Optimising sensor pitch for magnetic flux leakage imaging systems

被引:1
|
作者
Murshudov, R. [1 ]
Watson, J. M. [1 ]
Liang, C. W. [1 ]
Sexton, J. [1 ]
Missous, M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manchester, Dept Elect & Elect Engn, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
OPTIMIZATION;
D O I
10.1784/insi.2021.63.7.416
中图分类号
TH7 [仪器、仪表];
学科分类号
0804 ; 080401 ; 081102 ;
摘要
Sensor arrays can significantly increase the speed at which inspections and subsequent imaging of flaws is performed([1]). This work focuses on developing a software approach for optimising the spacing between quantum well Hall-effect (QWHE) magnetic sensors used for magnetic flux leakage (MFL) imaging, where this approach could be adapted for any non-destructive evaluation (NDE) technique in which imaging is obtained. A ground mild steel weld sample containing two surface-breaking flaws prepared by Sonaspection was scanned using an XYZ MFL imaging system developed at the University of Manchester([2,3,13,14]). The scan was taken with an autonomously controlled lift-off height of 0.75 mm, with an x-y measurement step of 100 mu m and an applied magnetic field of 30 mT root mean square (RMS) at a frequency of 400 Hz. This data (ie magnetic image) was then processed to simulate different measurement step sizes, to determine any relationship between step size and flaw detectability (flaw signal to weld background response). This work effectively simulates different sensor pitches (separation between sensors) of integrated QWHE sensor arrays from 100 mu m to 5 mm, with the goal of determining both the minimum number of sensors required in the array and the optimal spacing to maximise scan speeds and help determine optimum inspection parameters to develop the technology of low-power MFL imaging. This optimisation process could be applied to any NDE imaging system (electromagnetic or other) currently used, with results dependent on the inspection parameters.
引用
收藏
页码:416 / 421
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Pulsed Magnetic Flux Leakage Sensor Systems and Applications
    Zhang, Tao
    Tian, Guiyun
    Zuo, Xianzhang
    2011 IEEE INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE (I2MTC), 2011, : 505 - 510
  • [2] A magnetic shielding strategy for magnetic sensor in magnetic flux leakage testing
    Hao, Shuai
    Shi, Pengpeng
    Su, Sanqing
    Liang, Tianshou
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETISM AND MAGNETIC MATERIALS, 2022, 563
  • [3] Overview of defect magnetic flux leakage imaging technology
    Huang, Songling (huangsling@tsinghua.edu.cn), 1600, China Machine Press (31):
  • [4] Impact of sensor liftoff on magnetic flux leakage detection in pipelines
    Cui, Wei
    Huang, Songling
    Zhao, Wei
    Qinghua Daxue Xuebao/Journal of Tsinghua University, 2007, 47 (01): : 21 - 24
  • [5] Influencesand Optimization of Excitation Structure of Magnetic Flux Leakage Sensor
    Chang Y.
    Jiao J.
    Li G.
    He C.
    Wu B.
    Jixie Gongcheng Xuebao/Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2018, 54 (24): : 7 - 17
  • [6] Theory and Development of Magnetic Flux Leakage Sensor for Flaws Detection: A Review
    Sharif, Nor Afandi
    Ramli, Rizauddin
    Nuawi, Mohd Zaki
    Mohamed, Abdullah Zawawi
    JURNAL KEJURUTERAAN, 2020, 32 (03): : 29 - 39
  • [7] Feasibility study on 3 axis magnetic sensor for flux leakage method
    Sasamoto, Akira
    NONDESTRUCTIVE CHARACTERIZATION FOR COMPOSITE MATERIALS, AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND HOMELAND SECURITY 2014, 2014, 9063
  • [8] Imaging defects with reduced space inversion of magnetic flux leakage fields
    Baskaran, R.
    Janawadkar, M. P.
    NDT & E INTERNATIONAL, 2007, 40 (06) : 451 - 454
  • [9] A sensor measuring the Fourier coefficients of the magnetic flux density for pipe crack detection using the magnetic flux leakage method
    Nara, T.
    Takanashi, Y.
    Mizuide, M.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS, 2011, 109 (07)
  • [10] Study on effect factors of sensor performance in pulsed magnetic flux leakage testing
    Tang, Ying
    Pan, Mengchun
    Luo, Feilu
    Yi Qi Yi Biao Xue Bao/Chinese Journal of Scientific Instrument, 2010, 31 (12): : 2875 - 2880