DOI: 10.1784/insi.2015.57.6.

337
WELD INSPECTION

Electromagnetic and eddy current NDT in weld

inspection: a review
P Gao, C Wang, Y Li and Z Cong

Defects in welds always undermine the reliability of the overall structure, potentially causing serious structural failures.
Electromagnetic and eddy current testing (ECT) are widely used in weld inspection because of their advantages, such as
rapidity, they are non-contact and they do not require a coupling agent. This paper presents a review of the development
of electromagnetic and eddy current non-destructive testing (NDT) in fusion welding and friction stir welding (FSW).
In the section on fusion weld inspection, the review includes probe improvement, the multi-frequency eddy current
technique, signal processing and computational inversion techniques. In the section on friction stir welding, the review
shows the probe structure design and the application of the pulsed eddy current (PEC) and SQUID-based eddy current
techniques. Finally, the future development of ECT in welding inspection is discussed in the last part of the paper.
Keywords: non-destructive testing (NDT), eddy current testing (ECT), fusion welding, friction stir welding (FSW), review.

1. Introduction
Welding technology is widely used in the energy, petrochemical
and nuclear industries, transport vehicles and other industrial
manufacturing processes. The welding may introduce defects
in the process and therefore weld inspection is carried out to
reduce the rejection rate and increase production efficiency[1,2].
In addition, in-service devices are subject to factors such as high
operating temperatures, pressures and various other external
influences. Therefore, welding inspection is needed to detect micro
defects introduced during service in order to avoid catastrophic
accidents[3,4].
Electromagnetic and eddy current testing (ECT) are important
methods for non-destructive testing that have been applied for
defect detection in conductive materials[5-8]. Electrical conductivity
reflects the weld seam microstructure, which makes it accessible
to use the magnitude and distribution of the magnetic field to
estimate the electrical conductivity distribution of the weld and to
evaluate the welding quality[9,10]. Because of the advantage of being
non-contact, weld defects can be continuously monitored using
an eddy current transducer[11]. Through electrical conductivity
measurements, ECT has two roles: one as a method for defect
detection and the other as a material characterisation technique[12].
Friction stir welding (FSW) has been widely used recently for
its great advantages. However, due to the limitations of the welding
process, large down forces are required with heavy-duty clamping
necessary to hold the plates together. FSW is also less flexible when
compared with manual and arc processes. As a result, it is still
not completely feasible for friction stir welding to replace fusion
welding (such as metal inert gas welding, tungsten inert gas welding
and laser welding). As a mature technology, fusion welding is still
widely used in the industrial field. Due to the fact that fusion welding
is usually prone to causing defects in the welding process and that
the strength of the weld seam and heat-affected zone (HAZ) is less
than the base material, the detection of the fusion weld region is
particularly important. Radiographic, penetrant, ultrasonic and
magnetic particle testing methods are widely used in welding
non-destructive testing (NDT). However, for non-ferromagnetic
materials, particularly materials with protective coatings, magnetic
particle and penetrant testing methods do not work. With the
progress of ECT, the use of ECT for detecting defects of fusion
welding has aroused much interest.
Due to different welding principles and fabrication processes,
fusion welding and FSW have different surface shapes and defect
types, and thus require different ECT detection methods. This paper
reviews the developments in electromagnetic and eddy current
NDT for fusion welding and FSW. The problems and challenges
that exist in electromagnetic and eddy current NDT are discussed
and the most probable solutions are presented.
2. Electromagnetic and eddy current
NDT in fusion welding
2.1 Development of the probe
2.1.1 Development of the probe structure
The design and improvement of the probe is an important
research target in the field of welding ECT, with a large number of
research results published and reported. McNab and Thomson[13]
designed a multi-element eddy current array for the local testing of
ferritic specimens, including welds. The eddy current instrument
provides a useful method for rapid local inspection of ferritic
welds. Improvements over single-coil operation are obtained in
the scanning speed and in the reliability of flaw detection. This is
because the electronically-scanned array of coils permits a greater
area of the material to be tested and provides a 2D image of the flaw
position. The array has been applied to the detection of cracks in the
HAZ of a weld, where the large surface area of the probe permits
a coarser scanning pattern to be used, whilst providing a high
l Submitted 15.12.14 / Accepted 11.03.15
Peng Gao, Chao Wang*, Yang Li and Zheng Cong are with the School
of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Tianjin University, Tianjin
300072, P R China.
Yang Li is also with the Hajim School of Engineering & Applied Sciences,
University of Rochester, Rochester 14627, USA.
*Corresponding author. Email: wangchao@tju.edu.cn

Insight • Vol 57 • No 6 • June 2015 337

WELD INSPECTION
probability of detection due to the number of elements deployed.
The multi-element eddy current array is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Multi-element eddy current array[13]
One difficulty that interferes with ECT in weld inspection is
the serious noise caused by the weld surface texture and the lift-off
effects introduced by height variations. A rectangular coil probe,
which is also referred to as a uniform eddy current probe, can
effectively reduce the noise caused by the rough weld surface and
improve the weld defect detection capability of ECT[14-21]. As shown
in Figure 2, a uniform eddy current probe is composed of a wide
rectangular coil and a small detection coil[14]. The probe structure
is applied to weld inspection, effectively reducing the noise from
weld seams.
Figure 2. Uniform eddy current probe[14]
Figure 3 shows the structure of a differential detection
rectangular coil, which is used for detecting weld quality[15]. The new
uniform eddy current probe consists of a wide tangential exciting
coil, which induces uniform eddy currents in the test material, and
differential detector coils, which pick up the local variation in the
eddy current caused by flaws. The authors have tried ECT of a weld
zone using the new uniform eddy current probe in order to reduce
the noise in the weld zone. The experimental results have proven
that the uniform eddy current probe has a high signal-to-noise ratio
compared with a conventional pancake probe when applied to flaw
detection in the weld zone.
In order to detect all the flaws through a single scan, Hoshikawa
et al[16] designed a uniform eddy current probe that comprised a
338
Figure 3. Structure of a differential detection uniform eddy current
probe[15]
tangential exciting coil and a flat detecting coil, as shown in Figure
4(a). Both the exciting coil and the detecting coil are longer than
the weld width in order to conduct surface testing of the weld and
to cover the whole weld zone as the probe scans along the weld.
As shown in Figure 4(b), a single scan along the weld is enough
to detect all the flaws. The experimental results have shown that
the probe detects both longitudinal and transversal flaws with
reasonable signal-to-noise ratios. Hoshikawa et al[18] have also
developed a new method for detecting the position and direction
in the weld zone of steel structures, such as oil storage tanks and
bridges, without removing their anticorrosion paint. The method
uses a special uniform eddy current probe and detects the position
and direction by utilising the difference of electromagnetic
characteristics between the base material and the HAZ.
Figure 4. (a) Uniform eddy current probe for surface testing of a
weld and (b) its arrangement and scan[16]
Eddy current inspections using six different eddy current
probes, including a differential pancake probe, a TR probe (mutual-
induction differential-type pancake probe), a plus-point-type
probe, a Θ probe, a uniform eddy current probe and a uniform eddy
current probe with differential pick-up coils, were conducted and
efficiencies were evaluated for each probe for weld inspection[22]. It
revealed that if suitable probes are applied, an Inconel weld does
not generate large noise levels during eddy current inspection, even
though the weld surface is rough.
Among the six probes, the plus-point-type and uniform eddy
current probes show large noise signals caused by the weld bead.
However, one can observe that these noise signals are uniformly
distributed along the weld bead and that the effect of the roughness
of the weld surface is very small. In contrast, the two pancake-
type probes (the differential pancake probe and the TR probe)
have relatively large noise signals due to the roughness of the weld
surface, whereas they provide only a small amount of noise signals
because of the weld bead.
Recently, Noritaka Yusa et al[23] evaluated the electromagnetic
characteristics of austenitic stainless steel welds from the viewpoint
of ECT. Seven welded plate specimens were prepared. Two welding
metals and several welding conditions were adopted to discuss
Insight • Vol 57 • No 6 • June 2015

Figure 5. (a) Differential pancake probe; (b) TR probe; (c) plus-point
probe; (d) Θ probe; (e) uniform eddy current probe; (f) uniform
eddy current probe with differential pick-up coils. Upper image:
side view, lower image: bottom view. Units are given in mm[22]
the generality of ECT performance. The results of eddy current
examination of the specimens using three different types of eddy
current probe, as shown in Figure 6, ie an absolute pancake probe,
a differential plus-point probe and a uniform eddy current probe,
confirm that the absolute pancake probe causes larger noise than
the other two.
Figure 6. Eddy current probes (unit: mm): (a) absolute pancake
probe; (b) differential plus-point probe; (c) uniform eddy current
probe[23]
Of specific interest in weld inspection, a probe design that
utilises orthogonal wound coils operated in a differential mode
is reported by Idaho National Laboratory[24]. The two test coils
are wound perpendicularly to each other and set with their axes
parallel to the test-piece. This design, which is a little similar to
the differential plus-point probe, provides significant advantages
for inspecting welds without the need for more complex signal
Insight • Vol 57 • No 6 • June 2015
WELD INSPECTION
processing approaches.
Nishimizu et al[25], from the Hitachi Research Laboratory, have
developed an ECT probe, as shown in Figure 7, for weld surfaces
on the bottom head of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). The
ECT probe consists of sensor coils regularly arranged on a flexible
substrate and enables us to inspect a complex form. The probe
estimates the flaw length and position to specify the area for flaw
repair. In[25], Nishimizu et al also report on the detection sensitivity
for flaws on various curved surfaces and present the verification test
results obtained using the ECT probe.
Figure 7. Flexible multi-coil ECT probe[25]
2.1.2 Improvement of the magnetic field detection
element
Defects in welds, such as pores, inclusions or cracks, will influence
the distribution of the eddy current and result in a change in the
magnetic field, so it is convenient to apply magnetic field sensors
and measure the magnetic field in ECT. Hall[9,26], AMR[27], MR[28]
and GMR[29-32] have been used in weld quality assessment.
For the detection of defects in aluminium laser welds, Allweins[27]
implemented an anisotropic magnetoresistive (AMR) sensor array
in an ECT system. In the research, defects with a radius smaller
than 100 μm could be detected and classified.
Hayashi et al[28] employed magnetic resistance (MR) sensors to
detect the magnetic field and used the low-frequency magnetic field
imaging technology for the assessment of weld quality. Differences
in weld quality resulting from different welding conditions were
detected via low-frequency magnetic imaging. This magnetic
imaging was obtained using a recently-developed measurement
system, which consists of an exciting coil, an MR sensor and a lock-in
amplifier. A wide area of stainless steel sample was exposed to the
magnetic field via an induction coil and the MR sensor measured
the generated magnetic field from the sample. The possibility of
using low-frequency magnetic imaging has been demonstrated for
distinguishing defective weld areas caused by stopping the flow of
the argon shield gas during the welding of stainless steel parts.
2.2 Multi-frequency eddy current technique
In order to obtain more information about the nature of the flaws
and eliminate unwanted signals, multi-frequency eddy current
techniques have been used in weld inspection[33-37]. Many different
parameters can influence eddy current measurements; therefore,
the unique determination of a given sample property when other
properties vary is usually difficult or impossible unless sufficient
data are obtained to eliminate the effects of unwanted variables.
If sinusoidal eddy currents are used, one can determine no more
than two quantities, which are the magnitude and phase at a given
fixed frequency. Therefore, if more than two properties need to be
determined, multiple-frequency, pulsed or swept-frequency eddy
currents must be used[35].
339
WELD INSPECTION

By using the multi-frequency method, more information is

obtained and different information processing methods can be
used. In[35], a least-squares fitting of user-selected polynomials
(constructed from the theoretically-calculated magnitude and
phase readings) to obtain various desired properties is performed.
The authors also proposed that significant improvements could
(and should) be made through the development of additional
computer-based data processing for decision making (for example
via pattern recognition)[35].
Rao et al[33] presented an artificial neural network (ANN) that
implements multi-frequency multi-parametric ECT for online Figure 9. The welded plate specimen fabricated in[22]
depth quantification of surface-breaking defects in austenitic
stainless steel welds in the presence of disturbing weld variations, In[22], the exact configuration model is as illustrated in Figure
lift-off and edge effects. The neural network is used in conjunction 10. The surface of the weld is somewhat higher than that of the
with a multi-frequency eddy current instrument and a personal base materials, and the configuration includes three materials with
computer-based data acquisition system to realise online ECT, different electromagnetic characteristics. Note that not only the
as shown in Figure 8. With help from the multi-frequency eddy exact surface condition but also the distribution of electromagnetic
current techniques, more important information can be obtained. characteristics inside the weld is unknown at this moment.
Therefore, Yusa et al attempt to approximate the configuration
as a simple one, as shown in Figure 11. The welded specimen is
modelled as a simple plate. The height of the weld is approximated
by the change in the probe lift-off.

Figure 8. Online ECT of stainless steel welds using multi-frequency

eddy current techniques[33]

2.3 Signal processing and computational

inversion techniques
Signal processing of ECT assists the qualitative and quantitative
analysis in weld inspection and attracts widespread interest. Neural
networks are used in the defect reconstruction and characterisation
in weld inspection[33,34]. 2D discrete wavelet transform (DWT) was
applied in ECT for weld inspection[38]. In[32], analysis of the Lempel-
Ziv complexity and approximate entropy for different signals draws
the conclusion that these two complex measures are sensitive
to the eddy current magnetic field of the weld zone. Non-linear
Figure 10. Exact configuration[22]
characteristics of the eddy current magnetic field of the weld can
be used to identify and classify the type of weld, which serves as
an efficient supplementary diagnostic tool to reveal the different
patterns of welds.
With the improvement in computers’ computational power,
tremendous progress has been made in the computational inversion
technique of ECT research[6,39,40]. Yusa[40] overviewed recent studies
on the application of computational inversion techniques to
the quantitative sizing of defects from eddy current signals and
discussed problems hampering the practical application of ECT
to size cracks. Different from[40], the computational inversion
techniques only used for weld inspection[21,22,41-43] are reviewed in
the following sections.
Yusa et al[22] evaluated the applicability of eddy current inversion
techniques in the sizing of defects, as shown in Figure 9. The
specimen is a 30 mm-thick plate, welded using Inconel weld metal.
Although the surface of the weld is quite rough, as shown in Figure
9, the study demonstrates that, if a suitable probe is used, the depth
of the slits can be evaluated from the measured eddy current signals Figure 11. Approximated configuration for numerical simulation[22]
with the aid of a simple signal processing method to eliminate noise.

340 Insight • Vol 57 • No 6 • June 2015


Yusa et al[21] reported ECT as an efficient NDT method to
size fatigue cracks embedded in an Inconel weld. They fabricated
welded plate specimens, modelling the head penetration welds of
a pressurised nuclear power reactor and their weld overlays, and
artificially introduced fatigue cracks inside the weld from the
backside surface of the specimen. Eddy current tests were conducted
from the front surface of the specimen, and fatigue cracks were sized
from the measured signals using an iterative approach based on the
conjugate gradient method. The crack model adopted in the study
was a semi-elliptical region with uniform conductivity inside and a
fixed width of 0.3 mm. They evaluated the profile and conductivity
via an iterative approach based on the conjugate gradient method
and found that the conductivity was no more than 3% of the base
material’s conductivity. Sizing of the fatigue cracks was carried
out using the potential drop and ultrasonic tests with longitudinal
waves, but ECT, aided with computational inversion, provided the
best results. The specimen fabricated in the study and the cross-
sectional profiles of one of the cracks sized are shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Cross-sectional profile of a fatigue crack[21]
In[21], the profile of a crack is estimated from the measured
eddy current signals using an inversion algorithm developed by
Chen and Miya[44,45]. The algorithm modifies the profile of a crack
iteratively to minimise an error, defined as:
2
M Zhang et al[36,37] proposed an inversion algorithm of multi-
ε ( c ) = ∑ Vm ( c ) − V
obj
m
................................ (1)
m=1
where vector c represents the crack profile, and Vm(c) is the
simulated eddy current signals from reconstructed cracks while
Vmobj is those from true ones. The subscript m denotes signals at the
mth scanning point and M is the number of total scanning points.
Cheng et al[41] applied an iterative inversion algorithm originally
developed to consider a single slit to the sizing of three artificial
fatigue cracks introduced into an Inconel 82 weld of 40 mm
thickness. They modelled the cracks as a non-conductive region
with an arbitrary boundary profile of a constant width of 0.2 mm,
and evaluated the boundary profile two-dimensionally from eddy
current signals measured by a plus-point type probe. The maximum
depths of the fatigue cracks revealed by subsequent destructive tests
differed by no more than 1.0 mm, although the depths of the three
cracks were as deep as 3.5 mm, 7.6 mm and 8.7 mm. The same
algorithm as used in[21] was adopted. Crack depths estimated by
eddy current reconstruction agreed well with those of ultrasonic
testing and were consistent with the crack depths revealed from
destructive testing.
However, in the eddy inverse problem, pressure corrosion
defect reconstruction is still not mature enough. In 2006, Yusa et
al[42] reported the failure in the sizing of stress corrosion cracks in
spite of the agreement of the signals. The study attempted to size
Insight • Vol 57 • No 6 • June 2015
WELD INSPECTION
three stress corrosion cracks artificially introduced into an Inconel
weld and eventually found that although the eddy current signals
calculated from the reconstructed profiles agreed well with the
measured signals, the true profiles revealed by destructive testing
were very different from the reconstructed profiles. The sizing
estimated the depths of the cracks as 2.0 mm, 2.5 mm and 2.0 mm,
while the true depths of the cracks were approximately 8 mm, 9 mm
and 7 mm, respectively. The most plausible reason for the difference
was that the cracks had unexpected volumetric profiles, as shown in
Figure 13, and the study modelled the crack as a planar conductive
region of 0.3 mm width. The study points out that conventional
approaches developed to consider slits are not always applicable
to size real pressure corrosion. The study also reveals that further
studies concerning numerical modelling of pressure corrosion are
necessary.
Figure 13. Cross-sectional profiles of stress corrosion cracking
in[42]
Hench et al[46] implemented an eddy current inspection system
to determine weld quality for a laser welding process. The goal of the
inspection was to provide a reliable estimate of the weld joint depth,
which indicates structural quality. Phase angles are calculated from
the resulting transformed voltages. Weld penetration is calculated
from the phase angle data using a third-order polynomial fit based
on metallographic results obtained during experimentation.
frequency strategy that demonstrated to overcome the difficulty
in the quantitative evaluation of cracks in the welding zone of a
lattice sandwich metallic plate (LSMP) by processing measured
ECT signals. The good consistency of the reconstruction results
confirms the validity of the proposed algorithm and reveals that
ECT is suitable for the quantitative NDE of cracks in the welding
zone of LSMP.
In order to size cracks in LSMP, the crack signal was extracted
from the inspected ECT signals of two frequencies by MFA:
zmobs = zmobs ( f1 ) − zmobs ( f 2 )α 0 e 0 .......................... (2)
iθ
where α0 and θ0 are the MFA coefficients and f1 and f2 are the two
exciting frequencies, respectively. It can be seen that the aim of
Equation (2) is to eliminate the effects of welding noise through
phase rotation and amplitude change.
3. Electromagnetic and eddy current
NDT in friction stir welding
Traditional NDE techniques do not work well with FSW because the
techniques were developed for fusion welds, where different flaws
are found, for example porosity, solidification cracks, hydrogen
cracks, reheat cracks, lack of fusion, slag entrapment, etc, and none
341
WELD INSPECTION
of these flaws are found in FSW. The NDT industry is responding by
developing new techniques to cope with this challenge[47].
3.1 Development of the probe
FSW is a solid-state joining process (the metal is not melted),
which leads to several advantages over fusion welding methods, for
example the problems associated with cooling from the liquid phase
are avoided. Nevertheless, FSW is associated with a number of
unique defects. When the welding parameters are not appropriate,
flaws such as a lack of penetration (LOP), wormhole, kiss bonding,
faying surface defects and root toe defects may occur. ECT is an
important FSW NDT method and the improvements of probes
attract widespread interest.
In[48], electrical conductivity measurements were performed
using an absolute planar spiral eddy current probe with a diameter
of 5 mm and 10 circular coils (Figure 14(a)), produced by printed
circuit board (PCB) technology with a line width of 100 μm, a
thickness of 30 μm and a distance of 100 μm between successive
coils. A permanent lift-off of a thin polymer of 50 μm thickness
was used to isolate the copper of the coils from the sample surface.
The probe has high potential for several NDT applications, due to
its close proximity to the surface of the material and that the probe
ensures a reliable measurement.
Figure 14. Measurement of the electric conductivity of the FSW
joints: (a) planar spiral eddy current probe with 10 coils; and (b)
movement of the probe in a transversal FSW scan[48]
In Lisbon, Portugal, the IOnic eddy current probe, as shown
in Figure 15, was designed to detect defects in FSW[49-54]. This new
probe provides enhanced lift-off immunity and improved sensitivity
for micro-size imperfections. The IOnic probe morphology exhibits
a driver/pick-up arrangement and a differential-based operation.
The driver element is a copper trace placed in the middle of two
pick-up planar coils, which are wired in opposite directions, as
shown in Figure 15. Unlike conventional probes, which are based
on the absolute value of the real and imaginary part of the signal,
the defect identification with an IOnic probe is based on the relative
change of the output signal. This fact makes the new probe less
Figure 15. IOnic probe: (a) tri-dimensional view of an IOnic probe;
and (b) manufactured IOnic probe[50]
342
dependent on unwanted interference, such as probe lift-off, material
magnetic permeability and conductivity changes and other related
electronic issues.
In subsequent research in[55], four different friction spot
welding (FSpW) conditions were tested in 2 mm-thick plates of
duraluminium, aiming to compare the reliability of the different
NDT approaches. The experimental results show that the IOnic
probe in Figure 15 is able to identify different levels of FSpW quality
regions by a distinctive perturbation on the output signal, whereas
the planar spiral probe in Figure 14 cannot distinguish different
FSpW conditions.
In[56], a new ECT probe to detect surface-breaking defects was
designed and successfully applied. This probe, as shown in Figure
16, used a driver trace to induce eddy currents, while MR sensors
were used to sense the resulting magnetic field. This driver trace
enables the generation of a confined and straight eddy current
pattern, which can be used as an advantage when testing for
defects that follow an expected orientation. Two sensors, which are
separated by a small distance (1 mm) and measured differentially,
were used to sense the magnetic field. This leads to an almost null
readout under a defect-free situation and helps to reduce the effect
of the part surface profile and gradual conductivity changes, which
could mask the response to the small-dimension defects.
Figure 16. Prototyped probe and auxiliary board during a test[56]
The probe was able to easily detect synthetic defects with
0.15 mm width and 0.2 mm depth on an aluminium part with a
good signal-to-noise ratio. The application to a FSW sample with
a LOP defect also revealed good results. A LOP defect with around
0.4 mm depth was detected and clearly distinguished from other
contributions on the measured signal.
3.2 Pulsed eddy current technique
In addition to the improvement of the structure of the probe, the
pulsed eddy current (PEC) technique is newly developed to detect
welding defects[12,57,58]. The PEC technique uses a square waveform
to drive the excitation coil instead of a sinusoidal wave excitation.
In general, this technique is capable of probing the material deeper
than the conventional eddy currents. Another significant difference
is that the signals are recorded in the time domain and not on an
impedance plane diagram.
Smith[57] used PEC and achieved good results from testing the
openings on the surface of FSW. The PEC technique has been
Insight • Vol 57 • No 6 • June 2015

shown to be remarkably well suited to FSW inspection for online
process monitoring. Additionally, the slow weld speeds and wide
area of inspection have led to a recommendation that a scanned
single-element Hall sensor would be adequate for FSW inspection.
3.3 SQUID-based eddy current
The superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) is
the most sensitive detector of magnetic flux, the sensitivity of
which is independent of the operating frequency from near DC to
several kHz (white noise regime)[59,60]. At a temperature of 300 K
(room temperature), a SQUID magnetometer used for the FSW of
aluminium alloys in a geomagnetic environment is reported, and
the mechanism of this method is examined through magnetisation
experiments and theoretical analysis[61]. Through magnetisation
testing, it is confirmed that the relative magnetic permeability
of aluminium alloy material is larger than the relative magnetic
permeability of aluminium. However, due to the large capital
investment, the SQUID-based eddy current NDT technique is
rarely used in the industrial field.
4. Conclusions and discussions
For the welding seam ECT, the success of weld defect detection
reports are emerging, but due to the melting recrystallisation
process, the presence of the weld surface texture often introduces
electromagnetic noise that is difficult to remove completely. The
signals caused by defects and the surface texture noise signals are
mixed together, especially when magnitudes of the two signals are
very close in value and the detection of such surface defects using
single-frequency ECT is most likely to fail. Multi-frequency eddy
current technology that acquires more defect information can help
to eliminate the interference signal. Therefore, multi-frequency
eddy current is an important method in weld detection and the new
progress in multi-frequency eddy current testing technology brings
hope to reliably detect small defects.
As new eddy current techniques, PEC and the pulsed eddy
current thermal imaging detection method attract widespread
attention for their rich frequency characteristics, but so far PEC
research is more concentrated in the field of FSW, while research
about PEC in fusion welding defect detection is still at a preliminary
stage. However, because of the rich frequency characteristics, the
ongoing progress in PEC technology yet offers a possibility for
fusion welding defect detection.
Acknowledgements
This research is financially supported by the Programme for New
Century Excellent Talents in the University of the Ministry of
Education of China (Grant No NCET-10-0621) and the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No 11272229).
References
1. R J Ditchburn, S K Burke and C M Scala, ‘NDT of welds: state-
of-the-art’, NDT&E International, Vol 29, pp 111-117, 1996.
2. J Shao and Y Yan, ‘Review of techniques for online monitoring
and inspection of laser welding’, Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, Vol 15, pp 101-107, 2005.
3. M Khalifa, F Khan and M Haddara, ‘Optimal selection of non-
destructive inspection techniques for welded components’,
Insight: Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring,
Vol 51, pp 192-200, 2009.
4. R Halmshaw, Introduction to the Non-Destructive Testing of
Welded Joints, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK, 1996.
Insight • Vol 57 • No 6 • June 2015
WELD INSPECTION
5. A Sophian, G Y Tian, D Taylor et al, ‘Electromagnetic and eddy
current NDT: a review’, Insight: Non-Destructive Testing and
Condition Monitoring, Vol 43, pp 302-306, 2001.
6. B A Auld and J C Moulder, ‘Review of advances in quantitative
eddy current non-destructive evaluation’, Journal of
Nondestructive Evaluation, Vol 18, pp 3-36, 1999.
7. K J Bowker, M C Warnes and M D Ashworth, ‘Some
developments in eddy current techniques for in-service
inspection’, Insight: Non-Destructive Testing and Condition
Monitoring, Vol 37, pp 163-168, 1995.
8. R Palanisamy, ‘Developments in eddy current non-destructive
testing’, Materials Evaluation, Vol 49, pp 1158-1159, 1991.
9. A Shakoor and Z Zhenggan, ‘Investigation of 3D anisotropic
electrical conductivity in TIG welded 5A06 Al alloy using eddy
currents’, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol 211,
pp 1736-1741, 2011.
10. M Zergoug, S Lebaili, H Boudjellal et al, ‘Relationship between
mechanical microhardness and impedance variations in eddy
current testing’, NDT&E International, Vol 37, pp 65-72, 2004.
11. C D M Liljedahl, J Brouard, O Zanellato et al, ‘Weld residual
stress effects on fatigue crack growth behaviour of aluminium
alloy 2024-T351’, International Journal of Fatigue, Vol 31, pp
1081-1088, 2009.
12. C Mandache, D Levesque, L Dubourg et al, ‘Non-destructive
detection of lack of penetration defects in friction stir welds’,
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining, Vol 17, pp
295-303, 2012.
13. A McNab and J Thomson, ‘An eddy current array instrument
for application on ferritic welds’, NDT&E International, Vol 28,
pp 103-112, 1995.
14. H Hoshikawa and K Koyama, ‘Uniform eddy current probe with
little disrupting noise’, In: Review of Progress in Quantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation, pp 1059-1066, 1998.
15. K Koyama, H Hoshikawa and N Taniyama, ‘Investigation of
eddy current testing of the weld zone by uniform eddy current
probe’, In: Proceedings of WCNDT, 2000.
16. H Hoshikawa, K Koyama and Y Kawate, ‘Electromagnetic
surface testing of welds over painting by uniform eddy current
probe’, In: Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive
Evaluation, pp 1103-1110, 30 July-4 August 2006, USA, 2007.
17. H Hoshikawa and K Koyama, ‘A new eddy current probe using
uniform rotating eddy currents’, Materials Evaluation, Vol 56,
pp 85-89, 1998.
18. K Koyama, H Hoshikawa and Y Naruse, ‘Detecting weld
line of steel material through anticorrosion paint by an
electromagnetic induction probe’, Electrical Engineering in
Japan (English translation of Denki Gakkai Ronbunshi), Vol
153, pp 9-16, 2005.
19. K Koyama and H Hoshikawa, ‘Basic study of a new ECT probe
using uniform rotating direction eddy current’, In: Review of
Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, pp 1067-
1074, 28 July-2 August 1996, USA, 1997.
20. H Hoshikawa and K Koyama, ‘A new ECT probe with rotating
direction eddy current’, In: Review of Progress in Quantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation, pp 1091-1098, 1996.
21. N Yusa, L Janousek, M Rebican et al, ‘Detection of embedded
fatigue cracks in Inconel weld overlay and the evaluation of
the minimum thickness of the weld overlay using eddy current
testing’, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol 236, pp 1852-
1859, 2006.
22. N Yusa, E Machida, L Janousek et al, ‘Application of eddy
current inversion technique to the sizing of defects in Inconel
343
WELD INSPECTION
welds with rough surfaces’, Nuclear Engineering and Design,
Vol 235, pp 1469-1480, 2005.
23. N Yusa, H Hashizume, T Uchimoto et al, ‘Evaluation of the
electromagnetic characteristics of type 316L stainless steel
welds from the viewpoint of eddy current inspections’, Journal
of Nuclear Science and Technology, Vol 51, pp 127-132, 2014.
24. A D Watkins, D C Kunerth and T R McJunkin, ‘Eddy current
examination of spent nuclear fuel canister closure welds’, In:
11th International High Level Radioactive Waste Management
Conference, 30 April-4 May, Las Vegas, USA, pp 571-576, 2006.
25. A Nishimizu, H Endo, M Tooma et al, ‘Non-destructive
examination using a flexible multi-coil eddy current probe
for weld surfaces of core internal components of nuclear
power plants’, Insight: Non-Destructive Testing and Condition
Monitoring, Vol 54, pp 134-137, 2012.
26. S Abdul and Z Zhou, ‘Evaluation of piezoresistivity in heat-
treated 5A06 Al-Mg alloy due to applied stress using eddy
current method’, Advanced Materials Research, Vol 548, pp
377-381, 2012.
27. K Allweins, M Von Kreutzbruck and G Gierelt, ‘Defect detection
in aluminium laser welds using an anisotropic magnetoresistive
sensor array’, Journal of Applied Physics, Vol 97, 2005.
28. T Hayashi, H Yamada, T Kiwa et al, ‘Detection of the weak
magnetic properties change of stainless steel welding parts by
low-frequency magnetic imaging’, Journal of Applied Physics,
Vol 103, 2008.
29. O Postolache, A L Ribeiro and H Ramos, ‘A novel uniform
eddy current probe with GMR for non-destructive testing
applications’, Lisbon, 2011.
30. O Postolache, H G Ramos, A L Ribeiro et al, ‘GMR-based eddy
current sensing probe for weld zone testing’, IEEE Sensors, Vols
1-3, pp 73-78, 2009.
31. O Postolache, A L Ribeiro and H Ramos, ‘Weld testing using
eddy current probes and image processing’, In: Proceedings of
the XIX IMEKO World Congress, pp 438-442.
32. P Gao, C Wang, Y Zhi et al, ‘Extraction of non-linear
characteristics from eddy current magnetic field of Al-alloy
weld and their classification’, Wuli Xuebao/Acta Physica Sinica,
Vol 63, 2014.
33. B P C Rao, B Raj, T Jayakumar et al, ‘An artificial neural
network for eddy current testing of austenitic stainless steel
welds’, NDT&E International, Vol 35, pp 393-398, 2002.
34. M Vasudevan, B P C Rao, B Venkatraman et al, ‘Artificial neural
network modelling for evaluating austenitic stainless steel and
Zircaloy-2 welds’, Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
Vol 169, pp 396-400, 2005.
35. J H Smith, C V Dodd and L D Chitwood, ‘Multi-frequency eddy
current examination of seam weld in steel sheath’, Materials
Evaluation, Vol 43, pp 1566-1572, 1985.
36. Z Dongli, L Hongmei, C Zhenmao et al, ‘Applications of multi-
frequency inversion algorithm to quantitative NDE of cracks in
welding joints of a metallic lattice sandwich plate’, International
Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, Vol 39, pp
137-143, 2012.
37. D Zhang, Z Chen, M Xu et al, ‘Quantitative NDE of
cellular metallic materials and structures by using the eddy
current testing technique’, International Journal of Applied
Electromagnetics and Mechanics, Vol 30, pp 29-38, 2009.
38. A Kumar, B Sasi, G K Sharma et al, ‘Non-destructive evaluation
of austenitic stainless steel welds’, Advanced Materials Research,
Vol 794, pp 366-374, 2013.
39. J R Bowler, ‘Review of eddy current inversion with application
344
to non-destructive evaluation’, International Journal of Applied
Electromagnetics and Mechanics, Vol 8, pp 3-16, 1997.
40. N Yusa, ‘Development of computational inversion techniques
to size cracks from eddy current signals’, Non-Destructive
Testing and Evaluation, Vol 24, pp 39-52, 2009.
41. W Cheng, I Komura, M Shiwa et al, ‘Eddy current examination
of fatigue cracks in Inconel welds’, Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, Transactions of the ASME, Vol 129, pp 169-174,
2007.
42. N Yusa, L Janousek, M Rebican et al, ‘Caution when applying
eddy current inversion to stress corrosion cracking’, Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol 236, pp 211-221, 2006.
43. H Huang, N Yusa, K Miya et al, ‘Electromagnetic modelling of
stress corrosion cracks in Inconel welds’, E-Journal of Advanced
Maintenance, Vol 2, pp 168-180, 2010.
44. Z Chen and K Miya, ‘ECT inversion using a knowledge-based
forward solver’, Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, Vol 17,
pp 167-175, 1998.
45. Z Chen, K Aoto and K Miya, ‘Reconstruction of cracks with
physical closure from signals of eddy current testing’, IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics, Vol 36, pp 1018-1022, 2000.
46. K W Hench, W Christensen, A A Lopez et al, ‘An optimisation
technique for the evaluation of eddy current inspection data
to determine weld quality’, In: Proceedings of the IEEE 2005
International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
10-12 October, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA, pp 1535-1539, 2005.
47. P L Threadgill, A J Leonard, H R Shercliff et al, ‘Friction stir
welding of aluminium alloys’, International Materials Reviews,
Vol 54, pp 49-93, 2009.
48. T G Santos, P Vilaça and R M Miranda, ‘Electrical conductivity
field analysis for evaluation of FSW joints in AA6013 and
AA7075 alloys’, Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
Vol 211, pp 174-180, 2011.
49. G Almeida, J Gonzalez, L Rosado et al, ‘Advances in NDT and
materials characterisation by eddy currents’, Procedia CIRP, Vol
7, pp 359-364, 2013.
50. L S Rosado, T G Santos, M Piedade et al, ‘Advanced technique
for non-destructive testing of friction stir welding of metals’,
Measurement, Vol 43, pp 1021-1030, 2010.
51. L S Rosado, T G Santos, P M Ramos et al, ‘A differential planar
eddy current probe: fundamentals, modelling and experimental
evaluation’, NDT&E International, Vol 51, pp 85-93, 2012.
52. L S Rosado, J C Gonzalez, T G Santos et al, ‘Geometric
optimisation of a differential planar eddy current probe for
non-destructive testing’, Sensors and Actuators, A: Physical,
Vol 197, pp 96-105, 2013.
53. T Santos, P Vilaca, J Dos Santos et al, ‘A new NDT system for
micro imperfections detection: application to FSW and FSpW’,
Welding in the World, Vol 53, pp 361-366, 2009.
54. T G Santos, P Vilaca, J dos Santos et al, ‘Innovative eddy
current probe for micro defects’, In: Review of Quantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation, 26-31 July 2009, USA, pp 377-384,
2010.
55. T G Santos, P Vilaca, L Quintino et al, ‘Application of eddy
current techniques to inspect friction spot welds in aluminium
alloy AA2024 and a composite material’, Welding in the World,
Vol 55, pp 12-18, 2011.
56. L S Rosado, F A Cardoso, S Cardoso et al, ‘Eddy current
testing probe with magneto-resistive sensors and differential
measurement’, Sensors and Actuators, A: Physical, Vol 212, pp
58-67, 2014.
57. R A Smith, ‘The potential for friction stir weld inspection using
Insight • Vol 57 • No 6 • June 2015
 transient eddy currents’, Insight: Non-Destructive Testing and
Condition Monitoring, Vol 47, pp 133-143, 2005.
58. C Mandache, L Dubourg, A Merati et al, ‘Pulsed eddy current
testing of friction stir welds’, Materials Evaluation, Vol 66, pp
382-386, 2008.
59. W G Jenks, S S H Sadeghi and J P Wikswo Jr, ‘SQUIDs for non-
destructive evaluation’, Journal of Physics, D: Applied Physics,
Vol 30, pp 293-323, 1997.
60. R Nagendran, N Thirumurugan, N Chinnasamy et al,
‘Optimum eddy current excitation frequency for subsurface
defect detection in SQUID-based non-destructive evaluation’,
NDT&E International, Vol 43, pp 713-717, 2010.
61. R Q Yu, B Hu and H C Zou, ‘Magnetic detection technology for
tiny flaws in FSW of aluminium alloy’, Science and Technology
of Welding and Joining, Vol 17, pp 534-538, 2012.
Published by The British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing
Mathematics & Formulae in NDT
New revised edition out now
Editor: Dr R Halmshaw
Prepared by members of the Technical
Committee of The British Institute of Non-
Destructive Testing, this booklet is planned
to help NDT students to understand and
use the formulae which are employed in
NDT, and it includes worked examples
using these formulae. It is written primarily
for students who have to take a written
examination in NDT, which will usually
include some mathematical problems.
Experience with NDT courses has shown that many students need a
refresher course in simple mathematics and this is given in Section 2,
but the booklet does not pretend to be a formal mathematical
textbook. Section 3 contains the useful basic formulae in NDT and
a series of worked problems with the working-out set out in detail.
These worked problems range from very simple ones to a few more
complicated examples, designed to show that even these can be solved
without needing anything more than simple mathematical processes.

ISBN: 0 903 132 21 4 72 pp A5 Soft cover

Price: BINDT Members: £12; Non-Members: £15

Available from: The British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing,

NewtonPrice: BINDT
Building, Members:
St George’s £12; Non-Members:
Avenue, Northampton NN2 £15. 6JB, UK.
ISBN:
Tel: +44 (0)1604 89 3811;
0 903Fax:
132+44 (0)1604
21 4. 72 pp.89 3861;
A5. Email: info@bindt.org
Soft cover.

Order online via the BINDT Bookstore at www.bindt.org/shopbindt

Insight • Vol 57 • No 6 • June 2015 345

Copyright of Insight: Non-Destructive Testing & Condition Monitoring is the property of
British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.