Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1 of 17
http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm
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
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
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.
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
3 of 17
http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
4 of 17
http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
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
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
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
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
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
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
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
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
9 of 17
http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
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)
Number of Indications
detected using TOFD
35
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
11 of 17
http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm
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.
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
12 of 17
http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm
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
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
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.
7/26/2015 9:27 AM
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
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
17 of 17
http://www.ndt.net/article/v06n02/eginzel/eginzel.htm
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