UT Quality/Technology & insights/AUT vs radiography
UT Quality runs RT, DR and CR crews as well as automated ultrasonics. Credibility means telling you where radiography still beats ultrasonics — and where AUT/PAUT should carry the mainline. Here is the actual decision.
Work down the questions. Any “yes” points to radiography for that weld; if none apply — which is the usual case on mainline production — automated ultrasonics is the primary method.
Method-selection flow — RT vs AUT/PAUT
Mainline production rate, planar-flaw detection and through-wall sizing, heavy wall, immediate encoded results, and a defensible digital record — the usual answer on pipeline girth welds.
Code-mandated film, volumetric-dominant thin-wall and shop welds where porosity and slag image well, fittings with no clean scan path (where semi-automated PAUT is the ultrasonic alternative), and cases where a scanner band simply will not couple.
Radiography is the right call when code or spec mandates RT film, when the weld is volumetric-dominant (thin-wall or shop welds where porosity and slag image well), when fittings or geometry leave no clean scan-band path (semi-automated PAUT is also an option there), or when surface prep is impossible. When none of these apply, which is the usual case on mainline production, automated ultrasonics is the primary method.
On mainline production welds, including heavy wall, that trigger none of the radiography exceptions. AUT/PAUT is strong on production rate, planar-flaw detection and through-wall sizing, immediate encoded results, and a defensible digital record, which is the usual answer on pipeline girth welds.
Yes. UT Quality fields RT, DR and CR crews as well as automated ultrasonics, so the recommended method is never limited by what UT Quality can run. The method chosen is the one the weld calls for.
Tell us the scope — UT Quality will recommend RT, AUT/PAUT, or both, and field the crew for it.
Request a crew