Advertisement

Characterization of a TMR Sensor for EC-NDT Applications

  • Andrea BernieriEmail author
  • Giovanni Betta
  • Luigi Ferrigno
  • Marco Laracca
  • Antonio Rasile
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 539)

Abstract

Non-destructive tests based on eddy currents (EC-NDT) are one of the inspection techniques used to detect and characterize defects in conductive structures. The EC-NDT technique is based on the induction of eddy currents in the material under test and on the analysis of the reaction magnetic field that is generated. In this way, it is possible to detect the presence of a defect and evaluate its geometric characteristics. Generally, magnetic sensors such as AMR or GMR can be used to detect the reaction magnetic field. Recently, magnetic field sensors based on the Tunnel effect (TMR) have been introduced, which seem to have better performances than previous solutions. In this context, the article illustrates the metrological characterization of a TMR sensor for EC-NDT applications, as the information provided by the manufacturer is not complete and sufficient for this type of use. The results obtained show that the TMR sensor is able to provide a higher sensitivity than the AMR and GMR sensors, with a limited measurement uncertainty. This makes it possible to assume that the TMR sensors can be usefully used in EC-NDT applications.

Keywords

TMR sensor Tunneling Magneto-Resistance Magnetic sensor Eddy current test Non destructive test 

References

  1. 1.
    García-Martín, J., Gómez-Gil, J., Vázquez-Sánchez, E.: Non-destructive techniques based on eddy current testing. Sensors 11(3), 2525–2565 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernieri, A., Betta, G., Ferrigno, L., Laracca, M.: Multi-frequency Eddy Current Testing using a GMR based instrument. Int. J. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. 39(1), 355–362 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernieri, A., Betta, G., Ferrigno, L., Laracca, M.: Crack depth estimation by using a multi-frequency ECT method. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 62(3), 544–552 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernieri, A., Betta, G., Ferrigno, L., Laracca, M., Mastrostefano, S.: Multifrequency excitation and support vector machine regressor for ECT defect characterization. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 63(5), 1272–1280 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Betta, G., Ferrigno, L., Laracca, M., Burrascano, P., Ricci, M., Silipigni, G.: An experimental comparison of multi-frequency and chirp excitations for eddy current testing on thin defects. Measurement 63, 207–220 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Angelo, G., Rampone, S.: Shape-based defect classification for Non Destructive Testing. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Aerospace, Benevento, Italy, 4–5 June 2015Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Angelo, G., Rampone, S.: Feature extraction and soft computing methods for aerospace structure defect classification. Measurement 85, 192–209 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ricci, M., Silipigni, G., Ferrigno, L., Laracca, M., Adewale, I.D., Tian, G.Y.: Evaluation of the lift-off robustness of eddy current imaging techniques. NDT and E Int. 85, 43–52 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Angelo, G., Laracca, M., Rampone, S., Betta, G.: Fast Eddy current testing defect classification using Lissajous figures. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 67(4), 821–830 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernieri, A., Betta, G., Ferrigno, L., Laracca, M.: Improving performance of GMR sensors. IEEE Sens. J. 13(11), 4513–4521 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Datasheet: AA and AB—series analog sensors. http://www.nve.com/
  12. 12.
    Application note: AN 209 magnetic current sensing. https://aerospace.honeywell.com/
  13. 13.
    Bernieri, A., Ferrigno, L., Laracca, M., Rasile, A.: An AMR-based three phase current sensor for smart grid applications. Sens. J. (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Betta, G., Ferrigno, L., Capriglione, D., Rasile, A.: Improving the performance of an AMR-based current transducer for metering applications. In: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering Sensors—Springer editor (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Betta, G., Ferrigno, L., Capriglione, D., Rasile, A.: An industrial current transducer based on an AMR sensor. In: Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Sensors, Rome, Italy, 23–25 Feb 2016Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Angrisani, L., Atteo, E., Capriglione, D., Ferrigno, L., Miele, G.: An efficient experimental approach for the uncertainty estimation of QoS parameters in communication networks. In: Proceedings of 2010 IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), pp. 1186–1191, Austin (TX, USA), 3–6 maggio 2010Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Angrisani, L., Capriglione, D., Ferrigno, L., Miele, G.: Type A uncertainty in jitter measurements in communication networks. In: Proceedings of Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), pp. 1–6, Hangzhou, China, 10–12 maggio 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Bernieri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giovanni Betta
    • 1
  • Luigi Ferrigno
    • 1
  • Marco Laracca
    • 1
  • Antonio Rasile
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Information EngineeringUniversity of Cassino and Southern LazioCassinoItaly

Personalised recommendations