SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research on Engineering Structures and Materials / 2017 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

Mass effect on magnetic flux behavior

Deniz PERİN
Aykut ILGAZ
Mustafa GÖKTEPE
Pages
147–153
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This work introduces how variation in the mass and length of the magnetic sample effects magnetic flux distribution both experimentally and theoretically.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The behavior of the magnetic flux on ferromagnetic samples has been investigated using Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) technique in this paper.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The magnetic flux distribution was revealed by analysis of the MFL signals.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This work introduces how variation in the mass and length of the magnetic sample effects magnetic flux distribution both experimentally and theoretically.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The behavior of the magnetic flux on ferromagnetic samples has been investigated using Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) technique in this paper. The magnetic flux distribution was revealed by analysis of the MFL signals. Also, magnetic flux lines detected by sensor have been exhibited visually with simulation illustrations. This work introduces how variation in the mass and length of the magnetic sample effects magnetic flux distribution both experimentally and theoretically.

🔖

Cite This Article

PERİN, D., ILGAZ, A., GÖKTEPE, M. (2017). Mass effect on magnetic flux behavior. Research on Engineering Structures and Materials, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 147–153. https://ajindex.com/articles/302692

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Crouch AE. In-line inspection of natural gas pipelines. Gas Research Inst. Topical Rep., 1993:12–16. Tandon KK. MFL tool hardware for pipeline inspection. Materials Selec. Design, 1997:75–79.
  2. Kikuchi H, Kurisawa Y, Ara K, Kamada Y, Kobayashi S. Feasibility study of magnetic flux leakage method for condition monitoring of wall thinning on tube.Int. J. Appl. Elec. and Mech., 2010; 33: 3-4.
  3. Kim JH, Kim MH and Choi DH. Analysis and Depth Estimation of Complex Defects on the Underground Gas Pipelines. Journal of Magnetics, 2013; 18(2):202-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.4283/JMAG.2013.18.2.202 Forster F. Nondestructive inspection by the method of magnetic leakage fields. Defektoskopia, 1982; 11: 3-25.
  4. Edwards C, Palmer SB. The magnetic leakage field of surface breaking cracks. J. Phys. D,1986; 19: 657-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/19/4/018
  5. Cho SH, Yoo HR, Kim DK, Park DJ, Rho YW, Seo K, Park GS, Choi DH and Song SJ. Implementation of High Magnetization System for Performance Enhancement of Magnetic Flux Leakage Tool. Journal of Magnetics, 2010;15(4):199-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.4283/JMAG.2010.15.4.199
  6. Perin D, Göktepe M. Inspection of rebars in concrete blocks. Int. J. Appl. Elec. and Mech., 2012; 38: 2-3.
  7. Zatsepin NN, Shcherbinin VE. Calculation of the magneto static field of surface defects. Defecktoskopiya, 1966; 5: 50-59.
  8. Mandache C, Clapham L. A model for a magnetic flux leakage signal predictions. J. Phys. D, 2003; 36: 2427–2431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/36/20/001
  9. Sun Y, Kang Y. A new MFL principle and method based on near-zero background magnetic fields. NDT&E International, 2010; 43: 348–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2010.01.005
  10. Mao B, Lu Y, Wu P, Mao B and Li P.Signal processing and defect analysis of pipeline inspection applying magnetic flux leakage methods. Intel Serv Robotics, 2014; 7: 203– 209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11370-014-0158-6
  11. Krause HJ, Kreutzbruck MV. Recent development in SQUID NDE. Physica C, 2002; 368: 70–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4534(01)01142-X
  12. Tsukada K, Yoshioka M, Kiwa T, Hirano Y. A magnetic flux leakage method using a magnetoresistive sensor for nondestructive evaluation of spot welds. NDT and E International, 2011; 44: 101–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2010.09.012 Lord W and Hwang JH. Br. J. Non-dest. Testing, 1977; 19:14–18. Shcherbinin VE and Pashagin AI. Defektoskopyia, 1972; 8: 74–82. Edwards C and Palmer SB. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys, 1986; 19: 657–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088