ME Back to Basics

Pulsed Eddy Current

By Marco Michele Sisto, Pulsed Eddy Current R&D Team Manager, Vincent Demers-Carpentier,
pulsed eddy current R&D engineer, and Andréanne Potvin, PEC Product Manager.

Aging assets constantly battered by the vagaries of Mother Nature and the harsh environments
they are used in are forcing the industry to step up its asset integrity management (AIM) game.
Insulated pipes—crucial components to the safe and efficient operation of oil & gas installations—
must not be neglected in the scope of inspection programs. Shutdowns are short and costly,
therefore inspection efforts must be optimal.

Pulsed eddy current (PEC) is one of many inspection techniques used to assess the integrity of
insulated pipes and it is mostly used to assess wall thickness variations in conductive materials[1],
[2]. However, despite its approximately five-decade-long history, PEC is still considered by many
as a relatively new eddy current non-destructive testing (NDT) technique. Compared to other
eddy current testing techniques, this view can be true. And yet, over the last 25 years, PEC has
become a well-established technique for its capability to screen for defects without the need to
strip insulation or weather jackets over surfaces under test[3].

The inspection technique, as first developed and implemented in the 90s, has evolved very little
for numerous reasons. Over the last few years, however, PEC is seeing a revival, as new, better-
performing and easier-to-use systems appear on the market.

PEC is mostly unaffected by liftoff, making it perfect for the detection of corrosion under
insulation (CUI), a corrosion process responsible for, according to historical data, approximately
60 % of pipe leaks[4]. Unlike other inspection techniques that require a combination of insulation
stripping and/or shutting down assets, PEC can detect and assess the extent of CUI on in-service
components. Through this ability to identify corroded areas outside planned shutdown periods,
PEC enables expanding the scope and frequency of inspections without affecting schedules. This
improves the efficiency of quantitative methods such as radiography and ultrasonic testing (UT)
during shutdowns, as they then specifically target areas known to present corrosion.
Figure 1 PEC magnetic pulse into insulated component

PEC: How does it Work

Unlike other electromagnetic techniques like eddy current testing (ECT), which provide surface
information through the use of high-frequency sine signals to induce eddy currents, PEC uses
wide-frequency pulsed signals, which provides information about the entire thickness of the part
under test. PEC has three operating phases: emission, cutoff, and reception (see figure 2).

Emission Phase
A coiled wire is placed at some distance (referred to as liftoff; usually the coating and/or insulation
thickness) from the conductive component under test where it fires a magnetic pulse. It remains
active long enough for the magnetic field to penetrate and stabilize in the full thickness of the
surface under test. This phase can last a few milliseconds to hundreds of milliseconds, depending
on the material’s properties and thickness.

Cutoff Phase
During this phase, the magnetic pulse abruptly stops. To oppose this change in magnetic field,
eddy currents appear in the metal mass, which induce a response magnetic field.

Reception Phase
During this phase, the magnetic field induced in the component decays over time. It is detected
by a receiving sensor, which generates a voltage signal, displayed as an A-scan whose shape and
decay rate relate directly to the thickness and magnetic properties of the component under test.
Figure 2 PEC excitation pulse in relation to the magnetic field inside the component under test for the three operating
phases

The resulting A-scan usually uses a Log-Log or a Log-Lin scale (Figure 3). PEC signals have two
distinct stages. In the early stage, the signal varies as an inverse power law and appears as a
straight line in the Log-Log scale. In the late stage, PEC signals decay exponentially plotted as a
slope using a Log-Lin scale. Between the two stages is a gradual transition, commonly referred to
as the signal’s bending point.

Figure 3 A-scans of PEC signal decay according to different scales

The position of the bending point and the slope of the signal with a Log-Lin scale (corresponding
to the time constant of exponential decay) varies with thickness, as shown in Figure 4. By
interpreting the shape of the A-scan around the bending point, a sizing algorithm provides wall
thickness measurements, relative to a known thickness on the same component.
Figure 4 PEC signal decay varies as a function of wall thickness shown in Log-Log and Log-Lin scales

Figure 5 Magnetic field decay inside the component varies as the probe passes over a defect, as shown in the
corresponding A-scan

Footprint, Averaging, and Undersizing

PEC probes project a magnetic footprint onto the component under test. This footprint is
instrumental in establishing the sizing and detection capabilities of a probe for different defect
types and shapes. Because the magnetic field projected by the probe onto the component under
test is cone-shaped, the further away the probe is from the component (greater liftoff), the larger
is its footprint.

Figure 6 Sizing accuracy depends on the defect size relative to the probe’s magnetic footprint

Essentially, PEC measurements provide the average wall thickness of the energized area inside
the probe’s magnetic footprint. When defects are smaller than this averaging area, their depth is
underestimated—something referred to as undersizing (Figure 6). In other words, when a PEC
probe goes over a defect that is smaller than its averaging area, the inspection signal is a
combination of the nominal thickness of the component under test and the defect. In this
situation, the thinnest region (the defect) is averaged out by the thicker wall surrounding it, which
prevents the PEC system from accurately measuring the wall thickness. There are, however, a
number of ways of compensating for this effect that rely on a more detailed analysis of the A-scan
around the transition period, analysis of the resulting C-scan, or a combination of the two[5].

Typical PEC Inspection

A typical PEC inspection workflow could be:

• The operator performing the inspection will first usually draw a grid on the component
under test at the recommended resolution (depending on the probe’s footprint and the
desired resolution).
• The operator would then calibrates the PEC probe on an area of the component under
test known to be nominal. Because the shape and decay rate of the inspection A-scan
relate directly to the thickness and magnetic properties of the surface under test, PEC is
usually calibrated this way instead of using a calibration standard. This has the effect of
making the material under test constant, enabling the extraction of a relative thickness
variation between two points (nominal and corroded).
• The operator would finally acquire data, building an inspection C-scan. With older systems,
inspectors could only do this in grid mode, where they had to press a button for each
point on the grid. More modern systems allow this to be performed as a dynamic scan,
greatly speeding up the process as less gridding is necessary and it can acquire more data
 points in less time. Recently, array PEC probes have become available, speeding even
more the process of scanning large sections of insulated vessels or pipes.

Figure 7 A-scan and C-scan from insulated pipe (50 mm/2 in liftoff, 13 mm/0.5 in nominal wall thickness) showing
localized natural corrosion

Figure 8 NDT technicians performing PEC measurements on an in-service insulated pipe

What PEC Can Do (and Can’t)
PEC is an effective screening tool most commonly used on carbon steel, but its working principles
allow it to be used on any conductive material. It yields the best-quality signals on ferromagnetic
materials, however.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, PEC can operate at high liftoff, through any non-conductive
insulation around the part under test. Depending on the probe used, inspections can be
performed in contact with the part under test up to liftoffs of 305 mm (12 in). Remember,
however, that the greater the liftoff, the larger the probe’s footprint and the larger defects need
to be to be detected.

Similarly, it is common for insulated pipes to be wrapped in weather jackets (also called cladding).
These are typically aluminum, stainless steel, or galvanized steel, depending on the industry and
region of the world. Because weather jackets are conductive, during a PEC inspection, they
interfere with the component signal to various degrees. Aluminum and stainless steel are non-
ferromagnetic, so their impact is marginal. Galvanized steel affects PEC inspection in several ways,
but recent advances brought to the market dramatically improve PEC performances on such
cladding[6]. Ultimately, whether an inspection can be practically performed over galvanized steel
cladding depends on the component, the insulation, and the cladding thicknesses.

Because PEC detects material loss, it is exceptionally suited to CUI, corrosion under fireproofing
(CUF), flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC), corrosion scabbing, and other mechanisms that degrade
material. As mentioned above, the smallest defects PEC can detect is proportional to the volume
of lost material inside the footprint of the probe, therefore it depends on the liftoff and the probe
used. PEC is also established in a number of other applications such as in the splash zone,
underwater, tank floor annular ring inspection, and many others.

PEC signals can be affected by liftoff variations and weather jacket overlaps, but most systems on
the market now effectively compensate for these effects, so they can be disregarded because
they do not affect the quality of inspections[7].

Using advanced software algorithms, nozzles, flanges, and insulation support rings, which can also
interfere with PEC signals, are now relatively simple to filter out.

Conclusion
Today, pulsed eddy current technology is one of the preferred method for asset owners to screen
insulated pipes, vessels, and other tubular structures for various types of material loss without
having to take them out of service or stripping them of their insulation—important cost and time
savers, because it allows more focused uses of quantitative measurement inspection methods.

PEC can effectively scan through most types of non-conductive insulation, marine growth, and
corrosion by-products, and recent improvements to the technology enable it to scan through the
more prevalent cladding types worldwide, while minimizing traditionally detrimental effects on
the technology.
Bibliography
[1] API Recommended Practice 583 - Corrosion Under Insulation and Fireproofing, 1st ed.
American Petroleum Institute, 2014.
[2] W. Cheng, Pulsed Eddy Current Testing of Carbon Steel Pipes’ Wall-thinning Through
Insulation and Cladding, J. Nondestruct. Eval., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 215–224, Mar. 2012.
[3] P. Crouzen and I. Munns, Pulsed Eddy Current Corrosion Monitoring in Refineries and Oil
Production Facilities – Experience at Shell, presented at ECNDT, 2006, p. 7.
[4] B. Fitzgerald, Corrosion Under Insulation And Best-fit Solutions, Inspectioneering, Aug. 2014.
[5] V. Demers-Carpentier, Mitigating Defect Undersizing in Pulsed Eddy Current Inspection, Nov-
2017. www.eddyfi.com/oil-gas/mitigating-defect-undersizing-in-pulsed-eddy-current-
inspection/.
[6] V. Demers-Carpentier et al., Pulsed Eddy Currents: Overcoming Adverse Effects of
Galvanized Steel Weather Jacket, COFREND 2017.
[7] M. Grenier, V. Demers-Carpentier, M. Rochette, and F. Hardy, Pulsed Eddy Current: New
Developments for Corrosion under Insulation Examinations, presented at the 19th World
Conference on Non-Destructive Testing (WCNDT 2016), Munich.