2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ndteint.2021.102587
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transient eddy current response to pulsed eddy current testing inside a ferromagnetic casing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…ecently, with the increasing concern for safety in oil and gas production, the use of eddy current nondestructive testing (NDT) [1] for wellbore casings has undergone considerable investigation. As a general solution, pulsed (transient) eddy current (PEC) techniques [2,3] are employed for NDT of wellbore casings [4,5] as they enable rapid and accurate acquisition of low-frequency range data from time decay signals [6,7]. A borehole PEC system typically uses pulsed or transient signals as the coil excitation [8,9], and the metal pipe thickness as well as various defects can be determined by the amplitude and phase of the response received by a magnetic sensor, such as a coil sensor [10], hall sensor [11], and magnetic resistance sensor [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ecently, with the increasing concern for safety in oil and gas production, the use of eddy current nondestructive testing (NDT) [1] for wellbore casings has undergone considerable investigation. As a general solution, pulsed (transient) eddy current (PEC) techniques [2,3] are employed for NDT of wellbore casings [4,5] as they enable rapid and accurate acquisition of low-frequency range data from time decay signals [6,7]. A borehole PEC system typically uses pulsed or transient signals as the coil excitation [8,9], and the metal pipe thickness as well as various defects can be determined by the amplitude and phase of the response received by a magnetic sensor, such as a coil sensor [10], hall sensor [11], and magnetic resistance sensor [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A variety of factors such as temperature drift, inspection tool movement speed, baseline wander (Dang et al 2020), and the non-uniformity in casing permeability contributes to the perturbations in EM data. In addition, other conductive wellbore components such as collars often greatly affect EM sensor readings (Sun et al 2022). Indeed, a significant amount of research has been focused on the signal processing and de-noising of EM measurements (Ling et al 2021, Liu et al 2014, Jun et al 2006, as well as the identification and removal of collar-induced anomalies (Sharar et al 2008, Wilson and Brooks 2001, Fouda et al 2020.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The complications in metal loss detection has led the development of inspection algorithms to estimate the average amount of remaining metal at a given layer of casings (Brill et al 2011), omitting directional and dimensional information. EM inspection methods such as pulsed eddy current (Sun et al 2022) and magnetic flux leakage (Assous et al 2021, Wilt et al 2020) are widely used approaches that make use of the variations in the amplitudes and phases of induced EM fields. To ensure robustness, such tools include multiple layers of sensors operating on one or more frequencies in order to enable the detection of metal loss on outer casings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Continuous and pulsed eddy current inspection tools (Aslanyan et al 2014, Sun et al 2022) commonly rely on measuring the secondary EM field generated by eddy currents induced on surrounding casings by transmitter (TX) coils. The continuous method measures the change in amplitude and phase of the EM fields, while pulsed methods measure the decay curve of the EM fields (Rourke et al 2014) in the period of time when the TX is switched off.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%