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 -

GE Inspection Technologies
Inspection Technologies, a business of the Baker Hughes, a GE company (BHGE IT), is one of the world's leading suppliers of nondestructive testin ...
1234 views
Technical Discussions
Luis Ganhao
Engineering,
USA, Joined Sep 2008, 25

Luis Ganhao

Engineering,
USA,
Joined Sep 2008
25
15:53 Mar-12-2009
Interpretatio of code case 2235

I have the following question in accordance with the code case 2235 for materials whose thickness is below 1 inch, the Table 1 from code case 2235 should be used, now if we need reject an indication that its dimensions are greater than the length (L ) and the ratio a /t recommended by the Table 1. Or is it sufficient if the L is higher, but the ratio is lower or the opposite?



Thanks

 
 Reply 
 
Nigel Armstrong
Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom, Joined Oct 2000, 1096

Nigel Armstrong

Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom,
Joined Oct 2000
1096
18:58 Mar-14-2009
Re: Interpretatio of code case 2235
In Reply to Luis Ganhao at 15:53 Mar-12-2009 (Opening).

Hi Luis

I held off answering as I thought Ed Ginzel or Michael Moles or other notable experts on automated UT may answer. However you have got me - apologies!.

I think it is an either/or sutuation, that is if the defect exceeds either of the maximum allowable dimensions (a/t or l) then it is unacceptable. Any other interpretation of the criteria leads to the conclusion that a complete through-wall rupture of 6,3mm length is acceptable as it is less than 6.4mm This cannot be the case. Thus a defect greater than 6.4mm but meeting the remaining fraction wall thickness requirement of Table 1 is also rejectable. The Owner should be aware that using 2235 on thinner materials does not mean a relaxation of maximum allowable flaw sizes.

Interested to hear how you experience the application of 2235 acceptance criteria.

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1274

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1274
20:07 Mar-14-2009
Re: Interpretatio of code case 2235
In Reply to Nigel Armstrong at 18:58 Mar-14-2009 .

Notable expert...Hmmm. Thanks Nigel.
Actually there is a clause in CC2235-9 that indictes an absolute maximum and that is the limit I have assumed is to be used regardless of flaw height. The Code Case document is divided into several "sections" with the main sections "lettered" in lower case". The one identified as (i) is Data analysis and acceptance criteria. (i)4(c) addresses subsurface flaws and states "Subsurface Flaws. Flaw length (l) shall not exceed 4t."
Therefore for amplitude-based techniques any flaw over 20% reference is investigated and if it has a legth greater than 4t would be unacceptable. As for non-amplitude-based techniques (like TOFD) the identification of ANY flaw with length greater than 4t is unacceptable. TOFD is a great technique for easy analysis but there can be a severe penalty for the wide beam it uses. Small intermittent flaws can be blended together in TOFD if the spacing is small making an intermittent flaw that could be acceptable to pulse-echo unacceptable to TOFD. e.g. small aligned pores 1mm diameter separated by 4-5mm COULD appear like a continuous indication.

 
 Reply 
 
Joel Norman
NDT Inspector
Canada, Joined Jun 2008, 5

Joel Norman

NDT Inspector
Canada,
Joined Jun 2008
5
22:31 Mar-16-2009
Re: Interpretatio of code case 2235
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 20:07 Mar-14-2009 .

If the code case allows a maximum defect that is 4t in length for thnickness less than 1", what is the purpose of the 6.4mm length limit in table 1 (CC 2235-9)?

 
 Reply 
 
Tyson Lemke, EIT
Tyson Lemke, EIT
19:23 Mar-20-2009
Re: Interpretatio of code case 2235
In Reply to Joel Norman at 22:31 Mar-16-2009 .

Assuming Table 1 acts the same as Table 2 then the first column decides whether you apply the second column. Therefore if your a/t ratio is >0.143 then your l cannot be over 6.4 mm.

4t is an additional criteria to the tables. Therefore for an 1" length could not be 4". Since anything over an 1" on the 4t applys. Does it make practical sense to reject a 0.25" on a 1", when 4" length reject is allowable on an 1 1/8" thick material?

 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

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
>

Silverwing RMS PA - Phased-array corrosion mapping

Eddyfi Technologies integrated two market leading solutions, Silverwing’s RMS and M2M’s instru
...
ments to provide a high-speed, remote access ultrasonic phased-array inspection system with live total focusing method (TFM).
>

AMIGO2

TSC Amigo2 - ACFM technology has developed a solid reputation for accurately detecting and sizing
...
surface-breaking cracks through paint and coatings. As the industry demands increased performance in speed, signal quality, and portability, it’s time for an evolution. It’s time for Amigo2.
>

AIS229 - Multipurpose Real Time System

Latest standard & automatic real time system developed by Balteau. The AIS229 has been designed to
...
do series inspection in a wide variety of industry. Composed of a shielded cabinet, 5 axis manipulator, x-ray generator and tubehead from 160kV to 225kV, a fl at panel & much more, the AIS229 is most certainly one of the most multipurpose RTR system available on the market.
>

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