contentcase for action 4 development acceptance criteria phased array on thin wall welds (3.2-8.0mm)...
TRANSCRIPT
Content
Project approach
Unexpected challenges
Integration of phase results to realize draft ISO
Conclusions and recommendations
Draft ISO
2
Case for action
NDT method Method description Acceptance criteria
UT (PAUT) >6mm ISO 13588 ISO19285
PAUT thin wall 3.2-8.0mm ISO 20601 This project!
3
Phased Array (PAUT) gains popularity with advantages:
No radiation
Compliant with code requirements
Higher level of integrity (PoD critical flaws)
Direct result and feedback to welder possible
Less environmental impact
Digital storage of data
Case for action
4
Development acceptance criteria Phased Array on thin wall
welds (3.2-8.0mm)
Project basis:
Equal rejection rate as RT.
Acceptance criteria based on Good WorkmanShip.
Results generate basis for ISO standaard (ISO TC-44).
Project approach
5
Legenda: Experience
Checking
Theoretical part
Practical part
• Part D
• Field verification
• Part C
• Fracture Mech validation
• Part B
• Evaluation projects
• Part A
• Inventory literature
Part E
Concept Std.
Evaluation
Project highlights 22 participating companies
Steering group
Phase coordinators and quality coordinator
Specialist involvement
Budget: > € 600k
6
Project highlights Planning
7
Project phase Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 Q3 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019
Project plan
A) Review of documentation available
B) Evaluation practical experiences
C) Fracture mechanical analysis
D) Practical testing
E) Evaluation
E) Implementation
Final report
Knowledge transfer
Administrative support
Project management
Project results Budget: No overrun
Planning: initial planning is delayed by 16 months
Quality: high quality research with significant amount of specialists
involved
Output: Draft ISO
Phase EGoal:
- Combine results of other phases into practical acceptance criteria
- Create draft ISO document
- Submit draft ISO document via NEN
Later:
Discuss draft in ISO/TC 44/SC 5/WG 2 “Ultrasonic testing of welds“
- March 31st and April 1st, 2020, NEN, Delft
9
Phase E- Combine results of other phases:
- Phase A literature study
- Phase B evaluation of previous PA testing
- Reliability study
- Phase C fracture mechanical analysis
- Phase D comparison to RT
- Good workmanship approach (not FFP)
- Practical, easy to interpret acceptance criteria
10
Phase ECreate draft ISO document in line with:
- Structure in other ISO documents
- ISO 17635 Non-destructive testing of welds – General rules for
metallic materials
- ISO 5817 Welding – Fusion-welded joints in steel, … – Quality
levels for imperfections
- ISO terminology
11
Phase EConsiderations and observations:
- ‘Translate’ project results
- Definition of threshold level, evaluation level
- % FSH → dB reference level
- Define Acceptance criteria (not rejection criteria)
- Only amplitude and indication length, not height
- Length only measured by -6 dB method
- No characterisation of indications
- No split in thickness range 3.2 – 8.0 mm
12
Phase ERequired levels for the ISO standard:
- Reference level
- Acceptance level
Optionally in the ISO standard:
- Reporting level
- Evaluation level
- Registration/recording level
Definitions of terminology are given in ISO 5577
13
Phase EResults from phase D comparison to RT:
Acceptance level 1 (stringent)
- Amplitude ≤ Reference level +2 dB (100 % FSH) AND indication
length ≤ 6 mm
- Amplitude ≤ Reference level -6 dB (40 % FSH)
- Indication length ≤ 4 mm
- Reference level = 1 mm SDH (at 80 % FSH)
- Amplitude ≤ Reference level -12 dB (20 % FSH) not recorded
14
Phase EAcceptance level 1 (stringent) from phase D:
15
Amplitude[dB]
0
Indication length [mm]
+2
-12
4 6
Ref.level
-6
+6
Phase EResults from phase C:
Acceptance level 1 (stringent)
- Indication length ≤ 6 mm
- Amplitude ≤ Reference level -12 dB (20 % FSH)
- This is lower than in phase D
16
Phase EAcceptance level 1 (stringent) from phase C:
17
Amplitude[dB]
0
Indication length [mm]
+2
-12
4 6
Ref.level
-6
+6
Phase EAcceptance level 1 for draft ISO:
18
Amplitude[dB]
0
Indication length [mm]
+2
-12
4 6
Ref.level
-6
+6
Indications <4 mm with very high amplitude are not allowed
Ref -10 dB
Evaluation level
Phase EAcceptance level 2 for draft ISO:
19
Amplitude[dB]
0
Indication length [mm]
+3.5
-12
4 7
Ref.level
-6
+6
Ref +3.5 dB
Ref -10 dB
Evaluation level
Phase EAcceptance level 3 for draft ISO:
20
Amplitude[dB]
0
Indication length [mm]
+5
-12
4 8
Ref.level
-6
+6
Ref +5 dB
Ref -10 dB
Evaluation level
Phase EAcceptance levels for draft ISO, double sided PA:
21
Amplitude[dB]
0
Indication length [mm]
+5
-12
4 8
Ref.level
-6
+6
3
Ref -10 dB
21
+2
6 7
Evaluation level
Phase E- Grouping of indications is not applicable.
- Cumulative length:
- The cumulative length of all individually acceptable indications above
evaluation level is calculated within a specified section of weld length, lw, as
the sum of lengths of both single indications and linearly aligned indications
22
Phase ECumulative length:
For wall thickness T, the sum of the lengths of the individual indications measured along the weld over a length of 12 T shall be ≤:
for acceptance level 1: 3,5 T,
for acceptance level 2: 4,0 T ,
for acceptance level 3: 4,5 T .
23
Phase ESingle sided testing:
- Lower POD compared to double sided PA
- Lower amplitudes
- Information from phase B into D
24
Phase EResults from phase B/D comparison to RT:
Acceptance level 1 (stringent) single sided PA
- up to 4mm length: 6 dB evaluation level for double sided, no
evaluation level for single sided testing
- Amplitude comparable to double sided testing, but indication length
is 2.5, 4 or 5.5mm instead of 6, 7 or 8 mm length for double sided
testing.
25
Phase EAcceptance level 1 for draft ISO, single sided:
Amplitude[dB]
0
Indication length [mm]
-12
2.5
Ref.level
-6
+6Acceptance level 1
Evaluation level-10
+2
Phase EAcceptance level 2 for draft ISO, single sided:
Amplitude[dB]
0
Indication length [mm]
-12
Ref.level
-6
+6Acceptance level 2
Evaluation level-10
4
+3.5
Phase EAcceptance level 3 for draft ISO, single sided:
Amplitude[dB]
0
Indication length [mm]
-12
5.5
Ref.level
-6
+6
Acceptance level 3
Evaluation level-10
+5
Phase ENext steps:
- Required changes to draft?
- Submit draft ISO document via NEN
29
Thank you!
Phase E project team – Erik, Adri, Casper, Jan Willem, Norbert, Ben,
Rene, Leo. Special thanks to Erik and Adri.
Project leads – Erik, Adri and Leo
Integration phase results
Phase D: Tuning effects of acceptance criteria
Integration phase results
Phase D: Acceptance criteria PAUT double sided
Conclusions/recommendations Rejection rate of PAUT per weld length is higher than RT.
RR of PAUT per number of welds is comparable to RT.
Learning effect of NDT operator and welder will result in significant
improved PAUT performance.