Repair Weld Cracking

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 01-05-2007 20:07

Have you tried PT on that same PC. It would be interesting to see.

By hogan

Date 01-05-2007 21:24

or a wfmt, to show the sensitivity differance between the two methods.

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-06-2007 03:38

Please explain what wfmt is.

By hogan

Date 01-08-2007 19:52

there are two main types of mt dry, and wet - wfmt(wet floursent mag testing)
zyglo, magnaflux, magnaglo are just company names

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-09-2007 04:54

Thanks for getting back with a response. I teach the process verbiage, as I used them when I was in industry; dry mag and a wet mag. All the processes I mentioned are proprietary nomenclature of MAGNAFLUX. The FLUORESCENT method, with the black light, was very intersting to the students.

By hogan

Date 01-09-2007 15:57

this is one of those little things that annoy me, for some reason. we all seem to know the proper terms and definitions for welding. but the terminology for ndt is not as well known. mt= magnetic particle testing. calling it a magnaflux test would be like calling a weld a hobart weld. nothing personal, just one of my pet peeves

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-09-2007 16:14

: same here, I see it called that a lot in the automotive industry...(ie. magnafluxing heads and blocks for cracks)

By new tito (***)

Date 01-09-2007 17:18

Some terms I've seen on dwgs and terms people have used:

Penetrant (PT) - LPT, LP, dye check, dye pen

Magnetic Particle (MT) - MP, MPT, magnaflux

These are the most common I've heard, and I have heard them very often. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who gets peeved over the improper use of terminology, or using brand names for the method. I know I'm not perfect with alot of my terminology sometimes.....BUT GET IT RIGHT PEOPLE!!!!!!!! j/k :)

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-09-2007 17:24

The one gets gets me is when someone here at work knows that I UT all of our CJPs, yet when they finish welding, they call me over to say that they are ready for me to X-ray.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 01-09-2007 17:36

yep and even more than that, they probably really didn't mean x-ray but rather gamma ray, lol!!!

By hogan

Date 01-09-2007 17:48

glad to see i'm not alone on this

By new tito (***)

Date 01-09-2007 19:33

Oh, one more - I can't stand....aggrevates the heck outta me......with this one - "hey, I need you to come QC this!"

QC THIS????? I don't QC anything!!!!!!! I inspect!!! I am a Quality Control Manager, Inspector,...whatever, and work in the QC department!!!!!! QC IS A TITLE OF A DEPARTMENT, NOT AN ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU TELL THE SAFETY MAN TO COME "SAFETY" THIS??????

OR HUMAN RESOURCES TO COME "HR" SOMETHING????

OR THE SECRETARY TO "SECRETARY" THIS PAPERWORK???

...end of rant!!!! once again I have veered the thread off subject worse than what it was. Sorry!!

Maybe they could start a....(ugh, computer lingo is not with me at the moment)..but another place to post off welding topic discussions, like a maybe a "general BS" place.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-09-2007 21:13

Go ahead tito let it all out....LOL!

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-05-2007 23:13

We, or should I say they, did standard penetrant, Magnaglo, Zyglo, and the dry MT in the pictures. All testing was done with Magnaflux power sources and and consumables. Their interest level is high in NDT, so expect PT images next week. It was very rewarding to have these students take charge of the job and do what had to be done. Thanks for the input.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-05-2007 20:20

Nice pics Fran! Thanks for sharing.

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-05-2007 23:18

John...more to follow. I'm trying to make them aware that there's more to welding than welding. Read my other reply above and I should have more pictures next week. Thanks for your response, and by the way, I did mention to the students involved that YOU would respond and comment. Thanks again!

By new tito (***)

Date 01-06-2007 18:55

Just a wild guess......wfmt = wet flourescent magnetic particle testing.

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-08-2007 02:13

Thanks, we did that with a black light. They were impressed with how small an indication can be located with that method. Thanks for the response!

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-07-2007 00:29

Fran,
just a suggestion that will help,

Try to use just a light puff of powder when MT'ing,.... the lighter the puff,....the more you'll see the less noticeable indications. With lots of powder piled up on the part, you can hide some of the smaller details. It is really neat to see the MT show things that you don't notice with the naked eye. Keep up the good work!

I'll be looking forward to seeing those pics of the PT.

By vonash

Date 01-07-2007 19:39

I hope you used the dry medium first, and cleaned the test area before applying the wet medium.

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-08-2007 02:09

Power brush and solvent...thank's for the input! Please, let me know your suggestions.

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-08-2007 02:06

John,

I realize that "less is better", but trying to contain the enthusiasm of my students can be challenging at times; but, it's the type of enthusiasm I appreciate! I just hope they can comprehend when it comes to the "abstract" interpretations of UT.

Thanks...Fran

By hogan

Date 01-08-2007 22:21

speaking of puffers, i had a level III give me a thirty minute lecture (this was when i first started out in inspection) when he say me blowing off excess mt particles by blowing on it, not using a puffer." what is the humidity level of your breath?"

By webbcity (***)

Date 01-07-2007 22:37

fbrieden , nice pictures . fran , hogan , gerald , john , new tito , vonash i envy you guys and what you do . i still feel like an old dinasaur but will try to come up to speed with a computer . please keep up all the nice things that you all do on this forum . willie

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-08-2007 01:53

Willie, thanks and stay with us!

By new tito (***)

Date 01-08-2007 19:48

Another suggestion for MT - Spray the weld with a light coat of white spray paint, then use the wet MT with black particles. It's a little more expensive up front than dry MT, but this method is great for contrast, speed, etc. I prefer it over the dry method if I have a number of welds to inspect. Seems alot more sensitive than dry, if done correctly.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 01-08-2007 20:04

I use PT developer .

By new tito (***)

Date 01-08-2007 20:10

PT developer for wet MT? Seems like the developer would wash away if sprayed with the wet mag solution!

I could see how it could be used as a visual aid. We've used the white spray paint just for VT's also, and if there's anything like pinholes or undercut and such, they really show up. I guess developer could be used the same way for that.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 01-09-2007 03:28

I'm sorry, for dry powder MT when the lighting isn't too good.

By thirdeye (***)

Date 01-09-2007 21:10

tito,

Bingo.... The paint you should use is called contrast paint and it dries almost instantly. I prefer the Magnaflux brand because of the spray nozzle.

It is also great when used with dry powder. It will improve a technicians ability when using dry MT by at least 50%. You can also write on it with a magic marker. We spray clear coat over the indications to preserve them and for photography.

Don't forget about using contrasting colors of dust either. Even in hard to reach places, some residual magnetism may be strong enough to hold some dust.

Here are some samples.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/thirdeye2/welding01/DSC00702.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/thirdeye2/welding01/nozcrk3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/thirdeye2/welding01/MVC-008S.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/thirdeye2/welding01/MVC-018S.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v377/thirdeye2/welding01/DSC00663.jpg

~thirdeye~

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-09-2007 22:07

Nice pics 3rdeye, thanks for sharing....the contrasting color paint is very noticeable in your pics.... :-)

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-11-2007 14:40

Nice images! Mind if I use them in a Power Point lesson for my students?

By thirdeye (***)

Date 01-11-2007 15:11

No, not at all. I have thousands of photographs and I'm sure other folks here do as well. We could most likely give you all kinds of photo's that could benefit your students if you need anything in a specific area of interest.

~thirdeye~

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-13-2007 03:28

Please send them! They're such an asset when presenting information.

By thirdeye (***)

Date 01-13-2007 13:41

Send you a thousand of 'em?? LOL. Sorry, I don't believe I have the ones above in a larger size than the 640X480 that I linked, I shoot that size for my reports. Once they are open, right click and select "Save Pictures As".

I you have other subjects, myself or others here can surely find some examples. What type and level of classes are you involved with?

~thirdeye~

By CWI555

Date 01-11-2007 04:06

There is some specific contrast on the market for Wet visible particle MT.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 01-08-2007 20:16

These are nice pictures. Did you demagnetize the piece before you performed the magnetizing with the yoke? There are many indications there, and some are parallel to the flux lines.

By hogan

Date 01-08-2007 22:28

it looks more like an indication from a defect that runs subsurface. broad and fuzzy. with a little excess particles on the surface (not enough to mask, or be called indications)

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 01-12-2007 12:06

New Tito,
I see what you mean. There is another posting on the forum where they are talking about Liquid Penetrant and calling it LP instead of PT. I was getting confused because correct terminology is LP (Lack of Penetration).
Different folks, different strokes but it makes it hard when welding and NDT is world-wide and we have differing interpretations.
Regards,
Shane

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-12-2007 12:39

Hi Shane,

Here is another mis-communication due to abbreviations....

Here in the States, we call "Lack of Penetration"...LOP, which is a non-standard term for "incomplete joint penetration"
... or LOF for "Lack of Fusion"- which is a non-standard term for "incomplete fusion"

- this can be found in AWS A3.0:2001 Terms and Defs on p22-23

By 803056

Date 01-12-2007 20:55

You have to be careful about the "right" terminology, because it is dependent on the industry you are working in. ASME and API welding and fabrication documents usually contain glossaries that contain the terms and definitions particular to their industry. They also typical contain a paragraph stating that for terms and definitions not included in the glossary, refer to AWS A3.0.

This always drives people studing for the CWI examination using API for their open book examination crazy! They have to be familiar with both AWS and API terminology. Answers to the fundamentals examination have to use proper standard AWS terms. Meanwhile, they have to recognize the proper API terminology on the API open book examination. So, is it lack or fusion or incomplete fusion? Better check your glossary before answering the question.

Don't you just love it!

Best regards - Al

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-13-2007 03:33

John,

QA and QC are confusing classifications to a lot of PROFESSIONALS. My pet peeve!

Fran Brieden

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 01-13-2007 12:42

Hello all,
Another one of those queries that have bothered me for years and finally got around to asking for advice.
When pipewelding to B31.3 I have always been confused over the examples in Fig 341.3.2.
In Australasia when one edge of the root is missed it is classed as LRF (Lack of root fusion)
If both edges are missed it is classed as LP (Lack of penetration)
If one edge is missed and there is no internal misalignment ( as per Fig 341.3.2 ) then is it classed as incomplete penetration or lack of fusion,
Hope someone can help,
Regards,
Shane

By thirdeye (***)

Date 01-13-2007 13:33

If there is an exposed bevel edge involved, I have always referred to both of those conditions as either lack of or incomplete penetration, possibly because I cut my teeth working on pipelines and the API specification 1104 has different acceptance criteria for IP (when both bevels are exposed) and IPD (IP due to hi-lo, when only one side of the bevel is exposed).

~thirdeye~