Technical Discussions: Re: AUT simulator discussions

[ Technical Discussions ]
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Help ]

Re: AUT simulator discussions
Posted by: paul rawlinson , E-mail: paul@auto-ut.co.uk, on September 26, 2003 at 23:00 :
In Reply to: AUT simulator discussions posted by : Ed Ginzel , E-mail: eginzel@mri.on.ca, on September 26, 2003 at 16:16 :
The research Mr Ginzle mentions is good science for Numerical Methods for the Modelling of Acoustic, Electromagnetic, Elastic and Piezoelectric Wave Propagation Problems in the Time Domain Based on the Finite Integration Technique, but can not help an inspector to grasp principles of ultrasonic testing in the real world, let alone understand AUT setups and acc/rej concepts.
The Genesis is a much simpler tool , designed not for the research student but for the NDE inspector.
The role of genesis UT simulator is not to push the envelope of acoustic science but simply to provide a simulation of the real UT world, with virtual UT equipment and virtual welds and virtual defects.
Mr Ginzle will be pleased to learn that the Genesis UT simulator takes into account probe angles, refraction, reflection, orientation of reflectors, texture of reflectors , attenuation, and algorithms of UT propagation, as well as simulation of AUT, TOFD, Pulse Echo, Tandem, and Through Transmission, Hilo, root defects, porosity mapping, TOF (transit)
And it simulates in the style of Krautkramer, Panametrics, RTD, RDTech, Shaw, WeldSonix, and includes multiple calibration blocks and probes.The software was developed by AUTO-Ut using experimental data and without the endorsement or support of any 3rd party company.
As far as the other points Mr Ginzle makes concerning couplant loss flagging, he has addressed well many of the concerns the industry shares.

--
This message was posted into the NDT.net Forum.
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/forum-1.htm
Please do not reply to email: forum@ndt.net
For your reply to this message go to:
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/5930.html

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: AUT simulator discussions
: Due to the misreading of the forum item I posted by Mr. Rawlinson, I am posting another item where his concerns might be more appropriately addressed. Not having used the simulator indicated in his point, I cannot speak to the efficacy of the tool. If it is based on a raytracing algorithm it may provide a coarse explanation of amplitude deviation with respect to flaw orientation but to do justice to the REAL conditions EFIT modelling is required as described by Langenberg (see article online at http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt02/195/195.htm). Unless the simulator can duplicate all the conditions of diffraction, mode conversion and echo-transmittance coefficient effects due to angle changes, it is not truly a decent simulation tool for indicating the REAL conditions of the AUT pipeline girth weld application.
: The other point Mr. Rawlinson makes is his perception that coupling monitor checks are “…the most critical factor in ACC/Rej criteria”
: He suggested that, “Until a company develops a system which automaticaly compensates amplitude levels to couplant loss we should be working at FBH+6DB (as the ACC/Rej level).”
: Perhaps Mr. Rawlinson does not understand the technique used by most AUT companies to monitor coupling and why the allowance for variation is incorporated. This is an ideal venue to explain the situation and dispel the notion that we need auto-compensation.
: In a girth weld that has been made where the weld axis is vertical (as in land-lay and S-lay projects) most AUT systems set up a pitch-catch configuration on the bottom of the pipe where, not only is the spring tension weakest but also, the crown of the weld is the highest and any extra losses due to the crown scattering portions of the beam can be compensated by adding gain to the receiver to ensure there is adequate signal received to indicate that there is couplant under BOTH the transmitting and receiving probes. This technique is configured that the zonal probe on one side transmit to the zonal probe on the opposite side of the weld. Verification that couplant is under the probe wedge is the sole reason for the couping check!
: But loss of coupling signal using this technique need not only indicate loss of fluid. It is often indicated by the hi-lo (mismatch) condition, i.e. the beam is redirected or scattered by a change in geometry (not a real loss of coupling). No matter how “wet” you make the surface under such conditions you are NOT going to get an indication in the coupling monitor gate.
: Coupling can also be lost when a flaw is present in the weld, i.e. the flaw interupts the through transmission. Providing this flaw is indicated as a Defect (i.e. the flaw is rejectable) this is not usually an issue because the flaw is removed in the repair. But if it is an acceptable flaw and still reduces the energy across the weld for coupling check it MIGHT cause some issues of concern for coupling.
: These shortcomings of the through transmission technique can be remedied by using a separate probe for coupling checks. This option was noted in Krautkramer’s text many years ago. These were zero degree probes built into the wedge and fired separately from the angle beam. Essentially the zero degree would monitor the first backwall for significant amplitude drops. The technique doubles as a thickness monitor as well as a coupling monitor.
: Another point Mr. Rawlinson has missed is that, in most AUT girth weld specifications, a requirement that EACH "probe" must have a monitoring channel. For a large multi-probe array using 20 or 30 separate wedges, that would technically be 20-30 coupling channels! Most systems have dodged the point and set up a single coupling channel for a zone and further reduce compliance by selecting only one pair of the tandems where tandem probes are used.
: There is a need to monitor for coupling but Mr. Rawlinson is not correct that over-sensitivity is the only solution or that auto-coupling correction be should eventually be made by adding gain by some sort of feedback loop to the receivers. One must consider that the loss of coupling “signal” does not always mean the same as loss of “coupling fluid”.
------------ End Original Message ------------

Follow Ups:

Re: AUT simulator discussions Gerald King 03:04 Sep-29-2003 (2)

etshoys etshoys 22:40 Jan-28-2006 (0)

Re: AUT simulator discussions Andrew 17:03 Oct-06-2003 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:

E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
----------- Start Original Message ----------- : The research Mr Ginzle mentions is good science for Numerical Methods for the Modelling of Acoustic, Electromagnetic, Elastic and Piezoelectric Wave Propagation Problems in the Time Domain Based on the Finite Integration Technique, but can not help an inspector to grasp principles of ultrasonic testing in the real world, let alone understand AUT setups and acc/rej concepts. : The Genesis is a much simpler tool , designed not for the research student but for the NDE inspector. : The role of genesis UT simulator is not to push the envelope of acoustic science but simply to provide a simulation of the real UT world, with virtual UT equipment and virtual welds and virtual defects. : Mr Ginzle will be pleased to learn that the Genesis UT simulator takes into account probe angles, refraction, reflection, orientation of reflectors, texture of reflectors , attenuation, and algorithms of UT propagation, as well as simulation of AUT, TOFD, Pulse Echo, Tandem, and Through Transmission, Hilo, root defects, porosity mapping, TOF (transit) : And it simulates in the style of Krautkramer, Panametrics, RTD, RDTech, Shaw, WeldSonix, and includes multiple calibration blocks and probes.The software was developed by AUTO-Ut using experimental data and without the endorsement or support of any 3rd party company. : As far as the other points Mr Ginzle makes concerning couplant loss flagging, he has addressed well many of the concerns the industry shares. : : -- : This message was posted into the NDT.net Forum. : http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/forum-1.htm : Please do not reply to email: forum@ndt.net : For your reply to this message go to: : http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/5930.html : : : AUT simulator discussions : : Due to the misreading of the forum item I posted by Mr. Rawlinson, I am posting another item where his concerns might be more appropriately addressed. Not having used the simulator indicated in his point, I cannot speak to the efficacy of the tool. If it is based on a raytracing algorithm it may provide a coarse explanation of amplitude deviation with respect to flaw orientation but to do justice to the REAL conditions EFIT modelling is required as described by Langenberg (see article online at http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt02/195/195.htm). Unless the simulator can duplicate all the conditions of diffraction, mode conversion and echo-transmittance coefficient effects due to angle changes, it is not truly a decent simulation tool for indicating the REAL conditions of the AUT pipeline girth weld application. : : The other point Mr. Rawlinson makes is his perception that coupling monitor checks are “…the most critical factor in ACC/Rej criteria” : : He suggested that, “Until a company develops a system which automaticaly compensates amplitude levels to couplant loss we should be working at FBH+6DB (as the ACC/Rej level).” : : Perhaps Mr. Rawlinson does not understand the technique used by most AUT companies to monitor coupling and why the allowance for variation is incorporated. This is an ideal venue to explain the situation and dispel the notion that we need auto-compensation. : : In a girth weld that has been made where the weld axis is vertical (as in land-lay and S-lay projects) most AUT systems set up a pitch-catch configuration on the bottom of the pipe where, not only is the spring tension weakest but also, the crown of the weld is the highest and any extra losses due to the crown scattering portions of the beam can be compensated by adding gain to the receiver to ensure there is adequate signal received to indicate that there is couplant under BOTH the transmitting and receiving probes. This technique is configured that the zonal probe on one side transmit to the zonal probe on the opposite side of the weld. Verification that couplant is under the probe wedge is the sole reason for the couping check! : : But loss of coupling signal using this technique need not only indicate loss of fluid. It is often indicated by the hi-lo (mismatch) condition, i.e. the beam is redirected or scattered by a change in geometry (not a real loss of coupling). No matter how “wet” you make the surface under such conditions you are NOT going to get an indication in the coupling monitor gate. : : Coupling can also be lost when a flaw is present in the weld, i.e. the flaw interupts the through transmission. Providing this flaw is indicated as a Defect (i.e. the flaw is rejectable) this is not usually an issue because the flaw is removed in the repair. But if it is an acceptable flaw and still reduces the energy across the weld for coupling check it MIGHT cause some issues of concern for coupling. : : These shortcomings of the through transmission technique can be remedied by using a separate probe for coupling checks. This option was noted in Krautkramer’s text many years ago. These were zero degree probes built into the wedge and fired separately from the angle beam. Essentially the zero degree would monitor the first backwall for significant amplitude drops. The technique doubles as a thickness monitor as well as a coupling monitor. : : Another point Mr. Rawlinson has missed is that, in most AUT girth weld specifications, a requirement that EACH "probe" must have a monitoring channel. For a large multi-probe array using 20 or 30 separate wedges, that would technically be 20-30 coupling channels! Most systems have dodged the point and set up a single coupling channel for a zone and further reduce compliance by selecting only one pair of the tandems where tandem probes are used. : : There is a need to monitor for coupling but Mr. Rawlinson is not correct that over-sensitivity is the only solution or that auto-coupling correction be should eventually be made by adding gain by some sort of feedback loop to the receivers. One must consider that the loss of coupling “signal” does not always mean the same as loss of “coupling fluid”. ------------ End Original Message ------------

Optional Link URL: Example: "http://www....html". Alternative write "http://www.ndt.net/wshop/attach/filename.htm" if you transfered a filename.htm via FTP

Link Title: is important! Information on my Home Page

Optional Image URL: http://www....gif

Attention! Please click the button only once. This may take a moment to process
[ Technical Discussions ] [ All Message Boards ] [ Help ]

Optional Link URL:	Example: "http://www....html". Alternative write "http://www.ndt.net/wshop/attach/filename.htm" if you transfered a filename.htm via FTP
Link Title: is important!	Information on my Home Page
Optional Image URL:	http://www....gif