KR0101218

KAERI/AR-593/2001

Remote Field Eddy Current Testing

2oooa£ "

2001. 3.

0|
 O Ofc J=L

CANDU
gap

- i -
 SUMMARY

Title : Remote Field Eddy Current Testing

The state-of-art technology of the remote field eddy current,

which is actively developed as an electromagnetic non-destructive
testing tool for ferromagnetic tubes, is described. The historical
background and recent R&D activities of remote-field eddy current
technology are explained including the theoretical development of
remote field eddy current, such as analytical and numerical
approach, and the results of finite element analysis. The
influencing factors for actual applications, such as the effect of
frequency, magnetic permeability, receiving sensitivity, and
difficulties of detection and classification of defects are also
described. Finally, two examples of actual application, 1) the gap
measurement between pressure tubes and calandria tube in CANDU
reactor and, 2) the detection of defects in the ferromagnetic heat
exchanger tubes, are described. The future research efforts are also
included.

- ii -
 i

tfi*> ol-E 8
3.1 ^ el^- <g<*| 10
3.2 t H ^ f c)^ 10

3 ^ ^Tiel^- £ } * l ^ - ^ <S^- ^*o* 14

4.1. -T-^%1- 3.^. 14
4 9 7^ UJ- Q tlT _ 1A

4.3 ^ ^ W ^ S %^-i- ^Itl 71^ 17

4.3.1 ^ ^ 3 . ^ 5 ^ tifl^l 17
4.3.2 -ilSL ^ e l 17
4.3.3 -fr^A-ii^ ^-g- 23

Q7\*\% ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ ° ! § 24
5.1. 1 *Hd S3]5L3i-^l o]^. 25
5.2. Hl*^ ^-a.^A-1^ %7\^\^ $ ^ 3L3\ O 1 $ 26
5.3. #7iBl# A f ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ tH*> -8-*>A4:^ S i 37
5.4 ^Tjel^- Af^i^-^l Sal JL2} o]§ 42

#«1 ^ - ^ 47
6.1. *$-%•&[ ^ | * > 49
6.1.1. a}-g- ^ s l - ^ 49
6.1.2. zm^l ^ 7 l ^ - 4 # JL21- 51
6.1.3. ^ 1 ^•S.ofl rH*]: $\if ^ . £ ^ 1 ^ <g*o* 51
6.1.4. ^ ^ q^oH cfl«> u>^ 51

- iii -
7. ]# & 55
7.1. ^ 7 ] e | ^ £}*iW A oM- o]^*]: ?%<&£_ aj|^<q
concentric tube ^}^ ^ - ^ 55
7.2. 7^>^ <£3.%7\ ^ a . ^ 7 } ^ # ^ A f l . oj^.

^ ^ *l 58

8. -• 61
8.1. 715L ^ 1 ^ 61
8.2. ^-g-sf ^ ^ 61

- iv -
 o. U s. xh

Fig. 1. Diagram of pipeline inspection tool. 5

Fig. 2. Schematic showing location of remote-field zone in relation
to exciter coil and direct coupling zone. 8
Fig. 3. Instantaneous field lines shown with log spacing that
allows field lines to be seen in all regions. This
spacing also emphasizes the difference between the near-field
region and remote-field region in the pipe. The near-field
region consists of the more closely spaced lines near the
exciter coil in the pipe interior, and the remote-field region
is the less dense region further away from the exciter. 9
Fig. 4. RFEC configuration with exciter coil and multiple sector
receiver coils. 12
Fig. 5. Poynting vector field showing the direction of energy flow
at any point in space. This more directly demonstrates
that the direction of energy flow in the remote-field region
in from the exterior to the interior of the pipe. 15
Fig. 6. Magnetic field lines generated by the exciter coil and
currents in the pipe wall. The greater line density in
the pipe closer to the outside wall in the remote-field
region confirms the observation that field energy diffuses
into the pipe interior from the exterior. A significant
number of the field lines have been suppressed. 16
Fig. 7. Signal processing of impedance-plane sensor voltage in RFEC
testing, (a) RFEC scan with a Br probes through a carbon
steel tube with outside surface pits that were 30, 50, and 10%
of wall thickness depth. Each graduation in x and y direction
is 10V. (b) Horizontal channel at 0° rotation, (c) Vertical
channel at 0° rotation. Signal amplitudes in both (b) and
(c) are in arbitrary units. Only 70% flaw stands out
clearly. 19

- v-
Fig. 8. Horizontal (a) and vertical (b) data of Fig. 7 after 100°
rotation. Signal amplitudes are in arbitrary units. 20
Fig. 9. Data from Fig. 8 processed with the correlation technique.
All three flaws are now well defined. Signal amplitude is in
arbitrary units. 22
Fig. 10. Phase lag of detector signal with thickness: (a) experimental,
(b) finite element simulation. 27
Fig. 11. Comparison of phase lag-frequency relationship from finite
element and skin-effect predictions. 28
Fig. 12. Schematic of the remote-field eddy current device with an
array of small receive coils in the remote-field region.
The region with the proposed localized eddy current in the
vicinity of the transmit coil is shown. 30
Fig. 13. Equivalent circuit model representing the transmit coil
linked inductively with the pressure tube. The primary
circuit represents the transmit coil in series with a resistor.
The secondary circuit represents the section of tube in the
vicinity of the transmit coil in which most of the eddy current
•flruiro — — - . *iO

Fig. 14. One-dimension example for the finite element model. 41

Fig. 15. Wall of a conducting cylinder showing the incident waves
(I) is partially reflected and partly transmitted at each
air-metal interface. 42
Fig. 16. Change in phase of field after transit through a conductor. - 45
Fig. 17. Amplitude attenuation factors of field after transit
through the tube wall in the field zone. Effective wall
thickness was varied by changing the permeability,
radii, frequency, or conductivity from the standard
sample. 46
Fig. 18. Breadboard instrumentation necessary to excite and
receive the 45-Hz signal. Analysis was based on the phase
different between the reference and received signals. 48
Fig. 19. Relationship between maximum probe speed and tube wall

- vi -
 thickness for normal assumptions of resolution and
tube characteristics. 50
Fig. 20. Schematic of remote-field eddy current probe showing energy
4- 1 y—in? v ^ o ^" r\Ci - .___ ._____^^~__~__ .___ ._ . _— _ -*w _ _ _ , .. ~_ >^ O

Fig. 21. Pipe with aluminum target with axial slot. 53

Fig. 22. Radial magnetic field coil amplitude and phase changes for
axial and circumferential 50 % deep cracks with various
widths. 54
Fig. 23. Gap measurement between two concentric tubes in a
nuclear fuel channel with an RFEC probe, (a) Cross-sectional
view of probe and test sample. Dimensions given in mm.
(b) Plot of eddy current signals illustrating effect of
gap, wall thickness, and lift-off, (c) Plot of y-component
of signal versus gap at a frequency of 3 kHz. 57
Fig. 24. Schematic representation of remote-field probe with dual
receiver coils. 60

- vii -
Table 1. Comparison between test results and visual inspection of
four tubed pulled from a feedwater heater. 59

- viii -
1.

(remote field eddy current inspection)

* ^ 4 ? H %*}i>}±
1951 ^ MacLean *] ^ # # ^ <*1 elfS. 40

£S 2.

2 tif) o
. pitting £

[l].

[2],

- 3 7}X] « o ^ S
£ 7 } ^SJt^-^.

- 3 7}*1 ^ig S ^ && %^1^1 3.71

4171 e l ^

- l
 (support plate)5|

(fill factor)^ Y^S ^Hf'tHH 7}^- 37)1

\^ Hall

***

3. Pit, crack, ^
7} # ufi>a# # £ ^ 4 ^ - ^ s ^ j u ^ m ^ sacf. ^ pit

corrosion J£fe erosion <Hl

4. #eH^ ^ ^ ^ ^ j - ^ ^ A - l ^J9L^> ^lxl-^ *}u}oj fill-factor

lift-off JL:ZH tfl^> 0^-0.5.7} a t ^ , dirts, scale -§^1 I S

-2 -
 5.

through-transmission mode

***

2.

3.

4. <g*oM-
l^ o]3} go]
71

-3-
2 . 9i|AH*l UH^ [3,4]

1951Vi a ] ^ H H W. R. McLean<>]
51: McLean 2573799)# #^&-£
1957>d£6fl nl^-Sl Shell DevelopmentAHlA-j Schmidt 7} *}-£- A]^:2* (oil-well
casing pipe, ^ ^ 178-203 mm, ^ ^ 1 9.5-12.5 mm,

o ] ^ I960 ^
[5]. % ^ H f e far field
-n-4 -8-<HAf ^ § - * W ?|J£^- 5 ) £ ^ j M remote field 3l2fe|-3. -¥-^.7f]
Fig. lafl ^.^c>. a]^^> A)7|ofl Shell A}CH)
fltHrH "Ferrog"

1970

7} « q ^ * H
1978^-^-El #7\Z\% ^ ^ ^ 3 L ^ 4 *H7fl^»! AJ^, £
71 ^ 51

1^ tfl a ^ »i*fl

fe c-l] ^<HS ^ 4 ^ 5 ] 1.8 af|

- 4 -
 Amplifier Trig Strobe Strob* light firing in synchronism
with pfcfcup signal. Ungtti of light
unro«*k«d is measure of sfi« tf m«
t Exciter
Coil
««lay

Pickup Film v
Drive Syne. HeUx tplningin
Motor Motor with cxciitr signal

J \ Battery
Inverter
24v dc

Fig. 1. Diagram of pipeline inspection tool.

1.8 aH

u]
Colorado , Southwest Research Institute(SwRI), TIMKEN A } , ?Jj
Queens Cyberscope A} ^-^1^1 nl-^^ 7 l ^ ^^- ^^<^1
cf. n]^- 7 nm, Colorado ^, Fort Collinsofl
Colorado
7> cflsfl meshl-

(potential v a l l y ) " <=>}

- 5 -
1986^1 ^BM-cf, Queens cfl^(Kingston, Ontario, Canada) $] Applied Magnetics

Southwest Research Institute(San Antonio, Texas,

CyberscopeAj-(Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1986 Si) ^l'Mfe- Shell

segmented detectorl- ^^t> ^n1-^ ^ ^ 1 - ^4

groove7>

groove u> vfl^ groove S-^ofl tflsfl H

50.8 mm, 3j^7|1 3.8 mm

[6].

Russell TechnologiesA}^] s>nff*f^ Ferroscope ef^ ^Hj7f 7f\1}Q Hf $l

Zetec, Testex -^<H14 c } #
A]Bf5]Jl j a ^ . ^ ?}|ufi:f5] CANDU
7> 7fl^5l U} ojt:}. aMl^l ?B^n>Sl Queens c f l ^ l ^ f e 7 C P S f ( ^ 36
^^-7} #*J£]J! ^C} [5].
<i (Stress Corrosion Cracking)

- 6-
 H
notch uf ^ ] ^ ^ ^ ^IU-Jin> ^ o^ol ^^ofl cfl*B >?l^J£7f V J ^ i - f cracky
[8].
7 ] ^ S ^ # ^^*>7] flafl^ 2000^ 12^*fl
ASTM E-2096-00, "Standard Practice for In-Situ Examination of
0
Ferromagnetic Heat-Exchanger Tubes Using Remote Field Testing" -rr"^ ]
m.

- 7-
3. o|

0.6 - 1.0

Fig.

}fe t:| Fig. 3 [1],

j
7ZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2Z^Z2ZZZZZZZZZZZZ22Z222ZZ2&

Tube O D
t 1

Tube ID
I 17C1
Direct
f fS
Remote
field zone
coupling zone

_]_„"„, Exciter coil • Detector array

Fig. 2. Schematic showing location of remote-field zone in relation to

exciter coil and direct coupling zone.

-8 -
 Inner Outer
wall wait

Pipe 0.5 - . Exciter- Pipe

axis coil
Radial position, multiples of coil radii

Fig. 3. Instantaneous field lines shown with log spacing that allows field
lines to be seen in all regions. This spacing also emphasizes the
difference between the near-field region and remote-field region in the
pipe. The near-field region consists of the more closely spaced lines near
the exciter coil in the pipe interior, and the remote-field region is the
less dense region further away from the exciter.

-9 -
3.1

direct coupling 5 l 2 f # *H&*>fe shielding . S ^ o ] 0 ! o}%£- n]-*j

cut-off

^ 10 tifl ^§H ^*}c].. S£^> $]i$. -t!3lfe direct

coupling 3} remote field coupling 2\ ^^-^1 fr^fl*}*! ^fe^} [9].

o] ^]^)7f direct - remote coupling ^7]]^c>] ^|t:>. $>3g

71 elcHl
0 - 1.8 «fl

1.8 ] f l i j i % } ] } | ^ ^
7]S]

3.2.

10
 3.°i ^} #$) ^ »3*M <¥*\*}^ ^*}7}5. Qv}. Schmidt [9]

^ ^ ^ - Fig.

- 11
 Pipe wall
Multiple sector
receiver colls

Pipe axis Exciter

coll

Fig. 4. RFEC configuration with exciter coil and multiple sector receiver
coils.

- 12 -
 7}

2)
. Rock-in amplifieri- ^V8*^ ^ S Si-^-^ -4IJE.

3)
^ 1- 3

fe pitting^

- 13 -
4. s

4.1.

[10-13].

fe =11 t> oflS Fig. 5 ofl J£<>] Poynting vector

Fig.6

4.2.

3 ^ } ^ 3E.^<>1 < H ^ ^ W nl-AV7]-xlolt:l-. Fisher and et al.

£ 2 ^}^J * H X ) i | ^ T J I - A i 7 i l ^ # ^ - g - * } ^ pitting
unperturbed-field ^ ] ^ # ^ ^ f > »} $X^\. ^-^} 2

[11].

- 14 -
 Inner Outer
watl wall

/ / / / / s *-*-
///^ss
•s. \W\\\
3

• \

1.0 • / 1.S
Radial position, muhipfes of coil radii

Fig. 5. Poynting vector field showing the direction of energy flow at

any point in space. This more directly demonstrates that the direction
of energy flow in the remote-field region in from the exterior to the
interior of the pipe.

- 15 -
 Inner Outer
wall wall

1.4 I.S
Radial position, multiples of coil radii

Fig. 6. Magnetic field lines generated by the exciter coil and currents
in the pipe wall. The greater line density in the pipe closer to the
outside wall in the remote-field region confirms the observation that
field energy diffuses into the pipe interior from the exterior. A
significant number of the field lines have been suppressed.

- 16 -
4.3.

4.3.1.

-^-Aiofl *]*> p i t t i n g ^ ^ ^ ^-^-^*1 ^ ^ # ^ l * > 7 l ^l«flA-| unperturbed

Fig. 6

^ ^ unperturbed fi
unperturbed field^fl tfls} perturbation^-S.

unperturbed ^
^> S ^ pitting 6)| cfl*B B r

unperturbed field#

4.3.2.

- 17 -
S.S. Stl^K Fig. 7 3} 8
-*^ Fig. 7 3096, 50%,

70% ^ pit- Br
Fig. 8 olMfe- ioo

- 18 -
I 1 i 1 f

<•)

Fig. 7. Signal processing of impedance-plane sensor voltage in RFEC

testing, (a) RFEC scan with a Br probes through a carbon steel tube
with outside surface pits that were 30, 50, and 70% of wall thickness
depth. Each graduation in x and y direction is 10V. (b) Horizontal
channel at 0° rotation, (c) Vertical channel at 0° rotation. Signal
amplitudes in both (b) and (c) are in arbitrary units. Only 70% flaw
stands out clearly.

- 19 -
 3.54E+00

3.aBE+-QQi

Fig. 8. Horizontal (a) and vertical (b) data of Fig. 7 after 100c
rotation. Signal amplitudes are in arbitrary units.

- 20 -
ZL»H pattern matching^ o]-g-*l -*13>f5l 7]*Qo] 7}^^}r}. Br #-§• <£U-^

} ^ convolving ^ 5 ]
Fig. 9<>fl pattern matching
3q^6fl cH«H iL>^ ^^Jofl cj|# correlation
algorithm # ^ - g - ^ ^ 2 } ^ 3 1 rjj ^ ^ u ] 7 f a^fl %>^5]fe l 3 } § ^ ^ a> ^

median filtering
sj[t:> [14].

- 21
I.85E4-Q1

1
0.00EH-00
13 .2 26 . 4 3 3 .k
ft . i
5^ - S 6!

