Advertisement

New Discoveries on Electromagnetic Action and Signal Presentation in Magnetic Flux Leakage Testing

  • Yanhua SunEmail author
  • Shiwei Liu
  • Zhiyang Deng
  • Min Gu
  • Changde Liu
  • Lingsong He
  • Yihua Kang
Article

Abstract

Based on the authors’ previous work of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) quantitative description and the research plan especially for the magnetic component of eddy current effect factor \( B_{other} \), further explorations for electromagnetic actions, magnetic and signal presentations in the defect in electromagnetic nondestructive testing (ENDT, such as direct current field measurement (DCFM), MFL and eddy current testing (ECT)) are continued here. Primarily, new discoveries indicate that the magnetic component of \( B_{other} \) is actually composed of the secondary magnetic field component of \( \Delta B_{mfl} \) which manifests as raised signal waves and volume current perturbation component of \( \Delta B_{\Delta I} \) which features as double peaked signals due to the departure or bypassing of the “volume current” in the defect. What’s more, the concrete expressions of magnetic components are deduced and given through Ampere’s (or the Ampere–Maxwell) law. Afterwards, the theory is well demonstrated and verified by means of finite element analysis for current density and magnetic flux density or MFL signals in typical quasi-static testing by DC magnetization for different specimens with defects. Additionally, suggestions for installation site of sensor elements in ENDT are also given. Finally, a unified evaluation standard for magnetic flux density is formed, which provides the basic theory or analysis principles for the ENDT techniques as well as research directions for precision defect detection and related applications.

Keywords

Electromagnetic nondestructive testing (ENDT) Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) Magnetic component Volume current Magnetic flux density Current density 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51575213 and 51475194), the National Key Basic Research Program of China (2014CB046706) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 2015MS015).

References

  1. 1.
    Sukhorukov, V.: Magnetic flux leakage testing method: strong or weak magnetization? Mater. Eval. 71(5), 26–31 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karuppasamy, P., Abudhahir, A., Prabhakaran, M., Thirunavukkarasu, S., Rao, B.P.C., Jayakumar, T.: Model-based optimization of MFL testing of ferromagnetic steam generator tubes. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 35, 1–9 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu, B., He, L.Y., Zhang, H., Cao, Y., Fernandes, H.: The axial crack testing model for long distance oil-gas pipeline based on magnetic flux leakage internal inspection method. Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 103, 275–282 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dehui, W., Lingxin, S., Xiaohong, W., Zhitian, L.: A novel non-destructive testing method by measuring the change rate of magnetic flux leakage. J. Nondestruct. Eval. 36, 24 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Phillipp, L.D., Nguyen, Q.H., Derkacht, D.D., et al. Exact first order finite element modeling for eddy current NDE. Res. Nondestr. Eval. 3(4), 235–253 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raine, A., Lugg, M.: A review of the alternating current field measurement inspection technique. Sens. Rev. 19, 207–213 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donald, J., Ruschau, J.: Direct current potential difference fatigue crack measurement techniques. In: Marsh, K.J., Smith, R.A., Ritchie, R.O. (eds.) Fatigue Crack Measurement: Techniques and Applications, pp. 11–37. EMAS Ltd., West Midlands (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, D., Sun, Y., Ye, Z., Kang, Y.: Electric field leakage nondestructive testing principle and its simulation. Mater. Eval. 73, 1438–1445 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hu, C., Xu, J.: Center frequency shift in pipe inspection using magnetostrictive guided waves. Sensors. Actuat. A: Phys, 298, 111583 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun, Y., Liu, S., Li, D., Ye, Z., Gu, M., Liu, C., et al.: Analyses of the generating mechanisms of standard magnetic flux leakage testing signals. Mater. Eval. 74, 909–918 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feng, B., Kang, Y., Sun, Y.: Theoretical analysis and numerical simulation of the feasibility of inspecting nonferromagnetic conductors by an MFL testing apparatus. Res. Nondestruct. Eval. 27, 100–111 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ivanov, P., Zhang, V., Yeoh, C., Udpa, H., Sun, Y., Udpa, S., et al.: Magnetic flux leakage modeling for mechanical damage in transmission pipelines. IEEE Trans. Magn. 34, 3020–3023 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Palanisamy, R., Lord, W.: Finite element modeling of electromagnetic NDT phenomena. IEEE Trans. Magn. 15, 1479–1481 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gloria, N., Areiza, M., Miranda, I., Rebello, J.: Development of a magnetic sensor for detection and sizing of internal pipeline corrosion defects. NDT & E Int. 42, 669–677 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun, Y., Kang, Y.: Magnetic mechanisms of magnetic flux leakage nondestructive testing. Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 184104 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ravan, M., Amineh, R.K., Koziel, S., Nikolova, N.K., Reilly, J.P.: Sizing of 3-D arbitrary defects using magnetic flux leakage measurements. IEEE Trans. Magn. 46, 1024–1033 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zuoying, H., Peiwen, Q., Liang, C.: 3D FEM analysis in magnetic flux leakage method. NDT & E Int. 39, 61–66 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, H.M., Im, S.H., Lee, H.J., Park, G.S.: New algorithm for improvement of sizing accuracy of defect depth in MFL type nondestructive testing. In IEEE CEFC 2016—17th Biennial Conference on Electromagnetic Field Computation (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Daniel, J., Abudhahir, A., Paulin, J.J.: Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) based defect characterization of steam generator tubes using artificial neural networks. J. Magn. 22, 34–42 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim, H.M., Yoo, H.R., Park G.S.: Analysis of the magnetic characteristics in MFL type NDT system for inspecting gas pipelines. In Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol. 415 LNEE, ed, pp. 319–324 (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dodd, C.V., Deeds, W.E.: Analytical solutions to eddy-current probe-coil problems. J. Appl. Phys. 39(6), 2829–2838 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hammond, P.: The calculation of the magnetic field of rotating machines. Part 3: Eddy currents induced in a solid slab by a circular current loop. Proc. IEE Part C 109(16), 508–515 (1962)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sun, Y., Kang, Y.: Magnetic compression effect in present MFL testing sensor. Sens. Actuators A 160, 54–59 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sun, Y., Kang, Y.: A new MFL principle and method based on near-zero background magnetic field. NDT & E Int. 43, 348–353 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wu, J., Kang, Y., Tu, J., Sun, Y.: Analysis of the eddy-current effect in the Hi-speed axial MFL testing for steel pipe. Int. J. Appl. Electromagn. Mech. 45, 193–199 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical Science and EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.China Ship Scientific Research Center (CSSRC)WuxiChina

Personalised recommendations