Bell, T., B. Li, and S. Zhang. 2016. “Structured Light Techniques and
Applications.” In Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, 1–24. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. https://doi.
org/10.1002/047134608X.W8298.
Besl, P. J., and N. D. McKay. 1992. “A method for registration of 3-D
shapes.” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 14
(2): 239–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.121791.
Blais, F. 2004. “Review of 20 years of range sensor development.” Journal of
Electronic Imaging 13 (1): 231. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.1631921.
Bosch, J. A. 1995. Coordinate Measuring Machines and Systems. 1st edition.
CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-82479-581-8.
Flack, D., and J. Hannaford. 2005. Measurement Good Practice Guide,
No. 80: Fundamental Good Practice in Dimensional Metrology. United
Kingdom: National Physical Laboratory. ISSN 1368-6550.
Fraser, C. 2001. “Automated vision metrology: A mature technology for
industrial inspection and engineering surveys.” Australian Surveyor 46 (1):
5–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050326.2001.10441937.
Garmendia, I., J. Leunda, J. Pujana, and A. Lamikiz. 2018. “In-process
height control during laser metal deposition based on structured light
3D scanning.” Procedia CIRP 68: 375–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2017.12.098.
Gupta, M., A. Agrawal, A. Veeraraghavan, and S. G. Narasimhan. 2011.
“Structured light 3D scanning in the presence of global illumination.”
CVPR 2011: 713–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2011.5995321.
Kaiser, M., B. Brusa, M. Bertsch, M. Wyss, S. Cukovic, G. Meixner, and V.
M. Koch. 2024. “Extrinsic Calibration for a Modular 3D Scanning Quality
Validation Platform with a 3D Checkerboard.” Sensors (Basel) 24 (5): 1575.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s24051575.
Kratky, A. 2019. “Bin Picking System: Automation of Hot Forming and
Laser Cutting Processes.” Photonics Views 16 (5): 69–71. https://doi.
org/10.1002/phvs.201970512.
Lee, H., and M. Y. Kim. 2020. “Automatic Optical Inspection System with
Telecentric Optics and Phase-measuring Profilometry for Highly Accurate
Localization of Electronic Packages.” International Journal of Control,
Automation, and Systems 18 (8): 2120–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-
019-0887-6.
Melichercik, M., L. Gajdosech, V. Kocur, and M. Madaras. 2023. “Super-
sampling of Data from Structured-light Scanner with Deep Learning.” 2023
World Symposium on Digital Intelligence for Systems and Machines (DISA):
167–173. https://doi.org/10.1109/DISA59116.2023.10308923.
Oddy, M. 2015. “The Infamous No-Go Gage.” Quality Magazine 54 (1): 26.
https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/92337-the-infamous-no-go-gage.
Park, J., and A. Kak. 2008. “3D Modeling of Optically Challenging Objects.”
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14 (2): 246–62.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2007.1069.
Pate, M. A. 1998. “Optical design and specification of telecentric optical
systems.” Proceedings SPIE 3482. International Optical Design Conference,
21 September 1998, Kona, Hawaii. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.322029.
Schwenke, H., U. Neuschaefer-Rube, T. Pfeifer, and H. Kunzmann. 2002.
“Optical Methods for Dimensional Metrology in Production Engineering.”
CIRP Annals 51 (2): 685–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61707-7.
Shirmohammadi, S., and A. Ferrero. 2014. “Camera as the instrument:
The rising trend of vision based measurement.” IEEE Instrumenta-
tion &Measurement Magazine 17 (3): 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/
MIM.2014.6825388.
Socconini, L. 2007. Lean Six Sigma Black Belt, Certification manual. 3rd
edition. Scottsdale, Arizona: Open Source Six Sigma. ISBN 978-8-41910-
968-2.
Wagner, S., and J. Agapiou. 2024. “Optical inspection of stator slots
for electric motors.” Manufacturing Letters 41: 103–12. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2024.09.014.
Wang, W.-C., S.-L. Chen, L.-B. Chen, and W.-J. Chang. 2017. “A Machine
Vision Based Automatic Optical Inspection System for Measuring Drilling
Quality of Printed Circuit Boards.” IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open
Solutions 5: 10817–10833. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2631658.
Watanabe, M., and S. K. Nayar. 1996. “Telecentric optics for computational
vision.” Computer Vision – ECCV 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
1065: 439–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61123-1_159.
Yang, T., and F. Gu. 2024. “Overview of modulation techniques for spatially
structured-light 3D imaging.” Optics &Laser Technology 169: 110037.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2023.110037.
Zaidan, J., A. Poupardin, A. Bennabi, F. Marin, and A. Benamar. 2024.
“Novel 3D Structural-Light Scanner Technique for Continuous Monitoring
of Pier Scour in Laboratory.” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 12
(9): 1566. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12091566.
ME
|
ELECTRICVEHICLES
44
M AT E R I A L S E V A L U AT I O N • J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 6

ABSTRACT
Ultrasonic nondestructive evaluation of lithium-ion
batteries increasingly relies on frequency response
analysis to ensure probing sensitivity and reliability.
These batteries exhibit a complex multilayer internal
structure, resembling composite material systems,
which gives rise to frequency-dependent wave–battery
interaction dynamics. This necessitates identifying the
critical frequency response characteristics of batteries
to inform testing configuration parameters. However,
conventional frequency sweep techniques employing
narrow-band tonebursts are inefficient and less
suitable for high-throughput environments. This study
presents an efficient ultrasonic strategy for identifying
the frequency response structure of multilayer
batteries using frequency-modulated chirp excitations.
By introducing parameterized chirp excitations with
tailored time-frequency trajectories, the authors
demonstrate improved spectral coverage and reduced
excitation redundancy compared to conventional
toneburst sweeps across multiple simulation cases.
KEYWORDS: nondestructive testing, lithium-ion batteries,
multilayer system, ultrasonic frequency response, frequency-
modulated excitations, high-throughput characterization
1. Introduction
Evaluating the structural integrity, operational safety, and
material degradation of lithium-ion batteries has become a key
concern across manufacturing (Gervillié-Mouravieff et al. 2024
McGovern et al. 2023), maintenance (Gervillié-Mouravieff et
al. 2024 Zuo et al. 2025), and recycling processes (Zhao et al.
2025). As lithium-ion batteries are increasingly deployed in
electric vehicles, aerospace systems, and stationary storage
apparatus, the demand for reliable and efficient character-
ization tools continues to grow. Internally, these batteries
exhibit complex multilayer architectures comprising stacked
electrodes, separators, and current collectors, enclosed within
tightly packed casing structures (McGovern et al. 2023 Wang
et al. 2024). This multilayer construction governs not only their
electrochemical performance but also their mechanical and
acoustic behaviors, posing challenges for subsurface inspection
and state identification (Gou et al. 2024 Wang et al. 2024).
Nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques are thus
essential for providing noninvasive and scalable solutions
for quality assurance and in situ characterization (Gervillié-
Mouravieff et al. 2024 Zuo et al. 2025). Among these, ultrasonic
NDE methods have gained increasing attention for battery
characterization due to their ability to probe internal mechan-
ical structures and track electrochemical states through wave-
based sensing (Wang et al. 2024 Gou et al. 2024 Williams et al.
2024). Their flexible configuration, suitable penetration depth,
and physical sensitivity make them a valuable complement to
electrochemical, electrical, and optical techniques, particularly
in high-throughput and real-time applications (Zuo et al. 2025).
Ultrasound probes the internal physics of batteries through
wave–material interactions, offering a direct mechanical pathway
for structural and compositional assessment. Various ultrasonic
modes—such as longitudinal and guided waves—have been
employed to characterize electrode materials, embedded defects
and bubbles, mechanical properties, electrolyte distribution,
lithium plating, thermal behaviors, and both state-of-charge
(SOC) and state-of-health (SOH) across different measurement
configurations (Zuo et al. 2025 Gou et al. 2024 Wang et al. 2024
Williams et al. 2024). Among these configurations, the pulse-
echo setup has gained particular traction for SOC/SOH evalua-
tion due to its simplicity and flexibility (Wang et al. 2024 Gou et
al. 2024). In this context, both time-domain metrics (e.g., time
EFFICIENT IDENTIFICATION OF THE
ULTRASONIC FREQUENCY RESPONSE
STRUCTURE OF MULTILAYER BATTERIES
USING FREQUENCY-MODULATED
EXCITATIONS: A SIMULATION STUDY
YUANKAI REN*†, MING HUANG†‡, YATISH PATEL†, FREDERIC CEGLA†, AND BO LAN*†
† Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London,
SW7 2AZ, UK
‡ Department of Engineering and Design, University of Sussex, Brighton,
BN1 9RH, UK
*Corresponding authors: y.ren22@imperial.ac.uk, yuankai.ren@outlook.com
bo.lan@imperial.ac.uk
Materials Evaluation 84 (1): 45–53
https://doi.org/10.32548/2026.me-04554
©2026 American Society for Nondestructive Testing
NDTTECHPAPER
|
ME
J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 6 • M AT E R I A L S E V A L U AT I O N 45