Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39460103›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

A Novel Defect Quantification Method Utilizing Multi-Sensor Magnetic Flux Leakage Signal Fusion.

Wenlong Liu, Lemei Ren, Guansan Tian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Wenlong LiuSchool of Thermal Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250100, China.
Lemei RenSchool of Thermal Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250100, China.
Guansan TianSchool of Thermal Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250100, China.

Funding

Key R&D Program of Shandong Province, China 2022SFGC0801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the assessment of pipeline integrity using magnetic flux leakage (MFL) detection, it is crucial to quantify defects accurately and efficiently using MFL signals. However, in complex detection environments, traditional defect inversion methods exhibit low quantification accuracy and efficiency due to the complexity of their algorithms or excessive reliance on a priori knowledge and expert experience. To address these issues, this study presents a novel defect quantification method based on multi-sensor signal fusion (MSSF). The method employs a multi-sensor probe to fuse the MFL signals under multiple lift-off values, enhancing the diversity of defect information. This enables defect-opening profile recognition using the characteristic approximation approach (CAA). Subsequently, the MSSF method is based on a 3D magnetic dipole model and integrates the structural features of multi-sensor probes to develop an algorithm. This algorithm iteratively determines the defect depth at multiple data acquisition points within the defect region to obtain the maximum defect depth. The feasibility of the MSSF quantification method is validated through finite element simulation and physical experiments. The results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves accurate defect quantification while enhancing efficiency, with the number of iterations for each defect depth calculation point consistently requiring fewer than 15 iterations. For rectangular metal loss, perforation, and conical defects, quantification errors are less than 10%, meeting practical inspection requirements.

Indexed as

characteristic approximation approach (CAA)defect depth calculation pointmagnetic flux leakage (MFL)multi-sensor signal fusion (MSSF)

Identifiers

PMID39460103
PMCPMC11511088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.