Magnetoelasticity for large stresses

Schneider, Carl S.; Cannell, P.Y.; Watts, K.T.

doi:10.1109/20.179578

Cited by 70 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 (Geff) is very small but finite, staying approximately constant between 0 and 100 MPa, and then becoming larger but at a slower rate than is found at negative stresses. [8] Thus, for positive OeE, it is found at effective stress values Oeff S 100 MPa, there is little change in the magnetic properties, in agreement with Kashiwaya's general predictions, but that for aeff 2 100 MPa, there begins to be found a noticeable change in magnetic properties. The key therefore is to find an appropriate expression for Oeff. In evaluating Gee, it is important to consider the relative stress with respect to the third axis, along which there is no stress.…”

Section: Theoretical Modelsupporting

confidence: 83%

Application of hysteresis modeling to magnetic techniques for monitoring biaxial stress

Sablik¹,

Burkhardt²,

Kwun³

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DISCLAIMER ABSTRACTA probe, consisting of two excitation coils and a detection coil wrapped around a core with a Hall probe between the pole pieces. has been used to measure indirectly the influence of biaxial stress on i he magnetic properties of a ferromagnetic specimen. in this case annealed SAE-4130 steel. Properties measured indirectly included remanence. coercivity. and first, third and fifth harmonic amplitudes. The properties were extracted from the voltage measured across the detection coil and incorporate the magnetic influence of the soft iron core. but with the effect of air gap variation between pole piece and sample kept to a controlled range. Results were compared to a micromagnetic model for the effect of biaxial stress on hysteresis and on magnetic properties. The micromagnetic model is a modified version of a model previously employed by Schneider et al. The experimental remanence variation due to biaxial stress compared very well to the predictions of the model. Furthermore, the model predicts, and experiment bears out. that the remanence with the field along one stress axis minus the remanence with the field along the other stress axis falls in a straight-line band of values when plotted against the difference of the two stresses. This suggests a possible NDE technique for detecting differences in biaxial stresses at a given location in a steel specimen.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Modelsupporting

confidence: 83%

Application of hysteresis modeling to magnetic techniques for monitoring biaxial stress

Sablik¹,

Burkhardt²,

Kwun³

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a magnetic hysteresis under stress variation and hence the same residual stress might corre-spond to a range of values instead of one value of the magnetic property. A discussion of hysteresis under stress variation may be found in the papers by Schneideret al [5] and by Jiles [10]. Further measurements that clarify this have been made recently by Belle and Langman.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…In particular, with Hlloraxis, the effective stress is For Hlloz-axis, the effective stress is given by (2) and (3), but with indices 1 and 2 interchanged. The flux density due to these effective stresses is computed by substituting these effective stresses into the Schneider-Cannell-Watts model [5], as discussed in earlier papers [2,6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nondestructive Magnetic Measurement of Biaxial Stress Using Magnetic Fields Parallel and Perpendicular to the Stress Plane

Sablik

Belle

1997

Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Research on the magnetomechanical effect has usually focused on iron based materials. [3][4][5][6] In this study nickel and cobalt have been investigated. These materials have significantly different anisotropy coefficients and magnetostrictions from iron and therefore provide a useful test of the generality of the magnetomechanical theory developed previously.…”

Section: ͑1͒mentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetomechanical effect in nickel and cobalt

Devine

Jiles

1997

Journal of Applied Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The change in magnetization as a result of applied uniaxial stress has been measured in nickel and cobalt. Both tensile and compressive stresses were applied up to 125 MPa. Magnetostriction and anhysteretic magnetization as a function of stress were also measured. The change in magnetization with stress depended on the applied stress and the displacement between the prevailing magnetization and anhysteretic. At the loop tips, nickel showed a +6 mT (compression) and −6 mT (tension) magnetization change while cobalt displayed a +15 mT (compression) and −15 mT (tension) magnetization change. At remanence,nickel decreased in magnetization by 45 mT under either sign of stress, while cobalt decreased by 20 mT also under either sign of stress. Magnetomechanical changes in magnetization near the loop tips were mostly reversible, while at remanence the magnetomechanical change was predominately irreversible. Cobalt generally displayed larger changes in magnetization with stress than nickel at locations close to the loop tips, while the converse was true at locations near remanence. The results confirm the hypothesis that the magnetomechanical effect(dM/dσ) depends on the displacement between the anhysteretic and prevailing magnetization. The change in magnetization as a result of applied uniaxial stress has been measured in nickel and cobalt. Both tensile and compressive stresses were applied up to 125 MPa. Magnetostriction and anhysteretic magnetization as a function of stress were also measured. The change in magnetization with stress depended on the applied stress and the displacement between the prevailing magnetization and anhysteretic. At the loop tips, nickel showed a ϩ6 mT ͑compression͒ and Ϫ6 mT ͑tension͒ magnetization change while cobalt displayed a ϩ15 mT ͑compression͒ and Ϫ15 mT ͑tension͒ magnetization change. At remanence, nickel decreased in magnetization by 45 mT under either sign of stress, while cobalt decreased by 20 mT also under either sign of stress. Magnetomechanical changes in magnetization near the loop tips were mostly reversible, while at remanence the magnetomechanical change was predominately irreversible. Cobalt generally displayed larger changes in magnetization with stress than nickel at locations close to the loop tips, while the converse was true at locations near remanence. The results confirm the hypothesis that the magnetomechanical effect (dM /d) depends on the displacement between the anhysteretic and prevailing magnetization.

show abstract

Magnetoelasticity for large stresses

Cited by 70 publications

References 14 publications

Application of hysteresis modeling to magnetic techniques for monitoring biaxial stress

Application of hysteresis modeling to magnetic techniques for monitoring biaxial stress

Nondestructive Magnetic Measurement of Biaxial Stress Using Magnetic Fields Parallel and Perpendicular to the Stress Plane

Magnetomechanical effect in nickel and cobalt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About