TRANSMIT-RECEIVE EDDY CURRENT PROBES

L.S. Obrutsky, S.P. Sullivan and V.S. Cecco

AR9800021
AECL Research
Nondestructive Testing Development Branch
Chalk River Laboratories
Chalk Riven Ontario KOJ 1 JO
e-mail: obnitskvlfo'aecl.ca

In the last two decades, due to increased inspection demands, eddy current instrumentation has advanced from single-
frequency, single-output instniments to multifrequency, computer-aided systems. This has significantly increased the
scope of eddy current testing, but, unfortunately, it has also increased the cost and complexity of inspections. In
addition, this approach has not always improved defect detectability or signal-to-noise.

Most eddy current testing applications are still performed with impedance probes, which have well known limitations.
However, recent research at AECL has led to improved eddy current inspections through the design and development of
transmit-receive (T/R) probes.

T/R eddy current probes, with laterally displaced transmit and receive coils, present a number of advantages over
impedance probes. They have improved signal-to-noise ratio in the presence of variable lift-off compared to impedance
probes. They have strong directional properties, permitting probe optimization for circumferential or axial crack
detection, and possess good phase discrimination to surface defects. They can significantly increase the scope of eddy
current testing permitting reliable detection and sizing of cracks in heat exchanger tubing as well as in welded areas of
both ferritic and non-ferromagnetic components.

This presentation will describe the operating principles of T/R probes with the help of computer-derived Normalized
Voltage Diagrams. We will discuss their directional properties and analyze the advantages of using single and multiple
T/R probes over impedance probes for specific inspection cases. Current applications to surface and tube testing and
some typical inspection results will be described.

1, INTRODUCTION phase discrimination to surface-breaking cracks.

In the last two decades, due to increased This paper describes the operating principles of
inspection demands, eddy current instrumentation has T/R probes with the help of computer-derived
advanced from single-frequency. single-output Normalized Voltage Diagrams. Applications such as
instruments to multifrequency. computer-aided systems. pressure vessel and nuclear steam generator lube
This has significantly increased the scope of eddy inspections arc discussed.
current testing, but. unfortunately, it has also increased 2. PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION
the cost and complexity of inspections. In addition, this
approach has not necessarily improved defect The operating principles of eddy current probes
detectability or signal-to-noise. are as follows: a transmit coil is excited by an
Most eddy current testing applications are alternating current generating a magnetic field in its
performed with impedance eddy current probes. The vicinity. This magnetic field induces electrical currents
capabilities and limitations of this technology are well (eddy currents) in electrical conductors, in accordance
documented [1.2]. Research at AECL has led to with Faraday's Law of eleclromagnetic induction.
improved eddy current inspections through the design Detector coils are then used to detect the magnetic flux
and development of transmit-receive (T/R) eddy current through their windings. Conventional eddy current
probes. These probes, with laterally displaced transmit probes use the same coil as transmitter and receiver, and
and receive coils, are similar to "sliding probes" [3j. are called "impedance probes", because monitoring the
largely used in the aircraft industry. They have an voltage induced in them, with constant current
improved signal-to-noise ratio in the presence of excitation, is identical to monitoring their coil
variable lift-off compared to standard impedance probes; impedance. T/R probes use separate transmit and
strong directional properties, permitting probe receive coils.
optimization according to defect orientation; and good

167
 normalized voltage plane display showing lift-off cun>es
at various frequencies and frequencv cun'es at various
lift-offs.

2.1 Normalized Voltage Diagrams

Normalized Impedance Diagrams have been used 2.2 Lift-off Response
to display impedance changes of conventional eddy One of the most important advantages of T/R
current probes. Figure 1 (a) shows a conventional probe probes over impedance probes is their ten-fold
response to lift-off and test frequency for a non- improvement in signal-to-noise ratio in the presence of
ferromagnetic sample. In T/R probes, changes in the lift-off.
test sample are detected as changes in receive coil
voltage, as Figure l(b) shows. Therefore, the equivalent
display is referred to as a Normalized Voltage Diagram.
The diagrams in Figure 1 were generated using Transini^Receivj; Pjobe
computer modelling based on analytical solutions to
6 mm 6 mm 6 mm
Maxwell's equations derived by Dodd and Deeds [4|.
These computer modelling programs were developed at 1 mm
AECL to assist in the development and understanding of i es
T/R eddy current probes. Upon studying probe response Delect Defect

to various probe and test parameters, the following

(dimensionless) characteristic parameter was derived:
Defect Slgnnl
(1)
Defect Signal

where ro is the angular frequency (2K X frequency). Ur is

the relative magnetic permeability. \XQ is the magnetic Lift-off -- 0.1 mm Lift-off - 0 1 mm

permeability of free space, a is the electrical J Impedance Probe Signals Transmit-Receive Probe Signals

conductivity and s is the coil spacing.

This parameter is similar to the one derived by
Dodd [5| for impedance coils, except that the coil
diameter is replaced with T/R coil spacing.
Iuijx.'dance Tnmsmit-Receive Figure 2. Signal-to-noise comparison between an impedance
and a T/R probe. The "signal" is due to a small crack. The
"noise " is due to a 0.1 mm variation in lift-off.

Mela] Plate The T/R probe's relative "insensitivity to lift-off"

' - 1D M •
is explained as follows: signals generated by localized
defects between the transmit and receive coils have an
amplitude similar to that for a similar-sized impedance
Impedance
pancake coil probe. However, the flux linkage between
Iranstnil-Roceive
E'requcney " constant - Frequency -• constanf the transmit and receive coils is less than 10%.
Ijfr-otl' constant
P -•<}• r'
Therefore, probe response to global effects, such as a
1.2
change in coil lift-off, tube deformations. U-bend
transition or sleeve-to-parcnt lube gap. arc only 10% of
those for a similar-sized impedance coil. As a result, the
„„„ l.OmmK* ,
gO.S i \v-| signal-to-noise ratio of a T/R probe is five to ten times
100 kHz
that of an impedance coil, as Figure 2 illustrates using
I I 0 '' 5 ' n//130 kHz computer simulations of small defect signals in the
0.50 mm^A /50 kHz presence of lift-off.
>0.4
0.25 m r r / / 1 0 O k H z
500 kHz. 2.3 Directional Properties
I.II 0.0'
A T/R probe's maximum response corresponds to
-0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 variations in the induced magnetic field in the region
Normalized Resistance Normalized Resistive Voltage between the transmit and receive coils. These coil
(ai (bl
arrangements have directional properties, being
Figure I. Normalized impedance display and sensitive primarily to defects in line with the T/R coils.

168
Figure 3 illustrates the response of a probe that has been
optimized for detecting circumferential cracks in thin 2.5 Inspection of Ferromagnetic Materials
wall tubing. It plots experimental results of signal Conventional eddy current methods can be used
amplitude versus defect orientation from electric to detect cracks in ferromagnetic components, such as
discharge machined (EDM) notches 100% deep by 10 pipe welds, welds in support structures and turbine rotor
mm long in an Inconel 600 calibration tube at 250 kHz bore surfaces, but crack sizing is limited to shallow
test frequency. Signal amplitude from a defect at a 45° cracks (<2 mm) [6]. T/R probes are extremely sensitive
angle to the tube axis is one third the amplitude from a to crack-like defects that guide the magnetic field from
circumferential defect. Therefore, probe design can be the transmit coils to the receive coils [7]. That is. the
optimized according to crack orientation. eddy currents are forced to circulate around the crack,
increasing the magnetic coupling between the transmit
and receive coils, thereby increasing the voltage induced
in the receive coils.
9 0" 75' 6 0 • 4 5 ° JO*

Transmit Coil Receive Coil

8.6% S 6"

7 - 'I mm 7, t
7. ' -2 m m
Figure 3. Plot of signal amplitude versus defect orientation
for a differential C3 probe at 250 kHz from EDh I notches
100% deep bv 10 mm long in an Inconel 600 calibration tube.

2.4 Detcctability of Surface and Sub-surface Defects

Figure 4 shows a plot of T/R and impedance Figure 4. Signals from subsurface defects in an aluminum
probe responses to surface and sub-surface defects and plate with TR (b) and impedance (c) at 500 Hz.
lift-off. In conventional probes, using surface
Since the magnetic field in the peripheral region
impedance coils, shallow surface defect signals follow
of the transmit coil is quite uniform, even small
trajectories nearly parallel to lift-off. In contrast, with
distortions originating from the bottom of deep defects
T/R probes, there is a significant difference in the
are detected. This permits sizing of surface defects that
direction of the probe's voltage plane responses to
extend much deeper than one standard depth of
defects and small lift-off variations. This characteristic
penetration.
is due to phase-lag effects in the magnetic field pattern
in the periphery of the transmit coil, detected by the Unlike conventional eddy current probes, these
receive coil. Therefore, sensitivity to surface defects is probes arc relatively insensitive to magnetic
significantly improved. permeability variations.
Figure 4 illustrates the increased detectability of 3. APPLICATIONS
sub-surface defects for the T/R probe compared with an T/R eddy current probes increase the scope of
impedance probe. A. defect located 4 mm from the eddy current inspection by maximizing defect signal,
surface is still detectable with the T/R probe, while the minimizing noise amplitude and discriminating between
response to the same defect is negligible with the defect signals and noise. T/R eddy current probes have
impedance probe.

169
been used with advanced multichannel computer-aided cracks in materials with magnetic permeability
instrumentation, such as the Zetec MlZ-18, MIZ-30 and variations, typically found in heat-affected zones of
R/D Tech TC-6700. to inspect components that could welded stainless steel. These significant variations in
not be reliably inspected with other eddy current or NDT permeability may also be found in nominally non-
techniques. magnetic cast stainless-steel components.
An eddy current probe with multiple T/R pairs,
3.1 Surface Inspection called multi-G3. has been developed at AECL to detect
3.1.1 PWR Pressure Vessel Inspection surface breaking cracks in the stainless-steel cladding of
a reactor vessel. Because of the significant decrease in
Pressurized water reactor (PWR) pressure vessels signal amplitude as a function of defect orientation
are periodically inspected to ensure that they will not fail angle, the probe designed for PWR reactor vessel
due to cracking. The inner surface of these vessels is inspection comprises several T/R coil pairs oriented at
covered with approximately 7 mm thick stainless-steel 45° with respect to one another to provide 360°
cladding, weld deposited on a carbon-steel base coverage. With this design, the defect can pass the
material. Thermal fatigue cracking at the welded probe with an orientation angle of no more than 22.5°
interface between the cladding and the base material is a with respect to at least one of the coil pairs. At 22.5°.
concern. the defect signal amplitude is approximately 70% of the
PWR vessels are normally inspected with signal from an identical defect scanned at the optimal
ultrasonic testing (UT) equipment optimized for angle. If the defect passes a coil pair at close to this
detecting sub-surface cracks. Eddy current testing (ET) 22.5° "worst" angle, it will pass another coil pair at a
probes, in tandem with UT. enable inspectors to detect similar angle. Therefore, by comparing the signals
surface-breaking flaws in the stainless-steel cladding of generated in adjacent coil pairs, a signal analyst can
the reactor lining at the same time. ET scans are useful integrate this directional effect into the defect depth
for detecting shallow surface cracks that might be prediction.
missed with UT. and for checking whether UT
indications correspond to surface-breaking cracks.
Conventional ET. which is based on balanced
impedance coils, is unreliable for detecting surface

170
 Magnified View
Shown in (b)

C )

—^EKS^TSS
..Stainless-
Steel
Cladding

-.' Arrav of
' T/R Coils (b)
Axial EDM Circumferential Circumt crcn ti a 1
Notches HDM Notches EDM Notches

5 mm |

4 mm |

3 mm | 2 mm

7 mmj

- ! mm |

(c)

Figure 5. Eddy current detection of surface cracks in stainless-steel clad PWR pressure vessel.
Figures 5(a) and (b) illustrate the welded versatility of T/R probes was demonstrated was sizing of
inspection areas, and a schematic of the array of T/R a manufacturing defect (cold shut'?) on a 304 stainless
coils that comprise the probe. Figure 5(c) shows a steel valve casting. Ultrasonic testing was unreliable,
calibration sample with circumferential and axial EDM because of the coarse grain structure in the casting.
notches. Figure 5(d) shows a C-scan display of the Large ferromagnetic variations in the material made
channel optimized for circumferential crack detection. conventional ET impossible. The defect signal was so
Similar displays were produced by the other channels. large that lift-off and permeability noise were
insignificant. Clear signals with a T/R ET probe
3.1.2 Inspection of Ferromagnetic Components indicated a 75 mm long and 6 lo 7 mm deep (50%
T/R probes denoted as G3 have been used to through-wall) defect.
inspect steam drum nozzles, welds in nuclear reactor
support structures, and turbine rotor bores [6\ for 3.2 Tube Inspection
surface-breaking cracks. They have also been used to 3.2.1 Detection of Circumferential Cracks
inspect nuclear reactor vessel nozzle welds. Because of
their insensitivity to lift-off and permeability variations. Detection of circumferential cracks in steam
T/R probes can readily detect defects at welds. Figures generator (SG) and heat exchanger tubes continues to
6(c) and (0 show undistorted signals from side-wall present a major challenge for NDT. Although UT can
lack-of-fusion and fatigue cracks at welds. Defects be used to detect such cracks, its inspection speed is very
deeper than 2 mm can be readily detected, and because slow. ET requires specialized probes, and detection is
signal amplitude is not significantly affected by the weld often hampered by the presence of tube deformation, and
crown, depth can be estimated. conducting or ferromagnetic deposits.
Another inspection application where the Cracks in SG tubes can occur due to a varietv of

171
mechanisms, such as slress-corrosion cracking (SCC). Figure 6. (a, b, c) Carbon-steel calibration and test
fatigue cracks and intergranular attack (IGA). They can samples.
initiate from the tube ID or OD. and can be (d) Calibration signals.
circumferential, axial or branching. They occur most (e) Signals from side-wall lack -of-fusion and
frequently at tubesheet (TS) transition, support weld only.
structures and U-bend regions. (f) Signals from fatigue near welds.
A T/R eddy current probe, denoted as C3 [8.9].
was developed to inspect 12.9 mm diameter, Inconel 600 The C3 probe is a differential multi-coil T/R
SG tubes, that failed because of SCC at the U-bend probe. Figure 7 shows a C3 probe with eight sets of T/R
transition. At this location the tubes presented internal coil units. It operates at several frequencies
and external deposits and were plastically deformed. simultaneously- Unlike rotating pancake probes, the C3
The T/R probes were able to detect cracks where has no moving parts, permitting single-pass inspections
conventional eddy current probes had failed to detect as fast as standard bobbin-type probes. The eight T/R
any except those that had propagated completely units are contained in two separate bodies. Each probe
through the tube wall. body is encased in a metallic sleeve, with centering
guides. The probe bodies are physically separated by a
section of flexible cable, because a single solid body-
would be too long to go around tight U-bends. This is a
robust design, but it is still flexible enough to easily
negotiate U-bends as small as a 150 mm radius.
The field data shown in Figure 8 illustrates C3
probe signals from a tube with circumferential SCC at a
test frequency of 250 kHz. The vertical component
corresponds to probe response to the crack, while the
horizontal component represents the distortion due to
tube eccentric deformation.

L.ifl-ofT

<0

172
 . . . . - - •

Area of
Sensitivitv..
\ /

#JPk
/ I
Eight TR Units !
} +R \ I 1 W 'R
FR 3 1
1
•R4 '1 1 ^HS
\ 1i i\ If TR s
\
ML "R6

f
/ \ -R
4%
*%$ "T? 7 /
\ TTJI IV OS

ll [teamu n
. •
Mmm IF
I T * T r ,'Hwffl|lllllliiTM;
!HiIII m
Scan Back Front
Direction Probe Probe
Body (a) Bod\

Detection
Windows TR^~

1 TR 2 jT A*- i i
Detection
Windows

4'

Figure 7. C3 probe showing T'R coil configuration and detection windows.

Signal-to-noise at this eccentrically deformed tube

section is excellent. Figure 8b and c show plots of probe
response (vertical component) from eacli T7R unit in Hi m i^i it i in5 ma in i
sequence versus circumferential location. These plots i ,
i I I I i !
were used to predict crack extent. The comparison of Defect
predicted crack profiles with destructive examination Signal
results shows a very good correlation.
Deformation
Since the first field trial in 1992. which
demonstrated that the probe is effective in detecting and
sizing SCC as shallow as 40% deep, it has been used
routinely for in-service inspection of nuclear steam 60 "I—
TR6
1
TRA
-
TRJ , W
Destriiclive
generators. 50
JF (My Current,
j Estimatp _^__^/ Predicte<l J'rt
More recently, inspection companies in the -to
United States. Europe and Japan have expressed interest b! 30 ' / [ \ i
i
"oTVVC
in T/R array probes. One example was the use of the C3 20 ! I
probe to inspect 22.2 mm diameter Inconel 600 tubes in 1 A \

PWR steam generators for internal SCC in the U-bend

10
j/i :.. \ , r—•.•-

region. The probe, first evaluated in short U-bend 'i 15 90 135 ISO
Aionnii"I\i
315

samples with laboratory-induced SCC. was able to delect

cracks as shallow as 25% deep: field evaluation showed Etkly Current
Pro(licte<! Profile
that the single-pass C3 probe had a defect detectability
that was as good as or better than rotating pancake coil
(RPC) probes. TNoii-CoiUmiioiih-JMed
§ Cmnirmmii-Dct'cii

3.2.2 Probes with Equal Sensitivity to Axial and

Circumferential Cracks
A growing area of interest has been the detection
of both circumferential and axial cracks at the tubesheet
transition region in nuclear steam generators. Figure 8. (a) C3 response to a circumferential OD stress
corrosion crack at the U-bend.
(b, c)Comparison between the actual crack geometry'

173
 and the eddy current predicted profile. circumference. Thus an array probe, with the aid of C-
Computer modelling studies were conducted to scan display of data, gives the analyst an intuitive tool to
design a probe with equal sensitivity to both visualize tube artifacts.
circumferential and axial cracks. This probe, denoted as
C5, has sensitivity to all modes of failure and it can be
used for rapid single pass inspection of tubing. The

A
probe consists of three bodies: the front and middle
bodies contain 12 to 24 T/R units, and the back body-
contains conventional bobbin coils. Figure 9(b) shows
typical computer-predicted responses to volumetric SignalsfromInternal fitting
,-Sm
m
defects, circumferential cracks and axial cracks. Figures
9(c) and (d) show C5 probe coverage to circumferential
and axial cracks.

