MFL Field Verification with UT C-Scan.
MFL Field Verification with UT C-Scan.
(OP)
Dear fellow engineers,
So we need to verify anomalies from MFL inspection with UT C-scan on a pipeline.
The model for UT C-scan we used is Olympus Omniscan MX 2. Probe size A12 and scanner speed is 60mm/s.
The range of the MFL anomalies (internal corrosion), approximately a dozen of them are within 10-330mm in width, 19-146mm in length across the pipe, and peak depth of 16-48%.
However, UT C-Scan only get 17% loss at the expected area
My questions are:
1. Any possible limitations on the UT C-scan?
2. Any suggestions to verify the findings? It is believed that C-scan is the best method available to verify internal corrosion.
Thank you.
So we need to verify anomalies from MFL inspection with UT C-scan on a pipeline.
The model for UT C-scan we used is Olympus Omniscan MX 2. Probe size A12 and scanner speed is 60mm/s.
The range of the MFL anomalies (internal corrosion), approximately a dozen of them are within 10-330mm in width, 19-146mm in length across the pipe, and peak depth of 16-48%.
However, UT C-Scan only get 17% loss at the expected area
My questions are:
1. Any possible limitations on the UT C-scan?
2. Any suggestions to verify the findings? It is believed that C-scan is the best method available to verify internal corrosion.
Thank you.
Talk To Other Members
RE: MFL Field Verification with UT C-Scan.
Have a look at NACE Corrosion 2014, Paper 4139 and
http://nugenia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ENIQ...
Steve Jones
Corrosion Management Consultant
www.linkedin.com/in/drstevejones
All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.
RE: MFL Field Verification with UT C-Scan.
What's better than to cut the pipes and satisfy thy eyes?
Regards.
DHURJATI SEN
Kolkata, India
RE: MFL Field Verification with UT C-Scan.