Aguide For Nondestructive Evaluation

Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Nondestructive evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 The forward problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2 The inverse problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 Physical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Mathematical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.3 Numerical models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Review of eddy current NDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Maxwell’s equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 Potential theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 Green’s function approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.7 Scalar Green’s functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.8 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Basic Theory: Planar Interfaces 13

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Free-space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1 Free-space vector potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.2 Coil impedance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 Simple planar interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.1 1D planar interface problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.2 Planar interface problem: half-space conductors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4 General planar interface problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4.1 Half-space revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.5 Vector potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.6 Coil impedance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3 Basic Theory: Cylindrical Interfaces 27

3.1 Cylindrical interface problem: bore-hole conductors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 General 3D cylindrical interface problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2.1 Bore-hole revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3 Vector potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
i
ii CONTENTS
3.4 Coil impedance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4 The Layered Media Forward Problem 39

4.1 Numerical Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.1.1 Analytic expression of the models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.1.2 Numerical evaluation of the improper integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.1.3 The planar Fourier integrand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.1.4 The cylindrical improper integrand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Validation Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.3 Air-cored probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.3.1 Incident electric field for planar media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3.2 Incident electric fields for cylindrical media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.4 Differential probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.5 Ferrite-core probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5.1 Magnetic field in probe region due to coil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.5.2 Electric field in work-piece due to ferrite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5 3D Analysis: The Volume Integral Approach 51

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.2 Dyadic Green’s functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2.1 Dyads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2.2 Free-space dyadic Green’s function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2.3 Scalar decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.3 Integral Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.3.1 Scattered electric field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3.2 Induced magnetic field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3.3 Definition of moment method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.4 Moment method and electromagnetic problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.4 Air-cored probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.4.1 Incident field for planar media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.4.2 Incident fields for cylindrical media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.4.3 Flaw impedance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.5 Differential probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.6 Ferrite-core probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.6.1 Magnetic field in probe region due to coil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.6.2 Electric field in work-piece due to ferrite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6 3D Field Analysis: The Scattered Field 71

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.2 Integral Expression of the Scattered Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.3 Approximating the Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.4 Dyadic Green’s Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.5 3D Field Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
CONTENTS iii
7 3D Matrix Elements Analysis 79

7.1 Free-space matrix elements for planar media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.1.1 Evaluation of singular matrix elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.1.2 Adaptive integration of non-singular integrands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
7.1.3 Continuity between methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
7.2 Matrix elements for planar media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2.1 Dyadic image terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2.2 Dyadic correction terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.2.3 Determining correction term coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.3 Matrix elements for cylindrical media types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
8 The 3D Forward Problem 99

8.1 Physical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
8.2 Mathematical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
8.3 Numerical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
8.4 Validation Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
8.4.1 Disc in a constant field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
8.4.2 Half-disc embedded in a half-space in a constant field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
8.4.3 Layered half-space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
8.4.4 The infinite strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
8.4.5 Air-cored coil over a machined slot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Bibliography 108
iv CONTENTS
List of Figures
1.1 Conceptual model of IGA in an austenitic stainless steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Conceptual model of surface-breaking and embedded cracks with IGA in an austenitic
stainless steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Forward problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Inverse problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Free-space physical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.2 NDE air-cored probe model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 3D interface problem for a half-space conductor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Half-space physical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5 3D interface problem for any stratified conductor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 Interface problem for bore-hole conductor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2 3D interface problem for any stratified cylindrical conductor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1 Layered media forward model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.2 Differential probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.1 Flaw in host material with planar boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.2 Flaw in hosts with cylindrical boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.3 Differential probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
7.1 First octant at the singularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

7.2 Support of 1D basis functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
(xx)
7.3 Numerical integration of I000 as function of ratio of sizes of the exclusion cube to the
element cube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
7.4 Sources for simple image terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.5 Path lengths of image and first multiple reflection terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
8.1 3D Forward Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

8.2 Predicted response of an infinitely thin disc in a constant field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
8.3 Predicted response of an infinitely thin half-disc in a constant field . . . . . . . . . . . 104
8.4 Impedance and phase response of the EddyCentre 1D Model to the EddyCentre 3D
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
v
vi LIST OF FIGURES
8.5 Infinite strip and square of half-width 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

8.6 Embedded rectangle in a slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
List of Tables
4.1 Probe parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.2 Measured versus predicted lift-off direction angles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1 Scalar correction terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.1 Coefficients for Dklm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

(xx)
7.2 Coefficients for Bklm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
(xy)
7.3 Coefficients for Bklm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
vii
viii LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 1
Introduction
The chess-board is the world; the pieces are what we call the laws of Nature. The player
on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just, and patient.
But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest
allowance for ignorance.
Thomas Henry Huxley 1825–1895
1.1 Nondestructive evaluation

Nondestructive evaluation (NDE), in the ideal sense, lets one see inside materials to locate and size
defects. All NDE procedures have an illumination source: visible light, ultrasonic waves, gamma rays,
electromagnetic waves, etc., and some sort of media on which the illuminated image is projected or
recorded: retina, transducers, film, impedance analyzers, etc. It is this projected image, scattered from
the defect, that is the basis of NDE.
Not all NDE inspection involves defect discrimination. Many NDE applications involve the in-
spection of variations of layer or plate thicknesses, which could be important for quality control in a
manufacturing setting. Other applications might be the monitoring changes in the stresses in materials
by monitoring changes in there material properties, for instance inspecting the tensile and compressive
loads which occur in rail road rails due to environmental temperature changes.
There are two distinct aspects of NDE, qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative NDE is concerned
only with detection of a defect or whether some threshold level has been violated. On the other hand,
quantitative NDE is concerned with locating and sizing defects or provided numerical measures of
depth or material properties. Historically, qualitative NDE has been the most widely used. However,
if more information is needed than just the mere presence of cracks or corrosion, then quantitative
techniques must be applied.
Defects can be combinations of inclusions, cracks, voids, corrosion or variations in material prop-
erties. Figure 1.1, for example, schematically shows a cross-section of the micro-crack structure of
1
2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
H
HHHH H
H HHH
H
HHHH
HHH
H H H
H H H
Figure 1.1: Conceptual model of IGA in an austenitic stainless steel
intergranular attack (IGA) in an austenitic stainless steel. This is form of environmentally assisted
cracking that occurs in the grain structure. A feature of this type of cracking is that it tends to from
as layers achieving a mature depth. In practice multiple initiation sites lead to isolated patches which
can then interlink.
To some extent the type of defect determines the NDE technique to be used, because the defect
must scatter the illumination source in a detectable way. In dye penetrant testing, the dye interacts
with the crack structure on the surface of the material shown in the Figure, indicating the extent and
possibly some measure of the density of the corrosion. Eddy current inspection, on the other hand,
can interact with the entire volume of the crack structure, and therefore contains information about
all of the corrosion.
We will be interested in eddy current nondestructive examination. Eddy current techniques are
based on the physical phenomenon that the eddy currents induced in a test-piece by an eddy current
probe causes the impedance of the probe to change. The resistive losses which occur in the test-piece
increase the resistive loss in the coil. The magnetic flux arising form the induced current opposes the
magnetic flux generated by the current in the coil, hence causing a change in the inductive component
of the coil. Variations in the electromagnetic properties of the test-piece, due to a defect, variations
in geometry, etc., will cause the probe’s impedance to vary as it is scanned over the workpiece. These
changes in signal are the basis of eddy current NDE. Ideally, an eddy current probe would provide a
field measurement at a large number of points for each probe position, instead it gives one complex
number for each probe position. The NDE inspector only gets to see a “shadow”, a 1D projection,
of this induced field. It is this nature of eddy current inspection which makes it hard to use the
measurements in a quantitative way.
Figure 1.2 schematically represents a cross-section of a surface breaking crack and an embedded
crack within an area of IGA which could result from manufacture or from stress corrosion cracking
induced by significant surface stresses. Quantitative NDE should distinguish between Figures 1.1
and 1.2. If eddy current NDE is used, the eddy currents induced in the workpieces in Figure 1.2
be deflected by these large defects in a complicated, but predictable way, causing an increase in the
impedance ∆Z in the probe. This scattering is what illuminates the flaws.
There are two distinct types of problems in NDE:
1. For a known flaw and probe, what is ∆Z?
2. For a known ∆Z and probe, what is the flaw?

1.1. NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION 3
H
HHHH H
H HHH
H
HHHH
HHH
H H H
H H H
Figure 1.2: Conceptual model of surface-breaking and embedded cracks with IGA in an austenitic
stainless steel
These distinct problems are the forward and inverse problems, respectively, and are discussed in the
next two sections.
1.1.1 The forward problem

The interaction of eddy currents with defects is quite a complex phenomenon, but if a firm under-
standing can be developed then one has taken a large step towards quantitative eddy current testing.
Lord and Palanisamy[LP81] describe this very well:
Although many eddy current tests are carried out to determine composition, hardness,
dimensions, and other properties of metal parts, the major barrier to further development
of eddy current and, indeed, all electromagnetic testing methods at this time, is the lack
of a viable theoretical model capable of predicting the complex field/defect interactions
which are the very essence of any sound defect characterization scheme.
The theoretical model is often referred to as the forward problem or forward model and is the heart
of any quantitative scheme.
SYSTEM RESPONSE
SYSTEM
PARAMETERS
-
-
Figure 1.3: Forward problem
The forward problem is describing the response of some system when all the inputs into the system
are known. The forward problem is well-posed if the system response to a fixed set of inputs is
always the same, that is to say the system response is a function of its inputs. This function is
represented diagrammatically in Figure 1.3. The system response can be multi-dimensional, but must
be completely determined by the input parameters.
In this work the forward problem of interest predicts a probe response due to a workpiece. In
the framework of Figure 1.3, the inputs consists of all the dimensional and material parameters to
describe the probe, work-piece and flaw with the driving force being the alternating current in the
probe. The response is the change in impedance ∆Z in the coil due to the workpiece. The system, in
this example, governs the relationship between the probe and the flaw in the workpiece. Understanding
the interactions of induced eddy currents in the workpiece is based on an appropriate physical model,
mathematical model, and numerical model.
1.1.2 The inverse problem
RESPONSE SYSTEM
- SYSTEM -
PARAMETERS
Figure 1.4: Inverse problem
The inverse problem can be described as predicting the input of some system which has caused
a known system response. This problem is well-posed, if for a particular response, there is a unique
set of system parameters. This requirement, referred to as one-to-one, is a much more stringent
requirement for the inverse problem to be well-posed than for the forward problem. The inverse
problem is represented diagrammatically in Figure 1.4.
The inverse problem to be discussed involves computing the material properties of the flaw, when
the impedance change ∆Z is known. It may be necessary to include several frequencies for this problem
to be well-posed.
1.2 Modelling
Modelling is an attempt to describe the system behaviour with a simple set of rules. The accuracy
of the model is dependent on how well these rules describe the system. For example, if the system
to be studied is the population of rabbits and foxes in a closed ecological system, the rules could be:
foxes eat rabbits, rabbits don’t eat foxes, rabbits eat grass, grass dies if there are too many rabbits,
foxes die if there are too few rabbits. With these simple rules, an attempt can be made to model the
population changes inside this closed ecological system. This model as stated is not quantitative, it
just sets down rules or assumptions about the behaviour of the system. It is the physical model.
1.2.1 Physical models

A physical model attempts to describe the system by setting out some simplifying assumptions, not
necessarily quantitative ones, that the system follows. In the rabbit and fox system described above,
the rules seem quite intuitive and would help build understanding of the population variations of the
two species. However, if there was a high speed motorway through this closed system, the model,
as stated, would be unlikely to predict population changes accurately, because of the failure of the
physical model to fit the actual situation. By these simplifying assumptions, it is hoped that the
1.3. REVIEW OF EDDY CURRENT NDE 5
system can then be described mathematically so that quantitative information can be obtained. This
is the mathematical model.
1.2.2 Mathematical models

A mathematical model describes the physical model in quantitative terms, it is the theoretical descrip-
tion of the system. For example, the population of rabbits r(t) and foxes f (t) at time t could be
described as
∂r
r(t) = c0 + c1 ṙ; r(0) = r0
∂f
∂f
f (t) = c2 + c3 f˙; f (0) = f0 (1.1)
∂r
for parameters c0 , . . . , c3 . By choosing the parameters appropriately, all the assumptions in the physical
model can be realized and the mathematical model will be able to predict the population at any time
t by solving the mathematical system.
1.2.3 Numerical models

If a mathematical model is available, then the forward problem can be solved, if all the inputs are
known. In the rabbit and fox system modelled by the equations in (1.1), if the parameters c0 , . . . , c3 ,r0
and f0 are known, an attempt can be made to solve for r(t) and f (t). However, there may not be
a closed form expression for the solution to this problem, in which case the solution needs to be
approximated by numerical techniques. The computational model or numerical model entails finding
approximate solutions to the mathematical model. Similarly, if the populations r(tj ) and f (tj ) are
known at several times tj , j = 0, 1, . . . , n, the inverse problem would amount to solving for, or at least
approximating, the coefficients c0 , . . . , c3 .
It is important to notice at this stage that there are two distinct types of modelling errors. The
first is the difference between the numerical model approximation and the exact solution to the math-
ematical model. These are numerical errors. The other is the difference between the exact solution of
the mathematical model and real world response of the system. These are modelling errors. A good
model is one that is efficient to compute, but has small modelling and numerical errors in its solution.
1.3 Review of eddy current NDE

Electromagnetic NDE has a long history in England, and played an important role during the Second
World War in two important areas: radar and mine sweeping. Both applications involved detection,
with some discrimination. Although both areas of research were in their infancy, they had won over
major support from scientific and political arenas. In a meeting at the Air Defence Research committee
in July, 1935, Robert Watson-Watt, inventor of radio direction finding (RDF)1 , presented his paper
‘Detection and Location of Aircraft by Radio Methods’ for the first time to Sir Winston Churchill,
1
The American term for RDF, Radio Direction and Ranging, was later adopted in an effort to standardize on
nomenclature, hence RADAR
who was to become a strong advocate. At the meeting he passed a four line pencilled note across the
table saying[Gil82]
‘Seeking, Finding, Following, Keeping,
Is he sure to bless?
Angels, Martyrs, Prophets, Virgins,
Answer: ”M, Yes”.’
The detection of enemy aircraft by radar was one of the major success stories of the war, firmly
establishing the utility of this electromagnetic technique.
While the Royal Air Force was busy looking for enemy aircraft, enemy mines were busy looking
for the Royal Navy and Allied shipping. Enemy mines were equipped with primitive electromagnetic
detections systems for sensing the passing magnetic field of ships and then exploding. In fact, the
Thames estuary was closed to shipping for over a year because of this danger. The Royal Navy
developed an successful experimental electromagnetic technique for projecting an image of a ship
ahead of its bow to trigger these mines, unfortunately for the crew, it was not too far ahead[N.90].
This started a tradition of expertise in mine sweeping continued to this day. The Royal Navy also
developed electromagnetic counter-measures for its fleet to avoid detection by these mines.
In the following decade, industry began using electromagnetic techniques for inspection. Most
of these techniques were empirical. In an early effort, General Motors[Han57] was using a quasi-
theoretical approach to measure overlay thicknesses. However; the equipment used was analog and
based on calibrated standards, advances in computers still restricted quantitative NDE to theoretical
work. The theoretical basis upon which quantitative NDE stands, was being laid down at this time.
Work by Tai[Tai58] and Wait[Wai62] to mention a few.
By the mid-60’s, advances in computer science had made computational electromagnetics possible
and affordable for large corporations or government bodies. Therefore, theoretical results could now
be approximated numerically as well as verified by experiment. The theoretical work continued with
important contributions on the analytical and computational complexities of the free-space Green’s
function by Fikioris[Fik65] an Van Bladel[Van61]. In their important paper Dodd and Deeds[DD68]
provided a theoretical basis for understanding the interaction between and eddy current probe and
planar and cylindrical conductors with up to two layers. This work also showed that numerical
results were in good agreement with experiment for a large range of normalized probes geometries.
Contributions were also being made from geophysics, where geophysicists were faced with similar
problems. This can be seen in the work of Weaver[Wea67].
The theoretical efforts continued into the next decade. The seventies saw the important work of
Dodd and Deeds[DCD73] and Wait[Wai79] on cylindrical conductors. The geophysicists were now look-
ing at volume integral techniques to solve their problems, with important contributions from Raiche
and Coggon[RC75]. During this period quantitative eddy current NDE became well established as an
accepted inspection technique in the field; being used especially in safety related areas in aerospace,
oil and power generation industries. In the field calibration standards and manual inspection still were
the norm, with very little numerical analysis of data.
There has been an explosion of effort on the computational side of eddy current NDE since 1980
as computation speed has increased and the price of hardware decreased. Early in this decade there
were several results attempting to come to grips with the nature of the singularity in the heart of
the Green’s function uses for electromagnetic analysis when using integral techniques by Lee[L+ 80],
1.4. MAXWELL’S EQUATIONS 7
Yaghjian[Yag80], Wang[Wan82] and Beissner[Bei86]. Finite element techniques were also applied to
NDE by Lord[LP81] and Vérité[V8́4] and others. Boundary elements techniques were developed by
Beissner[Bei89] and others.
Experimental work for the validation of theory and computer codes has been carried out by
Burke[Bur88a, Bur88b]. In an effort to establish experimental and theoretical benchmarks for these
complicated codes two international organizations were established: Testing Electromagnetic Analy-
sis Methods (TEAM) and Applied Computational Electromagnets (ACES). Some of the validation
exercises in this work are compared against these benchmarks.
The application of the volume integral technique to eddy currents is the main contribution of
this work. This method has been applied by Sabbagh and Sabbagh[SR87], Mc Kirdy[McK89] and
Bowler[BSS89], to cite a few. The volume integral approach divides only the flaw region into small
elements and uses a Green’s function approach to predict how each element interacts with all the others.
A different Green’s function is used for each of the simple stratified media examined, so the boundary
conditions need not be imposed externally, so there is no need to subdivide the un-flawed media.
Approaches in the past have relied on Fourier techniques to compute the inter-element interaction.
But this technique proved expensive in both memory and computer time and gave poor results when
the cell aspect ratio increased much above 4. The accuracy of computing these interactions is critical
in finding a good result[JB91]. In later chapters, a physical space integration technique is described
that is precise, robust, fast and uses very little memory. This approach has allowed the implementation
of the volume integral technique to run on personal computers on desk tops and is one of the most
exciting aspects of this work.
The whole framework of electromagnetic NDE fits inside the framework of Maxwell’s equations
which are discussed next.
1.4 Maxwell’s equations

Maxwell’s equations in differential form are
∂B(r, t)
∇ × E(r, t) = −
∂t
∂D(r, t)
∇ × H(r, t) = J(r, t) +
∂t
∇ · D(r, t) = ρ(r)
∇ · B(r, t) = 0, (1.2)
where H is the magnetic field, B the magnetic flux density, E the electric field intensity, J the current
density, D is the distribution current and ρ is the electric charge density.
In order to find solutions to these equations, some simplifying assumptions about the physical
problems under investigation are needed. Assume that the materials present are ideal in some way.
Assume that the permeability µ(r) and permittivity (r) are isotropic and homogeneous, that is to say
that there exist constants µι and ι such that
D(r, t) = ι E(r, t), B(r, t) = µι H(r, t). (1.3)

Assume further that the materials are linear with respect to conductivity σ(r), which implies that
J(r, t) = σ(r)E(r, t). (1.4)
Now assume that the source term, J(r, t), hence all the fields, are time harmonic with frequency
ω; the time dependence is of the form e−iωt . Suppressing the time dependence, one can rewrite
equation (1.2) as
∇ × E(r) = iωµι H(r)

∇ × H(r) = [σ(r) − iωι ] E(r). (1.5)
By eliminating H in equation (1.5), we obtain the vector wave equation[Tai71]
∇ × ∇ × E − k 2 E = iωµ0 J, (1.6)
where
p 1+i
k= iωµι σι = (1.7)
δ
with δ being the skin depth: the free-space wavelength. The skin depth is an important parameter,
since all electromagnetic interactions are limited to ranges of up to two or three skin depths.
1.5 Potential theory

The field H may be determined by introducing a magnetic vector potential. Generally a field vector
can be defined (apart from a trivial constant) by specifying its curl and its divergence. The magnetic
vector potential is conventionally defined such that B = ∇ × A, therefore for a nonmagnetic region
(B = µ0 H),
1
H= ∇ × A, (1.8)
µ0
where µ0 is the permeability of free-space. From equation (1.5)
E = iωA − ∇φ, (1.9)
for any scalar potential φ, since ∇ · ∇ × φ ≡ 0. Substituting equations (1.8) and (1.9) back into
equation (1.5) to find[Tai71]
∇ × ∇ × A = µ0 J + k 2 A + iωµ0 0 ∇φ. (1.10)
Apply the identity ∇ × ∇× ≡ ∇∇ · −∇2 and restrict the choice of the scalar potential by imposing
the Lorentz gauge: ∇ · A = iωµ0 0 φ, to equation (1.10) to find
∇2 A + k 2 A = −µ0 J, (1.11)
which is a vector Helmholtz equation. A solution to (1.11) can be written simply as

Z
A(r) = −µ0 G(r|r0 )J(r0 ) dr0 , (1.12)
V
1.6. GREEN’S FUNCTION APPROACH 9
where G(r|r0 ) is the scalar Green’s function discussed in the next section. Once the vector potential
A has been determined, the electric field E is known, since
1

E(r) = iω A(r) + ∇∇ · A(r) . (1.13)
k2
Before going any further there are some straightforward but significant things to notice about
(1.11) and the proposed form of its solution. Firstly (1.11) is of the form L(A) = −µ0 J, where L is
a linear operator, for it has the property L(A + B) = L(A) + L(B). The fact that it is linear allows
us to use the Green’s function method. Secondly because L is a scalar operator (∇2 + k 2 I in this
case) and the free-space boundary condition on A does not introduce coupling between components,
the Cartesian components of A are independent. This means we can formally express the solution of
(1.11) as A = L−1 (−µ0 J), where L−1 is a scalar operator. Here we are writing the solution of a vector
problem as an scalar integral operator acting on a vector source. However, it is not always possible
to use a scalar operator for this purpose. In general, an elementary vector source gives rise to a field
having a different direction. In addition components of the field may be coupled both through the
governing equation and through the boundary conditions. In dealing with these complications, dyadic
Green’s functions are used but for the present we shall continue to use scalar Green’s functions.
1.6 Green’s function approach

The Green’s function approach is introduced by looking at one-dimensional heat flow in a rod. For
appropriate physical constants, the heat distribution u(x) can be expressed as[Sta79]
d2 u
− = f (x), 0 < x < 1; u(0) = 0, u(1) = 0, (1.14)
dx2
where f (x) is the forcing function. Equation (1.14) is a linear, inhomogeneous differential equation.
The Green’s function approach allows for the solution to this equation for a particular forcing function
in a form that can be reused for other forcing functions. This can be achieved using the superposition
principle: If u1 (x) is a solution with forcing function f1 (x) and u2 (x) is a solution with forcing
function f2 (x), then u1 (x) + u2 (x) is a solution with forcing function f1 (x) + f2 (x). Therefore, the
superposition allows the decomposition of complicated data into simpler parts, solving each simpler
boundary condition, and then reassembling these solutions to find a solution to the original problem.
Solving (1.14) illustrates this approach. Decompose the interval [0, 1] into n equal parts of length
∆x0 and on each subinterval assign a point source which approximates f (x) over the subinterval. Using
the superposition principle, the temperature at x for all concentrated sources is
n
g(x|x0 )f (x0 )∆x0 ,
X
(1.15)
i=0
which as n → ∞, tends to Z 1
u(x) = g(x|x0 )f (x0 )dx0 . (1.16)
0
It can be shown that this limit is unique and depends continuously on the forcing function[Sta79].
The Green’s function can be constructed by solving the special case when the forcing function is
a unit source at x = x0 . On the intervals [0, x0 ) and (x0 , 1] f (x) = 0, hence g 00 (x) = 0 and taking into
account that g vanishes at the endpoints, we find that
g(x|x0 ) = Ax, 0 < x < x0 ; g(x|x0 ) = B(1 − x), x0 < x < 1. (1.17)
The one-dimensional character of the problem means that no heat flows through the lateral surface,
so
− g 0 |x=x0 + + g 0 |x=x0 − = 1 (1.18)
which, as tends to 0, leads to the jump condition for g 0 :
g 0 |x=+ − g 0 |x=− = −1 (1.19)
Combining equations (1.17) and (1.19), the Green’s function is found to be

(
(1 − x0 )x 0 ≤ x < x0
g(x|x0 ) = (1.20)
(1 − x)x0 x0 < x ≤ 1
1.7 Scalar Green’s functions

The steady diffusion equation in a three-dimensional medium for a concentrated steady unit source at
the origin can be written as[Sta79]
− ∇2 u + q 2 u = δ(x), x ∈ Ω, (1.21)
where Ω is assumed to be the whole space. A mass balance shows that the flux through a small sphere
about the source must equal the input in the ball, that is,
∂u
Z
lim − dS = 1. (1.22)
→0 |x|= ∂n
Impose the condition that u vanishes at infinity. The concentration will depend only on the radial
coordinate r, so on switching to cylindrical coordinates equation (1.21) can be written
1 d du

− 2 r2 + q 2 u = 0, r > 0, (1.23)
r dr dr
while equation (1.22) becomes
du

2
− 1 = lim 4π . (1.24)
→0 dr r=
Introduce the change of variable v = u/r into (1.23) to find
− v 00 + q 2 v = 0, (1.25)
which has as general solution Ae−qr + Beqr . The required behaviour at infinity implies that B = 0,
while imposing (1.24) gives A = 1/4π. Therefore, the solution is
e−qr
u= . (1.26)
4πr
1.8. OBJECTIVES 11
The effect of a source at x0 is obtained by translation. The concentration due to such a source is what
is called the scalar Green’s function:
0
0 e−q|x−x |
G(x|x ) = . (1.27)
4π|x − x0 |
The scalar Green’s function needed in equation (1.12) is of the same form[Tai71]
0
0 eik|r−r |
G(r|r ) = . (1.28)
4π|r − r0 |
and is referred to as the dynamic scalar Green’s function for time harmonic sources in free-space. If
the frequency of the source goes to zero, the static scalar Green’s function is obtained:
1
G0 (r|r0 ) = . (1.29)
4π|r − r0 |
These Green’s functions play a fundamental role in the following chapters.
1.8 Objectives
The objectives of this work are:
1. The creation and validation of theoretical and numerical models for predicting probe responses
for a large class of planar and cylindrical stratified conductors: the layered forward model.
2. The creation and validation a valid theoretical and numerical models for predicting probe re-
sponses from defects of general shape and material properties in planar or cylindrical stratified
materials: the 3D forward model.
3. The creation and validation of theoretical and numerical models for predicting depth and material
properties of a layer on a conducting half-space from eddy current probe signals: the layered
half-space inverse model.
The basic theory needed to analyze stratified conductors is presented in the next two chapters: the
first for conductors with planar boundaries, the second for conductors with cylindrical boundaries.
Chapter 2
Basic Theory: Planar Interfaces
By viewing nature, nature’s handmaid art,

Makes mighty things from small beginnings grow: . . .
John Dryden 1631–1700
2.1 Introduction
The first step in modelling complex physical behaviour is to develop some sort of physical model,
with simplifying assumptions that will make analysis possible. It is then hoped that the behaviour of
the model will substitute for the behaviour of the more complex system. For NDE, we must develop
models for the test piece, and possibly flaws inside the test piece, and a model of the probe. We can
then analyze the interaction between these models to predict the complex probe/material interaction.
We divide the type of analysis into two types: simple layered conductors without flaws and a full
three-dimensional analysis. The simple layered analysis is further divided by considering conductors
having planar and cylindrical geometries. The material properties are assumed constant in each layer.
Only in the full three-dimensional analysis will the material properties be allowed to vary in all three
coordinate directions. Of course we could study the two dimensional case, when material properties
vary only in two coordinate directions, but this analysis does not cover very many practical physical
problems in NDE.
In this chapter, the basic theory for analyzing simple planar layered conductors is presented. The
theory is an extension of the work done by Dodd and Deeds at Oak Ridge Laboratory[DD68]. Their
work treated three special cases of conductors with layered structures. The theory presented in this
chapter extends the theory to conductors with any number of layers, with an electric source in any
region; therefore, layers on both sides of the source region are considered. Although this situation
does not arise in practice, the inclusion of these additional conducting regions allows for a consistent
notation and theory to be used when the source region under consideration changes from region to
region. Conductors with cylindrical geometries will be considered in Chapter 3.
13
14 CHAPTER 2. BASIC THEORY: PLANAR INTERFACES
Once this theoretical machinery is in place, it is applied to the planar physical models that are
the subject of this chapter. The models correspond to layered materials with a certain type of planar
geometry or media type. The simplifying assumptions and the parameters used for each physical model
are presented. Results for each of the different planar types of geometries are presented in detail, even
though they follow quite naturally from the theory presented, because the computation is non-trivial.
2.2 Free-space
σ0
µ0
Figure 2.1: Free-space physical model
Assuming an infinite linear, isotropic space, as shown schematically in Figure 2.1, various elec-
tromagnetic quantities can be determined when an electric source is introduced into this space. For
example, if a point source is introduced, the electric field can be determined; or if an air-cored axially
symmetric coil is introduced, the impedance in the coil can also be determined.
The conductivity σ0 and the permeability µ0 are everywhere constant. The physical model is just
an idealization of the material properties to allow investigation. This physical model can be used, for
example, in the study of the free-space inductance of a coil in air, in which case σ0 should be set to
zero. The magnetic vector potential and coil impedance will be determined for this simple model.
2.2.1 Free-space vector potential

Let the current density J(r) be axially symmetric, having the form
◦
J(r) =J (ρ0 , z 0 )φ̂0 . (2.1)
Converting the dynamic scalar Green’s function from equation (1.28) into cylindrical coordinates by
the substitutions
x = ρ cos φ y = ρ sin φ
(2.2)
u = α cos β v = α sin β,
then
u(x − x0 ) + v(y − y 0 ) = α[ρ cos(φ − β) − ρ0 cos(φ0 − β)]

du dv = α dα dβ
φ̂0 = φ̂ cos(φ − φ0 ) + φ̂ sin(φ − φ0 ). (2.3)
One can show by integration that[FM73]

0
eik|r−r | 1 ∞ ∞ 1 −α|z−z 0 | iu(x−x0 )+iv(y−y0 )
Z Z
G(r|r0 ) = 0
= e e du dv, (2.4)
4π|r − r | (2π)2 −∞ −∞ 2α
2.2. FREE-SPACE 15
the vector potential can be determined by employing equations (1.12) and (2.4). Therefore,
◦ ◦ ◦
Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A(r) =A (r)φ̂ = µ0 φ̂ G (ρ, z|ρ , z ) J (ρ z ) ρ dρ dz , (2.5)
where
◦ 1 2π Z 2π Z
0 0 0 iα[ρ cos(φ−β)−ρ0 cos(φ0 −β)]
G (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = 2
G(z|z
e )e
(2π) 0 0
· cos(φ − β) cos(φ0 − β)α dα dφ0 dβ, (2.6)
and
0 1 −α|z−z 0 |
G(z|z
e )= e . (2.7)
2α
Using the standard integral[ASrka]
1
Z 2π
J1 (α) = eiα cos θ cos θ dθ, (2.8)
2πi 0
integration of (2.6) with respect to φ0 and β gives

◦
Z ∞
0 0 0
G (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = G(z|z
e )J1 (αρ)J1 (αρ0 )α dα. (2.9)
0
In order to describe the vector potential due to an axially symmetric current density, start with
◦
the current density produced by a delta-function coil of radius ρj at height lj , so Jj (ρ0 , z 0 ) = δ(ρ0 −
ρj )δ(z 0 − lj ). The axially symmetric form of equation (1.12) can the be used to describe the vector
potential due to this delta coil as
◦ ◦ ◦
Z
0 0 0 0 0 0
Aj (ρ, z) = −µ0 G (ρ, z|ρ , z ) Jj (ρ , z ) dρ dz . (2.10)
The vector potential created from the rectangular cross-section air-cored coil in the probe repre-
sented schematically in Figure 2.2 can be found by using superposition if certain simplifying assump-
tions are made about the coil. The coil is assumed to be axially symmetric and that the current
density is uniformly distributed over the cross-section of the coil and that each loop has the same
phase and amplitude. At high frequencies this assumption breaks down and the coil can resonate;
therefore, the operating frequency of the probe is assumed to be well below this condition. This type
of probe is usually much wider than it is tall and is sometimes referred as a pancake coil. For the
cylindrical conductors, the axis of the coil is assumed to be coaxial to the media and is often referred
to as a bobbin coil.
Applying superposition to equation (2.10) yields
◦ X ◦ X ◦
A (ρ, z) = −µ0 Aj (ρ, z) = −µ0 G (ρ, z|rj , lj )ιj rj , (2.11)
j∈Ω j∈Ω
where ιj is the applied current density of the delta-function coil of radius rj . This describes the vector
potential for coils of any cross-section. If we let the current distribution of the delta-function coils
approach a continuous current distribution, we obtain the vector potential due to the entire coil
◦ ◦
Z
A (ρ, z) = −µ0 G (ρ, z|r, l)ι(r, l)dS. (2.12)
S
σ0 = 0
n = # of turns
µ0
@ @ 6
@ @
@ @
@ @
@@ @@
6 l1
6

r0 l0
liftoff

r1
?
? ? ?
Figure 2.2: NDE air-cored probe model
Assume the coil has an applied current density ι0 that is constant over the dimensions of the coil;
therefore,
◦
Z r1 Z l1 ◦
A (ρ, z) = −µ0 ι0 G (ρ, z|r, l)r dldr. (2.13)
r0 l0
Combining equations (2.9) and (2.13), after reversing the order of integration, yields
◦ µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Z r1 Z l1
A (ρ, z) = rJ1 (αr)J1 (αρ)e−α|z−l| dldrdα. (2.14)
2 0 r0 l0
◦
Integrating with respect to the coil parameters r and l gives the vector potential Aabove (ρ, z) for the
region above the coil, z > l1 , as
◦ −µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h i
Aabove (ρ, z) = J1 (αρ) eα(l1 −z) − eα(l0 −z) dα, (2.15)
2 0 α
where Z r1
Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) = rJ1 (αr)dr. (2.16)
r0
Similarly, for the region below the coil, z < l0 we find

◦ −µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h i
Abelow (ρ, z) = J1 (αρ) eα(z−l0 ) − eα(z−l1 ) dα. (2.17)
2 0 α
◦
The vector potential A (ρ, z) we desire for l0 ≤ z ≤ l1 can be found by combining the vector
◦
potentials for the regions above and below the coil[DD68]. For z in this region, we use Aabove from z
2.3. SIMPLE PLANAR INTERFACES 17
◦
down to l0 and Abelow from z up to l1 . Therefore, by substituting z for l1 in equation (2.15) and z for
l0 in equation (2.17) and adding we have
◦ −µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h i
Acoil (ρ, z) = J1 (αρ) 2 − eα(z−l1 ) − eα(l0 −z) dα. (2.18)
2 0 α
This result has been derived for a coil in free-space, but similar integrals arise in calculating the
vector potential due to axially symmetric coils above planar stratified conductors. In the presence of
these conductors, one must modify the Green’s function to take into account the wave interactions
caused by structure of the material.
2.2.2 Coil impedance

We now have sufficient theory to compute an air-cored probe response in air. For an axially symmetric
coil with a single loop of radius r the induced voltage V is given by[DD68]
◦
V = −2πiωr Acoil (r, z). (2.19)
The total voltage induced by a coil can then be computed as the sum over all of the single loops.
This sum can be computed as an integral over the cross sectional area of the coil times the turn
density. Since we assume that our coils have a constant number of turns per unit cross-sectional area
Ac = (l1 − l0 )(r1 − r0 ), the induced voltage can be written
−2πiωn
Z l1 Z r1 ◦
Vcoil = ρ Acoil (ρ, z)dρdz, (2.20)
Ac l0 r0
where n is the total number of turns.

Using the induced coil voltage Vcoil , the coil impedance is computed simply using the relation
Z = V /I. (2.21)
The applied current density is ι0 = nI/Ac , so combining (2.18), (2.20) and (2.21) and integrating over
the coil dimensions, yields
" #
−2πiωµ0 n2 ∞ 1 2 e−α(l1 −l0 ) − 1
Z
Z= Ψ (α, r0 , r1 ) (l1 − l0 ) + dα. (2.22)
A2c 0 α α
2.3 Simple planar interfaces

Inhomogeneity can be caused by many factors: variations in material properties, defects, edges, joints,
etc. To limit the types of non-homogeneous media under investigation, in this chapter, only materials
without flaws or defects will be considered. Flawed medias will be considered in later chapters. This
chapter will analyze only the anomalies caused from boundaries between simple homogeneous planar
regions.
To motivate the general planar stratified eddy current interface problem, a simple one-dimensional
planar interface problem is considered first.
Region 0 incident - Region 1

a transmitted
-
reflected
aΥ1
φ0 (z) aΓ1 φ1 (z)
z-
Figure 2.3: 3D interface problem for a half-space conductor
2.3.1 1D planar interface problem

Imagine we have two regions, 0 and 1. In each there is an associated medium and a steady-state
wave-like disturbance described by a scalar potential φj , j = 0, 1 satisfying
" #
d2
+ kj2 φj (z) = 0, (2.23)
dz 2
where kj , for j = 0, 1 is the wave number for each region, respectively. Figure 2.3 shows the situation
schematically. Suppose that at the boundary, z = 0, we have the following interface conditions
µ0 φ0 = µ1 φ1
dφ0 dφ1
= . (2.24)
dz dz
Solutions to (2.23) are of the form
φj = Aj eikj z + Bj e−ikj z , (2.25)
where Aj and Bj , j = 0, 1 are constants representing the amplitude of the incident waves travelling
from the left and right, respectively. Assume that there is an incident wave travelling from the left, of
amplitude a, possibly coming from a source some way off in the negative z-direction. This situation
is represented by the solution
φ0 (z) = a[e−ik0 z + Γ1 eik0 z ]
φ1 (z) = aΥ1 e−ik1 z , (2.26)
where Γ1 is the reflection coefficient, which describes the magnitude and phase of the wave reflected
from the interface. Υ1 is the transmission coefficient, which describes the magnitude and phase of
the wave transmitted through the interface. To evaluate these coefficients the interface conditions in
(2.24) are imposed on the general solution (2.25) to find
µ0 (1 + Γ1 ) = µ1 Υ1 (2.27)
α0 (−1 + Γ1 ) = −α1 Υ1 , (2.28)
where αj = −ikj , j = 0, 1. Solving for the reflection and transmission coefficients yields
µ1 α0 − µ0 α1
Γ1 =
µ0 α1 + µ1 α0
2µ0 α0
Υ1 = . (2.29)
µ0 α1 + µ1 α0
2.3. SIMPLE PLANAR INTERFACES 19
These coefficients will be re-computed in a more general setting later. It is important to note that
these equations for the reflection and transmission coefficients are a consequence of the continuity
conditions at the interface.
2.3.2 Planar interface problem: half-space conductors
σ0 = 0
µ0
σ1
µ1
Figure 2.4: Half-space physical model
Turn now to the three-dimensional planar interface problem by introducing the simplest media
type with an interface, the half-space media type. Figure 2.4 schematically represents the half-space
physical model. This model represents a probe over a linear and isotropic half-space of material of
infinite extent in both the x and y coordinate directions and for all values of z ≥ 0, where the positive
z direction is assumed down and z = 0 at the top of the half-space.
This physical model can be used for studying most ‘flat’ surfaces. Flat, here, meaning that any
variation or curvature of the surface is small relative to the coil parameters. Therefore, this model
could even be applied to bore-hole, tube or pipe inspections, if the probe is normal to the inside or
outside surface and is small relative to the radius of curvature. If the work piece has a depth of at
least 2 skin depths, the interaction with the lower surface will be small; therefore, this physical model
should only be used to study ‘thick’ materials.
Assume there is a half-space of air above a half-space of some conducting material. Suppose the
source is in the air region, region 0, the region where z < 0. Suppose that there exists a potential
φj (r), j = 0, 1 in each region satisfying
(∇2 + k02 )φ0 (r) = J(r)

(∇2 + k12 )φ1 (r) = 0. (2.30)
At the boundary between the regions we have for z = 0,
µ0 φ0 = µ1 φ1
∂φ0 ∂φ1
= . (2.31)
∂z ∂z
Because similar continuity conditions were specified in the one-dimensional case, we can expect to find
similar transmission and reflection coefficients here.
Our solution uses scalar Green’s functions satisfying
(∇2 + k02 )G0 (r|r0 ) = δ(r − r0 )

(∇2 + k12 )G1 (r|r0 ) = 0 (2.32)
with the interface conditions on the Green functions chosen to be the same as on the potentials.
This three-dimensional problem can be turned into the form of the one-dimensional problem we
just saw by taking two-dimensional Fourier transforms of equation (2.32) giving
!
∂2 e 0 (z|z 0 ) = δ(z − z 0 )
− α02 G
∂z 2
!
∂2 e 1 (z|z 0 ) = 0,
− α12 G (2.33)
∂z 2
where
1
αj = (α2 − kj2 ) 2 , α 2 = u2 + v 2 , (2.34)
and where the root with a positive real part is assumed. The form of the solutions will be similar to
those given in equation (2.26),
0 0 0 0
G(z|z
e ) = a[eα0 |z−z | + A0 eα0 (z+z ) + B0 e−α0 (z+z ) ]
0 0 0
G(z|z
e ) = a[A1 eα1 z+α0 z + B1 e−α1 z+α0 z ] (2.35)
Now we have a quasi-one-dimensional problem. The results found previously can be used. Writing
down the general form of the solution and imposing the interface conditions gives
e 0 (z|z 0 ) = 1 −α0 |z−z 0 | 0

G [e + Γ1 eα0 (z+z ) ]
2α0
e 1 (z|z 0 ) = 1 0
G Υ1 e−α1 z−α0 z (2.36)
2α0
Note the correspondence with the solution in the one-dimensional case given in equation (2.29). As
before the interface conditions are used to determine the transmission and reflection coefficients and
they are given by (2.29); only the definition of αj , j = 0, 1 is now given by (2.34).
The vector potential could be derived in either region using these reflection and transmission
coefficients in equation (2.35); however, the vector potential will be derived more generally later. First
general planar stratified media are analyzed.
2.4 General planar interface problem

We now turn to the general planar stratified conductor case. Suppose there are m regions, separated
by planar boundaries to the left of the source region, region 0, and there are n similar regions to the
right of the source region. This situation is illustrated in Figure 2.5. The interfaces are parallel to the
xy-plane and located at the n + m points
0 = z−m < z−m+1 < . . . z−1 ≤ z 0 ≤ z0 . . . < zn−2 < zn−1 .

2.4. GENERAL PLANAR INTERFACE PROBLEM 21
−m −m + 1 −m + 2 ··· −1 0 1 ··· n−2 n−1 n
z−m z−m+1 z−m+2 z−2 z−1 z0 z1 zn−3 zn−2 zn−1
Figure 2.5: 3D interface problem for any stratified conductor
Therefore, in all regions j 6= −m exponential terms with negative arguments can be thought of as waves
propagating to the right in the Figure, while exponential terms with positive arguments propagate to
the left. There is only a left propagating wave in region −m, since the source occurs in region 0 to the
right, hence Γ−m−1 ≡ 0. Similarly, there is only a right propagating wave in region n and Γn+1 ≡ 0. In
each of the remaining regions ±j, there is an associated reflection coefficient Γj±1 and a transmission
coefficient Υ±j , except in region 0, where there are two reflection coefficients Γ−1 and Γ1 .
In each of the regions −j, where −j < 0, the Green’s function has the form
e −j (r|r0 ) = 1 h 0 0
i
G Γ−j−1 e−α−j z−α0 z + Υ−j eα−j z−α0 z , (2.37)
2α0
where Γ−m−1 ≡ 0. In the source region, region 0, the solution has the form
e 0 (r|r0 ) = 1 h −α0 |z−z 0 | 0 0

i
G e + Γ−1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Γ1 eα0 (z+z ) . (2.38)
2α0
In each of the region j, where j > 0, the Green’s function has the form
e j (r|r0 ) = 1 h 0 0
i
G Γj+1 eαj z+α0 z + Υj e−αj z+α0 z , (2.39)
2α0
where Γn+1 ≡ 0. Each Green’s function is a solution of
e j (r|r0 ) = δ0j δ(r − r0 ).
(∇2 + kj2 )G (2.40)
Imposing the same interface conditions as before

e j (zj |z 0 ) = µj+1 G
µj G e j+1 (zj |z 0 )
∂Gej ∂Gej
= , (2.41)
∂z (zj |z 0 )
∂z (zj |z 0 )
for −m ≤ j ≤ n − 1.
For regions −j < −1, to the left of the source region in the Figure, we have the two relations
0 0
h i
µ−j Υ−j e−α−j z−j −α0 z + Γ−j−1 eα−j z−j −α0 z =
0 0
h i
µ−j+1 Υ−j+1 e−α−j+1 z−j −α0 z + Γ−j eα−j+1 z−j −α0 z
0 0
h i
α−j Υ−j e−α−j z−j −α0 z − Γ−j−1 eα−j z−j −α0 z =
0 0
h i
α−j+1 Υ−j+1 e−α−j+1 z−j −α0 z − Γ−j eα−j+1 z−j −α0 z . (2.42)
For region j > 1, to the right of the source region in the Figure 2.5, we have two similar relations
0 0
h i
µj Υj e−αj zj +α0 z + Γj+1 eαj zj +α0 z =
0 0
h i
µj+1 Υj+1 e−αj+1 zj +α0 z + Γj+2 eαj+1 zj +α0 z
0 0
h i
αj −Υj e−αj zj +α0 z + Γj+1 eαj zj +α0 z =
0 0
h i
αj+1 −Υj+1 e−αj+1 zj +α0 z + Γj+2 eαj+1 zj +α0 z (2.43)
Define the matrices

0 0 0 0
" # " #
µj e±αj zj ±α0 z µj e∓αj zj ±α0 z µ0 eα0 (z0 +z ) µ0 e−α0 (z0 +z )
Aj = 0 0 , A0 = 0 0 , (2.44)
αj epmαj zj ±α0 z −αj e∓αj zj ±α0 z α0 eα0 (z0 +z ) −α0 e−α0 (z0 +z )
0 0 0 0
" # " #
µj+1 e±αj+1 zj ±α0 z µj+1 e∓αj+1 zj ±α0 z µ0 e−α0 (z0 −z ) µj+1 eα0 (z0 −z )
Bj = 0 0 B−1 = 0 0 , (2.45)
αj+1 e±αj+1 zj ±α0 z −αj+1 e∓αj+1 zj ±α0 z α0 e−α0 (z0 −z ) −α0 eα0 (z0 −z )
where the positive sign is used for j > 0 and the negative sign is used for regions where j < 0. Also
define corresponding solution vectors as
 h iT



 Υj Γj−1 if j < 0
 h iT
X(j) = 1 Γ Γ−1 if j = 0 . (2.46)

 h iT

 Γj+1

Υj otherwise
Using these matrices the relationships in (2.42) and (2.43) can be rewritten in matrix form for any
two regions not including the source region, that is for −m ≤ j ≤ −2 and 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1, as
Aj X(j) = Bj X(j+1) (2.47)
For the 3 regions involving the source term, we have the following two matrix relationships
A−1 X(−1) = B−1 X(0) + Y(−1)

B0 X(1) = A0 X(0) + Y(0) , (2.48)
where " # " #

(−1) −α0 (z 0 −z−1 ) µ0 (0) −α0 (z0 −z 0 ) µ0
Y =e , Y =e . (2.49)
α0 −α0
So far, we have assumed that m > 0 and n > 0. If m = 0, the source region is a half-space,
since there are no regions to the left. Therefore, there will be no transmission term Υ−1 , so X(−1) ≡
Y(−1) ≡ 0. Similarly, if n = 0, then X(1) ≡ Y(0) ≡ 0. If both m and n are zero, then X(0) ≡ 0,
which corresponds to the free-space case. Equations (2.47) and (2.48) together imply that the system of
equations is block tri-diagonal. If each of the blocks is non-singular, the whole system is singular[IK66],
therefore a solution exists if σj 6= 0 and µj 6= 0 for all j.
2.4. GENERAL PLANAR INTERFACE PROBLEM 23
Using equation (2.47) we can define the transformation matrix from region −j to region −j + 1,
where −j < 0, as
−1 1
T (−j) = B−j A−j = ·
2µ−j+1 α−j+1
" #
(µ−j α−j+1 + µ−j+1 α−j )e−(α−j −α−j+1 )z−j (µ−j α−j+1 − µ−j+1 α−j )e(α−j +α−j+1 )z−j
, (2.50)
(µ−j α−j+1 − µ−j+1 α−j )e−(α−j +α−j+1 )z−j (µ−j α−j+1 + µ−j+1 α−j )e(α−j −α−j+1 )z−j
where −j < −1 and
−1 1
T (−1) = B−1 A−1 = ·
2µ0 α0
0 0
" #
(µ−1 α0 + µ0 α−1 )e−(α−1 −α0 )z−1 −2α0 z (µ−1 α0 − µ0 α−1 )e(α−1 +α0 )z−1 −2α0 z
, (2.51)
(µ−1 α0 − µ0 α−1 )e−(α−1 +α0 )z−1 (µ−1 α0 + µ0 α−1 )e(α−1 −α0 )z−1
The transformation matrix from region −m to region −j is the product of these 2×2 transformation
matrices, so we can define this transformation as
V (j) = T (j−1) T (j−2) · · · T (−m) . (2.52)
The transformation from region j to itself is just the identity matrix, hence V (−m) = I.
The transformation matrix from region j + 1 to region j, where j ≥ 0, is
1
T (j) = A−1
j Bj = ·
2µj αj
" #
(µj+1 αj + µj αj+1 )e(αj+1 −αj )zj (µj+1 αj − µj αj+1 )e−(αj +αj+1 )zj
, (2.53)
(µj+1 αj − µj αj+1 )e(αj +αj+1 )zj (µj+1 αj + µj αj+1 )e(αj −αj+1 )zj
where j > 0 and
1
T (0) = A−1
j B0 = ·
2µ0 α0
" #
(µ1 α0 + µ0 α1 )e(α1 −α0 )z0 (µ1 α0 − µ0 α1 )e−(α0 +α1 )z0
0 0 , (2.54)
(µ1 α0 − µ0 α1 )e(α0 +α1 )z0 +2α0 z (µ1 α0 + µ0 α1 )e(α0 −α1 )z0 +2α0 z
The transformation matrix from region n to region j can be defined as
U (j) = T (j) T (j+1) · · · T (n−1) , (2.55)
where U (n) = I.
By using (2.47) recursively along with (2.48), the relationship can be expressed between X(−m) ,
X(n) and X(0) as
−1 (−1)
X(0) = V (0) X(−m) − B−1 Y
X(0) = U (0) X(n) − A−1 (0)
0 Y . (2.56)
Define
Y = U (0) X(n) − V (0) X(−m) = A−1
0 Y
(0) −1 (−1)
− B−1 Y . (2.57)
Since X(−m) and X(n) have only one unknown each, we can rewrite (2.57) as
(0) (0)
" #" # " #
−V11 U12 η Y1
(0) (0) = , (2.58)
−V21 U22 ζ Y2
where ( (
Υ−m if m > 0 Υn if n > 0
η= ζ= (2.59)
Γ1 otherwise Γ−1 otherwise
and ( 0
( 0
e−2α0 z if m > 0 e2α0 z if n > 0
Y1 = Y2 = , (2.60)
0 otherwise 0 otherwise
which has as a solution
(0) (0)
U12 Y2 − U22 Y1
η = (0) (0) (0) (0)
V11 U22 − V21 U12
(0) (0)
V11 Y2 − V21 Y1
ζ = (0) (0) (0) (0)
. (2.61)
V11 U22 − V21 U12
Now we can use the transformation matrices to determine the reflection and transmission coeffi-
cients in any region. To the left of the source they are simply
" # " #
Υ−j Υ−m
X (−j)
= =V (−j)
= V (−j) X−m . (2.62)
Γ−j−1 0
There is a useful result when n > 0:

(0)
Γ−1 = V21 Υ−m . (2.63)
Similarly, for regions to the right, we have the expression
" # " #
(j) Γj+1 (j) 0
X = =U = U (j) X(n) , (2.64)
Υj Υn
and for m > 0,

(0)
Γ1 = U12 Υn . (2.65)
2.4.1 Half-space revisited

A simple example should illustrate this procedure. For the half-space example considered in Sec-
tion 2.3.2, m = 0 and n = 1. Let z0 = 0. Therefore Y (−1) = 0, V (0) = I, while
" # " #
µ0 µ0 µ1 µ1
A0 = , B0 = (2.66)
α0 −α0 α1 −α1
2.5. VECTOR POTENTIAL 25
" # " #
(0) Γ1 (1) 0
X = , X = (2.67)
0 Υ1
and
(0)
" # " #
1 U11 µ1 α0 − µ0 α1 0
U (0) = T (0) = , Y= 0 (2.68)
2µ0 α0 (0)
U21 (µ1 α0 + µ0 α1 )e2α0 z
0
e2α0 z
Using equations (2.59) and (2.61), we find that
(0)
U12 Y2 µ1 α0 − µ0 α1
η = Γ1 = (0)
=
U22 µ1 α0 + µ0 α1
Y2 2µ0 α0
ζ = Υ1 = (0)
= , (2.69)
U22 µ1 α0 + µ0 α1
which is the same solution obtained in equation (2.29).
2.5 Vector potential

Using the air-cored probe physical model for the electric source, equation (1.12) can be used to express
the vector potential in any region j > 0 as
◦ ◦ ◦
Z
0 0 0 0 0 0
Aj (ρ, z) = −µ0 ι0 Gj (ρ, z|ρ , z ) J (ρ , z )ρ dρdz (2.70)
◦
where Gj (ρ, z|ρ0 , z 0 ) is the axially symmetric Green’s function for region j. The current density in
the probe model is assumed to be constant ι0 = In/Ac throughout the coil. Using equations (2.9) and
(2.39) to give
◦
Z ∞ 1 h 0 0
i
0 0
Gj (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = Γj+1 eαj z+α0 z + Υj e−αj z+α0 z J1 (ρα)J1 (ρ0 α)αdα. (2.71)
0 2α0
The vector potential can now be determined by assuming the quasi-static limit, which implies
α0 ≈ α, and integrating over the coil dimensions yields
◦ −µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h i
J1 (αρ) e−αl0 − e−αl1 Γj+1 eαj z + Υj e−αj z dα.

Aj (ρ, z) = (2.72)
2 0 α
This is the desired result for all regions j > 0. The vector potential in the source region will be
computed in the next section.
2.6 Coil impedance

Using equations (2.38 and (2.71) the vector potential in the source region, region 0, can be written as
◦ −µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Z r1 Z −l1
A0 (ρ, z) = rJ1 (αr)J1 (αρ) ·
2 0 r0 −l0
h i
e−α|z−l| + Γ−1 e−α(z+l) + Γ1 eα(z+l) dl dr dα (2.73)
After, interchanging the order of integration and integrating over the coil dimensions, the vector
potential can be expressed for the region to above the coil, z < −l1 , as[DD68]
◦ −µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h
Aabove (ρ, z) = J1 (αρ) eα(l1 −z) − eα(l0 −z) +
2 α
0 i
Γ−1 eα(z+l0 ) − eα(z+l1 ) + Γ1 e−α(z+l1 ) + e−α(z+l0 ) dα. (2.74)
Similarly, for the region below the coil, z > −l0 , we find
◦ −µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h
Abelow (ρ, z) = J1 (αρ) eα(z−l0 ) − eα(z−l1 ) +
2 α
0 i
Γ−1 eα(z+l0 ) − eα(z+l1 ) + Γ1 e−α(z+l1 ) + e−α(z+l0 ) dα. (2.75)
◦
The vector potential A (ρ, z) for −l0 ≥ z ≥ −l1 can be found by combining these vector potentials, as
we have done for the free-space case, to find
◦ −µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h
Acoil (ρ, z) = J1 (αρ) 2 − eα(z−l1 ) − eα(l0 −z) +
2 0 α
i
Γ−1 eα(z+l0 ) − eα(z+l1 ) + Γ1 e−α(z+l1 ) + e−α(z+l0 ) dα (2.76)
The induced voltage can be found by using equation (2.20), integrating over the coil dimensions.
The current in the coil is I = ι0 Ac /n. Therefore, using the relation Z = V /I, the coil impedance can
be expressed as
−πiωµ0 n2 ∞ Ψ2 (α, r0 , r1 ) h
Z
Z = 2α(l1 − l0 ) + 2e−α((l1 −l0 ) − 2+
A2c 0 α2
2 2
αl1 αl0 −αl1 −αl0
Γ−1 e −e + Γ1 e −e dα. (2.77)
Chapter 3
Basic Theory: Cylindrical Interfaces
The inquiry of truth, which is love making, or wooing of it, the knowledge of truth, which
is the presence of it, and the belief of truth, which is the enjoying of it, is the sovereign
good of human nature.
Francis Bacon 1561 – 1626
Eddy current tube inspection is a common NDE activity. Bobbin probes are pulled through small
thin-walled tubing to inspect the tubes. These probes are the same as the air-cored probes already
examined. However, for tube inspection the probe axis is assumed coaxial to the tube or bore-hole
being examined. This motivates the study of conductors with cylindrical boundaries. The simplest
will be a bore-hole in an infinite media, then a simple tube, and finally two types of layered tubes.
Scalar Green’s functions will be developed for the general stratified cylindrical case and then they will
be applied to analyze each of these particular cylindrical media types in turn.
Dodd and Deeds[DD68] and Wait[Wai62, Wai79] analyzed special cases of cylindrical conductors,
while Dodd, Deeds and Cheng[DCD73] extended the theory for the general case of any number of
cylindrical conductors, with the source in any region. In this chapter this theory is modified and
presents it in a form that is consistent with the planar media types considered in Chapter 2. The
theory is then extended to include the prediction of coil impedances for bobbin coils inside the source
region.
The analysis of cylindrical media cannot begin with a simple one-dimensional case, as was done
for stratified media with planar boundaries, because the analysis will be inherently three-dimensional.
However, the problem can be reduced down to a quasi-one-dimensional problem in a similar way to
the planar example in Section 2.4, in this case in terms of the radial direction.
3.1 Cylindrical interface problem: bore-hole conductors

Figure 3.1 schematically represents the bore-hole physical model. This physical model represents an
infinite bore-hole of radius ρ0 in a linear and isotropic host material of conductivity σ1 and permeability
27
28 CHAPTER 3. BASIC THEORY: CYLINDRICAL INTERFACES
Region 0− Region 0+ Region 1

incident-
transmitted
-

reflected
source at ρ = ρ0 ρ0
Figure 3.1: Interface problem for bore-hole conductor
µ1 of infinite extent. The interior region of the bore-hole is assumed to be free-space, with conductivity
σ0 and permeability µ0 .
This physical model is to be used for bore-hole inspections with a probe assumed coaxial with the
bore-hole. The probe is always assumed to be positioned well away from the top or bottom of the
hole, at least 2 skin depths, to avoid large edge effects.
In order to develop the theory the simplest media type which has a cylindrical boundary will be
studied first: the bore-hole. In a sense, this is a half-space conductor with a periodic solution. The
physical model is shown in Figure 3.1, where the source here is assumed to be a delta-function coil
of radius ρ0 . The conductor is assumed to have infinite extent in all directions. The scalar Green’s
functions which describe the field in either the bore-hole, region 0, or in the conductor, region 1
are to be developed. Once the Green’s functions for a delta-function coil have been determined the
impedance of any driving coil can be analyzed, if the coil is axially symmetric and concentric with the
centre of the bore-hole.
Just as in the planar case, the Green’s functions must satisfy
(∇2 + k02 )G0 (r|r0 ) = δ(ρ − ρ0 )δ(z − z 0 )

(∇2 + k12 )G1 (r|r0 ) = 0. (3.1)
For this example, a point source r0 at the centre of the bore-hole is not assumed, but instead a
delta-function coil source of radius ρ0 . Switching to a cylindrical coordinate system before restating
equation (3.1) in terms of this new source. Assuming that the conductor is homogeneous and that the
driving current is time harmonic with frequency ω, the current density J and the vector potential A
will have only azimuthal components in cylindrical coordinates, hence
◦
J(r) = J (ρ, z)φ̂
◦
A(r) = A (ρ, z)φ̂. (3.2)
◦
The vector potential at (ρ, z), produced by the driving coil with a current density J at (ρ0 , z 0 ), can
be expressed as
◦ ◦ ◦
Z Z
0 0 0 0 0 0
Aj (ρ, z) = µ0 Gj (ρ, z, ρ , z ) J (ρ , z )dρ dz , (3.3)
coil
◦
where G (ρ, z, ρ0 , z 0 ) is the axially symmetric scalar Green’s function for the delta-function current at
(ρ0 , z 0 ). This is analogous to case the of stratified media with planar boundaries, except the source
3.1. CYLINDRICAL INTERFACE PROBLEM: BORE-HOLE CONDUCTORS 29
region must be divided into two parts: one inside the delta-function current loop and one outside.
This is shown in Figure 3.1, where region 0− is assumed inside and region 0+ is assumed outside.
Using the cylindrical form of Laplace operator and integrating with respect to the azimuthal
variable, (3.1) can be rewritten as
" #
1 ∂ ∂ ∂2

◦
+ 2 + k02 G0− (ρ, z|ρ0 , z 0 ) = δ(ρ − ρ0 )δ(z − z 0 ), region 0−
ρ ∂ρ ∂ρ ∂z
" #
1 ∂ ∂ ∂2

◦
+ 2 + k02 G0+ (ρ, z|ρ0 , z 0 ) = δ(ρ − ρ0 )δ(z − z 0 ), region 0+
ρ ∂ρ ∂ρ ∂z
" #
1 ∂ ∂ ∂2

◦
+ 2 + k12 G1 (ρ, z|ρ0 , z 0 ) = 0, region 1, (3.4)
ρ ∂ρ ∂ρ ∂z
with interface conditions

◦ 0 0 0 0 ◦
G0− (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = G0+ (ρ, z|ρ , z ), ρ = ρ0
◦ ◦
µ0 G0+ (ρ0 , z|ρ0 , z 0 ) = µ1 G1 (ρ0 , z|ρ0 , z 0 ), ρ = ρ0
◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
∂ G0− ∂ G0+ ∂ G0+ ∂ G1
= = . (3.5)
∂ρ ∂ρ ∂ρ ∂ρ
ρ=ρ0 ρ=ρ0 ρ=ρ0 ρ=ρ0
The solution to the differential equations in (3.4) can be obtained by separation of variables[DD68,
DCD73]. Let
◦ 0 0 0 0
Gj (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = Rj (ρ|ρ )Zj (z|z ). (3.6)
Divide (3.4) by Rj (ρ|ρ0 )Zj (z|z 0 ) and, after choosing a negative separation constant −α2 , find that
1 ∂ ∂Rj 1 ∂ 2 Zj

0
+ = −α2 . (3.7)
ρRj (ρ|ρ ) ∂ρ ∂ρ Zj (z|z 0 ) ∂z 2
The z dependence is found to be
1 ∂ 2 Zj (z|z 0 )
= −α2 , (3.8)
Zj (z|z 0 ) ∂z 2
which has solutions of the form
Zj (z|z 0 ) = Aj sin{α(z − z 0 )} + Bj cos(α{z − z 0 }). (3.9)
The radial dependence can be written
∂ 2 Rj (ρ|ρ0 ) ∂Rj (ρ|ρ0 )

ρ2 + ρ − (ρ2 αj + 1)Rj (ρ|ρ0 ) = 0, (3.10)
∂ρ2 ∂ρ
where, as before, αj2 = α2 − iωµj σj . This Bessel differential equation has solutions of the form
Rj (ρ|ρ0 ) = Γj I1 (αj ρ) + Υj K1 (αj ρ), (3.11)

where I1 and K1 are modified Bessel functions of first order and Γj and Υj are constants that will be
determined to satisfy the interface conditions.
Since these solutions are valid for an arbitrary value −α2 , they will be valid for all values. Therefore,
the complete Green’s function in each region j will be the integral over the separation constant. Since
the sine term in Zj is an odd function Aj = 0. The result can be expressed as integrals over positive
constants as
◦
Z ∞
G 0− (ρ, z|ρ0 , z 0 ) = Υ0− K1 (αj ρ) cos(α{z − z 0 })dα
Z0∞
◦ 0 0
G0+ (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = [Γ1 K1 (αj ρ) + Υ0+ I1 (αj ρ)] cos(α{z − z 0 })dα
0
◦
Z ∞
0 0
G1 (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = Υj I1 (αj ρ) cos(α{z − z 0 })dα, (3.12)
0
where Γj and Υj are analogous to the reflection and transmission coefficients from Section 2.4.
Unlike the half-space conductor, there are two extra transmission terms and Υ0− and Υ0+ corre-
sponding to regions 0− and 0+ , respectively, and two extra interface conditions. Imposing the interface
conditions (3.5) to (3.12) yields
Z ∞
Υ0− I1 (α0 ρ0 ) cos(α{z − z 0 })dα =
0
Z ∞
Γ1 I1 (αρ0 ) + Υ0+ K1 (αρ0 ) cos(α{z − z 0 })dα

0
Z ∞
δ(z − z ) + Υ0− I0 (α0 ρ ) cos(α{z − z 0 })dα =
0 0
0
Z ∞ 1
Γ1 I0 (α1 ρ0 ) − Υ0+ K0 (α1 ρ0 ) cos(α{z − z 0 })dα + δ(ρ − ρ0 )δ(z − z 0 )

0 α0
Z ∞
µ0 [Γ1 I1 (αρ0 ) + Υ0+ K1 (αρ0 )] cos(α{z − z 0 })dα =
0
Z ∞
µ1 Υ1 K1 (αρ0 ) cos(α{z − z 0 })dα
0
Z ∞
α0 [Γ1 I0 (α1 ρ0 ) − Υ0+ K0 (α1 ρ0 )] cos(α{z − z 0 })dα =
0
Z ∞
−α1 Υ1 K0 (α1 ρ0 ) cos(α{z − z 0 })dα (3.13)
0
Now, use the Fourier integral theorem[Spi83],

1
Z ∞ Z ∞
f (α) cos{α(u)} cos{α (u)}du dα = f (α0 ),
0
(3.14)
π 0 −∞
by multiplying (3.13) by cos{α0 (z − z 0 )}, to find

Υ0− I1 (α0 ρ0 ) = Γ1 I1 (α0 ρ0 ) + Υ0+ K1 (α0 ρ0 )
1
Υ0− I0 (α0 ρ0 ) = Γ1 I0 (α0 ρ0 ) − Υ1 K0 (α0 ρ0 ) +
π
µ0 [Γ1 I1 (α0 ρ0 ) + Υ0+ K1 (α0 ρ0 )] = µ1 Υ1 K1 (α1 ρ0 )
α0 [Γ1 I0 (α0 ρ0 ) − Υ0+ K0 (α0 ρ0 )] = −α1 Υ1 K0 (α1 ρ0 ). (3.15)
3.2. GENERAL 3D CYLINDRICAL INTERFACE PROBLEM 31
Solving for the unknown reflection and transmission coefficients

ρ0 [I1 (α0 ρ0 )C + K1 (α0 ρ0 )D]
Υ0− =
πD
ρ0 I1 (α0 ρ0 ) ρ I1 (α0 ρ0 )
0
Υ0+ = Γ1 = C
π πD
ρ0 I1 (α0 ρ0 )
Υ1 = , (3.16)
πρ0 D
where
C = µ1 α0 K0 (α1 ρ0 )K1 (α0 ρ0 ) − µ0 α1 K0 (α0 ρ0 )K1 (α1 ρ0 )

D = µ1 α0 I0 (α0 ρ0 )K1 (α1 ρ0 ) + µ0 α1 I1 (α0 ρ0 )K0 (α1 ρ0 ) (3.17)
3.2 General 3D cylindrical interface problem
−m −m + 1 −m + 2 ··· −1 0 1 ··· n−2 n−1 n
ρ−m ρ−m+1 ρ−m+2 ρ−2 ρ−1 ρ0 ρ1 ρn−3 ρn−2 ρn−1
Figure 3.2: 3D interface problem for any stratified cylindrical conductor
Now, consider the general case of any multi-layered conductor with cylindrical boundaries. Suppose
there are m layers inside the source region and n layers outside. Each region j is isentropic an linear
with conductivity σj and permeability µj . This situation is illustrated in figure 3.2. All the interfaces
between regions are assumed to be cylindrical and coaxial and occur at the radial distances:
0 < ρ−m < ρ−m+1 < · · · < ρ−1 < ρ0 < ρ0 < · · · < ρn−1 < ρn .
Therefore, region −m is an infinite rod of radius ρ−m , while region n has infinite radial and axial
extent.
In each region −j inside the source region there is a corresponding reflection and transmission
coefficient Γ−j−1 and Υ−j . In each region j outside the source region, similarly, there are Γj+1 and Υj .
The innermost and outermost reflection term must be zero, so we have Γ−m−1 = Γn+1 ≡ 0. Following
the development of Section 2.4 we want to find the general relationship that holds between adjacent
regions. Equation (3.15) can be generalized for any region j outside the source region as[DCD73]
µj [Γj+1 I1 (αj ρj ) + Υj I1 (αj ρj )] = µj+1 [Γj+2 I1 (αj+1 ρj ) + Υj+1 K1 (αj+1 ρj )]

αj [Γj+1 I0 (αj ρj ) − Υj K0 (αj ρj )] = αj+1 [Γj+2 I0 (αj+1 ρj ) − Υj+1 K0 (αj+1 ρj ), ] (3.18)
and write the Green’s function for this region as

◦
Z ∞
0 0
Gj (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = [Γj+1 I1 (αj ρ) + Υj K1 (αj ρ)] cos(α{z − z 0 })dα. (3.19)
0
For any region −j inside the source region we find the similar relationships
µ−j [Υ−j I1 (α−j ρ−j ) + Γ−j−1 K1 (α−j ρ−j )] =

µ−j+1 [Υ−j I1 (α−j+1 ρ−j ) + Γ−j K1 (α−j+1 ρ−j+1 )]
αj [Υj I0 (αj ρ−j ) − Γ−j−1 K0 (αj ρj+1 )] =
α−j+1 [Υj+1 I0 (α−j+1 ρ−j ) − Γ−j K0 (α−j+1 ρ−j )] , (3.20)
and write the Green’s function for this region as

◦
Z ∞
G−j (ρ, z|ρ0 , z 0 ) = [Υ−j I1 (α−j ρ) + Γ−j−1 K1 (α−j ρ)] cos(α{z − z 0 })dα. (3.21)
0
There is a Green’s function associated with each part of the source region, region 0− , where ρ < ρ0 ,
and 0+ , where ρ > ρ0 . They are
◦
Z ∞
0 0
G0− (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = [Υ0− I1 (α0 ρ) + Γ−1 K1 (α0 ρ)] cos(α{z − z 0 })dα
0
◦
Z ∞
0 0
G0+ (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = [Γ1 I1 (α0 ρ) + Υ0+ K1 (α0 ρ)] cos(α{z − z 0 })dα. (3.22)
0
The relationships in (3.18) and (3.20) can be written in matrix form for −m ≤ j ≤ −1 or 1 ≤ j ≤
n − 1, as
Aj X(j) = Bj X(j+1) , (3.23)
where
" #
µj I1 (αj ρj ) µj K1 (αj ρj )
Aj =
αj I0 (αj ρj ) −αj K0 (αj ρj )
" #
µj+1 I1 (αj+1 ρj ) µj+1 K1 (αj+1 ρj )
Bj = , (3.24)
αj+1 I0 (αj+1 ρj ) −αj+1 K0 (αj+1 ρj )
and  h iT



 Υj Γj−1 if j < 0
 h iT
X(j) = 0 Υ − Γ−1 if j = 0 . (3.25)

 h iT

Γj+1 Υj otherwise


Using equation (3.24) we can define the transformation matrix from region −j to region −j + 1
as[DCD73] " # " #
(−j) −1 1 T11 T12 µ−j+1 T11 T12
T = B−j A−j = = (3.26)
D−j+1 T21 T22 ρ−j T21 T22
where
T11 = µ−j α−j+1 I1 (α−j ρ−j )K0 (α−j+1 ρ−j ) + µ−j+1 α−j I0 (α−j ρ−j )K1 (α−j+1 ρ−j )
T12 = µ−j α−j+1 K0 (α−j+1 ρ−j )K1 (α−j ρ−j ) − µ−j+1 α−j K0 (α−j ρ−j )K1 (α−j+1 ρ−j )
T21 = µ−j α−j+1 I0 (α−j+1 ρ−j )I1 (α−j ρ−j ) − µ−j+1 α−j I0 (α−j ρ−j )I1 (α−j+1 ρ−j )
T22 = µ−j α−j+1 I0 (α−j+1 ρ−j )K1 (α−j ρ−j ) + µ−j+1 α−j I1 (α−j+1 ρ−j )K0 (α−j ρ−j ) (3.27)
3.2. GENERAL 3D CYLINDRICAL INTERFACE PROBLEM 33
and
D−j = µ−j α−j [I1 (α−j ρ−j−1 )K0 (α−j ρ−j−1 ) + I0 (α−j ρ−j−1 )K1 (α−j ρ−j−1 )] . (3.28)
The terms in square brackets in (3.28) can be simplified by the use of a Wronskian relationship between
modified Bessel functions[ASrkb](eq. 9.6.15); therefore, D−j = µ−j /ρ−j−1 . The transmission matrix
from region −m to region −j is just the product of these 2 × 2 transformation matrices. We can define
this transformation as
V (−j) = T (−j−1) T (−j−2) . . . T (−m) .
The transformation from region −j to itself is just the identity matrix, hence V (m) ≡ I.
The transformation matrix from region j + 1 to region j is
" # " #
1 T11 T12 ρj T11 T12
T (j+1)
= A−1
j Bj = = (3.29)
Dj T21 T22 µj T21 T22
where
T11 = µj+1 αj I1 (αj+1 ρj )K0 (αj ρj ) + µj αj+1 I0 (αj+1 ρj )K1 (αj ρj )

T12 = µj+1 αj K0 (αj ρj )K1 (αj+1 ρj ) − µj αj+1 K0 (αj+1 ρj )K1 (αj ρj )
T21 = µj+1 αj I0 (αj ρj )I1 (αj+1 ρj ) − µj αj+1 I0 (αj+1 ρj )I1 (αj ρj )
T22 = µj+1 αj I0 (αj ρj )K1 (αj+1 ρj ) + µj αj+1 I1 (αj ρj )K0 (αj+1 ρj ), (3.30)
and
µj
Dj = µj αj [I1 (αj ρj )K0 (αj ρj ) + I0 (αj ρj )K1 (αj ρj )] = . (3.31)
ρj
The transformation matrix from region n to region j can be defined as
U (j) = T (j+1) T (j+2) · · · T (n) ,
where U (n) = I.
The relationship between the two parts of the source region, regions 0− and 0+ , can be written as
A0 X(0) = A0 X0 + Y(0) , (3.32)
where " # " # " #

0 µ0 I1 (α0 ρ0 ) µ0 K1 (α0 ρ0 ) 0 Γ1 (0) 0
A = , X = , Y = . (3.33)
α0 I0 (α0 ρ0 ) −α0 K0 (α0 ρ0 ) Υ0+ 1/π
By using (3.24) recursively along with (3.32), we can express a relationship between X(−m) and X(n) .
This relationship is
" #
ρ0 −K1 (α0 ρ0 )
U (0)
X (n)
−V (0)
X (−m)
= −A−1
0 Y
(0)
= . (3.34)
π I1 (α0 ρ0 )
Since X(−m) and X(n) have only one unknown each, (3.34) can be rewritten as
(0) (0)
" #" # " #
−V11 U12 η ρ0 −K1 (α0 ρ0 )
= , (3.35)
(0) (0)
−V21 U22 ζ π I1 (α0 ρ0 )
where ( (
Υ−m if m > 0 Υn if n > 0
η= ζ= , (3.36)
Υ0− otherwise Υ0+ otherwise
which has as a solution[DCD73]
h i
(0) (0)
ρ0 U22 K1 (α0 ρ0 ) + U12 I1 (α0 ρ0 )
η = h
(0) (0) (0) (0)
i
π V11 U22 − V21 U12
h i
(0) (0)
ρ0 V11 I1 (α0 ρ0 ) + V21 K1 (α0 ρ0 )
ζ = h
(0) (0) (0) (0)
i . (3.37)
π V11 U22 − V21 U12
Now the transformations matrices can be used to determine the reflection and transmission coef-
ficients in any region. Inside the source region they are simply
" # " #
Υ−j Υ−m
X (−j)
= =V (−j)
= V (−j) X−m (3.38)
Γ−j−1 0
and for regions outside the source region we have a similar expression
" # " #
(j) Γj+1 (j−1) 0
X = = U = U (j−1) X(n) , j>1
Υj Υn
X0 = U (0) X(n) (3.39)
3.2.1 Bore-hole revisited

A simple example should illustrate this procedure. For the bore-hole example considered in Section 3.1,
we would have m = 0 and n = 1, with the source inside the conducting region, region 1. Therefore,
V (0) = I, while A0 is given in (3.33) and
" # " #
µ0 I1 (α0 ρ0 ) µ0 K1 (α0 ρ0 ) µ1 I1 (α1 ρ0 ) µ1 K1 (α1 ρ0 )
A0 = , B0 = , (3.40)
α0 I0 (α0 ρ0 ) −α0 K0 (α0 ρ0 ) α1 I0 (α1 ρ0 ) −α1 K0 (α1 ρ0 )
" # " # " #
(0) Υ0− 0 Γ1 (1) 0
X = , X = , X = (3.41)
0 Υ0+ Υ1
and
(0)
" #
(0) ρ0 U11 µ1 α0 K0 (α0 ρ0 )K1 (α1 ρ0 ) − µ0 α1 K0 (α1 ρ0 )K1 (α0 ρ0 )
U = (0) . (3.42)
µ0 U21 µ1 α0 I0 (α0 ρ0 )K1 (α1 ρ0 ) + µ0 α1 I1 (α0 ρ0 )K0 (α1 ρ0 )
Using equation (3.37), we find that
(0) (0)
U22 K1 (α0 ρ0 ) + U12 K1 (α0 ρ0 )
η = Υ0− = ρ0 (0)
πU22
ρ0 I1 (α0 ρ0 )
ζ = Υ1 = (0)
. (3.43)
πU22
3.3. VECTOR POTENTIAL 35
Finally, we have from (3.39)

(0)
" # " #
Γ1 0 (0) (1) Υ1 U12
=X =U X = (0) . (3.44)
Υ0+ Υ1 U22
(0) (0)
These results are the same obtained in equation (3.16), with C = U12 and D = U22 .
3.3 Vector potential

We can use (3.19), (3.37) and (3.39) to write the Green’s function in any region j outside the source
as
◦
Z ∞
0 0
Gj (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = [Γj+1 I1 (αj ρ) + Υj K1 (αj ρ)] cos(α{z − z 0 })dα
0
Z ∞h i
(j) (j)
= U12 I1 (αj ρ) + U22 K1 (αj ρ) Υj cos(α{z − z 0 })dα
0
ρ0 ∞h
Z i
(j) (j)
= U12 I1 (αj ρ) + U22 K1 (αj ρ) ·
π 0
(0) (0)
" #
V11 I1 (α0 ρ0 ) + V21 K1 (α0 ρ0 )
cos(α{z − z 0 })dα, (3.45)
∆0
where
(j) (j) (j) (j)
∆j = V11 U22 − V21 U12 . (3.46)
Similarly, we can use (3.21), (3.37) and (3.38) to write the Green’s function for region −j inside the
source as
◦ ρ0 ∞ h (−j)
Z i
0 0 (−j)
Gj (ρ, z|ρ , z ) = V11 I1 (α−j ρ) + V21 K1 (α−j ρ) ·
π 0
(0) (0)
" #
U22 K1 (α0 ρ0 ) + U12 I1 (α0 ρ0 )
cos(α{z − z 0 })dα, (3.47)
∆0
Once the scalar Green’s function is known for a region, the vector potential can be found by using
(3.3). The air-cored physical model shown in Figure 2.2 has a densely and uniformly wound coil, so
the current density can be assumed to be a constant i0 = In/Ac . Using this fact with (3.3) we can
now write down the vector potential in any region j as
◦
Z l1 Z r1 ◦
0 0 0 0
Aj (ρ, z) = i0 µ0 Gj (ρ, z, r, z )r dr dz . (3.48)
l0 r0
After changing the order of integration and then integrating over the coil dimensions, we have for any
region j outside the source region
◦ i0 µ0
Z ∞h i
(j) (j)
Aj (ρ, z) = U12 I1 (αj ρ) + U22 K1 (αj ρ) ·
π 0
(0) (0)
" #
V11 Ω(α, r0 , r1 ) + V21 χ(α, r0 , r1 )
·
α∆0
[sin(α{z − l0 }) − sin(α{z − l1 })] dα. (3.49)
and for any region inside the coil

◦ i0 µ0
Z ∞h i
(−j) (−j)
A−j (ρ, z) = V11 I1 (α−j ρ) + V21 K1 (α−j ρ) ·
π 0
(0) (0)
" #
U22 χ(α, r0 , r1 ) + U12 Ω(α, r0 , r1 )
·
α∆0
[sin(α{z − l0 }) − sin(α{z − l1 })] dα, (3.50)
where Z r1 Z r1
Ω(α, r0 , r1 ) = ρI1 (αρ)dρ, χ(α, r0 , r1 ) = ρK1 (αρ)dρ. (3.51)
r0 r0
For the infinite bore-hole example, if the field in the infinite conductor is to be determined, equa-
tion (3.49) can be used since E = iωA. For the bore-hole U (0) = I, so
◦ iωι0 µ0
Z ∞ K1 (α1 ρ)
E1 (ρ, z) = (0)
Ω(α, r0 , r1 ) [sin(α{z − l0 }) − sin(α{z − l1 })] dα, (3.52)
π 0 αU22
where
(0)
U22 = µ1 α0 I0 (α0 ρ0 )K1 (α1 ρ0 ) + µ0 α1 I1 (α0 ρ0 )K0 (α1 ρ0 ) (3.53)
Region 0, containing the coil, needs special treatment.[DCD73] The vector potential in region 0+ ,
◦ ◦
A0+ (ρ, z), is given by equation (3.49), with j ≡ 0, while A0− (ρ, z) is found using (3.50). We want
the vector potential only in the region of the coil itself. To find the vector potential at a point in the
◦
coil region, we must, after integration with respect to z, add the integral of A0− for a coil going from
◦
r0 to r to the integral of A0+ for a coil going from r to r1 . Therefore, replacing r for r1 in (3.49) and
replacing r for r0 in (3.50) and adding, we find
(
◦ ι0 µ0
Z ∞ h i
(0) (0)
Acoil (ρ, z) = U12 I1 (α0 ρ) + U22 K1 (α0 ρ) ·
π 0
h i
(0) (0)
V11 Ω(α, r0 , r) + V21 χ(α, r0 , r) +
h ih i
(0) (0) (0) (0)
V11 I1 (α0 ρ) + V21 K1 (α0 ρ) U12 Ω(α, r, r1 ) + U22 χ(α, r, r1 ) ·
)
sin(α{z − l0 }) − sin(α{z − l1 })

dα. (3.54)
α∆0
After expanding, adding and subtracting the term

(0) (0)
U12 V21 [I1 (αρ)χ(α, r, r1 ) + K1 (αρ)Ω(α, r0 , r)] ,
and simplifying, we find

◦ µ0 ι0
Z ∞n
(0) (0) (0) (0)
Acoil (ρ, z) = U12 V11 I1 (α0 ρ)Ω(α, r0 , r1 ) + U22 V21 K1 (α0 ρ)χ(α, r0 , r1 )+
π 0
o
(0) (0)
U12 V21 [I1 (α0 ρ)χ(α, r0 , r1 ) + K1 (α0 ρ)Ω(α, r0 , r1 )] ·
3.4. COIL IMPEDANCE 37
sin(α{z − l0 } − sin(α{z − l1 })

dα +
α∆
Z ∞ Z r 0 Z r1
µ0 ι0 1

K1 (α0 ρ)Ω(α, r0 , r) dr + I1 (α0 ρ)χ(α, r, r1 ) dr ·
π 0 α r0 r
[sin(α{z − l0 }) − sin(α{z − l1 })] dα. (3.55)
If there are no conductors present, that is m = n = 0, then only the second integral in (3.55) remains,
which is just a different formulation to that in equation (2.18), the vector potential for a coil in
free-space, hence the last integral in equation 3.55 can be equated to equations 2.74-2.76.
3.4 Coil impedance

As in Section 2.2.2, in order to compute the coil impedance we first compute the induced voltage V
in a single loop
◦
V = −iω2πr Acoil (ρ, z). (3.56)
As before, the total induced voltage is found by equation (2.20). Using equations (2.20),(3.55) and
(2.18), with the relation Z = V /I, and integrating over the coil dimensions, the coil impedance is
found to be
2iωµ0 n2 ∞ 2 h (0) (0) 2
Z
(0) (0)
Z = U V Ω (α, r0 , r1 ) + U22 V21 χ2 (α, r0 , r1 )
A2c 0 α∆0 12 11
i
(0) (0)
2U12 V21 Ω(α, r0 , r1 )χ(α, r0 , r1 ) [1 − cos(α{l1 − l0 })] +
" #
π 2 e−α(l1 −l0 ) − 1
Ψ (α, r0 , r1 ) (l1 − l0 ) + dα. (3.57)
α α
For the bore-hole example, therefore, the change in impedance in the coil, between free-space and
the bore-hole media types is just the difference between equations (2.22) and (3.57)
(0)
4iωµ0 n2 ∞ U12
Z
∆Z = Ω2 (α, r0 , r1 ) [1 − cos(α{l1 − l0 })] dα, (3.58)
A2c 0
(0)
U22
since V = I.
Chapter 4
The Layered Media Forward Problem
If to do were as easy as to know what were good to do, chapels had been churches, and
poor men’s cottages prince’s palaces.
William Shakespeare 1564 – 1616
The theoretical machinery is now in place to develop the complete numerical model for un-flawed
layered media. The actual models are discussed and the issues that arise in the numerical approxima-
tion to the analytic expressions are addressed. Finally, validation and applications of the models are
discussed.
4.1 Numerical Evaluation

The layered media forward problem can be expressed formally as
Z = F (ω; M, P ), (4.1)
where M , and P are sets of known parameters defining the media and probe, respectively. Z is the
probe impedance, which is to be determined. Figure 4.1 shows the forward model schematically and
represents a simplified flow chart of the computer programme developed.
Figure 4.1: Layered media forward model
4.1.1 Analytic expression of the models

In Chapters 2 and 3 analytic expressions were developed for the layered media forward problem. For
planar media the general expression was given in equation (2.77), repeated and renumbered here
−πiωµ0 n2 ∞ Ψ2 (α, r0 , r1 ) h
Z
Z = 2α(l1 − l0 ) + 2e−α((l1 −l0 ) − 2+
A2c 0 α2
39
40 CHAPTER 4. THE LAYERED MEDIA FORWARD PROBLEM
2 2
αl1 αl0 −αl1 −αl0
Γ−1 e −e + Γ1 e −e dα, (4.2)
while equations (3.57) and (3.58) combine to give the general expression for cylindrical systems,
2iωµ0 n2 ∞ 2 h (0) (0) 2

Z
(0) (0)
Z = U V Ω (α, r0 , r1 ) + U22 V21 χ2 (α, r0 , r1 )
A2c 0 α∆0 12 11
i
(0) (0)
2U12 V21 Ω(α, r0 , r1 )χ(α, r0 , r1 ) [1 − cos(α{l1 − l0 })] +
" #
π 2 e−α(l1 −l0 ) − 1
Ψ (α, r0 , r1 ) (l1 − l0 ) + dα. (4.3)
α α
Both expressions involve improper integrals.

Computationally, it is more accurate to compute the change in impedance in the coil due to some
small perturbation in the structure of the medium than to compute absolute impedance Z in the coil.
This is exactly analogous to measuring the probe response, where the signal is usually “zeroed” on
some base material and the probe signal measured is then just the change between the base material
and the workpiece. Therefore, the models have been implemented to compute the difference in signal
from some base media type and if absolute impedance is desired, the absolute impedance signal from
the base type is added in. There is no base type for free-space media, so the model always computes
absolute impedance. For the half-space and bore-hole conductors, the base type is free space. All other
planar media use the half-space as the base type, while all other cylindrical media use the bore-hole
base type. The actual analytic expressions are given below.
Planar media
The change in coil impedance due the presence of a half-space conductor can be expressed by taking
the difference between (4.2) using the free-space reflection coefficients and the half-space reflection
(planar)
coefficients. For all planar types Γ−1 ≡ 0. In free-space, Γ1 ≡ 0; therefore,
−πiωµ0 n2 ∞ Ψ2 (α, r0 , r1 ) (half ) −αl1

Z 2
−αl0
∆Z = Γ1 e − e dα. (4.4)
A2c 0 α2
For the remaining planar media types, the change in coil impedance due the change in the structure
of the half-space is computed. Again, using equation (4.2) to take the difference, yielding
−πiωµ0 n2 ∞ Ψ2 (α, r0 , r1 ) (half )

Z 2
(planar) −αl1 −αl0
∆Z = Γ1 − Γ1 e − e dα. (4.5)
A2c 0 α2
Cylindrical media
As in the case of media with planar boundaries, equation (4.3) is a general expression for all the
cylindrical media types. For all the cylindrical media types, equation (4.3) can be used to compute
the probe impedance Z (Ohms). Since the coil is inside the conducting regions, m = 0 and n > 0.
4.1. NUMERICAL EVALUATION 41
(0) (0)
Therefore V (0) = I, so we have V11 = 1 and V21 = 0 and equation (4.3) reduces to
(0)
4iωµ0 n2 ∞ Ω2 (α, r0 , r1 ) U12
Z
Z = [1 − cos(α{l1 − l0 })] +
A2c 0 α U
(0)
22
" #
−2πiωµ0 n2 ∞ Ψ2 (α, r 0 , r1 ) e−α(l1 −l0 ) − 1
Z
(l1 − l0 ) + dα. (4.6)
A2c 0 α α
Equation (4.6) represents the general mathematical model for the layered media forward problem
for cylindrical media types. As with the reflection coefficients, the two coefficients U12 and U22 must
(f ree)
be determined for each physical model studied. Using equation (4.6) twice, once with U12 = 0
(f ree)
and U22 = 1 and once with the reflection coefficients for the bore-hole conductor and subtracting,
yields
(bore)
4iωµ0 n2 ∞ Ω2 (α, r0 , r1 ) U12
Z
∆Z = [1 − cos(α{l1 − l0 })] dα. (4.7)
A2c 0 α U
(bore)
22
The integral expression in equation (4.7) is the mathematical model used for the layered media forward
problem for bore-hole conductors. For the remaining cylindrical media types a similar expression,
(bore) (cyln)
" #
4iωµ0 n2 ∞ Ω2 (α, r0 , r1 ) U12 U
Z
∆Z = − 12 [1 − cos(α{l1 − l0 })] dα. (4.8)
A2c 0 α (bore)
U22
(cyln)
U22
4.1.2 Numerical evaluation of the improper integrals

For both planar and cylindrical media, the function F in equation (4.1) represents an improper integral,
an improper integral, which needs to be approximated numerically. Since the integral is well-defined,
a straight forward transformation can be implemented to transform the infinite interval to a finite
one. The mapping used is[P+ 87]
1
Z b Z
a 1

1
f (x)dx = f dt, ab > 0. (4.9)
a 1
b
t2 t
This transformation cannot be applied to the entire intervals of integration in equations (4.2), (4.7)
or (4.8) since the lower limit is a = 0; therefore, the interval of integration [0, ∞) is divided into two
intervals: one finite, [0, c], the other infinite, [c, ∞). The mapping (4.9) is then applied to the second
interval for a fixed value of c, resulting in two finite integrals to be numerically approximated. These
integrals are then approximated by using standard Romberg integration techniques.
The solution of equation (4.1) is independent of the particular value chosen for c in (4.9); however,
the rate of convergence of the Romberg scheme of the transformed integral can be quite slow if small
values are used. It was found that values of c above 1/(3δ) gave good rates of convergence of the
adaptive numerical integration scheme.
4.1.3 The planar Fourier integrand

The numerical approximation of the Fourier integral for planar media types involves the evaluation
of the integrand of the form shown in equation (4.2). The computation of this integrand is straight
forward, except for the term Z r1

Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) = ρJ1 (αρ) dρ. (4.10)
r0
This term can be evaluated by using Struve functions, but this approach does not offer any computa-
tional advantage. Instead, Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) is approximated using polynomial interpolation.
The polynomial approximation is based on the following analysis[Bur86]. By introducing a change
of variable, we have
1 αr1
Z
Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) = 2 xJ1 (x) dx. (4.11)
α αr0
Then integration by parts yields
Z αr1 Z αr1
xJ1 (x) dx = αr0 J0 (αr0 ) − αr1 J0 (αr1 ) + J0 (x) dx. (4.12)
αr0 αr0
Since Z αr1 Z αr1 Z αr1

J0 (x) dx = J0 (x) dx − J0 (x) dx, (4.13)
αr0 0 0
only the integral of J0 need be approximated. On the interval 0 ≤ x < 3 and on the interval 3 ≤ x ≤ 8
polynomial interpolation in x was used, while for large arguments, a polynomial in 1/x was used.
This approach proved to be considerably faster than using the Struve functions and still gave accurate
results. Efficiency is important when evaluating Ψ only because it appears again in the full 3D forward
problem and needs to be evaluated many times.
4.1.4 The cylindrical improper integrand

The evaluation of the integrand for cylindrical media types involves only the evaluation of exponentials
and modified Bessel functions. The only complication here is that the arguments to the modified
Bessel functions are of the form αi ρj which is complex. No standard library functions existed for this
approximation and the efficiency of this computation was not important so they were evaluated by
using their integral representation[ASrkc]:
Z π
I0 (z) = ez cos θ dθ
Z0π
I1 (z) = ez cos θ cos θ dθ
0
Z ∞
K0 (z) = e−z cosh θ dθ
0
Z ∞
K1 (z) = e−z cosh θ cosh θdθ (4.14)
0
Similarly, the term Ω, defined as

Z r1
Ω(α, r0 , r1 ) = ρI1 (αρ)dρ, (4.15)
r0
is also approximated numerically using its definition.

4.2. VALIDATION EXERCISES 43
Probe Inner Outer Top of Bottom of Number Self- Predicted

Number Radius Radius Coil Coil of Turns Inductance Self-Indct.
6 .8 1.8 1.5 .5 106 20 mH 22.52 mH
7 2 4 3 1 182 160 mH 168.8 mH
8 4.75 7.75 4 1 296 1200 mH 1138 mH
9 10 13 4 1 351 4000 mH 3989 mH
Table 4.1: Probe parameters
4.2 Validation Exercises

A set of air-cored eddy current probes was manufactured with the parameters given in Table 4.1[Jer90].
The layered media forward model can predict the free-space impedance of the probe. The impedance
in free-space of idealized coils is purely inductive, so this is often referred to as the self-inductance of
the probe. The predicted self-inductance for all the probes are shown in the last column of the Table
and are in good agreement with the measured values shown in the adjacent column. The air-cored coil
in presented by Burke[Bur88a] its self-inductance measured and was found to be 221.8±.4 mH. The
theoretical value computed by Burke was found to be 226.0 mH, while the forward model predicted
L0 = 225.98 mH. So the model is in good agreements with experimental and published results.
Frequency Measured Predicted

Direction Direction
1.35 kHz 136◦ 141.7◦
4.00 kHz 126◦ 126.8◦
12.0 kHz 114◦ 113.7◦
Table 4.2: Measured versus predicted lift-off direction angles
Another simple experimental measurement is to determine the direction in the impedance plane
in which the probe signal moves as the probe is lifted off the workpiece. This lift-off direction can
be predicted by simply evaluating the partial derivative of equation (4.4) with respect to the lift-off
parameter . The lift-off angle: the anti-clockwise angle between the positive x-axis and the lift-off
direction vector, is a function not only of the probe parameters, but also of the material properties of
the workpiece.
The lift-off direction was carefully measured in the laboratory[Jer89] at various frequencies using a
thick plate of austenitic steel, treated as a half-space conductor. The plate had a relative permeability
of 1 and measured conductivity of 1.3×106 S/m. The measured and predicted results at 3 different
frequencies are presented in Table 4.2. Again the results are in good agreement.
4.3 Air-cored probes

Determining the incident electric or magnetic field J(i) (r) of B(i) (r) at point r in the host region can
now be explored. For the electric source we will assume that an axially symmetric air-cored coil is
used to induce the field.
4.3.1 Incident electric field for planar media

Since the probe is assumed to be an axially symmetric coil, we can use the results from Section 2.5 to
write down the vector potential. In equation (2.72), it was found that
◦ µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h ih i
(media) (media) −αj z
Aj (ρ, z) = J1 (αρ) e−αl0 − e−αl1 Γj+1 eαj z + Υj e dα, (4.16)
2 0 α
(media) (media)
where Γj+1 and Υj are the media specific reflection and transmission coefficients for region
j, respectively.
We can then write down the general expression for the incident field in region j > 0 for planar
media types as
iωσj µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h i
(i)
PKLM = φ̂ υKLM J1 (αρKL ) e−αl0 − e−αl1 ·
2 0 α
h i
(media) αj zM (media) −αj zM
Γj+1 e + Υj e dα, (4.17)
q
where ρKL = x2K + yL2 , xK = Kδx , yL = LδL and zM = M δz
For the half-space conductors, the host region is region 1 and there is no lower region, hence Γ2 = 0.
The transmission coefficient, determined in equation (2.69), is
(half ) 2α0
Υ1 = , (4.18)
α1 + α0
where it is assumed here that µ1 from (2.69) is the permeability of free-space. The expression for the
incident dipole density, the forcing function, for half-space media types is, since α ≈ α0 ,
iωσ1 µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h i
(i)
PKLM = φ̂ υKLM J1 (αρKL ) e−αl0 − e−αl1 eα1 zM dα, (4.19)
2 0 (α1 + α0 )
4.3.2 Incident electric fields for cylindrical media

We now want to determine the field in the centre of the flaw elements for cylindrical media physical
models again assuming an axially symmetric air-cored probe. Therefore, the results of Section 3.3
can be used to compute the vector potential, hence the incident dipole density in each element in the
absence of a flaw. All of the cylindrical media types to be modelled assume the conducting region is
on the outside the coil; therefore, m = 0, n > 0 and V = I for all these media types. For any region
j > 0 outside the coil, equation (3.49) can be used to give the vector potential in this region as
(j) (j)
" #
◦ ι0 µ0
Z ∞ Ω(α, r0 , r1 ) U12 I1 (αj ρ) + U22 K1 (αj ρ)
Aj (ρ, z) = (0)
·
π 0 α U 22
[sin(α{z − l0 }) − sin(α{z − l1 })] dα, (4.20)
where j is the host region and the coefficient matrix U (j) corresponds to the particular media type,
the type of layered structure of the conductor.
4.4. DIFFERENTIAL PROBES 45
The dipole density distribution can be defined at a regular grid of points as

(i)
Pklm = σj E(i) (xk , yl , zm )
= iωσj A(i) (xk , yl , zm ) (4.21)
Using (4.21) and (5.72), we can write down the general form for the incident dipole density at each
of the flaw elements in region j as
(j) (j)
" #
iωσj ι0 µ0
Z ∞ Ω(α, r0 , r1 ) U12 I1 (αj ρM ) + U22 K1 (αj ρM )
(i)
PKLM = φ̂ υKLM (0)
·
π 0 α U 22
[sin(zL − l0 ) − sin(zL − l1 )] dα, (4.22)
where zL = Lδz and ρM = δρ The coefficient matrix U (j) must now be determined for each cylindrical
media type.
To illustrate this field computation, we will look at the bore-hole media type. The host region j is
the infinite conductor, region 1. Assume the host region has a permeability of free-space, so µ1 = µ0 .
From equation (3.42)
(0)
U22 = ρ0 [α0 I0 (α0 ρ0 )K1 (α1 ρ0 ) + α1 I1 (α0 ρ0 )K0 (α1 ρ0 )] (4.23)
(1) (1)
and from the fact that U (n) = I, U12 = 0, U22 = 1. Therefore,
iωσ1 ι0 µ0
Z ∞ Ω(α, r0 , r1 )
(i)
K1 (α1 ρM )[sin(α{zL − l0 }) − sin(α(zL − l1 })] dα. (4.24)
π 0 αU22
Equation (5.73) can be used in a similar manner to compute the incident field in the host region for
the general cylindrical media types.
4.4 Differential probes

Figure 5.3 schematically represents differential probe which is often used in NDE. Alternating current
is introduced into the large coil, which drives eddy currents in the workpiece. This induces magnetic
flux passing through the two smaller pick-up coils which generates a potential in each coil. The output
of the probe is the difference in these two potentials. This probe will give no signal in the absence of
a flaw, since the magnetic flux passing through each pick-up coil will be the same, since the pick-up
coils are assumed to be symmetrically located, relative to the centre of the larger driving coil.
The two pick-up coils can be used to measure the difference in emf as the probe is scanned over
a workpiece. This voltage difference is the probe signal we wish to model. The incident field created
by the outside coil is exactly the same as those considered in Section 5.4. We need only analyze the
signal from differential coils.
The flaw lies in the incident field produced by an excitation coil and that, as a result, there is an
induced current dipole density P at the flaw. This dipole density distribution may be regarded as
the source of the scattered electric field, E(s) (r). If Jι is the current density of pick-up coil ι, where
ι = 1, 2, then the induced emf Vι in coil ι is given by
Z
Iι Vι = − E(s) (r) · Jι (r)dr ι = 1, 2 (4.25)
coilι
coil centres at (±xd , ±yd )

PP
PP
q
P
σ0 = 0 rd1 n
µ0 r
- d0
@ nd = # of turns
- @
@ C C 6 C C @
@ C C C C @
@ C C C C @
@
@ C C C C @@
hd0 h
6
??d1
6

r0
Lift-off

r1
?
?
Figure 4.2: Differential probe
This may also be expressed in a more compact notation as

Iι Vι = −hE(s) |Jι i ι = 1, 2 (4.26)
Using the reciprocity principle we also have
Iι Vι = −hEι |Pi ι = 1, 2 (4.27)
where Eι is the field due to the source Jι . Hence the differential probe response is given by
∆V = V1 − V2
= −he1 − e2 | Pi
Z
= − ∆e(r) · P(r) dr, ι = 1, 2 (4.28)
f law
where eι = Eι /Iι and ∆e = e1 − e2 .

If these fields eι are expanded with delta functions at the centres of the flaw elements, as was done
for the incident field, each field can be expressed using equation (5.71) after dividing through by Iσ1
and using the pick-up coil dimensions to find for each pick-up coil
iωµ0
Z ∞ α0 Ψ(α, rd0 , rd1 ) h i
eKLM = φ̂ υKLM J1 (αρKL ) e−αld0 − e−αld1 eα1 zM dα, (4.29)
2I 0 α(α1 + α0 )
where xK = ±xd + Kδx , yL = ±yd + Lδy and zM = M δz . Now using the dipole density distribution
solution vector Pklm an approximation to the probe response can be written as
y −1 nz −1
x −1 nX
nX X
∆V ≈ ∆eklm · Pklm . (4.30)
k=0 l=0 m=0
4.5. FERRITE-CORE PROBES 47
4.5 Ferrite-core probes

4.5.1 Magnetic field in probe region due to coil
The analysis of ferrite-core probes involves computing the magnetic field created by an air-core probe,
possibly above a planar work-piece or inside a cylindrical work-piece. The magnetic field can be
expressed as the curl of the vector potential,
B0 = ∇ × A 0 . (4.31)
Since the coils which are to be considered are axi-symmetric, their vector potential can be expressed
as
A0 = A0 φ̂, (4.32)
hence the magnetic field is simply

1 ∂A0 ∂ρA0

ρ ρ̂ − ẑ . (4.33)
ρ ∂z ∂ρ
The vector potential in the region containing the coil, region 0 was, determined earlier for free-space
only. Therefore, it must be derived when there is a work-piece present.
Assuming the coil has an applied current density ι0 that is constant over the dimensions of the
coil the vector potential found in equation (2.13) can be extended to include the reflections from the
workpiece. Combining this new source term Γ1 eα0 (z+l) and equations (2.9) and (2.13), after reversing
the order of integration, yields
µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Z r1 Z l1 h i
A0 (ρ, z) = rJ1 (αr)J1 (αρ) e−α0 |z−l| + Γ1 e−α0 (z+l) dldrdα, (4.34)
2 0 r0 l0
where Γ1 is the electric scalar potential reflection coefficient appropriate to the work-peice. Integrating
with respect to the coil parameters r and l gives the vector potential Aabove (ρ, z) for the region above
the coil, z > l1 , as
−µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
Aabove (ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ) ·
2 0
1 h α0 (l1 −z) i
e − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα. (4.35)
α0
Similarly, for the region below the coil and above the work-piece, 0 < z < l0 we find
−µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
Abelow (ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ)
2 0
1 h α0 (z−l0 ) i
e − eα0 (z−l1 ) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα. (4.36)
α0
The vector potential A0 (ρ, z) we desire for l0 ≤ z ≤ l1 can be found by combining the vector
−µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
Acoil (ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ)
2 0
1 h i
2 − eα0 (z−l1 ) − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα. (4.37)
α0
The partial derivatives of A0 with respect to ρ and z can be determined analytically. For z > l1 ,
∂ρA0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = − Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J0 (αρ) ·
∂ρ 2 0
α h α0 (l1 −z) i
e − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα
α0
∂A0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ) ·
∂z 2 0
h i
eα0 (l1 −z) − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα, (4.38)
for l0 < z < l1 ,

∂ρA0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = − Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J0 (αρ)
∂ρ 2 0
α h i
2 − eα0 (z−l1 ) − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα
α0
∂A0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ)
∂z 2 0
h i
eα0 (z−l1 ) − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα, (4.39)
and for 0 < z < l0 ,

∂ρA0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = − Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J0 (αρ)
∂ρ 2 0
α h α0 (z−l0 ) i
e − eα0 (z−l1 ) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα
α0
∂A0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ)
∂z 2 0
h i
eα0 (z−l1 ) − eα0 (z−l0 ) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα. (4.40)
4.5.2 Electric field in work-piece due to ferrite

In order to compute probe/flaw interactions when the probe contains a ferrite core, it is necessary
to compute the electric field in the work-piece due to the driving coil and the magnetiztion of the
core. This field will be derived below. For the rest of this section the probe is assumed to have a
axi-symmetric ferrite-core and to be in region 0. The magnetization has been determined using a
moment method and the magnetization is known in the centers of a 2D grid such that
ρk + ρk+1 zl + zl+1

Mkl ≈ M , , k = {0, 1, . . . nρ − 1}, l = {0, 1, . . . nz − 1}, (4.41)
2 2
where 0 = ρ0 < ρ1 < . . . < ρnρ = ρcore and zk = kδz. The electric field which needs to be approximated
is in region j below the probe region and the work-piece is planar.
The vector potential for region j divides neatly into two parts: the vector potential due to the
coil Acoil and the vector potential due to the core Acore . Since the probe is assumed to be an axially
symmetric coil, we can use the results from Section 2.5 to write down the vector potential due to the
coil in region j. In equation (2.72), it was found that
µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h ih i
(e) (e)
Acoil (ρ, z) = φ̂ J1 (αρ) e−αl0 − e−αl1 Γj+1 eαj z + Υj e−αj z dα, (4.42)
2 0 α
(e) (e)
where Γj+1 and Υj are the media specific reflection and transmission coefficients for region j, respec-
tively.
A similar expression can be written for the vector potential in region j due the the magnetization
at (ρk , zl ) as
Z ∞ αρk+1 J1 (αρk+1 − αρk J1 (αρk )
J1 (αρ) e−αj zk+1 − e−αj zk ·

Akl (ρ, z) = −2iωµ0 σj χkl
0 α
h ih i
(e) (e) (ρ) (z)
Γj+1 e−αj z + Υj e(−alphaj z Mkl + Mkl dα, (4.43)
where χkl = Vkl (1 − µ0 /µcore ) and µcore is the permeability of the core and Vkl the volume fraction of
(ρ) (z)
ferrite in the klth cell and Mkl and Mkl are the radial and z−componets of the magnetization of the
klth cell. Therefore; the vector potential for the core is just the sum over all these source terms
ρ −1
z −1 nX
nX
Acore (ρ, z) = Akl (ρ, z)
l=0 k=0
Z ∞ h z −1
i nX
(e) (e)
Γj+1 e−αj z Υj e−αj z e−αj zl+1 − e−αj zl ·

= −2iωµ0 σj J1 (αρ) +
0 l=0
nρ −1 h i
X (ρ) (z)
χkl [ρk+1 J1 (αρk+1 ) − ρk J1 (αρk )] Mkl + Mkl . (4.44)
k=0
Chapter 5
3D Analysis: The Volume Integral

Approach
People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.
Abraham Lincoln 1809 – 1865
5.1 Introduction
In Chapters 2 and 3 the change in impedance in an air-cored probe in the presence of several different
media types was analyzed; however, all the media were restricted so that each of its sub-regions were
isotropic and homogeneous. Now one of the regions, the host region, is allowed to have an anomaly.
These anomalies can be cracks, inclusions, local changes in the host conductivity. Three major
assumptions are made about the flawed region:
• the host region is non ferromagnetic,
• the flaw itself is made up of uniform cells, elements, each of which has a constant conductivity.
• the flaw does not extend out of the host region.
Cracks or voids in the host region can be modelled as regions with no conductivity. Corrosion or
other inclusions can be modelled as regions with different conductivities in the same manor. Figure 5.1
shows one flaw arrangement, along with the indexing conventions used. If the boundaries of the flaw
itself are not planar, the flaw can be approximated by a series of elements, where the conductivity of
each element is just the volume fraction of the conductivity over that element, that is
1
Z
σklm = σ(r)dr. (5.1)
Vklm Vklm
51
52 CHAPTER 5. 3D ANALYSIS: THE VOLUME INTEGRAL APPROACH
y

σ131 σ231 σ331
σ121 σ221 σ321

-x
σ332
6
δz σ111 σ211 σ311 σ322
?
# of cells
σ112 σ212 σ312
nz
-
δy
δx # of cells ny
?z
# of cells nx
Figure 5.1: Flaw in host material with planar boundaries
For media types with cylindrical boundaries, the flaw elements no longer have a simple shape, but
are assumed to be as shown in Figure 5.2. The conductivity of each element is constant, as before,
and is just a per cent of the host region conductivity.
Media types with cylindrical boundaries are handled in the same way, except here the elements
are no longer rectangular boxes, but are ‘bent’ around the axis to form sectors in the ρs-plane. This
arrangement is shown in Figure 5.2. Now each element has four flat faces and two curved faces. Again,
the conductivity is assumed constant in each element.
The volume integral technique has been successfully applied to eddy current NDE problems by
Sabbagh[SS88], Bowler[BSS89] and Mc Kirdy[McK89]. This technique involves subdividing the flaw
into smaller elements and then, using an approach based on Green’s functions and the superposition
principle outlined in Chapter 1, constructing a global solution to the forward problem by solving a
series of simpler problems of how one element interacts with another. The volume integral approach
has a major advantage over finite element schemes for eddy current NDE in that the interaction
between the probe and media boundaries can be built into the Green’s functions; therefore, only the
flaw volume needs to subdivided.
For eddy current NDE three things are needed to apply the volume integral approach:
1. Assemble the matrix by applying the method of moments
2. Assemble the forcing function, the incident field
3. Solving the system of equations for the unknown dipole density
The assembling of the matrix is discussed in the next section and in Chapter 7. The incident field is
5.2. DYADIC GREEN’S FUNCTIONS 53
# of cells
z δ
- ns

δρ
* σ211 σ212 σ213

ρ

σ111 σ112 σ113 K δs
((((
W ((((
s

:
σ121 σ122 σ123 σ223
- z

hhhh
σ131 σ132 σ133 hhhh
H H H HH
HH HH HH
HH
# of cells H
HH σ231
H
HH
H
σ232 HH σ233 HH
nρ H
H H
H HH H
H
# of cells nz
Figure 5.2: Flaw in hosts with cylindrical boundaries
discussed later in this chapter for three different probes: air-cored, differential and ACPD. The actual
solution to the system of equations is discussed in Chapter 8.
For air-cored probes, once the dipole density distribution is known, the impedance in the coil can
be determined. For differential probes, the differential voltage in the pick-up coils can be determined.
If an ACPD probe is used, the potential drop can also be determined by from the dipole distribution.
The following sections describe the application of the volume integral method to eddy current NDE.
5.2 Dyadic Green’s functions

The free-space scalar Green’s function for a point source is [Tai71]
0
0 eik|r−r |
G(r|r ) = . (5.2)
4π|r − r0 |
This scalar function describes the propagation of electromagnetic waves through free-space from an
electrical point source. We want to use a Green’s function approach that allows for a three dimensional
electric source at a point r0 and provides the three dimensional electric field vector at a point r. It will
be convenient to use dyadic Green’s functions. The dyadic Green’s function G ~ (ee) (r|r0 ) is referred to
as the electric-electric dyadic Green’s function[Bei86, Bow87] and will be described in the next section.
Similarly, the magnetic-magnetic dyadic Greens function transforms a magnetic source at a point r
to the magnetic field at a point r0 . Dyads, like tensors when studying elasticity, are introduced to
prevent the explosion of notation, we will use dyads[Tai71] to express the coupling of the components
of the electric fields involved[Rai74].
5.2.1 Dyads
The word dyad means a group of two or a pair of quantities[Tai71]. It is formed by two vectors by the
following equation
~ = AB.
D (5.3)
Define two scalar operations as
C·D ~ = (C · A)B
~ · C = A(B · C),
D (5.4)
where the scalar operations return vectors.

We can define the unitary dyads ~I and ~I0 as
~I = x̂x̂ + ŷ ŷ + ẑ ẑ
~I0 = x̂ŷ + ŷ ŷ − ẑ ẑ, (5.5)
where ~I has the property that

A · ~I = ~I · A = A (5.6)
and
∇ · (~If ) = ∇f. (5.7)
5.2.2 Free-space dyadic Green’s function

Let J(r) an x-directed electric source described by
J(r) = δ(r − r0 )x̂. (5.8)

(0)
Let Gx (r|r0 ) denote the electric field produced by this source. Then[Tai71]
1

0
G(0)
x (r|r ) = 1 + 2 ∇∇· G(r|r0 )x̂ (5.9)
k
which is a solution of the equation derived from Maxwell’s equations
h i
0 0
∇ × ∇ × −k 2 G(0)
x (r|r ) = δ(r − r )x̂. (5.10)
(0) (0)
Gy and Gz can be defined in a similar way for y and z directed sources, respectively. We combine
~ (0) by the definition
all of these vector quantities into a the dyad G
~ (0) (r|r0 ) = G(0) (r|r0 )x̂ + G(0) (r|r0 )ŷ + G(0) (r|r0 )ẑ.
G (5.11)
x y z
Equation (5.11) is the free-space dyadic Green’s function. So the dyadic Green’s function element
(0)
Gij (r|r0 ) is the ith component of the electric field, at the observation point r, due to a point unit
dipole source at r0 oriented in the j th direction. Using dyadic definition in (5.9), equation (5.11) can
be generalized to give[Tai71]
~ (0) (r|r0 ) = ~I + 1 ∇∇ G(r|r0 ).

G (5.12)
k2
5.2.3 Scalar decomposition

In Chapter 2 scalar Green’s functions were derived for various stratified planar conductors. From
equation (2.38), for the source in region 0, the general form of the scalar Green’s function in region 0
was found to be
0 1 h −α0 |z−z 0 | (media) −α0 (z+z 0 ) (media) α0 (z+z 0 )
i
G(z|z
e )= e + Γ−1 e + Γ1 e , (5.13)
2α0
(media) (media)
where Γ−1 and Γ1 are the media specific reflection coefficients. The electric-electric dyadic
Green’s function will be formed from this Green’s function by using scalar decomposition and Hertz
potentials[SBS88, FM73].
In analyzing the electromagnetic field in isotropic planar stratified regions, it can be convenient
to represent the field using Hertz potentials. This approach has the advantage of reducing the vector
field problem to two independent scalar problems. In this formulation, the dyadic Green’s functions
used to determine the electric field are reduced to two scalar functions.
The transverse electric and magnetic fields in the source region can be written quite generally as
the sum of a transverse gradient and a transverse curl. Thus
∂Π(m) (r)
Et (r) = ∇t + iωµ0 ∇t × ẑΠ(e) (r)
∂z
∂Π(e) (r)
Ht (r) = σ0 ∇t × ẑΠ(m) (r) + ∇t , (5.14)
∂z
where ẑ is the unit normal to the interface and the subscript t refers to components transverse to the
∂ ∂
z−direction, for example ∇t = x̂ ∂x + ŷ ∂y . The transverse magnetic scalar potential is Π(m) (r), while
Π(e) (r) is the transverse electric scalar potential.
In the source region of non-magnetic materials, the Hertz potentials satisfy[SBS88]
h i
∇2 + k02 ∇2t Π(p) (r) = j (p) (r), (5.15)
where p ∈ {m, e} and the inhomogeneous terms representing the source are
1
j (m) (r) = ẑ · ∇ × ∇ × J(r)
σ0
j (e) (r) = ẑ · ∇ × J(r). (5.16)
The transverse magnetic and transverse electric field do not couple, hence one can solve for them
independently. They can be solved by introducing a scalar Green’s function such that
G(r|r) = −∇2t U (p) (r|r0 ). (5.17)
Substituting this into equation (5.15), we see that we are left with the scalar wave equation, which
has solutions[Tai71]
Z
Π (m)
(r) = U (m) (r|r0 )j (m) (r0 ) dr0
Z
Π(e) (r) = U (e) (r|r0 )j (e) (r0 ) dr0 . (5.18)
Suppose, that there are upper and lower boundaries to the source region, region 0 and let c be the
distance between the interfaces, assuming the upper interface is at z = 0, the lower at z = c and that
the adjacent regions are non-conducting. Then
e (m) (z|z 0 ) = α2 U
e (m) (z|z 0 ) = 1 h −α0 |z−z 0 | (m) 0 (m) 0
i
G e + Γ−1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Γ1 eα0 (z+z )
2α0
e (e) (z|z 0 ) = 1 e−α0 |z−z 0 | + Γ(e) e−α0 (z+z 0 ) + Γ(e) eα0 (z+z 0 )
h i
e (e) (z|z 0 ) = α2 U
G (5.19)
−1 1
2α0
(p) (p)
where α02 = α2 − k02 and Γ−1 and Γ1 are the electric and magnetic reflection terms off the upper and
lower interfaces, respectively. The magnetic reflection coefficients are determined in the same way as
the electric ones were, by applying the interface conditions. In the absence of one or both of these
surfaces the corresponding electric and magnetic reflection term is zero. The magnetic scalar potential
must satisfy
(m) (m)
ˇj Gj = ˇj+1 Gj+1
(m) (m)
∂Gj ∂Gj+1
= , (5.20)
∂z ∂z
at z = zj+1 , for j = −1, 0. The term ˇj is the complex permittivity defined to be ˇj = j + iσj /ω.
Hence, the magnetic scalar potential has the same form as the electric scalar potential and has the
same boundary conditions, except ˇj must be substituted for µj through out. For a source inside a
slab conductor, with σ±1 = 0, ˇ±1 ≈ 0 and the magnetic reflection coefficients are
0
(m) e−2α0 (c−z ) − 1
Γ−1 ≈
1 − e−2α0 c
−2α 0
(m) e 0 z − 1 −2α0 c
Γ1 ≈ e , (5.21)
1 − e−2α0 c
and for a source inside a simple half-space conductor
(m) (m)
Γ−1 ≈ −1, Γ1 ≡ 0, (5.22)
while for a source in air above a half-space conductor

(m) (m)
Γ−1 ≡ 0, Γ1 ≡ 1. (5.23)
In the absence of one or both of these surfaces the corresponding electric and magnetic reflection term
is zero.
In order to separate the z + z 0 dependence from the z − z 0 dependence for the electric-electric case
and for the magnetic-magnetic case, define two scalar functions ve(z|z 0 ) and w(z|z
e 0 ) as
1 h 0 0 0 0 0
i
α2 ve(z|z 0 ) = e−α0 |z−z | + e−α0 (z+z ) + eα0 (z+z −2c) + e−α0 (z−z +2c) + eα0 (z−z −2c)
2α0
0 1 h 0 0 0 0 0
i
α2 w(z|z
e ) = e−α0 |z−z | − e−α0 (z+z ) − eα0 (z+z −2c) + e−α0 (z−z +2c) + eα0 (z−z −2c) .
2α0
(5.24)
The electric and magnetic reflection coefficients depend on z 0 only in exponential terms of the form
exp(±α0 z 0 ), hence the transverse electric and magnetic scalar potentials can be rewritten in a similar
form to (5.24) as
e (e) (z|z 0 ) = 1 h −α0 |z−z 0 | (Γ) 0 (Γ) 0
α2 U e + Λ−1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Λ1 eα0 (z+z −2c) +
2α0
0 0
i
(Υ) (Υ)
Λ−1 e−α0 (z−z +2c) + Λ1 eα0 (z−z −2c)
m
e ( e ) (z|z 0 ) = 1 h −α0 |z−z 0 | (Γ) 0 (Γ) 0
α2 U e + Θ−1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Θ1 eα0 (z+z −2c) +
2α0
0 0
i
(Υ) (Υ)
Θ−1 e−α0 (z−z +2c) + Θ1 eα0 (z−z −2c) , (5.25)
(Ξ) (Ξ)
upon introduction of eight new media specific coefficients Λη and Θη , where Ξ ∈ {Γ, Υ} and
η ∈ {−1, 1}. These coefficients will be derived for each planar media type in Chapter 7. Notice that
(e) (Γ) (Υ)
Γ∓1 = Λ∓1 + Λ∓1 e2α0 c
(m) (m,Γ) (m,Υ) 2α0 c
Γ∓1 = Θ∓1 + Θ∓1 e (5.26)
Now, define scalar potential correction terms V and W as
e e
Ve (m) (z|z 0 ) = U
e (m) (z|z 0 ) − ve(z|z 0 )
m
f ( e ) (z|z 0 ) = U m
e ( e ) (z|z 0 ) − w(z|z 0
W e ), (5.27)
therefore
1 h (Γ) 0

(Γ)
0
α2 Ve (e) (z|z 0 ) = Λ−1 − 1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Λ1 − 1 eα0 (z+z −2c) +
2α0
0 0
i
(Υ) (Υ)
Λ−1 − 1 e−α0 (z−z +2c) + Λ1 − 1 eα0 (z−z −2c)
f (m) (z|z 0 ) = 1 h (Γ) 0

(Γ)
0
α2 W Θ−1 + 1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Θ1 + 1 eα0 (z+z −2c) +
2α0
0 0
i
(Υ) (Υ)
Θ−1 − 1 e−α0 (z−z +2c) + Θ1 − 1 eα0 (z−z −2c)
1 h (Γ) 0

(Γ)
0
.α2 Ve (m) (z|z 0 ) = Θ−1 − 1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Θ1 − 1 eα0 (z+z −2c) +
2α0
0 0
i
(Υ) (Υ)
Θ−1 − 1 e−α0 (z−z +2c) + Θ1 − 1 eα0 (z−z −2c)
f (e) (z|z 0 ) = 1 h (Γ) 0

(Γ)
0
α2 W Λ−1 + 1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Λ1 + 1 eα0 (z+z −2c) +
2α0
0 0
i
(Υ) (Υ)
Λ−1 − 1 e−α0 (z−z +2c) + Λ1 − 1 eα0 (z−z −2c) (5.28)
Equation 5.28 describes the correction scalar potential in Fourier space, the analysis of this term is
given in detail in Chapter 7. Again, in the absence of a lower interface, all but one of the terms in
(5.28) disappears, since the remaining electric and magnetic reflection terms are zero. For these cases
(Γ) (e) (Γ) (m)
Λ−1 = Γ−1 , Θ−1 = Γ−1 and all the other terms vanish.
ee )
~ (mm
Both the electric-electric and magnetic-magnetic dyadic Green’s function G (r|r0 ) are identified
by substituting (5.18) into (5.14) and repeatedly transferring the curls from with the definition of the
source terms j (p) to the Green’s functions by integration by parts. This gives[SBS88, Bow87]
ee ) m
− iωˇ ~ (mm
0 G (r|r0 ) = (∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ∇0 × ẑ)U ( e ) (r|r0 ) +
e
k02 (∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ẑ)U (m) (r|r0 ) − ẑ ẑδ(r − r0 ), (5.29)
which can be rewritten as

ee m m
h i
~ (mm) (r|r0 ) = (∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ∇0 × ẑ) w( e ) (r|r0 ) + W ( e ) (r|r0 ) +
− iω0 G
e e
h i
k02 (∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ẑ) v (m) (r|r0 ) + V (m) (r|r0 ) − ẑ ẑδ(r − r0 ). (5.30)
Now apply the fact that ∇ = −∇0 when applied to scalar potentials with exp |r − r0 | dependence
to the dyadic identity[FM73] to find that
~I0 + 1 ∇∇

= −k02 (∇ × ẑ)(∇ × ẑ) + (∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇ × ∇ × ẑ) − ẑ ẑδ(z − z 0 )
k02
= k02 (∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ẑ) + (∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ∇0 × ẑ) − ẑ ẑδ(z − z 0 ).
(5.31)
For scalar functions with exp({x − x0 ) + {y − y 0 } + {z ∓ z 0 }) dependence one finds
~I ∓ 1 ∇∇0 = k 2 (∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ẑ) ∓ (∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ∇0 × ẑ).

0 (5.32)
k02
Applying these identities to equation (5.30) one finds[BJ+ 91]
~I + 1 ∇∇ G(r|r0 ) + ~I0 − 1 ∇∇0 G(r|r0 − 2z 0 ẑ) +

ee
~ (mm) (r|r0 ) =
− iω0 G
k02 k02
~I0 − 1 ∇∇0 G(r|r0 − 2{z 0 + c}ẑ) + ~I + 1 ∇∇ G(r|r0 + 2cẑ) +

k02 k02
~I + 1 ∇∇ G(r|r0 − 2cẑ) + k 2 (∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ẑ)V (m

e)
2 0 (r|r0 ) +
k0
m
(∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ∇0 × ẑ)W ( e ) (r|r0 ). (5.33)
In the remaining development the electric and magnetic notation is dropped but it is clear from
context which terms should be used for the electric-electric and magnetic-magnetic cases. Grouping
terms in equation (5.33) with the same z ± z 0 dependence, we can write
~ (ee) (r|r0 ) = G
− iω0 G ~ (Υ) (r|r0 ) + G
~ (Γ) (r|r0 ) (5.34)
5.3. INTEGRAL FORMULATION 59
~ (Υ) (r|r0 ) has z − z 0 dependence and G

where G ~ (Γ) (r|r0 ) has z + z 0 dependence. These dyads are defined
~ (Υ) (r|r0 ) = G
G ~ (0) (r|r0 ) + G
~ (0) (r|r0 + 2cẑ) + G~ (0) (r|r0 − 2cẑ) +
~ (Υ) (r|r0 + 2cẑ) + V
V ~ (Υ) (r|r0 − 2cẑ) +
−1 1
~ (Υ) (r|r0
~ 0 (Υ)
W
+ 2cẑ) + W
−1 1 (r|r − 2cẑ)
1 1

~ (Γ) 0
G (r|r ) = I − 2 ∇∇ G(r|r − 2z ẑ) + I − 2 ∇∇ G(r|r0 − 2{z 0 − c}ẑ) +
~ 0 0 0 ~ 0
k0 k0
(Γ) 0 0
~ (r|r − 2z ẑ) + V (Γ) 0 0
~ (r|r − 2{z − c}ẑ)
V −1 1
~ (Γ) (r|r0 0 ~
− 2z ẑ) + W
(Γ)
0 0
W −1 1 (r|r − 2{z − c}ẑ). (5.35)
where
~I + 1 ∇∇ G(r|r0 )

~ (0) (r|r0 ) =
G
k02
~ (Ξ) (r|r0 ) = k 2 (∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ẑ)V (Ξ) (r|r0 )
V η 0 η
Wη (r|r ) = (∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇ × ∇0 × ẑ)Wη(Ξ) (r|r0 ),

~ (Ξ) 0 0
(5.36)
with Ξ ∈ {Γ, Υ} and η ∈ {−1, 1}. The correction dyadic terms are given in table 5.1 where the upper
sign is used for η = −1 and the lower sign for η = 1.
coefficient electric-electric magnetic-magnetic

(Λ) (Γ) 0 (Γ) 0
Ve (z|z 0 )
−1
1
Λ − 1 e−α0 (z+z )
2α0 α2 −1
1
Θ − 1 e−α0 (z+z )
2α0 α2 −1

(Λ) Γ) 0 (Γ) 0
Ve (z|z 0 )
1
1
2α0 α2 Λ1 − 1 eα(z+z −2c) 1
2α0 α2
Θ1 − 1 eα(z+z −2c)

(Υ) (Υ) 0 (Υ) 0
Veη (z|z 0 ) 1
2α0 α2 η
Λ − 1 e∓α0 (z−z ±2c) 1
Θ − 1 e∓α0 (z−z ±2c)
2α0 α2 η

(Γ)
fη (z|z 0 ) (Γ) 0 (Γ) 0
W 1
2α0 α2
Θη + 1 e∓α0 (z+z ±2c) 1
2α0 α2 η
Λ + 1 e∓α0 (z+z ±2c)

(Υ) (m,Υ) 0 (e,Υ) 0
W
fη (z|z 0 ) 1
2α0 α 2 Θ η − 1 e∓α0 (z−z ±2c) 1
2α0 α 2 Λ η − 1 e∓α0 (z−z ±2c)
Table 5.1: Scalar correction terms
G~ (0) (r|r0 ) is the convolutional dyadic Green’s function and G~ (Γ) (r|r0 ) is the correlational dyadic
Green’s function. In the absence of a lower reflecting surface, the convolutional dyadic Green’s function
reduces to just the free-space dyad Green’s function discussed in Section 5.2.2, while just the terms
with G(r|r0 − 2z 0 ẑ) in the correlational dyad.
5.3 Integral Formulation

In general, Maxwell’s equations for any isotropic conductor containing some anomaly, represented by
a dipole distribution P(r) = [σ(r) − σ0 ]E(r), may be written as
∇ × E = iωµ0 H(r)
∇ × H(r) = σ0 E(r) + P(r). (5.37)
The volume integral formulation is developed from the solution of Maxwell’s equations expressed in
terms of the dyadic Green’s functions as
Z
E(r) = E(i) (r) + iωµ0 ~ (ee) (r|r0 ) · P(r0 )dr0
G (5.38)
f law
Z
H(r) = H(i) (r) − iωµ0 (µr − 1) ~ (mm) (r|r0 ) · H(r0 )dr0
G (5.39)
f law
where E(i) (r) and H(i) (r) are the electric and magnetic incident field, respectively, and µr is the
relative permeability of the region of the induced magnitization. E(r) is the electric field scattered by
the defect, while H(r) is the induced magnetic field.
5.3.1 Scattered electric field

Normalize the equation (5.38) by introducing a flaw function[SS88]
σ(r) − σ0
υ(r) = (5.40)
σ0
and multiplying through by σ0 υ(r) and rewriting to yield an integral equation for P(r),
Z
P(i) (r) = P(r) − k 2 υ(r) ~ (ee) (r|r0 ) · P(r0 )dr0 ,
G (5.41)
f law
where
P(i) (r) = σ0 υ(r)E(i) (r). (5.42)
By solving equation (5.41) the effective source distribution of the flaw for a given excitation P(r) is
found.
The appropriate dyad may be chosen for a given problem to satisfy specific boundary conditions: a
half-space dyadic Green’s function for a source in a half-space, or a dyadic Green’s function satisfying
continuity conditions on a cylindrical boundary for calculating the induced source in a cylindrical
structure. Equation (5.41) is a linear for the unknown vector P and the moment method can be
applied to provide approximate solutions. Before proceeding, we present a brief review of the method
of moments.
5.3.2 Induced magnetic field

The integral equation given in (5.39) may have prolbems associated with large values of the releative
permeability, µr . Hence, we reformulate the problem to avoid this situation. One can rewrite equa-
tion (5.39) as
Z
H(r) = H(i) (r) + ~ (mm) (r|r0 ) · H(r0 ) dr0
G
core
1 (i)
Z
= B (r) + iωµ0 ~ (mm) (r|r0 ) · M(r0 ) dr0 ,
G (5.43)
µ0 core
because H (i) (r) = B(i) (r)/µ0 = 1/(µr − 1)M(r). Now H(r) = B(r) − M(r), so that equation (5.43)
can be rewritten
0
1 (i) ~ (mm) (r|r0 ) + δ(r − r ) · M(r0 ) dr0 .
Z
B (r) − iωµ0 G (5.44)
µ0 core iωµ0
Upon multiplying equation (5.44) by (1 − µ0 /µcore ), and using the fact that M = (B/µ0 )(1 − µ0 /µ),
to get
0
µ0 ~ (mm) (r|r0 ) + δ(r − r ) · M(r0 ) dr0 .
Z
M(i) (r) = M(r) − iωµ0 1 − G (5.45)
µcore core iωµ0
Equation (5.45) is the integral equation which will be solved to find the induced magnetization in the
ferrous region, the core. To find the B(r) field, simply multiply M(r) by µ0 /(1 − µ0 /µcore ). Note that
equation (5.45) has a smaller multiplier in front of the integral. Now there is no problem in letting
µcore become infinite.
5.3.3 Definition of moment method

Given an operator expression
L(f ) = g, (5.46)
how does one go about finding f for a know operator L and forcing function g? If the operator is
linear, and this will be the case of interest here, the method of moments can be used to solve this
general non-homogeneous equation. The method is briefly outlined here, following the development
in the classic work by Harrington[Har68].
Let f in equation (5.46) be approximated by expanding it in a finite series of functions f1 , f2 , f3 , . . . , fn
in the domain of the linear operator L, as
n
X
f≈ αi fi , (5.47)
i=1
where αi are scalar constants. The fi are called expansion functions or basisf unctions. Because L is
linear, L can operate on equation (5.47) to yield
n
X
αi L(fi ) ≈ g. (5.48)
i=0
Now define a set of weighting functions, or testing functions, w1 , w2 , w3 , . . . wn in the range of L,

and test equation (5.48) with each wj as follows
n
Z X n
X Z
αi L(fi )wj = αi hL(fi ), wj i = hg, wj i = gwj , (5.49)
i=1 i=1
for j = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n. This set of equations can be written in matrix form as
[lnn ] [αn ] ≈ [gn ] , (5.50)

where  
hw1 , L(f1 )i hw1 , L(f2 )i . . . hw1 , L(fn )i

 hw2 , L(f1 )i hw2 , L(f2 )i . . . hw2 , L(fn )i 

[lnn ] =  .. .. ..  (5.51)
. . .
 
 
hwn , L(f1 )i hwn , L(f2 )i . . . hwn , L(fn )i
   
α1 hw1 , gi

 α2 


 hw2 , gi 

[αn ] =  ..  [gn ] =  .. . (5.52)
. .
   
   
αn hwn , gi
Equation (5.50) is a linear system of equations that can now be solved using any standard technique.
Once the unknowns αi have been solved for, the αi can be substituted into equation (5.47) to yield
an approximation to the solution f .
5.3.4 Moment method and electromagnetic problems

The integral expression in equation (5.41) is discretized by applying the moment method. The flaw
volume can be subdivided into a regular grid of nx × ny × nz cells, each of size δx × δy × δz and then
the flaw current dipole density and the flaw function can be expanded using pulse functions defined
over the grid as basis functions[BSS89]. Thus
!
x y z
Z
PKLM = P(r)pK pL pM dr, (5.53)
δx δy δz
and !
x y z
Z
υKLM = υ(r)pK pL pM dr, (5.54)
δx δy δz
where the pulse basis functions pj (s) are defined by
(
1 if j ≤ s < j + 1
pj (s) = . (5.55)
0 otherwise
The dipole density distribution and flaw function can then approximated by the piece-wise linear
functions
y −1 nz −1
X nX
nx−1 X
P(r) ≈ PKLM pKLM (xK , yL , zM ), (5.56)
K=0 L=0 M =0
and
y −1 nz −1
x −1 nX
nX X
υ(r) ≈ υKLM pKLM (xK , yL , zM ), (5.57)
K=0 L=0 M =0
where prst (r) = pr (x/δx )ps (y/δy )pt (z/δz ).

To complete the discretization testing is carried out by multiplying the integral equation by the
testing functions and integrating over the field coordinates. The same basis functions adopted for
expanding the unknown could be used for testing, this is known as Galerkin’s method. pKLM (r) as
defined here, is the first order member of a class of 3D spline functions commonly used for defining
a discrete approximation. The zero order member is a 3D delta function and higher orders are
generated by successive convolutions with pulse functions. It is not necessary to use the same testing
and expansion functions. Recent work[PJ90] has shown there is no clear advantage to Galerkin’s
method. Therefore, advantages using different test and expansion functions whose convolution give
the same order scheme as Galerkin’s using pulse functions were explored.
The second order basis functions, βKLM could be used to expand, where
!
x y z

βKLM (r) = βK βL βM (5.58)
δx δy δz
and βj (u), (j = 0, 1, 2, 3...) is the convolution of 1D pulse functions given by

(
1 − |u − j| if j − 1 ≤ u < j + 1
βj (u) = . (5.59)
0 otherwise
we have
pklm ∗ pKLM = δklm ∗ βKLM = βKLM , (5.60)
where δklm = δ(k − x/δx )δ(l − y/δy )δ(m − z/δz ). Testing with 3D delta functions is equivalent
to computing the value of the integrand at the origin of the 3D delta function, which is why this
approach is often referred to as point matching. The incident field is radially symmetric, that is
P(i) (x, y, zm ) = Pρ (ρ, zm )ρ̂. A point matching scheme can exploit this
q fact by evaluating Pρ (ρ, z) at a
finite number of points and then approximate the value at ρkl = x2k + yl2 by interpolation and the
resolving the radial component into its x− and y− components. For this reason, point matching was
used, therefore, to P(i) (r) we have
(i)
PKLM = P(i) (xK , yL , zM ). (5.61)
The discretization of the integral equation in (5.41) is completed by taking moments of the field
by multiplying the integral, the linear operator, by δklm and then integrating over each cell, yielding
nX y −1 nz −1 Z
x −1 nX
(i) X
~ (ee) (rklm |r0 )[δklm ∗ βKLM ](r0 )dr0 Pklm
PKLM = PKLM + υKLM G
k=0 l=0 m=0 VKLM
nx −1 ny −1 nz −1 Z
~ (ee) (rklm |r0 )βKLM (r0 )dr0 Pklm .
X X X
= PKLM + υKLM G (5.62)
k=0 l=0 m=0 VKLM
Applying the method of moments to equation (5.45) in a completly analogous way yields
y −1 nz −1
x −1 nX
nX
(i) X
MKLM = MKLM − χKLM
k=0 l=0 m=0
Z
~ (mm) (rklm |r0 )βKLM (r0 )dr0 + δ(klm|KLM )~I(r|r0 ) Mklm ,
G (5.63)
VKLM
where
µ0

χKLM = VKLM 1 − (5.64)
µcore
and MKLM is the magnetization of the core cells and VKLM is the volume fraction of ferrite in the
KLM th cell.
The elements of the matrix needed for calculating the effective dipole density at a flaw via a volume
element scheme can be defined by
Z
~ klm,KLM = k 2
G ~ klm |r0 )βKLM (r0 ) dr0
G(r (5.65)
VKLM
In order to avoid assembling the six-dimensional matrix of equation (5.65) the dyad inside the integral
~ (Υ) (r|r0 ) with z−z 0 dependence and the correlational
is divided into two parts: the convolutional dyad G
~
dyad G (r|r ) with z + z dependence. Both dyads have x − x0 and y − y 0 dependence. The matrix
(Γ) 0 0
elements depend on only the difference or the sum of its indices. Therefore, using this partitioning,
equation (5.65) can be rewritten
~ (Υ)
~ klm,KLM = G
G ~ (Γ)
k−K,l−L,m−M + Gk−K,l−L,m+M , (5.66)
where
Z
~ (Υ)
G = k2 ~ (Υ) (rklm |r0 )βKLM (r0 ) dr0
G
k−K,l−L,m−M
VKLM
Z
~ (Γ)
G = k2 ~ (Γ) (rklm |r0 )βKLM (r0 ) dr0
G (5.67)
k−K,l−L,m+M
VKLM
Now using equation (5.66) any dyad from the matrix G ~ klm,KLM can be determined from the three
index dyads of equation (5.67).
Numerical evaluation of the matrix requires special consideration since the singularity is of high
order. Although the nature and treatment of the high order singularity has been discussed extensively
in the literature, an explicit prescription for the numerical evaluation of the matrix elements for a
system analyzed in Cartesian coordinates is not generally available. In Chapter 7, a systematic way
of approximating both the singular and the non-singular integrals over rectangular volumetric cells is
given. This development is one of the main contributions of this work.
5.4 Air-cored probes

It is necessary to determine the incident field J(i) (r) in each of the flaw elements assuming that the
host region has no anomaly. For the electric source we will assume that an axially symmetric air-cored
coil is used to induce the field. Using point matching implies Therefore, we need only determine the
field in the centre of the element.
5.4.1 Incident field for planar media

Since the probe is assumed to be an axially symmetric coil, we can use the results from Section 2.5 to
write down the vector potential. In equation (2.72), it was found that
◦ µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h ih i
(media) (media) −αj z
Aj (ρ, z) = J1 (αρ) e−αl0 − e−αl1 Γj+1 eαj z + Υj e dα, (5.68)
2 0 α
5.4. AIR-CORED PROBES 65
(media) (media)
where Γj+1 and Υj are the media specific reflection and transmission coefficients for region
j, respectively.
We can then write down the general expression for the incident field in region j > 0 for planar
media types as
iωσj µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h i
(i)
PKLM = φ̂ υKLM J1 (αρKL ) e−αl0 − e−αl1 ·
2 0 α
h i
(media) αj zM (media) −αj zM
Γj+1 e + Υj e dα, (5.69)
q
where ρKL = x2K + yL2 , xK = Kδx , yL = LδL and zM = M δz
For the half-space conductors, the host region is region 1 and there is no lower region, hence Γ2 = 0.
The transmission coefficient, determined in equation (2.69), is
(half ) 2α0
Υ1 = , (5.70)
α1 + α0
where it is assumed here that µ1 from (2.69) is the permeability of free-space. The expression for the
incident dipole density, the forcing function, for half-space media types is, since α ≈ α0 ,
iωσ1 µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h i
(i)
PKLM = φ̂ υKLM J1 (αρKL ) e−αl0 − e−αl1 eα1 zM dα, (5.71)
2 0 (α1 + α0 )
5.4.2 Incident fields for cylindrical media

We now want to determine the field in the centre of the flaw elements for cylindrical media physical
models again assuming an axially symmetric air-cored probe. Therefore, the results of Section 3.3
can be used to compute the vector potential, hence the incident dipole density in each element in the
absence of a flaw. All of the cylindrical media types to be modelled assume the conducting region is
on the outside the coil; therefore, m = 0, n > 0 and V = I for all these media types. For any region
j > 0 outside the coil, equation (3.49) can be used to give the vector potential in this region as
(j) (j)
" #
◦ ι0 µ0
Z ∞ Ω(α, r0 , r1 ) U12 I1 (αj ρ) + U22 K1 (αj ρ)
Aj (ρ, z) = (0)
·
π 0 α U 22
[sin(α{z − l0 }) − sin(α{z − l1 })] dα, (5.72)
where j is the host region and the coefficient matrix U (j) corresponds to the particular media type,
the type of layered structure of the conductor.
Using (4.21) and (5.72), we can write down the general form for the incident dipole density at each
of the flaw elements in region j as
(j) (j)
" #
iωσj ι0 µ0
Z ∞ Ω(α, r0 , r1 ) U12 I1 (αj ρM ) + U22 K1 (αj ρM )
(i)
·
π 0 α U 22
[sin(zL − l0 ) − sin(zL − l1 )] dα, (5.73)
where zL = Lδz and ρM = δρ The coefficient matrix U (j) must now be determined for each cylindrical
media type.
To illustrate this field computation, we will look at the bore-hole media type. The host region j is
the infinite conductor, region 1. Assume the host region has a permeability of free-space, so µ1 = µ0 .
From equation (3.42)
(0)
U22 = ρ0 [α0 I0 (α0 ρ0 )K1 (α1 ρ0 ) + α1 I1 (α0 ρ0 )K0 (α1 ρ0 )] (5.74)
(1) (1)
and from the fact that U (n) = I, U12 = 0, U22 = 1. Therefore,
iωσ1 ι0 µ0
Z ∞ Ω(α, r0 , r1 )
(i)
K1 (α1 ρM )[sin(α{zL − l0 }) − sin(α(zL − l1 })] dα. (5.75)
π 0 αU22
Equation (5.73) can be used in a similar manner to compute the incident field in the host region for
the remaining cylindrical media types. The coefficient matrices U (0) and U (host) were determined in
Sections ?? - ??.
5.4.3 Flaw impedance

The change in impedance in the driving coil is the measured quantity that was to be modelled. Once
the linear system of equations has been approximated, the dipole density distribution can be used to
estimate this quantity. Adopting the probe current as the phase reference, the probe impedance ∆Z
due to the flaw, expressed in terms of the electric field E(s) (r) scattered by the flaw, is given by
1
Z
∆Z = − E(s) (r) · Jcoil (r) dr. (5.76)
I2 coil
Equation (5.76) can be used directly to compute the probe response, but this would entail the inter-
mediate step of calculating the scattered field at the coil, before integrating over the coil region to
get the impedance. Instead we appeal to the reciprocity theorem relating the scattered field at the
primary source, the coil, to the incident field at the secondary source, the current dipole density at
the flaw. Therefore,
1
Z
∆Z = − 2 E(i) (r) · P(r) dr, (5.77)
I f law
which has as a discrete analog form of
nX y −1 nz −1
x −1 nX (i)
X Pklm · Pklm
∆Z ≈ −δx δy δz , (5.78)
k=0 l=0 m=0
σj υklm
where the flaw is assumed to be in region j. So the change in probe impedance can be approximated
by a simple multi-dimensional scalar product.
5.5 Differential probes

Figure 5.3 schematically represents differential probe which is often used in NDE. Alternating current
is introduced into the large coil, which drives eddy currents in the workpiece. This induces magnetic
flux passing through the two smaller pick-up coils which generates a potential in each coil. The output
5.5. DIFFERENTIAL PROBES 67
coil centres at (±xd , ±yd )

PP
PP
q
P
σ0 = 0 rd1 n
µ0 r
- d0
@ nd = # of turns
- @
@ C C 6 C C @
@ C C C C @
@ C C C C @
@
@ C C C C @@
hd0 h
6
??d1
6

r0
Lift-off

r1
?
?
Figure 5.3: Differential probe
of the probe is the difference in these two potentials. This probe will give no signal in the absence of
a flaw, since the magnetic flux passing through each pick-up coil will be the same, since the pick-up
coils are assumed to be symmetrically located, relative to the centre of the larger driving coil.
The two pick-up coils can be used to measure the difference in emf as the probe is scanned over
a workpiece. This voltage difference is the probe signal we wish to model. The incident field created
by the outside coil is exactly the same as those considered in Section 5.4. We need only analyze the
signal from differential coils.
The flaw lies in the incident field produced by an excitation coil and that, as a result, there is an
induced current dipole density P at the flaw. This dipole density distribution may be regarded as
the source of the scattered electric field, E(s) (r). If Jι is the current density of pick-up coil ι, where
ι = 1, 2, then the induced emf Vι in coil ι is given by
Z
Iι Vι = − E(s) (r) · Jι (r)dr ι = 1, 2 (5.79)
coilι
This may also be expressed in a more compact notation as
Iι Vι = −hE(s) |Jι i ι = 1, 2 (5.80)
Using the reciprocity principle we also have
Iι Vι = −hEι |Pi ι = 1, 2 (5.81)
where Eι is the field due to the source Jι . Hence the differential probe response is given by
∆V = V1 − V2
= −he1 − e2 | Pi
Z
= − ∆e(r) · P(r) dr, ι = 1, 2 (5.82)
f law
where eι = Eι /Iι and ∆e = e1 − e2 .

If these fields eι are expanded with delta functions at the centres of the flaw elements, as was done
for the incident field, each field can be expressed using equation (5.71) after dividing through by Iσ1
and using the pick-up coil dimensions to find for each pick-up coil
iωµ0
Z ∞ α0 Ψ(α, rd0 , rd1 ) h i
eKLM = φ̂ υKLM J1 (αρKL ) e−αld0 − e−αld1 eα1 zM dα, (5.83)
2I 0 α(α1 + α0 )
where xK = ±xd + Kδx , yL = ±yd + Lδy and zM = M δz . Now using the dipole density distribution
solution vector Pklm an approximation to the probe response can be written as
y −1 nz −1
x −1 nX
nX X
∆V ≈ ∆eklm · Pklm . (5.84)
k=0 l=0 m=0
5.6 Ferrite-core probes

5.6.1 Magnetic field in probe region due to coil
The analysis of ferrite-core probes involves computing the magnetic field created by an air-core probe,
possibly above a planar work-piece or inside a cylindrical work-piece. The magnetic field can be
expressed as the curl of the vector potential,
B0 = ∇ × A 0 . (5.85)
Since the coils which are to be considered are axi-symmetric, their vector potential can be expressed
as
A0 = A0 φ̂, (5.86)
hence the magnetic field is simply
1 ∂A0 ∂ρA0

ρ ρ̂ − ẑ . (5.87)
ρ ∂z ∂ρ
The vector potential in the region containing the coil, region 0 was, determined earlier for free-space
only. Therefore, it must be derived when there is a work-piece present.
Assuming the coil has an applied current density ι0 that is constant over the dimensions of the
coil the vector potential found in equation (2.13) can be extended to include the reflections from the
workpiece. Combining this new source term Γ1 eα0 (z+l) and equations (2.9) and (2.13), after reversing
the order of integration, yields
µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Z r1 Z l1 h i
A0 (ρ, z) = rJ1 (αr)J1 (αρ) e−α0 |z−l| + Γ1 e−α0 (z+l) dldrdα, (5.88)
2 0 r0 l0
where Γ1 is the electric scalar potential reflection coefficient appropriate to the work-peice. Integrating
with respect to the coil parameters r and l gives the vector potential Aabove (ρ, z) for the region above
the coil, z > l1 , as
−µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
Aabove (ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ) ·
2 0
1 h α0 (l1 −z) i
e − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα. (5.89)
α0
Similarly, for the region below the coil and above the work-piece, 0 < z < l0 we find
−µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
Abelow (ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ)
2 0
1 α0 (z−l0 )
h i
e − eα0 (z−l1 ) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα. (5.90)
α0
The vector potential A0 (ρ, z) we desire for l0 ≤ z ≤ l1 can be found by combining the vector
−µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
Acoil (ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ)
2 0
1 h i
2 − eα0 (z−l1 ) − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα. (5.91)
α0
The partial derivatives of A0 with respect to ρ and z can be determined analytically. For z > l1 ,
∂ρA0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = − Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J0 (αρ) ·
∂ρ 2 0
α h α0 (l1 −z) i
e − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα
α0
∂A0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ) ·
∂z 2 0
h i
eα0 (l1 −z) − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα, (5.92)
for l0 < z < l1 ,

∂ρA0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = − Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J0 (αρ)
∂ρ 2 0
α h i
2 − eα0 (z−l1 ) − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα
α0
∂A0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ)
∂z 2 0
h i
eα0 (z−l1 ) − eα0 (l0 −z) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα, (5.93)
and for 0 < z < l0 ,

∂ρA0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = − Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J0 (αρ)
∂ρ 2 0
α h α0 (z−l0 ) i
e − eα0 (z−l1 ) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα
α0
∂A0 µ0 ι0 ∞
Z
(ρ, z) = Ψ(α, r0 , r1 )J1 (αρ)
∂z 2 0
h i
α0 eα0 (z−l1 ) − eα0 (z−l0 ) + Γ1 e−α0 (l1 +z) − e−α0 (l0 +z) dα. (5.94)
5.6.2 Electric field in work-piece due to ferrite

In order to compute probe/flaw interactions when the probe contains a ferrite core, it is necessary
to compute the electric field in the workpiece due to the driving coil and the magnetiztion of the
core. This field will be derived below. For the rest of this section the probe is assumed to have a
axi-symmetric ferrite-core and to be in region 0. The magnetization has been determined using a
moment method and the magnetization is known in the centers of a 2D grid such that
ρk + ρk+1 zl + zl+1

Mkl ≈ M , , k = {0, 1, . . . nρ − 1}, l = {0, 1, . . . nz − 1}, (5.95)
2 2
where 0 = ρ0 < ρ1 < . . . < ρnρ = ρcore and zk = kδz. The electric field which needs to be approximated
is in region j below the probe region and the work-piece is planar.
The vector potential for region j divides neatly into two parts: the vector potential due to the
coil Acoil and the vector potential due to the core Acore . Since the probe is assumed to be an axially
symmetric coil, we can use the results from Section 2.5 to write down the vector potential due to the
coil in region j. In equation (2.72), it was found that
µ0 ι0
Z ∞ Ψ(α, r0 , r1 ) h ih i
(e) (e)
Acoil (ρ, z) = φ̂ J1 (αρ) e−αl0 − e−αl1 Γj+1 eαj z + Υj e−αj z dα, (5.96)
2 0 α
(e) (e)
where Γj+1 and Υj are the media specific reflection and transmission coefficients for region j, respec-
tively.
A similar expression can be written for the vector potential in region j due the the magnetization
at (ρk , zl ) as
Z ∞ αρk+1 J1 (αρk+1 − αρk J1 (αρk )
J1 (αρ) e−αj zk+1 − e−αj zk ·

