Latest Post

Dear experts, we are having a project of aluminum heat exchangers with tube side MOC as aluminum SB 209. Here I want to make confirm the suitable filler wires for  TIG welding of Aluminium to SA 516 GR 60/70.
I saw your query on LinkedIn also.  Aluminum could be welded to steel a couple of ways, e.g friction stir welding, explosion bonding, not certainly by Arc Welding Process. Some of the problems are as stated below.
  • With respect to fusion, welding says, GTAW iron and aluminum are not compatible metals. Their melting temperatures differ greatly: 1220°F for aluminum vs. 2800°F for iron.
  • Both metals have almost no solubility for the other in the solid-state, especially iron in aluminum, and several brittle intermetallic phases can form (FeAl, Fe2A1, or FeAI3)'
  • Consequently, resultant fusion welds joining steel and aluminum would be extremely brittle. 

For the sake of fabrication, your only option would braze welding or brazing. However, for a heat exchanger, I have doubt if Sec-IX welding qualification criteria could be met for such a joint.

Aluminum to steel combination is popular in ships, as ship superstructure contains extensive  Aluminum alloys for the sake of weight reductions. Friction or explosion bonded inserts are used as intermediatory to facilitate GTAW  or GMAW. This is not the choice for process equipments e.g heat exchangers.

If the MOC aluminum on the tube side, then the preferred tube-sheet would be either Aluminum or C.S Tube sheet clad with Aluminum.

Wherever C.S# Aluminum welding may occur,  facilitate the design change for Aluminum to aluminum welding.

Thanks.

The fundamental difference between TOFD and PAUT is as follows:


TOFD
Excellent at detecting and sizing volumetric type indications (i.e. slag, porosity, etc) Good at detecting and sizing planer indications but is not always good at detecting and worst at sizing close to the surfaces. Sizing of defects with TOFD is problematic due to nature for which an indication is created by the sound wave. It can be used where there is a wall thickness transition at the weld.

PAUT or shear wave UT
OK at detecting and sizing volumetric indications. Typically the sizing is less accurate than TOFD unless the indication is large or a cluster and at an optimum orientation such that the round nature of volumetric indications does not deflection the UT wave. Excellent at detecting and sizing planer indications such as cracks, lack of fusion, incomplete penetration.

PAUT can also be set to target the surface region to detect indications that TOFD can not see and size. Typically not possible to use when there is a wall thickness transition at or close to the weld. The transition needs to be several inches from the weld.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each inspection method.  The method needs to be selected based on what type of indications are expected and targeted in the acceptance criteria.  Usually, both TOFD and shear wave UT (PAUT or multiprobe) are used together and both signals are analyzed to determine the type and size of the indications.  

That is a very short summary of the UT methods you asked about.  There are a lot more that needs to be considered and understood when applying either or both method.  That is especially the case regarding the method of which they are calibrated.

In either case, neither is better, they are just different.  One may be better for one situation and the other better in another situation.

Geoff Rogers
Welding Engineer
Houston, Texas


Magnetic Particle Testing

Magnetic particle testing is a non-destructive testing method for the detection of surface and subsurface discontinuities in ferromagnetic materials.

Ferromagnetic materials are materials that can be magnetized to a level that will allow the inspection to be effective. They are Iron, Cobalt, Nickel and their magnetic alloys.
Magnetic particle testing can detect, surface and near-surface cracks seams, laps, cold shuts in castings lamination, lack of fusion near the surface, undercuts, deep scratches and fatigue cracks are indicated. Linear inclusions and porosity at or very near the surface may produce indications.

The technique uses the principle, that during the magnetization of a ferromagnetic material, magnetic lines of force [magnetic flux lines] pass-through this magnetically conducting medium. If the magnetic flux lines hit an area of different magnetic permeability such as a crack near the surface, a portion of these flux lines gets diverted and leak out above the surface of the material. A magnetic leakage field emerges from the part.

To show this leakage field, colored finely divided iron particles are sprayed to the area under examination. The leakage field attracts and accumulates some of these iron powder particles and essentially creates a powder caterpillar worm-like visual indication for the human eye. The indication is produced directly on the surface of the part and above the discontinuity.
There are variations in the way the magnetizing field is applied, but they are all dependant on the above principle. All surface and near-surface crack-like defects that produce a leakage field at the test surface can be detected. No elaborate precleaning is necessary, and surface defects filled with foreign material can be detected.

Characteristics of a discontinuity that enhances its detection are,
  • Its depth is at right angles to the surface
  • Width of the surface opening small so that the air gap created  
  • Is narrow
  • Its length at the surface is large with respect to its width
  • It is comparatively deep in proportion to the width of its opening.

In general, reliable detection requires that the width - depth - length dimensions of the discontinuities correspond to the ratio 1: 5:10. The lowest detection limits are a 1µm crack width, with a 10 µm depth of cut.

Optimum crack detection occurs when the magnetic flux lines flow at right - angles to the length of the defect. To form a detectable leakage field, the angle between the field direction and the expected defect’s length shall not be greater than 45°.

Disadvantages

It can be used only on ferromagnetic materials, has a certain application that requires large amounts of electrical current and requires the magnetic field to be properly oriented in relation to the discontinuities anticipated. Paint coatings and nonmagnetic coverings affect the sensitivity of examination. Demagnetization of the parts following examination may be required. Post cleaning to remove the magnetic particle materials from the test surface is required.

Detectability of Defects

Detectability depends on the formation of a strong leakage field which is dependent on surface opening of the discontinuity and its depth through the part thickness. A shallow surface scratch which may be as wide as it is deep usually does not produce an indication. If a crack is wide open at the surface, the reluctance of the air gap in the crack opening reduces the strength of the leakage field. This, combining with the inability of the particles to bridge the air gap, fails to form an indication. Laps emerge at an acute angle to the surface and a wide air gap is created between its lip and the part surface. The leakage field may be quite weak because very little leakage flux takes the path out through the surface lip of the lap to cross this high reluctance gap. If the faces of a crack are tightly forced together under compressive stress, the almost complete absence of an air gap may produce so little leakage field that no particle indication is formed.

The surface structure of a test piece has a significant influence on the detectability of defects. The surface cutting depth of a defect should be at least twice the associated surface roughness. Defect detectability can be further reduced by false indications arising from magnetic stray fields, accumulation of powder due to surface roughness, part configuration, scratches, scales, slots, etc. Cases can occur where It is difficult to generate the force required for a positive defect indication.

Surface irregularities and scratches can give misleading indications. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure careful preparation of the surface before magnetic particle testing is undertaken.

Detectability of Sub Surface Defects

Magnetic particle testing can detect near-surface discontinuities of favorable position and adequate size, but the possibility of an indication rapidly decreases when the discontinuity is more than 2 mm below the surface.

Detection sensitivity increases with an increase in magnetic field strength, but with very high field strength magnetic particles will be attracted to defect-free areas of the surface as well as to defects. The depth below the surface at which a sub-surface the defect may be detected is of the order of 3 to 7 mm when the direct current magnetization is used, but this will also depend on the size, shape, and orientation. Therefore, the deeper the discontinuity lies below the surface, the larger it must be to yield a readable indication and the more difficult the discontinuity is to find by this method.

Cracks below a non-magnetizable surface layer, up to 40 µm is detectable.

MKRdezign

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget