Abstract
This article presents some results obtained in the characterization of surface flaws by means of probes using ferromagnetic resonance of yttrium iron garnets (FMR probes). These experiments on artificial flaws show that FMR probes operate like eddy current probes for nonmagnetic materials and like magnetic field sensors for magnetic ones. Consequently, the working distance is larger for magnetic materials (1000–1500 µm) than for nonmagnetic ones (100–300 µm). FMR probes have good sensitivity to narrow flaws, good spatial discrimination, and are sensitive to flaw width and depth. Vector analysis allows the separation of distance and flaw effect by phase analysis on nonmagnetic materials. On magnetic materials this phase separation does not exist and another procedure is suggested. These results, and in particular those obtained on ferromagnetic materials, point to the possibility of replacing some eddy current or magnetic particle inspections by tests with ferromagnetic resonance probes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
B. A. Auld, G. Elston, and P. K. Winslow, Proc. 8th European Microwave Conf. (Pairs 1978), pp. 603–607.
B. A. Auld and D. K. Winslow, Microwave eddy current experiments with ferromagnetic resonance probes: eddy current characterisation of materials and structures. ASTM STP 722 (1981), pp. 348–366.
G. Mattaei, L. Young, and E. M. T. Jones, Microwaves filters, impedance-matching networks and coupling structure. ARTECH House Inc., Dedham, Mass.
J. Forterre, Thomson CSF D.C.M. private communation.
B. A. Auld, F. Muennemann, and D. K. Winslow, Eddy current probe response to open and closed surface flaws;J. Nondestructive Eval. 2(1):1–21 (1981).
B. A. Auld, Ferromagnetic resonance flaw detection.Phys. Technol. 12:149–154 (1981).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Segalini, S., Pinard, J., Claessen, P. et al. Application of ferromagnetic resonance probes to the characterization of flaws in metals. J Nondestruct Eval 4, 51–58 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00566396
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00566396