th th

International Conf erenc e on Q uality, Productivity, Reliability, Optimization & Modeling (ICQ PRO M) 5 -7 J anuary 2017

A Review of MFL Technique in Inspection of

Steel Pipelines
Sorabh Shailesh Singh Sengar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Manav Rachna International University, Faridabad, India Manav Rachna International University, Faridabad, India
Email Id: sorabh012@gmail.com
Siddharth
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Manav Rachna International University, Faridabad, India

Abstract—Transportation of hydrocarbon through cross using Flux leakage techniques. After 1920 development of
country pipelines is the most economical among all the other use of sensors revolutionized inspection methods in which
options available. The buried pipelines pass through densely these sensors were used to detect defects. The pipeline
populated regions as well as in desert or water bodies. Any inspection tool was firstly used by Tuboscope in 1965 [1].
through thickness crack or corrosion wall loss in the
pipelines cause catastrophe in addition to huge loss of
product and endangering the human safety & environment.
It is therefore a mandatory requirement to inspect the
pipeline at regular intervals for critical defects and take
appropriate and timely corrective actions. To address this
need, pipeline operators use a wide variety of methods to
assess the health of the pipelines. Various non destructive
testing techniques based on X-rays, magnetic particle, eddy
current, magnetic flux leakage, ultrasound and visual
inspection are available for locating defects in pipeline. Now
with the widespread application and fast development of gas
and oil pipeline networks all over the world, the pipeline
inspection technology has been used more extensively.
Among those for inspecting the pipeline made up of
ferromagnetic material and having anomalies like corrosion,
metal loss, gouge and denting, Magnetic Flux Leakage
(MFL) method is widely used technique. So this paper
reviews the contribution made by various researchers across Fig. 1: Principle of MFL technique[1]
the world in this area.
Keywords: Pipelines, Environment, Defects, Inspection, MFL techniques are based on magnetizing a
Anomalies, Magnetic Flux Leakage Technique particular portion of a ferromagnetic material to its
saturation level and finding the leaking flux generated by
I. INTRODUCTION imperfections. The signal obtained from the inspection
Magnetic flux leakage is the oldest and most tool gives information about type of defect as shown in
commonly used in-line inspection method for finding Fig. 1. Because the technique generally needs no
metal-loss and other defects in oil and gas pipelines. In mechanical contact with the part being evaluated and is
this method a ferromagnetic material which are generally amenable to automatic signal recognition schemes, MFL
techniques have the advantage of automated and high-
steel pipelines are first magnetically saturated by
speed inspection. The performance of this method depends
permanent magnet which are part of pipeline inspection
tool and then any leakage of flux associated with pipe is on variables including fluid flow velocity, variations in the
detected using sensors. The data is then stored and pipeline material, and pipeline operating pressure.
analyzed and various signal which may represent a defect Magnetic Flux Leakage Inspection process is initiated by
magnets which does the saturation work. Sensors capture
are found.
the leakage flux information to predict the presence of
A. Brief History of MFL anomaly in the magnetic field.
In 1868 defects in magnetised cannon tubes were Any change in the magnetic property of the material
found by the Institute of Naval Architects in England reduces the ability to carry the field which affects the

978-1-5090-6141-9/2017/$31.00©2017 IEEE 143

 International Conference on Quality, Productivity, Reliability, Optimization & Modeling (ICQPROM) 5th-7th January 2017

leakage if any defect is present. Hence the interpretation B. Launching Mechanism

of the leak signal plays a vital role, because only the leak
The propelling force which runs the MFL tool is
signal is not sufficient enough to estimate the shape and
pressure of fluid which is transmitted through the pipeline.
size of the defect. If there is a flaw it will show a leak
It primarily runs due to the pressure difference between
signal for sure, but it doesn’t tell about the severity level
two sides of the PIG. Launching and retrieving the MFL
present. The level of severity may be more in any of the
tool requires a special system. This launching and
case stated depending on the various parameters such as
retrieving is done from the compressor stations or other
depth, length and width of defect.
easily accessible locations. At the time of launching tool is
Inspection tool requires the enough magnetizing force to be forced against the fluid pressure while because of
so that it can cause the leakage from defect. Hence it that pressure it comes out of the pipeline.
requires that magnetic field should be consistent, uniform
and strong enough to cause a measurable amount of flux
to leak out, caused by anomalies. Uniformity and
consistency of the magnetic field in the pipe wall is the
key to get accurate signals, it also enables us to make
adequate comparisons among different signals from
various anomalies.
MFL Tool
The tool used for magnetic flux leakage is known as
IPIG (Instrumented Pipeline Inspection Gauge) shown in
Fig. 2. Magnetic flux leakage tool magnetizes the pipelines
hence it is necessary for the pipe material to have the
ferromagnetic property, most of the transmission pipelines
are made up of low carbon steel having high permeability
which fulfils the requirement of being a ferromagnetic
material. MFL tools are of two types one is segmented Fig. 3: Launching Mechanism of PIG [4]
with two or more components joined by flexible
connectors, or as a single piece where all the components C. Types of PIG
are contained within a single, rigid package [3]. 1) Batching PIG
There are several kinds of PIG available which serve The batching PIG acts as a simple barrier between
different purposes. Some are designed for cleaning dissimilar fluids or to provide a sweep of a line.
purpose some for dents. Both kind of tool incorporate
several arrangements: drive system, magnetic system, 2) Gauging PIG:
sensor system (all sensors are mounted circumferentially
in multiple rows), data conditioning and recording system, The inclusion of a simple gauge plate, made of a soft
and power system. These are most widely used tool all metal (generally aluminium), on batching PIGs provides
the function of confirming the integrity of the flow area of
over the world.
the pipe. Any major intrusions into the line will cause
damage to the gauge plate, highlighting there is a problem,
though not highlighting where.
3) Cleaning PIG
PIGs can be configured with various tools to aid
Fig. 2 Instrumented Pipeline Inspection Gauge [2] cleaning. Circular brushes, spring-mounted brushes,
scrapers, or plough blades for removal of waxes and
Modules of IPIG sludge or more aggressive tools such as carbide "pins" for
IPIG consists of following four modules removal of scales.
1. Magnetic module 4) Magnetic PIG
2. Data Acquisition system (DAS) Inclusion of powerful rare earth magnets on the
circumference of the PIG mandrel allows the PIG not only
3. Power Supply
to lift ferrous debris from the line, but can also provide the
4. PIG Locator with odometer assembly secondary function of activating PIG signalers.

144 978-1-5090-6141-9/2017/$31.00©2017 IEEE

 A Review of MFL Technique in Inspection of Steel Pipelines
5) Intelligent PIGs
Advances in technology have lead to PIGs that can
carry out complex tasks and data logging as they traverse
the line. Mapping, geometry measurement, crack
detection, measurement of metal loss, and many other
tasks can be carried out. Intelligent PIGging is used now a
day.
6) Gel PIGs
For certain tasks and in certain conditions, a viable
alternative to running mechanical PIGs is the use of gel
PIGs. Rather than use a solid barrier between fluids, a
gelled substance can perform the same task. Various
mediums can be gelled, including water (fresh and salt),
glycol, methanol, solvents, diesel, and crude. The gels can
be designed specifically to a required viscosity or cast as
solid with chemical components designed to break down
the gel after a given time or when a set temperature or pH
has been reached [5].
D. Magnetization Technique
Magnetization can be done using two method one is
using permanent magnet other one is to use electromagnet.
These magnets magnetize a length of the pipeline.
Metallic brushes having high permeability clean the pipe
wall and gives a path to field to flow.
Permanent magnets as shown in Fig. 4. exhibits
magnetic field continuously without any power
requirement. It provides a uniform magnetic field
continuously and uniformly which is essential to get the
good signals from defects. MFL tool uses series of
magnets to magnetize the pipe wall these are rare earth
permanent magnets. Nd-Fe-B magnets are used most for
pipeline inspection.
Fig. 4: Permanent Magnet
E. Data Analysis and Reporting
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. The Fig. 5. shows how
data is analyzed by detecting defects from signal obtained.
978-1-5090-6141-9/2017/$31.00©2017 IEEE
Fig. 5: Data Analysis from Different Signature
Data analysis is carried out using the in house
developed software. Each page is properly screened and
data is analyzed. The reports of marker installed on
pipelines, various pipe features and fittings like welds,
sleeves, casings, valves, tees, metal loss defects is
prepared after data analysis.
II. TYPES OF DEFECTS
MFL inspections are typically used to detect, locate,
and characterize metal-loss anomalies in transmission
pipelines. There are other many types of pipeline
anomalies, and not all of these anomalies can be detected
or characterized by MFL. The Table-1 shown below gives
the description of different defect types.
TABLE 1: DEFECT TYPES [6]
Defect Type Description
Geometrical Smaller change in wall thickness than the
Defect allowable wall thickness tolerance and result in
stress accumulation and concentration. These
include buckle, and ovality.
Defect resulting Greater change in wall thickness than the
in metal loss allowable wall thickness tolerance and result in
stress concentration. These are corrosion, rupture,
scar and pitting.
Planar Two dimensions are significantly greater than the
discontinuities third one, these are crack, grinding and lamination.
Change in metal Do not cause change (or the change does not
exceed the allowable limit)
A. Metal Loss
MFL is used to find metal loss due to corrosion or
gouging. Corrosion is wastage or thinning of the pipe wall
due to a chemical or electrochemical attack Corrosion is
found when an MFL tool measures a local change in the
magnetic field.
145
 International Conference on Quality, Productivity, Reliability, Optimization & Modeling (ICQPROM) 5th-7th January 2017
B. Gouging
Gouging is the mechanical removal of metal from a
local area on the surface of a pipe. The remaining metal in
a gouged area is often work hardened, which can change
its magnetic properties.
C. Metallurgical Anomalies
MFL can also detect some metallurgical anomalies
like hard spots, laminations, slivers, scabs, inclusions, and
various other imperfections and defects. Hard spots are
local regions that have a considerably higher hardness
than the bulk hardness of a pipe. Laminations are internal
metal separations that are generally parallel to the surface
of a pipe. Inclusions are foreign or nonmetallic particles
that are trapped during steel solidification.
D. Cracks
MFL can detect cracks too. Crack-like imperfections
or defects can be found only under limited conditions.
Cracks are not common in pipelines, but when they occur,
they are due to fatigue, stress corrosion, and weld defects.
E. Dents and Buckles
MFL can sometimes detect dents and buckles,
although they are not designed for this purpose. Dents are
depressions in the pipe surface, and buckles are a partial
collapse of the pipe due to excessive bending or
compression. MFL tools detect dents and buckles when
the sensors lose contact with the wall.
F. MFL Signal from Defects
Magnetic flux leakage signals involve an axial and
radial component to properly characterize a defect. The
magnetic flux density components are measured using
Hall Effect sensors oriented in each respective axis. The
radial magnetic flux density signal denotes the start and
ending of a defect with the respective maximum and
minimum peaks as shown in Fig. 6. The axial magnetic
flux density represents the volume of loss material in the
defect. [7]
Fig. 6: Radial and Axial Signals from Defect [7]
146
In this paper, a few relevant research papers related to
Magnetic Flux Leakage Techniques used for inspection of
pipelines have been studied and presented herewith.
Effect of magnetization and pipe thickness was
studied by Rajesh Keshwani [8], he presented 3D
symmetric finite element model using FEMLAB. He
showed that for a given defect as pipe thickness increases,
magnitude of By decreases. Leakage Gauss value has non
linear relationship with pipe thickness. Also, symmetric
defect creates same positive and negative gauss peaks.
surface angle also plays an important role and it has to be
considered during characterization. Empirical structure for
characterizing metal loss defects from radial magnetic flux
leakage signal was developed by Saha et al. [9]. The
characterization of the defects is based on primary and
secondary parameters of the radial MFL signature.
Primary parameters are axial and circumferential spread
and amplitude of the signature and secondary parameters
are shape and extent of the signature. Characterization or
sizing of defects amounts to estimating the defect
parameters length, width from the signal. O. Nemitz [10]
presented both 2D and 3D FE model for the steel plate
using electromagnet for generation of magnetic field.
Simulation for different notch defect geometries and
depths was carried out by him
Lynann Clapham [11] did FEA modeling of dents in
pipelines and its result was compared with laboratory
experiments. Interpretation of MFL signals from dents can
be problematic due to superimposing influences of
residual strain, dent geometry and other features such as
cracks. The geometry-induced MFL signal arises mainly
due to the geometry changes at the inner and outer dent
rim region. The strain-related signal is associated with the
residual strain, where the strain causes the flux to alter
direction in the pipe wall. He used Infolytica Magnet6
software for FEA analysis.
W. Sharatchandra Singh [12] did 3D FE modeling of
carbon steel plate and analysed defect at different location
(at various depths) and also taken care of lift-off. The lift-
off of the probe affects the MFL signal inversely, the more
the sensor liftoff the less the peak value of leak signal. The
detection of pipe weld defect was done by A.A carvalho
using Artificial neural network. Very good results were
obtained by use of this technique in classification of
welding defects and non defects [13]. Huang Zuoying [14]
presented 3D finite element model for MFL method and
shown the relation between defect length, width and depth
on peak to peak value of MFL signal. Effect of the sensor
lift-off on peak value of MFL signal amplitude was also
shown. Non-linear relationship between flux density and
field intensity was considered by incorporating B-H curve.
Vijay Babbar [15] used three-dimensional (3D)
magnetic finite element analysis (FEA) to simulate the
978-1-5090-6141-9/2017/$31.00©2017 IEEE
 A Review of MFL Technique in Inspection of Steel Pipelines
MFL signal from circular dent geometry with associated
residual stresses. In the magnetic FEA dent model, the
localized residual stresses were simulated by assigning
appropriate values of magnetic anisotropy to the relevant
magnetic regions. The shape effect signal is larger than the
stress effect signal, although the stress. effect produces a
distinctive ‘stress peak’ in the dent rim region.
Furthermore, the MFL signal has greater sensitivity for
compressive stresses than for tensile stresses. Overall, the
combined shape and stress effect FEA pattern shows an
excellent matching with the corresponding experimental
pattern, particularly considering the simplifications in the
modeling approach.
Fengzhu Ji [16] showed effect of length, width and
depth of defect on peak to peak gauss values. He
simulated the defects in 3D FEM using ANSYS software
package. He studied the relationship between defect
geometry parameter and MFL Signals. The influence of
path station lift-off value and intensity of magnetization
were also studied. The FEM based simulation of
rectangular defects using Infolytica Magnet software was
studied by Sorabh et al. [17] where relationship between
actual defect geometry and MFL signatures obtained from
simulation was established. The study of interacting
defects was also studied.
III. CONCLUSION
The paper has reviewed the MFL technique in
inspection of steel pipelines. The familiarization of MFL
technique was done. A lot of work has been done in actual
inspection, establishing empirical relationship for actual
defect, relationship between simulated results with
actual geometry.
REFERENCES
[1] J. B. Nestleroth, T.A. Bubenik, Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL)
Technology For Natural Gas Pipeline Inspection, from
http://www.battelle.org/pipetechnology/mfl/mfl98main.html
[2] Dr. Mike Kirkwood, TD Williamson from Overcoming Limitations
of Current In-Line Inspection Technology by Applying a New
Approach using Spiral Magnetic Flux Leakage (SMFL)
978-1-5090-6141-9/2017/$31.00©2017 IEEE
[3] U N Kant Sahu, “ Finite Element Modeling of Magnetic Field in
Pipeline” Master’s thesis, Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, 2012.
[4] Collaboration for Non-destructive Testing. NDT Course Material-
MPI, from http://www.ndted.org/EducationResources/Community
College/MagParticle/cc_mpi_index.htm
[5] Robert Davidson from “ An introduction to pipeline PIGging” .
[6] Dr. Abdel-Alim Hashem El-Sayed from “ Oil and gas pipeline
design” .
[7] Andrew J. Lynch “ Magnetic Flux Leakage Robotic Pipe
Inspection: Internal and External Methods” , Master’s thesis, Rice
university, 2009.
[8] Keshwani Rajesh T., “ Analysis of Magnetic Flux Leakage Signals
of Instrumented Pipeline Inspection Gauge Using Finite Element
Method” , IETE Journal of Research, Volume 55, Issue Number 2,
Pages 73-82, 2009.
[9] S. Saha, S. Mukhopadhyay, U. Mahapatra, S. Bhattacharya, G.P.
Srivastava, “ Empirical structure for characterizing metal loss
defects from radial magnetic flux leakage signal” , NDT&E
International, Volume 43, Issue 6, September 2010, Pages 507-512.
[10] O. Nemitz and T. Schmitte, “ Simulation of Flaw Signals in a
Magnetic Flux Leakage Inspection Procedure” , Proceedings of the
COMSOL Conference 2010 Paris.
[11] Lynann Clapham, Vijay Babbar, Kris Marble, Alex Rubinshteyn,
Mures Zarea, “ Modelling Magnetic Flux Leakage Signals from
Dents” , Proceedings of IPC2008 7th International Pipeline
Conference September 29-October 3, 2008, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
[12] W. Sharatchandra Singh, S. Thirunavukkarasu, S. Mahadevan,
B.P.C. Rao, C.K. Mukhopadhyay and T. Jayakumar, “Three-
Dimensional Finite Element Modeling of Magnetic Flux Leakage
Technique for Detection of Defects in Carbon Steel Plates” ,
Proceedings of the COMSOL Conference 2010 India.
[13] A.A. Carvalho, J.M.A. Rebello, L.V.S. Sagrilo, C.S. Camerini,
I.V.J. Miranda, “ MFL signals and artificial neural networks applied
to detection and classification of pipe weld defects” , NDT&E
International, Volume 39, Issue 8, December 2006, Pages 661-667.
[14] Huang Zuoying, Que Peiwen, Chen Liang, “3D FEM analysis in
magnetic flux leakage method” , NDT&E International, Volume 39,
Issue 1, January 2006, Pages 61-66.
[15] Vijay Babbar, Lynann Clapham, “ Residual Magnetic Flux
Leakage: A Possible Tool for Studying Pipeline Defects” , Journal
of Nondestructive Evaluation, Vol. 22, No. 4, December 2003.
[16] Fengzhu Ji, Changlong Wang, Shiyu Sun and Weiguo Wang ”
Application of 3-D FEM in the simulation analysis for MFL
signals” in 10.1784/insi.2009.51.1.32.
[17] Sorabh, Gupta, A. & Chandrasekaran, K.J Fail. Anal. and
Preven. (2016) 16: 316. doi:10.1007/s11668-016-0073-6.
147