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 -
1558 views
Technical Discussions
Nigel Armstrong
Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom, Joined Oct 2000, 1096

Nigel Armstrong

Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom,
Joined Oct 2000
1096
06:30 Sep-03-2008
Interpretation of 2235-9 maximum permissible flaw size

Respected colleagues,

out of interest, what is the basis for the values used in the Code Case for Table 2, a/t, (columns 2 to 4) for surface and sub-surface defects required as a prelude to determining the maximum permissible flaw length vs height?

What value should be utilised in the case of a subsurface defect of say 4,8mm height. Fig 1(c) annotates this dimension as 2a. Does that mean that for subsurface flaws only half the flaw height i.e. 2,4mm, should be utilised in calculating a/t and a/l?

Lastly can anybody provide a clear and simple explanation of Figs 2 thru 5 (flaw interaction).

Please if you have the answer, or an opinion, on any of these questions I woulod be grateful to hear from you.


 
 Reply 
 
Massimo
Massimo
06:44 Sep-07-2008
Re: Interpretation of 2235-9 maximum permissible flaw size
I daily read all the posts and answers on this forum since few years. I have observed that most of the posts regarding this ASME code case looks "ignored" by most of the very active and helpful participants, despite to the fact that this code case introduction brought a significant "revolution" in the PV testing processes.
I would give my opinion about the "a", "2a" definition.
I don't think that the intention was just to give a different name to the defect height, therefore I would input half of the measured defect height for subsurface defects acceptance calculation. ASME XI acceptance is like this. It would be very beneficial if someone who knows the answer would post it.




 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1282

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1282
00:18 Sep-07-2008
Re: Interpretation of 2235-9 maximum permissible flaw size
Massimo:
You are correct. The concepts of "a" and "2a" are fundamental in fracture mechanics. The "a" value might be considered the "stress size" allowed. Stress concentrations for surface flaws are more critical and for embedded flaws a larger flaw is tolerated because the stress concentrations to the surface are reduced.

The same concepts (and the same use of "a" and "2a" terminology) are seen in other codes using fracture mechanics-based flaw-size acceptance criteria. BS 7910 is perhaps the most detailed description but API 1104 and CSA Z662 also use it for pipeline applications.

What is odd about ASME CC2235 is the limit on percent wall calculated. Typically half the wall thicknss is the limit calculated for; i.e. the length allowed when loss of 50% of the wall occurs. NORMALLY, provision must be added for potential for NDT sizing errors.
ASME CC2235 has significant conservatism built into it. You see in Table 1 that the maximum wall loss considered for surface flaws is 8.7% and14.3% for subsurface flaws. Table 2, up to 64mm wall thickness uses the same upper limits of 8.7% and 14.3%, then reduces this to 5.2% and 7.6% (surface and subsurface respectively) for the range from 100-300mm. Of course for embedded flaws this implies that the actual flaw size may be double that (i.e. "2a") so this increases the allowed flaw height for subsurface flaws to 28.6% (or 15.2% for 100-300mm) but that is still a long way from the 50% considered by other similar Codes.
There is no explanation for this in the rationalisation paper by Rana et al. Also there is no mention of NDT sizing error tolerances in the Code Case document (nor in the paper by Rana that was the foundation for the updated Code Case).

I have been unable to get explanations from "experts" in fracture mechanics as to why ASME would elect to opt for this treatment of the fracture mechanics principles. But I find it "odd" that the resultant maximum length ends up at nearly the same maximum length (or even LESS) as the workmanship values given in Section VIII Appendix 12 for the maximum vertical extent in the tables! When calculating allowed lengths for the range of thicknesses from 25-150mm, all the values end up back to about 12-17mm maximum length for a 0.5 aspect ratio of "a/l". This seems to be too coincidental to the one-third "t" or 3/4 inch imposed by the workmanship to be mere coincidence.

Yet for the same steel strengths and applied stresses, significantly greater flaw sizes are "tolerated" in pipeline applications.

In spite of the conservatism in 2235 there still seems to be some advantage using the Code Case...especially in wall thicknesses over 50-60mm.
Ed

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I daily read all the posts and answers on this forum since few years. I have observed that most of the posts regarding this ASME code case looks "ignored" by most of the very active and helpful participants, despite to the fact that this code case introduction brought a significant "revolution" in the PV testing processes.
: I would give my opinion about the "a", "2a" definition.
: I don't think that the intention was just to give a different name to the defect height, therefore I would input half of the measured defect height for subsurface defects acceptance calculation. ASME XI acceptance is like this. It would be very beneficial if someone who knows the answer would post it.
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
 Reply 
 
Ed T.
Ed T.
02:02 Sep-08-2008
Re: Interpretation of 2235-9 maximum permissible flaw size
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Massimo:
: You are correct. The concepts of "a" and "2a" are fundamental in fracture mechanics. The "a" value might be considered the "stress size" allowed. Stress concentrations for surface flaws are more critical and for embedded flaws a larger flaw is tolerated because the stress concentrations to the surface are reduced.
:
: The same concepts (and the same use of "a" and "2a" terminology) are seen in other codes using fracture mechanics-based flaw-size acceptance criteria. BS 7910 is perhaps the most detailed description but API 1104 and CSA Z662 also use it for pipeline applications.
: What is odd about ASME CC2235 is the limit on percent wall calculated. Typically half the wall thicknss is the limit calculated for; i.e. the length allowed when loss of 50% of the wall occurs. NORMALLY, provision must be added for potential for NDT sizing errors.
: ASME CC2235 has significant conservatism built into it. You see in Table 1 thatthe maximum wall loss considered for surface flaws is 8.7% and 14.3% for subsurface flaws. Table 2, up to 64mm wall thickness uses the same upper limits of 8.7% and 14.3%, then reduces this to 5.2% and 7.6% (surface and subsurface respectively) for the range from 100-300mm. Of course for embedded flaws this implies that the actual flaw size may be double that (i.e. "2a") so this increases the allowed flaw height for subsurface flaws to 28.6% (or 15.2% for 100-300mm) but that is still a long way from the 50% considered by other similar Codes.
: There is no explanation for this in the rationalisation paper by Rana et al. Also there is no mention of NDT sizing error tolerances in the Code Case document (nor in the paper by Rana that was the foundation for the updated Code Case).
: I have been unable to get explanations from "experts" in fracture mechanics as to why ASME would elect to opt for this treatment of the fracture mechanics principles. But I find it "odd" that the resultant maximum length ends up at nearly the same maximum length (or even LESS) as the workmanship values given in Section VIII Appendix 12 for the maximum vertical extent in the tables! When calculating allowed lengths for the range of thicknesses from 25-150mm, all the values end up back to about 12-17mm maximum length for a 0.5 aspect ratio of "a/l". This seems to be too coincidental to the one-third "t" or 3/4 inch imposed by the workmanship to be mere coincidence.
: Yet for the same steel strengths and applied stresses, significantly greater flaw sizes are "tolerated" in pipeline applications.
: In spite of the conservatism in 2235 there still seems to be some advantage using the Code Case...especially in wall thicknesses over 50-60mm.
: Ed
: : I daily read all the posts and answers on this forum since few years. I have observed that most of the posts regarding this ASME code case looks "ignored" by most of the very active and helpful participants, despite to the fact that this code case introduction broughta significant "revolution" in the PV testing processes.
: : I would give my opinion about the "a", "2a" definition.
: : I don't think that the intention was just to give a different name to the defect height, therefore I would input half of the measured defect height for subsurface defects acceptance calculation. ASME XI acceptance is like this. It would be very beneficial if someone who knows the answer would post it.
------------ End Original Message ------------

"a" is the vertical height of a flaw. "2a" is 2x the vertical height. It is more or less a bonus for being subsurface and away from the surface. As Ed G. said, less of a stress riser.
This has been ASME's philosophy for vessels for many years in the nuclear industry. (ASME Section XI)


 
 Reply 
 
Bill Blanshan
Bill Blanshan
02:15 Sep-08-2008
Re: Interpretation of 2235-9 maximum permissible flaw size
My company recently made a program which calculates a flaws "accept/reject" per the 2235 code case; in fact Ed.G helped me with the program. If you our anybody else wants this program, please email me at bill@autsolutions.net and I will send it to you.

Regards,
Bill Blanshan


 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

Panther

M2M PANTHER is a phased-array equipment designed for both desktop and industrial applications, offer
...
ing unparalleled performance in a compact unit. It combines the speed required for industrial integrated Phased-Array Ultrasound (PAUT) solutions, with the most complete set of total focusing method (TFM) imaging techniques, making it the ultimate tool for R&D and procedure qualification.
>

NOVO Armor 15 & NOVO Armor 22

The Armor Kit Contains the NOVO Armor, which provides additional mechanical protection to the NOVO 1
...
5WN & NOVO 22WN Detectors, the Armor Stand and a traveling soft cover. - Newest shock absorbent technology case - Water resistant design - Supports wired & wireless communication - Multiple positioning options - Tripod connection using the Built-in 1/4” threads - Simple Detector battery replacement
>

Robotic laser shearography enables 100% inspection of complex, flight-critical composite structures

An article in “Composites World Magazine” showcases Non Destructive Testing of aero-structures
...
with Laser Shearography. Over the years Dantec Dynamics has supplied many solutions for the aerospace industry. Referring to specific customer projects several of these cases are examined to outline the advantages of using Laser Shearography for automated defect detection.
>

Sci Aps Z-Series Portable Handheld Analysers

The world’s only handheld analyzer that measures carbon content in stainless (yes even L-grades),s
...
teels, and cast irons. Also accepted for low Si analysis for sulfidic corrosion analysis, and is widely used in the power industry for Cr analysis, for flow accelerated corrosion 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