Int. J. Pres. Ves.

& Piping 55 (1993) 287-294

Acoustic Emission Monitoring of Pressure Vessels

P. Pellionisz

Central Research Institute for Physics, KFKI, Budapest, POB.49, 1525, Hungary
&
P. Sztics
Central Testing Laboratory of Power Plants, EROKAR, Budapest, POB.67, 1602,
Hungary

ABSTRACT

This paper summarises the main features of the acoustic emission testing
method. A short overview is given of how common failures can be
detected at pressure vessel testing and how measurement results are
evaluated. Acoustic emission monitoring of pressure vessels for the
power plant industry has been introduced also in Hungary: an overview
is given and some of the measurement results are presented.

1 INTRODUCTION

The relatively new techniques of acoustic emission monitoring are

based on the detection and evaluation of the high-frequency stress or
acoustic waves emitted by sudden structural changes of solid materials
when external load is applied. During the last two decades acoustic
emission monitoring has become a frequently used m e t h o d in non-
destructive techniques, although it has not yet reached the degree of
standardisation and codification maturity of the established, conven-
tional methods of non-destructive techniques. 1
Acoustic emission techniques have considerable advantage over other
non-destructive testing methods, such as

• instead of searching for structural failures, it locates and evaluates

discontinuities in the entire structure at one time;
287
Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 0308-0161/93/$06.00 © 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd,
England. Printed in Northern Ireland
288 P. Pellionisz, P. Sziics

• it detects the formation and propagation process of discontinuities,

providing information only on flaws which are dangerous at the
applied load; and
• as part of an overall integrity assessment, it tells clearly whether
the applied load is permissible or it causes defects.
Its instrumentation technique, in principle, is simple. Small acoustic
emission sensors (mostly high-frequency piezoelectric transducers) are
attached on the structure to be investigated. Their signals, through
sensitive amplifiers, attain some sort of acoustic emission analyser,
which can classify the sound event by measuring its peak amplitude,
energy, duration, rise time, number of counts, etc. and calculates
locations of the acoustic sources by measuring delays between the
different detection times of the sensors.
Interpretation of measuring results requires experience and can be
highly facilitated by the applied measuring and data processing hard-
ware and software (suppression of noises, filtering, validity checks,
built-in intelligency, data presentation, etc.). This testing can be
regarded as a sort of screening: if a flaw is detected, the source region
should be inspected by other non-destructive testing methods in order
to know its form, direction, and size.

2 USE OF ACOUSTIC EMISSION FOR TESTING PRESSURE

VESSELS

Pressure vessels are often tested by acoustic emission. These tests may
be part of the quality assurance process of new vessels, periodical tests
after a certain service time (in-service tests) or performed on-line,
continuously, during operation. In all cases, they have the capacity to
detect flaw formation and propagation process of different origin:
• environmental cracking originating from corrosion, fatigue, stress
corrosion, hydrogen embrittlement;
• local stress approaching to the yielding point, creep of material
(low level emission);
• ductile/brittle transition (significant emission even at low stress
level);
• thermal shock; or
• separation of weld overlays.
Codes for pressure vessel inspection require hydrotests with overpress-
urisation not only for checking structural integrity but also for causing
 Acoustic emission monitoring of pressure vessels 289

local yielding to relieve residual stresses. Emissions originated by this

process are of lower level than signals caused by the formation of real
discontinuities. A typical procedure is to insert pressure-hold and
pressure-down periods followed by repressurisation. Important criteria
for checking system integrity are that significant emissions may not be
found at pressure-hold and Kaiser-effect must be valid at
repressurization.
Two aspects must be emphasised. One is, that design principle of
today's pressure vessels is the 'leak-before-break' feature which results
that in acoustic emission testing normal yielding is detected rather than
crack growth. The other is, that measuring method, instrumentation
and skill must be focused to separate signals from noises and distinguish
real emissions from those originated by friction, moving, leakage, pump
noise, etc.

3 CRITERIA FOR TEST E V A L U A T I O N

Widely used recommendations have been elaborated by the American
Society for Testing Materials} They are based on grouping the
measured signals to located sources, and sources are classified as
follows.
(1) Active, not intensive--the number of acoustic events (or counts)
increases with increasing load. Energy, count number, peak
amplitude are not significantly higher than the average of other
sources.
(2) Active, intensive--as above, but the source is significantly more
intensive than the average of other sources. Other non-
destructive testing method is to be applied.
(3) Critically active and~or critically intensive--The growth of the
number of acoustic events (or counts) accelerates with increasing
load. The same tendency is found for the source intensity
(energy, count number, peak amplitude, etc). This is a danger-
ous flaw.
In our applications, generally, the above criteria have been used. 3 It
must also be mentioned that in the USA attempts have been made for
elaborating evaluation systems based on simple rules and facilitating
decision-making even for non-experts.

4 MONITORING PRESSURE VESSELS IN H U N G A R Y

The first experiments in acoustic emission monitoring have been
performed in Hungary at the beginning of the 1980s, in a joint research
290 P. Pellionisz, P. Sziics

program of the Central Research Institute for Physics (KFKI) and the
Research Institute for Iron Industry, Budapest, Hungary. Both fracture
mechanical studies, as well as testing pressure vessels during hydrotest
by acoustic emission have been performed. 4 These experiments were
part of the preparatory work for introducing acoustic emission monitor-
ing at the inspection of nuclear power plant pressure retaining systems
in Paks. Together with these measurements, the development of a
versatile, portable, computer-based acoustic emission system (Defec-
tophone) has been commenced and successfully finished.5
4.1 Monitoring nuclear pressure vessels
As a result of the successful preparatory period, complete acoustic
emission instrumentation systems were available in the KFKI and in
EROKAR (Power Plant Service Company) in 1987, when the first unit
of the 4 x 440 MW, WWER-type nuclear power plant in Paks has been
put under a regular 4-year inspection and pressure test. The researchers

Fig. 1. WWER-440 reactor pressure vessel. Regions indicated: A - nozzle region with
water inlet, outlet pipes, B - primary circuit pipes, C - welding at the height of the
reactor core, D - a . e . measuring devices for regions A and B, E - a . e . measuring
devices for region C.
 Acoustic emission monitoring of pressure vessels 291

TABLE 1
A.E. Sensors and Instrumentation at the Proof Tests (* = high-temp, sensor,
** = with waveguide)
Reactor unit a

1 2 3 4
(1987) (1988) (1989) (1990)

Number of a.e. sensors . . . .

In nozzle region (A) 12 12 12 15
On ducts (B) -- 4 4 6
At welding 5/6 (C) -- 8 12 12
Type of sensors
At (A), (C) D9203 D9203 D0203 D9203
At (B) -- D9210" D9203"* D9203
Number of defectophones 3 3 3 3
Number of expander units -- 1 2 3
Remote check of sensors -- -- Experim. System
tester
a Year of test is shown in parentheses.

of the institutes installed two small acoustic emission systems monitor-

ing the region of the nozzles by 12 acoustic emission sensors, during the
hydrotest of 19.2 MPa.
This first nuclear application brought useful results, testified the
viability of the applied methods, s h o w e d h o w to upgrade the system
and data evaluation. During the next years, all reactor units have been
tested as Fig. 1 and Table 1 shows.
As it can be seen from Table 1, the monitoring system was becoming
larger and larger from year to year. Figure 2 shows the block diagram
of the system applied in the nozzle region. Generally, 1 0 0 - 4 0 0 k H z
acoustic emission sensors ( D u n e g a n D 9203 A) were used. T h e y were
provided with small, impedance matching transformers (I) and con-
nected by co-axial cables to logarithmic amplifiers put at an accessible
place (II) together with the p r o g r a m m a b l e D e f e c t o p h o n e System
Tester. This assembly was c o n n e c t e d to the D e f e c t o p h o n e plus Expan-
der units (III) each processing four arrays of four a.e. sensors on the
first-hit principle.
D e f e c t o p h o n e plus E x p a n d e r systems are 16-channel front-end proc-
essors enabling identification and digitalisation of selected a.e. para-
meters of the first-hit signals in any of the four-sensor arrays. A t the
292 P. Pellionisz, P. Sziics

I ~ System L
1 I '~ ~ ~'tester | \ ]] IT[ Par Remote
• \ (pressure) computer

, . . , I J4 a-I > I-, \ I Defectop.one

~'~ V~ ~ ' - 3 _ O~,tr.I...4 f
5...8 k k ~ - 2 0 m _j , _ [ / " " - ~.":--_.-
5 . . _ . 8J - Expander i I
...12 G F _ . [ ~ I _ / ~
-- -- ~ ~ .. ... .. . :~1131~.16,
9 12 , '

11...16~-~

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the acoustic emission system applied to the a.e. sensors in the
nozzle region.

proof tests, each Defectophone disposed a dedicated computer in the

remote diagnostic control room of the power plant. Both instrument
control and data reception as well as operating the system tester for
verifying correct operation of the system were made from this control
room.
At welding 5/6 (Fig. I(C)) acoustic emission sensors were put in their
place by the remote-controlled hydraulic robot arm of the ultrasonic
testing system. They were provided with a similar system to that of the
nozzle region.

Y I [ d B ] Point Line Y 2 [ b a r ]

110. "~4 190

100. Pressure 7 ~,8' / / ~ , \ }-170
90. ,.' 5 _ " • ~6 ~ - " - ~ / . 2 ~"150

o.4 A. f
50 ,Number i!:[! : ?":..' 70
4.0 50

30 .,._,.~1.,...:. ,' ', -: ~ .. : ~: --'.'&!.;,: -. :.5. 30

t'-':.. .. . ".-. . . . . ....
20 10

10 f
! i ~ I I I 1 I t I I
17 23 45 66 8 8 109 131 152 174 195 217
Elapsed Time" [min]
Fig. 3. A.e. peak amplitudes, event number and pressure in function of time at the
proof test of unit 4.
 Acoustic emission monitoring of pressure vessels 293

I000 ÷ 4. 4. 4. 4. 4.
! , ,. . .
[vents: ,I O
invlic11134 0
4. .4. 4. 4- 4. 4-
Vilid
•I000~
I~ilt 143

4. 4. 4. ÷ 4. +
Mem~
[vents: b
InvlidI134 0 ÷
+ .+ + 4. 4.
Valid
O~Rt -10~
i !lt.

÷ + ÷ 4. "1"

Events: c
Invlid1134 + + + + + ÷
lOalicl
l~Flt497 "1~
Il~ilt?

Fig. 4. Location map in the nozzle area of the reactor vessel (a) without filtering, (b)
after filtering simultaneous arrivals, and (c) further filtering events with counts less than
1500.

The acoustic emission monitoring of the hydrotests were carried out

by researchers of KFKI and by those of E R O K A R in cooperation with
the non-destructive test staff of Paks Nuclear Power Plant. The V-213
type vessels (diameter, 4270mm; height, l l 8 0 0 m m ; wall thickness,
140 mm; material, 15CH2MFA) were pressurised gradually from 2 to
19-2 MPa as Fig. 3 shows. The figure also shows the peak amplitudes of
the detected events together with the cumulative event number. It can
be seen that acoustic emission activity was minimal during pressure-
hold and pressure-down periods.
Figure 4 shows the found source locations on the sensor map of
the opened up nozzle area during the test of Unit 2, 6 showing that
false detections could be eliminated by applying different filtering
conditions.
294 P. Pellionisz, P. Sziics

4.2 Monitoring conventional pressure vessels

During the lifetime of a vessel, the most important tests are as follows:
• shop-hydrotest after manufacturing,
• baseline-hydrotest after mounting,
° periodical in-service tests, and
• out-of-operation test after a general overhaul.

The acoustic emission monitoring of conventional boilers during

shop-tests has been introduced in Hungary by E R O K A R (Central
Testing Laboratory of Power Plants). They examined several boiler-
drums of GHV in Raciborz (Poland) duri~ag 1987-89, and boilers of the
THV in Ostrava (Bohemia) in 1991. Another institution, the State
Authority for Energy Management and Safety made shop-hydrotests in
Katowice (Poland) and in Raciborz (Poland), 1989.
An example for base-line hydrotests accompanied with acoustic
emission monitoring can be the inspection of the boiler of A H V
examined by E R O K A R .
For an out-of-operation test, the acoustic emission monitoring of the
drum of D H V can be cited. This test determined, that the laminar slag
inclusion, which had been found inside of the barrel sheet was not
dangerous for the operational safety. It illustrated well that to decide in
safety assessment, even after 200 000 working hours, acoustic emission
is a useful means.

REFERENCES

1. Miller, R. K. & McIntire, P. ed., Nondestructive Testing Handbook (Vol. 5).

American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Los Angeles, USA, 1988.
2. ASTM Standard, E-569-85, American Society for Testing Materials.
3. Pellionisz, P. & Ger6b, J., KFKI-Report, KFKI-1989-38, KFKI, Budapest,
Hungary.
4. KFKI, VASKUT, Osszefoglal6 jelent6s, OKKFT-A/ll-4.4.13, Budapest,
Hungary, 1985.
5. Ger6b, J., Pellionisz, P. & Sz6kely, Gy., A G~p, XL (1988) (9) 335-8.
6. Pellionisz, P., Sztics, P. & Trampus, P., In Nondestructive Testing (Proc.
12th World Conf.), ed. J. Boodard, G. M. van Dijk. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 1989, pp. 1134-6.