0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
74 tayangan6 halaman
This document discusses an investigation of the Barkhausen noise technique and its correlation with magnetic hysteresis measurements. Barkhausen noise and hysteresis experiments were performed on mechanically deformed steel samples using different sensor configurations. The results showed an interrelation between magnetic permeability and the Barkhausen noise envelope, but also significant quantitative discrepancies. Reasons for these deviations and challenges in standardizing the Barkhausen noise technique were discussed.
Deskripsi Asli:
Judul Asli
Measurement of Barkhausen noise and its correlation with magnetic permeability.pdf
This document discusses an investigation of the Barkhausen noise technique and its correlation with magnetic hysteresis measurements. Barkhausen noise and hysteresis experiments were performed on mechanically deformed steel samples using different sensor configurations. The results showed an interrelation between magnetic permeability and the Barkhausen noise envelope, but also significant quantitative discrepancies. Reasons for these deviations and challenges in standardizing the Barkhausen noise technique were discussed.
This document discusses an investigation of the Barkhausen noise technique and its correlation with magnetic hysteresis measurements. Barkhausen noise and hysteresis experiments were performed on mechanically deformed steel samples using different sensor configurations. The results showed an interrelation between magnetic permeability and the Barkhausen noise envelope, but also significant quantitative discrepancies. Reasons for these deviations and challenges in standardizing the Barkhausen noise technique were discussed.
Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 320 (2008) 204209
Measurement of Barkhausen noise and its correlation with
magnetic permeability O. Stupakov a,b, , J. Pala c , V. Yurchenko a,d , I. Toma s a , J. Bydz ovsky c a Institute of Physics, ASCR, Na Slovance 2, 18221 Prague, Czech Republic b Institute of Fluid Science, Tohoku University, Katahira 2-1-1, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8577, Japan c Department of Electromagnetic Theory, University of Technology, Ilkovicova 3, 81219 Bratislava, Slovak Republic d Department of Physics, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1048, Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway Received 25 February 2007; received in revised form 14 May 2007 Available online 3 June 2007 Abstract The paper investigates applicability of the Barkhausen noise technique as a non-destructive testing method and its correlation with the magnetic hysteresis measurement. The hysteresis and the Barkhausen noise experiments were performed at laboratory and industrial congurations on a model series of open at samples plastically deformed by mechanical tension. The sample magnetic eld was measured with the help of a near-surface Hall sensor. The results proved interrelation between the magnetic differential permeability and the Barkhausen noise envelope. However, signicant quantitative discrepancies between them were also obtained. The reasons of these deviations as well as the main measurement problems were discussed in order to help to standardize the Barkhausen noise technique and to extend a number of the used parameters for the non-destructive testing. r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. PACS: 75.60.Ej; 81.70.Ex; 85.70.Ay Keywords: Barkhausen noise; Magnetic hysteresis; Magnetic non-destructive testing 1. Introduction The Barkhausen and the hysteresis measurement meth- ods are widely used procedures in laboratory investigations as well as in industrial non-destructive testing (NDT) [110]. However, no commonly accepted standard for the Barkhausen noise (BN) technique was established yet. A number of industrial devices available in the market utilize specially constructed BN probes. Moreover, their design details and the algorithms for the BN signal processing are often a commercial information. Generally, such devices are equipped with a miniature probe composed of an U-shaped yoke with plain or rounded poles for the sample magnetization and of a BN sensor between the yoke poles. This sensor could be differently constructed to pick up the normal or the tangential components of BN on the sample surface [2,11]. As a result of the measurement these devices usually present a relative number, which describes some average amount of the detected BN. The research in laboratories proceeds in two main directions: an extension of number of the used parameters for NDT [3,5,9,12] and optimization of the magnetic examination with respect to the measurement conditions [4,6,13,14]. With recent development of digital measure- ment systems it became possible to investigate the BN signal in more details. The researchers focused their attention on new, not yet utilized in practice, BN parameters such as a BN envelope, a number of BN jumps, a BN spectral density, etc. They are tested for applicability in material evaluation and for possibility to provide an additional information to the traditional root mean square (RMS) value of BN. However, the other issue ARTICLE IN PRESS www.elsevier.com/locate/jmmm 0304-8853/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2007.05.022
Corresponding author. Institute of Physics, ASCR, Na Slovance 2,
18221 Prague, Czech Republic. Tel.: +420 26605 2879; fax: +420 28689 0527. E-mail address: stupak@fzu.cz (O. Stupakov). URL: http://www.fzu.cz/stupak (O. Stupakov). of stable denition of the BN parameters with respect to the experimental conditions (design of the BN probes, variation of their contact quality at installation on the sample surfaces, dependence of the measurement results on the applied eld rate, etc.) is still an open question. The laboratory BN setup usually consists of an U-shaped ferrite or soft iron yoke for the sample magnetization and a pick-up coil wrapped around the sample or attached to the sample surface for the measurement. Use of the sample- wrapped coil is a classical laboratory approach, when the BN is measured in the magnetization direction [12,14,15]. However, in most industrially preferred cases the coil is placed on the sample surface, and it picks up the normal component of BN [3,16,17]. These attached coils are often equipped with magnetically soft cores amplifying the signal. In both cases, the measured BN parameters are still mostly referred to the magnetizing current (the current method of the sample eld determination) [4]. The present work intends to study the above-mentioned scantily investigated topics of the BN measurements. We used the sample-wrapped and the attached coil congura- tions to compare the results between the different BN- sensing approaches and additionally to compare the BN measurements and the corresponding hysteresis ones. For vivid demonstration, the experiments were done at two different eld rates on a model series of low-carbon steel samples, which show two-peak proles of the differential permeability and of the BN envelope [15,18,19]. These proles were evaluated versus the sample eld, measured directly by a near-surface Hall sensor (the surface eld method of the sample eld determination) [5,14]. This method was applied by analogy with our previous works, devoted to optimization of the hysteresis measurements [20,21]. It was shown there that control of the sample mag- netization by the Hall sensor/s increases the results stability and the physical accuracy of the hysteresis measurements in comparison with the ordinary current method. In a similar manner, the question of possible advantages of the surface eld method for the BN technique was investigated in this work. The second main goal was to compare the results of the differently congured BN and hysteresis experiments, in order to dene a way of standardization of the BN method for NDT. 2. Experiment and data evaluation The measurements were done on a model series of at samples of the low-carbon steel CSN 12021 (0.070.15%C, 0.30.5%Mn, 0.170.37%Si, max. 0.15%Cr, max. 0.25%Cu, max. 0.04%P, max. 0.04%S), frequently used for large diameter pipelines at power plants. The tested samples with dimensions 90 50 6 mm 3 underwent uni- axial mechanical tensions up to 0%, 8%, 10%, 13% and 15% of the plastic strain along the longest side. The speci- mens were tested after unloading applying the magnetic eld along the stress direction. Since the deformed samples showed similar magnetic behavior, the specimens strained up to 0%, 8% and 15% were chosen to present the result. The samples were magnetized by a single-yoke (trans- former laminated C-core) of the same width as the samples (see Fig. 1). The magnetization windings N 2 160 were placed around the yoke poles. Triangular waveform of the magnetizing current dI=dt const was used. According to the current method, the inside-sample magnetic eld H i was evaluated to be proportional to the magnetizing current I: H i NI=L, where the magnetic path L was determined as 58 mm in order to correspond with the surface Hall measurements at high elds. The used eld rates were dH i =dt 2:2 and 6.6 kA/m/s, which will be referred to hereafter as the low and the high rates, respec- tively. The magnetizing current amplitude was chosen to achieve the maximum eld value H i about 5 kA/m. At such a yoke-sample conguration the specimens were magnetized homogeneously in the depth in the central part between the yoke poles [20]. Therefore, the Hall sensor for the surface eld measurements H sur was placed at the yoke- free side of the samples, where the surface eld gradients are much smaller than at the opposite side between the yoke poles [21]. The near-surface Hall probe, developed at the Institute of Electrical Engineering, SAS, with 0.25mm distance of the 0:1 0:1 mm 2 sensing area from the sensor edge and 1 mV7:9 A=m sensitivity was used. At such conditions the difference between the Hall-measured eld and the real inside-sample eld was neglected. The obtained dependencies of the eld rate dH sur =dt, which qualitatively agree with our previous results [21], are shown in Fig. 2(a). The induction signal for the hysteresis measurements was recorded by two sensing coils. The rst one was wound directly around the samples (laboratory condition), and the other one was wound around the yoke pole near to the edge (NDT conguration) [20]. The number of turns n were 55 and 20 for the sample and for the yoke coils, respectively. The magnetic induction B was obtained by integration of the induced voltage in the coils U ind according to the induction law [1,21]: U ind nS dB dt nSm 0 m dif dH dt , (1) ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 1. Principal scheme of the setup. O. Stupakov et al. / Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 320 (2008) 204209 205 where S is the sample cross-section and m dif
1=m 0 dB=dH is the magnetic differential permeability. The amplier shifts were taken into account in order to close and symmetrize the hysteresis loops. The used induction rates dB=dtU ind , measured by the sample coil, are shown in Fig. 2(b). In case of the current method, the m dif H i is proportional to the induction rate: dB=dt m 0 dH i =dtm dif [19,20]. However, evaluation of the m dif H sur requires digital derivation: dB=dH sur was calculated and gently smoothed to obtain the differential permeability. For additional comparison, the hysteresis properties of the non-deformed homogeneous sample were measured on magnetically closed ring-shaped specimen with the magnetizing and the induction coils, uniformly wound along its perimeter. The used triangular current waveform magnetized the ring specimen with the constant eld rate [1,21]. The BN signal was also measured by two methods: by the same sensing coil, wrapped around the samples, and by a specially designed attached coil (or BN read-head), positioned between the yoke poles again at the yoke-free side of the samples (see Fig. 1). The attached coil had 2000 ne wire turns around a 1 2 mm 2 rectangular core of 34 stacked soft amorphous ribbons (2 mm wide, 15 mm long and 0.02 mm thick) of Co 67 Cr 7 Fe 4 Si 8 B 14 with effective initial permeability m in 10 3 . The BN signals as well as the magnetizing current/induction/Hall signals were amplied and sampled at 25 and 50 kHz for the low and the high- eld rates, respectively. The BN signals were band-pass ltered: the low-frequency components up to 1 kHz for the sample-wrapped coil and up to 0.3 kHz for the read-head were cut out. The upper cut-off frequency of 30 kHz was far below the resonance frequencies of the used sensing coils (50100 kHz for the read-head) [22]. The relatively narrow bandwidth of BN was determined by limitations of the analog-to-digital converter. After the measurement, all the experimental signals were averaged over 500 adjacent points (RMS averaging for the case of BN envelopes) and smoothed to get rid of noise [21]. Threshold of disturbing noise for BN was determined as a constant value of the envelope for the non-deformed sample at near-saturated elds. The obtained envelopes U env , shifted by this thresh- old, were referred to H i as well as to H sur and compared with m dif . 3. Results Fig. 3 presents result of the hysteresis measurements for the non-deformed sample at different experimental condi- tions. The effects of the eld rate and of the eld reference method are illustrated in Fig. 3(a) by the differential permeability curves, measured with the sample-wrapped coil. For the sake of simplicity the corresponding hysteresis loops are shown in Fig. 3(b) for the ascending branches only. They conrm our assumption about an increasing overestimation of the measured magnetic induction with the applied eld [20]. The results of the ring-shaped measurements with the constant eld rates are shown for comparison (0.6 kA/m/s corresponds to the minimum of the eld rate dependence in Fig. 2(a)). In contrast to the presented results for the non-deformed sample, the magnetically harder deformed specimens already reveal a near-quasistatic behavior at the used eld rates (see Fig. 2(b)). Fig. 4 presents the BN results: the effects of the eld rate and of the eld reference method by the example of the sample coil measurements together with the comparison of the two used methods of the BN sensing. The scales of the BN envelopes are given in absolute values before the amplication. The interesting fact is that the used eld/ induction rates differ by a factor of three (see Fig. 2), but the values of BN signal at these two rates differ nearly twice as shown in Fig. 4(a). The same is also valid for the read-head experiments. In addition, the sample coil and the read-head measurements display qualitatively similar behavior for the investigated sample series (see Fig. 4(b)). However, quantitative variations are evident: different sensitivity at the negative low-eld region, different peak positions, envelope shapes. Comparison of the differential permeability curves and the BN envelopes in Fig. 5 proves the same origin of the phenomena, but again with substantial quantitative ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 2. Field (a) and induction (b) rates used for the measurements versus H sur . The rates for the other deformed samples are very close to the presented dependencies for the 8%-strained specimen. O. Stupakov et al. / Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 320 (2008) 204209 206 deviations. Very interesting result is that the sensitivity of the BN technique to the considered heavy deformations is much higher than that of the hysteresis testing. Also it can be seen that correlation between the permeability and the BN proles is dependent on the used method of the eld determination. 4. Discussion The hysteresis measurements have been used for investigation of ferromagnetic materials for more than 150 years [1]. As a result, several standard techniques were introduced in practice [4]. However, the principal problem of the methods is that the obtained hysteresis is determined not only by the material properties but also by the experimental conditions: geometry and spacial scale of the magnetizing setup and the tested samples, the magnetization frequency, the driving waveform, etc. [2,23]. Therefore, the used measurement approach and the experimental details should always be taken into account at magnetic investigation. Comparison of the results obtained by different techniques should be done carefully, and in rather relative than in absolute scale. The main idea of the article was to present results of the hysteresis measurement as a basis for understanding of the less-studied BN technique. The great advantage of the hysteresis measurement is that the induced voltage signal is simply proportional to the magnetic induction rate (see Eq. (1)) [2]. It is also much higher, less noisy, and therefore easier for further interpretation than the BN. The hysteresis can be stabilized at low-magnetization frequen- cies (quasistatic regime), can be veried on the requirement of the loop symmetry or on the known maximum induction value. However, as it was shown above, the used hysteresis method also contains several intrinsic sources of measuring errors. First of all, it is the overestimation of the sample magnetic ux due to additional measurement of the leakage ux between the yoke poles together with the useful signal from the tested sample (see Fig. 3(b)) [20]. Mobility and exibility of the testing device, demanded by industrial applications, ask for positioning of the induction coil on the yoke body rather than around the sample. However, even at the laboratory conditions, with the sample-wrapped pick-up coil, the measuring induction is a little overestimated because of an isolation gap between the ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 4. BN envelopes, measured by the sample coil at different experimental conditions (a) as well as measured by the sample and the attached coils at the low-eld rate (b). Fig. 3. Differential permeability curves (a) and ascending hysteresis branches (b) for the non-deformed sample at different experimental conditions. The inset illustrates the near-coercivity region in detail. O. Stupakov et al. / Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 320 (2008) 204209 207 sample and the coil. Moreover, the sample/yoke induction coils evaluate the magnetic ux, whichfor the bulk specimenscan penetrate into the sample volume in a strongly non-homogenous way [21]. The main disadvantage of the single-yoke method still remains the general contact problem of the attached sensor: the dependence of the measurement results on the contact quality between the yoke and the sample. The poorly dened air-gaps between the attached yoke and the tested industrially shaped samples can lead to considerable uctuation of the magnetization conditions, namely of the eld rate and of the eld amplitude, which correspondingly leads to changes of the induction signal. In our recent works [20,21], it was shown that the contact problem can be xed by precise determination of the inside-sample eld. However, this solution is surely limited by the quasistatic range of the measurements (see Fig. 3(a)). The used NDT conguration with the magnetizing coils wound around the yoke poles leads to the complex dependence of the magnetization rate (see Fig. 2(a)). There is a minimum in the coercivity region, which is determined by penetration of the yoke-generated ux into the sample volume [21]. In the ideal case, the whole range of the applied magnetization rate should not exceed the quasi- static threshold. The inset in Fig. 3 clearly demonstrates the mentioned measuring errors: the increased coercivity due to the dynamical magnetization and the increased perme- ability/hysteresis slope due to the induction overestimation. Therefore, it would be more physically accurate to measure with the constant eld/induction rate [1]. This could also change the correlation between the hysteresis and the BN responses [2]. However, it substantially complicates the device. In analogy with the analysis of the hysteresis measure- ments, the present work investigates possible advantages of the surface eld method for the BN envelope presentation. Despite the long history of BN measurements, evaluation of the BN envelope is quite a new topic. The similarities between shapes of the differential magnetic permeability and of the BN envelope were also realized recently [11,24]. In contrast with the traditionally measured total RMS value of BN, determination of the local RMS prole of BN is more difcult and less stable because of the stochastic nature of the BN emission [2,11]. However, it can give deeper understanding of the underlying physical processes similar to the differential permeability [19]. Another potential benet of the BN read-head technique is the local measurement of the stray eld variation caused by sub-surface domain rearrangements. The magnetic ampli- fying core of the read-head can be easily designed into any necessary shape according to the locality requirement and pressed to the sample surface by a spring mechanism to reduce the contact problem [16,17]. It looks probable that the local surface measurement of the BN envelope, referred to the near-surface measured sample eld, could offer more stable results than the bulk hysteresis testing accompanied by the induction measuring errors. This would be very attractive for practical use in the NDT eld. The obtained results proved our expectations about correlation between the hysteresis and the BN processes (see Fig. 5). The BN envelopes showed similar two-peak behavior as the differential permeability for the uniaxially deformed samples. However, quantitative deviations be- tween the different types of the measurements are also evident. Moreover, the BN envelopes, measured by the sample coil and by the read-head, are different (see Fig. 4(b)). But the main problem is that, in contrast to the hysteresis measurements, there is no way for compar- ison of the different BN results. There is no normalization law for the BN signal as for the hysteresis induction signal (see Eq. (1) and Fig. 3). The obtained experimental BN signals are also difcult to be interpreted theoretically, because usually the transfer function between the magne- tization changes in the material and the measured signal is not known [2]. In addition, even within the quasistatic range of the hysteresis measurements, the non-linear dependence of the BN signal level on the magnetization/ ux rates was found (see Fig. 4(a)). At the moment there is no clear understanding of the correlation between the hysteresis and the BN behaviors yet and there is no standard widely accepted scheme for the BN measurements either. Lively discussions are devoted to ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 5. Comparison of the differential permeability curves and the BN envelopes, measured by the sample coil at the low-eld rate, with the current (a) and the surface eld methods (b). O. Stupakov et al. / Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 320 (2008) 204209 208 explanations of the obtained BN proles due to different sensitivity of the measurement methods to the various stages of the magnetization process: nucleation/annihila- tion/movement of the 90
=180
domain walls [11,23,25].
This should be really one of the principal reasons of the quantitative disagreement between different methods of the BN measurements, in particular between the used methods of the sample-wrapped coil and the BN read-head. The head records the BN emission predominantly in the perpendicular direction to magnetization from the stray ux, whereas the coil picks up noises from the sample surface mainly along the magnetization line. The sensitivity of the coils to the normal components is supposed to be negligible. This is proved by the fact that the read-head signal does not contain any signicant low-frequency hysteresis component, whereas for the sample-wrapped coil it is problematic to accurately lter it out [26]. The geometrical parameters of the sensing coils (inner/outer diameters, height, number of turns, material of the core for the read-head) are also of strong inuence to the measurement results [22]. However, exact relations are still unclear, and further detailed investigations are required to establish them [2,26]. Another reason of the considered deviations, especially between the differential permeability and the BN envel- opes, can originate from use of the magnetizing current as the reference value (see Fig. 5). Evidently, it is more accurate to utilize the surface sample eld for the reference, and in such a way to control the magnetization condition inuencing the BN response (see Fig. 4(a)). Moreover, despite the proved similarity of the hysteresis and the BN results, it was also shown that the methods can illustrate different sensitivity to the tested structural modications (see Fig. 5). The possible reason of higher BN sensitivity is an increased density of the surface defects due to the sample polishing and the following mechanical deforma- tion. Therefore, a more general approach could be the optimum: to combine these two techniques for the material investigations in order to obtain the complex magnetic response and to choose the best solution for NDT (the propagating idea of multi-parameter sensor) [10,12]. 5. Conclusions Investigation of the hysteresis and of the BN techniques, based on the single-yoke magnetization, was performed with the aim to nd correlations between these conjugate measurement methods and to discuss an optimum design of a magnetic NDT device. The experimental results proved that despite the close relationship between the magnetic differential permeability and the BN envelope there are substantial quantitative differences between them, which are additionally dependent on the setup congura- tion. It was found that the BN emission illustrates different sensitivity to the material modication and manifests quite different dependence on the magnetization rate than that of the magnetic hysteresis. It was also proved that application of the directly measured surface eld as the reference value for the BN envelope is more accurate than use of the magnetizing current. It was proposed to combine the hysteresis and the BN techniques in practice, in order to obtain more detailed magnetic information about the investigated materials. Acknowledgments The authors appreciate nancial support of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic through the project nos. 1QS100100508 and AVOZ10100520 and of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic through the project VEGA No.1/3116/06. O. Stupakov gratefully acknowl- edges support by JSPS postdoctoral fellowship. References [1] R.M. Bozorth, Ferromagnetism, D. Van Nostrand, Toronto, 1951. [2] G. Bertotti, Hysteresis in Magnetism, Academic Press, San Diego, 1998. [3] G. Dobmann, N. Meyendorf, E. Schneider, Nucl. Eng. Des. 171 (1997) 95. [4] J. Sievert, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 215216 (2000) 647. [5] R. Baldev, T. Jayakumar, V. Moorthy, S. Vaidyanathan, Russ. J. Nondestr. Test. 37 (2001) 789. [6] G.S. Korzunin, V.K. Chistyakov, F.F. Rimshev, V.M. Shevnin, Russ. J. Nondestr. Test. 37 (2001) 397. [7] J. Anglada-Rivera, L.R. Padovese, J. Capo -Sa nchez, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 231 (2001) 299. [8] I. Me sza ros, J. Proha szka, J. Mater. Process. Tech. 161 (2005) 162. [9] G. Ve rtesy, I. Toma s , I. Me sza ros, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 310 (2007) 76. [10] T. Chady, R. Sikora, G. Psuj, M. Enokizono, T. Todaka, IEEE Trans. Magn. 41 (2005) 3721. [11] D.C. Jiles, Czech. J. Phys. 50 (2000) 893. [12] B. Augustyniak, M. Chmielewski, M.J. Sablik, IEEE Trans. Magn. 36 (2000) 3624. [13] V.F. Matyuk, S.A. Goncharenko, H. Hartmann, H. Reichelt, Russ. J. Nondestr. Test. 39 (2003) 347. [14] O. Saquet, J. Chicois, A. Vincent, Mater. Sci. Eng. A-Struct. 269 (1999) 73. [15] C. Gatelier-Rothea, J. Chicois, R. Fougeres, P. Fleischmann, Acta Mater. 46 (1998) 4873. [16] V. Moorthy, B.A. Shaw, S. Day, Acta Mater. 52 (2004) 1927. [17] J. Gauthier, T.W. Krause, D.L. Atherton, NDT&E Int. 31 (1998) 23. [18] J.M. Makar, B.K. Tanner, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 222 (2000) 291. [19] O. Stupakov, J. Pala, I. Toma s , J. Bydz ovsky , V. Nova k, Mater. Sci. Eng. A-Struct. 462 (2007) 351. [20] O. Stupakov, I. Toma s , J. Kadlecova , J. Phys. D 39 (2006) 248. [21] O. Stupakov, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 307 (2006) 279. [22] V. Stro m, Integral and local AC-susceptibility: instrumentation and applications, Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stock- holm, 1999, pp. 2324. [23] D.K. Bhattacharya, S. Vaidyanathan, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 166 (1997) 111. [24] M. Blaow, J.T. Evans, B.A. Shaw, Acta Mater. 53 (2005) 279. [25] J.A. Pe rez-Benitez, J. Capo -Sa nchez, J. Anglada-Rivera, L.R. Padovese, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 288 (2005) 433. [26] A.J. Moses, H.V. Patel, P.I. Williams, J. Elec. Eng. 57 (8/S) (2006) 38 (ISSN 1335-3632). ARTICLE IN PRESS O. Stupakov et al. / Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 320 (2008) 204209 209