-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
wedge definition #3
Comments
Noted. The general reason for using vectors and avoiding angles in the file spec is to avoid confusion from the multiple conventions used in 3D for angles (cf. a vector which is unambiguous). However, there is a more general point about standardising the naming of optional fields used to represent common parameters (e.g. incidence and roof angles for TRL probes) which the user group should look at.
This should be possible within the current spec (Sec 4.3.2), by using the {probe}/WEDGE_SURFACE_POINT and {probe}/WEDGE_SURFACE_NORMAL parameters, which together define a plane representing the working surface of a wedge relative to the probe.
Either of those methods is allowed by the file spec: |
Thank you Paul! My comment was ambiguous...it was not about the (infinite) plane on which the transducer resides, but about the limits of the contact surface, i.e. the dimensions of the part of the wedge in contact with the specimen. |
Sorry - my mistake. I was wondering why I thought you couldn't do this before but that explains it. So an alternative that could be considered would be to allow WEDGE_SURFACE_POINT to specify multiple points that define the footprint of the wedge (as an alternative to specifying the surface normal). The points could be simply the corners of a polygon defining the footprint (although the spec would have to be clear on how this should be interpreted if >3 non-co-planar points are specified). |
We have implemented the MFMC 2 .0.0 specification for our UT propagation modeling software. I would like to comment on the wedge definition:
I would suggest not to use normal information, but the more familiar incidence and roof angles, which are less susceptible of rounding errors. In practice, manufacturers will always provide angles, and never normal vectors.
I found no way to represent the surface of the wedge in contact with the part. This is important for angle beam wedges, where some elements at the extreme ends of the transducer may have to be turned off when delay laws with large refracted angles are used.
Would TRL wedges be implemented in terms of two distinct wedges (for the transmitter and the receiver part), or as single wedge?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: