MFL Topical Report - Main Document

22/6/2014 MFL Topical Report - Main Document
http://archive.today/29FK5 1/18
Saved from http://web.archive.org/web/20000925202110/www.battelle.org/pipetechnology/MFL/MFL98Main.html
no other snapshots from this url
search 11 Jan 2014 00:46:20
Redirected from http://web.archive.org/20000925202110/www.battelle.org/pipetechnology/MFL/MFL98Main.html
no other snapshots from this url
Original http://www.battelle.org/pipetechnology/MFL/MFL98Main.html
history prev next
25 Sep 2000 20:21:10
All snapshots from host archive.org
from host www.battelle.org
Linked from az.wikipedia.org Pigging
en.wikipedia.org Magnetic flux leakage
en.wikipedia.org Pigging
ja.wikipedia.org
download .zip report abuse PIN THIS PAGE: other
Text Image
Back
Glossary
Click here for printing instructions
--- DRAFT ---
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Technology For Natural Gas Pipeline Inspection
prepared by
J. B. Nestleroth and T. A. Bubenik, Battelle
for
The Gas Research Institute
Harvey Haines, Project Manager
February 1999
Contract No.
This document is available to the U.S. Public through the
National Technical Information Center
Report Documentation Page (Optional Form 272 4-77)
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Battelle as an account of work sponsored by the Gas Research Institute (GRI). Neither GRI, members of
GRI, Battelle, officers, trustees, or staff of Battelle, nor any person acting on behalf of either:
a.Makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, software, method, or process disclosed
in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or
b.Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus,
software, method, or process disclosed in this report.
Reference to trade names or specific commercial products, commodities, or services in this report does not represent nor constitute
an endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by GRI or Battelle of the specific commercial product, commodity, or service.
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Technology For Natural Gas Pipeline Inspection
Table of Contents without Links (Table of Contents with Links)
Introduction
Report Organization
Overview of Pipeline Inspection Using MFL Tools
MFL Process Flow
Inspection Objectives
MFL Inspection Tool Components
Running an MFL Inspection Tool
Implementing MFL Technology in Pipelines
Factors That Affect Capabilities
Magnetization
Background Applied Magnetic Field Strength
Other Parameters Affecting Applied Field Strength
Leakage
Metal-Loss Defects
Depth
Width
Length
Sharpness
Roundness
Location
Complex Metal-Loss Defects
Other Types of Defects Other Sources of Flux Leakage
Other Parameters Affecting Flux Leakage
Measurement
Sensor Type
Sensor Orientation
Circumferential Size
Axial Position
Sensor Liftoff
Recording and Displaying MFL Data
Libraries of Defect Signals
Analysis of Flux Leakage Data
Location Accuracy
Detection Thresholds
Probability of Detection
Characterization of Metal-loss Defects
Depth Accuracy
Width Accuracy
Length Accuracy
Severity Accuracy
Issues and Insights
Current Detection Capabilities
Current Characterization Capabilities
Areas for Future Developments
Restricted Lines
Velocity Control
Defection of Small Defects
Use of Low Magnetic Field Levels
Circumferential MFL
References
Glossary
Introduction
Pipeline operators use a wide variety of methods to evaluate, inspect, and monitor the hundreds of thousands of miles of
transmission pipelines now in operation worldwide
[AGA]
. Such activities include right-of-way surveys, cathodic protection surveys,
leak detection programs, excavations to look for pipe corrosion or protective coating failures, hydrostatic tests, and the use of in-line
inspection tools that travel through the pipe. Combinations of these procedures constitute an overall integrity assurance program of
the pipeline operator.
Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) is the oldest and most commonly used in-line inspection method for finding metal-loss regions in gas-
transmission pipelines. MFL can reliably detect metal loss due to corrosion and, sometimes, gouging. In addition, while not
designed for this purpose, MFL can sometimes find other metallurgical and geometric conditions
[Bubenik98, Grimes92, Nestleroth99,
Papenfuss91]
.
Brief History of MFL
Summary of MFL Capabilities
This report presents the underlying principles and current status on the use of MFL for pipelines as they are understood by the
authors. A significant development effort is underway at in-line inspection service companies and by GRI and other research
organizations
[GRI97]
. These efforts will undoubtedly lead to an enhanced understanding of the topics discussed herein and to
continuing advances in the capabilities of commercial MFL in-line inspection tools. (See Pigging Products and Services
Association for information on current in-line inspection companies.)
Flux Field Around a Magnet
Flux Field Around a Magnet in Contact
with a Pipe
Flux Field Around a Magnet in Contact
with a Pipe with a Defect
Association for information on current in-line inspection companies.)
Report Organization
This report is an update to the widely distributed MFL topical report first prepared in 1992
[Bubenik92]
. It includes additional
information and details on MFL inspection technology. This updated report was written in a Web format to let readers quickly access
information of interest to them.
The Table of Contents lists the main sections of the report. The body of the report is done in the style of an Executive Summary. That
is, it contains brief descriptions and major conclusions. Within each section, there are links to background and more detailed
information. In addition, there is an on-line glossary. Words shown in italics are contained in the glossary. In the written version of this
report, the links and glossary are available as separate Appendices.
Links are identified with a document icon ( ), a figure icon ( ), an underline, or a button. Typically, document links open in place of
the current document (which can be accessed again by pressing the back key); figure links open in a separate window; and
underlined links (without an icon) redirect the user to another location on the same page or to an external Internet link. The text on a
button will identify its use; buttons can redirect the user, open windows, or launch an external program.
Nondestructive Testing Termonology
Overview of Pipeline Inspection Using MFL Tools
An understanding of magnetism, flux, and flux leakage is needed to understand the capabilities of MFL inspection systems. This
section presents an overview of magnets and flux leakage as they apply to MFL inspections.
[Bozorth51, Dobmann87]
MFL starts with a magnet. A magnet has two ends, called north and south poles. The poles exert forces on steel pieces and on
other magnet poles. This force of attraction is caused by the magnetic field. Flux lines are used to show the strength and direction of
the force of a magnetic field. They are tensor quantities (that is, they have both magnitude and direction) and they are drawn parallel
to the direction of the magnetic force. The spacing of flux lines is called the flux density. A large number of flux lines represents a
strong magnetic field.
The figure at right illustrates the flux lines around a magnet and its poles as calculated
using finite-element analyses
[Brauer88,

Trowbridge91]
. The magnet is indicated by the light
colored bar near the top of the figure. The curved gray regions attached to the poles are
steel pieces, which can be used to channel magnetic flux in a particular direction. The
flux lines are the curved lines from the poles, through the steel and surrounding media.
For the case shown, some of the flux lines go directly between the poles, but most pass
through and between the steel pieces.
When a magnet is placed next to a pipe wall, most of the flux lines pass through the
pipe wall. That is, the pipe wall is a preferred path for the flux. While most of the flux
lines concentrate in the pipe wall, a few pass through the surrounding media. The lines
that do not pass through the pipe wall are referred to as the air-coupled field or, for gas
transmission pipelines, the gas-coupled field.
Flux leakage at a metal-loss region is caused by a local decrease in the thickness of
the pipe wall. At a metal-loss region, the flux carried by the thin section is less than that
carried in the full wall. Flux leaks from both surfaces of the pipe. In addition, the shape of
the gas-coupled field is changed.
A sensor positioned on the inside (magnet side) of the pipe is typically used to
measure the magnetic field adjacent to the pipe wall. At a metal-loss region, the sensor
records a higher flux density or magnetic field, which indicates the presence of an
anomaly. In this manner, an MFL tool detects an anomaly that causes flux to leak. The
measured leakage field depends on the radial depth, axial length, circumferential width,
and shape of the anomaly, as well as the magnetic properties of the nearby material. To
characterize the anomaly, the measured leakage field must be analyzed.
MFL Process Flow
MFL tools apply the principles of flux leakage inside a pressurized and flowing gas-transmission pipeline. A magnetizing system
applies a magnetic field along a length of pipe as the tool moves through the line. Defects distort this applied field, producing flux
leakage. Sensors measure flux leakage, and a recording system stores the measurements. Last, the measurements are analyzed to
estimate the defect geometry and severity.
Inspection Objectives
MFL inspections are typically used to detect, locate, and characterize metal-loss and other anomalies in natural gas-transmission
pipelines. There are many types of defects, and not all of these anomalies can be detected or characterized by MFL.
Typical Pipeline Defects
MFL is most often used for detecting and sizing metal loss. The severity of a metal-loss region is a function of its geometry, the pipe
geometry, and its mechanical properties. Standard criteria, such as ASME B31G
[Kiefner72, ASME B31G]
and RSTRENG
[Kiefner89,
Vieth93]
, have been developed for estimating the failure pressure of metal-loss regions. Other criteria have been, or are being,
developed for other types of defects
[Stephens99]
. Understanding failure criteria is important in order to understand the detection and
characterization accuracy requirements for MFL tools.
Detection and characterization requirements should be based on the condition of the pipeline and on the operator's maintenance
and repair strategy
[Grimes96,

Hodgeman96,

Nestleroth99,

Transportation Research Board88,

Turner96,

U.S. Government Accounting Office92,
Ulrich96]
. Some operators are interested in identifying locations where defects are forming, and they place a strong emphasis on
detecting small imperfections that can grow into defects. Others are more interested in identifying large defects that may affect the
current integrity of a line, and they place a stronger emphasis on sizing or characterization accuracy. High detection reliability is
almost always needed, particularly for defects that threaten the integrity of a pipeline. Good characterization accuracy is needed
when inspection results are used to prioritize sites for field investigation or remedial action.
Detection Threshold Requirements
Characterization Accuracy Requirements
Accurately determining the location of a defect is needed for field assessments and repairs. Identifying pipeline features such as
girth welds, wall thickness changes, valves and off-takes can help in the location of defects and verifying the accuracy of as-built and
maintenance documentation. Typically, requirements on location accuracy depend on the difficulty with which excavations are made
and the ease with which marker systems can be placed during an inspection.
Location Accuracy Requirements
False calls are indications that are incorrectly classified as anomalies. False calls can be minimized by proper pipeline feature
identification and analysis. Missed calls are the opposite of false calls. Missed calls are far more serious and can result from blind
areas due to high velocities, mechanical failures, and failures of sensors or data acquisition systems. Typically, there is a trade off
between false-call and missed-call accuracies.
False-Call and Missed-Call Accuracy Requirements
MFL Inspection Tool Components
MFL concepts are simple, but their application in gas-transmission pipelines requires sophisticated inspection tool technology. MFL
tools for in-line inspection of pipelines are self-contained units incorporating a number of related systems. The tools can be either
segmented, with two or more pieces joined by flexible connectors, or single piece, where all components are contained in a single,
rigid package.
Typical MFL Tools (courtesy of Pipetronix)
Shown above are three typical MFL tools. The tool in the foreground is a segmented tool, where six individual segments are joined
with flexible connectors. The flexible connectors between the segments allow data and power transfers. The tool in the background is
a single-piece tool, where all of the components are contained in a single, rigid package. A two-segmented tool is shown between
the single-piece and segmented tools. Single-piece tools are usually longer than segmented tools. Typical single-piece tools are 7
to 10 feet long, while segmented tools are 7 to 16 feet long. Some specialty tools are up to 30 feet long.
Bends in pipelines limit the maximum length of a tool or its segments because long tool segments cannot pass through tight bends.
Segmented tools are commonly used in small-diameter lines, where space and bend requirements preclude the use of longer rigid
tools. Segmented tools are also used for larger-diameter lines with tight bends. Some pipeline operating companies believe that
segmented tools raise the risk that a tool can become stuck at a pipeline connection, where two lines intersect in a tee configuration.
So, these companies must balance the increased flexibility of a segmented tool with the perceived risks of a stuck tool.
Single-piece and segmented MFL tools incorporate the following systems:
Drive System. Gas pressure pushing on a drive cup at the front of the tool propels the cup, which in turn pulls the rest of the
tool through the line. The amount of pressure needed to move a tool through a line depends on the age and condition of the
cups, the weight and magnet strength of the tool, the presence of pipeline features such as bends, valves, and dents, and the
internal condition and dryness of the line.
Magnetizing System. Either permanent magnets or battery-powered electromagnets are used to magnetize the pipe being
inspected. The ends of the magnet are connected to metal brushes or plates that rub against the wall and transmit the
magnetic field to the pipe.
Sensor System. A sensor system records the leakage field during the inspection. A change in the leakage field indicates a
possible defect.
Data Conditioning and Recording System. Data condition and recording systems process and store the sensor
measurements for later playback. Data systems are either analog or digital.
Power System. Most MFL tools use rechargeable battery systems to provide power for the sensor, data conditioning, and
recording systems.
Other Systems.
Running an Inspection Tool
Getting the MFL inspection tool into and out of a pressurized pipeline requires special components. Most commonly, the devices are
called pig launchers and receivers and are installed at compressor stations or other easily accessible locations.
During an inspection
[Fisher98]
, control of the gas and tool velocity is important for providing good results. Tool position can be
monitored during the run with in-line or external sensors. Monitoring the tool's position is important in the event that a tool becomes
stuck.
After the tool is captured in the receiver, the tool is inspected to verify that all components are in working condition at the end of the
run. In addition, some of the data are examined to determine whether the tool operated successfully throughout the run. The data are
then downloaded, checked for quality and completeness, and analyzed
Launching, Running, and Retrieving MFL Tools
Implementing MFL Technology in Pipelines
Factors That Affect Capabilities
A number of factors affect MFL detection and characterization accuracy. These factors can be grouped in five areas:
Magnetization: the relationships between the magnetization system, the pipe material, and the applied flux field.
Leakage: the relationships between the applied flux field, the anomaly, and the leakage field.
Measurement: the relationships between the leakage field, the sensor, and the measured signal.
Recording and display: the impact of recording resolution and playback methodologies.
Analysis: the process used to classify anomaly types and characterize metal-loss geometries from the measured signal.
The output or results of each area affects the input and results of the next area. In addition, all five of these areas have theoretical
capabilities and limitations. In designing commercial MFL inspection systems, inspection tool designers try to reach these limits
within economic constraints.
Typical Magnetization Curve
Flux Leakage at Three Magnetization
Levels
Magnetization
The magnetization system in an MFL tool applies a magnetic field to the pipe material that interacts with anomalies to produce flux
leakage. The design goal for a magnetization system is to produce a magnetic field that is
strong enough to cause a measurable amount of magnetic flux to leak from the pipe at anomalies,
uniform from inside to the outside surface of the wall thickness so that the measured signal is more linearly related to anomaly
characteristics, and
consistent in magnitude along the length of a pipe so that flux leakage measurements can be compared at different locations
during an inspection run.
In general, detection is most strongly affected by the field strength, while good characterization requires a field that is strong, uniform,
and consistent. The applied field is defined by relationships between the magnetizing system and the pipe material, and variations
are introduced by operating parameters such as velocity and stress. The following sections summarize the key relationships
between the variables that impact magnetization.
Background
The relationship between the applied magnetic field and the flux density in the pipe is nonlinear. At low applied field levels, a small
change in applied field produces a large change in flux. At medium levels, the relationship is highly nonlinear. At high levels, large
changes in applied field produce small changes in flux.
MFL requires that magnetic flux be diverted out of the pipe at an anomaly.
The presence of an anomaly does not guarantee that flux will leak. For
example, corrosion causes a reduction in the amount of flux carrying
material, but the reduction in material alone may not cause flux leakage
because the remaining material may still be able to carry all of the
magnetic flux.
An essential factor for flux leakage is a change in permeability.
Permeability is a measure of the ability of magnetic flux to diffuse through
(or permeate) a magnetic material. It is related to the slope of the
magnetization curve. A reduction in wall thickness coupled with a reduction
of permeability causes the flux to flow in alternative paths. One such path is
out of the material, hence flux leakage.
In flux leakage testing, the term saturation is often used to imply
permeability is decreasing and flux leakage is occurring. Saturation is
defined in this report as the magnetization level beyond which an increase
provides no significant change in flux density. It occurs after the peak in permeability and beyond the knee of the magnetization
curve.
Background Information on Permeability and Saturation
Using this definition, the magnetization curve can be divided into three sections:
A low magnetization level, below knee of the magnetization curve and below saturation
A medium level, at the knee of the magnetization curve and near saturation
A high level, above knee of the magnetization curve and above saturation.
Applied Magnetic Field Strength
As expected, magnet strength has the strongest impact on the applied field. The
magnetization systems in corrosion tools are usually designed to produce magnetic
saturation in the pipe wall so that a reduction in material will cause flux to leak. In
mechanical damage tools, the magnetization system may be designed to produce
lower levels.
For a given magnet strength, an increase in wall thickness will decrease the flux density
in the pipe. So, the strength of the magnetization system must be tailored to the wall
thicknesses of the pipe to be inspected. Thick-walled pipe can be difficult to inspect
because it requires a high magnet strength to attain saturation. Also, inspection results
from heavy wall pipe used at road crossings can be difficult to interpret because the flux
density is different than that in the rest of the pipeline.
Variations in wall thickness will change the applied field strength, especially when the
tool is designed to operate at medium magnetization levels. Typical wall thickness
variations in welded pipe are small, but variations in seamless pipe can range from 5 to 20 percent. These variations increase or
decrease the applied flux density.
Further Information on the Effects of Magnetization Level on Flux Leakage
Other Parameters Affecting Applied Field Strength
A number of other parameters affect the applied field. These parameters include
A number of other parameters affect the applied field. These parameters include
Material Property Variations: Permeability variations arise from small changes in carbon content, alloying elements, and
impurities. The variations between batches or heats can be significant
[Kiefner96,

