Electromagnetic Testing Non-Destructive
Electromagnetic Testing Non-Destructive
Electromagnetic Testing Non-Destructive
http://meilishouxihu.blog.163.com/
This paper reviews non-destructive eddy current techniques that permit high-
speed testing of up to 150 m/ s under harsh operating conditions where other
techniques cannot be used. Eddy current testing is especially fast at
automatically inspecting semi-finished products such as wires, bars, tubes or
profiles in production lines. The results of eddy current testing are practically
instantaneous, whereas other techniques such as liquid penetrant testing or
optical inspection require time-consuming procedures that make it impossible,
even if desired, to inspect all production.
This paper presents the basis of non-destructive eddy current testing and
provides an overview of the research conducted by many authors who
continue to develop this technique. The fundamentals of eddy current
inspection and the main variables of this technique are presented in Sections
2 and 3. Section 4 reviews the state-of-the-art sensors and research. Section
5 reviews the state of modern equipment, and Section 6 presents the
applications and research trends of eddy current inspection. Finally, Section 7
presents a discussion of eddy current testing.
When a conductive test material approaches the energized coil probe, eddy
currents appear on the test piece. Eddy currents create a secondary field that
interacts with the primary field. As a result, the new impedance is Zc as
Equation (4) demonstrates:
Zc = Rc + j Xc (4)
(Rc / ωLo)
The normalized real part of the new impedance Rcn is 0 when there is no
change in the real part of the impedance. i.e Rcn = (Rc – Ro) / Xo, (0) /Xo = 0
when Rc = Ro, Rcn is divided by the imaginary part of the impedance Xo when
there is no metal near the sensor. (OK – comprehensible!)
Xcn represents the number of times that the new imaginary part of Zc is bigger
or smaller than the imaginary part when there is no target Xo. (?)
Xcn1
(Rc / ωLo)
U=?
Re represents the
resistance of the loops
described by the flow
of eddy currents.
Where:
the pulsation ω is related to frequency f as ω = 2πf,
Ro and Lo are the resistance and inductance of the primary coil when no
test piece is near the coil,
Re and L1 are respectively the resistance and inductance of the induced
eddy current loop
I and Ie are respectively the primary coil current and the induced eddy
current on the test piece and
M1 = kLo and M2 = kL1 are the mutual inductance between the two loops.
Im ?
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL), which is also known as Kirchhoff's Second Law, states that the
sum of all voltage sources in a circuit loop equals the sum of all voltage drops in the same loop.
This law is also sometimes stated as follows: the net electromotive force (emf) within a circuit
loop equals the sum of all potential differences around the loop. In this statement, emf refers to a
source of electrical energy while potential differences are drains of electrical energy.
Rc = Ro + [ {(ωk)2LoL1Re} • {Rc2+(ωL1+Im)2} -1 ]
Assuming that Im, Re and L1 do not depend on the distance between the
sensor and the target, the lift-off line for a fixed frequency in the normalized
impedance plane can be plotted when the coupling factor k changes.
Some authors such as Backus consider a two-dimensional vector field B defined in some open
subset V = V(z) = V(x, y) of the Euclidean plane where z = x + iy [19]. The field B has real and
imaginary components, as Equation (14) demonstrates:
Determining the real and imaginary components of B has several applications. For instance, by
measuring the field on a grid of points, it is possible to reconstruct the currents. This is an inverse
problem which is solved in many non-destructive tests.
Highly conductive materials such as cooper and aluminum create intense eddy
currents and have two advantages over less conductive materials. First, cracks
generate higher signal levels, as the impedance plane in Figure 2(a) illustrates. In
addition to that, the phase lag between the flaws and lift-off line is larger when highly
conductive materials are tested, that is φ1 > φ2 as Figure 2(a) shows. The
disadvantage of highly conductive materials is that the standard penetration depth is
lower at a fixed frequency than in lower conductive materials such as steel and
stainless steel. Factors that exert an influence in conductivity are the temperature of
the test piece, the alloy composition and the residual stress, which is related to the
atomic structure.
Many authors have measured residual stress using eddy current techniques. Coils can
detect very small stress variations in ferromagnetic steels due to the magneto-elastic
effect. Stress can be measured based on the changes in the impedance of an
electromagnetic coil as Figure 7(a,b) shows. The impedance change occurs due to
variations in the electrical conductivity and the magnetic permeability of the test piece.
(Rc / ωLo)
ρ = R ∙ A/l
where:
R is the electrical resistance of a uniform specimen of the material (measured in ohms, Ω)
l is the length of the piece of material (measured in metres, m)
A is the cross-sectional area of the specimen (measured in square metres, m2).
R = ρl/A
The resistance of a given material increases with length, but decrease with increasing cross-
sectional area. From the above equations, resistivity has SI units of ohm⋅metre. Other units like
ohm⋅cm or ohm⋅inch are also sometimes used.
Conductivity σ (Greek: sigma) is defined as the inverse of resistivity:
σ = 1/ρ
Conductivity has SI units of siemens per meter (S/m).
B = μH (15)
Magnetic permeability μ is a scalar in isotropic mediums. Free space has a characteristic
permeability constant μo. In many instances, the permeability of materials is expressed as
relative permeability μr in respect of free space μo as Equation (16) shows:
This is a problem that many authors have taken into account. Uzal et al.
calculated the impedance of a cylindrical air-core probe over a layered
metallic material whose conductivity and permeability varied continuously as
arbitrary functions of the depth.
Figure 11. Lift-off in steps of 0.1 mm (triangle) and tilt in steps of 10°
(round) for a normalized impedance plane
Figure 11 plots lift-off lines in steps of 0.1 mm. The impedance values are
plotted using triangles. In some cases, when measuring the thickness of non-
conductive coatings over metal, lift-off is employed as a useful property.
Figure 11 demonstrates that when the test piece is closely adjacent to the coil
probe, the triangle separation is larger than when the test piece is further
away. This means that the resolution to measure non-conductive coatings is
greater for thin coatings.
Lift-off is explained using a coil whose axis is normal to the test piece.
However, lift-off also occurs when the test is conducted using encircling
probes. The vibration of the rod or the tube inside the probe generates noise
which presents difficulties in conducting inspections. Some authors including
Theodoulidis et al. were conscious of lift-off testing tubes. They presented an
analytical model of wobble in heat exchanger tube inspection with bobbin
coils. Figure 12 illustrates the offset position of the tube inside the bobbin
coils.
Authors such as Gui Yun et al. have researched the reduction of lift-off effects
via normalization techniques. The technique can be applied to the
measurement of metal thickness beneath non-conductive coatings and to the
measurement of microstructure and strain/stress, where the output is highly
sensitive to the lift-off effect. They proposed an approach using two reference
signals calculated in two stages as Figure 13 shows.
where the defect signal is yx(n), n=[1,2,...N] and N is the number of sampled data for
each signal.
The second stage was to work out the crack information. They used a second
reference signal yref (n), which was obtained from a good sample part. They also
derived the normalized reference signal y’ref (n)as Equation (19) shows:
Finally, a new differential signal was worked out as Equation (20) indicates. The
authors obtained a significant lift-off reduction:
Fill factor is the ratio of the cross sectional area of the test piece and area of the coil
section. It is necessary that the coil wires be as close as possible to the test piece, in
order to have a greater response potential to cracks. In other words, it is desirable for
the fill factor to be as near as possible to unity.
For the internal inspection of tubes, a probe is introduced using a guidance system.
The fill factor is redefined as follows in Equation (22) where it also demonstrates the
desire that is nearer to one:
Fill factor = Ф2coil / Ф2test piece (22)
where Diameter coil is the outer diameter of the coil probe and Diameter test piece is
the inner diameter of the test piece, assuming that both diameters are measured in the
same units.
Some authors have specifically addressed the edge effect in their research.
For instance, Theodoulidis et al. proposed a model to calculate the quasi-
static electromagnetic field of a cylindrical coil in the vicinity of the edge of a
metal block. The authors obtained some analytical expressions of fields that
provided a better understanding of the edge effect and formed the basis of a
procedure for solving a whole class of edge related problems.
Z0 = R0 +j2πfL0 (23)
where X0 = 2πf L0 is the inductive reactance of the coil in ohms (Ω), f is the test frequency in Hertz (Hz) and L0
is the inductance in Henrys (H).
Eddy current flow is not uniformly distributed throughout the entire volume of test pieces. Current flow is
stronger at the surface, decreasing exponentially by increments in relation to the distance from the surface.
Assuming that the current density flowing along X axis, Equation (24) represents this current flux:
(24)
→
where ux the unitary vector along X axis and Jx(z, t) is the magnitude of density current as function of depth z
and time t. Equation (25) shows the phasor of the current density along depth (Z axis):
(25)
Jx = Jo e –x√(πfμσ)
Standard penetration depth depends on electrical conductivity, the magnetic
permeability of the test material and on the eddy current frequency. Standard
penetration depth is lower as conductivity, permeability or inspection frequency
increase. The penetration depth can be calculated as Equation (27) expresses:
Typical inspection frequencies in eddy current testing are in the range of 100
Hz–10 MHz. Most authors such as Ditchburn et al. and Thollon et al. use this
range. However, a few authors such as Owston use higher frequencies.
Owston described a high frequency eddy-current apparatus working at 25
MHz for detecting surface defects and thin metallic coatings.
Skin effect and other parameters such as the crack morphology and crack
position with respect to the surface determine a band of operating frequencies
where the cracks are detectable. At the optimum frequency of testing, the
crack sensitivity reaches the maximum.
Ɛ = K dФ/dt
Pulsed eddy current is useful for more than just crack detection. Haan et al.
have used pulsed eddy current to accurately characterize the permeability
and the conductivity. Taking a reference measurement of an object with a
known thickness, they also determined the thickness of several types of
carbon steel materials, which was proportional to the product of conductivity
and magnetic permeability.
Typical features such as peak amplitude and zero-crossing time of pulses are
employed to detect and characterize defects. A Hilbert transform can also be
computed to extract a new descending point feature of the received pulses.
The system generated pulse excitation that energized a planar multi-line coil
of Figure 15(a). The transient field was detected via a giant magnetoresistive
GMR field sensor placed on the line of symmetry at the center of the source
coil. In the absence of discontinuities, the normal component of the magnetic
field was zero at the center of the source coil. When the uniform distribution of
the induced currents was distorted by a rivet and/or crack as sketched
qualitatively in Figure 15(b) the zero field on the line of symmetry was
destroyed and a nonzero transient signal of the normal component was
measured by the GMR sensor.
(29)
The phase lag depends linearly with depth z. When the defect is at one
standard depth of penetration z = δ, the phase lag φ is φ = 1 radian ≈ 57°.
When it is at two standard depths of penetration z = 2δ, the lag occurs at φ =
2 radian ≈ 114° with respect to surface cracks. As a result, the phase lag can
be used to determine the depth of subsurface defects. Using the complex
impedance plane, the lift-off line can be taken as a reference phase as it
occurs on the surface. Flaw direction can be measured with respect to the lift-
off phase. It is desirable to have phase resolution between the lift-off line and
cracks.
Some of the main noise sources in eddy current testing are temperature
variations, lift-off, changes in the electromagnetic properties of the material
such as conductivity or magnetic permeability and changes in test speed.
Some methods for maximizing the SNR are listed below.
The simplest way to increase the SNR is to amplify the signal level. However,
amplifiers increase the noise level and introduce their own noise. Therefore,
there is a limit to the number of amplification stages that can be applied.
In addition, some types of coil probes are less influenced than others by some
noise sources. For instance, self-compensated differential coil probes are
less sensitive to small variations in diameter, conductivity or magnetic
permeability than absolute coil probes. In some instances, copper shields
cover the probes to decrease the pick-up noise from external sources;
therefore, they increase the signal to noise ratio.
(30)
(31)
Increasing the excitation frequency can suppress the influence of the non-
equalization of the conductivity of the test piece Re as Re ≪ ωL1. The
heterogeneity in non-ferromagnetic metals such as aluminum and copper due
to conductivity variations is much lower than that in ferromagnetic metals,
since the conductivity for aluminum and copper is much smaller than those of
steel and cast iron which allow the approximation of Re ≪ ωL1 to be more
true.
Segment probes are used for the detection and control of defects in the weld seam of
welded pipes. These probes are available with specific windings and can inspect the
tube or bar in differential and absolute modes. Both modes can be implemented in the
same probe. In differential mode, the sensor is highly sensitive to punctual defects in
the weld seam. Differential segment probes present difficulties detecting long defects
in the weld seam of tubes and in the absence of a seam. Differential segment probes
only detect the beginning and the end of the crack. To compensate for this
disadvantage, absolute mode probes are incorporated along with differential ones to
detect the presence or absence of weld seams and long cracks.
Figure 19(a) shows a horseshoe-shaped coil, which is useful in the detection of
laminar flaws. The authors Placko et al. used this type of probe to inspect graphite
composite materials. The magnetic flux penetrates parallel to the surface, and the
eddy currents encircle the magnetic flux lines in the test piece as Figure 19 (a) shows.
Laminar flaws alter eddy current flow significantly, which explains their high sensitivity
to them.
Not many authors have published on the coil connection. However, Grimberg
et al. explained how they energized the coils as Figure 25(b) illustrates.
These coils were fed by a magnetic transformer, and the voltage was picked
up by the card input and was regulated by means of the potentiometer P1.
Coil probes provide high sensitivity to defects when the flaw size is
comparable with the coil transducer. Short and small diameter encircling coil
probes provide higher sensitivity to small cracks than long and big diameter
probes.
Grimberg et al. took this relationship between coil size and sensitivity into
account and proposed a method for reconstructing the flaw in order to
determine the crack’s depth. The disadvantage is that the coil sizes must
adapt to the size of the tubes or bars being produced.
Rotating inspection systems are used in wire drawing machines, copper tube
winders or finishing lines in the bright steel sector and are capable of finding
longitudinal defects at very high speeds with a minimum depth of 0.05 mm.
Although eddy current testing has been developed for several decades,
research into developing new probes, techniques and instrumentation is
currently being conducted by manufacturers and research groups around the
world in order to satisfy the increasingly higher quality standards required in
almost every industry. These days, scientists are trying to develop new coil
probes and research the use of other magnetometers such as
superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs), Hall-effect and
magnetoresistive sensors that also provide very interesting responses.
Eddy current testing is a versatile technique that makes possible the hot eddy
current testing of semi-finished products such as wires, bars and tubes at
temperatures of up to 1,200°C and at production speeds of up to 150 m/s.
Early detection of these defects in production lines can save large sums of
money in the metal industry.