Comparison of Skin Effects in Ferromagnetic and Nonferromagnetic Metals in Eddy Current Testing
Source abstract
Abstract
In eddy current (EC) testing, skin effect is a constraint factor of detecting subsurface defects and skin depth is an important parameter for probe design and frequency setup. This paper compares the skin effects in ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic metals. It is well known that the high permeability of ferromagnetic metal makes the attenuation of EC faster due to the greater EC loss. In this paper, the other role of the high permeability of ferromagnetic metal on the skin effect is reported. The EC distributions in both the radial and depth directions in the two types of materials excited by pancake coils are computed. It shows that the EC is more dispersed in the radial direction in high-permeability material. More importantly, the high permeability of ferromagnetic metal makes the skin depth of EC under the excitation of pancake coil close to the standard skin depth of EC under the excitation of uniform magnetic field, whereas there is a big discrepancy in the skin depths of ECs under the two types of excitations. This difference is explained by the radial dispersion of EC based on the EC diffusion-cancellation theory. Finally, the EC distributions in ferromagnetic Q235 steel and nonferromagnetic brass are compared, and the simulation results are qualitatively verified by experiments.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Aerospace Engineering, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (18)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1109/JSEN.2021.304955110.1109/JSEN.2021.3049551 ↗
2. 10.1109/JSEN.2022.318886310.1109/JSEN.2022.3188863 ↗
3. 10.1109/TIE.2022.320674610.1109/TIE.2022.3206746 ↗
4. 10.1784/insi.2014.56.10.56010.1784/insi.2014.56.10.560 ↗
5. Y. Deng et al. Annu. Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestr. Evaluation, Chic. USA 1096 (1), 588–595 (2008).
6. H. Hoshikawa and K. Koyama, Mater. Evaluation 57 (6), 587–593 (1999).
7. 10.1016/0308-9126(90)90893-S10.1016/0308-9126(90)90893-S ↗
8. 10.3139/120.10081010.3139/120.100810 ↗
9. J. Giguère, B. Lepine, and J. Dubois, Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestr. Evaluation, Brunswick, USA, 2001. pp. 1968–1975).
10. 10.1109/TMAG.2017.266918110.1109/TMAG.2017.2669181 ↗
11. 10.1080/09349847.2022.205086110.1080/09349847.2022.2050861 ↗
12. 10.1109/TMAG.2013.228324610.1109/TMAG.2013.2283246 ↗
13. 10.3233/JAE-2012-146710.3233/JAE-2012-1467 ↗
14. 10.1063/1.36619610.1063/1.366196 ↗
15. 10.1109/TMAG.2016.261632810.1109/TMAG.2016.2616328 ↗
16. 10.1109/TMAG.2012.222563410.1109/TMAG.2012.2225634 ↗
17. Y. Zhang et al. Archiv. Acoust. 44 (4), 807–813 (2019).
18. J. Kumar et al. National Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 2019, (Delhi, India), pp. 417–427.