Case Studies of Pulsed

Eddy Current to
Measure Wall Loss in
Feedwater Piping and
Heater Shells
TP176
July 2008

By
Marvin J. Cohn and Jordan W. Norton
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.

Proceedings of PVP2008 2008 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division

Conference July 27-31, 2008 Chicago, Illinois, PVP2008-61239

Case Studies of Pulsed Eddy Current to Measure

Wall Loss in Feedwater Piping and Heater Shells
By Marvin J. Cohn and Jordan W. Norton
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.
ABSTRACT

There have been several feedwater piping and

heater shell failures in power plants caused by
flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC). This failure
mechanism may be one of the most important
types of damage to find proactively because
FAC damage has occasionally resulted in
catastrophic failures and human fatalities.
Predicting, detecting, and resolving significant
FAC damage can significantly reduce future
forced outages and increase personnel safety.

This paper describes the implementation of

recent developments to perform cost-effective
FAC examinations. These advances include
the use of specialized pulsed eddy current
(PEC) hardware and software to scan for wall
thinning without removing insulation. Recent
results are based on the current version,
MK II, of this equipment.

INTRODUCTION
The FAC damage mechanism consists of
material dissolution accelerated by fluid flow.
It is primarily a material dissolution process,
where the single or two-phase flow is
responsible for the material transport. This is
a chemical corrosion process causing removal
of the protective oxide film and the metal
surface from the inside of the pipe wall.

The authors have performed more than 200

power plant projects with this PEC
equipment, examining numerous pipes and
shells. This work consists of more than 70
projects of wall loss examinations for the
nuclear industry, including examinations of
feedwater heater shells inside the condenser.
Results of wall loss measurements regarding
PEC
average
wall
thickness
(AWT)
measurements,
ultrasonic
thickness
examinations (UTTH), and the PEC evaluated
Defect Algorithm are compared in this study.

As the oxide layer (magnetite) thickness

decreases, it is less protective, and the
corrosion rate is increased. Eventually the
rates of dissolution of the magnetite and
corrosion are stabilized to a steady state
condition. The component wall failure may
result in a leak or an instantaneous rupture.

ACRONYMS
APTECH Aptech Engineering

FAC Flow-accelerated Corrosion

MWT Minimum Wall Thickness
NWT Nominal Wall Thickness
OD Outside Diameter
ORP Oxidation Reduction
Potential
PEC Pulsed Eddy Current
RTD Rntgen Technische Dienst
bv
RTD-INCOTEST Insulated
Component Test
TEMP Transient Electromagnetic
Probing
UTTH Ultrasonic Thickness
Examinations

Wall loss in power plant feedwater piping and

heater shells has also been caused by erosioncorrosion. This is a combined phenomenon
of mechanical erosion and chemical
corrosion.
The mechanical erosion
component of this failure mechanism may

Services, Inc.
ARCO Atlantic Richfield Company
AWT Average Wall Thickness
DWT Defect Wall Thickness

Aptech Engineering Services, Inc.

TP176

include high velocity liquid droplets or

entrained solid particles impinging on the
inside surface.

maintenance
personnel,
and
systems
engineers are useful to identify unique unit
specific problems to be considered in the
selection process.
For example, piping
downstream
of
leaking
valves
or
malfunctioning steam traps should be
considered as part of the initial list.

The major attributes that affect the

susceptibility to FAC in carbon steel
components have been discussed in the
technical literature [1-3].
These adverse
synergistic effects include very low chromium,
operating temperature in the range of 150F
(66C) to 460F (238C), very low dissolved
oxygen concentration, low on-line pH level,
high turbulence, and two-phase flow (wet
steam).
FAC damage is significantly
influenced by the oxidation reduction
potential (ORP) of the fluid. Low ORP values
correlate with an increased rate of dissolution
of the protective oxides.

Engineering judgment in the selection of

possible critical wall loss locations is usually
based on an evaluation of the areas where
there is a combination of poor water
chemistry, significant ORP values, applicable
fluid temperatures, greater turbulence,
historical failures, and personnel exposure.
Critical locations can then be prioritized for
examinations as Levels 1, 2, and 3 based on
an evaluation of the risk for each system. The
selection of critical locations for a Phase 2
examination can be refined, based on the wall
loss results from the initial examination.

SELECTION OF CRITICAL LOCATIONS

Selection of critical locations for FAC and
two-phase flow has been performed by
engineering judgment and software solutions.
First, a list of susceptible systems should be
developed. This may include the auxiliary
steam, boiler blowdown, boiler feedwater
pump recirculation, condensate, feedwater
suction,
feedwater
discharge
to
the
economizer, feedwater booster pump suction
and discharge, turbine gland steam, feedwater
heater drains, deaerator cascading drains,
feedwater drips, reheat spray (attemperator),
and superheat spray (attemperator) systems.
In addition, substantial wall loss has been
found in the vicinity of extraction steam inlet
nozzle connections on low pressure and high
pressure feedwater heater shells.
FAC
damage has also been found in cold reheat
lines of nuclear power plants.

For each unique pipe geometry in a selected

piping system, the specified diameter and
NWT should be listed. The minimum wall
thickness (MWT) provided to the pipe mill be
should be estimated.
In addition, the
minimum required wall thickness should be
estimated, based on the ASME Code
calculated MWT, corrosion allowance, and
expected examination uncertainty.
This
information can be used by the examination
crew to immediately indicate areas of
significant wall loss from a personnel safety
point of view.
Several computer programs can also assist in
the selection of critical wall loss locations.
EPRIs CHEC series of computer software [4
and 5] uses an empirically derived model that
includes a best fit of their selected data.

Subsequently, applicable information should

be collected, such as the pipe material,
nominal wall thickness (NWT), diameter, flow
rate, design temperature, design pressure,
steam quality, and a walkdown of each
system considering personnel exposure,
turbulent areas, and clusters of significant
components. Interviews with plant operators,

Another computer program, primarily used

outside of the United States, is BRT-CICERO
[6]. This software is based on an equation
which includes the effects of alloy
composition, porosity, temperature, soluble
ferrous ion concentration at equilibrium,

APTECH

TP176

and may be a limiting factor for inspection of

many heater shells during a single scheduled
outage. These UTTH evaluations may also
require sufficient metal surface preparation to
remove the mill scale and oxide layer.
Furthermore, the extension of scheduled
outages beyond 2 years places a minimum
limit for reexamination intervals using the
UTTH technique. If a grid system is used with
UTTH readings occurring at grid intersection
points, case histories have indicated that the
lack of 100% scanning may miss narrow
grooves that do not intersect the grid points.

soluble ferrous ion concentration in the bulk

water, mass transfer coefficient, and diffusion
through the oxide layer.
Aptech Engineering Services, Inc. (APTECH)
has developed a software program called
FACEUP [7].
This software evaluates
nondestructive examination data as an
approach to provide a cost-effective selection
of reexamination sites. Where multiple sets of
data are available, the results are smoothed
(reducing the inherent error in the data) to
obtain clearer wear rate patterns.
The
improved wear rate patterns are then
evaluated to determine future reexamination
locations and intervals. This program also
accounts for the NDE uncertainty and
generates a useful, discriminatory measure to
identify examination versus repair priorities.
A correction method for single examination
data is also included in this program. The
resulting improvement in FAC rate prediction,
although not as robust as the multiple
examination method, provides a better
engineering
assessment
with
possible
reductions in the examination requirements.

One of the greatest challenges to the power

industry regarding FAC detection is how to
perform an efficient examination for potential
wall thinning without removing insulation.
On-line radiography has been successful to a
limited degree on pipes. Limitations include
the need for a high energy source, restricted
access areas, specialized equipment and
experience, pipe thickness restrictions, semiquantitative
results,
and
inconsistent
interpretations among inspectors. Tangential
radiography techniques have been used to
record wall thicknesses along a selected
segment of a pipe. The on-line and tangential
radiographic methodologies cannot be used
to measure the shell thickness of feedwater
heaters.

EXAMINATION TECHNIQUES
Electrical power generating plants have
several piping systems and feedwater heaters
susceptible to FAC and erosion-corrosion
damage. These components are insulated to
prevent heat loss. The insulation may be up
to 102 mm (4-inches) thick and is usually
protected by aluminum, galvanized steel, or
stainless steel lagging.
Wall thickness
evaluations have historically been performed
by removing the lagging and insulation and
then performing an UTTH on the heater shell
or piping. Wall thickness measurements are
typically performed off-line using a 5-10 MHz
frequency ultrasonic transducer placed on the
outside surface of the shell. Under ideal
conditions, the UTTH accuracy may possibly
be as good as 0.1 mm (0.004 inch). The
major limitation is the requirement for
insulation removal and disposal, which is very
expensive, especially for asbestos insulation,

Another approach for measuring wall

thickness through insulation is PEC.
Measurement of inner surface wall wastage
using PEC was developed and patented [8]
by the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
Current ARCO PEC technology is called
Transient Electromagnetic Probing (TEMP)
[9]. Rntgen Technische Dienst bv (RTD) has
licensed this technology from ARCO and has
provided an improved technique as a service
called INsulated COmponent TEST (RTD
INCOTEST). Subsequently, RTD developed
an optimized PEC system to detect and
measure internal wall wastage typical of FAC
damage, without removing insulation.

APTECH

TP176

productivity.
Cohn and de Raad [10]
compared
UTTH
wall
thickness
measurements to INCOTEST measurements
through insulation for three service-degraded
elbows. de Raad [11] has provided additional
information on the use of PEC as a screening
tool for full-surface coverage detection of
significant wall wastage. Where a thickness
gradient (e.g., grooving) occurs in a footprint
area, INCOTEST equipment may also be
used to estimate the MWT within the
interrogated area.

The system works by generating eddy currents

on the surface of the feedwater heater shell or
pipe by means of a pulsed DC magnetic field.
Every time the magnetic field changes, eddy
currents are generated in such a way that the
magnetic field is opposed, according to the
Law of Lenz. The pulser sends the pulse
through the transmitter coil of the sensor,
which creates the required magnetic field.
After the eddy currents are generated, they
diffuse from the outside surface to the inside
surface of the shell or pipe. During this
diffusion the eddy currents generate a
magnetic field that is picked up by the
receiving coil of the sensor. When a magnetic
field line crosses a coil, voltage is induced.
The receiving coil receives this voltage which
is sent to the system hardware where the
received signal is amplified. The system then
compares the arrival time of the eddy currents
in the test with the arrival times obtained from
calibration samples, and then calculates the
wall thickness. Wall thickness measurements
are not affected by the insulation thickness or
mesh reinforcement.

The majority of APTECH projects have used

a combination of PEC (for screening) and
UTTH (for calibration and confirmation of
results). In most cases, the PEC system was
used for preliminary cost-effective screening.
In some cases, the PEC system was used to
provide comparisons to previous UTTH
results. It has been found that as an on-line
scanning tool, the PEC system can detect and
measure significant wall loss with good
accuracy to indicate locations requiring further
evaluation.
After critical locations of
suspected wall loss are identified by PEC,
UTTH and/or other methodologies can be
used during the next scheduled outage for
confirmation and more detailed quantification
of results.

The average remaining wall thickness of a

pipe or feedwater heater shell is measured by
monitoring the decay of an eddy current pulse
within the material wall according to = t2,
where is time, is magnetic permeability,
is conductivity, and t is material thickness.
Calibration tests are performed to determine
the product of .
The PEC software
calculates the predicted wall thickness by
comparing the transient echo time of certain
signal features with the applicable calibration
test results.

PEC System Performance

The PEC system can be used to measure wall
thicknesses in the range of 2 mm to 65 mm
(0.08 inch to 2.6 inches). In some instances,
the PEC equipment has successfully measured
greater than 95 mm (3.75-inch) wall through
102 mm (4-inches) of insulation. To minimize
curvature effects, the pipe diameter should be
greater than 50 mm (2.0 inches). The PEC
system is designed to work in the temperature
range of -100C to 500C (-148F to 930F).
The maximum liftoff distance or insulation
thickness is 200 mm (7.9 inches).
For
aluminum and stainless steel lagging with
insulation thicknesses between 50 mm and
75 mm (2.0 to 3.0 inches), the threshold of
maximum pipe thickness decreases from

The on-line measurements can be used to

scan a component for significant wall wastage
between scheduled shutdowns or to
determine the rate of wall wastage at selected
locations with reexaminations more frequent
than scheduled outages. Improvements have
been made to the earlier TEMP inspection
and data acquisition system that increase the
inspection rate, reliability, and overall
APTECH

TP176

65 mm to 55 mm (2.6 inches to 2.2 inches),

respectively.

detected by the AWT algorithm in the

detection phase of the examination. This
information provides an estimate of the local
MWT and indicates a thickness gradient
within the footprint (e.g., a significant local
groove). If local wall loss is detected, the
operator may evaluate the footprint signals
with the DWT algorithm.
The DWT
evaluation provides the operator with a
statistical distribution of the time of flight of
the eddy currents. Footprint information is
presented in a graph including the thickness
and signal fractions.

The PEC system has successfully measured

through chicken wire and aluminum or
stainless steel lagging. The PEC system has
easily measured wall thicknesses through
excessive corrosion and scale.
After
calibration, the AWT measurement accuracy
is better than 5%, with a reproducibility of
2%. The complete cycle time between two
measured points is usually between two and
eight seconds. A large component such as a
pipe connection (e.g., an inlet or drain line)
within 150 mm (5.9 inches) of the coil may
affect the measurement reliability, resulting in
a considerable end-effect influence at short
distances. Welds may have some influence
on wall thickness measurements because of
local differences in magnetic permeability of
the weld metal and heat affected zones
relative to the base material.

As an example, a footprint with an AWT of

85% may have no value for DWT if 95% to
100% of the eddy current times of flight are
indicating 85% wall thickness as compared to
the reference wall thickness. In other cases, a
small area within the footprint may have some
localized wall thickness much less than the
AWT value. For example, the DWT algorithm
may indicate that 50% of the received signals
are at 70% of the reference wall thickness. It
is possible for the AWT value to indicate an
average wall loss of 15% if 50% of the
interrogated area has 30% wall loss and the
remainder has negligible wall loss. Operator
interpretations in the DWT mode are very
subjective and require substantial experience
and special considerations prior to reporting
the wall loss.

The interrogation area, or probe footprint, is

dependent on the lagging material and liftoff
distance. A plot of interrogation diameter for
aluminum lagging versus insulation thickness
(liftoff distance) is illustrated in Figure 1 for
one of the PEC probes. In this example, a
component thickness of 6 mm to 24 mm
(0.24 to 0.94 inch) with 64 mm (2.5 inches)
of insulation and aluminum lagging would
have a wall thickness measurement based on
an average footprint diameter of about 97
mm (3.82 inches). A component with 51 mm
(2.0 inches) of insulation and aluminum
lagging would have a wall thickness
measurement based on an average footprint
diameter of 90 mm (3.54 inches).
Considering
thicker
components,
a
component thickness of 35mm (1.38 inches)
and 32 mm (1.25 inches) of insulation would
have an interrogation average footprint of
98 mm (3.9 inches).

The PEC equipment can be used for

galvanized steel lagging up to 1.2 mm (0.047
inch) thick.
For galvanized lagging and
minimal insulation, the equipment can
measure up to 30 mm (1.18 inches) of wall
thickness. For galvanized lagging and 80 mm
(3.15 inches) insulation, the equipment can
measure up to 10 mm (0.36 inch) of wall
thickness. When testing through galvanized
lagging, the PEC equipment is limited to
300C (572F).

The INCOTEST Defect Wall Thickness (DWT)

algorithm is a tool used by the PEC operator
to assist in further evaluating wall loss

Mark II System
APTECH has been using the RTD-INCOTEST
systems since 1997 and discussed some PEC

APTECH

TP176

relative to this reference level set at 100%.

One risk with using this approach is that,
without a calibrated reference, it is not
revealed whether the shell wall is uniformly
thinner than the MWT.

Mark I case studies in 2003 [12], in which

PEC thickness measurements on feedwater
heater shells were compared to UTTH
thickness measurements.
In mid-2006
APTECH received one of the first Mark II
systems in North America. The Mark II
system has many advantages over the Mark I
system. System accuracy is provided in
increments of 0.025mm (0.001-inch) instead
of 1% increments of the reference wall
thickness. For example, a 25 mm (1-inch)
thick component would have Mark I reported
thicknesses in 0.25 mm (0.01-inch)
increments. The authors have found better
correlations with the Mark II predicted
thicknesses as compared to verified UTTH
values. In addition, the liftoff distance has
increased by as much as 30%.

CASE HISTORY STUDIES

Three case history examples are discussed in
this paper. The first example is a PEC
examination of a feedwater heater shell inside
a nuclear power plant condenser. The second
example is a PEC examination of an auxiliary
steam line. The third example is a PEC
examination of a small diameter superheater
spray pipe.
Example 1 Feedwater Heater Shell
In October 2006, APTECH performed a PEC
examination of eight sections of feedwater
heater shells inside a nuclear power plant
condenser. In one area, as discussed below,
there was an indication of 24% wall loss as
compared to the reference wall thickness.
The outside of the shell was 6.4 mm (-inch)
stainless steel plate with 25 mm (1-inch)
carbon steel spacers retaining a uniform 1inch gap between the plate and the feedwater
heater shell.

PEC System Strategies

The PEC equipment is typically calibrated to a
location having approximately the same NWT
and material metallurgical characteristics as
the remaining portion of the component to be
examined. For welded components, separate
reference points are selected in each region.
Each reference point is selected as an area
expected to be near the NWT, excluding areas
that are likely to be manufactured thicker or
worn thinner than the NWT.

A photograph of the component and PEC

grid labels is provided in Figure 2. The 152
mm (6 inch) grid included 14 axial bands with
25 circumferential locations. The axial grid
lines are designated as Rows 1 through 14
and the circumferential grid lines are
designated as Columns A through Y. The
PEC off-line AWT measurements were taken
at 314 locations around the steam pipe inlet
nozzle to the shell.

The calibration reference value can be

determined by removing a plug of insulation
and using UTTH to measure the average
component wall thickness in the area. After
the equipment has a stored calibration
reference, absolute wall thickness values can
be calculated from transient times measured
at nearby locations. This subsequent process
can be performed on-line and through pipe
insulation.

The resulting PEC AWT color-coded

spreadsheet is shown in Table 1.
The
spreadsheet cells designated by Steam Inlet
Nozzle AS 3 were inaccessible and within the
pipe inlet boundary. Since the shell thickness
readings adjacent to the pipe are significantly
greater than several feet away, the PEC results

The PEC equipment can also be used to

detect significant wall thickness variations. In
such instances, the calibration location is
selected at a site that is expected to have close
to the design specified NWT. All other wall
thickness measurements can be calculated
APTECH

TP176

The first reference thickness with an AWT

value of 9.80 mm (0.386 inch) as measured
by UTTH was at Location C2. This reference
thickness value was applied to the upstream
pipe, Rows 1 through 4.
The second
reference thickness with an AWT of 10.3 mm
(0.406 inch) as measured by UTTH was at
Location B7. This reference thickness was
applied to the 90 elbow, Rows 5 through 11.

indicated a stiffening ring around the inlet

connection.
A reference thickness with an average shell
thickness of 15.3 mm (0.604 inch) as
measured by UTTH was at Location A11.
There were 23 thickness measurements
greater than 10% above the reference
thickness.
There were 27 thickness
measurements from the reference thickness of
15.3 mm (0.604 inch) to 110% of the
reference thickness. There were 78 thickness
measurements from 94% to 100% of the
reference thickness. There were 149 thickness
measurements from 87.5% to 94% of the
reference thickness. Thirty seven thickness
measurements were below 87.5% of the
reference thickness.

There was 1 thickness measurement greater

than 10% above the two reference
thicknesses.
There were 15 thickness
measurements from 100% to 110% of the two
reference thicknesses.
There were 19
thickness measurements from 96.3% to 100%
of the reference thicknesses. There were 16
thickness measurements from 87.5% to
96.3% of the reference thicknesses. Twenty
five thickness measurements were below
87.5% of the reference thicknesses.

The minimum PEC AWT value for the AS-3

examination was reported as 11.7 mm (0.460
inch). This indicated a 24% wall loss (average
throughout
the
PEC
footprint)
at
Location A11 relative to the reference AWT
value.

The PEC minimum AWT value for this

auxiliary steam pipe examination was
reported as 4.5 mm (0.176 inch). This
indicated a 54% wall loss (average throughout
the PEC footprint) at Location B3 relative to
the reference wall thickness and a 47% wall
loss relative to the specified NWT. The
evaluation of the PEC DWT algorithm
indicated that the estimated MWT by the
INCOTEST process at Location B3 was
3.7 mm (0.147 inch) for this pipe. This
indicated an estimated local wall loss of 62%
relative to the reference thickness (61%
relative to the specified NWT) at Location C2.
As a scanning tool, the online PEC results
revealed a small area of substantial wall loss.
A 460 mm (18-inch) square of insulation was
removed in this area and the thickness was
measured online for verification by UTTH.
The minimum UTTH measurement value was
2.7 mm (0.106) inch, which verified
substantial wall loss (72%) as compared to the
specified NWT.

Example 2 Auxiliary Steam Line

In this example, an auxiliary steam line was
examined by PEC. PEC AWT readings were
taken at 76 locations around the pipe, limited
by the pipe stand, pipe intrados, and floor as
shown in Figure 3. The 127 mm (5 inch) grid
included
11
axial
bands
with
12
circumferential locations.
The insulation
thickness was about 76 mm (3 inches) and the
pipe was specified as 356 mm (14-inch)
outside diameter (OD) with a NWT of 9.5 mm
(0.375 inch).
The PEC AWT color-coded spreadsheet is
shown in Table 2. The axial grid lines are
designated as Rows 1 through 11 and the
circumferential grid lines are designated as
Columns A through L. Those cells designated
by Pipe Stand, Intrados Limitations, and
Floor were inaccessible.

APTECH

TP176

The PEC minimum AWT value for this

superheater spray pipe examination was
reported as 8.61 mm (0.339 inch). This
indicated a 22% wall loss (average throughout
the PEC footprint) at Location D9 relative to
the specified NWT for the 2-inch pipe.

Example 3 Superheater Spray Pipe

In this example, a superheater spray pipe was
examined by PEC. PEC AWT readings were
taken at 46 locations around the pipe, limited
by a tee, drain line, and a pipe stand support
as shown in Figure 4. The 76 mm (3 inch)
grid included 13 axial bands with 4
circumferential locations. In this case, there
was no insulation on the pipe, so a small
51 mm (2-inch) RTD-INCOTEST contact
probe was used. The tee was specified as
89 mm (3.5-inch) OD with an NWT of
11.1 mm (0.437 inch). The reducers were 3inch by 2-inch, with the 2-inch OD having an
NWT of 8.7 mm (0.343 inch).

The spreadsheet of DWT values for the

superheater spray pipe is provided in Table 4.
The evaluation of the PEC DWT algorithm
indicated that the estimated MWT by the
INCOTEST process at Location D9 was 0.209
inch (5.31 mm) for this pipe. This indicated a
local wall loss of 39% relative to the specified
NWT for the 2-inch pipe. The subsequent
UTTH measurement was 5.23 mm (0.206inch) thickness, indicating 40% local wall loss
compared to the specified NWT value.

The PEC AWT color-coded spreadsheet is

shown in Table 3. The axial grid lines are
designated as Rows 1 through 13 and the
circumferential grid lines are designated as
Columns A through D. Those cells designated
by Tee, Drain Line, and Pipe Stand
Support were inaccessible.

At Locations D8 and D9, the DWT thickness

measurements revealed values slightly below
the manufacturers MWT values and slightly
above the ASME B31.1 Code MWT
requirements (Equation 3) [13].
This
component was replaced during the
scheduled outage.

The first reference thickness with an AWT

value of 12.2 mm (0.480 inch) as measured
by UTTH was at Location A3. This reference
thickness value was applied to the tee and two
reducers, Rows 1 through 9. The second
reference thickness with an AWT of 10.4 mm
(0.409 inch) as measured by UTTH was at
Location C11. This reference thickness was
applied to the vertical portion of the tee,
Rows 10 through 13.

CONCLUSIONS
APTECH has been using the RTD-INCOTEST
PEC system since 1997 and has performed
more than 200 power plant projects to
measure wall loss with this equipment. Where
areas of substantial wall loss (at least 15%)
have been revealed by PEC, the locations and
significance of wall loss were accurate. In
areas of grooving (localized steep gradients),
the degree of wall loss was underestimated in
the PEC AWT thickness measurements. The
optimized PEC signals evaluated with the
Defect Algorithm methodology were closer
estimates to the scanning UT maximum wall
loss values.

There were seven thickness measurements

greater than 10% above the two reference
thicknesses.
There were 13 thickness
measurements from 100% to 110% of the two
reference thicknesses.
There were 11
thickness measurements from 96.3% to 100%
of the reference thicknesses. There were 10
thickness measurements from 87.5% to
96.3% of the reference thicknesses. Five
thickness measurements were below 87.5% of
the reference thicknesses.

If significant wall loss is indicated (more than

12%), it is recommended that the PEC results
be confirmed and evaluated in greater detail
with other applicable techniques such as
scanning 100% of the area with UTTH.

APTECH

TP176

Where no significant wall loss occurs,

measurements between the two techniques
have shown good correlation. The PEC
technique is a good screening tool to identify
areas of significant or insignificant wall loss,
but the detailed severity of substantial wall
loss should be evaluated in greater detail by at
least scanning UTTH.
With proper
interpretation of signals, the Mark II system
has provided good correlations with UTTH
values.

Having Variations in Jacket Thickness,

United States Patent 4,843,319.
[9] Lara, P. F., 1991, TEMP An
Innovative System to Measure the Wall
Thickness of Pipes, Tanks, and Vessels
Through Insulation, American Society
for
Nondestructive
Testing,
Fall
Conference, p. 157.
[10] Cohn, M., and J. A. de Raad, 1997,
Nonintrusive Inspection for FlowAccelerated Corrosion Detection, ASME
1997 PVP-Vol. 359, Fitness for Adverse
Environments in Petroleum and Power
Equipment, pp. 185-192.
[11] de Raad, J. A., 1998, PEC (Pulsed
Eddy Current) and MFL (Magnetic Flux
Leakage)
for
NDT
Applications,
International
Pipeline
Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
[12] Cohn, M. J., and Norton, J. W., 2003,
Case Studies of Pulsed Eddy Current to
Measure Wall Loss in Feedwater Heater
Shells, Design and Analysis Methods
and Fitness for Service Evaluations for
Pressure Vessels and Components,
ASME PVP-Vol. 459, pp. 53-62.
[13] ASME, 2007, ASME B31.1-2007
Edition, Power Piping, ASME Code for
Pressure Piping, B31, An American
National Standard, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, NY.

REFERENCES
[1] Chexal, B., and J. S. Horowitz, 1992,
Chexal-Horowitz Model for FlowAccelerated
Corrosion
in
CHECWORKS, 20th Water Reactor
Safety Meeting, Bethesda, Maryland.
[2] White, G. A., D. J. Gross, and T. M.
Cullen, 1996, Cost-Effective Monitoring
of Flow Assisted Corrosion at Fossil
Power Plants, EPRI Fossil Plant
Maintenance Conference, Baltimore,
Maryland.
[3] Chexal, B., et. al., 1998, FlowAccelerated Corrosion in Power Plants,
EPRI TR 106611 -R1.
[4] EPRI,
1996,
CHECUP,
a
CHECWORKS Application for FAC
Evaluation of Fossil Power Plants User
Guide,TR-107066
[5] EPRI, 1997, CHECWORKS Computer
Program Users Guide, TR-103198-P1.
[6] Bouchacourt, M., et al., 1998, Analysis
of 10 Years Feedback Concerning the
FAC Phenomenon at EdF, and
Maintenance Optimization by Means of
BRT-Cicero Code, French Nuclear
Energy Society International Symposium,
Fontevraud IV, Fontevraud, France.
[7] Garud, Y.S., Cohn, M. J., and de Raad,
J. A., 1999 Recent Developments in
Measurement and Evaluation of FAC
Damage in Power Plants, Corrosion/99,
San Antonio, Texas, Paper 353.
[8] Lara,
P.
F.,
1989,
Transient
Electromagnetic Method for Detecting
Corrosion of Conductive Containers
APTECH

TP176

Table 1
PEC Results for a Feedwater Heater

Row/
Col

72

66

60

54

48

42

36

30

24

18

12

C/L

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

66

72

STIFFENER (SUPPORT) RING INTERFERENCE

0
1

0.555

0.567

0.560

0.569

0.546

0.532

0.538

0.539

0.535

0.536

0.541

0.548

0.541

0.546

0.556

0.543

0.539

0.545

0.538

0.533

0.541

0.559

0.557

0.581

0.555

0.595

0.592

0.590

0.576

0.566

0.520

0.516

0.503

0.516

0.532

0.530

0.548

0.658

0.661

0.547

0.544

0.532

0.518

0.537

0.544

0.554

0.566

0.584

0.593

0.587

0.595

0.596

0.585

0.569

0.566

0.528

0.523

0.534

0.528

0.555

0.791

0.786

0.776

0.768

0.775

0.551

0.514

0.531

0.523

0.538

0.551

0.558

0.595

0.596

0.570

0.564

0.581

0.577

0.565

0.569

0.536

0.546

0.547

0.559

0.778

0.759

0.526

0.536

0.526

0.543

0.561

0.560

0.592

0.592

0.556

0.523

0.547

0.541

0.532

0.548

0.490

0.527

0.517

0.730

0.796

0.780

0.506

0.513

0.520

0.528

0.544

0.543

0.571

0.546

0.537
0.535

STEAM INLET NOZZLE AS-3

0.552

0.542

0.534

0.513

0.512

0.460

0.510

0.504

0.757

0.785

0.762

0.497

0.506

0.470

0.533

0.514

0.541

0.540

0.555

0.567

0.552

0.562

0.557

0.525

0.497

0.539

0.528

0.728

0.774

0.770

0.514

0.536

0.516

0.527

0.535

0.539

0.554

0.556

0.555

0.581

0.592

0.589

0.561

0.540

0.532

0.565

0.555

0.580

0.756

0.737

0.548

0.564

0.557

0.552

0.588

0.594

0.573

0.583

0.578

0.612

0.590

0.571

0.566

0.549

0.535

0.561

0.570

0.583

0.577

0.587

0.771

0.776

0.787

0.771

0.591

0.575

0.580

0.553

0.563

0.583

0.597

0.594

0.597

0.590

10

0.596

0.588

0.589

0.567

0.550

0.535

0.567

0.556

0.584

0.582

0.579

0.577

0.617

0.689

0.585

0.594

0.586

0.594

0.577

0.579

0.595

0.606

0.600

0.612

0.598

11

0.604RAS3

0.609

0.598

0.581

0.547

0.538

0.569

0.573

0.591

0.611

0.609

0.595

0.592

0.588

0.602

0.597

0.591

0.588

0.581

0.592

0.603

0.609

0.613

0.599

12

0.572

0.593

0.602

0.577

0.633

0.532

0.562

0.555

0.600

0.610

0.612

0.594

0.579

13

0.593

0.594

0.596

0.560

0.610

0.525

0.590

0.552

0.599

0.611

0.610

14

0.594

0.611

0.603

0.573

0.545

0.519

0.555

0.562

0.593

0.618

0.615

37

LT .529

149

GE .529 to LT .5818

78

GE .5818 to LT .6045

27

GE .6045 to LT .665

23

GT .665

PIPING OBSTRUCTION

0.600

0.592

0.569

0.578

0.583

0.579

0.595

0.611

0.607

0.593

0.586

0.587

0.564

0.643

0.607

0.569

0.590

0.613

0.609

0.601

0.600

0.584

0.579

0.576

0.573

0.585

0.590

0.574

0.607

0.594

Average Reading:

0.58

Total Count:

314

inch

Minimum Value:

0.460

Reference Thickness:

0.605

inch
inch

Reference Thk * 0.875:

0.529

inch

Reference Thk * 1.1:

0.665

inch

All Values Expressed in INCHES

RAS-3 = REFERENCE LOCATION @ A11 MEASURED 0.604-INCH AWT BY NPPD NDE PERSONNEL
GRID = 14 AXIAL ROWS EVERY 6" X 25 COLUMNS EVENLY SPACED EVERY 6" AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE
COLUMN A IS 72-INCHES FROM TOP CENTERLINE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FEEDWATER HEATER; COLUMNS ENCIRCLE THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE PIPE 360
COLUMN M IS TOP CENTERLINE ON THE FEEDWATER HEATER
ROW 1 STARTS 3-INCHES DOWNSTREAM OF SUPPORT RING & 30-INCHES UPSTREAM OF THE NOZZLE CENTERLINE (ROW 6 IS ALIGNED WITH THE NOZZLE C/L AXIALLY).
LOWEST AVERAGE WALL THICKNESS READING(S) = 0.460-INCH (76.1% OF REFERENCE) @ LOCATION F6

APTECH

TP176

10

Table 2
PEC Results for Auxiliary Steam Line
BOILER PIPING, AUXILIARY STEAM: LOCATION 2-AS-6A (90 ELBOW) DEFECT MODE
ROW/COL

1
2

TEE
0.378

0.374

0.386-RUSP

0.378

TEE

0.367

VALVE

0.176

0.256

0.256

0.256

0.272

0.244

0.223

0.248

0.244

0.398

0.398

0.280

0.288

0.280

0.402

0.418

0.410

0.304

0.365

(ASSUMPTIONS)

PIPE
STAND

0.417

0.510

0.409

0.390

0.359

0.390

0.351

0.212

0.284

0.317

0.349

0.288

0.378

0.410

0.398

0.394

0.410

0.398

0.394

0.402

0.406

INTRADOS
LIMITATIONS

0.414

0.406-R90

0.394

0.394

0.398

0.382

0.394

0.398

0.398

0.382

0.398

0.414

0.402

0.341

0.374

0.390

0.365

0.386

0.406

0.410

0.357

10

0.304

0.374

0.365

0.317

0.386

0.333

11

0.309

0.345

0.329

FLOOR

UPSTREAM PIPE
WELD INFLUENCE

90 ELBOW

0.349

25

< 87.5% of ref thickness

Rows

Ref

Min

Avg

16

>= 87.5 to 96.25%

1 to 4

0.386

0.176

0.321

19

>= 96.25 to 100%

5 to 11

0.406

0.280

0.375

15

>= 100 to 110%

>= 110%

76 readings

All Values Expressed in INCHES

R U/S PIPE = REFERENCE LOCATION @ C2 MEASURED 0.386-INCH AVERAGE WALL THICKNESS BY UT (ROWS 2-4)
R 90 ELBOW = REFERENCE LOCATION @ B7 MEASURED 0.406-INCH AVERAGE WALL THICKNESS BY UT (ROWS 5-11)
PIPE SPECIFICATIONS: 14-INCH OD X 0.375-INCH NOMINAL WALL THICKNESS
GRID = 11 AXIAL ROWS EVERY 6" X 12 COLUMNS EVENLY SPACED EVERY 30 DEGREES AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE (~ 5-INCH
SPACING)
ROW 1 IS 24-INCHES UPSTREAM FROM THE UPSTREAM ELBOW-TO-PIPE GIRTH WELD; COLUMN A IS ON THE EXTRADOS OF THE PIPE
LOWEST AVERAGE WALL THICKNESS READING(S) = MEASURED 0.176-INCH (46.9% OF NOMINAL) AT LOCATION B3
LOWEST MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS READING(S) = MEASURED 0.147-INCH (39.2% OF NOMINAL) AT LOCATION B3 (63% SIGNAL FRACTION)

APTECH

TP176

11

Table 3
PEC Results for Superheater Spray Pipe AWT Mode
Col/Row

0.407

0.398

0.421

0.424

2
3

0.451
0.480R1

0.474
0.464

0.450
0.469

0.476
0.461

0.570

0.534

0.544

5
6
7

T
T
0.465

0.560
0.592
0.458

D
0.509
0.457

0.601
0.509
0.477

Horizontal of 3
inch Tee

0.449

0.480

0.421

0.358

0.358

0.339

Reducer 2x3
inch

10

0.430

0.406

0.397

0.404

11
12
13

0.438
0.455
0.435

0.415
0.426
0.429

0.409R2
0.408
0.411

0.409
0.396
0.393

5
10
11
13
7

< 87.5% of ref thickness

>= 87.5 to 96.25%
>= 96.25 to 100%
>= 100 to 110%
>= 110%

Rows
1 to 9
10 to 13

Reducer 2x3
inch

Vertical of 3 inch
Tee

Ref
0.480
0.409

Min
0.338
0.393

Avg
0.469
0.416

46 readings

SPECIFICATIONS: TEE 3.50-INCH OD X 0.437-INCH NWT, MANUF MWT=0.382", 0.268-INCH CODE MIN.
SPECIFICATIONS: (2 EA.) 2" X 3" REDUCERS" 2.375-INCH OD X 0.343-INCH NWT, MANUF MWT=0.300", 0.182" CODE
MIN.
ROW 1 @ 8" U/S THE TEE
COL A ON TOP /NORTH
T = TEE GEOMETRY
D = DRAIN LINE
S = PIPE STAND HANGER
R1 = ROWS 1-9
R2 = ROWS 10-13

APTECH

TP176

12

Table 4
PEC Results for Superheater Spray Pipe DWT Mode
Col/Row

0.312

0.316

0.302

0.324

2
3

0.451
0.480R1

0.474
0.464

0.450
0.469

0.476
0.461

0.570

0.534

0.544

5
6
7

T
T
0.465

0.560
0.592
0.458

D
0.509
0.457

0.601
0.509
0.477

0.449

0.480

0.272

0.256

0.266

0.209

10

0.430

0.406

0.397

0.404

11
12
13

0.438
0.455
0.435

0.415
0.426
0.429

0.409R2
0.408
0.411

0.409
0.396
0.393

8
7

< 87.5% of ref thickness

>= 87.5 to 96.25%

11
13

>= 96.25 to 100%

>= 100 to 110%
>=
110%

Rows
1 to 9
10 to
13

Reducer 2x3 inch

Horizontal of 3
inch Tee

Reducer 2x3 inch

Vertical of 3 inch
Tee

Ref
0.480

Min
0.209

Avg
0.440

0.409

0.393

0.416

46 readings

SPECIFICATIONS: TEE 3.50-INCH OD X 0.437-INCH NWT, MANUF MWT=0.382", 0.268-INCH CODE MIN.
SPECIFICATIONS: (2 EA.) 2" X 3" REDUCERS" 2.375-INCH OD X 0.343-INCH NWT, MANUF MWT=0.300", 0.182" CODE MIN.
ROW 1 @ 8" U/S THE TEE
COL A ON TOP /NORTH
T = TEE GEOMETRY
D = DRAIN LINE
S = PIPE STAND HANGER
R1 = ROWS 1-9
R2 = ROWS 10-13
At grid Locations D8 and D9, the measured defect mode values are slightly below the manufacturer's MWT values.
At grid Locations D8 and D9, the measured defect mode values are slightly above the code MWT values.

APTECH

TP176

13

Figure 1 PEC Footprint Diameter vs. Insulation and Component Thickness.

Figure 2 Feedwater Heater Shell and PEC Grid Labels.

APTECH

TP176

14

Figure 3 Auxiliary Steam Line and PEC Grid Labels.

Figure 4 Superheater Spray Pipe and PEC Grid Labels.

APTECH

TP176

15

Business Units:
Power Generation Services
Nuclear Power Services
Petrochemical Oil & Gas
Forensic Engineering
Industrial Engineering
Offices:

Headquarters:
601 West California Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086-4831
408.745.7000 Fax 408.734.0445
www.aptecheng.com
Mailing: PO Box 3440
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3440

16100 Cairnway Drive, Suite 310

Houston, TX 77084-3597
Phone: 832.593.0550
Fax: 832.593.0551
Toll Free: 800.568.3201
www.aptechtexas.com

APTECH

139, 11215 Jasper Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta T5K 0L5
Canada
Phone: 780.669.2869
Fax: 780.669.2509
www.aptechtexas.com