000000000001008093

Electromagnetic Nondestructive
Evaluation (NDE) for Heat Recovery

Steam Generators (HRSGs)
Technical Report
L
I
C
E
N
S
E D
M
A T
E
R
I
A
L
WARNING:
Please read the License Agreement
on the back cover before removing
the wrapping material.
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in
accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with
Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of
this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does
not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the
export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in the document prior to publication.
EPRI Project Manager
S. Walker
Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
Electromagnetic Nondestructive
Evaluation (NDE) for Heat Recovery
Steam Generators (HRSGs)

1008093
Final Report, March 2005

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169,
(925) 609-1310 (fax).
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

iii
CITATIONS
This document was prepared by
EPRI NDE Center
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
1300 West W.T. Harris Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28262
Principal Investigator
K. Krzywosz
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Electromagnetic Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) for Heat Recovery Steam Generators
(HRSGs), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1008093.

v
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Previous EPRI reports have documented problems associated with operation and maintenance of
complex heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs). The Heat Recovery Steam Generator Tube
Failure Manual (EPRI Report 1004503) provides known HRSG tube failures and necessary
steps that can be taken to diagnose and prevent similar problems from repeating. Delivering High
Reliability HRSGs (EPRI Report 1004240) provides guidance for continued and reliable
operation of HRSGs from initial design, fabrication, and operation through lessons learned
experience. As HRSGs age, regardless of care taken to ensure selection of suitable materials,
optimum heater design, and applicable water chemistry guidelines, components begin to fail.
Therefore, it becomes necessary to apply nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques to inspect,
monitor, and help mitigate HRSG failures. Interim Guidelines for the Nondestructive
Examination of Heat Recovery Steam Generators (EPRI Report 1004506) provides information
on various NDE techniques available and their possible applications to detect and characterize
location-specific damage forms in HRSGs.
Access to tubes from both the outer surface and the inner surface and tube-to-header welds has
been a major limitation in applying suitable NDE techniques. Consequently, this report focuses
on the introduction of various electromagnetic NDE techniques for ferromagnetic materials that
are commercially available for field implementation and that require no physical couplant and a
minimum surface preparation time. Specific electromagnetic NDE techniques covered in this
report include remote field eddy current (RFEC), pulsed eddy current (PEC), and low-frequency
electromagnetic techniques (LFET). Each of these techniques can be applied from either the
outside or inside of finned and non-finned tubing and piping suffering from various forms of
corrosion, pitting, hydrogen damage, and cracking. In addition, several surface electromagnetic
sensors are described that can be used to inspect ferromagnetic welds affected by fatigue,
corrosion fatigue, and stress corrosion cracking. Various weld probes include cross-wound
probes, active flux leakage probes, and self-balancing induction coils.
Results and Findings
This report provides an overview of suitable electromagnetic NDE techniques for performing
flaw characterization in ferromagnetic tubing and piping materials as are encountered in HRSGs.
The described NDE techniques will be applicable from either the external or internal surfaces of
HRSG components, provided that access to the components is either available or made available.
The three electromagnetic NDE techniques covered are RFEC, PEC, and LFET. Detailed
information with regard to the operating principles, data display and signal outputs, data analysis,
and applicable equipment and probe types for these NDE techniques are provided. In addition,
the advantages and limitations of each technique are highlighted. Applying the appropriate NDE
methods to each of the components and damage mechanisms is key to maintaining safe
continued operation.

vi
Challenges and Objectives
Due to access limitations, the most prevalent NDE method currently used for HRSGs is visual
examination of tubes and headers from either the inside or outside of the tube. Unfortunately, if
indications are found that do not penetrate completely through the wall, no quantitative
information can be obtained by the visual method to assist with run, repair, or replace decisions.
Applications, Values, and Use
This report provides a review of different electromagnetic NDE techniques that are commercially
available and that may be suitable for HRSG applications through provision of quantifiable
information regarding tube wall loss caused by corrosion and fatigue damage. With available
access, these techniques are easy to implement, require no physical couplant such as gel, water,
or powder, and require minimum surface preparation before examination.
The specific electromagnetic NDE techniques presented in this report are applicable from either
the outside or inside surface of finned and non-finned tubing and piping that may be
experiencing various forms of corrosion, pitting, hydrogen damage, or cracking.
A description of several surface eddy current sensors for weld examination are included that may
be used to examine and characterize ferromagnetic welds affected by fatigue, corrosion fatigue,
or stress corrosion cracking.
EPRI Perspective
This report enhances the previous NDE guidelines, Interim Guidelines for the Nondestructive
Examination of Heat Recovery Steam Generators (EPRI Report 1004506), Heat Recovery Steam
Generator Tube Failure Manual (EPRI Report 1004503), and Delivering High Reliability
HRSGs (EPRI Report 1004240).
Approach
The goals of this activity were to investigate new and emerging NDE technology for application
to HRSG componentsin particular, finned tubing and header-to-tubing junctures. Several
electromagnetic NDE techniques were identified that should be successful in the examination of
these components. While a review of the technology and application in other plant types for
similar components reveal applicability, it is necessary to deploy the technology in a current
HRSG to verify capability with greater certainty.
Keywords
Combined-cycle power plants
Corrosion
Electromagnetic NDE
Failure reduction
Heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs)
Nondestructive evaluation (NDE)

EPRI Licensed Material
vii
ABSTRACT
EPRI reports have been published to document problems associated with operation and
maintenance of complex heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs). The Heat Recovery Steam
Generator Tube Failure Manual, EPRI Report 1004503, provides known HRSG tube failures
and necessary steps that can be taken to diagnose and prevent similar problems from reoccuring.
Delivering High Reliability HRSGs, EPRI Report 1004240, provides guidance for continued and
reliable operation of HRSGs from initial design, fabrication, and operation through lessons
learned experience. As HRSGs age, regardless of care taken to ensure selection of suitable
materials, optimum heater design, and applicable water chemistry guidelines, components begin
to fail. Therefore it becomes necessary to apply nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques to
inspect, monitor, and help mitigate HRSG failures. Interim Guidelines for the Nondestructive
Examination of Heat Recovery Steam Generators, EPRI Report 1004506, provides information
on various NDE techniques available and their possible applications to detect and characterize
location-specific damage forms.
In preparing this electromagnetic NDE overview report, it became clear that access to tubes from
both the outer diameter (OD) and the inner diameter (ID) and for tube-to-header welds was a
major limitation in applying suitable NDE techniques. Consequently, this NDE document
focuses on the introduction of various electromagnetic NDE techniques for ferromagnetic
materials that are commercially available for field implementation and require no physical
couplants and minimum surface preparation time. Specific electromagnetic NDE techniques
covered in this report include remote field eddy current (RFEC), pulsed eddy current (PEC), and
low-frequency electromagnetic techniques (LFET). Each technique is applicable from either the
OD or ID of finned and non-finned tubing and piping suffering from various forms of corrosion,
pitting, hydrogen damage, and cracking. In addition, several surface electromagnetic sensors are
described that can be used to inspect ferromagnetic welds affected by fatigue, corrosion fatigue,
and stress corrosion cracking. Various weld probes include cross-wound probes, active flux
leakage probes, and self-balancing induction coils.

ix
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
2 REMOTE FIELD EDDY CURRENT........................................................................................2-1
Principles of Remote Field ....................................................................................................2-1
Skin Effect Equations ............................................................................................................2-4
Impedance Plane Presentation.............................................................................................2-5
Voltage Plane Presentation...................................................................................................2-7
Instrumentation and Probes ................................................................................................2-10
Eddy Current Impedance Plane Application........................................................................2-12
Eddy Current Voltage Plane Applications ...........................................................................2-15
RFEC Attributes ..................................................................................................................2-17
3 PULSED EDDY CURRENT....................................................................................................3-1
Principles of Pulsed Eddy Current.........................................................................................3-1
Remaining Wall Thickness Considerations...........................................................................3-3
Feedwater Heater Shell Assessment ....................................................................................3-4
Removed HRSG Tube Evaluation.........................................................................................3-8
PEC Attributes.....................................................................................................................3-11
4 LOW-FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNIQUE ....................................................4-1
Operating Principles..............................................................................................................4-1
Magnetic Flux Density...........................................................................................................4-2
LFET Application to Service Water Piping ............................................................................4-4
Tested Pipe Configurations ..............................................................................................4-6
LFET Test Results............................................................................................................4-7
Observation on Service Water Piping...............................................................................4-9
LFET Application to HRSG Tubing......................................................................................4-10
LFET Analysis Results ...................................................................................................4-12
Observation on HRSG Piping.........................................................................................4-14
LFET Attributes ...................................................................................................................4-14

x
5 WELD PROBE........................................................................................................................5-1
Cross-Wound/Plus-Point Probes...........................................................................................5-1
Active Flux Leakage Probes..................................................................................................5-5
Self-Balancing Induction Coils...............................................................................................5-7
6 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................6-1
7 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................7-1

xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Remote Field Exciter-to-Receiver Coils Showing Zones of Direct Coupling,
Transition, and Remote Field.............................................................................................2-2
Figure 2-2 Relative Signal Amplitude and Phase Orientation at Three Different Zones............2-3
Figure 2-3 Real Part of Calculated Near Field and Remote Field Distribution from Inside
the Tube.............................................................................................................................2-3
Figure 2-4 Conventional Eddy Current Impedance Plane Diagram Showing Details of
Various Impedance Trajectories from a Given Operating Point .........................................2-6
Figure 2-5 Two-Frequency Differential Support Plate Mix Outputs Used to Indicate the
Presence of a Through-Wall Pit .........................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-6 Spiral Attenuation Curve Based on Skin Effect Equation Showing Normalized
Voltage Plane Plot Used for RFEC Probe..........................................................................2-8
Figure 2-7 RFEC Flaw Trace Indicating Vector Quantity from the Full-Wall Balanced
Point ...................................................................................................................................2-9
Figure 2-8 Typical RFEC Signal Display Showing Combined Strip Charts and Voltage
Plane................................................................................................................................2-10
Figure 2-9 MIZ 27 SI from Zetec and Omni-200 Tester from CoreStar ...................................2-11
Figure 2-10 Ferroscope 308 from Russell Technology and TC5700 from R/D Tech...............2-11
Figure 2-11 Different Type and Size RFEC Probe-Coil Configurations ...................................2-12
Figure 2-12 ASTM Calibration Standard Used for RFEC Testing............................................2-13
Figure 2-13 Calibrated Differential and Absolute RFEC Signals from a Through-Wall
Hole and 25% Groove......................................................................................................2-14
Figure 2-14 RFEC Indications of 100% and 55% Through-Wall Indications next to #3
Tube Support Plate ..........................................................................................................2-14
Figure 2-15 Absolute RFEC Voltage Plane Display Showing Tube Support Plate and
Mixed Flaw Signals ..........................................................................................................2-15
Figure 2-16 Examples of Mid-Span Indications Using Both Absolute and Differential
Receiver Coils and Single Transmitter .............................................................................2-16
Figure 2-17 RFEC Array Coil Outputs from Flat-Bottom and Round-Bottom Reference
Holes Showing Both 10 Differential Receiver Coil Channels and a Composite Color-
Coded Amplitude Plot ......................................................................................................2-16
Figure 2-18 RFEC Array Coil Outputs Showing Indications of Relevant ID Pits and Non-
Relevant Weld and Pipe Cuts for ID Access....................................................................2-17
Figure 3-1 PEC System Configuration.......................................................................................3-2
Figure 3-2 INCOTEST Data Screen ..........................................................................................3-3

xii
Figure 3-3 INCOTEST Data Acquired Through Insulated Metal Jackets on 6-Inch
(15.24-cm) Spacing Grids ..................................................................................................3-5
Figure 3-4 FAC Wear Pattern near the Steam Extraction Inlet Nozzle by Ultrasonic Using
2-Inch (5.08-cm) Grid Spacing...........................................................................................3-6
Figure 3-5 Good PEC and Ultrasonic Comparisons from the Left-Hand Side of a
Feedwater Nozzle 3C.........................................................................................................3-7
Figure 3-6 No Reliable Detection of Small-Volume FAC Damage next to the 6A Nozzle
by PEC Technique .............................................................................................................3-8
Figure 3-7 T-FISH Sensor for Testing Finned HRSG Tubing from the OD Side........................3-9
Figure 3-8 ID Wall Thinning of 2-Inch (5.08-cm) Diameter HRSG Tubing at Two Different
Elevations...........................................................................................................................3-9
Figure 3-9 Raw Data Comparison of PEC Estimates and Direct Measurements ....................3-10
Figure 3-10 Corrected Analysis Results Showing Improved Remaining Thickness
Estimates .........................................................................................................................3-11
Figure 4-1 Magnetic Field on Surface Without and with a Flaw, Resulting in Active Flux
Leakage .............................................................................................................................4-1
Figure 4-2 Transmitter and Receiver Sensor Configuration for Detecting Active Leakage
Field-Induced Voltage ........................................................................................................4-2
Figure 4-3 Uniform Lines of Flux Density from a Defect-Free Tube Section .............................4-3
Figure 4-4 Localized Increase in Flux Density Caused by Tube Wall Reduction.......................4-3
Figure 4-5 Decrease in the Permeability with Increase in Flux Density.....................................4-3
Figure 4-6 PC-Based TS-2000 System with a Hand-Held Scanner ..........................................4-4
Figure 4-7 Various Data Displays of Eight Channel Signals for Analysis ..................................4-5
Figure 4-8 6-Inch (15.24-cm) Pipe Section Being Tested with a LFET Hand Scanner..............4-6
Figure 4-9 10-Inch (25.4-cm) Fire Protection Pipe Section with 2-Inch (5.08-cm) Square
Grids...................................................................................................................................4-7
Figure 4-10 Display of Thinned Areas from Grids EF 7, 8, 9 and MN 9, 10, 11...................4-8
Figure 4-11 Display of Thinned Areas from Grids OP 7, 8, 9 and QR 5, 6, 7 ......................4-8
Figure 4-12 Display of Thinned Areas from Grids I 1, 2, 3 and J 1, 2, 3..............................4-9
Figure 4-13 Display of Thinned Areas from Grids K 1, 2, 3 and L 1, 2, 3 ............................4-9
Figure 4-14 Various Size Manufactured Flaws from Both OD and ID Sides of HRSG
Tubing ..............................................................................................................................4-11
Figure 4-15 LFET Hand Scanner for Testing from the OD Side of HRSG Tubing...................4-11
Figure 4-16 LFET Indications of D and E Circumferential Flaws While B and G Pit Flaws
Are Not Detectable...........................................................................................................4-12
Figure 4-17 Detection of 1-Inch (2.54-cm) Long ID Axial and 3/4-Inch (1.905-cm)
Diameter ID Pit .................................................................................................................4-13
Figure 4-18 Detection of 1-Inch (2.54-cm) Long ID Axial and 3/4-Inch (1.905-cm)
Diameter ID Pit with the Driver-Coil Effect from Pit F.......................................................4-14
Figure 5-1 Cracked Tube-to-Header Welds Due to Corrosion Fatigue......................................5-1
Figure 5-2 MIZ-21B Tester with Their +Point Probe ..................................................................5-2
Figure 5-3 Phasec 2 Instrument with a WeldScan Probe ..........................................................5-2

xiii
Figure 5-4 Cross-Wound Coil Configuration and Scan Orientation ...........................................5-3
Figure 5-5 Magnetic Field Density and Orientation....................................................................5-3
Figure 5-6 Eddy Current Density and Orientation......................................................................5-4
Figure 5-7 Cross-Wound Coils (a) Depicted as a Single Equivalent 45 Axial-Wound Coil
(b).......................................................................................................................................5-4
Figure 5-8 Active Flux Leakage in X and Z Direction Based on Induced Current in Y
Direction.............................................................................................................................5-5
Figure 5-9 GMR Sensor Outputs from Notches of Varying Notch Depths.................................5-6
Figure 5-10 Weld-Scope 2003 Tester and Associated Probes and Weld Test Samples...........5-7
Figure 5-11 Self-Balancing Induction Coils................................................................................5-7
Figure 5-12 Replicated Cracks Using Cold Isostatic Pressured Process to Close Notch
Width..................................................................................................................................5-8
Figure 5-13 Balanced Probe Outputs at 950 Hz from Replicated Cracks in the Carbon
Steel Test Material .............................................................................................................5-9
Figure 5-14 Balanced Probe Outputs at 12 kHz from Replicated Cracks in the Inconel
Weld Material ...................................................................................................................5-10

xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6-1 Attributes and Limitations of Electromagnetic NDE Techniques for Flaw
Characterization in Ferromagnetic Materials .....................................................................6-1

1-1
1
INTRODUCTION
As heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) age and fail due mainly to corrosion and fatigue,
applying the appropriate nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques to detect, characterize, and
assist with mitigation of location-specific damage forms becomes key to maintaining safe and
continued operation.
Due to access limitations, the most prevalent NDE method currently used for HRSGs is visual
examination of tubes and headers from either the outside diameter (OD) or the inside diameter
(ID). Unfortunately, if non-through-wall indications are found, no quantitative information can
be obtained by the visual method to make the necessary but difficult decision to run, repair, or
replace the affected segment.
This electromagnetic NDE overview report reviews different electromagnetic NDE techniques
that are commercially available and suitable for HRSG applications by providing quantifiable
information with regard to tube wall loss caused by corrosion and fatigue damage. With
available access, these techniques are easy to implement, require no physical couplants such as
gel, water, or powder, and require minimum surface preparation time for testing.
Specific electromagnetic NDE techniques covered in this report include remote field eddy
current (RFEC), pulsed eddy current (PEC), and low-frequency electromagnetic techniques
(LFET). Each technique is applicable from either the OD or ID of finned and non-finned tubing
and piping suffering from various forms of corrosion, pitting, hydrogen damage, and cracking.
Detailed information with regard to their operating principles, data display and signal outputs,
data analysis, and applicable equipment and probe types are covered. In addition, advantages and
limitations of each technique will be highlighted.
For weld testing, a description of several surface eddy current sensors is included so that they
can be used to inspect and characterize ferromagnetic welds affected by fatigue, corrosion
fatigue, and stress corrosion cracking. Various weld probes covered in the report include cross-
wound probes, active flux leakage probes, and self-balancing induction coils.

2-1
2
REMOTE FIELD EDDY CURRENT
When testing carbon steel tubing with conventional eddy current, very low frequencies on the
order of 30 Hz for piping with 0.4-inch (1.016-cm) thick nominal wall are necessary to conduct a
through-wall volumetric inspection. Because eddy current sensor output is directly proportional
to the rate of field change across the sensor area, a very low sensitivity to the presence of a flaw
is attained by using the conventional eddy current induction coil at this low frequency.
This difficulty is overcome with the use of the RFEC method, which allows measurable through-
wall penetration field at three times the maximum frequency possible with the conventional eddy
current method. The RFEC method is a through-wall inspection techniqueonly the remote
field that has gone through a double wall entry (ID to OD and OD to ID) is detected. This
technique was introduced by Schmidt in 1958 [1] and expanded and carried forward by Atherton
and his graduate students at Queens University [25].
The RFEC method was developed for the inspection of carbon steel and ferrous components
such as process heat exchangers, tanks, piping, and boiler tubes.
Principles of Remote Field
When an alternating current (AC) is sent to an exciter coil, eddy currents are induced in the tube
wall by means of an electromagnetic induction. Two different coupling paths exist between the
exciter and the receiver coils. The direct path along the ID of a tube is attenuated rapidly by
circumferential eddy currents, generating a secondary field that opposes the primary field. This
effectively shields and prevents direct coupling of the primary field with the receiver coil. The
indirect coupling path also originates from the exciter coil. The resultant field penetrates the tube
wall, travels along the OD of the tube, and then returns through the tube wall approximately
three tube diameters away. This remote field is received by one or more receiver coils. The
RFEC technique is a through-wall transmission technique. Only the field that has gone through
the double wall entry at a remote field zone is detected.
Figure 2-1 depicts the remote field and near field generated within a tube wall. The exciter coil is
energized with a low-frequency AC. This exciter current generates an electromagnetic field
around the exciter coil, resulting in the formation of both the near field through direct coupling
and the remote field through indirect coupling. Basically, the induced eddy currents establish a
secondary magnetic field that opposes the primary magnetic field. The region that is active near
the exciter coil is called the direct coupling zone. Due to field attenuation, the remote coupling
zone is the region where no direct coupling can take place between the exciter coil and the
receiver coil. In the remote field zone where the receiver coil is located, due to indirect coupling

Remote Field Eddy Current
2-2
from the OD of the tube, only the remote field reaches the detector. This secondary field is
smaller in amplitude, but it has experienced a significant phase shift. The area between the near
field and remote field is called a transition zone. At this zone, the direction of the energy flow is
reversed from being confined closer to the exciter coil to diffusing into the tube and away from
the exciter coil.

