Technical Justification Area 2-A, B and C - PHARE ISI 2002 (Revision 1)

EUROPEAID/116528/D/SV/CZ
QUALIFICATION OF NON-DESTRUCTIVE
TESTING AND INSPECTION
TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR

GROUPS 2-A, B, and C
DELIVERABLE 7
(TECHNICAL REPORT)
ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVIEW BY: DATE: ORGANIZATION:
REVISION: 1 Russ Booler Serco
DATE: December 2006

APPROVED BY: DATE: ORGANIZATION:
Tecnatom-VTT-TVONS-SERCO consortium
ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 1/ 104

Nuclear Research Institute Řež plc
Division of Integrity and Technical Engineering
Report №: DITI 304/225/R1
TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION
of mechanized ultrasonic inspection
of pressurizer to main circulation pipeline
weld joints at Temelin NPP
Revision 1
Author: Martin Zelenka, Dipl. Ing.
UT qualification supervisor: Dr. Ladislav Horáček
Head of department 304: Jiří Palyza, Dipl. Ing.
Director of DITE: Dr. Jiří Ždárek
NRI, December 2006

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C
LIST OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 7

ANNOTATION ................................................................................................................................ 8
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 9
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 14
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 16
2. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT INPUT INFORMATION......................................................... 17
2.1 COMPONENT CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................. 17
2.1.1 VI-2 type weld joint (weld No. 46)......................................................................... 17
2.1.2 VI-1 type weld joint (weld No. 47)......................................................................... 18
2.1.3 Weld joint of I type (welds Nos. 48, 49) ................................................................ 19
2.1.4 Weld joint of II type (welds Nos. 50, 51, 52) ......................................................... 20
2.1.5 Summary of Pressurizer Surge Line Weld Joints ................................................. 21
2.2 DEFECT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................... 23
2.2.1 Postulated defects characteristics ........................................................................ 23
2.3 ULTRASONIC INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 23
2.3.1 Object and range of the ultrasonic inspection....................................................... 23
2.3.2 Evaluating of detected defects ............................................................................. 25
2.4 QUALIFICATION CRITERIA AND ISI PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES ............................. 26
2.4.1 Inspection area 2-A and Inspection area 2-C ....................................................... 26
2.4.2 Inspection area 2-B .............................................................................................. 27
3. OVERVIEW OF THE INSPECTION SYSTEM ................................................................... 28
3.1 INSPECTION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................... 28
3.1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 28
3.1.2 Used equipment and software.............................................................................. 28
3.1.3 MIDAS data acquisition system description.......................................................... 28
3.1.4 SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system description ............... 31
3.1.5 MASERA-NT ultrasonic data evaluation system .................................................. 33
3.1.6 Hardware equipment used for mechanized ultrasonic inspection ......................... 33
3.2 INSPECTION PROCEDURE, DATA ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING AND
EVALUATING OF ULTRASONIC INSPECTION DATA FILES ........................................... 36
3.2.1 Inspection procedure ........................................................................................... 36

3.2.2 Data acquisition and processing .......................................................................... 36

3.2.3 Evaluating of ultrasonic inspection data files ........................................................ 36
4. INFLUENTIAL/ESSENTIAL PARAMETERS ANALYSIS AND INSPECTION PERSONNEL
REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................. 37
4.1 INFLUENTIAL/ESSENTIAL PARAMETERS ANALYSIS .................................................... 37
4.1.1 Influential/essential parameters analysis of the input group related to the
component ........................................................................................................... 37
4.1.2 Influential/essential parameters analysis of the input group related to the defects 38
4.1.3 Influential/essential parameters analysis of the Inspection Procedure .................. 38
4.1.4 Influential/essential parameters analysis related to data acquisition hardware and
software ............................................................................................................... 39
4.2 INSPECTION PERSONNEL .............................................................................................. 41
5. PHYSICAL REASONING .................................................................................................. 42
5.1 SELECTION OF INSPECTION METHOD .......................................................................... 42
5.2 PROBE SELECTION ......................................................................................................... 42
5.2.1 General requirements for probe selection ............................................................ 43
5.2.2 Selection of detection probes ............................................................................... 43
5.2.3 Selection of sizing probes .................................................................................... 45
5.3 ANALYSIS LEVEL ............................................................................................................. 45
6. PREDICTION BY MODELLING ........................................................................................ 46
6.1 RESULTS OF MODELLING OF UT INSPECTION ON 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 TEST
BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-A) ..................................................................................... 47
6.2 RESULTS OF MODELLING OF UT INSPECTION ON 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 TEST
BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-B) ..................................................................................... 51
7. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE ........................................................................................... 55
7.1 LABORATORY MECHANIZED ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-
S50,51,52 TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-A) .......................................................... 55
7.1.1 Input parameters of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-
HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) ........................................ 55
7.1.2 Assessment of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-HCP-
ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A)................................................. 57
7.1.2.1 Defects detection ................................................................................................. 57
7.1.2.2 Defects sizing ....................................................................................................... 60
7.1.3 Results summary of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-
HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) ........................................ 70
7.1.3.1 Results summary of defect detection.................................................................... 70

7.1.3.2 Results summary of defect sizing ......................................................................... 71

7.1.3.3 Conclusions of assessment of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-
KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A).................................. 73
S48,49 TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-B) ............................................................... 74
7.2.1 Input parameters of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-
HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) ............................................. 74
7.2.2 Assessment of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-HCP-
ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) ..................................................... 77
7.2.2.1 Defects detection ................................................................................................. 77
7.2.2.2 Defects sizing ....................................................................................................... 79
7.2.3 Results summary of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-
HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) ............................................. 89
7.2.3.1 Results summary of defect detection.................................................................... 89
7.2.3.2 Results summary of defect sizing ......................................................................... 90
KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B)....................................... 92
7.3 LABORATORY MECHANIZED ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF INSPECTION AREA 2-C ...
............................................................................................................................ 93
7.4 LABORATORY RT INSPECTION OF INSPECTION AREAS 2-A AND 2-B ........................ 94
8. PARAMETRIC STUDIES ................................................................................................... 95
9. EQUIPMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 96
9.1 ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVES ACHIEVEMENT OF ULTRASONIC INSPECTION IN
RANGE OF OPTIMISATION LABORATORY TRIALS ON THE 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-
S50,51,52 TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-A) .......................................................... 96
RANGE OF OPTIMISATION LABORATORY TRIALS ON THE 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49
TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-B) ........................................................................... 97
S50,51,52 TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-C) .......................................................... 98
9.4 ASSESSMENT OF EQUIPMENT SUITABILITY .............................................................. 100
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................. 101
10.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING INSPECTION PERFORMANCE .................... 101
10.2 WELD NOS. 50, 51, 52. TYPE II (INSPECTION AREA 2-A) ............................................. 101
10.3 WELD NOS. 48, 49. TYPE I (INSPECTION AREA 2-B) .................................................... 102
10.4 WELD NO. 46 TYPE VI-2 (INSPECTION AREA 2-C) ....................................................... 103
10.5 WELD NO. 47 TYPE VI-1 (INSPECTION AREA 2-C) ....................................................... 104

LIST OF CHANGES AND COMPLEMENTS
Force of Page number,

Revision Object of change
changes from Form of page change
1 12/2006 2 Change of Front page
9 - 10 Change of REFERENCES
17 - 22 Change of Chapter 2.1
23 - 25 Change of Chapter 2.3.1
26 Change of Chapter 2.4.1
57 - 58 Change of Chapter 7.1.2.1
71 Change of Table 7.1.3.2
72 Change of Chapter 7.1.3.3
90 Change of Table 7.2.3.2
93 Change of Chapter 7.3
94 New Chapter 7.4
95 Change of Chapter 8
97 Change of Table 9.2
98 - 99 New Chapter 9.3
100 Rename of Chapter 9.3 -> 9.4

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I As-built drawings of the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block and PP1 ÷ PP11
Artificial Defects
Appendix II As-built drawings of the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block and PX1 ÷ PX10
Artificial Defects
Appendix III As-built drawings of Calibration Blocks
Appendix IV Laboratory optimisation mechanized ultrasonic trials on the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-

S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A)
Appendix V Laboratory optimisation mechanized ultrasonic trials on the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-

S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B)

ANNOTATION
This document contains the Technical Justification of NDT qualification of mechanized ultrasonic
inspection of Pressurizer Surge Line Weld Joints in Temelin NPP elaborated in accordance with
SÚJB methodology and in accordance with ENIQ and IAEA methodologies.

REFERENCES
a) NDT Qualification documents
[a1] European methodology for qualification of non-destructive tests: second issue, published by
the European Commission, Brussels-Luxembourg, EUR 17299 EN, 1997
[a2] Methodology for Qualification of In-service Inspection Systems for WWER Nuclear Power
Plants, publication IAEA-EBP-WWER 11, Vienna, March 1998
[a3] Metodika kvalifikace provozních prohlídek hlavních komponent primárních okruhů JE typu
VVER, SÚJB (publikace SÚJB č. 01966), Praha, prosinec 1998
(Methodology for Qualification of In-service Inspections of the primary circuit main
components on the WWER type NPPs, SÚJB (SÚJB publication No. 01966), Prague,
December 1998)
[a4] Common position of European regulators on qualification of NDT systems for pre- and in-
service inspection of light water reactor components
[a5] ENIQ Recommended Practice l: Influential/Essential Parameters, Issue 2, ENIQ report 6, EUR
21751 EN, published by the European Commission, Brussels-Luxembourg, June 2005
[a6] ENIQ Recommended Practice 2: Recommended contents for a technical justification, Issue 1,
ENIQ report 4, EUR 18099 EN, published by the European Commission, Brussels-
Luxembourg, 1998
[a7] ENIQ Recommended Practice 3: Strategy document for technical justification, Issue 1, ENIQ
Report 5, EUR 18100 EN, published by the European Commission, Brussels-Luxembourg,
1998
b) Technical documents to UT qualification and inspection
[b1] Zelenka, M.: “TEC-PRO-TASK 6-01 (GROUPS 2-A, 2-B & 2-C) (Revision 1)“ Inspection
Procedure, NRI Řež Report No. DITI 304/263/R1, November 2006
[b2] Vstupní informace JE Temelin

(NPP Temelin Input Information)
[b3] Palyza, J.: “Technical specification of weld joints of pressurizer surge line weld joints at
Temelin NPP“, NRI Řež Report No. DITI 304/140, 3/2004
[b4] Hotěk, V.: „TPE 10-40/1771/81-A Všeobecné technické podmínky pro montážní / svařování
potrubí elektráren typu VVER“, Škoda Plzeň, leden 1987
(Hotěk, V.: „TPE 10-401771/91-A General technical specifications for site welding of WWER
type NPP piping.“, Škoda Plzeň, January 1987)

[b5] Vlček, P., Mareš, P.: „MODELOVÁNÍ AUTOMATIZOVANÉ UZ KONTROLY SVAROVÝCH

SPOJŮ OBLASTI 2-C S VYUŽITÍM VÝPOČTOVÉHO KÓDU CIVA 8.0 – Nadstavba
technického zdůvodnění” zpráva DITI 304/278, ÚJV Řež, leden 2007
(Vlček, P., Mareš, P.: “MODELLING OF AUTOMATED UT INSPECTION OF WELD JOINTS
OF INSPECTION AREA 2-C BY USING OF SIMULATION OF CIVA 8.0 COMPUTING CODE
– Enhancement of Technical Justification” Report No. DITI 304/278, NRI Rez, January 2007)
c) Technical documents to Test Blocks
[c1] Měšťánek, A, Landa, J.: „Svarové spoje potrubní trasy KO-HCP JE Temelín – typ svaru II (č.
sv. 50, 51, 52) “, zpráva ÚJV Řež DITI 304/206, prosinec 2005
(Měšťánek, A, Landa, J.: „Weld joints on Pressurizer-Main Circulation Piping line in NPP
Temelin – II Type weld joint (Nos. 50, 51, 52)” NRI Řež Report No. DITI 304/206, December
2005)
[c2] Čapek, J, Landa, J.: „Svar potrubí s doměrkem na potrubní trase od kompenzátoru objemu do
HCP JE Temelín – svar typu I.“, zpráva ÚJV Řež DITI 304/207, prosinec 2005
(Čapek, J, Landa, J.: „Weld joint of piping with added piece on Pressurizer-Main Circulation
Piping line in NPP Temelin – I Type weld joint” NRI Řež Report No. DITI 304/207, December
2005)
d) Technical documents to the inspection equipment
[d1] PET-2 scanner description and operating manuals (DM 0298), Rev. 0
[d2] SIROCO-INSIDE CONSOLE User’s Manual (SI-USR-001), Rev.1, Tecnatom, s.a., 11/03
[d3] SIROCO-INSIDE REMOTE CONSOLE User Manual (SI-USR-004), Rev.1, Tecnatom, s.a.,
12/03
[d4] SIROCO-INSIDE CONTROLLER FOR NRI PET (BTA/BTO) and PISA EQUIPMENT User
Manual (HW) (PETPISANRI_I.002), Rev.0, Tecnatom, s.a., September 2003
[d5] SIROCO-INSIDE CONTROLLER FOR NRI PET (BTA/BTO) and PISA EQUIPMENT Technical
User Manual (PETPISANRI_I.001), Rev.0, Tecnatom, s.a., September 2003
[d6] SIROCO-INSIDE CONTROLLER FOR NRI PET (BTA/BTO) and PISA EQUIPMENT
Maintenance Manual (PETPISANRI_I.003), Rev.0, Tecnatom, s.a., September 2003
[d7] MIDAS 2.5 UT Data Acquisition System (MIDAS-ENG), Rev. 6, Tecnatom, s.a., 02/04
[d8] RACK MIDAS (NRI) Hardware User Manual (MIDASHW-ENG), Rev. 0.0, Tecnatom, s.a.,
10/03
[d9] MASERA 5.0.1 Ultrasonic Data Evaluation System (MAS-5.0-ING), Rev. 0, Tecnatom, s.a.,
11/03
[d10] Manuál CIVA 7.1, CEA, září 2006 (CIVA 7.1 manual, September 2006)
e) RT inspection of Test Blocks

[e1] Kolář, J.: Verification of Test Assemblies Pressurizer ETE 50-52, Pressurizer ETE 48-49 by
the Radiographic method“, Report of Testing No. 297/5020401, Department of Control
management Temelin NPP, January 2007
f) Regulations, Technical Standards, Technical Notices
[f1] ČSN 01 5022, Zkoušení materiálu a výrobků ultrazvukem - Vyhodnocení velikosti vad
(Ultrasonic examination of materials and products – Flaw sizing).
[f2] ČSN ISO 2400, Svary v oceli. Kontrolní měrka pro kalibraci ultrazvukových zkušebních
zařízení (Welds in steel. Reference block for the calibration ultrasonic inspection equipment).
[f3] ČSN EN 12223, Nedestruktivní zkoušení - Zkoušení ultrazvukem. Specifikace pro kalibrační
měrku č. 1 (Non-destructive testing – Ultrasonic testing. Specification for the calibration block
No. 1).
[f4] ČSN EN 12668-3, Nedestruktivní zkoušení - Charakterizace a ověřování ultrazvukového
zkušebního zařízení. Část 3: Kompletní zkušební zařízení. (Non-destructive testing –
Characterisation and verification of the ultrasonic inspection equipment. Part 3: Complete
inspection equipment).
[f5] ČSN EN 27963, Svary v oceli. Kalibrační měrka č. 2 pro zkoušení svarů ultrazvukem. (Welds
in steel. Calibration block No.2 for ultrasonic inspection of welds).
[f6] ČSN EN ISO 6520-1, Svařování a příbuzné procesy – Klasifikace geometrických vad
kovových materiálů – Část 1: Tavné svařování (Welding and allied processes – Classification
of geometric imperfections in metallic materials – Part 1: Fusion welding).
[f7] ČSN EN 473, Kvalifikace a certifikace pracovníků nedestruktivního zkoušení. Obecné principy
(Qualification and certification of NDT personnel – general principles).
[f8] Std-104/E/01 APC, Kvalifikace a certifikace pracovníků podle nařízení vlády č. 182/99 Sb. pro
tlaková zařízení, tj. podle Směrnice 97/23/EC (PED) pro tlaková zařízení (Qualification and
certification of personnel according to Government decree No. 182/99 Sb. for pressure
equipment, i.e. according to the Directive 97/23/EC ((PED)) for pressure equipment).
[f9] Std-301/E/95 APC, Kvalifikace a certifikace pracovníků nedestruktivního zkoušení. Obecné
principy (novela Směrnice CSNZ č. 1992, vydání 1993) (Qualification and certification of NDT
personnel. General principles. Update of the Directive CSNZ No. 1992, 1993 edition).
[f10] Vyhláška č. 76/1989 Sb., Vyhláška Českého úřadu bezpečnosti práce k zajištění bezpečnosti
technických zařízení v jaderné energetice (Decree of the Czech Office for Labour Safety on
safety assurance of nuclear power technical facilities).
[f11] Vyhláška č. 263/1991 Sb., Vyhláška Českého úřadu bezpečnosti práce, kterou se mění a
doplňuje vyhláška ČÚBP č. 76/1989 Sb. k zajištění bezpečnosti technických zařízení v jaderné
energetice (Decree of the Czech Office for Labour Safety No. 76/1989 Sb. changing and

amending Decree of the Czech Office for Labour Safety on safety assurance of nuclear power
technical facilities).
[f12] Vyhláška č. 214/1997 Sb., Vyhláška Státního úřadu pro jadernou bezpečnost o
zabezpečování jakosti při činnostech vedoucích k ozáření a o stanovení kritérií pro zařazení a
rozdělení vybraných zařízení do bezpečnostních tříd (Decree of the Czech Office for Nuclear
safety on quality assurance during irradiation danger activities and on classification of
specified facilities in safety classes).
[f13] OP 1513-72, Hlavní zásady svařování a navařování uzlů a konstrukcí jaderných elektráren,
zkušebních a výzkumných jaderných reaktorů a zařízení (Basic principles for welding and weld
cladding of components and structures of nuclear power plants, research and experimental
reactors and facilities).
[f14] PK 1514-72, Pravidla kontroly svarových spojů a návarů uzlů a konstrukcí jaderných
elektráren, zkušebních a výzkumných jaderných reaktorů a zařízení (Principles for inspection
of weld joints and weld claddings on components and structures of nuclear power plants,
research and experimental reactors and facilities).
g) As-built drawings
As-built drawings of the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) and as-
built drawings of PP1 ÷ PP11 artificial defects:
307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A)
307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52/So Test Block after weld crown removing (Inspection Area 2-A)
307-3-KO 1000/PP-1/S PP1 and PP2 defects
307-3-KO 1000/PP-2/S PP3 defect
307-3-KO 1000/PP-6/S PP7 and PP8 defects
307-3-KO 1000/PP-0/R1 PP11 defect
As-built drawings of the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) and as-built
drawings of PX1 ÷ PX10 artificial defects:
307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B)
307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49/So Test Block after weld crown removing (Inspection Area 2-B)
307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-01/S PX1 defect

