Attached document is interesting "Ultrasonic Phased Array Inspection Technique Development Tools"
Members, if any body is using the software (ES Beam tool2) developed by www.eclipsescientific.com, please share your views on this.
-----Original Message-----
From: materials-welding@googlegroups.com [mailto:materials-welding@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Raghuram Bathula
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 4:39 PM
To: Materials & Welding
Subject: [MW:327] Re: AUT Vs TOFD
It is obvious that considerable differences exist in the
standardization of ultrasound inspection on pipeline welds.
Differences in applied techniques, calibration procedures, acceptance
criteria and evaluation procedures are noted, when comparing standards
for longitudinal welds with those for girth welds, but also if
national standards are compared with European or other international
standards. With regard to the ultrasonic inspection of pipeline
girth welds it is necessary, to consider as well the various owner
specific standards, which if applicable on a pipeline project may
differ notably from other national or international standards for weld
inspection.
It must be the goal of any UT standardisation including the ultrasonic
inspection of girth welds, to specify the technical requirements (i.e.
probes, scanning, frequencies, quality level), the calibration
procedure and the acceptance level in such a manner, that definite
inspection results can be maintained, when an ultrasonic inspection is
performed in strict accordance with the specified requirements. It is
advisable to specify only such parameters
which can be met reliably. Calibration reflectors should be specified
such, that an easy manufacturing within limited manufacturing
tolerances can be maintained. To avoid discrepancies in reported
results, an unambiguous evaluation of UT signals should be specified
and it shouldn't be the case that individual interpretation leads to
operator dependent differences in the results.
In many cases ultrasonic inspection potentials are being claimed which
cannot be met. While ultrasonic inspection has proven its capability
to reliably detect and evaluate defects resulting in definite signal
response compared to a specified reference response, it failed to be a
measuring tool for defect sizes and positional values. Whatever
technique was applied and results were reported, it must be expected,
that sizing errors are in such a range as to be qualified as not
accurate.
Decision making based on obtainable size information from ultrasonic
inspection requires the comprehensive knowledge of expected defect
types and the respective method dependent sizing errors. In case of
ultrasonic inspections of anisotropic materials the majority of
physical laws to predict the physical interaction of ultrasound with
reflectors within an isotropic product are not further valid and
applicable.
For UT line scan techniques applied on unsisotropic materials, the
propagation of sound within the product, the beam field characteristic
and the associated physical interactions as reflectivity, directivity,
scattering, diffraction and mode conversions cannot be based upon
research or experimental results on isotropic materials. The inherent
variations of elastic properties and the resulting sound velocity
changes in thermo-mechanical rolled pipeline
materials caused by the process itself and the unavoidable variations
of manufacturing parameters does not allow reliable theoretical
predictions without practical investigations.
Before trusting an UT technique and method, it must be proven, that
all reflectors responses exceeding the specified acceptance criteria
(signal height and/or length) are reliable and repeatable obtained. If
any other property of a signal response such as distribution over
distance or associated transit times is
specified to be interpreted it is even more necessary, to analyse all
influences which may occur under practical conditions. A belief in
unproven physical interactions in line pipes may lead to unreliable UT
results which are useless for appropriate acceptance decisions. The
believes created such considerable differences that it is likely, that
the applied techniques were not capable of gaining the data required
and identical quality levels were not achieved, which means that
accept and reject decisions are UT technique respectively UT
company dependent.
The amount of publications including NDT company brochures convey the
impression, that with line scan UT and zonal approach height sizing is
a standard procedure and it is no problem, to obtain accurate values.
The top requirement found in this area was an allowable height sizing
tolerance of 0,3 mm to get accepted as a UT contractor. Such
statements compared
with the results gained from practical applications are most likely in
the position to discredit the application of ultrasonic inspection on
girth welds in general. It is advisable, to draw attention to all
limits of correlation for a NDT applied, rather than claiming beliefs
and not properly proven properties.
References
[1] AD Merkblatt HP 5/3,
[2] ASME Section VIII - Appendix 12 - ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION OF WELDS
(UT)
[3] EN 12062 : 1997, Non-destructive examination of welds - General
rules for metallic materials
[4] EN 1714 : 1997 + A1 : 2002, Non-destructive testing of welds -
Ultrasonic testing of welded joints
[5] EN 1712 : 1997 + A1 : 2002, Non-destructive testing of welds -
Ultrasonic testing of welded joints -Acceptance levels
[6] API SPECIFICATION 5L - FORTY-THIRD EDITION, MARCH 2004 -
Specification for Line Pipe
[7] EN 10208-2 : 1998, Steel pipes for pipe lines for combustible
fluids - Technical delivery conditions
- Part 2: Pipes of requirements class B
[8] EN 10246-9 : 2000, Non-destructive testing of steel tubes - Part
9: Automatic ultrasonic testing of the weld
seam of submerged arc-welded tubes for the detection of longitudinal
and/or transverse imperfections
[9] API STANDARD 1104 - NINETEENTH EDITION, SEPTEMBER 1999 - Welding
of Pipelines and Related Facilities
[10] ASTM E 164 - 03, "Standard Practice for Ultrasonic Contact
Examination of Weldments", American Society for Testing and Materials.
[11] API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 2X, Fourth Edition, April 2004,
Recommended Practice for Ultrasonic and Magnetic Examination of
Offshore Structural Fabrication an Guidelines for Qualifications of
Technicians
[12] European Commision,
- PHASE I: Current Status of the Inspection Methodologies
[13] Ginzel E.A., 2000, "Mechanized Ultrasonic Inspections of Pipeline
Girth Welds - A Brief History", NDT.net, 2000, Vol 5. No. 03
[14] A.G. Glover, D.V. Dorling, R.I. Coote, Inspection and assessment
of mechanized pipeline girth welds, Proceedings of the International
Conference on weld failures,
[15] B. Gross, J. O'Beirne, B. Delanty, "Comparison of radiographic
and ultrasonic inspection methods on mechanized girth welds", Pipeline
Technology Conference, October 1990,
[16] A. Glover, D. Hodgkinson, D. Dorling, "The application of
mechanized ultrasonic inspection and alternative acceptance criteria
to pipeline girth welds", Pipeline Technology Conference, October
1990,
[17] J.A.de Raad, "High Speed Ultrasonic Inspection of Field Girth
Welds During Pipeline Construction", Pipeline Technology Conference,
[18] E.Ginzel & R.Ginzel, B.Gross, M.Hoff, P.Manuel, Developments in
Ultrasonic Inspection for Total Inspection of Pipeline Girth Welds,
8th Symposium on Pipeline Research,
[19] Helmut Heckhäuser, HerbertRichter, LIMITS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN
DEFECT DEPTHS AND
ULTRASONIC TEST METHODS, Proceedings of the third International
Conference on NDE IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 1980
[20] H. Heckhäuser and S. Schultz, "Advanced Technology in Automated
Ultrasonic Weld Inspection of Pipeline Girth Welds", Insight, vol 37,
no 6, June 1995
[21] Scott Lebsack and Helmut Heckhäuser, "Immersion Probe Arrays for
Rapid Pipeline Weld Inspection", Materials Evaluation / August 1995
[22] M. Wächter, M. Gräf, JP. Mullie and H. Schneider, Modern computer
controlled ultrasonic weld inspection system for large diameter line
pipe at EUROPIPE, Pipeline Technology, Volume II, 1995,
Elsevier Science B.V., Europipe Technical publications, EP/TP 09/95 en
[23] A. Erhard, H. Wuestenberg, G. Engl, J. Kutzner, RELIABILITY AND
REDUNDANCY IN ULTRASONIC FLAW SIZING METHODS, Proceedings of the third
International Conference on NDE IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 1980
[24] N.F. Haines, S. Crutzen, C.J. Vinche, A REVIEW OF THE MAJOR PISC
II ROUND ROBIN TEST RESULTS ; British Journal of NDT, November 1987
[25] George J. Gruber, W.R. Schick, CHARACTERIZATION OF FLAWS IN
PIPELINE GIRTH WELDS AND AUSTENITIC PIPING WELDS USING SATELLITE
PULSES, Proceedings 6th International Conference on NDE IN THE NUCLEAR
INDUSTRY 1983
[26]
WELD DEFECTS AND THE EFFECT ON FRACTURE MECHANICS PREDICTIONS - AN
EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT, Proceedings 6th International Conference on
NDE IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 1983
[27] Edward A. Ginzel and Robert K. Ginzel, Study of Acoustic Velocity
Variations in Line Pipe Steel, Materials Evaluation - May 1995
[28] D.S. Kupperman and K.J. Reimann, DEVIATION OF LONGITUDINAL AND
SHEAR WAVES IN AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEEL WELD METAL, Proceedings of
the third International Conference on NDE IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 1980
[29] J.L. Thomson, J.M. Farley, ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION OF AUSTENITIC
WELDS: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, Proceedings 6th
International Conference on NDE IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 1983
On Oct 5, 5:56 pm, "RAGHAVENDRA PEMMARAJU" <r...@hzw.ltindia.com>
wrote:
> Can any one from our group respond to explain what is the difference between AUT ( generally used in piping) and TOFD ( as per CC2235-9) used on pressure vessels manufactured as per ASME Sec VIII div.1 or2.
>
> As per me, there is a difference in the techniques used as per AUT and as per TOFD alone.
>
> kindly explain. A reply from Mr.Rohit Bafna shall be highly appreciable.
>
> regards
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to materials-welding@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to materials-welding-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group's bolg at http://materials-welding.blogspot.com/
The views expressed/exchnaged in this group are members personel views and meant for educational purposes only, Users must take their own decisions w.r.t. applicable code/standard/contract documents.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
No comments:
Post a Comment