Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL)
Welcome to [NDT Inspection Portal]’s magnetic flux leakage (MFL) group, a place for professionals... View more
MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) is it an ET, MT or a method alone?
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- 1 Reply
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?
Log in to reply.
