![]() Table of Contents ECNDT '98 Session: Aerospace | AUTOMATIC DETECTING DISBONDS IN LAYERED STRUCTURES USING ULTRASONIC PULSE-ECHO INSPECTIONTadeusz Stepinski* and Bengt Vagnhammar
|
| TABLE OF CONTENTS |
By windowing the signal, to contain just one multiple reflection within a layer, destructive interference should occur for some frequency, and hopefully within the frequency band excited by the transducer. We can illustrate this with a simple one-dimensional linear model.
If we have one (or two) interfaces reflecting energy, the material response will take the form of one (or two) delayed Dirac pulses. After convoluting the material response with the transducer prototype we get a simulation of a hypothetical measurement (see Figure 1a and 2a). Using a window that is shifted along the time-scale, and calculating a zero-padded FFT for its each position, we can generate images like those in Figure 1b and 2b constructed by putting all resulting spectra next to each other in columns. In Figures 1 and 2, the transducer prototype had a center frequency of 3.5 MHz and a bandwidth of 1.5 MHz. The convoluted signal vector had 1024 samples sampled with an interval of 10 ns (corresponding to sampling frequency 100 MHz). Each column in the time- frequency representation is the amplitude spectrum of the windowed signal using a 124 samples wide Hanning window. In Figure 2a the two Dirac pulses are separated by 40 samples. We should then have constructive interference at 100 MHz/40 = 2.5 MHz, and destructive interference at 100/40*3/2 MHz = 3.75 MHz. This has the effect that the peak found at 3 MHz in Figure 1b (left) is pulled towards 2.5 MHz, and at the same time pushed away from the dip at 3.75 MHz. This simple example illustrates how the presence of disbond is indicated by presence of a frequency dip in the time-frequency representation of the signal. This appears to work also for real signals as illustrated in Figure 5 below. Experiments The test objects used in this project were made available through CSM Materialteknik AB, who also performed all measurements used in this report. Two different structures were manufactured to serve as test objects. The first was rubber on aluminum plate (see Fig. 3 below), and the second was rubber on honeycomb (see Fig. 4 below). Flaws were included to simulate the presence of upper and lower interface disbonds in the glue layer.
![]() Figure 3. Test object "Plate" consisting of rubber glued to an aluminum plate. |
![]() Figure 4. Test object "Sandwich" consisting of rubber glued to a honeycomb structure. |
The signals obtained during pulse-echo inspection of the above samples using an ultrasonic instrument (Krautkrämer USD 15) and an application specific 5MHz transducer are shown in
Figures 5, 6 and 7. From the figures can be seen that the signals measured for the structures with disbonds can be relatively easily distinguished from those obtained for defect free structures. However, the classification of the disbond (upper or lower) is more difficult. Even detecting disbonds can be difficult in practical situations where the ultrasonic signals are corrupted by noise or the disbond is not distinct.
![]() Figure 5. Samples from objects ``Plate'' (left) and ``Honeycomb'' (right) containing upper disbonds. ![]() Figure 6. Samples from objects ``Plate'' (left) and ``Honeycomb'' (right) containing lower disbonds. ![]() Figure 7. Samples from defect free objects ``Plate'' (left) and ``Honeycomb'' (right). |
The signals presented in Figures 5 to 7 were subjected to windowing, zero-padding, normalization and finally time frequency transformation (see [1] for details). From their time- frequency representation, shown in Figure 9, and from the analysis of other signals can be seen that the defect-free bounds have a characteristic dip in the time-frequency representation. Therefore features determining presence of the dip can be used for the classification. Feature extraction was performed in two steps, first a rectangular window (region of interest, ROI) where the frequency deep occurred was selected, and than two features (curvature feature and gradient feature) characterizing shape of the surface in the ROI were calculated.

Figure 9. Time frequency representations of three measured signals. Disbond in upper layer (upper),
disbond in the lower layer (middle) and a defect-free structure (bottom). Arbitrary units on
axies.
|
Training was performed on labeled data and the output nodes were encouraged to output a one if features from their class are presented to the classifier, and zero otherwise. This method in combination with the training algorithm would make the output values approximate the a posteriori probabilities [3]. The decision consisted then in taking the most probable class given the input presented, i.e., classifying the pattern as the output node with the highest value To verify the performance of the classifier, ``leave-one-out'' training was used. Each class member was left out of training once. The trained classifier was then applied to this example not having been seen during the training. Training was allowed to continue until the error was below 10 -2 . The results presented in table 1 show that the classification was correct for all the ``leave-one-out'' classes..
| Object | Upper | Lower | Ok | Performance |
| ``Plate'' | 7 (7) | 7 (7) | 10 (10) | 100 % |
| ``Honeycomb'' | 7 (7) | 7 (7) | 11 (11) | 100 % |
Performance of the classifier was evaluated in a blind test using 100 real measurements performed on a rubber lined plate and a honeycomb structure (the data was provided by CSM Materialteknik AB). According to CSM who evaluated the results the classifications were 100% correct, which means that all disbonds were detected and classified correctly
Acknowledgments. This study was funded by the Swedish National Flight Research Program (NFFP) in project NFFP-274. The author would acknowledge the assistance of Bertil Grelsson from CSM Materialteknik AB for performing the ultrasonic measurements.
| NDT.net |