307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-02/S PX2 defect

307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-03/S PX3 defect
307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-04/S PX4 defect
307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-05/S PX5 defect
307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-06/S PX6 defect
307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-07/S PX7 defect
307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-08/S PX8 defect
307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-09/S PX9 defect
307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-10/S PX10 defect

ABBREVIATIONS
APC Association for Personnel Certification
CAD Computer Aided Design
CPU Central Processing Unit
ČSN Czech Standard (Česká norma)
ČÚBP Czech Office for Labour Safety (Český úřad bezpečnosti práce)
DAC Distance Amplitude Curve
DITI, DITE Division of Integrity and Engineering
DRM Deeper Relative Maximum
EN European Standard
ENIQ European Network for Inspection and Qualification (Evropská sdružení pro NDT
kontroly (provozní prohlídky) a kvalifikace)
ETE Temelín NPP
FCC Fatigue Cycled Crack
HCP Main Circulation Piping (Hlavní cirkulační potrubí)
HW Hardware
JE Nuclear Power Plant
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ISO International Standard Organization
KO Pressurizer (kompenzátor objemu)
LLT Longitudinal – Longitudinal – Transversal
LOF Lack of Fusion
MCP Main Circulation Piping
NDT Non-destructive testing

NPP Nuclear Power Plant
NRI Nuclear Research Institute
RMS Root-Mean-Square
RT Radiographic Testing
RTD Röntgen Technische Dienst
SÚJB Czech State Office for Nuclear Safety
TWE Through Wall Extension
ÚJV Nuclear Research Institute
UT Ultrasonic Testing
VVER Water-Water Energetic Reactor
WWER Water-Water Energetic Reactor

1. INTRODUCTION
This document contains the Technical Justification of NDT qualification of mechanized ultrasonic
inspection of Pressurizer Surge Line Weld Joints in Temelin NPP.

2. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT INPUT INFORMATION
2.1 COMPONENT CHARACTERISTICS

2.1.1 VI-2 type weld joint (weld No. 46)
Circumferential weld joint of piping (bend 426/346 - Pos.2 - 10GN2MFA) to branch T-piece nozzle
at MCP (10GN2MFA).
Description of the weld joint
At the weld root face there is an inner Ø 350 ±0,2, space 0 mm. A transition into the inner branch
nozzle and piping diameter (Ø 346) is at the distance of 10 mm at the weld face diameter at 10o
angle. The weld root face length and thickness is 3 mm, the bevels on the both sides of the weld
centre line to the outer surface (Ø 430 on the branch nozzle and Ø 426 on piping) are at 20o angle.
There is a buttering with two layers on the bevel surfaces of the nozzle and piping
(1st layer - Sv 07Kh25N13, 2nd layer - Sv 08Kh19N1062B) performed under flux OS10 in the
manufacturing factory, the same type of cladding is on the inner surface of the branch nozzle. On
the inner pipe surface there is a one-layer cladding (Sv 04Kh19N11М3), the weld root is performed
with the same material.
Attachment weld is of assembly type, filler –EА 400/10Т type electrode.
The welding process and weld checks in accordance with OP 1513-72, PK 1514-72 and TPE 10-
40/1771/81-A standards. Weld category I.
Figure 2.1.1: VI-2 Type Weld (No. 46)

2.1.2 VI-1 type weld joint (weld No. 47)
Circumferential weld joint of piping (bend 426/346 - Pos.1 - 10GN2MFA) to pressuriser nozzle
(10GN2MFA).
Description of the weld joint
At the weld root face there is an inner Ø 350 ±0,2, space 0 mm. A transition into the inner
pressuriser nozzle diameter (Ø 346) is at the distance of 20 mm at the weld face diameter at 10o
angle. On the pipe side, there is a transition into the inner Ø 346 at the distance of 10 mm at the
weld root face diameter at 10o angle, as well. The weld root face length and thickness is 3 mm, the
bevels on the both sides of the weld centre line to the outer surface (Ø 426) are at 20o angle.
There is a step finished at 61 mm distance on the pressuriser nozzle (measured from the weld
face).
There is a buttering with two layers on the bevel surfaces of the nozzle and piping
(1st layer - Sv 07Kh25N13, 2nd layer - Sv 08Kh19N1062B) performed under flux OS10 in the
manufacturing factory, the same type of cladding is on the inner surface of the nozzle. On the inner
pipe surface there is an ones layer cladding (Sv 04Kh19N11М3), the weld root is performed with
the same material. Attachment weld is of assembly type, filler –EА 400/10Т type electrode.
Figure 2.1.2: VI-1 Type Weld (No. 47)

2.1.3 Weld joint of I type (welds Nos. 48, 49)
Circumferential dissimilar weld joint of pipeline (10GN2MFA) with added piece (08Kh18N10T).
Description of weld joints
Attachment weld is of assembly type, filler – EА 400/10Т type electrode. There is a buttering with
two layers on the bevel surfaces of piping (1st layer - Sv 07Kh25N13, 2nd layer - Sv
08Kh19N1062B); the added piece is left without cladding.
At the weld root face there is an inner Ø 350 ±0,2, space 0 mm. A transition into the inner piping
and added piece diameter (Ø 346) is at the distance of 10 mm at the weld face diameter at 10o
angle. The weld root face length and thickness is 3 mm, the bevels on the both sides of the weld
centre line to the outer surface (Ø 426) are at 20o angle.
Figure 2.1.3: I Type Weld (Nos. 48, 49)

2.1.4 Weld joint of II type (welds Nos. 50, 51, 52)
Circumferential dissimilar pipe-to-pipe weld joint (10GN2MFA) with austenitic electrode EA

440/10T.
Description of weld joints
There is a buttering with two layers on the bevel surfaces of piping (1st layer - Sv 07Kh25N13, 2nd
layer - Sv 08Kh19N1062B). The weld root is performed with the same material.
At the weld root face there is an inner Ø 350 ±0,2, space 0 mm. A transition into the inner piping
diameter (Ø 346) is at the distance of 10 mm at the weld face diameter at 10o angle. The weld root
face length and thickness is 3 mm, the bevels on the both sides of the weld centre line to the outer
surface (Ø 426) are at 20o angle.
Attachment weld is of assembly type, filler –EА 400/10Т type electrode.
Figure 2.1.4: II Type Weld (Nos. 50, 51, 52)

2.1.5 Summary of Pressurizer Surge Line Weld Joints
Weld Weld
Description Welding technology
No. Type
Circumferential weld joint of T-branch

10GN2MFA – 10GN2MFA
46 (10GN2MFA) to piping (10GN2MFA), access VI-2 inner cladding and buttering, EA 400/10T
limited, Ø 426
Circumferential weld joint of pressuriser

47 nozzle (10GN2MFA) to piping (10GN2MFA) VI-1 inner cladding and buttering, EA 400/10T
access limited, Ø 426
Circumferential weld joint of piping 10GN2MFA – 08Kh18N10T

(10GN2MFA) to the added piece
48 (08Kh18N10T), I 10GN2MFA with inner cladding and buttering,
consideration of access impossible, Ø 426 EA 400/10T
Circumferential weld joint of piping 10GN2MFA – 08Kh18N10T
(10GN2MFA) to the added piece
49 (08Kh18N10T), I 10GN2MFA with inner cladding and buttering,
consideration of access impossible, Ø 426 EA 400/10T
Circumferential weld joint of piping

50 (10GN2MFA) to piping (10GN2MFA), II inner cladding and buttering, EA 400/10T
with access, Ø 426

consideration of access impossible, Ø 426

consideration of access impossible, Ø 426
Table 2.1.5: Summary of Pressurizer Surge Line Weld Joints in Temelin NPP

Figure 2.1.5: Scheme of Pressurizer Surge Line Weld Joints in Temelin NPP

2.2 DEFECT CHARACTERISTICS

2.2.1 Postulated defects characteristics
The mechanised ultrasonic inspection is especially oriented to detect and size the following
postulated defects in the Weld Joints on Pressurizer Surge Line:
Postulated defect are as follows:
 Fatigue cracks that originate on the inner surface of piping in the weld root area. They are
located in the weld metal and in the weld heat affected zone (HAZ). Such defects are
parallel to the weld centre line, the skew angle is about 0°.
 Lacks of fusion that are produced during manufacturing of the weld and are located on the
boundary between the weld metal and base metal. Such defects are considered to be a
sub-surface ones, i.e. not penetrating the inner surface.
In both cases described above, the tilt angle of the defect can vary up to  20° to the weld centre
line.
Transversal defects are not postulated.
2.3 ULTRASONIC INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

2.3.1 Object and range of the ultrasonic inspection
A volumetric mechanized examination of the inspection volume is required, in order to detect

and size the defects defined in the Chapter 2.2.
The inspection volume on site shall include the weld, Heat Affected Zone (HAZ), and additional
margin to cater for any uncertainty in weld location and inaccuracy in positioning. Based on this,
and taking into account the defects postulated in these areas and their location, the inspection
volume of each weld is schematically identified in Figures 2.3.1a, 2.3.1b, 2.3.1c and 2.3.1d.
Only indications in the inspection volume will be evaluated.
The range of ultrasonic inspection for defect detection
Fatigue cracks are postulated on the inner surface of the component. Location of fatigue cracks is:
 Height: 1/3 t (where t is the nominal thickness of the pipeline)

 Location: weld crown + base material up to distance 6 mm
Location of lack of fusion is:
 100% of the weld volume

The range of ultrasonic inspection for defect sizing
Sizing method must guarantee that Through Wall Extension (TWE) of fatigue cracks larger than
1/3 t is properly determined.
Location of defects on each of the Pressuriser Surge Line Weld Joints is defined in Figures 2.3.1a
to 2.3.1d.
6 6
10GN2MFA 10GN2MFA 10GN2MFA 10GN2MFA

11
14
Weld No. 46 Fatigue cracks

On the inner surface
Weld No. 46 Lack of Fusion
Embedded
Figure 2.3.1a: Inspection volume for defect detection and sizing. Weld No. 46
6 6
10GN2MFA 10GN2MFA
10GN2MFA 10GN2MFA
11
11
Weld No. 47 Fatigue cracks

Weld No. 47 Lack of Fusion
Embedded
Figure 2.3.1b: Inspection volume for defect detection and sizing. Weld No. 47

6 6
10GN2MFA 08Kh18N10T 10GN2MFA 08Kh18N10T

11
20
Welds No. 48, 49 Fatigue cracks

Welds No. 48, 49 Lack of Fusion
Embedded
Figure 2.3.1c: Inspection volume for defect detection and sizing. Welds Nos. 48 and 49
6 6
10GN2MFA 10GN2MFA 10GN2MFA 10GN2MFA

11
11
Welds No. 50, 51, 52 Fatigue cracks

Welds No. 50, 51, 52 Lack of Fusion
Embedded
Figure 2.3.1d: Inspection volume for defect detection and sizing. Welds Nos. 50, 51 and 52
2.3.2 Evaluating of detected defects
All detected non-geometrical indications with amplitude of ultrasonic signal above the Analysis
Level must be evaluated in accordance with the Inspection Procedure [b1].
Data files acquired during the ultrasonic inspection include the entire ultrasonic signal of Sweep
range – from the beginning of the input signal to rebounding ultrasonic signal from the inner
pipeline surface and from the area behind the inspected weld joint in the full amplitude range, i.e.
including the noise of the inspected area material.
Only ultrasonic indications found in the Inspection Volume described in the Chapter 2.3.1, whose
amplitude is above the Analysis Level, must be evaluated in details.
The Analysis Level is defined for each used ultrasonic probe as the value of average noise level
of the weld joint material increased at least by +3 dB.
The Analysis Level shall be determined by MASERA-NT software in accordance with the Chapter
15.1 of the Inspection Procedure [b1].

2.4 QUALIFICATION CRITERIA AND ISI PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

2.4.1 Inspection area 2-A and Inspection area 2-C
Qualification criteria for detection of defects:
 K1: detection of all circumferential defects included in the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test

Block with the Through Wall Extension (TWE) of h ≥ 4 mm
Qualification criteria for sizing of defects:
 K2: maximum allowed overestimation of circumferential defect Through Wall Extension (TWE)
is 4 mm (for defects with height h ≥ 4 mm)
 K3: RMSheight* ≤ 3 mm for circumferential defects with TWE of h ≥ 4 mm
 K4: maximum allowed under/overestimation of circumferential defect length is ± 10 mm
 K5: RMSlength* ≤ 6 mm
 K6: ligament sizing accuracy (distance between the surface and the closest defect part of
contour) is ± 4 mm
Qualification criteria for position of defects:
 K7: maximum allowed under/overestimation of defect position along the weld perimeter is ± 10
mm respectively ± 15 mm for defects without FCC type defects respectively for all defects
 K8: RMSposition* ≤ 6 mm
Qualification criteria for false calls:
 K9: false calls of indication TWE of h ≥ 4 mm are not allowed **
* The Root-Mean-Square error shall be calculated in accordance with this formula:
RMS 
 U i  Vi 
, where Ul: is the real value and Vl: is the measured value
n
** Qualification criteria for false calls are related to blind trials. The qualification of Inspection
Procedure and inspection equipment is performed only by open trials and so these criteria are
taken into account especially for assessment of interchange of geometrical and defect indications.

2.4.2 Inspection area 2-B
Qualification criteria for detection of defects:
 K1: detection of all circumferential defects included in the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test

Block with the Through Wall Extension (TWE) of h ≥ 5.5 mm
 K2: evidence at least of 80% detection of all circumferential defects included in the 307-4-KO-
HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block with the Through Wall Extension (TWE) in the interval of 4
mm ≤ h < 5.5 mm
Qualification criteria for sizing of defects:
 K3A: maximum allowed overestimation of circumferential defect Through Wall Extension (TWE)
is 4 mm (for defects with height h ≥ 4 mm)
 K3B: maximum allowed underestimation of circumferential defect Through Wall Extension
(TWE) is 1.5 mm (for defects with height h ≥ 4 mm)
 K4: RMSheight* ≤ 3 mm for circumferential defects with TWE of h ≥ 4 mm
 K5: maximum allowed under/overestimation of circumferential defect length is ± 10 mm
 K6: RMSlength* ≤ 6 mm
 K7: ligament sizing accuracy (distance between the surface and the closest defect part of
contour) is ± 4 mm
Qualification criteria for position of defects:
 K8: maximum allowed under/overestimation of defect position along the weld perimeter is ± 10
mm respectively ± 15 mm for defects without FCC type defects respectively for all defects
 K9: RMSposition* ≤ 6 mm
Qualification criteria for false calls:
 K10: false calls of indication TWE of h ≥ 5.5 mm are not allowed **

 K11: false call of indication of TWE in the interval of 4 mm ≤ h < 5.5 mm is not to be allowed
more than 1x in the entire length of inspected weld joint **
* The Root-Mean-Square error shall be calculated in accordance with this formula:
RMS 
 U i  Vi 
, where Ul: is the real value and Vl: is the measured value
n
** Qualification criteria for false calls are related to blind trials. The qualification of Inspection
Procedure and inspection equipment is performed only by open trials and so these criteria are
taken into account especially for assessment of interchange of geometrical and defect indications.