3<>0° Coverage
Windows oi
Sensitivity
W
w
f
X-.-W
Uobbin Probe
C? Probe

Circumferential Axial Crack

Crack Figure 10. C-scan display ofC5 data from a Copper-Nickel
tube with internal pitting.
.Spherical Defecl (b)

4. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
T/R probes with laterally displaced coils can be
used to delect cracks in ferromagnetic and non-
ferromagnetic components. They increase the scope of
eddy current testing by maximizing defect signals and
minimizing "noise" effects from lift-off, electrical
conductivity and magnetic permeability variations.
T/R probe directional properties enhance their
Circumferential position (X, mrnl Circumferential Pcsilim IX. mnrt
dcteclability of defects with a preferential direction
d (cracks). By adjusting coil orientation and/or using
multi-coil arrangements, they can be adapted to solve
Figure 9. (a) ('ross section view of the ('5 probe.
each kind of inspection problem.
(b) Computed-predicted response to various
The relative "insensitivity" of T/R probes to
defects.
global effects, such as lift-off or permeability variations,
(c) ('omputer-predicled areas of sensitivity for the
(. '5 probe to short circumferential cracks.
improve the signal-to-noisc ratio. They are more
(d) Computer-predicted areas of sensitivity for the
suitable than impedance probes for inspecting
("5 probe to short axial cracks. components with geometric distortions.
Computer modelling can be used to calculate T/R
The large amounts of data generated by these eddy currents and magnetic fields, as well as
probes can be dealt with efficiently by presenting the probe/sample response. The capability for performing
data in C-scan display format. Figure 10 shows a C- such mathematical simulations significantly increases
scan display of C5 probe data from a Copper-Nickel tube confidence in this new technology.
with internal pitting. It illustrates one of the advantages These probes are fully compatible with
of using T/R array probes over standard bobbin probes. commercially available eddy current instruments.
The C5 probe can detect and size each individual pit
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
while a bobbin probe only generates one signal
integrating the eddy current response from the entire The authors wish to thank R. Lakhan. J. Carter.

174
W. Pantermoller, B.Cassidy, M. Rodych, and M. 5 - Dodd C.V., "The Use of Computer-Modeling for Eddy
Addario for (heir assislancc in probe dcvelopmenl and Current Testing", Research Techniques in NDT. Vol. HI,
the collection of data described in this paper and to edited by R.S. Sharpe. Academic Press Limited. London,
1977, pp. 429-479.
numerous students for their help with computer
simulations and with the production of figures. This 6 - Cecco V.S., Carter JR. and Sullivan S.P., "An Eddy
work was partially supported by the CANDU Owners Current Technique for Detecting and Sizing Surface
Group (COG) and Westinghouse. NSCD. Cracks in Carbon Steel", Materials Evaluation. Vol. 51,
No. 5, 1993 May, pp. 572-577.
6. REFERENCES
1 - Cecco VS., Van Drunen G. and Sharp F.L., "Eddy Current 7 - Mayos M. and Muller J.L., "Geometrically Anisotropic
Manual", AHCL Report, AECL-7523, 1981 November. Probes: an Improved Eddy Current Technique". Journal of
NDE. Vol. 6, No. 2, 1987, pp. 109-116.
2 - Cecco VS. and Van Drunen G., "Recognizing the Scope of
Eddy Current Testing", Research Techniques in 8 - Cecco V.S., Obrutsky L.S. and Sullivan S.P., "T/R Eddy
Nondestructive Testing,Vol. VHI, edited by R.S. Sharpe, Current Probes for Tube Inspection", Proceedings of the
Academic Press, London, 1985, pp. 269-301. 6th European Conference on Non Destructive Testing,
Nice, France, 1994 November.
3 - Pellicer J.. "Sliding Probe Eddy Current System for
Improved Fastener Hole Inspection", ATA Nondestructive 9 - Obrutsky L.S., Cecco V.S. and Sullivan S.P., "T/R Eddy
Testing Forum. Kansas City, MO, 1983 Aug.-Sept. Current Probes for Circumferential Crack Detection",
Proceedings of Second International Conference on Steam
4 - Dodd C.V. and Deeds W.E., "Analytic Solutions to Eddy- Generators and Heat Exchangers. Sponsored by the
Current Probe-Coil Problems", Journal of Applied Physics. Canadian Nuclear Society, Toronto, 1994 June.
Vol. 39, No. 6, 1968 May, pp. 2829-2838.

175