You are on page 1of 15

ME-492 Non-Destructive Testing Laboratory Report

Wave Velocity Measurements Laboratory No.1

Written by: Eric S. Krage Instructor: Dr. Jikai Du

Class Section 01 Date Performed: 09/14/2012

South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007

Eric S. Krage

The depths of three holes were determined in another sample within 5% error. South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S.Abstract: The longitudinal and shear wave velocity are measured in a standard as well as an unknown sample using an Olympus Omni Scan MX. Krage . A standard calibration block was used to find how to test various ways to improve the velocity measurement. We found to it to be most accurate to measure over multiple waveforms to divide the human error. Calculations for longitudinal and shear wave velocities using Young’s modulus coupled with Poisson’s ratio defines the properties of the unknown material which proved the unknown material to be steel.

Tablees and Experimental Apparatus …….. 9 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Experimental Results and Analysis……….Table of Contents Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………. a List of Figures... 10 References and Appendix ….……………… 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………. Krage ..…………………………………………………………. 2 Experimental Procedure …………………………. 9 Interpretation of Results and Discussion ………………………………………. 12 South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S.……………………………………….………………………………….

71.500” thick position of the aluminum calibration block ……… 7 List of Tables Table1: Calibration block @ 0.500” thick (Shear Wave Transducer) ………………………………………………….11 Apparatus      OriginPro 8 graphing utility Shear Wave Piezo operating frequency 5MHz ⁄ Longitudinal Wave Piezo operating frequency 3. time of calibration block ………………………………………………………… 6 Figure 7: Shear Wave Transducer on 0. 17.. 7 Table 4: Steel slug (Longitudinal Wave Transducer) ………………………………………………………………………. 8 Table 7: Wave Velocity Measurements of Steel Slug and Mechanical Properties ………………………….List of Figures Figure 1: Aluminum 7075-T6 calibration block ………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Figure 2: Steel 0.89mm from left to right respectively ……………..500” thick longitudinal wave transducer ………………………………………… 5 Table 2: Calibration block trend line (Longitudinal Wave Transducer) …………………………………………… 5 Table 3: calibration Block 0..297” thick 1” dia.5 MHz ⁄ Olympus Omni Scan MX Digital calipers South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S. Krage .. 8 Table 6: Steel block hole depth measurements ……………………………………………………………………………. 8 Table 5: Steel Slug (Shear Wave transducer) ………………………………………………………………………………….50” aluminum block (Longitudinal Wave Transducer) … 4 Figure 6: Trend line of thickness vs. and 23.………… 4 Figure 5: Multiple signal averaging of the 0. Unknown modulus …………………………………………………………………… 2 Figure 3: Steel bloc with holes 10... 3 Figure 4: Calibration block signal analysis for the longitudinal wave transducer ………………….53.

Figure 1: Aluminum 7075-T6 calibration block Steel Unknown Disk: The steel disk was 0. South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S. Unknown modulus. Aluminum Calibration Block: The block had five steps that were marked in increasing increments of 0.297” thick 1” dia. The aluminum used was 7075-T6. Figure 1 is a picture of that block used. Sample Description There were three different samples analyzed for this laboratory procedure. Krage .297 in.Introduction The goal of this experiment is to become proficient in the procedures for measuring the velocity of longitudinal and shear waves in media. and a 1 in.100 inches from left to right. diameter which is represented in Figure 2. Figure 2: Steel 0.

and block with holes in them.89mm from left to right respectively Experimental Parameters Using the Olympus Omni Scan MX the shear and longitudinal wave transducers were used at 5MHz and 3. and 23.5” step as seen in Figure 1.53. Figure 3: Steel bloc with holes 10. The caliper was then used to measure the depth of the holes in the block to check the modulus of the block itself. Using a digital caliper we verified the thickness of the block sample step block. Aluminum Calibration Block Velocity Measurements.53. and 23.44*107 m/s.625” and a height of 4”. Calculating the longitudinal wave velocity using C = 2* (∆d/∆T) which yields the wave velocity to be 2.5MHz respectively.71. With hole depths of 10.Aluminum Block with 3 holes at varying depth: The aluminum block had three holes drilled at different depths as shown in Figure 3. 17. 17.71. round block.89mm measured from the top and left to right respectively. South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S.5MHz we measure the time it took to travel through the block on four of the five thicknesses of the calibration block. Krage . The thickness of the block was 0. The measurements in Table 1 were done on the 0. Using the longitudinal wave transducer with the frequency set to 3. The time readings were done between two signal beginnings as seen in Figure 4 and averaged over multiple waveforms Figure 5.

Krage .Figure 4: Calibration block signal analysis for the longitudinal wave transducer Figure 5: Multiple signal averaging of the 0.50” aluminum block (Longitudinal Wave Transducer) South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S.

500” thick longitudinal wave transducer Trial 1 2 3 4 Wave Form Average (4) T1 (us) 4.100 0.16 12.32 16.77 4.53 ∆T (us) 4.10 Calibration Trend Line (Longitudinal Wave Transducer) Table 2 shows the time readings that were taken between two consecutive signal peaks at different steps or thicknesses of the aluminum calibration block. Krage .Table1: Calibration block @ 0.09 4.83 1.10 South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S.18 Average time to travel 0.82 20.16 4. Figure 6 show the trend line of the calibration block using the longitudinal wave transducer.43 24. Table 2: Calibration block trend line (Longitudinal Wave Transducer) Depth (inches) 0.05 4.300 0.34 20. This calibration line will give the capability to be able to compare the calibration block thickness with unknown thickness.500” T2 (us) 8.49 3.64 2.09 4.500 ∆T (us) 0.200 0.26 4.400 0.

2 Time Time 0. Tables 3 give us the average time of the shear transducer velocity in the aluminum calibration standard. time of calibration block Signal Measurement of Shear Wave Transducer The shear wave transducer was calibrated for wave speed on the 0.107 in. The shear wave velocity was calculated C = 2* (∆d/∆T) = 2. South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S. The large error in the shear transducer is most likely due to poor coupling between the material and the transducer as well as human error.1-1 the shear wave velocity cT= 3.6 Thickness (inches) Figure 6: Trend line of thickness vs.500” thick location of the aluminum calibration block. Comparing with Table E.123 in.0 8.0 0.14 mm/us.9997 Valu Standard Interce Slope 0.4 0.70*104 m/s.06218 1 0. The shear wave transducer velocity was found to be cT = 0. Figure 7 represents the signal measurements of the shear wave transducer note that to get a good signal force needs to be applied down on the transducer to translate the vibrational energy into the medium. R-Sq y=a+ 0./us./us.02062 0. Krage . The difference between these numbers is 13. which converts to 0.7%.4 Time (us) 3 2 Equation Adj.1 0.

Figure 7: Shear Wave Transducer on 0. The longitudinal wave velocity was examined and data Table 4 shows South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S. See Figure 2 for further description of specimen.87 9.49 14.71 4.68 4.500” thick position of the aluminum calibration block Table 3: calibration Block 0.73 4.76 9.71 Wave Velocity Measurements of Steel Slug The thickness of the steel round specimen was measured with a digital caliper to be 0.500” thick (Shear Wave Transducer) Trial 1 2 3 T1 (us) 9.81 Average T2 (us) 14.52 ∆T (us) 4. Krage . The thickness measurement was used for all the following calculations.297”.55 14.

61 4.63 4. Firs the wave velocity was found in this medium.8 South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S.70 mm %Difference 6. Table 4: Steel slug (Longitudinal Wave Transducer) Trial 1 2 3 Average ∆T (us) 2. The shear wave velocity was calculated to be c = 3. Krage .597 Table 5: Steel Slug (Shear Wave transducer) Trial 1 2 3 Average ∆T (us) 4.79*103 m/s.633 Steel Block Hole Depth Measurements Using Longitudinal Wave Transducer The longitudinal wave transducer was used for all of the elements on the steel specimen with holes.33 Depth Measured 10. Please see Table 6 for the three readings.53 Depth Calculated 11.61 2.64 2.26*103m/s data is shown in Table 5.that the longitudinal wave velocity c = 2* (∆d/∆T) = 5. See Figure 3 for sample image. Table 6: Steel block hole depth measurements Hole Number 1 Time (us) 3. Three time readings were taken for each hole of different depth and averaged.66 4.54 2.

1-1 p. Krage . This error can be from human error or resolution of the equipment to detect the signal more accurately.89mm 1.244 mm/us.31 7.4 1.27 mm/us which is equivalent to cL=0.2469 mm/us.04 24. To calculate Lame’s first constant λ we will solve equation 4 and to transform between the two values cL and cT we will use equation 5 &6.1 Comparing the two values yields a 1.03 Hole depth velocity measurements (Longitudinal Wave Transducer) Results Analysis Aluminum Calibration Block Velocity Measurements Using the longitudinal wave transducer the first two techniques are similar to one another with an average of 0.53mm 23. Equation 2 will be used to calculate the shear modulus of the sample and equation 3 will determine poisons ratio. ( ) * ( )+ (1) Where E = Modulus of elasticity ( ( G = Shear Modulus ) ) λ = Lame’s constant Where ρ = density (2) (3) ( ) * ( )+ (4) (5) (6) South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S.39 17.1% difference between the two values which is well within the experimental error. Wave Velocity Measurements of Steel Slug Using equation 1 we can calculate Young’s modulus of the unknown steel slug. Table E.2 3 5.60 17.401 shows a wave speed cL=6.

Question / Answer 1. Krage . The properties of the steel were successfully measured with errors within the predicted error bound of the given equations. Why would measuring the difference between a second and third backwall echo sometimes be more accurate than between the first and second backwall echo? The disadvantage of measuring the first and second backwall echo is that in thin samples waves are often very close together making it difficult to distinguish between the them and the main bang. Use of ultrasonic testing is clearly an advantageous method of non-destructive testing for defects or use in other situations. 2. This method of ultrasound to detect holes and measure the depths of holes in a medium can be quantified as reliable and accurate. Using the data from the second and third echo allows the wave to be more developed and distinguishable and improving accuracy of measurement. The holes measure depths were very accurate when comparing the caliper values with the ultrasound values as shown in Table 6. What are some suggestions on how to improve the accuracy of a velocity measurement? To improve the wave velocity calculations are to measure over multiple South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S. The small observed error is most likely due to not being directly over the center of the hole varying where the wave gets reflected from thus changing the distance measured.Steel Block Hole Depth Measurements Using Longitudinal Wave Transducer The steel block with three holes Figure 3 depth was measured using the ultrasound technique. Summary / Conclusions Through the experiment comparing the results with the standards there was little known observed error and all within standard experimental error. 3. The wave velocity measurement improvements can be made by measuring over multiple wave forms. The first and second echoes are much more defined and able to tell when the signal starts and ends to decrease measurement error. Why would measuring the difference between the first and second backwall echo be more accurate than between the main bang and the first backwall echo? The main bang is not concise leading to us not being able to clearly distinguish the beginning of the signal. The depth measurement of the holes in the steel block was accurate.

and Poisson’s ratio can be seen in Table 7 below. shear modulus. The sample thickness being too small makes it difficult to tell the difference between the signals if a single pulse were able to be generated and measured the reverberations from just that single pulse would improve the accuracy. and Poisson’s ratio of the unknown material. shear modulus. improved detector resolution.4 * 109 Pa 82. Through improving detector resolution the signal can be smoothed and the corresponding measuring points can be more easily determined. Krage . eliminate background. Calculate Young’s modulus. By measuring over multiple waveforms you are minimizing the experimental error because it is divided among multiple elements. and thicker material. 4.47 * 109 Pa 0. If the sample was measured on a different backing to eliminate transmission into the table in our case would eliminate noise and the signals would be more distinguishable.27 South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S. The values for Young’s modulus.wave forms. Table 7: Wave Velocity Measurements of Steel Slug and Mechanical Properties E G ν 201.

Joseph L.a.com/index. Krage .: Cambridge Univ.References Rose. Cambridge [ u.mxindustrial. Ultrasonic Waves in Solid Media. N/A South Dakota State University Brookings SD 57007 Eric S. 2004] 2 http://www.php?route=product/product&product_id=294 Figure for aluminum block Appendix.