Uncertainty Evaluation of Crack Sizing Capability Incorporating Model-based Inversion Applied to Bolt-hole Eddy Current Inspections
Source abstract
Abstract
There is a need for innovative methods to provide accurate sizing of discontinuities in structures, to guide maintenance actions and better inform engineering of the structure state. This paper highlights the development of the capability to size the length and depth of cracks in multilayer fastener sites using bolt-hole eddy current (BHEC) techniques. Technical efforts include improvements to model calibration, liftoff compensation, and the inversion process. In addition, an expanded set of surrogate models was developed that address crack sizing for titanium, aluminum, and steel structures across multiple frequencies and for varying hole diameters. A comprehensive crack sizing evaluation study was performed under a wide range of test conditions, demonstrating improved sizing capability over using peak amplitude. Crack length estimates were found to have less error than crack depth estimates, although crack depth is the more critical parameter for informing maintenance actions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Aldrin, J. C., and D. S. Forsyth. 2017. “NDE characterization capability evaluation.” Materials Evaluation 75 (7): 915–929.
2. Aldrin, J. C., M. Keiser, D. Motes, J. Flores-Lamb, D. S. Forsyth, H. A. Sabbagh, E. Sabbagh, R. K. Murphy, R. Mooers, C. Henry, and E. A. Lindgren. 2019. “Progress and Challenges of Inverse Methods for Sizing Cracks in Multilayer Bolt-holt Eddy Current Inspections.” In Electromagnetic Nondestructive Evaluation (XXII), ed. A. Tamburrino, Y. Deng, and S. Chakrapani, 92–97. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/SAEM190017.10.3233/SAEM190017 ↗
3. Aldrin, J. C., and E. A. Lindgren. 2018. “The Need and Approach for Characterization – US Air Force Perspectives on Materials State Awareness.” AIP Conference Proceedings 1949: 020004. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5031501.10.1063/1.5031501 ↗
4. Aldrin, J. C., H. A. Sabbagh, E. Sabbagh, R. K. Murphy, M. Keiser, D. S. Forsyth, and E. A. Lindgren. 2014. “Model-based inverse methods for bolt-holt eddy current (BHEC) inspections.” AIP Conference Proceedings 1581: 1433–1440. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4864990.10.1063/1.4864990 ↗
5. Aldrin, J. C., H. A. Sabbagh, L. Zhao, E. Sabbagh, R. K. Murphy, M. Keiser, J. Flores-Lamb, D. S. Forsyth, D. Motes, E. A. Lindgren, and R. Mooers. 2016. “Model-based inverse methods for sizing cracks of varying shape and location in bolt-hole eddy current (BHEC) inspections.” AIP Conference Proceedings 1706: 090020. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4940557.10.1063/1.4940557 ↗
6. Annis, C., J. C. Aldrin, and H. A. Sabbagh. 2015. “What is missing in nondestructive testing capability evaluation?” Materials Evaluation 73 (1): 1–11.
7. ASTM. 2014. ASTM E2782-11: Standard Guide for Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA). ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/E2782-11.10.1520/E2782-11 ↗
8. ASTM. 2021. ASTM E3023-15: Standard Practice for Probability of Detection Analysis for â Versus a Data. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/E3023-15.10.1520/E3023-15 ↗
9. Auld, B. A., and J. C. Moulder. 1999. “Review of Advances in Quantitative Eddy Current Nondestructive Evaluation.” Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation 18 (1): 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021898520626.10.1023/A:1021898520626 ↗
10. Bao, Y., Y. Liu, J. Qiu, and J. Song. 2025. “Uncertainty propagation for MAPoD in eddy current NDT by polynomial chaos–kriging.” Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 40 (5): 1854–1876. https://doi.org/10.1080/10589759.2024.2366317.10.1080/10589759.2024.2366317 ↗
11. Chen, S. X., and P. Hall. 1993. “Smoothed empirical likelihood confidence intervals for quantiles.” Annals of Statistics 21 (3): 1166–1181. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176349256.10.1214/aos/1176349256 ↗
12. Førli, O., et al. 1998. Guidelines for NDE Reliability Determination and Description (Technical Report 394). Nordtest: Espoo, Finland. http://nordtest.info/images/documents/nt-technical-reports/NT%20TR%20394_Guideline%20for%20NDE%20Reliability%20Determination%20and%20Description_Nordtest%20Technical%20Report.pdf.
