National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Acceptance Criteria of Complete Joint Penetration Steel Bridge Welds Evaluated Using Enhanced Ultrasonic Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25494.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Acceptance Criteria of Complete Joint Penetration Steel Bridge Welds Evaluated Using Enhanced Ultrasonic Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25494.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Acceptance Criteria of Complete Joint Penetration Steel Bridge Welds Evaluated Using Enhanced Ultrasonic Methods. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25494.
×
Page 76

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

74 References 1. AASHTO/AWS. D1.5M/D1.5:2015 Bridge Welding Code, 7th ed. American Welding Society, Miami, FL, 2015. 2. British Standards Institute. BS 7910:2013—Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. London, 2014, p. 492. 3. Jessop, T. J., P. J. Mudge, and J. D. Harrison. NCHRP Report 242: UT Measurement of Weld Flaw Size. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1981. 4. Shenefelt, G. A. Ultrasonic Testing Requirements of the AWS 1969 Building Code and Bridge Specifications. Welding Journal, Vol. May, pp. 342–349, 1971. 5. Marks, P. T. UT Classroom Training Book, 2nd ed. The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH, 2015. 6. Armitt, T., and M. Moles. “Oscillating the Probe”: Code Require- ments and TOFD. Materials Evaluation, Vol. 65, No. 11, 2007. 7. Førli, O., and K. O. Ronold. NT Tech Report 427: Guidelines for Development of NDE Acceptance Criteria. Oslo, Norway, 1999. 8. Crosley, P. B., and E. J. Ripling. NCHRP Report 335: Acceptance Criteria for Steel Bridge Welds. National Research Council, Wash- ington, D.C., 1990. 9. AWS. D1.1/D1.1M:2015 Structural Welding Code—Steel, 23rd ed. Miami, FL, 2015. 10. Moles, M. Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds—What Can We Really Achieve? Proceedings of ASME PVP Conference, Vol. 484, 2004, pp. PVP2004–2811. 11. CSA. W59-18: Welded Steel Construction. CSA Group, Toronto, Canada, 2018, p. 550. 12. ASME. ASME BPVC Section V: Nondestructive Examination, 2017 ed. New York, NY, 2017. 13. Japanese Standards Association, JIS Z 3060:2015 Method for Ultra- sonic Testing for Welds of Ferritic Steel, 2015 ed. Tokyo, Japan, 2015. 14. Holloway, P., A. Crawford, S. Keay, and V. Vaidya. Adapting CSA W59 Ultrasonic Inspections for Use with Distance-Amplitude Techniques. NDT in Canada 2017 Conference, 2017, p. 19. 15. Holloway, P. Structural UT: Variables Affecting Attenuation and Review of the 2 dB per Inch Model. CINDE, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2017, pp. 6–11. 16. Holloway, P., A. Crawford, S. Keay, and V. Vaidya. Distance- Amplitude Techniques and their Adaptation to Structural Steel Weld Inspection. Welding Journal, Vol. March, 2018, pp. 38–47. 17. ISO. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds—Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT)—Acceptance Levels (ISO 19285:2017). CEN, Brussels, 2017. 18. ASME. ASME Boiler Pressure and Vessel Code (BPVC) Code Case 2235-13: Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography. New York, New York, 2014. 19. ISO. Non-Destructive Testing of Welds—Ultrasonic Testing— Techniques, Testing Levels, and Assessment (ISO 17640:2017). CEN, Brussels, 2017. 20. ISO. Non-Destructive Testing—Ultrasonic Testing—Vocabulary (ISO 5577:2017). 2017. 21. ASTM. Standard Practice for Contact Ultrasonic Testing of Weld- ments (ASTM E2700:2014). West Conshohocken, PA, 2014. 22. Harrison, J. D. Basis for a Proposed Acceptance-Standard for Weld Defects. Part 1: Porosity. Metal Construction and British Welding Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1972, pp. 99–107. 23. Harrison, J. D. Basis for a Proposed Acceptance-Standard for Weld Defects. Part 2: Slag Inclusions. Metal Construction and British Welding Journal, Vol. 4, No. 7, 1972, pp. 262–268. 24. Harrison, J. D., and J. Doherty. A Re-Analysis of Fatigue Data for Butt Welded Specimens Containing Slag Inclusions. Welding Research International, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1978, pp. 81–101. 25. Mills, K. C., and B. J. Keene. Physical Properties of BOS Slags. International Materials Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, Jan. 1987, pp. 1–120. 26. Mills, K. C. The Estimation of Slag Properties. 2011. https:// www.pyro.co.za/KenMills/KenMills.pdf. 27. Fisher, J. W., D. R. Mertz, and A. Zhong. NCHRP Report 267: Steel Bridge Members Under Variable Amplitude Long Life Fatigue Loading. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1983. 28. Barsom, J. M., and S. R. Novak. NCHRP Report 181: Subcritical Crack Growth and Fracture of Bridge Steel. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1977. 29. Quest Integrity USA. Signal Fitness-For-Service. Quest Integrity USA, LLC, Seattle, WA, 2016. 30. ASTM International, A709-16: Standard Specification for Structural Steel for Bridges, 2016 ed. West Conshohocken, PA, 2016. 31. Medlock, R. D. Qualification of Welding Procedures for Bridges: An Evaluation of the Heat Input Method. University of Texas at Austin, 1998. 32. AASHTO. The Manual For Bridge Evaluation, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C., 2011. 33. American Petroleum Institute and ASME, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Fitness-For-Service, 2016 ed. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 2016. 34. Anderson, T. L. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd ed. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2005.

75 35. ASME. ASME Boiler Pressure and Vessel Code (BPVC) Code Case 2235-13: Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography. New York, New York, 2014. 36. Rana, M. D., O. Hedden, D. Cowfer, and R. Boyce. Technical Basis for ASME Section VIII Code Case 2235 on Ultrasonic Examination of Welds in Lieu of Radiography. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technol- ogy, Vol. 123, No. 3, 2001, p. 338. 37. API. API RP 2X: Recommended Practice for Ultrasonic and Magnet- ic Examination of Offshore Structural Fabrication and Guidelines for Qualification of Technicians. API Publishing Services, Washing- ton, D.C., 2015. 38. EXTENDE. CIVA-UT. Massy, France, 2017. 39. Papadakis, E. Ultrasonic Attenuation and Velocity in SAE 52100 Steel Quenched from Various Temperatures. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions, Vol. 1, April 1970, pp. 1053–1057. 40. Gür, C. H., and Y. Keles¸. Ultrasonic Characterisation of Hot-Rolled and Heat-Treated Plain Carbon Steels. Insight Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring, Vol. 45, No. 9, 2003, pp. 615–620. 41. Prasad R., and S. Kumar. Study of the Influence of Deformation and Thermal Treatment on the Ultrasonic Behaviour of Steel. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 42, No. 1, 1994, pp. 51–59. 42. ASTM. ASTM E112-13: Standard Test Methods for Determining Average Grain Size. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013. 43. Chambers, J. J., and R. D. Medlock. Electroslag Welding Facts for Structural Engineers. 2015. 44. ISO. ISO 16811:2012 Non-Destructive Testing—Ultrasonic Testing— Sensitivity and Range Setting. CEN, Brussels, 2012. 45. Rattanasuwannachart, N., C. Miki, S. Hirose, and H. Shirahata. Acoustical Anisotropy and Non-Homogeneity of Rolled Steel Plates. Journal of Structural Engineering/Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1–9. 46. IBA, K. Method of Ultrasonic Angle Beam Examination for Welds of Ferritic Steels with Acoustic Anisotropy. Transactions of the Iron and Steel Institute of Japan, Vol. 27, No. 11, 1987, pp. 898–909. 47. Olympus NDT. Phased Array Testing: Basic Theory for Industrial Applications. Waltham, MA, 2010. 48. ASNT. Recommended Practice No. SNT-TC-1A (2016) Personnel Qualification and Certification in Nondestructive Testing. The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH, 2016. 49. Department of Defense. MIL-HDBK-1823A: Nondestructive Evalu- ation System Reliability Assessment. 2009. 50. NYSDOT. New York State Steel Construction Manual, 4th ed. New York State Department of Transportation, 2018. 51. TxDOT. Standard Specifications for Construction and Mainte- nance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges. Texas Department of Transportation, 2014.

Acceptance Criteria of Complete Joint Penetration Steel Bridge Welds Evaluated Using Enhanced Ultrasonic Methods Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Research Report 908: Acceptance Criteria of Complete Joint Penetration Steel Bridge Welds Evaluated Using Enhanced Ultrasonic Methods presents guidelines for evaluating complete joint penetration (CJP) welds in steel bridges and proposes modifications to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)/American Welding Society (AWS) D1.5.

Inspection of welds in steel bridges is necessary to ensure the quality of workmanship during the fabrication and construction process and later on when the bridge is in service. There are two non-destructive evaluation (NDE) methods for evaluation of complete joint penetration (CJP) welds in steel bridges: radiographic (RT) and ultrasonic (UT). Recent advances in enhanced ultrasonic methods, including the development of phased-array ultrasonic technology (PAUT), allow for efficient detection and characterization of flaws with the option of automated data collection and imaging.

Criteria for categorizing weld discontinuities as acceptable or unacceptable are codified in the AASHTO/AWS D1.5M/D1.5: Bridge Welding Code (BWC). However, these acceptance criteria do not reflect the full use of the capability of enhanced ultrasonic testing methods, and furthermore are not based on the effect of weld discontinuities on bridge performance (e.g., resistance to fatigue and fracture). In addition, some weld discontinuities that are not allowed according to BWC are potentially not harmful and may not decrease service life.

An updated acceptance criteria based on enhanced ultrasonic testing methods for evaluation of CJP welds in steel bridges was needed for fabricators and bridge owners.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!