Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Table of Eddy Current Methods Comparison

    Uploaded by

    hamdi hamdi
    11 views1 page
    This document compares partial saturated eddy current (PSEC) testing to other non-destructive testing methods for detecting defects in ferromagnetic heat exchanger tubes. PSEC uses specially developed probes that can detect both local and extensive corrosion, cracks, and erosion and differentiate between defect types. It allows for fair accuracy in identifying defects and faster inspection speeds of up to 70 tubes per hour on average. Some interpretation challenges exist when multiple defect types are present. Experience is required and detection of external defect depth is slightly less accurate than conventional eddy current.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Table of eddy current methods comparison

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document compares partial saturated eddy current (PSEC) testing to other non-destructive testing methods for detecting defects in ferromagnetic heat exchanger tubes. PSEC uses specially developed probes that can detect both local and extensive corrosion, cracks, and erosion and differentiate between defect types. It allows for fair accuracy in identifying defects and faster inspection speeds of up to 70 tubes per hour on average. Some interpretation challenges exist when multiple defect types are present. Experience is required and detection of external defect depth is slightly less accurate than conventional eddy current.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views1 page

    Table of Eddy Current Methods Comparison

    Uploaded by

    hamdi hamdi
    This document compares partial saturated eddy current (PSEC) testing to other non-destructive testing methods for detecting defects in ferromagnetic heat exchanger tubes. PSEC uses specially developed probes that can detect both local and extensive corrosion, cracks, and erosion and differentiate between defect types. It allows for fair accuracy in identifying defects and faster inspection speeds of up to 70 tubes per hour on average. Some interpretation challenges exist when multiple defect types are present. Experience is required and detection of external defect depth is slightly less accurate than conventional eddy current.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Comparison of methods for testing ferromagnetic heat exchanger tubes

    Partial Saturated be identified with fair accuracy. This Prerequisites / Limitations:


    Eddy Current - PSEC is a decisive advantage compared to Several types of defects present at
    competing NDT procedures like the same time make interpretation
    Eddy current test procedures with remote field tests (RFT) for instance. of the eddy current signals more
    premagnetization have been devel- Test speeds of up to 70 tubes per difficult. For this reason, experi-
    oped for detection of internal and hour (average 30 to 40 tubes per enced inspection personnel is re-
    external damages in tubes made hour) can be achieved. Even damages quired. The depth of external
    from ferromagnetic materials like like cracks and corrosion in the tube defects can only be determined by
    carbon steel, low-alloy steel, duplex sheet area are detected with special signal amplitudes compared to
    or nickel alloys. The central item for rotating probes. Fair tube cleaning conventional eddy current. The test
    this specific challenge are test is still necessary, but by far not as accuracy resulting from this can be
    probes that were especially devel- critical as for IRIS testing. Only slightly below that of conventional
    oped for this task, which can detect magnetic and electrical conduc- eddy current procedures (depend-
    Dymoma
    local as wellCo. Comparison
    as extensive of methods
    corrosion, tive for testingmust
    deposits heat be
    exchanger
    removedtubes
    ing on the tube material, tube di-
    cracks and all known erosion types from the tubes´ interior. Probe mension and type of defect).

    INSPECTIONS
    TUBULAR
    and differentiate between them. access with 1 mm undersize
    Even damages near by or under across the entire tube length must
    vulnerable support plate areas can be ensured.
    be determined, and their depth can

    Dymoma Co. Comparison of methods for testing heat exchanger tubes table:

    You might also like