# Comparison of Giant Magnetoimpedance and Anisotropic Magnetoresistance Sensors for Residual Stress Distribution Determination in Magnetic Steels

## TL;DR

This paper compares GMI and AMR sensors for measuring residual stresses in steel by analyzing surface magnetic fields.

## Contribution

The study provides a direct comparison of GMI and AMR sensor performance for residual stress detection in magnetic steels.

## Key findings

- GMI sensors showed higher sensitivity in detecting residual stresses.
- AMR sensors provided 3D magnetic field measurements at a lower cost.
- Both sensor types effectively monitored residual stress distributions in steel coupons.

## Abstract

Our team has initiated work to determine residual stresses by means of monitoring magnetic properties, namely differential permeability, magnetoacoustic emission, and surface field components. Concerning surface field measurements, Hall, AMR, and TMR sensors have been used, with AMR and TMR sensors enabling 3D field determination. In this paper, we compare the surface magnetic field components with residual stresses in 2 mm thick AISI 4130 steel coupons. The steel samples were in a dog-bone structure with residual stresses induced by localized RF induction heating to create a temperature gradient, followed by quenching to transform the temperature gradient into a residual stress one. GMI and AMR sensors were used to determine the localized magnetic field component distribution on the surface of the steel coupons and at the same areas where the residual stresses were determined. The GMI sensor was able to monitor the field component perpendicular to the surface of the steel coupon, while the AMR sensor was able to monitor the three field components at the same points. The results illustrated that both sensors were able to monitor residual stresses, with the GMI sensor illustrating better sensitivity at a higher cost, while the AMR sensor had a lower sensitivity with a significantly lower cost as an integrated sensor.