Nestleroth98a]
. These variations make data
interpretation difficult for systems that are designed to operate at medium magnetization levels.
Coupling: Brushes are used to couple the magnetic energy into the pipe. The applied flux density depends on the coupling
efficiency between the magnetizing assembly and the pipe and on the local wall thickness. Brushes are less efficient than solid
steel at coupling magnetic energy into the pipe wall, and shorter brushes provide higher magnetic fields
[Eiber90]
. Long brushes
provide better tool flexibility to negotiate pipeline obstructions.
Bends can cause a decrease in coupling efficiency, which will decrease the applied flux density. If the applied flux density is
slightly above saturation, a small decrease in coupling can reduce the applied level to below saturation.
Pole spacing: Short pole spacings produce higher magnetization levels and enable the negotiation of tighter bends, but they
make signal analysis more difficult. Long pole spacing provides uniform magnetic field and wide areas for sensor placement
[Eiber91]
. Long pole spacing also requires stronger magnets.
Background Information on Pole Spacing Effects
Velocity: All electrical systems, from car alternators to power generation stations, rely on the physical principle that a changing
magnetic field passing by an electrical conductor will induce a current in the conductor. An MFL tool moving down a pipeline
represents a changing magnetic field, and the pipe is an electrical conductor. As a result, currents are induced in the pipe.
Applied magnetization levels decrease as velocity increases, with the largest changes in flux leakage at speeds exceeding 4
to 6 mph
[Nestleroth96b]
.
The Effect of Velocity on Applied Fields
Remanent Magnetization: Remanent magnetization is the magnetic field remaining in the pipeline after previous inspection.
Remanent magnetization can affect the magnetization level of the current inspection, especially when low to medium
magnetization levels are used
[Nestleroth95b]
. High magnetization levels are often used for corrosion inspections because they
reduce the effects of remanent fields, as well as those of stress, material property variations, and velocity.
Basic Effects of Remanent Magnetization
Leakage
When a magnetic field in a pipeline encounters an anomaly such as a metal-loss defect, flux is diverted or leaks. Sensors measure
part of the leakage field: the leakage into the interior of the pipe. The leakage field around a defect can resemble the defect, but it
usually does not have the same shape. So, the shape of the leakage field is not necessarily a good indicator of the shape of the
defect. Also, the location of the defect, for example on the inside pipe wall versus the outside pipe wall, affects leakage.
Examples of flux leakage field for different defect shapes are given in the following link. These examples illustrate some of the
difficulties in trying to estimate the geometry of a defect from the leakage field.
Flux leakage from various metal loss defects
Metal-Loss Defects
When an MFL tool encounters a metal-loss defect, flux is diverted. Flux is diverted in the pipe wall, around the defect, and out of the
pipe at the inner and outer diameter. The amount of flux that is diverted out of the pipe depends on the geometry of the defect.
The primary variables that affect the flux leakage are the ones that define the volume of the metal loss:
Depth - the maximum wall thickness that has been removed (by the corrosion process, third parties, etc.)
Length - the axial extent of the defect
Width - the circumferential extent of the defect
Other variables that can significantly affect flux leakage include:
Sharpness - the shape of the transition from nominal wall thickness to maximum depth (as viewed in an axial-radial plane)
Roundness - the plan shape (as viewed in an axial-circumferential plane)
Orientation - cracks aligned with the applied magnetic field are not detectable while cracks transverse to the field can
sometimes be detected, depending on other geometric parameters
Locations of adjacent defects - Proximity of neighboring defects and pits in general corrosion patches affect the flux leakage
Stress and strains - Stresses and strains make a material easier or harder to magnetize, changing the distribution of flux
around the defect.
Enlarge
MFL Signals versus Depth
Flux Flow Around a Defect
Enlarge
MFL Signals versus Width
Enlarge
around the defect.
Depth
The amplitude or magnitude of an MFL signal is strongly related to defect depth.
Defect depth, the maximum wall thickness that has been removed, is usually
specified as a percentage of the nominal wall thickness. Quantifying the depth of
defects is important for pipeline serviceability calculations using formulae such as
B31G
[ASME B31G]
.
The figure at right shows MFL signals measured in the axial direction as a
function of depth with length, width and other defect variables constant. The output
of a single sensor through the center of series of metal-loss defects shows that
flux leakage is proportional to defect depth, keeping all other variables constant.
While the relationship between depth and amplitude appear nearly linear, the
significant effect of the other variables on signal amplitude negates this
supposition.
Accurate depth predictions require an understanding of the relationship between
signal amplitude and defect depth. They also require an understanding of how
other parameters affect amplitude, so that their effects can be accounted for in the
analyses.
Radial Flux Leakage Signals as a Function of Depth
Width
Magnetic flux has a tendency to remain in the pipe. So, flux spreads in
the circumferential direction, making the flux leakage field more elliptical
than the defect. This effect is called blooming. When the path around the
defect becomes large, as for defects that are wide (several times the
nominal wall thickness), the effects of blooming become less significant
and more flux leaks at the center of defect.
Narrow defects cause less flux leakage than wide ones for defects with the same
depth and other geometric parameters. The figure at right shows the output of a
single sensor through the center of series of metal-loss defects ranging in width
from 0.25 inches to full circumferential extent. As the defect becomes narrow, the
flux leakage drops dramatically.
The effects of width also depend on defect depth. There is less blooming for
shallow defects than for deep defects of the same width.
Radial Flux Leakage Signals as a Function of Width
Length
The length of the flux leakage field is related to the length of the defect. The figure
at right shows the output of a single sensor through the center of series of metal-
loss defects ranging in length from 0.25 inches to 6 inches.
The figure shows that defect length also affects the amplitude of the flux leakage
signal, with longer defects having lower flux leakage values. This is a significant
property of flux leakage since longer defects can be a greater threat to pipeline
integrity than shorter defects. A simple signal analysis procedure that identifies
the highest flux leakage amplitude defects as the most severe would incorrectly
classify longer defects as less severe.
The variables that most significantly affect the accuracy of length estimation are
sharpness and plan shape, which are discussed in next two sections. Depth and
MFL Signals versus Length
Enlarge
MFL Signals versus Sharpness
MFL Signals at Various Defect Roundnesses
sharpness and plan shape, which are discussed in next two sections. Depth and
width do not as strongly affect length estimation.
Radial Flux Leakage Signals as a Function of Length
Sharpness
Sharpness is defined as the angle of the transition from nominal wall
thickness to maximum depth. The figure at right shows a series of axial MFL
signals through four defects with different sharpnesses. The signal
amplitude is larger for more gradual defects with the same volume of metal
loss, and less for more sharp defects. In addition, the length of the flux
leakage field is less for more gradual defects.
In general, the length of the flux leakage signal is better related to the
average length of the defect than it is to surface length of a metal-loss
defect. The average length is defined by
Average Length = Cross-Section Area / Depth
The difference between average and surface length can be problematic
when attempting to correlate field measurements with inspection results.
Radial Flux Leakage Signals as a Function of Sharpness
Metal-Loss Roundness
Defects that are squarish in shape, as sometimes occur
near gaps in wrapped coating, can produce flux leakage
patterns that have strong signals at the edges and low
levels at the center. These can be misinterpreted as two
distinct short defects providing inaccurate defect
assessment.
Metal-Loss Location
The location of an imperfection or defect on the inside or outside surface affects the flux leakage field. Metal-loss anomalies on the
inside pipe surface produce stronger signals for the same depth. Many inspection vendors incorporate separate sensor systems to
determine the surface on which the anomaly is located.
Complex Metal-Loss Defects
The proximity of neighboring defects and pits in larger
corrosion patches affects the flux leakage. The result can
be inaccuracies in the interpretation of the geometry. The
two figures at right illustrate the interaction effects.
In the first figure, multiple 1-inch long, 1 inch wide, 50
percent deep pits are arranged in various configurations.
The pits in the hoop direction (shown in the upper lefthand
corner of the figure) have the most interaction, with this
pair of pits appearing as a single, wide defect. In contrast,
the pits aligned in the axial direction (upper right) are
clearly distinguishable. The pits aligned on a diagonal
(lower left) have the least amount of interaction. The pits
shown in the lower right exhibit a combination of the upper
two effects.
MFL Signals at Various Multiple Defects
MFL Signals at Various Defects within Defects
MFL Signals at Various Defects
MFL Signals as a
Function of Velocity
In the second figure, multiple 1-inch long, 1-inch wide, 50
percent deep pits are arranged in various configurations
inside a 3-inch long, 3-inch wide, 20 percent deep patch.
This configuration resembles that found in many real-world
inspection conditions.
Identification of the individual pits within the larger
corrosion patch is difficult. (Compare these figures to the
plot for the 3-inch long, 3-inch wide, 20 percent deep
patch shown earlier, under Defect Roundness.) While the
pits produce changes to the signal from the patch,
analysis is complicated by the overlap of all of the signals.
Identifying and quantifying the various defect parameters
is quite difficult from these images.
Other Types of Defects
MFL is capable of detecting many different types of defects, including metal loss,
dents, and mechanical damage. However, MFL does not reliably detect all of these
defect types. Detection depends on the design of the inspection tool and the
sophistication of the analysis procedures, as discussed later.
MFL signals for metal loss, dents, and mechanical damage are fundamentally
different
[Davis96, Davis97]
. These differences can be seen in the experimental MFL
signals shown at right. The signals correspond to the axial component of the MFL
field.
Overview of MFL Signals for Metal Loss, Dents, and Cold Work
Further Developments on the Use of MFL for Mechanical Damage
Other Sources of Flux Leakage
Other pipeline anomalies and features produce flux leakage. Girth welds, valves, off-takes, wall thickness changes, sleeves and
other pipeline features are detectable using flux leakage.
Other Parameters Affecting Flux Leakage
A number of parameters affect flux leakage. Most of these parameters also affect the
applied field, as discussed earlier. The leakage effects are in addition to the applied
field effects. The parameters include:
Velocity: Currents that are induced in the pipe by the movement of an inspection tool
affect the leakage field, typically reducingit. These effects are greatest at low to medium
magnetization levels and for shallow defects
[Nestleroth96b]
.
Basic Theory of Velocity Effects
The Effect of Velocity on Flux Leakage Fields
Stress: Applied and residual stresses affect the magnetization curve, which in turn
affects flux leakage. Similarly, plastic strains affect leakage. As expected, these
effects are largest in high-pressure lines and where there is significant secondary
loading. They can also be significant when sizing defects in or near dents and
attachments.
Basic Stress Effects
Effects of Stress on Flux Leakage
MFL Signals as a
Function of Stress
Remanent Magnetization Effects
Sensor Output
Remanent Magnetization: Remanent magnetization also affects the flux
leakage field, especially when low to medium magnetization levels are used
[Nestleroth95b]
. As shown at right, signal amplitudes can vary by 10 to 20 percent
compared to the values attained from unmagnetized pipe. These effects tend to
plateau after several inspections, after which the amplitudes remain relatively
constant.
Effects of Remanent Magnetization on Flux Leakage
Measurement Variables
The sensor system on an MFL tool measures the flux leakage. The measurement system converts the leakage field into an
electrical signal that can be stored and analyzed. All sensor systems filter and average the actual field, and all measured signals
include noise. Thus, the measured field and the actual field are not the same.
The design of the sensor system has two goals. The first goal is to provide enough information to allow the signal to be analyzed for
detection and characterization of defects. The second goal is to produce a manageable amount of information. Often, these two
goals conflict: the amount of information needed to detect and characterize all indications may not be manageable. Therefore,
engineering compromises are usually necessary.
Sensor Type
The two types of sensors most commonly used in MFL tools are induction coils and
Hall elements. Coils measure the rate of change of a magnetic field, while Hall
elements measure the actual magnetic field strength.
Historically, induction coils have been the most commonly used type of sensor on MFL
inspection tools because they do not require a power source. Instead, a voltage is
generated in a passive coil of wire or printed circuit as it passes through a changing
magnetic field. A recording device measures this voltage, which is proportional to the
change in flux density. Since a coil responds to a change in flux density, the output of a
coil is a function of the speed at which it is moving. Integration techniques can be used
to convert coil measurements to flux density measurements, but the constant
component is lost. The constant component is needed to determine the applied
magnetic field strength.
Newer MFL tools often use Hall elements. Hall elements, coil sensors, measure the magnetic field directly. The most common type
of Hall element directly converts the magnetic field level to an output voltage. Field and flux density are related by a constant in air,
and the output voltage of a Hall-element is directly proportional to the flux density.
Further Information on Sensor Types
Sensor Orientation
Flux leakage is a vector field. So, it has three unique components that can be measured. Because MFL tools inspect pipe, a
cylindrical coordinate system is used, with the components referred to as the axial, radial, and circumferential. In MFL tools, the
radial and axial components are most commonly measured. The third component, in the circumferential direction, is rarely used
because flux leakage levels are small and the signals are difficult to interpret.
Further Information on Sensor Orientation
Circumferential Size
Sensor size directly impacts the resolution of the measurement system. All
sensors have an axial length, circumferential width, and radial height, and they
provide an average measurement of the flux passing though the sensor. The
resolution of a system is defined by the circumferential width of the sensor. The
use of narrow sensors improves system resolution by providing more signals for
analysis from a given metal-loss region.
Sensor Position Effects
Effects of Axial Sensor Position
Effects of Sensor Liftoff
When the sensor width is on the order of or greater than the width of a defect, flux
leakage levels may not be properly measured. In general, accurate
characterization of general wall thinning or defects that occur over a large
percentage of the pipe circumference is possible using wide sensors spread
about the circumference. Damage processes that leave short defects, narrow pits
or pinhole defects, require small sensors for accurate defect detection and sizing.
Further Information on the Effects of Sensor Size
Axial Position
The position of sensor with respect to the magnets can also affect the measured signal, and it affects the sensitivity of the
inspection results to tool velocity.
The location at which measurements are made affects the shape of the measured
leakage field. When multiple sets of sensors are used, the sets are sometimes
staggered axially to provide 100 percent coverage. Because axial location affects
the measured leakage fields, analysis will be more difficult when staggered
systems are used.
For a static or slow moving system, a sensor located midway between the poles
measures a symmetric signal for a symmetric metal-loss region. Away from the
midpoint, the measured static signal is asymmetric. As shown above, moving the
sensor toward the front or back pole causes the signal peaks to shift up or down.
The effects of axial sensor position are a function of inspection velocity, which
amplifies and introduces additional sources of asymmetry. Asymmetry is important
because it makes interpretation of the inspection log more difficult.
Further Information on the Effects of Axial Sensor Position
Sensor Liftoff
The separation between the MFL magnetizers and sensors (referred to as) and
the steel piping affects the inspection results. Liftoff is caused by internal deposits
and/or liners that can be over an inch thick. Liftoff affects both the magnetization
level and the signal shape.
Further Information on the Effects of Sensor Liftoff
Recording and Displaying MFL Data
MFL pigs record flux leakage at specified intervals in both the axial and circumferential directions in the pipe. The data interval in the
circumferential direction is defined by the number of sensors. Some older MFL tools have sensor spacings of several inches, while
the latest generation inspection pigs have an order of magnitude more sensors. A high-resolution 24-inch pig will typically tool will
have between 150 and 300 sensors, thus the circumferential data interval be between 0.25 and 0.5 inches.
The axial data recording interval is defined by the data recording system, and is usually between 0.1 and 0.2 inches (2.5 -5.0 mm).
Over a billion flux leakage measurements are required for a 100 mile pipe inspection using a pig with 200 sensors and a data
recording interval of 0.1 inches.
Typical Data Storage Requirements
The flux leakage data record or "log" must be examined to detect the presence of possible defects. After a possible defect has been
found, the log must be further analyzed to characterize the geometry. The detection and sizing process is usually performed
manually, although computer automation techniques are beginning to be implemented.
Many display methods have been developed to aid log analysts in the process. Detection starts with visualization of the flux leakage
data the over a large area. Once defects are identified additional data display methods are used including strip chart recording and
computer generated displays in pseudo color and three dimensions either with wire frames or in color.
Additional Details on Data Visualization
Libraries of Defect Signals
Selected examples have been presented throughout this report to illustrate consequence of a variable or inspection parameter.
Addition insight into the nature of flux leakage can be attained when comparing the signals from many defects and inspection
variables.
variables.
The GRI Pipeline Simulation Facility
[Eiber90,

Eiber91,

Nestleroth95a,

Nestleroth96a,

Bubenik95b,

Bubenik99]
has the equipment and defects
sets needed to demonstrate how various parameters affect MFL signals. The MFL test bed vehicle
[Nestleroth96a]
was used to collect
data from the hundreds of metal loss defects
[Koenig95b]
at the facility. Data from selected tests have been complied into libraries of
defect signals. These results illustrate flux leakage for many defect geometries and inspection conditions.
MFL Test Bed Vehicle
Metal Loss Defects Sets
The flux leakage maps in the libraries can be accessed through the links given later in this section. Each link calls up a table of
defects for one library. By clicking on a defect number, the defect's MFL signal will be presented in a topographical display. The
color scale for the display is fixed within each library and depends on the dynamic range of the signals within that library. For
example, the library for the metal-loss detection set has a 4 gauss per color change scale, while the library for characterization set,
which has larger defects, has a coarser 10 gauss per color change scale.
The display maps have a grid superimposed on the top of them to aid in measurement of defect width and length. Each shows a
photograph of the metal-loss region and a description of the defect geometry. A color scale is also shown, along with notations that
list the highest and lowest recorded signal amplitudes.
There is a tutorial available to assist in interpreting MFL signals. This tutorial also reviews basic information on MFL signals and the
parameters that affect them:
MFL Tutorial
The defect libraries are:
Metal loss characterization library - This library contains larger metal-loss defects and defects that produce large flux
leakage amplitudes. Many of the defects have sufficient size to require either a pressure reduction or repair in pipelines
operating at 72 percent SMYS. Some of the defects would not affect the serviceability of the pipeline but have a geometry that
produces larger flux leakage. Other defects have geometric parameters that are close to ones that are severe or produce
large signals. The defects range in depth from 20 to 80 percent, and in length and width from 1 to 6 inches. These defects are
useful in developing corrosion sizing methods.
Metal-Loss Characterization Library
Metal loss detection library - This library contains smaller metal loss defects and defects that produce smaller flux leakage
amplitudes. Most of these defects have depths less than 20% or lengths less than 1 inch (25.4 mm). Some of these defects
are axially long and circumferentially narrow, which produce low flux leakage signals. These defects are useful in establishing
detection threshold criteria and small defect characterization.
Metal-Loss Detection Library
Metal loss interaction library - This library contains an exploratory set of defects to illustrate the effect of compound defect
geometries. These defects, when not used for characterization function development, are useful in developing a general
understanding on the effect of neighboring defects.
Complex Metal-Loss Library
Some of the defects are included in all three libraries so that qualitative comparisons can be made. However, quantitative
comparisons should be avoided because either the sensors or the magnetizer configuration for the three libraries are different.
Compensation for these variables would have to be applied to ensure direct comparability.
Analysis of Flux Leakage Data
The last step in an MFL inspection is analysis. Analysis is the process of estimating the geometry or severity of a defect (or
imperfection) from the measured flux leakage field. The techniques and success of analyzing MFL data depend on the capabilities
and limitations of the MFL tool
[Johnson96, Roche96, Smith96]
, which are established by design and operational trade-offs. Typical
design compromises include selecting a shorter magnet pole spacing to provide better ability to pass through tight bends or larger
lift-off (wear) plates to provide longer inspection runs.
The interpretation of MFL signals is difficult because there is not a simple relationship between the signal shape and the defect
geometry or severity. Characterization is compounded by inspection variables associated with inspection including flow velocity,
remanent magnetization, variations in the steel properties, and operating pressure. The goal of this section is to show the
characterization capability of analysis techniques that would be typically used to analyze MFL in-line inspection data.
Performance expectations, like inspection requirements, cover location, detection, and characterization accuracies. Each of these is
discussed below.
Location Accuracy
Most MFL vendors report that their tools provide location accuracies to within 3 to 7 feet or within 0.1 to 0.3 percent of the distance
from the nearest reference point. Inspection tools determine the location of an indication by odometer measurements from known
reference points. So, the location accuracy of a tool depends on both the accuracy of the odometer and the location of the reference
points.
One pipeline operator recently reported using magnetic reference markers points every 1.5 miles along a pipeline route. A 1.5-mile
spacing and a 0.1 percent inaccuracy gives an expected location accuracy of within 4 feet midway between the markers. There are
few reports of location accuracy for actual MFL tools. An advanced tool vendor reported that 97 percent of indications were located
within 5 feet of the actual condition.
Accurate pipeline drawings with detailed locations of valves, branch connections, and other pipeline features help improve location
Detection Threshold
Accurate pipeline drawings with detailed locations of valves, branch connections, and other pipeline features help improve location
accuracy. By setting reference points (for example, magnetic markers) each mile or less, an inspection vendor can tailor the location
accuracy of its tool to a required value. On lines with many clearly defined reference points, these accuracies can approach several
inches.
No significant theoretical restrictions exist on location accuracy other than odometer inaccuracy. Odometer inaccuracies result wear
and slip of the wheels.
Detection Thresholds
In general, the amplitude of a flux leakage field is related to the volume of metal loss. Therefore, the threshold of detection or
minimum detectable metal-loss region for MFL tools is related to the length, width, and depth of the region.
Several reports have been published giving thresholds of detection for MFL tools. For conventional tools, vendors state that the
smallest detectable corrosion pits have depths between 15 and 20 percent of the wall thickness.
[AMF] [Mohr]
Similarly, the smallest
detectable pits have lengths and widths that are 80 percent of the wall thickness. For advanced tools, the smallest detectable
corrosion pits are reported to be 20 to 40 percent deep for one vendor and 20 to 70 percent deep for another. The 20 percent depth
refers to corrosion patches with a length and width equal to three times the pipe wall thickness; the 40 to 70 percent depths refer to
pits that are one-third smaller.
Theoretically, the detection threshold should be a function of the flux leakage
amplitude compared to the noise and background signal level. Typical pipeline
steels have background noise levels of about 3 gauss, but the noise can be as
high as 15 to 20 gauss.
Details on Noise and Background Signals
Detection thresholds depend on the signal-to-noise ratio. A small 10 percent deep
defect produces a signal that is larger than typical noise levels, but a small 5
percent defect produces a signal that is lost in the noise. So, detection thresholds
of 10 percent are attainable for most pipeline steels. Lower thresholds are only
possible in quiet steels, and larger thresholds are likely in noisier steels.
Detection Thresholds for Small Defects
Probability of Detection
Most conventional tool vendors do not publicly show information on expected probabilities of detection levels.
[Mohr]
These data are
considered proprietary. When published, a single probability of detection value or confidence level is generally given, rather than
both.
One advanced tool vendor reports a confidence level of 80 percent for metal-loss anomalies with a length or width greater than the
wall thickness of the pipe.
[Shannon88]
This confidence level includes false calls as well as missed defects. So, the actual confidence
level on detection may be higher. Several advanced tool vendors report confidence levels that depend on the size of the metal-loss
region; one vendor gives a 40 percent confidence level for a region with a length or width equal to the wall thickness and 95 to 99
percent for a region that is three times larger.
In one published report for an advanced tool, a pipeline operator reported on the results of a trial where a tool was run through a line
with 79 metal-loss defects.
[Jones]
These metal-loss regions consisted of corrosion pits ranging in depth from 14 to 61 percent deep
and corrosion patches from 11 to 52 percent deep. All metal-loss regions were detected, and no false calls were reported. An
advanced tool vendor also reported on a program where 33 indications were investigated.
[Jackson]
All of the indications reported by
the tool existed, and there were no false indications.
Theoretically, the probability of detection should be set by the magnitude and spread of leakage signals compared to the
background signals. If the leakage field is well above the noise and background level, the probability of detection should be near 100
percent. At or near the noise and background level, the probability of detection should drop significantly.
An important consideration in determining the probability of detection during an actual inspection is the presence of "blind spots" or
areas where the pipe is not inspected. Blind spots can occur due to excessive speed, sensors bumping off the pipe wall, deposits
inside the pipe, sensor failures, electronic failures, and the capabilities of the inspection log analyst or analysis program. Depending
on the capabilities of a tool, the presence of blind spots can strongly impact the true probability of detection.
Characterization of Metal-loss Defects
Once a defect is detected, its signal must be analyzed to determine the defect's potential effect on the operation pipeline. Because
there is not a simple and direct transformation between flux leakage and defect geometry, many methods have been developed to
interpret MFL signals and characterize the geometry of defects. These methods include template matching, statistical methods, and
neural networks
[Lord77, Mandayam96, Nestleroth96]
. Each method has had varying degrees of success, and each has its own strengths
and weaknesses.
The development of a characterization method using statistical methods illustrates the many of issues associated with
characterization functions. The most commonly used method of analyzing MFL signals is to make inferences or calculations based
on features of the signals.
To determine realistic estimates of the capability of such methods, we used classical mathematical modeling techniques to develop
characterization algorithms. First, features of signal, such as peak amplitude, signal duration and sensors responding, were
extracted from the recorded flux leakage response. Then statistical methods were used to establish characterization and
compensation algorithms.
Overview of Statistical Analyses of MFL Signals
Calculated Depth Accuracy
Calculated Width Accuracy
Depth Accuracy
Some inspection tool vendors report defects by categories or ranges of depth or severity.
[AMF] [Vetco]
Severe or "Class 3" defects
often have an estimated depth greater than 50 percent of the wall thickness. Moderate or "Class 2" defects have depths between 25
and 50 percent or 30 to 50 percent. Light or "Class 1" defects have depths up to 25 percent or from 15 to 30 percent. When
accuracies on the classes are reported, they are typically reported to be within 10 percent of the wall thickness.
[AMF]
Other tool vendors report an estimated depth, rather than a broad classification of severity.
[British Gas]
The reported accuracies are
typically 10 percent of the wall thickness with a confidence level of 80 percent. For some advanced tools, software is used to invert
the measured signals, providing a contour map of the signal amplitude. These contour maps may be calibrated to be proportional to
the defect depth. The inversion process often uses the same basic amplitude-depth relationships used for conventional-tool
analyses.
The statistical analyses performed in this project suggest that depth
accuracy of 8 percent of the wall thickness (with 95 percent confidence)
is ultimately possible for elliptical defects less than 50% deep.
However, we could not obtain an accuracy this high. Accurate depth
estimation is possible only when the analyses are appropriately
compensated for other geometry variables. The best accuracy
obtained in the analyses is 19 percent (for a 50 percent deep defect
and with 95 percent confidence). Most of the error is likely due to the
width estimation procedure used in the analyses, although it is not clear
that better methods exist.
The statistical analyses suggest that defect parameters, such as the
width-to-length ratio, are particularly important when estimating depth. If
depth predictions are made on amplitude alone - that is, if these other
parameters are not taken into account - the accuracy plummets. The
magnitude of depth estimation error increases with increasing defect
depth. Depth estimation can be improved by compensation for
inspection variables, but the impact of inspection variable
compensation is small compared to geometry compensation for the
range of variables considered in this study.
Confidence levels are particularly important in defining accuracies. At lower confidence levels (e.g., 80 percent, a commonly
reported confidence level), the accuracy appears much greater. A 95-percent confidence level implies that 19 out 20 defects (95
percent) are reported within the tolerance given. An 80-percent confidence level implies that 16 out of 20 defects are correctly
reported.
Statistical Analyses of Depth Characterization Accuracy
Width Accuracy
Width is not commonly reported by inspection vendors, and when it is,
it is typically based on the width of the recorded MFL signal. Most, or
all, inspection vendors do not report accuracy of their width estimates.
Because width-to-length ratio significantly affects the ability to predict
depth, accurate width estimates are important.
The statistical analysis performed in this project suggests that width
accuracy of 1.5 to 2 inches (with 95 percent confidence) is possible
for defects with widths from 1 to 6 inches. Accuracies as low as 2 to
4 inches are likely with unsophisticated analysis procedures. As with
depth estimation, errors in width estimation are due primarily to defect
geometry (and/or permanent local pipe conditions).
Statistical Analyses of Width Characterization Accuracy
Length Accuracy
The length of individual defects is commonly reported by inspection
vendors. Reported accuracies are typically with 0.25 to 0.5 inch with
no claim on confidence level.
The statistical analysis performed in this project suggests that
individual defect length can be estimated quite well without
compensation for other features. In fact, an individual defect's length
seems to be the geometry characteristic most accurately estimated,
at least for individual defects. Methods were developed that provided
length estimation errors of approximately 1 inch (25.4 mm) with 95%
confidence. Improvements come at the cost of defect detection
capability.
Calculated Length Accuracy
capability.
The errors in length estimation are due primarily to defect geometry
(and/or permanent local pipe conditions) and random error, with the
two factors switching relative importance with increasing length.
Almost no unexplained length variability is attributable to inspection
conditions. The defect geometry effects are especially important when
multiple defects are in close proximity to each other. While not
explicitly evaluated in this study, the accuracy with which the length of individual defects in close proximity to others is expected to
be low.
Statistical Analyses of Length Characterization Accuracy
Severity Accuracy
Severity criteria typically use length and depth estimates or defect profile estimates to determine whether a repair is needed.
Industry accepted code and method such as ASME B31G
[ASME]
and RSTRENG relate defect geometry to severity.
For individual pits with well defined edges, length and depth estimates based on MFL inspections are reasonably accurate and
severity predictions should be similarly accurate. For larger corrosion patches, length and width estimation is more difficult. There
are significant errors in predicting width, resulting in corresponding errors in depth prediction.
Errors in estimating the geometry of a defect are compounded in severity calculations. Characterization accuracy is typically
reported for individual defects or for the deepest defect within a pipe joint. Individual defects can be reported as a composite or
single defect. The effects of such reporting can be significant, especially when several small defects are reported as one large
defect.
To the best of the author's knowledge, no inspection company as yet provides accuracy estimates for severity calculations.
Understanding the accuracy of such calculations is essential to using the results of an MFL inspection to prioritize defects for
excavation and repair.
Issues and Insights
Current Detection Capabilities
MFL can detect metal-loss defects in pipelines with good confidence, but operational considerations restrict its use in some
pipelines. These restrictions are not limitations of MFL per se. Rather they result from physical constraints such as reduced port
valves, or normal variations in operating conditions such as product flow speed. Most metal-loss regions produce a measurable flux
leakage that is detectable with typical MFL tools, even for small imperfections that do not threaten the structural integrity of a
pipeline.
For very shallow, long, or narrow metal-loss regions, the MFL signal can become hard to detect. Extremely narrow defects (for
example, electric resistance seam weld corrosion or stress-corrosion cracks) do not produce measurable signals in typical MFL
systems. Also, background noise levels and variations in tool speed and remanent magnetization impact the detection threshold.
These operational variations occur, for example, after the MFL tool exits a bend or restriction, at which time the tool speed can be
quite high.
Current Characterization Capabilities
Metal-loss defects can generally be detected with MFL tools, but characterization accuracy is also important. Analyses to determine
the maximum safe operating pressure of a pipeline require information on the depth, length, and shape of metal-loss regions. As a
result, characterization accuracy plays a strong role in an MFL tool's ability to provide results that can be used to estimate maximum
safe operating pressures.
The ability of an MFL tool to characterize the depth, shape, and length of a metal-loss region depends on the size of the sensors
and the sophistication of the data analysis system. Conventional MFL tools have a limited potential for characterizing defects
because they typically use large sensors and manual (noncomputerized) analysis systems. Advanced or high-resolution MFL tools,
with small sensors and computerized analysis systems, have the potential for more accurate characterization.
The characterization accuracy of most MFL tools is highly variable. Most vendors report sufficiently high accuracy on depth and
length predictions of individual defects to make accurate serviceability calculations. However the confidence level of the
measurement can mean a significant number of defects will not be properly characterized. For example, many vendors state a
depth accuracy of 10 percent of wall thickness and a length accuracy of 0.5 inches (12mm) with a confidence of 80 percent.
That is one out of every 5 defects will be characterized incorrectly. This lack of confidence is due to the inherent problems
associated with the prediction of defect geometry.
Complex shapes, long and narrow grooves, multiple pits, and inspection variables present analysis problems for either the
inspector or computer analyzing the log. As a result, it is difficult for pipeline operators to estimate the maximum safe operating
pressure of a pipeline on the basis of current MFL inspection reports
[Rust96]
. For groups of defects or defects within other defects,
it is not likely that an accurate ranking of defect severity can be made using present technology. Improved characterization accuracy
of MFL tools would allow pipeline operators to better understand the likely severity of reported anomalies. However, there will be an
ultimate limit to characterization accuracy.
High characterization accuracy is not always needed. The required accuracy depends on the goal of the inspection and on the
number of indications found. On lines with few indications, a high characterization accuracy may not be needed if all indications are
independently investigated. Conversely, where access to the line is difficult and on lines with many indications, characterization
accuracy may be far more important, especially in critical areas. In addition, the required characterization accuracy depends on the
depths of the metal-loss regions found. Inaccuracies in estimating the remaining wall thickness directly impact the estimated
severity of a metal-loss anomaly. For deep metal-loss regions, errors in depth strongly affect calculated severity for defects. For
shallow regions, errors in depth are less important.
shallow regions, errors in depth are less important.
Areas for Future Developments
Although MFL is the oldest technology for the inspection of pipelines, new developments will propel its use for decades.
Restricted Lines
An area that will receive significant advances is the continued development of tools that can inspect lines that were not previously
inspectable
[Pikas96, Scrivner96]
. These tools will be able to pass reduced port valves, tight bends, miter bends, or other pipeline
features that previously restricted inspection. Current restricted-line tools use large sensors, which limit data analysis capabilities.
Future tools will match the sensors and data recording capability of a high resolution MFL tools. However, because of the additional
variables associated with restricted lines, the defect sizing accuracy of these tools may be closer to conventional MFL tools.
Improved mechanical design is needed to inspect some restricted lines. For example, current MFL tools are limited in the tightest
bend they can pass through by the pole spacing used in the system. So, pipeline operators must either replace tight bends or wait
for the development of inspection tools with shorter pole spacings. While shorter pole spacings would allow the inspection of tighter
bends, the signals from such systems are more difficult to analyze, reduces accuracy. In order to allow inspection of tighter bends
with the same accuracy as in current tools, future analysis systems will need to account for the effects of velocity and the actual
applied magnetic field.
Velocity Control
Advancements in tool technology will allow inspections of pipelines where the velocity is extremely high and cannot be reduced or
where it varies significantly. Active speed control systems could also allow more accurate detection and characterization of pipeline
defects during routine inspections.
Speed control involves more than just modifying the drive module to enable the flow bypass. The magnetizer module needs to be
redesigned to enable sufficient bypass. One speed control option is to use shorter brushes, thus enabling more flow bypass through
the center of the magnetizer module. Shorter brushes restrict the ability of the MFL tool to pass diameter restrictions, and other
design compromises meet similar operational limitations and trade-offs between accuracy, cost, and flexibility. So, pipeline
operators should consider the actual accuracy attained with such systems before using them.
Defection of Small Defects
Detection and characterization of small metal-loss regions could be improved by using smaller sensors, as in advanced or high-
resolution MFL systems, and by using higher magnetization levels. Small metal-loss regions are usually considered imperfections
that do not threaten the structural integrity of a pipeline. Detection of small imperfections could help pipeline operators that wish to
identify the onset of corrosion damage.
Use of Low Magnetic Field Levels
Many MFL inspection systems use extremely high magnetic intensities to reduce the effects of inherent material property variations,
residual stresses, and many inspection variables. At lower magnetization levels, these variations impede the detection of smaller
metal loss defects and characterization of the defect size. This change in signal, often considered noise since it alters the flux
leakage response from metal loss defects, may contain information about other defects in the pipeline.
Recent technology development has shown the potential of low field measurements to characterize mechanical damage defects.
Such developments will continue and be offered on commercial tools in the near term. The ability of these system reliably detect
mechanical damage defects and differentiate harmful and benign damage will need to be demonstrated. Current in-line inspection
systems predict the geometry of metal-loss defects, which is in turn used to calculate failure stress. The ability of current systems to
accurately characterize complicated defect shapes is limited. A design alternative is to inspect at high and low magnetization
levels. A significant difference in relative signal levels could indicate the location of the most severe defects. This approach is still
conceptual and would require further development to prove its viability.
Circumferential MFL
Very narrow axially oriented defects, such as cracks and seam corrosion are rarely detected using current MFL technology. This is
a limitation of the implementation and orientation of the magnetizing assembly used on current MFL tools. Rather than the current
axial orientation of the magnetizing assembly, a circumferential orientation could be implemented along with novel sensor systems
to look for axial defects.
Inspection systems using this magnetizer orientation are available for special purposes, and circumferential MFL has the potential
to become a widely used inspection technology. This technology could be used for many pipeline defects such as corrosion,
cracking, mechanical damage and seam weld defects. A benefit should be increased accuracy of sizing and characterization. A
limitations of this technology will be identification of defect type and sizing of certain defects. These limitations could be overcome
by combining circumferential MFL data with axial MFL data.
A separate application of circumferential MFL could be as a screening tool. The results of a screening inspection could be used to
determine the need for in-the-ditch sizing of a few defect locations or a high resolution, defect specific tool such as a crack
detection tool. While developing a commercial circumferential MFL inspection tool, performance levels as well as other needs,
constraints, and options must be clarified for this inspection technology to gain acceptance by the pipeline operators.
. . .
A significant development effort for MFL will continue at in-line inspection service companies, universities, and as part of pipeline
company and government sponsored technology development programs. These efforts will undoubtedly lead to an enhanced
understanding of the topics discussed herein and to continuing advances in the capabilities of commercial MFL in-line inspection
tools. Through advances in technology, MFL will continue to be a beneficial tool that pipeline operators can use as part of an overall
integrity assurance program.

MFL Topical Report - Main Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MFL Topical Report - Main Document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MFL Topical Report - Main Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

22/6/2014 MFL Topical Report - Main Document

You might also like