3. OVERVIEW OF THE INSPECTION SYSTEM
3.1 INSPECTION EQUIPMENT

3.1.1 Introduction
This part of Technical Justification describes the main characteristics of the MIDAS data
acquisition system, SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system, MASERA-NT
evaluating software and another equipment used for mechanized and manual inspections, cables
and ultrasonic probes. It is possible to find detailed information about used equipment in manuals
and in documentation mentioned in Chapter „References“ (point d – Technical documents to the
inspection equipment) of this Technical Justification.
3.1.2 Used equipment and software
MIDAS 2.5 (hereafter referred to as MIDAS) data acquisition system, SIROCO-INSIDE 2.0
(hereafter referred to as SIROCO-INSIDE) manipulator electronic controlling system, PET-2
(PET.BTA) pipeline scanner and MASERA-NT 5.0.1 (hereafter referred to as MASERA-NT)
evaluating software are used for the mechanized ultrasonic inspection. SIROCO-INSIDE controls
and monitors the pipeline scanner’s movements of wheels and movable arm with ultrasonic probes
in the probe holder. MIDAS data acquisition system supports ultrasonic data transmission, data
processing and data storage to the Client hard disk. Saved ultrasonic data files are evaluated and
analysed by MASERA-NT evaluating software.
3.1.3 MIDAS data acquisition system description
MIDAS is an ultrasonic multi-channel inspection and data acquisition system with a Client/Server
structure used for mechanized ultrasonic examinations. It consists of:
a) Server – ultrasonic data acquisition module. This module is placed in the industrial
computer (rack), which includes all the electronic and that in its standard configuration
incorporates: the ultrasonic analogue electronic, the pulser generator, the signal
preamplifiers, the Analogue/Digital converter, the Digitalizer board and the Control board.
b) Client – ultrasonic data processing module. This module is placed in the standard computer
case. It controls interfaces (manipulator’s controlling modules) and it stores the data.
c) Two 8-channels multiplexers (8 linear logic channels and 8 logarithmic logic channels)
which consist of excitation voltage generator of probe crystals, the Analogue/Digital
converter and amplifying/attenuating ultrasonic signal circuits.
Server and Client computers run under Windows 2000 operating system and are connected
through a Fast-Ethernet network.
Both multiplexers are connected to the Server by the umbilical cables.
Ultrasonic probes are connected to the multiplexers by multicore ultrasonic cables.
MIDAS system consists of these application menus and modules:
Files Menu

This application’s menu allows the operator to open and to save calibration files, to configure the
system (to establish the files and directories which the application is going to work with) and to
personalize different aspects of the application (number of decimals etc.).
Planning Module
This application’s module consists of five planning panels where the operator introduces all
necessary acquisition and saving parameters.
In the Scanning panel the operator chose the Scanning Mode and the preset Trajectory File if
necessary. The operator sets in this panel the Coordinate System of manipulator and his arm
movements, Lower and Upper movement limits, scanning resolutions and movement speeds.
In the Data Files panel the operator introduces the data file name, where the ultrasonic data will be
stored, defines the type of the Trigger Mode („by Coordinates“ or „Fixed PRF“), defines the
Scanning Surface („Inner“ or „Outer“) and sets parameters of stored data files (full signal or Grid
only, type of signal presentation, data file size etc.).
In the Manipulator panel the operator sets all necessary parameters for the manipulator
movements. Parameters are set for each movement separately. The main parameters are: World
Axis, Conversion Factors, Lower and Upper Limits and Scanning Speeds.
In the Module panel the operator sets all necessary parameters of all used probes as Name (probe
identification), Angle, Nominal Frequency, Wave Type, Probe Type (single, double or unknown
type), Focus and the Serial Number. The operator also defines the connection of all transducers at
multiplexer channels (Tx – Transmitter and Rx – Receptor), the x and y distances between probes
(x and y offsets) and the skew (90° or 270°).
In the Block panel the operator sets all necessary parameters of inspected component. The
component geometry (Cylindrical, Profile, Polygonal shape and Conical) is defined first and then
the size of the inspected component is defined. It is also possible to mention here another
characteristics of the component as its Name, Description, Serial Number, and Project Number etc.
Calibration Module
The Calibration Module allows the operator to select, set and optimise the ultrasonic signals to be
recorded during the data acquisition, while performing calibration of the time axis (Sound Path) and
the signal amplitude at the same time using reference signals from the calibration blocks. The
Calibration Module allows:
- To create a new calibration with an arbitrary number of channels (until the maximum number
of channels according to the specification of the equipment).
- To load and to save calibrations in calibration files so that they may be used later.
- To modify an existing calibration.
- To display the ultrasonic signals received in real time, so it is possible to see directly the
feedback of operator’s actions.
- To interactively adjust the electronic parameters, sending the necessary commands to the
Data Acquisition Module via the network.
- To define the probes parameters.

- To define the digitiser card parameters.

- To define the pulser parameters.
- To define the receiver parameters.
- To define the gate parameters.
- To define the DAC curve parameters.
- To calibrate the time scale in accordance with the speed of the sound in the material and the
available reference signals.
- To calibrate the equipment amplitude scale either by fixing a depth scale range or using
reference reflectors.
- To establish the signal mode (logarithmic or linear) depending on the hardware configuration.
Data Acquisition Module
The Data Acquisition Module realizes the ultrasonic inspection by digitalizing and storing of the
ultrasonic signals of selected ultrasonic probes together with the actual position of ultrasonic
probes in the inspection area. The ultrasonic signals and the actual ultrasonic probes position are
in real-time displayed on the MIDAS monitor. The operator can modify the screen settings in order
to his needs including of different ultrasonic data presentations (A, B, C and D-Scans).
The operator can switch between all active ultrasonic channels during the data acquisition in order
to check the signal level, the noise level, the coupling quality etc. It is possible to change the A, B,
C and D-Scans scales and sizes and to use the on-line evaluating tools that don’t affect the
acquisition process.
The operator can stop the ultrasonic inspection in any time and in any position and continue later
without the loss of acquired data.
Evaluating Module
The operator can off-line evaluate acquired ultrasonic data immediately after the ultrasonic
inspection of inspected area termination in order to repeat the inspection with the same
parameters, if necessary. Evaluating tools of this module are limited in comparison of MASERA-NT
evaluating software, because the main object of this application is to check the ultrasonic signal
quality and to decide whether the data file is complete and suitable.
View Menu
This application’s menu allows the operator to set shades of colours and to make the Amplitude
colour discreet palette and the Sound Path discreet palette. This menu also allows the operator to
view/hide already evaluated areas, dimensions that have been created and polygon areas that
have been already created.
Tools Menu
This application’s menu allows the operator to compensate and calibrate channels like the first
one, to delete ultrasonic data shown on the screen in order to repeat the acquisition of a specific
area, to synchronise the movement of the cursors in all windows, to synchronise the zoom in all
windows, to search for the maximum signal present on one or various axes, to delete backups and
to remove noise.

Windows Menu
This application’s menu allows the operator on the screen:

- To activate the next or the previous window.
- To place open windows in cascade, horizontally or vertically.
- To open the planning module, to open/hide the Calibration and the Acquisition Module.
- To display the manipulator Control panel.
- To display the Trajectory screen.
- To display/hide the Amplitude and the Sound Path palette.
- To display/hide the Channels Control present in the Calibration Module.
- To display/hide a panel with used channels information (summary).
- To display the Acquisition Form.
- To display/hide the A/D Control Panel, the HW Control Panel and the Cursor Panel present in
the Calibration Module.
- To display/hide the Evaluation panels.
- To display a panel that includes information on the evaluation, dimensioning of elements,
areas created and inserted texts.
Help Menu
The Help Menu displays the information on the MIDAS remote equipment (rack) and displays a
window that allows the operator to include comments on possible errors or malfunctions of the
application.
Control of the manipulator by the MIDAS data acquisition system
The MIDAS data acquisition system also includes the application that controls the manipulator,
which always runs on the second level. This application is necessary for executing the control
tasks from the acquisition and calibration applications. This console communicates with the control
CPU that is located in the rack, which automatically loads the programs necessary for it to work.
The Control panel appearance of this application depends on used hardware equipment
(manipulator type, number of axes, etc.). By several kinds of buttons the operator can change
number of decimals of current manipulator movement coordinates, change appearance of the
Control panel, change manipulator movement speeds, move the manipulator on preset trajectory
or independently in the axes directions or in opposite directions.
In order to have readable ultrasonic data files it is necessary to adjust the manipulator movements
in existing coordinate system of this Control application and in the main application of the MIDAS
system. For that reason, there are several tools after clicking on two „Encoder“ buttons placed in
the right bottom of the MIDAS screen. The operator can establish the Upper and the Lower limits,
preset a coordinate, calibrate encoders or invert the sign.
3.1.4 SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system description
SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system includes application software and

control board, which are placed in MIDAS Client computer, SIROCO-INSIDE controllers
(interfaces) for each manipulator, manipulators (PET-1, PET-2, PISA) and SIROCO-INSIDE

portable console (base station and portable terminal). Appropriate cables connect those parts of
SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system and the SIROCO-INSIDE system is
also connected with MIDAS Server (rack). SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling
system runs under Windows 2000 operating system.
The operator can control the entire SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system in
connection with MIDAS data acquisition system from a single computer (MIDAS Client) or by a
SIROCO-INSIDE remote control console. The system is able to control cart and arm (eventually up
to another 6 items) movements and speeds and to monitor system internal variables (supply
voltages, motor currents, etc.).
SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system application includes these parts:
Machine Menu
The operator in this menu can select, open and close the used manipulator parametric file (.irun)
and end the execution of a machine.
Tools Menu
The operator in this menu can:

- Select the IP address of the Server, which controls the manipulator („LOCAL“ in our case).
- Select the visual file for the active manipulator (.ivsl).
- Load and save the parameters file of manipulator movements (.ipar) and to set Autoload
option, which automatically loads the last parameters file used.
- Load and save the parameters file of manipulator position (ipos).
- Use the „General STOP“ option, which stops all the movements that are currently being
carried out.
- Change Supervisor’s password.
Maintenance Menu
This menu gives the operator information about:

- Boards existing in the SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system with the
possibility to reset and test them.
- All connected manipulators.
- All modules, which make up the active configuration.
- The configuration of the master board encoder outputs with the possibility of their modification.
- The firmware of existing boards with the possibility to update them.
- The software versions of SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system
applications that are currently being executed.
- Currently opened parameter files (.irun, .icfg, .ivsl. and .ipar).
Modes Menu
The operator in this menu can:

- Activate or deactivate the Simulation mode.
- Activate or deactivate the Supervisor mode.
- Choose the language for the application (English, Russian, Spanish).

View Menu
The operator in this menu can activate or deactivate the display of the status bar. The status bar
informs about position of the mouse cursor and about keyboard keys (CAP, NUM and SCRL)
activation.
Help Menu
The operator in this menu can display the on-line user’s manual and Console SIROCO-INSIDE
copyright information.
3.1.5 MASERA-NT ultrasonic data evaluation system
With MASERA-NT is possible to evaluate SUMIAD, MIDAS, TOMOSCAN and RDTIFF (produced
by FOCUS system) data files. This application is based on a MDI (Multiple Document Interface)
architecture so several files or channels can be evaluated at the same time.
MASERA-NT evaluation application allows change the probe angel, the probe wave type, the
ultrasonic signal amplitude and the Sound Path range for each ultrasonic channel during the
evaluation.
MASERA-NT evaluation application uses several types of inspected area ultrasonic data
presentations. For that reason MASERA-NT includes varieties of application control tools and
ultrasonic data graphics processing tools. For example: Geometry representation (Planar,
Cylindrical or Complex type) options, A, B, C, D-scan representation options, Zoom option,
Amplitude colour palette option, Sound Path and Channel colour palette option, Beam simulation
option, S-scan option, etc.
3.1.6 Hardware equipment used for mechanized ultrasonic inspection
a) MIDAS data acquisition system
- Server (MIDAS RACK) – Industrial computer Dewetron 2010,

- Client – MIDAS process control computer,
- Multiplexer MUX 2 Channels 9/16 (8 Logarithmic channels).
b) SIROCO-INSIDE manipulator electronic controlling system
- Client – MIDAS process control computer,

- SIROCO-INSIDE controller SINS 2E PET-BTA (PET-2 manipulator).
c) Cables and connectors
- (U) - Umbilical cable for the computer MIDAS RACK and the multiplexer (changeover
switch unit of UT probes): length of the cable is 10 m, its nominal impedance is 50 Ω;
the connectors CAN 15 and CONTACT 12,
- (P) - Coaxial cables for the multiplexer and the ultrasonic probes: length of the cables
is 30 m, their nominal impedance is 50 Ω; the connectors BNC and LEMO 0-0,

- (E1) - Umbilical Ethernet cable for Ethernet exchange and MIDAS RACK computer:
length of the cable is 50 m; the connectors RJ 45,
- (E2) - Umbilical Ethernet cable for MIDAS computer and Ethernet exchange: length of
the cable is 3 m; the connectors RJ 45,
- (M1) - feeding and communication cable from controlling and feeding unit of the
scanner (SIROCO-INSIDE CONTROLLER) and the scanner: length of the cable is 20
m; the connectors PTOGJE24-61 and LEMO FGJ 3B,
- (M2) - umbilical cable for parallel ports of the computer MIDAS RACK and feeding and
controlling unit of the scanner (SIROCO-INSIDE CONTROLLER): length of the cable is
10 m; the connectors used are CAN 25 and CAN 44,
- Feeding cables (220 V): length is 1.5 m.
U - Umbilical cable
MIDAS E2 - Ethernet E1 - Ethernet RACK 10 m MULTIPLEXER
3m 50 m
PROBES
P - UT Coaxial cable
30 m
M1 - Feeding and
communication cable PET
M2 - Umbilical cable 20 m
for parallel ports
SIROCO Inside (RS485) 10 m INTERFACE
50 m (magenta)
Figure 3.1.6 General connection of the Data Acquisition System
d) PET-2 (PET-BTA) manipulator
1. Main Cart Movement:
Motor: C.C. Motor, 24 V, 1.81 A, 40 W

Encoder: Incremental, TTL Output, 5 V, 4096 p/rev
Stroke: Continuous, limited by the power and UT cabling disposition
Maximum Velocity: 100 mm/s
Inspection Velocity: 30 mm/s
Repeatability: 0.25 mm
Resolution: 0.1 mm
2. Inspection Arm Movement:
Motor: C.C. Motor, 24 V, 1.22 A, 20 W

Encoder: Incremental, TTL Output, 5 V, 250 p/rev
Linear Stroke: 400 mm
End of Strokes: 2
Maximum velocity: 100 mm/s
Inspection Velocity: 30 mm/s
Repeatability: 0.25 mm

Resolution: 0.1 mm
e) Ultrasonic probes
For detection from both sides (plus and minus) of the II Type Weld Joint (Inspection Area 2-A)
RTD 06-415 55°T1-St Ell(30x20)C OD 430Ax, housing 40x40 mm

RTD 02-82 70°TRL2-St 2(15x25)¼λ, SA6°, FS=70, OD380Ax, housing 40x40 mm
For sizing from both sides (plus and minus) of the II Type Weld Joint (Inspection Area 2-A) after
weld crown removing
RTD 02-79 60°TRL2-Aust 2(15x25)¼λ, SA12°, FS=50, OD380Ax, housing 40x40 mm

RTD 05-1322 60°T1.5-Aust Ell(20x14)C OD 430Ax, housing 30x30 mm
RTD 98-308 70°TRL2-Aust 2(8x15)¼λ, SA3°, FD=10, housing 25x25 mm
For detection from both sides (ferritic and austenitic) of the I Type Weld Joint (Inspection Area 2-
B)

For sizing from both sides (ferritic and austenitic) of the II Type Weld Joint (Inspection Area 2-B)
after weld crown removing

For detection from both sides (plus and minus) of the VI-1 and VI-2 Type Weld Joint (Inspection
Area 2-C)

For sizing from both sides (plus and minus) of the VI-1 and VI-2 Type Weld Joint (Inspection Area
2-C) after weld crown removing


3.2 INSPECTION PROCEDURE, DATA ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING AND

EVALUATING OF ULTRASONIC INSPECTION DATA FILES
3.2.1 Inspection procedure
The ultrasonic inspection of the weld joints (I, II, VI-1 and VI-2 types) on the Pressurizer Surge
Lines is performed by the inspection equipment described in the Chapter 3.1 of this Technical
Justification.
Inspection procedure of the inspection of these weld joints including the setting of the scanner into
the inspected areas, calibrations of inspection equipment, setting of inspection parameters,
sensitivity settings and equipment preparations for performing of the ultrasonic inspection are
described in details in the Inspection Procedure [b1].
3.2.2 Data acquisition and processing
The ultrasonic data are automatically acquired and processed by the MIDAS data acquisition
system. The detailed description of this system is performed in the Chapter 3.1 of this Technical
Justification. To make a preliminary check of data integrity and validity is possible to perform
immediately after saving these data to hard disk drive of the acquisition computer by the evaluating
module of the MIDAS system.
3.2.3 Evaluating of ultrasonic inspection data files
The evaluating of the ultrasonic data files is performed by the MASERA-NT evaluating software,
which is described in the Chapter 3.1.5 of this Technical Justification and in the MASERA 5.0.1
Ultrasonic Data Evaluation System manual [d9].
The evaluating sequence of inspection data files and the detailed description of evaluating sizing
methods are included in the Inspection Procedures [b1].

4. INFLUENTIAL/ESSENTIAL PARAMETERS ANALYSIS AND INSPECTION PERSONNEL

REQUIREMENTS
4.1 INFLUENTIAL/ESSENTIAL PARAMETERS ANALYSIS
The influential and essential parameters analysis was done in accordance with ENIQ
Recommended Practice I and ENIQ Pilot Study recommended procedures.
4.1.1 Influential/essential parameters analysis of the input group related to the component
Type of
Parameter ID Additional evidence Range of variability/comments
parameter
Geometry of inspected Production Ultrasonic inspection from both sides of
C1 Tolerance
component documentation the weld joint.
Access of inspected
C2 Input information Range Limiting of inspection equipment usage.
component
Radiation situation of Inspection by dosimeter No special precautions are necessary
C3 Range
inspected component service because of ultrasonic inspection duration.
Surface roughness of Production
C4 Tolerance < 6,3 µm Ra
inspected component documentation
Weld crown Production Reinforcement: 5±¹3 mm.
C5 Range
configuration documentation Minimal width: 40 mm.
Weld root Production
C6 Range Not grinded
configuration documentation
Production Ferritic piping: 40 mm
Wall thickness C7 Range
documentation Austenitic added piece: 40 mm
Counter bore taper Production
C8 Range 10°
angle documentation
Counter bore Production
C9 Range 11 mm
dimensions documentation
Weld mismatch Production It is postulated that no weld mismatch is
C10 Tolerance
(misalignment) documentation present for this case.
Macrostructure of the Destructive examination Destructive examinations were not
C11 Range
base material documentation performed.
Macrostructure of the Destructive examination Destructive examinations were not
C12 Range
weld documentation performed.
Production Thickness of buttering: 6 mm.
Buttering C13 Range
documentation Length of buttering: along whole bevel.
Temperature of Measuring by calibrated Within the range of –20°C ÷ +60°C
C14 Range
inspected area thermometer (operating temperature of RTD probes).
Within the range of –5°C ÷ +50°C
Temperature of Measuring by calibrated
C15 Range (operating temperature of inspection
surroundings thermometer
equipment).

4.1.2 Influential/essential parameters analysis of the input group related to the defects
Type of
Parameter ID Additional evidence Range of variability/comments
parameter
Defect type D1 Input information Range Fatigue crack and lack of fusion
Defect size D2 Input information Range Height: ≥ 4 mm
Fatigue cracks: from inner surface to 1/3
Defect location along
D3 Input information Range of TWE.
TWE of pipe
Lack of fusion: 100% of weld volume.
Defect location with
Weld metal, HAZ and base material up to
respect to weld centre D4 Input information Range
6 mm from the weld crown.
line
Defect tilt angle D5 Input information Range 0° or ±20° on fusion line
Defect skew angle D6 Input information Range 0°
Defect Determined by defect type and by chemist
D7 Range
roughness/branching of inspected area.
Presence of residual
D8 Tolerance Considered small in this component.
stresses
4.1.3 Influential/essential parameters analysis of the Inspection Procedure
Type of Range of
Parameter ID Characteristics/Value
parameter variability/comments
Fixed in the Inspection
Longitudinal
Wave mode P1 Tolerance Procedure. To be justified in
Transversal (Shear)
the Technical Justification.
Single crystal
Probe type P2 Tolerance Procedure. To be justified in
Twin crystal
LxWxH = 25x25x25, 30x30x25,
Probe size (housing) P3 Tolerance Procedure. To be justified in
40x40x34
20x14, 30x16, 30x20, 2(8x15),
Crystal size P4 Tolerance Procedure. To be justified in
2(10x18), 2(15x25)
Procedure. To be justified in
1.0 MHz - single crystal probes the Technical Justification.
Frequency P5 1.5 MHz - single crystal probe Tolerance Range: taken equal to
2.0 MHz - twin crystal probes. tolerance of parameter T1
(+ 10% of the central
frequency)
Procedure. To be justified in
Range: taken equal to
Beam angle P6 55°, 60°, 70° Tolerance
tolerance of parameter T3
- Shear wave probes: ±3º,
- Longitudinal twin crystal
probes: ±3º.
500 ± 15 ns for 1.0 MHz probes Fixed in the Inspection
Pulse length P7 333 ± 15 ns for 1.5 MHz probes Tolerance Procedure. To be justified in
250 ± 15 ns for 2.0 MHz probes the Technical Justification.
Focal depth: Fixed in the Inspection
Focal characteristics of twin
P8 RTD 02-79 FS = 50 mm Tolerance Procedure. To be justified in
crystal probes
RTD 02-82 FS = 70 mm the Technical Justification.

RTD 98-308 FD = 10 mm Range: taken equal to

RTD 04-1607 FS = 35 mm tolerance of parameter T5
- Focal depth: ±5 mm.
Sensitivity for scanning and Average inspected area noise level Procedure. To be justified in
P9 Tolerance
recording set to 20 dB the Technical Justification.
Tolerance range: ±5 dB.
Scanning step P10 No more than 3.0 mm (0.8°) Tolerance Procedure. To be justified in
Scanning speed P11 No more than 30 mm/s Tolerance Procedure. To be justified in
To be justified in the
Certification along EN 473, Technical Justification.
Personnel training,
P12 Appropriate experience and training, Range Performance to be verified
experience and qualification
Pass with success qualification during open trials.
Range: not applicable.
Tip diffraction signal Procedure. To be justified in
Sizing methods P13 Deep relative maximum (DRM) Range the Technical Justification.
6 dB Drop (50 % signal decline) Performance to be verified
during open trials.
Average inspected area noise level Procedure.
Analysis level P14 Tolerance
+ 3 dB Based on previous ISI
inspections.
4.1.4 Influential/essential parameters analysis related to data acquisition hardware and

software
Type of Additional
Parameter ID Characteristics/Value
parameter evidence/comments
Verified by MN – 20.33.
Preset by manufacturer:
Verified in accordance with
Vertical linearity E1 ± 1 dB for applicable dynamic Tolerance
the Inspection Procedure
range (logarithmic)
before each inspection.
Preset by manufacturer: Verified in accordance with
Horizontal linearity E2 Tolerance
Nominal ± 2.0% the Inspection Procedure
before each inspection.
Preset by manufacturer.
Resolution of digitiser E3 12 bits Tolerance
Adjusted in accordance with
Sampling rate E4 12.5 MHz ± 2 samples Tolerance
the Inspection Procedure.
Averaging rate E5 Preset by manufacturer on 1 Tolerance Verified by MN – 20.33.
Maximum number depends on
Points per A-scan sampling E6 Tolerance Verified by MN – 20.33.
sampling rate and gate length
Pulse amplitude of the
E7 Depends on used probe Tolerance the Inspection Procedure.
emitter
500 ± 15 ns for 1.0 MHz probes Adjusted in accordance with
Pulse width of the emitter E8 333 ± 15 ns for 1.5 MHz probes Tolerance the Inspection Procedure.
250 ± 15 ns for 2.0 MHz probes Verified by MN – 20.33.
Pulse fall time of the emitter E9 ≤ 40 ns Tolerance Verified by MN – 20.33.
Pulse rise time of the
E10 ≤ 20 ns Tolerance Verified by MN – 20.33.
emitter

Band width of receiver E11 0,5 – 25 MHz Tolerance Verified by MN – 20.33.

Available gain of receiver E12 80 ± 2 dB Tolerance Verified by MN – 20.33.
Low Pass: 15 MHz Adjusted in accordance with
Band pass filter of receiver E13 Band Pass: 0.8 MHz Tolerance the Inspection Procedure.
Rectified: 2.01 MHz or 1.01 MHz Verified by MN – 20.33.
The value depends on used probe the Inspection Procedure.
Time base setting E14 Tolerance
± 10 % basis value Verified before start of each
inspection.
the Inspection Procedure.
Sampling gate E15 12 dB in range of the time base Tolerance
Verified before start of each
inspection.
Defined in the Inspection
Cable length L1 Fixed length + 5 % Tolerance
Procedure.
Defined in the Inspection
Cable impedance L2 50 + 5 Ω Tolerance
Procedure.
Defined in the ultrasonic
Probe frequency T1 Nominal ± 10% Tolerance
probe certificate.
Probe index point T2 Nominal + 2 mm Tolerance inspection and after each
inspection.
Nominal
±3º for shear wave probes
Probe shoe angle T3 Tolerance inspection and after each
±3º for twin crystal longitudinal
inspection.
probes
Probe shoe squint angle T4 Nominal ± 2° Tolerance
probe certificate.
Twin crystal probe focal Defined in the ultrasonic
T5 Focal depth ± 5 mm Tolerance
characteristics probe certificate.
Probe bandwidth T6 The value depends on used probe Tolerance
probe certificate.
Linearity of the scanner S1 Nominal Tolerance Verified by DMO 298
Data display and analysis Defined in the Inspection
D1 MASERA-NT software Tolerance
system Procedure.

4.2 INSPECTION PERSONNEL
All inspectors must be minimally qualified and certified by a scheme meeting the requirements of
the Level 1 in ultrasonic techniques according to CSN EN 473 standard. The inspection team
leader and evaluation personnel must be minimally qualified and certified in the Level 2 of the
ultrasonic non-destructive techniques.
All members of the inspection team must meet following requirements:

 Knowledge of ultrasonic inspection of austenitic circumferential welds, including a detailed
knowledge of the ultrasonic probes usage for flaw detection and sizing.
 Knowledge of the mechanized ultrasonic inspection system usage and operation of pipeline
scanners.
 Knowledge of application software for acquisition, saving and editing of ultrasonic data files.
 Knowledge of the manual ultrasonic testing method using manual flaw detector.
 Performing at least one ISI ultrasonic inspection under supervision of an experienced personnel
or training on the Test Block with the same equipment configuration as in the course of the ISI
inspection.
The leader of the inspection team must meet another following requirements:
 Knowledge of the detection technique and evaluation technique of fatigue cracks.
 Knowledge of the evaluation sizing methods.
 Knowledge of the generation and interpretation of B, C and D scans.
Evaluating personnel must meet following requirements:

 Knowledge of the MASERA-NT evaluating software.
 Knowledge of the detection technique and evaluation technique of fatigue cracks.
 Knowledge of the evaluation sizing methods.
 Knowledge of the generation and interpretation of B, C and D scans.

5. PHYSICAL REASONING
This section describes the physical basis for the inspection design considering the specific
geometry and materials for the welds of interest. This physical reasoning concentrates on the
selection of inspection method, equipment, probe parameters, and sensitivities. It also presents a
summary of the issues that present the biggest challenges to the inspection leading to a discussion
of the worst-case defects.
5.1 SELECTION OF INSPECTION METHOD
Ultrasonic inspection has been selected as the only realistically available NDT method that can
provide a capability for detecting, locating and sizing defects in the entire inspection volume.
Although complimentary methods such as radiography may provide additional information to aid
the final defect sentencing, only the ultrasonic inspection is considered here as it must be capable
of meeting the inspection objectives alone.
An automated inspection where the probes are scanned mechanically and the data is stored in
digital format has been selected. This enables:
 the probe scanning to be controlled to high precision leading to high reliability.

 data to be analysed off-line using sophisticated 3-D analysis tools.
 the measurement of a more reliable assessment of the noise level (this is important since
the recording level is determined with respect to noise).
 the data analysis can be verified by different analysis personnel.
 the data can be compared directly with repeat inspections to identify whether indications
have increased in size or amplitude.
5.2 PROBE SELECTION
The key factors determining the choice of probes are:

 The defect parameters. Defects having a wide range of orientations through the volume of
the inspection zone must be detected and sized with high reliability.
 Scanning access. The detection phase of the inspection must be performed with the weld
crown intact, thereby significantly reducing the scanning access. Also one of the welds
included in this group (No. 47) has a very limited scanning access from one side of the
weld.
 The weld material. The weld material is austenitic, which leads to a high ultrasonic
attenuation, backscatter that generates a high level of ultrasonic noise and bending and
skewing of the ultrasonic beam. Furthermore, some of welds have austenitic buttering
between the fusion face and the weld volume leading to more complex ultrasonic beam
propagation.

5.2.1 General requirements for probe selection
Angle shear wave probes are generally preferable to angle compression wave probes because
they are simpler to apply and generally undergo a lower amount of mode-conversion. This latter
point is particularly important where inspections beyond half-skip are performed. Also shear waves
generate strong corner reflections leading to high signal amplitudes from defects near to the far
surface. However, shear waves suffer from unacceptable levels of beam distortion and attenuation
when propagating through significant amounts of austenitic weld material. Consequently, the
inspection must be supplemented by angle compression wave probes.
Angle compression wave probes generate a high level probe internal echoes that usually force a
twin-crystal (transmit/receive) to be used. Although more complex in design, twin-crystal probes
can provide pseudo-focussing of the beam to maximise the signal to noise ratio at a specific range.
The attenuation of the ultrasound in the weld can be minimised by reducing the probe frequency
below the frequency of 2 – 4 MHz that is conventionally used for the inspection of ferritic materials.
Also a lower probe frequency reduces the noise level arising from the weld making it easier to
detect defects that are either on the fusion face or in the parent material. However, if the frequency
is too low then the spatial and temporal resolution of the probe becomes unacceptably poor.
Therefore, the choice of frequency is a compromise between reducing the attenuation and
backscatter whilst maintaining an acceptable resolution.
Whilst the spatial resolution can be improved by increasing the crystal size, there are physical
limitations such as:
 As the probe size is increased to accommodate large crystals, the requirement to shape the
probe shoe to match the surface of the contours becomes increasingly important.
 The performance of probes with large footprints may reduce due to poor ultrasonic coupling
as a result of the surface error of form.
 During detection the probe needs to scan as close as possible to the weld cap. An increase
in probe size reduces the physical scanning access leading to a reduction in the coverage.
5.2.2 Selection of detection probes
The recording level is set with respect to the noise level observed within the inspection volume.
Consequently, probes should provide an acceptable signal to noise ratio for reliable detection.
As far as it is possible, detection probes should provide a high detection performance and also be
able to discriminate defect signals from other signals such as geometric reflections. This is
important since the reporting of a defect source for the ultrasonic indications may lead to the
removal of the weld crown to facilitate sizing scans.
The highest signal amplitudes will be for the following cases:

 Specular reflection from the defect face where the angle of incidence between the
ultrasonic beam and the defect will be close to 0º.

 Corner echo for defects that are near to the surface and with tilts close to 0º.
 Angle compression wave probes will provide strong mode-converted signals dependent on
the defect through wall location, defect tilt, and configuration of the inner surface.
The philosophy for defect detection is to provide some redundancy by detecting defects with more
than one scan.
Probes that have been selected for defect detection are summarised below:
55º 1MHz Single Crystal Shear Wave Probe Crystal Size 30 x 20 mm
This probe is used for scanning from both sides of all of weld types and is used primarily for
detecting defects that are located close to the inner surface via the corner trap mechanism. This
probe will be most useful for detecting defects where the tilt is close to zero.
70º 1MHz Single Crystal Shear Wave Probe Crystal Size 30 x 16 mm
This probe is selected to detect the full range of defects defined in the Chapter 2.2. It will be
particularly effective for the detection of tilted defects where the angle of incidence to the defect will
be less than 20º. Also lack of fusion defects have tilts of 20º and therefore the angle of incidence
will be 0º for these defects.
The range gates are set to collect data up to full-skip thereby providing a detection capability for
defects at the outer surface. However, it is recognised that the presence of the cladding will reduce
the effectiveness of the scans beyond half-skip. Also the shape of the counterbore will affect the
signal from beyond half-skip in a complex way.
The detection performance where the shear wave has to propagate through a large volume of the
weld will be reduced significantly due to the attenuation and beam distortion.
70° Twin Crystal Angle Compression Wave Probe Crystal Size 2(15x25) FS=70
Similar to the 70º shear probe described above, this probe will provide good detection performance
through specular reflection from the face of the defect. The compression wave will provide much
better propagation through the austenitic weld material when compared with the shear wave and
therefore will improve the detection of defects where the beam traverses the complete thickness of
the weld.
The focus of the probe is at a sound path of 70 mm equivalent to a depth of approximately 24 mm,
which is close to the middle of the component. The sensitivity vs. range for this probe does not
vary greatly with range and therefore will provide good detection capability over the full depth
range where coverage is provided.
This probe will also generate mode-converted signals from defects thereby providing a secondary
detection mechanism.

5.2.3 Selection of sizing probes
This section refers to probes that would be used specifically to measure the through-wall size of
defects once the weld crown has been ground flush with the surface of the parent material. Here,
the primary concern for the probe design is to provide signals that are most useful for sizing rather
than necessarily providing the highest amplitude signals.
The procedure defines a hierarchy for sizing techniques:

 If tip diffracted signals are clearly visible then the tip diffraction sizing method will be applied
in preference to the other sizing techniques.
 If no tip signals are seen then the deeper relative maximum (DRM) sizing technique shall
be applied.
 If neither of these techniques can be applied then the through-wall size will be measured
using the 6dB drop technique.
Two beam angles have been selected for sizing 60º and 70º. 60º probes will provide better
opportunity for observing the tip-diffracted signals since the beam will be well away from normal
incidence. Probes selected for through-wall sizing are:
60° 1.5MHZ Single Crystal Shear Wave Crystal Size 20x14
60° 2MHz Twin Crystal Compression Wave Crystal Size 2(15x25) FS=50 mm
70° 2MHz Twin Crystal Compression Wave Crystal Size 2(8x15) FD=10 mm
70° 2MHz Twin Crystal Compression Wave Crystal Size 2(10x18) FS=35 mm
The 70º probe focussed at a depth of 10 mm provides a better performance at short range and will
improve the sizing performance for defects near the outer surface.
5.3 ANALYSIS LEVEL
If the Analysis Level is set with respect to a calibration reflector then the Analysis Level must be
set sufficiently high to eliminate false calls and to account for small differences between
components. The most sensitive method for determining the Analysis Level is to set it with
respect to the average noise level in the component and in the inspection volume. This takes
account of small differences between the attenuation in the parent material and transfer
corrections.

6. PREDICTION BY MODELLING
Prediction by computer modelling in the frame of PHARE ISI 2002 project has been performed
using CIVA 7.1 software d10. UT response modelling and consecutive indication assessment
corresponds to automated UT inspection (further AI) of circumferential weld joints on pressurizer –
MCP piping.
Simulation process corresponds to the AI process mentioned in Inspection procedure [b1].

Simulation on flaws detection has been performed by RTD 55T1-St, RTD 70T1-St and 70TRL2-St
probes for 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) and by RTD 55T1-St,
60T1-St and 70TRL2-St probes for 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B).
Numeric simulation of UT response from the flaws is performed as follows:
1. Test block modelling – it is possible to use CAD drawing in DXF format as a model. The
CAD drawing has to comply the terms that enable the CIVA 7.1 software to differentiate the
surface, bottom and sides entities etc. It is also possible to create a 2D model directly in the
CIVA software.
2. UT field calculation – the calculation has been conducted in the Champ-Sons mode, where
the basic probe parameters (type and size of transducer, frequency, focusing…) as well as
the parameters of UT filed calculation will be defined.
Figure 6.1: Model of Test Block with computed MWB70-04 probe UT field
3. UT field transformation – from the Champ-Sons into Mephisto mode.

4. Field downloading in the Mephisto mode and definition of parameters necessary for flaw
response calculation.
5. Flaw modelling – the flaws will be modelled according to the defects manufactured in the
Test Block. The software enables to model basic types of defects as e.g. side-drilled hole,
flat bottom hole with planar bottom, spherical and planar defects, possibly complex defects
of random position and orientation.
6. UT response calculation.
7. Simulation assessment – performed on the basis of obtained UT multiple
scans/echography (C-scan, B-scan, A-scan and echodynamic curves). By means of
echography the echo position and waves type will be se determined that participate in the
response (mode of conversion). Response amplitude will be assessed either by

comparison with DAC curve (manual inspection) or by determination of the signal-to-noise

ratio in polycrystalline material (automated inspection).
The indication assessment for detection in case of AI is based on determination of a ratio of UT

response obtained from the flaw and of the noise originated in material (signal-to-noise ratio). As it
is difficult to model the noise in the CIVA software, the noise intensity was simulated as the
response amplitude of side-drilled hole of 2 mm , located approximately in the depth of ¾ Test
Block thickness.
The noise enables to assess the flaw detection by definite probe and to compare mutually the
results of detection for various probe types. If a similar difference in results (in dB) has been
obtained between simulations and measurement, it is possible to determine approximately the real
noise level for given probe and given weld joint. This enables a real assessment of modelled flaws.
6.1 RESULTS OF MODELLING OF UT INSPECTION ON 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52

TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-A)
According to proposed IP, calculations of UT responses from defined flaws for RTD 55T1-St, RTD
70T1-St and 70TRL2-St probes were performed. Results of simulation on detection are mentioned
in Graphs 6.1 and 6.2. Values mentioned in these graphs show the signal-to-noise ratio.
Assessment of UT response from flaws in piping-piping weld joint
40,0
30,0
20,0 55T1-ST
S/N [dB]
10,0 70T1-St
70L2
0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-10,0
-20,0
Flaw
Graph 6.1: Signal-to-noise ratio obtained from flaws in 307-4-KO-HCP ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection
Area 2-A) for proposed probe types (measurement performed from + side)

Assessment of UT respose from flaws in piping - piping weld joint
25,0
20,0
15,0
55TSt
S/N [dB]
10,0 70T1
70L2
5,0
0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-5,0
Flaw
Graph 6.2: Signal-to-noise ratio obtained from flaws in 307-4-KO-HCP ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection
Area 2-A) for proposed probe types (measurement performed from - side)
It is evident that the detection of flaws by proposed RTD 55T1-St, RTD 70T1-St and RTD 70TRL2-
St probes is very good – except the PP7 flaw detection. Response amplitude from defects for this
probe exceeds in all cases reference noise level and that is why it can be expected that the
majority of flaws will be detected. Mutual combination should cause detection of all flaws.
This assessment does not enable to formulate the real detection possibilities and this is why it is
necessary to compare these results with the real measurement. As it is not possible to model real
flaws of FCC type (PP1, PP2, PP7 and PP8), these flaws have been left out from further
assessment. In Graphs 6.3 to 6.8 the simulation and AI results have been compared.
Comparison of simulation and AI results

RTD 55T1st probe / positive side
20,0
15,0
10,0
S/N[dB]
5,0
Simulation
0,0
Measurement
0 2 4 6 8 10
-5,0
-10,0
-15,0
Flaw
Graph 6.3: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 55T1-St probe from + side

-Comparison of simulation and AI results

RTD 55T1 probe/negative side
20,0
18,0
16,0
14,0
S/N [dB]
12,0
10,0 Simulation
8,0 Measurement
6,0
4,0
2,0
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Flaw
Graph 6.4: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 55T1-St probe from – side

RTD 70T1probe / positive side
40,0
35,0
30,0
25,0
S/N [dB]
20,0 Simulation
Measurement
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Defect
Graph 6.5: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 70T1 -St probe from + side


RTD 70T1 St probe / negative side
16,0
14,0
12,0
10,0
S/N [dB]
8,0 Simulation
6,0 Measurement
4,0
2,0
0,0
-2,0 0 2 4 6 8 10
Defect
Graph 6.6: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 70T1-St probe from – side
Com parison of sim ulation and AI results

RTD 70L2St probe/ positive side
35,0
30,0
25,0
S/N [dB]
20,0
Simulation
15,0 Measurement
10,0
5,0
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Defect
Graph 6.7: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 70TRL-St probe from + side

Com parison of simulation and AI results

RTD 70T2St probe/ negative side
25,0
20,0
S/N [dB]
15,0
Simulation
Measurement
10,0
5,0
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Defect
Graph 6.8: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 70TRL2-St probe from - side
Graphs 6.3 to 6.8 show that different results had been obtained during the simulation in
comparison with results obtained during the AI. Only in case of RTD 70TRL2-St probe, it is
possible to find certain correlation of simulation and measurement results.
Results are particularly influenced by limited possibilities of dissimilar weld joint modelling in CIVA
7.1 software.
6.2 RESULTS OF MODELLING OF UT INSPECTION ON 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 TEST

BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-B)
According to proposed IP, calculations of UT responses from defined flaws for RTD 55T1-St, RTD
60T1-St and RTD 70TRL2-St probes were performed. Results of simulation on detection are
mentioned in the Graph 6.9. Values mentioned in this graph show the signal-to-noise ratio.

Assessment of UT response from flaws in added piece-piping weld joint
55T1-added piece
30,0
55T1-piping
20,0
S/N [dB]
10,0 60T1-added piece

0,0
60T1-piping
-10,0
70TRL2-piping
-20,0
PX1 PX2 PX3 PX4 PX5 PX6 PX7 PX8 PX9 PX10
70TRL2-piping
Flaw
Graph 6.9: Signal-to-noise ratio obtained from flaws in 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection
Area 2-B) for proposed probe types (measurement performed from added piece side)
It is evident that the detection of flaws by proposed RTD 55T1-St, RTD 60T1-St and RTD 70TRL2-
St probes is very good except flaws PX1 and PX10. Detection of these flaws will probably be
problematic and other probes could be recommended or weld crown removal according to the
PX10 flaw location.
This assessment does not enable to formulate real the detection possibilities and this is why it is
necessary to compare these results with real measurement. As it is not possible to model real
flaws of FCC type (PX1, PX2, PX7 and PX8), these flaws have been left out from further
assessment. In Graphs 6.10 to 6.15 the simulation and AI results have been compared.
Comparison of simulation and AI results for 55T1-st probe from

added piece side
20,0
15,0
simulatio
S/N (dB)
10,0
n
5,0
0,0
AI
-5,0
-10,0
Flaw
Graph 6.10: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 55T1-St probe from added piece side


piping side
20,0
10,0 simulati
S/N (dB)
on
0,0
-10,0
AI
-20,0
1
10
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
Flaw
Graph 6.11: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 55T1-St probe from piping side

added piece side
20,0
15,0
S/N (dB)
10,0 simulati
5,0 on
0,0
-5,0
-10,0 AI
-15,0
1
10
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
Flaw
Graph 6.12: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 60T1-St probe from added piece side
Comparison of simulation and AI results for 60T1-st probe

from piping side
15,0
10,0
simulatio
5,0
S/N (dB)
n
0,0
AI
-5,0
-10,0
-15,0
Flaw
Graph 6.13: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 60T1-St probe from piping side

Comparison of simulation and AI results for 70TRL2-st probe

from added piece side
25,0
20,0 simulati
S/N (dB)
15,0 on
10,0
5,0
0,0 AI
-5,0
1
10
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
PX
Flaw
Graph 6.14: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 70TRL2-St probe from added piece side
Comparison of simulation and AI results for 70TRL2-st probe

from piping side
25,0
20,0
15,0
S/N (dB)
10,0 simulati
5,0 on
0,0
-5,0 AI
-10,0
Flaw
Graph 6.15: Comparison of simulation and AI results for RTD 70TRL2-St probe from piping side
Graphs 6.10 to 6.15 show that different results had been obtained during the simulation in
comparison with results obtained during the AI.
Results are particularly influenced by limited possibilities of dissimilar weld joint modelling in CIVA
7.1 software.

7. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE

S50,51,52 TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-A)
7.1.1 Input parameters of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-HCP-
ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A)
The laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspections of the Test Block 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-

S50,51,52 (Inspection Area 2-A) were performed in December 2005 and in year 2006 in
accordance with the previous version of the Inspection Procedure TEC-PRO-TASK 6-01 (Group 2-
A 2-B & 2-C) [b1].
Used equipment
Mechanized ultrasonic inspection was performed by MIDAS 2.5 data acquisition system with
configuration as follows:
 Manipulator PET-2, placed on the supporting roll, which was mounted on the austenitic side of
the weld joint
 MIDAS 2.5 data acquisition system
 Ultrasonic probes
 MASERA-NT v. 5.0.1 evaluating software
 8-channels multiplexer, PET-2 interface and cables
Used ultrasonic probes
RTD 02-79 60°TRL2-Aust, 2(15x25)¼λ, SA12°, FS=50, OD380Ax, housing 40x40 mm

RTD 02-82 70°TRL2-St, 2(15x25)¼λ, SA6°, FS=70, OD380Ax, housing 40x40 mm
RTD 05-1319 45°T1.5-Aust, Ell(20x14)C, OD 430Ax, housing 30x30 mm
RTD 05-1325 65°L1.5-Aust, Ell(20x14)C, OD 430Ax, housing 30x30 mm
RTD 88-171 60°SEL1-Aust 2(20x34), N5°, FS=60, housing 50x50 mm
Coupling
The contact coupling method and the water as the coupling medium were used.
Calibration and sensitivity setting of ultrasonic probes


V2 calibration block for ferritic material (A-SAOZ-Fe) was used for the time base calibration, beam
angle and index point verification of each ultrasonic probe.
The sensitivity setting was performed in accordance with the previous version of the Inspection
Procedure TEC-PRO-TASK 6-01 (Group 2-A 2-B & 2-C) [b1] right on the scanning surface.
Drawing of V2 calibration block (A-SAOZ-Fe) is included in the Appendix III of this Technical
Justification.
Calibration Data Sheets are included in the Appendix IV of this Technical Justification.
Sequence of ultrasonic inspections
Ultrasonic inspections of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) with the
weld crown were performed from both sides of the weld joint by following ultrasonic probes:

RTD 88-172 70°SEL1-Aust 2(20x34), N9°, FS=45, housing 50x50 mm.
In accordance with acceptance of consortium the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block

(Inspection Area 2-A) weld crown was removed in July 2006 and the ultrasonic inspection was
performed from both scanning surface by following ultrasonic probes:

RTD 98-308 70°TRL2-Aust 2(8x15)¼λ, SA3°, FD=10, housing 25x25 mm.
Data files evaluating
Data files with acquired ultrasonic data were burned to the CD-R (DVD-R) medium, which was
then uniquely marked. Data files from the CD-R (DVD-R) medium were copied to the single
computer (not the part of the inspection system) with the MASERA-NT software and evaluated in
A 2-B & 2-C) [b1].

The final Through Wall Extension (TWE) of defect indications was determined in the following
way:
- If Tip diffraction signals were detected, the final Through Wall Extension (TWE) was determined
as the maximum value among the Through Wall Extensions (TWE) given by different probes
that detected these Tip diffraction signals. Other probes were not taken into account.
- If no probe detected Tip diffraction signals, but Deeper Relative Maximums were detected, the
final Through Wall Extension (TWE) was determined as the maximum value among the
Through Wall Extensions (TWE) given by different probes that detected these Deeper Relative
Maximums. Other probes were not taken into account.
- If no probe detected Tip diffraction signals or Deeper Relative Maximums, the 6 dB drop method
was used. The final Through Wall Extension (TWE) was determined as the maximum value
among the Through Wall Extensions (TWE) given by different probes with this method.
The final length of defect indications was determined as the average value of the length of
defect indications detected by the straight ultrasonic beam.
The final location of defect indications in direction of X-coordinate was determined with the
probes, which have been used for the Final Through Wall Extension (TWE) sizing.
The final position of indication (position of the maximum amplitude) in direction of Y-

coordinate was determined as the average value of all particular positions of the maximum
amplitude of UT signals of all probes in which signal of the indication was detected. (In this case, it
didn’t matter whether the signal was detected as direct, rebound, mode conversion or “Cut-off“.)
7.1.2 Assessment of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-

S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A)
Results and assessment of this laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection can be viewed in two
angles:
 Defects detection
 Defects sizing
During the evaluation of acquired data files of ultrasonic inspection from both scanning surfaces
was found that defects detection is different for each used probe and that defects detection highly
depends on the ultrasonic probe type, the scanning surface quality and the defect tilt.
7.1.2.1 Defects detection
Following table includes the values of maximum amplitude of ultrasonic signals of each defect and
their separation from the Analysis Level. The defect detection was determined at each used
probe during the optimisation mechanized ultrasonic inspections, but only some records of
inspections before the weld crown removing from both scanning surfaces were used for the final
detection analysis. Data of 55°T1-St (RTD 06-415), 70°T1-St (RTD 06-417) and 70°TRL2-St (RTD
02-82) probes were used for the final defect detection analysis.
The Analysis Level was determined in accordance with the Inspection Procedure TEC-PRO-
TASK 6-01 (Group 2-A 2-B & 2-C) [b1] as the average noise level in weld metal increased by +3
dB.

Defects marked in the following table as “detected” fulfill all criteria for detection: the signal
amplitude is more than +3 dB above the average noise level and the signal is visible minimally in
three (3) slices.

Defect detection before the weld crown removing
Scanning surface Probe Noise level (dB) PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 PP6 PP7 PP8 PP9 PP10
Minus 55T1 (06-415) 39.2 5.3 17.6 6.2 16.6
side 70T1 (06-417) 37.0 9.7 8.1
(-) 70TRL2 (02-82) 32.4 4.2 12.4 18.4 6.1 7.3 17.1
Plus 55T1 (06-415) 40.7 17.6 15.7
side 70T1 (06-417) 37.9 12.2 9.4
(+) 70TRL2 (02-82) 30.6 6.6 8.8 12.3 13.2 8.2
Table 7.1.2.1: Defect detection in the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) before the weld crown removing
Comment: Red fields indicate FCC defects, which were rejected from the qualification process of the Inspection Area 2-A.
Graphics processing – see Appendix IV.

7.1.2.2 Defects sizing
For defect sizing were used data of mechanized ultrasonic inspection performed after 307-4-KO-
HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) weld crown removing from both scanning
surfaces. Data files of following probes were evaluated: 60°TRL2 (RTD 02-79), 60°T1.5 (RTD 05-
1322) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 04-1607 and 98-308).
Each defect could be then theoretically detected (and graphically displayed) by three different ways
(indications):
a) By the straight primary beam (longitudinal or transversal waves) – the location of this indication
in the graphic display agreed with the real location of the indication in the weld joint.
b) By the LLT signal (mode conversion) – in this case the ultrasonic probe was far from the weld
crown and the primary longitudinal wave was rebounded from the inner piping surface to the
defect surface where originated the transversal wave, which had reflected back to the ultrasonic
probe receiver. Because the sound speed of transversal wave mode in the weld metal was
lower than speed of longitudinal wave mode in the same material, this indication was detected
with a bigger time delay and in the graphic display it was located far from the weld centre line.
c) By the secondary transversal wave mode – in this case the ultrasonic probe was close to weld
crown and the secondary transversal wave mode was rebounded from the defect surface back
to the ultrasonic probe receiver. Because the sound speed of transversal wave mode in the
weld metal was approximately 50% of the sound speed of longitudinal wave mode in the same
material, this indication was in the graphic display located with approximately double time delay
and far from the weld centre line.
PP1 defect
This defect is the FCC defect. The PP1 defect is placed in the weld centre line with the
perpendicular orientation to the inner surface. It originates on the inner surface of the piping. The
defect height is 9 mm and the defect length is 20 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the
circumferential coordinate Y = 0°.
Detection:
This defect wasn’t detected from the minus (-) scanning surface of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52
Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) before the weld crown removing by any ultrasonic probe during
the mechanized ultrasonic inspection.
This defect wasn’t detected from the plus (+) scanning surface of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52
The Table 7.1.3.1 of summary defects detection by selected probes is included in the Chapter
7.1.3.1.

Sizing:
Sizes of this defect were not determined, because this defect was abstracted from the qualification
process.
Final defect sizing:
The final defect sizing hasn’t been done.
Location in the direction of X-axis: not determined

Position in the direction of Y-axis: not determined
Final defect length: not determined
Final defect height: not determined
Ligament: not determined
The sizing results in details and their comparison with manufactured size are included in the Table
7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.
PP2 defect
Detection:
This defect was detected from the minus (-) scanning surface of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52
Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) before the weld crown removing by 55°T1 (RTD 06-415)
ultrasonic probe during the mechanized ultrasonic inspection.
7.1.3.1.
Sizing:
process.



7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.
PP3 defect
This defect is the PISC Type A defect. This defect is placed between two layers of buttering on the
plus side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It originates on the inner surface of the piping. The
defect height is 4.1 mm and the defect length is 21.7 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the
Detection:
Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) before the weld crown removing by 55°T1 (RTD 06-415), 70°T1
(RTD 06-417) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 02-82) ultrasonic probes during the mechanized ultrasonic
inspection.
This defect was detected from the plus (+) scanning surface of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52
Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) before the weld crown removing by 70°TRL2 (RTD 02-82)
7.1.3.1.
Sizing:
Sizes of this defect were determined after the evaluation of ultrasonic inspections from both
scanning surfaces by following probes: 60°T1.5 (RTD 05-1322), 60°TRL2 (RTD 02-79), 70°TRL2
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).
Detailed sizing results of the inspection by each ultrasonic probe are included in the Indication Lists
in Appendix IV of this Technical Justification.
The final defect sizing was done in accordance with rules mentioned in the Chapter 7.1.1 and from
results included in Indication Lists in Appendix IV of this Technical Justification.
Location in the direction of X-axis: -7 ÷ -1 mm on the plus side

Position in the direction of Y-axis: 30.00° (defect centre)
Final defect length: 24.36 mm
Final defect height: 5.32 mm
Ligament: 0.00 mm

7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.
PP4 defect
This defect is the PISC Type A defect. This defect is placed between the base material and first
buttering layer on the minus side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It originates on the inner
surface of the piping. The defect height is 5.1 mm and the defect length is 24.6 mm. The defect
centre line is placed on the circumferential coordinate Y = 235°.
Detection:
Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) before the weld crown removing by 55°T1 (RTD 06-415) and
70°TRL2 (RTD 02-82) ultrasonic probes during the mechanized ultrasonic inspection.
This defect was detected from the minus (+) scanning surface of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52
inspection.
7.1.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).
Location in the direction of X-axis: +9 ÷ +24 mm on the plus side

Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.

PP5 defect
This defect is the PISC Type A defect. This defect is placed between the base material and first
buttering layer on the plus side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It originates on the inner
Detection:
Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) before the weld crown removing by 55°T1 (RTD 06-415) and
70°T1 (RTD 06-417) ultrasonic probes during the mechanized ultrasonic inspection.
7.1.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).

Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.
PP6 defect
This defect is the PISC Type A defect. This defect is placed on the fusion line between the second
buttering layer and the weld metal on the minus side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It

originates on the inner surface of the piping. The defect height is 7.6 mm and the defect length is
31.5 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the circumferential coordinate Y = 180°.
Detection:
inspection.
7.1.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).

Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.
PP7 defect
Detection:

This defect wasn’t detected from the minus (-) scanning surface of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52
7.1.3.1.
Sizing:
process.

7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.
PP8 defect
Detection:

7.1.3.1.
Sizing:
process.

7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.
PP9 defect
This defect is the LOF defect. This defect is placed on the fusion line between the second buttering
layer and the weld metal on the plus side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It originates 15
mm above the inner surface of the piping. The defect height is 5 mm and the defect length is 10
mm. The defect centre line is placed on the circumferential coordinate Y = 90°.
Detection:
7.1.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).


Ligament: 15.35 mm
7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.
PP10 defect
layer and the weld metal on the minus side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It originates 4
Detection:
7.1.3.1.
Sizing:
(04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (98-308).


Ligament: 4.51 mm
7.1.3.2 in the Chapter 7.1.3.2.
PP11 defect
This defect is the PISC Type A defect. The PP11 defect is placed in the weld centre line with the
defect height is 9 mm and the defect length is 32.3 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the
The PP11 defect was manufactured into the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block after
finishing of all optimising mechanized ultrasonic inspections on this Test Block in May 2006. For
detection of this defect from both scanning surfaces were chosen 55°T1 (RTD 06-415), 60°T1
(RTD 06-416), 70°T1 (RTD 06-417), 65°T1.5 (RTD 05-1323) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 02-82). The PP11
defect was detected by 55°T1 (RTD 06-415), 60°T1 (RTD 06-416), 70°T1 (RTD 06-417) and
70°TRL2 (RTD 02-82) probes from the minus (-) scanning surface and by 60°T1 (RTD 06-416),
70°T1 (RTD 06-417), 65°T1.5 (RTD 05-1323) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 02-82) probes from the plus (+)
scanning surface.
The mechanized ultrasonic inspection after the weld crown removing was done by 60°T1.5 (RTD
05-1322), 60°TRL2 (RTD 02-79), 70°TRL2 (RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308) probes
from both scanning surfaces. The PP11 defect was detected by the 60°TRL2 (RTD 02-79) probe
from the minus (-) scanning surface and by 60°T1.5 (RTD 05-1322) and 60°TRL2 (RTD 02-79)
probes from the plus (+) scanning surface. Because this defect is not included into the qualified
defects, the sizing of the PP11 defect wasn’t performed.

7.1.3 Results summary of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-HCP-

ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A)
7.1.3.1 Results summary of defect detection
Generally, it can be said, that the hit rate of detection of non-FCC defects in the 307-4-KO-HCP-
ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block is very good and that all defects were always detected by more than
one ultrasonic probe.
The concrete values of ultrasonic signals amplitudes of every artificial defect and their comparison
with the noise level and the Analysis Level are included in Chapter 7.1.2.1.
Results summary of defect detection of all used probes is included in the Table 7.1.3.1.
55°T1 St 70°T1 St 70°TRL2 St 55°T1 St 70°T1 St 70°TRL2 St

Defect
minus side minus side minus side plus side plus side plus side
PP1 No No No No No No
PP2 Yes No No No No No
PP3 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
PP4 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
PP5 Yes Yes No No No Yes
PP6 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
PP7 No No No No No No
PP8 No No Yes No No No
PP9 No No Yes No No Yes
PP10 No No Yes No No No
Table 7.1.3.1: Defect detection in the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) by chosen
probes

7.1.3.2 Results summary of defect sizing
Result summary of final measured defect sizes of each manufactured defect in the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block and their
comparison with real defect sizes is included in the Table 7.1.3.2. This Table includes only evaluation results of mechanized ultrasonic
inspection after the weld crown removing. Defect ligament sizing is included in the Table 7.1.3.2a.
Defect Probe Pm (°) Lm (mm) Hm (mm) Pr (°) Lr (mm) Hr(mm) dP (°) dL (mm) dH (mm) Sizing method Comment
PP1 not postulated

PP2 not postulated
PP3 60°L – minus side 30.0 24.36 5.33 30.0 21.70 4.10 0.0 2.66 1.23 6 dB drop
PP4 60°L – minus side 235.8 24.44 8.42 235.0 24.60 5.10 0.8 -0.16 3.32 6 dB drop
PP5 60°L – plus side 119.2 20.76 6.45 120.0 25.70 4.90 -0.8 -4.94 1.55 6 dB drop
PP6 60°L – minus side 178.4 29.23 8.92 180.0 31.50 7.60 -1.6 -2.27 1.32
PP7 not postulated
PP8 not postulated
PP9 60°L – plus side 90.4 11.00 5.15 90.0 10.0 5.00 0.4 1.00 0.15 D.R.M.
PP10 60°L – minus side 254.6 12.22 7.46 255.0 10.0 5.00 -0.4 2.22 2.46 6 dB drop
Table 7.1.3.2: Final measured defects sizes and their comparison with real manufactured sizes after weld crown removing
Legend:
Pr – manufactured (real) defect position DP – deviation in position determination (+ overestimation, - underestimation)
Lr – manufactured (real) defect length dL – deviation in length determination (+ overestimation, - underestimation)
Hr – manufactured (real) defect height dH – deviation in height determination (+ overestimation, - underestimation)
Pm – measured defect position
Lm – measured defect length
Hm – measured defect height

Ligv Ligm ΔLig

Defect
[mm] [mm] [mm]
PP1 0.0 0.0 0.0
PP2 0.0 0.0 0.0
PP3 0.0 0.0 0.0
PP4 0.0 0.0 0.0
PP5 0.0 0.0 0.0
PP6 0.0 0.0 0.0
PP7 0.0 0.0 0.0
PP8 0.0 0.0 0.0
PP9 15.0 15.35 0.35
PP10 4.0 4.51 0.51
Table 7.1.3.2a: Final ligament determination and its comparison with real manufactured ligament
Legend:
Ligv – manufactured (real) ligament

Ligm – measured ligament
ΔLig – deviation in ligament determination (+ overestimation, - underestimation)


KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A)
On the basis of all information and results of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-
KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) it is possible to say that the volumetric
ultrasonic inspection of this weld joint and its surrounding can:
 Detect all postulated defects independently on their position and orientation in the weld joint
material with the sufficient evidence.
 Determine the defect length of all defects with a sufficient accuracy.
 Determine the defect height of all defects with a sufficient accuracy.
 Determine the ligament of all defects with a sufficient accuracy.
Ultrasonic probes
Optimisation laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspections proved that the most suitable probes for
the defect detection from both scanning surfaces are single-crystal transversal 1 MHz probes with
55° and 70° beam angle added by twin-crystal longitudinal 2 MHz probe with 70° beam angle.
Those probes are:

RTD 06-417 70°T1-St Ell(30x16)C OD 430Ax, housing 40x40 mm.
After the weld crown removing, following 60° probes gave the best results during the laboratory
optimisation inspections for the defect sizing from the ferritic scanning surface:

RTD 05-1322 60°T1.5-Aust, Ell(20x14)C, OD 430Ax, housing 30x30 mm.
Ultrasonic evaluation methods
Standard evaluating methods (Tip diffraction, DRM and 6 dB Drop) fully met the evaluation needs.
These evaluating methods are described in details in Appendix 7 of Inspection Procedure [b1].
Defect height evaluation
The Table 7.1.3.2 includes also defect height evaluation of defects that were detected by
ultrasonic probes introduced in the Inspection Procedure [b1].


S48,49 TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-B)
7.2.1 Input parameters of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-HCP-
ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B)
The laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspections of the Test Block 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49

(Inspection Area 2-B) were performed in January, April and July 2006 in accordance with the
previous version of the Inspection Procedure TEC-PRO-TASK 6-01 (Group 2-A 2-B & 2-C) [b1].
Used equipment
Mechanized ultrasonic inspection was performed by MIDAS 2.5 data acquisition system with
configuration as follows:
 Manipulator PET-2, placed on the supporting roll, which was mounted on the austenitic side of
the weld joint
 MIDAS 2.5 data acquisition system
 Ultrasonic probes
 MASERA-NT v. 5.0.1 evaluating software
 8-channels multiplexer, PET-2 interface and cables
Used ultrasonic probes

Coupling
The contact coupling method and the water as the coupling medium were used.
Calibration and sensitivity setting of ultrasonic probes

Calibration blocks V2 for austenitic material (A-SAOZ-Au) and V2 for ferritic material (A-SAOZ-Fe)
were used for the time base calibration, beam angle and index point verification of each ultrasonic
probe.
The sensitivity setting was performed in accordance with the previous version of the Inspection
Procedure TEC-PRO-TASK 6-01 (Group 2-A 2-B & 2-C) [b1] right on the scanning surface.
Drawings of V2 calibration blocks (A-SAOZ-Au and A-SAOZ-Fe) are included in the Appendix III
of this Technical Justification.
Calibration Data Sheets are included in the Appendix V of this Technical Justification.
Sequence of ultrasonic inspections
The ultrasonic inspections of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) with
the weld crown were performed from the ferritic scanning surface (minus side) of the weld joint by
following ultrasonic probes:

In accordance with acceptance of consortium the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block

(Inspection Area 2-B) weld crown was removed in June 2006 and the ultrasonic inspection was
performed from the ferritic scanning surface (minus side) of the weld joint by following ultrasonic
probes:

The ultrasonic inspections of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) with
the weld crown were performed from the austenitic scanning surface (plus side) of the weld joint
by following ultrasonic probes:



In accordance with acceptance of consortium the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block

(Inspection Area 2-B) weld crown was removed in June 2006 and the ultrasonic inspection was
performed from the austenitic scanning surface (plus side) of the weld joint by following ultrasonic
probes:

Data files evaluating
Data files with acquired ultrasonic data were burned to the CD-R (DVD-R) medium, which was
then uniquely marked. Data files from the CD-R (DVD-R) medium were copied to the single
computer (not the part of inspection system) with the MASERA-NT software and evaluated in
A 2-B & 2-C) [b1].
The final Through Wall Extension (TWE) of defect indications was determined in the following
way:
- If Tip diffraction signals were detected, the final Through Wall Extension (TWE) was determined
as the maximum value among the Through Wall Extensions (TWE) given by different probes
that detected these Tip diffraction signals. The other probes were not taken into account.
- If no probe detected Tip diffraction signals, but Deeper Relative Maximums were detected, the
final Through Wall Extension (TWE) was determined as the maximum value among the
Through Wall Extensions (TWE) given by different probes that detected these Deeper Relative
Maximums. The other probes were not taken into account.
- If no probe detected Tip diffraction signals or Deeper Relative Maximums, the 6 dB drop method
was used. The final Through Wall Extension (TWE) was determined as the maximum value
among the Through Wall Extensions (TWE) given by different probes with this method.
The final length of defect indications was determined as the average value of the length of
defect indications detected by the straight ultrasonic beam.
The final location of defect indications in direction of X-coordinate was determined with the
probes that have been used for the Final Through Wall Extension (TWE) sizing.
The final position of indication (position of the maximum amplitude) in direction of Y-

coordinate was determined as the average value of all particular positions of the maximum

amplitude of UT signals of all probes in which signal of the indication was detected. (In this case, it
didn’t matter whether the signal was detected as direct, rebound, mode conversion or “Cut-off“.)
7.2.2 Assessment of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-

S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B)
Results and assessment of this laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection can be viewed in two
angles:
 Defects detection
 Defects sizing
During the evaluation of acquired data files of ultrasonic inspection from both scanning surfaces
was found that defects detection is different for each used probe and that defects detection highly
depends on the ultrasonic probe type, the scanning surface quality and the defect tilt.
7.2.2.1 Defects detection
Following table includes the values of maximum amplitude of ultrasonic signals of each defect and
their separation from the Analysis Level. The defect detection was determined at each used
probe during the optimisation mechanized ultrasonic inspections, but only some records of
inspections before the weld crown removing from both scanning surfaces (ferritic and austenitic)
were used for the final detection analysis. Data of 55°T1-St (RTD 06-415) and 70°TRL2-St (RTD
02-82) probes were used for the final defect detection analysis.
The Analysis Level was determined, with accordance with the Inspection Procedure TEC-PRO-
TASK 6-01 (Group 2-A 2-B & 2-C) [b1] as the average noise level in weld metal increased by +3
dB.
Defects marked in the following table as “detected” fulfill all criteria for detection: the signal
amplitude is more than +3 dB above the average noise level and the signal is visible minimally in
three (3) slices.

Defect detection before the weld crown removing
Scanning surface Probe Noise level (dB) PX1 PX2 PX3 PX4 PX5 PX6 PX7 PX8 PX9 PX10
Minus side 55T1 (06-415) 39.1 8.2 8.2 14.2 11.0 7.9 5.0 8.5
(Ferritic) 70TRL2 (02-82) 35.5 5.2 6.8 17.8 11.5 6.8 13.1 7.4 6.4 11.5
Plus side 55T1 (06-415) 41.2 7.0 15.6 14.9 13.7 13.7 6.7 11.8
(Austenitic) 70TRL2 (02-82) 33.9 14.3 14.0 12.5 17.2 15.3 21.9 7.1 14.3 22.2
Table 7.2.2.1: Defect detection in the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) before the weld crown removing
Graphics processing – see Appendix V.

