Artificial Inteligence in Eddy Current Testing

Application of Artificial
Intelligence in
Electromagnetic Methods
of Non-Destructive Testing
Tomasz Chady
& KETiI NDT Team
(R.Sikora, M. Caryk, P. Łopato)
Westpomeranian University of Technology
Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering
Szczecin, POLAND
Artificial Intelligence in NDT – ANN Models for MMFECT
• A process of defects’ detection and recognition requires the use of
equipment and intelligence.
• Human interpretation is subjective, inconsistent, and often biased.
• The additional problems are caused by the insufficient quality of utilized
signals or images.
• An incorrect classification may result in rejection of a part in good
conditions or acceptance of a part with defects exceeding the limit
defined by the relevant standards.
• A proper interpretation of the achieved data is a crucial and complicated
process requiring involvement of natural or artificial intelligence.
• Despite of the development of various types of modern testing
techniques, an involvement of human senses in NDT is still very
significant and difficult to substitute.
• In this presentation application of Artificial Neural Networks for
Automatic or Assisted Defect Recognition is proposed
2
Multi-Frequency Eddy Current Non-Destructive Testing
Signal Spectrum
Windowing Averaging
e.g. Hann FFT (optional)
Noise removal - Block of digital filters

Multi-frequency 1-D low pass filter in 1-D low pass filter in
signals “frequency f domain” “position x domain”
Detrending
Spectrogram
Flaw profile
ANN or
Flaw parameters
T. Chady, M. Enokizono, R. Sikora, T. Todaka, Y. Tsuchida: “Natural Crack Recognition Using Inverse Neural Model and Multi-Frequency Eddy
Current Method”, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 37, No. 4, July 2001, pp. 2797-2799
3
A massive multi-frequency excitation and spectrogram eddy current method
(MMFES) is a very effective tool of nondestructive testing. It allows to identify
defects using a frequency characteristic of defects. In the MMFES system a
complex signal containing selected harmonic components is used as an
excitation:
n
s E (t )  U i  sin2f i t  i 
i 1
4
Signal measured from a pick-up coil of the transducer is amplified, filtered, digitized
and analyzed using discrete Fourier transform (DFT). The frequency components of
the pick-up signal measured over the defect is utilized to create a spectrogram.
5
The spectrogram is a two-dimensional plot of the relative amplitude of the frequency
components of a signal from pick-up coil versus the sensor position. The information
about the defect can be obtained from the frequency characteristic measured at the
position XMAX corresponding to the peak value of the spectrogram SMAX
Spectrogram with depicted Frequency characteristic S(f) of the

parameters defect’s respond measured at x=XMAX
SMAX
SMAX
fMAX
x=XMAX
XMAX fMAX
T. Chady, M. Enokizono, R. Sikora, T. Todaka, Y. Tsuchida: “Natural Crack Recognition Using Inverse Neural Model and Multi-Frequency Eddy
Current Method”, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 37, No. 4, July 2001, pp. 2797-2799
6
7
y x
EC EB
EA ED
x
Spectrogram
(xmax, fmax, smax)
Single-frequency signal
2
2
1.5 magnitude s (mV) 1.5
magnitude s (mV)
1
1
0.5
0.5 0
0 200
10
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 100 0
sensor position x (mm) frequency f (kHz) -10
sensor position x (mm)
8
Parameter (mm) UNIBig UNISmall

D1 12 8.5
D2 2 1.5
L1 5 3.5
H1 10 7
H2 6 4.5
UNI-Small
Depth d [mm]
Depth d [mm]
Position x [mm] Position x [mm]

Depth d [mm]
Depth d [mm]
UNI-Big
Position x [mm] Position x [mm]
9
OF 40 %
Flaw length 2 mm, x - direction
OF 20 %
OF 10 %
10
OF 40 %
Flaw length 2 mm, y - direction
OF 20 %
OF 10 %
11
Flaw depth [%]

