journal article·2026-05-27

Quantitative research on magnetic-based axial stress inspection technology and application of girth welds of high-grade steel pipe under alternating excitation

Tengjiao He, Xu Wen, Kexi Liao, Jiancheng Liao, Yutong Jiang, Hanyu Zhong

Publisher page

Abstract

The pipe girth weld is subjected to significant axial stress due to the discontinuity of the structure and material, which is the weak point of pipeline failure. The alternating electromagnetic field test method is suited for inspecting weld stress. However, the stress magnetic quantitative relationship of the weld zone is unclear. It is challenging to quantify the axial stress of girth welds. The magneto-mechanical constitutive relationship of X80 steel weld material is established in this study. Based on this, a numerical simulation model of magnetic response under alternating excitation is established. Then, the overall hysteresis loop generated by the synergy between the weld and the base metal is calculated, and the quantitative relationship between magnetic characteristic parameters and axial stress is analyzed. Finally, an axial stress inspection method for pipe girth welds is proposed and applied. The results show that the R2 between simulation and experimental results is 0.97. Coercive force exhibits the highest sensitivity to stress. The coercive force changes by 1.1 A/m per MPa in 0–300 MPa and 2.7 A/m per MPa in 300–600 MPa. The X-ray inspection revealed 4 weld porosity at 7:35 position, which differed only 2.5° from the results obtained by the proposed method.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Magnetic Properties and Applications · Electromagnetic Effects on Materials

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Southwest Petroleum University

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China · Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province

References (42)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1080/10589759.2025.254239710.1080/10589759.2025.2542397 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.tws.2024.11285710.1016/j.tws.2024.112857 ↗
3. 10.1080/10589759.2025.253878810.1080/10589759.2025.2538788 ↗
4. Mirchev Y, Chukachev P, Mihovski M. Methods for evaluation of mechanical stress condition of materials. In: MATEC Web of Conferences; Sofia, Bulgaria. 2018. Vol. 145. p. 05008.
5. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2021.10457310.1016/j.ijpvp.2021.104573 ↗
6. Kurashkin K, Mishakin V, Rudenko A. Ultrasonic evaluation of residual stresses in welded joints of hydroelectric unit rotor frame. In: Materials Today: Proceedings; Sevastopol, Russia. 2019. Vol. 11. p. 163–168.
7. 10.1155/2021/554850310.1155/2021/5548503 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.measurement.2026.12079510.1016/j.measurement.2026.120795 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jmmm.2019.16532210.1016/j.jmmm.2019.165322 ↗
10. Gao Z, Song H, Zhang Q, et al. Research on non-destructive detection method of steel plate internal stress based on magnetoelastic effect. Nondestruct testing Eval. 2025. 1–26.
11. 10.1007/s10921-021-00830-510.1007/s10921-021-00830-5 ↗
12. 10.1080/10589759.2025.258183410.1080/10589759.2025.2581834 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2024.10781410.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2024.107814 ↗
14. 10.1016/0304-8853(86)90066-110.1016/0304-8853(86)90066-1 ↗
15. 10.1063/1.33358210.1063/1.333582 ↗
16. 10.1088/0022-3727/17/6/02310.1088/0022-3727/17/6/023 ↗
17. 10.1063/1.33865010.1063/1.338650 ↗
18. 10.1111/ffe.1315110.1111/ffe.13151 ↗
19. 10.7498/aps.68.2019076510.7498/aps.68.20190765 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2023.10301910.1016/j.ndteint.2023.103019 ↗
21. Liu ZJ, Lu YP, Su YH, et al. Effect of longitudinal magnetic field on microstructure and properties of WQ960 steel welded joint. Shenyang Univ Technol. 2016;38:379–383.
22. 10.1515/msr-2016-000210.1515/msr-2016-0002 ↗
23. Zhou Z, Tang W, Zhou Z, et al. Quantitative non-destructive evaluation analysis and characterisation of microcrack detection based on carbon steel weld under alternating current field measurement. Nondestruc testing Eval.1–25.
24. 10.3390/s2415507410.3390/s24155074 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.10718510.1016/j.measurement.2019.107185 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.jngse.2022.10482510.1016/j.jngse.2022.104825 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.energy.2025.13697910.1016/j.energy.2025.136979 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.rineng.2025.10683410.1016/j.rineng.2025.106834 ↗
29. 10.3390/magnetochemistry1112011010.3390/magnetochemistry11120110 ↗
30. Gorkunov ES, Yakushenko E, Zadvorkin SM, et al. Magnetic methods for estimating elastic strains in steel structural members. In: Nondestructive Testing: 18th World Conference; Durban, South Africa. 2012. p. 16–20.
31. 10.1088/1361-6501/ad602310.1088/1361-6501/ad6023 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.jmmm.2023.17098110.1016/j.jmmm.2023.170981 ↗
33. 10.7498/aps.66.10750110.7498/aps.66.107501 ↗
34. 10.1088/0022-3727/28/8/00110.1088/0022-3727/28/8/001 ↗
35. 10.1109/TMAG.2015.246859910.1109/TMAG.2015.2468599 ↗
36. 10.1063/1.36197510.1063/1.361975 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.measurement.2017.04.00110.1016/j.measurement.2017.04.001 ↗
38. 10.3390/en1514496510.3390/en15144965 ↗
39. He Y, Zhang H, Simm A, et al. Steel corrosion characterization using pulsed eddy current systems. In: IEEE Sensors Journal; 2012. p. 12.
40. 10.1016/j.physb.2005.10.04210.1016/j.physb.2005.10.042 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2024.10512410.1016/j.ijpvp.2024.105124 ↗
42. 10.1080/10589759.2025.248621610.1080/10589759.2025.2486216 ↗