Comparative testing of radiographic testing, ultrasonic testing and phased array advanced ultrasonic testing non destructive testing techniques in accordance with the AWS D1.5 bridge welding code.
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

ROSA P serves as an archival repository of USDOT-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other information authored or co-authored by USDOT or funded partners. As a repository, ROSA P retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
i

Comparative testing of radiographic testing, ultrasonic testing and phased array advanced ultrasonic testing non destructive testing techniques in accordance with the AWS D1.5 bridge welding code.



English

Details:

  • Creators:
  • Corporate Creators:
  • Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
  • Resource Type:
  • Geographical Coverage:
  • Corporate Publisher:
  • Abstract:
    A comprehensive body of non-destructive testing data was collected from steel bridge welds under real-world conditions in a fabricator’s shop. Three different non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques were used on each weld inspection, these being Radiographic Testing (RT), conventional Ultrasonic Testing (UT), and Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT). These data were then compared to determine whether PAUT might in future be adopted under the American Welding Society (AWS) D1.5 code as a suitable substitute for the currently required RT. Rejection rates using PAUT were similar to those of RT and UT, thereby allaying concerns that the potentially more sensitive PAUT might result in unnecessary rejections. Although all three NDT techniques generally agreed, there were some rare exceptions. These occurred when edge flaws were present, resulting in a PAUT acceptance despite a RT rejection. Additional testing was performed on three custom-designed test plates with built-in edge flaws. These plates were inspected using a procedure that also included supplemental manual and raster scanning. Using this testing procedure the PAUT came into total agreement with RT and UT regarding all plate defects. It was concluded that PAUT would make a suitable substitute for RT (and UT) in bridge weld inspection, provided an appropriate procedure is followed. Considerable cost savings could be realized by making such a change.
  • Format:
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:
    Filetype[PDF-3.18 MB]

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at