Flaw
length UNI-Big UNI-Small
(mm) 10 20 40 60 80 10 20 40 60 80
2 15.37 28.22 38.90 47.74 53.31 11.00 22.24 33.70 44.06 50.62
3 17.55 30.76 42.35 50.80 56.27 12.38 24.50 36.30 46.07 52.77
5 21.79 33.32 44.57 51.33 57.43 15.22 29.35 40.88 47.77 54.36
12
Approximation algorithm
f n – given frequency
T. Chady and P. Lopato, “Flaws identification using an approximation function and artificial neural networks”, IEEE transactions on magnetics,
2007, vol. 43, no 4, pp. 1769-1772
13
Simplified approximation Extended approximation
2.5 2.5
noisy signal noisy signal
2 filtered signal 2 filtered signal
simplified approximation extended approximation
magnitude s (mV)
magnitude s (mV)
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 -0.5
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
sensor position x (mm) sensor position x (mm)
 c1b1 ( x  x1 ) 2
   ( x  x)   ( x  x) 
2 2
s( x)  a1 (b1 ( x  x1 )  1)  e
2

s ( x )  s m  k u  e e 
   a1 a 2 (b1 ( x  x1 )  1)  e
2  c1b1 ( x  x1 ) 2

 c2  x 2
 b2  e
2007, vol. 43, no 4, pp. 1769-1772
14
Function Approximation for signal restoration ( x - domain )
 b0 x 2  b1  x  x1 2  b2  x  x 2  2
U ( x)  a0e  a1e  a2e
2007, vol. 43, no 4, pp. 1769-1772
15
Function Approximation for signal restoration ( f - domain )
U ( f )  cf 2 e  df
Length-2mm , Crack IF 20 Length-2mm , Crack IF 60 Length-2mm , Crack IF 100

0.35 1.4 2
Approximation Approximation
0.3 1.2 Measurements 1.8 Measurements
Approximation 1.6
0.25 1
Signal value [mV]
Signal value [mV]
Signal value [mV]

Measurements
1.4
0.2 0.8
1.2
0.15 0.6
1
0.1 0.4
0.8
0.05 0.2 0.6
0 0 0.4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Frequency [kHz] Frequency [kHz] Frequency [kHz]
Length-1mm , Crack IF 20 Length-1mm , Crack IF 60 Length-1mm , Crack IF 100
0.2 0.7 0.8
Approximation Approximation
0.18 Measurements Measurements
0.6 0.7
Approximation
0.16 Measurements
0.5 0.6
Signal value [mV]
Signal value [mV]
Signal value [mV]

0.14
0.12 0.4 0.5
0.1 0.3 0.4

0.08
0.2 0.3
0.06
0.1 0.2
0.04
0.02 0 0.1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Frequency [kHz] Frequency [kHz] Frequency [kHz]
16
Results of signal approximation procedure
Measured signal Approximated signal Generated signal

length 2 mm, relative depth 20% length 2 mm, relative depth 20% length 3.5 mm, relative depth 35%
1.5 5
1.5 magnitude s (mV)
magnitude s (mV)
magnitude s (mV)
4
1 1 3
0.5 0.5 2
1
0 0 0
200 200 200
10 10 10
100 0 100 0 100
-10 0
frequency f (kHz) sensor position x (mm) -10 -10
frequency f (kHz) sensor position x (mm) frequency f (kHz) sensor position x (mm)
2007, vol. 43, no 4, pp. 1769-1772
17
Flaws Identification - ANN Models
k
h
b
g
Low Pass Filter
approximation of the signal
approximation of the frequency

characteristic
determination of smax, fmax
parameters
determination of k, b , g
parameters
Artificial Neural Network
2007, vol. 43, no 4, pp. 1769-1772
18
Noise influence on multifrequency signal parameters
Measured SNR (dB) for outer flaws
Fluctuations of fmax caused by noise

without approximation with approximation
2007, vol. 43, no 4, pp. 1769-1772
19
Neural models for flaw identification using spectrogram parameters
Flaw depth identification error
(xmax, fmax, smax)
2
magnitude s (mV)
1.5
1
0.5
0
200
10
100 0
frequency f (kHz) -10
sensor position x (mm)
f max
h
s max
2007, vol. 43, no 4, pp. 1769-1772
20
Test Sample made of INCONEL600

