where expertise comes together - since 1996

Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)
Open Access Database (Conference Proceedings, Articles, News), Exhibition, Forum, Network

All Forum Boards
Technical Discussions >
Tank Floor Inspections
Career Discussions
Job Offers
Job Seeks
Classified Ads
About NDT.net
Articles & News

1387 views
02:41 Oct-23-2007

Paul Robertson

,
Netherlands,
Joined Jun 2003
12
Tank Floor Inspections

I'd like to get some views from the forum and their opinions/experiences regarding MFE/MFL versus LFET tank floor inspections and related level of confidence/cost factor.
Be good to hear from you.

Paul Robertson.


 
03:52 Oct-24-2007
Andre van Vuuren
Re: Tank Floor Inspections I think SLOFEC should also be mentioned. Its an eddy current technique that can differentiate between top & bottom side corrosion through a coating. Check out www.innospection.com

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I'd like to get some views from the forum and their opinions/experiences regarding MFE/MFL versus LFET tank floor inspections and related level of confidence/cost factor.
: Be good to hear from you.
: Paul Robertson.
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
04:21 Oct-24-2007
Geert Bontekoe
Re: Tank Floor Inspections To make a good estimate of the different systems, you should include the INTANK system. It uses the UT technique for the floor inspection. The mayor difference is that it can do the inspection WITH PRODUCT in the tank. This has some mayor advances like; no need to move the product, no cleaning needed, less or no sludge to be removed/processed, safety(no people needed to work in the tank), lower emmissions of vapors.


For more information visit techcorr.com

regards Geert


----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I'd like to get some views from the forum and their opinions/experiences regarding MFE/MFL versus LFET tank floor inspections and related level of confidence/cost factor.
: Be good to hear from you.
: Paul Robertson.
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
05:49 Oct-25-2007

Floyd Atkinson

NDT Inspector
American Inspection Society, Inc.,
USA,
Joined Jun 2004
10
Re: Tank Floor Inspections
When you get to doing vacuum box inspection on tank floor section welds let me know. Been there done that. It can be inexpensive and a two man crew can do a tank in fast time. The second man is to hold the explosion proof flash light and keep the air hose out of the way. Corner welds no problem if you have a 90 degree vacuum box configuration.

Good luck.

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I'd like to get some views from the forum and their opinions/experiences regarding MFE/MFL versus LFET tank floor inspections and related level of confidence/cost factor.
: Be good to hear from you.
: Paul Robertson.
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
01:49 Oct-29-2007

John O'Brien

Consultant, -
Chevron ETC ,
USA,
Joined Jan 2000
278
Re: Tank Floor Inspections ----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I'd like to get some views from the forum and their opinions/experiences regarding MFE/MFL versus LFET tank floor inspections and related level of confidence/cost factor.
: Be good to hear from you.
: Paul Robertson.
------------ End Original Message ------------
Paul

its a question that is never ending. A number of oil companies ran a round robin evaluation of various scanner technologies, contractors with the same technology and operators with the same scanners. I believe that the results of this was not so much the difference between the technologies but the way they are operated in terms of competancy and prove up. It was clear you can take any MFL scanner with a good company and good operator and get excellent results. You give the scanner to a different less expereinced operator and the results decline dramatically. the same applies to LFET, SLOFEC, InTank etc etc.

You need to prove up indications with UT and that part of the trials produced even less confidence than the floor scanners. API has just held a pilot of the UT plate thickness prove up UT test and the results confirm other performance demonstration tests that approx 60%+ of manual UT thickness technicians cannot pass a thickness test where accuracy is set at +/- 0.050" just over 1 mm on a 6 mm plate.

These results are what led to API 653 developing Appendix G which outlines an approach for test operators performing tank bottom evaluations. The API committee is currently reviewing this Appendix to add additional information on testing and qualifying UT prove up technicians.

if you want to idnetify the good contractors set up an Appendix G test. On one I ran 21 companies applied and we ended up with 3 who achieved an acceptable standard. Note you need to test on old plate with real wall loss. new plate and machined flaws proves absoloutely nothing other than that the scanner works.

Based on all this therefore its not the technology that is the most critical item but procedures, methods, training and experience that leads to good results.

On a cost basis getting the best people always costs more so the cheaper the examination the less likely you are to get good results.



 


© NDT.net - The Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT) ISSN 1435-4934

Open Access Database, |Conference Proceedings| |Articles| |News| |Exhibition| |Forum| |Professional Network|