ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2007 [Las Vegas, NV, November 2007]: pp 208-212 Copyright

t 2007, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Application of Model-based Inversion to Eddy Current NDE of Heat

Exchanger Tubing
Harold A. Sabbagh, R. Kim Murphy and Elias H. Sabbagh
Victor Technologies, LLC
P.O. Box 7706, Bloomington, IN 47407-7706
e-mail has@sabbagh.com, kimmurphy1@aristotle.net, ehs@sabbagh.com
John C. Aldrin
Computational Tools
Gurnee, IL 60031
e-mail aldrin@computationaltools.com
Jeremy S. Knopp
Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL/MLLP) Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7817
e-mail Jeremy.Knopp@wpafb.af.mil

ABSTRACT
At the ASNT Fall Conference of 2005, we introduced the notion of model-based inversion as a modern paradigm for eddycurrent NDE. In particular, we developed models of pitting and corrosion phenomena, and demonstrated a systematic
procedure for removing clutter and inverting eddy-current impedance data in aircraft structures. The data in those
demonstrations were acquired using either drilled holes to simulate corrosion, or by accelerated corrosion tests. In this paper,
we continue the development of model-based inversion, and apply it to problems of relevance to the nuclear power industry.
We have acquired laboratory data for heat-exchanger tubes from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the Naval
Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, and have then developed model-based standards for the inversion of these
data using our proprietary volume-integral code, VIC-3D. The EPRI data are from both round-bottom and elongated ID pit
standards, and are acquired using a standard eddy-current instrument. These data are then transformed into impedance data
for inversion by means of a simple linear transformation that is described in the presentation. The Carderock data, which are
due to a through-wall round hole, are already impedances and do not require this processing step. Results of the inversion
process will be presented.

The EPRI ID Pits Benchmark Test

Figure 1 illustrates the model of the EPRI ID Pits test problem. The parameters of the coil are estimates, only. Each coil is
a bobbin coil, and their individual responses are called absolute. When the two coils are connected in a bridge circuit, they
constitute a differential bobbin, whose response is essentially the derivative of the absolute response. In VIC-3D we simulate
the differential-bobbin response in a post-processing filter, without the need to actually create a physical differential-bobbin
probe with the accompanying bridge circuit, or other circuit that performs the differencing operation. The results of this
section are obtained by means of the simulated differential-bobbin probe.
Calibration standard data are taken at 1 MHz, 800, 700, 600, 500, 400, 300, and 100 kHz in differential and absolute modes
on a series of flaws with 25\%, 50\%, 75\% and 100\% wall loss. The 999-series comprises round bottom pits of 1/16,
3/32 and 1/8 diameters, the 888-series comprises elongated pits 1/32W x 3/16L, the 777-series comprises elongated pits
1/16W x 3/16L, and the 666-series comprises elongated pits 1/32W x 1/8L.
The 999-series is identified in Table 1. We will apply \vic\ to develop model-based `equivalent pillbox standards for this
series at 1 MHz, 800 kHz, 600 kHz, and 400 kHz. By an equivalent pillbox, we mean a truncated right-circular cylinder that
is defined by its diameter and height, and that approximates the true `round-bottom circular pit in a manner to be described
later. We add another standard for a 1/32 inch diameter pit in order to generate at 4 X 4 interpolation table for inverting
data using these model-based standards. Such a table (see Figure 2) will allow us to do up to a third-order (cubic-spline)
interpolation.

208

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2007 [Las Vegas, NV, November 2007]: pp 208-212 Copyright 2007, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Figure 1: Schematic of the EPRI ID pits test problem. The parameters of the coils are estimates only.

Table 1: Labeling the 999-series of round-bottom pits.

209

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2007 [Las Vegas, NV, November 2007]: pp 208-212 Copyright 2007, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Figure 2: A 4 X 4 interpolation table for the 999-series at 1 MHz, 800 kHz, 600 kHz, and
400 kHz. This table will allow up to a third-order (cubic-spline) interpolation.

Scaling the Measured Instrument Data

The measured data are instrument voltages, which means that they must be transformed into impedances in order to be used
as a source for inversion with VIC-3D. We accomplish this by using a general linear filter,
Z = 1(C1+jC2 ) - 2,
relating the impedance, Z , to the voltages, C1 and C2, of instrument channels 1 and 2, respectively.
The four parameters given by the two complex numbers, 1 and 2, are frequency dependent and are determined by fitting
the instrument voltages measured for pit 12 at each frequency to the impedances calculated by VIC-3D for nominal values
of pit 12 dimensions. A value of 2 was found to give a good match between channel data and computed impedances at all
frequencies. Thus, we have a two-parameter transformation that simply scales the complex voltage, C1+jC2 , and rotates it in
the complex plane. These two operations account for the amplification and phase shift that the instrument applies to the probe
signal.

Summary of Multifrequency Results

We consider the inversion of the transformed (scaled) data at all four frequencies, 1 MHz, 800 kHz, 600 kHz and 400 kHz,
first individually, and then collectively in one NLSE run. In the multifrequency run, the data are not normalized to account for
frequency differences. The results are summarized in Table 2.

210

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2007 [Las Vegas, NV, November 2007]: pp 208-212 Copyright 2007, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Table 2: Summary of pillbox model Results. Multi denotes a multifrequency combination of all four frequencies,
using unnormalized data. The sensitivity to the solution of the final (multi) estimates of D and H are also given.

The distribution of pit diameters and depths as listed in Table 2 are compared to the nominal values in Figure 3. It appears
that the mechanism, perhaps a pointed drill bit, that produces the round-bottom of the shallowest pits, namely 1, 5 and 9, does
not allow a fully developed pit to form, and this may account for the smaller than expected diameters of these pits.

211

ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show 2007 [Las Vegas, NV, November 2007]: pp 208-212 Copyright 2007, 2011,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Table 3: Distribution of computated and nominal pit diameters and depth.

212