600 members · Public group
Started 4 years ago
As many forum members may know, I have been actively promoting the
application of mechanised UT (commonly referred to as AUT) as an effective
option to radiography for pipeline girth weld testing. I am happy to see
that many contributions to its advancement have been made by various
service providers and other advocates; however, in the past year or so some
dubious events have occurred that I feel are harmful to the integrity of
the technique.
I hope there are some forum members that might be interested in commenting
on the issue of sizing tolerances.
1 reply
4 years ago
As we can see there has been no response on this subject, in particular there has been not references forwarded regarding techniques using amplitude that can size a near surface defect accurately to within 0.3mm every time regardless of varying pipe wall thicknesses, defect orientation and slight changes in band position. However there is an AUT company (and consultant) at present that is boasting this sizing accuracy anyway, their sales personnel are passing this info on to their perspective clients. Now considering recent events involving said AUT Company and AUT Consultant I find it strange that they would continue to boast something they can not achieve. If I am wrong about what I have written please correct me.
For the moment I believe the average sizing error for ANY system out there is +/- 1mm using amplitude sizing, again if I am wrong PLEASE correct me. We all know that amplitude sizing policies (not techniques) are a guess at best, why do we continue to allow information to be passed around that we know to be incorrect, fiction if told often enough will become the truth.
Sign in to reply to this discussion.
