Yuvapurna
for her support, both love and finance since I was born. Also I would like to thank my
grandfather Dr. Chamnan Yuvapurna who taught me brilliant ideas and motivate me to
studying in Ph.D. program. I would like to thank my grandmother Mrs. Suporn
Boonyaprapasorn for loves and cares since I was born. I would like to thank my
grandfather Mr. Manoon Boonyaprpasorn about his dream that motivate me to study in
engineering field. I would like to my grandmother, teacher Chongmart Mahapanit, for her
love and care during till now.
I wish to thanks all members of the Boonyaprapasorn s and Yuvapurnas family
and all of my cousins from both sides for all their supports in many ways. I would like
xxiv
thank aunt Sanoajit Pisitsungkakarn who take care of me as my second mother. Also I
wish to thank aunt Chanitsri Yuvapurna who also take care of me when I was a kid.
Next, I would like to thank my brother Mr.Pat Boonyaprapsorn for his help in many ways
and time that he spends with me . Then, I would like to thank Mrs. Wassana Tubsawadd
who take care of me since I was baby until now. I would like to thank all workers who
serve me in my home.
The turning point of my life to be a responsible student started at Debsirin school.
at Debsirin School, I gain a strong background in mathematics and sciences which
provided by many teachers. Therefore, I am grateful and thankful to all of my teachers
from Debsirin School. I would to thank especially teachers Malai Wiwatcharakoset, who
taught me a lot of ideas and techniques in mathematics and how to be a good student,
teacher Thipawan Youngsathien who taught and trained me to have a solid background
and love mathematics, teacher Panida Pisitamornchai taught me a lot of useful concept
and ideas in mathematics, and teacher Trongpoj Rukkhaviboon who provides a excellent
physic class. In Debsirin school, I gain not only the strong background in academic but
also the great spirits as appearing in our song Ahokumarn. I still remember the
sentence from teacher Manoon Sinhakul said that There is nothing that the boy from
Debsirin cannot accomplish
Also, I would like to thank to all of my friends from Debsirin school for all
different kinds of supports. Especially, I would like to thank Mr.Sahaphol Wanasusri, my
best friend from Debsirin School who have helped me in different ways about my
research and share his experiences about rotating machinery vibration. Also, I would
like to Thank to Mr. Kolasak Laungvilaiwan and his wife who always help many things.
xxv
I would like to thank to all of my Professor in Kings Mongkut University of
Technology Thonburi for their strict teaching and training while I was an undergrad
student. I wish to thanks my Professor Veerachai Kaensup, Professor Surachate Chutima,
and Professor Pichit Rerkshanandana their great supports in many ways since I was
undergrad student until now.
Also, I would like to thank my friends from King Mongkuts University of
Technology Thonburi who helped me and especially to my best friend Mr. Sahathep
J oipraditr for all his helps since we know each other.
I would like to thank my dear wife for her love and her supports with care and
patience while I worked on this research. Especially, when she had to be alone in
Thailand before and after we got married.
Last but not the least, I am highly grateful and thankful to my parents,
General Winich and Mrs. Boontiwa Boonyaprapsorn, for their unceasing all
encouragements and supports with great love and great care. This leads me to overcome
all obstacles and to be successful in all works at all situations. Since we share happy
times or unhappy times, all successes in my life are also theirs. Even though there are so
many times that I am exhausted, but I have never give up. I come back to solve problems
and do all works again since when I see the words they write on the board that
Overcome your mind, you can overcome all obstacles from Dad and Keep fighting
and be patient from Mom. I wish to say that the best thing in my life is to be their son.
xxvi
List of symbols
Chapter 1
-
Chapter 2
{ ( )} u t a vector of control input
{ ( )} y t a vector of the measured output variables from the real system
{ ( )} y t a vector of the measured output variables from the nominal model
{ ( )} e t an error vector
{ ( )} r t a vector of residual
xxvii
Chapter 3
[ ] M a mass matrix
{ } q a vector of displacement
[ ] C a damping matrix
[ ] K a stiffness matrix
{ _ } f ext

a external force vector
i
P the i
th
local modal load of the i
th
degree of freedom
x position of crack, defined by distance
i
u strain energy
U total strain energy
V shear force
M moment
T torsional moment
F axial force
E Young and modular
G modulus of rigidity
I area moment of inertia
o
I polar moment of inertia
s
o shear coefficient
density of the material
L total of length of the shaft
l length of the element
xxviii
D diameter of the shaft
A area of the shaft
J the strain energy density function
v Poisson ratio
Ii
K the stress intensity factors corresponding to the opening
mode displacement
IIi
K the stress intensity factors corresponding to the
sliding mode of crack displacement
IIIi
K the stress intensity factors corresponding to the
shearing mode of crack displacement, i = 1-6
| |
G local flexibility matrix for the cracked element
| |
s
M The global mass matrix in the stationary coordinates
| |
s
d
C The global damping matrix in the stationary coordinates
| |
s
K The global stiffness matrix in the stationary coordinates
{ ( )}
s
ext
f t The nodal vector of the external force for each degree
of freedom in the stationary coordinates
{ }
s
q The nodal vector of displacement for each degree of
freedom in the stationary coordinates
_ num element Number of elements in the finite element model
_ num node Number of nodes in the finite element model
| |
s
K Stiffness Matrix
xxix
| |
s
M Mass matrix
DD diameter of the disk

thick thickness of the disk
[ ]
s
d
C Damping matrix
s
ucg
K (

Global stiffness matrix
{ }
s
q nodal vector of displacement
[ ] A state matrix
[ ] B input matrix
[ ] C output matrix
| | F input influence matrix
{ ( )} x t state vector
{ ( )} u t input vector
{ ( )} y t output vector
xxx
Chapter 4
s
T time step
[ ]
dk
A state matrix of the linear discrete time system
[ ]
d
B input matrix of the linear discrete time system
[ ] C output matrix of the linear discrete-time system
{ }
k
x state vector of the linear discrete-time system
{ }
k
u input vector of the linear discrete-time system
{ }
k
y output vector of the linear discrete time system
{ }
k
w vector of process noises
{ }
k
v vector of measurement noises
| | G | |
d
B
{ }
k
x
a prior estimate
k
P
(

a prior error covariance
{ }
k
x a posteriori estimate
| |
k
P a posteriori error covariance
| |
k
Q covariance matrix of process noises
| |
k
R covariance matrix of measurement noises
_ ec o the cracked element or location of the crack in each observer
_ a o

depth of the crack in each observer, m.
_ ec m the cracked element or location of the crack of the real system
xxxi
_ a m depth of the crack in the real system,
{ } E expected value
{ }
i
k
E r _
i
mean res =Expectation of the i
th
residual vector
m number of measurement signals
k time index
Ns number of sampling data
_ a w 1 1 vector of weight coefficient of _ _
i
norm mean res
_ b w 1 m vector of weight coefficient of _
i
sl xcorr
_ c w 1 m vector of weight coefficient of _
i
area xcorr
_ d w 1 m vector of weight coefficient of
{ } ,{ }
_
i i
y y
vec Rc .
xxxii
Chapter 5
density of material,
3
/ kg m
E Young s modulus,

2
/ N m
G modulus of rigidity,

2
/ N m
s
o the shear coefficient
v Poissons ratio
,
d d
o | coefficients of the proportional damping matrix
L Total length of shaft , m
D diameter of the shaft,

m
DD diameter of the disk,

m
thick thickness of the disk,

m
me unbalanced mass, kg
_ num element number of elements in the finite element model for the real system
XCG global position of the crack in the real system, m
_ x cm local position of the crack in the cracked element
(mid of the crack element), m
e angular velocity, / s rad
_ ec m the cracked element or location of the crack of the real system
_ a m depth of the crack in the real system,
_ num lopm number of rotational degrees
_ n interval number of divided areas on the crack surface
_ fi shift orientation of the unbalanced mass, rad
xxxiii
_ _ num element o

number of elements in the finite element model for the observers
_ me o

unbalanced mass in the observer, kg
_ xc o

the local position of the crack in the observers, m
_ ec o the cracked element or location of the crack in each observer
_ a o

depth of the crack in each observer, m.
xxxiv
Fault Detection and Diagnosis Process for the Cracked Rotor Vibration Systems Using
Model-Based Approach

Abstract
by
Capt. ARSIT BOONYAPRAPASORN

In this research, the fault detection and diagnosis using a model-based technique
for the cracked rotor vibration system is developed and implemented. More specifically,
the observer based or filter bank approach is employed in the fault detection and
diagnosis process in order to detect the occurrence of a crack and diagnose the position
and the depth of the crack in rotating machinery.
The fault detection and diagnosis process is consisted of two parts. The first part
is the filter bank or the residual generation which generates the residual vectors
corresponding to each observer. The second part is a voting algorithm which searches the
observer that corresponds to the behavior of the real system.
The type of filter contained in the filter bank is the discrete time-variant Kalman
filter. The filter is specifically designed to track the cracked rotor vibration system. Since
the filter is time-variant, the state matrix at the current time step of the filter is updated by
the state estimated value from the previous time step.
Constructing the filter bank with the presented filter allows the fault detection and
diagnosis process to perform very well under the environment of the process and
measurement noises which is unavoidable in real systems.
xxxv
The voting algorithm evaluates every observer to find the observer behaving the
closest to the real system based on the score achieved by each observer. The score is
calculated by the information of the residual mean, the residual autocorrelation of each
observer, the correlation coefficient between the real system measurements, and the
observer outputs.
In order to evaluate the fault detection and diagnosis process performance,
the fault detection and diagnosis process is tested with the simulated real system
containing various sets of system parameters. The results and discussions are presented.

1
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Importance of Study
Rotating machinery play an important role in many industries and various engineering
fields. Not only are they used in large machines such as turbines or pumps in power
generation plants and large vehicles such as airplanes or ships, but they are also found in
small machines in workshops, automobiles, and computer hard drives. One of the critical
components in a rotating machine is the shaft since it is a main rotating part that transmits
power to other devices in the system. Cracks can occur on the shaft from a variety of
causes, such as fluctuating bending stresses. Consequently, machine failures from a
cracked shaft can compromise the safety of operators and result in increased operating
and maintenance costs.
The Electric Power Research Institute in 1997 reported that turbine breakdowns
cost power generation industries and consumers $200 million per year as mentioned in
the work by Abdel-Magied [9]. Also, as rotating machines surpass age, non-destructive
testing is often necessary to estimate their remaining useful life.
The vibration of cracked shafts in rotating machinery is one of the crucial
vibration problems affecting both design and maintenance and has been a subject of study
for more than 30 years. Fault detection and diagnosis for cracked rotor vibration systems
are critical aspects of the problem. Although there are various algorithms that can be
used, ideal schemes would use non-destructive testing methods. Therefore, fault detection
and diagnosis using model-based techniques is an appropriate choice.
2
1.2 Objectives
The objective is to develop a fault detection and diagnosis process for cracked rotor
vibration systems using model-based techniques in order to detect the occurrence of a
crack and diagnose the location and depth of the crack. The fault detection and diagnosis
process should be robust and be able to operate online effectively under the effects of
measurement and processes noises.
Based on the objectives, the work consists of two parts. The first task is to
develop a linear time-varying filter to estimate the responses of the rotor vibration system
affected by the occurrence of a breathing crack (fault) and integrate the observer with the
fault detection and diagnosis process as a residual generator. The second task is to
construct the decision process based on statistical information from the residuals in the
fault detection and diagnosis process.
1.3 Organization of the Thesis
The background and literature review are presented in Chapter 2. The derivation of a
finite element model representing the cracked rotor vibration system is presented and
described in Chapter 3. The design of a Kalman filter and the fault detection and
diagnosis process using an observer-based approach is developed in Chapter 4.
Simulation results and a discussion are presented in Chapter 5, and conclusions and
future work are presented in Chapter 6.
3
Chapter 2. Literature Review and Background
2.1 Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Cracked Rotor Vibration Systems
Fault detection and diagnosis (isolation and identification) in this work are consistent
with the definitions given by Gertler (1998) [29]
1) Fault detection is the identification that something is going wrong in the
monitored system
2) Fault isolation is the determination of the exact location of the fault (the
component which is faulty)
3) Fault identification is the determination of the magnitude of the fault. The
isolation and identification tasks together are referred to as fault diagnosis.
Applying fault detection and diagnosis methodology to cracked rotor vibration
problems means that the occurrence of the crack must be detected and some
characteristics, such as depth of the crack must be determined.
Residuals are a term often mentioned when model-based techniques are being
discussed. According to Patton (1989) [30] residuals carry information about the faults
that are in the system. In this research, a fault is synonymous with a crack in the shaft.
Several relevant works have been presented since the 70s. Based on the literature
review by Sabnavis et al. (2004) [2], the method of fault detection and diagnosis for
cracked rotors can be categorized into three groups. These methods are
1) Vibration-based methods (VBM)
1.1) Model-based methods
1.2) Signal-based methods
2) Modal testing
4
3) Non-traditional methods
Signal-based methods employ commonly used vibration monitoring equipment
(such as proximity probes, phase reference and spectram analyzer) with or without
additional systems, such as torsional vibration measurement, etc.. Steady-state and/or
transient vibration data are analyzed for known indicators of cracks, as stated by
Sabnavis et al. (2004) [2].
Model-based methods are based on analytical or numerical models to simulate
the behavior of cracked shafts during operation and attempts to correlate the observed
vibration signature with the presence of a crack at discrete locations on the shaft as
stated by Sabnavis et al. (2004) [2].
As stated by Bachschmid et al (2002) [24], there are different model-based
techniques in fault detection and isolation for cracked rotor vibration systems using the
residual generation method. The basic idea of the residual generation approach is given in
Figure 2.1, presented by Gertler (1998)[29], and can be categorized as follows:
1) parameter estimation, 2) parity equations, and 3) state estimation or observer.
1) Parameter estimation: Gertler (1998)[29] stated that A reference model is
obtained by first identifying the plant in a fault free situation. Then, the
parameters are repeatedly re-identified on-line. Deviation from the reference
model served as a basis for detection and isolation
2) Parity equation: As stated by Gertler (1998) [29], Parity relations are
arranged direct input and output model equations, subject to a linear dynamic
transformation. Bachschmid (2002) [24] states that when the faults affect
some of unmeasurable input variables, the parameters are constant, and only
5
output variables are measured and compared with the calculated output
variables
3) State estimation: Patton (1989) [30], Gertler (1998) [29]. and Isermann (2004)
[28], the idea of using the state estimation in the fault detection and diagnosis
system is shown in Figure 2.2. This approach uses the concept of an observer
adopted from classical control theory. Applying the vector of control
inputs,{ ( )} u t , the vector of the measured output variables,{ ( )} y t , from the
real system, and the corresponding vector of calculated output variables,
{ ( )} y t
.
, from the nominal model are compared, and the difference between
those two signals are defined as the error vector,{ ( )} e t , that represents the
error of the observer. The vector of residuals, ( ) { } r t , is constructed from the
error vector, ( ) { } e t , either by setting

( ) { } r t equal to

( ) { } e t , or by expressing

( ) { } r t as a function of ( ) { } e t , which allows one to isolate and identify the
faults. Many choices of both linear and nonlinear observers are available and
the proper choice depends on the physical properties of the monitored system
and the capability of the fault detection and diagnosis algorithms. When noise
affects the monitored system, stochastic observers such as the Kalman filter
can be used. This concept can be extended to the concept of the filter bank in
order to detect and diagnose different faults in the vibration system, such as
the work by Loparo et al (2000) [37] and Abdel-Magied [9].
The state estimation approach using a filter bank is the approach that will be used
in this research since it fulfills both the detection and diagnosis tasks. The occurrence of
6
a fault can be detected by the normal condition filter and diagnosed by statistical testing
on the innovations or residuals from the fault observers as shown in Figure 2.3.
The Filter bank consists of N+1 observers that include N fault observers and one
normal condition observer. Each fault observer contains different fault parameters
depending on the specific fault that is to be detected. The i
th
observer is designed to track
the real system in fault mode i and generates the corresponding residual vector, ( ) { }
i
r t .
Then, theses residual vectors will be evaluated either by statistical or deterministic
methods, such as Bayesian statistical decision theory as presented by Abdel-Magied [9],
Afshari [39], Liu [40], and Lou [42] or other residual analysis methods.

Figure 2.1: The stage of model-based fault detection and diagnosis.

7

Figure 2.2 : Basic principle of fault detection and diagnosis using state estimation.

Figure 2.3 : Fault detection and diagnosis employing the filter bank using residual
analysis.
8
Many researchers have used a model-based approach for fault detection and diagnosis of
cracked rotor systems. A useful characteristic of model-based methods is that they can be
used online during the operation of rotating machinery. The previous works by
Bachschamid et al. (2000) [7] presented an algorithm that can be used to detect a crack
and its characteristics, which are position and depth, using parity approach to detect and
diagnose the crack through the input forces. Goldman et al. (1999) [11] studied crack
rotor vibration systems based on the dynamical behavior of the Jeffcotts rotor and found
a relationship between the shape of the orbits and the presence of a crack. Meng and
Hanh (1994) [12] studied the effect of characteristics of the crack such as size, location,
and depth to the shape of the orbits. Also, they concluded that the crack can cause an
increase in the amplitude of the backward whirl orbit. A literature review of fault
diagnosis of rotating machinery before 1998 was reported by Ewards et al. (1998) [6].
Using state estimation to detect the crack was discussed by Park (1996) [27], who used
filter banks with elementary observers to detect the crack occurrence, its depth and
location.
Bachschmid et al (2002) [24] used the parity equation approach to detect the
multiple faults in rotor systems. They showed modeling of the crack in the rotor system
including the thermal effect and concluded that the thermal effect can significantly affect
the behavior of a breathing crack by causing a permanently opened or closed crack.
The finite element method has also been used by many researchers. Chan and Lai
(1995) [13] used the finite element method to simulate the vibration response of a shaft
with a transverse crack. By comparing the responses from symmetrical and asymmetrical
shafts one containing a crack and the other with no crack, the crack can be identified
9
from the different results of each case. Guo et al. (2003) [14], studied the vibration
response of different kinds of shafts with cracks by using a finite element method.
Nonlinear system theory has also been used for crack detection. Brandon (2000)
[15] used the Poincare plot to detect the presence of a crack in a rotating shaft. He also
mentioned that the stiffness of the cracked shaft can be affected by the impact between
the two surfaces of a breathing crack. In 2003, Robert and Brandon [16] used non-linear
theory to diagnose the causes of unexpected responses in machines.
This research focuses on vibration-based methods, since it fulfills the objectives
of the work.
2.2 Definition of a Crack
Miannay (1998) [10] considered a crack as a plane separation that occurs inside the
material. Mathematically, Sabnavis et al. (2004) [2] defined a crack as the discontinuity
in the material. Based on the state of the crack, the behavior of a crack can be subdivided
into: crack initiation and crack propagation. Clear definitions of both terms are given as
follows.
Crack initiation is the state at which separation planes or discontinuities begin to
occur in the uncracked material.
Crack propagation is the state in which the size of the crack is increased by
reciprocating stress.
Next, based on geometric aspects, cracks can be further categorized as transverse
cracks, longitudinal cracks, slant cracks, etc. In this research we will focus only on
transverse crack. A transverse crack is a crack that is perpendicular to the longitudinal
axis of the shaft.
10
A breathing crack is a crack that opens and closes dynamically, the fluctuation of
the stress is responsible for this behavior. The spinning of the shaft can cause fluctuating
stresses, so a transverse crack in cracked rotating shaft can be considered as a breathing
crack.
11
Chapter 3. Mathematical Model of the Cracked Rotor Vibration System
When using a model-based approach for fault detection and diagnosis of cracked rotor
vibration systems, the accuracy of the mathematical model of the system is crucial for the
state estimator or observer approach. Both analytical and numerical methods are used to
develop and construct the mathematical model representing the cracked rotor vibration
system. The crucial part of this process is how to develop a model for the breathing crack
and calculating the stiffness matrix of the crack shaft. To construct a mathematical
model that represents the dynamic behavior of the system (equations of motion) many
techniques, such as those based on Newtons second law, Lagranges equation, finite
element analysis, solid and fracture mechanics, have been used by researchers over the
past 25 years to study and construct the relationship between the stiffness matrix of the
cracked rotor and the behavior of a breathing crack.
3.1 Literature Review for Mathematical Model Representing the Cracked Rotor
Vibration System
Many researchers have tried to develop a model for the equation of motions of cracked
rotor vibration systems. Because the crack and its behavior affect the stiffness matrix of
the shaft such as the coupling terms, Ostachowicz (1992) [17], understanding the
behavior of the crack is very important in developing a mathematical model. Some
researchers have modeled a breathing crack, e.g. Garch (1976) [18], who considered a
crack as an angled spring and approximated the stiffness of the shaft from this
information.
At the beginning, many works treated the breathing behavior as only having two
states, fully opened and fully closing at certain angles, assuming that the fluctuating
12
stress is only caused by a pure bending moment. For example, a crack is fully open when
the rotating angle is equal to t
,
is fully closed when the rotating angle is equal to zero,
and is half open and half closed if the rotating angle is at / 2 t , and 3 / 2 t as presented in
the works by Prabhakar et al.(2001) [19] and Immam et al.(1989) [20]. The relationship
between the stiffness of the shaft and rotating angle is then a switching or piecewise
continuous function.
Some researchers have attempted to use a Fourier expansion to represent the
stiffness of the shaft as a function of rotating angle. Various numbers of terms in Fourier
series have been used by different researches to approximate the switching or piecewise
continuous functions representing the relationship between the stiffness of the shaft and
rotating angle, e.g. Schmied and Kramer (1984) [21] and Nelson and Nataraj (1986) [22].
In fact, the behavior of a breathing crack is not only fully opened and closed but
can be at partially opened and closed states even at 0 or t rotating angles and is caused
by multiple loads in addition to the pure bending moment that acts on the shaft. Most
researchers have developed breathing crack and stiffness models that are function of
rotating angle only. This makes these models of limited utility in actual applications
where there are many loads that act on the shaft and directly influence the stiffnees and
the behavior of the breathing crack.
To develop improved models of the breathing crack ideas from fracture
mechanics have been used to construct the stiffness matrix of the cracked shaft through
the stress intensity factor, see Darpe et al. (2004) [4], Darpe et al. (2002) [32], Jun (1992)
[3], Gasch (1976) [18], and Dimarogonas and Paipetis (1983) [5].
13
Darpe et al. (2004) [4] constructed the stiffness of the cracked shaft based on
knowledge of fracture mechanics through the stress intensity factors. In their work, the
boundary of opening of the cracked surfaces needs to be known to define the limits of
integration in the process of finding the stiffness. Therefore, they developed a crack
close line (CCL) algorithm that provides the position of the crack closure line for each
value of the rotating angle. Finally they verified their results by comparing them with
those provided by finite element software.
Dimarogonas and Paipetis (1983) [5] attempted to combine all loads together to
show the effect of these loads on the stiffness matrix of a cracked shaft, which was
derived based on the stress intensity factors and the superposition principle where all
modes of the crack are combined to calculate the stiffness of the cracked shaft.
Bachschmid et al (2000) [25] showed the comparison of different methods to
model a transverse crack on a rotating shaft.
Bachschmid (2000)[7], (2003) [8], (2000) [23] , (2000) [26] proposed a
mathematical model that represents the equations of motion of a cracked rotor system
and includes the effect of the area moment of inertia and verified the results using
experimental data.
Another important aspect of combined loading on the shaft is the effect from
coupling among the loads, so the idea of superposition is probably not a good choice in
analyzing the cracked rotor vibration. This is confirmed in Darpe et al. (2004) [4] and
Jun et al. (1992) [3], where both of these works improve on Dimarogonas (1983) [5] by
showing the effect of the coupling of the loads. Specifically, Darpe et al. (2004) [4]
14
showed the effect of the coupling of the loads. Also, Jun et al. showed the stiffness given
by their switching model and compare these results with those given by experiments.
The main task of this chapter is to construct mathematical models that represent a
cracked rotor vibration and describe the state of the breathing crack. These two models
were obtained based on knowledge from fracture mechanics and have been reported by
Jun et al. (1992) [3], Darpe et al. (2004)[4], and Darpe et al. (2002)[32].
After surveying and studying many previous works, the model from the work by
Darpe (2004)[4] was selected. This model will be adapted and used to construct the
observers and to develop a simulation of the real system.
Even though, Darpe et al. provided the details about the model in their work [4],
in order to formulate the mathematical model corresponding to a suitable set of
coordinates and to clarify some sign conventions, this chapter provides details on how to
derive and construct this mathematical model.
3.2 Mathematical Model Representing the Cracked Rotor Vibration System and
Breathing Cracks
The mathematical model representing the equations of motion of a cracked rotor
vibration system is developed in the following form:
| | | | | |
.. .
{ } { } { } { ( )}
ext
M q C q K q f t + + = (3.1)
where { } q = vector of displacement, | |
M = mass matrix, | |
C = damping matrix,
| |
K =stiffness matrix, and { }
ext
f =external force vector. As stated in Chapter 2 ,the
stiffness of the cracked shaft is affected by the behavior of the crack, so a mathematical
model of the breathing crack is required in order to define the stiffness matrix. This
15
mathematical model will show how the stiffness of the system is influenced by the crack
and facilitate calculating the stiffness matrix of the cracked shaft.
3.2.1 The Finite Element Model Representing the Cracked Rotor Vibration
Systems
A finite element model of a cracked rotor is developed from Timoshenkos beam element
where each node has 6 degrees of freedom. The shaft is equally divided into beam
elements, and only one transverse crack is contained in the model. The local nodal
loads, , 1, 2..,12
i
P i = , are shown in Figure 3.1a. The local loads acting on each node in
the cracked element are defined as follows.
1
P

and
7
P are the axial loads in the
x-direction,
5
P and
11
P are the bending loads in the vertical direction,
6
P and
12
P are the
bending loads in the y-direction,
2
P and
8
P

are the shearing loads in the y-direction,
3
P and
9
P are the shearing loads in the z-direction, and
4
P and
7
P are the torsional loads.
The local position of the crack is defined by distance, x , where 0 x = is at the left end of
the cracked element. These are clearly shown in Figure 3.1b. It is important to note that
the coordinate system in Figure 3.1a. is a set of moving coordinates. Therefore, all nodal
loads,
i
P, are represented with respect to the moving coordinates. The element is
developed from the beam elements; however the change in stiffness of the element
caused by the crack will be defined based on knowledge from fracture mechanics,
mentioned in later sections.

16

Figure 3.1a: Cracked element with the nodal loads.

17

Figure 3.1b: Crack surface with local coordinates

Figure 3.1c: The cracked shaft with the disk on the simple supports.
18
3.2.2 Flexibility Matrices for the Cracked and Uncracked Elements
In this section, knowledge from fracture mechanics is used to set up and formulate the
problem of finding the flexibility or stiffness matrix for a cracked element and later on
for the global stiffness matrix. The calculation will be done based on Castiglianos
theorem using the idea of strain energy.
The flexibility can be calculated by Castiglianos theorem,

i
u
i
U
P
c
=
c
(3.2)
where U is the total strain energy

0 c
U U U = + (3.3)
The strain energy consists of the strain energy for the uncracked shaft
element,
0
U , and
c
U , the strain energy caused by the crack.
The generalized displacement,
i
u , can be calculated from the generalized forces
i
Pand the
strain energy U as

i
u
o c
o c
i i
i
U U
u u
P P
c c
= + = +
c c
(3.4)
for the
th
i coordinate.
The strain energy is calculated from the action of axial forces, torsional and
bending moments, and shearing action at the cross-section of the crack. It can be
expressed as

2 2 2 2 2 2
o 1 2 1 2
1
U
2
s s
o
V V M M T F
dx
CA CA EI EI GI AE
o o (
= } + + + + +
(

(3.5)
where V
1
, V
2
=shear forces,
1
M ,
2
M =Moment , T = torsional moment, F =axial force .
19
E

= Young and modular,
G= modulus of rigidity,
E
2(1+ )
G
v
=
I = area moment of inertia of the shaft element

o
I = polar moment of inertia of the shaft element

s
o = the shear coefficients.
=density of the material

( )
( )
s
1
1.305 1.273
v
o
v
+
=
+

L =total of length of the shaft

l =length of the element

D =diameter of the shaft

DD = outer diameter of the disk

2
R
A
t
= = area of the cross section of the shaft.

The loads are the local loads at the cross-section of the cracked element
corresponding to the position of the crack.
From equilibrium of force and moment, all loads in equation (3.5) can be
expressed in terms of loads acting on the cracked element as shown in Figure 3.1a.

1 2
V P = (3.6)

2 3
V P = (3.7)

4
T P = (3.8)

1
F P = (3.9)
20

1 3 5
M Px P = + (3.10)

2 6 2
M P Px = (3.11)
Then,
o
U can be determined as follows:
2 2 2 2 2 2
o 2 3 3 5 6 2 4 1
0 0
( ) ( ) 1
U [ ]
2
l
s s
P P P x P P P x P P
dx
GA GA EI EI GI AE
o o +
= + + + + +
}

2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 3 3 3 5 5 6 2 6 2 4 1
0 0
( 2 ) ( 2 ) 1
[ ]
2
l
s s
P P P x P P x P P P P x P x P P
dx
GA GA EI EI GI AE
o o + + +
= + + + + +
}

2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 3 3 3 5 5 6 2 6 2 4 1
0 0
2 2 1
[ ( ) ( ) ]
2
l
s s
P P P x PP x P P P P x P x P P
dx
GA GA EI EI EI EI EI EI GI AE
o o
= + + + + + + + +
}

2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 2 3 3 3 5 5 6 2 6 2 4 1
0 0
2 2 1
[ ( ) ( ) ]
2
l
s s
P P P x P P x P P P P x P x P P
U dx
GA GA EI EI EI EI EI EI GI AE
o o
= + + + + + + + +
}

2 2 2 2 3 2
0 2 3 3 3 5 5
2 2 2 3
6 2 6 2 4 1
0
0
2 1
[ ( )
2 3 2
2
( ) ]
2 3
s s
l
P P P PP P x x
U x x x
GA GA EI EI EI
P P P P P P x x
x x x
EI EI EI GI AE
o o
= + + + +
+ + + +

2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3
0
2 3 3 3 5 5 6 2 6 2
2 2
4 1
0
1 2 2
[
2 3 2 2 3
]
s s
P P P l PP l P P P P l P l
U l l l l
GA GA EI EI EI EI EI EI
P P
l l
GI AE
o o
= + + + + + +
+ +
(3.12)
From equation (3.2), the individual displacements
o
i
u can be expressed as

o
o 1
1
1
U
u
P
Pl
AE
c
= =
c
(3.13)

o 1
1
Pl
u
AE
= (3.14)

o 3 2
o s
2 2 2 6
2
U l l l
u P P P
P CA 3EI 2EI
o c
= = +
c
(3.15)
21

o 3 2
o s
3 3 3 5
2
U l l l
u P
P CA 3EI 2EI
P P
o c
= = +
c
(3.16)

o 3 2
o s
3 3 5
3
U l l l
u P
P CA 3EI 2EI
P
o | | c
= = +
|
c
\ .
(3.17)

o
o
4 4
4 o
U l
u P
P GI
c
= =
c
(3.18)

o 2
o
5 3 5
5
U l l
u P P
P 2EI EI
c
= = +
c
(3.19)

o 2
o
6 6 2
6
U l l
u P P
P EI 2EI
c
= = +
c
(3.20)
An additional displacement
c
i
u caused by the crack can be obtained using the idea
of strain energy as above. Then, the change in strain energy
c
U caused by the crack on
the shaft can be constructed from the strain energy density function, ( ) J A as
( )
c
A
U J A dA =
}
(3.21)
and

6 6 6
2 2 2
'
1 1 1
1
( ) [( ) ( ) (1 )( ) ]
Ii IIi IIIi
i i i
J A K K K
E
v
= = =
= + + +

(3.22)
where
Poisson ratio v =
Ii
K = the stress intensity factors corresponding to the opening mode displacement
IIi
K = the stress intensity factors corresponding to the sliding mode of crack displacement
IIIi
K = the stress intensity factors corresponding to the shearing mode of crack
displacement, i = 1-6.
22
Therefore, it is clear that
c
U can be expressed in terms of the stress intensity
factors and Possions ratio.
The stress intensity factors (SIF) corresponding to each of the modes can be
expressed in terms of stress or nodal loading and the geometry of the crack as follows.
SIF of Mode I
Axial Load:
( )
I1 1 1
K / F h o to o = (3.23)

1
1
2
P
R
o
t
= (3.24)
Evaluating
1
o in term of
1
P then
I1
K becomes
( )
1
I1 1
2
K /
P
F h
R
to o
t
= (3.25)

Bending Load:
( )
I5 1
K 5 / F h o to o = (3.26)

2
5 4
/ 64
M
D
|
o
t
= (3.27)
From equation (3.11): ( )
2 5 3
M P Px = + , then

( )
( )
5 3
I5 1
4
K 4 /
P Px
F h
R
| to o
t
+
= . (3.28)
Likewise,
( )
6 6 1
/
I
K F h o to o = (3.29)
23

4
2 2
2 6
R
R
M
t
|
o

= (3.30)
From equation (3.10): ( )
1 6 2
M
c
P Px = , then

( )
( )
2 4
I6 1
4
K 2 /
c
P x P h
F h to o
to
+
= . (3.31)
Since
2
P ,
3
P , and
4
P do not participate in Mode I, then

2 3 4
0
I I I
K K K = = = (3.32)
SIF of Mode II
Shear Load:
( )
II2 2
K / F h o to o =

(3.33)

2
2
2
P
R
h o
t
= (3.34)
Evaluating
2
o in terms of
2
P , then
II2
K becomes
( )
2
II2
2
kP
K /
R
I
F h to o
t
= (3.35)
Torsional Load:
Likewise,
( )
II4 4
K / F h o t to o =

(3.36)

4
4I 4
/ 32
P
D
|
o
t
= (3.37)
( ) h F
R
P
/
2
K
4
4
II4
o to
t
|
= (3.38)
Since
3
P ,
4
P ,
5
P , and
6
P do not participate in Mode II, so

4 3 5 6
0
II II II II
K K K K = = = = . (3.39)
24
SIF of Mode III:
Shear Load:

III3 3
K ( / )
III
F h o to o = (3.40)

3
3 2
kP
R
o
t
=

3
III3 2
K ( / )
III
kP
F h
R
to o
t
= (3.41)
Torsional Load:

III4 4
K ( / ),
III III
F h o to o = (3.42)

2 2
4
4 III 4
P R -
/ 32D
|
o
t
= (3.43)

4
III 4 4
P h
K ( / )
R
III
F h to o
t
= (3.44)
Since
2
P ,
5
P , and
6
P do not participate in Mode III, so

1 2 5 6
0
III III III III
K K K K = = = = . (3.45)
where

3
1
0.752 2.02( ) 0.37[1-sin( )]
2
tan
2
cos( )
2
h h
F
h
h
o to
o to
to
to
| |
+ +
|
'
| |
=
|
|
\ .
|
\ .
(3.46)

4
2
0.023 0.199[1-sin]( )]
2
tan
2
cos( )
2
h
F
h
h
to
o to
to
to
| |
+
|
'
| |
=
|
|
\ .
|
\ .
(3.47)

2 3
1.122-0.561( ) 0.085( ) 0.18( )
1-( )
II
h h h
F
h
o o o
o
+ +
= (3.48)
25

2
tan
2
III
h
F
h
to
to
| |
=
|
\ .
(3.49)
The sign convention used in equations (3.25), (3.28), (3.31), (3.35), (3.38), (3.41),
and (3.44) is based on the direction of the corresponding stresses and the relative
displacement between the two surfaces of the crack. The details are provided in
Appendix A. The details of stress intensity factors are shown in the stress analysis given
in the handbook by Tada et al [41].
Next, strain energy due to the crack can be determined by evaluating the stress
intensity in terms of the nodal loads , 1......6
i
P i = using equation (3.21)
2 2 2
1 5 6 2 4 3 4
1
[( ) ( ) ( )]
'
c
I I I II II III III
A
U K K K K K m K K dA
E
= + + + + + +
}
(3.50)

2 2 2
1 5 6 1 5 5 6 6 1
2 2 2 2
2 2 4 4 3 3 4 4
1
[( 2 2 2 )
'
( 2 ) ( 2 )]
c
I I I I I I I I I
A
II II II II III III III III
U K K K K K K K K K
E
K K K K m K K K K dA
= + + + + + +
+ + + + +
}
(3.51)
,where
'
E E = ,and
'
2
(1 )
E
E
v
=
for plane stress and plane strain respectively and

1 m v = + as shown in [5].
Next, evaluating the stress intensity in terms of the nodal load , 1......6
i
P i =
c
U becomes
2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 6 2 3 5 1
1 2 2 1 12 2 8 8 6
2
2 2 2 3 5 6 2 6 2 2 2 4
1 1 1 2 8 6 4 6
2 2
2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4
8 4 6
( ) ( ) ( ) 1
[ 16 4 8
'
( )( ) ( )
16 4 4
2
4
c
A
II II
II III
P x P P P x P x P P
U F F h F P F
E R R R R
P x P P P x P P x P P P
h F F P h F F k F k F
R R R R
P P P P
F mk F m
R R R
o | o o |o
t t t t
| o o o |o
t t t t
| o o
t t t
+ +
= + + +
+
+
+ + +
}
2
2 2 2 4
8
]
III III
P
kh F mh F dA
R
o o
t
+

26
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 5 5 6 6 2 2 1
1 2 2 2 8 8
2 2
1 1 2 1 2
3 1 5 1 3 6 5 6 6 6 8 8
2
1 1 1 2
3 2 5 2 8 8 6
( 2 ) ( 2 ) 1
[ 16 4
'
8 16 16 8
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
16 16 4
( ) ( ) (
c
A
P x P P x P P P P x P x P
U F F h F
E R R R
F x h F F x h F F F
P P P P P P P P
R R R R
h F Fx h F Fx h F F
P P P P
R R R
o | o o
t t t
|o | o | o |o
t t t t
| o | o o
t t t
+ + +
= + + +
+ +
+ +
}
1 2
6 1 2 1 6
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2
2 2 4 2 4 3 2 6 8 4
2 2 2
2
3 4 4 6 8
4
) ( )
( ) 4 ( ) 4 ( ) ( )
2
( ) ( )]
II II II III
III III
h F F x
P P P P
R
k F k F F mk F
P P P P P P
R R R R
mkh F mh F
P P P dA
R R
o
t
o |o | o o
t t t t
o o
t t
+
+ + + +
+
(3.52)
The displacements,
c
i
u 1......6 i = , can be determined by computing the partial
derivatives corresponding to
1 6
...... P P as follows.
2 2
1 1 1 2 1
6 2 3 5
4 6 6
1
1 4
[2 ( ) ( )]
'
c
A
U P F h FF F
P P x Px P dA
P E R R R
o o |o
t t t
c
= + +
c
}
(3.53)
2 2 2
1 2 1 2 1
6 2 3 5 6 8 8
2 2 2
2
2 4 4 6
4 8 16
[ ( ) ( )
1
'
2 4
]
c
A II II
h F F xP h F x h F
P P x P x P
U
R R R
P E
k F k F
P P dA
R R
o o | o
t t t
o |o
t t
+ +
c
=
c
+
}
(3.54)
2 2 2
1 1 1 2 1
6 2 3 5 6 8 8
2 2 2
3
3 4 4 6
8 16 32
[ ( ) ( )
1
'
2 2
]
c
A III III
F xP h F F F x
P P x P x P
U
R R R
P E
mk F mkh F
P P dA
R R
|o | o | o
t t t
o o
t t
+ +
c
=
c
+ +
}
(3.55)
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2
3 4
6 6 8 8
4
1 4 2 8 2
[ ( ) ( ) ]
'
c
II III II III
A
U k F P mkh F F mh F
P P dA
P E R R R R
|o o | o o
t t t t
c
= + + +
c
}
(3.56)
2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1
1 6 2 3 5 6 8 8
5
1 8 32 32
[ ( ) ( ) ( )]
'
c
A
U F F x F x
P P P x P x P dA
P E R R R
|o | o | o
t t t
c
= + + +
c
}
(3.57)
2 2
1 2 2 1 2
1 6 2 3 5 6 8 8
6
1 4 32 16
[ ( ) ( ) ( )]
'
c
A
U h FF h F x h FF x
P P P x P x P dA
P E R R R
o o | o
t t t
c
= + + +
c
}
(3.58)
Equations (3.53) to (3.58) can be rearranged to yield
( ) ( )
1 1 1 2 6 2 3 3 5
u
c
g g c g c
I P I P x P I x P P ( = + +

(3.59)
27
( ) ( )
c 2
2 2 12 5 6 2 3 5 6 4 7 4
u
g c c g c c c g g g
I x P x I P x P x P P x I I P R I P ( = + + +

(3.60)
( ) ( )
3 3 1 6 6 2 8 3 5 9 3 10 4
u
c
c g c g c c g c g g
x I P x I P x P x I x P P I P I P ( = + + + +

(3.61)

( )
2
4 7 2 10 3 11 12 4
u
c
g g g g
R I P I P I I P
(
= + + +

(3.62)
( ) ( )
5 3 1 6 6 2 8 3 5
u
c
g g c g c
I P I P x P I x P P ( = + +

(3.63)
( ) ( )
6 2 1 5 6 2 6 3 5
u
c
g g c g c
I P I P x P I x P P ( = +

(3.64)
where

2
1
1 ' 4
A
2F
,
A R
g
I dA
E
=
}

1 2
2 ' 6
A
4h FF
,
R
g
I dA
E
o
t
=
}

2
1
3 ' 6
A
2 F
R
g
I dA
E
|o
t
=
}

2 2
II
4 ' 4
A
2k F
,
R
g
I dA
E
o
t
=
}

2 2
2
5 ' 8
A
8h F
,
R
g
I dA
E
o
t
=
}
1 2
6 ' 6
A
16 FF
R
g
I dA
E
|o
t
=
}

2
II
7 ' 8
A
4k F
,
R
g
I dA
E
o|
t
=
}
2 2
2
8 ' 8
A
32 F
R
g
I dA
E
| o
t
=
}
2 2
II
9 ' 4
A
2 F
,
R
g
m
I dA
E
|
t
=
}

2
III
10 ' 6
A
2 kh F
,
R
g
m
I dA
E
o
t
=
}

2
II
11 ' 8
A
8 F
R
g
I dA
E
| o
t
=
}
2
III
12 ' 5
A
2 h F
,
R
g
m
I dA
E
o
t
=
}
. (3.65)
Consequently, the flexibility matrix of the cracked element can be obtained from the total
displacements
c
i
u 1......6 i = as follows

0 c
i i i
u u u = + (3.66)
The values of
0 0 0
1 2 6
, ,......, u u u are obtained from equations (3.13) to (3.20), and
1 2 6
, ,......,
c c c
u u u are obtained from equations (3.59) to (3.64).
Manipulating equation (3.59) yields
| |
i
{u } { }, 1 6
i
G P i = = (3.67)
where | |
G is the 6 6 local flexibility matrix for the cracked element
28

| |
11 12 13 14 15 16
21 22 23 24 25 26
31 32 33 34 35 36
41 42 43 44 45 46
51 52 53 54 55 56
61 62 63 64 65 66
g g g g g g
g g g g g g
g g g g g g
g g g g g g
g g g g g g
g g g g g g
G
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(
(

(3.68)
and , 1......6 1......6
ij
g i and j = = are defined as follows.

11 1,
g
g
l
I
AE
= +
( )
3
2 s
22 4 5
,
GA 3EI
g c g
l l
g I x I
o | |
= + + +
|
\ .

( )
3
2 s
33 9 8
g ,
GA 3EI
g c g
l l
I x I
o | |
= + + +
|
\ .
( )
44 11 12
0
,
GI
g g
l
g I I = + +

55 8,
g
g
l
I
EI
= +
66 5,
g
g
l
I
EI
= +
12 21 2,
g
g
g xI = =

13 31 3
g ,
c g
g x I = =
15 51 3, g
g g I = =
16 61 2,
g
g
g I = =

2
23 32 6,
g
g
g x I = =
2
24 42 7
g ,
g
g R I = =
34 43 10,
g
g
g I = =

25 52 6,
g
g
g xI = =
2
35 53 8,
g
2
c g
l
g x I
EI
= = +
2
26 62 5,
g
2
c g
l
g x I
EI
= =

36 63 6,
g
c g
g x I = =

56 65 6
g
g
g I

= = (3.69)

29
3.2.3 Modeling the Behavior of Breathing Cracks
It is clear that the limits of integration in equation (3.65) are defined by the contact area
and boundaries of the breathing crack surfaces. Therefore, understanding the model of
the breathing crack is necessary.
However, the boundaries that define the closing and opening of a crack can be
determined by using the value of stress intensity factors corresponding to mode I, which
requires evaluating the local nodal load vectors, { } P that contain the , 1, 2,......,6
i
P i = , as
shown in Figure 3.1.
Because the solution of the stress intensity factors for circular shafts is not
available, the shaft has to be divided into a number of

rectangular long plates, where each
plate contains the transverse crack as proposed by Darpe (2004) [4], Dimarogonas (1998)
[5], and Jun (1992) [3]. Therefore, instead of using the stress intensity factors of a
circular shaft directly, the stress intensity factors for rectangular plates are used. Then, all
stress intensity factors can be calculated along the cracked edge as shown in Figure 3.2.

30

Figure 3.2: The approximation of the cracked circular shaft is shown as composed of
thin plates with a crack.

Figure 3.3: The signs of
0
I
K for each divided area on the crack surface.

31
To use the corresponding stress intensity factors as an indicator to define the state
of the breathing crack, there are only two kinds of loads that will affect the opening and
closing of the crack: the bending and axial loads. The stress intensity factors that affect
the behavior of the breathing crack are
1 I
K ,
5
,
I
K and
6 I
K . By superimposing the stress
intensity factors from all three modes, the resulting stress intensity factor can be written
as

0
1 5 6 I I I I
K K K K = + + (3.70)
The positive value of
0
I
K on each strip represents the tensile stress applied on that
strip, while the negative value of
0
I
K on each strip represents the compressive stress as
illustrated in Figure 3.3. From this knowledge, all strips that contain a positive value of
0
I
K corresponding to the opening area of the crack, while strips that contain a negative
value of
0
I
K correspond to the closing area of the crack. Therefore, to model the behavior
of the breathing crack one needs to know
0
I
K

at each time step.
Based on the geometry of Figure 3.1, the crack variables h
,
a and o can be
expressed as a function of | .

2 2
2 ( ) h R | = (3.71)
( )
2
h
R a o = (3.72)
where
a=constant crack dept at =0 |
crack depth for each strip (general ) o | =
R= Radius of the shaft.
32
Mathematically, at a specific value of radius R, crack position
c
x and u
,
and
loads
1 5 6
, , P P P ,
*
| is the value | such that
0
0 K = , the boundary between where
0
K is
positive and
0
K

is negative, defined by Darpe as the crack closure line position (CCLP).
Once the CCLP
*
| is obtained, the limits of integration in equation (3.65) can be
defined, and consequently, the value of
1 2 12
, ,......,
g g g
I I I and
1 2 6
, ,......,
c c c
u u u can be obtained
and the construction of the flexibility matrix, | |
G , in equation (3.68) is complete.
3.2.4 Flexibility and Stiffness Matrices
Assuming that the value of nodal loads,{ }, 1, 2.., 6
i
P i = , the value of
0
K and
*
| are
known, and the limits of integration in equation (3.65) are defined, the flexibility matrix
is given by equation (3.68). The local stiffness matrix, [ ]
c
K , of the cracked element can
be determined from [ ] G as follows.

1
[ ] [ ][ ] [ ]
T
c
K T G T
= (3.73)
[ ] T is the transformation matrix which is defined from static equilibrium relates
the nodal loads between node 1 j + and node j and it can be determined as follows.

1 7
0 P P + = ,

2 8
0 P P + = ,

3 9
0 P P + = ,

4 10
0 P P + = ,

11 5 3
0 P P Pl + + = ,

12 6 2
0 P P Pl + = , (3.74)
33

1
2
3
1 4
2 5
3 6
4 7
5 8
6 9
10
11
12
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 1
P
P
P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P
P l
P l
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
=
( (
( (
( (
( (

( (
( (
( (

( (
( (

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(3.75)
| |
1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 - 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1
T
l
l
T
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(

(3.76)
The local stiffness matrix for the uncracked elements, [ ]
uc
K , can be calculated
from the flexibility matrix [ ] G by setting 0, , 1, 2,....., 6.
gij
I i j = = Then, the local
stiffness matrix can be obtained by using the transformation [ ] T , as shown in equation
(3.76)

1
|( 0,)
[ ] [ ]([ ] )[ ] , , 1, 2,....., 6
gij
T
uc I
K T G T i j
=
= = (3.77)
Then, the global stiffness matrix for the cracked rotor vibration system in the
moving coordinates,
| |
r
K , can be obtained by assembling the local stiffness matrices,
[ ]
c
K , corresponding to each of the cracked elements and the local stiffness matrices
[ ]
uc
K corresponding to each of the uncracked elements.
34
The global stiffness matrix for the cracked rotor vibration system in the moving
coordinate is defined by
| |
r
K . It can be formed by assembling the local stiffness matrices
of both the uncracked elements and cracked elements. The global stiffness matrix of the
cracked shaft in stationary coordinates can be obtained as follows.
] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
g
r T
g
s
T K T K = (3.78)
where

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
) cos( ) sin( - 0 0 0 0
) sin( ) cos( 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 ) cos( ) sin( - 0
0 0 0 ) ( sin ) ( cos 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
] [
u u
u u
u u
u u
e
T
where u = rotatinal angle of the shaft. (3.79)

35
3.2.5 Complete Mathematical Model Representing the Cracked Rotor Vibration
System
As we know, the global stiffness matrix [ ]
s
K depends on the behavior of the breathing
crack. Therefore, the local stiffness matrix needs to be updated at every time, t . If the
global stiffness matrix is obtained and updated at each current time step, the
mathematical model for the cracked rotor vibration system can be defined.
The mathematical model describing the cracked rotor vibration system in the stationary
coordinate system is expressed in the form
| | | | | |
.
..
{ } { } { } { ( )}
s s s
s s s s
d ext
M q C q K q f t + + = (3.80)
where
| |
s
M = The global mass matrix in the stationary coordinates
| |
s
d
C = The global damping matrix in the stationary coordinates
| |
s
K = The global stiffness matrix in the stationary coordinates
{ ( )}
s
ext
f t = The nodal vector of the external force for each degree of freedom in
the stationary coordinates.
{ }
s
q = The nodal vector of displacement for each degree of freedom in the
stationary coordinates.
The superscript, s , indicates that the matrices and vectors are expressed
corresponding to the stationary coordinates. In this research, the mass matrix,[ ]
s
M , is
constant, while the stiffness matrix, [ ]
s
K , is a time varying matrix that is updated at each
time step.
36
For completeness, some important details of parameters, properties of variables, ,
and some assumptions of the finite element model in (3.80) are provided.
Parameters of the Finite Element Model
Some parameters and properties of the rotor system as shown in Figure 3.1 and the finite
element model in (3.1) are defined as follows.
_ num element = Number of elements in the finite element model
( _ num elemnt is restricted to be even number),
1, 2,......... _ e num element = ,
_ num node =Number of nodes in the finite element model
1, 2,......... _ node num node =
_ mid node = _ / 2 1 num element +

Material Properties
We assume that material is steel, and the disk and shaft are made from the same
material. =density of the material for the shaft and the disk Other material properties
are defined in section 3.2.4 .
Stiffness Matrix
| |
s
K
Details are provided in the previous section.
Mass Matrix,
| |
s
M ,
Mass matrix,
| |
s
M , is constructed by assuming that the mass of each shaft element is
lumped at the node. The local mass element is | |
e
M and the local mass element with
37
concentrated mass on the left and right of mid node of the shaft are
, e Ldisk
M (

,and
, e Rdisk
M (

, repectively. The inertia of the shaft, the shaft element, and the disk are
given as follows.
Inertia of Shaft:
Total mass of the shaft,
shaft
M ,

2
4
shaft
D
M L
t
= (3.81)
Inertia of Shaft Element:
Mass of the shaft element,
shaft
m ,

_
shaft
shaft
M
m
num element
= (3.82)
Polar inertia of the shaft element, _ 0 I ,

2
1
_ 0
2 4
shaft
D
I m = (3.83)
Transverse inertia of the shaft element, _ I T ,

2 2
2
1 1
_ 3
12 2 4 2 2 4
shaft
shaft
m
D l l
I T m
(
| | | |
| | | |
= + +
(
| | | |
\ . \ .
( \ . \ .

(3.84)
Area Moment of inertia of shaft element, I ,

4
64
D
I t = (3.85)
Inertia of Disk :
Mass of the disk ,
d
m

2
4
d
DD
m thick
t
= (3.86)
38

Polar inertia of the disk, _ 0 I D ,

2 2
1 ( )
_ 0
2 4
d
DD D
I D m
+
= (3.87)
Transverse inertia of the disk, _ I DT ,
( )
2
2 1
_ 3
12 4
d
DD
I DT m thick
( | |
= +
( |
\ .
(3.88)
Area Moment of inertia of the disk, _ I D,

4 2
_
64
DD DD
I D t

= (3.89)
where
DD = diameter of the disk

thick =thickness of the disk

| |
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _
shaft
shaft
shaft
e
shaft
shaft
shaft
m
m
m
I
I T
I T
M
m
m
m
I
I T
I T
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(3.90)
39
,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2
_ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0
shaft
shaft
shaft
shaft d
e Ldisk
shaft d
shaft d
m
m
m
I
I T
I T
m m
M
m m
m m
I D
I
+
( =

+
+
+
_
0 0 0 0 0 _ 0
2
_
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _
2
I DT
I T
I DT
I T
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
+
(
(
(
+
(

(3.91)

,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2
_ 0
0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
_
0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
_
0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
shaft d
shaft d
shaft d
e Rdisk
shaft
shaft
shaft
m m
m m
m m
I D
I
I DT
I T
I DT M
I T
m
m
m
+
+
+
+
+
( =
+
0 0 _ 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _
I
I T
I T
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

.
(3.92)
Damping Matrix
The damping matrix, [ ]
s
d
C , is assumed to be a proportional damping matrix
which is expressed as follows

| | | |
s
s s
d d ucg d
C K M o | ( = +

(3.93)
where
s
ucg
K (

= Global stiffness matrix assembled from load stiffness
| |
uc
u
and
d
o and
d
| are constants.
40
The Nodal Vector of Displacement,{ }
s
q ,
The components of the nodal vector, { }
s
q , corresponding to each node are
assigned as shown in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: The component of the nodal vector, { }
s
q , at each node.
Boundary Conditions
We assume that the shaft is a simply support as in Figure 3.4. Therefore, the
boundary conditions are defined as
1) The horizontal and vertical displacements at the first and last node are equal to
zero i.e.
2 3 6( _ 1) 1 6( _ 1) 2 6( _ 1) 3
0
num node num node num node
q q q q q
+ + +
= = = = = .
2) The axial displacement at the first and last node is equal to zero , i.e.
1
0 q =
3) The rotational displacement at node 1 is equal t e , i.e.
4
q t e = .
Initial Condition
We use the static displacement of the cracked shaft to be the initial condition at
the initial time, when the crack is fully closed.
41
We assume that the initial angular velocity in the x-direction is equal to, e

i.e.
4 10 6( 1) 1 6( _ 1) 4
.... ....
i num node
q q q q e
+ +
= = = = = = .
External Force, { ( )}
s
ext
f t ,
In this research, we assume that { ( )}
s
ext
f t contains only an unbalance force that is
due to the unbalanced mass, me , located at the edge of the disk and oriented at angle
0 | = relative to the crack.
3.2.6 Newmarks Method for Solving the Mathematical Model of Cracked Rotor
Vibration Systems
To solve for the flexibility or stiffness matrix from the set of equations above, we have to
decouple the loads and limits of integration used in calculating
g
I as shown in equation
(3.65). Because both loads and limits of integration are unknown, using the stress
intensity factors (
,
,
I II III
K K andK ) calculated from the vector of nodal loads { } P , is not
possible. Therefore, the limits of integration in (3.65), which are the boundaries of the
closing and opening of the surfaces of the crack, need to be determined by using the
information of the stress intensity factors obtained from the loads from equations (3.23)
to (3.49).
The mechanism of the breathing crack and how it affects the local stiffness has
already been explained. In fact, the local stiffness matrix for the cracked element can be
determined based on the
gij
I in equation (3.65) as long as the limits of integration used for
finding
gij
I are defined. The value of
0
K along the cracked edge can be used to identify
the state of the breathing crack. However, we need to know the value of the nodal loads,
{ } P , where { } P contains the local forces at each node for all degrees of freedom of the
42
system at each time t because the vector of nodal loads, { } P , are time varying variables
and contain the effects of both dynamic and static loads. Therefore, to have an accurate
breathing crack model, the vector of nodal loads, { } P , needs to be updated at each time
step. One efficient way to update the vector of nodal loads { } P is to calculate them from
the global nodal displacement vector, { }
s
q , which is the solution of equation (3.80).
However, { } P is expressed with respect to the moving coordinates, thus { }
s
q needs to be
transformed to the moving coordinate system { }
r
q as
{ } [ ]{ }
r s
g
q T q = . (3.94)
The nodal load { } P corresponding to the rotating coordinates can be calculated from
{ } [ ] { }
r
c ec
P K q = (3.95)
where { }
r
ec
q is the local displacement corresponding to the left node of the crack element
and is selected from the components of { }
r
q .
At this point, it is clear that solving for the response,{ }
s
q , and the local stiffness
matrix need to be solved together from the equation of motion in equation (3.80).
The solution, { }
s
q , is solved by a numerical time integration technique such as
Newmark, Runge-Gutta methods, etc. applied to equation (3.80). The following
parameters need to be specified, the initial time,
0
t , the time step, t A , the angular
velocity of the shaft e , and the nodal displacement at initial time
0
t ,
0
{ }
s
q . The initial
time displacement
0
{ }
s
q can be specified from the static displacement determined by the
static loads of the cracked beam.
43
The time integration { }
s
q will occur from each appropriate value of the rotating
angle, u , to the end of the period of rotation of the shaft. It will be performed from cycle
to cycle until the difference between the response at the current cycle and the response
from the previous cycle is less than a certain tolerance or the desired total rotational
degrees have been achieved.
Once the global stiffness matrix, [ ]
s
K , is updated, the mathematical model
representing the cracked rotor vibration system can be completed.
At a specific e , / t e u = ,
c
x , a,
0
t , and { ( )}
s
f t , the algorithm to solve for the vibration
response of the cracked rotor vibration is given by the flowchart in Darpe (2002)[32] and
Baschsmid [25] and shown in Figure 3.5.
44

Figure 3.5 : Flowchart of Newmark integration and the procedure of updating the
global stiffness matrix, [ ]
s
K .
u <Desired Rotating Angle
or error >Tolerance
Calculate SIF and
0
I
K (3.70) from { ( )} P t and Solve for Crack Closure Line,
s
|
Assemble [ ]
c
K and [ ]
uc
K [ ]
r
K and [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
s T r
g g
K T K T = (3.78)
Define the limits of integration , , 1, 2,......,12
gij
I i j = and solve for
[ ] G (3.68), [ ] [ ][ ][ ]
T
c
K T G T = (3.73),and
1
|( 0,)
[ ] [ ]([ ] )[ ]
gij
T
uc I
K T G T
=
= (3.78)
Apply numerical integration from t to
s
t t t + where sub time step, / 5
s
t t = and solve for
{ ( )}
s
s
q t t t +
| | | |
s
s s
d d ucg d
C K M o | ( = +

(3.93)
from
.. .
[ ] { ( )} [ ] { ( )} [ ] { ( )} { ( )}
s s s s s
d ext
M q t C q t K q t f t + + = (3.80)
Update: { ( )} [ ]{ ( )}
r s
s g s
q t t t T q t t t + = + (3.94)
{ ( )} [ ] { ( )}
r
uc ec s
P t t K q t t t + = + (3.95)
Update: ( ) / 180 t u u e t = +

Yes
No
0
t t = and 0 u =

Initial Condition at
0
t t = and
0
{ ( )}
s
q t = initial static
displacement
0 0
{ ( )} [ ]{ ( )}
r s
g
q t T q t = or
Collect Data
end
45
3.3 State Space Representation
Our fault detection and diagnosis algorithm uses the concept of filter banks, and for
implementation purposes, it is convenient to transform the second order differential
equations as equation in (3.80),
| | | | | |
.
..
{ } { } { } { ( )}
s s s
s s s s
d ext
M q C q K q f t + + = to state space
form using the approach given in Kwon and Bang (2000)[38] and Adams(2001)[1].
Setting
.
{ }
q
x
q
(
= (
(

and
| | ( ) { }
{ ( )}
s
ext
f t F u t = , the second order differential
equation can be transformed as follows
{ }
.
.
q
x
q

=
`

)
(3.96)

| | | | | | | | | | | |
.
.
1 1 1 s s s s s
d
q
M C q M K q M F u

(
(
=
(
+
(

| | | | | | | |
| | | |
.
1
.
1 1
0
s
s s s s
d
q
M F u
M C q M K q

(
(
(
= +
(
(
(

(

| | | | | | | | | | | |
{ } .
1 1 1
0 0
s s s s s
d
q
I
u
M C M K M F
q

+ ( (

= +
( ( `

( (

)

{ }
| | | | | | | |
{ }
| | | |
{ }
.
1 1 1
0 0
s s s s s
d
I
x x u
M C M K M F

( (
= +
( (

( (

(3.97)

46
Then,
{ }
| |{ } | |{ }
.
x A x B u = + (3.98)
{ } [ ]{ } y C x = (3.99)
where
| | | | | | | |
1 1
0
[ ]
s s s s
d
I
A
M C M K

(
=
(

(

=the state matrix

| | | |
1
0
[ ]
s
B
M F
(
= =
(
(

the input matrix
[ ] C =the output matrix
| | F = input influence matrix
{ ( )} x t = state vector
{ ( )} u t = input vector
{ ( )} y t =output vector.
It is important to note that
| | | | ( ) A A t = , since
| | A is constructed from
| |
s
K , which
is updated at each time step, t . The matrix, [ ] B , depends on the number and type of input
variables and the matrix, [ ] C , depends on how the measurement signals { ( )} y t as related
to the state variables. Therefore, the state space model of a cracked rotor vibration system
is represented by a linear time varying system (LTV).
47
Chapter 4. Kalman Filter Design and Fault Detection and Diagnosis for Cracked
Rotor Vibration System
In this chapter, the design of the Kalman filter for the cracked rotor system will be given
and the idea and concept of fault detection and diagnosis with an observer-based method
for the cracked rotor system will be discussed. A voting algorithm for processing the
residuals generated by the filter bank is also presented.
4.1 Kalman Filter Design for Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Cracked Rotor
Vibration Systems
In this research, the fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) process uses a model-based
approach that includes a filter bank with a set of statistical observers (state estimators)
that are designed to work effectively when process and measurement noise are present.
The cracked rotor vibration system is modeled as a linear time varying system as shown
in (3.98) and (3.99), and the Kalman filter provides a reasonable method for developing a
state estimator to be used in the FDD process. Kalman filters have been used in
observer-based fault detection applications to detect and diagnosis faults in rotor
vibration systems. Abdel-Magied (1997) [9] developed and constructed a FDD process
using observer-based technique with Kalman filters for rotor vibration systems, and
demonstrated the application when the fault is a rub impact phenomena. Afshari (1998)
used an observer-based FDD process to detect and diagnose faults in the rolling element
bearings. Seibold (1996) [33] used the modal Kalman filter to localize a crack in a rotor
vibration system.
48
In this section, we will show how to develop a Kalman filter for cracked rotor
vibration systems based on knowledge provided by Lewis (1986) [34],Crassidis (2004)
[35],and Simon (2006) [36] .
4.1.1 Discretization
The linear continuous time-varying system corresponding to the cracked rotor vibration
system in equation (3.80) can be discretized by using Euler numerical integration to
approximate the derivative terms with the time step
s
T , which is equal to t A

in
Newmarks method.
{ }
{ } { }
.
1
( ( ) ( ) )
k k
s
x t x t
x
T
+

= (4.1)
where
( ) { } ( ) { }
k s
x t x kT = and
k s
t kT = for 1, 2.... k n = . This process can be implemented
using the function c2d in MATLAB software. Let
( ) { } ( ) { }
s
x kT x k = , then from (3.98)
and (3.99), the discrete-time, time-varying linear system can be written as

{ } | |{ } | |{ }
1 k dk k d k
x A x B u
+
= + (4.2)

{ } | |{ }
k k
y C x = (4.3)
where [ ]
dk
A = the state matrix of the linear discrete-time system
[ ] [ ( ) ]
dk k s
A A t I T = + (4.4)

[ ]
d
B = the input matrix of the linear discrete-time system

[ ] [ ]
d s
B B T = (4.5)
[ ] C = the output matrix of the linear discrete-time system
{ }
k
x = the state vector of the linear discrete-time system
{ }
k
u = the input vector of the linear discrete-time system
49

{ }
k
y =the output vector of the linear discrete-time system.
If the system is affected by noise, then (4.2) and (4.3) become

{ } | |{ } | |{ } | |{ }
1 k dk k d k k
x A x B u G w
+
= + + (4.6)

{ } | |{ } { }
k k k
y C x v = + (4.7)
where,
{ }
k
w =the vector of process noises
{ }
k
v = the vector of measurement noises
and in this case, we let
| | | |
d
G B = .
The only time-varying part in the model is [ ]
dk
A , therefore it is important to
elaborate on how [ ]
dk
A is

updated next.

50

Figure 4.1: The flow chart of the discrete time-varying Kalman filter.
51
4.1.2 Kalman Filter Algorithm
The Kalman filter algorithm can be derived as shown in Lewis [34]. The mathematical
model of a cracked rotor vibration system is:

{ } | |{ } | |{ } | |{ }
1 k dk k d k k
x A x B u G w
+
= + + (4.8)

{ } | |{ } { }
k k k
y C x v = + (4.9)
Initial Conditions:

| | | |
0 0 x
P P = (4.10)

{ } { }
^
0
x x = (4.11)
Update Equations for the State Estimate and Covariance Matrix

| || | | || |
1
T T
k dk k dk k k k
P A P A G Q G
+
( ( ( = +

(4.12)

{ } | |{ } | |{ }
1

k dk k d k
x A x B u

+
= + (4.13)

| | | |
1
1
1
1 1 1
T
k k k
P P C R C

+ + +
(
( ( = +

(

(4.14)
{ } { } | | { } | |{ }
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
[ ] ( )
T
k k k k k k
x x P C R y C x

+ + + + + +
( = +

(4.15)
where
{ }
k
x
=a priori estimate
k
P
( =

a priori error covariance matrix
{ }
k
x =a posteriori estimate
| |
k
P = a posteriori error covariance matrix.
We assume that
{ }
k
w ,
{ }
k
v , and
{ }
0
x are pair wise uncorrelated sequences of independent
Gaussian random variables:{ } | |
( )
0 0 0
{ }, x x P ,{ } | | ( )
0,
k k
w Q , and { } | | ( )
0,
k k
v R . It is
52
important to note that
| | 0 R > and
{ }
k
w ,
{ }
k
v are zero mean Gaussian white noise
processes that are orthogonal (uncorrelated). Note, { x
k
} is the conditional expectation of
{x
k
} given data up to and including time k and
Expectation of
{ }
k
x { }
{ }
( ) k
k
E x x = = (4.16)
Expectation of
{ }
k
w { } { } ( ) 0
k
E w = = (4.17)
Expectation of
{ }
k
v { } { } ( ) 0
k
E v = = (4.18)
| | | |
k
Q Q = = covariance matrix of process noise
| | | |
k
R R = = covariance matrix of measurement noise.
4.1.3 Updating a Discrete-Time State Space Matrix, [ ]
dk
A
It is important to note that
| |
dk
A is a function of k and does not have a closed form
representation. Therefore,
| |
dk
A needs to be solved numerically. Solving the finite
element model in (3.80) using Newmark s integration at each time step
k
t the vibration
response
{ } ( )
k
q t ,
{ }
.
( )
k
q t and | | ( )
s
k
K t are updated using
( ) { }
1 k
q t

and ( )
1
s
k
K t

(

to
calculate the stress intensity factors, which define the behavior of the breathing crack and
consequently determine the stiffness matrix, | | ( )
s
k
K t , refer to Figure 3.3. Then,
( )
k
A t (

,is updated since it is calculated from | |
s
M , | |
s
d
C , and| | ( )
s
k
K t . However, in
order to include the effects from the process and measurement noises instead of using
( ) { }
1 k
q t

to update| | ( )
s
k
K t , we use the state estimate
{ }
1
2
k
k
k
x
x
x
.
.
.

=
`

)
, given by Kalman
53
filter where 1 k x
.
= state estimate of the displacement and 2 k x
.
= state estimate of the
velocity. Then, we set ( ) { }
{ }
1
1
k
k
q t x
.
= . Therefore, the effects of both process and

measurement noises are included at each time step
k
t since the displacement
( ) { }
1 k
q t

at
1 k
t

, is affected by the measurement noise and process noise.
Figure 4.1 shows the algorithm of the linear time varying Kalman filter for the
cracked rotor vibration system and the updating of the state matrix.
4.2 Model-Based Technique for Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Cracked Rotor
Vibration Systems
As stated previously, several researchers have applied fault detection and diagnosis
methods using model-based techniques to cracked rotor vibration problems. In this
research, we focus on a model-based technique using an observer-based approach to
detect and diagnose the occurrence of a crack. The works by Loparo et al (2000) [37] ,
Abdel-Magied (1997) [ 9 ], and Park (1996) [27] provide the idea on how to apply the
observer-based approach in the area of fault detection and diagnosis in vibration
problems. In the area of crack detection and diagnosis, the work presented by Siebold
and Wienert [33] uses a modal Kalman filter to localize the position of a crack, however,
the observer is time-invariant and the effects from the crack are transformed and
approximated as another external force , which is modeled only a function of the
rotational angle.

54
4.2.1 Problem Formulation
Real System:
The cracked rotor vibration system is to be monitored and can be represented in state-
space form, as seen in equations (3.98) and (3.99), which are reproduced here:

{ }
| |{ } | |{ }
.
x A x B u = + (4.19)
{ } [ ]{ } y C x = (4.20)
State Variables:
Based on equation (3.96), the vector of state variable is reproduced here
{ } .
q
x
q

=
`

)
(4.21)
Output: { }
p
y R e
Control Input: { }
m
u R e
Process Noise :
{ }
m
w R e
Measurement Noise:
{ }
p
v R e
Fault: crack
Detection: To detect occurrence or initiation of a crack
Diagnosis: To determine crack location,

_ ec m,

and crack depth,

_ a m , in the real
system.

55
4.2.2 Fault Detection and Diagnosis Using Model-Based Technique with Filter Bank
Approach
The location of the crack, _ ec m and the depth of the crack, _ a m, are two parameters
that will affect the vibration response of the dynamic system in equation (4.19).
Therefore, the main objective is to detect and diagnose the change that these two
parameters have on the measured system response.
The development of the fault detection process addresses the following issues.
1) Measurements from real vibration systems usually include orbits (x-y
displacements of the rotating shaft) and it is often difficult to measure the
acceleration or the force of the rotating shaft. Therefore, only displacements
are used as measurement signals.
2) A simplified model of the real system is used to design and implement the
Kalman filters. This adds realism to the results because model mismatch
between the actual process and the model will always exist in real
implementations.
3) Process and measurement noises are included
In this research, the Kalman filter is a time-varying filter that allows us to avoid
the problem of approximating the time-variant charactersitcs of the system parameters as
an external force, which is lagging one time step behind because of computational issues.
Even though the problem formulation is represented in continuous-time, the
implementation is done in discrete-time.
Also, it is required that the fault detection and diagnosis scheme is able to work
when both process and measurement noises are present. Therefore, the filter bank of
56
observers is constructed from time-varying Kalman filters with specific parameters that
tune each of the filters to a different fault mode, i.e. crack location, _ ec o , and crack
depth, _ a o.
The process of the fault detection and diagnosis is divided into two parts. First,
the residual generator: the i
th
observer is designed to track the cracked rotor vibration
system in fault i based on measurements from the real system, the residual { }
i
k
r and
estimated output,
{ }
i
k
y are generated from each observer. Second, decision logic or
residual analysis is performed in order to calculate the score,
i
score , for the i
th
observer
based on the residual { }
i
k
r , the estimated output,
{ }
i
k
y and the measurements from the
system. A voting algorithm is used in this work and the observer with the highest score,
i
score =
*
score , is the observer which most accuratety represents the behavior of the
system. Therefore, the occurrence, location, and depth of the crack can be determined by
knowin the idex, I, of the observed, The details of voting algorithm are described in the
next section.
For the discrete-time version of the fault detection and diagnosis process for a
cracked rotor vibration system, the filter bank concept as illustrated in Figure 2.3 is
shown more specifically in Figure 4.2. Also, the corresponding fault parameters are given
in Table 4.1.
57

Table 4.1: The fault parameters assigned to the filter bank.
_ a o/ _ ec o
_ 1 ec o _ 2 ec o
. ..
_ ec oN
_ 1 a o
Fault1 Fault2 .. . Fault N
_ 2 a o
Fault N+1 Fault N+2 .. . Fault 2N
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

Fault j
.
.
.

_ a oM
Fault (M-1)N+1 Fault (M-1)N+2 Fault MN

Figure 4.2 : The concept of the fault detection and diagnosis for the cracked rotor
vibration system using a filter bank.
58

Figure 4.3: Residual analysis part in the fault detection and diagnosis using voting
algorithm.

4.3 Voting Algorithm
As stated above, the voting algorithm is used to evaluate the observers based on the
score.
The score is calculated from three statistical quantities:
1) Norm of the vector containing the mean of the residual vector for each
measurement signal.
2) Area and slope of the autocorrelation of the residual sequences
3) Cross correlation between the output of the real system and that of each
observer.

59
4.3.1 Statistical Information of Residual Vector and Output Vector of Observer
In this section, the details of three statistical quantities of the residuals, the observed
outputs, and the system outputs are presented.
Mean of Residuals:
Norm of the vector containing the mean of residual vector for each measurement
signal, and for each observer. Each component is the time average of the j
th
measurement
signal at the time periods,
0 1
, ,.. ..,
k f
t t t t t = .
{ }
( )
( )
( )
( )
1,
2,
,
,
.
_
.
.
i
k
k
i
i
k
j k
p k
E r
E r
mean res E r
E r
E r

= =
`

)
(4.22)

( )
( )
( )
( )
1,
0
1
2,
0
2
,
0
,
0
1
1
1
1
.
.
1
1
.
.
.
.
1
1
Ns
k
i Ns
k
Ns
j j k
Ns
m
p k
r
Ns
E r
r
Ns
E r
E r r
Ns
E r
r
Ns
(
(
+
(
(

(

+
(

(

(

(
=
`
(
+

(

(

(

(

)
(
(
+
(

(4.23)
for 1, 2,...., k Ns = ,where
_
i
mean res =Expectation of the i
th
residual vector
60
m = number of measurement signals
0 1
, ,.. ..,
k f
t k t t k =
k = time index
Ns =number of sample data points.
Norm of mean residual of the i
th
observer is given by
_ _ _
i i
norm mean res mean res = . (4.24)
Autocorrelation of Residuals:
If the i
th
Kalman filter is tracking the real system, each component of the residual vector
{ }
i
k
r contains only the noise and hence it is a Gaussian white noise processes as
represented because of our assumptions on
{ }
k
w and
{ }
k
v in equations (4.8) and (4.9)
respectively.
The autocorrelation of { }
i
k
r for the i
th
observer can be calculated as
{ }
( )
( )
( )
( )
*
1, 1,
*
2, 2,
*
*
, ,
*
, ,
.
_ .
.
i
k s k
k s k
i
i
k k s
j k s j k
p k s p k
E r r
E r r
xcorr res E r r
E r r
E r r
+
+
+
+
+

= =
`

)
(4.25)
1, 2,...., . k Ns = and s =shifting index.
The autocorrelation of Gaussian white noise process is a delta function and
therefore, the slope at the zero time shift, _
i
sl xcorr , is very large and the area under the
61
curve, _
i
area xcorr , should be small. These two properties are used to calculate the
i
score .
Cross Correlation Matrix between Observed Outputs and System Output , Rc :
The elements of the cross correlation matrix include the cross correlation coefficient
between each component of system measurement (output) vector, { }
i
k
y and a
corresponding component from the observer,
{ }
i
k
y and measures the linear dependence
between the two signals. The cross correlation matrix,
i
Rc , is a 2 2 matrix, however
only one of the off diagonal element (i.e.
( ) 1, 2
i
Rc ) is needed to measure the linear
relationship between the j
th
component of
{ }
i
k
y and the j
th
component of { }
i
k
y .
The vector of off diagonal element of
( ) 1, 2
i
Rc for the i
th
observer can be
calculated as

( )
( )
( )
( )
1, 1,
2, 2,
, ,
, ,
{ } ,{ }
{ } ,{ }
{ } ,{ }
{ } ,{ }
{ } ,{ }
1, 2
1, 2
.
_ .
1, 2
.
1, 2
i i
k k
i i
k k
i i
i i
j k j k
i i
p k p k
y y
y y
y y
y y
y y
Rc
Rc
vec Rc
Rc
Rc
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(
(
(

(4.26)
1, 2,...., . k Ns = and s =shifting index.
The value of each element is the range from -1 to 1.

