Technology For The Examination of Boiler Tubing Dissimilar Metal Welds, Revision 1

Technology for the Examination of Boiler Tubing
Dissimilar Metal Welds, Revision 1
2012 TECHNICAL REPORT
11012003
11012003
Technology for the
Examination of Boiler Tubing
Dissimilar Metal Welds,
Revision 1
EPRI Project Manager

S. Walker
3420 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1338
USA
PO Box 10412
Palo Alto, CA 94303-0813
USA
800.313.3774
650.855.2121
askepri@epri.com 1026538
www.epri.com Final Report, October 2012
11012003
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF

WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE
TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR
ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS
DOCUMENT.
REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY ITS TRADE
NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE OR
IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI.
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION, UNDER CONTRACT TO EPRI, PREPARED THIS REPORT:
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are
registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2012 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
11012003
Acknowledgments The following organization, under contract to the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), prepared this report:
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

47 Water Street, Suite 200
Mystic, CT 06355
Principal Investigator
J. Arnold
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
This publication is a corporate

document that should be cited in the
literature in the following manner:
Technology for the Examination of

Boiler Tubing Dissimilar Metal
Welds, Revision 1.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2012.
1026538.
 iii 
11012003
11012003
Product
Description Until recently, the typical nondestructive evaluation (NDE) detection
methods for evaluating dissimilar metal tubing joined by austenitic
filler metal welding, induction pressure welding, or nickel-based filler
metal welding were the use of liquid penetrant examinations to
detect surface cracking and the use of conventional fixed-angle pulse-
echo or linear phased array ultrasonic examination to detect
subsurface cracking. Radiographic techniques (both conventional and
digital) have also been used to detect cracking in these welds.
Although these methods are effective for detecting later-stage
damage (macro-cracking), they provide no information about earlier-
stage damage. In the case of the liquid penetrant examinations, the
technique provides no information on the through-wall extent of
damage and, as a consequence, can falsely indicate the serviceability
of the weldment. This report documents the evaluation of a number
of ultrasonic approaches including time-of-flight diffraction
(TOFD), passive focus linear phased array, and two-dimensional
linear phased array technology that can be used to evaluate these
welds.
Background
Failures of dissimilar metal welds in fossil-fuel-fired boilers continue
to be a significant cause of forced outages. More than 40% of recently
surveyed utilities have experienced a dissimilar metal weld–related
forced outage within the last five years. Because the industry relies on
proactive examinations to detect service damage in these welds prior
to failure, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) initiated this
project to consider the current state of ultrasonic examination
technology for high-temperature tubing dissimilar metal welds and
to evaluate various examination protocols.
Objectives
To support the project objective of evaluating various ultrasonic
NDE techniques for the assessment of dissimilar metal welds, over
50 service-exposed dissimilar metal weld samples from various
utilities were obtained. Some samples came from the sample library
of Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., and others were provided by
EPRI specifically for this project.
v
11012003
Each tube was given a sequential number for identification purposes.
Service history on these welds was not available. Therefore, prior to
examination, qualitative weld chemistry composition was measured
on each sample using a portable alloy analyzer to aid in identifying
the type of dissimilar metal weld. This process confirmed that the
Phase One austenitic dissimilar metal welds were all fabricated with
stainless steel (300-series) filler metal and the Phase Three dissimilar
metal welds were fabricated with a nickel-based alloy. Similar alloy
testing was performed (during Phase Two) on the induction pressure
dissimilar metal welds.
Approach
There are three generic types of dissimilar metal welds, and each was
evaluated in a separate phase of the project. This report covers all
three phases and includes dissimilar metal welds fabricated with 300-
series (austenitic) filler metal, dissimilar metal welds fabricated by the
induction pressure welding process (no filler metal) and dissimilar
metal welds joined with a nickel-based filler metal.
Results
The technical review of the current state of ultrasonic examination
technology for high-temperature tubing dissimilar metal welds
fabricated with austenitic filler metal or nickel-based filler metal or
fabricated by the induction pressure welding process revealed
significant improvements over conventional examination techniques
such as liquid penetrant examinations to detect surface cracking and
over conventional fixed-angle pulse-echo ultrasonic and radiographic
techniques to detect subsurface cracking.
Applications, Value, and Use

Utilities can use the results of this report to aid in performing
examinations of dissimilar metal welds in tubing within the boilers of
their conventional power plants for detection of cracking.
Keywords
Dissimilar metal welds
Nondestructive evaluation
Phased array
Time-of-flight diffraction
Ultrasonic examination
 vi 
11012003
Abstract
In an effort to determine the optimum method for examination of
fossil power plant dissimilar metal boiler tube welds, researchers
obtained several samples removed from service and applied various
ultrasonic examination technology to these samples. The welds in
these samples were made with either austenitic stainless steel weld
metal or nickel-based weld metal or by the induction pressure
method. The welds were then subjected to conventional and
advanced ultrasonic examination in the laboratory. For all
examination methods, there was good correlation in the ultrasonic
detection and characterization of macro-cracking and large
fabrication defects as compared to the actual metallurgical findings.
 vii 
11012003
11012003
Executive
Summary Failures of dissimilar metal welds in fossil-fuel-fired boilers continue
to be a significant cause of forced outages. More than 40% of recently
surveyed utilities have experienced a dissimilar metal weld–related
forced outage within the last five years. Because the industry relies on
proactive examinations to detect service damage in these welds prior
to failure, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) initiated this
project to consider the current state of ultrasonic examination
technology for high-temperature tubing dissimilar metal welds and
to evaluate various ultrasonic examination protocols.
There are three generic types of dissimilar metal welds, and each was
evaluated in a separate phase of the project. This report covers Phases
1, 2, and 3 and includes dissimilar metal welds fabricated with 300-
series (austenitic) filler metal, dissimilar metal welds fabricated by the
induction pressure welding process (no filler metal—that is,
autogenous), and dissimilar metal welds fabricated with nickel-based
filler metal.
The active damage mechanism in the first two types of dissimilar

metal welds covered in this report is creep-fatigue. This damage
mechanism is progressive in nature; that is, the cracking progresses
from creep cavitation to the coalescence of creep cavities into micro-
cracks to the linking of micro-cracks into macro-cracks, and finally to
the propagation of macro-cracks through the tube wall until failure
occurs. The active damage mechanism for the nickel-based filler
metal dissimilar metal welds is the nucleation and growth of creep
cavities along a planar array of globular carbides. Similar to the
creep-fatigue damage mechanism, the creep cavities coalesce into
micro-cracks, then link to form macro-cracks, and finally propagate
through the tube wall. Furthermore, the combination of creep
damage and the planar carbides decreases the toughness along the
fusion line, making the welds susceptible to low-ductility failures.
Thus, for all weld types, earlier detection of the cracking will result in
a greater degree of advanced notice so that proactive repair/replace
strategies can be implemented.
 ix 
11012003
The ultrasonic technologies compared in this project included
conventional pulse-echo, conventional pulse-echo with focused water
wedge, linear phased array, passive focus linear phased array, two-
dimensional linear phased array, two-dimensional linear phased array
with pitch-catch setup, and time-of-flight diffraction. Each of these
technologies was optimized on calibration standards to evaluate the
sample dissimilar metal welds for service-related damage. Then
laboratory examinations were performed on dissimilar metal welds
removed from service of various constructions, including six 300-
series filler metal welds, five autogenous induction pressure welds,
and three nickel-based filler metal welds. After the nondestructive
examinations were complete, the samples were destructively
evaluated to document the actual metallurgical conditions for
comparison to the nondestructive findings.
The technical review of the current state of ultrasonic inspection

technology for all three types of dissimilar metal welds revealed
significant improvements over conventional examination techniques,
such as liquid penetrant examinations, to detect surface cracking and
over conventional, fixed-angle pulse-echo ultrasonic evaluation and
radiographic techniques to detect subsurface cracking. The use of a
focusing lens with a fixed-angle transducer improved the
examination sensitivity of both the stainless steel fusion welds and
the pressure induction welds when compared to conventional broad-
beam pulse-echo techniques. The addition of the focusing lens
greatly enhances the response from planar flaws, which was
particularly evident for the induction pressure welds. Conventional
pulse-echo ultrasonic evaluation approaches, focused or unfocused,
were found to be less sensitive as compared to the use of focused
linear phased array ultrasonic technologies for the austenitic filler
metal welds.
For this comparison, beam angulation sweeping, as provided via the

phased array approaches, does provide some improvement in
detection. However, it appears that the real benefit is provided by
beam focusing, which enhances both resolution and through-wall
sizing capability, which is consistent with basic ultrasonic evaluation
principles. In general, the smaller the beam size produced by the
technique at the depth of the target, the smaller the detectable flaw
at that depth, and therefore the better the sizing—all other variables
being equal. Although focusing the single-element fixed-angle
ultrasonic approach halved the beam size, the focused linear phased
array techniques were even better, with the elevation focus phased
array probes operating in the pulse-echo mode providing the best
resolution. As through-wall flaw depth is the one of the common
measured parameters used to assess dissimilar metal weld remnant
life (the other is flaw length), accurate sizing has a significant impact
on the usefulness of in-service remaining life assessment.
x
11012003
In addition, the linear phased array ultrasonic evaluation techniques
are capable of collecting ultrasonic imaging data quickly and can be
encoded to capture data around the complete circumference of the
dissimilar metal weld. This is a significant improvement over the
manual, conventional, fixed-angle, single-element, pulse-echo
technique and even over the focused pulse-echo technique, which
requires data collection through a two-dimensional raster scan and is
therefore significantly more time-consuming. Additionally, by
encoding the examination data, the examination results can be
independently reviewed and stored to allow data comparisons after
additional service time. This provides additional advantage over the
purely conventional, manually implemented approaches.
 xi 
11012003
11012003
Table of Contents
Section 1: Background ............................................. 1-1
Section 2: Damage Mechanisms ............................... 2-1

Oxide Notching ............................................................... 2-1
Creep ............................................................................. 2-3
Fatigue ........................................................................... 2-4
Creep-Fatigue .................................................................. 2-4
Type I Carbide-Influenced Creep ........................................ 2-8
Section 3: Sample Selection ..................................... 3-1
Section 4: Technical Approach.................................. 4-1
Section 5: Examination Techniques .......................... 5-1

Conventional Fixed-Angle Single-Element Pulse-Echo
Ultrasonic ........................................................................ 5-1
Probe System ............................................................. 5-1
Examination Technique................................................ 5-3
Conventional Focused Ultrasonic (Fixed-Angle Water
Column with Focusing Lens) ............................................... 5-3
Probe System ............................................................. 5-3
Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic with No Elevation Focus
on the Passive Axis (Send/Receive Within One
Transducer) ..................................................................... 5-5
Probe System ............................................................. 5-6
1-D Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic with Elevation Focus
on the Passive Axis (Send/Receive Within One
Transducer) ..................................................................... 5-7
Probe System ............................................................. 5-8
Dual 2-D Array Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic
(Send/Receive in Separate Transducers, Each a 2-D
Array) ............................................................................. 5-9
Probe System ............................................................. 5-9
Examination Technique.............................................. 5-11
 xiii 
11012003
2-D Array Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic (Send/Receive
Within One Transducer).................................................. 5-11
Probe System ........................................................... 5-11
Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) Ultrasonic with “Micro”
Transducers and Deployment System ................................ 5-12
Probe System ........................................................... 5-13
Section 6: Calibration, Acquisition, and Sizing

Protocols ................................................. 6-1
Calibration ...................................................................... 6-1
Acquisition Approach ....................................................... 6-2
Analysis and Evaluation .................................................... 6-4
Section 7: Examination Results ................................ 7-1

Abbreviations and Conventions Used in the Results
Presentation ..................................................................... 7-2
Section 8: Discussion ............................................... 8-1

Influence of Flaw Positioning/Fusion Line Orientation ........... 8-2
Flaw Detection, Sizing, and Resolution ............................... 8-4
Results of Conventional Fixed-Angle Single-Element Pulse-
Echo Ultrasonic Examination ............................................. 8-6
Austenitic Filler Metal Welds ........................................ 8-6
Induction Pressure Welds ............................................. 8-7
Nickel-Based Filler Metal Welds ................................... 8-8
Results of Conventional Focused Ultrasonic Examination ....... 8-8
Austenitic Filler Metal Welds ........................................ 8-8
Induction Pressure Welds ............................................. 8-9
Nickel-Based Filler Metal Welds ................................. 8-10
Results of Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic (All)
Examination .................................................................. 8-10
Austenitic Filler Metal Welds ...................................... 8-13
Induction Pressure Welds ........................................... 8-18
Results of Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) Examination ...... 8-20
Austenitic Filler Metal Welds ...................................... 8-20
Induction Pressure Welds ........................................... 8-21
 xiv 
11012003
Section 9: Conclusions ............................................. 9-1
Recommendations ............................................................ 9-2
Section 10:References ............................................. 10-1
Appendix A: Through-Wall Sizing Guidelines .........A-1

Absolute Arrival Time Depth Sizing Technique .................... A-1
Depth Sizing Using Volume-Corrected Sectorial or
B-Scan Images ................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Comparison Images: Austenitic

Filler Metal Weld Dissimilar Metal
Welds ...................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Comparison Images: Induction

Pressure Weld Dissimilar Metal Welds ..... C-1
Appendix D: Comparison Images: Nickel-Based

Filler Metal Weld Dissimilar Metal
Welds ...................................................... D-1
 xv 
11012003
11012003
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Composite photomicrograph showing a severe

oxide notch in an austenitic dissimilar metal weld (20x
magnification, 3% Nital etchant) ........................................ 2-2
Figure 2-2 Composite photomicrograph showing the fusion
line on the alloy steel side of an austenitic dissimilar
metal weld containing various stages of creep-fatigue
damage (20x magnification, 3% Nital etchant) ................... 2-7
Figure 3-1 Fusion welded dissimilar metal welds with
austenitic filler metal ......................................................... 3-1
Figure 3-2 Induction pressure welded dissimilar metal welds ...... 3-2
Figure 3-3 Fusion welded dissimilar metal welds with nickel-
based filler metal ............................................................. 3-2
Figure 5-1 Overall view of a conventional fixed-angle single-
element pulse-echo ultrasonic system with a wire
encoding device .............................................................. 5-2
Figure 5-2 Beam simulation of a conventional probe ................. 5-2
Figure 5-3 Overall view of a conventional focused ultrasonic
system including probe and housing................................... 5-4
Figure 5-4 Beam profile of a conventional focused probe ........... 5-5
Figure 5-5 Overall view of a linear phased array ultrasonic
system with a 5L16 transducer positioned in the tube
scanner ........................................................................... 5-6
Figure 5-6 Beam simulation of a 5L16 linear phased array
probe ............................................................................. 5-7
Figure 5-7 Overall view of the 7.5-MHz linear phased array
elevation focus probe mounted in the tube scanner .............. 5-8
Figure 5-8 Beam simulation of a 7.5-MHz linear phased
array probe with elevation focus ........................................ 5-9
Figure 5-9 Overall view of the two-dimensional linear
phased array probe mounted in the tube scanner .............. 5-10
 xvii 
11012003
Figure 5-10 Beam simulation of a 2-dimensional linear
phased array probe—pitch-catch mode ............................ 5-10
Figure 5-11 2-D pulse-echo beam simulations: (a) 0.200-
inch depth focus; (b) 0.200-inch projection focus ............... 5-12
Figure 5-12 Micro-time-of-flight diffraction beam simulation
on a fusion weld ............................................................ 5-13
Figure 5-13 Overall view of the micro-time-of-flight
diffraction ultrasonic equipment mounted in the tube
scanner ......................................................................... 5-14
Figure 6-1 Axial line scan ....................................................... 6-4
Figure 7-1 Composite photomicrograph of Sample 1-1,
noting the position of the various flaws referenced in
Table 7-1 ........................................................................ 7-3
Table 7-3 ........................................................................ 7-5
Table 7-5 ........................................................................ 7-7
Table 7-7 ........................................................................ 7-9
Table 7-9 ...................................................................... 7-11
Table 7-11 .................................................................... 7-13
Table 7-13 .................................................................... 7-15
Table 7-15 .................................................................... 7-17
Table 7-17 .................................................................... 7-19
 xviii 
11012003
Table 7-19 .................................................................... 7-21
Table 7-21 .................................................................... 7-23
Table 7-23 .................................................................... 7-25
Figure 7-13 Composite photomicrograph of induction
pressure weld Sample 4-1, noting the position of the
various flaws referenced in Table 7-25 ............................. 7-27
Figure 7-20 Composite photomicrograph of nickel-based
filler metal weld Sample T55 P13 at Section 1, noting
the position of the various flaws referenced in
Table 7-39 .................................................................... 7-41
Table 7-41 .................................................................... 7-43
 xix 
11012003
Table 7-43 .................................................................... 7-45
Table 7-45 .................................................................... 7-47
Table 7-47 .................................................................... 7-49
Table 7-49 .................................................................... 7-51
Table 7-51 .................................................................... 7-53
Table 7-53 .................................................................... 7-55
filler metal weld Sample 6-11 at Section 1, noting the
position of the various flaws referenced in Table 7-59 ........ 7-57
filler metal weld Sample 6-11 at Section 2, noting the
position of the various flaws referenced in Table 7-71 ........ 7-59
Figure 8-1 Variation of nickel-based dissimilar metal weld
fusion line geometry noted in Sample T54 P40 .................... 8-3
Figure 8-2 Comparison screen shots from two techniques:
(a) linear phased array 7.5 MHz; (b) conventional
fixed-angle ...................................................................... 8-7
Figure 8-3 Comparison screen shots: (a) linear phased array
7.5-MHz technique; (b) conventional focused ultrasonic
technique ........................................................................ 8-9
 xx 
11012003
Figure 8-4 Comparison screen shots: (a) Sample 13-1 with
fixed-focus probe; (b) Sample 13-1 with unfocused
probe ........................................................................... 8-10
Figure 8-7 Phased array examination results (polar,
sectorial, and C-scan views): (a) from a damaged tube;
(b) from a relatively undamaged tube ............................... 8-15
Figure 8-8 Comparison of linear phased array techniques
used on Sample 6-1 ....................................................... 8-17
Figure 8-9 Linear phased array results comparison for
pressure induction weld (Sample 13-1) ............................. 8-19
Figure 8-10 TOFD data for Tube 1; A-scan represents
Sample 1-2 flaw location ................................................ 8-21
Figure 8-11 TOFD data for Tube 13-1, showing no
discernible flaw indication .............................................. 8-22
Figure A-1 Simulated midwall indication with tip diffraction
and facets ...................................................................... A-2
Figure A-2 Simulated sectorial image with midwall
indication ....................................................................... A-2
Figure A-3 Simulation of surface-connected indications ............. A-3
 xxi 
11012003
11012003
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Elemental composition (wt%) of fusion welded

dissimilar metal welds with austenitic filler metal
samples, based on a portable alloy analyzer ...................... 3-4
Table 3-2 Elemental composition (wt%) of induction pressure
welded dissimilar metal welds (autogenous welds),
based on a portable alloy analyzer ................................... 3-5
Table 3-3 Elemental composition (wt%) of fusion welded
dissimilar metal welds with nickel-based filler metal
samples, based on a portable alloy analyzer ...................... 3-6
Table 7-1 Sample 1-1 optical metallographic findings ............... 7-3
Table 7-2 Sample 1-1 comparison of ultrasonic data ................. 7-4
Table 7-8 Sample 3-2 comparison of ultrasonic data ............... 7-10
Table 7-9 Sample 6-1 optical metallographic findings ............. 7-11
Table 7-10 Sample 6-1 comparison of ultrasonic data ............. 7-12
Table 7-11 Sample 6-2 optical metallographic findings ........... 7-13
Table 7-13 Sample 14-1 optical metallographic findings ......... 7-15
Table 7-14 Sample 14-1 comparison of ultrasonic data ........... 7-16
 xxiii 
11012003
Table 7-39 Sample T55 P13 at Section 1 optical
metallographic findings .................................................. 7-42
Table 7-40 Sample T55 P13 at Section 1 comparison of
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-42
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-44
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-46
 xxiv 
11012003
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-48
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-50
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-52
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-54
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-56
Table 7-55 Sample 6-11 at Section 1 optical metallographic
findings......................................................................... 7-58
Table 7-56 Sample 6-11 at Section 1 comparison of
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-58
Table 7-57 Sample 6-11 at Section 2 optical metallographic
findings......................................................................... 7-60
Table 7-58 Sample 6-11 at Section 2 comparison of
ultrasonic data ............................................................... 7-60
Table 8-1 Incident beam size .................................................. 8-5
 xxv 
11012003
11012003
Section 1: Background
Failures of dissimilar metal welds in fossil-fuel-fired boilers continue to be a
significant cause of forced outages. More than 40% of recently surveyed utilities
have experienced a dissimilar metal weld-related forced outage within the last
five years [1]. Because the industry relies on proactive examinations to detect
service damage in these welds prior to failure, the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) initiated a project to determine the current state of ultrasonic
examination technology for high-temperature tubing dissimilar metal welds and
to evaluate various ultrasonic examination protocols for this nondestructive
evaluation (NDE) application.
There are three generic types of dissimilar metal welds, and each was evaluated in
a separate phase of the project. This report covers Phases 1, 2, and 3 and includes
dissimilar metal welds fabricated with 300-series (austenitic) filler metal,
dissimilar metal welds fabricated by the induction pressure welding process (no
filler metal—that is, autogenous), and dissimilar metal welds fabricated with
nickel-based filler metal.
Dissimilar metal welds are a common and necessary design feature in many large
fossil utility boilers. Dissimilar metal welds are commonly found in utility boiler
superheater and reheater sections; the welds of interest for this project are those
that join ferritic (low-alloy steel) to austenitic (stainless steel) tubing.
Austenitic tubing is used at locations where increased creep strength and

oxidation resistance are needed because the operating tube metal temperatures
are too high for the lower-alloy ferritic grades (such as 2.25Cr-1Mo). These
welds are the direct result of engineering efforts to optimize the materials used to
fabricate high-temperature tubing sections. Because the dissimilar metal weld
location is dependent on the section design, the welds may be located in either
the furnace cavity or the penthouse.
With regard to dissimilar metal welds, the manner in which the dissimilar tubing
metals are joined is critical to the way that the weld will degrade. The three
generic ways that stainless steel and low-alloy steel boiler tubing are joined are
the following:
 Fusion welds with austenitic (300-series stainless steel) filler metal
 Induction pressure welds with no filler metal
 Fusion welds with nickel-based filler metal
 1-1 
11012003
The first two methods of joining were commonly used during boiler manufacture
until the mid-1980s, when nickel-based filler metals were widely adopted. Since
then, most dissimilar metal welds have been fabricated with nickel-based filler
metals (such as Inco A or Inconel 182). The rationale for the change to nickel-
based filler metals is detailed in EPRI report CS-4252 [2].
Until recently, the typical detection methods for evaluating austenitic dissimilar
metal welds have involved the use of liquid penetrant examinations to detect
surface cracking and the use of conventional fixed-angle pulse-echo or linear
phased array ultrasonic techniques to detect subsurface cracking, with the latter
phased array approach emerging only over the past few years, coincident with the
evolution of phased array ultrasonic equipment. Radiographic techniques (both
conventional and digital) have also been used to detect cracking in these welds
[3]. Although these methods are effective for detecting later-stage damage
(macro-cracking), they provide no information about earlier-stage damage and,
in the case of the liquid penetrant examinations, provide no information on the
through-wall extent of damage. Consequently, these techniques can falsely
indicate the serviceability of the weldment. In addition, the conventional fixed-
angle pulse-echo and radiographic techniques do not provide reliable
characterization of indications. That is, they do not identify or differentiate
fabrication flaws from service-induced damage. This report details the evaluation
of a number of enhanced ultrasonic approaches—including time-of-flight
diffraction, passively focused linear phased array, and two-dimensional linear
phased array technology—that may improve the detection, characterization, and
sizing capabilities for flaws in these welds.
 1-2 
11012003
Section 2: Damage Mechanisms
Although dissimilar metal welds have been in use since the 1960s [4,5], the
failure of dissimilar metal welds has been a common occurrence in the utility
industry since the mid 1970s because dissimilar metal welds, like the other
components in these high-temperature sections of the plant, have a finite life.
That said, while dissimilar metal weld failures have been reported to occur after
as little as two years of operation [3, 6], there are still unmodified dissimilar
metal welds in service that have operated in excess of 300,000 hours. These
documented variations in service experience are the direct result of the interaction
of the complex metallurgy of the dissimilar metal weld and the rigors of the
operating regime. Serviceability estimates for non-welded boiler tubes require the
consideration of temperature, stress, and tubing metallurgy, with the possibility
of wide variability in each. For estimating the remaining life of dissimilar metal
welds, the serviceability estimate is further complicated by the addition of a weld.
To improve fitness-for-service estimates, NDE is commonly performed with the
intent of detecting and characterizing damage prior to failure.
Oxide Notching
All three dissimilar weld types can exhibit an “oxide notch” at the outer or inner
surface of the weld at the interface between the low-alloy ferritic tubing and the
higher-alloy metal (weld metal in the case of filler metal welds, and base metal in
the case of the autogenous welds). Oxide notching is a localized corrosion process
that preferentially attacks and wastes the ferritic side at the metallurgical
mismatch [7]. Like other corrosion mechanisms, the local oxidation will continue
if the susceptible material (that is, the ferritic tubing) is exposed to the oxidizing
environment. Propagation, therefore, is hastened when the joint is subjected to
cyclic stresses that are sufficient to crack the protective oxide layer and expose the
underlying steel to the oxidizing environment. An oxide notch that propagated
significantly into the tube wall is show in Figure 2-1.
 2-1 
11012003
Figure 2-1
Composite photomicrograph showing a severe oxide notch in an austenitic
dissimilar metal weld (20x magnification, 3% Nital etchant)
These notches can contribute to weld failure, as they are stress risers. However, in
most cases the extent of the outer notch is not as significant as the subsurface
cracking resulting from the other active damage mechanisms. Oxide notching
can have a more prominent effect on thinner-wall tubes, such as those found in
reheater sections, where even a shallow notch can represent a significant portion
of the tube wall thickness. Note that when an imposed bending load of sufficient
magnitude is present, the notching at the interface can give way to oxidation-
fatigue cracking that propagates directly through the wall of the ferritic tubing,
ultimately causing failure of the tube.
 2-2 
11012003
The detection of oxide notching on the outside surface of the tube can be
accomplished through a comprehensive visual examination or a quality liquid
penetrant examination, and possibly with ultrasonic examinations and
radiography, depending on technique and procedure. However, since the
presence of an oxide notch is usually independent of the more serious subsurface
creep damage, the detection of oxide notching is of limited use when
determining weld serviceability. The detection of oxide notching on the inner
surface is limited to a volumetric technique (most likely ultrasonic examination);
however, oxide notching on the inner surface also has a limited correlation to
weld serviceability in the absence of active creep damage.
Creep
High-temperature sections where dissimilar metal welds are commonly located,

such as superheaters and reheaters, operate at temperatures known as the time-
dependent regime. That is, the material is not expected to operate indefinitely
but instead, failures are anticipated after a given amount of time in service.
At these higher temperatures, the steels used to fabricate these sections suffer a
decrease in tensile and yield strength that is a function of the time, temperature,
and stress experienced by the material. Over time, an applied stress will result in a
slow continuous deformation of the material, commonly known as creep [8].
This process, in isolation or in combination with other damage processes (such as
oxide notching or fatigue), ultimately results in failure.
The temperature at which creep degradation is active varies depending on the

alloy of steel. The allowable stress values provided in boiler design standards such
as the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section I, Power Boilers [9],
assist boiler designers by setting the values based on various properties, including
creep life, as detailed in Mandatory Appendix 1 of ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, Section II Part D, Properties, Materials [10]. For low-chromium
ferritic alloys such as 2.25Cr-1Mo low-alloy steel, the allowable stress values start
to decrease at 900°F (480°C), degrading to less than half the room-temperature
values at 1000°F (540°C) and continuing to degrade with additional increase in
temperature. The material properties of the 300-series austenitic steels that make
up the other half of the dissimilar metal joint also decrease as a function of
temperature; however, the inflection temperature is much higher, at
approximately 1050°F (565°C).
The ferritic side of the dissimilar metal weld is more susceptible to creep damage
accumulation as compared to the austenitic side. Furthermore, the rate of creep
degradation at the heat-affected zone may be influenced by the filler metal used
to fabricate the weld. This is due to migration of the carbon from the low-alloy
tubing into the filler metal during the welding process, resulting in a local soft
zone [11]. Further fostering damage along the ferritic heat-affected zone are the
stresses driven by the difference in the coefficients of thermal expansion between
the ferritic and austenitic materials.
 2-3 
11012003
Fatigue
As these sections of superheater and reheat tubing commonly experience

fluctuating stress during their life, fatigue also plays a role in the degradation of
dissimilar metal welds. The loading conditions can vary, ranging from minor
stress variations due to assembly or pendant sway to significant changes due to
unit cycling or tube interferences (binding). A component subjected to a
repeating stress will fail at a stress much lower than that required to cause failure
at a single load application. In other words, failure due to fatigue is related to the
number of cycles and the severity of the applied stress.
Purely fatigue-related failures of dissimilar metal welds are rare because the
operating temperatures place the weldments in the creep regime, resulting in a
combination or interaction of damage mechanisms known as creep-fatigue. That
said, fatigue failures can occur under certain circumstances. As an example and as
previously mentioned, the differential in oxidation resistance between the ferritic
and austenitic materials can result in an oxide notch on the outer or inner surface
along the weld interface. If a dissimilar metal weld with a pronounced oxide
notch is subjected to significant cyclic stresses at temperatures below the creep
regime (approximately 900°F, or 480°C), then propagation of that notch will
occur due to fatigue.
Another source for fatigue stress is related to the position of the dissimilar metal
weld within the furnace. In some boiler designs, the dissimilar metal welds are
located close to soot blowers. Soot blowers installed to clean the superheater and
reheater sections are typically designed to clean with steam. However, water
entrained in the cleaning steam piping system can spray onto the tubing, causing
quenching. Those quenching events are a source of fatigue.
In addition, the differences in thermal expansion between the ferritic and

austenitic materials can result in thermal ratcheting when the unit is cycled. This
fatigue loading from the thermal expansion differential, while less severe as
compared to other sources, can exacerbate damage accumulation along the ferritic
heat-affected zone.
Creep-Fatigue
Fusion welds fabricated with austenitic filler metal, such as the 309 alloy,
commonly fail due to creep-fatigue. Damage is promoted by a number of factors
including temperature, stress, and microstructure.
Temperature is a common variable for all high-temperature dissimilar metal weld

damage mechanisms. All other variables held equal, the higher the temperature,
the more rapid the damage progresses. That said, the effects of temperature are
often overshadowed by the role played by the various stresses applied to the
weldment.
 2-4 
11012003
The primary stress applied to the dissimilar metal weld is the longitudinal stress
resulting from internal pressure. While the minimum design thickness of the
tubing is determined by the hoop stress, calculated as specified in Section I of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Power Boilers [9], the orientation of
the hoop stress is not a driving stress for the dissimilar metal weld damage, with
the exception of the effects from the difference in thermal expansion. Although
dead weight loading is also oriented across the dissimilar metal weld, the load
from the suspended tubing and steam weight can be less significant as compared
to the loading resulting from internal pressure and thermal expansion. Ash and
slag deposits can increase the dead weight loading. It should be noted that dead
weight loading is not addressed by Section I of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code; instead it is addressed by the designer of the superheater or reheater
section.
Another load applied to fusion welds with E309 filler metal, and to a lesser
degree the nickel-based filler metal welds, is the stress resulting from the
difference between the thermal-physical properties, particularly the coefficient of
thermal expansion of the ferritic steel tube and of the austenitic filler metal. For a
temperature change of 1000°F (540°C), the expansion difference between
common 2.25Cr-1Mo low-alloy steel and E309 stainless steel is approximately
21% [12]. This differential applies a shear stress along the weld interface, causing
damage accumulation during every significant operating temperature change.
This differential is exacerbated by the variation in thermal diffusivity, which
tends to increase the tube metal temperature of the austenitic material as
compared to the low-alloy steel. Under steady-state, normal operating
conditions, this stress is not sufficient to cause weld failure, but it can influence
failure when combined with other loading conditions [3]. For example, the
thermal expansion stress can greatly reduce the time to failure under conditions
of frequent cycling. Nonetheless, thermal expansion stress and other non-
pressure-related stresses are not accounted for in the design calculations specified
in Section I of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Code.
Other stresses that affect the rate of creep-fatigue damage in the austenitic
dissimilar metal weld are secondary stresses resulting from system (tubing
assembly) design. Although secondary stresses can be significant when applied in
a steady-state condition, their effects are magnified when the unit is operated in a
cycling manner. One common source of these secondary stresses is the effects of
thermal growth on constrained tubing geometries. The positioning of dissimilar
metal welds in high-temperature assemblies should not only be a function of the
anticipated tube metal temperature, but should also reflect the need to minimize
bending stresses caused by constrained tubing geometries. Sources of bending
stresses include unequal lengths of mixed metallurgy tubing, incorrectly
positioned attachments, and fixed restraints such as hard ties or roof seals.
Although the dissimilar metal weld placement in new assemblies often addresses
these concerns, these stresses can occur in properly designed pendants when the
tubing attachments (slip spacers) fail or improperly impede movement due to
tubing misalignment.
 2-5 
11012003
Another common dissimilar metal weld location where secondary stresses from
bending can be significant is in the penthouse; the stress results from the
difference in thermal expansion between the header and the roof seal. For many
boiler designs, axial header expansion is fixed at the header outlet, allowing
growth toward the left and right ends, but boiler floor seals do not experience
similar axial expansions, as the floor seals are significantly cooler. For one such
boiler design, French and Skelonis [13] reported bending loads ranging from 12
to 23 ksi (83 to 159 megapascals) generated from the difference in header and
roof movement. Other sources of secondary loading in the penthouse include
header rotation, as well as header distortion including bowing and sagging.
The microstructure also affects the susceptibility of the dissimilar metal weld
joint to creep-fatigue. The difference in chromium between the lower-alloy
ferritic tubing and the austenitic filler metal fosters the transfer of carbon into the
higher-alloy material by diffusion during welding. Chromium carbides are then
formed by carbon that has migrated from the lower-chromium ferritic heat-
affected zone material to the higher-chromium austenitic weld. The resulting
denuded heat-affected zone is softened. Although the rate of carbon transfer will
decline during service, additional softening can occur as the chromium carbides
coarsen. Metallographically, evidence of this carbon migration and carbide
coarsening is that the ferritic heat-affected zone becomes decarburized [3].
Furthermore, the resulting microstructural variations with the E309 filler welds
along the low-alloy side of the weld can result in a difference in creep strength
and ductility that causes a redistribution of stresses into the inherently weaker
low-alloy tube material. This redistribution is hastened by the softening of the
ferritic heat-affected zone.
These metallurgical conditions combine to make the E309 filler metal fusion
weld susceptible to creep-fatigue cracking when subjected to cyclical secondary
stresses. The creep damage initiates adjacent to the fusion boundary along prior
austenite grain boundaries and propagates following the normal stages of creep
degradation—isolated cavitation / aligned cavitation / micro-cracking / macro-
cracking [8]. During the course of damage development, multiple initiation sites
are formed at locations through the thickness of the tube, as shown in
Figure 2-2. Failure occurs when the micro-cracks link, creating a continuous
creep crack that is greater than the critical flaw size, causing structural instability.
Note that in the example shown in Figure 2-2, damage at those sections of the
fusion line perpendicular to the longitudinal primary stresses (radial interfaces) is
significantly more advanced.
Consequently, an NDE technique that is capable of detecting incipient damage

in the ferritic material adjacent to the fusion line is desirable. Failure occurs once
the cracking has progressed to the extent that the remaining non-cracked
ligament is not sufficient to support the applied load. It is extremely important to
note that the process accelerates as it progresses through the various damage
stages. That is, while significant life may remain when the damage reaches
 2-6 
11012003
aligned cavitation, very little life may remain when it has reached the stage of
micro-cracking. Therefore, the earlier the damage can be detected, the more time
is available for planning remedial actions of repair, replacement, and redesign.
Figure 2-2
Composite photomicrograph showing the fusion line on the alloy steel side of an
austenitic dissimilar metal weld containing various stages of creep-fatigue damage
(20x magnification, 3% Nital etchant)
 2-7 
11012003
Type I Carbide-Influenced Creep
The use of nickel-based filler metal to join dissimilar metals typically results in a
three-to-five-fold increase in the serviceable life of the joint. This is a result of
both of the following:
 The thermal expansion of the nickel-based filler metal better matches the
ferritic materials as compared to the austenitic filler metals.
 Carbon migration from the ferritic tube to the weld is less because the carbon
activity gradient between the ferritic steel and the nickel-based weld metal is
lower than for stainless steel filler metals.
However, like other boiler materials, dissimilar metal welds fabricated with a
nickel-based filler metal are still susceptible to creep. However, the morphology
of damage is dependent on the loading conditions. Research performed by the
Central Electricity Generating Board in 1981 [14] reported creep-fatigue type
damage in welds that were exposed to high temperatures and stresses for
relatively short periods of time. But for those welds that were exposed to
conditions that result in failure after longer periods of time (150,000 hours or
greater), the cracking was associated with a semi-continuous globular chain of
carbides located very close to the ferritic/weld interface. This manifestation of the
damage is different and is related to carbides formed during the welding process,
and as it is more relevant to the long-term assessment of boiler tube dissimilar
metal welds, this project focused on the carbides.
During the fusion welding, two types of carbides are formed, known as Type I
and Type II carbides. Type I carbides are commonly observed as a line of relatively
coarse precipitates that form close to and parallel to the weld fusion line, in a
zone where there is significant mixing of the base and filler metals within the
weld puddle and where there is a sharp interface formed between the weld metal
and the HAZ. A typical view of Type I carbides is shown in Figure 2-3.
 2-8 
11012003
Figure 2-3
Photomicrograph showing Type I carbides along the fusion line on the alloy steel
side of a nickel-based dissimilar metal weld (5,000x magnification, scanning
electron microscopy) [12]
The Type II carbides are more commonly found in austenitic stainless steel filler
metal welds, but they are present in approximately 20% of the nickel-based filler
metal welds. They are commonly seen as a relatively wide band of fine
precipitates that are located between 2 and 4 mils (50 to 100 µm) away from the
weld interface. The Type II carbides are commonly found where local melting
has occurred, but with no significant mixing of the base and filler metals. Type II
carbides from a service-aged dissimilar metal weld are shown in Figure 2-4.
 2-9 
11012003
Figure 2-4
Photomicrograph showing Type II carbides adjacent to the fusion line on the alloy
steel side of a nickel-based dissimilar metal weld. (1,000x magnification, scanning
electron microscopy) [12]
Destructive analysis of service-aged nickel-based dissimilar metal welds reveals

that the Type I carbides coarsen (grow) with long-term exposure to elevated
temperatures. A typical view of the coarsened structure, taken after 6,000 hours
at 1157°F (625°C) is shown in Figure 2-5. These findings are supported by
research [15] that showed that at normal boiler tube operating temperatures, the
Type I carbides will grow indefinitely by the diffusion process. Exposure to
temperatures higher than 1200°F (650°C) found that the carbides will grow to a
size of 0.0118 mils (0.3 µm), but will then dissolve and eventually disappear
completely. At lower temperatures such as 1160°F (630°C), the carbide size
continues to increase as a function of exposure time.
 2-10 
11012003
Figure 2-5
Photomicrograph showing coarsened Type I carbides adjacent to the fusion line on
the alloy steel side of a nickel-based dissimilar metal weld. (10,000x
magnification, scanning electron microscopy) [12]
Creep cavitation has been reported associated with these coarsened carbide
structures where the cavities nucleate at the carbide/matrix interface. The Type I
carbide size associated with accelerated iso-stress creep rupture testing has been
reported on the magnitude of 0.0394 mils (1 µm) [16]. Based on these findings,
it is theorized that the Type I carbides act as nucleation sites for creep cavities to
form and grow, leading to cracking. As researchers postulate that void formation
occurs at a critical carbide size, analytical lifing tools such as EPRI’s PODIS
(Prediction of Damage In Service) software have been developed to estimate
weld life based on carbide growth rates [17]. Once creep cavities are formed, the
damage progression follows the traditional pattern of creep damage (cavity
formation leads to cavity alignment and then micro-fissuring, resulting in macro-
fissuring/cracking).
This damage occurs adjacent to the weld fusion line, in the region where the
Type I carbides formed. Because of the type and location of damage, failures
occur over a long period of time (driven by the exposure temperature) and feature
low-ductility fracture faces.
 2-11 
11012003
With regard to the Type II carbides, similar research has found that these other
carbides inhibit interfacial cracking. As such, a crack developing in Type I
material will stop or transfer to grain boundaries when Type II material is
encountered [3].
Consequently, an NDE technique that is capable of detecting Type I carbides

along the fusion line, coarsened to a size of 0.0394 mils (1 µm), would be the
most desirable, so that lifing methodologies as presented in PODIS could be
applied. Short of that, detecting the subsequent creep damage (for example,
micro-fissuring) would allow weld lifing based on remaining life fraction rules
associated with creep degradation. Similar for the other dissimilar metal weld
types, the earlier the damage can be detected, the more time is available for
planning remedial actions of repair, replacement, and redesign.
 2-12 
11012003
Section 3: Sample Selection
To support the project objective of evaluating various ultrasonic NDE techniques
for the assessment of dissimilar metal welds, over 50 service-exposed dissimilar
metal weld samples from various utilities were provided for this project. Some
were from the sample library of Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., and others
were provided by EPRI specifically for this project. Ultimately, six of the 300-
series stainless steel welds, as shown in Figure 3-1, were selected for inclusion in
the experimental study, as were five of the induction pressure welds. The five
induction pressure welds included in this study are shown in Figure 3-2. The
three fusion welded dissimilar metal welds with nickel-based filler metal are
shown in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-1
Fusion welded dissimilar metal welds with austenitic filler metal
 3-1 
11012003
Figure 3-2
Induction pressure welded dissimilar metal welds
Figure 3-3
Fusion welded dissimilar metal welds with nickel-based filler metal
Each tube was given a sequential number for identification purposes. Service
history on these welds was not available. Therefore, prior to testing, qualitative
weld chemistry composition was measured on each sample using a portable alloy
analyzer to aid in identifying the type of dissimilar metal weld. The testing
confirmed that the pool of dissimilar metal welds were all fabricated with
stainless steel (300-series) filler metal. The alloy analysis results of the six tubes
 3-2 
11012003
selected for further evaluation are provided in Table 3-1. Similar alloy testing was
performed of the induction pressure dissimilar metal welds. The results,
presented in Table 3-2, found that the austenitic tubing matched the
composition for SA-213 TP347 seamless tubing.
Table 3-3 presents the results of the analysis for the three tubes with nickel-based
filler metal. The alloy testing of the nickel-based dissimilar metal welds
determined that the welds joined SA-213 T22 low-alloy steel tubing to SA-213
TP321 seamless austenitic stainless steel tubing. While an elemental composition
was low with regard to the titanium content of the filler metal, based on the
relatively high amount of manganese, it is likely that the welds were made with
an Inconel 182 (ENiCrFe-3) filler metal.
 3-3 
11012003
Table 3-1
Elemental composition (wt%) of fusion welded dissimilar metal welds with
austenitic filler metal samples, based on a portable alloy analyzer
Tube Location Alloy Cr Mn Fe Ni Nb Mo

#
1 Low-alloy steel T22 2.28 0.29 96.50 ND ND 0.92
base metal
Weld metal E308 19.82 1.22 66.83 11.66 0.12 0.34
Stainless steel TP347 16.49 1.47 70.20 10.87 0.81 0.16
base metal
base metal
Weld metal E308 20.11 1.48 66.39 11.64 0.11 0.26
Stainless steel TP347 16.09 1.50 69.04 12.70 0.67 ND
base metal
base metal
Weld metal E309 21.16 1.68 64.76 12.11 ND 0.30
base metal
base metal
Weld metal E316 17.94 1.13 65.02 15.47 0.12 0.32
base metal
base metal
Weld metal E309 21.95 1.44 63.66 12.77 ND 0.19
base metal
base metal
Weld metal E308 18.86 1.22 67.57 12.03 ND 0.31
base metal
ND: not detected
 3-4 
11012003
Table 3-2
Elemental composition (wt%) of induction pressure welded dissimilar metal welds
(autogenous welds), based on a portable alloy analyzer
Tube Location Alloy Cr Mn Fe Ni Nb Mo

#
4 Low-alloy steel T22 1.97 ND 97.20 ND ND 0.83
base metal
base metal
base metal
base metal
base metal
base metal
base metal
base metal
base metal
base metal
ND: not detected
 3-5 
11012003
Table 3-3
Elemental composition (wt%) of fusion welded dissimilar metal welds with nickel-
based filler metal samples, based on a portable alloy analyzer
Tube Location Alloy Cr Mn Fe Ni Ti Mo Nb

#
T55, Low-alloy T22 1.97 0.55 96.33 ND ND 1.14 ND
P13 steel base
metal
Weld metal Inconel 14.42 6.95 14.54 62.17 0.3 ND 1.52
182
Stainless TP321 18.33 1.67 68.47 10.98 0.47 0.08 ND
steel base
metal
T54, Low-alloy T22 2.06 0.37 96.45 ND ND 1.12
P40 steel base
metal
182
Stainless TP321 17.7 1.48 69.5 10.63 0.62 0.08
steel base
metal
6-11 Low-alloy T22 1.89 0.51 96.53 ND ND 1.08
steel base
metal
182
Stainless TP321 18.05 2.05 68.88 10.26 0.69 0.07
steel base
metal
ND: not detected
 3-6 
11012003
Section 4: Technical Approach
The ultrasonic examination techniques evaluated during the first two phases of
the project included conventional single-element techniques, phased array
techniques, and time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) techniques. Specifically, the
following were investigated:
 Conventional fixed-angle, single-element, pulse-echo ultrasonic techniques
 Conventional focused ultrasonic techniques (fixed-angle water column with
single-element transducer and fixed focal depth)
 Linear phased array ultrasonic techniques using a multi-element, one-
dimensional (1-D) single transducer operated in pulse-echo and with no
passive axis focusing—that is, only active axis electronic focusing
 Linear phased array using a multi-element, 1-D single transducer operated in
pulse-echo, with elevation focus on the passive axis in addition to active axis
electronic focusing
 Dual two-dimensional (2-D) array linear phased array, with send/receive in
separate 2-D array transducers
 2-D array linear phased array transducer operated in pulse-echo, with
send/receive within one transducer
 TOFD with micro-transducers and deployment system
For the purposes of this study, all linear phased array data were acquired using an
encoded scanning device to ensure consistency in the comparisons of the phased
array techniques. A mini-encoder was mounted to a fixture that was made to
hold and rotate each tube so that data representing the complete circumference
of the weld could be recorded for all phased array techniques (1-D and 2-D) and
the TOFD technique. Examinations involving any of the pulse-echo and
dual-element, pitch-catch techniques and equipment were performed from the
low-alloy steel side of the tube, and the setup allowed the examination of the
low-alloy steel side weld fusion line by skipping sound off the inner surface of the
tube (full skip or second vee leg) to the fusion line and into the weld. For the
focused single-element and conventional single-element ultrasonic examinations,
the same approach was used in terms of examination on the full skip or second
vee leg of the beam. However, axial line scans were used for acquisition, and data
were recorded at the locations where the phased array techniques revealed
recordable indications. Axial line scans are more appropriate when using a fixed
beam angle, because the resulting data include the full echo-dynamic response as
 4-1 
11012003
the beam traverses the fusion line and heat-affected zone. This scan motion is
required for fixed-beam-angle examinations as the means to examine the full
through-wall dimension of the weld, and line scans are used as a means of
sampling at different points around the weld. To get a complete examination of
the weld using a single-element, fixed-beam angle, the only option is to perform
full raster scans, which include the line scans repeated at relatively tight
circumferential spacing for the full periphery; a process that is very time-
consuming to implement.
TOFD is a dual transducer examination technique in which the transducers are

mounted on opposite sides of the examination volume, with one transducer
working as the transmitter and the second as the receiver such that the
examination relies on detection of forward propagating reflections and
diffractions, as opposed to the back-reflected energy used in pulse-echo and
pitch-catch ultrasonic methods. The TOFD technique was implemented
accordingly, with the transducers straddling the weld.
The welds selected for inclusion in this project had to contain a minimum of two
representative flaws—either service-induced flaws, fabrication-related flaws, or a
combination of the two. In addition, the representative flaws had to be one of the
following:
 Outer surface connected cracking
 Inner surface connected cracking
 Midwall cracking
 Subsurface fabrication flaws
Baseline assessment of the dissimilar metal welds was conducted using encoded
traditional linear phased array setups using both 5-MHz and 7.5-MHz
transducers, with the intent of identifying tubes that met the criteria for inclusion
into the program.
The flawed areas were marked on each of the tubes that met these criteria—tube
numbers 1, 3, 6, 14, 25, and 34 for the austenitic filler metal welds, tube numbers
4, 5, 8, 9, and 13 for the induction pressure welds, and tube numbers T55-P13,
T54-P40, and 6-11 for the nickel filler metal welds. Multiple locations on each
of these tubes were then used as comparison points for each ultrasonic
examination method described in Section 5.
 4-2 
11012003
Section 5: Examination Techniques
The following section provides a description of each of the ultrasonic techniques
evaluated during the three phases of the project.
Conventional Fixed-Angle Single-Element Pulse-Echo

Ultrasonic
This technique uses a conventional single-element ultrasonic transducer attached

to a fixed-angle Rexolite (or similar plastic) wedge to produce a refracted shear
wave at a specific examination angle. This technique has a longstanding history
of use in performing weld examinations and has been a common technique for
weld examination for many years, typically operating in the range of 30°–60°
shear waves. By contouring the wedge to match the outside curvature of the
tubing, ultrasonic energy can enter the tube outer surface and bounce off the
inner surface of the tube to the weld fusion line and heat-affected zone. The
second leg of the beam—that is, after the reflection from the inner surface, is
used because it provides a more appropriate angle relative to the fusion line than
can be accomplished directly using the first leg of the beam. An encoded line
scan is recorded, and crack size estimation is performed directly from the stored
B-scan image.
Probe System
For this method of evaluation, an off-the-shelf 5-MHz, 0.5-inch (12.7-mm)

diameter single-element transducer with a 60° refracted shear wave wedge was
used to scan the tubes for ultrasonic reflectors. The 60° beam angle was selected
because it puts the beam near normal to the fusion line on the second leg of the
beam—that is, after having been reflected from the tube bore. A positional line
encoder was attached to the ultrasonic transducer assembly to provide positional
data to the acquisition system so that an ultrasonic cross-sectional image (B-scan)
could be created for each tube scanned. A typical view of the conventional
equipment is provided in Figure 5-1.
 5-1 
11012003
Figure 5-1
Overall view of a conventional fixed-angle single-element pulse-echo ultrasonic
system with a wire encoding device
Based on beam simulations (Figure 5-2), the beam dimension in the incident
plane for this probe is approximately 0.200 inch (5 mm) at the half-amplitude
points within the beam profile—that is, the 6-decibel (dB)-drop points. The
simulation in Figure 5-2 presents the beam intensity in terms of depth, distance,
and amplitude. As shown, maximum beam intensity is red, with corresponding
decreases in intensity as yellow, green, blue, and finally white for zero intensity.
Figure 5-2
Beam simulation of a conventional probe
 5-2 
11012003
Examination Technique
Normally, this technique would be applied using a manual raster scan around the
available circumference of the weld, and the operator would make a real-time
visual assessment of the data as it is produced. This approach has historically
been the industry standard for shear wave examination of welds and is generally
effective for detecting fabrication- and service-related damage, in particular for
the detection of fabrication flaws and cracks in ferritic welds.
To consistently acquire data for this comparison, the transducer assembly was
placed on the ferritic tube side of the weld at specified circumferential locations,
and axial scans were performed starting from the weld toe and moving back along
the axis of the tube for approximately 2–3 inches (50–75 mm). This scan length
ensured a complete interrogation of the weld interface on the second leg of the
sound path. The ultrasonic signal and positional data were combined into a B-
scan that was analyzed to identify and size ultrasonic reflectors in the ferritic
heat-affected zone area.
Conventional Focused Ultrasonic (Fixed-Angle Water Column

with Focusing Lens)
It is important to note that it has previously been demonstrated empirically that a

focused beam can penetrate into the coarser grain structure of the austenitic weld
metal with much less back scatter and therefore much less structure noise than
can a conventional, divergent beam—other potential contributing factors
including frequency all being otherwise the same. Because weld metal structure
noise starts at the heat-affected zone and continues into the weld metal, the
occurrence of noise starting at a propagation time that is consistent with the
primary damage location can make it difficult, when using conventional, broad-
beam ultrasonic approaches, to distinguish between the structure noise and
coincidentally located heat-affected zone damage. This has been demonstrated
previously and is well established.
The focused ultrasonic technique minimizes the echo-dynamic response from the
ferritic-to-austenitic interface (and beyond) and improves detection and sizing
capabilities via increased beam intensity and reduced beam size, respectively. As
implemented for this study, and when applied in the field, this technique uses a
manual line scanner attached to the transducer to provide positional data that
enables the construction of a B-scan image for analysis, documentation, and
archiving. Crack size estimation was performed directly from the stored B-scan
image.
Probe System
The focused ultrasonic probe assembly used a 5-MHz, 0.5-inch (12.7-mm)

diameter transducer and a wedge design that uses simple geometric focusing
capabilities optimized for evaluating dissimilar metal welds. The transducer and
focusing lens are housed in a water-filled wedge to apply an immersion approach
with a fixed water path and with the wedge in direct contact with the outside
 5-3 
11012003
surface of the tube to produce a refracted shear wave angle that is optimized for
the angle of the weld interface. The technique involves the assessment of the
ultrasonic beam on the second leg—that is, the reflection from the inner surface
of the tube and then into the weld, just as is done with the conventional
approach. The surface of the wedge is contoured to match the outside curvature
of the tubing. Coupling of this wedge to the tube is through a flexible, abrasion-
resistant membrane that conforms to the tube external curvature. Coupling of the
housing assembly and membrane is accomplished using a convenient ultrasonic
gel couplant. A focusing lens attached to the transducer face focuses the sound
beam at a specific distance that corresponds to the water path plus the metal path
in the low-alloy steel from the transducer to the inner surface of the tube to the
weld fusion line such that the beam is focused on the weld fusion line. The focal
distance calculated for the subject tubes was based on the water path distance and
the metal path distance (at a nominal 60° for the filler metal dissimilar metal
welds and induction pressure weld geometries) to place the focal spot midwall on
the second leg of the beam. A typical view of the focused ultrasonic equipment is
provided in Figure 5-3.
Figure 5-3
Overall view of a conventional focused ultrasonic system including probe and
housing
Based on beam profiling in the immersion tank (Figure 5-4), the beam
dimension for this probe is approximately 0.100 inch (2.5 mm). In this case,
profiling was performed using a ball target to map the beam cross section at the
intended focal distance due to the inability to simulate the focusing lens with the
available software. As with other beam profile measurements, this measurement
was based on the half amplitude points within the response profile.
 5-4 
11012003
Figure 5-4
Beam profile of a conventional focused probe
For examination of the dissimilar metal weld ferritic interface, the transducer
assembly is placed on the ferritic tube at specified circumferential locations, and
axial scans are then performed starting from the weld toe and moving back along
the axis of the tube for approximately 2–3 inches (50–75 mm). This scan length
ensures a complete interrogation of the weld interface. The ultrasonic signal and
positional data are combined into a B-scan image that is analyzed to identify and
size ultrasonic reflectors in the weld area. This technique is referred to as “Conv.
Focus Water” (that is, conventional focused with water wedge) in the data results
tables.
Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic with No Elevation Focus on

the Passive Axis (Send/Receive Within One Transducer)
Phased array ultrasonic technology provides a tool to enhance detection

performance for a wide variety of applications. An array transducer contains
multiple transducer elements, each of which can operate as a transmitter and/or
receiver. When the elements in a phased array transducer are pulsed sequentially
with small, yet precise timing delays imposed from one to the next, certain beam
characteristics can be varied, and in fact controlled. To do so, each element must
be supported by an independent pulser/receiver, and special electronic
instrumentation is required to phase the pulsing in the correct sequences and
with accurate delays. Linear phased array technology provides the ability, by
proper phasing, to steer the ultrasonic beam through a series of different angles
covering some angulation range, or sector, typically over a range of up to 60°. The
linear array is used primarily to influence beam direction, electronically focus the
beam (optimize beam density), and/or a combination of the two.
 5-5 
11012003
A true spatial representation of the linear array data requires that the data be
presented in polar coordinates. The amplitudes of the waveforms, plotted
sequentially at each digitization point along each waveform, are typically
presented in colors such that the presentation provides instant recognition of the
position of a reflector as well as its significance in terms of reflection amplitude.
These plots are known as sectorial scans, or S-scans, because they represent
sectors of the cross-section of the component in the plane of the beam steering.
Probe System
A linear array consists of a number of linear elements, arranged either in a single

row (1-D) or in a 2-D pattern. The ultrasonic probe used during this evaluation
was a 5-MHz, 16-element, 0.024-inch (0.6-mm) pitch (element spacing) linear
phased array probe attached to a nominal 55° shear wave wedge that was
contoured to match the outside diameter of the tube. The angled beam sweep
was set up from 35° to 80° at 0.5° increments. A photograph of the linear phased
array ultrasonic equipment is provided in Figure 5-5.
Figure 5-5
Overall view of a linear phased array ultrasonic system with a 5L16 transducer
positioned in the tube scanner
The focal laws were created to provide a projection (vertical plane) focus along
the weld fusion line. Based on beam simulations (Figure 5-6), the beam
dimension in the incident plane for this probe is approximately 0.071 inch
(1.8 mm) for the nominal 55° refracted angle.
 5-6 
11012003
Figure 5-6
Beam simulation of a 5L16 linear phased array probe
For examination of the dissimilar metal weld ferritic interface, an encoded

scanning device mounted the transducer assembly to a fixture capable of rotating
the tube so that full circumferential encoded data could be recorded for this
phased array technique. The encoded scanning device can be seen in Figure 5-5.
The index position of the transducer assembly allowed for complete coverage of
the low-alloy steel side weld fusion line with only one circumferential scan pass.
This technique is referred to as “LPA 5 MHz” in the results tables.
1-D Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic with Elevation Focus on

the Passive Axis (Send/Receive Within One Transducer)
All of the advantages of linear phased array technology mentioned above apply to
this technique, along with the addition of geometric focusing in the passive or
secondary axis. Elevation focus probes are 1-D linear probes with the elements
shaped to focus the beam in the lateral direction. These probes are now
commercially available and designed to incorporate the lens into the probe itself
so that it can be mounted on a standard wedge. The result is a high-resolution
probe with a beam electronically focused in the primary and geometrically
focused in the lateral (secondary or passive) directions without adding significant
cost or complexity to the inspection system.
 5-7 
11012003
Probe System
The ultrasonic probe used during this evaluation was a 7.5-MHz, 16-element,
0.020-inch (0.5-mm) pitch, elevation-focused linear phased array probe attached
to a nominal 55° shear wave wedge that was contoured to match the outside
diameter of the dissimilar metal weld tube. The angled beam sweep was set up
from 40° to 75° at 0.5° increments. A photograph of the passive axis linear phased
array ultrasonic equipment is provided in Figure 5-7.
Figure 5-7
Overall view of the 7.5-MHz linear phased array elevation focus probe mounted
in the tube scanner
The focal laws were created to provide a projection focus along the weld fusion
line. Based on beam simulations (Figure 5-8), the beam dimension in the
incident plane of the primary axis for this probe is approximately 0.067 inch
(1.7 mm) for the nominal 55° refracted angle.
 5-8 
11012003
Figure 5-8
Beam simulation of a 7.5-MHz linear phased array probe with elevation focus
For examination of the dissimilar metal weld ferritic interface, an encoded

scanning device mounted the transducer assembly to a fixture capable of rotating
the tube so that full circumferential encoded data could be recorded for this
phased array technique. The encoded scanning device can be seen in Figure 5-7.
The index position of the transducer assembly allowed for complete coverage of
the low-alloy steel side weld fusion line with only one circumferential scan pass.
This technique is referred to as “LPA 7.5 MHz” in the results tables.
Dual 2-D Array Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic (Send/Receive

in Separate Transducers, Each a 2-D Array)
All of the advantages of linear phased array technology mentioned above also
apply to this technique, along with improved signal-to-noise ratio due to the
separate transmitter and receiver probes. In addition, the wedge roof angle and
lateral steering capability of the secondary axis of elements enhance electronic
focusing and sensitivity in the passive or secondary axis.
Probe System
The ultrasonic probes used for this evaluation were 5-MHz, 2 x 16-element,
0.040-inch (1-mm) primary axis pitch probes attached to a nominal 55° shear
wave dual wedge contoured to match the outside diameter of the dissimilar metal
weld tube. A photograph of the two-dimensional linear phased ultrasonic
equipment is provided in Figure 5-9.
 5-9 
11012003
Figure 5-9
Overall view of the two-dimensional linear phased array probe mounted in the
tube scanner
The roof or lateral angle on the dual wedge allows the transmit and receive beam
paths to intersect and produce a higher energy density area along the weld fusion
line. The angled beam sweep was set up from 40° to 80° at 0.5° increments. The
focal laws were created to provide a projection (vertical plane) focus along the
weld fusion line. Based on beam simulations (Figure 5-10), the beam dimension
in the incident plane for this probe is approximately 0.071 inch (1.8 mm) for the
nominal 55° refracted angle.
Figure 5-10
Beam simulation of a 2-dimensional linear phased array probe—pitch-catch mode
 5-10 
11012003
For examination of the ferritic interface, an encoded scanning device mounted

the transducer assembly to a fixture capable of rotating the tube so that full
circumferential encoded data could be recorded for this phased array technique.
The encoded scanning device can be seen in Figure 5-9. The index position of
the transducer assembly allowed for complete coverage of the low-alloy steel side
weld fusion line with only one circumferential scan pass. This technique is
referred to as “2-D Pitch-Catch” in the results tables.
2-D Array Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic (Send/Receive

Within One Transducer)
This approach was essentially a pulse-echo version of the approach described in

the previous section. Although technically not a fully controllable 2-D array, the
probe used for this method contains two rows of elements, and can therefore be
called a two-dimensional linear probe. However, because it does not have enough
rows of elements in the secondary direction to provide effective focusing in that
passive plane, it does not represent the full potential of a “true” two-dimensional
probe. A true 2-D probe would require at least three rows of elements in the
secondary axis, but this also causes the instrumentation to become a limiting
factor since most common phased array instruments are limited to 16 or 32 active
channels. Consequently, adding more rows in the secondary axis would limit the
number of elements that could be used in each row. Regardless of this probe’s
shortcomings, it still possesses all of the advantages of linear phased array
technology mentioned earlier under the heading “Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic
with Elevation Focus on the Passive Axis,” and some improvements in the
secondary axis spot size when operated in a pulse-echo mode.
Probe System
The ultrasonic probe used for this examination was a 5-MHz, 2 x 16-element,
0.040-inch (1-mm) primary axis pitch probe attached to a nominal 55° shear
wave wedge contoured to match the outside diameter of the tube. A typical view
of the two-dimensional linear phased array ultrasonic setup is similar to that seen
in Figure 5-9. Unlike the 2-D array pitch-catch (send/receive in separate
transducers) setup, the 2-D array pulse-echo (send/receive within one transducer)
uses only one 2 x 16-element array probe.
The angled beam sweep was set up from 40° to 80° at 0.5° increments. Based on
beam simulations (Figure 5-11), the beam dimension in the incident plane for
this probe is approximately 0.036 inch (0.9 mm) for the nominal 55° refracted
angle (see note below).
Note: The incident beam size calculated for the 2-D pulse-echo technique (one
5-MHz, 2 x 16-element probe, pulse-echo configuration) was based on focal laws
generated for a depth focus at 0.200 inch (5 mm) rather than a projection focus at
0.200 inch (5 mm) in front of the probe. The difference this produced is shown
in the beam simulations in Figure 5-11. The difference in these beam simulations
 5-11 
11012003
helps explain why the 2-D pulse-echo technique did not size the flaws during
the first phase of the project as accurately as the other phased array methods since
the sizing was performed well beyond the focal zone. A proper projection focus
of the 2-D pulse-echo setup (Figure 5-11b) looks much more like the beam
simulations of the other phased array techniques, and this is verified by
measuring the incident beam size, which is 0.070 inch (1.8 mm) and falls in
the same range as the other methods. Therefore, it is expected that a properly
focused 2-D pulse-echo setup will perform similarly when sizing these flaws as
compared to the other phased array techniques.
a) b)
Figure 5-11
2-D pulse-echo beam simulations: (a) 0.200-inch depth focus; (b) 0.200-inch
projection focus
For examination, an encoded scanning device mounted the transducer assembly

to a fixture capable of rotating the tube so that full circumferential encoded data
could be recorded for this phased array technique. A typical view of the encoded
scanning device was previously provided in Figure 5-9. The index position of the
transducer assembly allowed for complete coverage of the low-alloy (ferritic) steel
side weld fusion line with only one pass of the circumferential scan. This
technique is referred to as “2-D Pulse-Echo” in the results tables.
Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) Ultrasonic with “Micro”

Transducers and Deployment System
Time-of-flight diffraction is a dual-transducer, pitch-catch ultrasonic

examination technique that relies on the detection of forward-scattered tip-
diffracted signals as opposed to backward-reflected or backward-diffracted
signals that are used in conventional pulse-echo ultrasonic weld examination.
Two transducers are used for the examination, with one transducer mounted on
either side of the examination volume (weld) covered by the particular scan such
that the two transducers are aimed at the same point within the volume. The
examination is conducted in a pitch-catch mode, with one transducer performing
 5-12 
11012003
as the transmitter and the second transducer performing as the receiver. Broad-
beam, single-element transducers are used such that the entire volume covered by
the particular TOFD setup is flooded with sound, and consequently, the volume
can be examined using a single circumferential scan pass along the length of the
examination volume.
Probe System
The ultrasonic probes used during this examination were 10-MHz, 0.1 inch
(2.5-mm) diameter probes. The micro-miniature transducers were attached to
nominal 70° longitudinal wave wedges contoured to match the outside diameter
of the tubing. The examination frequency of 10 MHz was selected initially on
the basis of preliminary tests, which indicated that adequate penetration was
maintained at the higher frequency, while signal fidelity was improved relative
to lower frequencies. Additionally, the primary wave propagation mode used in
TOFD is longitudinal, and the selected 10-MHz frequency produces a
longitudinal-mode wavelength that is nearly identical to the shear wave
wavelength at 5 MHz. Consequently, the higher TOFD frequency has about
the same wavelength as the lower-frequency conventional and linear phased
array shear wave approaches. A nominal 60° longitudinal wave setup was also
attempted on the induction pressure dissimilar metal weld samples. A schematic
view of the time-of-flight diffraction ultrasonic probe setup is provided in
Figure 5-12. This view shows the nominal probe angle in red and the beam
spread, or insonified area, in green. The time-of-flight diffraction equipment
used for this project is shown in Figure 5-13.
Figure 5-12
Micro-time-of-flight diffraction beam simulation on a fusion weld
 5-13 
11012003
Figure 5-13
Overall view of the micro-time-of-flight diffraction ultrasonic equipment mounted in
the tube scanner
For examination, an encoded scanning device was created that mounted the
transducers and wedges to a fixture that was made to hold and rotate each tube so
that full circumferential encoded data could be recorded for the TOFD
technique. The probe center separation was calculated to provide complete
coverage of the dissimilar metal weld with only one circumferential scan pass.
The pitch (send) transducer in the setup was placed on the ferritic tube, while the
catch (receive) transducer was placed on the austenitic tube. This examination
was also attempted in the opposite direction, with the pitch-catch direction going
from austenitic to ferritic; the results were not as good.
 5-14 
11012003
Section 6: Calibration, Acquisition, and
Sizing Protocols
For the sake of normalizing and comparing results between techniques, the same
calibration procedure and acquisition parameters were used throughout the
exercises, with the exception of the TOFD examinations. Since TOFD is a non-
amplitude based method, the sensitivity of that system was based on the noise
response from the material rather than a discrete calibration reflector such as a
hole or a notch.
Calibration
The standard calibration procedure for all techniques (except TOFD) used a
combination of a 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) diameter flat bottom hole and a 10% of
thickness notch on the outside surface of the tube. The flat bottom hole
calibration tube was designed such that the face of the hole is machined
approximately midwall in the tube and is essentially perpendicular to the
ultrasonic beam on the second leg of sound to simulate a small flaw at the fusion
line of the weld. The hole was typically optimized for the 60° angle. Reference
sensitivity was based on the response on the second leg of sound (3/4 vee path),
which was maximized and set to 60%–80% of full screen height. Scan sensitivity
was based on maintaining a 5%–10% noise response while scanning and to avoid
saturation when possible from geometry and flaw indications. The calibrated
probe was then compared to the response from a 10% notch on the outside
surface of the tube. The notch response for all the techniques was roughly 3 dB
greater than that of the flat bottom hole reflector but provided a good
comparative target when evaluating flaw indications in the weld.
Key setup parameters for the TOFD technique include transducer frequency,
beam angle, probe spacing, and probe size. These parameters impact and, in fact,
control the beam size as related to the volume effectively covered by a single
TOFD setup, the depth of a zone measured from the surface in which TOFD is
ineffective (that is, the examination surface dead zone depth), and flaw sizing and
depth resolution. In general, smaller transducers equate to increased beam spread
and therefore increased examination volume coverage at a fixed probe spacing.
Increased frequency reduces the depth of the near-surface dead zone by reducing
the duration of the lateral wave response—that is, the duration of the response
produced the upper portion of the beam directly between the two transducers just
under the surface. Increased frequency also equates to shorter near field and
 6-1 
11012003
therefore enables closer probe spacing, and tighter probe spacing improves depth
resolution. The beam angle is chosen on the basis of essentially establishing the
achievable beam profile within (and covering) the volume of interest. As a
general rule for relatively small welds in relatively thin-wall components, these
setup parameters tend toward higher-frequency probes, higher-beam refracted
angles (but still operating in a longitudinal propagation mode), smaller probe
sizes, and tighter probe spacing.
TOFD uses the time of flight as measured from the transmitter, to the flaw
causing a response, and then to the receiver, in a triangulation algorithm to
compute the position of the flaw. Thus, TOFD is amplitude-independent. It
uses time of flight, not amplitude, to determine response source locations, and it
determines size by defining the source locations of the boundaries of the flaw. As
an example, for depth measurements and size, the upper and lower boundaries of
the flaw are defined, from which the location is defined. Then the size is
determined simply as the difference between the two boundaries. Consequently,
the TOFD setup involves precise calibration of the time base such that precise
time interval measurements correspond with measured target depths. Instrument
gain is then set such that the response from any target that produces a coherent
response can be distinguished from the noise signature. That is, final gain
adjustment is accomplished by bringing the grain structure noise level for the
material under examination to a prescribed level and then looking for anything
that exceeds the noise signature. Any change in gain, and therefore amplitude,
does nothing to change the measured times or the measured positions, as long as
the change does not alter detectability. Consequently, the method is independent
of amplitude.
For the tubes in this study, the probe center separation was calculated to provide
the beam intersection point at approximately 2/3 wall thickness depth for each
selected examination refracted angle (60° and 70°). Screen sweep, probe delay,
and gain were adjusted so that the lateral wave and longitudinal back wall
reflection were appropriately positioned on the ultrasonic display.
Acquisition Approach
Acquisition of digital ultrasonic data requires careful consideration of the

intervals at which the data are acquired along the scan axis and the spacing at
which the line scans are acquired. Additionally, the digitization rate is set
depending on whether the user is acquiring rectified or full radio frequency (RF)
waveforms above the Nyquist frequencies of 2x and 4x the ultrasonic examination
frequency, respectively. This general rule was followed throughout the study. For
the exercises performed in this study there were two methods of scan acquisition:
1) circumferential line scans for the phased array and TOFD techniques, and
2) axial line scans for the conventional and fixed focus techniques. In both cases,
only a single axis of data was acquired. In other words, no raster scanning with
multiple parallel line scans was performed.
 6-2 
11012003
The advantage of using the linear phased array and TOFD techniques is that the
full weld volume can be examined rapidly in a single pass around the entire
circumference. In the case of TOFD, beam spread assures comprehensive
coverage of the weld volume, while for the case of the linear phased array, the
swept angulation essentially provides one axis of scanning while the
circumferential scan provides the orthogonal scan axis.
On the other hand, the advantage of the axial line scans is that the echo-dynamic
signature from the flaw is recorded, even when using a fixed-angle beam. This
echo-dynamic signature, in the hands of a trained and well-qualified analyst, can
provide much more detail on the through-wall dimensions and characteristics of
the flaw. One disadvantage, however, is that the results are for only a single
angle, so the examination does not benefit from the multi-angle approaches
inherent to linear phased array sectorial scanning.
A second, and possibly more significant, disadvantage lies in the fact that each
desired cross section of the weld requires an axial line scan, which would make it
a time-consuming process to examine the entire circumference of the weld. That
is, to examine the entire weld with this approach would effectively require full
raster scanning because of the fixed beam angle, and full raster scanning is very
time-consuming, particularly if using a focused beam, because of the small
indices that are therefore required for overlapping coverage. A more rational
approach is to perform such scans either on a sample basis or as a complementary
evaluation scan in conjunction with some other, less time-consuming, detection
scan. For this study, the axial line scans were taken only in specific locations of
interest identified by the phased array techniques. That is, the linear phased array
techniques were used as a screening tool to select areas of interest around the
tube samples, where fixed-angle examinations were then performed using the
axial line scans.
As previously stated, the circumferential line scans were taken using a specially
made tabletop tube scanner with a mini-encoder that was designed to hold and
rotate each tube so that full circumferential encoded data could be recorded for
each of the phased array techniques (1-D linear phased array, 2-D linear phased
array) and the TOFD technique. A typical view of that scanner was provided in
the preceding section of this report as Figure 5-5. This fixture ensures that the
data are acquired at a constant offset from the weld and also using a consistent
reference system and orientation for each tube. For circumferential line scans, the
data were acquired using a scan increment of 0.020 inch (0.5 mm).
Axial line scan data were recorded for the single-element transducer techniques
at each of the marked flaw locations on the tubes. Examination of each dissimilar
metal weld was performed from the low-alloy steel side of the tube, and was set
up to examine the low-alloy steel side weld fusion line by bouncing ultrasound off
the inside surface of the tube (full skip or second vee leg). Typically, the probe
was positioned close to the weld with the beam directed at the inside surface near
the root, as shown in Figure 6-1. As the probe was pulled back from the weld,
the beam reflected off the inside surface and was directed back up into the fusion
line of the weld, which is the most effective orientation to examine the weld. In
 6-3 
11012003
this case, a wire encoder was used to acquire the data. The encoder was mounted
on the opposite side of the weld such that the probe position could be encoded
while pulling back from the weld (as was shown earlier in Figure 5-1). The axial
line scan data were acquired using a scan (wave form density along the scan)
increment of 0.006 inch (0.15 mm).
Figure 6-1
Axial line scan
In all cases, the ultrasonic data were collected using an Olympus OmniScan
phased array instrument and Zetec UltraVision software. The ultrasonic
waveforms were all acquired at a digitizing frequency of 100 MHz and using a
compression factor of 4 to reduce file size and optimize scan speed. All
techniques used maximum pulser voltage (90 volts) with pulse width tuned for
frequency, typically 100 nanoseconds for the 5-MHz probes. For the phased
array methods, no filters were used. However, for the axial conventional
methods, a band-pass filter of 3.1–7.5 MHz was used to reduce some of the
near-surface noise. No averaging or smoothing filters were used in any case.
Analysis and Evaluation
The goal of this study was to evaluate how various forms of ultrasound react to
in-service damage in dissimilar metal welds. To that end, field practices for
evaluation were applied to the extent practical. In other words, indications were
evaluated as they would be in the field, without the potential biasing of the
destructive results, although in the end some direct comparisons were made when
clarification was required.
In all cases, the data were evaluated using a true depth or volume-corrected
display, which corrects the display for the sound path angle. For phased array
techniques, the volume-corrected display is in the form of a pie-shaped sectorial
scan. For the conventional (axial line scan) techniques, the volume-corrected data
are represented in a parallelogram. In both cases, these views simplify
interpretation by plotting the response in an easy-to-read depth and distance
display.
The protocol used for through-wall sizing is outlined in Appendix A. It has long
been recognized that amplitude sizing of flaws is not an effective way to
determine through-wall extent of in-service flaws, and that time of flight of the
flaw boundary responses is a more accurate approach. Using digital data and
 6-4 
11012003
volume-corrected views makes the sizing of flaws more direct. To paraphrase
Appendix A, there are two basic approaches that were used. The optimum
approach is using tip diffraction to identify the uppermost extent of the flaw.
When distinct diffraction signals are not apparent, then the extent of the
reflector can be estimated end to end using the -6dB down locations of the
visible response envelope in the volume-corrected image view. Both of these
approaches are significantly more effective with a highly focused beam, as the
responses tend to be sharper and more distinct, therefore making it easier to
position the measurement cursors. That is, the response profile represents a
combination of the flaw characteristics and the beam characteristics.
Consequently, the use of a focused beam minimizes the beam contribution to the
response and therefore renders it more truly characteristic of the flaw.
After all the data were collected for each ultrasonic technique, the tubes were sent
to a metallurgical laboratory where they were cross-sectioned at predetermined
flaw locations. For each of the resultant sections, the one side of the section was
then mounted, polished, and etched with a 2% Nital (2% nitric acid in methanol)
solution for metallographic examination via optical microscopy. The
metallurgical examination typically identified numerous flaws within each
section. The position of those flaws was documented for comparison and
correlation with the ultrasonic examination results.
 6-5 
11012003
11012003
Section 7: Examination Results
This section contains the results of the NDE investigations along with the
metallurgical evaluation findings. The data are presented in a similar fashion for
each tube sample examined. First, a figure is presented showing a
photomicrograph of the tube sample. The figure is followed by two tables: the
first table includes the optical metallographic findings, and the second table
shows a comparison of the various ultrasonic data and the metallographic results.
Metallographic images of the twelve sections associated with the austenitic filler
metal welds are provided in Figures 7-1 through 7-12. Similar metallographic
images and flaw characterization data are presented for the induction pressure
welds. Those low-magnification images are provided in Figures 7-13 through
7-19. Finally, the nickel-based filler metal welds are shown in Figures 7-20
through 7-31.
Appendix B contains comparison images of the various NDE technique data

along with a cross-sectional view of each of the test samples with austenitic filler
metal.
Appendix C contains comparison images of the various NDE technique data

along with a cross-sectional view of each of the test samples with the pressure
weld design.
Appendix D contains comparison images of the various NDE technique data

along with a cross-sectional view of each of the test samples with a nickel-based
filler metal.
The NDE results are shown in Tables 7-1 through 7-62. A summary of the
optical metallographic findings, including dimensions and flaw type, is provided
in the odd-numbered Tables 7-1 through 7-61. The encoded ultrasonic data for
each method were analyzed and through-wall depth measurements made by the -
6dB drop method and recorded for each flaw. This information is shown in the
even-numbered Tables 7-2 through 7-62. The ultrasonic flaw measurements
were compared to the metallographic flaw measurements, and the difference in
the measured versus the actual through-wall depth, along with the associated
percent error was calculated for each flaw. The resulting percent error values were
then used to quantitatively rank the ultrasonic techniques.
 7-1 
11012003
In the metallographic tables, the “Distance from Outer Surface” value is the
dimension measured from the outer surface of the ferritic tube to the upper tip of
the flaw. The “Through-Wall Dimension” is the measured size of the flaw from
the upper tip of the flaw to the lower tip, or between the upper and lower -6dB
response positions within the response envelope.
As documented, both macro-cracking and micro-damage (cavitation) were

detected along the low-alloy steel side of the pressure weld fusion line.
Abbreviations and Conventions Used in the Results

Presentation
The following abbreviations and measurement conventions are used in the

examination results presentation:
1-D one-dimensional
2-D two-dimensional
CND could not detect
Conv. Focus Water conventional focused ultrasound with water wedge
LPA linear phased array
N/A not applicable
µTOFD micro-time-of-flight diffraction
NRI no recordable indications
Measurements are in inches. 1 in. = 25.4 mm
 7-2 
11012003
Figure 7-1
Composite photomicrograph of Sample 1-1, noting the position of the various
flaws referenced in Table 7-1
Table 7-1
Sample 1-1 optical metallographic findings
Sample 1-1 (Wall Thickness at Section: 0.365 in.)

Flaw Distance from Through-Wall Type of Flaw
Outer Surface Dimension
(in.) (in.)
Outside 0.000 0.076 Oxide notch / creep
Surface Flaw cracking
Subsurface 0.095 0.023 Weld flaw (inclusion in
Flaw weld)
 7-3 
11012003
Table 7-2
Sample 1-1 comparison of ultrasonic data
Sample 1-1 Outside Surface Flaw Subsurface Flaw
Technique Through- Variation Variation Through- Variation Variation

Wall (in.) (in.) (%) Wall (in.) (in.) (%)
Microscope 0.076 — — 0.023 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.058 -0.018 23.9 0.101 0.078 337.2
LPA 5 MHz 0.078 0.002 2.4 0.095 0.072 311.3
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.081 0.005 6.3 0.113 0.090 389.2
Conv. Focus 0.083 0.007 8.9 0.089 0.066 285.3
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo 0.096 0.020 26.0 0.123 0.100 432.5
Average — 0.010 13.5 — 0.081 351.1
 7-4 
11012003
Figure 7-2
Table 7-3

Outer Surface Dimension (in.)
(in.)
Outside 0.000 0.052 Oxide notch
Surface Flaw
Subsurface 0.033 0.090 Creep cracking
Flaw 1
Flaw 2
Flaw 3
 7-5 
11012003
Table 7-4
Sample 1-2 Outside Surface Notch + Subsurface Subsurface Flaw 2 + Subsurface

Flaw 1 Flaw 3
Microscope 0.123 — — 0.128 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.154 0.031 24.8 0.135 0.007 5.7
LPA 5 MHz 0.168 0.045 36.1 0.127 -0.001 0.5
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.140 0.017 13.5 0.145 0.017 13.5
Conv. Focus 0.158 0.035 28.0 0.222 0.094 73.8
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo 0.074 -0.049 40.0 0.132 0.004 3.4
Average — 0.035 28.5 — 0.025 19.4
Note that the ultrasonic examinations were unable to distinguish the outside
surface notch from Subsurface Flaw 1 due to the geometry of the flaws. Similarly,
the separation between Subsurface Flaw 2 and Subsurface Flaw 3 was
undetectable by the ultrasonic examinations.
 7-6 
11012003
Figure 7-3
Table 7-5

(in.) (in.)
Surface Flaw
Subsurface 0.103 0.017 Coarsened carbides
Flaw 1
Subsurface 0.128 0.017 Weld flaw (sidewall
Flaw 2 inclusion)
 7-7 
11012003
Table 7-6
Sample 3-1 Outside Surface Notch + Subsurface Subsurface Flaw 2

Flaw 1
Microscope 0.120 — — 0.017 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.146 0.026 21.3 0.104 0.087 515.4
LPA 5 MHz 0.146 0.026 21.3 0.096 0.079 468.0
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.135 0.015 12.1 0.068 0.051 302.4
Conv. Focus 0.170 0.050 41.2 0.048 0.031 184.0
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo 0.143 0.023 18.8 CND N/A N/A
Average — 0.028 22.9 — 0.062 367.5
Note that the ultrasonic examinations were unable to distinguish the outside
surface notch from Subsurface Flaw 1 due to the geometry of the flaws. Also, the
2-D pulse-echo examination could not detect Subsurface Flaw 2 (denoted as
CND in the table).
 7-8 
11012003
Figure 7-4
Table 7-7

(in.) (in.)
Surface Flaw
Flaw 1
Subsurface 0.081 0.044 Creep cracking /
Flaw 2 coarsened carbides
Subsurface 0.165 0.059 Weld flaw (sidewall slag
Flaw 3 inclusion)
 7-9 
11012003
Table 7-8
Sample 3-2 Outside Surface Notch Subsurface Flaw 1

Microscope 0.188 — — 0.021 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.059 -0.129 68.6 CND N/A N/A
LPA 5 MHz 0.066 -0.122 64.8 CND N/A N/A
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.084 -0.104 55.2 CND N/A N/A
Conv. Focus 0.067 -0.121 64.3 CND N/A N/A
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo CND N/A N/A CND N/A N/A
Average — 0.119 63.2 — N/A N/A
Table 7-8 (continued)

Sample 3-2 Subsurface Flaw 2 Subsurface Flaw 3

Microscope 0.044 — — 0.059 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz CND N/A N/A 0.157 0.098 167.5
LPA 5 MHz CND N/A N/A 0.124 0.065 111.2
2-D Pitch-Catch CND N/A N/A 0.118 0.059 101.0
Conv. Focus CND N/A N/A 0.103 0.044 75.5
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo CND N/A N/A 0.099 0.040 68.7
Average — N/A N/A — 0.062 104.8
Note that the 2-D pulse-echo examination could not detect the outside surface
notch, and none of the ultrasonic examination techniques could detect either
Subsurface Flaw 1 or Subsurface Flaw 2.
 7-10 
11012003
Figure 7-5
Table 7-9

(in.) (in.)
Outside Surface 0.000 0.136 Oxide notch
Flaw
Subsurface Flaw 1 0.123 0.012 Creep cracking
 7-11 
11012003
Table 7-10
Sample 6-1 Outside Surface Notch Subsurface Flaw 1 + Subsurface

Flaw 2
Microscope 0.136 — — 0.067 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.144 0.008 6.2 0.122 0.055 81.8
LPA 5 MHz 0.127 -0.009 6.3 0.118 0.051 75.9
2-D Pitch- 0.140 0.004 3.2 0.077 0.010 14.8
Catch
Water
2-D Pulse- 0.093 -0.043 31.4 0.129 0.062 92.3
Echo
Average — 0.016 11.8 — 0.073 108.6
Note that the ultrasonic examinations were unable to discern Subsurface Flaw 1
from Subsurface Flaw 2 due to the geometry of the flaws. Also, the conventional
focused ultrasonic examination could not detect the outside surface notch.
 7-12 
11012003
Figure 7-6
Table 7-11

Outer Surface (in.) Dimension (in.)
Surface Flaw
Flaw 1
Flaw 2
Subsurface 0.110 0.011 Coarsened
Flaw 3 carbides
Subsurface 0.120 0.030 Coarsened
Flaw 4 carbides
Subsurface 0.142 0.042 Weld flaw
Flaw 5 (sidewall inclusion)
 7-13 
11012003
Table 7-12
Sample 6-2 Outside Surface Notch + Subsurface Flaw 3 + Subsurface

Subsurface Flaw 1 + Subsurface Flaw 4 + Subsurface Flaw 5
Flaw 2
Microscope 0.095 — — 0.074 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.104 0.009 9.5 0.074 0.000 0.5
LPA 5 MHz 0.081 -0.014 14.7 0.129 0.055 73.4
2-D Pitch- 0.118 0.023 24.2 0.119 0.045 59.9
Catch
Conv. Focus 0.158 0.063 66.3 0.054 -0.020 27.4
Water
2-D Pulse- 0.075 -0.020 21.1 0.130 0.056 74.7
Echo
Average — 0.026 27.2 — 0.035 47.2
Note that the ultrasonic examinations were unable to discern the outside surface
notch from Subsurface Flaw 1 or Subsurface Flaw 2 due to the geometry of the
flaws. Similarly, the ultrasonic examination was unable to differentiate Flaw 3
from Subsurface Flaw 4 or Subsurface Flaw 5.
 7-14 
11012003
Figure 7-7
Table 7-13

(in.) (in.)
Surface Flaw
Flaw 1
Flaw 2
 7-15 
11012003
Table 7-14
Sample 14-1 Outside Surface Notch +Subsurface Subsurface Flaw 2

Flaw 1
Microscope 0.152 — — 0.099 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.101 -0.051 33.5 0.081 -0.018 17.8
LPA 5 MHz 0.099 -0.053 34.8 0.100 0.001 1.4
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.165 0.013 8.6 0.110 0.011 11.6
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo 0.128 -0.024 15.7 0.099 0.000 0.4
Average — 0.035 23.2 — 0.030 30.9
notch from Subsurface Flaw 1 due to the geometry of the flaws. Also, the
conventional focused ultrasonic examination could not detect the outside surface
notch.
 7-16 
11012003
Figure 7-8
Table 7-15

Flaw Distance Through-Wall Type of Flaw
from Outer Dimension
Surface (in.) (in.)
Outside Surface 0.000 0.094 Oxide notch
Flaw
Subsurface Flaw 1 0.065 0.041 Weld flaw (sidewall
inclusion)
Subsurface Flaw 3 0.183 0.035 Weld flaw (sidewall
inclusion)
Subsurface Flaw 4 0.251 0.065 Weld flaw (inclusion)
 7-17 
11012003
Table 7-16
Sample 14-2 Outside Surface Notch + Subsurface Subsurface Flaw 2

Flaw 1
Microscope 0.106 — — 0.058 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.104 -0.002 1.9 CND N/A N/A
LPA 5 MHz 0.112 0.006 5.7 CND N/A N/A
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.077 -0.029 27.4 CND N/A N/A
Conv. Focus 0.148 0.042 39.6 CND N/A N/A
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo 0.106 0.000 0 CND N/A N/A
Average — 0.016 14.9 — N/A N/A

Sample 14-2 Subsurface Flaw 3 Subsurface Flaw 4

Microscope 0.035 — — 0.065 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.104 0.069 196.3 CND N/A N/A
LPA 5 MHz 0.103 0.068 193.4 CND N/A N/A
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.075 0.040 113.7 CND N/A N/A
Conv. Focus 0.038 0.003 8.3 CND N/A N/A
Water
Average — 0.053 151.9 — N/A N/A
notch from Subsurface Flaw 1 due to the geometry of the flaws. Also, none of the
ultrasonic examination techniques could detect Subsurface Flaw 2 or Subsurface
Flaw 4.
 7-18 
11012003
Figure 7-9
Table 7-17

(in.) (in.)
Surface Flaw
Flaw 1 inclusion)
 7-19 
11012003
Table 7-18

Microscope 0.016 — — 0.018 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.069 0.053 334.0 0.116 0.098 537.4
LPA 5 MHz 0.039 0.023 145.3 0.106 0.088 482.4
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.023 0.007 44.7 0.116 0.098 537.4
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo 0.020 0.004 25.8 0.143 0.125 685.7
Average — 0.022 137.4 — 0.102 559.3
Note that the conventional focused ultrasonic examination could not detect the
outside surface notch.
 7-20 
11012003
Figure 7-10
Table 7-19
(in.) (in.)
Surface Flaw 1
Outside 0.000 0.023 Creep cracking
Surface Flaw 2
Flaw inclusion)
 7-21 
11012003
Table 7-20
Sample 25-2 Outside Surface Notch + Subsurface Flaw 2

Subsurface Flaw 1
Microscope 0.023 — — 0.056 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.077 0.054 229.1 0.125 0.069 123.2
LPA 5 MHz CND N/A N/A 0.154 0.098 175.0
2-D Pitch-Catch CND N/A N/A 0.085 0.029 51.8
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo CND N/A N/A CND N/A N/A
Average — 0.054 229.1 — 0.060 107.1
Note that the ultrasonic examination was unable to discern the outside surface
notch from Subsurface Flaw 1 due to the geometry of the flaws, and only the
7.5-MHz linear phased array technique was capable of detecting that flaw. In
addition, the 2-D pulse-echo examination techniques could not detect
Subsurface Flaw 2.
 7-22 
11012003
Figure 7-11
Table 7-21

Flaw Distance from Through-Wall Type of
Outer Surface Dimension Flaw
(in.) (in.)
Outside Surface Flaw 0.000 0.092 Oxide notch
Subsurface Flaw 1 0.065 0.065 Creep
cracking
Subsurface Flaw 2 0.124 0.051 Weld flaw
(sidewall
inclusion)
Subsurface Flaw 3 0.175 0.028 Creep
cracking
 7-23 
11012003
Table 7-22

Microscope 0.092 — — 0.065 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.044 -0.048 52.2 0.102 0.037 56.0
LPA 5 MHz 0.174 0.082 89.1 0.070 0.005 7.0%
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.143 0.051 55.4 CND N/A N/A
Conv. Focus 0.091 -0.001 1.1 CND N/A N/A
Water
Average — 0.037 39.8 — 0.021 31.5

Sample 34-1 Subsurface Flaw 2

Technique Through- Variation Variation
Wall (in.) (in.) (%)
Microscope 0.079 — —
LPA 7.5 MHz 0.121 0.042 52.6
LPA 5 MHz 0.125 0.046 57.6
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.176 0.097 121.9
Conv. Focus Water 0.047 -0.032 40.7
2-D Pulse-Echo 0.124 0.045 56.4
Average — 0.052 65.9
Note that only the linear phased array examination techniques were capable of
detecting Subsurface Flaw 1.
 7-24 
11012003
Figure 7-12
Table 7-23

(in.) (in.)
Surface Flaw
Flaw 1
Flaw 2
 7-25 
11012003
Table 7-24
Sample Outside Surface Notch Subsurface Flaw 1

34-2
Microscope 0.096 — — 0.064 — —

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.080 -0.016 16.8 0.076 0.012 18.6
LPA 5 MHz 0.094 -0.002 2.3 0.138 0.074 115.3
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.090 -0.006 6.4 0.130 0.066 102.8
Water
2-D Pulse-Echo 0.136 0.040 41.4 0.143 0.079 123.1
Average — 0.016 16.7 — 0.074 115.3
Note that the conventional focused ultrasonic examination techniques could not
detect the outside surface notch.

Sample 34-2 Subsurface Flaw 2

LPA 7.5 MHz CND N/A N/A
LPA 5 MHz CND N/A N/A
2-D Pitch-Catch CND N/A N/A
Conv. Focus Water CND N/A N/A
2-D Pulse-Echo CND N/A N/A
Average — N/A N/A
Note that none of the ultrasonic examination techniques could detect Subsurface
Flaw 2.
 7-26 
11012003
Figure 7-13
Composite photomicrograph of induction pressure weld Sample 4-1, noting the
position of the various flaws referenced in Table 7-25
 7-27 
11012003
Table 7-25
Outside 0.000 0.015 Macro-damage
Surface Flaw (creep cracking)
Subsurface 0.014 0.131 Micro-damage
Flaw (cavitation)
Table 7-26
Sample 4-1 Outside Surface Macro-Damage Micro-Damage

Technique Through- Variation Variation Through- Comments
Wall (in.) (in.) (%) Wall (in.)
Microscope 0.015 — — 0.014– Cavitation

0.131
LPA 7.5 MHz 0 — — CND —
LPA 5 MHz CND — — CND —
2-D Pitch-Catch CND — — CND —
Conv. Focus CND — — CND —
Water
Conv. Fixed- 0.068 0.053 353.3% CND —
Angle
Average 0.068 0.053 353.3% — —
Note that no NDE technique was capable of detecting the micro-damage.
 7-28 
11012003
Figure 7-14
 7-29 
11012003
Table 7-27
Surface Flaw 1 (creep cracking)
Outside 0.000 0.125 Heavy carbide
Surface Flaw 2 migration
Flaw (cavitation)
Table 7-28
Sample 4-2 Outside Surface Macro-Damage Micro-Damage Comments

Technique Through- Variation Variation Through- Comments Through-
Wall (in.) (in.) (%) Wall (in.) Wall (in.)
Microscope 0.013 — — 0.013– Cavitation 0.125 Carbides

0.209
LPA 7.5 MHz CND — — CND — CND —
LPA 5 MHz CND — — CND — CND —
2-D Pitch- CND — — CND — CND —
Catch
Conv. Focus CND — — CND — CND —
Water
Conv. Fixed- CND — — CND — CND —
Angle
Average — — — — — — —
Note that no NDE technique was capable of detecting either the outside surface
macro-damage or the micro-damage.
 7-30 
11012003
Figure 7-15
 7-31 
11012003
Table 7-29

Surface (in.) (in.)
Outside Surface Flaw 0.000 0.073 Macro-damage
(creep cracking)
Subsurface Flaw 0.073 0.043 Micro-damage
(cavitation)
Table 7-30
Sample 5-1 Outside Surface Macro-Damage Micro-Damage

Technique Through- Variation Variation Through- Comments
Wall (in.) (in.) (%) Wall (in.)
Microscope 0.073 — — 0.043–0.073 Cavitation
LPA 7.5 MHz 0.063 -0.010 13.7% CND —
LPA 5 MHz CND — — CND —
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.028 -0.045 61.6% CND —
Conv. Focus 0.096 0.023 31.5% CND —
Water
Conv. Fixed- CND — — CND —
Angle
Average 0.062 0.008 35.6% — —
 7-32 
11012003
Figure 7-16
 7-33 
11012003
Table 7-31
Outside Surface 0.000 0.250 Micro-damage
Flaw 1 (cavitation)
Outside Surface 0.000 0.124 Heavy carbide
Flaw 2 migration
Table 7-32
Sample Outside Surface Micro-Damage Comments

8-1 Macro-Damage
Microscope NA — — 0–0.250 Cavitation 0–0.124 Carbides

LPA 7.5 0 — — CND — CND —
MHz
LPA 5 MHz 0 — — CND — CND —
2-D Pitch- 0 — — CND — CND —
Catch
Conv. Focus CND — — CND — CND —
Water
Conv. Fixed- CND — — CND — CND —
Angle
Average — — — — — — —
Note that no NDE technique was capable of detecting either the outside surface
macro-damage or the micro-damage.
 7-34 
11012003
Figure 7-17
 7-35 
11012003
Table 7-33

Outside 0.000 0.242 Micro-damage
Surface Flaw 1 (cavitation)
Table 7-34

8-2 Macro-Damage
Wall (in.) (%) Wall (in.) Wall (in.)
(in.)
Microscope NA — — 0–0.242 Cavitation 0–0.105 Carbides
LPA 7.5 0 — — CND — CND —
MHz
LPA 5 MHz CND — — CND — CND —
2-D Pitch- 0 — — CND — CND —
Catch
Conv. 0.035 — — CND — CND —
Focus
Water
Conv. CND — — CND — CND —
Fixed-Angle
Average 0.035 — — — — — —
 7-36 
11012003
Figure 7-18
 7-37 
11012003
Table 7-35

Surface Flaw 1 (creep cracking)
Flaw (cavitation)
Table 7-36

9-1 Macro-Damage
Microscope 0.186 — — 0.158– Cavitation 0–0.153 Carbides

0.186
LPA 7.5 0.058 -0.128 68.8% CND — CND —
MHz
LPA 5 MHz 0.030 -0.156 83.9% CND — CND —
2-D Pitch- 0.071 -0.115 61.8% CND — CND —
Catch
Conv. Focus 0.207 0.021 36.2% CND — CND —
Water
Conv. Fixed- 0.107 -0.079 42.5% CND — CND —
Angle
Average 0.095 0.120 64.2% — — — —
 7-38 
11012003
Figure 7-19
 7-39 
11012003
Table 7-37
(in.) (in.)
Outside Surface Flaw 1 0.000 0.198 Macro-damage
(creep cracking)
Outside Surface Flaw 2 0.000 0.123 Heavy carbide
migration
Subsurface Flaw 0.198 0.035 Micro-damage
(cavitation)
Table 7-38

13-1 Macro-Damage
Wall (in.) (%) Wall (in.) Wall (in.)
(in.)
Microscope 0.198 — — 0.035–0.198 Cavitation 0–0.123 Carbides
LPA 7.5 0.157 -0.041 20.7% CND — CND —
MHz
LPA 5 MHz 0.087 -0.111 56.1% CND — CND —
2-D Pitch- 0.077 -0.121 61.1% CND — CND —
Catch
Conv. 0.163 -0.035 17.7% CND — CND —
Focus
Water
Conv. 0.148 -0.050 25.3% CND — CND —
Fixed-Angle
Average 0.126 0.072 36.2% — — — —
 7-40 
11012003
Figure 7-20
Composite photomicrograph of nickel-based filler metal weld Sample T55 P13 at
Section 1, noting the position of the various flaws referenced in Table 7-39
 7-41 
11012003
Table 7-39
Sample T55 P13 at Section 1 optical metallographic findings
Sample T55 P13 at Section 1 (Wall Thickness at Section: 0.399 in.)

(in.) (in.)
Surface Feature 0.000 0.012 Type II carbides
Subsurface 0.090 0.028 Type II carbides
Feature 1
Feature 2
Feature 3
Subsurface 0.301 0.042 Mixture of Type I
Feature 4 and Type II
carbides
Table 7-40
Sample T55 P13 at Section 1 comparison of ultrasonic data
Sample T55 P13 Subsurface Feature 1

at Section 1
LPA 7.5 MHz 0.049 0.021 75.0%
LPA 5 MHz 0.066 0.038 135.7%
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.128 0.100 357.1%
Conv. Focus Water CND — —
Conv. Fixed-Angle CND — —
Average 0.081 0.032 189.3%
 7-42 
11012003
Note that none of the ultrasonic techniques detected the Surface Feature,
Subsurface Feature 2, Subsurface Feature 3, or Subsurface Feature 4. It is
believed that the through-wall dimensions reported by the ultrasonic techniques
are a combination of Subsurface Features 1 and 2. The photomicrograph
measurement of the through-wall depth combining Subsurface Features 1 and 2
is 0.074 inch.
Figure 7-21
 7-43 
11012003
Table 7-41

(in.) (in.)
Subsurface Feature 1 0.064 0.015 Type II carbides
Subsurface Feature 3 0.313 0.054 Mixture of Type I
and Type II
carbides
Table 7-42
T55 P13 at Section 2 Subsurface Feature 1

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.138 0.123 820.0%
LPA 5 MHz 0.223 0.208 1386.7%
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.152 0.137 913.3%
Conv. Focus Water 0.056 0.041 273.3%
Average 0.142 0.102 848.3%
Note that none of the ultrasonic techniques detected Subsurface Feature 2 or 3.
 7-44 
11012003
Figure 7-22
 7-45 
11012003
Table 7-43

Surface (in.) (in.)
Table 7-44
Sample T55 P13 Subsurface Feature 1

at Section 3
LPA 7.5 MHz 0.137 0.126 1145.5%
LPA 5 MHz 0.118 0.107 972.7%
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.099 0.088 800.0%
Conv. Focus Water 0.088 0.077 700.0%
Average 0.111 0.080 904.5%
Note that none of the ultrasonic techniques detected Subsurface Features 2 or 3.

It is believed that the through-wall dimensions reported by the ultrasonic
techniques are a combination of Subsurface Features 1 and 2. The
photomicrograph measurement of the through-wall depth combining Subsurface
Features 1 and 2 is 0.120 inch.
 7-46 
11012003
Figure 7-23
 7-47 
11012003
Table 7-45

(in.) (in.)
and Type II
carbides
Table 7-46
Sample T55 P13 at Section 4 Subsurface Features 1-4

Microscope 0.011; — —
0.014;
0.029;
0.005
LPA 7.5 MHz CND — —
LPA 5 MHz CND — —
2-D Pitch-Catch CND — —
Average — — —
Note that none of the ultrasonic techniques detected Subsurface Feature 1, 2, 3,

or 4.
 7-48 
11012003
Figure 7-24
 7-49 
11012003
Table 7-47

(in.) (in.)
Table 7-48
Sample T54 P40 at Subsurface Feature 1

Section 1
LPA 7.5 MHz 0.059 -0.054 47.8%
LPA 5 MHz 0.182 0.069 61.1%
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.067 -0.046 40.7%
Conv. Focus Water CND
Conv. Fixed-Angle 0.096 -0.017 15.0%
Average 0.101 0.037 41.2%
Note that none of the ultrasonic techniques detected Subsurface Feature 2 or 3.
 7-50 
11012003
Figure 7-25
 7-51 
11012003
Table 7-49

(in.) (in.)
Subsurface Feature 4 0.369 0.013 Inside surface
mismatch (notch)
Table 7-50
Sample T54 P40 at Section 2 Subsurface Features 1

Microscope 0.026
LPA 7.5 MHz 0.156 0.130 500.0%
LPA 5 MHz 0.294 0.268 1030.8%
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.208 0.182 700.0%
Conv. Focus Water 0.19 0.164 630.8%
Average 0.212 0.149 715.4%
Note that it is believed that the through-wall dimensions reported by the

ultrasonic techniques are a combination of Subsurface Features 1 through 4. The
Features 1 through 4 is 0.244 inch. The individual subsurface features could not
be resolved using these ultrasonic techniques.
 7-52 
11012003
Figure 7-26
 7-53 
11012003
Table 7-51

(in.) (in.)
Subsurface Feature 3 0.191 0.021 Incomplete fusion
Subsurface Feature 4 0.329 0.019 Inside surface
mismatch (notch)
Table 7-52
Sample 13 T54 P40 at Section 3 Subsurface Feature 1

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.133 -0.014 9.5%
LPA 5 MHz 0.131 -0.016 10.9%
2-D Pitch-Catch CND — —
Conv. Focus Water 0.054 -0.093 63.3%
Conv. Fixed-Angle 0.123 -0.024 16.3%
Average 0.110 0.029 25.0%
Note that Subsurface Features 3 and 4 were not detectable using these ultrasonic
techniques. It is believed that the through-wall dimensions reported by the
ultrasonic techniques are a combination of Subsurface Features 1 and 2. The
 7-54 
11012003
Figure 7-27
 7-55 
11012003
Table 7-53

(in.) (in.)
Table 7-54
Sample T54 P40 at Section 4 Subsurface Feature 2

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.108 0.094 671.4%
LPA 5 MHz 0.256 0.242 1728.6%
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.216 0.202 1442.9%
Conv. Fixed-Angle CND
Average 0.193 0.108 1281.0%
Note that Subsurface Feature 1 was not detectable using these ultrasonic
ultrasonic techniques are a measurement of the distance between Subsurface
Feature 2 and the inside wall of the tube. The photomicrograph measurement of
this is 0.071 inch.
 7-56 
11012003
Figure 7-28
Composite photomicrograph of nickel-based filler metal weld Sample 6-11 at
 7-57 
11012003
Table 7-55
Sample 6-11 at Section 1 optical metallographic findings
Sample 6-11 at Section 1 (Wall Thickness at Section: 0.480 in.)

(in.) (in.)
and Type II
Carbides
Subsurface Feature 2 0.220 0.022 Weld inclusion
Table 7-56
Sample 6-11 at Section 1 comparison of ultrasonic data
Sample 6-11 at Section 1 Subsurface Feature 2

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.101 0.079 359.1%
LPA 5 MHz 0.059 0.037 168.2%
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.148 0.126 572.7%
Conv. Fixed-Angle 0.112 0.090 409.1%
Average 0.105 0.066 377.3%
ultrasonic techniques are a combination of Subsurface Features 1 and 2. The
 7-58 
11012003
Figure 7-29
Composite photomicrograph of nickel-based filler metal weld Sample 6-11 at
 7-59 
11012003
Table 7-57
Sample 6-11 at Section 2 optical metallographic findings
Sample 6-11 Section 2 (Wall Thickness at Section: 0.486 in.)

(in.) (in.)
Table 7-58
Sample 6-11 at Section 2 comparison of ultrasonic data
Sample 6-11 at Section 2 Subsurface Feature 1

LPA 7.5 MHz 0.049 0.022 81.5%
LPA 5 MHz 0.052 0.025 92.6%
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.044 0.017 63.0%
Conv. Fixed-Angle 0.127 0.100 370.4%
Average 0.068 0.033 151.9%
techniques.
 7-60 
11012003
Section 8: Discussion
For all examination methods, there was good correlation in the ultrasonic
detection and characterization of macro-cracking and large fabrication defects as
compared to the actual metallurgical findings. The optical microscopy revealed
conditions that would be expected to generate detectable ultrasonic reflections,
since fabrication flaws, as well as service-induced damage, were found in the
dissimilar metal welds. The microscopy confirmed that the ultrasonic indications
that were observed were indeed real conditions within the weldments, and were
not related to geometry, grain structure, and so on.
It should be recognized that the process of metallurgical preparation is such that

it is highly unlikely that the plane examined metallographically correlates exactly
with that identified in the ultrasonic scans. While reasonable care was taken to
section the tubes at marked locations, the process of marking the tubes, cutting
the tubes, and then grinding/polishing the samples certainly had the potential of
producing minor changes in the examination planes, when comparing the
ultrasonic image to the metallurgical photomicrograph. This is an important
consideration, since dissimilar metal weld service damage can vary significantly
around the tube circumference, especially when bending stresses are present.
Creep-fatigue cracking is typically ellipsoidal around the tube circumference,
reaching its maximum at a location that is dependent on the system loading. In
addition, as shown in many of the sample sections, flaws and cracks can exist at
several different through-wall locations (outside surface, midwall, and inside
surface) simultaneously. As a result, variations in the sectioning plane can present
different assessments of the through-wall extent of any particular flaw. In
addition, the ultrasonic data represent the response from some three-dimensional
volume. There is potentially a contribution from reflectors co-located within
some relatively small metal path range that are so close in time that the response
is effectively in-phase and additive. There is also a contribution from the beam
profile in both the incident and lateral dimensions of the beam. This further
complicates the response and to some degree supports a conclusion that any
comparison of the three-dimensional response to the metallographic results
obtained from a single plane cannot be precise.
That said, variations between the nondestructive and destructive data were
apparent due to two factors: flaw geometry/morphology and examination
sensitivity/resolution.
 8-1 
11012003
Influence of Flaw Positioning/Fusion Line Orientation
As can be seen in the even-numbered Tables 7-2 through 7-62, not all of the
flaws that were identified during the metallographic examination were uniquely
identified with all ultrasonic techniques. Further investigations into these
findings revealed that flaw detection and sizing were influenced by the way in
which the flaw and/or damage manifests in each weld type, as described below.
For the austenitic filler metal welds, the differences between the ultrasonic and
metallurgical findings were mostly due to the flaw orientation or “shadowing”
and spacing. The shadowing occurred when one flaw overlapped an adjacent flaw
(either surface or subsurface). The spacing issue arises when two flaws that are
discrete, based on the metallography, are too close together to be resolved
ultrasonically. An example of this “connection” is apparent in Sample 1-2, shown
in Figure 7-2, where the weld geometry is such that the subsurface tip of the
outside surface oxide notch is located deeper than the upper portion of
Subsurface Flaw 1. This occurs because the weld fusion line orientation is
irregular through the thickness of the tube, resulting in numerous initiation sites
for cracking. Given sufficient time for propagation, the numerous initiation sites
can result in overlapping cracks.
Even though the separation of the two flaws is obvious in the metallurgical cross
section for the example shown in Figure 7-2, the path of the ultrasonic beam is
such that only one flaw is discernible. That is, the two flaws appear ultrasonically
as a singular indication that extends from the bottom of Subsurface Flaw 1 to the
outside surface of the tube.
Overlapping embedded flaws were also noted. An example of overlapping

embedded flaws can also be seen in Sample 1-2 (Figure 7-2). The upper edge of
the lower Subsurface Flaw 2 is at about 0.110 inch (2.8 mm) below the surface,
while the lower edge of Subsurface Flaw 1 is at about 0.123 inch (3.2 mm) below
the surface. This results in about 0.013 inch (0.3 mm) of overlap. In this case,
however, the offset from the bottom of the upper flaw to the top of the lower
flaw in the orthogonal direction—that is, along the weld contour—was sufficient
to enable the resolution of the two. Although all of the ultrasonic NDE methods
were able to discern the gap between these two separate flaws, this was not the
case for overlap present in other samples.
For induction pressure welds, overlapping flaws were a less significant factor,
since the fusion line is perpendicular through the thickness of the tube.
Consequently, oxide notching and service damage will occur along the same
plane. An example of this can be seen with Sample 9-1, shown in Figure 7-18.
The geometry of the pressure welds, with upsets on both the internal and
external surfaces, alters the angle at which the ultrasonic beam impinges on the
vertical fusion line, because the examination is performed on the second leg after
being reflected from the far surface. Because of the upset material at the far
surface, the direction of the reflected beam is altered, depending on the geometry
of the upset. Furthermore, since the internal upset may not be uniform around
 8-2 
11012003
the tube periphery, the resulting angle will also vary with position around the
weld. This variation affects both fixed-angle and multiple-angle techniques
because in both cases the area of interest is on the second leg of the ultrasound.
However, the variation is somewhat compensated for when the variable angle
array techniques are used. Although individual beam angles are impacted (in total
by using many angles), the modified beam angles still provide a relatively large
range that, for the most part, covers much of the intended range. Consequently,
the upset material appears to have less impact on the array approach than when a
fixed beam angle is used.
The variation between the metallurgical and ultrasonic measurements for the
induction pressure welds is related to the sensitivity of the various ultrasonic
methods to the type of damage. In general terms, macro-damage in the form of
micro-cracking is a detectable form of damage, whereas micro-damage such as
cavitation and carbide migration are not.
For the nickel-based filler welds, similar concerns about flaw orientation and
geometry of the welds also apply. The inconsistency in weld fusion line geometry,
as seen in Sample T54 P40 (Figure 8-1), makes it very difficult to pinpoint
indications along a fusion line that continually changes shape around the
circumference of the tube. In addition, the critical coarsened size of the Type I
carbides that are the expected initiation site for creep damage in the nickel-based
filler metal welds is very small and is challenging enough to detect without the
weld geometry concerns.
Another challenge to figuring out the detection and sizing capabilities of the
ultrasonic examination of nickel-based dissimilar metal welds is the fact that
there are very few damaged samples available for evaluation. This is a result of
the improvement in weld serviceability of these welds (as compared to the other
types of dissimilar metal welds) and the relatively low time/age in service of these
newer nickel-based welds.
Figure 8-1
Variation of nickel-based dissimilar metal weld fusion line geometry noted in Sample T54
P40
 8-3 
11012003
Flaw Detection, Sizing, and Resolution
Using a common set of flawed samples to compare the different examination

methods normalized the effects of flaw geometry (orientation, overlap, and so
on). The resulting data therefore illustrated the flaw resolution—or the ability to
resolve and separate the different flaws present within a single sample—for each
technique. That is, each technique was found to have a unique ability to resolve
proximate indications—in other words, the techniques displayed different
capabilities with regard to discerning between closely spaced, yet discrete flaws.
Additionally, the effective sensitivity influenced the ability of the ultrasonic
examinations to detect isolated flaws.
The flaws in the study were initially discovered using the 5-MHz linear phased
array technique; consequently, the study did not specifically address the detection
threshold. This would require flaws covering the full range of possibilities,
including some too small to detect. Since the included flaws were (by inclusion in
the sample base) of a detectable size, detection threshold could not be addressed.
However, a flaw sizing threshold was identified, above which sizing accuracy was
relatively good and below which sizing accuracy diminished even though the
flaws were detected.
The flaw sizing threshold (through-wall dimension) was determined to be

approximately 0.060 inch (1.5 mm), if viewed on a global scale including all
ultrasonic examination techniques tested. In general, flaws larger than 0.060 inch
(1.5 mm) were accurately sized by all ultrasonic techniques, while flaws smaller
than this threshold were sized inconsistently and generally overestimated. This is
primarily due to the effective incident beam size associated with the techniques
evaluated. This is a corollary to the discussion presented earlier regarding the
combination of the response from some characteristics of the ultrasonic beam and
some characteristics of the flaw reflection, and the ability of the focused beam to
produce better sizing results due to minimization of the beam characteristics.
The distinction of small versus large, flaw versus beam, is relative. A “small”
beam spot size effectively minimizes the relative error associated with the beam
for “large” flaws. However, for small flaws, even the beam characteristics for a
focused beam can remain significant, leading typically to significant overestimates
of size, again measured on a relative scale (in this case, relative to the flaw size).
The minimum flaw size that could be resolved was relatively consistent for all
techniques, most likely because the beam size in the incident plane was
essentially the same for all techniques except the conventional unfocused probe.
It is believed that for the flaws below the 0.060 inch (1.5 mm) threshold, the
ultrasonic dimension recorded is more a measurement of the incident beam size
associated with the technique being used. This was verified using a combination
of beam simulations performed with the Zetec Advanced Focal Law calculator to
determine dimensional information of the incident beam and with beam profiles
 8-4 
11012003
generated on a ball target in the immersion tank. The calculated or measured
minimum incident beam size dimensions are shown in Table 8-1 for each
technique. These beam size plots were shown previously in Section 5,
Examination Techniques.
Table 8-1
Incident beam size
Technique Incident Beam Incident Beam

Size (inch) Size (mm)
Conventional Pulse-Echo 0.200 5.0
LPA 7.5 MHz 0.067 1.7
LPA 5 MHz 0.071 1.8
2-D Pitch-Catch 0.071 1.8
Conv. Focus Water 0.100 2.5
2-D Pulse-Echo 0.070 1.8
The beam size also affects the technique’s resolution, that is, the ability to discern
the spacing between adjacent flaws. If the through-wall depth spacing between
subsurface flaws is not greater than at least half the focal spot size of the
ultrasonic technique, then the flaws will appear to be one indication. Again,
Sample 1-2 (Figure 7-2) is illustrative of this problem, where the insufficient
spacing is between Subsurface Flaw 2 and Subsurface Flaw 3. Because beam size
and the ability to focus the beam—that is, the degree to which the focused beam
spot size can be reduced—are functions of frequency and aperture (element size),
among other variables, one would anticipate that a higher-frequency probe
(7.5 MHz) would produce a shorter wavelength and smaller beam spot size, and
therefore better resolution and improved sizing accuracy for smaller flaws as
compared to the lower-frequency probes (5 MHz) of a similar aperture size.
However, this was not consistently the case. The sizing and resolution
performance were consistent as anticipated, given the measured spot sizes. The
anomaly is in the measured beam spot sizes where the theory would predict a
smaller beam spot for the higher-frequency probes. The LPA 7.5-MHz beam
spot size of 0.067 inches did not make a significant difference as compared to the
LPA 5- MHz beam spot size of 0.071 inch.
The minimum ligament between flaws that permitted resolution of the flaws was
also relatively constant for all techniques. With the exception of the conventional
unfocused probe, the relative beam sizes used to quantify the through-wall
dimension (the incident beam sizes) were very similar for the various techniques.
Consequently, one would expect relatively similar performance in this regard.
In summary, the size of the incident beam influences the detection and sizing of
the ultrasonic reflector. More accurate flaw sizing is accomplished with the
smaller beam size. If the flaw is smaller than the beam size, then detection, while
possible, is less likely even with an encoded data review. An in-depth analysis was
not performed in an attempt to explain the frequency-based discrepancy between
 8-5 
11012003
anticipated and actual beam spot sizes, because this was not the intent of the
project. The stated relationships between beam size, resolution, and sizing
accuracy stand, and it is sufficient to recognize this factor and to consider it in
designing an examination approach and in performing analyses of examination
results.
Results of Conventional Fixed-Angle Single-Element Pulse-Echo

Ultrasonic Examination
As anticipated, this examination technique was found to be the least accurate

with regard to flaw detection and sizing, mostly because of the larger beam size.
It should be noted that the protocol used with this system did differ from typical
field application. In the field, this technique would typically not be encoded, and
the evaluation of data would be performed in real time, with the technician
reviewing a waveform signal, typically in the A-scan format. For the purposes of
this project, to allow comparison to other test methods the protocol was modified
to include data encoding and data imaging. Therefore, the laboratory
examination performed is expected to be better than anticipated field
performance. If the field process were strictly implemented without encoding or
systematic control of the probe position, the detection and sizing results would be
expected to be even less reliable than reported here.
Austenitic Filler Metal Welds
Unfortunately, the conventional fixed-angle pulse-echo technique was not

performed on the six stainless fusion welded samples selected for evaluation. This
oversight was realized after the tubes had been cut and sectioned for metallurgical
evaluation. However, the conventional fixed-angle single-element pulse-echo
technique was performed on two other tube samples selected from the 34 welds
originally scanned that contained similar representative service and fabrication
flaws.
This technique produced a much more qualitative evaluation of the flaws within
the dissimilar metal weld tube sample, as opposed to the quantitative dimensional
measurements achieved with the phased array and conventional focused
ultrasonic methods evaluated. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that the
single-element shear wave sound beam of this technique is unfocused. A beam
simulation using the Zetec Advanced Focal Law calculator shows that the
minimum incident beam size for this technique is 0.200 inch (5 mm), which is
approximately twice the size of the phased array and conventional focused
ultrasonic beam sizes (see Table 8-1). Therefore, this technique is not as
sensitive, nor does it have the resolution when trying to detect, size, and discern
separate closely spaced ultrasonic reflectors. Figure 8-2 shows comparison screen
shots from an indication appearing to be a midwall flaw as seen by the linear
phased array 7.5-MHz technique (Figure 8-2a) and the conventional fixed-angle
technique (Figure 8-2b). This series of screen shots shows that the resolution of
the fixed-angle technique is not as good as the resolution of the linear phased
array 7.5-MHz technique, as would be expected.
 8-6 
11012003
Figure 8-2
Comparison screen shots from two techniques: (a) linear phased array 7.5 MHz;
(b) conventional fixed-angle
Induction Pressure Welds
Similar to the results on the stainless steel fusion welds, the conventional fixed-
angle single-element pulse-echo ultrasonic examination technique produced a
much more qualitative evaluation of the flaws within the dissimilar induction
pressure weld tube samples, as opposed to the quantitative dimensional
measurements achieved with the phased array and conventional focused
ultrasonic methods evaluated.
 8-7 
11012003
Nickel-Based Filler Metal Welds
Similar to the results on the austenitic filler metal welds and the induction
pressure welds, the conventional fixed-angle single-element pulse-echo ultrasonic
examination technique produced a much more qualitative evaluation of the flaws
within the dissimilar nickel-based dissimilar metal weld tube samples, as opposed
to the quantitative dimensional measurements achieved with the phased array
and conventional focused ultrasonic methods evaluated.
In general, the nickel-based welds did not contain features that would provide a
discrete ultrasonic reflector. Instead, clusters of Type II carbides were noted
along much of the fusion line of each weld section. Evidence of discrete service-
damage such as micro-fissuring or cracking was not present. As a result, the
evaluation of the welds was challenging and inconclusive when trying to compare
ultrasonic techniques.
Results of Conventional Focused Ultrasonic Examination
The protocol with the conventional focused ultrasonic examination technique

was very similar to a typical field application. Specifically, only certain
circumferential locations were examined, rather than performing examinations
around the tube circumference. In the typical field application of this technique,
the scanning positions would be selected based on anticipated stresses and local
access conditions, commonly at four quadrants around the tube, separated 90°
apart. For the purposes of this project, to allow comparison to other examination
methods, the protocol was modified to take data only at the locations identified
with the phased array techniques.
The conventional focused ultrasonic examination technique produced a much

more quantitative evaluation of the flaws within the tube sample, as opposed to
the conventional unfocused fixed-angle techniques. However, the sensitivity and
resolution did not measure up to that achieved with the advanced linear phased
array techniques discussed later. Beam profiling in the immersion tank shows
that the minimum beam size for this technique is 0.100 inch (2.5 mm). While
this is close to the beam size achieved with the more advanced phased array beam
sizes (see Table 8-1), it is important to point out that the beam spot size
measurements (or simulations) were performed at a representative distance but
without consideration for the fact that the examination is performed on the
second leg of the beam—that is, after being reflected from the tube bore. In all
cases, the beam characteristics are affected by the reflection from the convex bore
surface, and always in the direction of increasing the beam size. Consequently,
the bore curvature tends to exaggerate any difference in beam spot size, having a
more significant impact on an inherently larger beam than on an inherently
smaller beam. Figure 8-3 shows comparison screen shots from an indication
appearing to be a midwall flaw as seen by the linear phased array 7.5-MHz
 8-8 
11012003
technique (Figure 8-3a) and the conventional focused ultrasonic technique
(Figure 8-3b). This series of screen shots shows that the resolution of the fixed-
angle technique is close to, but not quite as fine as, the resolution associated with
the linear phased array 7.5-MHz technique.
a)
b)
Figure 8-3
Comparison screen shots: (a) linear phased array 7.5-MHz technique; (b)
conventional focused ultrasonic technique
Unlike the conventional unfocused approach, the fixed focus ultrasonic approach
provided the sharpest and most accurate sizing response of all the techniques
(including the phased array techniques) when applied to the induction pressure
welded dissimilar metal welds. This is due to the well-controlled beam on both
the incident and lateral plane. It is understood that the ultrasonic beam diverges
laterally for tubing applications, causing a severe loss of energy and resolution.
Maintaining a focused, and largely symmetrical, beam allows for a majority of the
energy to be directed to the flaw indication. As shown in Figure 8-4 for (a) a
focused probe and (b) an unfocused probe of the same size, the signal-to-noise
 8-9 
11012003
ratio and resolution of the focused probe are far superior to those of the
unfocused version. Without the clarity that the focusing provides, it would be
very difficult to make a determination of the condition of this weld.
a)
b)
Figure 8-4
Comparison screen shots: (a) Sample 13-1 with fixed-focus probe; (b) Sample 13-1
with unfocused probe
Results of Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic (All) Examination
As discussed above, linear phased array techniques provide an efficient and

effective alternative to conventional ultrasonic methods because full-volume
coverage is possible with a single circumferential line scan around the tube.
Linear arrays also provide the ability to focus the beam in the incident plane, and
 8-10 
11012003
in some cases, as discussed in more detail below, to control the beam in the
lateral direction as well. As applied in the laboratory, all linear phased array data
were acquired using a bench top scanner to examine the entire circumference.
Field protocol for linear phased array may be limited to manual scanning, or as in
many cases, limited circumferential scanning, due to the proximity of adjacent
tubing and array probe size (typically larger than conventional probes) that may,
in combination, prevent a full scan. However, this too is becoming less of an
issue as array probes evolve to meet the demands of specific applications. As an
example, the 7.5-MHz elevation focus probe tested in this study is actually a low-
profile design. This approximately 0.5-inch (12.7-mm) tall probe is capable of
fitting between adjacent tubes with no more, and possibly less, restriction than a
conventional probe.
When considering the strengths and weaknesses of linear phased array

techniques, it is easy to see the efficiencies in data acquisition and the
effectiveness of performing analysis in a volume-corrected sectorial image. But
there are also weaknesses with the linear probes. The first weakness in one-
dimensional linear array is lack of control of the beam in the lateral direction. For
large-diameter components, this is generally not an issue, but when one considers
tubing applications, the lack of control in the lateral direction can produce some
unwanted results in the form of dispersion of the beam and loss of energy. This is
illustrated in Figure 8-5, depicting a probe on a tube cross section that is
equivalent to the lateral or elevation axis of an array probe. If each location is
treated like a point source of energy across the face of the probe, then each point
generates a beam that refracts at each interface it encounters—that is, at the
wedge/tube interface. Toward the center of the probe, beam refraction is
minimal. However, the angle of refraction increases as the probe is moved
outward, resulting in unwanted beam spread as the sound energy enters the
component. Since examination of thin-walled tubing typically requires evaluation
on the second leg of ultrasound, this is taken one step further and the reflection
off the inside surface of the tube must be considered. This surface is, of course,
convex with respect to the impinging beam, which further disperses the
ultrasonic beam and reduces the intensity of the beam reaching the weld
interface. The result is a larger, ill-defined beam that is essentially very
astigmatic. That is, the beam focusing in the radial-axis plane—which is focused
and controlled electronically—remains unaffected, while the dispersion in the
lateral direction significantly and negatively impacts the beam, be it focused or
not.
 8-11 
11012003
Figure 8-5
Simulation of beam divergence in the lateral direction
There were two options considered as possible ways to overcome this weakness:
the use of two-dimensional probes and the use of elevation focus probes. Two-
dimensional probes by definition have more than a single row of elements in the
elevation, or lateral, direction (that is, the secondary axis). This type of probe can
be used to control the beam in the lateral axis and minimize the loss in that
direction. As mentioned above, a true two-dimensional probe must have more
than two rows to truly focus the beam and be effective in pulse-echo mode.
Therefore, the available probes with only two rows of elements did not
adequately represent the full capability of a two-dimensional probe in the pulse-
echo mode. However, when used as a pair in transmit/receive mode, the second
row of elements allows for beam steering in the lateral direction, which allows for
control of the crossover point and the location where the beams intersect.
Coupling this probe with a focal law calculator that is capable of compensating
for the curvature, the result is control of the beam in the lateral direction and
improved energy and resolution of the ultrasonic beam.
From a practical sense, applying 2-D probes and using the transmit/receive mode
may result in additional cost and complication to the examination system because
of the additional channels of electronics needed to support the additional
transducer elements. A practical alternative is the use of elevation focus probes.
Elevation focus probes are gaining popularity and are becoming more readily
available from probe manufacturers. They are relatively inexpensive (slightly
higher in cost than a standard 1-D linear array) and require no special focal law
calculations. They can be applied in exactly the same way as their 1-D cousin.
The basic design is straightforward. During fabrication, the array is mounted on
a cylindrical focusing lens within the probe housing. The lens is acoustically
matched to standard Rexolite wedges and mounted in such a way that it affects
 8-12 
11012003
the lateral dimension of the beam (that is, the dimension that is not controlled
electronically. The focal distance is defined in terms of the equivalent focal path
in water, which in this case was set at 1.38 inch (35 mm), which results in a focal
distance for shear waves in steel of about half that. The result is a beam
controlled in the lateral direction that minimizes the losses due to refraction and
reflection from the inside tube surface, with enhanced resolution and energy at
the weld interface.
The use of linear phased array on welds with austenitic filler metal provides
another advantage over fixed-angle approaches—namely, a range of angles at
which to examine irregular fusion lines. A good example of this is illustrated in
Figure 8-6a, which shows a metallographic image for Sample 14-1. As shown in
the image, the fusion line consists of various angles resulting from the cusps of
different weld passes, with corresponding damage along those same angles or
cusps. The ability to sweep ultrasound through a range of angles provides the
benefit of enhanced detection by producing beam angles better optimized for off-
angle flaws.
As shown in Figure 8-6b, the ultrasonic response from the linear phased array
technique reveals multiple flaws along the fusion line in spite of the fact that they
are oriented on different planes. This is not to say that the phased array
technique will detect damage regardless of orientation, but the example illustrates
the enhanced potential of using multiple angles to evaluate irregular fusion lines
that are typical for these types of welds.
 8-13 
11012003
Figure 8-6
Simulation of beam divergence in the lateral direction
Generally speaking, the phased array techniques provide an effective means of

examining the entire weld volume and discriminating various types of damage
and geometry around the entire circumference of the weld. If results are plotted
in a polar view, it is possible to make instantaneous determinations of the level of
 8-14 
11012003
damage in a weld, as shown in Figure 8-7. Figure 8-7a shows the phased array
examination results from a damaged weld, and Figure 8-7b shows the phased
array examination results from a weld that is relatively free of damage.
a)
b)
Figure 8-5
Phased array examination results (polar, sectorial, and C-scan views): (a) from a
damaged tube; (b) from a relatively undamaged tube
It is difficult to make an objective comparison of the four linear phased array

techniques used by simply looking at images. For example, the results from
Sample 6-1 (an austenitic filler metal weld sample) are shown in Figure 8-8. This
figure shows responses from all four phased array ultrasonic techniques used on
the same set of indications. As shown, the response from the 2-D pulse-echo
 8-15 
11012003
technique displays a significant amount of wedge noise compared to the 2-D
pitch-catch version, which is understandable given that the use of a separate
transmitter and receiver inherently eliminates wedge noise. The more important
difference is the resolution of the image in Figure 8-8. The pitch-catch technique
presents significantly better resolution and amplitude of the four closely spaced
indications at the bottom of the image and the solitary indication in the first leg
of ultrasound, so the pitch-catch results provided superior data compared to the
pulse-echo results with the same probe. Comparing the 2-D pitch-catch
technique to the two 1-D methods, there is not a huge amount of difference. The
signal-to-noise ratios and resolutions are similar. If there is one noticeable
difference, it is the sharpness obtained with the 7.5-MHz examination frequency.
With this technique, an elevation focus probe was used, and the response from
each facet of cracking along the fusion line stands in higher contrast to the
background noise as compared to the other phased array examination techniques.
 8-16 
11012003
Figure 8-6
Comparison of linear phased array techniques used on Sample 6-1
 8-17 
11012003
Overall, the induction pressure welds seemed to present a bigger challenge for all
of the techniques, including the linear phased array techniques. Although the
smallest documented macro-damage (found in Sample 4-2 with outside-surface-
connected damage of 0.013 inch or 0.33 mm) did not appear detectable with any
technique, macro-damage less than 0.08 inch (2 mm) in depth (found in Sample
5-1 with outside-surface-connected damage of 0.073 inch or 1.9 mm) was
detectable, but not reliably sized, with all of the linear phased array techniques.
Like the approach used for the stainless steel fusion welds, the linear phased array
techniques used for the pressure induction welds also relied on data from the
second leg of ultrasound.
However, the difference in incident beam size does not provide an explanation.
As was shown in Table 8-1, the smallest incident beam size of 0.067 inch
(1.7 mm), as determined by simulation, exists in the 7.5-MHz elevation focus
technique, but the other linear phased array techniques are similar, with beam
size of 0.071 inch (1.8 mm). Furthermore, all of the linear phased array beam
sizes are small compared to the conventional focused water wedge ultrasonic
examination technique, which provided some of the best results on these welds.
Based on through-wall sizing results, the 7.5-MHz elevation focus approach
produced the most accurate results of all the linear phased array examination
techniques. The results were better than those of the fixed focus ultrasonic
examination approach. In some cases, accuracy within 21% was obtained for the
documented macro-damage. The results from Sample 13-1 for the linear phased
array techniques are shown in Figure 8-9. It is expected that control of the beam
in the lateral direction would be a benefit; however, the two-dimensional
approach also has secondary steering, and the results from that approach were not
as good.
 8-18 
11012003
Figure 8-7
Linear phased array results comparison for pressure induction weld (Sample 13-1)
Another difference between techniques is the slight increase in frequency. That

would seem probable, as this is the only substantial difference between the
techniques. It is always desirable to work with the highest effective frequency for
the material under examination, but it is difficult to separate that as a standalone
variable when comparing probes unless the effort is made to design and build
identical probes with different frequencies. This is possible within some limits,
but the relationship between wavelength and pitch is an important one in array
design and, generally, the pitch or size of an individual element has to decrease
with the wavelength in order to avoid grating or side lobes and maximize steering
capabilities. As a result, the aperture size varies between probes of different
frequencies. Therefore, it is difficult to make a one-to-one comparison in
practice. Because of this limitation, techniques are typically driven by what
equipment is available, is most cost-effective, and seems to work best. This may
not be the optimum way to select an examination technique.
 8-19 
11012003
Results of Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) Examination
The TOFD techniques that were used in the laboratory were based on field
protocols for similar-size tubes and welds. Because of the thickness and probe
spacing, micro-TOFD was selected, which uses 0.1-inch (2.5-mm) diameter
probes and housings designed for the small probes and compressed probe
spacing. The only physical difference between field implementation and the
laboratory experiments was the method of encoding, which included the
laboratory benchtop scanner instead of a bracelet or wheel scanner that would be
used in the field.
The examination data collected for the TOFD technique was difficult to
interpret for through-wall flaw sizing on these dissimilar metal welds. In general,
the TOFD technique is not suitable for coarse-grained materials, such as
austenitic stainless steel. The technique is based on the detection of forward-
scattered tip diffraction response as opposed to the specular reflections typically
used in pulse-echo and pitch-catch testing. By definition, tip responses are much
lower in intensity than specular reflections. Consequently, the low signal strength
relative to the significant noise produced by the stainless steel material tends to
mask any diffraction signals. This was known prior to initiation of the project
and inclusion of TOFD in the test regimen. However, TOFD was nonetheless
included, as a means of ensuring that a potentially effective approach was not
omitted without at least quantifying its merits.
In general, for carbon and low-alloy steel welds, TOFD is a very sensitive
ultrasonic technique that can accurately size through-wall flaws. It was not
successful, however, for examination of the dissimilar metal welds selected for
this project.
Figure 8-10 shows a TOFD A-scan display of the flaw area on Sample 1-2 along
with the TOFD B-scan display for the entire circumferential scan of Tube #1.
The A-scan shows that it is nearly impossible to pick a signal out of the noise of
this scan, and the B-scan is missing the lateral wave, which should appear across
the top of the B-scan display. This is attributed to differences in material velocity
and attenuation. The geometry of the inside surface also caused the back wall
echo to be very irregular and difficult to interpret.
 8-20 
11012003
Figure 8-8
TOFD data for Tube 1; A-scan represents Sample 1-2 flaw location
Because of the symmetrical weld design, TOFD would seem ideal for pressure
induction welds with one exception: the upset areas on the outside and inside
surfaces of the tube. One weakness of TOFD is the dead zone near the outside
surface of the tube, which limits near-surface resolution. When this is coupled to
the outward expanding bulge on the outside of the tube, there is a good chance of
missing the outside-surface-connected flaws. As stated above, TOFD is not
suitable for coarse-grained materials, which tend to mask any diffraction signals.
This is further supported by the results on the flawed tubes, which reported no
clear indications. A scan from Tube 13-1, which had the most severe damage, is
shown in Figure 8-11. For carbon and low-alloy steel welds, TOFD is a very
sensitive ultrasonic technique that can accurately size through-wall flaws, but it
was not successful in examining the selected induction pressure dissimilar metal
welds.
 8-21 
11012003
Figure 8-9
TOFD data for Tube 13-1, showing no discernible flaw indication
Based on the negative results of the TOFD examination on the austenitic filler
metal welds and the induction pressure welds, TOFD was not attempted on the
nickel-based filler metal welds. The coarse-grained structure of the stainless steel
tube had already proven to impede the diffraction signals used in TOFD, as can
be seen in the results listed for those other weld types. Attempting TOFD on the
nickel-based filler metal weld would only add an additional obstacle of a third
velocity for the ultrasonic waves to propagate through. This further complication
would make effective ultrasonic propagation and resultant analysis extremely
difficult because TOFD is a technique that is based on the timing and
triangulation of received ultrasonic signals.
 8-22 
11012003
Section 9: Conclusions
The technical review of the current state of ultrasonic examination technology for
high-temperature tubing dissimilar metal welds fabricated with austenitic filler
metal by the induction pressure welding process or fabricated with a nickel-based
filler metal demonstrated significant improvements over conventional
examination techniques such as liquid penetrant examinations to detect surface
cracking and over conventional fixed-angle pulse-echo ultrasonic and
radiographic techniques to detect subsurface cracking. With respect to the
effectiveness of surface examination such as liquid penetrant examination, no
correlation has been found between the presence or extent of external cracking
such as oxide notching and the severity of through-wall damage. Indeed, reviews
have found no external cracking or only superficial external cracking in dissimilar
metal welds that contain severe subsurface damage. Correspondingly, volumetric
ultrasonic examination has been found to be more effective at detecting and
defining the service damage that leads to dissimilar metal weld failure.
Considering conventional fixed-angle pulse-echo ultrasonic evaluation, the

historically tried-and-true manual examination method is clearly less effective as
compared to focused fixed-angle ultrasonic and linear phased array ultrasonic
techniques in terms of detection and sizing capabilities. This is as expected
because linear phased array examination, in its basic form, would be similar to
conventional pulse-echo ultrasonic examination, with the differences being beam
control and sweeping of the search angles. For this comparison, the sweeping of
the search angles does provide some improvement in detection, but it appears
that the real benefit is provided by beam focusing. Beam focusing enhances
resolution and through-wall sizing capabilities. On the implementation side, the
use of phased array examination also improves production rates by eliminating
the need to move the transducer along the longitudinal axis of the tube—that is,
by limiting scanning to a single, uniaxial scan around the tube.
The use of a focusing lens with a fixed-angle transducer (focused ultrasonic)

improved the examination sensitivity for detecting creep-fatigue fissures, as
compared to conventional pulse-echo techniques. The addition of the focusing
lens greatly enhances the response from planar flaws, and this was particularly
evident for the induction pressure welds. Conventional pulse-echo ultrasonic
systems, focused or unfocused, were found to be less sensitive as compared to the
use of focused linear phased array ultrasonic technologies for the austenitic filler
metal welds.
 9-1 
11012003
Two significant improvements were apparent with the linear phased array
methods. The first improvement is that the linear phased array techniques are
capable of quickly collecting ultrasonic imaging data for the complete
circumference of the dissimilar metal weld. This is a significant improvement
over the manual conventional fixed-angle single-element pulse-echo technique.
By encoding the examination data, the examination results can be independently
reviewed and stored to allow data comparisons after additional service time.
Circumferential data encoding is also an improvement over the focused ultrasonic
technique, since that probe design is such that only line scans are possible and full
weld examination is not practical because of the time required to perform a two-
dimensional raster scan to cover the same volume as the phased array
examination techniques.
The second improvement is the incident beam size. As previously stated, the
smaller the technique beam size, the smaller the detectable flaw and the better
the sizing capability. Although focusing the single-element fixed-angle ultrasonic
approach halved the beam size, the focused linear phased array techniques were
even better, with the elevation-focused linear phased array probes operating in
pulse-echo mode having the best resolution. As through-wall flaw depth is the
common way to assess dissimilar metal weld remnant life, accurate sizing has a
significant impact on the usefulness of in-service assessment. The 7.5-MHz
elevation-focused probe provided the most accurate sizing results, primarily due
to the higher frequency and elevation focusing.
Recommendations
Additional research with austenitic dissimilar metal weld examination techniques

is recommended and should focus on improvements in sizing. In many cases, the
flaws were significantly oversized (which may not be of significant concern, if the
resultant analysis is not overly conservative), but this could become an issue,
especially when evaluating thinner tubes such as those installed in reheater
sections.
Additional research is also recommended for the dissimilar metal welds

fabricated by the induction pressure welding process. As shown, the techniques
that proved best for the austenitic fusion welds (linear phased array) were not as
accurate for examination of the induction pressure welds. While it is suggested
that the difference is related to the irregular inside surface geometry, additional
research is recommended to develop protocols or technologies that are less
dependent on tube geometry.
The research on the nickel-based dissimilar metal welds was limited in that the
samples did not contain significant service-related damage. Detection of Type II
carbide structures was possible in some samples, suggesting that the sensitivity of
the ultrasonic techniques is sufficient for detecting service damage at the micro-
fissuring level. Additional research on samples containing more advanced service
damage is recommended, as is further research since technology advancement
continually allows for more sensitive examinations.
 9-2 
11012003
Finally, for all three weld types, it should be considered that this study was
performed on a limited number of dissimilar metal weld samples, all of the same
configuration with unknown service background and damage levels. Linear
phased array has proven effective on other sizes and configurations as performed
in the field. Therefore, it would be worth expanding this study with other
diameters and thicknesses to obtain a more balanced data set from which to draw
conclusions.
 9-3 
11012003
11012003
Section 10: References
1. Personal communication from K. Coleman (Electric Power Research
Institute) to J. Arnold (Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.). September 29,
2011.
2. Dissimilar Metal Weld Failure Analysis and Development Program. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 1985. CS-4252.
3. R. B. Dooley and W. P. McNaughton. Boiler Tube Failures: Theory and
Practice. Volume 3: Steam-Touched Tubes. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1996.
TR-105261-V3.
4. Babcock & Wilcox Company. Steam, 38th Edition. The Babcock and Wilcox
Company, 1972.
5. J. G. Singer. Combustion Fossil Power, Fourth Edition. Combustion
Engineering, 1991.
6. D. N. French. Metallurgical Failures in Fossil Fired Boilers, Second Edition.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1993, pp. 439–448.
7. A. S. Khanna. Introduction to High Temperature Oxidation and Corrosion.
ASM International, 2002, pp. 109–113.
8. R. Viswanathan. Damage Mechanisms and Life Assessment of High-
Temperature Components, Second Edition. ASM International, 1993.
9. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: Section I, Rules for Construction of Power
Boilers, 2010 Edition. ASME, New York, NY, 2004.
10. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: Section II, Materials, Part D Properties
(Customary), 2010 Edition. ASME, New York, NY, 2004.
11. M. Prager, D. Roberts, C. Li, and R. Nicholson. Dissimilar-Weld Failure
Analysis and Development Program, Volume 2: Metallurgical Characteristics.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1985. CS-4252-V2.
12. J. D. Parker and G. C. Stratford. “Review of Factors Affecting Condition
Assessment of Nickel Based Transition Joints,” Science and Technology of
Welding and Joining, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1999, pp. 29–39.
13. S. M. French and C. D. Skelonis. Managing Dissimilar Metal Weld Repairs
for Reliable Service, Presented at the International Institute of Welding
Congress, Stellenbosch, South Africa, March 2006.
14. R. D. Nicholson, A. T. Price, Service Experience of Nickel-Based Transition
Joints, Welding Institute Seminar, Leicester, England, June 1981.
 10-1 
11012003
15. R. D. Nicholson, “Effect on Aging Interfacial Structures of Nickel-Based
Transition Joints,” Metals Technology, Vol. 11, March 1984, pp. 115-124.
16. R. D. Nicholson, “Creep-Rupture Properties of Austenitic and Nickel-Based
Transition Joints,” Metals Technology, Vol. 9, August 1982, pp. 305-311.
17. D. I. Roberts, R. H. Ryder, and R. Viswanathan, “Performance of Dissimilar
Welds in Service,” Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Volume 107, August,
1985, pp. 247-254.
 10-2 
11012003
Appendix A: Through-Wall Sizing
Guidelines
Absolute Arrival Time Depth Sizing Technique
 This technique shall be applied for tip diffraction responses at the upper and
lower extent of the flaw indication.
 For depth sizing of axially oriented indications, the flaw tip position shall be
plotted or calculated to compensate for component curvature.
Depth Sizing Using Volume-Corrected Sectorial or B-Scan

Images
 The objective is to identify the uppermost and lowermost extremities of the
flaw structure (that is, the flaw tips) when resolvable. In the depiction shown
in Figure A-1, the sketch on the left-hand side illustrates a simulated flaw
with its major features identified. The sketch on the right-hand sideshows a
simulated sectorial scan image with images that represent the ultrasonic
responses from those flaw features.
 The data analyst positions data cursors to the indication location with the
deepest through-wall extent. When such an image has been acquired, the
angular cursor is adjusted to either bisect the suspected flaw tip response or
to locate a localized high-amplitude region within the flaw tip response. The
A-scan will then display the data associated with the examination angle
depicted in the image. The A-scan cursor may then be adjusted to indicate
the depth to the flaw tip from the examination surface. The depth displayed
to the flaw tip by the gate function may also be used.
 A-1 
11012003
Figure A-1
Simulated midwall indication with tip diffraction and facets
 For situations where upper and lower extremities are not resolvable, sizing
will be performed at reference sensitivity to measure the upper and lower
extent of resulting echo-dynamic response, as shown in Figure A-2.
 Using the angular A-scan cursor, locate the 6dB down points and place the
reference and measurement cursors at the upper and lower extremes.
 Surface-connected indications, or those appearing to be surface-connected,
shall be dimensioned as shown in Figure A-3. For indications exhibiting tip
diffraction signals, the through-wall dimension shall be taken from center to
center of the echo-dynamic responses (Figure A-3a).
 For shallow indications without resolvable tip diffraction signals, the
through-wall extent shall be taken from the surface (center of echo dynamic)
to the 6dB down point of the upper extremity of the echo dynamic, as shown
in Figure A-3b.
Figure A-2
Simulated sectorial image with midwall indication
 A-2 
11012003
Figure A-3
Simulation of surface-connected indications
 A-3 
11012003
11012003
Appendix B: Comparison Images:
Austenitic Filler Metal Weld
Dissimilar Metal Welds
 B-1 
11012003
Sample 1-1
5-MHz 60° Focus Water Wedge Linear Phased Array 5L16 Linear Phased Array 7.5L16 Passive Focus
2-D 5-MHz 2 x 16 Element Pitch-Catch 2-D 5-MHz 2 x 16 Element Pulse-Echo Cross Section
 B-2 
11012003
Sample 1-2
 B-3 
11012003
Sample 3-1
 B-4 
11012003
Sample 3-2
 B-5 
11012003
Sample 6-1
 B-6 
11012003
Sample 6-2
 B-7 
11012003
Sample 14-1
 B-8 
11012003
Sample 14-2
 B-9 
11012003
Sample 25-1
 B-10 
11012003
Sample 25-2
 B-11 
11012003
Sample 34-1
 B-12 
11012003
Sample 34-2
 B-13 
11012003
11012003
Appendix C: Comparison Images:
Induction Pressure Weld
 C-1 
11012003
Sample 4-1
Conventional Focus Water Linear Phased Array 5-MHz Linear Phased Array 7.5-MHz
Conventional Fixed Angle 2-D Pitch-Catch Cross Section
 C-2 
11012003
Sample 4-2
 C-3 
11012003
Sample 5-1
 C-4 
11012003
Sample 8-1
 C-5 
11012003
Sample 8-2
 C-6 
11012003
Sample 9-1
 C-7 
11012003
Sample 13-1
 C-8 
11012003
Appendix D: Comparison Images: Nickel-
Based Filler Metal Weld
 D-1 
11012003
Sample T55-P13 Section 1
 D-2 
11012003
Sample T55 P13 Section 2
 D-3 
11012003
 D-4 
11012003
 D-5 
11012003
 D-6 
11012003
 D-7 
11012003
 D-8 
11012003
 D-9 
11012003
Sample 6-11 Section 1
 D-10 
11012003
Sample 6-11 Section 2
 D-11 
11012003
11012003
11012003
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI, www.epri.com)
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the spe- conducts research and development relating to the generation, delivery
cific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensuring full and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An independent,
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regu- nonprofit organization, EPRI brings together its scientists and engineers
lations is being undertaken by you and your company. This includes as well as experts from academia and industry to help address
an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder challenges in electricity, including reliability, efficiency, health, safety and
who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access the environment. EPRI also provides technology, policy and economic
under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations. In the analyses to drive long-range research and development planning, and
event you are uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully supports research in emerging technologies. EPRI’s members represent
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it approximately 90 percent of the electricity generated and delivered in
is your obligation to consult with your company’s legal counsel to deter- the United States, and international participation extends to more than
mine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make available 30 countries. EPRI’s principal offices and laboratories are located in
on a case-by-case basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. Palo Alto, Calif.; Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
export classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational
purposes and not for reliance purposes. You and your company ac-
knowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and
ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company understand and
acknowledge your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellec-
tual Property hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or
foreign export laws or regulations.
Program:
Boiler Life and Availability Improvement Program
© 2012 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power
Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are
registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
1026538
Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774  • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
11012003

Technology For The Examination of Boiler Tubing Dissimilar Metal Welds, Revision 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology For The Examination of Boiler Tubing Dissimilar Metal Welds, Revision 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology for the Examination of Boiler Tubing

Dissimilar Metal Welds, Revision 1

2012 TECHNICAL REPORT

EPRI Project Manager

3420 Hillview Avenue

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF

THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION, UNDER CONTRACT TO EPRI, PREPARED THIS REPORT:

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

This publication is a corporate

Technology for the Examination of

Applications, Value, and Use

The active damage mechanism in the first two types of dissimilar

The technical review of the current state of ultrasonic inspection

For this comparison, beam angulation sweeping, as provided via the

Section 1: Background ............................................. 1-1

Section 2: Damage Mechanisms ............................... 2-1

Section 3: Sample Selection ..................................... 3-1

Section 4: Technical Approach.................................. 4-1

Section 5: Examination Techniques .......................... 5-1

Section 6: Calibration, Acquisition, and Sizing

Section 7: Examination Results ................................ 7-1

Section 8: Discussion ............................................... 8-1

Section 10:References ............................................. 10-1

Appendix A: Through-Wall Sizing Guidelines .........A-1

Appendix B: Comparison Images: Austenitic

Appendix C: Comparison Images: Induction

Appendix D: Comparison Images: Nickel-Based

Figure 2-1 Composite photomicrograph showing a severe

Table 3-1 Elemental composition (wt%) of fusion welded

Austenitic tubing is used at locations where increased creep strength and

High-temperature sections where dissimilar metal welds are commonly located,

The temperature at which creep degradation is active varies depending on the

As these sections of superheater and reheat tubing commonly experience

In addition, the differences in thermal expansion between the ferritic and

Temperature is a common variable for all high-temperature dissimilar metal weld

Consequently, an NDE technique that is capable of detecting incipient damage

Destructive analysis of service-aged nickel-based dissimilar metal welds reveals

Consequently, an NDE technique that is capable of detecting Type I carbides

Tube Location Alloy Cr Mn Fe Ni Nb Mo

Tube Location Alloy Cr Mn Fe Ni Nb Mo

Tube Location Alloy Cr Mn Fe Ni Ti Mo Nb

TOFD is a dual transducer examination technique in which the transducers are

Conventional Fixed-Angle Single-Element Pulse-Echo

This technique uses a conventional single-element ultrasonic transducer attached

For this method of evaluation, an off-the-shelf 5-MHz, 0.5-inch (12.7-mm)

Conventional Focused Ultrasonic (Fixed-Angle Water Column

It is important to note that it has previously been demonstrated empirically that a

The focused ultrasonic probe assembly used a 5-MHz, 0.5-inch (12.7-mm)

Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic with No Elevation Focus on

Phased array ultrasonic technology provides a tool to enhance detection

A linear array consists of a number of linear elements, arranged either in a single

For examination of the dissimilar metal weld ferritic interface, an encoded

1-D Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic with Elevation Focus on

For examination of the dissimilar metal weld ferritic interface, an encoded

Dual 2-D Array Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic (Send/Receive

For examination of the ferritic interface, an encoded scanning device mounted

2-D Array Linear Phased Array Ultrasonic (Send/Receive

This approach was essentially a pulse-echo version of the approach described in

For examination, an encoded scanning device mounted the transducer assembly

Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD) Ultrasonic with “Micro”

Time-of-flight diffraction is a dual-transducer, pitch-catch ultrasonic