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

net/publication/267223617

Recent Advances in Carbon Steel Tube Inspection

Article

CITATIONS READS
0 561

3 authors, including:

Gilles Rousseau Marc Grenier

Hydro-Québec Laval University
14 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Advanced ultrasonic inspection technologies applied to the welded joints of hydraulic turbine runners View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marc Grenier on 14 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Recent Advances in Carbon Steel Tube Inspection

Walter Matulewicz

R/D Tech USA, 240 Bear Hill Rd, Suite 104, Waltham, MA 02154, USA

Gilles Rousseau

Marc Grenier

R/D Tech, 4495 Wilfrid-Hamel Blvd, Québec, Québec G1P 2J7, Canada

ABSTRACT
Inspection of carbon steel tubes in heat exchangers ranges from simple visual to advanced
electromagnetic and ultrasonic methods. Common damage to carbon steel tubes includes
erosion, corrosion, thinning, pitting, and combinations of these. Over the years, many techniques
were developed, and are continuing to be developed, to inspect these tubes. Each technique is
superior at detecting and qualifying certain damage mechanisms. These techniques are regularly
used to inspect for all conditions since those performing the inspection generally have one
technique available. Common techniques currently used include magnetic flux leakage, remote
field, and ultrasonics. Developments in probe designs have increased the sensitivity to detect
certain defects. In some cases, the ability to detect smaller defects has increased. Review of these
methods, current improvement in probe sensitivity, and the combined use of these techniques will
be presented.
Introduction
Carbon steel tubes in heat exchangers are most common in the petrochemical industry. Carbon
steel is an inexpensive material, and generally has good mechanical properties and moderate heat
transfer properties. Carbon steel tubes are generally found in conditions where either steam or
water is present on one side of the tube. These conditions are also some of the most corrosive.
Untreated water is usually the cause of corrosion, if not directly related to flow.

In the past, and to some extent still, the cost of the tubes, entire exchanger, or retubing was not an
issue. These exchangers were run until no longer serviceable. In today’s market with maintenance
budgets restricted and unscheduled downtime costly, the old practices are changing. It is
becoming more necessary to be able to determine damage to the tube material, and be able to
quantify this data as much as possible.

Methods such as visual inspection, especially aided by remote systems, can provide extensive
information about the tube. The external condition of the majority of tubes cannot be inspected.
Even when inspected, quantitative data is marginal at best. This inspection method is slow and,
depending on the remote viewing equipment, expensive. Inspection of a tube may take several
minutes. If a small sample is indicative of the overall condition, this may be an adequate test.

A technique that is vastly utilized in related oil and gas industries, especially cross-country
pipeline inspection, is magnetic flux leakage (MFL). This technique was adapted to heat
exchanger tubing in the late 1980’s. The development of this technique for tubing applications
was due largely to improved permanent magnets.

In order to inspect a large amount of tubes in a short period of time, and provide qualitative or
quantitative data, an adequate inspection technique must be employed. Techniques utilized and
further developed over the last 40 years are currently undergoing improvements. One technique
with increasing use is the remote field eddy (RFT) method. This technique was developed and
used little for nearly 30 years. With rapid development of electronic and computer technology,
this method has gained popularity.

Ultrasonic examination of tubing has been applied in many forms including thickness and crack
detection. This technique has utilized transducers mounted on sticks to sophisticated immersion
split beam techniques. The most common application for heat exchanger tubing is the Internal

Page 2
Rotary Inspection System (IRIS). This technique was developed to inspect heat exchanger tubes,
especially air-cooled exchangers.

Some of these techniques have had minimal change since development. Others are constantly
under development to improve the inspection. Specific developments will be addressed and data
presented.

Magnetic Flux Leakage

Magnetic flux leakage utilizes permanent magnets to form a flux field in the tube wall. A coil is
used to measure the time rate of change of leakage flux as the probe is pulled in the tube. Results
are displayed as a voltage, usually on a strip chart. Leakage flux can be created by any anomaly
in the tube.

The MFL technique is most sensitive to sharp type defects such as pitting and grooving. MFL has
little or no sensitivity to gradual thinning. A Hall-effect sensor may be incorporated in the probe
to measure gradual thinning.

Since MFL is a dynamic examination, the probe speed is a significant factor in the test. The MFL
probe must be pulled at the same speed though the calibration tube and tube being inspected. If
the probe is pulled at different or varying speeds, the resultant signals may not reflect the defect.
Since MFL is based on a time rate of change, speed of the probe can affect the amplitude of the
signal.

ID versus. OD discrimination is limited with the MFL technique. In order to determine the origin
of the defect, a second coil in a different configuration is used for ID origin detection.

MFL is a fast technique because it is not based on a frequency response. Probe speeds of over 1
m/s (3 ft/s) are achievable with MFL. When inspecting carbon steel tubes, the MFL signal is
generally unaffected by support plates. There is a limit of 20–40% minimal through wall depth
detection based on tube OD and wall thickness. Defect sizing below this is difficult to repeat in
many cases. Because of this, optimization of the magnetic circuit, coil design, and coil placement
is being investigated.

This technique is used as a stand-alone inspection method as well as a screening method for
follow-up with ultrasonics or tube removal and analysis. The speed capabilities of MFL and its
ability to detect pit-like defects provide for a good screening inspection technique. Due to the

Page 3
possible speed variances and other factors, this technique should be used with ultrasonics or tube
removal for the best results.

Remote Field
RFT is a variation of the eddy current technique
widely used for inspection of non-
ferromagnetic tubing. This technique was
developed almost 40 years ago, and mostly
forgotten. Heat exchanger owner’s need for Figure 1 - Remote field eddy current probe and
field.
better detection and sizing of defects and
corrosion drives the development of the RFEC
technique. The need for a rapid inspection and
ease of analysis also addS to the development
of this technique.

An electromagnetic field traveling down the tube some distance from the source is the basis of
this technique ( Figure 1 ). An alternating current flowing in a bobbin coil located inside a tube is
the source of a low frequency magnetic field. The field that propagates inside the tube, called the
direct field, attenuates rapidly as it travels down the tube due to induced eddy currents in the
inner tube wall. The direct field is barely detectable at a distance of approximately 2 to 3 tube
diameters. A small fraction of the field penetrates through the tube wall and propagates down the
tube along the outside boundary without significant attenuation. This field, called the remote
field, penetrates through the tube wall again to return to the source. This return remote field
occurs at distances up to 5 tube diameters. When placing a detector coil at a distance between 2 to
4 tube diameters, field disturbances will be sensed due to the remote field component.

As with conventional eddy current, the remote field has undergone attenuation and phase shifting
in response to the eddy currents that oppose the penetration through the tube wall. The phase shift
and the attenuation measurements are the basis on which the remote field can be used to quantify
wall loss.

RFT is in some way a measurement based on attenuation. When the tube wall is of nominal wall
thickness, the remote field undergoes a strong attenuation, and phase shift, while diffusing
through the tube wall twice. With wall thinning, less tube material is present to induce eddy

Page 4
currents that oppose the remote field. Weaker eddy current fields will allow a stronger remote
field to reach the detector. Therefore, the remote field is extremely reliable for detecting and
assessing deep wall losses because of the exponential increase in the signal amplitude reaching
the detector. Additional details can be found in the literature.

RFT shows an optimal sensitivity to general wall loss. Pitting type defects are detectable and can
be quantified to some extent. Some general comments for the RFT technique are:

• The RFT field is equally sensitive to ID and OD anomalies, therefore the origin is not
easily noted.
• Support plates distort the field, masking or causing incorrect sizing.
• Discontinuities may be assessed using the remote field phase plane.
• Pit detection and sizing are dependent on tube material.
• Inspection speeds range from about 100 mm/s to 500 mm/s (4 in./s to 18 in./s).

General Wall Loss

Uniform corrosion is generally detected and sized compared to some calibration standard. This is
normally a long, approximately 6 tube diameters, concentric reduction in wall of known depth.
Using several of these, a calibration, based on the amplitude of the signal, is commonly
performed. By utilizing the phase shift, a wall loss comparison can be related to a phase
measurement. Figure 2 represents a calibration signal of a long wall loss.

Figure 2. RFT signals of long reference reductions. Figure 3. RFT signals of short reference reductions.
A long wall loss is longer than the coil spacing. Figures 2 to 5 are absolute signals presented in
the remote field phase plane. The strip charts on the left are of amplitude and phase, and the
phase plane is on the left. The curved lines on the phase plane are eccentric extent markers.
Page 5
Calibration can also be performed for short, less than coil spacing, wall loss (Figure 3). Note the
double peak signals in the strip charts on the left of the figure. This occurs because both the
driver and pickup coil independently detect the wall loss.

Non uniform or eccentric wall loss can be observed in the same manner. Misinterpretation can
occur if only the signal amplitude is used to indicate wall loss. The remote field is uniform
around the tube, and only by phase and amplitude analysis can the eccentricity of the wall loss be
determined with any accuracy. Figure 4 is a maximum 30% through wall loss of about
180 degrees around the circumference. Figure 5 is the signal from wall loss of the same depth,
with an approximate 270 degree extent around the tube. Amplitude analysis alone would cause
misinterpretation of these signals.

Figure 4. 180 degree eccentric wall loss, 30%. Figure 5. 270 degree eccentric wall loss, 30%.
Note the signal amplitude at the second (50%) Note the signal amplitue at the third (75%) curve.
curve.

Pitting Type Wall Loss

Pitting or small corrosion areas disrupt only a small portion of the RFT field, which makes
detection and sizing more difficult. Small wall loss, such as pitting, is generally measured by the
phase shift of the RFT field, similar to eddy current. The RFT signals are very small when
compared to that of an eddy current signal, and it is more difficult to detect the remote field
signal changes. Compensation is made in electronics and probe design. Probe designs involving
various coil dimensions and spacing as well as multiple coil designs are currently under testing to
assess the significance of these changes for detecting and sizing pit type anomalies.

Page 6
Analysis of pitting type anomalies can be performed in a manner similar to conventional eddy
current analysis. A differential bobbin pick-up configuration produces a differential signal that
can be analyzed in either a strip chart or vector display, Figure 6.

100% hole
20% hole

Figure 6 - Differential RFEC signal of pitting.

Calibration is performed with a calibration tube similar to that used for conventional eddy current
testing, and the responses from flat bottom holes are used to create a phase-to-depth curve.
Responses from actual discontinuity signals can be compared to the calibration tube.

Anomalies at Support Plates

Anomalies or discontinuities at or near support plates can easily be misinterpreted, or missed,
since the support plate affects the remote field signal. Support plates produce a large signal that
can mask smaller discontinuity signals. Several means are available to enhance detection and
sizing of anomalies at support plates:

• Use of a dual driver probe

• Use of dual frequency
• Use of a frequency mix
Dual driver probes are being applied to size signals occurring at support plates. The only
difference in a dual driver from a conventional RFT probe is that two driver coils are used instead
of one. The detector coil is placed in between two driver coils. This of course makes the probe
longer, which may be unusable in tubes with slight bending damage. The driver coils can be
switched externally to provide for a lead driver/rear pickup or rear driver/lead pickup

Page 7
arrangement. This allows the pickup coil to be on the side of the damage without the remote field
being disturbed by the support plate.

The use of dual frequencies may be limited by instrument design. Some instruments are capable
of producing simultaneous frequencies, but may not be capable of signal processing to aid in
interpretation. Signal processing is normally in the use of frequency mixing to suppress the
support plate. This is similar to conventional eddy current signal mixing. A low frequency is
mixed with a higher frequency to suppress the signal from the support plate. This allows a
discontinuity signal to be presented with amplitude and phase information while eliminating the
support signal (Figure 7).

Figure 7 - RFT signal of pitting near support plate using mix suppression.

Ultrasonics
Ultrasonic (UT) inspection provides a means of quantitative data of tube wall thickness.
Accuracy, depending on the technique, operator, and tube condition, can be within 0.03 mm
(0.001in.). Generally, thickness accuracy is within 0.13 mm (0.005in.). Support plates do not
affect the ultrasonic thickness measurement; therefore defects at or under support plates are easily
sized. OD vesus. ID discrimination can be easily distinguished.

Page 8
Various configurations for obtaining thickness have been attempted and produced over time.
These include:

• Simple transducers mounted on a rod

• Custom manufactured single and multielement boreside probes
• Motorized probes
• IRIS configuration
Along with the probe design, other factors also affect the inspection results. Cleanliness of the
tube is a major factor affecting an ultrasonic inspection. Ultrasound cannot penetrate to the tube
wall through loose scale, rust, or materials that are not acoustically coupled to the tube wall.
Inspection speed is usually limited to about 50 mm (2in.) per second for most full extent
examinations. Individual point probe designs can be pulled at greater speeds, but at less than
360 degree coverage.

Although any of the probe configurations provide varying degrees of inspection capabilities, the
focus of this paper will be on the IRIS configuration. Basic configuration, as well as advanced
features for setup and analysis will be reviewed.

IRIS-Based UT Inspection System

The operating principle is based on pulse-echo detection. An axially mounted transducer excited
by a high frequency pulse produces an ultrasonic wave that propagates in water. A mirror deflects
the wave to produce a normal incidence beam on the tube ID. Echoes, reflected back from each
metal-water interface, are digitized and processed to extract the time of flight and amplitude of
the front wall echo and back wall echoes. Figure 8 depicts the turbine/mirror and associated UT
signals. Further processing is applied to calculate the tube ID, OD, and wall thickness (WT).

Page 9
 Tube wall

C-scan B-scan
Rotating mirror

Front wall echo

Target and
mirror D-scan
echoes Back wall
echo

Figure 8 - IRIS probe and associated UT signals. Figure 9 - IRIS presentation.

Complete tube inspection is obtained by rotating the mirror, which is driven by a hydraulic
turbine. The beam, striking an ultrasonic target, performs synchronization of the rotation. The
TC5700 instrument accommodates this synchronization in order to display, in real time, the data
either on a traditional IRIS-type cross-section thickness display (B-scan), or as a surface area
thickness map (C-scan) (Figure 9).

During the inspection, the real-time B-scan and C-scan displays of ID, OD, or WT provide the
inspector with thickness information that makes data analysis and damage assessment
straightforward. Utilizing a personal computer (PC), the C-scan data can also be recorded in real
time or a selected defective area can be saved for offline analysis, reporting, and archiving.

Additional features for instrument setup that aid in the inspection are A-scan display for echo
finding, velocity adjustment for couplant and tube material, and gain adjustments for ID and OD
echoes. These items can aid in the inspection where the ID or OD is significantly corroded, a
slight film is present, thin material is inspected, or various materials are to be inspected.

Shear wave inspection is also possible with an IRIS-type probe. This may be used for detection of
circumferential cracking that may be at the tubesheet or for baffle cutting. In a flawless tube, the
C-scan will not have any indications because a return signal is not present. Conventional IRIS
systems are not suited for shear wave probes as these systems lack adequate display and signal
processing capabilities.

Page 10
Application Data
Two examples of RFT and complimentary IRIS data will be presented. These are from installed
tubes examined in typical field conditions. These tubes are 3/4in. OD x 0.083" nominal wall
thickness.

C-scan view

B-scan view
Wall loss area

D-scan view

Figure 10 - RFEC signal of 27% wall loss, 360 Figure 11 - IRIS signal of Figure 9 wall loss, 360
degree extent degree extent
The first example, Figure 10, shows the RFT signal from an area between a support plate and the
tube sheet. A broad area of wall loss is noted in the strip chart between the cursors. This area is
an excursion of the baseline to the right. The remote field phase plane depicts a significant signal
extending to the 100%, solid curve, circumferential extent line. The measured loss is noted at the
top of the remote field phase plane as 27% long, 66% short, with a 360 degree circumferential
extent. The RFT signal also shows two peaks, indicating a deeper section in an area of less wall
loss, and is noted by the 66% short phase indicator.

Figure 11 is the IRIS scan of the area noting the wall loss from the RFT data. The layout of the
IRIS presentation shows the C-scan on the upper left, the B-scan, or circumferential section, on
the upper right, and the D-scan, or horizontal section, on the lower left. The C-scan represents the
circumference of the tube laid open in the vertical direction. The horizontal direction is along the
tube axis. True top of the tube is unknown due to the fact that the location of the ultrasonic
trigger may move relative to the tube.

From this, it is clear that the wall loss area is completely around the circumference. The B-scan is
generated from a section defined by a vertical cursor near the right edge of the wall loss area. The
cursor in the middle of the B-scan is used to measure the wall thickness at that point. In this case,

Page 11
the wall thickness is noted as 0.057in. (1.4 mm). The average wall thickness in this area is
approximately 0.060in. (1.5 mm). Based on this, the average wall loss is 28%, which correlates
with the RFT data. The thinnest area of the tube from the IRIS data was 0.035in. (0.89 mm)
which correlates to approximately 58% wall loss.

In the next example, the RFT wall loss (Figure 12) is noted adjacent to the support plate for a
short distance. This is most likely baffle erosion, or fretting and erosion. The measurement for
this area is 20% long, 48% short, with a 141 degree circumferential extent. Note that the signal
height in the remote field phase plane lies between the first and second dashed curve. This
indicates that the wall loss is between 90 and 180 degrees in circumferential extent.

The length of the defect is possibly between a short and long defect. A short defect will depict
two signal peaks, whereas a long defect will depict a continuous signal. The actual wall loss is
most likely somewhat less than the predicted short evaluation.

Wall loss
Wall loss area

Figure 12 - RFT signal of 30% wall loss, 140 degree Figure 13 - IRIS signal of Figure 11 wall loss, 140
extent degree extent
IRIS data for the same tube is shown as Figure 13. Extent of the wall loss is clearly seen as less
than 360 degrees around the tube. The measured extent is approximately 150 degrees. Wall
thickness at the cursor position, lower portion of B-scan, is noted as 0.048in. (1.2 mm). The
average wall thickness in this area is 0.060in. (1.5 mm), which relates to an average wall loss of
30%. Maximum wall loss in this tube was noted as 52%, 0.040in. (1 mm) remaining wall. Data
again shows that the correlation between the RFT data and IRIS data is quite good.

A final example is one of a tube with notches to display the use of the shear wave IRIS probe.
Both 90 degree and 45 degree probe angle images are presented. The 90 degree (normal beam
incidence) image, Figure 14, clearly shows three wide notches. Several more indications as well
Page 12
as the three previous notches are noted on the 45 degree (shear) probe angle image (Figure 15).
This demonstrates the feasibility of a shear wave probe for an IRIS system.

Figure 14 - 90 degree beam image of notches. Only Figure 15 - 45 degree beam image of notches. All
wide grooves imaged. notches and grooves imaged.

Summary
Many inspection methods are available for inspection of installed carbon steel heat exchanger
tubes. Some of these methods provide qualitative data and some quantitative. All of these
methods have both advantages and disadvantages for both detection and analysis of detected
anomalies. Expected damage should be considered when deciding which method to use for
inspection. Some methods are better at detecting and sizing than others.

When using remote field phase plane analysis tools, RFT can provide an acceptable means of
inspection. IRIS is used to provide accurate sizing of anomalies detected by RFEC. Confirmation
of RFT data by IRIS data has been demonstrated by example. This combination provides the
most accurate and reliable inspection for the majority of carbon steel heat exchanger tubes.

It has been shown that a combination of methods can provide the best inspection data. IRIS
ultrasonic inspection can be used as a primary inspection method, although with current
technology, it is slower that the other methods. Confirmation by ultrasonics provides the overall
confidence of the primary inspection method, if different from ultrasonics.

Page 13
 References
Krzywosz, K., G., Dau, Materials Evaluation. 48, 1 (1990): p. 42.
“A Selective NTIAC Bibliography.” In Materials Evaluation 47, 1 (1989): p. 29.
Kilgore, R. J., S. Ramchandran, Materials Evaluation. 47, 1 (1989): p. 32.
Schmidt1, T. R., et al Materials Evaluation. 47, 1 (1989): p. 76.

Page 14

View publication stats