Adaptive Hetorodyne Line-Probe Interferometer for Enhanced Directionally-Sensitive Detection of Ultrasound

  • Hemmo Tuovinen
  • Sridhar Krishnaswamy
Chapter
Part of the Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation book series (RPQN, volume 18 A)

Abstract

Optical methods provide a non-contact method of detecting ultrasound at the surface of a test object. Unlike conventional piezoelectric transducers, which require a couplant, optical detection provides an absolute calibration of the ultrasonic displacement amplitude. In addition, they can have a broader bandwidth and a higher spatial resolution of detection than conventional piezoelectric transducers. All these advantages however typically come at the expense of sensitivity. The best extant optical detectors still suffer from a two order of magnitude sensitivity gap with respect to conventional piezoelectric transducers. In this paper, we describe an adaptive heterodyne interferometer receiver using wave mixing in photorefractive bismuth silicate (BSO) crystals which is configured as a line receiver that is directionally most sensitive to ultrasound impinging normal to the line, and is significantly less sensitive to ultrasound impinging in other directions. Such a system is attractive in situations where the ultrasonic scatter from a specific direction is to be selectively pulled out in the presence of scatter from other “noise” sources. The line probe system also provides a way to bridge the sensitivity gap that optical detection thus far has suffered vis-à-vis piezoelectric detection. Results of applications to nondestructive testing of metal surfaces are presented.

Keywords

Fatigue Silicate Expense Bismuth Line Source 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    B.F. Pouet, R.K. Ing, S. Krishnaswamy, and D. Royer, Appl. Phys. Lett., 69, 3782 (1996).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Krautkramer and H. Krautkramer, Ultrasonic Testing of Materials (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.E. Bowers, K.L. Jungerman, B.T. Khuri-Yakub, and G.S. Kino, J. Lightwave Technol. LT-1(2), 429 (1983).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Fomitchov, S. Krishnaswamy, and J.D. Achenbach, J. Opt. Laser Techn. 29, 333, (1997)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.P. Monchalin, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control, 33, 485 (1986).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L.A. Adams and R.S. Bondurant, Opt. Lett. 16, 832 (1991).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Delaye, A. Blouin, D. Drolet, and J.P. Monchalin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 3251 (1995).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.K. Ing and J.P. Monchalin, Appl. Phys. Lett., 59, 3233 (1991).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.B. Scruby and L.E. Drain, Laser Ultrasonics (Adam Hilger, New York 1990).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.W. Wagner and J.B. Spicer, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1316 (1987).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hemmo Tuovinen
    • 1
  • Sridhar Krishnaswamy
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Quality EngineeringNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations