Advertisement

Ultrasonic Wavefield Imaging

  • Jennifer E. Michaels
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Ultrasonic wavefield imaging, or the acquisition and subsequent analysis of wave motion generated by a fixed source, is a powerful research tool that is also being considered for nondestructive evaluation (NDE). Many proposed wavefield-based NDE methods have come from the structural health monitoring (SHM) community and are based upon guided waves. If guided wave transducers are already embedded in or mounted on a structure as part of an SHM system, then wavefield-based inspection can potentially take place with very little required disassembly. Wavefield inspection methods may also be practical for stand-alone inspection because of the richness of the data and the noncontact nature of most implementations. In its simplest form, wavefield imaging is a very effective method for visualizing wave motion on the surface of a specimen. However, for it to become a practical NDE method, analysis methods must be applied to the wavefield data to yield quantitative information concerning the detection, localization, and characterization of damage. The focus of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the acquisition and analysis of wavefield data in the context of three case studies: impact damage in composites, bond evaluation for aluminum plates, and characterization of scattering from notched through-holes. References to additional methods and applications are given for the interested reader.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first case study was supported by Advanced Systems & Technology, Inc., Irvine, CA, as part of a NASA SBIR Phase II Award, Contract No. NNX15CL26C, Dr. Cara Leckey, program manager. The third case study was sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Contract No. FA8650-10-D-5210, Dr. Eric Lindgren, program manager.

References

  1. An YK, Park B, Sohn H (2013) Complete noncontact laser ultrasonic imaging for automated crack visualization in a plate. Smart Mater Struct 22:025022 (10pp)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dawson AJ, Michaels JE, Michaels TE (2016) Isolation of ultrasonic scattering by wavefield baseline subtraction. Mech Syst Signal Process 70–71:891–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawson AJ, Michaels JE, Kummer JW, Michaels TE (2017) Quantification of shear wave scattering from far-surface defects via ultrasonic wavefield measurements. IEEE Trans Ultrason, Ferroelect Freq Control 64(3):590–601Google Scholar
  4. Flynn EB, Chong AY, Jarmer GJ, Lee JR (2013) Structural imaging through local wavenumber estimation of guided waves. NDT&E Int 59:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gannon A, Wheeler E, Brown K, Flynn E, Warren W (2015) A high-speed dual-stage ultrasonic guided wave system for localization and characterization of defects. Conf Proc Soc Exp Mech Ser 7:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goodman D, Rowland K, Smith S, Miller K, Flynn E (2014) Non-destructive examination of multiphase material distribution in uranium hexafluoride cylinders using steady-state laser Doppler vibrometry. Conf Proc Soc Exp Mech Ser 5:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall G (1977) Ultrasonic wave visualization as a teaching aid in non-destructive testing. Ultrasonics 15(2):57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harb MS, Yuan FG (2016) Damage imaging using non-contact air-coupled transducer/laser Doppler vibrometer system. Struct Health Monit 15(2):193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harley JB, Chia CC (2018) Statistical partial wavefield imaging using Lamb wave signals. Struct Health Monit 17(4):919–935Google Scholar
  10. Kilpatrick JM, Markov VB (2010) Full-field laser vibrometer for instantaneous vibration measurement and non-destructive testing. Key Eng Mater 437:407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Köhler B, Barth M, Krüger P, Schubert F (2012) Grain structure visualization with surface skimming ultrasonic waves detected by laser vibrometry. Appl Phys Lett 101:074101 (3pp)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kudela P, Radzieński M, Ostachowicz W (2015) Identification of cracks in thin-walled structures by means of wavenumber filtering. Mech Syst Signal Process 50–51:456–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee JR, Chia CC, Park CY, Jeong H (2012) Laser ultrasonic anomalous wave propagation imaging method with adjacent wave subtraction: algorithm. Opt Laser Technol 44:1507–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee JR, Sunuwar N, Park CY (2014) Comparative analysis of laser ultrasonic propagation imaging system with capacitance and piezoelectric air-coupled transducers. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 25(5):551–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mesnil O, Ruzzene M (2016) Sparse wavefield reconstruction and source detection using compressed sensing. Ultrasonics 67:94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mesnil O, Yan H, Ruzzene M, Paynabar K, Shi J (2016) Fast wavenumber measurement for accurate and automatic location and quantification of defect in composite. Struct Health Monit 15(2):223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Michaels JE (2017) Ultrasonic wavefield imaging: research tool or emerging NDE method? In: Chimenti DE, Bond LJ (eds) Review of progress in quantitative nondestructive evaluation, vol 36. AIP conference proceedings 1806 (020001, 14pp)Google Scholar
  18. Michaels TE, Michaels JE (2006) Integrated monitoring and inspection with attached ultrasonic transducers. In: Kundu T (ed), Proceedings of the SPIE, vol 6177, 61770E (12pp)Google Scholar
  19. Michaels TE, Michaels JE (2007) Monitoring and characterizing corrosion in aluminum using Lamb waves and attached sensors. In: Kundu T (ed) Proceedings of the SPIE, vol 6532, 65321G (11pp)Google Scholar
  20. Michaels TE, Michaels JE, Ruzzene M (2011) Frequency-wavenumber domain analysis of guided wavefields. Ultrasonics 51:452–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Michaels JE, Lee SJ, Croxford AJ, Wilcox PD (2013) Chirp excitation of ultrasonic guided waves. Ultrasonics 53:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nishizawa O, Satoh T, Lei X, Kuwahara Y (1997) Laboratory study of seismic wave propagation in inhomogeneous media using a laser Doppler vibrometer. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87(4):809–823Google Scholar
  23. Park B, An YK, Sohn H (2014) Visualization of hidden delamination and debonding in composites through noncontact laser ultrasonic scanning. Compos Sci Technol 100:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogge MD, Leckey CAC (2013) Characterization of impact damage in composite laminates using guided wavefield imaging and local wavenumber domain analysis. Ultrasonics 53:1217–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose JL (1999) Ultrasonic waves in solid media. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruzzene M (2007) Frequency-wavenumber domain filtering for improved damage visualization. Smart Mater Struct 16:2116–2129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tian Z, Yu L (2014) Lamb wave frequency-wavenumber analysis and composition. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 25(9):1107–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tian Z, Yu L, Leckey C (2016) Rapid guided wave delamination detection and quantification in composites using global-local sensing. Smart Mater Struct 25:085042 (11pp)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wyatt RC (1972) Visualization of pulsed ultrasound using stroboscopic photoelasticity. Non-Destr Test 5(6):354–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yu L, Tian Z, Leckey CAC (2015) Crack imaging and quantification in aluminum plates with guided wave wavenumber analysis methods. Ultrasonics 62:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Computer EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Ida Nathan
    • 1
  • Norbert Meyendorf
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of AkronAkronUSA
  2. 2.Center for Nondestructive EvaluationIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations