Journal Pre-proof

Frequency domain analysis of magnetic field images obtained using TMR array
sensors for subsurface defect detection and quantification

Chaofeng Ye, Yang Wang, Meiling Wang, Lalita Udpa, SatishS. Udpa

PII: S0963-8695(19)30663-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2020.102284
Reference: JNDT 102284

To appear in: NDT and E International

Received Date: 8 November 2019

Revised Date: 24 March 2020
Accepted Date: 28 April 2020

Please cite this article as: Ye C, Wang Y, Wang M, Udpa L, Udpa S, Frequency domain analysis
of magnetic field images obtained using TMR array sensors for subsurface defect detection and
quantification, NDT and E International (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2020.102284.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Author Statement
Chaofeng Ye: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Original draft preparation.
Yang Wang: Experiment, Data processing, Writing-Original draft preparation.
Meiling Wang: Figures preparation. Lalita Udpa: Supervision, Writing- Reviewing
and Editing. Satish.S.Udpa: Writing- Reviewing and Editing
 Frequency Domain Analysis of Magnetic Field Images Obtained Using

TMR Array Sensors for Subsurface Defect Detection and Quantification

Chaofeng Ye a, Yang Wang a,b,c, Meiling Wang a,Lalita Udpa d, Satish.S.Udpa d

a
School of Information Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, 201210, China
b
Shanghai Institute of Microsystem and Information Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China
c
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
d
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

Abstract — Quantitative characterization of subsurface defects is a challenging problem in eddy

current testing (ECT), not only due to the limitation of the penetration depth of eddy currents, but also
due to the ill-posed nature of the inverse problem associated with quantifying a defect’s 3D dimensions
and its location in the test sample from measurements made on the sample surface. This paper presents
a new ECT method for subsurface defect detection and quantification. Eddy currents with continuously
varying frequency in a selected frequency band is induced in the conductive sample by using a chirp
modulated excitation scheme. The frequency band of the chirp waveform is chosen so that the
penetration depth of eddy current in the selected frequency band covers the thickness of the sample
under test. The presence of a defect will disturb the distribution of the induced eddy currents. This
disturbance is measured in terms of a varying magnetic field using an array of tunneling
magneto-resistance (TMR) sensors. A C-scan image is obtained by linearly scanning the specimen. The
footprint of the defect is calculated using spatial features of the C-scan image while the depth of the
defect is estimated by analyzing the frequency characteristics of the measured chirp signal. A
three-dimensional estimate of the dimensions of any subsurface defect can be obtained using the
empirical procedure. The operating principle of this method is studied with a finite element method
(FEM) model and then validated experimentally with a prototype array probe consisting of 180 TMR
sensors. Thanks to its high sensitivity, the TMR sensors are suitable for measuring the weak low
frequency magnetic field signal caused by a deep defect. The spacing between each two adjacent
sensors is as small as 0.5 mm providing a magnetic field image with fine spatial resolution, which is
beneficial for defect quantification. An aluminum sample with embedded defects was tested using the
prototype probe. It is seen that the proposed scheme utilizing spatial and frequency domain features is
capable of quantitatively characterizing subsurface defects.

Index Terms — eddy current testing, nondestructive testing, modulated excitation, TMR sensor,
magnetic field image

1 Introduction
Eddy current testing (ECT) is a widely used nondestructive testing (NDT) method for the
evaluation of conductive materials and structures. Eddy currents are induced in any conductive sample
under test, according to Faraday’s law, when a probe coil carrying an alternating current, is brought in
close proximity to the test specimen. Any change in the induced eddy current pattern caused by change
of coil lift-off, geometry change, presence of defects or variation in electrical and magnetic properties
of the sample is measured by monitoring the impedance of the probe coil or by a separate pickup
coil/sensor (transmitter-receiver principle). ECT is commonly used for detecting surface or near surface
defects. However, if a target defect is located deep inside a metal structure, it becomes more
challenging for ECT since the induced eddy current decays with depth [1]. Therefore, a lower fexc
should be selected to achieve deeper penetration depth. On the other hand, it should be noted that both
the induced eddy current density and the amplitude of the voltage in a pickup coil due to Faraday’s law
are directly proportional to fexc, implying low signal to noise ratio (SNR) at low fexc. This problem, can
be addressed by using magnetic field sensors with high sensitivity at low frequency to measure the
induced magnetic field directly [2]–[4]. To this end, different kinds of magnetic sensors have been
studied and applied in ECT in the past, such as, Hall effect sensors, superconducting quantum interface
device (SQUID), magneto-optic imaging sensors, fluxgate sensors and magnetoresistance sensors [5].
Each of these field sensors has its unique advantages and limitations in terms of sensitivity, size, power
consumption and cost.
In general, the sensor should be small for high resolution imaging, and offer high sensitivity as
well as low power consumption. A linear array of sensors can cover a large area with good resolution, if
rapid inspection is desired [6], [7]. Tunneling magneto-resistance (TMR) sensors are a promising
candidate for constructing array sensors. The TMR sensor consists of magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJ).
The state of art TMR sensor has an excellent sensitivity of 7.2 pT/√Hz@ 10 Hz[8], which is sufficient
to measure very weak magnetocardiography signals. The size of a MTJ is less than 10 [9].
Although a TMR sensor typically consists of dozens of MTJs, the total size is still less than 0.5 mm.
Therefore, a TMR sensor array can be used to obtain magnetic field images with very fine spatial
resolution and high sensitivity. Recently, Ye. et al developed and tested a high-density, large-scale TMR
sensor array that consists of 180 sensing elements with a sensor spacing of 0.5 mm. The sensor array
can detect defects at a distance of 8 mm from the surface of an aluminum sample and surface defects of
dimensions 300 μm × 300 μm × 400 μm [10].
Besides sensor performance, the excitation method is another key factor that influences subsurface
defect inspection. Single/multi-frequency harmonic excitation and pulsed excitation are the most
commonly used excitation methods in ECT. Harmonic excitation methods typically employ signals at a
few specified frequencies. These methods generally do not offer enough information for quantifying
3D defects [11], [12]. Pulsed excitation is an alternate method that provides information in a
continuous frequency spectrum [13]. The detection of subsurface cracks using pulsed excitation is
discussed in [14], [15]. However, due to weak coupling, the information is very noisy. An improved
approach using the ratio of the indirectly coupled energy to directly coupled energy is presented in [16].
In pulsed eddy current methods, the frequency spectrum of the excitation signal cannot be controlled
easily and hence may not be optimal for detecting defects embedded at a certain depth range [17].
Modulation can vary one or more properties of the excitation signal to make it optimal for a
specific inspection task. Li et al. present a frequency-band-selective pulsed eddy current testing method
for the detection of a certain depth range of defects. Betta et al. experimentally compared
multi-frequency and chirp modulated excitation based schemes to study the suitability of each
excitation method with respect to the detection of surface defects and their geometrical features [18].
Ferrigno et al. used a swept-frequency excitation signal along with an optimized pulse-compression
procedure to improve the performance of eddy current testing both in terms of increased penetration
depth and lift-off invariance. It was found that pulse-compression eddy current can represent a solution to
combine the advantages of pulsed and sinusoidal excitation strategies [19]. Burrascano et al. presented
frequency-modulated excitation signals with optimized sidelobes [20]. Liu et al. introduced
amplitude-modulated excitation currents for rotating eddy current testing, which enabled the sensor to
induce omnidirectional eddy currents in test materials [21]. For each test specimen geometry, the
optimal frequency range is first estimated in accordance with the skin depth of eddy currents. Using an
excitation waveform that focuses the energy in this optimal frequency range will improve the
probability of detection. To achieve this, modulated/coded excitation methods are investigated. This
paper investigates a novel approach using modulated excitation together with high sensitivity magnetic
field array sensors for detecting and characterizing deeply embedded defects.
With a high spatial resolution due to the large number of sensing elements per unit length, the
EC-TMR sensor array provides high resolution 2D magnetic field images. The excitation waveform is
chirp modulated, which has continuous frequency spectrum in a desired frequency range. The
frequency range is optimized according to the thickness of the sample. Therefore, the energy of the
eddy currents is concentrated in the desired depth range of the sample. The outputs of the TMR sensors
are also modulated in this frequency range. The 2D magnetic field image and its frequency spectrum
are analyzed to obtain 3D information of the defect such as, depth location and size of the defect. The
operating principle of the method is studied using a finite element method (FEM) model. The
feasibility of the proposed method for subsurface defect detection is also validated experimentally by
using a prototype probe with TMR array sensors to test a multilayer aluminum sample with machined
subsurface defects.

