where expertise comes together - since 1996

Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)
Open Access Database (Conference Proceedings, Articles, News), Exhibition, Forum, Network

All Forum Boards
Technical Discussions >
MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone?
Career Discussions
Job Offers
Job Seeks
Classified Ads
About NDT.net
Articles & News

Sonatest Ltd
From our three distinct business centres in the UK, USA and CANADA, Sonatest design and produce a leading range of high performance ultrasonic NDT equipment and accessories.

5469 views
04:48 Oct-03-2000

Michael Trinidad

Consultant,
LMATS Pty Ltd ,
Australia,
Joined Jan 2003
138
MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone?

I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.

My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.

Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).

The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.

I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.

Kindest Regards


Michael Trinidad


 
03:23 Oct-04-2000

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1208
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? Michael:
I have just gone through such a debate. My orginal rationale indicated that MFL was a branch of MPI. This method looked almost the same as MPI with the particles being replaced by sensors.
Looking at it from the sensors however, the technology looks similar to ECT.

We had the same problem with the Barkhausen effect.
When used with magnetic sensors the magnetic Barkhausen effect is lumped with MT (or should it be ET because of the sensors??).
When used with acoustic sensors the "elastic waves" are monitored so is it an acoustic method (UT)??

It would seem to be a debate based on on if we categorise by transmit or receive.
MFL and MT use similar methods of inducing a field but ET and MFL use similar detectors (when using coils).

Is there an existing agreement on how this is to be handled or will we continue to have different groups grouping in different ways?

Ed

: I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.

: My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.

: Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).

: The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.

: I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.

: Kindest Regards

:
: Michael Trinidad




 
07:47 Oct-04-2000

Rolf Diederichs

Director, Editor, Publisher, Internet, PHP MySQL
NDT.net,
Germany,
Joined Nov 1998
602
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? As Ed Ginzel mentioned already we had the same question when we defined the descriptors for the 15th WCNDT CD-ROM. Finally we placed MFL in the group of ET methods.
The NDT community recognizes only 9 main NDT methods (AE - ET - IRT- LT - MT - PT - RT - UT - VT).
With several more or less new NDT techniques we had the similar problem under what main method to categorize.
Optical testing is a growing field with instruments that actually not really fits to VT, hence we called this group VT/OT. Radar (GPR) is a microwave technique that belongs to ET. The new EOL technique (edge of light) is VT! It seems that a lot of NDT techniques not really fit to the traditional main methods.
ASNT recognizes MI (Material identification) as a new separate group (Buyers Guide).
We did noticed only a couple 15th WCNDT papers dealing with MI, so for what technique it is worse to open a new group?

Rolf Diederichs

------------------------
: I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.

: My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.

: Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).

: The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.

: I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.

: Kindest Regards

:
: Michael Trinidad




 
04:39 Oct-05-2000

Michael Trinidad

Consultant,
LMATS Pty Ltd ,
Australia,
Joined Jan 2003
138
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? Ed & Rolf

I suppose thats why we have all these certification bodies having general and specific exams, apart from making money that is. To alter the subject drastically, I was told a rumour last month at a seminar that the ISO NDT standard (or new draft) does not stipulate general and specific exams, does any know the facts regarding this matter?

: : Kindest Regards

: :
: : Michael Trinidad




 
06:07 Oct-05-2000

Damir Markucic

Teacher, R&D
Faculty of Mechanical Eng., University of Zagreb,
Croatia,
Joined Nov 1998
5
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? Yes,
excellent initiative for debate, as we can see.
The rational and practical points of view were presented here,
but if we want to communicate and understand each other first we
have to make an agreement about postulates.

In this manner the definitions are commonly given or referenced
at the beginning of standards.
I would like to emphasize definitions given
in ISO 9712 and EN 473:
- NDT methods are distinguished relating to applied physical principles while
- NDT techniques are classified depending on how the method is carried out.

According that:
1) MT is worldwide accepted as method,
2) my opinion is that MFL is MT technique,
3) in that case MPI also could be considered only as a technique?!

Hope the last clause (3) could extend debate also on
MPI: method or technique?

Regards,
Damir Markucic


: I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.
: My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.
: Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).
: The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.
: I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.
: Kindest Regards
:
: Michael Trinidad




 
09:31 Oct-05-2000

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1208
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? Damir:
The interpretation of "technique" that you present is interesting.
I have usually interpreted this to be the specifics of the inspection of a component;
e.g. in the method UT a technique using a 45 degree shear wave with a 100mm range on the screen and sensitivity set based on 1.5mm SDH responses.
e.g. in the method MPI a technique might be a head shot with 5000A and using fluorescent wet particles and a black light.

MT is an American abbreviation adopted by ISO. This has some history. In an early version of ASNT's SNT-TC-1A (1980) there were 8 NDT Methods.
No doubt there were even fewer in the year prior to this. These included:
1. Radiographic Testing RT
2. Magnetic Particle Testing MT
3. Ultrasonic Testing UT
4. Liquid Penetrant Testing PT
5. Eddy Current Testing ET
6. Neutron Radiographic Testing NRT
7. Leak Testing LT
8. Acoustic Emission AE
(This is copied from the 1980 edition from the Table in Paragraph 3.1)
(Note a this pointMT was specific to just magnetic particle testing)

In addition to the SNT-TC-1A book, ASNT also published a series of Question & Answer Books with "suggested questions and answers" in each of the methods.
Question and Answer Book B contained questions & answers for the Magnetic Particle Method.
Question and Answer Book E contained questions & answers for the Eddy Current Test Method & the Flux Leakage Method.

In Canada (and I think in the UK) we used slightly different abbreviations;
MPI = magnetic particle inspection
LPI = liquid penetrant inspection
ECT = eddy current testing

With the advent of ISO, the American terms seemed to prevail in the English version of ISO.
Somewhere along the way ASNT decided to change the ET from meaning Eddy Current Testing (as it was in 1980) to Electromagnetic Testing (as it is today). This has not made it any clearer for the discussions initiated by Michael. If ET now means Electromagnetic Testing then why is magnetic particle testing usingan AC yoke not an ET method??

ASNT has been happy to add more and more test methods to the list of certifiable items. This may be weighted by financial considerations, but in all honesty, it also reflects that the NDT world is growing and new ways of providing NDT are emerging that do not always fit neatly into the early categories we made in the 1960's and 1970's.

Grouping methods by the categories in which we certify operators may NOT be the best option when it comes to considering how we should discuss the technical details, research and literature.

Ed
************

: Yes,
: excellent initiative for debate, as we can see.
: The rational and practical points of view were presented here,
: but if we want to communicate and understand each other first we
: have to make an agreement about postulates.
: In this manner the definitions are commonly given or referenced
: at the beginning of standards.
: I would like to emphasize definitions given
: in ISO 9712 and EN 473:
: - NDT methods are distinguished relating to applied physical principles while
: - NDT techniques are classified depending on how the method is carried out.

: According that:
: 1) MT is worldwide accepted as method,
: 2) my opinion is that MFL is MT technique,
: 3) in that case MPI also could be considered only as a technique?!

: Hope the last clause (3) could extend debate also on
: MPI: method or technique?

: Regards,
: Damir Markucic

:
: : I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.
: : My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.
: : Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).
: : The thirdargument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.
: : I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.
: : Kindest Regards
: :
: : Michael Trinidad




 
02:00 Oct-05-2000

John Brunk

Engineering, NDT Level III
Self employed, part-time,
USA,
Joined Oct 1999
158
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? I was a member of ASNT's Certification Management Council 1995-98.
Magnetic flux leakage was considered as a possible "new method" on a couple
of occasions. At that time the council was almost overwhelmed with the
amount of work required to get the ACCP program going, as well as taking
care of regular duties related to the existing methods. Another reason for
delaying action was the expectation that not many people would be
interested in Level III certification in MFL at that time. It is quite
expensive to maintain a system for a method that is not used much, such as
neutron radography. As I recall, some MFL questons were added to the
electromagnetic question data base, with the idea that a Level III is this
method wouold be an appropriate qualification for managing employer
certification of Level II individuals in MFL. This wasn't a really great
solution, but ASNT relies on volunteers who also have jobs and lives for
all this kind of work..


----------------
: I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.

: My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.

: Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).

: The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.

: I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.

: Kindest Regards

:
: Michael Trinidad




 
01:52 Oct-06-2000

Damir Markucic

Teacher, R&D
Faculty of Mechanical Eng., University of Zagreb,
Croatia,
Joined Nov 1998
5
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? garding to requirements and characteristics of inspected component

- MT (magnetic testing) method we split on techniques in different ways:
i) depending on "timing" between magnetization and forming of indication: continuous mag., remanent;
ii) depending on the way of producing magnetic field in the object: by induction of magnetic field in the testing object or by conducting current through the object. (Of course this could be done with different equipment.);
iii) also we distinguish ways of getting (or sensing) the indication: magnetic particles (MPI), magnetic tapes (I think it is called magnetography), MFL and probably more .... As far as each relies on indicating MAGNETIC FLUX LEAKAGE on testing surface by different means one could propose renaming of Magnetic Testing method to MFL method but in that case the name of current MFL technique has to be changed too.
Furthermore we divide MPI:
iv) depending on particles: dry and wet;
v) depending on viewing conditions: fluorescent - daylight, etc.

Despite the facts what MFL truly is I think this name we have to use as it is widely accepted in everyday practice - for the MT technique !)
Only one more remark: once upon the time microwaves get that name - are there any connection of this electromagnetic waves with any micro quantity or dimension e.g. wavelength of several micrometers :(
regards,
Damir

: MT is an American abbreviation adopted by ISO. This has some history. In an early version of ASNT's SNT-TC-1A (1980) there were 8 NDT Methods.
: No doubt there were even fewer in the year prior to this. These included:
: 1. Radiographic Testing RT
: 2. Magnetic Particle Testing MT
: 3. Ultrasonic Testing UT
: 4. Liquid Penetrant Testing PT
: 5. Eddy Current Testing ET
: 6. Neutron Radiographic Testing NRT
: 7. Leak Testing LT
: 8. Acoustic Emission AE
: (This is copied from the 1980 edition from the Table in Paragraph 3.1)
: (Note a this point MT was specific to just magnetic particle testing)

: In addition to the SNT-TC-1A book, ASNT also published a series of Question & Answer Books with "suggested questions and answers" in each of the methods.
: Question and Answer Book B contained questions & answers for the Magnetic Particle Method.
: Question and Answer Book E contained questions & answers for the Eddy Current Test Method & the Flux Leakage Method.

: In Canada (and I think in the UK) we used slightly different abbreviations;
: MPI = magnetic particle inspection
: LPI = liquid penetrant inspection
: ECT = eddy current testing

: With the advent of ISO, the American terms seemed to prevail in the English version of ISO.
: Somewhere along the way ASNT decided to change the ET from meaning Eddy Current Testing (as it was in 1980) to Electromagnetic Testing (as it is today). This has not made it any clearer for the discussions initiated by Michael. If ET now means Electromagnetic Testing then why is magnetic particle testing using an AC yoke not an ETmethod??

: ASNT has been happy to add more and more test methods to the list of certifiable items. This may be weighted by financial considerations, but in all honesty, it also reflects that the NDT world is growing and new ways of providing NDT are emerging that do not always fit neatly into the early categories we made in the 1960's and 1970's.

: Grouping methods by the categories in which we certify operators may NOT be the best option when it comes to considering how we should discuss the technical details, research and literature.

: Ed
: ************

: : Yes,
: : excellent initiative for debate, as we can see.
: : The rational and practical points of view were presented here,
: : but if we want to communicate and understand each other first we
: : have to make an agreement about postulates.
: : In this manner the definitions are commonly given or referenced
: : at the beginning of standards.
: : I would like to emphasize definitions given
: : in ISO 9712 and EN 473:
: : - NDT methods are distinguished relating to applied physical principles while
: : - NDT techniques are classified depending on how the method is carried out.

: : According that:
: : 1) MT is worldwide accepted as method,
: : 2) my opinion is that MFL is MT technique,
: : 3) in that case MPI also could be considered only as a technique?!

: : Hope the last clause (3) could extend debate also on
: : MPI: method or technique?

: : Regards,
: : Damir Markucic




 
06:51 Oct-16-2000
Jacques Parent
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? My two cents worth on the wording.
I agree with Ed that a "technique" should remain a specific description of how one particular inspection/examination is performed.
I would not like to refer to MPI (or ME or MT) as a technique. This would be even more confusing.
The grouping of methods can be debated at will but a technique should not be mistaken for a method.
Regards
jp

: Damir:
: The interpretation of "technique" that you present is interesting.
: I have usually interpreted this to be the specifics of the inspection of a component;
: e.g. in the method UT a technique using a 45 degree shear wave with a 100mm range on the screen and sensitivity set based on 1.5mm SDH responses.
: e.g. in the method MPI a technique might be a head shot with 5000A and using fluorescent wet particles and a black light.

: MT is an American abbreviation adopted by ISO. This has some history. In an early version of ASNT's SNT-TC-1A (1980) there were 8 NDT Methods.
: No doubt there were even fewer in the year prior to this. These included:
: 1. Radiographic Testing RT
: 2. Magnetic Particle Testing MT
: 3. Ultrasonic Testing UT
: 4. Liquid Penetrant Testing PT
: 5. Eddy Current Testing ET
: 6. Neutron Radiographic Testing NRT
: 7. Leak Testing LT
: 8. Acoustic Emission AE
: (This is copied from the 1980 edition from the Table in Paragraph 3.1)
: (Note a this point MT was specific to just magnetic particle testing)

: In addition to the SNT-TC-1A book, ASNT also published a series of Question & Answer Books with "suggested questions and answers" in each of the methods.
: Question and Answer Book B contained questions & answers for the Magnetic Particle Method.
: Question and Answer Book E contained questions & answers for the Eddy Current Test Method & the Flux Leakage Method.

: In Canada (and I think in the UK) we used slightly different abbreviations;
: MPI = magnetic particle inspection
: LPI = liquid penetrant inspection
: ECT = eddy current testing

: With the advent of ISO, the American terms seemed to prevail in the English version of ISO.
: Somewhere along the way ASNT decided to change the ET from meaning Eddy Current Testing (as it was in 1980) to Electromagnetic Testing (as it is today). This has not made it any clearer for the discussions initiated by Michael. If ET now means Electromagnetic Testing then why is magnetic particle testing using an AC yoke not an ET method??

: ASNT has been happy to add more and more test methods to the list of certifiable items. This may be weighted by financial considerations, but in all honesty, it also reflects that the NDT world is growing and new ways of providing NDT are emerging that do not always fit neatly into the early categories we made in the 1960's and 1970's.

: Grouping methods by the categories in which we certify operators may NOT be the best option when it comes to considering how we should discuss the technical details, research and literature.

: Ed
: ************

: : Yes,
: : excellent initiative for debate, as we can see.
: : The rational and practical points of view were presented here,
: : but if we want to communicate and understand each other first we
: : have to make an agreement about postulates.
: : In this manner the definitions are commonly given or referenced
: : at the beginning of standards.
: : I would like to emphasize definitions given
: : in ISO 9712 and EN 473:
: : - NDT methods are distinguished relating to applied physical principles while
: : - NDT techniques are classified depending on how the method is carried out.

: : According that:
: : 1) MT is worldwide accepted as method,
: : 2) my opinion is that MFL is MT technique,
: : 3) in that case MPI also could be considered only as a technique?!

: : Hope the last clause (3) could extend debate also on
: : MPI: method or technique?

: : Regards,
: : Damir Markucic

: :
: : : I would like to see what debate we canget out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.
: : : My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.
: : : Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).
: : : The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.
: : : I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.
: : : Kindest Regards
: : :
: : : Michael Trinidad




 
01:56 Oct-18-2000

John O'Brien

Consultant, -
Chevron ETC ,
USA,
Joined Jan 2000
278
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? Great input from all but I think we are looking at the question with too much theory. This problem has raised its head more often in the last few years due to the expansion in application of MFL in specific tasks

Tank Floor Scanning
Heat Exchanger Tubes
OCTG Tubular Inspection

A number of studies have demonstrated that operator qualification is important in these techniques but the overall skill level to accomplish ET Level II is often missing.

Its been talked about but no one has yet really jumped. What a lot of people are needing is a hybrid qualification such as Thickness Checking in UT. In this way people can be evaluated on skills required for MFL as a Method and then the application (Tank Floors) as a specific technique.

Until these chnages occur this debate will continue ad infinitum.


 
07:02 Oct-31-2000

pramod Myakal

Consultant
AGM Techno consultants,
India,
Joined Jan 2003
22
need info Hi, to all ndt Automaticians,

I am working with automated UT system now at the moment is Tomoscan .
since last 3 years I was using P-scan each one has it's own advangates and disadvantages. However I would like to know which will be the suitable probe for corrossio mapping other then MSEB 4E or 5E.

how much A-scan recording is important while doing absolute remaining thickness measurment survey with any autout machine.

do any body can pass me simple procedure for auto ut on pipes ranging from 4inch till 18inch or may be simlle guidelines.

Pramod Myakal
Specialized NDT Supervisor/Operator


 
04:39 Nov-24-2000
nithin
what is electromagnetic flux : Great input from all but I think we are looking at the question with too much theory. This problem has raised its head more often in the last few years due to the expansion in application of MFL in specific tasks

: Tank Floor Scanning
: Heat Exchanger Tubes
: OCTG Tubular Inspection

: A number of studies have demonstrated that operator qualification is important in these techniques but the overall skill level to accomplish ET Level II is often missing.

: Its been talked about but no one has yet really jumped. What a lot of people are needing is a hybrid qualification such as Thickness Checking in UT. In this way people can be evaluated on skills required for MFL as a Method and then the application (Tank Floors) as a specific technique.

: Until these chnages occur this debate will continue ad infinitum.




 
04:39 Nov-24-2000
nithin
what is electromagnetic flux : Great input from all but I think we are looking at the question with too much theory. This problem has raised its head more often in the last few years due to the expansion in application of MFL in specific tasks

: Tank Floor Scanning
: Heat Exchanger Tubes
: OCTG Tubular Inspection

: A number of studies have demonstrated that operator qualification is important in these techniques but the overall skill level to accomplish ET Level II is often missing.

: Its been talked about but no one has yet really jumped. What a lot of people are needing is a hybrid qualification such as Thickness Checking in UT. In this way people can be evaluated on skills required for MFL as a Method and then the application (Tank Floors) as a specific technique.

: Until these chnages occur this debate will continue ad infinitum.




 
02:03 Mar-01-2001
Jasmine
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? : I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.

: My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.

: Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).

: The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.

: I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.

: Kindest Regards

:
: Michael Trinidad

i'm just wonder whether the Hall effect sensors are velocity dependent or not. [Jasmine]



 
03:23 Mar-01-2001

Martin Lugg

Consultant,
United Kingdom,
Joined Nov 2000
27
Re: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone? I joined the forum a lttle while ago and missed the bulk of the debate.

Catching up on it now, I would say there is pretty much a continuum of techniques between the MT and ET methods from MPI at one end to ECT at the other.

One distinguishing feature I haven't seen mentioned is that in MPI and MFL, the magnetic field direction is usually designed to be transverse to the defect, whereas in ECT, ACFM, ACPD, DCPD etc, it is normal to have the electric field transverse to the defect.

Based on this, my vote in answer to the question is that MFL is an MT technique.

: I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.

: My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.

: Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).

: The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.

: I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.

: Kindest Regards

:
: Michael Trinidad




 
03:15 Mar-06-2001
Larry Phipps
Search for MFL Training Materials I too am having this discussion with a Client. Their customer is requiring their personnel be certified in the Flux Leakage Method for OCTG Inspection. This inspection method is typically referred to as EMI in that industry, although it is a hybrid testing method.

I have been searching for training materials that would be applicable to the method without success. We do not see the value in using the available ET training materials without major modification. If anyone is aware where materials are available for this method, I would appreciate the information.

Sincerely,
Larry Phipps

: I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.

: My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.

: Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).

: The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.

: I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.

: Kindest Regards

:
: Michael Trinidad




 
08:04 Mar-06-2001

William Blum

Consultant, Training, Level III Services
NDT Consulting Group Inc.,
USA,
Joined Nov 2000
89
Re: Search for MFL Training Materials Bright Technical Services Inc. (www.brighttechnical.com) has developed some training materials (PowerPoint Presentation) for MFL but they are not yet complete. We incorporated both the MT and ET portions applicable to MFL. If you are interested in discussing the development of training materials addressing your needs please contact me.

William E. Blum
Managing Director
Bright Technical Services Inc.
www.brighttechnical.com
wblum@brightechnical.com
USA Toll Free 1-877-638-2441
Fax/Voice Mail 1-435-417-3992
Sweden 46-42-14 39 99


: I too am having this discussion with a Client. Their customer is requiring their personnel be certified in the Flux Leakage Method for OCTG Inspection. This inspection method is typically referred to as EMI in that industry, although it is a hybrid testing method.
.
: I have been searching for training materials that would be applicable to the method without success. We do not see the value in using the available ET training materials without major modification. If anyone is aware where materials are available for this method, I would appreciate the information.
.
: Sincerely,
: Larry Phipps
.
: : I would like to see what debate we can get out of this subject. MFL is commonly stuck in with the ET method by certification bodies.
.
: : My question is should it? Coil sensors used in MFL systems are basically ET coils however that is but one type of sensor. The other sesonsors such as hall effect and diodes are semiconductors. Often permanent magnets (DC) are used, not always but often wheras ET is AC.
.
: : Now if we compare MT to MFL the major difference is the sensing medium ie MT (eye) and MFL (sensor).
.
: : The third argument is MFL is a stand alone technique, with recent developments, computerization, different equipment this could also be said.
.
: : I am curious what the professionals who frequent this site think on the matter.
.
: : Kindest Regards
.
: :
: : Michael Trinidad
.



 


© NDT.net - The Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT) ISSN 1435-4934

Open Access Database, |Conference Proceedings| |Articles| |News| |Exhibition| |Forum| |Professional Network|