0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Reflection and Mode Conversion of Fundamental Torsional Guided Wave Mode From Lack of Bonding in Induction Pressure Welding

[+] Author and Article Information
Deepesh Vimalan

Nondestructive Testing Laboratory,
Quality Department,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
Trichy 620015, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: d2208881@gmail.com

Krishnan Balasubramaniam

Professor
Centre for Nondestructive Evaluation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: balas@iitm.ac.in

Prabhu Rajagopal

Associate Professor
Centre for Nondestructive Evaluation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: prajagopal@iitm.ac.in

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 1, 2016; final manuscript received May 18, 2017; published online August 25, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Xian-Kui Zhu.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(6), 061401 (Aug 25, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: PVT-16-1206; doi: 10.1115/1.4036852 History: Received November 01, 2016; Revised May 18, 2017

Interaction of fundamental torsional ultrasonic pipe guided mode T(0, 1) from defects caused by induction pressure welding (IPW) process is studied using three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) analysis validated by experiments. Defects are assumed as cross-sectional notches along the weld bond-line, and both surface-breaking and embedded features are considered. Results show that T(0, 1) mode reflection from weld defects is strongly influenced by features of the weld itself. However, with supplementary results such as the mode-converted flexural F(1, 3) and F(1, 2) modes and circumferential variation of T(0, 1) reflection, there is potential for an effective screening solution.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Photographs showing (a) IPW in progress, (b) a welded sample, and (c) conventional UT of welded tubes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Photograph of IPW joint that had failed due to lack of bonding and (b) typical micro-examination image of IPW joint showing the presence of lack of bonding near the outer surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Phase velocity dispersion curves for a steel tube of outer dia 51 mm and thickness 3.6 mm obtained from DISPERSE [26]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Snapshot of the 3D finite element model of tube with IPW joint having in which a through rectangular notch is modeled as lack of bonding defect. The 12 of excitation locations at one end of the tube are highlighted through filled circles at several positions on the cross section.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Plot showing T(0, 1) reflection coefficient versus circumferential extent of the notch in a plain tube of OD 51 mm and thickness 3.6 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Photographs of IPW specimen with (a) tube OD 51 mm, wall thickness 6.6 mm, with a through-thickness rectangular notch of width 1 mm and circumferential extent 75% and (b) tube OD 45 mm, wall thickness 7 mm with a part-thickness rectangular OD notch of width 1 mm, and height 50% of the weld thickness

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Snapshot of the experimental setup and (b) schematic diagram representing the transducer arrangement for generation of T(0, 1) mode in the experimental study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The snapshots of the contour of total displacement magnitude at different time instances (for an IPW defect of through-thickness type, having a width 100 μm, circumferential extent 50%, along the weld bond-line, in a tube of OD 51 mm and thickness 6.6 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Snapshot of contour of total displacement magnitude for surface-breaking through-thickness defect (width—100 μm, along with weld bond-line) of circumferential extent 50% in a tube of OD 51 mm and thickness 6.6 mm, showing the difference in the extent of reflection by the weld and the defect

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

T(0, 1) mode RC versus circumferential extent of the surface-breaking through-thickness notch (width—100 μm, along with weld bond-line) in IPW in a tube of OD 51 mm and thickness 6.6 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Snapshots of contour of total displacement magnitude for surface-breaking through-thickness defect (width 100 μm, along with weld bond-line) of circumferential extents 4% and 75%, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Snapshot of contour of total displacement magnitude for surface-breaking part-thickness defect (depth—50% of the thickness, width—100 μm, along with weld bond-line) having circumferential extent 75%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

T(0, 1) mode RC versus circumferential extent of the OD sided surface-breaking part-thickness notch (depth 50% of the thickness, width 100 μm, along with weld bond-line) in IPW in a tube of OD 51 mm and thickness 6.6 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

T(0, 1) mode RC and TC versus circumferential extent of the embedded internal notch (height—3.6 mm, width—2 mm, located at the center of the weld) in IPW in a tube of OD 51 mm and thickness 3.6 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Time trace plot for a through-thickness notch (50% circumferential extent, 100 μm width along with weld bond-line) in an IPW on a tube of OD 51 mm and wall thickness 6.6 mm, excited with T(0, 1) mode of 100 kHz frequency. This was monitored at distance 12.5λ on the reflection side.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Mode shape of F(1, 3) mode on the reflected signals from through-thickness lack of bonding of 50% circumferential extent (width—100 μm, along the weld bond-line) in IPW on a tube of OD 51 mm and wall thickness 6.6 mm, excited with T(0, 1) mode of 100 kHz frequency. This is plotted using 3D FE analysis.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Reflection coefficient of F(1, 3) and T(0, 1) modes with respect to the circumferential extent of the through-thickness notch in IPW on a tube of OD 51 mm and thickness 6.6 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Schematic diagram of the IPW weld showing tube wall thickness (HT), defect height (HD), and weld thickness (HD)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Snapshot of the contour of total displacement magnitude showing the cross-sectional view of the IPW defect in the case of a 51 mm OD and 3.6 mm tube

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Plots showing (a) reflection coefficient, RC versus height the defect HD, for various circumferential extent cases, for T(0, 1) mode excitation and (b) HR/HT values for various HD values

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Plot showing RC versus radial position (ID side, center, and OD side), for various circumferential extent cases, for T(0, 1) mode excitation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Snapshots of the contour of total displacement magnitude for a 2.4 mm defect, showing the comparison of the reflection of incident T(0, 1) mode by ID and OD side defects, in the case of a 51 mm OD and 3.6 mm tube

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Plot showing the variation of reflection coefficient with respect to the ratio of the area of defect to remaining good weld, in the case of a 51 mm OD and 3.6 mm tube

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In