ADVANCED ULTRASONICS

Evaluation of indication detected in high-thickness

welds: comparison between traditional methods and
new technologies
G Zappavigna and C Pedrinzani

Paper presented at the Italian Conference on Non Destructive Testing in Milan, 13-15 October, 2005.

1. Introduction based on the location of indication (surface or subsurface) and its

extension along the longitudinal plane of the weld.
The use of advanced ultrasonic inspection technology has
opened new prospects in the inspection of high-thickness welds,
substantially improving the sensitivity and the POD (Probability 3. Recording criteria
of Detection). In practice, if we consider the results obtained with The ASME Code requires that, when a manual ultrasonic
TOFD (Time-of-Flight Diffraction) on welds greater than 100 mm, inspection is performed, the manufacturer records all indications
many indications that are not visible with radiographic inspection greater than 50% of the reference level, specifying the location, the
or are below the level of analysis of manual ultrasonic methods dimensions, the response level, the depth below the surface and the
(20% of reference level) can be readily detected and their length classification.
and height measured. When Code Case 2235 is applied, all data must be recorded in
Obviously the evaluation criteria must be adapted to the unprocessed form and must be included in the final data record of
characteristic of the technique used. If, for example, we analyse the pressure vessel.
the ASME Code in detail, Code Case 2235 not only defines the
minimum requirements for ultrasonic examination used in lieu
of radiography, but also establishes investigation and acceptance 4. Acceptance criteria
criteria that are completely new compared with the requirements In addition to what was pointed out in section 2 regarding planar
for traditional ultrasonic examination. flaws, the acceptance criteria for manual ultrasonic inspections
In order to clarify the differences between the techniques and indicated in the ASME Code are based on the length of the indication.
acceptance criteria, we have considered several real discontinuities In particular, all other linear imperfections are unacceptable if
detected with the TOFD technique and have evaluated them using their amplitude exceeds the reference level and the length of the
Code Case 2235 criteria and traditional ultrasonic examination imperfection exceeds the following:
requirements (ASME Code, Section VIII Division 1 appendix 12 q 6 mm if t ≤ 19 mm;
and Division 2 article 9-3). q 1/3 t if 19 mm < t ≤ 57 mm
q 19 mm if t > 57 mm
2. Analysis criteria where t is the thickness of the weld.
For manual ultrasonic inspection, the ASME Code requires only These criteria are similar to those stated for radiographic
indication with amplitude greater than 20% of the reference level to inspection. In ASME Code Section VIII div 1 paragraph UW-51,
be investigated. This level is obtained using calibration block with indications that appear on the radiographs of welds and characterised
side-drilled holes of different diameters depending on the weld as imperfections are unacceptable under the following conditions:
thickness. The objective of the analysis is to establish whether the 1. any indication characterised as a crack or zone of incomplete
reflector is planar (crack, lack of fusion or lack of penetration) or fusion or penetration;
volumetric: if the flaw is planar it will be rejected; if volumetric it 2. any other elongated indication on the radiograph which has
will be evaluated considering its length. length greater than:
Code Case 2235 requires that for nonamplitude-based technique, q 6 mm for t ≤ 19 mm;
q 1/3 t for 19 mm < t ≤ 57 mm
such as TOFD, the indications must be investigated if their length
is greater than: q 19 mm for t > 57 mm
q 3.8 mm for welds in material 38 mm thick or less at the weld; 3. any group of aligned indications that have an aggregate length
q 5 mm for welds in material greater than 38 mm thick but less greater than t in a length of 12t, except when the distance
than 102 mm thick at the weld; between the successive imperfections exceeds 6L where L is the
q 0.05 t or 19 mm, whichever is smaller, for welds in material length of the longest imperfection in the group;
greater than 102 mm thick at the weld (t=thickness of the 4. rounded indications in excess of that specified by the acceptance
weld). standards given in Appendix 4.
The objective of the investigation is to determine whether the We can easily observe that the requirements for the acceptance
indication originates from the geometry or a flaw; in the first case criteria of traditional ultrasonic and radiographic inspections do not
the location must be recorded, while in the second case it must be consider the position of the indication in the weld thickness, ie it
evaluated in accordance with acceptance criteria (see paragraph 4) is not considered relevant to know if a flaw is connected to the
surface, or is near the surface or embedded.
For inspections performed in conformity with Code Case 2235,
G Zappavigna and C Pedrinzani are with GE’s Oil & Gas business, Nuovo the indications are evaluated based on three Tables. The first is
Pignone – Massa, Italy. for thickness between ½ inch and 1 inch, the second for thickness

30 Insight Vol 48 No 1 January 2006

 Figure 2. Definition of surface and subsurface indications

4.2 Subsurface flaws in Code Case 2235

Figure 1. A high-thickness pressure vessel manufactured in
Massa plant Indications that have a distance from the surface greater than their
half-height, indicated as a in the table, are considered internal
between 1 inch and 12 inch and the third for thickness greater than (subsurface indications).
12 inch. The second Table is shown as an example (see Table 1) To get an idea of acceptable internal indications, we can
– there is no limitation in terms of the length or height of the consider as an example, the thickness t = 200 mm. The first row
indication, instead the acceptance criteria are based on the ratio of the Table for thickness between 4 and 12 inches shows that
a/l and a/t where t is the inspected thickness, l is the length of the a/t = 0.020 and then a = 4 mm, so the maximum acceptable height of
indication along the axis of the weld and a is the height of the flaw an indication is 2a = 8 mm. To obtain the maximum acceptable length
connected to the surface or the half-height of flaws not connected of this indication, we do not refer to the Table that shows a/l = 0.00
to the surface (see Figure 2).
Table 1. Acceptance criteria for 1 in. ≤ t ≤ 12 in
1 in < t < 2½ in 4 in < t < 12 in
Aspect ratio Surface flaw Subsurface Surface flaw Subsurface
a/l a/t flaw a/t a/t flaw 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
Figure 3(a). Scheme of inspection of indication 1 on the forging
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

Upon analysing Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Code Case 2235 it is possible

to make some comments. First, the acceptance criteria for internal
flaws (defined as subsurface flaws) and for surface flaws (ie flaws
connected to the surface or very close to the surface) are different.
Second, the acceptance is defined only on the basis of geometric
evaluation (weld thickness, flaw length and height, distance of
the flaw from the surface) without consideration, as required by
traditional manual ultrasonic inspection, of the characterisation of
the indication.
4.1 Surface flaws in Code Case 2235
The Code calls our attention to surface flaws. If a surface flaw is Figure 3(b). TOFD image of indication 1 on the forging
detected during inspection, it is necessary to determine if it comes
from a surface connected indication or an internal indication very
close to the surface. Unless the UT data analysis confirms that that
flaw is not surface connected, it must be considered to be surface
connected or a flaw open to the surface, and it is unacceptable
unless a surface examination (PT, MT or ET) is performed that
rules out this possibility.
In this way, the Code Case underlines the risk of surface
flaws, especially those connected to the surface, and establishes
the principle well known in this field that to detect surface flaws, Figure 3(c). Radiographic image of a part of indication 1 on the
surface techniques are better than volumetric techniques. forging

Insight Vol 48 No 1 January 2006 31

 Figure 5(a). Transverse scan of indication 2 (scheme)

Figure 4(a). Longitudinal scan of indication 2 (scheme)

Figure 5(b). Transverse scan of indication 2 (TOFD image)

to the internal surface for a length of about 700 mm. To confirm

Figure 4(b). Longitudinal scan of indication 2 (TOFD image)
the type of discontinuity, we performed a radiographic inspection –
Figure 3(c) represents about 100 mm of the indication that extends
(ie infinite length), but instead the limit of 4 times the thickness (in in the vertical direction. The width of defect area is about 130 mm
this case 800 mm) is applied as indicated in the text of Code Case which is visible on radiographic film and was confirmed by the
2235. manual ultrasonic inspection results.
Considering all the values of the Table, it is possible to calculate These indications, although outside the weld, must be recorded
in terms of height and length, the dimension of the other maximum as required by Code Case 2235 because they could interfere with an
acceptable indications that have greater height and lower length angle beam examination performed manually.
compared with the previous case (2a = 8 mm and l = 800 mm). For Indication 2 relates to a transverse crack through the entire
example, from the last row, we obtain the following dimensions: thickness of a 160 mm test coupon. In order to completely cover
2a = 15.2 mm and l = 15.2 mm. the volume of the weld, we performed two longitudinal scans (the
Those who normally use the ASME Code know that these two probes were on the opposite sides of the weld and were moved
indications are greater than those considered unacceptable using perpendicularly to the direction of the beam along the weld) and
the criteria for radiographic inspection or traditional ultrasonic one transverse scan (the two probes were on the weld and were
inspection; nevertheless it is necessary to keep in mind the moved parallel to the direction of the beam along the weld). The
performance of new technologies in terms of POD (Probability of TOFD image of the longitudinal scan (see Figure 4(b)) shows only
Detection) and accuracy in sizing[2], and the progress made in the a small indication apparently not significant, but the complete lack
field of fracture mechanics. of the lateral wave during transverse scan (see Figure 5(b)) for
a length equal to the distance between the probes (PCS) is very
alarming and requires further analysis. This example underlines the
5. Some examples
importance of transverse scanning, especially on material with a
As examples, we include several TOFD images of significant high risk of cracks.
indications detected in high-thickness pressure vessels or test Sometimes TOFD inspection is performed in order to evaluate
coupon in SA 336 F22V material. Every indication was evaluated in accurately the dimensions of a flaw, as in the case of indication 3.
accordance with the criteria for the advanced ultrasonic technique In this case a magnetic particle inspection on a forging bevel
(Code Case 2235) as well as the requirements for radiographic detected a radial crack. The area was inspected with the TOFD
inspection and traditional ultrasonic inspection (ASME VIII technique to evaluate the exact depth of the flaw and to check for
Div 1 and 2). Table 2 shows a summary of the
Table 2. Summary of results
results.
Indication 1 (see Figure 3(b)) relates to a Ind Thick Code Case 2235 ASME VIII Div 1 & 2 Note
Length Height Position Evaluation Amplitude Length Type Evaluation
cluster of inclusions detected on a forging about
200 mm from the bevel of a circumferential 1 150 700 60 surface recorded 60% 700 inclus recorded on base material
2 150 see note 150 surface rejected 80% see note crack rejected transversal
seam.
In order to analyse the discontinuity, 3 260 160 40 surface rejected 70% 160 crack rejected on bevel

we performed a longitudinal scan taking as 4 150 53 4 subsurface acceptable 25% 45 slag acceptable

reference the axis of the indication. The image 5 160 276 4 subsurface acceptable 70% 95+80 slag rejected (*) (*) for RT criteria

shows the presence of numerous volumetric 6 150 li<10 <4 subsurface acceptable <20% / / acceptable not visible with RT

inclusions in the forging from a depth of 90 mm 7 227 24+22+75 <4 subsurface acceptable <20% / / acceptable not visible with RT

32 Insight Vol 48 No 1 January 2006

other flaws not connected to the surface. The borders of the crack
are so close that, as can be seen in Figure 6(b), the signal of the
lateral wave (ie the wave that spreads along the surface) does not
disappear completely.
Table 2 summarises the data of indications 4, 5, 6 and 7, that
represent elongated slag inclusions.

Figure 8. TOFD image of indication 5

Figure 6(a). Schema of inspection of indication 3 on the bevel

Figure 9. Radiographic image of indication 5 (length ~ 230 mm)

Figure 6(b). TOFD image of indication 3 on the bevel

Figure 10. TOFD image of indication 7

Figure 7. TOFD image of indication 4

As indicated in Table 2, this type of flaw is not easy to detect Figure 11. TOFD image of indication 6
using traditional ultrasonic inspection because the response level of
the signal amplitude is almost always lower than the recording level the half-height of the indication and the inspected thickness,
(50% DAC as shown in paragraph 3). Elongated slag inclusions in is very often lower than the minimum value indicated in the
high-thickness pressure vessels are very often acceptable according acceptability table (see Table 1). In these cases the importance of
to Code Case 2235 criteria because, as indicated in the example of new technologies is in sizing every small indication and recording
paragraph 4.2, the most critical parameter, ie the ratio a/t between of all data that could be used during subsequent inspections.

Insight Vol 48 No 1 January 2006 33

6. Conclusions planar from volumetric flaws) is necessary, especially for planning
periodic inspections over the life of the pressure vessel.
In the field of advanced ultrasonic techniques, the potential of new
technologies in terms of sensitivity and accuracy in locating and Bibliography
sizing of indications has opened up new horizons in the inspection 1. Cases of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code – Code Case
of high-thickness pressure vessels. The relevance of these new 2235-6.
technologies is that now we can obtain more precise information on 2. F Betti, G Zappavigna, C Pedrinzani, G Nardoni, P Nardoni,
the weld defects that will allow the acceptance of flaws larger than ‘Accuracy capability of TOFD Technique in ultrasonic
those permitted applying traditional inspection criteria and that will examination of welds’, 15th World Conference on Non-
permit flaws to be monitored in subsequent inspections with a high Destructive Testing.
level of confidence. 3. UNI ENV 583-6, ‘Tecnica a diffrazione del tempo di volo come
This progress in detection and measure systems should not tempt metodo di rilevamento e dimensionamento delle discontinuità’.
us into neglecting traditional methodologies: Code Case 2235 still 4. pr CEN/TS 14752, ‘Welding – Use of time-of-flight-diffraction
considers PT, MT or ET inspection to be more effective in detecting technique (TOFD) for examination of welds’.
surface flaws, and manual ultrasonic techniques appear necessary 5. G Zappavigna, ‘Nuovo Code Case 2235 e tecnica TOFD nel
to provide information about the type of internal indications. controllo delle saldature di grosso spessore di corpi a pressione’,
Regarding the latter, although Code Case 2235 acceptance criteria Conference Le prove non distruttive nella diagnostica industriale
do not require characterisation of the indication, we believe that – Innovazione ed applicazioni avanzate – Genoa, 28 October
knowledge of the type discontinuity (for example distinguishing 2004.

Enquiry No 601-11
34 Insight Vol 48 No 1 January 2006