MAPOD Analysis in Eddy Current Testing of Flaws Considering Multiple Response Signals and Multiple Flaw Parameters

Shixi Yang; Liping Zhang; Xiwen Gu; Weidi Huang

doi:10.37965/jdmd.2024.567

Authors

Shixi Yang State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power & Mechatronic Systems, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China; School of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
Liping Zhang State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power & Mechatronic Systems, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China; School of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2850-6777
Xiwen Gu State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power & Mechatronic Systems, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China; School of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
Weidi Huang State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power & Mechatronic Systems, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China; School of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37965/jdmd.2024.567

Keywords:

Probability of detection, Eddy current testing, Finite element model, Multiple response signals

Abstract

The reliability of the eddy current testing (ECT) in flaw detection is quantitatively evaluated by the probability of detection (POD). Precise and efficient modelling of POD gives direction for the implement of ECT on sites to avoid false or missing flaw detection. Traditional POD analysis focuses on single uncertain factor or single response signal with limited credibility in engineering. This paper considers multiple response signals and multiple flaw parameters to perform POD. The flaw length, the flaw depth, the coil impedance and the magnetic flux density are comprehensively studied under various lift-off distances. A finite element model (FEM) of ECT is established and verified with experiments to obtain sufficient simulation data for discrete POD modelling. The continuous POD function is then fitted based on the discrete values to show the superiority of integrating multiple factors. A comparison with conventional POD analysis further demonstrates the higher reliability of ECT flaw detection considering multiple flaw parameters and multiple response signals, especially for small flaws.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.