Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / MT stainless and steel
- - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 11-08-2013 20:02
Maybe a Level 3 can chime in here..  So after about 5 NDT MT guys have come to test our parts, which is a stainless 17-4 pin into an A36 plate, They all claim to find cracks at the toes(going all the way around).  Now from previous experience of getting these tested the very first person we tested them through told me that when you pin your mag up to stainless and stell together you will always get an indication or "crack" line where the dissimilar metals meet.  Now why has 5 of 6 LEVEL 2 MT  NDT's not known this?  They mark all the parts as cracked and get all the boss's up in a fissy, they start talking rework and all hell breaks loose. They have to call their boss.  Now It is my understanding that the different metal structures will cause the line to always appear.  Can anyone give me a little more science to back this up?

Oh and MT with dry powder didnt show any cracks as well as PT showed nothing...

Thanks all

Jordan
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 20:07
[not a Level III]
I'm betting they are finding the interface between the two dissimilar metals too. If PT isn't revealing any open to the surface cracking...I have my doubts that there are any cracks there. Flourescent PT will be a bit more sensitive, maybe try that to confirm.[/not a Level III]
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 20:13
You asked for some science....Hmm, ....permeability differences will cause what you are seeing with MT. Take for instance a  cold chisel where the end is hardened, you will find the area where the soft material meets the hardened. These are what I call irrelevant indications.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 20:20
Parent - By CWI555 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 21:55
17-7 is considered ferromagnetic in that it has a high permeability and can stick a magnet. However, so can nickel. Nickel is ferromagnetic with a high permeability. Precipitation-hardening stainless steel, and nickel also share something else. Both have a high level of retentivity. You haven't specified what current they used (AC or DC).

MT with dry powder AC yoke would show nothing meaningful. That you differentiate suggest they also used something different. 
I would double check with them and make sure they didn't get really stupid and use DC. If they did, there is a distinct potential for there to be a residual field you'll play hell removing that may be deleterious to the parts function.

If it were me in your shoes, I'd be running off that company, and remembering to PT that joint rather than MT.
- - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 21:37 Edited 11-08-2013 21:43
I'm with John on this one. You will always find MT produces an indication along the interface between a ferromagnetic base metal, i.e., carbon steel, and any base metal this is not ferromagnetic (austenitic stainless steel, nickel alloys, etc.).

A good  example of the principle we are talking about is the pipe gage used to verify the direction of the magnetic field when performing MT. It is an assembly of carbon steel wedges brazed together. When the pipe gage is placed between the legs of an energized yoke, the MT indications form along the brazed joints that are perpendicular to the lines of magnetic flux.

I tried to attach a photograph, but the file is larger than what can be downloaded. Oh well!

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 21:43

>the pipe gage


Al means pie gage(fat fingers...LOL)...it looks like a pie that has been sliced

Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 21:46
You are right John. I like your explanation: "the fat finger syndrome." That's better than the "fat head syndrome."

Your photograph is better than the one I tried to download. Thanks, it is exactly what I was trying to show.

Best regards -Al
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 22:07
John,

Remember the copper in a pie gauge. Copper is diamagnetic, and the carbon ferromagnetic. This is why we can only use the pie gauge for field direction rather than strength.
The slices of carbon are separated by copper which will not magnetize. That forces the flux lines to highlight the edges of the carbon pie slices.

I'll shut up now.
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-10-2013 18:45
No don't shut up Gerald....I learn something almost everyday on here.
Parent - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 11-08-2013 21:56 Edited 11-08-2013 21:59
Thanks a lot to both of you.  Printed the page that John cited and gave it to the NDT and he then sent it to his boss and now they are all the wiser.  Just shocked that that many guys didnt know that and they are out there checking work.  I can for sure see where having a hands on welding background, and even a light science background like chemistry 101 could make your level of understanding that much better for a job like that. 

Thanks guys

Jordan
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 21:57
Al,

With respect, that particular material is considered ferromagnetic. However, it is not suitable for MT for other reasons.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-08-2013 22:15 Edited 11-08-2013 22:25
I stand corrected. Nickel should not have been grouped with the austenitic stainless steel. My bad.

As soon  I read your post I recognized my misstatement. Open mouth, insert foot. Yummmm!

A little humble pie is good for the soul.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 11-16-2013 09:49
Now I'm confused...:confused::confused::confused::confused:

Jordan, is the stainless you're referring to a 17-4 or a 17-7 precipitation hardening stainless steel as one of the two welded dissimilar metals involved with the questionable indication of a crack or cracks which really represent the weld interface between the two???

I ask this because 17-7 is Austenitic/Martensitic and 17-4 is Martensitic only which brings me to this article.
I read awhile back from TWI and it was written by Gene Mathers, and those familiar with his name also know of the level of knowledge and experience that follows his reputation.

The martensitic PH steels, of which 17/4PH is the most common, transform to martensite at low temperatures, typically around 250°C, and are further strengthened by ageing at between 480 and 620°C.

The austenitic-martensitic PH steels are essentially fully austenitic after solution treatment and require a second heat cycle to 750°C/2 hours before cooling to room temperature to form martensite. Some of these alloys need to be refrigerated (-50/-60°C for eight hours) following this heat treatment to ensure full transformation to a stable austenitic/martensitic structure although the two most commonly used alloys, FV520 and 17/7PH, do not require refrigeration to develop optimum properties.

Ageing of these alloys occurs at temperatures between 500 to 600°C. The austenitic grades are stable down to room temperature, improvements in strength being from the precipitates formed by ageing at 650 to 750°C. These fully austenitic grades can exhibit good toughness and some may be used at cryogenic temperatures.

For best weldability it is recommended that all three types of alloys are supplied in the annealed, solution treated or overaged condition. Alloys in the form of sheet or strip may be in a cold worked condition and weldability is seriously compromised. As with many precipitation hardening alloys, achieving mechanical properties in the weld and HAZs to match those of the parent material is a problem. Even with matching welding consumables, a full solution treatment and age hardening the maximum strength of a joint in the semi-austenitic and austenitic alloys is likely to be only some 90% of that of the base metal.

Martensitic PH steels in the solution-treated condition can be welded with most of the conventional arc welding processes although the best toughness will be achieved with the TIG (GTAW) process as this provides the cleanest weld metal. Even better toughness can be achieved using power beam processes (electron beam or laser welding). Matching filler metals are available for most of the steels in this group enabling matching mechanical properties to be achieved by carrying out a post weld ageing heat treatment.

If a joint is very highly restrained then 17/4PH may fail along the fusion line by a form of reheat cracking during the ageing heat treatment. In these circumstances the component should be welded in the overaged condition and then given a solution heat treatment followed by the PWHT described below. Austenitic filler metals such as 308L or, for higher weld metal strength, a duplex filler metal such as 2205, can be used where lower strength joints can be tolerated or cracking due to high restraint is a problem. PWHT is not possible if a duplex filler metal is used or recommended for austenitic weld metal due to embrittlement.

The martensite in these steels is relatively soft due to the low carbon content so preheat is not generally necessary although for thick, (above 25mm) highly restrained joints, a preheat of around 100°C has been found to be useful in reducing the risk of cracking. Because of the low temperature at which these steels transform to martensite a maximum interpass temperature of 200°C is recommended.

Maintaining a very high interpass temperature results in the entire weld transforming to martensite on cooling to room temperature and the volume change that occurs when this happens can then lead to a form of quench cracking. The stress raising effect of the notch in the root of fillet welds and partial penetration butt welds has been found to cause cracking. Provided the reduction in strength can be tolerated, a Tp308L root pass can be used to solve this problem. It has also been found that 17/4PH castings may form HAZ hot cracks during welding; for cast items the copper content is therefore limited to 3% maximum.

PWHT generally comprises a 750°C soak and cool to room temperature to ensure that the steel is 100% martensitic followed by ageing at 550°C. This should give UTS of 900 to 1000MPa, yield strength 800 to 900MPa and ductility of some 15% depending upon the composition of the alloy and the temperature of the ageing heat treatment.

The semi-austenitic alloys are generally supplied in the solution treated condition. This means that the steel is fully austenitic and preheat is not generally required although for welding of thick and highly restrained joints a preheat of around 100°C has been found to be helpful. All the common arc welding processes may be used although, as above, TIG (GTAW) will give the best properties.
jk102f1.jpg

For alloys containing aluminium, eg 17/7PH, MMA and submerged arc welding should be avoided as a good proportion of the aluminium is lost during welding; inert gas shielded processes are therefore preferred. The weld pool is less fluid than the non-aluminium alloys. Matching composition filler metals for FV520 are readily available but 17/7PH consumables are difficult and expensive to obtain so parent metal sheared from strip is often used for TIG welding. Alternatively a 17/4PH or FV520 filler may be used; a preheat of 100°C is advisable if the 17/4PH filler is used. PWHTs are similar to those used for the martensitic steels but, without a full solution heat treatment and matching filler metal, strengths matching those of the parent metal are unlikely to be achieved.

It is recommended that the fully austenitic PH steels are welded in the solution treated condition; a water or oil quench from around 980°C. The ageing process is very sluggish, requiring some 15 hours at 720°C to develop full strength and this means that the HAZ is virtually unchanged from the parent metal. Optimum strength can therefore be developed during the post-weld ageing treatment. These steels, like the austenitic stainless steels, are insensitive to cold cracking and do not require to be pre-heated. They are, however, very sensitive to hot cracking due to them being fully austenitic. This makes the welding of thick sections problematic and requires the welding conditions to be very closely controlled with low heat input, small weld beads and interpass temperature controlled to less than 150°C.

Aerospace alloys such as AMS 5858, equivalent to A286, have been produced with improved weldability. The 17/10P grade is particularly sensitive and cannot be welded with matching fillers; a type 312 (29Cr/9Ni) filler gives the best chance of success, although hot cracking in the HAZ may still occur.

Due to the presence of aluminium and/or titanium in many alloys only the inert gas shielded arc welding processes should be used. Some matching composition filler metals are available, again in aerospace grades such as AMS 5804 and these can be aged to give strengths close to those of the parent metal. Alternatively either austenitic, duplex or nickel based weld filler metals may be used.

As is apparent, the metallurgy of these steels can be complex and if there is any doubt concerning welding or heat treatment the advice of specialists should be sought.
Here's the link to this article:

http://www.twi.co.uk/technical-knowledge/job-knowledge/precipitation-hardening-stainless-steels-102/

This is an older article/booklet on welding of precipitation hardening stainless steels and it does have some decent tips:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1968NASSP5087.....V&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

And finally, since you're welding dissimilar metals together then Bimetallic Corrosion should also be considered as well:

http://www.npl.co.uk/upload/pdf/bimetallic_20071105114556.pdf

That's it for now... I got to wake up soon.:eek::eek::eek::roll::roll::wink:

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 11-16-2013 13:25
Okay,

Guys, especially you Henry, I have to ask a question as relates to the OP in regards to Henry's fine post;  So is it possible to get indications with MT that there is a crack while the material would be in one of those conditions but not if it was handled/welded in such a way as to leave it in another finished condition after the welding process? 

If I followed everything from Al, John, CWI, and now Henry and I did know that some stainless has magnetic properties while others don't...then with this newest info from Henry, the bottom line will be the welding procedures and even the pre and post heating and cooling procedures?  Since those will effect the finish condition of the stainless that will then effect the type of MT results that the technician will get.

But, to me the bottom line here is the type of training that in house Level II's are getting.  Too many companies are doing a great disservice to the inspection reputation by 'certifying' some of their people with really minimal education/training.  I am seeing this a lot with both MT and UT.  It is really discouraging and confusing to someone trying to figure out how to implement a good program for training and certification to have my son and I both MT and UT certified. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-16-2013 14:03 Edited 11-16-2013 19:19
Consider the following:

SNT-TC-1A - recommended practice - contractors; you have my permission to do what ever you want to qualify and certify your technicians. Just tell me what you do in your written practice.

CP-189 - a standard - minimum requirements for qualification and certification are specified. Requirements cannot be "watered down". The Level III that is responsible for the qualification and certification must be certified by ASNT by passing the ASNT administered examinations. The Level III is obligated to agree to a Code of Ethic when accepting their credential from ASNT much like the Code of Ethics every CWI and SCWI agrees to when they accept their certification credential from AWS.

Do you want your taxis driver's license issued by "Ed's Driver Training" who's motto is, "No Driver Left Behind, Everyone Deserves to Pass" or do you want the driver that has passed the mandated state issued driver's test and state issued driver's license? Maybe the taxis driver analogy isn't the best considering some of the taxis rides I've experienced.

By the way Henry, nice work!

Jordan; these are my question to you:
Did your employer request a copy of the NDT contractor's written practice to see how much training and experience is required to be certified by the contractor?
Did your employer request copies of the NDT technician's certification with supporting qualification documents, i.e., classroom training attended, test scores, relevant work experience, etc.?
Did your employer request a copy of the NDT procedure and acceptance criteria proposed by the contractor?
Did your employer specify any acceptance criteria?
Did your employer  specify which certification schema is required, i.e., SNT-TC-1A, CP-189, CP-189, ACCP, NAVSEA T9074-AS-GIB-010/271, etc.
Did your employer review a typical test report to verify it provides the level of detail needed for the project?

If the answer to any of the questions is no, why not?

You only get what you ask for. In the business world, the place to "ask" is the project specification/purchase order and the time to ask is before the contractor arrives on-site.

CWI and Engineers that may be securing and/or specifying the services of a NDT contractor should be familiar with the difference between SNT-TC-1A and CP-189. People responsible for specifying NDT and individuals responsible for purchasing NDT services need to know what they are asking for. It is no different when ordering a piece of pipe a structural member, a car, a truck, or NDT. You have to specify it correctly and you  have to know how to determine if the product/service provided meets your requirements.

I need a piece of pipe. What type of pipe? You know, the round stuff with a hole down the middle.
I need a beam, What type of beam do you want? You know, the beam that looks like the letter "I".
I need some NDT. What type of NDT do  need? You know, the type that tells me everything I need to know.
I need a piece of steel. What type of steel do you want? You know the type that rusts if it gets wet.

Jordan, I commend you for seeking the advise on the subject of NDT. No one is an expert on every subject. Each of us should recognize the limitations of our expertise. When necessary, we need to seek advice from people that have the expertise we lack.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 11-16-2013 16:00
Okay, now, with that information in mind for MT quals and training, and then Henry's fine post about some differences in materials do to welding process and/or procedures, Is it possible they found indications because of a fabrication error?  There may not have been a crack there, and possibly the material in use should not have indicated a crack if welded correctly, but it was either welded wrong or processed wrong for pre and/or post heat so a 'crack' is indicated because the material has not reached the correct phase? 

Am I even asking this question in the correct manner?  It appears to me that materials that normally would be magnetic in their proper condition would be non-magnetic if not processed properly.  And visa versa.  And that would effect the MT results with indications.  Correct?  I'm not much of a stainless guy and am asking this as a learning opportunity and as one interested in expanding my potential with NDT knowledge and certifications and see this as a great learning vehicle.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-16-2013 16:37 Edited 11-16-2013 19:19
Any major differences in magnetic permeability at the welded joint can produce an indication. The difference between the indication caused by the difference in magnetic permeability and a subsurface discontinuity (crack, incomplete fusion, etc.) may be difficult to distinguish. However, there should be no difficulty in differentiating between a surface breaking crack and the indication caused by the difference in permeability.

The bottom line is that the qualified individual performing the MT test should recognize the usefulness of MT in this case was dubious. A different test, i.e., penetrant testing, should have been recommended or at least suggested by the technician. That is of course assuming the technician was informed what the materials of construction were.

Assuming the technician in this case recognized the test method was not producing reliable results, he/she should have called his office and discussed the problem with their Level III. The Level III should have contacted the customer and explained the issues with the customer. If the customer insisted on using MT even when the contractor suggested a different test method, then it is what it is.

If I am asked to perform NDT and if in my opinion the test method requested is not the appropriate test method, I discuss the issues with the client. I let them know the limitations of the test method requested and what alternative test methods are available. If the client insists I test the item as requested, my test report includes a statement that the test results are suspect because of the inherent limitations of the test method used. I typically use a checklist form for my reports, but I include a narrative to explain special conditions, observations, and the test results.

Let's face facts, life would be grand if each client knew exactly what they wanted and how to get what they wanted, but that is not usually the case. The CWI or the NDT technician often has to "teach" the client what they need to know. This situation is not limited to NDT, it holds true with welder qualification as well. How many times does a clients call up and state their welders need to be certified. Of those clients, how many even know what welding code they are working to?

I once had a client call me and tell me he wanted to be certified. I asked "For what?"

He said he wanted to be certified for everything!

I told him he didn't have enough money and I wouldn't live long enough to accomplish that. "Let's narrow the scope a little. What do you really need to do the work you want to do?" Then we got down to business.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 11-16-2013 16:52

>Any major differences in magnetic permeability at the welded joint can produce an indication.


Right! That was the only point I was trying to make. Just because there is an indication doesn't always mean there is something wrong...ie the cold chisel where the (same) material is used throughout the chisel, but is heat treated to be harder on the end that does the work. This interface between the hard and soft material will produce an indication but it is non-relevant and is it to be expected. You can find these same type of interfaces with UT as well, if you are setup for it. PT doesn't care about changes in material hardness or permeability and if there is a crack that is open to the surface, it will take dye and bleed out when the developer is applied.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 11-16-2013 19:23 Edited 11-16-2013 19:28
That was a good example that parallels this specific situation, i.e., dissimilar metals with different magnetic permeability. As you stated, in your example the variation in magnetic permeability was caused by variations in heat treatment. It was also a good example of a nonrelevant indication.

I'm going to give it a try the next time I do a MT class. Another demonstration to keep the attendees awake in class.

As always, nice work John.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 11-16-2013 20:46
Thanks guys.  I appreciate your time in following this through.  I hope the OP does as well and has gleaned as much as I have.

HENRY, Thank you for the time you put into your response.  I hope you woke up on time.  :roll:

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 11-17-2013 10:42
Al,

I need a piece of pipe. What type of pipe? You know, the round stuff with a hole down the middle.
I need a beam, What type of beam do you want? You know, the beam that looks like the letter "I".
I need some NDT. What type of NDT do  need? You know, the type that tells me everything I need to know.
I need a piece of steel. What type of steel do you want? You know the type that rusts if it gets wet.

That smells like a procurement addition to the farm code.
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 11-17-2013 13:44
:lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / MT stainless and steel

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill