MAGNETIC FLUX LEAKAGE FOR NDT INSPECTION ON

HIGH PRESSURE OIL AND GAS PIPING WELD SECTION

EMPLOYED SUCCESSFULLY.
Afidiahaisyah Binti Salleh
ME0101497
Universiti Tenaga Nasional, College of Engineering.

ABSTRACT

Detection of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) is one of the most common pipeline
inspection techniques. It is a non-destructive test method that uses sensitive magnetic
detectors to detect the magnetic leakage field of defects on both internal and external
pipeline surfaces. This article presents the primary principles of MFL information
measurement and handling. Also mentioned is the identification of the magnetic leakage
signal as the primary phase of a quantitative MFL detection assessment. This article
presents the primary principles of MFL information measurement and handling. In
addition, the advantages and disadvantages of specific detection methods are assessed.
Then the paper briefly introduces the experts ' systems used. At the end of this document,
future developments in the identification of MFL pipelines will be anticipated.

INTRODUCTION
1. The Significance of The Detection of Pipeline Defects.
Today, petroleum and natural gas are significant energy and chemical raw
materials that play an significant part in people's life, industrial and agricultural
manufacturing, and national defense[1]. It is well acknowledged that using a
pipeline system is the safest and most efficient way of transporting oil gas.
However, most pipelines are buried underground where humidity or pressure
readily affects them and are prone to deformation and corrosion. Any loss of metal
or small flaws in the pipeline could result in serious accidents.
With the oil industry, the China pipeline industry has developed. After more
than 40 years, the gap between China and the developed world has gradually
shrunk, particularly in the fields of pipeline engineering design technology,
 building level, operational management and maintenance, but the pipeline sector
in China has began comparatively late and has evolved slowly, with significant
gaps in pipeline coverage, service diversity, technical devices. Oil and gas
companies have a big amount of machinery. Guaranteeing safe operation is of
paramount significance, and important maintenance techniques can be adopted.
The cost of repairing or substituting subsea pipelines is much higher than that of
onshore pipelines. The Baltic Sea pipeline will contribute significantly to long-
term safety of supply and the EU-Russia energy partnership, but a great deal of
job is needed to protect the pipelines. Security of deepwater risers is crucial for
the sustainable operation of offshore platforms, which must improve the precision
of harm identification and fatigue assessment. On some ancient and long
PetroChina (Beijing, China) pipelines there are some spiral welding flaws. Due to
a absence of penetration and fusion, these defects are created during pipe
production. The maintenance cost of China's pipeline is as much as several
hundred million yuan a year, and there is a increasing trend. Detection of pipelines
is blind, limited by technology and means of detection, leading in a waste of
manpower, machinery and financial resources. All of this locations more urgent
demands on pipeline identification.

2. About Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL)

Non-destructive test methods have been commonly used to evaluate the
condition of the pipeline. Common methods include eddy current inspection
techniques, ray inspection techniques, penetration inspection techniques, and
magnetic flux leakage inspection techniques. Each technique has its own
limitations and advantages. Due to the distinctive feature of the long nature of oil
pipeline inspections, these are carried out from the inside of the pipe. Ultrasonic
inspection, eddy current inspection and magnetic flux leakage inspection methods
are common methods. The most commonly used technique for assessing the
integrity of the pipeline is magnetic flux leakage and ultrasonic inspection.
However, due to distinct factors and the effect of the constraints, both of their
results are uncertain and the results need to be quantified and assessed. The most
commonly used technique for detecting holes in both axial and circumferential
paths is magnetic flux leakage, although prone to the pipe roof and other
variables. As stated above, in the pipeline screening sector, magnetic flux leakage
 (MFL) methods have developed since the 1960s[3]. The detectors used magnetic
dust to a large part in the original phase, which indicated the outcomes by piling
up. This technique has been widely used in the sector, intuitive, easy, highly
delicate. With the growth of the semiconductor electronics sector, magnetic
sensors have made excellent progress, eliminating the restriction of measuring
instruments to magnetic powder. Figure 1 shows a tool for the MFL.

Figure 1 A MFL tool, which consists of three primary parts: a drive section at the front of the instrument, a central
magnetizer section, and a data logger at the back of the instrument.

.
Magnetic flux leakage inspection does not require pre-processing and signals
can be easily identified. Online detection can be performed easily and it is
possible to apply a high amount of automation. It can also identify many kinds of
faults. Surface flaws, stomas, wounds, cavities of shrinkage, pitting of corrosion,
etc. Not only can the internal layer be examined for defects, but external surfaces
can also be examined. The identification configuration demands are not strong
and the transport medium does not affect them. All these advantages generate the
most popular magnetic flux leakage inspection method. During the inspection
stage, an MFL PIG is sent through the buried pipe to perform pipeline
inspections. If you are standing near a pipeline where an MFL PIG works,
vibrations can be felt as pigs pass through the pipeline, which is why detectors of
magnetic flux leakage were called smart pigs. Inspection of magnetic flux
leakage began to be widely used in the early twenties in the twentieth century.
From qualitative identification of deficiencies to quantitative analysis, it has
evolved [4]

THE MFL METHOD

 The most efficient way to transfer fluids (oil and gas) over long distances is
considered by pipelines. Despite this high efficiency, however, there have been
reasons for worry over the past few years, mainly because a big portion of the
current pipeline networks are ending their helpful life. It is therefore essential to
be able to monitor, assess and ensure their entire structure, take precautions
against leaks and thus protect the environment and the population. Non-
destructive tests (NDT) coupled with signal processing techniques and artificial
intelligence, such as artificial neural network (ANN), have made a positive
contribution to assessing the structural integrity of the pipelines used by the
petroleum sector.
The non-destructive inspection of liquid transport pipelines is based primarily
on the method of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) to detect discontinuities and loss
of density owing to corrosion (CO) of the pipeline walls, allowing a quantitative
assessment of the defect size. To check pipelines, the MFL method utilizes a tool
known as smart pig. Under the pressure of the fluid, the pig is propelled inside
the pipe and is equipped with different sensors to gather information about the
pipeline state. This pig technique is the only feasible inspection alternative for
pipelines buried, offshore or with hard access. There are currently two well-
known pig inspection methods: ultrasonic and MFL, but roughly 90% of pig
inspections are conducted using the MFL magnetic pig.

Figure 2 Magnetic Pig

If, on the one hand, the MFL technique is extremely probable to identify
faults, on the other hand, its ability to identify these faults is still doubtful, as it is
difficult to correlate the channel characteristics with the sort of flaw. Usually the
ranking of the message is conducted digitally; and this therefore essentially relies
on the ability and knowledge of the operator. The correct ranking of the type of
discontinuity on the pipeline wall would make it possible to make a faster and
more accurate choice in terms of repairing the damage, decreasing the likelihood
of failure and subsequently any temporary loss of manufacturing or adverse
environmental effect. The innovative growth of computational methods,
primarily in artificial intelligence sciences, such as neural networks, has provided
a strong impetus to the development of automatic inspection and classification
systems for patterns of defects. The pattern classifiers used ANNs in this job to
acknowledge the classes of MFL signals from smart pig weld joints inspection.
These classifiers ' performance was originally assessed for the signal
classification of defects (D) and non-defects (ND) and subsequently for three
kinds of weld joint defects— external corrosion (EC), inner corrosion (IC) and
absence of penetration (LP)—which were artificially introduced into the weld
bead. Pre-processing methods, such as Fourier analysis transform wavelets and
Savitzky–Golay filter, have been introduced to network input signals in an effort
to enable automatic classification.

Four samples (S1, S2, S3 and S4) were prepared for the current research from
seamless steel tubes with the API 5L-X65 specification, 9100 mm long, 304.8
mm nominal exterior diameter and 7.1 mm wall thickness. During the welding
method, 12 circumferential welds were produced on these samples with defects
artificially inserted (Fig. 3). The weld bead simulated three classes of defects:
EC, IC, and LP. As seen in Fig, the defects were inserted at every 90 ° along the
weld bead resulting in a total of four defects per bead. 2. During the bead
welding, the LP defect was implemented while the EC and IC defects were
simulated with manually inserted shallow groves (Fig. 4). The deficiencies had
depths ranging from 3 to 5 mm and lengths ranging from 10 to 50 mm.

Figure 3 Specimen use in MFL test

Figure 4 The four researched weld bead circumstances: (a) non-defect; (b) insufficient penetration; (c) external corrosion;
and (d) inner corrosion.

Intelligent pigs have appropriate electronic instrumentation for each inspection

technique for parameter measurement or recording to assess the pipeline status.
Using smart pigs allows access to subterranean and subsea pipelines, which
would be impossible using standard techniques of inspection. An extra benefit of
using pigs is that during ordinary operation of the pipeline the inspection can be
carried out without causing any stoppage. In addition to sensors, pigs are fitted
with units for acquisition, information processing and power sources and can
travel hundreds of kilometers under elevated pressure and in touch with pipeline
fluid [2]. The MFL pig inspection principle is based on applying a recognized
external magnetic field to a ferromagnetic material and measuring the reaction
through suitable sensors (hall sensors or coil). If the material presents any
discontinuity on its surface or interior, the internal magnetic field will be
disrupted as the sort of disruption depends on multiple variables, such as
magnetic field intensity, defect geometry, material type, etc. [5] as shown Fig 5.

Figure 5 MFL Inspection Equipment with the label

An MFL pig with 136 Hall sensors and a coil type sensor ring was used in this job to
discriminate between inner and external defects.
References
[1] Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Statistical
Analysis of Pipeline Accidents. 14 December 2013. Available online:
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/safety-reports/pipeline-failure-investigation-reports
(accessed on 30 July 2019).
[2] MFL signals and artificial neural networks applied to detection and classification of pipe
weld defects. Disember 2006. Available online:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096386950600034X (accessed on
30 July 2019)

[3] Theory and Application of Magnetic Flux Leakage Pipeline Detection. 3 September
2015. Yan Shi, Chao Zhang, Rui Li, Maolin Cai and Guanwei Jia.
[4] Oil-Gas Pipeline Magnetic Flux Leakage Testing Defect Reconstruction Based on
Support Vector Machine, 11 October 2009, Available online:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5287869 (accessed on 30 July 2019)

[5] Experimental Study of Interference Factors and Simulation on Oil-Gas Pipeline

Magnetic Flux Leakage Density Signal, 24 September 2007, Available online:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4304153 (accessed on 30 July 2019)

[6]Welding and Inspection of Piping, 1 December 1994, Available online:

https://www.standard.no/pagefiles/1159/m-cr-601r1.pdf