Securing the Best Performance Entitlement from

MFL Technology

Ian Mullin
GE Oil & Gas, PII Pipeline Solutions

• Introduction to Magnetiser Design

• Mechanical Review
• Required Saturation Fields
• Velocity Effects
• Pole Spacing
• Magnetiser Bar vs. Solid Body Bristle
 Fundamental Magnetiser Designs

Magnetiser Bar

Solid Body Bristle

2/
GE /
March 17, 2024
Mechanical Review
Solid Core Bristle Design / “Sweep’s Brush”

• Simple and robust

• Maintains good coupling with pipe-wall at all times
• Bristles absorb the impact of in pipe obstacles
• Sensors contact intrados/extrados of bends
• Predictable drag forces
• Compressibility limited by solid core and poles

Magnetiser Bar / “Magbar” Design

• Possibility of extreme compressibility

• Mechanically more complex design
• Poles & sensors experience lift-off in bends
• Large mass of magnetiser bar accelerated at
pipeline obstacles
• Large clamping forces

Solid core bristle design is mechanically more robust and suitable for most pipeline environments.
Magnetiser bar designs can be more suitable for multi-diameter lines if compromises are made elsewhere.
3/
GE /
March 17, 2024
Magbar Issues with Bend Inspection
[Extrados]
Discrimination
[Intrados] Sensors

3 of 4 external defects
(20mm x 40%) visible.
Main Corrosion
No signal from defect
Sensors
on bend extrados

SWEEP’S BRUSH MAGNETIZER BAR

4/
GE /
POF are now considering including bend inspection performance in their required specification March 17, 2024
Required Saturation Field Levels
Saturation - That degree of magnetization where a further increase in magnetization force produces no significant increase in the magnetic
flux density (permeability) in a specimen. †

- Same vehicle used in half/full magnet build

- Same EXTERNAL defect detected and sized
- Same run speed

Operating below the ‘knee’ of the curve
• Sensitive to material variation,
stress/strain etc.
• Poor defect detection & sizing
Above the ‘knee’ • Defect sized exactly the same
• Pipe-steel is in saturation
• Sensitive only to metal loss and wall
thickness variation

There are several sources of noise during inspection (magnetic, sensor, dynamics, electronics) and all of
these must be addressed in order to obtain the best signal to noise ratios. Designing solely to achieve the
highest fields possible will result in a sub-optimal design.
5/
GE /
March 17, 2024
†
ASTM, “Standard Terminology of Symbols and Definitions Relating to Magnetic Testing”
 Eddy currents
• Faraday’s Law
Changing magnetic flux dB/dt induces electric current in conductor

• Lenz’s law
Current generated by changing magnetic field will produce a magnetic field in
opposition to that which generated it (induced field).

dB
  J  vC  B
dt
ε = EMF
J = Current Density
Regions of high σ = Electrical Conductivity
current density, J

Result of pig moving through pipeline:

• Eddy currents generated in pipe (good electrical conductor) predominantly

at points of pole contact

• Opposing induced fields attenuate field levels across the pipe-wall

• Field is concentrated onto inner pipe-wall

6/
GE /
March 17, 2024
Velocity Effects
Axial field (-Hz) contour plot for pipe section between poles

Low velocity (<2m/s):

• Axial field profile demonstrates good uniformity across wall

thickness and axially across the sensor position

• High field levels at sensor position throughout the wall thickness

With increasing velocity:

• Axial fields attenuated across wall thickness

• Field levels drop on outer wall

• High fields migrate further toward rear bristle stack on inner

wall

7/
GE /
March 17, 2024
 8/
GE /
March 17, 2024
 9/
GE /
March 17, 2024
 10 /
GE /
March 17, 2024
 11 /
GE /
March 17, 2024
 12 /
GE /
March 17, 2024
Pole Spacing Axial field levels measured 90% into pipe-wall (OUTER)
Axial field levels on outer pipewall 14mm WT at 2/3 from front pole Axial field levels on outer pipewall 14mm WT at 2/3 from front bristle contact
220.0 220.0

230mm pole-spacing 230mm pole-spacing

200.0 200.0
190mm pole-spacing
190mm pole-spacing
150mm pole-spacing
180.0 150mm pole-spacing 180.0 110mm pole-spacing
110mm pole-spacing

160.0 160.0

140.0 140.0

120.0 120.0
-Hz (Oe)

-Hz (Oe)
100.0 100.0

80.0 80.0

60.0 60.0

40.0 40.0

20.0 20.0

0.0 0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Speed (m/s) Speed (m/s)

Short Pole-Spacing
• Poor performance across speed range (0-5m/s)
• Very sensitive to sensor positioning – vibration of sensor during Pole Spacing
inspection will produce noise on data
• Little room for sensor positioning
• Very high fields possible at low velocity

Long Pole-Spacing
• Field levels lower than short pole-spacing design
• Maintains field levels from 0-5m/s
• Relatively insensitive to sensor positioning –hence also less noise due to
sensor vibration
• More room for optimal positioning of sensor
13 /
GE /
March 17, 2024
Inner/Outer Pipe-wall Fields
Direction of Motion
14mm WT 5m/s
200
Field levels are predominantly much higher on the 230mm pole-spacing (Inner)

-Hz (Oe)
inner pipe-wall 180
110mm
230mm
pole-spacing (Inner)
pole-spacing (Outer)
110mm pole-spacing (Outer)

Ideally the sensor should be placed in or around the 160

crossover point (red circles) 140

• Short pole-spacing 120

- optimum sensor positioning possible?

- large field gradients 100

- inner wall field levels can be over 2x outer wall

80

• Long pole-spacing
60
- room for optimum sensor positioning
- smaller field gradients
40
- inner wall field levels can still be over 2x outer wall
20  Short pole-spacing 110mm 
 Long pole-spacing 230mm
0
 along pipe
Axial distance

When field levels are quoted for performance comparison it is crucial that they are OUTER wall levels,
as these will be the minimum values (POF standards*). However, it is not possible to directly measure
outer-wall fields on-board during an inspection run.

14 /
GE /
*Pipeline Operators Forum, “Specifications and Requirements for Intelligent Pig Inspection of Pipelines” March 17, 2024
Magbar vs. Sweeps Brush 12mm
Sweeps 12mm 0m/s Magbar 12mm 0m/s
500 500

110mm pole-spacing 90mm pole-spacing

450 450 110mm pole-spacing
150mm pole-spacing
150mm pole-spacing
170mm pole-spacing
400 400

350 350

300

0m/s
300

Axial Field (Oe)

Axial Field (Oe)
250 250

(static 200 200

) 150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
Axial distance along pipe Axial distance along pipe

Sweeps Brush Magbar

Sweeps 12mm 5m/s Magbar 12mm 5m/s
320 320

110mm pole-spacing 300 300

150mm pole-spacing 280 90mm pole-spacing 280
170mm pole-spacing 110mm pole-spacing
260 260
150mm pole-spacing
240 240
220 220
200 200
Axial Field (Oe)

Axial Field (Oe)

180 180

5m/s 160

140
160

140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0
0
15 /
Axial distance along pipe
Axial distance along pipe GE /
March 17, 2024
Magbar vs. Sweeps Brush 18mm
Sweeps 18mm 0m/s Magbar 18mm 0m/s 90mm pole-spacing
260 260 110mm pole-spacing
110mm pole-spacing 150mm pole-spacing
240 240
150mm pole-spacing
220 170mm pole-spacing
220

200 200

180 180

160 160

0m/s

Axial Field (Oe)

Axial Field (Oe)

140 140

(static
120 120

100 100

) 80

60
80

60

40 40

20 20

0 0
Axial distance along pipe Axial distance along pipe

Sweeps Brush Magbar

Sweeps 18mm 5m/s Magbar 18mm 5m/s
140 140

110mm pole-spacing 130 130

90mm pole-spacing
150mm pole-spacing 110mm pole-spacing
120 120
170mm pole-spacing 150mm pole-spacing
110 110

100 100

90 90

Axial Field (Oe)

Axial Field (Oe)

80 80

5m/s 70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10
16 /
0 0 GE /
Axial distance along pipe Axial distance along pipe
March 17, 2024
Magbar vs. Sweeps Brush
M agbar 12mm PS:90mm 12mm PS:110mm 12mm PS:150mm
Sweeps 12mm PS:110mm 12mm PS:150mm 12mm PS:170mm
18mm PS:110mm 18mm PS:150mm 18mm PS:170mm 380 18mm PS:90mm 18mm PS:110mm 18mm PS:150mm
380
22mm PS:110mm 22mm PS:150mm 22mm PS:170mm

Axial Field (Oe)

360 22mm PS:90mm 22mm PS:110mm 22mm PS:150mm
360
Axial Field (Oe)

340
340

320 320

300 300

280 280

260 260

240 240

220 220

200 200

180 180

160 160

140 140

120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 Speed (m/s) 5 0 1 2 3 4 Speed (m/s) 5

Sweeps Brush Magbar

• Median pole spacing (150mm) maintains field across full
• Median pole spacing (110mm) shows poor speed stability
speed range in 12mm/18mm wall
but high fields at low velocity
• In 22mm wall fields have collapsed beyond 3m/s
• Shorter pole spacing gives:
• Shorter pole-spacing gives:
- higher fields at low velocities
- higher fields at low velocities
- variations in pole spacing has little influence on speed
- less speed stability
performance
• Longer pole-spacing gives:
• Longer pole-spacing gives:
- lower peak fields
- lower peak fields
- better speed stability
- some improvement in speed stability
- less ‘peaky’ field profiles

17 /
GE /
March 17, 2024
Magnetiser & Sensor Lift-off 12mm LO:0mm
380 400
12mm LO:5mm
360 12mm LO:0mm 380 12mm LO:10mm
12mm LO:5mm 18mm LO:0mm
340 12mm LO:10mm 360
18mm LO:5mm
18mm LO:0mm 340 18mm LO:10mm
320 18mm LO:5mm 22mm LO:0mm
300 18mm LO:10mm 320 22mm LO:5mm
22mm LO:0mm 22mm LO:10mm
280 22mm LO:5mm 300
22mm LO:10mm 280
260
260
240
240
220
220
200

-Hz (Oe)

-Hz (Oe)
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
150 125 100 75 50 25 0 -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 -150 -175 -200 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 -150
Axial distance
Z (mm)along pipe Axial distance
Z (mm) along pipe

Negligible drop in pipe-wall field Sensor will not measure drop ~15% drop in pipe-wall field
at sensor position

18 /
GE /
March 17, 2024
Magnetics Review
Solid Core Bristle Design / “Sweep’s Brush”
- Suits long pole-spacing

• Speed stable magnetic performance

• Low sensitivity to lift-off
• Uniform field profiles

• Lower peak field levels at low velocity relative to magbar

- Good in realistic pipeline environment across a range of

speeds

Magnetiser Bar / “Magbar” Design

- Suits shorter pole spacing

• High peak field levels at low velocity

• Poor magnetic performance at high speed

• Sensitive to speed variations
• ‘Peaky’ field profiles

- Good in ideal environment at low controlled speed

19 /
GE /
March 17, 2024
Thank you for listening

Questions?

20 /
GE /
March 17, 2024