Back to Basics

F rom Materials Evaluation, Vol. 66, No. 5, pp: 462-464.

Copyright © 2008 The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.

Fabrication of Flawed Blocks for Ultrasonic

Testing in Lieu of Radiographic Testing
by Ronald Kruzic*

C o n s t ruction codes and stan-
dards sometimes, with restrictions,
permit substituting ultrasonic test-
ing for radiographic testing. This
“Back to Basics” article paper dis-
cusses re q u i rements for creating
flawed welds to be used for such ul-
trasonic testing. The minimum
number of flaws, and their types, lo-
cations and sizes, are discussed,
along with concepts important in
fabricating a flawed block standard.
David S. Kupperman
Associate Technical Editor
Background
any of today’s construction codes
This paper discusses a methodology
that can be used to construct flawed welds
to be utilized for these purposes if accept-
able to the parties involved.
It is suggested that
weight be given to the
more critical points such
as sizing, categorization
and grouping calls.
Initial Considerations
For either an ASME procedure demon-
stration or API operator practical examina-
tion qualification, the same basic initial in-
formation is required to be accumulated:
and their size, orientation and location can
be determined, a number of factors must
be decided upon:
■ the ultrasonic technique(s) used: pulse
/echo, time of flight diffraction, phased
array and so on
■ whether or not the block can be flipped
during the qualification process (the need
for similar weld details in both the inner
and outer diameter, and the presence of
cladding or overlays present)
■ the number of individual setups (zones)
necessary for complete coverage of the re-
quired examination volume.
For example, suppose it were deter-
mined that for a particular weld it was nec-
essary to utilize four time of flight diffrac-
tion setups to provide adequate coverage of
the examination volume, and a weld over-
lay was involved so that the block could not
be flipped. Per code, a minimum of three
flaws are required, but in this case the mini-
mum would be four, as at least one flaw per
zone should be considered as the new mini-
mum. See Figure 1 for an example.
For an API based examination, the
minimum number of flaws is not speci-

M and standards allow for the substi-

tution of ultrasonic testing (UT) for
radiographic testing (RT) as long as certain
namely, base material and its heat tre a t-
ment, thicknesses, welding processes and
joint details. Since the ASME (pro c e d u re
fied in the Appendix. The testing pro-
gram details must be by agreement with
the purchaser. It is felt that a minimum of
conditions are met. For example, Sections I based) and API (practical based) qualifica- 10 flaws should be considered. This could
and VIII of the ASME Boiler and Pressure tions are so different, they will largely be yield a reasonable number of flaws, both
Vessel Code (2006), including Code Case discussed separately. individual and grouped, so as to create an
2235-9, allow the substitution of UT for RT For an ASME based examination, before adequate grading scheme for the opera-
if the procedure is demonstrated on a qual- the decision as to the exact number of flaws tors (Figure 2).
i fication block as being able to detect dis-
continuities that are of an acceptable size for
the thickness involved, and have an indicat-
ed length equal to or greater than the actual
length (that is, discontinuities significant
enough to be considered flaws). Under Ap-
pendix U of the API 620 (2008) and API 650
(2007) standards, the substitution is allowed
if the operators pass a practical examina-
tion for UT on a blind test plate that in-
cludes having operators testing elements
that are contained in the Appendix.

* Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, 14105

South Route 59, Plainfield, IL 60544; (815) 439-
6000; fax (815) 439-6006; e-mail <rkruzic@cbi
.com>. Figure 1 — Minimum flaws for four-zone testing.

462 Materials Evaluation/May 2008

Figure 2 — Ten flaw layout example.
The ten flaws in Figure 2 would not
only allow for 10 individual location, sizing
(length and height) and categorization
(surface or subsurface) calls, but also three
grouping calls (flaws 1 and 2, 4 and 5, and 8
and 9), for a total of 56 grading points (note
that a flaw need not be surface-breaking to
be categorized as a surface flaw). Another
grading point could be the surface break-
ing confirming magnetic particle/liquid
penetrant testing (MT/PT), thus upping
the potential points to 66. It is suggested
that weight be given to the more critical
points such as sizing, categorization and
grouping calls. See Table 1 for an example
of a possible scheme with weight factors.
Also needed to be factored in would be any
miscalls or false calls made by the operators.
Table 1 Number of calls in possible
grading scheme
Location 10
Size
Length 10 × 2* = 20
Height 10 × 2* = 20
Categorization† 10 × 2 = 20
Grouping 3 × 2* = 6
Accept/Reject 13‡
MT/PT 10
Total 99
* weight factor
† surface/subsurface
‡ 10 individual and 3 grouping calls
Suggested Flaw Type
Since these flawed welds are for new
construction codes and standards and not
for inservice or fitness-for-purpose type ex-
aminations for specific service-induced
flaws or failure mechanisms, and to keep
the costs involved in block fabrication to a
reasonable level, it is felt that electric dis-
charge machined (EDM) slits are a reason-
able choice and would be representative of
the more critical planar type flaws (that is,
cracks and nonfusion).
Additional details concerning the flaws
must be considered:
■ ASME requires that the demonstration
weld’s flaws be oriented to simulate flaws
parallel to the production weld’s fusion
line. One surface flaw per surface (inner
and outer diameter) and one subsurface
flaw are the minimum called for. (A s u r-
face flaw is defined here as a flaw whose
separation distance from the nearest sur-
face is less than or equal to one-half its
depth for ASME or less than one-half its
height for API; a subsurface flaw is one
whose separation distance from the near-
est surface is greater than one-half its
depth for ASME or equal to or gre a t e r
than one-half its height for API.) See Fig-
ure 3 for examples.
■ API requires the test plates to have not
only both surface and subsurface flaws, but
have both acceptable and unacceptable
flaws. They also must include groupings of
flaws. The weld flaws should probably also
have the slits orientated in the same fash-
ion as ASME’s, though this is not so stated
in the Appendix.
Figure 3 — Flaw/joint examples.
Figure 4 — Joint pre-welding example.
Block Creation
Once the number, categorization, size, ori-
entation and locations of the EDM slits have
been determined, then it becomes a matter of
creating the flawed block. Amethodology for
this is to first partially weld together two
plates with the same joint details and filler
metal to be utilized in production. The plate
material shall meet the same requirements as
that for a UT calibration block per Section V,
Article 4, T-434 of the ASME Boiler and Pres-
sure Vessel Code. Portions of the weld are left
uncompleted (underfilled) for the EDM slits
to be embedded, and the remaining areas
completed for EDM slits that are to be left
open to the surface (Figure 4).
For the weld embedded flaws, their
final desired depth (in ASME’s language)
or height (in API’s) must be increased by
the amount of weld penetration expected
when the unwelded portions are complet-
ed during the selected embedding welding
process (by depth or height, the texts refer
to the through-wall flaw dimension, drawn
normal to the inside pressure retaining sur-
face of the component). Then a machinist
burns the notches and the incomplete por-
tions of the weld are completed (Figure 5).
A radiograph is recommended to further
document the flaw locations as well as to
identify any flaws that may have been un-
intentionally introduced during welding.
The last thing required is to decide what
is the flaw size to be utilized for the proce-
dure demonstration or operator practical ex-
aminations for the newly embedded flaws.
Three sides of the EDM slit are normally un-
Materials Evaluation/May 2008 4 6 3
 affected by the embedding process; there-
fore, its length is accurately known and
only the depth (or height) to be used
needs to be decided upon. If it is agreed
that the expected amount of penetration
can be utilized, then the original desired
flaw depth (height) can be utilized plus
this amount added. If it is decided that
the amount of penetration must be deter-
mined, this means testing it with ultra-
sonic techniques that have been pro v e n
successful at doing so. Figure 6 illustrates
an estimated penetration example.

Conclusion
Whether the aforementioned method-
Figure 5 — EDM slits. ology is utilized for flawed block fabrica-
tion or other schemes, it is highly re c o m-
mended, due to the cost and fabrication
time, to always first come to a agreement
with the user or purchaser as to not only
the block fabrication scheme, but also the
number, size and locations of the flaws
prior to fabrication.

References
API, API 620: Design and Construction of Large,
Welded, Low-Pre s s u re Storage Ta n k s, 11th edi-
tion, Washington, DC, American Petro l e u m
Institute, 2008.
API, API 650: Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage,
11th edition, Washington, DC, American Pe-
troleum Institute, 2007.
ASME, ASME Boiler and Pre s s u re Vessel Code,
New York, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2007.
Ω

Figure 6 — Estimated penetration example.

464 Materials Evaluation/May 2008