On the feasibility of ultrasonic full waveform evaluation with changing testing conditions for the quality control of manufacturing parts
Source abstract
Abstract
Fast volumetric non-destructive testing methods are needed, especially for quality control in manufacturing lines. Ultrasonic testing with full waveform evaluation is a promising method for this. However, changes in coupling conditions or environmental factors can significantly alter the ultrasound signal, sometimes more than actual defects. This study investigates the effect of various factors on the ultrasound signal based on a Monte Carlo study with wavefield simulations. The test specimens comprise aluminium plates with holes of varying sizes and positions. Using both experimental as well as simulated data, the performance of two commonly used comparison metrics, namely the R2 score and the magnitude-squared coherence integral, for detecting defects in manufactured parts is evaluated. It was found that the magnitude-squared coherence integral is more robust against random influences than the R2 score. Additionally, factors influencing the entire plate exhibit the most significant impact on the signals. The hole positions and dimensions change the signals and the value of the comparison metrics significantly and are difficult to distinguish by one metric. A deep learning model, however, is capable of performing this task and it outperforms the comparison metrics in defect detection. The performance of the approaches is assessed with probability of detection curves.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Flow Measurement and Analysis · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Technical University of Munich
Portland State University
Funding
Technical University of Munich · the Portland State University
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2022.10270310.1016/j.ndteint.2022.102703 ↗
2. 10.1007/978-3-662-10680-810.1007/978-3-662-10680-8 ↗
3. 10.15760/CCEMP.5010.15760/CCEMP.50 ↗
4. 10.1007/s10921-018-0527-810.1007/s10921-018-0527-8 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.ultras.2005.05.00110.1016/j.ultras.2005.05.001 ↗
6. 10.3390/ma1516548210.3390/ma15165482 ↗
7. 10.3390/ma1503073810.3390/ma15030738 ↗
8. 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.000309010.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003090 ↗
9. 10.3390/ma1417501310.3390/ma14175013 ↗
10. 10.1007/978-3-030-12111-21410.1007/978-3-030-12111-214 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2023.10299210.1016/j.ndteint.2023.102992 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ultras.2017.05.01010.1016/j.ultras.2017.05.010 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2011.07.00910.1016/j.ndteint.2011.07.009 ↗
14. 10.1126/science.107001510.1126/science.1070015 ↗
15. 10.1063/1.486489710.1063/1.4864897 ↗
16. 10.3390/aerospace502005010.3390/aerospace5020050 ↗
17. 10.1080/10589759.2023.227400110.1080/10589759.2023.2274001 ↗
18. 10.1088/1742-6596/628/1/01200510.1088/1742-6596/628/1/012005 ↗
19. 10.1155/2022/445643910.1155/2022/4456439 ↗
20. 10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00209-210.1016/S0045-7949(02)00209-2 ↗
21. 10.1080/23311916.2021.200909210.1080/23311916.2021.2009092 ↗
22. 10.1063/1.306412910.1063/1.3064129 ↗
23. Stanton G, Slinker B. Primer of applied regression and analysis of variance. New York, USA: McGraw- Hill; 1990.
24. González A, Rodríguez J, Sagartzazu X, et al. Multiple coherence method in time domain for the analysis of the transmission paths of noise and vibrations with non-stationary signals. In: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference of Noise and Vibration Engineering; Leuven, Belgium. 2010.
25. 10.1109/TAU.1967.116190110.1109/TAU.1967.1161901 ↗
26. 10.1007/978-3-030-67936-1510.1007/978-3-030-67936-15 ↗
27. 10.1063/1.343126910.1063/1.3431269 ↗
28. 10.1038/nature1453910.1038/nature14539 ↗
29. 10.48550/arXiv.1706.0376210.48550/arXiv.1706.03762 ↗
30. 10.1145/3447548.346740110.1145/3447548.3467401 ↗
31. 10.3390/info1102010810.3390/info11020108 ↗
32. 10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-710.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7 ↗
33. Annis C. MIL-HDBK-1823A: Nondestructive evaluation system reliability assessment. Department Def Handb. 2009;7(15).
34. ASTM. Standard Practice for Probability of Detection Analysis for Hit/Miss Data Vol. E2862-12. 2023. ASTM International.
35. ASTM. Standard Practice for Probability of Detection Analysis for â Versus a Data ASTM-E3023. 2023. ASTM International.
36. 10.1007/s10921-019-0628-z10.1007/s10921-019-0628-z ↗
37. Berens A. NDE reliability data analysis. ASM Handb. 1989:17:689–701.
38. Kanzler D. Reliability analysis of digital radiography systems in the testing of real material holes (published in German). [PhD thesis]. University of Rostock. 2016. https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-bam/frontdoor/index/index/year/2017/docId/38872
39. Ginzel E, Ginzel R. Approximate dv/dt values for some materials. e-J Nondestr Test. 2017.https://www.ndt.net/?id=21545
40. 10.1093/gji/ggy46910.1093/gji/ggy469 ↗
41. Seeber A, Vrana J, Mosshofer H, et al. Correct sizing of reflectors smaller than one wavelength. In: 12th European Conference on Non-Destructive Testing (ECNDT). 2018. https://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt2018/papers/ecndt-0177-2018.pdf