By Topic

Theory of eddy current inversion

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $31
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

2 Author(s)
Norton, Stephen J. ; University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, United Kingdom ; Bowler, J.R.

Your organization might have access to this article on the publisher's site. To check, click on this link:http://dx.doi.org/+10.1063/1.353359 

The inverse eddy current problem can be described as the task of reconstructing an unknown distribution of electrical conductivity from eddy‐current probe impedance measurements recorded as a function of probe position, excitation frequency, or both. In eddy current nondestructive evaluation, this is widely recognized as a central theoretical problem whose solution is likely to have a significant impact on the characterization of flaws in conducting materials. Because the inverse problem is nonlinear, we propose using an iterative least‐squares algorithm for recovering the conductivity. In this algorithm, the conductivity distribution sought minimizes the mean‐square difference between the predicted and measured impedance values. The gradient of the impedance plays a fundamental role since it tells us how to update the conductivity in such a way as to guarantee a reduction in the mean‐square difference. The impedance gradient is obtained in analytic form using function‐space methods. The resulting expression is independent of the type of discretization ultimately chosen to approximate the flaw, and thus has greater generality than an approach in which discretization is performed first. The gradient is derived from the solution to two forward problems: an ordinary and an ‘‘adjoint’’ problem. In contrast, a finite difference computation of the gradient requires the solution of multiple forward problems, one for each unknown parameter used in modeling the flaw. Two general types of inverse problems are considered: the reconstruction of a conductivity distribution, and the reconstruction of the shape of an inclusion or crack whose conductivity is known or assumed to be zero. A layered conductor with unknown layer conductivities is treated as an example of the first type of inversion problem. An ellipsoidal crack is presented as an example of the second type of inversion problem.    

Published in:

Journal of Applied Physics  (Volume:73 ,  Issue: 2 )