62
4.3.2 Score Calculation
The score corresponding to the i
th
observer is calculated as a weighted linear combination
of the elements of the vectors
_ _
i
norm mean res , _
i
sl xcorr , _
i
area xcorr ,and

{ } ,{ }
_
i i
y y
vec Rc .
_ _ 1 1
i
norm mean res = matrix (4.27)

{ }
1
2
_
_
.
_ .
_
.
_
i
i
i
i
j
i
p
sl xcorr
sl xcorr
sl xcorr
sl xcorr
sl xcorr

=
`

)
(4.28)

{ }
1
2
_
_
.
_ .
_
.
_
i
i
i
i
j
i
p
area xcorr
area xcorr
area xcorr
area xcorr
area xcorr

=
`

)
(4.29)
{ }
1
2
1
_
1
_
.
_ _ .
1
_
.
1
_
i
i
i
i
j
i
p
area xcorr
area xcorr
m area xcorr
area xcorr
area xcorr

=
`

)

(4.30)
63

{ }
1 1
2 2
{ } ,{ }
{ } ,{ }
{ } ,{ }
{ } ,{ }
{ } ,{ }
_
_
.
_ .
_
.
_
i i
i i
i i
i i
j j
i i
m m
y y
y y
y y
y y
y y
vec Rc
vec Rc
vec Rc
vec Rc
vec Rc

=
`

)
(4.31)
{ }{ }
1
_ _ _
_ _
i i
i
score a w b w sl xcorr
norm mean res
| |
= +
|
\ .

{ }{ } { }
{ }
{ } ,{ }
_ _ _ _ _
i i
i
y y
c w m area xcorr d w vec Rc + + (4.32)
1 1 1
_ _ _ _ 1 a w b w c w d w + + + = (4.33)
where
_ 1 1 a w = vector of weight coefficient of _ _
i
norm mean res
_ 1 b w m = vector of weight coefficient of _
i
sl xcorr
_ 1 c w m = vector of weight coefficient of _ _
i
m area xcorr
_ 1 d w m = vector of weight coefficient of
{ } ,{ }
_
i i
y y
vec Rc .

64
4.4 Period of Evaluation
In order to detect and diagnose the crack and the crack propagation and monitor the
behavior of the cracked rotor vibration system, it is necessary to define the period of
evaluation for calculating the score for each observer. In this research, the score for each
observer is calculated every one cycle or 360
of shaft rotation.
65
Chapter 5. Implementation and Evaluation of the Model-Based Fault Detection
and Diagnosis Process Using a Voting Algorithm
Simulations of cracked rotor vibration systems are presented with selected outputs that
include time responses, frequency responses, and orbits of the disk. Then, the fault
detection and diagnosis process for cracked rotor vibration systems is simulated and
tested with various sets of parameters. The simulation results are presented and discussed
in order to evaluate the performance of the model-based fault detection and diagnosis
process using a voting algorithm.
5.1 Implementation
The computer simulation is constructed in MATLAB including 1) the cracked rotor
vibration system, 2) the fault detection and diagnosis process using the filter bank
approach using linear time-variant Kalman filters.
A mathematical model representing the cracked rotor vibration system is
implemented based on the flow chart shown in Figure 3.5 in chapter 3 with various sets
of parameters. This model is used to simulate the real system and to test the fault
detection and diagnosis process. The simulation and the corresponding results are shown
in section 5.2 of this chapter.
The linear time-variant Kalman filters are implemented in the filter bank structure
for fault detection and diagnosis of the crack rotor vibration system using the voting
algorithm.
The process is tested with different sets of the parameters to simulate different
fault conditions with different levels of both process and measurement noises. The noise
processes are assumed to be Gaussian with a specified signal to noise ratio and are
66
generated using the function randn.m in the MATLAB software environment where the
simulations of the tests are conducted. The results of the simulation tests are given in
section 5.4.
The MATLAB File Name for each part of the test is shown in Table 5.1, and the
flow chart simulation of the test is shown in Figure 5.1. The details of the parameter
selections for both the real system and the observers are defined in sections 5.2 and 5.3
respectively.

Table 5.1: MATLAB file name corresponding to each part of the test.
The System MATLAB File Name Abbreviate Name
real system
simulation
test_main_112408_final_tind.m main_real
fault detection and
diagnosis process
FDA_map_contour_final_HP_112408.m FDD

67

Figure 5.1: Flow chart shows the simulation of the test.
68
5.2 Simulation of the Cracked Rotor Vibration System
The finite element model developed in chapter 3 is used to simulate the real system for
the fault detection and diagnosis process. The 12-element model is implemented based on
the details and flow chart shown in chapter 3 in the MATLAB software environment with
various sets of parameters that define the operating condition of the rotor system, for
example, the location of the crack, the depth of the crack, the SNR , and the rotational
speed e . Three different types of simulations conducted, including 1) uncracked rotor
vibration system 2) cracked rotor vibration system with constant depth of the crack, and
3) cracked rotor vibration system with propagating crack.
5.2.1 Parameters of the Cracked Rotor Vibration System
The parameters of the crack system in this implementation are
= material density,
3
/ kg m
E = Young s modulus,

2
/ N m
G = modulus of rigidity,

2
/ N m
s
o =shear coefficient
v =Poissons ratio
,
d d
o | = coefficients of the proportional damping matrix
L = Total length of shaft , m
D =diameter of the shaft,

m
DD = diameter of the disk,

m
thick =thickness of the disk,

m
me =unbalanced mass, kg
69
_ num element = number of elements in the finite element model for the real
system
XCG = global position of the crack in the real system, m
_ x cm = local position of the crack in the cracked element
(middle of the cracked element), m
e =angular velocity, / s rad
_ ec m = cracked element
_ a m = depth of the crack, m
_ num lopm = number of rotational degrees
_ n interval =number of divisions on the cracked surface
_ fi shift =

orientation of the unbalanced mass,

rad .
In order to simulate the three interesting behaviors as shown in the next section,
the values of above parameters are assigned with numeric values and shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: The numeric values of system parameters.

Material
Properties
Geometry
Properties
Time and
Load
Parameters
FE Model
Parameters
Crack Parameters
3 3
7.8 10 / Kg m =
11 2
2.07 10 N/m E=
10 2
7.9615 10 N/ m G =
s
0.7706 o =
0 . 3 v =
0.8132
d
o =
5
1.3623 10
d
|

=
0.7 L m =
0.015 D m =
0.0600 DD m =
0.0058 thick m =
0 | =
1
0.0011 me me kg = =
1
16.9073 /sec rad e e = =

_ 12 num element =
_ 720deg num lopm rees =

_ 0.0292 x cm m =
_ 100 n interval =
_ 1, 2,...,12 ec m =

_ 0, 0.1 , 0.2 , 0.3 a m D D D =

70
5.2.2 Simulation of Three Cases of Cracked Rotor Vibration Systems
5.2.2.1 Simulation Case 1: Uncracked Rotor Vibration System
If the rotor vibration system does not contain any cracks, then _ 0 a m = and the
simulation results for this case are provided next.
Illustrative Example 5.1
The rotor system runs without a crack, _ 0 a m = , and total rotational degree,
_ 10 360 num lopm = degrees. Other parameters are defined as in Table 5.2.
Results of Illustrative Example 5.1
The time responses, frequency spectrum, and orbits of the mid node of the shaft are
presented in Figure 5.2 -Figure 5.4. The sign of the stress intensity mode I ,
0
I
K , for each
interval along the crack edge are shown indicating the state of the breathing crack at each
degree of rotation in Figure 5.5.
In Figure 5.2, vibration response in the axial direction is zero because there is no
coupling between the lateral and axial vibrations. The lateral vibrations contain one main
frequency component as shown in Figure 5.3. The orbits looks like ellipses as shown in
Figure 5.4. In Figure 5.5, the stress intensity factors at each division on the crack surface
of the last cycle are shown, which are all zero because the shaft is uncracked.
The natural frequency of the uncracked system is in the range between
2
3.47 10 / sec rad and
5
1.7519 10 / sec rad . All values of natural frequencies are shown
in the appendix C.
71

Figure 5.2: Time responses of the mid node of the uncracked rotor vibration system
for 10 cycles.

Figure 5.3: Frequency spectrum of the mid node of the uncracked rotor vibration
system for 10 cycles.
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
2
4
x 10
-
4
frequency response y

Hz

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
0
1
2
3
x 10
-
4
frequency response z

Hz

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40
0
5
10
15
x 10
4 frequency response seta x

Hz

-2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
-1
0
1
frequency response x

Hz

e
e
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-1
0
1
Plot of the nodal Axial displacement X
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-9.84
-9.82
-9.8
x 10
-5
Plot of the nodal shear1 displacements y
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-2
0
2
x 10
-7
Plot of the nodal shear2 displacements z
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
50
100
Plot of the nodal torsional displacements seta x
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-5
0
5
x 10
-17
Plot of the nodal bending1 displacements seta y
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-1
0
1
x 10
-15
Plot of the nodal bending2 displacements seta z
t,sec

72
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x 10
-7
-9.845
-9.84
-9.835
-9.83
-9.825
-9.82
-9.815
-9.81
x 10
-5
Orbit of Mid Node
Z
Y

Figure 5.4: Y-Z orbit of the mid node of the uncracked rotor vibration system for 10
cycles.
73
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
interval on crack surface
sign of S
IF
0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
45
sign of S
IF

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
90
sign of S
IF
90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
135
sign of SIF

135

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
180
sign of SIF

180

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
225
sign of S
IF

225

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
270
sign of S
IF
270

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
315
sign of S
IF
315

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
360
sign of S
IF
360

Figure 5.5: Behavior of breathing crack represented by the sign of total SIF that
corresponds to crack mode I.
74
5.2.2.2 Simulation Case 2: Cracked Rotor Vibration Systems with a Constant
Crack Depth
A crack is inserted in the rotor vibration system at a certain location with constant depth
and the crack does not propagate or grow. To simplify the calculations, the initial state
(orientation) of the crack is assumed at zero degree of rotation and the crack is fully
closed at this position. This allows us to use the static displacement of the uncracked
beam as an initial condition for the Newmark method. The simulation results are given
next.
The cracked vibration rotor system contains the crack with a constant crack depth
, _ 0.3 0.0045 a m D m = = . The global position along axial direction, _ 0.4375 XCG m m = ,
equivalently _ 8 ec m = , _ 0.0292 x cm m = .Other parameters are assigned as in Table 5.2.
Total rotational degrees, _ 10 360 num lopm = . The simulation results can be shown in
Figure 5.6-Figure 5.9.
Time responses, frequency spectrum, and a disk orbital curvature of all degrees of
freedom of the mid node are shown in Figure 5.6, Figure 5.7, and Figure 5.8. The plots of
sign of total stress intensity factor of mode I,
0
I
K , along the crack surface at each rotating
angle are shown in Figure 5.9. In Figure 5.6, the vibration, the vibration response is non-
zero in the axial direction because of the coupling between the lateral and axial vibrations
once the crack occurs. The lateral vibrations contain many main frequency components
as shown in Figure 5.7. The shape of the orbit is not the ellipse as shown in Figure 5.8. In
Figure 5.9, the total stress intensity factors,
0
I
K , at each division of the crack surface and
75
for each angle of rotation of the last cycle show that the crack is breathing, which is
consistent with the mathematical model presented in chapter 3.

Figure 5.6: Time responses of the mid node of the cracked rotor vibration system with
_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , for 10 cycles.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
Plot of the nodal Axial displacements x
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-1.05
-1
-0.95
x 10
-4
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
50
100
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-5
0
5
x 10
-6
t,sec

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
-1
0
1
x 10
-5
Plot of the nodal bending2 displacements seta z
t,sec

76

Figure 5.7: Frequency spectrum of the mid node of the cracked rotor vibration system
with _ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , for 10 cycles.

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x 10
-6
-10.1
-10.05
-10
-9.95
-9.9
-9.85
-9.8
-9.75
x 10
-5
Orbit of Mid Node
Z
Y

Figure 5.8: Y-Z orbit of the mid node of the cracked rotor vibration system with
_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , for10 cycles.
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
Hz

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
Hz

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
2
4
6
8
10
12
x 10
4 frequency response seta x
Hz

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0
2
4
6
8
x 10
-5
Hz

e
2 e
3 e
e
2 e
3 e
e
2 e
77
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
i nterval on crack surface
sign of SIF
0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
45
sign of SIF
45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
90
sign of SIF
90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
135
i nterval on crack surface
sign of SIF
135

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
180
sign of SIF
180

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
225
sign of SIF
225

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
270
sign of SIF
270

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
315
sign of SIF
315

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
360
sign of SIF
360

Figure 5.9: Behavior of breathing crack represented by the sign of total
SIFs corresponding to crack mode I.
78
5.2.2.3 Simulation Case 3: Cracked Rotor Vibration System with Crack
Propagation.
The rotor vibration system is assumed to operating in the normal condition (uncracked)
for a certain number of cycles before a crack with a certain depth occurs in the rotor
system at angle360
of the last cycle of the normal condition. The crack is fully closed at
this position before breathing at constant depth begins for a certain number of cycles.
Then, the crack depth changes to a new level of depth at angle 360
from the last cycle of

the first crack condition. Again, the crack is fully closed at this position before breathing
a constant depth begins for a number of cycles.
The rotor vibration system operates in the uncracked condition from 0
to 360
. Then, the
rotor vibration system runs with a constant depth crack, _ 0.2 a m D = from 360
to 720
.
Finally, the rotor vibration system runs with a constant depth crack, _ 0.30 a m D = from
360

to 720
with axial position _ 0.4375 XCG m m = , or equivalently _ 8 ec m = ,

_ 0.0292 x cm m =

. Other parameters are the same as those in Table 5.2 with total
rotation equal to _ 3 360 num lopm = (3 cycles).
Time responses, frequency spectrum, and a disk orbits for all degrees of freedom of the
mid node are shown in Figure 5.10, Figure 5.11,, and Figure 5.12. The sign of the total
stress intensity factor of mode I,
0
I
K , along the crack surface at each angel of rotation is
shown in Figure 5.13.
In Figure 5.10, the axial vibration response is zero as expected during the first
cycle and non-zero during the second and third cycles. The lateral vibration contains one
79
main frequency component in the first cycle, and contains many frequency component in
the first cycle, and contains many frequency components in the second and third cycles as
shown in Figure 5.11. The orbit shape is not an ellipse and the magnitude of the orbit
increases in the second and third cycles as shown in Figure 5.12.
Figure 5.13 shows that there is no breathing crack in the system in the first cycle,
with a breathing crack in both the second and third cycles. These results are consistent
with the mathematical model developed in chapter 3.

Figure 5.10: Time responses of the mid node of the cracked rotor vibration system for 3
cycles with crack propagation.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
t,sec
Plot of the nodal Axial displacements x
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-1.05
-1
-0.95
x 10
-4
t,sec
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
t,sec
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
0
10
20
t,sec
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-5
0
5
x 10
-6
t,sec
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-1
0
1
x 10
-5
t,sec
Plot of the nodal bending2 displacements z
80

Figure 5.11: Frequency spectrum of the mid node of the cracked rotor vibration system
for 3 cycles with crack propagation.
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x 10
-6
-10.1
-10.05
-10
-9.95
-9.9
-9.85
-9.8
-9.75
x 10
-5
Orbit of Mid Node
Z
Y

Figure 5.12: Y-Z plane orbit of the mid node of the cracked rotor vibration system for 3
cycles with crack propagation.
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
0
5
10
15
x 10
-4
Hz
Magnitude v
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
0
5
10
x 10
-4
Hz
Magnitude h
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
0
10000
20000
frequency response seta x

Hz
Magnitude
T
orsionals
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
0
1
2
3
x 10
-5
Hz
Magnitude
A
xial
e
2 e
3 e
e
2 e 3 e
81
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
45
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
90
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF
90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
135
sign of S
IF

135

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
180
sign of S
IF

180

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
225
sign of S
IF
225

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
270
sign
o
f S
IF

270

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
315
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF

315

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
360
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF
360

82
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
360
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF
360

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
405
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF
405

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
450
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF
450

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
495
sign
o
f S
IF
495

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
540
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF
540

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
585
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF
585

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
630
sign of S
IF
630

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
675
sign of S
IF
675

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
720
sign of S
IF
720

83
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
720
sign of S
IF

720

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
765
sign of S
IF

765

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
810
sign of S
IF

810

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
855
sign of S
IF

855

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
900
sign of S
IF

900

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
945
s
ig
n
of S
IF

945

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
990
sign of S
IF

990

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1035
s
ig
n
o
f S
IF

1035

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1080
sign of S
IF

1080

Figure 5.13: Breathing crack represented by the sign of total SIFs for crack mode I.
84
5.3 Performance Testing of Fault Detection and Diagnosis Process for Cracked
Rotor Vibration Systems
To evaluate the performance of the fault detection and diagnosis process, the real (model)
system and the bank of observers with parameters assigned according to various fault
modes are simulated. The results are presented and discussed, next.
5.3.1 Properties of the Real (model) System and the Fault Observers
All properties of the real(model) system and the fault observer are defined as follows.
The real (model) System:
The 12-element model representing simulation case 1, simulation case 2, and simulation
case 3 in section 5.2 will be used to simulate the real system.
Parameters of The Real (model) System
Most parameters of the system are defined as those in simulation case 1, 2, and 3 in the
previous section with the process and measurement noises specified by the signal to noise
ratio, SNR , and the covariance matrices. Some parameters need to be varied in order to
evaluate the performance and capability of the fault detection and diagnosis algorithm
including the SNR , angular velocity (e), of the shaft, unbalanced mass ( me )
,
cracked
element ( _ ec m), and crack depth ( _ a m).. Other parameters such as the material,
geometry, etc. are defined in Table 5.2 in section 5.2.
Initial Conditions of the Real System
The static displacements of the uncracked Timoshenkos Beam are used as initial
conditions. We assume that the crack is fully closed and oriented at the top of the shaft
(360) at the initial time.
85
Noise in the Real System
Both process and measurement noises are assumed to be the Gaussian processes with
specified SNR and covariance matrices as given in chapter 4.
Observers:
The 4-element model representing the situation of case 2 in the previous section will be
used to construct the Kalman filters contained in the filter bank. The material properties,
geometry properties, and load parameters for all observers are the same as those in the
real system as shown in Table 5.2.
Observer Parameters
The parameters of the observers are defined as follows.
_ _ num element o=number of elements in the finite element model for the observers
_ me o = unbalanced mass in the observer, kg
_ xc o = position of the crack in the observers, m
_ / 4 / 2 xc o L =
_ ec o = cracked element in each observer
_ a o = crack depth in each observer, m.
The numeric values of observer parameters used in this test are shown in
Table 5.3.
Assigned Fault Parameters to the Observers
The filter bank is constructed from observers with different fault parameters _ ec o and
_ a o and also the normal condition observer. The fault observers are assigned with
different sets of fault parameters as given in Table 5.4.
86
Initial Conditions of the Observers
The initial conditions of the i
th
Kalman filter
{ } { }
0 0
i
x x = (5.1)
are calculated from the static displacement of the uncracked shaft of the 4 element FE
model as shown in Figure 5.14. The mean and covariance matrices at the initial time are
given as

{ } | | ( )
0 0 0
{ },
i
x x P = and
0
[ ] [ ] P I = . (5.2)

Table 5.3: Observer parameters.

Material Properties Geometry
Properties
Time and Load
Parameter
FE Model Parameters Crack Parameters
3 3
7.8 10 / Kg m =

11 2
2.07 10 N/ m E =

10 2
7.9615 10 N/ m G =

s
0.7706 o =

0 . 3 v =

0.8132
d
o =

5
1.3623 10
d
|

=

0 . 7 L m =
0.015 D m =
0 . 0 6 0 0 D D m =

0.0058 thick m =

_ 0 o | =

_ 0.0011 me o kg =

1
16.9073 / sec rad e e = =

_ _ 12 num element o =

_ 720deg num lopm rees =

_ 0 . 0 8 7 5 x c o m =

_ 100 n interval =

_ 1, 2, 3, 4 ec o =

_ 0, _ 5%, a o a m =

Table 5.4: All combinations of fault parameters of the observers.

( _ , _ ) a o ec o 1 2 3 4
0.95 _ a m * * * *
_ a m
* * * *
1.05 _ a m * * * *
0 - - - -

87
Measurement Signals
The measurement signals { }
i
k
y from each i
th
observer are the axial displacement of the
node 1:
1
q and the vertical and horizontal displacements of the second, third, and fourth
nodes:
8
q ,
9
q ,
14
q ,
15
q ,
20
q ,and
21
q . In total, seven signals are measured as shown in
Figure 5.14.
Input Signals
The input is the unbalanced force caused by the eccentric mass, _ me o , located at the
edge of the disk at relative angular position of zero degrees, _ 0 fi shift = , for both the real
system and the observers. The magnitude of the unbalanced force is defined as
{ } ( )
2
/ 2 fext me DD e = (5.3)
and
{ } { } [ ]
k
u F fext = .
.
(5.4)

88

Figure 5.14: Comparison between the indices of displacements at each node of the
12-element shaft model (real system) and 4-element shaft model
(observers).
89
The fault detection and diagnosis process is tested with different real systems in
order to evaluate the performance and capability of the process.
5.3.2 Test Plan
To evaluate the performance and capability of the fault detection and diagnosis process
developed in Chapter 4, a test plan consisting of the five following tests are performed:
1) Test 1: To testing the performance of the fault detection and diagnosis process
for different crack positions and depths including mismatch between the real
system and the of the observers in the filter bank with different SNR.
2) Test 2: To test the effect of increasing the unbalanced mass of the real system
and the observers
3) Test 3: To test the effect of increasing the angular velocity of the real system
and the observers
4) Test 4: To test the capability of the fault detection and diagnosis process for a
propagating crack in the real system
5) Test 5: To test the capability of the fault detection and diagnosis process to
perform with a mismatch between the initial conditions of the real system and
the observers in the filter bank.
We assume some of the conditions for all of the tests which are
1) Angular Velocity of the Observers and the Real System
Observers and the real system run at the same speed.

90
2) Unbalance Forces
The real system is balanced or we know that the position and magnitude of the
unbalance vector. Note: Only static unbalanced forces are considered in this
research
3) Initial conditions
In order to simplify the Test 1-4, we assume that the orientation of the crack in
each observer is at an angle of zero degrees at initial the time with the crack fully
closed. The orientation of the crack in the real system differs from that in each
observer in Test 5.
5.3.3 Sign and Color Conventions for the Performance Scores
The signs and color convention are defined as follows.
The
i
score , corresponding to the i
th
observer, is calculated for each cycle based on
statistical information of the vector of residuals and the output signals from each observer
as discussed in chapter 4.
The maximum of
i
score indicates that the location and crack depth parameters of
the i
th
observer match the behavior of the real system at each cycle the best. The meaning
of the color scheme is given in Table 5.5;
The green color indicates the highest score occurs at the value of
_ ec o corresponding to the value of _ ec m or the physical location of the crack, XCG,
at each value of _ a o .
The pink color indicates the highest scores occur at the value of _ ec o

that does
not correspond to the value of _ ec m or the physical location of the crack, XCG, at
each value of

_ a o .
91
The cyan color indicates the value of _ ec o that should have the highest score at
each value of _ a o .
The values of _ ec o and the corresponding values of _ ec m are shown in
Table 5.4. These color indications are shown in Table 5.5a and in Table 5.5b.
Table 5.5a: Indications of the scores by colors.
Color Indication
Green The highest score occurs at _ ec o corresponding to the value of _ ec m as
shown in table 5.5b at certain crack depth _ a o
Pink The highest score occurs at _ ec o not corresponding to the value of _ ec m
as shown in table 5.5b at certain crack depth _ a o
Cyan The value of _ ec o that supposes to be the corresponding to the value of
_ ec m as shown in table 5.5b at certain crack depth _ a o

Table 5.5b: The corresponding value of _ ec o to the value of _ ec m.
Corresponding
value of
_ ec o
_ ec m
XCG(m)
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.0292
0.1458
0.0875
0.2042
0.2625
0.3208
0.3792
0.4375
0.4958
0.5542
0.6125
0.6708

92
5.4 Test Results
5.4.1 Test 1: To evaluate the effects of SNR and differences crack position and
depth between the real system and the observers.
Testing the fault detection and diagnosis process as implemented in section 5.1 with the
real system assigned with various sets of parameters allows us to evaluate detection and
diagnosis performance. Therefore, evaluating the effects of SNR and differences (5%)
between the crack position and depth of the model (real) system and the observers is the
main objective of this test. All combinations including, SNR and crack position and depth
are shown in Table 5.6 for both the real system and the observers. The score arrays based
on these combinations of fault parameters at various SNR values are shown in Table 5.7.
First, illustrative examples are presented to clarify the idea of the test. Then, the
results of the score arrays and their corresponding surface plots for the case when
_ 0.2 a m D = are shown. The results related to physical meanings of the tests for
_ 0.1 , 0.2 , 0.3 a m D D D = with all combinations of parameters will be given. Finally, the
results of the test and the performance of the fault detection and diagnosis process are
discussed.
The crack positions in the real system and those in the observers used in this test
are shown in Figure 5.15.

93
Table 5.6: Parameters of the real system and observers in test 1.
System
parameter
SNR 100 =
_ 2 360 num lopm =

_ 0 fi shift =
SNR 60 =
_ 2 360 num lopm =

_ 0 fi shift =
_ a m
0.1D 0.2D 0.3D 0.1D 0.2D 0.3D
_ ec m
1, 2,..,12 1, 2,..,12 1, 2,..,12 1, 2,..,12 1, 2,..,12 1, 2,..,12
_ a o
_ a m,
_ 5% a m

0
_ a m,
_ 5% a m

0
_ a m,
_ 5% a m

0
_ a m,
_ 5% a m

0
_ a m,
_ 5% a m

0

_ a m,
_ 5% a m

0
_ ec o
1, 2, 3, 4 ,- 1, 2, 3, 4 ,- 1, 2, 3, 4 ,- 1, 2, 3, 4 ,- 1, 2, 3, 4 ,- 1, 2, 3, 4 ,-

Table 5.7: Score arrays for each observer.
_ a o / _ ec o
1 2 3 4
_ _ a o a m <
(1,1) score (1, 2) score (1,3) score (1, 4) score
_ _ a o a m =
(2,1) score (2, 2) score (2, 3) score (2, 4) score
_ _ a o a m >
(3,1) score (3, 2) score (3, 3) score (3, 4) score
_ 0 a o = (4,1) score (4, 2) score (4, 3) score (4, 4) score

94

Figure 5.15: Crack positions for the real system and the observers.
95
Illustrative Examples
All score arrays and their corresponding surface plots when _ 0.2 a m D = with different
crack positions are shown in illustrative examples 5.4 and 5.5. The Illustrative example
5.6 shows the results of the test when the crack is located near the supports of the shaft in
the real system
Illustrative Example 5.4: The location of the cracks in both real system and the
observers are the same.
The real system has SNR 100 = , _ 8 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = to test the fault detection
and diagnosis process to show the capability of the fault detection and diagnosis process
when crack positions are the same in the real system and observers. The positions of the
crack in the real system and those in the observers are shown in Figure 5.16.
The score arrays for each observer at each cycle and over all periods of time are
shown in Table 5.8. This example represents the case of _ 2, 5, 8,11 ec m = for given
values of _ a m, SNR , and e .

96

Figure 5.16: Crack positions in the real system and in the observer for illustrative
example 5.4.

97
Table 5.8: Score arrays and corresponding surface plots for illustrative example 5.4.
Score Arrays 100 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m = _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
score_cycle1
0.4854 0.6048 0.5292 0.4855
0.4945 0.6408 0.8949 0.4892
0.5152 0.5520 0.5285 0.4949
0.4582 0.4582 0.4582 0.4582
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Global Position of the Crack
Depth of the Crack

score_cycle2
0.4866 0.6108 0.5321 0.4865
0.4971 0.6483 0.9125 0.4927
0.5259 0.5617 0.5282 0.5004
0.4587 0.4587 0.4587 0.4587
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Global Position of the Crack Depth of the Crack

score_all_cycle
0.4860 0.6080 0.5307 0.4860
0.4958 0.6448 0.9040 0.4909
0.5202 0.5566 0.5284 0.4975
0.4584 0.4584 0.4584 0.4584
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

score_all_cycle
0.4860 0.6080 0.5307 0.4860
0.4958 0.6448 0.9040 0.4909
0.5202 0.5566 0.5284 0.4975
0.4584 0.4584 0.4584 0.4584
D
e
p
th
o
f t
h
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

98
Illustrative Example 5.5: Crack positions in real system and the observers are
different
The real system is assigned with SNR 100 = , _ 0.2 a m D =

,

_ 9 ec m= and used to test
the fault detection and diagnosis process to show the capability of the fault and diagnosis
process when the crack positions in the real system and observers are different. The test is
repeated for _ 7 ec m = . The crack positions in the real system and those in the observers
are shown in Figure 5.17.
The score arrays for each observer at each cycle and over all periods of time are
shown in Table 5.9 together with the corresponding surface plots. This example
represents the case when _ 3, 4, 6, 7, 9,10 ec m = for given values of _ a m, SNR , and e .

Figure 5.17: The crack positions in the real system and those in the observer for
illustrative example 5.5.
99
Table 5.9: The scores arrays and corresponding surface plots for illustrative
example 5.5.

Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m=
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m=
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
score_cycle1=

0.5014 0.5767 0.6339 0.4970
0.5409 0.5373 0.6709 0.5062
0.6047 0.5256 0.5081 0.5209
0.4689 0.4689 0.4689 0.4689
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

score_cycle1=

0.4791 0.5257 0.5177 0.4799
0.4866 0.5776 0.6945 0.4880
0.5000 0.6667 0.6400 0.4928
0.4512 0.4512 0.4512 0.4512
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7

score_cycle2=

0.5043 0.5845 0.6336 0.5001
0.5432 0.5433 0.6782 0.5097
0.6189 0.5326 0.5122 0.5250
0.4714 0.4714 0.4714 0.4714
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

score_cycle2=

0.4802 0.5285 0.5201 0.4808
0.4886 0.5845 0.7006 0.4894
0.5020 0.6767 0.6425 0.4973
0.4517 0.4517 0.4517 0.4517
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75

score_all_cycle =

0.5029 0.5805 0.6338 0.4986
0.5421 0.5403 0.6745 0.5080
0.6119 0.5290 0.5101 0.5230
0.4702 0.4702 0.4702 0.4702
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

score_all_cycle =

0.4796 0.5271 0.5189 0.4803
0.4876 0.5810 0.6975 0.4887
0.5010 0.6715 0.6412 0.4949
0.4514 0.4514 0.4514 0.4514
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7

score_all_cycle =

0.5029 0.5805 0.6338 0.4986
0.5421 0.5403 0.6745 0.5080
0.6119 0.5290 0.5101 0.5230
0.4702 0.4702 0.4702 0.4702 Global Position of the Crack
Depth of the C
rack
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10-3

score_all_cycle =

0.4796 0.5271 0.5189 0.4803
0.4876 0.5810 0.6975 0.4887
0.5010 0.6715 0.6412 0.4949
0.4514 0.4514 0.4514 0.4514
D
epth of th
e C
ra
ck
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

100
Illustrative Example 5.6: Crack Position at Boundary Elements
The real system with SNR 100 = , _ 12 ec m = , and _ 0.2 a m D = is used to evaluate the
fault detection and diagnosis process .
The crack positions in the real system and those in the observers are shown in
Figure 5.18. The score arrays for each observer at each cycle and over all time periods are
shown in Table 5.10 together with the corresponding surface plots.
This example represents the case with _ 1,12 ec m = for different values of _ a m,
SNR , and e.

Figure 5.18: The crack positions in the real system and those in the observer for
illustrative example 5.6.

101
Table 5.10: Score arrays and corresponding surface plots for illustrative example 5.6.

Score Arrays
SNR=100, ec_m=12, a=0.2D
Surface Plots
score_cycle1=

0.6483 0.4624 0.4595 0.6911
0.6148 0.4521 0.4516 0.6371
0.5938 0.4499 0.4503 0.6005
0.8366 0.8366 0.8366 0.8366

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack

score_cycle2=

0.6527 0.4642 0.4627 0.6936
0.6229 0.4558 0.4561 0.6323
0.6129 0.4553 0.4560 0.5870
0.8444 0.8444 0.8444 0.8444

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

score_all_cycle =

0.6505 0.4632 0.4610 0.6924
0.6187 0.4538 0.4537 0.6346
0.6024 0.4524 0.4530 0.5931
0.8406 0.8406 0.8406 0.8406

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack

score_all_cycle =

0.6505 0.4632 0.4610 0.6924
0.6187 0.4538 0.4537 0.6346
0.6024 0.4524 0.4530 0.5931
0.8406 0.8406 0.8406 0.8406

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

102
Simulation Results of Test 1
The simulation results of test 1 with the parameters assigned as in Table 5.6 are as
follows.
Score Arrays and Corresponding Surface Plots
Score arrays of observers corresponding to all of the different sets of parameters of the
real system are given in appendix B1. However, we would like to show the complete
score arrays of one case with parameters _ 0.2 a m D = , _ 1, 2,..12 ec m = , and SNR 100 =

in order to provide a clear picture of this test. The colors of the score indicate the highest
score as detailed in Table 5.5b.
The score arrays corresponding to the case where crack position for the real
system and the observers is the same e.g. _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m =

is presented in Table 5.11a
and the surface plots are shown in Figure 5.19a.
The score arrays corresponding to the case when crack position in the real system
and the observers is the same e.g. _ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= is presented in Table 5.11b and the
surface plots are shown in Figure 5.19b.
The score arrays corresponding to the case where the crack position in the real
system and the observers is the same e.g. _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = are presented in Table 5.11c
and the surface plots are shown in Figure 5.19c.
For the cases _ 0.1 a m D = and _ 0.3 a m D = , the score arrays and the
corresponding surface plots are shown in appendix B1.

103
Table 5.11a: Score arrays for each observer with SNR 100 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m = , and
_ 0.2 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,

_ 2 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,

_ 8 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,

_ 11 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
score_cycle1=
0.7262 0.5515 0.5551 0.6295
0.9200 0.4902 0.6002 0.6446
0.7842 0.4767 0.4883 0.6543
0.6209 0.6209 0.6209 0.6209
score_cycle2=
0.7281 0.5487 0.5538 0.6248
0.9083 0.4897 0.5940 0.6400
0.7700 0.4783 0.4871 0.6472
0.6157 0.6157 0.6157 0.6157
score_all_cycle =
0.7271 0.5501 0.5545 0.6272
0.9142 0.4899 0.5970 0.6424
0.7771 0.4774 0.4871 0.6507
0.6183 0.6183 0.6183 0.6183
score_cycle1=
0.4874 0.5311 0.6043 0.4871
0.4950 0.9076 0.6453 0.4969
0.5041 0.5271 0.5517 0.5163
0.4598 0.4598 0.4598 0.4598
score_cycle2 =
0.4860 0.5284 0.5995 0.4856
0.4937 0.8948 0.6409 0.4957
0.5028 0.5237 0.5560 0.5218
0.4581 0.4581 0.4581 0.4581
score_all_cycle =
0.4867 0.5297 0.6019 0.4864
0.4943 0.9013 0.6431 0.4963
0.5034 0.5253 0.5536 0.5187
0.4589 0.4589 0.4589 0.4589
score_cycle1=
0.4854 0.6048 0.5292 0.4855
0.4945 0.6408 0.8949 0.4892
0.5152 0.5520 0.5285 0.4949
0.4582 0.4582 0.4582 0.4582
score_cycle2=
0.4866 0.6108 0.5321 0.4865
0.4971 0.6483 0.9125 0.4927
0.5259 0.5617 0.5282 0.5004
0.4587 0.4587 0.4587 0.4587
score_all_cycle =
0.4860 0.6080 0.5307 0.4860
0.4958 0.6448 0.9040 0.4909
0.5202 0.5566 0.5284 0.4975
0.4584 0.4584 0.4584 0.4584
score_cycle1=
0.6277 0.5576 0.5488 0.7326
0.6552 0.6030 0.4891 0.7371
0.6579 0.4921 0.4762 0.6227
0.6361 0.6361 0.6361 0.6361
score_cycle2=
0.6226 0.5521 0.5472 0.7416
0.6418 0.5931 0.4899 0.9268
0.6525 0.4893 0.4795 0.7786
0.6226 0.6226 0.6226 0.6226
score_all_cycle =
0.6251 0.5548 0.5481 0.7362
0.6485 0.5980 0.4895 0.7745
0.6554 0.4904 0.4777 0.6414
0.6293 0.6293 0.6293 0.6293

Table 5.11b: Score arrays for each observer with SNR 100 = , _ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and
_ 0.2 a m D = .

Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,

_ 3 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,

_ 6 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,

_ 9 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
score_cycle1=
0.5350 0.6295 0.5664 0.6023
0.5593 0.5398 0.5123 0.5769
0.6169 0.4931 0.5629 0.5459
0.4986 0.4986 0.4986 0.4986
score_cycle2=
0.5317 0.6296 0.5664 0.5919
0.5553 0.5390 0.5109 0.5762
0.6198 0.4934 0.5773 0.5420
0.4957 0.4957 0.4957 0.4957
score_all_cycle =
0.5333 0.6295 0.5663 0.5970
0.5573 0.5394 0.5116 0.5766
0.6180 0.4932 0.5695 0.5439
0.4971 0.4971 0.4971 0.4971
score_cycle1=
0.4768 0.5143 0.5216 0.4765
0.4848 0.6865 0.5740 0.4845
0.4938 0.6330 0.6536 0.4920
0.4481 0.4481 0.4481 0.4481
score_cycle2=
0.4795 0.5177 0.5249 0.4792
0.4878 0.6991 0.5798 0.4877
0.4972 0.6376 0.6688 0.4975
0.4505 0.4505 0.4505 0.4505
score_all_cycle =
0.4781 0.5159 0.5232 0.4778
0.4862 0.6926 0.5768 0.4860
0.4954 0.6352 0.6609 0.4945
0.4493 0.4493 0.4493 0.4493
score_cycle1=
0.5014 0.5767 0.6339 0.4970
0.5409 0.5373 0.6709 0.5062
0.6047 0.5256 0.5081 0.5209
0.4689 0.4689 0.4689 0.4689
score_cycle2=
0.5043 0.5845 0.6336 0.5001
0.5432 0.5433 0.6782 0.5097
0.6189 0.5326 0.5122 0.5250
0.4714 0.4714 0.4714 0.4714
score_all_cycle =
0.5029 0.5805 0.6338 0.4986
0.5421 0.5403 0.6745 0.5080
0.6119 0.5290 0.5101 0.5230
0.4702 0.4702 0.4702 0.4702
score_cycle1=
0.7621 0.5159 0.5023 0.8183
0.6269 0.4728 0.4713 0.7344
0.5164 0.4558 0.4569 0.6783
0.8910 0.8910 0.8910 0.8910
score_cycle2=
0.7578 0.5140 0.5023 0.8132
0.6919 0.4735 0.4722 0.7283
0.6366 0.4584 0.4589 0.6708
0.8808 0.8808 0.8808 0.8808
score_all_cycle =
0.7599 0.5148 0.5022 0.8157
0.6488 0.4729 0.4716 0.7313
0.5229 0.4569 0.4577 0.6744
0.8858 0.8858 0.8858 0.8858

104
Table 5.11c: Score arrays for each observer with

SNR 100 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m = , and
_ 0.2 a m D = .

Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
score_cycle1
0.8045 0.5021 0.5154 0.6655
0.6042 0.4695 0.4728 0.5614
0.5180 0.4545 0.4559 0.4928
0.8821 0.8821 0.8821 0.8821
score_cycle2
0.8122 0.5048 0.5174 0.7730
0.7208 0.4736 0.4755 0.6997
0.6589 0.4598 0.4600 0.6412
0.8922 0.8922 0.8922 0.8922
score_all_cycle
0.8085 0.5034 0.5162 0.6894
0.6248 0.4713 0.4739 0.5743
0.5330 0.4569 0.4577 0.5009
0.8873 0.8873 0.8873 0.8873
score_cycle1
0.4980 0.6346 0.5806 0.5021
0.5078 0.6794 0.5396 0.5409
0.5230 0.5098 0.5261 0.6082
0.4690 0.4690 0.4690 0.4690
score_cycle2
0.4964 0.6248 0.5746 0.5000
0.5059 0.6671 0.5353 0.5367
0.5206 0.5076 0.5285 0.5977
0.4674 0.4674 0.4674 0.4674
score_all_cycle
0.4972 0.6297 0.5776 0.5010
0.5068 0.6732 0.5374 0.5388
0.5218 0.5087 0.5272 0.6028
0.4682 0.4682 0.4682 0.4682
score_cycle1
0.4791 0.5257 0.5177 0.4799
0.4866 0.5776 0.6945 0.4880
0.5000 0.6667 0.6400 0.4928
0.4512 0.4512 0.4512 0.4512
score_cycle2
0.4802 0.5285 0.5201 0.4808
0.4886 0.5845 0.7006 0.4894
0.5020 0.6767 0.6425 0.4973
0.4517 0.4517 0.4517 0.4517
score_all_cycle
0.4796 0.5271 0.5189 0.4803
0.4876 0.5810 0.6975 0.4887
0.5010 0.6715 0.6412 0.4949
0.4514 0.4514 0.4514 0.4514
score_cycle1
0.6125 0.5724 0.6385 0.5378
0.5856 0.5152 0.5415 0.5496
0.5506 0.5635 0.4929 0.6384
0.5028 0.5028 0.5028 0.5028
score_cycle2
0.6039 0.5641 0.6284 0.5339
0.5776 0.5112 0.5371 0.5584
0.5449 0.5797 0.4924 0.6325
0.4981 0.4981 0.4981 0.4981
score_all_cycle =
0.6082 0.5682 0.6334 0.5358
0.5815 0.5131 0.5393 0.5531
0.5477 0.5704 0.4926 0.6355
0.5004 0.5004 0.5004 0.5004

105
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,

_ 2 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,

_ 5 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,

_ 8 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,

_ 11 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

Figure 5.19a: Surface plots for each observer withSNR 100 = ,

_ 2,5,8,11 ec m= ,
and _ 0.2 a m D = .

106
Surface Plots
100 SNR= ,
_ 3 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR= ,
_ 6 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR= ,
_ 9 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Global Position of the
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Depth of the Crack 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Global Position of the Cra
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Global Positio
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7

0
0.2
0.4
0.
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Global Position
Depth of the Crack
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

Figure 5.19b: Surface plots for each observer with SNR 100 = , _ 3,6,9,12 ec m= ,
and _ 0.2 a m D = .

107
Surface Plots
100 SNR= ,
_ 1 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR=
,
_ 4 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR= ,
_ 7 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m = ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Global Position of t
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Depth of the Crack
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

Figure 5.19c: Surface plots for each observer with SNR 100 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= , and
_ 0.2 a m D = .

108
We can translate the score arrays above to corresponding predictions of the
occurrence, position, and depth of a crack as shown in Table 5.13 for the case of
_ 0.2 a m D = . Table 5.12 and Table 5.14 show the same information for the cases when
_ 0.1 a m D = and _ 0.3 a m D = respectively. The sign conventions for these tables are as
follows.
highest score or peak score corresponds to the position and depth of the crack
in the real system,
bec
boundary element effect, cannot detect the crack,
(peak) highest score at predicted crack depth, _ a o,
* surface plot is convex with correct peak,
> crack depth prediction is greater than the real system,
<crack depth prediction is lesser than the real system.
We categorize the prediction provided by the fault detection and diagnosis
process for the cracked rotor vibration system as follows.
1) Prediction Case 1: correct crack depth and position (cd,cp)
2) Prediction Case 2: incorrect crack depth but correct crack position (icd,cp)
3) Prediction Case 3: correct crack depth but incorrect crack position (cd,icp)
4) Prediction Case 4: incorrect crack depth and position (icd,icp)
5) Prediction of Case 5: missed crack detection (wuncr)

109
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
1
2
:

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
,

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k

w
h
e
n

_
1
,
2
,
.
.
.
.
,
1
2
e
c
m
=
,

a
n
d
_
0
.
1
a
m
D
=
.

S
N
R
=
1
0
0
,

a
_
m
=
0
.
1
D

(
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
)

S
N
R
=
6
0
,
a
_
m
=
0
.
1
D

a
_
o
<
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
a
_
m

a
_
o
>
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
0

a
_
o
<
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
a
_
m

a
_
o
>
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
0

e
c
_
m

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

(
_
,
_
)
a
o
e
c
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

(
a
_
o
,
e
c
_
o
)

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

1
.

<
,

(
0
.
0
5
D
,
1
)

1

P
e
a
k

1

1

(
0
.
1
D
,
1
)

<
,

(
0
.
0
5
D
,
1
)

1

(
p
e
a
k
)

1

1

2
.

,
(
0
.
1
D

,
1
)
,

2

1
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
1
D

,
1
)

,
(
0
.
1
D

,
1
)
,

2

1
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

3
.

>

,
(
0
.
1
5
D
,
1
)

2

1

1
(
p
e
a
k
)

(
0
.
1
D
,
1
)

>

,

(
0
.
1
5
D
,
1
)

2

1

1
(
P
e
a
k
)

4
.

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)
*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)
*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

5
.

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)
*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)
*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

6
.

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)
*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)
*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

7
.

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

(
0
.
1
D
,
3
)

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
2
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

8
.

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
3
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
1
D
,
3
)

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
3
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

9
.

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
3
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
1
D
,
3
)

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
3
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

1
0
.

>

,
(
0
.
1
5
D
,
4
)

3

4

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

(
0
.
1
D
,
4
)

,
(
0
.
0
5
D

,
4
)

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

4

1
1
.

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
4
)

3

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

(
0
.
1
D
,
4
)

,
(
0
.
1
D
,
4
)

3

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

1
2
.

<

,

(
0
.
1
5
D
,
4
)

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

1

4

<
,
,

(
0
.
1
5
D
,
4
)

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

1

=

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

o
r

p
e
a
k

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
e

a
p
p
e
a
r
s

a
t

t
h
e

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
,
b
e
c

=

e
f
f
e
c
t

f
r
o
m

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
a
n
n
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k
(
p
e
a
k
)

r
e
f
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

a
p
p
e
a
r
i
n
g

a
t

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k
,
_
a
o
.

r
e
f
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
l
o
t

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
e

a
r
r
a
y

i
s

c
o
n
v
e
x

w
i
t
h

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

p
e
a
k
.
,

>

r
e
f
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
s

t
h
e

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k

i
s

d
e
e
p
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
a
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
,

<
r
e
f
e
r
s

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
s

t
h
e

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k

i
s

s
h
a
l
l
o
w
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
a
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
.

110
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
1
3
:

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
,

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k
,

w
h
e
n

_
1
,
2
,
.
.
.
.
,
1
2
e
c
m
=
,

a
n
d
_
0
.
2
a
m
D
=
.

S
N
R
=
1
0
0
,

a
_
m
=
0
.
2
D

S
N
R
=
6
0
,
a
_
m
=
0
.
2
D

a
_
o
<
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
a
_
m

a
_
o
>
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
0

a
_
o
<
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
a
_
m

a
_
o
>
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
0

e
c
_
m

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

(
a
_
o
,
e
c
_
o
)

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

1
.

(
0
,
-
)

b
e
c
1

1

1

u
n
c
r
(
p
e
a
k
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
1
)

(
0
,
-
)

b
e
c
1

1

1

u
n
c
r
(
p
e
a
k
)

2
.

(
0
.
2
D
,
1
)

1

1
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
2
D
,
1
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
1
)

1

1
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

3
.

<
,
2
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

1

(
0
.
2
D
,
1
)

<

,

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

1

4
.

(
0
.
2
D
,
2
)

2

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

(
0
.
2
D
,
2
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
2
)
2

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

5
.

(
0
.
2
D
,
2
)
*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

3

(
0
.
2
D
,
2
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
2
)
*
3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

3

6
.

(
0
.
2
D
,
2
)
*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

3

(
0
.
2
D
,
2
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
2
)
*
3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

3

7
.

(
0
.
2
D
,
3
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

(
0
.
2
D
,
3
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
3
)
*
2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

8
.

(
0
.
2
D
,
3
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

(
0
.
2
D
,
3
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
3
)
*
2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

9
.

(
0
.
2
D
,
3
)
*
3

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
2
D
,
3
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
3
)
*
3

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

1
0
.

>
,

(
0
.
2
5
D
,
3
)
*
3

1

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
4
)

>
,
3
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

4

1
1
.

(
0
.
2
D
,
4
)

4

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
2
D
,
4
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
4
)
4

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

1
2
.

(
0
,
-
)

b
e
c
4

4

4

u
n
c
r
(
p
e
a
k
)

(
0
.
2
D
,
4
)

(
0
,
b
e
c
4

4

4

u
n
c
r
(
p
e
a
k
)

=

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

o
r

p
e
a
k

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
e

a
p
p
e
a
r
s

a
t

t
h
e

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
,
b
e
c

=

e
f
f
e
c
t

f
r
o
m

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
a
n
n
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k
(
p
e
a
k
)

r
e
f
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

a
p
p
e
a
r
i
n
g

a
t

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k
,
_
a
o
.

r
e
f
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
l
o
t

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
e

a
r
r
a
y

i
s

c
o
n
v
e
x
.

w
i
t
h

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

p
e
a
k
,

>

r
e
f
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
s

t
h
e

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k

i
s

d
e
e
p
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
a
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
,

<
r
e
f
e
r
s

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
s

t
h
e

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k

i
s

s
h
a
l
l
o
w
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
a
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
.

111
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
1
4
:

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
,

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k
,

w
h
e
n

_
1
,
2
,
.
.
.
.
,
1
2
e
c
m
=
,

a
n
d
_
0
.
3
a
m
D
=
.

S
N
R
=
1
0
0
,

a
_
m
=
0
.
3
D

S
N
R
=
6
0
,
a
_
m
=
0
.
3
D

a
_
o
<
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
a
_
m

a
_
o
>
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
0

a
_
o
<
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
a
_
m

a
_
o
>
a
_
m

a
_
o
=
0

e
c
_
m

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

(
a
_
o
,
e
c
_
o
)

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

e
c
_
o

1

.
(
0
,
-
)

b
e
c

1

1

1

p
e
a
k

(
0
.
3
D
,
1
)

,
(
0
,
-
)

b
e
c

1

1

1

p
e
a
k

2

,
(
0
.
3
D
,
1
)

1

1
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
3
D
,
1
)

,
(
0
.
3
D
,
1
)

1

1
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

3

<

,

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

3

(
0
.
3
D
,
1
)

<

,

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

3

4

<

,
(
0
.
2
5
D
,
2
)

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

4

(
0
.
3
D
,
2
)

<

,
(
0
.
2
5
D
,
2
)

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

4

5

,
(
0
.
3
D
,
2
)

*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

3

(
0
.
3
D
,
2
)

,
(
0
3
D
,
2
)

*

3

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

3

6

<

,

(
0
.
2
5
D
,
2
)

3

2

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

(
0
.
3
D
,
2
)

>

,

(
0
.
3
5
D
,
2
)

3

2

2

7

>

,

(
0
.
3
5
D
,
3
)

2

3

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

(
0
.
3
D
,
3
)

>

,

(
0
.
3
5
D
,
3
)

2

3

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

8

,
(
0
.
3
D
,
3
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

(
0
.
3
D
,
3
)

,
(
0
.
3
D
,
3
)
*

2

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

9

<

,
(
0
.
2
5
D
,
3
)

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

3

1

(
0
.
3
D
,
3
)

<

,
(
0
.
2
5
D
,
3
)

3
(
p
e
a
k
)

3

1

1
0

3

1
(
p
e
a
k
)

2

(
0
.
3
D
,
4
)

3

1

2
(
p
e
a
k
)

1
1

,

(
0
.
3
D
,
4
)

4

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

1

(
0
.
3
D
,
4
)

,
(
0
.
3
D
,
4
)

4

4
(
p
e
a
k
)

4

1
2

(
0
,
-
)

b
e
c

4

4

1

p
e
a
k

(
0
.
3
D
,
4
)

(
0
,
-
)

b
e
c

4

4

1

p
e
a
k

=

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

o
r

p
e
a
k

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
e

a
p
p
e
a
r
s

a
t

t
h
e

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
,
b
e
c

=

e
f
f
e
c
t

f
r
o
m

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
a
n
n
o
t

d
e
t
e
c
t

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k
(
p
e
a
k
)

r
e
f
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

a
p
p
e
a
r
i
n
g

a
t

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k
,
_
a
o
.

r
e
f
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
l
o
t

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
e

a
r
r
a
y

i
s

c
o
n
v
e
x

w
i
t
h

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

p
e
a
k
.
,

>

r
e
f
e
r
s

t
o

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
s

t
h
e

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k

i
s

d
e
e
p
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
a
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
,

<
r
e
f
e
r
s

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
s

t
h
e

d
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
a
c
k

i
s

s
h
a
l
l
o
w
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
a
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m
.

112
The summary of the predictions for cases 1-5 from Tables 5.12, 5.13, and 5.14 are
summarized in Table 5.15.
Table 5.15: Summary of the Predictions.
Prediction Case
Number of
Predictions
Prediction Case 1: correct crack depth and position (cd,cp) 40
Prediction Case 2: incorrect crack depth, correct crack position
(icd,cp)
16
Prediction Case 3: correct crack depth, incorrect crack position
(cd,icp)
1
Prediction Case 4: incorrect crack depth and position (icd,icp) 7
Prediction Case 5: incorrect prediction as uncracked (wuncr) 8

113
5.4.1.1 Discussion of Test 1
Discussion 1: Performance of the Fault Detection and Diagnosis Process
Evaluation of the performance of the fault detection and diagnosis process consisted of
two performance measures, detection of the occurrence of a crack and the diagnosis of
the crack, i.e. prediction of crack depth and position.
1) Crack Detection
Based on the information presented in Table 5.13,Table 5.12, and Table 5.14, the crack
detection performance is determined from the total number of test cases and the number
of missed crack detections (case 5-wuncr) where the fault detection and diagnosis process
cannot detect the occurrence of a crack when the real system has a crack. The number of
correct crack detections is calculated by subtracting the number of missed detections
cases from the total number of test cases.
The results are presented as in Table 5.16 and the ratio between correct
predictions and incorrect predictions is presented in Figure 5.20.

114
Table 5.16: Crack detection performance.
Total Number of Cases 72 100%
Number of Crack Detections 64 88.89%
Number of Missed Detections (wuncr) 8 11.11%

Performanceofthecrack
detection
NumberofCrack
Detection
NumberofPrediction
Case5(wuncr)

Figure 5.20: Ratio of correct crack detections and missed crack detections.

115
2) Crack diagnosis: crack position and depth
2.1) Performance of crack diagnosis for location and depth is determined from the
number of prediction in Case 1 (cd,cp) and the total number of test cases as shown
in Table 5.17 and the diagram in Figure 5.21.
2.2) Performance of crack localization is determined from the number of prediction of
correct crack position, and the total number of test cases. The number of predictions
of correct position is calculated by summing the number of prediction in Case1
(cd,cp) and the number of prediction in Case 2 (icd,cp), refer to Table 5.18 and
Figure 5.22.
2.3) Performance of crack depth prediction is determined from the number of correct
crack depth predictions, and the total number of test cases. The number of correct
crack depth predictions is calculated by summing the number of predictions in
Case1 (cd,cp) and the number of predictions in Case 3 (cd,icp) refer to Table 5.19
and Figure 5.23.
2.4) The values of _ ec m, SNR, _ a m, and, the predicted value of _ ec o

and _ a o ,
corresponding to incorrect prediction for Cases 2, 3, 4, and 5 is given in Table 5.20-
Table 5.23 respectively. In these tables the correct and incorrect fault parameters
are provided.

116
Table 5.17: Performance of crack diagnosis for location and depth.
Total Number of Test Cases 72 100%
Number of Prediction in Case1 (cd,cp) 40 56.94%

PerformanceofDiagnosisof
LocationandDepthoftheCrack
TotalNumber ofTested
Cases
NumberofPrediction
Case1(cd,cp)

Figure 5.21: Ratio of correct diagnosis and total number of test cases.

117
Table 5.18: Performance of crack localization.
Number of Correct Position Predictions 56 81.94%

PerformanceofLocalizationoftheCrack
TotalNumberofTested
Cases
TotalNumberofPredictions
ofCorrectPosition

Figure 5.22: Ratio of correct localization and total number of cases.

118
Table 5.19: Performance of crack depth prediction.
Number of Correct Depth Predictions 41 58.33%

PerformanceofDepthPredictionof
theCrack
TotalNumberofTested
Cases
NumberofCorrectDepth
Prediction

Figure 5.23: Ratio of correct depth prediction and total number of cases.

119
Table 5.20: Values of ( _ , _ ) a m ec m and predicted ( _ , _ ) a o ec o for case 2.
Prediction for
Case 2 (icd,cp)
_ a m _ ec m
SNR
*
( _ , _ ) a o ec o ( _ , _ )
r
a o ec o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.1D
0.1D
0.1D
0.1D
0.1D
0.1D
0.1D
0.2D
0.3D
0.3D
0.3D
0.3D
0.3D
0.3D
0.3D
0.3D
3
12
1
10
3
12
1
10
6
9
4
7
6
9
4
7
100
100
100
100
60
60
60
100
100
100
100
100
60
60
60
60
(0.15D,1)
(0.05D,4)
(0.05D,1)
(0.15D,4)
(0.15D,1)
(0.05D,4)
(0.05D,1)
(0.25D,4)
(0.35D,2)
(0.25D,3)
(0.25D,2)
(0.35D,3)
(0.35D,2)
(0.25D,3)
(0.25D,2)
(0.35D,3)
(0.1D,1)
(0.1D,4)
(0.1D,1)
(0.1D,1)
(0.1D,4)
(0.1D,1)
(0.1D,1)
(0.2D,4)
(0.3D,2)
(0.3D,3)
(0.3D,2)
(0.3D,3)
(0.3D,2)
(0.3D,3)
(0.3D,2)
(0.3D,3)
*
( _ , _ ) a o ec o = the fault parameters given by the fault detection and diagnosis process.,

( _ , _ )
r
a o ec o =
the correct fault parameters.

Table 5.21: Values of ( _ , _ ) a m ec m and predicted ( _ , _ ) a o ec o of prediction case3.
Prediction for
Case 3 (cd,icp)
_ a m _ ec m
SNR
*
( _ , _ ) a o ec o ( _ , _ )
r
a o ec o
1 0.3D 10 100 (0.3D,1) (0.3D,4)
*
( _ , _ ) a o ec o = the fault parameters given by the fault detection and diagnosis process., ( _ , _ )
r
a o ec o =

Table 5.22: Values of ( _ , _ ) a m ec m and predicted ( _ , _ ) a o ec o of prediction case4.
Prediction
for Case 4
(icd,icp)
_ ec m _ a m
SNR
*
( _ , _ ) a o ec o ( _ , _ )
r
a o ec o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
3
3
10
3
3
10
0.1D
0.2D
0.2D
0.2D
0.3D
0.3D
0.3D
100
100
60
60
100
60
60
(0.05D,3)
(0.15D,2)
(0.15D,2)
(0.15D,3)
(0.35D,3)
(0.25D,4)
(0.25D,3)
(0.1D,4)
(0.2D,1)
(0.2D,1)
(0.2D,4)
(0.3D,1)
(0.3D,1)
(0.3D,4)
*
( _ , _ ) a o ec o = the fault parameters given by the fault detection and diagnosis process.,

( _ , _ )
r
a o ec o =

120
Table 5.23: Values of ( _ , _ ) a m ec m and predicted ( _ , _ ) a o ec o for case 5.
Prediction for
Case 5 (wuncr)
_ a m _ ec m
SNR
*
( _ , _ ) a o ec o ( _ , _ )
r
a o ec o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.2D
0.2D
0.2D
0.2D
0.3D
0.3D
0.3D
0.3D
12
1
12
1
12
1
12
1
100
100
60
60
100
100
60
60
(0D,1)
(0D,1)
(0D,1)
(0D,1)
(0D,1)
(0D,1)
(0D,1)
(0D,1)
(0.2D,4)
(0.2D,1)
(0.2D,4)
(0.2D,1)
(0.3D,4)
(0.3D,1)
(0.3D,1)
(0.3D,4)
*
( _ , _ ) a o ec o = the fault parameters given by the fault detection and diagnosis process., ( _ , _ )
r
a o ec o =

5.4.1.1.1 Discussion 2: Analysis of the Predictions of the Fault Detection and
Diagnosis Process
Based on information provided in Table 5.12, Table 5.13, and Table 5.14 the predictions
show that
1) Crack Location: _ 1,12 ec m =
The limitation of the fault detection and diagnosis process to detect and diagnose a
crack when the crack is located near the boundary elements as seen, when _ 1 ec m=
and _ 12 ec m= for the real system with crack depth, _ 0.2 a m D = , and
_ 0.3 a m D = . With crack depth, _ 0.1 a m D = , it is possible to predict the location
and the depth of a crack correctly at _ 1 ec m=

and _ 12 ec m=

,but the scores
indicating the uncracked behavior are high. Considering the surface plots of the
score, crack prediction when the crack is located near to the boundary elements is
not reliable.
2) Crack Location: _ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11 ec m =
For the other values of _ ec m

apart from _ 1 ec m = and, _ 12 ec m = , the
performance results predicted based on the scores for different values of _ a m with
121
60,100 SNR = are discussed later. The predictions of crack location and depth are
symmetric along the shaft.
2.1) _ 0.1 a m D =
- For _ 2 ec m = , _ 0.1 a m D = , and ec=11, the process predicts _ ec o
corresponding to _ ec m, and predicts the correct crack depth for
100, 60 SNR = .
- For _ 3,10 ec m = with 100 SNR =

and _ 3 ec m = with 60 SNR = , the
process gives correct crack location, but predicts a crack depth, _ a o,
which is greater than _ a m for both 100, 60 SNR = . For _ 10 ec m = with
60 SNR = the process cannot correctly determine the crack location.
Also, the process predicts crack depth, _ a o, which is less than _ a m.
- For _ 4 ec m = and _ 9 ec m = , the process predicts _ ec o corresponding
to _ ec m, and predicts the correct crack depth for 100, 60 SNR = . The
shapes of the surface plots are convex.
- For _ 6 ec m =

and _ 7 ec m = , the process predicts _ ec o corresponding
122
2.2) _ 0.2 a m D =
- For _ 2 ec m = and ec=11, the process predicts _ ec o corresponding to
_ ec m, and predicts the correct crack depth for both 60,100 SNR = .
- For _ 3 ec m = with

60 SNR = and _ 3,10 ec m = , with 60 SNR = , the
process cannot predict correct crack location and depth, _ a o. However,
for _ 3 ec m =

with 100 SNR = , the process predicts crack depth, _ a o,
which is greater than _ a m.
- For _ 6 ec m =

2.3) _ 0.3 a m D =
- For _ 2 ec m = and _ 11 ec m = , the process predicts _ ec o
corresponding to _ ec m, and predict the correct crack depth for both
60,100 SNR = .
- For _ 3 ec m = and _ 10 ec m = , the process cannot predict correct crack
location and depth, _ a o for both 60,100 SNR = .
123
- For _ 4 ec m =

to _ ec m, predicts crack depth , _ a o, which is less than _ a m for both
100, 60 SNR = . The shapes of the surface plots are convex.
- For _ 6 ec m =

to _ ec m, predicts crack depth, _ a o, which is less than _ a m for both
100, 60 SNR = . The shapes of the surface plots are convex.
3) Convex and non convex surface plots
3.1) _ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ec m =
These surface plots are convex. Therefore, even though the first set of fault
parameters assigned to the observers does not provide a correct diagnosis, the
fault parameters can be updated using an optimization technique to search for
the correct crack depth and location.
3.2)
_ 1, 2, 3,10,11,12 ec m =

These surface plots are not convex so if we start at an initial set of fault
parameters that are far from the highest point of the score, using an
optimization method to update the fault parameters may only give a local
maximum score.
124
4) Minimum crack depth
As we can see in the above test results, the fault detection and diagnosis process can
detect and diagnose a crack at the minimum depth of 10%of the shaft diameter. The
data corresponding to _ 0.1 a m D = is the most reliable and consistent.
5) Signal to Noise Ratio, SNR
The above result show that the process performs well when 60 SNR >
.
5.4.2 Test 2 : Testing the effects of the unbalance mass
Test 2: Examines the effect of increasing the unbalance mass equally in both the real
system and in the observers. The unbalanced mass of the real system, me , and of the
observer, _ me o , are varied as a multiple of
1
0.0011 me kg = . We use only the case when
the crack is located at the 8
th
element of the 12-element model with crack depth
_ 0.3 a m D = . Table 5.24 shows the set of parameters of the real system and the
observers for this test.
Table 5.24: Parameters assigned in test 2.
System
parameters
SNR 100 = ,

_ 2 360 num lopm =

_ 0 fi shift = ,

_ me me o =
_ a m
0.3D
_ ec m 8
me
1
me
1
2me
1
10me
1
100me
_ a o
_ a m
, _ 5% a m , 0
_ ec o
1, 2,3, 4,- 1, 2,3, 4,- 1, 2,3, 4,- 1, 2,3, 4,-
_ me o
1
me
1
2me
1
10me
1
100me

125
5.4.2.1 Results for Test 2
The score arrays with different values of unbalanced mass _ me me o = are provided in
Table 5.25. The surface plots of the score arrays are presented in Figure 5.24. Detailed
results for test 2 are shown in appendix B2.

126
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
2
5
:

S
c
o
r
e

a
r
r
a
y
s

f
o
r

t
e
s
t

2
.

S
c
o
r
e

A
r
r
a
y
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
1
m
e
=
=

S
c
o
r
e

A
r
r
a
y
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
2
m
e
=
=

S
c
o
r
e

A
r
r
a
y
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
1
0
m
e
=
=

S
c
o
r
e

A
r
r
a
y
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
1
0
0
m
e
=
=

S
c
o
r
e

A
r
r
a
y
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
1
0
0
0
m
e
=
=

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
1
=

0
.
4
8
0
9

0
.
6
0
4
4

0
.
5
3
3
0

0
.
4
7
9
1

0
.
4
8
7
0

0
.
6
4
1
2

0
.
8
8
4
5

0
.
4
8
2
7

0
.
4
9
4
8

0
.
5
4
1
3

0
.
5
3
8
0

0
.
4
8
4
4

0
.
4
3
5
0

0
.
4
3
5
0

0
.
4
3
5
0

0
.
4
3
5
0

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
2
=

0
.
4
8
4
7

0
.
6
0
7
6

0
.
5
3
8
8

0
.
4
8
3
9

0
.
4
9
1
4

0
.
6
4
8
9

0
.
8
9
7
6

0
.
4
8
8
8

0
.
5
0
0
0

0
.
5
4
5
8

0
.
5
4
0
7

0
.
4
9
1
5

0
.
4
3
7
4

0
.
4
3
7
4

0
.
4
3
7
4

0
.
4
3
7
4

s
c
o
r
e
_
a
l
l
_
c
y
c
l
e

=

0
.
4
8
2
7

0
.
6
0
6
0

0
.
5
3
5
9

0
.
4
8
1
4

0
.
4
8
9
2

0
.
6
4
5
0

0
.
8
9
1
1

0
.
4
8
5
5

0
.
4
9
7
3

0
.
5
4
3
5

0
.
5
3
9
3

0
.
4
8
7
7

0
.
4
3
6
2

0
.
4
3
6
2

0
.
4
3
6
2

0
.
4
3
6
2

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
1
=

0
.
4
9
1
1

0
.
6
1
6
0

0
.
5
5
3
9

0
.
4
9
0
4

0
.
4
9
7
7

0
.
6
4
8
7

0
.
9
0
8
0

0
.
4
9
5
0

0
.
5
0
9
7

0
.
5
4
9
6

0
.
5
5
9
1

0
.
4
9
9
5

0
.
4
6
0
0

0
.
4
6
0
0

0
.
4
6
0
0

0
.
4
6
0
0

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
2
=

0
.
4
9
1
2

0
.
6
1
2
3

0
.
5
5
3
8

0
.
4
9
0
6

0
.
4
9
8
1

0
.
6
4
7
0

0
.
8
9
8
5

0
.
4
9
5
4

0
.
5
1
0
3

0
.
5
4
8
8

0
.
5
5
6
4

0
.
5
0
0
2

0
.
4
5
9
6

0
.
4
5
9
6

0
.
4
5
9
6

0
.
4
5
9
6

s
c
o
r
e

_
a
l
l

c
y
c
l
e

=

0
.
4
9
1
1

0
.
6
1
4
2

0
.
5
5
3
8

0
.
4
9
0
5

0
.
4
9
7
9

0
.
6
4
7
9

0
.
9
0
3
3

0
.
4
9
5
2

0
.
5
1
0
0

0
.
5
4
9
2

0
.
5
5
7
7

0
.
4
9
9
9

0
.
4
5
9
8

0
.
4
5
9
8

0
.
4
5
9
8

0
.
4
5
9
8

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
1
=

0
.
5
9
1
2

0
.
6
8
3
1

0
.
7
3
4
5

0
.
5
6
7
0

0
.
6
1
8
1

0
.
7
1
1
4

0
.
9
4
9
9

0
.
5
7
0
2

0
.
6
6
2
2

0
.
6
3
9
1

0
.
7
4
2
4

0
.
5
7
4
8

0
.
5
4
1
4

0
.
5
4
1
4

0
.
5
4
1
4

0
.
5
4
1
4

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
2

=

0
.
6
0
5
1

0
.
6
9
9
6

0
.
7
6
0
0

0
.
5
8
0
0

0
.
6
3
5
6

0
.
7
2
5
3

0
.
9
6
8
4

0
.
5
8
7
4

0
.
6
7
6
3

0
.
6
4
7
7

0
.
7
5
1
0

0
.
6
0
0
1

0
.
5
5
2
4

0
.
5
5
2
4

0
.
5
5
2
4

0
.
5
5
2
4

s
c
o
r
e

_
a
l
l

c
y
c
l
e

=

0
.
5
9
8
2

0
.
6
9
1
5

0
.
7
4
7
4

0
.
5
7
3
5

0
.
6
2
6
9

0
.
7
1
8
5

0
.
9
5
9
4

0
.
5
7
8
6

0
.
6
6
9
4

0
.
6
4
3
4

0
.
7
4
6
7

0
.
5
8
6
7

0
.
5
4
6
9

0
.
5
4
6
9

0
.
5
4
6
9

0
.
5
4
6
9

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
1
=

0
.
9
2
8
8

0
.
9
5
2
5

0
.
9
7
9
3

0
.
9
3
4
4

0
.
9
3
1
8

0
.
9
5
4
0

0
.
9
9
7
1

0
.
9
4
1
8

0
.
9
3
2
5

0
.
9
1
9
1

0
.
9
7
7
4

0
.
9
4
8
3

0
.
9
0
3
1

0
.
9
0
3
1

0
.
9
0
3
1

0
.
9
0
3
1

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
2
=

0
.
9
1
5
0

0
.
9
4
3
3

0
.
9
6
7
2

0
.
9
1
9
4

0
.
9
1
9
0

0
.
9
4
9
2

0
.
9
8
8
2

0
.
9
2
6
9

0
.
9
2
1
6

0
.
9
1
9
1

0
.
9
7
2
0

0
.
9
3
4
6

0
.
8
8
8
5

0
.
8
8
8
5

0
.
8
8
8
5

0
.
8
8
8
5

s
c
o
r
e

_
a
l
l

c
y
c
l
e

=

0
.
9
2
1
8

0
.
9
4
7
8

0
.
9
7
3
1

0
.
9
2
6
7

0
.
9
2
5
3

0
.
9
5
1
5

0
.
9
9
2
5

0
.
9
3
4
2

0
.
9
2
6
9

0
.
9
1
8
9

0
.
9
7
4
6

0
.
9
4
1
3

0
.
8
9
5
6

0
.
8
9
5
6

0
.
8
9
5
6

0
.
8
9
5
6

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
1
=

0
.
9
7
9
3

0
.
9
7
9
1

0
.
9
8
4
0

0
.
9
8
0
7

0
.
9
8
0
5

0
.
9
9
2
1

0
.
9
9
9
0

0
.
9
8
2
8

0
.
9
8
0
7

0
.
9
3
6
2

0
.
9
4
0
7

0
.
9
8
4
1

0
.
9
5
7
1

0
.
9
5
7
1

0
.
9
5
7
1

0
.
9
5
7
1

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
2

=

0
.
9
8
7
4

0
.
9
8
2
1

0
.
9
8
7
7

0
.
9
8
9
1

0
.
9
8
7
4

0
.
9
9
8
7

1
.
0
0
6
8

0
.
9
9
0
1

0
.
9
8
7
1

0
.
9
4
8
0

0
.
9
5
3
3

0
.
9
9
1
2

0
.
9
6
8
1

0
.
9
6
8
1

0
.
9
6
8
1

0
.
9
6
8
1

s
c
o
r
e

_
a
l
l

c
y
c
l
e

=

0
.
9
8
3
2

0
.
9
8
0
5

0
.
9
8
5
7

0
.
9
8
4
7

0
.
9
8
3
8

0
.
9
9
5
2

1
.
0
0
2
7

0
.
9
8
6
3

0
.
9
8
3
7

0
.
9
4
1
8

0
.
9
4
6
7

0
.
9
8
7
4

0
.
9
6
2
4

0
.
9
6
2
4

0
.
9
6
2
4

0
.
9
6
2
4

127

C
y
c
l
e
s

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

P
l
o
t
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
1
m
e
=
=

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

P
l
o
t
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
2
m
e
=
=

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

P
l
o
t
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
1
0
m
e
=
=

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

P
l
o
t
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
1
0
0
m
e
=
=

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

P
l
o
t
s

1
m
e
m
e
_
o
1
0
0
0
m
e
=
=

1

0
0.2
0.4
0
.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 1
0 -3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
G
lob
al P
os
ition
o
f the C
ra
ck
D
e
pth o
f the
C
ra
ck

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.4
0
.5
0
.6
0
.7
0
.8
0
.9 1
G
lo
b
a
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.5
0
.6
0
.7
0
.8
0
.9 1
G
lo
b
a
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0.9
0
.9
2
0
.9
4
0
.9
6
0
.9
8 1
G
lo
ba
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f the
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f the
C
ra
c
k

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0 -3
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98 1
G
lob
al P
os
ition
o
f the
C
rac
k
D
e
pth of th
e C
ra
ck

2

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.4
0
.5
0
.6
0
.7
0
.8
0
.9
G
lo
b
a
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.4
0
.5
0
.6
0
.7
0
.8
0
.9
G
lo
b
a
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.5
0
.6
0
.7
0
.8
0
.9 1
G
lo
b
a
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.8
8
0.9
0
.9
2
0
.9
4
0
.9
6
0
.9
8 1
G
lo
ba
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f the
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f the
C
ra
c
k

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0 -3
0.94
0.96
0.98 1
1.02
G
lob
al P
os
ition
o
f the
C
rac
k
D
e
pth of th
e C
ra
ck

a
l
l

c
y
c
l
e
s

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.4
0
.5
0
.6
0
.7
0
.8
0
.9
G
lo
b
a
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10 -3
0
.4
0
.5
0
.6
0
.7
0
.8
0
.9 1
G
lobal P
osition of th
e C
rack
D
epth
of the C
rac
k

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.5
0
.6
0
.7
0
.8
0
.9 1
G
lo
b
a
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.8
8
0
.9
0
.9
2
0
.9
4
0
.9
6
0
.9
8 1
G
lo
b
a
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k

0
0
.2
0
.4
0
.6
0
.8
0
2
4
6
x
1
0
-3
0
.9
4
0
.9
6
0
.9
8 1
1
.0
2
G
lo
b
a
l P
o
s
itio
n
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k

F
i
g
u
r
e

5
.
2
4
:

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

p
l
o
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
e

a
r
r
a
y
s

w
i
t
h

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

u
n
b
a
l
a
n
c
e

m
a
s
s

a
n
d

_
m
e
o
m
e
=
.

128
5.4.2.2 Discussion of Test 2:
Discussions of test 2 are shown as follows.
1) Considering score arrays in the Table 5.25, it is clear that increasing me , the fifth row
of the score array increases. The fault detection and diagnosis process has a tendency
to predict the behavior of the real system as uncracked because the effect of the
unbalance force increases and dominates the behavior of the real system more than the
effect caused by the crack. This is reasonable since the magnitude of the unbalance
force consists of both e

and me
,
{ }
4
2
_
4
DD
f ext me e = .
2) Considering the surface plots in Figure 5.24, we can see that the greater the value of
me the more difficult it is to distinguish the highest score, since the score of each of
the observers are relatively close to each other.

129
5.4.3 Test 3: Testing the effect of angular velocity
Test 3: Examining the effect of increasing the angular velocity both in the real system
and in the observers. Table 5.26 shows the set of parameters of the real system in this
test. The angular velocity, e , is varied as in the following table where
1
16.9073 / sec rad e = . This situation can occur normally in the machine since there are
many times when the angular velocity of the machine is changed while the machine
operates.

System
parameters
SNR 100 = , _ 2 360 num lopm =

_ 0 fi shift = , _ me me o =
_ a m
0.3D
_ ec m
8
e
1
e
1
2e
1
10e
1
100e
_ a o
_ a m
, _ 5% a m , 0
_ ec o
1, 2, 3, 4 ,-
_ ec m
1, 2, 3, 4 ,-
_ ec m
e
1
e
1
2e
1
10e
1
100e

5.4.3.1 Results of Test 3
The score arrays for each value of e

are shown in Table 5.27, and the corresponding
surface plots are presented in Figure 5.25. The results of Test 3 are also shown in
appendix B3.

130
T
a
b
l
e

5
.
2
7
:

S
c
o
r
e

a
r
r
a
y
s

o
f

e
a
c
h

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

s
y
s
t
e
m

w
i
t
h

c
r
a
c
k

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

_
8
e
c
m
=
,

c
r
a
c
k

d
e
p
t
h
_
0
.
3
a
m
D
=
,

a
n
d

1
1
1
1
,
2
,
1
0
,
1
0
0
e
e
e
e
e
=
.

S
c
o
r
e

A
r
r
a
y
s

1
2
e
e
=

S
c
o
r
e

A
r
r
a
y
s

1
2
e
e
=

S
c
o
r
e

A
r
r
a
y
s

1
1
0
e
e
=

S
c
o
r
e

A
r
r
a
y
s

1
1
0
0
e
e
=

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
1
=

0
.
4
7
8
1

0
.
5
9
5
5

0
.
5
3
3
2

0
.
4
7
7
8

0
.
4
8
4
1

0
.
6
3
8
1

0
.
8
9
0
4

0
.
4
8
2
5

0
.
4
8
9
6

0
.
5
4
1
2

0
.
5
3
5
3

0
.
4
8
2
2

0
.
4
3
1
9

0
.
4
3
1
9

0
.
4
3
1
9

0
.
4
3
1
9

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
2
=

0
.
4
8
2
2

0
.
6
0
7
8

0
.
5
3
5
9

0
.
4
8
2
2

0
.
4
8
8
9

0
.
6
4
3
3

0
.
8
8
9
3

0
.
4
8
7
7

0
.
4
9
5
8

0
.
5
4
3
7

0
.
5
3
9
8

0
.
4
8
9
2

0
.
4
3
4
7

0
.
4
3
4
7

0
.
4
3
4
7

0
.
4
3
4
7

s
c
o
r
e
_
a
l
l
_
c
y
c
l
e

=

0
.
4
8
0
0

0
.
6
0
1
4

0
.
5
3
4
4

0
.
4
7
9
9

0
.
4
8
6
3

0
.
6
4
0
6

0
.
8
8
9
8

0
.
4
8
4
9

0
.
4
9
2
4

0
.
5
4
2
4

0
.
5
3
7
5

0
.
4
8
5
3

0
.
4
3
3
2

0
.
4
3
3
2

0
.
4
3
3
2

0
.
4
3
3
2

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
1
=

0
.
4
9
8
1

0
.
5
1
9
8

0
.
5
1
3
4

0
.
5
0
0
2

0
.
4
9
9
3

0
.
5
5
4
5

0
.
5
5
1
2

0
.
5
0
1
8

0
.
5
0
5
0

0
.
5
6
9
8

0
.
6
6
7
1

0
.
5
0
4
1

0
.
4
8
1
0

0
.
4
8
1
0

0
.
4
8
1
0

0
.
4
8
1
0

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
2
=

0
.
4
9
8
5

0
.
5
1
9
9

0
.
5
1
4
0

0
.
5
0
0
3

0
.
5
0
0
1

0
.
5
5
3
7

0
.
5
5
1
6

0
.
5
0
2
1

0
.
5
0
5
3

0
.
5
6
9
2

0
.
6
6
5
9

0
.
5
0
4
5

0
.
4
8
0
8

0
.
4
8
0
8

0
.
4
8
0
8

0
.
4
8
0
8

s
c
o
r
e
_
a
l
l
_
c
y
c
l
e

=

0
.
4
9
8
3

0
.
5
1
9
9

0
.
5
1
3
7

0
.
5
0
0
3

0
.
4
9
9
7

0
.
5
5
4
1

0
.
5
5
1
4

0
.
5
0
1
9

0
.
5
0
5
1

0
.
5
6
9
5

0
.
6
6
6
5

0
.
5
0
4
3

0
.
4
8
0
9

0
.
4
8
0
9

0
.
4
8
0
9

0
.
4
8
0
9

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
1
=

0
.
4
9
1
1

0
.
4
9
9
7

0
.
5
0
0
1

0
.
4
9
1
3

0
.
4
9
2
2

0
.
5
0
0
1

0
.
5
0
2
4

0
.
4
9
2
1

0
.
4
9
3
9

0
.
5
0
6
6

0
.
5
0
3
0

0
.
4
9
2
8

0
.
4
7
2
5

0
.
4
7
2
5

0
.
4
7
2
5

0
.
4
7
2
5

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
2
=

0
.
4
9
1
6

0
.
5
0
0
2

0
.
5
0
0
6

0
.
4
9
1
7

0
.
4
9
2
7

0
.
5
0
0
6

0
.
5
0
3
0

0
.
4
9
2
6

0
.
4
9
4
4

0
.
5
0
7
1

0
.
5
0
3
5

0
.
4
9
3
3

0
.
4
7
3
0

0
.
4
7
3
0

0
.
4
7
3
0

0
.
4
7
3
0

s
c
o
r
e
_
a
l
l
_
c
y
c
l
e

=

0
.
4
9
1
4

0
.
4
9
9
9

0
.
5
0
0
3

0
.
4
9
1
5

0
.
4
9
2
4

0
.
5
0
0
3

0
.
5
0
2
7

0
.
4
9
2
3

0
.
4
9
4
2

0
.
5
0
6
8

0
.
5
0
3
2

0
.
4
9
3
0

0
.
4
7
2
7

0
.
4
7
2
7

0
.
4
7
2
7

0
.
4
7
2
7

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
1
=

0
.
6
4
7
0

0
.
6
6
1
5

0
.
6
6
1
6

0
.
6
4
6
8

0
.
6
4
3
4

0
.
6
7
6
2

0
.
6
7
6
2

0
.
6
4
2
8

0
.
6
4
3
6

0
.
6
6
1
8

0
.
6
6
2
5

0
.
6
4
3
2

0
.
6
4
3
8

0
.
6
4
3
8

0
.
6
4
3
8

0
.
6
4
3
8

s
c
o
r
e
_
c
y
c
l
e
2
=

0
.
5
9
4
8

0
.
6
2
0
5

0
.
6
2
1
0

0
.
5
9
2
9

0
.
5
8
6
9

0
.
6
3
9
2

0
.
6
3
8
9

0
.
5
8
4
4

0
.
5
9
1
6

0
.
5
5
7
9

0
.
5
5
7
8

0
.
5
8
9
8

0
.
6
0
8
2

0
.
6
0
8
2

0
.
6
0
8
2

0
.
6
0
8
2

s
c
o
r
e
_
a
l
l
_
c
y
c
l
e

=

0
.
6
1
3
7

0
.
6
3
7
9

0
.
6
3
8
3

0
.
6
1
2
3

0
.
6
0
7
2

0
.
6
5
0
6

0
.
6
5
0
5

0
.
6
0
5
3

0
.
6
1
0
9

0
.
5
8
4
9

0
.
5
8
5
0

0
.
6
0
9
6

0
.
6
2
1
9

0
.
6
2
1
9

0
.
6
2
1
9

0
.
6
2
1
9

131
Cycles
Surface Plots
1
1 e e =
Surface Plots
1
2 e e =
Surface Plots
1
10 e e =
Surface Plots
1
100 e e =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.51
Global Position of the Crack Depth of the Crack 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.69
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.51
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
0.62
0.64
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.51
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.58
0.6
0.62
0.64
0.66
Depth of the Crack

Figure 5.25: Surface plots for score arrays for _ 8 ec m = , _ 0.3 a m D = and
1 1 1 1
, 2 ,10 ,100 e e e e e = .
132
5.4.3.2 Discussion of Test 3:
1) Considering the score array at each value of angular velocity, e , we can see that
As angular velocity increases as 2 e , the process provide the
correct position of the crack ,but the predicted value of the depth is larger
than the real depth of the crack as shown in Table 5.27 and Figure 5.25.
As angular velocity increases as10 e , the process provide
inaccurate position of the crack ,but the predicted value of the depth is
larger than the real depth of the crack as shown in Table 5.27 and Figure
5.25.
As angular velocity increases as100 e , the process provides
position of the crack and the depth of the crack corresponding to the real
system correctly. However , it is hard to locate the highest score. If the
starting set of the fault parameter is far from this point as we can see the
score are equal when _ 2 ec o = and _ 3 ec o = calculated at the first cycle.
Also in the third cycle, the score is very close between _ 2 ec o = and
_ 3 ec o = as shown in Table 5.27 and Figure 5.25.
Therefore, increasing of the value of
1
2 e e > can cause inaccurate prediction of
location and depth of the crack.
2) Considering the surface plots in Figure 5.25, it is clear that the more value of e , the
flatter of the surface plots, which means that the harder to distinguish the highest
score.
133
3) Also, it is similar to the results of test 2 since the magnitude of the unbalance force is
consisted of both e and me , { }
4
2
_
4
DD
f ext me e = . Therefore, the score of the
uncracked observer increases. However, the effect cause by crack is not dominated by
the effect of the unbalanced force.
5.4.4 Test 4: Crack Propagation
Test 4: testing the capability of the fault detection and diagnosis process of detection and
diagnosis to perform when the crack in the real system propagates. We assume that the
real system runs with uncracked ,
1
_ 0 a m = ,shaft for the first cycle. Then, the crack
occurs and fully closed at 360 u =

with depth of the crack ,
2
_ a m

, and the real system
runs with constant depth of the crack for 1 cycle. Finally, the depth of the crack increases
to new depth,
3
_ a m , and occurs at 720 u =

and it is fully closed. The real system runs
with the constant depth for 1 cycle. Table 5.28 shows the set of parameters of the real
system in this test.

134
System
parameters
SNR 60 = , _ 3 360 num lopm =

_ 0 fi shift = , me
SNR 100 = ,
_ 3 360 num lopm =

_ 0 fi shift = , me
0 u =

1
_ a m 0 0
360 u =

2
_ a m 0.275D 0.275D
720 u =

3
_ a m 0.325D 0.325D
_ ec m
8 8
0 u =

1
_ a o

1
_ 0.25 a m D =
,
1
_ 0.3 a m D =
1
_ 0.35 a m D =
,
1
_ 0 a m =

1
_ 0.25 a m D =
,
1
_ 0.3 a m D =
1
_ 0.35 a m D =
,
1
_ 0 a m =

360 u =

2
_ a o

2
_ 0.25 a m D =
,
2
_ 0.3 a m D =
2
_ 0.35 a m D =
,
2
_ 0 a m =

2
_ 0.25 a m D =
,
2
_ 0.3 a m D =
2
_ 0.35 a m D =
,
2
_ 0 a m =

7 2 0 u =

3
_ a o

3
_ 0.25 a m D =
,
3
_ 0.3 a m D =
3
_ 0.35 a m D =
,
3
_ 0 a m =

3
_ 0.25 a m D =
,
3
_ 0.3 a m D =
3
_ 0.35 a m D =
,
3
_ 0 a m =

_ ec o
1, 2,3, 4,- 1, 2,3, 4,-

5.4.4.1 Results of Test 4
The score arrays corresponding to the parameters in Table 5.28 at each cycle are given in
Error! Reference source not found. and the corresponding surface plots are presented
in Figure 5.26. The results of test 4 are given in appendix B4.

135
Table 5.29: Scores arrays for each observer with crack location , _ 8 ec m = and crack
depth _ _ 1, _ 2, _ 3 a m a m a m a m = .
Cycle
_ a m
Score Arrays
100 SNR = , _ 8 ec m =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = , _ 8 ec m =
Cycle1
uncracked
_ 0 a m =
score_cycle1=
0.6055 0.4290 0.4256 0.5809
0.5465 0.4188 0.4171 0.5173
0.5031 0.4113 0.4113 0.4796
0.8845 0.8845 0.8845 0.8845
score_cycle1=
0.6453 0.4345 0.4299 0.6299
0.5835 0.4224 0.4198 0.5554
0.5339 0.4146 0.4136 0.5058
0.8850 0.8850 0.8850 0.8850
Cycle2
Crack
_ 0.275 a m D =
score_cycle2=
0.5601 0.4532 0.4328 0.5883
0.5163 0.4262 0.4220 0.6322
0.5372 0.4198 0.4182 0.6213
0.4613 0.4613 0.4613 0.4613
score_cycle2=
0.6058 0.4699 0.4407 0.6411
0.5562 0.4312 0.4248 0.6896
0.5747 0.4215 0.4191 0.6711
0.4866 0.4866 0.4866 0.4866
Cycle3
Crack
_ 0.325 a m D =
cycle_store_scoreT_t11wu(:,:,3) =
0.4335 0.4432 0.4663 0.4337
0.4345 0.4591 0.5072 0.4329
0.4412 0.4451 0.4197 0.4325
0.4180 0.4180 0.4180 0.4180
cycle_store_scoreT_t11wu(:,:,3) =
0.4382 0.4599 0.4951 0.4379
0.4407 0.4808 0.5510 0.4377
0.4529 0.4612 0.4246 0.4385
0.4214 0.4214 0.4214 0.4214
all cycles
_ 0, 0.275 , 0.325 a m D D =

score_all_cycle =
0.4439 0.4292 0.4297 0.4439
0.4430 0.4219 0.4200 0.4439
0.4385 0.4160 0.4148 0.4429
0.4261 0.4261 0.4261 0.4261
score_all_cycle =
0.4530 0.4361 0.4372 0.4524
0.4523 0.4266 0.4236 0.4534
0.4471 0.4190 0.4168 0.4531
0.4327 0.4327 0.4327 0.4327

136
cycle
_ a m
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,

_ 8 ec m =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m =
1
_ 0 a m =
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
X: 0.2625
Y: 0
Z: 0.8845
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

2
_ 0.275 a m D =
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
X: 0.6125
Y: 0.0045
Z: 0.6322
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

3
_ 0.325 a m D =
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.5
0.52
X: 0.4375
Y: 0.0045
Z: 0.5072
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

all
cycles
_ 0, 0.275 , 0.325 a m D D =

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45

Figure 5.26: Surface plots for each observer with crack location _ 8 ec m = and
_ _ 1, _ 2, _ 3 a m a m a m a m = .

137
5.4.4.2 Discussion of Test 4.
From the score arrays given in Table 5.29 and Figure 5.26, the fault detection and
diagnosis process can detect the crack since the highest score represents the behavior of
the real system in each cycle.
- 0 u =

to 360 u =

: the uncracked observer is the correct observer during
the first cycle.
- 360 u =

to 720 u =

: For 100 SNR = , the observer which has the fault
parameters, _ 4 ec o = and _ 0.3 a o D = , contains the highest score.
However, this is not a correct prediction of crack location, since the
observer _ 3 ec o= and the crack position in the real system is _ 8 ec m = ,
with the crack depth, _ 0.3 a m D = , during the second cycle.For 60 SNR = ,
the process predicts the correct crack location, the observer with the fault
parameter _ 3 ec o= and _ 0.3 a o D = has the highest score.
- 720 u =

to 1080 u =

: For 60,100 SNR = , the observer with fault
parameters, _ 3 ec o=

and _ 0.3 a o D = , has the highest score. In this
cycle, the fault detection and diagnosis process performs well and is robust
since it can correctly predict crack location with 60 SNR >
This result confirms that it is necessary to evaluate the score at every cycle ( 360
)
since this allows us to track the behavior of the real system more accurately.
138
5.4.5 Test 5: Difference in initial conditions between the real system and the
observers
Test 5: Examines the capability of the fault detection and diagnosis process to detect and
diagnose a crack when the initial conditions of the real system and the observers are
different. This situation can occur in the fault detection and diagnosis process for a
cracked rotor vibration system since the information about orientation of the crack
relative to a fixed position on the shaft at the initial time is not available. We use this test
to show the results of using the autocorrelation function to constrain the initial condition
(orientation of the crack). The process is tested uses different values of phase difference
between measurement signals and estimates of the observers, _ sel shift , where
_ 1 60 sel shift =

. All combination of parameters assigned to the real system and the
observers are shown in Table 5.30

System
Parameters
SNR 100 = , _ 2 360 num lopm =

_ 0 fi shift = , _ me me o =
_ a m
0.3D
_ ec m
8
_ sel shift
1
_ sel shift
1
2 _ sel shift
1
3 _ sel shift
_ a o
_ a m
, _ 5% a m ,
0

_ ec o
1, 2, 3, 4 ,-
_ _ sel shift o
0

139
5.4.5.1 Result of Test5
The phase difference between each measurement signal and the corresponding observer
estimates before constraining the initial conditions is represented as _ matrix lagT in
Table 5.31. The positive maximum value of _ matrix lagT represents the phase
difference between measurement signals of the real system and the corresponding output
signals of the observers.
Then, to constraint the initial condition, the positive maximum value of
_ matrix lagT will be rounded and defined as _ phase diff . The time step corresponding
to ( 360 _ phase diff

) is calculated and defined as
*
t . This time step,
*
t , will be used
as the new initial time for the real system. At time step,
*
t , the orientation of the crack is
fully closed and located at the top of the shaft. The measurement signals corresponding to
all previous time steps are excluded. Therefore, the orientation of the crack at the new
initial time is the same as that of the observers and the fault detection and diagnosis
process can perform as given in Test 1. The phase difference of all signals from the
observers after constraining the initial conditions of the real system and those of the
observers is shown as _ matrix adjIC in Table 5.31.
Corresponding estimation signals and the real system measurements at each
degree of freedoms are plotted and shown in Figure 5.28-Figure 5.32. The blue curve
represents the vibration signals of the real system, the green curves are the estimates
generated by the observer with the crack position and depth, _ 3 ec o = and _ 0.3 a o D = .
The pink curves represent the error between the vibration signals from the real system
and the estimates from the observer.
140
The results for the case where _ 2 _ 1 sel shift sel shift = and
_ 3 _ 1 sel shift sel shift = are represented in appendix B5. The maximum value of
_ 1 matirx lagT
for each value of _ sel shift is given in Table 5.32.

Table 5.31: Score arrays and phase lag of the signal before and after constraining
initial conditions when 60 _ sel shift =

.
Score Arrays _ 0.3 a m D = ,

_ 8 ec m = ,

100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

, _ _ 1 60 sel shift sel shift = =

Before constraining initial conditions After constraining initial conditions
score_all_cycle =
1.0e+003 *
1.5304 0.8092 0.8076 1.5295
1.3964 0.7549 0.7534 1.3928
1.2901 0.7660 0.7654 1.2733
1.9497 1.9497 1.9497 1.9497
store_norm_residual =
1.0e-003 *
0.6452 0.6310 0.6317 0.6461
0.6415 0.6272 0.6287 0.6438
0.6384 0.6210 0.6236 0.6423
0.6559 0.6559 0.6559 0.6559
matrix_lagT =
60.0091 0 54.0082 0 51.4078 0 50.6077
59.2090 0 58.6089 0 58.4088 0 57.8088
59.2090 0 57.4087 0 58.4088 0 58.8089
59.8091 0 49.0074 0 51.4078 0 54.8083
60.0091 0 56.0085 0 53.2081 0 51.6078
59.2090 0 59.2090 0 59.2090 0 59.0089
59.2090 0 58.2088 0 59.0089 0 59.2090
59.8091 0 52.4079 0 53.2081 0 56.4085
60.0091 0 56.6086 0 54.4082 0 51.8078
59.2090 0 59.4090 0 59.4090 0 59.2090
59.2090 0 58.8089 0 59.2090 0 59.6090
59.8091 0 54.0082 0 54.2082 0 57.6087
-479.8727 0 35.0053 0 34.6052 0 34.2052
score_all_cycle _adjHPIC =
1.0e+003 *
3.0125 3.2025 3.1620 3.0188
3.0424 3.2323 3.4201 3.0464
3.0598 3.1596 3.1646 3.0585
2.7054 2.7054 2.7054 2.7054
store_norm_residual_adjHPIC =
1.0e-003 *
0.4899 0.4752 0.4771 0.4909
0.4943 0.4576 0.4511 0.4966
0.4949 0.4443 0.4323 0.4993
0.4744 0.4744 0.4744 0.4744
matrix_ adjIC =
0 0 0 0 -1.8005 0 -2.8008
1.0003 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -1.2003 0 -2.2006 0 -1.2003
0 0 0 0 -0.8002 0 -1.2003
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -1.2003 0 -0.8002 0 -0.6002
0 0 0 0 0 0 -1.2003
-0.8002 0 0 0 0 0 0.8002
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 -0.8002 0 -0.6002
-179.6499 0 -2.4007 0 -2.8008 0 -3.6010

141
Score Arrays _ 0.3 a m D = ,

_ 8 ec m = , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,
_ _ 1 60 sel shift sel shift = =

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
500
1000
1500
2000
Depth of the Crack

D
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

C
r
a
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
Depth of the Crack

D
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

C
r
a
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

Figure 5.27: Surface plots before and after constraining initial conditions when
60 _ sel shift =

.

142
_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , 100 SNR = _ _ 0 sel shift o =


State estimates of node 1 before
constraining initial conditions
State estimates of node 1 after
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
Plot of the nodal Axial displacements 6 Dof Beam
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
Plot of the nodal shear1 displacements 6 Dof Beam
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
Plot of the nodal torsional displacements 6 Dof Beam
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
Plot of the nodal bending1 displacements 6 Dof Beam
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^

Figure 5.28: Plots of corresponding state estimates and measurements for all degrees of
freedom at node 1 when 60 _ sel shift =

.

143
_ 0.3 a m D = ,

_ 8 ec m = , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^


.

144
_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =


State estimates of node3 before constraint
initial conditions
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^


.

145


State estimations of node4 before
constraint nitial conditions
State estimations of node4before
constraint initial conditions
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-8
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-8
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^


.

146


State estimations of node5 before
constraint initial conditions
State estimations of node5 after
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^


.

147
Table 5.32: Maximum values of _ matrix lagT representing the determined phase
difference and corresponding _ sel shift representing the actual phase difference.
_ sel shift
maximum value of
_ matirx lagT
60

120

180

60.0091

115.0192

180.4334

5.4.5.2 Discussion of Test 5
Discussion of test 5 are shown as follows.
1) The results show that the difference between the initial conditions of the real
system and those of the observers can affect the accuracy of the fault detection and
diagnosis process as can be seen in the surface plots given in Table 5.31.
2) The correlation function can be used to measure the phase lag and phase lead between
the measurement signals of the real system and the output signals of the observers and
to constrain the initial condition so that the initial condition of the real system and
those of the observers will be close. Once the initial conditions are aligned, the fault
detection and diagnosis process can perform as in test 1.
3) Clearly, the correlation function gives an accurate value of the phase difference
between the initial conditions of the real system and those of the observers given in
Table 5.32, since the maximum values of _ matrix lagT are close to the corresponding
values of _ sel shift .
4) The axial degree of freedom signal appearing in the first column of
_ matrix lagT provides the most reliable information about phase difference between
148
the measurement signals and the estimation signals since the values of
_ matrix lagT are close to the values of _ sel shift as shown in Table 5.31.
5) The correlation between the measurement signals of the real system and the output
signals of the observers can be used to find the orientation of the crack. Once the
initial conditions of the real system and those of the observers are constrained, the
tracking results of the Kalman filter in the filter bank are accurate, and the prediction
of the crack position and depth are also accurate as shown in Figure 5.28- Figure 5.32
149
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Future Works
6.1 Conclusions
A new fault detection and diagnosis process for cracked rotor vibration systems using a
model-based technique has been developed. The fault detection and diagnosis process
employs the concept of a filter bank as a residual generator, where each observer in the
filter bank is realized as a linear time-variant Kalman filter for online implementation.
The linear time-variant Kalman filters are designed specifically to track the
initiation and progression of cracks in the rotor vibration system. Mathematical modeling
of a cracked rotor vibrations system includes updating the stiffness of system model
based on the state of the breathing crack.
The filter bank consists of a parallel arrangement of statistical observers (Kalmn
filters) each tuned to a particular operating mode (uncracked or cracked with a given
crack position/depth). The output, if each observer is analyzed and a voting algorithm, is
used to determine which observer most closely matches the behavior of the real system.
In particular, the scores in the voting algorithm are calculated based on statistical
information obtained from the residual and the output signals. The statistical information
consists of mean and autocorrelation of the residuals, and the correlation between the
observer and real system output signals.
The fault detection and diagnosis process is able to perform effectively with
process and measurement noise as shown in the chapter 5 where accurate crack detection
and diagnosis occurs for
60 SNR >
.
The fault detection and diagnosis process can detect the occurrence of a crack and
accurately estimate the location and depth of the crack in one or two shaft cycles of
150
rotation, if the initial conditions of the real system and those of the observers are the
same. However, if the initial condition of the real system and those of the observers are
different, the algorithm can adaptively readjust the initial conditions by using the
correlation between the measurements from the real system and the output signals of each
observer.
The fault detection and diagnosis process is tested with the vibration response of a
12-element cracked rotor vibration system model, which represents the real system in this
work. This model uses various sets of fault parameters (crack location and depth, SNR,
etc.) to evaluate the performance of the fault detection and diagnosis process using the
filter bank concept where each observer is constructed from a 4-element mathematical
model of the real system. The results of the tests show that the fault detection and
diagnosis process perform well in detecting and diagnosing a crack at most positions
along the shaft as shown in test 1 of chapter 5. However, the process cannot provide
accurate detection and diagnosis when the position of the crack is close to the supports
(boundary elements) of the shaft. It is clear that this is due to the type of the supports and
updating algorithm of the breathing crack that is used in the mathematical model
representing the cracked rotor vibration system. Because simple supports do not provide
the bending moment that is necessary to update the state of breathing crack, the system
behaves like uncracked rotor vibration system. However in reality, supports in rotating
machines generally are not of this type.
The advantage of the proposed fault detection and diagnosis method is its ability
to extract information from the real system measurements and use this to accurately track
the behavior of the real system from cycle to cycle, using a voting algorithm. The
151
proposed method can effectively estimate crack position and depth as long as the
mathematical model representing the real system is accurate, since the method does not
only rely on the information from the measurement signals. Furthermore, the method has
the capability to detect and diagnose the propagation of a crack as results in test 4 chapter
5 demonstrate.
6.2 Future Works
This fault detection and diagnosis process has the potential to detect and diagnose the
propagation of a crack as shown in the simulation results in test 4. However, to use this
method the detection and diagnosis of a propagating crack will require developing a more
general mathematical model of the cracked rotor vibration system, from which the
corresponding observers can be constructed.
Second, testing the fault detection and diagnosis process with a more specific and
accurate simulation of a real system may lead to a better evaluation of the performance of
the process, requiring the development of improved the mathematical models that more
accurately represent cracked rotor vibration systems that would occur in practice. For
example, the mathematical model can include bearing supports that include both stiffness
and damping, not a simple support. Also, other effects such as gyroscopic effects, more
disks, and different cross sectional areas of the shaft can be included.
Combining this fault detection and diagnosis process with the other fault detection
and diagnosis processes for cracked rotor vibration system would provide improved
detection and diagnosis performance. For example, use another method to handle the
incorrect diagnosis when the crack occurs near to the simple support.
152
Even though the fault detection and diagnosis method developed in this work does
not require historical data from the real system, using historical data should give
improved results in both detection and diagnosis
As we know that to find the observer that corresponds to the real system, we need
to find the highest score on the surface plot. We can consider the score as an objective
function and the fault parameters as a set of optimization variables. Therefore, standard
optimization techniques can be employed in order to parametrically search for the highest
score and there identify the corresponding observer, and fault status of the system.
In a real machine, the shaft is under different type loads such as axial and bending
loads, and includes multiple loads. The coupling of these more complex loading schemes
can be used to develop a more efficient fault detection and diagnosis process for the real
machine. Finally, laboratory testing of the proposed system will provide with the
information necessary to further develop the method.

153

Appendix
Appendix A : The Sign Convention for the Stress Intensity
Table A.1: The sign conventions for stress intensity factors for each mode.
Mode Stess Intensity Factor Stress Distribution on Contact Surface
I ( ) ( )
1
I1 1
2
K /
P
F h
R
to o
t
=

I ( )
( )
( )
5 3
I5 1 4
K 4 /
P P x
F h
R
| to o
t
+
=

I
( )
( )
2 4
I6 1 4
K 2 /
c
P x P h
F h to o
to
+
=
II ( ) ( )
2
II2
2
kP
K /
R
I
F h to o
t
=

II ( )
4
II4 4
2P
K /
R
F h
|
to o
t
=

III ( )
3
III3 2
K ( / )
III
kP
F h
R
to o
t
=

154

Mode Stess Intensity Factor Stress Distribution on Contact Surface
III ( )
4
III 4 4
P h
K ( / )
R
III
F h to o
t
=

155

Appendix B : Results of Test 1 to Test 5
Appendix B.1 : All Score Arrays and Surface Plots of Test 1 in Chapter 5
All score arrays and surface plots of TEST1
1. a_m = 0.1D
1.1 SNR100, a_m = 0.1D, ec_o = 2,5,8,11
Table B.1 : Score arrays for each observer with SNR 100 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= ,
and _ 0.1 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 2 ec m=

,
_ 0.1 a m D =

Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 5 ec m=

,
_ 0.1 a m D =

Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 8 ec m=

,
_ 0.1 a m D =

Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 11 ec m=

,
_ 0.1 a m D =

score_cycle1 =
0.8774 0.9226 0.8472 0.8611
0.9597 0.6212 0.6852 0.7628
0.8454 0.5063 0.5442 0.6388
0.8438 0.8438 0.8438 0.8438
score_cycle2 =
0.8722 0.9153 0.8395 0.8558
0.9545 0.6144 0.6864 0.8073
0.8355 0.5058 0.5384 0.7263
0.8389 0.8389 0.8389 0.8389
score_all_cycle =
0.8746 0.9188 0.8432 0.8583
0.9569 0.6177 0.6856 0.7807
0.8401 0.5057 0.5410 0.6546
0.8411 0.8411 0.8411 0.8411
norm_cycle1 = 1.0e-003 *
0.4589 0.4590 0.4587 0.4589
0.4589 0.4629 0.4619 0.4643
0.4602 0.4733 0.4658 0.6485
0.4590 0.4590 0.4590 0.4590

score_cycle1 =
0.5820 0.6102 0.6307 0.5875
0.6019 0.9484 0.7213 0.6338
0.6830 0.5494 0.6288 0.5807
0.5637 0.5637 0.5637 0.5637
score_cycle2 =
0.5875 0.6172 0.6381 0.5932
0.6088 0.9535 0.7266 0.6511
0.6942 0.5469 0.6480 0.6466
0.5689 0.5689 0.5689 0.5689
score_all_cycle =
0.5848 0.6137 0.6344 0.5903
0.6053 0.9510 0.7240 0.6422
0.6886 0.5480 0.6380 0.6005
0.5663 0.5663 0.5663 0.5663
0.4474 0.4476 0.4475 0.4476
0.4475 0.4469 0.4479 0.4473
0.4478 0.4462 0.4495 0.4474
0.4474 0.4474 0.4474 0.4474

score_cycle1 =
0.5846 0.6305 0.6073 0.5784
0.6449 0.7174 0.9464 0.5915
0.6442 0.6270 0.5431 0.5997
0.5602 0.5602 0.5602 0.5602
score_cycle2 =
0.5968 0.6443 0.6211 0.5903
0.6612 0.7308 0.9631 0.6107
0.6543 0.6451 0.5493 0.6932
0.5718 0.5718 0.5718 0.5718
score_all_cycle =
0.5908 0.6375 0.6143 0.5844
0.6532 0.7243 0.9550 0.6010
0.6494 0.6360 0.5461 0.6305
0.5660 0.5660 0.5660 0.5660
0.4501 0.4503 0.4502 0.4501
0.4497 0.4485 0.4489 0.4496
0.4502 0.4449 0.4471 0.4495
0.4501 0.4501 0.4501 0.4501

score_cycle1 =
0.8672 0.8430 0.9214 0.8839
0.8126 0.6732 0.6168 0.9566
0.7432 0.5359 0.5067 0.8472
0.8516 0.8516 0.8516 0.8516
score_cycle2 =
0.8725 0.8495 0.9268 0.8889
0.8188 0.6804 0.6219 0.9627
0.7405 0.5390 0.5099 0.8498
0.8566 0.8566 0.8566 0.8566
score_all_cycle =
0.8699 0.8463 0.9241 0.8864
0.8157 0.6767 0.6193 0.9596
0.7417 0.5370 0.5080 0.8484
0.8541 0.8541 0.8541 0.8541
0.4551 0.4561 0.4552 0.4552
0.4551 0.4571 0.4599 0.4552
0.4565 0.4672 0.4637 0.4566
0.4553 0.4553 0.4553 0.4553

156

Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 2 ec m=

,
_ 0.1 a m D =

Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 5 ec m=

,
_ 0.1 a m D =

Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 8 ec m=

,
_ 0.1 a m D =

Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 11 ec m=

,
_ 0.1 a m D =

0.4669 0.4667 0.4667 0.4669
0.4668 0.4658 0.4657 0.4668
0.4667 0.4642 0.4642 0.4767
0.4670 0.4670 0.4670 0.4670
norm_all_cycle = 1.0e-003 *
0.6545 0.6544 0.6542 0.6545
0.6543 0.6565 0.6557 0.6584
0.6552 0.6630 0.6575 0.8011
0.6546 0.6546 0.6546 0.6546
0.4658 0.4657 0.4657 0.4659
0.4657 0.4648 0.4649 0.4657
0.4656 0.4628 0.4628 0.4656
0.4659 0.4659 0.4659 0.4659
0.6460 0.6460 0.6459 0.6461
0.6459 0.6449 0.6456 0.6458
0.6460 0.6428 0.6452 0.6457
0.6460 0.6460 0.6460 0.6460
0.4485 0.4484 0.4484 0.4485
0.4484 0.4477 0.4477 0.4484
0.4483 0.4460 0.4461 0.4483
0.4485 0.4485 0.4485 0.4485
0.6347 0.6347 0.6347 0.6347
0.6344 0.6330 0.6334 0.6343
0.6346 0.6294 0.6310 0.6342
0.6347 0.6347 0.6347 0.6347
0.4485 0.4486 0.4484 0.4485
0.4486 0.4480 0.4478 0.4486
0.4486 0.4466 0.4465 0.4486
0.4485 0.4485 0.4485 0.4485
0.6389 0.6397 0.6389 0.6390
0.6390 0.6399 0.6418 0.6390
0.6399 0.6459 0.6435 0.6400
0.6391 0.6391 0.6391 0.6391

157

Cycles
Surface Plots
100 SNR =
,
_ 2 ec m =
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR =
,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR =
,
_ 8 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR =
,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3

Figure B.1 : The surface plots for each observer withSNR 100 =
,
_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= ,
and _ 0.1 a m D = .