7.2.2.2 Defects sizing
For defect sizing were used data of mechanized ultrasonic inspection performed after 307-4-KO-
HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) weld crown removing from both scanning
surfaces. Data files of following probes were evaluated: 60°TRL2 (RTD 02-79), 60°T1.5 (RTD 05-
1322) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 04-1607 and RTD 98-308).
Each defect could be then theoretically detected (and graphically displayed) by three different ways
(indications):
 By the straight primary beam (longitudinal or transversal waves) – the location of this
indication in the graphic display agreed with the real location of the indication in the weld
joint.
 By the LLT signal (mode conversion) – in this case the ultrasonic probe was far from the
weld crown and the primary longitudinal wave was rebounded from the inner piping surface
to the defect surface where originated the transversal wave, which had reflected back to the
ultrasonic probe receiver. Because the sound speed of transversal wave mode in the weld
metal was lower than speed of longitudinal wave mode in the same material, this indication
was detected with a bigger time delay and in the graphic display it was located far from the
weld centre line.
 By the secondary transversal wave mode – in this case the ultrasonic probe was close to
weld crown and the secondary transversal wave mode was rebounded from the defect
surface back to the ultrasonic probe receiver. Because the sound speed of transversal
wave mode in the weld metal was approximately 50% of the sound speed of longitudinal
wave mode in the same material, this indication was in the graphic display located with
approximately double time delay and far from the weld centre line.
PX1 defect
This defect is the FCC defect. The PX1 defect is placed in the weld centre line with the
Detection:
This defect was detected from the ferritic scanning surface of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test
Block (Inspection Area 2-B) during the mechanized ultrasonic inspection before the weld crown
removing by 70°TRL2 (RTD 02-82) ultrasonic probe.
This defect was detected from the austenitic scanning surface of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test
removing by 55°T1 (RTD 06-415) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 02-82) ultrasonic probes.

7.2.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).
in Appendix V of this Technical Justification.
results included in Indication Lists in Appendix V of this Technical Justification.
Location in the direction of X-axis: -5 ÷ -1 mm on the austenitic side

Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.
PX2 defect
This defect is the FCC defect. The PX2 defect is placed in the fusion line on the austenitic side with
the 20° tilt angle. It originates on the inner surface of the piping. The defect height is 6 mm and the
defect length is 24 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the circumferential coordinate Y = 70°.
Detection:
7.2.3.1.
Sizing:

(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).
Location in the direction of X-axis: 0 ÷ +4 mm on the austenitic side

Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.
PX3 defect
This defect is the PISC Type A defect. This defect is placed in fusion line on the austenitic side
with the 20° tilt angle. It originates on the inner surface of the piping. The defect height is 6 mm
and the defect length is 24.9 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the circumferential coordinate
Y = 45°.
Detection:
7.2.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).

Location in the direction of X-axis: +6 ÷ +10 mm on the austenitic side

Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.
PX4 defect
This defect is the PISC Type A defect. This defect is placed between the base material and the first
buttering layer on the ferritic side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It originates on the inner
Detection:
removing by 55°T1 (RTD 06-415) ultrasonic probe.
7.2.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).


Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.
PX5 defect
This defect is the PISC Type A defect. This defect is placed on the fusion line on the austenitic side
of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It originates on the inner surface of the piping. The defect
height is 3 mm and the defect length is 19.8 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the
Detection:
7.2.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).



Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.
PX6 defect
This defect is the PISC Type A defect. This defect is placed on the fusion line between the second
buttering layer and the weld metal on the ferritic side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It
originates on the inner surface of the piping. The defect height is 6 mm and the defect length is
24.2 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the circumferential coordinate Y = 250°.
Detection:
7.2.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).

Ligament: 0.00 mm

7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.
PX7 defect
This defect is the FCC defect. The PX7 defect is placed on the fusion between the austenitic base
material and the weld metal with the 20° tilt angle. It originates on the inner surface of the piping.
The defect height is 4 mm and the defect length is 16 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the
Detection:
7.2.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).

Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.
PX8 defect

This defect is the FCC defect. The PX8 defect is placed on the fusion line between the second
buttering layer and the weld metal on the ferritic side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It
originates on the inner surface of the piping. The defect height is 6 mm and the defect length is 24
Detection:
7.2.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).

Ligament: 0.00 mm
7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.
PX9 defect
layer and the weld metal on the ferritic side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It originates 6

Detection:
7.2.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).

Ligament: 3.46 mm
7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.
PX10 defect
This defect is the LOF defect. This defect is placed on the fusion line between the austenitic base
material and the weld metal on the austenitic side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. It
originates 4 mm below the outer surface of the piping. The defect height is 6 mm and the defect
length is 12 mm. The defect centre line is placed on the circumferential coordinate Y = 280°.
Detection:

removing by the 70°TRL2 (RTD 02-82) ultrasonic probe.
This defect wasn’t detected from the austenitic scanning surface of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49
Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) during the mechanized ultrasonic inspection before the weld
crown removing by any ultrasonic probe.
7.2.3.1.
Sizing:
(RTD 04-1607) and 70°TRL2 (RTD 98-308).
Location in the direction of X-axis: +6 ÷ +12 mm on the austenitic side

Ligament: 3.76 mm
7.2.3.2 in the Chapter 7.2.3.2.

7.2.3 Results summary of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-KO-HCP-

ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B)
7.2.3.1 Results summary of defect detection
Generally, it can be said, that the hit rate of defect detection in the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49
Test Block is very good and that all defects were always detected by more than one ultrasonic
probe, with the exception of the PX10 defect (LOF defect near the outer surface), which was
detected by only one probe (70°TRL2-St) from ferritic scanning surface.
The concrete values of ultrasonic signals amplitudes of every artificial defect and their comparison
with the noise level and the Analysis Level are included in Chapter 7.2.2.1.
Results summary of defect detection of all used probes is included in the Table 7.2.3.1.
55°T1 St 70°TRL2 St 55°T1 St 70°TRL2 St

Defect
ferritic side ferritic side austenitic side austenitic side
PX1 No Yes Yes Yes
PX2 Yes Yes Yes Yes
PX3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
PX4 Yes No No Yes
PX5 No Yes Yes Yes
PX6 Yes Yes Yes Yes
PX7 Yes Yes Yes Yes
PX8 Yes Yes Yes Yes
PX9 Yes Yes No Yes
PX10 No Yes No No
Tab. 7.2.3.1: Defect detection in the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) by chosen probes

7.2.3.2 Results summary of defect sizing
Result summary of final measured defect sizes of each manufactured defect in the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block and their
comparison with real defect sizes is included in the Table 7.2.3.2. This table includes only evaluation results of mechanized ultrasonic
inspection after weld crown removing. Defect ligament sizing is included in the Table 7.2.3.2a.
Defect Probe Pm (°) Lm (mm) Hm (mm) Pr (°) Lr (mm) Hr(mm) dP (°) dL (mm) dH (mm) Sizing method Comment
PX1 60°T – ferritic 20.0 15.47 5.75 20.0 16.00 4.00 0.0 -0.53 1.75 D.R.M.
PX2 60°T – austenitic 70.4 22.80 7.57 70.0 24.00 6.00 0.4 -1.20 1.57 6 dB drop
PX3 60°L - ferritic 44.0 26.10 4.97 45.0 24.90 6.00 -1.0 1.20 -1.03 D.R.M.
PX4 60°T - austenitic 100.8 20.40 4.52 100.0 21.80 4.10 0.8 -1.40 0.42 D.R.M.
PX5 60°L - austenitic 189.6 15.48 5.56 190.0 19.80 3.00 -0.4 -4.32 2.56 6 dB drop
PX6 60°T - austenitic 247.6 23.83 9.80 250.0 24.20 6.00 -2.4 -0.37 3.80 Tip diffraction
PX7 60°L - ferritic 156.0 21.96 5.24 160.0 16.00 4.00 -4.0 5.96 1.24 6 dB drop
PX8 60°T - austenitic 217.8 22.59 6.39 220.0 24.00 6.00 -2.2 -1.41 0.39 6 dB drop
PX9 60°L - austenitic 129.4 12.29 8.91 130.0 16.00 8.00 -0.6 -3.71 0.91 D.R.M.
PX10 60°L - ferritic 277.9 12.17 4.56 280.0 12.00 6.00 -2.1 0.17 -1.44 6 dB drop
Tab. 7.2.3.2: Final measured defects sizes and their comparison with real manufactured sizes after weld crown removing
Legend:
Pr – manufactured (real) defect position DP – deviation in position determination (+ overestimation, - underestimation)
Lr – manufactured (real) defect length dL – deviation in length determination (+ overestimation, - underestimation)
Hr – manufactured (real) defect height dH – deviation in height determination (+ overestimation, - underestimation)
Pm – measured defect position
Lm – measured defect length
Hm – measured defect height

Ligv Ligm ΔLig

Defect
[mm] [mm] [mm]
PX1 0.0 0.0 0.0
PX2 0.0 0.0 0.0
PX3 0.0 0.0 0.0
PX4 0.0 0.0 0.0
PX5 0.0 0.0 0.0
PX6 0.0 0.0 0.0
PX7 0.0 0.0 0.0
PX8 0.0 0.0 0.0
PX9 6.0 3.46 2.54
PX10 4.0 4.28 0.28
Tab. 7.2.3.2a: Final ligament determination and its comparison with real manufactured ligament
Legend:
Ligv – manufactured (real) ligament

Ligm – measured ligament
ΔLig – deviation in ligament determination (+ overestimation, - underestimation)


KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B)
On the basis of all information and results of laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspection of 307-4-
KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) it is possible to say that the volumetric
ultrasonic inspection of this weld joint and its surrounding can:
 Detect all postulated defects independently on their position and orientation in the weld joint
material with the sufficient evidence.
 Determine the defect length of all defects with a sufficient accuracy.
 Determine the defect height of all defects with a sufficient accuracy.
 Determine the ligament of all defects with a sufficient accuracy.
Ultrasonic probes
Optimisation laboratory mechanized ultrasonic inspections proved that the most suitable probes for
the defect detection from both scanning surfaces (ferritic and austenitic) are single-crystal
transversal 1 MHz probe with 55° beam angle and the twin-crystal longitudinal 2 MHz probe with
70° beam angle. Those probes are:

After the weld crown removing, following probes gave the best results during the laboratory
optimisation inspections from the ferritic scanning surface:

RTD 05-1322 60°T1.5-Aust, Ell(20x14)C, OD 430Ax, housing 30x30 mm.
Ultrasonic evaluation methods
Standard evaluating methods (Tip diffraction, DRM and 6 dB Drop) fully met the evaluation needs.
These evaluating methods are described in details in Appendix 7 of Inspection Procedure [b1].
Defect height evaluation
The Table 7.2.3.2 includes also defect height evaluation of defects that were detected by
ultrasonic probes introduced in the Inspection Procedure [b1].

7.3 LABORATORY MECHANIZED ULTRASONIC INSPECTION OF INSPECTION AREA 2-C
For the VI-1 and VI-2 type weld joints (see Chapter 2) weren’t manufactured Test Blocks
(Inspection Area 2-C), because both sides (ferritic material) of these weld joints are more or less
similar to the ferritic sides of II type weld (Inspection Area 2-A).
Inspection Area 2-C includes two types of weld joints – No. 46 (VI-2) and No. 47 (VI-1) – which are
modifications of weld joints of Inspection Area 2-A.
The weld joint No. 46 configuration is different in two ways from the Inspection Area 2-A weld joint
configuration:
- The straight part of the minus side of the weld joint is limited by the conical part of the piping to
150 mm (see pictures in the Technical Specification [b3]). However, this distance doesn’t limit
the ultrasonic probes scanning movements and it is not significant for the ultrasonic inspection.
- The outside diameter of the piping on the minus side of the weld joint is 430 mm instead of
426 mm as on weld joints of the Inspection Area 2-A (see Figure 2.1.1 – weld joint No. 46 and
Figure 2.1.4 – weld joints Nos. 50, 51 and 52 in Chapter 2.1 of this Technical Justification).
The influence of bigger diameter of the piping for defects detection and sizing is insignificant
(see CIVA modelling [b5]) and therefore evaluation of defects is performed by the same way
as for the Inspection Area 2-A (see Chapter 7.1).
The weld joint No. 47 is also different from the Inspection Area 2-A weld joint configuration:
- The plus side (pressurizer nozzle) of the weld joint includes the geometrical profile, which
steps from the outside surface as a ring around the entire perimeter. This geometrical profile
limits the lower scanning limit setting to approximately 85 mm. Therefore this Technical
Justification solved the access to this weld joint as only from one side (minus side) with double
number of defects (PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6, PP9, PP10 defects and PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6, PP9,
PP10 defects reversed in face of the weld centre line plain). Each of this double set of defects
was evaluated separately. The limited scanning from the plus side (pressurizer nozzle) was
successfully simulated by the CIVA software (see [b5]) for the PP3 defect, because one side
access for the PP3 defect detection was insufficient.
Ultrasonic probes for detection of defects in VI-1 and VI-2 type weld joints are the same as for
defect detection in II type weld joints (see the Inspection Procedure [b1]):

Ultrasonic probes for sizing of defects in VI-1 and VI-2 type weld joints are the same as for defect
sizing in II type weld joints (see the Inspection Procedure [b1]):


7.4 LABORATORY RT INSPECTION OF INSPECTION AREAS 2-A AND 2-B

The laboratory RT inspection of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A)
and of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) was performed in Temelin
NPP in December 2006. The purpose of this RT inspection was to verify the position and to review
the quality of artificial defects used for open trials in frame of the ultrasonic qualification of
circumferential weld joints on pressurizer to main circulation pipeline at Temelin NPP.
Results of this RT inspection proved definite detection of PISC Type A defects. Detection of LOF
type defects was limited by relatively high thickness of the component material and by the location
of LOF defects in the weld joint. LOF defects placed in the upper part of the weld joint were not
always detected well (see PP10 defect). Position deviations of LOF defects were caused by the
position detector, which was placed on the outer surface of components.
The determination of FCC defects detection wasn’t successful with the exception of the PX2
defect. It was probably caused by reducing of the wall thickness in the position of defects
manufacturing. Images of areas where FCC defects were supposed to be manufactured were
determined as reparations of weld joints. These findings support the ultrasonic inspection of these
FCC defects where FCC defect were detected very poorly. The verdict of the Qualification Body to
exclude FCC defects (PP1, PP2, PP7 and PP8) from the qualification process seems to be
competent in the light of results of RT inspections of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block
(Inspection Area 2-A) and of 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B).
Detailed description and results of these laboratory RT inspections are included in the Report of
Testing No. 297/5020401 (see [e1]).

8. PARAMETRIC STUDIES
With the respect to the significance of these inspection areas, the parametric studies, as the part of
the Technical Justification, were compensated by the full evidence of laboratory and practical trials
form on the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 (Inspection Area 2-A) and 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49
(Inspection Area 2-B) Test Blocks with different kinds of artificial defects.
The 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 (Inspection Area 2-A) and 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49

(Inspection Area 2-B) Test Blocks with the different kinds of artificial defects were manufactured
with 1:1 scale factor from authentic materials in accordance with the original technology. In some
moment, during optimisation ultrasonic inspections, the consortium decided to remove the Test
Blocks weld crowns and the part of optimisation ultrasonic inspections was repeated so, that
ultrasonic probes were scanning the top part of weld joints in order to get better echo dynamic
signals.
Because PP1, PP2, PP7 and PP8 defects (FCC type) weren’t detected during the optimising
ultrasonic inspections, the consortium in May 2006 decided to manufacture another defect (PP11 –
PISC A type) into the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 (Inspection Area 2-A) Test Block to clarify
the reason why above mentioned defects weren’t detected. The additional PP11 defect was
detected very well and based on the result of this experiment; FCC defects (PP1, PP2, PP3 and
PP4) were excluded from the qualification by the qualification body, because the final welding
process significantly changed their parameters.

9. EQUIPMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS

S50,51,52 TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-A)
The assessment of ISI performance objectives achievement was performed according to

qualification criteria mentioned in the Chapter 2.4. Results of optimisation laboratory trials on the
307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A) are included in the Table 9.1.
Acceptable/
Criterion Criterion description List of assessed defects Achieved value
Unacceptable
Detection of all circumferential defects PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,

K1 with TWE of h ≥ 4 mm 100 % Acceptable
PP9, PP10
Maximum allowed height
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K2 overestimation determination is 4 mm +3.32 mm (PP4) Acceptable
PP9, PP10
(For defects with height h ≥ 4 mm)
RMS of height determination for all
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K3 circumferential defects with TWE of RMSheight = 1.95 mm Acceptable
PP9, PP10
h ≥ 4 mm is RMSheight ≤ 3 mm
Maximum allowed length error
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K4 determination for all circumferential -4.94 mm (PP5) Acceptable
PP9, PP10
defects is ± 10 mm
RMS of length determination for all
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K5 circumferential defects is RMSlength = 2.66 mm Acceptable
PP9, PP10
RMSlength ≤ 6 mm
Ligament sizing accuracy of all PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K6 circumferential defects is ± 4 mm 0.51 mm (PP10) Acceptable
PP9, PP10
Maximum allowed position (defect
centre) error determination
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K7 for all circumferential defects -1.6 mm (PP6) Acceptable
PP9, PP10
is ± 10 mm respectively ± 15 mm
(FCC)
RMS of position (defect centre) for all
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K8 circumferential defects is RMSposition = 0.83 mm Acceptable
PP9, PP10
RMSposition ≤ 6 mm
False calls of indication TWE of
K9 h ≥ 4 mm are not allowed Personnel qualification No false calls Acceptable
Table 9.1: Assessment of ISI performance objectives achievement in the frame of optimisation on the 307-4-KO-
HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-A)


S48,49 TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-B)

307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B) are included in the Table 9.2.
Acceptable/
Unacceptable
Detection of all circumferential defects PX2, PX3, PX6, PX8,

K1 with TWE of h ≥ 5.5 mm 100 % Acceptable
PX9, PX10
80% detection of all circumferential
K2 defects with TWE in the interval of PX1, PX4, PX7 100 % Acceptable
4 mm ≤ h < 5.5 mm
Maximum allowed height PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4,
K3A overestimation determination is 4 mm PX6, PX7, PX8, PX9, +3.8 mm (PX6) Acceptable
(For defects with height h ≥ 4 mm) PX10
PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4,
underestimation determination is 1.5
K3B PX6, PX7, PX8, PX9, -1.44 mm (PX10) Acceptable
mm
PX10
RMS of height determination for all PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4,
K4 circumferential defects with TWE of PX6, PX7, PX8, PX9, RMSheight = 1.69 mm Acceptable
h ≥ 4 mm is RMSheight ≤ 3 mm PX10
Maximum allowed length error PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4,
K5 determination for all circumferential PX5, PX6, PX7, PX8, +5.96 mm (PX7) Acceptable
defects is ± 10 mm PX9, PX10
RMS of length determination for all PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4,
K6 circumferential defects is PX5, PX6, PX7, PX8, RMSlength = 2.74 mm Acceptable
RMSlength ≤ 6 mm PX9, PX10
Ligament sizing accuracy of all PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4,
K7 circumferential defects is ± 4 mm PX5, PX6, PX7, PX8, 2.54 mm (PX9) Acceptable
PX9, PX10
centre) error determination PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4,
-4.00 mm (PX7)
K8 for all circumferential defects PX5, PX6, PX7, PX8, Acceptable
FCC defect
is ± 10 mm respectively ± 15 mm PX9, PX10
(FCC)
RMS of position (defect centre) for all PX1, PX2, PX3, PX4,
K9 circumferential defects is PX5, PX6, PX7, PX8, RMSposition = 1.83 mm Acceptable
RMSposition ≤ 6 mm PX9, PX10
K10 h ≥ 5.5 mm are not allowed Personnel qualification No false calls Acceptable
False calls of indication TWE in the
interval of 4 mm ≤ h < 5.5 mm are not
K11 Personnel qualification No false calls Acceptable
allowed more than 1x in the inspected
weld joint
HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-B)


S50,51,52 TEST BLOCK (INSPECTION AREA 2-C)

307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-C – weld joint No. 46) are included
in the Table 9.1. Results of optimisation laboratory trials on the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52
Test Block (Inspection Area 2-C – weld joint No. 47) are included in the Table 9.3.
Acceptable/
Unacceptable
Detection of all circumferential defects PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6, Not detected PP10
K1 with TWE of h ≥ 4 mm Acceptable*
PP9, PP10 defect from Plus side
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6, +3.44 mm (PP9 - side)
K2 overestimation determination is 4 mm Acceptable
PP9, PP10 -0.77 mm (PP6 + side)
RMS of height determination for all
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K3 circumferential defects with TWE of RMSheight = 1.81 mm Acceptable
PP9, PP10
h ≥ 4 mm is RMSheight ≤ 3 mm
Maximum allowed length error
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K4 determination for all circumferential -6.15 mm (PP5 + side) Acceptable
PP9, PP10
defects is ± 10 mm
RMS of length determination for all
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K5 circumferential defects is RMSlength = 2.89 mm Acceptable
PP9, PP10
RMSlength ≤ 6 mm
Ligament sizing accuracy of all PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K6 circumferential defects is ± 4 mm -7.04 mm (PP9 - side) Acceptable**
PP9, PP10
centre) error determination
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K7 for all circumferential defects 2.0 mm (PP4 - side) Acceptable
PP9, PP10
is ± 10 mm respectively ± 15 mm
(FCC)
RMS of position (defect centre) for all
PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6,
K8 circumferential defects is RMSposition = 1.10 mm Acceptable
PP9, PP10
RMSposition ≤ 6 mm
K9 h ≥ 4 mm are not allowed Personnel qualification No false calls Acceptable
HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block (Inspection Area 2-C - weld joint No. 47)
Comment:
* The PP10 defect is the LOF type defect. It is placed on the fusion line between the second
buttering layer and the weld metal on the minus side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt angle. The
defect originates 4 mm above the inner surface of the piping and it is 5 mm high. Such LOF defect
is not expected to be present in weld joints on the pressurizer to main circulation pipeline, because
these weld joints are examined by the RT inspection method before setting in operation of this part

of the NPP primary circuit. In case of the full access from both sides of this weld joint for
performance of the ultrasonic inspection, this LOF defect shall be detected from the minus side of
the weld joint. In case of access from only one side (plus side) of the weld joint, this defect shall be
detected by the RT inspection method.
** The PP9 defect is the LOF type defect. This defect is placed on the fusion line between the
second buttering layer and the weld metal on the plus side of the weld joint with the 20° tilt. It
originates 15 mm above the inner surface of the piping and it is 5 mm high.
The ligament deviation of this defect (+2.50 mm) measured from the plus side of the weld joint is
within the tolerance of the K6 criterion (± 4 mm).
The ligament deviation of this defect (-7.04 mm) measured from the minus side of the weld joint is
out of the tolerance of the K6 criterion (± 4 mm). The ligament of this defect measured from the top
part of this defect to the outer surface of the component was determined within the tolerance of the
K6 criterion. Allowed tolerance of the ligament determination (K6 criterion) is ± 4 mm and the
measured upper ligament deviation is +3.60 mm. The height determination is also within the
tolerance of the K2 criterion. Allowed tolerance of the height overestimation (K2 criterion) is 4 mm
and the real overestimation is +3.44 mm. Although K2 and K6 criteria (upper ligament) are met, the
sum of both deviations (3.60 mm + 3.44 mm) causes unacceptable deviation (-7.04 mm) of the
ligament (from the bottom part of the piping) determination.
The PP9 defect (LOF type) is not expected to be the surface breaking defect and so the ligament
determination of this defect type is not substantial.

9.4 ASSESSMENT OF EQUIPMENT SUITABILITY
So far performed ultrasonic inspection during the optimisation process on the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-
S50,51,52 (Inspection Area 2-A) and 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 (Inspection Area 2-B) Test
Blocks and in the frame of the practical trial demonstrated that proposed ultrasonic inspection
equipment (see Chapter 3.1) is fully suitable and capable to execute qualification objectives given
by the input information (see Chapter 2.3.1).

10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
This section takes evidence presented in this Technical Justification, and in particular, results from
practical trials presented in the Chapter 7 and makes statements about the performance for the
inspection of different weld types.
First, some general conclusions are made followed be separate conclusions for each of weld
types.
10.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS REGARDING INSPECTION PERFORMANCE
By considering results from Practical trials, some general statements can be made regarding
detection and sizing performance for Inspection Areas 2-A, 2-B, and 2-C welds.
 The 55º 1MHz Shear wave probe provides good detection performance for defects close to
the inner surface in all cases from at least one side of the weld.
 The 70º 1MHz Shear wave probe (for Area 2-A) provides good detection performance for
defects close to the inner surface from at least one side of the weld.
 The 70º 2MHz Compression wave probe provides good detection performance for defects
close to the inner surface from at least one side of the weld
 The 70º 2MHz Compression wave probe provides good detection performance for defects
away from the inner surface where the beam has to traverse the full width of the weld. The
detection performance remains high for defects having a ligament to the outer surface of 10
mm or greater.
 The 70º 2MHz Compression wave probe provides detection performance for defects that
are located on the fusion faces on the side of the weld near to the probe. This
demonstrates that lack of fusion defects will be detected even though the defect is
approximately 40º from normal incidence.
 The presence of the cladding on the inside surface precludes the detection of defects using
shear wave probes beyond half-skip.
 Through-wall sizing is not reliable for defects having a through-wall size of less than
approximately 8 mm due to the high attenuation, beam distortion, back-scattered noise, that
results from the coarse grain, anisotropic structure in the weld. Furthermore, strong
geometrical echoes due to the scattering of shear waves from the ferrite/cladding interface
are present. Diffracted tip signals are only seen in some cases and these cannot be
identified with the high level of confidence required. The only technique that can be applied
is the 6dB drop technique, which can be applied to defects that have a through-wall size
greater than the beam width. Measurements of the through-wall size for inner-surface
breaking defects during Practical trials have generally oversized defects.
10.2 WELD NOS. 50, 51, 52. TYPE II (INSPECTION AREA 2-A)

These welds have been directly represented by the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block
with Practical trial results presented in the Chapter 7.1.
In addition, the results from the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block representing Inspection
Area 2-B welds from the ferritic side of the weld are also applicable for defects that are located:
 in the ferritic parent material
 on the ferritic fusion face
 in the weld material that is on the ferritic side of the weld centreline.
Specifically these defects are PX4, PX6, and PX9.
This increases the sample of defects used to demonstrate the performance of the inspection
thereby improving the confidence in the inspection.
It should be noted, however, that the detection inspection for Inspection Area 2-B welds uses only
two probes (the 55º 1MHz shear wave probe and the 70º 2MHz twin crystal compression wave
probe).
Taking all of these results into account, we can make following conclusions:
 There is a reliable detection capability for fatigue cracks throughout the inspection volume
having a through-wall size of 4 mm or greater. This statement is true for the full range of
defect tilts.
 There is a reliable detection capability for lack of fusion defects having a through-wall size
of 4 mm or greater as long as the ligament to the outer surface is greater than
approximately 10 mm.
 Any lack of fusion defect that is closer to the outer surface than this will not be covered by
the 70º probe scans and therefore reliable detection of such defects cannot be claimed.
Defects that are on the fusion face between the ferritic parent material and the first layer of
buttering and close to the outer surface are likely to be detected by the 55º shear wave
probe at full-skip. This probe was effective in detecting PX10 defect that is located on the
austenitic fusion face close to the outer surface. However, this detection was for a range
beyond half-skip and the reflection at the inner surface was in the austenitic parent
material. Therefore, it did not include the effects of the cladding at the inner surface that is
present in the Inspection Area 2-A welds.
 The capability for measuring the length of defects, as demonstrated through Practical trials,
is within the required tolerances.
 The capability for measuring the through-wall size of defects, demonstrated through
Practical trials, is within the required tolerances. However, it is recognised that the through-
wall sizing using the 6dB drop technique may not be reliable and is expected to generally
oversize defects.
10.3 WELD NOS. 48, 49. TYPE I (INSPECTION AREA 2-B)

These welds have been represented by the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S48,49 Test Block and therefore
results presented in the Chapter 7.2 are directly applicable.
In addition to these results, the Practical trial data from the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test
Block are relevant. Scans from both sides of this Test Block provide evidence for the detection and
sizing performance for the Inspection Area 2-B welds scanned from the ferritic side for defects that
are:
 in the ferritic parent material
 on the ferritic fusion face
 in the weld material that is on the ferritic side of the weld centreline.
When applying the data from the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-S50,51,52 Test Block, only results that
propagate up to half of the weld width should be considered.
10.4 WELD NO. 46 TYPE VI-2 (INSPECTION AREA 2-C)
This weld has not been directly represented by either of the Test Blocks used in Practical trials.
However, the buttering and weld configuration is very similar to that for Inspection Area 2-A welds
and to the ferritic half of Inspection Area 2-B welds and consequently Practical trial results for
these Test Blocks can be used. There are some slight differences between Weld No. 46 and
Inspection Area 2-A welds that are not expected to have a significant effect on the inspection
performance, namely:
 There are two layers of cladding on the nozzle side of the weld compared with a single
layer on Inspection Area 2-A welds. It is possible that the presence of two layers may
increase the noise level from the cladding thereby reducing the signal to noise ratio. It is
recommended that this is investigated further by either parametric studies or taking
measurements on the site welds.
 The nominal section thickness on the pipe side is 42 mm compared with 40 mm this is
deemed to be insignificant for detection and sizing.
 The buttering between the nozzle side ferritic material and the weld is slightly different in
shape. Again, parametric studies may be needed to establish the effect of this difference on
the detection and sizing performance.
Since the differences between the weld No. 46 and the Inspection Area 2-A are considered to be
small and not significant, the statements relating to the inspection performance for the Inspection
Area 2-A are also relevant to the weld No. 46, namely:
 There is a reliable detection capability for fatigue cracks throughout the inspection volume
having a through-wall size of 4 mm or greater. This statement is true for the full range of
defect tilts.
 There is a reliable detection capability for lack of fusion defects having a through-wall size
of 4 mm or greater as long as the ligament to the outer surface is greater than
approximately 10 mm.
 Any lack of fusion defect that is closer to the outer surface than this will not be covered by
the 70º probe scans and therefore reliable detection of such defects cannot be claimed.

Defects that are on the fusion face between the ferritic parent material and the first layer of
buttering and close to the outer surface are likely to be detected by the 55º shear wave
probe at full-skip. This probe was effective in detecting the PX10 defect, which is located on
the austenitic fusion face close to the outer surface. However, this detection was for a
range beyond half-skip and the reflection at the inner surface was in the austenitic parent
material. Therefore, it did not include the effects of the cladding at the inner surface that is
present in the Inspection Area 2-A welds.
 The capability for measuring the length of defects, as demonstrated through Practical trials,
is within the required tolerances.
 The capability for measuring the through-wall size of defects, demonstrated through
Practical trials, is within the required tolerances. However, it is recognised that the through-
wall sizing using the 6dB drop technique may not be reliable and is expected to generally
oversize defects.
10.5 WELD NO. 47 TYPE VI-1 (INSPECTION AREA 2-C)
This weld has not been directly represented by either of the Test Blocks used in Practical trials.
However, the buttering and weld configuration is very similar to that for Inspection Area 2-A welds
and to the ferritic half of Inspection Area 2-B welds and consequently Practical trial results for
these Test Blocks can be used. One major difference is that the weld No. 47 has a scanning
obstruction on one side of the weld that limits the coverage from this side to the inner region of the
inspection volume. Consequently, only the innermost region of the inspection volume towards the
nozzle will be covered by scans from the nozzle side of the weld.
In spite of the scanning restriction the inspection performance is expected to be similar to that for
Inspection Area 2-A welds since most defects are detectable from one side only. The only
exception where the inspection of the weld No. 47 is expected to be weaker is for lack of fusion
defects on the pipe side of the weld in the outer half of the weld. This is because detection of such
defects relies on the 70º compression wave probe scanning from the nozzle side of the weld.

Technical Justification Area 2-A, B and C - PHARE ISI 2002 (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

Technical Justification Area 2-A, B and C - PHARE ISI 2002 (Revision 1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAID/116528/D/SV/CZ

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVIEW BY: DATE: ORGANIZATION:

REVISION: 1 Russ Booler Serco

DATE: December 2006

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 1/ 104

Report №: DITI 304/225/R1

Author: Martin Zelenka, Dipl. Ing.

UT qualification supervisor: Dr. Ladislav Horáček

Head of department 304: Jiří Palyza, Dipl. Ing.

Director of DITE: Dr. Jiří Ždárek

NRI, December 2006

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 2/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 7

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 3/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

3.2.2 Data acquisition and processing .......................................................................... 36

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 4/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

7.1.3.2 Results summary of defect sizing ......................................................................... 71

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 5/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

LIST OF CHANGES AND COMPLEMENTS

Force of Page number,

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 6/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

Appendix III As-built drawings of Calibration Blocks

Appendix IV Laboratory optimisation mechanized ultrasonic trials on the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-

Appendix V Laboratory optimisation mechanized ultrasonic trials on the 307-4-KO-HCP-ETE-

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 7/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 8/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

a) NDT Qualification documents

b) Technical documents to UT qualification and inspection

[b2] Vstupní informace JE Temelin

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 9/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

[b5] Vlček, P., Mareš, P.: „MODELOVÁNÍ AUTOMATIZOVANÉ UZ KONTROLY SVAROVÝCH

c) Technical documents to Test Blocks

d) Technical documents to the inspection equipment

e) RT inspection of Test Blocks

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 10/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

f) Regulations, Technical Standards, Technical Notices

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 11/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 12/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

307-3-KO1000/DP-0039-02/S PX2 defect

ID: TEC-PRO-TASK 6-02 REVISION: 1 13/ 104

TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPS 2-A, B and C

APC Association for Personnel Certification

CAD Computer Aided Design

CPU Central Processing Unit

ČSN Czech Standard (Česká norma)

DAC Distance Amplitude Curve

DITI, DITE Division of Integrity and Engineering

DRM Deeper Relative Maximum

ETE Temelín NPP

FCC Fatigue Cycled Crack

HCP Main Circulation Piping (Hlavní cirkulační potrubí)