EN 12681 (casting inspection) have incorporated Se-75 for radiography (see

references).
Introduction
Weld inspection of pipelines and of chemical and petrochemical production plants
has always been one of the most important uses of gamma radiography. The small
size and low weight of the equipment in comparison to X-ray tubes of comparable
power are advantages of gamma radiation devices. They do not need an electric
supply and thus are very useful for mobile inspection. The most common radiation
source is iridium 192 (Ir-192). Due to its high radiation energy, its application is
limited to thick wall inspections. New gammagraphic equipment based on selenium
75 (Se-75) has been commercially available for about four years. The containers are
about the same size as those for Ir-192, but their weight is significantly less. The
gamma constant is almost half that of Ir-192; the half life is 120.4 days. From the
gamma spectrum of Se-75 its range of application is expected to lie between that of
Ir-192 and ytterbium 169 (Yb-169). Radiographic characteristics such as specific
contrast and image quality were measured and compared with Ir-192 and X-ray to
determine the suitable wall thickness range. The characteristics were measured with
different film systems and lead screens. Test measurements of welds were compared
to demonstrate the potential of the new equipment. The evaluation of special
anomalies is based on digitized images and image enhancement. Spectroscopic
measurements in comparison to simulations were used to evaluate hardening effects.
As a result of these measurements, the new international standard ISO 5579, as well
as the European EN 1435 (weld inspection) and proposed EN 12681 (casting
inspection) have incorporated Se-75 for radiography (see references).

Contrast is the basic determinant for discernibility of

anomalies.

Basic Properties

The practical application depends on the basic properties of the gamma sources as
well as the availability of the working containers and accessories (Sauerwein et al.,
1994). Table 1 shows the values for all gamma sources which are considered in the
new standard EN 1435, and in the proposed EN 12681 and ISO 5579. With respect
to the gamma constant and half-life, only three sources are of major practical
importance: selenium 75 (Se-75), iridium 192 (Ir-192), and cobalt 60 (Co-60). The
application range as a function of the wall thickness depends on the gamma
spectrum. It is obvious, therefore, that the new source Se-75 should be applied to
examination of components with smaller walls than are suitable for Ir-192 and Co-60
examination. The goal of this paper is the description of the quantitative estimation of
the suitable wall thickness ranges for Se-75 and Ir-192 in comparison to X-ray
radiography.
 Table 1 Characteristics of gamma sources

Thulium Ytterbium Selenium Iridium Cobalt

Tm-170 Yb-169 Se-75 Ir-192 Co-60
Gamma energy 1173-
(keV) 52-84 63-308 66-401 206-612
1333
Half life (days) 128 32 120 74 1925
Gamma
0.025 0.125 0.203 0.48 1.30
constant*

Wall Thickness Ranges by the Relative Specific Contrast

The qualification of high energy radiation sources depends ultimately on the image
quality of the radiographs. Commercial NDT films with lead screens were used for
estimation of the image quality. Contrast is the basic determinant for discernibility of
anomalies. The scatter ratio, k, was, therefore, estimated for steel and aluminum to
calculate the specific contrast Csp as a function of the wall thickness (Ewert et al.,
1996; Ewert et al., 1997). This measurements were based on the given guidelines of
the EN 1435, EN 444, and ISO5579. The specific contrast is calculated by

where µ is absorption coefficient and k is scatter ratio (as quotient of the intensities
scattered radiation divided by primary radiation).

The values for k were measured for different thicknesses of lead screens (front and
back screens). Values for µi were taken corresponding to the spectral line values i
and an effective µ was calculated for Equation 1. The influence of the lead screens
on µ was neglected.

The specific contrast for X-ray radiography depends mainly on the applied tube
voltage. For this reason it is difficult to specify one value for the specific contrast and
a given wall thickness. This problem was solved by using the maximum admissible
tube voltage corresponding to EN444, EN1435, and ISO 5579. Figure 1 shows the
voltages and values of µ plotted against the wall thickness of steel.

Specific contrast alone is not sufficient to characterize the different radiation sources.
A relative specific contrast was, therefore, introduced. The relative specific contrast of
the X-ray radiographs with NDT films and 0.027 mm (0.001 in.) lead screens with
tube voltages corresponding to Figure 1 was defined to be 1 (100 percent). All other
curves for the relative specific contrast were calculated by normalization to the
specific X-ray contrast. The result of this procedure allows comparison of the image
quality obtained with different radiation sources. Figure 2 shows the results for steel.
According to the conditions given in EN 1435 for Ir-192, class B (20 mm [0.75 in.]
steel) and 0.1 mm (0.004 in.) lead screens, a relative specific contrast of 61 percent
compared to X-rays could be determined. For class A (20 mm [0.75 in.] steel) and
0.027 mm (0.001 in.) lead screens this relative specific contrast amounts to 51
percent.

The point of intersection of the Ir-192 curve (0.1 mm [0.004 in.] lead) with the 100
percent curve for X-rays (0.027 mm [0.001 in.] lead screens) can be found at 36 mm
steel (1.41 in.), (corresponds to 400 kV) and the point of intersection of the Ir-192
curve for 0.1 mm (0.004 in.) lead screens with the X-ray curve for 1 mm (0.004 in.)
lead screens can be determined at 40 mm(1.6 in.) steel. This thickness of steel is the
limit from which on the former German standard DIN 54111-1 allowed the use of Ir-
192 for class B, that means it corresponds better to the resulting contrast than EN
1435.

The admissible wall thicknesses for Se-75 were determined similarly, in accordance
with the already existing regulations for Ir-192. For a relative specific contrast of 51
percent (class A Se-75) the lower limit for the wall thickness results in 13 mm (0.5 in.)
of steel for 0.027 mm (0.001 in.) lead screens and amounts to 10.5 mm (0.4 in.) of
steel for 0.1 mm (0.004 in.) lead screens. For a relative specific contrast of 61
percent (class B Se-75) the lower limit for the steel thickness amounts to 18 mm (0.7
in.) of steel for 0.027 mm (0.001 in.) lead screens and to 14 mm (0.5 in.) for 0.1 mm
(0.004 in.) lead screens. For the standard EN 1435 10 mm (0.4 in.) and 14 mm (0.5
in.) of steel were adopted for the classes A and B if 0.1 mm (0.004 in.) lead screens
are used for all Se-75 exposures. As a rule of exception a minimum wall thickness of
5 mm (0.2 in.) steel was accepted. For aluminum 35 mm (1.4 in.) wall thickness could
be determined for class A (Se-75) and 0.2 mm (0.008 in.) lead screens. The upper
limit for the wall thickness is 40 mm (1.6 in.) for steel and to 120 mm (4.7 in.) for
aluminum.

Corresponding to their spectral characteristics, the contrast obtained with gamma

sources exceeds the contrast for the X-ray sources for high wall thicknesses only.
But the Standard Committee has also considered the practical and economical
advantages of gamma sources for Ir-192 in comparison to X-ray tubes. A reduced
relative specific contrast was therefore accepted when isotopes are used for low wall
thicknesses. As shown above, Se-75 can provide the same relative specific contrast
at even lower wall thicknesses when compared to Ir-192, or provide better values at
the same thickness. Figure 3 shows the wall thickness ranges for the weld inspection
of steel for different gamma sources corresponding to EN1435 and ISO5579.

The Inherent Unsharpness

Measurements with Se-75 and wire image quality indicators (IQI) corresponding to
EN462-1 confirm the results of the specific contrast measurements. Moreover, these
results show an over-proportional advantage of Se-75 in comparison to Ir-192 in the
range of lower wall thicknesses. This can be explained with the reduced inherent film
unsharpness of the Se-75 radiation due to its lower spectral energy compared to Ir-
192.

Measurement of the Inherent Unsharpness

The inherent unsharpness was measured from radiographs of a platinum edge. For
this purpose a carefully manufactured cube of platinum (7 ´ 15 ´ 20 mm [0.27 ´ 0.59 ´
0.75 in.]) was positioned on a film in such a way that the central beam of a radiation
source (distance between source and film 5 m [16 ft] for an X-ray tube and 2 m [6.5
ft] for gamma sources) was the tangent of the platinum edge oriented vertically to the
film plane.

The image of the edge was scanned with a microdensitometer. The rectangular slit of
this instrument has dimensions of 500 µm by 5 µm (0.02 by 0.0002 in.) and was
oriented with its longer side parallel to the image of the edge. The scan was
performed vertically to the edge in steps of 5 µm (0.0002 in.). Three independent
scans were averaged for noise reduction

Table 2 Inherent unsharpness of Se-75

Iron (Fe) filter Lead (Pb) screen Inherent unsharpness

mm (in.) mm (in.-3) µm (in.-3)
- - 150 (5.9)
- 0.027 (1) 160 (6.3)
- 0.1 (4) 190 (7.5)
- 0.2 (8) 200 (7.9)
10 (0.4) 0.1 (4) 200 (7.9)
20 (0.8) 0.1 (4) 225 (8.8)
30 (1.2) 0.1 (4) 270 (10.6)
40 (1.6) 0.1 (4) 300 (11.8)

For the determination of the inherent unsharpness the classical method of Klasens
(Klasens, 1946) was chosen, where the points of intersection of the 16 percent and
84 percent lines of the density difference between shoulder and base of the edge
image (edge spread function) with the curve of the edge are considered. Then a
straight line through this both points has to be drawn which intersects the zero
percent and 100 percent lines. The horizontal distance between these new points of
intersection corresponds to the inherent unsharpness according to Klasens. Table 2
gives first measuring values for Se-75. Because the experimental set up was not
completely optimized, we assume a precision of the values of ± 20 percent.

The edge unsharpness from the Klasens criterion of Ir-192 amounts to 230 µm
(0.0092 in.), (steel thickness 0 and film with 0.1 mm [0.004 in.] front and back
screens of lead) and the value under same conditions amounts to 190 µm (0.0075
in.) for Se-75.

The measured edge spread functions could be used for a numerical evaluation
where by a nonlinear optimization the measured edge spread function is
approximated by a suitable analytical function which is fitted to the measured one.
The measured edge spread function could be approximated by an arctan function
(Equation 2).

For the numerical evaluation, however, the line spread function is needed. It is
obtained by the first derivation of the edge spread function and results in our case in
the Lorentzian function (Equation 3) as the line spread function (Ewert, 1996):

where D is optical density, x is spatial coordinate, x is unsharpness parameter, and

x0 is position of the edge.

Perceptibility of Cracks

The image of a crack AR(x) on an X-ray film can be approximated by a convolution of

the function R(x0) describing the crack with the line spread function (Equation 4):

For the purpose of calculation, cracks are simulated by grooves of different widths
but same depth (1 mm [0.04 in.]) in a steel plate of 20 mm (0.75 in.) thickness. It is
assumed that parallel X-rays penetrate the plate parallel to the grooves. Without
unsharpness, all grooves would be imaged with the same contrast according to the
following relation (Equation 5) for the density, D:

where W is wall thickness, E is energy, B is build up factor, and µ is absorption

coefficient.

Considering also the unsharpness the convolution according to Equation 4 results in

contrasts as shown in Figure 4, where a random noise is added which corresponds to
a value of DH = 0.022. It can be seen clearly that the decreasing contrast of the
cracks corresponds to the decreasing width of the grooves. As expected, a
radiograph made by X-rays has the highest contrast. For a groove width of 28 µm
(0.001 in.) the contrast produced by 270 keV X-rays decreases to 50 percent, which
is reached by Se-75 at a groove width of 240 µm (0.01 in.). The curve for Ir-192 is
always below the 50 percent level for X-rays.

While the 50 percent line was chosen arbitrarily, the value of DH corresponds to the
graininess of the film. If a minimal signal to noise ratio of 2 is assumed as limit for
perceptibility and DH = 0.022, then for X-rays cracks broader than 10 µm (0.0004 in.)
would be visible, for Se-75 cracks broader than 45 µm (0.0018 in.) would be visible,
and for Ir-192 all cracks broader than 90 µm (0.0036 in.) would be visible. Including
the smoothing of the noise by their broad edge spread functions, a rough estimation
of perceptibility results in crack widths of 15 µm (0.0006 in.) for Se-75, and 30 µm
(0.0012 in.) for Ir-192. In reality, the results depend also on other influences, as well
as different depths of cracks and angles of incidence of the radiation considered. It is
also known that the human eye can recognize long cracks at lower signal to noise
ratios than 2.

Additional investigations must be made to prove whether the admissible lower wall
thicknesses for Se-75 can be further reduced with the next revision of the standards,
and whether Se-75 can be used also for the detection of cracks during inservice
inspections in nuclear power plants. Although the advantage of Se-75 is obvious in
light of the inherent unsharpness, a quantitative study of image quality has not yet
been completed.

Single Wall - Double Wall Inspection

A special advantage of the gamma source is the small equipment size which allows
the application for pipe inspection by self propelled crawlers. Those crawlers are also
available equipped with Se-75. Here, three advantages have to be taken into
account: First, a significant time reduction is obtained from the central projection
geometry requiring only one exposure per circumferential weld. Secondly, this central
projection yields the optimum direction of the penetrating radiation. Thirdly, the
relative specific contrast for the gamma source is furthermore significantly increased
in comparison to X-ray exposures which must be taken through the double wall
thickness.

Figure 5 shows the wall thickness ranges for the application of gamma sources if the
application of X-ray tubes is possible in double wall penetration mode only. Because
of the small size of gamma sources it is easier to position them in the center of the
pipe (perhaps by a pipe crawler). The dominant effect is the reduction of the wall
thickness by two. This wall thickness reduction leads to a higher specific contrast
which almost doubles. For the calculation of the optimum wall thickness ranges two
cases are defined for the consideration of the scattered radiation:

 The ratio of the diameter to the wall thickness is high. The scattered radiation
from the source wall can be neglected. Scattered radiation is generated
 primarily from the inspected wall next to the film (see large pipe diameter in
Figure 5).
 The ratio of the diameter to the wall thickness is low. The scattered radiation
from both walls influences the measured contrast. The specific contrast is
reduced and, in the worst case, the scatter ratio has to be taken for the double
wall thicknesses (see small pipe diameter in Figure 5).

Corresponding to Figure 5, the contrast curve of Se-75 exceeds, in case two, the
specific contrast from the X-ray technique already at 9.2 mm (0.36 in.) wall thickness
of steel and for case one at 18.7 mm (0.73 in.). This is the range when the isotope
(Se-75) should be preferred to the X-ray technique. For Ir-192, this range starts at
12.7 mm (0.5 in.). But taking into account that the Standards Committee has
accepted 61 percent (see above) for the contrast of X-rays as lowest limit for the
application of gamma sources (class B), the application of Se-75 is already justified
between 4.2 and 6.5 mm (0.16-0.25 in.), as is the application of Ir-192 between 9.2
and 18.7 mm (0.36-0.73 in.). The exceptional reduction of Se-75 to 5 mm (0.2 in.)
steel and of Ir-192 to 10 mm (0.4 in.) steel corresponding to EN1435 is, therefore,
reasonable if gamma sources can be used in central projection technique (single wall
penetration) in comparison to the double wall X-ray technique.

References
ISO5579 Non-Destructive Testing: Radiographic Examination of Metallic Materials by
X- and Gamma Rays, Basic Rules, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.

EN1435 Non-destructive Examination of Welds: Radiographic Examination of

Welded Joints, Deutsches Institut für Normung E.V, Berlin, Germany, 1997.

prEN72687 Proposal: Founding-Radiographic Inspection.

EN444 Non-Destructive Testing: General Principles for the Radiographic

Examination of Metallic Materials by X-Rays and Gamma Rays, Deutsches Institut für
Normung E.V, Berlin, Germany, 1994.

EN462-1 Non-Destructive Testing: Image Quality of Radiographs, Image Quality

Indicators (Wire Type) and Determination of Image Quality Value, Deutsches Institut
für Normung E.V, Berlin, Germany, 1994.

Ewert, U., J. Löffler, J. Stade, and R. Grimm, Nondestructive Materials Testing

Annual Meeting: German, Austrian and Swiss Nondestructive Materials Testing
Standards as Mirrored by International Standardization, Lindau, Germany, May 13-15
1996, German Society for Nondestructive Testing (DGZfP), Berlin, Germany, 1996,
pp. 345-355.

Ewert, U., R. Grimm, T. Kaftel; ASNT Fall Conference and Quality Testing Show
Paper Summaries, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 20-24, 1997, American Society
for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 1997, pp. 139-142.
Klasens, H.A., Measurement and Calculation of Unsharpness Combinations in X-Ray
Photography, Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 1946, pp.
241-249.

Sauerwein, C., G. Isenhardt, R. Link, K. Weinlich, Annual Meeting on Advanced

Nondestructive Testing: A Vehicle Which Ensures Economic Efficiency and Meets
Ecological Requirements, Timmendorfer Strand, Germany, May 9-11 1994, German
Society for Nondestructive Testing (DGZfP), Berlin, 1995, pp. 231.

* BAM: Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing, Unter den Eichen 87, D-
12205 Berlin, Germany; +49-30-81 04-18 31; fax +49-30-8 11 50 89; e-mail
ewe.ewert@bam.de.

Copyright © 1999 by the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc. All rights reserved.

[ Materials Evaluation ]

Copyright © 2003 by the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc. ASNT is not responsible
for the authenticity or accuracy of information herein. Published opinions and statements do not
necessarily reflect the opinion of ASNT. Products or services that are advertised or mentioned do not
carry the endorsement or recommendation of ASNT.

IRRSP, Level III Study Guide, Materials Evaluation, NDT Handbook, Nondestructive Testing
Handbook, The NDT Technician and www.asnt.org are trademarks of the American Society for
Nondestructive Testing, Inc. ACCP, ASNT, Research in Nondestructive Evaluation and RNDE are
registered trademarks of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.

ASNT exists to create a safer world by promoting the profession and technologies of
nondestructive testing.