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 >
Pipeline AUT and Tolerances
Career Discussions
Job Offers
Job Seeks
Classified Ads
About NDT.net
Articles & News

EXTENDE
EXTENDE, optimize your NDT inspections projects thanks to simulation.

6289 views
08:20 Feb-13-2003

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1191
Pipeline AUT and Tolerances

As many forum members may know, I have been actively promoting the
application of mechanised UT (commonly referred to as AUT) as an effective
option to radiography for pipeline girth weld testing. I am happy to see
that many contributions to its advancement have been made by various
service providers and other advocates; however, in the past year or so some
dubious events have occurred that I feel are harmful to the integrity of
the technique.

I hope there are some forum members that might be interested in commenting
on the issue of sizing tolerances. Please see my full article at:
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/attach/aut.htm


Ed Ginzel



 
08:15 Mar-06-2003

Dave Stewart

Other, AUT Technical Support
Oceaneering.com,
Canada,
Joined Jan 2003
2
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances Good Day all,

As we can see there has been no response on this subject, in particular there has been not references forwarded regarding techniques using amplitude that can size a near surface defect accurately to within 0.3mm every time regardless of varying pipe wall thicknesses, defect orientation and slight changes in band position. However there is an AUT company (and consultant) at present that is boasting this sizing accuracy anyway, their sales personnel are passing this info on to their perspective clients. Now considering recent events involving said AUT Company and AUT Consultant I find it strange that they would continue to boast something they can not achieve. If I am wrong about what I have written please correct me.

For the moment I believe the average sizing error for ANY system out there is +/- 1mm using amplitude sizing, again if I am wrong PLEASE correct me. We all know that amplitude sizing policies (not techniques) are a guess at best, why do we continue to allow information to be passed around that we know to be incorrect, fiction if told often enough will become the truth.

Take care

Dave Stewart



 
07:41 Jul-07-2003

mike jones

Consultant
Auto Ut,
United Kingdom,
Joined Jul 2003
4
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances Dave,
I am always fascinated by discussions concerning sizing capabilities of AUT companies.Of more importance is the capability of the interpreter to read the scans.It is currently impossible to independently verify the competence of any AUT inspector. How can an Operating company distinguish between a good AUT inspector and a bad one?



 
04:41 Jul-07-2003

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1191
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances Mike?:
Since I initiated this discussion topic I will take the opportunity to "contribute" as well (although the subject you raise is not exactly what was being discussed it is an interesting topic in itself).
I see you are writing for Auto-UT in the UK. Perhaps you have had opportunity to carry out the girth weld inspection process first-hand using real equipment. You will have noted that the process is multi-faceted and no single aspect can be considered independent of the others...the operator capabilities included. I have witnessed putatively well-trained third party reps make some outrageous statements as they tried to impress others with their specification readings and supposed chart evaluation capabilities.

But a good AUT operator is like any other NDT operator. Some foundations can be provided in a classroom but actual time on the tools and actual field experience are essential. The best method of assessment is a full mock-up with the AUT operator required to explain his way throughevery step of what he is doing, from velocity verifications, and technique designs to calibrating every channel on the system and then running a dozen or more welds under production conditions, i.e. having a crew to oversee, struggling with all the problems of equipment, band placement, coupling flow, thermal variations, flaw assessment and periodic calibration verifications, etc. All this under production time-constraints. Too many companies are worried about the precision of the process. As a result, the efforts to build the mockups have resulted in the mockups being destroyed for a quite separate exercise, i.e. that of POD and sizing accuracy estimates. When used with a sensible reference sensitivity, the guidelines in documents like ASTM E-1961 can provide suitable detection. But a mockup that is well documented allows system after system and operator after operator to be equally assessed. Such a mockup allows the operator abilities to be assessed instead of constantly re-assessing the the Zonal technique.

So, to more succinctly answer your question, How can an Operating company distinguish between a good AUT inspector and a bad one? The answer should be "By observing his "overall" performance on a well documented mockup using REAL welds with REAL flaws."

Ed

: Dave,
: I am always fascinated by discussions concerning sizing capabilities of AUT companies.Of more importance is the capability of the interpreter to read the scans.It is currently impossible to independently verify the competence of any AUT inspector. How can an Operating company distinguish between a good AUT inspector and a bad one?
.



 
06:31 Jul-07-2003

Gerry King

NDT Inspector, Consultant, Trainer
Ontario Power Generation,
Canada,
Joined Apr 2003
4
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances Well said, Ed.

I hope I am not straying too far off the original topic here, but as you said, it is interesting in itself. I would just like to add some notes based on personal experience in the field.

There are AUT companies providing good training programs, but even a two week course only gives a starting point, extensive field experience is still necessary. I personally believe it takes several years to make a good operator.

As AUT companies get busier and busier, there is more and more tendency to push operators into the field before they are ready. Another factor I have run across recently is the entry of young operators that have only worked in AUT and have no experience in manual scanning. It has been my experience that the best operators came to the industry after years of experience in manual UT.

The Pipeline Owners do hire third party reps to oversee the AUT inspection, but things don't get any better there. People like myself with extensive experience in NDT and AUT are few and far between. Many are welding inspectors that have been told to go into the air-conditioned room and watch the screen. Some do make a concerted effort to learn, but there is an awful lot to catch up on. (remember I said a good operator takes years to develop, a third party rep will not take any less) And since inexperienced people can be hired less expensively than well trained ones, that's usually what happens.

Your solution of a full mockup with the Operator having to explain his way through every step under production conditions is valid, but considering the costs and time involved and the likelihood of failing existing operators at a time when the industry is very busy, I don't see it happening soon.

Again, I hope I haven't strayed too far from the original topic, but this issue is very important to me.

Gerry


: Mike?:
: Since I initiated this discussion topic I will take the opportunity to "contribute" as well (although the subject you raise is not exactly what was being discussed it is an interesting topic in itself).
: I see you are writing for Auto-UT in the UK. Perhaps you have had opportunity to carry out the girth weld inspection process first-hand using real equipment. You will have noted that the process is multi-faceted and no single aspect can be considered independent of the others...the operator capabilities included. I have witnessed putatively well-trained third party reps make some outrageous statements as they tried to impress others with their specification readings and supposed chart evaluation capabilities.
.
: But a good AUT operator is like any other NDT operator. Some foundations can be provided in a classroom but actual time on the tools and actual field experience are essential. The best method of assessment is a full mock-up with the AUT operator required to explain his way through every step of what he is doing, from velocity verifications, and technique designs to calibrating every channel on the system and then running a dozen or more welds under production conditions, i.e. having a crew to oversee, struggling with all the problems of equipment, band placement, coupling flow, thermal variations, flaw assessment and periodic calibration verifications, etc. All this under production time-constraints. Too many companies are worried about the precision of the process. As a result, the efforts to build the mockups have resulted in the mockups being destroyed for a quite separate exercise, i.e. that of POD and sizing accuracy estimates. When used with a sensible reference sensitivity, the guidelines in documents like ASTM E-1961 can provide suitable detection. But a mockup that is well documented allows system after system and operator after operator to be equally assessed. Such a mockup allows the operator abilities to be assessed instead of constantly re-assessing the the Zonal technique.
.
: So, to more succinctly answer your question, How can an Operating company distinguish between a good AUT inspector and a bad one? The answer should be "Byobserving his "overall" performance on a well documented mockup using REAL welds with REAL flaws."
.
: Ed
:
: : Dave,
: : I am always fascinated by discussions concerning sizing capabilities of AUT companies.Of more importance is the capability of the interpreter to read the scans.It is currently impossible to independently verify the competence of any AUT inspector. How can an Operating company distinguish between a good AUT inspector and a bad one?
: .
.



 
00:02 Jul-08-2003

Terry Oldberg

Engineering, Mechanical Electrical Nuclear Software
Consultant,
USA,
Joined Oct 1999
42
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances >Ed Ginzel wrote:
>So, to more succinctly answer your question, How can >an Operating company distinguish between a good AUT >inspector and a bad one? The answer should be "By >observing his "overall" performance on a well >documented mockup using REAL welds with REAL flaws."

Ed's response begs the question of how to generalize the results of such an experiment. Unfortunately, question does not have a satisfactory answer when the inspector is engaged in defect detection.

The standard approach to generalization in trials of tests is to estimate the false negative and false positive error probabilities in a statistical population by measuring them in a random sample. That such a sample is drawn randomly allows one to know the confidence bounds on the values of the two error probabilities.

This standard approach cannot be taken when the test under trial does defect detection, for the statistical population is severely malformed. It follows that an operating company is quite limited in its abilityto distinguish a good AUT inspector from a bad one.


 
00:03 Jul-08-2003

GRP

Consultant
TWI,
United Kingdom,
Joined May 2001
15
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances : Dave,
: I am always fascinated by discussions concerning sizing capabilities of AUT companies.Of more importance is the capability of the interpreter to read the scans.It is currently impossible to independently verify the competence of any AUT inspector. How can an Operating company distinguish between a good AUT inspector and a bad one?
.

There is now a course being run by TWI in the UK that will ensure that all inspectors are trained to a common level of competence.





 
00:35 Jul-08-2003

Uli Mletzko

R & D, Retired
Germany,
Joined Nov 1998
89
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances : So, to more succinctly answer your question, How can an Operating company distinguish between a good AUT inspector and a bad one? The answer should be "By observing his "overall" performance on a well documented mockup using REAL welds with REAL flaws."

In my opinion, we should make a difference between ferritic carbon steels with isotrope structure on one side, and austenitic stainless steels/nickel alloys/bimetallic welds on the other side.

For ferritic carbon steels, we have well established UT techniques, and we have several companies around the world, which are able to produce mockups with realistic flaws of known type and size. So we can keep our mockups for a long time and can re-use them.

For ASST etc., we might have a problem to find a siutable NDT technique to control the flaw growth during manufacturing. Think of REAL IGSCC, were some of the mockup companies will have difficulties to manufacture it. So, for NDT performance demonstration on ASST specimens, due to my opinion it's better to make a destructive verification of the flaws from time to time, then to re-evaluate the NDT test, now with knowledge of the metallographic truth, and to manufacture some new specimens. Of course this is expensive, but IMHO the only reliable way.

Regards
Uli Mletzko,
NDT group, MPA,
University of Stuttgart (Germany)




 
08:23 Jul-08-2003

rodney fordham

Consultant
United Kingdom,
Joined Feb 2002
12
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances If the world-wide NDT industry was seriously interested
in establishing some level of confidence in the
standards of reliability achieved by AUT inspectors
then a process of independent accreditation would have
been instituted long ago. However this would involve
a high cost and the likelihood of failure of some
candidates/applicants.

The accreditation process would necessitate practical
operation under realistic conditions and would require
the performance of a statistically significant group
of each kind of defect detection and sizing.

Success in the accreditation would result for the
candidates who achieved acceptable probabilities
in each of [genuine positives], [false positives],
and [false negatives], as a fundamental requirement,
with a defined standard for sizing etc. of [genuine
positives].

But will it ever happen???

: : So, to more succinctly answer your question, How can an Operating company distinguish between a good AUT inspector and a badone? The answer should be "By observing his "overall" performance on a well documented mockup using REAL welds with REAL flaws."
.
: In my opinion, we should make a difference between ferritic carbon steels with isotrope structure on one side, and austenitic stainless steels/nickel alloys/bimetallic welds on the other side.
.
: For ferritic carbon steels, we have well established UT techniques, and we have several companies around the world, which are able to produce mockups with realistic flaws of known type and size. So we can keep our mockups for a long time and can re-use them.
.
: For ASST etc., we might have a problem to find a siutable NDT technique to control the flaw growth during manufacturing. Think of REAL IGSCC, were some of the mockup companies will have difficulties to manufacture it. So, for NDT performance demonstration on ASST specimens, due to my opinion it's better to make a destructive verification of the flaws from time to time, then to re-evaluate the NDT test, nowwith knowledge of the metallographic truth, and to manufacture some new specimens. Of course this is expensive, but IMHO the only reliable way.
.
: Regards
: Uli Mletzko,
: NDT group, MPA,
: University of Stuttgart (Germany)
.



 
00:08 Jul-15-2003

mike

Consultant
Auto Ut,
United Kingdom,
Joined Jul 2003
4
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances Unfortunately the TWI program is only for people who work on RD-tech equipment and its not approved by any operating company..

There were mandatory certification requirements for the radiographic interpreters that AUT inspectors have replaced. AUT people only need to attend an internal training program.

This must be because industry believes that AUT is truly automatic and anyone can do it.
The reality is that mechanised ut is a very poweful technique but the interpretation of the computer generated strip charts requires sophisticated simulation training.

How many AUT people are independently tested on their interpreation skills before working on a pipeline?

How many are given a test for color blindness?

A simulation training and competency tool has been developed by www.auto-ut.co.uk which can assess the competency of all AUT interpreters. Its a piece of software that can run on any Pentium 3. This simulator simulates real welds and defects and simulates real equipment.
It offers a solution to testing not just on the ability to read a scan but more importantly to understand the underlying setup.

It has also been approved by Transco British Gas for training with Ruane and TP Oneil


.



 
03:57 Jul-15-2003

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1191
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances Just a note of correction on your comment on the TWI programme. The materials presented in that programme are based on the generic requirements as described in ASTM E-1961. In fact, materials used include a presentation made to ASTM using examples from all service companies active at the time of development of E-1961. E-1961 made its objective to standardise the requirements and presentations used in the industry so issues, such as you are suggesting as impediments, do NOT occur.

What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying that 'because you trained for manual UT on a Staveley portable unit you would not be able to analyse A-scans on an Epoch or USN'.

Most of the technicians I have dealt with in this industry have worked on at least 2 and some as many as 4 different systems. THe transition is merely a matter of learning the software menus since all the other principles are the same.


: Unfortunately the TWI program is only for people who work on RD-tech equipment and its not approved byany operating company..
.
: There were mandatory certification requirements for the radiographic interpreters that AUT inspectors have replaced. AUT people only need to attend an internal training program.
.
: This must be because industry believes that AUT is truly automatic and anyone can do it.
: The reality is that mechanised ut is a very poweful technique but the interpretation of the computer generated strip charts requires sophisticated simulation training.
.
: How many AUT people are independently tested on their interpreation skills before working on a pipeline?
.
: How many are given a test for color blindness?
.
: A simulation training and competency tool has been developed by www.auto-ut.co.uk which can assess the competency of all AUT interpreters. Its a piece of software that can run on any Pentium 3. This simulator simulates real welds and defects and simulates real equipment.
: It offers a solution to testing not just on the ability to read a scan but more importantly to understand the underlying setup.
.
: It has also been approved by Transco British Gas for training with Ruane and TP Oneil
.
.
:
: .
.



 
04:28 Jul-16-2003
Bill Brown
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances I find it difficult to believe that TWI would invest the time and money presenting a professional training course on AUT for this course not to be recognised. Given the choice of attending a TWI course (Long established world renowned centre for NDT training) or a course ran by a newly established company with no credibility in the world of NDT (auto-UT)I feel most people would feel more comfortable attending the TWI course.


Unfortunately the TWI program is only for people who work on RD-tech equipment and its not approved by any operating company..
.
: There were mandatory certification requirements for the radiographic interpreters that AUT inspectors have replaced. AUT people only need to attend an internal training program.
.
: This must be because industry believes that AUT is truly automatic and anyone can do it.
: The reality is that mechanised ut is a very poweful technique but the interpretation of the computer generated strip charts requires sophisticated simulation training.
.
: How many AUT people are independently tested on their interpreation skills before working on a pipeline?
.
: How many are given a test for color blindness?
.
: A simulation training and competency tool has been developed by www.auto-ut.co.uk which can assess the competency of all AUT interpreters. Its a piece of software that can run on any Pentium 3. This simulator simulates real welds and defects and simulates real equipment.
: It offers a solution to testing not just on the ability to read a scan but more importantly to understand the underlying setup.
.
: It has also been approved by Transco British Gas for training with Ruane and TP Oneil
.
.
:
: .
.



 
01:56 Jul-17-2003

mike jones

Consultant
Auto Ut,
United Kingdom,
Joined Jul 2003
4
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances : I find it difficult to believe that TWI would invest the time and money presenting a professional training course on AUT for this course not to be recognised. Given the choice of attending a TWI course (Long established world renowned centre for NDT training) or a course ran by a newly established company with no credibility in the world of NDT (auto-UT)I feel most people would feel more comfortable attending the TWI course.

www.auto-ut.co.uk is not a training company.They produce simulation software for ultrasonic training companies. TWI use their software in training at Cambridge(Genesis Probemaster)and have been using it for 2 years -for manual ut only.


.
.
:



 
03:36 Jul-17-2003
Marcel Madison
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances : Just a note of correction on your comment on the TWI programme. The materials presented in that programme are based on the generic requirements as described in ASTM E-1961. In fact, materials used include a presentation made to ASTM using examples from all service companies active at the time of development of E-1961. E-1961 made its objective to standardise the requirements and presentations used in the industry so issues, such as you are suggesting as impediments, do NOT occur.
.
: What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying that 'because you trained for manual UT on a Staveley portable unit you would not be able to analyse A-scans on an Epoch or USN'.
.
: Most of the technicians I have dealt with in this industry have worked on at least 2 and some as many as 4 different systems. THe transition is merely a matter of learning the software menus since all the other principles are the same.
.
:
:.The TWI program is excellent,but unlike other programs it has not yet been approved by an operating company Fortunately TWI are able to draw on the resources of Ed Ginzel,one of the worlds leading experts in RD-tech systems.

Although the worlds leading AUT companies use similar displays there is a significant difference between Phased array sytems like RD-tech and the others.

It is certainly true that technicians who have only been trained on analog systems COULD have great difficulty in understanding digital systems,such as the Epoch.
There is very little training to transition technicians from one system to the next.What often happens is that an analog trained technician is given a set he may not have seen before together with an operating manual and he is told to get on with it.Technicians who are not comfortable with computers might find the operating manual heavy going and there is no mechanism to prove that the digital sets are being used correctly,a factor which has recently come to the attention of the HSE.
One solution to the problem is to offer accredited simulation training and testing in digital equipment.(particularly for the baby boomber generation who may have problems programing the video player.)


:


 
06:16 Jul-17-2003

mike jones

Consultant
Auto Ut,
United Kingdom,
Joined Jul 2003
4
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances : If the world-wide NDT industry was seriously interested
: in establishing some level of confidence in the
: standards of reliability achieved by AUT inspectors
: then a process of independent accreditation would have
: been instituted long ago. However this would involve
: a high cost and the likelihood of failure of some
: candidates/applicants.
.

Fortunately there is now a practical low cost alternative to real weld operator testing in AUT A major UK training company has now been approved by British Gas Transco to accredit pipeline inspectors using an AUT simulator.
The breakthrough is the Genesis(AUTO-Ut) simulator which employs virtual welds ,virtual defects and virtual equipment.Every AUT inspector can now be independently qualified in every part of the world at a price which is significantly less than the price of an offshore survival certificate




 
05:56 Jul-18-2003
Bill Brown
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances : : I find it difficult to believe that TWI would invest the time and money presenting a professional training course on AUT for this course not to be recognised. Given the choice of attending a TWI course (Long established world renowned centre for NDT training) or a course ran by a newly established company with no credibility in the world of NDT (auto-UT)I feel most people would feel more comfortable attending the TWI course.
.
: www.auto-ut.co.uk is not a training company.They produce simulation software for ultrasonic training companies. TWI use their software in training at Cambridge(Genesis Probemaster)and have been using it for 2 years -for manual ut only.

I must thank you for clearing up the auto-ut position on training, the only small discrepancy I can see in the above is the fact on your own web site you refer to a press release. If I may quote from the press release ' TRAINING SPECIALISTS Auto-ut based in Newton-Abbot' is the press release refering to another company with the identical name to your own. Whilst on the subject why is it that 'auto-ut' spend so much time and effort telephoning ut operators in an attempt to fill positions on training courses, hardly the actions of a company which is NOT a training company.
:
:
: .
: .
: :
.



 
02:32 Jul-19-2003
colin rawlinson
AUTO-Ut training simulator .
: .
: : www.auto-ut.co.uk is not a training company.They produce simulation software for ultrasonic training companies. TWI use their software in training at Cambridge(Genesis Probemaster)and have been using it for 2 years -for manual ut only.
.
: I must thank you for clearing up the auto-ut position on training, the only small discrepancy I can see in the above is the fact on your own web site you refer to a press release. If I may quote from the press release ' TRAINING SPECIALISTS Auto-ut based in Newton-Abbot' is the press release refering to another company with the identical name to your own. Whilst on the subject why is it that 'auto-ut' spend so much time and effort telephoning ut operators in an attempt to fill positions on training courses, hardly the actions of a company which is NOT a training company.


Auto-ut Ltd operate a global licencing partnership for training establishments that need to use the worlds only true to life UT simulator for manual and mechanised UT.They donot offer training programs for individuals seeking qualifications, although in partnership with associates they will have trained over 100 people in AUT by the end of 2003.
Simulation training for people in NDT will not be an optional extra in the future it will be mandatory.
Employers and individuals will demand training which does not focus on chalk and talk- and they will select institutions that offer state of the art tuition wherever that training may be.
The Genesis Auto-ut simulator offers the potential for training "any time any place any where"
This is a radical solution to remote learning and makes training more interesting for the diminishing number of young people who want to join the industry.
We have the ability to achieve understanding with a simulator not just an exam pass.

: :
: : .
: : .
: : :
: .
.



 
03:09 Jul-19-2003
marcel
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances : : : I find it difficult to believe that TWI would invest the time and money presenting a professional training course on AUT for this course not to be recognised. Given the choice of attending a TWI course (Long established world renowned centre for NDT training) or a course ran by a newly established company with no credibility in the world of NDT (auto-UT)I feel most people would feel more comfortable attending the TWI course.
: .
: : www.auto-ut.co.uk is not a training company.They produce simulation software for ultrasonic training companies. TWI use their software in training at Cambridge(Genesis Probemaster)and have been using it for 2 years -for manual ut only.
.
: I must thank you for clearing up the auto-ut position on training, the only small discrepancy I can see in the above is the fact on your own web site you refer to a press release. If I may quote from the press release ' TRAINING SPECIALISTS Auto-ut based in Newton-Abbot' is the press release refering to another company with the identical name to your own. Whilst on the subject why is it that 'auto-ut' spend so much time and effort telephoning ut operators in an attempt to fill positions on training courses, hardly the actions of a company which is NOT a training company.
: :
Auto-ut offer simulation training solutions for UT training companies and they work in partnership with global training companies who are licenced to use their system .They receive over 300 enquiries a month for training in AUT and these people are directed to alliance partners.
One of their senior consultants offers 3 day AUT worksop tutorials in bootcamps around the world using the Genesis of UT simulators.This a a great training tool for people who need to understand the method.

: : .
: : .
: : :
: .
.



 
04:51 Jul-21-2003
Dave Stewart
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances Mike,

I have seen the AUTO UT software as you know. I have had a chance to sit down and go through some of the functions. As a simulator for manual scanning I think it is great, it gives the individual an idea of how a few different sets work as well as the basic fundamentals.

As far as Automated Ultrasonic Testing is concerned, for example RTD, Shaw, RD Tech equipment it may give a bit of an understanding but now being involved with an inspection company and not RD Tech I would not accept an application to use an individual based on an AUTO UT course. For an individual to become qualified he or she must prove themselves on real equipment and real software, simulations are a long way from reality. I would however accept an individual that has taken the TWI course simply because of the fundamentals taught and the actual hands on with AUT equipment (RD Tech or not). I have individuals working at the moment that have not used the RD Tech system before BUT have been involved with Shaw equipment, RTD equipment or Weldsonix equipment. The problems and variables experienced during inspection are somewhat similar between the different types of equipment. An individual that has taken the AUTO UT course using the simulator would still have to start from scratch if employed by an AUT company. Individuals seeking employment in the AUT industry as operators would still be required to attend the TWI course or a two to three week in-house course. I also have trained some individuals in Transco and found that in most cases the light does not come on until they have actual hands on with the system (which ever it may be). The AUTO UT simulation is very interesting but can not be used as a screening tool or proof of ability when it comes to running systems.

These views are of my own of course but I do not think I am alone in this line of thinking


Dave Stewart
PWZPA System Specialist
Oceaneering.

: : If the world-wide NDT industry was seriously interested
: : in establishing some level ofconfidence in the
: : standards of reliability achieved by AUT inspectors
: : then a process of independent accreditation would have
: : been instituted long ago. However this would involve
: : a high cost and the likelihood of failure of some
: : candidates/applicants.
: .
.
: Fortunately there is now a practical low cost alternative to real weld operator testing in AUT A major UK training company has now been approved by British Gas Transco to accredit pipeline inspectors using an AUT simulator.
: The breakthrough is the Genesis(AUTO-Ut) simulator which employs virtual welds ,virtual defects and virtual equipment.Every AUT inspector can now be independently qualified in every part of the world at a price which is significantly less than the price of an offshore survival certificate
.



 
02:33 Jul-22-2003
Ivan Pinson
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances As Manager of TWI’s Training and Examination Department I have noted with interest the on going discussions on this thread and feel it necessary to clarify one or two points raised. I also apologise in advance if this posting in any way appears to be an advert for TWI as I feel that a number of people are already blatantly utilising this forum for advertising their own services.

Concerning the comments that our course is only for people working on RD-tech equipment and not approved by any operating company. TWI at present delivers two courses in this area, a one week Auto UT interpretation course and a 2 week course for technicians who actually perform inspections. The first utilises the RD-Tech viewer system to present the data and the second is based around the RD-Tech PipeWizard system. Both of these courses have been developed in conjunction with RD-Tech and draw heavily upon the knowledge, experience and information built up by RD-Tech, their personnel and their consultants such as Ed Ginzel. All of the data utilised during the courses comes from real scans obtained from pipeline projects, interpreted by technicians with a wealth of experience. Our views are similar to those stated by Dave Stewart in that whilst utilising RD-Tech equipment we are training students in the fundamentals of the method, presenting them with real data and equipment and through this allowing them to develop skills which will be transferable across all systems.

Whilst welcoming the support of RD-Tech and encouraging other organisations to participate in the development of our courses we ensure that our courses are independent of any operating company. TWI as an organisation is ISO 9001:2000 approved and accredited by the British Institute of NDT. Likewise the ISO 9712 examinations offered by TWI for personnel operating in this field are under the CSWIP scheme which has been accredited by the Department of Trade and Industry through the United Kingdom Accreditation Scheme (UKAS). These are endorsements in which we place greater value than those from operating companies with their own vested interests.

On the question of simulation software, TWI does own and use the original Genesis manual UT software during our manual ultrasonic courses and I again agree with the comments made by Dave Stewart on its quality. I also endorse the comments made elsewhere on this thread that mechanised ultrasonic inspection is a very powerful technique and that it requires sophisticated training. This has driven us down the line of working closely with RD-Tech and recognised experts in the field such as Ed Ginzel to ensure that people trained by TWI and holding CSWIP qualifications are capable and competent. I have to state however that I feel simulation software to be incapable of adequately training a technician to operate under real life conditions as it is simply that, a simulation.




 
05:07 Jul-22-2003
colin rawlins
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances :CSWIP qualifications are capable and competent. I have to state however that I feel simulation software to be incapable of adequately training a technician to operate under real life conditions as it is simply that, a simulation.
:
I am the recuitment and personnel development director of auto-ut (FCIPD) and I would like to mention that simulation software has been used to train airline pilots since ww11.Today it is an essential part of training and pilots need to prove their skills on the real equipment as well as on the flight simulator.
"Zero flight time" training is cost effective and more adaptable,since it allows the student to experiment with an infinite variety of typical and untypical situations.
Simulation training can also play a pivotal role in training inspectors to understand a typical computer generated AUT strip chart.
The Genesis auto-ut simulator is only for training people to understand AUT strip chart presentations . (not the mechanics)What the QC inspector sees in the viewing room is very similar to what he sees on the Genesis simulator.The principal difference is that the simulator gives him the ability to "see" thru the metal and understand the underlying set up.
Simulations are used to plan wars,train fighter pilots,develop business strategies.........Many people DO believe that simulations can train people to understand the real world.
Current AUT training is highly sophisticated and run by world class players,who like to use"best in class " tuition.
Simulation training, like AUT is another tool in the box.





 
03:50 Jul-22-2003
gareth arnold
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances : :CSWIP qualifications are capable and competent. I have to state however that I feel simulation software to be incapable of adequately training a technician to operate under real life conditions as it is simply that, a simulation.
: :
Ivan Pinson is correct.I have been a client inspector
for 3 years and I have viewed the RTD and RD-tech systems.All my traing was given on the laybarge by the ndt company and thats how we all learn it. The best training is on real equipment on the pipeline.Client inspectors only need to understand TOFD and they are all the same.I dont need to challenge the ndt company as I did with X-ray because 3rd party inspection is not so critical and only the ndt company can fully understand all the channels.
The very low repair rates in AUT prove that traditional hands on training works.
Some friends in KL need training where is the nearest training centre in Asia?


 
04:45 Jul-24-2003
Dave Stewart
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances I agree flight simulators are important, however no pilot has earned his wings from a simulator.

Dave

: I am the recuitment and personnel development director of auto-ut (FCIPD) and I would like to mention that simulation software has been used to train airline pilots since ww11.Today it is an essential part of training and pilots need to prove their skills on the real equipment as well as on the flight simulator.
: "Zero flight time" training is cost effective and more adaptable,since it allows the student to experiment with an infinite variety of typical and untypical situations.
: Simulation training can also play a pivotal role in training inspectors to understand a typical computer generated AUT strip chart.
: The Genesis auto-ut simulator is only for training people to understand AUT strip chart presentations . (not the mechanics)What the QC inspector sees in the viewing room is very similar to what he sees on the Genesis simulator.The principal difference is that the simulator gives him the ability to "see" thru the metal and understand the underlying set up.
: Simulations are used to plan wars,train fighter pilots,develop business strategies.........Many people DO believe that simulations can train people to understand the real world.
: Current AUT training is highly sophisticated and run by world class players,who like to use"best in class " tuition.
: Simulation training, like AUT is another tool in the box.
.
:
:
.



 
04:50 Jul-24-2003
Dave Stewart
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances It is strange how we have ended up debating over simulation software when the original topic was the apparent ability of some AUT systems to size surface and near surface defects to within 0.3 of a millimetre, regardless of varying wall thickness, band placement or defect orientation. Perhaps we should attempt to get back on track.

Dave


 
09:55 Sep-17-2003
Paul Moore
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances I realize this is a rather dead thread. It is unfortunate that it resulted in a debate on the relative merits of AUT simulation programs.

I just thought I'd offer a short comment that may shed some light on the validity of these sizing claims. I don't believe it is highlighted in the marketing package.

The defect sizing claims may be achievable if you add a short disclaimer. Of course, given this condition, I imagine all the AUT systems would be capable of producing similar results. The sizing accuracies are only valid for fusion defects that leave the original bevel profile unaltered. Ther goes the type and orientation issue. So, given SCR fit-up tolerances and counter-bored, matched pipe you've got a fighting chance.

For example, assume an auto-GMAW weld using an internal copper-backed clamp and a zero-gap j-bevel prep with a root face of 2mm. To detect ID surface defects, the root probes would be re-fired on 0.5mm, 1mm and 2mm notches. This will supply signals within the FSH range for the entire root face (no dB drops used). If you consider that the claimed sizing is valid only for defects that leave the bevel profile intact, then the only measureable defect is incomplete penetration. How easy is that? You will receive signal response from both root probes, You have an upper limit of 2mm and a lower limit established by the evaluation threshold. TOFD will carry on above the root zone. The defect will be identical in position and orientation to the root notches. Such sizing should be achievable with the appropriate set-up.

I realize it is slightly absurd, but it does have some validity. I know a lot of hair tonic is sold this way.

What is more worrisome is what happens to defects that aren't on the bevel face.

Regards,
Paul

: It is strange how we have ended up debating over simulation software when the original topic was the apparent ability of some AUT systems to size surface and near surface defects to within 0.3 of a millimetre, regardless of varying wall thickness, band placement or defect orientation. Perhaps we should attempt to get back on track.
.
: Dave
.



 
04:45 Sep-18-2003

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1191
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances Paul:
Thanks for the posting on the NDT.net on the subject this was originally intended to address. Your statement is a fair assessment of reality.
Essentially the condition you describe provides an estimate that would be the same as running the scanner over the calibration block with the only variable being the band placement (providing the flaw is longer than the beam). Material "removal" at the root, that leaves the bevel face altered, would not be applicable to the proviso you made! i.e. the nature of the flaw dictates how close the size estimate can be.

With the proviso you stated this makes for an even playing field and all systems can demonstrate responses on notches that are similar. If specifications CLEARLY stipulated this condition then the notion that only a few "select operators" on a "single system" could achieve this could be displelled and we could get back to NDT instead of partisan politics.
Ed
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I realize this is a rather dead thread. It is unfortunate that it resulted in a debate on the relative merits of AUT simulation programs.
: I just thought I'd offer a short comment that may shed some light on the validity of these sizing claims. I don't believe it is highlighted in the marketing package.
: The defect sizing claims may be achievable if you add a short disclaimer. Of course, given this condition, I imagine all the AUT systems would be capable of producing similar results. The sizing accuracies are only valid for fusion defects that leave the original bevel profile unaltered. Ther goes the type and orientation issue. So, given SCR fit-up tolerances and counter-bored, matched pipe you've got a fighting chance.
: For example, assume an auto-GMAW weld using an internal copper-backed clamp and a zero-gap j-bevel prep with a root face of 2mm. To detect ID surface defects, the root probes would be re-fired on 0.5mm, 1mm and 2mm notches. This will supply signals within the FSH range for the entire root face (no dB drops used). If you consider that the claimed sizing is valid only for defects that leave the bevel profile intact, then the only measureable defect is incomplete penetration. How easy is that? You will receive signal response from both root probes, You have an upper limit of 2mm and a lower limit established by the evaluation threshold. TOFD will carry on above the root zone. The defect will be identical in position and orientation to the root notches. Such sizing should be achievable with the appropriate set-up.
: I realize it is slightly absurd, but it does have some validity. I know a lot of hair tonic is sold this way.
: What is more worrisome is what happens to defects that aren't on the bevel face.
: Regards,
: Paul
: : It is strange how we have ended up debating over simulation software when the original topic was the apparent ability of some AUT systems to size surface and near surface defects to within 0.3 of a millimetre, regardless of varying wall thickness, band placement or defect orientation. Perhaps we should attempt to get back on track.
: .
: : Dave
: .
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
00:13 Sep-23-2003
Gerry King
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances Perhaps this is a dead thread, but I think we should try to revive it!

You make a very good point, Paul, in saying that the validity of the sizing claims is only valid for defects that leave the original bevel face unaltered. The question then is how often does that happen in the course of usual production. Over the course of the last few years I have seen many macros of production welds and the defects I have seen seldom conform to a nice flat bevel face profile. I believe that a good manual UT technician with good equipment and all the time in the world would be able to give you a fairly good approximation of the vertical extent of almost any defect, but that situation is not viable in the pipeline situations of today. I'm not sure where the answer lies, but I believe this to be a very important discussion.

Gerry King

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I realize this is a rather dead thread. It is unfortunate that it resulted in a debate on the relative merits of AUT simulation programs.
: I just thought I'd offer a short comment that may shed some light on the validity of these sizing claims. I don't believe it is highlighted in the marketing package.
: The defect sizing claims may be achievable if you add a short disclaimer. Of course, given this condition, I imagine all the AUT systems would be capable of producing similar results. The sizing accuracies are only valid for fusion defects that leave the original bevel profile unaltered. Ther goes the type and orientation issue. So, given SCR fit-up tolerances and counter-bored, matched pipe you've got a fighting chance.
: For example, assume an auto-GMAW weld using an internal copper-backed clamp and a zero-gap j-bevel prep with a root face of 2mm. To detect ID surface defects, the root probes would be re-fired on 0.5mm, 1mm and 2mm notches. This will supply signals within the FSH range for the entire root face (no dB drops used). If you consider that the claimed sizing is valid only for defects that leave the bevel profile intact, then the only measureable defect is incomplete penetration. How easy is that? You will receive signal response from both root probes, You have an upper limit of 2mm and a lower limit established by the evaluation threshold. TOFD will carry on above the root zone. The defect will be identical in position and orientation to the root notches. Such sizing should be achievable with the appropriate set-up.
: I realize it is slightly absurd, but it does have some validity. I know a lot of hair tonic is sold this way.
: What is more worrisome is what happens to defects that aren't on the bevel face.
: Regards,
: Paul
: : It is strange how we have ended up debating over simulation software when the original topic was the apparent ability of some AUT systems to size surface and near surface defects to within 0.3 of a millimetre, regardless of varying wall thickness, band placement or defect orientation. Perhaps we should attempt to get back on track.
: .
: : Dave
: .
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
13:08 Jun-18-2012

Anirudhan

NDT Inspector, Tube inspector
Oceaneering,
India,
Joined Jun 2011
1
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances In Reply to mike jones at 07:41 Jul-07-2003 .

Hi all,

Here anybody is able to advise me about the availability of training for AUT in Asia. May i know the training providers details

 
19:21 Jun-18-2012
Sudheer Jai Krishnan
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances In Reply to Anirudhan at 13:08 Jun-18-2012 .

AUT (if you ask for Pipe line girth weld testing instruments)

I believe that the manufacturers are the ones who provide training on AUT equipments. What is the equipment that you are having?

 
22:30 Jun-18-2012

Michael Moles †2014 *1948

,
Joined

Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances In Reply to Sudheer Jai Krishnan at 19:21 Jun-18-2012 .

Hi, Amrudan:
If it's for a training on AUT equipment (PWZ) : AbsoluteNDE can do it.
If it's for a training on AUT Analysis (PCN type) : Lavender can do it.
You can find both of these two companies listed on the Olympus NDT web site (www.olympus-ims.com)
Michael Moles

 
23:26 Jun-18-2012

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1191
Re: Pipeline AUT and Tolerances In Reply to Anirudhan at 13:08 Jun-18-2012 .

Anirudhan, the only AUT training that involves a certification is with TWI

If it is equipment specific training you require I can recommend Eclipse Scientific Instruments. Eclipse is also authorised to provide CSWIP certification training

 


© 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|