Advertisement

Flaw Identification in Structures via Computationally Assisted NDT

  • Daniel RabinovichEmail author
  • Dan Givoli
  • Shmuel Vigdergauz
Chapter
Part of the Solid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (SMIA, volume 168)

Abstract

The practice of Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) is applied in many different fields of engineering to detect the presence of flaws in structures without causing structural damage. Ultrasonic NDT is one such method: the tested specimen is subjected to an acoustic wave field and the reflected wave is measured and provides information on flaws contained in the specimen. A description of the physics involved may be found, for example, in [4].

The methodology of the NDT process as used routinely today in industry is described schematically in Fig. 1. An input signal is applied by the NDT system to the specimen surface; the resulting measurements are interpreted by a human technician in comparison with a reference signal obtained by a “perfect” specimen. By this method it is possible to detect the existence of a flaw of sufficient size and provide some very limited information on its location and size.

Keywords

Genetic Algorithm Inverse Problem Forward Problem Candidate Flaw True Inclusion 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Fund for the Promotion of Research at the Technion, by the Robert and Mildred Rosenthal Aerospace Engineering Research Fund and by the fund provided through the Lawrence and Marie Feldman Chair in Engineering of the second author.

References

  1. 1.
    Belytschko T, Black T (1999) Int J Numer Meth Engng 45:601–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caorsi S, Massa A, Pastorino M (2001) IEEE Trans Anten Propag 49:1812–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colton D, Kress R (1992) Inverse acoustic and electromagnetic scattering theory. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ensminger D (1988) Ultrasonics. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kress R (1996) Inverse Probl 12:667–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu GR, Chen SC (2001) Comput Meth Appl Mech Engng 190:5505–5514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moës N, Dolbow J, Belytschko T (1999) Int J Numer Meth Engng 46:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rabinovich D, Givoli D, Vigdergauz S (2007) Int J Numer Meth Engng 71:1051–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rabinovich D, Givoli D, Vigdergauz S (2009) Int J Numer Meth Engng 77:337–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmerr LW Jr, Song S-J, Sedov A (2002) Inverse Probl 18:1775–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sukumar N, Moës N, Moran B, Belytschko T (2000) Int J Numer Meth Engng 48:1549–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tikhonov AN, Arsenin VY (1977) Solutions of ill-posed problems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu ZP, Liu GR, Han X (2002) Eng Comput 18:116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Rabinovich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dan Givoli
  • Shmuel Vigdergauz
  1. 1.Department of Aerospace Engineering, TechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations