Ingenieurwissenschaften und zugeordnete Tätigkeiten
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2016 (2)
Dokumenttyp
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (1)
- Vortrag (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Referierte Publikation
- nein (2)
Schlagworte
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (1)
With increased usage of highly demanded, modern materials on safety
relevant parts (e.g. railway wheel sets, generator shafts, turbine disks, medical
implants, etc.) comprehensive analyses regarding the quality of the material are
requested. This gives a focus to non-destructive methods using ultrasound immersion
tank testing for classifying the degree of purity. Two autonomous standards,
ASTM E588 and SEP 1927, have been established for the definition, execution and
evaluation for this high resolution ultrasonic measurements on steel products.
The propagation of ultrasonic waves and the resulting sound field are strongly
dependent on the acoustical properties of the inspected material and the geometry
of probes and specimen. The definition of the measurement setup and the evaluation
methods appear to differ significantly in the given standards. ASTM E588 and
SEP 1927 prescribe the requirement for surface roughness and probe selection, are
using threshold based methods for cleanliness detection, but differ in computation
for the degree of purity. This has been the motivation for a comparison between
both standards with the main focus on amplitude depth dependency and overall spatial
resolution taking the influence of different material characteristics, geometry of
the specimen and sound fields into account.
A performance comparison between the use of non-focusing and focusing probes
respective to the threshold based detection will be presented in this contribution. In
addition, the usage of complex reconstruction algorithms (e.g. SAFT, echo tomography)
is compared with the traditional approaches of inclusion detection and
estimation of the degree of purity
In the last two decades automated ultrasonic inspection devices took over a lot of applications that prior have been carried out using manual inspection with the evaluation of A-scans only. In parallel phased array systems have been developed and brought to the market which offer detailed and fast control over the sound field. When applying automated inspection phased array systems for UT measurements imaging of the recorded data in combination with the probe positioning data is used for the evaluation of inspections. B-Scan, C-Scan and S-Scan images are typically used with this setup.
For more sophisticated applications with linear arrays echo tomography and syntethic aperture focusing technique (SAFT) are well known methods and often applied for high resolution image reconstruction. Since channel count of phased array systems is constantly rising, matrix arrays with up to 256 elements entered the market. Signal processing in the matrix domain became 3D. Since some years the Total Focusing Method (TFM) is an additional imaging tool for these type of application. It is based on the Full Matrix Capture (FMC) using the elements of phased array probes as separate transmitters and receivers.
In this contribution we discuss the common ground of SAFT and TFM as well as the differences between these imaging tools. The combined use of automated inspection, matrix arrays and signal processing for high resolution measurements is a challenging task where a very long parameter list has to be taken into account. Under which conditions which elements of the full matrix should be taken for the reconstruction for best results?
Based on examples taken from measured and simulated echo signals it will be shown how image resolution can be optimized in dependence of different parameters like the distance between transmitters and receivers and their directivity patterns, the depth of echo source and the specimen geometry.