Архив

Monthly Archives: Март 2014

Дифракционно-временной метод (Time of Flight Diffraction) пока не применяется широко в России, но в мире уже давно шествует с успехом.

Схема TOFD

Схема TOFD

Хочу поделиться коллекцией полезных ссылок касательно нюансов применения этой технологии.

Позаимствовано в основном с сайта NDT.net

Образмеривание TOFD и сравнение с радиографией

Contributor Suresh on ndt.net writes:
However, over the last 20 years, TOFD has probably been used more in validations, round robin trials et cetera than any other NDT technique. From this, we have established that TOFD is probably the most accurate sizing technique for embedded defects presently available to the world. A recent test for a major oil company we did on some 30 rootcracks in thin walled material, which were compared to physical measurements after destructive testing showed a mean error on height sizing for TOFD of 0.27 mm with a standard deviation of 0.7 mm. The X-Ray results obviously did not give any height measurement. On the length measurement the accuracy of TOFD was 2.6 mm, with a standard deviation of 4.5 mm. For X-Ray the accuracy of the length measurement was -19 mm (undersized) with a standard deviation of 43.5 mm. By the way, X-Ray only revealed 55% of the cracks, whereas TOFD found 97%.

http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/10417.html

Проверка показателей назначения по ASME 2235-9

The method of sizing (vertical extent?) for CC2235-9 for examining pressure vessels with a thickness over 13 mm needs to be qualified (demonstrated). It states in i)(3) Flaw Sizing. Flaws shall be sized in accordance with a procedure demonstrated to size similar flaws at similar material depths. Alternatively, a flaw may be sized by a supplemental manual technique so long as it has been qualified by the demonstration above.
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/12163.html

Калибровка мертвой зоны
If I were to bet, this thread is the longest and most frequently asked question with respect to ToFD.
Dead zone — the interval following the excitation pulse in which potential exchoes are obscured by ringdown — is a property of BOTH the probe and the instrument. The response of any transducer is highly dependent on how it its pulsed. Changing pulse energy, type (spike, square wave, or tone burst), and damping, as well as receiver gain and filtering, will have a significant effect on the excitation pulse ringdown envelope and hence on dead zone length. As others have suggested, your best approach is to simply measure it under your actual test conditions using appropriate reference blocks.
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/11193.html
The «missed data» would be the dead zone. This is not actually a function of the wall thickness but instead, the ring time equivalent depth of the pulse. Frequency, probe spacing and angle used can all be factors. A simple calculator is provided as a download on NDT.net to estimate the Dead Zone heights associated with TOFD setups. Go to http://www.ndt.net/article/v10n06/ginzel/ginzel.htm
For it to be 1/3 wall thickness the specimen you are working with is probably very thin.
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/12095.html
Наименьший выявляемый дефект с TOFD

In clean low carbon steel I have “detected” pores on the order of 0.2mm diameter using a 5MHz TOFD. That is on the order of 5-6 times smaller than the wavelength! But when the same TOFD technique is applied to austenitic stainless steel with grain size on the order of 50-100 microns, the scatter makes it virtually impossible to detect anything but the largest of flaws. Grain size in chrome stainless steels are typical of this order of magnitude. (see http://www.ultrasonic.de/abstract/wcndt96/data2/165.htm)

Properties of the materials tested (not just the alloy, since an alloy may be made in many forms of different grain sizes) and the purpose of the test will be critically important factors when considering the answer to your question. We can discuss “theoretical” limits to “detections”; but in UT (including and especially in TOFD) the response of the indication of concern over the background scatter noise from grain structure will be crucial. If you are expecting to RELIABLY “detect” flaws smaller than the grain size you will probably not be successful. The lateral wave will cause you problems at the lower end of thicknesses due to the dead zone (but I have seen shear wave TOFD used on 4mm wall in fine grained zirconium tubing). Thick sections (200-300mm) can also be tested by TOFD but accumulation of scatter increases with increasing soundpaths. In all cases the signal to noise ratio you can achieve will be the limiting factor for practical use of TOFD.
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/11227.html

Сравнение сигналов от непроваров и шлаковых включений

LOF being a planar defect will tend to have a fast rise and fall time, and a short pulse duration. Slag is a volumetric defect and tends to have a slow rise and a long duration. Both defects can cause a beam redirection to the OD or the ID. Also, please realize that as with radiography, you can have several people look at a radiograph and make a slag or a LOF call, and sometimes not all will be in agreement. The same will hold true with UT and Phased Array. If the indication plots to the weld fusion line this probably is side wall lack of fusion. If the indication plots to the weld centerline, line this is probably Slag. Plus, you still analyze Rise and Fall and Pulse Duration.
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/11467.html

Code Case 181
A lot people were searching for the actual code case 181 for ToFD. John O’Brien gave the URL to be as http://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/pdf/CommitteeFiles/15243.pdf on the page
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/12418.html

TOFD как образ жизни =)

Rohit Bafna of TCR Engineering Services wrote:
We perform ToFD Services in India and Saudi Arabia and have a two member team. The first team member does the scanning (we are doing ToFD projects as per API 650 appendix u, Code case 181 for piping as well as code case 2235-9) while the second person has a manual UT machine with him. Prior to the start of any project we give out two documents:
— Procedure for examination
— ToFD operating guide for inspectors which illustrates the step by step machine operations. It also includes the timelines of work during the day. For example we prefer to do the scanning in the morning and reporting in the afternoon.
http://www.ndt.net/wshop/forum/messages-1/12366.html

Применение TOFD c использованием фазированных антенных решеток

C. Brillon, T. Armitt, O. Dupuis. TOFD Inspection with Phased Arrays. 17th World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, 25-28 Oct 2008, Shanghai, China

Я надеюсь в будущем перевести эти фрагменты и дополнять их новыми.

А вот наш доклад на Территории NDT — 2014, включающий в себя результаты изменения профиля толщины под валиком усиления с применением TOFD

Реклама