Monitoring the gap between the pressure tube (PT) and the calandria tube (CT) in CANDU® fuel channels is essential, as contact between the two tubes can lead to delayed hydride cracking of the pressure tube. Multifrequency transmit-receive eddy current non-destructive evaluation is used to determine this gap, as this method has different depths of penetration and variable sensitivity to noise, unlike single frequency eddy current non-destructive evaluation. An Analytical model based on the Dodd and Deeds solutions, and a second model that accounts for normal and lossy self-inductances, and a non-coaxial pickup coil, are examined for representing the response of an eddy current transmit-receive probe when considering factors that affect the gap response, such as pressure tube wall thickness and pressure tube resistivity. The multifrequency model data was analyzed using principal components analysis (PCA), a statistical method used to reduce the data set into a data set of fewer variables. The results of the PCA of the analytical models were then compared to PCA performed on a previously obtained experimental data set. The models gave similar results under variable PT wall thickness conditions, but the non-coaxial coil model, which accounts for self-inductive losses, performed significantly better than the Dodd and Deeds model under variable resistivity conditions.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
16 February 2017
43RD ANNUAL REVIEW OF PROGRESS IN QUANTITATIVE NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION, VOLUME 36
17–22 July 2016
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Research Article|
February 16 2017
Comparison of analytical eddy current models using principal components analysis
S. Contant;
S. Contant
1Department of Physics,
Royal Military College of Canada
, Canada
2Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy,
Queen’s University
, Canada
Search for other works by this author on:
M. Luloff;
M. Luloff
1Department of Physics,
Royal Military College of Canada
, Canada
2Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy,
Queen’s University
, Canada
Search for other works by this author on:
J. Morelli;
J. Morelli
2Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy,
Queen’s University
, Canada
Search for other works by this author on:
T. W. Krause
T. W. Krause
a)
1Department of Physics,
Royal Military College of Canada
, Canada
Search for other works by this author on:
a)
Corresponding author: Thomas.Krause@rmc.ca
AIP Conf. Proc. 1806, 110003 (2017)
Citation
S. Contant, M. Luloff, J. Morelli, T. W. Krause; Comparison of analytical eddy current models using principal components analysis. AIP Conf. Proc. 16 February 2017; 1806 (1): 110003. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974681
Download citation file:
500
Views
Citing articles via
The effect of a balanced diet on improving the quality of life in malignant neoplasms
Yu. N. Melikova, A. S. Kuryndina, et al.
Animal intrusion detection system using Mask RCNN
C. Vijayakumaran, Dakshata, et al.
Recognition of cat ras of face and body using convolutional neural networks
Akhmad Wahyu Aji, Esmeralda Contessa Djamal, et al.
Related Content
Examination of Dodd and Deeds solutions for a transmit-receive eddy current probe above a layered planar structure
AIP Conference Proceedings (February 2017)
Eddy current proximity measurement of perpendicular tubes from within pressure tubes in CANDU® nuclear reactors
AIP Conference Proceedings (April 2018)
Model based optimization of driver-pickup separation for eddy current measurement of gap
AIP Conference Proceedings (April 2018)
Inverse algorithm for extraction of multiple parameters using analytical model of eddy current response
J. Appl. Phys. (May 2022)
Eddy current probe characterization for model input and validation
AIP Conference Proceedings (May 2000)