InECCE2019 pp 15-24 | Cite as

Effect of Excitation Frequency on Magnetic Response Induced by Front- and Back-Side Slits Measured by a Differential AMR Sensor Probe

  • M. A. H. P. ZainiEmail author
  • M. M. Saari
  • N. A. Nadzri
  • A. M. Halil
  • A. J. S. Hanifah
  • M. Ishak
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 632)


Defects in steel structures are one of the major problems that may affect the functionality of the structure. Thus, the detection of the defects is fairly crucial to prevent any unwanted accident from occurring. Nondestructive Testing (NDT) is a group of methods that is widely used to detect those defects, especially cracks. This paper will be focusing on the detection of cracks (artificial slits) by using the Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) technique in the magnetic method of NDT. A non-saturated differential MFL probe consists of two AMR sensors has been fabricated for the detection of front as well as backside slits. A measurement system which incorporates the developed probe attached on an XY-stage, a set/reset circuit, an amplifier circuit, a DAQ card, and PC is constructed where an XY-stage controller and a digital lock-in amplifier are developed with the implementation of LabVIEW. Then, the developed MFL probe’s performance is evaluated by running several line scan measurements on a 2-mm galvanized steel plate sample engraved with artificial slits with depths that varies from 1.0 to 1.6 mm with variable excitation frequencies. The results show promising output where the slits could be successfully detected and its position could be further estimated. Furthermore, the correlation between the slit depth and difference (delta value) between the signal peaks and troughs could also be founded. Consequently, the optimum excitation frequency can be determined by plotting a graph of the slope of trend line of the delta values versus the frequency.


Non-destructive testing NDT Magnetic flux leakage MFL Anisotropic magnetoresistance AMR 



The authors would like to thank to the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia (grant no. RDU160115) and Universiti Malaysia Pahang (grant no. RDU170377) for laboratory facilities and financial assistance.


  1. 1.
    Mccrea A, Chamberlain D, Navon R (2002) Automated inspection and restoration of steel bridges—a critical review of methods and enabling technologies. Autom Constr 11:351–373Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tillack GR, Nockemann C, Bellon C (2000) X-ray modeling for industrial applications. NDT&E Int 33:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goglio L, Rossetto M (1999) Ultrasonic testing of adhesive bonds of thin metal sheets. NDT&E Int 32:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jiao J, Sun J, Li N, Song G, Wu B, He C (2014) Micro-crack detection using a collinear wave mixing technique. NDT&E Int 62:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jiles DC (1988) Review of magnetic methods for nondestructive evaluation. NDT&E Int 21:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jiles DC (1990) Review of magnetic methods for nondestructive evaluation (Part 2). NDT Int 23:83–92Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsukada K, Yoshioka M, Kawasaki Y, Kiwa T (2010) Detection of back-side pit on a ferrous plate by magnetic flux leakage method with analyzing magnetic field vector. NDT&E Int 43:323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Auld BA, Moulder JC (1999) Review of advances in quantitative eddy current nondestructive evaluation. J Nondestr Eval 18:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kasai N, Fujiwara Y, Sekine K, Sakamoto T (2008) Evaluation of back-side flaws of the bottom plates of an oil-storage tank by the RFECT. NDT&E Int 41:525–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lebrun B, Jayet Y, Baboux JC (1997) Pulsed eddy current signal analysis: application to the experimental detection and characterization of deep flaws in highly conductive materials. NDT&E Int 30:163–170Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pohl R, Erhard A, Montag H, Thomas H, Wu H (2004) NDT techniques for railroad wheel and gauge corner inspection. NDT&E Int 37:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsukada K, Hayashi M, Nakamura Y, Sakai K, Kiwa T (2018) Small eddy current testing sensor probe using a tunneling magnetoresistance sensor to detect cracks in steel structures. IEEE Trans Magn 54:1–5Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nadzri NA, Saari MM, Halil AM, Ishak M (2018) Development of eddy current testing system for welding inspection. In: 2018 9th IEEE control and system graduate research colloquium, pp 94–98Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang ZD, Gu Y, Wang YS (2012) A review of three magnetic NDT technologies. J Magn Magn Mater 324(4):382–388Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tumanski S (2007) Induction coil sensors—a review. Meas Sci Technol 18(3)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saari MM, Sakai K, Kiwa T, Sasayama T, Yoshida T, Tsukada K (2015) Characterization of the magnetic moment distribution in low-concentration solutions of iron oxide nanoparticles by a high-Tc superconducting quantum interference device magnetometer. J Appl Phys 117(17):17B321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saari MM, Ishihara Y, Tsukamoto Y, Kusaka T, Morita K, Sakai K (2015) Optimization of an AC/DC high-Tc SQUID magnetometer detection unit for evaluation of magnetic nanoparticles in solution. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond 25:3–6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    He, D. (2017). AMR sensor and its application on nondestructive evaluation. In Magnetic sensors - development trends and applications, pp 133–154 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. H. P. Zaini
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. M. Saari
    • 1
  • N. A. Nadzri
    • 1
  • A. M. Halil
    • 2
  • A. J. S. Hanifah
    • 2
  • M. Ishak
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical and Electronics EngineeringUniversiti Malaysia PahangPekanMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity Malaysia PahangPekanMalaysia

Personalised recommendations