Solution for a transmit-receive eddy current probe above a layered planar conductive structure

Luloff, Mark S.; Desjardins, Daniel; Morelli, Jordan; Krause, Thomas W.

doi:10.1016/j.ndteint.2018.02.003

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From Equation (4), the percentage of the total variance explained by each principal component for the Dodd and Deeds model, ordered in terms of decreasing significance, was 96.92%, 2.76%, 0.29%, 0.02%, 0.00%, and 0.00% [2]. For the Desjardins et al plate model [6], [7], the percentage variance explained was 91.01%, 8.50%, 0.47%, 0.01%, 0.00%, and 0.00%.…”

Section: Comparison Of Analytical Model Pca Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the Dodd and Deeds model [5] uses the coaxial coil approximation, where the Desjardins et al [6] model accounts for the separation between the coils. Recently, the Desjardins et al model has been adapted to the flat plate case for a separated driver-pickup coil configuration [7]. …”

Section: Analytical Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Dodd and Deeds analytical model [5] and the Desjardins et al model applied to flat plates with separated driver-pickup coils [7], [6] were both used to generate the voltage response for varying PT and CT conditions. The modelling parameters, as used in [2], include a PT to CT gap ranging from 0 mm to 16 mm, PT resistivities ranging between 45 cm and 60 cm and PT wall thicknesses of 3.48 mm, 3.76 mm, and 4.36 mm.…”

Section: Principal Components Analysis Applied To Analytical Model Damentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Excitation frequencies of 4 kHz, 8 kHz and 16 kHz have different responses to PT to CT gap, which provide useful information in making these gap measurements. The factors affecting PT to CT gap have been analytically modelled using Dodd and Deeds solutions [5] as well as a Desjardins et al plate model [6], [7]. These methods have proved useful in modelling the response of eddy currents when considering different factors affecting PT to CT gap, such as PT wall thickness and PT resistivity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PCA has also been used with pulsed eddy current, where it was shown to enhance the classification of defects [13], and to detect defects in multilayer aluminum lap joints [14], [15] and aircraft structures [16], [17]. In this work, principal components analysis was performed on the Desjardins et al plate model of the multifrequency PT to CT gap measurement [7], [6]. The results were analyzed and compared to the PCA analysis done on previously published Dodd and Deeds model results along with accompanying experimental data [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparison of analytical eddy current models using principal components analysis

Contant¹,

Luloff²,

Morelli³

et al. 2017

AIP Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Monitoring the gap between the pressure tube (PT) and the calandria tube (CT) in CANDU ® fuel channels is essential, as contact between the two tubes can lead to delayed hydride cracking of the pressure tube. Multifrequency transmit-receive eddy current non-destructive evaluation is used to determine this gap, as this method has different depths of penetration and variable sensitivity to noise, unlike single frequency eddy current non-destructive evaluation. An Analytical model based on the Dodd and Deeds solutions, and a second model that accounts for normal and lossy selfinductances, and a non-coaxial pickup coil, are examined for representing the response of an eddy current transmit-receive probe when considering factors that affect the gap response, such as pressure tube wall thickness and pressure tube resistivity. The multifrequency model data was analyzed using principal components analysis (PCA), a statistical method used to reduce the data set into a data set of fewer variables. The results of the PCA of the analytical models were then compared to PCA performed on a previously obtained experimental data set. The models gave similar results under variable PT wall thickness conditions, but the non-coaxial coil model, which accounts for self-inductive losses, performed significantly better than the Dodd and Deeds model under variable resistivity conditions.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Analytical Model Pca Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%