Akl (ρ, z) = −2iωµ0 σj χkl
0 α
h ih i
(e) (e) (ρ) (z)
Γj+1 e−αj z + Υj e(−alphaj z Mkl + Mkl dα, (5.97)
where χkl = Vkl (1 − µ0 /µcore ) and µcore is the permeability of the core and Vkl the volume fraction of
(ρ) (z)
ferrite in the klth cell and Mkl and Mkl are the radial and z−componets of the magnetization of the
klth cell. Therefore; the vector potential for the core is just the sum over all these source terms
ρ −1
z −1 nX
nX
Acore (ρ, z) = Akl (ρ, z)
l=0 k=0
Z ∞ h z −1
i nX
(e) (e)
J1 (αρ) Γj+1 e−αj z + Υj e−αj z e−αj zl+1 − e−αj zl ·

= −2iωµ0 σj
0 l=0
nρ −1 h i
X (ρ) (z)
χkl [ρk+1 J1 (αρk+1 ) − ρk J1 (αρk )] Mkl + Mkl . (5.98)
k=0
Chapter 6
3D Field Analysis: The Scattered Field
6.1 Introduction
We are interested here in modelling the field scattered from a volumetric defect in any region, given
the field incident on the region and the field in the defect volume itself. We will assume that these are
the only two sources present. The flaw is assumed to be in region 0 and any regions above the flaw
region are negative, those below are positive and the bottom surface of the flaw region is z0 = 0.
6.2 Integral Expression of the Scattered Field
The integral expression of the electrical field at a point r in region j due to an electric source in region
0 is given by equation (6.2)
Z
E(r) = ~ (ee) (r|r0 ) · Jf law (r0 ) dr0 + J (i) (r),
G (6.1)
j e
f law
(i)
where Jf law (r) is the electric dipole distribution over the flaw volume, Je is the incident electric
~ (ee) is the dyadic Green’s function from region
dipole distribution over the region due to the coil and G j
0 to region j. If r ∈ Vf law then E(r) = Jf law r.
A similar relationship holds for the magnetic field due to the same electric source in region 0 and
is given by equation (6.2)
Z
H(r) = ~ (me) (r|r0 ) · Jf law (r0 ) dr0 + J (i) (r),
G (6.2)
j m
f law
(i) ~ me is the dyadic Green’s

where Jm is the incident magnetic dipole distribution in region f and G j
function for an electric source in region 0 to an electric field point in region j.
71
72 CHAPTER 6. 3D FIELD ANALYSIS: THE SCATTERED FIELD
6.3 Approximating the Fields

The Green’s functions in the last section can be written in the form of a two-dimensional Fourier
transform
∞ (qe)
~ (ee) (x − x0 , y − y 0 , z, z 0 ) = 1
Z Z
G ~˜
G 0 i[u(x−x0 )+v(y−y 0 )]
j j (u, v; z, z )e du dv, (6.3)
4π 2 −∞
where q ∈ {e, m}. When equation (6.3) is substituted into equation 6.2 we find
1
Z Z Z ∞ (ee)
~˜ 0 0 i[u(x−x0 )+v(y−y 0 )]
du dv dr0 + Je(i) (r),
E(r) = 2 G j (u, v; z, z ) · Jf law (r )e (6.4)
4π f law −∞
which can rearranged by changing the order of integration
1
Z Z ∞ Z (ee)
~˜ 0 0 i[u(x−x0 )+v(y−y 0 )]
dr0 du dv + Je(i) (r),
E(r) = 2 G j (u, v; z, z ) · Jf law (r )e (6.5)
4π −∞ f law
The electric dipole distribution over the flaw volume was approximated by covering the volume,
2rx × 2ry × 2rz , with rectangular cells and assuming that the dipole was constant on each cell or
element. The division is assumed to be regular in each of the coordinate directions, with a size of
nx × ny × nz with a cell resolution of ∆x × ∆y × ∆z . Therefore, we can write an approximation to
equation (6.3) as
Z Z ∞ Z (ee)
1 X ~˜ 0 i[u(x−x0 )+v(y−y 0 )]
E(r) ≈ 2
G j (u, v; z, z ) · Jklm e dr0 du dv + Je(i) (r), (6.6)
4π klm −∞ f law
The volume integral in equation (6.3) can be written

nX y −1 nx −1 Z z
z −1 nX (qe)
m+1
~˜ 0
X
G j (u, v; z, z ) ·
m=0 l=0 k=0 zm
Z yl+1 Z xk+1 0 0
Jklm ei[u(x−x )+v(y−y )] dx0 dy 0 dz 0 , (6.7)
yl xk
where
xk = k∆x − rx
yl = l∆y − ry
zm = m∆z − rz . (6.8)
Integration with respect to x0 and y 0 in equation (6.3) yields

y −1 nx −1
z −1 nX
nX
(e−iu∆x − 1)(e−iv∆y − 1) zm+1 (qe)
Z
~˜ 0
X
G j (u, v; z, z ) ·
m=0 l=0 k=0
−uv zm −rz
0
Jklm ei[u(xk )+v(yl )] dz . (6.9)
Combining equations 6.3 and 6.3 to write the integral approximation for the electric and magnetic
fields in region j as
y −1 nx −1
z −1 nX
∞ nX
1 (e−iu∆x − 1)(e−iv∆y − 1)
Z Z X
E(r) = − 2
4π ∞ m=0 l=0 k=0 uv
Z zm+1 (ee)
~˜
G 0
· Jklm ei[u(x−xk )+v(y−yl )] dz 0 du dv.
j (u, v; z, z ) (6.10)
zm
The magnetic field expression is similar. In the next section we will write down the expressions for
the dyadic Green’s functions and then integrate with respect to z 0 .
6.4 Dyadic Green’s Functions

 2 (m) 2 (m) (m) 
u2 ∂ G̃j 2 (e) uv ∂ G̃j (e) dG̃j
α2 ∂z∂z 0
+ ω 2 µj ˆ0 αv 2 G̃j α2 ∂z∂z 0
− ω 2 µj ˆ0 αuv2 G̃j iu dz
(ee) −1 
 
~˜ 2 (m) 2 (m) (m)
uv ∂ G̃j v 2 ∂ G̃j dG̃j

G = (e) 2 (e)
− ω 2 µj ˆj αuv2 G̃j + ω 2 µj ˆ0 αu2 G̃j iv dz
 
j
iωˆ
0 
 α 2 ∂z∂z 0
(m)
α 2 ∂z∂z 0
(m)


dG̃ dG̃ (m)
−iu dzj 0 −iv dzj 0 α2 G̃j − δ0j (z − z0)
(6.11)
 (m) (e) (m) (e) 

dG̃ dG̃ 2 dG̃ 2 dG̃ (m)
−iˆj αuv2 dzj 0− iˆ 0 αuv2 dzj j αv 2 dzj 0
−iˆ + iˆ0 αu2 dzj ˆj v G̃j
~˜
(me) −1  2 dG̃
(m)
2 dG̃
(e)
dG̃
(m)
dG̃
(e)

G = (m) (6.12)
 
j
iˆ

0  j αu2 dzj 0
iˆ − iˆ0 αv 2 dzj j αuv2 dzj 0
iˆ + iˆ0 αuv2 dzj −ˆ j uG̃j 

(e) (e)
−ˆ
0 v G̃j ˆ0 uG̃j 0
(q)
The scalar Green’s functions, G̃j are given by
 h i
(q) 0 (q) 0



1
2α0 Γj−1 e−αj z−α0 z + Υj eαj z−α0 z if j < 0

 h i
(q) 0 (q) 0 (q) 0
G̃j = 1
2α0 e−α0 |z−z | + Γ−1 eα0 (z+z ) + Γ1 eα0 (z+z ) if j = 0 , (6.13)

 h i
(q) 0 (q) 0
1
Γj+1 eαj z+α0 z + Υj e−αj z+α0 z

if j > 0


2α0
where the reflection and transmission coefficients are given in Chapter 2.

Carrying out the derivatives in equation (6.4), we will need the following relations:
0
(
d −α|z−z 0 | −αeα|z−z | if z > z 0
e = 0
dz αeα|z−z | if z < z 0
0
(
d −α|z−z 0 | αeα|z−z | if z > z 0
e = 0|
dz 0 −αe α|z−z if z < z 0
∂2 0
= −α2 e−α|z−z | . (6.14)
∂z∂z 0
Combining equations 6.11, 6.4, and 6.14 the Green’s function dyad for region j 6= 0 is
u2 (m) 2 (e) uv (m) (e) (m)
 
Λ̃
α2 j
+ ω 2 µj ˆ0 αv 2 G̃j Λ̃
α2 j
− ω 2 µj ˆ0 αuv2 G̃j ± αiu0 Λ̃j
~˜
(ee) −α0 αj  uv (m) (e) v 2 (m) 2 (e) (m)
− ω 2 µj ˆj αuv2 G̃j + ω 2 µj ˆ0 αu2 G̃j ± αiv0 Λ̃j

G j =  Λ̃
α2 j
Λ̃
α2 j
, (6.15)
iωˆ
0  (m) (m) α2 (m)

∓ αiuj G̃j ∓ αivj G̃j α0 αj G̃j
where  h i
(q) 0 (q) 0



1
2α0 Γj−1 e−αj z−α0 z − Υj eαj z−α0 z if j < 0

 h i
(q) |z−z 0 | (q) (z+z 0 ) (q) (z+z 0 )
Λ̃j = − 2α1 0 e−α0 + Γ−1 eα0 + Γ1 eα0 if j = 0 , (6.16)

 h i
(q) 0 (q) 0
1
Γj+1 eαj z+α0 z − Υj e−αj z+α0 z

if j > 0


2α0
and the upper sign and lower sign corresponds to regions j > 0 and j < 0, respectively.
The Green’s function dyad for region j = 0 is
 ) 
(m)
(
u2 (m) v2 (e) uv (m) (e) Λ̃0

α2
Λ̃0 + ω 2 µ0 ˆ 0 α2 G̃0 Λ̃
α2 0
− ω 2 µ0 ˆ0 αuv2 G̃0 iu
α0 (m)


 G̃ 0

( (m) ) 
(ee) −α02 
 
~˜ uv (m) (e) v 2 (m) 2 (e) Λ̃0
− ω 2 µ0 ˆ0 αuv2 G̃0 + ω 2 µ0 ˆ0 αu2 G̃0 iv

G 0 =  Λ̃
α2 0
Λ̃
α2 0 α0 (m)
, (6.17)
iωˆ
0 
 G̃0


(m) (m)
 ( ) ( ) 
 G̃0 G̃0 α2 (m)

 − αiu0 (m) − αiv0 (m) G̃
α20 0

Λ̃0 Λ̃0
where the upper function is used if z > z 0 and the lower function is used if z < z 0 .
Combining equations 6.12, 6.4, and 6.14 the Green’s function dyad for region j 6= 0 is
(m)uvαj (e) 2 u2 αj (e)

(m) (m)
 
j uvα
∓iˆ α2
0
G̃j α2
∓ iˆ
Λ̃j 0 j vαα2 0 G̃j
∓iˆ α2
Λ̃j ± iˆ
0 ˆj v G̃j
~˜
(me) −1  u2 α0 (m) v 2 αj (e) uvα0 (m) uvαj (e) (m)

G j =  ±iˆ
j α2 G̃j ∓ iˆ 0 α2 Λ̃j ±iˆ
j α2 G̃j ± iˆ 0 α2 Λ̃j −ˆ
j uG̃j , (6.18)
iˆ
0  (e) (e)

−ˆ
0 v G̃j ˆ0 uG̃j 0
where the upper and lower sign correspond to regions where j > 0 and j < 0, respectively. The dyadic
Green’s function when j = 0 is
 2 2

(m) (e) (m) (e) (m)
0 uvα
−iˆ α2
0
G̃0 − iˆ 0 uvα
α2
0
Λ̃0 0 vαα2 0 G̃0 + iˆ
−iˆ 0 uαα2 0 Λ̃0 ˆ0 v G̃0
~˜
(me) −1  2
u α0 (m) 2
v α0 (e) (m) (e) (m)

G 0 = 0 α2 G̃0 − iˆ
 iˆ 0 α2 Λ̃0 0 uvα
iˆ α2
0
G̃0 + iˆ 0 uvα
α2
0
Λ̃0 −ˆ 0 uG̃0  , (6.19)
iˆ
0  (e) (e)
−ˆ0 v G̃0 ˆ0 uG̃0 0
when z > z 0 and

 2 2

(m) (e) (m) (e) (m)
−iˆ0 uvα
α2
0
Λ̃0 − iˆ 0 uvα
α2
0
G̃0 0 vαα2 0 Λ̃0 + iˆ
−iˆ 0 uαα2 0 G̃0 ˆ0 v G̃0
~˜
(me) −1  u 2α (m) v 2α (e) (m) (e) (m)

G 0 =  0 α2 0 Λ̃0 − iˆ
iˆ 0 α2 0 G̃0 0 uvα
iˆ α2
0
Λ̃0 + iˆ 0 uvα
α2
0
G̃0 −ˆ 0 uG̃0  , (6.20)
iˆ
0  (e) (e)
−ˆ 0 v G̃0 ˆ0 uG̃0 0
when z < z 0 .
6.5. 3D FIELD APPROXIMATION 75
Refering back to equation (6.3) we must now integrate the dyadic expressions with respect to z 0 .
We will use the following relations, assuming z1 > z0 , ∆z = z1 − z0 and z 0 is in region 0:
z1 e±α0 ∆z − 1 (q)
Z
(q)
G̃j (z, z 0 ) dz 0 = ± G̃j (z, z0 )
z0 α0
z1 e±α0 ∆z − 1 (q)
Z
(q)
Λ̃j (z, z 0 ) dz 0 = ± Λ̃j (z, z0 ), (6.21)
z0 α0
where the upper sign corresponds to regions where j > 0 and the lower sign corresponds to regions
where j < 0. In region 0 we have

z1 eα0 ∆z −1 (q)
G̃0 (z, z0) if z ≥ z1
Z 
(q)
G̃0 (z, z 0 ) dz 0 = α0
eα0 ∆z −1 (q)
z0 
α0 Λ̃0 (z, z1 ) if z ≤ z0

z1 eα0 ∆z −1 (q)
Λ̃0 (z, z0) if z ≥ z1
Z 
(q)
Λ̃0 (z, z 0 ) dz 0 = α0
eα0 ∆z −1 (q)
(6.22)
z0 
α0 G̃0 (z, z1 ) if z ≤ z0
and for integrals where z0 < z < z1 we have

(q)
( )
z1 G̃0 (z, z 0 ) eα0 (z1 −z) + eα0 (z−z0 ) − 2 (q)
Z
(q) dz 0 = G̃0 (z, z)
z0 Λ̃0 (z, z 0 ) α0
(q)
( )
z1 Λ̃0 (z, z 0 ) eα0 (z1 −z) + eα0 (z−z0 ) − 2 (q)
Z
(q) dz 0 = Λ̃0 (z, z) (6.23)
z0 G̃0 (z, z 0 ) α0
6.5 3D Field Approximation

Using the results of the last section we can now carry out the integration with respect to z 0 in
equation (6.3) to find
1 ∞ (e−iu∆x − 1)(e−iv∆y − 1)
Z Z
E(r) = − 2
4π ∞ uv
x −1
nX (ee) nX y −1
z −1 nX
~˜
D (u, v; z, z m , z m+1 ) · Jklm ei[u(x−xk )+v(y−yl )] du dv. (6.24)
j
k=0 m=0 l=0
and
1 ∞ (e−iu∆x − 1)(e−iv∆y − 1)
Z Z
H(r) = − 2
4π ∞ uv
x −1
nX nX y −1
z −1 nX
˜ (me)
~
Dj (u, v; z, zm , zm+1 ) · Jklm ei[u(x−xk )+v(y−yl )] du dv. (6.25)
k=0 m=0 l=0
where the dyads are given below.

When j 6= 0
u2 (m) uv (m) iu (m)

 
Λ̃
α2 j α2 j
Λ̃ α0 Λ̃j
~˜
(ee) ±iαj (e±α0 ∆z − 1)  uv (m) v 2 (m) iv (m)

D j (u, v; z, z0 , z1 ) =
 Λ̃
α2 j α2 j
Λ̃ α0 Λ̃j
 ∓
iωˆ
0 
iu (m) iv (m) α2 (m)

− αj G̃j − αj G̃j α0 αj G̃j z 0 =z0
v2 (e) (e)
− αuv2 G̃j
 
α2
G̃j 0
±α0 ∆z
iωµj αj (e − 1)  − uv2 G̃(e) u2 (e) ,
 
α j α2
G̃j 0 
0 0 0 z 0 =z
0
(m) v2 α
(m) (m)
 
−iˆj uvα
α2
0
G̃j −iˆ
j α2 G̃j 0
ˆj v G̃j
~˜
(me) ±i(e±α0 ∆z − 1)  2 (m) (m) (m)
j uαα2 0 G̃j j uvα

D j (u, v; z, z0 , z1 ) =  iˆ iˆ α2
0
G̃j −ˆ j uG̃j  ±
ˆ0 α0 
(e) (e)

−ˆ0 v G̃j ˆ0 uG̃j 0 z 0 =z0
u2 α
 
uvα (e) (e)
− α2 j Λ̃j j
Λ̃j 0 
(e±α0 ∆z − 1)  v 2 αj (e)
α2
uvαj (e)
 − α2 Λ̃j

Λ̃j 0 
 , (6.26)
α0 α2
0 0 0 z 0 =z
0
where the upper and lower sign correspond to regions where j > 0 and j < 0, respectively. The dyadic
~ when j = 0 are given below. When z >= z1
expressions for D

 
Λ̃
α2 0 α2 0
Λ̃ α0 Λ̃0
~˜
(ee) iα0 (eα0 ∆z − 1)  uv (m) v 2 (m) iv (m) 
D 0 (u, v; z, z0 , z1 ) =
 Λ̃
α2 0 α2 0
Λ̃ α0 Λ̃0
 +
ωˆ0 

− α0 G̃0 − α0 G̃0 G̃
α2 00 z 0 =m∆z −rz

v2 (e) (e) 
G̃ − αuv2 G̃0 0
 uv 0(e) α2
iωµ0 α0 (eα0 ∆z − 1)  − 2 G̃0 u2 (e) 
α α2 0
G̃ 0 
0 0 0 z 0 =z
 2
0
(m) (m) (m)
−iˆ0 uvα
α2
0
G̃0 0 vαα2 0 G̃0
−iˆ ˆ0 v G̃0
~˜
(me) i(eα0 ∆z − 1)  2 (m) (m) (m)

D 0 (u, v; z, z0 , z1 ) =  0 uαα2 0 G̃0
iˆ 0 uvα
iˆ α2
0
G̃0 −ˆ 0 uG̃0  +
ˆ0 α0 
(e) (e)

−ˆ0 v G̃0 ˆ0 uG̃0 0 z 0 =z0

uv (e) u2 (e) 
Λ̃ Λ̃0 0
 α 0
2 α2
α0 ∆z
(e − 1)  − v22 Λ̃(e) uv (e) , (6.27)

α 0 − α2 Λ̃0 0 
0 0 0 z 0 =z
0
When z ≤ z0

 
G̃
α2 0
G̃
α2 0 α0 G̃0
~˜
(ee) iα0 (eα0 ∆z − 1)  uv (m) v 2 (m) iv (m) 
D 0 (u, v; z, z0 , z1 ) =
 G̃
α2 0
G̃
α2 0 α0 G̃0
 +
ωˆ0 

− α0 Λ̃0 − α0 Λ̃0 Λ̃
α20 0 z 0 =z0
6.5. 3D FIELD APPROXIMATION 77
v 2 (e) (e)
 
Λ̃
α2 0
− αuv2 Λ̃0 0
iωµ0 α0 (eα0 ∆z − 1)  uv (e) u2 (e)
 
− α2 Λ̃0 α2 0
Λ̃ 0 
0 0 0 z 0 =z
 2
1
(m) (m) (m)
−iˆ0 uvα
α2
0
Λ̃0 0 vαα2 0 Λ̃0
−iˆ ˆ0 v Λ̃0
~˜
(me) i(eα0 ∆z − 1)  2 (m) (m) (m)

D 0 (u, v; z, z0 , z1 ) =  0 uαα2 0 Λ̃0
iˆ 0 uvα
iˆ α2
0
Λ̃0 −ˆ 0 uΛ̃0  +
ˆ0 α0 
(e) (e)

−ˆ0 v Λ̃0 ˆ0 uΛ̃0 0 z 0 =z1
uv (e) u2 (e)
 
G̃
α2 0 α2
G̃0 0
(eα0 ∆z − 1)  v 2 (e) (e)
− αuv2 G̃0 , (6.28)
 
− α2 G̃0 0 
0 0 0 z 0 =z
1
The last case is where z0 < z < z1 . We can write

(qe) (qe) (qe)
~˜
D (u, v; z, z , z ) = ~˜
D (u, v; z, z , z) + ~˜
D
0 0 1 0 0 0 (u, v; z, z, z1 ). (6.29)
The dyadic expressions on the right hand side are given above.
We are now in a position to evaluate the scattered electric and magnetic field at a point r any any
region j by employing equations 6.5 and 6.5. The evaluation involves approximating a two dimensional
Fourier integral. For each layer of flaw elements, the integrand involves a finite sum over all the layer,
the evaluation of a dyad and then a dyad/vector multiplication, the final result is then the sum of all
the layer vectors. This computational effort should be quite reasonable because all the dyadic elements
are well behaved, assuming the number of flaw elements is not extremely large.
Chapter 7
3D Matrix Elements Analysis
It seems . . . to be one of those simple cases which are so extremely difficult. That sounds
a little paradoxical. But it is profoundly true. Singularity is almost invariably a clue.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 1859 – 1930
After applying the method of moments, the general dyadic expression can be written down by
combining equations (5.62) – (5.66) to yield
nX y −1 nz −1 h
x −1 nX i
(i) X
~ (Υ) ~ (Γ)
PKLM = PKLM + υKLM G k−K,l−L,m−M + Gk−K,l−L,m+M Pklm , (7.1)
k=0 l=0 m=0
where the dyadic terms G ~ (Υ) are the convolutional matrix elements, while G ~ (Γ) are the correlational
matrix elements. The integral expressions for the matrix elements cannot be evaluated analytically,
but instead must be approximated numerically.
Bowler, Sabbagh and Sabbagh[BSS89] evaluated these dyadic expressions in Fourier space, using
the limiting case of the xy−plane as the exclusion volume. The dyadic terms were then evaluated at a
series of discrete points in Fourier space and then an inverse discrete fast Fourier transform (IDFFT)
was used to approximate the result in physical space. This approach required a large amount of
memory for storing the intermediate results and since it involved three-dimensional IDFFT’s was very
slow. When the element aspect ratio, the ratio of the largest side to the smallest side, increased, even
more points needed to be evaluated in order to have a high enough spatial resolution and unfortunately
the precision decreased.
Mc Kirdy[McK89] employed physical space integration in implementing his volume integral scheme.
His approach involved transforming the volume integrals involving the singularity in (7.1) into equiva-
lent surface integrals in such a way as to avoid the singularity. These integrals were then approximated
numerically. This approach does not require a lot of memory, like the Fourier approach, and provides a
high degree of precision; however, the surface integrals require large amounts of CPU time to compute.
In order to overcome these deficiencies of the Fourier techniques and the inefficiency of the numeri-
cal approximation using surface integrals the singularities in equation (7.1) were taken head on. In this
79
80 CHAPTER 7. 3D MATRIX ELEMENTS ANALYSIS
new approach, the dyadic expressions are approximated in physical space by a series of approximations
that isolate the aspects of the singular integrals that depend on the specific geometry being considered
from the intrinsic nature of the singular integrals. The resulting technique involves a series of polyno-
mial evaluations to approximate these integrals, with coefficients that have been predetermined for all
element sizes. Polynomial evaluation is especially fast; consequently, the CPU requirements have been
dramatically reduced, but without sacrificing precision. This physical space integration technique is
described in the next section. The treatment of the correlational and convolutional dyadic matrix
elements is presented in the following section.
The treatment of the correction dyad, introduced in Chapter 5, is given in detail. The presentation
here evaluates some of the correction dyad in Fourier space before a final two- dimensional integration
in physical space. This approach is different from that used by Bowler[BJ+ 91] for half-space conduc-
tors, where the correction term was treated entirely in physical space. There is no computational gains
to be made here; however, this hybrid approach to the correction dyad does extend to other stratified
media, unlike the physical space technique.
7.1 Free-space matrix elements for planar media

Only the free-space dyadic Green’s function will be treated in this section, because the treatment of
the matrix elements that arise from reflections from the interfaces in the surrounding media will be
able to be treated as a free-space term with a correction term.
For all planar media types we will use the free-space matrix elements dyad G ~ (0)
klm|KLM , which can
be written as Z
~ (0)
G 2 ~ (0) (rklm |r0 )βKLM (r0 )dr0 ,
klm|KLM = k G (7.2)
VKLM
where the basis functions are convolutions of 3D pulse functions[BSS89] given in equation (5.58) and
" #
~ (0) (r|r0 ) = ~I + 1
G 2 ∇∇ G(r|r0 ), (7.3)
khost
~
where G(r|r 0 ) is the dynamic scalar Green’s function. Some of these matrix element terms, like
~ (0) 3
G klm|klm , involve a 1/|r| singularity. These terms have been treated in a special way, which allows
for efficient and precise approximation. This is the subject of the next section.
7.1.1 Evaluation of singular matrix elements

The choice of basis functions mean that the integration volumes are in the form of rectangular par-
allelepipeds. For the regularization that follows, a finite exclusion volume around the singularity is
introduced[Wan82, L+ 80, Yag80, Van61]. For a given volume Vklm , there are clear numerical advan-
tages in making the exclusion volume V0 as large as possible and ensuring that the non–excluded
region V1 = Vklm − V0 has a simple geometry. For this reason, a cubic exclusion volume centred on the
singularity has been used. The sides of the cube have the dimension 2a, where a = min{δx , δy , δz }.
As pointed out by Lee[L+ 80], the integral in (7.2) does not exist in the usual sense for volumes
containing the origin. However, by appealing to generalized function theory the limit can be well–
defined if βklm (r) is Hölder continuous[Kel29]. A function f is said to be Hölder continuous if there
7.1. FREE-SPACE MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR PLANAR MEDIA 81
Oα
6

a = δz O0 Oγ
δy
?r
-
δx
singularity
Figure 7.1: First octant of cell centred at the singularity. In the example shown δz is the smallest cell
dimension.
exists three constants c, B and α such that

|f (r) − f (r0 )| ≤ BRα , R = |r − r0 | (7.4)
for all points r for which R ≤ c. Since βklm (r) is piecewise linear and continuous, it is Hölder continuous
and the singular integral in (7.1) can be regularized. Define a dyad ~Irst such that ~Ik−K,l−L,m−M =
~ (0)
G +
klm|KLM . Applying the regularization from Lee[L 80]
Z h i
(pq)
Iklm = βklm (r0 ) δpq k 2 + ∂p0 ∂q0 G(r0 ) dr0
Vklm
(pq) (pq) (pq) (pq)
= Aklm + Bklm + Cklm + Dklm (7.5)
where
Z h i
(pq)
Aklm = βklm (r0 ) δpq k 2 + ∂p0 ∂q0 G(r0 ) dr0
Vklm −V0
Z
(pq)
Bklm = [βklm (r0 ) − βklm (0)]∂p0 ∂q0 G(r0 )dr0
V0
Z
+βklm (0) ∂p0 ∂q0 [G(r0 ) − G0 (r0 )]dr0
V0
Z
(pq) 0 0
Cklm = βklm (0) ∂p ∂q G0 (r − r ) dr
V0 r=0
Z
(pq)
Dklm = k 2 δpq G(r0 )βklm (r0 ) dr0 (7.6)
V0
where G0 (r) is the static scalar Green’s function and G(r) the dynamic scalar Green’s function defined
as
1 eik|r|
G0 (r) = G(r) = . (7.7)
4π|r| 4π|r|
The partial derivatives of the dynamic scalar Green’s function are

" !#
p2 i i p2

2
∂p ∂p G(r) = k − 2 − 1+ 3 2 −1 G(r),
|r| k|r| k|r| |r|
pq 3i i

∂p ∂q G(r) = k 2 2 1 + 1+ G(r), (7.8)
|r| k|r| k|r|
where p, q ∈ {x, y, z}.
1
@
@ β (x/δ )
@ 1 x
@
-2 -1 0 1 2
1
@
β0 (x/δx ) @
@
@
-2 -1 0 1 2
1
@
β−1 (x/δx ) @
@
@
-2 -1 0 1 2
Figure 7.2: Support of 1D basis functions
The convolution of 3D pulse functions

x y y
βklm (r) = βk ( )βl ( )βm ( ) (7.9)
δx δy δz
is non-zero over a volume equal to that of 8 cells. Because βklm (r) extends beyond the k, l, m-cell to
first, second and third nearest neighbours, it is not just the self–matrix element calculation, where
the integral extends into the exclusion zone. Since the singularity is assumed to be at the origin
and βi (x/δx ), shown in Figure 7.2, has support of 2, only the matrix elements involving only β−1 ,
β0 and β1 in equation (7.2) involve the singularity. Thus the only terms in (7.6) that involve the
exclusion volume are those where k, l, m ∈ {−1, 0, 1}; however, due to symmetry only elements where
k, l, m ∈ {0, 1} give unique results.
(pq)
Evaluation of Aklm
With the origin of the coordinate system at the singularity, all of the integrations can be done in the
first octant where x, y and z are positive. The odd-even symmetry properties of the potential and its
derivatives are exploited to find the total integral. The first octant of the volume V000 (k, l, m = 0) is
shown in Figure 7.1. O0 , a cube of side a, is the first octant of the exclusion volume and in this example
(pq)
a = δz since δz happens to be the smallest cell dimension. In general evaluation of Aklm involves
integration over first octant volume OΣ = Oklm − O0 . Since OΣ does not contain the singularity,
(pq)
Aklm can be approximated by using an adaptive quadrature for, at most, two rectangular regions. An
example is shown in Figure 7.1 where the two regions are denoted by Oα and Oγ ; however, one or
both could be zero, if an elemental cell was respectively a cuboid or a cube. These integrations are
special cases of the non-singular matrix element computations and will be discussed in Section 7.1.2.
(pq)
Evaluation of Cklm
(pq)
Introducing the notation δklm = 1 if k = l = m = 0 and δklm = 0 otherwise, Cklm for a cube is given
by [L+ 80, Yag80]
Z
(pq) 0 0
Cklm = βklm (0) ∂p ∂q G0 (r − r ) dr
V0 r=0
1 nˆp eˆr 2a eˆp eˆq
Z Z
= 2
dS = dS
4π S0 |r| 4π S0 |r|3
Z π
4 2 sin θ
= − p − 1 dθ
π 4π
1 + sin2 θ
1
= − δklm δpq , (7.10)
3
where δpq = 1 if p = q and δpq = 0 otherwise.
(pq)
Evaluation of Dklm
Let the xy-plane, xz-plane and the yz-plane divide V000 into eight octants. Consider the octant O0 ,
where the coordinates x, y and z are positive, for k = l = m = 0,
x y z xy
β000 (r) = 1 − − − +
δx δy δz δx δy
xz yz xyz
+ + − . (7.11)
δx δy δy δz δx δy δz
Due to the strictly even or odd nature of the integrands, we need only consider the first octant in all the
(pq)
following integrations. All of the terms Dklm can be expressed as linear combinations of integrations
over this volume. Let
"
x0 y0 z0 x0 y 0
Z
2 0
I000 = k G(r ) 1 − − − +
O0 δx δy δz δx δy
#
x0 z 0 y0z0 x0 y 0 z 0
+ + − dr0 (7.12)
δx δz δy δz δx δy δz
By expanding eikR as a Taylors series;

1 i
eikR = 1 + (ikR) − (kR)2 − (kR)3 + . . . (7.13)
2 6
and integrating term by term, I000 may be approximated by a polynomial in λ = iak. The inte-
(pq)
grals, being smooth functions, can be evaluated numerically. Thus D000 can be approximated as a
summation of polynomials, the approximation being of the form
3
(pq) X
D000 = 8δpq I000 ≈ d s ps . (7.14)
s=0
Here we have taken note of the fact that G(r) and β000 (r) are both even with respect to x, y and z,
(pq)
hence for the 8 octants we get D000 = 8δpq I000 . The polynomials are defined as
Z 5
X
k2 G(r)dr ≈ p0 = d0s λs
O0 s=2
5
k2
Z X
xG(r)dr ≈ p1 = d1s λs
a O0 s=2
5
k2
Z X
xyG(r)dr ≈ p2 = d2s λs
a2 O0 s=2
5
k2
Z X
xyzG(r)dr ≈ p3 = d3s λs
a3 O0 s=2
(7.15)
The coefficients dts are shown in the top part of Table 7.1. The computation of the coefficients for
the polynomial p0 is presented in detail to illustration of the technique used. The coefficients for the
remaining polynomials were computed in a similar way.
dts
t\s 2 3 4 5
0 -0.094700 -0.079577 -0.038221 -0.013263
1 -0.041030 -0.039789 -0.020897 -0.007737
2 -0.018565 -0.019894 -0.011253 -0.004421
3 -0.008583 -0.009947 -0.005996 -0.002487
ds
s D000 D100 D010 D001 D110 D011 D101 D111
0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 −8c1 4 δax 4 δay 4 aδ z 0 0 0 0
2 a2 2 a2 2 a2 2 2 2
2 8c2 −4( δxaδy + δx δz ) −4( δxaδy + δy δz ) −4( δxaδz + δy δz ) 2 δxaδy 2 δxaδz 2 δyaδz 0
3 −8c3 4c3 4c3 4c3 −2c3 −2c3 −2c3 c3
Table 7.1: Coefficients for Dklm
First, after switching to polar coordinates, integration with respect to the radial dimension can
be done analytically. Due to symmetry the integral can be evaluated by breaking the integral into
integrals over two volumes in the first octant. The resulting integrals are shown in (7.16).
"r= a
π π
1 (1 − irk) sin φeikr cos θ sin φ
Z Z Z
2 4
0 0
G(r ) dr = 2 dθ dφ
4π O0 tan−1 sec θ 0 4k 2 π r=0
π
"r= a
Z tan−1 sec θ Z 4 (1 − irk) sin φeikr cos φ
+2 dθ dφ (7.16)
0 0 4k 2 π r=0
Now, approximate the exponential function by expanding it in its power series, keeping the first 5
terms and perform the integration with respect to φ. The result is shown in (7.17).
π
1 λ4 S02 (θ) λ2 ln |s0 (θ)| λ4 ln |s0 (θ)|
Z Z
4
G(r0 ) dr0 = 2 4
+ +
4π O0 0 256π cos θ 8π cos2 θ 64π cos4 θ
λ3 s2 (θ)
− dθ
12π cos3 θs1 (θ)
Z π
4 λ5 s2 (θ) λ5 s2 (θ) λ4
+2 − − − dθ
0 180π cos5 θs1 (θ) 360π cos5 θs31 (θ) 256π cos4 θs20 (θ)
Z π
4 λ2 λ3 λ4 λ5
+2 − − − − dθ
0 8πs2 (θ) 24πs2 (θ) 96πs2 (θ) 480πs42 (θ)
2 3
λ5 λ4 λ3 λ2
+ + + + (7.17)
960 192 48 16
where
" #
tan−1 (sec θ)
s0 (θ) = tan )
2
s1 (θ) = sin[tan−1 (sec θ)]
s2 (θ) = cos[tan−1 (sec θ)] (7.18)
At this stage the remaining integrals cannot, in general, be evaluated analytically; however, these
integrals are now independent of the problem size and therefore need be evaluated only once. The
integrands are all smooth functions on the interval [0, π4 ] and are therefore well suited for numerical
integration to high precision. Once these integrals have been approximated the coefficients of λ have
been completely determined.
The coefficients ds , s = 0, 1, 2, 3, in (7.14) are written in terms of a set of constants given by
a a a
c0 = 1 c1 = + +
δx δy δy
a2 a2 a2 a 3
c2 = + + c3 = . (7.19)
δx δy δx δz δy δz δx δy δz
(pq)
In the case of D000 the coefficients are given in the second column in the bottom part of Table 7.1.
(pq)
The remaining terms Dklm for k, l, m ∈ {0, 1}, are all expressible as a combinations of the p’s. To
(pq)
illustrate this we consider D100 and define
Z
I100 = k 2
β100 (r0 )Gdr0
O0
" #
x0 x0 y 0 x0 z 0 x0 y 0 z 0
Z
= k 2
G − − + dr0
O0 δ x δ δ
x y δ δ
x z δ δ
x y zδ
a a2 a2 a3
≈ p1 − ( + )p2 + p3 (7.20)
δx δx δy δx δz δx δy δz
(pq)
Since we are displaced from the yz-plane we have symmetry only in two planes therefore D100 =
4δpq I100 . Hence the results given in the third column of the bottom part of Table 7.1. Similarly with
(pq) (pq) (pq) (pq) (pq) pq)
D010 , D001 , D110 , D011 , D101 and D111 .
(pq)
Evaluation of Bklm
(pp)
We begin this section by considering Bklm with k = l = m = 0. Results for other values of k, l and m
can be expressed in terms of the integrals that arise for the 000 case. First notice that the terms in
(pq)
brackets for expression of Bklm in (7.6) is
|x0 | |y 0 | |z 0 |
β000 (r0 ) − β000 (0)

= − − −
δx δy δz
0 0
|x y | |x z | |y 0 z 0 |
0 0
+ + +
δx δy δx δz δy δz
0 0 0
|x y z |
− . (7.21)
δx δy δz
(pp)
Again in considering the first octant, we can drop the absolute values and express B000 as a lin-
ear combination of integrals involving terms in (7.21). Approximating the integrals by power series
expansions, we find that
5
1 ∂2G
Z X (xx)
x 2 dr ≈ q0 = b0s λs
a O0 ∂x s=0
5
1 ∂2G
Z X (xx)
y 2 dr ≈ q1 = b1s λs
a O0 ∂x s=0
5
1 ∂2G
Z X (xx)
xy 2 dr ≈ q2 = b2s λs
a2 O0 ∂x s=0
5
1 ∂2G
Z X (xx)
yz dr ≈ q 3 = b3s λs
a2 O0 ∂x2 s=0
5
1 ∂2G
Z X (xx)
xyz dr ≈ q 4 = b4s λs
a3 O0 ∂x2 s=0
5
∂ 2 (G − G0 )
Z X (xx)
dr ≈ q5 = b5s λs (7.22)
O0 ∂x2 s=0
(xx)
where the coefficients bts are given in the top part of Table 7.2.
bts
t\s 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0.0354750 0 0.011052 0.013263 0.007516 0.002870
1 -0.0177375 0 0.014989 0.013263 0.006690 0.002432
2 0.0038345 0 0.005706 0.006631 0.003877 0.001547
3 -0.0076690 0 0.007153 0.006631 0.003498 0.001326
4 0 0 0.031567 -0.026526 0.012740 -0.004421
(xx)
bs
(xx) (xx) (xx) (xx) (xx) (xx) (xx) (xx)
s B000 B100 B010 B001 B110 B011 B101 B111
0 −8cx0 cx2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 −8cx1 0 4c1 4c1 0 0 0 0
2 2
2 8cx2 4c2 −4 δxaδy −4 δxaδz 2c2 2c2 0 0
3 8cx3 0 −4c7 −4c7 0 0 2c2 0
4 −8c3 4c3 −4c3 −4c3 2c3 2c3 2c3 −c3
5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(xx)
Table 7.2: Coefficients for Bklm
As noted earlier, the second order partial derivative with respect to x, y or z is an even function
as is β000 therefore the results above are the same in the remaining 7 octants.
(xx)
We can now express the final result for Bklm . In general we have
5
(xx) X
Bklm ' b(xx)
s qs (7.23)
s=0
where the coefficients bs , s = 0, 1, . . . , 5, are given in the bottom part of Table 7.2 Some new coefficients,
introduced in the Table, are given by
a a a
cx0 = cx1 = +
δx δy δz
a 2 a2 a 2
cx2 = + cx3 = . (7.24)
δx δy δx δz δy δz
Next we consider terms involving derivatives with respect to x and y. We need to evaluate the
(pq)
two integrals in the expression for Bklm in (7.6). The mixed derivatives are odd functions in x and y,
(xy) (xy)
so the first integral is zero for all terms except B110 and B111 . The second integral is zero for all k,
l and m, since βklm (0) = 0 unless k = l = m = 0 where the integral is zero by anti-symmetry. So we
need only concern ourselves with the terms

5
1 ∂2G
Z X (xy)
xy dr ≈ u0 = b0s λs
a2 O0 ∂x∂y s=0
5
1 ∂2G
Z X (xy)
xyz dr ≈ u1 = b1s λs (7.25)
a3 O0 ∂x∂y s=0
Then
1
(xy) X
Bklm = b(xy)
s us (7.26)
s=0
and the coefficients are given in Table 7.3.
uts
t\s 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0.020833 0 -0.003043 0 0.000934 -0.000774
1 0.006367 0 -0.001225 0 0.000205 -0.000589
(xy)
bs
(xy) (xy) (xy) (xy) (xy) (xy) (xy) (xy)
s B000 B100 B010 B001 B110 B011 B101 B111
(xy)
b0 0 0 0 0 2c2 0 0 0
(xy)
b1 0 0 0 0 2c3 0 0 −c3
(xy)
Table 7.3: Coefficients for Bklm
7.1.2 Adaptive integration of non-singular integrands

(pq)
Integrating the non-singular terms in (7.1) and indeed the term Aklm of (7.6) involves a volumetric nu-
merical integration of an infinitely smooth function which should be easy to approximate numerically;
however, some care must be taken due to the rapidly decaying nature of the integrand. Volumetric
cells with large aspect ratios, that is the ratio of the largest cell dimension to that of the smallest, will
have rapidly changing integrands in cells adjacent to the singular ones. While for volumetric cells with
smaller aspect ratios, the integrands in cells adjacent to the singular volumes vary much more slowly.
This behaviour makes a fixed order quadrature scheme impractical, therefore an adaptive scheme was
used.
Adaptive integration of non-singular terms

The integral in (7.1) is redefined in terms of its iterated integral so that volumetric integration is now
cast as a series of one dimensional integrals. Let us define
h i
F (pq) (x, y, z) = βklm (r) δpq k 2 + ∂p ∂q G(r), (7.27)
for all Vklm where F is analytic. (7.1) can be written as

Z
(pq)
Iklm = F (pq) (x, y, z) dV. (7.28)
Vklm
(pq)
Now define F1 (x, y) as
Z (m+1)δz
(pq)
F1 (x, y) = F (pq) (x, y, z)dz (7.29)
(m−1)δz
(pq)
and F2 (x) as
Z (l+1)δy
(pq) (pq)
F2 (x) = F1 (x, y)dy (7.30)
(l−1)δy
Combining equations (7.28), (7.29) and (7.30) gives

Z (k+1)δx
(pq) (pq)
Iklm = F2 (x)dx. (7.31)
(k−1)δx
Now each of the integrals in equations (7.29) - (7.31) are one dimensional and can be approximated
adaptively to any desired accuracy. Romberg integration is used for each of the one dimensional
integrals, using 3 successive refinements of the extended trapezoidal rule to remove all error terms in
the error series up to but not including O(n6 ) [P+ 87]. The modified trapezoidal rule is useful here
since it is a closed formula (evaluating the integral at the end-points) and the basis function forces all
the integrands to zero on the boundary of Vklm ; therefore providing a free evaluation of the trapezoidal
rule.
(pq)
Adaptive integration to evaluate Aklm
(pq)
Evaluation of the term Aklm of (7.6) involves the volume Vklm − {[−a, a] × [−a, a] × [a, a]}, where
a = min{δx , δy , δz }, so all the numerical integrations are adjacent to the exclusion volume. Since
all the terms in the integrand in the expression of (7.6) are either odd or even we can do all the
integrations in the first octant and use symmetry to compute the final result. Using F (pq) (x, y, z)
defined above, we can write
(pq)
Aklm = W (p, q)(2 − k)(2 − l)(2 − m)

(pq) (pq) (pq)
· Iklm + Jklm + Kklm (7.32)
where Z δx Z δy Z δz
(pq)
Iklm = F (pq) dzdydx, (7.33)
a 0 0
Z δx Z δy Z δz
(pq)
Jklm = F (pq) dzdydx (7.34)
0 a 0
and Z δx Z δy Z δz
(pq)
Kklm = F (pq) dzdydx, (7.35)
0 0 a
with 

 1
if p=q

kl if
 p = x, q = y
W (p, q) = (7.36)
 km if


p = x, q = z

lm if p = y, q = z.
We have now expressed the volumetric integral as the sum of 3 integrals, each of which is a series
of one dimensional integrations. Notice that at least one, but possibly two or all three of which
may be zero, depending on the aspect ratio of the volumetric cell. Again Romberg integration was
employed with three refinements; however, an open formula was used for the integrations. This avoided
evaluations on the axial planes, keeping the function evaluations as far away from the singularity as
possible.
7.1.3 Continuity between methods

The value of the integral in (7.1) is independent of the exclusion volume used. For the polynomial
approximations a cubic exclusion volume was used with a side length of 2a, where a = min{δx , δy , δz }.
The integral over the remaining volume is integrated using the adaptive integration of Section 7.1.2
The independence of the result with respect to the exclusion volume can be used to help verify the
results by varying a for a fixed cell volume. This is not a sufficient test; however, but continuity
between methods is a strong check. Further comparisons have shown very good agreement to results
using Fourier techniques.
(xx)
Figure 7.3: Numerical integration of I000 as function of ratio of sizes of the exclusion cube to the
element cube
This simple numerical experiment was performed for a cubic volume V000 . For cubic cells, the
(xx)
largest possible exclusion volume is V000 . This implies that A000 = 0, and from (7.6),
(xx) (xx) (xx) (xx)
I000 = B000 + C000 + D000 . (7.37)
7.2. MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR PLANAR MEDIA 91
xx) (xx) (xx)

However, as the size of the exclusion cube is decreased, |A000 | increases, while |B000 +D000 | decreases.
(xx)
C000 ≡ 13 and is independent of the exclusion volume, being determined strictly by the nature of the
singularity.
This behaviour is shown in Figure 7.3. The sum of these terms should be independent of the
(xx) (xx) (xx)
exclusion volume size. A000 was computed to a 0.01% tolerance, while the terms B000 and D000
are computed to an accuracy of O(3−6 ). The sum of the exclusion volume dependent terms is also
shown in Figure 7.3 and it is indeed constant. This provides a powerful check on the accuracy of the
technique.
7.2 Matrix elements for planar media

We will now develop the convolutional and correlational dyadic Green’s function, moments can then be
taken to find the matrix elements. The refection dyadic Green’s function was defined in equation (5.35)
and is repeated and renumbered here
~I0 − 1 ∇∇0 G(r|r0 − 2z 0 ẑ) + ~I0 − 1 ∇∇0 G(r|r0 − 2{z 0 + c}ẑ) +

~ (Γ) (r|r0 ) =
G
k2 k2
~ (Υ) (r|r0 + 2cẑ) + V
V ~ (Υ) (r|r0 − 2cẑ) +
−1 1
~ (Υ) (r|r0
W ~ (Υ) (r|r0 − 2cẑ).
+ 2cẑ) + W (7.38)
−1 β
The first two dyads will be interpreted as image terms, the last four dyads are the correction terms.
The convolutional dyadic Green’s function was also given in equation (5.35) and was found to be
~ (Υ) (r|r0 ) = G
G ~ (0) (r|r0 ) + G
~ (0) (r|r + 2cẑ) + G~ (0) (r|r0 − 2cẑ) +
~ (Γ) (r|r0 − 2z 0 ẑ) + V
V ~ (Γ) (r|r0 − 2{z 0 − c}ẑ)
−1 1
~ (Γ) (r|r0 0 ~
− 2z ẑ) + W 0 (Γ) 0
W −1 β (r|r − 2{z − c}ẑ), (7.39)
where the first term is the free-space dyadic Green’s function, which after applying the moment
method, was analyzed in the last section. The next two dyadic terms can be interpreted as image
dyads or equivalent free-space terms, while the last four are correction terms.
7.2.1 Dyadic image terms

In Fourier space, the transverse electric and magnetic scalar potentials in the source region, in the
presence of upper and lower interfaces was found in equation (5.25) to be of the form
e (p) (z|z 0 ) = 1 h −α0 |z−z 0 | (p) 0 (p) 0

α2 U e + Γ−1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Γ1 eα0 (z+z −2c) +
2α0
0 0
i
(p) (p)
Γ−1 e−α0 (z−z +2c) + Γ1 eα0 (z−z −2c) , (7.40)
where p ∈ {e, m} and

(p) 0 (p) 0 (p) 0
Γ−1 e−α0 (z+z ) + Γ−1 e−α0 (z−z +2c) = Γ−1 e−α0 (z+z )
(p) 0 (p) 0 (p) 0
Γ1 eα0 (z+z −2c) + Γ1 eα0 (z−z −2c) = Γ1 eα0 (z++z ) . (7.41)
The exponential terms in equation (7.40) can all be thought of as sources or potential terms. Ther
first term is the physical source. For low frequencies, the coefficients Γ are near unity in magnitude
and for this case the next two terms in equation (7.40) correspond to the simple image terms, that is
the observed field at r due to the mirror image of the source in free-space at r0 .
r z 000 = 2z−1 − z 0
- t @
?z @
R z−1
@
R
@ z
z0 r
@
@
@
R
@ z0

r z 00 = 2z0 − z 0
Figure 7.4: Sources for simple image terms
The perfect reflection seen at low frequency is illustrated in Figure 7.4 for the quasi-one dimensional
case for the two simple images. In the Figure the field at z due to a source at z 0 is equivalent to the
field due to the two sources in free-space at z 00 and z 000 . Let z−1 = 0 and z0 = c in the figure, where
c > 0. The path length for the two waves drawn in the Figure are z + z 0 and 2c − z − z 0 , which is real
scalar multiples in the simple image terms in equation (7.40). Notice that for large values of c that
the reflection from the bottom surface will be very weak and can be safely ignored. This is the case
for thick plates and in the limit, represents the half-space conductor.
Since these simple image terms have a free-space interpretation, there is a way to evaluate them
which utilizes the machinery of the previous section. Define the dyadic operator S[G] ~ such that
 
Gxx Gxy −Gxz
~
S[G] =  Gyx Gyy −Gyz  ,
 
(7.42)
Gzx Gzy −Gzz
then
~I0 − 1 ∇∇0 G(r|r0 − 2z 0 ẑ) = S G

h i
~ (0) (r|r0 − 2z 0 ẑ)
k2
~I0 − 1 ∇∇0 G(r|r0 − 2{z 0 + c}) = S G
h i
~ (0) (r|r0 − 2{z 0 + c}) . (7.43)
k2
Therefore, after applying moments, these terms can be evaluated as the free-space terms from the last
section and then changing the sign of the third column of the dyad. The image terms corresponds
to the idealized case when the incident wave is perfectly reflected, that is the reflection coefficient is
unity. The correction dyads will correct for the actual imperfect reflection and for all odd number of
multiply reflected waves.
[z + z 0 − 2z−1 ] [z − z 0 + 2c]
z−1
@ @
R
@ R
@ z
@
@
z0 r
@
@
@
z0
R
@ @
R
@
[2z0 − z − z 0 )] [z 0 − z + 2c]
Figure 7.5: Path lengths of image and first multiple reflection terms
With the presence of two interfaces, there will be multiple reflections between the interfaces.
Figure 7.5 illustrates the path length of the two simple image and the first two multiple reflections:
the double image terms. The double image terms refer to the equivalent field due to source points in
free-space at distances |z − z 0 + 2c| and |z 0 − z + 2c|, where c = z0 − z−1 , and have a z − z 0 dependence,
instead of the z + z 0 dependence observed for the simple image terms. Therefore, these terms can
be treated exactly like free-space terms, that is assume there are no interfaces and the source point
is at a distance z − z 0 + 2c and z 0 − z + 2c. The correction dyads will be used to take into account
the imperfect reflections that occur. The double image term dyads are then just G ~ (0) (r|r + 2cẑ) and
~ (0) 0
G (r|r − 2cẑ) in the expression of the convolutional dyad in equation (7.39).
7.2.2 Dyadic correction terms

The correction dyadic terms were defined in Fourier space and presented in Table 5.1. These dyadic
expressions, in the source region j, can all be written in terms of eight scalar potentials in Fourier
space as
e−αj (z+z 0 ) e−αj (z+z 0 )
(Γ) (Γ) (Γ) (Γ)
Ve−1 (z|z 0 ) = Λ−1 − 1 , f (z|z 0 ) = Θ + 1
W −1 −1
2α2 αj 2α2 αj
eαj (z+z 0 −2s) eαj (z+z 0 −2s)
(Γ) (Γ) (Γ) (Γ)
Ve1 (z|z 0 ) = Λ1 − 1 , f (z|z 0 ) = Θ + 1
W 1 1
2α2 αj 2α2 αj
e−αj (z−z 0 +2s) e−αj (z−z 0 +2s)
(Υ) (Υ) (Υ) (Υ)
Ve−1 (z|z 0 ) = Λ−1 − 1 , f (z|z 0 ) = Θ
W −1 −1 + 1
2α2 αj 2α2 αj
eαj (z−z 0 −2s) eαj (z−z 0 −2s)
(Υ) (Υ) (Υ) (Υ)
Ve1 (z|z 0 ) = Λ1 −1 , W
f
1 (z|z 0 ) = Θ1 +1 .
2α2 αj 2α2 αj
(7.44)
These scalar potentials can be written equivalently in physical space as[Str41]

1
Z ∞ 1 αj (z±z 0 ) (Γ)
(Γ)
V−1 (ρ, z|ρ0 , z 0 ) = e Λ−1 − 1 J0 (αρ)α dα,
2π 0 2αj
1
Z ∞ 1 αj (z±z 0 ) (Υ)
(Γ)
W−1 (ρ, z|ρ0 , z 0 ) = e Θ−1 + 1 J0 (αρ)α dα, (7.45)
2π 0 2αj
and where the other six potential functions have similar physical space forms. Using equation (5.36),
the correction matrix elements can be formed by applying the differential operators kj2 (∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ẑ)
and (∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ∇0 × ẑ), along with the method of moments, to equation (7.45). This is
(Γ)
illustrated in detail by considering the scalar potential V−1 . After applying the differential operator
and the method of moments to this potential, we have
!
Z xk +δx Z yl +δy
x

y

z
Z zm +δz
~ (Γ) |klm
V = kj2 βk βl βz (∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ẑ) ·
−1
xk −δk yl −δy δx δy δz zm −δz
0
" #
∞ eαj (z+z )
Z
(Γ)
(Λ−1 − 1) J0 (αρ) dα dz dy dx. (7.46)
0 4πα
After taking the differential operator inside the integral, this part of the correction dyad can be written
 (Γ) (Γ) 
−Vyy Vxy 0
~ (Γ) |klm
V 2 (Γ)
= kj  Vxy −Vxx(Γ)
0 ,

(7.47)
−1
0 0 0
where
!
1
Z xk +δx Z yl +δy
x

y 1
Z zm +δz
z

(Γ)
Vpp = βk βl βm ·
2π xk −δk yl −δy δx δy ρ2 zm −δz δz
" #
∞ 1 p2 − q 2
Z
(Γ) 0
(Λ−1 − 1)e−α(z+z ) J1 (αρ) − αρ2 J0 (αρ) dα dz dy dx
0 2αj ρ
!
1
Z xk +δx Z
xyl +δy y pq zm +δz

z
Z
(Γ)
Vpq = βk βl 2
βm ·
2π xk −δk yl −δy δ x δ y ρ zm −δz δ z
Z ∞
2

(Γ) 0
(Λ−1 − 1)e−αj (z+z ) J1 (αρ) − αJ0 (αρ) dα dz dy dx, (7.48)
0 ρ
where p, q ∈ {x, y} and p 6= q.
This expression can be simplified by first recognizing that the integrals need only be evaluated when
z 0 ≡ 0 and defining two families of axially symmetric functions, which we will call Surrey functions
for a lack of a better name, as
Z zm +δz Z ∞ α (Ξ) z

Sη(Ξ) (ρ, m) = (Λη − 1)e−αj z J0 (αρ)βz dα dz
zm −δz 0 αj δz
Z zm +δz Z ∞ 1 (Ξ) z

−αj z
Tη(Ξ) (ρ, m) = (Λη − 1)e J1 (αρ)βz dα dz, (7.49)
zm −δz 0 αj δz
where Ξ ∈ {Γ, Ξ} and η ∈ {−1, 1}. Integrating (7.49) with respect to z we get the final expression
" #
∞ α (Ξ) (1 − e−αj δz )2
Z
Sη(Ξ) (ρ, m) = (Λη − 1)e−αj (m−1)δz J0 (αρ)dα
0 αj αj2 δz
" #
∞ 1 (Ξ) (1 − e−α1 δz )2
Z
Tη(Ξ) (ρ, m) = (Λη − 1)e−αj (m−1)δz J1 (αρ)dα. (7.50)
0 αj α12 δz2
Using equation (7.50), the dyadic elements given in (7.48) can be rewritten as
(
1 xk +δx yl +δy p2 (Γ)
Z Z
(Γ)
Vpp = − S (ρ, m)+
4π xk −δx yl −δy ρ2 −1
) !
p2 − q2 x y

(Γ)
T−1 (ρ, m) βk βl dy dx
ρ3 δ δy
1
Z xk +δx Z yl +δy pq

2 (Γ)

(Γ) (Γ)
Vpq = 2
−S−1 (ρ, m) + T−1 (ρ, m)
4π xk −δx yl −δy ρ ρ
!
x y

βk βl dx dy. (7.51)
δx δy
Now, only a two-dimensional numerical integration is needed to evaluate this correction dyadic matrix,
with a simple interpolation of the Surrey functions.
The remaining three correction dyadic matrices can be treated in the same way, where generally
 (Ξ) (Ξ) 
−Vη |yy Vη |xy 0
~ (Ξ) |klm
V = kj2  Vη(Ξ) |yx −Vη(Ξ) |xx 0  ,
 
(7.52)
η
0 0 0
where
(
1 xk +δx yl +δy p2 (Ξ)
Z Z
Vη(Ξ) |pp = − S (ρ, m)+
4π xk −δx yl −δy ρ2 η
) !
p2 − q 2 (Ξ) x y

Tη (ρ, m) βk βl dy dx
ρ3 δ δy
1
Z xk +δx Z yl +δy pq

2

Vη(Ξ) |pq = 2
−Sη(Ξ) (ρ, m) + Tη(Ξ) (ρ, m)
4π xk −δx yl −δy ρ ρ
!
x y

βk βl dx dy. (7.53)
δx δy
New families of Surrey functions will be defined for each media type.
The remaining portion of the correction dyad is formed by applying the differential operator
(∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ∇0 × ẑ) to the W scalar potentials. This will be illustrated in detail by considering
(Γ)
the scalar potential W−1 . After applying the differential operator and the method of moments to this
potential, we have
!
Z xk +δx Z yl +δy
x

y

z

~ (Γ) |klm
W = βk βl βz ·
−1
xk −δk yl −δy δx δy δz
Z zm +δz
(∇ × ∇ × ẑ)(∇0 × ∇0 × ẑ) ·
zm −δz
0
" #
∞ e−αj (z+z )
Z
(Γ)
(Θ−1 + 1) J0 (αρ) dα dz dy dx. (7.54)
0 4πα
After taking the differential operator inside the integral, this part of the correction dyad can be written
 
(Γ) (Γ) (Γ) (Γ)
Wxxzz Wxyzz −(Wxxxz + Wxyyz )
~ (Γ) |klm (Γ) (Γ) (Γ) (Γ)
 
W −1 =
 Wxzzz Wyyzz −(Wxxyz + Wyyyz ) ,
 (7.55)
(Γ) (Γ) (Γ) (Γ) (Γ) (Γ) (Γ)
−(Wxxxz + Wxyyz ) −(Wxxyz + Wyyyz ) Wxxxx + 2Wxxyy + Wyyyy
and treating this potentials like the V terms, the dyadic coefficients can be defined as
(
1 xk +δx yl +δy p2 ∂ 2 (Γ)
Z Z
(Γ)
Wppzz = − Q (ρ, m)+
4π xk −δx yl −δy ρ2 ∂z 2 −1
) !
p2 − q 2 ∂ 2 (Γ) x y

R (ρ, m) βk βl dy dx
ρ3 ∂z 2 −1 δ δy
( )
1 xk +δx yl +δy pq ∂ 2 (Γ) 2 ∂ 2 (Γ)
Z Z
(Γ)
Wpqzz = − 2 Q−1 (ρ, m) + R (ρ, m)
4π xk −δx yl −δy ρ2 ∂z ρ ∂z 2 −1
!
x y

βk βl dx dy
δx δy
(
1 xk +δx yl +δy ∂2 p2 (Γ)
Z Z
(Γ)
Wpppz = − Q (ρ, m)+
4π xk −δx yl −δy ∂p∂z ρ2 −1
) !
p2 − q 2 (Γ) x y

R−1 (ρ, m) βk βl dy dx
ρ3 δ δy
(
Z Z
(Γ)
Wppqz = − Q (ρ, m)+
4π xk −δx yl −δy ∂q∂z ρ2 −1
) !
p2 − q 2 (Γ) x y

R−1 (ρ, m) βk βl dy dx
ρ3 δ δy
(
Z Z
(Γ)
Wpppp = − Q (ρ, m)+
4π xk −δx yl −δy ∂p2 ρ2 −1
) !
p2 − q 2 (Γ) x y

R−1 (ρ, m) βk βl dy dx, (7.56)
ρ3 δ δy
where two new families of Surrey functions have been defined as

Z zm +δz Z ∞ α (Ξ) z

Q(Ξ)
η (ρ, m) = (Θ ± 1)e−αj z J0 (αρ)βz dα dz
zm −δz 0 αj η δz
Z zm +δz Z ∞ 1 z

−αj z
Rη(Ξ) (ρ, m) = (Θ(Ξ)
η ± 1)e J1 (αρ)βz dα dz, (7.57)
zm −δz 0 αj δz
where Ξ ∈ {Γ, Υ} and η ∈ {−1, 1} and the plus sign is used only when Ξ = Γ.
As was found with the V ~ correction dyad, the general expression is of the form of equation (7.55)
where equation (7.57) is used for all Ξ ∈ {Γ, Υ} and for all η ∈ {µ, λ}.
7.2.3 Determining correction term coefficients
Half-space conductors
A half-space conductor is just a special case of the layered half-space conductor to be considered next,
a half-space is a layered half-space with a layer of zero height. For half-spaces, there is no lower
interface, hence there is only one simple image term, no double image terms. The electric reflection
(e) (Γ) (m) (Υ)
coefficient Γ−1 = Λ−1 and the magnetic reflection coefficient Γ−1 = Θ−1 ≈ −1.
Layerd half-space conductors
A layered half-space conductor has one or more layers of linear isotropic material on top of a conducting
half-space. Like the half-space conductor discussed above there is no lower interface, hence there is
only one simple correction term, but the presence of upper layers means there will be a double image
(e) (Γ) (e) (Υ)
term. The correction coefficients are found to be Γ−1 = Λ−1 and Γ−1 = Θ−1 . However, the magnetic
reflection term is not in general approximately -1, so the dyadic term W ~ (Υ) must be considered.
−1
Slab conductors
We now wish to determine the correction coefficients for a slab or plate of finite thickness. The plate
can have any number of layers above or below. We can use equations (2.61), (2.62) and (2.64) to write

(0) (0) 0 (0) 0
e)
(m U12 V11 e2α0 z + V21 e−α0 z
Γ−1 = (0) (0) (0) (0)
V11 U22 − V21 U12

(0) (0) 0 (0) 0
(e) V21 U12 e2α0 z + U22 e−2α0 z
Γ1m = (0) (0) (0) (0)
(7.58)
C11 U22 − V21 U12
where the electric reflection coefficient is derived with µj set to the permeability of region j and the
magnetic reflection coefficients having µj set to the complex permitivity.
Using equations (2.38) and (7.58), the z and z 0 dependence can be separated into z + z 0 and z − z 0
dependence. Therefore, the correction coefficients for the general plate are
(Γ) (0) (0)

Λ−1 = V21 U22 /D
(Γ) (0) (0)
Λ1 = U12 V11 e2α0 z0 /D
(Υ) (0) (0)
Λ∓1 = V21 U12 e2α0 z0 /D, (7.59)
(0) (0) (0) (0)

where D = V11 U22 − V21 U12 . The coefficients Θ are defined the same way except complex permi-
tivity is used in the place of permeability.
7.3 Matrix elements for cylindrical media types

For a point source outside a conducting circular cylinder of radius ρ1 and conductivity σ1 , the scalar
Green’s function which describes the potential is given by[FM73, BSU69]
∞
i X 0
G(r|r0 ) = ein(φ−φ ) ·
8π n=−∞
0
∞ b(n) (1) e−α1 |z−z |
Z
0
α Jn (αρ ) − Hn (αρ0 ) Hn(1) (αρ) dα, (7.60)
−∞ d(n) α1
(1) √
where Hn are Bessel functions of the third kind (Hankel functions), α1 = k 2 − α2 , k 2 = −iωµ0 σ1
and
0
b(n) = Jn0 (kρ1 ) + iJn (kρ1 ), d(n) = Hn(1) (kρ1 ) + iHn(1) (kρ1 ). (7.61)
In order to describe the field inside the cylinder the Helmholtz operator must be applied to this scalar
function to derive the dyadic Green’s function.
Evaluation of equation (7.60) would be computationally intensive. It involves the infinite sum
of an infinite integral. Therefore, some simplifying assumptions need to be made. As ρ1 → ∞ in
equation (7.60), b(n)/d(n) → 0, J0 (αρ0 ) → 1 and Jn (αρ0 ) → 0 for n 6= 0. Equation (7.60) is then seen
to converge to the free-space scalar Green’s function, since
0 0
e−ik|r−r | ∞ e−α1 |z−z |
Z
0 (1)
G(r|r ) = = αH0 (αρ) dα. (7.62)
|r − r0 | −∞ α1
Chapter 8
The 3D Forward Problem
Knowledge may give weight, but accomplishments give lustre, and many more people
see than weigh.
Philip Dolmer Stanhope

Earl of Chesterfield 1694 – 1773
The EddyCentre 3D Model is a fully three-dimensional defect model, developed using the theory
from Chapters 5, 6 and 7. The EddyCentre 3D Model approximates solutions to the 3D forward
problem: predicting signals from a known flaw, probe and set of inspection parameters. The im-
plementation of this EddyCentre Model is discussed in this chapter, along with various validation
exercises that have been carried out in an attempt to help validate the theory and implementation.
Because the volume integral method is inherently inflexible when it comes to variations in the
workpiece geometry, these variations must be accounted for in the Green’s functions used. Therefore,
a specific collection of more common NDE geometries has been supported. These geometries include:
planar geometries and cylindrical geometries. The geometries can have layers of different materials as
well. Therefore the EddyCentre Model does cover a wide variety of workpieces, tubes, cladded tubes,
blocks, plates, cladded plates and rods. Because eddy-currents are very localized in nature, most
inspections away from irregular geometric features can be modelled. With a bit of extra work, you
can model defects near edges as well. The specific parameters and assumptions for these geometries
were discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.
8.1 Physical model

The general 3D forward problem must take into account variations in the x or y directions as well
as the z direction, which has already been examined. The Eddy Centre 3D Model must take into
account this kind of variability. An approach to solving the 3D forward problem is to divide up the
region containing the defect into smaller sub-regions and then describe the eddy-current interaction
between each of these parts. There are three basic approximation techniques: finite elements, boundary
99
100 CHAPTER 8. THE 3D FORWARD PROBLEM
elements and volume elements. The finite element and volume element approaches both divide the
volume of the problem into elements. The finite element technique has the disadvantage of having to
take into account volumes out to infinity, although variable element sizes and irregular geometries are
implemented easily with this method. Another disadvantage of finite elements is that the meshes of
elements are complicated and are a function of the probe position making the number of unknowns
is quite large. The volume element and the boundary element schemes both have the advantage of
using a Green’s function approach, that is the Green’s function contains the boundary conditions that
describe the basic geometry of the conduction volume.
The EddyCentre 3D Model is based on the volume integral approach. Only the defect region is
subdivided. For planar geometries the defect volume is built up from a stack of cells of dimension
nx × ny × nz , each with a conductivity of σklm . The outline of EddyCentre 3D Model is shown in
Figure 5.1. For cylindrical media types, the defect volume is built up from a stack of cells of dimensions
nz × nθ × nρ and is shown in Figure 5.2.
8.2 Mathematical model

It is assumed that the scattered field due to the defect resembles the field caused by a distribution
(i)
of electric dipole densities Pklm , which are consistent in each defect volume Pklm again assumed
constant on each cell volume Vklm . The incident field term for each of the probe models was discussed
in detail in Chapters 2 and 3. Cell interactions are determined by a matrix of elements G, discussed in
Chapter 7, derived using the moment method with dyadic Green’s functions. The resulting equation
can be written as
GP = P(i) ; ∆Z = cP · P(i) (8.1)
where c is a constant. The second relationship uses the reciprocity theorem, which relates the field
and dipoles in the conductor to the field and currents in the coil, to describe the change of impedance
in the air-cored probe model, due to the presence of the defect.
Equation 8.1 can be rewritten in what may be a more familiar notation as
Ax = y; ∆Z = cx · y. (8.2)
This linear system of equations represents the mathematical model of the 3D physical model for all of
the geometries and the air-cored probe.
8.3 Numerical Model

Figure 8.1 gives a conceptual representation of the numerical model and also acts as a flow chart
for the EddyCentre Model. The interaction between the individual cells or elements is described by
the free-space matrix elements and the reflection matrix elements. For the free-space elements the
interaction is strictly between the elements themselves, for the reflection terms the elements interact
by a reflection off the surface of boundaries of the host region. Combined, these matrices describe
how the incident field is scattered by the defect. For a solution with small discretization errors, the
smallest cell dimension should be no greater than a third of a skin depth.
The system of equations in equation 8.2 is solved by inverting the array A using Crout’s rule to
conduct an LU decomposition and back-substitution of A, so that the solution x can be expressed as
x = A−1 y. (8.3)
This is convenient, because for most modelling situations, it is desirable to solve this linear system
for many incident fields, hence for many ys - one for each probe position. By inverting the matrix
once the solution vector x can be obtained by a simple dot product into the inverse matrix already
computed. Therefore, to obtain the signal ∆Z at a point, we need only know the incident field at
the centre of all the defect sub-regions, dot this into the inverse matrix (which describes how all the
elements interact with each other and with the workpiece) to obtain the unknown dipole distribution.
This distribution is then dotted with the original incident field to product the final scalar result.
Figure 8.1: 3D Forward Model
8.4 Validation Exercises

ec:validation
To test whether the physical model and the EddyCentre Model code can be reliably used to predict
eddy-current probe signals, extensive validation exercised have been carried out. The predictions of
the computer model have been compared to analytic results and with international benchmark results.
Some of these comparisons appear in the following sections.
8.4.1 Disc in a constant field

In a constant unidirectional field, a crack of negligible opening acts as a surface barrier to the flow
of eddy-current producing a discontinuity in the field that can be represented in terms of a surface
distribution of current dipoles[BJ+ 91], P(r) = vecten P (r), where en ≡ ex is the unit vector normal to
the crack. The dipole distribution acts as the effective source of the scattered field which we express
in integral form writing the total field as
Z
E(r) = E(i) (r) + iωµ0 ~ (0) (r|r0 ) · P(r0 )dS 0 ,
G (8.4)
crack
where G ~ (0) (r|r0 ) is the free-space dyadic Green’s function for a source in the conductor and E(i) (r) is
the electric field in the absence of the defect.
If an infinitely thin disc of radius a defines the crack and the incident field is a constant value
i
E = ikH0 , normal to the disc, then a series solution for P(r) to 8.4 can be develped[Bow87]. The
solution is radially symmetric and the first term of which is
4ia|kH0 | q 2
p(ρ) = a − ρ2 · ex , (8.5)
cπ
where c is the thickness of the disc. For cracks where a δ, δ being the skin depth, this term
dominates the series and is a good approximation to the field response.
Although we cannot model 2-dimmensional objects with the EddyCentre 3D Model, we can look
at narrow cracks of openings c that approach the 2-dimensional idealization if c a. This problem is
attractive because the solution does not depend on the reflection matrix elements or the coil incident
field. Therefore, it isolates 2 of the major computations in the code and provides us with a check on
the dipole distribution directly, not on just the scalar resulting from dotting the distribution with the
incident field.
The EddyCentre Model was run with the following parameters: δ = 1 m, a = 10 mm, c =
1 mm, σ = 104 Sm−1 , f = f rac250π 2 Hz and Ei = cπ 4a ex . According to the theory, the dipole
distribution resulting from these values is a hemispheroid of height unity and a base the size of the
disc. Figure 8.2(a) shows the calculated x-component of the dipole distribution. Figures 8.2(b) and
(c) show the y and z components of the dipole distribution. In the limit of zero crack opening Px and
Py are zero. The fact that the computed distributions are non-zero is due to the finite crack opening,
but their values are small (about 7% of the x-component values. The complimentary nature of these
components would also be expected. Since the analytic result is a truncated series expansion, the
exact error is unknown; however, the EddyCentre Model’s prediction is within 4% at the centre of the
disc. Figure 8.2(d) shows the the model prediction compared to the analytic approximation at the
centre of the disc. It clearly indicates the piece-wise nature of the solution.
8.4.2 Half-disc embedded in a half-space in a constant field

If we now consider the case where there is an infinitely thin half-disc of radius a embedded at the
surface of a half-space conductor with the same incident field as above. The dipole density at the
crack is again given by equation 8.4. The calculation must contain the effect of the reflection at the
surface. This can be done by adding the reflection half-space dyadic Green’s function G ~ (R) (r|r0 ) to
8.4 to yield Z h i
(i)
E(r) = E (r) + iωµ0 ~ (0) (r|r0 ) + G
G ~ (R) (r|r0 ) · P(r0 )dS 0 . (8.6)
crack
At low frequencies the reflection term should be simply the term that is added if the boundary
were removed and the half-disc reflected into a whole disc. Therefore, the solution to equation 8.4, in
the conductor, should be the same as the entire disc for z ≤ 0 and identically zero for z > 0.
Using the same parameters as above, the solution should be half a hemispheroid of unit height with
the half-disc as base. The x-component of the computed dipole distribution is shown in Figure 8.3(a),
which isn the low frequency limit should be the same as the above solution for z ≤ 0. The y and z
components are shown in (b) and (c) of the same Figure. Again, these components are zero in the
Figure 8.2: Predicted response of an infinitely thin disc in a constant field
analytic expression, but due to the finite opening of the crack there are small and complimentary
components of the dipole distribution for these components as before. Notice that they are equal to
the earlier components when z ≤ 0. It is important to notice that the free-space Green’s function,
hence the free-space matrix elements are exactly the same as before. Because the free-space matrix
elements and the incident field are unchanged from the above problem, this exercise can be used to
check the reflection matrix elements aspects of the EddyCentre Model. This provides strong evidence
that, at least for low frequencies, the reflection terms have been computed and included into the model
correctly. Figure 8.3(d) shows the comparison of the x-component at the top of the half-disc, again
indicating the piece-wise constant nature of the approximated solution.
8.4.3 Layered half-space

Another analytic result is available, the layered media forward model. The idea is we introduce a
large rectangular defect, which consists of a fraction of the surrounding material, at the surface of a
half-space of homogeneous material. If the defect is extended at least one skin depth beyond the coil
Figure 8.3: Predicted response of an infinitely thin half-disc in a constant field
the defect will act like a simple layer of a different material. The closed form analytic solution to the
simple layer model can then be compared to the EddyCentre 3D Model predictions.
A layer of reduced conductivity was simulated by introducing two layers 15 × 15 defect cells of
dimension 0.7 × 0.7 × 0.35mm wiath a constant conductivity 0.65 × 106 S/m. A coil of outside radius
1.8 mm and inside radius 0.8 mm was placed in the centre of this flaw and the response computed at
three frequencies. Figures 8.4(a) and (b) show the absolute impedance and phase response of the coil
to this 0.7 mm deep layer. The layer model ws run for the same coil parameters and with a layer of
0.7 mm depth and the same conductivity as above. As can be seen in the Figures, there is very good
agreement between predictions for the EddyCentre 3D Model and the analytical result.
8.4.4 The infinite strip

Suppose we have an infinite strip in the complex z-plane (z = x + iy) with a width 2a, centred at
the origin. If we determine the electric field E(r), the current distribution follows from J(r) = σE(r)
when σ is constant, i.e. the material is isentropic. All that it is necessary to know about E can be
Figure 8.4: Impedance and phase response of the EddyCentre 1D Model to the EddyCentre 3D Model
derived from a complex potential Ψ(z), whose real and imaginary parts are u(z) and v(z), so
Ψ(z) = u(z) + iv(z). (8.7)
The function u(z) is the ordinary electric potential which satisfies
E(r) = −∇u (8.8)
∂u ∂u

= − x̂ + ŷ (8.9)
∂x ∂y
and a line defined by u(z) = c, for a constant c, is an equipotential line. The lines defined by v(z) = c
are the field lines, they cut the equipotentials at right angles[RC75].
We are interested only in the case of E being uniform as |z| → ∞. Then the complex potential is
h p i
Ψ(z) = E0 z cos θ − i z 2 − a2 sin θ (8.10)
and h p i
u(z) = E0 x cos θ + Im( z 2 − a2 sin θ . (8.11)
Consider points where z = x + i, where is a positive and real such that a and |x| < a. Then
p 1
z 2 − a2 = (x2 − 2 − a2 + 2ix) 2 (8.12)
ix

≈ (x2 − a2 )f rac12 1 − 2 (8.13)
a − x2
x

2 2 f ract12
= (a − x ) +i . (8.14)
a2 − x2
The change in tangential field across the strip is
∂u ∂u ∂u

∆ = − (8.15)
∂x ∂x + ∂x −
2xE0
= √ = −∆Et , (8.16)
a2 − x2
since θ = π/2. The surface dipole density distribution across the infinite strip is then
Z
p = σ 0 E0 ∆Et dx (8.17)
2ρ
Z
= σ 0 E0 √ dx (8.18)
− x2 a2
p
= σ0 E0 a2 − x2 . (8.19)
The volumetric dipole density distribution is
2σ0 E0 q 2
P(r) = − a − ρ2 · x̂, (8.20)
∆c
where ∆c is the crack opening.
This result is similar to the disc and half-disc problems used for validating the free-space and
half-space matrix element computation. The major difference is that here, the barrier is infinite in
one of its dimensions. This result can be used to validate the matrix element computations for a slab.
We will study a non-conducting strip, infinite in length, with a half-width of 10 mm and a thickness
of 1 mm embedded in a conductor with conductivity σ = 10,000 S/m. Equation 8.20 describes the
dipole density distribution that will be set up across this non-conducting region when a constant field
of strength E0 and fequency of 25.333 Hz is injected normal to the strip. The skin depth in this case
is 1 m and the strip is 10 times wider than thick, so the assumptions that a δ and ∆c a are
satisfied. The shape of the dipole density distribution will be that of half of an ellipsoid with a base
of radius a and height of 20σ0 E0 . If the injected field strength is chosen to be σ0 /20, the height of the
semi-ellipse should be unity.
The EddyCentre 3D Model cannot be used to study infinite objects; however, the infinite strip
can be usefully approximated by studying a long strip. If the strip is long enough (long enough for
most of the eddy vurrents to flow around the strip and not go over and under the ends) the results in
the centre will be valid. Figure 8.5(a) show the free-space dipole density distribution for a strip that
is half a metre long. The strip was subdivided in the following way: one element of 1mm wide across
the opening, 15 elements of 1.3333 mm each along the width of the strip and 16 elements of length
31.25 mm each along its length. Only the last three rows of elements at each end of the strip show
any deviation from the semi-ellipse shape, which peaks as expected at unity. The dipole distribution
from an infinite nonconducting strip embedded in a half-space conductor is shown in Figure 8.5(b).
Due to the low frequency limiting behaviour, the reflection matrix elements act as perfect reflectors
and the dipoles at the surface of the strip should show the same behaviour as the centre line of the
infinite strip.
Figure 8.5(c) shows predicted dipole distribution for a square of half-length 10 mm normal to a
constant field, while Figure 8.5(d) shows the dipole distribution for half of the square embedded in
a half-space conductor. Again the distribution at the surface is the same as along the centre line
of the distribution from the non-conducting square in free-space. Notice how the dipole distribution
has dropped below unity due to the fact that eddy-currents now flow around sides of the square in
free-space and underneath the half square in half-space.
One way of preventing the currents from flowing underneath the half-square is by adding another
surface at its bottom. This can be done by embedding half the square into a slab that is 10 mm
Figure 8.5: Infinite strip and square of half-width 10 mm
thick. Just like the top surface, the bottom surface will act as a perfect reflector, because of the low
frequency. Unlike the half-space case the reflections will interact, providing multiple reflections. The
net result should be that the dipole density distribution of half of a non-conducting square embedded
through a slab should have the same cross-section as the infinite strip in free-space. Figure 8.6 shows
the predicted dipole distribution for this case and we see that the profile is again a semi-ellipse of
height unity. By comparing Figures 8.6 and 8.5(d) it is clear that the additional surface of the
slab has increased the dipole density to unity at the lower surface, but the multiple reflections have
contributed in just the right way to increse the dipole distribution at the top surface to unity.
This result provides a strong validation test for the matrix elements for slabs and hence all media
types involving multiple reflections in the source region. Although the correction terms involving
the Surrey functions have not been validated by this exercise, due to the low frequency, they are
only second order terms. Their validation will have to be made in conjunction with comparisons to
experimental results.
We now turn to look at such experimental results. These results involve much more readily
measured quantities, like probe impedance changes instead of dipole density distribution.
Figure 8.6: Embedded rectangle in a slab
8.4.5 Air-cored coil over a machined slot

Bibliography
[ASrka] M. Abramowitz and Irene Stegun. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas,
Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. John Wiley & Sons, 1972, New York. (equation 9.1.21).
[ASrkb] M. Abramowitz and Irene Stegun. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas,
Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. John Wiley & Sons, 1972, New York.
[ASrkc] M. Abramowitz and Irene Stegun. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas,
Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. John Wiley & Sons, 1972, New York. (equations 9.6.16 -
9.6.22).
[Bei86] Robert E. Beissner. Analytic Green’s dyads for an electrically conducting half-space. Journal
of Applied Physics, 60(3):855–858, 1986.
[Bei89] Robert E. Beissner. Computer modeling of eddy current probability of crack detection. In
D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti, editors, Review of Progress in Quantitative nondestruc-
tive evaluation, pages 885–891, New York, 1989. Plenum Press.
[BJ+ 91] John R. Bowler, Stephen A. Jenkins, et al. Eddy curretn probe impedance due to a volumetric
flaw. Journal of Applied Physics, 70(3):1107–1114, August 1991.
[Bow87] John R. Bowler. Eddy current calculations using half-space Green’s functions. Journal of
Applied Physics, 61(3):833–839, 1987.
[BSS89] John R. Bowler, L. David Sabbagh, and Harold A. Sabbagh. A theoretical and computational
model of eddy-current probes incorporating volume integral and conjugante gradient methods.
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 25(3):2650–2664, 1989.
[BSU69] J. J. Bowman, T. B. A. Senior, and P. L. E. Uslenghi. Electromagnetic and Acoustic Scattering

by Simple Shapes. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1969.
[Bur86] S. K. Burke. Computation of special functions. DSTO Aeronautical Research Laboratory,

September 1986.
[Bur88a] S. K. Burke. A benchmark problem for computation of ∆z in eddy-current nondestructive

evaluation (NDE). Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 7(1/2):35–41, 1988.
[Bur88b] S. K. Burke. Interaction of induced currents with cracks in thin plates. Proceedings of the
Royal Society, A 418:229–246, 1988.
109
110 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[DCD73] C. V. Dodd, C. C. Cheng, and W. E. Deeds. Induction coils coaxial with an arbitrary
number of cylindrical conductors. Journal of Applied Physics, 45(2):638–647, February 1973.
[DD68] C. V. Dodd and W. E. Deeds. Analytical solutions to eddy-current probe-coil problems.

Journal of Applied Physics, 39(6):2829–2839, May 1968.
[Fik65] J. G. Fikioris. Electromagnetic field inside a current-carrying region. Journal of Mathematical

Physics, 6(11):1617–1621, 1965.
[FM73] Leopold B. Felsen and Nathan Marcuvitz. Radiation and Scattering of Waves. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973.
[Gil82] Martin Gilbert. Winston S. Churchill: The Coming of War 1936–1939. Heineman, London,
1982.
[Han57] Eugene A. Hanysz. Swept frequency eddy-current device to measure overlay thickness. The
Review of Scientific Instruments, 29(5):411–415, May 1957.
[Har68] R. F. Harrington. Field Computation by Moment Methods. Mamillan Co., New York, 1968.
[IK66] Eugene Isaacson and Herbert Bishop Kellor. Analysis of Numerical Methods. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1966.
[JB91] Stephen A. Jenkins and John R. Bowler. Computational accuracy of the moment metho with
conjugate gradients for eddy current modelling. In COMPUMAG, pages 159–163, Naples,
1991. Cuen Editirice.
[Jer89] Dawn E. Jeremiah. Laboratory measurements carried out at Littlebrook Laboratory. Nuclear
Electric Southeast Region, December 1989.
[Jer90] Dawn E. Jeremiah. Iga site measurements using a hocking eddy current instrument - measure-
ments taken during the summer 1989 outage of reactor 21 at Dungeness B. Nuclear Electric
Southeast Region Report TD/IRBSE/90/0009/R (restricted), February 1990.
[Kel29] Oliver Dimon Kellogg. Foundations of Potential Theory. Dover Publications, New York,
1929.
[L+ 80] S. W. Lee et al. Singularity in Green’s function and its numerical evaluation. IEEE Trans-
actions on Antennas and Propagation, 28(3):311–317, 1980.
[LP81] William Lord and R. Palanisamy. Development of theoretical models for nondestructive
testing eddy-current phenomena. In George Birnbaum and George Free, editors, American
Society for Testing and Materials, pages 5–21. ASTM STP 722, 1981.
[McK89] David M. McKirdy. Recent improvements to the appliction of the volume integral method
of eddy current modeling. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 8:45–51, 1989.
[N.90] Lt. Cmdr. Roland Hudson R. N. conversations concerning tour as captain of first experimental
mine sweeping in the Thames estuary, 1990.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 111
[P+ 87] W. H. Press et al. Numerical Recipes (FORTRAN). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1987.
[PJ90] Andrew F. Peterson and Roy E. Jorgenson. Is Galerkin’s method really better. In Scott Ray,
editor, 6th Annual Review of Progress in Applied Computational Electromagnetics, pages
380–395, Monterey, CA., 1990. ACES.
[Rai74] A. P. Raiche. An integral equation approach to three-dimensional modelling. Geophysical

Journal of the Royal Astronomic Society, 36:363–376, 1974.
[RC75] A. P. Raiche and J. H. Coggon. Analytic Green’s tensors for integral equation modelling.
Journal of Royal Astronomical Society, 42:1035–1038, 1975.
[SBS88] L. David Sabbagh, John R. Bowler, and Harold A. Sabbagh. Computer modeling of eddy-
current crack detection. Sabbagh Associates research contract, Bloomington, Indiana SA/TR-
2/88, July 1988.
[Spi83] Murray R. Spiegel. Theory and Problems of Advanced Mathematics for Engineers and Scien-
tists. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1983.
[SR87] Harold A. Sabbagh and Tom M. Roberts. A model of eddy-current probes with ferrite cores.
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, MAG-23(3):1888–1904, May 1987.
[SS88] L. David Sabbagh and Harold A. Sabbagh. Eddy-current modeling and flaw reconstruction.
Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 7(1/2):95–109, 1988.
[Sta79] Ivar Stakgold. Green’s functions an boundary value problems. Wiley-Interscience, New York,
1979.
[Str41] Julius A. Stratton. Electromagnetic Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1941. (equation
9.29.20).
[Tai58] Chen-To Tai. Electromagnetic theory of sphereical Luneberg lens. Applied Science Reasearch,
Sec. B(7):113–130, 1958.
[Tai71] Chen-To Tai. Dyadic Green’s Functions in Electromagnetic Theory. International Textbook
Company, Scranton, Pa., 1971.
[V8́4] J. C. Vérité. Application of a 3-d eddy current code (TRIFOU) to non-destructive testing.
COMPEL, 3(3):167–178, 1984.
[Van61] J. Van Bladel. Some remarks on Green’s dyadic for infinite space. IRE Transactions on
Antennas and Propagation, pages 563–567, November 1961.
[Wai62] J. R. Wait. Electromagnetic Waves in Stratified Media. Pergamon Press, New York, 1962.
[Wai79] James R. Wait. Electromagnetic nondestructive testing of cylindrically layered conductors.

IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, IM-28(2):159–161, June 1979.
112 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[Wan82] Johnson J. H. Wang. A unified and consistent view on the singularities of the electric dyadic
Green’s function in the source region. IEEE Trasactions on Antennas and Propagation, AP–
30(3):463–468, May 1982.
[Wea67] J. T. Weaver. The quasi-static field of an electric dipole embedded in a two-layer conducting
half-space. Canadian Journal of Physics, 45:1981–2002, 1967.
[Yag80] A. D. Yaghjian. Electric dyadic Green’s functions in the source region. Proceedings of IEEE,
AP-28:311–317, May 1980.

Aguide For Nondestructive Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Aguide For Nondestructive Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aguide For Nondestructive Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

2 Basic Theory: Planar Interfaces 13

3 Basic Theory: Cylindrical Interfaces 27

3.4 Coil impedance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4 The Layered Media Forward Problem 39

5 3D Analysis: The Volume Integral Approach 51

6 3D Field Analysis: The Scattered Field 71

7 3D Matrix Elements Analysis 79

8 The 3D Forward Problem 99

1.1 Conceptual model of IGA in an austenitic stainless steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 Free-space physical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1 Interface problem for bore-hole conductor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 Layered media forward model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1 Flaw in host material with planar boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

7.1 First octant at the singularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

8.1 3D Forward Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

8.5 Infinite strip and square of half-width 10 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4.1 Probe parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1 Scalar correction terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

7.1 Coefficients for Dklm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Thomas Henry Huxley 1825–1895

1.1 Nondestructive evaluation

Figure 1.1: Conceptual model of IGA in an austenitic stainless steel

1. For a known flaw and probe, what is ∆Z?

2. For a known ∆Z and probe, what is the flaw?

1.1.1 The forward problem

Figure 1.3: Forward problem

1.1.2 The inverse problem

Figure 1.4: Inverse problem

1.2.1 Physical models

1.2.2 Mathematical models

1.2.3 Numerical models

1.3 Review of eddy current NDE

1.4 Maxwell’s equations

D(r, t) = ι E(r, t), B(r, t) = µι H(r, t). (1.3)

J(r, t) = σ(r)E(r, t). (1.4)

∇ × E(r) = iωµι H(r)

By eliminating H in equation (1.5), we obtain the vector wave equation[Tai71]

1.5 Potential theory

E = iωA − ∇φ, (1.9)

∇ × ∇ × A = µ0 J + k 2 A + iωµ0 0 ∇φ. (1.10)

which is a vector Helmholtz equation. A solution to (1.11) can be written simply as

1.6 Green’s function approach

g 0 |x=+ − g 0 |x=− = −1 (1.19)

Combining equations (1.17) and (1.19), the Green’s function is found to be

1.7 Scalar Green’s functions

These Green’s functions play a fundamental role in the following chapters.

Basic Theory: Planar Interfaces

By viewing nature, nature’s handmaid art,

John Dryden 1631–1700

Figure 2.1: Free-space physical model

2.2.1 Free-space vector potential

u(x − x0 ) + v(y − y 0 ) = α[ρ cos(φ − β) − ρ0 cos(φ0 − β)]

One can show by integration that[FM73]

integration of (2.6) with respect to φ0 and β gives

Figure 2.2: NDE air-cored probe model

Similarly, for the region below the coil, z < l0 we find

2.2.2 Coil impedance

D(r, t) = ι E(r, t), B(r, t) = µι H(r, t). (1.3)

∇ × ∇ × A = µ0 J + k 2 A + iωµ0 0 ∇φ. (1.10)

g 0 |x=+ − g 0 |x=− = −1 (1.19)