Publication: Publication Date: 1 August 2013Testing Method:
"Model Based Capability Assessment of an Automated Eddy
Current Inspection Procedure on Flat Surfaces"
The probability of detection (POD) of a well-controlled, automated eddy current (EC) procedure is evaluated in a numerical model and compared with experiments. The procedure is applied in laboratory environment with a single absolute probe which is positioned for raster scan over flat surfaces containing fatigue cracks. The variability of the signal amplitude, due to small fatigue cracks in the Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4 V, is expected to mainly originate from crack characteristics and the index distance of the raster scan. The POD model is based on the signal versus crack size (^a versus a) result. The presented procedure provides a well-defined basis for a comparison between a simulated and an experimentally based POD assessment. Finite element analysis is used to model the EC method. A simplified fatigue crack model is first introduced and evaluated experimentally. Numerical computations are then used to build the corresponding model-based POD curve which shows good agreement with the experimental result. The model-based POD curve is generated both by means of a parametric and a nonparametric approach. Differences between model-based and experimental POD are discussed as well as the delta POD approach using transfer functions.
References
1. Nondestructive Evaluation System Reliability Assessment. USA Department of Defense Handbook
MIL-HDBK-1823, 2009.
2. R. E. Beissner, and J. S. Graves III. Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, D.
O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti (eds.), Vol. 9A, pp. 885–891. (1990). Plenum Press, New York.
3. N. Nakagawa, and E. Beissner. Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, D.
O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti (eds.), Vol. 9A, pp. 893–899 (1990). Plenum Press, New York.
4. N. Nakagawa, M. W. Kubovich, and J. C. Moulder. Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive
Evaluation, D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti (eds.), Vol. 9A, pp. 1065–1072 (1990). Plenum
Press, New York.
5. S. N. Rajesh, L. Udpa, and S. S. Udpa. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 29:1857–1858 (1993).
6. J. S. Knopp, J. C. Aldrin, E. Lindgren, and C. Annis. AIP Conf. Proc. Review of Progress in Quantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation, Portland, Oregon, USA. 894:1775–1782 (2007).
7. N. Dominguez, and F. Jenson. 10th European Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, (2010),
Moscow.
8. A. Rosell, and G. Persson. International Journal of Fatigue 41:30–38 (2012).
9. A. P. Berens. Nondestructive Evaluation and Quality Control, Vol. 17, ASM Metals Handbook,
pp. 689–701 (1989). ASM International.
10. W. D. Rummel. Materials Evaluation 40:922–932 (1982).
11. Y. Zhang, F. Luo, and H. Sun. Proceedings of the 17th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing,
(2008), Shanghai.
12. C. Dodd, and W. Deeds. Journal of Applied Physics 39:2829–2838 (1968).
13. B. A. Auld, F. Muennemann, and D. K. Winslow. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation 2:1–21 (1981).
14. R. E. Beissner. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation 13:175–183, (1994).
15. J. R. Bowler. J. Appl. Phys. 75:8128–8137 (1994).
16. R. B. Thompson. Materials Evaluation 59:861–865 (2001).
17. R. B. Thompson. AIP Conf. Proc. Review of progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation
Golden, Colorado, 975:1685–1692 (2007).
Metrics
| Usage | Shares |
|---|---|
Total Views 51 Page Views |
Total Shares 0 Tweets |
51 0 PDF Downloads |
0 0 Facebook Shares |
| Total Usage | |
| 51 |