Cleaning of the Eddy Current Effects From Magnetic Diagnostics

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 858-863
Author(s):  
Ondrej Kudlacek ◽  
Giuseppe Marchiori ◽  
Claudio Finotto ◽  
Paolo Bettini ◽  
Rafael Henriques ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Eddy Current ◽  
Magnetic Diagnostics

Magnetic diagnostics for equilibrium reconstructions in the presence of nonaxisymmetric eddy current distributions in tokamaks (invited)

2010 ◽  
Vol 81 (10) ◽  
pp. 10E114 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Berzak ◽  
A. D. Jones ◽  
R. Kaita ◽  
T. Kozub ◽  
N. Logan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Eddy Current ◽  
Current Distributions ◽  
Magnetic Diagnostics

Exact First Order Finite Element Modeling for Eddy Current NDE

1991 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. D. Philipp ◽  
Q. H. Nguyen ◽  
D. D. Derkacht ◽  
D. J. Lynch ◽  
A. Mahmood
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Finite Element Modeling ◽  
Eddy Current ◽  
Element Modeling ◽  
First Order ◽  
Eddy Current Nde

MESSINE, a Parametric Three-Dimensional Eddy Current Model

2000 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. La ◽  
B. Benoist ◽  
B. de Barmon ◽  
M. Talvard ◽  
R. Lengelle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Eddy Current ◽  
Current Model ◽  
Three Dimensional

MAGNETIC DIAGNOSTICS FROM ASTEROSEISMOLOGY

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 61-61
Author(s):  
G. Berthomieu ◽  
L. Bigot ◽  
J. Provos
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Diagnostics

Performance analysis of magnetic gear with Halbach array for high power and high speed

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 959-967
Author(s):  
Se-Yeong Kim ◽  
Tae-Woo Lee ◽  
Yon-Do Chun ◽  
Do-Kwan Hong
Keyword(s):  
Permanent Magnet ◽  
Eddy Current ◽  
High Power ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Torque Ripple ◽  
Eddy Current Loss ◽  
Element Analysis ◽  
Current Loss ◽  
Halbach Array ◽  
Magnetic Gear

In this study, we propose a non-contact 80 kW, 60,000 rpm coaxial magnetic gear (CMG) model for high speed and high power applications. Two models with the same power but different radial and axial sizes were optimized using response surface methodology. Both models employed a Halbach array to increase torque. Also, an edge fillet was applied to the radial magnetized permanent magnet to reduce torque ripple, and an axial gap was applied to the permanent magnet with a radial gap to reduce eddy current loss. The models were analyzed using 2-D and 3-D finite element analysis. The torque, torque ripple and eddy current loss were compared in both models according to the materials used, including Sm2Co17, NdFeBs (N42SH, N48SH). Also, the structural stability of the pole piece structure was investigated by forced vibration analysis. Critical speed results from rotordynamics analysis are also presented.

Probabilistic evaluation of detection capability of eddy current testing to inspect pitting on a stainless steel clad using multiple signal features

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Takuma Tomizawa ◽  
Haicheng Song ◽  
Noritaka Yusa
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Eddy Current ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Eddy Current Testing ◽  
Probability Of Detection ◽  
Current Testing ◽  
Multiple Signal ◽  
Signal Features ◽  
Inner Surface ◽  
Drill Holes

This study proposes a probability of detection (POD) model to quantitatively evaluate the capability of eddy current testing to detect flaws on the inner surface of pressure vessels cladded by stainless steel and in the presence of high noise level. Welded plate samples with drill holes were prepared to simulate corrosion that typically appears on the inner surface of large-scale pressure vessels. The signals generated by the drill holes and the noise caused by the weld were examined using eddy current testing. A hit/miss-based POD model with multiple flaw parameters and multiple signal features was proposed to analyze the measured signals. It is shown that the proposed model is able to more reasonably characterize the detectability of eddy current signals compared to conventional models that consider a single signal feature.

Analysis of field uniformity and quantitative evaluation of subsurface pitting corrosion in conductors via GPEC

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 19-29
Author(s):  
Shuting Ren ◽  
Yong Li ◽  
Bei Yan ◽  
Jinhua Hu ◽  
Ilham Mukriz Zainal Abidin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Evaluation ◽  
Eddy Current ◽  
Pitting Corrosion ◽  
Gradient Field ◽  
Uniform Field ◽  
Eddy Current Method ◽  
Optimal Position ◽  
Pulsed Eddy Current ◽  
Field Uniformity ◽  
Processing Algorithms

Structures of nonmagnetic materials are broadly used in engineering fields such as aerospace, energy, etc. Due to corrosive and hostile environments, they are vulnerable to the Subsurface Pitting Corrosion (SPC) leading to structural failure. Therefore, it is imperative to conduct periodical inspection and comprehensive evaluation of SPC using reliable nondestructive evaluation techniques. Extended from the conventional Pulsed eddy current method (PEC), Gradient-field Pulsed Eddy Current technique (GPEC) has been proposed and found to be advantageous over PEC in terms of enhanced inspection sensitivity and accuracy in evaluation and imaging of subsurface defects in nonmagnetic conductors. In this paper two GPEC probes for uniform field excitation are intensively analyzed and compared. Their capabilities in SPC evaluation and imaging are explored through simulations and experiments. The optimal position for deployment of the magnetic field sensor is determined by scrutinizing the field uniformity and inspection sensitivity to SPC based on finite element simulations. After the optimal probe structure is chosen, quantitative evaluation and imaging of SPC are investigated. Signal/image processing algorithms for SPC evaluation are proposed. Through simulations and experiments, it has been found that the T-shaped probe together with the proposed processing algorithms is advantageous and preferable for profile recognition and depth evaluation of SPC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document