158

1.2 SNR100, a_m = 0.1D, ec_o = 3,6,9,12
Table B.2 : Score arrays for each observer withSNR 100 = , _ 3, 6,9,12 ec m= , and
_ 0.1 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR =
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.7548 0.8130 0.7844 0.7578
0.7751 0.7319 0.6018 0.7057
0.9266 0.5144 0.6327 0.6620
0.7312 0.7312 0.7312 0.7312
score_cycle2 =
0.7572 0.8180 0.7913 0.7613
0.8033 0.7433 0.6050 0.7389
0.9382 0.5173 0.6439 0.6896
0.7334 0.7334 0.7334 0.7334
score_all_cycle =
0.7561 0.8156 0.7879 0.7597
0.7881 0.7376 0.6034 0.7200
0.9325 0.5156 0.6382 0.6725
0.7324 0.7324 0.7324 0.7324
0.4617 0.4611 0.4616 0.4614
0.4618 0.4600 0.4599 0.4615
0.4620 0.4608 0.4574 0.4628
0.4618 0.4618 0.4618 0.4618
0.4414 0.4413 0.4413 0.4414
0.4411 0.4406 0.4406 0.4416
0.4412 0.4394 0.4394 0.4420
0.4414 0.4414 0.4414 0.4414
0.6378 0.6375 0.6377 0.6376
0.6378 0.6362 0.6360 0.6378
0.6380 0.6361 0.6334 0.6390
0.6379 0.6379 0.6379 0.6379
score_cycle1 =
0.5601 0.5809 0.5866 0.5615
0.5814 0.8067 0.7038 0.5913
0.6851 0.5951 0.6552 0.5859
0.5418 0.5418 0.5418 0.5418
score_cycle2 =
0.5559 0.5752 0.5804 0.5571
0.5755 0.8033 0.6995 0.5858
0.6724 0.5920 0.6548 0.6864
0.5379 0.5379 0.5379 0.5379
score_all_cycle =
0.5579 0.5780 0.5834 0.5593
0.5784 0.8047 0.7014 0.5885
0.6786 0.5935 0.6549 0.6106
0.5398 0.5398 0.5398 0.5398
0.4609 0.4612 0.4613 0.4608
0.4610 0.4763 0.4615 0.4622
0.4612 0.4580 0.4593 0.4603
0.4608 0.4608 0.4608 0.4608
0.4536 0.4535 0.4535 0.4536
0.4535 0.4524 0.4524 0.4534
0.4532 0.4498 0.4498 0.4535
0.4536 0.4536 0.4536 0.4536
0.6466 0.6467 0.6468 0.6465
0.6466 0.6568 0.6462 0.6474
0.6465 0.6419 0.6428 0.6461
0.6465 0.6465 0.6465 0.6465
score_cycle1 =
0.6615 0.7221 0.7009 0.6483
0.7034 0.6356 0.7890 0.6751
0.6285 0.5796 0.5170 0.6414
0.6281 0.6281 0.6281 0.6281
score_cycle2 =
0.6590 0.7182 0.6976 0.6464
0.7018 0.6353 0.8118 0.6754
0.6271 0.5901 0.5228 0.7602
0.6261 0.6261 0.6261 0.6261
score_all_cycle =
0.6602 0.7200 0.6991 0.6473
0.7025 0.6354 0.7996 0.6752
0.6278 0.5845 0.5192 0.6683
0.6270 0.6270 0.6270 0.6270
0.4624 0.4624 0.4626 0.4624
0.4625 0.4616 0.4706 0.4628
0.4628 0.4614 0.4796 0.4645
0.4624 0.4624 0.4624 0.4624
0.4549 0.4547 0.4548 0.4549
0.4548 0.4537 0.4542 0.4547
0.4545 0.4519 0.4522 0.4546
0.4549 0.4549 0.4549 0.4549
0.6485 0.6484 0.6485 0.6485
0.6485 0.6471 0.6537 0.6486
0.6485 0.6457 0.6585 0.6497
0.6485 0.6485 0.6485 0.6485
score_cycle1 =
0.9418 0.8877 0.8988 0.9474
0.8772 0.6088 0.6005 0.8961
0.7759 0.5057 0.5027 0.6154
0.9385 0.9385 0.9385 0.9385
score_cycle2 =
0.9279 0.8670 0.8793 0.9354
0.8514 0.6081 0.6014 0.8722
0.7718 0.5188 0.5157 0.7776
0.9199 0.9199 0.9199 0.9199
score_all_cycle =
0.9350 0.8775 0.8891 0.9415
0.8642 0.6076 0.5999 0.8841
0.7721 0.5104 0.5074 0.6273
0.9294 0.9294 0.9294 0.9294
norm_cycle1 =
0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0010
0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005
0.4490 0.4488 0.4489 0.4489
0.4489 0.4484 0.4484 0.4489
0.4490 0.4486 0.4486 0.4538
0.4490 0.4490 0.4490 0.4490
norm_all_cycle =
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006
0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0011
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006

159

Cycles
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m =
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3

,
_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= ,
and _ 0.1 a m D = .
160

1.3 SNR100, a_m=0.1D, ec_o = 1,4,7,10
Table B.3 : Score arrays for each observer with SNR 100 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= , and
_ 0.1 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR =
,
_ 7 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR =
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.9494 0.8851 0.8815 0.9426
0.7474 0.5947 0.6068 0.8771
0.6273 0.5007 0.5039 0.7730
0.9337 0.9337 0.9337 0.9337
score_cycle2 =
0.9607 0.8899 0.8880 0.9533
0.8760 0.5991 0.6140 0.8764
0.7744 0.5151 0.5198 0.7939
0.9449 0.9449 0.9449 0.9449
score_all_cycle =
0.9547 0.8873 0.8845 0.9476
0.7873 0.5956 0.6091 0.8763
0.6402 0.5059 0.5097 0.7801
0.9389 0.9389 0.9389 0.9389
0.4595 0.4595 0.4604 0.4589
0.4924 0.4741 0.4729 0.4613
0.5061 0.4928 0.4912 0.4700
0.4593 0.4593 0.4593 0.4593
0.4480 0.4478 0.4478 0.4480
0.4480 0.4476 0.4476 0.4481
0.4485 0.4481 0.4481 0.4485
0.4481 0.4481 0.4481 0.4481
0.6411 0.6410 0.6418 0.6407
0.6655 0.6518 0.6511 0.6427
0.6751 0.6661 0.6648 0.6495
0.6411 0.6411 0.6411 0.6411
score_cycle1 =
0.6547 0.7077 0.7254 0.6668
0.6851 0.8362 0.6460 0.7070
0.7777 0.5297 0.5888 0.6385
0.6339 0.6339 0.6339 0.6339
score_cycle2 =
0.6521 0.7062 0.7265 0.6649
0.6832 0.8383 0.6438 0.7085
0.7770 0.5268 0.6016 0.6344
0.6312 0.6312 0.6312 0.6312
score_all_cycle =
0.6534 0.7069 0.7259 0.6658
0.6841 0.8371 0.6448 0.7076
0.7773 0.5280 0.5945 0.6364
0.6325 0.6325 0.6325 0.6325
0.4605 0.4602 0.4602 0.4603
0.4607 0.4591 0.4598 0.4601
0.4612 0.4585 0.4583 0.4603
0.4603 0.4603 0.4603 0.4603
0.4491 0.4489 0.4489 0.4491
0.4490 0.4478 0.4477 0.4489
0.4487 0.4454 0.4453 0.4487
0.4491 0.4491 0.4491 0.4491
0.6427 0.6424 0.6424 0.6425
0.6427 0.6407 0.6413 0.6423
0.6429 0.6385 0.6386 0.6423
0.6426 0.6426 0.6426 0.6426
score_cycle1 =
0.5526 0.5759 0.5702 0.5511
0.5808 0.6943 0.7913 0.5698
0.5975 0.6423 0.5931 0.5883
0.5336 0.5336 0.5336 0.5336
score_cycle2 =
0.5615 0.5868 0.5807 0.5598
0.5940 0.7101 0.8101 0.5804
0.7006 0.6454 0.5920 0.6742
0.5419 0.5419 0.5419 0.5419
score_all_cycle =
0.5571 0.5814 0.5755 0.5555
0.5874 0.7023 0.8009 0.5751
0.6317 0.6438 0.5923 0.6174
0.5378 0.5378 0.5378 0.5378
0.4528 0.4531 0.4532 0.4530
0.4526 0.4516 0.4524 0.4530
0.4547 0.4498 0.4501 0.4583
0.4530 0.4530 0.4530 0.4530
0.4566 0.4565 0.4565 0.4566
0.4566 0.4556 0.4555 0.4565
0.4563 0.4532 0.4531 0.4567
0.4566 0.4566 0.4566 0.4566
0.6430 0.6431 0.6432 0.6431
0.6429 0.6414 0.6419 0.6431
0.6441 0.6385 0.6387 0.6468
0.6431 0.6431 0.6431 0.6431
score_cycle1 =
0.7688 0.7930 0.8240 0.7643
0.7255 0.6009 0.7276 0.7705
0.6912 0.6171 0.5133 0.9289
0.7405 0.7405 0.7405 0.7405
score_cycle2 =
0.7704 0.7916 0.8262 0.7662
0.7353 0.5941 0.7173 0.8115
0.6881 0.6228 0.5107 0.9353
0.7421 0.7421 0.7421 0.7421
score_all_cycle =
0.7695 0.7923 0.8250 0.7652
0.7300 0.5975 0.7225 0.7877
0.6896 0.6197 0.5116 0.9319
0.7412 0.7412 0.7412 0.7412
0.4535 0.4536 0.4530 0.4531
0.4546 0.4522 0.4550 0.4543
0.4537 0.4542 0.4577 0.4535
0.4532 0.4532 0.4532 0.4530
0.4554 0.4552 0.4552 0.4554
0.4550 0.4542 0.4541 0.4555
0.4552 0.4522 0.4522 0.4552
0.4555 0.4555 0.4555 0.4555
0.6423 0.6422 0.6418 0.6421
0.6427 0.6405 0.6425 0.6429
0.6423 0.6406 0.6432 0.6422
0.6421 0.6421 0.6421 0.6421
161

Cycles
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR =
,
_ 7 ec m =
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR =
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack

2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3

,
_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= ,
and _ 0.1 a m D = .
162

1.4 SNR60, a_m=0.1D, ec_o = 2,5,8,11
_ 0.1 a m D = .
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR =
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.9005 0.9362 0.8817 0.8862
0.9635 0.6702 0.7113 0.8038
0.8733 0.5253 0.5696 0.6596
0.8696 0.8696 0.8696 0.8696
score_cycle2 =
0.8957 0.9297 0.8747 0.8813
0.9584 0.6611 0.7095 0.8486
0.8628 0.5214 0.5622 0.7639
0.8650 0.8650 0.8650 0.8650
score_all_cycle =
0.8979 0.9328 0.8781 0.8836
0.9608 0.6655 0.7102 0.8225
0.8677 0.5230 0.5656 0.6804
0.8671 0.8671 0.8671 0.8671
0.5743 0.5745 0.5741 0.5742
0.5743 0.5780 0.5771 0.5783
0.5753 0.5862 0.5804 0.7242
0.5743 0.5743 0.5743 0.5743
0.5784 0.5782 0.5782 0.5784
0.5783 0.5776 0.5775 0.5784
0.5783 0.5765 0.5765 0.5856
0.5784 0.5784 0.5784 0.5784
0.8148 0.8148 0.8146 0.8148
0.8148 0.8169 0.8163 0.8178
0.8154 0.8221 0.8179 0.9265
0.8149 0.8149 0.8149 0.8149
score_cycle1 =
0.6218 0.6554 0.6715 0.6273
0.6472 0.9529 0.7569 0.6736
0.7165 0.5802 0.6524 0.6209
0.6024 0.6024 0.6024 0.6024
score_cycle2 =
0.6297 0.6648 0.6808 0.6352
0.6568 0.9574 0.7627 0.6868
0.7495 0.5760 0.6655 0.6918
0.6100 0.6100 0.6100 0.6100
score_all_cycle =
0.6257 0.6601 0.6762 0.6312
0.6520 0.9552 0.7598 0.6802
0.7323 0.5779 0.6588 0.6451
0.6062 0.6062 0.6062 0.6062
0.5591 0.5592 0.5592 0.5592
0.5592 0.5590 0.5598 0.5591
0.5613 0.5594 0.5620 0.5590
0.5591 0.5591 0.5591 0.5591
0.5799 0.5798 0.5798 0.5799
0.5799 0.5792 0.5792 0.5799
0.5799 0.5778 0.5779 0.5797
0.5799 0.5799 0.5799 0.5799
0.8056 0.8056 0.8056 0.8056
0.8056 0.8050 0.8056 0.8055
0.8071 0.8043 0.8061 0.8054
0.8056 0.8056 0.8056 0.8056
score_cycle1 =
0.6255 0.6736 0.6541 0.6192
0.6817 0.7526 0.9521 0.6395
0.6903 0.6478 0.5735 0.6462
0.6000 0.6000 0.6000 0.6000
score_cycle2 =
0.6401 0.6888 0.6703 0.6336
0.6981 0.7672 0.9667 0.6602
0.7014 0.6619 0.5785 0.7514
0.6141 0.6141 0.6141 0.6141
score_all_cycle =
0.6329 0.6814 0.6624 0.6265
0.6901 0.7601 0.9596 0.6499
0.6960 0.6549 0.5759 0.6839
0.6071 0.6071 0.6071 0.6071
0.5564 0.5566 0.5565 0.5563
0.5562 0.5552 0.5556 0.5566
0.5566 0.5528 0.5544 0.5558
0.5564 0.5564 0.5564 0.5564
0.5614 0.5614 0.5614 0.5614
0.5614 0.5609 0.5610 0.5614
0.5613 0.5598 0.5599 0.5613
0.5614 0.5614 0.5614 0.5614
0.7896 0.7896 0.7896 0.7895
0.7895 0.7884 0.7887 0.7897
0.7896 0.7860 0.7872 0.7891
0.7896 0.7896 0.7896 0.7896
score_cycle1 =
0.8913 0.8786 0.9344 0.9054
0.8543 0.6987 0.6653 0.9603
0.7796 0.5600 0.5244 0.8745
0.8759 0.8759 0.8759 0.8759
score_cycle2 =
0.8966 0.8847 0.9398 0.9105
0.8606 0.7037 0.6698 0.9662
0.7772 0.5609 0.5255 0.8758
0.8811 0.8811 0.8811 0.8811
score_all_cycle =
0.8940 0.8817 0.9371 0.9080
0.8575 0.7012 0.6675 0.9632
0.7783 0.5602 0.5247 0.8750
0.8785 0.8785 0.8785 0.8785
0.5676 0.5685 0.5678 0.5676
0.5676 0.5693 0.5725 0.5678
0.5686 0.5770 0.5758 0.5688
0.5677 0.5677 0.5677 0.5677
0.5625 0.5627 0.5625 0.5625
0.5626 0.5623 0.5622 0.5626
0.5627 0.5613 0.5613 0.5627
0.5625 0.5625 0.5625 0.5625
0.7991 0.7998 0.7991 0.7991
0.7991 0.8000 0.8023 0.7992
0.7998 0.8046 0.8038 0.8000
0.7991 0.7991 0.7991 0.7991

163

Cycles
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m =
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3

Figure B.4 : The surface plots for each observer with SNR 60 =
,
_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= ,
and _ 0.1 a m D = .

164

1.5 SNR60, a_m = 0.1D, ec_o = 3,6,9,12
Table B.5 : Score arrays for each observer with SNR 60 = , _ 3, 6,9,12 ec m= ,
and _ 0.1 a m D = .
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR =
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.7883 0.8347 0.8099 0.7875
0.8148 0.7771 0.6477 0.7484
0.9352 0.5333 0.6455 0.6833
0.7650 0.7650 0.7650 0.7650
score_cycle2 =
0.7910 0.8398 0.8168 0.7912
0.8356 0.7900 0.6514 0.7783
0.9460 0.5344 0.6536 0.7197
0.7676 0.7676 0.7676 0.7676
score_all_cycle =
0.7897 0.8374 0.8134 0.7895
0.8248 0.7836 0.6496 0.7619
0.9407 0.5336 0.6495 0.6972
0.7664 0.7664 0.7664 0.7664
0.5752 0.5749 0.5751 0.5748
0.5754 0.5742 0.5739 0.5749
0.5756 0.5756 0.5722 0.5756
0.5752 0.5752 0.5752 0.5752
0.5557 0.5556 0.5556 0.5557
0.5555 0.5553 0.5552 0.5559
0.5556 0.5545 0.5545 0.5563
0.5557 0.5557 0.5557 0.5557
0.7987 0.7986 0.7986 0.7984
0.7988 0.7979 0.7975 0.7986
0.7989 0.7985 0.7958 0.7994
0.7987 0.7987 0.7987 0.7987
score_cycle1 =
0.5965 0.6237 0.6291 0.5981
0.6242 0.8553 0.7636 0.6332
0.7272 0.6328 0.6820 0.6231
0.5771 0.5771 0.5771 0.5771
score_cycle2 =
0.5894 0.6145 0.6194 0.5908
0.6147 0.8451 0.7571 0.6242
0.7122 0.6302 0.6824 0.7096
0.5703 0.5703 0.5703 0.5703
score_all_cycle =
0.5929 0.6190 0.6242 0.5943
0.6194 0.8499 0.7600 0.6286
0.7195 0.6315 0.6822 0.6497
0.5736 0.5736 0.5736 0.5736
0.5750 0.5753 0.5753 0.5750
0.5751 0.5748 0.5758 0.5763
0.5752 0.5734 0.5749 0.5814
0.5750 0.5750 0.5750 0.5750
0.5664 0.5663 0.5663 0.5664
0.5663 0.5655 0.5655 0.5663
0.5661 0.5637 0.5636 0.5662
0.5664 0.5664 0.5664 0.5664
0.8070 0.8071 0.8072 0.8070
0.8070 0.8062 0.806 0.8078
0.8069 0.8039 0.8050 0.8111
0.8070 0.8070 0.8070 0.8070
score_cycle1 =
0.7017 0.7522 0.7422 0.6925
0.7342 0.6782 0.8334 0.7224
0.6757 0.6048 0.5406 0.6886
0.6718 0.6718 0.6718 0.6718
score_cycle2 =
0.6980 0.7475 0.7376 0.6892
0.7312 0.6770 0.8490 0.7205
0.6732 0.6118 0.5439 0.8054
0.6686 0.668 0.6686 0.6686
score_all_cycle =
0.6998 0.7497 0.7397 0.6908
0.7326 0.6775 0.8408 0.7213
0.6744 0.6081 0.5419 0.7208
0.6701 0.6701 0.6701 0.6701
0.5743 0.5743 0.5744 0.5744
0.5746 0.5741 0.5803 0.5749
0.5749 0.5748 0.5867 0.5762
0.5743 0.5743 0.5743 0.5743
0.5687 0.5686 0.5687 0.5687
0.5687 0.5679 0.5683 0.5686
0.5685 0.5667 0.5669 0.5685
0.5688 0.5688 0.5688 0.5688
0.8082 0.8081 0.8082 0.8082
0.8083 0.8074 0.8120 0.8084
0.8084 0.8071 0.8154 0.8093
0.8081 0.8081 0.8081 0.8081
score_cycle1 =
0.9483 0.9159 0.9245 0.9541
0.9006 0.6516 0.6465 0.7522
0.8096 0.5255 0.5224 0.6389
0.9407 0.9407 0.9407 0.9407
score_cycle2 =
0.9323 0.8946 0.9042 0.9370
0.8746 0.6437 0.6403 0.8887
0.7948 0.5387 0.5351 0.8006
0.9220 0.9220 0.9220 0.9220
score_all_cycle =
0.9405 0.9054 0.9144 0.9457
0.8876 0.6468 0.6424 0.7898
0.8010 0.5301 0.5268 0.6578
0.9315 0.9315 0.9315 0.9315
norm_cycle1 =
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0011
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
0.5596 0.5595 0.5596 0.5595
0.5594 0.5591 0.5591 0.5614
0.5595 0.5592 0.5592 0.5631
0.5596 0.5596 0.559 0.5596
norm_all_cycle =
0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008
0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008
0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0012
0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008

165

Cycles
Surface Plots
60 SNR =
,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR =
,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR =
,
_ 9 ec m =
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR =
,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3

,
_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= ,
and _ 0.1 a m D = .

166

1.6 SNR60, a_m=0.1D, ec_o=1,4,7,10
Table B.6 : Score arrays for each observer with SNR 60 = , _ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= ,and
_ 0.1 a m D = .
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR =
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.9509 0.9120 0.9080 0.9469
0.7904 0.6376 0.6497 0.8984
0.6510 0.5195 0.5235 0.8074
0.9356 0.9356 0.9356 0.9356
score_cycle2 =
0.9623 0.9188 0.9161 0.9579
0.8992 0.6372 0.6523 0.8992
0.7992 0.5339 0.5403 0.8182
0.9471 0.9471 0.9471 0.9471
score_all_cycle =
0.9562 0.9151 0.9117 0.9520
0.8295 0.6362 0.6497 0.8985
0.6702 0.5246 0.5294 0.8105
0.9410 0.9410 0.9410 0.9410
0.5739 0.5738 0.5742 0.5732
0.5962 0.5853 0.5839 0.5749
0.6071 0.5990 0.5971 0.5812
0.5734 0.5734 0.5734 0.5734
0.5559 0.5558 0.5558 0.5559
0.5560 0.5557 0.5557 0.5561
0.5564 0.5561 0.5561 0.5564
0.5560 0.5560 0.5560 0.5560
0.7981 0.7979 0.7984 0.7976
0.8150 0.8066 0.8058 0.7991
0.8229 0.8173 0.8160 0.8042
0.7979 0.7979 0.7979 0.7979
score_cycle1 =
0.6990 0.7494 0.7567 0.7071
0.7324 0.8756 0.6906 0.7385
0.8241 0.5544 0.6161 0.6864
0.6776 0.6776 0.6776 0.6776
score_cycle2 =
0.6970 0.7490 0.7581 0.7058
0.7310 0.8799 0.6884 0.7399
0.8269 0.5482 0.6268 0.6826
0.6756 0.6756 0.6756 0.6756
score_all_cycle =
0.6980 0.7491 0.7573 0.7064
0.7316 0.8776 0.6895 0.7391
0.8254 0.5510 0.6209 0.6845
0.6766 0.6766 0.6766 0.6766
0.5746 0.5742 0.5741 0.5742
0.5748 0.5736 0.5739 0.5741
0.5753 0.5738 0.5733 0.5742
0.5742 0.5742 0.5742 0.5742
0.5569 0.5568 0.5568 0.5569
0.5568 0.5559 0.5558 0.5568
0.5565 0.5541 0.5541 0.5566
0.5569 0.5569 0.5569 0.5569
0.7992 0.7989 0.7989 0.7990
0.7993 0.7978 0.7982 0.7988
0.7994 0.7966 0.7965 0.7989
0.7990 0.7990 0.7990 0.7990
score_cycle1 =
0.5864 0.6156 0.6096 0.5846
0.6200 0.7537 0.8345 0.6091
0.6684 0.6700 0.6327 0.6305
0.5660 0.5660 0.5660 0.5660
score_cycle2 =
0.5984 0.6298 0.6236 0.5964
0.6361 0.7710 0.8536 0.6231
0.7283 0.6716 0.6300 0.7159
0.5774 0.5774 0.5774 0.5774
score_all_cycle =
0.5924 0.6227 0.6167 0.5906
0.6281 0.7625 0.8443 0.6162
0.6951 0.6708 0.6311 0.6632
0.5717 0.5717 0.5717 0.5717
0.5614 0.5617 0.5618 0.5616
0.5614 0.5604 0.5614 0.5617
0.5627 0.5593 0.5606 0.5652
0.5616 0.5616 0.5616 0.5616
0.5706 0.5705 0.5705 0.5706
0.5706 0.5699 0.5698 0.5706
0.5703 0.5682 0.5681 0.5708
0.5706 0.5706 0.5706 0.5706
0.8005 0.8006 0.8006 0.8006
0.8005 0.7993 0.7999 0.8007
0.8011 0.7973 0.7982 0.8032
0.8006 0.8006 0.8006 0.8006
score_cycle1 =
0.7985 0.8202 0.8453 0.7980
0.7689 0.6471 0.7747 0.8134
0.7224 0.6303 0.5332 0.7085
0.7747 0.7747 0.7747 0.7747
score_cycle2 =
0.8006 0.8193 0.8474 0.8006
0.7772 0.6391 0.7636 0.8434
0.7178 0.6321 0.5269 0.9346
0.7771 0.7771 0.7771 0.7771
score_all_cycle =
0.7995 0.8197 0.8462 0.7993
0.7728 0.6431 0.7692 0.8267
0.7200 0.6310 0.5297 0.7520
0.7758 0.7758 0.7758 0.7758
0.5669 0.5662 0.5664 0.5665
0.5682 0.5661 0.5683 0.5678
0.5672 0.5685 0.5707 0.6222
0.5665 0.5665 0.5665 0.5665
0.5637 0.5636 0.5636 0.5637
0.5633 0.5629 0.5628 0.5638
0.5636 0.5615 0.5615 0.5646
0.5637 0.5637 0.5637 0.5637
0.7989 0.7984 0.7985 0.7987
0.7996 0.7977 0.7993 0.7997
0.7991 0.7986 0.8003 0.8393
0.7987 0.7987 0.7987 0.7987

167

Cycles
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m =
, _ 0.1 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.1 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
-3

,
_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= ,
and _ 0.1 a m D = .
168

2. a_m = 0.2D
SNR100
2.1 SNR100, a_m=0.2D, ec_o = 2,5,8,11
_ 0.2 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.7262 0.5515 0.5551 0.6295
0.9200 0.4902 0.6002 0.6446
0.7842 0.4767 0.4883 0.6543
0.6209 0.6209 0.6209 0.6209
score_cycle2 =
0.7281 0.5487 0.5538 0.6248
0.9083 0.4897 0.5940 0.6400
0.7700 0.4783 0.4871 0.6472
0.6157 0.6157 0.6157 0.6157
score_all_cycle =
0.7271 0.5501 0.5545 0.6272
0.9142 0.4899 0.5970 0.6424
0.7771 0.4774 0.4871 0.6507
0.6183 0.6183 0.6183 0.6183
0.4677 0.4587 0.4587 0.4680
0.4674 0.4540 0.4564 0.4670
0.4660 0.4575 0.4627 0.4652
0.4681 0.4681 0.4681 0.4681
0.4591 0.4558 0.4556 0.4590
0.4586 0.4525 0.4524 0.4586
0.4579 0.4491 0.4489 0.4578
0.4592 0.4592 0.4592 0.4592
0.6558 0.6470 0.6469 0.6559
score_cycle1 =
0.4874 0.5311 0.6043 0.4871
0.4950 0.9076 0.6453 0.4969
0.5041 0.5271 0.5517 0.5163
0.4598 0.4598 0.4598 0.4598
score_cycle2 =
0.4860 0.5284 0.5995 0.4856
0.4937 0.8948 0.6409 0.4957
0.5028 0.5237 0.5560 0.5218
0.4581 0.4581 0.4581 0.4581
score_all_cycle =
0.4867 0.5297 0.6019 0.4864
0.4943 0.9013 0.6431 0.4963
0.5034 0.5253 0.5536 0.5187
0.4589 0.4589 0.4589 0.4589
0.4692 0.4745 0.4721 0.4694
0.4719 0.4613 0.4580 0.4720
0.4738 0.4481 0.4480 0.4740
0.4655 0.4655 0.4655 0.4655
0.4629 0.4612 0.4610 0.4629
0.4629 0.4566 0.4562 0.4628
0.4624 0.4509 0.4505 0.4621
0.4627 0.4627 0.4627 0.4627
0.6592 0.6618 0.6599 0.6593
score_cycle1 =
0.4854 0.6048 0.5292 0.4855
0.4945 0.6408 0.8949 0.4892
0.5152 0.5520 0.5285 0.4949
0.4582 0.4582 0.4582 0.4582
score_cycle2 =
0.4866 0.6108 0.5321 0.4865
0.4971 0.6483 0.9125 0.4927
0.5259 0.5617 0.5282 0.5004
0.4587 0.4587 0.4587 0.4587
score_all_cycle =
0.4860 0.6080 0.5307 0.4860
0.4958 0.6448 0.9040 0.4909
0.5202 0.5566 0.5284 0.4975
0.4584 0.4584 0.4584 0.4584
0.4592 0.4619 0.4639 0.4593
0.4615 0.4476 0.4506 0.4620
0.4628 0.4365 0.4371 0.4659
0.4559 0.4559 0.4559 0.4559
0.4734 0.4710 0.4713 0.4735
0.4733 0.4653 0.4657 0.4734
0.4726 0.4584 0.4590 0.4733
0.4732 0.4732 0.4732 0.4732
0.6598 0.6600 0.6616 0.6599
score_cycle1 =
0.6277 0.5576 0.5488 0.7326
0.6552 0.6030 0.4891 0.7371
0.6579 0.4921 0.4762 0.6227
0.6361 0.6361 0.6361 0.6361
score_cycle2 =
0.6226 0.5521 0.5472 0.7416
0.6418 0.5931 0.4899 0.9268
0.6525 0.4893 0.4795 0.7786
0.6226 0.6226 0.6226 0.6226
score_all_cycle =
0.6251 0.5548 0.5481 0.7362
0.6485 0.5980 0.4895 0.7745
0.6554 0.4904 0.4777 0.6414
0.6293 0.6293 0.6293 0.6293
0.4400 0.4302 0.4312 0.4401
0.4386 0.4271 0.4302 0.4405
0.4370 0.4318 0.4341 0.4438
0.4398 0.4398 0.4398 0.4398
0.4472 0.4437 0.4439 0.4472
0.4467 0.4401 0.4404 0.4468
0.4459 0.4364 0.4367 0.4466
0.4476 0.4476 0.4476 0.4476
0.6273 0.6176 0.6185 0.6273
169

Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
0.6552 0.6413 0.6430 0.6549
0.6537 0.6415 0.6451 0.6531
0.6561 0.6561 0.6561 0.6561
0.6611 0.6491 0.6465 0.6611
0.6621 0.6357 0.6352 0.6620
0.6563 0.6563 0.6563 0.6563
0.6613 0.6459 0.6483 0.6617
0.6618 0.6331 0.6340 0.6644
0.6574 0.6574 0.6574 0.6574
0.6259 0.6127 0.6152 0.6273
0.6242 0.6136 0.6156 0.6295
0.6274 0.6274 0.6274 0.6274

170

Cycles
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m =
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
all
cycles Global Position of the Crack
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

,
_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= ,
and _ 0.2 a m D = .

171

2.2 SNR100, a_m=0.2D, ec_o = 3,6,9,12
Table B.8 : Score arrays for each observer with SNR 100 = , _ 3, 6,9,12 ec m= , and
_ 0.2 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.5350 0.6295 0.5664 0.6023
0.5593 0.5398 0.5123 0.5769
0.6169 0.4931 0.5629 0.5459
0.4986 0.4986 0.4986 0.4986
score_cycle2 =
0.5317 0.6296 0.5664 0.5919
0.5553 0.5390 0.5109 0.5762
0.6198 0.4934 0.5773 0.5420
0.4957 0.4957 0.4957 0.4957
score_all_cycle =
0.5333 0.6295 0.5663 0.5970
0.5573 0.5394 0.5116 0.5766
0.6180 0.4932 0.5695 0.5439
0.4971 0.4971 0.4971 0.4971
0.4492 0.4433 0.4410 0.4487
0.4499 0.4351 0.4334 0.4486
0.4499 0.4360 0.4376 0.4472
0.4477 0.4477 0.4477 0.4477
0.4475 0.4446 0.4444 0.4475
0.4471 0.4409 0.4405 0.4471
0.4469 0.4369 0.4365 0.4464
0.4477 0.4477 0.4477 0.4477
0.6340 0.6277 0.6259 0.6337
0.6343 0.6190 0.6176 0.6333
0.6341 0.6168 0.6180 0.6318
0.6331 0.6331 0.6331 0.6331
score_cycle1 =
0.4768 0.5143 0.5216 0.4765
0.4848 0.6865 0.5740 0.4845
0.4938 0.633 0.6536 0.4920
0.4481 0.4481 0.4481 0.4481
score_cycle2 =
0.4795 0.5177 0.5249 0.4792
0.4878 0.6991 0.5798 0.4877
0.4972 0.6376 0.6688 0.4975
0.4505 0.4505 0.4505 0.4505
score_all_cycle =
0.4781 0.5159 0.5232 0.4778
0.4862 0.6926 0.5768 0.4860
0.4954 0.6352 0.6609 0.4945
0.4493 0.4493 0.4493 0.4493
0.4839 0.4923 0.4920 0.4839
0.4872 0.4773 0.4775 0.4871
0.4897 0.4585 0.4600 0.4890
0.4794 0.4794 0.4794 0.4794
0.4677 0.4661 0.4660 0.4676
0.4677 0.4607 0.4605 0.4677
0.4672 0.4538 0.4536 0.4673
0.4673 0.4673 0.4673 0.4673
0.6733 0.6782 0.6779 0.6732
0.6757 0.6637 0.6636 0.6756
0.6772 0.6452 0.6461 0.6767
0.6697 0.6697 0.6697 0.6697
score_cycle1 =
0.5014 0.5767 0.6339 0.4970
0.5409 0.5373 0.6709 0.5062
0.6047 0.525 0.5081 0.5209
0.4689 0.4689 0.4689 0.4689
score_cycle2 =
0.5043 0.5845 0.6336 0.5001
0.5432 0.5433 0.6782 0.5097
0.6189 0.5326 0.5122 0.5250
0.4714 0.4714 0.4714 0.4714
score_all_cycle =
0.5029 0.5805 0.6338 0.4986
0.5421 0.5403 0.6745 0.5080
0.6119 0.5290 0.5101 0.5230
0.4702 0.4702 0.4702 0.4702
0.4645 0.4615 0.4639 0.4649
0.4659 0.4454 0.4497 0.4666
0.4653 0.4371 0.4391 0.4673
0.4620 0.4620 0.4620 0.4620
0.4679 0.4651 0.4655 0.4679
0.4676 0.4601 0.4608 0.4678
0.4669 0.4545 0.4552 0.4672
0.4679 0.4679 0.4679 0.4679
0.6593 0.6552 0.6571 0.6596
0.6600 0.6406 0.6441 0.6607
0.6591 0.6309 0.6327 0.6607
0.6576 0.6576 0.6576 0.6576
score_cycle1 =
0.7621 0.5159 0.5023 0.8183
0.6269 0.4728 0.4713 0.7344
0.5164 0.4558 0.4569 0.6783
0.8910 0.8910 0.8910 0.8910
score_cycle2 =
0.7578 0.5140 0.5023 0.8132
0.6919 0.4735 0.4722 0.7283
0.6366 0.4584 0.4589 0.6708
0.8808 0.8808 0.8808 0.8808
score_all_cycle =
0.7599 0.5148 0.5022 0.8157
0.6488 0.4729 0.4716 0.7313
0.5229 0.4569 0.4577 0.6744
0.8858 0.8858 0.8858 0.8858
0.4438 0.4403 0.4411 0.4436
0.6281 0.4407 0.4394 0.4440
0.6105 0.4392 0.4372 0.4456
0.4441 0.4441 0.4441 0.4441
0.4578 0.4541 0.4541 0.4578
0.4570 0.4509 0.4509 0.4572
0.4572 0.4469 0.4469 0.4565
0.4584 0.4584 0.4584 0.4584
0.6376 0.6324 0.6329 0.6374
0.7718 0.6304 0.6294 0.6374
0.7581 0.6266 0.6251 0.6380
0.6383 0.6383 0.6383 0.6383

172

Cycles
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

,
_ 3, 6,9,12 ec m= ,
and _ 0.2 a m D = .

173

2.3 SNR=100,a_m=0.2D,ec_o=1,4,7,10
_ 0.2 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.8045 0.5021 0.5154 0.6655
0.6042 0.4695 0.4728 0.5614
0.5180 0.4545 0.4559 0.4928
0.8821 0.8821 0.8821 0.8821
score_cycle2 =
0.8122 0.5048 0.5174 0.7730
0.7208 0.4736 0.4755 0.6997
0.6589 0.4598 0.4600 0.6412
0.8922 0.8922 0.8922 0.8922
score_all_cycle =
0.8085 0.5034 0.5162 0.6894
0.6248 0.4713 0.4739 0.5743
0.5330 0.4569 0.4577 0.5009
0.8873 0.8873 0.8873 0.8873
norm_cycle1 =
0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0005
0.0005 0.0004 0.0004 0.0007
0.0013 0.0004 0.0004 0.0008
0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004
0.4503 0.4474 0.4474 0.4518
0.4511 0.4448 0.4448 0.4659
0.4546 0.4416 0.4416 0.4698
0.4507 0.4507 0.4507 0.4507
norm_all_cycle =
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0008
0.0014 0.0006 0.0006 0.0009
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
score_cycle1 =
0.4980 0.6346 0.5806 0.5021
0.5078 0.6794 0.5396 0.5409
0.5230 0.5098 0.5261 0.6082
0.4690 0.4690 0.4690 0.4690
score_cycle2 =
0.4964 0.6248 0.5746 0.5000
0.5059 0.6671 0.5353 0.5367
0.5206 0.5076 0.5285 0.5977
0.4674 0.4674 0.4674 0.4674
score_all_cycle =
0.4972 0.6297 0.5776 0.5010
0.5068 0.6732 0.5374 0.5388
0.5218 0.5087 0.5272 0.6028
0.4682 0.4682 0.4682 0.4682
0.4753 0.4737 0.4716 0.4750
0.4767 0.4602 0.4583 0.4759
0.4772 0.4516 0.4535 0.4754
0.4727 0.4727 0.4727 0.4727
0.4528 0.4506 0.4503 0.4528
0.4527 0.4465 0.4460 0.4526
0.4521 0.4420 0.4414 0.4519
0.4528 0.4528 0.4528 0.4528
0.6562 0.6534 0.6518 0.6559
0.6571 0.6411 0.6395 0.6564
0.6570 0.6319 0.6328 0.6556
0.6544 0.6544 0.6544 0.6544
score_cycle1 =
0.4791 0.5257 0.5177 0.4799
0.4866 0.5776 0.6945 0.4880
0.5000 0.6667 0.6400 0.4928
0.4512 0.4512 0.4512 0.4512
score_cycle2 =
0.4802 0.5285 0.5201 0.4808
0.4886 0.5845 0.7006 0.4894
0.5020 0.6767 0.6425 0.4973
0.4517 0.4517 0.4517 0.4517
score_all_cycle =
0.4796 0.5271 0.5189 0.4803
0.4876 0.5810 0.6975 0.4887
0.5010 0.6715 0.6412 0.4949
0.4514 0.4514 0.4514 0.4514
0.4552 0.4632 0.4635 0.4549
0.4586 0.4581 0.4506 0.4580
0.4604 0.4325 0.4362 0.4607
0.4508 0.4508 0.4508 0.4508
0.4651 0.4635 0.4635 0.4651
0.4651 0.4587 0.4587 0.4651
0.4646 0.4526 0.4528 0.4644
0.4648 0.4648 0.4648 0.4648
0.6511 0.6557 0.6559 0.6509
0.6536 0.6485 0.6433 0.6531
0.6545 0.6260 0.6288 0.6545
0.6478 0.6478 0.6478 0.6478
score_cycle1 =
0.6125 0.5724 0.6385 0.5378
0.5856 0.5152 0.5415 0.5496
0.5506 0.5635 0.4929 0.6384
0.5028 0.5028 0.5028 0.5028
score_cycle2 =
0.6039 0.5641 0.6284 0.5339
0.5776 0.5112 0.5371 0.5584
0.5449 0.5797 0.4924 0.6325
0.4981 0.4981 0.4981 0.4981
score_all_cycle =
0.6082 0.5682 0.6334 0.5358
0.5815 0.5131 0.5393 0.5531
0.5477 0.5704 0.4926 0.6355
0.5004 0.5004 0.5004 0.5004
0.4591 0.4521 0.4531 0.4599
0.4593 0.4438 0.4456 0.4621
0.4577 0.4474 0.4464 0.4593
0.4585 0.4585 0.4585 0.4585
0.4735 0.4692 0.4697 0.4736
0.4729 0.4637 0.4644 0.4735
0.4719 0.4578 0.4587 0.4722
0.4737 0.4737 0.4737 0.4737
0.6595 0.6515 0.6526 0.6601
0.6593 0.6416 0.6434 0.6615
0.6574 0.6401 0.6399 0.6587
0.6592 0.6592 0.6592 0.6592
174

Cycles
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m =
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

,
_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= ,
and _ 0.2 a m D = .
175

2.4 SNR=60,a=0.2D,ec_o=2,5,8,11
_ 0.2 a m D = .

Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m= ,
_ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.7687 0.5804 0.5831 0.6746
0.9342 0.4966 0.6142 0.6713
0.8233 0.4791 0.4997 0.6677
0.6607 0.6607 0.6607 0.6607
score_cycle2 =
0.7670 0.5765 0.5807 0.6685
0.9219 0.4952 0.6080 0.6658
0.8077 0.4797 0.4949 0.6604
0.6542 0.6542 0.6542 0.6542
score_all_cycle =
0.7679 0.5785 0.5819 0.6716
0.9281 0.4959 0.6110 0.6686
0.8155 0.4793 0.4967 0.6641
0.6575 0.6575 0.6575 0.6575
0.5823 0.5760 0.5759 0.5824
0.5820 0.5729 0.5748 0.5818
0.5811 0.5760 0.5799 0.5805
0.5824 0.5824 0.5824 0.5824
0.5736 0.5712 0.5711 0.5734
0.5732 0.5690 0.5689 0.5732
0.5728 0.5667 0.5666 0.5727
0.5735 0.5735 0.5735 0.5735
0.8178 0.8116 0.8116 0.8178
0.8174 0.8078 0.8092 0.8172
0.8164 0.8085 0.8112 0.8160
0.8179 0.8179 0.8179 0.8179
score_cycle1 =
0.4874 0.5311 0.6043 0.4871
0.4950 0.9076 0.6453 0.4969
0.5041 0.5271 0.5517 0.5163
0.4598 0.4598 0.4598 0.4598
score_cycle2 =
0.4860 0.5284 0.5995 0.4856
0.4937 0.8948 0.6409 0.4957
0.5028 0.5237 0.5560 0.5218
0.4581 0.4581 0.4581 0.4581
score_all_cycle =
0.4867 0.5297 0.6019 0.4864
0.4943 0.9013 0.6431 0.4963
0.5034 0.5253 0.5536 0.5187
0.4589 0.4589 0.4589 0.4589
0.4692 0.4745 0.4721 0.4694
0.4719 0.4613 0.4580 0.4720
0.4738 0.4481 0.4480 0.4740
0.4655 0.4655 0.4655 0.4655
0.4629 0.4612 0.4610 0.4629
0.4629 0.4566 0.4562 0.4628
0.4624 0.4509 0.4505 0.4621
0.4627 0.4627 0.4627 0.4627
0.6592 0.6618 0.6599 0.6593
0.6611 0.6491 0.6465 0.6611
0.6621 0.6357 0.6352 0.6620
0.6563 0.6563 0.6563 0.6563
score_cycle1 =
0.4947 0.6304 0.5518 0.4938
0.5074 0.6625 0.9070 0.4998
0.5362 0.5766 0.5449 0.5087
0.4653 0.4653 0.4653 0.4653
score_cycle2 =
0.4966 0.6378 0.5560 0.4957
0.5107 0.6713 0.9291 0.5035
0.5493 0.5886 0.5478 0.5145
0.4667 0.4667 0.4667 0.4667
score_all_cycle =
0.4957 0.6342 0.5540 0.4948
0.5091 0.6672 0.9184 0.5017
0.5424 0.5824 0.5464 0.5116
0.4660 0.4660 0.4660 0.4660
0.5677 0.5696 0.5709 0.5677
0.5695 0.5595 0.5622 0.5698
0.5704 0.5518 0.5552 0.5728
0.5653 0.5653 0.5653 0.5653
0.5821 0.5802 0.5804 0.5821
0.5819 0.5760 0.5763 0.5820
0.5814 0.5709 0.5713 0.5820
0.5819 0.5819 0.5819 0.5819
0.8135 0.8135 0.8145 0.8135
0.8146 0.8034 0.8055 0.8149
0.8148 0.7943 0.7970 0.8170
0.8117 0.8117 0.8117 0.8117
score_cycle1 =
0.6747 0.5849 0.5764 0.7842
0.6818 0.6178 0.4964 0.7756
0.6725 0.5041 0.4803 0.6570
0.6814 0.6814 0.6814 0.6814
score_cycle2 =
0.6676 0.5772 0.5745 0.7832
0.6679 0.6080 0.4958 0.9410
0.6657 0.4980 0.4817 0.8186
0.6644 0.6644 0.6644 0.6644
score_all_cycle =
0.6710 0.5811 0.5755 0.7833
0.6749 0.6129 0.4961 0.8175
0.6693 0.5007 0.4809 0.6817
0.6728 0.6728 0.6728 0.6728
0.5475 0.5399 0.5412 0.5475
0.5463 0.5375 0.5408 0.5478
0.5452 0.5405 0.5437 0.5499
0.5471 0.5471 0.5471 0.5471
0.5560 0.5535 0.5537 0.5560
0.5556 0.5511 0.5513 0.5557
0.5551 0.5486 0.5488 0.5555
0.5562 0.5562 0.5562 0.5562
0.7800 0.7728 0.7738 0.7801
0.7790 0.7693 0.7718 0.7801
0.7778 0.7697 0.7721 0.7815
0.7800 0.7800 0.7800 0.7800
176

Cycles
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m =
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

,
_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= , and
_ 0.2 a m D = .

