Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 1 of 11

Forum - Professional Networking

Home Exhibition Web Resources Events Forum & Members NDT A-Z Database Search MyNDT

Technical Discussions > Subject

23:18 Dec-15-2010 andrew cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts Proof of creeping wave?
6 views

Proof of creeping wave? Many years, too many years ago, I heard of ID creeping wave. I was hearing it from technicians who had been taught this method. My understanding of them trying to explain that the sound wave travels down a 31 deg. line hitting the opposite surface to mode convert into an L wave creeping wave was acceptable, but when they said if the sound wave hits an ID connected defect, the sound wave would then retrace its steps. (This implied that the sound wave had intelligence and knew where the probe was, so it could change direction.) This I put down to the technicians never understanding what he had been taught. Time went past, and I attended a creeping wave course. The instructor professed to be THE EXPERT in creeping wave examination. But when I asked How does the sound know when to reconvert to a 31 degree shear wave? the answer was . it heads north at the first opportunity. It was at this point, I knew there was some serious B/S being taught. I realized that this method is lowering the integrity of my profession. So whenever anyone asks about ID creeping wave, I tell them what I believe to be B/S. The laws of physics cannot be changed. I was pleased to see Ginzels presentation on the None existence of creeping wave. It is clear from the video, the way the sound propagates. The NDT colleagues Hermann Wuestenberg and/or Anton Erhard from BAM, Berlin, Germany, and interpretation of their results may have been a mistake through lack of the technology available today. The Ginzel auditory on the video, I dont agree with 100 per cent but that is what a forum is for. The main part of the video is the fact it shows ID CREEPING WAVE is a myth. The perpetuation of this myth is, I believe, lowering the integrity of NDT. If anyone has video evidence proof of the creeping wave. Please put it forward into the forum. Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 23:18 Dec-15-2010 (Opening). There was no one able to put forward video evidence of the so call creeping wave. I will put forward my opinion. Transmitted Mechanical Energy Transmitting sound through a solid is a mechanical process and will follow all the law of physics. There is no smoke and mirrors or anything other than simple acoustics. Anyone who says or preaches that sound breaks the laws of physics; either does not understand sound waves or trying to sell something that is contrary to the truth. 1 The piezoelectric transducer is excited by electricity from the plus generator. 2 The transducer deforms it shape rapidly at a frequency that is governed by the thickness and diameter, above the human hearing range. Thus being called ultrasonic. 3 The transducer is directly connected to a wedge. 4 If the transducer was pin head, the shock waves would be purely hemispherical radiating from its source. 5 In solids it is not possible to generate a primary wave mode without generating secondary and third wave modes. 6 Compression wave followed by a week shear wave, will radiate spherically from the source. 7 As the transducer has a significant dimension there are multiple points of contact and therefore multiple spherical shock waves radiating from the transducer at the same point in time. This is known as the Near Zone. The length is between 3 and 4 diameters independent of frequency. 8 As the spherical shock waves radiate away from the transducer, the part of the shockwave that is perpendicular to the transducer and a few degrease either side, will merge together into a singular wave front. This is known as the Far Zone. 9 This shock wave, wave front will grow as it propagates away from the transducer. 10 The wave front will hit the interface between the wedged probe shoe and the metal under test. At the interface, some of the energy will reflect off of the internal surface and bounce around inside of the wedge. A part of the energy will penetrate through this interface into metal. Due to the different times delay caused by the wedge, a new distorted Near Zone is created that is dependent on the frequency. 11 The wave front energy will refract and split into two direction as per Snell Law. 12 The wave fronts will keep growing as it radiates through the metal in three dimensions. If the growth of the wave front is drawn out on paper in two dimensions, it would be triangular. This is often called Beam Spread. 13 The formula for it half angle divergence is expressed as sin theta 1.22 over wavelength over the diameter of the transmitting transducer. 14 The name Beam Spread is a misnomer and is confusing as the energy is a pulsed wave front. 14.1 The wave front if measured from the index point will have three angles. 14.2 The top line is known as the lead edge. 14.3 The bottom line is called the trailing edge 14.4 The centre line of maximum energy referred to as the angle of the transducer. 15 The centre line that is drawn is the mean average of the direction. It is not a beam of sound or conduit that the wave travels through, it is just a line. 16 The mechanical pulse radiating through the will obey all the laws of reflection and acoustics bouncing off each surface giving up some energy of each bounce in mode changes and heat.

21:08 Jan-07-2011 andrew cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 2 of 11

Reflection of sound waves Reflected sound through a solid is a mechanical process and will follow all the law of physics. There is no smoke and mirrors or anything other than simple acoustics. Anyone who says or preaches that sound breaks the laws of physics; either does not understand sound waves or trying to sell something that is contrary to the truth. 1 The sound wave will radiate away from its source, until it hits an interface of different acoustic impedance. 2 The angle that the radiating sound wave comes into contact with the interface is the same and equal to the angle of reflection. The angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. 3 Some of the sound wave energy will penetrate the interface. 4 Some of the sound wave energy will mode convert into a surface wave and run along its surface. This wave will radiate on the surface from its source. If it strikes reflector, it will follow the same laws of reflection. This reflected sound will travel in one direction radiating away from the reflector. This sound wave will not change direction unless it strikes another reflector. This reflected sound wave will not retrace its steps through its mode conversion. 5 Some of the energy from the sound wave will cause the interface to ring and diffracted sound waves to be emitted, radiating from this secondary source. 6 When the sound wave hits a reflector that is perpendicular to the sound wave propagation, the sound wave will reflect back in the opposite direction with a wave front radiating from the reflector. 7 The reflected radiating sound wave will carry on the one direction unless is strikes another surface to reflect off. 8 When the reflector is convex the sound wave will reflect in all directions. 9 When the reflector is concave the sound wave reflection will be focused to radios point of the curvature, then the sound wave will radiate from the focal point. 10 When the sound wave a surface breaking reflector. The sound wave will reflect off both surfaces following the laws of reflection and as the gets into the corner the reflected sound will spike into a focused angle of half the angle that of the reflector. It is like placing speakers in the corner of the room set at 45 degrees using the acoustics of the room to get most from the sound. Received sound waves The piezoelectric transducer receiver will convert mechanical energy into electrical energy. First we must look at transducer. Albeit a disc or rectangle, they all have their sweet spots. 1 A sweet spot is an area of the transducer that is most efficient at turning mechanical. The areas are the centre and the rim. The antinode areas are dull spots that take more energy to produce the same voltage. The transducer is not linear across its face. 2 Add to this a wedge of plastic with its varying thickness and linearity is thrown out even further. Now the centre sweet spot will be lower than the centre. The transducer is most efficient at converting the retuning sound into electricity when the sound wave impacts the face of the transducer square on. 3 The efficiency of conversion is reduced with each degree away from normal. There is a finite range of angles of returning sound waves can be turned into electricity. 4 This range of listening angles is also known as Beam Spread. 5 There are many variables that may range of angles, for example the type of transducer, the transducer backing, the design of the wedge and even the age of the equipment. All these variables cannot be calculated by formula. 6 To know the range of angles the each transducer and wedge combination must be measured empirically. The small side drilled hole is one of the best methods. 7 Corner reflectors are a should not be used to measure the listening angle range of Beam Spread as the corner reflector set at right-angle has a reflecting sweet spot of 45 degrees, The sweet spot of any planar surface connected reflector is at half the connecting angle. 8 The reflection from sweet spot is disproportionately high, as the sound wave has been focused into a straight line. 9 The strength of focused reflecting sound wave has the power to excite the transducer, even though the angle of incidence is outside of the normal range of listening angles. For example on a 1 or 25mm thick calibration block a 60 and 30 degree probe will be able detect this 45 degree reflection. 10 If this is not known and understood by the technician, the technician will plot and the reflector in the wrong position. When the technician knows the position of the reflector, the trig numbers do not calculate with the angle of the probe. 11 In Britain they calculated that the 60 degree beam would hit the vertical reflector, the beam would hit at the critical angle mode convert to a compression wave and the beam would travel down the vertical face and reflect back off of the back wall. Then the sound would retrace its steps turn back into a 60 degree shear wave beam and head back to the probe. 12 While in Germany they looked at the 30 degree probe picking up the 45 degree reflection from the corner reflector and the creeping wave was born. 13 The errors were made by the belief that the sound is a beam and not a wave front radiating. Drawing sound as a line is an excellent tool for drawing defects but it confused people into thinking sound is a line and when the line didnt line up with the reflector, the drew in a second to connect the first line to the reflector. Now the numbers dont add up, so the velocity had to change to bring it into line. 14 Just a simple thing, drawing the sound as a straight line had led to a chain of errors and some fantastic conclusions. 15 Most technicians that understand sound propagation dismissed it as stupidity. I remember on a 3 month advanced sizing course, a fellow student had a stand-up argument with the instructor, dismissing the idea of the sound bending back towards the probe as if the sound had intelligence. Other followed blindly believing everything that was told. 16 These mistakes were made over 30 years ago. If only they had 2 or more notches close together they may have come up with a better conclusion, or even a more fantastic one.

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 3 of 11

17 To perpetuate these mistakes is not being professional. So called experts selling pseudo-science of a ID creeping wave to the oil and power industries is in my opinion a massive lawsuits waiting to happen, when the engineers who understand physics wise up and see that The Emperor Has No Clothes. 17:31 Jan-08-2011 Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 21:08 Jan-07-2011 . Andrew: As per your request, we are sending you a video on creeping waves for you. This video belongs to Ed Ginzel of Materials Research Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Yours, Michael Moles

Michael Moles Sales, Olympus NDT Canada Join Date: Feb 2005 54 Posts 20:37 Jan-09-2011 andrew cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Michael Moles on 17:31 Jan-08-2011 . The video shows a sound wave front radiating from the transducer. The wave front is following the laws of reflection as each part of the wave front bounces off the internal surface. THERE IS NO CREEPING WAVE IN THE VIDEO Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 23:18 Dec-15-2010 (Opening). Andrew: No video; NDT.NET would not allow posting. Please send me your mailing address. Yours, Michael Moles Olympus NDT Michael Moles Sales, Olympus NDT Canada Join Date: Feb 2005 54 Posts 21:14 Jan-09-2011 andrew cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts 00:42 Jan-10-2011 Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Michael Moles on 21:04 Jan-09-2011 . I HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO AND IT SHOWS NO CREEPING L WAVE AND NO 31 DEG REFLECTION

21:04 Jan-09-2011

Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Michael Moles on 21:04 Jan-09-2011 . Michael, Of course we can show the video, just tell me where I can download the file so that I can provide s streaming version. Rolf

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 4 of 11

Rolf Director, - Chief Editor Publisher Internet PHP MySQL NDT.net Germany Join Date: Nov 1998 331 Posts 01:33 Jan-10-2011 andrew cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts 08:26 Jan-10-2011 Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Rolf on 00:42 Jan-10-2011 . http://www.autsolutions.net/Creeping-waves.html

Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 23:18 Dec-15-2010 (Opening). Hi Guys, I have had an example of what I believe to be "creeping waves" (in fact two examples). I believe these to be surface waves. Example 1. Pulse echo inspection of a large forged ring, with longitudinal (ultra)sound impinging on a concave radius at a tangent after having passed through one part of the component. We detected a defect indication some distance past this radius where the "straight beam line" from the probe had continued "in a straight line". (Our test was aimed at detecting cracking in the radius). Investigation of this sample showed that the defect (real defect) was in fact in the surface as a continuation of the radius. We proved the indication by damping on the surface between the radius and the defect, and showed that the defect indication disappeared. Explanation? I believe that the longitudinal wave impinging on the radius converted to a longitudinal surface wave and followed the surface contour. How does the sound know when to change back to longitudinal wave? It doesn't but it radiates longitudinal wave all the time, and when going back around the radius, some sound will radiate back along the incident beam line to the probe. Example 2. "Delta Z" immersion inspection technique. In this technique, a very short focus probe is brought very close to the surface of the component being inspected. Closer than the focus. Some of the sound energy (if the focus is small enough) will impinge on the surface (in a ring) at an angle which converts to 90 degree longitudinal wave. This will continue to propagate accross the diameter of the circle, radiating sound energy back out at the incident angle all the time, but when it reaches the other side of the circle, it is then ideally placed to be detected on the other side of the probe. Surface breaking defects in any orientation within the small circle being inspected will then reduce the amplitude of the sound propagating past, and therefore reduce the amplitude of the received signal. These experiments were at 50MHz on ceramic materials, but have also been proven on metallic samples. Conclusion. These "creeping waves" are 0 degree longitudinal (or shear) waves, generated as per Snells Law, and they radiate their energy all the time as they propagate. this means that the apparent attenuation is very high, but the condition does exist. Godfrey

Godfrey Hands Engineering SAFRAN Aircelle United Kingdom Join Date: Nov 1998 182 Posts

03:31 Jan-11-2011 andrew cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts

Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Godfrey Hands on 08:26 Jan-10-2011 . Evidently you are coming to your conclusions via calculations as did NDT colleagues Hermann Wuestenberg and others. On this side of the pond, the so called experts teach sound as a beam. They teach the sound will travel down a beam. The sound hits the underside AKA ID, mode covert to a compression wave and travel along the underside. If the compression wave hits a reflector, the compression wave will travel back until it reaches the place where it had mode changed from the shear and then this time it will re-mode convert to the shear. (Is it getting to sound stupid to you, bendy sound with a memory). I am asking for VIDEO evidence of this phenomenon, I and others have huntend on the net for one to no avail, so until then the The Emperor Has No Clothes Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 23:18 Dec-15-2010 (Opening).

13:56 Jan-11-2011

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 5 of 11

Andrew, if I read it correctly, your concern is for the misuse of the "concept" of the so-called creeping wave; in particular the so-called "ID creeping wave". Perhaps we can concur on the phenomenon that occurs at the near surface with the high angle comprssion mode. Some like to call this the "OD creeping wave". For many years it has been identified as the "lateral wave" in TOFD. We use the same nominal refracted angles to produce the effect people are calling the "near surface creeping wave" in pulse-echo applications. These are extremely well explained long ago on NDT.net (http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt02/195/195.htm) by Marklein et al (see Fig. 3 in that reference). Ed Ginzel R & D, Materials Research Institute Canada Join Date: Nov 1998 362 Posts The concept of the "so-called ID creeping wave" seems to have come out of teachings from EPRI (UT Operator Training of INtergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking-Competency Area 911) in about the mid to late 1980s. Module 4 discussed the 30-70-70 method and explained the "Opposite Surface Phenomena" by using the Law of Reciprocity. But connecting the signal identified as the "Creeping Wave Signal" to the mode conversion of shear to compression seems like a red-herring. The signal origin is merely the corner effect of the shear mode (both the headwave and the Snell calculated). It is most unfortunate that the training module (e.g. Figure 1 in the old EPRI module 6) identified the late arriving signal from the opposite surface as the "creeping wave" when a simple conversion to time could have identified the real mode as shear. Calling the near side compression mode signal and the far side shear mode signal both a "creeping wave" implied these were both of the same "Mode". We now see quite clearly that they are not originating from the same mode. Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 23:18 Dec-15-2010 (Opening).

21:56 Jan-11-2011 David Mackintosh Engineering Acuren Group Inc. Canada Join Date: Feb 2011 42 Posts

Creeping wave experiment Is the ID reflection from a corner trap or creeping wave? There must be some experiment that can tell us. A video may not show micro-phenomena at the surface. I propose the experiment below. Perhaps someone with more UT knowledge can suggest a better one. Create a block with a slot that just shades the corner from the direct beam. The slot is also slanted so it does not return any beams. Maybe fill the slot with some dampening material. The shear wave beam goes in behind the slot and is lost, i.e. there is minimal corner trap signal. If there is a creeping wave it will creep along the surface, hit the corner, and come popping back out again, the way creeping waves are supposed to do, unless I have misunderstood. David 22:28 Jan-11-2011 Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to David Mackintosh on 21:56 Jan-11-2011 . If someone is willing to perform the experiment that David suggested, I'd be willing to make the proposed block with the angled notch...in the spirit of science that is. Phil Herman PH Tool Reference Standards

Phil Herman Sales, - Manufacture of NDT Reference Standards/Test Blocks PH Tool Reference Standards USA Join Date: Oct 1999 45 Posts 00:56 Jan-12-2011 andrew cunningham Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Ed Ginzel on 13:56 Jan-11-2011 .

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 6 of 11

NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts

Ed Thanks for your input. I dont find it strange that no-one can produce a video, as there is none. I am in total agreement with you that, that the reflection from the ID connected corner has been mistaken, misplaced and miscalled as a creeping wave. Anyone that understands PAUT would have seen on the S scan that there is no creeping wave. So way didnt anyone who knows PAUT call it out as a Con? Do you think that the Oil and Power industry will take legal action against the NDE companies that have been participating (for want of a better word) fraud. This may sound strong, but at times this is a tough job, if we dont keep to the scientific facts and stamp out pseudo-science, how can we keep our integrity?

05:48 Jan-12-2011

Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 00:56 Jan-12-2011 . Andrew, Before litigation, I think it's important here to point out that the technique, while having a misleading name, still works, and works very well when used correctly. Regards, Ryan.

Ryan Burns NDT Inspector Ultratest NDT Services Canada Join Date: Dec 2007 33 Posts 21:32 Jan-12-2011 andrew cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Ryan Burns on 05:48 Jan-12-2011 . Hi Ryan If I sold you a ticket to be chauffeured from Edmonton to Calgary in a Mercedes Benz for $1000.00 then put you on the Greyhound. If you protest that it is was not a Mercedes and my reply was I got you to Calgary would you say I was of high integrity or would you call me a con man? Am I wrong to try to maintain the integrity of our profession? 14:22 Jan-18-2011 Ed Mawyer Consultant, Level III USA Join Date: Jan 2011 1 Posts Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 21:32 Jan-12-2011 . I dont think anyone performing any inspection where you have a known defect, can find it consistently, and then utilzes the method in which they found it to perform an inspection should be called a fraud. Whether its called a "creeping wave" or peanut butter and jelly technique, what I, and the customer should care about is finding the discontinuities. If the said method is not reliable, that is another story. I do agree, the only thing we have as NDT professionals is our reputation and unfortunately the reputation of the entire industry but I dont think there are enough people outside of NDT that understand enough to allow science (or the mislabeling of a technique) to be a factor. Unfortunately, most of our customers view us as a requirement, and arent really concerned with the safety associated and could care less about the science. (Untill you've found something and have to explain why you did, and how you are sure) 16:37 Jan-18-2011 Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Phil Herman on 22:28 Jan-11-2011 . I am wondering if a simulation tool could proof this case, e.g. CIVA could do this job?

Rolf Director, - Chief Editor Publisher Internet PHP MySQL

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 7 of 11

NDT.net Germany Join Date: Nov 1998 331 Posts 17:35 Jan-18-2011 Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Rolf on 16:37 Jan-18-2011 . Good idea Rolf! CIVA 10 has made a provision to deal with the so-called creeping wave. I will ask the people in EXTENDE if we can configure a suitable model. As for Dave MacIntosh's suggestion that this might be a "micro-phenomena" I would suspect not...if it is too small to 'see' photoelastically it would imply a very low sound intensity. This would imply a very weak signal. Yet the commonly labelled "ID creeping wave" is illustrated as the largest of the three signals and the latest arrival when illustrating the detection of the far-surface connected notches. One optoin is to simply convert the timebase to microseconds and measure the peak arrival times and measure the distances travelled (and know the time travelled in the wedge)...

Ed Ginzel R & D, Materials Research Institute Canada Join Date: Nov 1998 362 Posts 04:52 Jan-19-2011

Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Ed Ginzel on 17:35 Jan-18-2011 . Hello All, Out of curiosity, are there any responses from the people who teach creeping wave on this discussion thread?

Deston Henson NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Nov 2009 16 Posts 17:12 Jan-19-2011

Many thanks,

Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 23:18 Dec-15-2010 (Opening). Download Download Download simulation 1 (~4 MB) simulation 2 (~4 MB) simulation 3 (~4 MB)

Triggered by the discussions in this forum, I had some interesting discussions with some of the physicists in our department. As a mechanical engineer trained in ultrasonics, I also tend to "think" in terms of beams and rays, as in optics. But physicists think in wave fronts. They convinced me that this is the only Frits Dijkstra way to understand and describe this kind of complex concepts. Together, we have tried to provide some R&D Applus RTD Technological answers acceptable for ultrasonic engineers as well as physicists. We also ran some Finite Difference (FD) computer simulations for support. These are directly based on the wave equation, so all phenomena such Center as refractions, diffractions and wave mode conversions are automatically included. Longitudinal and shear Netherlands waves are visualized in different colors. Join Date: Jan 2004 5 Posts Simulation 1 shows a 16 mm thick steel plate with a 5 MHz probe on it (16 mm crystal). The angle in the wedge is for 90 longitudinal waves and 33 shear waves. The incident longitudinal wave front in the wedge (blue) is reflected back into the wedge, and is also refracted into a longitudinal wave front in the steel plate (blue). This wave travels along the plate surface and also spreads out into the material. This wave at the surface is what we are used to call creeping wave. In ToFD we call it the lateral wave. Maybe we should just call it a 90 longitudinal wave. In addition, we see the shear wave (red) in the steel plate that goes with it, propagating under 33. At the back wall, this wave is converted into another 90 longitudinal wave ("secondary creep wave") and a shear wave associated with it. Note that, at the scanning surface, even in front of the probe, where the "driving force" (the original incident wave in the wedge) is not present any more, there is still a shear wave associated with the propagating 90 longitudinal wave. Some call this a "head wave". This wave keeps accompanying the 90 longitudinal wave, while it travels along the surface. It is not a beam, but a straight wave front propagating under 33. In the past I was taught that this wave is due to interaction between the propagating 90 longitudinal wave and the plate surface. Our physicists explain it as follows: "At an interface between two media, be it the probe against the plate or air against the plate, there should be continuity in the displacement and the stresses in the media, across the interface. These continuity

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 8 of 11

requirements, also called boundary conditions, determine the reflection, transmission and conversion coefficients between waves on either side of the interface. In the case of the FD model shown it means that a longitudinal wave propagating under 90, along an air/steel interface, cannot fulfill the boundary conditions without an accompanying shear wave propagating under the appropriate angle. Rather than thinking in terms of cause and effect, we should say that both waves should be present in order to satisfy the physics of this problem". In simulation 2, the probe is placed at the correct position for corner effect on a 3 mm notch, using the 33 shear wave. The simulated A-scan is shown below in the movie. Although 33 is not an ideal angle for corner trap effect, the notch is clearly detected. In simulation 3 the probe has been pulled back some 20 mm, to prevent the direct corner trap echo from getting back to the probe. But the notch is still detected: 1. A 33 shear wave originates from the probe. It keeps coming even in front of the probe. The wave front hits the far surface, reflects into a 33 shear wave front and is also converted into a 90 longitudinal wave at the far surface. This wave is also called the secondary creeping wave. 2. At the frame taken at 14.23 s, this 90 longitudinal wave hits the notch and is reflected back to the left, along the far surface. 3. Along with this reflected 90 longitudinal wave we see a shear wave front, propagating towards the scanning surface under 33, which is continuously accompanying the longitudinal wave. 4. Interesting to see that this shear wave in turn is able to make a 90 longitudinal wave at the scanning surface, traveling to the left. 5. The shear wave front mentioned under 3 together with the 90 longitudinal wave under 4 is able to reach the probe and results in a signal (indicated by an arrow in the A-scan). These simulations suggest that the combination of 90 longitudinal waves and its associated 33 shear wave is able to detect a vertical defect at the far surface. This is also the case (but with a lower signal amplitude) if the probe is pulled back to such an extent that the direct corner trap echo is not returning to the probe any more. In other words: this is the proof of the secondary creeping wave. By the way: the shear wave crucial for detection with the secondary creeping wave is also visible in the video by Blanshan and Ginzel, posted earlier, see the yellow arrow we added.

So, it looks like Wstenberg and Erhard were right after all. To be precise, the first to describe these phenomena was a Russian scientist, Prof. I.N. Ermolov, in 1978. Finally: there is a lot of confusion about naming of these phenomena. In general (not only in this forum), this confusion complicates the discussion. 03:57 Jan-20-2011 andrew cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Ed Mawyer on 14:22 Jan-18-2011 . Peanut and jelly method, as it is taught, states that the shear wave will mode convert to a compression wave and propagate forward for a short distance, (contradiction #1 a compression wave is the most effective/ efficient way of transmitting sound) Then compression wave hits a ID connected reflector and reflects and a compression wave, until it reaches its initiation point and mode converts back to a shear.

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 9 of 11

If this were true, peanut and jelly method would never miss a defect.(#2 WRONG. If the reflector is at an oblique angle there can be NO refection to the transducer.) The peanut and jelly can and does miss cracks if they are at the wrong angle 21:01 Jan-20-2011 Andrew Cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008 64 Posts Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Frits Dijkstra on 17:12 Jan-19-2011 . Thank you for correcting my error and my apologies to Prof. I.N. Ermolov, for not giving him the credit. BUT The Emperor STILL Has No Clothes The video shows. A high angle compression wave front (as pre Snells law) propagating away from the probe. Not disputed. A lower angle shear wave front (as per Snells law) propagating away from the probe. Not disputed. A shear wave bouncing off the ID (as per laws of reflection). Not disputed. A reflected shear wave returning to the probe at a different angle than probes optimum listening angle. It does not show a second compression wave (creeping wave) propagating at twice the velocity at the point of impact and proergating at 90 deg. It does not show the second compression wave (creeping wave) reflecting back at 90 deg. It does not show the second compression wave (creeping wave) mode converting to a shear wave at the original impact. Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Frits Dijkstra on 17:12 Jan-19-2011 . Frits: Many thanks for the FD illustration videos. The FD tool is a nice convergence of mathematics and physics! These videos are more effecctive than the semi-analytical options for showing the details of the surface interactions. Ed Ginzel R & D, Materials Research Institute Canada Join Date: Nov 1998 362 Posts 19:51 Jan-31-2011 Stan NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jan 2009 16 Posts Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Frits Dijkstra on 17:12 Jan-19-2011 . Frits: These simulations of ID surface Creeping Wave propagation were very enlightening, however, the company that I work for does a lot of Near Surface Creeping Wave examinations. We use this method to examine the toe and root area of fillet welds where the probe is placed tangent to the fillet weld and sound is propagated under the fillet. Would you be able to run and publish a simulation with a flaw on the near surface of the item being examined, about 10 to 20mm from the front of the probe? Regards. Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Stan on 19:51 Jan-31-2011 . Stan, Usually, for such simulations, there is some cost involved. I have discussed your question here, and we will make an exception for the sake of this Forum discussion about creeping waves. I think we all can learn from this. So, yes, we will be able to run this particular simulation for your fillet weld problem and publish it here on the Forum. Frits Dijkstra R&D Applus RTD Technological Center Netherlands Join Date: Jan 2004 5 Posts 18:06 Feb-02-2011 Please send me an e-mail with all parameters: geometry and dimensions of the object, location, size and shape of the defect, location of probe index, crystal dimension, probe frequency. A sketch would help. Based on this information we will build the model and run the simulation. I hope it is not a problem if it takes a week or two, due to the current work load. Best regards, Frits frits.dijkstra@applusrtd.com

21:50 Jan-21-2011

15:13 Feb-02-2011

Re: Proof of creeping wave?

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 10 of 11

David Mackintosh Engineering Acuren Group Inc. Canada Join Date: Feb 2011 42 Posts

In Reply to Frits Dijkstra on 15:13 Feb-02-2011 . Frits: Thank you for the very interesting discussion and video simulations. On this controversial topic, would you consider publishing a peer-reviewed paper on your findings? In particular, what is the velocity of the wave you observed, and is it different from a Rayleigh wave, a Stonely wave, or the TOFD lateral wave? Perhaps some collaboration would be helpful to verify your results experimentally. Many thanks, David Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to David Mackintosh on 18:06 Feb-02-2011 . David, why you asked for a peer-reviewed paper? In NDT.net we are publishing editor reviewed paper which are published faster than peer-reviewed papers and also having good quality AND the best of all those are open access available. Rolf

18:27 Feb-02-2011

Rolf Diederichs Director, - Chief Editor Publisher Internet PHP MySQL NDT.net Germany Join Date: Nov 1998 331 Posts 21:50 Feb-02-2011 Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to David Mackintosh on 18:06 Feb-02-2011 . David...this has all be done before. If you need a scholarly explanation you can look at a very old paper On the Nature of the So-Called Subsurface Longitudinal Wave and/or the Surface Longitudinal CreepingWave, K.J.Langenberg, P. Fellinger, R. Marklein, Research in Nondestructive Evaluation, Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp 61-81 This uses the EFIT process instead of the Finite Difference but the end result is the same. In a 2008 paper on NDT.net by Professor Honorvar (http://www.ndt.net/article/tindt2008/papers/150.pdf) I provided some photoelastic images of the effect of the near side process Stan is asking about. Look at Figure 7 in that paper.

Ed Ginzel R & D, Materials Research Institute Canada Join Date: Nov 1998 362 Posts 14:57 Feb-04-2011

Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to andrew cunningham on 23:18 Dec-15-2010 (Opening). Dear all, As probe has its size and wave itself reflected between its body and as probe become old and shoe; shape changes some grass observed and it can be checked by just dumped by the your finger from the front side of probe so for me Besides of critical angles ..the wave also reflected from the body of probe and mod conversion is always their This angle can also enhance the creeping wave theory Thanks for live Lalit Mohan Kothari Re: Proof of creeping wave? In Reply to Frits Dijkstra on 17:12 Jan-19-2011 . Thanks for the great vedios I have watched the video a few times and I am perplexed that why you are calling the wave front that is propagating from the compression wave solid to air interface. This wave motion is 0 degree shear in

Lalit Mohan Kothari Engineering, Moody International India Join Date: Jan 2003 33 Posts 20:24 Feb-12-2011 Andrew Cunningham NDT Inspector Canada Join Date: Jun 2008

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011

Forum of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Page 11 of 11

64 Posts

direction and 33 degree wave front. The angle is determined by the ratio of the 2 velocities. i.e. if the velocities were the same, one would have a 45 degree wave front which is traveling at 90 degrees to the surface, behind the radiating compression wave. You call the reflecting compression wave 90 degree where it is a reflection that is RADIATING. The corner trap reflector that are shear wave were reflecting back at 45 degrees but when it reaches the transducer this shear wave you called them creeping wave.

Your Email Address:

Notify Me

NDT.net

Advertising with NDT.net

http://ndt.net/forum/thread.php?admin=&msgID=36659&rootID=36287

2/27/2011