13. Hughes, R. R., and B. W. Drinkwater. 2021. “Exploring high-frequency eddy-current testing for sub-aperture defect characterisation using parametric-manifold mapping.” NDT & E International 124: 102534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2021.102534.10.1016/j.ndteint.2021.102534 ↗
14. Lindgren, E. A., and J. S. Knopp. 2016. “US Air Force Perspective on Validated NDE – Past, Present, and Future.” AIP Conference Proceedings 1706: 020002. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4940448.10.1063/1.4940448 ↗
15. Lindgren, E. A., J. S. Knopp, J. C. Aldrin, G. J. Steffes, and C. F. Buynak. 2007. “Aging Aircraft NDE: Capabilities, Challenges, and Opportunities.” AIP Conference Proceedings 894: 1731–1738. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2718173.10.1063/1.2718173 ↗
16. Liu, X., Y. Deng, Z. Zeng, L. Udpa, and J. S. Knopp. 2008. “Model Based Inversion Using the Element-Free Galerkin Method.” Materials Evaluation 66 (7): 740–746.
17. Lozev, M., D. Hodgkinson, R. Spencer, and B. Grimmett. 2005. “Validation of Current Approaches for Girth Weld Defect Sizing Accuracy by Pulse-Echo, Time-of-Flight Diffraction, and Phased-Array Mechanized Ultrasonic Testing Methods.” Materials Evaluation 63 (5): 505–510.
18. Mandache, C., M. Khan, A. Fahr, and M. Yanishevsky. 2011. “Numerical modelling as a cost-reduction tool for probability of detection of bolt hole eddy current testing.” Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 26 (1): 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10589751003770118.10.1080/10589751003770118 ↗
19. Oneida, E. K., E. B. Shell, J. C. Aldrin, H. A. Sabbagh, E. Sabbagh, and R. K. Murphy. 2017. “Characterizing Surface-Breaking Cracks through Eddy Current NDE and Model-Based Inversion.” Materials Evaluation 75 (7): 915–929.
20. Sabbagh, H. A., R. K. Murphy, E. H. Sabbagh, J. C. Aldrin, and J. S. Knopp. 2013. Computational Electromagnetics and Model-Based Inversion: A Modern Paradigm for Eddy-Current Nondestructive Evaluation. Springer: New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8429-6.10.1007/978-1-4419-8429-6 ↗
21. Sabbagh, L. D., and H. A. Sabbagh. 1988. “Eddy-Current Modeling and Flaw Reconstruction.” Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation 7: 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00565780.10.1007/BF00565780 ↗
22. Shell, E. B., J. C. Aldrin, H. A. Sabbagh, E. Sabbagh, R. K. Murphy, S. Mazdiyasni, and E. A. Lindgren. 2015. “Demonstration of Model-Based Inversion of Electromagnetic Signals for Crack Characterization.” AIP Conference Proceedings (1650): 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914645.10.1063/1.4914645 ↗
23. US Department of Defense. 2009. Department of Defense Handbook: Nondestructive Evaluation System Reliability Assessment (MIL-HDBK-1823A). Standardization Order Desk: Philadelphia, PA. https://statistical-engineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/MIL-HDBK-1823A2009.pdf.
24. Yanishevsky, M., M. Martinez, C. Mandache, M. Khan, A. Fahr, and D. Backman. 2010. “Artificial seeding of fatigue cracks in NDI reference coupons.” Insight (Northampton) 52 (12): 664–671. https://doi.org/10.1784/insi.2010.52.12.664.10.1784/insi.2010.52.12.664 ↗
25. Yusa, N. 2009. “Development of Computational Inversion Techniques to Size Cracks from Eddy Current Signals.” Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 24 (1–2): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10589750802195469.10.1080/10589750802195469 ↗