Electromagnetic_Testing_EMT_Chapter_15_C.pdf

Electromagnetic Testing
Chapter 14- Electromagnetic Techniques for
Chemical and Petroleum Applications
23th February 2015 大年初五
My ASNT Level III Pre-Exam Preparatory
Self Study Notes
Charlie Chong/ Fion Zhang

Chemical & Petroleum Applications

2015-2-23 大年初五

Fion Zhang at Shanghai
23th February 2015
Shanghai 上海

Greek letter

Chapter Fifteen:
Chemical and Petroleum Applications of Electromagnetic
Testing
http://fshn.ifas.ufl.edu/faculty/Percival_Lab_Site/tropical-fruit-mango.shtml

15.1 PART 1. Electromagnetic Testing of Process Tubing
and Heat Exchangers
15.1.1 Tubing
Tube testing is an important part of maintenance for the refining and
petrochemical industry. Heat exchangers and condensers are designed to
keep products in the tubes separate from products in the vessel (see Fig. 1).
A leaking tube not only could cause a significant impact on production but
also could cause a catastrophic failure and loss of life. Tube testing
techniques include magnetic flux leakage testing, remote field testing,
conventional eddy current testing, ultrasonic testing, laser profilometry and
remote visual testing. The present discussion concentrates on
electromagnetic techniques; ultrasonic and laser methods complement the
electromagnetic techniques and often are used in parallel. Tube testing is
typically broken down into two categories: ferrous and nonferrous. Ferrous
metals are metals such as carbon steel, 400 series stainless steel and metals
with similar magnetic properties; nonferrous metals are nonmagnetic and
include copper, brass and most stainless steels.

Table 1 lists techniques used for tubes made of various materials. The choice
of technique is mainly influenced by the type of service damage to be
detected but often the technique is dictated by tube cleanliness.
For example, rotary ultrasonic testing and laser profilometry require very
clean interior surfaces whereas electromagnetic tests do not. Often,
electromagnetic techniques are used as screening tools before cleaning for
ultrasonic or laser techniques.
Several damage mechanisms and discontinuities can occur. Some are
volumetric and not connected with either surface. However, the primary
discontinuities are either outside diameter or inside diameter surface breaking
discontinuities. Table 2 lists various discontinuities that can be detected with
the various techniques for both nonferrous and ferrous tubing materials.

TABLE 1. Applicability of electromagnetic nondestructive tests to ferrous and
nonferrous metals.

TABLE 2. Discontinuity detection by nondestructive tests for ferrous and
nonferrous metals in used components.

FIGURE 1. Cutaway image of typical heat exchanger, showing tube bundle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_and_tube_heat_exchanger

Heat exchanger

(I) Eddy Current Testing
The eddy current technique works by inducing electrical currents (eddy
currents) in electrically conductive materials as detailed elsewhere. Bobbin
probes containing coils are used for tube testing (Fig. 2a). In theory, any
discontinuities in the material such as cracks, pitting or wall loss will disrupt
the flow of the eddy currents and thus be detected by the instrumentation.
Saturation or special probes can be used for thin walled ferromagnetic tubing.
Most tube exchanger bundles contain supports susceptible to damage in
service. Multiple-channel systems are capable of suppressing or mixing out
the signal responses from supports to closely interrogate the material under
and near the supports. Conventional eddy current testing is used mainly on
nonferrous (nonmagnetic) materials because of the effects from permeability
with ferrous materials. In many cases, the owners and users of the
exchangers prefer eddy current testing to internal rotary ultrasonic testing
because the cleanliness of the tubes is less critical. Additionally, eddy current
testing can be several times faster than internal rotary ultrasonic testing.

Keypoints:
Conventional eddy current testing is used mainly on nonferrous (nonmagnetic)
materials because of the effects from permeability with ferrous materials.

Eddy Current Testing

Typical Tube Defects
http://www.nde.com/ect.htm

Typical Tube Defects – Galvanic Corrosion
http://plastocor.com/wordpress/epoxy-cladding-for-tubesheets-2/

Tube Bundle Cleaning

(II) Remote Field Testing
Remote field testing was developed for ferrous or carbon steel materials and
requires a special remote field eddy current probe in which the exciter coil is
separated from the pickup coil by a distance of two to three times the tube
diameter (Fig. 2b). The receiving or pickup coil then detects the generated
flux lines that cross the tube wall twice. Because of the highly magnetic
properties of ferrous materials, meaningful eddy current testing requires
higher power fields.
Other eddy current techniques for ferrous tubing require complete magnetic
saturation of the tube material but remote field testing does not.
The remote field testing amplifier provides the higher power output levels
needed for ferrous tube testing and remote field probe coils are designed to
handle the increased power levels.
Keywords:
Remote field testing was developed for ferrous or carbon steel materials

Because remote field testing is transmitted through the tube wall, it is equally
sensitive to discontinuities on the inside surface and outside surface of the
tube. However, much like eddy current testing, the factor having the greatest
effect on the signal is change in the “cross sectional area”.
Without the proper instrumentation, a 10 percent wall reduction for 360
degrees of tube surface could have a response similar to that for a 90 to 100
percent pinhole.
The owners and users of the exchangers prefer remote field testing to internal
rotary ultrasonic testing because the cleanliness of the tubes is less critical.
Additionally, remote field testing can be three times faster than internal rotary
ultrasonic testing. Remote field testing is somewhat slower than conventional
eddy current testing and the speed of travel must be as constant as possible
to obtain accurate responses.

Remote Field Testing
http://www.nde.com/paper54.htm

(III) Magnetic Flux Leakage Testing
Magnetic flux leakage testing uses a strong magnet inside the probe to
magnetize the test object (Figs. 2c and 3). As the probe encounters a wall
reduction or a sharp discontinuity, the flux distribution varies around that area
and is detected with either a hall effect sensor or an inductive pickup coil.
Magnetic flux leakage response is sensitive to discontinuities such as isolated
pitting. Magnetic flux leakage testing has been used successfully on air
cooled, finned, heat exchanger tubes of carbon steel. Magnetic flux leakage
testing is less sensitive to signal effects from the aluminum fins coiled around
the carbon steel tubes than remote field testing is.

Magnetic Flux Leakage Testing - Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) is a fast inspection
technique, suitable for measuring wall loss and detecting sharp defects such as pitting, grooving,
and circumferential cracks. MFL is effective for aluminum-finned carbon steel tubes, because the
magnetic field is almost completely unaffected by the presence of such fins.
Powerful Neodymium-Iron-Boron
Permanent magnet set
Axially oriented saturating
magnetic field
Sturdy probe cable
Lead pickup coils, absolute
or differential
Trail pickup coils,
differential
http://www.olympus-ims.com/cs/ms-5800-tube-inspection/

FIGURE 2. Bobbin coil probes for electromagnetic testing: (a) probe for eddy
current testing; (b) probe for remote field testing; (c) probe for magnetic flux
leakage testing.

FIGURE 3. Magnetic flux leakage probe inserted in carbon steel tube bundle
of crude petroleum processing unit.

Electromagnetic testing of Heat Exchanger - Expert at Works

Electromagnetic testing of Heat Exchanger – Differential ET

(IV) Complementary Methods
■ Internal Rotary Ultrasonic Testing - Internal rotary ultrasonic testing is
well suited for petrochemical and refinery tube tests. The technique uses an
ultrasonic beam to scan the tube internal surface in a helical pattern to ensure
that the full circumference of the tube is tested. The system monitors the front
wall and the back wall echoes to measure the tube wall thickness precisely.
Essentially, a radial B-scan of the tube profiles total wall thickness and pitting
on the inside or outside of the tube. A drawback of ultrasonic testing is that
the tubes are required to be extremely clean and typically are sandblasted
with silicon grit or soda ash. Also, ultrasonic testing can require three times as
much time as an electromagnetic technique would.

Internal Rotary Ultrasonic Testing
http://www.sentinelltd.co.nz/Sentinel

http://www.olympus-ims.com/cs/ms-5800-tube-inspection/

■ Laser Profilometry of Tubing - Laser profilometry is based on the
principle of optical triangulation. A laser source similar to a standard laser
pointer is directed at the surface whose height is to be measured. An imaging
lens collects the light reflected from the surface and focuses it onto a position
sensitive detector. As the surface height changes, the position of the focused
laser spot on the detector moves. The output from the detector is processed
electronically to convert the detector positions to accurate height
measurements that can be stored on a computer for display and analysis.
Essentially, laser techniques provide information regarding the nearside
surface by profiling the tube wall. Pitting and wall losses can be detected as a
diameter change with a high degree of accuracy. Additionally, laser
techniques are used for the detection of cracking, which appears as a
disruption or distortion in the optical field.

Laser profilometry
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume-46/issue-1/features/optical-surface-profiling.html

Charlie
Chong/
Fion
Zhang
Laser profilometry

Laser profilometry - The stage view in ZeMapper shows a business card
with the test area overlay (yellow square; top) and the 3-D map of the
selected area (letter e), which shows the ink is raised above the paper fibers
of the card (bottom).

15.1.2 Pressure Vessels
Pressure vessels are continually subject to testing and are considered one of
the most critical pieces of equipment in a petrochemical plant or refinery (Fig.
4). Traditional pre-service tests include radiographic and ultrasonic testing
during fabrication. Traditional in-service tests include visual, ultrasonic,
magnetic particle and more recently electromagnetic techniques such as
eddy current testing and alternating current field measurement.
Electromagnetic testing can be used for the detection, sizing and evaluation
of damage mechanisms such as cracking. Industry practices for in-service
tests of pressure vessels have specified visual testing, ultrasonic testing, wet
fluorescent magnetic particle testing and electromagnetic testing.
Electromagnetic techniques such as eddy current testing and alternating
current field measurement offer distinct advantages. To perform wet
fluorescent magnetic particle testing, the vessel surfaces must be prepared
by sandblasting. Eddy current testing and alternating current field
measurement techniques do not require sandblasting and, unlike magnetic
particle testing, can also provide depth sizing information.

FIGURE 4. Gasoline processing plant: (a) external view, showing distillation
columns; (b) interior view of chamber in distillation column.

Distillation Column
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillation_column

Alternating Current Field Measurement
Alternating current field measurement (Fig. 5) was developed from the
alternating current potential drop ACPD technique. Potential drop testing has
been used for crack sizing and crack growth monitoring for underwater
applications such as offshore platforms. The alternating current field
measurement technique is simple, relying on the measurement of surface
magnetic fields instead of surface electric fields, thus requiring no electrical
contact. This reliance on magnetic fields allows the technique to be used
through coatings up to 6 mm (0.25 in.). Eddy current techniques and probes
can be dramatically influenced by probe liftoff but alternating current field
measurement, with its unidirectional fields, is not.
Another benefit of alternating current field measurement is that the technique
requires no calibration. The technique relies on field values compared with a
theoretical model and database of known crack responses.

FIGURE 5. Equipment for alternating current field measurement.

Electromagnetic Testing –
Spherical Tank

15.2 PART 2. Electromagnetic Testing of Transmission and
Storage Systems
15.2.1 Pipelines
Pipelines connect field production (gas and oil extraction) with refineries and
petrochemical plants where gas and crude petroleum are processed into
usable products (Fig. 6). Because pipelines cross state lines in the United
States, they are governed by the Department of Transportation. The
construction, maintenance and testing of these pipelines are critical to the
safety of the environment and the general public. Buried pipelines not only
have the potential for catastrophic failure but could contaminate lakes, rivers
and underground water sources if leakage occurs. Traditional pre-service
tests include radiographic and ultrasonic testing during fabrication to ensure
the quality of the welding. Once a pipeline is in service, the pipeline
companies depend largely on in-service testing to assess corrosion. Test
strategies before 1970 included leak detection systems.

