PEC

w
x ME BACK TO BASICS
From Materials Evaluation, Vol. 76, No. 6, pp: 700-705.
Copyright © 2018 The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.

TEST
Pulsed Eddy Current
Testing
by Casper Wassink and Paul Crouzen

Pulsed eddy current is capable of semiquantifying the wall thickness of steel

hidden behind insulations. The technique has seen steady development and
increased applications in recent years. How does it work? Read on!
—John Chen, Back to Basics Technical Editor

P
ulsed eddy current testing (PECT) has moved into an exciting
period. New equipment offerings have entered the market, an ISO
standard (ISO, 2017) for the technique has been issued, and
advanced applications of the technology are being developed. The
main strength of PECT is its ability to inspect carbon steel through insulation
commonly covering pipes and vessels. Its main limitation is that PECT
measures steel thickness averaged over a large area of the test specimen,
called the “footprint.” This implies PECT can detect general wall loss, but not
localized corrosion. History has shown that vendors and practitioners have
sometimes overlooked this drawback, which inevitably results in failures and
disappointments. But dismissing the technology altogether because of its
footprint averaging would be missing great opportunities.
The idea of using a pulsed signal to excite eddy current rather than the
more common sinusoidal signal is by no means new. The advantage is that a
broad range of frequencies is present in the signal, compared to the single
frequency in ordinary eddy current testing, which greatly improves penetration
of the signal. In the 1950s, Argonne National Laboratory experimented with
the technology for testing of nuclear fuel pallets (Waidelich, 1955). These
early systems suffered from a low signal-to-noise ratio and high susceptibility
to outside electrical interference, and indeed, these are still some of the main
concerns in designing a pulsed eddy current system.