177

2.5 SNR=60, a=0.2D,ec_o=3,6,9,12

_ 0.2 a m D = .
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.5614 0.6817 0.5954 0.6272
0.5941 0.5632 0.5269 0.6102
0.6646 0.4974 0.5855 0.5723
0.5182 0.5182 0.5182 0.5182
score_cycle2 =
0.5558 0.6813 0.5953 0.6155
0.5871 0.5626 0.5247 0.6081
0.6633 0.4969 0.5954 0.5667
0.5137 0.5137 0.5137 0.5137
score_all_cycle =
0.5586 0.6814 0.5953 0.6212
0.5906 0.5629 0.5258 0.6091
0.6637 0.4971 0.5902 0.5695
0.5159 0.5159 0.5159 0.5159
0.5602 0.5564 0.5544 0.5598
0.5609 0.5512 0.5493 0.5597
0.5607 0.5524 0.5526 0.5588
0.5591 0.5591 0.5591 0.5591
0.5584 0.5564 0.5563 0.5585
0.5582 0.5539 0.5537 0.5582
0.5581 0.5513 0.5510 0.5577
0.5585 0.5585 0.5585 0.5585

score_cycle1 =
0.4839 0.5323 0.5427 0.4838
0.4935 0.7186 0.6130 0.4939
0.5057 0.6714 0.6884 0.5059
0.4539 0.4539 0.4539 0.4539
score_cycle2 =
0.4868 0.5353 0.5456 0.4867
0.4966 0.7312 0.6204 0.4970
0.5090 0.6804 0.7052 0.5109
0.4565 0.4565 0.4565 0.4565
score_all_cycle =
0.4853 0.5337 0.5441 0.4852
0.4950 0.7247 0.6166 0.4954
0.5073 0.6758 0.6965 0.5082
0.4551 0.4551 0.4551 0.4551
0.5936 0.5999 0.5999 0.5937
0.5961 0.5886 0.5892 0.5962
0.5981 0.5744 0.5763 0.5977
0.5902 0.5902 0.5902 0.5902
0.5742 0.5730 0.5729 0.5742
0.5742 0.5690 0.5688 0.5742
0.5739 0.5639 0.5638 0.5740
0.5739 0.5739 0.5739 0.5739

score_cycle1 =
0.5170 0.6131 0.6799 0.5093
0.5669 0.5514 0.7068 0.5216
0.6276 0.5431 0.5188 0.5387
0.4786 0.4786 0.4786 0.4786
score_cycle2 =
0.5201 0.6230 0.6785 0.5126
0.5686 0.5658 0.7184 0.5253
0.6418 0.5508 0.5237 0.5451
0.4814 0.4814 0.4814 0.4814
score_all_cycle =
0.5186 0.6180 0.6792 0.5110
0.5678 0.5583 0.7125 0.5235
0.6348 0.5469 0.5212 0.5419
0.4801 0.4801 0.4801 0.4801
0.5722 0.5727 0.5716 0.5725
0.5731 0.5891 0.5614 0.5738
0.5726 0.5511 0.5537 0.5750
0.5703 0.5703 0.5703 0.5703
0.5809 0.5790 0.5792 0.5809
0.5807 0.5756 0.5759 0.5808
0.5802 0.5715 0.5720 0.5807
0.5808 0.5808 0.5808 0.5808

score_cycle1 =
0.7958 0.5361 0.5185 0.8464
0.6146 0.4812 0.4777 0.7636
0.5415 0.4597 0.4597 0.7063
0.9070 0.9070 0.9070 0.9070
score_cycle2 =
0.7907 0.5327 0.5172 0.8404
0.7211 0.4798 0.4771 0.7560
0.6651 0.4606 0.4605 0.6962
0.8962 0.8962 0.8962 0.8962
score_all_cycle =
0.7932 0.5343 0.5178 0.8434
0.6305 0.4803 0.4772 0.7597
0.5496 0.4599 0.4600 0.7010
0.9015 0.9015 0.9015 0.9015
0.5528 0.5508 0.5521 0.5528
0.5958 0.5516 0.5513 0.5531
0.6927 0.5508 0.5498 0.5542
0.5529 0.5529 0.5529 0.5529
0.5687 0.5658 0.5658 0.5687
0.5679 0.5634 0.5634 0.5682
0.5679 0.5604 0.5604 0.5676
0.5692 0.5692 0.5692 0.5692

178

Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
0.7910 0.7867 0.7853 0.7907
0.7912 0.7811 0.7796 0.7905
0.7911 0.7801 0.7803 0.7895
0.7903 0.7903 0.7903 0.7903
0.8262 0.8299 0.8299 0.8263
0.8281 0.8190 0.8193 0.8281
0.8293 0.8052 0.8064 0.8290
0.8235 0.8235 0.8235 0.8235
0.8153 0.8142 0.8136 0.8155
0.8157 0.8229 0.8044 0.8163
0.8150 0.7941 0.7963 0.8170
0.8139 0.8139 0.8139 0.8139
0.7930 0.7895 0.7903 0.7930
0.8227 0.7884 0.7880 0.7929
0.8902 0.7857 0.7848 0.7933
0.7934 0.7934 0.7934 0.7934

179

Cycles
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m =
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

Figure B.11 : The surface plots for scores of each observer with SNR 60 =
,
_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and _ 0.2 a m D = .

180

2.6 SNR=60, a_m=0.2D, ec_o = 1,4,7,10
_ 0.2 a m D = .
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.8330 0.5181 0.5358 0.6981
0.6749 0.4760 0.4805 0.5903
0.5470 0.4575 0.4589 0.5167
0.8995 0.8995 0.8995 0.8995
score_cycle2 =
0.8410 0.5199 0.5367 0.8078
0.7489 0.4784 0.4817 0.7354
0.6845 0.4611 0.4618 0.6721
0.9093 0.9093 0.9093 0.9093
score_all_cycle =
0.8371 0.5189 0.5361 0.7278
0.7031 0.4770 0.4808 0.6068
0.5681 0.4591 0.4601 0.5268
0.9045 0.9045 0.9045 0.9045
norm_cycle1=
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007
0.0014 0.0006 0.0006 0.0009
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
0.5634 0.5614 0.5613 0.5644
0.5644 0.5596 0.5595 0.5740
0.5668 0.5573 0.5573 0.5767
0.5636 0.5636 0.5636 0.5636
norm_all_cycle =
0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008
0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0009
0.0015 0.0008 0.0008 0.0010
0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008
score_cycle1 =
0.5105 0.6794 0.6191 0.5174
0.5234 0.7174 0.5637 0.5664
0.5449 0.5212 0.5444 0.6305
0.4789 0.4789 0.4789 0.4789
score_cycle2 =
0.5078 0.6676 0.6108 0.5142
0.5203 0.7025 0.5572 0.5605
0.5410 0.5174 0.5464 0.6184
0.4764 0.4764 0.4764 0.4764
score_all_cycle =
0.5092 0.6735 0.6150 0.5158
0.5218 0.7099 0.5605 0.5634
0.5430 0.5193 0.5453 0.6244
0.4777 0.4777 0.4777 0.477
0.5866 0.5852 0.5837 0.5865
0.5877 0.5754 0.5741 0.5871
0.5880 0.5692 0.5708 0.5867
0.5848 0.5848 0.5848 0.5848
0.5643 0.5628 0.5626 0.5643
0.5642 0.5600 0.5597 0.5642
0.5638 0.5570 0.5566 0.5637
0.5643 0.5643 0.5643 0.5643
0.8136 0.8115 0.8103 0.8135
0.8142 0.8028 0.8017 0.8138
0.8142 0.7964 0.7972 0.8133
0.8123 0.8123 0.8123 0.8123
score_cycle1 =
0.4867 0.5479 0.5365 0.4863
0.4965 0.6195 0.7299 0.4947
0.5112 0.7040 0.6831 0.5053
0.4572 0.4572 0.4572 0.4572
score_cycle2 =
0.4880 0.5506 0.5388 0.4877
0.4985 0.6269 0.7354 0.4970
0.5146 0.7131 0.6870 0.5094
0.4579 0.4579 0.4579 0.4579
score_all_cycle =
0.4874 0.5492 0.5376 0.4870
0.4975 0.6232 0.7326 0.4958
0.5129 0.7085 0.6850 0.5073
0.4575 0.4575 0.4575 0.4575
0.5602 0.5660 0.5662 0.5601
0.5629 0.5636 0.5572 0.5629
0.5644 0.5443 0.5472 0.5650
0.5569 0.5569 0.5569 0.5569
0.5723 0.5711 0.5711 0.5723
0.5723 0.5676 0.5676 0.5722
0.5718 0.5633 0.5634 0.5718
0.5720 0.5720 0.5720 0.5720
0.8013 0.8045 0.8046 0.8012
0.8032 0.8002 0.7958 0.8031
0.8039 0.7835 0.7856 0.8043
0.7987 0.7987 0.7987 0.7987
score_cycle1 =
0.6409 0.6024 0.6933 0.5657
0.6209 0.5299 0.5666 0.5826
0.5773 0.5844 0.4982 0.6199
0.5237 0.5237 0.5237 0.5237
score_cycle2 =
0.6313 0.5924 0.6798 0.5609
0.6110 0.5258 0.5604 0.5936
0.5706 0.5968 0.4965 0.6755
0.5185 0.5185 0.5185 0.5185
score_all_cycle =
0.6360 0.5974 0.6865 0.5633
0.6159 0.5278 0.5634 0.5870
0.5740 0.5899 0.4973 0.6345
0.5210 0.5210 0.5210 0.5210
0.5714 0.5662 0.5668 0.5722
0.5713 0.5606 0.5618 0.5739
0.5702 0.5634 0.5629 0.5738
0.5708 0.5708 0.5708 0.5708
0.5859 0.5827 0.5831 0.5860
0.5855 0.5786 0.5792 0.5860
0.5848 0.5742 0.5749 0.5848
0.5861 0.5861 0.5861 0.5861
0.8185 0.8125 0.8131 0.8190
0.8181 0.8055 0.8068 0.8202
0.8168 0.8045 0.8045 0.8192
0.8181 0.8181 0.8181 0.8181

181

Cycles
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m =
, _ 0.2 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.2 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1
2
3
4
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3

,
_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= , and
_ 0.2 a m D = .
182

3. a_m = 0.3D
SNR100
3.1 SNR=100, a_m=0.3D, ec_o = 2,5,8,11
_ 0.3 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.6417 0.4932 0.5800 0.5398
0.8823 0.4851 0.5015 0.5816
0.7129 0.4812 0.4793 0.6393
0.5067 0.5067 0.5067 0.5067
score_cycle2 =
0.6363 0.4921 0.5946 0.5379
0.8762 0.4867 0.5018 0.5790
0.7044 0.4871 0.4886 0.6327
0.5051 0.5051 0.5051 0.5051
score_all_cycle =
0.6390 0.4926 0.5867 0.5389
0.8792 0.4858 0.5011 0.5803
0.7086 0.4839 0.4831 0.6360
0.5059 0.5059 0.5059 0.5059
0.4571 0.4366 0.4420 0.4554
0.4541 0.4476 0.4647 0.4511
0.4491 0.4778 0.5118 0.4450
0.4562 0.4562 0.4562 0.4562
0.4523 0.4399 0.4392 0.4520
0.4509 0.4344 0.4337 0.4504
0.4489 0.4294 0.4289 0.4482
0.4536 0.4536 0.4536 0.4536

score_cycle1 =
0.4830 0.5364 0.6051 0.4834
0.4874 0.9030 0.6482 0.4896
0.4883 0.5409 0.5418 0.4975
0.4378 0.4378 0.4378 0.4378
score_cycle2 =
0.4839 0.5370 0.6070 0.4840
0.4891 0.9052 0.6504 0.4907
0.4919 0.5389 0.5433 0.4991
0.4370 0.4370 0.4370 0.4370
score_all_cycle =
0.4835 0.5368 0.6061 0.4837
0.4882 0.9043 0.6494 0.4901
0.4900 0.5399 0.5425 0.4982
0.4374 0.4374 0.4374 0.4374
0.4782 0.4677 0.4622 0.4776
0.4835 0.4449 0.4409 0.4820
0.4868 0.4312 0.4315 0.4829
0.4627 0.4627 0.4627 0.4627
0.4720 0.4591 0.4586 0.4719
0.4713 0.4505 0.4499 0.4711
0.4694 0.4415 0.4410 0.4691
0.4712 0.4712 0.4712 0.4712

score_cycle1 =
0.4819 0.6011 0.5340 0.4826
0.4886 0.6297 0.8854 0.4876
0.4965 0.5417 0.5391 0.4915
0.4351 0.4351 0.4351 0.4351
store_scoreT_t11wu(:,:,2) =
0.4816 0.6026 0.5331 0.4823
0.4887 0.6340 0.8729 0.4879
0.4968 0.5400 0.5371 0.4922
0.4333 0.4333 0.4333 0.4333
score_all_cycle =
0.4817 0.6018 0.5335 0.4824
0.4887 0.6316 0.8790 0.4877
0.4966 0.5408 0.5380 0.4919
0.4342 0.4342 0.4342 0.4342
0.4789 0.4663 0.4683 0.4803
0.4836 0.4639 0.4453 0.4857
0.4841 0.4298 0.4317 0.4882
0.4643 0.4643 0.4643 0.4643
0.4715 0.4575 0.4579 0.4717
0.4707 0.4483 0.4488 0.4709
0.4686 0.4390 0.4394 0.4690
0.4711 0.4711 0.4711 0.4711

score_cycle1 =
0.5320 0.5713 0.4890 0.6266
0.5633 0.5011 0.4796 0.6811
0.6299 0.4780 0.4762 0.5940
0.5024 0.5024 0.5024 0.5024
score_cycle2 =
0.5369 0.5857 0.4909 0.6353
0.5736 0.5011 0.4847 0.8542
0.6242 0.4869 0.4849 0.7003
0.5051 0.5051 0.5051 0.5051
score_all_cycle =
0.5344 0.5782 0.4899 0.6309
0.5682 0.5007 0.4820 0.7159
0.6270 0.4818 0.4800 0.6076
0.5038 0.5038 0.5038 0.5038
0.4613 0.4484 0.4440 0.4627
0.4562 0.4764 0.4608 0.4621
0.4509 0.5263 0.4936 0.4574
0.4620 0.4620 0.4620 0.4620
0.4581 0.4491 0.4496 0.4583
0.4570 0.4459 0.4462 0.4576
0.4554 0.4437 0.4438 0.4560
0.4593 0.4593 0.4593 0.4593

183

Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
0.6431 0.6198 0.6232 0.6418
0.6401 0.6237 0.6351 0.6376
0.6351 0.6407 0.6641 0.6317
0.6434 0.6434 0.6434 0.6434
0.6722 0.6556 0.6514 0.6717
0.6755 0.6334 0.6301 0.6742
0.6765 0.6171 0.6169 0.6735
0.6607 0.6607 0.6607 0.6607
0.6720 0.6532 0.6547 0.6730
0.6746 0.6450 0.6322 0.6762
0.6735 0.6144 0.6160 0.6766
0.6615 0.6615 0.6615 0.6615
0.6493 0.6338 0.6313 0.6502
0.6450 0.6492 0.6396 0.6492
0.6403 0.6802 0.6585 0.6449
0.6505 0.6505 0.6505 0.6505

184

Cycles
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
X= 0.4375
Y= 0.0045
Level= 0.879
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

,
_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= ,
and _ 0.3 a m D = .
185

3.2 SNR=100, a_m=0.3D, ec_o = 3,6,9,12
Table B.14: Score arrays for each observer with SNR 100 = , _ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= , and
_ 0.3 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.5029 0.5935 0.5113 0.5417
0.5111 0.5111 0.5107 0.5519
0.5321 0.4927 0.5751 0.5092
0.4589 0.4589 0.4589 0.4589
score_cycle2 =
0.5029 0.5859 0.5096 0.5401
0.5123 0.5108 0.5143 0.5790
0.5350 0.4946 0.5863 0.5115
0.4577 0.4577 0.4577 0.4577
score_all_cycle =
0.5029 0.5896 0.5104 0.5409
0.5117 0.5109 0.5124 0.5631
0.5335 0.4936 0.5803 0.5103
0.4583 0.4583 0.4583 0.4583
0.4726 0.4464 0.4455 0.4700
0.4724 0.4428 0.4523 0.4699
0.4709 0.4556 0.4820 0.4660
0.4649 0.4649 0.4649 0.4649
0.4629 0.4509 0.4501 0.4625
0.4618 0.4450 0.4442 0.4612
0.4599 0.4396 0.4389 0.4593
0.4630 0.4630 0.4630 0.4630
0.6608 0.6342 0.6330 0.6588
0.6598 0.6274 0.6333 0.6578
0.6574 0.6315 0.6487 0.6536
0.6557 0.6557 0.6557 0.6557
score_cycle1 =
0.4777 0.5188 0.5373 0.4773
0.4830 0.6920 0.5689 0.4829
0.4868 0.7111 0.6514 0.4875
0.4282 0.4282 0.4282 0.4282
score_cycle2 =
0.4783 0.5209 0.5386 0.4779
0.4843 0.6879 0.5703 0.4842
0.4886 0.6961 0.6422 0.4892
0.4272 0.4272 0.4272 0.4272
score_all_cycle =
0.4780 0.5198 0.5380 0.4776
0.4836 0.6899 0.5696 0.4836
0.4877 0.7032 0.6465 0.4883
0.4277 0.4277 0.4277 0.4277
0.4918 0.4902 0.4890 0.4917
0.4986 0.4595 0.4575 0.4979
0.5029 0.4374 0.4373 0.5015
0.4743 0.4743 0.4743 0.4743
0.4932 0.4809 0.4807 0.4932
0.4926 0.4719 0.4717 0.4925
0.4909 0.4621 0.4619 0.4908
0.4925 0.4925 0.4925 0.4925
0.6966 0.6867 0.6857 0.6965
0.7009 0.6587 0.6572 0.7004
0.7027 0.6359 0.6357 0.7017
0.6838 0.6838 0.6838 0.6838
score_cycle1 =
0.4882 0.6018 0.7273 0.4887
0.5035 0.5281 0.6644 0.4939
0.5568 0.5237 0.5129 0.4972
0.4444 0.4444 0.4444 0.4444
score_cycle2 =
0.4892 0.6026 0.7247 0.4895
0.5040 0.5257 0.6610 0.4951
0.5567 0.5254 0.5130 0.4999
0.4438 0.4438 0.4438 0.4438
score_all_cycle =
0.4887 0.6021 0.7260 0.4891
0.5037 0.5269 0.6627 0.4945
0.5567 0.5245 0.5129 0.4984
0.4441 0.4441 0.4441 0.4441
0.4856 0.4637 0.4640 0.4878
0.4873 0.4417 0.4459 0.4917
0.4845 0.4427 0.4395 0.4922
0.4730 0.4730 0.4730 0.4730
0.4668 0.4547 0.4554 0.4670
0.4658 0.4477 0.4484 0.4662
0.4639 0.4408 0.4414 0.4645
0.4667 0.4667 0.4667 0.4667
0.6735 0.6494 0.6501 0.6752
0.6740 0.6287 0.6322 0.6774
0.6706 0.6246 0.6226 0.6766
0.6645 0.6645 0.6645 0.6645
score_cycle1 =
0.6082 0.4589 0.4548 0.6598
0.5812 0.4504 0.4474 0.6091
0.5653 0.4487 0.4465 0.5755
0.8092 0.8092 0.8092 0.8092
score_cycle2 =
0.6120 0.4618 0.4617 0.6619
0.5895 0.4556 0.4565 0.6032
0.5862 0.4561 0.4572 0.5618
0.8168 0.8168 0.8168 0.8168
score_all_cycle =
0.6101 0.4602 0.4579 0.6609
0.5851 0.4528 0.4513 0.6060
0.5743 0.4521 0.4510 0.5678
0.8131 0.8131 0.8131 0.8131
0.4397 0.4420 0.4526 0.4399
0.4379 0.4534 0.4653 0.4381
0.4359 0.4702 0.4812 0.4363
0.4433 0.4433 0.4433 0.4433
0.4494 0.4422 0.4421 0.4494
0.4488 0.4393 0.4393 0.4489
0.4480 0.4371 0.4371 0.4480
0.4507 0.4507 0.4507 0.4507
0.6290 0.6254 0.6327 0.6291
0.6272 0.6312 0.6394 0.6275
0.6252 0.6409 0.6486 0.6256
0.6324 0.6324 0.6324 0.6324

186

Cycles
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
x 10-3
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
Depth of the Crack
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
all
cycles Global Position of the Crack
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

,
_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= ,
and _ 0.3 a m D = .
187

3.3 SNR=100, a_m=0.3D, ec_o = 1,4,7,10
_ 0.3 a m D = .
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
100 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.6493 0.4594 0.4629 0.5481
0.6019 0.4530 0.4556 0.5035
0.4891 0.4528 0.4549 0.4733
0.7891 0.7891 0.7891 0.7891
score_cycle2 =
0.6563 0.4622 0.4629 0.6048
0.6005 0.4578 0.4575 0.5758
0.5505 0.4595 0.4590 0.5725
0.8025 0.8025 0.8025 0.8025
score_all_cycle =
0.6529 0.4607 0.4628 0.5596
0.6012 0.4553 0.4565 0.5113
0.4967 0.4559 0.4568 0.4853
0.7961 0.7961 0.7961 0.7961
0.4447 0.4430 0.4416 0.4575
0.4428 0.4513 0.4504 0.4762
0.5041 0.4628 0.4637 0.9517
0.4484 0.4484 0.4484 0.4484
0.4623 0.4502 0.4501 0.4636
0.4611 0.4449 0.4448 0.4631
0.4607 0.4397 0.4396 0.4691
0.4646 0.4646 0.4646 0.4646
norm_all_cycle =
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007
0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0011
0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
score_cycle1 =
0.4896 0.7159 0.6021 0.4917
0.4928 0.6705 0.5275 0.5048
0.4964 0.5145 0.5228 0.5575
0.4479 0.4479 0.4479 0.4479
score_cycle2 =
0.4869 0.7008 0.5932 0.4882
0.4912 0.6512 0.5211 0.5008
0.4956 0.5091 0.5214 0.5501
0.4437 0.4437 0.4437 0.4437
score_all_cycle =
0.4883 0.7087 0.5978 0.4900
0.4920 0.6610 0.5243 0.5029
0.4960 0.5118 0.5221 0.5540
0.4458 0.4458 0.4458 0.4458
0.4853 0.4713 0.4594 0.4838
0.4892 0.4484 0.4483 0.4854
0.4905 0.4437 0.4525 0.4828
0.4721 0.4721 0.4721 0.4721
0.4768 0.4631 0.4623 0.4766
0.4758 0.4547 0.4538 0.4755
0.4737 0.4460 0.4451 0.4732
0.4766 0.4766 0.4766 0.4766
0.6804 0.6606 0.6515 0.6791
0.6824 0.6380 0.6373 0.6795
0.6819 0.6286 0.6345 0.6761
0.6706 0.6706 0.6706 0.6706
score_cycle1 =
0.4772 0.5362 0.5185 0.4775
0.4815 0.5658 0.6828 0.4818
0.4832 0.6452 0.7028 0.4809
0.4297 0.4297 0.4297 0.4297
score_cycle2 =
0.4802 0.5426 0.5242 0.4805
0.4856 0.5730 0.6890 0.4858
0.4890 0.6492 0.7053 0.4874
0.4309 0.4309 0.4309 0.4309
score_all_cycle =
0.4788 0.5395 0.5214 0.4790
0.4836 0.5695 0.6860 0.4838
0.4860 0.6472 0.7041 0.4840
0.4303 0.4303 0.4303 0.4303
0.4849 0.4775 0.4793 0.4855
0.4906 0.4507 0.4530 0.4913
0.4930 0.4306 0.4332 0.4959
0.4689 0.4689 0.4689 0.4689
0.4986 0.4847 0.4849 0.4986
0.4979 0.4746 0.4748 0.4979
0.4961 0.4634 0.4635 0.4959
0.4981 0.4981 0.4981 0.4981
0.6955 0.6804 0.6818 0.6960
0.6990 0.6543 0.6561 0.6995
0.6993 0.6318 0.6336 0.7013
0.6839 0.6839 0.6839 0.6839
score_cycle1 =
0.5409 0.5081 0.5848 0.5036
0.5892 0.5107 0.5096 0.5126
0.5185 0.5774 0.4915 0.5343
0.4625 0.4625 0.4625 0.4625
score_cycle2 =
0.5453 0.5118 0.5866 0.5064
0.5920 0.5169 0.5136 0.5157
0.5209 0.5910 0.4979 0.5381
0.4645 0.4645 0.4645 0.4645
score_all_cycle =
0.5430 0.5098 0.5856 0.5049
0.5905 0.5136 0.5115 0.5141
0.5197 0.5836 0.4943 0.5361
0.4634 0.4634 0.4634 0.4634
0.4781 0.4682 0.4577 0.4800
0.4764 0.4630 0.4566 0.4803
0.4714 0.4905 0.4685 0.4777
0.4728 0.4728 0.4728 0.4728
0.4581 0.4452 0.4460 0.4584
0.4568 0.4387 0.4396 0.4574
0.4545 0.4327 0.4334 0.4555
0.4586 0.4586 0.4586 0.4586
0.6622 0.6460 0.6391 0.6638
0.6601 0.6378 0.6339 0.6633
0.6550 0.6527 0.6380 0.6601
0.6588 0.6588 0.6588 0.6588

188

Cycles
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
100 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

,
_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= ,
and _ 0.3 a m D = .
189

3.4 SNR=60, a_m=0.3D, ec_o = 2,5,8,11
Table B.16: Score arrays for each observer with SNR 60 = , _ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= , and
_ 0.3 a m D = .
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.6923 0.4975 0.6003 0.5670
0.9123 0.4868 0.5148 0.6102
0.7642 0.4831 0.4846 0.6504
0.5285 0.5285 0.5285 0.5285
score_cycle2 =
0.6858 0.4966 0.6113 0.5645
0.9057 0.4876 0.5115 0.6070
0.7552 0.4869 0.4903 0.6442
0.5264 0.5264 0.5264 0.5264
score_all_cycle =
0.6890 0.4971 0.6055 0.5657
0.9089 0.4872 0.5127 0.6086
0.7596 0.4849 0.4870 0.6473
0.5275 0.5275 0.5275 0.5275
0.5661 0.5509 0.5550 0.5651
0.5640 0.5584 0.5710 0.5620
0.5603 0.5804 0.6060 0.5576
0.5654 0.5654 0.5654 0.5654
0.5610 0.5521 0.5517 0.5608
0.5600 0.5482 0.5477 0.5597
0.5587 0.5446 0.5442 0.5581
0.5619 0.5619 0.5619 0.5619
0.7971 0.7801 0.7826 0.7963
0.7949 0.7825 0.7909 0.7933
0.7913 0.7947 0.8118 0.7891
0.7972 0.7972 0.7972 0.7972
score_cycle1 =
0.4901 0.5623 0.6342 0.4909
0.4956 0.9285 0.6693 0.4988
0.4983 0.5653 0.5661 0.5102
0.4426 0.4426 0.4426 0.4426
score_cycle2 =
0.4906 0.5625 0.6358 0.4912
0.4967 0.9313 0.6714 0.4996
0.5009 0.5628 0.5675 0.5114
0.4419 0.4419 0.4419 0.4419
score_all_cycle =
0.4904 0.5624 0.6350 0.4911
0.4961 0.9301 0.6704 0.4992
0.4995 0.5641 0.5668 0.5108
0.4423 0.4423 0.4423 0.4423
0.5787 0.5713 0.5675 0.5781
0.5826 0.5559 0.5532 0.5813
0.5851 0.5470 0.5473 0.5821
0.5675 0.5675 0.5675 0.5675
0.5753 0.5661 0.5658 0.5752
0.5748 0.5602 0.5598 0.5747
0.5736 0.5541 0.5537 0.5733
0.5747 0.5747 0.5747 0.5747
0.8164 0.8046 0.8017 0.8159
0.8188 0.7895 0.7872 0.8178
0.8197 0.7787 0.7786 0.8174
0.8080 0.8080 0.8080 0.8080
score_cycle1 =
0.4887 0.6307 0.5583 0.4887
0.4971 0.6536 0.9130 0.4950
0.5085 0.5648 0.5645 0.5005
0.4384 0.4384 0.4384 0.4384
score_cycle2 =
0.4877 0.6306 0.5563 0.4877
0.4963 0.6544 0.8993 0.4945
0.5079 0.5627 0.5612 0.5003
0.4364 0.4364 0.4364 0.4364
score_all_cycle =
0.4882 0.6305 0.5573 0.4882
0.4967 0.6539 0.9060 0.4947
0.5082 0.5637 0.5628 0.5004
0.4374 0.4374 0.4374 0.4374
0.5777 0.5691 0.5696 0.5784
0.5808 0.5686 0.5536 0.5824
0.5813 0.5433 0.5449 0.5842
0.5668 0.5668 0.5668 0.5668
0.5752 0.5651 0.5654 0.5753
0.5746 0.5587 0.5591 0.5748
0.5732 0.5523 0.5526 0.5735
0.5748 0.5748 0.5748 0.5748
0.8151 0.8020 0.8023 0.8156
0.8168 0.7971 0.7868 0.8180
0.8161 0.7748 0.7760 0.8182
0.8073 0.8073 0.8073 0.8073
score_cycle1 =
0.5575 0.5897 0.4941 0.6523
0.5893 0.5150 0.4821 0.7214
0.6411 0.4831 0.4786 0.6283
0.5221 0.5221 0.5221 0.5221
score_cycle2 =
0.5626 0.5998 0.4954 0.6815
0.5992 0.5109 0.4856 0.8799
0.6346 0.4888 0.4847 0.7482
0.5260 0.5260 0.5260 0.5260
score_all_cycle =
0.5600 0.5947 0.4947 0.6656
0.5941 0.5124 0.4838 0.7606
0.6377 0.4856 0.4814 0.6462
0.5240 0.5240 0.5240 0.5240
0.5718 0.5623 0.5589 0.5736
0.5678 0.5836 0.5718 0.5724
0.5641 0.6221 0.5965 0.5695
0.5720 0.5720 0.5720 0.5720
0.5752 0.5694 0.5696 0.5754
0.5745 0.5673 0.5675 0.5749
0.5735 0.5660 0.5661 0.5739
0.5760 0.5760 0.5760 0.5760
0.8099 0.7992 0.7973 0.8111
0.8068 0.8109 0.8037 0.8099
0.8036 0.8336 0.8177 0.8072
0.8105 0.8105 0.8105 0.8105

190

Cycles
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 2 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 5 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 8 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 11 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
X= 0.4375
Y= 0.0045
Level= 0.906
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

,
_ 2, 5,8,11 ec m= ,
and _ 0.3 a m D = .
191

3.5 SNR=60, a_m=0.3D, ec_o = 3,6,9,12
_ 0.3 a m D = .
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.5149 0.6242 0.5236 0.5659
0.5278 0.5219 0.5242 0.5775
0.5574 0.4951 0.5925 0.5249
0.4641 0.4641 0.4641 0.4641
score_cycle2 =
0.5144 0.6164 0.5219 0.5634
0.5284 0.5220 0.5280 0.6011
0.5602 0.4964 0.6014 0.5287
0.4629 0.4629 0.4629 0.4629
score_all_cycle =
0.5147 0.6202 0.5227 0.5646
0.5281 0.5220 0.5260 0.5878
0.5587 0.4957 0.5967 0.5266
0.4635 0.4635 0.4635 0.4635
0.5792 0.5610 0.5609 0.5774
0.5788 0.5589 0.5668 0.5776
0.5780 0.5690 0.5897 0.5753
0.5737 0.5737 0.5737 0.5737
0.5728 0.5646 0.5641 0.5725
0.5721 0.5607 0.5601 0.5717
0.5708 0.5570 0.5566 0.5704
0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728
0.8133 0.7951 0.7948 0.8120
0.8125 0.7907 0.7957 0.8114
0.8110 0.7942 0.8074 0.8089
0.8098 0.8098 0.8098 0.8098
score_cycle1 =
0.4834 0.5391 0.5634 0.4829
0.4900 0.7194 0.6045 0.4900
0.4954 0.7481 0.6897 0.4965
0.4307 0.4307 0.4307 0.4307
score_cycle2 =
0.4834 0.5396 0.5626 0.4830
0.4905 0.7125 0.6057 0.4906
0.4964 0.7317 0.6778 0.4975
0.4296 0.4296 0.4296 0.4296
score_all_cycle =
0.4834 0.5393 0.5629 0.4830
0.4903 0.7159 0.6051 0.4903
0.4959 0.7395 0.6835 0.4970
0.4301 0.4301 0.4301 0.4301
0.5904 0.5902 0.5888 0.5905
0.5954 0.5673 0.5658 0.5954
0.5987 0.5519 0.5518 0.5982
0.5775 0.5775 0.5775 0.5775
0.6000 0.5912 0.5911 0.6000
0.5996 0.5849 0.5848 0.5996
0.5985 0.5780 0.5779 0.5984
0.5995 0.5995 0.5995 0.5995
0.8419 0.8355 0.8345 0.8420
0.8452 0.8149 0.8137 0.8451
0.8466 0.7988 0.7986 0.8462
0.8324 0.8324 0.8324 0.8324
score_cycle1 =
0.4992 0.6284 0.7643 0.4963
0.5182 0.5445 0.6882 0.5024
0.5827 0.5389 0.5237 0.5092
0.4487 0.4487 0.4487 0.4487
score_cycle2 =
0.4991 0.6281 0.7621 0.4965
0.5180 0.5417 0.6842 0.5031
0.5818 0.5407 0.5231 0.5107
0.4479 0.4479 0.4479 0.4479
score_all_cycle =
0.4992 0.6282 0.7632 0.4964
0.5181 0.5431 0.6862 0.5027
0.5822 0.5397 0.5234 0.5099
0.4483 0.4483 0.4483 0.4483
0.5902 0.5721 0.5745 0.5921
0.5914 0.5585 0.5619 0.5955
0.5893 0.5593 0.5577 0.5956
0.5809 0.5809 0.5809 0.5809
0.5734 0.5651 0.5655 0.5735
0.5728 0.5603 0.5608 0.5731
0.5714 0.5557 0.5561 0.5719
0.5734 0.5734 0.5734 0.5734
0.8228 0.8041 0.8061 0.8243
0.8232 0.7909 0.7937 0.8264
0.8208 0.7883 0.7873 0.8256
0.8162 0.8162 0.8162 0.8162
score_cycle1 =
0.6483 0.4624 0.4595 0.6911
0.6148 0.4521 0.4516 0.6371
0.5938 0.4499 0.4503 0.6005
0.8366 0.8366 0.8366 0.8366
score_cycle2 =
0.6527 0.4642 0.4627 0.6936
0.6229 0.4558 0.4561 0.6323
0.6129 0.4553 0.4560 0.5870
0.8444 0.8444 0.8444 0.8444
score_all_cycle =
0.6505 0.4632 0.4610 0.6924
0.6187 0.4538 0.4537 0.6346
0.6024 0.4524 0.4530 0.5931
0.8406 0.8406 0.8406 0.8406
0.5496 0.5534 0.5554 0.5497
0.5484 0.5619 0.5628 0.5484
0.5470 0.5744 0.5736 0.5472
0.5519 0.5519 0.5519 0.5519
0.5616 0.5572 0.5573 0.5616
0.5613 0.5555 0.5555 0.5613
0.5609 0.5542 0.5542 0.5609
0.5622 0.5622 0.5622 0.5622
0.7860 0.7855 0.7869 0.7860
0.7850 0.7902 0.7906 0.7850
0.7837 0.7976 0.7969 0.7838
0.7881 0.7881 0.7881 0.7881

192

Cycles
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 3 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 6 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 9 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 12 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Global Position of
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

,
_ 3, 6, 9,12 ec m= ,
and _ 0.3 a m D = .

