Adaptive Neuro-fuzzy Inference System Trained for Sizing Semi-elliptical Notches Scanned by Eddy Currents
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The present study explores the capability of COMSOL Multiphysics, as a finite element modelling (FEM) tool, to model the interaction between a split-D differential surface eddy current (ECT) probe and semi-elliptical surface electrical discharge machined (EDM) notches. The effect of the small probe’s lift-off and tilt on its signal is investigated through modelling and subsequently, the simulation outcomes are validated using the probe’s impedance measurements. In the next stage, an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) is designed to take the signal features as inputs and consequently, provide the length of the scanned notch as the system’s output. The system is trained by extracted features of thirty model-generated signals obtained from scanning of the same number of semi-elliptical notches by means of the split-D probe. The trained ANFIS is tested afterwards using the measured signals of 3 calibration EDM notches together with 5 model-based ones. A very low average estimation error is observed with regard to the length estimation of the test notches and the accuracy of the length estimation is found to be quite reasonable.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Flow Measurement and Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (17)
Show source-provided references
1. Shull, P.J.: Nondestructive Evaluation: Theory, Techniques, and Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2016)
2. 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. 1. AIP, pp. 373–380 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.471625210.1063/1.4716252 ↗
3. Sabbagh, H.A., Murphy, R.K., Sabbagh, E.H., Aldrin, J.C., Knopp, J.S.: Computational Electromagnetics and Model-Based Inversion. Springer, New York, NY (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8429-610.1007/978-1-4419-8429-6 ↗
4. Bowler, J., Sabbagh, L., Sabbagh, H.: Eddy-current probe impedance due to a surface slot in a conductor. IEEE Trans. Magn. 26(2), 889–892 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1109/20.10646010.1109/20.106460 ↗
5. Bowler, J., Yoshida, Y., Harfield, N.: Vector-potential boundary-integral evaluation of eddy-current interaction with a crack. IEEE Trans. Magn. 33(5), 4287–4294 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1109/20.62043710.1109/20.620437 ↗
6. Bowler, J.R., Sabbagh, L.D., Sabbagh, H.A.: A theoretical and computational model of eddy-current probes incorporating volume integral and conjugate gradient methods. IEEE Trans. Magn. 25(3), 2650–2664 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1109/20.2450510.1109/20.24505 ↗
7. Yusa, N., Perrin, S., Mizuno, K., Miya, K.: Numerical modeling of general cracks from the viewpoint of eddy current simulations. NDT E Int. 40(8), 577–583 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2007.04.00210.1016/j.ndteint.2007.04.002 ↗
8. Boukani, H.H., Viens, M., Tahan, S., Gagnon, M.: On the performance of nondestructive testing methods in the hydroelectric turbine industry. In: 27th IAHR Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems, Montreal, QC, 22–26 September 2014, vol. 1. IOP Publishing, p. 012018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/22/1/01201810.1088/1755-1315/22/1/012018 ↗
9. Siyyer, N., Sarkar, S., Merrill, R., Phan, N.: Aircraft life management using crack initiation and crack growth models–P-3C Aircraft experience. Int. J. Fatigue 29(9), 1584–1607 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2007.03.01710.1016/j.ijfatigue.2007.03.017 ↗
10. Bowler, J.: Inversion of open cracks using eddy-current probe impedance measurements. In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondetructive Evaluation, vol. 1. AIP, pp. 529–534 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.130609410.1063/1.1306094 ↗
11. Burke, S.: Eddy-current inversion in the thin-skin limit: determination of depth and opening for a long crack. J. Appl. Phys. 76(5), 3072–3080 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.35845410.1063/1.358454 ↗
12. Tsoukalas, L.H., Uhrig, R.E.: Fuzzy and Neural Approaches in Engineering. Wiley, New York (NY) (1996)
13. Grimberg, R., Savin, A., Iancu, L., Chifan, S.: Fuzzy inference system used for a quantitative evaluation of the material discontinuities detected by eddy current sensors. Sens. Actuators, A 81(1), 248–250 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00134-X10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00134-X ↗
14. Udpa, L., Udpa, S.: Neural networks for the classification of nondestructive evaluation signals. In: IEE Proceedings F (Radar and Signal Processing), vol. 1. IET, pp. 41–45 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1049/ip-f-2.1991.000710.1049/ip-f-2.1991.0007 ↗
15. Upadhyaya, B., Yan, W., Behravesh, M., Henry, G.: Development of a diagnostic expert system for eddy current data analysis using applied artificial intelligence methods. Nucl. Eng. Des. 193(1), 1–11 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(99)00162-410.1016/S0029-5493(99)00162-4 ↗
16. Mohseni, E., Viens, M., Franca, D.R.: A model-based study of the effect of semi-elliptical surface notch geometry on the signal of a Split-D eddy current probe. In: NDT in Canada 2016 & 6th International CANDU In-Service Inspection Workshop, Burlington, ON, November 15–17, 2016. Canadian Institute for Non-Destructive Evaluation
17. Jang, J.-S.R., Sun, C.-T., Mizutani, E.: Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing: a computational approach to learning and machine intelligence. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 42(10), 1482 (1997)10.1109/TAC.1997.633847 ↗