Ultrasonics 44 (2006) 93–98

www.elsevier.com/locate/ultras

Depth gauging of defects using low frequency wideband

Rayleigh waves
R.S. Edwards *, S. Dixon, X. Jian
Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

Received 8 June 2005; received in revised form 10 August 2005; accepted 13 August 2005
Available online 29 September 2005

Abstract

In non-destructive testing for cracks it is not sufficient to simply detect the presence of a defect, but it is essential to have an accurate
measure of the depth. Accurate calibration of the techniques used to gauge defect size is therefore necessary. Recent progress in the field
of non-contact ultrasonic testing has led to the development of a practically viable system for generating and detecting wideband Ray-
leigh waves on electrically conducting or magnetic samples using electro-magnetic acoustic transducers (EMATs). This system has been
used to gauge the depth and position of surface breaking defects, and has many applications including metal billet testing and detecting
and sizing gauge corner cracking in rails. In this paper we report experiments calibrating the response of EMATs when a defect is present
between the generator and receiver, using a calibration sample with slots machined perpendicular to the surface to simulate surface
breaking cracks. The depth of the defect can be gauged in the time domain and frequency domain, with an accurate ÔfingerprintÕ of
the position given by an enhancement of the signal when the receiver is close to the defect. The best choice of EMAT design for different
applications is discussed, as is the best position for the receive EMAT to avoid areas of interference between the Rayleigh wave and bulk
waves diffracted from the crack tip.

2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PACS: 43.38.+n; 81.70.Cv; 81.05.Bx; 42.62.Cf

Keywords: Ultrasound; Non-destructive testing; Surface defect; EMATs

1. Introduction There are several approaches to defect characterisation.

Non-destructive testing (NDT) is increasingly becoming
an essential tool in the manufacturing process, especially in
steel and aluminium casting, and for safety testing of struc-
tures and rails [1–3]. An NDT technique should be able to
locate the position of any defects present with the highest
possible detection accuracy, with defect sizing essential in
order to measure quality and safety. In many applications
surface defects may be present, for example gauge corner
cracking in rails [2,4]. In this case, a technique sensitive
to surface defects will give the highest probability of
detection.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 2476 574116; fax: +44 2476 692016.
E-mail address: r.s.edwards@warwick.ac.uk (R.S. Edwards).
One possibility is the use of ultrasonic surface waves,
namely Rayleigh waves on flat samples where the sample
thickness is significantly greater than the wavelength [5–
8]. Traditional ultrasonic testing techniques involve the
use of bulk waves generated by contacting transducers with
a coupling fluid between the transducer and the sample
under test, in which surface defects may be missed [2].
The scattering of Rayleigh waves from defects has been
studied in the time domain by several authors, both exper-
imentally and theoretically [8–15]. A sizing technique in the
frequency domain has been suggested [14,15]. Recent ad-
vances in the field of non-contact ultrasonic testing has
led to the possibility of using non-contact techniques, for
example laser generation [16,17], air coupled transducers,
or electro-magnetic acoustic transducers (EMATs) [5–
7,18,19] to generate and detect Rayleigh waves.

0041-624X/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ultras.2005.08.005
94 R.S. Edwards et al. / Ultrasonics 44 (2006) 93–98

