ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x
From Materials Evaluation, Vol. 74, No. 9, pp: 1296-1303.
Copyright © 2016 The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.
Finite Element Method Characterization of 3D
Magnetic Flux Leakage Signal of Crack Discontinuities
at Multiple Liftoff Values
by Xiaoming Zha*, Zhihao Xu†, Hougui Chen*, Yanhua Sun‡, and Heling Deng§
ABSTRACT
Previous studies commonly did analysis of mag-
netic flux leakage (MFL) signals at only one line-
scan liftoff and could not give comprehensive
information about the MFL field. This paper uses
the finite element method to analyze MFL infor-
mation of surface cracks on pipelines at multiple
liftoff values. The valley-valley spacing value of
axial components and peak-valley spacing value
of radial components are analyzed at multiple
liftoff values. Studies show that signals at multi-
ple liftoff values indicate more information than
signals at one liftoff. A technique using a double
liftoff compensation algorithm is proposed to
measure width more precisely.
KE YWO R DS: NDT, MFL, crack, FEM, liftoff.
* Ph.D., School of Electrical Engineering, Wuhan University, China.
† M.E., School of Electrical Engineering, Wuhan University, China.
‡ Ph.D., Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China.
§ School of Electrical Engineering, Wuhan University, China.
1296 MATERIALS EVALUATION • SEPTEMBER 2016
Introduction
As an important method for the steel pipe detection in
industry, magnetic flux leakage testing (ML) has been used
widely for years. The essence of ML is to get 3D discontinuity
information through inverse solving techniques based on the
information extracted from the magnetic field leakage (MFL).
In general, ML includes three fundamental steps: firstly,
magnetically saturating the object by applying an appropriate
magnetization; secondly, obtaining magnetic properties
around the surface of the object by using magnetic field
sensors; thirdly, analyzing magnetic field data to extract
geometry information (position, length, width, depth, and so
on) on the discontinuities. Among these three steps, step two
is of supreme importance in that the magnetic properties
obtained directly affect the accuracy of the detection results
and the evaluation of the security of the industrial steel pipe.
Currently, most researchers conduct only axial line scans
at a certain liftoff value to capture an MFL signal, which is not
enough to get all the magnetic properties. For example, one
study used the peak-valley spacing value (PVSV) to measure
the discontinuity width at a liftoff value of 1.5 mm. (Man-
dache and Clapham, 2003). Others studied the relationships
between the three-axial components and the discontinuity
width via the dipole model technique at a fixed liftoff value of
1 mm and drew the conclusion that it was most precise to use
the valley-valley spacing value (VVSV) of the axial compo-
nent, Bz, to signify the discontinuity width at liftoff of 1 mm
(Kopp and Willems, 2013). A third study used a particle
swarm optimization algorithm for reconstructing the sizes of
rectangular crack at different liftoff but only selected two liftoff
values, 1 and 1.5 mm, respectively (Zhang et al., 2009).
In fact, the MFL field is a 3D magnetic information field in
the spatial domain containing the axial, radial, and circumfer-
ential components, Bz, By, and Bx, respectively. The MFL field
distribution may have an important relationship with the spa-
tial location parameter liftoff value. An outside work re-
searched the liftoff effect and concluded that the PVSV of the
radial component was proportional to the discontinuity depth
and liftoff value (Uetake and Ito, 1986). Another work re-
searched different sensitivity of the radial component at differ-
ent liftoff values and concluded that the liftoff value has a
direct effect on the accuracy of the testing result (Dutta et al.,
2009). Another group made a special study of the selection
of the liftoff value in the alternating current MFL detection
system and concluded that the liftoff should be 4 mm consid- crack discontinuity model was utilized in the simulation. The
ering both the sensitivity and variation stability of probes (Li discontinuity parameters included the length (the dimension
et al., 2013). Others researched width effects to the radial size along the circumferential direction), width (the dimen-
component at different liftoff and concluded that the PVSV of sion size along the axial direction), and depth (the dimension
By changed linearly with liftoff, but they used a 2D finite ele- size perpendicular to the surface of the object). Simulations of
ment model (Li et al., 1999). Nevertheless, these researchers the length, width, and depth of the discontinuity model were
did not make clear the deep relationship between the charac- made in the following analysis. In this model, some assump-
teristics of the MFL signal and liftoff. tions are given: firstly, the crack outline on the pipe surface is
This paper analyzes the characteristics of the 3D spatial along the circumferential direction (as shown in Figure 2), so
signal at different liftoff values from the perspective of the spa- the outline is perpendicular to the axial direction. Secondly,
tial point sets. Based on the finite element method (FEM), the crack wall inclination is 0°, meaning the crack wall is also
this study is mainly focused on the characterizations of the perpendicular to the axial direction. In addition, the sensor is
axial component, Bz, and the radial component, By, in the 3D above the crack’s geometric center, and the crack length is set
MFL information at multiple liftoff values. at a constant of 8 mm. All information of the 3D MFL signals
from liftoff from 0.4 to 8 mm are taken into account.
Finite Element Method Modeling for 3D Magnetic Flux Taking the coaxial cylindrical coordinate of the steel pipe
Leakage at Multiple Liftoff Values and the helmholtz coils as the coordinate system, the MFL field
This paper utilizes FEM as the theoretical analysis technique, information at one certain point can be denoted by the axial com-
which deals with the MFL phenomenon as a nonlinear prob- ponent, Bz (in the same direction as the magnetization of the
lem. With the assistance of a computer technique, FEM is in- steel pipe), the radial component, By (in the direction vertical
dependent of the experiment and is capable of attaining the
MFL information not only outside the material but also inside.
This technique was first created by an American researcher in
1975 (Hwang and Lord, 1975). Recently, researchers carried
out a systematic 3D analysis of ML using FEM: research on
the eddy current phenomenon in high-speed ML; a study on
the effect the air gap and specimen thickness has on testing; a
study on the effect of adjacent corrosion pits; and an analysis
of optimal sensor placement (Katoh et al., 2000; Li et al.,
2006; Mao et al., 2003; Park and Park, 2002).
In this study, the research via the simulation software plat-
form was conducted for the MFL field of the discontinuities
on the surface of a steel pipe. As is known, the MFL field is a
static magnetic field based on Gauss’s law for magnetism
(Equation 1) and Ampere’s circuital law (Equation 2).

(1) ∇×B =0
Figure 1. The software model of the steel pipe detection system.

(2) ∫∫ L B × dl = µ 0 ∑ I i
Ò
i

L Y
With the aid of finite element simulation software, a model By, radial component
of the steel pipe detection system was constructed and is D Discontinuity Bz, axial component
shown in Figure 1. In this model, helmholtz coils were se- W Bx, circumferential component
lected as the magnetic excitation device (Zhang et al., 2007).
The magnetization of the steel pipe was adjusted by regulating Magnetization
the supply current value of the helmholtz coils. The model pa- direction
Z
rameters of the helmholtz coils and those of the steel pipe are
as follows: the coil radius and the coil spacing distance were
both 150 mm; the thickness and width of the coils were 6 and
Steel pipe X
20 mm, respectively; the wall thickness, external radius, and
length of the pipe were 8, 89, and 400 mm, respectively.
To analyze the relationship between the MFL information Figure 2. The three-direction component of the 3D magnetic flux
and the discontinuity size, a typical kind of circumferential leakage field.

SEPTEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1297

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x multiple liftoff values
By/T PVSV
Amplitude
(a) Position (mm)
Bz/T VVSV
Amplitude
(b) Position (mm)
Figure 3. Typical By, Bz signal waveform and definitions: (a) peak-valley
spacing value (PVSV); and (b) valley-valley spacing value (VVSV).
to the surface of the steel pipe), and the circumferential com-
ponent, Bx (in the direction tangential to the transverse sec-
tion of the steel pipe), as shown in Figure 2.
The three components of the MFL field have their own
characteristic quantities and are quite distinct from each other.
In terms of the crack discontinuity, based on previous research
the components, Bz and By, would lead to comprehensive in-
formation on the discontinuity size and assessment of the steel
pipe quality, while the circumferential component, Bx, is rela-
tively small in intensity and is often ignored in the existing ML
application (Kopp and Willems, 2013; Li et al., 2007). There-
fore, the simulation model and data analysis in this paper focus
on the components Bz and By—mainly the PVSV of the By
signal, and VVSV of the Bz signal characteristics. Typical By
and Bz signal waveforms with illustrations of PVSV and VVSV
definitions are shown in Figure 3.
Data Analysis
This section gives an overall analysis of PVSV and VVSV char-
acteristics for both the radial component, By, and the axial
component, Bz, at multiple liftoff values.
1298 MATERIALS EVALUATION • SEPTEMBER 2016
Analysis of the Characteristics of the Radial Component
Many studies have shown that the PVSV of By has a direct re-
lationship to the crack width. So, the PVSV was often used to
analyze discontinuity width, similar to previous work (Man-
dache and Clapham, 2003). In this section, the features of
PVSV were studied at different liftoff values and their relation-
ship to discontinuity sizes, such as width and depth.
Relationship between the Peak-valley Spacing Value of the
Radial Component and the Discontinuity Width at Different
Liftoff Values
Firstly, the depth was set as 7 mm. Then, the width of the
mode was changed from 1 to 7 mm to get the MFL signals of
each mode at liftoff values of 0.4 to 8 mm. The waveforms of
the relationship between PVSV and the width at different
liftoff values are shown in Figure 4.
14
12
10
PVSV (mm)
6
Liftoff = 0.4 mm
Liftoff = 1 mm
4 Liftoff = 2 mm
Liftoff = 3 mm
Liftoff = 4 mm
Liftoff = 5 mm
2 Liftoff = 6 mm
Liftoff = 7 mm
Liftoff = 8 mm
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Width (mm)
Figure 4. Relationship between peak-valley spacing value (PVSV)
and the width at different liftoff values.
Figure 4 shows that, at a certain liftoff value, the PVSV in-
creases with the discontinuity width, meaning that the peak
point of the radial component is related to the structural broken
points on the surface of the steel pipe, namely, the position where
the discontinuity edge occurred. But when the liftoff changes, the
PVSV is slightly greater than the width value, and the gap be-
tween the two values relies on the liftoff value. The greater the
liftoff value, the greater the deviation between the two values. So it
is further clarified that the liftoff value influences the relationship
between the PVSV and the width value.
Relationship between the Peak-valley Spacing Value of the
Radial Component and the Discontinuity Depth
The preceding analysis shows that at a certain discontinuity
depth value the liftoff value would affect the approximate lin-
ear relationship between the PVSV and the width value. In the
following, the possibility is taken into consideration that the
discontinuity depth influences this relationship. The parameters
 of the discontinuity model were set as follows: the width was
18
Liftoff = 0.4 mm still 2 mm, and the depth increased gradually within the range
Liftoff = 1 mm
16 Liftoff = 2 mm of 1 to 7 mm. Then, the relationship between the PVSV and
Liftoff = 3 mm
14 Liftoff = 4 mm the depth was checked in the simulation data at a certain liftoff
Liftoff = 5 mm
Liftoff = 6 mm value. The relationship between PVSV and the depth at differ-
12
PVSV (mm)

Liftoff = 7 mm
Liftoff = 8 mm
ent liftoff value is shown in Figure 5.
10 Figure 5 shows that when the liftoff value is small, such as
8 at 0.4 and 1 mm, the PVSV is almost a horizontal straight line
with little increase in amplitude; but, when the liftoff value is
6
great, like 6, 7, and 8 mm, the wave looks like an approximate
4 diagonal line. It implies that the depth has a slight influence on
2 the difference value between the PVSV and the discontinuity
0
width, and the smaller the liftoff value, the smaller influence
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the depth has on the PVSV. In Figure 5, PVSV is closer to the
Depth (mm) true width value 2 mm at a depth value of 1 mm compared to a
depth value of 2 mm. Therefore, the measurement result of
Figure 5. Relationship between peak-valley spacing value (PVSV) width would be more accurate with a small discontinuity
and the depth at different liftoff values.
depth. However, in the actual testing, the discontinuity depth,
as an unknown parameter to be measured, could not be
viewed as a criterion for the accuracy of the testing result. In
fact, since the depth affects the PVSV slightly, especially at a
small liftoff value, the testing error caused by the depth could
be ignored within the range of the errors permitted. Actually,
if the depth and the liftoff value are large enough and the error
caused by the depth could not be permitted, a compensation
algorithm should be presented based on the liftoff value and
the peak amplitude because the peak value reflects the depth
of the discontinuity. Further study is shown in the discussion
section.

Relationship between the Peak-valley Spacing Value of the

Radial Component and the Liftoff
In this section, the effect of liftoff value on the PVSV at differ-
ent depths and widths is analyzed and reported. Firstly, the
Figure 6. The magnetic contour map in the YZ plane. width was fixed at 2 mm, the length at 8 mm, and the depth at
7 mm. The MFL signals were obtained at different liftoff val-
ues. Here, the finite element model was established with fine
12
meshing grids with the liftoff value ranging from 0.4 to 10 mm
in 0.1 mm steps. The magnetic contour map in the YZ plane is
10
shown in Figure 6. The contour map of the vector sum of By
and Bz shows that the MFL field is distributed spatially above
8
the discontinuity and changes with the liftoff value.
PVSV (mm)

Figure 7 shows the relationship between the PVSV of By

6
and the liftoff with different depths. Figure 8 shows the rela-
tionship between the PVSV of By and the liftoff with different
4 Depth = 1 mm widths. In order to identify the relationship clearly, a linear fit-
Depth = 2 mm
Depth = 3 mm
ting algorithm was implemented based on the data in Figure 7
2
Depth = 4 mm and Figure 8. Tables 1 and 2 indicate the slopes and intercepts
Depth = 5 mm
Depth = 6 mm
of the fitting straight lines in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively.
0
Depth = 7 mm The figures and tables indicate that the PVSV approxi-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 mately follows a linear relationship with the liftoff value: the
Liftoff (mm)
greater the liftoff value, the greater the PVSV. Figure 7 and
Figure 7. Relationship between peak-valley spacing value (PVSV)
Table 1 show that, when the depth ranges from 1 to 7 mm,
and liftoff at different depths. there is a slight increase in both the slope and the intercept of

SEPTEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1299

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x multiple liftoff values

the straight line. However, the change of the slope and the in-
tercept in Table 1 has no obvious regularity. Figure 8 and Table 2
show that when the width ranges from 1 to 8 mm, the slope of the
line decreases slightly, while the intercept increases approximately
by an equal difference. Therefore, the width has a relative small in-
fluence on the slope of the straight line, but a great influence on
the intercept. The size of the intercept can reflect certain infor-
mation about the discontinuity width.
When the liftoff is smaller than 1 mm, the measured PVSV
can be construed as the discontinuity width, while if the liftoff
is big enough, the difference value between the measured
PVSV and the discontinuity width cannot be ignored. So, a
compensation algorithm was presented to get the PVSV at a
small liftoff value such as 0.4 or 0 mm because the discontinu-
ity width is approximately equal to the intercept of the fitting
straight line, referring to discussion section.

Analysis of the Characteristics of the Axial Component

As it is known, the axial component, Bz, of the crack disconti-
14
nuity is a wave signal with one crest. Its peak value approxi-
12 mately decreases exponentially as the liftoff value increases (Li
et al., 2013; Uetake and Ito, 1986). However, in the case of a
10 minimal liftoff value, the component Bz would present more
MFL information. For instance, when the liftoff value is
PVSV (mm)

8
smaller than 1 mm, two troughs appear symmetrically on both
6 sides of the crest, noted as the negative side lobes, as shown in
Width = 1 mm Figure 9. The simulation research shows that there is a certain
Width = 2 mm
4 Width = 3 mm
relationship between the VVSV for short of the two negative
Width = 4 mm side lobes and the liftoff value. A study of this relationship will
2 Width = 5 mm
contribute to sizing the discontinuity. In addition, the first de-
Width = 6 mm

0
Width = 7 mm rivative of the component Bz also serves as an important ele-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ment for analyzing the discontinuity size.
Liftoff (mm)
Relationship between the Valley-valley Spacing Value of the
Figure 8. Relationship between peak-valley spacing value (PVSV) Axial Component and the Width
and liftoff at different widths.
Based on the preceding analysis, the PVSV of the radial
component, By, followed a linear relationship with the dis-
TABLE 1 continuity width. Likewise, this section explores the rela-
The slopes and intercepts of the fitting lines with different depths tionship between the VVSV of the axial component, Bz, and
in Figure 7 the discontinuity width. The depth was set as 7 mm. The
Depth k B width ranged from 1 to 7 mm. Figure 10 shows the relation-
1 mm 0.964 1.308 ship between the VVSV and the discontinuity at different
2 mm 1.056 1.423 liftoff values.
3 mm 1.126 1.424
4 mm 1.164 1.478
5 mm 1.198 1.502 0.15
6 mm 1.225 1.520
0.14
7 mm 1.250 1.539
0.13
0.12

TABLE 2 0.11
Bz (mm)

The slopes and intercepts of the fitting lines with different widths
0.1
in Figure 8
0.09
Width k B
1 mm 1.264 1.033 0.08
2 mm 1.229 1.730 0.07
3 mm 1.146 2.645
4 mm 1.068 3.590 0.06
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
5 mm 0.990 4.601
Position (mm)
6 mm 0.918 5.622
7 mm 0.846 6.695
Figure 9. The axial component (Bz) and its negative side lobes at
small liftoff values.

1300 MATERIALS EVALUATION • SEPTEMBER 2016

 TABLE 3
40 The slopes and intercepts of the fitting lines with different widths
35 in Figure 11
30 Width k B
25 1 mm 4.017 4.770
VVSV (mm)

20
15
10 Liftoff = 0.4 mm
Liftoff = 1 mm
5 Liftoff = 2 mm
Liftoff = 3 mm
0 Liftoff = 4 mm
Liftoff = 5 mm
Liftoff = 6 mm
–5 Liftoff = 7 mm
Liftoff = 8 mm
–10
1 2 3 4 5 6
Width (mm)
Figure 10. Relationship between valley-valley spacing value (VVSV)
and the width at different liftoff values.
Figure 10 indicates that the VVSV of the axial component,
Bz, follows a linear relationship with the discontinuity width
when the liftoff value remains within a small range, as is shown
by the six lines in the lower part of Figure 10. However, there
exists a huge gap between the VVSV and the width value. At
the liftoff value of 0.4 mm, the width is 1 mm, while the VVSV
is 5 mm. The difference between the two values is 4 mm. The
difference value increases as the liftoff value increases. More-
over, the linearity of the three curves in the top is the smallest,
because the negative side lobe disappears when the liftoff
value is greater than 6 mm.
Relationship between the Valley-valley Spacing Value of the
Axial Component and the Liftoff Value
In order to identify the linear relationship between the VVSV
and the liftoff value and its correlation with the discontinuity
2 mm 4.074 5.892
3 mm 3.773 7.563
4 mm 3.686 8.591
5 mm 3.589 9.761
6 mm 3.543 10.756
7 mm 3.450 11.880
7
width at a small liftoff value, the discontinuity length and
depth were set as 8 and 1 mm, respectively, the width ranging
from 1 to 7 mm. The wave data of the VVSV changing with
the discontinuity width at different liftoff values are shown in
Figure 11. Because the negative side lobe disappeared when
the liftoff value was greater than 6 mm, the liftoff was selected
from 0 to 6 mm. Table 3 indicates the slopes and intercepts of
the fitting straight lines in Figure 11.
In Figure 11, as the width increases, the slope of the line
decreases slightly, while the intercept increases approximately
in an arithmetic sequence.
The First-order Derivative of the Axial Component
Figure 12 shows the waves of the first-order derivative of Bz at
different liftoff values, which have a crest and trough similar to
the radial component, By. Figure 13 shows the relationship be-
tween the PVSV of the first-order derivative of Bz and the
liftoff. Here, the discontinuity width is 2 mm and the depth is
7 mm. In order to make a comparison, another line indicating
the relationship between the PVSV of By and the liftoff was
added in Figure 13. From Figure 13, it can be known that,
when the liftoff value is small (for liftoff T < 1 mm), the PVSV

35 0.04
Liftoff = 0.4 mm
Liftoff = 1 mm
0.03 Liftoff = 2 mm
30 Liftoff = 3 mm
Liftoff = 4 mm
0.02 Liftoff = 5 mm
Derivative of Bz

25 Liftoff = 6 mm
VVSV (mm)

Liftoff = 7 mm
0.01 Liftoff = 8 mm
20
0
15
–0.01
Width = 1 mm
10 Width = 2 mm –0.02
Width = 3 mm
Width = 4 mm
5 Width = 5 mm –0.03
Width = 6 mm
Width = 7 mm –0.04
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Liftoff (mm) Position (mm)

Figure 11. Relationship between valley-valley spacing value (VVSV) Figure 12. The waves of the first-order derivative of Bz at different
and the liftoff at different widths values. liftoff values.

SEPTEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1301

ME TECHNICAL PAPER w
x multiple liftoff values

A Discussion and Study of the Liftoff Value Compensa-

12 tion Algorithm
11
DiffBz
Restricted by experiment and actual conditions of the project,
10 By it is difficult for the liftoff value to be smaller than 1 mm. As a
9 result, under the present ML system, data were acquired at a
relatively large liftoff value. So, it was necessary to carry out a
PVSV (mm)

8
data compensation algorithm to get the ML data at small
7
liftoff according to the data at larger liftoff values. As is pre-
6 sented in the preceding section, the PVSV of By and the liftoff
5 value have an approximately linear relationship, which can be
4 denoted as a straight line. The slope of the line can be ob-
3 tained by two great liftoff values and the corresponding PVSV,
2
and then the intercept value is the PVSV at liftoff of 0 mm.
This intercept value is the measured discontinuity width, as
1
0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 shown in Figure 14.
Liftoff (mm)

Figure 13. Comparisons of peak-valley spacing value (PVSV)

between the first-order derivative of Bz and By.
Probe 2
D2
Probe 1
TABLE 4 D1
Comparisons of peak-valley spacing value (PVSV) between the
first-order derivative of Bz and By
Pipe b
Width and liftoff PVSV of the PVSV of By
T1 T2 Liftoff
derivative of Bz
W = 2 mm, T = 1 mm 2.6 2.8 Figure 14. The double-liftoff value compensation algorithm
W = 2 mm, T = 3 mm 3.8 5.2 processing.
W = 4 mm, T = 1 mm 4.6 4.8
W = 4 mm, T = 3 mm 5.0 6.4
The slope and intercept can be calculated by Equations 3
and 4, respectively:
of the first-order derivative of Bz is nearly equals to the discon-
tinuity width, much closer to the discontinuity width (2 mm) (3) k=
(D2 − D1 )
than the PVSV of By. Furthermore, at a larger liftoff (for liftoff (T2 − T1 )
T > 1 mm), the PVSV of the first-order derivative of Bz is also
smaller than that of By. (4) b = D1 − k × T1
A complete comparison between the PVSV of the first-
order derivative of Bz and the PVSV of By for both different where
liftoffs (liftoff T = 1 mm, 3 mm) and different discontinuity T1 and T2 represent the liftoff values of probe 1 and probe 2,
widths (width W = 2 mm, 4 mm) are given in Table 4 (the D1 and D2 represent the PVSV of the two probes, respectively.
depth is constant: D = 7 mm). From Table 4, when the dis- However, if the magnetic amplitude intensity of the probes
continuity width, W, is 2 mm, the PVSV measured by the is great enough, the influence on the PVSV by the depth cannot
derivative of Bz is more accurate (closer to discontinuity be ignored. Then, the PVSV should be corrected by Equation 5:
width: 2 mm) than that of By. On the another hand, when the
liftoff is 1 mm, the measurement errors are much smaller than
(5) D′ = f (D , Bm , T )
those at a liftoff of 3 mm, both for W = 2 mm and W = 4 mm.
Based on these comparisons, it is known that the PVSV of the
first-order derivative of Bz could be used as a more reliable where
prediction of the discontinuity width when at a smaller liftoff Bm represents the magnetic amplitude intensity of By,
value, especially for liftoff T ≤ 2 mm (as shown in Figure 13). D¢ represents the PVSV after correction operation,
However, it is quite difficult to obtain a liftoff value smaller T is the liftoff.
than 1 mm in the actual engineering application. A liftoff com- The function, f, is determined by two relationships: one is
pensation algorithm of the signal at a great liftoff value to solve the relationship between the magnetic amplitude intensity
this problem is discussed in the following section. and the discontinuity depth at different liftoff values, as the

1302 MATERIALS EVALUATION • SEPTEMBER 2016

 relationship. The PVSV of the first-order derivative of Bz in the
case of a liftoff value smaller than 1 mm is a reliable measured
value of the discontinuity width. Based on the analysis of the
0.8
liftoff effect, a double-liftoff value compensation algorithm was
0.6 presented to quantify the discontinuity width more accurately.
The MFL field is a complex magnetic field in the spatial
Bz (T)

0.4 domain, and there exists a certain mechanism between its dis-
tribution law and the discontinuity size. It is not enough to an-
0.2 alyze the signals generated by a limited variety of discontinuity
models through FEM. Further studies will focus on the analy-
0
0 1 0
sis of signal characteristics of various discontinuity models and
2 3 2 1 the experimental data.
4 5 4 3
5
Liftoff (mm) 6
7 7 6 Depth (mm)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Figure 15. Reference map of the relationship between By amplitude This paper was financially supported jointly by the National Natural Science
and depth at different liftoff values. Foundation of China (NNSFC) and the Open Foundation of the Key Labo-
ratory of Nondestructive Testing, Ministry of Education, grant numbers
51475194 and ZD2012290072, respectively.

REFERENCES
Dutta, S.M., F.H. Ghorbel, and R.K. Stanley, “Simulation and Analysis of 3-D
15 Magnetic Flux Leakage,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 45, No. 4,
2009, pp. 1966–1972.
PVSV (mm)

Hwang, J.H., and W. Lord, “Finite Element Modeling of Magnetic Field/Defect

10
5 Gap and Specimen Thickness on the Detectability of Flaw in the Yoke
0 7
7 6
6 5
5 4
4 3 2 3
3 1 1 Depth (mm)
Liftoff (mm) 0 0
Figure 16. Reference map of the relationship between the peak-valley
spacing value (PVSV) and the depth at different liftoff values.
curved reference map shown in Figure 15; the other is the re-
lationship between the PVSV and the depth at different liftoff
values (as shown in Figure 5), corresponding to the reference
map in Figure 16.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper mainly analyzed the characterization of
3D MFL signals of crack discontinuities under multiple liftoff
values using FEM. As discussed previously, there exists a rela-
tionship between the discontinuity size and the spatial distribu-
tion of the MFL field: the discontinuity depth has a slight
influence on the VVSV of the axial component, Bz, and the
PVSV of the radial component, By. The influence profile changes
with the liftoff and can be ignored if the liftoff value is smaller
than 1 mm, but should not be ignored if the liftoff is great
enough. The discontinuity width value follows a relationship that
can be approximately described as linear with the VVSV of the
axial component, Bz, and the PVSV of the radial component, By.
At a smaller liftoff value, this linear relationship is more obvious
and the linearity is higher. When the liftoff value is greater than
6 mm, the negative side lobe disappears, so does this linear
Interactions,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1975, pp. 21–25.
Katoh, M., K. Nishio, and T. Yamaguchi, “FEM Study on the Influence of Air
Method,” NDT & E International, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2000, pp. 333–339.
Kopp, G., and H. Willems, “Sizing Limits of Metal Loss Anomalies using Tri-
axial MFL Measurements: A Model Study,” NDT & E International, Vol. 55,
April 2013, pp. 75–81.
Li, L.M., P. Zeng, S.L. Huang, and J.J. Zhang, “Effects of Surface Crack width
on Y Component of Magnetic Flux Leakage Field,” Journal of Tsinghua Uni-
versity (Sci & Tech), Vol. 39, No. 2, 1999, pp. 43–45 (in Chinese).
Li, W., G.M. Chen, X.K. Yin, C. Zhang, and T. Liu, “Analysis of the Lift-off
Effect of a U-shaped ACFM System,” NDT & E International, Vol. 53, Janu-
ary 2013, pp. 31–35.
Li, Y., G.Y. Tian, and S. Ward, “Numerical Simulation on Magnetic Flux
Leakage Evaluation at High Speed,” NDT & E International, Vol. 39, No. 5,
2006, pp. 367–373.
Li, Y., J. Wilson, and G.Y. Tian, “Experiment and Simulation Study of 3D
Magnetic Field Sensing for Magnetic Flux Leakage Defect Characterisation,”
NDT & E International, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2007, pp. 179–184.
Mandache, C., and L. Clapham, “A Model for Magnetic Flux Leakage Signal
Predictions,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Vol. 36, No. 209, 2003,
pp. 2427–2431.
Mao, W.H., L. Clapham, and D.L. Atherton, “Effects of Alignment of Nearby
Corrosion Pits on MFL,” NDT & E International, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2003,
4pp. 111–116.
Park, G.S., and E.S. Park, “Improvement of the Sensor System in Magnetic
Flux Leakage-type Nondestructive testing (NDT),” IEEE Transactions on
Magnetics, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2002, pp. 1277–1280.
Uetake, L., and H. Ito, “Lift-off Effect and its Application to Defect Size
Estimation in the Magnetic Leakage Flux Method,” Transactions of National
Research Institute for Metals, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 28, 1986, pp. 177–187
(in Japanese).
Zhang, Y., Z. Ye, and C. Wang, “A Fast Method for Rectangular Crack Sizes
Reconstruction in Magnetic Flux Leakage Testing,” NDT & E International,
Vol. 42, No. 5, 2009, pp. 369–375.
Zhang, Y., Z. Ye, and X. Xu, “An Adaptive Method for Channel Equalization
in MFL Inspection,” NDT & E International, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2007, pp. 127–139.

SEPTEMBER 2016 • MATERIALS EVALUATION 1303