Confidence of Detection of Fracture Signals Using Acoustic Emission

Abstract:

Article Preview

This paper reports on a practical investigation into methodology confidence of detection (COD) in acoustic emission (AE) testing. The developed technique relies on a commercially available software technique called “source cluster analysis” that examines the number of detected signals over a specific area. Two factors that control cluster analysis are cluster size (the area that signals are detected within) and cluster threshold (the number of detected events required to trigger a cluster). A confidence of detection matrix was developed based on altering cluster size and cluster threshold which was then applied to a practical investigation of a four-point bend test monitored using AE. Fracture length in the specimen was monitored using a foil crack gauge. The varying sizes and thresholds of the confidence matrix were used in a cluster analysis of the recorded AE data, as the initial cluster formed in the fracture region a crack length could be identified (based on the foil crack gauge). Results showed that it was possible to detect a crack length of 0.55 mm with a very high level of confidence.

Info:

Periodical:

Edited by:

J. Quinta da Fonseca

Pages:

147-152

Citation:

R. Pullin et al., "Confidence of Detection of Fracture Signals Using Acoustic Emission ", Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vols. 7-8, pp. 147-152, 2007

Online since:

August 2007

Export:

Price:

$38.00

[1] S.F. Burch, B. A. Stow and M. Wall Computer Modelling for the Prediction of the Probability of Detection of Ultrasonic Corrosion Mapping, Insight, Vol. 47, No. 12 (2005) pp.761-764.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1784/insi.2005.47.12.761

[2] C. R. A. Schneider and J. R. Rudlin, Review of Statistical Methods used in Quantifying NDT Reliability, Insight, Vol. 46, No. 2 (2004) pp.77-79.

[3] P. D. Wilcox, C. K. Lee, J. J. Scholey, M. I. Friswell, M. R. Wisnom and B. W. Drinkwater, Progress Towards a Forward Model of the Complete Acoustic Emission Process, Advanced Materials Research, Vols. 13-14 (2006) pp.69-76 ISBN 0-87849-420-0.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.13-14.69

[4] British Standard BS EN 1330-9: 200 Non-destructive testing Terminology- Part 9: Terms Used in Acoustic Emission Testing, (2000).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3403/01869931u

[5] R. K. Miller and P. McIntire, Acoustic Emission Testing- Non-destructive Testing Handbook Volume 5, American Society for Non-destructive Testing (1987).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3403/01869931u

[6] RUMUL: http: /www. rumul. ch, accessed February 2007 (2003).

[7] M. G. Baxter, R. Pullin, K. M. Holford and S. L. Evans, Detection of Fatigue Crack Growth in Aitcraft Landing Gear, 4 Point Bend Test Specimens, Key Engineering Materials, Vols. 293-294, pp.193-200, (2005).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.293-294.193

[8] ASTM, A standard guide for determining the reproducibility of acoustic emission sensor response, American Society for Testing and Materials, E 976, (1994).

[9] N. N. Hsu, F. R. Breckenbridge, Characterisation and calibration of acoustic emission sensors", Materials Evaluation 39, pp.60-68. (1979).