In this paper we concentrate on NDT using EMATs. the mirror current (with velocity v) opposing this current
We have developed a system generating and detecting pulse will experience a force, F,
mainly Rayleigh waves using two EMATs in a pitch-catch F ¼ qv
ðBs þ Bd Þ; ð1Þ
configuration [5–7,10]. The majority of the energy in a
Rayleigh wave lies within one wavelength below the sample due to the interaction with the static field Bs into the sam-
surface; wavelengths longer than the defect depth will ple from a magnet which may be held above the coil and
mostly be able to pass under the crack, whereas those with the dynamic magnetic field Bd from the current pulse
shorter wavelengths will be effectively blocked [8]. In order [21]. This force will accelerate the electrons, which will in
to probe to depths typical of surface breaking defects in turn drag the atoms slightly and so create a transient force
rails and billets we use a low frequency wideband signal, and resulting ultrasonic displacement in the sample. In
with each pulse containing wavelengths between about 5 magnetic materials generation by the magnetoelastic mech-
and 25 mm. The presence of a defect between the EMATs anism is also possible. This is the magnetic equivalent of
will lead to a reduction in signal amplitude and a change in the piezoelectric effect; a distortion will occur in a magnetic
the frequency content of the pulse. material when a magnetic field is applied [7].
We report calibration experiments on an aluminium Different designs of EMAT coil will generate pulses with
sample containing slots ranging in depth from 0.5 to different characteristics. For example, a linear coil pro-
20 mm, each 1 mm wide. The experimental details are duced by wrapping a wire around a magnet will generate
introduced, and the changes in signal amplitude and fre- a highly directional wideband signal, whereas a spiral coil
quency content with depth are calibrated. Comparisons will be omnidirectional for surface waves. The experiments
are made to earlier measurements by Viktorov [8]. The reported here use either a linear coil consisting of six turns
variations in calibration between different designs of of 0.315 mm diameter wire, or a meander coil, to generate,
EMAT coil are discussed, and finally the correct position- and a 2.5 mm wide linear coil of 25 turns of 0.08 mm diam-
ing of an EMAT for accurate depth gauging is commented eter insulated copper wire to detect the signal [5–7,23], with
on. typical signals shown in Fig. 1. The EMATs are held a
fixed distance apart and can be kept at a fixed liftoff by
2. Experimental details use of a trolley. The EMATs can then be scanned along
a sample with the signal recorded using an analogue to dig-
The experimental details of the EMAT technique have ital data acquisition card and saved and analysed using a
been described elsewhere [7,19–22], and we will only talk Labview routine. For online experiments, using the
briefly about the mechanism here. EMATs can generate EMATs in Ôsingle-shotÕ mode would normally be required,
ultrasound on electrically conducting or magnetic samples however, for lab based experiments each signal is averaged
via the Lorentz mechanism or a magnetoelastic mecha- five times for improved signal to noise.
nism, with the EMATs coupling electromagnetically to
the sample and the ultrasound generated directly within 3. Experimental results
the sample skin depth [22]. No couplant is required, and
liftoffs to several millimetres above the sample are possible. 3.1. Depth calibration
A pulse generator sends a current with a peak value of
approximately 300 A with a duration of 5 ls through the In order to size defects in real samples, calibration sam-
coil forming part of the generating transducer. In the Lor- ples containing well characterised simulated defects are re-
entz force mechanism the electrons in the sample forming quired. Measurements on an aluminium bar of dimensions

40 1.2
Amplitude (arb.units)

1.0
20
Peak to peak amplitude

0.8
0
0.6

-20
0.4
No crack
2.5 mm slot
-40 5 mm 0.2
15 mm

54 56 58 60 62 64x10-6 0 5 10 15 20
(a) Time (s) (b) Slot depth (mm)

