An improved magnetic dipole model for MFL testing based on non-uniform magnetic charge distribution
Source abstract
Abstract
Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) signal prediction is important in ferromagnetic defect evaluation and reconstruction. At present, the magnetic dipole model (MDM) is the most widely applied method because of its high efficiency. However, it has low accuracy when applied to analysing complex defects (complex in profile and magnetic permeability) due to the original setting of uniform magnetic charge distribution. To solve the issue, this paper proposes an improved MDM method for MFL inspection of ferromagnetic materials by calculating the non-uniform magnetic charge distribution. It partly applies the finite volume method (FVM) to derive the magnetic charge distribution on the defect surface, which makes it able to take into account the defect’s profile and magnetic permeability distribution. The new magnetic charge distribution can increase the MDM’s accuracy for complex defect MFL field prediction with little extra cost. Experimental results show that, when compared with traditional MDM, the proposed one can achieve a maximum 69% decrease in root mean squared error when analysing complex defects. Compared with the numerical method, the computation time could reach a great reduction.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Magnetic Field Sensors Techniques · Geophysical Methods and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Automation Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · Sichuan Science and Technology Planning Projec
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1109/TMAG.2018.285820110.1109/TMAG.2018.2858201 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2022.10274910.1016/j.ndteint.2022.102749 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2012.08.01210.1016/j.ndteint.2012.08.012 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2018.09.01110.1016/j.ndteint.2018.09.011 ↗
5. 10.1063/1.368496910.1063/1.3684969 ↗
6. 10.1063/5.008855410.1063/5.0088554 ↗
7. 10.1515/msr-2016-000210.1515/msr-2016-0002 ↗
8. 10.1109/TIM.2022.322027310.1109/TIM.2022.3220273 ↗
9. 10.3233/JAE-14002210.3233/JAE-140022 ↗
10. 10.1109/TMAG.2012.220811910.1109/TMAG.2012.2208119 ↗
11. 10.1109/TMAG.2012.220773210.1109/TMAG.2012.2207732 ↗
12. 10.3390/machines1011109110.3390/machines10111091 ↗
13. 10.1049/iet-smt.2014.017310.1049/iet-smt.2014.0173 ↗
14. 10.1063/1.155869310.1063/1.1558693 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2009.01.00610.1016/j.ndteint.2009.01.006 ↗
16. 10.1109/TMAG.2015.247542910.1109/TMAG.2015.2475429 ↗
17. 10.3390/ma1520736210.3390/ma15207362 ↗
18. 10.1109/TMAG.2019.289766910.1109/TMAG.2019.2897669 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0963-8695(02)00071-310.1016/S0963-8695(02)00071-3 ↗
20. 10.1109/TMAG.2014.235046010.1109/TMAG.2014.2350460 ↗
21. 10.1080/10589759.2022.213750810.1080/10589759.2022.2137508 ↗
22. 10.1007/s00339010089910.1007/s003390100899 ↗
23. 10.1109/TMAG.2018.287099810.1109/TMAG.2018.2870998 ↗
24. 10.1088/1361-6501/acac4510.1088/1361-6501/acac45 ↗
25. 10.1109/TMI.2003.82002510.1109/TMI.2003.820025 ↗