| Literature DB >> 27338389 |
Gui Yun Tian1,2, Yunlai Gao3,4, Kongjing Li5, Yizhe Wang6, Bin Gao7, Yunze He8,9.
Abstract
This paper reviews recent developments of eddy current pulsed thermography (ECPT) for material characterization and nondestructive evaluation (NDE). Due to the fact that line-coil-based ECPT, with the limitation of non-uniform heating and a restricted view, is not suitable for complex geometry structures evaluation, Helmholtz coils and ferrite-yoke-based excitation configurations of ECPT are proposed and compared. Simulations and experiments of new ECPT configurations considering the multi-physical-phenomenon of hysteresis losses, stray losses, and eddy current heating in conjunction with uniform induction magnetic field have been conducted and implemented for ferromagnetic and non-ferromagnetic materials. These configurations of ECPT for metallic material and defect characterization are discussed and compared with conventional line-coil configuration. The results indicate that the proposed ECPT excitation configurations can be applied for different shapes of samples such as turbine blade edges and rail tracks.Entities:
Keywords: eddy current pulsed thermography (ECPT); excitation configuration; material characterization; multi-physical phenomenon; nondestructive evaluation (NDE)
Year: 2016 PMID: 27338389 PMCID: PMC4934269 DOI: 10.3390/s16060843
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram of eddy current pulsed thermography (ECPT).
Figure 2Proposed Helmholtz-coil configuration of ECPT. (a) Schematic diagram of Helmholtz-coil-based ECPT system. (b) Magnetic flux distribution with uniform field between two coils.
Figure 3Proposed ferrite-yoke-based configuration of ECPT. (a) Schematic diagram of ferrite-yoke-based ECPT system. (b) Magnetic flux distribution in ferromagnetic material between yoke poles.
Figure 4Numerical modeling for ECPT simulation with different configurations. (a) Line-coil ECPT. (b) Helmholtz-coil ECPT. (c) Ferrite-yoke-based ECPT.
Figure 5Simulation results of ECPT with different configurations such as line-coil-, Helmholtz-coil-, and Ferrite-yoke-based excitation on a multi-physical-phenomenon and coupling effect.
Figure 6Simulation results of ECPT with different configurations. (a) Line-coil ECPT for the crack, (b) Helmholtz-coil-based ECPT for the crack edge. (c) Ferrite-yoke-based ECPT for the angular crack.
Figure 7Experimental system of ECPT.
Figure 8ECPT with different configurations. (a) Line-coil ECPT. (b) Helmholtz-coil ECPT and (c) Ferrite-yoke-based structure for ECPT.
Figure 9Experimental results of ECPT with different configurations. (a) Line-coil for multiple cracks. (b) Helmholtz-coil for crack edges and (c) Ferrite-yoke excitation for multiple cracks.
Figure 10Experimental results of ECPT for the same sample with RCF multiple cracks using (a) line-coil. (b) Helmholtz-coil and (c) ferrite-yoke excitation configurations.
Defect detection performance comparison of different ECPT excitations with SNR in dB.
| Region | SNR (dB) of Whole Defective Area | SNR (dB) of Region A | SNR (dB) of Region B | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excitation | ||||
| Line-coil | 4.88 | 8.42 | 2.42 | |
| Helmholtz-coil | 3.86 | 8.33 | 4.03 | |
| Ferrite-yoke | 10.53 | 7.45 | 13.31 | |