P. 1
Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve_

Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve_

|Views: 42|Likes:
Published by Yetkin Erdoğan

More info:

Published by: Yetkin Erdoğan on Jun 14, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





22 05 2013

Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve?
English (Change) Home About Us Site Map Global Site

Inspection & Measurement Systems


P ro d u ct s

Ap p lica t io n s

Kn o w le d g e

Ne w s

E ve n t s

Su p p o rt
Like 0

C o n t a ct U s
Tw eet 0 0

Home > Applications > Application Notes

Share Send to Friend

Application Notes Applications Support Eddy Current High Speed Video Microscope Solutions Optical Metrology Phased Array Remote Visual Inspection Ultrasound XRF/XRD


Application Notes
Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve?
Proceedings of ASME PVP Conference: Insert Conference Name July 2004, San Diego, California PVP2004-2811

Pipelines are now using Fitness-For-Service (FFS) for accept/reject of weld defects. FFS requires accurate measurement of defect height for Fracture Mechanics assessments. The standard pipeline weld inspection technique of radiography is incapable of such measurements. However, the newer technique of ultrasonics can measure defect height, in principle. Initially ultrasonic amplitude methods were used for height measurement, but these proved unreliable. Now diffraction methods, especially Time-Of-FlightDiffraction (TOFD), are being used in conjunction. This paper reviews previous work - mainly large nuclear studies like PISC II and published pipeline sizing studies. The best nuclear sizing was within a few millimetres, using diffraction. In contrast to nuclear, pipeline AUT uses zone discrimination, focused transducers, much thinner material and simpler analysis techniques. Current accuracies are typically + 1 mm (terminology undefined), which correlates with the beam spot size and typical weld pass. Requests for accuracies of + 0.3 mm are probably unachievable, though future R&D should significantly improve pipeline sizing.

Defects invariably occur from welding, even with the most stringent procedures. In practice it is not practical to remove all defects by repair, so some acceptance criteria must be used to determine which defects should be removed and which left in place. This situation has become even more important with the advent of high strength steels, where grinding and rewelding typically destroy the controlled microstructure; repair may create more damage than leaving the defect in. In the last decades, there has been a move away from "workmanship" criteria, where defects were accepted or rejected primarily on what the inspection system could detect, to "Fitness-For-Service" (FFS) criteria, which are based on Fracture Mechanics (also called Engineering Critical Assessment, or ECA). FFS uses the material toughness, crack growth data and the component duty cycle to estimate the service life, and hence acceptable initial defect size. Conservatism is built into the calculations by giving error margins to the inputs: toughness, growth rates and defect measurements. Typically, FFS permits much larger defects than workmanship criteria, which reduces reject rates and costs. However for FFS, it is essential to accurately and reliably measure the key defect parameter: defect height. In the 1980s, nuclear was the leading industry investigating defect sizing, with FFS starting in this industry. Since the arrival of automated ultrasonics in the gas pipeline industry [1], AUT is becoming the inspection method of choice due to FFS. The use of AUT and FFS in the pipeline industry has significantly lowered reject rates (though this is partially due to the ability of AUT to perform process control).

For several decades, the prime pipeline weld inspection technique was radiography, based on workmanship criteria. Besides the obvious safety hazards, one major deficiency of radiography is its inability to measure defect height, thereby eliminating FFS as an option. In the last couple of decades, ultrasonics has become more prevalent; ultrasonics does offer the potential of measuring defect height, but this is a difficult measurement in practice, and fraught with errors. There are two main approaches: amplitudebased and diffraction-based. These are discussed below.

Amplitude vs. Diffraction
Amplitude Techniques Early defect sizing approaches were based on the amplitude of the returned signal, and correlating it with an equivalent machined reflector such as a notch or side-drilled hole. However, correlation between defect size and amplitude has been poor [2]; this is not a surprise, given the number of variables from the material, equipment and defect itself. The material has potential velocity and microstructural variations, especially steels; the equipment has potential amplitude variations due to the type of pulser, frequency band, cabling, and other inherent electrical parameters. Perhaps the biggest variable is the defect itself. Ultrasonics is highly sensitive to defect orientation; also, transparency, roughness, curvature, location play a role. Conventional ultrasonics is particularly unreliable for vertical defects, though using appropriate inspection angles seems to improve amplitude criteria [3]. The German DGS technique compares defect amplitudes with those from a known reflector [4]; this gives a defect "not smaller than a machined reflector", which is not useful for FFS. All in all, amplitude-based sizing techniques are generally not reliable, certainly by the standards required by FFS. Since the vast majority of defects are still sized by amplitude-based techniques, whether 6 dB drop-off, 10 dB or 20 dB [5], a couple of general comments from field experts are appropriate. First, "any defect smaller than the beam tends to be sized as the beam width". This occurs because small defects tend to be omni-directional emitters, so small defects tend to emit anywhere inside the beam. However, small defects tend not to be structurally important in most cases, so the background data on small defect sizing is limited [6]. Second, "small defects tend to be oversized, and large defects undersized" [7]. The "small defects-oversizing



Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve? Diffraction Approaches In the late 1970's. Undersizing large defects is potentially a major concern for structural integrity. typically by beam ringdown (about 3 mm for pipelines). Figure 2 shows a comparison between amplitude-based sizing and TOFD from the UK Defect Detection Trials [9]. The "small defects-oversizing situation" is easily understood from omni-directional emitting and beam spread. for example. plus encoded position and computer data recording.22 05 2013 is limited [6]. Second. TOFD has significant dead zones at the OD and ID. and a number of alternative diffraction techniques have been developed with their own advantages and disadvantages. the "large defects-undersizing" is of more concern. TOFD sizing results have been impressive. However. The standard TOFD technique uses a separate pulser and receiver on either side of the weld or component. Figure 1: Principles of TOFD plus interpretation issues. This situation can easily occur if the defect is curved. and large defects undersized" [7]. The basic principle of TOFD is shown in Figure 1. The diffraction phenomenon is quite general in ultrasonics. and proved to be significantlymore accurate than amplitude criteria. TOFD is also limited on the smallest defect that it can size. Silk at Harwell [8] developed a sizing (and detection) technique called Time-Of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD). "small defects tend to be oversized.olympus-ims. giving lower amplitude and size measurement. so a fixed angle transducer beam will roll off the edges. This technique used low-amplitude diffracted waves from defect tips to size defects. Nonetheless.com/en/applications/defect-sizing-pipe-welds/ 2/10 . www.

This makes the system much simpler. Overall sizing accuracy for the UKAEA Risley team was a few millimeters on plate hundreds of mm thick (i. Back diffraction uses a single transducer to pulse and detect diffracted signals. other techniques based on amplitude and signals have been tried: frequency analysis [10].22 05 2013 Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve? Figure 2: Amplitude vs. HOLOSAFT [11]. none of these latter techniques have become commercial. 3/10 . Two major round robins were PISC II and DDT. PISC II was the first public trial for TOFD. and has advantages for sizing small defects (down to 0. • Second. the physics of back diffraction is weaker than forward diffraction. diffraction from DDT plate 1 (top: all sizing techniques. the nuclear industry performed major studies to determine defect detection and sizing capabilities. Nonetheless. and identifying the diffracted tip signals can be difficult. Nuclear Sizing Studies While many industries have been interested in defect sizing capabilities [14]. However. including back diffraction and mixed mode transducers. The size and scope of this study permitted good statistical analysis of the results. The PISC II trial in particular was global. the PISC II trial was enormous. However. and permits manual operation..e. bottom: TOFD only).com/en/applications/defect-sizing-pipe-welds/ ultrasonic frequency in pipelines in ratio due to attenuation in the steel. There are significant differences between these nuclear studies and current pipeline sizing studies: • First. In general. The basic approach is shown in Figure 3. though it is not possible to increase the www. Various alternative diffraction approaches have been developed. Figure 3: Back diffraction for defect sizing. pattern recognition. with around fifty teams inspecting four components with about two hundred defects [7]. Not surprisingly. sizing accuracy and defect analysis. As well.olympus-ims. back diffraction offers similar accuracies to TOFD [12]. sizing showed some breakthroughs since a variety of novel techniques were tested. ~ 1%). permitting substantial parametric studies. though back diffraction is frequently used. the most difficult defect to find was a smooth crack.5 mm in pipelines) with smaller dead zones [13]. nuclear pressure vessels are an order of magnitude thicker than pipelines. and the results were encouraging [15].

e. i. 17]. It is a convenient number to chose. especially using amplitude approaches. • Fifth. which reduces the beam size. processing and display. The RMS error of the flaw depths should not exceed 3. Pipeline Sizing Procedures and Terminology Unlike the enormously expensive PISC II trials. Physics Limitations As the size of the defect approaches the wavelength (0. Born approximations and the General Theorem of Diffraction [19]. The scientific basis for the ± Y mm is not always specified. While phased arrays do not alter the physics.5 MHz and focal distance of 20 mm in water (i. including better data handling. 3.though there are still approximations involved. Few published results support the maximum error since many points lie outside the error band.5 mm for 7.22 05 2013 Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve? ultrasonic frequency in pipelines in ratio due to attenuation in the steel. and these approximations are not valid when the defect size is similar to the wavelength. Pipeline sizing is often based solely on zone size as per the ASTM E-1961 code [16]. Normally defect sizing accuracy is quoted as ± Y mm accuracy. but metallurgical errors appear to be of the same order as claimed sizing accuracies. or a modified version of amplitude sizing [17]. which complicates theoretical analysis. TOFD is good for sizing (and detection) under most circumstances. However. while pipelines generally have geometric reflectors from the root and cap. Unfortunately. in other cases.g. and minimizes spurious geometric reflections. no hard data is available. the quality required (i. Finite Element Methods and Finite Difference Methods should be successful.. Unfortunately. they do permit multi-angle and optimized inspections.com/en/applications/defect-sizing-pipe-welds/ 4/10 .) There are two approaches for analysis: analytical and numerical. ASME RMS ASME has a procedure for measuring sizing accuracy [18]. • Third. For analysis procedures. typically using idealized cracks. divides by the number of points. The list below contains some of the public results. www. Nonetheless. Kirchoff approximations. not detailed like nuclear. so sizing more accurately than this is problematic. there is a school of thought on pipelines that too small a focal spot is detrimental [4.the 6 dB halfwidth approaches 2λ. The details on the methodology tend to be sparse. If one assumes a 16 mm aperture. time and money spent)is generally significantly higher for nuclear than for pipelines.. unlike the meticulous metallography in PISC II. • Last. as for pipelines.e. Alternative techniques are freezebreaking and sectioning at the maximum ultrasonic amplitude (which may not be the maximum depth). In contrast. A general error band. the defect must be centered in the beam. sizing accuracies of a few millimeters (better with pipelines) are possible. The standard deviation σ. the general conclusions from the nuclear studies apply to pipelines. both FEM and FDM are very time-consuming and expensive [20] and little work has been done in this area. though texts often imply this is the case. This correlates with current sizing accuracies from techniques like back diffraction [13].e. The maximum error (maybe two standard deviations (σ) or 95% of the results) 2. physics becomes an issue for modeling defects in pipelines. the number of data points in pipeline studies is generally too limited to produce meaningful statistics. many of the pipeline approvals and sizing studies are proprietary. an "eyeball range". and 5. the procedure seems to be to draw a general error band. Some authors specifically quote σ or RMS.e. Numerical Of the various methods of performing numerical assessments. have used Green's theorem. Zone sizing is quick and approximate. Unfortunately. and must be smaller than the beam. especiallyundersizing. Pipeline defect sizing terminology is fuzzy.. often + 1 mm. Analytical Analytical approaches. and the amount of data limited. • Sixth. and detailed scans are not used (unlike nuclear). Thus analytical theory cannot solve this problem. frequency (i. the pipeline studies tend to be smaller and more fragmented. The correlation between signal amplitude and defect size is very poor (see Figure 4 for example). and optimized laboratory results [21]. It is the author's opinion that this ± 1 mm "eyeball range" is typically quoted because: 1. Focal Spot Size Another major consideration is the minimum focal spot size achievable. The 2 mm range also corresponds to typical pipeline zone sizes and GMAW passes. pipeline defects (d) are typically of the same height as the ultrasound wavelength (λ).2 mm. The theoretical focal spot size depends on aperture size. ASME RMS value.olympus-ims. 7. though obviously ultrasonics is reflected in practice from defects with d~λ. The 2 mm range roughly corresponds with the focal spot size of a focused pipeline AUT transducer. Pipeline scans are usually performed once (as in the real world). ray tracing will be essentially useless with d~λ. Offshore risers and tendons may be an exception. or 1 mm.5 MHz shear waves). 3. This inherently leads to some errors in sizing and detection. What Do People Really Mean by Sizing Error? Many defect error sizing plots show an error band of approximately ± 1 mm drawn on. wavelength)and focal distance. and cannot be published. Unfortunately.. • Fourth. i. then takes the square root. all these analytical approaches use approximations to make the equations soluble. pipeline operators often salami-slice the pipes to get an approximate defect size or freeze-break the welds. but ideally both TOFD and pulse-echo should be used [15]. which gives somewhat improved accuracies over the petrochemical industry's linear TOFD. these results indicate looser sizing accuracy compared with zone discrimination and other approaches (see below). 2. PISC used ground flush surfaces. Pulse-echo detection and sizing have limitations. The formula for RMS is almost identical to the standard deviation and sums the measurement errors (squared). Most data points lie within this range.4-0. pipelines routinely use highly focused transducers. 1-3 mm. improves signal-to-noise ratio. e. or 4. and phased arrays. 4.e. new technology has arrived. • Seventh. the nuclear industry uses raster TOFD and Synthetic Aperture Focusing (SAFT). a very short focus). There may be too few data points for meaningful statistics.5 mm [20]. especially as the minimum defect size measurable may be limited by focal spot size [6]. This suggests that defects cannot be sized below + 0. (Typical pipeline defects are of the order of one weld pass. but could be: 1. There are also significant limitations on amplitude techniques.

olympus-ims. and the materials different. and shows that there is considerable scatter within the ± 1 mm eyeball range. and d~λ. and it is possible to superimpose several proprietary studies on this plot. 24].3 mm. which complicates analysis. The work done by Ghent University also demonstrated that the sizing error of buried defects can be quite significant. Errors of up to 6 mm were found. sizing (by one team only) produced a standard deviation of defect sizing to within + 1. amplitude-defect correlation. Battelle performed a nuclear pipeline detection and sizing round robin for the NRC [23] using seven teams. which is impossible to conclude from the published data. This study investigated several nuclear-type materials including clad ferritic. while TOFD onlyworked for larger. the results did show that pipeline defect sizing was poor. Shell Results Kopp et al [27] published an internal study including defect sizing (see Figure 5). There is also little undersizing. there is little undersizing.8 mm [26]. lack of fusion and both copper cracking and transverse defects. Transco Trials: Recently. it ignores the problems of focal spot size. though some oversizing. While the main thrust of the trial was defect detection (which was good).g. An eyeball range of ± 1 mm would probably not be "out of line". they also investigated real defects. While the application.22 05 2013 Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve? Figure 4: Sample pipeline data comparing amplitude and measured defect sizing [22] Pipeline Sizing Studies Battelle PNL Study In 1981. σ varied from 1. with major sizing errors. The Shell data is a collection from several programs.1 to 1.the defect sizing was not impressive.com/en/applications/defect-sizing-pipe-welds/ 5/10 . As with the Shell results. Approximately ninety typical defects were implanted: porosity. e. which is not supported by any published or known proprietary studies. University of Ghent Studies In 1997. which shows a good correlation with defect size (see Figure 6). stress corrosion cracking. plus several outlier points. as expected. procedures and technology are dated. This level of sizing accuracy was later confirmed by similar privately sponsored validation projects [24].5-2 mm for surface breaking defects. buried flaws. Furthermore. While detection was good by both AUT crews. The Saipem results could be easily superimposed on the Shell results above. Figure 5: Sizing data from Kopp et al. Eyeballing the data gives a typical range of ± 1 mm accuracy. This is some of the more comprehensive data available. cast and wrought austenitics. The paper refers to sizing accuracies of ± 0. www. Advantica analyzed an internal study using GTI funding with seven inspection companies [25]. These results are typical of pipeline data. [27] Saipem Study Cataldo and Legori [28] published a limited data set for DNV approval. This accuracy is predicated on a percentage of the zone size. Iploca (International Pipeline and Offshore Contractors Association) funded a detection and sizing study at the University of Ghent [4.

in the best case 45% of the defects were sized within + 0. As with the Advantica results. and the majority within + 2 mm (see Table 1 below). as predicted by physics. Saipem or others . Two other comparisons showed no significant detection differences using the same set-ups [25. average error "a" in m m and % of detected flaw s a<± 0. Specifically. controlled focus). The actual inspection and sizing procedures were not outlined in the internal document [30]. the better the results. EWI measured defects to an accuracy of + 0. Oceaneering OIS Oceaneering performed a DNV qualification in early 2003.com/en/applications/defect-sizing-pipe-welds/ 6/10 . This observation was supported in the PISC II round robin for nuclear pressure vessels [7].5 mm ±0. Shell/Shaw [27] used multiprobe.0 mm A1 Focused multiprobe. Saipem phased array. Acronym Approach Description Height sizing accuracy.olympus-ims. but otherwise used standard procedures. When using the same set-up (and nominally the same calibration blocks).0>a <±4.5 mm. only about half the EWI defects could be properly analyzed with TOFD.0 mm ±2. The results showed considerable variability between inspection companies. though the pipe walls were slightly thinner than for Saipem. Edison Welding Institute Round Robin Under GTI auspices. it is not clear why the Oceaneering results are significantly better than others. either because the defects were too small or too close to the surface. This data set contained mostly sidewall LoF. and maybe experience with phased systems has helped as much as improved procedures. At the time of writing. The implication is that the more techniques and effort. amplitude linearization 35% 35% 30% www.22 05 2013 Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve? One of the more interesting observations is the comparison of conventional multiprobe and phased array AUT systems.σ ~ 0. Oceaneering did use TOFD extensively to minimize significant oversizing (as seen in Figure 5).5>a<±2. The results are shown in Figure 7 Figure 7 : Comparison of measured and actual defects heights from Oceaneering. Using multiple techniques and lots of time. which produced noticeably lower σ than Shell. the differences are negligible. EWI performed a round robin with two pipes containing effectively twenty four LoF defects with several inspection companies [21]. even when using nominally identical procedures.6 mm (Category A6-open). Phased arrays offer significant sizing advantages (extra beams. 29].6 mm.

most evidence suggests that sizing accuracies greater than σ ± 1 mm are not realistic. such www.22 05 2013 Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve? A2 Focused multiprobe. 64 el. linearization 40% 20% 40% A5 Focused PA.3 mm accuracy in plant (again. linearization 15% 35% 50% A6 Focused PA. At this point in time. In practice. mean sizing error is small. etc.7 mm. On nuclear materials using much shorter λ and perfect geometry. or the eyeball range of ± 1 mm as found in recent studies). though comparable with the Oceaneering results. Discussion In practice. Generally. The features are similar: some scatter (within an eyeball range of ± 1 mm).41 for one data set and ± 0. TOFD should minimize the number of gross overcalls. ampl. Improved results can be expected from such a detailed inspection [6]. Diffraction techniques offer a lot more potential than amplitude techniques. depending on the actual data set used (ASTM zones. 32 el. However. suggesting that the key issue is technology limits. typically close to zero mm. Perhaps the most impressive results come from the Oceaneering data using standard equipment [30]. Undersizing is generally not a major issue. This difference may be due to analysis. not operator experience or equipment. and no details are available.1 mm. 48 el. the available data seems to be fairly self-consistent. as with other studies.low mean sizing error. modified zones.olympus-ims. However. Oceaneering only supplied 88 points. so conclusions on optimum techniques and procedures are difficult [31]. Rules 30% 45% 25% A4 Focused PA. Apportioning amplitudes does not improve σ values much. Figure 8: DNV sizing results [22] R/D Tech Data R/D Tech has some early proprietary sizing data that could be overlaid on Figures 5-8 without significant distortion.. approximately one third of some other values. Figure 8 is an agglomeration of a number of studies. TOFD and combinations). Current requests for defect sizing to ± 0. with the RMS and σ typically over 1 mm. Much of the data can be overlaid without serious distortion. with limited undersizing. 64 el. raster and sectorial 75% 25% n/a Table 1: EWI table 2. an RMS analysis of the sizing accuracy using the ASME approach gave a value of over ± 1. Relying on amplitude techniques alone will typicallylimit sizing accuracy to the focal spot diameter (~2 mm. repeatable accuracies of ± 0. However. The proprietary R/D Tech data set suggests that an "eyeball range" of ± 1 mm is really an RMS or standard deviation of <± 1 mm. proprietary sizing algorithm 45% 45% 10% A3 Non-focused multiprobe. These results showed a significantly lower error than most. This data set also showed that TOFD for pipelines was limited. sectioning varies. though TOFD in particular has limitations with the smaller defects (and the near surface defects). sectorial scanning 25% 25% 50% A6 open Focused PA.. zone and ampl. ampl. terminology undefined) seem unrealistic from these published results. process or statistical treatment. Undersizing was minimal. with the exception of the Oceaneering and EWI results. The standard deviation was ±0. the data is not strictlycomparable since test conditions vary. limited undersizing and some significant oversizing. with frequent outliers..1 mm have been achieved [32].1 to 1.. ~ 0. Another low σ obtained from laboratory results from EWI above is due to multiple techniques and considerable time and effort [21].com/en/applications/defect-sizing-pipe-welds/ 7/10 . Mean error is typically well below 1 mm.62 for the other set. and the systematic error was small in both cases. and typically only half the defect sizes could be directly measured by standard TOFD. In principle. "Achieved Sizing Accuracy" [21] Det Norske Veritas Studies by DNV on defect sizing using one amplitude-based and one TOFD-based data set showed an atypically low σ [22]. The combined techniques gave better results (smaller σ) than simple zones. while DNV uses 204. There is no evidence that unpublished (or proprietary) results show any significant improvement. AUT procedures are not identical.

Waterloo. NUREG/CR-5068.W.9. Initial results are encouraging. Belgium. [15] Highmore P.ndt. [18] ASME. σ varies up to ± 2 mm.H. Materials Evaluation. 8. though TOFD is severely limited for small and near-surface defects. 10-13 September. H. Bush. [8] Silk M.G. "Piping Inspection Round Robin". Insight vol. K. repeatable accuracies of ± 0. J. 2003. Connelly.1998. 1976.P. "Crack Measurement in Steel Plates using TOFD Method". H.. No. C. Lefevre. 439. 85.V. Ontario provided valuable advice and assistance. 2000. p. 3rd European-American Conference on NDT Reliability and Demining".net/article/v05n03/eginzel/eginzel. W.J. p. typically use zone discrimination. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. there is a consistent range of accuracies. more should be done specifically on pipeline materials and AUT conditions. British Journal of NDT. 9. Washer. 11. as done in the nuclear industry. Fortunately.htm [2] Gruber G. Study on "Weld Defect Acceptance Criteria". No. [10] Adler L. and produce improved sizing accuracy. McClung. Vol. p. [20] Mair H.. but like all DSP techniques. Final report for a group of sponsors. Brugges. [3] Bray A.S. 45066CAP. "Estimation of the height of surface-breaking cracks using ultrasonic methods". The good news is that more recent results (Oceaneering and EWI) are notably better than earlier results (Shell and Advantica). so quoted accuracies are often undefined as an eyeball range. T. Vol 1: Text". "Ultrasonic Time of Flight Diffraction". No. p. such ultrasonic frequencies are impossible in ferritic steels. Moreau and E. 7. Most studies show sizing errors falling within an eyeball range of ± 1 mm or so. [6] Murphy R. F. p. Laboratorium Soete.3 mm in the field are achievable today. "The Ultrasonic Inspection of PISC II Plate 2 by the Risley Nuclear Laboratories". S. 1989. 6. Pipeline AUT defect sizing is becoming more critical with the increasing use of Fitness-For-Purpose. May 2000. Schäfer.22 05 2013 materials using much shorter λ and perfect geometry.A.. "Characterization of Flaws in Piping Welds using Satellite Pulses". [14] Zippel W. 5. "Review of Theories of Scattering of Elastic Waves by Cracks". "Standard Practice for Mechanized Ultrasonic Examination of Girth Welds Using Zonal Discrimination with Focused Search Units". Vol. 40. Fortunately. Pardikar. [12] Baby S. 2002. 2. www. 85. Ent and T. [9] Charlesworth J. TOFD gives better sizing than amplitude methods. NDT. Research Studies Press.G.olympus-ims. approximation or whatever. 12. Hendrix and W.J. Acknowledgements Mr. "Ultrasonic Backscatter Sizing Using Phased Array -Developments in Tip Diffraction Flaw Sizing". [22] Förli O.R. "Defect Sizing and ECA: State of the Art in AUT". Gent.L. back diffraction. 1984. "Performance Demonstration for Ultrasonic Examination Systems".net. 03.J. work is underway on alternative and improved sizing techniques. 1987. With one or two exceptions.A. the best solution is to use more than one technique to avoid the gross oversizing (5 mm or more) that can occur [22]. Claessens. A.. [11] Schmitz V. References [1] Ginzel E. 1995. 2002. the best solution with current technology is to add ± 1 mm to ±1. 7. IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics. which is understandable for small defects. 2000.. Though some work has been done on the limits of ultrasonics in steels [33]. though it has not been proved in trials.G. ASME. in-service inspections are probably significantly worse than laboratory round-robins. "Defect Sizing using Ultrasonic Diffraction". TOFD Signal Processing [34]: This technique deconvolves the TOFD signals to permit smaller defects to be sized. Back Diffraction [13]: This technique offers potential for measuring defects down to ± 0. "Qualification of AUT for Offshore Pipelaying and the Role of NDT". 679.com/en/applications/defect-sizing-pipe-welds/ 8/10 . [7] PISC. p.A Brief History". R/D Tech is working on a number of fruitful areas: 1. Cook.1. Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve? Conclusions 1.d. The main problems are correct signal identification and ring-time resolution.5 mm.V. Oceaneering OIS provided proprietary data submitted to DNV. Doctor. 3. depending on defects.5 mm to all sizing estimates for conservatism.J.. standard deviation. From an FFS perspective. "Ultrasonic Defect-Sizing using Decibel Drop Methods. Materials Evaluation. Improved Focusing [35]: An increased number of elements and matrix array should decrease the focal spot size. [21] Lozev M. 42. conditions etc. not undersizing. E 1961-98.. with a random sizing error.net. Gilroy-Scott. 44 no.K. which should improve sizing significantly. EWI Project No. this should cover any undersizing. Bouma. no. http://www. 3. Pipeline Technology Conference. Whaley and R. Unfortunately. 21-24 May. 11. T. PNNL-10475. 1976.A. 2001. Muhammad. There are doubtless other developments going on elsewhere in the world. 331.. and multiple angles [6] if time permits (especiallyfor risers and tendons). typically well below 1 mm. and A.P. despite differences in processes. 2000.J. [23] Heasler P. 42. For larger defects. "Flaw Sizing and Flaw Characterization with HOLOSAFT". Vol. British Journal of NDT. T. Ch. "Flaw sizing using mechanized ultrasonic inspection on pipeline girth welds". G.. p. though better knowledge of the processes may explain some of this. p.1 mm have been achieved [32]. 3. 769. Materials Evaluation. 9. 1979. [17] Gross B. Vol. misfiring is possible. 2000. American Society for Testing and Materials. Generally. Berlin. [19] Kraut E. 1997. Temple.R. The few pipeline studies available show fairly consistent results. NDE-Vol 13.. p. which are more microstructurally-limited. There is no published evidence that accuracies of ± 0. private communication. Poulter. "Defect sizing by ultrasonic ANDSCAN".. SU-23. 1988. Balasubramanian and R. 1977.B. and J. 2000. Ginzel. Pincheira and G. Stanley. de Jaeger. submitted to Insight. Studies consistently show a trend to oversizing. Mean sizing error is small. [16] ASTM 1998. However. Rogerson and L. J. Abstracted by S. "Flaw Size Measurement in a Weld Sample by Ultrasonic Frequency Analysis". 6. Ed Ginzel of Materials Research Institute. especially for offshore risers and tendons..J. The pipeline industry does not use rigorous data analysis or terminology. 2.V.. 7. [13] Jacques F.A. NDE for the Energy Industry. RMS. Atomic Energy Control Board Project No. p. Canada... "An Analysis of UT Amplitude Comparison Flaw Sizing and Dissection Results in Steel Pipe". [5] Ismail M. Müller and G. there are a number of improved techniques on the agenda. 44. p. 75. 2001. Schick. [24] Denys R. Welding Research Council Bulletin 420. 4. Vol 5. van Dijk and A.. Appendix VIII. NDT..H. "Validation of Current Approaches for Girth Weld Defect Sizing Accuracy by Pulse-Echo. Time-Of-Flight Diffraction and Phased Array Mechanized Ultrasonic Testing Methods". 2003.. and S. with several outliers.N. 162. 2002. "Mechanized Ultrasonic Inspections of Pipeline Girth Welds . Insight vol. TOFD.D. v. 426. 1984. [4] Dijkstra F. 2003. and R. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.

and R.84 to 4. [30] Oceaneering International.net/article/ecndt02/morgan/morgan.. Barcelona. and M. 2003. PA. Advanced NDT Solutions Weld Inspection Solutions Corrosion Inspection Solutions Composite Inspection Solutions Tube Inspection Solutions Industrial Scanners Aerospace Inspection Solutions Thickness Gages 45MG 38DL PLUS Magna-Mike 8600 26MG 35RDC Transducers and Accessories Videoscopes.. The COBRA can hold two PA probes to inspect pipes with OD ranging from 0. 2003. It makes efficient phased array weld inspections on ferromagnetic piping or vessel using up to 6 probes.. page 827​ 830. Legori. private communication. 1991. 2000. "Crack Depth Measurements in Thin-Walled Tubing by Time-Of-Flight". Vol.htm [26] Morgan L. Prentice. Farzbod. 8th ECNDT. Calgary. G. [32] Lindenschmidt K. The Welding Institute Reference 3527/11/81. Moles. A. [35] GTI. T. M. 2003.F.com/en/applications/defect-sizing-pipe-welds/ 9/10 .. Moles and A. Gent.C. "Advanced Ultrasonic Techniques in Pipeline Girth Welds Examination". Houston.. IPC 2000. 11. www. 2002.. 2003. [25] Morgan L. "Production and Inspection Issues for Steel Catenary Risers". P. [33] Mudge P. [27] Kopp F. 2003.J. 49. ICPIIT VIII. 2093. p.5 in. Wilkinson.. Dusatko. G. Offshore Technology Conference. Gas Technology Institute Project "Control of Horizontal Beam Width with Phased Array Transducers RPTG-0334".22 05 2013 Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve? sponsors. Laboratorium Soete. 2003. "Comparison of Multi-Probe and Phased Array Girth Weld Inspection Systems". June 18-21. Nolan. May 2000. Bryant. Products used for this application COBRA Scanner The COBRA manual scanner combined with OmniScan MX flaw detector and a 16:128 module is used to perform circumferential weld inspection on small-diameter pipes. Fan. 1981. Review of Progress in Quantitative NonDestructive Evaluation. Stewart and G. 2003. industrialstrength. F. ASME 2000 International Pipeline Conference. "The Performance of Automated Ultrasonic Testing (AUT) of Mechanised Pipeline Girth Welds". Belgium. by R/D Tech. Also. [29] Sjerve E.olympus-ims. ASME PVP-Vol. PipeWIZARD The PipeWIZARD is an automated girth weld inspection system using phased array and conventional UT techniques (AUT). Insight November. Specially designed for in-site weld-to-weld inspection in extreme environments. TOFD. p. [31] Förli O. Borescopes Industrial Videoscopes Industrial Fiberscope Industrial Rigid Borescopes Light Sources Inspection Assist Software Turning Tools Applications Application Notes Applications Support Eddy Current High Speed Video Microscope Solutions Optical Metrology Phased Array Remote Visual Inspection Ultrasound XRF/XRD Flaw Detectors Ultrasonic Flaw Detectors Phased Array Eddy Current Products Eddy Current Array Products BondMaster Transducers and Probes Pulser-Receivers Microscope Solutions Laser Confocal Microscopes Opto-digital Microscopes Semiconductor & Flat Panel Display Inspection Microscopes Upright Metallurgical Microscopes Inverted Metallurgical Microscopes Modular Microscopes Polarizing Microscopes Measuring Microscopes Stereo Microscopes Objective Lenses Digital Cameras Image Analysis Software High Speed Video Cameras i-SPEED LT i-SPEED 2 i-SPEED TR i-SPEED 3 i-SPEED FS i-SPEED PL Cyclocam i-SPEED Comparison i-SPEED Videos Support Service Centers PDF Library Video Gallery Software Downloads Training Academy Obsolete Products ISO Certifications MSDS Datasheets Integrated Inspection Systems Bar Inspection Systems Tube Inspection Systems NDT Systems Instrumentation XRF and XRD Analyzers Handheld XRF Portable XRF Benchtop XRF Process XRF Portable XRD Benchtop XRD Alloys and Metals XRF Analyzers Precious Metals XRF Analyzers Scrap and Recycling XRF Analyzers Applications Solutions Key Optical Metrology Laser Confocal Microscopes Opto-digital Microscopes Measuring Microscopes www. "Size Measurement and Characterization of Weld Defects by Ultrasonic Testing". Part 3: The effect of metallurgical features in ferritic steels". Y. "The use of automated ultrasonic testing (AUT) in pipeline testing". private communication. one-axis encoded motorized scanner that provides fully automated data acquisition. WeldROVER The WeldROVER is a simple. on-shore and offshore. October 1-5.N. D. Paper number PVP2003-1852. [34] Honarvar F. 2003. UT. 456. 5-8 May 2003. Kirkham and P. "A novel signal processing technique for enhancement of time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) signals". Houston. Alberta. D. Sinclair. Perkins.ndt. [28] Cataldo G. Stevens.

olympus-ims. All rights reserved.com/en/applications/defect-sizing-pipe-welds/ 10/10 . Terms Of Use | Privacy Statement www.22 05 2013 Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds – What Can We Really Achieve? Copyright 2013 OLYMPUS CORPORATION.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->