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 -

1164 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

    
 
 
Nigel Armstrong
Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom, Joined Oct 2000, 1094

Nigel Armstrong

Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom,
Joined Oct 2000
1094
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.

    
 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1229

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1229
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.

    
 
 
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)?

    
 
 
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?

    
 
 

Product Spotlight

FMC/TFM

Next generation for Phased Array UT is here now with FMC/TFM! Have higher resolution imaging, impr
...
oved signal to noise ratio, characterize, size and analyze defects better with access to several wave mode views and save raw FMC data for higher quality analysis.  Some of the benefits are:
  • Beautiful Image! Easier to understand what you're looking at
  • Completely focused in entire image or volume
  • Much easier to define setups before inspection
  • Easier to decipher geometry echoes from real defects
  • Oriented defects (e.g. cracks) are imaged better
  • See image from different wave modes from one FMC inspection
  • FMC data can be reprocessed/analyzed without going back to the field
>

PROlineTOP Plug & Play Ultrasonic inspection device

As Plug & Play solution it units all control and operation elements in a small housing and therefo
...
re replaces the typical control cabinet...
>

NDT.net launches mobile-friendly design

NDT.net has revamped its website providing a mobile-friendly design.The front page received a comp
...
letely new design and all other sections are now reacting responsively on mobile devices. This has been a major step to make our website more user- friendly.
>

IntraPhase Athena Phased Array System

The Athena Phased Array system, manufactured by WesDyne NDE Products & Technology, consists of a pha
...
sed array acquisition system and PC running IntraSpect software. A PC is used to perform acquisition, analysis and storage of the data. System hardware is capable of operating up to four data sets with any combination of phased array or conventional UT probes. NOW AVAILABLE IN 64-64 CONFIGURATION.
>

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