A comparison of instrument response correction methods: Post-processing and real-time methods

Industrial vibration monitoring often requires sensors with adjustable sensitivity and suitable frequency range. In practice, most industrial studies utilize either geophones (velocimeters) or accelerometers. In some cases, where low frequency content is of interest, larger sensor will be required....

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Aleksandar Mihaylov, Hesham El Naggar
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	Geophone characteristic Impulse response correction Real-time DSP Industrial vibrations Geophysics. Cosmic physics QC801-809 Geology QE1-996.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/9208cd4a56f149879c7bbf2e1b480db6
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:9208cd4a56f149879c7bbf2e1b480db6
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:9208cd4a56f149879c7bbf2e1b480db62021-11-28T04:39:30ZA comparison of instrument response correction methods: Post-processing and real-time methods2666-828910.1016/j.ringps.2021.100033https://doaj.org/article/9208cd4a56f149879c7bbf2e1b480db62021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666828921000249https://doaj.org/toc/2666-8289Industrial vibration monitoring often requires sensors with adjustable sensitivity and suitable frequency range. In practice, most industrial studies utilize either geophones (velocimeters) or accelerometers. In some cases, where low frequency content is of interest, larger sensor will be required. In difficult installation conditions, it can be advantageous to utilize smaller, higher frequency sensor elements (geophones or accelerometers) to simplify installation and maintenance. A frequency correction of sensors or the recorded waveforms will be needed to accommodate the frequency range of interest. Most accelerometers have relatively smaller sensitivity at low frequency which can affect the calculation of vibration velocity and displacement at low frequencies. Geophones are limited by their frequency response, which drops-off significantly their sensitivity below the resonant frequency of the sensor. Structural and ground vibrations that occur under the resonant frequency could be observed at test sites, but the recorded waveforms cannot be used directly for real-time assessment, and therefore it can be beneficial to artificially expand the frequency range below the sensor's frequency cutoff. Methods for such expansion, were developed and are well established in seismological studies and exploratory geophysics. Usually, these procedures are applied in data post-processing. These methods are not applicable when an operator requires real-time feedback of the measured vibrational amplitude, for example, monitoring of machinery foundations, where excitation control is necessary to avoid infrastructure damage.This paper presents an approach for instrument frequency extension in the necessary low-frequency range of common geophone elements in real-time applications and compares the results of the proposed technique in post-processing and in real time data collection systems.Aleksandar MihaylovHesham El NaggarElsevierarticleGeophone characteristicImpulse response correctionReal-time DSPIndustrial vibrationsGeophysics. Cosmic physicsQC801-809GeologyQE1-996.5ENResults in Geophysical Sciences, Vol 8, Iss , Pp 100033- (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Geophone characteristic Impulse response correction Real-time DSP Industrial vibrations Geophysics. Cosmic physics QC801-809 Geology QE1-996.5
spellingShingle	Geophone characteristic Impulse response correction Real-time DSP Industrial vibrations Geophysics. Cosmic physics QC801-809 Geology QE1-996.5 Aleksandar Mihaylov Hesham El Naggar A comparison of instrument response correction methods: Post-processing and real-time methods
description	Industrial vibration monitoring often requires sensors with adjustable sensitivity and suitable frequency range. In practice, most industrial studies utilize either geophones (velocimeters) or accelerometers. In some cases, where low frequency content is of interest, larger sensor will be required. In difficult installation conditions, it can be advantageous to utilize smaller, higher frequency sensor elements (geophones or accelerometers) to simplify installation and maintenance. A frequency correction of sensors or the recorded waveforms will be needed to accommodate the frequency range of interest. Most accelerometers have relatively smaller sensitivity at low frequency which can affect the calculation of vibration velocity and displacement at low frequencies. Geophones are limited by their frequency response, which drops-off significantly their sensitivity below the resonant frequency of the sensor. Structural and ground vibrations that occur under the resonant frequency could be observed at test sites, but the recorded waveforms cannot be used directly for real-time assessment, and therefore it can be beneficial to artificially expand the frequency range below the sensor's frequency cutoff. Methods for such expansion, were developed and are well established in seismological studies and exploratory geophysics. Usually, these procedures are applied in data post-processing. These methods are not applicable when an operator requires real-time feedback of the measured vibrational amplitude, for example, monitoring of machinery foundations, where excitation control is necessary to avoid infrastructure damage.This paper presents an approach for instrument frequency extension in the necessary low-frequency range of common geophone elements in real-time applications and compares the results of the proposed technique in post-processing and in real time data collection systems.
format	article
author	Aleksandar Mihaylov Hesham El Naggar
author_facet	Aleksandar Mihaylov Hesham El Naggar
author_sort	Aleksandar Mihaylov
title	A comparison of instrument response correction methods: Post-processing and real-time methods
title_short	A comparison of instrument response correction methods: Post-processing and real-time methods
title_full	A comparison of instrument response correction methods: Post-processing and real-time methods
title_fullStr	A comparison of instrument response correction methods: Post-processing and real-time methods
title_full_unstemmed	A comparison of instrument response correction methods: Post-processing and real-time methods
title_sort	comparison of instrument response correction methods: post-processing and real-time methods
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/9208cd4a56f149879c7bbf2e1b480db6
work_keys_str_mv	AT aleksandarmihaylov acomparisonofinstrumentresponsecorrectionmethodspostprocessingandrealtimemethods AT heshamelnaggar acomparisonofinstrumentresponsecorrectionmethodspostprocessingandrealtimemethods AT aleksandarmihaylov comparisonofinstrumentresponsecorrectionmethodspostprocessingandrealtimemethods AT heshamelnaggar comparisonofinstrumentresponsecorrectionmethodspostprocessingandrealtimemethods
_version_	1718408273320738816

A comparison of instrument response correction methods: Post-processing and real-time methods

Ejemplares similares