Eddy current inspection of AGR fuel channels:
keyway cracks and density mapping
Thomas Bloodworth
Bloodworth Consulting Limited
107 Trevore Drive, Wigan, WN1 2TT, UK
+44 (0)7725 520391
tbloodworth@btinternet.com
Mark Anderson
James Fisher Nuclear Limited
York Road Business Park, Malton, N. Yorkshire, YO17 6YB, UK
Matthew Brown and John Williams
EDF Energy
Barnett Way, Barnwood, Gloucester, GL4 3RS, UK
Abstract
There have been efforts to develop eddy-current inspection for the graphite moderator
bricks in Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) cores for a number of years. The only access to
the graphite bricks is down the fuel channel bore whilst the reactor is off load and the
fuel has been removed from the channel.
There is a need for a technique that will detect cracks that have the potential to
propagate from the external keyways of the bricks, but do not reach the bore; i.e. the
cracks remain subsurface. As graphite is an electrical conductor, albeit with a high
resistivity, eddy current testing is a suitable technology to apply to this problem.
In 2009 a proof-of-principle eddy current tool was deployed at Hartlepool and has since
had three further deployments at Heysham 1 and Hinkley Point B reactors.
Variations in electrical resistivity over the bore surface of the bricks are the greatest
limitation on defect detection. However, the sensitivity of eddy current probes to
resistivity – and therefore capability to map the graphite density - has provided an
additional opportunity to gain further information on the condition of the graphite
bricks.
In March 2012, a prototype tool was deployed for the first time at Heysham 1. This
paper provides a summary of the work undertaken from development through to
deployment of the prototype tool in 2012.
1
Introduction
The graphite bricks that make up the core of an Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR)
are known to degrade during the course of their operating life. There is potential for the
bricks to crack as a result of dimensional change gradients set up within the bricks
caused by fast neutron irradiation. The graphite bricks are also prone to material
degradation as a result of radiolytic oxidization. A programme of routine inspection is
carried out during periodic reactor shutdowns, using tools lowered into the fuel
channels. Remote visual inspection is effective at detecting cracks and other
discontinuities at the channel bore surface. Samples are removed by trepanning in order
to measure the loss in density of the graphite and other material properties. The loss of
density (increased porosity) is related to a loss in the strength of the graphite.
It is predicted that as reactors get older, the stress fields in the core bricks change. In
particular, the bricks become susceptible to cracking initiated at the external keyways,
rather than at the bore. If such cracks do not propagate through the brick all the way to
the bore, then they cannot be detected by the remote visual inspection deployed within
the bore.
There is therefore a requirement for an inspection that is capable of detecting these subsurface ‘keyway cracks’. Graphite is an electrical conductor and so eddy current testing
is a suitable technology to apply to the problem.
Moreover, using destructive testing to determine the state of degradation of the graphite
is not ideal. It would be preferred to complement the trepanning with a non-destructive
evaluation of the material enabling complete coverage of selected channels without
further degradation of the graphite bricks.
2
Geometry and Access
The shape of the fuel channel core bricks varies slightly between stations, but typically
they are approximately cylindrical and almost 1 m tall, with an outer diameter of almost
0.5 m. There is a cylindrical hole down the middle of each brick. The bricks are stacked
on top of one another in the core, so that there is a continuous channel into which the
fuel assembly is positioned. During refuelling operations, the old fuel assembly is lifted
out, so that the bore of the channel is accessible for inspection until the new fuel is put
in. The start-of-life bore diameter varies between stations, but is typically (Hartlepool HRA, Heysham 1 - HYA) 270 mm. The core bricks lie between about 14 m and 22 m
below the access on the charge face of the reactor.
The fuel channel bricks are held in place with the other bricks in the core by means of
graphite keys that lock between the axial keyways on the outside of the bricks. In the
Hartlepool/ Heysham 1 bricks, the keyways are only present in the top third of the brick.
The wall thickness between the base of the keyway and the bore is 54 mm in these
bricks. Since the objective is to detect cracks growing from the keyways, the bore-tokeyway distance is an important parameter for inspection design.
Many holes are drilled axially through the full height of the brick, to allow gas
circulation. These holes provide an obstruction to the circulation of eddy currents.
2
Figure 1 shows a section of a fuel channel brick with a sub-surface keyway crack and a
simplified view of how access to the bore of the fuel channel bricks can be achieved.
Hoist and control
Charge face
Channel bore
Support chains and
umbilical
Empty fuel channel
Keyway
Keyway crack
Reactor core
Inspection tool
Figure 1: Fuel channel brick section and schematic view of inspection access
3
Development of eddy current inspection
3.1 Definition of eddy current problem
The objective of the inspection was to detect cracking that grows from the corner at the
base of the keyway. Significant eddy current penetration is therefore needed at the radial
distance from the bore corresponding to the base of the keyway. To achieve penetration
to a depth of 54 mm from the bore (as in Heysham 1/ Hartlepool design), a coil with a
large diameter is needed.
The resistivity of virgin Gilsocarbon graphite is about 10 µΩm but quite variable. It is
known that the resistivity of core graphite increases with age, as it becomes more
porous. The porosity and hence resistivity is greatest in the first 10 mm or so of the
surface at the bore. Estimates of 30 to 50 µΩm have been made for the resistivity of the
surface material.
The dependence of penetration depth of eddy currents in the graphite on resistivity and
coil excitation frequency is given approximately by the skin depth relation; penetration
is proportional to the square root of the ratio of resistivity to frequency. The standard
penetration depth in virgin Gilsocarbon (10 µΩm) at 4 kHz is about 25 mm. In material
of resistivity 50 µΩm, the standard penetration depth increases to about 56 mm.
In the true geometry, penetration is influenced by the size of the coil, the curvature of
the brick surface and the presence of the gas-circulation holes.
3
3.2 Early Development
In the mid-1980s an interest in the problem of keyway cracking led to some preliminary
investigations at CEGB(1,2) and then Nuclear Electric(3); the idea of treating the graphite
brick as a large tube and testing it with a co-axial bobbin coil was proposed.
It was not until 2000 that further work was done by John Turner(4) of Phoenix
Inspection Systems in collaboration with NNC. Turner rejected the single axial bobbin
coil idea as being insufficiently sensitive, in favour of surface coils of 70 mm diameter
that could be used to resolve defect signals around the brick circumference as well as
axially. Further laboratory studies(5,6) investigated the detection of discontinuities
following the expected cracking direction between the holes in slices of virgin bricks.
The sensitivity of the response to crack tightness was demonstrated.
3.3 Phase 1 Core Inspection Tool Development
In 2007, the scanning of inspection probes over the bore surface became the focus of
development. Phoenix Inspection manufactured a manipulator that was able to perform
rotational, axial or helical scan patterns. The 70 mm-diameter coils were used in
impedance bridge mode, with a local reference coil.
The manipulator was used to scan the bore of stacks of two or more virgin core bricks in
Amec’s Risley laboratory facility. Figure 2 shows the manipulator in use in a two-brick
stack. The mechanism is held centrally by spring-loaded PTFE feet, which slide over
the bore surface. The probe is held slightly away from the surface below one of the feet.
Figure 2: Phoenix laboratory manipulator in use at Amec facility in June 2007
Several bricks containing cracks and slots to simulate keyway cracking were examined
using the manipulator. The performance of different scanning patterns was compared.
4
The simplest way to get complete coverage of the brick was to perform a helical scan.
One option considered was however that rotation could be avoided by using a multi-coil
array. Coverage equivalent to that of a 24-coil array was achieved on the experimental
rig by making axial raster scans with a single probe at a 15° pitch.
Material variation in the bricks (heterogeneous resistivity) caused large interfering
signals. Two-frequency mixing was employed to reduce the effect of resistivity
variation. The mixed channels showed improved capability for detection of the deeper
simulated keyway defects. Figure 3 shows a C-scan image of the mixed and high-pass
filtered data from two bricks. The simulated defects are labelled with the through wall
extent from keyway to bore.
As part of the phase 1 work, mathematical modelling of the inspection was performed
using the Vector Fields Opera 3D electromagnetic modelling software. Responses from
a number of simple slot defects were modelled and the modelling results were validated
by comparison with actual measurements on specimens of the same defects. Once
validated, the model could be used for a range of parametric tests that are difficult or
impossible with real samples.
rotation
Interface &
end-face keyways
49%
Brick
with slots
9%
62%
51%
metal
axial
39%
Interface &
end-face keyways
Brick
with crack
100% crack
Figure 3: Helical scan of two virgin bricks – 4/20 kHz mixed and filtered result
The aim of the phase1 work was to determine what would be a suitable strategy for the
design of a tool to be used in-reactor. The intention was to adapt one of the existing core
inspection hoists to carry an eddy current tool for measurements in the reactor core.
Phase 1 showed that the helical scans produced the better data, but axial raster scans
with a 15° pitch were shown to be a possible solution if helical scans proved not to be
technically feasible with the hoist units.
5
It was shown that it is possible to detect open slots simulating sub-surface cracks in
virgin graphite, with suitable mixing and filtering. At this stage there were still many
unknown factors to be considered:
•
In-core graphite was known to have a higher resistivity than virgin graphite.
•
The amount of variation in resistivity within the channel and the extent to which it
would obscure sub-surface crack signals were unknown.
•
If sub-surface cracks are very tight, then the size of their eddy current response
will be very much reduced.
4
Proof-of-principle eddy current tool
In late 2008, British Energy invited tenders for the supply of a proof-of-principle eddy
current tool (PoPECT) for reactor trials. James Fisher Nuclear Limited was awarded the
contract.
PoPECT was designed to be lowered and raised into and out of the fuel channels using
the existing hoists used for other core monitoring tools. The hoists are large pieces of
equipment; almost 4 tonnes (see Figure 4). The hoist mechanisms are enclosed so can
be sealed to the open channel and be matched to reactor pressure during deployment.
The inside of the enclosure is a contamination control C2 area.
Figure 4: Core monitoring tool delivery hoist
PoPECT is a robust mechanism encased in stainless steel for ease of decontamination
(Figure 5). The tool is suspended by chains from the hoist. The bottom half of the tool
can be rotated. The eddy current probe is deployed and retracted from an opening in the
casing. An identical 70 mm coil was used in the probe as for the phase 1 tests, but the
probe and the deployment mechanism were manufactured from polyether ether ketone
(PEEK), for improved radiation tolerance. The reference coil of the balanced-bridge
pair is mounted within the nose of the tool, on a piece of virgin gilsocarbon.
6
Figure 5: PoPECT August 2009
The probe itself does not touch the surface, but is mounted in a foot that makes contact
with the bore surface with ball transfer units. The probe is maintained 2.5 mm from the
surface.
The tool hangs freely on chains, so the alignment of the tool is determined as it is for
other core monitoring tools by viewing an LED arrow on the top of the tool with a
camera mounted in the hoist.
The resistivity of the graphite bricks that would be encountered was predicted to be
between 15 µΩm and 50 µΩm , a range of frequencies for detecting sub-surface defects
was used; 2, 4 and 8 and 16 kHz. In addition, 40 kHz excitation was also used, to give
the opportunity for two-frequency mixing to suppress signals from varying resistivity.
The PoPECT tool was first deployed in reactor 2 of Hartlepool power station in
November 2009(8). The tool was deployed in two fuel channels.
After some modifications, PoPECT was also deployed at Heysham 1, reactor 1 in June
2010. The tool was deployed again at Hartlepool in reactor 1 in June 2010 and finally at
Hinkley point B, reactor 4 in December 2011. For the first deployment, the R/DTech
TC5700 eddy current instrument was used, with Multiview software. For subsequent
deployments the Zetec MS5800 instrument was used, with ECVision software.
•
•
It takes about 45 minutes for both the test and reference coils to warm up to the
channel temperature, so that the signal output stops drifting.
Axial scans were used to identify brick interface heights. The large brick-to brick
difference in resistivity is revealed.
7
•
•
•
•
•
The quality of rotating scans was compromised in the first deployment, because
the main part of the tool would rotate. For subsequent deployments, an inflatable
silicone seal was installed around the top of the tool. The seal would be inflated
for circumferential scans, so that the top part of the tool would remain stationary,
while the bottom part of the tool, including the probe was rotated.
Rotating scans in the top part of the brick showed evidence of signals from the
keyways, indicating that deep penetration is being achieved.
Axial raster scans (lower-raise-rotate) have enabled full coverage of portions of
fuel channels.
As expected there are clear signals from surface cracks.
The raster scans show the variation in resistivity clearly.
The left of Figure 6 shows the combined image from remote visual inspection of a
‘lasso’ crack in a graphite brick. The image on the right shows the eddy-current C-scan
image of the same crack. The whole circumference of the brick is shown.
axial
Figure 6: Lasso crack – remote visual and PoPECT eddy current images
Figure 7 shows a C-scan image of the raster scan over the bore surface of four brick
layers. The variation in graphite resistivity is evident as the different colours, blue being
lower and red higher resistivity.
The variation in resistivity makes it more difficult to see weaker signals, so the variation
needs to be minimized using two-frequency mixing to improve the capability for
detecting sub-surface cracks. The capability to map resistivity is however potentially
very useful. Resistivity is related to the porosity and therefore the strength of the
graphite. Eddy currents therefore offer the possibility of an indirect, but non-destructive
means of determining the mechanical properties of the core bricks.
In some cases, trepanned samples have been taken from the bricks after the channels
were examined with PoPECT. The density of the trepanned samples was subsequently
measured, so it was therefore possible to relate aspects of the eddy current response to
the density. The relationship was then used to make predictions of density in other
channels where measurements with PoPECT were made. The predictions were
compared with the measurements of the trepanned samples and typically agreed to
within 10%.
8
L8
+ρ
axial
-ρ
L7
L6
+ρ
L5
Figure 7: PoPECT C-scan of four brick layers
5
Prototype eddy current inspection tool (PECIT)
Following the successful deployment of PoPECT, a prototype eddy current inspection
tool (PECIT) was manufactured. PECIT has wheels that hold the body of the tool
centrally within the brick as it is raised and lowered in the channel. There is a central
section which can be rotated. The rotating section has three eddy current probes instead
of the one probe used in PoPECT. The three probes are:
•
An impedance bridge probe equivalent to that used in PoPECT,
•
A transmit-receive ‘gradiometer’ probe,
•
A differential transmit-receive probe
All probes have 70 mm outer diameter. The transmit-receive probe types were selected
in order to reduce the dependence on temperature, which causes signal drift of the
impedance bridge probe. The differential probe was used as an alternative means for
reducing sensitivity to resistivity change and lift-off noise. All probes are operated at 2,
4, 8 and 40 kHz.
In order to avoid any possibility of cross-talk when using all three probes
simultaneously, an external multiplexer is required with the Zetec MS5800 instrument.
PECIT is deployed using the same kind of hoist as used for PoPECT and the other core
monitoring tools. The key decision was made to achieve full coverage scanning by
helical scanning of the bore. The alternative option of using arrays to achieve full
coverage was rejected because it would require increased tool complexity and result in
poorer circumferential resolution.
In order to achieve the desired axial pitch in the helical scan (≤ 20 mm), the hoist was
modified so that the tool could be raised at a lower speed.
9
Figure 8: PECIT
PECIT was deployed for the first time at Heysham 1 in March 2012(9). The transmitreceive probes proved to be much more temperature stable than the impedance bridge
probes. A full helical scan was made in one fuel channel. The C-scan of the whole
channel is shown in Figure 9. The blue indications in the top layer are from bore cracks.
The orange/red bands that appear at the same position in each layer are areas of lower
resistivity – opposite to the colours in Figure 7, because the rotation of the eddy current
signal was changed for PECIT.
No signals attributable to keyway cracks were observed. It was however possible to
make assessments of the noise levels so that estimates could be made of the extent of
keyway cracking that should be easily visible were it to be present.
As well as detection of keyway cracking, estimation of graphite resistivity is an
objective of the PECIT inspection. Resistivity estimates for the Heysham deployment
were made by comparing the operating point obtained from scan data with that obtained
on reference blocks of known resistivity.
In addition, lift-off measurements have been made at some locations within the channel,
so that the lift-off phase angle can be used to estimate resistivity. The lift-off angle
method is a standard technique for identifying and sorting metals. The operating-point
method does however allow resistivity to be determined at any point on the scan that is
far enough away from defects or the brick interfaces.
10
cracks
axial
L11
L10
L9
L8
L7
L6
+ρ
-ρ
L5
rotation
Figure 9: Helical Scan of L5 to L11 – Gradiometer 8 kHz Horizontal
It is planned that the keyway crack inspection will be qualified. The qualification will
include the detection of sub-surface cracks and a capability to determine the throughwall extent of the crack in terms of the size of the remaining ligament to the surface.
Such estimates are likely to be based on the phase angle of the signal locus. The
relationship between phase angle and depth is however dependent on the resistivity, so
reliable measurements of ligament size will require accurate measurements of the local
resistivity.
6
Conclusions
Eddy current inspection of the graphite bricks that comprise AGR fuel channels has
progressed from laboratory demonstration, through several deployments of a ‘proof-ofprinciple’ tool, to deployment of a prototype inspection tool. With the prototype tool,
helical scans covering the entire bore surface of the channel can be made.
Although the eddy current probes are designed for detection of subsurface cracks,
known bore cracks are reliably detected.
The penetration depth of the technique appears to be sufficient, because the pattern of
keyways can be detected.
The greatest obstacle to the detection of keyway cracks is the noise level produced by
the variation in graphite resistivity within bricks in the axial and circumferential
directions. Two-frequency mixing and filtering help to improve the signal-to-noise
ratio.
11
The eddy current responses from variations in resistivity are in themselves very useful;
they offer a way of measuring the resistivity and therefore possibly the material
porosity, which needs to be known for structural integrity calculations. Methods for
obtaining the resistivity measurement are being developed.
7
Acknowledgements
Most of the eddy current laboratory work that led to the development of the in-core
tools was done by John Turner, then at Phoenix ISL, Warrington. The authors are
indebted to John for his great contribution to this project.
The mathematical modelling using Opera was begun by Chris Holt of ESR Technology
and then taken over by John Taggart of Serco (now Amec).
The engineers at Zetec (now Eddyfi) have been helpful and patient in their response to
questions about our unorthodox uses for their equipment over the course of the project.
In particular the authors are grateful to Michael Sirois.
8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
References
J P Forrest, W A Hammond and O Lloyd (1985): ‘In-situ integrity monitoring of
graphite
core
blocks;
preliminary
experiments.’
CEGB
report
TPRD/M/TD1062/M85.
J P Forrest (1988): ‘Eddy current inspection of AGR graphite core blocks.’ CEGB
report RD/M/1752/RR88.
M C Warnes (1991): ‘Design of eddy current coils for the inspection of graphite
core blocks.’ Nuclear Electric Technology Division Report TD/IRB/REP/0614.
J L Turner, ‘NDE of graphite AGR core blocks: Final Report (Project T537)’
Phoenix ISL Report P7774 / FR2, 6 June 2000.
B F Eccleshall and J L Turner, ‘RACSC Core Inspection techniques: Eddy
Current Technique Development – up to April 2001’ (NNC Title: Revised AGR
Safety case: Cracked brick detection using an Eddy Current Technique –
developments up to April 2001), NNC Report C6508/TR/002, Issue 01,
November 2001.
J L Turner, A C Holden and R Smith, ‘Eddy Current testing of AGR Graphite
Core Bricks (Work up to June 2003)’ PISL Report P9107/R1 Issue 01, June 2003.
J L Turner, T J Bloodworth, C C Holt, B France and S Pountney, ‘Eddy-Current
Core Inspection Tool Development Phase 1’, Amec Report 14119/TR0001 Issue
1, July 2007.
T Bloodworth, ‘Hartlepool in-core PoPECT testing’, James Fisher Nuclear Ltd.
Report TR-1272-02-066, January 2010.
T Bloodworth, ‘Prototype Eddy Current Inspection Tool for AGR Graphite Core
Bricks: Heysham 1 R2 PECIT Deployment’, JFN report in progress, 2012.
12