Multi-Physics Modeling of Above-Ground Electromagnetic Inspection on Underground Pipeline
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract This study explores the effectiveness of electromagnetic-based non-destructive evaluation (NDE) for above-ground inspection of underground pipelines to detect corrosion defects. The above-ground electromagnetic inspection method involves measuring the magnetic field induced by an alternating current (AC) passed through the buried pipeline and analyzing the resulting electromagnetic field perturbations under various frequencies to identify defects. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) simulations using ANSYS Electronics Desktop were conducted to model the electromagnetic field around pipelines induced by a given AC signal with various frequencies through the pipeline with and without defects. The numerical simulations indicate the capability of detecting magnetic field perturbations caused by wall defects from above-ground sensors, even at a distance of one meter above the pipeline. However, sensing ability at the nano-Tesla level is required. The thresholds for such perturbations to indicate a pipeline defect were also numerically studied. The study also evaluated the impact of sensor movement and its sensitivity effect on the electromagnetic field and then the Low-High Frequency Method was introduced to mitigate potential false positives due to sensor displacement. The results highlight the potential of electromagnetic NDE for reliable and efficient pipeline monitoring, contributing to enhanced safety and operational efficiency in the oil and gas sector. Future experimental validation will be performed to validate the numerical solutions, quantify the effectiveness and optimize defect detection.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Geophysical Methods and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. Quarini, J., Shire, S.: A review of fluid-driven pipeline pigs and their applications. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. E J. Process. Mech. Eng. 221, 1–10 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1243/0954408JPME10810.1243/0954408JPME108 ↗
2. Crouch, A.E.: In-line inspection of natural gas pipelines. Gas Research Institute Topical Report GRI-91/0365, May 1993 (1993)
3. Alleyne, D.N., Pavlakovic, B., Lowe, M.J.S., Cawley, P.: Rapid, long range inspection of chemical plant pipework using guided waves. AIP Conf. Proc. 557, 180–187 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.137375710.1063/1.1373757 ↗
4. Lowe, M.J.S., Cawley, P.: Long range guided wave inspection usage – current commercial capabilities and research directions. Imperial College London, London, UK. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:36872899. Accessed 28 Apr 2024 (2007)
5. Brondel, D., Edwards, R., Hayman, A., Hill, D., Mehta, S., Semerad, T.: Corrosion in the oil industry. Oilfield Rev. 6, 4–18 (1994). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280136871_Corrosion_in_the_oil_industry. Accessed 22 May 2024
6. Shi, Y., Zhang, C., Li, R., Cai, M., Jia, G.: Theory and application of magnetic flux leakage pipeline detection. Sensors 15, 31036–31055 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/s15122984510.3390/s151229845 ↗
7. van Beugen, P.: A new MFL tool for non-piggable pipelines. In: Pipeline Technology Conference 2009. PIPESURVEY International. (2009). https://www.pipeline-conference.com/sites/default/files/abstracts/PTC%25202009%25202.2%2520van%2520Beugen_0.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2024
8. Wu, J., Fang, H., Li, L., Wang, J., Huang, X., Kang, Y., Sun, Y., Tang, C.: A lift-off-tolerant magnetic flux leakage testing method for drill pipes at wellhead. Sensors 17, 201 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/s1701020110.3390/s17010201 ↗
9. Sposito, G.: Advances in potential drop techniques for non-destructive testing. Dissertation, Imperial College London. (2009). https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/research-centres-and-groups/non-destructive-evaluation/Sposito_PhD_thesis.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2024
10. Crouse, B.: Pulsed eddy current inspection. (2014). https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/EddyCurrents/AdvancedTechniques/pulsedecinspection.htm. Accessed 14 Aug 2024
11. Atherton, D.L.: Remote field eddy current inspection. IEEE Trans. Magn. 31, 4142–4147 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1109/20.48988810.1109/20.489888 ↗
12. Bönisch, A., Dijkstra, F.H., de Raad, J.A.: Magnetic flux and SLOFEC inspection of thick walled components. In: WCNDT 2000, Rome, Italy. (2000). https://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn352/idn352.htm. Accessed 02 Sept 2024
13. Nestleroth, J.B.: Innovative electromagnetic sensors for pipeline crawlers: Design of a rotating permanent magnet inspection exciter. Technical Report. Battelle (2006). https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc892331/m2/1/high_res_d/882458.pdf. Accessed 06 Jul 2024
14. Lewis, A.M., Michael, D.H., Lugg, M.C., Collins, R.: Thin-skin electromagnetic fields around surface-breaking cracks in metals. J. Appl. Phys. 64, 3777–3784 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.34138410.1063/1.341384 ↗
15. Li, X., Xie, S., Yuan, H., Chen, Z., Takagi, T.: A research on numerical simulation of ACFM signals for nondestructive inspection of buried pipes in nuclear power plants. E-J. Adv. Maint. 9, 104–111 (2017). https://www.jsm.or.jp/ejam/Vol.9No.2/AA/AA136/AA136.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2024
16. Lugg, M.C.: The first 20 years of the A.C. field measurement technique. In: Proceedings of the 18th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, 16–20 April 2012, Durban, South Africa. TSC Inspection Systems. (2012). https://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt2012/papers/502_wcndtfinal00502.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2024
17. LeTessier, R., Coade, R.W., Geneve, B.: Sizing of cracks using the alternating current field measurement technique. Int. J. Press. Ves. Pip. 79, 549–554 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-0161(02)00088-110.1016/S0308-0161(02)00088-1 ↗
18. Lugg, M., Topp, D.: Recent developments and applications of the ACFM inspection method and ACSM stress measurement method. In: ECNDT 2006, Tu.3.6.5. (2006). https://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt2006/doc/Tu.3.6.5.pdf. Accessed 08 Dec 2024
19. Jarvis, R., Cawley, P., Nagy, P.B.: Current deflection NDE for the inspection and monitoring of pipes. NDT E Int. 81, 46–59 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ndteint.2016.03.00610.1016/j.ndteint.2016.03.006 ↗
20. Jarvis, R., Cawley, P., Nagy, P.: Permanently installed corrosion monitoring using magnetic measurement of current deflection. Struct. Health Monit. 17, 227–239 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/147592171774500010.1177/1475921717745000 ↗
21. Krivoi, G.S.: NoPig: A new inspection technique for non-piggable pipelines. In: Pipeline Technology Conference 2007. (2007). https://www.pipeline-conference.com/sites/default/files/abstracts/6.5%2520Krivoi_0.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2024
22. Krivoi, G.S., Glinka, M.: Improvements of an inspection technique for unpiggable pipeline diagnostics from above ground. In: Pipeline Technology Conference / Pipe and Sewer Conference 2018, Berlin, Germany. (2018). https://www.pipeline-conference.com/sites/default/files/abstracts/ptc-pasc_2018_Glinka_0.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2024
23. Lewis, A.M.: The modelling of electromagnetic methods for the nondestructive testing of fatigue cracks. Dissertation, University College London (1991). https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10123839/. Accessed 21 June 2024
24. McKirdy, D.M., Lewis, A.M. ACFM above a hemispherical pit in an aluminum block. In: Thompson, D.O., Chimenti, D.E. (eds.) Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation. Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 267–274 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2848-7_3310.1007/978-1-4615-2848-7_33 ↗
25. Michael, D.H., Lewis, A.M., McIver, M., Collins, R.: Thin-skin electromagnetic fields in the neighbourhood of surface-breaking cracks in metals. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 434, 587–603 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1991.011510.1098/rspa.1991.0115 ↗
26. ASME: B31.4 – Pipeline transportation systems for liquids and slurries. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (2022). https://www.asme.org/codes-standards/find-codes-standards/b31-4-pipeline-transportation-systems-liquids-slurries. Accessed 04 Apr 2024
27. Clement, C.: Skin effect in electrical conductors: Any commercially viable solution? (2014). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2368.7920. Accessed 17 Feb 202410.13140/RG.2.1.2368.7920 ↗
28. ANSYS Inc.: Maxwell User Guide, Release 2022 R2. (2022). https://ansyshelp.ansys.com/Views/Secured/Electronics/v222/en/PDFs/Maxwell.pdf#page=3170&zoom=100,96,87. Accessed 20 May 2024
29. LibreTexts: Magnetic field due to a thin straight wire. In: University Physics II – Thermodynamics, Electricity, and Magnetism. (2023). https://phys.libretexts.org/.... Accessed 13 Dec 2024
30. Duffy, A.: Magnetic field due to a cylinder using Ampere’s law. Boston University Physics (2023). https://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/semester2/d14_ampere_cylinder.html. Accessed 28 Aug 2024
31. Bartington Instruments: Mag-13 three-axis magnetic field sensors. (n.d.). https://www.bartington.com/mag-13-three-axis-magnetic-field-sensors.html. Accessed 01 Mar 2024