Time of Flight Diffraction

(TOFD)

TOFD UT Technique
Overview
Calibration
Applications
Summary &
Limitations
TOFD Overview
Forward
Diffraction
Technique
First described by
Silk in 1977
Using diffracted
signals from crack
tips
Traditional grey
scale TOFD
presentation
Advantages of TOFD Technique

Wide coverage area using a pair of transducers
Accurate flaw sizing; amplitude-independent
Sizing technique using time-of-flight information
On-line volume inspection - very fast scanning
Setup independent of weld configuration
Sensitive to a variety of defects
No sensitivity to defect orientation
Amplitude-insensitive - acoustical coupling less
critical



Diffraction
Modification or deflection of sound beam
Sound striking defect causes oscillation
Ends of defect become point sources
Not related to orientation of defect
Weaker signal than reflected
Sharp defects provide best emitters
Tips signals are located accurately
Time of flight of tip signals used to size
Diffraction


Each point of the
defect generates new
elementary spherical
waves.
The incoming wave
vibrates the defect.
Waves
FLAW
Diffracted
waves
Diffracted
waves
Incident
wave
Reflected
wave
All directions

Low energy

Independent of
incidence angle
Signals
Signals Received
Lateral wave
Subsurface
Back-wall echo
Mode converted (shear wave) echo
Define top and bottom of part
Note phase change

Signals
White
+
Black
-
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

Time
Time
One A-scan picture is replaced by
one gray-coded line
A-scan
Signals
Lateral Wave
Back-wall Echo
Calculator
TOFD probe separation can be calculated with basic
mathematical formula or Excel calculator tools
Calculator
Calculator
-13.6
-28.9
-55
-45
-35
-25
-15
-5
5
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
X-axis (mm.)
Z
-
a
x
i
s

(
m
m
.
)
Note volume coverage less than ideal at this
PCS (missing upper third). -12dB beam
transmit only used for coverage calculation
7MHz 100mmPCS 1.5 cycles assumed
Calculator
Increase refracted angle to 65 improves coverage
without compromising resolution (for these specific
conditions) PCS remains the same.
-6.6
-23.3
-55
-45
-35
-25
-15
-5
5
-80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
X-axis (mm.)
Z
-
a
x
i
s

(
m
m
.
)
Flaw Tip

Flaw lengths parallel to the surface can be measured from
the TOFD image by fitting hyperbolic cursors similar to
SAFT correction but SAFT post-processes the data
TOFD - SAFT
Pre-SAFT processing Post-SAFT Processing
Calibration
Place the TOFD
configuration on
the calibration
block
Calibration
Adjust probe
distance to be 2
times the part
thickness


Calibration
Under Probe/Part
>Select>Wedge
Select Wedge


Calibration
Under Probe/Part
>Select>Wedge
Select Probe

TOFD Setup
Editing probe
properties
Calibration
Under UT
menu>Mode
>TOFD

Calibration
Under UT
General>Set
Gain>Set Range>
Calibration
If there is a lot of
noise, averaging
can be used
UT>Receiver
>Averaging

Scanning
Save Options
Save TOFD setup
Limitations of TOFD
Cannot detect all defects
Limited coverage results from two
potential dead zones
Dead zone near the surface
as a result of the lateral wave
Dead zone at the backwall
resulting from the width of the backwall
reflection


Near Surface Crack
The crack blocks the Lateral
Wave and the lower tip appears
on the A-scan
2
1
1
2
Incomplete Root Penetration
2
1
Note the two signals from the top & bottom
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Lack of Root Penetration
Note the inverted phase between LW and defect
1
2
3
1
2
3
Lack of Fusion - Side Wall
Note the two signals from the top & bottom
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Porosity
Porosity may image in many forms whether
individual or cluster
1
2
3
1
2
Transverse Crack
In the LW we can observe the wide beam effect on the crack
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
3
Concave Root
Distortion of back-wall echo
1
2
3
1
2
3
Lack of Fusion - Interpass
1
2
3
Choosing an Angle
Optimum Upper
tip q 64
Optimum Lower
tip q 68
From Charles worth & Temple
Angle selected is a
compromise for depth
May require selecting
several zones for best
results