Fig. 9. Data from Fig. 8 processed with the correlation technique. All
three flaws are now well defined. Signal amplitude is in arbitrary units.

- 22 -
4.3.3.

Atherton and et. al. [15]

shielded plated

3-4 »1|olH
^ 3 ] ^ 5 | 3 «H1^ 1.5

H v
M shield plateS ^ * l * f e o ^°l
* } ^ Infolytica A>»] "Magnet" package #
oj <§^o) xj^o] ! 5 yflofl^ l.O «HS # < H H ^ ^ 3 t S £&i:f [15]

ferrite

- 23 -
5. o|

(1)

D ^

(2)

471
20 - 200

cos exp
—5~

exp %>^

. 2

lift-off,

- 24 -
5.1. [16]

£ 71

(4)

d d ^

ic loss)

45 S.
trfef

vp = 2 x / 8 (5)

- 25 -
 cflsf
Fig. 10 dfl

ig. I D

5.2.

B(z,t) =

B •' magnetic flux density

Bo: surface magnetic flux density

t •' time

§—{2plo>fj)112- eddy current skin depth

co '• angular frequency
p '• resistivity of tube material
H •' magnetic permeability

- 26 -
 0
330 /
300

S70 /
(ft 2*0
UJ
UI
EC
-U) - /
a
<•

ui TSO
CD
<

.30

: /
•

SO

30

-' 1 t ! 1 1 t 1 t 1
0 1 2 3 •». J » 7 8 9 tO
Pipe WALL THICKNESS mm
A

+ W. LORD UNITE ELEMENT DATA

SKIM EFFECT EQUATION

Sid _ p=70 i> = 15 MICRO OHm «m + /

nr

X 360 : /

170

180

90

0 S 10 15 23 35 30

WAU. THICKNESS mm
B

Fig. 10. Phase lag of detector signal with

thickness: (a) experimental, (b) finite
element simulation.

- 27 -
 X W. LOftD FINITE ELEWEHT 0 * T »
4JJ0 - SKIrt CFFECTeoUATtCK

-
j» = 7O p = 15 micro Onrn.c*>

Ul.

-I 240 - X

I -

1 1 f 1 1 • i .1
40- «o so TOO 120 T-ia leo

EXCITATION FBEQUEWCV Hz

Fig. 11. Comparison of phase lag-frequency

relationship from finite element and skin-effect
predictions.

- 28 -
 [is]

Biot-Savart law

£-0 •' permitivity of free space

fx0 •' permeability of free space
co '• angular frequency of probe signal
a '• conductivity of tube material
Jn • nth-order Bessel function
Nn '• nth-order Neumann function
In • nth-order modified function of the first kind
Kn '• nth-order modified function of the second kind

Fig. 12 £} ^

} ^ »H1 cfl^V ^ 7 } ^ S S ^ ^ : Fig. 13

>2 , , ,2 r 2

- 29 "
 £ Point
locattud
•tfrfy current

^ l ^ ^ ^ ^ N ^ ^

Fig. 12. Schematic of the remote-field eddy current device with an

array of small receive coils in the remote-field region. The region
with the proposed localized eddy current in the vicinity of the
transmit coil is shown.

- 30 -
 Primary Secoattary
Circuit Circuit

Fig. 13. Equivalent circuit model representing the transmit

coil linked inductively with the pressure tube. The primary
circuit represents the transmit coil in series with a
resistor, The secondary circuit represents the section of
tube in the vicinity of the transmit coil in which most of
the eddy current flows.
 Rz. Lz fe t f §
fe^l Rz
^ ^4 -5.S.

r>

d ••

^ f e Grover reference

M= K {LxL2)m (9)

0 < K < 1, K fe -g-J£ ^ ^

^r source
JLJL Biot-savart source
point magnetic dipole 3. S.3. m2 magnetic
dipole moment, 3.<& ^r^fi]
magnetic dipole moment &} ^ nfl,

(11)

= /2 (12)

- 32 -
(13) 4 (14)S

(15)

(16)

Talor

-^ + ... (17)
Z\

(18)

(19)

= 3.5/^ (20)

- 33 -
 time-harmonic

- + = 0 (21)

dHr dHz
dz dz
= oEcfr (22)

dr (23)

&* (24)

(21) - (24)1-

3Hr

Hr # r ^ ^ r ^ z ^ - S - ^

Hr (26)

+ ^-^ + = 0 (27)

(28)

_ (20)

34 -
 (29)

.±= 0

+ b2Kx(ar)] > a,a,1"**

x e> (30)

2
a = j (31)

(21) - (24)<HI ni (29), ( 3 0 ) ^

^- (0 ^ r

HXr,z,t) = (32)

Hx{r,z,i) = (33)

-¥-. ^ (0 ^

Hr(r,z,f) = (34)

Hz{r,z,t) - f [ (35)

a2 =

(r 2 ^ r)

+ c2Nx(kr)} (36)

- 35 -
 Hlr,z,t) = [cJoifcr) + c2N0(kr)] (37)

r z 0 <H 2.^

- Hr (38)

, «i, bu b2,

clt c2 # ^ 4 4 r == 5 7fl

i?,
Hr & r = rlt r = r2 Fig. 12
(36) ^ XJ( 37 )

5.3.

