In-Service Feed Water Heater Condition Assessment Using The Pulsed Eddy Current NDE Technology PDF

In-Service Feedwater Heater Condition
Assessment Using the Pulsed Eddy

Current NDE Technology
SED
R I
A L
LICE
M AT E
WARNING:
Please read the Export Control
and License Agreement on the
back cover before removing the
Wrapping Material.
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly

available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in
accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration
Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to
only copyright protection and does not require any license
agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the export control
restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in the document prior to publication.
Technical Report
In-Service Feedwater Heater

Condition Assessment Using the
Pulsed Eddy Current NDE
Technology
1006372
Final Report, November 2001
EPRI Project Managers

P. Lara
K. Krzywosz
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
EPRI
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Customer Fulfillment, 1355 Willow Way,
Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2001 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
EPRI
1300 W.T. Harris Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28262
Principal Investigators
P. Lara
K. Krzywosz
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
In-Service Feedwater Heater Condition Assessment Using the Pulsed Eddy Current NDE
Technology, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1006372.
iii
REPORT SUMMARY
This report highlights the performance characteristics of the pulsed eddy current technology for
the in-service examination of feedwater heater shells through insulation. The purpose is to help
the utility make an informed decision about applying the pulsed eddy current technology on-line
or examining the heater more conventionally by removing the insulation and performing
thickness measurements with ultrasonics during the outage season.
Background
Feedwater heater shells have been reported to be susceptible to flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC)
at both PWR and BWR nuclear stations. Feedwater shell leaks are safety significant and, once
detected, require immediate plant shutdown for repair. Because of the seriousness of the event,
utilities have instituted regular inspection programs to monitor the condition of the feedwater
shells and track the progress of the erosion damage.
Because the feedwater heaters are insulated, in some cases with asbestos material, many utilities
have recently opted to examine the shells with pulsed eddy current technology in order to avoid
the cost of insulation removal. This initiative is further justified by the ability of the technology
to be deployed while the heaters are in-service, allowing the screening and prioritization of
examination areas prior to the forthcoming outage.
Objective
To determine the effectiveness of the pulsed eddy current technology to assess shell
condition when surveying feedwater heaters on-line and through insulation
Approach
This technology evaluation relied on analyzing the results obtained at four nuclear power stations
by comparing the in-service pulsed eddy current results with the more conventional ultrasonic
measurements obtained while the heaters were off-line and the insulation removed.
Results
The following results were obtained from the evaluations:
In cases of wear with large areal extent, the pulsed eddy current and ultrasonic wear patterns
matched closely.
In cases of wear with relatively small areal extent, the pulsed eddy current technology did not
indicate the presence of FAC damage.
The FAC safety factor should be increased when assessing feedwater heater shells with
pulsed eddy current technology.
v
The pulsed eddy current detection threshold is determined by the FAC areal extent and vessel
wall loss.
To ensure proper application of the technology, the detection threshold must be considered in
conjunction with the corrosion allowance of the heater.
EPRI Perspective
Pulsed eddy current technology represents an important advance in nondestructive examination
technologies. The technology permits obtaining thickness measurement of feedwater heaters
though insulation while they are in service. This quality is particularly useful in PWR plants
where the heaters are located outside the containment building, allowing the utility to examine
the vessel outside the outage season. The technology exhibits limitations and is best suited for
the detection of erosion processes that affect the vessel wall over a relatively large areal extent.
EPRI plans to work with the technology developer to reduce the pulsed eddy current examination
footprint.
Keywords
Feedwater heater
Pulsed eddy current
Insulation
Erosion
Flow-accelerated corrosion
FAC
vi
EPRI Licensed Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following nuclear power stations contributed examination information about their feedwater
heater conditions to this project:
Callaway
Fort Calhoun
Millstone
Nine Mile Point
Palo Verde
Vogtle
Wolf Creek
The following individuals contributed to this project by sharing their examination experiences
with EPRI:
Russell Bowie, Calvert Cliffs
Danny Cordes, Southern Nuclear
Carlos Hernandez, Wolf Creek
Paul Huffman, Browns Ferry
Steve Janes, Millstone
Robert Kokoska, Callaway
Dean Leimbach, Susquehanna
Hazel Malone, Indian Point
Tim Oldfield, Nine Mile Point
David Rollins, Fort Calhoun
Steve Slosnerick, Davis Besse
Willie Smith, Vogtle
Gerry Story, Palo Verde
James Wadsworth, Nine Mile Point
vii
The following individuals from Aptech Engineering contributed to this project:

Marvin Cohn
Andrew Holuszko
Ken Lobo
Jordan Norton
Aptech Engineering performed the pulsed eddy current examinations included in this report.
Their contribution to this project is acknowledged and deeply appreciated.
viii
CONTENTS
1 OBJECTIVE .........................................................................................................................1-1
2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................2-1
3 MECHANISM AND MORPHOLOGY ....................................................................................3-1
3.1
Mechanism ................................................................................................................3-1
3.2
Morphology ................................................................................................................3-3
4 INSPECTION OPTIONS .......................................................................................................4-1

4.1
The Pulsed Eddy Current Technology........................................................................4-1
4.2
Pulsed Eddy Current Principles of Operation .............................................................4-2
4.3
Pulsed Eddy Current Field Operation.........................................................................4-4
4.3.1 Adjustments to Calibration Shifts...........................................................................4-7

4.3.2 Interpretation of Corrosion Indications ...................................................................4-8
5 PULSED EDDY CURRENT FIELD EVALUATION ...............................................................5-1
6 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................6-1
7 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................7-1
8 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................8-1
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 FAC Wear Patterns near a Steam Extraction Inlet Nozzle at Plant A
(Measurements Were Performed with Ultrasonics on a 2-Inch [50.8-mm] Grid) ...............3-3
Figure 3-2 Recommended Examination Coverage in the Circumferential Direction..................3-4
Figure 3-3 Recommended Examination Coverage in the Axial Direction..................................3-5
Figure 4-1 Pulsed Eddy Current Field Representation .............................................................4-3
Figure 4-2 PEC Operator Placing the Pulsed Eddy Current Sensor on the Feedwater
Heater Insulation ..............................................................................................................4-4
Figure 4-3 PEC Operator Running the Data Acquisition System ..............................................4-5
Figure 4-4 Computer Screen Image of the Incotest System .....................................................4-6
Figure 5-1 Feedwater Heater Vessel with the Insulation Removed near the Steam
Extraction Inlet Nozzle and Grinded for Ultrasonic Examination .......................................5-2
Figure 5-2 Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for
Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3A Left Section ...........................................................5-4
Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3A Right Section .........................................................5-5
Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3B Left Section ...........................................................5-6
Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3B Right Section .........................................................5-7
Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3C Left Section ...........................................................5-8
Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3C Right Section.........................................................5-9
Plant B Feedwater Heater Shell 2B Left Section .........................................................5-10
Plant B Feedwater Heater Shell 2B Right Section .......................................................5-11
Figure 5-10 Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results
for Plant B Feedwater Heater Shell 4B Left Section ....................................................5-12
for PWR Plant D Feedwater Heater Shell 5B Left Section ..........................................5-13
for Plant B Feedwater Heater Shell 4B Right Section ..................................................5-14
for Vogtle Unit 2 Feedwater Heater Shell 6A Left Section...........................................5-15
xi
for Vogtle Unit 2 Feedwater Heater Shell 6A Right Section .........................................5-16
for Vogtle Unit 2 Feedwater Heater Shell 6B Left Section............................................5-17
for Vogtle Unit 2 Feedwater Heater Shell 6B Right Section .........................................5-18
for PWR Plant D Feedwater Heater Shell 5B Right Section.........................................5-19
Figure 5-18 Relationship Between Detection and Circumferential Length of the Damage
for Pulsed Eddy Current Technology..............................................................................5-20
Figure 5-19 Wall Loss Correlation Between the Pulsed Eddy Current and Ultrasonic
Evaluations ....................................................................................................................5-20
Figure 6-1 Pulsed Eddy Current Detection Threshold for Feedwater Heater Shells with 3
Inches (76.2 mm) of Insulation .........................................................................................6-1
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Nuclear Power Stations That Have Found Evidence of FAC and Have
Instituted FAC Monitoring Programs.................................................................................2-1
Table 3-1 Nine Mile Unit 1 Feedwater Heater Shell Erosion Risk Factors ................................3-2
Table 5-1 Evaluation Results .................................................................................................5-23
xiii
1
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this program was to determine the effectiveness of the pulsed eddy current
technology for assessing the shell condition when surveying feedwater heaters on-line and
through insulation. The program highlighted the advantages and limitations of the technology so
that utilities can make informed decisions about applying the pulsed eddy current inspection or
examining the heater more conventionally by removing the insulation and performing thickness
measurements with ultrasonics.
1-1
2
BACKGROUND
Feedwater heater shells have been reported to be susceptible to flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC)
at both PWR and BWR nuclear stations. Feedwater shell leaks are safety significant and, once
detected, require immediate plant shutdown for repair. Because of the seriousness of the event,
utilities have instituted regular inspection programs to monitor the condition of the feedwater
shells and track the progress of the erosion damage. Table 2-1 provides a representative list of
the utilities that have found evidence of FAC and track the integrity of their feedwater heater
shells as part of their FAC program.
Table 2-1
Nuclear Power Stations That Have Found Evidence
of FAC and Have Instituted FAC Monitoring Programs
Plant
Number of
Feedwater
Heaters Affected
Callaway
Calvert Cliffs 1
Calvert Cliffs 2
Catawba 1
Catawba 2
Comanche Peak 1
Comanche Peak 2
Duane Arnold
Farley 1
Farley 2
Fort Calhoun
Grand Gulf
Hatch
Hope Creek
Indian Point 2
Kewaunee
Kori Unit 1
McGuire 1
McGuire 2
Millstone 2
Monticello
Nine Mile Point 1
Nine Mile Point 2
3
8
8
1
1
8
8
1
1
1
3
2
1
3
1
2
4
2
2
3
1
8
3
2-1

Background
Table 2-1 (cont.)
Nuclear Power Stations That Have Found Evidence
of FAC and Have Instituted FAC Monitoring Programs
Plant
Number of
Feedwater
Heaters Affected
North Anna 1
North Anna 2
Palisades
Palo Verde 1
Peach Bottom 2
Pilgrim
Point Beach 1
Point Beach 2
Point Leprau
Saint Lucie 1
Saint Lucie 2
Salem 1
Salem 2
Seabrook
Surry 1
Susquehanna 1
Susquehanna 2
VC Summer
Vermont Yankee
Vogtle 1
Vogtle 2
Wolf Creek
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
6
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
6
4
1
2
2
Because the feedwater heaters are insulated (in some cases with asbestos), many utilities have
recently opted to examine the shells with pulsed eddy current technology in order to avoid the
cost of insulation removal. This initiative is further justified by the technologys ability to be
deployed while the heaters are in service, allowing the screening and prioritization of
examination areas prior to the outage.
Two types of damage are typically reported. The most common erosion damage occurs near the
extraction steam inlet nozzle in the vicinity of the impingement plate. Leaks related to this type
of mechanism were reported at Dresden in 1983 and, more recently, at Susquehanna, Pilgrim,
and Point Beach in 1999 [1]. Shell wear penetrations can also be caused by tube leaks. Although
this type of damage is less common, a shell leak caused by a tube failure was reported at
Sequoyah in 1990 [1]. The morphology of these erosion mechanisms is described in Section 3.
2-2
3
MECHANISM AND MORPHOLOGY
This section presents information on the FAC mechanism and damage morphology in feedwater
heaters. Understanding the corrosion mechanism and the inspection target is an important part of
a feedwater examination program.
3.1
Mechanism
The mechanism that causes FAC is a combination of metal oxidation from iron to magnetite and
the dissolution or removal of the magnetite layer by the fluid flow. At low fluid velocities, the
magnetite dissolves slowly enough that a protective layer is formed on the metal surface. Under
these conditions, the rate of corrosion is relatively slow and controlled by the mass transfer of
ions through the magnetite layer. As the fluid velocity increases above the breakaway value, the
protective oxide film is removed by the surface shear stress and mass transport processes,
significantly accelerating the corrosion rates and causing FAC [2].
The mechanism suggests that impurities contributing to the dissolution of the protective layer
enhance the corrosion process. Parameters that have been identified as contributing to this
dissolution include hydrazine concentration, pH, operating temperature of the heater, metallurgy,
liner presence, steam quality, and impingement plate geometry.
In the feedwater system, oxygen levels are controlled by adding hydrazine, a scavenging agent.
Although oxygen contributes to the corrosion process, the total removal of oxygen from the
system is detrimental because no protective magnetite layer can be formed. The presence of
traces of oxygen (in the range of 100 parts per billion [ppb]) in the transported fluid is typically
recommended [2]. Hydrazine, though, enhances FAC by reducing the levels of oxygen and by
reacting with the elements that form the protective layer [2]. In PWR plants, high levels of
hydrazine (greater than 100 ppb) are recommended in order to mitigate intergranular stress
corrosion cracking (IGSCC). However, these high levels of hydrazine increase the likelihood of
FAC damage.
Hydrogen concentration, as measured by the pH, also promotes the dissolution of the protective
magnetite layer [2]. Accordingly, feedwater systems with pH levels less than 6.3 are considered
to be at risk of FAC damage [1].
Temperature plays an important role in FAC by enhancing the corrosion reactions. FAC rates are
reported to peak at about 300F (149C) and fall off at higher temperatures under laboratory
conditions. However, because this result depends on the testing variables, it is not generally
3-1

Mechanism and Morphology
accepted as a trend. A more conventional view considers components to be prone to FAC at

temperatures greater than 300F (149C) [1].
Shell metallurgy that promotes the formation of a protective layer tends to mitigate FAC.
Generally, chromium is considered to be the most beneficial alloying element to carbon steel,
and levels above 1.25% are generally required for the alloy to be classified as FAC resistant [3].
However, under FAC attack, small increases in chromium (for example, from 0.02%, which is
typical of mild carbon steel, to 0.1%) have been reported to significantly reduce the FAC rate
[2]. Some feedwater heater designs mitigate FAC by installing a stainless steel liner over the
surfaces that are prone to corrosion damage.
Steam quality significantly affects FAC wear rates. The electrochemical reactions that promote
the dissolution of the protective layer can occur only if the surface is wet; that is, FAC cannot
occur in a dry steam environment [3]. In addition, decreasing the steam quality leads to higher
shear stress and higher mass transfer (by increasing the liquid Reynolds number), which leads to
increased dissolution of the protective layer [2].
The geometry of the component also plays an important role in FAC: locations where the fluid
dynamics exhibit vortices, secondary flows, or turbulence are more prone to FAC [3]. In
feedwater heaters, the steam entering through the extraction steam inlet nozzle is redirected in
the circumferential direction after impinging on the horizontal plate that protects the tube bundle.
When the plate is built flat, the location past the gap between the plate and the shell exhibits the
highest steam velocity, while the plate corner is likely to promote the development of vortices
and secondary flows. In this scenario, the location past the impingement plate is prone to FAC
damage. As a rule, heaters with flat (rather than curved) impingement plates and gaps less than
1/4 of the nozzle diameter are considered susceptible to FAC.
In summary, hydrazine concentration, pH, temperature, steel metallurgy, liner presence, steam
quality, impingement plate geometry, and impingement plate gap are considered important
factors when the risk of FAC damage in feedwater systems is evaluated. Table 3-1 lists these
factors and the values that suggest the potential for FAC damage [1].
Table 3-1
Nine Mile Unit 1 Feedwater Heater Shell Erosion Risk Factors*
At-Risk Criteria
Risk Factor
Operating temperature
>300F (149C)
Steam quality
<96%
Steel metallurgy
Carbon steel
Stainless steel liner
No liner
Hydrazine concentration
50200 ppb
pH
<6.3
Impingement plate geometry
Flat
Gap between the impingement plate and the
<D/4**
shell
* Source: CHUG Position Paper No. 4, "Recommendations for Inspecting Feedwater Heater Shells for FlowAccelerated Corrosion Damage," February 2000.
** D = Nozzle diameter
3-2

3.2
Morphology
As mentioned in Section 2, FAC damage in feedwater heaters can be classified into two types:
erosion in the vicinity of the extraction steam inlet nozzle and wall loss caused by the steam jet
from a leaking tube.
The erosion in the vicinity of the extraction steam inlet tends to be widespread and the wear rate
relatively slow. The wear areas typically appear in pairs on both sides of the nozzle along the
circumferential axis, as shown in Figure 3-1. These wear areas have an approximate ellipsoidal
shape, longer in the axial than in the circumferential direction.
Figure 3-1
FAC Wear Patterns near a Steam Extraction Inlet Nozzle at Plant A (Measurements Were
Performed with Ultrasonics on a 2-Inch [50.8-mm] Grid)
The wear rate near the extraction steam inlet nozzle varies among the plants and even among
heaters within a plant. The variability within the plant suggests that small changes in the
impingement plate geometry play a dominant role in determining the service life of the shell.
3-3

Because of this wear rate variability, use of the sister-train logic is not recommended when
evaluating a heater for potential erosion damage near the extraction steam inlet. The sister-train
logic proposes that a component does not require inspection when an equivalent component in a
parallel train has shown no erosion damage. It is recommended that all the heaters are inspected
and their wear rates quantified before shell life assessments are made.
When inspecting for FAC near the extraction steam inlet, the inspection area should cover a
minimum of 60 degrees in the circumferential direction relative to the nozzle centerline (see
Figure 3-2). Furthermore, the inspection area should include at least 30 degrees past the edge of
the impingement plate. In the axial direction, it is recommended that the inspection area extend
four nozzle diameters in each direction. However, if the heater includes a protective liner near
the nozzle, the area should extend one nozzle diameter past the liner, as shown in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-2
Recommended Examination Coverage in the Circumferential Direction
3-4

Figure 3-3
Recommended Examination Coverage in the Axial Direction
FAC damage caused by a leaking tube is less common, but the associated wear rate is relatively
high. This type of damage is highly localized, about 1 inch (25.4 mm) in diameter, and difficult
to detect. Mitigation of this type of damage includes periodically inspecting the tubes for leaks.
If a tube that lies in close proximity to the shell is found to be leaking, the shell should also be
examined for localized damage in the vicinity of the leak.
3-5
4
INSPECTION OPTIONS
When inspecting for shell wear damage near the extraction steam inlet nozzle, the utility may
remove the insulation and perform ultrasonic thickness measurements over a 2- to 3-inch (50.8to 76.2-mm) grid or perform the measurements through the insulation with the pulsed eddy
current technology over a 6-inch (152.4-mm) grid.
Many utilities have opted to use the pulsed eddy current technology for determining the
feedwater heater condition to minimize the cost of insulation removal. For PWR plants, pulsed
eddy current has the additional advantage that it can be performed on-line while the plant is in
operation, allowing the utility to screen out the areas that require ultrasonic evaluation during the
outage. The increased usage of pulsed eddy current requires better understanding of the
performance characteristics of this new technology. Accordingly, the information contained in
this report compares the feedwater heater evaluation results when using both pulsed eddy current
and ultrasonics to help users understand the conditions under which the pulsed eddy current
method can be appropriately applied.
4.1
The Pulsed Eddy Current Technology
The pulsed eddy current technology evaluated in this program was developed by RTD
(Netherlands) under license from ARCO and is available commercially under the name of
Incotest. Aptech Engineering performed the examination and data reporting for the feedwater
heaters examined in this report.
Pulsed eddy current detects the presence of defects by inducing eddy currents in the insulation
jacket and in the outside surface of the pipe and monitoring the change in the magnetic field as
the currents diffuse and permeate the pipes and jackets wall. The wall thickness is then
measured by recording the time it takes for the currents to diffuse and permeate the pipe wall and
comparing that time with calibration standards.
Pulsed eddy current is increasingly used for feedwater heater condition assessments for the
following reasons:
The technology measures the wall thickness of the heater through the insulation, minimizing
the cost of insulation removal.
It can penetrate carbon steel wall up to several inches thick.
Because the probe requires no contact with the shell, pulsed eddy current
Can be applied to hot heaters on-line.
4-1

Inspection Options
Is not affected by the heaters curvature.

Is not affected by the presence of coatings or cladding.
Is not affected by the insulation type.
Measurements can be compensated for liftoff and jacket material type.
Is tolerant of misalignment and rocking.
Is tolerant of varying levels of operator skill.
However, the technique focuses on a relatively large area, which limits its application to
widespread corrosion (as is the case in FAC) [4, 5, 6, 7]. Limitations of the technology include
the following:
Unable to assess small, localized areas
May underestimate wall loss
May miss areas of localized damage
May require recalibration at various locations in the vessel
The principles of operation are described in Section 4.2.
4.2
Pulsed Eddy Current Principles of Operation
The pulsed eddy current technology allows thickness measurements through insulation by
inducing eddy currents on the vessels external surface and monitoring the currents as they
diffuse through the vessel wall.
The probe consists of a transmitter and a receiver coil. The coil geometry varies, depending on
the application, and is arranged to minimize the target area of the eddy current field.
During operation, the system energizes the transmitter coil by sending a train of constant current
pulses of alternating polarity, separated by null periods. The time duration of the pulses and the
corresponding null periods selected are long enough to allow the currents to fully permeate the
pipe wall. When the transmitter current is excited, eddy currents are induced in the conductors in
the vicinity, principally the jacket and the outside surface of the pipe (see Figure 4-1). The
currents in the thin jacket die out relatively quickly, leaving at late times the currents induced in
the pipe wall. The system then records the voltage decay history as the eddy currents diffuse and
permeate the pipe. When the currents interact with the internal wall boundary, the decay rate of
the field accelerates. This change in the voltage signature indicates to the system the time of the
currents arrival to the inside wall. The system compares this time with that obtained at a
calibrated location and calculates the pipe wall thickness using a proprietary time-wall thickness
correlation [7].
4-2

Inspection Options
Figure 4-1
Pulsed Eddy Current Field Representation
Because the eddy currents expand as they diffuse into the pipe wall, the footprint of the sensing
field is relatively large. The Incotest system focuses the field by designing the transmitter and
receiver coils with multiple loops to induce opposing currents that cancel the outer portion of the
eddy current field. These loop designs change, depending on the geometry of the component.
Aptech provides two sensors: Probes P1.5-04 and V1.0-02. The Probe V1.0-02 has a more
focused target area but has limited wall thickness penetration and is recommended for piping
applications. The Model P1.5-04, commonly used in feedwater heater examinations, has a
footprint of about 8 inches (203.2 mm) in diameter at a liftoff of 3 inches (76.2 mm) and is
currently the preferred probe for vessel examinations [8]. This sensor is shown in Figure 4-2.
4-3

Inspection Options
Figure 4-2
PEC Operator Placing the Pulsed Eddy Current Sensor on the Feedwater Heater Insulation
4.3
Pulsed Eddy Current Field Operation
The Incotest system consists of a sensor and its corresponding connecting cable, the supporting
signal electronics, and a data acquisition computer. The unit requires two operators: one holds
the probe in place while the other operates the data acquisition computer (see Figures 4-2 and
4-3).
4-4

Inspection Options
Figure 4-3
PEC Operator Running the Data Acquisition System
It is recommended that a grid be established over the examination area of interest, with the grid
insulation painted at a spacing of 6 inches (152.4 mm) or less, as shown in Figure 4-2. Thickness
measurements are then performed at each grid node and labeled with letters in the
circumferential direction and with numbers in the axial direction. These coordinates are then
transported to a spreadsheet for reporting without modification.
At the start of the examination, the operator surveys a vessel location where the wall thickness
and liftoff are known. The software uses this information to set the reference wall thickness and
calculate the eddy current penetration time, sheeting delay, and liftoff voltage shift. The operator
then selects the appropriate time range and the gain setting of the instrument. Three gain settings
are available and are selected to maximize the strength of the acquired signal while avoiding
saturation of the voltage acquisition electronics. The gain selection is performed during
calibration and cannot be changed after the survey starts. After the instrument is calibrated, the
examination can commence.
As one of the operators places the sensor at a selected grid location, the other operator signals the
instrument to energize the coil and acquire the data. The latter operator then observes the signals
4-5

Inspection Options
that appear in the computer screen to ensure that the data are of good quality. Figure 4-4 shows
an image of the data acquisition screen.
Figure 4-4
Computer Screen Image of the Incotest System
The acquisition screen is divided into four quadrants. In the top left corner, the estimated wall
thickness is displayed. In the lower left corner, a spreadsheet-like display is shown, with each of
the cells having a row number and a column letter coordinate. These coordinates correspond to
the nodal coordinates of the grid painted on the vessel. After the sensor operator locates the
probe at a grid node and reports the coordinates, the system operator places a cursor on the
corresponding cell and signals the system to acquire the data. The system tags the measurement
with those coordinates, giving the thickness measurement its spatial position in the grid. After
the measurement is performed, the cell is assigned a color (depending on the amount of percent
wall loss computed). The corresponding color scale is displayed on the bar located to the right of
the cell display. This color scale helps the operator to identify affected areas that deviate from
the nominal values, indicating, for example, the presence of wear. The operator can then revisit
those affected areas to confirm the thickness numbers associated with the presence of damage.
4-6

Inspection Options
The upper right hand corner of the computer screen lists parameters used by the operator to
ensure the quality of the signal. These parameters assist the operator as follows:
Chi2_meas. compares the acquired voltage decay with a model trace and computes its
deviation. Chi2 values of approximately 2 are considered satisfactory; values of 10 should be
repeated.
Meas_Signal_uV provides the operator with the voltage value at which the thickness
measurement is performed to assist the operator if the gain selection is correctly set.
Time_ const_ms displays the constants used in the thickness correlation. These constants are
calculated during the calibration stage.
Delay_sheet_ms displays the estimated time delay assigned to the sheeting or insulation
jacket. The operator tracks this parameter to monitor whether changes in the insulation
jacket, such as jacket overlap, may affect the measurement.
Current_coil_A displays the amperage delivered to the sensors and is used for monitoring the
proper electrical continuity of the cable-sensor loop.
Batt._charge_V provides a measurement of the battery voltage levels and advises the
operator when the batteries should be exchanged for fresh units.
Thickness_% gives the thickness measurement as a percent of the reference wall thickness.
Accuracy_level provides the operator with a confidence measure on the overall quality of the
measurement.
The upper right quadrant also includes two bar scales for liftoff and sheeting as a percent of the
values determined during calibration. These scales assist the operator in understanding whether
the liftoff and sheeting conditions have deviated significantly from the reference location.
The lower right quadrant of the computer screen includes a voltage versus time chart with three
traces. Circles represent the acquired voltage history. The best-fit thickness model for the
acquired data is represented by a yellow trace. Finally, the voltage history obtained at the
reference location is represented by a green trace. The traces assist the operator in tracking the
voltage decay to determine if it deviates significantly from the reference trace. If the surveyed
location exhibits variations in the liftoff or sheeting, the entire acquired trace would shift from
the reference trace. If the surveyed location were thinner, the acquired trace would drop off
relative to the reference trace at later times.
4.3.1 Adjustments to Calibration Shifts
The calibration of the pulsed eddy current technology is sensitive to changes in the material
properties of the steel, particularly changes in the steels electrical conductivity and magnetic
permeability. Typically, the material properties remain fairly uniform within a given plate but
may change as the survey crosses over a weld into a different plate. Difficulty arises because the
welds are covered with insulation, hiding the transition between plates and causing the possible
change in calibration.
4-7

Inspection Options
However, when a calibration shift occurs, the operator can recognize the change by noting the
variations in thickness over a large rectangular area. Normally, the change occurs along a straight
line in the circumferential or axial direction.
Once calibration deviations are recognized, the operator typically will request that the utility
provide a new thickness reference value within the plate in question. The new thickness value
allows the calibration to be reset and acquired data to be adjusted using post-processing software.
4.3.2 Interpretation of Corrosion Indications
Aptech provides no guidelines for the interpretation of results. It limits its comments to
suggesting that all deviations of -20% or more shall be reported as potential corrosion
indications, and the lowest reading shall be reported in a brief summary to the customer [8].
Significant indications can be recognized by an engineering review of the data presented in a
matrix of color-coded thickness patterns. The operator also has the option of interrogating the
data using the RTD-Incotest defect mode to help discriminate small areas of wall loss. Because
the footprint of the measurement extends over a circle approximately 8 inches (203.2 mm) in
diameter, indications are identified as thickness losses that include several neighboring nodes.
Furthermore, because the instrument averages the wall thickness over the footprint, the thickness
safety factor is less conservative than in ultrasonic measurements.
Accordingly, corrosion indications are identified when the survey detects a wall thickness
reduction of more than 10% of the baseline value over several neighboring nodes. The baseline
thickness value is estimated from the nodes that surround the affected area and may approximate
the shell nominal wall thickness, or it may be substantially shifted from the nominal value if a
calibration shift has occurred.
4-8
5
PULSED EDDY CURRENT FIELD EVALUATION
The objective of the evaluation program was to estimate the effectiveness of the pulsed eddy
current technology to assess the shell condition when surveying through insulation. In principle,
after a damage indication is reported, the heater would then be scheduled for detailed ultrasonic
examination during a forthcoming outage.
To achieve the objective, comparative data were obtained from six nuclear stations (five PWR
and one BWR). These pulsed eddy current examinations were performed on-line through
insulation with a grid painted on the insulation jacket at a 6-inch (152.4-mm) spacing, as shown
in Figure 4-2. The utility later followed up these examinations by removing the insulation and
performing a detailed ultrasonic survey over the same area, using a finer grid with either a 2- or
3-inch (50.8- or 76.2-mm) spacing, as shown in Figure 5-1.
5-1

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Evaluation
Figure 5-1
Feedwater Heater Vessel with the Insulation Removed near the Steam Extraction Inlet
Nozzle and Grinded for Ultrasonic Examination
Of the six nuclear stations surveyed, four found erosion in the examined feedwater heaters. At
the request of the contributing utilities, the plant names were omitted and replaced by the letters
A (the BWR plant) and B, C, and D (PWR plants).
To facilitate the comparison between pulsed eddy current and ultrasonics, the data were
processed using a contouring software program called 3D-Field. This software uses a
mathematical algorithm to represent as a colored topographic map the thickness data taken over a
grid.
Furthermore, the vessel data were split along the nozzle plane into a left and right side map. As
shown in Figure 3-1, the erosion damage typically appears in pairs on each side of the nozzle.
Splitting the data simplifies the comparison for each morphology.
Finally, the pulsed eddy current and pulse echo ultrasonic maps were presented side-by-side with
the same scale. This presentation permits qualitative and quantitative comparisons. As mentioned
5-2

in Section 3.2, the areal erosion extent tends to have an ellipsoidal shape. The maps allow
visualizing if the corrosion patterns are in close agreement.
The results of the evaluations are presented in Figures 5-2 through 5-19.
5-3
5-4
Figure 5-2
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3A Left Section
5-5
Figure 5-3
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3A Right Section
5-6
Figure 5-4
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3B Left Section
5-7
Figure 5-5
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3B Right Section
5-8
Figure 5-6
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3C Left Section
5-9
Figure 5-7
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant A Feedwater Heater Shell 3C Right Section
5-10
Figure 5-8
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant B Feedwater Heater Shell 2B Left Section
5-11
Figure 5-9
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant B Feedwater Heater Shell 2B Right Section
5-12
Figure 5-10
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant B Feedwater Heater Shell 4B Left Section
5-13
Figure 5-11
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for PWR Plant D Feedwater Heater
Shell 5B Left Section
5-14
Figure 5-12
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant B Feedwater Heater Shell 4B Right Section
5-15
Figure 5-13
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for Plant C Feedwater Heater
Shell 6A Left Section
5-16
Figure 5-14
Shell 6A Right Section
5-17
Figure 5-15
Shell 6B Left Section
5-18
Figure 5-16
Shell 6B Right Section
5-19
Figure 5-17
Comparison of Ultrasonics and Pulsed Eddy Current Examination Results for PWR Plant D Feedwater Heater
Shell 5B Right Section

Figure 5-18
Relationship Between Detection and Circumferential Length of the Damage for Pulsed
Eddy Current Technology
Figure 5-19
Wall Loss Correlation Between the Pulsed Eddy Current and Ultrasonic Evaluations
5-20

The following results were concluded from the evaluations:
closely matched
In cases of wear with relatively small areal extent, the pulsed eddy technology did not
indicate the presence of FAC damage
Pulsed eddy current indicated FAC areas with wall loss exceeding 20% and circumferential
extent greater than 10 inches (254 mm)
pulsed eddy current technology
This evaluation found that when the wear areal extent was large, the pulsed eddy current
thickness map correctly represented the wear-affected areas, as shown in Figures 5-2 through
5-10.
In Figure 5-2, the pulsed eddy current and ultrasonic maps show the wear-affected area starting
about 10 inches (254 mm) away from the nozzle and extending more axially than
circumferentially. Similar patterns are observed in Figures 5-3 through 5-8.
In contrast, Figure 5-9 shows the damage starting closer to the nozzle; however, the wall loss
increases and the affected area expands as the distance increases. Again, the pulsed eddy current
and ultrasonic maps are in close agreement.
The minimal presence of wear in the vicinity of the nozzle appears to be caused by the
impingement plate geometry. As described in Section 3.1, the plate typically lies flat below the
nozzle and approaches the shell at some circumferential distance, as shown in Figure 3-2. The
converging shape of the gap accelerates the steam and promotes the formation of turbulence and
vortices past the plate, increasing the susceptibility to FAC damage.
In these cases, the wear areal extent was relatively large, exceeding 10 inches (254 mm) in the
circumferential direction and 20 inches (508 mm) in the axial direction.
In Cases of Wear with Relatively Small Areal Extent, the Pulsed Eddy Technology Did Not
Indicate the Presence of FAC Damage
Figures 5-12 through 5-17 illustrate situations in which pulsed eddy current failed to indicate the
presence of wear. In Figure 5-12, the wear indication shown by the ultrasonic map starts about
20 inches (508 mm) from the nozzle and extends about twice the distance axially that it does
circumferentially. The wear damage measured about 8 inches (203.2 mm) circumferentially,
which is less than the cases shown in Figures 5-2 through 5-10.
The pulsed eddy current map showed no evidence of the erosion pattern, suggesting instead that
the wall thickness near the nozzle was relatively uniform.
5-21

Lack of wear indication combined with relatively small areal extent is repeated in Figures 5-13
though 5-16. In fact, in Figures 5-15 and 5-16, pulsed eddy current indicates wall thicknesses
that appear to be thicker in the areas affected by erosion. In the heater shown in Figures 5-15 and
5-16, the tube support plate was located directly under the steam extraction inlet nozzle, which
may have contributed to the apparent lack of correlation.
Figure 5-17 provides another example of a lack of wear indications by the pulsed eddy current
survey. In this case, the utility minimized the size of the ultrasonic grid, having enough coverage
to detect the FAC damage but not sufficient to determine its areal extent.
These results suggest that the application of pulsed eddy current technology in its current state of
development is not optimized to detect wear areas with relatively small areal extent.
Pulsed Eddy Current Indicated FAC Areas with Wall Loss Exceeding 20% and
Circumferential Extent Greater Than 10 inches (254 mm)
The results thus far indicate that wear detection with the pulsed eddy current technology depends
on the wall loss and the areal extent.
To identify how wall loss and areal extent are interrelated, the circumferential and axial lengths
of the wear-affected areas were extracted from the topographic maps shown in Figures 5-2
through 5-17 along with the maximum percent wall loss. Table 5-1 lists these results.
5-22
3A
3A
3B
3B
3C
3C
2B
2B
4B
4B
6A
6A
6B
6B
5B
5B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
D
D
1 Inch = 25.4 mm
Feedwater
Heater
Plant
Left
Right
Left
Right
Left
Right
Left
Right
Left
Right
Left
Right
Left
Right
Left
Right
Average
Side
Table 5-1
Evaluation Results
45
33
38
40
60
38
42
40
43
22
33
26
31
33
N/A
N/A
37.43
30
30
27
27
22
20
18
25
13
8
9
6
10
8
N/A
N/A
18.07
0.295
0.373
0.332
0.349
0.292
0.308
0.419
0.539
0.369
0.444
0.988
1.020
0.967
0.987
0.628
0.718
41
25
34
30
42
38
44
28
26
11
18
16
20
18
30
20
Pulse Echo Ultrasonic Evaluation

Minimum
FAC Ellipse FAC Ellipse
Wall
Maximum
Major Axis Major Axis Thickness
Wall Loss
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(%)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
1.21
1.21
1.21
1.21
0.9
0.9
35
19
38
30
65
59
31
35
43
N/D
N/D
N/D
N/D
N/D
35
N/D
15
12
24
17
27
28
13
20
13
N/D
N/D
N/D
N/D
N/D
15
N/D
0.422
0.437
0.422
0.427
0.323
0.328
0.527
0.638
0.428
0.475
1.159
1.147
1.113
1.100
0.818
0.855
5-23
16
13
16
15
35
34
30
15
14
5
4
5
8
9
9
5
Pulsed Eddy Current Evaluation

Nominal
Minimum
Wall
FAC Ellipse FAC Ellipse
Wall
Maximum
Thickness Major Axis Major Axis Thickness
Wall Loss
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(%)

The data contained in the table confirm that the wear damage exhibits an axially elongated shape
with an average 2:1 ratio of axial to circumferential lengths.
The data also suggest a well-marked transition for detecting the effectiveness of the pulsed eddy
current technology. Note that when the circumferential extent of the wear-affected area was
greater than 10 inches (254 mm), pulsed eddy current reliably indicated the extent of the damage.
However, for distances less than 10 inches (254 mm), the pulsed eddy current survey did not flag
the presence of FAC. These trends are graphically illustrated in Figure 5-18. In this figure,
circumferential extents obtained from the ultrasonic maps are plotted against the values extracted
from the pulsed eddy current maps. Figure 5-18 shows that pulsed eddy current data
underestimated the areal extent for lengths greater than 10 inches (254 mm) and failed to report
the damage for lengths less than 10 inches (254 mm).
To understand the effectiveness of the pulsed eddy current technique for estimating the
maximum wall loss, the pulsed eddy current estimate was plotted against the ultrasonic value as
shown in Figure 5-19. The figure shows that the pulsed eddy current readings undersized the
wall loss by an average of 13%.
Figure 5-19 also shows that the pulsed eddy current detection limit coincides with a maximum
wall loss of 20%. Note further that at a wall loss of 20%, the corresponding pulsed eddy current
values range between 5 and 10% and, because of their low value, the wear patterns are likely to
be blurred. Therefore, Figure 5-19 shows that for small areal extents that exhibit wall losses less
than 20%, the measured thickness changes are likely to remain within the measurement noise
and, accordingly, do not reliably indicate the presence of erosion.
The FAC Safety Factor Should Be Increased when Assessing Feedwater Heater Shells with
Pulsed Eddy Current Technology
The results indicate that the safety factor should be increased when estimating the shell life with
pulsed eddy current data.
Life estimation is important for corrosion management because it affects the operational
acceptance of the heater and influences the repair plans. A utility needs to know 1) if the shell
can withstand the maximum operating pressure until the next scheduled outage and 2) when the
shell may need to be repaired.
The shell is judged to be suitable for continued service if the predicted wall thickness at the time
of the next planned inspection is greater than the minimum accepted value [3], in accordance
with the formula:
Wall predicted = wall (Wear Rate x Time-Next-Inspection x Safety Factor)
Eq. 5-1
5-24

Likewise, a component is considered to have a given remaining useful life, in accordance with
the formula:
Life = (Wall Minimum Acceptable Thickness) / (Wear Rate x Safety Factor)
Eq. 5-2
As seen in Figure 5-19, the pulsed eddy current wall loss assessment undersized the
corresponding ultrasonic values by 13%. This suggests that, when vessel life is assessed using
pulsed eddy current data, the safety factors shown in Equations 5-1 and 5-2 should be increased
to reflect the likely presence of a wall loss greater than otherwise reported.
5-25
6
DISCUSSION
Based on the results presented in Section 5, the pulsed eddy current technology, in its current
state of development, is best applied to detect and monitor the FAC progress in feedwater heaters
after some corrosion has occurred.
In its early stages, wear damage appears to be shallow, covering a relatively small area. As the
damage progresses, the wall loss increases, as does the affected area. This process is depicted in
Figure 6-1.
The results of this evaluation suggest that the pulsed eddy current technology provides
information about the shell condition once the wall loss exceeds 20% and the wears minor axis
exceeds 10 inches (254 mm), that is, when the erosion develops past the detection boundary
shown in Figure 6-1. For erosion conditions below the outlined threshold, the pulsed eddy
current technology is not reliable.
Therefore, the utility should determine the corrosion allowance for each heater. If the allowance
exceeds 20% of the nominal wall thickness, it is appropriate to examine the shell with the pulsed
eddy current technology. Otherwise, the utility should continue to use the more conventional
inspection procedure of removing the insulation and obtaining thickness measurements with
ultrasonics over a grid size of 2 to 3 inches (50.8 to 76.2 mm).
Figure 6-1
Pulsed Eddy Current Detection Threshold
for Feedwater Heater Shells with 3 Inches (76.2 mm) of Insulation
6-1
7
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results obtained in this evaluation, the following were concluded:
closely matched
In cases of wear with relatively small areal extent, the pulsed eddy current technology did not
reliably indicate the presence of FAC damage
Pulsed eddy current provided reliable detection of wear areas with wall loss exceeding 20%
and circumferential extent greater than 10 inches (254 mm)
pulsed eddy current technology
It is recommended that in the current state of technology development, examination of feedwater

heaters with pulsed eddy current be limited to shells with corrosion allowance that exceeds 20%
of the nominal wall thickness. For heaters with a lesser corrosion margin, the utility should use
the more conventional examination procedure of removing insulation and performing ultrasonic
thickness measurements over a 2- to 3-inch (50.8- to 76.2-mm) grid. EPRI plans to work with the
technology developer to reduce the pulsed eddy current examination footprint.
7-1
8
REFERENCES
1. CHECWORKS Users Group (CHUG) Position Paper No. 4, Recommendations for

Inspecting Feedwater Heater Shells for Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Damage, EPRI,
February 2000.
2. Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in Power Plants. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-106611-R1.
3. Recommendations for an Effective Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Program. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 1999. NSAC-202L-R2.
4. P. F. Lara, TEMP An Innovative System to Measure the Wall Thickness of Pipes, Tanks,
and Vessels Through Insulation. Paper presented at the ASNT Fall Conference in Boston,
MA (September 1991).
5. Evaluation of the Transient Electromagnetic Probing (TEMP) System for Detection of Wall
Thinning Through Insulation. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1992. TR-101680.
6. Assessment of the Pulsed Eddy Current Technique: Detecting Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in
Feedwater Piping. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1997. TR-109146.
7. FAC Wear Rate Assessment Through Insulation. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2000. 1000114.
8. Aptech Engineering Services, AES-ET-4, Revision 3, Eddy Current Specification Standard
Examination of Thermally Insulated Pipes and Vessels. October 2000.
8-1
WARNING: This Document contains

information classified under U.S. Export
Control regulations as restricted from
export outside the United States. You
are under an obligation to ensure that you have a
legal right to obtain access to this information
and to ensure that you obtain an export license
prior to any re-export of this information. Special
restrictions apply to access by anyone that is not
a United States citizen or a Permanent United
States resident. For further information regarding your obligations, please see the information
contained below in the section titled Export
Control Restrictions.
Export Control Restrictions

Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted
with the specific understanding and requirement that
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable
U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and your company. This includes an obligation
to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder who
is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted
access under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and
regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or
your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI
Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your
obligation to consult with your companys legal counsel to
determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may
make available on a case by case basis an informal assessment
of the applicable U.S. export classification for specific EPRI
Intellectual Property, you and your company acknowledge
that this assessment is solely for informational purposes and
not for reliance purposes. You and your company
acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your
company to make your own assessment of the applicable
U.S. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly.
You and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of
EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation
of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations.
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE
WRAPPING MATERIAL.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO
NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI
AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package
only for your own benefit and the benefit of your organization.This means that the following may use this package:
(I) your company (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and
(III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to
disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for its own benefit or the benefit of any party
other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between
most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License
Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHT
This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by
United States and international copyright laws.You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce,
translate or modify this package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
3. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information
contained in this package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless
such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized
disclosure or use of this package. Except as specified above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents,
copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of
this package.
4.TERM AND TERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this
package. EPRI has the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any
term or condition of this agreement. Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of
nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI,ANY MEMBER OF EPRI,ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING
ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY
OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE
IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and
you agree not to export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign government approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California between California residents.
About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for
the global energy and energy services industry.
U.S. electric utilities established the Electric Power
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
the company provides a wide range of innovative
products and services to more than 1000 energyrelated organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
draws on a worldwide network of technical and
business expertise to help solve todays toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Electrify the World
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement
between you and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No
waiver, variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
Program:
1006372
Nuclear Power
2001 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research
Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

In-Service Feed Water Heater Condition Assessment Using The Pulsed Eddy Current NDE Technology PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

In-Service Feed Water Heater Condition Assessment Using The Pulsed Eddy Current NDE Technology PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

In-Service Feedwater Heater Condition

Assessment Using the Pulsed Eddy

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly

In-Service Feedwater Heater

Final Report, November 2001

EPRI Project Managers

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

The following individuals from Aptech Engineering contributed to this project:

EPRI Licensed Material

4 INSPECTION OPTIONS .......................................................................................................4-1

The Pulsed Eddy Current Technology........................................................................4-1

Pulsed Eddy Current Principles of Operation .............................................................4-2

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Operation.........................................................................4-4

4.3.1 Adjustments to Calibration Shifts...........................................................................4-7

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

accepted as a trend. A more conventional view considers components to be prone to FAC at

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

The Pulsed Eddy Current Technology

It can penetrate carbon steel wall up to several inches thick.

EPRI Licensed Material

Is not affected by the heaters curvature.

Unable to assess small, localized areas

May underestimate wall loss

May miss areas of localized damage

May require recalibration at various locations in the vessel

The principles of operation are described in Section 4.2.

Pulsed Eddy Current Principles of Operation

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Operation

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Evaluation

EPRI Licensed Material

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Evaluation

EPRI Licensed Material

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Evaluation

EPRI Licensed Material

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Evaluation

EPRI Licensed Material

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Evaluation

EPRI Licensed Material

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Evaluation

EPRI Licensed Material

Pulsed Eddy Current Field Evaluation