Advertisement

Crack Length Determination by Ultrasonic Methods

  • D. K. Rehbein
  • R. B. Thompson
  • O. Buck

Abstract

Accurate calculation of the stress intensity factor on a given component under load relies on an accurate size determination of the flaws present in the component. The challenge to the NDE community has been development of reliable techniques to provide that accurate size determination. Many research groups have investigated this problem using ultrasonic methods with summaries of their techniques and results provided by various authors [1–3]. In general, the techniques developed fall into three general categories; (1) determination of crack length from signal amplitude measurements, (2) determination of crack length from time-of-flight measurements, and (3) determination of crack length using diffracted waves. Sketches of representative techniques in each category are shown in Figure 1.

Keywords

Fatigue Crack Stress Intensity Factor Crack Length Crack Front Crack Depth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.M. Coffey, in The Measurement of Crack Length and Shape During Fracture and Fatigue, edited by C. J. Beevers ( Chameleon Press, Ltd., London, 1980 ) p. 345.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. Buck and B. R. Tittman, in Advances in Crack Length Measurement, edited by C. J. Beevers ( Chameleon Press, Ltd., London, 1982 ) p. 413.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Buck, in Fracture Mechanics: Microstructure and Micromechanisms, edited by S. V. Nair, J. K. Tien, R. C. Bates and O. Buck ( American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1987 ) p. 31.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. F. Lumb, R. J. Hudgell and P. Winship, in Proceedings 7th International Conference on NDT, Paper H-01, Warsaw, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. G. Silk, in Research Techniques in Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 3, Academic Press, London and New York, 1977, p. 51.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. D. Achenbach, L. Adler, D. K. Lewis and H. McMaken, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 66, 1979, p. 1848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. C. Karal and J. B. Keller, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 31, 1959, p. 694.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. K. Rehbein, L. Van Wyk, R. B. Thompson and O. Buck, in Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive 7B, edited by D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti (Plenum Press, New York and London, 1988 ) p. 1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. B. Thompson and C. J. Fiedler, in Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 3A, edited by D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti ( Plenum Press, New York and London, 1984 ) p. 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.-M. Baik and R. B. Thompson, J. Nondestruct. Eval., 4, 1984, p. 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. K. Rehbein
    • 1
  • R. B. Thompson
    • 1
  • O. Buck
    • 1
  1. 1.Ames Laboratory-USDOEIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations