nondestructive inspection

Date 01-13-2010 02:04

That is pretty much the standard method of verifying that penetration is to the root of a fillet weld. To capture this for record purposes, you can use a digital camera with a good macro and take a picture with a date stamp.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-13-2010 12:22

Depending on the UT tech and his/her ability, fillet weld roots can be verified with UT. This is not for the average UT tech.

By eekpod

Date 01-13-2010 20:36

But keep in mind that if this is to certify a welder to D1.1, then it is a requirement to cut and etch, in addition to bending the coupon. Just a thought.
Chris

By CWI555

Date 01-14-2010 17:32

.....Depending on the UT tech and his/her ability.... Cringe.......

By fbrieden (***)

Date 01-14-2010 18:20

Elaborate please!

By eekpod

Date 01-18-2010 17:44

fbrieden-
what they are referring to is that technically a fillet weld can be UT inspected to look for lack of fusion at the root. This is very rarely done because you might need special transducers, and you WILL need a very experienced person performing the UT inspection. I think thats one of the reasons why the code tells us to cut the coupon and visually look for the fusion once its etched, its simplier and easier and you don't need too much special training to do it.
But to get to your original post I guess if you developed the UT procedures and proved that it worked and could be done relaiably by your people, you might be able to get your customers to accept that method over cutting and acid etching the coupons visually confirming that they got the proper root penetration.
Chris

By mroach

Date 01-20-2010 17:26

eekpod, that would be a hard sale. To try to replace an existing recognized standard method with a developed method would be tough. There are those that would argue this both ways as to the reliability and unreliability of the test. A conventional contact shear wave setup is all that is needed for equipment, however a test standard would be needed for each thickness of the material to test. Usually this incorporates a side drilled hole at a particular depth which brings up the question of just how much penetration is acceptable. Then you are getting into a calibration procedure, approval etc. As you pointed out, there is the experience factor of the operator? Sometimes it is just not cost effective to develope a new technique. MR

By eekpod

Date 01-20-2010 23:53

Mroach,
I agree w/ you that it would be alot of work and a tough sell to get approved, but the original post asked if there was any other way to do it other than cut and etch.

By mroach

Date 01-21-2010 16:06

eekpod, It would depend on whether you are looking for information or verification. The acid etch test verifies the production welding process. I tend to lean towards the unreliable side of the UT discussion simply because I have been down this road before.

By hvymax

Date 01-22-2010 18:00

You can develope an alternate procedure for almost anything but it must be repeatable by almost anyone who follows the procedure correctly or it really can not be considered a "standard". I have often had to make up some way of pulling things off but if I was the only one that could do it or understood it then that was the limit of it's applicability. If you spend the time to get it right you may have the next big process. Good luck with that John B

By CWI555

Date 01-25-2010 14:44

Side drilled holes are not going to prove anything. they are omnidirectional, doesn't matter which direction they get hit from, they are going to reflect.
If you want to proof a technique, your going to need flat bottomed holes drilled a specific angles.