This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]

On: 28 December 2014, At: 15:40

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gnte20

Numerical modelling as a cost-reduction

tool for probability of detection of bolt
hole eddy current testing
a a a a
C. Mandache , M. Khan , A. Fahr & M. Yanishevsky
a
Structures and Materials Performance Laboratory , Institute for
Aerospace Research, National Research Council Canada , 1200
Montreal Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R6, Canada
Published online: 21 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: C. Mandache , M. Khan , A. Fahr & M. Yanishevsky (2011) Numerical
modelling as a cost-reduction tool for probability of detection of bolt hole eddy current testing,
Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation, 26:01, 57-66, DOI: 10.1080/10589751003770118

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10589751003770118

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation,
Vol. 26, No. 1, March 2011, 57–66

Numerical modelling as a cost-reduction tool for probability

of detection of bolt hole eddy current testing
C. Mandache*, M. Khan, A. Fahr and M. Yanishevsky

Structures and Materials Performance Laboratory, Institute for Aerospace Research, National
Research Council Canada, 1200 Montreal Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R6 Canada
(Received 13 November 2009; final version received 11 March 2010)

Probability of detection (PoD) studies are broadly used to determine the reliability of
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

specific nondestructive inspection procedures, as well as to provide data for damage

tolerance life estimations and calculation of inspection intervals for critical components.
They require inspections on a large set of samples, a fact that makes these statistical
assessments time- and cost-consuming. Physics-based numerical simulations of
nondestructive testing inspections could be used as a cost-effective alternative to
empirical investigations. They realistically predict the inspection outputs as functions of
the input characteristics related to the test piece, transducer and instrument settings,
which are subsequently used to partially substitute and/or complement inspection data
in PoD analysis. This work focuses on the numerical modelling aspects of eddy current
testing for the bolt hole inspections of wing box structures typical of the Lockheed
Martin C-130 Hercules and P-3 Orion aircraft, found in the air force inventory of many
countries. Boundary element-based numerical modelling software was employed to
predict the eddy current signal responses when varying inspection parameters related to
probe characteristics, crack geometry and test piece properties. Two demonstrator
exercises were used for eddy current signal prediction when lowering the driver probe
frequency and changing the material’s electrical conductivity, followed by subsequent
discussions and examination of the implications on using simulated data in the PoD
analysis. Despite some simplifying assumptions, the modelled eddy current signals
were found to provide similar results to the actual inspections. It is concluded that
physics-based numerical simulations have the potential to partially substitute or
complement inspection data required for PoD studies, reducing the cost, time, effort and
resources necessary for a full empirical PoD assessment.
Keywords: probability of detection; eddy current; bolt hole; numerical modelling

Introduction and background

Probability of detection (PoD) studies are used for multiple inter-related purposes, the most
relevant being the following: (1) to quantify the reliability of a specific nondestructive
testing (NDT) procedure, (2) to provide necessary data to assess the damage tolerance
of a structure and (3) to determine the safe NDT inspection intervals for the structure.
The typical outcome of a PoD study is the a90/95 value determined from the PoD curve. This
represents the defect size detectable with a 90% probability and 95% confidence level [1].
This very study was initiated at the request of Canadian Forces and driven by the
ageing aircraft fleets need for maintenance according to damage tolerance and risk-based
life-management approaches. The NDT technique employed was bolt hole eddy current,

*Corresponding author. Email: catalin.mandache@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

ISSN 1058-9759 print/ISSN 1477-2671 online

q 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/10589751003770118
http://www.informaworld.com
 58 C. Mandache et al.

while the specimens were representative of fastener holes of wing areas of Hercules
(Canadian CC-130) and Orion (Canadian CP-140 Aurora) aircraft.
The eddy current technique is the most established NDT method for the inspection of
electrically conductive materials. The eddy current is generated through electromagnetic
induction (Faraday’s law) and is the result of a varying magnetic field placed in the
vicinity of an electrically conductive material. In turn, it creates its own magnetic field
which opposes the incident field variation (Lenz’ rule). The eddy currents flow in closed
loops, following the paths of least resistance; their distribution and intensity are indicative
of material non-homogeneities. In NDT, coils are used customarily for generating and
sensing eddy currents in the material under investigation. The technique is sensitive to the
material’s electrical conductivity, magnetic permeability, probe—specimen coupling and
any other factors that directly or indirectly affect one of these properties. The test piece,
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

eddy current probe and inspection parameters could be used as inputs for dedicated
numerical simulation software packages in order to predict the NDT output data.
On the other hand, a large number of specimens (minimum 160) are necessary for a
statistically significant PoD study, which requires three times more unflawed specimens
than those with damage, such as cracks [1]. Moreover, the specimens with damage need to
contain a representative discontinuity size distribution. As a result of the extent and cost
requirements associated with the experimental PoD studies, numerical modelling has been
identified as an alternative to extensive empirical studies. Simulations could be used as
well for planning the empirical investigations and prior examination of individual testing
parameters and settings.
PoD data are only relevant to a specific inspection case. There is not such a thing as a
‘PoD of an NDT technique’; the PoD depends on a myriad of factors, among which are the
procedure, part geometry and material, defect type sought, accessibility, inspector training
and performance [2]. A PoD study for a certain situation considers many of these variables
as constants; therefore, a small change in the inspection conditions could completely
change the PoD results. Numerical modelling has the potential to predict how changes in
the inspection conditions could affect the inspection signals, and consequently the PoD
outcome of the new situation [3,4]. The availability of NDT data for PoD analyses, needed
for damage tolerance life prediction [4] and risk-based operating strategies, is essential for
the safe management of a structure, component or assembly. However, these data are
usually neither readily available nor complete. The modelling of nondestructive
inspections for PoD estimation has the same role as the finite-element analysis has in the
reduction in mechanical testing for stress analysis, for example.
The model-assisted PoD consists of two different approaches to generate the necessary
data: (1) transfer function approach – finds relational functions to convert data from one
inspection to a similar one when testing parameters or when conditions are changed and
(2) full model-assisted approach – employs physics-based models to complement a
minimum set of experimental data for PoD analysis [3,4]. Currently, transfer functions are
used to generate PoD curves for natural/real discontinuities from NDT data obtained from
a combination of natural and laboratory-induced damage [5]. A more effective alternative
is using transfer functions from numerically simulated NDT signals and inclusion of the
data in the PoD analysis, which is, in fact, a hybrid of the two established model-assisted
avenues described above. Herein, the hybrid approach is employed to generate PoD data
when changing the eddy current driving frequency for inspections of bolt holes in aircraft
wing structures. The example is included to support the numerical modelling role in
assuring portability of PoD information across similar structures. The interesting case
 Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 59

of changing the test piece’s electrical conductivity is also discussed and has applications in
the PoD portability to metallic structures of different alloys or materials.

Experimental approach
The specimens inspected in this study consisted of a two-layer stack-up assembly
of 7075-T651 aluminium alloys (conductivity of 32% IACS or 18.56 £ 106 V21 m21).
The thickness of the first layer was 7.94 mm, while the thickness of the second layer was
2.29 mm. The assembly contained bolt holes of 4.62 mm diameter, representative of
aircraft wing lap joint structures. The configuration analysed in this work contained
fatigue-induced mid-bore cracks in the first layer, as indicated in Figure 1. This
configuration was part of a larger empirical PoD study consisting of various arrangements
of two-layer laboratory-manufactured and service-retired assemblies, with mid-bore and
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

corner cracks placed at various depths along the hole. Detailed description of the empirical
bolt hole eddy current PoD studies can be found in the literature [6].
The eddy current probe used in this study contained an outer excitation coil, with two
pick-up D -shaped inner coils connected differentially. The pick-up coils had a diameter of
0.97 mm, a height of 1.4 mm and contained 2 layers of 20 windings each, and were wound
around 2 mm long ferrite cores. The outer, excitation coil had a diameter of 1.19 mm and a
height of 1.2 mm, and consisted of 80 windings distributed over 4 layers. The probe and
specimen are shown schematically in Figure 1(b). This kind of design assures a minimum
or no response of the probe when it is placed in air or on a uniform conductive material
and, moreover, it is insensitive to the encountered planar surfaces. The probe can
automatically rotate (RPM of 1500) inside the hole, while the inspector controls its axial
movement, allowing in this way full inspection coverage of the fastener hole surface.
The eddy current instrument used in the experimental inspections was a Staveley
Nortec 2000D with a rotating probe scanner Staveley RA 2000 and an aluminium
calibration block VM 30889-C1A containing a 4.76 mm diameter hole with an interface
corner notch of 0.76 mm £ 0.76 mm. The imaginary component amplitude of the eddy
current probe signal response was considered the feature of interest in these inspections.
It has been shown that the eddy current signal amplitude on the impedance plane diagram
is proportional to the volume of a crack [7]. During the bolt hole inspections the lift-off,
conductivity and material thickness were kept essentially constant. However, these
considerations are only valid in an ideal sense, since other factors or local variations in
conductivity or discontinuity shape would change the signal’s phase and amplitude.

Figure 1. (a) Picture of a two-layer inspection assembly and (b) schematic of the bolt hole eddy
current inspection.
 60 C. Mandache et al.

Modelling details
Physics-based models are regularly employed in NDT to predict the transducer response
for a given inspection situation and are used as tools to optimise the inspection, develop
new probes, understand the involved phenomena, etc.
The simulations were performed using the boundary-element software ECSIM [8,9],
developed by the Center for Nondestructive Evaluation at Iowa State University and
commercialised by NDE Technologies, Inc. (Charlottesville, VA, USA; available at http://
www.ndetechnologies.com/, retrieved on 15 September 2009). After all the input
parameters are set, the computing of a specific inspection situation is relatively fast
(around 2 min on a Dual Core 2.4 GHz processor and a computer having 2 GB of RAM).
Unfortunately, at this point in time, the model is not capable of taking into account the
defect width as an input parameter; therefore, limiting the direct comparison between
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

‘wide’ electrical discharge-machined notches and ‘tight’ fatigue cracks. However, this
study concerns very tight fatigue cracks, of close-to-zero width.
Despite the cylindrical inspection geometry, the software is capable of simulating
only planar surfaces; nevertheless, in the given probe, skin depth of penetration value
(of 0.185 mm at 400 kHz excitation) and part configurations, this approximation is not very
limiting, since the local inspection geometry is close to planar. A total of nine eddy
current inspection variables, shown in Figure 2, were analysed, related to: (a) probe
characteristics – frequency, lift-off, tilt, off-centre scanning; (b) crack geometry – shape,
length, depth, simultaneous variation of both length and depth and (c) material property –
electrical conductivity.

Case study #1
An example exercise is presented here as a capability demonstrator of numerical models
for predicting eddy current signals, and ultimately estimating the PoD curve and the a90/95
crack size. In this case, the driving frequency of the probe was lowered in the model from
400 to 200 kHz and new PoD data and curve were generated, without actually performing
the experiments. The defect’s length and depth were obtained by replica measurements
and used as input parameters in the eddy current simulations.
The imaginary (vertical) component amplitude of the eddy current signal, a^ , vs. crack
radial depth, a, for the 400 kHz excitation frequency when inspecting for mid-bore cracks
was used as the basis of this study. The PoD type of analysis chosen was of ‘â vs. a’ type
and not the binary hit/miss one [1]. The former type of analysis is considered to be more
rigorous; moreover, the ‘â vs. a’ information could be converted into hit/miss data, but not
the other way around. Although it provided a clear indication of a discontinuity, the
right-censored data (i.e. saturated eddy current signals) were not taken into account in
these simulations, since they rendered no relationship to the crack geometry. For the same
crack dimensions, the eddy current signals were simulated for 400 and 200 kHz driving

Figure 2. Variables taken into account in the numerical simulations of the bolt hole eddy current
inspections, pertaining to: probe, defect and material.
 Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 61
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

Figure 3. Simulation results of the eddy current signal changes with increasing driving frequency;
probe ‘scanning’ a 1 mm long, 0.25 mm deep semi-elliptical crack.

frequencies. The transfer function approach was used to establish relationships between
the signal amplitude variation with the crack depth for the two frequencies, and between
the experiment and simulation.
For demonstration purposes, the eddy current impedance plane diagram representation
of the response signals for 200, 400, 600, 800 and 1000 kHz when the probe is scanning
a 1 mm long, 0.25 mm deep, semi-elliptical crack, with a probe—specimen separation,
i.e. lift-off, of 0.1 mm is shown in Figure 3.
The main goal of the model-assisted approach is to predict the NDT inspection signals
due to a change in one or more testing parameters, without actually repeating the
experiment. In this example, it was assumed that all the testing parameters, xi, i ¼ 1, 2, . . . ,
were maintained constant, with the exception of the driving frequency, which was lowered
from 400 to 200 kHz. This consideration has a practical interest, since lowering the driving
frequency allows for better penetration of the eddy currents in the material and,
consequently, the method’s ability to detect deeper cracks, while maintaining the eddy
current signal amplitude below saturation levels. In this way, the eddy current response
could be related to the defect depth, a feature essential to the ‘^a vs. a’ PoD type of analysis.
In order to predict the would-be experimental eddy current signal responses at
200 kHz, a^ 4 , the inspection results were first modelled for the two cases – 200 and 400 kHz
(^a3 and a^ 2 , respectively), while maintaining all other testing characteristics as inputs to the
simulation code. A relationship between the experimental, a^ 1 , and modelled, a^ 2 , signals of
interest at 400 kHz were established through a function, F, while the relationship between
the simulated signals, a^ 2 and a^ 3 , was described by a function G, as shown schematically in
Figure 4. The eddy current response for the 200 kHz driving frequency situation could then
be found through the application of either transfer function.
After the elimination of the right-censored data, only 30 laboratory-grown fatigue
cracks were used for this demonstration. The experimental eddy current amplitude
considered here, a^ 1 , was obtained as the average recording of five different inspectors.
 62 C. Mandache et al.

Figure 4. Transfer function approach for predicting eddy current results corresponding to 200 kHz
excitation frequency.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

Figure 5. Application of the transfer function approach (as indicated in Figure 4) for a concrete
situation: lowering the driving frequency from 400 to 200 kHz.

The application of the procedure indicated in Figure 4 is shown for this specific case in
Figure 5. The scatter of the model-obtained data shown in Figure 5 is believed to be due to
the rounding-off error of the signal amplitude. The linear functions F and G were found
based on the relationships between the fitting equations describing the variation of the
signal amplitude, a^ , vs. the crack depth, a; therefore, the predicted experimental eddy
current responses for the 200 kHz frequency could be found through either F 21(^a3 ) or
G(^a1 ). The results of applying these functions are shown in Figure 6, along with the
original, experimentally collected data at 400 kHz excitation. As evident, the two
outcomes are very similar, indicating agreement between the results obtained through the
two transfer functions. Moreover, the predicted signal amplitudes for a driving frequency
of 200 kHz verify the physical understanding expected: i.e. for shallower cracks, the 200
and 400 kHz signal responses are closer to each other, because in both cases the depth of
penetration of the eddy currents exceeds the depth of the defect. For deeper cracks, more
eddy currents will flow under the defect for the lower frequency, resulting in less current
density effect on the pick-up coils and smaller signal amplitudes.
 Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 63
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

Figure 6. Actual eddy current inspection results at 400 kHz and predicted ones at 200 kHz,
obtained through transfer functions and numerical simulations.

In order to validate the modelling predictions, bolt hole eddy current inspections at a
driving frequency of 200 kHz were performed using the same inspection procedure as for
the 400 kHz case. Only 11 cracked specimens were used for this experimental validation,
and distributed in the mid-size range of depths, most critical for PoD analysis. The average
of the predicted eddy current amplitudes through the transfer functions F and G, and the
experimental results for 200 kHz driving frequency, along with the original experimental
data at 400 kHz, are shown in Figure 7. The similarities in amplitude and trend between
modelled and experimental data at 200 kHz add extra credibility to the proposed hybrid
model-assisted approach.

Figure 7. Experimental validation of the model-predicted eddy current signal amplitudes for
200 kHz driving frequency.
 64 C. Mandache et al.

a90/95(200 kHz) = 0.505 mm

1

0.8
Probability of detection

a90/95(400 kHz) = 0.606 mm

0.6
POD(a) - 200 kHz
95% confidence-200 kHz
POD(a) - 400 kHz
0.4 95% confidence-400 kHz
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
a - crack depth (mm)

Figure 8. PoD curves for bolt hole eddy current inspections: empirical data at 400 kHz drive
frequency and model-obtained data at 200 kHz drive frequency.

The fitting curves shown in Figures 5– 7 were obtained through interpolation with
polynomial functions of degrees 3 –6 that provided the best coefficient of determination
(or goodness-of-fit) value, R 2.
PoD curves for 400 kHz experimental data and 200 kHz modelled inspections are
plotted together in Figure 8. This task was accomplished by using statistical analysis based
on the R statistical computing language (R-project statistical computing, available at
http://www.r-project.org/, retrieved on 8 September 2009). Note that for simplicity,
thresholds of 0.4 and 0.2 were used for the 400 and 200 kHz data, respectively. Although
eddy current instrument gain and noise considerations were not taken into account, the
a90/95 value for the experimental study [6] was found to be 0.606 mm, while for the case of
a 200 kHz driving frequency, the a90/95 value was predicted to be 0.505 mm, based on the
data obtained through modelling and transfer functions. This result indicates that by
lowering the testing frequency, one could achieve a smaller bolt hole eddy current a90/95
flaw size; not a trivial outcome. However, it should be considered that this is only a
demonstration exercise, used to illustrate the inclusion of modelled inspections into PoD
analysis. It does not claim that this would be the case for every bolt hole eddy current
inspection. For many of these cases, other factors would need to be taken into account,
especially uncontrolled variables, such as noise or tilt.

Case study #2
Another example, for the case of changing the electrical conductivity of the test part, is
included here for the practical relevance it has in the reliability studies of bolt hole eddy
current inspections. A change in electrical conductivity of the test piece is encountered
when different materials or alloys are used for the manufacture of various generations of
aircraft. The eddy current signatures, when 1 mm long, semi-elliptical crack is detected in
structures of electrical conductivities as detailed in Table 1, are shown in Figure 9.
 Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 65

Table 1. Materials and their conductivities analysed in this section.

Material Brass 7075 T6 Al 2014 T6 Al Pure Al Gold

Conductivity (MS/m) 14.5 18.5 22.0 35.4 42.6
Conductivity (%IACS) 25 32 38 61 73
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

Figure 9. Simulation results of the eddy current signal changes with increasing material
conductivity (given in %IACS); probe ‘scanning’ a 1 mm long, 0.25 mm deep semi-elliptical crack.

If the inspection procedure and signal feature for analysis, i.e. the amplitude of the vertical
component, are kept the same, the results shown in Figure 9 demonstrate that changing the test
piece conductivity (assuming that the material is not magnetic) does not significantly modify
the imaginary component of the eddy current response; therefore, the PoD outcome would
remain the same if the alloy type or the material of the structure is changed. This could have
considerable implications in the portability of the PoD data from one structure to another that
differ only by the materials, and the cost savings it could generate in such a case.

Summary and conclusions

PoD is a quantitative measure of NDT inspection reliability and it can have significant
implications in the structural integrity and safety of platforms managed by inspection.
However, the PoD is measured experimentally and not established for a technique or
method, but for a specific procedure, component and discontinuity combination; therefore,
the financial and personnel level of effort is substantial. Model-assisted PoD has the
capability to convert or transfer an empirical PoD study to new inspection cases, according
to changes in the procedure or the inspected part, at a significantly reduced cost.
The use of modelling in NDT provides tremendous information regarding the best
inspection parameters to be selected in a specific testing situation. Model-assisted PoD
aims at establishing transfer function relationships between NDT signals from real and
 66 C. Mandache et al.

simulated discontinuities (either physically or numerically). This could extend the range of
applications from a single study to a set of similar cases by changing the input parameters.
The ultimate goal of this work was to demonstrate how physics-based simulations have the
potential to substitute and complement experimental data in PoD studies, reducing costs,
effort and resources, while increasing platform availability.
The first case study included here represents a hybrid scheme, combining the transfer
function approach and the physics-based numerical models. This study illustrates the way
NDT data already collected could be used to predict the new set of data when changing one of
the test settings, in this situation – the eddy current driving frequency. The second case
discussed above demonstrated that when the structure’s material, and, consequently, electrical
conductivity changes, the eddy current signal feature of interest does not vary substantially,
resulting in a similar PoD curve, regardless the metallic alloy of the test piece.
Modelling could not fully replace empirical data collection for PoD studies, especially
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 15:40 28 December 2014

because of its inability to take into account environmental and human factors. However, it
could certainly help in reducing the expenditure associated with full-blown PoD studies,
using small data sets or transferring the PoD results from one testing condition to another,
without the need for repeating the whole statistical exercise. Combining modelling with
limited experiments, along with understanding of how most of the variables affect the
results in a quantifiable way, has the potential to greatly reduce the level of effort and cost
associated with empirical PoD studies.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Institute for
Aerospace Research (IAR) of the National Research Council Canada (NRC) and performed for the
Aerospace and Telecommunication Engineering Support Squadron (ATESS).

References
[1] Department of Defense Handbook, MIL-HDBK-1823A, Nondestructive Evaluation Reliability
Assessment, 7 April, 2009.
[2] A.W.F. Volker, F.H. Dijkstra, S. Terpstra, H.A.M. Heerings, and M.A. Lont, Modeling of
NDE reliability: Development of a ‘POD-Generator’, 16th WCNDT, Montreal, Canada,
August 30 – September 03, 2004.
[3] R.B. Thompson, A unified approach to the model-assisted determination of probability of
detection, Mater. Eval. 66(6) (2008), pp. 667– 673.
[4] R.B. Thompson, The role of model based inversion, Mater. Eval. 66(7) (2008), pp. 707– 712.
[5] C. Harding, G. Hugo, and S. Bowles, Model-assisted probability of detection validation
of automated ultrasonic scanning for crack detection at fastener holes, in Proceedings of
the 10th Joint FAA/DoD/NASA Conference on Aging Aircraft, Palm Springs, California, USA,
April 16 – 19, 2007.
[6] M. Khan, M. Yanishevsky, and A. Fahr, Bolt hole eddy current testing probability of detection,
Part I – Experimental design and data analysis, in The 12th International Conference on
Fracture, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, July 12 – 17, 2009.
[7] K. Shiraishi, M. Izumida, and K. Murakami, Estimation of depth and volume for defects by eddy
current testing, Elect. Eng. Jpn 127(4) (1999), pp. 29 – 38.
[8] A. Schumm and N. Nakagawa, Code validation for eddy current modeling: Tube inspection
with reflection differential probes, in Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive
Evaluation, D.O. Thompson and D.E. Chimenti, eds., AIP Conference Proceedings, Golden, CO,
25–30 July, Vol. 24, 2005, pp. 509–515.
[9] B.P.C. Rao and N. Nakagawa, Model based study of eddy current standard for inspection of
aerospace structures, in Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, D.O.
Thompson and D.E. Chimenti, eds., AIP Conference Proceedings, Golden, CO, 25 – 30 July,
Vol. 24, 2005, pp. 531– 538.