2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ndteint.2016.02.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pulse-modulation eddy current inspection of subsurface corrosion in conductive structures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A study on different excitation waveforms, namely square, half-sine and ramp, shows a favour for the square waveform [2]. A variable pulse width excitation has also been proposed [3], which was used in the inspection of subsurface corrosion in conductive structures [4]. Pulse width modulation, as illustrated in Fig.…”
Section: Excitation Signalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A study on different excitation waveforms, namely square, half-sine and ramp, shows a favour for the square waveform [2]. A variable pulse width excitation has also been proposed [3], which was used in the inspection of subsurface corrosion in conductive structures [4]. Pulse width modulation, as illustrated in Fig.…”
Section: Excitation Signalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other examples of defect detection and characterization include flaws in the inner surface of pipe under insulation [87], outer corrosion on carbon steel pipes used in oil and gas industry [35], surface and sub-surface cracks and cavity detection in con-casting slabs (CCS) [56], subsurface corrosion in a plate [4], surface corrosion on coated mild steel S275 plates [48], [88], and various types of defect on steam generator support structures [59]. Detection of wall thinning in pipe structures has been included in the previous sub-section above.…”
Section: Detection and Characterization Of Defectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is assumed that the length and width of the HMD area are considerably larger than the outer diameter of the excitation coil. Based on the analytical modeling [14,16], the GPEC signal concerning the z -direction gradient field of the z -component of net magnetic field is formulated as: gz(Bz)=Bzz=μ0NIfalse(tfalse)H(r2r1)h2truei=1J0(air)[eaizeaifalse(z+2ρfalse)ηifalse(tfalse)][eaiz1eaiz2]χ(air1,air2)[aiJ0(aih)]2 where, denotes convolution. H is the coil height, H = z 2 − z 1 .…”
Section: Field Formulation Of Gpec and Investigation Of Loimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Visual and optical inspection are intuitive in character, but can only detect surface flaws [8,9]. Eddy current testing offers high detection efficiency, but is limited by its inapplicability to non-conductive materials [10]. Ultrasonic testing can perform deep accurate detection, but has a surface blind region and requires a coupling agent [11,12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%