Fig. 1. (a) Calibration of the linear EMATs over a clear surface or either side of the 2.5, 5 and 15 mm deep slots; (b) the reduction in transmitted signal
(open points) plus the fit to equation 2 (solid line) and simulated curve from data in [8].
 R.S. Edwards et al. / Ultrasonics 44 (2006) 93–98
65 · 65 · 1000 mm are reported in this paper. The sample
contains slots machined normal to the sample surface to
depths ranging from 0.5 to 20 mm with a width of 1 mm,
where the separation between the slots is large enough that
reflections from other slots and sample ends do not inter-
fere with the signal of interest [6,10]. We compare our mea-
surements with earlier experiments using narrow band
transducers reported in Ref. [8]. This reference gives the
transmission and reflection coefficients as a function of
d/kR, where d is the depth of the slot and kR is the Rayleigh
wavelength.
We report first the calibration for a pair of linear
EMATs wound onto rectangular magnets, with the static
field of the generator oriented into the sample and that
of the receiver aligned along the sample surface, with a sep-
aration of 162.5 mm. This set-up is primarily sensitive to
out-of-plane motion. Other experiments presented later in
the paper use a meander generating coil and a linear receive
coil with its static magnetic field directed into the sample,
detecting mainly in-plane motion.
The dominant wavelength kR1 contained in the Rayleigh
wave pulse using the pair of linear coils described above is
approximately 15 mm. Fig. 1(a) shows the change in signal
amplitude as the EMATs are moved from over a clear sec-
tion of sample (solid line) to either side of the 2.5, 5 or
15 mm deep slots (broken lines) with the slot situated close
to the mid-point between the two EMATs. The amplitude
of the signal is reduced by an amount dependent on the slot
depth as wavelengths less than the depth of the slot will be
effectively blocked, while the longer wavelengths are able to
pass under and are detected by the receive EMAT. The
proportion of reflected or transmitted surface wave energy
will depend on the crack depth and the wavelength of the
signal through the reflection and transmission coefficients.
The change in peak to peak amplitude of the signal
transmitted under each slot has been measured and the re-
sults are shown in Fig. 1(b) as open points, with the peak to
peak signal for the EMATs over a clear section of surface
normalised to one. The change in amplitude has an approx-
imately 1/depth dependence. We have fitted the data (fit
shown as a solid line) to the equation
amplitude ¼ A þ ½B=ðd þ CÞ; ð2Þ
where d is again the slot depth and A, B and C are con-
stants of the fit with measured values A = 0.3 ± 0.2,
B = 6.5 ± 4.2 and C = 4.6 ± 2.5. For the slot of depth
0.5 mm the amplitude of the signal rises when the EMATs
are either side of the slot. This is an effect due to the width
of the slot being greater than the depth.
Many authors report transmission and reflection data as
a function of d/kR rather than d [8]. As we have a wideband
pulse each Rayleigh wave will contain many wavelengths
and it is difficult to transform the data directly to this nota-
tion. Alternatively, we can calculate a transmission coeffi-
cient using the Viktorov data for a pulse with a specified
frequency content. As a first approximation to our Ray-
leigh wave pulse we have assumed a constant frequency
95
content between 100 and 300 kHz in each pulse (see
Fig. 4) and calculated the expected transmitted signal
amplitude as a function of slot depth by taking an average
of the Viktorov transmission coefficient over this range of
wavelengths (using data from Ref. [8]). This is shown as
a dotted line in Fig. 1(b), and is seen to agree very well with
the data measured in these experiments. Similar results are
found when using the meander generating coil set-up, with
good agreement with the Viktorov data when the slightly
different frequency content of the waves is taken into ac-
count (see Fig. 4, inset).
A ÔfingerprintÕ of the position of a defect when scanning
slowly is an enhancement of the signal when the receive
EMAT is close to the defect [6,24]. As the receive EMAT
approaches the slot interference can be seen between the
surface wave passing directly from the generation to the re-
ceive EMAT and those waves reflected back from the slot.
At a point very close to the crack constructive interference
occurs and an enhancement of the signal is seen. This effect
depends partly on the reflected Rayleigh wave, and hence
the reflection coefficient, and partly on mode conversion
at the defect [25]. The enhancement of the signal as a func-
tion of slot depth using the linear EMAT pair is shown in
Fig. 2 (solid points), with the enhancement reaching a value
of around 1.5 for deep slots, measured at a liftoff of
0.1 mm. The enhancement values were measured by taking
the peak to peak signal at the point where the signal is
greatest and normalising to the averaged signal measured
far from the defect in the scan.
For a wide receive coil the dominant effect will be from
interference between the direct and reflected Rayleigh
waves, as the mode converted waves only have significant
amplitude very close to the defect and their effect will be
smoothed out by a wide coil [25]. Mode converted surface
skimming longitudinal waves will also have more effect on
the in-plane motion than the out-of-plane motion mea-
sured by this receive EMAT. It is therefore possible to
1.5
Signal enhancement
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0 5 10 15 20
Slot depth (mm)
Fig. 2. The enhancement of the signal with the receiver very close to each
slot (points), plus simulation of the behaviour from the reflection
coefficient assuming a constant frequency content between 100 and
300 kHz (line).
96 R.S. Edwards et al. / Ultrasonics 44 (2006) 93–98

