Artificial Neural Network for On-Line Eddy Current Testing
Eddy current test (ECT) is affected by a large number of influencing parameters such as lift-off, variations in geometry, electrical conductivity, magnetic permeability, surface condition etc. . To carry out meaningful ECT and evaluation, it is essential to eliminate or reduce the influence of unwanted parameters. When the number of unwanted parameter is one, its affect can be eliminated using single frequency eddy currents, for example, by rotating the phase of the signal along one of the impedance axes, abscissa in general and taking measurement along the other axis, i.e. the ordinate. However, in actual practice, the influencing parameters are more than one and defect detection and characterisation in their presence becomes rather difficult using single frequency. For example, the popular application of ECT of heat exchanger tubes, detection of defects under support plates and in the presence of probe wobble, is rather difficult using single frequency method.
KeywordsPermeability Attenuation Ferrite Autocorrelation Dial
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.H.L. Libby, Research techniques in Non-destructive testing (Academic Press, London), Ed. R.S. Sharpe, Vol.1, (1970), Chap. 7Google Scholar
- 2.H.L. Libby, Research techniques in Non-destructive testing (Academic Press, London), Ed. R.S. Sharpe, Vol.1, (1970), Chap. 11Google Scholar
- 3.ASNT NDT Handbook, Vol. IV, Electromagnetic NDT techniques, 1991, p. 591.Google Scholar
- 4.K. Gortz, and B. Lutz, Materials Evaluation 50, 40 (1991).Google Scholar
- 5.Betzold, K., A multifrequency approach to interpret defect signals superimposed by disturbing signals according to the causing defect type and size, ASTM STP 722, eds. George Birnbaum and George Free, 1981, p. 204.Google Scholar
- 6.R. Becker and K. Betzold, Optimisation of a multifrequency eddy current test system concerning the defect detection sensibility, ASTM STP 722, eds. George Birnbaum and George Free, 1981, p. 213.Google Scholar
- 7.L. Udpa and S.S. Udpa, Materials Evaluation 49, 342 (1990)Google Scholar
- 8.T. Stepinski and N. Maszi, Materials Evaluation 52, 839 (1993)Google Scholar
- 9.H. Hoshikawa and K. Koyama, in Review of Progress in QNDE, Vol. 14, eds. D.O. Thompson and D.E. Chimenti (Plenum, New York, 1995), p. 811.Google Scholar
- 10.Rao, B.P.C., “Report on the research activities carried out at IzfP”, IzfP, Saarbrücken, Report No. 980133, March 1998.Google Scholar