Content

 KINT Acceptance Criteria for Phased Array UT (ACPA) project

 Approach of phase D – Field verification
 Search for welds
 NDT Test plan
 Data evaluation
 Results & Conclusions

2
 The KINT ACPA project
• Part A • Part B
 Goal: • Inventory • Evaluation
literature projects
Development of Acceptance Criteria for ultrasonic
Phased Array Examination of Steel Components with
Small Wall Thickness
Part E
 Scope
Thin walled low alloy steel between 3.2-8.0 mm
 Original plan:
Concept
 Four project “phases” Evaluation
Std.
 Theoretical – practical
• Part C • Part D
 Past experience – testing/validating • Fracture Mech • Field
validation verification
 Phase A & B provide proposed AC and supporting
information
 Phase C & D validate rejection rate (D) and
Probability of Failure for standard case (C) Legenda: Experience
Checking
Theoretical part
3
Practical part
 Approach of Phase D
 Objective: To compare PA testing, with draft acceptance criteria, with RT testing to
arrive at the final draft of the acceptance criteria
 The provisional acceptance criteria from other phases were used as a starting point
for field evaluation.

Thickness range in mm Maximum allowable length (L_max) if the Amplitude

(t= thickness examined) amplitude does not exceed A.

t L_max A

3,2 < t ≤ 8 6 mm 70% FSH

 Projects with welding are needed to determine whether these draft acceptance
criteria for PAUT result in similar rejection results as radiography does.
4
 The search for welds
 Possible sources for welds:
 Scout Phased Array projects where X-ray can be applied;

 Contact pipe spool fabrication shops, where already X-ray is performed on welds, to
perform additional PAUT;
 Collect welder qualifications from X-ray bunkers.

“The availability of field work for phase D could be a problem, as companies that
employ PA may not want to reintroduce radiography as they would lose the benefits
of moving to PA”

 Ultimately no field project was available and only a handful of welds from bunkers
and leftovers from Phase B where collected.

5
 The search for welds
 The alternative was to start producing welds
within the project itself; shop welds.

 The tubing material for these shop welds has

been provided by power industry companies
(Uniper, RWE and Engie).

 Supplied materials have both ferritic and

martensitic microstructures.

 Welding process is manual GTAW, according

Welding Procedure, conducted by certified
welders contracted for this project.

6
 The search for welds
 Shop welds
 Producing the welds took several months and careful planning for NDT

 This resulted, together with samples from phase B and bunkers, in 911 welds

Wall
Diameter Number
Material thickness
(mm.) of welds Number of welds vs. wall thickness
(mm.)
450
Phase B + bunker samples various 3,2 17
400
Bunker samples (3,4-3,7) various (3,4-3,7) 4
Bunker samples, other various (4,1-6,1) 32 350

16Mo3 57,0 4,0 110 300

10CrMo9-10 44,5 4,8 120 250

X20CrMoV 11-1 51,0 5,0 150 200 392

T24 (7CrMoVTiB) 38,0 5,0 110 150
10CrMo9-10 44,5 5,6 210 100 216
16Mo3 44,5 6,3 40 139
50 101
13CrMo44 38,0 6,8 20 63
0
16Mo3 44,5 7,1 95 3,2-4,0 mm 4,1-5,0 mm 5,1-6,0 mm 6,1-7,0 mm 7,1-8,0 mm
Bunker samples plate 8 3
total number: 911

7
 NDT Test plan
 All samples were examined with PAUT and RT and, to ensure uniform way of
working and reliable data, NDT service providers developed an NDT procedure
which was assessed to the test plan.
 Test plan, report format and standardized calibrations sets where based on the
phase B test plan, with the differences:
 Phase D is limited to double sided PAUT

 No correlation between RT and PAUT indications, in phase D both examinations

are reported separately.

8
 Data evaluation
 The reporting spreadsheet contained a dashboard showing the effect of applied
acceptance criteria.

 Spreadsheet dashboard shows:

 Applied acceptance criteria for PAUT
 Number of welds in database
Draft AC resulted in significantly more
 Rejection rate PAUT vs RT rejection for PAUT
 Number of rejected welds PAUT vs RT
 Number of rejected defects per type and method
9
 Data evaluation
 Tuning the draft AC by combining the amplitude and length criteria resulted in
significantly less rejection for PAUT

𝐒𝐮𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐦

 Except for the rejection rate? % = 𝐱 𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐦

10
 Data evaluation
 By analysing the data it can be concluded that short defects are oversized with PAUT

Detected defects length [mm] distribution per method

600

500
Number of defects

400

300

200

100

0
[0-1> [1-2> [2-3> [3-4> [4-5> [5-6> [6-7> [7-8> [8-9> [9-10> [10-20> >20
RT 519 128 46 36 32 6 6 4 3 7 12 8
PAUT 3 31 66 236 170 114 70 39 29 32 80 41

11
 Data evaluation
Next step: evaluate all possible combinations for amplitude en length criteria.
Goal: Ratio PAUT vs. RT = 1
Rejection rate; due to overestimation no combination possible for ratio of 1, its assumed
that ratio of 3,0 (green area) is equivalent.

12
 Data evaluation
Next step: evaluate all possible combinations for amplitude en length criteria.
Goal: Ratio PAUT vs. RT = 1
Rejected welds; green band are possible combinations for ratio of 1

13
 Data evaluation
 Considerations:
 Use of evaluation level to reduce false calls
 Length = max 6mm (from phase C)
 Adjust only amplitude to find optimum

14
 Data evaluation
 Dashboard shows best achievable results for tuning the rejection amplitude.

 Effect of tuning on defect population?

15
 Data evaluation
 Next step: Heat maps to visualize defect distribution against type and length

16
 Data evaluation
 Consideration: no defect characterisation for PAUT, use only length and amplitude

17
 Data evaluation
 Applying the acceptance criteria for RT and PAUT

A > 120%
or
L > 6mm

18
 Data evaluation
 Next step: additional evaluation per batch and material
 Dividing the samples into subsets showed that some outliers increased the average.

19
 Data evaluation
 Considerations for further tuning:
 criteria set for length at 6 mm and amplitude
120% is just on the edge of the green area
 many of the sub sets (including the martensitic
materials) have a ratio around 0.5 meaning
that PAUT rejects far less welds than RT.

20
 Data evaluation
 Lowering the rejection amplitude to 100% resulted in improvement:
 More balance between subsets

 Less trimming of short defects with relatively high amplitude

21
 Data evaluation
 Last step: introduction of level 2 and 3 for AC
 sample set included detailed information for RT acceptance level 1, 2 and 3

22
 Result
 Final proposal for AC PAUT (double sided)

23
 Conclusions
 The data from phase D (field verification) revealed, just as the other
phases, that:
 Characterization of defects is limited.
 Short defects with PAUT are overestimated.
 PAUT has better detection for planar defects.

 By adjusting the amplitude, similar results as with RT can be

achieved without compromising integrity by respecting the allowable
length from phase C.
 Thank you!

 Phase D project team – Jan Heerings (coordinator), Eric van Broekhoven, René
Coenen, Radboud Pijs, Casper van Hoek, Richard Meijninger, Erik van der Spek,
Sanne Lit, Wilbert Martens and Jan Willem Noteboom

 Project leads – Leo Ton, Casper Wassink and Erik Zeelenberg