ISONIC UT Art - top performance instrumentation and solutions for ultrasonic non-destructive testing from simplest ultra-portable flaw detector and thickness gauge to multi-channel platforms for high speed automatic inspection; all ultrasonic testing modalities such as conventional, time of flight diffraction (TOFD), phased array (PA - PAUT), short range guided waves (SRUT - SRUT GW), FMC/TFM, ultrasonic spectroscopy, etc
may vary in quite a wide range depending on the composition of the material, technology of extrusion, manufacturer, etc, from the present video it's possible to realize that it's lower than the velocity in rexolite wedge
Interesting Video Presentation, i am interested in achieving a Certificate for ISONIC 3510T / PAUT - Butt Welds / True-to-Geometry S-Scan / Manual Scanning / Average Speed is it possible?
Scanning is performed above the taper surface and of course the probe profile should allow the scanning in case of limited room - see for example here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-foZTotzIo4E.html The scanner supports probes having different profiles of probes and flanges
Sonotron NDT is the manufacturer of ultrasonic testing equipment, not the inspection company, the video was captured by one of our customers (Inspection Company) some few years ago. So we may just guess now and your explanation is very reasonable - depending on the OD and vertical position of the pipe, another video with unusual position of the start point is here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9dlULlb2AEY.html
this is so called CB-Scan: short range guided wave propagates in the pipe wall in circumferential direction (around the pipe) so the probe with contoured contact face located in the position ~12 o'clock is capable to receive echoes from the imperfections distributed along whole circumference including pipe support / saddle area, for example between 4 and 8 o'clock
Thanks to 100% A-Scan capturing and returning to the ground: depending on probe(s) and probe(s) holder used used this may be pulse echo flaw detection, pitch-catch probing, TOFD, etc
I have a question concerning the manufacturing of your demonstration block: how deep are the notches and how were they manufactured? I was thinking of EDM but even EDM isn't practical for such narrow geometries if you need anything deeper than 5 mm.
The RF A-Scan is the natural form of ultrasonic signals, the raw data RF A-Scans have been carried to the computer on the ground; the automatic coupling monitoring has been performed for each touch through analyzing the series of back echoes
@Karmav3 RF A-Scans carry much more information and they are used very widely for plenty of inspections, not for the Guided Wave inspection only. For the thickness gauging tasks the RF A-Scans may be very useful as well. The operator may toggle between RF / Rectified (Full, Po, Neg) A-Scans in the regular flaw detectors and advanced thickness gauges and the same toggling is provided for the drone-based inspection
yes, SRUT is the screening technology widely used for the detection of corrosion damages under pipe support (CUPS) since 1999 with involving Sonotron NDT SRUT GW probes and ISONIC series instruments
This plate is a piece of real annular ring. Once the corrosion was found - it was extracted from the asset and the artificial reflectors were added to the natural in order to compare the detectability. THe sample is about 20 y.o. Here you may see postprocessing of SRUT GW data recorded on the sample using ISONIC 3505: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qbK9hAh_WSs.html - it is self-explaining - all real corrosion defects were found successfully including those, which are located behind large artificial reflectors, it is just necessary to record the data over wide dynamic range. And here is another example for data interpretation - this is complimentary shear wave true-to-geometry multi-skip S-Scan record ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Af5vr1V8nCg.html - just natural defects
We are one of Leading in Pipeline Equipment Manufacturer and supplier in globe. (You can follow us on below Social Media Platform) twitter.com/spmequipment facebook.com/spmequipments instagram.com/spmequipment www.spmepl.com • Pipe Fit up and Line up clamps (External and Internal) • DSS Pipe joint clamps with/without purging arrangement • Pipe Bending machine and accessories • Pipe Lifting and lowering equipment • Pipe Cutting and facing equipment • Pipe Roller and rotator • Line pipe plant equipment • Pipe Crossing equipment • Pipe Coating equipment • All type of Pneumatic and Hydraulic equipment and accessories
Usually the newly manufactured fillet weld connecting shell to annular ring should be inspected for no leaks ( impenetrability ) only Whilst in-service - the weld metal loss from inner side of the tank should be detected, this is possible with the use of A-Ring shown in the present video. And you may see this defect - ultrasonic and actual image here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Af5vr1V8nCg.html
this is a sample full penetration fillet weld with natural defect; the sample was received from the user, the same SW option is applicable to the T joint but weld
Hi, these look good but what kind of probe used for that inspection? and more so what result did you have for Annular Ring inspection considering attenuation
Thanks for the question There are many factors influencing on the attenuation such as pure attenuation of the plate material, lining at the soil and product side, product itself. To consider all factors the appropriate test blocks should be manufactured prior going out to the field and the settings should be adopted accordingly. The videos below illustrate pre-inspection trials for such inspection using conventional modality Block prior to the lining ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-t7i_g_gSYyI.html The same block upon lining completed (the lining should be of the same type / material that is used in the real tank ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ACb2bAQulLw.html Influence of the product above the plate ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2N6QCu3N8L8.html All factors above do damp the signal significantly or even dramatically but in case of finding dB/mm signal degrade factor and creating the appropriate DAC it is possible to utilize Normaliz-To-DAC imaging function and compensate such influence The same approach works for PA modality as well
Hi!! Nice video & a lovely machine.. In the video the one that is mentioned as under shell scattered corrosion, where we were getting some reflections before the fillet weld, i would like to let you know, once we did the PAUT along the annular ring and i found same indications coming throughout the tank...The tank was resting on the concrete ring.We taught those indications could be due to surface roughness or some form of a mode converted signals at the interface of the metal and concrete layers....Yes i do understand there could be some thickness variation by 1 or 2mm, but if you also start getting such under shell corrosion throughout the tank, what would you do?? Would you report as scattered corrosion under shell throughout the tank..Waiting for your reply..Thanks
Hi and thanks for the comment The indications you're speaking about are caused by the reflections situated not "before the fillet weld" as it is noted in your message but right under the tank shell, these are typical indications for the scattered corrosion in the said area that were observed for quite a large number of tanks either resting on the concrete ring or not. The conclusion about the scattered corrosion has been confirmed then at the stage of repair works for the sufficient quantity of the tanks. Also the TOF-based polygon measurements and cross sectional FMC/TFM image shown in the video clearly show the tips on the corroded surface located significantly far from the surface than 1..2 mm noted in the message
@@sonotronndt thanks for your prompt reply..In my first message when i said that "we were getting some reflections before the fillet weld" was based on the A- scan signals and yes its clearly seen from the B-scan that those indications are from under shell. Previously when such indications were observed from under the shell, the TOF of the tip signals were used as well to gauge the remaining wall thickness, based on the nominal wall thickness which our clients would provide...The measurement mostly leads to only oversizing. For example we were inspecting a 16mm thick annular plate, we got a similar indication from under shell as shown in the video..Based on TOF of tip signals the remaining wall thickness at the so called corroded zone based on PAUT was measured to be around 12 to 12.5mm, that area was excavated to do a Zero degree UT measurements and thickness measured would vary between 14.9 to 15.6mm, which means PAUT oversized by 2 to 3mm...Can the TFM algorithm reduce this oversizing?
The deviation of TOF measurements from the real values may be reduced significantly provided the EquPAS approach applied whilst performing shear wave S-Scan coverage - see for example the video here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7GJCwRicdBg.html illustrating the use of DAC normalization along with AGC (Angle Gain Compensation). The results of the evaluation using S-Scan with EquPAS approach and FMC/TFM are practically the same and they are more precise comparing to the regular S-Scan evaluation
the images appearing on the screen at 0:36, at 1:58, are the TFM images made of 100% captured primary A-Scans (A-scans per element not per aperture), the said A-Scans have been captured by ISONIC series PA instruments automatically since the first units were released to the market, creating of the TFM image is just a mathematics that may be applied once the matrix of primary A-Scans has been stored. The images appearing at 1:00, at 2:24, etc are the EQUPAS True-To-Geometry S-Scan images: EquPAS= Equalized PA inspection Sensitivity provide by using AGC (Angle Gain Compensation) and DAC simultaneously
In the same manner as on other metals - optimizing the signal through appropriate pulser / receiver settings in order to obtain backwall echoes consistently within entire material thickness range to be evaluated then settling ultrasound velocity in the material
Oh ,this is great. by the way, we are professional for GFRP rebar and rock bolt over 10 years, more details please whatsapp+8618516943083 email:nicholas@antopgfrp.com www.antopgfrp.com Antop Global was set up in 2007 and passed the ISO9001 Quality Management System Certification in 2008. Due to our outstanding constructions in the industry, now we are a member of The Association of China Composite Industry. We also achieved some honors, such as “National High-Tech Enterprise”, “China FRP composite Materials Engineering and Technology Research Center” etc. In 2013, we are involved in editing with National standard “Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastics Rebar for Civil Engineering”, due to the advanced technology, we are participant of editing standard “Technical Regulation of Fibre Reinforcd Concrete Bridge”. more information please connect whatsapp+8618516943083
Hi!!These lamb wave modes that u guys are generating will usually reflect of the fillet weld toe (joint between theAnnular plate & shell plate). The sample plate that i see in this video does not have that thick a fillet weld bead andHence no major reflection from the fillet weld is observed. Have you guys used this technique at real site condition?If yes i am sure you would have got some reflection from the fillet weld,. Even if you generate wave modes, with very minimal out of plane displacement and its mainly due to the psuedo surface waves..please share!! Secondly your probe looks quite big, what if the annular plate projection (chime projection) is only about 35 to 40mmAre you still able to generate the desired wave modes into the plates as there is a highly possibilty that ur beam exitPoint will be in the air and not on the plate and the lamb wave modes that u might generate wont be the one that urProbe is designed for but instead you might be generating some different non dominant wave modes due to beamSpread within the wedge and of course will have a weaker response from the defects. Do u vary your probe frequency with thickness of the annular plate or you keep it constant?Looking at your data it seems that ur using a frequency somewhere between 500KHz to 1 MHz This technique would work only for sharp defects, like sharp notches or pits, this wont work for any smooth gradualCorrosion/erosion.... Are you able to gauge the lateral width of the defect? Is your amplitude response affected by the lateral width of the defect?.. For instance if u have a defect which is say 20mm in length and 10mm in width and another defect which is say 20mm in length and 20mm in width which will yield a stronger amplitude response?? Or Your technique is not at all affected by the width of the defect and the amplitude response obtained is only relatedTo the depth of the defect (when the defect is sharp one like notch/pit with an abrupt thickness change) Share your taughts!! Ps : THE SAME COMMENT THAT YOU SEE ABOVE IS POSTED ON THE VIDEO WHERE YOU GUYS SHOW THETANK ANNULAR PLATE INSPECTION BY PLACING THE PROBE ON THE ANNULAR PLATE PROJECTION OUTSIDE THE TANK
1. It is not a pure Lamb wave 2. SRUTGW Inspection (Short Range Guided Wave Ultrasonic Inspection) is performed with the purpose of Quck Screening of corrosion damages in the area, which are in accessible for the direct placement of the probes 3.There is no direct correlation between the depth of the defect and the echo amplitudes 4. SRUTGW is based on the pulse-echo technique so f the defect doesn't have the reflective / diffractive boundary in the material you'll never get an echo 5. We have several hundred of instruments used by our customers around the Globe and we clearly explain to everybody about p.p.2,3,4 above 6. For sure the reflections from the fillet weld may disturb those there are 2 setps applicable here: the zone of ~ 100 mm inside the tank counted from the shell and zone after the noted limit until the first lap joint 7. There is a way of quantitative evaluation of the depth of corrosion with the use of PA modality, refer for example to: www.ndt.net/search/docs.php3?id=21265&content=1 /// www.ndt.net/search/docs.php3?id=20630&content=1 /// ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eHlm0eiTLTQ.html - you'll find some more data inside
Hi!!These lamb wave modes that u guys are generating will usually reflect of the fillet weld toe (joint between theAnnular plate & shell plate). The sample plate that i see in this video does not have that thick a fillet weld bead andHence no major reflection from the fillet weld is observed. Have you guys used this technique at real site condition?If yes i am sure you would have got some reflection from the fillet weld,. Even if you generate wave modes, with very minimal out of plane displacement and its mainly due to the psuedo surface waves..please share!! Secondly your probe looks quite big, what if the annular plate projection (chime projection) is only about 35 to 40mmAre you still able to generate the desired wave modes into the plates as there is a highly possibilty that ur beam exitPoint will be in the air and not on the plate and the lamb wave modes that u might generate wont be the one that urProbe is designed for but instead you might be generating some different non dominant wave modes due to beamSpread within the wedge and of course will have a weaker response from the defects. Do u vary your probe frequency with thickness of the annular plate or you keep it constant?Looking at your data it seems that ur using a frequency somewhere between 500KHz to 1 MHz This technique would work only for sharp defects, like sharp notches or pits, this wont work for any smooth gradualCorrosion/erosion.... Are you able to gauge the lateral width of the defect? Is your amplitude response affected by the lateral width of the defect?.. For instance if u have a defect which is say 20mm in length and 10mm in width and another defect which is say 20mm in length and 20mm in width which will yield a stronger amplitude response?? Or Your technique is not at all affected by the width of the defect and the amplitude response obtained is only relatedTo the depth of the defect (when the defect is sharp one like notch/pit with an abrupt thickness change) Share your taughts!!
1. It is not a pure Lamb wave 2. SRUTGW Inspection (Short Range Guided Wave Ultrasonic Inspection) is performed with the purpose of Quck Screening of corrosion damages in the area, which are in accessible for the direct placement of the probes 3.There is no direct correlation between the depth of the defect and the echo amplitudes 4. SRUTGW is based on the pulse-echo technique so f the defect doesn't have the reflective / diffractive boundary in the material you'll never get an echo 5. We have several hundred of instruments used by our customers around the Globe and we clearly explain to everybody about p.p.2,3,4 above 6. For sure the reflections from the fillet weld may disturb those there are 2 setps applicable here: the zone of ~ 100 mm inside the tank counted from the shell and zone after the noted limit until the first lap joint 7. There is a way of quantitative evaluation of the depth of corrosion with the use of PA modality, refer for example to: www.ndt.net/search/docs.php3?id=21265&content=1 /// www.ndt.net/search/docs.php3?id=20630&content=1 /// ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eHlm0eiTLTQ.html - you'll find some more data inside