Since the late 1960s, flux leakage testing tools have been inserted into the
pipelines and propelled by product flow. This expedient offers a test
technique without significant interruption in pipeline production. In magnetic
flux leakage testing, changes in the material mass such as corrosion or pitting
cause a localized flux leakage to occur at the discontinuity. These
perturbations in the magnetic field are detected by the sensors within the
magnetic circuit, are recorded and later are analyzed and reviewed. Much like
the baffles or supports in a tube exchanger bundle, the pipeline
circumferential welds provide abrupt signals and easy landmarks when the
data are evaluated for discontinuity locations. Smart pigs are test vehicles
that product flow pushes through a pipeline (Fig. 7). The technique got its
name from a squealing sound from the pig moving through the pipe. At the
end of the line or run, the pig is retrieved and the onboard data are then
processed and analyzed. The pigs are similar to the magnetic flux leakage
probes used in tube testing but the pigs are constructed to propel themselves
down pipelines and collect the required test data.

Pigging - The technique got its name from a squealing sound from the pig
moving through the pipe.

Pipeline

FIGURE 6. Carbon steel, 0.75 m (30 in.) outside diameter, gas transmission
pipeline.

Gas transmission pipeline.

FIGURE 7. Equipment for magnetic flux leakage testing of pipes and tubes: (a)
pig tool; (b) data acquisition from pig sensors.
Permanent magnets
Pickup coils
(a)

FIGURE 7. Equipment for magnetic flux leakage testing of pipes and tubes: (a)
pig tool; (b) data acquisition from pig sensors.
Legend
1. Pressure.
2. Ambient temperature.
3. Magnetic field (magnetization).
4. Surrounding magnetic flux.
5. Magnetic flux leakage (stray flux).
6. Odometer (distance and speed).
(b)

Magnetic flux leakage testing pig tool
https://www.nde-ed.org/AboutNDT/SelectedApplications/PipelineInspection/PipelineInspection.htm

Magnetic flux leakage testing pig tool
http://www.pipeway.com/skins/pipeway/standard.aspx?elid=82

Magnetic flux leakage testing pig tool (mfl pig)
http://www.pipeway.com/skins/pipeway/standard.aspx?elid=82

15.2.2 Magnetic Flux Leakage Testing of Aboveground Storage
Tank Floors
Tank floors of aboveground storage tanks (Fig. 8) are subject to corrosion
where they touch the ground. In the 1970s, ultrasonic testing was being
performed on tank floors — spot ultrasonic testing using transducers on large
wheels and automated ultrasonic techniques such as C-scanning. One
destructive technique was to randomly cut out 0.3 × 0.3 m (12 × 12 in.)
square coupons, to visually test them and then either to weld them back in
place or to replace them with new patch plates. Magnetic flux leakage test
techniques have been widely used in the oil field industry since the 1970s for
the testing of pipe, tubing and casing, both new and used. During the 1980s,
magnetic flux leakage testing for tank floor applications was introduced to the
petrochemical and refining industry.

FIGURE 8. Aboveground storage tank for petroleum products.

Since 1990, this technique has been applied to aboveground storage tank
floors to provide a reliable indication of overall floor condition within an
economical time frame. Magnetic flux leakage floor scanners provide reliable
tests at a fraction of the time and cost associated with ultrasonic thickness
gauging. A tank floor test at regular intervals is required by some
specifications. As with other techniques, evaluation by ultrasonic testing is
required when magnetic flux leakage testing is specified. Generally, the
evaluation is accomplished by ultrasonic thickness gauging and sometimes
by B-scan or C-scan ultrasonic testing. For tank floor testing, a magnetic
bridge is used to introduce as near a saturation of flux as is possible in the
test material between the poles of the bridge. Any significant reduction in the
thickness of the plate will force some of the magnetic flux into the air around
the reduction area. Sensors that can detect this flux leakage are placed
between the poles of the bridge (Fig. 9a).

FIGURE 9. Magnetic flux leakage test: (a) schematic of bridge; (b) tank floor
scanner incorporating magnetic flux leakage test bridge.

To create leakage fields from corrosion or pitting, it is necessary to achieve
near saturation of the magnetic field in the material. Near saturation is
accomplished with powerful rare earth magnets, which offer more stability
than electromagnets. The sensor can detect the magnetic flux leakage field
caused by corrosion and pitting but cannot reliably determine if the flux
leakage is caused by top or bottom indications. For uncoated materials, the
top discontinuities can be verified during a simple visual test. Other methods
such as ultrasonic testing are performed for coated floors. Floor scanning has
problems not evident in the testing of tubular goods, where certain
parameters can be closely controlled. Probably the greatest problem is that
tank floors are never flat whereas tubes are always round. The unevenness of
tank floors makes it hard to get reasonably consistent quantitative information.
The application of rigid accept/reject criteria based on signal amplitude
thresholds is also very unreliable for quantitative information. A realistic
approach is required in the application of this test technique and in the design
of the test equipment to ensure that fewer significant discontinuities are
missed.

Charlie
Chong/
Fion
Zhang
FIGURE 9. (b) tank floor scanner incorporating magnetic flux
leakage test bridge.

15.2.2.1 Test Conditions
To optimize the test, it is necessary to consider the environment and address
the physical restrictions imposed by the actual conditions found when testing
most tank floors.
(I) Climate. The range of temperature and humidity conditions varies
enormously during the year and around the world. The effect on both operator
and equipment must be taken into consideration.
(II) Cleanliness. Most aboveground storage tanks are dirty and sometimes
dusty places to work. The conditions vary widely and depend on how much
the tank operator cleans the floors in preparation for magnetic flux leakage
scanning. As an absolute minimum, a good water blast is necessary and all
loose debris and scale must be removed from the test surface. The surface
does not have to be dry but puddles of standing water need to be removed.
The cleaner the floor, the better the test.

(III) Surface Condition. Significant top surface corrosion and buckling of the
floor plates represent serious limitations to both the achievable coverage in
the areas concerned and also the achievable sensitivity. Although very little
can be done to improve this situation before testing, it must be considered in
the design of the equipment. The effect of corrosion and buckling on the
sensitivity of the test must be appreciated by both the tank operator and the
inspector. Any physical disturbance of the scanning system as it traverses the
floor will result in the generation of noise. The rougher the surface, the greater
the noise and therefore the more difficult it is to detect small indications.

15.2.2.2 Equipment
It is important that magnetic flux leakage equipment produced for this
particular application be designed to handle the environmental and practical
problems always present. Figure 9b shows a mobile floor scanning unit.
Powerful rare earth magnets are well suited for introducing the required flux
levels into the material under test. Electromagnets by comparison are
excessively bulky and heavy. They do have an advantage in that the
magnetic flux levels can be easily adjusted and turned off if necessary for
cleaning. Permanent magnet heights can be adjusted to alter flux levels but
the bridge requires regular cleaning to remove ferritic debris. The buildup of
debris can impair system sensitivity significantly. It is virtually impossible for
this technique to achieve 100 percent coverage because physical access is
limited. The equipment should be designed so that it can scan as close as
possible to the lap joint and shell. The wheel base of the scanner is an
important consideration on floors that are not perfectly flat. Smaller scanning
heads can be used in confined spaces to increase coverage.

MFL Equipment
http://www.mfeenterprises.com/product-category/mfe-mark-3-tank-floor-scanners/

15.2.2.3 Sensors
Two types of sensors are used for magnetic flux leakage of aboveground
tanks: coils and hall effect sensors. Both can detect the flux leakage fields
caused by corrosion on tank floors. There is a fundamental difference,
however, in the way that they respond to leakage fields and generate a
response. Coils are passive devices and follow Faraday’s law in the presence
of a magnetic field. As a coil passes through a magnetic field, a voltage is
generated in the coil. The level of this voltage depends on the number of
turns in the coil and the rate of change of the flux leakage. Scanning speed
has a direct effect on the rate of change of the magnetic flux leakage passing
through the coils (scanning speed needs to be constant.) Hall effect sensors
are solid state devices that form part of an electrical circuit. When passed
through a magnetic field, the voltage in the circuit varies with the flux density.
It is necessary to carry out some cross referencing and canceling with this
type of sensor so that true signals can be separated from other causes of
large variations in voltage levels generated by the test. Hall effect sensors are
more sensitive than coils and so result in false calls when surface conditions
are imperfect. For tube testing, on the other hand, coils are adequately
sensitive and are more stable and reliable than hall sensors.

15.2.2.4 Interpretation of Indications
(I) Surface Differentiation.
Magnetic flux leakage testing cannot differentiate between indications from
the top and bottom of the test object. Some attempt has been made to use
the eddy current signals from top discontinuities for the purposes of surface
differentiation. Such discrimination is unreliable on real tank floors because
the test surface is uneven and dirty. In most cases, visual testing is adequate.
Contrary to what is expected, the flux leakage response from a top indication
is significantly lower in amplitude than that from an equivalent bottom
indication. To some degree, the influence of the top indications can be tuned
out to assess the bottom indications.

(II) Quantitative Assessment.
Magnetic flux leakage testing is not quantitative but is a reliable, qualitative
detector of corrosion on tank floors. Because of environmental and physical
restrictions during tests, no reliable quantification of indications is possible.
Amplitude alone does not indicate remaining wall thickness because it
depends on volume loss. Discontinuities exhibiting various combinations of
volume loss and through-wall dimension can give the same amplitude signal.
This difficulty plus the continually changing spatial relationship of magnets,
sensor and test surface makes an accurate assessment of remaining wall
thickness virtually impossible. Quantitative results can be obtained by using
ultrasonic testing as a follow up test.
Keypoints:
Amplitude alone does not indicate remaining wall thickness because it

(III) Misuse of Signal Threshold.
Expediency has sometimes motivated accept/reject criteria using a signal
threshold but signal amplitude alone is not a reliable indicator of remaining
wall thickness. Significant indications can be completely missed where there
is a single threshold or where the equipment does not provide a real time
display to the operator during the test. To carry out a reliable test, the
operator must have as much information as possible available in a real time
display that is easy to interpret.
(IV) Computerized Signal Mapping.
Mapping of flux leakage signals to tank floor layout is available on some
systems. These maps can be used to plan further tests, for corrosion surveys
and for hard copy reporting. The usefulness of this equipment must be
weighed against the risk of electrical equipment inside storage tanks.
http://www.mfeenterprises.com/product-category/mfe-mark-3-tank-floor-scanners/

(V) Training and Qualification.
Training available to inspectors using magnetic flux leakage testing on tank
floors is limited. Training must be specific to the equipment. The ultrasonic
test must be carried out by personnel who are adequately trained and
qualified. It must be remembered that this is not just thickness measurement
but rather corrosion evaluation and the technician must have a full
understanding of the damage mechanisms and the test technique.

15.2.2.5 Conclusions
Magnetic flux leakage MFL testing is a reliable and economical means of
qualitatively assessing the condition of tank floors. The environment and
physical restrictions must be addressed in the design of the equipment.
Despite the greater sensitivity of hall effect sensors, coils are more reliable for
this application. Amplitude of flux leakage signals is an unreliable indicator of
remaining wall thicknesses. Quantitative information can be obtained by
applying ultrasonic testing to the areas indicated by magnetic flux leakage.

Keypoints:
MFL - Amplitude alone does not indicate remaining wall thickness because it
RFT - Because remote field testing is transmitted through the tube wall, it is
equally sensitive to discontinuities on the inside surface and outside surface
of the tube. However, much like eddy current testing, the factor having the
greatest effect on the signal is change in the “cross sectional area”. Without
the proper instrumentation, a general 10% wall reduction for 360° of tube
surface could have a response similar to that for scattered or isolated 90% to
100% thru wall thickness pinholes.

15.3 PART 3. Electromagnetic Testing of Drill and Coil Pipe
15.3.1 Drill Pipe Testing
Drill pipe is manufactured from various grades of seamless carbon steel tube,
with tool joints of different steel grades friction welded on at either end.
Details of chemistry, sizes and grades for both the pipe body and tool joints
can be found in various specifications. Drill pipe has also been manufactured
from aluminum, a material not addressed here.

Drilling

Drilling
http://www.statoil.com/en/About/Worldwide/UnitedKingdom/UKUpstream/Pages/Mariner.aspx

(I) Testing in Manufacturing Plants
To detect material discontinuities, the carbon steel tube body is 100 percent
tested by magnetic flux leakage testing, by shear wave ultrasonic testing or
by both and may be repaired by discontinuity removal to leave a remaining
wall of at least 87.5 percent of the specified wall thickness. The test sensitivity
for new tube body is determined from API SPEC 5D.
Acceptable pipe then is upset at each end and the box and pin tool joints are
friction welded in place. Tool joints are threaded, one end as a pin connection
and the other as a box connection (Fig. 10). The excess metal on the inner
and outer surfaces from this process is removed by machining. Then, the
friction welds between the pipe body and the tool joints may be tested with
conventional shear wave ultrasound for material discontinuities.

FIGURE 10. Diagram for drill pipe testing. (See Table 4.)

(II) In-service Testing
Table 3 shows criteria applied to used drill pipe according to API RP 7G.
Several points need particular attention.
1. In the case of outside surface cuts and gouges, the remaining wall thickness shall
be (a) not less than 80 percent for premium pipe, (b) not less than 70 percent for
class 2 pipe with longitudinal discontinuities and (c) not less than 80 percent for
class 2 pipe with transverse discontinuities. Discontinuities may be ground out
provided (a) the remaining wall is not reduced to less than 80 percent for premium
pipe, (b) the remaining wall is not reduced to less than 70 percent for class 2 pipe
and (c) the removal by grinding is approximately faired, or smoothed, into the outer
contour of the pipe.
2. Where cracks are found, the pipe is considered unfit for further drilling.
3. The average adjacent wall is determined by measuring the wall thickness on each
side of the cut or gouge adjacent to the deepest penetration.
4. String shot refers to discontinuities caused by expansion of the pipe wall after a
controlled explosion to dislodge drill pipe stuck in the hole.
Figure 10 shows the various parts of a drill pipe. Table 4 lists problems that
occur with different parts of used drill pipes.

TABLE 3. Acceptance criteria for three classes of inservice drill pipe
according to API RP 7G.

TABLE 4. Testing of areas of used drill pipe. (See Fig. 10 for parts of pipe.)

(III) Tube Body Testing
The original form of drill pipe testing was visual, with an optical gage for the
critical areas at the ends. Then, for many years, drill pipe tube bodies were
tested by magnetizing the tube longitudinally and scanning it with rings of
inductive coil or hall sensors (Fig. 11). This simple magnetic flux leakage test
is sensitive to discontinuities with a transverse or volumetric component, such
as internal pitting, external pitting, drilling rig slip marks and fatigue cracks.
Inflatable magnetic rubber balloons were also used to detect fatigue cracks
on the inside surface. A conductor would also be passed through the pipe, a
shot of current fired and the tube magnetized circularly before magnetic flux
leakage or magnetic particle testing over the tube body. Figure 12 shows a
typical signal from such a test. Additionally, the tool joints could be tested with
the residual circular field for longitudinal imperfections such as cracks from
string shot and longitudinal heat check cracking on the tool joints. Circular
magnetization has been accomplished by using capacitive discharge units.
Spinning gamma ray pipe wall thickness gages are used to measure the wall
thickness of the tube in a spiral pattern. This test does not cover the tool joints
and scans only a limited part (2 to 30 percent) of the tube wall but is
extremely effective in detecting wall thinning from wear and pipe eccentricity.

In magnetic flux leakage testing for transverse discontinuities, a coil
magnetizes the pipe wall longitudinally to saturation and detector coils or hall
effect sensors ride inside the magnetizing coil as close to the tube outside
surface as they can be placed. Usually, they are mounted in brass shoes that
have the same radius as the pipe and have a layer of tungsten carbide as a
wear plate. The axis of the coil is generally perpendicular to the pipe axis, as
in Fig. 11. This form of sensor is somewhat tuned to short range magnetic flux
leakage and so is effective in reducing longer range noise. It should be noted
that magnetic flux leakage induces eddy currents in brass shoes. The signals
are filtered and the largest is fed to a chart recorder. This simple system has
been effective for many years. In operation, the inspector first backs the test
head as far as it will go onto the pipe tool joint connection area, then reverses
the direction and scans the entire pipe to the other upset. Often, signals from
the internal and external upsets can interfere with imperfection signals and
interpretation is difficult in these areas. Ultrasound represents a better option
for end regions.

For the longitudinal discontinuity test, two forms of magnetization occur. In
one, an internal conductor rod is passed through the pipe, which is then
magnetized by one or many shots, often from a capacitor discharge system. It
is then scanned by rotating sensors and tested by the resulting residual
circular induction. This test is relatively problematic because signals from
permeability variations tend to mask serious discontinuities unless signal
processing is performed. Of more value is a rotating pole yoke so that the test
can be performed in an active induction, where the magnetic flux leakage
from imperfections can be many times in magnitude what they were in
residual induction.

FIGURE 11. Tube is scanned by ring of transverse sensors: (a) longitudinal
section diagram; (b) photograph of equipment.
(a)

FIGURE 11. Tube is scanned by ring of transverse sensors: (a) longitudinal
section diagram; (b) photograph of equipment.
(b)

FIGURE 12. Typical signal for flat, parallel coil.

Experts at Work

(IV) Magnetic Measurement of Wall Thickness.
For the simple drill pipe field test that uses only longitudinal magnetization,
one problem has been the lack of a measurement of the wall thickness,
especially on worn drill pipe. Erosion on the inside and outside surfaces is a
common problem. The tube body wall is measured with an ultrasonic
thickness gage at sample points, which may not include the thinnest part of
the wall. No wall thickness measurement is taken by magnetic flux leakage
testing, so one improvement effected in the 1990s was the inclusion of an
encircling coil inside the magnetizing coil and connected to an integration
circuit.

Magnetic wall thickness has also been measured by adding a pickup coil and
an integration circuit to measure the total magnetic flux Φ in the magnetizing
coil (Fig. 13).
FIGURE 13. Encircling coil total flux system for magnetic flux leakage testing
of tubes.

With the air term (the flux in the air between the coil and the pipe and inside
the pipe) subtracted by calibration, the total flux Фsteel in the steel is measured:
Фsteel = Bsteel × Asteel
If the longitudinal saturation flux density Bsteel in the steel is a constant, the
cross sectional area Asteel of the steel is calculated:
Asteel = π tav (Dmeas − tav )
The average wall thickness tav can also be calculated from Eq. 2.
The measured outside diameter Dmeas of the drill pipe might not include the
minimum wall thickness in the case of eccentric seamless tubular goods and
eccentrically worn tubes. Outside diameter measurement, however, does help
to determine wall thickness of drill pipe by a magnetic noncontact technique
and is very effective in locating the thinner regions of the pipe. This technique
is then used to measure the average wall thickness of oilfield tubing asit is
pulled from a well.

An improvement to the outside diameter measurement technique is to add
hall sensors to the magnetic flux leakage shoes and measure the tangential
magnetic field immediately above the pipe wall. This technique effectively
places the encircling coil close to the pipe surface and collects localized
signals (Fig. 14).

FIGURE 14. Tangential magnetic field immediately above pipe wall is
measured by hall sensors in magnetic flux leakage shoes. This technique
places encircling coil close to pipe surface to collect localized signals.
Legend
Hc = magnetic field
Hd = demagnetizing field
P1 and P2 = sensor locations

(V) Tool Joint Testing
Because drill pipe threads suffer tension and consequently often stretch,
measurement with a mechanical lead gage is performed to determine the
amount of stretch. If the connection is made loose and the pipe is used in
deviated wells, there is a possibility of fatigue cracking in the last engaged
thread region. The end of the tool joint can be tested by two techniques. The
tool joint is wrapped in a coil, magnetized and then tested by the wet
fluorescent magnetic particle method. Formulas for the magnetization have
been given by Moyer. Careful cleaning of the threads is essential before
applying the particle suspension. The critical area may be searched for
transverse cracks with multiple-transducer ultrasonic systems.

(VI) Pipe Threads
An area that requires special attention during the testing of used drill pipe is
the threaded region of the pin and box connections (see Fig. 10). Common
problems in these regions include fatigue cracking from overtorquing at the
pin thread roots and stretching of the thread metal. Automated systems that
use both active and residual magnetic flux leakage techniques can be used
for detecting such discontinuities. The stretching and cracking of threads is a
common problem. For example, when tubing, casing and drill pipe are
overtorqued at the coupling, the threads are in their plastic region.
Metallurgical changes in the metal can create regions where stress corrosion
cracking takes place in highly stressed areas at a faster rate than in areas of
less stress. Couplings between tubes may become highly stressed. Drill pipe
threads are a good example of where such stress can cause plastic
deformation and thread root cracking.

(VII) Analysis of Magnetic Flux Leakage Signals from Coils
In one study,4 flat coil signals from internal pitting in drill pipe and other oil
country tubular goods were analyzed. It was found that the amplitude of the
magnetic flux leakage signal, defined as only the upper part of Fig. 12,
(1) generally increases as the pit deepens or the remaining wall above it
lessens,
(2) often decreases as the pit becomes longer and
(3) increases as the pit widens.

These competing variations lead to scatter diagrams such as the one in Fig.
15, which indicate that trying to assess discontinuity depth from such
amplitude based curves is relatively pointless. The plot in Fig. 15 was actually
performed for American Petroleum Institute grade J-55 tubing, a carbon steel
with 380 MPa (5.5 × 104 lbf·in.–2) yield strength.25 The general trend is for
deeper pits to give bigger amplitude signals because deeper pits also tend to
be wider. Such spreads have also been reported by others in assessing
pipeline pigging signals. Better assessments are generally made by treating
the signal amplitude as the maximum distance between the peak and valley
on a signal such as the one in Fig. 12. Such signals generally have one valley
deeper than the other because the discontinuity is asymmetrical.

FIGURE 15. Scatter plot of magnetic flux leakage test signals for 73 mm (2.9
in.) outside diameter pipe.

(VIII) Standardization of Magnetic Flux Leakage Units
Drill pipe test units are often standardized by running the sensors over a 1.6
mm (0.06 in.) diameter through drilled hole in a test standard at the same
speed as the pipe to be tested (such coil based signals are speed dependent)
and setting the resulting amplitude at some convenient height on a moving
chart. For testing of new casing and tubing, electric discharge machined
notches are generally used and the test units are expected to show some
signal amplitude consistency when the reference indicator is located at twelve,
three, six and nine o’clock positions on the pipe. The signals confirm that the
pipe is running centrally through the testing unit. Data such as those shown in
Fig. 15 indicate the danger of using the amplitude from magnetic flux leakage
reference indicators to decide whether to perform further evaluation of the
indication.

15.3.2 Coiled Tubing
Coiled tubing and line pipe are made from electric welded carbon steel
manufactured in various grades for use in oil and gas well servicing, coiled
tubing drilling and installed well tubing. Tubing sizes are typically 25 mm (1 in.)
to 89 mm (3.5 in.) outside diameter with wall thicknesses varying from 2 mm
(0.08 in.) to 6.3 mm (0.25 in.). Outside diameters of coiled line pipes range
from 13 to 165 mm (0.5 in. to 6.5 in.). Strips are spooled onto drums. Strings
are made by welding strips together, end to end, and then passing the strip
through a high frequency induction electric resistance welding mill. The result
is often a coiled string of length 6 to 10 km (4 to 6 mi). The testing of new
coiled product is usually conducted according to American Petroleum Institute
specifications.16,28,29 Conventional nondestructive test methods are used:
radiographic, ultrasonic and liquid penetrant testing, as well as
electromagnetic techniques. The testing of used coiled tubing is different
because the anticipated discontinuities differ from those for new product.
However, the equipment for inservice testing follows from the desirability of
noncontact testing of wall thickness, ovality, pitting, erosion and other
damage.

Coiled Tubing

Five types of electromagnetic testing are important for the tubing body:
1. An electromagnetic sensing system for diameter measurement detects
ballooning, necking and ovality. Standard eddy current standoff
measurement sensors are mounted in a ring to detect changes in outside
diameter (Fig. 16). Such ovality measurements are used in collapse
pressure calculations. This measurement requires an unpitted outside
surface or much compensation and averaging circuitry.
2. A magnetic reluctance wall thickness measurement system enables the
thickness of the ambient wall (not localized pits) to be measured along the
string, with thin areas caused by erosion, general corrosion and rubbing
against the side of the well. These results can then be used for cross
sectional area computations and maximum tensile forces for each section
of a string. In this method, the field intensity measured with rings of hall
effect sensors, placed next to the tube wall, is related to the wall thickness
immediately below it as shown in Fig. 14. In principle, the number of poles
at locations P1 and P2 affects the demagnetizing field Hd, which in turn
affects the tangential field in the sensor ring.

3. The same rings of sensors are also used for detection of pitting, gouges
and transverse discontinuities by measuring their magnetic flux leakage.
Signals from localized pitting can be electronically removed. Sensitivity to
small surface imperfections depends on the liftoff from the tubing surface
to the electromagnetic center of the sensor.
4. A standard eddy current (3 kHz) system can be used to detect longitudinal
discontinuities and areas of heavy cycling in the tubing surface.
5. Because tubing stretches, it is important to know where the highly fatigued
areas are, irrespective of where a length indicator says they are. Such
areas may be removed if the fatigue life is higher than that of the rest of
the tubing. The same eddy currents that respond to damage within the
metal through changes in the electrical conductivity are used.
Electromagnetic test results may be confirmed with visual, liquid penetrant,
magnetic particle, radiographic or ultrasonic testing.

FIGURE 16. Eight eddy current liftoff sensors measure ovality of coiled tubing
from fixed distance.

15.4 PART 4. Eddy Current Testing of Offshore Welds
Eddy current testing can be used for manual inservice nondestructive testing
of welds in marine environments. Eddy current testing of underwater welds
has become common for oil and gas companies in Europe and the United
States.
15.4.1 Method Selection
(I) Nondestructive Test Methods
Nondestructive testing methods each have advantages and limitations for
detecting various types of weld indications.

Eddy Current Testing of Welds

1. Magnetic particle testing is used for detecting short length and shallow
surface breaking indications. Its sensitivity, however, is reduced in
detection of indications through coatings of 0.2 to 0.4 mm (0.008 to 0.016
in.). Magnetic particle testing is difficult to use on wet surfaces.
2. Ultrasonic testing is used for detecting volumetric indications. It is
generally not as sensitive as magnetic particle testing for detection of fine,
surface breaking indications.
3. Radiographic testing is used for volumetric detection of indications. It
cannot, however, detect laminar indications. Radiographic testing requires
special safety precautions.
4. Eddy current testing is used for detecting surface breaking indications
through coating thicknesses as great as 2 mm (0.08 in.) and can be used
on wet surfaces. However, because only the area under the probe is being
tested at one moment, several scans must be used for complete
coverage.

Underwater NDT

(II) Eddy Current Testing and Magnetic Particle Testing
Consideration must be given to the component being tested and to the type
and size of indication requiring detection - during fabrication, in service or
during repair tests. For example, for in-service tests on offshore structures,
the predominant indications are surface breaking, mostly in the toe of the
weld. Because magnetic particle testing is ideally suited for detection of this
type of indication, it has been the method most widely used. Its main
drawback, however, is its inability to see through certain coating thicknesses;
nor can magnetic particle testing be used on wet surfaces - for example, on
surfaces wet from rain. Eddy current testing has the ability to overcome both
of these disadvantages. Magnetic particle testing loses its sensitivity when
applied through most coatings, so the coating must be removed and reapplied
if magnetic particle testing is to be used. In contrast, eddy current testing can
be reliably performed through 2 mm (0.08 in.) of nonconductive coating. Both
wet and dry magnetic particle testing techniques are difficult or impossible to
implement in wet or windy environments.

Portable eddy current instruments can be placed into lightweight, waterproof
enclosures. Eddy current probes are inherently waterproof and can be used
on wet surfaces.
Magnetic particle testing is a two-handed operation. This constraint does not
matter for most applications but is difficult for projects where the inspector
must hold the yoke overhead. In contrast, lightweight eddy current probes can
be held for scanning with one hand. Using a lightweight instrument of about 3
kg (6 lb), the eddy current technique is suitable for rope access and for
overhead applications (Fig. 17). Eddy current testing can be used with
minimal visibility as in, for example, the underwater testing of jack supports.
To verify any eddy current indications, however, visibility must return for
magnetic particle testing to be performed (Fig. 18). Magnetic particle testing
produces a residue of particles in the environment. Although particles (wet
and dry) may be nontoxic, they may require workers to wear protective
equipment to reduce airborne particle inhalation. This may be an important
consideration for nuclear applications.

FIGURE 17. Rope access for eddy current testing through coatings.

FIGURE 18. Eddy current testing of welds in marine environment: (a) eddy
current scanning through coatings and on damp surfaces; (b) magnetic
particle testing verifies eddy current results (arrows point to magnetic particle
indication).

Eddy current testing of welds
in marine environment

(III) Limitations of Eddy Current Testing
Eddy current testing has distinct limitations compared with other test methods.
1. Compared to other surface breaking indication detection methods
(primarily magnetic particle testing), eddy current testing requires a higher
inspector skill level for accurate interpretation of signals.
2. Eddy current testing requires the probe to be close to the indication for
detection. Specific scanning patterns must be used for the heat affected
zone, for the toe of the weld and for weld surface tests. Careful attention
must be given to geometry, access and full testing of the part.
3. If equal surface preparation, normal access and a need to test the entire
weld (not just one weld toe) are assumed, eddy current testing is slow.

4. Unlike magnetic particle testing, eddy current testing does not produce a
visible indication on the test object. Eddy current indications require
verification with magnetic particle testing. Typically, the eddy current
indication is cleaned to bare metal by using hand tools or a needle gun
(an electric, handheld de-scaling tool) before testing.
5. On extremely corroded, rough surfaces, eddy current test performance is
degraded by low ratio of signal to noise.
6. Eddy current testing is not suitable for evaluation of indications by grinding
because detection is unreliable for indications that are extremely shallow,
less than 0.5 mm (0.02 in.).
Before being allowed to perform tests, eddy current inspectors should be
independently qualified by performing practical demonstrations on test
specimens having indications in the range of sizes and geometries of those to
be found in the field.

15.4.2 Other Considerations
As part of a joint industry project in the 1990s, a procedure using lightweight
commercial eddy current equipment and weld testing probes was developed.
Using qualified recommended practices and personnel, results of eddy
current testing were found to be in agreement with results of magnetic
particle testing.

(I) Speed of Testing
With efficient practices and inspectors, magnetic particle testing is faster than
eddy current testing on bare metal. However, operational factors, surface
condition and cost are important. Magnetic particle testing works on the
assumption that the area between the yoke legs, about 150 mm (6 in.) wide
and 75 mm (3 in.) long, is fully tested in one yoke placement. To test a weld
completely, the yoke must be placed in two directions. The scanning rate for
magnetic particle testing is about 5 mm·s–1 (1 ft·min–1) for transverse
indication scans and about 2.5 mm·s–1 (0.5 ft·min–1) for indications parallel
with the weld, such as toe cracks, centerline cracks and cracks parallel in the
base metal. Eddy current testing interrogates only the area directly under the
probe. Five eddy current scans are typically used for weld testing: two for the
base metal (parallel and transverse), one specifically targeted for the weld
toes and two for the weld face (parallel and transverse). Additionally, rough
weld faces typically will decrease scan speed because of increased signal
complexity. Eddy current scanning rates vary with the size and profile of the
weld face.

(II) Access
Eddy current testing is easier to use from rope access. If most of the testing is
in the overhead position, the one-handed eddy current technique is
ergonomically easier than magnetic particle testing.

(III) Sensitivity
Of the two methods (magnetic particle testing and eddy current testing),
magnetic particle testing has a slightly greater sensitivity for indication
detection. One recommended practice34 gives the sensitivity of magnetic
particle testing as 6 mm (0.25 in.) long and 1 mm (0.04 in.) deep. According
to a European standard,35 current testing of welds has a sensitivity of 5 mm
(0.2 in.) long and 1 mm (0.06 in.) deep. The slight difference in sensitivity
between magnetic particle testing and eddy current testing is sometimes not
critical. Eddy current testing should be considered for tests of intact coatings
in the following circumstances:
(1) where magnetic particle testing would require coating removal and
reapplication,
(2) for wet or damp surfaces (bare metal or painted) when the surface would
have to be dried to perform magnetic particle testing,
(3) for operations using rope access and
(4) for underwater operations where visibility limits the use of magnetic
particle testing.

15.4.3 Conclusion
A combination of eddy current and magnetic particle testing has been
successfully used on a number of applications, including the top structural
testing of painted offshore oil rigs, large aboveground storage tanks and the
testing of painted ship details. The inspector should select the best technique
to achieve safety, the required sensitivity and the desired cost effectiveness.
Written practices for eddy current weld testing and qualification of inspectors
should be specified so that the eddy current test procedures are documented.

Reading Joys
http://www.filefactory.com/folder/75d751cbe768d192
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/9elg8fo4zu28n/ET_Level_III
http://issuu.com/charlieccchong
https://www.yumpu.com/user/charliechong
http://www.slideshare.net/charliechong/presentations
https://independent.academia.edu/CharlieChong1
http://www.authorstream.com/charliechong/

Good Luck!

Electromagnetic_Testing_EMT_Chapter_15_C.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Electromagnetic_Testing_EMT_Chapter_15_C.pdf

Recently uploaded

Electromagnetic_Testing_EMT_Chapter_15_C.pdf