2 Operational Principles
2.1 Chirp Modulated Excitation
The chirp modulated excitation waveform is written as:
( ) = ( )sin( ( )) (1)
where ( ) is the amplitude function and ( ) is the phase function. These two functions are desired
to be optimized for specific inspection tasks. The optimization procedure is beyond the scope of this
paper and will be the subject matter of a future publication. To illustrate the operating principle of the
method, ( ) is chosen as a rectangular window function as shown in equation (2), where T is the
width of the window function. ( ) is a quadrature function of t as shown in equation (3), in which f1
and f2 are specified frequencies. A typical chirp excitation waveform is shown in figure 1 (a). The
corresponding frequency spectrum of the signal is shown in figure 1 (b). It is seen that the frequency
spectrum is continuous and the energy of the excitation waveform is concentrated in the frequency
range [f1, f2].

1 0≤ ≤T
( )=
0
(2)

( )=2 [ +( − ) /(2!)] (3)

Signal

0 T
Time
(a)
Energy

f1 f2
0 f
Frequency
(b)

Figure 1. Typical time domain chirp waveform (a) and its frequency spectrum (b).

For a homogeneous magnetic excitation parallel to the inspection surface, the skin depth
associated with an eddy current is given in equation (4) [1].

δ( ) = (4)
$%&'(

where and ) are the permeability and conductivity of the test sample material respectively, f is the
excitation frequency. δ is, therefore, inversely correlated with the square root of the excitation
frequency. Therefore, by choosing the frequency range [f1, f2] properly, it is possible to make δ( )
greater than the maximum possible depth of the defect and the δ( ) less than the minimum distance
from the top surface of the sample to the defect in the given sample geometry. Consequently, the region
from δ( ) to δ( ) covers the depth range of interest in an inspection task. Since the spectrum of the
chirp modulated waveform is continuous in the frequency range [f1, f2], the measured signal also has
continuous frequency response in this frequency range so that the frequency characteristics of the
measured signal is related to the defect location and depth.
2.2 FEM Simulation
A FEM model is constructed to study the operating principle of the chirp modulated excitation
method. The model is developed using the commercial FEM simulation software package COMSOL
Multiphysics®. A conductive sample with a defect, as shown in figure 2, is simulated. The dimensions of
the conductive sample are 50 mm (length) × 50 mm (width) × 24 mm (depth). The sample is divided
into 3 layers with each layer 8 mm deep. There is no air gap between the layers. The electrical
conductivity and relative permeability are 2×107 S and 1 respectively. The distance of the defect relative
to the top surface of the sample is referred to as depth location (labeled as ‘d’ in figure 2 and in following
text). The depth of the defect is labeled as ‘h’.
A rectangular defect of dimensions, 10 mm (length) × 2 mm (width) × 8 mm (depth) is
considered. The defect is located at a depth of 8 mm (d=8 mm). The center of the defect is located at the
origin (0 mm, 0 mm). The excitation current is a uniformly distributed surface current in the y-direction.
The current is a chirp waveform defined in equation (1) with T = 11 ms, f1 = 100 Hz and f2 = 1.5 kHz.
The z component of the magnetic field 1mm above the top surface of the sample is measured. A time
domain signal measured at (x, y, z) = (5, 0, 13) mm, which is on top of the defect edge is presented in
figure 3 (a). The frequency spectrum of the signal is shown in figure 3(b). It is seen that the frequency
spectrum increases first and then decreases. This is because according to Maxwell equations, the
density of the induced eddy current is small at very low frequency. On the other hand, the penetration
depth of an eddy current decreases as the frequency increases. As a result, the penetration depth of the
eddy currents is less than the depth location of the defect (d) resulting in small defect signal at high
excitation frequency. Assuming these two effects superpose, the frequency spectrum has a peak at a
specific frequency. This frequency distribution characteristic is a feature will be used for defect depth
estimation.
Surface current
Air

z
y

Aluminum Plates
d
h

Defect

Figure 2. Geometry of the FEM model.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Simulation result: a) time domain signal and b) frequency domain response of a rectangular defect with d=8
mm.
2.3 Frequency Spectrum of Different Defects
Next, defects at different depth locations (d) and different depths (h) are investigated. Figure 4 (a)
shows the spectrum of the signals of defects located at different values of d. All the other parameters are
the same as stated in Section 2.2. The blue curve in figure 4 (a), for d = 0 mm (surface defect) shows a
strong high frequency response, which is commonly seen in ECT. The red and green curves in figure 4
(a), for d = 8 mm and d = 16 mm, are of much smaller amplitudes. More importantly, it should be
noticed that the frequency ranges of the signals of the subsurface defects are much lower than the
signal due to surface defect. Actually, it is seen that the frequency where the strongest signal appears
decreases as the defect location depth (d) increases.
Figure 4 (b) shows the spectrum of the signals of defects with different h but identical d. We see that
even through the amplitudes are different, the frequencies where the peaks of the signals appear are
similar indicating that the peak frequency is relatively insensitive to defect depth ‘h’ but strongly
correlated with the depth location of the defect (d). Therefore, frequency of the peak can be used to
quantify the location of the defect.
10-5
2
d =layer
1st 0 mm
d =layer
2nd 8 mm
1.5 3rd
d =layer
16 mm

0.5

0
101 102 103
Frequency (Hz)
(a)

h = 2 mm
h = 4 mm
h = 6 mm
h = 8 mm

(b)

Figure 4. Frequency spectrum of defects with different embedded location ‘d’ (a) and different depth ‘h’ (b).

3 Experimental Studies
This section describes the experimental validation of the method.
3.1 Experimental Setup
The experimental setup is shown in figure 5. In the experiment, a chirp modulated waveform is
generated using a digital arbitrary waveform generator. The generator communicates with the data
acquisition system (DAQ) through a USB cable. The waveform is amplified and then applied to the
rectangular excitation coil. A linear TMR sensor array with 180 sensor elements, developed and tested
earlier, is used to image the magnetic field. The distance between two adjacent sensors is 0.5 mm.
Details of the TMR array can be found in [10]. The sensor array is located on the symmetry line of the
rectangular coil measuring the normal component of the magnetic field (Bz). The 180 sensors are
divided into 12 groups with each group having 15 elements. The 15 signals from each sensor group are
multiplexed and then acquired using a 16-bit digital system.
Multilayered aluminum samples with machined defects are scanned using the prototype probe.
The defects are located in the 2nd layer, as shown in figure 6. The defects labeled #1, #2, #3 and #4 are
located at the same depth and have the same defect depth, but different lengths (20 mm, 15 mm, 10 mm
and 5mm respectively). The defects labeled #2, #5 and #6 are located at the same depth and have the
same defect length, but different defect depths (h =3 mm, 2 mm, 1 mm respectively). The widths of the
defects are identical (1 mm). The probe scans the top surface of the sample moving along a straight line
by a scanner driven by a stepper motor.

15 signals outputs

Probe
12 to 1
Amplifier
Multiplexer

180 TMR
Array Low Pass
Filter
Coil

Power
Amplifier

Signal
Scanner
Generator
Figure 5. Diagram of the experiment setup.

Figure 6. Test aluminum sample: lateral view, photograph and dimensions of the machined defects.

3.2 Raw Experimental Data

The excitation waveform used in the experiment is chirp modulated as described by equations
(1)-(3), with T=11 ms, = 100 Hz and = 1500 Hz. The raw signals measured at an observation
point on the defect edge are recorded. Bz versus time curves for defects with lengths varying from 5
mm (defect #4) to 20 mm (defect #1) is presented in figure 7(a). Figure 7 (b) show the plots of defects
with depths varying from 1 mm (defect #6) to 3 mm (defect #2). Figure 7 (c) shows maximum
amplitude of Bz versus defect length. It is seen that for defects with different lengths, the amplitude of
the signal is positively correlated with the defect length. This is wholly consistent with the simulation
results. Signals obtained for different values of defect depths demonstrating the positive correlation of
signal amplitude with defect depth, as shown in figure 7 (d).
3.3 Comparison of Experimental and Simulation Signals
Figure 8 compares the experimental and numerical simulation signals measured above the edge of
defect #3. The amplitudes of the signals are normalized in the plot. It is seen that the two curves are
comparable from a qualitative perspective, which validates the FEM model presented in section 2. The
mismatches between the simulation and the experiment are likely due to the following reasons. First,
the excitation fields are not identical; the simulation model employs infinite surface current (employed
to save calculation time), while the experiment utilizes a rectangular excitation coil above the sample.
Second, the parameters, e.g. the conductivity of the sample and the lift-off distance of the sensor in the
numerical model may be slightly different from the actual parameters associated with the experiment.
Finally, the unavoidable electromagnetic interference and noise in the experiment introduces errors.
 Amplitude (V)
Amplitude (V)

(a) (b)

(b) (d)
Figure 7. Experimental raw data measured on top of the defect edges: (a) Bz versus time of the defects with
lengths varying from 5 mm (defect #4) to 20 mm (defect #1), (b) Bz versus time of defects with depths varying
from 1 mm (defect #6) to 3 mm (defect #2), (c) maximum amplitude of Bz versus defect length and (d) maximum
amplitude of Bz versus defect depth (d).

1 Simulation
Normalized amplitude

Experiment
0.5

-0.5

-1
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Time (s)
Figure 8. Comparison of experimental and simulation signals measured above defect #3 (length 10 mm, width 2
mm, depth 3 mm).

4 Signal Processing
Since the amplitude of the signal is affected by the defect size and defect depth, it is difficult to
quantify the defect dimensions simultaneously from amplitude data alone. In this section, an empirical
defect quantification algorithm based on spatial and frequency domain features of the signal is
introduced to characterize subsurface defects.
4.1 Defect Length Evaluation
The defect length is calculated from C-scan image data as follows. Assume the time domain signal
measured at an observation point (x, y) is g (t, x, y). The frequency spectrum ,(-, /, 0) of g (t, x, y) is
obtained by Fourier transforming the signal, where - = 2 . A C-scan image is generated by using a
signal feature at each observation point in the scan plane. For example, figure 9 (a) shows the time
domain signal measured at an observation point on the edge of defect #2. Figure 9 (b) presents the
frequency spectrum of this signal. The peak of the frequency spectrum curve is noted and the frequency
range [fs1, fs2] in which the signal amplitude drops to 30% of the peak is obtained, as shown in figure 9
(b). The signal amplitude in this frequency range is averaged to generate a feature as shown in equation
(5). A plot of Fs at each point on the scan plane produces a C-scan image. The C-scan image of the #2
defect is as shown in figure 9 (c).
&56
,(-, /, 0)
F2 = 3 4- (5)
&57 2 − 2

5
Amplitude (V)

-5

0 2.5 5 7.5 10
Time (s)
(a)

0.15
Amplitude (V)

0.1

0.05

fs1 fs2
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Frequency (Hz)
(b)

(c)

Figure 9. Example showing the signal in the frequency domain, a) time domain signal at one observation point, b)
frequency spectrum of the signal and c) C-scan image of the defect # 2 (length 15 mm, width 2 mm, depth 3 mm).

All 6 defects in the sample were inspected using the probe and the data collected was processed as
described above. The resulting C-scan images are shown in figure 10. It is seen that all the defects are
detectable from these figures. A C-scan image of a rectangular notch has two peaks that occur at the
ends. The distance between these two peaks is a good measure of the defect length as presented in
figure 11. It is seen that the peak-to-peak distance is linearly correlated with the defect length.
Consequently, the length of the defect is quantified by calculating the distance between the two peaks
in the C-scan image.
Further, it is seen that the amplitude of the peak is non-linearly correlated with both the length and
depth of the defect, as shown in figure 12.
 #1

(a)
#2

(b)
#3

(c)
#4

(d)
#5

(e)
#6

(f)
Figure 10. C-scan image of defect a) #1, b) #2, c) #3, d) #4, e) #5, f) #6.

Figure 11. The distance of the two peaks of the C-scan image as a function of the defect length
 (a)

(b)
Figure 12. Peak amplitude of the signal versus a) defect length and b) defect depth.

4.2 Evaluation of Defect Location and Depth

A method based on analysis of the frequency spectrum is proposed to quantify the defect location
below the surface and defect depth. Here the width of the rectangular window function (T) was set to
be 100 ms and all the other parameters were kept identical as previously explained. The flowchart of
the algorithm is shown in figure 13. The frequency spectrum is obtained by Fourier transforming the
time domain signal. Then, the frequency spectrum in the effective frequency range [f1, f2] is fitted with
a curve. As shown in figure 14, the blue line is the frequency spectrum of the signal measured at the
edge of defect #2 and the red line is the fitted curve. Lastly, the peak of the fitted curve is normalized to
1.
Time domain Fourier
signal transform

Bandwidth Frequency
selection (f1, f2) spectrum

Truncated Curve fitting

spectrum

Fitted curve

Normalization

Figure 13. Flow chat of the signal processing for defect depth quantification based on frequency spectrum of chirp
modulated measurement.
The normalized amplitude of the frequency spectrum curves of signals from the defect #1 to #4
are shown in figure 15 (a). These defects have different lengths but the same depth location (d). It is
seen that the curves in figure 15 (a) are almost identical demonstrating that this curve is not sensitive to
the defect length. The peaks of these curves are at about 500 Hz, which corresponds well within the
defect depth location (d). The defect depth location (d) can therefore be estimated from the peak
frequency.
 The normalized amplitude of the frequency spectrum of signals from the defect #2, #5 and #6 are
shown in figure 15 (b). These defects are identical in length but are of different depths (h). Each defect
was scanned and measured 5 times. The signals clearly indicate the influence of the defect depth. This is
reasonable considering that the frequency spectrum of the measurement is correlated with penetration
depth of the eddy current. Therefore, defects with different depths generate different frequency
distribution.

Figure 14. Curve fitting of the of the frequency spectrum curve using piecewise function, taking the signal
measure above of the edge of defect #2 as an example.

(a)

(b)

Figure 15. Frequency spectrum of signals due to defects of different lengths (a) and different depths (b).

The fitted curves of the frequency spectrum for defects #1 through #4 are shown in figure 16 (a).
Similar curves are shown for defects #2, #5 and #6 are shown in figure 16 (b). A threshold value of the
amplitude is chosen and the frequency where the amplitude reaches this threshold value is calculated.
The frequency band width from the threshold value to the peak of the curve, indicated by the green line in
figure 16 (b), is calculated as a feature to quantify the defect depth. The threshold was set as -3dB of the
peak, as shown in figure 16 (b). The calculated frequency bandwidth versus defect depth and the error bar
for multiple measurements are presented in figure 17. The maximum relative error of the feature among
different measurements is 6.64%. It is seen that this feature monotonically decreases with defect depth
and is capable of classifying defects with different depths reliably.
The location and depth of subsurface defect can therefore be estimated from the frequency
spectrum of the ECT signal. Theoretically, the frequency spectrum can also be obtained using the
conventional pulsed excitation and multi-frequency ECT. However, it should be noted that for a
specific test sample geometry and desired depth of interest, the chirp modulated excitation, allows
choice of optimum frequency range and is hence more effective than pulsed excitation. For
multi-frequency ECT technique, many excitation waveforms with discrete frequency distribution need
to be tested. In comparison, chirp excitation has a continuous frequency distribution and is, hence, a
more efficient approach.

(a)

(b)

Figure 16. Fitted curves of defects with a) different lengths and b) different depths.

Figure 17. Bandwidth changes with defect depth.

5 Conclusion
This paper presents a feasibility study demonstrating the use of a chirp modulated signal excited
eddy current probe. The frequency range of the excitation signal was chosen to be in an optimal
frequency range for subsurface defect detection. A chirp waveform modulated with a rectangular
window function and quadrature phase function was applied to illustrate the operating principles. The
frequency range of the chirp waveform was selected on the basis of the desired penetration depth. A
FEM model was used to predict the output signal corresponding to the chirp modulated excitation. The
results show that the amplitude of the frequency spectrum of the signal from a subsurface defect first
increases and then decreases with frequency. The frequency where the peak appears is strongly
correlated with the depth location of the defect. In order to validate the concept experimentally, a TMR
sensor array with 180 sensor elements was developed for high resolution imaging at very low
frequency of operation. Aluminum samples with machined defects were inspected using the prototype
probe. The experimental signals were found to be consistent with the simulation results. A defect
quantification algorithm based on the frequency spectrum distribution of the signal is presented for
characterizing subsurface defects. A C-scan image of a rectangular notch shows two peaks. The
peak-to-peak distance of the two peaks is shown to be linearly correlated with defect length. To
quantify the defect depth, the frequency spectrum was fitted with a curve and normalized. The
frequency band width between a threshold value and the peak of the curve was demonstrated to be
monotonically correlated with the defect depth but unaffected by defect length. In short, this paper
presents features for quantitatively characterizing subsurface defects using characteristics of the signal
in spatial and frequency domains.
Additional studies need to be conducted before field application. Due to the limited number of test
samples, the accuracy and resolution of the method have not been fully characterized. In the future, the
probability of detection (POD) of the method for different defect parameters will be investigated
employing a large amount of experiment data. We are working on ways to optimize the chirp signal
automatically for a given inspection task. Furthermore, the signal processing algorithm needs to be
evaluated in the presence of noise and artifacts introduced as a result of lift-off variations, interference
of fasteners or edges in the structure and variations in material properties. The effect of these
parameters should be investigated to improve the robustness of the method. These tasks are currently in
progress.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Shanghai Pujiang Program under Grant 18PJ1408400.

Reference
[1] S. Jiao, X. Liu, and Z. Zeng, “Intensive Study of Skin Effect in Eddy Current Testing With Pancake Coil,” Ieee Trans.
Magn., vol. 53, no. 7, p. 6201608, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TMAG.2017.2669181.
[2] C. Ye, Y. Huang, L. Udpa, and S. S. Udpa, “Novel Rotating Current Probe With GMR Array Sensors for Steam Generate
Tube Inspection,” Ieee Sens. J., vol. 16, no. 12, pp. 4995–5002, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2016.2556221.
[3] O. Postolache, A. L. Ribeiro, and H. G. Ramos, “GMR array uniform eddy current probe for defect detection in conductive
specimens,” Measurement, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 4369–4378, Dec. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2013.06.050.
[4] M. V. Kreutzbruck, U. Baby, A. Theiss, M. Muck, and C. Heiden, “Inspection of aircraft parts with high remanent
magnetization by eddy current SQUID NDE,” IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 3805–3808, Jun. 1999, doi:
10.1109/77.783856.
[5] C. Ye, A. Rosell, and L. Udpa, “Using Magnetoresistive Sensors in Nondestructive Testing,” Mater. Eval., vol. 76, no. 2, pp.
144–154, Feb. 2018.
[6] T. Chen, Y. He, and J. Du, “A High-Sensitivity Flexible Eddy Current Array Sensor for Crack Monitoring of Welded
Structures under Varying Environment,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 6, p. 1780, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.3390/s18061780.
[7] M. Le, S. Sim, J. Kim, and J. Lee, “Nondestructive Testing of Heat Exchanger Tubes in Balance of Plant using Bobbin Coil
and Bobbin-Type Integrated Hall Sensor Array,” Mater. Eval., vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 79–89, Jan. 2018.
[8] “Measurement of Triaxial Magnetocardiography Using High Sensitivity Tunnel Magnetoresistance Sensor - IEEE Journals
& Magazine.” [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8756090. [Accessed: 15-Aug-2019].
[9] H. Sato et al., “Junction size effect on switching current and thermal stability in CoFeB/MgO perpendicular magnetic
tunnel junctions,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 99, no. 4, p. 042501, Jul. 2011, doi: 10.1063/1.3617429.
[10] C. Ye, Y. Wang, and Y. Tao, “High-Density Large-Scale TMR Sensor Array for Magnetic Field Imaging,” IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas., pp. 1–8, 2018, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2018.2866299.
[11] O. Karpenko, C. Ye, and L. Udpa, “Dual frequency fusion for defect signal enhancement in EC-GMR inspecton of riveted
multilayer structures,” Ndt E Int., vol. 92, pp. 97–103, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ndteint.2017.07.015.
[12] S. Shokralla, J. E. Morelli, and T. W. Krause, “Principal Components Analysis of Multifrequency Eddy Current Data Used
to Measure Pressure Tube to Calandria Tube Gap,” Ieee Sens. J., vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 3147–3154, May 2016, doi:
10.1109/JSEN.2016.2529721.
[13] G. Y. Tian, A. Sophian, D. Taylor, and J. Rudlin, “Multiple sensors on pulsed eddy-current detection for 3-D subsurface
crack assessment,” IEEE Sens. J., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 90–96, Feb. 2005, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2004.839129.
[14] D.-G. Park, C. S. Angani, B. P. C. Rao, G. Vértesy, D.-H. Lee, and K.-H. Kim, “Detection of the Subsurface Cracks in a
Stainless Steel Plate Using Pulsed Eddy Current,” J. Nondestruct. Eval., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 350–353, Dec. 2013, doi:
10.1007/s10921-013-0188-6.
[15] V. Arjun, B. Sasi, B. P. C. Rao, C. K. Mukhopadhyay, and T. Jayakumar, “Optimisation of pulsed eddy current probe for
detection of sub-surface defects in stainless steel plates,” Sens. Actuators Phys., vol. 226, pp. 69–75, May 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.sna.2015.02.018.
[16] L. Xie, B. Gao, G. Y. Tian, J. Tan, B. Feng, and Y. Yin, “Coupling pulse eddy current sensor for deeper defects NDT,” Sens.
Actuators Phys., vol. 293, pp. 189–199, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.sna.2019.03.029.
[17] G. Y. Tian, Y. He, I. Adewale, and A. Simm, “Research on spectral response of pulsed eddy current and NDE applications,”
Sens. Actuators Phys., vol. 189, pp. 313–320, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.sna.2012.10.011.
[18] G. Betta, L. Ferrigno, M. Laracca, P. Burrascano, M. Ricci, and G. Silipigni, “An experimental comparison of
multi-frequency and chirp excitations for eddy current testing on thin defects,” Measurement, vol. 63, pp. 207–220, Mar. 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.measurement.2014.12.015.
[19] L. Ferrigno, M. Laracca, H. Malekmohammadi, G. Y. Tian, and M. Ricci, “Comparison of time and frequency domain
features’ immunity against lift-off in pulse-compression eddy current imaging,” NDT E Int., vol. 107, p. 102152, Oct. 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.ndteint.2019.102152.
[20] P. Burrascano, S. Laureti, L. Senni, and M. Ricci, “Pulse Compression in Nondestructive Testing Applications: Reduction
of Near Sidelobes Exploiting Reactance Transformation,” Ieee Trans. Circuits Syst. -Regul. Pap., vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 1886–1896,
May 2019, doi: 10.1109/TCSI.2018.2862868.
[21] L. Xiucheng, Y. Jieming, W. Bin, and H. Cunfu, “A novel generation method of oscillatory rotating eddy current for crack
orientation determination and detection in metal plates,” NDT E Int., vol. 97, pp. 1–10, Jul. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.ndteint.2018.03.002.
Declaration of interests

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

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: