Finite Element Modelling of a Reflection Differential Split-D Eddy Current Probe Scanning Surface Notches
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Differential eddy current probes are commonly used to detect shallow surface cracks in conductive materials. In recent years, a growing number of research works on their numerical modelling was conducted since the development of analytical or semi-analytical models for such a sensor may be prone to intractable complications. In this paper finite element modelling (FEM) has been employed to simulate the interaction of a reflection differential split-D probe with surface electrical discharge machined (EDM) notches in 3-dimensional (3-D) half-space. In order to attain a better insight into the correct setup of the FEM parameters, a simple multi-turn cylindrical absolute coil has also been modelled. The outcome generated through the simulated scan of this absolute coil over a surface notch in aluminum is validated with existing experimental impedance data taken from the literature. Parameters contributing to reliable FEM simulation results, such as maximum mesh size, mesh distribution, the extent of the surrounding air domain and conductivity of the air are investigated for the 3-D modelling of both absolute and differential probes. This study shows that the simulation results on a commercial reflection differential split-D surface pencil probe closely estimate the experimental measurements of the probe’s impedance variations as it scans three EDM notches having different depths in aluminum. The simulation results, generated by Comsol Multiphysics FEM package (COMSOL I, COMSOL multiphysics reference manual, version 5.3, COMSOL AB, 2018, www.comsol.com), for the cases of absolute and differential probes are checked for their extent of validity.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Geophysical Methods and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. COMSOL I: COMSOL Multiphysics Reference Manual, version 5.3. COMSOL AB. (2018) www.comsol.com. Accessed 1 Mar 2018
2. Jones, R., Molent, L., Pitt, S.: Study of multi-site damage of fuselage lap joints. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 32(2), 81–100 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8442(99)00029-410.1016/S0167-8442(99)00029-4 ↗
3. Pitt, S., Jones, R.: Multiple-site and widespread fatigue damage in aging aircraft. Eng. Fail Anal. 4(4), 237–257 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-6307(97)00020-410.1016/S1350-6307(97)00020-4 ↗
4. Bhaumik, S., Sujata, M., Venkataswamy, M.: Fatigue failure of aircraft components. Eng. Fail Anal. 15(6), 675–694 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.10.00110.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.10.001 ↗
5. Findlay, S., Harrison, N.: Why aircraft fail. Mater. Today 5(11), 18–25 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(02)01138-010.1016/S1369-7021(02)01138-0 ↗
6. Grover, H.J.: Fatigue of Aircraft Structures. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus (1966)10.21236/AD0660529 ↗
7. Davis, J.R.: ASM Handbook: Nondestructive Evaluation and Quality Control. ASM International, Cleveland (1989)
8. Hellier, C.: Handbook of Nondestructive Evaluation. McGraw-Hill, New York (2001)
9. Shull, P.J.: Nondestructive Evaluation: Theory, Techniques, and Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2002)10.1201/9780203911068 ↗
10. García-Martín, J., Gómez-Gil, J., Vázquez-Sánchez, E.: Non-destructive techniques based on eddy current testing. Sensors 11(3), 2525–2565 (2011)10.3390/s110302525 ↗
11. Krause, H., Hohmann, R., Gruneklee, M., Maus, M.: Aircraft wheel and fuselage testing with eddy current and SQUID. In: 7th European Conference on Non-destructive Testing, vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 148–151 (2000)
12. Wincheski, B., Namkung, M.: Detection of sublayer fatigue cracks under airframe rivets. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, pp. 331–338. Springer, Boston, MA (1998)10.1007/978-1-4615-5339-7_42 ↗
13. Hagemaier, D., Kark, G.: Eddy current detection of short cracks under installed fasteners. Mater. Eval. 55(1), 25–30 (1997)
14. Khan, T., Nakagawa, N.: Quantitative impedance measurements for eddy current model validation. Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation: Volume 19, vol. 509, No. 1, pp. 441–448 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.130608210.1063/1.1306082 ↗
15. Mooers, R., Knopp, J., Blodgett, M.: Model based studies of the split D differential eddy current probe. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation: Volume 31, vol. 1430, No. 1, pp. 373–380 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.471625210.1063/1.4716252 ↗
16. Mooers, R.D., Knopp, J.S., Aldrin, J.C., Sathish, S.: Split D differential probe model validation using an impedance analyzer. In: 40th Annual Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation: Incorporating the 10th International Conference on Barkhausen Noise and Micromagnetic Testing, vol. 1581, No. 1, pp. 1511–1518 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.486500210.1063/1.4865002 ↗
17. Mooers, R.D., Knopp, J.S., Aldrin, J.C., Sathish, S.: Simulated parametric study based on a representative split D differential eddy current probe. In: 40th Annual Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation: Incorporating the 10th International Conference on Barkhausen Noise and Micromagnetic Testing, vol. 1581, No. 1, pp. 1344–1351 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.486497710.1063/1.4864977 ↗
18. Nakagawa, N., Khan, T., Gray, J.: Eddy current probe characterization for model input and validation. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation: Volume 19, vol. 509, No. 1, pp. 473–480 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.130608610.1063/1.1306086 ↗
19. Nakagawa, N., Yang, M., Larson, B.F., Madison, E., Raulerson, D.: Study of the effects of EDM notch width on eddy current signal response. In: 35th Annual Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, vol. 1096, No. 1, pp. 287–294 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.311421710.1063/1.3114217 ↗
20. Rosell, A., Persson, G.: Modelling of a Differential Sensor in Eddy Current Non-destructive Evaluation. COMSOL Conference (2011)
21. Sabbagh, H.A., Sabbagh, E.H., Murphy, R.K.: (2002) Recent advances in modeling eddy-current probes. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, vol. 615, No. 1, pp. 423–429 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.147282910.1063/1.1472829 ↗
22. Aldrin, J.C., Sabbagh, H.A., Murphy, R.K., Sabbagh, E.H., Knopp, J.S., Lindgren, E.A., Cherry, M.R.: Demonstration of model-assisted probability of detection evaluation methodology for eddy current nondestructive evaluation. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, vol 1. AIP Publishing, pp. 1733–1740 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.471642110.1063/1.4716421 ↗
23. Shell, E.B., Aldrin, J.C., Sabbagh, H.A., Sabbagh, E., Murphy, R.K., Mazdiyasni, S., Lindgren, E.A.: Demonstration of model-based inversion of electromagnetic signals for crack characterization. In: 41st Annual Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation: Volume 34, vol. 1650, pp. 484–493 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.491464510.1063/1.4914645 ↗
24. Knopp, J.S., Aldrin, J., Lindgren, E., Annis, C.: Investigation of a model‐assisted approach to probability of detection evaluation. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, vol. 894, No. 1, pp. 1775–1782 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.271817810.1063/1.2718178 ↗
25. Aldrin, J., Knopp, J., Lindgren, E., Jata, K.: Model-assisted probability of detection (MAPOD) evaluation for eddy current inspection of fastener sites. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, vol. 28, pp. 1784–1791 (2009)10.1063/1.3114175 ↗
26. Knopp, J.S., Aldrin, J.C., Misra, P.: Considerations in the validation and application of models for eddy current inspection of cracks around fastener holes. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 25(3), 123–137 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-006-0008-310.1007/s10921-006-0008-3 ↗
27. Verite, J. (1990) A coil over a crack (results for benchmark problem 8 of team workshop). In: COMPEL-The International Journal for Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb01007210.1108/eb010072 ↗
28. Burke, S.: A benchmark problem for computation of δz in eddy-current nondestructive evaluation (NDE). J. Nondestruct. Eval. 7(1–2), 35–41 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0056577510.1007/BF00565775 ↗
29. Xu, B., Xie, W., Viens, M., Mohseni, E., Birglen, L., Mantegh, I.: Intelligent eddy current crack detection system design based on neuro-fuzzy logic. In: International Workshop on Smart Materials and Structures, NDT in Canada 2013 Conference & NDT for the Energy (2013)
30. Mooers, R.D., Aldrin, J.C.: Effects of angular variation on split D differential eddy current probe response. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1. AIP Publishing, p. 090022 (2016)10.1063/1.4940559 ↗
31. COMSOL I: AC/DC Module User’s Guide. COMSOL AB (2007)
32. COMSOL I: Single-Turn and Multi-Turn Coil Domains in 3D. COMSOL AB (2012)
33. Underhill, P., Krause, T.: Enhancing probability of detection and analysis of bolt hole eddy current. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 30(4), 237–245 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-011-0112-x10.1007/s10921-011-0112-x ↗
34. Lemire, H., Underhill, P., Krause, T., Bunn, M., Butcher, D.: Improving probability of detection of bolt hole eddy current inspection. Res. Nondestr. Eval. 21(3), 141–156 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/0934984100372895110.1080/09349841003728951 ↗