| Literature DB >> 36236610 |
Dong Wang1, Zhijie Zhang1, Wuliang Yin2, Haoze Chen1, Huidong Ma1, Guangyu Zhou1, Yuchen Zhang1.
Abstract
Metal sorting is the first step in scrap metal recycling. The traditional magnetic separation method can classify ferromagnetic metals, but it is not applicable to some nonmagnetic metals with higher value. To address this situation, we propose an eddy current testing (ECT) technology-based method for classifying nonmagnetic metals. In this study, a triple-coil electromagnetic sensor, which works as two coil pairs, is tested. By analyzing the physical model of the sensor, a feature related to the conductivity of the sample under test is obtained as the difference in the tangent of the impedance changes in the two coil pairs. Additionally, we derive a linear relationship between this feature and the lift-off height, which is verified experimentally and will help to solve the classification error caused by the variation in the lift-off height. In addition, we find that the excitation frequency does not affect this linear feature. Moreover, in this study, the spectrum scanning method is converted into a single-frequency measurement, and the time consumption is greatly reduced, which improves the efficiency of the real-time metal classification system.Entities:
Keywords: eddy current testing; lift-off; metal classification; phase tangent; triple-coil sensor
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236610 PMCID: PMC9570834 DOI: 10.3390/s22197511
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Sensor structure.
Figure 2Physical picture of the sensor.
Coil parameters.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Inner radius of the coil (r1) | 0.8 mm |
| Outer radius of the coil (r2) | 1.5 mm |
| Height of the coil (h) | 1.9 mm |
| Gap between the coils (g) | 1 mm |
| Number of turns (N) | 100 |
Figure 3Metals used for the experiment.
Conductivity of the metals.
| Metal | Conductivity (MS/m) |
|---|---|
| Copper | 59.6 |
| Aluminum | 37.7 |
| Zinc | 16.9 |
| Titanium | 2.4 |
Figure 4Experimental platform construction. (a) System structure; (b) measurement page.
Figure 5Impedance change in TR1 and TR2 for different metals at different excitation frequencies: (a) TR1–40 kHz; (b) TR2–40 kHz; (c)TR1–60 kHz; (d) TR2–60 kHz; (e) TR1–80 kHz; (f) TR2–80 kHz.
Figure 6The feature with conductivity as a variable at different lift-offs and excitation frequencies: (a) 40 kHz; (b) 60 kHz; (c) 80 kHz.
Figure 7The linearity between the feature and lift-off for different metals at different excitation frequencies: (a) 40 kHz; (b) 60 kHz; (c) 80 kHz.
Figure 8Experimental verification results.