ASME B31.3 Code Case 181-2 Section 8 Fla

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)
Use of Alternative Ultrasonic Examination Acceptance Criteria in ASME B31.3
CC 181-2, Section 8 Flaw Evaluation

Worksheets
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong Use of Alternative Ultrasonic Examination Acceptance Criteria in ASME B31.3
PAUT Interpretation to ANSI B31.3before re-testing and before shipment.

Phased Array Flaw Sizing Using the OmniScan MX2
Phased array flaw depth and height sizing requires both a knowledge of the application and use of the tools in the software. This Webinar is intended to take
the participant through the basics of phased array depth and height flaw sizing with real world examples by expanding on traditional conventional techniques
with advanced phased array probes and software. Shear wave tip diffraction, -6dB sizing, high angle longitudinal L-wave, ID Creeping wave, and other
advanced techniques will be on display.
. Additionally, use of the OmniSscan

measurement cursors, defect table and
report are explained and demonstrated.
Also on display will be Olympus' new
software "OmniPC" for computer based
offline analysis of OmniScan data files
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong https://www.youtube.com/embed/hRm6K3ryrFY

OmniScan MX2 Training Program Part 1 /2/3/4
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-z7ue6i6FQ&t=835s

Foreword;
The purpose of performing RT/UT or PAUT is to evaluate the entire volume of a weld for the
detection of potentially detrimental discontinuities in a weld in accordance with written
procedures, guidelines, standards and codes. ASME B31.3 contains code requirements for piping
typically found in petroleum refineries, as well as chemical, pharmaceutical and other related
processing plants and terminals.
Successful applications of NDT methods including PAUT can help the project to achieve
operational, cost and safety benefits by implementing the best industry practices.
Sridhar Samiyaiah

What is Code Case
181-2?
Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Original Inquiry: Under what conditions and limitations may alternative UT
acceptance criteria apply in lieu of those described in para. 344.6.2 of ASME
B31.3?
Keywords:
may alternative UT acceptance criteria
Comments: CC 181-2, it was

meant for alternative to UT
not RT
What is the
Alternative?

Original Inquiry: Under what conditions and limitations may alternative UT acceptance criteria apply in
lieu of those described in para. 344.6.2 of ASME B31.3?

Para. 344.6.2 of ASME B31.3

Alternative to Para. 344.6.2 of ASME B31.3

What is ASME ANSI
B31.3 para 344.6.2, the
“original”?

344.6 Ultrasonic Examination
344.6.2 Acceptance Criteria. A linear-type discontinuity is unacceptable if the
amplitude of the indication exceeds the reference level and its length exceeds
(a) 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) for Tw ≤ 19 mm (3⁄4 in.)

(b) Tw/3 for 19 mm < Tw ≤ 57 mm (21⁄4 in.)
(c) 19 mm for Tw > 57 mm

Why there is a need for
alternative to the
ASME ANSI B31.3
para 344.6.2, the
“original”?

Hipressure (Mechanical) (OP)
7 Jun 07 19:05 B31 CC 181
I am trying to understand this case; is it one of alternative acceptance criteria or is it alternative technique?
We are trying to employ PAUT on 31.3 piping using the given acceptance criteria for UT in 31.3. However this code case was brought up in
discussions and it was determined that if PAUT was to be used, this CC (including acceptance criteria) had to be followed in its entirety.
Greatly appreciate any and all comments and/or interpretations on this CC.
Regards
RE: B31 CC 181

ndeguy (Industrial) 7 Jun 07 23:43 Its definitely about both!
The preeamble states that the Committee is of the opinion that alternative acceptance criteria can be applied in lieu 0f 344.6.2. of B31.3. This
is a switch from acceptance criteria based on comparison with the amplitude from known reflectors to the measured defect height (versus its
length and material thickness).
Plus (d) of the Code Case calls for use of a device employing "automatic computer-based data acquisition".
Interesting if unusual point about using phased array with the standard acceptance criteria. Without doing the math comparison for various
material thicknesses it is generally accepted that the alternative acceptance criteria, which are based on materials and stress data rather than
traditional "workmanship" values, are more lenient, especially in the case of low defect height versus material thickness ratios, e.g. inter-run
cold lap. Exceptions to this can be in cases of several separate defects where interaction rules are invoked - think of automatic MIG pipe-
welding systems such as Phoenix or Serimer where the sequential fire-up positions are not staggered and a small length of LOF (10 mm say)
is in each successive vertical position. These are interactive and such fire-up defects in 3 or 4 successive runs would give an unacceptable
interactive defect height.
Which welding process(es) will you be utilising? If all manual (TIG root/SMAW fill and cap) I dont know why you could not set your PAUT
sensitivity using the standard ASME calibration block assessing defect length for reference-curve breaking indications.
Nigel Armstrong
Karachaganak Petroleum
Kazakhstan
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=189121

Hipressure (Mechanical) (OP)
7 Jun 07 19:05 B31 CC 181
I am trying to understand this case; is it one of alternative acceptance criteria or is it alternative technique?
We are trying to employ PAUT on 31.3 piping using the given acceptance criteria for UT in 31.3. However this code case was brought up in
discussions and it was determined that if PAUT was to be used, this CC (including acceptance criteria) had to be followed in its entirety.
Greatly appreciate any and all comments and/or interpretations on this CC.
Regards
RE: B31 CC 181

ndeguy (Industrial) 7 Jun 07 23:43 Its definitely about both!
The preeamble states that the Committee is of the opinion that alternative acceptance criteria can be applied in lieu 0f 344.6.2. of B31.3. This
is a switch from acceptance criteria based on comparison with the amplitude from known reflectors to the measured defect height (versus its
length and material thickness).
Plus (d) of the Code Case calls for use of a device employing "automatic computer-based data acquisition".
Interesting if unusual point about using phased array with the standard acceptance criteria. Without doing the math comparison for various
material thicknesses it is generally accepted that the alternative acceptance criteria, which are based on materials and stress data rather than
traditional "workmanship" values, are more lenient , especially in the case of low defect height
versus material thickness ratios, e.g. inter-run cold lap. Exceptions to this can be in cases of several separate defects where interaction rules
are invoked - think of automatic MIG pipe-welding systems such as Phoenix or Serimer where the sequential fire-up positions are not
staggered and a small length of LOF (10 mm say) is in each successive vertical position. These are interactive and such fire-up defects in 3 or
4 successive runs would give an unacceptable interactive defect height.
Which welding process(es) will you be utilising? If all manual (TIG root/SMAW fill and cap) I dont know why you could not set your PAUT
sensitivity using the standard ASME calibration block assessing defect length for reference-curve breaking indications.
Nigel Armstrong
Karachaganak Petroleum
Kazakhstan
Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=189121

Why PAUT is more
lenient than
conventional UT or RT

1. The Procedure Qualification (PQ)
The PQ Program is designed to qualify a Phased Array or TOFD Procedure to meet
ASME Code Case 2235 for Vessels, ASME Code Case 181 for B31.3 Piping, and API
standards. In addition, the program is designed to meet the new requirements of
Article 4 of Section V, 2010 Edition for Fracture Mechanics based evaluation or
Workmanship Standard evaluations. The PQ qualification is based upon the design
and manufacture of testing samples to meet the acceptance criteria of the code cases
with very specific flaw aspect ratios for height and length.
Davis NDE designed and manufactured an inventory of PQ Qualification Pipe and
Vessels samples with Code Case dimensioned flaws which meet the criteria of tables
in CC 2235 and 181. The qualification is based upon minimum diameter and maximum
diameter, as well as minimum thickness and maximum thickness. Currently, Davis
NDE has inventory of qualification samples from 1.5 inch diameter and .145 thickness
to 36 inch diameter and 2.75 inch thicknesses.
http://universityofultrasonics.com/services/performance-demonstration-qualification-pdq/

Piping construction codes include:
ASME B31.3 code case 181, which permits the use of PAUT on all wall thicknesses.
The sentencing for this code case is based on a fracture mechanics module and
requires qualification.
B31.1 and code case 179, which together permits the use of PAUT on all thicknesses.
The sentencing for this code is based on workmanship criteria and does not
specifically require qualification.
EN 1714 Non-destructive examination of welded joints - Ultrasonic examination of

welded joints, British Standard, 1997
BS4515: 1-2004 Specification for welding of steel pipelines on land and offshore.
Carbon and carbon manganese steel pipelines. PAUT allowable with client
dispensation.
http://sievert.in/Replacement.html

Other, less obvious benefits include:
i. The data forms a fingerprint for comparison with future in‐service inspection data.
ii. The acceptance criteria of the code cases are in many cases more forgiving in
terms of acceptable flaw size. This also reduces the repair frequency, and is
especially the case for volumetric welding flaws.
https://www.sonomatic.com/images/attachments_managed/577/experience_with_code_cases.pdf

The acceptance criteria of the
code cases are in many cases
more forgiving in terms of
acceptable flaw size.

CC181-2
ANSI
B31.1
Original Inquiry: Under what
conditions and limitations may
alternative UT acceptance
criteria apply in lieu of those
described in para.
344.6.2 of ASME B31.3?
Just
4 Pages
Of requirements

Refresher:
344.6 Ultrasonic Examination
344.6.2 Acceptance Criteria. A linear-type
discontinuity is unacceptable if the amplitude
of the indication exceeds the reference level
and its length exceeds
(a) 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) for Tw ≤ 19 mm (3⁄4 in.)

(b) Tw/3 for 19 mm < Tw ≤ 57 mm (21⁄4 in.)
(c) 19 mm for Tw > 57 mm

Flaw Assessment:
CC181-2
7) Flaw Evaluation
8) Flaw Acceptance Criteria

7) Flaw Evaluation

7) Flaw Evaluation
a) The dimension of the flaw(s) shall be determined by the rectangle that fully
contains the area of the flaw(s). (Refer to Fig. 1)
i) The length, ℓ, of the flaw shall be drawn parallel to the inside pressure retaining
surface of the component.
ii) The height, h, of the flaw shall be drawn normal to the inside pressure retaining
iii) The flaw shall be characterized as a surface or subsurface flaw, as shown in
Figure 1.
iv) A subsurface indication shall be considered as a surface flaw if the separation (S
in Figure 1) of the indication from the nearest surface of the component is equal to
or less than half the through wall dimension (h in Figure 1, sketch [b]) of the
subsurface indication.

Flaw Evaluation :
 Flaw dimensions
 Surface or subsurface
 Single or multiple flaws

How to define an
indication dimension?

i) The length, ℓ, of the flaw shall be drawn parallel to the inside pressure retaining

ii. The height, h, of the flaw shall be drawn normal to the inside pressure retaining
h
h

How to ascertain an
indication is surface or
subsurface?

iii. The flaw shall be characterized as a surface or subsurface flaw, as shown in
Figure 1.

iv. A subsurface indication shall be considered as a surface flaw if the separation (S
in Figure 1) of the indication from the nearest surface of the component is equal to
or less than half the through wall dimension (h in Figure 1, sketch [b]) of the
subsurface indication.

Exercise: Surface or Subsurface?
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 40mm
h = 10mm
S = 7mm
ℓ = 30mm
Exercise: Surface or Subsurface?
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm 60mm
h = 10mm
S = 7mm
ℓ = 30mm
How to define two or
more adjacent
indications to be a
single flaw or separate
flaws?

b) Multiple Flaws
i) Discontinuous flaws that are oriented primarily in parallel planes shall be
considered to lie in a single plane if the distance between the adjacent planes is
equal to or less than 13mm (0.50 in.) or 0.5t, whichever is less.
ii) If the space between two flaws aligned along the axis of weld is less than the
height of the flaw of greater height, the two flaws shall be considered a single flaw.
iii) If the space between two flaws aligned in the through-thickness dimension is less
than the height of the flaw of greater height, the two flaws shall be considered a
single flaw.

i) Discontinuous flaws that are oriented primarily in parallel planes shall be
considered to lie in a single plane if the distance between the adjacent planes is
equal to or less than 13mm (0.50 in.) or 0.5t, whichever is less.
distance between
the adjacent
planes

ii) If the space between two flaws aligned along the axis of weld is less than the
height of the flaw of greater height, the two flaws shall be considered a single flaw.
d
x x
d =space between two flaws aligned along the axis of weld
h1
h3
h2 t
Cross Section X-X

single flaw.
h1
h3
h2 t
through-thickness dimension

single flaw.
h1
h3
t
h2
through-thickness dimension

8) Flaw Acceptance
Criteria

8) Flaw Acceptance Criteria
Flaws shall be evaluated against the applicable acceptance criteria of Table 1
or 2, except that flaw length (l) shall not exceed 4t, regardless of flaw height (h)
or the calculated aspect ratio.

Comments:
flaw length (l) shall not
exceed 4t

Comments:
flaw length (l) shall not
exceed 4t

flaw length
(l) shall not
exceed 4t
t = thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For
a butt joint joining two members having different thickness at the
joint, t is the thinner of the two thicknesses joined. If a full
penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the effective throat
dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.

What is “t” ?

t= thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a butt joint joining
two members having different thickness at the joint, t is the thinner of the two
thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the effective throat
dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.

thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a butt joint
t= joining two members having different thickness at the joint, t is the thinner of the
two thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the
effective throat dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.







The CC181-2
Acceptance Criteria
Table.

TABLE 1 Acceptance Criteria for Surface Flaws

General Notes:
(a) t = thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a butt joint
joining two members having different thickness at the joint, t is the thinner of the
two thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the effective
throat dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.
(b) Aspect Ratio (h/ℓ) used may be determined by rounding the calculated h/ℓ down to
the nearest 0.05 increment value within the column, or by linear interpolation.
(c) For intermediate thickness t (weld thicknesses between 64mm and 100mm [2.5 in.
and 3.9 in.]) linear interpolation is required to obtain h/t values.

TABLE 2
Acceptance Criteria for Subsurface Flaws

General Notes:
(a) t = thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a butt joint
joining two members having different thickness at the joint, t is the thinner of the
two thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld, the effective
throat dimension of the fillet weld shall be included in t.
(b) Aspect Ratio (h/ℓ) used may be determined by rounding the calculated h/ℓ down to
the nearest 0.05 increment value within the column, or by linear interpolation.
(c) For intermediate thickness t (weld thicknesses between 64mm and 100mm [2.5 in.
and 3.9 in.]) linear interpolation is required to obtain h/t values.

Of
Use of Alternative Ultrasonic Examination Acceptance Criteria in
ASME B31.3

Time for Practice.

CC 181-2 Table1 & Table 2
Aspect Surface h/t Sub-Surface h/t
Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm 25~64mm 100~300mm
0.0 0.031 0.019 0.068 0.04
0.05 0.033 0.02
0.1 0.036 0.022 0.076 0.044
0.15 0.041 0.025
0.2 0.047 0.028 0.086 0.05
0.25 0.055 0.033
0.3 0.064 0.038 0.098 0.058
0.35 0.074 0.044
0.4 0.083 0.05 0.114 0.066
0.45 0.085 0.051
0.5 0.087 0.052 0.132 0.066
0.6 0.156 0.088
0.7 0.18 0.102
0.8 0.21 0.116
0.9 0.246 0.134
1.0 0.286 0.152

Aspect
CASE STUDY #1 Ratio
Sub-Surface h/t
h/ℓ
ℓ = 30mm 25~64mm 100~300mm
0.3 0.098 0.058
h= 10mm 0.333 0.10328
note1
S = 7mm 0.4 0.114 0.066

t = 40mm note1: Calculated value; 0.098 + (0.114-0.098)/(0.1) x (0.333-0.3) = 0.10328
#
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 40mm
h = 10mm
S = 7mm
Worksheet:
This is a subsurface defect for S>0.5h
h/ℓ = 10/30 = 0.333, h/t = 10/40 = 0.25
actual
h/t = 0.10328
allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “Reject”

Aspect Sub-Surface h/t
CASE STUDY #2 Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
ℓ = 30mm 0.3 0.098 0.058
h= 10mm 0.333 0.06064
note1
0.35
S = 7mm 0.4 0.114 0.066
t = 300mm Note1: Calculated value; 0.058 + (0.066-0.058)/(0.1) x (0.333-0.3) = 0.06064
#
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 10mm
S = 7mm
Worksheet:
This is a subsurface defect for S>0.5h
h/ℓ = 10/30 = 0.333, h/t = 10/300 = 0.0333
actual
h/t = 0.06064
allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “Accept”

CASE STUDY #3 Aspect
Ratio
Surface h/t
ℓ = 30mm h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm

0.3 0.064 0.038
h= 10mm 0.333 0.04196
note1
S = 3mm 0.35 0.074 0.044

#
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 10mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
This is a surface defect for S<0.5h
h/ℓ = 10/30 = 0.333, h/t = 10/300 = 0.0333
actual
h/t = 0.04196
allowable

CASE STUDY #4 Aspect Surface h/t
ℓ = 30mm Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
h= 15mm 0.5 0.087 0.052
S = 3mm
#
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 15mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
h/ℓ = 15/30 = 0.5, h/t = 15/300 = 0.05
actual
h/t = 0.04196
allowable

ℓ = 30mm Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
h= 15mm 0.5 0.087 0.052
S = 3mm
t = 300mm
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 20mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
h/ℓ = 20/30 = 0.667, h/t = 20/300 = 0.0667
actual
h/t = ?? (no value given)

allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “???”

ℓ = 50mm Ratio
h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
h= 15mm 0.3 0.064 0.038
S = 3mm
t = 300mm
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 50mm t = 300mm
h = 15mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
h/ℓ = 15/50 = 0.3, h/t = 15/300 = 0.05
actual
h/t = 0.038
allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “Reject”

What happen when the aspect
ratio >0.5 for surface flaw?
Aspect Surface
Ratio
25~64mm 100~300mm
h/l h1/t h2/t
0 0.031 0.019
0.05 0.033 0.02
0.1 0.036 0.022
0.15 0.041 0.025
0.2 0.047 0.028
0.25 0.055 0.033
0.3 0.064 0.038
0.35 0.074 0.044
0.4 0.083 0.05
0.45 0.085 0.051
0.5 0.087 0.052
0.6 ? ?
0.7 ? ?
0.8 ? ?
0.9 ? ?
1 ? ?

Ratio
ℓ = 30mm h/ℓ 25~64mm 100~300mm
0.5 0.087 0.052
h= 15mm
S = 3mm
t = 300mm
S>0.5h or ≤ 0.5h ?
ℓ = 30mm t = 300mm
h = 20mm
S = 3mm
Worksheet:
h/ℓ = 20/30 = 0.667, h/t = 20/300 = 0.0667
actual
h/t = ?? (no value given)

allowable
Conclusion: The discontinuity is “???”

Surface Sub-Surface
Aspect
Ratio
25~64mm 100~300mm 25~64mm 100~300mm
h/l h1/t h2/t h3/t h4/t
0 0.031 0.019 0.068 0.04
0.05 0.033 0.02
0.1 0.036 0.022 0.076 0.044
0.15 0.041 0.025
0.2 0.047 0.028 0.086 0.05
0.25 0.055 0.033
0.3 0.064 0.038 0.098 0.058
0.35 0.074 0.044
0.4 0.083 0.05 0.114 0.066
0.45 0.085 0.051
0.5 0.087 0.052 0.132 0.066
0.6 0.156 0.088
0.7 0.18 0.102
0.8 0.21 0.116
0.9 0.246 0.134
1 0.286 0.152

Surface Sub-Surface
Aspect
Ratio
25~64mm 100~300mm 25~64mm 100~300mm
h/l h1/t h2/t h3/t h4/t
0 0.031 0.019 0.068 0.04
0.05 0.033 0.02
0.1 0.036 0.022 0.076 0.044
0.15 0.041 0.025
0.2 0.047 0.028 0.086 0.05
0.25 0.055 0.033
0.3 0.064 0.038 0.098 0.058
0.35 0.074 0.044
0.4 0.083 0.05 0.114 0.066
0.45 0.085 0.051
0.5 0.087 0.052 0.132 0.066
0.6 0.156 0.088
0.7 0.18 0.102
0.8 0.21 0.116
0.9 0.246 0.134
1 0.286 0.152

Aspect Ratio h/l vs Acceptance Criteria for
Surface & Sub-Surface Indications
h1/t h2/t h3/t h4/t
1, 0.286
0.9, 0.246
0.8, 0.21
0.7, 0.18
0.6, 0.156 1, 0.152
0.5, 0.132 0.9, 0.134
0.4, 0.114 0.8, 0.116
0.3, 0.098 0.7, 0.102

0.2, 0.086 0.5, 0.087
0.45, 0.085 0.6, 0.088
0.4, 0.083
0.1, 0.076 0.35, 0.074
0, 0.068 0.3, 0.064 0.4, 0.066 0.5, 0.066
0.3, 0.058
0.25, 0.055
0.2, 0.047
0.05 0.4, 0.05 0.5, 0.052
0.45, 0.051
0.1, 0.044 0.2, 0.35, 0.044
0, 0.04 0.15, 0.041 0.3, 0.038
0.1, 0.036
0.05, 0.033 0.25, 0.033
0, 0.031 0.2, 0.028
0.15, 0.025
0.1, 0.022
0.05, 0.02
0, 0.019
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

More Reading
http://cstools.asme.org/csconnect/FileUpload.cfm?View=yes&ID=15243

B31 CASE 181-1
CASES OF THE CODE FOR PRESSURE PIPING – B31
Approval Date: January 23, 2007
B31 Case 181-1 or greater than the actual length of the flaws in the
Use of Alternative Ultrasonic Examination qualification block.
Acceptance Criteria in ASME B31.3
TABLE 1
Inquiry: Under what conditions and limitations FLAW ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR WELD
may alternative UT acceptance criteria apply in THICKNESS LESS THAN 25 mm (1 in.)
lieu of those described in para. 344.6.2 of ASME
B31.3. a/t ℓ
Surface flaw < 0.087 < 6.4 mm (0.25 in.)
Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that Subsurface flaw < 0.143 < 6.4 mm (0.25 in.)
alternative UT acceptance criteria as described in
this case may be applied in lieu of those described GENERAL NOTES:
in para. 344.6.2 of ASME B31.3 provided that all (a) t = the thickness of the weld excluding any allowable
reinforcement. For a buttweld joining two members having
of the following requirements are met: different thickness at the weld, t is the thinner of these two
(a) The ultrasonic examination area shall include thicknesses. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld,
the volume of the weld, plus the lesser of 25 mm the thickness of the throat of the fillet weld shall be
included in t.
(1in) or t on each side of the weld
(b) A subsurface indication shall be considered as a surface
(b) A documented examination strategy or scan
flaw if the separation (S in Fig. 1) of the indication from the
plan shall be provided showing transducer nearest surface of the component is equal to or less than
placement, movement, and component coverage half the through dimension (2d in Fig. 1, sketch [b]) of the
that provides a standardized and repeatable subsurface indication.
methodology for weld acceptance. The scan plan
shall also include ultrasonic beam angle used, beam (d) The ultrasonic examination shall be
directions with respect to weld centerline, and pipe performed using a device employing automatic
volume examined for each weld. The computer based data acquisition. The initial straight
documentation shall be made available to the beam material examination (T-472 of Section V,
owner’s Inspector. Article 4) for reflectors that could interfere with the
(c) The ultrasonic examination shall be angle beam examination shall be performed (1)
performed in accordance with a written procedure manually, (2) as part of a previous manufacturing
conforming to the requirements of Section V, process, or (3) during the automatic UT
Article 4.1 The procedure shall have been examination provided detection of these ref1ecctors
demonstrated to perform acceptably on a is demonstrated as described in Para. (c)
qualification block(s). Qualification block(s) shall
be in accordance with Section V, Article 4, T-
434.1.2 through T-434.1.6. The qualification 1 Sectorial scans (S-scans) with phased arrays may be used for
block(s) shall be prepared by welding or the hot the examination of welds, provided they are demonstrated
isostatic process (HIP) and shall contain a satisfactorily in accordance with para. (c). S-scans provide a fan
beam from a single emission point, which covers part or all of the
minimum of three flaws, oriented to simulate flaws weld, depending on transducer size, joint geometry, and section
parallel to the production weld's fusion line as thickness. While S-scans can demonstrate good detectability
follows: from side drilled holes, because they are omnidirectional
reflectors, the beams can be misoriented for planar reflectors
(1) one surface flaw on the side of the block
(e.g., lack of fusion and cracks). This is particularly true for
representing the pipe OD surface thicker sections, and it is recommended that multiple linear
(2) one surface flaw on the side of the block passes with S-scans be utilized for components greater than 25
representing the pipe ID surface mm (1 in.) thick. An adequate number of flaws should be used in
the demonstration block to ensure detectability for the entire weld
(3) one subsurface flaw volume.
(4) If the block can be flipped during UT
examination, then one flaw may represent both the
ID and OD surfaces. Thus only two flaws may be
required.
Flaw size shall be no larger than the flaw in Table 1
or 2 for the thickness to be examined. Acceptable
performance is defined as response from the
maximum allowable flaw and other flaws of
interest demonstrated to exceed the reference level.
Alternatively, for techniques that do not use
amplitude recording levels, acceptable performance
is defined as demonstrating that all imaged flaws
with recorded lengths, including the maximum
allowable flaws, have an indicated length equal to
1 Revised: August 29, 2008

B31 CASE 181-1
Approval Date: January 23, 2007
(e) Data is recorded in unprocessed form. A (2) For welds in material greater than 38
complete data set with no gating, filtering, or mm (1 1/2 in). thick but less than 64 mm (2 1/2 in.)
thresholding for response from examination volume thick at the weld, images with indicated lengths
in para. (a) above shall be included in the data greater than 5 mm (0.200 in.) shall be investigated.
record. (2) Geometric. Ultrasonic indications of
(f) Personnel performing and evaluating UT geometric and metallurgical origin shall be
examinations shall be qualified and certified in classified as follows:
accordance with their employer's written practice. (a) Indications that are determined to
ASNT SNT-TC-lA or CP-189 shall be used as a originate from the surface configurations (such as
guideline. Only Level II or III personnel shall weld reinforcement or root geometry) or variations
analyze the data or interpret the results. in metallurgical structure of materials (such as
(g) Qualification records of certified personnel cladding to base metal interface) may be classified
shall be approved by the owner’s Inspector per as geometric indications, and
para. 342.1. (1) need not be characterized or sized in
(h) In addition, personnel who acquire and accordance with ( i )(3) below;
analyze UT data shall be qualified and certified in (2) need not be compared to allowable
accordance with (f) above and shall be trained flaw acceptance criteria of Table 1 or 2;
using the equipment in (d) above, and participate in (3) the maximum indication amplitude
the demonstration of (c) above. and location shall be recorded, for example:
(i) Data analysis and acceptance criteria shall be internal attachments, 200% DAC maximum
as follows: amplitude, 25 mm (1in.) above the weld centerline,
(1) Data Analysis Criteria. Reflectors on the inside surface, from 90 to 95 deg.
exceeding the limits in either (a) or (b) below, as (b) The following steps shall be taken to
applicable, shall be investigated to determine classify an indication as geometric:
whether the indication originates from a flaw or is a (1) Interpret the area containing the
geometric indication in accordance with para. ( i ) ( reflector in accordance with the applicable
2 ) below. When a reflector is determined to be a examination procedure;
flaw, it shall be evaluated for acceptance in (2) Plot and verify the reflector
accordance with para. (i)(4), Flaw Evaluation and coordinates, provide a cross-sectional display
Acceptance Criteria. showing the reflector position and surface
(a) For amplitude-based techniques, the discontinuity such as root or counterbore; and
location, amplitude, and extent of all reflectors that (3) Review fabrication or weld prep
produce a response greater than 20% of the drawings.
reference level shall be investigated. (c) Alternatively, other NDE methods may
(b) For nonamplitude-based techniques, the be applied to classify an indication as geometric
location and extent of all images that have an (e.g., alternative UT beam angles, radiography,).
indicated length greater than the limits in (1) or (2) The method employed is for information only to
below, as applicable, shall be investigated. classify the indication as geometric and ASME
(1) For welds in material equal to or less B31.3 requirements for examination techniques are
than 38 mm (1 1/2 in.) thick at the weld, images only required to the extent that they are applicable.
with indicated lengths greater than 3.8 mm (0.150
in.) shall be investigated.
2
B31 CASE 181-1
TABLE 2
FLAW ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR 25 mm (1 in)
TO 300 mm (12 in.) THICK WELD
25 mm (1 in.) ≤ t ≤ 64 mm (21/2 in.), 100 mm (4 in.) ≤ t ≤ 300 mm (12 in.)

Aspect Surface Subsurface Surface Subsurface
Ratio, Flaw, Flaw, Flaw, Flaw,
a/ℓ a/t a/t a/t a/t
0.00 0.031 0.034 0.019 0.020
0.05 0.033 0.038 0.020 0.022
0.10 0.036 0.043 0.022 0.025
0.15 0.041 0.049 0.025 0.029
0.20 0.047 0.057 0.028 0.033
0.25 0.055 0.066 0.033 0.038
0.30 0.064 0.078 0.038 0.044
0.35 0.074 0.090 0.044 0.051
0.40 0.083 0.105 0.050 0.058
0.45 0.085 0.123 0.051 0.067
0.50 0.087 0.143 0.052 0.076
GENERAL NOTES:
(a) t = thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a buttweld joining two members having
different thickness at the weld, t is the thinner of these two thicknesses. If a full penetration weld includes a fillet weld,
the thickness of the throa t t of the fillet weld shall be included in t.
(b) A subsurface indication shall be considered as a surface flaw if separation (S in Fig. 1) of the indication from the
nearest surface of the component is equal to or less than half the through thickness dimension (2d in Fig. 1, sketch
[b]) of the subsurface indication.
(c) If the acceptance Criteria in this table results in a flaw length, ℓ , less than 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) , a value of 6.4 mm
(0.25 in.) may be used.
(d) for intermediate flaw aspect ratio a/ℓ and thickness t (64 mm [2 1/2 in] < t < 100 mm [4 in.]) linear interpolation is
permissible.
3
B31 CASE 181-1
(3) Flaw Sizing. Flaws shall be sized in (a) Surface Connected Flaws. Flaws
accordance with a procedure demonstrated to size identified as surface flaws during the UT
similar flaws at similar material depths. examination may or may not be surface connected.
Alternatively, a flaw may be sized by a Therefore, unless the UT data analysis confirms
supplemental manual technique so long as it has that that flaw is not surface connected, it shall be
been qualified by the demonstration above. The considered surface connected or a flaw open to the
dimensions of the flaw shall be determined by the surface, and is unacceptable unless a surface
rectangle that fully contains the area of the flaw. examination is performed in accordance with (1) or
(Refer to Figs. 1-5.) (2) below. If the flaw is surface connected, the
(a) The length (ℓ) of the flaw shall be requirements above still apply; however, in no case
drawn parallel to the inside pressure-retaining shall the flaw exceed the acceptance criteria in
surface of the component. ASME B31.3 for the method employed.
(b) The depth of the flaw shall be drawn Acceptable surface examination techniques are:
normal to the inside pressure retaining surface and
shall be denoted as "a" for a surface flaw or "2a" (1) Magnetic particle examination (MT)
for a subsurface flaw. in accordance with para 344.3 and Table 341.3.2 of
(4) Flaw Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria. ASME B31.3, or
Flaws shall be evaluated for acceptance using the (2) Liquid penetrant examination (PT) in
applicable criteria of Table 1 or 2 and with the accordance with para 344.4 and Table 341.3.2 of
following additional requirements: ASME B31.3.
4
B31 CASE 181-1
5
B31 CASE 181-1
(b) Multiple Flaws (i) above shall be reviewed by a UT level III

(1) Discontinuous flaws shall be individual. When flaw evaluation or
considered a singular planar flaw if the distance characterization of (i) above are performed by
between adjacent flaws is equal to or less than S as another qualified level II or III individual, their
shown in Fig. 2. review may be performed by another individual
(2) Discontinuous flaws that are oriented from the same organization. Examination data
primarily in parallel planes shall be considered a review shall include verification that the records
singular planar flaw if the distance between the indicated in Section V, Article 4, T-491 and T-
adjacent planes is equal to or less than 1/2 in. (13 492 and records noted in the applicable Article 4
mm). (Refer to Fig. 3.) appendices are available. B31.3, para 346
(3) Discontinuous flaws that are applies.
coplanar and nonaligned in the through-wall Alternatively, the review may be achieved by
thickness direction of the component shall be arranging for a data acquisition and initial
considered a singular planar flaw if the distance interpretation by a Level II individual qualified in
between adjacent flaws is equal to or less than S as accordance with paras. (f) and (h) above, and a
shown in Fig. 4. final interpretation and evaluation shall be
(4) Discontinuous flaws that are performed by a Level III individual qualified
coplanar in the through-wall direction within two similarly. The Level III individual shall have been
parallel planes 13 mm (1/2 in.) apart (i.e., normal qualified in accordance with para. (f) above,
to the pressure-retaining surface of the component) including a practical examination on flawed
are unacceptable if the additive flaw depth specimens.
dimension of the flaws exceeds those shown in Fig. (d) With the owner’s approval, the flaw
5. acceptance criteria in Table 2 for wall thicknesses
(c) Subsurface Flaws. Flaw length (ℓ) between 25 mm (1 in.) and 54 mm (2½ in.) may be
shall not exceed 4t. used for wall thicknesses of less than 25 mm (1 in.).
(j) Examination data including the data record of The maximum allowable flaw depth for
(c) above and data analysis or interpretation of qualification purposes shall be specified.
6
B31 CASE 181-1
7
B31 CASE 181-1
8

Original Inquiry: Under what conditions and d) Personnel demonstration requirements
limitations may alternative UT acceptance shall be as stated in ASME Section V,
criteria apply in lieu of those described in para. Article 4 Mandatory Appendix VII.
344.6.2 of ASME B31.3? 4) Examination
a) The initial straight beam scan for
When specified by the owner, the ultrasonic reflectors that could interfere with the
examination acceptance criteria included below angle beam examination shall be
may be applied for welds in material greater performed (a) manually, (b) as part of a
than or equal to 25mm (1.0 in.) in thickness1 in previous manufacturing process, or (c)
accordance with ASME B31.3 provided the during the weld examination, provided
following requirements are met: detection of these reflectors is included
in the demonstration as required in 1(c)
1) General/Scope: above.
a) The examination shall be conducted b) The examination area shall include the
using automated or semi-automated volume of the weld, plus the lesser of
techniques utilizing computer based data 25mm (1.0 in.) or t of adjacent base
acquisition. metal. Alternatively, the examination
b) The examination shall be performed in volume may be reduced to include the
accordance with a written procedure actual heat affected zone (HAZ) plus
approved by a Level III and conforming 6mm (0.25 in.) of base material beyond
to the requirements of ASME Section V, the heat affected zone on each side of
Article 4 Mandatory Appendix VIII and: the weld, provided the extent of the
i) For Phased Array – ASME Section weld HAZ is measured and documented.
V, Article 4, Mandatory Appendix c) Scanning may be peformed at reference
V level provided the procedure
ii) For Time of Flight Diffraction qualification was performed at reference
(TOFD) - ASME Section V, Article level.
4, Mandatory Appendix III 5) Data Recording
c) Procedure qualification shall meet the Data shall be recorded in the
requirements of ASME Section V, unprocessed form with no thresholding.
Article 4, Mandatory Appendix IX. The data record shall include the
2) Equipment complete examination area as specified
A mechanical guided scanner capable of in (4)(b) above.
maintaining a fixed and consistent
search unit position relative to the weld
centerline shall be used.
3) Personnel
a) Set-up and scanning of welds shall be
performed by personnel certified as 1 For wall thicknesses less than 25mm (1.0 in.), the
Level II or III (or by Level I personnel acceptance criteria stated in paragraph 344.6.2 of B31.3
shall be used.
under the direct supervision of Level II
personnel).
b) Interpretation and evaluation of data
shall be performed by Level II or III
personnel.
c) Examination personnel shall be
qualified and certified following a
procedure or program as described in
ASME BPV Code, Section V, Article 1,
T-120 (e), (f), (h) and (i).

6) Data Analysis dimension (h in Figure 1, sketch [b])
a) Reflectors exceeding the limits below of the subsurface indication.
shall be investigated to determine b) Multiple Flaws
whether the indication originates from a i) Discontinuous flaws that are
flaw or is a geometric indication in oriented primarily in parallel planes
accordance with 6(b) below. shall be considered to lie in a single
i) For amplitude based techniques, the plane if the distance between the
location, amplitude, and extent of all adjacent planes is equal to or less
reflectors that produce a response than 13mm (0.50 in.) or 0.5t,
greater than 20% of the reference whichever is less.
level shall be investigated. ii) If the space between two flaws
ii) For non-amplitude based aligned along the axis of weld is less
techniques, the location and extent than the height of the flaw of greater
of all images that have an indicated height, the two flaws shall be
length greater than 4.0mm (0.16 in.) considered a single flaw.
shall be investigated. iii) If the space between two flaws
b) Ultrasonic indications of geometric aligned in the through-thickness
and/or metallurgical origin shall be dimension is less than the height of
classified as specified in ASME Section the flaw of greater height, the two
V, Article 4 Paragraph T-481. flaws shall be considered a single
c) Alternatively, other techniques or NDE flaw.
methods may be used to classify an 8) Flaw Acceptance Criteria
indication as geometric (e.g., alternative Flaws shall be evaluated against the
beam angles, radiography). The method applicable acceptance criteria of Table 1
employed is for information only to or 2, except that flaw length (l) shall not
classify the indication as geometric, and exceed 4t, regardless of flaw height (h)
ASME B31.3 requirements for or the calculated aspect ratio.
examination techniques are only
required to the extent they are
applicable.
7) Flaw Evaluation
a) The dimension of the flaw(s) shall be
determined by the rectangle that fully
contains the area of the flaw(s). (Refer
to Fig. 1)
i) The length, ℓ, of the flaw shall be
drawn parallel to the inside pressure
retaining surface of the component.
ii) The height, h, of the flaw shall be
drawn normal to the inside pressure
retaining surface of the component.
iii) The flaw shall be characterized as a
surface or subsurface flaw, as shown
in Figure 1.
iv) A subsurface indication shall be
considered as a surface flaw if the
separation (S in Figure 1) of the
indication from the nearest surface
of the component is equal to or less
than half the through wall

TABLE 1
Acceptance Criteria for Surface Flaws
Weld Thickness
Aspect Ratio, 25mm to 64mm 100mm to 300mm
h/ℓ (1.0 in. to 2.5 in.) (3.9 in. to 11.8 in.)
h/t h/t
0.00 < 0.031 < 0.019
0.05 < 0.033 < 0.020
0.10 < 0.036 < 0.022
0.15 < 0.041 < 0.025
0.20 < 0.047 < 0.028
0.25 < 0.055 < 0.033
0.30 < 0.064 < 0.038
0.35 < 0.074 < 0.044
0.40 < 0.083 < 0.050
0.45 < 0.085 < 0.051
0.50 < 0.087 < 0.052
General Notes:
(a) t = thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a
butt joint joining two members having different thickness at the joint,
t is the thinner of the two thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld
includes a fillet weld, the effective throat dimension of the fillet weld
shall be included in t.
(b) Aspect Ratio (h/ℓ) used may be determined by rounding the calculated
h/ℓ down to the nearest 0.05 increment value within the column, or by
linear interpolation.
(c) For intermediate thickness t (weld thicknesses between 64mm and
100mm [2.5 in. and 3.9 in.]) linear interpolation is required to obtain
h/t values.
TABLE 2
Acceptance Criteria for Subsurface Flaws
Weld Thickness
Aspect Ratio, 25mm to 64mm 100mm to 300mm
h/ℓ (1.0 in. to 2.5 in.) (3.9 in. to 11.8 in.)
h/t h/t
0.00 < 0.068 < 0.040
0.10 < 0.076 < 0.044
0.20 < 0.086 < 0.050
0.30 < 0.098 < 0.058
0.40 < 0.114 < 0.066
0.50 < 0.132 < 0.076
0.60 < 0.156 < 0.088
0.70 < 0.180 < 0.102
0.80 < 0.210 < 0.116
0.90 < 0.246 < 0.134
1.00 < 0.286 < 0.152
General Notes:
(a) t = thickness of the weld excluding any allowable reinforcement. For a
butt joint joining two members having different thickness at the joint,
t is the thinner of the two thicknesses joined. If a full penetration weld

includes a fillet weld, the effective throat dimension of the fillet weld
shall be included in t.
(b) Aspect Ratio (h/ℓ) used may be determined by rounding the calculated
h/ℓ down to the nearest 0.05 increment value within the column, or by
linear interpolation.
(c) For intermediate thickness t (weld thicknesses between 64mm and
100mm [2.5 in. and 3.9 in.]) linear interpolation is required to obtain
h/t values.
h
h
S < 0.5h
(a) Surface Flaw (b) Surface Flaw
S > 0.5h
(c) Subsurface Flaw

Figure 1: Surface and Subsurface Indications
Phased Array Pipework Inspection
Oceaneering offers fully code compliant Phased Detectable Defects

Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) as a replacement to • Cracks
on-site radiography. Developments in construction • Lack of Fusion
codes have allowed PAUT to be used as a direct • Lack of Penetration
replacement to Radiography on piping butt
• Slag Inclusions
welds to meet the quality control requirements of
• Porosity
ASME B31.3 and B31.1 and numerous European
standards. PAUT can be worked towards both
workmanship and Engineer Critical Assessment
(ECA) acceptance criteria, with data being suitable
for accurate sizing and defect characterization.
PAUT enables reduced inspection time by

simultaneously collecting multiple angle ultrasonic
data in a one pass scan from either side of the
weld. Typical inspection rates are between 15-20
butts per shift. By ensuring accurate scan plans and
specifically designed techniques all construction
defects are readily detected, sized and sentenced
accordingly.
www.oceaneering.com
10/12
Phased Array Pipework Inspection
Data Analysis Advantages
Sophisticated analysis software allows • Radiation free ultrasonic technique
experienced operators to interrogate welds from • Welds from 3/4 inch in diameter up to flat plate
multiple orientations including a comprehensive may be inspected.
evaluation of the weld root, fusion face and weld • Wall thicknesses from 4mm. (N.B. Wall
toes. thickness below 8mm may require a trial /
validation period.)
• Independent from site utilities due to battery
operation and irrigation system
• Rapid inspections with digital recording of data
• Digitally encoded scanning for accurate sizing
• Highly sensitive to fusion face flaws
• Free viewing software available to allow the
client to review inspection data
• ASME and European code compliant
Limitations
Piping Construction Codes
• Surface preparation is required to allow the
• ASME B31.3 code case 181.2, which permits
collection of quality data
the use of PAUT on wall thicknesses >25mm
• 100mm of radial and axial clearance is
to a fracture mechanics sentencing criteria.
required for scanner fitment (NB small bore
The sentencing for this code case is based
scanner available for restricted access
on a fracture mechanics module and requires
scanning.)
qualification.
• B31.1 and code case 179, which together
permits the use of PAUT on all thicknesses.
The sentencing for this code is based on
workmanship criteria and does not specifically
require qualification.
• BS EN ISO 17640: 2010 - Techniques, testing
levels and assessment for non-destructive and
ultrasonic testing of welds
• BS4515: 1-2004 Specification for welding of
steel pipelines on land and offshore. Carbon
and carbon manganese steel pipelines. PAUT
allowable with client dispensation.
• BE EN ISO 13588 - Non-Destructive Testing
of Welds - Ultrasonic Testing - use of Semi-
automated PA
Phased array small bore scanner
Oceaneering International, Inc. | Asset Integrity | 11911 FM 529 | Houston, TX 77041

email: Asset-Integrity@oceaneering.com | oceaneering.com/asset-integrity
OCEANEERING® is a registered trademark of Oceaneering International, Inc.
•Click to edit Master text styles
–Second level
Click
Phased to edit
•Third levelArray Master
and title
Timestyle
of
Flight »Fifth
Diffraction
–Fourth level
level (TOFD)
Codes and Specifications
Michael Moles
NAVSEA 271st meeting, May 2011
1
Outline on AUT Codes
 ASME – AUT and Phased Array codes

 ASME - Code requirements
 TOFD Codes – incl. ASME
 Othercode activities – API, ASTM, AWS,
EN, ISO etc.
 Summary
2
ASME Codes
3
ASME AUT Codes Today
 AUTdominated for years by ASME Code
Case 2235 (from Sections I, VIII and XII)
 Nowreplaced by three Mandatory
Appendices (publ. July 2010) in Section V
 Nocommitment to specific technologies:
wide variety of options - technique,
equipment, mechanics, data displays etc.
4
ASME Mandatory Appendices VI-VIII
 Basedon Performance Demonstration

(Procedure Qualification)
 Requiresdetection of three defects (ID,
OD, sub-surface)
 Requires full data collection and encoder
 (Modified
versions of CC 2235 in API 620
App U, B31.3 CC 181 etc.)
5
ASME Mandatory Appendices VI-VIII
 MUCH easier to read and use than CC 2235
 Written in plain English
 For example, Performance Qualification

allows + 25% on wall thickness and 0.9-1.5
on diameter.
6
The Portable Approach
One person
operation:
• OmniScan
• twin phased arrays,
• TOFD
• handscanner
• couplant and pump
• linear scanning.
7
Phased Array Codes and Code Cases
 Three AUT Mandatory Appendices (VI-VIII):
– Workmanship
– Fracture Mechanics-based
– Procedure Qualification (Performance Demo)
 Two PA Mandatory Appendices (IV-V):
– Manual PA (E-scans and S-scans)
– Encoded linear scanning using linear arrays (E-
and S-scans)
8
ASME Phased Array Mandatory
Appendix Requirements
9
Phased Array Mand. App. Requirements
 Calibrate all beams (OK for OmniScan)
 Use same Focal Law for cal as for scanning
For encoded scanning:
 Develop Scan Plan to show coverage and
appropriate angles
 Use two (or more) S-scans if required
 Scan parallel to weld with encoder/full data
collection at fixed distance from centerline
10
Phased Array Mand. App. Requirements
 Requires“appropriate angles” for bevel
incidence angles (undefined)
 Usual‘Essential Variable’ recording
requirements
 Requires 50% beam overlap
 Requires <5% data drop-out for encoded
scanning
 Extensive reporting requirements.
11
Calibrating wedge delay
The operator sets a time
gate with enough width
to encompass all the
reflections at all angles
and positions.
Operator then
“calibrates” the wedge
delay using the
automatic calibration
process.
12
Sensitivity calibration
 Need to correct for
angle effects (ACG)
and time effects (TCG)
 OmniScan has ACG
correction, but easiest
to use Auto-TCG
function.
 Auto-TCG does both
ACG and TCG
operations in a single
step.
13
Sample Auto-TCG results
14
Scan Plans
Ray tracing using ESBeamTool with sample Bevel

Incidence Angles (arrowed) calculated on 25 mm
wall double-V weld.
Can check if angles “not appropriate”
15
ASME B31.3 Code Case 181 (-2)
 Recently re-written - again
 Currently out for ballot
 Essentially converts CC 181-2 to
“workmanship”
 Overall, should be a major step forward for
pipes
 In addition, ASME Section V Code Case
2638 allows much greater flexibility in cal
blocks.
16
TOFD Codes, especially ASME
17
TOFD Signals
Transmitter Receiver
Lateral wave
Back-wall reflection
LW BW
Upper tip Lower tip

18
Typical TOFD Display
•Gray scale
and rf for
phase info.
•OD and ID
visible
•Defects
detectable in
middle
•L-wave
display only
19 (usually)
TOFD Advantages and Disadvantages
 ExcellentPoD for mid-wall defects
 Good detection of mis-oriented defects
 Rapid (and relatively low cost) inspections
 Dead zone of ~3mm at outer surface

 Potential dead zone at inner surface
 Can be difficult to interpret.
20
TOFD Codes
 Well “codified”, primarily from Europe
 “Invented” and developed there
 Some pluses and minuses of various TOFD
codes, e.g. how to calibrate etc
 Well-used and well-developed technique
 BUT,does require skilled and trained
operators.
21
TOFD Codes
 BS7706 essentially a “guideline”
 EN583_6 good, but not well known in North
America
 Replaced by EN14751
 ASTM E-2373-04 published
 ASME TOFD Code (Section V Article 4

Mandatory Appendix III) published in 2006
 ASME TOFD Interpretation Manual
(Nonmandatory App. N) 22
published.
ASME TOFD Code
 Good code; requires calibrating on ASME
side-drilled holes
 Current calibration alternatives from Europe:
– known defects
– grain noise
– lateral wave
 ASME requires conventional UT for ID and
OD to cover off dead zones (unlike most
other TOFD Codes).
23
ASME TOFD Code Calibration
T/4
T 3T/4
Weld Hole
Thickness Diameter
in. (mm) in. (mm) Calibration using standard
Up to 1 (25) 3/32 (2.4) ASME notches
Over 1 (25) 1/8
thru 2 (50) (3.2) Defined in Mandatory
Over 2 (50)
thru 4 (100) (4.8)
3/16 Appendix III.
24
Over 4 (100) 1/4 (6)
Other Code Activities –
API, AWS, ASTM, EN/ISO etc.
25
Code activities - API
 API similar in approach to ASME; two
organizations typically work together
 Approval using PA for API UT 1 and UT
2 procedures with no changes
 Essentially
scan known samples using
new technology/techniques
 Phased arrays now widely used for API,
e.g. API RP2X and API 1104.
26
Code activities - AWS
A “prescriptive” code, different from ASME
 With2006 version => new technology and
technique approvals are codified
 Majorproblem: each case requires the
“Engineers” approval
 Working on mandatory Annex for AUT
 AWS responding - slowly.
27
Code activities – ASTM (1)
 ASTM E-2491-06 Recommended
Practice for phased array set-up
 Requires
full “angle corrected gain”
(ACG) and “time corrected gain (TCG)
over SDH calibration range
 Limits
to angular range based on
recommendations and calibration.
28
Code activities – ASTM (2)
 Recent E-2700 RP for PA of welds
 Essentially allows contact testing for ferritic
steel welds
 No great surprises here.
29
EN/ISO
 Still working on PA code development

 Third version more realistic, but still needs a
little work
 Very bureaucratic organization
 Butexpect EN/ISO phased array code in a
couple of years.
30
Code Summary
31
Code activities – ASME summary
 Phased arrays, TOFD and AUT inherently
accepted by ASME (and other codes)
 May need to get techniques and procedures
approved e.g. by Performance
Demonstration approaches
 Complete ASME Phased Array and TOFD
(Time-Of-Flight Diffraction) Codes now
available.
32
Code activities – other summary
 ASTM RP for PA set-up published (E-2491)
 ASTM RP for PA of welds published (E-
2700)
 API generally accepts PA
 AWS D1.1 still requires Engineer’s approval
 Europeans “still behind” on PA and AUT
codes.
33
Thank you
Any more questions?
34
Performance Test Protocol for Phased Array UT in Lieu of RT Personnel
Qualification
Revision 2.1, 1/21/14
1. General
The Test Protocol that is to be used by ultrasonic testing (UT) examiners to take the
Phased Array UT in Lieu of RT Personnel Qualification Test is described in this
document. The Examinee shall be familiarized with this protocol before arriving at the
Westhollow Technology Center. Prior to the start of each test session, the Test
Administrator will conduct an orientation with all Examinees that will cover any changes
made to this document.
Personnel taking the test shall follow his/her employer’s written Phased Array UT
procedure. The Examinee shall provide a copy of the Phased Array UT procedure
that will be used during the examination to the Test Administrator prior to taking
the test.
2. Testing Details
The test session is scheduled to be completed in one workday. The testing will start at
8:00 am, with a lunch break at 12:00 - 12:30 - In Room (must bring own lunch). The
examination ends at 5:00 pm. Only one Examinee may leave the testing area at a time.
The testing will be monitored at all times to prevent compromise of the test samples.
Each examinee will be given a unique test set consisting of 6 qualification test specimens.
In general there is no time limit per sample, however some samples may be part of more
than one examinee’s test set and sharing the samples will be required. If necessary, time
limit provisions may be established.
Each examinee must inspect all six samples without any assistance. Each Examinee shall
work independently and is not allowed to discuss sample or examination information
during or after the testing.
All paperwork must be completed and turned in to the Test Administrator at the end of
the day. Examinees that fail to complete the testing in the allotted time will be
considered to be unsuccessful.
No form of data, electronic or otherwise shall be retained by the Examinee after the test is
complete.
3. Personnel Requirements
Personnel performing the qualification test should be, as a minimum, certified to UT

Level II or III in accordance with their employer’s written practice.
4. Equipment Requirements
The Examinee is responsible for supplying ALL of the equipment needed for the
examination. Sharing of equipment will not be allowed during the demonstration. Listed
below are recommended equipment and supplies that should be considered for use during
the examination:
- Ultrasonic Phased Array Instrument

- Ultrasonic Phased Array Transducers. Search unit frequencies should be
between 2.25 and 5.0 MHz.
- Basic Calibration Blocks
- Calibration Reference Standards (IIW, DSC, Rompas)
- Indication Plotting Device
- Pens/Pencils
- Calculator
- Couplant
- Rags
The test administrator will provide extra couplant and rags if necessary.
5. Test Sample Description
The test will consist of six carbon steel samples, 2 plates and 4 pipes. The samples
details are as follows:
-1/2 inch plate, 15 inches weld length, Single Vee, 37.5 degree bevel (1)
- 1 inch plate, 15 inches weld length, Single Vee, 37.5 degree bevel (1)
- 1.5 inch plate, 14 inches wide, 18” long, 15” weld length, double-Vee butt weld
with 30º bevel angle (1)
- 12" pipe half section, Wall thickness range from .710" - .767”, 20" weld length,
Single Vee, 37.5 degree bevel (1)
- 8" pipe, Wall thickness range from .343” - .500", 25" weld length, Single Vee,
37.5 degree bevel (2)
Each test specimen will be given a unique identification number. The flaw location and
actual specimen identification will be concealed to maintain a “blind test”. Any tape or
other type of masking shall not be removed from any of the test samples during or after
the examination.
6. Description of Potential Flaws
The type of potential flaws includes all flaws listed in the API QUTE plus transverse
cracks, both surface connected and non-surface connected. These flaws include:
− Inside surface connected crack (ID Crack)

− Outside surface connected crack (OD Crack)
− Embedded center line cracking (CL Crack)
− Lack of root penetration (LOP)
− Lack of side wall fusion (LOF)
− Porosity
− Slag and Inclusions
− Transverse Cracks
Specific Test Specimens are not required to contain all of the flaws identified above. The
number of flaws in each test specimen may vary for each test set. Test specimens may be
unflawed along the entire length.
All Test Specimens are in the as-welded condition and may contain ID or OD mismatch
or other typical non-symmetrical welding geometry. Test Specimens will not contain
counterbore geometry.
7. Grading Criteria
The Candidate performance will be evaluated in the following categories:
a) Detection – Each weld is divided into grading units and each grading unit will be
considered as either flawed or unflawed. There will be only defect type in each
grading unit. Sufficient data must be provided in order for the Test Administer to
determine if the Examinee actually detected the flaw.
b) Flaw Characterization – Once a flaw is detected, the Examinee must characterize the
flaw to determine the type of flaw, as described in the list in Section 6. The location
of the flaw must be accurate with regard to surface connected or volumetric. The
flaw must be properly categorized as either being surface connected or subsurface.
c) Flaw Length Sizing – The flaw length shall be sized in accordance with the
Examinee’s written UT procedure. Over sizing of the flaw length may result in false
calls in the adjoining grading unit.
d) Flaw Height Sizing – The flaw height shall be sized in accordance with the
Examinee’s written UT procedure.
e) Flaw Positioning – The flaws that are reported must also be positioned correctly with
respect to the weld centerline, upstream (US) or downstream (DS). The grading will
include the flaws approximate relationship to the weld centerline. Cross sectional
plotting of the indications on the indication data sheet is required to determine the
location of the flaw.
f) False Calls – A false call is defined as reporting a flaw in a non-flawed grading unit.
The Examinee will not know the location of any unflawed grading units.
Each weld is divided into grading units, which are not necessarily of equal length. A
single grading unit included both sides of the weld. Grading units are considered
unflawed or flawed. Flawed grading units will contain only one flaw.
A successful Examinee must meet the minimum requirements in all categories.
The test results of pass/fail will be reported to the Examinee within four weeks after the
test is complete.
8. Calibration
Calibration should be performed and recorded prior to the start of any examination or
series of examinations. Calibration should include the complete ultrasonic examination
system.
The search unit manufacturer and type, exit point, beam angle measurements and other
Instrument Settings shall be listed on the provided “Ultrasonic Calibration Data Sheet”.
The Primary Reference Sensitivity level and associated distance amplitude correction
(DAC) should be established using the inside and outside surface notches in the flowing
manner:
All Calibration Information shall be listed on the provided “Ultrasonic Calibration Data
Sheet”.
9. Examination
The examination volume shall consist of the entire weld volume and base material for a
distance of ¼ inch from each weld toe for all weld configurations.
The search unit angles selected for each component should be chosen based upon the
configuration of the component and expected flaw mechanism. Variables such as weld
design, weld crown width and material thickness should be evaluated prior to selecting
the inspection angles(s).
The examination sensitivity (scan gain) should be a minimum of twice (+ 6 dB) the
primary reference level.
The scanning speed should not exceed 3” per second.
Scan Direction:
− For the examination of reflectors oriented parallel with the weld, the sound beam
should be directed essentially perpendicular to the weld axis from both sides of
the weld.
− For the examination of transverse indications, the sound beam should be directed
essentially parallel to the weld axis.
Scan Pattern:
− The probe movement should consist of a raster type scanning sequence providing
adequate beam overlap in the indexing direction. This scanning pattern may be
supplemented as needed with localized lateral scanning and probe oscillation to
provide information important to indication characterization.
10. Indication Evaluation
All suspected flaw indications shall be plotted on a cross sectional drawing of the weld in
order to accurately identify the specific origin of the reflector.
All actual flaw indications, i.e. slag, LOP, LOF cracks, etc. exceeding 20% of the
primary reference level shall be reported.
11. Recording and Reporting of Exam Results
The component reference information (datum 0 position, direction of flow) that is marked
on each sample shall be used for indication reporting.
All indications shall be reported on the provided “Indication Report Sheets”.
Report of non-relevant indications is not required.
Flaw indications 20% of DAC or greater shall be recorded. The following information
shall be recorded on the applicable “Indication Report Sheets” for each reported flaw:
− Indication #
− Flaw Type
− % of DAC
− Flaw Start and Stop
− Flaw Length
− Flaw Location (Upstream/CL/Downstream/Transverse) in relationship to the weld
centerline
− Flaw Location in relationship to the weld volume (ID surface connected, OD
surface connected, Embedded)
12. Required Paperwork
All paperwork shall be completed and given to the Test Administrator after the test is
completed to maintain Test Sample security. No other paper or materials will be allowed
at the testing station. The following forms will be required at the completion of the test:
Equipment Inventory List

A complete list of all equipment used for the examination shall be inventoried and
documented on the provided form. This form must be completed before the start of the
qualification test.
Ultrasonic Calibration Data Sheet
An Ultrasonic Calibration Sheet shall be completed for each test specimen examined. All
information must be completed prior to scanning the test samples and should contain the
necessary information to assure compliance to the procedure being used.
Indication Report Sheet

An Indication Data Sheet must be completed for each sample. The Examinee is
responsible to properly document the flaw location, length, depth sizing, positioning,
characterization, surface connected or subsurface, etc. Each indication must be numbered
and all data should be clearly recorded and legible. All flaws should be placed on the
Sketch area provided on the form.
Test Administrator Check List

The Test Administrator shall review the Phased Array examination process for each test
candidate. The following shall be reviewed:
1. Phased Array System

2. Scan technique
3. Focus method and depth
4. Data Acquisition
5. Data Analysis
13. Test Security
The Test Administrator will monitor this Personnel Qualification Test. Continuous test
area surveillance will be maintained to ensure test security. Entry into and out of the
testing area will be restricted. The test Administrator will be present during the lunch
break to allow Examinees additional time for testing if they choose not to take a lunch
break.
Purses, backpacks or briefcases will not be allowed at the Examinees testing stations. No
cell phones or pagers will be allowed in the testing area. A secure area will be provided
for personal items during the testing session.
At the conclusion of the Qualification Test, the Phased Array unit digital on-board
memory shall be demonstrated to be cleared of all data and images. The Flash card,
Memory Card or other Storage Card/Device will be turned in to the Test Administrator at
the end of the examination. The Test Administrator will verify that no data is stored on
this device, any internal hard drive or computer used for data acquisition.
14. Retest
An Examinee failed the performance demonstration test shall not be allowed to re-take
the test within 3 months of the previous test.
WORLD CENTRE FOR MATERIALS JOINING TECHNOLOGY
PR17981 March 2011
RELIABILITY OF ULTRASONIC INSPECTIONS APPLIED IN

LIEU OF RADIOGRAPHY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASME CODE
CASE REQUIREMENTS
For: A Group of Sponsors
Summary
Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) and Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) are increasingly being used
in lieu of radiography (RT) due to the introduction of ASME Code Case 2235; “Use of Ultrasonic Examination
in Lieu of Radiography” Section I; Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; and Section XII. These documents define
the conditions and limitations that must be satisfied for UT to be used in place of radiography for welds over
12.5mm thick in pressure vessels and boilers. This same code case has subsequently with some
modification been incorporated into the ASME Gas Process Piping Code B31.3, in the form of Code Case
181, which was issued in January 2007. These documents however present only the minimum requirements
which are frequently inadequate for the demands of the task in hand and are also often misinterpreted.
This project aims to produce a Best Practice Guide for the application of PAUT and TOFD in Lieu of RT and
to compare the performance and pass/fail data achieved when applying RT in accordance with ASME
requirements and best practice UT (TOFD and PAUT) according to code case requirements. Through this
we aim to ensure that ultrasonic inspections conducted in accordance with code case requirements are fit for
purpose, to optimise qualification costs, to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary repairs and to
clarify the implications of applying PAUT and TOFD in lieu of RT.
Copyright © TWI Ltd 2011

Background
Radiography (RT) and ultrasonics (UT) are the two generally-used, NDT methods for the detection of
embedded flaws located within the volume of a component. Many codes and standards have
traditionally specified RT rather than UT for the detection of such flaws with this being largely based
upon the fact that RT unlike manual UT provides a permanent record of the inspections conducted.
The two methods have other intrinsic advantages and disadvantages with RT considered inefficient
for the detection of planar flaws which must be preferentially aligned to the radiographic beam whilst
flaw types such as excess root penetration are difficult to detect with UT. Generally however it is
considered that the flaws which RT can detect and sentence but UT cannot are not of structural
concern, whereas many large planar defects which UT can detect and sentence but RT cannot are
safety critical.
The application of computerised data acquisition to UT has allowed the production of hard copies of
the results whilst at the same time providing higher reliability, repeatability and improved inspection
speed. These improvements when added to the pre-existing advantages of UT over RT such as no
radiation hazard, sensitivity to planar flaws and the provision of depth and positioning information
mean that there is now considerable interest in the use of UT in lieu of RT.
This interest has been increased by the introduction of ASME Code Case 2235; “Use of Ultrasonic
Examination in Lieu of Radiography” Section I; Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; and Section XII which
define the conditions and limitations that must be satisfied for UT to be used in place of radiography
for welds over 12.5mm thick in pressure vessels and boilers. This same code case has subsequently
with some modification been incorporated into the ASME Gas Process Piping Code B31.3, in the form
of Code Case 181, which was issued in January 2007. In both cases, fracture mechanics based
acceptance criteria may be used in lieu of good workmanship criteria.
These documents, however, present only the minimum requirements which are frequently inadequate
for the demands of the task in hand. The documents are also often misinterpreted with examples of
these being:
 The code cases specify that a qualification block should contain a minimum of 3 flaws. This is
often insufficient to represent the weld preparations to be inspected
 The documents state that the procedure shall have been demonstrated to perform adequately on
qualification block(s). Pipe to pipe qualification blocks are often used when the actual weld
configurations to be inspected include not just pipe to pipe joints but configurations such as pipe
to elbow, pipe to reducer and pipe to tee.
 The number of qualification blocks employed is often either too few or too many leading to either
lower project costs but with high risk or in an excessively onerous qualification process which can
have an adverse effect upon project timescales.
 Inspection procedures and qualification failing to address the requirements of the code case or
applicable standards.
Objectives Benefits
 To compare the performance and pass/fail Following completion of the project, sponsors
data when applying RT in accordance with will be equipped to
ASME requirements and best practice UT
 Ensure that ultrasonic inspections
(TOFD and PAUT) according to code case
conducted in accordance with code case
requirements.
requirements are fit for purpose.
 To produce a Best Practice Guide for the
 Optimise qualification costs.
application of PAUT and TOFD in Lieu of
RT including:  Distinguish between necessary and
- Qualification strategy. unnecessary repairs.
- Applicability of computer simulation.  Clarification of the implications of applying
- Test piece design - Number and PAUT and TOFD in lieu of RT (e.g. costs,
position of flaws, number of samples. likely repair rates).

Approach Comparison of the results of the inspections
will be made with measurement after
A set of welded specimens with known flaws sectioning of actual defects in the specimens.
will be fabricated with their dimensions, The result from this testing and sectioning will
material, joint preparations and flaws being to be analysed statistically to compare:
be defined by the Sponsors. It is envisaged
that these specimens will be of pipe to pipe  The capabilities of RT with PAUT and
configuration but the range of specimens could TOFD inspections conducted in
be extended to include more difficult accordance with best practice code case
configurations for the ultrasonic techniques to requirements
be employed such as pipe to elbow, reducer or  The capabilities of PAUT and TOFD
tee should a sufficient number of sponsors be inspections conducted in accordance with
obtained. best practice code case procedures and
those conducted in accordance with
These specimens will be used for both the procedures compliant with the minimum
qualification of the inspection procedures requirements of the code cases.
generated and subsequently analysing the
capabilities of the techniques and procedures. The results of the inspections conducted and
A number of these specimens will contain only the CIVA modelling will also be analysed to
3 flaws to comply with minimum code case determine the feasibility of a qualification
requirements. approach based upon the use of qualification
pieces representing only the worst case
The following procedures will be produced for designs supported by CIVA modelling.
the inspection of the test specimens:
The results of the project will be presented to
 ASME V compliant radiographic the Sponsors in a format that will demonstrate
procedures. the capabilities of the inspections conducted
 PAUT and TOFD procedures (plus and the techniques employed.
supplementary techniques as appropriate)
compliant with ASME V and best practice Deliverables
code case requirements.
 TOFD and PAUT procedures approved
 PAUT and TOFD procedures compliant
and validated against code case
with ASME V and minimum code case
requirements.
requirements.
 A best practice guide for the application of
These procedures will be approved by the PAUT and TOFD in accordance with code
Level 3 qualified NDT Engineers and members case requirements.
of the sponsor group.  A comparison of the performance of code
compliant RT and PAUT and TOFD
CIVA modelling of the PAUT and TOFD performed in accordance with code case
procedures produced will be conducted to requirements.
validate their capabilities. CIVA is a semi-
analytical simulation tool developed for Reporting
parametric study and development of Progress reports providing details of
ultrasonic inspection procedures. As such it is experimental procedures and test data will be
capable of simulating quite complex inspection issued every six months, prior to Sponsor
scenarios. It is composed of a suite of Group meetings. At the close of the project, a
modules which include the computation of the final report detailing the work performed and
sound field and its interaction with defects. main results will be presented.
This software is widely accepted by industry
and various aspects of its operation have been
validated by TWI.
Price and Duration
The estimated duration of the programme is
Radiographic, PAUT and TOFD inspections of 18 months involving test piece manufacture,
the welded specimens will be conducted using procedure generation, data collection and data
the procedures generated. Following these analysis.
inspections the data collected will be
interpreted by a minimum of three The price of the full 18 months programme is
appropriately qualified inspectors.

estimated at £240,000, and it is proposed that
six Sponsors each contribute £40,000. This A WebEx link will be available for those unable
price includes the design and the manufacture to attend in person
of the welded specimens. The work will start
with a reduced scope as soon as four For further information please contact:
Sponsors are committed to the project.
Technical: Ivan Pinson
Launch Meeting Email: ivan.pinson@twi.co.uk
Administrative: Danielle Wilson

Date: Wednesday 6 April 2011 Email:danielle.wilson@twi.co.uk
Time: 13:30 (12:30 Buffet Lunch)
Venue:
TWI Ltd
Granta Park,
Great Abington,
Cambridge,
CB21 6AL
TWI TWI Ltd, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge CB21 6AL, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1223 899000 Fax: +44 (0)1223 892588
IRNDT2016 Proceedings of the 3rd Iranian International NDT Conference
Feb 21-22, 2016, Olympic Hotel, Tehran, Iran
IRNDT2016-T03118
More Info at Open Access Database www.ndt.net/?id=19143
The advantages of Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) & Time of flight Diffraction (TOFD)
Combination instead of using individually on ASME U stamp Pressure vessel fabrication projects.
Hosein Taheri1, Hashem Rahmati2
1. Farin Sout Pishrafteh Engineering Co. Tehran, Iran, info@FSP-NDT.com

2. Pishrafteh NDT Co. Tehran, Iran, info@Pishrafteh.com
Abstract:
The Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) and Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) technologies have made rapid changes
in inspection and reliability in various industries. Ultrasonic phased arrays are a new technology that offers considerable
potential for inspecting construction welds. Using electronic control of the beam, phased arrays can scan, sweep, steer and
focus the ultrasound. Since welds typically produce defects of known character and orientation, phased arrays can be
programmed to optimize weld inspections. These inspections include standard ASME-type pulse echo raster scans, zone
discrimination, TOFD and “specials”, depending on the vessel, weld profile, geometry and specifications.
The Time-of-Flight Diffraction technique (TOFD) was originally developed as a method of accurately sizing and monitoring
the through wall height of flaws in the industry. It is equally effective in weld inspection for the detection of flaws, irrespective
of type or orientation, since TOFD does not rely on the reflectivity of the flaw but uses the diffracted sound initiating from
the flaw tips.
A major advantage of PAUT & TOFD methods combination is effective procedure for better sizing and location determination
of the discontinuities.
This paper discusses the combination of PAUT & TOFD methods instead of individually for weld inspection on pressure
vessel projects.
Keywords:
Phased array ultrasonic testing, TOFD, Sectorial scan, Beam intersection, combination of PAUT & TOFD
Introduction:
Prevention of disasters is a major concern in any industry. Nondestructive testing as a reliable tool has played an effective and
important role in this regard. Conventional Ultrasonic testing of heavy wall thickness pressure vessels is a common practice.
Due to the increasing demand for more thorough inspection of pressure vessels, researchers have begun looking into more
innovative means of defect measurement. Principally, the Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) & Time-Of-Flight
Diffraction (TOFD) flaw detection procedure has been implemented to achieve good results and this combination shown to be
an effective procedure for size and location determination of a discontinuities.
Specifically, this combination was proven that this is more suitable for thick structures (above 13mm). Today, the PAUT &
TOFD procedure is used for operational inspections or quality control of structures during production instead of routine
radiography and conventional ultrasonic shear wave procedures. Although TOFD is more often utilized for inspecting welds
with simple geometry and fine grain steels, such as welds with thicknesses from 13 mm to 300 mm, it is useful in inspecting
more complex geometries.
Defects like cracks, lack of penetration, Lack of fusion, porosity, and slag in welds of pressure vessels could be
diagnosed via this technique very precisely.
IRNDT2016-T03118
The most suitable technique for the complete volume coverage of heavy wall thickness & Nozzle joints and coverage
of the weld and heat affected zone would be combined phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) and TOFD together
which also meet the code (ASME Code Case 2235, ASME Section VIII DIV 1 & DIV 2) requirements [6, 7].
Analysis of the acquired Data is done using Tomoview software and evaluation done in accordance with code case.
Finally, a computerized report summarizes the results of the examination.
This paper explains the advantages of Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) & Time of flight Diffraction (TOFD)
Combination instead of using individually on ASME U stamp Pressure vessel fabrication project carried out at the
workshop of one of our client.
Fig. 1: Photos of Pressure vessel welds and Performance of

PAUT & TOFD by advanced NDT team at work shop
Inspection Methods:
Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing
PAUT is an advanced method of ultrasonic testing that has

applications in medical imaging and industrial testing. When
applied to metals the PAUT image shows a slice view that
may reveal defects hidden inside a structure or weld. Phased array uses an array of elements, all individually wired,
pulsed and time shifted. A typical user friendly computerized setup calculates the time delays from operator input, or
IRNDT2016-T03118
uses a predefined file: test angle, focal distance, scan pattern and so forth. The technique also provides a combination
of various scans in the same equipment set-up. B-Scan is a side view, C'Scan is a top view and the S-Scan is a cross-
sectional view. These views can be better understood in the Figure 2. From a practical viewpoint, ultrasonic phased
arrays are merely a technique for generating and receiving ultrasound; once the ultrasound is in the material, it is
independent of the generating technique. Consequently, many of the details of ultrasonic testing remain unchanged; for
example; if 5 MHz is the optimum testing frequency with conventional ultrasonic, then phased arrays would typically
Use the same frequency, aperture size, focal length and incident angle. As such, phased arrays offer significant technical
advantages over conventional single-probe ultrasonic; the phased array beams can be steered, scanned, swept and
focused electronically.
 Electronic scanning permits very rapid coverage of the components, typically an Order of magnitude faster than
a single probe mechanical system.
 Beam forming permits the selected beam angles to be optimized ultrasonically by orienting them perpendicular
to the predicted defects, for example Lack of Fusion in welds.
 Beam steering (usually called sectorial scanning) can be used for mapping Components at appropriate angles to
optimize Probability of Detection. Sectorial Scanning is also useful for inspections where only a minimal
scanning length impossible.
 Electronic focusing permits optimizing the beam shape and size at the expected Defect location, as well as
optimizing Probability of Detection. Focusing improves Signal-to-noise ratio significantly, which also permits
operating at lower pulse voltages.[5]
Overall, the use of phased arrays permits optimizing defect detection while minimizing inspection time. Phased arrays
offer significant advantages over traditional radiography of welds as well:
• No safety hazards
• Inspection as soon as weld is cool
• Better defect detection and sizing
• Able to penetrate thick sections
• Compliant with all known codes
IRNDT2016-T03118
Fig. 2: Phased array Ultrasonic Testing Images

IRNDT2016-T03118
Time of Flight Diffraction
Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) is an advanced automated computerized UT absent technique, used for in-
service inspection of welds for heavy walled pressure vessels. TOFD system is capable to scan, store and evaluate
flaw indications in terms of height, length and position with greater accuracy and is suitable for weld thickness
ranging from 13 mm to 300 mm. The principle and operation of TOFD: The TOFD technique is based on
diffraction of ultrasonic waves on tips of discontinuities, instead of geometrical reflection on the interface of the
discontinuities. When ultrasound is incident at linear discontinuity such as a crack, diffraction takes place at its
extremities in addition to the normal reflected wave. This diffracted energy is emitted over a wide angular range
and is assumed to originate at the extremities of the flaw (Fig.3). Scanning is done externally parallel towel axis
using longitudinal wave probes with incidence angle range of 45° to 70°.When flaw is detected during the
scanning, Signals from the upper and lower tips of the flaw are displayed as B / D-Scan image. [5]
Fig. 3: Principle of Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD)

IRNDT2016-T03118
In addition to energies
diffracted by defects, the
TOFD method will
also detect a surface
(lateral) wave
travelling directly
between the probes and
also a back wall echo
from energies that
reach the back of the
test piece without
interference from defects.
The TOFD technique uses a pair of probes in a transmitter-receiver arrangement (Fig. 4).
Usually longitudinal probes are applied with an angle of incidence range of 45° to 70°.The diffracted signals are
received via the receiver probe and are evaluated with the Ultrasonic System. The difference in the flight of the
diffracted wave fronts carry the information on the spatial relationship of the tips of the defect and hence the
extent of the defect. TOFD method only evaluates diffracted echoes.
Fig. 4 Transmitter-Receiver arrangement of TOFD

IRNDT2016-T03118
Recently we have done Phased array Ultrasonic testing and Time of Flight Diffraction testing in our client site for
ASME U stamp pressure vessel. Some of the indications found during the PAUT and TOFD scan are shown below
(Fig. 5).
Fig. 5: PAUT & TOFD images
PAUT and TOFD disadvantages when they are used individually for weld inspection in heavy wall boiler
and pressure vessel
 For amplitude-based techniques (PAUT), the orientation of defects are very important subject, so some
of defect like lake of side wall fusion may be miss when we have just access from one side of the weld
like circumferential welds in head to shell joint in boiler and pressure vessel, and also in back weld zone
in pressure vessel, due to changes in configuration of the welds (X to U), the amplitude-based techniques
have not good results for detection and sizing defects in this zone.
 For nonamplitude-based techniques (TOFD), the most widely accepted “limitation” is the loss of
information due to ring time. This is especially noticeable at the entry surface but a similar zone occurs
on the far side (backwall). And also we cannot recognize accurate the location of the defects. As the wall
thickness increase, one TOFD transducer pair with proper beam spread and sensitivity is not capable of
IRNDT2016-T03118
examining the entire weld volume. So, as the wall thickness increases, multiple TOFD transducer pairs
will have to be used.
Therefore, to examine fully, a heavy wall weld in a single pass, we offer a combined Multichannel
(TOFD+PAUT), zonal inspection, testing technique [1] See fig. 6
In short, multiple probes or probe combinations are fixed in a bracket in such an order that together they cover the
whole volume of the weld. Each probe or probe combination is directed to a certain portion of the weld and
together these probe units cover the whole volume of the weld. Probe characteristics are optimized in a way that
all possible weld anomalies are detected with high confidence. This principle is called "zonal discrimination” [2, 3,
4]
.
In our project the pressure vessel was 84 mm and weld configuration was X mode, so our PAUT and TOFD scan
plane was:
Probes Frequency(MHz) Wedge Setup

1 2 PAUT Probes 2.25 MHz N55°-S Sectorial 40° to 70° ( Full second leg)
2 The first pair of TOFD Probes 5 MHz 60° L Beam intersection 2/3t
3 The second pair of TOFD Probes 2.25 MHz 45°L Beam intersection 5/6t
Fig. 6: Scan plan for PAUT and TOFD testing

Equipment Details:
We have used Olympus
Omni scan MX2 (32-
128) PAUT & TOFD
machine and our
motorized scanning
device is HSTM FLEX
& Manual Mini wheel
Encoder. Fig. 7
IRNDT2016-T03118
Fig. 7: PAUT & TOFD Olympus

Machine
PAUT & TOFD Scanner

The HSMT-Flex™ is intended for one axis encoded inspection of circumference welds on pipes of 4.5 in. OD
(114.3 mm) and greater. The scanner comes equipped with four probe holders but can be mounted with a total of
eight probes with optional probe holders. Mounted probes can be either phased array or conventional UT for most
efficient inspections. The major characteristic of the scanner is its capacity to bend in the center. This allows the
scanner to fit on smaller pipes and also to bring the force of the spring-loaded arm in the radial direction of the
pipes for better stability of the wedge, and therefore, optimum data acquisition. For the same reason, optional
probe holders that are installed on the outside of the scanner can also pivot. The HSMT-Flex also allows one of
its side frames to slide. This feature allows having the probes mounted on the outside of the scanner. This provides
a configuration that is well-suited for hard-to-reach places such as pipe-to-component welds. Fig. 8
Fig. 8: PAUT and TOFD Scanner

Results:
PAUT & TOFD testing on 84 mm Thick

Pressure vessel weld joint results which is
approved by Authorized Inspector (AI)
IRNDT2016-T03118
PAUT and TOFD testing results on a 84 mm pressure vessel
Defect (mm)
Combination Length of Surface
Type of START END Depth Height
No. PAUT TOFD of PAUT & scan Distance Remark
Defect (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
TOFD (mm) (mm)
defect was at back weld
zone, so the sizing with
1 Yes Yes Yes 11600 SL 1820 1955 49 3.5 0
PAUT was not accurate
( Fig. 9, 10)
2 Yes Yes Yes 11600 SL 6780 6960 40 5 -10
Defect was at TOFD

3 Yes No Yes 11600 SL&LOF 5646 5956 4 3 -15
dead Zone ( Fig. 11 )
4 No
5 Yes
IRNDT2016-T03118
Fig.9: PAUT & TOFD Combination for head to shell weld joint
Fig 10: PAUT Image for shell to shell weld joint

IRNDT2016-T03118
Fig 11: TOFD Image for Head to shell weld joint
Conclusions:
The Time Of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) & Phased Array Ultrasonic Techniques (PAUT)are rapid, versatile,
reliable and an effective advanced UT based NDT method for inspection of welds especially for heavy walled
pressure vessels (both pre-service and in-service) with better flaw detection and accurate evaluation of flaw
location and flaw sizing. And also combination of PAUT & TOFD proves that a careful preparation of scan plan
with appropriate coverage & angles of PAUT & TOFD can detect all flaws that are probable to occur during the
welding, thus increasing the reliability of test despite limitation of not having access from both sides of weld to
scan apart from this operators, scan plan, procedure, equipment, accessories such as fixtures, scanners, encoders
etc. Are needed to be established and validated on a mock up with all probable defects before allowing the same
on actual welds.
IRNDT2016-T03118
Reference:
1. ESBeam Tool from Eclipse Scientific, in Canada,

http://www.eclipsescientific.com/Software/ESBeamTool/index.html
2. ASME Boiler & pressure vessel Code, Section V 2010, Article 4, Mandatory Appendix IV, " PHASED
ARRAY MANUAL RASTER EXAMINATION TECHNIQUES USING LINEAR ARRAYS"
3. ASME Boiler & pressure vessel Code, Section V 2010, Article 4, Mandatory Appendix V," PHASED
ARRAY E-SCAN AND S-SCAN LINEAR SCANNING EXAMINATION TECHNIQUES"
4. ASME Boiler & pressure vessel Code, Section V 2010, Article 4, Mandatory Appendix III, " TIME-OF
FLIGHT DIFFRACTION (TOFD) TECHNIQUE"
5. Advances in Phased array Ultrasonic Technology Applications, Olympus NDT (Dr. Michael D.C.
Moles), Published 2007
6. CASES OF ASME BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL CODE CASE 2235-9, Use of Ultrasonic
Examination in Lieu of Radiography Section I; Section VIII, Divisions 1 and 2; and Section XII
7. ASME Boiler & pressure vessel Code, Section VIII 2010, Division I and II
Ultrasonic Testing In Lieu
of Radiographic Testing
Jack Spanner
Program Manager
NRC Information Meeting
May 2010
Owner Implementation OF UT in Lieu of RT
• Owners may submit Relief Request

• Available Code cases
– B31.1-CC 168
– Sect III- CC N-659-2
– Sect I & VIII- CC 2235-9
– Sect XI – CC N-713
• Incentives
– RT restricts personnel access
– Use same method for fabrication and ISI examinations
– RT can increase length of outage
– UT can detect planar flaws reliably
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. 2

Basic Code Case Requirements
N-713, N-659, 2235 and 168
• Automated UT system
– Record transducer location
– Record raw non-processed data
– Image to replace radiograph
• Written procedure must be demonstrated
– Mockups similar to calibration block/component
materials and include weld
– 2 or 3 flaws required
• Performance based procedure qualification

EPRI Performance Demonstrations
Sect III CC N-659
• Owner fabricated 3 ferritic pipe mockups

– 14 & 2 each 16 inch diameter
– .8 -1.6 inch thick
– Numerous fabrication flaws & cracks throughout thickness
• EPRI Developed Demonstration protocol
– 3rd party administered
– Acceptance criteria
– Maintained flaw truth security, i.e. Blind tests
• 4 vendors participated
– Pulse Echo, Time of Flight, & manual techniques
– Generally 45 & 60 degree; 2.25 MHz Search units

UT Data and RT Indications

Detection and Identification Results
Flaw Detections
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Correct Flaw Identification

Percent
0.5 Correct Evaluation

Detection Rate
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
All Dual Side Auto Dual Side Single Side Manual Dual
Capability Averages

UT Capability Summary
• All flaws greater than .4 in long detected

• All cracks and IP detected
• Automated UT slightly better than Manual
• Single and dual side scanning had similar results
• Porosity most difficult to detect but innocuous
– Small porosity rarely detected
– RT missed small porosity
• UT can be effectively substituted for RT

Canadian Use of UT in lieu of RT
for CANDU Feeder Tubes
• Enhancements to Code Case N-659-2 and

Appendix VIII requirements included:
• 3 specimen sets consisting of 7 welds created (using
all 5 diameters/thicknesses), each set containing 15
flaws
• Procedure demonstration (non blind) used all 15
flawed pipe samples (45 specimen flaws) and was
required to detect 100% of the flaws (from one side)
• All flaws included in the specimen sets were flaws that
would be considered relevant construction type flaws:
L of F, porosity, cracks, Incomplete Penetration, ID/OD
connected and subsurface flaws

Enhancements to Code Requirements
Compared to Appendix VIII
• Flaw sizes were based on the acceptance criteria, with

acceptable and rejectable flaws in the specimen sets
• Grading units were made much smaller… Grading
units were made only 0.64” (16mm) larger then the
length of the actual flaw
• Unflawed grading units were only 0.79 0.79” (20mm) in
length, and grading units had a minimum spacing of
only 0.39” (10mm)
• Personnel demonstration was a “pure” blind
test for detection (and false calls), length sizing,
and flaw characterization
• Flaw length sizing error was decreased to an
RMS of 0.25” (6.4mm) (from 0.75”(19mm))

Observations: Canadian Experience
• Used phased array automated system

• Avoided 7000 RT shots and 1500 hours of outage time
• Owner, regulator, contractor, vendor and ANI cooperated
to develop program from N-659-2 and Appendix VIII
• UT ppersonnel worked with welders to improve
p
workmanship and reduce repair rate
• Very beneficial to perform UT in lieu of RT

Latest Draft ASME Section XI Code Case N-713
• Revising N-713 based on two previous studies

• Requires recording encoded position and UT data
• Section V procedure or Section XI Appendix VIII
procedure permitted
– Personnel test set requires
q at least 10 flaws
– Procedure test set requires the equivalent of at least 3
personnel tests
– Includes depth sizing and length sizing test sets
– Flaw sizes and locations distributed evenly

Latest Draft ASME Section XI Code Case N-713
• Demonstration acceptance criteria

– 80% detection rate
– 80% correct identification of planar and volumetric
flaws
– RMSE criteria for depth
p and lengthg tests to be
determined
• Examination Acceptance criteria based on Sect XI Code
– Compare planar and volumetric (cracks, IP, LOF, slag)
flaws to Section XI acceptance tables
– Use Construction Code criteria if Section XI not
applicable

Experience with Code Cases

John R Lilley. C Eng. MInstNDT. ASNT Level 3 RT.UT.PT.MT
General Manager, Sonomatic Ltd.

Biography
John Lilley has been engaged in the NDT industry since 1975, and has held certification to ASNT Level
3 since 1984. He has been instrumental in the application of TOFD and other automated ultrasonic
inspection technology to industrial applications since 1988. He has written numerous technical
publications and has been a regular contributor to codes and standards over the years. He is
currently the General Manager of Sonomatic Ltd, and became a Chartered Engineer in 2007.
Background
Code Case 2235 was originally issued by the American Society for Mechanical Engineering (ASME)
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (B&PVC) committee in 1996 [Ref 1]. The enquiry asked “Under
what conditions and limitations may an ultrasonic examination be used in lieu of radiography, when
radiography is required....”, and the code case text goes on to define these conditions and
limitations. It essentially addresses the following:
i. Material thickness ranges and volumetric coverage requirements.
ii. Requirement for a documented examination strategy.
iii. The requirement for the examination to be carried out in accordance with Section V, Article
4 [Ref 2].
iv. The requirement for acceptable demonstration of performance of equipment, procedures
and personnel on a qualification block(s).
v. Acceptance criteria based on a combination of flaw height and length measurements which
are derived from a linear elastic fracture mechanics procedure.
vi. The requirement for automatic computer based data acquisition with data recorded in
unprocessed form.
vii. Investigation and analysis criteria.
viii. Discrimination between surface and sub‐surface flaws.
ix. Rules defining interaction in the case of multiple flaws.
Other factors are also addressed, but the above list describes the key elements of the initial code
case. There has been extensive discussion through a variety of forums, and the document was
revised nine times before being incorporated into the main body of Section VIII in 2008 [Ref 3]. The
various revisions have addressed specific refinements although the fundamental document has
remained relatively unchanged throughout this process. Along the way, essentially the same code
case, with some modification, has been incorporated into the ASME Gas Process Piping Code B31.3
[Ref 4], in the form of Code Case 181, which was issued in January 2007. The generic term ‘Code
Case’ is used throughout this paper to refer to the use of UT in lieu of RT as described in Section VIII
of the boiler and pressure vessel code, or in B31.3 Code Case 181. In both cases, fracture‐
mechanics‐based acceptance criteria may be used in lieu of good workmanship criteria.
It is important to note that the key difference between conventional and code‐case
acceptance criteria is that the former is based on ‘good workmanship’ criteria, and the latter is
supported by fracture mechanics calculation. A definition is offered here based on personal
experience and interactions with clients, colleagues and partners over a period in excess of thirty
year’s involvement with relevant projects, standard committees, R&D forums, seminars, workshops,
conferences and legal work.
Construction codes and standards are intended to ensure that pressure equipment and
structures are designed, fabricated and tested to consistent quality standards in the interests of
safety and reliability. The early codes stipulated radiographic testing for the detection of flaws
within the weld volume. Radiographic testing is however, inefficient for the detection of planar
flaws, which must be a) preferentially aligned to the radiographic beam and b) with a gape that
exceeds the applicable radiographic geometric un‐sharpness value. Radiography is efficient
however, for the detection of volumetric flaws such as slag entrapment, porosity, undercut, and
poor weld profile [Ref 5]. It will also detect certain gross planar flaws, especially where these are
associated with other types of volumetric flaw. All of the described volumetric flaws/conditions are
indicative of poor workmanship and the codes provide very clear limits on what can be defined as
unacceptable in terms of quality standards. Rejection levels are not derived from what is considered
to be detrimental to the equipment once placed into service, but what is considered to be poor
practice in terms of fabrication quality. This quality culture pervades throughout the entire
fabrication process in much the same way as a strong safety culture leads to fewer accidents overall.
The inference is that if welding procedures are applied diligently and good workmanship principles
are upheld, then it follows that the occurrence of cracking and lack of fusion flaws is likely to be
minimised. This process has been observed to be effective in that the incidence of boiler/pressure
vessel failures has dramatically decreased following the introduction of codes. Attention to detail in
construction NDT spills over to control and care of welding consumables, welding procedures, heat
treatment, documentation, etc. It is a fundamental aspect of quality control (QC). There is also a
psychological influence in that welders justifiably take pride in their work and are inclined to be
averse to the stigma of being classified as ‘poor workmen’ through generating unacceptable levels of
repair.
Construction ‘good workmanship’ NDT does not need to have a high Probability Of
Detection (POD) because individual flaws which may go undetected are not likely to be detrimental
to the use of the equipment in service. This is due to the high level of conservatism embodied within
the good workmanship approach. The ‘good workmanship’ acceptance criteria of Section VIII Div 2
Part 7 (2008 Addenda) includes, but is not restricted to, the following:
• Cracks and lack of fusion/penetration – Not permitted
• Volumetric flaws – Limitations dependent on wall thickness
As an example, in the case of a pressure vessel with a wall thickness of 50mm, a 20mm long slag line
would be rejectable to these criteria. The slag line may be less than 2mm in cross‐section and would
be expected to be rounded in profile. According to the code cases, a sub‐surface, 39mm long by
4mm high, vertically oriented planar crack in a component of the same wall thickness would be
permitted. The difference is that the good workmanship criteria are designed to maintain quality
standards, thereby implying fitness‐for‐service, whereas fracture‐mechanics‐based acceptance
criteria are designed to eliminate flaws exceeding given dimensions. The performance criteria for
the NDT associated with these two approaches are very different. Good workmanship NDT may be
less than perfect because it is designed to flag up when the fabrication process is going out of
control by picking up systematic flaws (as opposed to detecting all flaws) which are indicative of
underlying breakdowns in quality processes. There is less room for manoeuvre with fracture‐
mechanics‐based acceptance criteria, hence the additional requirement for qualification.
Adoption of the code cases has steadily increased over the years to the point where in certain
circumstances, radiographic testing of pressure vessels under construction has fallen away
altogether. This process however, has occurred at a time when the industry has gone through:
a) a period of changing regulatory influence (less influence from certifying authorities and
insurers),
b) increased dependency on formal quality processes and
c) increased pressure on efficiencies of procurement.
These factors in combination have created the environment where it has become prevalent for
fabricators and/or inspection service companies to interpret and apply the code cases according to
their own understanding. This has been observed to have occurred without guidance or experience
of working with codes in general, and by people whose native tongue is not English. The situation is
not helped by the fact that the Code Cases have not been very well written or presented. In the
author’s experience, this has led to situations where any ambiguities of interpretation tend to swing
markedly towards the interests of the fabricator and/or inspector, often to the detriment of the end‐
client or purchaser of the plant requiring inspection. The consequential effects of this can be very
costly in the longer term due to project delays, remediation cost and other project risks. It is
suggested that the situation could be improved through stricter control, both in terms of initial
specification of the procurement of NDT processes, but also tighter control throughout the
fabrication process. The costs associated with quality assurance are very small compared to the
project risk involved.
The potential benefits of Ultrasonic Testing (UT) in Lieu of Radiographic Testing (RT) for
production welding
There are certain potential advantages of UT in lieu of RT during the fabrication process. Here is an
overview of the more immediate benefits [see also Ref 6]:
i. No radiation hazard – personnel can work in and around the inspection area
ii. No requirement to transport pressure vessels/pipe spools to radiographic compounds
iii. Speed. The inspection is completed in a shorter timeframe
iv. Potential for improved quality of welding. If applied at the front‐end of a project, it can
be used at the weld procedure and welder qualification stage to optimise the welding
process, hence minimising the likelihood of repair. See Figure 1.
v. Depth & positioning information provided. Unlike RT, precise repair co‐ordinates can be
provided, minimising the possibility of re‐repairs through missed flaws
Other, less obvious benefits include:
i. The data forms a fingerprint for comparison with future in‐service inspection data.
ii. The acceptance criteria of the code cases are in many cases more forgiving in terms of
acceptable flaw size. This also reduces the repair frequency, and is especially the case
for volumetric welding flaws.
Figure 1. Example of TOFD data taken from a B31.3 CC181 project. The indications scattered
throughout the weld body were termed by the welders as ‘fish‐eyes’. These are small lack of
fusion flaws that form at the weld bevel faces as the welding head weaves across the weld body.
They are a form of combined lack of inter‐run and side‐wall fusion that can be aligned in the axial
direction, but also could potentially extend vertically by linking between weld passes. By
adjusting the well time at each end of the ‘weave’, this flaw type (which was not detectable
radiographically) was eliminated. Note also the interesting ID fit‐up and stop‐start interruption in
the weld root penetration – all useful feedback for the design and welding engineers!
Taken in combination, the benefits in terms of project cost, quality, duration and risk can be very
significant indeed. There have been cases where 24‐hour working (as opposed to fabrication during
the day and RT at night) enabled project durations to be halved, but conversely, where UT used in
lieu of RT has been impacted by lack of planning and oversight, delays and costs have been seen to
escalate massively, potentially leading to litigation.
Disadvantages of UT in lieu of RT
i. Certain geometric features present restrictions for UT, e.g. attachments, skirts or nozzles
adjacent to welds in the case of pressure vessels, or fittings in the case of piping systems.
ii. Variations in expertise – more capable service inspection companies/fabricators will
engineer solutions to many, if not all ultrasonic ‘test restrictions’. Others readily give up and
seek dispensation to exclude certain welds on the grounds of difficult geometry. It may be
permissible to use the ‘test restriction’ excuse in the case of fabrication QC, but not in the
case of FFS based on fracture mechanics principles. Inspections should be planned properly
to minimise and/or deal with these effects. Fabricators/service inspection companies should
be vetted during the pre‐qualification process to assess their ability to deal with these
situations.
iii. Certain flaw types are difficult to detect with UT (e.g. excess root penetration).
iv. Certain materials are not suited to inspection by UT, especially coarse‐grained austenitic
stainless steels.
v. The fracture‐mechanics‐based acceptance criteria of the code cases become more onerous
for thin‐wall materials and the benefits become diminished with wall thickness.
Common mis‐interpretations or mis‐applications of the Code Cases
Procedures – The purpose and intent of ultrasonic testing procedures themselves is very frequently
mis‐understood. A procedure should be derived from the construction code (in this case Section V,
Article 4), incorporating the requirements of the code, but reflecting the equipment in use and the
specific items to be examined. Work instructions/method statements and check‐lists/calibration
records should be defined in the procedures that are required to be used as living documents as
each contract progresses. As the codes are intended to be used across a wide range of designs and
situations, there is a certain degree of flexibility embodied within them. The American Society for
Non‐destructive testing (ASNT) personnel certification scheme SNT‐TC‐1A or CP‐189 as referenced
by the codes defines competency levels for individuals to be able to interpret the codes sufficiently
to extract the information required in order to construct a procedure. It is common practice
however, for fabricators and service inspection contractors to cut and paste blocks of text directly
from the codes into their company procedures. Classic examples include code requirements for ‘an
ultrasonic test frequency range of 1MHz to 5MHz’, or ‘two beam angles to be selected from 45°, 60°
or 70°’ to be repeated word for word in the procedure. This leaves the actual inspection open to
interpretation and inconsistencies will occur. These are simplistic examples that lead to relatively
minor discrepancies.
The requirement to generate a procedure according to ASME V, Art 4, T‐421 (and T III‐422 in
the case of TOFD and/or T IV‐422 for Phased Array), including the identification and control of
essential and non‐essential variables is generally misunderstood, especially “the requirement for the
procedure to establish a single value, or range of values, for each requirement”. This entire section
has been observed to have been pasted verbatim directly into a procedure.
Much more serious cases are prevalent. As an example, the code cases stipulate that the
ultrasonic examination shall include a volume of material to be included on each side of the weld
(the actual distance is dictated by the material thickness). The distance may be reduced to cover
only the weld, Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) +6mm of base material, provided “The extent of the weld
HAZ is measured and documented during the weld qualification process” and, “The UT transducer
positioning and scanning device is controlled using a reference mark....”. It has been observed
practice that the text is often lifted directly from the code case to the procedure – and then ignored.
The end effect is that inadequate material is examined.
Very often, procedures are documents that are generated for audit purposes and
technicians performing the work never see them or are even unaware of their existence.
QA/QC: Quality standards have developed quite strongly in recent years and there has been a
strong focus on reliance on adherence to accredited schemes at the expense of technical audit,
specification and supervision. In former times, certifying authorities employing personnel with
technical knowledge and experience used to provide this form of oversight. Current QA/QC
processes ensure that procedures are adhered to at the system level rather than digging into the
technical detail. A key failing of this process is that QA/QC representatives tend to have
competencies in QA/QC rather than in NDT. This does not detract from the highly important
function of QA/QC as a process, but there is a competency gap that is currently not addressed.
Ultrasonic inspection to Section V, Article 4: The code cases do not stipulate which of the
techniques described in Article 4 should be used. Conventional pulse‐echo UT (fixed beam), Phased
Array (PA) and the Time‐Of‐Flight‐Diffraction (TOFD) techniques are all described and the user is free
to select which of these may be used. The criteria of the code cases are that whichever technique is
used, it must meet or exceed the minimum qualification criteria of the Code Case. It is unlikely that
a conventional pulse‐echo technique will meet the sizing criteria as these are more suited to
techniques that make use of the tip‐diffraction process such as TOFD and/or PA. Many of the factors
that apply to interpretation and application of the code cases apply equally to interpretation and
application of the base code itself, but this will not be addressed here unless it specifically relates to
application of the Code Case.
TOFD Supplementary coverage (as required by Article 4, Mandatory Appendix III):
a) Transverse flaws. An angle beam examination is required for transverse flaws “unless the
referencing Code Section requires a TOFD examination. In these cases, position each TOFD
probe pair essentially parallel to the weld axis and move the probe pair along and down the
weld axis. If the weld reinforcement is not ground smooth, position the probes on the
adjacent plate material as parallel to the weld axis as possible.” Caution: The requirement
to perform TOFD scans with the beam oriented parallel to the weld axis will not increase the
probability of detection for transverse flaws any more than a scan with the beam oriented
across the weld, possibly less so. This rationale stems from pulse‐echo UT and does not
apply to TOFD in the same way. Although the classic depiction of TOFD is where a crack is
perpendicular to the ultrasonic beam, diffracted signals are still generated at the tips of
transverse cracks when the crack’s primary axis is oriented parallel to the TOFD beam. An
example is shown in Section V, Article 4, Non‐Mandatory Appendix N. The code is wrong on
this point, which does not help matters.
b) Supplemental shear wave examination. When TOFD is used, Article 4 calls for
supplemental shear wave examinations due to the presence of the lateral wave and back‐
wall signals. Comment: Unless the detection and sizing accuracies using these techniques
can be successfully qualified using a qualification block(s), the supplemental shear wave
examination techniques should be used in conjunction with the ‘good workmanship’
acceptance criteria of Section VIII. This is often overlooked in practice.
Qualification block(s): This is possibly the most universally misunderstood section of either of the
Code Cases. The block(s) is (are) required to be manufactured by welding or the Hot Isostatic
Process (HIP). The author has no experience of the latter being used for fabrication of entire
qualification blocks, although this process has been seen to have been used in the nuclear industry
to manufacture individual flaws of very precise dimensions. In this case the flaws are created by
spark eroding the required flaw dimensions into one or both faces of two blocks of steel. The size of
the blocks is somewhat larger than the introduced flaw. The (un‐eroded) mating faces of the two
blocks are then bonded together through the application of intense heat and pressure, creating a
homogenous piece of material except for the now embedded, intended flaw. The block is then
machined into a ‘bobbin’, which is implanted into the qualification block by welding. It is unlikely
that HIP bonding would be used in the non‐nuclear industry as there are other, less costly, if less
precise methods of simulating planar flaws in welds. Reference to this fabrication process however,
has led to speculation that blocks need not be welded, and that artificial flaws may be introduced
from the ends of un‐welded qualification blocks (presumably by drilling/Electro‐Discharge Machining
(EDM). Discussion of this can be found on www.ndt.net [Ref 7].
The Code Cases carried the statement regarding qualification block(s): “and shall contain a
minimum of three flaws, oriented to simulate flaws parallel to the production weld’s fusion line...”.
Interpretation of this definition has been carried out in various ways. The author’s interpretation of
the intent of this is that the flaws should simulate the most difficult to detect of fabrication flaws in
the form of a tight, smooth, planar flaw such as a lack of fusion (in isolation, i.e. not in combination
with any other flaw). This is supported by the following statement also posted on the www.ndt.net
website: “While the original ASME CC 2235 was not clear on this issue, the intent was to use artificial
cracks ‐ not side drilled holes or notches ‐ as the reflectors. In addition, the artificial cracks should
follow the bevel to simulate Lack of Fusion defects or similar. ASME is currently working on clarifying
this situation. Michael Moles; Member, ASME Section V Ultrasonics Working Group”. It is positive to
note that the 2008 Addenda to Section VIII requirements for qualification block flaws now reads:
“...and shall contain a minimum of three planar (e.g. crack like) flaws, oriented to simulate flaws
parallel to the production weld’s fusion line...”, although B31.3 CC181 still retains the original text.
The author’s experience is that where an inspection service contractor or fabricator drives the
process, qualification blocks may or may not contain welds, but they will contain drilled holes or
notches, whereas where an end‐user drives the process, qualification blocks will always be welded
and will usually contain simulated planar welding flaws. The latter fall into the category of “crack‐
like”, in that they are tight, planar and preferentially oriented. Such flaws can be introduced by
welding shims onto weld bevel faces (practice required!), or they can be procured from a specialist
firm of sample manufacturers.
Cases have been observed in practice where 6mm wide buttress notches have been used to
represent surface flaws in conjunction with TOFD procedures. This is incorrect on two counts.
Firstly, a buttress notch represents a large, strongly reflective area when inspected from the
opposite surface (quite unlike any natural planar flaw aligned with the weld fusion line), and
secondly, it is open to the surface. According to Section VIII MT & PT acceptance criteria, linear
surface breaking flaws are unacceptable, so there seems little point in qualifying detection and sizing
performance for flaws that are not permitted. This does not apply however, to slightly sub‐surface
flaws that are classified as surface flaws if the remaining ligament to the external surface is less than
half the flaw height. More on this later.
Side drilled holes and EDM notches have frequently been observed as artificial flaws in
qualification blocks. This generally speaking is a carry‐over from the use of drilled holes and notches
in calibration blocks described in Section V, Article 4. In this case, the artificial flaws are intended to
create reflectors that are reproducible and easy to manufacture. Their purpose is to control
accuracies of calibration, sizing, sensitivity and coverage. The purpose of implanted flaws within
qualification blocks is an entirely different matter. Here the onus is not to repeat the calibration
process, but to verify the performance of the calibrated UT set‐up on simulated planar welding
flaws. It should be borne in mind that a true lack of side wall fusion is often a very tight flaw that has
negligible width or gape. In the most extreme of situations, the weld pool may solidify alongside a
weld bevel face without actually forming a bond, and in this case it is no more than a molecular
separation. Such a flaw will be partially opaque and the tips will have negligible width. Flaw opacity
and morphology are both important for pulse‐echo techniques (including phased array), and tip
condition is important for techniques that rely on tip diffraction such as TOFD or phased array.
Drilled holes and notches satisfy none of these conditions and should not be considered for
qualification blocks.
A further consideration with qualification blocks is the number of flaws required. The code
cases stipulate “a minimum of three planar (e.g., crack like) flaws, oriented to simulate flaws parallel
to the weld fusion line. The minimum criteria of only ‘three flaws’ tends to be the automatic choice
in practice, and in the author’s view, this is likely to be inadequate in most, if not all cases. However,
there are two alternative interpretations to this requirement:
i. the requirement for one flaw at each surface and one sub‐surface flaw is to
demonstrate overall system performance through the full thickness, or,
ii. the requirement to demonstrate system performance covering each depth zone as
described in Section V Article 4, for all bevel angles.
In practice, fabricators and inspection service companies will opt for i. above, but would end‐users
be more comfortable with qualifying system performance throughout each zone and bevel angle?
Another factor which is widely ignored is the qualification block geometry. Table T‐421 of
ASME V, Article 4, 2008 Addenda provides mandatory requirements for UT examinations. This table
defines ‘essential variables’ for which a single value or range of values are to be established. It goes
on to say that “when procedure qualification is required by the referencing Code Section, a change
of a requirement in Table T‐421 identified as an essential variable from the specified value, or range
of values, shall require requalification of the written procedure.” The code does not specify the
required calibration block geometry, although the 2008 Addenda to Section VIII does state that the
qualification block must be within 25% of the thickness to be examined. It follows however, that if
the component geometry limits defined in the procedure (essential variable according to T‐412) are
exceeded, then additional qualification block(s) will be required. This translates to a requirement for
multiple calibration blocks covering the full range of thicknesses to be examined, material
combinations and component geometries.
Other factors influenced by price/productivity pressures
Welding quality. As stated earlier, a 39mm long by 4mm high subsurface flaw would be acceptable
in a 50mm thick pressure vessel or pipe weld. Based on observations in the field it is suspected that
some welders or fabricators, on realising that it would in fact be hard to produce a flaw of these
dimensions, would be inclined to concentrate on quantity rather than quality. This is especially the
case if they are incentivised on the basis of production. This is compounded by the fact that in
theory at least, unlimited quantities of volumetric flaws are permitted.
NDT technician competencies. Large numbers of technicians have been required by industry to
work in accordance with the code cases and there has been a tendency to rush these through the
certification process. This has been achieved by streamlining the training, examination and
certification process to concentrate on simplistic, clear‐cut and unrealistic flaw conditions. Non‐
Mandatory Appendix N of Section V, Article 4 (TOFD Interpretation) could be construed as
misleading in this regard. Very clear‐cut examples of classic flaw interactions are described. The
surface‐breaking flaw for example, is a notch, not a real fusion flaw or crack, which behave very
differently. Complete loss of lateral wave signal is a very, rare event. The Appendix implies that
TOFD indications can be identified, characterised and sized from the TOFD data alone. In extreme
cases this is sometimes possible, but they really are rare occurrences. In real‐life, TOFD indications
need to be investigated using additional TOFD scanning and/or pulse‐echo techniques to
differentiate planar from volumetric flaws based on their reflectivity. Please see Figure 2 as an
example of complex flaw formations.
mm 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320

mm
0.0

13.8
19.9
24.8
29.0
32.7
36.3
39.6

42.7
45.7
48.7

Figure 2. TOFD Data ‐ Complex flaw formations, possibly arising as a result of abuse of the relaxed
acceptance criteria of the Code Cases, but leading to difficulties with interpretation for the
operator trained on clear‐cut, idealistic flaws.
This is an example of what occurs regularly in the field. In this case it is manual welding, and is the
result of poor workmanship. It probably comprises of a combination of slag inclusions, porosity, lack
of side‐wall and lack of inter‐run fusion. The possibility of cracking cannot be discounted, but under
the fracture‐mechanics‐based acceptance criteria, flaw type is immaterial, only flaw dimensions are
required for acceptance purposes. In the author’s experience, provision is not made for either
manual or automated pulse‐echo characterisation (discrimination between planar and volumetric
flaws) of complex flaws and this situation is not addressed by codes, standards or procedures. Codes
and training materials do however, refer to buried flaws being recognisable due to phase reversals,
and far‐surface flaws being identifiable due to effects at or after the back‐wall. In the author’s
experience, these idealistic situations do not arise in practice. The only way to deal with the above
condition is a combination of advanced signal processing and comprehensive (and time consuming)
evaluation by an experienced technician conversant with both pulse‐echo and TOFD. Similar
limitations apply to phased array, where complex interactions can occur with direct and mode‐
converted responses from complex flaw formations where ‘masking’ can also be an issue. There is a
danger of an inexperienced technician being trained to only look for ‘tops & bottoms’ or back‐wall
effects as evidence of planar flaws. This is a potentially dangerous situation, and it should be dealt
with early on in the production process. Several cases have been experienced where similar
conditions were exposed only after all welding/fabrication was completed.
Conclusions
It can be concluded that there are significant disparities between the manner in which code case
inspections are, or could be applied in practice. On the one hand, the process can be applied in the
spirit with which it was intended, possibly with enhancements that enable component quality to be
optimised, and on the other, the code cases can be interpreted to deliver lowest project cost, but
with highest risk.
It can also be concluded that if applied in the spirit with which they are intended, the code
cases can lead to a requirement for a large quantity of costly qualification blocks and high levels of
qualification activity, which could have the potential to impede project timescales. Although more
time and expense should certainly be incurred in this area than is current practice, there are ways in
which to manage this process efficiently. This is elaborated further in the next section.
Where there is insufficient attention to pre‐qualification and technical supervision
throughout the project, successful bidders for construction NDT projects are likely to be those that
provide a minimalist interpretation of code case requirements that lead to unacceptable project
risks for the end‐user.

Recommendations
It is recommended that the following process is adopted in the case of new‐construction projects
where ultrasonic examination is carried out in lieu of RT (Section VIII, Div 2, Part 7) and/or ASME
B31.3 Code Case 181:
i. The end‐user to generate a specification of performance criteria for the fabricator/inspector
to follow. Simply to state that the inspection must meet code requirements is insufficient.
Fabricators and inspection service companies are under intense pressure to meet timescale
and cost targets and will adapt their interpretation of codes to meet these ends.
ii. Risk assessments should be carried out on tender submissions. These should address factors
such as the probability of project over‐runs, expected weld quality, and should be based on
reviews of current competencies, demonstrated capabilities, experience and proven track
record. Dependency on quality systems alone is inadequate.
iii. Technical supervision. A competent technical authority should be engaged to monitor the
process from pre‐contract audit through qualification, inspection and final data review. This
should also involve independent review of data to assess quality and reliability of
interpretation.
iv. It should be contractually agreed that the inspection body is responsible for work that is
technically non‐compliant with provision for repeat and/or escalation of inspection activity.
v. The design of qualification blocks, including the type of artificial flaw should be defined in
the project specification and approved by the technical authority prior to project
commencement. Qualification blocks should reflect actual component geometries, material
combinations and wall thicknesses.
vi. Qualification flaws should address all inspection zones, flaw orientations (including
transverse flaws) and weld bevel angles.
vii. Procedures, training and certification criteria should make provision for interpretation and
characterisation of complex flaw formations and should address the ability to accurately
measure the ligament of remaining material between a flaw tip and the external surface in
the case of near‐surface flaws.
viii. The inspection process should commence at the welder and weld procedure qualification
stage in order to optimise welding quality in advance of production welding. This should
become a hold point.
ix. Inaccessible welds. Inaccessible, or partially inaccessible welds are often classified as a ‘test
restriction’, and excluded from examination. As described earlier, this could be a matter of
convenience. Designs should be reviewed by a technically competent authority prior to
commencement of construction.
x. A possible alternative to the requirement for extensive flawed samples is to approach
qualification in the spirit of a nuclear industry qualification. ASME codes make provision for
variations subject to the agreement of all parties, provided the variations at least meet the
minimum code requirements. Qualification is required in the nuclear industry according to
ASME XI, Appendix 8, Performance Demonstration [Ref 8]. In this case, the performance
criteria of an inspection are defined, and the inspection service contractor is required to
qualify equipment, procedures and personnel using a combination of open and blind trials
on test samples through an independent body. The European nuclear community
established the European Network for Inspection Qualification (ENIQ) [Ref 9] through the
European Joint Research Commission (JRC) as a mechanism to maintain qualification
standards whilst minimising the requirement for qualification samples. This is achieved
through a vigorous process involving expert judgement/reasoning, mathematical modelling
(e.g. CIVA [Ref 10] and UMASIS [Ref 11]) and practical demonstration. Prior experience with
qualification may be taken into account. Adoption of this process could enable an initial
base‐case to be qualified followed by qualification of variables on a case by case basis. ENIQ
was developed by the nuclear community, but it is intended to apply to non‐nuclear
applications also. It has been used for several oil industry applications in recent years [Ref
12].
Acknowledgements
Thanks are extended to my colleagues, Peter Conlin, Gordon Davidson and Gordon Reid of
Sonomatic Ltd, all of whom provided out of hours support by providing material in support of this
technical paper.
References
1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Code Case 2235. 1996.
2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section V,
Article 4, 2009 Addenda.
3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 2, Part 7. 2008 Addenda.
4. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, B31.3 Process Piping Code, Code Case 181. 2007.
5. The Integration of Plant Condition Assessment with Risk Management Programmes. J Lilley.
European Conference on NDT, Berlin, Germany. Sept 2006. Ref: We 1.2.5.
6. The Shortening of Project Duration. J. Lilley, G Reid. Middle East Conference on NDT.
Bahrain. 1993.
7. Website: http://www.ndt.net/
8. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Section XI. Appendix 8. Performance
Demonstration.
9. European Network for Inspection Qualification (ENIQ). http://safelife.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eniq/
10. CIVA: http://www‐
civa.cea.fr/scripts/home/publigen/content/templates/show.asp?P=55&L=EN
11. UMASIS:
http://www.tno.nl/content.cfm?context=markten&content=case&laag1=190&item_id=444
&Taal=2
12. Development, Validation and Execution of the Automated Ultrasonic Testing of a Subsea
Pipeline Hot Tap Weld. Malcolm Miller. Shell UK Ltd. World Conference on NDT. Beijing.
2008.
SINCE 2013
Singapore International NOT Conference & E x hibition 2013, 19-20 J uly 2013
Use of Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) & Time Of Flight

Diffraction (TOFD) in Lieu of Radiography Testing on ASME U Stamp
Pressure Vessel fabrication Projects
P.PUGALENDHI & D.VEERARJU

CUTECH PROCESS SERVICES PTE LTD, SINGAPORE
ABSTRACT: The Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) and Time of Flight Diffraction
(TOFD) technologies have made rapid changes in inspection and reliability in various industries.
These ultrasonic testing techniques are rapidly replacing conventional radiography. A major
advantage in replacing RT with PAUT & TOFD is reducing the radiation risks apart from
increased probability of detection (POD), production rate and better sizing of the discontinuities.
This paper discusses the replacement of RT by PAUT & TOFD on ASME U Stamp pressure
vessel fabrication projects.
Keywords: Ultrasonic, Phased array, sectorial scan, TOFD, in lieu of radiography
Reference Codes:
1) ASME Code Case 2235 for boilers and pressure vessels;

2) ASME Section VIII DIV 1
3) ASME Section VIII DIV 2
2. INTRODUCTION
Prevention of disasters is a major concern in any industry. Nondestructive testing as a

reliable tool has played an effective and important role in this regard. Conventional
Ultrasonic testing of heavy wall thickness pressure vessels is a common practice. Due
to the increasing demand for more thorough inspection of pressure vessels, researchers
have begun looking into more innovative means of defect measurement. Principally, the
Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing (PAUT) & Time-Of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) flaw-
detection procedure has been implemented to achieve good results and this
Page No i of i4
combination shown to be an effective procedure for size and location determination of a
discontinuities.
Specifically, this combination was proven that this is more suitable for thick structures
(above 13mm). Today, the PAUT & TOFD procedure is used for operational inspections
or quality control of structures during production instead of routine radiography and
conventional ultrasonic shear wave procedures. Although TOFD is more often utilized for
inspecting welds with simple geometry and fine grain steels, such as welds with
thicknesses from 13 mm to 300 mm, it is useful in inspecting more complex geometries.
Defects like cracks, lack of penetration, lack of fusion, porosity, and slag in welds of
pressure vessels could be diagnosed via this technique very precisely. Major
components in the vessels are Nozzles which are difficult to do Radiography. Nozzles
are also pressure retaining parts of the reactors. Even small discontinuities can weaken
the containment strength of a pressure vessel. Nozzle types can be identified as either
"set on" or "set through" nozzles. Set-on nozzles have the secondary cylinders (i.e. the
nozzle) prepared with the weld bevel, and set-through have the primary vessel prepared
with the bevel.
ASME Code Case 2235 allows for the substitution of Phased Array (PAUT) & Time of
flight diffraction (TOFD) in lieu of radiography for the examination of heavy wall pressure
vessel welds & Nozzles accordance with ASME Section I, para.PW-11; Section VIII
Division 1, para.UW-11 (a); Section VIII Division 2, Table AF-241.1; This paper
discusses the advantages of the ultrasonic examination by PAUT and TOFD over
radiography and summarizes the code requirements.
The most suitable technique for the complete volume coverage of heavy wall thickness
& Nozzle joints and coverage of the weld and heat affected zone would be combined
phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) and TOFD together which also meet the code
(ASME Code Case 2235, ASME Section VIII DIV 1 & DIV 2) requirements.
Analysis of the acquired Data is done using Tomoview software and evaluation done in
accordance with code case. Finally, a computerised report summarizes the results of
the examination.
This paper explains the successful implementation of PAUT in lieu of RT on ASME U

Stamp Pressure vessel fabrication project carried out at the workshop of one of our
client.
Page No 2 of 14
Page No 3 of 14
3. Radiography Testing (RT) Verses Automated Ultrasonic Testing (AUT -PAUT &
TOFD)
Radiography has been practiced as the primary non-destructive testing technique for
examining heavy wall pressure welds for decades. The requirements of radiography are
well known and documented by the ASME code. Manual UT has been used to locate
size and confirm the indications found in radiography testing. In thinner wall vessels,
radiography is most suitable for detecting both volumetric and planar Indications. The
difficulties arise when the wall thicknesses begins to increase and the signal to noise
ratios of these typical small indications found by radiography quickly and inherently
begins to diminish. This occurs simply due to increasing volume of the weld metal and
the heat affected zone. Field experience with automated UT done as per code
requirements has shown consistent performance without any reduction in signal to
noise ratio even with increasing weld thicknesses. More importantly, the ultrasonic data
can measure with a high degree of certainty the through wall I two dimension of an
indication. This added dimension along with the length and location of an indication
allows for very clear interpretation of the accept/reject criteria as per the ASME code.
Other advantages:
• Regulations for the use of Radiography are tight involving special precautions
like additional lead or concrete radiation shields, radiation monitoring and
evacuation of the construction site to do the radiographic testing. This causes a
lot of time delay and costs a lot. Secondly, the work has to be stopped to make
the exposures on heavy walled vessels. For AUT, we need not clear the area
because of no hazards.
• Like Radiography, in AUT we can characterize the indications found to be planar

(crack like or lack of fusion) or volumetric (slag, porosity etc). More over AUT
provides measurement of the through wall dimension of an indication.
• Results are instant and can be applied to control the 'welding procedure' and
make timely rectifications
• A single pass examination by a well-designed automated UT system is offering

the fastest inspection method today and saves valuable time for Construction
Company.
Page No 4 of 14
4. Inspection Methods
4.1 Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing
PAUT is an advanced method of ultrasonic testing that has applications in medical

imaging and industrial testing. When applied to metals the PAUT image shows a slice
view that may reveal defects hidden inside a structure or weld. Phased array uses an
array of elements, all individually wired, pulsed and time shifted. A typical user friendly
computerized setup calculates the time delays from operator input, or uses a predefined
file: test angle, focal distance, scan pattern and so forth. The technique also provides a
combination of various scans in the same equipment set-up. B-Scan is a side view, C-
Scan is a top view and the S-Scan is a cross-sectional view. These views can be better
understood in the Figure 2. From a practical viewpoint, ultrasonic phased arrays are
merely a technique for generating and receiving ultrasound; once the ultrasound is in
the material, it is independent of the generating technique. Consequently, many of the
details of ultrasonic testing remain unchanged; for example; if 5 MHz is the optimum
testing frequency with conventional ultrasonic, then phased arrays would typically
Use the same frequency, aperture size, focal length and incident angle. As such,
phased arrays offer significant technical advantages over conventional single-probe
ultrasonic; the phased array beams can be steered, scanned, swept and focused
electronically.
• Electronic scanning permits very rapid coverage of the components, typically an

Order of magnitude faster than a single probe mechanical system.
• Beam forming permits the selected beam angles to be optimized ultrasonically by

Orienting them perpendicular to the predicted defects, for example Lack of
Fusion in welds.
Beam steering (usually called sectorial scanning) can be used for mapping
Components at appropriate angles to optimize Probability of Detection. Sectorial
Scanning is also useful for inspections where only a minimal scanning length is
possible.
Electronic focusing permits optimizing the beam shape and size at the expected
Defect location, as well as optimizing Probability of Detection. Focusing improves
Signal-to-noise ratio significantly, which also permits operating at lower pulser
voltages.
Overall, the use of phased arrays permits optimizing defect detection while minimizing
inspection time. Phased arrays offer significant advantages over traditional radiography
of welds as well:
No safety hazards
Inspection as soon as weld is cool
Better defect detection and sizing
Page No 5 of 14
• Great flexibility in parameter range
Compliant with all known codes
Many special techniques are possible.
Recently we have done Phased array Ultrasonic testing in our client site for ASME U
stamp pressure vessel where the Authorized Inspector (AI) had approved PAUT for
ultrasonic examination of welds and in lieu of RT for thickness over 3". Some of the
indications found during the PAUT are shown below.
--f ·-li.
IGs ... t
Figure 2- PAUT Images
Page No 6 of 14
4.2 Time Of Flight Diffraction
Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) is an advanced automated computerized UT based

NOT technique, used for in-service inspection of welds for heavy walled pressure
vessels. TOFD system is capable to scan, store and evaluate flaw indications in terms
of height, length and position with greater accuracy and is suitable for weld thickness
ranging from 13 mm to 300 mm.
The principle and operation of TOFD: The TOFD technique is based on diffraction of
ultrasonic waves on tips of discontinuities, instead of geometrical reflection on the
interface of the discontinuities. When ultrasound is incident at linear discontinuity such
as a crack, diffraction takes place at its extremities in addition to the normal reflected
wave. This diffracted energy is emitted over a wide angular range and is assumed to
originate at the extremities of the flaw (Fig.3). Scanning is done externally parallel to
weld axis using longitudinal wave probes with incidence angle range of 45° to 70°.
When flaw is detected during the scanning, Signals from the upper and lower tips of the
flaw are displayed as B I D-Scan image. The conventional UT relies on the amount of
energy reflected by the discontinuities
Fig. 3 Principle of Time of Flight Diffraction (TOFD)
Legend: 1 -Transmitted wave 2- Reflected wave 3- Through transmitted wave

4 - Diffracted wave at upper crack tip 5 - Diffracted wave at lower crack tip
In addition to energies diffracted by defects, the TOFD method will also detect a surface
(lateral) wave travelling directly between the probes and also a back wall echo from
energies that reach the back of the test piece without interference from defects. The
TOFD technique uses a pair of probes in a transmitter-receiver arrangement (Fig. 4).
Page No 7 of 14
Usually longitudinal probes are applied with an angle of incidence range of 45° to 70°.
The diffracted signals are received via the receiver probe and are evaluated with the
Ultrasonic System. The difference in the flight of the diffracted wave fronts carry the
information on the spatial relationship of the tips of the defect and hence the extent of
the defect. TOFD method only evaluates diffracted echoes.
Lateral w&.ve
Pipwall
Back wall echo
Fig. 4 Transmitter-Receiver arrangement of TOFD
4.3 Combined TOFD and Phased Array Technique
It is common in Non-Destructive Testing that one NOT technique does not fit in to fulfill
all tasks. For heavy wall weld inspection using TOFD, we also have some inherent
issues to overcome.
• TOFD has a certain dead zone at the surface (limited detection in HAZ area).
And near Back wall also. Additional techniques need to be used to ensure
coverage of these areas.
• As the wall thickness increase, one TOFD transducer pair with proper beam
spread and sensitivity is not capable of examining the entire weld volume. So, as
the wall thickness increases, multiple TOFD transducer pairs will have to be
used.
Therefore, to examine fully, a heavy wall weld in a single pass, we offer a combined
Multichannel (TOFD+PAUT), zonal inspection, testing technique.
In short, multiple probes or probe combinations are fixed in a bracket in such an order
that together they cover the whole volume of the weld. Each probe or probe
combination is directed to a certain portion of the weld and together these probe units
cover the whole volume of the weld. Probe characteristics are optimized in a way, that
all possible weld anomalies are detected with high confidence. This principle is called
"zonal discrimination".
Page No 8 of 14
PAUT
Typically, a 95 mm heavy wall weld requires 3 TOFD channels- each to cover the top,
middle and bottom zone respectively. 3 PAUT channels- one transducer on either side
of the weld is required to cover the top surface. Similarly, two more PAUT channels, one
on each side of the weld is required to cover the bottom surface.
5. ASME Code Case 2235 Requirements
ASME Code Case 2235 allows for the use of ultrasonic examination in lieu of
radiography for Pressure Vessels and Power Boilers welds greater than 13 mm wall
thickness. The Code Case says the following: "The Ultrasonic examination area shall
include the volume of the weld, plus 2 in. on each side of the weld for material greater
than 8 in. For material thickness 8 in. or less, the ultrasonic examination area shall
include the volume of the weld, plus the lesser of 1 in or ton each side of the weld.
Alternatively, examination volume may be reduced to include the actual Heat Affected
Zone (HAZ) plus %in. of base material beyond the heat affected zone on each side of
the weld, etc."
(Where t= the thickness of the weld without any allowable reinforcement.)
5.1 Weld Qualification Block- A weld qualification block of similar weld geometry
should be prepared with a top surface defect, a bottom surface defect, and an
embedded defect- all defects lying along the weld fusion line.
5.2 Qualification Demonstration - A Qualification demonstration on the qualification

block is essential. The qualification targets (Surface and embedded notches) are used
to prove the technique. Side drilled holes can also be made and provided in the same
block and these targets will be used to set the system sensitivity. Therefore, one single
block can also be used at times for qualification work as well as calibration purposes.
Page No 9 of 14
QUALIFICATION I CALIBRATIION BLOCK
405
1:()
l;l
"'}
I
I
- -+4 1-
- -ti 1-
I
I'-. I
I'-.
r-.:
"'}
m111
3,2 3,2
4,0
6.5
Page No 10 of 14
5.3 Technique Demonstration
In a performance demonstration in front of an ASME Authorized Inspector (AI), two key

issues are important.
1) First, it must be demonstrated that the procedure fulfills all requirements of the
relevant paragraphs of the ASME Code Case 2235-10.
2) Second, the performance demonstration must make clear that the examination,
exactly following the procedure, is able to detect and size specified artificial
defects, and that the acceptance criteria for weld defects as stated by the Code
Case can be correctly applied.
An ASME authorized inspector must be fully convinced that the inspection procedure
confirms to the code case.
Minimum requirements is that Qualification Blocks used should have similar weld
geometry with minimum specified defects like top surface defect, bottom surface defect,
and an embedded defect - all along the weld fusion line. Material composition
(P-number grouping) should be alike.
Fig 5: 57 mm & 95 mm thick, Qualification Blo
Page No 11 of 14
6.0 Equipment Details
We have used Olympus Omni scan MX 21atest version PAUT & TOFD machine and
our motorized scanning device is HSTM FLEX & Manual Mini wheel Encoder.
5.1 PAUT & TOFD Scanner
The HSMT-Fiex™ is intended for one axis encoded inspection of circumference welds
on pipes of 4.5 in. 00 (114.3 mm) and greater. The scanner comes equipped with four
probe holders but can be mounted with a total of eight probes with optional probe
holders. Mounted probes can be either phased array or conventional UT for most
· efficient inspections. The major characteristic of the scanner is its capacity to bend in the
center. This allows the scanner to fit on smaller pipes and also to bring the force of the
spring-loaded arm in the radial direction of the pipes for better stability of the wedge, and
therefore, optimum data acquisition. For the same reason, optional probe holders that are
installed on the outside of the scanner can also pivot. The HSMT-Fiex also allows one of
its side frames to slide. This feature allows having the probes mounted on the outside of
the scanner. This provides a configuration that is well-suited for hard-to- reach places
such as pipe-to-component welds
Page No 12 of 14
6.0 Flaw Acceptance Criteria
The ASME Code Case 2235 presents detailed and analytical requirements for Flaw
Acceptance Criteria's in three separate tables :
Table 1 - 13 mm to less than 1" THICK WELD

Table2-1" to 12"THICKWELD
Table 3 - Larger than 12" THICK WELD
7.0 Results
PAUT & TOFD on 95 mm Thick Pressure vessel Demonstration block results which is
approved by Authorized Inspector (AI)
Page No 13 of 14
8.0 Conclusions
The Time Of Flight Diffraction (TOFD) & Phased Array Ultrasonic Techniques (PAUT)
are rapid, versatile, reliable and an effective advanced UT based NOT method for
inspection of welds especially for heavy walled pressure vessels (both pre-service and
in-service) with better flaw detection and accurate evaluation of flaw location and flaw
sizing. And also combination of PAUT & TOFD proves that a careful preparation of scan
plan with appropriate coverage & angles of PAUT & TOFD can detect all flaws that are
probable to occur during the welding, thus increasing the reliability of test despite
limitation of not having access from both sides of weld to scan apart from this operators,
scan plan, procedure, equipment, accessories such as fixtures, scanners, encoders etc.
are needed to be established and validated on a mock up with all probable defects
before allowing the same on actual welds. Then only on such complex geometry, RT
can be replaced by UT reliably.
Page No 14 of 14
PHASED ARRAYS FOR GENERAL WELD INSPECTIONS
Michael MOLES
OLYMPUS NDT, Waltham, MA, USA 02453
ABSTRACT
Ultrasonic phased arrays have proven to be a very appropriate inspection technique for
weld inspections, especially encoded arrays with linear scanning. The flexibility of
phased arrays allows them to be tailored to almost any weld profile and predicted defects.
Besides showing the normal advantages of phased arrays for welds (high speed, reduced
costs, full data storage, increased productivity), the paper will illustrate sample weld
inspection Scan Plans and coverage. In addition, some codes have been adapted to the use
of phased arrays, so these inspection techniques are effectively controlled and approved.
TOFD (Time-Of-Flight Diffraction) can be added for improved detection capability and
better sizing. Back diffraction also offers significant benefits for accurate sizing.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of phased arrays has been around for decades, but only in the last sixteen
years can industrial phased arrays (PA) be called “commercial”. The principles of phased
arrays are well documented (1, 2) elsewhere. Phased arrays have significant advantages
over conventional inspection techniques: flexibility, high speed, lower costs (under many
conditions), full data storage for auditing, and significantly increased productivity (for
volume inspections).
Phased arrays can be used in both manual and encoded fashion, which are two
completely different approaches (3). This paper deals with encoded scanning, where the
true advantages of phased arrays lie. Manual phased arrays are more similar to
conventional ultrasonics. Figure 1 (left) shows a typical instrument. On the right is a
screen shot showing multiple groups performing simultaneous scanning with encoders;
this helps significantly in fulfilling the various codes. For construction welds, codes are
of major importance.
Figure 1: Left, Photo of typical portable phased array instrument. Right, screen shot of
multigroup scanning.
In recent years, various codes have been written specifically for phased arrays for weld
inspections. These codes have specific requirements for coverage, and for appropriate
angles. Typically, the inspection is prepared using a Scan Plan, which shows coverage –
or lack of it. Also, the codes cover aspects such as scanning speed, beam coverage,
calibration etc. In many cases, the addition of Time-Of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) has
major advantages, and tends to cover where phased arrays are weaker (midwall defects
and accurate vertical sizing).
LINEAR SCANNING
One of the big changes in Automated Ultrasonic Testing (AUT) was the switch from
raster scanning (which is very time-consuming) to linear scanning, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Left, raster scanning. Right, linear scanning along weld.
This change required moving from conventional single-channel ultrasonics to either

multi-probes, or more recently to phased arrays. The time savings were impressive, often
an order of magnitude.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The dominant code for weld inspection, both globally and for phased arrays, is ASME,
specifically Section V (4). ASME has published five separate Code Cases (5) on phased
arrays to cover both manual and encoded scanning, and is working on a PA Mandatory
Appendix. These Code Cases specify many of the parameters and requirements for
performing phased array inspections, specifically:
• All beams must be calibrated, whether S-scan or E-scans
• “Essential Variables” must be listed, as normal in ASME
• Additional phased array parameters must be documented
• A “Scan Plan” is required (see below)
• Full data collection is required, as per ASME Code Case 2235 for AUT (6)
• 6 dB beam overlap is required for coverage, which refers to both S-scans and E-
scans
• Limited data drop-out is allowed.
There are other conditions, but these are the dominant ones.
Other organizations, e.g. the American Petroleum Institute, also approve phased arrays,
and follow a similar philosophy. While these rules are general and require some thought
on the part of the Level III, they are functional in most cases.
Some of the specific advantages of phased arrays will now be illustrated: flexibility,
speed, productivity, data storage.
FLEXIBILITY
As phased arrays use electronic control of the beam, the angles, wave modes, scan
patterns and coverage are all controlled by the set-up. Figure 3 shows a typical Scan Plan
for a thin-walled weld. Note that a single beam is adequate for thinner walls, but not for
thicker walls; this would be determined from the Scan Plan. Figure 4 shows an inspection
of a thicker-wall T-weld using two S-scans.
-14.00mm
9.00mm
Generated with Eclipse Scientific ESBeamTool2
o
Figure 3: 9mm Wall using standard 45-70 refracted shear wave S-scan.
Figure 4: 20mm beveled T-weld using standard 45-70o refracted shear wave S-scans with
two standoffs
INSPECTION SPEED AND IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
While cost data and productivity are normally proprietary information, such data that is
available shows that much improved scanning speeds are obtainable. Table 1 compares
scan times and productivity from manual UT to radiography to PA (7). Not surprisingly,
the latest technology (PA) comes out well in front.
Table 1: Comparisons of small pipe weld inspections times and conditions for manual UT,
RT and phased arrays.
Similar results have been obtained elsewhere. The net effect, particularly in high wage
countries, is that equipment costs are a relatively small fraction of the overall price, but
scanning speed is so much higher that PA are definitely cost effective. These benefits
occur most clearly when the inspection is on a well-defined geometry and is relatively
high volume.
FULL DATA STORAGE
In some industries, e.g. Oil & Gas, auditing the results is a key issue. Encoded scanning
permits full data storage, as defined by code. In addition, the data can be reprocessed
afterwards, e.g. for more detailed analysis or for alternative evaluation thresholds. In
normal weld inspections, PA collect multiple data channels simultaneously at high speed,
so the operator cannot analyze all the data at once. Thus, the best choice is to select
suitable channels for monitoring to ensure the scan is progressing OK – and also to get
preliminary feedback for subsequent analysis. Typically, the TOFD channel works well
for monitoring (see below).
After scanning, the data can be reprocessed as “top, side, end” views or whatever the
contractor or contract specifies. Figure 5 shows an example.
Figure 5: “Top, side, end” view of weld showing defects.
SCAN PLANS FOR COVERAGE
One of the more important aspects of encoded linear scanning is to ensure that correct
coverage of the weld is obtained, including any scanning errors. Conveniently, the arrival
of lower cost ray tracing software specifically for weld inspections (e.g. ESBeamTool (8)
and Scan Plan (9)) has made the set-up operator’s life much easier. Figure 6 shows an
example of a weld set-up that shows inadequate coverage (10). Compare Figure 6 with
Figures 3 and 4 for coverage.
Poorly addressed HAZ

area
-10.00mm
9.00mm
Figure 6: Scan Plan from ESBeamTool showing poorly addressed HAZ
In addition, bevel incidence angles should be as close to normal as possible. ASME does
not specify what these angles should be, but the generally accepted maximum is + 10o –
if possible. Figure 7 shows an example of a Scan Plan showing a bevel incidence angle
which is perhaps a bit high.
Figure 7: Scan Plan showing high bevel incidence angle in cap area.
TIME-OF-FLIGHT DIFFRACTION (TOFD)
Diffraction is a general phenomenon in ultrasonics, as normal in wave physics (11). The

tips of internal defects will diffract an ultrasound beam; this diffracted beam can then be
detected and the arrival time accurately measured. The “standard” TOFD set-up is shown
in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Standard TOFD set-up.
TOFD normally uses a pitch-catch arrangement with the probes symmetrically spaced
across the weld. The wedges are angled to generate wide-angle, longitudinal waves (or L-
waves), since these arrive first and don’t confuse the interpretation. Four types of signals
are detected: the Lateral wave; the Backwall reflection; the Reflected wave, and any Tip
Diffracted waves from defects. The lateral, backwall and tip-diffracted waves are visible
in Figure 8.
TOFD images look like vertical through-sections of the weld. The lateral wave is
essentially the OD; the backwall is essentially the ID; and any defects show as tip
diffracted signals between these two. Figure 9 shows a typical example of a TOFD scan.
Figure 9: Typical TOFD image showing lateral wave (OD), backwall (ID) and four
labelled defects.
TOFD images always use gray scale presentations and full RF waveforms to capture the
phase information. As such, TOFD does not require a lot of data collection, and is very
fast. As shown in Figure 8, signals are identifiable by their phase. The OD and ID have a
phase reversal, as do the top and bottom of defects.
TOFD is a very powerful technique, and allows good midwall defect detection, accurate
sizing of defects using the times of arrival of diffracted signals, defect detection even if
defects are mis-oriented or located away from the weld centerline, and rapid linear
scanning. In addition, set-up is independent of weld configuration. The limitations of
TOFD are mainly the dead zones at the OD and ID, plus the interpretation. Overall,
TOFD and phased arrays are extremely complementary, and can be run simultaneously.
MECHANICS
In general, PA, AUT and TOFD codes accept any scanner that fulfills their requirements.
The two basic types are fully automated and semi-automated. Both use holders to keep
the arrays at a fixed distance and orientation to the weld; both use encoders to ensure full
data collection. Figure 10 shows a typical automated scanner on a pipe weld, and Figure
11 a similar semi-automated scanner, or handscanner.
Figure 10: WeldROVER automated scanner on lab pipe.
Figure 11: Encoded PA handscanner with OmniScan MX
SUMMARY
Phased arrays have developed well in the last several years, particularly for weld
inspections. Codes have been, or are being, developed – particularly through ASME.
Mechanics, set-ups and procedures are available. A number of other developments, e.g.
ray tracing for Scan Plans, have come on the market. Essentially, the technology is
“ready to go”. However, the biggest single limitation still applies – a shortage of trained
operators.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Phased arrays, particularly portable phased arrays, have come a long way in just a
few years, especially for weld inspections.
2. Specifically, weld inspection codes have been developed, particularly by ASME.
3. Other developments, such as ray tracing and weld overlays have been developed
to aid inspection and interpretation.
REFERENCES
1. Olympus NDT, “Introduction to Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology

Applications – R/D Tech Guideline”, published by R/D Tech (now Olympus
NDT), August 2004, www.rd-tech.com
2. Olympus NDT, “Advances in Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology Applications”,
Olympus NDT Advanced Practical NDT Series, 2007.
3. J. M. Davis and M. Moles, “Phased Arrays vs. Phased Arrays - Beam Sweeping
vs. Encoded Data Collection”, Materials Evaluation Back to Basics, June 2007,
page 539.
4. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section V Article 4.
5. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section V Article 4. See Code Cases 2541,
2557, 2558, 2599 and 2600. Published by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
6. ASME Code Case 2235-9, “Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography”,
ASME Sections I, VIII and XII, October 11, 2006
7. Keith J. Chizen and Michael Moles, “Phased Array for Piping Inspections Using
ASME B31.3”, 4th Middle East Conference on NDR, Bahrain, Dec 1-5, 2007.
8. Eclipse Scientific’s ESBeamTool3, See
http://www.eclipsescientific.com/Software/ESBeamTool3/info.html
9. Sonovation’s Scan Plan, See http://www.sonovation.com/
10. E. Ginzel and M. Moles, “S-scan Coverage with Phased Arrays”, Materials
Evaluation, August 2008, P. 810
11. J.P. Charlesworth and J.A.G. Temple, 1989, “Ultrasonic Time of Flight
Diffraction”, Research Studies Press.
1. Main Concepts of Phased Array Ultrasonic
Technology
This chapter gives a brief history of industrial phased arrays, the principles
pertaining to ultrasound, the concepts of time delays (or focal laws) for
phased arrays, and Olympus NDT’s R/D Tech® phased array instruments.
The advantages and some technical issues related to the implementation of
this new technology are included in this chapter.
The symbols used in this book are defined in the Glossary of Introduction to
Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology Applications.
1.1 Historical Development and Industrial Requirements
The development and application of ultrasonic phased arrays, as a stand-

alone technology reached a mature status at the beginning of the twenty-first
century.
Phased array ultrasonic technology moved from the medical field1 to the
industrial sector at the beginning of the 1980s.2-3 By the mid-1980s,
piezocomposite materials were developed and made available in order to
manufacture complex-shaped phased array probes.4-11
By the beginning of the 1990s, phased array technology was incorporated as a

new NDE (nondestructive evaluation) method in ultrasonic handbooks12-13
and training manuals for engineers.14 The majority of the applications from
1985 to 1992 were related to nuclear pressure vessels (nozzles), large forging
shafts, and low-pressure turbine components.
New advances in piezocomposite technology,15-16 micro-machining,

microelectronics, and computing power (including simulation packages for
probe design and beam-component interaction), all contributed to the
revolutionary development of phased array technology by the end of the
Main Concepts of Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology 5

1990s. Functional software was also developed as computer capabilities
increased.
Phased array ultrasonic technology for nondestructive testing (NDT)

applications was triggered by the following general and specific power-
generation inspection requirements:17-24
1. Decreased setup and inspection time (that is, increased productivity)

2. Increased scanner reliability
3. Increased access for difficult-to-reach pressurized water reactor / boiling
water reactor components (PWR/BWR)
4. Decreased radiation exposure
5. Quantitative, easy-to-interpret reporting requirements for fitness for
purpose (also called “Engineering Critical Assessment”—ECA)
6. Detection of randomly oriented cracks at different depths using the same
probe in a fixed position
7. Improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and sizing capability for dissimilar
metal welds and centrifugal-cast stainless-steel welds
8. Detection and sizing of small stress-corrosion cracks (SCC) in turbine
components with complex geometry
9. Increased accuracy in detection, sizing, location, and orientation of
critical defects, regardless of their orientation. This requirement dictated
multiple focused beams with the ability to change their focal depth and
sweep angle.
Other industries (such as aerospace, defense, petrochemical, and manufac-
turing) required similar improvements, though specific requirements vary for
each industry application.25-29
All these requirements center around several main characteristics of phased

array ultrasonic technology:30-31
1. Speed. The phased array technology allows electronic scanning, which is

typically an order of magnitude faster than equivalent conventional
raster scanning.
2. Flexibility. A single phased array probe can cover a wide range of
applications, unlike conventional ultrasonic probes.
3. Electronic setups. Setups are performed by simply loading a file and
calibrating. Different parameter sets are easily accommodated by pre-
prepared files.
4. Small probe dimensions. For some applications, limited access is a major
issue, and one small phased array probe can provide the equivalent of
multiple single-transducer probes.
6 Chapter 1
5. Complex inspections. Phased arrays can be programmed to inspect
geometrically complex components, such as automated welds or nozzles,
with relative ease. Phased arrays can also be easily programmed to
perform special scans, such as tandem, multiangle TOFD, multimode,
and zone discrimination.
6. Reliable defect detection. Phased arrays can detect defects with an increased
signal-to-noise ratio, using focused beams. Probability of detection (POD)
is increased due to angular beam deflection (S-scan).
7. Imaging. Phased arrays offer new and unique imaging, such as S-scans,
which permit easier interpretation and analysis.
Phased array ultrasonic technology has been developing for more than a
decade. Starting in the early 1990s, R/D Tech implemented the concepts of
standardization and transfer of the technology. Phased array ultrasonic
technology reached a commercially viable milestone by 1997 when the
transportable phased array instrument, Tomoscan FOCUS™, could be
operated in the field by a single person, and data could be transferred and
remotely analyzed in real time.
The portable, battery-operated, phased array OmniScan® instrument is

another quantum leap in the ultrasonic technology. This instrument brings
phased array capabilities to everyday inspections such as corrosion mapping,
weld inspections, rapid crack sizing, imaging, and special applications.
1.2 Principles
Ultrasonic waves are mechanical vibrations induced in an elastic medium

(the test piece) by the piezocrystal probe excited by an electrical voltage.
Typical frequencies of ultrasonic waves are in the range of 0.1 MHz to
50 MHz. Most industrial applications require frequencies between 0.5 MHz
and 15 MHz.
Conventional ultrasonic inspections use monocrystal probes with divergent

beams. In some cases, dual-element probes or monocrystals with focused
lenses are used to reduce the dead zone and to increase the defect resolution.
In all cases, the ultrasonic field propagates along an acoustic axis with a single
refracted angle.
A single-angle scanning pattern has limited detection and sizing capability

for misoriented defects. Most of the “good practice” standards add
supplementary scans with an additional angle, generally 10–15 degrees apart,
to increase the probability of detection. Inspection problems become more
difficult if the component has a complex geometry and a large thickness,
and/or the probe carrier has limited scanning access. In order to solve the

inspection requirements, a phased array multicrystal probe with focused
beams activated by a dedicated piece of hardware might be required (see
Figure 1-1).
Figure 1-1 Example of application of phased array ultrasonic technology on a complex

geometry component. Left: monocrystal single-angle inspection requires multiangle scans and
probe movement; right: linear array probe can sweep the focused beam through the
appropriate region of the component without probe movement.
Assume a monoblock crystal is cut into many identical elements, each with a
pitch much smaller than its length (e < W, see chapter 3). Each small crystal or
element can be considered a line source of cylindrical waves. The wavefronts
of the new acoustic block will interfere, generating an overall wavefront with
constructive and destructive interference regions.
The small wavefronts can be time-delayed and synchronized in phase and

amplitude, in such a way as to create a beam. This wavefront is based on
constructive interference, and produces an ultrasonic focused beam with steering
capability. A block-diagram of delayed signals emitted and received from
phased array equipment is presented in Figure 1-2.
8 Chapter 1
Probes Incident wave front
Emitting Pulses
Trigger
Acquisition Phased array
unit unit Flaw
Reflected wave front

Receiving Echo signals
Acquisition Phased array

unit unit Flaw
Delays at reception
Figure 1-2 Beam forming and time delay for pulsing and receiving multiple beams (same
phase and amplitude).
The main components required for a basic scanning system with phased
array instruments are presented in Figure 1-3.
Computer UT PA instrument Motion Control

(with TomoView (Tomoscan III PA) Drive Unit
software) (MCDU-02)
Test piece Phased array probe Scanner/manipulator

inspected by
phased arrays
Figure 1-3 Basic components of a phased array system and their interconnectivity.

An example of photo-elastic visualization32 of a wavefront is presented in
Figure 1-4. This visualization technique illustrates the constructive-
destructive interference mentioned above.
Courtesy of Material Research Institute, Canada
Figure 1-4 Example of photo-elastic wave front visualization in a glass block for a linear array
probe of 7.5 MHz, 12-element probe with a pitch of 2 mm. The 40° refracted longitudinal waves
is followed by the shear wavefront at 24°.32
The main feature of phased array ultrasonic technology is the computer-

controlled excitation (amplitude and delay) of individual elements in a
multielement probe. The excitation of piezocomposite elements can generate
beams with defined parameters such as angle, focal distance, and focal spot
size through software.
To generate a beam in phase and with constructive interference, the multiple

wavefronts must have the same global time-of-flight arrival at the
interference point, as illustrated in Figure 1-4. This effect can only be achieved
if the various active probe elements are pulsed at slightly different and
coordinated times. As shown in Figure 1-5, the echo from the desired focal
point hits the various transducer elements with a computable time shift. The
echo signals received at each transducer element are time-shifted before being
summed together. The resulting sum is an A-scan that emphasizes the
response from the desired focal point and attenuates various other echoes
from other points in the material.
• At the reception, the signals arrive with different time-of-flight values, then
they are time-shifted for each element, according to the receiving focal
law. All the signals from the individual elements are then summed
10 Chapter 1
together to form a single ultrasonic pulse that is sent to the acquisition
instrument.
The beam focusing principle for normal and angled incidences is
illustrated in Figure 1-5.
• During transmission, the acquisition instrument sends a trigger signal to
the phased array instrument. The latter converts the signal into a high
voltage pulse with a preprogrammed width and time delay defined in the
focal laws. Each element receives only one pulse. The multielement
signals create a beam with a specific angle and focused at a specific depth.
The beam hits the defect and bounces back, as is normal for ultrasonic
testing.
Delay [ns]
Delay [ns]
PA probe PA probe
Resulting wave surface
Figure 1-5 Beam focusing principle for (a) normal and (b) angled incidences.
The delay value for each element depends on the aperture of the active
phased array probe element, type of wave, refracted angle, and focal depth.
Phased arrays do not change the physics of ultrasonics; they are merely a
method of generating and receiving.
There are three major computer-controlled beam scanning patterns (see also
chapters 2–4):
• Electronic scanning (also called E-scans, and originally called linear

scanning): the same focal law and delay is multiplexed across a group of
active elements (see Figure 1-6); scanning is performed at a constant angle
and along the phased array probe length by a group of active elements,
called a virtual probe aperture (VPA). This is equivalent to a conventional
ultrasonic transducer performing a raster scan for corrosion mapping (see
Figure 1-7) or shear-wave inspection of a weld. If an angled wedge is
used, the focal laws compensate for different time delays inside the
wedge. Direct-contact linear array probes may also be used in electronic
angle scanning. This setup is very useful for detecting sidewall lack of
fusion or inner-surface breaking cracks (see Figure 1-8).

Figure 1-6 Left: electronic scanning principle for zero-degree scanning. In this case, the virtual
probe aperture consists of four elements. Focal law 1 is active for elements 1–4, while focal
law 5 is active for elements 5–8. Right: schematic for corrosion mapping with zero-degree
electronic scanning; VPA = 5 elements, n = 64 (see Figure 1-7 for ultrasonic display).
Figure 1-7 Example of corrosion detection and mapping in 3-D part with electronic scanning at
zero degrees using a 10 MHz linear array probe of 64 elements, p = 0.5 mm.
12 Chapter 1
Figure 1-8 Example of electronic scanning with longitudinal waves for crack detection in a
forging at 15 degrees, 5 MHz probe, n = 32, p = 1.0 mm.
• Sectorial scanning (also called S-scans, azimuthal scanning, or angular

scanning): the beam is swept through an angular range for a specific focal
depth, using the same elements. Other sweep ranges with different focal
depths may be added; the angular sectors could have different sweep
values (see Figure 1-9). The start-and-finish-angle range depends on
probe design, associated wedge, and the type of wave; the range is
dictated by the laws of physics.
Figure 1-9 Left: principle of sectorial scan. Right: an example of ultrasonic data display in
volume-corrected sectorial scan (S-scan) detecting a group of stress-corrosion cracks
(range: 33° to 58°).

• Dynamic depth focusing (also called DDF): scanning is performed with
different focal depths (see Figure 1-10). In practice, a single transmitted
focused pulse is used, and refocusing is performed on reception for all
programmed depths. Details about DDF are given in chapter 4.
Courtesy of Ontario Power Generation Inc., Canada
Figure 1-10 Left: principle of depth focusing. Middle: a stress-corrosion crack (SCC) tip sizing
with longitudinal waves of 12 MHz at normal incidence using depth-focusing focal laws.
Right: macrographic comparison.
1.3 Delay Laws, or Focal Laws
In order to obtain constructive interference in the desired region of the test

piece, each individual element of the phased array virtual probe aperture
must be computer-controlled for a firing sequence using a focal law. (A focal
law is simply a file containing elements to be fired, amplitudes, time delays,
etc.) The time delay on each element depends on inspection configuration,
steering angle, wedge, probe type, just to mention some of the important
factors.
An example of time-delay values in nanoseconds (10-9 s = a millionth part

from a second) for a 32-element linear array probe generating longitudinal
waves is presented in Figure 1-11. In this image, the detection of side-drilled
holes is performed with both negative (left) and positive angles (right). The
delay value for each element changes with the angle, as shown at the bottom
of this figure.
14 Chapter 1
Figure 1-11 Example of delay value and shape for a sweep range of 90° (–45° to +45°). The
linear phased array probe has 32 elements and is programmed to generate longitudinal waves
to detect five side-drilled holes. The probe has no wedge and is in direct contact with the test
piece.
Direct-contact probe (no wedge) for normal beam. The focal law delay has a
parabolic shape for depth focusing. The delay increases from the edges of the
probe towards the center. The delay will be doubled when the focal distance
is halved (see Figure 1-12). The element timing has a linear increase when the
element pitch increases (see Figure 1-13). For a sectorial (azimuthal) scan
without a wedge, the delay on identical elements depends on the element
position in the active aperture and on the generated angle (see Figure 1-14).
a 140 b
FD = 15
120
100
FD = 15
Time delay [ns]
80 FD = 30
FD = 30
60
40 FD = 60 FD = 60
20
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Element number
Figure 1-12 Delay values (left) and depth scanning principles (right) for a 32-element linear
array probe focusing at 15 mm, 30 mm, and 60 mm longitudinal waves.

500
1 450
p1 400
F
350
Time delay [ns]

300
1
250
Experimental setup
p2 > p1
L-waves - 5,920 m/s
F 200
Focal depth = 20 mm
Linear array n = 16 elements
150 Delay for element no. 1
100
1
50
p3 > p2 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
F
Element pitch [mm]
Figure 1-13 Delay dependence on pitch size for the same focal depth.
1400
LW-no wedge
1200 ____F1 = 15 mm 60º
_ _ _F2= 30 mm
1000 45º
1
800
F1
Delay [ns]
F2= 2 F1 30º
∆β1 600
400
∆β2 15º
200
0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Element number
Figure 1-14 Left: an example of an element position and focal depth for a probe with no
wedge (longitudinal waves between 15° and 60°). Right: an example of delay dependence on
generated angle.
Probe on the wedge. If the phased array probe is on a wedge, the delay value
also depends on wedge geometry and velocity, element position, and
refracted angle (see Figure 1-15).
The delay has a parabolic shape for the natural angle given by Snell’s law (45°
in Figure 1-16). For angles smaller than the natural angle provided by Snell’s
law, the element delay increases from the back towards the front of the probe.
For angles greater than the natural angle, the delay is higher for the back
16 Chapter 1
elements, because the beam generated by the front elements follows a longer
path in the wedge, and thus the front elements have to be excited first.
Figure 1-15 Example of delay value and its shape for detecting three side-drilled holes with
shear waves. The probe has 16 elements and is placed on a 37° Plexiglas® wedge (natural
angle 45° in steel).
800
60 degrees
700
30 degrees
600
Time delay [ns]
500 F15/60
F30/60
F1 400 F15/45
F30/45
F2= 2 F1 F15/30
300
F30/30
200
45 degrees
∆β
100
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Element number
Figure 1-16 Example of delay dependence on refracted angle and element position for a
phased array probe on a 37° Plexiglas® wedge (H1 = 5 mm).
Delay tolerances. In all the above cases, the delay value for each element must
be accurately controlled. The minimum delay increment determines the
maximum probe frequency that can be used according to the following ratio:

n
∆t delay = ---
- [in microseconds, µs] (1.1)
fc
where:
n = number of elements
fc = center frequency [in MHz]
The delay tolerances are between 0.5 ns and 2 ns, depending on hardware
design.
Other types of phased array probes (for example, matrix or conical) could
require advanced simulation for delay law values and for beam feature
evaluation (see chapter 3).
1.4 Basic Scanning and Imaging
During a mechanical scan, data is collected based on the encoder position.

The data is displayed in different views for interpretation.
Typically, phased arrays use multiple stacked A-scans (also called angular
B-scans) with different angles, time of flight and time delays on each small
piezocomposite crystal (or element) of the phased array probe.
The real-time information from the total number of A-scans, which are fired
at a specific probe position, are displayed in a sectorial scan or S-scan, or in a
electronic B-scan (see chapter 2 for more details).
Both S-scans and electronic scans provide a global image and quick
information about the component and possible discontinuities detected in the
ultrasonic range at all angles and positions (see Figure 1-17).
Figure 1-17 Detection of thermal fatigue cracks in counter-bore zone and plotting data into
3-D specimen.
18 Chapter 1
Data plotting into the 2-D layout of the test piece, called corrected S-scans, or
true-depth S-scans makes the interpretation and analysis of ultrasonic results
straightforward. S-scans offer the following benefits:
• Image display during scanning

• True-depth representation
• 2-D volumetric reconstruction
Advanced imaging can be achieved using a combination of linear and
sectorial scanning with multiple-angle scans during probe movement. S-scan
displays, in combination with other views (see chapter 2 for more details),
lead to new types of defect imaging or recognition. Figure 1-18 illustrates the
detection of artificial defects and the comparison between the defect
dimensions (including shape) and B-scan data after merging multiple angles
and positions.
Figure 1-18 Advanced imaging of artificial defects using merged data: defects and scanning
pattern (top); merged B-scan display (bottom).
A combination of longitudinal wave and shear-wave scans can be very useful

for detection and sizing with little probe movement (see Figure 1-19). In this
setup, the active aperture can be moved to optimize the detection and sizing
angles.

2
Figure 1-19 Detection and sizing of misoriented defects using a combination of longitudinal
wave (1) and shear-wave sectorial scans (2).
Cylindrical, elliptical, or spherical focused beams have a better signal-to-noise

ratio (discrimination capability) and a narrower beam spread than divergent
beams. Figure 1-20 illustrates the discrimination of cluster holes by a
cylindrical focused beam.
Figure 1-20 Discrimination (resolution) of cluster holes: (a) top view (C-scan); (b) side view
(B-scan).
Real-time scanning can be combined with probe movement, and defect

plotting into a 3-D drafting package (see Figure 1-21). This method offers:
• High redundancy
• Defect location
• Accurate plotting
• Defect imaging
20 Chapter 1
• High-quality reports for customers and regulators
• Good understanding of defect detection and sizing principles as well the
multibeam visualization for technician training
Figure 1-21 Example of advanced data plotting (top) in a complex part (middle) and a zoomed
isometric cross section with sectorial scan (bottom).35

1.5 Limitations and Further Development of Phased Array
Ultrasonic Technology
Phased array ultrasonic technology, beside the numerous advantages

mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, has specific issues listed in Table
1-1, which might limit the large-scale implementation of the technology.33
Table 1-1 Limitations of phased array ultrasonic technology and Olympus NDT’s approaches to
overcome them.
Issue Specific details Olympus NDT approach
• Miniaturize the hardware
Hardware is 10 to 20 times more design, include similar features
expensive than conventional UT. as conventional ultrasonics
Equipment too
Expensive spare parts • Standardize the production line
expensive
Too many software upgrades— • Price will drop to 2–8 times vs.
costly conventional UT.
• Limit software upgrades
• Issue a probe design guideline, a
new book on PA probes and
their applications
Require simulation, compromising
the features • Standardize the probe
Probes too expensive manufacturing for welds,
with long lead delivery Price 12 to 20 times more corrosion mapping, forgings,
expensive than conventional and pipelines
probes
• Probe price should decline to 3
to 6 times the price of
conventional probes.
A multidisciplinary technique, • Set up training centers with
with computer, mechanical, different degrees of
Requires very skilled ultrasonic, and drafting skills certification/knowledge, and
operators with specialized courses
Manpower a big issue for large-
advanced ultrasonic
scale inspections • Issue books in Advanced
knowledge
Basic training in phased array is Practical NDT Series related to
phased array applications
missing.
• Develop and include calibration
wizards for instrument, probe,
Multiple calibrations are required and overall system
Calibration is time- for probe and for the system;
• Develop devices and specific
consuming and very periodic checking of functionality
setups for periodic checking of
complex must be routine, but is taking a
system integrity
large amount of time.
• Standardize the calibration
procedures
22 Chapter 1
Table 1-1 Limitations of phased array ultrasonic technology and Olympus NDT’s approaches to
overcome them. (Cont.)
Issue Specific details Olympus NDT approach
• Develop auto-analysis tool
based on specific features
Redundancy of defect data makes (amplitude, position in the gate,
the interpretation/analysis time imaging, echo-dynamic pattern)
consuming. • Develop 2-D and 3-D direct
Data analysis and
Numerous signals due to multiple acquisition and plotting
plotting is time-
A-scans could require analysis and capability34-35 (see Figure 1-21
consuming
disposition. and Figure 1-22)
Data plotting in time-based • Use ray tracing and incorporate
acquisition is time-consuming. the boundary conditions and
mode-converted into analysis
tools
• Active participation in national
and international
standardization committees
(ASME, ASNT, API, FAA, ISO,
IIW, EN, AWS, EPRI, NRC)
Phased array techniques are • Simplify the procedure for
difficult to integrate into existing calibration
Method is not standards due to the complexity of • Create basic setups for existing
standardized this technology. codes
Standards are not available. • Validate the system on
Procedures are too specific. open/blind trials based on
Performance Demonstration
Initiatives36-37
• Create guidelines for equipment
substitution
• Prepare generic procedures
Compared to the time-of-flight-diffraction (TOFD) method, phased array

technology is progressing rapidly because of the following features:
• Use of the pulse-echo technique, similar to conventional ultrasonics

• Use of focused beams with an improved signal-to-noise ratio
• Data plotting in 2-D and 3-D is directly linked with the scanning
parameters and probe movement.
• Sectorial scan ultrasonic views are easily understood by operators,
regulators, and auditors.
• Defect visualization in multiple views using the redundancy of
information in S-scan, E-scans, and other displays offers a powerful
imaging tool.
• Combining different inspection configurations in a single setup can be
used to assess difficult-to-inspect components required by regulators.

Figure 1-22 shows an example of the future potential of phased arrays with
3-D imaging of defects.
Figure 1-22 Example of 3-D ultrasonic data visualization of a side-drilled hole on a sphere.34
Olympus NDT is committed to bringing a user-friendly technology to the

market, providing real-time technical support, offering a variety of hands-on
training via the Olympus NDT Training Academy, and releasing technical
information through conferences, seminars, workshops, and advanced
technical books.
Olympus NDT’s new line of products (OmniScan® MX 8:16, 16:16, 16:128,

32:32, 32:32–128, TomoScan FOCUS LT™ 32:32, 32:32–128, 64:128,
QuickScan™, Tomoscan III PA) is faster, better, and significantly cheaper. The
price per unit is now affordable for a large number of small to mid-size
companies.
24 Chapter 1
References to Chapter 1
1. Somer, J. C. “Electronic Sector Scanning for Ultrasonic Diagnosis.” Ultrasonics,

vol. 6 (1968): pp. 153.
2. Gebhardt, W., F. Bonitz, and H. Woll. “Defect Reconstruction and Classification
by Phased Arrays.” Materials Evaluation, vol. 40, no. 1 (1982): pp. 90–95.
3. Von Ramm, O. T., and S. W. Smith. “Beam Steering with Linear Arrays.”
Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 30, no. 8 (Aug. 1983): pp. 438–452.
4. Erhards, A., H. Wüstenberg, G. Schenk, and W. Möhrle. “Calculation and
Construction of Phased Array UT Probes.” Proceedings 3rd German-Japanese Joint
Seminar on Research of Structural Strength and NDE Problems in Nuclear Engineering,
Stuttgart, Germany, Aug. 1985.
5. Hosseini, S., S. O. Harrold, and J. M. Reeves. “Resolutions Studies on an
Electronically Focused Ultrasonic Array.” British Journal of Non-Destructive Testing,
vol. 27, no. 4 (July 1985): pp. 234–238.
6. Gururaja, T. T. “Piezoelectric composite materials for ultrasonic transducer
applications.” Ph.D. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA, USA, May 1984.
7. Hayward, G., and J. Hossack. “Computer models for analysis and design of 1–3
composite transducers.” Ultrasonic International 89 Conference Proceedings, pp. 532–
535, 1989.
8. Poon, W., B. W. Drinkwater, and P. D. Wilcox. “Modelling ultrasonic array
performance in simple structures.” Insight, vol. 46, no. 2 (Feb. 2004): pp. 80–84.
9. Smiths, W. A. “The role of piezocomposites in ultrasonic transducers.” 1989 IEEE
Ultrasonics Symposium Proceedings, pp. 755–766, 1989.
10. Hashimoto, K. Y., and M. Yamaguchi. “Elastic, piezoelectric and dielectric
properties of composite materials.” 1986 IEEE Ultrasonic Symposium Proceedings,
pp. 697–702, 1986.
11. Oakley, C. G. “Analysis and development of piezoelectric composites for medical
ultrasound transducer applications.” Ph.D. thesis, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA, USA, May 1991.
12. American Society for Nondestructive Testing. Nondestructive Testing Handbook.
2nd ed., vol. 7, Ultrasonic Testing, pp. 284–297. Columbus, OH: American Society
for Nondestructive Testing, 1991.
13. Krautkramer, J., and H. Krautkramer. Ultrasonic Testing of Materials. 4th rev. ed.,
pp. 194–195, 201, and 493. Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag, c1990.
14. DGZfP [German Society for Non-Destructive Testing]. Ultrasonic Inspection
Training Manual Level III-Engineers. 1992.
http://www.dgzfp.de/en/.
15. Fleury, G., and C. Gondard. “Improvements of Ultrasonic Inspections through the
Use of Piezo Composite Transducers.” 6th Eur. Conference on Non Destructive
Testing, Nice, France, 1994.
16. Ritter, J. “Ultrasonic Phased Array Probes for Non-Destructive Examinations
Using Composite Crystal Technology.” DGZfP, 1996.

17. Erhard, A., G. Schenk, W. Möhrle, and H.-J. Montag. “Ultrasonic Phased Array
Technique for Austenitic Weld Inspection.” 15th WCNDT, paper idn 169, Rome,
Italy, Oct. 2000.
18. Wüstenberg, H., A. Erhard, G. Schenk. “Scanning Modes at the Application of
Ultrasonic Phased Array Inspection Systems.” 15th WCNDT, paper idn 193,
Rome, Italy, Oct. 2000.
19. Engl, G., F. Mohr, and A. Erhard. “The Impact of Implementation of Phased Array
Technology into the Industrial NDE Market.” 2nd International Conference on NDE
in Relation to Structural Integrity for Nuclear and Pressurized Components, New
Orleans, USA, May 2000.
20. MacDonald, D. E., J. L. Landrum, M. A. Dennis, and G. P. Selby. “Phased Array
UT Performance on Dissimilar Metal Welds.” EPRI. Proceedings, 2nd Phased Array
Inspection Seminar, Montreal, Canada, Aug. 2001.
21. Maes, G., and M. Delaide. “Improved UT Inspection Capability on Austenitic
Materials Using Low-Frequency TRL Phased Array Transducers.” EPRI.
Proceedings, 2nd Phased Array Inspection Seminar, Montreal, Canada, Aug. 2001.
22. Engl, G., J. Achtzehn, H. Rauschenbach, M. Opheys, and M. Metala. “Phased
Array Approach for the Inspection of Turbine Components—an Example for the
Penetration of the Industry Market.” EPRI. Proceedings, 2nd Phased Array
Inspection Seminar, Montreal, Canada, Aug. 2001.
23. Ciorau, P., W. Daks, C. Kovacshazy, and D. Mair. “Advanced 3D tools used in
reverse engineering and ray tracing simulation of phased array inspection of
turbine components with complex geometry.” EPRI. Proceedings, 3rd Phased
Array Ultrasound Seminar, Seattle, USA, June 2003.
24. Ciorau, P. “Contribution to Detection and Sizing Linear Defects by Phased Array
Ultrasonic Techniques.” 4th International NDE Conference in Nuclear Ind., London,
UK, Dec. 2004.
25. Moles, M., E. A. Ginzel, and N. Dubé. “PipeWIZARD-PA—Mechanized
Inspection of Girth Welds Using Ultrasonic Phased Arrays.” International
Conference on Advances in Welding Technology ’99, Galveston, USA, Oct. 1999.
26. Lamarre, A., and M. Moles. “Ultrasound Phased Array Inspection Technology for
the Evaluation of Friction Stir Welds.” 15th WCNDT, paper idn 513, Rome, Italy,
Oct. 2000.
27. Ithurralde, G., and O. Pétillon. “Application of ultrasonic phased-array to
aeronautic production NDT.” 8th ECNDT, paper idn 282, Barcelona, Spain, 2002.
28. Pörtzgen, N., C. H. P. Wassink, F. H. Dijkstra, and T. Bouma. “Phased Array
Technology for mainstream applications.” 8th ECNDT, paper idn 256, Barcelona,
Spain, 2002.
29. Erhard, A., N. Bertus, H. J. Montag, G. Schenk, and H. Hintze. “Ultrasonic Phased
Array System for Railroad Axle Examination.” 8th ECNDT, paper idn 75,
Barcelona, Spain, 2002.
30. Granillo, J., and M. Moles. “Portable Phased Array Applications.” Materials
Evaluation, vol. 63 (April 2005): pp. 394–404.
31. Lafontaine, G., and F. Cancre. “Potential of Ultrasonic Phased Arrays for Faster,
Better and Cheaper Inspections.” NDT.net, vol. 5, no. 10 (Oct. 2000).
http://www.ndt.net/article/v05n10/lafont2/lafont2.htm.
26 Chapter 1
32. Ginzel, E., and D. Stewart. “Photo-Elastic Visualization of Phased Array
Ultrasonic Pulses in Solids.” 16th WCNDT, paper 127, Montreal, Canada, Aug 29–
Sept. 2004.
33. Gros, X. E, N. B. Cameron, and M. King. “Current Applications and Future
Trends in Phased Array Technology.” Insight, vol. 44, no. 11 (Nov. 2002): pp. 673–
678.
34. Reilly D., J. Berlanger, and G. Maes. “On the use of 3D ray-tracing and beam
simulation for the design of advanced UT phased array inspection techniques.”
Proceedings, 5th International Conference on NDE in Relation to Structural Integrity
for Nuclear and Pressurized Components, San Diego, USA, May 2006.
35. Ciorau, P., W. Daks, and H. Smith. “A contribution of reverse engineering of linear
defects and advanced phased array ultrasonic data plotting.” EPRI. Proceedings,
4th Phased Array Inspection Seminar, Miami, USA, Dec. 2005.
36. Maes, G., J. Berlanger, J. Landrum, and M. Dennis. “Appendix VIII Qualification
of Manual Phased Array UT for Piping.” 4th International NDE Conference in
Nuclear Ind., London, UK, Dec. 2004.
37. Landrum, J. L., M. Dennis, D. MacDonald, and G. Selby. “Qualification of a
Single-Probe Phased Array Technique for Piping.” 4th International NDE
Conference in Nuclear Ind., London, UK, Dec. 2004.

PAUT,TOFD,AUT
In Lieu of RT
Pars Leading Inspection Co.

9/10/2013
Presented By: Behrouz Piranfar
Techniques
Time Of Flight Diffraction

(TOFD)
Contents
 How it works
 Typical TOFD Display
 Defect Analysis
 Defect Example
 Application
 Advantage
Principle of TOFD
Lateral wave
Upper tip
Lower tip
 Time-Of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) relies on the diffraction of

ultrasonic energies from 'corners' and 'ends' of internal
structures (primarily defects) in a component being tested
using a set of two probes.
How it works
Reflection
DEFECT
PROBE
Back
How it works
Diffraction
DEFECT
PROBE
How it works
Diffraction Rx Tx
DEFECT
How it works
Practically
Rx Tx
How it works
Rx Tx
Lateral wave
+ Pos
Amplitud
dB
Tiemper ms - Neg
How it works
Rx Tx
Signal
Diffracted
+ Pos
Amplitud
dB
Tiemper ms - Neg
How it works
Rx Tx
Reflection
From Back
wall + Pos
Amplitud
dB
Tiemper ms - Neg
How it works
Data Collection
Rx Tx
How it works
Phase Reversal
+ Pos
Amplitude
dB
- Neg
Time = µ seconds
or
Millimetres
How it works
Greyscale Image Presentation
Depth
Lenght
Defect Analysis with Cursors
 Use of cursors on top and bottom of defect to size the defect

Example – Near–Surface Breaking Defect
Lateral wave blocked
Sizing by measuring crack tip

Example – Mid-wall Defect
 No break in lateral wave or back wall
 Top and bottom signals visible (if defect deep enough)
 Can measure lengths using hyperbolic cursors

Example – Lack of Root Penetration
 Sometimes see
break in back
wall signal
 Defect can be
sized using
time-of-arrival
 Similar to other
root defects
Example – Lack of Sidewall Fusion
 Should see no
perturbations
in lateral wave
or Back wall
 In this case,
top signal is
“buried” in
lateral (OD)
wave
 Can size easier

if signals are
clear.
Example - Porosity
 Multiple small reflectors, each with hyperbolic tails. Usually

can characterize, but sizing difficult.
Example – Transverse Cracks
 Transverse cracks are rare, and similar to porosity, No

perturbation of lateral or back wall
Example – Internal Lack of Fusion
• Strong signal but height

measurement difficult
Applications
 Critical plant items in construction and in-service
 Pressure Systems – Vessels, pipelines, pipe-work
 Storage facilities – Tanks, spheres
 Tube Vessels - Boilers, Heat Exchangers, Condensers
 High Temperature Inspection Up to 480˚C
 Service induced defects & structural damage
 Corrosion/erosion profiling - especially weld root erosion
 Thick wall components > 300mm
 Clad/lining interface bond/cracking

TOFD Advantages
 Excellent POD for mid-wall defects
 Good detection of miss oriented defects
 Can characterize surface-breaking defects
 Excellent sizing for defects in transverse
 Tolerable sizing for defects in linear mode
 Works very well in conjunction with pulse-echo
 Rapid (and relatively low cost) inspections
 Permanent Record of All Parameters
 Offline Interpretation and Measurement
 Excellent Repeatability.
Challenges
 Dead zone of ~3mm at outer surface
 Additional B-scans necessary for transverse positioning
 Hard to interpret
 Difficult to apply to thin materials (<6mm)
 Combine with MUT for exact location of defect

Techniques
Phased Array Ultrasonic Test

(PAUT)
Contents
 How it works
 Scan view
 Sectorial scan
 Electronic scan
 Scan plane
 Software
 Indication example
 Application
 Advantage
 Code
 Equipments
How it works
 A NEW ultrasound NDT technology borrowed

from medical
 An “Array” of transducers elements in which

the timing of elements’ excitation can be
individually controlled to produce certain
desired effects, such as steering the beam
axis or focusing the beam
 Each element has its own connector, time

delay circuit and A/D converter
 Elements are acoustically insulated from each

other
 Elements are pulsed in groups with pre-

calculated time delays for each element;
“Phasing”
How it works
 Transmission (Tx)
 Elements pulsed at controlled time intervals
 Control of beam direction and focusing
 The delays are known as Tx Focal Laws
Beam
Steering
Beam
Focusing
How it works
 Reception (Rx)
 RF waveforms received by each element are delayed, then
averaged
 Delays used to align the signals = Rx Focal Laws
•Ultrasound reflects from defect

–Elements receive ultrasound at different times due to the
different beam paths
–Signals then aligned by electronic circuitry
Scan view
Sectorial scan
Multiple Focal Laws
 Beam is swept through many angles

 Wide coverage of the specimen
Side Drilled
Holes
Back
wall
Electronic scanning
Each PRF cycle

 Aperture moves through the length of the array
 No raster movement required
 Full volumetric coverage achieved
scanning
 Physical scan movement in one axis only

 Full axial weld coverage achieved
Scan Plane
Definition of specimen and weld geometry, coverage assessment

using linear scan PAUT and representation of a typical PAUT and
TOFD combination
Software
A-Scan, E-Scan, and C-Scan, END View

Software
Sectorial Scan, Top view , TOFD

Flaw Volumetric Position Overview
 Flaw volumetric position is defined as the position of the flaw

relative to the weld or component.
 For weld inspection it is typically expressed as negative or positive
in relation to the weld centerline or weld reference, and either
embedded, connected to the ID, or connected to the OD.
The flaw volumetric position is a
key indicator for determining what SWLF flaw on weld overlay
type of defect has been detected.
(Slag, porosity, IP, LOF, ext.)
 Knowledge of the weld bevel and
weld process is extremely helpful.
In a V weld, IP would occur in the Sk90 (-) Sk270 (+)
bottom root area, obviously. In a X
weld IP would occur in the weld
center.
 Regardless if volumetric position Weld
is a requirement of the referencing Centerline
code, knowing the volumetric
position is necessary to make the
repair. Where to excavate and how
deep and long?
Flaw Volumetric Position - Overlay
 Weld overlays are the primary indicator for determining volumetric flaw
position.
 Using the part and weld wizard almost any symmetrical or
asymmetrical weld can be created and displayed on the S-scan.
 The weld overlays should be considered close approximations when

used to determine flaw location. The overlay is dependent on the
scanner or manual probe position being maintained or entered with a
high level of precision for them to be useful.
Slag Inadequate penetration OD connected crack
Root crack
Porosity
Inclusion
Lack of root fusion
Case Study
 Present day NDT methodology utilizes radiography is the main

method with a double wall double image technique to check the
integrity of these weld joints.
 Natural weld defects were included in 3

pipes of 44.5 mm of diameter and 5 mm
thickness with a single V configuration
such as:
– (i) toe crack and lack of incomplete
penetration in Pipe-1
– (ii) root crack and lack of side wall
fusion in Pipe-2
– (iii) an individual porosity and cluster
porosities were introduced in Pipe-3
 The three pipe samples were subjected
to radiography and the results were
analyzed
 The samples were also inspected
utilizing the COBRA Phased Array system
Case Study
 The defects are Toe Crack
– Toe crack
– Incomplete penetration
Incomplete
penetration
Case Study
Root Crack
 These defects are
– Root crack
– Lack of side wall fusion
LOF
Case Study
 The defects are
– isolated porosity
– Cluster of porosities
Cluster Porosity
Applications
 Pressure vessels
 Pipelines
 Portable weld inspections
 Raw material production: ingots, billets, bars…
 Aircraft: civil and defence: In-Service Inspection
 Military Pre-Service Inspection & In-Service Inspection
 Power Generation: nuclear & fossil fuel: In-Service Inspection
 Petrochemical: pipeline construction welds
 Applications can be on anything currently applying pulse-echo testing

Corrosion Mapping
 Compatible with Phased array
 Detection of corrosion, erosion,

pitting, etc.
 2 in long array probe for fast

acquisition
 A scans acquisition
 Use of water box improves

couplant efficiency
Pressure Vessels
 Low cost and easy to use
 Can use conventional or PA
 Uses TOFD and pulse-echo
 Good approach for very thick walls
 Need allowance for operator error
 Simplest mechanical solution
 No safety hazard, no delays
 Can use magnetic wheel scanner

Pipelines
 AUT gives much better inspection: better detection, better resolution
 MUT is significantly worse, due to

unfocused beams and inappropriate
angles
 RT and MUT would reject many

more welds
Austenitic Piping
 PA instrument, two 5MHz 16

element probes using a
splitter/umbilical, and a mechanical
scanner.
1.5mm hole on near side of the weld

High Temperature Inspection
 Inspection with specific probe and

wedge can be carried out at high
temperature in many situations.
 Detection and sizing up to 400˚C
Phased array weld inspection
Sample calibration Block

Construction Welding
Sample crack and S-scan image
Corner Crack
 Inspection with 40- to 70-degree refracted angle

 Real-time display of S-scan and A-scan
Bolts
PA Probe
15 Degree Threads
Beam
Notch #1
15 Degree Beam
Notch #1
0 Degree
Beam
360 Groove
360 Groove
Mode
Conversions
Notch #2
Notch #2
End of Bolt
End of Bolt 0 Degree Beam
PA Sectorial Scan
Boiler
 High Volume – Typically

large number of welds to
inspect
 Many different
configurations (diameter,
thickness, etc)
Advantages
One probe covers many angles
Can produce compression and shear wave
No radiation hazard, chemicals and films, equipment inside pipe
Great resolution
High speed inspection
Instantaneous recording and evaluation of results
Provides immediate feedback to the welders
Reproducibility
Codes
Some quick comments

 ASME is the most widely used code.
 Specifically accepts phased arrays (as do most codes) as a

technology, but the techniques and procedures need to be developed.
 Normal procedure is to demonstrate these through a Performance

Demonstration, e.g. Appendix 14 or CC 2235 in the case of ASME.
Codes
 Three manual code cases: CC 2451for single angle scanning,

CC 2557 for manual S-scans, manual E-scans (2558)
 Two code cases for encoded linear scans:

– linear E-scans (2599), and
– linear S-scans (2600).
Codes
 A Standard Guide for setting up PA is available (E-2491-06)
 This SG requires full angular compensated gain (ACG) and TCG over the
side-drilled hole calibration range for S-scans.
Equipments
TD-Handy Scan Veo-Sonatest
OmniScan® MX 2
Equipments
OmniScan® MX 2
With hundreds of units being used throughout the world, the

OmniScan MX is Olympus NDT’s most successful portable and
modular phased array and eddy current array test instrument. The
OmniScan family includes the innovative phased array and eddy
current array test modules, as well as the conventional eddy
current and ultrasound modules, all designed to meet the most
demanding NDT requirements. The OmniScan MX offers a high
acquisition rate and powerful software features—in a portable,
modular instrument—to efficiently perform manual and automated
inspections.
Equipments
Veo-Sonatest
The veo’s robust design, intuitive user interface
and extensive online help brings the power of
Phased Array to the field based technician. The
powerful veo platform unlocks a new level of
performance in a portable instrument. The
Inspection Plan shows the operator in 2D and
3D where probes are positioned on the test
part, simplifying the inspection setup and
providing an inspection reference for reporting.
Multiple scans from different probes may be
displayed and evaluated at the same time.
Multiple Sectorial scans, top, side and end view
extractions plus C scans are all supported by
the veo. TOFD and Phased array inspections
can be carried out in tandem at full scanning
speed and with up to 2GB data files large areas
can be inspected more efficiently. Full
resolution waveform data is stored directly to a
removable USB data key for ease of back up
and transfer to PC.
Equipments
TD-Handy Scan
TD-Handy scan® Is a new hand-held multifunction advanced ultrasonic
used system, the TD-Handy scan® is most successful portable phased
array and TOFD test instrument. The TD-Handy scan allow the phased
array and TOFD test simultaneously, and also possible to have strip
chart scan which is not available by other portable equipments, all
designed to meet the most demanding NDT requirements. The TD-
Handy scan offers a high acquisition rate and powerful software
features in a portable to efficiently perform manual and automated
inspections.
Although the TD Handy-Scan is a small hand-held instrument
weighing only 3.3 kilograms, it sports an impressive battery of
features and capability.
Reporting
Techniques
Automated Ultrasonic Test

(AUT)
Contents
 What is AUT?
 History
 Calibration Block
 TOFD
 Phased Array
 Mapping
 Zone Discrimination
 Equipment
 AUT Advantage
 AUT In Iran
 Codes and standards
 Conclusion
What is AUT?
 The AUT system is used for weld

inspection as a combination of two
or three different techniques. It
provides detailed information on the
position, size, and orientation of
defects. Using either a conventional
multi-probe, or phased array setup,
the system scans a weld in a single
pass. The operator is then able to
view the results in a graphical
presentation.
What is AUT?
 The weld thickness is divided into a number of depth zones
 Inspection concept is related to the weld bevel configuration
 Full weld inspection coverage is achieved by placing an

ultrasonic probe set on both sides of the weld, each probe
within the set examines a layer within the weld.
History
Initial AUT design Mid 1960 s

History
 AUT Go-NoGo presentation Mid 1970 s
 AUT paperchart recorder Mid 1980 s
 AUT with PC presentation begin 1980 s

History
 Computerized AUT Mid 1990 s
 Computerized AUT end 1990 s

Zone Discrimination
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
 Weld zoned - inspect with focused waves from both sides.

(Up/Down stream)
 Fast, reliable weld inspection (ASME/ASTM/API compliant)
 Mechanics simpler & more reliable
 Conventional UT = 1 probe per zone
 Phased Array = 1 probe covers all zones
Zone Discrimination
Tandem probe application
 angle variation
 focussing
 tandem
Zone 2
Zone Discrimination
Зоны
F5
F4
F3
F2
F1
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
76
Scan Plane
Calibration Block
 A calibration plate, made of an original piece of the pipeline

material to be inspected, is prepared with artificial defects
such as flat bottom holes and or notches, which represent
actual flaws.
 Artificial defects are present in each depth-zone.

Calibration Block
Calibration Block
Calibration Block
Calibration Block
Calibration Block
Capabilities
 For application of the AUT, it is

good practice to operate strictly
according to a mutually agreed
inspection procedure. To judge the
results, the procedure always
contains clear acceptance/rejection
criteria. These criteria may be
based on an Engineering Critical
Assessment or Good Workmanship
Standards.
 Using 3 main methods (TOFD,

Phased Array, Mapping) together to
achieve better and more accurate
results.
TOFD
A-scan
Indication
Lateral Back-wall
wave
Phased array
Probe angle Flat bottom hole
focus
Mapping
 The mapping feature enables the system to visualise the

presence of the geometrical welding features such as the
position of the weld cap and root penetration, which minimises
the possibility of the system generating false calls. Furthermore
this feature enables the system to cope with most existing UT
procedures and acceptance criteria, because of its capability to
detect and, to a certain extent, quantify volumetric defects.
Mapping
Mapping
Advantages of mapping:
 Increase of inspection
integrity
 Reducing of false calls
 Characterization of
defects
 Can be combined with

pulse-echo technique
TOFD , Phased array
TOFD , Phased array
 Phased array inspection techniques are often complimented with TOFD.

 TOFD is particularly beneficial for increased length and depth sizing
accuracy to compliment amplitude based pulse-echo inspections.
Data displayed in Tomoview 2.9 for offline analysis. Volume merge C-scan and TOFD B-scan.
Zone Discrimination
•Phased array, ToFD, Pulse echo

•Easy UT set-up and configuration
•Configure for code complience
•Meets requirements of EN 1712, API 1104, DNV 2000 FS101, ASTM
E1961
•Automated or manual data evaluation
•Built in reporting
Zone Discrimination
Recording Threshold
Shaded area
shows TOF
Colours indicate
Above / Below
Acceptance thresholds
Amplitude Data
Data from Threshold

Data from
Up-stream Channels Down-stream channels breaking defects.
Calibration Block
LOP
LOF
Porosity
TOFD
AUT Advantages
Can be used On and Offshore
No radiation hazard, No chemicals and films
No equipment inside pipe
Hot and cold operating temperatures
>100 welds/day onshore and>150 welds/day offshore
Digital and real-time results, final report on a DVD
High speed inspection, High POD

AUT Advantages
AUT Equipments
PipeWizard V4 TD-Handy Scan

AUT in Iran
2004
Siri offshore pipeline by Saipem, 83 Km
SP 4&5 offshore pipeline by Saipem, 190 Km
2006
Salman (EPC 3) offshore pipeline by IOEC, ~30 Km
SP 8 offshore pipeline by Sadra/DOT, 100 km
2007
SP 9&10 offshore pipeline by IOEC, ~190 Km
2008
Siri-Asaluyeh offshore pipeline by IOEC, 282 Km
2009
SP 15 offshore pipeline by IOEC, ~80 Km
2010-2011-2012
Reshadat in field , ~120 Km
Forozan in field , ~120 Km
SP 15,16 offshore pipeline by IOEC, ~130 Km
AUT in Iran
2013
SP 20,21 ~ In progress
 Total installation of pipelines using AUT in lieu of RT:

 ~2200 Km
 Range of diameters:
4” To 56”
 Range or Thickness:
6mm to 38mm
 Working hours/shift: 12
Shifts/day: 2
 Record per shift: 107 welds (32” main line and 4” piggy
back)
Codes and standards
 In 1998, the ASTM published the E-1961-98 code

(reapproved in 2003), which covers key elements of AUT of
girth welds – zone discrimination, rapid data interpretation,
specialized calibration blocks, and configuration procedures.
The E-1961 code is designed for ECA. Similarly, in 1999, the
American Petroleum Institute (API) published the 20th
edition of Standard 1104, which covers mechanized
ultrasonic testing and radiography of girth welds.
 Other codes: DNV OS-F101, BS 4515-1 2009
 TOFD Acceptance codes:

European norms: BS7706 and EN583_6
ASTM E-2373-04
ASME CC 2235-1
RT compare with AUT
RT compare with AUT
Reporting
Thanks for your time!
Please do not hesitate to ask

for further information
Contact us for more information at:
Mailing Address: Unit 7, No 1, Allay 1, Fiyat St,
Ekbatan-Tehran
Tel/Fax: +98-21-44694583
E-mail: Info@parsinspection.com
Internet: www.parsinspection.com
PAUT,TOFD,AUT
In Lieu of RT
Pars Leading Inspection Co.

9/10/2013
Presented By: Behrouz Piranfar
Techniques
Time Of Flight Diffraction

(TOFD)
Contents
 How it works
 Typical TOFD Display
 Defect Analysis
 Defect Example
 Application
 Advantage
Principle of TOFD
Lateral wave
Upper tip
Lower tip
 Time-Of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) relies on the diffraction of

ultrasonic energies from 'corners' and 'ends' of internal
structures (primarily defects) in a component being tested
using a set of two probes.
How it works
Reflection
DEFECT
PROBE
Back
How it works
Diffraction
DEFECT
PROBE
How it works
Diffraction Rx Tx
DEFECT
How it works
Practically
Rx Tx
How it works
Rx Tx
Lateral wave
+ Pos
Amplitud
dB
Tiemper ms - Neg
How it works
Rx Tx
Signal
Diffracted
+ Pos
Amplitud
dB
Tiemper ms - Neg
How it works
Rx Tx
Reflection
From Back
wall + Pos
Amplitud
dB
Tiemper ms - Neg
How it works
Data Collection
Rx Tx
How it works
Phase Reversal
+ Pos
Amplitude
dB
- Neg
Time = µ seconds
or
Millimetres
How it works
Greyscale Image Presentation
Depth
Lenght
Defect Analysis with Cursors
 Use of cursors on top and bottom of defect to size the defect

Example – Near–Surface Breaking Defect
Lateral wave blocked
Sizing by measuring crack tip

Example – Mid-wall Defect
 No break in lateral wave or back wall
 Top and bottom signals visible (if defect deep enough)
 Can measure lengths using hyperbolic cursors

Example – Lack of Root Penetration
 Sometimes see
break in back
wall signal
 Defect can be
sized using
time-of-arrival
 Similar to other
root defects
Example – Lack of Sidewall Fusion
 Should see no
perturbations
in lateral wave
or Back wall
 In this case,
top signal is
“buried” in
lateral (OD)
wave
 Can size easier

if signals are
clear.
Example - Porosity
 Multiple small reflectors, each with hyperbolic tails. Usually

can characterize, but sizing difficult.
Example – Transverse Cracks
 Transverse cracks are rare, and similar to porosity, No

perturbation of lateral or back wall
Example – Internal Lack of Fusion
• Strong signal but height

measurement difficult
Applications
 Critical plant items in construction and in-service
 Pressure Systems – Vessels, pipelines, pipe-work
 Storage facilities – Tanks, spheres
 Tube Vessels - Boilers, Heat Exchangers, Condensers
 High Temperature Inspection Up to 480˚C
 Service induced defects & structural damage
 Corrosion/erosion profiling - especially weld root erosion
 Thick wall components > 300mm
 Clad/lining interface bond/cracking

TOFD Advantages
 Excellent POD for mid-wall defects
 Good detection of miss oriented defects
 Can characterize surface-breaking defects
 Excellent sizing for defects in transverse
 Tolerable sizing for defects in linear mode
 Works very well in conjunction with pulse-echo
 Rapid (and relatively low cost) inspections
 Permanent Record of All Parameters
 Offline Interpretation and Measurement
 Excellent Repeatability.
Challenges
 Dead zone of ~3mm at outer surface
 Additional B-scans necessary for transverse positioning
 Hard to interpret
 Difficult to apply to thin materials (<6mm)
 Combine with MUT for exact location of defect

Techniques
Phased Array Ultrasonic Test

(PAUT)
Contents
 How it works
 Scan view
 Sectorial scan
 Electronic scan
 Scan plane
 Software
 Indication example
 Application
 Advantage
 Code
 Equipments
How it works
 A NEW ultrasound NDT technology borrowed

from medical
 An “Array” of transducers elements in which

the timing of elements’ excitation can be
individually controlled to produce certain
desired effects, such as steering the beam
axis or focusing the beam
 Each element has its own connector, time

delay circuit and A/D converter
 Elements are acoustically insulated from each

other
 Elements are pulsed in groups with pre-

calculated time delays for each element;
“Phasing”
How it works
 Transmission (Tx)
 Elements pulsed at controlled time intervals
 Control of beam direction and focusing
 The delays are known as Tx Focal Laws
Beam
Steering
Beam
Focusing
How it works
 Reception (Rx)
 RF waveforms received by each element are delayed, then
averaged
 Delays used to align the signals = Rx Focal Laws
•Ultrasound reflects from defect

–Elements receive ultrasound at different times due to the
different beam paths
–Signals then aligned by electronic circuitry
Scan view
Sectorial scan
Multiple Focal Laws
 Beam is swept through many angles

 Wide coverage of the specimen
Side Drilled
Holes
Back
wall
Electronic scanning
Each PRF cycle

 Aperture moves through the length of the array
 No raster movement required
 Full volumetric coverage achieved
scanning
 Physical scan movement in one axis only

 Full axial weld coverage achieved
Scan Plane
Definition of specimen and weld geometry, coverage assessment

using linear scan PAUT and representation of a typical PAUT and
TOFD combination
Software
A-Scan, E-Scan, and C-Scan, END View

Software
Sectorial Scan, Top view , TOFD

Flaw Volumetric Position Overview
 Flaw volumetric position is defined as the position of the flaw

relative to the weld or component.
 For weld inspection it is typically expressed as negative or positive
in relation to the weld centerline or weld reference, and either
embedded, connected to the ID, or connected to the OD.
The flaw volumetric position is a
key indicator for determining what SWLF flaw on weld overlay
type of defect has been detected.
(Slag, porosity, IP, LOF, ext.)
 Knowledge of the weld bevel and
weld process is extremely helpful.
In a V weld, IP would occur in the Sk90 (-) Sk270 (+)
bottom root area, obviously. In a X
weld IP would occur in the weld
center.
 Regardless if volumetric position Weld
is a requirement of the referencing Centerline
code, knowing the volumetric
position is necessary to make the
repair. Where to excavate and how
deep and long?
Flaw Volumetric Position - Overlay
 Weld overlays are the primary indicator for determining volumetric flaw
position.
 Using the part and weld wizard almost any symmetrical or
asymmetrical weld can be created and displayed on the S-scan.
 The weld overlays should be considered close approximations when

used to determine flaw location. The overlay is dependent on the
scanner or manual probe position being maintained or entered with a
high level of precision for them to be useful.
Slag Inadequate penetration OD connected crack
Root crack
Porosity
Inclusion
Lack of root fusion
Case Study
 Present day NDT methodology utilizes radiography is the main

method with a double wall double image technique to check the
integrity of these weld joints.
 Natural weld defects were included in 3

pipes of 44.5 mm of diameter and 5 mm
thickness with a single V configuration
such as:
– (i) toe crack and lack of incomplete
penetration in Pipe-1
– (ii) root crack and lack of side wall
fusion in Pipe-2
– (iii) an individual porosity and cluster
porosities were introduced in Pipe-3
 The three pipe samples were subjected
to radiography and the results were
analyzed
 The samples were also inspected
utilizing the COBRA Phased Array system
Case Study
 The defects are Toe Crack
– Toe crack
– Incomplete penetration
Incomplete
penetration
Case Study
Root Crack
 These defects are
– Root crack
– Lack of side wall fusion
LOF
Case Study
 The defects are
– isolated porosity
– Cluster of porosities
Cluster Porosity
Applications
 Pressure vessels
 Pipelines
 Portable weld inspections
 Raw material production: ingots, billets, bars…
 Aircraft: civil and defence: In-Service Inspection
 Military Pre-Service Inspection & In-Service Inspection
 Power Generation: nuclear & fossil fuel: In-Service Inspection
 Petrochemical: pipeline construction welds
 Applications can be on anything currently applying pulse-echo testing

Corrosion Mapping
 Compatible with Phased array
 Detection of corrosion, erosion,

pitting, etc.
 2 in long array probe for fast

acquisition
 A scans acquisition
 Use of water box improves

couplant efficiency
Pressure Vessels
 Low cost and easy to use
 Can use conventional or PA
 Uses TOFD and pulse-echo
 Good approach for very thick walls
 Need allowance for operator error
 Simplest mechanical solution
 No safety hazard, no delays
 Can use magnetic wheel scanner

Pipelines
 AUT gives much better inspection: better detection, better resolution
 MUT is significantly worse, due to

unfocused beams and inappropriate
angles
 RT and MUT would reject many

more welds
Austenitic Piping
 PA instrument, two 5MHz 16

element probes using a
splitter/umbilical, and a mechanical
scanner.
1.5mm hole on near side of the weld

High Temperature Inspection
 Inspection with specific probe and

wedge can be carried out at high
temperature in many situations.
 Detection and sizing up to 400˚C
Phased array weld inspection
Sample calibration Block

Construction Welding
Sample crack and S-scan image
Corner Crack
 Inspection with 40- to 70-degree refracted angle

 Real-time display of S-scan and A-scan
Bolts
PA Probe
15 Degree Threads
Beam
Notch #1
15 Degree Beam
Notch #1
0 Degree
Beam
360 Groove
360 Groove
Mode
Conversions
Notch #2
Notch #2
End of Bolt
End of Bolt 0 Degree Beam
PA Sectorial Scan
Boiler
 High Volume – Typically

large number of welds to
inspect
 Many different
configurations (diameter,
thickness, etc)
Advantages
One probe covers many angles
Can produce compression and shear wave
No radiation hazard, chemicals and films, equipment inside pipe
Great resolution
High speed inspection
Reproducibility
Codes
Some quick comments

 ASME is the most widely used code.
 Specifically accepts phased arrays (as do most codes) as a

technology, but the techniques and procedures need to be developed.
 Normal procedure is to demonstrate these through a Performance

Demonstration, e.g. Appendix 14 or CC 2235 in the case of ASME.
Codes
 Three manual code cases: CC 2451for single angle scanning,

CC 2557 for manual S-scans, manual E-scans (2558)
 Two code cases for encoded linear scans:

– linear E-scans (2599), and
– linear S-scans (2600).
Codes
 A Standard Guide for setting up PA is available (E-2491-06)
 This SG requires full angular compensated gain (ACG) and TCG over the
side-drilled hole calibration range for S-scans.
Equipments
TD-Handy Scan Veo-Sonatest
OmniScan® MX 2
Equipments
OmniScan® MX 2
With hundreds of units being used throughout the world, the

OmniScan MX is Olympus NDT’s most successful portable and
modular phased array and eddy current array test instrument. The
OmniScan family includes the innovative phased array and eddy
current array test modules, as well as the conventional eddy
current and ultrasound modules, all designed to meet the most
demanding NDT requirements. The OmniScan MX offers a high
acquisition rate and powerful software features—in a portable,
modular instrument—to efficiently perform manual and automated
inspections.
Equipments
Veo-Sonatest
The veo’s robust design, intuitive user interface
and extensive online help brings the power of
Phased Array to the field based technician. The
powerful veo platform unlocks a new level of
performance in a portable instrument. The
Inspection Plan shows the operator in 2D and
3D where probes are positioned on the test
part, simplifying the inspection setup and
providing an inspection reference for reporting.
Multiple scans from different probes may be
displayed and evaluated at the same time.
Multiple Sectorial scans, top, side and end view
extractions plus C scans are all supported by
the veo. TOFD and Phased array inspections
can be carried out in tandem at full scanning
speed and with up to 2GB data files large areas
can be inspected more efficiently. Full
resolution waveform data is stored directly to a
removable USB data key for ease of back up
and transfer to PC.
Equipments
TD-Handy Scan
TD-Handy scan® Is a new hand-held multifunction advanced ultrasonic
used system, the TD-Handy scan® is most successful portable phased
array and TOFD test instrument. The TD-Handy scan allow the phased
array and TOFD test simultaneously, and also possible to have strip
chart scan which is not available by other portable equipments, all
designed to meet the most demanding NDT requirements. The TD-
Handy scan offers a high acquisition rate and powerful software
features in a portable to efficiently perform manual and automated
inspections.
Although the TD Handy-Scan is a small hand-held instrument
weighing only 3.3 kilograms, it sports an impressive battery of
features and capability.
Reporting
Techniques
Automated Ultrasonic Test

(AUT)
Contents
 What is AUT?
 History
 Calibration Block
 TOFD
 Phased Array
 Mapping
 Zone Discrimination
 Equipment
 AUT Advantage
 AUT In Iran
 Codes and standards
 Conclusion
What is AUT?
 The AUT system is used for weld

inspection as a combination of two
or three different techniques. It
provides detailed information on the
position, size, and orientation of
defects. Using either a conventional
multi-probe, or phased array setup,
the system scans a weld in a single
pass. The operator is then able to
view the results in a graphical
presentation.
What is AUT?
 The weld thickness is divided into a number of depth zones
 Inspection concept is related to the weld bevel configuration
 Full weld inspection coverage is achieved by placing an

ultrasonic probe set on both sides of the weld, each probe
within the set examines a layer within the weld.
History
Initial AUT design Mid 1960 s

History
 AUT Go-NoGo presentation Mid 1970 s
 AUT with PC presentation begin 1980 s

History
 Computerized AUT Mid 1990 s
 Computerized AUT end 1990 s

Zone Discrimination
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
 Weld zoned - inspect with focused waves from both sides.

(Up/Down stream)
 Fast, reliable weld inspection (ASME/ASTM/API compliant)
 Mechanics simpler & more reliable
 Conventional UT = 1 probe per zone
 Phased Array = 1 probe covers all zones
Zone Discrimination
Tandem probe application
 angle variation
 focussing
 tandem
Zone 2
Zone Discrimination
Зоны
F5
F4
F3
F2
F1
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
76
Scan Plane
Calibration Block
 A calibration plate, made of an original piece of the pipeline

material to be inspected, is prepared with artificial defects
such as flat bottom holes and or notches, which represent
actual flaws.
 Artificial defects are present in each depth-zone.

Calibration Block
Calibration Block
Calibration Block
Calibration Block
Calibration Block
Capabilities
 For application of the AUT, it is

good practice to operate strictly
according to a mutually agreed
inspection procedure. To judge the
results, the procedure always
contains clear acceptance/rejection
criteria. These criteria may be
based on an Engineering Critical
Assessment or Good Workmanship
Standards.
 Using 3 main methods (TOFD,

Phased Array, Mapping) together to
achieve better and more accurate
results.
TOFD
A-scan
Indication
Lateral Back-wall
wave
Phased array
Probe angle Flat bottom hole
focus
Mapping
 The mapping feature enables the system to visualise the

presence of the geometrical welding features such as the
position of the weld cap and root penetration, which minimises
the possibility of the system generating false calls. Furthermore
this feature enables the system to cope with most existing UT
procedures and acceptance criteria, because of its capability to
detect and, to a certain extent, quantify volumetric defects.
Mapping
Mapping
Advantages of mapping:
 Increase of inspection
integrity
 Reducing of false calls
 Characterization of
defects
 Can be combined with

pulse-echo technique
TOFD , Phased array
TOFD , Phased array
 Phased array inspection techniques are often complimented with TOFD.

 TOFD is particularly beneficial for increased length and depth sizing
accuracy to compliment amplitude based pulse-echo inspections.
Data displayed in Tomoview 2.9 for offline analysis. Volume merge C-scan and TOFD B-scan.
Zone Discrimination
•Phased array, ToFD, Pulse echo

•Easy UT set-up and configuration
•Configure for code complience
•Meets requirements of EN 1712, API 1104, DNV 2000 FS101, ASTM
E1961
•Automated or manual data evaluation
•Built in reporting
Zone Discrimination
Recording Threshold
Shaded area
shows TOF
Colours indicate
Above / Below
Acceptance thresholds
Amplitude Data
Data from Threshold

Data from
Up-stream Channels Down-stream channels breaking defects.
Calibration Block
LOP
LOF
Porosity
TOFD
AUT Advantages
Can be used On and Offshore
No radiation hazard, No chemicals and films
No equipment inside pipe
Hot and cold operating temperatures
>100 welds/day onshore and>150 welds/day offshore
Digital and real-time results, final report on a DVD
High speed inspection, High POD

AUT Advantages
AUT Equipments
PipeWizard V4 TD-Handy Scan

AUT in Iran
2004
Siri offshore pipeline by Saipem, 83 Km
SP 4&5 offshore pipeline by Saipem, 190 Km
2006
Salman (EPC 3) offshore pipeline by IOEC, ~30 Km
SP 8 offshore pipeline by Sadra/DOT, 100 km
2007
SP 9&10 offshore pipeline by IOEC, ~190 Km
2008
Siri-Asaluyeh offshore pipeline by IOEC, 282 Km
2009
2010-2011-2012
Reshadat in field , ~120 Km
Forozan in field , ~120 Km
SP 15,16 offshore pipeline by IOEC, ~130 Km
AUT in Iran
2013
SP 20,21 ~ In progress
 Total installation of pipelines using AUT in lieu of RT:

 ~2200 Km
 Range of diameters:
4” To 56”
 Range or Thickness:
6mm to 38mm
 Working hours/shift: 12
Shifts/day: 2
 Record per shift: 107 welds (32” main line and 4” piggy
back)
Codes and standards
 In 1998, the ASTM published the E-1961-98 code

(reapproved in 2003), which covers key elements of AUT of
girth welds – zone discrimination, rapid data interpretation,
specialized calibration blocks, and configuration procedures.
The E-1961 code is designed for ECA. Similarly, in 1999, the
American Petroleum Institute (API) published the 20th
edition of Standard 1104, which covers mechanized
ultrasonic testing and radiography of girth welds.
 Other codes: DNV OS-F101, BS 4515-1 2009
 TOFD Acceptance codes:

European norms: BS7706 and EN583_6
ASTM E-2373-04
ASME CC 2235-1
RT compare with AUT
RT compare with AUT
Reporting
Thanks for your time!
Please do not hesitate to ask

for further information
Contact us for more information at:
Mailing Address: Unit 7, No 1, Allay 1, Fiyat St,
Ekbatan-Tehran
Tel/Fax: +98-21-44694583
E-mail: Info@parsinspection.com
Internet: www.parsinspection.com
ADVANCE
INTRODUCING
DACON INSPECTION SERVICES
ULTRASONIC
PHASED ARRAY
TESTING
INSPECTION
Who we are
Conventional and Oil and Gas, Refinery, Over 400 personnel Thailand headquarters
Advanced NDT and Petrochemical, Heavy including more than with International
Inspection Services Industry, Mining 300 inspectors expertise since 1979
Operational Excellence - Our Customers
DACON INSPECTION SERVICES FOR ALL YOUR INSPECTION NEEDS

Advanced Ultrasonic Inspection PAUT
• PAUT = Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing
• Computerized application of ultrasonics in which high speed electronics, real time

imaging. With todays advanced technology, special probes are utilized for inspection.
• There is no physical difference between conventional UT and PAUT. Both use the same
basics and theory
• The main difference between conventional UT and PAUT is within the probe

• A mosaic of transducer elements

• Basically PAUT probe is a conventional probe cut into many elements
• Elements' excitation can be individually controlled

• Certain desired effects can be produced by timing the elements excitation
 steering the beam axis
 focusing the beam.

How does it work

• Elements are acoustically insulated from each other
• Elements are pulsed in groups with pre calculated time delay for each element
• Focal law: defines the elements to be fired, time delays, and voltages for both the
transmitter and receiver functions.

Beam Forming
• No time delay applied
• PAUT probe becomes like a conventional UT probe

Beam Steering
• Provides capability to modify refracted angle
• Allows for multiple angle inspection using a single probe
• Applies a linear focal law (delays)

Beam Steering
• Provides capability to modify refracted angle
• Allows for multiple angle inspection using a single probe
• Applies a linear focal law (delays)

Beam Focusing and Steering at the same time

• Provides capability to Focus at a certain depths and at a chosen range of different angles
• Applies a focal law (delays) as in below figure

Electronic scanning
• The ability to move the beam along one axis of an array without any mechanical movement
• The movement is performed only by time multiplexing the active element group
• The beam movement depends on the probe geometry and could be:
 linear scanning
 sectorial scanning
 lateral scanning
 combination

Linear electronic scan

• The beam will move along the length of the probe
• Can be straight beam or a beam at a fixed angle
• This type of scan is often used for corrosion mapping applications

Advanced Ultrasonic Inspection (PAUT)
Sectorial scan
• The ability to scan a complete sector or volume without any probe movement
• Useful for inspection of complex geometries
• This is the most typical scan which distinguishes phased array from other techniques

Applications
• New construction weld inspection
• In-service weld inspection including Stress Corrosion Cracking
• Complex Geometries – Nozzles, Flanges, Shafts, bolts
• C-Scan mapping
• AUT is also commonly used, accepted, and code compliant with phased array ultrasonics

Weld inspection
• A scan plan to make sure the weld is covered completely is made first
• The scan plan will assist in setting up equipment and focal laws

Weld inspection
• Equipment calibration
 Velocity
 Wedge delay for all angles
 Sensitivity for all angles
 Time Corrected Gain (TCG)
• Weld scanning
 Manually
 Semi –automated, using an encoder and fixed distance to weld center line
 Using a semi-automated or completely automated scanner

Inspection Results
• Signal interpretation
 On Omni scan
 Using Tomo view
Interpretation can be preformed

in the field “real time” and also
reviewed post inspection.
Permanent data files can be

saved for future resource.
Commonly used for
monitoring and also
Auditing inspection results

Advanced Ultrasonic Inspection
PAUT Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages
• Gives information about lateral position of • Higher cost equipment required

defect in weld (depth and height)
• Requires experienced and trained
• Gives a permanent record technician for interpretation
• Repeatability, good for monitoring • Angle of incidence is not always
• No radiation involved optimal when using S-scan
• Can be used for several applications
• Can find defect at surface and in volume

of weld (no dead zone)
• Interpretation simplified

How Can We Help?
Contact
Tim Shaw
Chief Marketing Officer
Email : info@dacon-inspection.com
Mobile Phone : +66 (0) 89 245 9966
www.dacon-inspection.com

NDT.net - The e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing (October 2008)
For more papers of this publication click: www.ndt.net/search/docs.php3?MainSource=25
Phased Array Ultrasonic Technology (PAUT) Contribution to Detection and

Sizing of Microbially Influenced Corrosion (MIC) of Service Water Systems
and Shut Down Coolers Heat Exchangers in OPG CANDU Stations
Peter Ciorau 1, Lou Pullia 1, Trek Hazelton 1, Wence Daks 2

1
OPG-IMS, Pickering, Canada,
Email: peter.ciorau@opg.com lou.pullia@opg.com trek.hazelton@opg.com
2
CAD WIRE, Markham, Canada, Email: wence@cadwire.com
ABSTRACT
Three PAUT techniques [linear scan – longitudinal waves, sector scan –longitudinal waves and sector
scan-transverse waves] were developed and validated to assess the MIC attack in service water systems
(SWS) and shutdown coolers heat-exchangers (SDC-HX) of Darlington and Pickering CANDU stations.
PAUT employs linear array probes with a frequency between 4-12 MHz, depending on surface
conditions, component geometry and MIC size/category to be detected. Examples from lab validation
and field trials are presented. Based on field trials results, the techniques were optimized and new cal
blocks were manufactured. It was demonstrated for mid-length pipes and for SDC-HX, the PAUT is the
best technique compared with D-meter conventional UT and with guided waves. The expected field
accuracy is about 0.5 mm (0.020”) for large MIC attack. The ligament evaluation is technically
achievable for colonies / pin holes located 2 mm under the outer surface. Improvements were identified
and implemented for the next outages.
KEYWORDS: microbially influenced corrosion (MIC), service water system piping, shutdown cooler heat
exchanger, HAZ, corrosion colonies, PAUT electronic scan, pin hole, dome colony, PAUT azimuthal scan, ligament
assessment.
BACKGROUND
As service water systems within electrical utilities are supplied by lake water, there is a threat for MIC to
occur within certain portions of the plant systems. These are generally isolated to service water systems
where conditions of flow and temperature are conducive to MIC attacks. MIC generally occurs randomly
with a tendency to attack the heat affected zone (HAZ) of welds (see Figure 1-left). The corrosion defects
can take on a few different shapes but are principally conical in nature making it difficult to inspect with
conventional ultrasonics. The MIC colonies could lead to forced outages, due to pin hole leaking (see
Figure 1-right).
Figure 1: MIC attack on service water systems-elbows;

left – radiography of random MIC; right – pin holes leaks detected in an elbow.
Heat exchangers of shut down coolers are attacked by MIC in HAZ of buffer plate weld (see Figure 2).
The MIC attack produced costly forced outages.
Figure 2: Examples of MIC attack on HX-SDC lower weld of the buffer plate.
In 2002-2003 OPG-IMCS developed conventional ultrasonic procedures for HX-SDC lower weld and
SWS piping. These conventional procedures are time-consuming, have difficulty distinguishing
inclusions and laminations from MIC attack, and could allow isolated small colonies and pin holes to be
undetected. New techniques using PAUT were developed and commissioned for SWS piping and SDC-
HX. The techniques were field-commissioned during two outages: Pickering Unit 4 in 2006 and
Darlington Unit 2-3 in 2007. This paper presents the PAUT advantage in detecting and sizing MIC
attack.
PAUT TECHNIQUES
PAUT could employ three techniques in detecting MIC attacks:
• Electronic (linear) scan using longitudinal waves with large probe: is used for a quick assessment
of significant domes with height > 1/3 of pipe wall. Can’t detect small colonies and pin holes.
The wedge must be adapted to pipe curvature, and scan is performed axially.
• Sectorial scan using longitudinal waves with high frequency (8-10 MHz) small probes; this
technique is capable to detect small MIC colonies with dome height >2 mm. Could assess with
mode-converted shear waves the pin holes up to 2 mm (0.080”) to the outer surface.
• Sectorial scan using shear waves with frequency 4-10 MHz and small probes. This technique is
very efficient for pin hole detection, but has errors in height evaluation, namely for shallow
domes (h < 2 mm); however this technique can detect deep pin holes with ligaments of 1.2 mm
(0.055”) before piercing the outer surface.
The principle of three techniques is presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3: PAUT techniques for MIC attack detection: left - linear scan L-waves; middle – sectorial
scan L-waves: right – sectorial scan T-waves.
The PAUT techniques were validated on retired-for-cause SDC-HX samples (see Figure 4) and on
artificial-made MIC defects of different shapes (see Figure 5 to Figure 7).
Figure 4: Detection of two MIC colonies in SDC-HX by S-scan L-waves.

Figure 5: Linear scan on artificial defects (left) and on a MIC colony in HX sample (right).
Figure 6: Different defect types detected by S-scan L-waves.
Figure 7: Different defect types detected by S-scan T-waves.

FIELD APPLICATIONS
Examples of field applications from Pickering SDC- HX inspections are presented in Figure 8 to Figure
10.
Figure 8: Example of PAUT inspection of SDC- HX with L-waves- PNGS U4.
Figure 9: PAUT detection of a MIC attack with ligament of 0.306”.

Figure 10: MIC attack location in HAZ of lower weld on HX 4.
Examples of field inspection of DNGS service water lines are presented in Figure 11 to Figure
13.
Figure 11: Examples of field inspection of secondary service water lines at DNGS.
Figure 12: Examples of different MIC attack defects detected by PAUT at DNGS.
Figure 13: Examples of MIC location and data comparison with RT.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
PAUT techniques developed for MIC attack were validated during lab and field trials. PAUT is capable
to detect and size different types of MIC attack, with ligaments up to 1.2 mm. The most productive
technique is S-scan L-waves, with a direct reading of colony diameter and ligament. This PAUT
technique is also very visual, allowing easy interpretation of the data and has been well received
from the inspection technicians.
The ligament measurement was improved for near-surface pin holes by using high-resolution
filters and delay wedges. Measurements were compared to D-meter and RT and they were found
in to be in good agreement. Improvements were identified, including cavitations evaluation near
the weld or in the weld root area. PAUT method is efficient for short-range piping, between the
valves and on elbows and Tees. PAUT contributed to dose reduction and reliable MIC attack
detection on HX-SDC.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank OPG-IMCS Management for granting the publication of this paper in on-line
NDT.net journal.

ASME B31.3 Code Case 181-2 Section 8 Fla

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ASME B31.3 Code Case 181-2 Section 8 Fla

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Use of Alternative Ultrasonic Examination Acceptance Criteria in ASME B31.3

CC 181-2, Section 8 Flaw Evaluation

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

. Additionally, use of the OmniSscan

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong https://www.youtube.com/embed/hRm6K3ryrFY

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-z7ue6i6FQ&t=835s

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Comments: CC 181-2, it was

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

(a) 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) for Tw ≤ 19 mm (3⁄4 in.)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

RE: B31 CC 181

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=189121

RE: B31 CC 181

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=189121

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

EN 1714 Non-destructive examination of welded joints - Ultrasonic examination of

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

Sridhar Samiyaiah/ Charlie Chong

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

(a) 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) for Tw ≤ 19 mm (3⁄4 in.)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

d =space between two flaws aligned along the axis of weld

Cross Section X-X

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

B31 Case 181‐2 (Approval Date: January 4, 2012)

Rosafendi/ Charlie Chong