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 ( 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.

[1]  Satish S. Udpa,et al.  Numerical model based approach for estimating probability of detection in NDE applications , 1992 .

[2]  R. E. Beissner,et al.  Probability of Tight Crack Detection via Eddy-Current Inspection , 1990 .

[3]  R. Beissner,et al.  Computer Modeling of Eddy Current Probability of Crack Detection , 1990 .

[4]  Yu-hua Zhang,et al.  Impedance Evaluation of a Probe-Coil's Lift-off and Tilt Effe ct in Eddy-Current Nondestructive Inspection by 3D Finite Element Modeling , 2008 .

[5]  Norio Nakagawa,et al.  Modeling Inspectability for an Automated Eddy Current Measurement System , 1990 .

[6]  R. E. Beissner Slots vs. cracks in eddy current NDE , 1994 .

[7]  D. O. Thompson,et al.  Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation , 1985 .

[8]  B. A. Auld,et al.  Eddy current probe response to open and closed surface flaws , 1981 .

[9]  John C. Aldrin,et al.  Investigation of a Model‐Assisted Approach to Probability of Detection Evaluation , 2007 .

[10]  C. Dodd,et al.  ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS TO EDDY--CURRENT PROBE COIL PROBLEMS. , 1968 .

[11]  R. Bruce Thompson A UNIFIED APPROACH TO THE MODEL‐ASSISTED DETERMINATION OF PROBABILITY OF DETECTION , 2008 .

[12]  D. Thompson,et al.  Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation , 1982 .

[13]  R. Bruce Thompson Using physical models of the testing process in the determination of probability of detection , 2001 .

[14]  Joseph R. Davis Nondestructive evaluation and quality control , 1989 .

[15]  A. Rosell,et al.  Finite element modelling of closed cracks in eddy current testing , 2012 .

[16]  J. Bowler Eddy‐current interaction with an ideal crack. I. The forward problem , 1994 .