Article Periodicals » Materials Evaluation » Article
Comparison of Phased Array Ultrasound to Conventional Ultrasound and Radiographic Testing for Bridge Welds

Phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) was performed on nine complete joint penetration (CJP) weld samples with internal and external weld discontinuities to develop a discontinuity sizing procedure using the backward tip diffraction technique. The weld samples include flat plate CJP welds, CJP T-joint welds, and a thickness transition weld. The discontinuity sizing results were compared to the physical size of the weld discontinuities by sectioning the weld samples. It was found that the response signal would vary greatly depending on the scanning face and index offset. Therefore, the combined results from first and second leg scans from each available scanning face were used to estimate the discontinuity size. While the estimated discontinuity size was typically quite close to the actual discontinuity height and length for planar discontinuities, some difficulties were encountered when there was limited access for scanning, which caused the discontinuity to be undersized. Oversizing was also possible due to beam spread at long sound paths or from misinterpretation of surface gouges. Additional research is necessary to refine this technique to determine the size of volumetric discontinuities using PAUT. Additional testing was performed using conventional ultrasonic testing (UT) and radiographic testing (RT) to compare with the PAUT results and the acceptability of each sample under various acceptance criteria. It was found that weld discontinuities that were rejectable under combined conventional UT and RT per AWS D1.5 may be acceptable under alternate PAUT acceptance criteria. This typically occurred when the weld discontinuity was volumetric in nature such as internal porosity since UT is not as effective at discerning the limits of volumetric discontinuities compared with planar discontinuities. The variation in acceptance criteria may also be attributed to the fact that line scanning with PAUT may not maximize the response amplitude compared with raster scanning for conventional ultrasound.

References
  • Armitt, T., and M. Moles, “Oscillating the Probe: Code Requirements and TOFD,” Materials Evaluation, Vol. 65, No. 11, 2007, pp. 1091–1098.
  • ASME, ASME Code Case 2235-9: Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York, 2009.
  • AWS, AASHTO/AWS, D1.5M/D1.5:2015 Bridge Welding Code, seventh edition, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida, 2015a.
  • AWS, AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code – Steel, 23rd edition, American Welding Society, Miami, Florida, 2015b.
  • BSI, BS 7910:2005 Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures, British Standards Institute, London, United Kingdom, 2005.
  • EPRI, “Advanced Nuclear Technology: Reduction of American Society of Mechanical Engineers III Weld Fabrication Repairs—Fitness for Purpose,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, November 2010.
  • Ginzel, E.A., R. Thomson, and R.K. Ginzel, “A Qualification Process for Phased-Aarray UT using DNV RP-F118Guidelines,” NDT.net, 2011, pp. 1–12.
  • McCracken, S.L., S.M. Swilley, Y. Sekinuma, O. Hedden, D. Cowfer, and S. Ranganath, “Proposed ASME Section III Code Case: Reduction of NDE Weld Repairs,” Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Vol. 1, 2011, pp. 949–959.
  • Miki, C., K. Nishikawa, H. Shirahata, and M. Takahashi, “Performance Evaluation Test of the Time-of-flight Diffraction Technique for Welded Joints of Steel Bridges,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2008, pp. 1–9.
  • Moles, M., “Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve?” Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Vol. 484, 2004.
  • Moles, M., and S. Labbé, “A Complete Solution for Weld Inspections: Phased Arrays and Diffraction Sizing,” Proceedings of the 2007 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, 2007, pp. 595–600.
  • Moles, M., L. Wesley, and T. Sinclair, “Accurate Defect Sizing using Phased Array and Signal Processing,” NDT.net, 2009.
  • NAVSEA, “NAVSEA CWP-347: Alternative Process/Technology for Radiographic Testing of Pipe Welds,” United States Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., 2011.
  • Rana, M.D., O. Hedden, D. Cowfer, and R. Boyce, “Technical Basis for ASME Section VIII Code Case 2235 on Ultrasonic Examination of Welds in Lieu of Radiography,” Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 123, No. 3, 2001.
  • Shenefelt, G.A., “Ultrasonic Testing Requirements of the AWS 1969 Building Code and Bridge Specifications,” Welding Journal, Vol. May 1971, pp. 342–349.
  • Silk, M.G., “The Transfer of Ultrasonic Energy in the Diffraction Technique for Crack Sizing,” Ultrasonics, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1979, pp. 113–121.
  • Washer, G., R. Connor, and D. Looten, “Performance Testing of Inspectors to Improve the Quality of Nondestructive Testing,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2408, December 2014, pp. 107–116.
  • Wilkinson, S., and S.M. Duke, “Comparative Testing of Radiographic Testing, Ultrasonic Testing and Phased Array Advanced Ultrasonic Testing Non Destructive Testing Techniques in Accordance with the AWS D1.5 Bridge Welding Code,” Florida Department of Transportation, February 2014.
  • Zippel, W.J., J.A. Pincheira, and G.A. Washer, “Crack Measurement in Steel Plates using TOFD Method,” Journal of Performance Constructed Facilities, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000, pp. 75–82.
Metrics
Usage Shares
Total Views
372 Page Views
Total Shares
0 Tweets
372
0 PDF Downloads
1
1 Facebook Shares
Total Usage
373