Model-based probe state estimation and crack inverse methods addressing eddy current probe variability
A model-based calibration process is introduced that estimates the state of the eddy current probe. First, a carefully designed surrogate model was built using VIC-3D® simulations covering the critical range of probe rotation angles, tilt in two directions, and probe offset (liftoff) for both transv...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Tagungsbericht |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | |
container_volume | 1806 |
creator | Aldrin, John C. Oneida, Erin K. Shell, Eric B. Sabbagh, Harold A. Sabbagh, Elias Murphy, R. Kim Mazdiyasni, Siamack Lindgren, Eric A. Mooers, Ryan D. |
description | A model-based calibration process is introduced that estimates the state of the eddy current probe. First, a carefully designed surrogate model was built using VIC-3D® simulations covering the critical range of probe rotation angles, tilt in two directions, and probe offset (liftoff) for both transverse and longitudinal flaw orientations. Some approximations and numerical compromises in the model were made to represent tilt in two directions and reduce simulation time; however, this surrogate model was found to represent the key trends in the eddy current response for each of the four probe properties in experimental verification studies well. Next, this model was incorporated into an iterative inversion scheme during the calibration process, to estimate the probe state while also addressing the amplitude/phase fit and centering the calibration notch indication. Results are presented showing several examples of the blind estimation of tilt and rotation angle for known experimental cases with reasonable agreement. Once the probe state is estimated, the final step is to transform the base crack inversion surrogate model and apply it for crack characterization. Using this process, results are presented demonstrating improved crack inversion performance for extreme probe states. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1063/1.4974691 |
format | Conference Proceeding |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_scita</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_scitation_primary_10_1063_1_4974691</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2124550849</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p288t-f860efffb66cd495ab2c7c7b6f51f944b32debcdbe37511edad80b84c90ca4df3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWKsL_0HAnTA1mcnksZTiCxQ3Cu5CHjea2s6MSVrov3e0BXeu7ubjnPsdhM4pmVHCmys6Y0owrugBmtC2pZXglB-iCSGKVTVr3o7RSc4LQmolhJyg8NR7WFbWZPB4SL0FnIspgCGXuDIl9h02nccuGfeJY7eBlAGvoHz0PmPjfYKcY_eOwfstduuUoCv7oI1J0di4jGV7io6CWWY4298per29eZnfV4_Pdw_z68dqqKUsVZCcQAjBcu48U62xtRNOWB5aGhRjtqk9WOctNKKlFLzxkljJnCLOMB-aKbrY5Y4ffK1HB73o16kbK3VNa9a2RDI1Upc7KrtYfh31kEbbtNWU6J8dNdX7Hf-DN336A_Uw9n8DMgp2zg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype><pqid>2124550849</pqid></control><display><type>conference_proceeding</type><title>Model-based probe state estimation and crack inverse methods addressing eddy current probe variability</title><source>AIP Journals Complete</source><creator>Aldrin, John C. ; Oneida, Erin K. ; Shell, Eric B. ; Sabbagh, Harold A. ; Sabbagh, Elias ; Murphy, R. Kim ; Mazdiyasni, Siamack ; Lindgren, Eric A. ; Mooers, Ryan D.</creator><contributor>Chimenti, Dale E. ; Bond, Leonard J.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Aldrin, John C. ; Oneida, Erin K. ; Shell, Eric B. ; Sabbagh, Harold A. ; Sabbagh, Elias ; Murphy, R. Kim ; Mazdiyasni, Siamack ; Lindgren, Eric A. ; Mooers, Ryan D. ; Chimenti, Dale E. ; Bond, Leonard J.</creatorcontrib><description>A model-based calibration process is introduced that estimates the state of the eddy current probe. First, a carefully designed surrogate model was built using VIC-3D® simulations covering the critical range of probe rotation angles, tilt in two directions, and probe offset (liftoff) for both transverse and longitudinal flaw orientations. Some approximations and numerical compromises in the model were made to represent tilt in two directions and reduce simulation time; however, this surrogate model was found to represent the key trends in the eddy current response for each of the four probe properties in experimental verification studies well. Next, this model was incorporated into an iterative inversion scheme during the calibration process, to estimate the probe state while also addressing the amplitude/phase fit and centering the calibration notch indication. Results are presented showing several examples of the blind estimation of tilt and rotation angle for known experimental cases with reasonable agreement. Once the probe state is estimated, the final step is to transform the base crack inversion surrogate model and apply it for crack characterization. Using this process, results are presented demonstrating improved crack inversion performance for extreme probe states.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-243X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-7616</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1063/1.4974691</identifier><identifier>CODEN: APCPCS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Melville: American Institute of Physics</publisher><subject>Calibration ; Computer simulation ; Eddy currents ; Iterative methods ; Mathematical models ; Rotation ; State estimation ; Three dimensional models</subject><ispartof>AIP conference proceedings, 2017, Vol.1806 (1)</ispartof><rights>Author(s)</rights><rights>2017 Author(s). Published by AIP Publishing.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://pubs.aip.org/acp/article-lookup/doi/10.1063/1.4974691$$EHTML$$P50$$Gscitation$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,778,782,787,788,792,4500,23913,23914,25123,27907,27908,76135</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Chimenti, Dale E.</contributor><contributor>Bond, Leonard J.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Aldrin, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oneida, Erin K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shell, Eric B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabbagh, Harold A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabbagh, Elias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, R. Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazdiyasni, Siamack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindgren, Eric A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mooers, Ryan D.</creatorcontrib><title>Model-based probe state estimation and crack inverse methods addressing eddy current probe variability</title><title>AIP conference proceedings</title><description>A model-based calibration process is introduced that estimates the state of the eddy current probe. First, a carefully designed surrogate model was built using VIC-3D® simulations covering the critical range of probe rotation angles, tilt in two directions, and probe offset (liftoff) for both transverse and longitudinal flaw orientations. Some approximations and numerical compromises in the model were made to represent tilt in two directions and reduce simulation time; however, this surrogate model was found to represent the key trends in the eddy current response for each of the four probe properties in experimental verification studies well. Next, this model was incorporated into an iterative inversion scheme during the calibration process, to estimate the probe state while also addressing the amplitude/phase fit and centering the calibration notch indication. Results are presented showing several examples of the blind estimation of tilt and rotation angle for known experimental cases with reasonable agreement. Once the probe state is estimated, the final step is to transform the base crack inversion surrogate model and apply it for crack characterization. Using this process, results are presented demonstrating improved crack inversion performance for extreme probe states.</description><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Eddy currents</subject><subject>Iterative methods</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Rotation</subject><subject>State estimation</subject><subject>Three dimensional models</subject><issn>0094-243X</issn><issn>1551-7616</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>conference_proceeding</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWKsL_0HAnTA1mcnksZTiCxQ3Cu5CHjea2s6MSVrov3e0BXeu7ubjnPsdhM4pmVHCmys6Y0owrugBmtC2pZXglB-iCSGKVTVr3o7RSc4LQmolhJyg8NR7WFbWZPB4SL0FnIspgCGXuDIl9h02nccuGfeJY7eBlAGvoHz0PmPjfYKcY_eOwfstduuUoCv7oI1J0di4jGV7io6CWWY4298per29eZnfV4_Pdw_z68dqqKUsVZCcQAjBcu48U62xtRNOWB5aGhRjtqk9WOctNKKlFLzxkljJnCLOMB-aKbrY5Y4ffK1HB73o16kbK3VNa9a2RDI1Upc7KrtYfh31kEbbtNWU6J8dNdX7Hf-DN336A_Uw9n8DMgp2zg</recordid><startdate>20170216</startdate><enddate>20170216</enddate><creator>Aldrin, John C.</creator><creator>Oneida, Erin K.</creator><creator>Shell, Eric B.</creator><creator>Sabbagh, Harold A.</creator><creator>Sabbagh, Elias</creator><creator>Murphy, R. Kim</creator><creator>Mazdiyasni, Siamack</creator><creator>Lindgren, Eric A.</creator><creator>Mooers, Ryan D.</creator><general>American Institute of Physics</general><scope>8FD</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170216</creationdate><title>Model-based probe state estimation and crack inverse methods addressing eddy current probe variability</title><author>Aldrin, John C. ; Oneida, Erin K. ; Shell, Eric B. ; Sabbagh, Harold A. ; Sabbagh, Elias ; Murphy, R. Kim ; Mazdiyasni, Siamack ; Lindgren, Eric A. ; Mooers, Ryan D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p288t-f860efffb66cd495ab2c7c7b6f51f944b32debcdbe37511edad80b84c90ca4df3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>conference_proceedings</rsrctype><prefilter>conference_proceedings</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Eddy currents</topic><topic>Iterative methods</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Rotation</topic><topic>State estimation</topic><topic>Three dimensional models</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Aldrin, John C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oneida, Erin K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shell, Eric B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabbagh, Harold A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sabbagh, Elias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, R. Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazdiyasni, Siamack</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindgren, Eric A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mooers, Ryan D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Aldrin, John C.</au><au>Oneida, Erin K.</au><au>Shell, Eric B.</au><au>Sabbagh, Harold A.</au><au>Sabbagh, Elias</au><au>Murphy, R. Kim</au><au>Mazdiyasni, Siamack</au><au>Lindgren, Eric A.</au><au>Mooers, Ryan D.</au><au>Chimenti, Dale E.</au><au>Bond, Leonard J.</au><format>book</format><genre>proceeding</genre><ristype>CONF</ristype><atitle>Model-based probe state estimation and crack inverse methods addressing eddy current probe variability</atitle><btitle>AIP conference proceedings</btitle><date>2017-02-16</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>1806</volume><issue>1</issue><issn>0094-243X</issn><eissn>1551-7616</eissn><coden>APCPCS</coden><abstract>A model-based calibration process is introduced that estimates the state of the eddy current probe. First, a carefully designed surrogate model was built using VIC-3D® simulations covering the critical range of probe rotation angles, tilt in two directions, and probe offset (liftoff) for both transverse and longitudinal flaw orientations. Some approximations and numerical compromises in the model were made to represent tilt in two directions and reduce simulation time; however, this surrogate model was found to represent the key trends in the eddy current response for each of the four probe properties in experimental verification studies well. Next, this model was incorporated into an iterative inversion scheme during the calibration process, to estimate the probe state while also addressing the amplitude/phase fit and centering the calibration notch indication. Results are presented showing several examples of the blind estimation of tilt and rotation angle for known experimental cases with reasonable agreement. Once the probe state is estimated, the final step is to transform the base crack inversion surrogate model and apply it for crack characterization. Using this process, results are presented demonstrating improved crack inversion performance for extreme probe states.</abstract><cop>Melville</cop><pub>American Institute of Physics</pub><doi>10.1063/1.4974691</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0094-243X |
ispartof | AIP conference proceedings, 2017, Vol.1806 (1) |
issn | 0094-243X 1551-7616 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_scitation_primary_10_1063_1_4974691 |
source | AIP Journals Complete |
subjects | Calibration Computer simulation Eddy currents Iterative methods Mathematical models Rotation State estimation Three dimensional models |
title | Model-based probe state estimation and crack inverse methods addressing eddy current probe variability |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T13%3A55%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_scita&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=proceeding&rft.atitle=Model-based%20probe%20state%20estimation%20and%20crack%20inverse%20methods%20addressing%20eddy%20current%20probe%20variability&rft.btitle=AIP%20conference%20proceedings&rft.au=Aldrin,%20John%20C.&rft.date=2017-02-16&rft.volume=1806&rft.issue=1&rft.issn=0094-243X&rft.eissn=1551-7616&rft.coden=APCPCS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1063/1.4974691&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_scita%3E2124550849%3C/proquest_scita%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2124550849&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |