Lan, X., B. Hu, S. Wang, W. Luo, and P. Fu. 2022. “Magnetic charac-
teristics and mechanism of 304 austenitic stainless steel under fatigue
loading.” Engineering Failure Analysis 136: 106182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2022.106182.
Rosell, A., and G. Persson. 2012. “Finite element modelling of closed
cracks in eddy current testing.” International Journal of Fatigue 41: 30–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.12.003.
Shimamoto, A., H. Ohkawara, S. Yang, D. Choi, and S. Akamatsu.
2008. “Damage evaluation using magnetic properties in stainless steels
under biaxial stress.” Materials Transactions 49 (3): 548–53. https://doi.
org/10.2320/matertrans.MRA2007245.
Tanaka, M., and H. Tsuboi. 2001. “Finite element model of natural crack
in eddy current testing problem.” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 37 (5):
3125–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/20.952558.
Thompson, R. B. 1996. “Laboratory nondestructive evaluation technology
for materials characterization.” Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation 15
(3–4): 163–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732043.
Tomizawa, T., and N. Yusa. 2024. “Bayesian data fusion of eddy current
testing for flaw characterization with uncertainty evaluation.” NDT &E
International 141: 102996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2023.102996.
Uchimoto, T., T. Takagi, K. Ohtaki, Y. Takeda, and A. Kawakami. 2012.
“Electromagnetic modeling of fatigue cracks in plant environment for eddy
current testing.” International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and
Mechanics 39 (1–4): 261–68. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAE-2012-1469.
Wang, J., N. Yusa, H. Pan, M. Kemppainen, I. Virkkunen, and H. Hashi-
zume. 2013. “Discussion of modeling of thermal fatigue cracks in numer-
ical simulation based on eddy current signals.” NDT &E International 55:
96–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2013.01.012.
Xie, S., L. Wei, Z. Tong, H. Chen, Z. Chen, T. Uchimoto, and T. Takagi. 2018.
“Influence of plastic deformation and fatigue damage on electromagnetic
properties of 304 austenitic stainless steel.” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics
54 (8): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2018.2819123.
Yusa, N., Z. Chen, K. Miya, T. Uchimoto, and T. Takagi. 2003. “Large-scale
parallel computation for the reconstruction of natural stress corrosion
cracks from eddy current testing signals.” NDT &E International 36 (7):
449–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8695(03)00067-7.
Yusa, N., L. Janousek, M. Rebican, Z. Chen, K. Miya, N. Dohi, N. Chigusa,
and Y. Matsumoto. 2006. “Caution when applying eddy current inversion
to stress corrosion cracking.” Nuclear Engineering and Design 236 (2):
211–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2005.06.016.
Yusa, N., H. Huang, and K. Miya. 2007a. “Numerical evaluation of the
ill-posedness of eddy current problems to size real cracks.” NDT &E Inter-
national 40 (3): 185–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2006.10.012.
Yusa, N., S. Perrin, K. Mizuno, and K. Miya. 2007b. “Numerical modeling
of general cracks from the viewpoint of eddy current simulations.” NDT &
E International 40 (8): 577–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2007.04.002.
Yusa, N., and H. Hashizume. 2009. “Evaluation of stress corrosion cracking
as a function of its resistance to eddy currents.” Nuclear Engineering and
Design 239 (12): 2713–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.08.032.
Yusa, N., and H. Hashizume. 2017. “Numerical investigation of the ability
of eddy current testing to size surface breaking cracks.” Nondestructive
Testing and Evaluation 32 (1): 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10589759
.2015.1135918.
ME
|
FATIGUECRACKS
80
M AT E R I A L S E V A L U AT I O N • A U G U S T 2 0 2 5

LEADERSHIP
|
SCOPE
LET ME SPEAK FREELY
I recently attended an international conference on nondestructive
testing (NDT) in Niagara Falls, Ontario, put on by the Pan-American
Federation for Nondestructive Testing (PANNDT), of which ASNT is a
member. Kudos to our friends to the north at the Canadian Institute for
Non-destructive Evaluation (CINDE), who organized and hosted the very
successful event.
I welcome the opportunity to attend such events, as I get to connect
with colleagues from around the world and discuss important issues
in the field of NDT as well as matters pertinent to managing a national
NDT society. The feedback I receive at these conferences informs how
we position ASNT, shapes the programs and services we provide to
members, and helps identify opportunities for improvement. I’d like to
share some of the feedback provided to me from the recent PANNDT
event.
The overwhelming majority of feedback from international colleagues
is that they look to ASNT to be a global leader for the field. We were
one of the first NDT societies formed, and we set the global standards
for personnel qualification through the SNT-TC-1A Recommended
Practice and the ASNT NDT Level III certification. The US has the largest
economy and the most innovation (in my opinion), and ASNT has the
most resources (I have not validated this claim, but it is the perception).
This feedback matches the feedback the Board of Directors gathered
during its recent stakeholder outreach project as part of the Vision 2035
strategic planning process. In short, ASNT is highly respected by our
international colleagues, and they expect us to lead.
However, there was a series of interesting perspectives from people at
the conference that I’d like to focus on. A well-known researcher shared
their concern that research seems less important to ASNT than before
a very accomplished Level III expressed concern that ASNT “has been
taken over by the equipment companies” a young professional said
they are trying to find the value ASNT provides as they pursue Level II
certification and make their way in the profession a senior professional
shared that they drifted away from ASNT because, some years ago,
certain individuals got into power to serve their own personal interests
lastly, a highly respected executive in the aerospace industry said they
don’t engage with ASNT as much as they could because they view us as
focused exclusively on the energy industries—specifically the oil and gas
sector.
First, I respect each of these individuals for having the courage to
provide their feedback directly to me. Sometimes it’s easier to sit back
and avoid the discussion to steer clear of unpleasantness. Second, each
and every comment I received has validity after all, we’re talking about
individual perceptions, not facts or figures. All feedback goes into “the
hopper” to help inform ASNT’s Board on the Society’s direction.
Now let me share some thoughts on these issues.
NEAL J. COUTURE,
FASAE, CAE
ASNT CEO
NCOUTURE@ASNT.ORG
If you or your
organization are
anywhere in the
NDT ecosystem,
ASNT must position
itself to help you.
You all have a
seat at the ASNT
table—for the
advancement of the
NDT field.
A U G U S T 2 0 2 5 • M AT E R I A L S E V A L U AT I O N 81