Sensors 2011, 11, 2525-2565; doi:10.

3390/s110302525
OPEN ACCESS

sensors
ISSN 1424-8220
www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Review

Non-Destructive Techniques Based on Eddy Current Testing

a-Martín 1,2,*, Jaime Gómez-Gil 1 and Ernesto Vázquez-Sánchez 1
Javier Garcí
1
Department of Signal Theory, Communications and Telematic Engineering, University of
Valladolid (UVA), 47011 Valladolid, Spain; E-Mails: [email protected] (J.G.-G.);
[email protected] (E.V.-S.)
2
Ingeniería y Sistemas de Ensayos no Destructivos (ISEND), Ed. Galileo Azul, 103, 47151 P. T.
Boecillo Valladolid, Spain

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected] or

[email protected]; Tel.: +34-620-778-291; Fax: +34-983-423-667.

Received: 5 January 2011; in revised form: 19 January 2011 / Accepted: 9 February 2011 /
Published: 28 February 2011

Abstract: Non-destructive techniques are used widely in the metal industry in order to
control the quality of materials. Eddy current testing is one of the most extensively used
non-destructive techniques for inspecting electrically conductive materials at very high
speeds that does not require any contact between the test piece and the sensor. This paper
includes an overview of the fundamentals and main variables of eddy current testing. It
also describes the state-of-the-art sensors and modern techniques such as multi-frequency
and pulsed systems. Recent advances in complex models towards solving crack-sensor
interaction, developments in instrumentation due to advances in electronic devices, and the
evolution of data processing suggest that eddy current testing systems will be increasingly
used in the future.

Keywords: non-destructive testing; eddy current; magnetic field; sensor; coil probe;
impedance; crack; impedance plane; conductivity

1. Introduction

Non-destructive techniques are used in the metal industry and science in order to evaluate the
properties of a wide variety of materials without causing damage. Some of the most common non-
destructive techniques are electromagnetic, ultrasonic and liquid penetrant testing. One of the
Sensors 2011, 11 2526

conventional electromagnetic methods utilized for the inspection of conductive materials such as
copper, aluminum or steel is eddy current non-destructive testing [1].
Electromagnetic methods such as eddy current, magnetic particle or radiographic and ultrasonic
methods all introduce electromagnetic or sound waves into the inspected material in order to extract its
properties. Penetrant liquid techniques can detect cracks in the test material by using either fluorescent
or non-fluorescent dyes. In addition to these methods, scientists such as Shujuan et al. [2],
Noorian et al. [3] and Aliouane et al. [4] have researched non-destructive testing based on a
combination of electromagnetic and sound waves using electromagnetic acoustic transducers, best
known as EMATs.
The principle of the eddy current technique is based on the interaction between a magnetic field
source and the test material. This interaction induces eddy currents in the test piece [1]. Scientists can
detect the presence of very small cracks by monitoring changes in the eddy current flow [5].
This paper reviews non-destructive eddy current techniques that permit high-speed testing [6] of up
to 150 m/s [7] 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 [8], even if desired, to inspect all production.
Eddy current testing permits crack detection in a large variety of conductive materials, either
ferromagnetic or non-ferromagnetic, whereas other non-destructive techniques such as the magnetic
particle method are limited to ferromagnetic metals. Another advantage of the eddy current method
over other techniques is that inspection can be implemented without any direct physical contact
between the sensor and the inspected piece.
In addition, a wide variety of inspections and measurements may be performed with the eddy
current methods that are beyond the scope of other techniques. Measurements of non-conductive
coating thickness [9] and conductivity can be done. Conductivity is related to the composition and heat
treatment of the test material. Therefore, the eddy current method can also be used to distinguish
between pure materials and alloy compositions and to determine the hardness of test pieces after heat
treatments [8].
Since the 1950s the role of eddy current testing has developed increasingly in the testing of
materials, especially in the aircraft [10] and nuclear industries [11]. The extensive research and
development in highly sensitive eddy current sensors and instruments over the last sixty years indicates
that eddy current testing is currently a widely used inspection technique.
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.
Sensors 2011, 11 2527

2. Principles of Operation of Eddy Current Testing

The objective of this section is to describe the principles of eddy current testing. A transformer
model is presented to demonstrate the fundamentals of eddy current induction and the impedance
changes that occur in coil sensors. After presenting operating principles, we present a block diagram of
the constituent parts of eddy current testing equipment.

2.1. Electromagnetic Induction and Eddy Current Inspection

Every coil is characterized by the impedance parameter which is a complex number defined as
in Equation (1) and which represents the voltage-current ratio ( ) for a single frequency sinusoidal
excitation . Impedance has a magnitude and a phase :

(1)

When an alternating current energizes a coil, it creates a time-varying magnetic field. The magnetic
lines of flux tend to be concentrated at the center of the coil. Eddy current inspection is based on
Faraday’s electromagnetic induction law as demonstrated in Equation (2). Faraday discovered that a
time-varying magnetic induction flux density induces currents in an electrical conductor. The
electromotive force is proportional to the time-rate change of the magnetic induction flux density :

(2)

When an alternating energized coil of impedance approaches an electrically conductive

non-ferromagnetic material, the primary alternating magnetic field penetrates the material and
generates continuous and circular eddy currents. The induced currents flowing within the test piece
generate a secondary magnetic field that tends to oppose the primary magnetic field, as shown in
Figure 1. This opposing magnetic field, coming from the conductive material, has a weakening effect
on the primary magnetic field. In effect, the new imaginary part of the coil impedance decreases
proportionally when the eddy current intensity in the test piece increases [12]. Eddy currents also
contribute to the increasing of the power dissipation of energy that changes the real part of coil
impedance. Measuring this coil impedance variation from to , by monitoring either the voltage or
the current signal, can reveal specific information such as conductivity and chemical composition of
the test piece [13].

Figure 1. Primary and secondary magnetic field. Eddy current on the test piece (adapted from [14]).
Sensors 2011, 11 2528

2.2. Complex Impedance Plane

This subsection describes the coil impedance changes that occur when a coil probe interacts with
materials and presents the normalized impedance plane. When there is no test piece close to the coil
sensor, its impedance is a complex value, as Equation (3) shows:
(3)
where and are the real and the imaginary part of . The component is
proportional to frequency and the induction coefficient .
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 as Equation (4) demonstrates:
(4)
where and represent the real and the imaginary parts of , then is proportional to
frequency and the induction coefficient when a test piece is close to the coil.
Coil impedance is a two-dimensional variable, and the real and imaginary parts can be represented
on an impedance plane. The X-axis plots the real part of impedance, and the Y-axis represents the
imaginary part. Real and imaginary impedance parts of can be redefined as and to obtain
the normalized impedance as Figure 2(a) shows [12,15]. Equation (5) indicates the transformation:

(5)

The normalized real part of the new impedance is 0 when there is no change in the real part of
the impedance. is divided by the imaginary part of the impedance when there is no metal near
the sensor. represents the number of times that the new imaginary part of is bigger or smaller
than the imaginary part when there is no target . To summarize, this transformation means that when
there is no test piece near the coil the new impedance values become and . This point
is called ―air point‖ .

Figure 2. (a) Normalized impedance plane. Lift-off curves and crack displacement at
impedance plane for two values of conductivity P1 and P2 (adapted from [12]). (b) Altered
eddy current flow by a crack on the surface.

Crack

Eddy currents

(a) (b)
Sensors 2011, 11 2529

2.2.1. Non-ferromagnetic Material Approach

When a non-ferromagnetic material of conductivity approaches the coil probe, encircling eddy
currents appear. The displacement of the normalized impedance plane is the line from the air point
to . This is the lift-off line for this material, in which conductivity is . At as eddy
currents create additional power dissipation on the test piece. However, , which means that
. This is the effect of weakening the total field inside the coil core due to the secondary
magnetic field from eddy currents.
If less conductive material ( ) is approached, , the displacement is along another lift-off
line from air point to . Eddy current flow decreases with respect to P1. Thus, the change of
resistivity of the coil is smaller than as . The secondary magnetic field, due to eddy
currents, is not as strong as so that .
When a crack is present in the test piece, it obstructs the eddy current flow, as Figure 2(b)
illustrates. There is a displacement from or . This causes the eddy current path to become longer,
and the secondary magnetic field from the eddy currents is reduced. In conclusion, the real part of
impedance , which is related to eddy current dissipation, decreases , In
addition to that, the sum of the primary magnetic field and secondary magnetic field increases, which
means that the inductive part of impedance increases .
When approaching low conductive materials, differences between the lift-off direction and defect
direction are less significant when compared to point ; therefore, it is more difficult to distinguish
between lift-off and defect indications.

2.2.2. Ferromagnetic Material Approach

When a coil probe is in close proximity to a ferromagnetic material, such as steel or pure iron, the
reactance increases instead of decreases. Ferromagnetic materials, whose magnetic
permeability is greater than the value of non-ferromagnetic materials, concentrate the primary
magnetic field of the coil. The increase in the primary magnetic field overshadows the secondary
magnetic field of the eddy currents. The displacement is from to and occurs in the impedance
semi-plane , as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Impedance plane for ferromagnetic and non-ferromagnetic materials.

Sensors 2011, 11 2530

This demonstrates that the impedance plane is divided into two semi-planes as seen in Figure 3. The
normalized imaginary part of impedance is the operating area of non-ferromagnetic materials.
Lift-off and defects occur in this part of the plane. The normalized imaginary part of impedance
is the half part of the plane in which ferromagnetic materials occur.
When a crack appears, it produces the same impedance effects as non-ferromagnetic materials. A
decrease in power dissipation and an increase in the imaginary part of the impedance
occur.

2.3. Eddy Current Transformer Model

The transformer model of Figure 4 presents a diagram of the basic probe-flaw interaction. Some
authors such as Placko et al. and Peng et al. have proposed this model to explain what occurs when the
space between a coil probe and a test piece varies [12,16]. The primary circuit, whose impedance is the
ratio , represents the coil sensor. The secondary circuit represents the test piece. The real
impedance represents the resistance of the loops described by the flow of eddy currents. The
resistor is consequently proportional to the resistivity of the test piece. The imaginary term
represents the leakage inductance of the circuit. Finally, the coupling coefficient is linked to the
distance between the sensor and the test piece. The coefficient decreases when the distance increases.

Figure 4. Model of coil-target interaction based on a transformer (adapted from [12]).

The following Equations (6) and (7) are obtained from Kirchhoff’s Voltage Law to describe the
transformer in Figure 4:
(6)
(7)
where the pulsation is related to frequency as , and are the resistance and
inductance of the primary coil when no test piece is near the coil, and are respectively the
resistance and inductance of the induced eddy current loop and and are the
mutual inductance between the two loops.
When there is no test piece near the coil sensor, the coupling factor is zero and the measured
impedance is of the primary circuit as presented in Equation (1). When a conductive test piece is
approached, the complex impedance of the primary circuit becomes as formulated in Equation (8):

(8)
Sensors 2011, 11 2531

The inductance and resistivity of the primary circuit can be identified from Equation (8) as
demonstrated in Equations (9) and (10) respectively. The equivalent inductance decreases due to the
induced eddy currents. In contrast, the resistivity increases:

(9)

(10)

From Equation (8) the normalized real and imaginary parts of impedance and are presented
in Equations (11) and (12) [12,16]:

(11)

(12)

Assuming that , and 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 changes.

2.4. Magnetic Field Sensors for Eddy Current Testing

These non-destructive techniques need to pick up the magnetic flux from eddy currents. Many
important developments have been made in magnetic sensors during the past 60 years [17]. Novkovski
has researched the recent progress of state-of-the-art magnetic field sensors such as inductive coils,
fluxgate magnetometers, proton precession magnetometers, superconducting quantum interference
devices SQUID, Hall effect devices and magnetoresistors [17]. Nowadays, the trend in magnetometer
development is toward miniaturization, and researchers are looking for new ways to reduce the size of
these sensors. Section 4 reviews the most common, state-of-the-art sensors used in eddy current
testing.
The magnetic field is the result of distributed currents and the distribution of ferromagnetic
materials around the sensor [17]. In regions where no currents flow, the induction field is the gradient
of a potential that satisfies Laplace’s Equation (13) [18]:
, , (13)
Some authors such as Backus consider a two-dimensional vector field defined in some open
subset of the Euclidean plane where [19]. The field has real and
imaginary components, as Equation (14) demonstrates:
(14)
Sensors 2011, 11 2532

Determining the real and imaginary components of has several applications. For instance, by
measuring the field on a grid of points, it is possible to reconstruct the currents [17]. This is an inverse
problem which is solved in many non-destructive tests [17].

2.5. Elements of a Basic Inspection System

Figure 5 presents a block diagram of analog eddy current equipment. It includes a single tone
generator which energizes the test coil sensor. Phase, frequency and amplitude can be adjusted to
optimum parameters for the test pieces. When a crack occurs, the coil impedance experiences a
change. The defect signal modulates the tone from the oscillator. A quadrature amplitude demodulator
extracts the defect signal caused by the impedance variation. The demodulator outputs are X-axis and
Y-axis signals. Each component represents the real and imaginary parts of the impedance respectively.
These signals can be filtered and analyzed.

Figure 5. Block diagram of an analog eddy current system.

The voltage signals, which represent the impedance changes in the inspection coil, can be displayed
on a XY plot. Figure 6 illustrates a typical loop of an impedance plane on a XY plot when a flawed
tube is inspected using a differential coil probe. Most eddy current systems permit configuring of
alarms on an XY plot to distinguish between flawed or unflawed test pieces. Alarm events can activate
analog or digital outputs. In addition, modern eddy current equipment usually has digital inputs such as
test piece presence or encoder connectors to start testing or to measure the speed of inspected bars or
tubes respectively.
Sensors 2011, 11 2533

Figure 6. (a) Typical loop of a complex impedance plane of a differential probe inside a
tube affected by a flaw (adapted from [13]). (b) Real and imaginary part of impedance
change vs. time (adapted from [13]).

(a) (b)

3. Main Variables of Eddy Current Testing

This section discusses the main variables of eddy current inspection. These variables include the
electrical conductivity and the magnetic permeability of the test piece, lift-off between the coil sensor
and the inspected piece, the coil fill factor for encircling probes, the edge effect, the skin effect of
current distribution in the test piece, the phase lag and the signal to noise ratio. The last subsection
overviews the relation between the equivalence model of eddy current sensors and their applications.

3.1. Electrical Conductivity of the Test piece

Materials have a characteristic resistance to the flow of electricity which is characterized with the
magnitude electrical conductivity σ or its inverse resistivity . Conductivity is crucial in eddy
current inspection.
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 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 [20]. Stress can be
measured based on the changes in the impedance of an electromagnetic coil as Figure 7(a,b)
shows [21]. The impedance change occurs due to variations in the electrical conductivity and the
magnetic permeability of the test piece.
Sensors 2011, 11 2534

Figure 7. (a) Resistance as a function of mechanical stress (adapted from [21]).

(b) Inductance as a function of mechanical stress (adapted from [21]).
24.2 1.66
24.0 Loading 1.64 Loading
23.8 Unloading 1.62 Unloading

23.6 1.60

LS/mH
23.4 1.58
RS/Ω

23.2 1.56
23.0 1.54
22.8 1.52
22.6 1.50
22.4 1.48
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
σ/MPa σ/MPa
(a) (b)

Heat treatments cause variations of hardness, which are related to conductivity, as Figure 8
illustrates. Eddy currents can detect when pieces have received a heat treatment as well as the severity
of the treatment. The eddy current testing can also characterize grain size changes after thermal
treatment based on conductivity and magnetic permeability changes [22]. As Figure 9 shows, the
hardness is inversely proportional to the grain size [22].

Figure 8. Variation of aluminum conductivity with heat treatment (adapted from [23]).

Figure 9. (a) Grain size versus exposure time, 20NC6 steel (adapted from [22]).
(b) Hardness (Brinell) versus exposure time, 20NC6 steel (adapted from [22]).

Grain size (μm) 250 Hardness (HB)

40
30 240
230
20
220
10 210
0 200
00:00 01:30 03:00 04:30 06:00 00:00 01:30 03:00 04:30 06:00
Exposure time (hours) Exposure time (hours)

(a) (b)
Sensors 2011, 11 2535

Some authors have published papers related to the conductivity of the test piece, as it is one of the
most important variables in eddy current testing. Shao et al. presented a method for the reconstruction
of conductivity profiles from eddy current impedance change data [24]. This is an inverse problem
which solves the conductivity profile of the material from the electrical signal obtained in the eddy
current inspection. On the other hand, other authors such as Uzal et al. have published numerical and
analytical methods for computing the coil impedance when arbitrary radial conductivity changes occur
in the test piece [25].

3.2. Magnetic Permeability

Magnetic permeability µ is a number that quantifies the degree of magnetic induction B of materials
when a magnetic field H is applied, as shown in Equation (15):
(15)
Magnetic permeability µ is a scalar in isotropic mediums. Free space has a characteristic
permeability constant . In many instances, the permeability of materials is expressed as relative
permeability in respect of free space as Equation (16) shows:
; where (16)
Materials can be classified by their magnetic properties which strongly affect the eddy current
testing. The most common classification of materials depending on their magnetic response is
presented below:
 Firstly, paramagnetic materials, such as aluminum, are softly attracted to magnetic fields and,
hence, have a relative magnetic permeability slightly greater than one, .
 Secondly, diamagnetic materials like copper and lead create a magnetic field in opposition to an
externally applied magnetic field, thus causing a softly repulsive effect. Magnetic permeability
is less than ; therefore, the relative permeability is a bit less than one, .
 The third group of this classification is formed by ferromagnetic materials such as iron, nickel,
cobalt and some of their alloys. These materials are strongly attracted by magnetic fields and
concentrate the flux of magnetic fields. Their relative permeability is much greater than one
. One hundred or two hundred are typical values of relative permeability.
Figure 10 shows two magnetization curves of unannealed and annealed steel and plots the relation
between B and H fields [26]. The relationship between H and B is not linear and presents hysteresis in
ferromagnetic materials. The curve may be divided into two parts divided by the knee of the curve.
The first part of the curve has the greater slope, and the second part has the smaller slope [27].
Saturation state is reached when the increase of H causes very little increase in B, as Figure 10
indicates.
High magnetic permeability makes the standard penetration depth decrease. In order to compensate
for this effect and explore the material internally, ferromagnetic materials are inspected at lower
frequencies than non-ferromagnetic ones.
Sensors 2011, 11 2536

Ferromagnetic materials have a characteristic property, which is a high permeability variation that
presents particular difficulties when testing eddy current flow [28]. The following subsection explains
this phenomenon.

Figure 10. B-H curve in high nickel steel (adapted from [26]).

3.2.1. Magnetization of Ferromagnetic Materials

Large variability in magnetic permeability is a characteristic of ferromagnetic materials. This

permeability variation strongly influences the eddy current flow. However, eddy current tests can also
be applied to ferromagnetic materials, as the conductivity changes when a crack is close to the coil
probe.
The disadvantage of inspecting magnetic materials is that permeability changes generally have a
much greater effect on eddy current response than conductivity variations. This heterogeneity means
that crack detection is not possible when permeability changes randomly. The equalization of the
permeability is often related to how the test piece was manufactured [28]. The heterogeneity of
permeability for cast iron is stronger than that of carbon steel [28].
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 [29].
The solution allowing the accuracy of the measurement of ferromagnetic materials is a process that
equalizes permeability [28], such as a magnetization by means of a saturating direct-current coil.
Saturated materials have a constant magnetic permeability and can be inspected with greatly reduced
influence on permeability variations. The test piece must be adjacent to the magnetizer coil. The
magnetization current must be sufficiently strong enough to produce magnetic saturation. Furthermore,
ferromagnetic materials can be magnetized randomly due to industrial processes which present
difficulties in eddy current testing. Research has been conducted in order to explore magnetizing
systems for eddy current inspection. For example, Kasai et al. have used magnetization to cancel
external magnetism [30].

3.3. Lift-Off

The lift-off is the impedance change that occurs when there is variation in the distance between the
inspection coil probe and the test piece. The lift-off variations can be caused by varying coating
thicknesses, irregular sample surfaces or the operator’s movements [31]. The magnetic field is stronger
close to the coil, so lift-off is stronger near the probe. In many applications, eddy current
Sensors 2011, 11 2537

measurements are adversely affected by lift-off [32]. Lift-off is considered a noise source and it is
undesirable in defect detection. Lift-off could occur in the same direction as the crack, thereby
concealing the crack response. Therefore, the distance between the probe and metal must be as
constant as possible in order to avoid lift-off.
At the normalized impedance plane of Figure 11, the lift-off curves start at the air point , when
there is no test piece. In this case, air point is instead of as discussed in the previous section
because a different transformation in the Y-axis has been used as shown in Equation (17). Air point
corresponds to and therefore the normalized imaginary part is null :

(17)

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 [33].

Figure 11. Lift-off in steps of 0.1 mm (triangle) and tilt in steps of 10 (round) for a
normalized impedance plane (adapted from [33]).

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 [34]. Figure 12 illustrates the offset
position of the tube inside the bobbin coils.
Sensors 2011, 11 2538

Figure 12. Wobble simulation: a bobbin coil in an offset position to a tube (adapted from [34]).
z
y
x0
r
x0
φ
x φ/
l
r/ x
r1
r2 R0
R1
R2

There are methods for lift-off compensation when eddy currents are used in order to detect cracks
and lift-off becomes an undesired variable. For instance, Yin et al. researched dual excitation
frequencies and coil design to minimize the lift-off effect [32]. Research into processing data is also
conducted, with a view to minimizing the lift-off effect. Lopez et al. proposed the use of wavelets to
remove eddy current probe wobble noise from steam generator tubes [35]. Reduction of the lift-off
effect has also been attempted by optimizing the coil design [36] and sensor array.
Authors such as Gui Yun et al. have researched the reduction of lift-off effects via normalization
techniques [31]. 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.

Figure 13. Diagram block using normalization to reduce lift-off effect (adapted from [31]).

Ref. signal 1 (no Ref. singal 2 Ref. signal 1 (no

Defect Signal samples from a good samples
present) sample present)

Subtraction Subtraction

Normalization Subtraction Normalization

Output

The first stage was aimed to reduce the lift-off effect and used the first reference signal
obtained when the probe was in the air. By doing so, they created a newly derived defect signal
that was relatively free of lift-off variation as Equation (18) shows:

(18)

where the defect signal is , and is the number of sampled data for each signal.
Sensors 2011, 11 2539

The second stage was to work out the crack information. They used a second reference signal
, which was obtained from a good sample part. They also derived the normalized reference
signal as Equation (19) shows:

(19)

Finally, a new differential signal was worked out as Equation (20) indicates. The authors obtained a
significant lift-off reduction:
(20)

3.4. Fill Factor

Fill factor is a number which measures how well the test piece fills the coil in external encircling
probes. It can be calculated as Equation (21) demonstrates:

(21)

where is the test piece diameter and is the diameter of the coil probe,
assuming that both diameters are measured in the same units.
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:

(22)

where is the outer diameter of the coil probe and is the inner
diameter of the test piece, assuming that both diameters are measured in the same units.

3.5. Edge Effect

Edge effect is a phenomenon that occurs when an inspection coil is at the end of the test piece. In
these instances, eddy current flow is distorted as currents cannot flow at the edge. So, in order to avoid
the confusion with flaws, inspection is limited near edges. The distance where the edge effect is
present is from approximately one to three times the diameter of the inspection coil in the case of
encircling probes. So a reduction in coil size reduces the edge effect, although there is a limit, as the
diameter of external encircling coils must be higher than that of the inspected materials.
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 [37]. 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.
Sensors 2011, 11 2540

3.6. Frequency and Skin Effect

Frequency inspection in eddy current testing is crucial to detecting flaws. When fixing a frequency,
the initial coil impedance is adjusted. When inspection frequency is increased, the imaginary part
of the impedance is increased as Equation (23) demonstrates:
(23)
where is the inductive reactance of the coil in ohms (Ω), is the test frequency in Hertz
(Hz) and 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 the unitary vector along X axis and is the magnitude of density current as function of
depth and time . Equation (25) shows the phasor of the current density along depth (Z axis) [38]:

(25)

where is the maximum current density at surface and is depth. The standard penetration depth
is the depth at which the eddy-current density decreases to a level of about 37% of its surface value.
The term is the phase at and and is the phase lag. Equation (26) demonstrates the
current density as a real signal [38]. This equation is extracted from Equation (25) taking the real part.
It reveals that the current density phase varies 1 radian when the distance traveled from the surface is :

(26)

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 [38]:

(27)

where is the standard depth of penetration in meters, is the conductivity in , is the

magnetic permeability and . The testing frequency is in Hz. Resistivity is the
reciprocal of conductivity . As an example, Figure 14 illustrates the electromagnetic field
penetration inside aluminum at two different frequencies (200 Hz and 10 kHz) [38]. Typical values of
standard penetration depth for pure aluminum are 5.99 mm at 200 Hz and 0.847 mm at 10 KHz.
Sensors 2011, 11 2541

Figure 14. Electromagnetic field penetration inside pure aluminum at frequencies of

200 Hz and 10 KHz (adapted from [38]).
Jx(z,t0)/J0max
0
δ2
2δ2 3δ
2
0.005

δ1
0.01
e-δ/z
e-δ/z
0.015
2δ1
0.02

Z(m)
0.025
-1 -0,5 0 0.5 1

Equation (27) demonstrates that low frequency tests increase the standard depth of penetration and
are more suitable for inspecting subsurface flaws. Some authors have researched the detection of
subsurface defects, including Ramos et al. regarding the characterization of depth profiles of
subsurface defects in aluminum plates [38].
Skin effect is also a limiting factor of increasing frequency as desired. The thickness of the
inspected material must be two or three times the standard depth of penetration to prevent the eddy
current flow from appearing on the other side of the test piece.
Typical inspection frequencies in eddy current testing are in the range of 100 Hz–10 MHz. Most
authors such as Ditchburn et al. [39] and Thollon et al. [15] 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 [40].
Low frequency tests are commonly used in the inspection of ferromagnetic materials to compensate
for their high permeability and penetrate into the test piece. On the other hand, the inspection of small
discontinuities occurring in the near-surface region is recommended at high frequency to maximize
eddy current flow at the surface.
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.

3.6.1. Multi-frequency Techniques

Multi-frequency techniques are widely used in non-destructive eddy current testing.

Multi-frequency testing operates at two or more test frequencies. Multi-frequency techniques expand
the capabilities of single-frequency testing and save time since they allow simultaneous tests.
Multi-frequency testing is also applied to cancel out undesired signals in order to improve the
signal-to noise ratio [41].
Sensors 2011, 11 2542

The multi-frequency process uses a composite signal and subtracts the undesirable signal. Noise
sources that can be minimized are probe lift-off, temperature variation, and geometrical changes in the
material [41].
Multi-frequency techniques are usually accomplished by combining the results obtained at different
frequencies in the spatial domain. For instance, the authors Liu et al. proposed a pyramid fusion
method to integrate two-dimensional spatial domain with multi-frequency injection [41]. A
signal-to-noise ratio criterion was adopted to evaluate the fusion results which demonstrated the
potential of signal enhancement via fusion strategy.
Other authors combined raster scanning and multi-frequency techniques. Raster scanning produces
images of the impedance or impedance changes over a two-dimensional (2-D) surface. These acquired
images are complex values because the impedance produces complex data. Image processing
techniques can be applied to detect cracks using eddy current testing. Bartels et al. have proposed a
multi-frequency eddy current image processing technique for the non-destructive evaluation of
materials [42]. 2-D eddy current testing generated a sequence of complex valued images which were
linearly combined to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio SNR of features of interest. This technique
consisted of a selection of weights for a linear combination of the images as shown in
Equation (28) [42]:

(28)

where is the linear combination of images, is the number of test frequencies and
, , , … are extracted from the 2-D
images , … . Results on experimental data demonstrate SNR improvement up to 1100
percent over traditional two-frequency techniques.

3.6.2. Pulsed Eddy Current Testing

Conventional eddy-current equipment employs a single sinusoidal excitation. These systems are
strongly limited by the depth of penetration of eddy currents. Therefore, conventional systems are
useful for detecting surface and near-surface cracks up to a depth of a few millimeters below the
surface [43]. A solution to increase the subsurface testing is to reduce the operational frequency in
order to increase the standard skin depth. However, in many cases the signal-to-noise ratio is reduced,
as Faraday’s voltage law states that the induced voltage in coil sensors is proportional to the rate of
change of the magnetic field.
In contrast to the conventional eddy-current instrument, pulsed instruments generate square,
triangular or a saw tooth waveform [44]. These waveforms have a broad spectrum of frequencies;
hence, pulsed eddy current testing techniques provide more information than traditional eddy current
testing methods that can be used for the detection and characterization of hidden corrosion and
cracking [45]. The data at different frequencies can be correlated to obtain the defect depth.
Pulsed eddy current instruments are classically implemented with one double-function coil or two
separate coils formed by a transmitter and a receiver coil. Some authors such as Dolabdjian et al.
employed a high-performance giant magnetoresistance magnetometer instead of the receiver coil [46].
Sensors 2011, 11 2543

Pulsed eddy current systems rival single or multifrequency testing, since the advantage of a
transient system is that the response contains as much information as an entire spectrum of
frequency-domain excitations [46]. The performance of defect classification using the pulsed
technique is better than the conventional method [47].
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 [48, 49]. 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 [50]. A Hilbert transform can also be computed to extract a new descending
point feature of the received pulses [51].
Some authors have conducted research into pulsed eddy-current techniques. Many years ago, in
1969, Waidelich et al. researched the attenuation of a pulsed field by a conducting sheet [52]. They
investigated how to increase the spatial resolution by putting the coil probe in a copper enclosure with
a small aperture. Other authors such as Guang et al. presented a system for the inspection of aircraft
structures [43]. 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.

Figure 15. (a) Schematic of the multi-line coil for inducing linear eddy currents (adapted
from [43]). (b) Induced eddy current flow in the absence and presence of rivet and cracked
rivet (adapted from [43]).

(a) (b)

Other researchers such as Abidin et al. studied the influence of duty cycle in pulses testing rivet
joints [53]. Figure 16(a) shows different pulse width excitations, and Figure 16(b) shows spectrum
distribution. Wider pulses are richer in low-frequency components compared to narrower pulses that
are dominated by high-frequency components.
Sensors 2011, 11 2544

Figure 16. (a) Excitation current input with varied pulse width (adapted from [53]).
(b) Spectrum distribution under different pulse widths (adapted from [53]).

(a) (b)

3.7. The Phase Lag

The phase lag is the parameter that permits the user to obtain information regarding the depth of a
defect within a material. The phase lag is represented by the term in Equation (29) [38].
The phase lag represents the shift in phase between the defects on the surface and defects at
distance from the surface:

(29)

The phase lag depends linearly with depth . When the defect is at one standard depth of
penetration , the phase lag is . When it is at two standard depths of
penetration , the lag occurs at 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.

3.8. Signal-to-Noise Ratio

The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is a parameter that quantifies the number of times that the signal
amplitude from the response to a crack is greater than the signal amplitude of the background noise.
Noise sources limit eddy current testing. 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.
Sensors 2011, 11 2545

Another way to minimize noise is filtering. Filtering is possible if the perturbation is not in the pass
band of the desired signal. Also, if there is phase difference between defects and the noise source, then
phase discrimination techniques 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.
Coil size is also crucial in order to obtain a high-level signal for crack detection. It is crucial that the
fill-factor is close to one in the case of encircling coil probes, and it is also crucial that the coil size is
similar to the crack size. Some authors such as Grimberg et al. [54] take the coil size into account.
Another technique used to maximize the SNR is magnetization. As explained in the previous
section, direct current magnetization minimizes the effect of permeability variations in ferromagnetic
materials.
The last proposed method to improve the SNR is the selection of the most suitable sensor, as every
sensor has limitations in sensitivity and noise level. In some applications, the magnetic field levels are
so low that standard coil probes cannot be used to detect them. In these instances special
magnetometers such as superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUID) are sensitive to
extremely low field levels. SQUIDs have been used in eddy current testing for 30 years [55]. However,
the disadvantage of SQUIDs is that they require a cryostat to maintain them at very low temperatures.

3.9. Equivalence Model of Eddy Current Coil Sensors for Applications

This subsection presents a review of the equivalence model of eddy current sensors and its relation
to applications. Eddy current testing uses the electromagnetic properties of materials that depend on
their composition, microstructure and the applied and residual stresses [22]. These properties are
measured via the impedance described in Section 2, which is a function of lift-off, target
conductivity , target magnetic permeability and the eddy current frequency as Equation (31)
shows:
(30)
Some authors such as Tian et al. have researched the influence of the heterogeneity of the test
piece in eddy current sensors [28]. When measuring one of these variables, such as lift-off, in
Equation (30), conductivity and permeability variations of the test piece are noise sources that
influence the test. When frequency is high enough, the approximation shown in Equation (31) can be
done [28]:

(31)

Increasing the excitation frequency can suppress the influence of the non-equalization of the
conductivity of the test piece as .The heterogeneity in non-ferromagnetic metals such as
aluminum and copper due to conductivity variations is much lower than that in ferromagnetic metals,
Sensors 2011, 11 2546

since the conductivity for aluminum and copper is much smaller than those of steel and cast iron which
allow the approximation of to be more true.
The effect of magnetic permeability heterogeneity in non-ferromagnetic targets is much less than
the heterogeneity of ferromagnetic targets. The measuring accuracy of non-ferromagnetic targets can
be higher than that of ferromagnetic targets.
With regard to microstructure, Mercier et al. used eddy currents to evaluate steel decarburizing in
the austenitization process [8]. Decarburizing can change the microstructure and the mechanical
properties of steel. Changes in electrical conductivity and magnetic permeability occur in the
decarburized surface.
Zergoug et al. analyzed the relation between mechanical micro-hardness and impedance variations
in eddy current testing [22]. The characterization of the microstructure modifications due to heat
treatment and corrosion by eddy currents permitted the measuring of mechanical and metallurgical
parameters of materials.
In ferromagnetic materials, the use of a low frequency provides a good impedance resolution. The
most significant result in the case of ferromagnetic materials characterization is the relationship
between the electric and magnetic parameters and the hardness and the grain size. The hardness is
inversely proportional to the grain size.
Schoenekess et al. detected tensile stress alterations in prestressing steel using eddy current
testing [56]. Changes in mechanical stress shift the electrical conductivity and magnetic permeability
of the material and are always very small, typically less than 1% [57]. Temperature compensation of
the entire measurement system was absolutely necessary to minimize measurement errors.

4. Sensors

There are many types of magnetic sensors for non-destructive evaluation such as solenoid coil
probes, superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) and Hall-effect and magnetoresistive
sensors. This section presents these types of sensors and includes the most recent research of authors in
sensor design.

4.1. Coil Probes

Coil probes are the most widely used sensors in eddy current inspection. This subsection presents a
discussion regarding different coil probe types, the most important parameters in coil probes and the
circuitry used to pick up signals.

4.1.1. Coil Probe Types

Different coil probe structures are available to detect a large variety of cracks. In general, coil
probes provide high crack sensitivity when eddy current flow is strongly altered by discontinuities.

Encircling Coil Probes

The most widely-used probes encircle the test piece in eddy current testing. These probes are
commonly used to test bars or tubes either externally or internally and are shown in Figures 17(a,c).
Sensors 2011, 11 2547

Encircling coils are sensitive to parallel discontinuities to the axis of the tube or bar as eddy currents
describe radial circumferences in an opposing sense of currents around the energized coil current, as
shown in Figure 17(b). Internal encircling coil probes permit internal testing of tubes. These types of
probes are introduced using a guidance system which incorporates an encoder to locate the cracks by
measuring the distance from the tube edge to the defect. Internal encircling probes usually test heat
exchanger tubing at power plants at a constant rate of speed. Figure 17(c) shows an internal coil probe
for ferromagnetic inspection [58].

Figure 17. (a) External encircling-type coil for tube or bar inspection. (b) Eddy currents
flow in an external encircling-type coil. (c) Internal encircling-type coil for tube inspection
(adapted from [58]).

(a) (b) (c)

The standard section of encircling probes is circular. In addition to that, special profile encircling
probes are designed for researchers and manufacturers to control surface and sub-surface defects in
products with special profiles and shapes [59].

Pancake-Type Probes

Pancake-type probes are coils whose axis is perpendicular to the surface of the test piece. Pancake
probes can be either air-core coils or ferrite-core coils. Ferrites have high permeability and the initial
coil impedance is higher than the permeability of air-core coils. Pancake-type probes are very sensitive
to lift-off and inclination with respect to the flat surface. Theodoulidis evaluated the influence of tilted
coils in eddy current testing [33].

Figure 18. (a) Pancake-type coil probe and eddy current flow (adapted from [24]).
(b) Rotating eddy current testing (adapted from [60]).

(a) (b)
Sensors 2011, 11 2548

These types of sensors are used in flat surface inspection. The eddy currents on the test piece are
circumferences parallel to the surface as Figure 18(a) illustrates. When a penetrating crack occurs on
the surface, current flow is strongly altered and the crack can be detected. Pancake-type coil probes are
not suitable for detecting laminar flaws as currents flow parallel to the surface and they are not
strongly distorted.
Pancake-type probes can be used in either manual or automatic eddy current testing. Manual probes
are designed especially for testing the surface defects of parts that require supervision and are
particularly suitable for the maintenance of aeronautic parts. Pancake-type probes can also
automatically detect longitudinal cracks in tubes or bars using a rotating system. The eddy current
probe rotates at a high speed around the test material, which is moved longitudinally, and scans its
surface helically as Figure 18(b) illustrates [60].

Other Eddy Current Probes

Other probes that are used in eddy current testing are segment probes, horseshoe-shaped coil
probes, spiral coil probes and coil probe arrays.
Segment probes are used for the detection and control of defects in the weld seam of welded
pipes [59]. 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 [12]. 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.

Figure 19. (a) Horseshoe-shaped coil probe (adapted from [12]). (b) Drawing of a 10-turn
circular spiral coil (adapted from [39]). (c) Coil matrix (adapted from [61]).

(a) (b) (c)

Sensors 2011, 11 2549

Some authors have tested spiral coils in eddy current testing. Ditchburn et al., for instance,
presented the detection of long cracks in steel using the probe shown in Figure 19(b) [39]. Eddy
currents describe circumferences on the test piece surface. The authors asserted that spiral coils offered
attractive features in terms of sensitivity. Arrays of coils create electromagnetic eyes used in eddy
current testing as Figure 19(c) illustrates. Coil matrices permit 2D image extraction and the use of
image processing techniques. The space resolution depends on the coil size and can be increased via
miniaturization as Zaoui et al. published [62]. Other authors such as Stander et al. used matrix coils to
test green-state metal powder compacts [61].

4.1.2. Double-function Probes vs. Separate-function Probes

This subsection presents two types of probes: double-function and separate-function probes.
On the one hand, double-function probes, also called reflection probes, use the same coil or the
same coils to generate eddy current flow in the test piece and to receive the secondary field from the
eddy currents. Figure 20(a) shows a double-function probe formed by a single coil.

Figure 20. (a) Double-function single coil probe. (b) Differential separated function probe.

(a) (b)

On the other hand, separate-function probes do not use the same coils to generate eddy current and
to pick up the secondary field as Figure 20(b) shows. The primary coil can be specially designed to
create eddy current flow. Secondary coils are made small to receive the secondary field from eddy
currents with enough sensitivity [63]. The advantage of separate-function probes is that the coil design
can be optimized. Primary coil impedance can be adjusted to produce a strong and uniform primary
magnetic field by adjusting parameters such as coil diameter, wire diameter and number of turns.
Secondary coils can be designed to pick up the maximum secondary field by minimizing noise sources
and adapting the coil size to the crack size. Four combinations can be created as double or separate-
function probes, which can be absolute or differential. The following subsection permits a better
understanding of these configurations.
Sensors 2011, 11 2550

4.1.3. Absolute-Mode Probe

The simplest absolute probes consist of a single coil that generates eddy currents and senses
changes from the eddy current field as Figure 21(a) shows. Absolute probes provide an absolute
voltage signal as Figure 21(b) illustrates. The disadvantage of these coil probes is their high sensitivity
to temperature variations.

Figure 21. (a) Non-compensated absolute encircling coil probe. (b) Absolute signal from
non-compensated absolute encircling coil probe when a cracked bar is tested.

(a) (b)

Absolute-mode probes may have a voltage compensation using an additional reference coil that is
far from the inspected material as Figure 22 illustrates. A null voltage signal is measured when there is
no defect which increases the instrument’s dynamic range. Furthermore, they are less sensitive to
temperature changes than non-compensated probes.

Figure 22. Compensated absolute encircling coil probe.

Absolute probes detect long flaws or slow dimensional variations in tubes or bars, which differential
probes cannot detect. In addition to crack detection, the absolute change in impedance of the coil probe
provides much information about the test material such as grain size, hardness and stress measurement.

4.1.4. Differential-Mode Probe

Differential probes consist of two coils that compare two adjacent parts of the inspected material as
Figure 23(a) and Figure 23(b) show. The detecting coils are wound in the opposite directions to one
another in order to equalize the induced voltages originated by the excitation primary field as
Sensors 2011, 11 2551

Figure 23(a) illustrates [63]. The output voltage of the differential coil probe is zero when there is no
crack inside the probe as Figure 23(c) illustrates [6]. Cracks in the test material, which moves at a
constant speed, alter the balance, and two pulses in the voltage signal are detected as Figure 23(c)
shows.

Figure 23. (a) Differential double-function encircling coil. (b) Differential double-function
pancake-type coil. (c) Signal from differential coil probe.

(a) (b)

(c)

Differential coils have the advantage of being able to detect very small discontinuities. However,
differential coils do no detect gradual dimensional or composition variations of the test piece, as the
coils are typically very close.
Many authors have attempted to improve differential coil probes in terms of crack sensitivity.
Peng et al., for instance, presented a new differential sensor composed of double gradient winding
coils [16]. Others like Bae et al. used a differential probe in hot wire testing [6].

4.1.5. Crack-Probe Interaction Models

Many authors have researched models of crack-probe interaction that contribute to the development
of optimized probes. These scientists typically distinguish between forward and inverse solutions for
the probe-crack problem.
On the one hand, the forward solution consists in predicting the impedance or voltage of the
eddy-current probe coil when the cracked piece is tested by a probe [64]. Some authors have published
models for obtaining the forward solution. For instance, Skarlatos et al. presented a model to solve the
forward problem in cracked ferromagnetic metal tubes [58]. Others like La et al. proposed a parametric
model to estimate the impedance change caused by a flaw using the electromagnetic quasi-static
approach [64]. Bowler et al. solved the harmonic functions of the Laplace equation to calculate the
impedance change of the excitation coil inspecting aluminum and steel [65].
Sensors 2011, 11 2552

On the other hand, the inverse solution determines the type and size of cracks from the electric
signal of eddy currents. Some authors have published papers solving the inverse problem. For
example, Uzal et al. used a recursive Bayesian estimation method to extract the properties of the test
piece [25], and Tamburrino et al. applied communications theory [66].

4.1.6. Conventional and Transmission Eddy Current Method

Sometimes authors use the terms conventional and transmission method. The conventional method,
which is the most widely used, consists of positioning the exciting and pick-up coils in the same side
of the inspected material as Figure 24(a) shows [32]. The transmission method is for separate-function
probes and consists in positioning the pick-up coil on the other side of the magnetic source as
Figure 24(b) illustrates. The transmission method needs a maximum thickness of the test material
of 3–5 times the standard penetration depth to be able to receive the signal in the pick-up coil.

Figure 24. (a) Conventional eddy current method (adapted from [32]). (b) Transmission
eddy current method.

(a) (b)

4.1.7. Coil Probe Circuitry

This subsection describes how to energize coil probes for eddy current testing. The simplest method
for connecting an absolute coil probe is to use the RL circuit to measure the voltage , as Figure 25(a)
illustrates, although this configuration has the disadvantage of being sensitive to temperature changes.

Figure 25. (a) Resistor-coil probe polarization. (b) Separate-function coil probe
polarization (adapted from [54]).

(a) (b)
Sensors 2011, 11 2553

The most widely used circuitry for eddy current coil sensors is the bridge mode, which can be
balanced or unbalanced depending on the probe type. Non-compensated absolute coil probes can be
polarized in serial connection with a resistor in one leg, as Figure 26(a) shows, and a balancing
impedance network formed by and in the other leg. The voltage differences are measured
between the two legs . The balancing network permits the use of the entire range of the instrument
with respect the single RL circuit. The disadvantage of this configuration is that it is also not
compensated with regard to temperature, as the coil probe and impedances and have different
temperature coefficients.

Figure 26. (a) Unbalanced bridge connection. (b) Balanced bridge connection.

(a) (b)

Compensated absolute coil probes can be polarized in both legs of the bridge in order to balance it
as Figure 26(b) illustrates. The system has the advantage of being temperature compensated.
The circuitry for separate-function differential probes is commonly done by connecting the primary
circuit using an RL circuit. The secondary pick-up coils may be connected directly to the input of a
differential amplifier.
Not many authors have published on the coil connection. However, Grimberg et al. explained how
they energized the coils as Figure 25(b) illustrates [54]. 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.

4.2. Magnetoresistive Sensors

Magnetoresistive sensors are magnetic field transducers that exhibit a linear change in electrical
resistance under an external magnetic field [67]. Magnetoresistive sensors are highly sensitive and
accurate, but the main disadvantage of them is the high temperature coefficient [17]. Germano et al.
presented transference curves for two types of magnetoresistive sensors: spin-valve (SV) and magnetic
tunnel junction (MTJ) sensors [67].
SV magnetometers are spin-valve transistors used as magnetic field sensors and have a
ferromagnet–semiconductor hybrid structure [17]. The magnetic tunnel junctions are based on a spin
dependent tunneling effect [17]. Two transfer curves of these magnetoresistive sensors are shown in
Figure 27, which demonstrates that resistance decreases when the field strength increases.
Magnetoresistive sensors can be used in non-destructive evaluation to detect the secondary field
from eddy currents. Some researchers such as Ramos et al. [38]. and Yamada et al. [68] use these
Sensors 2011, 11 2554

types of sensors Yamada et al. used an SV-GMR sensor whose operating range of magnetic field
density was from nT to mT. The sensor provided high sensitivity over frequencies up to 100 MHz and
high spatial resolution due to the minizaturation [68].

Figure 27. Microphotography and transfer curve of two types of magnetoresistive sensors:
(a) Spin-valve in a linear array (adapted from [67]). (b) Magnetic tunnel junction in a
matrix (adapted from [67]).

(a) (b)

4.3. Hall-effect Sensors

Hall-effect sensors can detect magnetic fields from eddy currents and can be used in eddy current
testing. Hall voltage is proportional to the current flowing through the conductive rectangle and the
magnetic induction perpendicular to the conductor as Figure 28 shows. The Hall devices are used
mainly in the mT range and can be easily miniaturized and integrated within microelectronic
circuits [17]. Their disadvantages are their limited sensitivity to silicon, the high level of 1/f noise and
the relatively large offset [17].

Figure 28. Hall-effect principle. (a) No magnetic field. (b) Magnetic field applied.

(a) (b)

Some authors such as Jongwoo et al have researched eddy current testing using Hall-effect sensors.
They presented a quantitative eddy current evaluation of cracks on austenite stainless steel using a
Hall-effect sensor array [69].
Sensors 2011, 11 2555

Other researchers such as He et al. tested the use of a differential hall probe to detect defects in the
riveted structures of aircrafts [50]. The hall response signals were disturbed by noise, which leads to
inaccuracy in detecting the defects. They used an averaging method and wavelet de-noise method to
process the Hall responses [50].
Paasi et al. presented a three-axis Hall sensor magnetometer for the testing of superconductor
homogeneity to measure the three components of the magnetic fields from eddy current flow [70]. The
three-axis Hall sensor provides increased sensitivity when compared to classical Hall sensor
techniques that measuring only one (usually vertical) component of the field.

4.4. SQUID Devices

Superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) are very sensitive magnetometers

designed to measure extremely weak magnetic fields. SQUIDs are based on superconducting loops
that contain Josephson junctions [17]. SQUIDs are sensors that can measure extremely low magnetic
induction levels. The disadvantage of these types of sensors is the need for cryogenic refrigeration in
order to decrease noise levels to the range of that limit their use in many applications.
SQUIDs have been used in eddy current testing since the 1980s [55]. In conventional eddy-current
systems, where the magnetic field produced by the eddy currents is detected by means of an induction
coil, the typical field noise is about at eddy current frequencies of about 100 kHz. In some
cases, this field noise is too high for certain applications such as the detection of tiny oxide particles,
especially if the test materials are highly conductive, such as copper or aluminum. In these instances,
SQUID magnetometers must be used instead of coil probes.
Some authors have researched eddy current testing using SQUIDs. For instance, Muck et al. tested
various materials and obtained a much higher sensitivity than conventional eddy current evaluation and
ultrasonic testing [71]. Others such as Ruosi et al. presented their experimental and numerical
detection results of surface and subsurface artificial features in Al-Ti planar structures [72].
The combination of high sensitivity, even in unshielded environments, high spatial resolution and
flat frequency response up to 1 MHz offered by SQUIDs mean that they are powerful sensors for eddy
current evaluation [72].

4.5. Comparison of Different Probe Structure and Magnetic Sensors

There are some parameters, including the magnetic field range, the operating frequency band and
sensor dimensions that permit the selection of the most suitable sensor type for eddy current
testing [68]. In this subsection, a comparison of different probe structures and magnetic sensors is
presented.
Coil probes provide high sensitivity to defects when the flaw size is comparable with the coil
transducer [54]. 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 [54]. The disadvantage is that the coil sizes must adapt to the size of the tubes or bars
being produced.
Sensors 2011, 11 2556

Coil probes provide high sensitivity to defects when eddy current flow is drastically changed. This
means that encircling coils are optimized for detecting short discontinuities parallel to the axis of the
inspected tubes or bars. Differential encircling probes only detect discontinuities when a long crack
that is parallel to the major axis enters and leaves the probe.
To detect long discontinuities over their full length, pancake-type rotating probes are designed.
They are able to detect as small as 50 µm. Pancake-type probes scan smaller areas than encircling coils
which means the pancake-type probes are more sensitive [73].
Automatic scanning is widely used in production lines. Automatic inspection using pancake-type
probes is complex, because they require rotating systems. The automatic scanning using encircling
probes is simpler than using pancake-type probes because they are static. Encircling probes provide
more control over production quality at very high speeds up to 150 m/s.
Segment coil probes are specifically designed for controlling the weld seam of welded pipes [59].
The sensitivity of segment probes is higher than encircling probes as they limit the scanning surface to
the weld area, whereas encircling probes can scan 360 degrees.
Horseshoe-shaped coils are useful in the detection of laminar flaws that pancake-type coils cannot
detect. Spiral coils provide high sensitivity and arrays of coils permit high-speed inspection and obtain
high space resolution, reducing the coil size [62].
In general, the advantages of using coils as sensors for the eddy currents are the simplicity of their
construction, the huge dynamic range and the possibility of focusing the sensor [48]. Some
disadvantages are the high induction voltage at the start of the signal [48] and the fact that they are
difficult to make smaller [17].
Other magnetometers can be used instead of pick-up coils. Hall sensors are magnetic-field sensors
whose dynamic range is not large enough for some applications [48]. SQUIDs are difficult and
expensive [48], although they provide very low field noise to the range of when compared to
induction coils that have field noise of about [55]. Many authors find the structure and
characteristics of magnetoresistive sensor attractive for non-destructive evaluation because of their
micro size, high frequency operation and high sensitivity [68].

5. Eddy Current Equipment

This section describes some types of eddy current testing equipment. Manufacturers of eddy current
testing equipment offer a wide variety of equipment, from basic equipment to advanced equipment that
is designed to satisfy the highest requirements. Basic eddy current equipment is used for sorting test
pieces into two categories: good or bad pieces. They are low-cost and have only the essential controls
and basic displays and may permit a connection to an oscilloscope [74]. Basic instruments have one or
two physical channels that can be time multiplexed to increase their functionality. Instruments that
satisfy basic requirements in production line can detect composition in alloys, measure
parameters—such as hardness, case depth and temper—in heat treatments, measure sinter density and
detect structure variations [74]. Different enclosures are typically available. RS232/V24 interfaces
permit communication with main frame computers. Some opto-isolated inputs and outputs are
available for the connection of other systems.
Sensors 2011, 11 2557

Manufacturers also make portable instruments which contain the screen, controls and connectors in
a compact enclosure as Figure 29(a) illustrates. Compact instruments may be operated via a standard
LAN (Ethernet, TCP/IP) connection or together with other systems via one single screen [75].
High functioning eddy current instruments provide higher data processing capability and more
physical channels than basic instruments. The top ten instruments permit hot wire testing at production
speeds of up to 150 m/s, providing very high spatial resolution, as seen in the system represented in
Figure 29(b). They also allow network integration in the production process and multi-frequency
operation bands for calibration and testing [60]. Many top-ten instruments provide several USB 2.0
interfaces, Ethernet interfaces and printer connections to generate hard copies of test results. High-end
eddy current instruments have more opto-isolated interfaces than basic instruments, up to 128 inputs
and outputs for connecting a PLC to control automatic systems. Unlimited configurations can be stored
on and loaded from hard disks [59].

Figure 29. (a) Portable eddy current testing instrument [78]. (b) Block diagram of the
overall system for hot wire testing (adapted from [6]).
Guide ECT Roller

Hot wire

Printer
Supervisory Control
Defectomat Computer (SCC)
CS

Data Processing Unit

Test Data A/D

User Monitor Remote Search
Processor (DSP) Converter

Comunication Unit

(a) (b)

Manufacturers construct multichannel eddy current instruments for rotating systems to detect
longitudinal defects at speeds of up to 12,000 rpm. Many rotating systems are available with lift-off
compensation that provides an extremely reliable method for defect detection [59].
Modern instruments generate frequencies in the range from kHz to MHz and permit the application
of discrete signal processing, such as filtering and numerical demodulation. Many modern instruments
include the impedance on XY plotters and also the X and the Y plot vs. time on LCD screens (or
computer monitors if they are computer-enabled). Alarm settings on XY plotters permit users to
activate programmable outputs that can activate light and sound alarms to alert the operator when
cracks are present [75]. Instruments permit automatic scanning which activates automatic mechanisms
to sort flawed pieces or activates paint markers. They also offer very high test speeds that can reduce
the occurrence of human errors [76].
Several eddy current instruments are available with computer connections that vastly increase their
capabilities to search, visualize and analyze eddy current inspection data [6,75]. Computers can receive
data from multiple channels and real-time processes. Computers can also extract parameters of interest
from signals, generate reports and store the signal from eddy current testing instruments in order to
Sensors 2011, 11 2558

post-process the data. Some authors, such as Fahmy [76], Stander et al. [61], and Rao et al. [77], have
published papers relating to computer-controlled eddy current systems.

6. Applications of Eddy Current Testing

Eddy current testing has a wide variety of applications. The most important applications and
research are described in this section.
Eddy-current testing provides a high level of sensitivity for material identification and for the
characterization of the microstructure state [22]. Absolute coil probes can measure physical parameters
via the impedance which is related to the electrical conductivity and magnetic permeability of test
pieces. Because of the relation between hardness and these variables, eddy current testing permits heat
damage detection and heat treatment control. Mercier et al. published their research on hardness
testing for the evaluation of steel decarburizing [8]. Eddy current techniques also take advantage of
lift-off variation to measure the coating thickness of non-conductive materials or the oxide thickness of
conductive materials [9].
Eddy current testing has many applications as a method of crack detection. The aeronautical and
nuclear industries have invested many resources in the development eddy current testing. Authors such
as Morozov et al. [10] and Thollon et al. [15] have worked with eddy current testing in the field of
aeronautics. Others like Chen et al. and La et al. have used eddy current testing to research steam
generator tubes in the nuclear industry [64,79].
In the metallurgical industry, authors such as Stander et al. have conducted research testing
green-state powdered materials [61]. Manufacturers also offer special solutions for extra fine wires of
tungsten and molybdenum testing up to 10 m/s [60]. In the field of transportation, researchers such as
Pohl et al. have proposed railroad track surface testing at train speeds of 70 km/h [14].
Rotating inspection systems are used in wire drawing machines, copper tube winders or finishing
lines in the bright steel sector [60] and are capable of finding longitudinal defects at very high speeds
with a minimum depth of 0.05 mm [59,60].
In the field of hot eddy current testing, the inspection of different types of bars and profiles at
temperatures of up to 1,200 °C can be performed using water-cooled probes [59,75]. This kind of
inspection at high temperatures is useful for detecting these defects at an early stage before significant
amounts of faulty material have been produced [75]. Testing of hot-wire line presents several
difficulties such as low fill factor due to water cooling between the hot wire and the encircling coil and
the necessity of high-speed data processing due to the very high speed of the line [6]. Eddy current
testing is the only automated non-destructive test method capable of getting quality results at up to
150 m/s [7].
In production lines, defects can be either random or periodic in the material [75]. Random defects
may indicate a poor overall quality of the material, suggesting deficiencies in the raw material or flaws
in the general production process. Periodic defects that recur at regular intervals are likely to be
generated by damaged rollers or guide rollers in the production line. Some researches devise
techniques for detecting periodically occurring flaws based on the FFT technique [6]. Cracked rollers
can be revealed by calculating simple equations using the speeds of the rollers and the sizes of their
rolled wire [6].
Sensors 2011, 11 2559

The detection of residual stresses in engineering structures that can provide early indications of
stress status and eventual failure is a rapidly growing area in non-destructive testing [80]. Eddy current
coil probes can also detect very small stress variations in ferromagnetic steels due to the
magneto-elastic effect based on the measurement of changes in impedance [20].

7. Conclusions

Nowadays, destructive or non-destructive techniques are more frequently used to test products due
to the increase prevalence of quality controls. While destructive techniques verify only some samples
that are destroyed and make some invalid in other industrial processes, we find non-destructive
techniques more interesting than destructive ones since all production can be tested without permanent
alterations.
This paper reviews the state-of-the-art methods of eddy current testing which is one of the most
widely used non-destructive forms of testing. Eddy current testing permits crack detection and
measurements that are beyond the scope of other techniques such as non-conductive coating
thickness [9], alloy composition and hardness [8] in a large variety of materials. The only need is that
the materials being tested must be electrical conductors where eddy currents can flow.
Eddy current sensors are insensitive to dirt, dust, humidity, oil or dielectric material in the
measuring gap and have been proven reliable in a wide range of temperatures [28]. Coil probes are the
most widely used type of sensors, and standard coils can be used in a wide range of applications [74].
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.
The review of research into electromagnetic models and powerful simulators that help the probe
designer to solve the forward [58] and inverse [25] flaw-probe problems is essential to optimal crack
detection in terms of sensors and the operating variables such as frequency and signal-to-noise ratio.
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 [59,75] and at
production speeds of up to 150 m/s [7]. Early detection of these defects in production lines can save
large sums of money in the metal industry.
In conclusion, as researchers and developers of solutions based on eddy current testing, we have
found that eddy current techniques can provide the industry with reliable quality control systems.
Although there are excellent improvements due to the effort of the many scientists during the last
several years, we believe that more research in eddy current techniques, in terms of sensors, equipment
and signal processing, will lead to even more applications of these techniques.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported partially by the regional 2010 Research Project Plan of Junta de Castilla y
León, Spain, under the VA034A10-2 project. The authors acknowledge generous support from
Sensors 2011, 11 2560

Ingeniería y Sistemas de Ensayos no Destructivos (ISEND), with particular expertise in

non-destructive eddy current testing. This work was also possible thanks to the grant obtained by
Ernesto Vazquez-Sanchez from the Contratación de personal investigador de reciente titulación
program. This program was financed by Consejería de Educación of Junta de Castilla y León (Spain)
and was co-financed by the European Social Fund.

References and Notes

1. Janousek, L.; Capova, K.; Yusa, N.; Miya, K. Multiprobe inspection for enhancing sizing ability
in eddy current nondestructive testing. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2008, 44, 1618-1621.
2. Shujuan, W.; Penghao, X.; Lei, K.; Guofu, Z. Research on influence of lorentz force mechanism
on EMAT's transduction efficiency in steel plate. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE Conference on
Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA2010), Taichung, Taiwan, June 2010; pp. 196-201.
3. Noorian, F.; Sadr, A. Computation of transient Eddy currents in EMATs using discrete Picard
Method. In Proceedings of the 18th Iranian Conference on the Electrical Engineering (ICEE
2010), Isfahan, Iran, May 2010; pp. 727-731.
4. Aliouane, S.; Hassam, M.; Badidi Bouda, A.; Benchaala, A. Electromagnetic acoustic transducers
(EMATs) design evaluation of their performances. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference
on NDT (WCNDT 2000), Rome, Italy, October 2000.
5. Hashizume, H.; Yamada, Y.; Miya, K.; Toda, S.; Morimoto, K.; Araki, Y.; Satake, K.;
Shimizu, N. Numerical and experimental analysis of eddy current testing for a tube with cracks.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 1992, 28, 1469-1472.
6. Bae, J.; Kim, S. Hot wire inspection using eddy current. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE
Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (IMTC 2001), Budapest, Hungary,
May 2001; pp. 962-965.
7. Institut Dr. Foerster. DEFECTOMAT Sensor System Thermal Coil. Available online:
http://www.foerstergroup.com/DEFECTOMAT-sensor-system-thermal-coil.73.0.html (accessed
on 17 January 2011).
8. Mercier, D.; Lesage, J.; Decoopman, X.; Chicot, D. Eddy currents and hardness testing for
evaluation of steel decarburizing. NDT E Int. 2006, 39, 652-660.
9. Pedersen, L.B.; Magnusson, K.Å.; Zhengsheng, Y. Eddy current testing of thin layers using co-
planar coils. Res. Nondestruct. Eval. 2000, 12, 53-64.
10. Morozov, M.; Rubinacci, G.; Tamburrino, A.; Ventre, S. Numerical models of volumetric
insulating cracks in eddy-current testing with experimental validation. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2006,
42, 1568-1576.
11. Förster, F. Sensitive eddy-current testing of tubes for defects on the inner and outer surfaces.
Nondestruct. Testing 1974, 7, 28-36.
12. Placko, D.; Dufour, I. Eddy current sensors for nondestructive inspection of graphite composite
materials. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference of the Industry Applications Society (IAS'92),
Houston, TX, USA, October 1992; pp. 1676-1682.
Sensors 2011, 11 2561

13. Nguyen, Q.H.; Philipp, L.D.; Lynch, D.J.; Pardini, A.F. Steam tube defect characterization using
eddy current Z-Parameters. Res. Nondestruct. Eval. 1998, 10, 227-252.
14. Pohl, R.; Erhard, A.; Montag, H. J.; Thomas, H.M.; Wüstenberg, H. NDT techniques for railroad
wheel and gauge corner inspection. NDT E Int. 2004, 37, 89-94.
15. Thollon, F.; Lebrun, B.; Burais, N.; Jayet, Y. Numerical and experimental study of eddy current
probes in NDT of structures with deep flaws. NDT E Int. 1995, 28, 97-102.
16. Xu, P., Huang, S., Zhao, W. Differential eddy current testing sensor composed of double gradient
winding coils for crack detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium
(SAS 2010), Limerick, Ireland, February 2010; pp. 59-63.
17. Rasson, J.; Delipetrov, T. Progress and limitations in magnetic field measurements. In
Geomagnetics for Aeronautical Safety, 1st ed.; Novkovski, N. Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The
Nederlands, 2006; Volume 13, pp. 201-212.
18. Gubbins, D. Laplace’s equation, uniqueness of solutions. In Encyclopedia of Geomagnetism and
Paleomagnetism, 1st ed.; Gubbins, D., Herrero-Bervera, E., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The
Nederlands, 2007; pp. 466-468.
19. Backus, G.E. Application of a non-linear boundary-value problem for Laplace’s equation to
gravity and geomagnetic intensity surveys. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 1968, 21, 195-221.
20. Ricken, W.; Schoenekess, H.C.; Becker, W.J. Improved multi-sensor for force measurement of
pre-stressed steel cables by means of the eddy current technique. Sens. Actuat. A 2006, 129,
80-85.
21. Ricken, W.; Liu, J.; Becker, W.-J. GMR and eddy current sensor in use of stress measurement.
Sens. Actuat. A 2001, 91, 42-45.
22. Zergoug, M.; Lebaili, S.; Boudjellal, H.; Benchaala, A. Relation between mechanical
microhardness and impedance variations in eddy current testing. NDT E Int. 2004, 37, 65-72.
23. Metcalfe, G.R. The use of electrical conductivity measurements in detecting heat and fire damage
in aircraft structure. In Proceedings of the IEEE NDT Technology in Aerospace, London, UK,
January 1990; pp. 1-4.
24. Shao, K.R.; YouGuang, G.; Lavers, J.D. Multiresolution analysis for reconstruction of
conductivity profiles in eddy current nondestructive evaluation using probe impedance data. IEEE
Trans. Magn. 2004, 40, 2101-2103.
25. Uzal, E.; Ozkol, I.; Kaya, M.O. Impedance of a coil surrounding an infinite cylinder with an
arbitrary radial conductivity profile. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1998, 34, 213-217.
26. Barrett, W.F.; Brown, W.; Hadfield, R.A. Researches on the electrical conductivity and magnetic
properties of upwards of one hundred different alloys of iron. J. Inst. Elect. Eng. 1902, 31,
674-722.
27. Kesavamurthy, N.; Rajagopalan, P.K. An analytical method taking account of saturation and
hysteresis for evaluating the iron loss in solid-iron cores subjected to an alternating field. In
Proceedings of the IEE - Part C: Monographs, December 1962; Volume 109, pp. 237-243.
28. Tian, G.Y.; Zhao, Z.X.; Baines, R.W. The research of inhomogeneity in eddy current sensors.
Sens. Actuat. A 1998, 69, 148-151.
Sensors 2011, 11 2562

29. Uzal, E.; Rose, J.H. The impedance of eddy current probes above layered metals whose
conductivity and permeability vary continuously. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1993, 29, 1869-1873.
30. Kasai, N.; Ogawa, S.; Oikawa, T.; Sekine, K.; Hasegawa, K. Detection of carburization in
ethylene pyrolysis furnace tubes by a C core probe with magnetization. J. Nondestruct. Eval.
2010, 1-6.
31. Gui, Y.T.; Yong, L.; Mandache, C. Study of lift-off invariance for pulsed eddy-current signals.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 2009, 45, 184-191.
32. Yin, W.; Binns, R.; Dickinson, S.J.; Davis, C.; Peyton, A.J. Analysis of the lift-off effect of phase
spectra for eddy current sensors. In Proceedings of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement
Technology Conference (IMTC 2005), Ottawa, Canada, May 2005; pp. 1779-1784.
33. Theodoulidis, T. Analytical model for tilted coils in eddy-current nondestructive inspection. IEEE
Trans. Magn. 2005, 41, 2447-2454.
34. Theodoulidis, T.P. Analytical modeling of wobble in eddy current tube testing with Bobbin Coils.
Res. Nondestruct. Eval. 2002, 14, 111-126.
35. Lopez, L.A.N.M.; Ting, D.K.S.; Upadhyaya, B.R. Removing eddy-current probe wobble noise
from steam generator tubes testing using Wavelet Transform. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2008, 50,
828-835.
36. Shu, L.; Songling, H.; Wei, Z.; Peng, Y. Improved immunity to lift-off effect in pulsed eddy
current testing with two-stage differential probes. Russ. J. Nondestr. Test. 2008, 44, 138-144.
37. Theodoulidis, T.; Bowler, J.R. Interaction of an eddy-current coil with a right-angled conductive
wedge. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2010, 46, 1034-1042.
38. Ramos, H.; Postolache, O.; Alegria, F.C.; Lopes-Ribeiro, A. Using the skin effect to estimate
cracks depths in metalic structures. In Proceedings of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement
Technology Conference (I2MTC 2009), Singapore, May 2009; pp. 1361-1366.
39. Ditchburn, R.J.; Burke, S.K.; Posada, M. Eddy-current nondestructive inspection with thin spiral
coils: Long cracks in steel. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 2003, 22, 63-77.
40. Owston, C.N. Eddy-current testing at microwave frequencies. Nondestruct. Testing 1969, 2,
193-196.
41. Liu, Z.; Tsukada, K.; Hanasaki, K.; Kurisu, M. Two-Dimensional eddy current signal
enhancement via multifrequency data fusion. Res. Nondestruct. Eval. 1999, 11, 165-177.
42. Bartels, K.A.; Fisher, J.L. Multifrequency eddy current image processing techniques for
nondestructive evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image
Processing (ICIP 1995), Washington, DC, USA, October 1995; pp. 486-489.
43. Yang, G.; Tamburrino, A.; Udpa, L.; Udpa, S.S.; Zeng, Z.; Deng, Y.; Que, P.. Pulsed eddy-current
based giant magnetoresistive system for the inspection of aircraft structures. IEEE Trans. Magn.
2010, 46, 910-917.
44. He, D.; Yoshizawa, M. Saw-wave excitation eddy-current NDE based on HTS RF SQUID. IEEE
Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2003, 13, 3803-3806.
45. Lee, C.; Johnson, M.J.; Nakagawa, N. Development of a pulsed eddy current system and its
characterization. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference, Sousse, Tunisia, March 2007;
pp. 354-361.
Sensors 2011, 11 2563

46. Dolabdjian, C.P.; Perez, L.; De Haan, V.O.; De Jong, P.A. Performance of Magnetic Pulsed-
Eddy-Current System Using High Dynamic and High Linearity Improved Giant
MagnetoResistance Magnetometer. IEEE Sens. J. 2006, 6, 1511-1517.
47. Sophian, A.; Tian, G.Y.; Taylor, D.; Rudlin, J. A feature extraction technique based on principal
component analysis for pulsed Eddy current NDT. NDT E Int. 2003, 36, 37-41.
48. de Haan, V.O.; de Jong, P.A.; Pérez, L.; Dolabdjian, C. Towards Material Characterization and
Thickness Measurements using Pulsed Eddy Currents implemented with an Improved Giant
Magneto Resistance Magnetometer. In Proceedings of the 9th. European NDT Conference
(ECNDT'06), Berlin, Germany, September 2006; pp. 1-8.
49. de Haan, V.O.; de Jong, P.J. Simultaneous measurement of material properties and thickness of
carbon steel plates using pulsed eddy currents. Presented In Proceedings of the 16th World
Conference on Non-Destructive Testing (WCNDT 2004), Montreal, Canada, August 2004.
50. He, Y.; Luo, F.; Pan, M.; Weng, F.; Hu, X.; Gao, J.; Liu, B. Pulsed eddy current technique for
defect detection in aircraft riveted structures. NDT E Int. 2010, 43, 176-181.
51. Chen, T.; Tian, G.Y.; Sophian, A.; Que, P.W. Feature extraction and selection for defect
classification of pulsed eddy current NDT. NDT E Int. 2008, 41, 467-476.
52. Waidelich, D.L. The attenuation of a pulsed field by a conducting sheet. IEEE Trans. Instrum.
Meas. 1969, 18, 326-330.
53. Abidin, I.Z.; Mandache, C.; Tian, G.Y.; Morozov, M. Pulsed eddy current testing with variable
duty cycle on rivet joints. NDT E Int. 2009, 42, 599-605.
54. Grimberg, R.; Savin, A.; Radu, E.; Mihalache, O. Nondestructive evaluation of the severity of
discontinuities in flat conductive materials by an eddy-current transducer with orthogonal coils.
IEEE Trans. Magn. 2000, 36, 299-307.
55. Muck, M.; Scholz, F. A SQUID-based nondestructive evaluation system for testing wires of
arbitrary length. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2007, 17, 3809-3813.
56. Schoenekess, H.C.; Ricken, W.; Becker, W.J. Method to determine tensile stress alterations in
prestressing steel strands by means of an eddy-current technique. IEEE Sens. J 2007, 7,
1200-1205.
57. Abu-Nabah, B.A.; Nagy, P.B. Iterative inversion method for eddy current profiling of
near-surface residual stress in surface-treated metals. NDT E Int. 2006, 39, 641-651.
58. Skarlatos, A.; Pichenot, G.; Lesselier, D.; Lambert, M.; Duchene, B. Electromagnetic Modeling of
a Damaged Ferromagnetic Metal Tube by a Volume Integral Equation Formulation. IEEE Trans.
Magn. 2008, 44, 623-632.
59. ISEND Home Page. Available online: http://www.isend.es/en (accessed on 17 January 2011).
60. Institut Dr. Foerster Home Page. Available online: http://www.foerstergroup.com (accessed on 17
January 2011).
61. Stander, J.; Plunkett, J.; Michalson, W.; McNeill, J.; Ludwig, R. A novel multi-probe resistivity
approach to inspect green-state metal powder compacts. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 1997, 16,
205-214.
62. Zaoui, A.; Menana, H.; Feliachi, M.; Abdellah, M. Generalization of the ideal crack model for an
arrayed eddy current sensor. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2008, 44, 1638-1641.
Sensors 2011, 11 2564

63. Lopes Ribeiro, A.; Alegria, F.; Postolache, O.; Ramos, H. Eddy current inspection of a duralumin
plate. In Proceeding of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference
(I2MTC '09), Singapore, May 2009; pp. 1367-1371.
64. La, R.; Benoist, B.; de Barmon, B.; Talvard, M.; Lengellé, R.; Gaillard, P. MESSINE, a
Parametric Three-Dimensional Eddy Current Model. Res. Nondestruct. Eval. 2000, 12, 65-86.
65. Bowler, J.R.; Harfield, N. Evaluation of probe impedance due to thin-skin eddy-current
interaction with surface cracks. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1998, 34, 515-523.
66. Tamburrino, A. A communications theory approach for electromagnetic inverse problems. IEEE
Trans. Magn. 2000, 36, 1136-1139.
67. Germano, J.; Martins, V.; Cardoso, F.; Almeida, T.; Sousa, L.; Freitas, P.; Piedade, M. A portable
and autonomous magnetic detection platform for biosensing. Sensors 2009, 9, 4119-4137.
68. Yamada, S.; Chomsuwan, K.; Iwahara, M. Application of giant magnetoresistive sensor for
nondestructive evaluation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Sensors, Daegu, South Korea, October
2006; pp. 927-930.
69. Jongwoo, J.; Jiseong, H.; Jinyi, L. Quantitative nondestructive evaluation of the crack on the
austenite stainless steel using the induced eddy current and the hall sensor array. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (IMTC 2007), Warsaw,
Poland, May 2007; pp. 1-6.
70. Paasi, J.; Kalliohaka, T.; Korpela, A.; Soderlund, L.; Hermann, P. F.; Kvitkovic, J.; Majoros, M.
Homogeneity studies of multifilamentary BSCCO tapes by three-axis Hall sensor magnetometry.
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 1999, 9, 1598-1601.
71. Muck, M.; Korn, M.; Welzel, C.; Grawunder, S.; Scholz, F. Nondestructive evaluation of various
materials using a SQUID-based eddy-current system. IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 2005, 15,
733-736.
72. Ruosi, A.; Pepe, G.; Peluso, G.; Valentino, M.; Monebhurrun, V. Experimental and numerical
results of electromagnetic nondestructive testing with HTc SQUIDS. IEEE Trans. Appl.
Supercond. 1999, 9, 3499-3502.
73. Junjun, X.; Naiguang, L.; Udpa, L.; Udpa, S. Nondestructive inspection using Rotating Field Eddy
Current (RoFEC) probes. In Proceedings of the 14th Biennial IEEE Electromagnetic Field
Computation (CEFC 2010), Chicago, IL, USA, May 2010; p. 1.
74. IBG Home Page. Available online: www.ibgndt.com (accessed on 17 January 2011).
75. Puftechnik Home Page. Available online: http://www.pruftechnik.com (accessed on 17 January
2011).
76. Fahmy, M.N.I.; Hashish, E.A.; Elshafiey, I.; Jannound, I. Advanced system for automating
eddy-current nondestructive evaluation. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Radio Science
Conference (NRSC 2000), Minufiya, Egypt, February 2000; pp. 1-8.
77. Rao, B.P.C.; Raj, B.; Jayakumar, T.; Kalyanasundaram, P.; Arnold, W. A New approach for
restoration of eddy current images. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 2001, 20, 61-72.
78. Bachnak, R.; King, S. Non-destructive evaluation and flaw visualization using an eddy current
probe (ICONS 2008). In Proceedings of the IEEE Third International Conference on Systems,
Cancun, Mexico, April 2008; pp. 134-139.
Sensors 2011, 11 2565

79. Chen, Z.; Miya, K. A New Approach for Optimal Design of Eddy Current Testing Probes. J.
Nondestruct. Eval. 1998, 17, 105-116.
80. Wilson, J.W.; Tian, G.Y.; Barrans, S. Residual magnetic field sensing for stress measurement.
Sens. Actuat. A 2007, 135, 381-387.

© 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).