NDT&E International 54 (2013) 56–62

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

NDT&E International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ndteint

A novel approach for measuring of thickness of induction hardened layers

based on the eddy current method and the finite element modeling
J.M. Szlagowska-Spychalska n, M.M. Spychalski, K.J. Kurzydlowski
Division of Material Design, Faculty of Material Science, Warsaw University of Technology, Woloska Street 141, 02-507, Warsaw, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The thesis concerns applications of the Eddy Current (EC) for measurements of the thickness of the layers.
Received 23 August 2012 Additionally, the special finite element models have been developed which simulate eddy currents in
Received in revised form materials with surface layers. These models can be used for direct measurements of the thickness of the
30 November 2012
induction hardening layers in complex shape elements. The numerical models have been validated by the
Accepted 1 December 2012
Available online 11 December 2012
measurements carried out on specially designed test samples. The results obtained in the study allow for
building-up the reference database for experimental measurements. They also provide tools for analyses
Keywords: of the eddy current impedance diagrams collected under variable probe parameters and for different
Finite element method properties of the layers and substrates.
Non-destructive testing
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Eddy current
Induction hardened layers

1. Introduction
The possibility of using the Finite Element Method (FEM) for
analysis of electromagnetic phenomena and the eddy currents
calculations was investigated in the early 1980s [1]. The first works
in this field were based on simple two-dimensional models. These
models allow to obtain maps of distribution of electromagnetic field
and current density [2]. In following years scientists began to
examine the distributions of the fields around defects [3–5]. There
were also the first attempts to determine the characteristics of the
signal from the crack [6].
Current development of numerical methods and increasing
computational power of computers allowed to take on more
complex issues, such as the modeling of eddy currents density
distribution for the surface layers and coatings [7]. There has also
been work devoted to the analysis of the impedance probe and
consequently the more accurate determination of the character-
istics of the eddy current diagram [8]. Currently, attempts are
being made for the three-dimensional modeling of the electro-
magnetic field distribution around the cracks [9,10] and the
geometry of the crack [11], modeling probe with different cores
[12], modeling ferromagnetic materials [13], etc.
Analysis of the papers and the current state of knowledge of
eddy current modeling, allowed to postulate that significant
progress would be to perform calculations and quantitative
analysis of eddy currents for materials with low electrical
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: szjustyna@inmat.pw.edu.pl (J.M. Szlagowska-Spychalska).
conductivity difference between the layer and the core. More
complicated shapes of the samples should also be taken into
account. This issue became the subject of the submitted work.
2. Experimental studies
2.1. Materials properties
The procedure for measuring the thickness of layers has been
developed for components made of steel AMS 6414 (4340).
AMS 6414 (4340) is a heat treatable, low alloy steel containing
nickel, chromium and molybdenum. It is known for its tough-
ness and capability of developing high strength (TS ¼1793 MPa,
YP ¼1496 MPa) in the heat treated condition while retaining good
fatigue strength. Typical applications are for structural use, such
as aircraft landing gear, power transmission gears and shafts and
other structural parts [14]. In order to allow proper modeling
of eddy current effect in the test material and appropriate
selection of eddy current frequency, the material properties of
the steel, such as conductivity and permeability were evaluated.
Measurements of these parameters were performed for samples
from the starting material and for samples from the induction
hardened material (at industrial conditions). The results are
shown in Table 1.
2.1.1. Samples
An important stage of research was the creation of the base of
standard samples with hardened layers. At first authors had the
base of reference samples containing flat samples with marked

0963-8695/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2012.12.001
 J.M. Szlagowska-Spychalska et al. / NDT&E International 54 (2013) 56–62
Table 1
Electromagnetic properties of the AMS 6414 steel.
Properties Not hardened steel Hardened steel
Conductivity ½S=m (2.3 70.01)  106 (1.03 7 0.01)  106
Permeability mR 16.9 7 0.1 11.1 7 0.1
Fig. 1. Values of H as a function of distance from the surface of the standard
sample, thickness 0.75 mm.
layers: 0.5,1,1.5 and 2 mm. These samples were used to deter-
mine the initial parameters of the process. Additionally, it
was decided to create a base of cylindrical samples with different
layers (f23  20 mm) which could allow to determine effects
of sample shape on the eddy current signal. These samples were
prepared by company which produces parts for the aviation
industry.
2.2. Characterization of the induction hardened layers
Further studies concerned the characterization of induction
hardened layer. In order to determine the thickness of the layers
of cylindrical samples, the measurements of hardness values, such
as a function of distance from the surface of the sample, were
conducted (hardness measurements were performed using the
Triboindenter HYSITRON) as well as microstructures observations
(microstructures observations were performed with the use of the
microscope NIKON Epiphot 200). A sample diagram is shown
in Fig. 1.
The results revealed a step change in the properties on the
boundary between layer and core. A very clear difference between
the hardness of the core material and the layers allowed to
accurately determine the thickness of the layers. It was also
confirmed by observations of microstructures (Fig. 2).
The thickness of six cylindrical samples obtained during hard-
ness measurements and microstructures observations are shown
in Table 2.
2.3. Eddy currents measurements
With a base of reference samples the next stage of testing,
involving eddy current measurements, could have been executed.
Eddy current measurements were performed with the use of
the defectoscope MIZ 27SI (ZETEC). The spring loaded, hand-held,
coreless probes were used. The operating scale of probes was
1–5 and 5–50 kHz. Other probe parameters were: coil diameter
9.5 mm, high 25 mm, number of turns 100. Flat samples from not-
hardened and hardened steel, flat samples with layer thicknesses
ranging from 0.5 to 2 mm and cylindrical samples with layers
57
Fig. 2. Microstructure of the layer of the standard sample.
Table 2
Thickness of the cylindrical samples layers.
Number of sample Thickness, 7 0.5 mm
Sample 1 0.60
Sample 2 0.75
Sample 3 1.15
Sample 4 1.45
Sample 5 1.85
Sample 6 2.55
from 0.6 to 2.55 mm were examined. The measurements were
performed for the frequencies which should allow to obtain
standard depth of penetration (selected for the thickest layer).
However, in the several papers there was suggestion that for
measurements of thickness of hardened layer the better solution
is to use frequency which gives us standard depth of penetration
two times bigger than thickness of single layer. According to this
requirement chosen frequencies for flat samples were respec-
tively: 5.5 (standard depth of penetration) and 2 kHz (standard
depth of penetration two times bigger than thickness of layer)
and for cylindrical samples: 3 kHz (standard depth of penetration)
and 1.5 kHz (standard depth of penetration two times bigger
than thickness of layer). The phase angle for each of the obtained
characteristics was measured. Sample lift-off curves obtained
during the eddy currents measurements are shown in Fig. 3.
3. Numerical calculations. Distribution of eddy current
density and lift-off curves obtained by the numerical
simulation
In modeling electromagnetic phenomena using ANSYS soft-
ware one of two formulas of calculation could be selected. The
first one involves the use of scalar magnetic potential formulation
!
( T  O: electric vector potentialscalar magnetic potential; [15]).
The second one is based on magnetic vector potential formulation
! !
( A , V A : magnetic vector potential, electric scalar potential
magnetic vector potential; [16,17]). The selected type of the finite
elements and solutions (transient, harmonic, etc.) determines the
method of calculation. In this study calculations were based on
Magnetic Vector Potential (MVP) formulation.
To simulate distribution of eddy current density and charac-
teristics of signal for subsequent layers the parametric, 2D and 3D
models of probe-sample relation were created. Simulations were
performed in ANSYS 12. The movement of the lowering probe on
the surface of a sample was simulated. Obtained models allow for
examination of:
 Various location of the probe relative to the sample.
 Electromagnetic field distribution depending on the electrical
properties of surface layer.
 Distribution of eddy currents density, etc.
58 J.M. Szlagowska-Spychalska et al. / NDT&E International 54 (2013) 56–62

Fig. 3. Lift-off curves obtained by the eddy current testing for: (a) flat samples with hardening layers, frequency 2 kHz and (b) cylindrical samples with hardening layers,
frequency 1.5 kHz; Defectoscope MIZ 27 SI.

Fig. 4. Lift-off curves indicating a thinning curve for the subsequent layers, frequency Fig. 6. Lift-off curves indicating a thinning curve for the subsequent layers,
5.5 kHz. frequency 2 kHz.

Fig. 5. Thinning curve, frequency 5.5 kHz. Fig. 7. Thinning curve, frequency 2 kHz.

for layers less than 1.5 mm decrease of penetration is significant

For flat samples (2D, axisymmetric model) the simulations were
performed for frequencies 2 and 5.5 kHz. Numerical calculations
for frequency 5.5 kHz (standard depth of penetration) are shown
in Fig. 4. In the circle the part of the characteristics obtained
during eddy current measurements can be seen.
The best measurement results for frequency 5.5 kHz could be
obtained only for layers with thickness below 1 mm. Especially
(Fig. 5).
Then, for frequency 2 kHz a measurement range covering layer
thicknesses up to 2 mm was achieved (Figs. 6 and 7).
This was also confirmed by maps of distribution of eddy current
density (Fig. 8). Again in the circle the part of the characteristics
obtained during eddy current measurements can be seen. It was
confirmed that the best results could be obtained for the frequency
 J.M. Szlagowska-Spychalska et al. / NDT&E International 54 (2013) 56–62 59

Fig. 8. Distribution of eddy current density ½A=m2  for frequency 2 kHz: (a) layer thickness 0.50 mm and (b) layer thickness 2.00 mm.

Fig. 11. Lift-off curves indicating a thinning curve for the subsequent layers,
frequency 1.5 kHz.
Fig. 9. Lift-off curves indicating a thinning curve for the subsequent layers,
frequency 3 kHz.

Fig. 12. Thinning curve, frequency 1.5 kHz.

Fig. 10. Thinning curve, frequency 3 kHz.

This was also confirmed by distribution of eddy current

which gives penetration two times greater than the estimated
thickness of the layer.
For cylindrical samples (3D model) simulations were again
performed for two frequencies: 3 kHz (standard depth of pene-
tration, selected for the thickest layer) and 1.5 kHz (standard
depth of penetration two times bigger than thickness of layer).
Numerical calculations for frequency 3 kHz (standard depth of
penetration) are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
And again it can be seen that better results were achieved for
lower frequency (Figs. 11 and 12).
density (Figs. 13 and 14). Although this dependence for cylindrical
samples is not as visible as it was in the case of flat samples.
4. Verification and discussion of the results
Verification was based on comparison between the phase angles
obtained during numerical simulation and the phase angles
obtained during eddy current measurements. In order to compare
the numerical results with experimental results the normalization
60 J.M. Szlagowska-Spychalska et al. / NDT&E International 54 (2013) 56–62

Fig. 13. Distribution of eddy current density ½A=m2  for frequency 1.5 kHz; layer thickness 0.60 mm.

Fig. 14. Distribution of eddy current density ½A=m2  for frequency 1.5 kHz; layer thickness 2.55 mm.

of phase angles was necessary. This was realized by using presented where xN is the normalized phase angle value, xW is the phase
equation (1) angle for subsequent layers (w¼0.6–2.55) [1], xNH is the phase angle
for not hardened steel [1] and xH is the phase angle for hardened
xW xNH steel [1]. Comparison of phase angle values for flat samples is shown
xN ¼ ð1Þ
xH xNH in Table 3.
 J.M. Szlagowska-Spychalska et al. / NDT&E International 54 (2013) 56–62 61

Table 3 Table 4
Comparison of experimental and numerical normalized phase angle values for Comparison of experimental and numerical normalized phase angle values for
different thickness of hardening layers, frequency 2 kHz, flat samples. different thickness of hardening layers, frequency 1.5 kHz, cylindrical samples.

Samples Numerical values xN Experimental values xN Samples Numerical values xN Experimental values xN

Not hardened steel xNH 0.00 0.00 Not hardened steel xNH 0.00 0.00
Layer 0.5 mm 0.34 0.35 Layer 0.60 mm 0.17 0.16
Layer 1.0 mm 0.66 0.70 Layer 0.75 mm 0.29 0.21
Layer 1.5 mm 0.83 0.80 Layer 1.15 mm 0.40 0.32
Layer 2.0 mm 0.93 0.95 Layer 1.45 mm 0.51 0.53
Hardened steel xH 1.00 1.00 Layer 1.85 mm 0.68 0.63
Layer 2.55 mm 0.92 0.95
Hardened steel xH 1.00 1.00

Fig. 15. Normalized phase angles, experimental values, flat samples, frequency
2 kHz.

Fig. 17. Normalized phase angles, experimental values, cylindrical samples, frequency
1.5 kHz.

Fig. 16. Normalized phase angles, numerical values, flat samples, frequency 2 kHz.

The best convergence was received for the frequency 2 kHz,

as it can be seen on graphic illustration of the results—Figs. 15
and 16.
For frequency 5.5 kHz the convergence was worse, probably
because of too small depth of penetration of eddy currents. This
had an impact on measurement accuracy. Comparison of phase
angle values for flat samples is shown in Table 4.
Similarly to the case of flat samples, for the lower frequency
1.5 kHz, which gives us the depth of penetration of eddy currents
two times greater than the estimated thickness of the layer, the
convergence of experimental results with the results of numerical
analyses was the best. The graphic illustration of the results for
cylindrical samples is (are) shown in Figs. 17 and 18.
At this stage of research it can be concluded that the results
obtained in the course of experimental verification of the model
allow to assume that models are correct and can be used for
estimation of the layers thickness. But it must be kept in mind
Fig. 18. Normalized phase angles, numerical values, cylindrical samples, fre-
quency 1.5 kHz.
that penetration of eddy current should be two times greater than
the estimated thickness of the layer.
5. Conclusions
It has been assumed in this work that modern methods of
numerical simulations allow for direct estimation of the layers
thickness from the EC impedance measurements. To this end,
special finite element models have been developed which simu-
late eddy currents in materials with surface layers. These models
can be used for direct measurements of the thickness of the
62 J.M. Szlagowska-Spychalska et al. / NDT&E International 54 (2013) 56–62
induction hardening layers in complex shape elements. The
numerical models developed in the study have been validated by
the measurements carried out on specially designed test samples.
The correctness of the method was confirmed by the following
results which were achieved during research:
1. Lift-off curves obtained by numerical simulations for the sub-
sequent layers are consistent to lift-off curves obtained by the
eddy current testing (Figs. 3, 4, 7 and 12).
2. Phase angles obtained by numerical simulations for the sub-
sequent layers are consistent with phase angles obtained by
the eddy current testing (Tables 3 and 4).
The results obtained in the study allow for building-up the
reference database for experimental measurements. They also
provide tools for analyses of the eddy current impedance dia-
grams collected under variable probe parameters and for different
properties of the layers and substrates. Numerical simulations also
allow for estimation of the layers thickness from the EC impedance
measurements.
Acknowledgments
This work was in part financed by Developmental Project 0397/
P02/2006/01. This work constitutes part of Ph.D. thesis realized by
J. Szlagowska-Spychalska.
References
[1] Palanisamy R, Lord W. Finite Element Modeling of Electromagnetic NDT
Phenomena. IEEE Trans Magn 1979;15:1478–81.
[2] Nehl TW, Demerdash NA. Application of finite element eddy current analysis
to nondestructive detection of flaws in metallic structures. IEEE Trans Magn
1980;16:1080–2.
[3] Burais N, Foggia A, Nicolas A, Sabonnadiere JC. Electromagnetic field for-
mulation for eddy current calculations in nondestructive testing system. IEEE
Trans Magn 1982;18:1058–60.
[4] Lord W. Applications of numerical field modeling to electromagnetic meth-
ods of nondestructive testing. IEEE Trans Magn 1983;19:2437–42.
[5] Rebican MI. Dependence of simulated ECT signal on defect conductivity. In:
7th international symposium on advanced topics in electrical engineering
(ATEE); 2011. p. 1–4.
[6] Palanisamy R, Lord W. Prediction of eddy current probe signal trajectories.
IEEE Trans Magn 1980;16:1083–5.
[7] Gotoh Y, Matsuoka A, Takahashi N. Electromagnetic inspection technique of
thickness of nickel-layer on steel plate without influence of lift-off between
steel and inspection probe. IEEE Trans Magn 2011;47:950–3.
[8] Shin Y, Lee J, Song M. Preparation of eddy current impedance plane diagram
by finite element modeling. Key Eng Mater 2004;270–273:579–84.
[9] Marklein R, Rahman MU. Numerical modeling and inverse profiling in non-
destructive testing. In: Applied electromagnetics conference (AEMC); 2009.
p. 1–4.
[10] Thomas V, Joubert PY, Vourc’h E, Placko D. A novel modeling of surface
breaking defects for eddy current quantitative imaging. In: Sensors applica-
tions symposium (SAS); 2010. IEEE. p. 154–7.
[11] Jesenik M, Gorican V, Hamler A, Trlep M. Finding a crack in a material and
determining of depth. In: IET 8th international conference on computation in
electromagnetics (CEM 2011); 2011. p. 1–2.
[12] Zeng Z, Udpa L, Udpa SS. Finite-element model for simulation of ferrite-core
eddy-current probe. IEEE Trans Magn 2010;46:905–9.
[13] Chang D, Zuo X, He Y, Tian GY, Zhang H. Modelling and experimental
investigation of ferromagnetic material for angular defect detection. In:
17th international conference on automation and computing (ICAC); 2011.
p. 246–50.
[14] Corus Engineering Steels. UK; 2007.
!
[15] Ren Z. ( T O) formulation for eddy-current problems in multiply connected
regions. IEEE Trans Magn 2002;38:557–60.
[16] Biro O, Preis K. On the use of the magnetic vector potential in the finite
element analysis of three dimensional eddy currents. IEEE Trans Magn
1989;25:3145–59.
[17] Biro O, Preis K, Richter K. On the use of the magnetic vector potential in the
nodal and edge finite element analysis of 3D magnetostatic problems. IEEE
Trans Magn 1996;32:651–4.