Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
63000 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101
The need for quality control and quality assurance of welds in the fabrication of steel bridge structures has led to the development of a variety of nondestructive inspection techniques. For many years, radiographic testing (RT) has been the preferred nondestructive inspection method used to ensure the quality of butt welds in the fabrication of steel plates for bridge girders. The major advantage of RT has been the capability of producing a radiograph that serves as a permanent record of the inspection. However, the significant health hazards associated with the use of radiographic methods have long been a concern.
Recent advances in computers and ultrasonic technology have led to the development of automated ultrasonic testing (AUT) techniques that produce three-dimensional images of internal conditions in the weld. The AUT image can serve as a permanent record of the inspection and allows for subjective reviews of the inspection findings. Since AUT uses ultrasonic waves, there are minimal health concerns with this method.
This report presents the findings of a study initiated by the Federal Highway Administration's Nondestructive Evaluation Validation Center (NDEVC) to evaluate the effectiveness and viability of automated ultrasonic testing techniques as a replacement for radiographic testing methods for the inspection of butt welds during fabrication of steel plates for bridge girders.
Paul Teng, Director
Office of Infrastructure Research and Development
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
1. Report No. FHWA HRT-04-124 | 2. Government Accession No. | 3. Recipient's Catalog No. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4. Title and Subtitle Laboratory and Field Testing of Automated Ultrasonic Testing Systems for Steel Highway Bridges |
5. Report Date April 2005 |
|||||
6. Performing Organization Code | ||||||
7. Author(s) Ali Rezai, Ph.D., Mark Moore, P.E., Travis Green, P.E., and Glenn Washer, Ph.D., P.E. |
8. Performing Organization Report No. | |||||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 4165 Shackleford Road, Suite 100 Norcross, GA 30093 |
10. Work Unit No. | |||||
11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-02-C-00045 |
||||||
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Office of Infrastructure Research and Development Federal Highway Administration 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101 |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report August 2000-October 2004 |
|||||
14. Sponsoring Agency Code | ||||||
15. Supplementary Notes Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR): Glenn Washer, Ph.D., PE, HRDI-10 |
||||||
16. Abstract Fabrication inspection of welds is necessary to ensure the quality of workmanship during the fabrication process. The implementation of automated ultrasonic testing (AUT) methods for inspecting butt welds in steel bridge fabrication is the subject of this report. The primary goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of AUT as a replacement for radiographic testing (RT) for fabrication inspection of welds in steel highway bridges. The AUT results will be compared to RT results. The advantages of implementing AUT as compared to RT for inspecting butt welds in fabrication plants will be addressed. The study consists of laboratory testing to assess the viability of the AUT system under a controlled laboratory environment and field testing at fabrication plants, during the routine fabrication process, to assess the performance and practicality of the AUT technique and system for use in the fabrication shop environment. AUT, manual ultrasonic testing (UT), and RT systems are employed side by side for fabrication inspection of welds during field testing. |
||||||
17. Key Words NDE, ultrasonic, inspection, automated ultrasonic testing, AUT, auto UT, bridge fabrication inspection, butt weld, butt joint, steel bridge, and radiographic testing. |
18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. |
|||||
19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified |
20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified |
21. No of Pages 139 |
22. Price |
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized
4. EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION AND CALIBRATION
5. TESTING AND EVALUATION PLAN
Laboratory specimen S033: Schematic diagram showing two implanted cracks
Laboratory specimen S033: Radiographic image shows the two implanted cracks
Flaw-sizing scheme of the P-scan system for the root crack in laboratory specimen S033
IIW reference block used for the P-scan calibration: Type RC
IIW reference block used for the P-scan calibration: Type DSC
Horizontal linearity check using a straight-beam transducer and IIW type I reference block
Sound entry point check: Photograph shows the transducer position on the IIW reference block
Schematic diagram of specimen: Thickness transition at butt joint
Schematic diagram of specimen: Width transition at butt joint
Laboratory specimen S034: Schematic diagram showing two implanted cracks
Laboratory specimen S034: Schematic diagram of longitudinal/centerline crack
Laboratory specimen S034: Schematic diagram of transverse crack
Laboratory specimen S034: Radiographic image showing the two implanted cracks
P-scan images of laboratory specimen S034: Images of longitudinal/centerline indication in the weld
Laboratory specimen S125: Radiographic image showing discontinuities in the weld
P-scan images of laboratory specimen S125: From TSC side of centerline
P-scan images of laboratory specimen S125: From BSC side of centerline
Laboratory specimen S126: Radiographic image showing discontinuities in the weld
P-scan images of laboratory specimen S126: From TSC side of centerline
P-scan images of laboratory specimen S126: From BSC side of centerline
Laboratory specimen S132: Radiographic image showing discontinuities in the weld
Laboratory specimen S133: Radiographic image showing discontinuities in the weld
Field specimen FG38K-TF2-TopF-FCM used in blind testing: Top view of joint
Field specimen FG38K-TF2-TopF-FCM used in blind testing: Side view of joint
Radiographic image of field specimen FG38K-TF2-TopF-FCM: Section A-B
Radiographic image of field specimen FG38K-TF2-TopF-FCM: Section B-C
Radiographic image of field specimen FG38K-TF2-TopF-FCM: Section C-D
Radiographic image of field specimen G5G-TF1-TopF: Section A-B
Radiographic image of field specimen G5G-TF1-TopF: Section B-C
P-scan images of field specimen G5G-TF1-TopF using 70-degree probe: From TSC side of centerline
P-scan images of field specimen G5G-TF1-TopF using 70-degree probe: From BSC side of centerline
Radiographic image of field specimen G2G-CF1-BottF-FCM: Section A-B
Radiographic image of field specimen G2G-CF1-BottF-FCM: Section B-C
Radiographic image of field specimen G2G-CF1-BottF-FCM: Section C-D
Radiographic image of field specimen G2G-CF1-BottF-FCM: Section D-E
P-scan images of field specimen G2G-CF1-BottF-FCM using 45-degree probe: From TSC side of centerline
P-scan images of field specimen G2G-CF1-BottF-FCM using 45-degree probe: From BSC side of centerline
Radiographic image of field specimen FG36K-TF2-TopF-FCM: Section C-D
Radiographic image of field specimen FG37K-TF3-BottF-FCM: Section C-D
P-scan images of field specimen FG37K-TF3-BottF-FCM: Scan using 45-degree probe
P-scan images of field specimen FG37K-TF3-BottF-FCM: Scan using 70-degree probe
HSS procedural test plate TP2: P-scan images from BSC side of centerline
Radiographic image of field specimen FG40M-TF1-Curved-FCM: Section B-C
Field specimen G3VHW-CF1-BottF: Radiographic image of section A-B
Field specimen G3VHW-CF1-BottF: P-scan images from TSC side of centerline using 70-degree probe
Field specimen G5VHW-CF1-BottF: Radiographic image of section B-C
P-scan images of field specimen G5VHW-CF1-BottF: From TSC side of centerline using 45-degree probe
P-scan images of field specimen G5VHW-CF1-BottF: From BSC side of centerline using 45-degree probe
P-scan images of field specimen G5VHW-CF1-BottF: From BSC side of centerline using 70-degree probe
Transducer articulation testing: Various articulation angle wedges
Influence of transducer articulation angle on the maximum amplitude of the reflected signal
Description of manufactured defects in the category 1 laboratory specimens
Description of defects found by manual UT in the category 2 laboratory specimens
Consolidating the results of laboratory testing using laboratory specimens with rejectable defects
Consolidating the results of field testing using field specimens with rejectable defects
Assessing the detectability and rejectability of three inspection methods in the laboratory
Assessing the detectability and rejectability of three inspection methods in the field
FHWA-HRT-04-124 |
TFHRC Home | FHWA Home | Feedback United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration |