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 >
Acceptance rejection criteria for UT & RT
Career Discussions
Job Offers
Job Seeks
Classified Ads
About NDT.net
Articles & News

IMechE Engineering Training Solutions
World leading provider of Non-Destructive Testing and Corrosion Prevention and Coatings training, examinations and Level 3 Consultancy Services

1344 views
10:29 Dec-07-2009
Shahid Bangash
Acceptance rejection criteria for UT & RT

Dear Forum members
Acceptance and rejection criteria of welds are similar for RT and UT w.r.t length in different ASME codes. It was observed practically that a slag traced out in RT was declared rejected according to Code but when ultrasound tested the defect echo was found intermittent and had amplitude much lower than that prescibed by code.The situation was observed many times. Although the response echo depends largely on defect geometry but such things should be incorporated into the code to cope with such unseen problems.
Can anyone please help in this regard to find actual problem with a consensus of different techniques.

Best Regards
Shahid Bangash


    
 
12:13 Dec-07-2009

ezio

Other, Retired ex Laboratory Technical Manager
OMECO Research Centre,
Italy,
Joined Sep 2008
273
Re: Acceptance rejection criteria for UT & RT In Reply to Shahid Bangash at 10:29 Dec-07-2009 (Opening).

Dear Shahid,
my opinion is that in the Code you can find many of these uncertainties, but they are accettable if you consider all other uncertainity elements.
In your case I think that you must apply the part of code that is in the contract.
Ciao, Ezio


    
 
14:27 Dec-07-2009

Nigel Armstrong

Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom,
Joined Oct 2000
1094
Re: Acceptance rejection criteria for UT & RT In Reply to Shahid Bangash at 10:29 Dec-07-2009 (Opening).

Hello Shahid

Sorry, I admit that I do not understand your last sentence so my answer is based on the rest of your post.

I agree with Ezio - if RT is the stipulated contractual NDT method then acceptance/rejection is decided by that method. Sometimes if there is doubt over indication characterisation or depth location then a good UT tech can be asked to provide support information only. The RI can choose to use that information for re-evaluation or not but he should be prepared to field awkward questions from any second view, e.g. Authorised or Third Party Inspector. But I would challenge an assessment on the basis of a supplemental test method when, as in the case described, it contradicts the original method.

Imagine if UT were the primary inspection method, and an unacceptable indication located which was then RT'ed and deemed acceptable on the basis of the RT. Though I expect it may have already occured!


    
 
14:31 Dec-09-2009
JB Goradia
Re: Acceptance rejection criteria for UT & RT In Reply to Shahid Bangash at 10:29 Dec-07-2009 (Opening).

Shahid Bangash,
Your experience is at present one side of the coin. One day you will find a lack of fusion or crack not detected in RT will give rise to high UT indication.
To Code-committees this is not an unseen problem.
Best approach is to fulfill contractual obligations.
"the response echo depends largely on defect geometry" is true "but such things should be incorporated into the code to cope with such unseen problems." is not technically true.


    
 
23:35 Dec-09-2009

ezio

Other, Retired ex Laboratory Technical Manager
OMECO Research Centre,
Italy,
Joined Sep 2008
273
Re: Acceptance rejection criteria for UT & RT In Reply to JB Goradia at 14:31 Dec-09-2009 .

Bravo Goradia,
very appropriate your answer
ezio


    
 


© 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|