Location

La Jolla, CA

Start Date

1-1-1991 12:00 AM

Description

The calibration of eddy-current measurement systems is a long-standing problem in nondestructive evaluation. Calibration serves a number of purposes: for equipment setup and validation, for equalizing responses from different probes and instruments, for setting detection thresholds, and for quantitative flaw sizing. The most commonly used calibration method is to scan the probe to be calibrated over simulated defects such as electrical-discharge machined (EDM) slots, saw cuts, or laboratory-produced fatigue cracks. This method has the virtue of calibrating probe and instrument at the same time on the same material as that to be inspected. But it has a number of disadvantages as well. First, a large number of artifact standards must be generated, certified, and maintained in the typical inspection organization; this can result in considerable expense. Second, the signals from EDM slots and saw cuts are not equivalent to the signals from actual defects, as discussed in another paper in these proceedings [1]. Third, quantitative flaw sizing can only be accomplished over a limited range with such calibration methodology, and the accuracy of sizing flaws with this method is brought into question by the aforementioned inequality of slots and cracks. Even if laboratory-produced cracks were to be used routinely for calibration (a prohibitively expensive option), quantitative sizing could be compromised by the occurrence of crack closure effects [2].

Book Title

Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation

Volume

10B

Chapter

Chapter 9: Manufacturing and Reliability

Pages

2243-2249

DOI

10.1007/978-1-4615-3742-7_145

Language

en

File Format

application/pdf

Included in

Manufacturing Commons

Share

COinS
 
Jan 1st, 12:00 AM

A Self-Calibrating Eddy-Current Instrument

La Jolla, CA

The calibration of eddy-current measurement systems is a long-standing problem in nondestructive evaluation. Calibration serves a number of purposes: for equipment setup and validation, for equalizing responses from different probes and instruments, for setting detection thresholds, and for quantitative flaw sizing. The most commonly used calibration method is to scan the probe to be calibrated over simulated defects such as electrical-discharge machined (EDM) slots, saw cuts, or laboratory-produced fatigue cracks. This method has the virtue of calibrating probe and instrument at the same time on the same material as that to be inspected. But it has a number of disadvantages as well. First, a large number of artifact standards must be generated, certified, and maintained in the typical inspection organization; this can result in considerable expense. Second, the signals from EDM slots and saw cuts are not equivalent to the signals from actual defects, as discussed in another paper in these proceedings [1]. Third, quantitative flaw sizing can only be accomplished over a limited range with such calibration methodology, and the accuracy of sizing flaws with this method is brought into question by the aforementioned inequality of slots and cracks. Even if laboratory-produced cracks were to be used routinely for calibration (a prohibitively expensive option), quantitative sizing could be compromised by the occurrence of crack closure effects [2].