journal article·2024-09-02

Radial Field Detector to Improve Sensitivity of Localized Defects in Remote Field Eddy Current Technique

T. Vijayachandrika, S. Thirunavukkarasu, Anish Kumar

Publisher page

Abstract

This paper presents the development of a cone-shaped radial magnetic-field-detector–based remote field eddy current (RFEC) probe for enhanced detection of localized defects in ferritic steel tubes. The performance of the radial coil detector has been evaluated for the detection of different types of defects such as through holes, flat bottom holes and notches of different sizes and orientations. The RFEC signals are observed to be corrupted by heavy noise due to spatial variations in material permeability. To remove the random noise from the nonstationary time series RFEC signals, empirical mode decomposition (EMD) processing has been adopted and has been found to significantly improve the signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio. Furthermore, the effect of the circumferential extent of defects on the signal amplitude is analyzed through experimental and finite-element-model–based studies. The linear resolution of the designed radial coil detector and its repeatability behavior are also scrutinized. Studies demonstrate that the developed radial field detector is a promising configuration in remote field eddy current technique for enhanced defect detection and also in designing an array probe.
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

Nondestructive Evaluation Division, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, A CI of Homi Bhabha National Institute, Kalpakkam, TN, India

References (24)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1155/2020/886819010.1155/2020/8868190 ↗
2. 10.1080/1058975860895292710.1080/10589758608952927 ↗
3. 10.1115/1.199187810.1115/1.1991878 ↗
4. D. L. Atherton, O. Klink, and T. R. Schmidt, Mater Eval. 49 (3), 356–360 (1991).
5. 10.1109/20.14475210.1109/20.144752 ↗
6. D. L. Atherton, P. Frey, and X. Guo, Br. J. Non-Destr. Test. 36 (1), 4–7 (1994).
7. 10.1080/10589759.2021.199848810.1080/10589759.2021.1998488 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.sna.2020.11234810.1016/j.sna.2020.112348 ↗
9. 10.1080/09349847.2012.69960810.1080/09349847.2012.699608 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.pnucene.2007.07.00810.1016/j.pnucene.2007.07.008 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.anucene.2010.11.01510.1016/j.anucene.2010.11.015 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ultras.2014.11.00810.1016/j.ultras.2014.11.008 ↗
13. 10.3390/s1902023610.3390/s19020236 ↗
14. 10.1109/20.49755610.1109/20.497556 ↗
15. 10.1080/0934984080266104110.1080/09349840802661041 ↗
16. 10.1109/TIE.2021.306395810.1109/TIE.2021.3063958 ↗
17. T. R. Schmidt, D. L. Atherton, and S. Sullivan, Mater Eval. 47 (1), 76–79 (1989).
18. J. Jeng and S. J. Wu, Insight. 43 (10), 683–687 (2001)
19. H. Ostermeyer, Proceedings of the 7th European conference on NDT, Copenhagen, 2569–2575, 1998.
20. B. J. Mergelas and D. L. Atherton, Br. J. Non-Destr. Test. 37 (10), 792–797 (1995).
21. 10.4283/JMAG.2017.22.4.53110.4283/JMAG.2017.22.4.531 ↗
22. 10.1080/02564602.2018.144451710.1080/02564602.2018.1444517 ↗
23. 10.1098/rspa.1998.019310.1098/rspa.1998.0193 ↗
24. 10.1063/5.009532810.1063/5.0095328 ↗