Observations On Magnetic Wall

Observations on Magnetic Wall
Measurements of Coiled Oilfield Tubing

by Roderic K. Stanley*
This is an interesting article describing one of the practical
applications of magnetic NDT methods. A brief history of using
magnetic methods in measuring wall thickness of ferromagnetic
tubes, along with a simple explanation of the techniques involved,
provides good background information to the reader unfamiliar with
the technique. The author presents data indicating the influence of
material grade on magnetic properties.
G.P Singh
Associate Technical Editor
Figures 1-3
Figures 4-5
INTRODUCTION
The testing of coiled oilfield tubing is now considered to be an important

requirement prior to and during offshore servicing. It is now mandated in the
Norwegian sector of the North Sea via the Norsok requirements (Norsok, 1998)
and is being considered by the Minerals Management Service for US operations.
A draft document from the American Petroleum Institute (API) now covers test
techniques and a joint industry project is investigating the effect of surface
damage on coiled tubing bending fatigue, along with the nondestructive testing
(NDT) used to detect that damage. Much of this has been discussed in earlier
papers (Stanley, 1996a; Stanley, 1998; Stanley, 2001).
One interesting method is that of wall thickness measurement of ferromagnetic
tubes using a noncontact direct current magnetic technique (Stanley, 1992;
Stanley, 1994; Stanley, 1996b). This paper covers some results obtained with this
for carbon steel coiled tubing.
The advantage of this technique

is that it is a noncontact technique
TEST REQUIREMENTS
A draft document, API Recommended Practice 5C8: Care, Maintenance and
Inspection of Coiled Tubing, is being prepared under the API Resource Group for
Coiled Tubing. This document will cover standard sizes, cleaning of the internal
and external surfaces, protection during periods of storage, corrosion and its
mitigation, tube to tube welding (treated as a maintenance issue), NDT and some
possible rules for assessing inservice carbon steel coiled tubing.
The test section covers the techniques that have been developed to date for
continuous tubing testing (including skelp end welds and tube to tube welds),
along with imperfection signal "prove up" techniques. For continuous testing,
tubing is delivered from one reel, passed through the test head at speeds in the
region of 24.4 m/min (80 ft/min) and collected on a second reel. Testing is thus
effected from the outer diameter.
Inside the test head (Figure 1), the tubing is magnetized to saturation
longitudinally and scanned with arrays of hall effect sensors for the ambient
tangential magnetic flux Bx through the sensors and for variations in this from
surface imperfections (magnetic flux leakage). Because tubing expands under
pressure and becomes oval under repeated bending, a dilation/ovalness detector
provides the third test and a low frequency differential eddy current system is
added for the detection of longitudinal gouges and heavily cycled areas (Stanley,
1999).
Because of the general condition of the outer surface of carbon steel coiled
tubing, ultrasonic methods have not, to date, been attempted for any of the
required tests with any degree of success. The introduction of ultrasonic methods
for new oilfield tubulars in steel mills and fixed test facilities in the 1980s provided
a severe test for the NDT industry. The use of ultrasonic testing on small
diameter, variable surface and relatively thin walled tubing for both wall thickness
and imperfection testing will thus present many problems.
THE COILED TUBING CONSORTIUM

For several years, a joint industry project existed that was administrated at the
University of Tulsa and which focused on the cycle fatigue of the various grades
of carbon steel coiled tubing (Table 1). The joint industry project became the
Coiled Tubing Mechanics Research Consortium in 1999 and began to focus its
efforts on the effects of controlled discontinuities of standard sizes and shapes
placed into the outer surface of coiled tubing. The idea was to compare the cycle
life of the tubing at various pressures, with and without the discontinuities.
Discontinuities of many shapes were added to several grades of carbon steel
coiled tubing, using milling and electrodischarge machining. These were fatigue
cycled on machines built from an earlier joint industry project in Houston and
Tulsa and the results were used to generate the computer program that enables
the coiled tubing operator to determine the effect of the discontinuity on the
fatigue life of the tubing (Tipton et al., 2002)
In this program, the length, width and depth of the discontinuity are required to
provide the assessment of the loss of fatigue life, which is of course critical to
practical coiled tubing operations. This, in turn, requires magnetic flux leakage
indications during the magnetic test to be investigated and measured.
COILED TUBING CONSORTIUM DATA

Data taken at the University of Tulsa are shown in Figure 2 during calibration of a
magnetizing coil that is part of a mock up of a coiled tubing test unit. Photos of
the mock up can be seen on the Coiled Tubing Mechanics Research Consortium
Web site at <www.coiledtubingutulsa.org>.
However, while the Coiled Tubing Mechanics Research Consortium is
investigating the magnetic flux leakage from carbon steel coiled tubing
imperfections, with a view of the extraction of signal information content, there
was a need to investigate the magnetic wall thickness measurement. With a hall
effect gaussmeter, the axial magnetic field strength versus current was measured
as follows (Moran et al., 2002). First, the center of the coil with no tubing present
was measured. This magnetizing field should be given by
where
N = the number of turns
I = the current
d = the average diameter of the coil.
The number of turns on the coil N was not known, so the data were taken with
the gaussmeter at 0.25 A intervals from 0 to 4 A, which was the peak direct
current available from the power supply. This is given by the leftmost straight line
data set (Figure 2), which calculates at 4.8 mT/A (47.8 G/A).
Then the hall probe was moved by 22.2 mm (0.88 in.) radially away from the
central axis, which is where the outer diameter of the 44.5 mm (1.75 in.) tubes
used in the discontinuity study would be if they were present. These data (the "no
tube" set in Figure 2) lie on the top of the first data set, so it can be seen that the
field is uniform in the air over the diameter of the tubing used in this test. This is
to be expected in this situation.
Then data were collected at the same location with two grades (HS90/CT90 from
one manufacturer and QT1000/CT100 from another) and two wall thicknesses of
straight sections of coiled tubing present axially inside the coil (the tangential field
just outside the surface of the tubing with the hall element).
Table 1 Grades of coiled tubing

Grade
Initial Minimum
Yield Strength
CT 70
CT 80
CT 90
CT 100
CT 110
483 MPa
(70 000 lb/in.2)
552 MPa
(80 000 lb/in.2)
621 MPa
(90 000 lb/in.2)
689 MPa
(100 000 lb/in.2)
785 MPa
(110 000 lb/in.2)
Initial Minimum
Tensile Strength
552 MPa
(80 000 lb/in.2)
621 MPa
(90 000 lb/in.2)
676 MPa
(98 000 lb/in.2)
758 MPa
(110 000 lb/in.2)
814 MPa
(118 000 lb/in.2)
OBSERVATIONS
First, it can be seen that the tangential field strength Btan (measured in tesla or
gauss) at the pipe surface is always lower than the field at the same point in air,
for the same applied current in the coil. This observation is critical to magnetic
wall thickness measurement.
Second, it can be seen that the field at the pipe surface saturates at about 2.5 A
of coil current. This represents a field of about 9.5 kA/m (120 Oe) to saturate
these relatively thin walled tubes. This low value should also be easily obtainable
using suitably designed permanent magnets.
The lower, curved parts of the graphs occur when the tube wall is not saturated.
However, it can also be seen that they are still lower than the leftmost (air) line.
The fact that the data sets (with the tubing present) appear to run almost parallel
to the air curve above 2.5 A is important in determining how well magnetic wall
thickness gages will calibrate, that is, how insensitive they are to changes in
magnetizing current after magnetic saturation has been reached.
Third, for 44.5 mm (1.75 in.) HS90/CT90 and QT1000/CT100 tubing, the
tangential surface field readings decrease as the wall thickness increases. This
illustrates the general principle of wall thickness measurement by the direct
current magnetic method. The thicker the wall, the lower the surface field. This
phenomenon is well known and has been observed on earlier tests with drill pipe.
Fourth, the results for the two grades are a little different. This is because the
chemical composition of the two materials is different and this difference affects
the saturation flux density of the respective steels. (This fact is, of course, well
known from studies of B versus H curves for various materials. B versus H
properties are very dependent upon carbon content. One typical B versus H
curve, taken on QT-90, is given in Figure 3).
MAGNETIC WALL GAGE

Data at 2.97 A
The data obtained at 2.97 A (tubes saturated) are shown in Table 2. Plotting the
data as field strength versus wall thickness, Figure 4 is obtained. With the pipe
absent (wall = 0), the open coil field is used. Figure 4 illustrates an almost linear
plot for 100 grade tubing and a curved plot for 90 grade tubing, over the wall
thickness interval investigated. Looking at the data from wall thicknesses of 0 to
3.1 mm (0 to 0.1 in.), there is a drop of 0.92 mT/mm (232 G/in.) of pipe wall
thickness for the 100 grade (upper curve) and 1 mT/mm (264 G/in.) for the 90
grade material (lower curve). Thus, there may be a grade effect on wall
thicknesses measured in coiled tubing testing units using this technique, but it
could easily be dealt with during calibration of a test system using tubes of the
same grade, chemistry and heat treatment.
Looking beyond to 3.96 mm (0.16 in.) wall material, the CT-100 grade material
shows a drop of 0.93 mT/mm (237 G/in.), indicating a slight increase as the wall
gets thicker. This is clearly seen in the 90 grade data, where the line curves more
sharply.
Thus, now we have a wall gage that measures at about 0.1 mm (4 10-3 in.) of
wall thickness per 0.1 mT (1 G) at the surface of the tubing, at least in the region
of wall thicknesses used in this quick test. Obviously data need to be taken for
walls that are thicker than 3.96 mm (0.16 in.) and since there is no reason to
suppose the data over a wider range are linear, we can expect to have to put a
transfer curve into any wall gage that uses this method.
Table 2 Surface field data for 2.97 A

Grade
Wall
Field
Current
Both
0 mm
(0in.)
3.2 mm
(0.125)
3.96 mm
1.13 (A/m)/T
(142 Oe/G
0.87 (A/m)/T
(109 Oe/G
0.72 (A/m)/T
2.98 A
90
90
2.97 A
2.97 A
100
100
(0.156 in.)
3.2 mm
(0.125 in.)
3.96 mm
(0.156 in.)
(90 Oe/G
0.90 (A/m)/T
(113 Oe/G
0.84 (A/m)/T
(105 Oe/G
2.97 A
2.97 A
Data at 3.47 A
A further plot at 3.47 A is shown in Figure 5. As with Figure 4, the upper curve is
for CT100/QT1000 and the lower one is for CT90/HS-90. The same general
properties are exhibited as are shown in Figure 4.
A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE TECHNIQUE

The magnetic field lines from current I in the coil have a pattern similar to that
shown in Figure 1. All the field lines encircle some part of the total current in the
coil. Some lines enter the tubing, while others do not. At the points where these
field lines enter and leave the tubing (areas P1 and P2, which are known as poles
in older magnetic texts), the value of the magnetic flux density B in the field line is
continuous, but the value of the magnetizing force (or magnetic field intensity) H
is discontinuous; this manifests itself as poles at these points. These poles create
a demagnetizing field Hd within the tube wall system, which is in the opposite
direction to the applied coil field. The actual magnetizing field at any point in the
tube wall is therefore not the original H (air) field, but rather a field that is affected
by the presence of this demagnetizing field Hd. In fact, even the value of the field
at the location Hc (far away from the tube) will be less when the pipe is present
because the effect of Hd spreads throughout the magnetizing system.
The number of poles at locations P1 and P2 increases with the wall thickness of
the tubing. Clearly, there are no poles at these locations when there is no tubing
and the value of Hd, the demagnetization field, rises with t. The largest value of
Hd would be where there is a rod of diameter 44.5 mm (1.75 in.) present, that is, t
= 22.2 mm (0.88 in.).
Location of Hall Element

It has been discovered that the hall element does not have to be right up against
the tube surface for this method to work and, in fact, in one system, the hall
sensors are placed just inside the magnetizing coil so they are well protected.
(Note the comment on Hc above.)
A LITTLE HISTORY
In the early 1980s, a method for measuring the average wall thickness in tubes
(or the thickness of steel rods, such as sucker rods) was developed using a
magnetizing coil and an encircling coil connected to an integrating circuit. In
order not to infringe on that patent, it was supposed that if the encircling coil was
broken up into a series of elements, then the patent would not be infringed
(Stanley et al., 1985). The hall element proved to be the ideal solution since it
does not require the electronic integration that the encircling coil requires. Tests
were performed on some used drill pipe at the International Pipe Inspectors
Association. The end result of these tests was that magnetic wall measurement
systems have been added to some commercial drill pipe test units and also form
the basis of wall thickness measurement variations on coiled tubing test units.
ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

The advantage of this technique is that it is a noncontact technique. The hall
element can be lifted away from the pipe surface and the wall thickness method
still works. This is particularly useful and should be investigated more thoroughly.
Unfortunately, the sensors used for discontinuity detection rather than wall
thickness measurement do have to be as close as possible to the tube surface
because a serious and well documented liftoff effect occurs.
For determination of the magnetic properties of carbon steel coiled tubing used, it
was essential to determine the B versus H curve properties in both the
longitudinal and circular directions. The curve shown in Figure 3 is one taken in
the longitudinal direction. The sample used was 305 mm (12 in.) long and 25.4
mm (1 in.) wide, cut from a section of 73.7 mm (2.9 in.) coiled tubing.
It can be seen that the material does not saturate in the longitudinal direction until
after the application of about 15.9 kA/m (200 Oe), but based upon prior work,
where it was determined essential to obtain large amounts of magnetic flux
leakage from small transversely oriented discontinuities in the walls of carbon
steel coiled tubing, it appears that application of 9.5 kA/m (120 Oe) will provide
sufficient field strength to obtain measureable amounts of magnetic flux leakage
from such discontinuities. Indeed, substantial and measureable amounts of
magnetic flux leakage occur at much smaller applied fields and it is well known
that optimal magnetic particle testing may be performed at much smaller fields.
Here, of course, the higher field is needed to provide magnetic flux leakage at a
relatively high liftoff distance than is used for magnetic particle testing.

Figure 1-3
Figure 1 - Magnetic system with fields Hc and Hd shown.

[ Back to February '04 NDT Solution ]
Figure 2 - Tangential field strength versus coil current during calibration trials.
Figure 3 - Longitudinal B versus H data for a sample of CT-90 grade coiled

oilfield tubing.

Figure 4-5
Figure 4 - Tangential surface field strength versus tube wall thickness at 2.97 A
(upper plot is 100 grade, lower plot is 90 grade).
Figure 5 - Tangential surface field strength versus tube wall thickness at 3.47 A.

Observations On Magnetic Wall

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Observations On Magnetic Wall

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Observations On Magnetic Wall

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Observations on Magnetic Wall

Measurements of Coiled Oilfield Tubing

The testing of coiled oilfield tubing is now considered to be an important

The advantage of this technique

THE COILED TUBING CONSORTIUM

COILED TUBING CONSORTIUM DATA

Table 1 Grades of coiled tubing

MAGNETIC WALL GAGE

Table 2 Surface field data for 2.97 A

A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE TECHNIQUE

Location of Hall Element

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

Observations on Magnetic Wall

Figure 1 - Magnetic system with fields Hc and Hd shown.

Figure 3 - Longitudinal B versus H data for a sample of CT-90 grade coiled

Observations on Magnetic Wall

You might also like