Figure 2-1
Remote Field Exciter-to-Receiver Coils Showing Zones of Direct Coupling, Transition, and
Remote Field
Figure 2-2 shows a comparison of the near field amplitude on the tube ID side to the remote field
amplitude on the tube OD side. Within the direct coupling zone, the signal amplitude on the tube
ID side is significantly greater than the signal amplitude on the tube OD side. After passing the
transition zone, however, the signal amplitude on the tube ID side drops below the level of the
signal amplitude found on the tube OD side. Within the transition zone, a phase reversal is
shown, indicating that the energy flow is reversed. A more detailed field distribution around the
exciter coil is shown in Figure 2-3, where the calculated near field and remote field distributions
are shown from the tube ID side. The transition zone is clearly visible between the near field and
remote field.

2-3

Figure 2-2
Relative Signal Amplitude and Phase Orientation at Three Different Zones

Figure 2-3
Real Part of Calculated Near Field and Remote Field Distribution from Inside the Tube
In the remote field zone, presence of any tubing flaws will introduce changes in the received
signal amplitude and phase, thus allowing the flaws to be detected and characterized.

2-4
Skin Effect Equations
Simple, one-dimensional skin effect equations in a semi-infinite solid offer useful explanation
for the through-transmission eddy current phenomenon.
Because sinusoidal excitation is used, transit time delays are commonly referred to as phase lag.
The secondary field amplitude at a distance along the field path will be measurable at a given
delay time from the original time of excitation field. This delay (phase lag) can be measured as
the ratio of delay time to cycle time in degrees or radians. This is possible based on:
B = B
o
e
-

where
B = magnetic field strength at given depth corresponding to phase lag,
B
o
= magnetic field strength at the surface
Phase lag is expressed as follows:
= df
where
d = depth
f = frequency
= permeability
= conductivity
Another term, skin depth (), is also used more frequently when describing the eddy current
behavior. One skin depth is defined as the depth at which the eddy current density has decayed to
1/e (or 37% of the eddy current surface density) and phase lag is at one radian. This is expressed
as:
= d/, or = d/
By substituting the phase lag equation, the eddy current skin depth equation becomes:
= 1/(f)
This equation can be expressed in terms of material resistivity as:
= 1.98(/f
r
)
where
= standard depth of penetration in inches
= electrical resistivity in -cm
f = frequency in hertz

r
= relative permeability (1 for nonmagnetic materials)

2-5
The desired skin depth and phase lag can be attained by using a suitable inspection frequency.
Thin walls are inspected at higher frequencies while lower frequencies are used for thicker
walled tubing. Ideal inspection frequency, therefore, provides one standard depth of penetration
equal to a given size tube wall thickness. Unfortunately, the actual composition of a given steel,
especially cold drawn steel, exhibits a wide compositional tolerance resulting in permeability
variations along the length of tubing. It is therefore best to fabricate a suitable reference standard
out of similar tube type to be inspected for determining the suitable operating frequency for
calibration and inspection purposes.
As indicated, the RFEC technique is a through-wall transmission technique. Signal analysis
relies on a voltage plane polar plot of the penetrating vector field to evaluate the flaw conditions.
In the more conventional form of eddy current analysis, an impedance plane presentation of the
receiver coil impedance is used for flaw detection and sizing.
While both of these technologies are eddy current techniques, they differ in their characteristics,
signal presentation, and signal analysis. These two approaches are reviewed individually.
Impedance Plane Presentation
Figure 2-4 shows a typical impedance plane diagram of an eddy current bobbin coil, whose coil
impedance is shown in terms of inductive reactance and coil resistance. It shows an operating
point on the curve at a given operating frequency with a specified fill-factor probe placed inside
a known material type. By changing the frequency, the operating point moves along the semi-
circular impedance curve. By reducing the probe fill-factor, a different but smaller semi-circular
impedance curve will be generated. In general, the probe is balanced at a pre-selected operating
frequency in a defect-free section of tubing using a given fill-factor probe equal to or greater than
80 percent. This allows the probe lift-off to be set horizontal and allows coil impedance changes
to be monitored in the vertical positive direction as displayed on the first and second quadrants of
the display monitor for material property changes, including the presence of flaws.

2-6

Figure 2-4
Conventional Eddy Current Impedance Plane Diagram Showing Details of Various
Impedance Trajectories from a Given Operating Point
What is shown in Figure 2-4 represents more of an absolute coil response. For tubular
applications, it is more common to see four-frequency data acquired in both absolute and
differential modes. A typical figure-eight pattern is observed using a differential probe. A
supporting structure, such as a tube support plate or tubesheet made of carbon steel, presents a
large unwanted signal that can mask out or distort the presence of nearby flaw indication. By
combining two independent but well-separated operating frequencies, it is possible to mix out the
tube support plate/tubesheet signal, thereby allowing detection and characterization of
underlying tubing flaws. Figure 2-5 shows such differential signals based on single-frequency
and two-frequency mixed outputs. By using a two-frequency support plate/tubesheet mix, a
100% hole is clearly visible.

2-7

Figure 2-5
Two-Frequency Differential Support Plate Mix Outputs Used to Indicate the Presence of a
Through-Wall Pit
Voltage Plane Presentation
RFEC data can be displayed as a voltage plane or complex polar diagram [6] as shown in
Figure 2-6. In essence, this diagram outlines the through-transmission characteristic of RFEC as
described by the skin effect equation. This diagram is also known as the attenuation spiral. The
zero phase lag and maximum amplitude of the exciter coil is at the top, represented by the air
point. This curve basically traces the exciter field vector, containing both amplitude and phase
information, as it traverses the indirect coupling path from the near field to the remote field.
Amplitude decreases exponentially, while phase lag increases with increasing wall thickness in a
clockwise direction.

2-8

Figure 2-6
Spiral Attenuation Curve Based on Skin Effect Equation Showing Normalized Voltage
Plane Plot Used for RFEC Probe
On the diagram in Figure 2-6, the RFEC signal amplitude is represented by the line from the
origin, and the phase is represented by angular orientation. For a defect-free tube, the receiver
signal is located at the full-wall operating point, representing maximum attenuation and phase
lag. As shown in Figure 2-6, a zoom box represents a small portion of the attenuation spiral that
is rotated and magnified to observe variations from the full-wall point caused by flaws.
Additional points to keep in mind when reviewing the spiral attenuation curve include:
The received voltage signal represents the double-wall entry effect.
The axis of the voltage polar plane has been normalized to the full-wall point such that
amplitude is one full-wall vector at zero-degree phase lag.
Although the voltage polar plane resembles the impedance plane, they are not related. The
voltage plane represents the voltage attenuation curve, while the impedance plane represents
the probe impedance curve.
The voltage plane analysis relies on the defect phasor, a vector quantity that provides both
amplitude and phase angle information, to provide flaw characterization. This information is
shown graphically in Figure 2-7.

2-9

Figure 2-7
RFEC Flaw Trace Indicating Vector Quantity from the Full-Wall Balanced Point
A general signal display, including strip charts, is shown in Figure 2-8. It also shows what
happens to the normal signal in a defect-free area that encounters tube wall loss. Due to
attenuation and double-wall entry, the normal receiver signal is reduced in amplitude and its
signal phase shifted. It should be noted that flaw amplitude and phase shift are all referenced
back to the normalized full-wall point. In the given figure example, the wall loss resulted in a
27-V amplitude increase with an accompanying phase shift of 57. This increase in the
amplitude was attributed to a smaller amount of eddy current-induced opposition field from the
reduced tube wall, causing the receiver signal to increase.

2-10

Figure 2-8
Typical RFEC Signal Display Showing Combined Strip Charts and Voltage Plane
Instrumentation and Probes
As indicated previously, two different eddy current techniques are used for the RFEC method.
Consequently, instrument types are different and depend on the selection of the system that relies
on either the impedance plane display or voltage plane display.
Figure 2-9 shows two commercially available systems that are based on the conventional eddy
current impedance plane display: MIZ 27 SI from Zetec and Omni-200 Tester from CoreStar.

2-11

Figure 2-9
MIZ 27 SI from Zetec and Omni-200 Tester from CoreStar
Figure 2-10 shows two commercially available systems that are based on the voltage plane
display: Ferroscope 308 from Russell Technology and TC5700 from R/D Tech.

Figure 2-10
Ferroscope 308 from Russell Technology and TC5700 from R/D Tech
As for probe types, both techniques rely on similar coil configurations with probe connections
that are unique to each operating hardware. Separate exciter and receiver coils are used such that
receiver coils placed approximately three tube diameters from the exciter operate in the remote
field zone for each tube/pipe configuration. It should be noted that conventional eddy current
probes sense the field from the tube wall in the immediate vicinity of the exciter coil (near field),
whereas RFEC probes, regardless of the impedance plane or voltage plane presentation, detect
changes in the remote field.
The most common probe type employs a pair of exciter and receiver induction coils for detecting
general wall losses. For more complex flaw types, such as wall losses next to a support plate,
differential bobbin-coil receivers are used with one to two circumferentially wound exciter coils.
To detect small-volume flaws, such as pits and cracks, an array of multiple receiver coils is used
with one circumferentially wound exciter coil. Figure 2-11 shows a wide variety of probe
configurations along with pictures of different diameter probes offered by Russell Technology.

2-12

Figure 2-11
Different Type and Size RFEC Probe-Coil Configurations
Eddy Current Impedance Plane Application
The following section outlines the methodology used to calibrate and evaluate flaws found in
carbon steel feedwater heater tubing next to a tube support plate. The RFEC data were acquired
using a double exciter with differential receiver coils placed between the exciters. Although
tubes were smaller in comparison to HRSG tubes, the overall setup and data analysis are the
same if access to the ID of tubes are available, thereby allowing data to be collected from inside
the tubes.
These particular data were obtained from SA556-C2 carbon steel tubing, 3/4 inch (1.905 cm) x
0.109 inch (0.277 cm) nominal wall, using a dual transmitter with differential receiver coils [7].
An optimum operating frequency of 380 Hz was selected that would produce RFEC phase angle
spread of around 70 between the through wall and 20% deep groove signals. The data were next
normalized such that tube support plate signals were set at 5 volts, peak-to-peak, at phase angles
of 210 for differential signals and 0 for absolute signals. Based on this setup, the respective
through-wall signals were obtained at 90 and 50 in differential and absolute modes. Similarly,
the differential and absolute phase angles of the 20% groove were rotated clockwise to around
162 and 127, respectively. This setup was accomplished using a standard similar to the ASTM
calibration standard [8] shown in Figure 2-12.

2-13

Figure 2-12
ASTM Calibration Standard Used for RFEC Testing
Basically, this setup allowed flaw depth sizing using the differential channel while confirming
the flaw presence with the absolute channel. The resultant calibration signals are shown
graphically in Figure 2-13.

2-14

Figure 2-13
Calibrated Differential and Absolute RFEC Signals from a Through-Wall Hole and 25%
Groove
Because all tested tubes did not exhibit the same permeability variations from tube to tube, it was
necessary to adjust the frequency as needed for each tested tube to maintain the originally
established phase angle orientations from the tube support plate signals. Figure 2-14 shows
examples of 100% and 55% through-wall indications found next to #3 tube support plate.

Figure 2-14
RFEC Indications of 100% and 55% Through-Wall Indications next to #3 Tube Support
Plate

2-15
Based on the differential signals, minimal residual signals caused by transmitter-to-flaw
interactions are obtained, thereby allowing clear detection and sizing of flaw signals. In an
absolute mode, the transmitter-to-flaw interaction is almost as big as the flaw signal. Normally,
due to the larger coil width of the transmitter, a broader lower-frequency signal response is
obtained in contrast to a narrower higher-frequency signal response obtained by the receiver. In
most cases, the application of a dual-transmitter with differential receiver coils is ideally suited
to detect and characterize such small-volume flaws as pits and cracks. Any large-volume flaws
such as 360 wear, tube-to-tube wear, and one-sided tube support plate wear can be
accomplished with the absolute receiver coil configuration. Because RFEC output signals are
similar to conventional eddy current signals, the signal interpretation is easily accomplished by
most analysts after reviewing and understanding the signal-to-flaw interactions of the applied
probe-coil configuration.
Eddy Current Voltage Plane Applications
As in the impedance plane display, the voltage plane display relies on both strip charts (mainly
for flaw locations) and a voltage plane display showing both signal amplitude and phase. Signal
amplitude relates directly to volume wall losses, while phase information relates directly to flaw
depth information. Because signals of interest occur in close proximity to tube support plates,
two independent frequency signals are generally mixed to minimize the effect of tube support
plates [9]. This allows better flaw characterization, especially the flaw depth estimation. For data
evaluation, signals are normalized so that the tube support plate signal lies on the horizontal axis
while tube wall loss signals rotate in a counterclockwise direction as shown in Figure 2-15.

Figure 2-15
Absolute RFEC Voltage Plane Display Showing Tube Support Plate and Mixed Flaw
Signals
Figure 2-16 shows examples of both the mid-span erosion based on an absolute receiver-coil
configuration and one-sided small-amplitude pits based on differential receiver coils. Only a one-
sided transmitter coil was used for both receiver types. In both cases, phase angle information
was used to estimate flaw depths.

2-16

Figure 2-16
Examples of Mid-Span Indications Using Both Absolute and Differential Receiver Coils and
Single Transmitter
In the majority of cases involving carbon steel tubes less than 2 inches (5.08 cm) in diameter, use
of inside bobbin coils as both transmitters and receivers will suffice. For larger-sized tubes and
pipes affected by small-volume flaws such as pits, an array of multiple receiver coils are
necessary to conduct more reliable testing. Figure 2-17 shows an example of RFEC array coil
outputs from a reference standard containing both flat-bottom and round-bottom reference holes
based on an array of 10 differential receiver coils placed circumferentially to make full
circumferential coverage [10].

Figure 2-17
RFEC Array Coil Outputs from Flat-Bottom and Round-Bottom Reference Holes Showing
Both 10 Differential Receiver Coil Channels and a Composite Color-Coded Amplitude Plot

2-17
Figure 2-18 shows actual plots from a section of seamless wellhead piping, 6 inches (15.24 cm)
OD by 0.280 inch (0.7112 cm) in nominal wall thickness, containing both relevant and non-
relevant pipe indications.

Figure 2-18
RFEC Array Coil Outputs Showing Indications of Relevant ID Pits and Non-Relevant Weld
and Pipe Cuts for ID Access
RFEC Attributes
The attributes of RFEC with regard to capabilities and limitations are presented in this
subsection.
Capabilities of RFEC include the following:
No tube/pipe cleaning is needed, as long as the probe fits inside the tube/pipe without
restrictions.
Flaw locations along the tube/pipe length can be provided using either strip charts or color-
coded amplitude maps.
Provides equal sensitivity to both ID- and OD-initiating flaws.
Pitting sensitivity to 20% deep pits, 0.366 inch (0.9296 cm) in diameter.
Provides quantitative estimates of flaw depth in percent wall loss with accuracy of 10%.
Fast inspection speed of around 6 inches (15.24 cm) per second; sensors can be built to go
around elbows.
With an array receiver coil, flaw extents around the tube/pipe circumference can be
estimated.

2-18
Limitations of RFEC include the following:
Slower than conventional eddy current testing speed, which is in excess of 12 inches
(30.48 cm) per second.
Tubes/pipes need to be out of service for inspection.
For comprehensive testing, requires access to ID of tubes/pipes by cutting.
Insensitive to axial cracks.
Difficult to discriminate ID from OD flaws.

3-1
3
PULSED EDDY CURRENT
This broadband electromagnetic NDE technique is noted for its ability to penetrate and evaluate
the condition of up to 2-inch (5.08-cm) thick carbon steel pipe. Because it has a wide footprint
that allows deeper penetration, thus making it difficult to detect small-volume flaws such as
pitting, it acts as an ideal screening tool for locating piping affected by volumetric wall thinning
caused by flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC). Common applications include piping and pressure
vessels. Because it is tolerant of probe lift-off caused by the presence of insulation on piping or
by the pipe curvature, it is ideally suited for scanning finned carbon steel tubing found in
HRSGs. Currently, this technique is applicable only from the OD side of tubes.
The pulsed eddy current (PEC) technology developed by Rontgen Technische Dienst (RTD)
under license from ARCO is available commercially under the initial name of TEMP (Transient
Electromagnetic Probing) and later changed to INCOTEST [11, 12]. Aptech Engineering holds
license to operate this system in the power industry in North America.
The PEC technique uses stepped or pulsed input signals, whereas conventional eddy current uses
a continuous sinusoidal signal. The advantages of the PEC technique are its deeper depth
penetration, relative insensitivity to lift-off, and the capacity to offer quantitative remaining wall
thickness information.
Principles of Pulsed Eddy Current
A PEC system in its simplest form is shown in Figure 3-1. A pulsed magnetic field is transmitted
by the transmitter coil, while receiver coils monitor the induced field returning from the test
object. Direct transmitter field coupling is minimized by physically arranging the orientation of
the receiver coils relative to a transmitting coil.

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-2

Figure 3-1
PEC System Configuration
In contrast to conventional eddy current methods, PEC excites the probes driving coil with a
repetitive broadband pulse, such as a square wave. The resulting transient current through the
coil induces transient eddy currents in the test object. This results in highly attenuated magnetic
pulses propagating through the material. At each probe location, a series of voltage-time data is
received, demodulated, and displayed as the induced field decay, much analogous to ultrasonic
data. This broadband excitation allows penetration through any non-magnetic material, such as
insulation material, between the probe and the test object to be inspected. The changing magnetic
field due to step-up and step-down pulse will induce eddy currents for diffusion into the
magnetic test material. Because a broad-frequency spectrum is produced in one pulse, the
reflected signal contains thickness information of the test object. Physically, the pulse is
broadened and delayed as it travels deeper into the highly dispersive material. The time duration
of the pulses and the corresponding pulse repetition rate are adjusted such that induced eddy
currents diffuse into the full thickness of the test object. Pulsed waves can penetrate through a
test object to a depth of about 10 times the normal standard depth of penetration.
Pulsed eddy currents can be generated by a thyratron connected in series with the exciting coil
through a capacitor. A direct voltage, on the order of 1200 volts, charges the capacitor until the
thyratron fires, thereby discharging the stored energy through a coil in the form of free-damped
harmonic oscillation. This sequence is repeated, for example, at a 1-kHz repetition rate, to allow
propagation of eddy current pulses through the entire test object. The frequency content depends
on pulse widths and contains continuous spectra ranging from less than 10 Hz to around 2 kHz
for magnetic materials.
The pulsed eddy currents are detected in transmit-receive mode using a separate receiver probe
located either adjacent to or within the transmitter coil configuration. Due to dispersion, the pulse
changes in shape as it progresses through the test object. The height of the peak and its time
delay at the zero-crossover point can be related to the condition and thickness of the test object.
Although the PEC technique is equally applicable to flaw detection [13, 14], this report focuses
more on the thickness application.

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-3
Because the received signal is a voltage measured across a resistor in series with the coil, the
induced voltage curve is representative of the current induced into the coil in reaction to the
changing magnetic fields at the surface of the test object. The received signals contain the
information from both the incident and reflected fields. A thinner wall will result in shorter PEC
response time than will thicker walls. This thickness effect is characterized by the broadening of
the received signal response. The PEC system records the voltage-to-time decay as the eddy
currents diffuse into the test object, much similar to A-scan presentations.
The INCOTEST system compares transit time from a known calibration standard to estimate the
test object thickness [15]. A typical data acquisition screen is shown in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2
INCOTEST Data Screen
Remaining Wall Thickness Considerations
It should be noted that PEC measurements are acquired over the area defined by the sensor and
that this area is referred to as the footprint. Thus, the results of the measurement are readings of
the average wall thickness over this footprint area. The exact size of this area is dependent on the
insulation and test object thickness. In general, the footprint is dictated by the thickness of the
insulation. Due to averaging effect, any localized flaws, such as pitting, will not be detected or
characterized. Instead, an averaged wall thickness over the footprint area containing pits will be
measured instead of individual pit depths.
This technique is ideal for screening the areas of interest through insulation (for example, for
piping or pressure vessel applications) thus eliminating the cost of insulation removal for testing.
Once the areas of interests are identified, more traditional ultrasonic inspection techniques can be
used to more accurately quantify the remaining wall thickness.

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-4
Although the average wall-thickness reading is not meant to replace traditional ultrasonic testing,
it can be used to monitor and quantify the condition of the average remaining wall thickness. In
general, the INCOTEST system is applicable for the following wall-thickness considerations:
Low alloy carbon steel
Pipe diameter of greater than 2 inches (5.08 cm)
Nominal wall thickness in the range of 0.4 to 2.5 inches (1.016 to 6.35 cm)
Non-conducting insulation thickness of up to 6 inches (15.24 cm)
Conducting metal sheathing thickness of up to 0.04 inch (0.1016 cm)
On-line monitoring with temperature range of -148F to +932F (-100C to +500C)
Feedwater Heater Shell Assessment
This PEC application in nuclear power plants for assessing the condition of the feedwater heater
shell thinning, especially near the extraction steam inlet nozzle, is a direct result of utilities
wishing to reduce the costs of insulation removal for testing. Also, it is an ideal application for
performing on-line PEC testing while the plant is in operation to screen areas for further testing
by ultrasonic methods during the planned outage. The wide acceptance of PEC for assessment of
feedwater heater shell thinning is attributed to the following factors:
Averaged wall-thickness measurement obtained through insulation
Applicable to assessing 2-inch (5.08-cm) thick carbon steel wall affected by FAC
Insensitive to the presence of metal jacket over insulation
Can be applied on-line to hot heaters
Tolerant of heaters curvature
Tolerant of operator skill levels
To assess the capability of the PEC technique, actual testing was conducted at three different
nuclear power plants and results compared directly with the ultrasonic thickness measurements.
The PEC testing was performed on-line through insulation with grids marked on the insulated
metal jacket at 6-inch (15.24-cm) spacing as shown in Figure 3-3. This was followed during an
outage by conducting a detailed ultrasonic mapping of the same area after removing the
insulation using a finer grid of 2- to 3-inch (5.08- to 7.62-cm) spacing.

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-5

Figure 3-3
INCOTEST Data Acquired Through Insulated Metal Jackets on 6-Inch (15.24-cm) Spacing
Grids
To facilitate comparisons between PEC and ultrasonic data, the acquired data were plotted using
commercially available software (3D-Field) by displaying the output as a colored contour map.
As indicated in Figure 3-4, the FAC damage appears in lighter colors on two sides of the nozzle.
These plotted ultrasonic data were recorded using a 2-inch (5.08-cm) grid spacing.

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-6

Figure 3-4
FAC Wear Pattern near the Steam Extraction Inlet Nozzle by Ultrasonic Using 2-Inch
(5.08-cm) Grid Spacing
For comparisons, PEC and ultrasonic plotted data were split along the vertical nozzle plane into a
left and right side map. This presentation allowed both qualitative and quantitative comparisons.
Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show such comparative maps from the actual feedwater heater inlet nozzle
areas. The figures show side-by-side comparison of PEC and pulse echo ultrasonic contour maps
using the same thickness scale.
Figure 3-5 shows good correlation between the two maps with regard to relative location and
depth of observed FAC-damage form. In Figure 3-6, FAC damage was not reliably detected by
the PEC technique close to the nozzle due to the large footprint affected by the presence of the
nozzle. With a smaller search unit, more conventional ultrasonic data showed clearly the
presence of FAC damage approximately 5 inches (12.7 cm) away from the nozzle.

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-7

Figure 3-5
Good PEC and Ultrasonic Comparisons from the Left-Hand Side of a Feedwater Nozzle 3C

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-8

Figure 3-6
No Reliable Detection of Small-Volume FAC Damage next to the 6A Nozzle by PEC
Technique
Based on the additional comparative studies, it was concluded [16] that PEC is applicable for
characterizing wall losses exceeding 20% of the shell thickness, provided that the wears minor
axis exceeds 10 inches (25.4 cm). In cases of wear with less than 10 inches (25.4 cm) of minor
axial extent, the PEC technique did not reliably indicate the presence of FAC damage.
Removed HRSG Tube Evaluation
To evaluate the applicability of PEC for smaller diameter finned HRSG tubing, the system was
applied on removed tube sections using a modified probe whose footprint was around 2-1/4
inches (5.715 cm) in diameter. This evaluation was conducted from the finned OD side looking
for ID-initiating damage, such as localized wall thinning due to corrosion. This system is called
Through-Fin Inspection System for HRSG (T-FISH) by Aptech Engineering. It takes
approximately 10 seconds per footprint for data recording.
Figure 3-7 shows the T-FISH sensor being applied on the removed tube section.

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-9

Figure 3-7
T-FISH Sensor for Testing Finned HRSG Tubing from the OD Side
Figure 3-8 shows details of the ID wall thinning at two different elevations. This sectioning was
conducted after taking 10 separate sets of PEC data around the tube circumference, A through J
positions, at two different elevations.

Figure 3-8
ID Wall Thinning of 2-Inch (5.08-cm) Diameter HRSG Tubing at Two Different Elevations
To evaluate the accuracy of the T-FISH system for estimating the remaining wall thickness, the
PEC data were compared directly with the physically measured wall thickness values at 10
different circumferential locations at elevations 1 and 4. As shown in the figure at elevation 1, ID
wall loss was noted at circumferential locations H (8) and I (9), while G (7), H (8), I (9), and J
(10) locations were affected by ID wall losses at elevation 4.

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-10
Figure 3-9 shows comparative plots of remaining-wall thickness at elevations 1 and 4 by PEC
estimates and direct measurements.

Figure 3-9
Raw Data Comparison of PEC Estimates and Direct Measurements
At elevation 1, the maximum wall loss resulted in the remaining wall thickness of around
0.090 inch (0.2286 cm) as compared to PEC estimation of around 0.150 inch (0.381 cm)
underestimation by approximately 66%. Similarly, at elevation 4, the actual remaining wall
thickness was around 0.05 inch (0.127 cm) compared to PEC estimation of 0.140 inch
(0.3556 cm). This time, the underestimation was more than 180%.
This underestimation of wall thickness was attributed to the presence of serrated fins, which
were not taken into account during the initial analysis. By accounting fins into the analysis,
improved remaining wall thickness estimates were obtained. Re-analyzed wall thickness
estimates are plotted and shown in Figure 3-10.
The remaining wall thickness underestimation is still evident, but the overall percent
underestimation has decreased to 33% from 66% at elevation 1 and to 100% from 180% at
elevation 4.
These results suggest that, due to the averaging effect of the T-FISH system, the deepest wall-
loss area (thinnest remaining wall thickness value) will not be reliably identified even with a
smaller footprint.

Pulsed Eddy Current
3-11

Figure 3-10
Corrected Analysis Results Showing Improved Remaining Thickness Estimates
PEC Attributes
Desirable attributes for testing power plant components using PEC include the following:
Ability to penetrate up to 2-inch (5.08-cm) thick carbon steel piping and vessels
Ability to acquire wall thickness measurements through insulation to locate and verify the
presence of FAC
Cost reduction associated with FAC testing by removing insulation only from the areas of
interests for further verification and testing with ultrasonic
Great screening tool that offers reliable detection of pipe/vessel wear with large areal extent,
in excess of 10 inches (25.4 cm) or greater
Ability to inspect HRSG tubes from the external side through magnetic fins
Some of the notable limitations of the PEC technique include the following:
Due to larger footprints, no localized pits are detectable with INCOTEST.
Inspection time is slower in comparison to RFEC technique.
Depending on the sensor diameter in comparison to the combined insulation and pipe wall
thickness, localized FAC damage covering less than 10-inch (25.4-cm) axial extent with less
than 20% wall reduction can be missed.
Remaining wall thickness values are generally underestimated for HRSG tubing due to the
presence of magnetic fins.

4-1
4
LOW-FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNIQUE
This technique is comparable to the first two low-frequency techniques, all of which provide
volumetric inspection and characterization of flaws found in ferromagnetic tubing and piping.
Unlike the two techniques discussed previously, however, this technique relies on introducing
magnetic flux density across the tube/pipe wall using a magnetizing driver coil and monitoring
changes in the active flux leakage caused by the presence of flaws and/or flux density within a
wall using an array of receiver coils. The signals received are still induced voltage of given
operating frequency. If only OD-initiating flaws are of interest, higher excitation frequencies can
be used. For volumetric testing, a low frequency of below 1 kHz is generally used to investigate
the entire wall thickness. This is made possible by using a lock-in amplifier to receive signals
that are associated only with the exciting frequency.
Unlike the traditional flux leakage technique, in which induced signals exhibit only the
amplitude information, LFET by TesTex, Inc., relies on both received signal amplitude and
phase angle information.
Operating Principles
The interaction of a low-frequency AC field with a ferromagnetic media with and without a flaw
is shown in Figure 4-1. Because of the skin effect phenomenon, the alternating magnetic field
stays close to the ferromagnetic surface for given operating frequencies. The presence of material
anomalies increases the reluctance of a magnetic circuit, causing the magnetic field to seek the
least-reluctance path across the flaw opening as shown in the figure.

Figure 4-1
Magnetic Field on Surface Without and with a Flaw, Resulting in Active Flux Leakage

Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Technique
4-2
At low-AC excitation, the magnetic field penetrates the entire wall thickness to allow detection
of both the ID- and OD-initiating flaws. The transmitter/receiver coil configuration can be
scanned around the pipe circumference to detect and characterize the flaw of interest (see
Figure 4-2). By using a lock-in amplifier, it is possible to receive only the signals associated with
the AC excitation source. Although only one receiving sensor is shown, an array of multiple
receiver coils can be used to examine up to one-half the tube/pipe diameter. Generally, the axes
of receiving sensors are placed orthogonal to the driver coil to minimize direct coupling or
induced voltage from the magnetizing drive field, thus extending the dynamic range of the
receiver coil system.

Figure 4-2
Transmitter and Receiver Sensor Configuration for Detecting Active Leakage Field-
Induced Voltage
Magnetic Flux Density
During performance of the conventional eddy current testing, the eddy current coil impedance is
affected by the material conductivity change caused by the presence of a flaw. For testing
magnetic materials, the primary contributor to changes in the sensor output is caused by material
permeability. Thus, monitoring of magnetic permeability applies to this LFET technique.
The overall relationship between the magnetic flux density and permeability is defined by the
following equation:
= B/H
where
= relative material permeability
B = flux density
H = magnetizing force
By introducing uniform flux density through a nominal wall, a certain operating point is
established by defining a unique permeability value. Typically, the system is balanced at this
point to allow permeability changes to be monitored. Figure 4-3 shows uniform flux density
through a nominal wall representing a defect-free area of the tube wall. When the tube wall
thickness is reduced due to corrosion, flux density increases within the reduced wall thickness as

4-3
shown in Figure 4-4. This increase in the flux density causes permeability to decrease as shown
in Figure 4-5. With increasing flux density, the ferromagnetic materials, where >>1, becomes
paramagnetic with >1.

Figure 4-3
Uniform Lines of Flux Density from a Defect-Free Tube Section

Figure 4-4
Localized Increase in Flux Density Caused by Tube Wall Reduction

Figure 4-5
Decrease in the Permeability with Increase in Flux Density

4-4
This scenario holds true for cases in which the least reluctance path for flux density is confined
within the tube wall. However, the presence of sharp discontinuities in the tube wall will alter the
path and will cause the flux to leak around and across the crack opening. The flux density will
decrease, causing the permeability value to increase accordingly.
Thus, even at low-operating frequencies, it is possible to monitor and evaluate the received
signals in terms of amplitude and phase angle changes by referencing the driver coil signal for
the presence/absence of sharp discontinuities and gradual wall losses.
LFET Application to Service Water Piping
The EPRI NDE Center assisted Exelon with the on-site observation and evaluation of TesTexs
LFET for service water piping at Dresden Units 2 and 3 [17].
The volumetric testing of carbon steel pipe from the OD side to detect and characterize ID-
initiating corrosion and thinning was accomplished by using one segmented transmitting coil
with eight receiver coils connected to the TS-2000 NDE system (see Figure 4-6). To allow
testing of the entire pipe wall, the transmitter coil was excited at 10 Hz or lower. The active
transmitting-coil width was reported to be around 2 to 3 inches (5.08 to 7.62 cm) wide, and the
coil winding was segmented and offset from a typical circularly wound bobbin coil, such that the
induced field was sensitive to flaws oriented in both the axial and circumferential directions.
This LFET technique relied on an array of eight individual receiver coils placed inside the
transmitting coil by orienting axes of eight receiver coils orthogonal to the transmitter coil axis.

Figure 4-6
PC-Based TS-2000 System with a Hand-Held Scanner

4-5
The PC-based system allowed real-time review of the eight individual receiver channels. Both
the receiver coil amplitude and phase angle information were used in data analysis. By balancing
and normalizing the system on a nominal pipe-wall thickness, a zero-degree phase shift was
obtained. Any reduction in the pipe-wall thickness caused the amplitude and phase angle to
increase. Figure 4-7 shows a typical display output.
The following data types are shown as individual screens on one display:
A raw 8-channel data
B 8-channel filtered data
C 3-D extrapolated waterfall plot
D C-scan amplitude or phase plot
E maximum/minimum amplitude scan

Figure 4-7
Various Data Displays of Eight Channel Signals for Analysis
Using a phase angle-to-voltage converter, any phase shift can be displayed as amplitude changes.
The acquired data, therefore, can be processed into C-scan color plot (screen D in Figure 4-7) or
isometric waterfall plot (screen C in Figure 4-7).

4-6
Tested Pipe Configurations
Two service water pipe sections, which were already inspected by ultrasonic testing, were
selected for testing and comparison.
The first carbon steel pipe tested was 6 inches (15.24 cm) in diameter with 0.280-inch
(0.7112-cm) nominal wall and was part of the control room air conditioning pipe containing
service water. The area of interest was already marked with 1-inch (2.54-cm) square grids. Based
on the ultrasonic measurements at 5 MHz, the following four grids showed reduction in the wall
ranging from 31% to 74% wall loss:
E8 0.192 inch (0.4876 cm) showed 31% loss
M10 0.101 inch (0.2565 cm) showed 64% loss
N11 0.074 inch (0.1879 cm) showed 74% loss
R6 0.191 inch (0.4851 cm) showed 32% loss
Figure 4-8 shows the pipe areas of interest.

Figure 4-8
6-Inch (15.24-cm) Pipe Section Being Tested with a LFET Hand Scanner
The second line tested was part of the fire protection line containing service water, which was 10
inches (25.4 cm) in diameter with 0.365-inch (0.927-cm) nominal wall. The area of interest was
also markedthis time with 2-inch (5.08 cm) square grids. Using a similar 5-MHz ultrasonic
transducer, one area (J2) showed remaining wall of 0.165 inches (0.4191 cm) or 55% wall
reduction. Figure 4-9 shows the tested 10-inch (25.4-cm) pipe section.

4-7

Figure 4-9
10-Inch (25.4-cm) Fire Protection Pipe Section with 2-Inch (5.08-cm) Square Grids
LFET Test Results
The overall setup time was minimal, with more time spent adjusting the scanner wheels to ensure
proper scanner-to-pipe fit to allow uniform lift-off for scanning and data acquisition. After
scanning and recording data from each scan, the areas of interest were re-examined more
carefully to match the locations of indications to assigned grid marks.
Pipe ID 2/3-3920-6"-0
This 6-inch (15.24-cm) pipe section consisted of 1-inch (2.45-cm) square grids labeled AT
circumferentially and 113 axially along the pipe. Due to the presence of a temperature gauge,
meaningful data were obtained only from those grids marked E through R. Recorded data sheets
showed indications from the following four locations:
1. Grids EF 6, 7, 8, 9,10
2. Grids MN 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
3. Grids OP 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
4. Grids QR 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Of the four areas identified, the most significant phase shift was noted from the grid area
identified as MN. Figures 4-10 and 4-11 show outputs from the affected areas.

4-8

Figure 4-10
Display of Thinned Areas from Grids EF 7, 8, 9 and MN 9, 10, 11

Figure 4-11
Display of Thinned Areas from Grids OP 7, 8, 9 and QR 5, 6, 7
Pipe ID 1/2-41295-10"-0
This 10-inch (25.4-cm) pipe section consisted of 2-inch (50-mm) square grids labeled AQ
circumferentially and 18 axially along the pipe. No major phase shift indications were noted
from the scans. The preliminary data sheet showed numerous minor indications from grids D, I,
J, K, L, M, N, and O. The final TesTex report showed the following areas of pit indications:
1. Grids I 1, 2, 3
2. Grids J 1, 2, 3
3. Grids K 1, 2, 3
4. Grids L 1, 2, 3

4-9
Figures 4-12 and 4-13 show respective areas of interests.

Figure 4-12
Display of Thinned Areas from Grids I 1, 2, 3 and J 1, 2, 3

Figure 4-13
Display of Thinned Areas from Grids K 1, 2, 3 and L 1, 2, 3
Observation on Service Water Piping
For thinner wall pipe (0.280-inch [0.7112-cm] nominal wall), the LFET test results matched well
with the ultrasonic indications of wall losses. Based on the LFET setup, the area identified as
having major wall losses exhibited phase shift of up to 17 for 74% wall loss. From the areas of
31% and 32% wall losses, the corresponding phase shift was around 4.
For thicker wall pipe (0.365-inch [0.9271-cm] nominal wall), the area containing 55% wall loss,
as shown by ultrasonic thickness measurements, showed no discernible phase shift indication by
LFETless than 3. What was not demonstrated adequately was the capability of LFET to test

4-10
and evaluate thicker wall piping. This basically implied that a pipe wall thickness-specific
scanner is needed along with suitable nominal wall-calibration standards with a series of ID
flaws to optimize the test. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The same scanner used to inspect
the 6-inch (15.24-cm) diameter pipe was also used to inspect the thick-walled 10-inch (25.4-cm)
diameter piping. No calibration standard was available at the time of testing to optimize the
system. Theoretically, it would have been ideal to generate a 20 phase shift over a 100% wall-
loss range so that 1 phase shift would correspond to 5% wall loss.
The tested LFET system showed great potential as a screening tool to identify areas of interest
that can be investigated in more detail with the traditional ultrasonic testing.
During the post-inspection exit interview, it was mentioned that when compared strictly with
traditional ultrasonic measurements, the combined LFET and selected ultrasonic testing could
reduce the pipe inspection time by a factor of at least 25:1. This meant that a 10-foot (3-m) long
pipe that would take approximately 200 hours to prepare and test by traditional ultrasonic
measurements would take only 8 hours to complete by LFET, including selected ultrasonic
measurements.
LFET Application to HRSG Tubing
Because of its demonstrated capability to inspect up to 0.280-inch (0.7112-cm) thick nominal
wall carbon steel piping, this technology was applied to a section of HRSG piping containing
various sized manufactured flaws that originated from both the inside and outside surface.
This 2-inch (5.08-cm) diameter by 0.169-inch (0.4293-cm) nominal wall HRSG piping made of
carbon steel was equipped with 0.750-inch (1.905-cm) high carbon steel integral fins spaced
0.250 inches (0.635 cm) apart. Manufactured flaws included axial and circumferential notches
along with various size pits. Details of various flaw types found in the reference pipe are shown
in Figure 4-14.
Figure 4-15 shows the LFET hand scanner that was used to scan and acquire the data from the
fabricated reference pipe. Because two sets of four flaws were located 180 away from each
other, two separate axial scans allowed the data acquisition to be completed from all eight
manufactured flaws.

4-11

Figure 4-14
Various Size Manufactured Flaws from Both OD and ID Sides of HRSG Tubing

Figure 4-15
LFET Hand Scanner for Testing from the OD Side of HRSG Tubing

4-12
LFET Analysis Results
Individual flaws are shown in the following three figures based on the hand scanning of the pipe
sample. Better signal responses were obtained by using the operating frequency in the range of
10100 Hz.
Figure 4-16 shows four separate OD flaw indicationsB, D, E, and Gfrom one scan. Even
though 3/32-inch (0.2381-cm) diameter pits 70% and 100% through wall are indicated on the
chart, they are noted based only by their locations. The B and G pit signals were not discernible
from the background noise. Thus, at this operating frequency range, any 3/32-inch (0.2381-cm)
diameter pits will not be reliably detected using this scanner.

Figure 4-16
LFET Indications of D and E Circumferential Flaws While B and G Pit Flaws Are Not
Detectable
It should be noted that D and E circumferential flaws appear slightly off-axis on the display. This
is caused by the staggering of individual receiver coils normal to the driver coil. No attempt was
made in the software to adjust these sensor offsets.
Figure 4-17 shows ID flaws A and C, one axial flaw at 75% wall loss and one 3/4-inch
(1.905-cm) diameter pit at 50% wall loss. Both flaws are detectable as shown in the figure.

4-13

Figure 4-17
Detection of 1-Inch (2.54-cm) Long ID Axial and 3/4-Inch (1.905-cm) Diameter ID Pit
In this figure, the ID axial and pit signals were found to be broader and diffused in comparison to
sharp well-defined OD signals. This was attributed to diffusion of leakage flux from the ID side
through the pipe wall for reception by OD sensors. Due to the transmit-receive nature of the coil
operation, secondary signals on the right of the C signals were noted. The main pit signals were
received by the receiver coils over the pit followed by the secondary signals when the transmitter
coil traversed over the same pit. The scan direction was from A to C, but the scanner head was
reversed during the scan as evidenced by the reversed data display shown in the colored C-scan
plot.
Figure 4-18 shows similar outputs from the 1-inch (2.54-cm) long through-wall axial notch and
3/4-inch (1.905-cm) diameter pit that is 75% deep. The scan direction remained the same (that is,
scanning from left to right or from F to H), but the scanner head was reversed again. This is
based on the reversed flaw orientations seen in the C-scan plot in comparison to Figure 4-17.
This time the driver coil-effect signals appeared first, followed by the main receiver pit signals.

4-14

Figure 4-18
Detection of 1-Inch (2.54-cm) Long ID Axial and 3/4-Inch (1.905-cm) Diameter ID Pit with the
Driver-Coil Effect from Pit F
Observation on HRSG Piping
This is a relatively fast technique with a scan speed of 10 to 15 feet per minute (3 to 4.5 meters
per minute). Although signal levels decreased with fin heights, it was possible to conduct
meaningful tests from the OD side. Without optimizing the sensor configuration on suitable
standards, it was not possible to detect any pits that were 3/32 inch (0.2381 cm) in diameter,
regardless of the pit depth.
Based on the current transmitter/receiver coil orientations, circumferential notches were easier to
detect than axial notches.
LFET Attributes
Capabilities of the LFET technique include the following:
Scanning speed of up to 10 to 15 feet (3.048 to 4.572 meters) per minute
Can be used as a fast screening tool followed by ultrasonic thickness measurements, where
applicable
Provides quantitative information based on suitable calibration standard

4-15
Provides real-time data display of both raw and processed data
8 to16 receiver coils possible to allow 170 coverage in a single scan
Applicable to both localized and volumetric flaws
Some of the limitations of the LFET technique include the following:
Decreased sensitivity to flaws due to lift-off and the presence of external fins
Tubes/pipes need to be out of service for testing
Limited to OD scanning
More sensitive to volume wall loss than to flaw depth
Due to transmitter coil orientation, less sensitive to axial than circumferential discontinuities

5-1
5
WELD PROBE
To complete the discussions on electromagnetic NDE for HRSG, this section focuses on the use
of weld probes to scan and conduct testing of carbon steel welds for both crack detection and
characterization. The primary intent is to introduce different probe types that are available to
detect and characterize surface-connected cracks. Specific applications include tube-to-header
welds, which are susceptible to fatigue cracking as shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1
Cracked Tube-to-Header Welds Due to Corrosion Fatigue
Cross-Wound/Plus-Point Probes
To minimize the effect of permeability variations caused by ferromagnetic welds, two sensing
coils are wound differentially but orthogonally to each other. This causes the two tangential coils
to appear as an x-point or + point configuration, depending on the probe placement for a given
scan. Depending on which leg of the cross-wound sensor encounters the flaw, the signal output
can go either in positive or negative directions.
Zetec identifies this type of cross-wound probe as +Point Weld Scan Probes. Similarly, Hocking
calls their probes WeldScan probes. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 show pictures of weld testing conducted
with respective Zetec and Hocking eddy current systems.

Weld Probe
5-2
Although this type of probe is operated generally in the differentially connected impedance
mode, most modern digital eddy current instruments allow the probe to be operated in a transmit-
receive mode as well. If the flaw axis is known, the transmitter coil can be oriented normal to the
flaw axis to produce maximum eddy current-to-flaw interaction, thus allowing the secondary
receiver coil to sense the perturbation for better signal reception.

Figure 5-2
MIZ-21B Tester with Their +Point Probe

Figure 5-3
Phasec 2 Instrument with a WeldScan Probe

Weld Probe
5-3
To better understand the eddy current-to-flaw interaction of a cross-wound coil configuration,
eddy current modeling was conducted. The details of this investigation are found in an EPRI
report [18]. Basically, the model used two approximately 0.2-inch (0.508-cm) square coils,
which were placed orthogonal to each other for modeling purpose. These coils were scanned
across a 0.4-inch (10-mm) long notch that was approximately 0.02 inch (0.0508 cm) in depth.
The overall coil configuration and scan direction are shown as Figure 5-4. The test material was
Inconel 600 plate material and, as such, the operating frequency modeled was 300 kHz.

Figure 5-4
Cross-Wound Coil Configuration and Scan Orientation
Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6 show respective magnetic flux density and eddy current density and
their orientations based on the cross-wound coil configurations placed above a semi-infinite
Inconel 600 plate surface.
Figures 5-5 and 5-6 basically showed the flux and eddy current concentration under the coils
whose respective orientations were orthogonal to each other.

Figure 5-5
Magnetic Field Density and Orientation

Weld Probe
5-4

Figure 5-6
Eddy Current Density and Orientation
A closer review of the resultant eddy current flow showed the flaw orientation to be at 45. In
essence, the cross-wound coils acted more like an axial-wound coil whose axis lay at 45
orientation (see Figure 5-7).

Figure 5-7
Cross-Wound Coils (a) Depicted as a Single Equivalent 45 Axial-Wound Coil (b)
By knowing the induced eddy current flow orientation, the flaw signal response can be
maximized by aligning the induced eddy currents to be normal to the flaw axis. In the example
shown in Figure 5-4, better probe orientation will be in X-wound, rather than + point
configuration, for improved signal-to-noise response.

Weld Probe
5-5
Active Flux Leakage Probes
These probe types all rely on introducing magnetic flux density by using a separate driver coil at
low-AC excitation and receiving active flux leakage caused by the presence of a flaw using
separate receiver sensors. Different receiver sensor types can be used from the traditional
induction coils, Hall-effect sensors, and to the latest Giant Magnetoresistive (GMR) sensors.
A more widely used technique, introduced in Europe, that is being transferred to the United
States is called alternating current field measurement (ACFM) by TSC Inspection Systems
[1921]. This technique, derived from the alternating current potential drop technique, allows
crack depth sizing using a separate driver coil coupled with direction-specific flux sensors.
Figure 5-8 shows graphically different flux measurements that are possible, based on the
optimized eddy current-to-flaw interaction.

Figure 5-8
Active Flux Leakage in X and Z Direction Based on Induced Current in Y Direction
In Figure 5-8, induced eddy currents flow in the Y direction for the maximum eddy current-to-
flaw interaction. If there were no flaws shown in the figure, the resultant flux density will be
oriented in the X direction as Bx, while By and Bz will be zero. Because magnetic flux follows a
least resistance path, the presence of a flaw diverts eddy current away from the crack bottom to
crack edges. Review of the Bx or Bz outputs provides indication of flaw presence as shown in
the figure.
To quantify and estimate the crack depth, peak-to-peak amplitude of Bx or Bz can be used.
Similarly, time-domain peak-to-peak distance information can be used to estimate crack length.

Weld Probe
5-6
The current built-in analysis software takes the measured Bx responses with and without a flaw
and uses the obtained ratio to compare this quantity to values in the look-up tables for a given
lift-off condition to estimate crack depth.
The use of GMR sensors in eddy current testing has grown in recent years [2225]. This is due to
its inherent capability to detect magnetic field amplitudes on the order of 1mOe with low-power
consumption. The sensitivity of the sensors to the magnetic field amplitude, as opposed to the
rate of change in the magnetic field, is particularly desirable for low-frequency eddy current
applications. These sensors, made of semi-conductor materials, rely on the phenomenon called
magneto-resistance effect.
Recent developments in thin-film technology have resulted in films exhibiting a large change in
resistance (1020% change) with magnetic field. Even though the application is ideally suited for
magnetic materials, non-magnetic materials can be tested also by introducing eddy currents. An
AC magnetic field, generated by a current through a drive coil, causes eddy currents to flow in
the conductive material, which in turn generates a secondary field that opposes the primary field.
A GMR sensor can detect the difference between the field with and without the presence of
conducting material. The sensor can be placed in an orientation such that it is not sensitive to the
applied field generated by the drive coil. For example, based on the uniform eddy currents
introduced on a specimen as shown in Figure 5-8, any GMR sensor that is sensitive only to the
Bz field will have null output as long as flaws are not present on the test specimen. The presence
of a flaw can alter the orientation of the magnetic field significantly enough that the sensor can
detect a minor magnetic field perturbation in the Bz direction.
Figure 5-9 shows an example of such a probe scanning over a carbon steel reference block
containing uniform-length notches of varying notch depths: 0.02 inch, 0.08 inch, 0.16 inch, and
0.24 inch (0.0508 cm, 0.2032 cm, 0.4060 cm, and 0.6096 cm). In this example, signal amplitude
can be used to estimate crack depth. From left to right, the notch depths increased from 0.02 inch
to 0.08 inch (0.5 mm to 2 mm), and this increase in depth is shown as an increase in signal
amplitude on the strip chart.

Figure 5-9
GMR Sensor Outputs from Notches of Varying Notch Depths
Figure 5-10 shows Weld-Scope 2003 along with the hand-held magnetic field probes for testing
welds by Keiyu Company [26].

Weld Probe
5-7

Figure 5-10
Weld-Scope 2003 Tester and Associated Probes and Weld Test Samples
Self-Balancing Induction Coils
Another variation to the above probe type involves the use of self-balancing induction sensors
introduced by Hoshikawa, et al. [2729]. Once again, a separate transmitter and receiver coil
configuration similar to the design shown in Figure 5-11 is used. The coil design minimizes lift-
off while being insensitive to driver coil effect. With no flaws present, the probe is basically
balanced. Circular eddy currents are introduced in the test material and, depending on the
orientation, some of the eddy current-to-flaw interactions will result in flux to be dispersed in the
Bx to By orientations. The rate of such flux changes causes signal voltage to be induced and
received by the detector coil.
Based on the receiver coil design, no Bz field from the driver coil will be detected by the
receiver coil.

Figure 5-11
Self-Balancing Induction Coils

Weld Probe
5-8
TesTex used a similar self-balancing probe to look at flaws found in dissimilar metal welds. For
this application, the self-balancing probe was applied to ground smooth plate containing
replicated cracks in 304 stainless steel base metal, Inconel 182 butter, and carbon steel base
metal. This testing was accomplished using TesTexs Hawk-Eye 2000 MII Weld Inspection
System.
Figure 5-12 shows the test sample configuration.

Figure 5-12
Replicated Cracks Using Cold Isostatic Pressured Process to Close Notch Width
Two separate frequencies of 950 Hz and 12 kHz were used to test carbon steel and Inconel 182
test materials, respectively. A higher frequency of 12 kHz was also used for testing replicated
cracks in 304 stainless steel material.
It should be noted that, unlike flux leakage, it is possible to use both signal amplitude and phase
angle information to detect and characterize flaws of interests with this crack characterization
method. As mentioned before, this is made possible by the use of a lock-in amplifier to detect
only those signals associated with the excitation frequencies, which in this case were 950 Hz and
12 kHz.
Figure 5-13 shows signal responses from those replicated cracks found in carbon steel (CS)
material. In all cases, the optimum scan pathresulting in better signal-to-noise ratiowas
selected to produce the displayed outputs.

Weld Probe
5-9
Figure 5-14 shows similar signal responses at higher operating frequency of 12 kHz from those
replicated cracks found in Inconel 182 butter weld. Similar crack signal responses were also
obtained from the 304 stainless steel material.
Comparative outputs showed that better carbon steel signal responses were obtained, especially
from those replicated cracks (O and P versus I and J) oriented normal to the weld line.

Figure 5-13
Balanced Probe Outputs at 950 Hz from Replicated Cracks in the CS Test Material

Weld Probe
5-10

Figure 5-14
Balanced Probe Outputs at 12 kHz from Replicated Cracks in the Inconel Weld Material

6-1
6
SUMMARY
This report provides an overview of suitable electromagnetic NDE techniques for performing
flaw characterization in ferromagnetic tubing/piping materials. The described NDE techniques
will be applicable from the OD or ID side of HRSG components, provided that access to
components to be tested is either available or made available. This report discusses three
different electromagnetic NDE techniques:
RFEC
PEC
LFET
Major attributes and limitations of each technique are summarized in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1
Attributes and Limitations of Electromagnetic NDE Techniques for Flaw Characterization
in Ferromagnetic Materials
Limitations Attributes
RFEC PEC - INCOTEST LFET
Flaw/wall loss
detection
Flaw/wall loss Wall loss Flaw/wall loss
Detection (wall loss
and pit diameter)
20% wall loss,
0.366 inch (0.9296 cm)
in diameter*
Greater than sensor
diameter with >20%
wall loss
20% wall loss,
0.187 inch (0.4749 cm)
in diameter**
Flaw/wall loss sizing Needs improvement at
tube support
Better screening than
sizing tool
Needs improvement
ID/OD application ID/OD OD ID/OD
ID/OD discrimination No Yes Yes
Surface preparation Minimal Minimal Minimal
Lift-off tolerance Medium Maximum Minimum
Inspection speed Fast: 12 inches/second
(30.48 cm/second)
Slow: spot
measurement
Intermediate:
3 inches/second
(7.62 cm/second)
On-line/off-line Off-line (ID);
on-line (OD)
On-line (OD) Off-line (ID),
on-line (OD)
Array coil application Yes No Yes
* Applicable to prime tubing no finned tubing tested from the OD side.
** With 3/4-inch (1.905-cm) high fins, pit detection drops to 50% ID pit with 0.750 inch (1.905 cm) in diameter.

Summary
6-2
Basically, RFEC and LFET are better suited for flaw and wall-loss detections, while PEC is
more applicable for detection of wall losses through insulation. Flaw sizing by RFEC is excellent
in free-span sections but needs additional improvement for sizing flaws in the vicinity of
supports and attachments. Similarly, flaw sizing in non-finned tubing is adequate for LFET, but
additional sensor work is needed to improve the flaw detection and sizing for finned HRSG
tubing. Due to larger footprints needed to overcome the lift-off effect of insulation, the PEC
technique is better suited for detection and serves as a screening tool. The estimated wall loss
tended to be underestimated.
For weld probes, a number of promising probes are available for detecting cracks that are
oriented along the weld and transverse to the weld. All probes described are currently better
suited for detecting cracks than they are for sizing. For quantifying detected cracks, suitable
reference standards containing realistic flaws are desirable. By relying on the latest
semiconductor sensor, such as a GMR sensor, cracks that are subsurface and/or deeper than 0.2
inch (0.508 cm) from the surface can be detected and quantified.

7-1
7
REFERENCES
1. T.R. Schmidt, The Remote Field Eddy Current Inspection Technique, Materials
Evaluation, Vol. 42, February 1984, pp. 225230.
2. T.R. Schmidt, D.L. Atherton, and S.P. Sullivan, Experience with the Remote Field Eddy
Current Technique, Proceedings of the 3
rd
National Seminar on Nondestructive Evaluation
of Ferromagnetic Materials, Houston, TX (March 2325, 1988), pp. 85107.
3. D.L. Atherton, C.J. Toal, and T.R. Schmidt, Investigation of the Remote Field Eddy Current
Technique in Large Diameter Pipeline, British Journal of NDT. Vol. 31 No. 9, September
1989, pp. 485488.
4. D.D Mackintosh, D.L. Atherton, and S.P. Sullivan, Remote Field Eddy Current Analysis in
Small-Bore Ferromagnetic Tubes, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 51, April 1993, pp. 492495.
5. D.L. Atherton, D.D. Mackintosh, S.P. Sullivan, J.M.S. Dubois, and T.R. Schmidt, Remote-
Field Eddy Current Signal Representation, Materials Evaluation, July 1993, pp. 782789.
6. T.R. Schmidt and D.L. Atherton, Introduction to Remote Field Log Interpretation, 4
th

International Conference on the Remote Field Eddy Current Technique, Ontario, Canada
(August 2627, 1997).
7. K.J. Krzywosz and F. Ammirato, Performance Based Remote-Field Eddy Current
Examination of High-Pressure Feedwater Heaters, 3
rd
International Workshop on
Electromagnetic Non-Destructive Evaluation, Reggio Calabria, Italy (September 1416,
1997).
8. ASTM Standard Designation: E 2096-0, Standard Practice for In Situ Examination of
Ferromagnetic Heat Exchanger Tubes Using Remote Field Testing, Approved June 10,
2000, Published August 2000.
9. D.E. Russell, Short Course on Remote Field Eddy Current, 7
th
EPRI Balance-of-Plant
Heat Exchanger NDE Symposium, Santa Ana Pueblo, New Mexico (June 1719, 2002).
10. D.E. Russell, Detecting Internal Pits from Inside or Outside a Pipeline with New Canadian
Technology, NACE Western Area Corrosion Conference (February 5, 2003).
11. J.A. de Raad, Novel Inspection for Outside Inspection of Plant Pipework, INSIGHT,
Vol. 37, No. 6, June 1995, pp. 409412.
12. M.A. Robers and R. Scottini, Pulsed Eddy Current in Corrosion Detection, NDT.net,
Vol. 7, No. 10, October 2002.
13. A. Sather, Pulsed Eddy Current Testing Apparatus for Use on Smooth and Ribbed Tubing,
Materials Evaluation, December 1977, pp. 5559.

References
7-2
14. K.J. Krzywosz, R.E. Beissner, and J.E. Doherty, Pulsed Eddy Current Flaw Detection and
Flaw Characterization, Electromagnetic Methods of Nondestructive Testing, Gordon and
Breach Science Publishers, 1985, pp. 307320.
15. M. Cohn, Experiences with Pulsed Eddy Current, EPRI Service Water Piping Technical
Forum Meeting, Coconut Grove, FL (February 9, 2004).
16. In-Service Feedwater Heater Shell Condition Assessment via the Pulsed Eddy Current NDE
Technology. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. TR-1006372.
17. EPRI Trip Report to G. Gerzen of Exelon by K. Krzywosz, dated September 12, 2003.
18. Simulation of Eddy Current Sensor Configurations with TRIFOU. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
1999. TR-113150.
19. M.C. Smith, ACFM Appreciation Course, TSC/MCS/ACFM Introduction. DOC,
December 9, 1999.
20. S. Chase, The Role of Non-destructive Evaluation in Managing our Aging Highway
Infrastructure, ASNT Spring Conference, Houston, TX (March 1997).
21. F.C.R. Marques, M.V.M. Martins, and D.A. Topp, Experiences in the Use of ACFM for
Offshore Platform Inspection in Brazil, 15
th
World Conference on Nondestructive Testing,
Rome, Italy (October 1521, 2000).
22. Nonvolatile Electronics, Inc, NVE Sensor Engineering and Application Notes, 1997.
23. C.H Smith and R.W. Schneider, Expanding the Horizons of Magnetic Sensing: GMR,
Proceedings Sensors Expo, Helmers and Peterborough Publishers, 1997, pp. 139144.
24. B. Wincheski and M. Namkung, Deep Flaw Detection with Giant Magnetoresistive (GMR)
based Self-Nulling Probe, Review of Progress in QNDE, Vol. 14B, 2000.
25. T. Dogaru and S.T. Smith, Edge Crack Detection Using a Giant Magnetoresistance-Based
Eddy Current Sensor, Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 16, 2000, pp. 3153.
26. Keiyu Company, Weld-Scope 2003 Product Description, 2004.
27. H. Hoshikawa and K. Koyama, A New Eddy Current Probe Using Uniform Rotating Eddy
Current, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 56, No. 1, 1998, pp.8589.
28. H. Hoshikawa and K. Koyama, A New Eddy Current Surface Probe Without Lift-Off
Noise, Proceedings of the 10
th
APCNDT, Brisbane, Australia (September 1721, 2001).
29. H. Hoshikawa, K. Koyama, and M. Maeda, A New Eddy Current Surface Probe for Short
Flaws with Minimal Lift-Off Noise, Proceedings of the 6
th
Far-East Conference on
Nondestructive Testing, Tokyo, Japan (October 2124, 2002).

Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
2005 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research
Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Togethershaping the future of electricity.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
Program: 1008093
Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Dependability
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE
WRAPPING MATERIAL.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO
NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI
AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package
only for your own benefit and the benefit of your organization. This means that the following may use this package:
(I) your company (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and
(III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to
disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for its own benefit or the benefit of any party
other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between
most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License
Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHT
This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by
United States and international copyright laws. You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce,
translate or modify this package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
3. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information
contained in this package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless
such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized
disclosure or use of this package. Except as specified above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents,
copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of
this package.
4. TERM AND TERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this
package. EPRI has the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any
term or condition of this agreement. Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of
nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING
ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY
OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE
IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and
you agree not to export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropri-
ate United States and foreign government approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entire-
ly in California between California residents.
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement
between you and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No
waiver, variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior writ-
ten consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with
major locations in Palo Alto, CA, and Charlotte, NC,
was established in 1973 as an independent, non-
profit center for public interest energy and
environmental research. EPRI brings together
member organizations, the Institutes scientists and
engineers, and other leading experts to work
collaboratively on solutions to the challenges of
electric power. These solutions span nearly every
area of power generation, delivery, and use, including
health, safety, and environment. EPRIs members
represent over 90% of the electricity generated in
the United States. International participation
represents over 10% of EPRIs total R&D program.
Export Control Agreement
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted
with the specific understanding and requirement that
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable
U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being under-
taken by you and your company. This includes an obligation
to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder who
is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted
access under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and
regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or
your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI
Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your
obligation to consult with your companys legal counsel to
determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may
make available on a case by case basis an informal assessment
of the applicable U.S. export classification for specific EPRI
Intellectual Property, you and your company acknowledge
that this assessment is solely for informational purposes and
not for reliance purposes. You and your company
acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your
company to make your own assessment of the applicable
U.S. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly.
You and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of
EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation
of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations.

000000000001008093

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

000000000001008093

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Electromagnetic Nondestructive

Evaluation (NDE) for Heat Recovery

Anda mungkin juga menyukai