Standard Memberlucas
Standard MemberForum Replies Created
The mineral wool itself will not pose any problems to the Guided Wave Testing (GWT, it is no longer called LRUT) signal. You will have to open up the insulation and remove a length of 1m at each test point in order to install the test ring/transducer assembly depending on the type of equipment used.
The main limitations to the technique will be from external factors such as the condition of the line, number of large features such as elbows, flanges, vents and such that are present along the length of pipe to be tested and also the type of product in the line. The signal range achieved in the test will rely heavily on such variables.
You will no doubt receive a lot of feedback with regards to the type of test that you should perform and the frequency at which it is to be performed. That element is critical and I would suggest that you establish what works best for yourself and not simply listen to generalizations. Technician experience and equipment are the most critical points and will no doubt turn out to be your biggest limitation in performing the work.
Let me know if you have other questions. You can email me back for more information.
This is an international forum, where on the planet are you?
The industry has many different aspects and routes of entry, if you already are trade based you can take a weekly course at a local college and get into the labour end of X-Ray assistant or Ultrasonic thickness surveys, ground penetrating radar operator, drone operator etc.
If you have the time there are 1 year NDT foundations courses at various colleges in Canada, USA I can point you to, programs in Canada are about 12,000 CAD for the full year. Other 2 year technology programs such as Welding Engineering Tech, Materials Tech etc get you well on your way for the higher end of the market sector.
https://www.nde-ed.org/ is a good resource to start on the material and basic understanding.
IRIS is basically UT. It gives you thickness readings of the tube. The only downside is the tube internals needs good cleaning for IRIS to give good readings. For Diesel and Kerosene, cleaning shouldn’t be a problem.
For purposes of scanning, MFL (magnetic flux leakage) would be more appropriate. It however does not give thickness readings but only a percentage of wall loss. It is a faster scanning tool, thoughApplus in the Netherlands.
NDT global is providing UT intellgent pig in iran, i have some connection with them
in addition, The ROSEN has attended at iran and have office in tehran, too. they provide a wide rang of intelligent pigs, also.What Code are you working to? That will define the requirements.
API 2201 code does not recommend to carryout PWHT on pressurized lines (Live lines).
but as per API 510 Para 8.1.7.4.3 is recommended Preheat or Controlled-deposition Welding (CDW) Methods as Alternatives to PWHT.
but need more clarification to perform PWHTHardness has no relevance.
Yes, IIW has certain attenuationDear Sir,
The classic definition of Acoustic Emission (AE) refers to the generation of transient elastic waves in the form of stress waves.
These stress waves can be originated from deep in the components (other than the pipes) having considerable thicknesses and are propagated in all directions. Eventually they reach the surface and can travel several meters and are picked up by the sensors.
When they reach the surface and propagate they can certainly be treated as Lamb waves but not very sure before they reach the surface from several centimeters from inside the component.
There are a few methods used to inspect hydrogen damage. It is
important to know which type of hydrogen damage you are looking for (ie.
Wet Hydrogen Damage or High Temperature Hydrogen Damage).
WET HYDROGEN DAMAGE: This is a fairly easy failure mechanism to detect
and quantify if the proper testing equipment is utilized. I have used
Automated Ultrasonic systems which tend to remove a lot of the human
error, intern producing the best test results. There are several
multi-channel automated ultrasonic systems on the market today which
allow you to overlay the various shear wave angle (ie 45 degree) and
compression wave (ie 0 degree) transducer data. With both 0 degree and
45 degree data overlaid it is very easy to identify damaged areas and
also identify linkage between the swelling planer inclusions.
HIGH TEMPERATURE HYDROGEN DAMAGE: This one is a little more challenging
to detect and quantify in the early stages of damage. One method taught
by Chevron U.S.A. is a Velocity Ratio Comparison (VRC) and Shell Oil Co.
also has their own method. The VRC method initially uses a 0 degree
compression wave to locate noise ratio increase near the back 1/3 of the
backwall. When noise of a predetermined ratio is exceeded, a
oscilloscope is used in conjunction with a “0 degree shear” and “0
degree compression” wave transducers to determine the velocity of each
in the material at that point. The two velocities are then compared to
determine if they exceed the determined attenuation differences.ASTM E 426 Electromagnetic (eddy current) testing of seamless and welded tubular
Penetrant Testing is not meant to establish the depth of a defect that is open to the surface. If you really want to know the depth of a surface indication, I recommend using Eddy Current or Ultrasonic Inspection.
A typical display test image for gray scale displays is the SMPTE test image from 1951. See e.g
https://rad.esmil.com/Reference/Monitor%20Test%20Patterns.htmAUT TOFD is best option.
Please review attached document.
RegardsIs there a real need to recognise corrosion at ground level and below? – it’s certainly a critical area re. stress moments. Standard (NDT) inspections are normally visual and UT thickness combined. Anybody have thoughts on this issue and whether there is a market (mainland Europe/UK) that visual/UT cannot achieve.
: Thank you in advanceI suppose it might depend on the nature of the reinforcement too. If you are looking for the traditional steel rebar that is embedded, you might consider the ACS system (MIRA) https://acs-international.com/
It uses an array of dry-point contact shear wave transducers (I think they operate on the principle of bimorphs). Because it is ultrasonic it should be unaffected by the surrounding EM.
I am not sure how ground penetrating radar would work when surrounded by an active EM field but perhaps the manufacturers can advise you on this (or demonstrate the equipment for you).Dear colleague,
simple question – simple answer: Use the search function in Google just with the keywords “NDT standards” combined with either ISO or ASNT or EN or ASTM or….
You quickly get very similar lists of links which will completely fit your question. Here the list of the most valuable results:
1. BINDT UK – list of NDT standards https://www.bindt.org/international-and-european-standards/
2. NDT Resource Center – https://www.nde-ed.org/GeneralResources/Standards/standards.htm
(Not sure if the list is fully up to date, some parts of the NDT Resource Center’s pages seem to be outdated – compare it with the other links)
3. EFNDT (European Federation of NDT) 121 Pages of standards listed: https://www.efndt.org/Services/Standards
4. ASNT – List: https://www.asnt.org/MajorSiteSections/Standards/Codes_and_Standard_Bodies.aspx
5. DIN German Institute for Standardization – query with keyword “NDT” https://www.din.de/en/meta/search/61764!search?query=NDT
6. TWI The Welding Inst. UK – List QC standards – https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/faq-standards-commonly-used-in-the-uk-joining-industry-quality-and-testing
7. BSI Shop (UK) search for Keyword “Non Destructive Testing” https://shop.bsigroup.com/SearchResults/?q=Non-destructive%20testing
8. ISO – https://www.iso.org/ics/19.100/x/
• https://www.iso.org/ics/25.160.40/x/ Welding
• https://www.iso.org/ics/37.040.25/x/ X-Ray-Films
• https://www.iso.org/ics/77.040.20/x/ NDT of Metal
9. ASTM Standards list: https://www.astm.org/Standards/nondestructive-testing-standards.html
Of course there are lot other institutions having the same or similar list on their pages, in their text books, in their training documents – sometimes refined for special industrial sectors like Aerospace, Pipe Welding, Maritime, Windmill etc.
Basically I would prefer the pages of the standardizing bodies like ASTM, DIN, EN, BSI or the NDT societies like ASNT, EFNDT … as there you have the best chance to get the most actual lists.
In the first step I thought, maybe NDT.net should also provide such a list to make it more comfortable to have the complete overview as the different Standardization organizations could maybe only focus on their own standards – but if you browse through my link list, you can easily see: most list give you an overview about all standards which are important.This has arisen before and the answer is yes you can do UT and Eddy Current through TSA. I have executed it many times so is a practical answer. Now there can be issues. A major operator reported issues and we found that the TSA spec plays a part. If no sealer coat is applied the surface can be very rough and abrasive and causes excessive probe wear and coupling issues. The HOIS collaborative poked at this some 10 years ago.
NDT (Non-Destructive Testing) refers to an array of inspection techniques that allow inspectors to collect data about a material without damaging it. NDT stands for Non-Destructive Testing. … NDT may also be called: NDE (non-destructive examination or evaluation) NDI (non-destructive inspection)
Wouldn’t becoming a welder inspector be the more natural progression.
Think any option for the O and G industry is going to be difficult at the moment and for the foreseeable future, the price of oil is still above its long term average.
It is possible to see a defect with conventional AUT (single or duel element transducers) and miss it with PAUT.
Lets consider the differences in the two inspections:
AUT: One transducer size, with flat focusing being most common.
PAUT: Variable transducer size, with focusing.
Now lets consider the following scenario:
AUT: An inspection with a 6mm diameter Dual element transducer (14.13mm^2 active area) with no focusing is performed on a vessel with a nominal thickness of 22.5mm. The gain required to set the first backwall at reference may be quiet high, as this is a small transducer. This will make the chances of finding small inclusions, pin holes, and other small indications likely.
PAUT: A 64 channel probe is used with an aperture size of 12 elements. At 1mm pitch, this creates a 12mm X 7mm probe (84mm^2) or 594% larger square area than the duel element 6mm diameter probe. The backwall of the part will give a much higher amplitude signal than a point indication, as the gain required for reference will be low. Add to this the extra variable of focusing (in or out of focus ) and it may be even more difficult to see a point indication.
Please note that I am not saying that traditional AUT is more sensitive or more likely to find small indication. This is dependent on many variables and I beleive when PAUT is performed in optimal settings it has many advantages in comparison to traditional probes.
To directly answer your questions:
“My question-01: which data is reliable AUT or PAUT ?”
[Levi]- It is not possible to answer this without knowing the parameters of your inspection.
“Question-02: By using which technic we can get the actual & reliable data ?”
[Levi]- Both techniques can give you accurate and reliable data.
(I’m not familiar with the iso, but for me its the PCN. its more challening than the EN4179 but its a perrsonnal certificate. The EN is an employee based certification which means the requirments are set in the practice manual and might not include all the aspects of the method.
As an example in eddy current your certification might include high frequency, bolt hole and conductivity but without low frequency simply because the company practice manual does not include it or its not required in their maintenance
After all that is my perosnal opnion)ASNT SNT-TC-IA Reference was not included in the written practice for training hours, qualification and certification.
Mandatory Appendix-III ASME: 4.4 Article -1: Paragraph 4.3.3 an NDE Level III individual shall have sufficient technical knowledge and skills to develop, qualify, and approve procedures, establish and approve techniques, interpret codes,
