Journal Pre-proof

A funnel-shaped probe for sensitivity enhancement in pulse-modulation

eddy current inspection of subsurface flaws in conductors

Yong Li (Conceptualization) (Methodology) (Formal analysis)

(Writing - original draft), Zhengshuai Liu (Investigation) (Validation),
Bei Yan (Data curation) (Visualization), Yi Wang (Investigation)
(Formal analysis), Ilham Mukriz Zainal Abidin (Validation) (Writing -
review and editing), Zhenmao Chen (Methodology) (Writing - review
and editing)

PII: S0924-4247(19)32207-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2020.111991
Reference: SNA 111991

To appear in: Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical

Received Date: 4 December 2019

Revised Date: 30 March 2020
Accepted Date: 31 March 2020

Please cite this article as: Li Y, Liu Z, Yan B, Wang Y, Zainal Abidin IM, Chen Z, A
funnel-shaped probe for sensitivity enhancement in pulse-modulation eddy current inspection
of subsurface flaws in conductors, Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical (2020),
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2020.111991
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as
the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the
definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and
review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early
visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal
pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

A funnel-shaped probe for sensitivity enhancement in pulse-modulation
eddy current inspection of subsurface flaws in conductors
Yong Li1,*, Zhengshuai Liu1, Bei Yan1, Yi Wang1, Ilham Mukriz Zainal Abidin2,
Zhenmao Chen1
1
State Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration of Mechanical Structures, Shaanxi
Engineering Research Centre of NDT and Structural Integrity Evaluation, School of
Aerospace Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, Shaanxi, China
2
Leading Edge NDT Technology (LENDT) Group, Malaysian Nuclear Agency, 43000
Bangi, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia

of
*
Correspondence: yong.li@mail.xjtu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86 (0)29 8266-5721

Graphical abstract

ro
Funnel-shaped Pancake-shaped
probe probe

vs.

-p
re
lP
na


 


   ai J 0 (ai h) e  1 I  t   e  ai  z  z1  2  I  t  i  t  

2  ai  z  z1 
Region I z  z2
 i 1

  e  ai  z  z1      I  t   e 2 ai z    e  ai  z  z1    I  t    t  
 i 
Bz  z , t    
1 i  i i
Region II z2  z  z1
 ai J 0 (ai h)
2
 i 1

 

   2  ai J 0 (ai h)2 e ai  z  z1  I  t   e  ai  z  z1   I  t   i  t   Region III z1  z  0
  
i 1
ur

Highlights
Jo

 A funnel-shaped probe of pulse-modulation eddy current technique is investigated.

 Closed-form expressions of field quantities and testing signals are formulated.

 Sensitivity of the funnel-shaped probe to subsurface flaws is analyzed.

 Advantage of the funnel-shaped probe in evaluation of subsurface defects is affirmed.

Abstract: The subsurface flaw has been taken as one of the most severe threats to
integrity and safety of conductive structures, leading to structural failure and catastrophic
accidents. The nonintrusive detection and evaluation of subsurface flaws via effective
Non-destructive Evaluation (NDE) techniques are the pressing concern, which essentially
relies on the high testing sensitivity to a subsurface flaw. Following the proposition of
Pulse-modulation Eddy Current technique (PMEC) for high-sensitivity evaluation and
imaging of subsurface defects in conductors with pancake-shaped probe, in this paper the
funnel-shaped PMEC probe is proposed in a bid to further enhance the testing sensitivity
to the subsurface flaw by geometrically extending the cross-section of the excitation coil
from rectangle to parallelogram whilst keeping the inner and outer diameters of the
bottom winding fixed. Closed-form expressions of field quantities and testing signals for
the proposed probe are formulated, based on which the theoretical investigation of the
probe and its comparison with the pancake-shaped probe is intensively conducted. In

of
parallel, a series of experiments for evaluation and imaging of localised subsurface
corrosion via PMEC are carried out together with intensive assessment regarding testing
sensitivities of the funnel-shaped and pancake-shaped probes. Through theoretical

ro
simulations and experiments, it has been revealed that the proposed funnel-shaped probe
is advantageous over the pre-designed pancake-shaped probe, giving higher sensitivity to
hidden flaws in conductors. This is beneficial to detection, evaluation and imaging of

-p
subsurface defects in conductive structures.

Keywords: pulse-modulation eddy current inspection; funnel-shaped probe; sensitivity

re
enhancement; subsurface flaw; analytical modelling
lP

1. Introduction

Conductive structures in such materials as aluminium, copper and stainless steel, etc. are
broadly adopted in engineering fields including aerospace, petrochemical, nuclear energy
and so on. The harsh and hostile environments leave them vulnerable to various types of
na

damages among which the subsurface flaw has been found to be the most critical defect
posing a severe threat to structural integrity and safety. Therefore, it is indispensable and
highly demanded to non-intrusively detect and evaluate the subsurface flaw in in-service
conductors by periodically using Non-destructive Evaluation (NDE) techniques.
ur

Whereas, since the subsurface flaw barely occurs in the structure surface but is hidden
inside the structure body, this makes the conventional NDE methods such as
Jo

Visualization and optical Testing (VT), Penetrant Testing (PT) and Eddy Current Testing
(ECT) with the excitation current in the steady sinusoidal waveform [1-4], etc.
inapplicable for evaluation of such defects. In light of this, such transient eddy current
techniques as Pulsed Eddy Current (PEC) have been proposed. Particularly regarding
PEC, it has been preferred in inspection of multi-layered conductors and evaluation of
subsurface defects buried within the conductor [5-7]. Because the testing sensitivity to a
subsurface flaw is the pivotal factor for effective localisation and assessment of the
subsurface defect, the enhancement of PEC sensitivity via probe optimisation, signal
processing, etc. has been focused on in relevant research. Arjun et al. intensively
investigated PEC and proposed the optimised probe for detection and evaluation of
subsurface defects in stainless steel plates [8]. Xie et al. proposed a new PEC sensor with
weak coupling sensing structure for detection of deep defects in conductors [9]. Rao et al.
proposed new PEC signal features i.e., time constant and voltage parameter to improve
the testing sensitivity to subsurface flaws in the thick conductor with the thickness up to
8mm [10]. Nalika et al. scrutinised the PEC detector coil voltage decay rate through
simulations and experiments, and adopted it for high-sensitivity evaluation of subsurface
corrosion in tubular conductors [11].

In an effort to further improve the testing sensitivity and mitigate the technical drawbacks
of PEC, Pulse-modulation Eddy Current technique (PMEC), which is essentially
extended from PEC, has been proposed. PMEC utilises the excitation current in the pulse
modulation waveform in lieu of rectangular waveform adopted in PEC, efficiently

of
allocating more excitation energy to the harmonics around the central frequency which
corresponds to the skin depth of eddy currents right within the conductor under
interrogation. This mitigates the DC and low-frequency harmonics which exist in the

ro
PEC excitation current and barely induce effective eddy currents for evaluating
subsurface defects in conductors. As a result, the “dedicated inspection” of transient eddy
current inspection of conductors is believed to be realised via PMEC. So far, PMEC has

-p
been found to be advantageous over PEC for inspection of conductive structures with
subsurface flaws in terms of higher evaluation sensitivity and imaging accuracy [12]. Yan
et al. investigated PMEC evaluation of corrosion in non-magnetic conductors, and
re
clarified the superiority of PMEC over PEC through theoretical and experimental
analyses [13].
lP

Due to the fact that similar to ECT and PEC, PMEC is based on the principle of
electromagnetic induction, the pancake-shaped probe with the excitation coil in the
rectangular cross-section prevails in PMEC inspection. Besides, it is worth mentioning
that the rectangle-cross-section coil also dominates in ECT and PEC, and is preferable for
generation of the primary/incident magnetic field interrogating the conductor under
na

inspection. In an attempt to make further efforts for sensitivity enhancement in PMEC

evaluation of subsurface flaws, in this paper a funnel-shaped PMEC probe extended from
the pancake-shaped probe with given parameters is proposed by borrowing ideas
regarding a transmitter used for the wireless charging of electric vehicle [14] and
ur

magnetic-field-focusing transducer for electromagnetic acoustic transduction [15]. The

cross-section of the excitation coil of the proposed probe is in the shape of parallelogram
which is a simple geometrical extension from rectangle. Based on the pre-designed
Jo

rectangle-cross-section coil, the parallelogram-cross-section coil in the funnel-shaped

probe can be readily realised by modifying the coil cross-section whilst keeping the inner
and outer diameters of the bottom winding fixed as those of the rectangle-cross-section
coil in the pancake-shaped probe. Such probes could have the potential for improving the
testing sensitivity by focusing the electromagnetic field particularly within the conductor
subject to subsurface defects.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows: Section 2 elaborates the formulation of
closed-form expressions of field quantities and testing signals for the funnel-shaped
probe of PMEC based on the analytical modelling method extended from Truncated
Region Eigenfunction Expansion (TREE) modelling, namely ETREE [16]. Following
this, the advantage of the funnel-shaped probe over the pre-designed pancake-shaped
probe in evaluation of subsurface flaws is analysed via theoretical simulations, which is
presented in Sections 3. In Section 4, the experimental investigation in regard to the
funnel-shaped probe for PMEC evaluation and imaging of localised subsurface flaws is
presented. The superiority of the funnel-shaped probe over the pancake-shaped probes in
terms of testing sensitivity to subsurface flaws is further identified via experiments.

2. Theory

2.1 Time-harmonic field formulation

of
Suppose that a funnel-shaped probe of PMEC is deployed over a stratified conductor. The
model is portrayed in Figure 1. The probe consists of: (1) a parallelogram-cross-section
coil for excitation of the incident/primary magnetic field; and (2) a magnetic field sensor

ro
sensing the net field which is the superposition of the incident field and the secondary
field induced by eddy currents within the conductor. It is noteworthy that: (1) the
parallelogram-cross-section coil is geometrically extended from the rectangle-cross-

-p
section coil, and the inner and outer diameters of its bottom winding are equal to those
regarding the rectangle-cross-section coil; and (2) the rectangle-cross-section coil, which
is essentially the excitation coil in the pancake-shaped probe, is barely taken into account
re
in the field formulation in regard to the funnel-shaped probe.
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 1. A 2D axi-symmetric model of a parallelogram-cross-section coil (extended

from the rectangle-cross-section coil) over a layered conductor

Based on ETREE modelling, the closed-form expression regarding the net field at an
arbitrary position is derived from the time-harmonic formulation of Magnetic Vector
Potential (MVP) in the solution region. Referring to [17], the MVP resulting from a
filament coil is written as:
 
J1 (ai r )r0 J1 (ai r0 )  ai  z  z0   ai  z  z0 
  0 I 0 
i 1 ai  hJ 0 ( ai h) 
2 
e e i    Region I z  z2

A(r , z,  )   (1)

 J1 (ai r )r0 J1 (ai r0 ) ai  z  z0   ai  z  z0 
 0 I 0  i    Region III z1  z  0
2 
e e
i 1 ai  hJ 0 ( ai h) 

where, μ0 denotes the permeability of the vacuum. I0 and ω are the intensity and angular
frequency of the current driving the coil, respectively. ηi(ω) is the conductor reflection
coefficient which can be computed in reference to [16]. Jn stands for the Bessel function
of the first kind. ai is the positive root of J1(aih)=0.

of
For a thin coil (analogous to the parallelogram-cross-section coil with its winding
thickness equal to zero, r2-r1=0) the closed-form expression the MVP particularly in
Region III is formulated based on the filament-coil coefficient κi in Eq. (1),

ro
i  r0 J1 (ai r0 )e a z and the geometric relation between r0 and z0. In an effort to facilitate the
i 0

formulation, the geometric relation between r0 and z0 is written as:

z0   r0  r1 g  z1 z2  z0  z1 , r2  r0  r1 (2)

-p
where, g denotes the gradient of the lateral winding of the coil, g   z2  z1   r2  r1 . The
thin-coil coefficient is thus expressed as:
Le i  1 1 
a r g  z
r2
 i    i dl   r0 J1 (ai r0 )e  ai gr0 dr0 (3).
re
l
 r2  r1 r1

In conjunction with the identity B   A , the closed-form expressions regarding the

MVP, AIIIT and net field BIIIT in Region III are subsequently formulated as:
lP

0 I 0 N   2  ai r1, ai r2  ea  r g  z  J1 (ai r )

i 1 1
T
AIII  r , z,   
h2  r2  r1

i 1 ai3 J 02 (ai h)
eai z  e ai zi   (4)

and
0 I 0 N   2  ai r1, ai r2  ea  r g  z  ea z   J1 (ai r )r  J 0 (ai r ) z 
1

na

i 1

 r   r  
 r , z,   
i
T
BIII e a z  J (a r )r  J (a r ) z  (5),
 a J ( a h)  i   1 
2 2

i
h 2 1 i 1 i 0 i
i 0 i

respectively. In Eqs. (4) and (5), N is the number of turns of the coil. r and z are the unit
vectors. The other term includes:
ur

 2  x1 , x2    xJ1  x  e gx dx
x2

x1
(6).
Following the similar formulation process, the net field BIT in Region I can be expressed
as:
Jo

 T 0 I 0 N  e ai  r1g  z1  1  ai r1, ai r2   e ai z  J1 (ai r )r  J 0 (ai r ) z 

 B
 I  r , z ,      a r g  z  
h 2  r2  r1 i 1  e i 1 1  2  ai r1, ai r2 i   

 ai J 0 (ai h)
2
 (7).
  x , x  
x1 xJ1  x  e dx
x2
gx

 1 1 2

In regard to the parallelogram-cross-section coil, the coil coefficient can be implicitly

written as:
r2  i  z2  z1 
 i    i dS    dldr1 (8)
S r1 l L
where, S denotes the area of the coil cross-section. Based on Eq. (8) in conjunction with
Eqs. (4), (5) and (7), the closed-form expressions regarding the MVP in Region III, the
net field B P in Regions I and III can be formulated as:
0 I 0 Ng 
 2 J1 (ai r )  a  z  z   a  z  z 
 r  r  z  z   a J
AIIIP  r , z,    2 3 2 e
i
e1 i
i  
1
(9)
h 2 1 2 1 i 1 i 0 (ai h)
0 I 0 Ng 
a J (ai h) e  ai  z  z1  1  e  ai  z  z1  2i     J1 (ai r )r  J 0 (ai r ) z 
 r  r  z  z  
BIP  r , z,   
2
2 i 0
(10)
h 2 1 2 1 i 1

0 I 0 Ng  eai  z  z1    J (a r )r  J 0 (ai r ) z 
2  

 a J (ai h)   ai  z  z1  1 i
 r  r  z  z  
BIIIP  r , z,    (11)
h 2
2 1 2 1 i 1
2 i 0

  e  i   1
 J ( ai r ) r  J 0 ( ai r ) z 
where,

 1   1  ai r1, ai  r1  R  e ai gr1 dr1 ;  2    2 ai r1, ai  r1  R  e ai gr1 dr1
r2  r2 

 (12).

of
r1 r1

 R   z2  z1  g

Since the magnetic field sensor is normally placed at the coil centre (r=0), for such case
the r-component of the net field vanishes i.e., Br=0. As a result, the z-component of the

ro
net field Bz in the regions above the conductor can thus be formulated as:
 

  ai J 0 (ai h) e ai  z  z1  1  e ai  z  z1  2i  

2
  I 0 Region I z  z2
 i 1

-p
  e
 ai  z  z1 
 1   i  e2 ai z  i  e  ai  z  z1  i i  
 
Bz  z,    I 0  Region II z2  z  z1 (13)
 ai J 0 (ai h)
2
 i 1
 
re
 I 0   2  ai J 0 (ai h)2 e ai  z  z1   e  ai  z  z1 i    Region III z1  z  0
 i 1
 

where,
lP

 0 Ng
  h 2 r  r z  z
  2 1  2 1 
 r2   z  z1    ai gr1
 1   1  ai r1, ai  r1   e dr1
 r1
  g 
na

 z  z1 (14).
   r2  g   a r , a  r   z2  z   e ai gr1 dr 
 i r1  z  z1 2  i 1 i  1 g 
 1

 g 
 r2   z  z1   ai gr1
 i    2  ai r1, ai  r1    e dr1
ur

   g 
r1

It is noteworthy that in Eqs. (9)-(14), the terms including  x (x=1, 2),  1 ,  i and  i are
the double integrals which can be numerically and efficiently evaluated by using the
Jo

routine “integral” in MATLAB.

For a nonmagnetic metallic slab (μm=1, m=1, 2, 3…L; σn=0, n=2, 3…L), based on Eq. (9)
in conjunction with the continuous boundary condition of electromagnetic field at the
interface between Regions III and IV, the MVP in the conductive region is formulated as:

 2 J1 (ai r )e a z
AIVP  r , z,    I 0 
i 1

3 2
 i  z,   (15)
i 1 a J (ai h)
i 0

where,
  i  z ,    M i ei z  e  i zi   
  
 M  2a   a
 i

i  i i 
 i  ai   ei d  i  ai 
2 2
 (16).
i    e 2 i d  i  ai   i  ai 

i  ai2  j0 1

The closed-form expression of the eddy current density at an arbitrary location in Region
IV can thus be written as:

 2 J1 (ai r )e a z
J ec  r , z,     j 1I 0 
i 1

3 2
 i  z,   (17).
i 1 a J (ai h)
i 0

2.2 Transient field formulation

of
It should be pointed out that Eqs. (9)-(17) are applicable for prediction of the relevant
field quantities regarding ECT along with the funnel-shaped probe. For transient eddy

ro
current techniques especially PMEC, by referring to [12] the closed-form expression of
the net field in Region III is rewritten as:
e i 1   J (a r )r  J 0 (ai r ) z  I  t 
a zz 
2  


BIIIP  r , z, t     2  ai J 0 (ai h)    ai  z  z1  1 i  (18)
  e  J ( a r ) r  J ( a r ) z  
 I  t     t  


-p
i 1  1 i 0 i i

where,  denotes the circular convolution. I(t) is the signal of the excitation current of
PMEC, whose expression is presented in [18]. ηi(t) denotes the generalised conductor
reflection coefficient in the temporal form, which can be readily computed from its
re
spectral form ηi(ω) via inverse Fourier Transform (IFT) [12, 13]. For the nonmagnetic
metallic slab, the z-component of the net field and eddy current density i.e. Eqs. (13) and
(17) are reformulated as:
lP


 


   ai J 0 (ai h) e  1 I  t   e  ai  z  z1  2  I  t  i  t  

2  ai  z  z1 
Region I z  z2
 i 1

  e  ai  z  z1      I  t   e 2 ai z    e  ai  z  z1    I  t    t  
 i 
Bz  z , t    
1 i  i i
Region II z2  z  z1 (19)
i 0 i 
2
na

 i 1 a J ( a h )

 

   2  ai J 0 (ai h)2 e ai  z  z1  I  t   e  ai  z  z1   I  t   i  t   Region III z1  z  0
  
i 1

  I  t  
 J (a r )e ai z1
J ec  r , z, t    1    2 31 2i  i  z, t 
ur

(20)
t i 1 ai J 0 (ai h)
where, Ψi(z,t) is recovered from Ψi(z,ω) via IFT. It is noteworthy that Eqs. (18) and (19)
facilitate the prediction of the PMEC signal from the funnel-shaped probe with the
Jo

magnetic field sensor placed at an arbitrary position particularly in Region III, whilst Eq.
(20) is beneficial to time-domain analysis regarding the distribution of eddy currents
within the conductor.

3. Theoretical simulations and comparison

3.1 Corroboration
Prior to the theoretical investigation of the funnel-shaped probe, the established model is
verified through comparison of predicted PMEC signals with those from the Finite
Element Modelling (FEM) [19, 20]. The parameters of the probe and nonmagnetic slab of
the aluminium alloy are tabulated in Table 1. The excitation current driving the
parallelogram-cross-section coil is portrayed in Figure 2. It is noted that in consideration
of the thickness and electromagnetic properties of the specimen, as per the frequency-
selection strategy elaborated in [12], the frequency of the carrier wave is chosen as an
integer of 200Hz which corresponds the eddy-current skin depth approximately equal to
the slab thickness of 6mm. Since at least 5 bursts of the carrier wave are demanded
within the pulse width of the modulation wave with duty cycle of 50%, the fundamental
frequency of the modulation wave is eventually selected as 20Hz. By using the ETREE
model particularly Eqs. (18) and (19), the PMEC signals acquired from the magnetic field
sensor placed in Region III with the stand-off distance equal to z1 are predicted and

of
further compared with FEM results. The number of series expansions is 100, which gives
the converged computation results with the residual less than 1×10-8. It is also noteworthy
that in the FEM model besides the boundary condition of electromagnetic continuity over

ro
every interior boundary, the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition which is
expressed as n  A  0 is imposed on each outermost boundary of the solution region
(radial outermost boundary at r=300mm, axial outermost boundaries at z=-806mm and

-p
802mm). The computed PMEC responses to the specimen from ETREE and FEM are
shown in Figure 3.
re
Table 1. Parameters of the probe and specimen
r1 (mm) r2 (mm) r3 (mm) z1 (mm) z2 (mm)
8.0 12.1 14.8 2.1 12.2
lP

σ2, σ3…σL
N d1 (mm) σ1 (MS/m) h (mm)
(MS/m)
405 6.0 34.87 0 300.0
na
ur
Jo

Figure 2. The excitation-current signal for driving the coil

 of
ro
Figure 3. PMEC signals predicted via ETREE and FEM

It can be observed from Figure 3 that regardless of different radial positions where the

-p
magnetic field sensor is deployed, the PMEC signals predicted via ETREE agree well
with those of FEM. Further comparison reveals that the maximum relative error is less
than 0.1%. In regard to the computation time, it takes ETREE approximately 2.3s to
re
calculate the signal whilst FEM costs over 800s due to utilisation of the extremely dense
mesh with 174,234 elements for securing the converged and high-accuracy results.
Comparing with FEM, the high efficiency of ETREE in prediction of PMEC signals is
further identified, which is complementary to previous investigation involving the
lP

conventional pancake-shaped probe [12].

3.2 Simulations and discussion

na

A series of simulations have been conducted based on the ETREE model especially Eqs.
(18)-(20) in an effort to investigate the evaluation sensitivity of the funnel-shaped probe
to an aluminium-alloy plate subject to the subsurface corrosion. It is assumed that the
perimeter of the corrosion is considerably larger than the probe size. As a result, it is
ur

analogous to the subsurface wall-thinning defect. During simulations, the PMEC

responses from the probe to the defect with its depth (D) varying from 0mm to 6mm are
computed. In a bid to identify the advantage of the funnel-shaped probe, the signals from
Jo

the pancake-shaped probe with the rectangle-cross-section coil (portrayed in Figure 1) are
also simulated by using the previous ETREE model presented in [12]. It is noted that the
lift-off, number of turns, height, inner and outer radii of the excitation coil in the
pancake-shaped probe are equal to z1, N, z2-z1, r1 and r2 in Table 1, respectively. For both
probe scenarios, the PMEC signal of z-component of the net field is acquired from the
magnetic field sensor placed at the bottom centre of the coil (the stand-off distance and
radial coordinate equal to z1 and zero, respectively). The computed PMEC signals are
presented in Figure 4.
It can be seen from Figure 4 that the magnitude of the PMEC signal from the funnel-
shaped probe is directly proportional to the depth of the subsurface defect, due to the
suppression of eddy currents within the conductor and thus decrease in the eddy-current-
induced magnetic field opposing the incident field when the defect progresses. This
agrees with the correlation of the signal amplitude with defect depth for the pancake-
shaped probe. Note that for both probes the signal extrema in different cycles of the
carrier wave are dissimilar. This indicates that compared with conventional ECT based
on time-harmonic excitation, PMEC is considered as one of the transient eddy current
techniques which also include PEC. It is also noticeable from Figure 4 that with respect
to each defect case, the signal magnitude for the funnel-shaped probe is lower than that of
the pancake-shaped probe. It could be resulted from the fact that in contrast to the funnel-
shaped probe, more magnetic field flux can be concentrated at the probe centre when the
pancake-shaped probe with relatively smaller outer radius is utilised as the concentration

of
of magnetic field flux is inversely proportional to the outer radius of the excitation coil
[21]. Even though this could seemingly benefit the testing Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)
and spatial resolution in defect imaging, higher dissipation of electromagnetic field in the

ro
conductor occurs for the pancake-shaped probe which adversely mitigates the diffusion
of electromagnetic field particularly the eddy currents adopted to inspect the subsurface
defect.

-p
re
lP
na
ur

(a)
Jo
 of
ro
(b)
Figure 4. The simulation results: (a) PMEC signals vs. corrosion depths for different
probes; and (b) signals within the temporal window (0≤t≤10ms)

-p
Following the analysis, further investigation has been carried out to scrutinise the density
of eddy currents distributing over the upper and back surfaces of the unflawed specimen
re
(D=0mm). The computed eddy current density against the radial coordinate for every
probe is exhibited in Figure 5(a) along with Figure 5(b) presenting the eddy current
distribution. It is noteworthy that the eddy current density as the function of the radial
lP

coordinate i.e., the eddy current distribution Jec(r) is extracted at the time instant when the
absolute amplitude of the testing signal |Bz| reaches the extremum.
na
ur
Jo

(a)
 of
ro
(b)
Figure 5. The simulation results of the eddy current density at the upper and back

-p
surfaces of the conductor: (a) Jec against the radial coordinate; and (b) radial distribution
of Jec

It is observed from Figure 5(a) that Jec at the back surface of the conductor for the funnel-
re
shaped probe is higher than that for the pancake-shaped probe whilst the eddy current
densities at the conductor upper surface for both probes are comparable. This implies
higher penetration of electromagnetic field into the conductor for the funnel-shaped probe
lP

than the pancake-shaped probe. The reasoning lies in the fact that with the coil height
fixed, the equivalent outer radius of the parallelogram-cross-section coil in the funnel-
shaped probe i.e., 2  z2  z1  g   2r2 is larger than that in the pancake-shaped probe (2r2).
Since the electromagnetic-field diffusion along the thickness of the conductor is directly
na

proportional to the outer diameter of the excitation coil [21], in contrast to the pancake-
shaped probe more eddy currents induced by the funnel-shaped probe the can reach the
conductor back surface for interrogation of subsurface defects. As for the eddy current
distribution, it can be seen from Figure 5(b) that even though the eddy current density
ur

over the conductor upper surface regarding the pancake-shaped probe is slightly higher
than that of the funnel-shaped probe, larger magnitude of Jec at the conductor back
surface can be noticeable for the funnel-shaped probe. Further comparison of the total
Jo

eddy-current strength Iec (i.e., integration of Jec over the conductor back surface from
0mm to 8mm) reveals that compared with the pancake-shaped probe, the eddy-current
strength over the conductor back surface is increased by 14.5% when the funnel-shaped
probe is used, though the total eddy-current strength over the conductor upper surface for
the pancake-shaped probe is 5.7% higher than that of the funnel-shaped probe. This
indicates that the eddy current density within the conductor body for the funnel-shaped
probe is stronger, which gives rise to the lower amplitude of the testing signal regarding
the net field due to the opposing phenomena of the eddy-current-induced/secondary
magnetic field to the incident field.
Since in regard to PMEC and other transient EC techniques difference signals are
normally adopted to extract the signal features such as Peak Value (PV) for defect
evaluation, after testing signals are computed the difference signal for every defect case is
derived from subtraction of the signal with defects into the reference signal for unflawed
scenario. PVs are subsequently extracted from the difference signals for analysis of
testing sensitivity ε, ε=PV/D. The acquired difference signals and sensitivity curves i.e.,
ε(D) are presented in Figure 6(a) and Figure 6(b), respectively. It is noteworthy that the
initial sensitivity i.e., εini for D=0mm is computed based on Eq. (19) together with ηi(t)
replaced by ∂[ηi(t)]/∂(D) which can be readily derived by applying the related equation in
[12].

of
ro
-p
re
lP

(a)
na
ur
Jo

(b)
Figure 6. Acquired results of the difference signals and sensitivity curves: (a) difference
signals vs. defect depths; and (b) testing sensitivity in function of the defect depth at
different radial positions of the magnetic field sensor
It can be observed from Figure 6(a) that for each defect case the amplitude of the
difference signal for the funnel-shaped probe, which essentially enhances the diffusion of
electromagnetic field in the conductor, is higher than that of the pancake-shaped probe.
This implies that the funnel-shaped probe is advantageous over the pancake-shaped probe
with higher sensitivity to the subsurface defect. Further investigation regarding the
sensitivity curve shown in Figure (b) is also supportive of the finding. It can be seen from
Figure 6(b) that the testing sensitivities of funnel-shaped and pancake-shaped probes
monotonically rise as the depth of the subsurface defect increases. This arises from the
fact that more eddy currents are suppressed in the presence of the subsurface defect with
its depth coming close to the conductor thickness. Whereas, during the defect progression,
the sensitivity of the funnel-shaped probe is approximately 35.5% higher than that of the
pancake-shaped probe. Therefore, the superiority of the funnel-shaped probe to the

of
pancake-shaped probe for evaluation of subsurface flaws in conductors is identified.

Further investigation regarding comparison of testing sensitivity between the funnel-

ro
shaped and pancake-shaped probes has been carried out particularly for a rectangle-cross-
section coil with larger Outer Radius (OR) than the pre-designed OR. The sensitivity
curve of the pancake-shaped probe with OR=r3+r2-r1 is computed out and also presented

-p
in Figure 6(b). It is noticeable from Figure 6(b) that the pancake-shaped probe with larger
OR has the biggest testing sensitivity to the subsurface defect, compared with the other
probe scenarios. This indicates that the geometrical extension of the coil cross-section
re
from rectangle to parallelogram for further improvement of PMEC sensitivity should be
conducted based on the original design of the rectangle-cross-section coil particularly in
regard to its inner and outer diameters. The advantage of the funnel-shaped probe over
lP

the pancake-shaped probe for evaluation of subsurface flaws can barely hold when the
OR of the rectangle-cross-section coil is larger than the OR of the bottom winding of the
parallelogram-cross-section coil. In other words, for the rectangle-cross-section coil with
pre-designed OR equal to (r3+r2-r1), the outer radius of the bottom winding regarding the
corresponding parallelogram-cross-section coil of the funnel-shaped probe should also
na

equal to (r3+r2-r1) in a bid to further improve the testing sensitivity.

4. Experiments
ur

In parallel to the theoretical investigation, a series of experiments have been carried out
in a bid to further indicate the advantage of the funnel-shaped probe over the pre-
designed pancake-shaped probe in evaluation and imaging of subsurface defects.
Jo

4.1 Experimental setup

A PMEC system has been built up for intensive investigation regarding evaluation of
localised subsurface corrosion in planar conductors with the proposed funnel-shaped
probe and pancake-shaped probe. The schematic illustration of the system is portrayed in
Figure 7 along with the side-view image of the fabricated funnel-shaped probe. The
parameters of the funnel-shaped probe are the same as those tabulated in Table 1 where
the number of turns (i.e., N), height (i.e., z2-z1), inner and outer radii (i.e., r1 and r2) apply
also to the excitation coil of the pancake-shaped probe. The design lift-off of each probe
is 1.2mm. Regarding every probe, the Tunnel Magneto-resistance (TMR) sensor
(MultiDimension TMR-MMLP57F) is placed at the bottom centre of the excitation coil
for sensing the PMEC signal of z-component of the net magnetic field. The testing
specimen employed in the experiment is an aluminium-alloy plate whose nominal
thickness, conductivity and relative permeability are 4.0mm, 34.9MS/m and 1.0,
respectively. In consideration of the plate thickness, the carrier-wave frequency of the
PMEC excitation current is chosen as 400Hz in reference to the frequency-selection
strategy [12]. The remaining parameters of the excitation current include the maximum
amplitude of 500mA, the pulse width of 12.5ms and the modulation-wave frequency of
40Hz.

of
ro
-p
Figure 7. Schematic illustration of the PMEC system (inset: side-view image of the
fabricated funnel-shaped probe)
re
In a bid to simulate the subsurface corrosion, a series of Flat-bottom Holes (FBHs) are
fabricated on the back surface of the specimen. The diameter of the FBH (Dia) varies
from 10mm to 20mm whilst the depth of the FBH (D) changes from 1mm to 4mm
lP

(simulating the through-wall corrosion). The distance between the centres of each two
FBHs is 50mm. For each corrosion scenario, the 2D probe scanning is carried out along
with the scanning interval fixed at 1mm. The PMEC signals from the funnel-shaped and
pancake-shaped probes are acquired at every scanning position for further processing. It
na

is noteworthy that during the course of the experimental investigation the system
configurations involving the parameters of the excitation signal and each probe, etc.
remain invariant except: (1) the change from the funnel-shaped probe to pancake-shaped
probes for comparison regarding the testing performance; and (2) variations in the
diameter and depth of the FBH.
ur

4.2 Comparison in evaluation of subsurface corrosion

Jo

It is noteworthy that prior to the 2D scanning the probe is placed firstly over the defect-
free region of the specimen in order to acquire the reference signal. Following this, the
testing signal obtained at every scanning position when the probe scans over the
corrosion is subtracted into the reference signal for acquiring the difference signal. In
regard to each probe, the reference signal and testing signal when the probe is right over
the corrosion are presented in Figure 8(a) whilst the resultant difference signals are
exhibited in Figure 8(b).
 of
(a)

ro
-p
re
lP
na

(b)
Figure 8. Signals from experiments with funnel-shaped and pancake-shaped probes: (a)
reference and testing signals; and (b) difference signals for different corrosion cases
ur

It can be observed from Figure 8(a) that for both probe cases compared with the reference
signal when the corrosion volume increases, the magnitude of the testing signal rises,
Jo

which is due to more perturbation of eddy currents and thus decrease in the secondary
field in the presence of corrosion. Similar to findings in simulations, in regard to each
corrosion scenario the signal amplitude for the pancake-shaped probe is slightly higher
than that for the funnel-shaped probe. Whereas, it can be noticed from the subfigures in
the second column of Figure 8(a) that the difference in the signal magnitude between the
testing and reference signals from the funnel-shaped probe is larger than that from the
pancake-shaped probe, which indicates higher sensitivity of the funnel-shaped probe to
the subsurface corrosion in contrast to the pancake-shaped probe. This is further
confirmed from the difference signals presented in Figure 8(b). It can be seen from
Figure 8(b) that for each corrosion scenario the amplitude particularly PV of the
difference signal for the funnel-shaped probe are higher than those for the pancake-
shaped probe. This implies that the funnel-shaped probe is superior to the pancake-
shaped probe in terms of higher evaluation sensitivity to subsurface corrosion in
conductors.

Similar to the theoretical investigation, after the difference signal is derived at each
scanning position the signal feature i.e., PV is extracted in an effort to produce the
corrosion image. Figure 9 presents the acquired images for the funnel-shaped and
pancake-shaped probes regarding the corrosion scenarios where the corrosion diameters
are 15mm and 20mm whilst the depths are 2mm and 3mm. The real opening profile of
each corrosion is also indicated by the solid line in Figure 9. It is noteworthy that the
image values of the corrosion images are normalised to the maximum value which

of
manifests in the image of the corrosion with Dia=20mm and D=3mm.

ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur

(a)
Jo
 (b)
Figure 9. Acquired images of subsurface corrosion by using: (a) the funnel-shaped probe;

of
and (b) the pancake-shaped probe

It can be seen from Figure 9 that for both probes when the corrosion depth rises, the

ro
image value increases. Besides, the image value particularly at the corrosion edge can
also be found to be directly proportional to the corrosion diameter. This is due to the fact
that more eddy currents are disturbed as the corrosion volume is increased. Comparing
the corrosion images shown in Figure 9(a) with those in Figure 9(b), it can be intuitively

-p
observed that the image contrast of the corrosion image for the funnel-shaped probe is
higher than that for the pancake-shaped probe. This indicates: (1) more significant
perturbation of eddy currents induced by the funnel-shaped probe in the presence of the
re
same corrosion than the pancake-shaped probe; and thus (b) higher sensitivity to the
subsurface corrosion by using the funnel-shaped probe. In order to further identify this,
for all corrosion cases PVs are extracted from the difference signals when each probe is
lP

deployed right over the corrosion centres, following which the correlation between PV
and D when the subsurface corrosion progresses in depth is derived and analysed. The
acquired correlation curves are portrayed in Figure 10.
na
ur
Jo

Figure 10. PV of the difference signal vs. corrosion depth against different corrosion
diameters
It can be observed from Figure 10 that for each corrosion scenario the PV for the funnel-
shaped probe is larger than that of the pancake-shaped probe. This also holds for the case
where the corrosion with the fixed diameter progresses in depth. Further investigation
regarding PV/D depicting the evaluation sensitivity reveals that compared with the
pancake-shaped probe, the sensitivity to the subsurface corrosion in conductors is
enhanced by using the funnel-shaped probe, which is supportive of the finding from the
theoretical simulations. Therefore, through theoretical and experiment investigations, the
superiority of the funnel-shaped probe geometrically extended from the pre-designed
pancake-shaped probe in terms of higher PMEC sensitivity to subsurface corrosion in
conductors is affirmed.

of
5. Conclusion

ro
In an effort to further improve the PMEC sensitivity to subsurface defects in conductors,
in this paper a funnel-shaped probe consisting of a parallelogram-cross-section coil and
magnetic field sensor is proposed based on the pre-designed pancake-shaped probe with

-p
given coil parameters. The cross-section of the excitation coil is geometrically extended
from rectangle to parallelogram together with the inner and outer diameters of the bottom
winding equal to those of the pre-designed rectangle-cross-section coil. The new probe is
re
intensively investigated via theoretical and experimental analyses.

Considering the probe structure, the closed-form expressions of field quantities and
lP

PMEC signals in the spectral and temporal forms are formulated based on ETREE
modelling. Following this, theoretical simulations are conducted in a bid to compare the
PMEC sensitivity to subsurface corrosion between the funnel-shaped and pancake-shaped
probes. By analysing the eddy current density and signal response to a planar conductor
subject to the subsurface wall-thinning defect, it has been found that compared with the
na

pre-designed pancake-shaped probe, the funnel-shaped probe benefits the diffusion of

electromagnetic field within the conductor for defect interrogation, and thus enhances the
testing sensitivity to the subsurface defect. Such finding gets further supported by the
analysis via experiments with localised subsurface corrosion. In experimental
ur

investigation, following the fabrication of the funnel-shaped probe and specimens with
corrosion in various sizes, a series of experiments have been carried out for
characterisation, evaluation and imaging of localised subsurface corrosion via PMEC.
Jo

The experimental results including signal responses and corrosion images reveal that the
funnel-shaped probe is advantageous over the pre-designed pancake-shaped probe in
terms of higher sensitivity to subsurface corrosion, which is supportive of the conclusion
drawn from the simulations.

Through theoretical and experimental investigations, the superiority of the funnel-shaped

probe geometrically extended from the pre-designed pancake-shaped probe can be
identified particularly regarding the testing sensitivity to the subsurface defect. This could
be beneficial to the sensitivity enhancement in PMEC together with PEC and ECT, and
thus the improvement of accuracy in imaging and evaluation of subsurface defects in
conductive structures.

Author statement
Yong Li: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - Original Draft
Zhengshuai Liu: Investigation, Validation
Bei Yan: Data Curation, Visualization
Yi Wang: Investigation, Formal analysis
Ilham Mukriz Zainal Abidin: Validation, Writing - Review & Editing

of
Zhenmao Chen: Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing

ro
Declaration of interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments
-p
re
The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 51777149, 11927801), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of
lP

China (Grant No. XJJ2018027), National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No.
2017YFF0209703) for funding this research.

References
[1] C. G. Camerini, L. B. Campos, V. M. A. Silva, D. S. V. Castro, R. W. F. Santos, J.
na

M. A. Rebello and G. R. Pereira, Correlation of eddy current signals obtained from EDM
notches and fatigue cracks, Journal of Materials Research and Technology, Vol. 8, No. 5,
2019, pp. 4843-4848.
[2] K. Tsukada, M. Hayashi, Y. Nakamura, K. Sakai and T. Kiwa, Small eddy current
ur

testing sensor probe using a tunneling magnetoresistance sensor to detect cracks in steel
structures, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 54, No. 11, 2018, Article No. 6202205.
[3] J. Martín, J. Gil and E. Sánchez, Non-destructive techniques based on eddy
Jo

current testing, Sensors, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2011, pp. 2525-2565.

[4] L. Janousek, K. Capova, N. Yusa and K. Miya, Multiprobe inspection for
enhancing sizing ability in eddy current nondestructive testing, IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1618-1621.
[5] A. Sophian, G. Y. Tian and M. B. Fan, Pulsed eddy current non-destructive
testing and evaluation: a review, Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 30,
2017, pp. 500-514.
[6] G. Preda, M. Rebican and F. I. Hantila, Integral formulation and genetic
algorithms for defects geometry reconstruction using pulse eddy currents, IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 46, No. 8, 2010, pp. 3433-3436.
[7] S. Hosseini and A. Lakis, Application of time–frequency analysis for automatic
hidden corrosion detection in a multilayer aluminum structure using pulsed eddy current,
NDT&E International, Vol. 47, 2012, pp. 70-79.
[8] V. Arjun, B. Sasi, B. P. Rao, C. K. Mukhopadhyay and T. Jayakumar.
Optimisation of pulsed eddy current probe for detection of sub-surface defects in stainless
steel plates. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, Vol. 226, 2015, pp. 69-75.
[9] L. Xie, B. Gao, G. Y. Tian, J. D. Tan, B. Feng and Y. Yin, Coupling pulse eddy
current sensor for deepter defects NDT, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, Vol. 293,
2019, pp. 189-199.
[10] K. S. Rao, S. Mahadevan, B. P. C. Rao and S. Thirunavukkarasu, A new approach
to increase the subsurface flaw detection capability of pulsed eddy current technique,
Measurement, Vol. 128, 2018, pp. 516-526.
[11] U. Nalika, A. Alen, M. J. Valls and V. Teresa, Non-destructive evaluation of

of
ferromagnetic material thickness using pulsed eddy current sensor detector coil voltage
decay rate, NDT&E International, Vol. 100, 2018, pp. 108-114.
[12] Y. Li, B. Yan, D. Li, H. Q. Jing, Y. L. Li and Z. M. Chen, Pulse-modulation eddy

ro
current inspection of subsurface corrosion in conductive structures, NDT&E International,
Vol. 79, 2016, pp. 142-149.
[13] B. Yan, Y. Li, S. T. Ren, I. M. Abidin, Z. M. Chen and Y. Wang, Recognition and

-p
evaluation of corrosion profile via pulse-modulation eddy current inspection in
conjunction with improved Canny algorithm, NDT&E International, Vol. 106, 2019, pp.
18-28.
re
[14] J. Huang, T. Hong, M. Bojarski, F. de León and D. Czarkowski, Design algorithm
of a uniform magnetic field transmitter intended for the wireless charging of electric
vehicles, 2014 IEEE International Electric Vehicle Conference (IEVC), Florence, 2014,
lP

pp. 1-6.
[15] C. X. Pei, T. H. Liu, H. Chen and Z. M. Chen, Inspection of delamination defect
in first wall with a flexible EMAT-scanning system, Fusion Engineering and Design, Vol.
136, 2018, pp. 549-553.
[16] Y. Li, G. Y. Tian and A. Simm, Fast analytical modelling for pulsed eddy current
na

evaluation, NDT&E International, Vol. 41, No. 6, 2008, pp. 477-483.

[17] T. P. Theodoulidis and E. E. Kriezis. Eddy current canonical problems (with
applications to nondestructive evaluation). TechScience Press; 2006.
[18] Y. Li, B. Yan, W. Li, H. Q. Jing, Z. M. Chen and D. Li, Pulse-modulation eddy
ur

current probes for imaging of external corrosion in nonmagnetic pipes, NDT&E

International, Vol. 88, 2017, pp. 51-58.
[19] I. M. Abidin, C. Mandache, G. Y. Tian and M. Morozov, Pulsed eddy current
Jo

testing with variable duty cycle on rivet joints, NDT&E International, Vol. 42, 2009, pp.
599-605.
[20] H. Tsuboi, N. Seshima, I. Sebestyen, J. Pavo, S. Gyimothy and A. Gasparics,
Transient eddy current analysis of pulsed eddy current testing by finite element method,
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2004, pp. 1330-1333.
[21] S. Udpa, Handbook of Nondestructive Testing: Electromagnetic Testing (Volume
5), American Society for Nondestructive Testing, INC, ISBN 1-57117-116-9, 2004.
 Yong Li received his Ph.D from Newcastle University (UK) in 2009. He has been
working at School of Aerospace Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University as associate professor in
the field of electromagnetic sensors for nondestructive evaluation (NDE). His research interests
involve finite element simulation and analytical modelling for electromagnetic problems,
electromagnetic non-destructive testing and evaluation, 3D magnetic field measurement, signal
processing and feature extraction techniques, etc.

of
ro
Zhengshuai Liu is currently the master student at School of Aerospace
Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University in the field of electromagnetic sensors for nondestructive

-p
evaluation (NDE). His research is focused on analytical modelling of eddy current testing and
other electromagnetic NDE techniques, signal/image processing and feature extraction
techniques, etc.
re
lP
na

Bei Yan is currently the postgraduate student towards Ph.D at School of

Aerospace Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University in the field of electromagnetic sensors for
ur

nondestructive evaluation (NDE). His research is focused on pulse-modulation eddy current

testing, image processing and feature extraction techniques, etc.
Jo

Yi Wang is currently the master student at School of Aerospace Engineering,

Xi’an Jiaotong University in the field of electromagnetic sensors for nondestructive evaluation
(NDE). His research is focused on analytical modelling of eddy current testing and
electromagnetic acoustic transduction, signal/image processing and feature extraction
techniques, etc.

Ilham Mukriz Zainal Abidin received his Ph.D from Newcastle University (UK) in 2011.

of
He is currently the manager for the Leading Edge Non-Destructive Testing Technology (LENDT)
Group of the Industrial Technology Division, Malaysian Nuclear Agency (since 2002). His
research interests involve pulsed eddy current (PEC), eddy current thermography, phased array

ro
ultrasonic testing (PAUT), etc.

-p
re
Zhenmao Chen received the Ph.D from University of Tokyo (Japan) in 1998.
He is currently a professor in School of Aerospace Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University. His
lP

current research interests include strength and vibration problems due to electromagnetic force,
theory and application of electromagnetic nondestructive evaluation (ENDE), and inverse
problems of eddy current testing.
na
ur
Jo