No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
The influence of surface roughness on ultrasonic thickness measurements
1. I. Haggan, “ Less is more,” Oilfield Technol. 7(1), 43–45 (2014).
2.UK Health and Safety Executive, Public Report of The Fire and Explosion at the ConocoPhillips Humber Refinery ( Health and Safety Executive, London, 2001).
3.UK Act of Parliament, Prevention of Oil Pollution Act, 1971, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/60 (Last viewed 6/27/14).
4. J. Blitz and G. Simpson, Ultrasonic Methods of Non-destructive Testing ( Springer, Berlin, 1995), pp. 1–284.
5. M. Stone, “ Wall thickness distributions for steels in corrosive environments and determination of suitable statistical analysis methods,” in 4th European-American Workshop on the Reliability of NDE, Berlin (2009), http://www.ndt.net/article/reliability2009/Inhalt/sessio 2.htm (Last viewed 6/27/14).
6. S. Terpstra, “ Use of statistical techniques for sampling inspection in the oil and gas industry,” in 4th European-American Workshop on Reliability in NDE, Berlin (2009), http://www.ndt.net/article/reliability2009/Inhalt/sessio 2.htm (Last viewed 6/27/14).
7.The Welding Institute, Ltd., Health and Safety Executive: Guidelines for use of Statistics for Analysis of Sample Inspection of Corrosion ( Health and Safety Executive, London, 2002).
8. A. J. C. Jarvis and F. B. Cegla, “ Application of the distributed point source method to rough surface scattering and ultrasonic wall thickness measurement,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132(3), 1325–1335 (2012).
9. T. R. Thomas, Rough Surfaces ( Longman, Harlow, UK, 1982), pp. 1–278.
11. P. Nagy and L. Adler, “ Surface roughness induced attenuation of reflected and transmitted ultrasonic waves,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82(1), 193–197 (1987).
14.Taylor Hobson, Ltd., http://www.taylor-hobson.com/ (Last viewed 11/14/13).
16.MATLAB, version 22.214.171.1243, The MathWorks, Inc. (2012).
18. D. Placko and T. Kundu, DPSM for Modeling Engineering Problems ( Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2007), p. 2.
19. D. Placko and T. Kundu, DPSM for Modeling Engineering Problems ( Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2007), p. 30.
20. D. Placko and T. Kundu, DPSM for Modeling Engineering Problems ( Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2007), p. 24.
21. D. Placko and T. Kundu, DPSM for Modeling Engineering Problems ( Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2007), p. 20.
22. D. Placko and T. Kundu, DPSM for Modeling Engineering Problems ( Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2007), p. 25.
23. S. Banerjee and T. Kundu, “ Elastic wave propagation in sinusoidally corrugated waveguides,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119(4), 2006–2017 (2006).
24. D. Placko, T. Kundu, and R. Ahmad, “ Ultrasonic field computation in the presence of a scatterer of finite dimension,” in Proceedings of SPIE 5047, Smart Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring of Structural and Biological Systems II (2003), pp 169–179.
26. D. Placko and T. Kundu, DPSM for Modeling Engineering Problems ( Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2007), pp. 1–373.
27.MPI Forum, “ MPI: A message-passing interface standard,” version 2.2 (2009), http://www.mpi-forum.org (Last viewed 2/26/13).
29.Boost c++ Libraries (2013), http://www.boost.org (Last viewed 8/28/13).
31. T. Kundu, D. Placko, E. Rahani, T. Yanagita, and C. Dao, “ Ultrasonic field modeling: A comparison of numerical techniques,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 57(12), 2795–2807 (2010).
34. D. Placko and T. Kundu, DPSM for Modeling Engineering Problems ( Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2007), p. 26.
35. S. Das, S. Banerjee, and T. Kundu, “ Transient ultrasonic wave field modeling in an elastic half-space using distributed point source method,” Proc. SPIE 7650 (2010).
36. E. K. Rahani and T. Kundu, “ Modeling of transient ultrasonic wave propagation using the distributed point,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 58(10), 2213–2221 (2011).
37. G. Kino, Acoustic Waves ( Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1987), pp. 1–601.
38.Imperial College High Performance Computing, http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ict/services/hpc (Last viewed 6/4/14).
Article metrics loading...
In corrosion assessment, ultrasonic wall-thickness measurements are often presented in the form of a color map. However, this gives little quantitative information on the distribution of the thickness measurements. The collected data can be used to form an empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF), which provides information on the fraction of the surface with less than a certain thickness. It has been speculated that the ECDF could be used to draw conclusions about larger areas, from inspection data of smaller sub-sections. A detailed understanding of the errors introduced by such an approach is required to be confident in its predictions. There are two major sources of error: the actual thickness variation due to the morphology of the surface and the interaction of the signal processing algorithm with the recorded ultrasonic signals. Parallel experimental and computational studies were performed using three surfaces, generated with Gaussian height distributions. The surfaces were machined onto mild steel plates and ultrasonic C-scans were performed, while the distributed point source method was used to perform equivalent simulations. ECDFs corresponding to each of these surfaces (for both the experimental and computational data) are presented and their variation with changing surface roughness and different timing algorithms is discussed.
Full text loading...
Most read this month