Iterative inversion method for eddy current profiling of near-surface residual stress in surface-treated metals
Source abstract
Abstract
Because of their frequency-dependent penetration depth, eddy current measurements are capable of mapping the near-surface depth profile of the electric conductivity . This technique can be used to nondestructively characterize the subsurface residual stress distribution in certain types of shot-peened metals, e.g., in nickel-base superalloys . In this paper, a highly convergent iterative inversion procedure is presented to predict the frequency-independent intrinsic electric conductivity depth profile from the frequency-dependent apparent eddy current conductivity (AECC) spectrum. The proposed technique exploits three specific features of the subsurface electric conductivity variation caused by near-surface residual stresses in shot-peened metals. First, compressive residual stresses are limited to a shallow surface region of depth much less than typical probe coil diameters . Second, the change in electric conductivity due to residual stresses is always very small, typically less than 1%. Third, the electric conductivity depth profile is continuous and fairly smooth. The accuracy of the proposed iterative inversion procedure is one order of magnitude better than that of the previously developed simpler method (J Appl Phys 2004;96:1257).
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Goldfine · 1994
2. Goldfine · 1995
3. Schoenig · Mater Eval · 1995 · 53 · 22
4. Goldfine · 1996
5. Chang · Mater Eval · 1999 · 57 · 1257
6. A primer on the alternating current potential difference technique, Nepean, Ontario: Matelect Systems; 1999. p. 18–21.
7. Lavrentyev AI, Stucky PA, Veronesi WA. Review of progress in quantitative NDE, vol. Melville: American Institute of Physics; 2000. p. 1621–8.
8. Fisher · 2000
9. Zilberstein · 2001 · vol. 20
10. Blodgett · J Nondestructive Eval · 2004 · 23 · 10710.1023/B:JONE.0000048866.40648.fe ↗
11. Yu · J Nondestructive Eval · 2005 · 24 · 14310.1007/s10921-005-8783-9 ↗
12. Blodgett · Mater Eval · 2003 · 61 · 765
13. Kalyanasundaram · NDT&E Int · 2004 · 37 · 4710.1016/j.ndteint.2003.08.005 ↗
14. Yu · J Appl Phys · 2004 · 95 · 834010.1063/1.1737474 ↗
15. Yu · 2006 · vol. 25
16. Yu · J Appl Phys · 2004 · 96 · 125710.1063/1.1762708 ↗
17. Dodd · J Appl Phys · 1968 · 39 · 282910.1063/1.1656680 ↗
18. Cheng · Int J Nondestructive Test · 1971 · 3 · 109
19. Bowler · J Nondestructive Eval · 1992 · 4 · 20510.1080/09349849209409535 ↗
20. Uzal · IEEE Trans Magn · 1993 · 29 · 186910.1109/20.250771 ↗
21. Uzal · J Appl Phys · 1993 · 74 · 207610.1063/1.354773 ↗
22. Uzal · Inverse Probl · 1994 · 10 · 75310.1088/0266-5611/10/3/016 ↗
23. Theodoulidis · IEEE Trans Magn · 1995 · 31 · 225410.1109/20.376236 ↗
24. Rekanos · NDT&E Int · 1997 · 30 · 6910.1016/S0963-8695(96)00047-3 ↗
25. Glorieux · J Phys D: Appl Phys · 1999 · 32 · 61610.1088/0022-3727/32/5/018 ↗
26. Sundararaghavan · NDT&E Int · 2005 · 38 · 54110.1016/j.ndteint.2005.01.009 ↗
27. Norton · J Appl Phys · 1993 · 73 · 50110.1063/1.353359 ↗
28. Bowler · Int J Appl Electromagn Mech · 1997 · 8 · 3
29. Auld · J Nondestructive Eval · 1999 · 18 · 110.1023/A:1021898520626 ↗
30. Moulder · Rev Sci Instrum · 1992 · 63 · 345510.1063/1.1143749 ↗
31. Sabbagh · Mater Eval · 2001 · 59 · 1307
32. Nair · Inverse Probl · 1990 · 6 · 100710.1088/0266-5611/6/6/010 ↗
33. Rose · Inverse Probl · 1991 · 7 · L3110.1088/0266-5611/7/3/002 ↗
34. Goldfine · Mater Eval · 1993 · 51 · 396
35. Ross · IEEE Trans Magn · 1996 · 32 · 53510.1109/20.486544 ↗