compare these enhancements and the reflection coefficient Fig. 3(b) as a function of crack depth. These points again
measurements in Ref. [8], by assuming that the enhanced have an approximately 1/depth dependence. As a simple
signal amplitude is a simple addition of the amplitude of estimate, if all wavelengths less than the depth of the slot
the direct signal and the reflected signal. We again assume are blocked, we would expect a fit of fc = cR/d, where fc
a constant frequency content in our pulse between 100 and is the cut-off frequency in this case and cR is the Rayleigh
300 kHz, and take an average of the measured reflection wave velocity, which is 2906 m/s in aluminium. A fit to
coefficient over this range. The solid line in Fig. 2 is the ex- equation 2 (solid line) gives the constants A = 50 ± 46,
pected enhancement calculated using this approximation B = 2111 ± 96 and C = 0.31 ± 0.01 using frequency in
and assuming that the enhancement is entirely due to kHz and depth in mm, which agrees in form with the sim-
reflections from the slot. Enhancements agree well; some ple estimate. The discrepancy between B and the known
discrepancies for deeper slots may be due to the lack of value for cR shows that the cut-off frequency defined in this
data at high enough values of d/kR in [8]. Similar results paper is lower than the simple estimate given above sug-
are again found using the meander coil set-up. gests, with the fit suggesting that wavelengths of less than
The change in signal amplitude on moving the EMATs 73% of the crack depth are effectively blocked. For this
from a clear part of surface to either side of an unknown fit C gives the error in making the slot to the required
defect can be compared to the amplitude calibration for depths as 0.31 ± 0.01 mm, which is within manufacturing
the particular EMAT combination and a measurement of error.
the defect depth from the change in signal amplitude Ref. [23] reports measurements on defects on the rail-
gained. This, however, requires an initial measurement head, in particular on samples with closely spaced surface
over a defect free section of surface. When multiple cracks cracking which have been removed from service. The rail-
are present between the EMATs further portions of the sig- head is partially corroded leading to changes in liftoff. In
nal will be reflected back towards the generating EMAT these experiments the frequency calibration was used to
and the depth can be overestimated. Changes in liftoff will give a measure of the defect depths, with the deepest defect
also change the signal amplitude, whereas the frequency between the EMATs dominating. In general, a measure-
content remains fairly constant with liftoff and this can also ment of a clean sample using the change in amplitude will
be used for depth gauging [23]. give a more accurate value for the depth, however, the
Changes in the fast Fourier transform (FFT) are difficult change in frequency content is affected primarily by the
to quantify. However, they become clearer when they are deepest defect with changes in liftoff having only a small
normalised by the FFT over a clear section of surface. effect, and therefore may be more useful online.
When a defect is present the region of the normalised
FFT corresponding to the main frequency content of the 3.2. Choice of EMATs for different applications
pulse (for the linear EMATs, 100–300 kHz, Fig. 4 (inset))
shows a slope, as shown in Fig. 3(a) for several different The previous section has described the results of exper-
slot depths. We can define a cut-off frequency that is easily iments using a pair of linear coils. In some cases a different
measurable by applying a linear fit to the slope (dotted lines design of generator coil may give better results, for example
in Fig. 3(a)) and measuring the frequency at which the fit using a meander design of generator coil gives a strong sig-
crosses the frequency axis, and defining this as a cut-off fre- nal on rails and is able to be used in single shot mode after
quency. For the two deepest slots measured the normalised filtering [23]. This coil generates a highly directional signal
FFT shows a minimum in the main region of frequency with large amplitude, but has a narrower band signal than
content and this was used as the cut-off frequency. the linear coil, leading to a slightly lower accuracy in depth
The frequencies at which the fits have zero magnitude in gauging from the frequency content due to the smaller
the FFT were recorded and are plotted as solid points in range of wavelengths used to probe a crack. In other appli-

2000
1.4
Cut-off frequency (kHz)

1.2 1 mm
Normalised FFT

1500
1.0
0.8 2.5 mm 1000
0.6
10 mm
0.4 500
0.2
20 mm 0
0.0 *
100 150 200 250 300 0 5 10 15 20
(a) Frequency (kHz) (b) Crack depth (mm)

