Submitted:
22 July 2025
Posted:
22 July 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Predictive Control in Pipeline Management
3. Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Technology
4. Evolution of MFL in Pipeline Inspection
5. Types of Pipeline Defects Identified by MFL
6. Integration of MFL with Predictive Maintenance Frameworks
7. Advancements in MFL Sensor Technology
8. Research Gaps
9. Conclusion
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ma, Q.; Tian, G.; Zeng, Y.; Li, R.; Song, H.; Wang, Z.; Zeng, K. Pipeline in-line inspection method, instrumentation and data management. Sensors 2021, 21, 3862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, J.; Zhao, B.; Gao, D.; Xu, L. Fuzzy surfacelet neural network evaluation model optimized by adaptive dragonfly algorithm for pipeline network integrity management. Applied Soft Computing 2021, 113, 107862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yongsheng, Z.O.U. Intelligent construction of mountainous oil and gas pipeline and its prospect. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation 2021, 40, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, M.; Ma, Y.; Wu, C.; Ji, M. A Data-Driven Online Model System for Urban Water Pipeline Network Based on GIS. In 2024 IEEE 14th International Conference on Electronics Information and Emergency Communication (ICEIEC) (pp. 297-301). 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, T.; Chen, Y.; Deng, Z.; Shen, L.; Xie, Z.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y. Oil pipeline leakage monitoring developments in China. Journal of Pipeline Science and Engineering 2023, 3, 100129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Dai, L.; Xuan, H.; Gao, X.; Yang, K.; Wang, L.; Huo, C. Tensile Strain Capacity Prediction Model of an X80 Pipeline with Improper Transitioning and Undermatched Girth Weld. Materials 2022, 15, 7134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dakheel, A.H.; Dakheel, A. H.; Abbas, H. H. Intrusion detection system in gas-pipeline industry using machine learning. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences 2019, 7, 1030–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, J.; Fathi, A.; Yoosef-Ghodsi, N.; Tetteh-Wayoe, D.; Hill, M. A Case Study of Predicting Tensile Strain Capacity of In-Service Pipelines. In International Pipeline Conference (Vol. p. V002T06A001). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2020, September.
- Levy, J. Smart technologies for data-driven pipeline risk assessment. Smart Technologies in Data Science and Communication: Proceedings of SMART-DSC 2020, 2019, 287–302. [Google Scholar]
- Fang, Z.; Shi, P.; Fu, J.; Song, C.; Yuan, J.; Deng, J. Research on the Prediction Method of the Areas of Fluorine Chemical Pipeline Susceptible to Erosion. Processes 2022, 10, 657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, X.; Anyaoha, U.; Liu, Z.; Tsukada, K. Analysis of magnetic-flux leakage (MFL) data for pipeline corrosion assessment. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 2020, 56, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durai, M.; Lin, Z.Q.; Lan, C.W.; Chang, H.; Peng, C.C. Study of defects in the petrochemical storage tank floor using the magnetic flux leakage (MFL) technique. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 2022, 22, 807–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Z.H.A.N.G.; Minghui, W.E.I.; Zhiyong, G.U.O.; Zhongxiang, L.I.U. Advances in magnetic flux leakage testing technology. Journal of Measurement Science & Instrumentation.
- Hao, S.; Shi, P.; Su, S.; Liang, T. A magnetic shielding strategy for magnetic sensor in magnetic flux leakage testing. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 2022, 563, 169888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javed, A.; Sadeghnejad, A.; Yakel, A.; Azizinamini, A. Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Method for Damage Detection in Internal Post-Tensioning Tendons (2021).
- Piao, G.; Guo, J.; Hu, T.; Leung, H. The effect of motion-induced eddy current on high-speed magnetic flux leakage (MFL) inspection for thick-wall steel pipe. Research in Nondestructive Evaluation 2020, 31, 48–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Peng, F.; Chen, J. Quantitative detection of wire rope based on three-dimensional magnetic flux leakage color imaging technology. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 104165–104174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousaf, J.; Harseno, R. W. , Kee, S. H., Yee, J. J. Evaluation of the size of a defect in reinforcing steel using Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) measurements. Sensors 2023, 23, 5374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Wu, W.; Li, E.; Kang, Y. Magnetic flux leakage course of inner defects and its detectable depth. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering 2021, 34, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, J.; Wang, R.; Liu, B.; Kang, Y. A novel magnetic flux leakage method based on the ferromagnetic lift-off layer with through groove. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 2021, 332, 113091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez Blanco, I.C. A model development for reconstruction of three-dimensional defects based on MFL signals (2020).
- Pan, J.; Gao, L. A novel method for defects marking and classifying in MFL inspection of pipeline. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2023, 202, 104892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.; Shi, X.; Pang, T.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, H. Lift-Off Simulation and Revision of the Fluid-Driven MFL Pipeline Inspection Robot Under Obstacle Excitation. In Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference (Vol. 88483, p. V002T03A075). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2024, July).
- Peng, X. Magnetic flux leakage data analysis for oil and gas pipeline integrity management (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia) (2021).
- Parlak, B. O. , Yavasoglu, H. A. A comprehensive analysis of in-line inspection tools and technologies for steel oil and gas pipelines. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beairsto, S.; Byington, M.; Campbell, S.; van Pol, A.; van Pol, J. eyond Conventional Inline Inspection: Passive Magnetic Field Evaluation for Pipeline Wall Loss (2024).
- Zhu, H.; Chen, J.; Lin, Y.; Guo, J.; Gao, X.; Chen, Y.; Wang, W. In-Line Inspection (ILI) Techniques for Subsea Pipelines: State-of-the-Art. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 2024, 12, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, M.; Zhou, Z.; Qin, L.; Yong, H.; Chen, C. MFL detection of adjacent pipeline defects: a finite element simulation of signal characteristics. Insight-Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring 2024, 66, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simon, L.; MacDonald, R.; Hay, N. In-line Inspection Experience with Lined Upstream Pipelines (2019).
- Roslee, M. N., Muji, S. Z. M., Pusppanathan, J., Abd. Shaib, M. F. A pilot study on pipeline wall inspection technology tomography. In Proceedings of the 11th National Technical Seminar on Unmanned System Technology 2019: NUSYS'19 (pp. 221-239). Springer Singapore (2021).
- Chen, P.; Li, R.; Fu, K.; Zhong, Z.; Xie, J.; Wang, J.; Zhu, J. A cascaded deep learning approach for detecting pipeline defects via pretrained YOLOv5 and ViT models based on MFL data. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2024, 206, 110919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Su, Y.; Lu, M.; Chen, R.; Sun, X. Multi-modality hierarchical attention networks for defect identification in pipeline MFL detection. Measurement Science and Technology 2024, 35, 116107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J. J. , Westwood, S., Heaney, D. A feature-specific probabilistic assessment of pipeline defect size from ILI MFL signal using convolutional neural network. In International Pipeline Conference (Vol. 84447, p. V001T03A068). 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, B.; Luo, N.; Feng, G. Quantitative study on MFL signal of pipeline composite defect based on improved magnetic charge model. Sensors 2021, 21, 3412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, J.; Zhang, X.; Lu, S.; Yang, F. A single-stage enhancement-identification framework for pipeline MFL inspection. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 2022, 71, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Liang, Y.; He, L.; Lian, Z.; Geng, H.; Yang, L. Quantitative study on the propagation characteristics of MFL signals of outer surface defects in long-distance oil and gas pipelines. NDT & E International 2023, 137, 102861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigzew, F. E. , Kim, H., Mun, S., Park, S. Non-destructive damage detection for steel pipe scaffolds using MFL-based 3D defect visualization. Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring 2024, 14, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Lian, Z.; Liu, T.; Wu, Z.; Ge, Q. Study of MFL signal identification in pipelines based on non-uniform magnetic charge distribution patterns. Measurement Science and Technology 2023, 34, 044003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Kang, X.; Zhang, X.; He, R.; Meng, T.; Song, K. A novel identification approach for corrosion and gouging of oil and gas pipelines based on low magnetisation level MFL inspection. Insight-Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring 2022, 64, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Wang, L.; Wang, J.; Zuo, F.; Wang, J.; Liu, J. A pipeline defect inversion method with erratic MFL signals based on cascading abstract features. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 2022, 71, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, X.; Han, F. MFL image recognition method of pipeline corrosion defects based on multilayer feature fusion multiscale GhostNet. Ieee Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 2022, 71, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, F.; Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Ren, D. Research on the influence of composite defects on quantitative pattern in MFL detection of tubing. Engineering Research Express 2021, 3, 035003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; He, R.; Shi, L.; Zhou, L. Girth Weld Defect Identification Method and Application Research Based on MFL Internal Detection. In Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference (Vol. p. V005T09A008). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2024, July.
- Katser, I.; Kozitsin, V.; Mozolin, I. MFL Data Preprocessing and CNN-based Oil Pipeline Defects Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00332.
- Jiang, L.; Zhang, H.; Liu, J.; Shen, X.; Xu, H. Mutual Supervision of MFL Heterogeneous Signals for Insufficient Sample Defect Detection on Pipeline Safety Operation. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering ( 2024. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Guo, Y.; Xie, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, D.; Chen, J. Defect identification for oil and gas pipeline safety based on autonomous deep learning network. Computer Communications 2022, 195, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, M.; Liu, J.; Zang, D.; Lu, S. Anomaly detection of complex MFL measurements using low-rank recovery in pipeline transportation inspection. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 2020, 69, 6776–6786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, G.; Liu, J.; Zhang, H.; Liu, C. An iterative stacking method for pipeline defect inversion with complex MFL signals. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 2019, 69, 3780–3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, L.; Liu, W.; Zhu, B.; Tian, G.; Lu, H.; Yan, L. Quantitative Evaluation of Deformation in High-Speed Magnetic Flux Leakage Signals for Weld Defects in Oil and Gas Pipelines. Processes 2024, 12, 2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, L.; Dong, S.; Zheng, L.; Li, S. Classification Recognition of Long-Distance Oil and Gas Pipeline Girth Welds MFL Signal Diagrams Based on VGG16 Network. In Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference (Vol. 86199, p. V005T09A001). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2022, July).
- Xie, M. Pipeline Defect Growth Prediction and Risk-based Integrity Management. 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y. Risk and reliability analysis for oil and gas pipelines using data-driven methods. 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Ling, J.; Peng, X.; Siggers, K.; Peussner, M.; Rayhana, R.; Liu, Z. Reconstruction of 3-D pipeline corrosion defect profile from MFL signals with deep learning approach. In NDE 4.0, Predictive Maintenance, Communication, and Energy Systems: The Digital Transformation of NDE II (Vol. 12952, pp. 61-68). 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Abubakar, A. S. , Wahab, M. M. B. A., Shafiq, N., Danyaro, K. U., Adebanjo, A. U. Integrating Life Cycle Cost Analysis into Pipeline Asset Integrity Management: A Comprehensive Approach in Decision Support Systems. Journal of Hunan University Natural Sciences, 2024; 51. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, F.; Yarveisy, R.; Abbassi, R. Risk-based pipeline integrity management: A road map for the resilient pipelines. Journal of Pipeline Science and Engineering 2021, 1, 74–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, F.; Wei, M.; Liu, J. A coupling model of multi-feature fusion and multi-machine learning model integration for defect recognition. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 2023, 568, 170395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, B.; McCann, J.A. Failure detection methods for pipeline networks: From acoustic sensing to cyber-physical systems. Sensors 2021, 21, 4959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, B.; Zhao, H.; Miao, X. Multi-modal cascade detection of pipeline defects based on deep transfer metric learning. Engineering Failure Analysis 2024, 160, 108216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Yang, J.; Fu, K.; Tai, L.; Wang, X.; Zhu, J.; Wang, J. Quantitative Assessment of Pipeline Defects Utilizing a Dual-Stage Deep Learning Framework: Integration of Pretrained Yolov8 and Cnn Architectures on Magnetic Flux Leakage Data. Available at SSRN 482 6338.
- Hosseinzadeh, S.; Bahaari, M. R. , Abyani, M. Data-Driven Remaining Useful Life Estimation of Subsea Pipelines Under Effect of Interacting Corrosion Defects. Available at SSRN 493 8846.
- Fu, Z.; Han, Z.; Ma, R.; Jin, X. Research Progress on Novel Inspection of Oil and Gas Pipeline Integrity. Academic Journal of Science and Technology 2024, 12, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, Y. H. , Wang, J., Chien, W. T., Wei, C. Y., Wang, X., Hsieh, S. H.A BIM-based approach for predicting corrosion under insulation. Automation in Construction 2019, 107, 102923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Deng, Y. Quantifying predictive uncertainty in damage classification for nondestructive evaluation using Bayesian approximation and deep learning. Inverse Problems 2024, 40, 045031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, R.; Awolusi, I.; Cai, J. Computer Vision for Pipeline Monitoring Using UAVs and Deep Learning. In Pipelines 2023 (pp. 181-191) (2023).
- Mukherjee, S.; Zhang, R.; Alzuhiri, M.; Rao, V. V. , Udpa, L., Deng, Y. Inline pipeline inspection using hybrid deep learning aided endoscopic laser profiling. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation 2022, 41, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukherjee, F. E. , Kim, H., Kim, J., Beyene, D. A., Park, S. Magnetic Hall Sensor Generated MFL-Based Improved Metal Loss Detection and SVM based Quantification for Ferromagnetic Structural Components. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Sun, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhang, S. Adaptive Multi-Scale Bayesian Framework for MFL Inspection of Steel Wire Ropes. Machines 2024, 12, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sathappan, N. Magnetic Flux Leakage techniques for detecting corrosion of pipes (Doctoral dissertation, London South Bank University) (2022).
- Sampath, S.; Chaurasiya, K. L. , Aryan, P., Bhattacharya, B. An innovative approach towards defect detection and localization in gas pipelines using integrated in-line inspection methods. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2021, 90, 103933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigzew, F. E. Yigzew, F. E., Kim, H. S., Park, S. Non-Destructive Damage Detection for Steel Pipes Using MFL Based 3D Imaging Method. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Steel Structures, Jeju, Republic of Korea (pp. 3-6) (2021, November).
- Chen, P.; Li, R.; Fu, K.; Zhao, X. Research and method for in-line inspection technology of girth weld in long-distance oil and gas pipeline. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1986, No. 1, p. 012052). 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Shankar, V.; Li, H.; Pozniak, E.; Onuoha, C.; McDonnell, S. Leveraging IOT Telemetry to Improve the Tracking of Inline Inspection Tools for Oil and Gas Pipelines. In International Pipeline Conference (Vol. 84447, p. V001T03A050). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2020, September).
- Wei, H.; Dong, S.; Xu, L.; Zhao, J.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, H. The influence of the outer pipe during internal MFL detection in subsea steel pipe-in-pipe. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 2024, 600, 172149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Guo, X.; Xu, C.; Song, H.; Song, Y.; Zhu, H.; Wang, Y. Design and validation of three-axis high-definition magnetic flux leakage detection robot for oil/gas pipelines. In International Conference on Mechatronics and Intelligent Robotics (pp. 281-289). Singapore: Springer Singapore (2019, May).
- Zhang, H.; Sha, S.; Willis, C.; Qingshan, F.; Chen, P. Feasibility Study of Pinhole Inspection via Magnetic Flux Leakage and Hydrostatic Testing in Oil & Gas Pipelines. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 1043, No. 2, p. 022053). 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Sheikh, T.; Sampath, S.; Bhattacharya, B. Bimorph sensor based in-line inspection method for corrosion defect detection in natural gas pipelines. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 2022, 347, 113940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarram, P. Developments in remote magnetic monitoring of carbon steel pipelines to locate and measure abnormal stress. In NACE CORROSION (pp. NACE-2019). 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, G.; Changpeng, Z.; Guiyun, T.; Xiaoting, X.; Junaid, A.; Wei, G.; Robinson, M. Current Trends and Perspectives of Detection and Location for Buried Non-Metallic Pipelines. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering= Ji xie gong cheng xue bao, 2021; 34. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, X.; Liu, H.; Siggers, K.; Liu, Z. Automated box data matching for multi-modal magnetic flux leakage inspection of pipelines. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 2021, 57, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, M.; Zhang, T.; Jamil, I.; Soomro, A. A. , Hussain, I. Application of Machine Learning Approaches to Prediction of Corrosion Defects in Energy Pipelines. Advances in Corrosion Modelling, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, Y.; Zhou, W. Classification and Regression of Pinhole Corrosions on Pipelines Based on Magnetic Flux Leakage Signals Using Convolutional Neural Networks. Algorithms 2024, 17, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]




| Author (Year) [Citation] | Database | Technique Used | Performance Metrics | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ma et al. (2021) | Various NDT databases | Non-destructive Testing (NDT): EC, EMAT, UT, MFL, PIG integration | Improved defect detection and condition-based maintenance with historical data | Limited coverage of un-piggable pipelines and lack of advanced prediction analytics |
| Sun et al. (2021) | Experimental simulation data | Fuzzy Surfacelet Neural Network optimized by Enhanced Dragonfly Algorithm | Shorter convergence time (500 iterations), MSE between 0.79-1.02%, enhanced accuracy | Simulation-based results; needs validation on real-world pipeline integrity data |
| Yongsheng (2021) | Engineering and operational datasets | Digital transformation model: "Five longitudinal + two transverse pipelines and two systems" approach | Enhanced risk management and control for mountainous pipelines | Focus on mountainous areas limits broader applicability; complex implementation requirements |
| Wang et al. (2024) | GIS and IoT-enabled water pipeline data | SOA architecture integrating IoT, GIS, big data | 86% leakage detection success in secondary partitions; 60% operational support in water supply simulations | High dependency on GIS data availability; limited cross-departmental integration |
| Wu et al. (2023) | National and industry leakage data | Hardware & software-based leakage monitoring; data integration and AI techniques | Improved leakage detection and monitoring integration | Limited historical overview and integration of newer AI-based models |
| Chen et al. (2022) | Experimental tensile strain data | X80 pipeline tensile strain capacity model | Conservative fracture limit estimation; incorporates wall thickness, weld strength, and other variables | Conservative estimations may limit application; does not account for all geohazard factors |
| Dakheel et al. (2019) | SCADA pipeline data | AI techniques: Decision Trees, KNN, Neural Networks | High prediction accuracy; promising results for pipeline intrusion detection | Needs real-world validation and higher adaptability for complex pipeline configurations |
| Lu et al. (2020) | TMCP pipeline material and weld data | Strain-based Design (SBD); TSC model and CSA Z662-11 Annex C techniques | Enhanced strain capacity evaluation; supports efficient remediation decisions | Limited to stress-based pipeline evaluation; geohazard focus narrows scope |
| Levy (2020) | Geospatial data and incident records | Multisensor GIS-based monitoring and alert system | Improved emergency response times; effective geospatial disaster management | Heavy reliance on geospatial infrastructure; requires further integration of external incident reporting |
| Fang et al. (2022) | Fluorine chemical pipeline CFD data | CFD modeling for erosion prediction in pipelines | Accurate identification of erosion-prone regions in pipelines | Limited to fluorine chemical pipelines; requires industry-specific customization |
| Author (Year) | Database | Technique Used | Performance Metrics | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peng et al. (2020) | Pipeline corrosion evaluation | Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL), signal processing | Enhanced prediction and quantification of corrosion; simulations for corrosion growth | Limited exploration of combining MFL with other NDT methods |
| Durai et al. (2022) | Petrochemical tank floor faults | Robotic MFL system with Hall sensors | Excellent signal-to-noise ratio; error < 10% | Limited to low carbon steel; specific flaw types analyzed |
| Peng et al. (2021) | MFL evolution in NDT | Signal processing, magnetization technology | Insights on influencing variables and signal processing | Future development areas and unresolved problems highlighted |
| Hao et al. (2022) | Magnetic shielding effects | Finite element modeling for MS effect | Improved MFL signal quality through MS technology | Discrepancy with experimental findings |
| Javed et al. (2021) | Post-tensioned tendons | Modified MFL system | Efficient detection; high repeatability in field conditions | Complex signals from secondary ferromagnetic materials |
| Piao et al. (2020) | High-speed pipeline inspection | 3D FEM simulations of MIEC impact | Consistency in simulated and experimental MFL signals | Decreased magnetization for thick walls, high speed |
| Zhang et al. (2020) | Wire rope detection | 3D MFL color imaging using TMR elements | High recognition rate for broken wire defects | Focus on wire rope; heavy system weight |
| Yousaf et al. (2023) | Reinforcing steel defects | 2D MFL signals (Bx, By) analysis | Regression coefficient (R² = 0.9079); correlation with defect area | Interdependent width and depth measurements |
| Wu et al. (2021) | Internal flaw detection | High-sensitivity MFL with induction coils | Detection depth up to 80 mm | Limited exploration of surface flaws |
| Tang et al. (2021) | MFL lift-off study | Ferromagnetic lift-off layer with grooves | Enhanced MFL signal for near and far-side cracks | Sensitivity decreases with higher lift-off |
| Author Name [Citation] | Database | Technique Used | Performance Metrics | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blanco | Corrosion Defect Sizing | Calibration curve-based defect reconstruction | Accurate determination of defect length and depth | Interference of MFL signals from neighboring defects not fully resolved |
| Pan & Gao | Magnetic Detection Data | CLIQUE-based defect marking; SSA_BP neural net | Effective fault classification; Precise segmentation | High computational complexity; requires large datasets |
| Chen et al | Co-simulation method of MSC/ADAMS and MATLAB/SIMULINK | Fluid-structure interaction simulation for pipeline inspection robot | Dynamic reaction metrics: lift-off value, axial & vertical acceleration | Limited to specific design parameters; needs generalization for varied pipeline geometries and conditions. |
| Peng | PIM Program Data | Gaussian mixture model; POD model | Enhanced flaw matching; Quantitative performance metrics | Limited data alignment precision; potential for unseen flaws in PIM analysis |
| Parlak & Yavasoglu | Smart Pig Technologies | Review of ILI sensor technologies | Comprehensive sensor capability analysis | Lack of focus on specific case applications |
| Beairsto et al | MFD Analysis | Pipers® solution with machine learning | Identifies metal loss >30% wall thickness; low cost | Lower resolution compared to advanced MFL techniques |
| Zhu et al | Subsea Pipeline ILI | ILI technology review | Applicable to diverse scenarios; Offshore focus | Generalized results; lacks specific quantitative metrics |
| He et al | FEM Modeling | FEM model with Maxwell theory | Quantifies interference distance; Accurate defect analysis | Model dependent; interference still exists for closely spaced defects |
| Simon et al | Remote Field Testing (RFT) | RFT ILI for non-metallic liners | Successful ILI without liner removal; Planning repairs | Limited to specific cases (e.g., HDPE and CML pipelines) |
| Roslee et al | Ultrasonic Simulation | Finite Element Analysis; Ultrasonics | Effective ultrasonic penetration in steel pipes | Limited to simulated scenarios; excludes field implementation challenges |
| Author Name [Citation] | Database | Techniques Used | Performance Metrics | Limitations |
| Chen et al. (2024) | Internal lab database from Pull Through Testing (PTT) | Hybrid approach combining YOLOv5 and Vision Transformer (ViT) for defect detection and classification | Improved classification accuracy compared to YOLOv5 alone, high detection precision | Requires extensive training data; performance dependent on complex model integration of YOLOv5 and ViT. |
| Wang et al. (2024) | Multimodal pipeline datasets | Multi-modality hierarchical attention networks (MMHAN) with multiscale 1D-CNNs, cross-level attention, and multi-modality feature fusion | Achieved higher defect identification accuracy | Limited by redundancy in multimodal data; computational complexity in handling multimodal fusion. |
| Chen et al. (2020) | Pull test or excavation data samples | Feature-specific error tolerance based on corrosion morphology; statistical modeling of depth estimation errors | Improved risk evaluation and failure pressure estimation accuracy | Assumes normal distribution of errors; real-world variability in error tolerances not fully accounted for. |
| Liu et al. (2021) | Excavation and experimental data | J-A theory-based analysis linking stress and saturation magnetization; composite MFL signal properties analysis | Validated stress impact on MFL signals; nonlinear relationship between defect dimensions and signal characteristics | Stress-induced depth underestimation; reduced accuracy for certain composite defects under high stress conditions. |
| Feng et al. (2022) | MFL heat maps | Single-stage framework combining defect identification and enhancement; task-oriented joint training and unique loss function | Recognition accuracy: 97.3%; AP: 0.967; improved gray value contrast | Difficulty in weak signal detection under extreme noise; requires high-resolution enhancement. |
| Liu et al. (2023) | Experimental data on X70 pipes | Propagation compensation factor (PCF) integration; statistical modeling of MFL signals for outer surface defects | Signal attenuation quantified with pipe wall thickness and defect depth; maximum error: 25.8% | Exponential decay introduces uncertainty for very small or very deep defects; significant sensitivity to wall thickness variation. |
| Yigzew et al. (2024) | Steel pipeline and scaffold datasets | 3D visualization method for MFL signal analysis | Enhanced detection of metal loss flaws | Specific to small-dimensional steel structures; generalization to larger pipelines may require adjustments. |
| Liu et al. (2023) | Experimental data on X70 pipelines | Non-uniform magnetic charge modeling; contour plot-based defect visualization | Signal characteristic trends analyzed; first-order exponential decay patterns for lift-off values | High dependence on precise mesh size; limited adaptability to non-uniform pipeline conditions. |
| Chen et al. (2022) | Experimental correlation studies | Low magnetization-based MFL analysis for corrosion and gouge differentiation; two-stage finite element modeling | Validated stress-permeability relationship; accurate distinction of corrosion and gouging signals | Insensitivity to high-stress conditions; reliance on experimental stress-permeability mapping. |
| Zhang et al. (2022) | MFL pipeline network datasets | Cascading abstract features with multipath denoising sparse autoencoder (sMPDS-AE); multifeature fusion; ensemble-backed predictor | Improved inversion accuracy; better defect size differentiation | Complexity of feature extraction and fusion; limited testing against real-world noisy signals. |
| Lang, X., Han (2022) | Pipeline MFL images | Multilayer feature fusion multiscale GhostNet (MFMSGN), Adaptive Spatial Feature Fusion (ASFF) | Higher accuracy than ResNet50 with reduced computation; lightweight model | Slightly lower accuracy than ResNet101; applicability limited to corrosion flaws |
| Zhou et al (2021) | Simulated MFL data | 2D finite element method for modeling, quantitative relationship curves for defect parameters | Quantitative relationship between MFL and defect parameters established | Limited to single and compound defects; real-world applicability not validated |
| Zhao et al (2024) | Weld inspection MFL signals | Peak characteristic-based classification system for weld flaws | Improved detection and categorization of weld defects | Focused on welds, limited application for other defect types |
| Katser et al (2023) | Real-world pipeline data | Computer vision-based CNN architectures with preprocessing | Enhanced anomaly detection in noisy environments | Lack of comprehensive comparison with state-of-the-art techniques |
| Jiang et al (2024) | Heterogeneous MFL signal data | Integrated Heterogeneous Signal Fusion (IHSF) with mutual supervision training | Improved detection accuracy with limited training samples | Effectiveness with larger datasets and complex defect types unverified |
| Zhang et al (2022) | Two-axis MFL detection data (77 sets) | Two-dimensional data fusion with signal filtering | Testing accuracy: 97.38%; training accuracy: 99.19% | Limited dataset size and environmental variability |
| Fu et al (2020) | Magnetic flux leakage data | Spatial-Temporal Low-Rank (STLR) anomaly detection model | Enhanced anomaly detection efficiency | Complexity of implementation; requires preprocessing transformations |
| Yu et al (2019) | Experimental MFL signals | WT-STACK: Multi-domain feature extraction with stacking learning | Improved adaptive learning and defect size estimation | Limited generalization for unseen data samples |
| Ren et al (2024) | Simulated and experimental MFL signals | Velocity-induced amplitude deformation coefficients | Quantified velocity effects on flaw identification | Velocity-specific; applicability in static scenarios not addressed |
| Geng et al (2022) | MFL signal snapshots (156 samples) | VGG16 deep learning for girth weld fault classification | Prediction accuracy: 78% | Limited to girth welds; improvement in accuracy needed |
| Author Name [Citation] | Database | Techniques Used | Performance Metrics | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xie, 2019 | ILI data on pipeline defects (corrosion, cracks) | Data-driven approaches, physics-based models, simulation-based method | Cost rate outcomes, failure time distribution predictions | Limited focus on real-time data handling, PoF thresholds depend on specific scenarios |
| Chen, 2024 | Gas Transmission Systems (GTS), ILI tool specifications | OOBN, PAA-CUSUM, ResNet for reliability prediction | Identification of accident precursors, defect 3D profile reconstruction | Limited scalability to large datasets, dependency on high-quality ILI data |
| Ling et al, 2024 | Field pipeline ILI data | Deep neural network for 3D reconstruction | Depth prediction, morphology accuracy | Conservative evaluations from box-based profiles |
| Abubakar et al, 2024 | Lifecycle cost analysis (LCCA) data | LCCA-based Decision Support Systems (DSS) | Comprehensive cost evaluation, risk mitigation | High computational demand, implementation complexity |
| Khan et al, 2021 | Historical pipeline integrity data | Risk-based integrity management | Evolution of risk-based approaches | Lack of integration with modern ML methods |
| Tu et al, 2023 | Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) signal data | Multi-feature fusion (Apriori, DS theory), Stacking ensemble | Defect recognition accuracy, anti-jamming capability | Limited robustness for highly noisy signals |
| Wong & McCann, 2021 | Taxonomy of pipeline failure detection techniques | Sensor fusion, data-centric approaches | Comparative evaluation of detection systems | Does not propose new solutions, focuses on taxonomy |
| Gao et al, 2024 | Vision sensors, MFL signals | DTML, multi-modal cascade detection framework | Defect size estimation, discrimination between defects | Challenges with overlapping defect characteristics |
| Xie et al, 2020 | Tri-axial MFL experimental data | YOLOv8, channel fusion preprocessing, multi-input convolution | Defect size/depth prediction accuracy | High dependency on preprocessing quality, model complexity |
| Hosseinzadeh et al, 2022 | FEA simulation dataset (200 samples, 8 random factors) | Latin Hypercube Sampling, ML, FEA | Probability of Failure (PoF), Remaining Useful Life (RUL) predictions | Requires significant computational resources for FEA |
| Fu et al, 2024 | Inspection data on pipelines | Comparison of traditional (ultrasonic, magnetic particle) and advanced methods (acoustic emission, fiber grating); IoT-based remote monitoring; AI-assisted diagnosis | Accuracy and thoroughness of inspections, efficiency improvements | Lack of standardization, limited data-sharing mechanisms |
| Tsai et al, 2019 | Site data with passive RFID sensors | RFID-based smart sensing, BIM-integrated uniform corrosion model | Corrosion rate prediction, enhanced visualization via BIM | Limited applicability to complex corrosion conditions, high setup costs |
| Li & Deng, 2024 | Simulated and experimental MFL datasets | Autoencoder-based data enhancement, ML-based Bayesian inference, CNN, deep ensemble | Prediction accuracy under uncertainty, calibration-based uncertainty analysis | Requires pre-training with large simulated data; potential overfitting risks |
| Lan et al, 2023 | UAV sensor data for pipeline monitoring | DL-based defect detection, UAV-integrated real-time feedback | Real-time feedback accuracy, prediction of potential deterioration | Dependency on drone operation conditions; high cost of UAVs and sensors |
| Mukherjee et al, 2022 | Inline inspection laser profiling data for plastic pipelines | Optical imaging, laser profiling, DL, ML-based defect classification | Accuracy in defect localization and classification | Focus limited to plastic pipelines, scalability to other pipeline types untested |
| Author [Citation] | Database | Techniques Used | Performance Metrics | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mukherjee et al | Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) excitation data | Rectangular sensor head with Hall sensors, Neodymium-35 magnet, low-pass filtering, FFT-based filtering, wavelet decomposition, SVM classification | Signal-to-noise ratio improvement, defect localization | Computational complexity of iterative wavelet decomposition, sensitivity to noise under varied conditions |
| Li et al | MFL signal data for SWR inspection | Adaptive multi-scale Bayesian framework, discrete wavelet transforms, feature fusion, LSTM, attention mechanisms | Precision (91%), Recall (89%), F1 Score (0.90) under high-noise environments | High computational complexity in real-time settings |
| Sathappan | MFL testing on steel pipes | Coil sensors, GMR sensors, RFID integration, AlNiCo magnets | Effective defect characterization in high temperatures and underwater conditions | Limited exploration of real-world pipeline configurations |
| Sampath et al | Gas pipeline defect data | Optical sensor, bimorph sensor, integrated sensor array, speed control system | Accurate defect localization, real-time inspection, reduced power consumption | Field testing constrained to specific environments |
| Yigzew et al | Steel pipeline MFL signal data | Hall sensor head, Hilbert transform, digital signal processing | Enhanced defect resolution | High dependency on substantial raw data analysis |
| Chen et al | Oil & gas pipeline girth weld data | In-line inspection (ILI) techniques, girth weld defect classification | Improved safety evaluation and maintenance strategies | Limited to specific pipeline weld conditions |
| Shankar et al | IOT telemetry for ILI tools | GSM and satellite-supported IOT telemetry, magnetics, ultrasonic, geophone sensors | Enhanced operational efficiency, cost reduction, global coverage | Dependency on connectivity infrastructure for telemetry |
| Wei et al | Subsea pipe-in-pipe MFL signal data | Finite element simulation, magnetic compression effect analysis | Quantitative assessment of MFL detection accuracy in pipe-in-pipe configurations | Limited to specific inner-outer pipe configurations |
| Yang et al | MFL detector testing data | Three-axis high-definition MFL detector, pipeline traction testing | Better defect detection confidence | Challenges in implementing three-axis detection systems in real-time |
| Zhang et al | Pinhole defect detection data | Pull tests on fabricated defects, hydrostatic testing | Detection capability dependent on defect size and location | Limited scope to small pinhole defects |
| Sheikh et al | Bimorph sensor corrosion data | Piezoelectric effect, Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, real-time pipeline inspection | Real-time corrosion flaw detection, effective location in complex pipeline networks | Limited experimental validation |
| Jarram et al | Magnetic stress monitoring data | Non-invasive magnetic stress monitoring, 3D pipeline mapping | Accurate stress localization in Megapascals | Challenges in defect classification and shape measurement |
| Liang et al | Buried pipeline detection data | Electromagnetic induction, sound detection technologies | Detailed comparison of detection techniques | Limited application to non-metallic pipelines |
| Peng et al | Multi-modal MFL inspection data | Axial and circumferential MFL data fusion, DBSCAN algorithm | Improved corrosion flaw evaluation through multi-modal matching | High dependency on data alignment and synchronization |
| Hussain et al | AI-based pipeline corrosion data | Machine learning, AI-based predictive maintenance, dynamic analytics | Enhanced prediction accuracy for corrosion flaws | Non-technical challenges such as data integration and collaboration |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).