Advanced Quantitative Magnetic Nondestructive Evaluation Methods — Theory and Experiment

  • J. R. Barton
  • F. N. Kusenberger
  • R. E. Beissner
  • G. A. Matzkanin
Part of the Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference Proceedings book series (SAMC, volume 23)


The scale of fatigue crack phenomena is reviewed in relation to the size detection capabilities of nondestructive evaluation methods. Several features of the fatigue phenomena which should be considered in developing nondestructive characteriziation methods are tabulated and briefly discussed. A qualitative assessment of such factors in relation to the inspection of ball and roller bearing components suggested that magnetic methods were very promising. The basis of the magnetic methods is magnetic domain phenomena and several aspects are briefly reviewed, including interaction of domains and inclusions and the influence of stress and magnetic field on domains. While magnetic calculations from first principles are extremely complicated when applied to engineering specimens, simplified treatments have been developed and will be reviewed. Experimental results will also be described which indicate that in many instances the simplified calculations can be used to predict many features of the experimental results. A cursory comparison of results predicted by the simple analytic model and other models in which finite element computer analysis predictions have been made do not agree for certain features. Experimental results and analyses obtained on rod-type fatigue specimens which show the experimental magnetic measurements in relation to featues such as crack opening displacement, crack opening volume, crack depth and other features show much promise in providing methods for greatly improved characterization of cracks in relation to fracture mechanics analyses and life prediction.


Fatigue Crack Nondestructive Test Nondestructive Evaluation Crack Opening Displacement Magnetic Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    McMasters, R.C., ed., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vols. I and II, Soc. for Nondestructive Testing, Roland Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Betz, C.E., Principles of Magnetic Particle Testing, Magnaflux Corp., 1963.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gardner, C.G., Nondestructive Testing — Asurvey, NASA SP-5115, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doane, F.B. and C.E. Betz., Principles of Magnaflux, Magnaflux Corp., 1941.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zatsepin, N.N. and V.E. Shcherbinin, “Calculation of the Magneto-Static Field of Surface Defects, I. Field Topography of Defect Models”, Defektoskopiya, 5 (Sept.-Oct. 1966) 50–59; “II. Experimental Verification of the Principal Theoretical Relationships”, Defektoskopiya, 5 (Sept.-Octo. 1966 ) 59–65.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hwang, J.H. and W. Lord, “Finite Element Modeling of Magnetic Field/Defect Interactions”, J. of Test, and Eval., 3, No. 1 (Jan. 1975) 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hwang, J.H. and W. Lord, “Magnetic Leakage Field Signatures of Material Discontinuities”, Proc. of 10th Symposium on Nondestructive Evaluation, San Antonio, Texas, April 1975.Google Scholar
  8. 8a.
    Kittel, C., “Physical Theory of Ferromagnetic Domains”, Reviews of Mod. Phys., 21, No. 4 (October 1949).Google Scholar
  9. 8b.
    Kittel, C. and J.K. Gait, “Ferromagnetic Domain Theory”, Solid State Phys., 3 (1956).Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Bozarth, R.M., Ferromagnetism, New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1951.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Williams, H.J. and W. Shockley, “A Simple Domain Structure in an Iron Crystal Showing a Direct Correlation with the Magnetization”, Phys. Rev., 75, No. 1 (January 1949).Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Goodenough, J.R., “A Theory of Domain Creation and Coercive Force in Polycrystalline Ferromagnetics”, Phys. Rev., 95, No. 4 (August 1954).Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Kittel, C., “Theory of the Formation of Power Patterns on Ferromagnetic Crystals”, Letters to the Editor, Phys. Rev., 76, No. 10 (November 1949).Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Bates, L.F. and F.E. Neale, “A Quantitative Study of the Domain Structure of Single Crystals of Silicon-Iron by the Powder Pattern Technique”, Proc. of Phys. Soc., Vol. 63.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Graham, C.D., Jr. and P.W. Neurath, “Domain Wall Orientations in Silicon-Iron Crystals”, J. Appl. Phys., 38 (July 1957)Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Stewart, K.H., “Domain Wall Movement in a Single Crystal”, Proc. of Phys. Soc., LXIII, 7-A.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Corner, W.D. and J.J. Mason, “The Effect of Stress on the Domain Structure of Cube-Textured Silicon Iron”, Proc. of Phys. Soc., 81 (1963).Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Dijkstra, L.J. and U.M. Martius, “Domain Pattern in Silicon- Iron Under Stress”, Rev, of Mod. Phys., 25 (January 1953).Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Gardner, C.G. and J.R. Barton, “Recent Advances in Magentic Field Methods of Nondestructive Evaluation for Aerospace Applications”, Propulstion and Energetics Panel Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Dev., London, England, April 1970.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Pasley, R.L., “Barkhausen Effect - An Indication of Stress”, Mat. Eval., 28 (1970) 157.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    Gardner, C.G., G.A. Matzkanin and D.L. Davidson, “The Influence of Mechanical Stress on Magnetization Processes and Barkhausen Jumps in Ferromagnetic Materials”, Int. J. Nondestructive Testing, i.Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    Neel, L., “Effet des cavites et des inclusions sur le champ coercitif”, Cahiers Phys., 25 (1944b) 21 - 44.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Williams, H.J., “Direction of Domain Magnetization in Powder Patterns”, Phys. Rev., 71 (1947).Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    Barton, J.R., “Residual Stresses in Gas Turbine Engine Components from Barkhausen Noise Analysis”, Gas Turbine Conference ASME, Zurich, Switzerland, March-April 1974. Published inGoogle Scholar
  25. J. of Engr. for Power, October 1974.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    Barkhausen, H., “Zwei mit Hilfe der neuen Verstarker entdeckte Erscheinungen”, Physik Z., 20 (1919).Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    Barton, J.R., “Early Fatigue Damage Detection in 4140 Steel Tubes”, Proc. Fifth Annual Symposium on NDE of Aerospace and Weapons Systems Components and Materials, South Texas Chapter ASNT, San Antonio, Texas, April 1965.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    Kusenberger, F.N., B.E. Leonard, J.R. Barton, and W.L. Donaldson, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Scientific Report AFOSE 67 - 1288, April 1967.Google Scholar
  29. 27.
    Barton, J.R., W.L. Donaldson and F.N. Kusenberger, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Proc. of the Office of Aerospace Research, Research and Applications Conf., Arlington, Virginia, March 1969.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Kusenberger, F.N., P.H. Francis, B.E. Leonard and J.R. Barton, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, AFOSR Scientific Report, 69-1329TR, April 1969.Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    Barton, J.R. and F.N. Kusenberger, “Magnetic Perturbation Inspection to Improve Reliability of High Strength Steel Components”, Paper 69-DE-58, Design Engineering Conf. of ASME, New York, New York, May 1969.Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    Kusenberger, F.N., J. Lankford, Jr., P.H. Francis and J.R. Barton, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, AFOSR 70–1206 TR, March 1970.Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    Barton, J.R. and F.N. Kusenberger, “Fatigue Damage in Gas Turbine Engine Materials”, Chapter on Fatigue Damage Detection, ASTM STP 495 (1971) 193–208.Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    Kusenberger, F.N., J. Lankford, Jr., P.H. Francis and J.R. Barton, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Scientific Report, AF0SR-TR-71-1965, April 1971.Google Scholar
  35. 33.
    Kusenberger, F.N., J. Lankford, Jr., P.H. Francis and J.R. Barton, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Scientific Report AF0SR-TR-72-1167, April 1972.Google Scholar
  36. 34.
    Kusenberger, F.N., W.L. Ko, J. Lankford, Jr., P.H. Francis and J.R. Barton, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Scientific Report AFOSR-TR-73-1070, April 1973.Google Scholar
  37. 35.
    Lankford, J., Jr. and F.N. Kusenberger, “Initiation of Fatigue Cracks in 4340 Steel”, Met. Trans., 4 (1973) 553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 36.
    Barton, J.R., F.N. Kusenberger, P.H. Francis, W.L. Ko, and J. Lankford, Jr., “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Scientific Report AFOSR-TR-74-0820, February 1974.Google Scholar
  39. 37.
    Barton, J.R., “Quantitative Correlation Between Magnetic Pertur-Bation Signatures and Inclusions”, ASTM Intl. Symposium on Rating of Nonmetallic Inclusions in Bearing Steels, Boston, Mass., May 1974.Google Scholar
  40. 38.
    Barton, J.R., “Advanced Magnetic Methods of Flaw Detection”, Workshop for NDE Sponsored Jointly by ARPA and AFML, Thousand Oaks, Calif., June 1974. Technical Report AFML-TR-74-238, November 1974.Google Scholar
  41. 39a.
    Bush, H.D. and R.S. Tebble, “The Barkhausen Effect”, Proc. Phys. Soc., 60 (1948) 370.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 39b.
    Schijve, J., “Significance of Fatigue Cracks in Micro-Range and Macro-Range”, Fatigue Crack Propagation, ASTM STP 415, Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, 1967.Google Scholar
  43. 40.
    Packman, P.F., H.S. Pearson, J.S. Owens and G.B. Marchese, “The Applicability of a Fracture Mechanics-Nondestructive Testing Design Criterion”, Technical Report, AFML-TR-68-32, Air Force Materials Laboratory, May 1968.Google Scholar
  44. 41.
    Sattler, F.J., “Nondestructive Flaw Definition Techniques for Critical Defect Determination”, Contract NAS 3 - 11221, Jan. 1970.Google Scholar
  45. 42.
    Rummel, W.D., P.H. Todd, S.P. Frecska and R.A. Rathke, “The Detection of Fatigue Cracks by Nondestructive Testing Methods”, NASA CR 2369, Feb. 1974.Google Scholar
  46. 43.
    Gulley, L.R., Jr., “An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Magnetic Particle Testing”, Tech. Memorandum AFML/MX 73–5, Oct. 1973.Google Scholar
  47. 44.
    Barton, J.R., J. Lankford, Jr., and P.L. Hampton, “Advanced Nondestructive Testing Methods for Bearing Inspection”, SAE Paper No. 720172, Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, Mich., Jan. 1972.Google Scholar
  48. 45.
    Barton, J.R. and J. Lankford, Jr., “Magnetic Perturbation Inspection of Inner Bearing Races”, NASA CR-2055, May 1972.Google Scholar
  49. 46.
    Harnwell, G.P., Principles of Electricity and Electromagnetism, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 406–07.Google Scholar
  50. 47.
    Kraus, J.D., Electromagnetics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953, pp. 538–41.MATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 48.
    Craik, D.J. and R.S. Tebble, Ferromagnetism and Ferromagnetic Domains, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965.Google Scholar
  52. 49.
    Kusenberger, F.N., G.A. Matzkanin, J.R. Barton and P.H. Francis, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Scientific Report AFOSR-TR-76-0384, March 1976.Google Scholar
  53. 50.
    Kusenberger, F.N., W.L. Ko, J. Lankford, P.H. Francis and J.R. Barton, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Scientific Report AFOSR-TR-73-1070, Air Force Office of Scientif Research, April 1973.Google Scholar
  54. 51.
    Kusenberger, F.N., G.A. Matzkanin, J.R. Barton and P.H. Francis, “Nondestructive Evaluation of Metal Fatigue”, Scientific Report AFOSR-TR-75-0937, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, March 1975.Google Scholar
  55. 52.
    Barton, J.R. and F.N. Kusenberger, “Nondestructive Detection of Early Fatigue Damage in Piston Pins”, Final Report, Contract N 204(64)38999, Naval Air System Command, 1 Dec 1966.Google Scholar
  56. 53.
    Parker, R.J., “Correlation of Magnetic Perturbation Inspection Data with Rolling-Element Bearing Fatigue Results”, ASME J. of Lubrication Technology (April 1975).Google Scholar
  57. 54.
    Kusenberger, F.N. and J.R. Barton, “Barkhausen Noise Stress Measurements on Bearing Races Before and After Service”, Final Report, SWRI Project 15-2888, AF Contract No. F09603- 70-C-5547, June 1974.Google Scholar
  58. 55.
    Böhm, K., H. Schlicht, O. Zwirlein and R. Eberhard, “Nonmetallic Inclusions and Rolling Contact Fatigue”, Bearing Steels: The Rating of Nonmetallic Inclusion, ASTM STP 575, Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials (1975) 96–113.Google Scholar
  59. 56.
    Proc. of Joint Army-NASA Seminar, Bearing Restoration by Grinding, May 20-21, 1976, St. Louis, Mo. Sponsored by Army Aviation Systems Command and NASA Lewis Research Center.Google Scholar
  60. 57.
    Barton, J.R., F.N. Kusenberger, P.L. Hampton and H. Bull, “Critical Inspection of Bearings for Life Extention–CIBLE”, Proc. of 10th Symposium on Nondestructive Evaluation, April 23-25, 1975, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. R. Barton
    • 1
  • F. N. Kusenberger
    • 1
  • R. E. Beissner
    • 1
  • G. A. Matzkanin
    • 1
  1. 1.Southwest Research InstituteSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations