Re: [MW:19079] Re: Comparision of UT & RT ( Justifying UT )

As far as the comparison of RT that with the UT is concerned there have been numerous studies to find out the probability of defect detection, namely POD with both the methods.

The main distinguishing factor between selecting a method among these two can be,

i) Joint efficiency required

ii) Likelihood of orientation of defects, defect geometry

iii) Joint Access

Furthermore, the most important factor SAFETY argues to opt for UT as much as possible for  assessing weld quality of field or open joints. The process variables associated with RT and their control is a key factor in getting the optimum results. Whereas in UT, with advanced techniques can cover and detect a wider defect field with less time and recordable reporting. And the overall assurance of UT is better then RT, as the defect size and location can be accurately determined, as not in case of RT.

UT is has seen a lot of advancement since its inception, the techniques as Phased Array and Time of flight diffraction come with higher POD as compared to RT.

Please, find the attached paper, examining defect characterization and a case study
( thanks to the researchers)!!! 

Thanks and Regards,

Manish Kumar

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Tahir Olmez <tahirolmez@gmail.com> wrote:

RELATIVE ADVANTAGES AND WEAKNESSES OF RADIOGRAPHY VS ULTRASONIC, TWO COMPLEMENTARY TECHNIQUES Ultrasonic and radiographic examination methods are complimentary and are not directly comparable or equivalent. Depending on flaw type (i.e., volumetric or planar) and orientation, ultrasonic examination may be superior to radiography or vice versa. Radiography is most effective in detection of volumetric type flaws (i.e., slag and porosity) and detection of planar type flaws (i.e., lack of fusion and cracks) that are oriented in a plane parallel to the x-ray beam. However, radiography is limited in detection of planar flaws not oriented parallel to the beam. In contrast, ultrasonic examination is very effective in detection of planar type flaws that are not oriented in a plane parallel to the sound beam .... Finally, ultrasonic examination is capable of detecting volumetric type flaws such as slag or porosity but is limited, compared to radiography, in ability to characterize volumetric flaws. The proposed alternative ultrasonic examination requirements and provisions address the known limitations of the ultrasonic method to ensure both planar and volumetric flaws in all orientations are detected and properly evaluated. First, examination using two angle beams (i.e., 45 and 60 degree nominally) or a procedure qualified on 100% of the weld volume in accordance with the performance demonstration methodology of Section XI, Appendix VIII is required. Second, examination scans in two directions perpendicular to the weld axis and two directions parallel to the weld axis or examination scans as qualified on 100% of the weld volume in accordance with the performance demonstration methodology of Section XI, Appendix VIII is required. Third, to ensure laminar type flaws are detected, a supplemental examination using straight beam is also required. Finally, if an indication, such as slag or porosity, is not characterized as volumetric, the indication will be characterized as a planar type flaw and evaluated in accordance with the acceptance criteria of NC-5330. The acceptance criteria of NC-5330 specify acceptable lengths of indications only and do not differentiate between planar and volumetric type flaws. Most importantly, planar type flaws such as cracks, incomplete penetration, and lack of fusion, which are rejectable by NC-5330 for any size, are more readily and properly characterized by ultrasonic examination. In addition to the effectiveness of the proposed alternative, use of ultrasonic examination in lieu of radiography will provide a significant reduction in personnel radiation exposure during refueling outage maintenance work. Also outage duration and costs will be reduced by allowing parallel path work to progress uninterrupted during examination of welds. Finally, the personnel safety risk of inadvertent or accidental exposure and also the normal anticipated exposure associated with transporting, positioning and exposing a source for radiography is eliminated. Source: D. Naujock et al. (NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation), http://www.nuclear.com/archive/2003/07/13/20030713-002.html Callaway-1 10-yr pipe test ISI - UT approved in lieu of radiography , nuclear.com info nugget 20030713-002, July 1, 2003] Tahir Bilge Ölmez International Welding Engineer

On Friday, July 4, 2008 9:53:26 AM UTC+3, vhr...@gmail.com wrote:

Dear All,

 

We awared Hydro power project. There is specifically requirments of NDT method RT for all weld joint ( i.e for all class of joint ).

 

We never used RT in normal practice for all project. Now for convince to client We required comparision sheet between RT & UT to justifying UT is better than RT.

 

Request to send Comparision of RT & UT. Please send comparision & revert back soon. We have to submitt QAP urgentely.

 

 

Regards,

 

Vikas Rana

 

--
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/
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/MaterialsWelding-122787?home=&gid=122787&trk=anet_ug_hm
 
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.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Manisch Kumar,

email- tetrabirk@gmail.com,tetra_birk@rediff.com

--
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/
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/MaterialsWelding-122787?home=&gid=122787&trk=anet_ug_hm
 
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.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Materials & Welding" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to materials-welding+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.