Advertisement

2-D and 3-D Lamb-Wave Spectrum Analysis Using Complex Transducer Points

  • Han Zhang
  • D. E. Chimenti
Chapter
Part of the Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation book series (RPQN, volume 18 A)

Abstract

In prior studies of Gaussian beam reflection from immersed plates [1–5], it is shown that the reflected field or receiver voltage as a function of transducer position, at any incident angle, can be calculated or measured at constant frequency, and the 2-D calculated reflected field or receiver voltage in the incident plane is almost the same as a 3-D calculation, except for a scale factor as we show later in this paper. This is not the case, however, for the reflection and transmission frequency spectrum, which is widely used to infer the plate material parameters [6,7]. In this paper we extend the complex transducer point (CTP) to this widely used ultrasonic Lamb wave technology. We show that the reflection frequency spectrum requires a full 3-D voltage calculation to achieve the desired accuracy under all conditions. The 3-D receiver voltage frequency spectrum calculated here is compared to extensive experimental results on several materials and in different experimental configurations. The results show that the 3-D voltage spectrum calculation must be used under some conditions to make accurate deductions of material parameters.

Keywords

Incident Angle Reflection Coefficient Shear Velocity Fiber Direction Specular Reflection 
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.
    G. A. Deschamps, Electron. Lett. 7, 684–85 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. I. Lobkis, A. Safaeinili, D. E. Chimenti, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99, 2727–2736 (1996).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Pott and J. G. Harris, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 76, 1829–38(1984).CrossRefMATHADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Zeroug, F. E. Stanke, and R. Burridge, Wave Motion 24, 21–40 (1996).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. E. Chimenti, J. Zhang, S. Zeroug and L. B. Felsen, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 45–59 (1994).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. E. Chimenti and A. H. Nayfeh, J. Nondetruct. Eval. 9, 51–69 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. E. Chimenti, A. H. Nayfeh, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 1409–1415 (1990).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Unidirectional: C 11 =143.0, C 12 =3.7, C 22 =16.5, C 12 =7.6, C 55 =8–3, d = 0.92mm, p = 1.60g/cm 3 Biaxial: C 11 =133.0, C 12 =3.7, C 22 =15.5, C 12 =7.6, C 55 =6.3, d = 1.52mm, p = 1.62g /cm 3 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. I. Rokhlin and D. E. Chimenti, Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Vol. 9, Eds. D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti, (Plenum, New York), 1411–1418 (1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Han Zhang
    • 1
  • D. E. Chimenti
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for NDE and Aerospace Engineering & Engineering Mechanics DepartmentIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations