15
Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue Cracks and EDM Notches 18 th WCNDT 2012 Ari Koskinen VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

Differences in Ultrasonic Indications –Thermal Fatigue Cracks and EDM Notches

18th WCNDT 2012Ari KoskinenVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Page 2: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 2

Different flaw types

a) EDM-notchb) Welded crack simulationc) Grown crackd) Service-induced crack

1G 2G 3G Service-induced

Page 3: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 3

EDM vs. TF

Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack

Both measurements done with same setup (probe, angle, gain, etc.)

Page 4: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 4

Trueflaw pipe

Page 5: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 5

Crack Characteristics – Thermal Fatigue

More information than just lenght and detphSurface microscopySurface opening Surface roughness

Page 6: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 6

C-mode scanning acoustic microscope

Immersion tank with manipulatorsRotation and movement in x, y and z directions

Ultrasonic unit with pulser-receiver cardsControl and data acquisition unit

Page 7: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 7

C-SAM setup

Longitudinal wave in water is transformed to transverse wave (45°) in steel when the probe angle is:

With this setup about 11 % of the longitudinal wave hitting the surface is transformed in to transverse wave in steel.

Page 8: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 8

C-SAM setup

Probe: 5 MHz frequency, 3” focus, 0.5” diameterAngle: ~20° in water = ~45° in steel Scanning (X): 123..0.25..146mm Scanning (R): -30..0.24..450mm (360° is 0..530mm)Gain: +7dBVoltage: 100VLine scanning

Page 9: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 9

Page 10: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 10

Page 11: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 11

1

3 4

2

5

Page 12: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 12

SAM measurements

1 2 3 4 5

# Type Size (mm) Max amplitude1 EDM 16.6*4.5 62.4%

2 EDM 6.4*2.2 67.8%

3 Thermal 6.4*2.2 47.1%

4 Thermal 3.8*?? 34.5%

5 Thermal 16.5*4.5 53.7%

Amp(5)/Amp(1) = -1.30 dBAmp(3)/Amp(2) = -3.16 dB

”During production secondary cracking appeared. Productionwas discontinued and the depth of this crack is unknown”

Page 13: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 13

SAM measurements

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

EDM 16.6*4.5mm

thermal 16.5*4.5mm

EDM 6.4*2.2mm

thermal 6.4*2.2 mm

Page 14: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 14

Future plans

Sample will be measured also with PATOFD method will be appliedUltrasonic simulations will be compared to measurement resultsDifferent types of modern artificial flaws will be compared

TOFDPAC-SAMSimulation

Page 15: Differences in Ultrasonic Indications – Thermal Fatigue ...5/2/2012 3 EDM vs. TF Indicication from EDM notch Indication from TF crack Both measurements done with same setup (probe,

5/2/2012 15

VTT - 70 years oftechnology for business

and society