Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

1 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

NDT.net - February 2001, Vol. 6 No. 2

Presented in the Seminar on Automated Ultrasonic Inspection of Welds Using Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line
Scanning at Edison Welding Institute in March 2000
E. Ginzel
Materials Research Institute
Waterloo (ON) Canada
M. G. Lozev, Ph.D.
Senior Engineer
Edison Welding Institute
NDE Technology Team
1250 Arthur E. Adams Dr. Columbus, OH 43221
Phone: 614-688-5188, Fax: 614-688-5001
email: mark_lozev@ewi.org

Overview
Definitions: what are Codes
Codes vs. Guides
Some Rules applicable to UT or in which UT is applicable
Codes and Mechanised UT
Codes considering TOFD
Code Cases, communications and future requirements
Summary

Codes, Standardes and Procedures

The terms "code", "standard", "specification" and "procedure" are often confused in NDT. In some
cases these terms are used inter-changeably. However from a technical point of view each refers to a
separate type of document. To avoid even further confusion we will restrict our definitions to the
written documents implied by these terms. This caution is due to the common referral to calibration
blocks or test pieces with known defects used to verify accuracy of a test procedure as a "standard".
A standard is a written document assembled by recognized experts, with the purpose of recommending
actions to achieve certain objectives. An example of a standard is the American Society of
Nondestructive Testing Recommended Practice No. SNT-TC-1A. This is a standard for qualification
and certification of NDT personnel by employers.
A standard is usually enforced or given authority by an organization or agency (typically professional
societies or national institutions). When a set of standards is incorporated into law and thereby
enforceable legally it is considered a code. Examples of codes are:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z184 Gas Pipeline Systems.
A federal agency may reference a Standard and thereby give it code status; e.g. 49 CFR 192 is the

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

2 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

American pipeline regulatory document and it references API Standard 1104 Welding of Pipelines and
Related Facilities. Another example is the Canadian Atomic Energy Act (an Act in Parliament)
referencing CSA Z-285 General Requirements for Pressure Retaining Systems of Components in
Candu Nuclear Power Plants.
When a user or purchaser of a specific product requires assurance of quality level they will often
arrange their own document describing specific test parameters and acceptance criteria. Such a product
specific standard is considered a specification. Although it may reference other codes and standards it
can require more stringent limits than the more general standards or it may avoid any reference to a
Code or Standard.
To avoid the ambiguity of the usually general standards, and to avoid the constant updating of
specifications that refer to national standards which are constantly revised, companies often develop a
procedure.
The procedure can address the company's needs by setting out its standard practices for the various
aspects of the test method, such as; procurement, processing, periodic controls, approved materials and
accessories.
Finally, as a contracted inspection company applies a test to various parts, the variations available to
achieve the desired results can be too myriad to list in the body of a procedure document and
generalisations are again too vague. A common method of addressing the specific inspection
application to a specific part is to use a technique sheet.
In summary, there is a hierarchy of documentation in NDT.
1. Standards and codes, which provide general guidelines and limits
2. Specification, which is a product specific document usually assembled by the customer or owner
3. Procedures, which are usually a company's statement of their standard practices or a document
designed to address the requirements of a specification issued by the company they are providing
a service to.
4. A technique sheet is often part of a procedure and provides a brief description of test application
to a specific part.

Code versus Guide

A special condition exists when a technical committee decides that a method of performing a function
should be better explained. In the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) there is a
special category of a standard called a Guide.
As defined in the ASTM Blue Book, Form and Style for ASTM Standards a Guide is a compendium
of information or series of options that does not recommend a specific course of action. When
referencing ASTM many people refer to the publications as Codes however, the title of the volumes
clearly indicates that these are Standards as opposed to Codes; i.e. the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards vol. 03.03. This applies to other similar documents and organisations; e.g. British Standards
Institution.
A careful look at the wording in standards indicates the prevalence of should instead of shall. This is
especially true when the Standard is a standard Guide.

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

3 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

Some Rules applicable to UT or in which UT is applicable

Time-of-Flight-Diffraction is one of the main concerns of this seminar and is quite simply another
ultrasonic inspection technique. Ultrasonic inspections generally can either be required by a Standard
or in turn may be regulated in some way by a Standard.
As an example; ASME Section VIII will require an ultrasonic inspection be carried out on a component
and describe the acceptance criteria for the test method. This Section of the Code does not tell you how
to perform the inspection. ASME VIII references Section V to describe how inspections are to be set
up and carried out.
Therefore we would expect to have to consider two sorts of Standards for TOFD;
One describing how to carry out the test (probes, frequencies, angles, etc.)
One describing on what it will be applied and how to evaluate the results of the test.
In practise however, only one of these exists for TOFD and even that is more informative than
nominative. Guides on the use of TOFD exist but Standards actually requiring TOFD and providing
acceptance criteria are still absent.

Codes and Mechanised UT

Codes and Standards are by their nature, slow to change. The acceptance criteria in many codes we
have to deal with in NDT had their foundation in workmanship standards and these were often based
on the results of what radiography could find. Flaw detection and evaluation by ultrasonic testing was
more difficult to regulate because its results are heavily dependant on the skills of the manual
ultrasonic operator. Codes and Standards have been carefully worded to address how to control the
manual inspection to ensure good probability of detection and repeatability of results. As
mechanisation of ultrasonic inspection became more common the Codes did not change. Instead, the
mechanics of inspections were more likely to be adapted to meet the wording of the Code or Standard
and the many advantages they could have provided were restricted by the rules for inspection.
In 1979 Maurice Silk and his associates in Harwell introduced the TOFD technique to the world. This
came about from the need to more accurately size defects than had been possible using standard
amplitude methods. The success of the method as a detection and sizing tool has been well documented
throughout the literature.
1. Accurate Crack Depth Measurements in Welded Assemblies,Silk,M.G., Eighth World
Conference on NDT, Cannes, France, 1976
2. PISC (1979) Evaluation of the PISC Trial Results, volumes I through V of Report No. EUR
6371 en, Commision of the European Communities, Brussels
3. PISC (1986) A Summary of the PISCII Project, Ultrasonic Inspection of Heavy Steel
Components, R.W.Nichols & S.Crutzen, Elsevier Applied Scienc Publishers, London 1988
4. Depth Measurements in Pressure Tubes Using Crack Tip Diffraction, F.Mastroianni and
M.D.C.Moles, Ontario Hydro Research Division Report #86-293-K, 1986
5. F.H. Dijkstra, T. Bouma, Inspection of complex geometries with Time-of-Flight Diffraction, 14th
International Conference on NDE in the Nuclear and Pressure Vessel Industries, 24-26 Sept.
1996 Conference Proceedings
6. H. Heckhuser, K.-H. Gischler, Das Zipscan -System bei der Ultraschallprfung an plattierten

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

4 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

Bauteilen und Rohrleitungen, Tagungsband der DGZfP "Automatisierung in der

Ultraschallprfung , Stand der Technik, Entwicklungstendenzen bei mobilen Prfanlagen"
(1989)
7. B. Bttcher, E. Schulz, H. Wstenberg, A new method of crack determination in ultrasonic
materials testing Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on NDT, Warschau 1973, Reprint No.130
8. M.G. Silk, B.H. Lidington, Defect Sizing using an Ultrasonic Time Delay Approach, British
Journal of NDT, March 1975
9. M.G. Silk, The rapid analysis of TOFD data incorporating the provisions of standards, Proc. 6th
European Conf. on NDT, 24.-28. Oct. 1994, Nice France, Vol. 1
10. T. Just, G. Csapo, Ultrasonic crack depth measurement of surface breaking cracks in piping,
UTonline Journal www.ultrasonic.de (also presented at the DGZfP workshop 1994)
11. Final Draft prENV 583-6, Nondestructive Testing -Ultrasonic Examination- Part 6: Time of
flight diffraction, technique as a method for defect detection and sizing
12. J. Verkooijen, TOFD used to replace radiography, INSIGHT Vol. 37 No 6 June 1995
13. M.G.Silk, Estimates of the probability of detection of flaws in TOFD data with varying levels of
noise, INSIGHT Vol. 38 No 1 January 1996
In spite of the acknowledged success of the TOFD method it has been a 30 year struggle to get
meaningful Codes and Standards that allow its use. Still today, it is difficult to apply TOFD and take
advantage of its benefits of speed in detection as well as its sizing accuracy because it is not described
in most codes referenced by designers.

Codes considering TOFD

In 1989, ten years after its introduction, M. Silk wrote a paper on how TOFD could be applied to
ASME Section XI (Maurice Silk, "Interpretation of TOFD data in the light of ASME XI and similar
rules" British Journal of NDT vol 31, May 1989). At that time ASME Section XI allowed the
application of fracture mechanics to assist in determining the disposition status of a flaw detected by
NDT.
However, in 1989 the applicable Section V, which would have been referenced for any ultrasonic
inspection, would not have even considered computerised imaging techniques (CITs) of which TOFD
would be only one subsequently described. CITs were first introduced in the 1992 Addenda (Dec. 31
1992) of the Article 4 in Section V. This finally allowed TOFD to be used (Non-mandatory Appendix E
Paragraph E-80). This paragraph acknowledged TOFDs ability to both detect and size volumetric and
planar flaws (sizing being limited to planar flaws).
This acceptance in ASME Section XI may be considered the foot in the door that TOFD needed to be
accepted as a viable ultrasonic tool in a regulatory conscious world. However, as just one of the tools
available in Section XI its use was restricted to a tool for sizing and dispositioning flaws found during
in-service inspections of pressure vessels.
Parallel development was being carried out to enlighten the potential hands-on users how to carry out
TOFD inspections. This led to the development of the Standard Guides.
Standard TOFD Guides include:
BS 7706 (1993) Guide to Calibration and setting-up of the ultrasonic time-of-flight
diffraction (TOFD) technique for detection , location and sizing of flaws.

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

5 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

British Standards Institute 1993. CEN prEN 583-6 Time of Flight Diffraction Technique as a
method for defect detection and sizing
Note: Although CEN prEN 583-6 stipulates specific requirements in some aspects of the test, many
aspects are addressed as recommendations as opposed to requirements. For this reason we have
included it with BS 7706 as a guide.
Comparison of BS 7706 and EN 583-6
Item
Scope

BS7706
States that it provides guidance and
suggests that the linear scan (which it
calls a D-scan) is applicable for initial
scanning and a B-scan (motion parallel
to the plane of the beam axis) is done
for accurate sizing
References
References are both Normative and
Informative and all are British
Standards
Definitions
Several common words are defined
(several
such as; hardcopy, probe, transducer,
differences)
flaw height Some special words are
defined: lateral wave, creeping wave,
B-scan and D-scan
Principles of the General description and several
Technique
equations to define flaw depths
(Method in EN
583-6)

Personnel

Equipment
requirements

Probes

Guiding
mechanisms

EN 583-6
States that it defines general
principles for TOFD

Only Normative standards are

referenced and all are EN
standards
Several symbols used in diagrams
are defined
Nonparallel scan and S-scan are
defined and equate to BS 7706
B-scan and D-scan respectively
Very general statement on the
principles is made and then
requirements for surface
condition (as per EN 583-1) and
couplant are made.
Cautions against using TOFD on
coarse grained materials
Requires general familiarity and
Qualification to EN 473 as a
suitable training(Guidelines for training minimum plus additional training
provided in Annex E)
in accordance with a written
practice
Minimum parameters are
General guides are suggested as giving stipulated: e.g. receiver
suitable results: e.g. pulser, receiver and bandwidth, pulser rise time,
digitiser parameters.
A-scan sampling rate (minimum 1
sample per mm)
Guidance suggesting short pulse higher Stipulates 2 probes, Same centre
frequency probes
frequency within +/-20%, Pulse
width not to exceed 2 cycles
Recommends:
Frequency and refracted angles
Not covered
Require the use of mechanics to
ensure probe spacing and encoded

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

6 of 17

Equipment
Set-up
Procedures

Interpretation
and Flaw
Analysis

Estimation of
Flaw
Dimensions

Limitations

Reporting
requirements

Reference
Blocks

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

positioning of probes and

accuracy with respect to reference
line must be within 10% of probe
centre spacing
Extensive discussions on the parameter Special note in Section 7 states
considerations are given: geometry,
that the arrangements of probes
surface conditions, probe
provided are NOT mandatory.
parameters,temporal and spatial
Considers probe parameters,
resolution, sensitivity, and digitising
digitiser window, sensitivity, scan
rates.
resolution, scan speed, and
checking system performance
Reporting or Acceptance criteria to be Reporting or Acceptance criteria
agreed upon by contracting parties
to be agreed upon by contracting
General description of flaw recognition parties Basic information is
is provided with a more detailed
provided on use of phase analysis
description and examples in Annex D to determine flaw extents Three
Five classes of flaw:
classifications of flaw:
1. Planar
1. Top Surface breaking
2. Volumetric
2. Bottom Surface breaking
3. Threadlike
3. Imbedded
4. Point
5. Unclassified
A special section Section 8 is devoted to Analysis of flaw depth and extent
a general principles then a detailed
are covered in the same section
description for accurate sizing is
(Section 8) as the interpretation of
provided in Section 9
findings
EN uses the term Estimation in
regards to all sizing and provides
equations for depth analysis
(similar to those found in BS7706
Section 4, Principles to the
method)
Section 11 covers the many variables Section 10 discusses the variable
that would cause inaccuracies in the
causing errors in the accuracy of
technique
flaw sizing and location.
Caution is also made to not
confuse precision and resolution
Covered in Annex B
Allows TOFD without Data
recording in certain simple
applications
Reporting to conform to EN
583-1 as applicable
Suggests blocks be the same materials Requires
and thickness of the test piece Suggests Blocks be of the same material as
that narrow V-notches or Side Drilled part to be tested
Holes may be used as diffractor targets Blocks must have a wall thickness
equal to or greater than nominal

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

7 of 17

Annexes

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

A (informative) Special
Techniques based on TOFD
B (informative) Application of
TOFD and reporting criteria
C (informative) Suggested Steps
towards characterisation of flaw
echoes in TOFD
D (informative) Examples of
typical scans
E (informative) Suggested
framework for training and
qualification

wall of test part Width and length

of block must be adequate for
probe movement over reference
diffractors
A (normative) Reference
blocks

Table 1

These two guides are very similar, even following a nearly identical outline format.
European countries have been eager to adapt TOFD to inspections but have been no faster in
developing Codes or Standards which can be used with TOFD.
Except for the Guides available there are still no other internationally recognised Standards other than
ASME that have incorporated TOFD as part of the acceptance criteria evaluation tools.
Codes and Standards applicable to TOFD include:
BS 7706 (1993) Guide to Calibration and setting-up of the ultrasonic time-of-flight
diffraction (TOFD) technique for detection, location and sizing of flaws. British Standards
Institute 1993.
Pr EN 583-6
Time of Flight Diffraction Technique as a method for defect detection and
sizing
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section V (as a CIT option in Article 4)
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section VIII (in a Code Case in lieu of RT)
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section XI (for accurate sizing)
ASME adaptations to TOFD are somewhat circuitous.
E.g.
ASME V Article 4 Para T-436 Computerized Imaging Techniques (CITs)
The paragraph states that, CITs may also be used to perform the basic scanning functions for
flaw detection. Then it refers the reader to Appendix E. E-10 lists general requirements for CITs
including instrument specifics, procedure requirements and the need for the dimensional
information on the displays. E-80 then discusses Automated Data and Imaging Technique as one
of the CITs. This describes the basic features of TOFD without calling it a TOFD technique;
including scrolling RF waveforms, and sizing using tip diffracted waves.
ASME VIII Code Case 2235 (2000 Edition)

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

8 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

In the paragraph requiring that ultrasonic examination be performed in accordance with ASME
Section V, Article 4 (this article acknowledges CITs of which TOFD is one). A further statement
is made. Alternatively, for techniques that do not use amplitude recording levels, acceptable
performance is defined as demonstrating that all sized flaws, including the 0.06t flaws have an
indicated length equal to or greater than the actual length of the specified flaws in the
qualification block. This has clearly opened the door for TOFD to be used on Section VIII
pressure vessels.
ASME XI is specific to nuclear applications and is the item Silk pointed to for TOFD to meet
the requirements of. Division 1 IWA-3000 requires that flaws detected during In-service
inspections that exceed acceptance standards of Section III be evaluated to determine
disposition. IWB dealing with Class I components allows acceptance by analytical evaluation
(XI Div.1 IWB 3132.3). This requires the calculations as per IWB-3600 (fracture mechanics).
Appendix I of ASME XI is the mandatory appendix for Ultrasonic Examination. Under Flaw
Sizing of that appendix it states that flaws must be sized in accordance with Sec. XI Appendix
VIII. This essentially requires a statistical assurance that ANY sizing technique meets the lateral
and vertical accuracy stipulated in ASME XI.
In 1996 the Dutch NDT Society (KINT) submitted a Draft European Standard, De ontwikkelig von
acceptatiecriteria voor de TOFD onderzoemethode (Acceptance Criteria for Time of Flight
Diffraction).
This proposes a table of acceptance criteria for all indications that are detected. Detection is based on
the settings set out for TOFD in a separate document (prEN 583-6).
Maximum allowable length (lmax) maximum allowable height (h1)
if height does not exceed h2
when length exceeds lmax
Thickness Range
Lmax
h2
h1
D
2.5
1
6mm < d 8mm
D
3
1
8mm< d 15mm
15
3
2
15mm< d 40mm
20
4
2
40mm < d 60mm
25
5
2
60mm < d 100mm
50
5
3
100mm< d 200mm
D > 200mm
70
6
3
KINT Acceptance Table
(*) d = design thickness

API Adaptations to TOFD

Draft-API 579 Recommended Practice for Fitness-for-Service (The crack depth, length, angle and
distance to other surface breaking or embedded cracks is typically determined using UT examination
techniques, either TOFD or angle beam.
Draft-API 580 Risk Based Inspection Recommended Practice (Base Resource Document recommends
automated ultrasonic shear wave testing as a highly effective inspection technique for crack detection
and sizing. The capability of the AUT technique/type is evaluated using probability of detection
(POD) curves from round-robins in the past where TOFD showed the best performance)

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

9 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

Projects, communications, Code Cases and the future

From the apparent lack of Codes and Standards it is difficult to imagine how TOFD became as popular
as it has. But we should keep in mind that there is another level of regulation in the hierarchy;
Specifications.
It has been the recognition of individual companies of the advantages of TOFD that has provided the
necessary venue to prove to the world that TOFD has an important role to play. There are examples of
the application of TOFD on many major projects around the world.
Projects using TOFD
A major oil company (Chevron) accepted the test results by a large fabrication company (DaeWoo
Heavy Industries) on an off-shore oil rig structure in which TOFD was used. Originally the
requirements of API RP2X were required (Recommended Practice for ultrasonic Examination of
Offshore Structural Fabrication and Guidelines for Qualification of Ultrasonic Technicians). The
technique used combined both TOFD and pulse-echo ultrasonics and did NOT use a raster scan to
provide full volume coverage by the pulse-echo probes. Instead, the pulse-echo was used only for the
inner and outer edges while the middle volume was inspected ONLY using TOFD. After verification of
the ability of the technique on several test samples and the acknowledgement of the regulatory body
(DNV) that good probability of detection had been achieved, the project proceeded. Steel butt welds
from 25mm to 100mm thick were reliably inspected faster than possible using standard pulse-echo UT,
much faster and with much more sensitivity than radiography and without the radiation hazards and
other restrictions associated with working around radiation.
Another example of an independent engineering specification using TOFD is in the pipeline industry.
In 1997 TransCanada Pipelines expanded their use of mechanised ultrasonic testing to manually
welded circumferential seams. However, due to the higher probability of off-angle defects in the
SMAW process as compared to the mechanised GMAW process, the new specification issued now
requires the addition of TOFD to carry out any mechanised UT inspections on GMAW welds.
Example of the required display for GMAW welds (includes TOFD and pulse-echo information)
The pipeline application in TCPL eventually led to the development of the new ASTM Standard
E-1961. This application with TOFD combines the rapid detection/evaluation abilities associated with
multiple pulse-echo probe arrays used in a linear scan with the characterisation capabilities of TOFD to
aid in elimination of false calls. The pulse-echo probes required in the system also ensure that the poor
coverage that can occur in the near zone (upper 3-5mm) and mismatched back-wall regions using only
TOFD, are adequately inspected.
In another project submerged-arc-welded seams were being inspected using the standard code
requirements found in CSA Z-245 (essentially the same as ASTM E-273 and API 5L). During routine
sectioning on a lot, some welds were found to have shrinkage cracks. The ultrasonic technique being
used could not reliably detect these defects so a technique was developed to add a TOFD configuration
into the standard set-up. In this case the shortcomings of pulse-echo are overcome by TOFD.

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

10 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

Fig:TOFD Results on
Chevron Qualification Weld
48mm Thick

Fig:Example of the
"required" display for
GMAW welds (includes
TOFD and pulse-echo
information)

Fig:Defects Placed in the Chevron Qualification Weld

Fig : Shrink Cracks in SAW Weld

TOFD significantly improved detection over the code required technique

Number of Pipe
Seams tested
149

Number of Indications detected using

Mechanised OD UT (>80% reference)
20

Number of Indications
detected using TOFD
35

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

11 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

Fig : TOFD indication of a shrink crack

These three examples are typical of the application of TOFD to solve problems that are not adequately
addressed by the existing Codes and Standards.
What all these examples have in common is a linear scan. A raster scan is the traditional way of
carrying out a manual inspection. This is done by moving the probe perpendicular to the weld axis
allowing the volume to be covered.
Fig : Raster scan volume
coverage of a weld using
forward and backwards
motion.

When mechanised this process moves the probe in a fixture with a series of motions similar to the
manual movement and data collection is done on the forward and backward motions.

Fig : Traditional raster scan in a mechanised set-up

A linear scan moves the probe parallel to the long axis of the weld. Data collection is done on the scan
parallel to the weld and the raster step may not be required if multiple probes are used or if the probes
used provide the coverage required (e.g. TOFD and limited pulse-echo coverage).

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

12 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

Fig : Linear scan for increased data collection speed

Communication
In addition to the insistence of various industries to push ahead with the advantages of TOFD there are
also efforts being made to get Codes and Standards changed or made to recognise and incorporate
TOFD more fully.
In November 1996 one of the authors submitted a formal Technical Inquiry to the ASME Section V
committee concerning TOFD. The Question was stated in the required format. This included a
background comment, the question, then a proposed answer and rationale:
Comment:
Article 5 paragraph T542.4.3 references Article 4 Appendices B and C as examples of general
techniques for performing a weld inspection. The paragraph also states; Other techniques may be
used.
Question:
Does this imply that Article 5 paragraph T542.4.3 allows non-amplitude based techniques, such as
Time of Flight Diffraction Technique, to be used as detection methods instead of pulse echo ?
Proposed answer :
YES. Provided that the technique can be demonstrated to detect the basic calibration reflectors in the
basic calibration block and the technique is demonstrated to provide the volume coverage required by
the referencing code section.
The ASME reply was received in Nov. 1997. They disappointingly stated No.
This implied that TOFD was not recognised as a DETECTION method by the committee.
However, in the same letter to the ASME an enquiry as to the use of a linear scan technique was made:
Comment:
Both Article 4 paragraph T-424.1 and Article 5 paragraph T-523.1 consider examination coverage. The
wording assumes that only simple pulse-echo scanning with a raster style scan pattern will be used.
Question:
Are the requirements of Article 4 paragraph T-424.1 and Article 5 paragraph T-523.1 met by
techniques employing a single pass; such as Time of Flight Diffraction, multiprobe arrays and phased
arrays?
Proposed answer :
YES. Provided that the technique can be demonstrated to detect the basic calibration reflectors in the

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

13 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

basic calibration block and the technique is demonstrated to provide the volume coverage required by
the referencing code section.
In this case the committee agreed!
With the ASTM E-1961 Standard then in draft before the ASTM committee it made the case for a
non-raster technique described in E-1961 suitable for ASME style inspections. The standard raster scan
moves the probe perpendicular to the weld axis for the scan step and the small raster parallel to the
weld axis is a non-data collection step. With the usually short scan length of the data collection scan
(typically 50-200mm) the ramp-up and ramp-down requirements in motor controllers makes this a very
slow process. When the main axis of data collection can be the scan parallel to the weld axis the
maximum scan speed can me sustained for a long period of time and less time is wasted in the small
increment step. When phased arrays or multiple probe arrays can be arranged to ensure the coverage in
a linear scan the scan times can be significantly reduced.
There is a difference between the two scans. The traditional raster scan allows the operator to see the
signal peaked in the centre of the beam. Whereas the linear scan may result in a less than maximum
amplitude if the step positions the probe beam at a point either side of the maximised reflection point
(but the same point could be made for length sizing with the traditional raster motion).
A third point was raised to the ASME Section V committee and also received a disappointing negative.
Comment:
Article 5 paragraph T-542.7.2.3 requires scanning to be performed at a gain setting at least two
times the primary reference level. Computerized Imaging Techniques in conjunction with Time
Corrected Gain permit display of signals over a set threshold and can even allow variability of
this threshold after the data has been collected if waveforms are stored. Scanning at a gain setting
over reference could result in saturating signals unless logarithmic amplifiers are used.
Question:
If Computerized Imaging Techniques in conjunction with Time Corrected Gain can the
requirement of Article 5 paragraph T-542.7.2.3 for scanning with extra gain be met by setting
appropriate thresholds?
Proposed answer :
YES. Article 5 paragraph T-542.7.2.3 also states that Evaluation will be performed with respect
to primary reference level. Since the computerized image is the recording that would be used for
evaluation it should correctly indicate amplitude at the primary reference level.
ASME Section V decided that NO was the correct answer but no rationale was provided explaining
how scanning at 6dB over the reference was fundamentally different from reducing the data
collection/evaluation threshold of the raw data by 6dB.
Code Cas
A year later a different committee (ASME Section VIII SC-VIII SG&I) was approached with a
revision to a Code Case. The Code Case 2235 was titled: Use of Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of
Radiography Section VIII, Division 1 and 2. It was issued in December 1996 and then applied to
materials 4 inches thick and greater using standard UT methods described in Section V. A more recent
visitation of this Code Case was made to extend the thicknesses it was applicable to and to consider
non-amplitude based ultrasonic techniques.

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

14 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

Case number 2235 has since passed the approval of the committee and is due to be incorporated into
Code.
Its inquiry asked: Under what conditions and limitations may an ultrasonic examination be used in lieu
of radiography, when radiography is required in accordance with Section VIII, Division 2, Table
AF-241.1?
It the reply, the code case states that: It is the opinion of the Committee that all welds in material 1/2 in.
or greater in thickness in pressure vessels may be examined using the ultrasonic (UT) method in lieu of
the radiography (RT) method, provided that all of the following requirements are met:
It goes on to make several requirements including that ultrasonic examination be performed in
accordance with ASME Section V, Article 4. This would seem to again limit the use of TOFD based on
the Section V committee reply of 1997. However, in the same paragraph requiring that ultrasonic
examination be performed in accordance with ASME Section V, Article 4 a further statement is made.
Alternatively, for techniques that do not use amplitude recording levels, acceptable performance is
defined as demonstrating that all sized flaws, including the 0.06t flaws have an indicated length equal
to or greater than the actual length of the specified flaws in the qualification block.
Other references are also made in the Code Case 2235 to methods or techniques that do not use
amplitude recording levels. This has clearly opened the door for TOFD to be used on pressure vessels.

Where are we heading now

In a Paper from 1991, Weld Metal Fabrication v 59 n 8 Oct 1991 3p ISSN: 0043-2245, J. Lilley and P.
Osborne examined the potential of time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) to replace the traditional methods
of inspecting fabricated tubular components.
They speculated in this article that TOFD would eventually replace radiography and traditional
ultrasonic testing as the primary method for detecting and sentencing on tubular components. They also
caution that this is a very large step partially because of the lack of suitable codes.
Lilley also suggests that it would be possible to introduce codes and acceptance criteria but it would
take a great deal of time and money for the validation process. As a result, industry will need to wait
many years before the benefits of the method are realised.
Lilley proposed a step-by-step method of introducing TOFD and warned that it would be industry
driven.
This iterative process would involve using TOFD as a screening method for manual
ultrasonics. Having proven the detection capability of the calibration holes (as in a standard ASME
block with side drilled holes) TOFD would be used to detect any indications with a length greater than
allowed by the manual Code. Having found any such indications the manual techniques would be used
to disposition the indication. Comparing TOFD results and manual UT results to excavation results
would be used to establish a database from which a TOFD acceptance criteria could be established.
A parallel programme comparing radiographic results and TOFD to excavations and metallography
would similarly be used to assure industry of TOFDs ability to be used in lieu of radiography.
In 1995 Det Norske Veritas (DNV) adopted a document by Olav Forli, et al (Nordtest). The document

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

15 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

entitled Guidelines for Replacing NDE Techniques with One Another describes options for industries
interested in using one NDE method in lieu of another. This process is much the same as Lilley
suggested in 1991 that industry should do to establish a credibility and assurance of detection for
TOFD to be used in lieu of manual UT or radiography.
The DNV paper goes into lengthy descriptions of how to set up programmes and establish Probability
of Detection (POD) curves.
This document was in fact what was used for the heavywall inspection of the off-shore structure project
(DHI) described above. Having substantiated the abilities of the TOFD method according to this set of
rules the DNV inspection team overseeing the project was able to accept the inspection technique and
results submitted.

Summary
A technical hierarchy of rules exists: Codes, Standards, Specifications, Procedures and Techniques
Until recently no Code existed that recognised TOFD so its use was restricted Two documents (BSI &
CEN) are well known TOFD Standards but both are Guides
A Code using TOFD specific acceptance criteria has been drafted but is as yet still in formulation stage
Presently an ASME Code Case to replace RT with UT has resulted in incorporating TOFD into
pressure vessel work for both detection and sizing of flaws.
Results of the many TOFD projects can be used in a format of statistical studies to allow TOFD to
replace manual UT or radiography.
TOFD has been used on projects where:
Codes are not applicable but POD requirements are high
TOFDsizing can be used in conjunction with fracture mechanics
existingcode requirements have been known to miss defects
speed of detection is an important consideration
Code/Standard Title
Comment
Guide to Calibration and setting-up of the ultrasonic
BS 7706
time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) technique for
Guide only
(1993)
detection ,location and sizing of flaws
Time of Flight Diffraction Technique as a method
Pr EN 583-6
Guide only
for defect detection and sizing
as a CIT option in
ASME
Section V
Article 4
in a Code Case in lieu
ASME
Section VIII
of RT)
ASME
Section XI
(for accurate sizing)
Draft standard
KINT
norm pr 9Exxx
submitted to CEN based
on 1998 report
List of TOFD Related Codes, Standards and Draft Standards at this time

Finally; after over 20 years TOFD is being recognised as a powerful tool for NDT. But no single NDT

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

16 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

method finds ALL defects. Each method has its advantages and limitations. With the regulatory bodies
now gradually recognising the strengths of TOFD for detection and sizing, it is likely that the financial
benefits of TOFD will now drive industry to promote its use.
In a more general respect, it is obvious to more and more users that automated ultrasonic inspections
are becoming superior to manual UT in many regards, particularly speed and repeatability.
In 1989 the IIW published a Guide entitled Automated Ultrasonic Inspection of Welds; Guidance on its
Merits, Performance Requirements, Selection and Applications.
British Standards has on its listings a Standard BS 3923 part 2 1972 Ultrasonic examination of welds.
Automated examination of fusion welded butt joints in ferritic steel. Presently this standard is still
current but it is acknowledged by most as being very out of date. The Welding Institute proposed a
draft revision to this (Revision #6 was in March 1995 BSI Committee WEE/46/-/13) but as yet no
replacement exists. (The existing standard covers requirements for equipment, surface condition, parent
metal examination, weld examination, evaluation of imperfections, test plates and presentation of
results. Appendices on determination of probe characteristics, use of DGS diagram and method for
setting sensitivities.)
In 1998 ASTM E-1961 became one of the first American standards to be dedicated to the application
of mechanised UT to weld inspections.
Other Standards in which mechanised UT and linear scanning is applicable include:
Mechanised ultrasonic inspection of girth welds using zonal discrimination
with focused search units
API 5L
Steel Line Pipe
CSA Z-245.1 Steel Line Pipe
Ultrasonic examination of welds. Automated examination of fusion welded
BS 3923 part2
butt joints in ferritic steel
ASTM E-273 Ultrasonic examination of longitudinal welded pipe and tubing

ASTM E-1961

In a recent meeting of the Commission V of the IIW, 22/07/99, there was a micro-seminar - 'Automated
UT and TOFD - Techniques. - Acceptance Criteria, Reliability, Cost-effectiveness, Human Factor and
Qualification' (V-1142-99). At this session a German proposal for a new European standard was
introduced in the Sub-commission VC discussion.
Guide draft, September 1998
Ultrasonic testing systems for automatic inspections
(prepared by the German Society for NDT)
This is a guide for users of automatic ultrasonic inspection systems. This guide should help in selection
and application of such systems.
The guideline will give instructive and helpful information to users considering relevant requirements
of clients and of existing inspection standards to
Probes and sensors

7/26/2015 9:27 AM

Code Review: Time-of-Flight Diffraction and Pulse Echo Line Scanning

17 of 17

http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm

Manipulation and control systems

Ultrasonic devices
Data recording and data visualisation
Data processing and evaluation
Documentation

Reference
1. Maurice Silk, Interpretation of TOFD data in the light of ASME XI and similar rules British Journal of
NDT vol 31, May 1989
2. Lilley. J. and Osborne P., Weld Metal Fabrication v 59 n 8 Oct 1991 3p
3. BS 7706 (1993) Guide to Calibration and setting-up of the ultrasonic time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD)
technique for detection , location and sizing of flaws. British Standards Institute 1993.
4. Pr EN 583-6, Time of Flight Diffraction Technique as a method for defect detection and sizing
5. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section V (CIT option in Article 4)
6. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII (Code Case 2235 UT in lieu of RT)
7. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI (for accurate sizing)
8. Olav Forli, et al, Guidelines for Replacing NDE Techniques with One Another Nordtest. 1994
9. KINT pr EN xxx draft Standard, De ontwikkelig von acceptatiecriteria voor de TOFD
onderzoemethode (Acceptance Criteria for Time of Flight Diffraction).
NDT.net - info@ndt.net

|Top|

7/26/2015 9:27 AM