[20-23]7}

[20]. Maxwell-Ampere,
Maxwell-Faraday fe cfl Maxwell

J H dl = j jg } ds (39)

J (40)

- 36 -
 B = MH (41)

/ = aE (42)

U •
0 ••

JJ[ B ds = 0 (43)

J | /ds = 0 (43)

magnetic vector potential ^ ^ A -fe

B = curl A = vxA (44)

(44) #

curl i1- curt A) = / + < r - ^ (45)

t >o

-f, OCy.d (46)

a = (1/A<7)1/2 O ) ^ £/(3>,# fe ^ ^ ^ - ° 1 S i ^ H, E, J, S £ ^ JC ^^L>

c
magnetic vector potential A -g-^] ^ ^=r ^ I } . °]^\^1 *$$] 3L7\
.O) = Av)

37 -
 lXy,t) = n=l
(47)

A (48)

Chateau [24]

(49)

(47) - (49) fe ,Q) = Ay)

(46)5| Fig. 14 ofl i<>l H ^ ^ o j y > o <a SI •¥•

(x-z ^)6fl

H(y,cot) = HQ exp(-py) cos (cot-py) (50)

=
p = -i-

(l)

7]$]

- 38 -
(2)

(3)

interference

39
 (T» Q

Fig. 14 One-dimension example for the finite

element model.

- 40 -
5.4.

Mackintosh and et al
Fig. 15
[25].

Pipe
wall
Fig. 15. Wall of a conducting cylinder
showing the incident waves (I) is
partially reflected and partly
transmitted at each air-metal interface.

Y=XI8, S=

S.5. o|oU vector potential^

~A = + ArHJ2\kp)] for p < rQ (51)

- 41 -
 for ri < p < r0 (52)

for p i n (53)

S-. ^-7] 5J ^ 5 ^ magnetic vector p o t e n t i a l ^ 4 4 if , * S..

"^ <=>>efl ^^> i = <U4 field, / = ^ 2 } field,
field, s = & ulf^^A-] «VA}^>^ field, e
^ ^ ^ 1 ^^ m ^1 f i e l d # $t>c>. a*> H fe Hankel
Bessel ^ S ^ | > }

(wave number) -fe-,

— jcoGix (54)

vector potential ~A$\ 'cJ-S^Rr scalar potential V fe,

V -1 = "T-UzT = 0 (55)

(56)

4 7 ] -frSLfe,

(57)

- 42 -
H S kro<l 91 krt<l o]v\ Bessel t K * ^ Hankel ^ f e

, r

r. _

2^j: sinii:r+ (Krfofir) cosier]

r fe

(59)
VcosM2r)-cos(2y)

radian I

(60)

7> 0 »fl ^-5

ifr 7} ^ ^ ^ - f *1 (58)

fe Figs. 16 ^ 17 3} £cK

- 43
 (f)

XJ
0.

co -5

-1.0-
O
*co -1.5 .Skin depth theory^-\
%
CO s

\ •

-20 x E<p«fimeotal-fiiwalpipe
+ £xperim«Ttal-hatfwalpip« \ • \

—•— Thfougb-transufe^on aquation V

V
- V

-2.5
o 2

Wall thickness in skin depths

Fig. 16. Change in phase of field after transit through a

conductor.

- 44 -
 ;Skin depth theory

o
CO

o
.01
CO

a •.pernieabity
o r0 - Outside rad
radus
.001
v r, - hade radius
co « f.- frequency; c - conductivity
Pants: Dodd and Deeds analytical caioJafons
Sojki Spas: RFECtivou^vtfanafwsain fe
.0001

, Wall thickness in skin depths

Fig. 17. Amplitude attenuation factors of field after

transit through the tube wall in the field zone. Effective
wall thickness was varied by changing the permeability,
radii, frequency, or conductivity from the standard sample.

- 45 -
6.

fe Fig. 18 6j

1) ^ 1 5 . ^ ^ ^ ] (Oscillator J£fe Function Generator),

2) <g^7l (power amplifier, U*l«g-.2.3. ^ ^ ?i

3) ^*]7] (phase and amplitude detector),

4) detector 3 . -¥"^ cfldl^^ ^|5l*>7] 4\$\; PC,

5) ^ ^ 1 3 ^ 2 } ^r^lS<a# 5^J*fe ^ ^ } ^ 7l-^-^Hl(ofl: strip

chart recorder) 3.

MS] *\3L7\ nfl-f <^*}7l irH^ofl lock-in amplifier

^ ^ 4 - 8 Ohm <a)3.

- 46 -
 Phase
detector Strip chart output
Oscilloscope Reference

Signal
Lock-in generator Power amplifier
amplifier

Average total wall

thickness probe
Type 1

Exciter Sensor

Spot wail thickness Type 2

measurement

Fig. 18. Breadboard instrumentation necessary to excite and receive

the 45-Hz signal. Analysis was based on the phase different between
the reference and received signals.

- 47 -
6.1.

6.1.2.

. <^t# §«H ^ 50
mm,^ - ^ 3.6mm (0.14 inch)
40 Hz7}*| v | ] ^ 7 H 61 ^ ^ - ^
cycled ^ > « 1 ^ ^ ^ ^r ^ J l ^ H S 3J% 40 iq^<Hl ^ ^ ^ ^ &r}. n><^ n{j
2.5 mm(0.1 inch) v\t\ ^ - ^ ^ ^ r ^ S ^ c ^ S^cfl QX[ ^ £ ^ - 102 mm/s ( 4
inch/s) S.-fe- 6m/min (20

7) ^«H4fe

. 7>^c^l Xl}M. %O)V\.) Fig. 19

[l].

- 48 -
 Tube wall thickness, in.
0.098 0.196 0.295 0594 0.492

25 5.0 7.5 .10.0

Tube wall thickness, mm

Fig. 19. Relationship between maximum probe

speed and tube wall thickness for normal
assumptions of resolution and tube
characteristics.

- 49 -
6.1.3.

l o.u} o]

6.1.4.

tubesheet7>

7)
fin

6.1.5.

A t h e r t o n e t . a l . [26] ^ 2% Mn ^ 70, S ^ = 508 mm,

711 = 9 . 5 + / - 0 . 5 mm, = 6. 7 X 10 6

- 50 -
 440 mm ofit:} AWG No. 20 wire-H 200«i
3]- ^ 25 mm gap •§• -f}-*l*}fe 1**1 a ^ - g - 'gTfl'Srfca. < ^ 7 H ^*Hf- 0.7
A-rms/turn# ^ ^ A n } #7]Z}% <g<*Hl ^ M d ^ t e AWG No. 44 wire # ifl
^ 2 ± 0. 5 mm, 3}^! 17 ± 0.5 mm, z]o| 10 ± 0.5 mm 3.7]6\}r\ 20,000 «1 ^J
K Fig. 20 »fl Ji*I H ^ ^ o )
^ Bobbin

coil ^ al}^
251 jaw, 508 pm, 813 fim <& § ^ . S 0 -
(Fig. 21).
Fig. 22 *fl 2t*l H ^ ^<^) W ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ ao^o* ^ ! H 4 'g
c)

- 51 -
 INDIRECT ENERGY FLOW PATH
— • ^
r * •
• 1
1 ! +

DETECTOR
COIL
DIRECT ENt RCY FLOW PATH

EXCITER DIRECT TRANSITION' 1 REMOTE H E L D

COIL COUPLING 2ONC 1 2DNE
% ZONE. 1
1
PIPE WALL
1
i

Fig. 20. Schematic of remote-field eddy current probe

showing energy flow paths.

AXIAL SLDT.
ALUMINUr-t TARGET-

Fig. 21. Pipe with aluminum target with

axial slot.

52
 AXIAL CRACK 7.00-03 V - OKCUMFEBENILM, CRACK
7.O0-O3 V - -

6.00-03 V 813pm 502}imi 251pm 6.00-03 V -

S13|xja i 1502ixm i 25I|im • _
i i
I
I
AA 1 • ! ! ! ! '
5.00-03 V
X •AV~
i

1I
S.0OO3 V

4.00-03 V i
i
- 4.00-O3 V
vl 1
3.00-03 V - 3.00-03 V _
1 i 1

3S0OTOO

AJ AMPIJTUDE

t
• 15°

20° - - 20*

10" _ i _
19*

A
-
S* J \ (\ - 6*
—TV _
J J •V
0-
\ - 0*

L
/
V
-5°
-
V W Ii -V -
V
10°
i
- 10" -

15* -
v
_
-
20» 20»
i i

B) PHASE

Fig. 22. Radial magnetic field coil amplitude and phase changes for axial
and circumferential 50 % deep cracks with various widths.

- 53 -
7.

7.1. ^?]eR>- ^ - ^ ^ - ^ o ^ ^ ^~§-t> ^ ^ ^ channel^

concentric tube

CANDU ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i 5 ] ^^>S.fe cflaf 6 m

7} ^ 7 ^ ^ alt:}. 6] *m#2} tfl^Bl^m^
o]x]*>^o> t>c}. ol-i- ^.)sl] o j - ^ ^ . ^ tl*H5|o}2i 4 ° l ^ f e garter spring
spacer 7} 7 l $ * | SlAv]- ^ ^ ^d^^} ^7]-^ol] tcfe> spacer*} $\*\7\
^l^l n:>e> i - 3 - M creep Q^ Q <^^^ *|;g (sagging) °] t

garter sping $]

gap •§•

gap ofl^r C02 71^7} ^ ^ - j ^ SLS.JL 3X7}

.^Af^^.5. ^ tube # s ^ ^
4.2 mm o]n| Zr-2% Nb ^ - g - ^ S . ^ 7 1 ^ ^ ^ . 520 nQ O)B.S.

^ ^ 10 kHz

^ o ) 100 mm o ] « . S # ^ ^ 1 3 . ^ ^ o ] 100
mm o l ^ o ] ^ o | : *y±. cfl ^ ^ A|6fl^ 150 mm S. ^*l«->Si^.^ o]
0.01% 3 . ^ - A l ^ n j ^ ^ t ; } [ 2 7 ] .

- 54 -
 cross-talk

phase-sensitive detector (lock-in amplifier)

fl A/D converter # 7 ^ PC

S. plot

Fig. 23 (a) 6
gap

13 mm 7) el 7} Stl^-t^ ^ H e W ^ S j ^ 7 ] x-l^o] 3 2 ZL ^-^} S?> g>7]

10mm ) o ^ ^ j q ^ ^ | j
* } ^ U ^ 4 # ^ V § * f e Cfl ^7lA^ gap

* Lift-off
* Pressure tube $] ^.7]

* Pressure

gap

gap, ^ ^ ^*fl, ^7l^%>, £ lift-off 313} ^ ^

l^ i i lift-off $} gap <h!3l#5} 90 S.

3 - 4 kHz S.
^l gap, lift-off, % ^71]^ ^|^> ^^•^•'ilJL ^ S f # Fig. 23 (b)
Fig. 23 (c)6

- 55 -
 1.6

> Zircaloy-2 calandria tube

Gap I
JLL
X » 4.2 Zirconium-niobium pressure tube
Receive
Transmit coil
coil

RFEC
103.4 probe

-75-

Gap

Gap, in.
0.12 0.24 035 0.47 0.59 0.71
1.4

17- 1.2

15- /
1.0

12- /
0 8 /
Gap. i -
mm E
8 0.6
/
]/
0.4

/
0.2 y

11% /
6 9 12 15 18
Lift-off Gap, mm

ib) (c)

Fig. 23. Gap measurement between two concentric tubes in a nuclear fuel
channel with an RFEC probe, (a) Cross-sectional view of probe and test
sample. Dimensions given in mm. (b) Plot of eddy current signals
illustrating effect of gap, wall thickness, and lift-off, (c) Plot of
y-component of signal versus gap at a frequency of 3 kHz.

- 56
ojofl ^ * ] 2 : ^ 2 } ^ ^ } # 'S*]*M # * I * M o]5j*> B ^ * > assembly^.*! gap
0 - 18 mm <HH ± 1 mm ^ n J

7.2.

Echoram 4 1 ^ ^^ t ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
VA
7l6fl ^^-S-^l ?>^-# ^ ^ * H 3J>M# ^^^-% o^# ^-§-^1 ASCIS
(Advanced Carbon Steel Inspection System) # 7fl*|j-5J-$5lt:} [28]. 7]¥:^£.£.
ASCIS ^ ^^l^^l ^•^^•^J- ^ l ^ ^ 1 (Zetec *}$] MIS-18) 3^ interface 7f 7}
%-*M X-Y ^ H ^ J * > H H lissajous ^ ^IS-S. # ^ ^ ^ Sic*.
u.# ^|4*>7] ^1^> U ^ ^ S Hall effect
51

Hall effect
3.7]7\

51*}7J

S. ^ ^ 4 * f l ^5> 1 % ^ 3 ° 1 # ^>^*fe 7 ) ^ # ASCIS j

a
#^lJcolH. S<a ^-%^>. °l l ^^.ai^- ^ ^ ^ Ji^g A ] ^ ^ , A/D converter,
HP 9836 computer, digital cartridge tape recorder -§-.3.
51 iS
ASCIS u n i t #
2f Table 1 dfl

- 57 -
 Table 1. Comparison between test resules and visual inspection of four
tubed pulled from a feedwater heater.
!Actual Maximum
Actual Gross
Depth {%) ; Defect Depth
Wall Depth {%)
i (*)
1 89 ... , go 30
1 92 100 75
1 89 90 50
6 82 52 25
6 62 62 30
6 29 25 5
2 64 50 48
2 46 40 5
i
7 80 67 ' 30
7 77 63 i 25
7 42 30 1 iq

Fig.
22

Fig. 24

- 58 -
 Transltioa Zone Indirect Coupling
Efeect CaapIingJZtga I- Remote Reld-Zone y
.-•^:7——-.--ZZ.z=£:r--.---.-jzJi-.\ -v /III
LL"II sV&Mr' f f t - f ) ( I I I

\
Dkect Coupling

iii/ifnm/iuuiiwmiitiirm—™*
Exciter ID Receiver Coil
Coil Receiver
Coil-

Fig. 24. Schematic representation of remote-field probe with dual

receiver coils.

- 59 -
8.

8.1.

Maxwell

8.2. >y-g-Sf

3.71 %3
#n*\ 7\% ^A«> 4 % ^ ^ ^ 4 ^ -iTfloH 01^ 4
life} ^ ^ 1 , Sfl-

- 60 -
- 61 -
1. J. L. Fisher, Metals Handbook, 9th ed., Vol. 17, ppl95-201, ASM
International (1989)
2. K. Krzywosz, L. Cagle, "Comparison of three electrmagnetic NDE
procedures using realistic feedwater heater mock-ups", Mater. Eval.
(1993) 132-139.
3. Y. shindo, T. Yamagishi, and H. Hoshikawa, "The trend of Remote Field
Eddy Current Technique in the World, «H$H]s]-;z]$J$|;x]( 39 (l)(2Pfig 2 ^
IE, 1990) 19-25.
4. T. R. Schmidt, "History of the Remote-Field Eddy Current Inspection
Technique", Mater. Eval., 47, (Jan. 1989) 14-22.
5. T. R. Schmidt,"Instrument Promises to permit Measuring Wall Thickness
of Pipelines in Place", Mater. Eval., 2 (1) (1963) 8-12.
6. T. Kukuta, T. Yamaguchi, Y. Hosohara, and K. Yasui, "A remote field
eddy current inspection system for small-diameter steel pipes", Proc.
12th WCNDT, Netherlands, (1989) Eds. J. Boogaard and G. M. Van Dijk,
Elservier, 946-949.
7. ASTM e-2096-00 "Standard Practive for In-Situ Examination of
Ferromagnetic Heat-Exchanger Tubes Using Remote Field Testing",
8. J. B. Nestleroth, "The remote field eddy current technique for stress
corrosion crack detection and identification", Brithsh J. NDT, 35 (5)
(1993) 241-246.
9. T. R. Schmidt, The remote field eddy current inspection technique,
Mater. Eval., 42 (1984) 225-230.
10. J. L. Fisher, S. T. Cain, and R. E. Beissner, "Remote Field Eddy
current Model", in Proc. 16th Symp. on Nondestructive Evaluation (San
Antonio, Tx), Nondestructive Testing Information Analysis Center
(1987).
11. W. Lord, Y. S. Sun, and S. S. Upta, Physics of the Remote Field Eddy

- 62 -
 Current Effect, in Reviews of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Plenum
Press, (1987).
12. D. L. Atherton and S. sullivan, The Remote-Field Through-Wall
Electromagnetic Technique for Pressure Tubes, Mater. Eval., 44 (Dec
1986) 1544-1550.
13. S. Palanisamy, in Reviews of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Plenum
Press (1987)
14. R. J. Kilgore and S. Ramchandran, "Remote Field Eddy Current Testing of
Small Diameter Carbon Steel Tubes", Mater. Eval., 47 (Jan 1989) 32-36.
15. D. L. Atherton, W. Czura, and T. R. Schmidt, Mater. Eval., 47 (1989)
1084-1088.
16. T. R. Schmidt, D. L. Atherton, and S. Sullivan, "Use of
One-Dimensional Skin Effect Equations for Predicting Remote-Field
Characteristics, Including Wall Thickness versus Frequency
Requirements", Mater. Eval., 47 (1989) 76-79.
17. S. Sullivan and D. L. Atherton, "Analysis of the Remote-Field Eddy
Current Effect in Nonmagnetic Tubes:, Mater. Eval., 47 (1989) 80-86.
18. Dodd, C. V. and ffi. E. Deeds, "Analytical solutions to Eddy Current
Probe-Coil Problems:, J Appl. Phys., 39 (1968) 2829-2838.
19. Grover, F. W. , Inductance Calculations : Working Formulas and Tables,
1962, Dover, New York, NY.
20. Y. S. Sun,"Finite Element Study of Diffusion Energy Flow in
Low-Frequency Eddy Current Fields", Mater. Eval., Vol. 47 (1989)
87-92.
21. D. L. Atherton and W. Czura,"Finite element calculations for eddy
current interactions with collimear slots", Mater. Eval. (1994)
96-100.
22. E. von Rosen and D. L. Atherton, "Effect of shielding and exciter coil
tilt on the remote-field effect", Mater. Eval. (1993) 66-71.
23. D. L. Atherton, T. R. Schmidt, T. Svendson, and E. von Rosen," Effects
of remote-field exciter coil tilt and eccentricity in a steel pipe",
Mater. Eval. (1992) 44-50.

- 63 -
24. Du Chateau, P. C. , Applied Partial Differential Equations, 1988,
Harper and Row, new York, NY.
25. D. D. Mackintosh, D. L. Atherton, R. A. Puhach, "Through-transmission
equations for remote-field eddy current inspection of small-bore
ferromagnetic tubes", Mater. Eval. (1993) 744-748.
26. D. L. Atherton 0. Kink, and T. R. Schmidt, "Remote-Field Eddy
Current Response to Axial and Circumferential Slots in Ferromagnetic
Pipe", Mater. Eval., (1991) 356-360.
27. D. L. Atherton, S. Sullivan and M. Daly, "A Remote-Field Eddy Current
Tool for Inspecting Nuclear Reactor Pressure Tubes", British J. NDT,
(Jan. 1988) 22-27.
28. D. J. Brown, Q. V. Le, "Application of Remote-field Eddy Current
Technique to the In-Service Inspection of Ferromagnetic Heat-Exchanger
tubing", Mater. Eval., 47 (Jan. 19889) 47-55.

- 64 -
 * * * * * * * INIS ^Afls^

KAERI/AR-593/2001

"^ "§" "T" (41^1"

<S ^ *r *1 * A] ^ )»
o|-£-AT- fsflo^c^
- - - - - - - ^ ^

2001

sfl c] ^1 64 p. v-
--El
yr
JX. XI-S-C o ), §!•§-( ) 3 71 Cm.

•§•711 ( 0 ) , ^^lyl( ),
«*)•*

2:-It (15-20#i-(l&])

^•^r^Mfl ufl^s^ ^7-r

7
•^ l ^ r ^ % ° i l tflsfl

1
Et-^l nl ^x^_o1 j4-o]i^c>|] cf|3|lA-l ^ ^ S

<z\sL ^fl^s^l gap -s^^ ^ •^"•^V^J "eJB-^t7l #^^

2 - t
-Bill- I r x i - ^ «£:§: ^n - 3j-^|oll tflsllA^^ 7 l ^ ^ l ^ - l '
Remote Field Eddy Current Testing (RFECT), Elec:tromagnetic
Nondestructive Testing, Finite Element Model, CA NDU Fuel
Channel, Ferromagnetic Inspection.
 BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHEET
Performing Org. Sponsoring Org.
Stamdard Report No. INIS Subject Code
Report No. Report No.
KAERI/AR-593/2001

Title / Subtitle Remote Field Eddy Current Testing

Project Manager
Y. M. Cheong(Nuclcar Materials Technology)
and Department
Researcher and
H. K. Jung (Robotics Lab.), H. Huh (Power Reactor Tech.),
Department
Y. S. Lee (Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Tech.), C. M. Shim (HANARO)
Publication Publication
Taejon Publisher KAERI 2001
Place Date

Page 111. & Tab. Yes( o), No ( ) Size

p. 65 Cm.
Note
Classified Open( o ), Restricted(
Report Type State-of-Art Report
Class Document
Sponsoring Org. Contract No.
Abstract (15-20
Lines)

The state-of-art technology of the remote field eddy current, which is actively
developed as an electromagnetic non-destructive testing tool for ferromagnetic
tubes, is described. The historical background and recent R&D activities of
remote-field eddy current technology are explained including the theoretical
development of remote field eddy current, such as analytical and numerical
approach, and the results of finite element analysis. The influencing factors
for actual applications, such as the effect of frequency, magnetic permeability,
receiving sensitivity, and difficulties of detection and classification of
defects are also described. Finally, two examples of actual application, 1) the
gap measurement between pressure tubes and calandria tube in CA.VDU reactor and,
2) the detection of defects in the ferromagnetic heat exchanger tubes, are
described. The future research efforts are also included.
Remote Field Eddy Current Testing (RFECT), Electromagnetic
Subject Keywords
Nondestructive Testing, Finite Element Model, C A N D U Fuel Channel,
(About 10 words)
Ferromagnetic Inspection.