Investigation of the magnetic field response from eddy current inspection of defects

  • Anthony Simm
  • Theodoros Theodoulidis
  • Nikolaos Poulakis
  • Gui Yun Tian


Eddy current testing is one of the most widely used methods in non-destructive testing for the inspection of conductive materials. Numerical modelling of eddy current testing has emerged as an important approach alongside experimental studies. This paper investigates an application of numerical modelling and experimental study as a means of the quantitative non-destructive evaluation (QNDE) of defects in conductive samples. There are two methods of measuring eddy current response, more commonly by measuring the change in impedance of the eddy current probe coil, or as used in this work, by measuring the change in magnetic field directly using magnetic field sensors such as superconducting quantum interference devices, giant magneto resistance, or as in this case Hall sensors. Specifically, measurements made using an eddy current probe containing an excitation coil and a Hall sensor, experimentally obtained using an X–Y scanner table, are compared with a numerical (finite element method) model. The discrepancies between the experimental tests and the numerical models have been analysed and explained, which is an important factor in engineering applications of QNDE.


Eddy current Non-destructive testing FEM Magnetic field Scanning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sophian A, Tian GY, Taylor D, Rudlin J (2002) Design of a pulsed eddy current sensor for detection of defects in aircraft lap-joints. Sens Actuators, A 101:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Romero Ramirez A, Pearson N, Mason JSD (2007) Automatic classification of defects with the review of an appropriate feature extraction, in The 12th International Workshop on Electromagnetic Nondestructive Evaluation (ENDE), CardiffGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gramz M, Stepinski T (1994) Eddy current imaging, array sensors and flaw reconstruction. Res Nondestr Eval 5:157–174Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pavo J, Miya K (1994) Reconstruction of crack shape by optimization using eddy current field measurement. IEEE Trans Magn 30:3407–3410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Udpa L, Udpa SS (2004) Solution of inverse problems in eddy-current nondestructive evaluation (NDE). J Nondestr Eval 7:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Auld BA, Moulder JC (1999) Review of advances in quantitative eddy current nondestructive evaluation. J Nondestr Eval 18:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dezhi C, Shao KR, Jianni S, Weili Y (2000) Eddy current interaction with a thin-opening crack in a plate conductor. IEEE Trans Magn 36:1745–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowler JR (1994) Eddy-current interaction with an ideal crack. I. The forward problem. J Appl Phys 75:8128–8137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Theodoulidis T, Poulakis N, Dragogias A (2010) Rapid computation of eddy current signals from narrow cracks. NDT E Int 43:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jeng JT, Horng HE, Yang HC, Chen JC, Chen JH (2002) Simulation of the magnetic field due to defects and verification using high-Tc SQUID. Phys C 2002:298–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mukriz I, Tian GY, Li Y (2009) 3D transient magnetic field mapping for angular slots in aluminium. Insight—Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring 51:21–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song S-J, Shin Y-K (2000) Eddy current flaw characterization in tubes by neural networks and finite element modeling. NDT and E Int 33:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Udpa SS, Moore PO (2004) Nondestructive testing handbook, 3rd ed, vol. 5, Electromagnetic testing: American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    COMSOL AB (2007) AC/DC Module User’s GuideGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrison DJ, Jones D, Burke SK (1996) Benchmark problems for defect size and shape determination in eddy-current nondestructive evaluation. J Nondestr Eval 15:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dodd CV, Deeds WE (1968) Analytical solutions to eddy-current probe-coil problems. J Appl Phys 39:2829–2838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Honeywell Sensing and Control, "Honeywell SS490 Series Hall Sensor," 2004Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weisstein EW (2009) Percentage error. From MathWorld—a Wolfram Web Resource. WolframGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hwang J, Lee J, Jun J, Wang R, Choi S, Hong S (2007) Scan type magnetic camera images with a high spatial resolution for NDT obtained by using a linearly integrated hall sensors array. In IEEE International Workshop on Imaging Systems and Techniques—IST 2007 Krakow, PolandGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith CH, Schneider RW, Dogaru T, Smith ST (2003) Eddy-current testing with GMR magnetic sensor arrays, in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation Conference, Green Bay, WI, pp. 406–413Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Simm
    • 1
  • Theodoros Theodoulidis
    • 2
  • Nikolaos Poulakis
    • 3
  • Gui Yun Tian
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer EngineeringNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Western MacedoniaKozaniGreece
  3. 3.Department of Electrical EngineeringTechnological Educational Institute of Western MacedoniaKozaniGreece

Personalised recommendations