where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -

17379 views
Technical Discussions
AROSLI
AROSLI
10:23 Feb-27-2015
ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria

Hi,

When evaluate subsurface indication against Table 1, 2 and 3 of CC2235-11, do we need to multiple the height or 'a' with 2 since the subsurface represent as 2a. Please advise. TIA

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
14:16 Feb-27-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to AROSLI at 10:23 Feb-27-2015 (Opening).

Arosli, that is correct. The values given in the tables are the "half-heights" for subsurface flaws.

 
 Reply 
 
Bert
Bert
23:36 Mar-02-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 14:16 Feb-27-2015 .

Sorry gentleman
In the ASME is written :
(-b) The depth of the flaw shall be drawn normal to the inside pressure retaining surface and shall be denoted as “a” for a surface flaw or “2a” for a subsurface flaw.

For me denoted means it is written as “a” for surface flaws and written as 2a for subsurface flaws.
So it is not allowed to take 2 time a for subsurface flaws. it is just written this way.

 
 Reply 
 
J Mark Davis
Teacher, And Consultant
University of Ultrasonics, Birmingham, Alabama, USA, Joined Mar 2000, 85

J Mark Davis

Teacher, And Consultant
University of Ultrasonics, Birmingham, Alabama,
USA,
Joined Mar 2000
85
03:09 Mar-03-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Bert at 23:36 Mar-02-2015 .

Bert,

I fully agree with you. The term "denoted" has been used in 2235 since the beginning in 1995.

When I build and design Procedure Qualification(PQ) flawed samples iaw 2235, I do not double the size of the flaw. For example, if less than 1 inch, the allowable mid wall flaw is 14.3 %. If it is doubled as 2a, then the allowable flaw of 28.6. I would not build a PQ sample with a 28.6 % through wall flaw.

During Code Committee discussions last year, to approve thicknesses less than 1/2 inch down to 1/4 inch, there was much disagreement and discussion regarding 2a as an algebraic value or as a denoted value.

It may be true from a FMA standpoint that 2a is twice the allowable size, but I would take the conservative approach and use 2a as a denoted value for the height of a mid-wall flaw.

Supposedly the new term per the code committee guys will be "h" for height. This I believe will solve a huge misunderstanding in the ASME Community.

1
 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
14:28 Mar-03-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to J Mark Davis at 03:09 Mar-03-2015 .

Regardless of what some what like to use as flaws in test samples, there is good rationale to the terms used in ASME CC2235.
The use of “a” and “2a” has been a topic of discussion on this forum before. Perhaps it is unfortunate that ASME has introduced it in a place where NDT technicians are concerned because NDT techs do not have the background in fracture mechanics that engineers should have. However; ASME standards (and the more ubiquitous BS 7910) are dealing with fracture mechanics. In fracture mechanics these terms are commonplace. In fact the principles are very old! About a century ago A.A. Griffith (British Airforce) introduced the concepts we now relate to brittle fracture and published a paper in 1920 (The phenomenon of rupture and flow in solids). You can get a copy at http://micro.stanford.edu/~caiwei/me340b/content/Griffith1921fracture.pdf
There you read how he treated the flaws in plate as ellipses. Ellipses have 2 perpendicular axes. The larger of these two axes is called the major axis. In your high school math books you would have seen images of ellipses with the antipodal points of the major axis labelled as –a and a. When Griffith ran his experiments on glass, he made surface flaws so these became “half ellipses” and the distance to the tip was therefore only “a”. This allowed that stress intensity was higher compared to an embedded law where the same stress could be distributed on either side of the tips of the flaw (thereby reducing stress intensity). For an embedded flaw, the entire ellipse would be used hence the concept of “2a”.
It is indeed interesting history but not something the typical NDT technician has to deal with. However, since it relates to fracture mechanics and NDT is more and more required to make accurate “estimates” of flaw sizes to satisfy engineering critical assessments, the way in which the numbers are used should be better understood by NDT students and teachers alike.
The fact remains that CC2235 is using the underlying principles of Griffith’s work; so “2a” means twice the height.

2
 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
15:05 Mar-03-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 14:28 Mar-03-2015 .

As a clarification, perhaps calling "2a" twice the height is misleading. 2a merely means that the value "a" calculated in the tables is to be multiplied by 2 for subsurface flaws.

 
 Reply 
 
Bert Elema
Bert Elema
22:21 Mar-03-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 15:05 Mar-03-2015 .

Gentleman 

I have found the answer of this issue is has been answered in 2013 on CC2235-10
The answer of the ASME organization was

Question: Does the designation of 2a in paragraph (i)(3)(b) of Code Case 2235-10 mean that the acceptance criteria a for subsurface flaws found in Tables 1 through 3 should be multiplied by 2 to derive the value of 2a found in paragraph (i)(3)(b) and in Figures 1 through 5 for subsurface flaws?
Reply: Yes.
So Ed was right we where wrong.

Sorry

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
01:17 Mar-05-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Bert Elema at 22:21 Mar-03-2015 .

Bert, thanks for the confirmation.
I have a detailed Excel sheet that provides the solutions to the allowed flaw lengths and heights based on the tables in CC2235. It is open so you can see the equations solved (particularly useful for the interpolated portion of Table 2). Let me know if you need a copy.

 
 Reply 
 
Bill
USA, Joined Jan 2010, 52

Bill

USA,
Joined Jan 2010
52
19:50 Mar-05-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 01:17 Mar-05-2015 .

It’s worth noting that code case 181(2012) and 189 (2013) both dropped the “a” and “2a” and changed the figures. All height measurements are now denoted as “h” in the figures and tables, and the subsurface values were doubled.

2235 (which is now on r-12) and 2013 section VIII div 2 for what ever reason have not changed. However, its clear by the number of times the topic comes up, it would likley be very helpfull to many if they did.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
20:52 Mar-05-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Bill at 19:50 Mar-05-2015 .

Bill, the B31.3 for the CC181-2 group that changed the nomenclature of a century did so only to satisfy the NDT people. I personally found this disappointing that the well understood and accepted terms, in use for a century, should be changed because a tiny group could not adapt/understand. Yet for over 2 decades now, AUT operators have had to deal with the interaction rules using "a" and "2a" on pipeline construction projects where API 1104 Appendix A is used and on projects where BS-7910 (and its predecessor PD-6493) is used.

 
 Reply 
 
J Mark Davis
Teacher, And Consultant
University of Ultrasonics, Birmingham, Alabama, USA, Joined Mar 2000, 85

J Mark Davis

Teacher, And Consultant
University of Ultrasonics, Birmingham, Alabama,
USA,
Joined Mar 2000
85
15:30 Mar-06-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Bill at 19:50 Mar-05-2015 .

Bill,

Very good points.

I might add that it is not just the NDT community which questioned 2a as an algebraic value or a denoted value. When the ASME Code committee conducted a Fracture Mechanic Analysis for Mississippi Tank for thicknesses less than 1/2 inch they too had issues with the term 2a as a denoted value or an algebraic value.

The first CC 2235 was written almost 20 years ago in 1995. I understand the reasoning for a subsurface flaw as twice the height; But how do we know that 2a (twice the height) was not already calculated into the tables for subsurface flaws, and that is why they used the word "denoted." Food for thought.

Hopefully, when the 2015 ASME Code comes out these "gray" areas will be resolved.



 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
16:19 Mar-06-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to J Mark Davis at 15:30 Mar-06-2015 .

Mark, just a note on the initial CC2235. Indeed the original was published 1996. But gave approval for UT in lieu of RT only for welds 4 inches and greater. The first CC2235 had a single table of allowed lengths for defined aspect ratios with a clear note: "A subsurface indication shall be considered as a surface flaw if the separation (‘‘s ’’ in Fig. 1) of the indication from the nearest
surface of the component is equal to or less than half the through thickness dimension (‘‘2a’’ in Fig. 1) of the subsurface indication".

The big break to industry came when the range of applicable thicknesses was extended to under 4 inches in 2000.
The ASME Code Case 2235 of was based on a technical report by Rana et al published in 2000;
Technical Basis for ASME Section VIII Code Case 2235 on Ultrasonic Examination of Welds in Lieu of Radiography, Mahendra D. Rana, Owen Hedden, Dave Cowfer and Roger Boyce
J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 123(3), 338-345 (Dec 19, 2000) (8 pages)

In Rana's paper you can read how the calculations were done and on what materials and what safety factors were used. The safety factors incorporated for some of the ASME approved materials is extremely high. In reading, you will learn, 2a was the term used in calculations of subsurface flaws.

1
 
 Reply 
 
Bill
USA, Joined Jan 2010, 52

Bill

USA,
Joined Jan 2010
52
17:31 Mar-06-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 20:52 Mar-05-2015 .

Ed-I have always considered the dropping the “a” and “2a” in favor of “h” to be a good thing. However you make a good point. Maybe a better approach would have been to simply add a text explanation, such as the one for surface or subsurface calculation (which is currently labeled 2d) and possibly an example. In this way the integrity, or context if you will, of the original engineering terms are maintained.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
17:34 Mar-06-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Bill at 17:31 Mar-06-2015 .

Good idea Bill! It just does not make sense to me to through out 100 years of well defined and well understood engineering just to provide the newcomers (NDT techs) the terms they want to impose (h) on the industry.

 
 Reply 
 
AROSLI
AROSLI
03:36 Mar-07-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 01:17 Mar-05-2015 .

Hi Ed,

Appreciate if you can provide me a copy of the excel sheet.

Thanks

 
 Reply 
 
Dennis Smythe
Dennis Smythe
13:05 Nov-25-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 17:34 Mar-06-2015 .

Hi Ed,
Would it be possible for me to get a copy of your spreadsheet as well?
Thanks,
Dennis

 
 Reply 
 
Anmol Birring
Consultant,
Birring NDE Center, Inc., USA, Joined Aug 2011, 832

Anmol Birring

Consultant,
Birring NDE Center, Inc.,
USA,
Joined Aug 2011
832
15:01 Nov-25-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Dennis Smythe at 13:05 Nov-25-2015 .

Ed/Dennis,
Some values in the acceptance criteria table have been updated. Please see ASME VIII (2013), Div 2, table 7.10 for updated numbers

 
 Reply 
 
Dennis Smythe
Dennis Smythe
16:35 Nov-25-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Anmol Birring at 15:01 Nov-25-2015 .

Good catch Anmol
I see even in the 2013 code the values are different between Div 2 Table 7.10 and Div 3 Table KE- 301-1.
Ed,
I assume the spreadsheet is tuned to the old Div 3 numbers.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
16:41 Nov-25-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Dennis Smythe at 16:35 Nov-25-2015 .

The numbers used in my old Excel worksheet were taken from the published "Code Case" at the time, and not from the Code Section...if there are differences, and you are not actually working to the published Code Case, you can make the necessary changes

 
 Reply 
 
jesper
jesper
03:15 Nov-29-2015
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 16:41 Nov-25-2015 .

Hi Ed,
Would it be possible for me to get a copy of your spreadsheet as well?
Thanks,

jesper

 
 Reply 
 
Alexander
Engineering,
n.n., Joined Apr 2016, 13

Alexander

Engineering,
n.n.,
Joined Apr 2016
13
10:58 Jul-25-2016
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 16:41 Nov-25-2015 .

Dear experts, i need an advice. We have a little discussion with another UT specialist about height of subsurface flaw in demonstration/qualification block in accordance with ASME Sec.V App IX. The table's height should be multiplied by 2? If the answer is yes does that mean that physical aspect ratio of this type of flaws should be 0,5 in demonstration block (instead of 0,25)?

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
16:08 Jul-25-2016
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Alexander at 10:58 Jul-25-2016 .

Using just bits and pieces from the ASME BPVC is specifically not recommended by ASME. If we are following ASME rules to build an ASME qualified vessel it would be appropriate to link the various referencing documents. Several "blocks" have been introduced for UT in ASME. Calibration blocks, scanner blocks and "demonstration blocks". The demonstration block is only mentioned in ASME V Art. 4 App IX for the "Flaw Sizing Qualification". In App IX-435.6 it states that the flaw sizes shall be no larger than that specified by the referencing Code Section. For wall thickness over 25 mm item (b) is used.
(b) 0.25 aspect ratio acceptable flaw for material equal to or greater than 1 in. (25 mm) thick

We then have to go to the referencing Code Section to read what the "flaw aspect ratio" is.
In, for example, ASME VIII Table 7.9 states at the top of the first column that Flaw Aspect Ratio is "a/l" so it is making the description based on the traditional fracture mechanics terminology and not basing it on the physical size of a subsurface flaw. I would therefore interpret that the implied intent is to use a flaw that is NOT LARGER than the dimensions "calculated" from Table 7.9.

Of course if you were using the Process piping code case 181-2, there you will see that the aspect ratio is h/l where the value h indicates the flaw height in the non-traditional terminology where h is the physical dimension and has been corrected in the tables for surface and subsurface conditions.

 
 Reply 
 
Alexander
Engineering,
n.n., Joined Apr 2016, 13

Alexander

Engineering,
n.n.,
Joined Apr 2016
13
10:32 Jul-26-2016
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 16:08 Jul-25-2016 .

If i use ASME Sec V App III and ASME Sec VIII Div.2 cl.7.5.5 for TOFD inspection i should provide procedure qualification on demonstration blocks as per ASME Sec V Art 4 App IX.
This App IX says:
"Demonstration block flaw sizes shall be no larger than that specified by the referencing Code Section". Reference code section is ASME Sec VIII Div.2 cl.7.5.5.
Tables of acceptance and flaw sizing principles for ASME Sec VIII Div.2 cl.7.5.5 and ASME Case are the same.
According to conclusions in this topic about double height of subsurface flaws for case 2235 blocks my question is: why height of subsurface flaws in App IX blocks should not be multiplied by 2?

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
14:46 Jul-26-2016
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Alexander at 10:32 Jul-26-2016 .

Alexander, I thought I provided feedback for this in my previous reply. The referencing Code Section is not always using the table in ASME VIII Div. 2 so a blanket statement could not be made. If the vessel is being built in accordance with ASME VIII Div. 2 then the a/l flaw aspect ratio is used from that table. E.g. if the wall thickness is 75mm the a/l aspect ratio of 0.25 indicates that the subsurface flaw height is 8.7mm and the ASME V Art. 4 App IX indicates that the flaw height is not to be greater than that to demonstrate the flaw sizing capabilities.
8.7mm is a relatively large vertical extent for a flaw. And at 8.7mm height, the flaw is now larger than most single pass deposit heights of even an SAW process. Also, you may start off with a flaw 8.7mm height, but once the flaw is welded into the demonstration block it is most likely going to melt some of the tips so the resulting actual flaw size is more likely to be a bit less.
And finally, as long as the flaw is less than the a/l ratio calculated height for a 0.25 aspect ratio in the table, it is considered suitable to demonstrate your flaw sizing capabilities. When we get to the thinner wall sections (e.g. 25mm) and have the calculated flaw height at 4.1mm the flaws are probably closer to the natural height of a single pass defect.

Since the wording in App IX states that the flaw is to be no larger than the "0.25 aspect ratio acceptable flaw" we must therefore "calculate" the subsurface flaw height and it uses "a" as the half height. Therefore you must double that value to obtain the flaw height appropriate. App IX is not stating to use a flaw with an aspect ratio of 0.25 as is suggested by your client's Level 3. Instead, it is stating to use the "0.25 aspect ratio acceptable flaw" from the table in the referencing Code Section.

 
 Reply 
 
Phil Herman
Sales, - Manufacture of NDT Reference Standards/Test Blocks
PH Tool Reference Standards, USA, Joined Oct 1999, 79

Phil Herman

Sales, - Manufacture of NDT Reference Standards/Test Blocks
PH Tool Reference Standards,
USA,
Joined Oct 1999
79
18:43 Jul-26-2016
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 14:46 Jul-26-2016 .

Ed and Alexander,
Very interesting thread on flaw sizes in demo blocks. While no expert on the flaw heights required by the various codes, we have had good success with maintaining accurate flaw heights post welding by implanting inserts into the flaw cavity. The process has involved the Sinker EDM machining of a precise flaw at the desired height and length (width not critical), manufacture and insert a non-consumable insert to exact dimensions of flaw, TIG weld to embed followed by MIG to complete weld. Sectioning of samples via Wire EDM has proven that minimal change to flaw size and shape occurs when done correctly. Contact me directly if you'd like to learn more. I'm happy to help.

Phil Herman
President/CEO
PH Tool Reference Standards

 
 Reply 
 
massimo carminati
Consultant, AUT specialist
IMG Ultrasuoni Srl, Italy, Joined Apr 2007, 691

massimo carminati

Consultant, AUT specialist
IMG Ultrasuoni Srl,
Italy,
Joined Apr 2007
691
07:46 Jul-27-2016
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Alexander at 10:58 Jul-25-2016 .

The matter of "a" definition for surface flaws and "2a" definition for subsurface is one of the most confusing things of the ASME codes. And this is because the word "denoted" is always used when calling thsee definitions. I would be very pleased to read in the code that "2a" definition means that for acceptance calculation of a subsurface flaw of a certain measured height, half of this value has to be used to determine its acceptance. This would save enormous time and discussions in real life worldwide! Back to the size of implanted flaws for demonstration, I would stick with the maximum height of a single pass deposit of the welding process used and then apply the 0.25 aspect ratio, provided that this does not exceed the maximum acceptable flaw size in the table.

 
 Reply 
 
Alexander
Engineering,
n.n., Joined Apr 2016, 13

Alexander

Engineering,
n.n.,
Joined Apr 2016
13
12:16 Jul-29-2016
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 14:46 Jul-26-2016 .

Hello experts.
CC2235 says "Flaw length shall not exceed 4t."
Does 4t means 4x(material thickness) in the whole weld?

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
14:18 Jul-29-2016
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Alexander at 12:16 Jul-29-2016 .

Alexander, the process of qualification for use with Fracture Mechanics Based acceptance criteria is somewhat disjointed in ASME V. You find bits for the requirements of mechanised systems like PAUT and TOFD in Appendices III and V, Procedure requirements in Appendix VIII, and Sizing Qualifications in IX.
Since the process of qualification relates to the rules found in ASME V Art. 1, we can also consider that the General settings in ASME V Art 4 need not apply to the "qualified" procedure. To this end, for pulse-echo applications the scanning level (i.e. dB over the reference level) need not be just the 6dB or 14dB you might use for the workmanship acceptance criteria. In fact in ASME V Art. 4 Appendix VIII we read about scanning sensitivity:
VIII-471.4 Scanning Sensitivity Level. The scanning sensitivity level shall not be less than that qualified.

In the same Appendix we read about what it is you are to evaluate in VIII-480. For TOFD scanning the evaluation is based on "indication lengths". However, for pulse-echo PAUT there is no stated evaluation level as this will have been derived from your qualification process and written in your particular procedure. So based on your procedure there should be SOME level at which evaluation is made. This will locate flaws that you then evaluate based on the table (in your case in ASME VIII Div. 2). It is conceivable that when you apply your qualified sizing procedure to the flaws being evaluated you find that some have a height that is less than the smallest height in the Table. Usually you could ignore these flaws as acceptable but the phrase " "Flaw length shall not exceed 4t" indicates that even if the flaw has a height that is less than indicated as allowed in the table, its length may not exceed 4 times the plate thickness.

 
 Reply 
 
Alexander
Engineering,
n.n., Joined Apr 2016, 13

Alexander

Engineering,
n.n.,
Joined Apr 2016
13
15:55 Jul-29-2016
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 14:18 Jul-29-2016 .

I appreciate your help Ed.
I can find requirements for noise level for calibration blocks only.
So noise level may exceed 5-10% FSH during demonstration procedure and weld examination. Is it correct?
And if i have unacceptable tofd indications which sizes are not confirmed by manual ut or paut. What should i do in this case?

 
 Reply 
 
roumelpiodo
NDT Inspector,
Philippines, Joined May 2015, 5

roumelpiodo

NDT Inspector,
Philippines,
Joined May 2015
5
10:23 May-24-2018
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 01:17 Mar-05-2015 .

Sir Ed, may I ask for the copy of the said Excel sheet that provides the solutions to the allowed flaw lengths and heights based on the tables in CC2235. Thanks

 
 Reply 
 
Anmol Birring
Consultant,
Birring NDE Center, Inc., USA, Joined Aug 2011, 832

Anmol Birring

Consultant,
Birring NDE Center, Inc.,
USA,
Joined Aug 2011
832
15:30 May-26-2018
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to roumelpiodo at 10:23 May-24-2018 .

It is easy to create. Just use values from Table and calculate for the desired thickness. Also 2235 is outdated. Use Section 7.5.5 of ASME VIII-2

 
 Reply 
 
Shahid khakhan
Shahid khakhan
10:02 Dec-20-2018
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 01:17 Mar-05-2015 .

Hi Ed, Can you please help me with xls interpolation sheet between 64 and 100 mm as per ASME section VIII Div 2.

 
 Reply 
 
kkwoen, ohken
NDT Inspector,
I&S Korea, South Korea, Joined Nov 2016, 3

kkwoen, ohken

NDT Inspector,
I&S Korea,
South Korea,
Joined Nov 2016
3
18:06 Dec-25-2018
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to AROSLI at 10:23 Feb-27-2015 (Opening).

The basis of the ASME Code 2235 is the ASME on-the-fly inspection, or the general UT method. It is based on the 6db drop method.

 
 Reply 
 
kwoen, ohken
NDT Inspector,
I&S Korea, South Korea, Joined Nov 2016, 3

kwoen, ohken

NDT Inspector,
I&S Korea,
South Korea,
Joined Nov 2016
3
18:17 Dec-25-2018
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to AROSLI at 10:23 Feb-27-2015 (Opening).

In the past, TOFD was 1/2 the total height because of the high resolution problems of TOP and BOTTOM. This is solved by the sound field improvement.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1307

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1307
19:21 Dec-25-2018
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to kwoen, ohken at 18:17 Dec-25-2018 .

Ohken, I suggest you do some reading on the topic of fracture mechanics. You might like to start with some of A.A. Griffith's work from 1921 describing crack formation in brittle solids. Then move on to a summary of fracture mechanics like seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_mechanics
It was Griffith's nomenclature using "a" and "2a" that has been used for nearly a century that is the basis for the terms seen in the Code Case. These terms have long been taught in first year basic engineering courses.
The acceptance criteria in the Code Case were based on the fracture principles developed by Griffith, they were not based on "on-the-fly inspection, or the general UT method", nor are they based on "the 6db drop method".

 
 Reply 
 
Wadi
NDT Inspector,
iptomar pte ptd, Malaysia, Joined Jul 2016, 1

Wadi

NDT Inspector,
iptomar pte ptd,
Malaysia,
Joined Jul 2016
1
11:37 Dec-26-2018
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 01:17 Mar-05-2015 .

Hi mr Ed.

Excuse me.If u are dont mind. I ask the copy for the related subject cc2235.

 
 Reply 
 
SARATH
SARATH
18:40 Apr-23-2019
Re: ASME CC2235-11 acceptance criteria
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 01:17 Mar-05-2015 .

Sir please can you send me the Excel sheet for code case 2235 flaw evaluation of length and height.

 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

UCI Hardness Tester NOVOTEST T-U2

UCI hardness tester NOVOTEST T-U2 is is used for non-destructive hardness testing of: metals and
...
alloys by scales of hardness: Rockwell (HRC), Brinell (HB), Vickers (HV); non-ferrous metals, alloys of iron etc., and using five additional scales for calibration; with tensile strength (Rm) scale determines the tensile strength of carbon steel pearlitic products by automatic recalculation from Brinell (HB) hardness scale.
>

Micro CT

nanoVoxel series has nano-scale resolution upto 500nm by using high voltage X-ray source (from 80-
...
300 kV) with micro/nano focal spot and highly sensitive flat panel detectors and unique Optical coupling detector.
>

SITEX CPSERIES

Teledyne ICM’s CPSERIES has been designed with a view to revolutionizing the handling and perfor
...
mances of portable X-Ray sets. Despite having managed to halve the weight of similar portable X-Ray generators available on the market (while continuing to provide the same power output), the SITEX CPSERIES generators feature a shutter, a laser pointer, a beryllium window, an aluminum filter and two integrated diaphragms (customized sizes are available upon request). Without compromising the robustness and reliability for which ICM products are renowned, the small size and light weight of the SITEX CPSERIES will radically change the way that you perform your RT inspections. And you will see a positive impact in terms of both quality and return on investment (ROI).
>

Portable Ground Penetrating Radar - Proceq GP8000

The Proceq GP8000 portable ground penetrating radar instrument is the beginning of a new era in ND
...
T. The outstanding, patented ultra- wideband technology combined with a compact wireless probe delivers unmatched industry performance. Proceq GP8000 is the world’s first large-scale inspection solution that utilizes Augmented Reality in industrial applications.
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window