JUNE 2018 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 701

ME BACK TO BASICS w
x pulsed eddy current testing
Figure 1. A pulsed eddy current sensor is placed on top of an insulated steel pipe to detect wall loss caused by corrosion under insulation (CUI).
The sensor is connected to a portable, battery-operated PECT instrument that displays A-scan signals and a color-coded wall thickness C-scan.
When talking about PECT, one needs to make a
disambiguation, as there are several technologies by
the name, with very different features. This article
addresses the use of PECT for ferromagnetic materials
(usually carbon steel), whereas pulsed eddy current
may also refer to techniques for the testing of conduc-
tive nonmagnetic materials (such as aluminum). The
former technology measures responses over a range
measured in milliseconds, while the latter measures
responses over a microsecond range.
The development of PECT for ferromagnetic
materials started in earnest when geophysicists at
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) heard about
problems with corrosion under insulation in oilfields in
Alaska. One of them borrowed an experimental ground
radar system that he had worked on in college and
was able to show that he could detect corrosion under
insulation without removing the insulation (Wassink,
2012). ARCO then patented the technology (Spies,
1989). ARCO sought the help of other companies to
make the technology into something that was field-
deployable, and eventually Applus+ RTD and Shell
entered the market with the RTD-Incotest (Robers and
Scottini, 2006) and Shell-PEC systems (Crouzen and
Munns, 2002) nearly simultaneously in the late
1990s. The new wave of technology that is entering
the market now is partly due to the original ARCO
patents having expired in 2009. As usual, the
diffusion of technology is accompanied by innovation
(Rogers, 1962), and end-user organizations like HOIS,
a joint industry project for NDT best practices in the oil
and gas industry, and Pipeline Research Council
International (PRCI) have noticed improvements in the
technology.
702 MATERIALS EVALUATION • JUNE 2018
Basic Working Principle
Figure 1 displays the basic elements of a PECT system:
a probe placed on top of an insulated steel pipe. The
probe is connected to a pulse generator and comput-
erized data acquisition system. The probe houses
transmitter coils to generate a powerful magnetic
pulse, which penetrates nonmagnetic materials
between the coil and the object. The change in
magnetic field at both the leading and trailing edge of
the pulse induces eddy currents in the material. When
applying PECT to ferromagnetic steel, such as carbon
and low-alloy steels, the eddy currents will be concen-
trated on the surface of the test specimen.
Subsequently, the eddy currents will diffuse from the
top surface into the material and at the same time
decay in intensity due to ohmic losses in the material.
So long as the eddy currents diffuse, the decay is rela-
tively slow, because of the diffusion inducing new
electrical currents in the steel. When the diffusion
stops, however, the decay is faster, because new
currents are no longer induced.
The decaying eddy currents themselves generate a
magnetic field in and around the object, which is
picked up by a receiver device in the PECT probe,
which can be either a magnetic sensor or receiver
coils. The signal amplitude can be plotted as a
function of time in an A-scan, which is usually
presented on a double logarithmic scale (Figure 2).
The A-scan has a straight section and a curved
section. The point between the straight and curved
sections is referred to as the “bending point” and
occurs at the onset of the fast decay, meaning when
the back wall has been sensed. The time of the
bending point is the “characteristic time” and is
indicative of the steel thickness.
PECT requires several different probes, each
suited for a different liftoff range, meaning
the distance between probe and steel.
The bending point in PECT can be compared to the
“back wall echo” in pulse-echo ultrasonic thickness
measurements. The time between back wall echo is
equivalent to the characteristic time, and both are
measures of the thickness of the test specimen. For this
reason, experience in ultrasound inspection is often
Dec
ay r
a te
Received signal
Bending point
Characteristic time
Time
Figure 2. Schematic presentation of a PECT A-scan. The
bending point (the point when the received signal rate
changes from linear to exponential) is the equivalent of a
back wall echo in pulse-echo ultrasound. The decay rate
is the rate of change in the electromagnetic field
measured by the receiver; the characteristic time refers
to the time measured between the end of the excitation
pulse and the bending point.
Figure 3. A series of different PECT sensors is displayed, each covering a different range of insulation thickness.
The smallest sensor is designed for contact to maximum 25 mm (1 in.) liftoff; the largest covers a range from
127 mm (5 in.) to 254 mm (10 in.) insulation thickness.
more beneficial when teaching PECT to NDT technicians
than knowledge of conventional eddy testing.
The PECT A-scan can be distorted by several
phenomena, such as vibration of the object and inter-
ference from electrical equipment. The degree of the
distortions varies greatly in practical applications and
depends on the insulation thickness. For this reason,
PECT requires several different probes (Figure 3), each
suited for a different liftoff range, meaning the distance
between probe and steel. The shape of the A-scan and
the reproducibility of the wall thickness measurements
are tested before starting a new inspection in a series of
measurements from which the optimal measurement
parameters such as pulse duration and probe selection
are selected. Dependent on the degree of interference,
the measurements may require just a single measure-
ment pulse, or several pulses.
The speed of sound waves in carbon steel
depends on the mechanical properties of the steel
and is the same between different test specimens. The
calibration of ultrasonic equipment on a step wedge is
therefore valid for measurements on another carbon
steel test specimen. The speed at which eddy currents
diffuse, in contrast, depends on the electrical conduc-
tivity and the magnetic permeability. These electro-
magnetic material properties are not the same
JUNE 2018 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 703
ME BACK TO BASICS w
x pulsed eddy current testing

Horizontal
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
0.0 m 0.5 m 1.0 m 1.5 m 2.0 m 2.5 m 3.0 m 3.5 m 4.0 m 4.5 m 5.0 m 5.5 m 6.0 m >110%
90–110%
1 2.7 m 97 98 97 97 94 92 90 92 91 92 92 94 95
Vertical

80–90%
2 2.2 m 94 97 97 98 100 96 91 92 90 91 91 92 94 70–80%
3 1.7 m 78 80 89 97 99 96 92 87 86 89 89 89 83 <70%
4 1.2 m 80 81 87 96 100 96 92 H I 87 90 91 86
Calibration
5 0.7 m 79 82 86 93 97 98 90 H I 90 88 88 85 Obstruction

Figure 4. An example of PECT wall thickness readings recorded on a column skirt. The readings are presented as a percentage value relative to
a reference spot (E2 in this case). An independent wall thickness measurement at one spot is required to convert the PECT readings to inches
(or millimeters).
between two different steel test specimens; these are
influenced, for instance, by the temperature treatment
of the steel. As a result, a step wedge calibration is
not valid for PECT. Instead, PECT should be calibrated
on the test specimen itself. Furthermore, since the
electromagnetic properties are in general unknown,
PECT measurements are relative wall thickness
readings. One reference spot on the test specimen
needs to be selected; the wall thickness at other
locations will be presented as a percentage of the wall
thickness at the reference spot, usually in a color-
coded C-scan grid, such as that shown in Figure 4. The
color coding serves to highlight areas with wall loss.
Only if the wall thickness at one spot of the test
specimen is known (for example, from an ultrasound
measurement), one can convert the PECT percentage
readings to millimeters or inches.
Reliable PECT data requires that the probe is held
steady during data recording. Moving the probe during
data recording, which is referred to as dynamic
scanning, is therefore reliable only in cases of very
favorable conditions. In practical applications, this is
usually only suited in semicontact measurements. In
all other cases, it is more reliable and faster to record
data on a fixed measurement grid. Due to the footprint
integration (see following section), the probably of
detection (POD) is optimal for a grid spacing that is
equal to the insulation thickness. A lower grid spacing
will not increase the POD significantly.
Footprint
The process of eddy current diffusion will cause an
area of the object, larger than the initial excitation
area, to contain eddy currents. If PECT is used to
measure the wall thickness of an object, the resulting
value will be averaged over the whole footprint area.
Typically, the diameter of the footprint is 1.5× the sum
of the liftoff and the wall thickness, with a minimum of
25 mm (1 in.). With a liftoff of 50 mm (2 in.) and a
wall thickness of 12.5 mm (0.5 in.), for example,
the footprint is approximately 1.5 × (50 mm [2 in.] +
12.5 mm [0.5 in.]) ≈ 100 mm (4 in.). As a rule of
thumb, if the corrosion extends over an area smaller
than half the footprint (50 mm [2 in.] in the example),
the defect will not be detected. PECT will detect but
undersize the average wall loss if the effective
diameter of the corroded areas ranges from about half
the footprint to the full footprint (50 mm to 100 mm
[2 to 4 in.]). The average wall loss will be correctly
determined if the corroded area extends over an area
larger than the footprint.
PECT is often used as a screening tool to find large
areas with wall loss where follow-up assessment with,
for example, partial insulation removal is recom-
mended. “Proofing up” with ultrasound or radiography
is the most reliable way of applying PECT, not only due
to footprint averaging, but also because PECT only
measures percentage variations in the wall thickness.
A wall thickness measurement with ultrasound, for
example, at the spot of the lowest PECT reading will
remove the uncertainty of the relative measurements.
Whereas footprint averaging is a drawback of PECT
when inspecting pressure containers, it is often less
restrictive in assessing load-bearing structures such as
skirts of columns and support legs of storage spheres.
In these cases, it’s not the minimum but the average
wall thickness that is relevant to the structural integrity.
Material between the Probe and the Object
Nonmagnetic and nonconducting materials do not alter
magnetic fields. For this reason, PECT can inspect steel
through insulation, concrete, coatings, marine growth,
and the like. Insulation is often covered with a sheeting
made from a conducting material (for example,
aluminum). The magnetic pulse used in a PECT meas-
urement can usually penetrate this sheeting, but will
also generate eddy current in the sheeting material. The
eddy currents induced in the aluminum sheeting will

704 MATERIALS EVALUATION • JUNE 2018

add to the A-scan. Fortunately, the signal from the
aluminum can be distinguished from that of the steel,
because the eddy currents decay much faster than those
in the steel. In most cases, PECT can inspect pipes and
vessels with aluminum insulation covers, although the
minimum steel thickness PECT can detect is increased
by the presence of the aluminum. Likewise, PECT can
measure through chicken wire and rebar, which is
commonly found in concrete.
When the insulation sheeting is made of a
magnetic material, like galvanized steel, the measure-
ment becomes much more difficult for three reasons.
First, the magnetic sheeting vibrates, causing signal
distortion. This can be reduced significantly by
retraining the movement of the sheeting. Second, the
signal strength is reduced, and lastly, the footprint
averaging is increased. These problems can to some
degree be overcome by using powerful probes with a
high magnetic field. Probes with low field strength
may require magnetization of the sheeting (de Haan et
al., 2010). Practice has shown that there is a large
variation in the magnetic properties of galvanized
sheeting. Some sheeting types present no problem at
all; for other types, it is very hard to get reliable results.
Applications
There are three conditions that need to be met when
considering applying PECT. The first condition is that
the relevant degradation mechanism is general
corrosion, since PECT will not able to find localized
wall loss. Secondly, the geometry must be “simple.”
Reinforcement pads, supports, and nearby pipes will
influence the PECT readings. Small-bore piping is
usually difficult to inspect; large-diameter piping,
vessels, columns, and storage tanks are easier. A final
condition is that the inspection cannot be carried out
with conventional techniques, such as ultrasound and
radiography. Due to its limitations, PECT cannot
compete with these conventional techniques under
standard conditions.
PECT is known in the industry for detection of
corrosion under insulation (CUI). However, PECT
inspection for CUI is the most difficult application.
Accidents have occurred after PECT inspections of CUI
of small-bore piping, which has given PECT a bad
reputation. Yet, there are many more applications of
PECT where the footprint averaging is not a serious
drawback, such as the following:
l corrosion under fireproofing of sphere legs and
column skirts;
l flow-accelerated corrosion in steam systems of
power plants;
l monitoring of wall thickness (PECT has a unique
ability for this);
l testing and monitoring through repair wraps;
l in-service inspection of annular rings of storage
spheres;
l testing on marine and offshore structures through
marine growth in the splash zone;
l inspection of subsea pipelines with weight coatings
using submersibles; and
l inspection of well casings.
It is encouraging to witness the steady growth of
applications of PECT. This technique may get another
boost with the advent of robotic inspections, since
PECT is well suited for automatic deployment.
Conclusion
PECT offers a unique capability in being able to test the
thickness of carbon steel objects through other
materials. Now that an ISO standard exists for the
technique and several new equipment suppliers have
entered the market with improved products, an exciting
new era for the technology is starting. Yet, one must
guard against overselling PECT—responsible application
of PECT requires properly trained staff, and a balanced
and honest assessment of its strength and limitations.
w
x
AUTHORS
Casper Wassink: MAXWELL ndt; Dorpsstraat 80, 3732HK,
de Bilt, The Netherlands; email casperwassink@maxwellndt
.com
Paul Crouzen: MAXWELL ndt; Dorpsstraat 80, 3732HK, de
Bilt, The Netherlands; +31 652694669; email paul
crouzen@maxwellndt.com
REFERENCES
Crouzen, P.C.N., and I. Munns, 2006, “Pulsed Eddy Current
Corrosion Monitoring in Refineries and Oil Production Facili-
ties - Experience at Shell,” 9th European Conference on
NDT, Berlin, Germany.
de Haan, V.O., P.A. de Jong, and T.T.A. van Overbeek,
“Method of Non-destructively Testing, a System and a
Computer Program Product,” US Patent Application
12801159, active 25 May 2010.
ISO, 2017, ISO 20669:2017: Non-destructive Testing —
Pulsed Eddy Current Testing of Ferromagnetic Metallic
Components, International Organization for Standardiza-
tion, Geneva, Switzerland.
Robers, M., and R. Scottini, 2002, “Pulsed Eddy Current in
Corrosion Detection,” 8th European Conference on NDT,
Barcelona, Spain.
Rogers, E.M., 1962, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press of
Glencoe, New York, New York.
Spies, B.R., 1989, “Transient Electromagnetic Method for
Detecting Corrosion on Conductive Containers,” US Patent
Application 4929896, filed 21 November 1989, published
29 May 1990.
Waidelich, D.L., 1955, “Pulsed Eddy Currents Gauge Plating
Thickness,” Electronics, November, pp. 146–147.
Wassink, C.H.P., 2012, “Innovation in Non Destructive
Testing,” doctoral thesis, Institutional Repository, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
JUNE 2018 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 705