Study of the Effect of Transducer Thickness and Direction on the Coercive Force Magnitude

  • Aleksandr I. Burya
  • Ye. A. Yeriomina
  • V. I. Volokh
  • Predrag DašićEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 76)


The purpose of this work is to determine the influence of the product thickness of metal structure samples, as well as the location of the magnetizing device (transducer) on the magnitude of the coercive force. The experiment was realized as a complete plan of the experiment with repetition at the zero point, and the mathematical model was chosen in the form of a square model of surface response.


Transducer Non-destructive testing Mathematical modeling Response surface methodology (RSM) 


  1. 1.
    Klyuev, V.V., Muzhitskii, V.F., Gorkunov, E.S., Shcherbinin, V.E.: Nondestructive Control: A Handbook. Magnetic Methods of Control, vol. 6. Mashinostroenie, Moscow (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Volokh, V.I., Sotnikov, A.L., Vlasenko, N.N.: Control of the stress-strain state of a metal on the coercive force. Mod. Lab. 3(3), 13–17 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gubsky, S.A., Sukhomlin, V.I., Volokh, V.I.: Stress state control of steels according to coercive force. In: Mechanical Engineering Col. of Research Papers, 13, pp. 6–10. Ukrainian Engineering and Pedagogical Academy, Kharkiv (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grigorov, O.V., Gubsky, S.A., Kovalenko, D.M., Strizhak, V.V.: Forecasting the residual life of the metal structures of cranes with a thickness of elements over 12 mm, in Lifting transport equipment (Dnepropetrovsk) (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Methodical instructions for conducting magnetic control of the stress-strain state of lifting structures and determining the remaining resource. MB 0.00-7.01-05.-X, 77 pp. (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grigorov, O.V., Gubsky, S.A., Okun, A.A., Popov, V.A., Horlo, N.F.: Experimental sample for calibration of structuroscope, Ukraine Patent № 77319 (2013). (in Ukrainian)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nalimov, V.V., Chernov, N.L.: Statistical Methods for Planning Extreme Experiments. Phys. - Math., Moscow, Russia (1965)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blokhin, V.G., Gludkin, O.P., Gurov, A.I., Khanin, M.L.: Modern experiment: Preparation, conduction, analysis of results, Radio and Communication, Moscow, Russia (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson, M.J., Whitcomb, P.J.: RSM Simplified: Optimizing Processes Using Response Surface Methods for Design of Experiments. Productivity Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson-Cook, C.M., Borror, C.M., Montgomery, D.C.: Response surface design evaluation and comparison. J. Stat. Plann. Inference 139(2), 629–641 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Box, G.E.P., Wilson, K.B.: On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 13(1), 1–45 (1951)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dašić, P.: Comparative analysis of different regression models of the surface roughness in finishing turning of hardened steel with mixed ceramic cutting tools. J. Res. Dev. Mech. Ind. (JRaDMI) 5(2), 101–180 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dašić, P.: Research of processed surface roughness for turning hardened steel by means of ceramic cutting tools. In: Proceedings of the 2nd World Tribology Congress (WTC 2001), Vienna, Austria, 3–7 September 2001, M-51-29-055. Österreichische Tribologische Gesellschaft – The Austrian Tribology Society (ÖTG), Vienna (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dašić, P.: The choice of regression equation in fields metalworking. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference “Research and Development in Mechanical Industry” (RaDMI 2003), Herceg Novi, Serbia and Montenegro, pp. 147–158, 19–23 September 2003. (Trstenik: High Technical Mechanical School, Kruševac: Institute IMK “14. October” and Podgorica: Institute of Faculty of Mechanical Engineering)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flaig, J.J.: A new classification of variables in design of experiments. Qual. Technol. Quant. Manag. 3(1), 103–110 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Montgomery, D.C.: Design and Analysis of Experiments, 8th edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C., Vining, G.G., Borror, C.M., Kowalski, S.M.: Response surface methodology: a retrospective and literature review. J. Qual. Technol. 36(1), 53–77 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bolshev, L.N., Smirnov, N.V.: Tables of mathematical statistics, Science, Moscow, Russia (1965)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksandr I. Burya
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ye. A. Yeriomina
    • 2
  • V. I. Volokh
    • 2
  • Predrag Dašić
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Ukrainian Technological Academy (UTA)KievUkraine
  2. 2.Dniprovsk State Technical UniversityKamianskeUkraine
  3. 3.High Technical Mechanical School of Professional StudiesTrstenikSerbia
  4. 4.Faculty of Strategic and Operational Management (FSOM)Novi BeogradSerbia

Personalised recommendations