See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266669671

Electromagnetic Casing Inspection Tool for Corrosion Evaluation

Article · January 2011

DOI: 10.2523/14865-MS

CITATIONS READS
10 6,109

4 authors, including:

Thilo M Brill Edward Nichols

Schlumberger Riboud Product Center Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
57 PUBLICATIONS   508 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ultrasonics View project

Ultrasonic Cement Evaluation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thilo M Brill on 28 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IPTC 14865

Electromagnetic Casing Inspection Tool for Corrosion Evaluation

T.M. Brill, J.L. Le Calvez, C. Demichel, E. Nichols, and F. Zapata Bermudez, Schlumberger

Copyright 2011, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 7–9 February 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the Int ernational Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is re stricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract

Pipe corrosion is a natural phenomenon in the harsh environment of oil and gas production wells, costing billions of dollars
each year. Monitoring such corrosion allows for timely mitigation to prevent leaks, environmental damage, or catastrophic
failures.

Corrosion of pipes is inferred from measurement of internal diameter and wall thickness. Mechanical finger calipers provide
a high-resolution image of the internal pipe surface. Ultrasonic tools measure both the internal diameter and thickness of a
single pipe, providing the pipe is filled with a fluid. Production tubing is a barrier to caliper, ultrasonic, and flux-leakage
electromagnetic tools, preventing the assessment of outer casings. Remote-Field Eddy-Current (RFEC) tools respond to the
total metal thickness of all the combined casings. The measurement is valid in single and multiple casing strings and is
largely insensitive to the kind of material filling the pipe.

This paper presents a new slim electromagnetic (EM) imaging tool enabling casing assessment without removing the
production tubing. The tool excites eddy-currents in the tubulars using a powerful low-frequency solenoidal transmitter.
Distribution and strength of the eddy-currents depend on the geometric properties of the casings, their EM properties, and the
presence of defects. The tool operates in the RFEC regime using large transmitter-receiver spacings, in which the
measurements directly determine the total metal thickness. Mandrel-mounted coils provide the average total metal thickness,
and eighteen small pad sensors around the tool provide an image of local pipe wall metal loss.

The combination of low- and high-frequency images, together with the average total metal thickness, provides a quantitative,
high-resolution assessment of pipe condition. Log examples show detection of casing joints, additional casings strings, and
presence of corrosion damage in the low- and high-frequency images.

Introduction

Corrosion is a relentless process with electrochemical, chemical or mechanical origins that is difficult to slow down: it is a
‘silent killer’ (Acuña 2010). In the oil and gas industry corrosion monitoring is used to assess the well condition as a basis for
planning intervention and mitigation strategies. Among all the high-technology systems and equipment that are installed in
oil and gas production wells, the corrosion of well casings causes the most problems. Apparently stable casing can suddenly
develop a leak that may be the first evidence of a severely corroded section that left untreated may force abandonment of the
well in the near future.
Corrosion can appear on both the external and the internal casing surface. The key to corrosion prevention lies in inspection.
The location and severity of corrosion damage relates to the hydraulic isolation provided by both the cement’s and the
casing’s integrity. Multiple assessments may be needed to develop a practical prevention process. Various tools have been
developed to evaluate and monitor pipe corrosion. They are divided into three groups:
• Mechanical calipers provide only the internal diameter of the inspected tubular.
• Ultrasonic tools measure both the internal diameter and the wall thickness of the tubular. The wall thickness can,
however, only be determined for the inner string in a multi-string configuration. The ultrasonic measurement
2 IPTC 14865

requires a fluid-filled tubular; it makes a 360° scan of pipe and cement quality and distribution. Some ultrasonic
tools focus their beams on internal corrosion and internal casing damage caused by processes other than corrosion.
• Electromagnetic tools evaluate the corrosion in any environment (including gas-filled tubulars). These tools are
classified in two groups;
a. Flux leakage tools measure magnetic-flux anomalies, which makes them well suited to detect pitting, holes
and corrosion patches only in the inner string. These are not designed for large-scale corrosion or multiple
casing-string configurations.
b. Remote-Field Eddy-Current (RFEC) tools measure the response of the transmitted electromagnetic (EM)
field. These tools are well suited for large-scale corrosion, vertical splits, and large holes as well as
operation in multiple casing strings.
The new RFEC electromagnetic casing inspection tool measures both internal and external corrosion. Its slim 2 ⅛-in.
diameter allows deployment through tubing to quantitatively evaluate single or multiple casings through the tubing or below
the tubing. It assesses total metal thickness, inner diameter, and inner casing properties as well as provides high-resolution
imaging of the local metal thickness and innermost pipe surface. These capabilities are used to identify corrosion or physical
damage such as splits, holes and partially collapsed sections. Pipe integrity is provided in both depth and azimuthal position.

Theory of Operation

Oilfield wells consist of long strings of concentric ferrous tubular casings, with the innermost generally being production
tubing. The non-destructive technique of eddy-current inspection of these tubulars is particularly advantageous for the oilfield
geometry where the tool with its EM transmitters and receivers is situated inside the innermost pipe. This method uses a
transmitter solenoid (Tx) excited by an alternating current of angular frequency ω (Fig. 1). The associated EM field and
secondary field from induced eddy-currents in the surrounding conductive pipes induce a voltage in a separate receiver coil
(Rx). EM and geometric parameters of the pipes are determined from measurements of the complex mutual impedance Z
between Tx and Rx
/ (1)
where is the transmitter current, is the receiver voltage of a given transmitter-receiver pair where an time
dependence is assumed. The impedance Z is complex valued with amplitude and phase. The tool generally measures a given
impedance phase as a phase shift Δφ relative to the value in the absence of metal pipes—the air-calibration. Similarly,
amplitudes are generally expressed as logarithmic attenuation in dB relative to the value for the air-calibration.

The tool response is like a poorly coupled and lossy transformer where the pipe acts as coupling between primary (Tx) and
secondary (Rx) inductors. For a single pipe, this mutual impedance is composed of flux-coupling through the medium inside
the pipe and of contributions by flux passing through the metal and—at sufficiently low frequencies—propagation outside of
the pipe. The magnetic field inside the tubular has a dominating axial component. The EM field is strongly affected by
circumferential eddy-currents inside the metal. Changes in the properties of the metal—such as thickness or diameter
variations—manifest themselves in corresponding changes of the mutual impedance Z. A localized flaw or metal-loss present
in the pipe will perturb the circumferential eddy-currents around the defect. This generates a localized perturbation of the EM
field that can be used to detect the flaw as long as the sensor is sufficiently close (Fig. 2).

The measurements distinguish two types of physical parameters: Firstly, physical parameters that are averaged over the
circumference of a given pipe section and, secondly, high-resolution images (two-dimensional) of physical pipe parameters.
The physical parameters are
• average total EM thickness of the surrounding pipes
• average inner diameter of the pipe (ID 2 where is the average inner radius of the pipe)
• average ratio of magnetic permeability to electrical conductivity ( ⁄ )
• high-resolution image of the pipe EM thickness and flaws
• high-resolution image of the inner surface to discriminate flaws on inside surface of the pipe from those outside.

The appendix provides a short summary of the EM fields in cylindrical media. The EM fields from an axial transmitter
separate into three regimes: near-field, remote-field and a transition zone between the two with a complex field behavior
(Fig. 3). The RFEC regime is used for measuring both the average EM thickness of the tubulars and for generating the high-
resolution thickness image to detect flaws. The near-field eddy-current (NFEC) regime is used to determine the average inner
diameter ID of the pipe, the average EM property ratio ⁄ , and the high-resolution discrimination image of flaws present at
the inside pipe surface.
IPTC 14865 3

Tool Description

The tool provides four distinct measurements, as follows:

Remote-field.
1. Average metal thickness made from mandrel mounted coils with long spacing. Multiple receivers, all at
sufficiently large offsets to be in the remote field region, are used to remove ghosting. This extra response is
caused when the transmitter passes in front of a large defect that is seen in addition to the desired response when
the receiver is in front of the defect. Although the thickness is almost a linear function of the phase shift,
inversion modeling provides more accurate values accounting for nonlinearity.

2. High-resolution image of metal thickness from pad sensors. These measurements use the same low-frequency
transmitter as the average EM thickness measurement. In multiple-string casing designs, the pad sensors respond
to metal loss in all strings (limited by their signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) limit) but they are most influenced by the
innermost string. Generally the sensitivity decreases with radial distance from the sensor. The average metal
thickness measurement is derived from impedance phase shifts. It can be normalized by subtracting the average of
all eighteen image measurements at that depth to enhance azimuthal variations and suppress overall casing
variations, for example due to casing joints or collars.

Near-Field.

3. High-resolution internal defect image. High-frequency signals barely penetrate into the metal of the tubular, so the
inner surface of the tubular strictly determines the near-field signal response, immediately adjacent to the pads.
Hence, a response on the 2D thickness image but not on the 2D discrimination image is interpreted as originating
from the outer wall of the casing because there is no response on the inner wall of the tubular. The 2D
discrimination image can be normalized by subtracting the azimuthal average.

4. Averaged inner diameter ID and impedance property ⁄ of the pipe made with a separate transmitter and two
closely spaced receiver coils. This measurement uses three frequencies between 100 Hz and 100 kHz.

The image measurements (2 and 3) use eighteen radially mounted pad sensors (Fig. 4) that are kept pressed against the inside
wall of the casing. This cage mounting largely keeps all pads at equal radii as the cage expands and collapses. When the
imaging cage is fully collapsed it has a minimum diameter of 2.3-in. The pad sensors respond to a 1-in. diameter region of
the casing. There is significant overlapping of the pad response region for small pipe diameters. As the cage expands the
overlap diminishes such that at a well inner diameter of approximately 6-in. the responses provide for 100% non-overlapping
coverage of the inner wall. For larger diameters up to the maximum cage-expansion diameter of 9-in. the coverage is
proportionately less. For wells with larger outer diameter (OD) the imaging is unreliable because the sensors are at unknown
standoffs from the inner wall. Fig. 5 shows a schematic of the new logging tool with its measurement sections.

Remote-Field Eddy-Current (RFEC) Regime and EM Thickness Measurement.

The new tool uses sufficiently low frequencies and large separations between Tx and Rx to measure the mutual impedance
and to extract the ratio of wall thickness ( ) of the pipe to skin-depth ( ), called the EM thickness ( ⁄ ). We subsequently
discuss in more detail what frequencies ω⁄2π and separations meet these requirements. The skin-depth is defined by
(2)
where is the magnetic permeability and the electrical conductivity of the pipe. The magnetic permeability is typically
expressed as a unitless quantity relative to its vacuum value = 4π×10−7 V·s/(A·m); i.e., . The skin-depth in the
cylindrical geometry is the penetration depth of the eddy-currents and EM fields in the metal corresponding to an attenuation
to a fraction of 1⁄e 37% .

The large skin-depth regime is characterized by a skin-depth of the same order of magnitude as the pipe thickness . Thus
EM fields can traverse the pipe wall thickness and radiate into the region outside the pipe (or outermost pipe for the case of
multiple strings). The range of the pipe’s EM parameters are empirically determined to 3.9 · 10 siemens⁄m 7.4 ·
10 siemens⁄m and 20 200 whereas typical single oilfield tubulars have a thickness range of 0.2-in. 0.9-in.
and a range of inner diameters ID of 2.4-in. ID 10-in. Operating in the large skin-depth regime requires low excitation
frequencies, below 100 Hz.
4 IPTC 14865

Fig. 3 illustrates how the Tx-Rx spacing affects the measurement. The total magnetic field in the casing consists of three
contributions. Near the transmitting coil ( 0) the first contribution is the free-space field. This field decreases with and
at a distance is proportional to . In the pipe wall the induced eddy-currents produce a secondary magnetic field
opposing the free-space field. The sum of these two contributions, the direct-coupling field, is weak and decays exponentially
as function of . This direct-coupling field does not contain any information about the pipe thickness.

In contrast, a third contribution to the total field, called the indirect-coupling field, is highly sensitive to the wall thickness.
This field is dwarfed by the direct-coupling at short Tx-Rx separations. It is rather weak due to high attenuation of EM waves
propagating in a metal and therefore requires the low excitation frequencies mentioned earlier. The indirect-coupling field
decays more slowly as function of compared with the exponential decay of the direct-coupling field. For a Tx-Rx sensor
spacing range of approximately ⁄ 2 2.5 the indirect-coupling becomes comparable with or larger than the direct-
coupling. This distance corresponds to the ‘remote-field’ operating regime in which the phase changes Δφ of the mutual
impedance measurement become a nearly linear function of the pipe EM thickness (Gianzero 1984). It turns out that to first
order the mutual impedance is proportional to the complex propagation factor 2 , with a complex wave vector
1 ⁄ . In particular, the phase changes are given by
∆ 2 ⁄ 2 ⁄2 (3)
In this regime the indirect coupling between transmitter and receiver contributes one phase shift of ⁄ by the field that has
penetrated the pipe outward into the external medium near the transmitter, propagated along the outermost interface nearly
dipole-radiation-like, and finally reentered inward across the pipe near the receiver, picking up a second phase shift ⁄ . The
measured phase shifts Δφ are inverted for the EM thickness of the pipe. The practical upper limit of ⁄ 2 is a function of
the measurement SNR. More generally, the mutual impedance can be written as

⁄ , , , , .
The dominating exponential has been separated. Additional corrections in the function depend on the tool geometry and the
casing properties. Both amplitude attenuation and phase shifts are characterized by the same quantity 2 ⁄ . The low-
frequency used for the RFEC measurements is selected to optimize the SNR, thickness resolution, and axial resolution for a
given condition. Higher frequencies would see more attenuation, whereas lower frequencies are less sensitive to the casings.
For a typical 7-in. casing, a frequency choice of 35 Hz gives near-optimal SNR. Lower frequencies are used to log thick
casings or multiple casings.

In the RFEC regime the mutual-impedance phase measurement is sensitive only to the total metal thickness in the path of the
EM field between the transmitter and receiver. Thus this measurement detects flaws on the inside and on the outside of a pipe
and cannot distinguish the two cases. Once a localized flaw is detected, its placement on the inside or outside of the joint
requires the discrimination measurement (see below). The smallest detectable size of a metal loss area depends on the spatial
response of the receiver and transmitter solenoids. Long, axial solenoid sensors provide an averaging RFEC response and are
suitable only for large-scale or general metal loss. On the other hand, small solenoid sensors located near the inner pipe
perimeter identify localized defects and a combination of several such sensors (pads) provide an azimuthally resolved RFEC
EM thickness image.

Even if multiple pipes are present the measurement still provides the total EM thickness, associated with the combined metal
pipe thicknesses as long as the field that penetrated all the layers can be detected with sufficient SNR. Comparisons between
logs run at different times (time-lapse) can thus provide information on gradual metal loss of the combined pipes and a
measurement of a corrosion rate. Small localized flaws, however, can generally only be detected by imaging sensors if they
are situated on the innermost pipe; otherwise the standoff between sensor and flaw becomes too large washing out the effects
of the field perturbations by the defect.

While a given oilfield tubular grade may have a nearly constant electrical conductivity throughout the pipe joint, the
generally ferromagnetic casings exhibit varying and unknown values of magnetic permeability , which also vary locally
along a given joint. As a result the apparent EM thickness may exhibit significant variations along a given joint, which could
be due to variations of the pipe thickness or the magnetic permeability or both (see equation (3)). The RFEC
measurement alone is insufficient to distinguish between one and the other. This magnetic anomaly effect must be separately
corrected as discussed below.
IPTC 14865 5

Near-Field Eddy-Current Regime.

The small skin-depth regime has a skin-depth much smaller than the pipe thickness ⁄ 1. In this high-frequency case the
EM fields cannot penetrate far into the innermost pipe wall and measurements become independent of the pipe thickness,
thus simplifying the tool response. The new EM inspection tool employs multiple high-frequencies (HF) in the range of
100 Hz ≤ HF ≤ 100 kHz.
Due to the small skin-depth limit the pipe can be approximated by an infinitely thick pipe and the problem considers only two
regions, inside the pipe for and inside the pipe metal for . The behavior of the impedance depends
significantly on the dimensionless variable :
µ
τ .
µ ID

The use of relatively high excitation frequencies strongly attenuates the receiver signal as function of transmitter-receiver
spacing and therefore necessitates sufficiently small sensor spacing ⁄ 2 1 referred to as the high-frequency near-
field eddy-current (NFEC) regime. Measurements in the NFEC regime are used to simultaneously invert for the average ID
and average ratio ⁄ . The average ratio ⁄ can be employed to correct for the magnetic anomaly effect discussed
previously. It effectively eliminates the variable and leaves only the pipe conductivity as user-adjustable parameter. The
frequencies and spacings used for the NFEC measurement are chosen to yield optimum sensitivity to the quantities ID and
⁄ for a particular range of casing inner diameters. In general, a small spacing is more favorable to invert for small casing
ID, while a large spacing is more favorable to invert for large casing inner diameters. Note that the concept of correcting the
EM thickness measurement for magnetic anomalies by an independent ⁄ ratio measurement can only apply to a single-
casing completion. The RFEC EM thickness measurement in multiple casings cannot be satisfactorily corrected in this way
and remains a qualitative measurement.

For the new tool, NFEC measurements are also employed to perform the discrimination imaging measurement. At high
frequency the pad sensor response is very sensitive to the standoff from the metal surface. Defects seen on the images with
both a RFEC response and a NFEC response necessarily occur on the inner surface, whereas RFEC responses without NFEC
response are caused by metal-loss on the pipe exterior.

Both the high-frequency NFEC discrimination and the low-frequency RFEC EM thickness are imaging measurements that
require receivers located close to the inner casing perimeter. Eighteen sensors are mounted on suitably designed centralizer
arms (Fig. 4) to ensure a small standoff between the receiver and the inner casing surface for the desired range of casing ID.

Field Examples

The examples comes from a test well in France with two casing strings. The outer 9 5/8-in. OD casing extends from the
surface to a depth of 404 m, and an inner 7-in. OD casing from surface to a depth of 1145 m. Fig. 6 shows a typical EM log
presentation obtained from the single casing section. The leftmost panel shows a cross section of the interpreted casing
dimensions, with the measured inner radius shown as the solid line on the left edge of the shading. This radius was
determined from the averaged NFEC measurement. The shading width is determined from the EM thickness response of the
average RFEC measurement for a fixed casing conductivity. The right edge of the shading is thus the inferred outer radius of
a single casing. The casing collars show up as extra thickness, making the interpreted OD spikes to the right. There are three
prominent sections of heavier weight casing seen at depths of 500 m, 650 m, and 680 m, identified by the decrease in inner
radius and increase in shading (metal thickness). There is also a thinning feature seen at 830 m on this panel which is
discussed later in a depth-zoomed plot.
The second panel from the left displays the metal loss in percent, calculated from nominal thickness versus measured metal
thickness. It is generally insignificant except for an interesting feature at 830 m, where there is a short section showing 100%
metal loss. The next panel is a high-resolution image of the metal thickness seen by each pad with the mean value of all pads
removed at each depth to enhance the azimuthal display sensitivity. The next panel is the high-resolution discrimination
image (in yellows and black) of the inner surface of the pipe made using the NFEC pad measurements. A linear feature
shows up at various depths winding its way around the display as the tool rotates. This feature is a cable groove that was
worn into the casing through many years of running wireline tools in the hole. The next panel shows the signal amplitude
level of the low-frequency receiver coils. Attenuation increases as the EM signal encounters larger metal thickness;
consequently the receiver coils measure a weaker signal amplitude. This signal loss reduces the SNR, yielding lower-quality
data. Signal quality generally becomes a concern with more than –40 dB of attenuation, typically corresponding to passing
through an inch of metal thickness twice (once outward near the transmitter and once more inward toward the receiver).

Fig. 7 compares the EM thickness for a fixed pipe conductivity in a single-casing section to the thickness measured by an
ultrasonic logging tool. The two thickness measurements agree well with differences between 1% and 5%. The ultrasonic
logs also show a thinning of the casing at the collars, because the threads create complex reflections, masking the extra metal
6 IPTC 14865

collar. Here, the small variation can be due to slight variations of σ and μ along the string. The thickness interpretation
assumes constant μ and σ, such that the thickness matches for uncorroded sections.

Fig. 8 shows a zoom around the feature at 830 m. Here a 3 m zone shows metal loss reaching 100%. The log quality
attenuation display also indicates no attenuation. The high-frequency image shows a pronounced widening of the groove
feature. This zone is interpreted as a section where a crack has split the metal below the groove to the outside of the casing,
breaching the hydraulic integrity. The standard ultrasonic thickness log as in Fig. 7, is unable to detect the crack in the casing
because it is masked by the cable groove. This ability to detect splits in the casing can be critical for well remediation
decisions.

There are several regions of the cable groove feature that illustrate other concerning signs of wear. For example Fig. 9 shows
a depth zoom at about 577 m. Here the metal loss appears increased and the high-frequency image clearly shows the groove.
A 5 m zone of metal loss shows up on the high-frequency image and the metal loss curve alerts the operator to casing
weakness.

The importance of the corrosion log was made quite clear during the tool validation-testing in this well. The normal testing
procedure for these tools was to log a short section around the single to double casing to validate the operation of each new
tool over known features. Generally the rest of the well was not logged. In July 2010 one of the tools became stuck in the
well very near the surface. Upon subsequent examination of the well with a borehole camera it was discovered that the inner
casing had buckled in this area. Fig. 10 includes a log made in spring 2010 that logged all the way to the surface. Problems
with the well are clearly evident. The inner diameter of the well increases from 6.4-in. to about 7-in. going up from 65 m
depth. The metal loss and attenuation curves reflect this increase. The middle panel of thickness minus its average exhibits
significant noise as the image in multiple casings is generally of poor quality and requires slow, steady logging speeds. The
combination of increasing inner radii and increasing metal loss tracks the combination of the increasing groove depth from
cable wear and corrosion from water table movement over more than 30 years of operation, which badly damaged the
internal casing.

The well was repaired at the end of 2010 by inserting 67 m of expandable thin casing in the well. EM corrosion logs from
April 2011 are included in Fig. 10. The liner is made of thin steel, which has a significantly larger skin-depth than standard
oilfield tubular steel. The inner diameter measurement clearly shows the change to the new liner with the radius reduced at a
depth of 67 m to about 6-in. The metal loss measurement is essentially unchanged as the new liner adds only 0.01-in. of
equivalent oilfield tubular steel thickness. The high-frequency image shows a fairly homogeneous zone through the patched
section.

Conclusions

A new electromagnetic casing inspection tool has been introduced. It delivers average metal loss and azimuthally resolved
casing imaging measurements in any fluid or gas environment. The slim design allows for inspection in multiple casings
through the tubing or below the tubing. Total metal thickness variations can be quantified in pipes with outer diameters from
2 ⅞-in. to 13 ⅜-in. EM caliper measurements are performed in the inner diameter range of 2 ⅞-in. to 7-in., covering most
typical pipe sizes. The detection and characterization of corrosion and wear has been demonstrated in a number of field trials
through the combination of total metal thickness, inner diameter, and high-resolution metal loss imaging, enabling operators
to better plan intervention and mitigation strategies.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature

am inner radius of medium m (meter)

a1 casing inner radius (meter)
a2 casing outer radius(meter)
b1 transmitter coil radius (meter)
b2 receiver coil radius (meter)
f frequency (hertz)
i √ 1 imaginary unit
k complex wavenumber (1/meter)
complex wavenumber of medium m (1/meter)
IPTC 14865 7

m index of medium
n number of media
radius (meter)
t casing thickness (meter)
z distance along borehole axis (meter)
, z-component of the magnetic field (ampere/meter)
I current (ampere)
modified Bessel function of the first kind (order )
modified Bessel function of the second kind (order )
L transmitter-receiver spacing (meter)
T time (second)
V voltage (volt)
Z complex impedance (ohm)
complex impedance contribution due to cylindrical interfaces (ohm)
complex impedance contribution in free-space (ohm)
complex separation variable in medium m (1/meter)
δ skin-depth (meter)
permittivity of medium m (ampere-second/volt-meter)
variable of integration (1/meter)
μ magnetic permeability (volt-second/ampere-meter)
magnetic permeability of medium m (volt-second/ampere-meter)
relative magnetic permeability
μ0 magnetic permeability of vacuum μ0=4π×10−7 (volt-second/ampere-meter)
electrical conductivity (siemens/meter)
electrical conductivity of medium m (siemens/meter)
real and dimensionless variable
ϕ phase of normalized remote field measurement (radian)
ω angular frequency (radian/second)
Δϕ phase change (radian)
Γ m-th reflection coefficient for n media
Φ magnetic flux (volt-second)

References
Acuña, I.A., Monsegue, A., Brill, T.B., Graven, H., Mulders, F., Le Calvez, J.-L., Nichols, E.A., Bermudez, F.Z., Notoadinegoro, D.M.,
and Sofronov, I. 2010. Scanning for Downhole Corrosion, Oilfield Review, Spring 2010, 22 (1): 42–50.
Chew, W.C. 1983. The singularities of a Fourier-type integral in a multicylindrical layer problem. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation , 31 (4): 653–655.
Dodd, C.V., Cheng, C.C., and Deeds, W. E. 1974. Induction coils coaxial with an arbitrary number of cylindrical conductors. Journal of
Applied Physics , 45 (2), 638–647.
Gianzero, S. and Anderson, B. 1984. Mathematical Theory for the Fields due to a Finite A.C. Coil in an Infinitely Thick Bed with an
Arbitrary Number of Co-axial Layers. The Log Analyst, March-April, 25–32.
Haugland, S. 1996. Fundamental Analysis of the Remote-Field Eddy-Current Effect, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. 32 (4), 3195–3211.
MacLean, W.R., 1951. US Patent No. 2,573,799.
Marinov, S.G., 1986. Theoretical and experimental investigation of eddy current inspection of pipes with arbitrary position of sensor coils.
Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, Thompson, D. O. and Chimenti, D. E., Ed., New York, NY: Plenum
Press, 5A, 225–232.
Schmidt, T.R., 1989. History of the remote-field eddy-current inspection technique. Materials Evaluation , 47, 14–22.
Skarlatos, A. and Theodoulidis, T.P., 2010. Impedance Calculation of a Bobbin Coil in a Conductive Tube with Eccentric Walls. IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics , 46 (11), 3885–3892.
Theodoulidis, T.P. and Bowler, J.R., 2008. Impedance of an induction coil at the opening of a borehole in a conductor. Journal of Applied
Physics , 103, 024905–024905-9.
8 IPTC 14865

Fig. 1—Schematic geometry of a tool transmitter (Tx) located at z = 0 with radius b1 and receiver (Rx) with radius b2, separated by a
spacing L. The tool is situated inside a ferrous tubular with inner radius a1 and thickness t. The electromagnetic properties of the
tubular are described by an electrical conductivity σ and a magnetic permeability μ.

Fig. 2—Schematic of induced eddy-currents in an uncorroded casing (left) and disturbed current flow around a defect (right).
IPTC 14865 9

Fig. 3—Schematic representation of three field regimes around the transmitter: near-field, transition zone and remote field (Acuña
2010). The cylindrical pipe (gray) is characterized by an outer diameter of 7-in., an inner diameter of 6.37-in., an electrical
6
conductivity =5×10 siemens/m and a relative magnetic permeability = 95. The electrical field at 10 Hz generated in the pipe by a
solenoidal Tx is indicated by the color map on a logarithmic scale. Magnetic field lines around the transmitter Tx (blue) and eddy-
current flow lines within the metal (red arrows) are shown schematically. The color map indicates the attenuation of the magnetic
field inside the metal pipe as a function of distance from the transmitter. The radial variation of the magnetic field within the pipe
metal thickness is equally indicated. Note that the magnetic field exhibits a slowly decreasing behavior in the remote-field zone for
⁄ . whereas it decreases rapidly in the transition zone. The small inset at the bottom right illustrates schematically the
exponential attenuation of the alternating EM field traversing the metal pipe outward near the transmitter in the near-field zone.
10 IPTC 14865

Fig. 4—Drawing of the imaging section showing the structure of 18 compliant arms holding the pad sensors. The image sensors
(yellow) are located at the middle of each arm to ensure good contact with the inner perimeter of a pipe during logging. Additional
receivers are mandrel-mounted in the center of this section.

Fig. 5—Schematic drawing of the new imaging tool. The overall length is 6 m and the outer diameter is 2.2-in. The two pairs of
mandrel-mounted low-frequency (LF) receivers arranged equidistantly above and below the LF transmitter are referred to as double
coils.
IPTC 14865 11

Fig. 6—Log display from part of a single-casing section. In the left panel the leftmost edge of the grey shaded region corresponds to
the average inner radius determined from the high-frequency NFEC measurement. The average EM thickness measurement is used
in combination with the casing electrical conductivity to determine the thickness of the casing. This is represented by the shaded
area in the left panel. The regularly spaced spikes represent the additional thickness of the casing collars. The second panel
displays the metal loss in percent, which is generally insignificant except at about 830 m, where there is a short section of 100%
metal loss. The third panel shaded in blues and reds is the low-frequency image of variations of local metal thickness around the
azimuthal average. The fourth panel shows the high-frequency image of variations around the azimuthal average showing the
presence of a cable groove. The final panel on the right is used for data quality control. It shows the amount of average low-
frequency attenuation as measured by one of the RFEC receivers (double coils).
12 IPTC 14865

Fig. 7—Thickness comparison of ultrasonic and EM measurements in the same test well. Very good agreement is observed except
for the section near 830 m, where the EM thickness drops to zero while the ultrasonic response stays constant. The EM
measurement has detected a crack or split in the casing beneath a cable groove.

Fig. 8—Log display zoomed in around the anomalous zone at 830 m. Here a 3 m length of casing shows metal loss reaching 100%.
The high-frequency image in the fourth panel shows a pronounced widening of the groove feature here. The low-frequency
attenuation display in the rightmost panel reaches zero. This zone is a section where the groove has split through to the outside of
the casing, breaching the hydraulic integrity.
IPTC 14865 13

Fig. 9—Log display zoomed in around a zone with metal loss near a depth of 577 m. The loss is due to a groove caused by wear
from a wireline cable. The second panel indicates a small metal loss by the average measurement. This is reflected by the
decreased amplitude attenuation of the RFEC signal in the right panel. The fourth panel displays the high-frequency image of
variations around the azimuthal average showing the presence of the cable groove on the inside of the pipe. The vertically
elongated nature of the groove renders it difficult to detect on this low-frequency image.

Fig. 10—This log was run in a test well with double-casing configuration (outer diameters of 7-in. inside 9 5/8-in.). It shows an
increasing inner radius (green curve in first panel) of the inner pipe, increasing total metal loss (purple shading in second panel),
and decreasing low-frequency attenuation (blue curve in right panel) near the top of the well. This zone of metal loss eventually
buckled and had to be repaired. The repaired test well shows the new expanded liner patch, which extends to 67 m. The inner radius
of the new liner is indicated in the first panel in blue. No significant extra metal is detected on the metal loss because a low
magnetic permeability and low conductivity steel was used as liner material. The thickness image is affected by some noise in this
double-string section and the high-frequency image in the repaired liner is rather featureless.
 14
Appendix: EM Fields in Multi-Cylindrical Media
The general schematic considered for EM measurements in
the oilfield geometry, with a logging tool centered inside a
cylindrical pipe, is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Both conductivity and permeability are treated as linear and
isotropic for a given medium. For the averaged
measurements, the problem can be simplified to a one-
dimensional EM problem by assuming azimuthal symmetry
and infinitely long pipes along the direction. The EM fields
are excited by air-cored axially symmetric solenoids
(described by superposition of filamentary current loops of
radius b1). The analytic solution for this geometry for an
arbitrary number of cylindrical conductors with arbitrary
thickness, permeability, permittivity, and conductivity was
discussed (Dodd 1974). More recently, semi-analytical
solutions for finite-length cylindrical or eccentric structures
have been presented (Skarlatos 2010; Theodoulidis 2008)
whereas fully numerical solutions are typically required for
the 3D problems associated with imaging. The specific case
of RFEC inspection of ferrous metallic pipes was originally
patented in 1951 (MacLean 1951) and comprehensive
analyses have been presented (Haugland 1996). Discussions
of the specific application of RFEC to the non-destructive
evaluation of oilfield tubulars can be found in several papers
(Gianzero 1984; Marinov 1986; Schmidt 1989).
For the axially symmetric solution in each medium (Fig. 1)
the response function of each medium n is characterized by a
complex wave vector
where the index refers to the media 1, … , . For the
special case of a single pipe 3. The pipe conductivity is
of the order of 5 · 10 siemens/m and the magnetic
permeability of ferromagnetic pipes is of the order of
100 where is the vacuum permeability inside and
outside the pipe. For typical operating frequencies of 10 Hz
to 50 kHz, the permittivity term can be safely
neglected leading to a low-frequency approximation for the
wavevector as
The voltage induced in the receiving Rx loop can be RFEC regime requires the skin-depth to be comparable with
calculated from
Φ
2 ,
where , is the z-component of the magnetic field at frequencies. Apart from the EM thickness ⁄ introduced
the Rx loop position. It is proportional to the Tx current . before, it is furthermore useful to define the dimensionless
The mutual impedance ⁄ between the receiver voltage quantity ⁄ 2
and the transmitter current can be expressed as a sum of
two Fourier integrals where the first term is dime nsionl ess variable
the free-space term corresponding to an unbounded single
medium
2 cos , the quantity
2 cos ,
View publication stats
IPTC 14865
while the second term incorporates the effects due to the
presence of one or more cylindrical interfaces
2 Γ
Here the separation variable is , λ is the
Fourier transform variable (and also the axial wavenumber)
and Γ Γ is a reflection coefficient and depends
on the number of media (and interfaces 1). It is
determined from the recurrence relation for all media
1, … ,
Γ
Γ
where for the outermost medium Γ 0. Note that
and are modified Bessel function of the first and
second kind, respectively. The integration path of the
integrals above lies in the complex λ plane and includes
singularities. It has been shown in general (Chew 1983) that
the only singularities in the complex λ plane are the branch-
point singularity associated with the outermost medium
which extends radially to infinity, and pole singularities
which correspond to discrete waveguide modes in the multi-
cylindrical medium. Typically these waveguide modes are
strongly damped—an effect similar to the propagation of
microwaves in a waveguide at frequencies lower than the so-
called cutoff frequency. The branch-point singularity
corresponds to the lateral wave which travels from the
transmitter outward through the layers to the outermost
medium, propagates along the outermost interface with
relatively little attenuation and finally travels inward toward
the receiver. Lateral waves play a key role in the RFEC
measurement regime because they are sensitive to the total
thickness of the pipes (Haugland 1996). Due to the eddy-
current damping in the ferrous tubular, operation in this
or larger than the total thickness of the pipes. This can only
be achieved at sufficiently low frequency of operation.
It is convenient to use dimensionless variables to classify
the response of the pipe to the various sensor geometries and
describing the sensor spacing relative to the
pipe inner diameter. Finally we may define a real and
as
µ
τ
µ ID
where ID 2 is the inner diameter of the casing. Note that
depends on the two typically unknown
quantities ID and the ratio ⁄ .