NDT Technology

NDT Technology

Experimental and numerical study of the design and development of a magnetic flux leakage inspection device to detect defects on ferromagnetic plate with the aim of optimizing the effective parameters

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Amin Ghafari Khezri
Amir Refahi Oskouei
Engineering Department, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.
10.30494/jndt.2024.445773.1141
Abstract
Todays, in the oil and gas industry, storage tanks are used to store oil and petroleum products. Industry experience indicates that soil-side corrosion would occur at sever rates at most above ground storage tanks bottom. Since these damages happen at the bottom surface of the tanks and are not visible with visual inspection, a trustable method is needed that can inspect the storage tanks periodically. According to the researches have carried out until now, the most common technology to identify defects in the bottom surface of the storage tanks is the magnetic flux leakage inspection technique (MFL), which can perform the inspection as quickly as possible with proper accuracy. For this purpose, in this article, the aim is to build a magnetic flux leakage inspection device that can perform inspection and identification. There are many various parameters affect the MFL inspection such as environmental conditions, operational parameters and etc. Among the operational parameters the effective variables which have important roles in inspection are: the distance of the sensors to the center of the defect point, the distance between the magnet poles and the distance between the magnets and the tank bottom plate. Also, the reference plates used in this project are steel plates with 6 mm and 10 mm thicknesses include the artificial defects created on the surface according to ASME Section V Article 16. In order to reduce the costs and time of experimental tests Ansys Maxwell simulation program was used and the results obtained from the simulation were used to conduct experimental tests. The results of simulation are compared with the results of experiment. The results showed that by changing the mentioned effective parameters, defects with the depth of 20% to 80% can be detected with trustable accuracy. Also, by changing the parameters in some conditions, the lower depths of 20% can be detectable.
Keywords
Magnetic Flux Leakage
Nondestructive Test
Corrosion
Storage Tank Floor
Inspection

Subjects

[1] Mukhopadhyay, S., & Srivastava, G. (2000).
Characterisation of metal loss defects from
magnetic flux leakage signals with discrete
wavelet transform. Ndt & E International, 33(1),
57-65.
[2] Liu, Z., Zhang, X., & Li, J. (2003). Study on local
magnetization of magnetic flux leakage testing for storage tank floors. Insight -
Non-Destructive
Testing and Condition Monitoring, 45(5), 328-
331.
[3] Zhiye, D., He, Y., & Li, W. (2005). 3D MFL of steel
pipe computation based on nodal-edge element
coupled method. 2005 Asia-Pacific Microwave
Conference Proceedings, IEEE.
[4] Song, X.-C., Liu, J., & Wang, Q. (2007).
Optimization of the magnetic circuit in the MFL
inspection system for storage-tank floors.
Russian Journal of Nondestructive Testing, 43,
326-331.
[5] Wilson, J. W., Clapham, L., & Atherton, D. (2008).
New techniques for the quantification of defects
through pulsed magnetic flux leakage. 17th
World Conference on Nondestructive Testing,
Shanghai, China.[6] Guoguang, Z., & Penghui, L. (2011). Signal
processing technology of circumferential
magnetic flux leakage inspection in pipeline.
2011 Third International Conference on
Measuring Technology and Mechatronics
Automation, IEEE.
[7] Pearson, N. (2012). Discrimination of top and
bottom discontinuities with MFL and the Surface
Topology Air-gap Reluctance System (STARS).
MENDT.
[8] Boat, M., Scott, A., & Hughes, T. Factors that
affect the defect sizing capabilities of the
magnetic flux leakage. Silverwing (UK) Ltd.,
Swansea, UK, Tech. Rep.*
[9] Lee, W. C., Chin, H. L., & Mohamed, N. (2015).
Autonomous industrial tank floor inspection
robot. 2015 IEEE International Conference on
Signal and Image Processing Applications
(ICSIPA), IEEE.
[10] Pullen, A. L., Price, M., & Wilcox, P. (2018).
Magnetic flux leakage scanning velocities for tank
floor inspection. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics,
54(9), 1-8.
[11] Zhang, J., Wang, F., & Li, Y. (2019). A
comparative study between magnetic field
distortion and magnetic flux leakage techniques
for surface defect shape reconstruction in steel
plates. *Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 288, 10-20.[12] Long, Y., Zhou, H., & Li, T. (2021). A
characteristic approximation approach to defect
opening profile recognition in magnetic flux
leakage detection. IEEE Transactions on
Instrumentation and Measurement, 70, 1-12.
[13] Usarek, Z., Kudelski, J., & Mazurkiewicz, D.
(2022). A comparative study on methods of
distinction between near-and far-side defects as
techniques used alongside with the magnetic flux
leakage testing. Journal of Nondestructive
Evaluation, 41(1), 12.
[14] Clapham, L., Fawley, R., & Rankin, J. (2007).
Understanding magnetic flux leakage (MFL)
signals from mechanical damage in pipelines–
Phase I. Journal of Pipeline Integrity, 5(2), 75-88

  • Receive Date 26 February 2024
  • Revise Date 17 May 2024
  • Accept Date 15 June 2024