Paper Titles
Integrated Approach for On-Line Condition Monitoring of Piping
p.445
Evaluation of Motorized Rotating Pancake Coil Probe Signals Simulated by Numerical Analysis in Steam Generator Tubes
p.451
Fault Detection Using Acoustic Methods for the Sodium-Water Reaction Monitoring in a Liquid Metal Reactor
p.455
Investigation on Multifrequency Eddy Current Testing Signal Analysis for Nondestructive Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes
p.460
Effects of 3D Eddy Current Finite Element Formulations on ECT Signals
p.464
Water Thickness Gaging in a Bellows Tube Using Special UT Shoes & an Immersion Ultrasonic System
p.468
Research on the Method for Drill Pipe Thread Inspection
p.472
Application of Ultrasonic Test on Creep-Fatigue Life Evaluation
p.476
Evaluation of Fracture Toughness for Power Plant Materials Using Continuous Indentation Technique
p.480

Effects of 3D Eddy Current Finite Element Formulations on ECT Signals

Article Preview

Abstract:

To obtain the simulated eddy current testing (ECT) signals of steam generator (SG) in nuclear power plant (NPP), nodal-based finite element (FE) analysis with magnetic vector potential (MVP) is usually used. To perform the numerical analysis, we derive the governing equation in terms of MVP and electric scalar potential (ESP) from Maxwell’s equations. To insure the uniqueness of solution, gauge condition has to be considered. In eddy current problems, Coulomb gauge condition (CGC) is usually used. In 2-D or 3-D axis-symmetric analysis, CGC is included during formulation and ESP is eliminated using some special assumption. Because CGC is not used during the formulation in 3-D analysis, we have to include artificially. And because of the heavy computation cost for 3-D analysis modified magnetic vector potential (MMVP) is used by elimination ESP. In this paper, effects of artificial treatment of CGC and elimination of ESP on ECT signal are investigated in order to help for obtaining accurate numerical simulation results.

You might also be interested in these eBooks
Advanced Nondestructive Evaluation I View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 321-323)

Pages:

464-467

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.321-323.464

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

October 2006

Authors:

Hyang Beom Lee

Keywords:

ECT, Finite Element Model (FEM), Formulation, Gauge Condition, Modified Magnetic Vector Potential

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

© 2006 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

References

[1] C. R. I. Emson and J. Somkin, An optimal method for 3-D eddy currents, IEEE Trans. on Mag., Vol. 19 (1983), No. 6.

Google Scholar

[2] C. F. Bryant, C. R. I. Emson and C. W. Trowbridge, A comparison of Lorentz gauge formulations in eddy current computations, IEEE Trans. on Mag., Vol. 26 (1990), No. 2.

DOI: 10.1109/20.106345

Google Scholar

[3] O. Biro and K. Preis, On the use of the magnetic vector potential in the finite element analysis of three-dimensional eddy currents, IEEE Trans. on Mag., Vol. 25 (1989), No. 4, pp.3145-3159.

DOI: 10.1109/20.34388

Google Scholar

[4] David K. Cheng, Fundamentals of engineering electromagnetics, Prentice Hall (1992).

Google Scholar

[5] N. N. Rao, Elements of engineering electromagnetics, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, (1999). -5.

Google Scholar

[5] -5.

Google Scholar

[5] [0] 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 X [mm] Y [mm] Difference Impedance [Ohm] -5.

Google Scholar

[5] -5.

Google Scholar

[5] [0] 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 X [mm] Y [mm] Difference Impedance [Ohm] -5.

Google Scholar

[5] -5.

Google Scholar

[5] [0] 5000 10000 15000 X [mm] Y [mm] Difference Impedance [Ohm] -5.

Google Scholar

[5] -5.

Google Scholar

[5] [0] 5000 10000 15000 X [mm] Y [mm] Difference Impedance [Ohm].

Google Scholar