Fig. 3. Calibration by frequency content: (a) shows the normalised FFTs and the linear fits used to define a cut-off frequency; (b) shows the behaviour of
the cut-off frequency with depth.
 R.S. Edwards et al. / Ultrasonics 44 (2006) 93–98
cations an EMAT generating signal in all directions, such
as a spiral coil, may be required in order to test a larger sec-
tion of the sample in one pulse using an array of receive
EMATs.
The difference in the frequency contents of the pulses for
different designs of generator coil means that the amplitude
calibrations will also vary. The current experimental set-up
for the meander coil involves a cylindrical magnet held
above the generating coil and a linear receive coil wound
on a cylindrical magnet with the field directed into the sam-
ple, separated by 150 mm [6,23]. We show in Fig. 4 a com-
parison of the amplitude depth calibration of the meander
coil set-up (open triangles, dotted line) and the linear coil
set-up discussed above (solid points, solid line), with the in-
set showing the frequency content of the Rayleigh waves
for each coil. It can be seen from this inset that the meander
coil is less wideband than the linear coil, and contains less
low-frequency content. This in turn leads to the amplitude-
depth slope tending to zero for deeper slots, due to the
presence of fewer long wavelengths in each pulse.
Another consideration in choice of coil is the enhance-
ment effect, which may be seen both as the receive EMAT
and the generator EMAT pass over the defect (see, for
example, Fig. 5(b); when using two similar width linear
coils to generate and detect a similar strength enhancement
1.2
4 linear
Normalised amplitude
1.0 meander
3
FFT
0.8
2
1
0.6
0
0 200 400
0.4
Frequency (Hz)
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15
Crack depth (mm)
Fig. 4. Comparison of amplitude calibrations and frequency contents of
pulses from linear and meander generating coils.
Fig. 5. Scanning over the 5 mm slot. (a) B-scan described in the text; (b) peak to peak amplitude of the Rayleigh wave signal (arbitrary units).
97
is observed as both EMATs pass over the slot). When scan-
ning slowly and using the enhancement as an indication of
a crack, it may be more beneficial to have a difference be-
tween these two enhancements in order to distinguish
them. When using a coil such as the meander coil the
enhancement effect is spread out as the different sections
of the generator coil pass over the crack, and the two
enhancements are easily distinguishable.
The meander coil set-up has been tested and calibrated
as above, and gives similar results to the linear coil set-
up. This calibration has been used in later experiments
on rails to be reported in Ref. [23], where the benefit of
the strong signal on steel samples outweighs the need for
the widest possible frequency range for depth gauging.
3.3. Positioning of detection EMAT
In most of the experiments reported here scans of the
sample have been taken, with the EMATs moved in small
steps towards the defect. For this case we can take an aver-
age of the signals measured far from the slot to gain accu-
rate values for the signals with both EMATs on the same
side and for the EMATs on either side of each slot.
We show in Fig. 5 the results of a scan using two linear
EMATs wound onto cylindrical magnets with their fields
oriented into the sample, held at a fixed separation of
150 mm. In Fig. 5(a) a B-scan formed from scanning the
EMATs from both being on one side of the 5 mm deep slot
(distance is negative) to both EMATs being on the other
side (distance P150 mm) is shown, with the peak to peak
amplitude (arbitrary units) plotted in (b) as a function of
position. The B-scan is arranged so that time is along the
x-axis, scanning distance with the slot under the receive
600x10
3 EMAT set as zero is on the y-axis, and the signal level is
shown by the brightness of the plot. The Rayleigh wave
is the feature at 55 ls, with the reflections from the slot
moving in time with distance.
Fig. 5(b) shows the measurement of the peak to peak
20
signal during the scan. With either the receive or generator
EMAT close to the slot (at 0 or 150 mm) an enhancement
of the signal is seen. With the EMATs both on the same
side of the slot, away from the region where interference
98 R.S. Edwards et al. / Ultrasonics 44 (2006) 93–98
is measured, the signal is steady. With the EMATs on
either side of the slot the signal drops, and in the region
where the slot is close to the centre point of the EMATs
the signal is again steady. With either EMAT close to the
slot, however, the peak to peak amplitude of the signal var-
ies due to the waves diffracted from the slot tip interfering
with those passing under the slot, causing a modulation of
the signal dependant on the distance from the crack (arrival
times of the new signals). The behaviour settles down once
x/kR1 P 3 [11]. It is important when measuring crack
depths to ensure that the EMATs are far enough away
from the crack so that the diffracted waves do not arrive
at the detector EMAT at a similar time to the Rayleigh
wave.
4. Conclusions
Using EMATs to generate and detect Rayleigh waves is
a suitable method for detecting and sizing surface breaking
defects, both in the time and frequency domains. We have
shown that the EMATs can be calibrated using an alumin-
ium bar containing various depth slots, and the change in
signal amplitude and frequency content recorded and fit-
ted. This calibration can then be used to size defects in real
samples when a wave can first be recorded over a clear sec-
tion of the sample.
The signal amplitude follows an approximately inverse
variation with depth, with slight changes in calibration be-
tween different EMATs due to the different frequency con-
tents. In many applications, for example gauge corner
cracking, many surface defects may be clustered together,
which will lead to a larger reduction of the signal amplitude
and an overestimation of the crack depth. However, a cut-
off frequency can still be defined and measured in all cases
[23]. The cut-off frequencies measured in the experiments
reported here again follow an approximately 1/d depen-
dence, as expected from a simple estimate. The error in
the slot depths measured from the fit to the frequency
cut-off is within manufacturing error.
Measurements taken using wideband transducers gen-
erating and detecting Rayleigh waves in a non-contact
manner have been compared to earlier experiments using
narrow-band sources [8]. We have shown that the trans-
mission and reflection coefficients measured in those
experiments reproduce our data well. The good agree-
ment between the reflection coefficient measurements
and our enhancement measurements show that the major-
ity of the enhancement effect when using a wide receive
coil is due to reflections from the slots interfering con-
structively with the signal passing directly between the
two EMATs.
In typical online use an array of EMATs will be scanned
across a sample, with the signals analysed and a map of the
positions and characteristics of each defect generated. At
the crack waves are diffracted and mode conversion occurs,
and it is important to measure the changes in signal at a po-
sition where the detecting EMAT is sufficiently far from the
crack. In online applications an array of EMATs should
overcome problems due to this effect.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the EPSRC under Grant GR/
S24435/01. We thank John Reed for his assistance.
References
[1] J. Blitz, G. Simpson, Ultrasonic Methods of Non-destructive Testing,
Chapman & Hall, 1996.
[2] D.F. Cannon, K.-O. Edel, S.L. Grassie, K. Sawley, Fatigue Fract.
Eng. Mater. Struct. 26 (2003) 865–887.
[3] R.W. Irving, Continuous Casting of Steel, Institute of Materials
publishing, 1993.
[4] P.R. Armitage, Insight 44 (2002) 369.
[5] S. Dixon, R.S. Edwards, X. Jian, Insight 46 (6) (2004) 326.
[6] R.S. Edwards, S. Dixon, X. Jian, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 37 (2004)
2291.
[7] S.B. Palmer, S. Dixon, Insight 45 (3) (2003) 211.
[8] I.A. Viktorov, Rayleigh and Lamb Waves, Plenum Press, 1967.
[9] G. Hevin, O. Abraham, H.A. Pedersen, M. Campillo, NDT&E Int.
31 (1998) 289–297.
[10] R.S. Edwards, S. Dixon, X. Jian, Rev. Prog. QNDE 24 B (2004)
1568–1575.
[11] B.Q. Vu, V.K. Kinra, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 77 (1985) 1425–1430.
[12] R.J. Blake, L.J. Bond, Ultrasonics 30 (1992) 255–265.
[13] M. Munasinghe, G.W. Farnell, J. Geophys. Res. 78 (1973) 2454–
2466.
[14] J.A. Cooper, R.J. Dewhurst, S.B. Palmer, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. A
320 (1986) 319–328.
[15] C.M. Scala, S.J. Bowles, Rev. Prog. QNDE (2000) 327–334.
[16] C.B. Scruby, Ultrasonics 27 (1989) 195.
[17] R.J. Dewhurst, C. Edwards, S.B. Palmer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 49 (7)
(1986) 374.
[18] S. Dixon, C. Edwards, S.B. Palmer, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 35 (2002)
816.
[19] H.M. Frost, Physical Acoustics XIV, Academic, New York, 1979,
p. 179.
[20] E.R. Dobbs, Physical Acoustics X, Academic, New York, 1973,
p. 127.
[21] X. Jian, S. Dixon, R.S. Edwards, Insight 46 (2004) 671.
[22] X. Jian, S. Dixon, R.S. Edwards, NDT&E, in press.
[23] R.S. Edwards, S. Dixon, X. Jian, submitted for publication.
[24] A.K. Kromine, P.A. Fomitchov, S. Krishnaswamy, J.D. Achenbach,
Mater. Eval. 58 (2) (2000) 173.
[25] R.S. Edwards, X. Jian, S. Dixon, Y. Fan, Appl. Phys. Lett., in press.