with Complex Flaws
21
UNI UNI
Big Small
dl = 4 mm
20%
20%
dl = 2 mm
20%
20%
dl = 1 mm
20%
20%
22
UNI UNI
Big Small
80%
40% 20%
20%
20%
60%
80%
2 mm
IF20%
OF60%
4 mm
20%
3 mm
40%
20%
60%
ISEM2005
23
1 mm
2 mm
OF40%
OF40%
OF20%
24
2 mm
4 mm
OF20
3 mm
OF40
OF20
OF60
25
80%
40% 20%
20% 20%
60%
80%
26
Neural Models of Multi-Frequency ECT Transducers
FORWARD model was designed in order to INVERSE model enables us to determine
attain a neural model of the eddy current plate geometry from a signal generated by
probe. This model allows to predict output the probe. The input vector contains
signal for a given flaw profile. The input samples of the output signal from the
vector contains co-ordinates of the flaw probe and the net output corresponds to
profile, taken from a moving window. predicted co-ordinates of the plate
surface.
h Frequenc
arequenc f2
Signal amplitude Frequency
fn
Window Window f1
Specimen
Flaw
x x
Sensor
position
Forward Model Inverse Model
h
Signal amplitude Estimate
Current
Estimate
value for fn Specimen
estimated
value for f2
value for f1 Estimated
point
Flaw
x x
Sensor position Sensor position
27
Inverse Neural Models of Multi-Frequency ECT Transducers
without feedback
D D
Structures
D D
D D
D D
f1 f1
f2 f2
fn fn
D
D
D
with feedbacks
D
D
Structures
D
D f1
f1 f2
f2
D
fn
fn
D
D
D D
T. Chady, M. Caryk: “Reconstruction of Flaw Profiles Using Neural Networks and Multi-Frequency Eddy Current System”, Review of Quantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation, Eds.: D. O. Thompson, D. E. Chimenti, Vol. 24, American Institute of Physics, CP 760, New York, 2005, pp. 820-827
28
n
f
n
f
2
f 1
2
f 1
f
f
D
D
D
D
Structure: 5 1, window length: 6, number of frequencies: 5 Structure: 5 4 1, window length: 12, number of frequencies: 5
100 100
estimation estimation
80 80
depth [%]
depth [%]
original profile original profile
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Position [mm] Position [mm]
100 100
80 80
depth [%]
depth [%]

60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
100 100
80 80
depth [%]
depth [%]

60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
29
n
f
n
f
2
f 1
2
f 1
f
f
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Structure: 5 1, window length: 10, num. of delays in feedback: 7 Structure: 5 1 1, window length: 10, num. of delays in feedback: 2
100 100
80 80
depth [%]
depth [%]
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
100 100
80 80
depth [%]
original profile
depth [%]
original profile
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
100 100
80 80
depth [%]
depth [%]

60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
30
D
D
Influence of number of frequencies
D
(ANN model with 2 hidden layers,
D
f
2
f
1 without feedbacks)
f
n
x 10
-3 Window length 5 x 10
-3 Window length 20
3 1.4
n1=2 n1=2
n1=3 n1=3
1.2
2.5 n1=5 n1=5
n1=7 n1=7
n1=9 1 n1=9
2 n1=11 n1=11
n1=13 n1=13
0.8
MSE
MSE
1.5
0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0 0
1 3 5 1 3 5
number of frequencies number of frequencies
31
D
D
Influence of number of frequencies
D
D
f
2
f
f
n
Window length 5 Window length 20

-3 -4
x 10 x 10
2 6
311 311
1.8 411 411
631 5 631
1.6
651 651
1.4
4
1.2
MSE
MSE
1 3
0.8
2
0.6
0.4
1
0.2
0 0
1 3 5 1 3 5
number of frequencies number of frequencies
32
D
D
Influence of windows size
D
D
f
2
f
f
n
Number of frequencies 5 Number of frequencies 1

-3 -3
x 10 x 10
1.2 3
n1=2 n1=2
n1=3 n1=3
1 n1=5 2.5 n1=5
n1=7 n1=7
n1=9 n1=9
0.8 n1=11 2 n1=11
n1=13 n1=13
MSE
MSE
0.6 1.5
0.4 1
0.2 0.5
0 0
10 15 20 10 15 20
window length window length
33
D
D
Influence of windows size
D
D
f
2
f
f
n
Number of frequencies 5 Number of frequencies 1

-4 -3
x 10 x 10
4.5 2
311 311
4 411 1.8 411
631 631
3.5 1.6
651 651
1.4
3
1.2
2.5
MSE
MSE
1
2
0.8
1.5
0.6
1 0.4
0.5 0.2
0 0
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
window length window length
34
Influence of delays in feedback
D
Number of frequencies: 5 D
Window length: 10
D
Structure: 531 f
2
f
1
-3 f
x 10 n
3 D
2.8
2.6
MSE
2.4
2.2
1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
number of delays in feedback
35
20% 80%
4 mm 3 mm
20%
40% 60%
2 mm 5 mm
60% 10%
5 mm
36
Estimation of complex flaw’s profiles

D
D
Window length 10, Structure: 6 3 1
f
f 1
2
f
n
37
Estimation of complex flaw’s profiles

D
D
D
Window length 10, Structure: 5 3 1

D
f
f 1
2
f
n
D
D
38
Hidden
fN TD
layer 1 Output
Single output
TD
TD
TD neuron h
TD
model
40 TD
TD x
Spectrogram del
40 TD
ays
del
40
ays
del Flaw profile
ays
TD Hidden
TD layer 2
TD
TD
Hidden Output
layer 1 neurons
Multiple output
fN TD
TD
TD h
TD
model
TD
40 TD
TD
Spectrogram del
40 TD
ays
del
40
ays
del
ays
TD
x
TD
TD Hidden Flaw profile
TD
layer 2
39
D - OF 40%
Flaw F, Length 7 mm Flaw E, Length 2 mm E - OF 20%
F - OF 80%
3 f , 15-5
Flaw F, Length 1 mm Flaw D, Length 2 mm Flaw E, Length 5 mm
40
ANN Inverse Models – 3D Flaws Identification
Neural identification procedure

Artificial Neural Network Reconstructed geometry
Measured signal (inverse model) of the flaw
ANN
T. Chady, P. Łopato: “Identification of 3D Conductivity Distribution Using Eddy Current Technique and Artificial Neural Networks”, Proceedings of 13th Biennial
IEEE Conference on Electromagnetic Field Computation, Athens, Greece, May 11–15, 2008, PE5 – 2, pp. 471.
41
Neural inverse models
Feed-forward Neural Network (FFNN) Feed-back Neural Network (FBNN)

45 45
30 30
1
5x5
3x3
1
T. Chady, P. Łopato: “Identification of 3D Conductivity Distribution Using Eddy Current Technique and Artificial Neural Networks”, Proceedings of 13th Biennial
IEEE Conference on Electromagnetic Field Computation, Athens, Greece, May 11–15, 2008, PE5 – 2, pp. 471.
42
X-ray ECT Crack map FFNN FBNN
43
ANN Forward Model – Support problem
High frequency signal Low frequency signal dependent
dependent mostly on the flaw mostly on the fastener
• In case of the steam generator tubes made of Inconel600 and external magnetic fasteners the
signals obtained at a low frequency are strongly correlated with the unwanted signal, caused by
fasteners.
• The high frequency components are affected mainly by the tubes discontinuities.
• Unfortunately, the very different frequency signals could not be subtracted directly because the
shape of the signal caused by the fasteners is not retained.
• In order to overcome this problem the authors propose to use a specially designed dynamic
neural network, which is capable to reconstruct a “high frequency” signals from the measured
low frequency component.
• Such a technique enables us to detect shallow flaws signals buried in high-level background
noises.
44
Spectrogram for: a) tube with flaw; b) tube with fastener; c) tube with flaw and fastener
View of the tube with

the fastener and flaw
Fastener made
Thickness
of steel S45C 1.27 mm
22.23 mm
Sensor
Flaw
Tube made of
Width INCONEL600
45
 The lowest frequency component (S1L) of the spectrogram caused by the

fastener and flaw was used to estimate the whole spectrogram for the
support element only (ES).
 Signal S1L is provided the input of the neural network model having 40
input units through the tapped delay line.
 Number of output neurons corresponds to the number of frequency
components used to create the spectrogram.
 The network is working in the following way:
❖ signal S1L is provided to the taped delay line,
❖ output of the taped delay line (windowed part of the input signal – 40
samples) is transferred to the input units of the network,
❖ the network calculates a SINGLE sample of all of the output signals,
❖ the input signal is shifted by the taped delay line and next window is
presented to the network,
❖ the process is repeated until to the last sample of the input signal.
46
Spectrogram obtained Lowest frequency Dynamic neural Estimation of the

for the flaw (OF60%) component of the network signal caused only by
and the fastener spectrogram “S1” (with moving the fastener
window)
U (mV) 1.5 Input
1 TD
0.5 TD
-0.5
Estimation of the
-20 -10 0 10 20
X (mm)
flaw (OF60%) signal
X (mm)
S1 S1L TD
X (mm)
ES -
40 delays hidden 16
neurons output
neurons S1 + EF
X (mm)
The lowest frequency component (S1L) of the spectrogram caused by the fastener and flaw
was used to estimate the whole spectrogram for the support element only (ES).
Signal S1L is provided the input of the neural network model having 40 input units through the
tapped delay line. Number of output neurons corresponds to the number of frequency
components used to create the spectrogram.
47
Fastener + OF20% Fastener + OF40% Fastener + OF60% Fastener + OF80%

Measured
mixed signal
caused by
fastener and
flaws (S1)
Numerical
estimation of
signal caused
by fastener
(ES) 10
mm
OF20%* OF40%* OF60%* OF80%*
Numerical
estimation of S - E
1 S
signal caused
by flaws
OF20% OF40% OF60% OF80%
Measured
signal
caused by
flaws
48
NO SUPPORT  = 200,  = 1.3 107 NO SUPPORT  = 200,  = 1.3 107
In case of single-frequency method the In case of ”true multi-frequency” method one

selected quasi optimal frequency does not could select optimal frequency and therefore
guarantee best detectability in case of obtain always best detectability. The peak
presence of support elements. amplitude is even higher than without support.
49
450
Flaw signals OF80*
400
350 Estimation of OF80

flaw signals
300
SMAX ( V)
250
200 OF60*
150 OF60
100 OF40*
50 OF40
OF20*
OF20
0
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
FMAX (Hz)
 The estimated flaw signals are compared with the measurements performed on the same
specimen but without fastener. One could observe the difference between these results.
This is caused by the nonlinear effect. The signal resulting from two flaws, or from flaws
and background noise is not completely identical with the linear combination (vectorial
sum) of the two signals considered separately.
 The parameters of the spectrograms (SMAX, FMAX) were also calculated and presented in the
form of calibration curves. It is visible that the curve obtained from estimated flaw signals
are shifted in comparison with the original calibration curve, but it is still possible to
evaluate the flaw depth.
50

Artificial Inteligence in Eddy Current Testing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artificial Inteligence in Eddy Current Testing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Artificial

Noise removal - Block of digital filters

Spectrogram with depicted Frequency characteristic S(f) of the

Parameter (mm) UNIBig UNISmall

Position x [mm] Position x [mm]

Position x [mm] Position x [mm]

Flaw depth [%]

Length-2mm , Crack IF 20 Length-2mm , Crack IF 60 Length-2mm , Crack IF 100

Signal value [mV]

Signal value [mV]

0.05 0.2 0.6

Signal value [mV]

Signal value [mV]

0.12 0.4 0.5

0.1 0.3 0.4

Results of signal approximation procedure

Measured signal Approximated signal Generated signal

Low Pass Filter

approximation of the signal

approximation of the frequency

Artificial Neural Network

Fluctuations of fmax caused by noise

Test Sample made of INCONEL600

Forward Model Inverse Model

original profile original profile

original profile original profile

original profile original profile

Window length 5 Window length 20

Number of frequencies 5 Number of frequencies 1

Number of frequencies 5 Number of frequencies 1

Estimation of complex flaw’s profiles

Estimation of complex flaw’s profiles

Window length 10, Structure: 5 3 1

Flaw F, Length 1 mm Flaw D, Length 2 mm Flaw E, Length 5 mm

Neural identification procedure

Neural inverse models

Feed-forward Neural Network (FFNN) Feed-back Neural Network (FBNN)

View of the tube with

 The lowest frequency component (S1L) of the spectrogram caused by the

Spectrogram obtained Lowest frequency Dynamic neural Estimation of the

Fastener + OF20% Fastener + OF40% Fastener + OF60% Fastener + OF80%

OF20% OF40% OF60% OF80%

In case of single-frequency method the In case of ”true multi-frequency” method one

350 Estimation of OF80

You might also like