193

3.6 SNR=100, a_m=0.3D, ec_o = 1,4,7,10
_ 0.3 a m D = .
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Score Arrays
60 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
score_cycle1 =
0.6787 0.4618 0.4623 0.5770
0.6279 0.4547 0.4530 0.5226
0.5289 0.4543 0.4519 0.4883
0.8165 0.8165 0.8165 0.8165
score_cycle2 =
0.6873 0.4642 0.4658 0.6468
0.6288 0.4585 0.4584 0.6103
0.5829 0.4595 0.4589 0.6005
0.8311 0.8311 0.8311 0.8311
score_all_cycle =
0.6832 0.4630 0.4639 0.5926
0.6285 0.4565 0.4555 0.5328
0.5481 0.4568 0.4551 0.5040
0.8241 0.8241 0.8241 0.8241
0.5568 0.5568 0.5629 0.5668
0.5554 0.5628 0.5708 0.5810
0.8598 0.5706 0.5806 0.9928
0.5593 0.5593 0.5593 0.5593
0.5731 0.5642 0.5641 0.5741
0.5722 0.5602 0.5601 0.5738
0.5716 0.5563 0.5562 0.5779
0.5748 0.5748 0.5748 0.5748
norm_all_cycle =
0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008
0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008
0.0010 0.0008 0.0008 0.0011
0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008
score_cycle1 =
0.4979 0.7554 0.6275 0.5017
0.5028 0.6952 0.5447 0.5198
0.5087 0.5258 0.5387 0.5832
0.4539 0.4539 0.4539 0.4539
score_cycle2 =
0.4940 0.7369 0.6166 0.4970
0.4995 0.6732 0.5363 0.5143
0.5058 0.5188 0.5359 0.5735
0.4490 0.4490 0.4490 0.4490
score_all_cycle =
0.4960 0.7465 0.6222 0.4994
0.5012 0.6843 0.5405 0.5171
0.5073 0.5223 0.5374 0.5785
0.4515 0.4515 0.4515 0.4515
0.5907 0.5769 0.5728 0.5895
0.5935 0.5651 0.5656 0.5907
0.5946 0.5623 0.5693 0.5889
0.5812 0.5812 0.5812 0.5812
0.5838 0.5736 0.5730 0.5836
0.5830 0.5675 0.5669 0.5828
0.5815 0.5612 0.5605 0.5811
0.5836 0.5836 0.5836 0.5836
0.8304 0.8132 0.8098 0.8294
0.8319 0.8002 0.8001 0.8297
0.8316 0.7938 0.7986 0.8273
0.8232 0.8232 0.8232 0.8232
score_cycle1 =
0.4837 0.5602 0.5370 0.4839
0.4891 0.6000 0.7080 0.4893
0.4927 0.6815 0.7409 0.4900
0.4342 0.4342 0.4342 0.4342
score_cycle2 =
0.4865 0.5669 0.5430 0.4867
0.4928 0.6087 0.7142 0.4928
0.4979 0.6853 0.7421 0.4956
0.4356 0.4356 0.4356 0.4356
score_all_cycle =
0.4852 0.5636 0.5401 0.4853
0.4910 0.6045 0.7112 0.4911
0.4953 0.6834 0.7415 0.4928
0.4349 0.4349 0.4349 0.4349
0.5804 0.5747 0.5760 0.5809
0.5845 0.5560 0.5578 0.5851
0.5861 0.5425 0.5446 0.5887
0.5688 0.5688 0.5688 0.5688
0.6063 0.5958 0.5959 0.6063
0.6058 0.5883 0.5884 0.6058
0.6044 0.5799 0.5801 0.6043
0.6059 0.6059 0.6059 0.6059
0.8392 0.8278 0.8288 0.8395
0.8418 0.8089 0.8102 0.8422
0.8419 0.7929 0.7944 0.8437
0.8306 0.8306 0.8306 0.8306
score_cycle1 =
0.5628 0.5237 0.6139 0.5158
0.6058 0.5235 0.5218 0.5288
0.5362 0.5939 0.4947 0.5433
0.4703 0.4703 0.4703 0.4703
score_cycle2 =
0.5697 0.5251 0.6171 0.5187
0.6159 0.5304 0.5255 0.5319
0.5387 0.6071 0.5001 0.5566
0.4726 0.4726 0.4726 0.4726
score_all_cycle =
0.5661 0.5243 0.6154 0.5172
0.6106 0.5267 0.5235 0.5303
0.5374 0.6000 0.4972 0.5488
0.4714 0.4714 0.4714 0.4714
0.5877 0.5739 0.5746 0.5892
0.5865 0.5797 0.5748 0.5895
0.5835 0.6001 0.5839 0.5913
0.5843 0.5843 0.5843 0.5843
0.5667 0.5576 0.5582 0.5670
0.5658 0.5531 0.5537 0.5663
0.5643 0.5489 0.5494 0.5656
0.5671 0.5671 0.5671 0.5671
0.8165 0.8002 0.8012 0.8178
0.8150 0.8013 0.7982 0.8175
0.8118 0.8124 0.8016 0.8183
0.8143 0.8143 0.8143 0.8143

194

Cycles
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 1 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 4 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 7 ec m =
, _ 0.3 a m D =
Surface Plots
60 SNR = ,
_ 10 ec m=
, _ 0.3 a m D =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Depth of the Crack

2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
Depth of the Crack

all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
all
cycles
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

,
_ 1, 4, 7,10 ec m= ,
and _ 0.3 a m D = .
195

Score arrays for the case of _ me o me =
Table B.19 : Score arrays for Test 2.
Score Arrays
1
me me _o 1 me = =

Score Arrays
1
me me _ o 2 me = =

Score Arrays
1
me me _ o 10 me = =

Score Arrays
1
me me_o 100 me = =

Score Arrays
1
me me _o 1000 me = =

score_cycle1 =
0.4809 0.6044 0.5330 0.4791
0.4870 0.6412 0.8845 0.4827
0.4948 0.5413 0.5380 0.4844
0.4350 0.4350 0.4350 0.4350
score_cycle2 =
0.4847 0.6076 0.5388 0.4839
0.4914 0.6489 0.8976 0.4888
0.5000 0.5458 0.5407 0.4915
0.4374 0.4374 0.4374 0.4374

score_all_cycle =
0.4827 0.6060 0.5359 0.4814
0.4892 0.6450 0.8911 0.4855
0.4973 0.5435 0.5393 0.4877
0.4362 0.4362 0.4362 0.4362
0.5038 0.4860 0.4910 0.5042
0.5080 0.4596 0.4642 0.5099
0.5087 0.4425 0.4442 0.5138
0.4883 0.4883 0.4883 0.4883
0.4783 0.4660 0.4665 0.4784
0.4776 0.4579 0.4584 0.4778
0.4758 0.4494 0.4499 0.4761
0.4776 0.4776 0.4776 0.4776

0.6939 0.6726 0.6763 0.6943
0.6964 0.6486 0.6520 0.6978
0.6955 0.6307 0.6322 0.6993
0.6827 0.6827 0.6827 0.6827
score_cycle1 =
0.4911 0.6160 0.5539 0.4904
0.4977 0.6487 0.9080 0.4950
0.5097 0.5496 0.5591 0.4995
0.4600 0.4600 0.4600 0.4600
score_cycle2 =
0.4912 0.6123 0.5538 0.4906
0.4981 0.6470 0.8985 0.4954
0.5103 0.5488 0.5564 0.5002
0.4596 0.4596 0.4596 0.4596

score_all_cycle =
0.4911 0.6142 0.5538 0.4905
0.4979 0.6479 0.9033 0.4952
0.5100 0.5492 0.5577 0.4999
0.4598 0.4598 0.4598 0.4598
0.4855 0.4743 0.4776 0.4858
0.4867 0.4563 0.4604 0.4875
0.4864 0.4424 0.4456 0.4879
0.4805 0.4805 0.4805 0.4805
0.4818 0.4707 0.4711 0.4819
0.4809 0.4619 0.4624 0.4810
0.4793 0.4523 0.4529 0.4795
0.4825 0.4825 0.4825 0.4825

0.6840 0.6682 0.6709 0.6842
0.6842 0.6492 0.6525 0.6848
0.6829 0.6324 0.6352 0.6841
0.6809 0.6809 0.6809 0.6809
score_cycle1 =
0.5912 0.6831 0.7345 0.5670
0.6181 0.7114 0.9499 0.5702
0.6622 0.6391 0.7424 0.5748
0.5414 0.5414 0.5414 0.5414
score_cycle2 =
0.6051 0.6996 0.7600 0.5800
0.6356 0.7253 0.9684 0.5874
0.6763 0.6477 0.7510 0.6001
0.5524 0.5524 0.5524 0.5524

score_all_cycle =
0.5982 0.6915 0.7474 0.5735
0.6269 0.7185 0.9594 0.5786
0.6694 0.6434 0.7467 0.5867
0.5469 0.5469 0.5469 0.5469
0.4786 0.4662 0.4660 0.4783
0.4772 0.4564 0.4567 0.4770
0.4749 0.4452 0.4464 0.4766
0.4814 0.4814 0.4814 0.4814
0.4722 0.4625 0.4625 0.4722
0.4711 0.4561 0.4562 0.4711
0.4696 0.4491 0.4492 0.4695
0.4740 0.4740 0.4740 0.4740

0.6717 0.6559 0.6558 0.6715
0.6699 0.6445 0.6448 0.6698
0.6673 0.6318 0.6327 0.6683
0.6750 0.6750 0.6750 0.6750
score_cycle1 =
0.9288 0.9525 0.9793 0.9344
0.9318 0.9540 0.9971 0.9418
0.9325 0.9191 0.9774 0.9483
0.9031 0.9031 0.9031 0.9031
score_cycle2 =
0.9150 0.9433 0.9672 0.9194
0.9190 0.9492 0.9882 0.9269
0.9216 0.9191 0.9720 0.9346
0.8885 0.8885 0.8885 0.8885

score_all_cycle =
0.9218 0.9478 0.9731 0.9267
0.9253 0.9515 0.9925 0.9342
0.9269 0.9189 0.9746 0.9413
0.8956 0.8956 0.8956 0.8956
0.5136 0.5027 0.4996 0.5131
0.5113 0.5038 0.4984 0.5105
0.5109 0.5355 0.5106 0.5088
0.5207 0.5207 0.5207 0.5207
0.5273 0.5119 0.5118 0.5273
0.5245 0.5103 0.5100 0.5244
0.5227 0.5226 0.5221 0.5225
0.5352 0.5352 0.5352 0.5352

0.7355 0.7167 0.7145 0.7352
0.7319 0.7162 0.7125 0.7313
0.7302 0.7483 0.7296 0.7287
0.7462 0.7462 0.7462 0.7462
score_cycle1 =
0.9793 0.9791 0.9840 0.9807
0.9805 0.9921 0.9990 0.9828
0.9807 0.9362 0.9407 0.9841
0.9571 0.9571 0.9571 0.9571
score_cycle2 =
0.9874 0.9821 0.9877 0.9891
0.9874 0.9987 1.0068 0.9901
0.9871 0.9480 0.9533 0.9912
0.9681 0.9681 0.9681 0.9681

score_all_cycle =
0.9832 0.9805 0.9857 0.9847
0.9838 0.9952 1.0027 0.9863
0.9837 0.9418 0.9467 0.9874
0.9624 0.9624 0.9624 0.9624
norm_cycle1 =
0.0011 0.0012 0.0012 0.0011
0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011
0.0011 0.0015 0.0015 0.0011
0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012
norm_cycle2 =
0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011
0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011
0.0011 0.0015 0.0015 0.0011
0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011

norm_all_cycle =
0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016
0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016
0.0016 0.0022 0.0022 0.0016
0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016
196

Cycles
Surface
Plots
1
me me _ o 1 me = =

Surface
Plots

1
me me _ o 2 me = =
Surface
Plots

1
me me _o 10 me = =

Surface
Plots

1
me me _o 100 me = =

Surface
Plots

1
me me_o 1000 me = =

1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
all
cycles
D
epth of the C
rack
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
epth of the C
rack
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
epth of the C
rack
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
epth of the C
rack
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
D
epth of the C
rack
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

Figure B.19: Surface plots for the score arrays with increased unbalance mass and
_ me o me = .
197

Appendix B.3 : All Score Arrays and Surface Plots of Test3 in Chapter5
Table B.20: Score arrays of each observer for the real system with crack location
_ 8 ec m = , crack depth _ 0.3 a m D = and
1 1 1 1
, 2 ,10 ,100 e e e e e = .
.
Score Arrays
1
1 e e =
Score Arrays
1
2 e e =
Score Arrays
1
10 e e =
Score Arrays
1
100 e e =
score_cycle1=
0.4781 0.5955 0.5332 0.4778
0.4841 0.6381 0.8904 0.4825
0.4896 0.5412 0.5353 0.4822
0.4319 0.4319 0.4319 0.4319
score_cycle2=
0.4822 0.6078 0.5359 0.4822
0.4889 0.6433 0.8893 0.4877
0.4958 0.5437 0.5398 0.4892
0.4347 0.4347 0.4347 0.4347
score_all_cycle =
0.4800 0.6014 0.5344 0.4799
0.4863 0.6406 0.8898 0.4849
0.4924 0.5424 0.5375 0.4853
0.4332 0.4332 0.4332 0.4332
score_cycle1=
0.4981 0.5198 0.5134 0.5002
0.4993 0.5545 0.5512 0.5018
0.5050 0.5698 0.6671 0.5041
0.4810 0.4810 0.4810 0.4810
score_cycle2=
0.4985 0.5199 0.5140 0.5003
0.5001 0.5537 0.5516 0.5021
0.5053 0.5692 0.6659 0.5045
0.4808 0.4808 0.4808 0.4808
score_all_cycle =
0.4983 0.5199 0.5137 0.5003
0.4997 0.5541 0.5514 0.5019
0.5051 0.5695 0.6665 0.5043
0.4809 0.4809 0.4809 0.4809
score_cycle1=
0.4911 0.4997 0.5001 0.4913
0.4922 0.5001 0.5024 0.4921
0.4939 0.5066 0.5030 0.4928
0.4725 0.4725 0.4725 0.4725
score_cycle2=
0.4916 0.5002 0.5006 0.4917
0.4927 0.5006 0.5030 0.4926
0.4944 0.5071 0.5035 0.4933
0.4730 0.4730 0.4730 0.4730
score_all_cycle =
0.4914 0.4999 0.5003 0.4915
0.4924 0.5003 0.5027 0.4923
0.4942 0.5068 0.5032 0.4930
0.4727 0.4727 0.4727 0.4727
score_cycle1=
0.6470 0.6615 0.6616 0.6468
0.6434 0.6762 0.6762 0.6428
0.6436 0.6618 0.6625 0.6432
0.6438 0.6438 0.6438 0.6438
score_cycle2=
0.5948 0.6205 0.6210 0.5929
0.5869 0.6392 0.6389 0.5844
0.5916 0.5579 0.5578 0.5898
0.6082 0.6082 0.6082 0.6082
score_all_cycle =
0.6137 0.6379 0.6383 0.6123
0.6072 0.6506 0.6505 0.6053
0.6109 0.5849 0.5850 0.6096
0.6219 0.6219 0.6219 0.6219

198

Cycles
Surface Plots
1
1 e e =
Surface Plots
1
2 e e =
Surface Plots
1
10 e e =
Surface Plots
1
100 e e =
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.51
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.69
Depth of the Crack
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.51
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
0.62
0.64
Depth of the Crack

all
cycles
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.47
0.48
0.49
0.5
0.51
Depth of the Crack
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.58
0.6
0.62
0.64
0.66
Depth of the Crack

Figure B.20: Surface plots for score arrays for _ 8 ec m =

_ 0.3 a m D =

and
1 1 1 1
, 2 ,10 ,100 e e e e e = .

199

Table B.21: Scores arrays for each observer with crack location , _ 8 ec m = and
_ _ 1, _ 2, _ 3 a m a m a m a m = .
cycle
_ a m
Score Arrays
100 SNR = , _ 8 ec m=
Score Arrays
60 SNR = , _ 8 ec m =
Cycle1
uncracked
_ 0 a m=
score_cycle1=
0.6055 0.4290 0.4256 0.5809
0.5465 0.4188 0.4171 0.5173
0.5031 0.4113 0.4113 0.4796
0.8845 0.8845 0.8845 0.8845
score_cycle1=
0.6453 0.4345 0.4299 0.6299
0.5835 0.4224 0.4198 0.5554
0.5339 0.4146 0.4136 0.5058
0.8850 0.8850 0.8850 0.8850
Cycle2
Crack
_ 0.275 a m D =
score_cycle2=
0.5601 0.4532 0.4328 0.5883
0.5163 0.4262 0.4220 0.6322
0.5372 0.4198 0.4182 0.6213
0.4613 0.4613 0.4613 0.4613

score_cycle2=
0.6058 0.4699 0.4407 0.6411
0.5562 0.4312 0.4248 0.6896
0.5747 0.4215 0.4191 0.6711
0.4866 0.4866 0.4866 0.4866
Cycle3
Crack
_ 0.325 a m D =
score_cycle3 =
0.4335 0.4432 0.4663 0.4337
0.4345 0.4591 0.5072 0.4329
0.4412 0.4451 0.4197 0.4325
0.4180 0.4180 0.4180 0.4180
score_cycle3 =
0.4382 0.4599 0.4951 0.4379
0.4407 0.4808 0.5510 0.4377
0.4529 0.4612 0.4246 0.4385
0.4214 0.4214 0.4214 0.4214

all
cycles
_ 0,
0.275 ,
0.325
a m
D
D
=
score_all_cycle =
0.4439 0.4292 0.4297 0.4439
0.4430 0.4219 0.4200 0.4439
0.4385 0.4160 0.4148 0.4429
0.4261 0.4261 0.4261 0.4261
score_all_cycle =
0.4530 0.4361 0.4372 0.4524
0.4523 0.4266 0.4236 0.4534
0.4471 0.4190 0.4168 0.4531
0.4327 0.4327 0.4327 0.4327

200

cycle
_ a m
Surface Plots
100 SNR = , _ 8 ec m=
Surface Plots
60 SNR = , _ 8 ec m =
1
_ 0 a m=
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
X: 0.2625
Y: 0
Z: 0.8845
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

2
_ 0.325 a m D =
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
X: 0.6125
Y: 0.0045
Z: 0.6322
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

3
_ 0.375 a m D =
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.5
0.52
X: 0.4375
Y: 0.0045
Z: 0.5072
Depth of the Crack

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8

all
cycles
_ 0,
0.275 ,
0.325
a m
D
D
=

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.44
0.45

Figure B.21 : Surface plots for each observer with crack location _ 8 ec m = and
_ _ 1, _ 2, _ 3 a m a m a m a m = .
201

Appendix B.5 : All Score Arrays and Surface Plots of Test 5 in Chapter 5.
Table B.22: Score arrays and phase lag of the signal before and after constraining the

.
Score Arrays : _ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

score_all_cycle = 1.0e+003 *
1.5304 0.8092 0.8076 1.5295
1.3964 0.7549 0.7534 1.3928
1.2901 0.7660 0.7654 1.2733
1.9497 1.9497 1.9497 1.9497
store_norm_residual = 1.0e-003 *
0.6452 0.6310 0.6317 0.6461
0.6415 0.6272 0.6287 0.6438
0.6384 0.6210 0.6236 0.6423
0.6559 0.6559 0.6559 0.6559
matrix_lagT =
60.0091 0 54.0082 0 51.4078 0 50.6077
59.2090 0 58.6089 0 58.4088 0 57.8088
59.2090 0 57.4087 0 58.4088 0 58.8089
59.8091 0 49.0074 0 51.4078 0 54.8083
60.0091 0 56.0085 0 53.2081 0 51.6078
59.2090 0 59.2090 0 59.2090 0 59.0089
59.2090 0 58.2088 0 59.0089 0 59.2090
59.8091 0 52.4079 0 53.2081 0 56.4085
60.0091 0 56.6086 0 54.4082 0 51.8078
59.2090 0 59.4090 0 59.4090 0 59.2090
59.2090 0 58.8089 0 59.2090 0 59.6090
59.8091 0 54.0082 0 54.2082 0 57.6087
-479.8727 0 35.0053 0 34.6052 0 34.2052
3.0125 3.2025 3.1620 3.0188
3.0424 3.2323 3.4201 3.0464
3.0598 3.1596 3.1646 3.0585
2.7054 2.7054 2.7054 2.7054
0.4899 0.4752 0.4771 0.4909
0.4943 0.4576 0.4511 0.4966
0.4949 0.4443 0.4323 0.4993
0.4744 0.4744 0.4744 0.4744
matrix_ adjIC =
0 0 0 0 -1.8005 0 -2.8008
1.0003 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -1.2003 0 -2.2006 0 -1.2003
0 0 0 0 -0.8002 0 -1.2003
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -1.2003 0 -0.8002 0 -0.6002
0 0 0 0 0 0 -1.2003
-0.8002 0 0 0 0 0 0.8002
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 -0.8002 0 -0.6002
-179.6499 0 -2.4007 0 -2.8008 0 -3.6010
202

Surface Plots : _ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,
_ 1 60 sel shift =

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
500
1000
1500
2000
Depth of the Crack

D
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

C
r
a
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
Depth of the Crack

D
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

C
r
a
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

Figure B.22 : Surface plots before and after constraining initial conditions

.
203

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF
State estimations of node1
before constraining initial conditions
after constraining initial conditions

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^

Figure B.23 : Plots of corresponding state estimates and measurements for all degrees of
freedom at node 1 when _ 60 sel shift =

.
204

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^


.

205

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF
State estimates of node 3

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^


.

206

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF
State estimations of node 4 after

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-8
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-8
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^

Figure B.26 : Plots of corresponding state estimation signals and measurement signals

.

207

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^


.

208


.
Score Arrays : _ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

-0.3481 -1.1719 -1.1924 -0.3170
-0.4987 -1.2968 -1.3364 -0.5106
-0.6595 -1.3801 -1.4202 -0.6882
0.2056 0.2056 0.2056 0.2056
0.6228 0.6458 0.6374 0.6157
0.6418 0.7309 0.6508 0.6293
0.7486 0.7844 0.6702 0.6853
0.6285 0.6285 0.6285 0.6285
matrix_lagT =
114.0190 0 115.0192 0 113.4189 0 113.4189
111.8186 0 112.8188 0 114.4191 0 114.4191
112.8188 0 116.0193 0 114.4191 0 114.4191
114.0190 0 113.4189 0 112.4187 0 111.8186
114.0190 0 115.2192 0 113.4189 0 113.4189
111.2185 0 112.8188 0 113.6189 0 114.8191
111.8186 0 114.8191 0 114.4191 0 114.2190
112.8188 0 113.2189 0 112.2187 0 111.6186
114.0190 0 111.0185 0 113.6189 0 109.2182
111.2185 0 112.8188 0 114.2190 0 115.0192
111.8186 0 112.6188 0 113.6189 0 114.4191
111.8186 0 109.2182 0 112.2187 0 111.6186
-420.0700 0 109.2182 0 109.4182 0 110.2184
3.0125 3.2025 3.1620 3.0188
3.0424 3.2323 3.4201 3.0464
3.0598 3.1596 3.1646 3.0585
2.7054 2.7054 2.7054 2.7054
0.4899 0.4752 0.4771 0.4909
0.4943 0.4576 0.4511 0.4966
0.4949 0.4443 0.4323 0.4993
0.4744 0.4744 0.4744 0.4744
matrix_ adjIC =
0 0 0 0 -1.8005 0 -2.8008
1.0003 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -1.2003 0 -2.2006 0 -1.2003
0 0 0 0 -0.8002 0 -1.2003
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -1.2003 0 -0.8002 0 -0.6002
0 0 0 0 0 0 -1.2003
-0.8002 0 0 0 0 0 0.8002
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 -0.8002 0 -0.6002
-179.6499 0 -2.4007 0 -2.8008 0 -3.6010

209


_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
Depth of the Crack

D
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

C
r
a
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
Depth of the Crack

D
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

C
r
a
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

Figure B.28: Surface plots before and after constraining initial conditions when
_ 120 sel shift =

.

210

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.05
0
0.05
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^

Figure B.29: Plots of corresponding state estimates and measurements for all degrees of

.
211

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.02
0
0.02
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^


.
212

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.05
0
0.05
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^


.

213

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-5
0
5
x 10
-8
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.02
0
0.02
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-8
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^


.
214

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
-0.05
0
0.05
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^


.
215


.
Score Arrays: _ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

store_scoreT_t =
1.0e+003 *
-1.4083 -1.0240 -1.0132 -1.4418
-1.2943 -1.0665 -1.0498 -1.4047
-1.2674 -1.1495 -1.1502 -1.4167
-1.7808 -1.7808 -1.7808 -1.7808
store_norm_residual =
1.0e-003 *
0.6040 0.6912 0.6181 0.5805
0.6514 0.8514 0.5892 0.5943
0.7420 0.6732 0.6332 0.6557
0.5858 0.5858 0.5858 0.5858
matrix_ lagT1 =
142.2263 0 179.8333 0 179.6333 0 -178.8331
142.2263 0 180.4334 0 180.6334 0 180.4334
142.2263 0 180.4334 0 180.4334 0 -179.6333
143.0265 0 179.2332 0 179.6333 0 -179.4332
142.2263 0 180.2334 0 180.0333 0 -178.6331
142.2263 0 180.4334 0 180.6334 0 180.8335
142.2263 0 180.4334 0 180.6334 0 -179.6333
142.4264 0 179.6333 0 179.6333 0 -179.4332
142.0263 0 180.4334 0 180.0333 0 180.2334
142.2263 0 180.4334 0 180.6334 0 180.8335
142.2263 0 180.8335 0 180.6334 0 -179.6333
142.2263 0 179.8333 0 180.0333 0 180.0333
-360.0667 0 178.4330 0 178.4330 0 178.6331
store_scoreT_t =
1.0e+003 *
3.0125 3.2025 3.1620 3.0188
3.0424 3.2323 3.4201 3.0464
3.0598 3.1596 3.1646 3.0585
2.7054 2.7054 2.7054 2.7054
store_norm_residual_adjHPIC =
1.0e-003 *
0.4899 0.4752 0.4771 0.4909
0.4943 0.4576 0.4511 0.4966
0.4949 0.4443 0.4323 0.4993
0.4744 0.4744 0.4744 0.4744
matrix_ adjIC =
0 0 0 0 -1.8005 0 -2.8008
1.0003 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -1.2003 0 -2.2006 0 -1.2003
0 0 0 0 -0.8002 0 -1.2003
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 -1.2003 0 -0.8002 0 -0.6002
0 0 0 0 0 0 -1.2003
-0.8002 0 0 0 0 0 0.8002
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 -0.8002 0 -0.6002
-179.6499 0 -2.4007 0 -2.8008 0 -3.6010

216


_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

Before constraint initial conditions After constraint initial conditions
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
-1800
-1600
-1400
-1200
-1000
Depth of the Crack

D
e
p
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

C
r
a
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
x 10
-3
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
Depth of the Crack

D
e
p
th
o
f th
e
C
ra
c
k
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
-3

Figure B.34 : Surface plots before and after constraining initial conditions when

_ 180 sel shift =

.
217

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.02
0
0.02
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^

Figure B.35: Plots of corresponding state estimates and measurements for all degrees of

.
218

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-5
0
5
x 10
-5
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^


.

219

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.02
0
0.02
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-7
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^


.

220

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m= , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-5
0
5
x 10
-8
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-8
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
x 10
-6
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-0.01
0
0.01
deg
y
,
y
^

Figure B.38 : Plots of corresponding state estimation signals and measurement signals

.
221

_ 0.3 a m D = , _ 8 ec m = , 100 SNR =

_ _ 0 sel shift o =

,

DOF

x

y

z

x
u

y
u

z
u

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
10
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-2
0
2
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
-0.02
0
0.02
deg
y
,
y
^

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-1
0
1
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-20
0
20
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-4
deg
y
,
y
^
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-5
0
5
x 10
-3
deg
y
,
y
^


.
222

Appendix C : Natural Frequencies of the Uncrack Shaft
The natural frequencies of an uncracked shaft, rot _ omega , calculated base on the global
matrix, [ ]
s
M and [ ]
s
K of equation (3.80) in chpater3.
rot _ omega= ([ ]) eig A
where
( )
1
[ ] [ ]
s s
A M K
= .
The results given by MATLAB software can be shown as follows
rot_omega_1'
ans =
1.0e+005 *
Columns 1 through 3
1.7519 1.7093 1.6391
Columns 4 through 6
1.5425 1.4215 1.2780
Columns 7 through 9
1.1148 0.1087 0.3248
Columns 10 through 12
0.5366 0.7409 0.9348
1.0582 1.0860 1.0123
0.9491 0.8699 0.7758
0.6687 0.5504 0.4231
223

0.6326 0.6325 0.6325
0.6326 0.6188 0.6188
0.6190 0.6190 0.5911
0.5911 0.5901 0.5901
0.5485 0.5485 0.5454
0.5454 0.2898 0.4927
0.4927 0.4850 0.4850
0.4271 0.4271 0.4117
0.4117 0.3584 0.3584
0.3256 0.3256 0.2801
0.2801 0.1551 0.2390
224

0.2390 0.1999 0.1999
0.0384 0.1556 0.1556
0.1231 - 0.0000i 0.1231 + 0.0000i 0.0838
0.0838 0.0587 0.0587
0.0311 0.0311 0.0035 - 0.0000i
0.0035 + 0.0000i 0.0153 0.0153

225

Bibliography
[1] Adams, Maurice L., 2001, Rotating Machinery Vibration, Marcel Dekker, Inc,
New York.
[2] Sabnavis, G.,Gordon, R.K., Karsada, M., and Quinn, D., 2004, Crack Shaft
Deflection and Diagnostics: A Liturature Review, The Shock and Vibration Digest,
vol,36,No.4.,July 2004, 287-296.
[3] Jun, O.S., Eun, H. J., Emme, Y. Y., and Lee, C.W., 1992 Modelling and Vibration
Analysis of A Simple Rotor with A Breathing Crack, Journal of Sound and
Vibration vol 155(2), 273-290.
[4] Darpe, A. K., Gupta, K., Chawla, A.,2004, Coupled Bending, Longitudinal, and
Torsional Vibrations of A Cracked Rotor, Journal of Sound and Vibration vol
269(2004), 33-60.
[5] Dimarogonas, A. D. and Paipetis, S. A. ,1983, Analytical Method in Rotor
Dynamics, Applied Science Publisher, London.
[6] Edward, S., Lees, A.W., and Friswell, M.I., 1998, Fault Diagnosis of Rotating
Machinery, The Shock and Vibration Digest, vol,30,No.1.,1998, 4-13.
[7] Bachschamid, N. Pennacchi, P., Tanzi, E., and Vania, A., 2000, Identification of
Transverse Crack Position and Depth in Rotor Systems, Meccanica, Vol. 35,
No.6,563-582.
[8] Bachschmid, N. and Tanzi, E.,2003, Deflections and Strains in the Cracked Shafts
Due to Rotating Loads: A numerical and Experiment Analysis
[9] Abdel-Magied, M.F., 1997, Fault Detection of Rotating Machinery Using Model-
Based Techniques, Ph.D. Thesis Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, 1997
226

[10] Miannay, D. P. ,1998, Fracture Mechanics, Springer New York.
[11] Goldman, P., Muszynska, A., Bently, D.E., Dayton, K. P., and Garcin., 1999,
Application of Perturbation Methodology and Directional Filtering for Early Rotor
Crack Detection , in ASME International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress
and Exibition(IGTI 1999), Indianapolis, IN, paper No.99-GT_225.
[12] Meng G.,and Hahn, E. J., 1994, Dynamic Response of a Cracked Rotor with Some
Comments on Crack Detection,ASME, The Hague, Netherlands, Paper No. 94-GT-
029, 1-10.
[13] Chan, R. K. C.,and Lai, T.C. ,1995, Digital Simulation of a Rotating Shaft with
Transverse Crack, Applied Mathematics Modelling , Vol. 19 No. 7, 411-420.
[14] Gou, D., Chu, F., and He, Y., 2003, Vibration Analysis of Rotor with Transverse
Surface Cracks, ASME, Design Engineering Division , Albuqereque, USA, Vol.
60, 315-323.
[15] Brandon, J. ,2000, Nonlinear Vibration of Cracked Structures: Perspectives and
Horizons, Shock and Vibration Digest, Vol. 32, No.4, 273-280.
[16] Roberts, S. and Brandon, J. A.,2003, Nonlinear Signature in the Transient
Dynamics of Turbo Machinery, Key Engineering Materials, Vol.245-246,279-286.
[17] Ostachowicz, W. M. and Krawczuk, M., 1992,Coupled Torsional/ Lateral
Vibrations of a Rotor with an Open Crack, Archive of Applied Mechanics, Vol.62,
191-201.
[18] Gash, R., 1976, Dynamic Behavior of a Simple Rotor with a Cross-Sectional
Crack Proceeding of the Institution of Mechanical Engineering- Vibrations in
Rotating Machinery, pp. 123-128.
227

[19] Prabhakar, S., Sekhar, A. S., and Mohanty, A. R. , 2001, Detection and
Monitoring of Cracks Using Mechanical Impedance of Rotor-Bearing System,
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 110, No. 5,2351-2359.
[20] Imam, I., Azzaro, S. H., Banker, R. J. , and Scheibel, J., 1989, Development of an
On-Line Rotor Crack Detection and Monitoring System, Journal of Vibration and
Acoustics, Transaction of Vibration and Acoustics, Transaction of the ASME,
Vol.111, No.3,241-250.
[21] Schmied, J. and Kramer, E., 1984, Vibrational Behaviour of a Rotor with Cross-
Sectional Crack, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers-
Vibrations in Rotating Machinery,183-192.
[22] Nelson, H. D., and Nataraj, C., 1986, The Dynamics of a Rotor System with a
Cracked Shaft, Journal of Vibration Acoustics Stress and Reliability in Design-
Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 108(2), pp. 189-196.
[23] Bachschmid, N., Pennacchi, P., and Tanzi, E,2000, Identification of Transverse
Cracks in Rotor Systems, Proc. ISROMAC-8, Honolulu, Hawaii,26-30 March
2000.
[24] Bachschamid, N. Pennacchi, P., Tanzi, E., and Vania, A., 2002, Identification of
Multiple Faults in Rotor Systems Journal of Sound and Vibration (2002) 254(2),
327-366
[25] Bachschmid, N., Vania, A.,, and Audelbert, S.,2000, A Comparison of Different
Methods for Transverse Crack Modelling in Rotor Systems, Proc. ISROMAC-8,
Vol II March 2000
228

[26] Bachschmid, N., Pennacchi, P., and Tanzi, E.,2000, Transverse Crack Modelling
and Validation in Rotor Systems, Including Thermal Effecs, Proc. ISROMAC-8,
Honolulu, Hawaii,26-30 March 2000.
[27] Park, R.-W.,1996, Crack Detection, Localization and Estimation and The intensity
in a Turbo Rotor, ASME, Jakarta, Indonesia, Paper No.96-TA-031,1-7.
[28] Isermann, R., 2004, Model-Based Fault Detection and Diagnosis-Status and
Applications-, Institute of Automatic Control, DarmStadt University of
Technology.
[29] Gertler, J.,1998, Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Engineering Systems,
MarcelDekker, Inc New York.
[30] Patton, R., Frank., and Clark, R., 1989, Fault Diagnosis in Dynamic Systems
Theory and Applications, Prentice Hall.
[32] Darpe, A., Chawla, A., and Gupta, K. Analysis of The response of A Cracked
Jeffcott Rotor to Axial Excitation , Journal of Sound and Vibration (2002)
249(3),429-455
[33] Siebold, S., and Weinert, K. A Time Domain Localization of Cracks in Rotors
Journal of Sound and Vibration (1996) 195(1), 57-73.
[34] Lewis, F., Optimal Estimation with An Introduction to Stochastic Control Theory
John Wiley & Sons ,Inc., Publication, New York(1986).
[35] Crassidis, J., and Junkins, J., Optimal Estimation of Dynamic Systems A CRC
Press Company Boca Raton(2004).
[36] Simon, D., Optimal State Estimation John Wiley & Sons ,Inc., Publication, New
York(2006).
229

[37] Loparo, K.,Adams, M., Lin, W. Farouk Abdel-Magied, M. , and Afshari, Nader,
Fault Detection and Dianosis of Rotating Machinery IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, Vol. 47 NO 5. October 2000.
[38] Kwon, Y. and Bang Hyochoong., Finite Element Method Using MATLAB Second
Edition A CRC Press Company Boca Raton 2000.
[39] Afshari, N. , Model-Based Fault Detection Techniques for Real-Time Fault
Detection of Rolling Element Bearing , Ph.D. Thesis Case Western Reserve
University,1998.
[40] Liu, K-C. , Model-Based Failure Detection in Induction Motors using Nonlinear
Filtering,Ph.D. Thesis, Case Western Reserve Univeristy,1995.
[41] Tada, H., Paris, P., and Irwin, G., The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook Del
Research Corporation St. Louis, Missouri 1978.
[42] Lou, X., Fault Detection and Diagnosis for Rolling Element Bearing , Ph.D.
Thesis, Case Western Reserve University, 2000.

Case1238469531 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case1238469531 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

FAULT DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS PROCESS FOR CRACKED

ROTOR VIBRATION SYSTEMS USING MODEL-BASED APPROACH

for plane stress and plane strain respectively and

= . Therefore, the effects of both process and

from the last cycle of

with axial position _ 0.4375 XCG m m = , or equivalently _ 8 ec m = ,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi